The URL can be used to link to this page

01-3-96 Agenda and Packet AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSIC FILE WEDNESDAY,JANUARY 3, 1996,7:00 P.? CHANHASSEN CITY HALL,690 COULTER D CALL TO ORDER OLD BUSINESS 1. John Knoblauch for preliminary plat approval of 8.35 acres into 12 lots, one outlot and associated right-of-way on property zoned RSF, Single Family Residential; a variance for street grade of 10%; and a variance to wetland setback of 20 feet for Lots 11 and 12; property is located on the east side of Yosemite at the Chanhassen-Shorewood city limits. The project is known as Knob Hill. 2. Consider an amendment to the development contract for Oak Ponds/Oak Hill site plan/development contract located between Powers and Kerber Boulevard,just north of West 78th Street. 3. Ted deLancey for a request for preliminary plat approval of 8.9 acres into 9 lots on property zoned RSF, Single Family Residential, and located at 7505 Frontier Trail, Lotus Glen. 4. An amendment to the City Code for landscape nurseries and garden centers in the A2, Agricultural Estate District. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. A sign variance request from Section 20-267, requiring individual dimensional letters and to allow a second wall mounted sign located at 7901 Great Plains Blvd., Gary Brown. 6. A site plan review to remodel the existing Chanhassen Bowl/Filly's and a portion of the Frontier building into an entertainment center. A variance to allow wall projecting signs in an area zoned BG, General Business and CBD, Central Business District, located north of the railroad tracks, east of Market Boulevard and south of West 78th Street, Chanhassen Entertainment Center, Lotus Realty. 7. *Item Deleted. APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m.as outlined in official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If,however,this does not appear to be possible,the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. Item Deleted 7. Applebee's International request a site plan review for a 5,500 square foot Applebee's restaurant;a sign variance request for two wall signs;and a variance to site coverage of 5%to permit 70%site coverage located on property zoned BH,Highway Business District,Lot 4,Block 1,Crossroads Plaza Third Addition. / . C I TY O F PC DATE: 12/06/95 C ANHAEN CC DATE: 1/22\96 CASE#: 95-20 SUB By: Generous:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for preliminary plat approval of 8.35 acres into 12 lots, one outlot and associated right-of-way; variance for street grade of 10%; and a variance to wetland setback of 20 feet for Lots 11 and 12. The project is known as Knob Hill. Q (,) LOCATION: 6215 Yosemite,on the east side of Yosemite at the Chanhassen-Shorewood city limits a APPLICANT: John Knoblauch a- 16921 Weston Bay Road Q Eden Prairie, MN 55347 (612)440-5662 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential. RSF ACREAGE: 8.35 acres DENSITY: gross: 1.44 units per acre net: 1.82 units per acre ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- Shorewood. single-family S- RSF Q E - RSF �- ' W- RSF Li WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site W PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site has rolling topography with a low point at elevation 1003 in the wetland located in the southwest portion of the project and a high point of 1036 elevation in the northeast (f) corner of the property adjacent to the existing house. The site is approximately 45 percent forested with northern hardwood type trees with significant stands of trees in the northeast, south, and northwest corners of the property. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential -Low Density(Net Density 1.2 -4.0 units per acre) ) E ' . . ch coLOCATION_ j N I cl � ) IIrea I110111 I OIL AC LANE I " CHRISTMAS IF Nirlii remq.A1.„,„..,,- -10, LAKE / - 13:1414V yot_ ow _IV XI ILI Km ,_... ... --tri '►(� - - J� ..11410. & r uE ow .�� • 411 R LEgip PO, •k� ....41m I:RR .11111111 ' cika 41440 dilicia so iv& wiq'k ' ' ,1r . a,�. 4l ?i1 ,...... .R.,,,. . 415Fitea it Lig•-- PARK t S J✓rI. 447 ,I PHEASAN M� � •es tk,4 ilimiligrinIA* �. Qom, TE Gel-JR .�p, 4Q�• PARK --ra ��R�ZB •S . e ti` 4 • b. •�� • oatiork . Anal I'v �• ■� Q��/ 0.11' .�•,� iiinv .+r t��1� , it ,.. 4. *MI CA' R BEACH a wow r L� Ell` rrlik�--j PL A. GROUNi IIII °�R tiP l all ilk i��6�avije�i— — M1104 d ls - : : • - IN, .. .8., F ' MAMA ri Al El? rikiW. lik j5r_ ,, , iL - '' ' 1.1",ln Flirliffl 1 r• $ 441,4,40 81114 • \V 10 I hUl a;#"4" ' IA" ) . ?) 14.11.11r,r4ith so. Am \ --• .., „...... . - - , ,..., rgia6 LAKE LUC Y ia!t�yi -- Pi .A.. I IC ili .--7 - J vettarem ltss'ii fAsmi&"4 Ir E Vim All Mg NE No tl, . ------- N . 11111111141Npr•-•=1_„;=• F4 oc- 4 . i \ N / ;' I 'ST. _""-:747. _ II'•• ....7-.-- ~ l. 1--- Knob Hill December 6, 1996 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing preliminary plat approval of 8.35 acres into 12 lots,one outlot and associated right-of-way(1.1 acres); variance for street grade of 10%; and a variance to the wetland setback of 20 feet for Lots 11 and 12. The project is known as Knob Hill. A 0.66 acre wetland is located in the western portion of the site. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan for low density residential land uses Staff is recommending that the subdivision be tabled to permit the applicant to revise the plans subject to the conditions of the staff report. Specifically, staff is recommending that the road alignment be changed to provide access to the Donovan property to the east and that the grading plan be revised to reduce impacts to the site. Staff is recommending denial of the street grade variance due to the fact that staff's recommended realignment negates the request. Staff is recommending that a 10 foot variance be granted for the wetland setback and a ten foot front setback variance be granted for Lots 11 and 12, Block 1. This compromise maintains a minimum 40 foot setback(10 foot buffer strip and 30 foot setback from the buffer edge) from the wetland. BACKGROUND An existing home and storage structure are located in the northeast corner of the site which is currently accessed via a shared driveway with the property in Shorewood. LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION Existing tree cover of the site is approximately 45%and consists mainly of oak, maple, basswood, boxelder, elm, hickory and cherry. There are also a few cedar and pines located near the existing homestead. Very large, mature oaks, basswood and maple are located near the house and along the driveway. On the property, there are a total of ten trees that are considered `special' because of their size. Grading and house pads will require the removal of half of those trees. The remaining half are located on the southern and eastern areas of Lot 5. Staff proposes that a conservation easement be placed over the eastern and southern sections of Lot 5. Lots 8, 9, and 10 should have 15 foot tree removal limits placed around the proposed building pads. Of the existing 3.52 acres of canopy coverage, 1.60 acres will be removed. The required canopy coverage for the site is 35%, or 2.69 acres. The applicant will have only 1.92 acres of canopy coverage after grading and construction. The difference between the required coverage and the proposed is .77 acres. Since the applicant is removing required canopy coverage, the difference Knob Hill December 6, 1996 Page 3 is multiplied by 1.2 and becomes .924 acres. Therefore, the applicant is required to plant 37 trees on site. Staff is recommending that instead of the road ending in a cul-de-sac, it be extended to the southeast. If the decision is made to do so, the resulting difference in canopy coverage appears to be minimal. Additional removal because of the extension and relocation of the private drive will be less than one acre. The removal, however, could be offset by the possible preservation of canopy in the rear yard of Lots 6,7, 8, and 9 as well as the rear yard of Lot 4 if the house is pulled closer to the road. More canopy may possibly be saved with the new alignment proposed by staff. COMPLIANCE TABLE Lot Frontage Depth Wetland Front Side Rear Max Area(sq (ft) (ft) Setback Setback Setback Setback Bldg Ht ft) (ft) (ft) Code 15,000 90 125 Avg 10' 30 10 30 40 buffer+ 40' Lot 1 15,378 118 150 none 30 10 30 Lot 2 15,277 102 150 none 30 10 30 Lot 3 15,277 102 150 none 30 10 30 Lot 4 15,293 110 144 none 30 10 30 Lot 5 83,539 80* 133 none 30 10 30 Lot 6 18,134 167 113# none 30 10 30 Lot 7 19,532 93 151 none 30 10 30 Lot 8 16,049 74* 135 none 30 10 30 Lot 9 25,993 115 178 10' + wetland 10 30 40' Lot 10 31,055 210 152 10' + 30 wetland 30 40' Lot 11 25,078 114 183 10' + 30 10 wetland 40' @ Lot 12 26,862 131 192 10' + 30 10 wetland 40' @ * Meets code requirements at the building setback #Does not comply with code requirements @ Applicant is requesting a variance of 20 feet Knob Hill December 6, 1996 Page 4 Staff believes that it would be better to grant a 10 foot front setback to Lots 11 and 12 and require the applicant to maintain a minimum 40 foot setback from the wetland(10 foot buffer and 30 foot setback). WETLANDS There are two jurisdictional wetlands on-site. Wetland 1 is an ag/urban wetland located between Lots 9, 10, 11, and 12 and is approximately 0.66 acre. This wetland will not be directly impacted as a result of development; however,the private street will direct some untreated runoff into it. A buffer strip of 0 to 20 feet wide with an average width of 10 feet is required around this wetland. Wetland 2 is a 370 square foot ag/urban wetland located between Lots 7 and 8. This wetland will be filled as a result of the development, but since it is less than 400 square feet, it is exempt from the Wetland Conservation Act. Type III erosion control is required along the entire length of the wetland adjacent to construction activities until vegetation is re-established. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP)that serves as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective,the stormwater quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general,the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker,Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. The development will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's SWMP requirements. The drainage from the impervious surface will need to be treated to retain 35 to 50%of the phosphorus before it is discharged into the wetland on-site. It is important that the wetland receive the runoff to maintain some hydrology to the wetland. The sediment pond can be designed within the buffer zone to tie the basin in with the wetland on Lot 11. A wet meadow seed mix should be used to encourage native plants in and around the wetland. A drainage and utility easement will be required around the sediment pond to allow for maintenance. Knob Hill December 6, 1996 Page 5 Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of$2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. The proposed SWMP water quality charge of$800/acre for single family resident developments. Fees are based on a total developable land area of 8.35 acres minus the existing wetland of 0.66 acres. Therefore, the applicant is required to pay $6,152 in water quality fees. Credits will be given for providing the ponding required. Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single family residential developments have a connection charge of$1,980 per developable acre. The total net area of the property is 7.69 acres as discussed above. Therefore, the proposed development would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of$15,226. Any oversizing for a regional pond and storm drainage infrastructure will be credited to the applicant at the time of final plat after review of the final construction plans. This fee will be due payable to the City at time of final plat recording. GRADING The site is generally rolling with an elevation change of nearly thirty (30) feet from east to west. Staff believes the proposed street grading is excessive and does not follow the existing contour of the land very well. Staff has reviewed the site as well as the adjacent parcel to the east (Donovan) for continuity. The Donovan parcel will require sanitary sewer service and street access from this site for future subdivision potential. However, the plans propose a cul-de-sac with no means of providing access to the Donovan parcel. Staff has developed a new concept which allows for street and utility access to the Donovan parcel, improves street grades to eliminate the variance for the 10% street grade and right-of-way width, improves site grades on Lots 1, 2, and 3 which should preserve additional trees, minimizes impacts to the wetlands by relocating the private street and also adds another lot overall. The applicant's plan, as proposed, requires variances for street right-of-way (50 feet is proposed - 60 feet is required by ordinance), street grades of 10%, and building setbacks. Staff's proposed Knob Hill December 6, 1996 Page 6 revision will require variances on building setbacks to the wetlands and the street on Lots 11 and 12. Staff met early on with the applicant's engineer and requested that they look at extending a street to the east to service Donovan's; and potentially, when the abutting property develops, out to Lilac Lane to provide continuity between neighborhoods. Staff strongly believes that this submittal should be tabled or denied and the applicant be required to go back and redesign the plan incorporating staffs new concept or a version thereof. Staff did meet with the applicant before writing this report to discuss these changes. The applicant has requested that they still be on the agenda to hear further comments from the neighborhood and Planning Commission. Approval of this subdivision, as proposed, would limit or may prohibit the future subdivision of the Donovan parcel. It appears Lots 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 will be custom graded at time of building permit issuance. Staff recommends that individual, detailed grading, drainage, tree preservation, and erosion control plans be submitted for review and approval by the City in conjunction with building permit application for these lots. Staff also believes that retaining walls could be incorporated in the rear yards of Lots 1, 2, and 3 to reduce grading and to preserve the significant stand of trees. DRAINAGE The site drains to the west and then crosses underneath Yosemite. Eventually the runoff discharges into the Minnehaha Creek watershed. The applicant will need to submit to the City detailed storm drainage calculations for the storm sewers as well as ponding calculations for a 2-, 10-, and 100-year storm event, 24-hour duration for both pre- and post-development conditions for staff review and approval. The plans propose a storm drainage system to convey runoff from the street and front yard areas to a proposed sediment pond for pretreatment prior to discharging into the wetland. The sediment pond is located partially within the street right-of-way for Yosemite. The pond needs to be relocated outside of the street right-of-way given potential for future widening and upgrading of Yosemite. The ponding area should be relocated adjacent to the wetland on Lot 11 outside any right-of-way. There appears to be sufficient room to accomplish this without eliminating Lot 11. Additional storm drainage improvements may be required after review of the drainage calculations. UTILITIES Utility service for this development will be extended from Yosemite. The City also has a watermain which runs from Lilac Lane along the east and south property line of this site to Yosemite. The plans propose extending sewer and water service from Yosemite and Knob Hill December 6, 1996 Page 7 dead-ending it into the cul-de-sac. There is a sanitary sewer line in Lilac Lane; however, it is owned and maintained by the City of Excelsior. The Donovan piece should be serviced from the sewer system from Yosemite through this site. The applicant will be required to extend sewer service to the Donovan piece in any case. Fire hydrant placement will be determined by the City's Fire Marshal in conjunction with the construction plan review process. Since the utilities will be owned and maintained by the City upon completion,the improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Since there are public improvements involved with this development, the developer will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of final plat approval. The final plat shall dedicate drainage and utility easements of all utility lines which fall outside the street right-of-way. These easements shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. The existing home on Lot 6 is proposed to be razed. The well and septic system shall be abandoned per City and State health codes. Given the fairly high ground elevation, the applicant should be aware they may encounter low water pressure on some of the higher elevated lots. Typically, individual booster pumps are required in the homes to meet water demands. STREETS The plans propose on extending a public street from Yosemite to service the development. A private street is also proposed to service Lots 7, 8, and 9. As mentioned, staff has designed a new plat concept which relocates the private driveway to the easterly plat line to service Lots 8 and 9. The relocation of the private driveway will minimize impacts to the wetlands. Staff's concept also will eliminate the variance for the street grade of 10% and also provide street access for the Donovan parcel. In addition, the plans were drawn with a 50-foot wide street right-of- way. City ordinance requires a 60-foot wide right-of-way. Staff believes this can be easily incorporated into the plan. Staff is recommending a variance on the building setbacks along the street on Lots 11 and 12 to minimize impacts to the wetland. The private street shall be constructed in accordance with the City's private driveway ordinance which requires a 20-foot wide bituminous surface capable of supporting 7-ton per axle weight. Parking will also be prohibited on the private streets. The applicant will need to dedicate cross- access easements and prepare maintenance agreements for the private streets. In addition, a turnaround may have to be constructed in accordance with the City Fire Marshal's requirements. Knob Hill December 6, 1996 Page 8 Given the limited frontage the Donovan parcel has on Lilac Lane (approximately 18 to 20 feet), staff recommends the easterly 30 feet of the northerly 160 feet of Lot 5 be dedicated as street right-of-way. The public streets shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required for staff review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. PRIVATE STREET FINDINGS In order to permit private streets, the city must find that the following conditions exist: (1) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination,the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. (2) After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access,or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. (3) The use of the private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources including wetlands and forested areas. Finding: The proposed private street to serve Lots 7, 8,and 9, Block 1, is not necessary to provide access to adjacent properties. Were a public street be provided to access these lots, additional trees would need to be removed. The proposed private street will follow a watermain alignment along the eastern edge of the property. EROSION CONTROL Erosion measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook(BMPH). The final grading plan shall incorporate type I erosion control around the perimeter of the grading limits and type III erosion control along the perimeter of the wetland. Rock construction entrance shall be employed and maintained at all access points until the driveways and streets have been paved with a bituminous surface. Knob Hill December 6, 1996 Page 9 PARKS& RECREATION The Parks& Recreation Commission met on November 28, 1995 to review the proposed plat. The commission is recommending that full park and trail fees be required in lieu of land dedication. FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District. Lot 6 must be reconfigured to meet the minimum lot depth. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city,county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. Staff is recommending that the roadway be extended to the eastern property line in order to facilitate future access to the east should the adjacent property develop. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions if approved. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Knob Hill December 6, 1996 Page 10 Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure. VARIANCE As part of this plat approval,a variance to allow a 20 foot wetland setback is requested. The City Council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in the subdivision chapter as part of a plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: 1. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. 2. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land. 3. The condition of conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. 4. The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter,the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Finding: The setback hardship is caused by the location of the wetland on the site. The required setbacks could not be met given the need for a public street to access the property. Granting a variance will maintain the integrity and natural characteristics of the site. Rather than severely reducing the wetland setback area, staff is recommending that a 10 foot variance be granted for the wetland setback and a ten foot front setback variance be granted for Lots 11 and 12, Block 1. This compromise maintains a minimum 40 foot setback(10 foot buffer strip and 30 foot setback from the buffer edge) from the wetland. The variance requirement for a 10 percent street grade is based on the design alternative proposed by the applicant. Staff has prepared a roadway alternative that eliminates the need for a variance and therefore cannot make the finding for hardship or special conditions. Knob Hill December 6, 1996 Page 11 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motions: "The Planning Commission recommends denial for the 10 percent street grade variance request." "The Planning Commission recommends tabling the preliminary plat for Subdivision#95-20 for 12 lots, one outlot and associated right-of-way; a front yard setback variance of 10 feet and a variance to the wetland setback of 10 feet for Lots 11 and 12 to permit the applicant to revise the plat based on staff recommendations. Future approval of the subdivision will be subject to the following conditions: 1. Full park and trail fees shall be paid per city ordinance in lieu of land dedication. 2. A minimum 40 foot building setback (10 foot buffer and 30 foot setback from buffer line) shall be maintained from the wetland on Lots 11 and 12. Block 1. 3. A Tree Conservation Easement shall be designated on the southern and eastern wooded areas on Lot 5. The applicant shall prepare a legal description and survey for this easement for city approval. 4. Fifteen foot tree removal limits shall be required around the building pads on Lots 8, 9, and 10. This tree removal limit shall be shown on the building permit application for each lot. 5. The applicant is required to plant 37 trees as replacement and reforestation plantings. Trees must be selected from the City's Approved Tree List. 6. Any proposed entrance monument must comply with city code. A separate sign permit must be submitted to the city. 7. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. 8. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using standard designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 9. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. Knob Hill December 6, 1996 Page 12 10. Lot 6 must be reconfigured to meet the minimum lot depth. 11. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. Type I erosion control fence shall be installed around the downstream side of the construction limits and Type III erosion control along the perimeter of the wetlands. Rock construction entrances shall be employed and maintained at all access points until the street has been paved with a bituminous surface. 12. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 13. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with the City's SWMP for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. The sediment pond shall be designed adjacent to the wetland on Lot 11 outside the street right-of-way. A wet meadow seed mix should be used to encourage native plants in and around the wetland. 14. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 15. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. 16. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. Knob Hill December 6, 1996 Page 13 17. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. 18. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level. 19. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in accordance to City and Minnesota Department of Health codes/regulations. 20. The proposed single family residential development of 7.69 developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of$6,152 and a water quantity fee of$15,226. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. Credits will be given to these fees based on the applicant providing for the City's SWMP requirements and will be deducted from the totals after final plat review. 21. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 22. The plans shall be redesigned to provide public street and utility service to the parcel to the east (Donovan). Street grades shall not exceed 7% per ordinance. The private street shall be relocated along the east property line of Lots 7 and 8. Retaining walls shall be employed in the rear yards of Lots 1, 2 and 3 and street grades modified to be more conducive with existing grades. 23. Individual grading, drainage, tree preservation, and erosion control plans will be required for each lot at the time of building permit application for the City to review and approve. 24. The public street and utility system shall be constructed in accordance with the City's street and utility standards. The private streets shall be constructed in accordance with current city ordinances. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. The plans shall be designed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's standard specifications and detail plates. Final plat approval is contingent upon approval of the construction plans by the Chanhassen City Council. 25. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat street right-of-way along the easterly 30 feet of the northerly 160 feet of Lot 5. Knob Hill December 6, 1996 Page 14 26. Fire hydrants shall be installed with 300 feet maximum spacing. 27. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. 28. Submit street names to Fire Marshal for approval. 29. Submit radius turn dimensions to Fire Marshal for approval." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Development Review Application 2. Project Summary 3. Wetland Exemption Request 4. Memo From Steve Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 11/27/95 5. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 6. Letter from Bradley J.Nielson to Bob Generous dated 12/6/95 7. Letter from Robert Generous to Bradley J.Nielson dated 12/18/95 8. Planning Commission Minutes of 12/6/95 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: To yc OWNER: ADDRESS: _ - .- . ADDRESS: TELEPHONE (Day time) — — TELEPHONE: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. ✓ Variance 3. Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review / Notification Signs I 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) 10. Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ A Ilst of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 81/2" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. * NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME `tip i` LOCATION F�o- �r::; —nam F, r ,+ . I.ti LEGAL DESCRIPTION PRESENT ZONING G ,S + r, REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION L u r^ e,us+l"`? ec; ;eN%Tk�- REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION + ' REASON FOR THIS REQUEST r_` tic,D O ! _ t �= 7T i C_ cy - ��".l: '. ... < 1 C e.f L r,J� L,,:-T- r �': t This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 9. • ature of Applicant Date / ature of Fee Owner' ' Date Application Received on I l I 7/C./(-; Fee Paid I Z Receipt No. • The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. Land Surveyors Planners • Valley Surveying Co., P. A. (612) 447-2570 Suite 120C October 26, 1995 16670 Franklin Trail S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 RECORD DESCRIPTION FOR KNOB HILL: Certificate of Title No. 7870 That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of the center line of Apple Road and the north line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, which said point is the northeast corner of the tract of land originally Registered July 5, 1952, and is described in Carver County Certificate of Title #3205; thence East along the north line of said Quarter - Quarter 809.7 feet to a point marked by a Judicial Land Mark (hereinafter referred to as a JLM) ; thence South 16 degrees 42 minutes West a distance of 122.31 feet to a point marked by a JLM; thence South 45 degrees 42 minutes West a distance of 186.78 feet to a point marked by a JLM; thence South 63 degrees 42 minutes West a distance of 81.08 feet to a point marked by a JLM; thence South 70 degrees 22 minutes West a distance of 84.36 feet to a point marked by a JLM; thence South 49 degrees 12 minutes West a distance of 48.51 feet to a point marked by a JLM; thence South 36 degrees 22 minutes West a distance of 54.09 feet to a point marked by a JLM; thence South 28 degrees 17 minutes West a distance of 98.85 feet to a point marked by a JLM; thence North 21 degrees 43 minutes West a distance of 6.53 feet to a point marked by a JLM; thence South 28 degrees 17 minutes West a distance of 66.2 feet; thence South 52 degrees 57 minutes West a distance of 100.3 feet; thence South 89 degrees 32 minutes West along a line parallel with and 608.0 feet north of the south line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 385 feet more or less to the center line of said Apple Road; thence northeasterly along said center line 603.4 feet more or less to the point of beginning. That the boundary lines of the above described premises as marked by Judicial Landmarks, the locations of which are shown on the plat of said survey of F. C. Jackson on file herein, are hereby fixed and established as the boundary lines of the above described premises. Pr-.. ed by• ./ . / Ronal. A. Swanson, Land Surveyor Minnesota License Number 10183 file no. 8221 PROJECT SUMMARY OF KNOB HILL CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA PROJECT LOCATION: The site is approximately 8 . 3 acres in size and is located in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2 , Township 116 , Range 23 , City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota. The site is on the North boundary of Carver County bordered on the West by Yosemite Street and surrounded by various small acreage tracts. The site consists of rolling hills with a small (0. 66 acre) wetland along Yosemite Street extending East into the property with mature stands of trees around the perimeter, and extending into the property on the North, South, and East borders. SITE DEVELOPMENT: Existing trees and topography were taken into account to design a development that would not severely impact the natural characteristics of the site and still allow for the development of 12 single family lots. To best preserve areas of mature woods, the site will be accessed by a short (470 feet) cul-de-sac running East from existing Yosemite Street, with additional lots accessed by a private driveway running South from the proposed cul-de sac. In using this method of access, it will be possible to preserve large areas of trees that would be destroyed by an East to West through street such as the extension of Lilac Lane. The existing topography in the northeast corner of the site, at the end of existing Lilac Lane, is prohibitive to street construction due to the existing steep slopes (15% - 25%) , and the number of large trees (14" - 36" Oaks, Hickory, Basswood, and Elm) that would be removed for the extension of Lilac Lane. To best preserve the existing topography and to limit the area disturbed by site grading, a variance for street grade will be required. The variance to use a ten percent (10%) grade will allow for the preservation of several 12" - 24" Pine and Cedar trees which are located at the end of the proposed cul-de-sac. The ten percent (10%) grade, while steep, will not be noticed due to a long reverse vertical curve; there will be no section of street that will actually be built at ten percent (10%) vertical grade. The street, as proposed, is at a grade of approximately eight percent (8%) . This grade will maintain the natural topography as much as possible while eliminating the need for extensive grading and tree removal in the area. Lot 10 will be accessed from existing Yosemite Street to preserve trees and avoid impact to the existing wetland. SITE UTILITIES: Lots 1, 10 and 11 will be served by the existing services as constructed in 1972 under City Project 71-1D. The balance of the site will be served by a gravity sanitary sewer system which will connect to the existing sanitary sewer in Yosemite Street by the construction of a manhole over the existing sanitary sewer line. Watermain will be constructed from the existing watermain in Yosemite Street, looped through the site and connected to the existing watermain in the Southeast corner of the site. Storm water drainage will be routed through a small stilling basin and enter the existing wetland at the Northwest corner of the wetland. WETLANDS: A Type 1 Agricultural/Urban Wetland exists on the property. This wetland is dominated by Reed Canary Grass. The low plant diversity and marginal wetland hydrology make the functions and values of this wetland low. Lots 11 and 12 require a wetland setback variance to allow for an appropriate structure. The proposed wetland setback variance for Lots 11 and 12 is 30 feet (10 foot buffer strip and 20 foot setback from buffer strip) . The 10 foot buffer strip will be monumented and maintained around the entire wetland. All other lots will have a 50 foot set back (10 foot buffer strip and 40 foot setback from buffer strip) . The alternative to the variance is to mitigate the area inside the setback requirements on Lot 12 . This mitigation would impact and disturb the wetland more than the proposed variance. Exemption #25 of the Wetland Conservation Act will be used to fill a 370 square foot "pot hole" Type 1 Agricultural/Urban Wetland located on Lots 7 and 8 . See exemption request for additional information. WETLAND EXEMPTION REQUEST PROJECT: Knob Hill Development Knoblauch Property It is requested that the City of Chanhassen issue a Wetland Fill Exemption Certificate. Using Exemption #25 of the Wetland Conservation Act, the Knoblauchs plan to fill a 370 square foot Type 1 "pothole" Agricultural/Urban wetland. Existing Characteristics: Size: < 370 square feet Type: 1 - Monotypic Vegetation: Dominant Species - Reed Canary Grass Individual Species - Green Bulrush Topography: This wetland exists in a swale "pothole" where water is trapped prior to draining to a larger Type 1 wetland. The wetland is dominated by Reed Canary Grass and only contains one additional wetland species. Wetland hydrology is very marginal (no hydrology indicators in the top 12 inches and only weak indicators from 12-18 inches) . CITY of CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous,Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman,Building Official , DATE: November 27, 1995 SUBJECT: 95-20 SUB(Knob Hill,John Knoblauch) Background: I was asked to review the plans stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, NOV 03 1995, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT." for the above referenced project. Below are an analysis and recommendations from the Inspections Division for the proposed project. Analysis: Street Names. In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names, public and private, must be reviewed by the Public Safety Department. Proposed street names are not included with the submitted documents.The proposed street name may have a maximum length of three words Building Pads. Locations of proposed dwelling pads and the type of dwelling is necessary to enable the Inspections Division and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review of the structure at the time of building permit issuance. For the same reason, proposed lowest level floor elevations as well as garage floor elevations and entry level elevations are required to be indicated on the proposed pad location. Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) must be shown for proposed dwelling types. These standard designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan review process. The memo explaining these designations is enclosed. Demolition Permits. Existing structures on the property which will be demolished will require demolition permits. Proof of well abandonment, if applicable, must be furnished to the City and a permit for septic system abandonment, if applicable, must be obtained and the septic system abandoned prior to issuance of a demolition permit. Recommendations: The following conditions should be added to the conditions of approval. Bob Generous November 27, 1995 Page 2 1. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. 2. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using standard designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 3. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. enclosure: January 29, 1993 memorandum 6\afequa m='cia.bdJult .4 C ITY of .• CHILNEASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • PD. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORAJ'i UM TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official DATE: January 29, 1993 SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps it might he helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning behind the requirements. FLO or RLO Designates Front Lookout or Rear Lookout This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4' above the basement floor level. R Designates Rambler. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings. SE Designates Split Entry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor leve:approximately 4'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. SEWO Designates Split Entry Walk Out. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level. TU Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the dwelling. WO Designates Walk Out. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling. SE ` SEWo WO 10 111 i or RLO -^v Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared to proposed building plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews. ��* PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER LOCATION NOTICE OF PUBLIC d'. I LILAC LANE HEARING ■ . , nl■ PLANNING COMMISSION n;^ P: G MEETING = AIR- I-I - Wednesday, DECEMBER 6, 1995 • 'air UNE MEW U,,r gin at �I:OO p.m. PHE• is nog a -ON r �� Ir la CIRCLE � i1 O u�i �` di •41 .4z't711101 "%RR 111 Chanhassen Recreation Center °�� FARMS_ r2310 Coulter Boulevard taPARK-- PHEASAN w p.,. Ain @ A L J �' Project: Knob Hill Ck;ve PARK 3 = � K Illhas MAN Developer: John Knoblauch [(NI%% R BEACH 116:1 � ��,;� 41/1 CA- PW PLA GROUNi ��a�: Location: East side of Yosemite at the Chanhassen-Shorewood city limits 0 ow? �� Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing preliminary plat approval of 8.35 acres into 12 lots, one outlot and associated right-of-way on property zoned RSF, Single Family Residential; a variance for street grade of 10%; and a variance to wetland setback of 20 feet for Lots 11 and 12; property is located on the east side of Yosemite at the Chanhassen-Shorewood city limits. The project is known as Knob Hill. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments:If you want to see the plans before the meeting,please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m.to 4:30 p.m.,Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project,please contact Bob at 937-1900 ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on November 23, 1995. - it ZI/.-5 William&Ginni Nordvik Steven Olson Timothy& Kristen Rosenfield 1375 Lilac Lane 1530 Creek Run Trail 1540 Creek Run Trail Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 Robert&Louri Underkofler Don& Jeanne Becker Gregory&Marissa 1550 Creek Run Trail 1560 Creek Run Trail Frankenfield Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 1570 Creek Run Trial Excelsior, MN 55331 John Colburn&Laura Duncan Kevin& Jacqueline Bidgood Edmund& Marsah Fadel 1571 Creek Run Trail 1561 Creek Run Trail 1551 Creek Run Trail Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 David& Susan Arthur Susan Hume James &Norma Donovan 1541 Creek Run Trail 1531 Creek Run Trail 1375 Lilac Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Robert Sutfin & Diane McGuire Micahel & Denise Reid Scott& Joanne Dake 1320 Ithilien 1328 Ithilien 1336 Ithilien Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Robert& Sandra Hanson Mike&Ann Preble Timothy& Collen Browne 1344 Ithilien 1352 Ithilien 1360 Ithilien Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Jeffrey Smith & Lori Johnson Darwin& Mary Boutiette James & Barbara Quiring 1368 Ithilien 1376 Ithilien 1384 Ithilien Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 John& Deborah Marceau Kenneth& Tamra Boehm Philip & Carol Hamlin 1392 Ithilien 1391 Ithilien 1385 Ithilien Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Randall & Diane Schwanz Edward& Rhonda Perkins David& Diann Jones 1377 Ithilien 1351 Ithilien 1329 Ithilien Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Troy Anderson Barry Conda& Gordon Koehnen Charles & Tracy Horan Cool 1600 Koehnen Cir. E. 6285 Audubon Cir 1601 Koehnen Cir Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Stewart&Karen Reamer Stephen& Cynthia Doms Melvin Schmid 1331 Ashton Ct. 6398 Teton Lane 1620 W. 63rd Street Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Zobert&Brenda Poston Kenneth L. Larson Roy Rockvam 5295 Audubon Cir 1610 W. 63rd Street 6340 Yosemite Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 {athryn T. Stoddart Shirley A. Hopf Bruce&Nanette Twaddle 1611 W. 63rd St. 6420 Yosemite 6430 Yosemite Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 -2arolyn J. Wise Charles B. Hebert James, Sr. & Mary Emmer 'O Box 2413 6411 Yosemite 6321 Yosemite 'aim Springs, CA 92263-2413 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 ['odd D. Bogema Mark&Kathryn Basktiansen Troy Stottler& Terry Scheurich 1371 Yosemite 6301 Yosemite 6320 Yosemite Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 :ay of Shorewood \ttn: Planning Dept. William& Carol Wilson Mike& Lisa Kroonblawd ;755 Country Club Road 23060 Stratford Place 22020 Stratford Place ;horewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 oyce Unruh Kathia Jo Anderson Lisa Jetland !3080 Stratford Place 22040 Stratford Place 24000 Stratford Place ;horewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 .onald&Lori Zenk Richard&Deborah Osgood Lee Paris &Penny Rogers !2060 Stratford Place 22035 Stratford Place 23000 Stratford Place ;horewood, MN 55331 Shorewood,MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 :arl &Marcia Walker Alan&Virginia Whitaker David& Janet Finken :2015 Stratford Place 23020 Stratford Place 22055 Stratford Place ;horewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 roger& Ellen Bushell A. Chris & Carol Pehle Walter&Martha Cleveland :3040 Stratford Place 22075 Stratford Place 6185 Apple Road horewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Larry& Linda Stokes Elden Beckman Thomas &Jeanne Flavin 21710 Lilac Lane 6125 Apple Road 6080 Mill Street Shorewood, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Glen &Jeanette Ames John& Jane Danser Laurie Pearson&Bradley Heppni 6145 Apple Road 21640 Lilac Lane 21780 Lilac Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood,MN 55331 Thomas &Jennifer Wilder Joseph Garaghty 21740 Lilac Lane 6075 Apple Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 MAYOR Robert Bean lOr COUNCIL Knsti Stover Bruce Benson Jennifer McCarty CITY OF Doug Malam SHOREWOOD IMP 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (612)474-3236 6 December 1995 Mr. Bob Generous City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Knob Hill -Preliminary Plat Dear Mr. Generous: Our office received a copy of the above-referenced plat and found it to have little or no impact on adjoining property in Shorewood. We have since been advised that the City is considering a possible through connection to Lilac Lane. This is to advise you that the City of Shorewood has serious concerns about any such connection to Lilac Lane. Lilac Lane is a very substandard, narrow street serving only six homes in Shorewood. Given the low density and large lot character of this neighborhood, Shorewood has no plans for extending the street. It does not appear that such a connection would benefit Shorewood residents. We understand the desire to provide for the development of the Donovan property, and would be interested in seeing any plans you may have developed in this regard. However, at this time the City of Shorewood does not favor making Lilac Lane a through street. It is our understanding that your planning commission will consider this matter at their meeting tonight. Please pass our concerns along to them. If you wish to discuss this project with Shorewood staff, please do not hesitate to contact me at 474-3236. Sincerely, . CITY OF SHOREWOOD \i(f) Bradley J.Nielsen Planning Director cc: John Knobloch Larry Brown RECEIVED E% 0t1995 CITY OF CHANHASSEN A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 December 18, 1995 Mr. Bradley J. Nielson, Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331-8927 Re: Knob Hill - Preliminary Plat Consideration Dear Mr. Nielson: I am in receipt of your letter dated December 6, 1995 regarding the above referenced plat. As part of the review of the plat, city staff was concerned about the future accessibility of the Donovan property located immediately east of the Knoblauch property. Due to severe topography and significant wooded area at the end of Lilac Lane, staff did not recommend a continuation of Lilac Lane. Rather, we recommended that the roadway in Knob Hill be extended to the easterly property line at a point south of the wooded area and the steep slopes (see attached staff's concept dated 11/29/95). This roadway has the potential of being connected to Lilac Lane, "T" into another roadway off Lilac Lane, or terminating in a cul-de-sac on the Donovan property. Should the roadways ever be connected, public safety access for the residents of Lilac Lane will be enhanced. The City of Chanhassen is very aware of the substandard nature of Lilac Lane. However, if staffs recommendation to provide access through Knob Hill is not incorporated as part of this plat, the only access to the Donovan property will be via Lilac Lane. As you may recall in conjunction with the subdivision of Ithilien Addition in the southwest corner of Teton and Lilac Lanes, the cities of Chanhassen and Shorewood considered entering into a cost sharing agreement for the upgrade of Lilac Lane east of Teton Lane. Due to financial restraints, an agreement was reached between the cities whereby the cost of upgrading Lilac Lane was incurred by the City of Chanhassen and the maintenance responsibility of Lilac Lane was assumed by the City of Shorewood. When the Donovan parcel develops, the cities of Chanhassen and Shorewood may be faced with the same issues. However, the City of Chanhassen may not having funding available to participate in the upgrade when warranted. With the implementation of staffs concept on Knob Hill, the need to upgrade Lilac Lane is reduced significantly. Mr. Bradley J. Nielson December 18, 1995 Page 2 Based on current zoning ordinances, the Donovan property has the potential for subdividing into 12 - 15 single-family lots. We believe that we would be remiss if we did not address providing alternate access to the Donovan property at this time. If you have any questions or require additional information,please contact me at 937-1900 extension 141. Sincerely, Til I :— J��'L'a� ••�__ Robert Generous, AICP Planner II Enclosure c: David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer N 010 /1117 LILAC LN rC:!-7'N ON/4 DONOVAN PARCEL STAFF S • y CONCEPT /29/95 • ATTACf. Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: ...we certainly will at the next Planning Commission meeting and I know that that doesn't help you because you want to go ahead with your plan. Another comment was made from the audience at this point. Mancino: And you may also work with the staff on a variance for a certain lot also having to do with Lot 1...we would certainly entertain that. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: JOHN KNOBLAUCH FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF 8.35 ACRES INTO 12 LOTS, ONE OUTLOT AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT-OF-WAY ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; A VARIANCE FOR STREET GRADE OF 10% AND A VARIANCE TO WETLAND SETBACK OF 20 FEET FOR LOTS 11 AND 12; PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YOSEMITE AT THE CHANHASSEN-SHOREWOOD CITY LIMITS. THE PROJECT IS KNOWN AS KNOB HILL. Public Present: Name Address Marc Simcox 21600 Lilac Lane, Shorewood Diane & Randall Schwanz 1377 Ithilien Joanne Dake 1336 Ithilien Bob Hansen 1344 Ithilien Michael Reid 1328 Ithilien Jim Donovan Chanhassen Jim Emmer Chanhassen Tom Wilder Shorewood Mike Prebble 1352 Ithilien Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: I have a couple very quickly. The accepted grading is due to dwelling type? Is due to what? Hempel: Well the street is proposed right up through the hill there to preserve the topography as well as 10% street grade and...There's not going to be as much grading probably...staffs 28 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 alternative. It fits the terrain though much better. You're not significantly lowering the knob or filling in for the house pads. Mancino: So the difference between that concept and what the applicant has brought is that you're going south...southern turn and this will eliminate even greater the 10% grade? Hempel: We believe we're working with the existing grades better than the proposed plan before you this evening. Mancino: Another question is, and none of us are...to the east. They have access to Lilac Lane so they do have an access point... Hempel: We have a limited access point to Lilac Lane. Approximately 18 to 20 foot wide. The street is a substandard city street. It actually borders right between the city of Shorewood. It's also here in Chanhassen. I believe the city of Shorewood has maintained that street. At this point tonight we're not looking at a thru street connection. We're just trying to provide full street access and utility service to the Donovan parcel. Mancino: And as you said, Lilac Lane is owned by Shorewood? Hempel: I believe it's maintained by the city of Shorewood. Mancino: Thank you. Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? John Knoblauch: I'm John Knoblauch. I'm the developer of the proposed parcel called Knob Hill. Craig from Engelhardt has two drawings here. One showing the proposed cul-de-sac that's been submitted. Also on the top would be a likely scenario if staffs recommendations are followed. Just to quickly mention on David's comments on looking at the, only the service of the Donovan parcel. I believe in the staff report on page 5, the bottom. When abutting property develops, staff met early on with the applicant's engineer and requested that they look at extending the street to the east to service Donovan's and potentially when the abutting property develops out to Lilac Lane. So that's really the issues that we're going to talk about here. This is going to sound like a broken record because what you just went through before. I'm in the same boat here. This property's been in my family 85 years. It's been my wife and myselfs dream to eventually build on the homestead site of my great grandfather's home. I build homes for a living. My goal's not to be a developer but developing this piece myself was the only thing I could do to make sure that the homestead site be preserved and the site be carefully planned the way my family would want it. I've probably more questions than answers for you but I think all the issues at hand need to be 29 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 addressed further than this meeting with city staff, my engineers and myself. But I appreciate the commission hearing our concerns on hopefully the successful development of this parcel. Other than the details that are addressed in the staffs report, the plan in my mind boils down to two basic road layouts which I think is why everybody is here tonight. My plan number one, my plan of a cul-de-sac to service the parcel and staffs recommended plan for a continuation of a road through my parcel and eventually continuing through the Donovan parcel to the east when it is developed and hook up to Lilac Lane. A cul-de-sac plan, not necessarily my proposed cul-de-sac that you see on the bottom plan over there, but a cul-de- sac meeting staffs wishes and the grade and the right-of-way areas is preferred by myself and the surrounding neighbors. A continuation of this road, which I call the top cop's road to the east, in my estimation would be confronted with the following. Two hills near the connecting collectors, neither of which meet Shorewood or Chanhassen's specs for safety. Lilac Lane and Powers Boulevard intersection. This intersection is a 28 foot wide roadway that was improved 2 years ago up to Teton Road. The city prefers a 31 foot wide roadway. Grading on this improvement was an 8.26 grade. The city prefers a 7% maximum grade. But we're a 7% grade as close as 50 feet to Powers Boulevard. The city prefers a 2% max grade within 50 feet of this intersection. Or of any intersection. I understand that may be a State recommendation, I'm not sure. A transitional speed zone at the intersection of 45 mph and 30 mph and poor sight lines for the drivers east bound and south bound. This roadway is 85% in the city of Shorewood and 15% in the city of Chanhassen. Also another issue that I'd like to bring to the commissioner's attention is the hill at Apple Road at the county line which is actually on the northwest corner. Yosemite Street turns into Apple Road at the county line, which is the northwest corner. The average grade for the first 450 feet into Hennepin County is 9.08. At the hill crest this grade's within 150 feet to the center of my proposed road coming into Yosemite. In regards to the Donovan parcel, which is actually shown to the southeast of the top drawing, it's almost a 90 degree turn on the Donovan parcel. The sight lines for the Donovan property are poor with mature trees blocking vision on the entire west side. There's a dangerous ravine at the end of Lilac Lane which would definitely be a hazard. Not to mention there's about 20 significant trees that would be lost on the substandard part of Lilac Lane. Another issue of concern is the servicing of just the Donovan parcel. It's come to my attention recently that Mr. Donovan does have a 50 foot easement for road purposes for future development. Therefore when future development would take place, it could access onto Lilac Lane. So there's no need to take road right-of-way from my parcel to service his land. ...The first page is just a map showing how close Apple Road and Powers connect just to the north of this parcel. And Lake Lucy Road would be the other collector to the south. And the next three are the existing Lilac Lane improvement that was done from Powers to Teton Lane, which is probably about half of Lilac Lane. Maybe a little less. A third to a half and that shows the 28% width. The 8.26 grade coming into Powers Boulevard with basically no landing. And the last page just shows how much was in Shorewood and Chanhassen. The next page does show the grade. This is from the city of Shorewood on the 30 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 grade of the hill just to the north of where Yosemite turns into Apple Road. The average is 9.08 in that first section. The next half section map shows Ithilien, which is a lot of the neighbors that are here tonight in that subdivision. It does show highlighted Lot 5, which is the issue with the Donovan easement. The next page, with the easement over Lot 5 does confirm from Valley Surveying and also Del Cutter at Carver County Abstract, that this is a valid easement. It's a 50 foot wide easement. 28.51 onto Lot 5 and 21.5 that is on the existing Donovan parcel. And the next legal document is that easement dated 27th of April, 1973. On the next three pages is a petition, obviously concerned residents. 52 adults from the surrounding area. And last but not least, a letter from the City of Shorewood that I received today and it reads as follows: Our office received a copy of the above referenced plat and found it to have little or no impact on the adjoining property in Shorewood. We have since been advised that the city's considering a possible thru connection to Lilac Lane. This is to advise you that the City of Shorewood has serious concerns about such a connection to Lilac Lane. Lilac Lane is very substandard, narrow street serving only 6 homes in Shorewood. Given the low density and large lot character of this neighborhood, Shorewood has no plans for extending the street. It does not appear that such a connection would benefit Shorewood residents. We understand the desire to provide for the development of the Donovan property and would be interested in seeing any other plans that you may have developed in this regard. However at this time the City of Shorewood does not favor making the Lilac Lane a thru street. It is our understanding that your Planning Commission will consider this matter at the meeting tonight. Please pass our concerns along to them. If you wish to discuss this project with Shorewood's staff, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Bradley J. Nielsen, Planning Director. I understand that at least cul-de-sacs have been granted within the past years within a half mile. Shadow Ridge, Ithilien and the Mason property. And also to clarify the staff and the commission why we propose a 10% grade variance on our plan for the cul-de-sac was for one purpose and one purpose only. That was to save trees which is really my high priority on this parcel. And I was told by Engelhardt that in order to save more trees we had to raise the road grade, in order to especially save, there's quite a few cedars up where I'm going to live on the big parcel on Lot 5. That is going to be left as one lot. Besides all the safety issues I've raised for a continued street, it seems very clear to me that a continuation of the Knob Hill Road was not meant to be. It should have been planned through the Ithilien property, not a band-aid thru street. This is why a cul-de-sac makes sense for my neighborhood. It's safe for my kids and the Knob Hill traffic can go to Powers Boulevard, via Apple Road to the north and Lake Lucy Road to the south. Both level intersections that would be safer for all. I'm sure with staffs help we can come up with a cul-de-sac plan that meets the grade staff prefers and preserves the best liability of the trees and the surroundings of my family property. We're moving onto this land to make friends, not enemies and to contribute to the community and hopefully we can find common ground. So I'd ask the Planning Commission to make a motion to staff not to pursue the connection of the roadway through the Knob Hill Addition to service Donovan's 31 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 property but to allow for sewer service only and to pursue a cul-de-sac plan that will enhance the area. Mancino: Thank you. I did have a question for you. Just state for me very clearly, forget Lilac Lane and what will happen if it goes through the Donovan parcel. You seem to want the cul-de-sac and what are the reasons for you wanting to continue or to just have a cul-de- sac on Knob Hill. Just 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. John Knoblauch: Actually to be honest with you, I'm not really opposed to servicing Donovan's property. If it was Donovan's property alone and I could be assured of that, I would not be against dead-ending my road at his property line. And that I've made clear to staff. As far as the cul-de-sac, obviously it makes my lots more valuable. I have two growing boys and one on the way, and they're pretty active. I guess that's really the gist of it and I think that's the way my family would have wanted it, so. Since the issue of the easement came up with Donovan's, and he's really got his own entrance off of Lilac, I guess I'd prefer a cul-de-sac because if he didn't have that, I probably would work something out with him. Mancino: Thank you. Can we have a motion to open this for a public hearing? Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded to open the public heating. The public heating was opened. Mancino: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission. I'm going to stop for just one moment. It's 9:25. Kate, we have to be out of here by 10:00? Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: If we are not done by 10:00, because I see that we have quite a few people who are going to be addressing us. We may have to table this and come back and resume the public hearing because we must be out of here by 10:00. Anyone else who is on the agenda, I don't think we're going to get to you tonight. Do you have any recommendations or any other suggestions? So I just through I'd tell you that no one else will go on tonight. It won't be until January 3rd. We'll come back and we'll continue the public hearing at 10:00. We'll see you again on January 3rd. I hope this doesn't hold up anything for the applicant, etc, and I hope that everyone who did come tonight can join us again after Christmas. With that the public hearing is open and I'd like your name and address. Mike Prebble: Thank you. My name is Mike Prebble and I live at 1352 Ithilien, which is Lot 5 on the Ithilien Addition and I stand to be the one most affected or not affected, 32 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 depending on which plan that the city and Mr. Knoblauch go forward with. This is my lot right here and for a thru street... I believe Mr. Knoblauch should be able to develop his Knob Hill Addition as a cul-de-sac. He has shown me a plan that shows a very subtle use of land with home sites nestled in amongst the existing trees with the least impact on changing the neighborhood with an increased density of people. He has 12 home sites. It's been my experience that, at least where I live it's 2 car families and pretty much both work and so that's two cars leaving, two cars coming home and maybe a kid to pick up and maybe go shopping and so if you count all of those car passages from one house, I came up with 8 minimum and if you multiply that times 9 homes, that's 96 cars minimum going, plus you talk of things like mail delivery and garbage pick-up and etc and I forgot something so I go again. My lot being the corner of Lot 5 on the Ithilien Addition, apparently the planning and zoning commission, when they put my house on this lot. It was built in 1991, into '92 is when we moved in. We didn't know or didn't realize Mr. Donovan's easement onto it but I believe, according to the map and the measurements that I've done, if this street is put in as a thru street according to the existing easements, the corner of my attached screened porch would be 17 feet from the curb and I heard from the previous thing that it's 30 feet is the minimum so apparently my home was placed in a position that, according to what was Mr. Donovan's right-of-way, and I don't know if the city. Maybe the city didn't know of his easement or not. My house could have been moved. It didn't have to put right there because it's a new home and I wish that would have been addressed when we were in the stage of getting approval for where to place the homesite where our home is built. A thru street there, that's 12 homes. If Mr. Donovan or someone who buys his property and develops that, I talked with Mr. Hempel and I suggested 10 or 12 homes may go there. Mr. Hempel thought maybe 15 was more appropriate so that's another 15 homes. I'm going to guess 2 car families. I'm going to guess 8 trips minimum in and out. We're looking at around 300 cars a day could be potentially going past my house. Stop. Turn the corner. Go. Come back. Stop. Turn back. Some of those cars may be not so well tuned up. Some of those being trucks. The hill right there, my home. Northwest general air movement. I'm really concerned about air pollution right into my porch. I'm concerned about noise pollution. I'm concerned about how busy that street could become. I have three children. A freshman in high school, a 9 year old at Excelsior Elementary and a 3 year old. I believe that Mr. Knoblauch should be able to develop some fashion of a cul-de-sac. Your question of why do you want a cul-de-sac is why I bought that house on a cul-de-sac. It's homey. It's neighbors. The only people really who drive on our street are the people who live there. Occasion person who may be lost or looking for something but I look around, when I see people, it's the people we live with. A thru street is not homey. Is not neighbors. We met with the safety people last winter at one of our neighbor's homes talking about neighborhood safety watch and how nice it is that everyone knows and can see and can come and go so if you see something suspicious, meaning something you haven't seen for a while, you can easily think. Maybe I should call. Maybe not. A thru street does not allow that familiarity. My 33 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 recommendation to your group is some fashion of a cul-de-sac and Mr. Knoblauch mentioned something about, he could service Donovan's property. I love that idea. If some fashion of cul-de-sac ends with some fashion of a dead end here on Donovan's property, a nice road about here, that's another... If Mr. Donovan's easement is taken off my property, the Ithilien easement is taken off my property, I stand to lose approximately 20% of the land that I've got there. So thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission. Jim Donovan: Yes, my name is Jim Donovan. I'm the famous Donovan resident there with the property. As far as the easement is concerned, I know I can say whatever I want here in front of the Council because it doesn't mean anything as far as saying it about development. I have no intentions of ever developing that piece of property. I have no intentions of ever selling it. I'm going to die there when I'm 100 so. I'm 61 now so I've got a long time to go. And Mike and his wife can feel free that there will be no, nothing done with that corner. I know that that has no legal standing or anything else like that but that's my feelings. As far as allowing Mr. Knoblauch to have a circle in there, that would be my choice. As I look out my house, when I come out of my garage, that's to the north of my property there looking at his piece of property. It would look down. I'm up on the hill there. You can see the pond and I am just to the south of that pond there on a hill. I look down, my driveway goes down and winds around the trees. The beautiful trees there and I was thrilled when John and his wife came over to my house and said that they had no intentions of destroying those trees. I know that all the neighbors were very, very concerned about a developer coming in and potentially ripping out 20 to 30 of those beautiful trees that are in there that have been there for ages and ages. This is Apple Road territory and apple tree territory. The trees may not be the greatest because they haven't been kept up but it is a very old and very lovely area there. As far as I'm concerned, and the people that I've talked to, we would like to see, and me especially, I would like to see a circle on the property as John has proposed. I would not like to see a road abutted to my lot line because basically what the town is telling me is that, hey. Eventually we're going to come through your piece of property and we're going to link up with Lilac Lane. Well, you know I don't like that. I don't want to have my property... lighting that goes all the way down the driveway. I've got a security system that's underground that goes down the driveway. I've got over 1,000 foot long driveway. I've got two stone pillars at the end of Lilac there that have a bar, or a radio prism that goes it through. When a person or a vehicle comes onto the property, it sounds at my house. All of these wires and electrical has been laid underground and led to my house there. So I have no intentions of ever developing that. Ripping up that piece of property. I would hope that the town would not, or the city would have no push to put a road through there eventually. And the idea of having John make a road that would abut to my property there and then running basically a service road along my property line there, my northern property line there, does 34 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 not make sense really. John's idea of a circle with a road there servicing these homes here makes much more sense. It lends to the landscape. It does not degrade the property. It does not scrape it away. I mean there's beautiful homes. There is beautiful trees there. There's a cedar tree there. There's the slope of the land lends itself to what John has proposed and has done a hard job of trying to make the property look at least developed, if we could put it that way, as possible. This is an old area and it's a beautiful area and it's an area where people come to rest, relax, get away from city life. It's not an area where, as Mike said, you want to have 90 cars screeching around the corner. You want to have horns honking. Things like this. I think that everybody who lives in Chanhassen wants a nice, quiet life. I mean we're developing this city at a very, very rapid pace, as shown by what's happened downtown. The area that we happen to be in is the most northern part of Chanhassen, adjoining Shorewood there. We are sort of the last frontier as far as the northern part of Chanhassen is concerned and it's an area that has got it's own charm and it's own mystique. It's an area that John has proposed developing with the idea that, let's keep it the way it is right now. Let's not make it into a fast lane. Let's keep it so that when people drive in here, they're driving into their home. They're not driving into a big wide open, busy area here. And John has done, what we think and I think, a very admirable job of developing the property, of proposing to develop the property as far as the roads are concerned. As far as I am concerned, being the prime piece of property on the south side of this development here, and as far as the city is concerned, I would have potentially, any access that I would ever need, and as I prefaced my beginning remarks to the Council here. I have no intentions of ever doing anything. And the way I would like to have it, I would like to have it as John has proposed. I feel that that is the best plan for the entire area. Thank you. Mancino: May I respond to a couple things you said. First of all, I want to make perfectly clear you understand that the staffs proposal to stop it at your property line would not at this point, or at any point until you decide to develop, would it go through your property. Jim Donovan: Right, I understand that. Mancino: There wouldn't be a service road. There would be nothing. It would just stop. Jim Donovan: I understand that. But you're bringing up a road to butt up against my property. Mancino: Yes. That is true. Jim Donovan: Which is an ugly, ugly. Mancino: To the property line. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Jim Donovan: Yes, it's an ugly type of situation. Whereas now it's a beautiful type of thing. Mancino: And it would be a turn around and there would have to be some sort of turn around so it would look very much like a cul-de-sac. Jim Donovan: But right up against my property. Mancino: It would be up against your property line. Jim Donovan: Yeah, which is very bad. Mancino: And secondly it is, I mean we have to look ahead, after 100 years. Between 61 and when you're 100 and to your next life and say, then what's going to happen. I understand that you're going to be there and at this point do not see ever developing it. But we, as a planning commission, must look even further ahead than that. That's what we need to do for the city and I don't know what we're going to decide but I'm just also giving you our perspective on what we need to be looking at too. Jim Donovan: Well what you're telling me then is that, if you were to bring up, if you were to disregard John's proposal, put forth your proposal to abut onto my piece of property there, it would not be done during my tenure. But that some time a large swath of my property would become public road property. Mancino: If whoever, your heir, whoever you sell it to wants to develop. If that one person. Jim Donovan: But what you're proposing would basically degrade my property. It would decrease the value of my property. Mancino: As it stands now, someone would come in. If you wanted to sell it someone or give it to an heir who wants to develop it, and that would be up to you. Jim Donovan: No, what I'm saying is that what you're proposing or what you're saying is that if you were to put a road with a circular end to it, up against my northern boundary, it would decrease the value of my property. There's no doubt about that. Hempel: Madam Chair, if I could make a couple comments. The first thing, the handout you have before you tonight with the easement, the 50 foot easement across Lot 5. First of all that is a private roadway easement. That cannot be dedicated for public use. It's a sole easement for Mr. Donovan to use. Okay, so that can never be upgraded to a city street. Now 36 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 acquisition of property from Lot 5, which we have no desire to do. Your subdivision, well maybe I'm getting ahead of myself. Your property... (Dave Hempel stepped over to the overhead projector and his comments were not picked up by the microphone.) Jim Donovan: That's fine with me. I understand that. Mr. Knoblauch might be willing, if that 28 feet, if you're saying that mine's a private one, right? That's only to be used by me. So Mr. Prebble has no worry because it will never be used because I've built what I'm going to build there. What if Mr. Knoblauch was to grant 21 or 28 feet, or whatever was necessary there? Hempel: That's one of our recommendations that he dedicate a 30 foot swath... Jim Donovan: Okay, but I'm saying on Lilac. From Lilac, that would Lilac west. Dave Hempel's comments were not picked up by the microphone. Jim Donovan: Right. So if he dedicated 28 feet, that would solve that easement, or that would solve that entrance. Hempel: That would get him...driveway. Jim Donovan: Okay. Alright. Then there would be no reason then to abut a road onto my northern part of my property. Hempel: The thing that we have to look at is the overall picture... Jim Donovan: As far as water and sewer is concerned, there is water and sewer on the property already. It comes in from Apple Road. City water and sewer comes into the property from Apple Road right now. Hempel: There's water...sewer line here. Jim Donovan: No, sewer runs to the east. My sewer runs from the east. It comes right in. ...I have city water and sewer. Hempel: You have city sewer and water? Jim Donovan: Yes. It comes in this direction... 37 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: Any other comments? Jim Donovan; Okay, thank you. John Knoblauch: I just had one. If it's a private easement... Generous: If we can make the findings for the private street...There's environmental protection. Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? Jim Emmer: My name is Jim Emmer. I live in the property immediately south of the second round square from Yosemite. And as you can see from this, the driveway coming from the abutted road would come along the property line and those headlights would be right in our living room. Do you see that in that area? And on this plan...this would be the driveway... We like the plan at this time. I'd like to know why the road is needed. Can somebody answer that please? Mancino: Excuse me, why what road is needed? Jim Emmer: Why, in a future time Mr. Donovan's property needs to be served from Yosemite rather than from Lilac Lane. Generous: When we look at development, Lilac Lane was a substandard street. This would be a, meet city code and the street that Mr. Knoblauch... Additionally, whenever we're looking at developments we try, where possible to provide two means of access to that for emergency purposes. Jim Emmer: Well no cul-de-sacs have two means of access. Generous: That's right and we, at a staff level we try not to keep getting cul-de-sac's in there. Jim Emmer: Can I take a poll of how many people here live on cul-de-sacs? Mancino: Excuse me, can you wait and come on up. Thank you. Jim Emmer: That's really all I have to say. I have a hard time understanding why we have to have a thru road potentially and I agree with you that when Mr. Donovan passes on, that's going to be developed but why it can't be developed from Lilac Lane, because you're not adding, what are you adding potentially? 12 lots there at the most. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: 12 to 15. Jim Emmer: On Mr. Donovan's property? Mancino: That is what has been stated earlier. It has the potential. Whether it does or doesn't, we don't know what's going to happen but it has the potential to add 15 more lots. Tom Wilder: Hi. I'm Tom Wilder. I'm from Shorewood so maybe you don't have to listen to me but he's talking about his living room. I'm talking about my bedroom. I live right at the L of Lilac. My house was built a year ago and it happens to be, what you can't see from the drawing here is this, the house is about 20 feet down from the grade of the street so every, you know we're talking about a year, a couple years...stop sign being right here, you know the headlights would be shining right in my bedroom and I wouldn't like that. It just seems to me, I hate to keep talking about if Jim's alive but you know, maybe he'll sell his one parcel. You know maybe it never will be developed. Maybe he'll sell his beautiful estate as it is right now. So that should be considered. It's my understanding the reason why it was put on the books in Chanhassen as well as...protecting the current virgin row of trees and a lot of big trees, including 4 very large ones on my property would have to come out if you upgraded to what is a very pretty Lilac Lane into a quote, perfectly plowable city street. When Chan developed, or when Chan improved Lilac Lane a couple years ago you know they took the lilacs down. There are no more lilacs except for on my property and if you improved it, you'd get them all. I have some wetland concerns. There's, you know it's a dead end. A lot of children there. I would think that would be a concern to the Planning Commission. And to upgrade Lilac Lane would, you'd have to take out what's about, it's 2/3 of Shorewood's street so you'd probably have a fight there as well but 17 feet is what I consider a wildlife corridor. Beautiful sumac. Very large oaks. I mean you know, you've destroyed it. And it seems to me, and somebody has already pointed this out, that people move out to Chanhassen, Shorewood area and some of the other surrounding suburbs to live on cul-de-sacs, to live on dead ends and I think it's you know, the proof is in the putting. I did a little, I'm kind of a numbers guy. I went through the Planning Commission, you know the members and I went through the City Council and 86% of you who are thinking about extending our street, live on dead ends, non-thru streets or cul-de-sacs. Only two, Nancy you don't. But you have a nice driveway. Mancino: Thank you. Tom Wilder: And Mike Mason, I'm not sure where he lives. I can't find Woodhill Road. But the rest of you live on dead-ends or cul-de-sacs so. Farmakes: I live on Utica which is a thru street. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Tom Wilder: Utica, Utica is not exactly a dead end but it's kind of just goes around in circles. You know it's not a thru. Farmakes: It is a thru street. It comes down from the highway, it goes down along the lake and goes back up to the highway. If you enter it on one end, you come out on the other. Tom Wilder: Okay well, maybe I'm wrong there so let's make it 83%. Skubic: I live on a thru street also. Tom Wilder: Yeah I know you do. I didn't say you all did. I said 87% of you don't and so you should maybe have a basic understanding of what we're talking about here. That's all I've got to say. Mancino: Okay. I'm going to discontinue the public hearing until January 3rd. Jim Donovan: ...make a comment. Mr. Hempel made a comment here before about my easement being a private easement. What would it take on my part to make it a, if I dedicated that easement to the city of Chanhassen in return for the Knoblauch project being a circle rather than an abutted street into my property? Would that help? Mancino: I think that you can certainly negotiate with the staff at a private time. Call up Bob Generous and ask to get an appointment with him and talk about that. Jim Donovan: I mean is that a concern of the city, since there's, I mean I don't see how you say that this is a private easement. How did you come to that determination? Hempel: Grantor to grantee. It's not to the city of Chanhassen. Jim Donovan: Oh I see. Okay. I'm not legally, but if I did, am I able to dedicate it to the city of Chanhassen? Hempel: With the underlying property owner's consent I suppose. You could ask him. Mancino: I don't think we're going to decide that tonight. But there is a willingness to talk to you about that. Jim Donovan: Thank you. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: Okay, so we will close the public hearing. Not close but continue it on January 3rd at 7:00. Can they be first Bob or do you have an agenda already? Generous: DeLancy was tabled too. Aanenson: And we've got 4 other subdivisions on that night. I'm not sure how... We'll have to check. Mancino: We will check. We can't promise you that right now but we will check and let you know. Thank you. Thank you for coming. NEW BUSINESS: Aanenson: Under new business, I apologize for the timeliness of this but this was a direction given from the City Attorney regarding a park dedication that's on for the City Council on Monday night. Betty O'Shaughnessy, as part of the Autumn Ridge plat and that large outlot, you should have received a copy of this. When we looked at the Gateway West property and the Autumn Ridge property, when we talked about the city requiring 4 lots. This map it's shown as Outlot, or Lot C and D. Approximately 60 acres. The city, Mrs. O'Shaughnessy will be dedicating that property to the city. It has a value of approximately a little over a half million dollars and the cost to the city would be the assessed levied amount which is about $40,000.00. The City Attorney's position is that the Planning Commission should formally act on recommending acceptance of the dedication of the park property so you need to make a motion. Mancino: And it doesn't have to go through a public hearing or anything? Aanenson: No. Mancino: Any discussion from commissioners on this? Commissioner Peterson. Peterson: Go for it. Mancino: Commissioner Farmakes. Farmakes: I think she should get a monument sign. Aanenson: I think she will get some recognition. Mancino: Commissioner Skubic. 41 • l CITY CF t 0 4, CHANHASSEN " 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Coordinator DATE: January 3, 1996 SUBJ: Oak Ponds Development - Tree Removal Request At the December 6th Planning Commission meeting, the Commission tabled the request of the Oak Ponds Development to remove an oak tree. Members of the Commission requested that the applicant submit color renderings and alternatives for wall materials and safety precautions for children. The safety issue associated with the height of the wall, while an important one, is not specifically addressed by city or state laws or regulations. There are no city ordinances that cover height limitations of a wall nor any safety features that must be installed because of height. Public safety does not have any rules or regulations associated with the height and safety of retaining walls either. There are no state laws dealing with this issue so it is solely a personal issue for the property owner. Since the banks of the cut have not crumbled, fallen, or sloughed off more than what could be expected of an exposed cut, it is safe to say that the slopes are stable and that there are a variety of walls that could be installed. The limiting factor is the amount of bank removal needed to install a wall on the tallest side, which is the south. Eliminating another 5 feet or more of the bank would further test the ability of the tree to withstand root removal. It is impossible to say with absolute certainty what effect additional root removal would have on the oak, but it is safe to say that the more roots that are removed the greater the chance of a visible negative impact. The types of walls that could be installed and their probable impacts are as follows: Boulder or rock wall: not engineered,no cuts into existing bank needed, structurally acceptable to a height of ten feet because bank is stable. Keystone wall: engineered, 5-7' cut required into bank to install geogrids which help to stabilize wall. Poured concrete wall: engineered, 5' cut required into bank to install footing. Planning Commission January 3, 1996 Page 2 The applicant has submitted drawings depicting alternatives with and without the tree. In both drawings it should be noted that there is a sidewalk present on the north and west sides. Any retaining wall or grading could begin at the curb on the south side. Presently there is 8 feet from the curb to bank and it is possible to build a retaining wall at curbside as depicted in the rendering. This method of construction would greatly reduce the need to cut into the bank. RECOMMENDATION Staff's initial choice is to recommend that the Planning Commission deny the applicant's request and require a retaining wall to be constructed around the oak. If the Planning Commission supports the applicant's request, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the request to remove a 29 inch oak from Oak Ponds with the following conditions: 1. The applicant is to replace the required twenty-nine inches of plantings with species native to this area. A replacement planting plan must be submitted for approval. 2. Half of the replacement plantings, 14.5 inches, are to be oaks each of which must have a minimum of 1.5 inches caliper. 3. Spacing of all deciduous or evergreen plantings shall be a minimum of 25 feet. 4. Grading limits shall not encroach upon the driplines of surrounding trees. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the grading limits. Erosion control fence, Type I, shall be installed on the downstream side of the grading limits and maintained until the site is fully re-vegetated. 5. All disturbed areas shall be sodded. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission minutes dated December 6, 1995. 2. Renderings. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 6, 1995 Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and gave a brief description of how the meeting would be conducted. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Jeff Farmakes, Bob Skubic, Nancy Mancino, and Mike Meyer MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad and Don Mehl STAFF PRESENT: Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; John Rask, Planner I; Bob Generous, Planner II; Jill Sinclair, Forestry Intern; and Kate Aanenson, Planning Director PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR OAK PONDS/OAK HILL SITE PLAN/DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT LOCATED BETWEEN POWERS AND KERBER BOULEVARD, JUST NORTH OF WEST 78Th STREET. Public Present: Name Address Dean Johnson Applicant Alan Brown 7659 Nicholas Way Drew Clausen Oak Hill Homeowners Association .Till Sinclair presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions from the commissioners to Jill? My only question Jill, now this was a project that began and commenced grading in 1992? So that tree has withstood. Sinclair: Yeah. A good two full seasons. Throughout all of this, since it has gone through two seasons where it's had exposed roots, you know whole summers, and it's still, if there's any damage to be done, you could have seen it this last summer and it still looks really healthy. In spite of the that. Mancino: Thank you. Does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? Dean Johnson: Hello. My name is Dean Johnson. I'm the builder and the developer of the Oak Ponds project. I think the request that I'm making here, more has to do with the fact that 1 the tree is, due to topog problems and due to a mistake in location of where the tree was when the tree survey was done of the site, has ended up closer to things and higher to things than what was originally anticipated by our grading plan and by the engineer. We ended up being, originally I believe the grading plan showed like a 7 to an 8 foot height of this tree above the road. It's more like 10-10 1/2 feet. We also have the tree being closer to the road than what was anticipated so more or less what ended up happening is what we thought was going to be a workable situation, we thought we were going to be far enough away from the tree, turned out not to be true. Whether the tree surveyor made a mistake, if the topog was a little bit wrong. Irregardless, the situation has arose where now the tree is farther to the south than what was anticipated and the grade is higher than what was anticipated. So in trying to deal with this and not trying to cut any more roots, we went about putting up a Keystone Wall that was...not fully engineered. What I mean by that is, we could not put the recommended amount of construction behind this wall to match the engineering recommendations of a Keystone wall without cutting farther back into the bank, which would have cut farther back into the roots. Again the tree was thought to be farther north. The 7 or 8 foot wall we thought we were going to deal with, this wasn't expected to be a problem. We ended up building part of the wall actually and then got stopped. The Building Department stopped it because it did not meet all of the, did not meet the requirements of the specifications of the manufacturers basically is what ended up happening. It kind of was started because everybody's best opinion was, including the landscaper building the wall, who had 22 years of experience doing this type of work, thought it would work. Felt that since the tree had stood, and the bank has stood for 2 years. Actually at that time a year and a half, that we weren't looking at a real pressure situation on the wall. That the dirt, being it's clay, would self support to a degree. It's already proven that it has. And that the wall could be put in such a way, even though that it lacks some of the engineering, would still stand and be alright. It ended up not happening. We ended up looking at other alternatives with the staff and staffs help. We looked at boulder walls. Boulder walls cannot be engineered at all. There's no such a thing as an engineered boulder wall because there's no way of knowing what the surfaces that are going to be in contact, specific weights, friction, all sorts of different things end up coming into play with the boulder wall. There's just too many variables so a boulder wall didn't end up being any better type of solution to it. Because of the staff report I looked into doing a poured concrete wall was one of the recommendations or request of the staff. I talked to an engineer by the name of John Dahlmeier that is actually used by the City of Chanhassen. Does a lot of work for the building officials, Steve Kirchman and Steve Turrell and those types of people. He looked into putting this poured wall up. Felt that there would have to be, from the back of the wall to the end of the footings that would support this wall, there would have to be 5 feet of distance basically and what you're looking at is an L shaped affair. Putting the plat of ground with the wall coming up vertically out of it but you need the weight of the dirt on top of the footing to stop the wall from tipping out. So we'd end up having to cut 5 more feet in, back to possibly damaging, or not possibly, probably damaging roots. Also probably you have a bit of an alternative there. I guess I'm not really prepared to speak fully about it but if we can dig 5 foot farther into the bank, it probably would have continued on with the Keystone wall because we probably would have been fairly close...doing that. Because of all these 2 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 problems, because of the height, that's really what caused us to bring this back. We have found that trying to put this wall in has turned out to be, turned out to take more space, turned out to get it in properly to any type of an engineering requirement is going to cause cutting closer to that tree...probably losing the tree is what we're getting back from the different people. I did address it to the Homeowners Association to see what they would like on it. This is the Oak Hill Homeowners Association. The President of the Association is here so I'll let him speak as to what their feelings on the tree was. That's kind of where it ended up being and maybe what we should do is bring it back to you people. Bring it back with a plan where we do take the tree but we do replace it on a caliper inch basis which was originally in the development contract and I guess we'd like to hear wisdom on it and guidance on the thing. I guess I'd like to introduce Drew Clausen who is the President of our Homeowners Association. Mancino: If he could wait and speak during the public hearing, that would be fine. Dean Johnson: Oh, okay. Mancino: Mr. Johnson I have a question. In that area, is that a dedicated green space or the park area for the development where the tree sits at this point? Dean Johnson: When that area was, when preliminary plat was first approved, there were apartments, if you remember on the north side of Santa Vera. There was going to be 101 apartment units and the plan was to put a pool in that area that the apartment building would own and operate. If the townhome association wanted to, the right to use the pool or... so to speak of the maintenance costs... That what was approved. What ended up happening though is through negotiations with the city and through negotiations with the seniors, the senior site became developed beyond that location. And with needing the densities of those apartment buildings in order to...in other words if I were to build the apartment buildings and the senior site, we would have been over densities in the area and so between, in negotiations and being that I am a for sale townhome builder, I agreed to build the townhouses. They ended up basically swapping density with the senior site. With that there became nobody to own and manage the pool area anymore. There's no one entity like an apartment to do it. Now you have an association. You have two different associations. Nobody to build it. Put it into the...mortgage for it or do anything of those types of things so a pool basically came out of existence. So basically what's happening, not to talk too much longer here, is that I ended up owning it and right at the moment nothing's been decided... Mancino: Okay, but it is staying a green area at this point with the rest of the oaks that are there and a trail system through it? 3 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Dean Johnson: The trail's already through it. The only thing is it's a private piece of ground and...Any other questions? Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions from commissioners? Thank you. Farmakes: I have a question for our engineer. The city has several boulder walls. How do boulder walls become so unstable? Hempel: Boulder walls that you see in place are put in by private developers like Lundgren and so forth. They're on private property. They're owned and maintained by either homeowners association or private property owner. Those walls generally are 7 feet or less and they've fared pretty well. I've only noticed a couple areas that have failed and the development's gone back and repaired those. These have been withstanding pretty well. Getting in the 10 foot high range of the boulder walls, we're a little uncomfortable with that. They're not engineered. Reliance on landscapers who have been doing it for a while and their expertise in it, it was felt there may be some liability with that... Farmakes: So it's the height primarily and then with the, is the issue? Hempel: That and then also applying a fence on top of that retaining wall. Mancino: Then I have another question to piggy back on that. I have also seen on Lake Lucy, on the northern side of Lake Lucy between Yosemite and that Shadow Lane area, there is a limestone wall...which is higher than 7 feet I'm pretty sure and it has been put together with cement and limestone so it's stable but I'm sure it has no support, other type of support and it seems to be holding. It's been there for years and years and years. Hempel: That wall was installed with the Lake Lucy Road improvement and I believe after the first year or so it did require some repair but after that it's been holding up very well. Mancino: So it has the limestone in the cement. Is that something that engineering would support on a wall this size? And especially since it has settled and I believe it's maintained. Hempel: As the developer, as Mr. Johnson indicated, it seems like the banks are very stable. During the winter/spring thaw season you do get the frost movement in the ground. Typically you see it in roads too where you get the bumpy surfaces. That's typically what happens with the...if they're not anchored securely below the frost line. It's very well possible that boulder walls could hold up over time. The true test would be the first and second spring thaw. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: Otherwise they could just tear up part of the road. Just kidding. May I have a motion and a second to open for a public hearing please? Farmakes moved, Peterson seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission at this time on this issue, please come forward. Draw Clausen: Thank you. I'm Drew Clausen, President of the Oak Hill Townhomes Association. And really is just here to speak to one portion of this. Not so much the type of wall, keystone versus concrete versus limestone and concrete, which is mortar, but to a large extent the reasons Dean is undergoing this exercise is at our request. When the Association was turned over to the homeowners, at that meeting we asked the status of the wall and Dean explained the process he was going through to build a wall and we requested him to stop because of the fact that some of our association members have children. Others have friends who have children who come to play in the summer and our intent in that island is to have that be a recreational area. And I don't know how many of you have 7, 8, 9, 10 year old children but our concern is one of safety. I'm 6 foot 2, 6 foot 3. As I stand there, that's at least an 11 foot drop, possibly higher. There is very little below it. Even with sod it would be probably just about 2 foot before you have a concrete curb and an asphalt road and we feel that somebody's going to be climbing on that, fall down and hurt themselves. It really isn't a liability issue. It's more of an issue of just ease of recreational use. We took a vote of our association, because we're the ones that really are most affected by the aesthetics of it. It was a 3 to 1 vote, I forget how many, the whole association wasn't there but it was something like 35 or 36 to 9 or 10 to request that Dean, through whatever methods are appropriate, ask to have that hill sloped down and replace, take the tree down and replace it with the appropriate trees. I've read the report. There's some discussion on if the Council or the Planning Commission should approve this, what type of trees should go in and again that really isn't what our concern. None of us are in that, that's not our bailiwick in other words. But what we are requesting and urging the Planning Commission and other appropriate bodies is to grant the request to remove the trees, slope the hill down so it can be used without concern of safety. We also are not desirous of a fence on top of an 11 foot wall. We feel that there's no way that we can imagine to have that be aesthetic, especially when you're talking about again, 7, 8, 9, 10 year old children who are going to be climbing on things and now you've just added more height for them to climb on and fall down. So that is our primary concern. Again we certainly urge the Planning Commission and the Council to grant the request because we're the homeowners that are going to have to live with the decision. Any questions? 5 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission on this issue? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Peterson moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Comments and questions from the commissioners. Commissioner Peterson. Peterson: I'd like to get a little bit better understanding I guess and the...but what would a poured wall look like? Would it have a brick facade in front or is it just a piece of gray concrete? Is there a variety of options? Hempel: It would be a cast poured in place type structure similar to what you see on a bridge abutment or something like that. Cosmetic can be added. You can add color to the concrete. You can add a textured wall face more to make it look like a block type wall. It all gets very expensive though. Those are our options available. Peterson: If you had to control the price of a poured concrete with some addition nuances to it versus the...block, can you give me a ballpark as to what the cost difference would be. Double? Triple? Hempel: Certainly. I'll give you a range. The Keystone or allen type block is in the range of $14.00-$15.00 a square foot. Similar to a boulder wall, retaining wall. That might be closer to $16.00 a square foot. Poured and capped in place would be in the range of $25.00 to $30.00 per square foot so it is double. Peterson: That was my only question I guess. I'm struggling between the issue of keeping a tree that age that has a long life span versus the request of the neighbors and the owners that live there. I think I have to do some thinking on that a little bit yet. Mancino: Would you like me to come back to you? Peterson: Yes. Mancino: Commissioner Farmakes. Farmakes: It's a legitimate safety concern and I've often argued with the statistical safety. It seems to...common sense but if that's the case, if there is a safety issue, I'd rather have children be safe than have a tree saved and I'm sure the city would also, the question seems to me is, is it a safety issue? I'm not going to preport that I'm an expert on that and I think 6 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 that we have a Public Safety Commission and/or city engineers that should respond to that issue. We have plenty of walls around this city and some of them are above 4 feet, 5 feet. I'm not sure we've had that much trouble with people falling off of them. But if there is a legitimate concern, maybe the tree has to go. I'll leave it at that. Mancino: Commissioner Skubic. Skubic: I sure would like to see the tree preserved but there certainly are legitimate concerns about safety...I'd agree with Commissioner that safety has to come first. Also I don't know, it's not clear to me what could be done to make this aesthetically pleasing. I appreciate the details...but without actually seeing some renderings, I'm not sure what it would look like. When you look at it now it certainly is a very attractive. It sounds like there is...process of putting up a wall would be further jeopardizing the tree. Audience: Could you speak up? Skubic: Certainly. In the process of constructing the wall, we might be jeopardizing the tree further and after all of our concerted effort we end up not preserving the tree anyway. So I think there's a legitimate amount of concern here and I'm tending to feel that the tree would have to go. Mancino: Commissioner Meyer. Meyer: I have yet the same concerns as Bob and the rest of us. It's safety number one I think is, having a fence on top of that high of a peak there really, I've got a young one too and I can see where your concerns are coming from. Also putting a fence on top of that, I don't know how you can do it and make it look good. It just, it's so close to the road I just don't know. Maybe you could make it look fairly decent but then the tree dies. People 100 years down the road are going to think we were crazy to design that but yeah, that's all the comments I've got. I'm leaning towards taking it down. Mancino: Commissioner Peterson. Any further comments? Peterson: I think they do parallel. I think aesthetics is probably my number one concern with safety coming in after that. I think in this case, with the desire to keep trees that age, I would vote to remove it and replace it with the appropriate number of younger trees. Mancino: Okay. Mr. Generous do we, is this something that we ask to see in detailed renderings on that...structure or wall to be... 7 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Generous: Yes. Mancino: I'd like to do both. I'd like to one, keep the majestic, old oak as obviously the City Council wanted to in 1992 when they asked that it be saved. And secondly I'd like to also make it safe and I think that there are other ways to do that besides a fence at the top. You can certainly put bushes. You can put 3 to 4 foot high junipers that spread and come down over that fence and kids are not going to get in the middle of those junipers or jump off of it. So my recommendation is, I'd like to see it come back with some drawings of what kind of wall would work and even what kind of a safety medium we could use up there besides a fence that would keep young children from... Jump off into the street anyway but are there alternatives that haven't been talked about... So that is kind of where I am going. I have all the concerns that every other commissioner does too but I think there are some other answers than what we're looking at right now. Any other comments by the commissioners? Peterson: Is timing an issue as far as making a decision now? Is postponing it and getting that. Mancino: I would say no. Is that an issue at all? Generous: Not really. Mancino: Okay. It's been up there that long. Is there a motion? Meyer: Is it a motion to table this? Mancino: If you do motion to table it, you can ask them to come back with something. Meyer: Okay. I'll make a motion that we table this then and come back with some renderings. Maybe some different alternatives like Nancy had asked for before... Mancino: Is there a second? Farmakes: I second that. Mancino: Any discussion? Meyer moved, Fannakes seconded to table the inquest to remove a 29 inch oak from Oak Ponds and ask the applicant to being back color renderings and alternatives for a wall and safety precautions for children. All voted in favor and the motion carded. 8 C I T Y 0 F PC DATE: 12/06/95 CHANHAssEN 1/3/96 �\f CC DATE: 1/22/96 CASE#: 95-22 SUB B : Generous/Hempel/ STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for preliminary plat approval of 9 lots and two outlots to be used for private streets; a variance to permit five lots to access via a private street; and a variance from the bluff setback of 30 feet to permit the location of a structure at the top of a bluff on Lot 9, Block 1, for a project known as Lotus Glen 0 n LOCATION: 7505 Frontier Trail a.a. APPLICANT: Ted deLancey 7505 Frontier Trail Q Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612)934-7214 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: 8.9 acres DENSITY: gross/net: 1.0 units per acre ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF,beach lot S- RSF, single-family homes E- RSF, single-family homes W- RSF, Frontier Trail and proposed Lotus Woods subdivision Q WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site 0 PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site has a significant elevation change that splits the eastern W and western portions of the site. Elevations change from 974 feet in the east to 912 feet in the west. ritThe rolling topography has approximately 85 percent tree canopy coverage consisting of ash, balsam,basswood, birch,black willow, cherry,maple,oak, and pines. A wetland runs south to (f) north in the western portion of the property. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential -Low Density(Net Density Range 1.2 -4.0 units per acre) 4K - 111111� 701. Ptwumum47ter 1 1 . � _,, .MEADOW 106411© �� s o �� me •- yegi' LAK E .t0a.0i it GREEN PARK I� — maw_ 4 im �0 Vi*Wg ' �♦ „ /) : N. war li 12 ...... ...„, 7)(9 Tiorr44010111ffir . '‘ I :5 i k _ � .." ,. 1) \ ,� .. � . _. � IVO' At,� � • -� ►/�4c1 LOCATION AP 10 11111 S"2r:4n /V� in c. ' •, ALS*S• I $.111 Piriiiitf' W rjN `i .. . .Wrilliii�1 t416 NICHOLAS i q1N jop in 7 Ma war �' C� V Zlel �Q iI!4v * NE 14 W : f C� i nIIi �� t �� AMU uu■i '� wo vi■ &Hqh EMI �� L4 C U E R ��t �idq■ 1 11 111111111 1 MI II 0 fm J s� Fkp.p 1 Ijoj `.•; 1 9n,.---- 5 o ‘xo- i 4i.. ate. . , Ivo. osi WEstERN S7-4T -� C DRIVE stivif HIGHWAY olera�� ■g �►�R' ' mac; W /Are �1,= �: arr.: 0 _0 . v 44 4-: ler p c,ilke. t • : ; 7. . S U S• - ,,,, .,. . ! :14-,- rat 71,1011111V#3,, • ,� PARK :\.-` .ri1111 �l4; iv .PVT A V— -• "-: ,,,_�1 ��.�'�FR/CE ___ ,__ . ,r, £SSE - ,W. ' Z �� r LAKE u4Pri, .- 7,; r© kiff, _ - --��\ SINNEN %.:0( Loa, '! \ a 11 CIRCLE PARK • at, _.., .2 caat ,) LAKE SUSAN )) 1 CO /� == MI II' :/`. 4 I DRIVE N HI —/ /► G „.,... s 4 r _. . . �. ora i a i, � _ „, `"it 2-cRISCO Z R�{I Aim., A - cr 'P,9 imnatt- -we ",7- iii‘\\11), 4'727 . or fl \:,::-_-;. .--------- ,i,_ # 1111181#4r ii . '11,'.1.i,wi...2 Elit IFir d / ,4�L• D•i s /MISSOS�4ARsHLANa„r.r: MI i' __— ` WAY I �J+, WAYS _ i ,,-, L..) ' 47 11.111111lexpli :11111' gy WEST �.-Ivgff .4.. flaws EAST t.�{ c '�fP�4 * • A == i T COURT OGS PR°P� Lotus Glen December 6, 1995 Updated January 3, 1996 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing a nine lot subdivision on approximately 8.9 acres of land. The subdivision will be served by two private drives with no internal public streets; a variance to permit five lots to access via a private street; and a variance from the bluff setback of 30 feet to permit the location of a structure at the top of a bluff on Lot 9. The site has significant environmental features including bluff areas(slopes in excess of 30 percent with elevation changes of 25 feet or more),extensive canopy coverage(staff estimates in excess of 85 percent), and a wetland system. The use of large lots with an average area of 38,560 square feet preserves much of the site in its natural state. The proposed development lies within the shoreland management district. For nonriparian lots,the minimum lot area is 15,000 square feet which the development exceeds. The proposed development will be screened from the lake through the preservation of extensive wooded areas. Bluff The attached figure delineates the bluff areas and setbacks from both bluffs and wetlands according to the City's ordinance. Staff recommends that the building pads on Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 be pulled up and away from the bluffs. Based on this figure, Lot 5 is not developable. The applicant shall field verify that there is a buildable area without variances. Lot can be built on, Staff met with the applicant's engineer on Wednesday,November 29, 1995, to discuss the bluff protection ordinance and staff initial findings. At the meeting, staff agreed on what will be considered the top and toe of the bluff(City Code defines these points as "the point where there is, as visually observed, a clearly identifiable break in the slope, . . . If no break in the slope is apparent, the toe and top shall be determined to be the lower and upper ends of a 50 foot segment, measured on the ground, with an average slope exceeding 18 percent"). The applicant's engineer will prepare the analysis based on this consensus and present their findings and calculations for review by the Planning Commission. Lotus Glen December 6, 1995 Updated January 3, 1996 Page 3 Staff has discussed the bluff protection ordinance with the city attorney and was advised that the language in the ordinance is specific to the building setbacks required at the toe and top of the bluff. There is no reference to required setbacks at the side of a bluff. Staff will initiate a revision to the ordinance to rectify this error since it was always the city's intent to protect the bluff area. Based on this information, there is no required setback from the sides of the delineated bluff area. Staff does recommend that a condition be made that the bluff area be shown on all building permit applications for this subdivision. Trees Staff estimates that the baseline canopy coverage is over 85% as opposed to the applicant's estimate of 76%, making the minimum canopy coverage required at 55%. Tree removal due to feet around the entire building-pad. Staff has submitted a tree removal plan that more closely surveys be submitted. The applicant has recalculated the baseline canopy coverage based on staff's comments. The baseline canopy coverage is estimated at 89 percent(7.9 acres)with an estimated tree removal of 3.3 acres leaving a post development canopy coverage of 4.6 acres or 58 percent which is within the standards established as part of the tree preservation ordinance. The applicant 's engineer has submitted to staff a concept grading plan for the proposed common driveway off Frontier Trail for Lots 1 and 2. Staff has reviewed the concept grading plan and believes the concept will work according to the drawing submitted. The building on these sites will involve filling up to 10 feet and the construction of retaining walls. Staff's condition regarding access to these lots should be deleted or modified to allow driveway access to Lots 1 and 2 from Frontier Trail. Staff believes that the proposed subdivision is an environmentally sensitive way to develop the site and is recommending approval of the subdivision subject to the conditions of the staff report. BACKGROUND The deLancey home is located in the north central portion of the site. An existing sanitary sewer line runs from Erie Avenue, along the southern portion of the property, and then follows the wetland to the northwest up to Frontier Trail. Lotus Glen December 6, 1995 Updated January 3, 1996 Page 4 WETLANDS There is a jurisdictional wetland on site that is classified as a combination of an intermittent stream and a palustrine forested wetland. Staff requires a wetland delineation report for this site. The wetland follows the stream bed at widths of 10 to 20 feet wide covering an area of approximately 0.2 acre. Considering the forested regime with sparse understory and low impact from urban or agricultural practices, this wetland should be classified as natural. This will allow for maximum buffer protection through the City's wetland ordinance. A buffer strip of 10 to 30 feet with an average of 20 feet should be maintained along the wetland. Type III erosion control is required to be installed where construction will take place adjacent the wetlands until re-vegetation is established. City staff recommends the applicant contact the Natural Resource Conservation Service(NRCS) for a seeding plan that will be most effective in the wooded areas. It appears that the wetland will be impacted in three locations if the existing driveway is reconstructed to access Lots 1 through 5. The State Wetland Conservation Act(WCA) allows for a maximum of 400 square feet of wetland impact without a replacement plan. Any impacts above 400 square feet will have to follow the WCA guidelines for a wetland replacement plan. This includes proper sequencing and a replacement ratio of 2:1. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan(SWMP)that serves as a tool to protect, preserve, and enhance water resources. The plan identifies,from a regional perspective,the stormwater quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. The development will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's SWMP. The City has an opportunity with this development to improve water quality to Lotus Lake. The City's SWMP calls for a 4-cell sediment and nutrient trap which totals about 2 acres of surface area and 8 acre-feet of volume. According to the SWMP,this system was situated along the creek bed to treat approximately 56 acres that drains through this area. It is clear that ponding throughout the creekbed is not acceptable, however, staff needs to evaluate the maximum ponding area on this site in conjunction with the analysis that has already been completed on the proposed Lotus Lake Woods development on the west side of Frontier Trail. The ponding area Lotus Glen December 6, 1995 Updated January 3, 1996 Page 5 designed for the Lotus Lake Wood development was to trap only sediment for an additional 63 acres that drains through that property. Therefore, some additional treatment on the deLancey parcel is necessary to provide nutrient retention. Staff may have to do some compromising on water quality treatment in order to protect slopes and wooded areas. Staff recommends that Cecilio Olivier with Bonestroo, Rosene & Anderlik Associates complete a thorough water quality and quantity analysis on the deLancey parcel since he is also familiar with the study on the Lotus Lake Woods parcel. As with the Lotus Lake Woods development, the City will be drafting a cost sharing agreement to enter into with the applicant for reimbursement of the ponding improvements. The City will also work with the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association to acquire any necessary easements outside the plat. Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of$2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. The proposed SWMP water quality charge of$800/acre for single family resident developments. Fees are based on a total developable land area of 8.9 acres minus the existing wetland of 0.2 acres. Therefore,the applicant is required to pay $6,960 in water quality fees. Credits will be given for providing the storm drainage/ponding system required. Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts. open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single family residential developments have a connection charge of$1,980 per developable acre. The total gross area of the property is 8.7 acres as discussed above. Therefore,the proposed development would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of$17,226. The oversizing of the regional pond and infrastructure will be credited to the applicant at the time of final plat. This fee will be due payable to the City at time of final plat recording. GRADING & DRAINAGE The site is very difficult to develop due to the bluffs and forested area. Each lot will be custom graded to minimize tree removal. Individual grading, drainage, erosion control, and tree preservation plans will be required for review and approval by the City at time of building permit application. Lotus Glen December 6, 1995 Updated January 3, 1996 Page 6 The attached figure delineates the bluff areas and setbacks from both bluffs and wetlands according to the City's ordinance(a bluff is defined as having a slope of 30 percent or greater and having an elevation change of 25 feet or more). The proposed building locations were sketched on the figure as a reference. Staff recommends that the building pads on Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 be pulled up and away from the bluffs. : . - _ • - - - . .. . . .. • . - - - •- . • • . :.• -. . - .. . _ . . .. . Lot 4 can be built on, however, the building pad location will have to be moved north out of the bluff setback. Lots 1 • . _ - . • • • grade of the site. The applicant's engineer has submitted to staff a concept grading plan for the proposed common driveway off Frontier Trail for Lots 1 and 2. Staff has reviewed the concept grading plan and believes the concept will work according to the drawing submitted. The building on these sites will involve filling up to 10 feet and the construction of retaining walls. Staff's condition regarding access to these lots should be deleted or modified to allow driveway access to Lots 1 and 2 from Frontier Trail. The site drains northwesterly via a creek that drains directly into Lotus Lake. Water quality treatment is a high priority in this area due to the large area that drains through here. The applicant will need to submit to the City detailed storm drainage calculations for the storm sewers as well as ponding calculations for a 2-, 10-, and 100-year storm event, 24-hour duration for both pre- and post-development conditions for staff review and approval. Additional storm drainage improvement may be required to convey storm runoff from the proposed east private driveway to the creek. Staff will review this after receipt of the storm drainage calculations. EROSION CONTROL Erosion measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). The final grading plan shall incorporate type I erosion control around the perimeter of the construction limits and type III erosion control along the perimeter of the wetland. Rock construction entrance shall be employed and maintained at all access points until the driveways have been paved with a bituminous surface. UTILITIES Utility service for this development is fairly straightforward. The City has an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer line which runs through the parcel from Frontier Trail along the creek to Erie Lotus Glen December 6, 1995 Updated January 3, 1996 • Page 7 Avenue. The plans propose on extending an 8-inch sewer line from the existing sewer line along the easterly private street to service Lots 6 through 9. Water service is proposed by extending an 8- inch water line from Erie Avenue along the existing sanitary sewer alignment to Frontier Trail. A 6-inch line will also be extended to service Lots 6 through 9 along the easterly private street. Individual services will be extended from these lines to service each lot. Some tree canopy loss should be anticipated with the installation of these utilities. Typically, a strip of 30 to 35-foot wide of vegetation will be lost. Fire hydrant placement will be determined by the City's fire marshal in conjunction with the construction plan review process. Since these utilities will be owned and maintained by the City upon completion,the improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. Since there are public improvements involved with this development,the developer will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of final plat approval. The final plat shall dedicate drainage and utility easements over the public utility lines a minimum of 20-feet wide. STREETS Given the topographic features of the site, staff and the applicant have worked to preserve trees and reduce grading by the use of private streets versus public streets. There is no further need to provide access to the adjacent parcels as well. The private streets shall be constructed in accordance with the City's private driveway ordinance which requires a 20-foot wide bituminous surface capable of supporting 7-ton per axle weight. Parking will also be prohibited on the private streets. The applicant will need to dedicate cross-access easements and prepare maintenance agreements for the private streets. In addition,turnarounds will have to be constructed to meet the City fire marshal's requirements. manageable.The applicant 's engineer has submitted to staff a concept grading plan for the proposed common driveway off Frontier Trail for Lots 1 and 2. Staff has reviewed the concept grading plan and believes the concept will work according to the drawing submitted. The building on these sites will involve filling up to 10 feet and the construction of retaining walls. Staffs condition regarding access to these lots should be deleted or modified to allow driveway access to Lots 1 and 2 from Frontier Trail. Lotus Glen December 6, 1995 Updated January 3, 1996 Page 8 PRIVATE STREET FINDINGS In order to permit private streets, the city must find that the following conditions exist: (1) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination,the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. (2) After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. (3) The use of the private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources including wetlands and forested areas. Finding: Due to the typography within the area and the extensive trees on the site, the use of public streets within the project would negatively impact the environment. In addition,there is no need to provide a street connection to adjacent properties which are currently being accessed from existing streets. MISCELLANEOUS Frontier Trail will be upgraded sometime in the future. The street right-of-way of Frontier Trail is unidentified with this submittal. Staff recommends that the applicant dedicate on the final plat the necessary street right-of-way to achieve a 30-foot wide strip of land lying east of the existing centerline of Frontier Trail. This may slightly impact the building setback on Lot 1 but there appears to be sufficient room to move the building pad to accommodate this requirement. LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION The Lotus Glen development is a heavily wooded site with rolling topography. The primary species found on site are red oaks and sugar maples, followed by green ash, basswood, and a mix of lowland hardwoods. Health and productivity of the woods is good represented by a number of mature, older trees, numerous medium sized trees, and many seedlings. Construction will have the greatest impact on the large, mature trees and specifically the red oaks, sugar maples, and basswood. Each of these tend to react quickly and negatively to construction damage making this site very sensitive to development. Baseline canopy coverage is over 85%, making the minimum canopy coverage required 55%. Tree removal due to house pads, roads, and pond appears to be underestimated. -Grading-that Lotus Glen December 6, 1995 Updated January 3, 1996 Page 9 be approximately 15 feet around the entife building pad. Staff has submitted a tree removal plan . . . • .. . .. - . . - :. The applicant has recalculated the baseline canopy coverage based on staff's comments. The baseline canopy coverage is estimated at 89 percent (7.9 acres)with an estimated tree removal of 3.3 acres leaving a post development canopy coverage of 4.6 acres or 58 percent which is within the standards established as part of the tree preservation ordinance. Due to the notable quality and beauty of the site's wooded area, staff recommends that a fifteen foot tree removal limit be placed around all building pads. Builders would not be allowed to clear more than fifteen extra feet outside the pad. An additional recommendation for retaining canopy cover and mature trees is to pull the four homes that will be accessed from Erie Avenue closer to the private drive and away from the slope and reduce the total number of lots. Staff requests that the applicant clarify the means by which they will install the water line and potential sewer line. Approximately, a forty to forty-five foot swath would need to be cleared in order to install the line from the top down. The path would clear-cut approximately three- quarters of an acre of trees in addition to the removals for the pond, drives, and homes. This removal area has not been included in the applicant's calculations and will have a significant impact on the appearance of the site. Staff recommends that applicant use a trench box to install the water line in order to avoid any additional tree removal and protect the aesthetic worth of the site. COMPLIANCE TABLE AREA(SQ FT) FRONTAGE (FT) DEPTH(FT) WETLAND SETBACK CODE 15,000 100 125 20' +40' Lot 1 32,238 147 204 20' +40' Lot 2 42,100 295 223 20' +40' Lot 3 64,435 153 287 20' +40' Lot 4 23,266 268 130 NA Lot 5 27,683 170 177 20' +40' Lot 6 30,758 121 200 NA Lot 7 27,174 115 216 NA Lot 8 38,612 119 262 NA Lot 9 60,780 373 291 NA Outlot A 13,939 Lotus Glen December 6, 1995 Updated January 3, 1996 Page 10 Outlot B 24,394 Total 385,942 Minimum building setbacks: Front- 30 feet, side- 10 feet,rear- 30 feet, bluff- 30 feet, and wetlands -20 foot buffer strip plus 40 foot from the edge of the buffer strip. Maximum building height within the shoreland district is 35 feet. Maximum lot coverage: 25 percent. It should be noted that there are delineated bluff areas on Lots 4 through 9 and there are required bluff setback areas on Lots 3 through 9. PARK AND RECREATION The Park and Recreation Commission met on November 28, 1995 and recommended that full park and trail fees be required in lieu of park land dedication. FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District. ■• • . e .- ... • • 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. Lotus Glen December 6, 1995 Updated January 3, 1996 Page 11 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets,erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions if approved. Due to the severe slopes, extensive forestation,and wetlands on site, the applicant is proposing lots that exceed the minimum code requirements, which improve the environmental protection of the property. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure. VARIANCE FINDINGS The City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Lotus Glen December 6, 1995 Updated January 3, 1996 Page 12 Finding: The applicant is proposing the use of a private drive for the access for five parcels. However, the use of a private street to access these parcels limits the number of access points to Frontier Trail which may enhance public safety. The variance request for the bluff setback, on the other hand, is a convenience to the property owner. Acceptable housing pads and decks can be located outside of the required bluff setback. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this petition for a variance are applicable generally to other properties within the same zoning classification. All single-family homes being constructed within the city are required to meet the bluff setback ordinance. However, due to topographic conditions and for safety considerations, it does make sense to permit access to parcels off Frontier Trail to be accessed via a private street. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The purpose of the private street variance will permit the owner to build homes off of Frontier Trail without spacing driveway access close to each other on a sloped area. The variance for the bluff setback would permit the applicant to build a larger home. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The hardship is related to the size, physical surroundings, shape, or typography of the site. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of the variance to the private street will not be detrimental or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. By limiting access to Frontier Trail to one point, public safety should be enhanced. The variance for the bluff setback may negatively impact the environment through the increase in runoff f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increases the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Lotus Glen December 6, 1995 Updated January 3, 1996 Page 13 Finding: The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motions: Preliminary Plat and Private Street Variance "The Planning Commission recommends approval of preliminary plat for Lotus Glen(#95-22 SUB)of 8.9 acres into 9 lots and two outlots for private streets and a variance to permit five lots to be accessed via one private street subject to the following conditions: 1. Submit street names to Fire Marshal for approval. 2. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. 3. Approved turn-arounds must be provided for fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet. Re-submit plan and dimensions pursuant to 1991 U.F.C. Sec. 10.204 (d). 4. Additional fire hydrant will be required by Lot 6 and at the entrance off Frontier Trail. 5. Entrance signage must comply with City Code requirements. A separate sign permit must be submitted for any signage. 6. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. 7. Dwellings on slopes exceeding 25% and dwellings with 102" or more of unequal fill will be required to be designed by a structural engineer. 8. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. 9. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity Lotus Glen December 6, 1995 Updated January 3, 1996 Page 14 in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The applicant shall contact the Natural Resource Conservation Service for a seed mixture that will be effective in wooded areas. 10. The applicant shall field verify and document the bluff areas on site. The applicant shall relocate the building pads on Lots 64hrough 9 up away from the bluff to meet setback requirements .. . • - • ,•• • - • . .-• - .. . • .- .. ..• - - • -. . The 11. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with the City's SWMP for the City to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year storm shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. The City will be contracting review of this work to Bonestroo. 12. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 14. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the utilities and ponding areas. 15. The applicant shall have a wetland delineation report prepared for the site. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign. Lotus Glen December 6, 1995 Updated January 3, 1996 Page 15 16. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level. 17. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in accordance to City and Minnesota Department of Health codes/regulations. 18. The proposed single family residential development of 8.7 developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of$6,960 and a water quantity fee of$17,226. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. Credits will be given to these fees based on the applicant providing for the City's SWMP requirements and will be deducted from the totals after final plat review. 19. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 20. The public utility system shall be constructed in accordance with the City utility standards. The private streets shall be constructed in accordance with current city ordinances. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. The plans shall be designed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's standard specifications and detail plates. Final plat approval is contingent upon approval of the construction plans by the Chanhassen City Council. 21. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat the necessary right-of-way to achieve a 30-foot wide strip of land lying east of the existing centerline of Frontier Trail. 22. The applicant shall enter into a cost sharing agreement with the City for reimbursement of the ponding improvements. 23. Individual grading,drainage,tree preservation, and erosion control plans will be required for each lot at the time of building permit applicant for the City to review and approve. 24. A fifteen foot tree removal limit shall be established around all building pads. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to excavation and grading. Tree removal limits shall be shown on all building permit surveys. 25. Applicant must use a trench box for the installation of the water line in order to minimize impact on canopy coverage. Lotus Glen December 6, 1995 Updated January 3, 1996 Page 16 26. Applicant must submit revised canopy coverage and removal calculations as well as a revised survey showing the appropriate coverage and removal area. 27. Park and trail fees are required per city ordinance in lieu of park land dedication. 28. The bluff area shall be shown on all building permit applications for this subdivision." Bluff Setback Variance "The Planning Commission recommends denial of the variance to the bluff setback requirement based on the variance findings contained in the staff report relative to the bluff setback variance request." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Development Review Application 2. Project Summary and Narrative, Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 3. Letter from Joe Richter to Robert Generous dated 11/22/95 4. Preliminary Plat(reduction) 5. Letter from Ted& Kathy deLancey to neighbors dated 10/22/95 6. Memo from Steve Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 11/27/95 7. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 8. Lotus Glen Proposed Development Bluff and Wetland Setbacks 9. Tree Removal -Lotus Glen 10. Memo from Bob Generous to Planning Commission dated 12/5/95 11. Memo from Ed Hasek to Bob Generous dated 12/1/95 12. Planning Commission Minutes of 12/6/95 13. Letter to Robert Generous from Dwight K. Jelle dated 12/22/95 with attachments CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Ted H. de Lancey OWNER: (SAME) ADDRESS: 7505 Frontier Trail ADDRESS: Chanhassen, MN 55317 TELEPHONE (Day time) (612) 934-7214 TELEPHONE: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review X Notification Signs //5 J 9. X Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) 10. X Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ �Th A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 81' X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. * NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME LOTUS GLEN LOCATION 7505 FRONTIER TRAIL LEGAL DESCRIPTION (SEE SURVEY/PRELIMINARY PLAT AND NARRATIVE) PRESENT ZONING RSF - SINGLE FAMILY RES. REQUESTED ZONING (SAME) PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION LOW DENSITY RES. REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION (SAME) REASON FOR THIS REQUEST SUBDIVISION TO 9 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS UNDER THE RSF ZONING DISTRICT. This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 41111. -_ = i t J C 3 ' 9„S Signature of Applicant 4 Date • G Z / 9, Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on 1)- -7- %3 Fee Paid ,9 ? — Receipt No. 5 7 3 The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 14180 Trunk Hwy. 5 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 612-937-5150 November 6, 1995 FAX 612-937-5822 LOTUS GLEN Chanhassen, MN PROJECT SUMMARY AND NARRATIVE Ref. No. 95297 PROJECT SUMMARY PROJECT NAME Lotus Glen (Plat Name) LOCATION East of Frontier Trail at Santa Fe Trail ( see Location Map attached) APPLICANT/OWNER Ted deLancey PO Box 24 Chanhassen, MN 55317 phone; 612-934-7214 PLANNER/ENGINEER/SURVEYOR Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 14180 Trunk Hwy. 5 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 contact: Ed Hasek phone: 612- 937-5150 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Generally- Lot 13 and part of Lots 14 and 16 lying west of a line drawn from a point on the south line of Lot 16 189.4 feet west of the Southeast corner to a point on the Northerly line of Lot 14 112.5 feet Westerly from the Northwest corner of Lot 14, Auditor's Subdivision#2, Carver County, Minnesota(see sheet 1 of 5 for complete Legal Description). EXISTING LAND USE The property is currently developed as single large lot single family residents. Structures include the residence and two small out buildings Wesrwooa Pmressronal Servcn Inc is an equal opportunity employer The property is currently accessed from full frontage along Frontier Trail to the west, and a 33 foot access on Erie Avenue to the east. Surrounding land uses include single family residence to the west, south and east, and beyond a common outlot to the north. DEVELOPMENT DATA Existing Zoning: RSF, Single Family Residential Proposed Zoning: RSF, Single Family Residential Existing Guide Plan: Low Density Residential, 1.2-4.0 un/ac Proposed Land Use: Low Density Residential EXISTING CONDITIONS The site consists of rolling topography covered approximately 76%by mixed overstory canopy. The site elevations range from a low of 912 feet in the northwest corner to a high of 974 feet along the east central property boundary. Overstory vegetation varies significantly and includes areas of willow, boxelder, oak, and maple species. Also, dispersed throughout the property are several cherry,fir, spruce, and cottonwoods. Site soils consist of the Hayden Series as described in the Soils Survey for Carver County. The low depressional area in the northwest corner of the property consists of Glenco Series soils. Slopes in excess of 30%exist along the north edge of the property adjacent to a drainage way flowing into Lotus Lake to the east, and in the south central area of the site(see Existing Conditions, sheet 2 of 4). The property was viewed by a wetlands specialist, and wetlands were staked and surveyed along a drainage swale running south to north through the west central part of the site. A significant portion of the wetland as delineated was previously disturbed by the installation of a sanitary line and a driveway crossing. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/REQUESTED ACTION This proposal is for the Subdivision of a single large lot consisting of approximately 8.9 acres into 9 single family lots under the RSF zoning ordinance. Lots will be accessed via common drives, or private drives off Frontier Trail and Erie Ave. It is our understanding that the project will require no variances. We are seeking Preliminary Plat approval at this time. Fmal Plat application will follow directly. Site Data Total Site Area - 8.9 ac. Total Lots - 9 Single Family Net Density -1.1 un./ac. Gross Density -1.0 un./ac. Minimum Lot Area -23,265 f s.f. Average Lot Area -38,560±s.f. PROJECT SUMMARY AND NARRATIVE LOTUS GLEN Page 2 Phasing With approval of this project it is anticipated that construction could begin in the spring of 1996. Project completion will be dependent on marketing success and is anticipated to be finalized by the end of 1998. TREE INVENTORY All trees 12 inch DBH were surveyed and tagged in May, 1995. Diseased and severely damaged trees were subsequently noted in the field. A list of all trees surveyed is attached as Exhibit A. ENGINEERING Grading The site ranges in elevation from a low of 912 at the proposed storm pond,to a high of 974 at the east central edge of the site. Initial grading will be limited to that necessary to construct the utilities and private road extension. Each lot will be custom graded to suit the home to the lot. It is the intent and desire of the applicant to protect and preserve the greatest number of the overstory trees possible. Road alignments and tentative home sites have been located to minimize impacts on slopes,trees, and wetlands as much as possible. Water An 8 inch water line will be looped through the site along an existing sanitary sewer line from Frontier trail east to Erie Ave. A 6 inch line will be extended north to the end of the private drive to serve lots in the eastern half of the project. Individual services will be extended to serve each lot. Storm Water Storm water will flow along proposed streets in drainage ditches and be directed to the storm pond via the existing drainage way on site. The proposed storm pond is being designed to handle drainage from beyond the project boundaries in conjunction with the City's Storm Water Management Plan. Sanitary Sewer Sanitary sewer will be designed to gravity flow to the existing 8 inch line which flows from east to west across the property. All residential services will also gravity flow either to the existing line, or to proposed extensions. deLancey Residence The plat has been designed to accommodate the existing deLancey residence within the setbacks of Lot#3. A redeveloped building pad has been suggested on the Preliminary Plans, but the disposition of reconstruction of the existing structure is unclear at this time PROJECT SUMMARY AND NARRATIVE LOTUS GLEN Page 3 CONCLUSION As with many properties in this area of Chanhassen,this is a difficult site to develop. Given the canopy coverage,topographic relief, and the limited opportunities for access to the site,we believe the project, as proposed, is well suited to the property, and provides the City of Chanhassen with a large lot residential development it will be proud of. Lotus Glen is consistent with the comprehensive plan and conforms to the City's zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations. We respectfully request your favorable review and approval of our proposed development. PROJECT SUMMARY AND NARRATIVE LOTUS GLEN Page 4 ' •...-• -*- N.: .''',i i•,, •� �. .At • .••.:‘. 1...N- t'' 7,* ,.,t_ � � •�fe'•y.�‘ ,fir.t ��•a•- �, '• '"� -s i . ...... C ,+• Y1 :'�-''`....i...,..--::::7--. .:-....,_: •��' `f�_:s�+ www^�^. .+ �:IiLK+�; +� •r • i. "'` ate. _ �.t a ,i �. . .„ ._ `- ,mayYa: ,f/ ••' ..:0:71: _. �►a1.`` .h ,,', ` C .?: �. �. • .��/�'. • a r:-.c .may �1, / . :� �. ` •, G..:1• '.-ie• •! "•+ -- e....•'•'0�_ 1 �'. `•• .. �y^� !` ?.,.r�i -it • --tzt• ,i„S' �•i . �r•.1 i• `;�/t `"Velah 1 .ids �� ,�• -` � 31 •.; • • ,► may, `- yy • •d. -vr T^-•T'�. !.' ,•/• _�_ `4.•,.... .. ..- 1 .�/ `sem0. ....;-.4---...41.-......;, .. -...=.-... • � i' sr " .M is 1.,i•, '� .%' !' /.44',/ f . bim, ` -•:-• •. -• ��. iir ',^ � •y..: ‘...‘r!‘-';'1; •r �•p + orf'✓�'�jL' /'Y�a•'1".'_ fr ;'��}''�`� •+"�' �.• -�i.�i� � •, 44., .� sl. r ;yam. �• , .I 1, ��•. G�' -.1.`••••;;-:-.....„9 -4.0,-- 5'_'y�/�1►t.. ', 1..--. ~'_..AR� - �.�`�?+.� • .�'' err E i.''''1,.,.-,: :4°-'= , , ? :'• `+:"1.• : 1 `f Zy • .; Ar , •11 ;,, �• � �y jam" • fy y4�`,y,r.�,. �!�' -'--�` �'` /A1 '14 04-f ir rI :` -17 ..� , `� `� 2.1 ac. �* . 'v �� . 7._,..t glitt�� \'‘.., V N•Y 2. b - 1 , 'fir( `_��I' . ?I'll '' if �+•_' • ,�. r �'• �"/' ••i.. +.� �1 • • We j- `f 3: , 36.5 - • �. , ,i Ilk 1 . , `= � kik '4 ` ;'. • .�1 :dc� • 7,5/ �. ._f_c. - ;•r • _ + r. , , ,..., tie • A.... )p-,- . kinic.14,3-). ,-..- ... :, ,. . .st..... -• i.,, ...,- : •;1\.: r • or): 4••••7. 4.-:,-,, ..,., t•••• ,,, ..••••2'.. El ; : ..'. ; , klec't if, d 1114,W,- ''- :tt.. : r F., 5 ft "-• 1 � i!Z4 :t �4 ';= SUBJECT PROPERTY • : .. '10iiol ... Zit.....'"N't A - 7:`,... Via 1 ' Al rak' ... '1,k,-,z"!.... .-''......:_:::‘.... i '; -. ,'., AA• ..".5.4-_iv -4A. - 4' ._k4/ ..,,t: -A.'„ it A I .--Ii. it-.1 ,,,i7,, .„..t . , , --,...- . 4.. kt ' . ..,-,:".1,- ,..:1•.e,qt,.-4 .r. 6.8 ac. -.--....: , 4..,-,,. r.„., •9. 0 71s,,LA - siK,..,,t../..f‘t. •1•- - 41\ �i.'! i.' it '..*-• . T, !.:. ' .1.1 , '.i. 1 iti ' ott...,...i.:--"). •Ii.,, • art +t _� • o':' a 1 i- 1 ..•k.,. ..•".„a • fr t -� • ' ... A It ' "` r i .7' Wit k...._#,,r....."!iii._. ...t. 1: .••••••>-------".7". *:" . %'a ..4. k ~ r 4. .,:i":"..: ,. .. :\ ca. . � 1l y � •; : N. • -- , ti •41,: ' :is)I _ y. -26 _III . . ...�. hove�e�71rI:jfak It. '0:nt. .�f t+pI :. '•,!./ � _ y- • City of Chanhassen Air Photo, 1989 Total site area 8.9 ac. Total canopy cover 6.8 ac. = 76% Min. canopy cover requ'd 46% BASELINE CANOPY COVERAGE LOTUS GLEN Scale : 1•=100' STATE OF � C�) CS �OO �1'Q DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES TRO WATERS, 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106-6793 PHONE NO. 772-7910 FILE NC November 22, 1995 Mr. Robert Generous, AICP, Planner II Planning Department City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Lotus Glen Development, Ted DeLancey, Lotus Lake, City of Chanhassen, Carver County, (City#95-22 SUB) Dear Mr. Generous: We have reviewed the site plans (received November 8, 1995) for the above-referenced project (Section 12, T116N, R23W) and have the following comments to offer: 1. The project site does not contain any Public Waters or Public Waters Wetlands; therefore, no DNR permit is required. However, there are wetlands on the site that are not under DNR Public Waters Permit jurisdiction. The project may be subject to federal and local wetland regulations. The Department may provide additional comments on the project through our review of applications submitted under these other regulatory programs. 2. The site does not appear to be within a FEMA designated floodplain district. 3. It appears that the wetland is being converted into a primary stormwater treatment pond. In general, we are opposed to the primary treatment of stormwater in wetlands because the sediments and pollutants in the stormwater will destroy the wetland. We recommend that the stormwater be treated before it is routed to the wetland, or that the wetland be replaced. However, the determination of what is best at this particular site should be addressed by the city and other agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands subject to the Wetland Conservation Act. 4. There should be some type of easement, covenant or deed restriction for the properties adjacent to the wetland areas. This would help to ensure that property owners are aware that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Chanhassen have jurisdiction over the areas and that the wetlands cannot be altered without appropriate permits. RECEIVED N'1'.' , % 1995 QTY OF(; pNfyHy5 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mr. Robert Generous, AICP, Planner II November 22, 1995 Page 2 5. The property is located within the 1000-foot shoreland district of Lotus Lake (10-6P), which has a shoreland classification of recreational development. The shoreland district extends 1000 feet from the OHW. The development must be consistent with city shoreland management regulations. In particular: a. The development contains bluffs and steep slopes. Topographic alterations should be minimized in the areas with steep slopes. No work should occur within the setback from the top of the bluff. b. The structures in the development should be screened from view from Lotus Lake using topography, existing vegetation, color, landscaping, and other means approved by the city. 6. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments: a. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The measures described in "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas - Best Management Practices for Minnesota," MPCA, October 1989, or their equivalent, should be followed. b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, the contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriations permit. It typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. c. If construction activities disturb more than five acres of land, the contractor must apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Dan Sullivan @ 296-7203). d. The comments in this letter address DNR- Division of Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, Joe Richter Hydrologist c: Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Bob Obermeyer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gary Elftmann Chanhassen Shoreland File z I 1 ' ! o E 1 0 I ; � ; .1 i , r I i. I I. • - I . 1 i , t CA 9 A I; L # 1 �1,. -4, r • -. _ _ ____ .... .00/P‘o,*.°1°."'"'.......sio r----- ' ,4,.. wif Or. ....., ill ‘t, /,./.,:-.:; -i:: � 4 if c �il. i`�'` ' � � � ��offj12:\.!, : ! . ,... er.o,*5;°.. -.MM!Mln :,, 1._ .007111.%4'1\Ak&- b•-• `` 446,! , I z t- .V 1 • 7 E+ .;', 4 I : A. , \ ''"' (,;;:,:..441114... .jeap4lhb Niik \_ , 1 i7.1 • \ _ ) . i } r /� is $fi ; r Baa 1 ,! ctaei� f`.ii=_ I g 1 iy 'a, t`: g tc�r� C1iia,- GI d;;o - 70 ,`. 3q p a ,{p,,�_ • N 'c;aa r Viailt ; o pry.,CA ' y— - - a " g till Y y D :.:`4;_t: ' , _ if y l i I D t > a;5-•Rtf .1 c +h. k3� E8 Yom:@i; _ '�'i '; i -�j _• ti IettT: i 44 5 i illg14i tzt - X043'=. , ,� i �� 96' 5urvey/Prehi�ry Plan Tod 6 Kath deLaicey »`�.4 —' l`. Westwood_ ."" October 22, 199 LVED OCT 261995 Dear Neighbor, As a property owner within 500 feet of our property, you will be notified by the city of our plans to develop our property prior to the planning commission meeting. At that meeting, expected to be in December or January,you will be invited to give your suggestions and comments. We want to give you an opportunity to view our plans and give us your thinking prior to that meeting. We will then be able to take these comments into consideration before meeting with the city. We would like you to come to an open house at our home on Thursday October 26 - 5:00 - 7:00 P.M. or Saturday October 28 - 1:00 -4:00 P.M. Our address is 7505 Frontier Trail which is a yellow house on top of the hill. If you are unable to make these dates and wish to see our plans please call us at 934-7214 and we will set up a convenient time. Sincerely, Ted& Kathy de LanceP c-Bd, -P yr: • dv,_A1 CITY OF O °1t11, -- ClIANIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous,Planner II FROM: Steve A.Kirchman,Building Official •d•) DATE: November 27, 1995 SUBJECT: 95-22 SUB(Lotus Glen,Ted deLancey) Background: I was asked to review the plans stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, NOV 06 1995, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT." for the above referenced project. Below are an analysis and recommendations from the Inspections Division for the proposed project. Analysis: Building Pads. Due to the steep slopes on many of the proposed lots, staff will note to the developer that many of the foundations will need to be designed by a structural engineer at the time of building permit application. Demolition Permits. Existing structures on the property which will be demolished will require demolition permits. Proof of well abandonment must be furnished to the City and a permit for septic system abandonment must be obtained and the septic system abandoned prior to issuance of a demolition permit. Recommendations: The following condition should be added to the conditions of approval. 1. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. 2. Dwellings on slopes exceeding 25% and dwellings with 102" or more of unequal fill will be required to be designed by a structural engineer. 0v.Mr..m.sos,-4,1asa1 CICS 1p „,,_,_,-,,-., \\ L A n c ��E. ! ii Alirt.;.., I 1/t■ 1111 $ -= NOTICE OF PUBLIC - . �� f'., .: g _ `� HEARING 0IV -� LOCATION PLANNING COMMISSION illnum •• MEETING �,�'.r/�� 'yuA� w ///7 ��1; . Jit Wednesday, DECEMBER 6, 1995 yh ft l;;�� dr �� at 7:00 p.m. '1"41iii N�1i Chanhassen Recreation Center Rl - 2310 Coulter Boulevard Mu m'i© M ' iSrti •'�� V0 OP - . lllll llll 1111111 t ,v Project: Lotus Glen mil r �d Lig 6■ thHqn 0E11 ,I�J, L51. J 111 111110 WEj jjJ tr-;' u1 —I1II1110- /f%1. Developer: Ted deLancey 111W51Pe° Location: 7505 Frontier Trail , s�° il : (a m 'f' Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing preliminary plat approval of 8.9 acres into 9 lots on property zoned RSF, Single Family Residential, and located at 7505 Frontier Trail, Lotus Glen. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting,please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project,please contact Bob at 937-1900 ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on November 23, 1995. vathan&NancyAnn Castens Bernard&Kathy Raidt Christopher Buck II& 7605 Erie Ave. 7603 Erie Ave. Emma Carlin :::ha nhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 7601 Erie Ave. Chanhassen,MN 55317 Scott&R. Elleras Robert&Deann Hubert James&Roseanne Boyum 7591 Erie Ave. 7561 Erie Ave. 7531 Erie Ave. Thanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Celly&Melissa Lynk Andrew Hiscox Jeffrey&Joan Thune 7501 Erie Ave. 7500 Erie Ave. 7672 South Shore Dr. 2hanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 3tanislaus&Jayne Hamerski Joseph Pfankuch&Margery Morgan Jeffrey&Lena Tan Otolsi 7668 South Shore Dr. 7664 South Shore Dr. 7660 South Shore Dr. 2hanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Cobert Crees&Janice Almli Chris&Nicole Neuharth Perry Ryan 7656 South Shore Dr. 7652 South Shore Dr. 1000 Devonshire Lane, #208A :hanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Bloomington,MN 55431 toland&Cynthia Potter Thomas&Pamela Devine Josephy&Menaka Warrior '644 South Shore Dr. PO Box 714 7423 Frontier Trail :hanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 3radley&Mary Johnson Susan C.Hoff William&Ivy Kirkvold '425 Frontier Trail 221 Frontier Court 201 Frontier Court ;hanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 iregory&Debalee Cray Kennethy&Deborah Ellsworth Colony Point Homeowners Assoc. 00 Frontier Court Rt 1,Box 68D c/o William Kirkvold :hanhassen,MN 55317 Couderay,WI 54828 201 Frontier Trail Chanhassen,MN 55317 'rederick& Sandra Coulter Michael&Charlene Bogden Stephen Blaha 616 Frontier Trail 7617 Frontier Trail 7606 Erie Ave. :hanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 'nomas Pauly&Lynn Kor Kevin&Beth Cragg James&Arlene Zimmerman 604 Erie Ave. 222 77th Street W. 7602 Frontier Trail 'hanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Donald&Mary Goetze Linda L.Keeler Richard&Rose Mingo 7610 Frontier Trail 304 West 77th Street 7601 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 William P.Hanson Clark D. Horn • Robert&Wendy Pollock 7607 Great Plains Blvd. 7608 Erie Ave. • 7603 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Paul&Rita Rojina Douglas&Wendy Suedbeck Klingelhutz Development 220 W. 77th Street 7605 Great Plains Blvd. PO Box 89 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chaska,MN 55318 Glenn&June Mattson Anthony&Mary Doppler Paul, Sr. &Mary Jane Kausch 7406 Frontier Trail 7508 Erie Ave. 7554 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Dorothy M.Bongard Thomas&Nancy Manarin Earl&M McAllister 7551 Great Plains Blvd. 7552 Great Plains Blvd. 7510 Erie Ave. Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 James Hall Steven M.Rogers Vernon R. Sullivan 7561 Great Plains Blvd. 7520 Frontier Trail 7522 Frontier Trail Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Harvey Kruse&H. Forcier Thomas Harold Rober&Lillian Somers P. G. Box 67 7411 Frontier Trail 7409 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Frontier Trail Assoc. William&P.Dahl&K.Wagner Walter&Pamela Czerminski c/o William Kirkvold 220 Frontier Court 7417 Frontier Trail 201 Frontier Trail Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Richard Gillespie Roger&Marjorie Karjalahti Donald&Judith Schmieg 7415 Frontier Trail 7413 Frontier Trail P. O.Box 397 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Patrick M.Fitzimons Curtis&Nancy Robinson Robert C.Blad 204 W. 77th Street 202 W. 77th Street 7602 Erie Ave. Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 ._. ._ ...r.. �._. to 1 F` • tichard Corwine&Roxann Keyes Wick&Lorali Linder i orwine 7550 Great Plains Blvd. 7600 Erie Ave. Chanhassen,MN 55317 :hanhassen, MN 55317 \ \ 1 ( / / LOTUS GLEN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT \i, at 1 0 711 RAF • -- -••••A16' ��,(5.,/%//viii! i/te 441 � / / " � *) �c.o. ys • % !� j:�i .i �� :0.4 ;_ 7J •911+7: �. - /r�///I/i/� j• 11 hi -u„.•,,,,,269,4 P � �y,., Average 30.2% ,,01.rfl,/ �.,.+ ••.16113 -- 8 i .Yre n `10. 1te�I% `a�/��'-/ -...;,,,A,,,,,.....,..,,,,„,,,...,.... --— I 1'V J.[�JJ��i�///i tAwLL 25 U _ = SWAP 2/ i� �i� � !� "/'�1 //4://..-i lc "/ sy1„ / 9# ` :e \‘`'�•�• 0 IJP'J,�/////�� - j�`"- ,...•-•" � ' d M?6-24e)9 ouc .fig !� //� - I 31,70 /•v �` 2 P 9 i 9tl92t'/ TTUI+ 15., /704104112' � tt�'.�� Yet_ "_ 4 41 211.OA, AP 6 9119 11 I II , 99..ti,,,I , Rf➢.!e 1!1�'"�'N. �3 •H 9y(yy I 35 � i n.F• 01[FRr S) sum 11 , '9 p ` /_. ' 1: `40ASN pl '•• �r� .?1 • - r INN 11 \• ` 2/ 1 •9»_0.6YAP psi 9l�jn, //�� .' 6c�e3- Existing k 1 ` Nns.i 111 1. ` eslderice �` , '29'61-. ,r,•. ?3. P./. 'L- III '/ i \ AP. ., .7.----_ ----32..4 4000101111.1 .0• 11°,1000. 9t91, ,40 _ ,,,,71.:4,, . ROAx 23) ,• I . yr (4, , .4.,,, ).- ,,,,,.0.7.*,,A,. ,-. . /Zt \.Srl 14 rT ,. '4444J. , 1 _____ .�i - s:193. ' si C Cover 1{' 90M 1 IY 9171 F18 ,,:-., . 9RON(°2 ilk I i /' �7 �,• ) 1allk4 I 1. à1 : / X10Yinj 1 o,1R { . '* II--� 14 5/P� 1 `�838'/122'=29.5% y■ 1 1/ / C �• 1 �/w 955.. 969 i 7f1� '[ 1- .,,a4 12 i i �1r3L-�`� f 9 11111 *,in 1 1 ,\ 170 _ -1' A r ill ik)%;,..31), .��1 %I. , t 2• A M \ y�J 1 '19177 ' ,. ~4,- 38.(118X31 j�I.A 00.!%0II,10;/II �I ,!!1 .� I/-,..4 •39 - y�0 I _ ar 1 •916 6191915 1 IL/Pp'` Dre-0 li%4918�r11I%A�I�iI048'1 '3 1-'OM i ';/oM 'i \ 6 73 \ 1/1'19 I I} $ QIERRY 1`,` 1' s 5 .Ir!; Average 30.4% ,k? i'BOP +vl 91�,+916 7jl� , dri� 1 /viii‘ :';>‘ � , `, .... A511 13 I a ■l■ Y�9 • ri 919 3! , Q°/. 1 •., \ ll' CASH 18 '1 ••t7 (9Ya32 i $ 0.SI/ 131 '.-, At I 11, Alir 110 51. °I°"� \ Setback from LA9(1e 28•(1 , .t '`• \ 6 � •9 07 • ! '� 1111906 D _,5 t 1 '.w ,� \� �' 93. . 2, '1'Ig6A.9113 \ 19.'t 15 ' i ' 1\ Ak \\ { k; Bluff or Wetland Ill 1/ '\', '4,1;.•:-2-::: 19 6111E -- -0 !k, 35 5 �'.\ • t 1 020 'Sn 16 • _ " 1/ 924 \/1106 14 i 1 '\ \ '.tt\\��\ Bluff Area �W 1 ifiliriail. 0 ' i 0 1 I .._ ., AL i ----1-------—---- ----.:•-.-:.:F.-•.•- I — peiiAlla AR I -', I :=•..-7.4..-7.:E53:-=---.I /*Amyl;Aar,a pvi I -"."-- ' .- ...., r I § I. \ / i 1 H: 1 Fii 1, 3 311 II I! g 13:1!! /7 ' ) ' , .17 , ./--:-- - . _ I -- --- . .'•• ', -- .11._.--- ----,---\ ,• • "-- .. r - 1 „ ----..._ .,.,,, ---IV( . I t-----, • )'\ ii ! ..• , -, ! ----, , I 1 ) ' • . . – --t..,-1-1- - --1_ \ - i ' 1•;4 1 i , 3 1 .• ..”... - f.N J •'• '•••'- ,' ,_ ._.,. l - . • ' :.,,. ., -.1,. • !,• . -- • %:-._., ;--.., -- \ „.•,...,-.., z '-, %. -'. ,-,., ..;••:1,-.1-4..-r,f,--?:,.:-.-- -, — ,t -•-•-;;.-_-_-.--, , ---.,./ . ' ,.,.; 1.:-....,..,.. I.ss,-..-;...—.1-_—_,. -4 p-%•:.: :•:',--%.- : s-,,.., - 1 '• I 0. ..:.0 .., . ' ........ -4----- .- 4.' 1 .• 4.7*.ii.c:"----. -:-----$1: .-10-4--'-' 4 i.... 'it ' ...1.--:=;1.---.:-.•- 1aliftts : . , -. ri• - i a . _. __._ _ ..... i,. _. ... . _ • ......, ::. AL • ...Atit-''''''il - • — • - ..- f 1_airdeD6 - , • --••• • _...: AN " - - ' i.T9.44i! ,.----_-'' .„------ - --.---' • \--' .- - __-----1.,...„..........„-_____.------ ------"N*1 ... - . – • • .....• i — _____ —- 1 1 CITY OF \ CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Bob Generous,Planner II 0: DATE: December 5, 1995 SUBJ: Review of the Bluff Area and Woodlands for Lotus Glen-deLancey Property BLUFF Staff has reviewed Westwood's revised version of the bluff area and setback zones from a plan and memorandum dated December 1, 1995 for the deLancey property. The bluff area to the north is okay according to the definition of bluff and the bluff protection ordinance(Article XXVIII). The bluff area to the south should be stretched at least 10 feet to the north and south. According to the ordinance, the average slope has to meet a 30%slope. It is difficult to determine how many measurements to take when determining the average,however,any average calculation should be rounded to the nearest whole number. Therefore,averages of 29.5%or greater should be included in the bluff area. The ordinance states the structure set back from the top of the bluff and toe of the bluff shall be at least 30 feet. There is no discussion about the sides of the bluff. This is probably the City's first encounter on this issue. If the bluff protection ordinance is to protect slopes,prevent erosion, and protect the natural character of the area, it seems that the sides should be protected with the setback rules. Staff is recommending that the bluff area be revised to extend 10 feet north and south ten(10)feet for the southerly bluff area based on the slope analysis. In addition,a thirty foot setback shall be required from the perimeter of the bluff area. TREES The southeastern corner of the site needs to be included in canopy coverage calculations. The small diameter of the trees do not exclude them from the calculations since according to ordinance definition, "A tree shall mean any woody plant which at maturity is 13 -20 feet or more in height, with a single trunk,unbranched for at least several feet above the ground, and Planning Commission December 5, 1995 Page 2 having a more or less definite crown." This means a tree does not have to be a certain diameter or height to be considered a tree,but it does need to have the characteristics to meet the qualifications. Clearly,an elm that is only 1 inch in diameter can be called a `tree'. As for their inclusion in the calculations,canopy coverage include the area under the crowns of all trees, not just those with 6 inches diameter or more. The wooded area in the southeastern corner is a young stand that has grown up from a grassy field. The oldest trees in the area are probably about 7 or 8 years old and ages range down to mere months. It's true that the up and coming forest does not have a closed canopy and because of that the grass below continues to survive. Staff reiterates its recommendation that the applicant prepare revised calculations for canopy coverage and tree removal prior to final plat approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that condition number 10 of the staff report be modified as follows: 1. The applicant shall incorporate the revised slope analysis perimeters as the bluff area on the site. A thirty(30)foot bluff setback shall be maintained from the perimeter of the bluff area. The applicant shall meet bluff setback requirements and submit compliance information at the time of building permit application. The applicant shall verify that there is a buildable area without variances from the bluff setback on Lot 5. The driveway access to Lot 1 shall be relocated from Frontier Trail to the private driveway and shift the driveway access to Lot 2 approximately 180 feet north to run parallel with the grade. Staff recommends that condition number 26 remain as is. Attachments 1. Memorandum from Ed Hasek to Bob Generous dated 12/1/95 2. Slope Analysis prepared by Westwood 3. Revised Slope Analysis prepared by staff • Lr 4 yenta Fe �� - - _ 7.---------,...__------. I t" • all `\ t .....s. ...,....._ _'...)il i!v.,/ ..., -. '/ y Ste, �..r `J ,� 4• 1r , '-1•1:',-11--=---'-- _- . •_ -.; . v y . -4 t s�" ,7 • s. rVOIN • /�a./ ---45,5020_-__.:—tp1- - lr- x. . 0•moi _ a ` l %',�T3- •s.. � ofr #, -".--- .../ --.";:t\\\\ \ \' ' // ---,\----- • Q_/ . • t /• ter ��'i,. .. a'' _ • -� --31_0- „..., ..Alreanit,W...r!ift I ) ..„; ,. 9,, 6 I. A --- ;: .1 - ,-, OD de r. S! yiii # sib ...:-.*,<,0\� ` - }1 ...� (\ -1 -. / . -.4146t%.,.. ------- 411111111444.4, -7- -:\:::* (4) -i. i,4,-„,-.;:- -.-;:- -- .. -- -.----Aka. -_,.. ,-,-,4-Pc,„-s*‘‘,. -Nt.N. IA - - s's'‘‘-'.\ 4404p , 4%%71,__7-0-. „,..3.isirx .N.‘4,414:1/4 , _ -- 1 ‘,. * ,g /,..- z-8\-\•\,\\ O�� \` ;,� 'arc t� `?' ` `T � p i �'. r iy �• a -- (._ ,,�.Qi,\ `�\� i� � ` 1 , 'M., .111*11:11AN IR ISkill ON b t e• %, • ',.. ' .1.1alin, \ \ -76 ) \ \ '1*.'9Ait\!;4 . 4%4§Zit)Akik \ • . 4:1=1„,,,101 k it Itt,INV • 1 iss....,L_.,„/I------4. o .. • I ON / i tx Erie a-_1- • �/ Avenue x i -1 -- - -- \- - •- - - - - I g ? N m i l'iir #j 6 9 a or. = , > .,. , Slopes Analysis V T ��"led & Kathy deLancey : —'y'" — ` Westwood .". ,- LOTUS GLEN ,-_.. ,.._ .__._._. . mowno �. - _,_.t M Ch . nraota Mrt-_..._- vo.w •• I ! I I Westwood Professional Services,Inc. 14180 West Trunk Highway 5 Eden Prairie,Minnesota 55344 612/937-515 CITY OF CHANHASSEN MEMORAND UM RECEIVED DEC 01 1995 DATE: December 1, 1995 CHANHASSLN PLANNING DEPT TO: Bob Generous FROM: Ed Hasek RE: Lotus Glen-Slope and Canopy Cover Analysis Per our discussions of November 29 I am forwarding the attached Slope Analysis for your review and consideration. Note that we have included the Top and Toe of Slope as agreed to, and have also shown percent of slope at various locations to indicate where Bluffs are located. We have also indicated the 30 foot setbacks at the top and toe of the bluffs as required by ordinance. It appears that two areas of the bluff setback are being impacted by our current plans. The proposed homesite on Lot 9 in the northeast corner is currently shown as partially located within the bluff setback,but outside the bluff area. A variance may be required if this location is ultimately desired as the construction site. Also,the access drive to Lot 5 cannot be relocated so that it would not impact either the bluff setback or the setback to the wetland. As discussed, we do not feel that the wetland at this location can be considered natural because of the disturbance caused when the sanitary sewer was installed through the site. Not withstanding this, a variance may be required for the driveway to this building site. This A.M. I revisited the site to verify the Tree Canopy Cover. At this point I will have to stand by the Base Canopy Cover as indicated in our application. The open area shown in the east and southern corner of the site is in the process of overgrowing with a mixture of elm, boxelder, maple and several cedars,the vast majority of which are under 2 inches in DBH(many under 1 inch DBH)and under 10 feet in height. The entire ground plain is also covered with long grass, a clear indication that the vegetation does not shade the ground sufficiently enough to preclude its growth. We agree that some consideration must be given to the canopy and tree removal associated with utility installations and road and building construction. These calculations will be resubmitted once we receive some clear direction as to how the entire development is to proceed. If possible,please forward this additional information to your staff and the Commission for their review and comments prior to our meeting before the Planning Commission next week. cc; deLancey, Stinson I )11 -..._.__ ..! - ----__<",Z 'Sento Fe_Troir:>--------- .--- -- - 1. 7----________, z -F7g1er J ' /--� — r _ -tom/ .Q' V'.0 J ' f TY -'f. s - l -fie i S �, t.- .. =+ 'tib. \` Zi � % $ /':.: '`. _two- -. -7-"_.I bill 11111bilk,-..... _ .T?--'>."-- : ' !8"AS " ' / 7- ''..---A\,: -.Li., • 7..., mr.1 __1 VIS f r �, ,,E� Gl.E_S �4 `;C� ¢¢- I Jam., VI< -- /11!<• -� -r __,,,, v ,,, 'Tit-S - ..,'-*-- FE it---,,,,- gq _s-4 • ,• , x F ,••ca.- V.-ft i�'• ''r—i - \ .\1 Ix;aril ('•�� "i �i i'" c�i• cetyl/ ,- ' . ,,! ! /{J-- A. 1 • --.1 ----: 1•11111111&"), -•,../......° -• :-.....*.-- ‘ \ ' ',II , .S ��9,`,1�= /��r �1 [;i. / ? Y 1 �)i cue ,'� XI r . �., , 14, Imo; t: reis• • I. )< y ,Hari. 'E', �a`pp�w' .� • .11... '14 e ' . . ... 2 J. • Ly l'...1 .--‘11141,- 11141:11144. -4;-14,. \\\\14‘,,,V' ;,., ''''''','... 'ss, 0 4.4 -..` . 4111142141: - . •-•Alkik... sltkz,,,\-\ - •.. --„,‘ \ 40,11kr . - — -0 i. , , -_,., .,,,,,,,,, 4.1.„„,..,...... ...ik ...N., ,, , -..........,L) --�: et l'ik‘itObc' .S1t..4 N4\,:\ 4° n 1 .- :, - „ („31, .... „ M.--i a \ • )741m%& V% I....,.kNINIck;1„ -t. -ii • , 0 4'. i .." z i(....._ -.\.gi_ho,\ (...i...- - . " / ; \b cry gam` �� . ittik " 1 Avy \ >• -,11° \., \ \1 Nias.:7A‘‘kN.,,,. litikkAs Ar" 1 -----..--1 / i ' \ 4.-1;a7:\‘‘IA.- 1 tbk4.-1‘106,..%.\‘_.4k1/4 I °\ 0.1174t - .. -- tI / ?li • 1 • ;i-• 'Ivy, 1 O I ' I C ' v6tip /eb / • Erie 'y Avenue Is I - - - - - -_ --- — — 1 1 OH] Z v kg N I vi ct eI > ,s a$ I .I Sys Analysis 7ed & Kathy deLancey _ _, �. .. . _ I T. ' I - I "� Westwood Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 17. Individual grading, drainage, tree preservation and erosion control plans will be required for each lot at the time of building permit application for the city to review and approve. 18. Neighborhood identification monument signs require a separate permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mancino: When will this go in front of City Council. Generous: January 8th. PUBLIC HEARING: TED DELANCEY FOR A REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF 8.9 ACRES INTO 9 LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED AT 7505 FRONTIER TRAIL, LOTUS GLEN. Public Present: Name Address Ted & Cathy deLancey Applicants Charles Stinson Architect Don Streeter Streeter and Associates Dr. James Erland Chanhassen Rick Corwine 7600 Erie Avenue Tom Pauley 7604 Erie Avenue Kelly Lang 7501 Erie Avenue Andrew Hiscox 7500 Erie Avenue Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions from commissioners at this point? (Due to a taping error, a portion of the public hearing was not recorded on this item. Taping of the discussion began again at this point after the applicant and the applicant's architect had presented their plan and the public hearing had been opened.) Mancino: Bob, for Mr. Corwine. How wide is the...going to be and how close will these... 19 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Generous: I believe that the easement or the area is 30 feet and the private drive is 20 feet? Rick Corwine: I guess my specific question is, is there a limitation into how far a private driveway can be from a property line? Or from a structure. Hempel: No, there isn't. Typically the private drive would be centered in the 30 foot wide easement. Rick Corwine: Would there be a problem, okay. Mancino: So you would have 10 feet from the private drive to your property line. Rick Corwine: Right, okay. I would like to see some efforts made to offset that. The property to the north of that access strip. Their house sits quite a bit to the north end of that property and they have some trees in that area that would be a buffer. I'd like to see some efforts made to move that a little bit farther to the north of that 30 foot strip there. Especially seeing as there's no particular restrictions on it's specific location to the property line... Mancino: Is the northern neighbor here tonight? Rick Corwine: No, they're not. And I know that it's somewhat of a concern of their's. Well I guess I can't speak for them. Those are my primary questions tonight. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? Tom Pauley: My name is Tom Pauley. I live at 7604 Erie Avenue. Just south of Rick. My concern is, I probably live on the lowest part of Erie Avenue and there's a tremendous amount of water drainage that goes through. That ponds in my yard and goes down this creek...and when you get the 1 and 2 inch rains, there's a lake in my yard. It goes over to Rick's yard and the neighbor's yard and as long as that water's allowed to keep moving, we don't have a problem. But that's my concern that when you're doing all this, you consider that because if that water is interrupted somehow, I mean it hasn't gotten to my house yet but I can see it coming at my door. Mancino: Dave, could you...what's coming in now and will that change after development? Hempel: Certainly Madam Chair. (Dave Hempel went over to the overhead projector to answer Mr. Pauley's question and his comments were not picked up by the microphone.) 20 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission. Kelly Lang: Good evening. My name is Kelly Lang. I live at 7501 Erie Avenue, which is lake property on Lotus Lake. Two doors down from the proposed development to the east. My concern is driven from the whole reason that we moved to Chanhassen and that was the Lotus Lake and the quality that it has. We've spent, we've only been there on the lake for two summers but have spent some time recreationally on the lake enjoying it and enjoyed the quality of the lake and over just the three, last three years we've seen the quality of the lake diminish. Felt good last winter when the city came out with their plans for the surface water plan and the preservation of the other lakes as well as Lotus Lake in the city and I am concerned that on the plan, as I've picked it up from the city last week, they're asking that the Surface Water Management Plan be developed prior to asking for your approval and would ask if the city planners and commission feel comfortable with the development as proposed that will not impact adversely the quality of the lake because not only are you dealing with the neighbors, but everybody that's around the lake. Hempel: Madam Chair, I can address that. The city has another opportunity here with this development, as we did with the Lotus Lake Woods project to do our surface water management on the property in conjunction with development. Any easements...the surface water management plan does...to take the runoff and by-pass the... Kelly Lang: There is a drainage ditch coming out of there right now. In fact going into the left... Is what you're saying less water will likely be coming from there? Hempel: ...pre-treated before it discharges into Lotus Lake... Mancino: And right now that isn't being done. Hempel: That's correct. Right now it's an open ditch... Kelly Lang: Yeah but the development will bring more fertilizer and other types of lawn treatments that has been shown by the water plan or the people that were involved in the water plan, that that has...and what I just heard you say is that this pond will gather some of that in most instances but in major storms, that runoff will potentially increase the...and that type of thing through the ditch area. Hempel: That's partially correct... 21 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: Dave, isn't the city right now doing an education process with the Lotus Lake residents about fertilizer and when to use and which ones are the best and not to use, and especially in an area like this, I'm sure there isn't much grass anyway but. Kelly Lang: Yes, the city's doing I think an exemplary job on a lot of the things that have involved maintaining the quality of the lake and adhere to the non fertilizer use on my own lawn, but I also suspect that, I believe that families living off the lake, but near the lake, they will have less reason to feel like they are part of the problem and maybe would ask that the commission ask that the water level or the ponding level be increased to a 4 inch to 6 inch rain runoff into the lake because 3 years ago when we were waterskiing on the lake, I remember there were three very small patches of milfoil. Today it's 100% surrounded by milfoil around the lake. It's one of the degrees of quality that I've seen deteriorate rapidly. Based upon Diane Desotelle and the outside firm that they had come in and do some of the educational things last year, she indicated that it is the runoff and fertilizer. The lack of, currently the lack of ponding and that type of thing has created that type of degregation in the quality. And that if we protect it for the 2 to 4 inch rainfall, that's better than what we have today but with the amount of, I think not knowing what the amount of effort you have in creating a pond, it may be a small, additional effort to raise the level of the ponding and the wall prior to it entering into the ditch to protect a 6 inch level of rainfall. So we have a chance to prevent further degregation of the lake quality. Mancino: Is that ever done? Hempel: Madam Chair. This site here is an environmentally sensitive area. We will be working with the developer to size the pond as large as we can and yet preserve the trees and natural terrain out there. I'm not aware of any ponding areas that are sized, from an economic standpoint, for a 6 inch rainfall. That's like a 100 year storm event. More typical for a 2 1/2 inch rainfall is the standard set forth. Mancino: 6 inches is a 100 year? Hempel: Storm event which happened a couple times in the last year. Mancino: Wouldn't you know it. Thank you. Appreciate your comments and your concerns. Anyone else? Andrew Hiscox: My name's Andrew Hiscox. I live at 7500 Erie Avenue. I'm the property that's directly east of the deLancey property and I think this is great. I think Ted's done a great job of drawing a plan up but I do have a couple of concerns to go over. If you look at, if that's north, as you're looking at that rendering right there, I'm a little concerned about the 22 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 private drive and how close it is to the property line. It's already been brought up tonight that there's really no code or ordinance that says how far a driveway has to be from a property line. But I've lived in the house for about 7 years. I look out the back of my house and it's all woods. I see deer out there and rabbits and raccoons and things like that and it'd be sort of nice to sort of keep that ambience. I know nothing lasts forever. However I'm wondering if there might be some way to suggest that we put in some sort of buffer between the existing homes and the new development. I don't think that's, again it's not an ordinance but I guess I'd like to solicit your opinion on that and see if that's something we might be able to get put into the plan. Mancino: Okay. Bob, do we have any ordinances right now when we abut single family to single family to buffer it? Generous: No. I believe as part of their design they're looking for separation. I don't think it's more for, it's for the benefit of the new subdivision rather than for the existing development there. Like he said, they're looking at higher valued lots out here and that equates to higher value homes. They're going to think that they should have a screen from the existing homes in the neighborhood. Andrew Hiscox: I think that's great. How do we formalize that? Mancino: I think the Planning Commission will talk about during their comments. So what I'm saying is we will not give you an answer right now but we will discuss, as we discuss comments and make a recommendation or not to do that. Andrew Hiscox: Do we get to re-open that for discussion after you've had your discussion? Mancino: Ah, no you don't. Andrew Hiscox: Well then let's continue right now. I guess what I'm saying is. Mancino: This is not a discussion period. This is for us to get the... Andrew Hiscox: I understand. Mancino: And I will bring that back to the Planning Commission once the public hearing is closed. We will make comments and we will discuss it and we will take a vote. And if you would like further discussion, you may certainly do that at the City Council. Andrew Hiscox: Okay, thanks. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: Is there any other area that you wanted us to? Andrew Hiscox: Well, not at this time. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Farmakes moved, Peterson seconded to close the public heating. The public heating was closed. Mancino: Commissioner Peterson. Comments. Discussion, Peterson: I think all and all that the plan as it's been presented has been obviously thoroughly thought out over quite an expansive period of time and I think all the major areas have been addressed and it seems as though they've worked with the city and accommodated the wishes of the city into many of the design factors. Dave, I guess I'd like to talk a little bit more, get a better understanding again and it's been 20 or 30 minutes now. I guess I'd like to go over again the primary rationale for separating and then changing the road system as it's currently being presented on the chart here. So if you could just briefly walk through it again for me, I'd appreciate it. Hempel: Commissioner Peterson, the only consideration... Peterson: Thanks. I think that basically the plan, as it's presented, I think can be worked out between the developer and the city. I'm comfortable with it as the way it is. As presented by staff. Mancino: And would you like to see the applicant and staff work together on the suggestions and have it come back to see how it works out? Peterson: I think as...really hasn't had a great deal of opportunity to respond to the most recent city request so I think that'd be certainly appropriate. Mancino: Mr. Farmakes. Farmakes: This is kind of a unique development. A little bit different than what we're used to seeing. Typically we're used to seeing farmland being subdivided and being filled up with development and then of course we get people coming in from the development next to it who are upset because they want to continue seeing what they moved out for, which is cows and horses and whatever. We have a different area here. This is an area that's sort of been 24 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 insulated or surrounded by development for many years and it simply hasn't developed because it's owners chose not to develop. In fact the property that we purchased was a similar situation. When development started in the 50's and the developer held onto it for 20 years before they sold it. I agree that Frontier Trail is a unique situation. I'd like to see limited access. I'd like to see Lots 1 and 2 perhaps access off of that same drive rather than add an additional drive. Possibly rearrange these homes a bit to set them back from the road, if possible. Obviously the development's high quality. I think considerations for the property have been well taken into consideration by the architect. Other than the issue of Frontier Trail, it's quite a quality addition... Mancino: Thank you. Commissioner Skubic. Skubic: I also think that it's a very fine proposal here. They're certainly developing this with large lots minimizes the amount of traffic on...topography and the trees quite efficiently. I would like to see the applicant and staff work together to try to buffer the private roadway to the east to see what can be done with that. There's also some alterations that need to be made in regards to the bluff lines and certainly that needs to be worked through and with the uncertainties, I'm not sure that this should be moved up to the City Council. I don't know, maybe it should. I don't know. I just have a little uncertainty about that. There might be a little more work that I'd like to be done with those things before it moves on. I can be persuaded otherwise. Mancino: Commissioner Meyer. Meyer: I'd like to know, this shows a 9 lot...to the land, could they come in and do quite a few more? I know we had heard 23... Generous: Sure, you could do 15,000 square foot lots. Meyer: Okay, so what they're doing right now is really trying to develop something that's... Generous: Yes...especially on the top part of...planned unit development and then it's more lots. Put larger lots down here. They could have done twin homes development. Meyer: Okay. Also Andrew Hiscox had talked about buffering the private drive but actually the way I look at this, I mean there will be a driveway but they won't even be going past, it will be a driveway for the house but it won't be going. Andrew Hiscox: Excuse me, it will be about 16 feet from my back door. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Meyer: The building pad, yes. Andrew Hiscox: No, the driveway. Meyer: What I was speaking of was a private drive for serving all the houses and that won't. I believe that's all the questions I have. Mancino: I think it's a real quality development. I'd like to see it come back and I'd like to see it come back after the applicant and their engineer and architect have looked at the city's request for how to approach Lots 1 and 2. Take that into consideration and work together with staff on that. I'd also like to see it come back with the particulars for Lot 4 and 5 and where the housepads can go on that according to our bluff ordinance. And I would like to have the applicant respond to the homeowners on the east side and what kind of buffering can be done and what you would suggest doing. Bob, I had a question for you on the amount of money in their storm water quantity fees. It is $1,980.00 per developable acre and in the city we have calculated it as 8.7 acres. If they can't develop in the bluff area, should those be considered as developable acres? And what is the city's position on that and if the city doesn't have one right now, you can certainly get back to us. Hempel: I guess first what jumps out for me I guess Madam Chair is it still generates runoff as the other property does and it should be included. Maybe because it's a bluff and the lots are larger, maybe some credit rate that we've applied as a residential single family rate, about $800.00 per acre plus $1,980.00 per acre. They may be given some credit for that bluff... We can take a look at that. Mancino: Okay. I would hope that we do. Those are all my comments. Oh, one more question. What is a trench box? Dave? Hempel: Excuse me? Mancino: What is a trench box? On 25, and I brought it up earlier tonight and asked a question about it and I don't even know what one is. Hempel: That is a metal box that is used to preserve the cave in of the side walls when they excavate the trench if they're in an unsuitable material or high water table area. The soils will move on them and cave in. What this box does, it limits the trench width. Instead of having to be a 1:1 slope or 1:1.5 slope, it can virtually go sheer up and down with it. You just move this trench box along to protect the workers from cave in's. Mancino: You mean you just use that for water lines? 26 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Hempel: It can be used for sewer and water lines. The biggest piece of equipment though that disturbs the area is the backhoe itself running through there and turning and that's where you'll get the area of a 30 foot wide swath essentially being impacted by construction. Mancino: Okay and it's written down that they're leaving a 40 to 45 foot swath and is there, is it 30 to 35 feet? Hempel: If it's just a water line going in, which is very shallow, 7 foot deep, 30 to 35 foot would be the limit of the impact. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Can I entertain a motion? Farmakes: Yeah, I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission table the Lotus Glen #95- 22 SUB. Mancino: Can you wait until the motion is done please. Farmakes: For the following reasons, as listed in the Minutes by the chair. Mancino: Okay, is there a second? Skubic: I second it. Mancino: Any discussion? Farmakes moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the preliminary plat #95-22 SUB for Lotus Glen for further review between staff and the applicant. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. A question was asked from someone in the audience which was not picked up by the microphone. Mancino: Well and Bob, we need a guide here... I haven't read it completely because we just received it so I feel uncomfortable giving you my thoughts on it not reading it. Have you had time to read it? Farmakes: I was given it just after the beginning of the meeting and I do not have the bluff ordinance memorized, although I was involved and helped put it together but I cannot, off the top of my head, along with 15 other ordinances that we're dealing with here tonight, make a comment on that... 27 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: ...we certainly will at the next Planning Commission meeting and I know that that doesn't help you because you want to go ahead with your plan. Another comment was made from the audience at this point. Mancino: And you may also work with the staff on a variance for a certain lot also having to do with Lot 1...we would certainly entertain that. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: JOHN KNOBLAUCH FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF 8.35 ACRES INTO 12 LOTS, ONE OUTLOT AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT-OF-WAY ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; A VARIANCE FOR STREET GRADE OF 10°/y AND A VARIANCE TO WETLAND SETBACK OF 20 FEET FOR LOTS 11 AND 12; PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YOSEMITE AT THE CHANHASSEN-SHOREWOOD CITY LIMITS. THE PROJECT IS KNOWN AS KNOB HILL. Public Present: Name Address Marc Simcox 21600 Lilac Lane, Shorewood Diane & Randall Schwanz 1377 Ithilien Joanne Dake 1336 Ithilien Bob Hansen 1344 Ithilien Michael Reid 1328 Ithilien Jim Donovan Chanhassen Jim Emmer Chanhassen Tom Wilder Shorewood Mike Prebble 1352 Ithilien Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: I have a couple very quickly. The accepted grading is due to dwelling type? Is due to what? Hempel: Well the street is proposed right up through the hill there to preserve the topography as well as 10% street grade and...There's not going to be as much grading probably...staffs 28 Westwood Professional Services. Inc. . December 22, 1995 14180 Trunk Hwy.5 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 612-937-5150 FAX 612-937-5822 Robert Generous, Planner H City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O.Box 147 Chanhassen, Mn 55317 FAX. 937' 5739) Re: de Lancet' Subdivision(Lotus Glen), Chanhassen, Mn Ref: 95297 Dear Robert: Based on our telephone conversation, the following information has been discussed: I. We have agreed to include the additional 10' bluff zone on Lots 4 and 5 even though the gradient does not meet the 30%ordinance requirements. 2. There will not be an additional 30' setback on the sides of the bluff zone. 3. We are requesting a variance to place a home within the 30' bluff setback on lot 9. The main reason for this request to separate this proposed home from the existing adjacent house. 4. We request to have the drives for lot I and 2 as shown on our submittal. Attached, please find a grading plan (concept) for those two drives. We have reviewed the horizontal and vertical site distances. and find that they meet 30 mph state standards. Frontier Trail is horizontally on an tangent, and the vertical profile is at the top of a slight vertical curve. (see attached aerial photo). 5. We have re-calculated the proposed tree loss on the site(including the S.E. corner as canopy cover) and conclude that we are at approximately 57%. This is approx. 2%above the 55% required (see the attached graphic). I have spoken to Da%e Hemple about the pond design process. Dave has indicated that the City would like to construct a two stage pond that may extend off the subject property. He is going to follow up on that information. If you need any other information from us prior to the January 3rd meeting, please give me a call. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. „- Dwight Dwight K. idle Principal copy: Ted do Lanccy RECEIVED Ed Hasek,WPSjCC 2. e 1995 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Westwood P.Messronai Serves Jnr ,an rola'nooenunnv emoime. ---, . .-...--- .,-:. • ,.,..= `,... - -- ,,,••:, . . .,;'• A asse----.1-•„ .., 7-ic..- . ..-/- , ILIg... . ••••... : ,,,,,,,,,,,,,•.-1,,-. .. 't---, .. „. -•:%,„*/ * .- ,0:-... . .. - . „fc., •., ...,,t„N, ''. ,..o'C'''',14,4, , ' . ,-.-, ,.„,......„ _&F- • ., 3-. ..,,.. .4,..1. . ,- .. . -.-4„,.. ...pc .-,,/ ,, s,. .. * .. — • 0.----•.% -,---k...,,-, , ;_„...: . i - -1.1.',..* ••.i...,!. • , ' •A",T''...-,kr '..t. ,' • ,.//;`.; 'i ''' ,.s.... . ''.. ' . ...r;00°' r. . . e/.. ..'''''''.7-,, ECT ‘UP-V1444.L.•,.. ,... , .,(?, 4,3,if -' :.1--::- ; .t• -' • •--••••k•; '=.,v.4.4; ,-- .....,...-"----_, •-----,..-- • _,-• —1 ( •,• ,. , -,/ ,... -74•-„_.,,,•„ ..,,''. .. .-,: 00.0.„,....104,----11-. k ' tv•-': "..'N'alip, -. - s-'` '6-;-;',.:;:"- . . ?••-",..%_, ,,_ -"---'-kg.'", , ., . 7-,.....:::, •z .,- ,• :',1_i,,i;0'1"4131`... :.4., •::-ItcAlL'.6". s4:.. ,-.-..:''''. .1"•1"'..t. ...,-4-,..k. - •_,,k- -'".% N, ...,, ,,,41 c '-r, 4, , - - , ,-.•- 54s5s:,2 ..., ".t• •'.12.; :,:: . ‘;'. , . . ,,: - i.,,._ 1 . 0,.f:i 40. fic ,- .:-L:;, L''^j--! -•_,- fe: :•-• .c...„ ,i,L', % ...4.-1 '''',. - .'li!. ' .... '1 ..- -_: . - ....,- •• - - :-.- 1-- ---„.....•-•:.- -..,',- •..,..-. .... 4,. •. --..: • ...-- .. . •••.7„_•'-•;, - ..,• V1/4,4.4010- -,. „0„irs.- .-.1' ,,•-,..7--e-,, - . - ••. -- , .ly.,....,,,-- • - -....•.: ......,..,;,,,.....,,, -,-,..., ----t4- '.-, - . . ,.,,-, .-r, *7--.-,....: -• ".,*Pro , . ' • . „. - - '1%.14sie...A..,_,"'''-'*--'_------ -4,--i• -•''---,-- ) - -p.... -:•-• •-;s7 c 1"- -......„_.-....**" ''''• ..-; •'it—H- - ., - -•.-"*".4.. *-v.* . .,.!l'I. ,,•••'!",.......j.,..0.'":„,,,,,,' . S.•- . , • ,-7 '..7,•-•k"1/471v211... .-t-'^• • - --s•-• ,. . . ,._. :. • qt..- . .--..,t,.. .i.i .-. ‘-,..-.,.v„..,_t. ,.7„,..,1/4...,...,.. .:_- , ,t.y.-_. .i.,.....,.... .0•7..."...„.,,,.;.,,,. '-riclk-',1,;',..,.. .,.... .,..7izerl'=-;••••- _, • . . -- i .:...:;•;,.:14!7 .. •••• . -":7-1•-"7-- -.. er •,..0- .--1'.,.....3 .--t, ..•-:•‘) .. . .` ....-.r --- ....;::,,,7-", '. ...i: •... ' " -.%• C '.- i.; ....-;,,. - - - ' 1- --.':''''t: --"r ,ql..*-- ' - '4"--- - .-----. .• -"P„' 7--'•-•••"'-'4*- 7.-'-'"-.-5E166"1.-1 - -4.-,— --1 ,•-•-••,•— • ••• • .' - . - .. ., -•- - ,. ....m.t..,•, . ;...•<-,• i. -• '...jr..' '''' .,'' -4',`.- ,:•*'' .....- " ,- pi- .' -ii.'. ••....,,... _ ' • • , •,• ..!-r:' ,f '.."•'it)\ ' '' a.,`'. 4'.' '\''. ' •• ...,84.''''' t'' .... ',Ili ....0i3.....- r"Iv'''.... .Z... . , ' .../., '4".9'' . . ,•.", : :..."-•:'• l'_ • ...„..,' _......1-;"--•'--" :,.244:‘,, • ' `.7: f ', ,-:z. : t: -,2-.4 .. , /. ._.,. „ ,.....„,,,.. ,,,, .c , ,./, . : ,,,,,„.... , , t.)...,., .,ori.,scitt. .. . .. ,.... ...,....4.7 .,., _,..i.s‘t± . ,t..--,t,,H!.....-- !,:,,,,g,.. ....,,c:\._,:..:_ . .....wa......,, , ,-, ...,,,,,,,:fr,1 .....-1..... ... , , .- t.c6,,,• • , .. . m ..po, .__ _____4„.x.,..„,,..,„ .s.l.v..,1.-4?. • .,./ • . --Nix - , ---.. -...A: -:-1, . •is ..- /...-,7 ,1 / ./. , ..-:-. - • - ''',a,s,.. c •-•,......„.__?..„. „..,...„,440% • . - - - .".L'''44,A-•A‘I'Vit.: •\ -- , 'ic, ,"+ 1 '• 1-- ..r't-....**"'. ‘4,. '0., ,, ,-, - • • '1, • , Tzf/ .. ...., -' ,-;T ' ' 4... •r • Vt;' s.t, "'..1..4.7.).,--•14 e\ '% •:-‘ 's"'j li ' • K.'' . 4F • 6 ••• " -.-ttl 4 l''.i" .nd.• fr'eTt / f- - .:. • ..-,,,-, :. ' - ! -. 1'.1/2,'_ t......4' .1 •ii:-.' ..•:: -:11 ;:' ^'-'; n •° •'i a,,•.c •e, ,.(.4..„) T -'4 '14'1 . ::'' lis:k..•P3'1".1•e - '',:i. . ; . :-.iT:: 'Iv' li, 0 . .. - :"., fik....*,‘..:Ail/ ... . '. ;:... •°' • . . il:,.itt,, ''''„"•,("..1,, ' -. '" -'.• • i -'4-- -T.'?". . 4: ..:-.. '•4 , ,,-.. ..: I d, -,:, ,,,•• 9.- , i•e., .. -•, • -• - "I/ . I.--,..i..-:• • :-.1..0 1.. ,_. . ,• . - -^ --„,,Z„.• -- ----4' " \', n- %,,m-1-• ' i•.:-. .".• .7, -5 4,,.: •11, : .7,41/I . • . . Y " ii6i .., -,t- • '1%..,.:4,-,1-. '44 VI -v. . • - ,, . , , ..t, , at ,,., . . .vib.n—i 1'-' -7•..- ,1 - *7;.,-ii, -• ' ••••••• /7 :A.-- / .•11 ...q. t --11,;?......N., .......\,,,..• . s .. v.. .. ... x. i ,, . ....; .. ...,. .. .. ...i.,„ •,1,7.,..3 - )...,1, . , it,v,:z‘ ZVI .4yi - ; .. .... -; 4.- \ !' • ^....1 / • ' '''‘. . 's'ii ' 'N '';-,1„,- .‘ - ' ...4,,,--N, • •-• , ••• •-••„k„.- , 4._ .2..t1/4: '--; , x -,-e 4. -----_. ,-, . i. - ., ./ ,. .., ,...,„, -..,,.. ,..x 4... ......"...14 _. ., . - '•••... - .-•.. - ',2 ''‘ N. • '.,t'.....:t•-• ,_ 101. . .....,:stkp..m: ,- , ... -I, ';'..„11::..'ZI. ' 4.- . '.= . . ,,,, '1•-t.- .g. x.'•--'ti;,;:i- , .'..• , -'.-i-.:( - -,A2 I-0 We-/Y6W-C1/f ?'?Ite / A - .4, • ; wty_... ........ .. _.., ... ,k0;q..,2;;___ •,,•-": . '..-. 4: , t.,.:,.7.......*r: N: ''• '.':\ ''",1•1%* 1- -- :,;ill.- ;.N. .' - ck... ...„.„..-^----.,-- .).,.1 k,iy111, .. i.-.,,,,,,--, k Al.-...,.•*',...'. .,.......ier',.,-.. ,• .„- n-,......,,„.--..,..„...,...1.4, ... tx.7 ,...-...• i ' '4, ' 44,, . 1'0:1 1::•.••:.7 11:: Z' .'t..... •••''';,,, , ' I. ' '.t... *I. •:4 4: i'''1.,..t AV,;Zia'. A s'',.„` .,. `..-4-1p... Olik' , e-‘• .. • • ‘1. . : ..: .._ 11.--... i, : •.: •:.* ' :. ..' 2. ,_,.1,_. --: , iii. 47:0„ : .z,,p‘., Tt, ,.. wr.... .. .. ...-,.. ..:.:;;,‘ •,•. _.• ' jai: .....„....:a SUBJECT PROPERTY ' '-* 1 --,-,z-Itt,:--r7 . ,..,._..,5•;y' . . ..k., .1 0:: - . -•.,.,;--,:•,-• .146".1,4. --,1 1 .;• \'‘. Tifirr..41,...„7:. .. .............- . -_-.4z.-,... ...--i, .i .L, 1 tt .., .4 .1: ••;.? ,'t. . :;•• , .: ,,,-_- ., .- --.. , 1 '"3. .. .-.• . ,_ -,.. i.,..., . ... ,...„, •:1.....:-1, . t,-,,.„,... -ipia. --. ,4i , 1 ‘ I - 7-7.- 11 " •' - ,` •••-4.41. 4, ' %e",-,a, \ \.. i- ---..,..--,.-, -,;.-,.-,..._, '.-: . .:.. -- _ . ,.--,..._1--,,,-!:.;c IA.,1,-•-•.i..:,, . 1 1 ,- - NI ,-.: - - -, ,...,• 4 '-rN'‘'. ''4',' 4 --faA • •- "i ' "'; ..'i --- '‘.. -. .. '1,..*'' •-- . .... - . • ...,...,.'r.- ' -' .4 . h7'''. ( ., 41;;,:::': -<?-0,t,c— 1:...:5,•..,:.•:-... -4., --•-• .1:',-s- :_,..'-` " -.4-:i• -- • 4 ).....'" ‘ .-----..s, 00- VC - • "tk ' ''.. .' -'14103 ' '' • ‘., c. ., •, 1 r. ' .'k, , ,i. . • . r- „,..A.T,• , r' ' " 4".40t,i,;je‘k Wis it: : 'P.L. .. I., .,!. ... .i, , . 1mi •--• ..,.., ,.,... .-. . ,.- ........1. .... -,4A ___- -47' t•-. . •.. _A, .1:•_,'„,•,r,ii., • -•ik; ' to '. 1-1, '•:,..8t: .,,, %--t`-ts,w,-.;.. •4-,,—. ,--, . 7.,-, '4.sr,r?.-4-.1:.! •-•',i,,b-q- 4-- -- • - .;-,,,...,N.. •jil I"'"go„Y., ,1,,,,,,... .•••..., Njiti,.; it 1 -,, . 0 ••• , -1.;,. . s,'%... ..-......_.,;,..-:......„4. .•..:•.- r.z..7...;••• , ••/:,,,'I,„„z:Z. - . c .-77. '*' ' ) ''''.. . ..ti:-.,''l' I'. ,a .51'1V.• i-‘‘''''':;"*.'...1'*' • '.., ,,'itilk ...$.14-....,.,-, ‘ -, ca:sz....._, . _..,1 4., -44......,..t.,,,,t\,.. 4.-„,, ...,-.-.),-,,.... .,-..,,..„..,-...:•,..,‘,.....::: ::::,.:... ...,,,„:::::::.••- -,.....ik _.--5--,... ,- -,•_,..,. ..... ,;.4.) (72/ .,cs„...._..... -,_ --....„ . ..• 41,4,„.. ,,,,,, . .,„ .,..:.A....._,•_ . . . • ., , _, •,,,t- ... -4.,si•k, ,. ,-, •:-•••• :.,. , •• ....,,, •,4 •,•,. ,,,,,: ...,.,..- , • •• -. .. ,:•_-:' pl• -- ,':',( . r..,114)-7 -, 4 44:4!" . .''%''';c 7'!.. ' it‘:• `,*.,. , ..'t ).01.''qvr 41 ' r - ti, 4 t't, 13 ....,:•-' ,Ase v- -- -i.,- • ' .., • ...m."-• -* --:.:A :V"%t_.!-... — :t..--4--"'•.:;- ',, ._ 4• 1:ri,,,, . • , ' ',z -,b,.,_ ,.. • 441°•-% IN -ts7\`'. ..,---Elk,AV-itA r.,4,...,....,•"- . I. • ;. „.. \ . . • - '7' • • • -' -7-'6 .-- ' 4,*1 .960.—. . --,711,..:t. 147 \-"'\:i•1,7:!.. 50,5 :7; ''' , .4:44,'; -..-.,t ', / ii ,a, t's '" .%, ..:0'..L•ei,..:\ '.' ‘-`4:, IV i ..!.' - r..J.-::-•:- --I :. .. • -;j L:I ....Cti-;* .: . _.--t,',-..-‘.. - , 3. k. :.-r.'iti`- •`'-'' '30! N.- NsiiNI :=1):- -v-it . - • 3gliet *: ..,A.wr . . "... 11" -N•m-ki, -11-1-'.;..- - .? L..;'``'.•-•',"' -, P • . "' '4- '"IrAt Noikr a : -,-3,.:: -,tz- - • k• 's •1--;.! 7— 10 'S • -“i - 4 L't :-'t- "e. eS'ft-4 .".1. •‘" ••'.-- •%'0.7 '• 4:16.‘iaf%• ``. '-• -••-4 1 '' •. \'' .. • I:-174 • I f.r•" N ....- I:. -•-•-•*•-•...•2, "'" . .4 III ,.. .." . 4 LI I' .... ..... ' pde-ad • .... AIN:1 •14.• .... ... .. .•14..1;.Fii..*4LVAlii,2/ .„,.flul :.. .,y ..,..p......,,it:t-. .-•.7.1`., ,..,•'• 74• ' 7, -1.1 - • - •,... /7-- .. .111t( 4';', ' licOi.-,a 3. • ' . ...,, N T.,•:'::; if 4110,r, ,,,,,:)"„-4-7, ,k-•••-liviL --St * -. s....,-„,,....,.;....-:. ...-.A,,1,,. ....,..2 ...-1.4.;:::,,c0._ ..- 4.- . ...- - .,1/4,N.-,,... -' "-•-• ...... ottir'. :.... • ree le<-- Aeic‘ sic-,-;... .. 'Nek.e...„,-..itiv.-.....-i—.....i'_-.74iiiitirlvi_ILr-:.-t City of Chanhassen Air Photo, 1989 Total site area — 15.14114. Total canopy cover — 7.414:1 . (18c1/1643 Micl -41. Mm . canopy cover requi . 44. (.44 • BASELINE CANOPY COVERAGE LOTUS GLEN Scale ; 1-=100' !,77 -00.C/5 /C•i.. ••!. • ,-,___.• . -..„w, . _...._.4.. w . ..14,td(J.------.---N.. •••%• 1 .• ../'...".-.'.' ..,Z.4',NIN.,..' .1• ' •. ..\.,..iti.,_'', 4K___,._,-• -, . -. ,/ 7: ",41," ,--. .,') .-•--- --- 1-1 ..-':?"*"Cs. gIN:7''- • • • "Nsi.' - . :',' :.., 'W-- * '. . ..•. ' ,.7,'''. • :1' "4.--'!--I ve.a."4. v, li. • //'‘7.0,1/71.,,•"--•': ,---:: -- .1-'.1;''. ;:,--_37,-,----.:NZ-XY,'..t 7,--- ... \ • ',.. *.‘ ..; t1,, -'i ,'r....",..''..I.Itt Act,' '', ''".1.-. ..., . 9. •- -- •:1F,/,/ ,7/. .•_---.. _•;-!„.'.. ,-...----„s_.,--k-k:::,...1..,(.. , ,,,,____ ,7••• , (if... ."-- / ' ,--ai 5. 7 ...„0.4".-;•ei,4•''"1-.4....."' -4. a• k-5-,- - • ...,/." ./77/ . J.''':: ' • Iiir--;.;- • •-.1 -,"2-1-711:%.4kV-1 l'.... : •‘.• ' . •.( t ' ...- .1:fr'....'''', -4V\ - ,‘"':. -..et• - 'P.:, ... -'-'44',_Al 7 lx$ir-,' , ',i,Z -,.....--.•- •,_----__.-r-1-1,-,-, '•4c_1_4-:-.,-la,%-`•.,..r.:_t... % .-,Kit:,,i,:... .,,, tislt‘sal ,...,4,...0 i sz. . „....,,,,, •:...'7 • v., , e,',1„, ,.. , .,..".4?:,....„_2___:::---;,..- -i./ 7. ,.,,,,.. ..•••:, ...„..• 4.4114r4.1.-17.14./1:f •••-gt.'•,:e•- • ••••:.,:4,/''',. •••/.0.(.-). 1..," .• ...,,Y ,..* 1. ,',.,". ._,,pyJt•••14.'t••••'"•'----' • 44 4W...•.- ...4..,:Ak`.••..t.,•••-=3--:.•:-- . ..,_ r ,,.:. ,. --,;•:.,.. .4,7•••111,,‘ • •••„1,i• ..."•••• ' ' 2"••••••...,... :„..S..,„.•:•-•;....5-...„,>; ,,,••• ' ,f,'-'1.-' , ••,,,,'""dr-. ----eic'oz...- ,,,122-4-,.."-Fs:-.._-";.: -7;_visck;N„,-:,'.',.....,14„.-..A.'"-;•.,•'4, .: '" . - .c.'.. ,•,•, -,/ .,,N, %,'• , iz'.*i : ,,, -',' - ;r:..t-'.-',.&:>!,,p-' • •,-.1---.'.-.•;/-li;Oet7:-.:'..., _:.:;.., .'z--: )i,.. tti....7 k-/71.„.:. ( , .,175.,:,'. ',.s.•::tr.i.%,.., it...P.; ',.. ,- '.. '‘.c..-•'•-•:-...- -.., ••••• 7 - ' ••••-. . -74;101;?/..,,-,, „ 4 7 .,,....,0111.•••,"... •• '-.-I-../Ww• .--`•••44,... ••• 4, --7"..4.,9,1- ti.Z.1,1..:,-,4_-- '.•Z--=-,,:1.' * /- • • •.4y-, •'• -' ••••'•.'''-'" •:"11; .,.., • .. .1% '4.: - lit - III .„? iii7 '4141' ••/,k.44-107,61&.•••-.-7, -4.42kr.24.:14.6e,, ..-->..„•:--•:' .''••:"'•••••: ....'st''` 4 k. . . tt'. "''' '-L• i-•• .47 •.; ..;•••4; ;• •-•N•4:li:e."•. .6,000•4k. . ..-5 . . '......c`,4' . . -."--r-ri- ' . . . ; ''''' • .4----," -- - 141r•• 00.4.00;..0-....„0.1r-#.1". _.•,"'1.40'5'*"..-Hler.:., '' ',:tjkr-' ''' "-le•'>'-a- 36'-'''`Ln---ik4L.:°'tk-''• '1---i•Yik;•-j'-::.A'.'7-':l:--"';:'ztit%::* . .,7A1.,..: • ,• A ......,,,,...„...,,, ,.....,,..... .,_. . ,f,. pet,-,•".....,...je,,,_ .....1e1010.4rj:...47.1",.4:,....,:- • r„..:,...• . .:......--=-.. ___..... -.--'..-',.„....27.:-.......-....11.-5..,_ .-.. ..-!--• ,.....;,,:z.......... .itz .s......: 4 .„,,„ ,•,,f ,..),_ . . .• .. ..;...• e..o.1 - ..,„,of • 1. ,.........v.ilt..S>':. ,'',. '''. -......_ii--,;!..,.•...1,-.:-.--r.-4.7'...:. „ .;.....s.,,g0;: ...4.v.A. ...• '. .,..t.-- ,, i .„,. ,erdr...w....-...- • ,: ....... , . ..„ - ..,„)...„,...7:...--.......,- ...e...,41,.. . •• • - . _„...-„,-.\\......... •• n.,,,. .,... - . •,, .1/4-V- • ‘`. ' ,' "c - • r‘ -;** •' 4,"ne. , s" • 4 ••,--4. ,-- . ' 4,4 • -, • 4. ,,,e.„ ..,.w: . ..______-:-;-.---.:.-z-. ''',4s :, . ' -' • .--'/"... ' s'.11 ' • - ‘'..,...• ve •:t-11,:di. .. ' - ' ) j / . -=:•• -s . . !..:•r•••• e..-‘, ..-, '• -if -- 4*,.. 4:••'.- 7---‘"Zi L- • , -7 ;".."•-, , A • , _::..• ,,,,iii41119 -. • .,...-.1„, Nr•-• .7:. ... • . - '1 / i' •:r: •( /; \.7. -- ! - •- / •: i v „, t.. . .3....••1,...' ••••.,••• 4,,.z,...ti.c( ".. * ks ,... - , „It:, , .4.• , .:,,,,,.. :'cc • .. , V • •,:: ...- . . • _ ..• , • - -.„ .t, s.--'4, t,§,'. X7 . \. ' ''''.N, :ill,/ lw,-*,,. ',,.1.. ,:: : t.... .,•, , .. ,v . Iiaii .:•, ,. ''' c: ' -•..-: ,J . . . .... " .0;,. ‘,., ,,....._. '2, . ‘i.z. V. :'74' . -i. ,, • * '- i- : •• !l" -. .'-ik''- _ 6_,;i. 7-411.*Zt. 4 e- •„-.:• 7 ,.,\N.i.' ,-'•,,_ ' • 4‘(---'.-%h, - -;-1.41. ,,.." -•. . ,/ - • / • - --•- • 4k ._7w./...' • .r. '.' ' if. '''‘''-0 • -I --. • 1 / - A '.... sti._.' - '‘‘ tt'..• .).,\.!;t -`41 : •‘,9 36-5 1-• -.7 • - '/' . ,- • x•...,•-• , • ,.--.1•-•'• r • / •4. . . - . ,:...'t. • 1 1 . ..,' . ' •••• •••: 't• 4.. ''',:,.113:-. , • .: ...! `At ;'.... :-.. --'1.,!••••.• 4. \ I If ',-Z4•;-' ;....,, 'e, ..) .-,-., 4 .:- i :I• r, 1 •• '.- - - ' c`'•/'• -4, - ' ' / . NI ..-1k- 'IL': '• . - '.• •41, -. c 4 .. •i .41/„.1 i.c of -imk.-ili X‘` • •‘,..\.'.:\..;:•"• 7 '•4. ‘C''.•• ' ).' 9' - •it‘T, 1 . 1,.. .- . ,•-.... ..1.._. ./...... :- \ Ill . )::414.-• '"Xit ‘4) .... ‘ u. ..t• 14 ..7.VY I *, .. . •V i!. •,,- -iiiilst- -1/4. .... 4 - -...-' 11".•i_;----•7•,:-.... .....-- •';" N•...;.t".1.--.',-• 7•Ww• i. : _z, ••••• ,•,,A(, .....03.,-,.. . 3,/ : . 1.!,...- • - . ,,,,, : .. ,,-,. ,x,- -i, Az& `.._.4 . e: .,:?'L:,:.• •iric, . . 4 _ •••.• ,•' 1,-r. .1 .7 'S. :•„*!;"' . . 2:• • '‘! V., SUBJECT PROPERTY ist ...i • 9 \.:,, •-• •,.,. ) . i -I. 4.- ,__.. I 1. • '- filit. ', '11 -'4' I • i' , . .....„. .......5 - . LV; ,.. .1*. .. •-cf). l'. '...'", 74c,11 ^ • --.A k ':$•SI.:Ii', ''.''-',:471r7:;::-..;•,_.....: . ----.A.• •," ,\..'k ••• -..- A\ • ,k \6 • .). ii`k s .,.. k,-•',, -,.. • ---- ' • ,' I . - 'i-i. "* '--- '.:4‘-' tt. ' ,-1 ,.. \-•+. „ •1 ,-, M.. ,--4 ..:,- i,. E2• ,,,it..,14,14;,„c,.t., 2........... ..,. 44,‘,.-,,t1 ,t44,,,,.,„-$.... _ 1...., w,n,,..... .........,n ,_..,,, ,,,,,,„, • ii.,•-.> II477...,.‘':\:•.,•,-- . .4,. • - .4, •,. .:44,,,,„,•. '4114.',,,. ;- •11.• -4 wlir‘. • •• :41 e - -• •.' • -11.-4il‘b: It, '44 . 4.•':4A1,;... .21:.,..te....77,1‘ , •'41;t4\ 4.....\ t.. •••,,, -1'. ,...1: .113E„..0/::.;--'1"•'•-•r; .1,t..-., •i•• ••• • •• • ' ''.1 Nt 4 'Cll. ••• ,..". 44 •47..-•••.: X4 _ar7;/. 0,b, ."----' 0 ' • •N•44' .' ' • - •'• •„ . •10. • . a •"-l• • .. ,••: • ' •11. ('''' / • .---- • •-: • , \ , \ . 11118_41111111 .. ..,,, 4. - ''. ‘''. Nlie.- • . . ... ....-• . .-- 1- I.'" ' .t,•_ ..„,,,,..;! .4.:, * • z- •I .t V • ' ' ....7 --.• . . - \. , .. . .7:::....PA. A'' •, -. . >• - "‘e . ..; * - . ... ;,.. ,i,,,,, • •I. -INV• .....?.... , .. ,... ' i .i. A 11,s ,,- • .- ,.., Z.!! -1 • kt% ,A, 4., - .- .k .. .., ,- ,. 7<-1 • ,._ fli.-,-..- Ike -.) P4PI' -•,....;11..r,ii -.4•,,-‘,1„1,„, ..k., ... L„,‘„4., ... • /00.-. _ •..,.._ i r 27"-.g/ .4., •..7.".,.. '..; . ,• : -1 '•-•-• - .,-. :./ ); .,-..'.• ..-„"k - -.,. •-!. '..`-,4.,-7,--44,-il'ii-:‘-:•$;"44.:7 A 'i '• . - [k 1 -..( ''-'•.-'- --- F 1"- ' '••- * -1.':-!:- "' ,, '. ". -''''' . .,:'. • ', A. _It..--44.-17=‘,.,..;,2-. , v-,-i-1: ,•'it .. % !' 4-- -`1`;'.-V•.01 1.'''''1.,' ' ' '-'•• • • • . • -.. ...' • • •- * . -% '.',A.'i 1;4 •' `.,,-,\1\\V\ •-• P ....."`'`,..:_ht ' • ', .--- !..L.I't i- • $1.t. : • X". • 4.- 1 - --^444-4 .-,-. .-• -. 1.f,st r : '.....3cr 'r-s. ..4-'• -1, ''.' 1 I• .. s / : TW:1.11- -N.nal. i3:.....;'1 44:O..' lfr• -tit ..YRI• 1...; ...:_fr. 4;_:•:' 4 COL". -,rii".1*,1:r.t••' ''' S-g!....:• "P.-.112... _ ...... "...- MI .4 _,__-,..--...._:..i Total site area - 6.9444. City of Chanhassen Air Photo, 1989 Total canopy cover - 7.c)614. (89%) Canopy removal - , 4:114. (4Z.%) Canopy remaining - 4. (.946. •( 56%) CANOPY REMOVAL LOTUS GLEN Scale ; l'=-100` It • + - '' CI) t tC) \ 'gid( AK 2/ - c0 k ' • 1 �� tai ra \ B `i S 16OE/ Cp • t:-1, �� ' 14 in ` r� \, , : aSEME EL. F. : , 14 X . .�. ► RuA1-. 1 f:� • --- -- \ x 9ZC�.o �� MY .15 GA:>H 4 � 1t.t.7' , F ' .1`R (. \ x r ,.,, 1 \ 1.- ‘... (le ..,,,,, '-''f\'` .:\i, -''' \ 1 k k, N. N• t 's \ A ;\ 1 `` • • x G FI 1 ;.A 3\ \ t.GM. 1 1'1 x • X, \\..�4. ) • \ • ifi x ....,... 0, r ` ' t;A` H 15 Cr t , ASH 1 \ i %.4,........ ::iti ,....: , , l X \ ii ii\‘‘.-- app 1.1 G. x G V;A ) 1-ir \\ �i GA Al x G SH 13 Yri �L. Aiit0s. 16 k S. 1 ; SH1 • x . z 1g, \ , 29 ' ,..0 }-1 it: ��'48 `-Ly. 1 -,, i +-9 n ` x V\' T 17\ a GA if iA,::1. ! 1 ' GA.- 1 z °13ti1 -1-• .t 950 ..�.. ' ,'` '�. BA"' � �:'uT1 P___. �1Z�.nx G .stir= � x r A.,F '.1 x x .,F x GA.-}1 1, r.r >F 1 GA: H 14 A 1'F.:Rt)A 18 x ' RF X)AI 12 REPOAK 20 \ x R_DOAK 5 (1 �1` RE OAR 1. 1 Gr l� 1 1 WeTr„n.strood 612 9 4% M. S w Eda.vroI'4.ur4 5534♦ 612937--55 150 ^ 4 •1 ! I CITY of CHANBA, SSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: John Rask, Planner I DATE: November 29, 1995 SUBJECT: Proposed Text Amendment to the A-2, Agricultural Estate District to allow Retail Nurseries and Garden Centers SUMMARY Mr. Don Halla, Halla Nursery, is requesting a text amendment to allow landscape nurseries as a permitted use in the A-2 District. The Commission tabled action on this item on November 1, 1995 to receive further information from staff concerning the different options of allowing retail nurseries in the A-2 district. On November 15, 1995, the Commission again reviewed the proposed changes. The Commission tabled action and directed staff to revise several of the proposed conditions and definitions, and add an intent statement to the ordinance amendment. On December 6, 1995, this request was removed from the agenda due to a shortage of time. Accordingly, this item was rescheduled for the January 3, 1996 meeting. BACKGROUND The broad issue associated with this amendment is whether or not retail sales should be permitted in the A-2 Zoning District. Staff indicated that retail sales in the A-2 district are inconsistent and in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and other uses in the district. However, staff recognizes that pre-existing conditions exist which may require special consideration. The zoning ordinance currently prohibits retail uses in the A-2 district, including retail nurseries and garden centers. Wholesale nurseries are currently allowed as an interim use in the district. Existing retail nurseries are operating as non-conforming uses or have expanded illegally. Recognizing these pre-existing situations, staff recommended an ordinance revision that allows retail nurseries to exist and expand provided that the operation complies with established standards set forth in an interim use permit. Staff is of the opinion that permitting retail nurseries Planning Commission Text Amendment in A2 District November 29, 1995 Page 2 as an interim use would allow the option of converting the property to a use consistent with the comprehensive plan. Allowing retail nurseries or garden centers as a permitted or conditional use would give permanency to the use. In 1989, the City Council requested an ordinance amendment to create interim uses in various zoning districts. The purpose of the ordinance amendment was to give the city flexibility to accommodate and regulate uses that may otherwise be prohibited, but which would not pose any real problems if allowed on a temporary basis. In February 1990, upon a favorable recommendation from staff and the Planning Commission, the City Council approved an ordinance amendment creating interim uses in various zoning districts. As a result of the ordinance amendment, Wholesale Nurseries were changed from a conditional use to an interim use. The Intent Statement, as adopted by Council, reads as follows, "The intent of allowing interim uses is (1) to allow a use for a brief period of time until a permanent location is obtained or while the permanent location is under construction, and (2) to allow a use that is presently acceptable but that, with anticipated development will not be acceptable in the future." Land uses to be classified as Interim Uses were to be based on the following criteria: 1. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty to avoid the creation of defacto nonconforming uses. 2. The character of the use should be such that it does not adversely impact adjacent parcels that have already been developed in a manner consistent with the ordinance and comprehensive plan. 3. The use should be such that it would not inhibit the future development of adjacent parcels in a manner consistent with the ordinance or comprehensive plan. 4. The use should not require significant capital outlay or result in site modifications that would lead to uses that are inconsistent with the district or comprehensive plan. Permitting additional retail structures in the A-2 district would make it difficult to prevent other retail uses from occupying the buildings if the nursery vacated the premises. These problems can occur in any situation where permanent buildings are constructed. An example of this would be the Sorenson Cold Storage building located on Highway 212. This building was constructed in 1988 and was to be used for cold storage only. Today, three businesses illegally occupy the structure. Planning Commission Text Amendment in A2 District November 29, 1995 Page 3 One alternative staff considered involved allowing existing legal non-conforming uses to retain their current status, and require that any new buildings, storage areas, or other improvements be subject to the interim use requirement. This would allow an existing business to remain as it exists today without any termination date. Staff is not recommending this alternative. This alternative would also be in conflict with the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. The intent of the zoning ordinance is to eliminate nonconforming uses. By allowing nonconforming uses to expand through an interim use permit would discourage the future elimination of the use. City Code, Division 4. Nonconforming Uses, Section 20-71, states that, "The purpose of this division is: 1. To recognize the existence of uses, lots, and structures which were lawful when established, but which no longer meet all ordinance requirements; 2. To prevent the enlargement, expansion, intensification, or extension of any nonconforming use, building, or structure; 3. To encourage the elimination of nonconforming uses, lots, and structures or reduce their impact on adjacent properties." The following is a list of properties located in the City of Chanhassen where nursery stock is sold either retail or wholesale (see attached map): 1. University of Minnesota Arboretum - zoned A-2, an arboretum is a permitted use in this zone; 2. Lotus Lawn and Garden- zoned BH, retail only, Business Highway; has a conditional use permit; 3. Wilson Northwest Nursery and Wilson Prairie Market - zoned A-2,wholesale and retail, have two locations in the city: One where trees are grown and one market area located at Great Plains Blvd. and US Highway 212. The market area is a non-conforming use; 4. Gorra Tree Farm - zoned A-2, wholesale only, no other buildings are associated with the use except a single family residence; 5. Erhart Tree Farm - zoned A-2, wholesale only, no other buildings associated with the use except a single family residence; 6. Ben Gowen - zoned RSF, retail only, this is a legal nonconforming use that has been in existence for years and they have not intensified the use; Planning Commission Text Amendment in A2 District November 29, 1995 Page 4 7. Holasek Greenhouse Inc. - zoned A-2; wholesale and a limited amount of seasonal retail, green houses are associated with the use, wholesale only, legal non-conforming; 8. Halla Nursery Inc. -zoned A-2, wholesale and retail sales, legal non-conforming. Staff maintains that the only appropriate method for allowing retail nurseries or garden centers in the A-2 District is through the Interim Use process. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the zoning ordinance amendment as submitted by the applicant. The applicant's proposal requested that landscape nurseries be a permitted use or"legal use" in the A-2 District. Staff developed a proposal which would allow the applicant to operate a retail nursery. Currently, retail nurseries are prohibited in the A-2 District. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend Sections 20-576(7), 20-1, and 20-257 to permit both wholesale and retail nurseries in the A-2 District as an Interim Use, as outlined in the staff report dated November 27, 1995." More specifically, the amendments shall read as follows: Amend Section 20-1 to read: Nursery is defined as, "An enterprise which conducts the retail and wholesale sale of plants grown on the site or imported to the site, as well as accessory items directly related to their care and maintenance. Accessory items may include fertilizer, potting soil, garden tools, seed, pesticides, pots, and other gardening supplies. The retail sale of hardware, paint, pet supplies, power equipment, and farm implements shall be prohibited. Nursery may include greenhouses." Retail Sales is defined as, "Establishments engaged in selling goods or merchandise to the general public for personal or household consumption and rendering services incidental to the sale of such goods." Amend Section 20-257 to read: Intent Statement. It is the intent of this amendment to recognize that pre-existing retail nurseries and garden centers are located within the City and may be in conflict with the Planning Commission Text Amendment in A2 District November 29, 1995 Page 5 comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. These establishments pre-date current ordinance standards. To allow for planned and orderly development, the City finds it necessary to regulate the expansion or intensification of these uses and to provide standards for any future retail nursery or garden centers. It is the intent of this section to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating the creation and the expansion of existing retail nurseries and garden centers. The creation or expansion of these uses will be allowed only by Interim Use permit approved by the City Council. The following conditions will apply to wholesale and retail nurseries: 1. The site must be on a collector or minor arterial as identified in the comprehensive plan. 2. The minimum lot size is five acres. 3. All storage and yard areas as wells as buildings must be setback one-hundred-400) fifty (50) feet from public or private road right-of-ways, and three hundred (300) five-hundred-E-500) feet from an adjacent single family residence or a minimum of fifty feet from a side lot line,which ever is greater. 4. All outdoor storage areas must be completely screened by one hundred (100) percent opaque fencing or berming buffered from adjacent properties. Buffering may be accomplished using berms, fencing, landscaping, natural topography, or increased setbacks. The City Council may require storage areas to be completely screened by one hundred (100) percent opaque fencing or berming. 5. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday only, .. .. _ • . .. ' . . - . Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.. The City Council may further restrict hours of operation if the use is located adjacent to property guided residential as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. 6. Light sources shall be shielded. 7. No outside speaker systems shall be allowed. 8. A termination date shall be established for the interim use permit. The use shall be permitted until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no longer permit it. Prior to the permit expiring, the applicant may request an extension to the interim use permit by submitting a new application. The renewal application will Planning Commission Text Amendment in A2 District November 29, 1995 Page 6 be subject to all city ordinances including any new ordinances enacted after the original approval. 9. One wall sign not to exceed ninety (90) square feet, and one monument sign not exceeding twenty-four square (24) square feet in size or eight(8) feet in height shall be permitted on the premises. The Council may further restrict the size and location of signs if the use is located adjacent to property guided residential as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. ATTACHMENTS 1. Map of existing wholesale or retail nursery sales 2. Planning Commission minutes dated November 15, 1995 3. Exhibit A - Halla Nursery Garden Center Inventory 4. Exhibit B - Halla Nursery Advertisement 5. Memorandum to Planning Commission dated November 8, 1995 6. Memorandum to Planning Commission dated October 25, 1995 A =sew B D 1 i t 11 I I ! I I ^! C_ - 1 1 ! .1 1 t- -I , E t l f E ! r 1 t i F I t l .--..16grA..";11W-St:oi% _ /Ai*.7..W4-114 rill?.-.r41:1E-I07-1,„.., -742,1- ftiffM ak74413 ' 47/I - ',Oath 1 ili.4,54N3'_17. -...441W..-1. Om.iiltnahlWr P 01114'"' a.1 — .�m�ii: - -_ . _ ,is- — .�, t .7.1,-,—,..--...... cF,. 4,1 lArf .►• .1111► f�` - -- moi-' i !; ' � = ., _ : ,.sem ` - • ,-.,. "", '°e=_'. _ '"y Aw dimmil 11 .1‘,'' r l� • ., i a... .lel '^-c 4....+•w Iii—'u Ar I _/ten -„m”+1IMI.� Tela` etc `�. �'. I •�L 0 • cwrr rri `.fr'8 .C` ��M •� �. 'wr[ �� —' ziai.:::_____J___ .....,Ai G 7ai11.j C L ..•Zvi ., zs.3 �— ---- ..4/ oaf �. 1 ''L\444 a,...:... ti " it ti .. 1 t Via. - �. i 1 1 ; .‘.,:_ li, .,,,.40"\.:,,.. -''' :;-.. :-.1-.7:.--------!---71 ..: - -;— -:1 :41°1-'----.7 .--".;. r. ..-._ ' � \ �_ - '!•� I ia i � J J • _ a 9 r CITY OF w I - - .- - - ( I 4 CHAM ASSEN .4- — . BASE MAP :' ---� - - /---.-.-1---- -----,___( ______,. ,-� J ,... fid. w�--1==,...„.,.. - �i ... '' — ._ .,,, ... 0._ ----, .._ _______- _,..._ ,...4.,:,.... :__ , ., ,... __,4, ,• , .. , ..._ lip /•f . --1 ,,,,,,,,,, _.. PREPARED NY: sue, CHAN{4SSfN ENGMIEERING DEPT. •�� -` ''''r .r --- --... +{, C� REVISED 1rM..'99= —J V. Loy ---1 r.et ,, 6 a•rr 1 :ap--- - ------ — , 110 u PROP S = . JTH _ ITHER .Y 7 WHOLSALEi _"." _ II • SERYaSALE 4 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 1995 Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Bob Skubic, Mike Meyer, Nancy Mancino, Don Mehl, Ladd Conrad and Jeff Farmakes STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; John Rask, Planner I; Bob Generous, Planner II; and Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE FOR LANDSCAPE NURSERIES AND GARDEN CENTERS IN THE A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT. Public Present: Name Address Verne Severson 675 Lakota Lane Mark & Kay Halla 770 Creekwood Don Halla 6601 Mohawk Trail John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Do the commissioners have any questions of staff at this point? John I have one. If it is a conditional use let's say, and we decide on that tonight, and the conditions are met. If along the way, after 3 or 4 years and there is more single family development in the area and we would like to change the conditions, is that allowable? Rask: No. Not unless the applicant wanted to expand the use and would come back for an amendment to that conditional use. Then you'd have an opportunity to re-evaluate that. But no, you couldn't. Mancino: So you'd have to be very clear and think ahead at this point, unless the applicant wanted to expand the use on that conditional use. Rask: Correct. Farmakes: I have one question. What is the precedence for the other tier suburbs? I mean typically outlying areas around the metropolitan area you see a lot of nursery, tree farming. That type of thing. And then the transition that takes place from that, leaves agriculture and enters into the ag urban development. Eden Prairie. Eagan. Some of these other areas. How are they treating this transition issue? 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Rask: Yeah, I don't know how they handle it. Have been. We didn't survey any of them but I would imagine they're probably operating under similar circumstances that we are. They're either non-conforming and the area's grown up around it and they're allowed to stay as long as they don't expand. Or they've done it, a similar process where they would allow it as an interim or a conditional use and deal with it on more a site specific basis and not permit it outright in the district. Farmakes: Okay so, the reason I ask this question is, it's more directed towards the issue of retail sales of manufactured or value enhanced goods versus a crop situation. And the question is, more or less how they, not only broke the transition or how they dealt with the transition between dealing with the retail business or however you want to define that. Making the transition or commitment equally for permitting that use within an area that may be directed for other types of development farther down the line and how that interferes or dictates that type of usage. And it seems to me like we're kind of trying to reinvent the wheel here to come up with our own plan versus looking at how other transitions have taken place. It would be interesting to see that since it seems to be a rather typical of our type of tier suburb to have that type of usage go on. In other words, if it's a necessity of commerce for them to survive in that element or that type of usage, then the decision is, is that appropriate for that area long term rather than interim use and I'm not sure if interim use kind of seems a solution to, put a patch on the problem but I'm not sure what the long term planning issue is solved by that. Mancino: Any other questions at this point? Conrad: Ah yes Madam Chairman. John what's, who do you think the impact of this ordinance amendment change is on the Halla operation? Rask: I think it allows them to expand within reason. It gives them that opportunity. Currently they're operating under a non-conformance situation so they're pretty much stuck with what they have and if that's okay with them, they could continue to do that for eternity for the most part. When it comes to add an additional building, the interim use permit would allow them to do that. It gives something back in return by giving a termination date but it does allow them to do more with that site at this point. Conrad: A 500 foot setback, is that a restriction? Rask: Yeah, that's currently in the ordinance now. That is one of the standards listed for wholesale nurseries. What we did is just pulled those over. Certainly we could look at providing some other setbacks here. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Mancino: So you're saying in effect with the setbacks that are outlined in the staff report, they could not expand? Rask: The setback 500 is from an existing residence. I don't know if there's any existing residence out there that close now but with the subdivision coming in, it would probably pretty much eliminate any additional building once houses are built out there. Mancino: I'm sorry for interrupting Commissioner Conrad. Has that plat gone through final platting? Rask: Yes it has. It has not been recorded yet though. It got final plat approval through the Council. Conrad: The distinction in the motion that you gave us, I really had some difficulty dealing with the garden center and a retail nursery. Final recommendation really talked about a retail nursery, not a garden center. So basically that's restrictive in terms of the product. Rask: Correct. Conrad: So there is some impact. Rask: Yeah. I think they have, if you look at the definition of nursery that's being proposed here by staff, Halla may have to eliminate some of the items he sells based on that definition. The definition's intended to keep it more for those products that are directly related to wholesale and retail nursery. Not I guess what we would classify as a garden center. Something that branches out to other areas when you sale hardware, paint, stain, things like that. Fencing. Storage sheds. You name it so we're trying to narrow it down to that specific use, which would be retail and wholesale nursery. And limit it to those products directly related to that. Mancino: I can say and I certainly haven't been to every nursery in the area but almost every. Some of those that are in that I have visited, that are in a neighborhood area, in developing areas. There's Kelly and Kelly in Long Lake and there's Tonkadale, etc. They do not carry the other manufactured goods. I mean pet supplies, etc and equipment and still seem to be growing and doing very well. Their's is mostly, well it's all on products that have to do with gardening. So I have seen that, as I said, in other neighborhood areas. Any other questions? Farmakes: I'll save my comments. I'll save my questions for maybe a later date. Too much too soon. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Mancino: Okay. Does the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission? Kay Halla: Good evening. I'm Kay Halla and I live at 770 Creekwood in the city of Chanhassen. Good evening Madam Chairman and commissioners. I would just like to address some of the impacts. We sent a letter out to the commissioners and I'd like to kind of respond to some of the impacts that the staff felt would occur with a permitted use and I think we're focusing on permit-ted use because since we've been here since 1962 we can't foresee being terminated. Anyway. One of the first concerns on page 2 of the...the staff gave listed that...not all A2 zoned property would be appropriate for retail nurseries and an example is lack of public facilities. I think if the public facilities are concerned, the city does impose, as far as we understand, requires that new buildings used for retail on agricultural land must meet B2 standards. And those B2 standards do include the handicapped accessible facilities so as far as I think if a retail building is there, that issue of keeping...facility probably wouldn't be an issue. And I guess I feel that certainly not all A2 property is going to be perfect for every A2 use. But generally I think it would be kind of looked at an impact that...hard to deal with. I think generally nurseries are definitely agricultural and I think they are very adequate for agricultural land, zoned land. And number two, in response to the second impact I felt that retail nurseries and garden centers are inconsistent with other permitted uses in the A2 district. I took a look at that and I looked at all the different permitted uses...agricultural I thought we were consistent with that. There are some uses that, yeah I don't think nurseries are consistent with. Daycares and some other things so that's hard to show sensitivity there but I do believe that we can...agricultural and agricultural land and I contacted the nursery licensing through the Department of Agriculture just to get more detail on that and they do not differentiate when they give licenses to nurseries, whether they're retail or garden centers. I asked specifically if it's a growing nursery, obviously we are a growing nursery and we get our license through the Department of Agriculture. What if we're just, let's say a garden center and we're selling stuff and they said, you still get your license through the Ag Department. One way you can differentiate the nurseries is that they have different classifications and Halla Nursery, we're classified as a nursery stock grower which means that over 50% of the products that we sell are grown on site in our nursery. And we, for instance we grew 19,700 perennials or more just from little...and we grow over 10,000 trees and shrubs so we are definitely a grower and I think a lot of emphasis, at least in the last meeting was put on the retail and I do understand the public safety reasons. That concern but I think what's being over looked is the fact that we are not just retail and the majority of our business is growing. We are farmers of nursery stock so that's a big part of our company and that's what differentiates us from nurseries such as Frank's or Bachman's that are strictly, they have their retail outlets and they have a big supplier somewhere else. And that kind of leads me to the third impact statement that the concern that other businesses like Bachman's, Frank's, and other nursery and craft stores may be in conflict with surrounding residential or agricultural property. And I think that's where, as far a I can tell, the nurseries that are in the 4 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 city of Chanhassen that are in agricultural land basically are a lot different than Frank's and Bachman's. The plants are grown on site and why don't I, in fact maybe, I don't know if this is the right language but I thought maybe the concerns could be addressed in the zoning that, in the regulations saying that nurseries and garden centers which were in existence prior to the zoning change of 1990 would be allowed as a permitted use in A2 zoning. And I don't know exactly how that would go but I thought that would be one way, so you wouldn't have that concern of somebody just deciding to come out and build a big...right in the middle of an agricultural district. And also I think that stores such as that that are geared more towards the selling and they don't do their own growing, they'd probably prefer to buy a chunk of land right down in the business district where there's a lot of traffic anyway. And that's the way, when I see those stores, that seems to be, they look very retail and very... And then as far as the fourth impact, that permanent buildings may be constructed which may...if the nursery is vacated. For example auto repair, contractors storage yards, miscellaneous retail, etc. Yeah, I guess those could be permanent but I see that with farms and they are permitted in A2. The Arboretum has a permanent, very permanent, beautiful building that could be used for other uses and they're not cheap buildings either. So I think, I don't know if that impacts, it's certainly an impact that I don't know if it's fair...affects there are other agricultural businesses that are permitted...you could then build permanent buildings. And I don't know if these buildings, there must be something in the zoning that if you sell a chunk of property that has a permanent building, the concern is that maybe an auto repair shop or contractors storage area could be moved in there and I'm not, from what I read in the zoning it didn't, if it's not listed as a permitted use in agricultural, A2 land, I don't understand how somebody could sell their property and have it be an auto repair shop if it wasn't permitted anyway. So I think, I didn't think that was a very valid impact. And I guess as far as...we would like to be here forever and we would like to blend in nicely with the development and screen where necessary. We want to work with the builders and Don and his wife Sandy are working right now with a builder, Charles Cudd to make sure that the nursery becomes a nice focal point for the development. And...to impact, the use would be allowed in perpetuity. We'd definitely like to see that and I think if we had just been here for a few years and we didn't have all the things that are out there now it might not be as big of an issue because we'd know when we started that gee, we're not a permanent use but we've been there since 1962. We've got an underground sprinkler system. Very expensive well. There's a lot of things not even in buildings that have been there for a long time and as far as selling retail, and I started working there in 1984 and they were selling retail and sold dry goods out of one of the buildings that was moved a little bit and one of the buildings was torn down. So anyway I think that we'd like to definitely see a permanent situation out there. And with number 6. The impact that says, retail nurseries and garden centers and...would be in conflict with the comprehensive plan and there was a reference to the corner of Highway 5 and TH 41 which is currently zoned A2. I understand there's some conflicts between industrial and the need for retail. I'm not real sure about that. But I guess when I look at the comprehensive plan, I 5 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 worked as a park planner in Maryland so I understand it's a very big county out there. I understand why you need a comprehensive plan. I think they're very good. I also feel that there's got to be some flexibility there with existing companies and there's got to be a way to blend things together. And when I look at nurseries and think of new homes going in, they seem to go hand and hand. I was driving around and I looked at some of the farms and though, you know that'd be hard for these farmers to try to get their tractors and with all this housing going up but a nursery, with housing coming, housing being around it, it's great. We can provide services that homeowners need. We can help new homes meet the city codes for how many trees they have and that kind of thing. And I think as far as visually, we can fit in really well. So I think that even though on the comprehensive plan there's something that shows all homeowners or all...residential, I think that with some flexibility that we could blend in nicely with that. And finally, I read in the City Code that the intent of the A2 district is the preservation of rural character while respecting development patterns by allowing single family residential development. And again I think that, if I were a homeowner I'd prefer to live next to a golf course or a nursery other than a utility services or some of the other uses that are permitted in the A2 zoning. I think that a nursery fits in really well. It helps preserve some of that rural character but it does respect development. In fact I think it basically thrives on development so I don't think that a nursery's going to prevent development or anything like that. And I guess I'd just like to let the commissioners know that as a landscape architect I can understand...coming out there. The importance of getting homeowners privacy and that kind of thing and I think that nurseries, and I'm sure other nurseries...you want to look nice. You want to be a good part of the neighborhood and I think that since we're in the business of selling products and growing trees and shrubs, that we're going to want to use them on our property. I think that's about it. Thanks. Does anyone have any questions? Mancino: Yeah, I have one. Are you open all year long? Kay Halla: We are open all year long for our employees. As far as how much business we have, it's been real dead the last month I'd say and basically as far as customers coming in, we don't have much until May first and maybe the end of September. Those are the times when we have more traffic...but as far as the winter, it's just the employees out there. And sometimes around Christmas... Mancino: So your peak seasons are spring through summer or September, which is almost fall. You keep employees all year long doing what? Kay Halla: In the winter,just these last few weeks we've been taking out the material that had not sold and getting it bedded down for the winter. We take all of the...shrubs and bury them in straw and hay and all that. Then we prepare to...so we do a lot of things on the 6 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 computer and order a lot of plugs and plants and bare root stock and we do divisions of a lot of plants. That's done more in October when the ground's still soft but dividing up and such things like that. And then in the early part of, end of February, early. Probably the end of February this year we fire up the greenhouses and keep them really warm so that we can start growing all of our perennials and then as, we have just thousands and thousands of bare root trees and shrubs and you get those planted up early and give them a chance to root. Mancino: Okay. So you're working inside in the winter time? Kay Halla: Yes. We take vacations too. Mancino: And how many greenhouses do you have? Kay Halla: Currently we have two greenhouses. They're side by side and they're 30 feet wide by 90 feet long. And they were, we had them stocked to the hilt and even growing, we had to use the floors a lot to be able to grow...floor which is real bad. To grow them on the ground. You get a lot more aphids and things. Mancino: And during the winter, is your retail building open for retail sales of houseplants and other material? Kay Halla: We don't sell houseplants. The retail store is open. The hours are definitely less. For instance weekends, we're not open on weekends except around Christmas tree selling time. But in January and February. Mancino: But you're still open 5 days a week? Kay Halla: Yeah. Mancino: Okay. Farmakes: You mentioned, can you elaborate on, you mentioned the 60/40 mix. Can you elaborate on that? Or did I hear you correctly? Kay Halla: I mentioned something about if you grow over 50% of your nursery stock on your site, then you get the Department of Agriculture doesn't just give us a nursery license. We have a nursery growers license. And they do that to differentiate between nurseries and nursery growers and to get the nursery grower, you must grow over 50% of your stock on your site. And then also, under the Federal law, you have to meet, as far as paying overtime 7 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 and that kind of thing, we are under agricultural laws that allows for overtime because we are a grower. Farmakes: Okay, so when you said 60/40, you're referring to your business or it's a hypothetical qualification? Kay Halla: I'm not... Farmakes: Maybe I misunderstood when you were saying the percentages. I thought you said 60/40. 60%, 40%. I thought you were referring to 60% being manufactured, or being grown on site and 40%. I assume you're talking about total sales. Kay Halla: No. As far as what we grow on site, I would say 90% of our plant material...is grown on site. The only things we really get in that are not started from plugs or bare root stock would be our evergreens. They just take, it would take us forever to grow those and like juniper for instance. So we get evergreen stock... Farmakes: How would you define percentage of gross sales between manufactured goods that are being sold and organic material that you're growing on site? Kay Halla: I could have Don Halla come up and answer that because I'm not sure. Mancino: Just one second. Any other questions at this point? Thank you. Kay Halla: Thank you. Don Halla: Good evening. I'm Don Halla. I would be happy to answer that questions as far as the percentage of, I'll call them dry goods is our definition of them versus live, green plant material. ...between 80% and 90% of all our gross sales comes from green goods, as we call them, which is live living plants in one form or another. Very small percentage is manufactured items. Defining manufactured items, we've had discussions with the city and they define manufactured items as cattle manure, which we sell in 50 pound bags. And 40 pound bags. So I guess our definition might be slightly different than the city's definition of what is manufactured and what is agriculture and not agriculture. But basically all of the products that we carry are related to agricultural uses. Mancino: Any other questions? Thank you. Mark Halla: Hi. I'm Mark Halla. I reside at 770 Creekwood in Chanhassen. I just wanted to add a couple things. First off the city has again mentioned interim use and that's not 8 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 something that we'd like to consider. We have, this whole thing's kind of focused on our nursery and... In our case we want to, we don't want to be a use that's a non-conforming use that isn't allowed. We're simply coming before the Planning Commission to try to become acceptable so that there aren't issues. So if we want to put up a greenhouse, we don't have to worry that even though we think that it's okay for us to do that after the fact someone's going to say hey, you shouldn't have done that. So that's the whole purpose that we're here is to try and make ourselves permitted. We aren't championing the cause for the other nurseries and garden centers. We want to be allowed ourselves. I don't want...interested in discussing that and not...short term. We've got the grandfathered rights that allow us to continue with everything that we've been doing at this point. We simply want to become accepted so that we don't have to keep going back...this is what we've done. This is what we aren't doing. We have some non-related but related issue...comprehensive plan of the structures that we intend to put up. The maximum amount of structures that would be used on our land, with the other greenhouses and what not, we've given them a list of all the products that we carry to date. Basically what we've asked for is to say, hey. You say you're grandfathered in. We don't think that you really are. We don't even, we didn't even know that you're selling retail. Show us. Tell us what you're selling and when you've been doing this and they went back and gave a list of everything we've been selling. ...mentioned a couple times. We've been selling pet food since back in the 60's starting with fish food. So that's something that we've continued on. Maybe it's not agricultural. We're not trying to say that pet food has to be permitted in agricultural use. We are saying in our instance we've been selling it for many, many years and it's not something that we would stop selling because it wasn't a permitted use. It's not a great...market and maybe we can discuss that but the people coming in our place that have animals. They have farm animals. They have dogs and cats. We provide that service. I think that's really all I wanted to add. Thank you. Mancino: Thank you. I'd like to open this to a public hearing. Do I hear a motion and a second to open this to a public hearing? Farmakes moved, Peterson seconded to open the public hearing. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission at this time on this issue, may come forward. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second please? Farmakes moved, Mehl seconded to close the public healing. Mancino: Questions and comments from commissioners. Commissioner Conrad. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Conrad: Yeah, I'm going to ask more questions. Kate, is it basically, well we've got an ordinance in front of us tonight. Basically it's a general ordinance. Obviously it will pertain to the Halla's but it's really for everybody in the A2 district. So that's what we're reacting to. Then later on the Halla's, if that went through, they'd have to do their permitting and make their application for whatever they'd want. The question to me, and the length of operation in terms of, it's hard to talk about this one because we do have, it's a two part deal. We have an ordinance that applies to everybody but we're focusing it right on them. And those are different things. My concerns, basically I think the ordinance in general is appropriate. The community's filling up and sooner or later it will be all houses. But in terms of how it affects the Halla's is a bigger, it's an issue that I'm wrestling with. Is it basically our assumption that a nursery could never fit in long term with houses in Chanhassen? Is that a foregone conclusion? Aanenson: No. As John pointed out, the comprehensive plan has guided this long term for something else. Okay. Mancino: For single family housing. Aanenson: Correct. So in the meantime there's another use on the property that's got grandfathered rights. If it continues to operate that way that's, they have those rights. They want to add to it and we're saying we cannot, as a planning department approve an expansion of a non-conforming use. This is a mechanism to allow them to expand. They don't want to have an interim use. They want to have no final deadline. We're saying that in a planning perspective that's in conflict with our comprehensive plan. Does that mean it won't be a good neighbor? We hope it's there a long time and it's a good neighbor, but we feel we need to have that control if 30 years down the road it's not a good neighbor and times have changed and they want to move out, we don't want some other businesses to go in there. So we're looking at, from the planning perspective of the comprehensive plan and ultimately if this property was to become something else. We're not trying to push them out but we're saying we have to look at long term what the plan says and how it affects other wholesale or retail. Conrad: But right now we could design it so that they will fit. Aanenson: I'm not sure what you're saying. Mancino: As an interim use. Conrad: Well we can design it so that let's say if houses go, yeah. Long term. Now somebody probably would find it might be more beneficial to be healthy...but let's say for 20 10 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 years when houses go up around the Halla property, we would have, we can make them fit in as a good neighbor, can we not? Aanenson: Well there's certain ordinances that are in place right now but they have grandfather rights. Conrad: So they can do what they're doing right now. Aanenson: Right, but they want to expand. That's part, they would like some additional greenhouses. And what we're saying is there's kind of cloud over that because it's non- conforming so this allows them to, if they're following the conditions or whatever, you can decide what that framework should be. Conrad: When they come in, let's say we adopt this ordinance. They would have to come in with an application and basically tell us what they want to look like. Is that not true? Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: And at this point they don't need to. Or if it's A2, permitted use in A2, they can pretty much build what they want to build. Conrad: So when they come in, that's our opportunity to say this is how you fit in the neighborhood that's going to be built up around you. Aanenson: Right. Conrad: That's my only question. Peterson: What's the interim use, the term of it going to be recommended to be? Do we have that thought through yet? Rask: No, that would be, if the ordinance is approved and the applicant wishes to come forward with an application, that would be something we could discuss at that time but there's a number of different ways you could go. You could say when it's brought into the MUSA. It would terminate at that point. When sewer and water becomes available to the site. You know that would be an end date. Or you could pick a specific year. Say 50 years from now. 20 years from now. Mancino: Would you have to have, would it have to say terminate or could you say be reviewed again by city? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Rask: Yeah, I think you could always leave that option. You'd have to pick a date though. Some sort of, whether that's an exact date or an event. Like they did on Admiral Waste. They said the applicant may request an extension. You don't need to put that in there. I mean that's always a given that they could come back and ask the Council in 10 years to reconsider that. Mancino: It certainly puts a cloud on a business for business planning, etc. Conrad: Can I jump back in? This is cloudy to me. Aanenson: But it's cloudy right now because it's illegal right now. They can't expand. That's the cloud over it. We're hoping with the interim use, if you put an appropriate time frame, we were hoping that would take that cloud away because right now it is illegal. To expand. It's grandfathered so it doesn't have the right to go any more than what it has. Conrad: I go back. Maybe this is a foggy assumption on my part. Can it be an asset to a neighborhood? Or is it an automatic detriment to the neighborhood simply because there are tractors going through and you've got, you know so what are we. Aanenson: Well that's the reason for the interim use is to put conditions on there so we have some control. What are the hours of operation? How much traffic is going in there? Is it open 24 hours? What's Saturday, Sunday? We don't know. That's why you try to have some control so you can, if the neighbors are complaining or there is issues that we have a mechanism to resolve it. If it's permitted and people are complaining, there is no mechanism to resolve those issues. Mancino: Because you basically have three businesses. I mean you have your growers. You know the bidding that I don't think affect single family around it at all but you also have landscape contracting, which are crews getting ready and bobcats and everything going out to work at different sites. Clients. And then your third is retail which again affects their neighbors. So you really have, and there may be more than that but those are the activities that I kind of parroted out from the nursery and this particular one. And two of those could have an affect as this area develops into single family. Conrad: So you don't think it's an asset to the neighborhood? Mancino: I think it is. But I think that it needs to have some controls around that as far as, I think it's very much an asset. But I think that there do need to be some controls around that. I mean look at the traffic in the area and hours of operation, etc. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Conrad: Excuse me for interrupting Craig...but the issue to me, the ordinance seems reasonable. But when you put a termination date on somebody it's like not making that company...concern. It's just real negative. And what I'm trying to envision is...and that's my struggle. I don't want to cast that over, and I said I like the ordinance. It's okay but not trying to say to the Halla's, well you've got 10 years and we think that the neighbors that are moving out have priority. I'm struggling with it sitting down here. Making it so it's not, it's a harmonious relationship, which means control. There's just no doubt. There are controls. That's part about what we're doing is you can't do whatever you want anymore in Chanhassen. There's too many people. So that's my struggle. Sorry for interrupting. Mancino: Commissioner Peterson, any other? Peterson: None. Mancino: Commissioner Skubic. Skubic: How many other landscape nurseries are in business in Chanhassen? Aanenson: At least probably three others. Four. Mancino: Wilson, Lotus, Ben Gowan. Aanenson: Erhart's. Mancino: Erhart's tree farm, yeah. Only to wholesalers. Probably five. Skubic: The issue here seems to be opening the door and making a permitted use and putting a constraint by putting a date on the interim use. Isn't there a way of structuring the constraints on a conditional use or even with a permitted use. I think it was brought up that for permitted or nurseries have been in existence since 1990 date. Could that be used to satisfy the needs of the comprehensive planning and at the same time preserving the Halla business? Rask: I think the issue is you've got to treat people fairly. It's tough to say well if you exist to this point, you can continue to do what you like. Anybody else who comes in has to play by a different set of rules. Skubic: In a way isn't that what we're doing in the agricultural district? 13 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Rask: Well they're allowed to continue as a non-conforming use. And the whole basis behind non-conforming uses is that you assume they'll eventually be eliminated. I mean our ordinance now limits what you can do with a non-conforming use. You can't expand it. There's some of those types of issues that come into play with those non-conforming situations. And if it's a conditional use, then you're back to well it's permitted. For the most part you have the ability to add conditions. Review a site plan but there's nothing to ever say that use is going to disappear. If it does become a problem in the future, or permanent buildings are constructed, the nursery decides well it's not feasible for us anymore. Well now you have several million dollars worth of retail buildings. How do you deal with that? Aanenson: It goes back to Ladd's point. We struggled with this same issue as a staff when we were going through this analysis and the same idea is being, if you do say there's no cloud on the issue because it's a conditional use and you get a mortgage for several buildings and now the business goes out, you've got mortgages on the building. Well certainly there's pressure then to say well we've got to have something else. You can't now disappear because now you've invested capital in there. And that's the whole reason why you look at these things as more temporary in nature. And again this is a little bit different because we're focusing on this one and not looking at them in a holistic sort of thing and maybe that's something we need to go back and kind of look at this in a broader perspective and not keep focusing on this one because this one is a little bit different. Some of the other types of businesses, treating nursery type businesses... Mancino: Commissioner Farmakes. Farmakes: I guess the reason I asked, I thought it was an open discussion. I'm interested I guess in asking a couple of questions of the commission here. I don't know if that's, is that permissible? Mancino: Sure. Farmakes: I don't mean to get an open discussion running along or eat up time but I have a couple of, I'm not sure when we discuss nurseries and retail nurseries, after reading this and after reading Halla's letter. There's obviously a difference of opinion as to what is retail. By approving this or voting to approve this or not to approve this, and then the issue of interim use, the way that it reads now says, the wholesale sale of plants grown on the site, imported to the site as well as accessory items directly related to their care and maintenance. Then it goes on to say that power equipment and da, da, da should be provided. Now certainly power equipment can be construed as being for the care and maintenance of trees or bushes or shrubbery. I'm not sure in my mind that I've defined. On one hand when you talk about a nursery situation, organic matter is for sale. It's grown. When you're talking about an 14 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 enhanced product or manufactured product where they refer to them as dry goods or the applicant refers to them a dry goods. And you get beyond the scope of grandfathering, whatever that use happened to be, at the time it was established when the usage changed or that the operation was in conflict with ordinances. How do you continue on that line by saying that it's alright to expand that use without getting into conflict with all kinds of things. In other words, getting into conflicts when you tell another applicant who comes in who has bought a piece of property or whatever and decides that this would be good for a kennel or fur bearing animals or a big box retail or when you define and when you start getting into the nuance of retail beyond what is grown on the property, where do we start picking a line? Do we start looking at where the bag of food came from or the power equipment or the, it seems to me that. Mancino: Well and that's what we're trying to do here. Farmakes: Very swampy bit of goods. If in this particular operation 10% of these goods is this problem, and we're defining an ordinance for these goods for sale of these goods to find a way to allow some expansion, I'm not sure that that's not in conflict of good planning or what we're talking about with planning. You're talking, I think another comment was made about, that we have a business that's been in the community a long time and you get this transitionary thing where it's making it difficult for a business to operate unless they remain competitive and obviously retail or wholesale of organic goods and agricultural use changes over the years, as the mix of development changes here in Chanhassen. Obviously any business wants to be able to change to whatever the market is. We've seen this problem over and over again. Either in fringe district where we see dumpster storage and so on or we get ' into a situation on TH 5 and TH 41 where the future investment of property and the thinking that this location would make a good use for this particular type of usage. Do we have development that is driven by that? Either by, this is going to get a little obtuse now but thinking in terms of Timberwood where you have an example, although usage is not the same. You have development that is driven by allowing a particular development or use at the time that seems to be a good idea but then there is a surrounding effect that is created. I'm trying to think of Bachman's say for instance in the middle of a single residential neighborhood in Minneapolis where the original Bachman's was. That used to be a farm. When you're saying that a nursery is a good thing or a good neighbor, is it the open space and the trees or is it the retail sales that would be of benefit to the neighborhood, or of dry goods. I'm not sure in my own mind that I've defined that because I'm trying to think of it as the use is now where you'd be talking interim permit, or down the line as you're talking about Ladd, once that's surrounded by homes. What is the benefit to the neighborhood? Because I see other types of tree operations, say for instance the one across from Paisley Park that was there. There wasn't any, that I know of, retail sales occurring there. It was an open field with trees and so on and I don't think you get objections from the neighbors in that situation. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 But it seems to me a broader issue is that where do retail sales go in this town and when they expand outside of the normal business district, and you're looking at people who buy property with the idea, or have owned property with the idea of expanding that use beyond what their grandfathering is. Are we creating really a bad problem here where we're being inconsistent as to how we deal with it? It seems like we've been getting a lot of, I think there's a second item on the dock here for such a thing. It's not in retail area but it's expanding or asking to clarify usage of other types of businesses. Say for instance a kennel. And these are things that it seems to me that would be things that would come up in transition type property between agriculture and urban area. And as I go back on how we've dealt with some of these issues before in the fringe district for instance or we deal with dumpster areas where primarily you have a rural area and the storage of dumpsters there. There's not enough people surrounding the area to create the type of objection that you may have in a more developed area in the permitted, the use is allowed for an interim time. But from what I've heard the applicant's not interested in that and even if we were to approve that, are we setting a good precedent in doing that. I haven't heard anything of a legal opinion from our lawyer but when we go to deny that from other applicants, it seems to me that our argument is, well we have a defined area for retail of manufactured goods. That's how I see it. And we allow other usages of wholesale use or interim use outside of that area and we've pretty much followed that pretty closely. So it's worrisome to me that more or less the precedent that we'd be setting with even approving what's sitting here because I don't think it's defined. That part that's retail is not, is ill defined here. And certainly...it lists a few things that is not, that is prohibited but I'm wondering if that is geared more towards the current use of the applicant and eliminating those uses or sales versus. Mancino: Than looking at the big picture. Farmakes: The big picture between the sale of grown matter and manufactured goods. Goods manufactured off site and brought in or value enhanced goods, whatever you want to call them but they're the usual definition of retail. Mancino: Kate, would you like to respond to that? Aanenson: I think John would. Rask: Yeah, I think we tried to create a definition that would apply to all. If you look at the one being proposed here, I don't think Mr. Halla, he doesn't sell farm implements or power equipment. I think what we were trying to do there was further define what's not included. If you look at the definition it says accessory items directly sold. Like most definitions that's opened up to interpretation somewhat. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Farmakes: What I'm thinking of, I didn't mean to cut you off but what came to my mind is I thought of other retail operations for nurseries so I'm thinking of Frank's for instance. In that line of accessories and items related to the care and maintenance is their entire in-house building. And that's retail. That's retail sales and no different than a grocery store or a hardware store. Again, that's a separate part of their business but that's not outdoor stock. So that's where the problem that I'm really uncomfortable with is that hand. Mancino: Is allowing the retail to stay there? Farmakes: To expand. Mancino: To expand as an interim use in the A2 area. Farmakes: Even as an interim use, yeah. Mancino: Even as an interim use. Farmakes: Yeah. Mancino: So your thinking is to keep the retail where it is right now. In this particular case. And not have it expand. Aanenson: Well first of all, we haven't defined that yet under this. I mean when they come in for an application, first of all we're setting forward the framework. I mean unless they come in and ask for an interim use permit, they just stay the way they are. There's two separate processes. This overall standards are what you evaluate any that would come in... Farmakes: But isn't your contention also, or did I misunderstand it, that retail use has expanded. Aanenson: Right, and that's a separate legal thing and it's my understanding they're not going to expand anymore. What they're trying to do is get additional greenhouses but that's still an expansion of that non-conforming use. So I don't see that as, that's something you can address. If it did come forward for a permit to say, you know one of the conditions of... plans to expand, you could handle that separately under that permitting process. What we're doing under this process is try to look at again the broader, all. Mancino: A2. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Aanenson: Correct. And what should be the appropriate standards as John's laid out in the report. Farmakes: Right, but what I'm saying is, does the line that says amended Section 20-1. Does that cover that or are you going to improvise that at a later date? I mean like I said, I don't see that as being any different than Frank's. Is that a good neighbor for a residential area? Rask: Sure, you can address that with conditions on a site specific basis if somebody came in and maybe you wanted to see it just limited to the growing or selling of plants, either wholesale or retail. You could put certain conditions that would prohibit the sale of certain items. Aanenson: I think you have to look at some factors such as the size of the parcel. Where it's located. Some of these sort of things. You've got to take all those factors and like John said, you try to leave it somewhat broad so you can develop it as need be but again, these are the framework for all nurseries. Farmakes: So you don't feel that by establishing this or approving this we're in the interim use allowing it to expand. That we're creating a precedence outside of the scope of how we normally handle this issue when we're dealing with retail sales outside of the scope of. Aanenson: Well I guess our concern is even though a lot of these places may say wholesale, we believe that they're probably conducting retail and we'd like to have some conditions on there that we do know what the hours of operation are. We do know that there is adequate parking and that's really what the purpose of this is. We believe that some of the other ones may have the same. May be doing retail. We're not aware of it at this point but if it's brought to our attention, we certainly wanted to make sure that those same issues are addressed. Farmakes: Okay. I have no further questions. Mancino: Commissioner Mehl. Mehl: Yeah, I came here with a whole page of notes tonight and about half of them have been asked already or talked about. The other half have been shot down but all I know is we've got an applicant here who's been at that facility for 35 years. I'd like to somehow see if there isn't some way to compromise or some special situation to make sure that we can permit both the wholesale and retail operation as they have and allow them to stay there with the right conditions. To me there are worse things to have as a neighbor than a nursery, you know assuming there are conditions on them. I don't know how to solve the problem. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Mancino: So would you like to see that as an interim use? Mehl: Well an interim use, the only problem I see with that is there's a time factor involved and I know that if I were in business like that I wouldn't want to deal with the fact that next week I might not be here or next year or 5 years or whatever. Whatever the date is, nobody seems to know. I'd like to know that I'm going to be there for another 35 years. Maybe the answer is interim use with some kind of an automatically renewable timeframe. A business like that, it isn't easy to move. You know you just can't pull up the tent stakes and move out. It's difficult. You've got a lot of land involved. A lot of inventory. Maybe it's a conditional use, I don't know. Mancino: Okay, thank you. I do agree with the staff report that it should be an interim use for the A2 district with a nursery center. I do feel that I also have problems with the termination date and how to allow business owners to plan ahead into the future and how they're going to keep operating. I would like staff to give us some more information on that. How we can do an interim use and the sunset date that allows for renewal. I don't know if that is possible. I would also like to see the condition number 5, hours of operation a little better thought out meaning that if you're in the nursery business you do need to be open on Saturday and Sunday during your peak seasons or you won't make it. I don't think. And that on those weekends maybe there would be a different time for landscape contractors and when they could start up in that A2 district, especially with single family around it. I guess I have no other comments. I'd like to entertain a motion. Conrad: But can I ask a question Madam Chair? Mancino: Yes. Conrad: Kate or John, do you see, you can see where we're struggling with this issue obviously. It's not too difficult. Do you see a scenario, you know I'm struggling myself because I think the ordinance is valid that you proposed. I think you've done a good job. I also don't want to force the Halla's out of operation. I want them to determine when they, I want them to fit. I don't have a problem with retail. The ordinance will take care of retail and they'll take care of retail... But I want them to fit into the neighborhood. They're there first and that's one thing you've always got to remember here. They are there first. People who buy in know that they're there. The interim use will let people know, or whatever, will let them know what they can do. So the new residents are protected. We're going to have that mapped out. So it forces the Halla's to sort of plan. It takes away from their flexibility but it makes some sense to me. But my real key is, the key for me is, I don't want to force them out of business. I don't, I can term them an asset to the community. I may not term retail as an asset but I can term the nursery an asset. It could be a park. I don't need to force 19 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 the comprehensive plan... When they choose, it can do go residential. But I don't have to force a 10 year. I'm really nervous about saying in 10 years it will be renewed unless there's 27 complaints from the neighbors. That's what we'll end up doing so my big concern is, how not to force them out of operation. How to make them fit in, which means we take a look at their application. Make sure that in the long run, 5-10 years we say well geez. If you've got neighbors around that are 500 feet away, do they really kind of fit. Are they an asset and if that's the case, I think everybody wins but that's sort of a, you know I may be dreaming and whether we can do that but that's where I want to be, which really tells us that the real deal in the permitting, the application process, when they would come in and if I were them, I wouldn't trust us, you know. Mancino: Speak for yourself please. Conrad: ...but, so my question was. Mancino: How do we do that? Conrad: How do we do that? It's not tonight when we're not even, we don't even care about the Halla's tonight. Yeah we do but we don't care about them. We're putting in an ordinance that goes to A2 everyplace. So tonight is not their night. But when they come back and say you want to survive for 30 years or when we decide we want to subdivide or change, how do we make them. Mancino: Anybody who comes in and wants that. Conrad: Anybody, you're right. No, no. Them. The Halla's because they're going to come back later with this application or a permit and that's what I want to be able to forecast in my mind that I can kind of meet their needs...got 5 years. I don't really want to be in that situation and I'm trying to justify them fitting in as a good neighbor with residential, as treating them as a park. As an asset. As a farm. Rask: I guess if you treat them as a permitted or a conditional use, they're there. You can't come back in 20 years and decide well, we made a mistake. How do we correct it? You treat it as an interim use, again you can always extend it and if the need arises. Conrad: Take us past the ordinance. Aanenson: Okay, then they could sell it. Let's say they want to get out of the business and go somewhere else. Somebody else comes in and runs it differently or whatever. Again you can't just look at this particular property. That's why John gave you a map last time that 20 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 showed it city wide. If we could do it, if we felt comfortable doing it as a conditional use, leaving it there for perpetuity, we certainly would give you that as a recommendation. We're not trying to chase the Halla's. I understand the clouding issue but we think there's just as many damaging on the conditional use that could be negative as there are saying clouding it the other way. We struggle with the same issues. Nobody wants them to be gone tomorrow. But as John indicated, what if in 20 years we go back and look at it, maybe it's 30 years. We haven't decided what that timeframe is. I think that's going to be the struggle. First of all they have to decide if they want to come in for the interim use permit. They say that they didn't want to. But if they do, then that's the struggle. What is the appropriate timeframe? And at least there's somewhere we can go back and evaluate that down the road and we may not be here but there's some criteria to go back and say, is it still working. Does it still make sense? And if it is, great. We continue and give them another x number of years. Maybe this area's never brought into the MUSA. Maybe it continues to be this way forever and that's great but we're just saying that we think there should be an opportunity to revisit it. If you make it conditional or permitted, we don't have that opportunity of revisiting it. And have we thought far enough ahead? I'm not sure. Normally we don't put retail in an agricultural zone and we're saying we're opening that up for a lot of other places if that happened and there may be a lot of instances that we haven't thought ahead. If you want to give us some time, we can... Mancino: Think about that. Think about the one that Jeff had. I mean because we are opening retail up in A2 districts. Aanenson: Right. So the existing ones, but maybe the ones that haven't thought of...thought this was an opportunity to do some sort of a modified landscaping kind of quasi business or. Mancino: Commissioner Mehl. Mehl: Are we discussing details of conditions at all or is that, should it be done later? Mancino: No, we are. Mehl: Okay. I've got a couple comments here. On number 4. All outside storage areas. Maybe we should define you know what is a storage area or what's stored there or which ones maybe need to be screened. And then must be completely screened. To me completely screened implies 100% screened from all possible vantage points. Now is that practical or even possible to do now? Do you want to not be able to see it from your car on the road or what about if you're standing on a hill across a quarter mile away. I think it needs to be determined. Maybe buffered is a better term. I'm not sure. And one comment about number 5. The hours of operation. It talks about hours of operation Monday thru Saturday only and 21 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 work on Sundays and Holidays is prohibited. I think we need to define work. Does that include them coming in and watering their plants? What about you've got a holiday on a Monday. We've had 95 degree temperatures and you can't work on Sunday and you can't work on a holiday, this thing is going to be in bad shape Tuesday. So I think maybe the word work needs to be defined. Work is actively selling or is it work in bringing in equipment, inventory or sprinklering or is it maybe work involving management and planning and inventory taking and watering and this sort of thing. That's all. I wanted to bring those up. They need to be defined a little bit. Mancino: Well it doesn't seem, do I have a motion. Entertain a motion at this point. And that may be asking staff to come back and bring us more information that we need. Looking at it. How we can change in interim use for the retail and wholesale without a, as I said, without a cloud or sunset. How we can be more creative with that sunset date. Allowing businesses to plan. What are the other inferences of having retail in the A2? Farmakes: I'll make a motion to table this issue. I think that I'll put forward these items as the reasoning which you just mentioned. I also would feel uncomfortable unless the amended Section 20-1 is either, the issue as well as accessory items...are dropped. In other words, that ending of that sentence. Or that staff come up with a more targeted direction on that issue as far as what accessory issues are offered at retail. The issue of 5 probably should be defined in more reality and the issue of the market. I'm not sure that 5 does reflect that. The point that was made. Some of the other issues we really didn't discuss on there but I think that the ordinance probably covers them. Signage and so on. The termination issue. Although it allows the business for planning, I think that the real issue of an interim use obviously is to allow the community for planning as well. And I'm not sure what creative thought can be put into that. But there is also a reason for an interim use and there should be an objective there, although I have nothing against a business that has been here in these transition areas with transition type businesses to allow them to have the opportunity to decide when they cease operations. The problem always occurs however, at some point in time if it's opened ended, there is no reason to cease. You can adjust to whatever needs to be done and I get back to the point, there usually is an end result or a direction, other use in our comprehensive plan and I'm not sure if the staff is going to be able to resolve that. I hope they do. Mancino: Is there a second? Skubic: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? 22 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Conrad: Ah sure. So you want to table it for clarification of the motions. Definition of nursery, Jeff? Was that. Farmakes: Definition of nursery was the one that refers to Section 20-1. I'm uncomfortable with how that reads. Conrad: Okay. Did you agree with Don's comment on 4, that it's foggy? Farmakes: For the storage? Conrad: Yeah. Farmakes: I guess, I didn't make that a part of the motion but it seems to me that there are broader issues other than getting into the specifics of setbacks and so on. To me but we, we can add 4 if you add that to the motion since this is a tabled motion. I mean it's not a, although we're voting on it, these are issues of exploration that I would suggest. The real crux of the issue here that I see in this motion that is made, is that what is the definition of the use and if we're going to define it, how does that relate to practicality of operating a business and what is the end result that we're going to see from this as far as comprehensive plan? What happens when we're filled up? And then how does that use, what is allowed under the ordinance for that use to be expanded. Conrad: And did you have any concerns with number 8 on the staff report? Again, I heard you're tabling it. You know 8 doesn't allow for renewal. So everybody knows that. It says ifs terminated and I think if we do consider this, you know there has to be a renewal option and I think the ordinance doesn't allow that. Farmakes: I think that the renewal option could be looked at for the issue of making it easier for business planning. I think I said that already. Farmakes moved, Skubic seconded to table an amendment to the City Code for landscape nurseries and garden centers in the A2 for further clarification. All voted in favor, except Meyer who abstained, and the motion carried. Mancino: We will table it and staff has direction and the Halla's will come before us again another time to present. Thank you. Don Halla: Can I just speak for one moment? Mancino: For one minute you may. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Don Halla: We already have a semi negotiated agreement with the city. The city hasn't signed onto it and we haven't signed onto it. We're very close to an agreement which really happens is exactly what you want. We're looking for basically a ruling to maintain our agricultural status of a grower of plant material. The building department says we do not need a permit to do so. Go ahead and build it. The planning department says you can't. That's...maybe some direction of a simple thing under State and Federal laws we're allowed to build. Under the city's building code we are allowed to build greenhouses. Planning says we can't. That's all we're looking for. The rest of the things we're working out with the city and I think we're coming very close to it. Maybe it was agreed upon today. I don't know but that's the point... Mancino: Thank you. CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A MIXED LAND USE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, SINGLE AND MULTI-FAMILY ON APPROXIMATELY 66 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, BETWEEN GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD AND MARKET BOULEVARD, VILLAGES ON THE PONDS, LOTUS REALTY SERVICES. Public Present: Name Address Brad Johnson 7425 Frontier Trail Jill and Randy Meyer 330 Sinnen Circle Angie Bealczyk 310 Sinnen Circle Eric Johnson 320 Sinnen Circle Bob Savard 8080 Marsh Drive Steve Lundeen 8160 Marsh Drive Rita Klauda 8130 Marsh Drive Dave Kooumen 8153 Marsh Drive Gary Disch 8170 Marsh Drive Rick Hladky 8173 Marsh Drive Debbie & Brian Semke 331 Hidden Lane Barry & Lisa Thompson 8000 Hidden Circle Mark Honnold 8051 Hidden Circle Pat Hamblin 340 Sinnen Circle Greg Larson 8151 Grandview Road Ryan Johnson 8143 Marsh Drive 24 EXHIBIT A HALLA NURSERY GARDEN CENTER INVENTORY (07-20-94) Landscape fabric Root feeder Bird feeders Augur Trellises Weed killer and preventer Bird house stands Accent lights Books Insect killers Garden netting Deer/rabbit repellent Garden staking Knee pads Hummingbird/oriole feeder Plant supports Green sweep weed/feed Vegetable seeds Lawn trash bags Plant seeds Seed spreaders Feeder wand Lawn seed Plant stands String Planter boxes Bird feed Live plants (A) Tree stakes Live shrubs (A) Sprinklers Garden tools Garden hose Hose Hose nozzles Hedge shears Gloves Lopping shears Watering cans Pruners Ceramic bulb planters Weed eater Steel bulb planters Power snow shovel Electronic water timer Hand tools Thermostat Gas-powered weed eater Thermometer Snow thrower/trimmer Planter boxes Rakes Pots Killer kane Potting soil Garden trellis and lattice Moisture meter Wind chimes Burlap Wood mushrooms Transplant booster Bird baths Plant starter Wood bench Round Up Wood cactus Plant food Clay pots Compost maker Top soil Fertilizer stakes Peat moss Drop spreader Sheep manure 167;4 EXHIBIT e g A On the Grow • at Halla Nurser: ! Everything is on the grow at Halla there's a high loss rate in transplanting •A Nursery. Sounds of spring whisper as because they have to develop a new root •-'tt '4; lan • •dscape landscape and design staff,growers and system. A clay medium is better for the Vic- ; o • • . =, •••:: movers and maintenance people,managers coria and Chanhassen homeowner because of /�. • • 1 F (( •� and other friendly employees at Halla tend to soils in that area-" He also said that plants in - - , business. the field at Halla are root pruned every three •=;-, { 5 - !,+' !v. 1.(1 Located three miles south of Chanhassen years to give them new and stronger roots. ` .....1.i. - ',.��•. f •' - on Hw 101,Halla Nursery welcomes the The large new retail building,that houses k r 1 �• community and invites you to visit their ex- "everything not green and growing,"opened ,, ' i's� 1 1 paraded garden center this spring as you shop on May 1st this spring. There you'll find t i • `_�iCte for plant material for your home or business. fertilizers,tools,rocks,soil,spray,peat :1. . ' i 1" " Looking for annuals or perennials? Halla moss,manure,wildflower cr.-As,and other + •,+� ` _� -'' O. • 1 . _s has'em! Looking for trees or shrubs? Halla garden supplies. 'We also anticipate a high .s s � _ 4- -..,..,-:�' has'em. linking for mulches or fenilizers? quality-bird house and bird feeder display," .Ili.II- -f;�,..• Halls has'ern! You'll encounter a wide said Don. "Its another way to serve our .. • r 4 +1 i`. - I d'C=' sdcction of plant material at Halla Nursery, customer better." y • •-!i --•.. �.,-. r'r,., r as well as a brand new 5,000 sq.ft.retail Halla Nursery hires certified nursery and • Y - °. ' n•_,,...... -_. garden center,and a large staff to assist you. landscape professionals. The education and j +'r ., ..-r' Halls has 100 acres of trees,shrubs,ever- training needed to become certified assorts _-lit • t. greens,perennials,and annuals from which Halls that their customers will be assisted - `_ = 14 to choose. with the greatest of care and talent. t - esw Don Halla,president of Halla Nursery The designers at Halla can draw you an . . 't•_ -- - and second generation in the business,takes on-site rough sketch of landscape and plant- Don Holter,president of HatSa Nusery and second pride in the wide selection and quality of ing possibilities,with an accompanying generation In the busirwss. plant materials at the nursery. "We have ten estimate,free of charge. Or,for a rebatable acres dedicated to the garden center,"he said, deposit,he or she can develop a comprehen- . -->!...-",..... ` "and that includes two acres of ported shrubs, sive plan which can be implemented as your s -. .��' - I kl� two acres of balled and burlapped shade budget allows. This plan is the product of a ll trees,one-half acre of poned shade trees, cooperative process that takes into considers- • - ,.; � - •- , houses,hanging baskets,and a 15,000 tion thepersonal taste and desires of the '.• ci a green €' g •,S - - 4T, t -, sq.ft.shade area for perennials. Our plant customer. t material is in more mature sizes rather than Don also takes pride in Peacock Palace, - •4! ' small seedling type plants." an area of the nursery where he raises pea- e -48. r - Vt "We have trees up to 18"in diameter," cocks,rare varieties of pheasants and ducks. ,1 •- said Don,"and we have the world's largest "We invite parents to bring their kids,"he ,!' tree mover to move them." said,as the nursery has installed new play- ) , �_ , "We have over 250 varieties of peren- ground equipment and gazebo for kids to ,\+� 7 e "r / l vials,100 different varieties of flowering enjoy while parents check out the nursery .-'• �• 3, `•,-- I.)// i I shrubs,75 different varieties of shade trees stock. - '.._# • 't =f' f/ and flowering crabs,and access to the Yes,the growing season is;upon us. +�, .. t:� balance of 100 acres. We have large shade "Soil temperatures have come up quite well, • -cp• ro 'I � - trees of 6"diameter at 50% off now. We and there is no frost in the ground anymore," _�;,' T�. • have a wide selection of wild ferns,mulches, stated Don. "May 15th is about the right time -.Pe.' - .=-• "r � shredded hardwood bark,and rock mulch to plant" i�1 44,► -• . .� \ • products." Everything is on the grow at Halla •, t •' ��, Don explained that the plants at Halla Nursery. Come and enjoy.the sights and ,'v ti \ ,N Nursery are grown in clay soil. "Plants grow sounds of spring! You'll be pleasantly • J ` -`'"`� faster and easier in sand,"he said,"but then surprised. --S.O. Lynn Ripa,office manger at Hobo Nursery,for eight years. , ..:47....411::741:rt-7 C• '. 77 --- ,•_ x.i -, GREENHOUS •'.-_i . _ Y' _ 41 ter 61r ? ] : ' 4.4.,4:41' :` i - .-:,;/k. ENTR ANC% 1: / e , .,k .. I ?' . ),j %$T . m .:r.. !fj. rwet _ - - '`''rl � i _ � sa .• ti : F •`': xy .I- . - ... -. e .i-:,w 4,0z-'r- N. li%si.4:4:.t- -7;47...,. ' _ Sheryl Kohout,orrisroot garden center manager. Mark Halla.vice president and general rnonoger at Hone Nursery,and wife Kay Hath, licensed landscape crchttect. A SINCE 1942 • • - EXHIBIT 43 ,,, In n e •�t„ . INC• o LANDSCAPE DESIGNERS, CONTRACTORS, GROWERS, B TREE MOVERS AND GARDEN CENTER I 3 Miles South of Chanhassen on Hwy 101. CITY QF CHANHASSEN' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: John Rask, Planner I DATE: November 8, 1995 SUBJECT: Proposed Text Amendment to the A-2, Agricultural Estate District. SUMMARY On November 1, 1995, the Planning Commission reviewed proposed changes to the A-2, Agricultural Estate zoning district. Mr. Don Halla, Halla Nursery, requested a text amendment to allow landscape nurseries as a permitted use in the A-2 District. The Commission tabled action on this item to receive further information from staff. More specifically, the Commission wanted to see a side by side comparison of the different options of allowing retail nurseries as a permitted use, conditional use, and as an interim use. The following definitions are being provided for discussion purposes: Permitted Use is defined as,any use allowed in a zoning district and subject to the restriction applicable to that zoning district. Conditional Use is defined as, a use permitted in a particular zoning district upon showing that such use in a specified location will comply with all the conditions and standards for the location or operation of the use as specified in the zoning ordinance and approved by the City Council. Interim Use is defined in Section 20-1 as, a temporary use of property until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no longer permit it. By way of example, the use could terminate when the site is brought into the MUSA, when sewer or water is provided to the site, a date could be set for the use to end, or if the zoning district changes to a residential zoning. Planning Commission November 8, 1995 Page 2 Staff assembled the following table to illustrate the differences between permitted uses, conditional uses, and interim uses: IMPACTS OF ALLOWING RETAIL NURSERIES AND GARDEN CENTERS IN THE A-2 ZONING DISTRICT PERMITTED USES CONDITIONAL USES INTERIM USES Not all A-2 zoned property would By classifying a use a conditional Use is eventually terminated be appropriate for retail nurseries, use,special conditions may be allowing the property to be i.e.lack of adequate public imposed to mitigate the adverse converted to a use which is facilities impacts consistent with the Comp.Plan Retail nurseries and garden Conditional use must be approved if Would discourage the use of centers are inconsistent with other applicant meets all conditions set permanent buildings permitted uses in the A-2 District forth in local ordinances and other conditions imposed by the City Council May allow businesses such as, Not all A-2 properties are Not all A-2 properties are Bachman,Franks,or other appropriate for retail nurseries or appropriate for retail nurseries nursery and craft stores which garden centers or garden centers may be in conflict with surrounding residential or agricultural properties. Permanent buildings may be Permanent buildings may lead to Encourage the use of constructed which may lead to other uses if the nursery is vacated, temporary structures or other uses if the nursery is e.g.,auto repair,contractors structures designed for a vacated,i.e.,auto repair, storage/yard,misc.retail,etc. specific use which would contractors storage/yard,misc. discourage conversion to an retail,etc. inappropriate use Use would be allowed in Use would be allowed in perpetuity Use would have a termination perpetuity date Retail nurseries or garden centers Retail nurseries or garden centers in By classifying a use a in most cases would be in conflict most cases would be in conflict with conditional use, special with the comprehensive plan,i.e., the comprehensive plan,i.e.,corner conditions may be imposed to corner of Hwy.5 and 41,which is of Hwy.5 and 41,which is currently mitigate the adverse impacts currently zoned A-2 zoned A-2 • Planning Commission November 8, 1995 Page 3 The City Council recently approved a temporary sales ordinance. This ordinance applies to the business zoned districts only, i.e., BG, CBD, BF, and BH. Temporary sales are allowed as an accessory use to a permitted or conditional use, and are limited to 60 days per calendar year. Staff examined the possibility of allowing retail sales as a temporary use in the A-2 district. This would allow a"wholesale"nursery to temporarily sell retail products. The impacts of this approach are that not all A-2 properties are appropriate for retail use, the use may be inconsistent with surrounding properties, the use must be permitted if conditions are met, and would be very difficult to enforce. Staff is of the opinion that retail nurseries and garden centers are inconsistent with other uses in the A-2 district and the comprehensive plan. Allowing garden centers or retail nurseries as a permitted use would encourage permanent buildings and use,and discourage the conversion of the property to a more appropriate use consistent with the comprehensive plan. To mitigate these negative impacts, staff is recommending an alternative that would allow retail nurseries as an interim use (see memo to Planning Commission dated October 25, 1995). ATTACHMENTS 1. Memorandum to Planning Commission dated October 25, 1995 2. Map of Chanhassen showing current A-2 zoned properties. CITY OF \, , CHANHASSEN \ - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 h (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: John Rask, Planner I DATE: October 25, 1995 SUBJECT: Proposed Text Amendment to the A-2, Agricultural Estate District SUMMARY Mr. Don Halla, Halla Nursery Inc., is requesting a zoning ordinance text amendment to allow landscape nurseries as a permitted use in the A-2, Agricultural Estate Zoning District. Mr. Halla indicates in his application that nurseries are currently prohibited and that landscape nurseries are an agricultural use and should be permitted. Further, Mr. Halla indicates that he has occupied this property since 1962 and his business is no longer a permitted use. BACKGROUND The intent of the A-2 District is, "preservation of rural character while respecting development patterns by allowing single-family residential development." The following uses are permitted in an"A-2"District" 1. Agriculture 2. Public and private parks and open space 3. Single family dwellings 4. State-licensed day care center for twelve or fewer children 5. Utility services 6. State-licensed day care center for six or fewer persons 7. Temporary real estate office and model home 8. Arboretums Planning Commission October 25, 1995 Page 2 The following are permitted accessory uses in an A-2 District: 1. Accessory agricultural buildings 2. Garage 3. Private stables 4. Swimming pool 5. Tennis court 6. Signs 7. Home occupations 8. One Dock 9. Roadside stand 10. Private kennel The following are conditional uses in an A-2 District: 1. Commercial communication transmission tower 2. Electrical substation 3. Churches 4. Recreational beachlots 5. Group homes for seven to sixteen persons The following are interim uses in the A-2 District: 1. Churches 2. Mineral extraction 3. Mobile homes 4. Bed and breakfast establishments 5. Commercial kennels, stables and riding academies 6. Wholesale nurseries 7. Golf driving ranges with or without miniature golf courses Currently, wholesale nurseries are allowed as an interim use in the A-2 District. Wholesale nursery is defined in Section 20-1 of the City Code as follows, "Wholesale nursery means an enterprise which conducts the wholesale of plants grown on site as well as accessory items directly related to their care and maintenance (but not including power equipment such as gas or electric lawnmowers and farm implements)". The ordinance provisions of the A-2 District do not meet Mr. Halla's current needs because retail sales are not permitted. The retail sales portion of Mr. Halla's Nursery has been expanded illegally and is in violation of City Ordinances. Discussions have occurred between Mr. Halla and city staff over the years concerning the retail segment of Halla Nursery. Mr. Halla has shown a desire to expand his business to provide for Planning Commission October 25, 1995 Page 3 additional retail space. In his request for a code amendment,Mr. Halla indicated that he would like to continue to operate his business as a"legal use" or permitted use. This would allow him to expand or intensify his operation at the current location. It is staff's opinion,that Halla Nursery would best be classified, for zoning purposes, as a retail nursery or garden center. A garden center is defined as follows, "Garden center means a place of business where retail and wholesale products and produce are sold to the retail consumer. These centers,which may include a nursery and/or greenhouses, import most of its items sold. These items may include paints, handicrafts, nursery products and stock, fertilizers, potting soil, hardware, lawn and garden power equipment and machinery,hoes, rakes, shovels and other garden and farm tools and utensils." This definition appears to better describe the current operation of Halla Nursery. Section 20-1 of the ordinance defines nursery as follows, "Nursery means an enterprise which conducts the retail and wholesale sale of plants grown on the site, as well as accessory items directly related to their care and maintenance(but not including power equipment such as gas or electric lawnmowers and farm implements). Halla Nursery currently has retail sales which do not meet this definition. By way of example,pet food is offered for sale on the premises. ANALYSIS When considering zoning ordinance text amendments, one must consider the comprehensive impacts on all properties affected by the amendment. Any amendments to the A-2 District will not only affect Mr. Halla's property, but all property zoned A-2, and those properties located near an A-2 District. The current permitted uses in the A-2 district are either residential in nature or are uses which require a large land area, such as: agriculture, arboretums,parks, etc. These uses do not generate a significant amount of traffic or require a large investment in buildings or other improvements. The A-2 District may be better described as a"holding zone"or"open zone"because the majority of property in this district is guided for further development. The City of Chanhassen 2000 Land Use Plan shows this property guided for Large Lot Residential. Permitting garden centers or retail nurseries may ultimately lead to a"spot"zone of this property. The property surrounding the existing Halla Nursery buildings,which is part of the current nursery, has received final plat approval for a residential subdivision. Other A-2 zoned districts are adjacent to existing and future residential or industrial developments. A"retail"oriented nursery or garden center may not be compatible with the existing permitted uses in the A-2 zoning district. However,there may be certain A-2 zoned areas which are suitable for garden centers or nurseries. Planning Commission October 25, 1995 Page 4 Property currently used for nurseries or similar uses may be suitable for use as a garden center or retail nursery. If allowed in the A-2 district, retail nurseries or garden centers would be more compatible with the current interim uses in the A-2 District. Structures such as greenhouses, outdoor displays, and nursery areas are for the most part temporary structures or uses. Allowing additional permanent structures would only increase the likely hood that the property would remain in retail use. By permitting retail nurseries as an interim use, conditions can be placed on the permit to ensure that the property will someday comply with the comprehensive plan. Constructing permanent retail buildings makes it difficult to redevelop the property into other appropriate uses. Staff is also concerned that if permanent buildings are constructed for retail nursery purposes,these buildings may be converted to another retail use if the property is vacated by the nursery. The City Comprehensive Plan discusses both present and future agricultural uses in the City. The Plan states, "While several farms remain in the community, for the most part this use has either been eliminated by development or is often conducted on a lease hold basis with the land held by persons intending to market the property for development. The city has no desire to see these operations prematurely eliminated and will cooperate with the owners to allow them to continue as long as it is feasible to do so. However,there is no proposed on-going goal of permanently providing for agricultural land preservation in the community." Interim uses include those uses which are allowed within a zoning district for a limited amount of time. The temporary use is permitted until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no longer permit it. Interim uses are reviewed and conditions added to soften any negative impacts on adjacent properties, such as: increased traffic, noise, drainage, and requirements for public facilities and services. As mentioned above,A-2 Districts are often located near existing or future residential or industrial properties. These properties serve as a"holding"or"open"zone until such time as the property is further developed. If garden centers or retail nurseries are to be permitted in the A-2 District, it would make sense to permit them as an interim use. Staff recommends that the ordinance be amended to allow for retail and wholesale nurseries as an interim use in the A-2 District. Amending the ordinance to allow retail and wholesale nurseries as a permitted use would be inconsistent with the A-2 District. Staff is concerned with the impacts that a retail nursery or garden center would have on surrounding properties and the spirit and intent of the A-2 District. Garden centers would permit the retail sales of a wide range of products, including: hardware, lawn and garden equipment,paints,tools, etc. The current permitted, conditional, and interim uses in the A-2 district are either residential in nature or are uses which require a large land area. A garden center is inconstant with other uses in the A-2 District. However, staff is of the opinion that adding retail nursery sales may be appropriate in certain locations, if the necessary conditions are attached. Staff developed nine conditions which would apply to retail or wholesale nurseries. The conditions are as follows: Planning Commission October 25, 1995 Page 5 1. The site must be on a collector street or minor arterial as identified in the comprehensive plan. 2. The minimum lot size is five(5) acres. 3. All storage and yard areas as well as building must be setback one hundred (100) feet from public or private road right-of-ways and five hundred(500) feet from an adjacent single family residence. 4. All outdoor store areas must be completely screened by one hundred(100)percent opaque fencing or berming. 5. Hours of operations shall be set by the City Council. 6. Light sources shall be shielded. 7. No outside speaker systems are allowed. 8. A termination date shall be established for the interim use permit. The use shall be permitted until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular event,or until zoning regulations no longer permit it. 9. One ground low profile or wall sign, not exceeding twenty-four(24) square feet of sign display area, shall be permitted on the premises. (Note: The 500 foot setback would not allow Mr. Halla to add additional buildings after homes are constructed in his subdivision. Staff is of the opinion that 500 feet is an appropriate setback for nursery buildings from single family residences. Again, consideration must be given to all properties within the A-2 Zoning District.) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the zoning ordinance amendment as submitted by the applicant. The applicant's proposal requested that landscape nurseries be a permitted use or"legal use" in the A- 2 District. Staff has provided a proposal which would allow the applicant to operate a retail nursery. Currently, retail nurseries are prohibited in the A-2 District. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: Planning Commission October 25, 1995 Page 6 "The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend Sections 20-576(7), 20-1, and 20-257 to permit both wholesale and retail nurseries in the A-2 District as an Interim Use, as outlined in the staff report dated October 25, 1995." More Specifically, the amendments shall read as follows: Amend Section 20-1 to read: "Nursery means an enterprise which conducts the retail and wholesale sale of plants grown on the site or imported to the site, as well as accessory items directly related to their care and maintenance. The retail sale of hardware, paint,pet supplies, power equipment, and farm implements shall be prohibited. Nursery may include greenhouses." Amend Section 20-257 to read: "The following conditions will apply to all wholesale and retail nurseries: 1. The site must be on a collector street or minor arterial as identified in the comprehensive plan. 2. The minimum lot size is five (5) acres 3. All storage and yard areas as well as building must be setback one hundred(100) feet from public or private road right-of-ways and five hundred(500) feet from an adjacent single family residence. 4. All outdoor storage areas must be completely screened by one hundred(100)percent opaque fencing or berming. 5. Hours of operations shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday only, work on Sundays and holidays is prohibited. 6. Light sources shall be shielded 7. No outside speaker systems are allowed. 8. A termination date shall be established for the interim use permit. The use shall be permitted until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no longer permit it. Planning Commission October 25, 1995 Page 7 9. One ground low profile or wall sign, not exceeding twenty-four(24) square feet of sign display area, shall be permitted on the premises. Amend Section 20-576(7)to read: "Wholesale and retail nurseries." ATTACHMENTS 1. Application for zoning ordinance amendment submitted by Don Halla dated October 4, 1995. 2. Letter to Don Halla dated October 6, 1995. CITY OF CHANHASSEN PEC'ElvF_D CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE OCT 0 6 1995 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 SIV At CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT II OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION OCT 1995 APPLICANT: yA 4-A NUS S //I/'( OWNER: /J � BIAT AR1M $T a�VD r ADDRESS: /0 oO4 6,1;i1EAT /N,5 ADDRESS: 6 6 O / 1(/01/11 WI.( TRAI C yg s �7 Mit/ , ,55 '/ ---D./A/4 M 55-i/3.7 /!y TELEPHONE (Day time) 5`5/3--6 5.5.< TELEPHONE: 9i'? &”‘,R 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. X• Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review Notification Signs 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" ($50 CUP/SPRNAC/VAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) 10. Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 81/2" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. • NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract 'd r.i S_ ,I • . •0I =NEI=3,] .INLb ��d LOCATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION A — REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION A — ' ,i 62.1 --/-12-147-1/40 REASON FOR THIS REQUEST A - ,' one /g.‘ ?� t''rr-ofti-dice, t Z4iA I This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed an musta accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my nowledge. Sign re of Applicant ate / Signature of Fee Owner D e Application Received on Fee Paid a Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. if not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. _ • I ;_5I • , .01 SN9IS3m7 CITY OF , ,. : . , .,./, \f-,--- . ,:. _.„7,-._,, s CHANHASSEN \ _ ,,:. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 r (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 October 6, 1995 • Mr. Don Halla Halla Nursery 10000 Great Plains Blvd. Chaska, MN 55318 Dear Mr. Halla: I have received your application from Steve Kirchman today. It is my understanding that you are requesting an amendment to the City Code permitting landscape nursery's in the A-2 district. The procedure for a code amendment is a public hearing before the Planning Commission and then review and either approval or denial by the City Council. I have scheduled this hearing for the November 1, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, A - ° ; Kate Aanenson Planning Director A i $i i i ;n 4 E r , t_ t ! r e ! -D.'. fi ! E t t r F , ,_1_ . .- _ .- ..N* r4v .--e'e -----.4..h,Ft:—_ 4— 111!1 th�- .� t y rlak II - -... k 'I4 rail • ,• '- .,►1-, = 4.1ti1'•. •., k4*i�:+:d •a ..i1W---,;;A ,- P lia*vir \�� i R 4.1•T .... „,.,.,.. _ ,•or I' l' . , j> ",' •'-1 r.t..17.1...14444 r .",, • ' L 7-Mk �� ` ' .�_._-_._ d,a _...a mi UR("tt, LI 2 r_ -Ci.Q`047..A-1. 11 �--•.-. .1 t OIYJ ^, -o°° 8 t♦� Y -O^ 0w I. am ��•+ 1V IN\111�•Ir �, _ , d r `�� + :..•mow��f: -+^^'y e far : ' g . `. :� 1 r,c rittAffics ° C fir Niks.Atzt. rilk7447, - -..f- _ r f., I.-10 frp411, Ta V - ..7-- *** am le. .-..Aiiii .-. ._.. ,:= /1"11111111- 11 = s' '--- „ .. 1Q$iamvi,_.. , , . fi,;!,.......:-.4 - -- • . r ,..,.,..,...A:r.e/it./.2 pk...i,S. i• —4- ---- fr- '''" __ ..,...,- ..,..„.,.„..„.:...,,,,:_.„...,..„.s t��r C�1 ,, e tAxt sour .. .. ..r:t17.W-ilk. # .0 .: ,•,-1-, -.wig . . - ll IL i ! FICSO.:Or ___:—..—.. . . .. „ . _.... ... 1 -:_ , ' A CITY OF `� W '! =� ` J - -8 l 4 �� CHAM-IASSEN , BASF MAP r• `j aur "‘*----1 r /� c tar. - CURRENT I � 1 :1 •.1C APIP4 4 IIP11##9r1". ' kal...' .. i e i✓� ��r .10,1::� - ` , __ 5 A-2 ZONED •.� / ti=-:, )c-_� PROPERTY L1,,,,,;„,- -�A-...4, i�� a / x ! # $ $ 11 1 1 a r 5. CITY 0 F PC 1 9 \_ CC DATE: 1/23/3//9 CHANHASSEN CASEDATE:#: #95-1255 By: Rask:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Variance requests from Section 20-1267 requiring individual dimensional letters, and Section 20-13-3(3)to allow a second wall mounted sign on the south elevation. < LOCATION: 7901 Great Plains Blvd. (West 79th Street and Great Plains Blvd. - Lot 1. 0 Gateway First Addition) Q. APPLICANT: Gary Brown 1831 Koehnen Circle Q Excelsior. MN 55331 (612)934-2155 PRESENT ZONING: BH, Highway Business District ACREAGE: Approximately 0.4 acres(20,280 square feet) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- OI, Office& Institutional, West 79th Street and Railroad ROW S - BH, Brown's Amoco E - BH, Rapid Oil Change QW- BH, Great Plains Blvd. and Holiday Station QWATER AND SEWER: Available to site w PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site has been developed with two car wash buildings. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial • 1 .01§ ) ..\\NIIIIIIRSIIIIT (i-. 1101111111101,;( Ai et��1 .. iii .�1.111..*I:, � I Q' ,,�i\„;,\.\ LAKE- ;�!" b,'ARK i �� ,� "'�� O i �c�� 1 . //� 'I��= 7) Tima OA .11.14th • 700, - AMIN Ifilire.;N' V Z: . ir'''\ IRO AV . 1114b Aft CO :MI ■■ okiipPAW ''�44 rarii e H/ ,s �'11�� '`•'01111111111111J "::•,� :►� 117!��J ' IOC' 1.411 �uri � * rVi �ayura■ /'\�. ', m %V oa f �I4, •moi ..# �� '� • s ,woks .• 1 entamt,. 0,0t t.a, 4-1 Nov oriblimieri 1.+4 tS r \\ . ce .,A ir OA Militt\1 4w E. , ' ;Filillti. EMI I. . 1.111111 1141.111116, a ,PVT, -41 ., • �Eir�� fit'' tri Al/ ail Wm Num am l::...- .' :iii: •I Q (LJ V ' ■A ■g Et WAIL?. k \eip 'O. ` Elmffimi - rw, I. �=MN ■ N NIP. E3 1 = 11111111111 ' u Nu.illil w , ORM ,' alb ® ,�� 1111 1111111 „.. lir L • `i,�'�;'Ill ;_. v.---iiiiiikrso.- Q. ' 4 i : ull rill.Riv.timit: Nk WESTERN STAT r v"�`.3 RE DRIVE E HIGHWAY o AMIE AN ..n - '�f;! ,, •C •••. / .as- .44-4, Rd: pia vz v 'r' ` W s.. sus, ''N :, t tttt��02?. �;#4 P`I 5��, ' Q PARK I >� ' .� • ritil1 IA �4��ui - a �� '3s �\ - • r� .;._� •ly p.. ••eR/CE • z Alta 4void� �--_-_ __-- • �-�-� - -. r `VI�► MARSH o .:: ©111i ' ,' 4W LAKE w Z1'�y' �I� (/ i SINNEN _ ' t ..it .,r 1 W 1 �� CIRCLE PARK J ` _Y a Aar`Lift. gal i .�) L A KE SUSAN I "f rI --4 maw -AI /"my" I-MISSION HI / �`` 4 '�_ • , 2 DRIVE SCO ' 0. �I ri, _ i- yip, COUf2T ? RIC M • R Nax ��3i►g � � yt� Nor �� t �♦� iv.�. , ®,0 x,61 n .� �. 1.1 1t ••••:. :sem CIN �. ll- ga ilipp- 11, -r e• 41111111 irvir —/MISSION MI Wp• ___�aTR,:_ .,,,A!! +•. `�• MHIL NI �1�111f - S.,-�/ WEST k_ iia FAST - - r'�� 114' 21 ' �� ,� � 7 T COURT o RoPOSE - Brown Sign Variance January 3, 1996 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-1267. Uniformity of construction, design, etc. "All permanent signs shall be designed and constructed in a uniform manner and,to the extent possible, as an integral part of the building's architecture. . . Signage shall use individual dimensional letters and logos, be back lit if a wall sign is illuminated, and be architecturally compatible with the building and other signage if in a multi- tenant building. Company symbols, display messages, pictorial presentations, illustrations, or decorations shall not occupy more than fifteen(15)percent of the sign display area. Section 20-1303(3) Wall business sign. "Wall business signs shall be permitted on street frontage for each business occupant within a building only. . ." Section 20-1253 states that, "The City Council, upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, may grant a variance from the requirements of this article where it is shown that by reason of topography or other conditions, strict compliance with the requirements of this article would cause a hardship; provided that a variance may be granted only if the variance does not adversely affect the spirit or intent of this article. . ." BACKGROUND On September 25, 1995, the City Council approved conditional use permit 95-3 to allow two principal buildings on one lot and site plan 95-13 for a 1,255 square foot drive through car wash subject to seven conditions. Condition 5 stated, "The applicant shall apply for separate sign permits for any signage on site except for traffic circulation signs. Signage shall comply with the city's sign ordinance." On page three of the staff report SP-13, CUP 95-3, staff indicated that signage is permitted on street frontage(West 79th Street)only. On December 1, 1995, staff made a final inspection of the car wash building before issuing the certificate of occupancy (CO). Upon review of the building, staff observed two illegal signs on the north and south elevations. No permits were obtained for the signage. Staff requested that the signs be removed or that the applicant apply for a variance prior to issuance of the CO. ANALYSIS Staff recommends denial of the variance as the applicant has not identified a hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance. Neither the size, shape, nor topography of the lot prevent the placement of a sign which meets ordinance requirements. Staff finds that the applicant has a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise the business name and service with one wall sign. The applicant was notified that a sign permit would be required prior to installing a wall sign (see letter to Mr. Gary Brown dated October 2, 1995). Further, the staff report clearly stated that signage would be permitted on street frontage(West 79th Street)only. Brown Sign Variance January 3, 1996 Page 3 The existing signs on the north and south elevations are in violation of the sign ordinance. City code requires individual dimensional letters for wall signs, and permits signage on street frontage only. To comply with city code, the applicant would have to remove both signs. A sign consisting of individual dimensional letters may be erected on the north elevation. Based on ordinance requirements, a wall sign not exceeding seventy-five(75) square feet would be permitted. The sign may contain the wording, Car Wash and Entrance. "Entrance" would be considered a display message and may not occupy more than fifteen (15) percent of the sign display area. In addition, directional signs not exceeding four square feet or five feet in height could be installed on the premises identifying the entrance and exit along with any other pertinent directional information. The purpose and intent of the sign ordinance is to establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise their name and service while promoting public safety and enhancing the image of the community. In addition, the ordinance provides standards to ensure that signage is an integral component of the building's architecture. Granting variances for an additional wall sign and for signage which does not meet minimum design standards would set a precedent that deviates from other signage in the commercial district. FINDINGS The Planning Commission shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Finding: The applicant has a reasonable opportunity to advertise the business name and service with a wall sign on the north elevation. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally,to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which the variance is based are applicable to other properties with the BH, Business Highway District. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Brown Sign Variance January 3, 1996 Page 4 Finding: The purpose of the variation appears to be based upon a desire to increase the value of the parcel. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The alleged hardship is self-created as the applicant erected the signs without first obtaining a permit. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The variance should not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements. However, permanent signs have a direct impact on, and a relationship to,the image of the community. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increases the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property' values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation will not significantly impair light and air to adjacent property. Whereas,an additional sign on this building alone may not increase congestion of public streets or endanger public safety, uncontrolled and unlimited signs adversely impact public safety and the image and aesthetics of the community. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the request for sign variance #95-12 based on the findings presented in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance. 2. The applicant has a reasonable opportunity to advertise their name and service with a wall sign. 3. The variance request is inconsistent with the purpose and findings of the sign ordinance." ATTACHMENTS 1. Application dated December 1, 1995 2. Sign Permit Application 3. Building Elevations Brown Sign Variance January 3, 1996 Page 5 4. Memorandum to Bob Reid, Building Inspector dated December 1, 1995 5. Letter to Mr. Gary Brown dated October 2, 1995 6. Page 3 of staff report for Brown's Car Wash CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: :j-. '`V A.2)/�l>,4✓�✓ OWNER: ADDRESS: /ii'Q/ 7.siz/i- C': -L ADDRESS: TELEPHONE (Day time) / Z /-2/-. 4 TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit /Variance Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment 4./Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review* X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost— ($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) Subdivision* TOTAL FEE$ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2"X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE-When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME (-7i L-Gi:-7 LOCATION 2 14// �;�z �a ; /7l/a./ 4Y ✓,�� LEGAL DESCRIPTION TOTAL ACREAGE - 3 WETLANDS PRESENT YES NO PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST 7i) /Z/0,/,- A ( ,,/iJ ,/%y- 97'i,,/ r: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for cfev-fopment review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions .re _'proved by •- ..plicant. / sir Sig . 4` . licant Date ✓�-/- 9� Sign_ Ir: of ee •wner Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 937-1900 SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION Nd kl - s.",i Permit # Receipt # Permit Fee $ Date: / / Site Address: .2043/ C/'..E4-•r / 4, 14t)S . G•• Zoning District: Owner. L9- 7 4- 1 RA.Alm, -r., Phone: 0:2 V 0/LC:� Address: /d/-2 1 /1 )01 sia•v H. C,.t s� e Applicant: 6'4 * ��p�:...J Phone: '1-Z / r-(Address: /( --1 / A /f..ev=•.:.i C>2 f;t ,- Contractor G,41 ' j f '-�,,,) Phone: 1� 5/.2 /4".3---- lr TYPE OF SIGN /////- New I/Wall Mounted Alteration Free Standing Illuminated Repair Monument Non-Illuminated Relocate Pylon Permanent Sign Temporary Sign From / / To / / Size of Sign: Length if ft. Width ft. Height — ft. Total Area - sq. ft. If a Wall Sign, provide the following: i _a Wall area in sq. ft. y Percentage of Wall Coverage by sign,..--2,S u §—now -- I;. i, I. Sl ,Exygt.,► I =.....1 ,,i,,,\„ , wi ,. %., ......... , i .... ,, . , .........,, IU 1�' �2 11E); IH' _ 11111111 EIri • im-ds ,, ,, 111 i_ - . b • ...,.... . il , ; • ...... IMO MEI__� SENI i I• It1 , I I ou • =IMMI • : SWIM 1 • MEE INNII it 1 _�_ II .�I.111 I MIN MIN 'I �_C_► ■ =__ • 101 11 • • WI ,I it II —t.- i I 1 ��s I mss . i is E® II!Iill , I Calk Im tall ...milk . IMEM • \ I =FINSAMIll , 'II U111111111111 1, Immo 1 1 ILI! _( L l 11,_ . I .I i. I N ri ~ i` CITY of CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Reid,Building Inspector ..�� FROM: Bob Generous,Planner II DATE: December 1, 1995 SUBJ: Brown's Car Wash, 7901 Great Plains Boulevard The Planning Department has the following conditions that need to be met to permit building final: 1. The city will retain the applicant's security escrow in the amount of$1,500.00 to assure landscape installation and boulevard maintenance. Site landscaping shall be installed in the spring of 1996. 2. The applicant must install site traffic control signage. 3. Applicant has installed illegal signage on the building without permits. This signage must be removed or a variance application submitted to the city. A sign permit must also be submitted to the city. Attached is a copy of the conditions of site plan approval. If you have any questions, please contact me at extension 141. F CHANHASSEN CITY o 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 • �-f (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 October 2, 1995 Mr. Gary Brown 1831 Koehnen Circle Excelsior, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Brown: This letter is to formally notify you that on September 25, 1995, the.City Council approved conditional use permit 95-3 to allow two principal buildings on one lot and site plan 95-13, prepared by Peter Curtis Architect dated June 28, 1995, revised September 21, 1995, and grading, drainage and erosion control plan prepared by William R. Engelhardt Associates dated August, 1995 and stamped received August 25, 1995, for a 1,255 square foot drive through car wash on property zoned Highway Business district subject to the following conditions: 1. Erosion control fence shall be installed prior to any site grading along the southerly property line and maintained until all disturbed areas have been revegetated or paved. 2. The drive aisles shall be increased to 16 feet wide face to face and another drive aisle shall be looped back to the east and north to West 79th Street to improve traffic circulation. The applicant shall install "Do Not Enter" signs at the looped drive (northeast) entrance and to prohibit westbound traffic south of the proposed car wash. 3. The applicant shall utilize the existing 6-inch water lead from West 79th Street versus tapping the existing 8-inch water main in West 79th Street. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for relocation of any landscaping materials along West 79th Street in conflict with the site improvements. 5. The applicant shall apply for separate sign permits for any signage on site except for traffic circulation sign. Signage shall comply with the city's sign ordinance. 6. Two of the red maples shall be relocated to the western side of the property. Mr. Gary Brown October 2, 1995 Page 2 7. The developer shall enter into a site development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval. Enclosed is your copy of the site plan/conditional use permit agreement for your records. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Robert Generous, AICP Planner II c: Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer Steve Kirchman, Building Official s 11. Brown's Car Wash September 6, 1995 Update September 20, 1995 Page 3 GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE HIGHWAY 5 STANDARDS This property is located within the Highway 5 Corridor District, HC-1 District. The project must comply with the architectural design standards within the district, the intent of which is to attain high quality in both design and construction of the development. Specifically, the development must be consistent with all plans and ordinances; must preserve natural conditions to the greatest extent feasible; must establish harmonious physical and visual relationships with existing and proposed development in the corridor; must use appropriate materials, lighting,texture, colors, architectural, and landscape forms to create a high quality design concept; must contain one or more pitched roof elements; must create a unified sense of internal order; must create a suitable balance between the amount and arrangement of open space, landscaping, view protection through screening, buffering, and orientation; must provide safe and adequate access and internal circulation; and must provide adequate separation from adjacent properties. Staff believes that this development has met the intent of the ordinance based on the proposed design and the conditions of approval contained in this staff report. ACCESS The proposed site is to be accessed from the existing car wash facility located on the corner of Great Plains Boulevard and West 79th Street. The proposed drive aisle is approximately 9 feet wide and the radius is too tight for passenger-type vehicles to easily maneuver. The drive aisle should be a minimum width of 16 feet face to face which will allow for passenger vehicles and truck utility vehicles to maneuver the site. Staff has attached a copy of a revised driveway layout (Attachment#1). The same holds true for the access leaving the proposed car wash building. The drive aisle is currently proposed at 9 feet wide and the turning radius would be too tight for passenger-type vehicles. Traffic circulation through the site needs further modifications. The current proposal is to route traffic back through the existing car wash out onto Great Plains Boulevard. Great Plains Boulevard restricts traffic movements to a right turn only which then would require a U-turn at the intersection of Great Plains Boulevard and West 79th Street. Staff recommends that another access be routed to the east and north of the proposed car wash building back out to West 79th Street. This drive aisle should be a minimum of 16 feet wide face to face. LIGHTING/SIGNAGE The applicant has not provided lighting or signage details. Building signage is permitted on street frontage (West 79th Street) only. Any signage, with the exception of directional and traffic circulation signage, would require a separate permit. C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 1/3/96 I1 C H A N H A s SEN CC DATE: 1/22/96 CASE#: 95-21 SPR By: Al-Jaff:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 1) Site Plan Review to remodel the existing Chanhassen Bowl/Filly's and a portion of the Frontier building into an entertainment center 2) A variance to allow projecting wall signs and wood/sandblasted signs Q LOCATION: North of the railroad tracks and Pauly Drive, east of Market Boulevard and South of West 78th Street aAPPLICANT: Lotus Realty Services, Inc. Bloomberg Companies& Dan and Stephen Dahlin a... P. O. Box 235 P.O. Box 730. Chanhassen, MN 55317 and Q Chanhassen, MN 55317 296 N. Pascal. St. Paul 55075,respectively 934-4538 PRESENT ZONING: BG, General Business District and CBD, Central Business District ACREAGE: Approximately 6.3 acres DENSITY: N/A ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N -CBD, Filly's and Country Suites Hotel S -BG, Western Railroad,American Community Bank,and Pauly QE-CBD,Frontier Center W- PUD, Market Square WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. [Li PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: A level parcel with an existing building,parking lot, and bus shelter. (/) 2000 LAND USE PLAN: . Commercial )411M1 ... it.'"• • A '!- .1! IA :;,„1-..., -7.--- -_ ' rar-to4 r :_. ��'~ � •. !'' �" rs \1:-L, . 4nm •cti . vix L O T O S -„_� • -- � •ilk fq it% II A.2;4..60 IIV1 7-7.11 - :-.111k- .'.7------1-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ,8111N Hi 0 . 4. .-�_ iF -_ ■ !. 4rr..`_= 'union 1 '0 'ilf`j� Karo V �y� - IIM '1' • til 14" `w•• as- %NTT.° -.. 41) c 1 nWillril cit*a' t U i ' � •:l oc-'s ��i r k-► t, +:--11" �,�`,' of:6v- _,__ ' 9 es GREE7VW0 0 0 -Arzg ...s�v `..' i I�©►:'��-azi [ �,1 I . L.a SHORES PARK 102797"4 Ir011ig 1111► !n�w�mit •,. ati ro gip.46pl 0 Ai •. '.,��;, LAK E I##3AaRK ti• 1�• �l� dibk"Ai ..... , R S F o•4141 F•41 1';v tly i i i ma !-, . 7) IN. OS. ,0:441 'c" mill11111111tWite; ''., t • °' .0 e OW -------'? -- .., ._. ,, _IrdaM,71- \ i t 41110.4" 4.- 11,014113IL°'' Ultra: tiPP--NrAefilP- - ..., AA illi jelL r-r4 E111011 Val11111,- --• ollt,.:,\ mI• ligics ow r__lc_, IR ;ei Mr „mi... AM a I 1,,s \,, 4 ••©• 4. 4v.?. ■ •,lcNW Mir 41%10 411k Mt y` lM.P _..3,„„ ,,,,n. ,R w iso N ic rfr ir 1/40 • " Adill I IMF �,.'% tb7 ' 011 1 :m yl ‘ ,j . wass:aiwaszo/U g II sw., ti ...„ Li! ./a a al': . LIMII .�Y W o is Mra lin Tars W, g 14 ' ' „ lig � V MIMF r:7i•N R 1 2 g: �� IIIIIIi111111111111 a. :x.:11 Ic Wo A cm LIMN `• ®51111i1%?rR ~` iiiiobr' CBi / .4.1111 C? m "i. , 5 Ro.0 % W p. �:�_ ez 141100 _, . "Pr L �, Y . ,fir/ • $9101... .----- ellg--1,- � � • LLL II/ .... • pill • DRIvE • , .,,, ,. R _ _ ,i ‘ Ill *j I m -ill c II ;: a 14 . 11.' . 4 - IL. ---1 sus • ti\t„, ' M .tA S i ' 1 ert,,Itts ip 1: PARKittH:7'41‘411 a .!ata% ,��A C nit .11 44 - z1/4441. -.) .411",e - - 1 % c` -%1 pi??wryly A itatzt,e, .i.. .- WAIIIVitiO 4 'C!� / i ♦ S,NNEN © ©1��I/� CIRCLE IPYT 1 j� 1!� i UFFOLK jr LKE _.40; `' SUSAN rl y ,,,,,_.,_ ___ !'��`�a .,a\ Al Si -• _ oma/ N Entertainment Center January 3, 1996 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The plans for this proposal have been in development for several years. The applicant is requesting to remodel the Bowling Alley/Filly's building and the Frontier Building into an Entertainment Center which will include six movie theaters. Pauly's Sports Bar and Restaurant, the bowling alley, some retail stores and restaurants. The site includes several lots that will need to be replatted. Staff will explain the subdivision aspect of this application in further detail in the staff report. The current request is for the remodeling of the existing building and adding entrances, board walks and parking space only. Site access is provided via existing Pauly Drive and a curb cut on Market Boulevard. Internal access is a somewhat more complicated situation. The proposed parking lot configuration poses some problems. Staff is recommending a redesign of the parking area as outlined in this report. This matter is also discussed in detail under Traffic Circulation in the report (Attachment 2 prepared by Hoisington Koegler Group). The site plan is well developed, however, in some respects it does not meet all current standards. The bowling alley building is located in a General Business District. It is an existing building with existing parking which exceeds the hard surface limit and the parking setbacks. With this proposal, the applicant is attempting to increase the green space on the site by adding landscape islands to the parking lot. The building architecture incorporates the old town theme. It attempts to reflect some architectural features or use of materials from surrounding buildings while maintaining its own identity. The roof line on the theater section of the building is similar to that which will be used on the Applebee's building. The shape of the louvers on the Country Suites Hotel is similar to the awnings used on the restaurant. The brick will match the Applebee's and Tires Plus exterior materials. The clock tower reflects the theme in downtown, and the use of textured painting will reflect some of Americana Community Bank's design. The type of architecture and materials used is a better quality than the existing building. The massive existing wall/building will be broken into five building facades. A board walk will be incorporated along the building which will give the appearance of a shorter building. New doors and windows will be introduced to the facade, in some cases, giving the impression of a second story. The applicant has failed to show any proposed designs or renovations of the northwest elevation of the building. Staff strongly recommends this elevation be incorporated into the overall development of the site. Entertainment Center January 3, 1996 Page 3 The site landscaping meets the requirements of the ordinance. There are five existing trees located east of the bus shelter. Due to reconfiguration of the access points into the site, four of the five trees are being lost. Staff recommends these trees be replanted in the bus shelter vicinity. Signage on this building will require a variance. The current sign ordinance is intended for modern buildings and does not permit signs requested by the applicant such as directory and projecting signs. These types of signs are a common part of an old town theme and would enhance and compliment the architecture of the building. A sign covenant has been developed for this building and will be incorporated into the conditions of approval of the site plan. A replat of the parcels on which the building occupies is required. It is a fairly straight forward process which will result in moving existing property lines. The subdivision request has not been filed with this application. Approval of the site plan request will be contingent on replatting the property. The Frontier building is separated from the bowling alley building by an alley. It is located in the Central Business District. The parking lot located south of the Frontier building has not been improved. Remodeling the Frontier building will be the second phase of the entertainment center development, however; paving the parking area located south of the Frontier building is proposed to be completed with the entertainment complex development. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the site plan request for this proposal with appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND On August 3, 1994, the Planning Commission reviewed a conceptual proposal from Lotus Realty for the Entertainment Center. They found the proposal interesting but had concerns about the style of architecture. They recommended that the city hire a consultant to review the proposed facade design and application to the building. The Planning Commission felt the proposed uses were compatible with the downtown area. The City Council reviewed the concept on August 22, 1994, and concurred with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Over the past three weeks, numerous staff members had in-depth discussions regarding this proposal. Several meetings with the applicants have taken place to incorporate some recommendations we found suitable for this type of development. This area was studied in the Chanhassen Vision 2002, which was completed in the summer of 1994. This area was identified as one of the building blocks for the Downtown area. The study states "The Dinner Theater is the cornerstone of an entertainment center. This proposed entertainment center will mix uses to include theaters, restaurants, commercial recreation, hotels Entertainment Center January 3, 1996 Page 4 and related uses. The entertainment uses will be concentrated, allowing visitors to park once and shop twice in a common parking area and move to the various destinations on foot. Its emphasis on nighttime activities will extend the downtown's daytime vitality into the evening hours." This proposal will implement the findings of the Vision 2002 proposed uses. SITE PLAN REVIEW General Site Plan/Architecture The applicant is proposing to redevelop the existing bowling alley/Filly's building into an entertainment center. The bowling alley/restaurant will have an area of 40,000 square feet and the theaters will have an area of 20,000 square feet. The site is located north of the railroad tracks and Pauly Drive, east of Market Boulevard and south of West 78th Street and Country Suites Hotel. Access is gained off of two curb cuts on Pauly Drive. and via Market Boulevard. Parking is located to the west and south of the existing building. Additional parking will be added south of the Frontier building. The parking area is an existing feature that does not meet the ordinance requirements regarding minimizing views of parking lots. However, the applicant is improving the situation by adding landscape islands. The architecture of the building attempts to reflect the old town theme while incorporating some elements from existing buildings. The roof line on the theater section of the building reflects angles found on the Applebee's building. The shape of the louvers on the Country Suites Hotel is reflected on the awnings used on the restaurant. The brick will match the Applebee's and Tires Plus exterior materials, the clock tower reflects the theme in downtown, and the use of textured painting will reflect some of Americana Community Bank's design. The massive existing wall will be broken into five building facades. A board walk will be incorporated along the building which will give the appearance of a shorter building. New doors and windows will be introduced to the facade, in some cases, giving the impression of a second story. New entryways into the theaters and restaurant are proposed. Currently,trash dumpsters are located along the south elevation of the existing building, creating an eyesore. The applicant is relocating one trash enclosure to the west of the building and a second location east of the building. They are being screened by masonry walls using the same materials as the buildings. The entire complex will utilize two trash collection locations. Staff is generally satisfied with the architecture of the buildings and note that the applicant has . worked extensively to modify this project. The architecture style of the building has been revised extensively since it first appeared in a concept form. Entertainment Center January 3, 1996 Page 5 The site on which this building is situated is a highly visible one and which is highly likely to become one of the most important intersections in the Chanhassen CBD. Staff appreciates the fact that the building is being renovated to reflect an entertainment theme. Setting an architectural standard for this building is difficult in part due to its location. The site plan approval requires architectural consistency with the surrounding area. However, at the same time, this site is essentially the transition point from the shopping center site into architectural styles found elsewhere in the CBD and General Business District. Therefore, staff believes that the architect's intent to combine the style of the old town theme, along with other downtown buildings such as the Country Hospitality Suites. Americana Community Bank. and Applebee's, is a sound one. Landscaping Landscape area requirements for the Chanhassen Entertainment Center is 15,496 square feet based on a vehicular use area of 193,701 feet. The applicant is providing 16,776 square feet which consists of perimeter green area and parking lot peninsulas and islands. Sixty-two trees are required within the parking lot area and applicant has provided 77. The applicant's landscaping plan contains a mix of 6 species of trees, 4 overstory and 2 ornamental. The species list includes sugar maple, green ash, hackberry, American linden, amur maple, and Japanese tree lilac. For island parking lot conditions, green ash, hackberry and linden are the best selections due to their tolerance for difficult planting sites. Sugar maple is sensitive to compaction, soil conditions, and heat and would be best used along the perimeters of the site where green area is at a maximum and hard surface a minimum. The ornamentals would also be appropriate in perimeter or peninsula plantings. Applicant has not specified species planting location on landscaping plan and staff requests a labeled plan be submitted prior to final plat for approval. Lighting Parking lot lighting locations have not been shown on the plans. However, light fixture designs are shown on pages 5 and 6 of the attached site plans. Only shielded fixtures are allowed and the applicant shall demonstrate that there is no more than 0.5' candles of light at the property line. A parking lot lighting plan should be provided to staff for review and approval. Signage Staff worked closely with the applicant in developing a sign criteria for this complex. The majority of the requested signage is not permitted by ordinance. However, this proposed signage will only enhance the architecture of the building. Numerous staff members visited different old towns and searched historic preservation books. The criteria that is proposed is consistent with other old towns with the exception of neon illuminated signs and the sign band on the clock tower building Entertainment Center January 3, 1996 Page 6 on the second floor. Typically, the second story in old town functions as apartments. Hence, there are no signs on the second floor. Buildings which carried a sign on the second floor identified the name of the building and year built only. Sign variances include the following: 1. The sign identifying the restaurant projects halfway over the roof line. The sign ordinance prohibits signs from projtecting over a roof line. If the height of the building was averaged, the sign would fall within the permitted limit. 2. The ordinance requires individual letters only. The wood blasted signs, not individual letters, would require a variance. 3. The ordinance prohibits projecting wall signs. These signs are an integral part of the old town theme. Staff is recommending these variances be approved. The following is the sign criteria which includes variances: Signage Plan and Restrictions Type A -Neon Illuminated 1. The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands as indicated on Exhibit A. The letters and logos shall be restricted to 30 inches in height and must be lighted. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall have a minimum depth of five inches and shall be constructed with a translucent facing over neon tube illumination. (Elevation drawing to be attached upon approval.) 2. All individual dimensional letters and logos comprising each sign shall be back lit with neon tube illumination. Letter styles shall reflect the period style of the facades and/or corporate logos. At the cinema marquee and restaurant sign bands, lettering on a "Plexiglas" face shall be permitted and at the cinema marquee temporary individual letters and numbers may be used to display current and/or coming attractions, ratings and show times and dates. 3. Tenant neon illuminated signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area. Entertainment Center January 3, 1996 Page 7 Type B - Sandblasted Wood, Tenant Identification 1. The letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands as indicated on Exhibit A. Projecting signs may not exceed 4' in height and 3 feet in width. 2. All wooden signs shall be sandblasted and letters shall be an integral part of the building's architecture. 3. Signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered and such minimal messages such as date of establishment of business. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band or within the projecting sign and do not occupy more than fifteen (15) percent of the sign display area. 4. Projecting signs shall be stationary, may be lighted by spotlight and must use one of the three frame designs set forth on Exhibit A. 5. Projecting signs shall be limited to one per tenant and my not exceed 12 square feet. Type C - Menu Signs 1. Shall be located at eye level adjacent to tenant entries as indicated on Exhibit A and shall not exceed 4 feet in height. 2. Shall be used only to convey daily specials, menus and offerings and shall be wood framed chalkboard and/or electronic board with temporary handwritten lettering. No paper construction or messages will be permitted. 3. Menu signs shall be limited to one per tenant and may not exceed 8 square feet. Type D - Posters The cinema shall be permitted framed poster displays for current and/or coming attractions at the south elevation only. Type E - Building Directory One building directory shall be permitted at the sign band indicated on Exhibit A at the "Bank Building" location. The directory sign shall not exceed 12 square feet. Entertainment Center January 3, 1996 Page 8 • Utilities The site is serviced by municipal utilities. The storm sewer in Pauly Drive has been designed to convey runoff from this site to the downtown storm water treatment pond (west of Market Boulevard). The existing/proposed parking lots appear to be deficient of the necessary catch basins to convey stormwater runoff from the site. The applicant's engineer will need to design a storm drainage plan to accommodate runoff from a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. This most likely will require additional catch basins on the site. In addition, the applicant's engineer will need to submit detailed storm drainage calculations and drainage area maps for staff to review and approve. The City has sanitary sewer and water lines that intersect the site from east to west just south of the entertainment complex. According to the plans, the remodeling in the southwest corner of the complex will encroach upon the City's drainage and utility easement and will actually build the structure over existing sewer and water lines. This part of the plan needs to be redesigned to avoid conflict with the City's utility lines. The water line may be relocated by the applicant to avoid the conflict. A new drainage and utility easement would need to be dedicated to the City as a result of this relocation. In conjunction with the parking lot improvements, existing gate valves, manholes, and catch basins will require adjustment by the applicant's contractor. The City's Utility Department will require inspections of these adjustments as they occur. The applicant's contractor will need to contact the City's Utility Department for the appropriate inspections. Site Grading The site is generally uniform draining from north to south at approximately a 3% slope. Only minor regrading of the site is proposed with the parking lot reconfiguration. In conjunction with the parking lot improvements, the existing Southwest Metro Bus pickup/drop off zone will be impacted. The existing westerly driveway entrance off of Pauly Drive is proposed to be shifted westerly approximately 18 feet. This results in losing four out of the five existing boulevard trees in the bus zone and brick pavement area. Erosion control measures such as protection around catch basins, rock construction entrances, and silt fencing needs to be incorporated into the site/grading plan. The applicant's engineer will need to prepare an erosion control management plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Entertainment Center January 3, 1996 Page 9 Access The site is accessed from Market Boulevard and Pauly Drive. There are two existing driveways off of Pauly Drive and one from Market Boulevard. Pauly Drive is a city street with a 50-foot wide right-of-way which is not shown on the site plan. The street for the most part deadends at the easterly curbcut to the entertainment complex. However, there is a gravel surface which serves as an access road to the dinner theater and scene building, and Great Plains Boulevard. Staff recommends that a drive aisle be incorporated into the parking lot design to maintain access to the east to the dinner theater and Great Plains Boulevard. Cross access easements and maintenance agreement for parking should be prepared by the applicant for each business to access the site and utilize the parking lots. The applicant should also incorporate a turnaround at the end of Pauly Drive or enter into an agreement with the City allowing the city snowplows to turn around within the parking lot facility. The existing easterly curb cut on Pauly Drive is proposed to be modified significantly. Plans propose a 150-foot wide access opening from Pauly Drive which will create confusion and an unsafe approach for traffic. Staff recommends modifications to this access opening be limited to 36 feet in width. This may result in a loss of some parking stalls. I have attached a copy of a parking lot configuration prepared by the Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. that depicts staff s recommendations for access points off of Pauly Drive for review and consideration by the applicant. According to City Code Section 20-1118, a drive aisle between two rows of parking shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide. Some of the drive aisles do not meet this requirement and need to be revised accordingly. Staff also is concerned about turning radiuses and drive aisle widths for emergency vehicles. The applicant's engineer/site planner will need to increase radiuses and/or drive aisle widths to accommodate these types of vehicles. This also may result in loss of parking stalls. Staff recommends that the main drive aisles be 28 feet wide with 20-foot wide radiuses at the intersections. Traffic control will also be an issue. The applicant should prepare a traffic signage plan for staff to review and approve prior to issuance of a building permit. Since this proposal will involve adjustments to public infrastructures, i.e. utility lines, city streets, boulevard trees, etc., staff recommends the applicant enter into a site plan agreement with the City and supply a financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee compliance with conditions of approval and restoration to city boulevards and utilities adjustments. Entertainment Center January 3, 1996 Page 10 Miscellaneous It appears the site plan will involve adjustment of property lines throughout the site, however,no preliminary plat was submitted with the proposal. Staff is wondering how the property lines will eventually end up on the site and we request that staff have the opportunity to require the necessary drainage and utility easement or street right-of-way based on the subdivision proposal. Building Code Issues Background: The building proposed to be included in this project was formerly a manufacturing/warehouse facility. The west 3/5 of the building was redeveloped into the present bowling alley/nightclub in 1985. An examination of Inspection Division records reveals that a limited plan review was performed by an independent consultant at the time of the redevelopment. Analysis Wall and opening protection The Uniform Building Code (UBC) prohibits openings in walls less than five feet from a property line and requires protected openings in walls less than 20 feet from a property line. The center line of an adjoining public way (as defined in UBC 1001.2) may be used in calculating these setback requirements. The purpose of these requirements is to protect adjoining property. These requirements will adversely affect the proposed development unless the property is replatted. No openings would be permitted in the east wall of the entertainment complex along the east property line of Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Mall. Dedicating the alley between the proposed entertainment complex and the Frontier Building as a public way would eliminate the opening problem along the east wall. Similarly, no openings would be permitted along the south wall of the complex where the wall is parallel to the property line of Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Mall. Combining Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Mall with Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Mall would eliminate the opening problem on the south wall. Structural investigation Portions of the existing building for which there are no structural records and which will be redeveloped as part of this project will need to be evaluated by a structural engineer. Portions of the building may have been damaged or become deteriorated over the years. Additionally, it is not known if the original design and construction met the requirements of the building code in effect at Entertainment Center January 3, 1996 Page 11 the time of its construction. With the much higher anticipated occupant load involved in the proposed new use, it is paramount the integrity of the building be confirmed. Disabled parking Disabled parking is required to be placed as near as practicable to accessible entrances as possible. In this case, three or four of the disabled parking spaces shown at the southwest corner of the building should be relocated to the southeast corner. Frontier building, building connection The extent of work being done on the Frontier building and the nature of the connection between the Frontier building and the proposed entertainment center is not clear from the submitted documents. Due to property line setbacks, type of construction requirements, and mixed occupancy requirements. it's not possible to comments on aspects of the site plan involving these elements. The developers and designers must meet with the Building Official as early as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: Site Plan Review "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Site Plan for the Entertainment Complex (#95-21 SPR) as shown on the site plan dated December 12, 1995, with the following conditions: 1. The existing four trees located east of the existing bus shelter shall be relocated within the bus shelter area. Species shall be specified on the landscaping plan. 2. The applicant shall incorporate a sidewalk along Pauly Drive with the landscaping. Landscaping other than the city's boulevard trees shall be prohibited within the city's right- of-way or trail easement area. Any/all damaged sidewalk as a result of construction activities on the site shall be replaced in kind by the applicant. 3. All existing and proposed roof top equipment shall be screened from views, specifically from Highway 5. 4. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Entertainment Center January 3, 1996 Page 12 5. Window signage is prohibited. 6. The following sign criteria is adopted as part of the site plan which includes variances: Signage Plan and Restrictions Neon Illuminated a. The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands as indicated on Exhibit A. The letters and logos shall be restricted to 30 inches in height and must be back lit if illuminated. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall have a minimum depth of five inches and shall be constructed with a translucent facing over neon tube illumination. (Elevation drawing to be attached upon approval.) b. All individual dimensional letters and logos comprising each sign shall be back lit with neon tube illumination. Letter styles shall reflect the period style of the facades and/or corporate logos. At the cinema marquee and restaurant sign bands, lettering on a"Plexiglas" face shall be permitted and at the cinema marquee temporary individual letters and numbers may be used to display current and/or coming attractions, ratings and show times and dates. c. Tenant neon illuminated signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than 15%of the sign area. Sandblasted Wood, Tenant Identification a. The letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands as indicated on Exhibit A. Projecting signs may not exceed 4' in height and 3 feet in width. b. All wooden signs shall be sandblasted and letters shall be an integral part of the building's architecture. c. Signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered and such minimal messages such as date of establishment of business. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage Entertainment Center January 3, 1996 Page 13 band or within the projecting sign and do not occupy more than fifteen(15) percent of the sign display area. d. Projecting signs shall be stationary, may be lighted by spotlight and must use one of the three frame designs set forth on Exhibit A. e. Projecting signs shall be limited to one per tenant and my not exceed 12 square feet. Menu Signs a. Shall be located at eye level adjacent to tenant entries as indicated on Exhibit A and shall not exceed 4 feet in height. b. Shall be used only to convey daily specials, menus and offerings and shall be wood framed chalkboard and/or electronic board with temporary handwritten lettering. No paper construction or messages will be permitted. c. Menu signs shall be limited to one per tenant and may not exceed 8 square feet. Posters a. The cinema shall be permitted framed poster displays for current and/or coming attractions at the south elevation only. Building Directory a. One building directory shall be permitted at the sign band indicated on Exhibit A at the "Bank Building" location. The directory sign shall not exceed 12 square feet. 7. Cross access easements and maintenance agreements need to be provided over the parking lot and driveways. 8. Building Official conditions: a. Amend site plan review application to include replatting with the object of removing critical property lines, or redraw plans to comply with code requirements for opening protection. Entertainment Center January 3, 1996 Page 14 b. Have a qualified engineer perform a structural evaluation of the subject building. This should be done prior to building permit issuance. c. Revise plans to relocate disabled parking spaces closer to other building entrances. This should be done prior to building permit issuance. d. Clarify extent of proposed alterations to the frontier building. This should be done prior to site plan approval. e. Clarify the nature of the crosshatched area between the proposed entertainment complex and the frontier building. This should be done prior to site plan approval. 9. Fire Marshal conditions: a. "No Parking Fire Lane" will be established by the Fire Marshal. Contact Fire Marshal for exact details and comply with Policy #06-1991. Copy enclosed. b. A remote fire department sprinkler connection must be relocated to the south side of the building. Contact Fire Marshal for exact location. c. Maintain a ten foot clear space around new or existing fire hydrants. d. Submit radius turn dimensions to City Engineering and Fire Marshal for approval. 10. The northwest elevation shall be remodeled as part of this proposal. 11. The applicant's engineer shall submit to the City for review and approval a storm drainage management plan. The plan shall also include detailed stormwater calculations and area drainage maps for a 10-year storm event. 12. The applicant shall redesign the building plans to avoid conflict with the City's sanitary sewer and water lines. The applicant also has the option to relocate the City utility lines. The applicant will be required then to dedicate to the City the appropriate drainage and utility easements. All utility construction shall be in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Since most of these improvements will be considered private, separate building permits will be required through the City's Public Safety Department for all storm sewer and utility lines. 13. The applicant and/or contractor will be responsible for adjustment of all existing gate valves, manholes, and catch basins on the site. The City's Utility Department will require inspection of these adjustments. Entertainment Center January 3, 1996 Page 15 14. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new development. The plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. Type I erosion control fence and rock construction entrances shall be employed and maintained at all access points until streets have been paved with a bituminous surface. Catch basins shall be protected with silt fence and/or hay bales until the parking lot has been paved with a bituminous surface. 15. All disturbed areas as a result of construction shall be restored with sod and/or landscaping materials within two weeks of completion of the parking lot. 16. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval and to guarantee restoration of city boulevards and adjustments to the City's infrastructures. 17. The applicant shall redesign the site plan parking lot configuration to include the following items: a. Show the City's 50-foot right-of-way along Pauly Drive. b. Incorporate a drive aisle access to the east out to the dinner theater/Great Plains Boulevard. c. Redesign the easterly curbcut to a maximum width of 36 feet wide. d. Provide a turnaround for city snowplow equipment at the end of Pauly Drive or enter into an agreement with the City allowing city snowplows to utilize the parking lot facility. e. Widen main drive aisles to 28 feet wide and incorporate larger radiuses to accommodate emergency vehicles, and increase drive aisle widths to a minimum of 26 feet wide per city ordinance. f. The applicant shall prepare a traffic control plan for City staff to review and approve prior to issuance of a building permit. 18. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tile found during construction and abandon or reconnect all tiles as directed by the City Engineer. Entertainment Center January 3, 1996 Page 16 19. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all the necessary permits of the regulatory agencies such as health dept., watershed district and MPCA. 20. In conjunction with the subdivision process,the City reserves the right to require the necessary drainage and utility easements or street right-of-way based on the subdivision proposal." ATTACHMENTS 1. Project Narrative. 2. Report from Fred Hoisington dated March 22, 1995. 3. Memo from Steve Kirchman,dated December 20, 1995. 4. Memo from Mark Littfin dated December 8, 1995. 5. City Council minutes dated August 22, 1995. 6. Memo from Dave Hempel,Assistant City Engineer. 7. Plans received December 12, 1995. LOTUS REALTY SERVICES December 4, 1995 TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff FROM: Vernelle Clayton RE: Entertainment Complex Enclosed herewith is our application for Site Plan approval for the redevelopment of the area we have been calling the Entertainment Complex. Along with the application and fee, we are submitting the following: Existing Site Survey, Site and Drainage Plan, Landscape Plan, Streetscape Plan, Exterior Elevations with Signage Plan and a Topographical Survey prepared by Otto Associates Land Surveyors which in addition to the topographical data also incorporates existing utilities, grading and catch basins. No construction is anticipated on the existing parking lot except for the addition of the landscaping islands. As we have discussed, the project is somewhat different from most submissions for Site Plan Approval in that there is basically no new construction and the buildings are already sited. You and several members of the Planning Commission as well as the Council Members are familiar with this project in that we presented it to you on an informal basis several months ago. Since that time we have also presented it to the HRA and a new TIF District has been created for the area which includes the Entertainment Complex. Having completed the creation of the TIF District and having completed further arrangements with key tenants, we are now proceeding with the formal approval process. Assuming approval early in 1996, we anticipate construction to begin first with the interior portions as early as February, followed by the exterior improvements. 551 WEST 78TH STREET■ P.O.BOX 235■CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317■(612)934-4538 I■FAX(612)934-5472 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX Existing Use and Ownership There are three buildings involved in the project. They are commonly known as the Bowling Alley Building, the City Building and the Frontier Building. The Bowling Alley Building is owned by Dan and Steve Dahlin and existing uses include: Bowling Alley of 24 lanes, Filly's nightclub, the Backstretch bar, game area and meeting rooms. Both the City Building and the Frontier Building are Bloomberg properties. Both are currently used as warehouse storage. Only the lower portion of the Frontier Building is included in this redevelopment project. This is the portion of the building which was originally constructed for use as a lumber yard. The portions of the Frontier Building which house Maytag, Millies and the upstairs offices are not included in this project. Therefore, throughout this narrative all references to the Frontier Building are intended to refer only to the lower level. Post-redevelopment Proposed Uses and Ownership: Bowling Alley Building: The Bowling Alley will be refurbished and modernized with the latest in computerized scoring but will remain at 24 lanes. The Bowling Alley may also include a drop off day care area for bowlers. A video game area will be retained in the same general area as the current video game area. Pauly's, will renovate and expand the existing Filly's nightclub to an area of approximately 8600 square feet for use as an upscale family restaurant with a sports bar image. Pauly's has been in operation in Chanhassen for something like 60 years and is now managed by a third generation family member, Russ Pauly. There will be a new retail area of approximately 4375 square feet located in the area just east of the south entrance in the location which currently is primarily the meeting room space. City Building: This building will initially house a 5 to 6-screen movie theater with expansion available for two or three additional screens. The expansion space will initially be used as service retail. The theater will be owned by Copeland-Mithun Group, and will be their fourth theater complex. Frontier Building: This area may be redeveloped as a separate phase (within the next 12 months). Of the approximately 20,000 square feet of space included in the lower level, approximately half may be adapted to retail use. The ownership of the Bowling Alley and Frontier Buildings will remain the same. The City Building will be under the ownership of an entity to be formed consisting of the Copeland-Mithun Group and a Bloomberg entity. Exterior Physical Improvements: The exterior improvements contemplated for this project include new facades, a streetscape, creation of additional parking lot area, landscaping, lighting and signage. A limited amount of new construction will occur at the theater entrance. During our informal meetings we presented elevation drawings for a new facade and for an elevated streetscape/walkway. In response to the suggestions during and following these earlier meetings, we have somewhat simplified the facade elevations, we have incorporated some more pedestrian-friendly aspects within the parking lot and we have created signage and lighting plans consistent with the overall theme. Facades: The new facades and streetscape are the most exciting parts of the project and together create the character of the complex. They will reflect a Minnesota small-town downtown environment which will set the theme and tone for the complex and which will fill a void in an otherwise pleasant view of Chanhassen's downtown from Highway 5 and particularly from the Market Boulevard approach to downtown. The building facade material will be primarily brick and stucco. Samples of the materials to be used will be available at the Public Hearing. The use of the materials will be based on a replication of an architecture that utilized skilled artisans for the stone and brick work, the cornices and columns, and which was attentive to the public's need for scale, both monumental and human.. The facades on the Bowling and City Buildings will include a "Restaurant Building", a "Prairie Building", a "Bank Building", a "Clock Tower Building" and a "Theater Building". The facade for the Frontier Building is a more generic "General Store" building, which may be adapted to a variety of potential users' needs. The facades will be added to the existing building walls. The exterior walls are load-bearing and will not be removed. All doors shown on the facades will be working doors and the location of the existing primary entrance to the building at the south will not be changed. The windows in the "Restaurant" building will be cut into the existing walls as will the windows for the "Clock Tower Building" at the first floor level. The facades will wrap around the buildings on the west to the edge of the "Restaurant Building" and at the east approximately to the point where the streetscape reaches grade level. The balance of the east elevation has been designed as an alleyscape. To assist in orienting the "new" buildings to the interior uses, the following may be helpful: Both the Restaurant Building and the Prairie Building are located at the exterior of the Pauly's restaurant. The Restaurant Building is more fanciful and invites the public in for fun. The existing exterior elevation changes at the point of the west edge of the Prairie Building, providing an opportunity for a change in design in order to avoid an awkward front. The Prairie style is a classic and endearing style of architecture of the period, which was brought to prominence by Frank Lloyd Wright. The Bank Building is actually the front of the main entrance to the south and will have a large wooden door reminiscent of the older'solid and dependable'bank buildings. Adjacent to that is the "Clock Tower Building" which will extend to the east end of the building which is under the ownership of the Dahlins. This is the designated retail area and is presented as a two-story retail building, typical of the small towns. The shop fronts are glass and the entries can be recessed. The Theater Building encompasses the entire City Building southern elevation. The use of stucco and the specific design elements selected for this 'Building'recreates the more formal theater-going/opera house atmosphere. The design of the Frontier Building storefront is more that of a General Store, not exclusively defined, but taking advantage of the potential for a variety of retail use. Here the construction of the building can accommodate a fair amount of glass at the front, but the arched existing roof dictates that the facade must be quite a bit higher at the midsection than is necessary at the edges. The facade reflects the way that small towns were built, one building at a time, each with its own architecture and design, carefully and often masterfully crafted. Each had its own style and unique character, but together they provided the warmth and charm of our historic downtowns. The varied rooftop heights of these buildings allowed us to break up the monotonous mass of the existing tilt up concrete buildings. The colors we have chosen will blend with the existing downtown palate, while at the same time preserving a separate look for each building, utilizing the neutral creams and cream-greys for the stucco and various shades of red brick commonly used for the 'original' buildings. Compatible shades of red and green will be used as accent colors and the authentic dark green shade will be used for the railings along the streetscape. Streetscape: We are hopeful that the streetscape across the front of the "new" buildings will encourage pedestrian use of the area. The streetscape will feature a clock tower, ramps for the handicapped, outdoor game tables, dining areas, trees and landscaping. The height of the streetscape at the south elevation will of necessity be approximately four feet and will end at grade level as the walkway wraps around the two ends of the buildings. Lighting will encourage extended hours of usage of the area and will help to provide security. Trees and landscaping will not only enhance the appearance, but the trees will also provide needed shade for comfortable summertime use. While the above narrative describes the Bowling and City Building streetscape,there will be an at-grade sidewalk at the front of the Frontier Building which, though simpler, will echo the above description. Landscaping: Trees and landscaping will be added to the existing parking lot at the west and south of the Bowling Alley and City Building. A pedestrian walkway has been added from Market Blvd. to the end of the elevated walkway and new islands have been added throughout the existing parking lot. The landscaping plan shows a relatively open area in front of the building so that the facade, walkway and clock tower can be visible as vehicles leave Highway 5 to enter Downtown. Instead of trees in some islands, lower growing shrubs have been incorporated and the trees have been used in other areas of the project, including the elevated walkway. However, in order to meet the required number of trees there is a density in some other areas of the project which is of concern to us in preserving the visibility of the project from the street and we believe the project would benefit from a relaxation of the minimum number of overstory trees. Trash enclosures will be provided as indicated on the plans and will be constructed of materials compatible with the streetscape. There are no ground HVAC units. We believe that the rooftop units will be screened by the facades which extend from 2+ feet to -5 feet at various points. If any are not suitably screened in this fashion, additional screening at the units will be constructed, using materials and colors to coordinate with the facade. Parking: A new parking lot will be created south of the Frontier Building to accommodate the additional need for parking and we believe that the parking shown on the proposed parking lot layout will be adequate for the anticipated uses. A parking study was undertaken in March by the Hoisington-Koegler Group. The study assumed the availability of 521 stalls within an area slightly larger than the area portrayed on our Parking Lot Plan. Our plan indicates 515 stalls. The primary uses anticipated in the Hoisington study have not changed. There are some exceptions, however, including the following: A 300-seat conference center to the north of the subject property has subsequently been reduced to a planned 125 seats. At the time of the Hoisington study,we anticipated approximately 6732 square feet of new retail and a game area of 3200 square feet. The currently anticipated retail area in the Bowling Building is approximately 4375 square feet, although there will be a temporary service/office area along the alley of approximately 2400 square feet (included in the original retail square footage). The game area is approximately 1250 square feet less a 150 square foot bowling center office, rather than 3200 square feet.. Signage: The signage has been designed for compatibility with the facade design as well as with today's tenants' needs. There are basically two types of signs planned for the project. The first type is primarily an architectural element and specifically relates to the pedestrian traffic. The second more closely fits the City's current standard sign criteria. They include lighted tenant signs on the sign bands at the midsection and the marquee-type signs which will be at the two outer corners of the project, to serve the cinema marquee for its listing of currently showing movies and,to balance the project, for the restaurant at the other end. Sign bands and examples of sign locations have been depicted on the building elevation drawings submitted. The architectural element based signs are primarily sandblasted wooden signs attached either directly to the building face or hung perpendicularly at tenant locations. Those attached directly to the building will be located at eye level adjacent to entries. The perpendicular locations will be spaced intermittently along the facade as a building design feature. They will be attached by a rigid frame and tenants will be given the opportunity to choose from three frame styles. These signs will not extend below a height of 8' and it is our intent that they will be lighted by spotlights. There will also be two areas on the Theater Building facade for use in displaying coming attractions. We recognize that we will need a variances for some of the signage both as to materials and as to installation. We are hopeful that granting variances in this instance will be perceived to be an opportunity to begin to set some standards for all instances where a village/new urban look is being achieved as the trends start to move away from the more dated look of the 80's and 90's. At the same time, the needs of tenants within the central areas of the project for visibility from vehicular traffic along Market Boulevard and Highway 5 have to be incorporated. Signage to meet those needs will be located in the sign bands above the "Bank Building" and the "Clock Tower Building". We anticipate that these signs will qualify under the existing Sign Ordinance. These sign bands are 4'X 14' and 3' X 22'feet respectively, allowing 36" and 30" letter heights. Sign covenants will be prepared to reflect the approved sign plan. Conclusion: We are pleased that we have been able to find a viable, exciting and realistic solution to a development opportunity for an underutilized area that has existed in this area of downtown for several years. During the time which has elapsed since our introduction of the concept, we have received many comments which indicate there is a great deal of enthusiastic support for the look of the project as well as for the uses it will bring to our downtown. The proposal we have set forth is a small example of the new urbanism which has recently become a household word among architects and developers as they try to articulate residents' desire for community. Steve Berg, writing in the Minneapolis Star Tribune last Sunday said "If there is a commonly held longing in America, it is for the restoration of trust, harmony and togetherness that we imagine we once had but somehow lost, an elusive something that social thinkers call community." This statement was the lead-in for his article on Celebration, a community being developed in Orlando by Disney Co. where "the idea is to re-create the cozy, small town of the American past..." On a very small scale, that is what we are attempting to create here. Its style is compatible with surrounding buildings and its feel will be reflected in the Villages on the Ponds when it is completed, both of which will be visible from the same points of travel along Highway 5. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. H I( g 1 March 22, 1995 Todd Gerhardt Assistant City Manager City of Chanhassen RECEIVED 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 '-= ; - 1995 CITY OF CHANHASSEN! Re: Entertainment Block Parking Study and Plan Dear Todd: Per your request, we have recalculated the parking supply and demand for the entertainment block to reflect the Chanhassen Entertainment/Retail Complex including movie theaters totaling 1,100 seats. We used information that was compiled via an occupancy survey completed in September 1993 for the Wednesday and Friday computations. We also did some spot checking on Saturday, February 25, 1995. The Dinner Theater was not part of our September 14, 1993 demand analysis which primarily focused on hotel expansion. We translated the occupancy study into generation rates and adjusted them to reflect a December condition. The reason we picked December as the peak demand month is because the Dinner Theater is the predominant use and it peaks during November and December. On the other hand, movie theaters operate at their lowest levels during these months. This study is based on a number of assumptions: 1. Pauly's will occupy part of the entertainment complex and continue to operate as a night club, having significant demand well into the evening. 2. New retail associated with the entertainment complex will remain open until 9:00 P.M. Existing retail fronting on West 78th Street will remain open only until 6:00 P.M., as at present. 3. The proposed new conference center will occasionally be used for outside activities. This simply means that it will not be used exclusively by hotel patrons. 4. There will be no bowling leagues on Saturday evening (there are none now). 5. Only 10,000 square feet of the lower Frontier Building will be developed for future retail purposes. We have assigned no occupancy value to the remainder of that level. Land Use/Environmental • Planning/Design 7300 Metro Boulevard/Suite 525 ■ Minneapolis,Minnesota 55439 • (612)835-9960 • Fax:(612)835-3160 Mr. Todd Gerhardt March 22, 1995 Page 2 6. While we have used an acceptable generation rate for the cinema in December, which is relatively low,there will be a greater demand than illustrated, attributable to multiple screens and doubling up as some patrons wait for those to depart an earlier show. These will be relatively short and could stress the parking supply temporarily. The total parking supply, according to our proposed plan, will be 1,210 spaces. Peak demand will occur after 9:00 P.M. on a Saturday night in December. At full development of the entertainment block, there will be a Saturday evening deficiency of approximately 100 parking spaces. One can assume that the parking supply could be taxed on every Saturday night in November and December, beginning during the 6-9 P.M. period. This, of course, assumes that both banquet facilities will be utilized by non-hotel and non-theater patrons. When these are not occupied, or are less than fully occupied, or are occupied by patrons of the host facilities, there will be no deficiency. The problem will be one of distribution. While the Dinner Theater will have a total supply of 420 parking spaces, it will have a demand during the peak demand period of 643 spaces, or a deficiency of 223. Dinner Theater patrons will simply use the frontier center to the extent that parking is available. The hotel/conference center, when operating at capacity, will also have a fairly significant deficiency. At the same time, the bowling center will have a surplus. It is our opinion that there is sufficient parking available, albeit the distribution is poor, in the entertainment block to accommodate the proposed uses. This does not mean that the parking will not occasionally be exceeded during the months of November and December. Parking lots are not generally sized to accommodate the absolute peak demand. Parking is available in the Clinic lot to satisfy excess demand. It will be essential that cross easements be provided to allow for the maximum sharing of parking throughout the block. If you have questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Fred oisington, AICP Vice President FLH:mlm Chanhassen195-101Gerhardt.ltr CHANHASSEN SOUTH SIDE PEAK PARKING GENERATION RATES OBSERVED ADJUSTED 2) WED FPI SAT WED FPI SAT BOWLING CENTER/LANE 5.25 2.92 3.00 5.25 3.00 3.00 CINEMA 1) 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.13 0.20 0.20 HOTELCOMPLEX/ROOM 0.42 0.29 0.50 0.42 0.29 0.50 FRONTIER RETAIUOFFICE/1000 SF 3.33 3.17 2.17 4.20 4.00 2.90 DINNER THEATER/SEAT 0.16 0.32 0.45 0.23 0.46 0.56 WEDNESDAY AND FRIDAY COUNTS IN SEPTEMBER REPRESENT 70%0F DECEMBER PEAK SATURDAY COUNTS IN FEBRUARY REPRESENT 80%OF DECEMBER PEAK 1) BASED ON ULJ SHARED PARKING AS MODIFIED 2)FOR DECEMBER Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. CHANHASSEN SOUTH SIDE PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND 6-9PM SATURDAY SUPPLY DEMAND SURPLUS BOWLING CENTER/CINEMA 560 490 70 HOTELJCONFERENCE CENTER 1 3 0 209 -79 FRONTIER CENTER 1 0 0 4 96 DINNER THEATER 420 562 -142 TOTALS 1210 1265 -55 PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND 9PM+SATURDAY SUPPLY DEMAND SURPLUS BOWLING CENTER/CINEMA 560 446 1 1 4 HOTEL/CONFERENCE CENTER 1 3 0 220 -90 FRONTIER CENTER 1 0 0 2 98 DINNER THEATER 420 643 -223 TOTALS 1210 1311 -101 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. N CO N vzt. C7) 0 0 0 N C') C') 0 0 T IN T 0 N. toO .- ft N to — (') t T 0) 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 v- 0) 0 0 0 0 0 N CO 0) LC) 0) 0 0) 0 Cr) v- 0 r to N. U) T N CC) ^ N CO 0 CO T N O T (0 0 0 0 0 0 0 in O O O to O O 0 0 0 0 0 CO O .- O CO O .- o r Cn IN 0) u) IN O 0) c) r C) r to M N ' ' T T N N h N. ."- N CD CD Tr 0 CC) 0 0 CC) 0 0 CC) 0 0 0 t[) 0 CO N 0 0 IN N. N CC) 0 CC) N r o .- CO 0 CC) v- CL) 0 CC) 0 CD C') 0 O 0 LC) N v- N C') v— C'7 N CD ,— CD COIt T Tr N 0 CL) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IN 0 O Co •tt CO N CD CC) .— CO CD CO .- 0 e0 ✓- N. IN r- Tr 0 C") N CD CO Cf) C7) CD ."- ."" Co C') — V' N N IN 0 ft M C)) N v-- 0C) V) 0 0 0 o toLC) O O 0 CC) O CO N C7) N Tr TT IN O O) CO N 0 o _ r U C N CO CD to 0) CD 0 0 N 0) C7 0 0 N. CL) v- 0 IN CA N 0 CA d ZZ r N v- CC) v- o W U' 0 m tT 0 0 0 0 CC) 0 tC) 0 C) 0 CC) In to 0 Y S .- CL) in c O 4 C >"' D .N C.1 ;II CC N C') 0 O 0 O V O '' CD 1- O CD Q N. N. N N N. CC) C') N. O QQ N C1) } w 0 0 I— w N a V C') O C'7 C') N CL) IC) O CO CO CL)• N Z N O O O N 0 O .cr. o c Y a n w CL 0 Tt N CD CD N CD 0 0 0 0 0 N CO C') 0 0 ' 0 0 0 N 0 O CO N. 04 O T .- C+) N 0 0 N O 5i. CO ' v— to (>i CJ) COCD ) 0 U, Z rr w Etx cr m Q Q c m LU m U U 3 W 0- M C7 CO � 8 0 w p L Z ca (Z J O m j co COm H `° .5 m C a) �a "m Z c 0 m m ca y51�[ Zo U .J CC CC C7 0 d S U Q a H m O 8 1- to N. N CO N 7 0) 0 0 CD CO C) T 0 N. T O V in p p 0 ,- # N - - + O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O (I) 0 CO 0 LO c 0 0 T OT 0 0 0 O 0 i T --T T , T .-. N CO 0) (f) C) CO O O CO 0) N ON # N ^ T O V It) N N CD T T N V T N 0) 1- CO (O O 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 T 0 0 0 r N N 0) CO (f) 0 N co co 0) N. Lt) (O # a r ,- 0 0 ) CO N N N N. T N N CO 'C (t) (t) 0 O 0 0 N Lf) CD 0 0 (f) 0 (O N O CD LC) CD O N. O CO N o r. T T • •- CD " T T CO CD N U) CO C) T 0 CO (D # "0 O CO CO N T N N Cf) T CD <t N ll) 0 0 0 0 O N 0 CD CD N O O C45" CO CO a) N M 0 (D T (l) CO T T CD (D N N. T C) 0 (D C') a) (D C) )t) O Cl # C) T T (D C') N T (f) N (D I. CO N CO •T-• O (17 CD O CD 0 CO Ln O O In (l) O (t) N. C) N CO 0 (D N O 0) T N. CD o T T (5 N co 0) in CO O 0 O CO 0) N 0 C ❑ 1. (t) T O CO (t) N N O Q) CL Z N 'Cr' T 0 cQ O C W 0 ❑ a 0 0 O 0 0 LC) 0 (n CD (f) (n 0 0 0 S T CO ,- (t) C 0 4 co J •� D O 3.Q O N C') 0 0 CD 0 C) 0 T CD CO O (D mom ❑ N. N. N T N CO l() O CO CO O LT N T ,� T T L. O 0 Lu U) CL C) O C) C, N CO CO C') (D LI) N Z N O NO •O (L O O CC a CLLU 0 V- CV 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 O N (D CO O CD 'Q CD 0 O N O O (D N N T T CO ("4O 0 N 0 W CO CO CO T (A O O CO 0 Cn Ecc cc x cc Q al1,)1 m a �0 CC) o c CJ U m ul 0 Z 2 Q r � - m � � �t11�' m wOJ Lu- � m CO_ m m (Ea c 35 as TI) C (a mZ mcC.m0 cr cc 0 U 0.. 1 1 0 CC ¢ ❑ - co j cn F- CD CD N tf CO O O 0 CI C) 0 0 O co It Cr r 01 01 to ((0 O 0 vg r 0) t 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 to 0 0 .- C) O 0 0 r CA O o CD CO 0) U) (0 N. 0 tq C) CO 0 r '' 01 CC) r 0) T r 01 CO 0 N ID r r r r co O co 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O U) O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 r CO 0 N 0 0 0 r r r .- CO CO N C7) to '7 CO CC) C') 0 0) 0) LO - N N- . r CC) M M T 0) N O0 N CO it CO CD 0 CC) 0 0 0 0 0 CC) 0 0 O LI) 0 CD N 0 0O CO N til 0 t!) h ao .— r N. CA r r O tl) O M M r 0 0) 0) CC) Of .- '"Cf 0) 0) r M N M .- C) it ‘2- v- (NI co O O O O O O O i!) O O O O (0 CO N M O CD r O CO N r 0 ati N N N ,- r U, C- M r CO CC) t1) C) N # CO •- r V M CO N CO N CO N. N r CC) U) 0 0 0 0 0 N) 0 0 CO O 0 N N d) N M 0 O N- 0 Q) CO N- 0 0 CJ C CO (0 0) O CO N CA 0 r 0) CO 0 0 N 0 M M 0 U CO N CO 0 0) d Z .- r r r r r n < 2 W 0 aO mco co 0 0 0 O 0 tt) O t/) O 40 LC) 0 O 0 S r O N O C O } 4 a) Q Ci _ :N W Q 3 Q C0 M O 0 M CC N r .- M 01 0 COU) 0 COM i! 0 C) 0 O w rr N ..- M M ). w c M 0 O M M M N O N Z N N r •O M Cl o a N O O O O ix Q. w c V' Nr N 0 0 1` 0 0 0 0 0 0 (n N O C7 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 CO 1- N r .- M N 0 0 N 0 �J.J O • CD M T 0 0) m pI 8 UJ cr cr QL_I Co S2 cox CCD co a) cW g- Q CO1:3 J J Q m j Cr) Cl) CZ F) 'm m 3 m m a) Z m Q j Z m m H 0 t� cc cc C7 C� a 2 8 [L cc 0 f- co V) H AL 111)\\ I • .4%t°• ' 0. • Ps 14 k k o 1, I/ k • / N N m- 1 1 i r---t - L! -- - de F I ji- , - i - , i g _- g ;, , _ t 0..... ..I ti i . 0.) 111111 loll - IF/ ,-.51,,,,, r - . 1146.-----1- 1 - ._; ! 1 ---0-.-11.4 jit: _ v /7 _ -111!I l!LI f1.111. r� s ! t1 ! a ,, Q --—'-a'QA18 SNIV1d 1V3Id0N ©®� \'-1 1 i 1 - - - � ; O _yo. ..,./, z__,,,,,.."::,‘,..:_ i.,,,,:\\\:.i.,..\; '1 ,,, ‘,\___ _ ; ;gin it It �y i.-_ • \\\\\ 1 i w = g �/� i i c8c i, i, \ 11 1 i1 SAY Ll , '',. „_., ,.,:\ -,---'--- • ,-...- ..,::. • \ .'t .1 \ ‘ '/ . ;,.; • )1\; ' i --__ b1f; ` _ N i- ��`1 1 a • at i :.--- W CC- 1 ✓ / Il ( d 1 12 ).- =H ''•i; \\ Q p rij • 1 t g, l I i i (,.) I- ' i )--1I0 � o I I I I. 11 iU • • 1 U) t .j e i i ' :1, 4 1 ‘, i ; 7 -\ c, .,_�`'�( 1 t , E § . . • 1 \ ,. i , ' • I L D----Q----rte ,! .. .. t . 11\ ' 1\ li — e:.---,— .--I I I, / 1 i \ 1. Lie r a ; : i - ,I ' _ • :-.-.7. .,..-.1,-?s,:_-1-: c-- , , 4; \ 4; 1 -.2111 : i I,s„ ( ' -1:.,. t \11 kti --—, :: --\—=_-::.---7—.-1--c— l•-• , • , -_D -.......-"`C--..::. QAlB 13)41:1VW f ,..._:„.•:.;:„.••-..:----:77. 1 ti t CITY OFF ClIANIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 • (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff,Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman,Building Official DATE: December 20, 1995 SUBJECT: 95-21 SPR(Chanhassen Entertainment Center,Lotus Realty) I was asked to review the site plan proposal stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, DEC 04 1995, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project. Background: The building proposed to be included in this project was formerly a manufacturing/warehouse facility. The west 3/5 of the building was redeveloped into the present bowling alley/nitghtclub in 1985. An examination of Inspection Division records reveals that a limited plan review was performed by an independent consultant at the time of the redevelopment. Analysis: Wall and opening protection. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) prohibits openings in walls less than five feet from a property line and requires protected openings in walls less than 20 feet from a property line. The center line of an adjoining public way (as defined in UBC 1001.2) may be used in calculating these setback requirements. The purpose of these requirements is to protect adjoining property. These requirements will adversely affect the proposed development unless the property is replatted. No openings would be permitted in the east wall of the entertainment complex along the east property line of Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Mall. Dedicating the alley between the proposed entertainment complex and the Frontier Building as a public way would eliminate the opening problem along the east wall. Similarly, no openings would be permitted along the south wall of the complex where the wall is parallel to the property line of Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Mall. Combining Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Mall with Lot 3,Block 1,Chanhassen Mall would eliminate the opening problem on the south wall. Structural investigation. Portions of the existing building for which their are no structural records and which will be redeveloped as part of this project will need to be evaluated by a structural engineer. Portions of the building may have been damaged or become deteriorated over the years. Additionally, it is Sharmin Al-Jaff December 20,1995 Page 2 not known if the original design and construction met the requirements of the building code in effect at the time of its construction. With the much higher anticipated occupant load involved in the proposed new use, it is paramount the integrity of the building be confirmed. Disabled parking. Disabled parking is required to be placed as near as practicable to accessible entrances as possible. In this case, three or four of the disabled parking spaces shown at the southwest corner of the building should be relocated to the southeast corner. Frontier building, building connection. The extent of work being done on the frontier building and the nature of the connection between the frontier building and the proposed entertainment center is not clear from the submitted documents. Due to property line setbacks, type of construction requirements, and mixed occupancy requirements, it's not possible to comments on aspects of the site plan involving these elements. I would like to request that you relay to the developers and designers my desire to meet with them as early as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements. Recommendations: 1. Amend site plan review application to include replatting with the object of removing critical property lines,or redraw plans to comply with code requirements for opening protection. 2. Have a qualified engineer perform a structural evaluation of the subject building. This should be done prior to building permit issuance. 3. Revise plans to relocate disabled parking spaces closer to other building entrances. This should be done prior to building permit issuance. 4. Clarify extent of proposed alterations to the frontier building.This should be done prior to site plan approval. 5, Clarify the nature of the crosshatched area between the proposed entertainment complex and the frontier building.This should be done prior to site plan approval. g\safety\sak4nemos\plan\rntitanl CITY OF k CHANHASSEN \ _ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff,Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: December 8, 1995 SUBJ: Chanhassen Entertainment Center Market Blvd. &West 78th Street Planning Case#95-21 Site Plan I have reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division,I have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements. The site plan review is based on the available information submitted at this time. As additional plans or changes are submitted,the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. 1. "No Parking Fire Lane"will be established by the Fire Marshal. Contact Fire Marshal for exact details and comply with Policy#06-1991. Copy enclosed. 2. A remote fire department sprinkler connection must be relocated to the south side of the building. Contact Fire Marshal for exact location. 3. Maintain a ten foot clear space around new or existing fire hydrants. 4. Submit radius turn dimensions to City Engineering and Fire Marshal for approval. ML:cd City Council Meeting - August 22, 1994 Councilman Wing: But if I have a problem with a change, it's trunk/trailer/auto/sporting goods/boat sales/rental. That means we could have used car lots down there. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Senn: Yes, that's what it means. Councilman Wing: Well I don't like that at all. Councilman Senn: Well we raised that last time Dick and. Councilman Wing: Did you bring that one up? Councilman Senn: Yes. I brought up all of these. I didn't like really a lot of any of them. Mayor Chmiel: Actually there's never been a successful auto portion down there. It's all been closed so there aren't any there now. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd more to table item 1(b) because I don't have a brain right now. Councilman Wing: And I agree. I think we want to think this out starting now. Mayor Chmiel: Let's bring it back to Council. A motion to table. Councilman Senn: So moved. Councilman Wing: Second. And not on the Consent Agenda. We want to. Councilman Senn: It was on the consent agenda. Councilman Wing: We want it moved off the consent agenda, right? Councilman Senn: I already moved it off. Now we're just tabling it. Kate Aanenson: Next time you want it off. Councilman Senn: Oh, next time off. Yeah, and I'd really be interested in hearing the neighbors comments on the subject. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table action on the City Code Amendment to the BF, Business Fringe District by Adding Additional Permitted and Conditional Uses, Final Reading. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: We'll have it back on the agenda but as you can see, you've got the consensus of where we're coming from with it. Brad, you're on. CONTINUATION OF ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX CONCEPT REVIEW. 47 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1994 Brad Johnson: ...back in 1984. The first time around was one of the first Council meeting I ever went to here. I sat here and wondered what was going on. Councilman Mason: And you still do, right? Brad Johnson: Yeah. This evening we'll go through this fairly quickly. Back in, basically we have a proposal that we presented to the HRA which was the proper place to see what their interest was in completing the redevelopment of the downtown area. We have assembled the various owners which down there is basically a fellow by the name of Bloomberg that owns part of it. The city is involved indirectly with some parking lots and stuff down there. And a fellow by the name of Dan Dahlin owns the bowling alley. He didn't want to own the bowling alley but he currently owns the bowling alley. We've tried 3 or 4 different times to accomplish something down there. Primarily on the public side. We had one referendum. A couple runs at referendums you know trying to figure out what we could do down in that area. And so where we are at the present time is we think that we have some private uses that might make the thing work. We'll probably need some assistance by recreating a new district down there that does qualify as a redevelopment district, which means you can redo the district. It's a real redevelopment under the classical type of thing under the HRA regulations. So this evening Truman Howell, who's n architect working with us is back with us currently. Vernelle Clayton is working on the project and also Russ Pauly is here. It gives us an opportunity to relocate Pauly's and actually create a whole new restaurant type and maybe, I don't think Russ you've talked too much at these meetings so you can kind of explain what he's trying to accomplish. We're just trying to set the stage. We understand the process of the HRA is sort of run it up the flagpole in an informal discussion and...planning point of view. We do have some needs. The building will be changed here in the near future. We have a movie theater that would like to move into the community but has other places to go. Those type of things so the urgency would be, we'd like to accomplish all of this by next fall. But I don't know if we can accomplish it that fast but we'd like to try to do that. So and that's why we're, Truman do you want to come up here. We've just got a little slide show that we put together. I don't know if all of you can see it. Maybe they'll see it on the video. As long as I have been here, many people have been talking about downtown Chanhassen and how they would like to see the community look like Excelsior. I think what people are looking for...and a lot of times that has come up and I guess what we tried to show you is some of downtown. People talk about downtown. People talk about being pedestrian friendly and that type of thing so these are...St. James Hotel in Red Wing for example. One of the things you should be aware of is that a lot of downtowns can end up looking like this. In other words, the businesses move out of the downtowns and we're using...but that's what happens if you don't keep your downtown sort of viable and it's happening a little bit in Excelsior currently. The other thing people should realize that the backs of these beautiful buildings in the front, when you double those, look like this. Is not downtown Excelsior but it could just as well be, right. Most of your old downtown parking has ended up in the back of the buildings so this is what you see. Now we could say well we can fix that all up but obviously Hopkins and no town has really figured out how to do it. Even places like, this happens to be Winnow And this is the front of those buildings. But you can see the people have tried to maintain some architecture. Reflected this as a town. We're going to go real quick through these slides. These are just images that we're trying to show you. Most of these would be the river town type of look...architecture is 1850-1860. Truman Howell: The late 1800's. Brad Johnson: And you can see, I think if you looked at Northfield or any of those towns like that, this is an old. That looks kind of new doesn't it...And see a lot of these buildings are empty. The second floors are deserted but they still look kind of nice...But that would be what is a downtown and I think we all, many of us from a small town, we say we're kind of comfortable with that Truman has gone through and picked up some 48 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1994 architectural types that we'd like to just show you that represent some of this period. Where is this do you think? Truman Howell: I don't know what the exact location is but there's some elements in here of balconies, awnings on the side of the building with arches. There's some architectural elements that we find...in some of the older towns and the buildings that may come up. ...with different kinds of buildings. For example... They cast a certain kind of image that is sort of a stable feeling compared to some of the things that seem more contemporary. Here's another one with the large trees. This is a more contemporary rendition of an older building. Here they've put some pediments over the windows. Here they're using awnings. Again, the building looks, it looks like a stable piece of architecture. Then the more classical ones. Obviously this says bank immediately or courthouse. Various detail which develop these kinds of feelings. Again, pediments over the windows. Cornices. Awnings on the corner. Those kinds of elements are throughout the older buildings that you find turn of the century... Here you're getting into some things that are a little more exotic and the traditions... Brad Johnson: This is some of the architecture that we've classically been using in downtown Chanhassen. A lot of gables...and this of course is Chanhassen. ...sort of the area of the downtown that we're trying to focus on. We're trying to remind you what it looks like. We haven't quite figured out the architecture. It's kind of interesting. In all these 20 years, this is why things do change. We say we're going to set this in concrete forever. But 30 years ago this was the premiere building in downtown Chanhassen with a brand new lumber yard had just opened up and so you know, things go change. Just 10 years ago this was remodeled. I think it's been..., what you do think Todd, a million bucks. Million and a half. These are some of the architecture elements that you probably recognize in the downtown. Areas that probably are friendly and many of us recognize them in the community. Where people have actually gone in and remodeled places. This is down... Buildings that have been redone. A lot of these were done by themselves. This is down along...A lot of areas around Riverside. Anybody have any questions? I guess we threw this in because it's kind of an outdoor dining kind of thing and it's got the awnings and it's raised and probably has a good look. This has been very successful. That's...old buildings. Looks nice...Street look. You know this is what the whole street ends up looking with trees on it. One of the areas that we probably, there's two areas that we kind of focused on. One we didn't take a lot of slides like this and that was Canal Park up in Duluth that probably has led to a little bit of our thought because that's an entertainment district and we have about I would guess 58,000 square feet of bulk space we have to figure out what to do with and what they've done up in Canal Park is they've been able to figure out what to do with it. I don't know, has anybody been down on Main Street at St. Anthony this summer? That's become a fairly popular place, forgetting the rest of the whole area but that's kind of what, a lot of the architecture, does that look familiar? And these are buildings that have been redone and areas that are actually working. Movie theater. Different types of things that people have done to create traffic and if you go down there...so this is what we have. And what we'd like and that is the idea that we try to create something new out of that back area Into something more like that and so Truman has come up with some ideas. All the sort of investment in this so far has been made by the property owners. No city money has gone into the concept and as I said, Truman can probably go through what we're trying to think. There's a lot of things we have to think out in addition to what we had thought about. For example, a lot of parking lot over there. Not enough trees. We have...and so you have to do something just long term to make it actually work. But that I think... Truman Howell: Part of the attraction of the downtown area is, what you've seen on the slides, has to do with some variety. Some, not everything is the same. Not all the buildings are alike. There's uniqueness to them and that was part of what we were trying to accommodate. The location that we're talking about, and you're all 49 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1994 familiar with it. This is 78th Street here. The hotel. The proposed restaurant. Frontier building and Dinner Theatre here. We're talking about the back side where the bowling alley presently exists and what's called I guess the city building. The elevation of the floor of this building in relation to the present parking area back here is approximately 4 feet above the grade. So we've chosen to elevate a streetscape along the exterior of that building as a beginning place. There would be a pedestrian, attractive and friendly area for people to go to. Access not only from the back but also through the separation between the restaurant and the Frontier building. In large scale, that's what you see here. We've included the undulating walls with vegetation with trees and plants and all kinds of streetscape materials including railings, light fixtures, ramps for the handicap accessibility. Over here we have a game table area where people can sit and play cards, checkers, what have you. Over here near the restaurant is an outdoor seating area for meals. In this area we developed a theater which actually takes up this portion over here would be a 6 theater complex with some small retail spaces here and the back of this building, the back of the Frontier building actually also retail space. On this end where Filly's is presently located, the restaurant concept and then some retail space...theater with the restaurant and behind the bowling area here. What we've done then in concept is to take a look at how we could, using the existing buildings as they are presently, we've refaced them with a variety of building faces and types of various images and...that would give some life and interest to that facade. These are concepts. They are not each one of these particular designs exactly down to the nth degree but what we're trying to do is give you a feel for what could be an attraction to the area to bring people to it. Our interest is to use real materials and..painted facades and this kind of thing. We would like to use real brick. We want to use real wood and we want to use materials that are compatible. We would obviously then structurally mount these to the existing panels. We would have a structural engineer involved to make sure we weren't causing any problems with having too high of buildings that would not be properly reinforced, etc. We've taken off a lot of the trees that you see here in an effort to show you better what the facade could be. Basically that's what we're planning to do. What would occur in relating the plans to the elevations. The restaurant would take up pretty much this area in here. The access to the bowling alley would be here. The restaurant here in the corner. These actual four buildings here would form the facades for the retail area. Moving on down, this new building here is actually an exist out of the theater area. This building here behind it is actually one of the theaters. Then the theater complex itself...front. And the drawing that you have on that mailer that was sent to you is what the theater would look like based on, you're looking at a 45 degree angle. So that's basically what we're proposing and would like to get your comments and input and feelings about it. Brad Johnson: ...say too is that we do have to attend to the bowling alley obviously. We've got....for the movie theater with good credit. Each of these have good credit and then Russ, you maybe can comment on your interest in moving over there. Russ Pauly: Well the operation that we're looking into that facility is about a 9,000 square foot. It would be a more Champs style. Sports bar and restaurant with more emphasize on food than what we currently have. Brad Johnson: I guess that's where we are. We think we've got the tenant space that we need. We've got 2 or 3 retail people that we have to have. One of the questions we have finally worked out is that we did include in that facade goes around and then the Frontier building is ultimately included in that facade and this can be broken down into retail. We have some parking, we have enough adequate parking the way we're set up. If you remember Fred Hoisington saying maybe you have too much parking in a lot of areas so we have to make some studies because there may be enough green in the parking lot to accomplish all that and then there was some interest in encouraging, you see what happens in these double...backs of the buildings towards the railroad tracks but there may be some way again of figuring out how we can get some building or some structure down 50 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1994 near the railroad. It's just that will take a lot of effort from the planning department and figure out how we can accomplish all of that. Truman Howell: Basically the parking which you see on this drawing does not have, except for on the ends any of the green space and I realize that you...an ordinance at this point that would require to be considerably more green space in that parking area. However at this point, based on this drawing, there is adequate parking for all of these facilities that we're talking about. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Does that include the use that Southwest Metro currently has? Truman Howell: Yes. Brad Johnson: Yeah, if you go there now there's nobody parked there. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So hours of operation. Brad Johnson: Yeah. What they're trying to do is, we would have...Friday night but right now that whole area does not have a lot of...there's a lot of empty parking spots. The other area is we do have more expansion space of the hotel over here. We're going to sooner or later... That adds 38 rooms, right Vernelle? Truman Howell: 36. Brad Johnson: 36. You add another 20 or 30 and change the facade of the bowling alley, some day but that'd be the next phase of the hotel. The hotel has been very successful. This we feel. Truman Howell: It maintains the pedestrian access from the back with planned walkways coming to the back and then around the area. Brad Johnson: This I think the 2000, Vernelle went to all the 2002 meetings. Most of the people tell her this should be an entertainment area. As I said short of tearing everything down and starting over, which is difficult to do, this probably would work and we're trying to work within the building types that we currently have. There's always been an interest in the movie theater down here. As I said, we've got a business in town that's doing about, oh maybe a million and a half, two million dollars worth of business a year. It's kind of crazy to kick them out of town and that's kind of what would happen on October 1st of next year. So you've got a viable tenant that's already been in business here for how many years. Russ Pauly: 60. Brad Johnson: 60. Part of the reason is that Market Square has been successful is that we moved MGM in over there successfully with you guys help. We moved Chan Lawn and Sports over there with your help. And we moved Merlin in and that's made that a very stable type of shopping center. We didn't relocate or kick anybody out of town. And everybody else had a chance to so that's kind of the grand plan. Our process would be to go back to the HRA with your input and the planning input and start the process over. There we are Mr. Mayor. A couple of you have seen this before so. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. So there will be two of us who won't have to comment. Richard. 51 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1994 Councilman Wing: One of my big concerns when I see you walk in Brad is I constantly here from you market driven and what the market will bear. I think this is a big deal. This is a big event for our city. This is my number one priority when I got elected for this whole mess down there so I'm real excited and if you can put this together, I think we've got to do whatever we can to get this thing moving and do it right. But the point being, I want to start at the HRA. Get their support and funding so that you have the ability to put it together and to do it right. But part of that means that we hire once and for all, without any question, an architectural professional architect to represent the city that attends every HRA meeting. Every Planning Commission meeting and every Council meeting to ask the questions and help set the pace. And this is a team effort and we're working together. It's not them against whoever. But I don't feel that anybody on the HRA is a designer and I don't think they know what questions to ask and I don't think we do a good job at it so I want someone, whether it's Jeff Farmakes or a professional architect, helping us get this thing done right and making sure it's done right so that if you say well we think, he can say here's what's best 20 years down the road or help us set this up. At any rate, let's get HRA to get on board. It has my full support. Let's get ourselves an advisor so that we're well informed and then move full steam ahead. The only other quick comment with whatever bar, I don't want to hear the word bar. Whatever restaurant goes in is a restaurant with a liquor license. If it's a Champs, it's food first and liquor second. I don't want to put in another bar in there. I want a restaurant with liquor. A winning combination but I think that as we've looked at giving liquor licenses, they're for restaurants. Not for bars. We're no longer giving permits to bars so I just want to differentiate the wording so we're providing liquor license to a restaurant, not a bar. Mayor Chmiel: Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I certainly like this a lot better than a community center. A lot better. I whole heartedly concur with Richard however about getting a designer to counteract. Not counteract but to balance your proposals because I'm not a professional. This could either look absolutely wonderful. It could look terribly garish and I want to make sure it's done right. It's a huge, it's what people will identify Chanhassen. Truman Howell: Would anyone have any problem with us working together? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Absolutely not. Councilman Wing: That's the point. Truman Howell: What I've been hearing is sort of an adversarial thing that they're here at the meetings so they can defend and I think it would be a lot easier if that person and I were to work together on the concept. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Absolutely. Mayor Chmiel: Don't see any problem. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And will you be providing the mountains in the background shown there. Truman Howell: Oh, those are...clouds. Councilman Mason: I thought, boy you know, if you could pull off mountains in the background. 52 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1994 Councilman Wing: Forget the mountains. If they could just pull this off at all. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: Conceptually it looks great. Architecturally it looks like you're heading in a good direction. I guess when it comes right down to it, I'll be more interested in just seeing what assistance level is required and that sort of thing. There's a lot of issues with that property too in terms of back taxes of the bowling alley and all that stuff but... Brad Johnson: I think the good news here is Mr. Dahlin who owns it can see his way through this project. He's...cooperating. So we'd like to go back to the HRA. We'll probably try to get there about in September and have some type of financial proposal on paper. And then work our way back upstream... Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Item 1(j). I want to touch that one real quick. RECEIVE ASSESSMENT ROLLS, SET ASSESSMENT HEARING DATE FOR SEPTEMBER 12, 1994. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd move approval. I didn't see the stuff that we had on the desk when I pulled it. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Councilman Wing: What just happened? Councilman Senn: And we're not approving anything. We're really just accepting it. Mayor Chmiel: That's right. Is there a second? Councilman Wing: Second. Resolution #94-82: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to receive the assessment rolls and set the assessment hearing date of September 12, 1994 for the West 78th Street and Downtown Public Improvement Project 92-3 and the Johnson/Dolejsi Utilities Improvement Project 92-5. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CITY CODE SECTION 20-1181(B)(4) REGARDING INTERIOR LANDSCAPING FOR VEHICLE USE AREAS, FIRST READING. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor. item number 12, when we approved this I said I didn't think anybody knew what they were approving and what was missing, which Byerly's picked up on, was that this was, that it addressed interior, some interior landscaping. All they did was add, take the existing ordinance and add this.. and I would move approval of item 12 and clear this off the agenda. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah and that basically is really what it comes down to. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second it. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. 53 City Council Meeting - August 22, 1994 Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the first reading of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, City Code Section 20-1181(b)(4) regarding interior landscaping for vehicle use areas. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 1:00 a.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth, City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 54 •. CITY TF i fi CHANHASSEN i 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer -Clk DATE: December 28, 1995 SUBJ: Review of Site Plan for Chanhassen Entertainment Center Land Use Review File No. 96-1 Upon review of the site plan for the Chanhassen Entertainment Center prepared by Truman Howell Architects & Associates,dated December 4, 1995, I offer the following comments and recommendations: UTILITIES The site is serviced by municipal utilities. The storm sewer in Pauly Drive has been designed to convey runoff from this site to the downtown storm water treatment pond (west of Market Boulevard). The existing/proposed parking lots appear to be deficient of the necessary catch basins to convey stormwater runoff from the site. The applicant's engineer will need to design a storm drainage plan to accommodate runoff from a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. This most likely will require additional catch basins on the site. In addition, the applicant's engineer will need to submit detailed storm drainage calculations and drainage area maps for staff to review and approve. The City has sanitary sewer and water lines that intersect the site from east to west just south of the entertainment complex. According to the plans, the remodeling in the southwest corner of the complex will encroach upon the City's drainage and utility easement and will actually build the structure over existing sewer and water lines. This part of the plan needs to be redesigned to avoid conflict with the City's utility lines. The water line may be relocated by the applicant to avoid the conflict. A new drainage and utility easement would need to be dedicated to the City as a result of this relocation. In conjunction with the parking lot improvements,existing gate valves, manholes, and catch basins will require adjustment by the applicant's contractor. The City's Utility Department will Sharmin Al-Jaff December 28, 1995 Page 2 require inspections of these adjustments as they occur. The applicant's contractor will need to contact the City's Utility Department for the appropriate inspections. SITE GRADING The site is generally uniform draining from north to south at approximately a 3% slope. Only minor regrading of the site is proposed with the parking lot reconfiguration. In conjunction with the parking lot improvements, the existing Southwest Metro Bus pickup/drop off zone will be impacted. The existing westerly driveway entrance off of Pauly Drive is proposed to be shifted westerly approximately 18 feet. This results in losing four out of the five existing boulevard trees in the bus zone and brick pavement area. Erosion control measures such as protection around catch basins, rock construction entrances, and silt fencing needs to be incorporated into the site/grading plan. The applicant's engineer will need to prepare an erosion control management plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. ACCESS The site is accessed from Market Boulevard and Pauly Drive. There are two existing driveways off of Pauly Drive and one from Market Boulevard. Pauly Drive is a city street with a 50-foot wide right-of-way which is not shown on the site plan. The street for the most part deadends at the easterly curbcut to the entertainment complex. However, there is a gravel surface which serves as an access road to the dinner theater and scene building,and Great Plains Boulevard. Staff recommends that a drive aisle be incorporated into the parking lot design to maintain access to the east to the dinner theater and Great Plains Boulevard. Cross access easements and maintenance agreement for parking should be prepared by the applicant for each business to access the site and utilize the parking lots. The applicant should also incorporate a turnaround at the end of Pauly Drive or enter into an agreement with the City allowing the city snowplows to turn around within the parking lot facility. The existing easterly curb cut on Pauly Drive is proposed to be modified significantly. Plans propose a 150-foot wide access opening from Pauly Drive which will create confusion and an unsafe approach for traffic. Staff recommends modifications to this access opening be limited to 36 feet in width. This may result in a loss of some parking stalls. I have attached a copy of a parking lot configuration prepared by the Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. that depicts staff's recommendations for access points off of Pauly Drive for review and consideration by the applicant. According to City Code Section 20-1118, a drive aisle between two rows of parking shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide. Some of the drive aisles do not meet this requirement and need to be Sharmin Al-Jaff December 28, 1995 Page 3 revised accordingly. Staff also is concerned about turning radiuses and drive aisle widths for emergency vehicles. The applicant's engineer/site planner will need to increase radiuses and/or drive aisle widths to accommodate these types of vehicles. This also may result in loss of parking stalls. Staff recommends that the main drive aisles be 28 feet wide with 20-foot wide radiuses at the intersections. Traffic control will also be an issue. The applicant should prepare a traffic signage plan for staff to review and approve prior to issuance of a building permit. Since this proposal will involve adjustments to public infrastructures, i.e. utility lines, city streets, boulevard trees, etc., staff recommends the applicant enter into a site plan agreement with the City and supply a financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee compliance with conditions of approval and restoration to city boulevards and utilities adjustments. MISCELLANEOUS It appears the site plan will involve adjustment of property lines throughout the site,however, no preliminary plat was submitted with the proposal. Staff is wondering how the property lines will eventually end up on the site and we request that staff have the opportunity to require the necessary drainage and utility easement or street right-of-way based on the subdivision proposal. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant's engineer shall submit to the City for review and approval a storm drainage management plan. The plan shall also include detailed stormwater calculations and area drainage maps for a 10-year storm event. 2. The applicant shall redesign the building plans to avoid conflict with the City's sanitary sewer and water lines. The applicant also has the option to relocate the City utility lines. The applicant will be required then to dedicate to the City the appropriate drainage and utility easements. All utility construction shall be in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Since most of these improvements will be considered private, separate building permits will be required through the City's Public Safety Department for all storm sewer and utility lines. 3. The applicant and/or contractor will be responsible for adjustment of all existing gate valves, manholes, and catch basins on the site. The City's Utility Department will require inspection of these adjustments. Sharmin Al-Jaff December 28, 1995 Page 4 4. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new development. The plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. Type I erosion control fence and rock construction entrances shall be employed and maintained at all access points until streets have been paved with a bituminous surface. Catch basins shall be protected with silt fence and/or hay bales until the parking lot has been paved with a bituminous surface. 5. All disturbed areas as a result of construction shall be restored with sod and/or landscaping materials within two weeks of completion of the parking lot. 6. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval and to guarantee restoration of city boulevards and adjustments to the City's infrastructures. 7. The applicant shall redesign the site plan parking lot configuration to include the following items: a. Show the City's 50-foot right-of-way along Pauly Drive. b. Incorporate a drive aisle access to the east out to the dinner theater/Great Plains Boulevard. c. Redesign the easterly curbcut to a maximum width of 36 feet wide. d. Provide a turnaround for city snowplow equipment at the end of Pauly Drive or enter into an agreement with the City allowing city snowplows to utilize the parking lot facility. e. Widen main drive aisles to 28 feet wide and incorporate larger radiuses to accommodate emergency vehicles, and increase drive aisle widths to a minimum of 26 feet wide per city ordinance. f. The applicant shall prepare a traffic control plan for City staff to review and approve prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tile found during construction and abandon or reconnect all tiles as directed by the City Engineer. Sharmin Al-Jaff December 28, 1995 Page 5 9. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all the necessary permits of the regulatory agencies such as health dept.,watershed district and MPCA. 10. In conjunction with the subdivision process, the City reserves the right to require the necessary drainage and utility easements or street right-of-way based on the subdivision proposal. jms Attachment: Hoisington Koegler Group Parking Lot Layout c: Charles Folch, Director of Public Works g:'enedavc'Qcknter.ctr ` Vir-='-----1 , ��.- , t �..: •>;-7--.. '. ..-1. • —1 • A ii ,- (J: i i + •I\ 1 \ 11J ' j •'I c r t. / \ '!.: i : .: i __-_,* ]_.!::,,JJ-,)-----1.:.,,- .2) r ., , 0. ,• ..-y, • ., i) . ,,, , \. : . ,,,- i., , ,, .\ � i1i; ' %i' I,� d ' I ` 1 1 \\ \ L II+ 11 •i 1 1 i �-- f-1.-t---E 4, �. L _ I 1 �__...� .._... I o I il l E 7 ,I ' ,J 1 M I I I- •• �# ,, 1 cn i I m Z n , ''1%` i �! A .. ' tz.--°. ' ‘ ' . _ . ......-- 0 . 0 m . . m 1, , Do Z i 1 : • 1 I D , 11, .• g • \ ,...-•-v I, • 0. k k ,..::.: .:: i , : .l': 1 \ I 1 \b. ., •'': I ii 1 tS'....,(1.V; !,:,!: I 1 •—• �� i 1 i' • i ; •r�.tik 1; > i ' -i \\ ,,;.pti t nBX i IV Y�a Z i ' 1� i . ,;.\-_- r , - � � z I I I t - 1"-a O ` i1e aI © 5 GREAT PLAINS BLVD Q I k sA 11 ► AIL 1L- -----'5— ILL Wk �O '• - um—7-6 ct ill' . OP NOTICE OF PUBLIC W. `v)� . -N "u N w>it L►/ 1a2 m .� .rte Q.ii Z � Ill HEARING W : :P—� t� 1Y =211HAN I wo u_ 4.H PLANNING COMMISSION _ &W wE sr a-N src w *4_ la MEETING Wednesday, January 3, 1996 2 71 1I w�' .m. g°�I 4 at 7:00 p ' ..01. 0 City Hall Council Chambers r Lxi `r' .". im. f' 690 Coulter Drive �0 '''' ::: ::1.---- Illir Project: Site Plan Review DRIVESrA7E H��µ`Y ; ' e i� Developer: Lotus Realty �� L,,,, ::i el �'' Y �� i:aQ� Location: North of railroad tracks, east of iiit� Market Blvd. and south of W. 78th �Z �.'. 1 , ;:;S Street °% d ( ^�1 . '- Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant, Lotus Realty request a site plan review to remodel the existing Chanhassen Bowl/Filly's and a portion of the Frontier building into an entertainment center. A variance to allow wall projecting signs in an area zoned BG, General Business and CBD, Central Business District, located north of the railroad tracks, east of Market Boulevard and south of West 78th Street, Chanhassen Entertainment Center. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900, ext. 120. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on December 21, 1995ig5 Amoco Americal Oils Co. B. C. Burdick Chanhassen Inn P.O. Box 342B 426 Lake Street 531 W. 79th Street Oakbrook, IL 60522 Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen Realty Co. Chan Retail Ltd. Partnership Church of St. Hubert 1589 Hwy. 7 c/o Weis Asset Mgmt., Inc. 7707 Great Plains Blvd. Hopkins, MN 55343 8424 Irwin Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Bloomington, MN 55437 Robert Dittrich Phillip & Nancy Hillman Holiday Station Stores, Inc. 1827 Crestview Drive c/o Tom & Kay Klingelhutz 4567 80th Street W. New Ulm, MN 56073 Rt. 3, Box 118A Bloomington, MN 55437 Annandale. MN 55302 Al H. Klingelhutz Gerald Schlenk, Jean vonBank Arthur& D. Kerber Gerald W. Schlenk Mary Goetz 511 Chan View 8600 Great Plains Blvd. 225 West 78th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Thaddeus E. Korzenowski Thomas& Mary Lou Krueger Market Square Assoc. Partnership 5315 3rd Ave. S. 7136 Utica Lane 200 W. Hwy. 13 Minneapolis, MN 55419 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Burnsville, MN 55337 Market Square Assoc. II, LLC John M. Havlik, Jr. Heritage Park Apts. 470 West 78th Street Box 195 c/o Thies & Talle Mgmt., Inc. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 470 West 78th Street, Box 25 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Gary L. Brown Gale Pelcl Gerald& L. Schlenk 1831 Koehnen Circle W. 505 Chan View 225 W. 78th Street Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Michael Sorenson Richard W. Steiner, Jr. Valvoline Instant Oil Change Rt. 2, Box 187K P. O. Box 1717 301 Main Street E. Belle Palin, MN 56011 Whitefish, MT 59937 Lexington, KY 40507 Charles R. Wechterman Wawterfront Associates Donald F. McCarville Shelly Mehl-Wechterman 440 Union Place 3349 Warner Lane 509 Chan View Excelsior, MN 55331 Mound, MN 55364 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Minnegasco, Inc. Mithun Enterprises, Inc. Ralph Molnau& Ronald Dubbe 201 7th Street St. 900 Wayzata Blvd. E. P. O. Box 151 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Wayzata, MN 55391 Waconia, MN 55387 Richard & Mary Rasmussen Mark& Rose Ann Schienk State Bank of Chanhassen 503 Chan View 501 Chan View, P. 0. Box 145 680 West 78th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Twin Cities Western Railroad Dean H. L. Wallentine Wendy's International, Inc. 2995 12th Street East 507 Chan View 40 Shuman Blvd., Suite 130 Glencoe, MN 55336 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Naperville, IL 60563 Wilbar Properties Chan Medical Arts Ltd. Partnership Chan Medical Arts II, LLC 7811 Great Plains Blvd. 470 West 78th Street 470 West 78th Street hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 6, 1995 Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and gave a brief description of how the meeting would be conducted. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Jeff Farmakes, Bob Skubic, Nancy Mancino, and Mike Meyer MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad and Don Mehl STAFF PRESENT: Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; John Rask, Planner I; Bob Generous, Planner II; Jill Sinclair, Forestry Intern; and Kate Aanenson, Planning Director PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR OAK PONDS/OAK HILL SITE PLAN/DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT LOCATED BETWEEN POWERS AND KERBER BOULEVARD, JUST NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET. Public Present: Name Address Dean Johnson Applicant Alan Brown 7659 Nicholas Way Drew Clausen Oak Hill Homeowners Association Jill Sinclair presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions from the commissioners to Jill? My only question Jill, now this was a project that began and commenced grading in 1992? So that tree has withstood. Sinclair: Yeah. A good two full seasons. Throughout all of this, since it has gone through two seasons where it's had exposed roots, you know whole summers, and it's still, if there's any damage to be done, you could have seen it this last summer and it still looks really healthy. In spite of the that. Mancino: Thank you. Does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? Dean Johnson: Hello. My name is Dean Johnson. I'm the builder and the developer of the Oak Ponds project. I think the request that I'm making here, more has to do with the fact that 1 the tree is, due to topog problems and due to a mistake in location of where the tree was when the tree survey was done of the site, has ended up closer to things and higher to things than what was originally anticipated by our grading plan and by the engineer. We ended up being, originally I believe the grading plan showed like a 7 to an 8 foot height of this tree above the road. It's more like 10-10 1/2 feet. We also have the tree being closer to the road than what was anticipated so more or less what ended up happening is what we thought was going to be a workable situation, we thought we were going to be far enough away from the tree, turned out not to be true. Whether the tree surveyor made a mistake, if the topog was a little bit wrong. Irregardless, the situation has arose where now the tree is farther to the south than what was anticipated and the grade is higher than what was anticipated. So in trying to deal with this and not trying to cut any more roots, we went about putting up a Keystone Wall that was...not fully engineered. What I mean by that is, we could not put the recommended amount of construction behind this wall to match the engineering recommendations of a Keystone wall without cutting farther back into the bank, which would have cut farther back into the roots. Again the tree was thought to be farther north. The 7 or 8 foot wall we thought we were going to deal with, this wasn't expected to be a problem. We ended up building part of the wall actually and then got stopped. The Building Department stopped it because it did not meet all of the, did not meet the requirements of the specifications of the manufacturers basically is what ended up happening. It kind of was started because everybody's best opinion was, including the landscaper building the wall, who had 22 years of experience doing this type of work, thought it would work. Felt that since the tree had stood, and the bank has stood for 2 years. Actually at that time a year and a half, that we weren't looking at a real pressure situation on the wall. That the dirt, being it's clay, would self support to a degree. It's already proven that it has. And that the wall could be put in such a way, even though that it lacks some of the engineering, would still stand and be alright. It ended up not happening. We ended up looking at other alternatives with the staff and staffs help. We looked at boulder walls. Boulder walls cannot be engineered at all. There's no such a thing as an engineered boulder wall because there's no way of knowing what the surfaces that are going to be in contact, specific weights, friction, all sorts of different things end up coming into play with the boulder wall. There's just too many variables so a boulder wall didn't end up being any better type of solution to it. Because of the staff report I looked into doing a poured concrete wall was one of the recommendations or request of the staff. I talked to an engineer by the name of John Dahlmeier that is actually used by the City of Chanhassen. Does a lot of work for the building officials, Steve Kirchman and Steve Turrell and those types of people. He looked into putting this poured wall up. Felt that there would have to be, from the back of the wall to the end of the footings that would support this wall, there would have to be 5 feet of distance basically and what you're looking at is an L shaped affair. Putting the plat of ground with the wall coming up vertically out of it but you need the weight of the dirt on top of the footing to stop the wall from tipping out. So we'd end up having to cut 5 more feet in, back to possibly damaging, or not possibly, probably damaging roots. Also probably you have a bit of an alternative there. I guess I'm not really prepared to speak fully about it but if we can dig 5 foot farther into the bank, it probably would have continued on with the Keystone wall because we probably would have been fairly close...doing that. Because of all these 2 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 problems, because of the height, that's really what caused us to bring this back. We have found that trying to put this wall in has turned out to be, turned out to take more space, turned out to get it in properly to any type of an engineering requirement is going to cause cutting closer to that tree...probably losing the tree is what we're getting back from the different people. I did address it to the Homeowners Association to see what they would like on it. This is the Oak Hill Homeowners Association. The President of the Association is here so I'll let him speak as to what their feelings on the tree was. That's kind of where it ended up being and maybe what we should do is bring it back to you people. Bring it back with a plan where we do take the tree but we do replace it on a caliper inch basis which was originally in the development contract and I guess we'd like to hear wisdom on it and guidance on the thing. I guess I'd like to introduce Drew Clausen who is the President of our Homeowners Association. Mancino: If he could wait and speak during the public hearing, that would be fine. Dean Johnson: Oh, okay. Mancino: Mr. Johnson I have a question. In that area, is that a dedicated green space or the park area for the development where the tree sits at this point? Dean Johnson: When that area was, when preliminary plat was first approved, there were apartments, if you remember on the north side of Santa Vera. There was going to be 101 apartment units and the plan was to put a pool in that area that the apartment building would own and operate. If the townhome association wanted to, the right to use the pool or... so to speak of the maintenance costs... That what was approved. What ended up happening though is through negotiations with the city and through negotiations with the seniors, the senior site became developed beyond that location. And with needing the densities of those apartment buildings in order to...in other words if I were to build the apartment buildings and the senior site, we would have been over densities in the area and so between, in negotiations and being that I am a for sale townhome builder, I agreed to build the townhouses. They ended up basically swapping density with the senior site. With that there became nobody to own and manage the pool area anymore. There's no one entity like an apartment to do it. Now you have an association. You have two different associations. Nobody to build it. Put it into the...mortgage for it or do anything of those types of things so a pool basically came out of existence. So basically what's happening, not to talk too much longer here, is that I ended up owning it and right at the moment nothing's been decided... Mancino: Okay, but it is staying a green area at this point with the rest of the oaks that are there and a trail system through it? 3 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Dean Johnson: The trail's already through it. The only thing is it's a private piece of ground and...Any other questions? Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions from commissioners? Thank you. Farmakes: I have a question for our engineer. The city has several boulder walls. How do boulder walls become so unstable? Hempel: Boulder walls that you see in place are put in by private developers like Lundgren and so forth. They're on private property. They're owned and maintained by either homeowners association or private property owner. Those walls generally are 7 feet or less and they've fared pretty well. I've only noticed a couple areas that have failed and the development's gone back and repaired those. These have been withstanding pretty well. Getting in the 10 foot high range of the boulder walls, we're a little uncomfortable with that. They're not engineered. Reliance on landscapers who have been doing it for a while and their expertise in it, it was felt there may be some liability with that... Farmakes: So it's the height primarily and then with the, is the issue? Hempel: That and then also applying a fence on top of that retaining wall. Mancino: Then I have another question to piggy back on that. I have also seen on Lake Lucy, on the northern side of Lake Lucy between Yosemite and that Shadow Lane area, there is a limestone wall...which is higher than 7 feet I'm pretty sure and it has been put together with cement and limestone so it's stable but I'm sure it has no support, other type of support and it seems to be holding. It's been there for years and years and years. Hempel: That wall was installed with the Lake Lucy Road improvement and I believe after the first year or so it did require some repair but after that it's been holding up very well. Mancino: So it has the limestone in the cement. Is that something that engineering would support on a wall this size? And especially since it has settled and I believe it's maintained. Hempel: As the developer, as Mr. Johnson indicated, it seems like the banks are very stable. During the winter/spring thaw season you do get the frost movement in the ground. Typically you see it in roads too where you get the bumpy surfaces. That's typically what happens with the...if they're not anchored securely below the frost line. It's very well possible that boulder walls could hold up over time. The true test would be the first and second spring thaw. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: Otherwise they could just tear up part of the road. Just kidding. May I have a motion and a second to open for a public hearing please? Faimakes moved, Peterson seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission at this time on this issue, please come forward. Draw Clausen: Thank you. I'm Drew Clausen, President of the Oak Hill Townhomes Association. And really is just here to speak to one portion of this. Not so much the type of wall, keystone versus concrete versus limestone and concrete, which is mortar, but to a large extent the reasons Dean is undergoing this exercise is at our request. When the Association was turned over to the homeowners, at that meeting we asked the status of the wall and Dean explained the process he was going through to build a wall and we requested him to stop because of the fact that some of our association members have children. Others have friends who have children who come to play in the summer and our intent in that island is to have that be a recreational area. And I don't know how many of you have 7, 8, 9, 10 year old children but our concern is one of safety. I'm 6 foot 2, 6 foot 3. As I stand there, that's at least an 11 foot drop, possibly higher. There is very little below it. Even with sod it would be probably just about 2 foot before you have a concrete curb and an asphalt road and we feel that somebody's going to be climbing on that, fall down and hurt themselves. It really isn't a liability issue. It's more of an issue of just ease of recreational use. We took a vote of our association, because we're the ones that really are most affected by the aesthetics of it. It was a 3 to 1 vote, I forget how many, the whole association wasn't there but it was something like 35 or 36 to 9 or 10 to request that Dean, through whatever methods are appropriate, ask to have that hill sloped down and replace, take the tree down and replace it with the appropriate trees. I've read the report. There's some discussion on if the Council or the Planning Commission should approve this, what type of trees should go in and again that really isn't what our concern. None of us are in that, that's not our bailiwick in other words. But what we are requesting and urging the Planning Commission and other appropriate bodies is to grant the request to remove the trees, slope the hill down so it can be used without concern of safety. We also are not desirous of a fence on top of an 11 foot wall. We feel that there's no way that we can imagine to have that be aesthetic, especially when you're talking about again, 7, 8, 9, 10 year old children who are going to be climbing on things and now you've just added more height for them to climb on and fall down. So that is our primary concern. Again we certainly urge the Planning Commission and the Council to grant the request because we're the homeowners that are going to have to live with the decision. Any questions? 5 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission on this issue? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Peterson moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public heating. The public heating was closed. Mancino: Comments and questions from the commissioners. Commissioner Peterson. Peterson: I'd like to get a little bit better understanding I guess and the...but what would a poured wall look like? Would it have a brick facade in front or is it just a piece of gray concrete? Is there a variety of options? Hempel: It would be a cast poured in place type structure similar to what you see on a bridge abutment or something like that. Cosmetic can be added. You can add color to the concrete. You can add a textured wall face more to make it look like a block type wall. It all gets very expensive though. Those are our options available. Peterson: If you had to control the price of a poured concrete with some addition nuances to it versus the...block, can you give me a ballpark as to what the cost difference would be. Double? Triple? Hempel: Certainly. I'll give you a range. The Keystone or allen type block is in the range of $14.00-$15.00 a square foot. Similar to a boulder wall, retaining wall. That might be closer to $16.00 a square foot. Poured and capped in place would be in the range of $25.00 to $30.00 per square foot so it is double. Peterson: That was my only question I guess. I'm struggling between the issue of keeping a tree that age that has a long life span versus the request of the neighbors and the owners that live there. I think I have to do some thinking on that a little bit yet. Mancino: Would you like me to come back to you? Peterson: Yes. Mancino: Commissioner Farmakes. Farmakes: It's a legitimate safety concern and I've often argued with the statistical safety. It seems to...common sense but if that's the case, if there is a safety issue, I'd rather have children be safe than have a tree saved and I'm sure the city would also, the question seems to me is, is it a safety issue? I'm not going to preport that I'm an expert on that and I think 6 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 that we have a Public Safety Commission and/or city engineers that should respond to that issue. We have plenty of walls around this city and some of them are above 4 feet, 5 feet. I'm not sure we've had that much trouble with people falling off of them. But if there is a legitimate concern, maybe the tree has to go. I'll leave it at that. Mancino: Commissioner Skubic. Skubic: I sure would like to see the tree preserved but there certainly are legitimate concerns about safety...I'd agree with Commissioner that safety has to come first. Also I don't know, it's not clear to me what could be done to make this aesthetically pleasing. I appreciate the details...but without actually seeing some renderings, I'm not sure what it would look like. When you look at it now it certainly is a very attractive. It sounds like there is...process of putting up a wall would be further jeopardizing the tree. Audience: Could you speak up? Skubic: Certainly. In the process of constructing the wall, we might be jeopardizing the tree further and after all of our concerted effort we end up not preserving the tree anyway. So I think there's a legitimate amount of concern here and I'm tending to feel that the tree would have to go. Mancino: Commissioner Meyer. Meyer: I have yet the same concerns as Bob and the rest of us. It's safety number one I think is, having a fence on top of that high of a peak there really, I've got a young one too and I can see where your concerns are coming from. Also putting a fence on top of that, I don't know how you can do it and make it look good. It just, it's so close to the road I just don't know. Maybe you could make it look fairly decent but then the tree dies. People 100 years down the road are going to think we were crazy to design that but yeah, that's all the comments I've got. I'm leaning towards taking it down. Mancino: Commissioner Peterson. Any further comments? Peterson: I think they do parallel. I think aesthetics is probably my number one concern with safety coming in after that. I think in this case, with the desire to keep trees that age, I would vote to remove it and replace it with the appropriate number of younger trees. Mancino: Okay. Mr. Generous do we, is this something that we ask to see in detailed renderings on that...structure or wall to be... 7 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Generous: Yes. Mancino: I'd like to do both. I'd like to one, keep the majestic, old oak as obviously the City Council wanted to in 1992 when they asked that it be saved. And secondly I'd like to also make it safe and I think that there are other ways to do that besides a fence at the top. You can certainly put bushes. You can put 3 to 4 foot high junipers that spread and come down over that fence and kids are not going to get in the middle of those junipers or jump off of it. So my recommendation is, I'd like to see it come back with some drawings of what kind of wall would work and even what kind of a safety medium we could use up there besides a fence that would keep young children from... Jump off into the street anyway but are there alternatives that haven't been talked about... So that is kind of where I am going. I have all the concerns that every other commissioner does too but I think there are some other answers than what we're looking at right now. Any other comments by the commissioners? Peterson: Is timing an issue as far as making a decision now? Is postponing it and getting that. Mancino: I would say no. Is that an issue at all? Generous: Not really. Mancino: Okay. It's been up there that long. Is there a motion? Meyer: Is it a motion to table this? Mancino: If you do motion to table it, you can ask them to come back with something. Meyer: Okay. I'll make a motion that we table this then and come back with some renderings. Maybe some different alternatives like Nancy had asked for before... Mancino: Is there a second? Farmakes: I second that. Mancino: Any discussion? Meyer moved, Farmakes seconded to table the request to remove a 29 inch oak from Oak Ponds and ask the applicant to bring back color renderings and alternatives for a wall and safety precautions for children. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO REZONE 222,580 SQ. FT. OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL INTO 7 LOTS AND A 20 FT. FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF GALPIN BOULEVARD JUST SOUTH OF LUKEWOOD DRIVE, DEMPSEY ADDITION, TIMOTHY DEMPSEY. Public Present: Name Address Paula & Mike Robinson 2224 Lukewood Drive Bob Beyer 7221 Harriet Avenue so. Tim Dempsey 2301 Lukewood Drive Peter Knaeble 6001 Glenwood Avenue Roger Schmidt Galpin Boulevard Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions from commissioners? Does the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission? Peter Knaeble: Madam Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Peter Knaeble. I'm a civil engineer with...Engineering. We're responsible for the preparation of the preliminary plat and the exhibits for this project. And I'm here tonight with the owner of the property who currently lives on the property, Tim Dempsey. And Bob went through the staff report, or the information in the staff report. Covered most of the stuff that I was going to. I'd just like to reiterate that again this project, the ghost plat for this project was done last year when we did the engineering and planning work on the Minger Addition next door. Again that ghost plat showed 7 lots and that's what we're showing also today. And again the project meets all the city codes. We're asking for a variance to push the lots up 10 feet to save trees in the back of the homes and that was a similar variance that was given to the Minger Addition next door. Those were also designed I believe for all the lots, at about 20 foot setback instead of the standard 30 foot. Again to save the trees...for that project. If the Planning Commission has any questions, we're here to answer. Mancino: Thank you. Any questions from the Planning Commissioners? I'd like to open this for a public hearing. May I have a motion please? 9 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Farmakes moved, Peterson seconded to open the public heating. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please do so now. Roger Schmidt: I'm Roger Schmidt and I have the property just immediately south of Tim's property. I guess the question I have is, where it shows the wetlands down there at the base of those lots, is there any fill at all contemplated for that area? Because at this point there, I know there's some standing water down in that area at times and of course if that was filled in, I've got the property across the drainage ditch there and I'm sure I'd get some standing water and I've got a lot of trees in there that I don't want to lose. And water would, you know I'm sure would kill those off after a short period of time so that would be my only concern at this time. Mancino: Thank you. The applicant stated something to Mr. Schmidt from the audience. Mancino: And there is no fill in that area at all. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? Mike Robinson: Mike Robinson. I live in the Minger Addition and my only question is, what are the size restrictions on the property for the homes? ...are they going to be similar to the Minger Addition in terms of size restriction and similar pricing of homes. The applicant answered the question from the audience and it was not picked up by the microphone. Paula Robinson: My name is Paula Robinson and I live in the Minger Addition as well and I just have a couple of questions. One is, what is our access being shown on...on Galpin and on days I wasn't even able to get back to my property and so that's something that I'd really like to know if that's going to go on for a period of time. Mancino: Can you wait one second and we'll try to answer that. Dave, what kind of city rules do we have about that? Hempel: As a part of this project, Bentwood Circle, which is a private driveway street right now, will be upgraded to a city street. In conjunction with that upgrading, they will be required to maintain access to the existing homes on Bentwood Circle. There should be no 10 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 impact on Lukewood. That's already built to city standards so we don't need to tear into that street. Are you a resident of Bentwood Circle or are you on Lukewood? Paula Robinson: No, I'm on Lukewood but because of construction anticipated on Galpin, Lukewood at many times was shut off from the... Mancino: So that shouldn't happen. However, there will be crews going back and forth on Wood... Paula Robinson: Right, and are they going to block off our access? Mancino: I don't think they're able to. Hempel: No. They're required to maintain access from a public safety standpoint. They may only have parking like on one side of the street and maintain that in and out. A comment was made from the audience that was not picked up by the microphone. Paula Robinson: That was my main concern. Mancino: That was your first question. I think you had a second question. Paula Robinson: Yes, I just had a second on the drainage of the area... Mancino: Again I think Mr. Hempel could answer that for you. Hempel: Madam Chair, with this development they will maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern that's out there today. The only grading that's going to be done is for the new street and as individual houses are built, the city requires individual grading, drainage, tree removal plans be submitted with building permit applications are reviewed to insure that the drainage patterns are maintained in that area. Mancino: Thank you. Paula Robinson: You're welcome. Mancino: Anyone else? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Faimakes moved, Peterson seconded to close the public hewing. The public healing was closed. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 • Mancino: Any questions or comments from commissioners? Commissioner Meyer. Meyer: I've got a question on the Schmidt property. Is that something that's developable yet? Is that something that we should take into consideration at this point? Hempel: Staff did look at the surrounding properties to this. The Schmidt property is located south of this. South of the Bluff Creek tributary would be serviced through Galpin Boulevard. Mancino: Can you point that out Dave. Where is the Schmidt property? I mean I see it just west of Galpin here. Dave Hempel went to the overhead projector to point out the location of the Schmidt property. Mancino: So you're expecting that to go off of Galpin? Hempel: That's correct... Meyer: Who would I ask about that 10 foot setback?... Generous: As part of the tree preservation, that was one of the things we were looking at. If you can pull the housing pad closer to the road where we have most of our impacts of trees, you're able to save a larger areas. The Minger Addition we have, tree preservation areas that we have 200-300 feet deep because we have...we're trying to save the mature stands to the rear of the trees and provide them some screening from Galpin Boulevard. In addition..., the first one may be, Lot 7 may be able to be pushed back from an aesthetic standpoint. Sharmin told me that she'd like to see the setbacks from the front of the house maintained all the way along that curb. Meyer: That's all the questions I have. Mancino: Thank you. Commissioner Skubic. Skubic: I have very little to add. Unfortunately we're taking, are taking down some nice trees here but I appreciate the effort and I support the variance for setback here and let's preserve some of them. Mancino: Commissioner Farmakes. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Farmakes: No further comments. Mancino: Commissioner Peterson. Peterson: No comments. Mancino: I have a couple questions. Bob, how do we get to the city park which is south of this subdivision? Generous: There's a trail segment that was put in as part of the Minger Addition. It's right to the east of Lot 1. It follows that eastern property line. Mancino: But I mean if I'm a resident and I live north on Galpin and I want to go to the city park, where do I park and get out of my car and go to the park? Generous: I don't know that it's designated for that. It's a passive type park so you would, the closest trailhead that I'm aware of is at the Autumn Ridge site, That trail system will eventually commit down into this area along Galpin. Mancino: And does this trail system, it just stops at the cul-de-sac? It does not go through this development out to Galpin? Generous: No. It just, it will be an on street trail for anyone who would want to walk that area. Mancino: Okay. And why doesn't it continue? Is there a paralleling trail system on Galpin? Generous: Yes. Mancino: Thank you. A couple other questions. On Lot 6, and on Lot 2, by pushing that back to the 30 feet, which is the setback and not a variance, especially on Lot 6, if we go backwards, we're not taking out any trees according to what I'm looking at. Generous: No significant trees. Mancino: Okay. So Lot 6, by doing a variance, does not save any trees. And Lot 7 does not save any trees. Generous: I believe on Lot 7 the only, the saving there is the wetland setback and grading. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: Okay. Tell me that a little bit more. Explain that a little bit more. We're saving grade back there? Hempel: Madam Chair, Lot 7 yes. There is required fill given the topographic terrain right now. If you push the house pad further on down the road, it requires more fill to bring that house pad up to grade and more fill beyond the house to match these to grade. If you keep it up the hill farther, less grading and filling is involved. Mancino: Okay. And Lot 5 I can see that we are saving trees in the back and Lot 4 is the existing home and also on Lot 3. Lot 2 it seems to me that we would save some trees in the front by pushing the house pad back a little bit. Generous: I wonder, I could have Jill answer that. Sinclair: Your question is about Lot 2? Mancino: Yes. On Lot 2 there is the 26 inch oak and those oaks in the front which, you know on so many of the subdivisions now there are no trees in the front yard so. Sinclair: Yeah, that's true. Mancino: So in looking at this and saying, there are such beautiful trees there, would it be possible to save some in the front also. Sinclair: From past experience, saving trees in the front yard is one of the most difficult things a developer can do. It doesn't work well because you have contractors that want to come in and park their trucks there. Put their materials there. You have utilities going to the house on one side. That usually cuts the roots. It's very difficult to effectively preserve trees in the front yard. So it's better to sacrifice those and save all the ones in the back yard effectively than to run the risk of chancing it on a couple in the front yard. And you know because these are big trees, they...fairly negatively to any kind of disruption and the moisture in the soil. The cutting of the roots. Any kind of compaction. All of that takes a real toll on the older trees. Mancino: Okay. Let me ask you one other question Jill. On Lot 7 you had suggested that those two oaks, those two 26 inch...oaks be taken down. Sinclair: Right. Kind of the same deal where, where the oaks are right now you know it's probably a 3 to 4 foot difference between what the new grade will be and where the oaks are now and it is fairly close. It's not like the other tree we just discussed where there's 12 feet 14 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 or so. You know within 5 feet of these trees, there's going to be this 4 foot cut on one side. In front of them has already been graded for the road so effectively they're taking out at least 3/4 of this and they are large trees once again so you know, they could survive but the chances are bad, yeah. Mancino: Thank you. What are Outlots C and B? What do you do with those two outlots Bob? Generous: Those were established as part of the Minger Addition. I believe there was a transfer between Minger and the Dempsey's. That Minger transferred it to the Dempsey's for when he subdivided his land. Mancino: How come that didn't become part of. Generous: Well yeah, that's just showing the underlying plat. That will become, Outlot C becomes part of Lot 1 and Outlot B becomes part of Lot 4. Mancino: Thank you. And the last question is, we needed a post development canopy coverage 55% and we're at 54%. Are there trees that needed to added to it? Generous: That would be the canopy area? Mancino: Yeah. Sinclair: ...calculations it comes up to about 2 trees they would technically have to replace. Mancino: Thank you. My last question has to do with the...other developments that we are going to be seeing tonight that has...canopy coverage like this. 80% to 90%. You're recommending that for the water line, for all the water lines, using a trench box so as to not disturb the area. Hempel: In this project the sewer and water lines have already been installed. There's really no need to do that. The individual sewer service can be stubbed to the property line once that home is built and the sewer line will be extended into the house. Typically with that the sewer and water contractor...box_ He simply trenches it to a normal trench width or most time they do even narrow because more digging costs more money. Mancino: Okay. Those are all my questions. I think it's a good development. It will work out well with the Minger development. It's well though out. May I entertain a motion? 15 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Skubic: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of rezoning #95-REZ 5.1 acres of property zoned A2 to rural single family for Dempsey Addition as shown on the plans received November 6, 1995 and subject to the following conditions number 1 and number 2. Mancino: Is there a second? Meyer: I'll second that. Mancino: Any discussion? Skubic moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of rezoning 5.1 acres of property zoned A2 to RSF for Dempsey Addition as shown on the plans received November 6, 1995 and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract containing all of the conditions of approval for this project and shall submit all required financial guarantees. The development contract shall be recorded against the property. 2. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #95-21. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mancino: A second motion for the preliminary plat please. Skubic: I'll make a motion. The Planning Commission recommend approval of a preliminary plat for Subdivision #95-21 Dempsey Addition for 7 single family lots with a 10 foot variance to allow a 20 foot frontage yard setback as shown on the plans received November 6, 1995 with the following conditions number 1 through number 18 as outlined by the staff. Mancino: Is there a second? Meyer: I'll second that. Mancino: Any discussion? Skubic moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #95-21, Dempsey Addition for 7 single family lots with a 10 foot variance to allow a 20 foot front yard setback as shown in plans received November 6, 1995, with the following conditions: 16 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 1. Tree preservation conditions: a. All tree fencing as drawn shall be installed prior to any grading or excavation. b. Fencing shall be extended to property lines between Lot 3 and 4 as well as across the rear yard of Lot 6. c. All significant trees must be shown on the building permit surveys. d. All trees in front yards of Lot 1, 3 and 5, Block 1 shall be protected by tree fencing. The fencing shall be placed, at a minimum, at least 15 feet from the trunk. e. The two 26 inch oaks in the northeastern corner of Lot 7 are not recommended for preservation. f. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement. The applicant shall provide the city with a legal description of these easements. 2. Building Department conditions: a. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using standard designations and indicate the lowest level floor, entry level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. b. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. 3. Park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of land as required by city ordinances. 4. The existing out buildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned in accordance with City and/or State codes. 5. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval prior to final plat approval. 6. All seeds disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 7. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm events in accordance with the City's SWMP for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed 17 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 and post developed stormwater calculations for 100 year storm events. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. 8. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 9. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. 10. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign. 11. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100 year high water level. 12. The northerly lot line of Lot 1 shall be adjusted to provide a driveway access to Lot 1 that will avoid encroachment onto the City's trail. 13. The proposed single family residential development of 4.2 developable across is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $3,360.00 and a water quantity fee of $8,316.00. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 14. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tiles as directed by the City Engineer. 15. The existing residence on Lot 4 shall be connected to City sewer and the septic system properly abandoned prior to final plat approval. 16. The streets and storm drainage system shall be constructed in accordance to the City's rural street and utility standards. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. The plans shall be designed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's standard specifications and detail plates. Final plat approval is contingent upon approval of the construction plans by the Chanhassen City Council. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 17. Individual grading, drainage, tree preservation and erosion control plans will be required for each lot at the time of building permit application for the city to review and approve. 18. Neighborhood identification monument signs require a separate permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mancino: When will this go in front of City Council. Generous: January 8th. PUBLIC HEARING: TED DELANCEY FOR A REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF 8.9 ACRES INTO 9 LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED AT 7505 FRONTIER TRAIL, LOTUS GLEN. Public Present: Name Address Ted & Cathy deLancey Applicants Charles Stinson Architect Don Streeter Streeter and Associates Dr. James Erland Chanhassen Rick Corwine 7600 Erie Avenue Tom Pauley 7604 Erie Avenue Kelly Lang 7501 Erie Avenue Andrew Hiscox 7500 Erie Avenue Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions from commissioners at this point? (Due to a taping error, a portion of the public hearing was not recorded on this item. Taping of the discussion began again at this point after the applicant and the applicant's architect had presented their plan and the public hearing had been opened.) Mancino: Bob, for Mr. Corwine. How wide is the...going to be and how close will these... 19 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Generous: I believe that the easement or the area is 30 feet and the private drive is 20 feet? Rick Corwine: I guess my specific question is, is there a limitation into how far a private driveway can be from a property line? Or from a structure. Hempel: No, there isn't. Typically the private drive would be centered in the 30 foot wide easement. Rick Corwine: Would there be a problem, okay. Mancino: So you would have 10 feet from the private drive to your property line. Rick Corwine: Right, okay. I would like to see some efforts made to offset that. The property to the north of that access strip. Their house sits quite a bit to the north end of that property and they have some trees in that area that would be a buffer. I'd like to see some efforts made to move that a little bit farther to the north of that 30 foot strip there. Especially seeing as there's no particular restrictions on it's specific location to the property line... Mancino: Is the northern neighbor here tonight? Rick Corwine: No, they're not. And I know that it's somewhat of a concern of their's. Well I guess I can't speak for them. Those are my primary questions tonight. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? Tom Pauley: My name is Tom Pauley. I live at 7604 Erie Avenue. Just south of Rick. My concern is, I probably live on the lowest part of Erie Avenue and there's a tremendous amount of water drainage that goes through. That ponds in my yard and goes down this creek...and when you get the 1 and 2 inch rains, there's a lake in my yard. It goes over to Rick's yard and the neighbor's yard and as long as that water's allowed to keep moving, we don't have a problem. But that's my concern that when you're doing all this, you consider that because if that water is interrupted somehow, I mean it hasn't gotten to my house yet but I can see it coming at my door. Mancino: Dave, could you...what's coming in now and will that change after development? Hempel: Certainly Madam Chair. (Dave Hempel went over to the overhead projector to answer Mr. Pauley's question and his comments were not picked up by the microphone.) 20 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission. Kelly Lang: Good evening. My name is Kelly Lang. I live at 7501 Erie Avenue, which is lake property on Lotus Lake. Two doors down from the proposed development to the east. My concern is driven from the whole reason that we moved to Chanhassen and that was the Lotus Lake and the quality that it has. We've spent, we've only been there on the lake for two summers but have spent some time recreationally on the lake enjoying it and enjoyed the quality of the lake and over just the three, last three years we've seen the quality of the lake diminish. Felt good last winter when the city came out with their plans for the surface water plan and the preservation of the other lakes as well as Lotus Lake in the city and I am concerned that on the plan, as I've picked it up from the city last week, they're asking that the Surface Water Management Plan be developed prior to asking for your approval and would ask if the city planners and commission feel comfortable with the development as proposed that will not impact adversely the quality of the lake because not only are you dealing with the neighbors, but everybody that's around the lake. Hempel: Madam Chair, I can address that. The city has another opportunity here with this development, as we did with the Lotus Lake Woods project to do our surface water management on the property in conjunction with development. Any easements...the surface water management plan does...to take the runoff and by-pass the... Kelly Lang: There is a drainage ditch coming out of there right now. In fact going into the left... Is what you're saying less water will likely be coming from there? Hempel: ...pre-treated before it discharges into Lotus Lake... Mancino: And right now that isn't being done. Hempel: That's correct. Right now it's an open ditch... Kelly Lang: Yeah but the development will bring more fertilizer and other types of lawn treatments that has been shown by the water plan or the people that were involved in the water plan, that that has...and what I just heard you say is that this pond will gather some of that in most instances but in major storms, that runoff will potentially increase the...and that type of thing through the ditch area. Hempel: That's partially correct... 21 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: Dave, isn't the city right now doing an education process with the Lotus Lake residents about fertilizer and when to use and which ones are the best and not to use, and especially in an area like this, I'm sure there isn't much grass anyway but. Kelly Lang: Yes, the city's doing I think an exemplary job on a lot of the things that have involved maintaining the quality of the lake and adhere to the non fertilizer use on my own lawn, but I also suspect that, I believe that families living off the lake, but near the lake, they will have less reason to feel like they are part of the problem and maybe would ask that the commission ask that the water level or the ponding level be increased to a 4 inch to 6 inch rain runoff into the lake because 3 years ago when we were waterskiing on the lake, I remember there were three very small patches of milfoil. Today it's 100% surrounded by milfoil around the lake. It's one of the degrees of quality that I've seen deteriorate rapidly. Based upon Diane Desotelle and the outside firm that they had come in and do some of the educational things last year, she indicated that it is the runoff and fertilizer. The lack of, currently the lack of ponding and that type of thing has created that type of degregation in the quality. And that if we protect it for the 2 to 4 inch rainfall, that's better than what we have today but with the amount of, I think not knowing what the amount of effort you have in creating a pond, it may be a small, additional effort to raise the level of the ponding and the wall prior to it entering into the ditch to protect a 6 inch level of rainfall. So we have a chance to prevent further degregation of the lake quality. Mancino: Is that ever done? Hempel: Madam Chair. This site here is an environmentally sensitive area. We will be working with the developer to size the pond as large as we can and yet preserve the trees and natural terrain out there. I'm not aware of any ponding areas that are sized, from an economic standpoint, for a 6 inch rainfall. That's like a 100 year storm event. More typical for a 2 1/2 inch rainfall is the standard set forth. Mancino: 6 inches is a 100 year? Hempel: Storm event which happened a couple times in the last year. Mancino: Wouldn't you know it. Thank you. Appreciate your comments and your concerns. Anyone else? Andrew Hiscox: My name's Andrew Hiscox. I live at 7500 Erie Avenue. I'm the property that's directly east of the deLancey property and I think this is great. I think Ted's done a great job of drawing a plan up but I do have a couple of concerns to go over. If you look at, if that's north, as you're looking at that rendering right there, I'm a little concerned about the 22 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 private drive and how close it is to the property line. It's already been brought up tonight that there's really no code or ordinance that says how far a driveway has to be from a property line. But I've lived in the house for about 7 years. I look out the back of my house and it's all woods. I see deer out there and rabbits and raccoons and things like that and it'd be sort of nice to sort of keep that ambience. I know nothing lasts forever. However I'm wondering if there might be some way to suggest that we put in some sort of buffer between the existing homes and the new development. I don't think that's, again it's not an ordinance but I guess I'd like to solicit your opinion on that and see if that's something we might be able to get put into the plan. Mancino: Okay. Bob, do we have any ordinances right now when we abut single family to single family to buffer it? Generous: No. I believe as part of their design they're looking for separation. I don't think it's more for, it's for the benefit of the new subdivision rather than for the existing development there. Like he said, they're looking at higher valued lots out here and that equates to higher value homes. They're going to think that they should have a screen from the existing homes in the neighborhood. Andrew Hiscox: I think that's great. How do we formalize that? Mancino: I think the Planning Commission will talk about during their comments. So what I'm saying is we will not give you an answer right now but we will discuss, as we discuss comments and make a recommendation or not to do that. Andrew Hiscox: Do we get to re-open that for discussion after you've had your discussion? Mancino: Ah, no you don't. Andrew Hiscox: Well then let's continue right now. I guess what I'm saying is. Mancino: This is not a discussion period. This is for us to get the... Andrew Hiscox: I understand. Mancino: And I will bring that back to the Planning Commission once the public hearing is closed. We will make comments and we will discuss it and we will take a vote. And if you would like further discussion, you may certainly do that at the City Council. Andrew Hiscox: Okay, thanks. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: Is there any other area that you wanted us to? Andrew Hiscox: Well, not at this time. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Farmakes moved, Peterson seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Commissioner Peterson. Comments. Discussion. Peterson: I think all and all that the plan as it's been presented has been obviously thoroughly thought out over quite an expansive period of time and I think all the major areas have been addressed and it seems as though they've worked with the city and accommodated the wishes of the city into many of the design factors. Dave, I guess I'd like to talk a little bit more, get a better understanding again and it's been 20 or 30 minutes now. I guess I'd like to go over again the primary rationale for separating and then changing the road system as it's currently being presented on the chart here. So if you could just briefly walk through it again for me, I'd appreciate it. Hempel: Commissioner Peterson, the only consideration... Peterson: Thanks. I think that basically the plan, as it's presented, I think can be worked out between the developer and the city. I'm comfortable with it as the way it is. As presented by staff. Mancino: And would you like to see the applicant and staff work together on the suggestions and have it come back to see how it works out? Peterson: I think as...really hasn't had a great deal of opportunity to respond to the most recent city request so I think that'd be certainly appropriate. Mancino: Mr. Farmakes. Farmakes: This is kind of a unique development. A little bit different than what we're used to seeing. Typically we're used to seeing farmland being subdivided and being filled up with development and then of course we get people coming in from the development next to it who are upset because they want to continue seeing what they moved out for, which is cows and horses and whatever. We have a different area here. This is an area that's sort of been 24 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 insulated or surrounded by development for many years and it simply hasn't developed because it's owners chose not to develop. In fact the property that we purchased was a similar situation. When development started in the 50's and the developer held onto it for 20 years before they sold it. I agree that Frontier Trail is a unique situation. I'd like to see limited access. I'd like to see Lots 1 and 2 perhaps access off of that same drive rather than add an additional drive. Possibly rearrange these homes a bit to set them back from the road, if possible. Obviously the development's high quality. I think considerations for the property have been well taken into consideration by the architect. Other than the issue of Frontier Trail, it's quite a quality addition... Mancino: Thank you. Commissioner Skubic. Skubic: I also think that it's a very fine proposal here. They're certainly developing this with large lots minimizes the amount of traffic on...topography and the trees quite efficiently. I would like to see the applicant and staff work together to try to buffer the private roadway to the east to see what can be done with that. There's also some alterations that need to be made in regards to the bluff lines and certainly that needs to be worked through and with the uncertainties, I'm not sure that this should be moved up to the City Council. I don't know, maybe it should. I don't know. I just have a little uncertainty about that. There might be a little more work that I'd like to be done with those things before it moves on. I can be persuaded otherwise. Mancino: Commissioner Meyer. Meyer: I'd like to know, this shows a 9 lot...to the land, could they come in and do quite a few more? I know we had heard 23... Generous: Sure, you could do 15,000 square foot lots. Meyer: Okay, so what they're doing right now is really trying to develop something that's... Generous: Yes...especially on the top part of...planned unit development and then it's more lots. Put larger lots down here. They could have done twin homes development. Meyer: Okay. Also Andrew Hiscox had talked about buffering the private drive but actually the way I look at this, I mean there will be a driveway but they won't even be going past, it will be a driveway for the house but it won't be going. Andrew Hiscox: Excuse me, it will be about 16 feet from my back door. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Meyer: The building pad, yes. Andrew Hiscox: No, the driveway. Meyer: What I was speaking of was a private drive for serving all the houses and that won't. I believe that's all the questions I have. Mancino: I think it's a real quality development. I'd like to see it come back and I'd like to see it come back after the applicant and their engineer and architect have looked at the city's request for how to approach Lots 1 and 2. Take that into consideration and work together with staff on that. I'd also like to see it come back with the particulars for Lot 4 and 5 and where the housepads can go on that according to our bluff ordinance. And I would like to have the applicant respond to the homeowners on the east side and what kind of buffering can be done and what you would suggest doing. Bob, I had a question for you on the amount of money in their storm water quantity fees. It is $1,980.00 per developable acre and in the city we have calculated it as 8.7 acres. If they can't develop in the bluff area, should those be considered as developable acres? And what is the city's position on that and if the city doesn't have one right now, you can certainly get back to us. Hempel: I guess first what jumps out for me I guess Madam Chair is it still generates runoff as the other property does and it should be included. Maybe because it's a bluff and the lots are larger, maybe some credit rate that we've applied as a residential single family rate, about $800.00 per acre plus $1,980.00 per acre. They may be given some credit for that bluff... We can take a look at that. Mancino: Okay. I would hope that we do. Those are all my comments. Oh, one more question. What is a trench box? Dave? Hempel: Excuse me? Mancino: What is a trench box? On 25, and I brought it up earlier tonight and asked a question about it and I don't even know what one is. Hempel: That is a metal box that is used to preserve the cave in of the side walls when they excavate the trench if they're in an unsuitable material or high water table area. The soils will move on them and cave in. What this box does, it limits the trench width. Instead of having to be a 1:1 slope or 1:1.5 slope, it can virtually go sheer up and down with it. You just move this trench box along to protect the workers from cave in's. Mancino: You mean you just use that for water lines? 26 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Hempel: It can be used for sewer and water lines. The biggest piece of equipment though that disturbs the area is the backhoe itself running through there and turning and that's where you'll get the area of a 30 foot wide swath essentially being impacted by construction. Mancino: Okay and it's written down that they're leaving a 40 to 45 foot swath and is there, is it 30 to 35 feet? Hempel: If it's just a water line going in, which is very shallow, 7 foot deep, 30 to 35 foot would be the limit of the impact. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Can I entertain a motion? Farmakes: Yeah, I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission table the Lotus Glen #95- 22 SUB. Mancino: Can you wait until the motion is done please. Farmakes: For the following reasons, as listed in the Minutes by the chair. Mancino: Okay, is there a second? Skubic: I second it. Mancino: Any discussion? Fatmakes moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the preliminary plat #95-22 SUB for Lotus Glen for further ttview between staff and the applicant. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. A question was asked from someone in the audience which was not picked up by the microphone. Mancino: Well and Bob, we need a guide here... I haven't read it completely because we just received it so I feel uncomfortable giving you my thoughts on it not reading it. Have you had time to read it? Farmakes: I was given it just after the beginning of the meeting and I do not have the bluff ordinance memorized, although I was involved and helped put it together but I cannot, off the top of my head, along with 15 other ordinances that we're dealing with here tonight, make a comment on that... 27 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: ...we certainly will at the next Planning Commission meeting and I know that that doesn't help you because you want to go ahead with your plan. Another comment was made from the audience at this point. Mancino: And you may also work with the staff on a variance for a certain lot also having to do with Lot 1...we would certainly entertain that. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: JOHN KNOBLAUCH FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF 8.35 ACRES INTO 12 LOTS, ONE OUTLOT AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT-OF-WAY ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; A VARIANCE FOR STREET GRADE OF 10% AND A VARIANCE TO WETLAND SETBACK OF 20 FEET FOR LOTS 11 AND 12; PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YOSEMITE AT THE CHANHASSEN-SHOREWOOD CITY LIMITS. THE PROJECT IS KNOWN AS KNOB HILL. Public Present: Name Address Marc Simcox 21600 Lilac Lane, Shorewood Diane & Randall Schwanz 1377 Ithilien Joanne Dake 1336 Ithilien Bob Hansen 1344 Ithilien Michael Reid 1328 Ithilien Jim Donovan Chanhassen Jim Emmer Chanhassen Tom Wilder Shorewood Mike Prebble 1352 Ithilien Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: I have a couple very quickly. The accepted grading is due to dwelling type? Is due to what? Hempel: Well the street is proposed right up through the hill there to preserve the topography as well as 10% street grade and...There's not going to be as much grading probably...staffs 28 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 alternative. It fits the terrain though much better. You're not significantly lowering the knob or filling in for the house pads. Mancino: So the difference between that concept and what the applicant has brought is that you're going south...southern turn and this will eliminate even greater the 10% grade? Hempel: We believe we're working with the existing grades better than the proposed plan before you this evening. Mancino: Another question is, and none of us are...to the east. They have access to Lilac Lane so they do have an access point... Hempel: We have a limited access point to Lilac Lane. Approximately 18 to 20 foot wide. The street is a substandard city street. It actually borders right between the city of Shorewood. It's also here in Chanhassen. I believe the city of Shorewood has maintained that street. At this point tonight we're not looking at a thru street connection. We're just trying to provide full street access and utility service to the Donovan parcel. Mancino: And as you said, Lilac Lane is owned by Shorewood? Hempel: I believe it's maintained by the city of Shorewood. Mancino: Thank you. Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? John Knoblauch: I'm John Knoblauch. I'm the developer of the proposed parcel called Knob Hill. Craig from Engelhardt has two drawings here. One showing the proposed cul-de-sac that's been submitted. Also on the top would be a likely scenario if staffs recommendations are followed. Just to quickly mention on David's comments on looking at the, only the service of the Donovan parcel. I believe in the staff report on page 5, the bottom. When abutting property develops, staff met early on with the applicant's engineer and requested that they look at extending the street to the east to service Donovan's and potentially when the abutting property develops out to Lilac Lane. So that's really the issues that we're going to talk about here. This is going to sound like a broken record because what you just went through before. I'm in the same boat here. This property's been in my family 85 years. It's been my wife and myselfs dream to eventually build on the homestead site of my great grandfather's home. I build homes for a living. My goal's not to be a developer but developing this piece myself was the only thing I could do to make sure that the homestead site be preserved and the site be carefully planned the way my family would want it. I've probably more questions than answers for you but I think all the issues at hand need to be 29 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 addressed further than this meeting with city staff, my engineers and myself. But I appreciate the commission hearing our concerns on hopefully the successful development of this parcel. Other than the details that are addressed in the staffs report, the plan in my mind boils down to two basic road layouts which I think is why everybody is here tonight. My plan number one, my plan of a cul-de-sac to service the parcel and staffs recommended plan for a continuation of a road through my parcel and eventually continuing through the Donovan parcel to the east when it is developed and hook up to Lilac Lane. A cul-de-sac plan, not necessarily my proposed cul-de-sac that you see on the bottom plan over there, but a cul-de- sac meeting staffs wishes and the grade and the right-of-way areas is preferred by myself and the surrounding neighbors. A continuation of this road, which I call the top cop's road to the east, in my estimation would be confronted with the following. Two hills near the connecting collectors, neither of which meet Shorewood or Chanhassen's specs for safety. Lilac Lane and Powers Boulevard intersection. This intersection is a 28 foot wide roadway that was improved 2 years ago up to Teton Road. The city prefers a 31 foot wide roadway. Grading on this improvement was an 8.26 grade. The city prefers a 7% maximum grade. But we're a 7% grade as close as 50 feet to Powers Boulevard. The city prefers a 2% max grade within 50 feet of this intersection. Or of any intersection. I understand that may be a State recommendation, I'm not sure. A transitional speed zone at the intersection of 45 mph and 30 mph and poor sight lines for the drivers east bound and south bound. This roadway is 85% in the city of Shorewood and 15% in the city of Chanhassen. Also another issue that I'd like to bring to the commissioner's attention is the hill at Apple Road at the county line which is actually on the northwest corner. Yosemite Street turns into Apple Road at the county line, which is the northwest corner. The average grade for the first 450 feet into Hennepin County is 9.08. At the hill crest this grade's within 150 feet to the center of my proposed road coming into Yosemite. In regards to the Donovan parcel, which is actually shown to the southeast of the top drawing, it's almost a 90 degree turn on the Donovan parcel. The sight lines for the Donovan property are poor with mature trees blocking vision on the entire west side. There's a dangerous ravine at the end of Lilac Lane which would definitely be a hazard. Not to mention there's about 20 significant trees that would be lost on the substandard part of Lilac Lane. Another issue of concern is the servicing of just the Donovan parcel. It's come to my attention recently that Mr. Donovan does have a 50 foot easement for road purposes for future development. Therefore when future development would take place, it could access onto Lilac Lane. So there's no need to take road right-of-way from my parcel to service his land. ...The first page is just a map showing how close Apple Road and Powers connect just to the north of this parcel. And Lake Lucy Road would be the other collector to the south. And the next three are the existing Lilac Lane improvement that was done from Powers to Teton Lane, which is probably about half of Lilac Lane. Maybe a little less. A third to a half and that shows the 28% width. The 8.26 grade coming into Powers Boulevard with basically no landing. And the last page just shows how much was in Shorewood and Chanhassen. The next page does show the grade. This is from the city of Shorewood on the 30 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 grade of the hill just to the north of where Yosemite turns into Apple Road. The average is 9.08 in that first section. The next half section map shows Ithilien, which is a lot of the neighbors that are here tonight in that subdivision. It does show highlighted Lot 5, which is the issue with the Donovan easement. The next page, with the easement over Lot 5 does confirm from Valley Surveying and also Del Cutter at Carver County Abstract, that this is a valid easement. It's a 50 foot wide easement. 28.51 onto Lot 5 and 21.5 that is on the existing Donovan parcel. And the next legal document is that easement dated 27th of April, 1973. On the next three pages is a petition, obviously concerned residents. 52 adults from the surrounding area. And last but not least, a letter from the City of Shorewood that I received today and it reads as follows: Our office received a copy of the above referenced plat and found it to have little or no impact on the adjoining property in Shorewood. We have since been advised that the city's considering a possible thru connection to Lilac Lane. This is to advise you that the City of Shorewood has serious concerns about such a connection to Lilac Lane. Lilac Lane is very substandard, narrow street serving only 6 homes in Shorewood. Given the low density and large lot character of this neighborhood, Shorewood has no plans for extending the street. It does not appear that such a connection would benefit Shorewood residents. We understand the desire to provide for the development of the Donovan property and would be interested in seeing any other plans that you may have developed in this regard. However at this time the City of Shorewood does not favor making the Lilac Lane a thru street. It is our understanding that your Planning Commission will consider this matter at the meeting tonight. Please pass our concerns along to them. If you wish to discuss this project with Shorewood's staff, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Bradley J. Nielsen, Planning Director. I understand that at least cul-de-sacs have been granted within the past years within a half mile. Shadow Ridge, Ithilien and the Mason property. And also to clarify the staff and the commission why we propose a 10% grade variance on our plan for the cul-de-sac was for one purpose and one purpose only. That was to save trees which is really my high priority on this parcel. And I was told by Engelhardt that in order to save more trees we had to raise the road grade, in order to especially save, there's quite a few cedars up where I'm going to live on the big parcel on Lot 5. That is going to be left as one lot. Besides all the safety issues I've raised for a continued street, it seems very clear to me that a continuation of the Knob Hill Road was not meant to be. It should have been planned through the Ithilien property, not a band-aid thru street. This is why a cul-de-sac makes sense for my neighborhood. It's safe for my kids and the Knob Hill traffic can go to Powers Boulevard, via Apple Road to the north and Lake Lucy Road to the south. Both level intersections that would be safer for all. I'm sure with staffs help we can come up with a cul-de-sac plan that meets the grade staff prefers and preserves the best liability of the trees and the surroundings of my family property. We're moving onto this land to make friends, not enemies and to contribute to the community and hopefully we can find common ground. So I'd ask the Planning Commission to make a motion to staff not to pursue the connection of the roadway through the Knob Hill Addition to service Donovan's 31 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 property but to allow for sewer service only and to pursue a cul-de-sac plan that will enhance the area. Mancino: Thank you. I did have a question for you. Just state for me very clearly, forget Lilac Lane and what will happen if it goes through the Donovan parcel. You seem to want the cul-de-sac and what are the reasons for you wanting to continue or to just have a cul-de- sac on Knob Hill. Just 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. John Knoblauch: Actually to be honest with you, I'm not really opposed to servicing Donovan's property. If it was Donovan's property alone and I could be assured of that, I would not be against dead-ending my road at his property line. And that I've made clear to staff. As far as the cul-de-sac, obviously it makes my lots more valuable. I have two growing boys and one on the way, and they're pretty active. I guess that's really the gist of it and I think that's the way my family would have wanted it, so. Since the issue of the easement came up with Donovan's, and he's really got his own entrance off of Lilac, I guess I'd prefer a cul-de-sac because if he didn't have that, I probably would work something out with him. Mancino: Thank you. Can we have a motion to open this for a public hearing? Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded to open the public healing. The public healing was opened. Mancino: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission. I'm going to stop for just one moment. It's 9:25. Kate, we have to be out of here by 10:00? Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: If we are not done by 10:00, because I see that we have quite a few people who are going to be addressing us. We may have to table this and come back and resume the public hearing because we must be out of here by 10:00. Anyone else who is on the agenda, I don't think we're going to get to you tonight. Do you have any recommendations or any other suggestions? So I just through I'd tell you that no one else will go on tonight. It won't be until January 3rd. We'll come back and we'll continue the public hearing at 10:00. We'll see you again on January 3rd. I hope this doesn't hold up anything for the applicant, etc, and I hope that everyone who did come tonight can join us again after Christmas. With that the public hearing is open and I'd like your name and address. Mike Prebble: Thank you. My name is Mike Prebble and I live at 1352 Ithilien, which is Lot 5 on the Ithilien Addition and I stand to be the one most affected or not affected, 32 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 depending on which plan that the city and Mr. Knoblauch go forward with. This is my lot right here and for a thru street... I believe Mr. Knoblauch should be able to develop his Knob Hill Addition as a cul-de-sac. He has shown me a plan that shows a very subtle use of land with home sites nestled in amongst the existing trees with the least impact on changing the neighborhood with an increased density of people. He has 12 home sites. It's been my experience that, at least where I live it's 2 car families and pretty much both work and so that's two cars leaving, two cars coming home and maybe a kid to pick up and maybe go shopping and so if you count all of those car passages from one house, I came up with 8 minimum and if you multiply that times 9 homes, that's 96 cars minimum going, plus you talk of things like mail delivery and garbage pick-up and etc and I forgot something so I go again. My lot being the corner of Lot 5 on the Ithilien Addition, apparently the planning and zoning commission, when they put my house on this lot. It was built in 1991, into '92 is when we moved in. We didn't know or didn't realize Mr. Donovan's easement onto it but I believe, according to the map and the measurements that I've done, if this street is put in as a thru street according to the existing easements, the corner of my attached screened porch would be 17 feet from the curb and I heard from the previous thing that it's 30 feet is the minimum so apparently my home was placed in a position that, according to what was Mr. Donovan's right-of-way, and I don't know if the city. Maybe the city didn't know of his easement or not. My house could have been moved. It didn't have to put right there because it's a new home and I wish that would have been addressed when we were in the stage of getting approval for where to place the homesite where our home is built. A thru street there, that's 12 homes. If Mr. Donovan or someone who buys his property and develops that, I talked with Mr. Hempel and I suggested 10 or 12 homes may go there. Mr. Hempel thought maybe 15 was more appropriate so that's another 15 homes. I'm going to guess 2 car families. I'm going to guess 8 trips minimum in and out. We're looking at around 300 cars a day could be potentially going past my house. Stop. Turn the corner. Go. Come back. Stop. Turn back. Some of those cars may be not so well tuned up. Some of those being trucks. The hill right there, my home. Northwest general air movement. I'm really concerned about air pollution right into my porch. I'm concerned about noise pollution. I'm concerned about how busy that street could become. I have three children. A freshman in high school, a 9 year old at Excelsior Elementary and a 3 year old. I believe that Mr. Knoblauch should be able to develop some fashion of a cul-de-sac. Your question of why do you want a cul-de-sac is why I bought that house on a cul-de-sac. It's homey. It's neighbors. The only people really who drive on our street are the people who live there. Occasion person who may be lost or looking for something but I look around, when I see people, it's the people we live with. A thru street is not homey. Is not neighbors. We met with the safety people last winter at one of our neighbor's homes talking about neighborhood safety watch and how nice it is that everyone knows and can see and can come and go so if you see something suspicious, meaning something you haven't seen for a while, you can easily think. Maybe I should call. Maybe not. A thru street does not allow that familiarity. My 33 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 recommendation to your group is some fashion of a cul-de-sac and Mr. Knoblauch mentioned something about, he could service Donovan's property. I love that idea. If some fashion of cul-de-sac ends with some fashion of a dead end here on Donovan's property, a nice road about here, that's another... If Mr. Donovan's easement is taken off my property, the Ithilien easement is taken off my property, I stand to lose approximately 20% of the land that I've got there. So thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission. Jim Donovan: Yes, my name is Jim Donovan. I'm the famous Donovan resident there with the property. As far as the easement is concerned, I know I can say whatever I want here in front of the Council because it doesn't mean anything as far as saying it about development. I have no intentions of ever developing that piece of property. I have no intentions of ever selling it. I'm going to die there when I'm 100 so. I'm 61 now so I've got a long time to go. And Mike and his wife can feel free that there will be no, nothing done with that corner. I know that that has no legal standing or anything else like that but that's my feelings. As far as allowing Mr. Knoblauch to have a circle in there, that would be my choice. As I look out my house, when I come out of my garage, that's to the north of my property there looking at his piece of property. It would look down. I'm up on the hill there. You can see the pond and I am just to the south of that pond there on a hill. I look down, my driveway goes down and winds around the trees. The beautiful trees there and I was thrilled when John and his wife came over to my house and said that they had no intentions of destroying those trees. I know that all the neighbors were very, very concerned about a developer coming in and potentially ripping out 20 to 30 of those beautiful trees that are in there that have been there for ages and ages. This is Apple Road territory and apple tree territory. The trees may not be the greatest because they haven't been kept up but it is a very old and very lovely area there. As far as I'm concerned, and the people that I've talked to, we would like to see, and me especially, I would like to see a circle on the property as John has proposed. I would not like to see a road abutted to my lot line because basically what the town is telling me is that, hey. Eventually we're going to come through your piece of property and we're going to link up with Lilac Lane. Well, you know I don't like that. I don't want to have my property... lighting that goes all the way down the driveway. I've got a security system that's underground that goes down the driveway. I've got over 1,000 foot long driveway. I've got two stone pillars at the end of Lilac there that have a bar, or a radio prism that goes it through. When a person or a vehicle comes onto the property, it sounds at my house. All of these wires and electrical has been laid underground and led to my house there. So I have no intentions of ever developing that. Ripping up that piece of property. I would hope that the town would not, or the city would have no push to put a road through there eventually. And the idea of having John make a road that would abut to my property there and then running basically a service road along my property line there, my northern property line there, does 34 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 not make sense really. John's idea of a circle with a road there servicing these homes here makes much more sense. It lends to the landscape. It does not degrade the property. It does not scrape it away. I mean there's beautiful homes. There is beautiful trees there. There's a cedar tree there. There's the slope of the land lends itself to what John has proposed and has done a hard job of trying to make the property look at least developed, if we could put it that way, as possible. This is an old area and it's a beautiful area and it's an area where people come to rest, relax, get away from city life. It's not an area where, as Mike said, you want to have 90 cars screeching around the corner. You want to have horns honking. Things like this. I think that everybody who lives in Chanhassen wants a nice, quiet life. I mean we're developing this city at a very, very rapid pace, as shown by what's happened downtown. The area that we happen to be in is the most northern part of Chanhassen, adjoining Shorewood there. We are sort of the last frontier as far as the northern part of Chanhassen is concerned and it's an area that has got it's own charm and it's own mystique. It's an area that John has proposed developing with the idea that, let's keep it the way it is right now. Let's not make it into a fast lane. Let's keep it so that when people drive in here, they're driving into their home. They're not driving into a big wide open, busy area here. And John has done, what we think and I think, a very admirable job of developing the property, of proposing to develop the property as far as the roads are concerned. As far as I am concerned, being the prime piece of property on the south side of this development here, and as far as the city is concerned, I would have potentially, any access that I would ever need, and as I prefaced my beginning remarks to the Council here. I have no intentions of ever doing anything. And the way I would like to have it, I would like to have it as John has proposed. I feel that that is the best plan for the entire area. Thank you. Mancino: May I respond to a couple things you said. First of all, I want to make perfectly clear you understand that the staffs proposal to stop it at your property line would not at this point, or at any point until you decide to develop, would it go through your property. Jim Donovan: Right, I understand that. Mancino: There wouldn't be a service road. There would be nothing. It would just stop. Jim Donovan: I understand that. But you're bringing up a road to butt up against my property. Mancino: Yes. That is true. Jim Donovan: Which is an ugly, ugly. Mancino: To the property line. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Jim Donovan: Yes, it's an ugly type of situation. Whereas now it's a,beautiful type of thing. Mancino: And it would be a turn around and there would have to be some sort of turn around so it would look very much like a cul-de-sac. Jim Donovan: But right up against my property. Mancino: It would be up against your property line. Jim Donovan: Yeah, which is very bad. Mancino: And secondly it is, I mean we have to look ahead, after 100 years. Between 61 and when you're 100 and to your next life and say, then what's going to happen. I understand that you're going to be there and at this point do not see ever developing it. But we, as a planning commission, must look even further ahead than that. That's what we need to do for the city and I don't know what we're going to decide but I'm just also giving you our perspective on what we need to be looking at too. Jim Donovan: Well what you're telling me then is that, if you were to bring up, if you were to disregard John's proposal, put forth your proposal to abut onto my piece of property there, it would not be done during my tenure. But that some time a large swath of my property would become public road property. Mancino: If whoever, your heir, whoever you sell it to wants to develop. If that one person. Jim Donovan: But what you're proposing would basically degrade my property. It would decrease the value of my property. Mancino: As it stands now, someone would come in. If you wanted to sell it someone or give it to an heir who wants to develop it, and that would be up to you. Jim Donovan: No, what I'm saying is that what you're proposing or what you're saying is that if you were to put a road with a circular end to it, up against my northern boundary, it would decrease the value of my property. There's no doubt about that. Hempel: Madam Chair, if I could make a couple comments. The first thing, the handout you have before you tonight with the easement, the 50 foot easement across Lot 5. First of all that is a private roadway easement. That cannot be dedicated for public use. It's a sole easement for Mr. Donovan to use. Okay, so that can never be upgraded to a city street. Now 36 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 acquisition of property from Lot 5, which we have no desire to do. Your subdivision, well maybe I'm getting ahead of myself. Your property... (Dave Hempel stepped over to the overhead projector and his comments were not picked up by the microphone.) Jim Donovan: That's fine with me. I understand that. Mr. Knoblauch might be willing, if that 28 feet, if you're saying that mine's a private one, right? That's only to be used by me. So Mr. Prebble has no worry because it will never be used because I've built what I'm going to build there. What if Mr. Knoblauch was to grant 21 or 28 feet, or whatever was necessary there? Hempel: That's one of our recommendations that he dedicate a 30 foot swath... Jim Donovan: Okay, but I'm saying on Lilac. From Lilac, that would Lilac west. Dave Hempel's comments were not picked up by the microphone. Jim Donovan: Right. So if he dedicated 28 feet, that would solve that easement, or that would solve that entrance. Hempel: That would get him...driveway. Jim Donovan: Okay. Alright. Then there would be no reason then to abut a road onto my northern part of my property. Hempel: The thing that we have to look at is the overall picture... Jim Donovan: As far as water and sewer is concerned, there is water and sewer on the property already. It comes in from Apple Road. City water and sewer comes into the property from Apple Road right now. Hempel: There's water...sewer line here. Jim Donovan: No, sewer runs to the east. My sewer runs from the east. It comes right in. ...I have city water and sewer. Hempel: You have city sewer and water? Jim Donovan: Yes. It comes in this direction... 37 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: Any other comments? Jim Donovan; Okay, thank you. John Knoblauch: I just had one. If it's a private easement... Generous: If we can make the findings for the private street...There's environmental protection. Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? Jim Emmer: My name is Jim Emmer. I live in the property immediately south of the second round square from Yosemite. And as you can see from this, the driveway coming from the abutted road would come along the property line and those headlights would be right in our living room. Do you see that in that area? And on this plan...this would be the driveway... We like the plan at this time. I'd like to know why the road is needed. Can somebody answer that please? Mancino: Excuse me, why what road is needed? Jim Emmer: Why, in a future time Mr. Donovan's property needs to be served from Yosemite rather than from Lilac Lane. Generous: When we look at development, Lilac Lane was a substandard street. This would be a, meet city code and the street that Mr. Knoblauch... Additionally, whenever we're looking at developments we try, where possible to provide two means of access to that for emergency purposes. Jim Emmer: Well no cul-de-sacs have two means of access. Generous: That's right and we, at a staff level we try not to keep getting cul-de-sac's in there. Jim Emmer: Can I take a poll of how many people here live on cul-de-sacs? Mancino: Excuse me, can you wait and come on up. Thank you. Jim Emmer: That's really all I have to say. I have a hard time understanding why we have to have a thru road potentially and I agree with you that when Mr. Donovan passes on, that's going to be developed but why it can't be developed from Lilac Lane, because you're not adding, what are you adding potentially? 12 lots there at the most. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: 12 to 15. Jim Emmer: On Mr. Donovan's property? Mancino: That is what has been stated earlier. It has the potential. Whether it does or doesn't, we don't know what's going to happen but it has the potential to add 15 more lots. Tom Wilder: Hi. I'm Tom Wilder. I'm from Shorewood so maybe you don't have to listen to me but he's talking about his living room. I'm talking about my bedroom. I live right at the L of Lilac. My house was built a year ago and it happens to be, what you can't see from the drawing here is this, the house is about 20 feet down from the grade of the street so every, you know we're talking about a year, a couple years...stop sign being right here, you know the headlights would be shining right in my bedroom and I wouldn't like that. It just seems to me, I hate to keep talking about if Jim's alive but you know, maybe he'll sell his one parcel. You know maybe it never will be developed. Maybe he'll sell his beautiful estate as it is right now. So that should be considered. It's my understanding the reason why it was put on the books in Chanhassen as well as...protecting the current virgin row of trees and a lot of big trees, including 4 very large ones on my property would have to come out if you upgraded to what is a very pretty Lilac Lane into a quote, perfectly plowable city street. When Chan developed, or when Chan improved Lilac Lane a couple years ago you know they took the lilacs down. There are no more lilacs except for on my property and if you improved it, you'd get them all. I have some wetland concerns. There's, you know it's a dead end. A lot of children there. I would think that would be a concern to the Planning Commission. And to upgrade Lilac Lane would, you'd have to take out what's about, it's 2/3 " of Shorewood's street so you'd probably have a fight there as well but 17 feet is what I consider a wildlife corridor. Beautiful sumac. Very large oaks. I mean you know, you've destroyed it. And it seems to me, and somebody has already pointed this out, that people move out to Chanhassen, Shorewood area and some of the other surrounding suburbs to live on cul-de-sacs, to live on dead ends and I think it's you know, the proof is in the putting. I did a little, I'm kind of a numbers guy. I went through the Planning Commission, you know the members and I went through the City Council and 86% of you who are thinking about extending our street, live on dead ends, non-thru streets or cul-de-sacs. Only two, Nancy you don't. But you have a nice driveway. Mancino: Thank you. Tom Wilder: And Mike Mason, I'm not sure where he lives. I can't find Woodhill Road. But the rest of you live on dead-ends or cul-de-sacs so. Farmakes: I live on Utica which is a thru street. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Tom Wilder: Utica, Utica is not exactly a dead end but it's kind of just goes around in circles. You know it's not a thru. Farmakes: It is a thru street. It comes down from the highway, it goes down along the lake and goes back up to the highway. If you enter it on one end, you come out on the other. Tom Wilder: Okay well, maybe I'm wrong there so let's make it 83%. Skubic: I live on a thru street also. Tom Wilder: Yeah I know you do. I didn't say you all did. I said 87% of you don't and so you should maybe have a basic understanding of what we're talking about here. That's all I've got to say. Mancino: Okay. I'm going to discontinue the public hearing until January 3rd. Jim Donovan: ...make a comment. Mr. Hempel made a comment here before about my easement being a private easement. What would it take on my part to make it a, if I dedicated that easement to the city of Chanhassen in return for the Knoblauch project being a circle rather than an abutted street into my property? Would that help? Mancino: I think that you can certainly negotiate with the staff at a private time. Call up Bob Generous and ask to get an appointment with him and talk about that. Jim Donovan: I mean is that a concern of the city, since there's, I mean I don't see how you say that this is a private easement. How did you come to that determination? Hempel: Grantor to grantee. It's not to the city of Chanhassen. Jim Donovan: Oh I see. Okay. I'm not legally, but if I did, am I able to dedicate it to the city of Chanhassen? Hempel: With the underlying property owner's consent I suppose. You could ask him. Mancino: I don't think we're going to decide that tonight. But there is a willingness to talk to you about that. Jim Donovan: Thank you. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: Okay, so we will close the public hearing. Not close but continue it on January 3rd at 7:00. Can they be first Bob or do you have an agenda already? Generous: DeLancy was tabled too. Aanenson: And we've got 4 other subdivisions on that night. I'm not sure how... We'll have to check. Mancino: We will check. We can't promise you that right now but we will check and let you know. Thank you. Thank you for coming. NEW BUSINESS: Aanenson: Under new business, I apologize for the timeliness of this but this was a direction given from the City Attorney regarding a park dedication that's on for the City Council on Monday night. Betty O'Shaughnessy, as part of the Autumn Ridge plat and that large outlot, you should have received a copy of this. When we looked at the Gateway West property and the Autumn Ridge property, when we talked about the city requiring 4 lots. This map it's shown as Outlot, or Lot C and D. Approximately 60 acres. The city, Mrs. O'Shaughnessy will be dedicating that property to the city. It has a value of approximately a little over a half million dollars and the cost to the city would be the assessed levied amount which is about $40,000.00. The City Attorney's position is that the Planning Commission should formally act on recommending acceptance of the dedication of the park property so you need to make a motion. Mancino: And it doesn't have to go through a public hearing or anything? Aanenson: No. Mancino: Any discussion from commissioners on this? Commissioner Peterson. Peterson: Go for it. Mancino: Commissioner Farmakes. Farmakes: I think she should get a monument sign. Aanenson: I think she will get some recognition. Mancino: Commissioner Skubic. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 • Skubic: No, nothing. Mancino: Commissioner Meyer anything? Nothing from me either. May I have a motion. Farmakes: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council accept Betty O'Shaughnessy's donation of approximately 60 acres of land located southwest of the intersection of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. Said land is described as Exhibit A and the date of December 6, 1995. Peterson: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? Farmakes moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council accept from Betty O'Shaughnessy the donation of approximately 60 acres of land located southwest of the intersection of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. Said land is described on Exhibit A. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mancino: Kate, anything else? Aanenson: Yes. I'll do the Director's Report, just another little piece of information I want to give to you. At the last Council meeting, on November 27th, the Council terminated the action of acquiring 2.35 acres on the Creekside Addition, to our chagrin. That was the property on the plat east of Timberwood where we looked at buying the treed areas. As it turned out the appraisal cost came up significantly higher than we originally estimated and it's really too bad. It's a nice area of trees so it will probably be platted into four lots. I think... wiser. We learned some things on that plat that we'd certainly do differently. The other action was they did approve the addition to the Microvision building on the Quattro Drive. The office warehouse. That's just a small addition. And then also CSM on Dell and Highway 5 was given preliminary plat approval for their two buildings. I also included in here an interesting article I hope you have a chance to read from the APA. ...talking about different types of developments. Kind of exciting concept. Maybe we'll see some, just some thought about villages. Trying to keep looking at different ways to approach traditional subdivisions. The other thing I just wanted to talk to you about, and I don't know if you're aware of this or not but Chaska did put a moratorium on commercial development. There's a move to move some grocery stores and they're concerned about their viability of their downtown. They put a 3 month moratorium on. I talked to their Planning Director and what they're looking at, they've hired a consultant. Not what you'd consider a professional that does market analysis but what they did is hired somebody that specifically does market studies for retail trade and what they're looking at is what type of mix of uses. What's their 42 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 market area. What kind of things they can expect as far as big boxes and square footage and that sort of thing. They're hoping this recommendation, the findings that come back will provide some information as far as should they provide more commercial zoning. Is what they have significant? And the right amount. And what are the implications to the downtown so it is a three month moratorium, so I've asked to get updates on what their study says. It's kind of interesting they're facing some of the same sort of struggles as some of the development, residential has occurred to the north. It's kind of drawing some of the commercial to that way too. They're concerned about the viability of their downtown, just like, the same struggle that we're going through with some of the commercial. Mancino: And it's only commercial? It's not industrial? Aanenson: Correct. It's just commercial. Kind of following. Actually they don't have much industrial, many industrial land but it's kind of commercial... We do have some big items on at the next Planning Commission so, I apologize. I didn't realize I guess that we'd get bumped out at 10:00... Mancino: I'd just like to add to your report. Bob and I were at that City Council...City Council moved to table the Village...and actually just wanted to talk about it more. Will they have a work session on that? Aanenson: No, actually it's scheduled again Monday. They brought back in revised plans. We've got some good direction. Bob and I feel, Bob's been working on that. I believe, again it's conceptually. What we're really trying to decide is what the appropriate mix should be. They've come back with what we feel is a better mix and we're going to, as it evolves, try to put some more specific parameters on what types of commercial should be under the square footages and also it looks like now the church may still be a factor in that property too. Mancino: Did they lower it or...commercial use? Aanenson: What they showed is a mix. What we're looking at is calling it a percentage of support. So if they do the residential component and the office component, then we would give them some retail support. Then we would articulate what that should be as a part of this process. That's kind of the way it follows. Farmakes: Did they respond to the issue of street parking? Aanenson: There were some that were opposed to that. I'm not sure that, I guess we'd still like to leave that open and study it. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Generous: That would be resolved as part of their traffic study. Aanenson: The EA document. I think you want to leave that open and why not study it. Maybe come back and say it doesn't make sense. Farmakes: The reason I ask is that...street parking in that situation and you're talking about a percentage... Aanenson: Well that's why we're looking at, the exciting thing is if the church does go there, we're looking at, that does give us now another opportunity for that parking. To provide a park and ride facility and mix uses. So I think it creates a lot of different energy and it may even be a more exciting project based on that. Farmakes: I had one question for anybody who ever asks. What happens when that's full? ...what happens in 5 years from now when it's full? Does somebody come forward and say we're running out of that? Aanenson: Commercial? To me I think you just have to go back to the highest and best use. What's going to happen to those properties that are under utilized will come back in and it just creates energy for people to keep their property at the highest and best use because if there is a piece that's under utilized, and there's a demand for commercial and nowhere else to go, then you're going to take the piece that has less value and try to make it better. Sometimes that's good. Instead of going out, you keep the...push the level up. Farmakes: So eventually in this community...saying this is as far as we're going to go and that's it? Aanenson: Just say no, yeah. Mancino: The other comment that came up at the City Council meeting was not using the TIF funding in that area for commercial. Only using it for affordable housing. Farmakes: It will be interesting to see how that affects the growth. Mancino: It will be very interesting. And by the way Kate, Bob asked me and I think it'd be a good idea at some planning commission meeting when we don't have a lot or else do a separate work session, or whatever everyone would like to do. Is to have Todd Gerhardt or Don to come in front of the Planning Commission to talk to us about TIF funding and the TIF district. How it operates because so many times when it gets into land use and planning and... 44 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Aanenson: We do it February 7th. That's blocked out as a workshop so we're not putting any items on the agenda so that may be, maybe we can talk about at the next meeting. What things you'd like to talk about so we'll keep that in mind. Mancino: Any other ongoing items? Aanenson: No. Actually we're seeing a lot of pressure for pieces like you're seeing tonight because there aren't a lot of large pieces so some of those smaller ones are being...continually working with commercial and industrial. Bob is working with Applebee's. That will probably be on your next agenda. Commercial/industrial is going to... APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Farmakes moved, Peterson seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 15, 1995 as presented. Faimakes moved, Peterson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 45 CITY OF CHANHASSEN ;), 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION itMetropolitan Council Working for the Region, Planning for the Future • December 19, 1995 Ms. Kate Aanenson, Planning Director City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 RE: City of Chanhassen Highway 5 Corridor Study Metropolitan Cou:cii District No. 4 Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 15865-5 Dear Ms. Aanenson: The Metropolitan Council staff has reviewed city of Chanhassen's Highway 5 Corridor Study received by the Council on October 11, 1995. We have determined that the proposed amendment has no potential impact upon any of the metropolitan system plans. The city may place the amendment into effect immediately. Council staff has also completed a review of the apparent consistency of the proposed amendment with o'he r s;dopted chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide and has found nu inconsistencies. The Council will prepare comments that will appear on the Council's consent list for noncontroversial items. Formal action by the Council will take place on January 22, 1996, completing the Council's review of the amendment. - If you have any questions about this plan amendment, please contact Richard Thompson, the principal reviewer, at 291-6457. Chuck Ballo ' i irector Office of Local Assistance CB:ret cc: Julius C. Smith, Metropolitan Council District 4 Lynda Vogr, Metropolitan Council Staff Richard Thompson, Metropolitan Council Staff RECEIVED Ruth Ann Sobnosky, Mn;DOT r, 4 C. ` 1u9b k:;1-1.1 OF CHANHASSEN 231)East Fifth Stnrt St.haul.Mintiest-11a 55101-163.1 (6121 29 I.6359 F;ix 291-6550 TIM/MY '_'9I-091)1 Sk-1rn Info I.tn, 2211 :1780 230 East Fifth Street St.Paul.Minnesota 55101-1634 (6Y21'24A`- 5W""ui)Mk/M-8550 TIT)/ITV 901-none. %Aor.,,r..(I:.,n 0o0.z71;in Planning and Zoning Carver County Courthouse 600 East 4th Street, Box 16 Namesmin Chaska, Minnesota 55318-2185 """111".. (612) 361-1820 CARVER (612)442-4468, Ext. 1820 COUNTY (612)446-1722, Ext. 1820 December 22, 1995 Kate Aanenson Planning Director City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Dr. Chanhassen,MN 55317 Dear Kate, The purpose of this letter is to update you on Carver County's 1998-2020 comprehensive planning process and to request participation in formulating the plan. The County Board has recently approved a workplan which includes forming a series of committees. At this point,we are recruiting members for a Steering Committee which would oversee the planning process from February 1996 to mid-1998. This group would include representatives from the county,townships,cities,and the public. Currently there are five openings for city representatives who are interested in county planning policies and goals on a wide range of issues. A balance will be sought to achieve diverse county representation(i.e.east/west and larger/smaller communities). In addition to the Steering Committee,there will be four sub-committees dealing with the more specific issues of Parks and Open Space,Transportation,Land Use,Natural Resources/Environment. These committees will meet on a shorter,as needed basis to focus on the given issue,and will not begin meeting until spring and summer of 1996. There will be three local government positions on each of these sub-committees. Announcements for these committees will come later in the process. Meetings will usually be held in the evening and will likely take place on Wednesday or Thursday in the 3rd or 4th weeks of the month. The Steering Committee will meet quarterly,or as needed,for a period of 2-2/12 years,while the sub committees will meet bi-monthly for approximately a 9-16 month period. There is a$30 per diem for committee members. I encourage you or other representatives of your community to serve on these committees. Other representatives include city staff,planning commissioners,city council members,or mayors. Please contact other members whom you think could contribute to this process. I have also enclosed a news release which attempts to solicit five public/citizen-at-large members to serve on the Steering Committee(there will also be three openings on each sub-committee). If you could please post this in your city offices,and let me know if you have any good candidates,I would greatly appreciate it. If there are any questions,please call me at 361-1825. Thank You, RECEIVED Paul E. Moline County Planner .i . , 1995 CITY OF CHA{vtih tN Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on 10%Post-Consumer Recycled Paper Office of County Administration Carver County Government Center e Human Services Building il 600 East Fourth Street ""'"r Chaska, Minnesota 55318-2183 CARVER Phone (612) 361-1510 COUNTY Fax (612) 361-1581 APPLICATION FOR SERVICE ON CARVER COUNTY COMMITTEE, COMMISSION OR BOARD APPOINTMENT SOUGHT: (Enter name of the committee for which applicant seeks appointment) APPLICANT NAME: (First Name) (Last Name) STREET ADDRESS: CITY OR TOWNSHIP: ZIP CODE: DAY TIME PHONE: STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATION Please include a statement describing your qualifications and any other information that would be helpful to the Carver County Board of Commissioners. This may include employment, community service and education. (May continue on back) (Signature of Applicant) (Date) PLEASE RETURN THIS APPLICATION BY J 4 uuAA 1 2,6 m6 Affirmative Action:Equal Opportunity Employer �'CT a r gledgEne"MOMOCARVER C NTY::IS EEKINOr::;:::;>;%:':;'z'. ;:+}lis^4. ... i}%:. }:.ter v: Or: x.f.vn:r?-n:nt•:n•n:+i:::::::v:•v•. { :{::v.i:.ii:•}':n:}'t•}'.::r}: } Carver County will be preparing a comprehensive plan which guides growth and development for the next 25 years. The County is required through the 1995 Minnesota Land Planning Act to be responsible for examining the comprehensive plan and official controls, and determining the need for updates and revisions in order to set guidelines for planned, orderly growth. The County Board has authorized the formation of a Steering Committee to aid in the development of this plan. 1998-2020 Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee The purpose of the steering committee is to oversee the comprehensive planning process, to review recommendations from staff, sub-committees, and the public, and to forward recommendations to the County Planning Commission and the Board. The County is seeking applicants for FIVE CITIZEN-AT-LARGE OPENINGS. The appointments will be for the duration of the comprehensive plan process which will last approximately 2 1/2 to 3 years. The Committee will hold nightly meetings on a quarterly or as needed basis (most likely about 5 meetings a year). • Committee members receive $30 per diem. The deadline for applications to the Steering Committee is January 26, 1996. For applications and more information, call Paul Moline, county planner, Carver County Government Center, Chaska, MN 55318. The phone number is 361-1825.