The URL can be used to link to this page

04-21-93 Agenda and Packet _ FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMIS. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 1993, 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS _ 1. Preliminary plat of a Planned Unit Development for 93 single family lots on 76.47 acres and a wetland alteration permit to create holding ponds on property zoned PUD, and located east of Powers Boulevard and southwest of Lake Susan, Lakes Susan Hills 9th Addition, Argus Development. 2. Preliminary plat to subdivide 68.53 acres into 2 single family lots of 2.25 acres and — 64.98 acres located on property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate and located north of Pioneer Trail, just west of Pioneer Hills subdivision, Laurent Addition, Paul Laurent. — 3. Consider revocation of a conditional use permit for a contractor's yard for Mr. Harry Lindbery located at 1700 Flying Cloud Drive. — OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES — CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT CITY TF -40‘4CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner -- Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer DATE: April 14, 1993 SUBJ: Lake Susan Hills PUD 9th Addition On March 17, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary plat for Lake Susan Hills PUD 9th Addition (Attachment #1). The 9th Addition is the final phase of the single family lots for the Lake Susan Hills PUD. The 9th Addition also contains the nicest elements of the whole site. specifically, specimen trees. Prior to the Planning Commission reviewing the proposal, staff had worked with the applicant to adjust the lot and street layout in an attempt to minimize removal of vegetation. At the same time, we were trying to work with the approved PUD concept plan. The result was a reduction in the number of lots (by three), shifting of the streets and reduced grading. Even with these changes, there still was a significant amount of tree loss. The Planning Commission recommended unanimously to table action on this proposal until the following issues could be addressed: 1. Provide more details on tree loss. Have the DNR Forester comment on what trees are being lost/saved. Work to further reduce tree loss if possible. 2. Answer whether the landscaping fee could be increased from $150/lot to $750/lot. 3. Answer whether the new PUD regulations can be enforced. 4. Look into swapping existing parkland for "forested" parkland. Additional comments from the Planning Commission were that the lots in the vegetated areas are too small and specifically, along Mallard Court, the lots should be larger. Additional comments from the public were that the speed limit along Powers Boulevard should be decreased, where there would be trail crossings and clearly that there was too much tree removal. two: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition April 14, 1993 Page 2 TREE PRESERVATION Staff met with Alan Olson, DNR Forester, at the site to view the existing vegetation and what was proposed to be saved and removed. Prior to visiting the site, staff had the applicant stake the limits of grading and the centerline of the streets. Upon walking the site, we discovered that the tree list was somewhat inaccurate, in that the tree types and size were not always correct. Staff walked the whole site and made notations on the tree list correcting the type and size of trees and highlighting the "must save" (particularly valuable tree stands). We found several stands of trees that are "must saves" and also areas where the trees were damaged or had a short _ life left. After walking the site with Alan Olson, it was clear that there are significant trees on the site with some being "pre-civil war." From the notes we gathered on site, we established a working plan which showed areas that the applicant had to work around to save the trees. We also established "sacrifice" trees. These working copies, along with the revised tree list, were given to the applicant for revisions to the original plans. A major influence on the amount of trees being removed with the original plans was the grading necessary to service the lots with gravity sanitary sewer (this is what is typically required by the City). The Engineering Department analyzed what alternatives to gravity sanitary service were available so that the grading could be reduced. It was proposed that a lift station or ejector pumps be used to service the house pads which were requiring extensive grading for gravity sanitary sewer service. The applicant has used these recommendations and where necessary will install ejector pumps. Now with the revised plans, the only grading being proposed within the lots with vegetation is for the house pad. No grading is being proposed within the lots. Although this shows almost all of the trees remaining, we must take into account tree removal for individual sewer and water services and for construction of the house pad/driveway. Staff drew in where the house pads shall be located on each lot and which trees shall be saved. We also requested the applicant to provide detailed grading for all of the vegetated lots, so we know up front what the limits of grading shall be and exactly which trees will be saved. We did not want this issue to arise at time of the building permit application and find out then that the _ grading was more extensive than what was thought. This will also allow the City to condition approval upon these detailed grading plans, so that the builder and homeowner know exactly what size and where their building pad is. Attachments #2 and 3 compare the amount of tree removal between the original and revised submittal. The development contract will be referencing the detailed grading plan for each custom graded lot and will also be listing specifically which trees are permitted to be removed from each custom graded lot. Any tree not _ listed, which is located within a custom graded lot (not including the street right-of-way) must be preserved. _ Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition April 14, 1993 Page 3 The following list designates the trees which can be removed from the custom graded lots: Block 3 Lot 6 - 64 _ Lot 7 - 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91 Lot 8 - 100, 502, 503, 504, 507, 510, 511, 512 Lot 9 - 567, 575 _ Lot 10 - 582, 602 Lot 11 - 592, 593, 594, 559 Lot 12 - 598, 626, 633, 634, 635, 647, 648, 649 - Lot 13 - 605, 624, 625, 652, 715 Lot 14 - 615 Lot 15 - 606 *Lot line must be adjusted to save stand of trees. - Lot 16 - 573 - Block 4 Lot 1 - 870, 871, 872, 875, 878 *House pad cannot exceed 50 x 50, must save 863. Lot 2 - 817, 857, 861 Lot 3 - 828, 829, 840, 841, 519 Lot 4 - 985 Lot 5 - 532, 533, 535, 536, 537, 550, 990, 991, 994 Lot 6 - 587 _ Lot 7 - 563 Lot 8 - 528, 568, 569 Lot 9 - 616, 626, 627, 630, 637 Lot 10 - 619, 620, 621 Block 5 Lot 20 - none Lot 21 - none _ Lot 22 - none Lot 23 - 911, 914, 917 Lot 24 - 880, 881, 882, 883, 884, 878, 879 - Lot 25 - 996, 997 Lot 26 - 570, 571, 573, 578, 579, 580, 581 Lot 27 - 604 * House pad cannot exceed 50 x 50. - Lot 28 - 612 Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition April 14, 1993 Page 4 The changes to the plans to preserve trees has also resulted in the removal of Crane Circle. Crane Circle was a short cul-de-sac adjacent to Powers Boulevard. There was a very significant — stand of trees which would have been removed with Crane Circle (Trees # 909, 910, 913, 937- 943). Staff required Crane Circle to be removed and the lot lines to be adjusted so that the stand of trees would be preserved. The applicant has done this. Along Mallard Court there is a stand of trees which staff wants preserved (Trees #607-610) on Lot 15, Block 3. Staff is recommending that lot lines be adjusted so that this stand of trees, along with Trees #616-617, are located along a lot line and will be preserved. This may result in removal of one lot or the applicant can adjust lot lines and still maintain the same number of lots. Staff feels the revisions made by the applicant greatly improve the preservation of trees on the site. To ensure the preservation of the trees designated to be saved, staff is recommending that a woodland management plan be created by a licensed forester for each lot in the protected areas (Lots 6-16, Block 3, Lots 1-10, Block 4 and Lots 20-28, Block 5). The woodland management plan will establish which trees have been designated for preservation, how to continue to protect them and to inform the homeowner the importance of even the undergrowth and other important facts. In addition, the detailed grading plans for each custom graded lot will be referenced to in the development contract to document which trees are to be preserved and we will require conservation easements over the remaining general locations of vegetation (along the rear of the lots adjacent to Lake Susan). LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS The City Attorney has stated that we can condition approval upon increasing the amount of landscaping from $150/lot to $750/lot. The amount of $750 is required for any single family lot _ and accommodates $250 for a tree and $500 for sod. Staff had requested a revised landscaping plan with different plant varieties than what was proposed for the internal and boulevard landscaping. The applicant stated that some of the species proposed by staff were not suitable for boulevard plantings. Staff has reviewed our list of Primary Specimens with the DNR Forester and have found only Sugar Maple to not be — suitable for boulevard plantings. The following species are suitable for boulevard plantings and should be used in the landscaping plan (the City will not except Russian Olive as a boulevard or internal landscaping plant): Hackberry White Oak Bur Oak American Linden European Horsechestnut White Horsechestnut Black or Honey Locust _ Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition April 14, 1993 Page 5 Kentucky Coffee Tree Black Walnut Norway Maple The boulevard plantings shall be revised to include species from the above list. The internal landscaping should include Sugar Maple. PUD ISSUES The City Attorney has submitted a letter in response to the question whether the new PUD regulations can be applied to this development. The answer is yes, but the PUD contract must be revised, which is essentially rezoning the property and requires a separate public hearing. As with the Prairie Creek Townhome proposal, staff did review this proposal with both the existing PUD contract and with the new PUD regulations to see which benefitted the City. The issue with the Prairie Creek Townhomes was density. Clearly, the issue with this proposal is tree preservation. Therefore, staff looked at the benefits to tree preservation between the existing PUD contract and the new PUD regulations. The City's ability to preserve trees is the same with the existing PUD contract and with the new PUD regulations, since the PUD contract allows us to apply the new tree preservations regulations. The new tree preservation regulations simply states that the development shall "retain as far as practical, substantial tree stands." There is no definition of "as far as practical" or "substantial tree stands." Due to the fact that only concept plan approval has been approved, the City can require modifications to "retain as far as practical, substantial tree stands." Staff feels that we have required modifications which have resulted in a significant amount of tree preservation. We do not recommend dismissing the existing PUD contract and concept plan and starting from scratch with a new rezoning of the property. The reason for this are as follows: _ A. The existing proposal contains lots ranging in size from 12,350 square feet to 36,780 square feet with an average lot size of 17,858 square feet. The new PUD regulations would permit a lot size down to 11,000 square feet with an average lot size of 15,000 square feet. B. We cannot expect to receive the same amount of parkland as is being dedicated with this phase, primarily a lakeshore trail. C. Our ability to save trees is not increased. We would still receive proposals locating the streets and lots in the same locations. In summary. staff does not feel applying the new PUD regulations to this proposal provides any benefit or flexibility that we don't already have. Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition April 14, 1993 Page 6 — STREETS As previously mentioned, the applicant has greatly reduced the amount of grading to the site. One of the ways they are doing this is by increasing the street grade along Lake Susan Hills Drive to 10%. The City normally requires the street grade to not exceed 7%, but we have in the past allowed the street grade to be increased to reduce impact to the site. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the increased street grade. PRELIMINARY PLAT The overall number of lots being proposed remains at 90. The revisions to the plans has not resulted in the removal of additional lots. The major changes to the plat are the removal of Crane Court, reconfiguration of the lots in this area and reduced grading. The lot areas are basically remaining the same with the lot areas ranging from 12,350 square feet to 36,780 square feet and an average lot area of 17,858 square feet. The gross density remains the same at 1.2 units/acre and the net density has been reduced from 3.2 units/acre to 2.4 units/acre. MISCELLANEOUS At the Planning Commission meeting, both the Commission and residents expressed concerns related to or as a result of this development proposal. Staff has provided a response to these concerns as follows: _ 1. County Road 17 (Powers Boulevard) Upgrade - The City and County are actively pursuing a financial plan for the upgrade of County Road 17. The upgrade will consist _ of a four-way urban divided highway. If a financial plan is created this year, County Road 17 could be scheduled for upgrading in 2 to 4 years. Without this financial plan, it may be 8 to 10 years for the project to accumulate the necessary funding. Staff will know more with regards to the financial aspect of the project after May, 1993. In conjunction with the proposed residential developments along the County Road 17 — corridor between Lyman Boulevard and Trunk Highway 5, many of the residents have expressed concerns with regards to speed limits, trail considerations and trail crossings. Staff has recently met with members of the Carver County Highway Department on these issues. The County engineer will be putting together a list of all the County roads in the City and recommending speed limits accordingly for MnDOT's consideration. According to MnDOT's traffic office, the last speed study along County Road 17 was performed in — 1976 (south of Lake Drive East to Lyman Boulevard). As a part of the County Road 17 upgrading, 8-foot wide bituminous trails will be recommended on each side of the roadway. A trail crossing will be proposed at the south end of the project. The crossing will most likely be underneath County Road 17 with an Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition April 14, 1993 Page 7 8-foot wide box culvert. There currently exists an 8-foot wide box culvert crossing approximately 400 feet south of Lake Drive East adjacent to Lake Susan Hills Park. The Park and Recreation Commission has voted to require both developments, Prairie Creek — Estates Townhomes and Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition, install trails in conjunction with their developments. As a result of our meeting with the Carver County Engineer, the trails along County Road 17 could be placed within the County's right-of-way. If future upgrading of County Road 17 occurs within the next 2 to 4 year period, it would be feasible, both financially and from a construction standpoint, to collect the trail fees from the developers and put it towards the construction of the new trail system with the — upgrade of County Road 17. However, should the financing plan to upgrade County Road 17 not occur by June of 1993, staff supports the Park and Recreation Commission to have the developer install the trails through their developments respectively within County Road 17 right-of-way.. RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends approval of preliminary plat for Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition as shown on plans dated April 12, 1993, with the following conditions. 1. The front yard setback can be reduced to 25' where it will preserve natural features. 2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval. 3. The applicant shall supply detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event and _ ponding calculations for the retention ponds (NURP standards) for the City Engineer to review and approve. 4. The applicant shall supply detailed construction plans for utility and street improvements for the City to review and formally approve. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 5. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits such as MWCC, Health Department, Watershed District, PCA and Carver County Highway Department. 7. All retention ponds shall include an outlet control structure to control discharge rate pursuant to NURP standards. Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition April 14, 1993 Page 8 — 8. The Applicant shall provide maintenance access routes to the retention pond areas and dedicate the appropriate easements on the final plat. In addition, all utility lines outside the street right-of-way shall be dedicated with a minimum of a 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement. 9. Erosion control and turf restoration shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 10. If feasible, the applicant shall work with the City and County in oversizing the storm drainage improvements to include the future runoff from the upgrade of Powers Boulevard. The applicant would be compensated for the associated oversizing costs. 11. The location of all fire hydrants shall be approved by the City's Fire Marshal. 12. Mallard Court should be renamed to either Drake Court or some other acceptable street name. 13. Five-foot concrete sidewalks should also be extended from Lake Susan Hills Drive west to Dove Court. 14. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description. Generally the conservation easement shall be on the following lots: Lots 1-6, Block 2 15. Lots 6-16, Block 3, Lots 1-10, Block 4, and Lots 20-28, Block 5 shall be custom graded lots and the following conditions shall apply: a. Each of these lots shall conform to the approved custom graded plans. Deviation from these plans which will result in more removal of vegetation, will not be permitted. b. Each of these lots shall have a woodland management plan developed by the developer prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. The woodland management plan shall be developed by a licensed forester approved by the city. A copy of the woodland management plan shall be kept in the building permit file — and a copy will also be given to the homeowner. Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition April 14, 1993 Page 9 -' c. Each of these lots shall only be permitted to have the following trees removed (these numbers correspond to the tree survey numbers as shown on Sheets 8 and 9 of Plans dated April 12, 1993: - Block 3 Lot 6 - 64 Lot 7 - 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91 _ Lot 8 - 100, 502, 503, 504, 507, 510, 511, 512 Lot 9 - 567, 575 Lot 10 - 582, 602 Lot 11 - 592, 593, 594, 559 - Lot 12 - 598, 626, 633, 634, 635, 647, 648, 649 Lot 13 - 605, 624, 625, 652, 715 Lot 14 - 615 Lot 15 - 606 *Lot line must be adjusted to save stand of trees. Lot 16 - 573 Block 4 - Lot 1 - 870, 871, 872, 875, 878*House pad cannot exceed 50 x 50, must save 863 Lot 2 - 817, 857, 861 - Lot 3 - 828, 829, 840, 841, 519 Lot 4 - 985 Lot 5 - 532, 533, 535, 536, 537, 550, 990, 991, 994 - Lot 6 - 587 Lot 7 - 563 Lot 8 - 528, 568, 569 - Lot 9 - 616, 626, 627, 630, 637 Lot 10 - 619, 620, 621 Block 5 Lot 20 - none Lot 21 - none Lot 22 - none _ Lot 23 - 911, 914, 917 Lot 24 - 880, 881, 882, 883, 884, 878, 879 Lot 25 - 996, 997 _ Lot 26 - 570, 571, 573, 578, 579, 580, 581 Lot 27 - 604 * House pad cannot exceed 50 x 50. Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition April 14, 1993 Page 10 - Lot 28 - 612 16. The landscaping plan shall be amended to provide the following: a. Increased landscaping along Powers Boulevard (CR 17)and internal boulevard and entrance landscaping. b. Improved landscaping materials, with at least 50% of the hardwoods from the Primary species list. c. A plan providing $750 worth of landscaping/single family unit. 17. Park and Recreation Commission conditions: a. Dedication of Oudot E to the city; b. Construction of the following trails: 1. an 8-ft. wide bituminous trail along the west side of Lake Susan as indicated on Attachment B, Segments D and E: 2. an 8-ft. wide bituminous trail along the east side of Powers Boulevard (CR 17) as indicated on Attachment B, Segment B; 3. Trail segments A, C and F 4. Park fees are assessed at one-half of the rate in force upon building permit application. All trail fees have been waived as a part of the development of Lake Susan Hills West. 5. The two trail easements identified allowing access to the shoreland trail be - consolidated into one 40-ft. easement at the location of the northerly easement. 18. Building Official conditions: a. Indicate lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevations for each house pad on the grading plan. b. Submit details on corrected pads including compaction tests, limits the pad and elevations of excavations to the Inspections Division. A general soils report for the development should also be submitted to the Inspections Division. Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition April 14, 1993 Page 11 c. Oversized street signs shall be placed at each of the four outlets of Lake Susan Hills Drive on Powers Boulevard. The signs shall indicate the range of addresses on the street. 19. The applicant's engineer shall provide a final grading plan with detailed house types, elevation and grading limits on all lots. The final grading plan shall also take into consideration existing stockpiled material along County Road 17. 20. A condition shall be placed in the development contract regarding maintenance responsibilities for homes with ejector pumps. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission minutes dated March 12, 1993. 2. Original tree removal plan. 3. Revised tree removal plan. 4. Draft detailed grading plans. 5. Memo from Dave Hempel dated April 15, 1993. 6. Letter from Roger Knutson dated April 1, 1993. 7. Previous staff report. 8. Plans dated April 12, 1993. COMPLIANCE TABLES BLOCK 1 Lot Area Lot Width Lot Depth Lot 1 12,600 83 148 Lot 2 12,800 85 150 Lot 3 14,150 87 157 Lot 4 14,950 85 172 Lot 5 15,550 83 173 Lot 6 13,900 83 152 Lot 7 13,750 94 146 Lot 8 12,700 141 144 BLOCK 2 Lot Revised Lot Revised Lot Revised Area Lot Width Lot Depth Lot Area Width Depth Lot 1 20,875 100 208 Lot 2 22,350 120 220 Lot 3 20,725 104 219 Lot 4 20,775 100 209 Lot 5 20,225 18,450 100 88 203 204 Lot 6 20,425 20,550 100 203 BLOCK 3 Lot Revised Lot Revised Lot Revised Area Lot Width Lot Depth Lot Area Width Depth Lot 1 21,825 18,675 98 90 220 224 2 24,800 22,750 116 115 257 275 3 22,825 22,275 151 163 241 267 4 25,650 23,525 97 85 200 229 5 24,325 21,475 90 90 194 231 6 16,675 21,075 85 90 189 197 7 16,475 23,450 85 135 195 167 8 15,070 21,000 90 145 194 163 1 9 15,350 16,925 90 108 179 172 10 17,017 15,925 92 100 154 172 BLOCK Revised Lot Revised Lot Revised Lot Revised 4 Block 3 Area Lot Width Lot Depth Lot Area Width Depth Lot 1 11 16,800 18,225 100 - 153 Flag - Lot y 2 12 23,000 21,750 100 - 259 Flag - Lot 3 13 27,750 22,600 100 - 88 Flag - Lot 4 14 22,550 23,400 100 - 228 Flag - Lot 5 15 14,525 14,775 83 92 174 155 6 16 15,000 13,475 87 83 174 158 7 17 16,575 14,800 85 90 179 158 8 18 15,000 14,175 85 84 172 148 9 19 13,400 13,050 86 - 155 138 10 20 15,125 15,000 208 227 136 - 11 21 14,575 14,250 163 122 183 105* 12 22 16,208 16,475 98 86 137 145 13 23 22,500 26,400 87 85 161 207 14 24 22,935 23,400 83 82 171 229 15 25 19,165 19,850 85 90 179 217 16 26 17,750 17,700 85 - 179 213 17 27 17,400 - 85 - 178 191 18 28 15,820 - 116 - 187 - 19 29 15,000 - 105 - 193 - 20 30 16,320 - 87 - 191 - 21 31 15,450 - 115 - 191 - 22 32 15,150 - 128 - 210 - 23 33 16,000 - 119 - 206 - 2 24 34 15,350 - 89 - 192 - 25 35 16,192 - 85 - 190 - 26 36 17,680 16,645 85 81 203 - 27 37 17,340 16,906 85 81 213 215 28 38 18,920 17,700 86 81 220 222 Revised Revised Revised Revised Block 4 Lot Area Lot Lot Width Depth 29 1 20,972 19,816 85 - 200 195 30 2 17,750 16,885 83 - 179 177 31 3 18,100 16,865 87 - 176 175 32 4 17,950 17,950 85 - 177 - 33 5 18,100 18,100 85 - 178 - 34 6 17,525 - 83 - 176 - 35 7 18,250 - 95 - 200 - 36 8 24,500 - 100 - 320 - 37 9 28,600 - 100 - 320 - 38 10 26,225 - 153 - 200 - BLOCK 5 Lot Revised Lot Revised Lot Revised Area Lot Width Lot Depth Lot Area Width Depth Lot 1 19,375 - 140 - 208 - 2 18,250 16,825 190 135 189 178 3 16,050 14,100 124 116 189 169 4 15,800 13,225 124 112 183 159 5 15,625 13,875 116 110 161 145 6 12,450 13,350 97 100 146 140 7 12,525 12,350 86 - 146 143 8 12,450 - 86 - 147 146 9 13,325 - 83 - 147 - 1(! 14,425 - 85 - 158 - 11 14,650 - 87 - 159 - 3 12 13, 175 - 87 - 148 - 13 12,700 - 85 - 149 - 14 15,200 - 83 - 160 - 15 18,600 - 83 - 172 - 16 15,650 - 87 - 160 - 17 13,325 - 83 - 144 - 18 14,925 - 83 - 159 - , 19 18,400 - 85 - 202 - 20 14,875 21,675 100 85 149 250 21 20,875 25,295 86 85 153 305 22 31,475 36,780 86 120 195 307 23 23,800 20,690 86 100 185 186 24 16,750 15,305 100 163 165 187 25 19,250 15,723 231 167 169 187 26 15,000 14,800 142 109 180 187 27 17,550 21,250 95 85 183 250 28 26,800 26,500 146 100 183 265 4 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 17 , 1993 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:35 p .m . MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Batzli , Ladd Conrad , Nancy Mancino , Jeff Farmakes— Matt Ledvina , Joe Scott , and Diane Harberts STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Planning Director ; Jo Ann Olsen , Senior _ Planner ; Kate Aanenson , Senior Planner ; and Dave Hempel , Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR 93 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 76 .47 ACRES AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CREATE HOLDING PONDS ON_ PROPERTY ZONED PUD. AND LOCATED EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD AND SOUTHWEST OF LAKE SUSAN HILLS 9TH ADDITION. ARGUS DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: — Name Address Riley F . Kopp Argus Development Don Patton RCI Ron Isaak Argus Development _ Wayne Tauer Pioneer Engineering Phil Jungbluth Argus Development Scott Montgomery 8260 West Lake Court Andrew K . Olson 8290 West Lake Court Tom Nilsson 1060 Lake Susan Hills Drive James Domholt 8251 West Lake Court Gary Kassen 8270 West Lake Court _ Tom Dotzenrod 8280 West Lake Court Pete Kurth 1040 Lake Susan Hills Drive Randy Koepsell 1110 Dove Court Kirby & Sandy Paulson 8410 West Lake Drive Ron & Ann Kloempken 8311 West Lake Court Tom & Pat VanAsh 8320 West Lake Court Don & Annabelle Diamond 1131 Dove Court — Randy Marquette 1101 Dove Court John & Karen Engelhardt 8645 Chan Hills Drive No . Thomas A . Rasmussen 8531 Merganser Court Chris Miller 8401 West Lake Drive Gary & Mary Nussbaum 8391 West Lake Drive Don Wisdorf 8639 Chan Hills Drive No . David Flaskerud 8411 West Lake Drive Tom Burns 1551 Lake Susan Hills Drive Jim Pehringer 1010 Lake Susan Hills Drive Robert Smithburg 8651 Chan Hills Drive No . _ Dave Dummer 417 Santa Fe Trail Rod Annis 8625 Chan Hills Drive No . Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item . —' Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 2 Batzli : Does anyone on the Planning Commission have any questions they want to ask Jo Ann or Dave before we ask the applicant for their presentation? Harberts: I have one . Could someone just explain the rationale with regard to the front yard setback reduced to 25 feet . This is number 1 in the recommendations . Olsen: It 's adding flexibility. It 's not a requirement . We 're allowing them to do that and what that does is , along what 's shown as Mallard Court is that it can pull the house up 5 feet closer and a lot of the trees were in the rear of the lot and so that would help . Harberts: Okay , so it 's a matter of saving the landscape . Olsen: Right . Ledvina : Do we want to restrict that 25 foot setback or allow the 25 foot setback to a certain number of lots? Olsen: You can do that . Ledvina : As you 've written the recommendation here , this applies to the entire subdivision . Is that correct? Olsen: Right . Mancino: On page 6 Jo Ann , you talk about the City can require caliper replacement of tree . Staff is recommending that the applicant work with staff and the DNR Forester to develop a reforestation plan . That is not put in the recommendations . Olsen: Yeah , that was a mistake . Is that page 6 did you say? Mancino : Well , yeah . Olsen: Right , okay . Mancino : So did you mean to leave that out of the . Olsen: No , I think I just forgot to put that one in . Mancino: Because I think that 's . . . is that we will be asking for reforestation of the lost trees . Scott : Excuse me Jo Ann . On this Mallard Court is the longer cul-de-sac that 's on Block F? Olsen : Right . Scott : I just took a look , I know we 've got a new cul-de-sac length ordinance . I think it 's 600 feet . Did someone calculate the length of that cul-de-sac because if it 's non-conforming with the new cul-de-sac length ordinance , that has to be pulled up . And I just took a look at it . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 3 — Olsen: I think the 600 foot minimum is . Scott: Or maximum . Olsen: Maximum , right . Is if it could be connected with another street — or if it should be a thru street . It 's not necessarily saying that you have to pull it back to that distance . What the ordinance is saying is that there 's a reason , a physical reason why that street cannot be connected to another subdivision , to another phase , then it can be a longer distance . I don 't know that we 've ever used it to require that cul-de-sac to be , you know that has to be a cul-de-sac to be reduced . Batzli : Okay . Would the applicant like to give us a presentation or tal to us about the conditions? Wayne Tauer : Good evening . My name is Wayne Tauer from Pioneer Engineering . I 'm representing the Joe Miller Homes . Argus Development tonight . We have a couple people from Joe Miller Homes here tonight who can also answer questions . I think before we move on I 've got some — literature that I would like to probably hand out just to expand on a little bit as to what I 'll be talking about tonight . Maybe I could ask Jo Ann or somebody to take these . Okay , everybody got one? Jo Ann , maybe is- you £you could rotate that to the left making kind of north up . Maybe we can just get a better feeling making Powers Boulevard go , yeah . Well , back a little bit more . Well I mean rotate it . Doesn 't Powers kind of run _ north/south there? Something like that . Now we 're getting close . Okay . Generally speaking , running through the points on page 11 I guess . The conditions of approval . We have basically no major problems with that . Jo Ann touched on a park problem that we will have to go back to the Park— Board and talk about . I think an assumption was made in a preliminary drawing that possibly shouldn 't have been made and I guess maybe that 's about all i need to talk about it tonight . Where we were putting a pond — on city park . Well , we didn 't think it was city park . We were just goin to be basically nice guys and give more park away is what we were going t., do but we are going to give all the park that the PUD and the preliminary concept program did recommend so therefore , everybody 's going to be happy hopefully , after the Park Board meeting . Just talking , a couple of minor exceptions or revisions , possibly typos in the staff report . On page 5 , I believe , it talks about average lot size . In the middle of that larger— paragraph , about 2/3 of the way down where it says the average lot size i 13 ,658 . Actually it 's much larger than that . It 's closer to 17 ,500 . Between 17 ,000 and 18 ,000 based on how you figure it out . So we are above_ the average or the minimum lot size by far . That City requirement is of course 15 ,000 square feet . Farmakes: Is that taking into account the setbacks and the land areas any so on? Wayne Tauer : Well that is the lot specific . Farmakes : The average size . Wayne Tauer : The average size of every lot , right . Not including street—. or . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 4 Farmakes : Where you can 't build? Wayne Tauer : No . I don 't know . Now Jo Ann , is that a . Olsen: When I did the calculation , I just did the lot areas themselves . Farmakes: So what you 're saying is that there 's a 4 ,000 square foot discrepancy here on the average lot size? Wayne Tauer : Well it depends on how you calculate it I guess . We 're talking about the boundaries of the lot here . That 's what the boundaries of the lots area . 17 ,550 square feet . Olsen: We can recalculate that . Conrad: Why is there a difference Jo Ann? Olsen: I don 't know if we know why there 's a difference . Conrad: A lot size is a lot size . Wayne Tauer : Yeah . Yeah . Yeah , I went back actually through each number on one of your handouts here and averaged those up . Actually it came up higher but that 's what we have on our preliminary plat is 17 ,550 so I 'm going to stay with that . But no , we are not under 15 ,000 for average lot size . We are above 15 ,000 and that 's I guess the only thing I wanted to point out . Okay , one of the other things I wanted to talk about a little bit was the landscape plan along Powers Boulevard , County Road 17 . There was a recommendation in there that we should abide by the City 's primary deciduous tree list . One of the problems we had with that , and we knew of the list when we did it but the thing that we have a problem with is the fact that virtually every tree on that list is not salt tolerate at all . Either they 're very sensitive to salt spray or very sensitive to salt in their root structures . Therefore that 's why we changed some of the tree types along County Road 17 . Anytime you have a major thoroughfare where speeds exceed 40 to 50 mph , you 're going to have a problem with that , especially a county road where they salt quite heavily . I can see that primary list being a good list for anything that is residential in nature where it 's 30 mph or less and not a major amount of salting is done . In the handouts that I gave you , maybe just for your own information , I did some research . Actually I 've had it in my files for a long time and that 's where some of the design work that we do was based on . On those particular recommendations by the University of Minnesota . So maybe just for your own information you can walk through those and see the trees that are salt tolerate and salt sensitive . And that 's why we 're changing it . Now again , we can work with the city staff and work out a reasonable solution to this . Maybe not all primary trees . Maybe some on the secondary list are more appropriate . Also I know one of the problems or one of the things that people who are here tonight are going to look at , as far as the plat goes is the tree removal process and how much we are actually going to remove . We have an exhibit that I think most of the neighbors have seen at the neighborhood meeting Monday night but for the Commission 's viewing , we 're going to pull it out here . Where would be the best place to put this? Right here? North is being that way of course . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 5 _ The trees that you see in green here are the ones that are being saved . Unfortunately I guess I didn 't highlight the ones that are being lost . Th major , there are some being lost right in here obviously where the cul-de sac is and where the house pads are ultimately going to be . This is where we worked with the staff to move the cul-de-sac to the west basically . - We 're moving this road over . We 're asking for a 5 foot front yard setbac here . That allows you the 5 feet . We 're asking for a 5 foot setback here . That allows you to . . .we 've adjusted the grades in here so we get _ down and match the grades better . So the trees there were in the backyards are now being able to save . The ones that are actually on the pads are real hard to save obviously . We did pull this cul-de-sac back , therefore most of the trees on the pine knob are being saved . And then a- nice band along here being saved and virtually every tree , except for jus a few right here , are being saved along Lake Susan . So there 's a major band here . Major group here and a band here that are being saved . And a_ group that are between the two groups . . .are being saved . We worked up th numbers and that 's on the handout that we gave you . There 's a total of 938 trees . . .specifically shot from here over . And out of those trees we 're leaving 279 , which turns out to be 29 .74% . Of those trees , you can- see the breakdown . 30 are oaks and 30 are elms and 27 basswoods and so o and so forth . Now amongst that group we did not go down to this area and count these trees at all or this group in here . We have no idea I guess - basically as far as what count is down there . But as you can see , it 's a fairly major group and it 's trees that obviously are the parks but we 're not taking them out . So if you 're talking about an overall average , I mean probably 29% is not a real number based on what trees on the entir project that we 're saving . It may drop dramatically . I supposed we could go out and get a count down there . We didn 't think it was necessary . In fact we are saving 70% of the trees on the site I think is probably prett good for a residential development . I guess basically that 's about my only concerns that I had about the staff report . Was those minor changes in the square footage and to let you know what we 're doing as far as tree_ removal , or saving trees , as far as that goes . I 'll be glad to answer questions . Batzli : Let me ask one about your issue with the primary versus secondar list . In the conditions what staff is asking for is 50% from the primary species list . You want to change that from 50% so that you can choose more than 50% from a different list? - Wayne Tauer : No , I don 't know if I want to do many from the primary list at all because those trees will be dead in a few years . I 'm saying that _ they are not salt tolerate and maybe for a year or two they might survive or until such time as the . . . You know they may survive for a while because of the fact that there 's only 2 lanes at this point in time . But as soon as 4 lanes go in and the salt tolerance probably comes into effec- when the high speed develops . I mean I 'm not saying that we 're not going to put in nice trees . I just don 't , I want to kind of get away from the primary list a little bit so that when we develop , trees that will ultimate survive in this area . Batzli : So you 're thinking about landscaping along the road there and not internal to the project? That 's where you 're concerned? Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 6 Wayne Tauer : We will also put $150 .00 worth of landscaping per lot . That 's also part of our program . It 's hard to show any kind of a landscape plan due to the fact that you have no idea where the trees are really going to be . Once you determine where the houses are going to sit , where the driveway 's going to be and where these surfaces are going to go , it 's just a condition of approval we prefer and we would put that $150 .00 per lot into each lot yet . That 's not a problem . We 're not disagreeing with that . Batzli : So do you have a problem with putting species from the primary list internal to the development? Wayne Tauer : No . Internal 's fine . Batzli : Jo Ann , on this condition , were you thinking that all of these species were going to go along the county road there? Olsen: No , not necessarily . They have to provide additional landscaping within the subdivision itself . You know with the boulevards plantings and so no . We do not want Russian Olives and trees like that . Wayne talked to me about this and we can look into that and I 'm going to research to see whether those trees are salt tolerate or not also . But the 50% can easily still apply within the plat itself . Mancino: Is this $150 .00 for landscaping just include plant materials? Olsen: It doesn 't state what it 's really going towards . I mean the $150 .00 doesn 't buy you whole lot . Scott : It 's like one tree . Olsen: That was '87 . Ledvina : That 's a question that I have . Is it appropriate to adjust that for inflation which has occurred over the last 6 years? I mean that would be about 25% or 30% over that time to get a comparable landscape or tree or whatever as was originally intended with the PUD contract . Olsen: Today we require $750 .00 . It 's $500 .00 for sod and $250 .00 for trees . Scott : Especially since a major issue of this development has to do with trees and reforestation , that appears to be quite appropriate in this instance . Batzli : What 's the ramification of adjusting that Paul? Any? Krauss: Well as long as we 're allowed to do it within the PUD guidelines , which I think we may be . Olsen: Well , the PUD contract stated it was $150 .00 per lot . There was a 5 year grace period for the PUD contract that stated that any new regulations you couldn 't apply but that 5 year grace period ended on December of 1992 . So we can look into that but technically I think you Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 7 can now pull in any other regulations that you wish to do . Or else you could even just recommend that the PUD contract be amended and go that — route too . Krauss: I should also pointed out that the way the $750 .00 is applied — elsewhere in the city is it 's , if you already have mature trees on your property that are being saved , you 're not obligated to put any more in . So at that point you just have the $500 .00 for seed and sod . . . So you wouldn 't be getting more trees in that area . . . — Scott : Yeah , because that looks like at least 50% of the lots don 't have any trees on them , or won 't have any trees on them . — Batzli : I thought it was a regulation that the developer had to either seed or sod all disturbed areas . Krauss: We put that into the development contract . The developer is obligated to do that with the major grading and such but what happens is oftentimes , it probably won 't happen in this case because . . .but a lot of — • times lots are sold off to other builders and they 're brought in 2 , 3 , 4 years from now and we typically have that $750 .00 provision in there to make sure that each individual home as it states is taken care of . — Mancino: Mr . Chairman , I have a question . Batzli : Go ahead . — Mancino: 67% of the oak will be removed . Where is that on your drawing? Where is the bulk of the 67% that will be removed? — Wayne Tauer : 67% of the trees being removed are oak . Of 30% . Well , I don 't know exactly where every one is . Mancino: Okay , so there is no one major place? Wayne Tauer : Well , I suppose generally most of them are right in here any I suppose there 's a few over here . We do have a plan that typically points out where every tree is . We have a number . We actually went out and counted a tag on every tree out there has a number and it corresponds_ to a list . I believe that 's in your particular handout . But I guess I didn 't memorize it . I don 't know exactly . Ron , you went through that a little bit . Generally , can you tell me where most? Ron Isaak: They 're generally scattered all throughout but the more bigge trees are up on the hill . Farmakes: I have a question also. What type , on Block 1 , Lots 1 , 2 and 8 , what type of house do you plan on putting in there? That would be a lot area of 12 .6 , 12 .8 and 12 .7 . That 's your smaller lots . Particular 1_ has a fair amount of contour there . Wayne Tauer : Okay , which number? You 're in Block 1 you say? Farmakes : Block 1 , Lot 1 , Lot 2 and Lot 8 . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 8 Wayne Tauer : . . .not a major amount of contour in there . Farmakes: It looks like 1 has a fair amount . More than 10 feet . Wayne Tauer : Well existing , there might be a definite break there due to the fact that I think some of the artificial grading has gone on when Lot 3 over here was built . It looks like a very definite slope . We 're going to come in and probably flatten that out a little bit but generally the lot will be flat except for . . . Farmakes: What square footage house do you estimate that you 'd be putting on there? Wayne Tauer : . . .what square footage house will go on the lots on this end building right here . _ Phil Jungbluth: Well there 's architectural controls which we have yet to set . And one deals with developing this . . .square footage , whether it 's a multi-level house , single level house . . . At this point we can 't really say what the square footage of any particular house is going to be on any particular lot . Farmakes: Is there a structure on Lot 3 at the moment? Is there a structure on Lot 3 , the adjacent lot? Wayne Tauer : I guess I 'm not sure . Probably . Those lots . . .are sold out? Phil Jungbluth: Oh yeah . Farmakes: But is there a home on that lot? I didn't view that particular lot when I went out and looked at the property . . . That lot is how many square feet? That 3 , the adjacent lot next to 1? Do you have any idea? Is it scaled off? Wayne Tauer : I suppose we can get a comparison . How big is Lot 1 . . .? Olsen : Lot 1 , Block 1? Wayne Tauer : Yes . Olsen: 12 ,600 . Wayne Tauer : 12 .6? I suppose that might be about 14 ,000 then . Farmakes: Is that homeowner here tonight by any chance? That 's you? Resident: Yes . Farmakes: Can you tell me , what is the square footage of your property there on 3? Resident: About 135 feet by . . . Batzli : I don 't think we have a definitive answer . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 9 Farmakes : Depending on how fluid the land is there isn't it? Batzli : If you asked me , I 'd have no clue what mine was . Farmakes: Alright . I 'm assuming that we 're going to hear . . .vague as it is . — Mancino: His house is 2 ,000 square feet . Farmakes : I didn 't mean your house , I meant your lot . Batzli : Did you have anything else? Resident : No . Ledvina : I had a question . Regarding the stockpiles of soil that are on- the site . Will those just be graded in overall? Ron Isaak : My understanding is that 's part of our . . . Ledvina : Okay , so those topsoil stockpiles will be completely removed? guess what I 'm concerned about is the possibility that those areas haven 't been , if they 're going to remain , that they haven 't been adequately compacted . So those would be cut out entirely and back to the native ground and then compaction as necessary would be done and if there 's fill in that area? Ron Isaak : If it 's in a controlled fill area , yes . It will be compacted . . . Batzli : Okay , thank you very much . We 'll probably have questions after we close , get done with public comment . This is a public hearing . If anyone would like to address the commission , please come forward to the — microphone and give us your name and address for the record . Do you have one for the staff? Robert Smithburg: No I don 't . I 'm sorry . Batzli : Why don 't you give this one to them so that it can go in the record . — Robert Smithburg: My name is Robert Smithburg and I live at 8657 Chanhassen Hills Drive North , which is across from the southwest corner of. the proposed development . I 'm here to raise a serious concern about this development and I ask that the Planning Commission not approve of this development plan until this concern has been satisfactorily addressed . The concern I have is to present , or excuse me , to prevent the destructio of valuable old growth trees . These trees , which are 80 to 150 years old are an irreplaceable resource . I want the Commission to know that I received a letter on March 2nd from Joseph Miller informing me that they — have made several design changes in order to address this concern . I thank Joseph Miller and the developer for taking this matter into consideration with regards to saving old growth trees . However , their changes do not go far enough . From the neighborhood meeting on Monday Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 10 night , I estimate the elimination of over 50% of the old growth trees and we disagree . Tonight their presentation I think was somewhat deceiving . Batzli : Can you please put the map back up on the easel? Thank you . Robert Smithburg : The tree loss , there will not be as they pointed out , there won 't be tree loss along Lake Susan because that is not , that site is not developable . We have a major stand of old growth trees right here . I 'd say at least 100 to 200 yards wide so you 'll have major loss here and this whole area of the hill right here where the road comes in off Powers Boulevard is all trees also . I have reviewed the 1987 development agreement . In Attachment A , clause 6( B ) , which I have in my back page , the developer is obligated to not remove trees except as approved per plat by the city . I ask the Commission to exercise it 's authority to not approve this development until the destruction of these valuable trees has been prevented . I also ask the Commission to investigate whether this plan violates Chanhassen 's Comprehensive Plan , the Tree Preservation Act or any other city ordinances . And please refer to Attachment C9 . I believe the Planning Commission has the opportunity and the responsibility to protect these old growth trees and the environment by what it does here tonight . I also believe the developer has an opportunity and obligation to act responsibly . The standards of the 1987 PUD agreement are minimums compared with current standards . I am asking you , the developer , to in good faith go beyond the minimal contractual obligations of 1987 and meet the current standards of 1993 . Thereby showing the citizens of Chanhassen you are a consciencious and environmentally sound developer who will be — encouraged to develop in Chanhassen in the future . Thank you very much . Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Yes — please . Don Wisdorf : My name 's Don Wisdorf and I live on 8639 Chanhassen Hills Drive North . I have similar feelings to the previous speaker , Bob . That stand of trees , I don 't know if you 've had a chance to go out there and take a look at it but you gain a quick appreciation for the age of those trees and the size of those trees . What the developers pointed out as far — as putting in , I also am opposed to to a certain degree . We do appreciate the concessions he 's made to , at least it 's in the right direction but we feel it 's quite a distance yet from really what needs to be done to save this old growth of trees . Bob had mentioned that they 're about 80 to 150 years old . Depending on size and also type of soil they 're in , they could be even older than that . One thing that 's not shown on here is the number of trees that are being removed and if you take a close look at the circles that are here , if we were to fill those all in with red , on the inside , you 'd really get an impact about what 's really being removed . There is a lot of trees along the shoreline which is not developable . Both take a look at the trees that are in this area and here are some photographs I 'd like to pass around to give you an idea in regards to size of these trees . What 's really going to be devastated . Farmakes : In your discussions with the developer did you have discussions with regards to specific lots or . . .? Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 11 Don Wisdorf : We had questions on specific lots but our feelings are is that the entire development needs to have more in appreciation for the trees that are there . For example , the ones that are along Powers Boulevard , that 's a very large stand of trees . That is completely being wiped off where the development 's going in there . There 's about 1 ,000 , or about 950 tags on those trees and our best estimate is that it 's more like , of the ones that are going to be removed , are the larger sized trees . We realize that the builder has a right to be able to develop that property and we welcome development into the neighborhood , since it is - zoned for residential development . We appreciate his efforts to be able to try to improve the impact upon the trees but I think it has to go further than a few lots being custom graded and the Mallard Drive being _ moved . They moved it about 5 feet to the southwest . I would suggest at the minimum that you consider moving that Drive more than 5 feet because if you move it more to the southwest you ' ll be able to save a significant area of trees within that area . There 's about , I counted about 13 lots - that were deemed to be custom graded and as you know with custom grading , you still have a major amount of devastation but if we could , if they have more lots that could be custom graded rather than the 13 , in fact that - • gives us almost half of those lots have old growth trees standing on them I 'd strongly urge your consideration of more than just 13 lots . I 'd say all of the heavily wooded lots , which is about maybe 40 or 45 lots that _ are there should really be custom graded . That would be another thing that would be able to at least help this development be more friendly to the trees . This is an issue not just of the area , neighbors in the area but it 's also an issue in regards to Chanhassen . As you know we 've got - the Tree Board that 's just starting to get developed . Our particular issue we 're dealing here tonight is going to be very similar to ones we have in the future and I think it 's important that we pay close attention_ to try and preserve these old trees throughout our city which have really been here longer than the city itself and in some cases longer than what the State of Minnesota has been established , and I think we need to be very sensitive to that . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you for your comments . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Tom Rasmussen: Good evening . My name is Tom Rasmussen . I live at 8531 Merganser Court . I 'm directly across the street on the west side of _ Powers Boulevard and if you came into my living room and looked out , you ' see the entire development from left to right . So I 've got a good view here . I guess what I 've got is a couple of other concerns , more in regards to the plan when I reviewed it . I was just wondering if the Engineering Department has had a chance to look at the slopes leading to the NURP detention ponds . They appear to be fairly steep and what I 'm concerned with is that if anybody is there with children or whatever , future down the road , as somebody goes ahead and buys these plans and the kids are playing , they could slide right into those ponds . And if those ponds don 't have a bench , by bench I mean having a slope that 's fairly mild so that they can stop before they go sliding in all the way down , that there 's the potential for some drownings and some accidents . I just want to point that out as a concern to your attention . The other thing is access to these ponds . These ponds require maintenance by heavy equipment- and quipmentand there needs to be a route for machinery and stuff to get there and to Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 12 do access and I just want to bring up that point too to make sure that they can go ahead and clean these ponds so they 're effective . If they _ fill up with sediment , then they 're essentially worthless . My second area of concern is dealing with the speed limit along County Road 17 . It seems like every day I 'm having more and more of a problem turning left out onto CR 17 . The posted speed limit there is 50 . I have a hard time believing - that most of those cars are doing that . I think they 're doing 55 or greater and we 're essentially coming from a dead stop out into that and sometimes they 're just boom , right up on your tail and you 're just trying to go up to TH 5 , a short distance . I guess what I would like to request that the City , on behalf of my neighbors and myself , is to reduce the speed limit . There 's about a 9/10 of a mile segment that 's 50 mph and reduce that down to 40 mph . And what this would do , it would only add 16 seconds to the commute time but what I would like to , I just think for a safety reasons , I guess what concerns me is they 're proposing a fairly large park across the street and as the kids on the west migrate across , they essentially could be crossing with cars traveling in excess of 50-55 and even 60 mph and I don 't think anybody would want their children crossing that street . I guess what I 'm requesting is that that be reduced down to 40 . For the safety sake . My third area I 'd like to briefly just talk about is that Monday night the developer mentioned moving some of the trees instead of devastating them and cutting them down . Moving some . I guess what I would like to see is a specific number of trees that they 're planning on moving . Where they 're planning to move them to and it would be nice to get those nicer trees up along Powers Boulevard . And if you raise the , if the slope comes up from Powers Boulevard and at a distance with the reduced speed on Powers Boulevard , then maybe salt isn 't such an issue anymore . Like he had mentioned , 40 mph seems to be the major point . So tha'.k you for your time . Batzli : Thank you . Dave , would you address some of Mr . Rasmussen 's concerns regarding slopes and erosion and the speed limit . Hempel : Certainly Mr . Chairman . The retention ponds are proposed to be built to NURP standards . That type of design allows for a bench around the pond that has a 10 : 1 slope , which means the first foot of water will _ be a gradual , the first 10 feet of the pond it will only be 1 foot deep . After that I think it goes at about 2 1/2 to 1 slope . So there will be a bench around each one of the NURP ponds . As far as the speed issue along Powers Boulevard . Powers Boulevard is a county road and all speed modifications and so forth is under the jurisdiction of MnDot . The City can certainly petition the County to also petition MnDot to perform a speed study on Powers Boulevard to see if the speeds are accurately posted for warrants . My initial thoughts out there , it 's 50 mph north of Highway 5 along Powers and we have built up conditions north of Highway 5 along Powers also . It would be of some interest to check with the State and see _ when the last speed study was done along Powers Boulevard there since we have had quite a few residential developments go in the area . On another note , the city and county will , in approximately 5 to 10 years enter into a joint construction project for the widening of Powers Boulevard . It will be widened to approximately a 52 foot wide urban section . That 's with curb and gutter . At that time most definitely the speed limit would be lowered I would assume in the range between 35 and 45 mph . Mr . Rasmussen brought up a valid point as far as children crossing Powers Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 13 Boulevard to reach access to the park and continue on to Chan Hills , since_ there will be a trail connection there . It may be wise to consider also pedestrian crossing anyway and again that would have to be approved through the State of Minnesota . Followed up by the Carver County Highway Department . So those are a couple issues that we can certainly pass on t— the County to look into as well as the State . Batzli : Would you address one other thing and that is erosion control . _ The conditions related to that . Hempel : Certainly . The applicant/developer will be required to prepare an erosion control plan in accordance with the City 's recently adopted Best Management Practice Handbook , which will address erosion control needs , slope stabilization and so forth throughout the development . Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Pete Kurth : Good evening . My name is Pete Kurth and I live at 1040 Lake Susan Hills Drive . That is the First Addition of the Joe Miller properties . The first development on Lake Susan . I guess I 'd like to share with you some of my experiences that we had with the reforestation process on Phase 1 , and I 'm sure many of these restrictions were in place - What the developer had done was to take trees that were native to the are and transplant those on our lot in a very unnatural setting . For example , I had 3 trees in a row placed directly on the property line . And these _ were scrub trees . They met the reforestation requirements that were placed upon them but they were trees that were also planted in a very unnatural setting and then during the construction process of our home , they were further damaged to the point that it was necessary for me to - remove them once the home was completed . The developer met this obligation to the PUD development but I , as a property owner didn 't have anything . My concern is the trees in that we physically protect those . - We mandate silt guards to prevent the erosion into the lake . I think tha we need to take that one step further and protect our trees . We need to identify the grade that these trees are currently at and make sure that they 're not damaged during the construction process . My concern there is _ that Joe Miller is the developer but he 's not the person who does the actual construction . And those developers or contractors may or may not share his ecology values . They 're concerned about production . If those - are damaged during the construction process , which they often are , susceptible to damage during delivery of materials , excavating , placement of driveways and what have you , they 're lost forever . So I think we 're _ protecting the waterlands by mandating silt guards . I think we need some kind of physical barrier on these trees to make sure the trees are not damaged . And that 's my concern . Batzli : Thank you very much . Olsen: Just real quickly to answer that . We do require the trees that - are going to be preserved do have to have snow fencing . It 's whatever th crown is , we do half again that size . The diameter around the trees so they cannot get the trucks in there and dump soil or anything on the root system so we do provide that protection . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 14 Batzli : Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Jim Domholt : Good evening . My name is Jim Domholt . I 'm at 8251 West Lake Court . I 'd like to set this up for a moment if I may . I don 't border this area but I don 't notice any of the neighbors who are here tonight and I did raise some concerns about this at the meeting on Monday . This area right across here , there 's been a , as was mentioned , a very large mound of dirt compiled out there during earlier phases of construction , and it has caused a tremendous amount of water problems for the homes that are already built there that border to the west and border to the north . And I think it 's a concern of those residents that something pretty definite be stated as far as what 's going to be done with that mound . If it 's going to be brought back to the original grade , that that be stated pretty clearly so that after this row of homes is done and it wasn 't brought back to the natural grade , there 's nothing can be done at that point in time . And there have been a lot of water control problems on the original phase because of the way the contouring originally had been done . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Dave , are you aware of that problem that they have right there on , is it the northwest corner? Hempel : Yes I am Mr . Chairman . There 's some existing stockpile of topsoil and excess material that creates some additional drainage going towards the existing homes there to the west . It 's my understanding based on the grading plan that that material will be removed and those lots will be graded in the fashion that the front part of the lot will drain out towards the new street and the backyards will continue to drain towards the west along that drainage swale . It appears that the drainage area that contributes to that westerly area right now will be reduced with this new development once those existing dirt piles are removed . Batzli : So more of the water will be moved towards the east once that pile 's removed? Hempel : That 's correct . As the homes are built out there , the lots will be graded so the drainage area is reduced . Batzli : Thank you . Does anyone else have any comment for the Commission? If not , is there a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved , Scott seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Batzli : Nancy , why don 't we start with you if we can . Mancino : I had a few more questions . In looking at the trail map we have here , it designates D and E on the western side of Lake Susan . Are we going to lose more trees due to the trail going in there? Olsen: Well actually I think that trail 's there isn 't it? I think we 'd just be redoing that trail along the lake there . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 15 Hempel : A portion of that trail is in place , that 's correct . There 's already an existing sanitary sewer line that runs along part of the lake — there also . Olsen: Where we did look at , where they were going to trail would have — resulted in some more tree loss , I believe we were working with Todd to relocate that between two of the lots that didn 't have trees and so we were working on that too . Mancino: Okay . So that 's like segment F? Olsen: Well no , that was one of the fingers coming up from E . Cutting — into a lot of the trees . Mancino: Where does segment F go? Olsen: Pardon? Mancino: Where does segment F cross and go into the neighborhood which i•— the southwestern corner of Lake Susan Hills Drive? Olsen: This is really , it kind of depends on where the park property and_ the ponds go and also I believe that that segment F was connecting in wit that cul-de-sac and that was there . Now that that cul-de-sac is not there , I believe that they weren 't even going to do that section . Mancino: So segment F is eliminated? Olsen: Right . Mancino: Okay . So we won 't be going through . . .forested area with a trail anyway . Olsen: Oh yeah . That 's one of the things we were looking at with the trail . Mancino: Outlot H , which is a . . .3 .9 acres , what 's there? Olsen: Nothing . — Mancino: Do you know is it a passive or natural park? Olsen : Nothing 's there yet . They 're going to be putting in like a totlo.— and simple things like that . Mancino: So there 's no way to switch parcels of land? — Olsen: Into? Mancino: To build on H and take those 3 .9 acres and . Olsen: For the trees? Mancino: Yeah , for the trees . Kind of do a land swap . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 16 Olsen: Well , I believe that that park was going to be used for active . So you 'd probably be removing some of those trees with the park development . Mancino : Has anybody looked at that? Olsen: No , nobody 's looked at that . No . I 'm sure the developer would have comments on that . But I don 't know that you could require it . Mancino: Do you think that 's a possibility at all? Olsen : Well if you 're talking like to replace that with Mallard Court? Mancino: Or the , I 'm thinking of the southwestern section where Lot 4 and when you get down to Lots 28 thru 38 and also Block 5 , Lots 20 thru 28 where there 's a lot of tree loss . Massive tree loss . If you took that area and put that into park , which already abuts Outlot E and just make that , make the park bigger and save those trees and then the development of single homes could go in Outlot H . Olsen : Well , I don 't know how we 'd get street connections . You 'd have to have another access . Well you might be able to pull the cul-de-sac . Mancino: We could do a cul-de-sac through 11 and 12 or you know , I don 't know how but . Olsen : If it 's going back in front of the Park and Rec , I guess they can look at that . I don 't know . We 've never done something like this . Krauss : You know we really don 't know what the determination was of the Park Board when they picked that in the first place . However , if it 's consistent with their other decisions , they have sought flat open ground where they can build facilities and if it wasn 't flat and open , they would make it flat and open . It probably wouldn 't meet your goals . Mancino : Except that if you go back to the neighborhoods and say what do you want . Would you rather have flat and open or would you rather have these landmark trees kept . Olsen: But the neighborhood you 'd be going back to would be Lake Susan Hills . Right , you 're not going to Chan Hills . They have their flat and open park . Mancino : Well I would like to bring it up in front of the Park and Rec Commission . That 's all . Batzli : Okay , Jeff . Farmakes : I 'm trying hard to like this development but I 'm not being very successful with it . It seems to me a couple things I 'd like to point out . _ It seems that the last few PUD 's that we 've seen we 're getting in the presentation I think kind of stilted way of presenting the information . Leaving pretty much important presentation areas modified . So that the presentation favors a particular direction of the applicant . I think in Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 17 this case one of the major features is the issue of tree loss . It seems to me that we have a very weak presentation . We have a big listing here - of all the trees and so on , but we don 't have very good graphic representation . I think certainly we could have better graphic representations since this is a key issue here . Particularly along the slope there next to the lake and the two problem areas that some of the citizens discussed here . It would certainly go a long way in interpretting this . It seems to me it 's difficult to take information off of a page or a listing of how many trees and try to associate it to an area when somebody 's verbalizing that they 're spread out there and you 're looking at the total development . That 's pretty loose information and I feel real uncomfortable with that . I also am asking myself , what are we - benefitting here as a PUD from . To me when we 're listing these properties as total square footage , one 's next to the lake anyway on the entrance side . Off of Powers . I don 't see how they 'd be building in those areas _ anyway with the slope that 's there . Perhaps they could do some serious grading but I 'm not , and I 'm not sure how that fits in with our restrictions . I can 't recall that if they went with the normal development , how well they could tear up that area . But it seems to me that this is an awfully tight use of this property and in a couple of sensitive areas , it just seems to me that that 's the reason we were reforming our PUD standards . In an attempt to get more aggressive in saving these trees . And this seems like sort of a half solution or that ' how it appears to me . I 'd like to be more aggressive with it . I 'd like to , I think that that direction is there from the City Council and I think that we should pursue that harder . The other issues that the citizens brought up I think are being talked about . The NURP ponds and so on and the issue of County 17 speeds . You might want to pursue that further . We really don 't govern that here but I agree it 's been a while . There 's been- a lot of development along CR 17 . Although I do live on CR 17 and visibility seems to be the issue of coming out . Your visibility 's restricted . For the person who 's driving 50 mph , that then , that 's a _ concern certainly . But I 've lived on there for a decade and it 's good to have that corridor route to be able to go 50 mph as long as it 's not a safety concern . I 'm also very concerned about the lots that are listed 1 , 2 and 8 . Particularly 1 . It seems to me just proportionately it doesn 't _. seem to be , compared to the home next to it in the previous development . If they have a 2 ,000 square foot house on their lot , I 'm a little worried about what 's going to be going next door on 1 . And I 'm also concerned about the issue of the PUD . The average lot size . Didn 't we work out where that was going to be 15? I 'm concerned about the difference of opinion here as to what that works out . Olsen : well , with the new PUD regulations yes . Under this PUD , you just had to have the average of 50% with 15 ,000 . Farmakes : This is going back to the '87 issue here? Mancino : But isn 't it a 5 year life? Olsen: Right . And that 's true . You can choose to , because of that 5 yea life , if you wanted to , to bring in the whole new regulations . We talked with the Attorney 's office about , because of course staff had the same - concerns . If this would have come in today , that concept plan wouldn 't b Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 18 approved as it shows today . We would have know better to save those trees and to have those protected . But that concept plan was approved . To preserve all those trees , you 're removing , essentially you 're moving Mallard Court . You 're losing quite a number of very precious lots to the developer also . So there was a question whether or not we should pull in the PUO regulations and we , with what was , the background on this , we 've always used the old ones . Krauss : The legal issue too isn 't entirely clear . I mean we have a developer who had legitimate approvals and who has made constant progress on building out the project that was approved 6 years ago . The language that says the thing is voided out after 5 years is a little bit ambiguous and we felt that to the best of our abilities , it 's reasonable to try to honor that original approval . We have pushed the developer I think as far as we reasonably could within the context of that and as Jo Ann points out , with 20/20 hindsight , if we could do the whole project over again , not just this phase , it might be done differently knowing what we know now , 6 years later . But the fact is , there 's a lot of dies cast and there 's a lot of obligations real and tangible and legal and otherwise that are already in place . Farmakes : Getting back to my comments . I think we should be more aggressive with that . I think there 's a difference between '87 and times change . I 'm no lawyer and we certainly have somebody on staff to deal with that but I don 't think that this is following in lines with what we had discussed at great length what we were going to use the PUD for . And it seems to me that we 've been discussing that for certainly a number , at least a few years now . I don 't think that this proposal is where the current city 's at . Like I said before , I 'd be real remiss to give my approval to it . Batzli : Do you have anything else? Farmakes : No . I think that I 've addressed them . I had some questions and again , I would like to table this until we can get some of these questions answered . And I also would like to reiterate that we not accept any further presentations that do not address the heart of the issue that we know is going to come up . For an example , I don 't think Opus should have been in here making presentations showing parkland that isn 't part of _ the development on their presentation . That was a major issue of that presentation . However , it kind was brushed over that they didn 't own that . And the issue here is again , tree removal and a lot of numbers with very little visual impact being shown on the presentation . Batzli : Do you think that 's the responsibility of the developer or staff to show us that? Farmakes : Well again , I 'd defer . I know that you can use some of your suggestions to direct that or maybe we should address that issue . I mean I really see this as a Truth in Housing type of situation . We should be seeing these things we 're making decisions on and it should be relevant information . We shouldn 't be getting what I would call a directed statistical review or if we 're leaving something out of here hoping we 're Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 19 not going to notice it . It 's not overt but I think it 's leaving information from us that we need to make prudent decisions . Batzli : Okay . Thank you . Joe . Scott : I 'd have to agree with Jeff . I 'd like to see a legal opinion on updating or amending the PUD to current standards . Also with regard to trees , I sat down and colored in with magic marker all the trees that are _ going to be removed and that was very striking visually so my personal opinion is that this project needs more work and should be tabled . That ' the real extent of my comments . Batzli : Okay , Matt . Ledvina : Well I had a couple of specific things that I 'd like to ask soma questions on . One of the conditions discussed is the oversizing of storm drainage improvements . Has the city staff been able to resolve any of this with the applicant at this point? Hempel : No , we have not . Ledvina : If you haven 't , what would be the schedule for doing that? Hempel : We would hope to get together , we were just talking about it here late this afternoon . They 're trying to get together with Carver County Highway Department to discuss this project as well as the next developmen on the agenda tonight . So I would hope that we could put something together or meet at least within the next 2 weeks here to discuss right- of-way situation and trail location . Ledvina : Okay . And I was wondering also if it might be appropriate to define which lots we would want , or which lots we would allow a reduction-- of setback limit to 25 feet . I think we don 't want to blanket this acros the development . I think that where we feel it 's worthwhile , we should specifically identify that . So I think that should be done . Also as it _ relates to the landscaping I would support updating the provision for landscaping to provide a requirement for $750 .00 per lot . I think that just should be done . And I guess overall , this site , there 's a lot of grading that 's going to have to occur . Just almost every , well a large - percentage of the area has up to 10 feet of cut or fill on it and again , we talked about bringing back the Opus situation and we were concerned about the grading on that property and comparing that to what our PUD standards mean in terms of evaluating sensitive parcels and I think if we can , I 'd like to see that amount of grading be reduced . I think the othe, issues with the tree loss are also very important . So I would support tabling this item . Batzli : Okay . What do you think Ladd? Conrad : Dave , how much grading is there? Is there a lot for this type o area? Hempel : The site is somewhat difficult . It is very rolling terrain . There 's wetlands and there 's the isolated groups of wooded vegetation so Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 20 in order to follow the street grades set by the City of Chanhassen , up to a 7% grade , which they 're doing . They 're falling within that guide . It comes to the point of balancing the earth work too . So you don 't have to import dirt or you don 't have to export dirt . I don 't know if the applicant has done final numbers on the earth work yet . I think they 've just pulled together some preliminary numbers . Maybe they can address it a little bit more whether or not the earth work actually balances or not . But I 'm sure there 's probably some fine tuning that can be still done to make street grades and building pads less cut and fill maybe . Conrad: I 'm just a general sense that the lots for this wooded land are too small . It doesn 't seem right to me and I think for a perspective . If the numbers are right , and the developer is telling us maybe 1 out of 3 trees are going to go down , that 's probably what happens in a typical development in Chanhassen . In fact that may be even good . On the good side . Even our better developers that are doing , I 'm not saying , I 'm not making a comment that this is a good or bad development but the more expensive developments , when they 're going in and saving trees it still ends up taking out significant trees . So no matter what , unless you preserve it as park , it 's going to be tough to make a big dent in the number of trees that we take down . Even though I said that , I 'm not comfortable with this . It just doesn 't seem like it 's the right size properties . There are more , it appears based on the concept plan that we saw 5 years ago , there are more lots on Lake Susan than there were years ago . I counted , well it just looks like they 're cramming a little bit more in there . And I don 't know that we 're going to make a big dent but _ I 'd like to see what we can do . And again I think the only way to solve that is by making the lots bigger . I 'm not comfortable with smaller lots in wooded areas . My feeling is that 's how you save trees . How many we can save? I think that would be up to staff and the developer to tell us . I 'd like to see what we can do . I don 't have a better design here except the fact that I think the lots should be bigger . Jo Ann, right now maybe they 're a little bit over 20 lots that are under 15 ,000 square feet? 20 out of 90 . Is that a mix that we 've followed in the other additions? Is that typical and what were our guidelines when we allowed the PUD? What did we? Olsen: Well the real guidelines were that you had to have at least , that half , more than half could not be under 15 ,000 . Conrad: More than half . Olsen: And generally the other phases had I think a higher percentage of _ the smaller lots than with this one actually . The lots are , even though these are small , the whole PUD had a lot of small lots . Conrad: Okay . Well , I ' ll just wrap it up on my comments . Again , for this type of area , I 'd like to see larger lots . I think for the trees and for the nature of all the grading and the rolling area , it 's just not what I 'm use to approving over the last 10 years here . Batzli : What do you think about the $750 .00 issue? Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 21 Conrad: That has to be done . But there 's some negotiating in this too . _ This is a PUD . The developer 's coming in here with a perspective of what he can do and what we kind of led him on when he signed a contract like this so we have to respect his rights in this process . So when I say that has to be done , I think there 's some give and take on the tree issue . If - they f -they can be saving some trees , and again it 's quality trees that I 'm talking about . When I see the pictures here , I 'm looking at some 24 inch plus trees . I 'd be real disappointed if we 're cutting down a big percentage of , 67% of the trees we 're taking are of a real quality nature That bothers me a whole lot . Right now I don 't know . I don't know if we 're cutting down 10 inch trees or 24 inch trees . That 's why I kind of need to know what it is that we 're talking about here . And again we 're - not going to save all of them . I think we just have to make a best effor to save the , to keep the essence of what we 've got there . I think Nancy had a good idea . If we could be trading some land with the park . But that 's not what the developer wants . Your land with trees , even though you cut a few down , is still worth quite a bit more in the marketplace . So I 'm not sure he wants to do that . Batzli : Okay . Diane . Harberts : I just want to flag just one comment . Everything else has bee - covered . Page 4 . Jo Ann , this is the second paragraph . It talks about how the lot lines have been adjusted with regard to . . .trail so the lots were not within the park property . So I guess the only thing I wanted to_ flag o— flag is , as I 'm reading this that the ponds are not on city property yet . So it 's something that still has to be worked out or has that been addressed? Olsen: I think you 're reading it kind of vice versa . What happened originally with the ponds were shown within the outlot that 's going to be right here . Technically that 's taking away the parkland that was supposed to be dedicated . So now the plans are showing the lot lines to cover , or they 're encompassing the pond and your question was whether or not that was taking away . Harberts: Well the question was , so what you 're saying is that the ponds are now within the single family lots and not on the city lots so it has been accomplished? Olsen : Right . But what we 're trying to verify is whether or not by them extending the lot lines , have they taken away parkland . So if the pond really is still on . Harberts : Right . So I guess like I said I 'm just flagging it . That 's it . Batzli : Would you be in favor of tabling this to look at trees? Is that why you 're not commenting on anything else? Harberts : I would agree with that . I guess my primary concern was with the 25 feet setback . The idea of having it apply to the entire subdivision here . I like trees but I guess it 's the balance of with development . I have to agree with Ladd that with some of the trees too , Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 22 don 't have quite a handle on the size that we 're looking at . If we can save the more larger ones , I would be in favor of tabling it until we did have a little bit higher comfort level . . . Batzli : Okay . And how do you feel about raising the requirement on the amount of landscaping to $750 .00? Harberts: I would support that . Batzli : I have a couple of technical questions Jo Ann . I had a comment on the first condition . Rather than limiting it to a number of lots , my recommendation was to say at the end of that sentence , but only preserve mature stands of trees or to reduce grading . In other words , it would be limited to what we 're trying to accomplish here . Preserving the natural features of the land which is what the essence of the PUD was originally intended . The condition 6 . The applicant 's engineer shall review the lot grading . What I would prefer to do is that they would somehow review that in connection with our engineering department as well . In other words , tell them that they should look at it . I guess I 'd rather have them look at it and tell us what they find to see if we think that it 's reasonable . On number 11 . When they 're going to oversize and I know Matt asked and I don 't think I understood the answer . Did we decide that they 're going to try and oversize? Or haven 't we decided? Hempel : There 's really no preliminary design really yet for County Road _ 17 so it 's difficult to say whether or not we can incorporate runoff from future Powers Boulevard through this development but we 'll certainly take a look at it and if we can , we ' ll negotiate with the developer to do that . Batzli : Okay . I guess I would like to see a finessing of that condition then regarding compensation . In any event . On number 13 . Has Mallard Court already been renamed? Olsen: Not on the plans , no . Batzli : Okay . I would prefer that it reads , Mallard Court shall be renamed to either Drake Court or some other street name acceptable to city police and fire officials . I believe that 's who reviews it , isn 't it or does Paul review it and just pass it by them? Okay . On 14 . Are we going to want 5 foot concrete sidewalks? Is that right? Olsen: Okay , that can be removed . Well , you 're getting Dove and Drake mixed up . Is Dove the one that was removed or Drake? Batzli : Dove is the one that 's still in there next to the park . Where you 're putting a 5 foot concrete walk from the main drive through the development to Dove Court so they can get into the park without walking on the street . Is that what you 're intending to do? Olsen : That 's still showing up on the plan so . Batzli : Out of curiousity , which side of West Lake Drive would that be going on? Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 23 — Hempel : The existing sidewalk along the existing West Lake Drive north of Dove Court . There 's a small segment sidewalk heading southeasterly along West Lake Drive and deadends south of Dove Court . We 'd like to see that sidewalk extended . I believe it is shown on the plan 5-10 plan sheet . On this drawing . Previously it was not shown . — Batzli : It 's shown on plan 5? Hempel : The dashed line I believe represents the sidewalk . Batzli : Oh . And it deadends just at Dove Court . That 's the one you want to extend? Hempel : Previously the plans did not show that sidewalk extending up the proposed West Lake Drive to Dove Court . They do now so that condition probably could be deleted . Batzli : Out of idle curiousity , why do you want it on that side of West Lake Drive? Isn 't the access to that totlot is going to be through Dove • Court? Hempel : That 's correct . That would be an on street walkway with there 's - a trail between the , at the end of Dove Court . Batzli : Right . But then , so you have to cross the street and walk up Dove Court to get to the totlot that you 're putting the sidewalk on that side? Hempel : No , the sidewalk is on the southerly portion . South side of the proposed West Lake Drive . Batzli : Okay . Okay . I 'm looking at it now . That makes sense . On your — condition 18 Jo Ann . Olsen : Right . It should be 18( a ) , ( b ) . Well go on . Batzli : And ( c )? So numbers 19 , 20 and 21 would become a , b and c? Olsen: Right . And then everything . . .before a station plan . Batzli : Okay . ( b ) I think needs to be changed a little bit to reflect your discussions with the developer regarding the primary species list . It doesn 't sound like there 's disagreement . Obviously we don 't want to require the developer to put in trees that can 't handle the overspray from, the County Road there . Those are my comments on the conditions . It sounds like to me that the Commission would like to see this come back with a , in order to get a better handle on what trees are being lost and if there 's a way that something could be done to further minimize that . Whether that be site specific grading . I don 't think , do we normally put the requirement for snow fences around the trees in the conditions Jo Ann I think we have in the past . Olsen: It 's always in the development contract and then the conditions . I don 't usually point it out as a specific condition in here but it can 't Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 24 hurt , you know to put it in here but it always is covered in the standard conditions . Batzli : And it sounds like the Commissioners , at least right now , would like to see the monetary amount for landscaping increased . Olsen: Per lot . Batzli : Per lot . Which according to my rough calculations is increasing it $600 .00 per lot times about 90 lots is $50 ,000 .00 with one stroke of the pen . I guess I would like to give the applicant , if we choose to table this , an opportunity obviously to respond to that and I 'd either you or the applicant , if we choose to table it , to provide us some detail . A little bit more on the tree loss . Have you , I assume , maybe I shouldn 't assume . Have you gone out there with the Forester , any of those kinds of people to look at which trees might be worth saving and whether we 're trying to protect the right ones? Olsen : No , I have not . The Forester is just now coming back after an illness so I have not dragged him out onto the site yet . We visited the site but I haven 't , but that 's something . He 's back at work now and we can , I 'm sure he 'd be glad to do that . Conrad: I 'd like to see a list of the quality trees that are saved and the quality trees that are not . And I don 't know what the word quality means Jo Ann but I 'm really not interested in some of the scrubbier kind . That 's inmaterial . I don 't want that to count . Olsen: They 're mostly high quality . Scott : I noticed that the trees don 't get any bigger than 50 inches . Is that a limitation of the caliper that they use? Olsen: I don 't know . Did you have a limitation on the size? . . . I ' ll see how he is about that . He 's recovering from a heart attack so I don 't want to push him too hard but probably next week we could probably get out there and get those details for you . Batzli : Well okay . I would appreciate having that kind of expert input _ as to whether we 're doing a good job of , obviously if we have several hundred quality trees , we can 't save them all without buying the lot . Some of them are going to have to go in order to develop this but I 'd like to think that we 're making a good effort at preserving the natural features of this which includes kind of wetlands . A little bit of rolling and some trees and I don 't know that the commissioners have a whole lot of comfort level , at least from their comments so far . So having said that , is there a motion? Is there a motion to table? Conrad : A motion to table Case 87-3 . Batzli : Is there a second? Farmakes : I ' ll second it . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 25 Batzli : Discussion . Have we made it clear enough on the record what we are tabling this for and what we need to see? Is there an uncomfort leve by the Commissioners that their particular concerns haven 't been made clear so we address those at the next meeting? Conrad: Well the direction to staff is strictly on trees right now . A little bit on landscaping cost but is there anything else besides trees? Scott : PUD amendment to bring it up to the standards of the comprehensiv• plan that 's in place now . Olsen: A legal opinion . Scott : Yep . Conrad : I don 't think speed on Powers is an issue that we 're dealing wit right now . Batzli : No , although I 'd like to see that addressed by the City . Conrad : And I guess I would like staff 's opinion as to , I don 't know how it 's coming back other than just looking at trees and I suspect we 're - going to see the same plan . I guess I 'd like staff 's opinion as to when it comes back if there 's significant tree loss , the quality of trees . If they have any further recommendations . Batzli : Meaning? Conrad: What 's going to save it , yeah . What 's out within reason . And I - guess I go back to lot size . Batzli : Okay . Yeah , because your concern was that you thought that with - an increase in lot size . Conrad : It 's going to save more trees . Without just totally changing road systems and what have you , lot size will do it and again lot size , within this property . With the number of trees and the rolling nature , I think lot size is the only thing that will make a difference but I 'm curious what staff 's opinion is . - Batzli : Okay , is there any other discussion? Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission table Preliminary Plat No . 87-3 for further review. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli : This matter is tabled to our next meeting? Krauss : Well Mr . Chairman , we were going to propose that you cancel the - April 7th meeting since there were no other items on it . But if you want this one to be on that meeting , then you have an item on that meeting . Batzli : Yep , let 's do it . I suppose Jo Ann had already scheduled vacation . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 26 Olsen: Let me look at the calendar real quickly just to see if that gives us time to come back with what you want . If the reports have to go out next week , you won 't get it . Krauss : That 's a fairly short turn around . We also should contact the , speak to the developer . Why don 't we agree that we will re-notify everybody by mail of the hearing date as soon as we know . Batzli : Okay . So this may be on the agenda for our second meeting in April? Krauss : Which is the 21st . Olsen: It most likely will be . Otherwise the report would have to go out next Wednesday and I don 't know what I would get the answers that you want . As far as like the tree inventory . Wayne Tauer : We 'd like to comment on that . We would like to have it done in 2 weeks . You know we 're on a , we 're in Minnesota . We have but a few months to do all we have to do and we have to get started in the spring to get it done . So I guess if we have any choice or if we have any say in this thing , we 'd certainly like to get it done in the next week and be back on the April 7th , or whatever the date was to get back and go . Batzli : Okay , what I think you should do is probably coordinate with Jo Ann and see what works between your two schedules because we ' ll obviously make every effort to schedule the meeting . Okay , thank you very much everyone for coming in . PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SITE PLAN TO CREATE 27 TOWNHOME LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND LOCATE DIRECTLY EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD , ADJACENT TO LAKE SUSAN HILLS PUD, PRAIRIE CREEK TOWNHOMES . JASPER DEVELOPMENT . Public Present: Name Address James & Jay Jasper Jasper Development Greg Holling Jasper Development Mark Jeffries Minnesota Landscape Don Patton RCI Scott Montgomery 8260 West Lake Court Andrew K . Olson 8290 West Lake Court Tom Nilsson 1060 Lake Susan Hills Drive James Domholt 8251 West Lake Court Gary Kassen 8270 West Lake Court Tom Dotzenrod 8280 West Lake Court Pete Kurth 1040 Lake Susan Hills Drive Kirby & Sandy Paulson 8410 West Lake Drive Ron & Ann Kleompken 8311 West Lake Court Tom & Pat VanAsh 8320 West Lake Court • _9 _ �, litt •t I I II 1 ' 1 ' O '.•.: ,_. if hi IJI! 11111, H Lbi; Ii ;. !it NI. • =� tIl.jt { ii iIIjIIlj ', -A ° +tI''1111 I1Ijll:rt I(;�Ir..r.r la- - \Ap,„ I Srr'af- : r 11 I!:.;1i!r11 �/ltiI •t i, ri1.1 Il ' _( 1_ijj `11 ,rI r r1 th 0. r .r-J �' `j'i�J111 tl liitrltiljll 11r1111ti pI • {'llj 1 r f (:1 ,�f/ I I t 1 ! Ra I�- lai 111 ph, tr;llil:cilatillr. :e, e ;4 ka r S r = 15 v aaa c o ..�. — +11 it t j t 41;10-- ' • y 1, -;� ��.,.... i e ILII i II Ci 1 ' _____J -- tJ _ I t il ii P Iat 8 5j7 : � ! I3 II I 'I' / • - _,-----:- _,....-•--• Al.t �S. �.""- S —6 � .+ •s. ti- AL .s• __ .p.,- . s.-,o,. .4,-;,„01,sei xfar..,-, #3,,,,,--;,-. ---N ,ui7,4t,_, ,'-‘ ,,-\,,,,\, ,,,,,, ,,......_ ....„:„ A., ,,, _, „, , ...,r fr lb, ...,„, '4;.:,................ .-100' 4,0"0 ..0..-,,,§' f'-'"'- ,-;II' __("4iti,e411r, 41100 be Vivo., r i ......;_,... .........____ lor„,,,•-.4.0 : / r.....,rir"lizir , A. Sttiriligio, kAt,. . „...L..... nik ,,,.., vosio (00//q i ,• !\ Or.3,—. . ,.....t. _, • , _. $ ......... ,,,,,.. A,,,... If it,byi,,Alp „.,,, ..,c r4.0 jif c-., rs".•;.r... :. 4%- C's• 47 ii FINIV:AlkaNt AI IA\ 4,7, vA 7,5/ "-_,, v7,46,.—.— -44 . ,-,w-.Asy,44, 4,-..-7,.,....,-,,,\ , . , '6'.'.C' 'VI t‘'‘' "-_, e a'6,..-,70.-. . e" v-: i irr.z..- zoo • .n."4" , i 4811 `,•s 0 kr. s , , ' �:-44:.....;•`..7 big .' iY -.Mases _ _•_ —M — • -1,... '+ — ->- !— wrv� _t' °_sit3ikndil 1' : r : :_ e• =c, ! ' ' ;{ II — — --- ——=— ---- - L11 —� iii 111 - - ,r: til ilith1 il o • \;c7141,1 2 i 1,,,, ,..ils, \,•,.,\,\\,411 •-•I • 1 0 , t\Z",•\\\` \\‘` . \\\\‘ s•, . . ,....?, -'1‘, 1100N', ‘‘` • --.4 , - z ; ur ,4 4',,L' V %,,oilic % " \ 5 5 I : V �_ ? S \ , i, IA, ...A. I:, 4;0s ,•-- ..\\ i ':, ---6-- :_Lik,\• 1...,‘ ",..46,AS--, • •\,' \".\_ t ,,• -, N. ,, 4 s,,:lb, 'Nfitits; 11\ C, Pi,-`\,, - ,--1 ‘44/4-11);‘ ‘ ItitN>eqt‘ 1 s2.'_:.:4 -- .. i 1 iat\,k444 I,. NI No.40kelk1‘,S:y4 _ _ ..z..*. V.. --- . 1\ ----c" . %/tlibikr‘s.., s‘,41,1". ‘‘,.\-- 4\010\41;-;-_ -a' ,.. _ ....,....:-..,,,,,, ------ - i \,ii .\ ,, /-k\N% ...,,:s.,:,- t ,-4-., - ihivif \=fie e 1 ._ . .�•• i er • \\ '‘., \ . / /4r: is s, '. .40/.4k.:, N' 11./_, ,, \,.. %-It;''...46 ,,',,•,. „:,,S,s:4•i:.iiy _,....A- ,,i i 'Cr, ...... .i....i----.-_ ,..S..„, 1 .' .l ':. 1 ll ' ii, AllitI•jirdiP7-Ilk .':.. 41- '- ik....„M.' • 1 • ' ; 4. L -A4.\\\„' ':.- /' - dilw, 4.`",,,---‘, --.(.: :- t...,N• 4* , .:, , ,•,/ , , . )s''' . , 4"p i \V % . s' --. ____s----- /- - 1. 1gL J„',, 1,, . ,',/ ' 1 -.--__ .,÷--‘31110-- x ,. ,-- 4kirarmiw-'-'2:1"..1%\v"--- -Id' '-, ' -, •,' ;- Oi - \ ' '. jii\ r‘:1-- twu P-r--..-.--r.71 , 114,1 .r,--- -,- . 0'.,T., '-: • • `�- / i .1 .% • -- ice.+ ------ 1 , r�o,,,„ i ---,,,,,--_,.--... 4,-- .. vs,.•:;‘,, 7ir -412," 1 I---, c.,.. ... .,...1.... , ffJ :7 8 )),,:witick, 4. -.7. ....-,,,,/,,....,,, -.„,„.,-... N'T.." , , ! ria 0` t sra. -0-440 ,th� . .77-:- \-,-",,,,..,, ,,,y, '-;.4-A - ---- —"/ 1 f i a tatalAill - s -.2.___.::k.:.• - ,,,,-, —, __ f_ —<..---- • .ipiz, 7 - . - vx A .. lit-N-----iia\ .' '', .-'' ,-,°,•' ' "r--: 1 //fr 17\ k A cti V";'t.,,,. -7-- --. ' \‘''‘ ---- ----.%- dOk-44#00jetd:31,09+,70.0 1A1'\I '' Ailiic .1„__1—„,_...-r-..---...• •‘\. \ ..:..),. , .: 1 .,, '� • tet:-.. :',,‘ .,1: �': _,iiia ; . 1 a 1;,, ., rfi,z7_7000, ‘' / /'�----I-7--- ,t�,;; R -- ‘;', -,-...7_3_,;,9,',' • �;r, ` /�eI , i- lit ` ' 1 b, ,2,1/ f 4 1 2.177 'i jr A e / o , ,,,_,... ,,," r . , (' ii glik . Atli i t 1 ‘ , t Ni 1 rlittfl. ' t 1 , . „ 1 ,,CC , ,- ?lir ^qt k i I „ ;. , - s;:ss,•\.. V IN ' , . — 1 '&1 r. 1 i iii �\ _ ' \ - •\ 11II' �� 1 I ' e1 (T \` 1 , k"), • , . 1 TLL . , , , 1 IP II n t '' t + N �` , % '\ o , Iii 11 1, ij It :i r 1 r �\ \ `` : tr 'Lq. `„ 1 ., ,{ !E� i�ii } t ,�;'l .1i i 13 s :�. �y . 1t•iIt 1 1' it . .i. .,1.-r I -� I< `` =..t+i}r 11t i1�t�1!•-ir,ri Ill ='� . f '>L� } +` '•, .. , I 44 tt t. I +--;11' , i S 1(i 11,1!!+?11 \ •+• `� . 1 I—. i i1e•1-'io:, , JI' i.crlt[ 1i_I'j.s: IIl I.. I j - '' ,`` ` •Irtrii.{ . 1! :lil_1!1,i;1t.-. SI Ij I �. \ S� � flit 1, !ir'i1'111tt)l;z' 1{ •E II] 5 r ,:, ` c 1i;rf;l;u+l t�i1.1;,1i,.1,.11 IJ 1 MI ft • _ , g .. .. •-«..tea+ H I ;' O'' `, l'„, ' j P r i ,,4 la i11i1 Aiv �.„ , I li/i T^ '-i' t 'r .' rr ( , Vim-- -__\ z is I r ``� -1' t iil' Iii 11 • IL` , vif ! ,.„ -ma-,,,,-, \. - . .-- -"--- , .. . --.• .• s ,..„ ti, ; 11 ; 1 ii . ,111 /11 piii .1 ,1 ^ / _ ' F r - i �'�i 11 . , lri, r " . _ ,will xi!, 1'1. - --------------''' e_,-- ./ ‘ _ r4_ . , . 614A° 0-i_..efr. i '',.',..i•\ ,441,:,\::,,,,. i ...,..iiisr.,40001 , ./.,_,# ;-4,„47.,„. ....,..,..-..,.07.00106;%1:01;.,0 %A 1 :. --71,4"-Iral.--:::/ 'rioillifrOCV-'4:1"-:-e--,AAIX, il" a il., N ,/ ,''... '.'7‘ ,. L I.;'s\ 02-N ), 401*.r.', ,,,,,P1'- *-0;.;-=&\,V,0 , \ ii,...1.--, e.sa., i• " - ;# no , , n--.... .. ..,.. ..... . .. 4400;00e-,..- ;• i1 4, . 1 -S^, , 3V.‘„,--..., .,, � 19 -'_ , ,. , '.. ,ir, 0.`(.`y' r' jp "61z !'ll lkimm,;... md. ...---;- A- ,.. _ -',1 0,..e-rk Ux.-0__ -.01._•.;10 R., A.0 ,,'.0_-•__ ' .,, 1 :N. .. .0 -0, 117...„.---e--_ ---w- i-',.pr+ . -.. -- _ -,- -• 6,t —, w il . I i ........ \ ‘ ..„, ..: :......... ___..0 .4..:.........:: ,. ,ime ,di. ... _. , , i ,,,,4:el .._y''== �r il.... '1171 :ri ''t - 1!�.;In.1t� _ ..rt.."'t.::... -^'�'.1- .tf!••• •••t-' ..- - aott ' et%,` 1 - ---1' �1r!/- 1 ' 1 1 �1 r r , I '',: 1 1 1 `� 1 atiwa-mc'-a i', 11!! 1 tla140.1! ! s 1 1 1 ::., F. 1_r 1 ;! 1 r ; 'i ---a-- - - - - =.,- -T — - - --- - - - --- '` E r-----F--- --c==- - :--- - - - -- --- -,�� --�_a It l -3' �� tt 1„ IL _ _ IIil -- . I • / / \ 1115al•-•:jr:- 1-C":1111:43-..__."7:--•-„:44, ‘%•:,‘. .:, I t 1 \\_ V ik:....\ Ill 'c. . \ \‘.„111.-S:\ '''‘ \ 1 la•\\ , 1 0 \ • • •� I be .--- 1. , \ . 1 I \ - '41L. \! \ — /...--,„.. -i. 1 , ° • 1s\l ', \ \.4:1.:V,•11.,,i4 \ ,h, .,,,,,A, . iii1111\111::1 t.... ilo s„ „s„\ il il It . •,,, ' .V0 , \ l,,,..., ilvivito ,r4k,. \ , .... .......s. _ \i."‘ „„,. ...._ ,. ;,.,s....... ,... ,.....\c.., eitiN „,„,, ‘, . . \ .... 1.„. \ . 1 ..\ t„:,,,,, , ,,....1._. ;• \ ....,...".. 4AI:h... _ „ , N, s '.\\Vti t.4`.-Vt.sit4a..,:g1111:141‘s � i-.., • ,, \ ''1 ..' 'i\• .s:Vts w oc I � + 4.%__ \b% • .`\4 A`_t' 3/ 11 .1 ` -\\4\ . .-----. 44',:ttit,70 \ (‘..\\ ••• ail. .A 4s:'- ' liti..-- -:-i - .- - ‘ , % s \ \ _,:, . -..' -- T. --.4. N ;-.% -=._ ,..,„:"."-- • \\V . / : ` \ ; '\‘ \ ,- V - --::1-e _t-, -0- .a.-- -:',,-,'-gg-.---I,„ \\(,,,N, /..------ , .\ji-s- .-,Ar-7.:‘ \\*--,'--------4,------6—majir/..4si: ,‘-e•-,„.‘-k- k ,,,,:.': \\ / \., VsI4;111/ 0 ID I / �` ' a ,1 M�� /,,(g ?.ii: �Cµ , ,,, . 1\ ii \ Alli '...1 I :"•—.- • 1 '....... - 4,,1/4 . ' ,/,,, ,14 0' / , \ - ;efij \ ':-.:031 b lif • _ 1 i Vh. -\ - 1 -11,,,,,'-- -1"/ ' ,' = ,,, rWill 1 ,, 1: rarla ifilp r , , 04., ."1 17 . ./.... "9.7" i / .4,/,•' s 8'17 t 7' a •-i" i ‘ - i -"ILA ii, s i . :',. 1-1c,,,): t i q ,/),( : 4 eve5f::-..\ " ss,V0‘.., 4 - /7, fin 111:_..... / - -, AN ,i a 4,I e PI I I _ I "it.44 t-2;• % . I '1 • • / r/1$ \ 1 1/1' ' ; ix ,• ,,, F:......". N1/433.6...--, Ai ; ,,, • 1 ,-.. ... --- ,'/,' • \ •%,5,'%,:' • , :- 141/1/ iikkii k 4.4t• IA 1. 1 ( '-' s‘s, ‘‘::.i:;\ -'. • ',•/ 4 - -,:W":... ;- °;11 ,• // 1 ---\‘ t ' ' sN'. ‘, \t. --- ri/ V,';‘,\ !a• ; C-\''. _0 •- *-• •' '. 400109 / / '45,1/...r--;:r- ,. A ,10,4114,-01 '' \ 1 j ! ,,.,1,+ ,,' •"�: /�� ;moi i8 �+�e ,� ft'g J 1 1 — —_,7:.:: I-_'... / i. 1 girl. , ,, ,,, : , ,;(;:t ...Al 1 " "1..., (ifil: : 1 i i . • it ,Aill.... 'f,,, I to t ., ,s% . i — II ":1*/10;0911111111" 4.1• ' Iill! — \‘‘ •ss•-.):0; C.` -./74 /„.../ diiiiik t _ i 7i:fr.' • i ri...„.; 1 .,64%_1 % ' jc i ; , :1 t ,t 41) .e mss, ( ,' • , 1 FiQueer Engineering 78318?= _ E . 0 / / ti / il k r f•-.111.2414;: . .100,1, .. (e) ....... c a , I O'L NA* • • ��}}' po �: •14£8/ -"ilIN C'✓ ` �'O. !�� ,{ �� VIIIW°11 �£R \ If . e. j:)40 I l , 4 it .• ••: .c.0.56. •Ik.• 1 I LoAv. is:- b /, , i ,,,,.t, ‘,,,,,,, ::.,'44. / , -zitte lirlip6 .\ I zes 2'zg t. '..f '' e nr 1 I / -dr/*vs ....,,‘: \ evi 3 / . a 1:; i 3,11, / r v.. -%,2-1\° A — .11:_i6r, 147/1711 ;31,‘ A. -kr - ° A, ,!?i. C'16 It)5 :\17 -., f : ' . •/ • • N' e 4,411 .. 2--51 • * . • \O • • • 4 : , J•5. t;1054,111 0 11**,a 47-11 'itip 71' I - 4 limm..#17" - 11 . alitt,410 t-- ,„!. , ga, ,45., - , 1,1- 1 .... 0, ,\HNIF"1 :1 i i'. fS�• • �.�- II1f— \ r V /O lZs gs' • .* 2;: ON ao -� Po /• ' `� • � •1 %/. *. -i_,.. / / �r g'''o • :'!e'_ - 1 • 0 ,(113 .3 --. *., l':'.1 ' \ t,:..,.., • Bh ,r by • glit t /,4•• • 6 i0k7 1 Il. " 1 V . , • ' / / �pT _24 Ve / # . DO of fr k �� ` moi( a` 9,,6 8. �•• � �, , e \ ��11� / le...• if 74 • ;` ON, \ . N774'. �, 71 . ••.2•10 * C�� ` • •\ l / 716 •• f Al AN 46,46 ei,N:of ' -ir T\..4 I/ I AG. "14 / i I '••"1 4‘ icir I / • I 4' 41 . p1,0 f.%.1,4 ivic..4 •... .. 771 • e • . /ed.: ..:.0 wi -:.. .4T 1f• - \ \ t ' 1c"• 0 N *kik -- ` ., r4.f ,� \ • AlifitaL :41 •:/p it • 1 \ \ 1 \ \AO\ ,,,A: 9n • . \ \?'1:7 • 9(.Ji. : 7• .y, 7;410a. e: rif:.0, 00, .3 • 1 \C Or (11 ...in . W fy� 1..... a ji. r \ f),. Ft , _lovt-i -yr;./wiLig- ..., - iissr7k -.1- • , -1.-i.L:=.1,4-: 4:-Adi.' - :111111-- * * -mw s. ' —\ 1 ill \ I lk kik" Q. ./...f c"Z... : IK1 417 •Lip :. .• * C*I 0 kti.i' ! el' l v i II ‘ . I 0 " -1 y • til 0 ti i X o tiY, Af 05) Via-. a "° 11 V Y ,t1 * "sr t4si. CD • . ‘ 1411 itir al _:• — II l'i. • 1 '''.--- .s.‘ A, w-- _.0.:Allat..=.4. k \\ ,,, 0 \ ‘ ) _,_. • „dig 4.4:-.0,,, % i 4 1 dh1 1 4c-F-4- I rf:''''5--..-. SI IV \iltt %• ..-- -, 4 0 \ - i \ I\ 1111. r 441 -9-1. .; . **** I - - ••• •\ .9..\ 41144 46.<' ‘ 1 I \\\ • \ , ..;, '5.% .,N. t • ,P • A\- (0-') \ ..\ Ivi , — \ 0 \ 4 6 . ea. „, - r,,,b, ,A ,4,444<, ; :,. A 1 \.,_ ___,--/Z) '''''' ,--- ,\ iilitt ( 0 %,,,, .. ,,• F )4,%, 411.18.... al.... 1 — -'1 \ilt‘ i d. A% 'Pw \ 140. 9. 4. ' • 0 ,)•:e„ ff,-4 90 %I .411111%413PX IS."..•* ...., 0,„ c_.,,\ %,' 'j: '. ' N i I NS* A416 ------.1111. 1111!,176" 4L,`" i:Na, . , • it."'.., Sillp,,, v .0 ''.\ 'b.'s:'. lb ;,:,,i IIP--4.i.,,-, A ‘,, *. . ,.. _____ \ , \ \ lik. \ 4 4* 1` .4 1-#°' Eu *ItIbP. '' .‘411v. a 56°9'' 4. vi' • \ , •••• _.... . 1.411.111.11401 tte k 4 /4%• lirctio. 4::plar •. - , -AkidiLikimm..) , tp , - \ \ , • . . ,,, ---"IN k • \'`w ;1 ? \ 1 •l Wyk �h,2. l • 9v - . s •• 1 1, , vp , ., . ,-...„..; __ --12, , f . thE - \ `k• .,#' r ' \ \ .\ \ i , f4r)r4 st\hel 111111,a it ' 7 1 0,. .. • '• Pioneer Engineering 7831883 P. 84 \w‘ \ \ W " - � ! ' •. k N V1U4 411b•ii oil )41 / / ---. ---.111% II_ t-muli:Lh t --. I-. 1 ----; cr , ,,-.-lisitrj I -7i 1,--: .:9.. zp .i, J , .. I/ • ,.; „., : / .•36 •pt -- ; ..il / /- • - li \ _____, Iiiii 1 // II/ i/‘*' . . If S 1 w 1 u, ) i * i / ii., -t t $ .° I Ai - . 'i4 / j •/ y 4 / !' • t // / 3 -6-4 • 1 `a`ji'J' : 44/ i ',4 ' , • / .4**-,-:P -k - - it 4 _. 11 f ,.- , i /s-,. i / 66 //• , - zo,,,,`) tp. , r. -- , /7 ivh/ /0/ :,-.,:,,„ :-. ,!, • hi, of ' , 1 t7d. ,-- c,-. ihrs \ I . I•,) / 7 ' III / / 4-k , - • IR r / / 1 --‘ / - 4,-,, • ..- lb. = / !; Jae, / , :- if/ ,,?) lilt; ,____ -?_.: reiwaki — - , . / I. • wf.-4 dia. . / . "a7 .0,f-...-.1t_ : , 1 - tiff _ , t.,, )e„ >A . OWS111 iit i _/ lib T-0 .. / / / / � _ _ _ - It:-,, 116. 1 , _ �. IAy .I / �/ '► tip 4,1 IVIk / 4/ 1 ,-.. ,410p1\0111%:::::v , ,_ .4.... N,..,,... ..0....?6. 0..• _ y / / / a,'1000r / ( ( / / --f" vr -O t k ,- - \- gt if. / /... .;F 1 \ \ ',...._ _ ,k1, : 1 11� > 1 • �� / 0W/N ' t i / # 6 e , ._, • J • 1 , ,` \ -�' o • I / ` / . ; \ • , / / t5 :46 �• / / go/ . - • li. • i `l/ / � r ` •e • l / Of / -I . - \ 1 ....-. _-Air _ 410W -. \ / AO/ /• Aj,e-J -7!:-Lit ..,3s cm. 4 (44' # / /' r---4 1:. 447i ..-.4 6`46. Vir q , — / / / if*/ , –..4s) --4 .,- ...1 It/ e!/ 6The 1.'4' s IL 0 9 / itir . .,• ,. - • / • ,,, . 0`6 J I . vim, - - �. sfe 'Is . / / / r �" • . .••Ly,•, / t 7 4/ / ;% ,-.... 1. iti ::::Y. 1 C•4_.. a ii:. 1,-itv „Alm., v I 1 +4 1 : k ,/ / . :<;, -. .--.'• -,4P s.,-, .:.,.,..., „. . . .,, .-, i / 144 1 Ve a "•? r r .C,‘; • T----.4 89: P s• i;f'.. : d • •�;j �• \ -`i.1 , • 9 l 91 0 / A& aite Q k ' -0 \ 404##X0T1111/4% • 1 h.:.4.,A • \\ . . \ \ \ 1 I ilfilie."4.P. xco i , % "4 At.‘i / 'r ____ \ \ \ 7 \* ' .k.,..., ithw .. • , , ; s/ / / \ '. • %. ,/ ..\. ! dic \ k , „,.:-::;.'1.71/17 6 / 4 s\ 0 t - '.. — s .iVs:# Val i' vz -. '-',:r. 't / . './ \ • .1" :* ilik\ 37- ICQ-pcs % • lj)/ ---\‘ \ • \ , . t \%! Pioneer `s i neer trigr e 7cf\d8318.3 i P. 00 - 1 , L `� 1or \ \\� Z4b. + '•'41" V " ,A _ �� skit ' N. ‘ \ --- ---• — r_ _.._. __. _ k 7 ta!7.y r..;I, . - -.1h$ ,; 1r0 -" '1/4 - 6. , s y 1 1 \ illtitillir .0.-0 tging-e,, iff ""- -- .;‘:-.0 x ( Acdn mlit:• N i4 1 11\3 1 . • if 141 Sol 1.6: ..--- *4' . . ... N... I -Cr- -.... . 1111L- ... 0 • ----.. ..___ m /err --- ---- illith et . e .. .----: arg' i A ...,.„., 1 t. ,,.. Ito ,.3 \ .t. ........ _ 0 ell . ,.., to ...11. -.. .:;\ i. ,.t.* P ----,1 1 ‘ \.. 1 z: IA 1PP g ...._ co .. ."25frigAn,etji(c ..? ..., .--- -,Z1I e t.- ‘ .-.• Cs We ' $01.116taL Y : 7.-4 I ' a' Is:4 \ ' I . :1 I /rip:— ... J... . di_ ., \ \ ....... ,.... ,• 1 1 , . in j : 1 zt: sx,24o . . ..... ,\,., , •J• ..., 3 N. ....-1 : " ,, a N Ail& .__ \ \ 0 -- ---- ---#MIN • I SI II LI -7 ?I fikt-V ft. I* N - ° NW ikit' nri \ic.1 ,• I\ ' ---- --' Will 9/1 4 : aritz4 -Q A -1 .i. •4.1111 14''' .ce _41.. n • / 1. If : 0- -• 1;0, :4 ,431 , ... • k•4 dr + • • f, V .4 \ A iii ;Io wil. Nr' ' \ \ \ t al t V ir ( I • ••.,/ \S ^ \ • VAL I\ 4\ '''' : . -, \ 4: I, 4469pg 14454,3 Q ilk. / ate •- + � � c ••—• :\ • liltilik 90• • J�= c....) .... ...._ • , , 4,\ • , , c„.. e . p•4' cr., 1;7 ..,.\\ p \\1‘ •4, c15 - /lit itllikliti • / AO 4C:111 "Ir pe le 4 1?‘. 4", --. •Itt ,p, \ \�\ \ °v°• / 110 a fr o'�,0 ... . ,. qb 4 Ilk tiro. 4 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer / `. DATE: April 15, 1993 SUBJ: Update of Review of Preliminary Plat for Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition File No. 93-8 LUR Upon review of the revised preliminary plat for Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition dated April 6, 1993, prepared by Pioneer Engineering, I offer the following comments: GRADING The revised grading plan significantly reduces the amount of initial site grading and tree removal in two critical areas. One of the areas includes Mallard Court. The street grade on Mallard Court has been slightly adjusted and the proposed grading limits and tree loss reduced. Lots 6 through 16, Block 3 are proposed to be "custom graded". Staff has placed a house pad (50' by 60') on the custom-graded lots in an effort to show where a house may be built and still preserve most of the trees. While the proposed house pads appear to save trees initially, it may not be the case when the lot is actually constructed upon. The use of retaining walls, type of house design and grade have been carefully analyzed to preserve the most desirable trees. The trees shaded on the revised drawings indicate the trees anticipated to be lost as a result of construction. The remaining are to be preserved. It is staffs experience even with the most stringent restrictions and covenants, additional trees are inadvertently lost due to construction practices or errors on topography. One good example of this occurring would be the Shadowmere subdivision on Bighorn Drive east of Kerber Boulevard. In that subdivision the lots were "custom graded" when the lots were built on. However, there was no approved tree removal or grading plan to follow. As a result, a number of unexpected trees were lost during house construction and site grading. In conclusion, due to the area's topographic terrain and limitations by the sanitary sewer service, this latest proposal may be the best proposal short of no development at all. .� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Jo Ann Olsen April 15, 1993 Page 2 The applicant's engineer has also redesigned lot lines and street configurations along Lake Susan Hills Drive at the south end of the project. The revised plans have eliminated Crane Court and reconfigured lot lines in an effort to save trees. The street grade along Lake Susan Hills Drive has been revised to 10% which exceeds City ordinance. The grade was raised in an effort to reduce grading and tree loss on the adjacent lots. Since the 10%street grade exceeds City ordinance, a variance may have to be considered. In the past, staff has recommended approval of these variances if the result was saving trees and the natural topographic terrain, which staff believes will. Therefore, staff would be in favor of granting a variance to the ordinance to allow a street grade not to exceed 10% on Lake Susan Hills Drive. In conjunction with revising lot and street grades, sanitary sewer service is still limited. Sanitary sewer capabilities along the east side of the street (Lots 1 through 5, Block 4) may need to employ ejector pumps or grinder pumps to convey effluence from the lower floor of the house to the street. This will result in additional costs in constructing the home as well as an ongoing maintenance for the homeowner. If any of the houses are equipped with the ejector pump system, it should be clearly noted in the development contract that maintenance is solely the responsibility of the property owner and not the City. The other alternative to ejector pumps would be to fill the lots to create the house pad high enough for the house to drain by gravity out to the street. This will result in essentially clear cutting the lot as previously proposed. Staff again has proposed house pad locations upon the custom-graded lots along Lake Susan Hills Drive, taking into consideration the more valuable trees, driveway location and grades similar to Mallard Court. Staff is concerned that if grading plans are not followed during construction of homes, tree removal may be at the discrepancy of the builder. It is recommended that the applicant follow an approved grading plan for each of the custom — lots detailing the types of homes and elevations along with grading limits and tree removal to guide the builder/homeowner/staff. This way the prospective buyer/builder will know up front what trees must be preserved. As the Carver County Highway Department's memo pointed out, the final grading plan should show the previously stockpiled material along Powers Boulevard adjacent to this development. Incorporating these stockpiled areas may require modifications to lot and street grades adjacent to Lots 15 through 20, Block 5. RELATED CONCERNS - FOLLOW UP FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING At the Council meeting, both the Commission and residents expressed concerns related to or as a result of this development proposal. Staff has provided a response to these concerns as follows: Jo Ann Olsen April 15, 1993 Page 3 1. County Road 17 (Powers Boulevard) Upgrade - The City and County are actively pursuing a financial plan for the upgrade of County Road 17. The upgrade will consist of a four-way urban divided highway. If a financial plan is created this year, County Road 17 could be scheduled for upgrading in 2 to 4 years. Without this financial plan, it may be 8 to 10 years for the project to accumulate the necessary funding. Staff will know more with regards to the financial aspect of the project after May, 1993. In conjunction with the proposed residential developments along the County Road 17 corridor between Lyman Boulevard and Trunk Highway 5, many of the residents have expressed concerns with regards to speed limits, trail considerations and trail crossings. Staff has recently met with members of the Carver County Highway Department on these issues. The County engineer will be putting together a list of all the County roads in the City and recommending speed limits accordingly for MnDOTs consideration. According to MnDOTs traffic office, the last speed study along County Road 17 was performed in 1976 (south of Lake Drive East to Lyman Boulevard). As a part of the County Road 17 upgrading, 8-foot wide bituminous trails will be recommended on each side of the roadway. A trail crossing will be proposed at the south end of the project. The crossing will most likely be underneath County Road 17 with an 8-foot wide box culvert. There currently exists an 8-foot wide box culvert crossing approximately 400 feet south of Lake Drive East adjacent to Lake Susan Hills Park. The Park and Recreation Commission has voted to require both developments, Prairie Creek Estates Townhomes and Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition, install trails in conjunction with their developments. As a result of our meeting with the Carver County Engineer, the trails along County Road 17 could be placed within the County's right-of-way. If future upgrading of County Road 17 occurs within the next 2 to 4 year period, it would be feasible, both financially and from a construction standpoint, to collect the trail fees from the developers and put it towards the construction of the new trail system with the upgrade of County Road 17. However, should the financing plan to upgrade County Road 17 not occur by June of 1993, staff supports the Park and Recreation Commission to have the developer install the trails through their developments respectively within County Road 17 right-of-way.. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. The applicant's engineer shall provide a final grading plan with detailed house types, elevation and grading limits on all lots. The final grading plan shall also take into consideration existing stockpiled material along County Road 17. Jo Ann Olsen April 15, 1993 Page 4 _ 2. A variance should be granted for the 10% street grade proposed along Lake Susan Hills Drive. 3. The required 8-foot wide bituminous trails may be placed within the County's right- of-way. Trail construction shall proceed with the overall site improvements unless the City receives a financial package to proceed with the upgrade of County Road 17 in which case the developer would be required to pay the trail fee in lieu of constructing the trail. 4. A condition shall be placed in the development contract regarding maintenance responsibilities for homes with ejector pumps. ktm c: Charles Folch, City Engineer L CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, PA. LArtk,rn„•at Lail Tr.. n:,•1 �. ,�::�:. (612)452-5:0: • h• • \ i:::.., Fax 1621.15:-555: Tr ....• N! :scot: lom - Elli. r F Kno-;I, April 1, 1993 BY FAX AND MAIL Ms. Jo Ann Olsen Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Lake Susan Hills West PUD Dear Jo Ann: In 1987 the City Council rezoned the Lake Susan Hills West property PUD in accordance with a Planned Unit Development Agreement dated November 16, 1987 . Preliminary plat approval is now _ being sought for the Lake Susan Hills West 9th Addition, single family, and the Prairie Circle Townhome Addition. You asked me to comment on the effect of paragraph 7 of the PUD agreement which provides: Effect of Planned Unit Development Approval . For Five (5) years from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the City' s Comprehensive Plan, or official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development, density, lot size, lot layout, or dedications of the development unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by state law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting or dedicating requirements enacted after the date of this Agreement. Since five years has passed since PUD approval was granted, this provision is applicable. It means, for example, that if the City has new design standards for streets the City can impose the new standards on the PUD. The City could also rezone the property from PUD to some other classification. The provision does not mean that the design elements in the PUD as approved in 1987 are superseded by the new PUD design criteria set forth in Ordinance No. 179 adopted on November 23 , o 199 . - • :_ _ =.'.i CHILL Center • 11S: Corporate Center Curve • Eic n. \1\ 55121 E'T r J• ,.rte... Ms . Jo Ann Olsen April 1, 1993 Page 2 1992 . Lake Susan Hills is zoned PUD in accordance with the PUD Agreement. That agreement continues to be the basic zoning regulation for the property as to the issues addressed in that agreement. The City has the authority to change the agreement by a rezoning action. Unless this occurs, both the City and developer are bound by that agreement. Although the City is bound by the PUD agreement, as to issues not expressly addressed in the PUD, new regulations generally applicable throughout the City are applicable to Lake Susan Hills. Amendments to the zoning ordinance, City Code Section 20-1179, and subdivision ordinance, City Code Section 18-61, concerning tree preservation adopted in 1991 are applicable to Lake Susan Hills. These Code provisions require development "to retain as far as practical, substantial tree stands. " The phrase "as far as practical" is not defined. Because the PUD only granted concept approval , the City has some discretion to require modification to take the new tree regulations into consideration. ly yours, CA4PBELL, 4•A TSON, SCOTT P.A. B . Roge N. Knutson RNK: srn C 1 T Y 0 F PC DATE: 3/17/93 I, CHANHAE N CC DATE: 4/12/93 CASE #: 87-3 PUD By: Olsen/Hempel/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary plat to create 91 single family lots on 76.74 acres zoned PUD-R — Q LOCATION: East of CR 17 (Powers Blvd.) just south of the existing Lake Susan Hills C) West PUD — .J APPLICANT: Argus Development, Inc. Pioneer Engineering — Suite Suite 201 and 204 2422 Enterprise Drive Q 3459 Washington Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Eagan, MN 55122 PRESENT ZONING: PUD-R, Planned Unit Development-Residential ACREAGE: 76.74 acres (gross) and 28 acres (net) DENSITY: 1.2 units/acre (gross) and 3.2 units/acre (net) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - PUD-R; Lake Susan Hills PUD — Q S - A2, single family E - PUD-R; Chanhassen Hills and Lake Susan 0 W - PUD-R; Lake Susan Hills PUD WATER AND SEWER: Water and sewer are available to the site W I— PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site consists of a variety of rolling agricultural fields, wetlands and wooded areas 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density R t<. - it: 8. - --;-:-.±. tocior. i\:1 e -- pACI °V.----4- rttilhp ,IIGI-MAI . -4. _ r vi'---------- II 4 :3 1-0::_, I), ' i Ilk— t s4lrE ` I lob_4 V%-%4\.,oe.‘:: glilf... yz `tic- e suss s __ ': eat \it "' PARK • �� uti ,��vA ; . V. Militio 61- �,` PH© Mira' • ---ti_,- %6. ril"a uP • 6Qe , i SPNNEN - ��,,,�� ra . ! CIRCLE — �►:�;�, �_ imr ,,, LAKE SUSAN LI air to_ rApr iiii,c, is J / RC .„ ,-- 7 0 .400.154i "iv Q I I Id ,,...."..' N . 0 , . . , I. II r 1 0 i N :6 T m (• - la ,� v R . • �� : 0Ir. 11. RSF p_• . . 1 of qtr 3 _ �- - MEE V2 . . e r r.,i. fr♦ Si• .- tik-‘- .., kJ ar 4 Vio°' Igk- .NI. , -57 ii ,c\ owl ea .1 O I : :av ,4 f Iak I rpi 'r- • _ 1 vt? , I di , . .. _ Tr, II (--. _11 ' �EVAR -� �_J �/ 1(1 II : Q° -• ' P1)0 - I. - a: • i Q�/ ' 'BANDl1NEr4E Q .HEIGHTS , - - 1 - r 1 • • I BAND/ME" "i 7, , / iw,N-ie I.. t COMMIJN/TY -,-�� ``' . JN PARK ,� iii �e ;.: `- R/ so at., MI 4 • Ft Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition March 17, 1993 Page 2 BACKGROUND In 1987, the City Council approved a concept plan for Lake Susan Hills PUD. The planned unit development was a mixed residential development containing no more than 411 single family lots, three outlots (Outlots B, C and D) for medium density (no more than 9.3 units/acre) and one outlot (Outlot A) for high density (no more than 17.4 units/acre) (Attachment #1). The PUD contained property on both the east and west sides of Powers Boulevard (CR 17). Argus Development/Joe Miller Homes has developed the existing Lake Susan Hills single family lots under eight additions. Argus Development/Joe Miller Homes is now proposing to develop the remaining single family lots as the 9th Addition. Under the original concept plan approval, the applicant was permitted to have some lots under the required 15,000 square feet, but the number of single family lots could not exceed 411 (Attachment #2). Throughout the concept plan approval, it was stated that the 411 single family lots were not guaranteed and that each preliminary plat would have to meet the subdivision, wetland, etc. regulations. The applicant was required to dedicate four outlots for park dedication (Outlots E, F, G and H). The attached PUD contract further details the conditions of concept approval. With each phase of development, the applicant has had to receive preliminary and final plat approval. The review of each phase used the concept plan and PUD contract as guidance. The applicant has continually been developing the PUD in phases since PUD approval. The applicant has developed eight additions of the single family lots. The previous additions contained the following number of single family lots: 1st Addition 86 Lots 2nd Addition 21 Lots 3rd Addition 55 Lots 4th Addition 36 Lots 5th Addition 14 Lots 6th Addition 12 Lots 7th Addition 60 Lots 8th Addition 36 Lots TOTAL # OF SINGLE FAMILY LOTS PLATTED 320 LOTS TOTAL # OF SINGLE FAMILY LOTS REMAINING 91 LOTS TOTAL # OF LOTS PERMITTED 411 Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition March 17, 1993 Page 3 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to plat the remaining single family lots of the Lake Susan Hills PUD. There were a total of up to 411 single family lots permitted by the approved concept plan in - 1987 and there have been 320 single family lots platted to this date. Therefore, there are up to 91 single family lots remaining which can be platted. The applicant is proposing to create 90 single family lots. The Lake Susan Hills PUD contained property on both the east and west sides of Powers Boulevard (CR 17). The remaining unplatted property designated for single family lots as part of the PUD is on the east side of Powers Boulevard. The east side of Powers Boulevard contains more natural features than the west side. The east side of the PUD contains Lake Susan, wetlands and heavily forested areas. The original PUD was required to dedicate public open space along Lake Susan, therefore the lots adjacent to Lake Susan are not riparian lots. The final 9th addition contains the two largest wetland areas of the whole PUD. The large wetland areas are being protected and dedicated to the city as an outlot. The 9th addition also contains significant forested areas. The two major issues with the proposed preliminary plat for the 9th addition was the number of lots proposed and the amount of tree removal. The original submittal for the 9th addition contained 93 single family lots. This exceeded the number of remaining single lots permitted by two (2). The proposed 9th addition closely followed the approved concept plan as far as lot configuration, lot sizes, and lot and street locations. Even though the proposed plat was fairly consistent with the approved concept plan, the detailed preliminary plat submittal, including the grading plan, made it apparent that there would be a great loss of the forested areas. Upon inspection of the site. these forested areas proved to be significant with large hardwoods that should be protected. Staff contacted the applicant and stated that the number of lots could not - exceed the remaining 91 single family lots permitted and that the amount of tree removal had to be reduced. Staff also explained that there is a growing neighborhood opposition to the project (Chanhassen Hills PUD) due to the loss of trees. The applicant met with staff to review options for the plat to contain the approved number of lots and preserve the vegetated areas. The two areas which were affecting the vegetated areas were two southerly cul-de-sacs. Since the number of lots had to be reduced, staff recommended that the southwesterly cul-de-sac (Drake Court) be eliminated and that flag lots be used instead. Drake Court was resulting in almost the complete removal of a stand of trees. Another suggestion was to shift Mallard Court to the west, use reduced setbacks and custom grading. The applicant has revised the preliminary plat. Drake Court has been removed along with two lots from this location. Instead of a cul-de-sac, the applicant is proposing to service flag lots. This amendment to the plans has pulled back the lots from inside the vegetated area and has Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition March 17, 1993 Page 4 reduced the amount of grading. As a result, a significant portion of the vegetated area is being preserved. The applicant has also shifted Mallard Court to the west, reduced front yard setbacks and is proposing custom grading on certain lots which has resulted in the preservation of vegetated areas. The applicant has also removed one lot from Crane Court which was requiring extensive grading and retaining walls. The result of the proposed changes by the applicant is that the number of lots has been reduced to 90 (one below what could have been permitted) and some of the significant forested areas are being preserved. Another concern with the proposal was with park land and trails. The original proposal showed Outlot E being dedicated to the city for parks and open space. This was required as part of the PUD concept approval. The original boundaries of Outlot E, as submitted by the applicant, was consistent with the concept plan approval. The applicant was locating a portion of their required ponding areas within the areas that would become city property. Since this was locating private facilities inside public property, specifically, park property, the Park and Recreation Department was considering allowing the ponds in these locations if they received something in return (such as development of trails). The revised plans show the ponding areas the same locations, but the lot lines have been adjusted so that the ponds are now all within the single family lots and not on city property. By doing this, the applicant has removed the amount of area to be dedicated to the City as required by the concept plan approval. The applicant must dedicate at least 33.9 acres to the city. Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director, is working with the applicant to verify the amount of acreage being dedicated to the city to ensure the correct amount of acreage is provided. If the lot lines have to be adjusted back so that the ponds are again within the city property, the applicant will have to continue to work with Todd Hoffman. The city has the right to deny the ponds to be located within city property and require the applicant to provide the ponding areas on their property. _ Sewer and water are available to the site. the applicant is proposing four (4) retention ponds in accordance with the City's comprehensive storm water management plan. The retention ponds will be built to NURP standards. The overall grading proposes to maintain the existing drainage pattern which is from west to east. The city and the applicant should work with Carver County to determine if the proposed storm sewer system should be upgraded to accommodate future improvements to CR 17. With the changes made to the plans and the resolution of the Park and Recreation issues, the proposed preliminary plat is in conformance with the approved concept plan. Staff is recommending approval with the proposed conditions. Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition March 17, 1993 Page 5 PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide 76.74 acres into 90 single family lots. The property is zoned PUD-R, Planned Unit Development-Residential. The property was rezoned to PUD-R in 1987, as part of a large PUD - Lake Susan Hills. Lake Susan Hills PUD contained property on both the easterly and westerly sides of Powers Boulevard (CR 17). The Lake Susan Hills PUD contained single family lots (up to 411) and four outlots for medium and high density. As the property is platted, it must conform to the approved concept plan and PUD contract. The concept plan provided general lot and street locations. The concept plan did not provide details on grading, utilities, etc. As each phase comes in, it must conform to the concept plan or else receive an amendment to the PUD approval. To this date, only the single family lots have been platted. The medium and high density areas have remained as outlots (one of the outlots for medium density is in the process of being platted at this time-Prairie Creek). The single family lots have been developed in eight phases with a total of 320 single family lots being platted. The PUD contract allows up to 411 single family lots throughout the whole PUD. Therefore, the applicant can plat up to 91 single family lots with the 9th and final addition. The proposed 90 single family lots are located along one major street, which is an extension of the existing Lake Susan Hills Drive and around two cul-de-sacs. There is city owned land between the lots and Lake Susan, so there are no riparian lots within the PUD. The lots range in size from 12,325 square feet to 31,475 square feet, with an average lot size of 13,658 square feet. The gross acreage is 76.74 acres and the net acreage (just lot areas) is 28 acres. The gross density is 1.2 units/acre and the net density is 3.2 units/acre. The attached compliance table breaks down the lots and blocks. The original PUD permitted an 80' lot width and required the typical 30' front yard setback. The proposed lots meet these requirements. There are some lots which would benefit by having a 25' front yard setback. A 25' front yard setback on some of the vegetated lots will pull the house pads out of the trees. A similar situation occurred with the Johnson/Dolejsi property which was recently approved by the city as a PUD. The city added a condition of approval that the front yard setback could be reduced to 25'. This condition allowed the city and developer the flexibility to work with each lot to preserve vegetation. SITE CHARACTERISTICS The 9th addition is located on the easterly side of Powers Boulevard (CR 17). The subject site — contains a two large wetland areas, Lake Susan and heavily vegetated areas. The site has rolling topography and an area that until recently has been farmed. The two wetlands are located just south of the proposed lots and are classified as Ag/Urban by the city. The wetlands are not being altered and all runoff is being treated prior to entering the wetlands, therefore, a wetland alteration permit is not required for this application. There is a ditch south of the wetlands which Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition March 17, 1993 Page 6 runs into Lake Susan. The ditch and wetlands are part of an outlot which will be dedicated to the city for parks and open space. The heavily vegetated areas are within along the southeasterly and southwesterly lots. The forested areas contain large, mature hardwoods. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The majority of the site, outside of the wetlands, is proposed to be graded which will require extensive tree loss. Concerned about the amount of tree loss, staff has met with the applicant to work out ways to reduce the tree loss. The applicant's engineer, Mr. Paul Cherne, has recently prepared a revised grading plan which reduces grading in the three cul-de-sacs as compared to the initial plan submittal. Drake Court, the most southerly cul-de-sac, has been deleted, thus eliminating two lots which in turn will greatly reduce the grading limits and tree loss. The flag lots will be custom graded when the building permits are issued in an effort to selectively save trees on the lot. Mallard Court is somewhat limited in grading alternatives due to the terrain. The street basically follows the ridge line and the lots drop off severely in elevation. This, combined with the location of the wetland, severely limits location and placement of the street. The applicant has proposed some modifications which reduce the amount of tree loss. By a combination of shifting the road westerly 5 feet and reducing building setbacks to 25 feet enables the house pads and grading limits on the east side of Mallard Court to be shifted westerly away from the tree line. There still will be a significant loss of trees along this area; however, these modifications will preserve trees along the rear of Lots 5, 6, 7 and 10, Block 3. In addition, the lots at the end of the cul-de-sac will be custom-graded at the time of building permit in an effort to minimize tree loss. Tree preservation easements will also be required. _ Another area where grades may be modified in an effort to save grading as well as trees is along Lots 26 through 29, Block 5. This may require the street grade along Lake Susan Hills Drive to exceed the City's street grade limit which is 79c; however, it is not unusual to grant a variance from this condition in an effort to save trees. One ramification from this would be the type of house design on those lots may be limited to a rambler versus a desirable walkout. One safety concern staff has is the street grade approach at the intersection of Powers Boulevard (County Road 17) and Lake Susan Hills Drive. The applicant should design Lake Susan Hills Drive with a "landing" area of approximately 75 to 100 feet in length with a maximum street grade of 3'k to improve vehicle ingress and egress through the intersection. The grading plans propose 4 retention ponding areas prior to discharging into the adjacent wetlands. The proposed ponds are in accordance with the City's comprehensive storm water management plan. Retention ponds will be built to NURP standards. The applicant will be required to provide an outlet control structure in each pond to control discharge rate into the wetlands. The final plat should provide the appropriate utility and drainage easement to access Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition March 17, 1993 Page 7 the ponding areas for maintenance purposes. Specific review of these types of improvements and concerns will be conducted during the construction plan and specification review process. - The overall grading format proposes to maintain the existing drainage pattern which is from west to east. The steepest resulting slopes (3:1) are proposed in the rear yard areas of the lots - surrounding the wetland and retention ponds. Slope stabilization methods in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH) such as wood-fiber blankets and Type III erosion control fence should be utilized. The plans propose a series of storm sewers to convey street and overland storm runoff to the retention ponds. At some point in the future, Powers Boulevard will be upgraded to a four-lane - urban section. The upgrade will include storm sewers which will need to discharge into pretreatment ponds. It may be prudent at this time to work with the County Highway Department to see if any of the proposed storm drainage improvements in this development could be utilized in the future. If so, the proposed storm drainage improvements should be modified and the applicant compensated for oversizing of storm sewer pipes and ponding areas. At the time of this review, staff has not been supplied with any soil boring information regarding this parcel. As in previous projects, staff has encountered problems with residential sump pump discharge into the City's streets creating safety concerns both during the summer and the winter. - The applicant should be aware, upon receipt of soil borings or other information, the City may require the installation of a drain tile system behind the curbs for the sump pumps to discharge into. UTILITIES Both municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available to adequately service this development. An 8-inch sanitary sewer line is proposed to be extended from Phase I of Lake _ Susan Hills West along the west shore of Lake Susan into the development. Water service is proposed to be extended from the dead-end water lines in West Lake Drive and Lake Susan Hills Drive. An 8" water line will be extended throughout the development and looped back into the existing water line in Powers Boulevard at the south end of the project. Detailed utility construction plans and specifications will be required for staff review and formal approval. All utility construction plans shall be in accordance to the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Location of all fire hydrants shall be approved by the City's Fire Marshal. All utilities and ponding areas located outside the City's dedicated street right-of- way will require the appropriate drainage and utility easement and shall be denoted on the final - plat. Utility and drainage easements outside of the right-of-way shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width. Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition March 17, 1993 Page 8 STREETS The site plan proposes to extend Lake Susan Hills Drive to the south and reconnect to Powers Boulevard adjacent to Lake Susan Hills Drive from the west. Public Safety staff has concerns with the street name of Lake Susan Hills Drive because the same name also exists west of Powers Boulevard thus adding confusion and/or delays in responding to emergency calls. Public Safety will be responding to this concern. Lake Susan Hills Drive is currently constructed slightly wider (35 feet versus 31 feet) because of its function as a local collector street. The applicant has proposed to maintain this design throughout the development. Cul-de-sac streets are proposed at the City's typical width of 31 feet wide. The right-of-way for the cul-de-sac streets and West Lake Drive are 50 feet wide and Lake Susan Hills Drive is 60 feet wide which is in accordance with the approved PUD. Street grades throughout the project range from 0.50% to 5.60% which is within the City's regulations. A 5- foot wide concrete sidewalk is also proposed on the west side of Lake Susan Hills Drive. The sidewalk should also be extended west on West Lake Drive to connect to the existing sidewalk at Dove Court. A trail system is also requested by the City along Powers Boulevard. At some time in the future, approximately 5 to 10 years, Powers Boulevard will be upgraded by a joint City/County project to a four-lane urban section. It appears that sufficient right-of-way exists for the future upgrade of Powers Boulevard: however, as pointed out by Mr. Roger Gustafson, Carver County Engineer, the County and City should get together to discuss the future cross-section of Powers Boulevard prior to final platting to ensure that no additional right-of-way is necessary. In fact, staff is recommending that the city pursue vacating a portion of the right-of-way from 150' to 120' which is required for a 4 lane undivided urban section. Detailed street construction plans should be submitted for staff review and formal approval. Street construction shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Street plans should also include construction of the required deceleration and acceleration along Powers Boulevard pursuant to Carver County Highway Department's comments. All work in utility highway right-of-way will require a permit from the County. LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL The concept plan designated some areas for boulevard and entrance landscaping (Attachment#5) and the PUD contract stated that the applicant shall provide $150.00 of landscaping per single family unit. The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan which provides landscaping along Powers Boulevard (CR 17), but no internal boulevard landscaping. The landscaping plan needs to be amended to provide landscaping within the PUD as shown on the concept plan. Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition March 17, 1993 Page 9 Specifically, landscaping must be provided along Lake Susan Hills West Drive and at the intersections of Mallard Court, Crane Circle and Dove Court. The landscaping along Powers Boulevard is inadequate in that berming should be provided where possible and the landscaping materials need to be upgraded in terms of quality. The city has a suggested list of landscaping materials. Staff is recommending that the applicant be required to use the Primary species from the list for at least 50 qc of the hardwoods, and that the applicant submit a plan for providing $150 worth of landscaping for each single family lot. The proposed landscaping for each single family unit and the overall amended landscaping plan must be submitted for staff approval prior to final plat approval. The landscaping plan shows the vegetated areas and the amount of tree removal. The site contains significant forested areas that should be preserved as best possible. The forested areas contain large, mature hardwoods (primarily oaks). The forested areas are on the steeper elevations of the site where they have not been removed for farming purposes. Because of their location, the forested areas provide screening to and from surrounding properties. The vegetation is also in locations where extensive grading is required to develop the site. The grading of the site for streets, utilities and lot preparation is resulting in the loss of a number of trees. The original PUD concept plan showed two southerly cul-de-sacs located into the forested areas. The original preliminary plat for the 9th addition followed the concept plan and the result was a significant amount of tree removal. Even though this plan matched the approved concept plan, it was made clear during the concept plan approval that conditions could be added as each phase - came in to meet city regulations. Staff could not approve the amount of tree removal that would occur with the first preliminary plat submittal and required the applicant to amend the plat to preserve more of the vegetative areas. To completely preserve the forested areas, the two - southerly cul-de-sacs should be removed, but the amount of lots lost would make this extreme option difficult to support. Therefore, staff worked with the applicant to come up with something in between complete removal and complete preservation of the forested areas. The amended plans makes the following changes: 1. Mallard Court has been shifted to the west and front yard setbacks have been reduced to 25' along Mallard Court to pull back the grading on Lots 5-10, Block 2. The applicant is also proposing custom grading on Lots 5-7 and 10, Block 2 and Lots 1-4, Block 4. Custom grading allows each site to be prepared for the individual house rather than mass grading the site at the beginning of the project. Staff is adding to the number of lots which shall be custom graded. Lots 4, and 27-38, Block 4, Lots 20-29, Block 5. A tree preservation plan will be required for all lots with custom grading. 2. The southwesterly cul-de-sac, adjacent to Powers Boulevard (CR 17), has been replaced with flag lots and two lots have been removed (Lots 35-38, Block 4). Again, custom grading will be required. This change has saved trees which would have otherwise been completely removed. Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition March 17, 1993 Page 10 All of the vegetated areas that are being saved shall be preserved by a conservation easement. Attachment #3 is a tree inventory taken of the site. The numbers correspond to the numbers on the landscaping plan. This list shows what type and size of tree are on the site and from this list it can be determined what type and size of trees are being removed. Replacement of the trees removed from the site is another reason the applicant must improve and expand the landscaping plan. The city can require caliper replacement of trees. Staff is recommending that the applicant work with staff and the DNR forester to develop a reforestation plan to replace the tree removal. WETLANDS There are two large wetland systems on the subject site. Both wetland areas have been designated as AG/Urban by the new city inventory. This means that a buffer strip of 0' to 20', with a average of 10', must be provided around the wetland. The applicant is not proposing any alterations to the wetlands. NURP ponds are being provided directly north of the central wetland along Lots 6-29, Block 4. The remainder of the two wetland boundaries are being left natural and are part of an outlot being dedicated to the city as park and open space. There are some areas where the NURP ponds are directly adjacent to the wetland, with no buffer strip. Staff is comfortable with this since the majority of the wetland boundary is completely buffered from any development. The average buffer strip greatly exceeds the required 10'. The ordinance also requires landscaping of the buffer strip, if natural vegetation does not exist. This is not required since the buffer strip does contain natural vegetation. The wetland boundaries shall be staked at each lot line with the city specified monumentation PARK AND RECREATION The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the aforementioned preliminary plat on Tuesday, February 23, 1993. The staff report presented to the commission is attached. The primary focus of discussion that evening centered on the preservation of trees. A group of residents residing in the Chanhassen Hills area were in attendance at the meeting. Councilman Wing also was present for the discussion. A representative of the applicant was not present. As indicated in the staff report, action taken by the commission was a formality, but confirmed the conditions of the PUD Agreement in respect to parks, open space, and trails. Upon the conclusion of discussion that evening, the following recommendation was unanimously approved: 1. Dedication of Oudot E to the city; _ 2. Construction of an 8-ft. wide bituminous trail along the west side of Lake Susan as indicated on Attachment B, Segments D and E; Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition March 17, 1993 Page 11 3. The construction of an 8-ft. wide bituminous trail along the east side of Powers Boulevard (CR 17) as indicated on Attachment B, Segment B; and — 4. Park fees are assessed at one-half of the rate in force upon building permit application. All trail fees have been waived as a part of the development of Lake Susan Hills West. The applicant is proposing to construct storm water ponds within park property. The Park and Recreation Commission required construction of trail Segments A, C and F as payment in kind for the right by Argus Development to encroach on park property for ponding purposes. The most recent plans submitted by the applicant show the lot lines being adjusted so that the ponding — areas are within the lot areas. Staff has spoken with the applicant in this regard, informing him that the encroachment issue cannot be solved by simply altering property lines. The configuration of Outlot E, as documented on the city base map, is to remain unaltered. — Furthermore, it is recommended that the two trail easements identified allowing access to the shoreland trail be consolidated into one 40-ft. easement at the location of the northerly easement. Benefits of doing so include: 1. Minimization of potential conflicts with adjoining property owners. Explanation: The consolidation will reduce the number of affected lots to two; and the doubling of the width of one easement from 20-feet to 40-feet allows sufficient room for buffering. 2. Minimizing impact to trees and vegetation. 3. Reduction of maintenance responsibilities. _ RECOMIIE\DATION Planning staff recommends approval of preliminary plat for Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition as shown on plans dated March 9, 1993, with the following conditions. 1. The front yard setback can be reduced to 25'. 2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide a — financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval. 3. The applicant shall supply detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event and ponding calculations for the retention ponds (NURP standards) for the City Engineer to review and approve. — Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition March 17, 1993 Page 12 4. The applicant shall supply detailed construction plans for utility and street improvements for the City to review and formally approve. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 5. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits such as MWCC, Health Department, Watershed District., PCA and Carver County Highway Department. 6. The applicant's engineer shall review the lot grading on Lots 26 through 29, Block 5 to see if adjustments to street grade along Lake Susan Hills Drive are feasible in an effort to reduce tree loss on said lots. 7. The street grade approach at the intersection of Powers Boulevard and Lake Susan Hills Drive shall maintain a landing area of 100 feet and a street grade of less than 3%. 8. All retention ponds shall include an outlet control structure to control discharge rate pursuant to NURP standards. 9. The Applicant shall provide maintenance access routes to the retention pond areas and dedicate the appropriate easements on the final plat. In addition, all utility lines outside the street right-of-way shall be dedicated with a minimum of a 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement. 10. Erosion control and turf restoration shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 11. If feasible, the applicant shall work with the City and County in oversizing the storm _ drainage improvements to include the future runoff from the upgrade of Powers Boulevard. The applicant would be compensated for the associated oversizing costs. 12. The location of all fire hydrants shall be approved by the City's Fire Marshal. 13. Mallard Court should be renamed to either Drake Court or some other acceptable street name. 14. Five-foot concrete sidewalks should also be extended from Lake Susan Hills Drive west to Dove Court. 15. The city shall petition Carver County to vacate unnecessary right-of-way for Powers Boulevard (CR 17). Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition March 17, 1993 _ Page 13 16. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by _ a conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description. Generally the conservation easement shall be on the following lots: Lots 1-6, Block 2 Lots 1-5, Block 3 Lots 1-4, 29-38, Block 4 _ Lots 23-29, Block 5 17. The following lots shall be custom graded and shall provide a tree preservation plan for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit - Lots 5-7 and 10, Block 2, Lots 1-4, 27-38, Block 4 Lots 20-29, Block 5. Staff shall have the right to require a change in house pad and location if it will result in saving significant vegetation. _ 18. The landscaping plan shall be amended to provide the following: 19. Increased landscaping along Powers Boulevard (CR 17) and internal boulevard and entrance landscaping. 20. Improved landscaping materials, with at least 50% of the hardwoods from the Primary species list. 21. A plan providing $150 worth of landscaping/single family unit. 22. Dedication of Oudot E to the city; 23. Construction of the following trails: a. an 8-ft. wide bituminous trail along the west side of Lake Susan as indicated on Attachment B, Segments D and E; b. an 8-ft. wide bituminous trail along the east side of Powers Boulevard (CR 17) as indicated on Attachment B, Segment B; c. Trail segments A, C and F 24. Park fees are assessed at one-half of the rate in force upon building permit application. All trail fees have been waived as a part of the development of Lake Susan Hills West. Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition March 17, 1993 Page 14 25. Amend the lot lines so that the lots are not within park property. 26. The two trail easements identified allowing access to the shoreland trail be consolidated into one 40-ft. easement at the location of the northerly easement. 27. Building Official conditions: a. Indicate lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevations for each house pad on the grading plan. b. Submit details on corrected pads including compaction tests, limits the pad and elevations of excavations to the Inspections Division. A general soils report for the development should also be submitted to the Inspections Division. c. Oversized street signs shall be placed at each of the four outlets of Lake Susan Hills Drive on Powers Boulevard. The signs shall indicate the range of addresses on the street. ATTACHMENTS 1. PUD Concept. 2. PUD Agreement. 3. Memo from Dave Hempel dated March 2, 1993. 4. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated March 10, 1993 and February 16, 1993.. 5. Memo from Mark Littfin dated February 10, 1993. 6. Memo and staff report from Todd Hoffman dated March 10, 1993. 7. Letter from DNR dated February 17, 1993. 8. Letter from Carver County dated February 18, 1993. 9. Proposed landscaping plan. 10. Tree inventory. 11. Compliance table. 12. Reductions. 13. Preliminary plat dated March 9, 1993. iA, 0 •• bt ' P,`4 E7 _-� � pp\J� // CITY Psgc .022.-- .0" \v- �`� oao > G (MU A / MIW �G,JD.,e t*Ilai . I ...........) sty.°.71.a.:.;(6.111.....igairsoligri o .k!, .. , 3 ra tj. / currum- c.,, - _ ........... 41111111/Srik A,441010ip 48 ,i lo• Wz,. .•41/// ,,. .... iirrar are. a L I, Ea m z ___. • . _,.. ,_ ) et illW 11115111411riP# ; i ' • . . otir mig Ns sio ..,. . II l 6 , -,/•'-MI .aid aill 0 gil 4JOF AMIll I 0 I I 11 C 0 VA _isimeortook4 . • i i, ,...„ d .----1_2_-e i".111 .. .;;,1111 reirjr.4,0 lot 3 ---zoggaigai , 4 , of ., . rii• iteitio:-/. got."' iii � Sub „ wigs O4 m0 eft o i *1 411111 /":1141111111 IWO ME' !Ill”ArillIN el3 ,/ --- 4114,46...,40b.w/pio, ,,,;,,,,,,, CP Illijk \ ,',;',i, 1,,,Iir • 1111 7�� % . ease Alo N 4,,..,/,. "a* 40,401- / _ _. _ .-- r AV .. .1 ii .;s 7 Apl,�.Ic S fir Jnr' 11,41 411111•01.1 1141 \ \ G / r� ./ t t•L/.•.. Int "II/x.111..1•r It••1 q\ �\ _ J vq \ d 1r•nun. 1.1r CLAIM Wfii^.r II7 n._fe,e.0 r1.w r 0 n. r•.Ni 1 N..,.... t... .•L..•1. ` ` (. 44 u1 N..,.r. �••r f �\ �/ 1110 at •.m.. •w.....rel•.•».•!1 ••Rtt1l1 Ili! t1.•K ...•,•.. J :\N, �� 1•CtM,,IIIc! 11.1 K. �«.rr«[..».. , D�� 111111•n1•,•.C, •1.1 K. i..• „N.. r'aortas 11— .... ] IwR.r1 I.I.i 1 it •1,•.I I ` Y Mill Iw.•K. ':I.•:`:::«r. .,.. «.. . .w.1. ISI �i :: (3)( ! l 1111.1.1.1.I„w••1•n 11.10.01 •4..._• `�••� ` �\ 1•C.1.1 r.111 SIAM w •,w.r_.,. I L7J , w• wit .•ri•ri. ........ n•n 1•.iw 1►.IK1"Alla*1.net1 patios sea.lie Illrai ...... • L.....,_cr. ,_ ____I \ r/•U.K.u•••i1•t M•yii IN1 01101111 d".".I' ,t '•.I:w N.. ,.i is••••••••• 6« _ r• 1•N MM.i.1. • .1.•• 1• 1 .w••w 1.•.•.!u••w••/1• _==` James R. Hill, inc. L.R w..M PAO,.A. - 1.� '...m., r mils r•ArMtA{�r Lett stows Millt 477=^;7 PLANNERS /ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS *auras ea a. ......r.......81M r�r 0•Ifi•�11i—•••14••••••••• •1•• r.Urn. 41.7-ACAAVVILA3Lir Ai ss PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AGREEMENT, dated November 16, 1987, between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City") , and LAKE SUSAN HILLS, a Minnesota general partnership, and JAMES A. CURRY and BARBARA CURRY, husband and wife (the "Developer") . 1. Request for Planned Unit Development Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a Planned Unit Development to be known as "LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST PUD" (the "Development") on the land legally described on the attached Exhibit "A". 2. Planned Unit Development Concept Approval. The City hereby grants general Concept Plan approval of the plan attached as Exhibit "B". Approval is subject to the following: development and final stage approval , a negative declaration of the EAW, compliance with the EAW review findings and compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Except as modified herein, each plat shall also be subject to the standards of the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances as may be amended from time to time. 3 . Density and Use. The following densities are approximate and subject to change: A. Single Family Residential. The total number of single family lots in the development shall not exceed 411. Except as modified herein, single family lots shall be developed in accordance with the uses, standards, and requirements of the RSF Zoning District. B. Multiple Family (High Density Residential) . The development shall provide a minimum of 21. 5 acres of high density multiple family residential units. The total number of dwelliniyaVrZts f N O v 1 9 r11 /1 6/87 CITY OF CHANNAbSE,%I - ,/ 1` '__ high density multiple family residential property shall not exceed 375, or a density greater than 17.4 units per acre. Except as modified herein, the development of the high density multiple family residential shall be in accordance with the uses, standards, and requirements of the R-12 Zoning District. C. Multiple Family (Mixed Medium Density Residential) . The development shall provide a minimum of 23.6 acres of mixed medium density residential units. The total number of dwelling units of mixed medium density residential property shall not exceed 221, or a density greater than 9. 3 units per acre. Except as modified herein, the development of the mixed medium density residential shall be in accordance with the uses, standards, and requirements of the R-8 Zoning — District. 4 . Parks. The Developer shall dedicate to the City Outlot F (18 . 1 acres) , Outlot G (9. 8 acres) , Outlot H (3 .9 acres) , and Outlot E. A credit of 6. 7 acres for park dedication will be given for Outlot E. Unless otherwise required by the City, conveyances of the park land — shall be made when the final plat, wherein a park is located, is signed by the City. The land shall be platted as Outlots and transferred to the City by warranty deed. The Developer, at its sole cost, shall grade the land for the City in accordance with a timetable and plans to be furnished by the City. The Developer shall be given a credit of 50% of the park fee per dwelling unit in the plat for the conveyance of the above described land to the City. The balance of the park dedication — fees shall be paid in cash in an amount and at the time required by City ordinance and policies in effect when final plats are approved. -2- 5 . Trail and Sidewalk Development. The Developer shall dedicate trails and sidewalks throughout the Development to the City as — indicated on the Comprehensive Trail Plan. This dedication satisfies the — City's trail dedication fee requirements. Trails shall be completed at the tine street improvements are constructed in the phase where the trails and sidewalks or portions thereof are located. The Developer shall construct the following trails and sidewalks: (1) . Eight (8) foot wide bituminous trail along the west side of Lake Susan. (2) . Eight (8) foot wide bituminous off-street trail along the east side of Audobon Road; and an eight (8) foot wide bituminous off-street trail along the east side of Powers Boulevard. (3 ) . Five (5) foot wide concrete off-street trail-sidewalk along one side of all internal streets except cul- de-sacs when the streets are constructed. (4 ) . Twenty (20) foot wide bituminous off-street trail — easement on the west side of Powers Boulevard. This trail segment shall only be constructed if ordered by the City Council . If ordered, the Developer will convey the easement to the City without cost, but the — City will pay for the construction. Construction timing will be at the discretion of the City Council . 6 . Additional Conditions of Approval. A. The Developer shall provide buffer areas, acceptable to the City, between multiple family and single family areas to assure adequate transition between uses, including use of berms, landscaping, and setbacks from lot lines. B. The Developer shall not damage or remove any trees except as indicated on the grading and tree removal plans to be approved — by the City and submitted with each plat. Trees shall be protected from destruction by snow fences, flagging, staking, or other similar means — during grading and construction. -3- /'5/ =curs C. Wetlands Nos. 14-10 and 23-01 as shown in Exhibit "C" _ shall be preserved in their natural state. D. The following shall be the maximum percentage of allowable impervious surface: Outlot A 32%, Outlot B 30%, Outlot C 31%, and Outlot D 27%. E. The Developer shall provide $500.00 of landscaping per multiple family unit and $150. 00 per single family unit. 7. Effect of Planned Unit Development Approval. For five (5) — years from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, or official controls shall apply to or affect the — use, development, density, lot size, lot layout, or dedications of the development unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by state law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the — City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting or dedicating requirements enacted after the date of this Agreement. — 8. Phased Development. The Developer shall develop the development in eleven (11) phases in accordance with the EAW. No earth moving or other development shall be done in any phase prior to approval — of final plats and development contract for the phase by the City. 9. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. The Developer — represents to the City that the proposed development complies with all applicable City, County, Metropolitan, State, and Federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to: Subdivision Ordinances, Zoning Ordinances, and Environmental Regulations. The Developer agrees to comply with such laws and regulations. -4- — 10. Variations from Approved Plans. Minor variances from the approved plans may be approved by the City's Planning Director. Substantial departures from the approved plans shall require an amend- ment to the Planned Unit Development, in accordance with the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. 11. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, and officers a license to enter the plat to inspect the work to be done by the Developer and to perform all work required hereunder if Developer fails to perform in accordance herewith. 12. Utility, Pond, and Drainage Easements. The Developer shall dedicate to the City at the time of final plat approvals utility, drainage, and ponding easements located within the plat, including access, as required to serve the plat. 13 . Responsibility for Costs. A. The Developer shall hold the City, its officers, agents , and employees harmless from claims by the Developer and third parties, including, but not limited to, lot purchasers, other property owners, contractors, subcontractors, and materialmen, for damages sustained, costs incurred, or injuries resulting from approval of the Agreement, the development, final plats, plans and specifications, and from the resulting construction and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City, its officers, agents, and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses, including reasonable engineering and attorney's fees, which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims. B. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Agreement, including reasonable engineering and attorney's fees. The Developer shall pay in full all -5- /6 01.S__ bills submitted to it by the City for such reimbursements within sixty (60) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all development work until the bills are paid in full. Bills not — paid within sixty (60) days shall be subject to an eight (8%) percent per annum interest charge. 14. Miscellaneous. A. Breach of any material term of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, plats, and certificates of occupancy. B. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, — paragraph or phrase of this Planned Unit Development Agreement is for any reason held invalid as a result of a challenge brought by the Developer, its agents or assigns, the City may, at its option, declare the entire Agreement null and void and approval of the Final Development Plan shall thereby be revoked. C. The action or inaction of any party shall not consti- tute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be — binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. Any party's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement _ after expiration of time in which the work is to be completed shall not be a waiver or release. D. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded in the Carver County Recorder's Office. — E. This Agreement shall be liberally construed to protect _ the public's interest. -6- / 7 _ F. Due to the preliminary nature of many of the exhibits and plans and the timing of the overall Development, addendums to this Agreement may be required to address concerns not specifically set forth herein. G. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors or assigns, as the case may be. H. The Developer represents to the City that the plat is not of "metropolitan significance' and that a state environmental impact statement is not required. However, if the City or another governmental entity or agency determines that a federal or state impact statement or any other review, permit, or approval is required, the Developer shall prepare or obtain it at its own expense. The Developer shall reimburse the City for all expenses, including staff time and reasonable attorney's fees, that the City may incur in assisting in preparation. 15. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, their employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified or registered mail at the following address: 7600 Parklawn Avenue, Edina, Minnesota 55435 . Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Clerk or mailed to the City by certified or registered mail in care of the City Clerk at the following address: P.O. Box 147, 690 Coulter Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above written. _ CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor BY: Don Ashworth, City Manager LAKE SUSAN HILLS _r BY: A partner Q JAMES A. CURRY BARBARA CURRY 0 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) _ ( ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1987, by Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor, and by Don Ashworth, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority — granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) 9// ( ss. COUNTY 017;-- (,-11 -4_ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this i' ee- day of� � „Y/: 198' , by .�;�.:� .;� +: ! l-� c=� �l% a _ partner of Lake Susan Hills, a Minnesota general partners on, on,its behalf. • BARBARA FISHER NOTARY PUBLIC rrr••. NOTARY FU2LI: A:iNI.@SOYA rv,y Comm s,,on L:�.r T os JJ�r 1r 179 -8- - IF �s - • . , . STATE OF MINNESOTA ) :i. ( SS. COUNTY OF +,.�� ) ►•v ... ...... The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of D cz t ,,,`g.,k , 1987, by JAMES A. CURRY and BARBARA CURRY, husband and wife. B. :O.U. • /NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: Grannis, Grannis, Farrell & Knutson, P.A. 403 Norwest Bank Building 161 North Concord Exchange South St. Paul , MN 55075 (612) 455-1661 CITY OFCHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 - (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer DATE: March 2, 1993 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat and Site Plan for Lake Susan Hills West 9th Addition - File No. 93-3 Land Use Review Upon review of the preliminary plat and site plan for Lake Susan Hills West 9th Addition prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated January 29, 1993, I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING AND DRAINAGE The site consists of a variety of rolling agricultural fields, wetlands and wooded areas. The majority of the site, outside of the wetlands, is proposed to be graded which will require extensive tree loss. Concerned about the amount of tree loss, staff has met with the applicant to work out ways to reduce the tree loss. The applicant's engineer, Mr. Paul Cherne, has recently prepared a revised grading plan which reduces grading in the three cul- de-sacs as compared to the initial plan submittal. Drake Court, the most southerly cul-de- sac, has been deleted, thus eliminating two lots which in turn will greatly reduce the grading limits and tree loss. The flag lots will be custom graded when the building permits are issued in an effort to selectively save trees on the lot. This same scenario is also being explored with Crane Court. The third cul-de-sac, Mallard Court, which will probably be renamed to Drake Court, is somewhat limited in grading alternatives due to the terrain. The street basically follows the ridge line and the lots drop off severely in elevation. This, combined with the location of the wetland, severely limits location and placement of the street. The applicant has proposed some modifications which appear to reduce the amount of tree loss. By a combination of shifting the road westerly 5 feet and reducing building setbacks to 25 feet enables the house pads and grading limits on the east side of Mallard Court to be shifted westerly away from the tree line. There still will be a significant loss of trees along this t`i PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER _j;: V Jo Ann Olsen March 2, 1993 Page 2 area; however, these modifications will preserve a section of trees along the rear of Lots 5, 6, 7 and 10, Block 3. In addition, the lots at the end of the cul-de-sac will be custom-graded at the time of building permit in an effort to minimize tree loss. Another area where grades may be modified in an effort to save grading as well as trees is along Lots 26 through 29, Block 5. This may require the street grade along Lake Susan Hills Drive to exceed the City's street grade limit which is 7%; however, it is not unusual to grant a variance from this condition in an effort to save trees. One ramification from this would be the type of house design on those lots may be limited to a rambler versus a desirable walkout. One safety concern staff has is the street grade approach at the intersection of Powers Boulevard (County Road 17) and Lake Susan Hills Drive. The applicant should design Lake Susan Hills Drive with a "landing" area of approximately 75 to 100 feet in length with a maximum street grade of 3% to improve vehicle ingress and egress through the intersection. The grading plans propose 4 retention ponding areas prior to discharging into the adjacent wetlands. The proposed ponds are in accordance with the City's comprehensive storm water management plan. Retention ponds will be built to NURP standards. The applicant will be required to provide an outlet control structure in each pond to control discharge rate into the wetlands. The final plat should provide the appropriate utility and drainage easement to access the ponding areas for maintenance purposes. Specific review of these types of improvements and concerns will be conducted during the construction plan and specification review process. The overall grading format proposes to maintain the existing drainage pattern which is from west to east. The steepest resulting slopes (3:1) are proposed in the rear yard areas of the lots surrounding the wetland and retention ponds. Slope stabilization methods in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH) such as wood- fiber blankets and Type III erosion control fence should be utilized. The plans propose a series of storm sewers to convey street and overland storm runoff to the retention ponds. At some point in the future, Powers Boulevard will be upgraded to a four-lane urban section. The upgrade will include storm sewers which will need to discharge into pretreatment ponds. It may be prudent at this time to work with the County Highway Department to see if any of the proposed storm drainage improvements in this development could be utilized in the future. If so, the proposed storm drainage improvements should be modified and the applicant compensated for oversizing of storm sewer pipes and ponding areas. At the time of this review, staff has not been supplied with any soil boring information regarding this parcel. As in previous projects, staff has encountered problems with Jo Ann Olsen March 2, 1993 - Page 3 residential sump pump discharge into the City's streets creating safety concerns both during the summer and the winter. The applicant should be aware, upon receipt of soil borings or other information, the City may require the installation of a drain tile system behind the - curbs for the sump pumps to discharge into. UTILITIES Both municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available to adequately service this development. An 8-inch sanitary sewer line is proposed to be extended from Phase I of Lake Susan Hills West along the west shore of Lake Susan into the development. Water service is proposed to be extended from the dead-end water lines in West Lake Drive and Lake Susan Hills Drive. An 8"water line will be extended throughout the development and looped back into the existing water line in Powers Boulevard at the south end of the project. Detailed utility construction plans and specifications will be required for staff review and formal approval. All utility construction plans shall be in accordance to the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Location of all fire hydrants shall be approved by the City's Fire Marshal. All utilities and ponding areas located outside the City's dedicated street right-of-way will require the appropriate drainage and utility easement and shall be denoted on the final plat. Utility and drainage easements outside of the right-of-way shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width. STREETS The site plan proposes to extend Lake Susan Hills Drive to the south and reconnect to Powers Boulevard adjacent to Lake Susan Hills Drive from the west. Public Safety staff has concerns with the street name of Lake Susan Hills Drive because the same name also exists west of Powers Boulevard thus adding confusion and/or delays in responding to emergency calls. Public Safety will be responding to this concern. Lake Susan Hills Drive is currently constructed slightly wider (35 feet versus 31 feet) because of its function as a local collector street. The applicant has proposed to maintain this design throughout the development. Cul-de-sac streets are proposed at the City's typical - width of 31 feet wide. The right-of-way for the cul-de-sac streets and West Lake Drive are 50 feet wide and Lake Susan Hills Drive is 60 feet wide which is in accordance with the approved PUD. Street grades throughout the project range from 0.50% to 5.60% which is within the City's regulations. A 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk is also proposed on the west side of Lake Susan Hills Drive. The sidewalk should also be extended west on West Lake Drive to connect to the existing sidewalk at Dove Court. Jo Ann Olsen March 2, 1993 Page 4 A trail system is also requested by the City along Powers Boulevard. At some time in the future, approximately 5 to 10 years, Powers Boulevard will be upgraded by a joint City/County project to a four-lane urban section. It appears that sufficient right-of-way exists for the future upgrade of Powers Boulevard; however, as pointed out by Mr. Roger Gustafson, Carver County Engineer, the County and City should get together to discuss the future cross-section of Powers Boulevard prior to final platting to insure that no additional right-of-way is necessary. Detailed street construction plans should be submitted for staff review and formal approval. Street construction shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Street plans should also include construction of the required deceleration and acceleration along Powers Boulevard pursuant to Carver County Highway Department's comments. All work in utility highway right-of-way will require a permit from the County. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval. 2. The applicant shall supply detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event and ponding calculations for the retention ponds (NURP standards) for the City Engineer to review and approve. 3. The applicant shall supply detailed construction plans for utility and street improvements for the City to review and formally approve. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits such as MWCC, Health Department, Watershed District, PCA and Carver County Highway Department. 5. The applicant's engineer shall review the lot grading on Lots 26 through 29, Block 5 to see if adjustments to street grade along Lake Susan Hills Drive are feasible in an effort to reduce tree loss on said lots. 6. The street grade approach at the intersection of Powers Boulevard and Lake Susan Hills Drive shall maintain a landing area of 100 feet and a street grade of less than 3%. Jo Ann Olsen March 2, 1993 Page 5 7. All retention ponds shall include an outlet control structure to control discharge rate pursuant to NURP standards. 8. The Applicant shall provide maintenance access routes to the retention pond areas and dedicate the appropriate easements on the final plat. In addition, all utility lines outside the street right-of-way shall be dedicated with a minimum of a 20-foot wide - drainage and utility easement. 9. Erosion control and turf restoration shall be in accordance with the City's Best - Management Practice Handbook. 10. If feasible, the applicant shall work with the City and County in oversizing the storm drainage improvements to include the future runoff from the upgrade of Powers Boulevard. The applicant would be compensated for the associated oversizing costs. 11. The location of all fire hydrants shall be approved by the City's Fire Marshal. 12. Mallard Court should be renamed to either Drake Court or some other acceptable street name. 13. Five-foot concrete sidewalks should also be extended from Lake Susan Hills Drive west to Dove Court. ktm c: Charles Folch, City Engineer CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner rry FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official �+t��, DATE: 03/10/93 SUBJECT: 87-3 PUD Background: My memo of 02/16/93 reccommended in condition #3 that the existing Lake Susan Hills Drive on the east side of Powers Blvd. be changed to a different name. That reccommendation has been re-evaluated. _ Analysis: All of the current residents appear to oppose a name change. While the Public Safety Department continues to believe that a name change is the best solution for avoiding confusion, a number of alternate solutions have been suggested by the residents. One suggested alternate was to leave the name as is, and place oversized street signs with range numbers at each of the four outlets on - Powers Blvd. The Public Safety Department will support this alternative to my original reccommendation. Reccommedation: Staff reccommends that condition #3 of the 02/16/93 memo to you be changed to read: 3 . Oversized street signs should be placed at each of the four outlets of Lake Susan Hills Drive on Powers Blvd. The signs should indicate the range of addresses on the street. Is �4' PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official 4.Q./c, DATE: 02/16/93 SUBJECT: 87-3 PUD Background: I have reviewed your request for comments on the above referenced planning case, and have some items that should be added as conditions of approval . Analysis: Problems have occurred with dwellings on corrected pads being too large for the pad or missing the pad. Soil conditions for future additions are also a concern that will inevitably have to be addressed. In order to be able to effectively address this concern details on corrected pads must be furnished to the Inspections Division. Pads that are corrected at the time the streets are installed should be submitted to the Inspections Division before City acceptance of the subdivision. Data on lots that are individually corrected may be submitted before the foundation is approved. Details on corrected pads should include a soils report, compaction tests, the limits of the corrected pads and elevation of the excavation. Standard designations (LO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) for proposed dwelling types, lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevation need to be indicated on the drainage plan to insure an adequate plan review by the City. Dwellings on long streets with widely separated outlets are difficult for emergency personnel to locate in a timely fashion. Streets with the same or similar names must be avoided for the same reason. Two streets in the proposed ninth addition present problems - Lake Susan Hills Drive and Mallard Court. A "Mallard Court" already exists on the west side of Powers Blvd. , and although the house numbers on each will be different, the possibility of emergency personnel responding to the wrong site in the excitement and confusion of an emergency call is a distinct possibility. A different name rs tPRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Jo Ann Olsen 02/08/93 Page 2 for the street designated as "Mallard Court" in the ninth addition would eliminate the risk of mistakes being made at a crucial time. The "Lake Susan Hills Drive" street designation in the ninth addition presents _ a more complicated problem. When the existing streets were named in 1987 the Inspections Division and Fire Marshal were unaware of their final configuration, and thus had no objections to the names as presented. The current proposal shows Lake Susan Hills Drive with four outlets on Powers Blvd. Emergency personnel would have no idea which entrance would afford the quickest response to a particular address. The City grid system would be little help in locating the destination. Two solutions were considered to - solve the problem. 1. A different name for the proposed Lake Susan Hills Drive with a north and south designation in the name would be one solution. This would offer the advantage of a distinct street name, with the nearest entrance to an address identified by a north/south designation. The disadvantage is that there are nine residents on the existing stub of Lake Susan Hills Drive that would be required to change their addresses . 2 . Continue the street name and numbering as is with house address ranges on the street signs. This has the advantage of not having to change the addresses of the nine existing homes. The disadvantages include a predominantly north/south street with east/west addresses; a Lake Susan Hills Dr. on each side of Powers Blvd, each with two outlets; the street on the east side of Powers Blvd. will be numbered high numbers to low numbers north to south, the opposite of the street on the west which is numbered low to high from north to south; the odd/even numbering system will be incorrect at the south outlet; and street names and address numbers will be similar to a nearby existing street (1080 Lake Susan Dr. and 1080 Lakes Susan Hills Dr. ) . Renaming Lake Susan Hills Drive on the east side of Powers was discussed at the 02/11/93 Public Safety Commision meeting. The Commision supported _ changing the name (see attachment #1) . I will send a letter to each of the affected homeowners explaining the situation and inviting those who are interested to attend the March 3 , 1993 Planning Commision meeting. Recommendations : Staff recommends the following be included in the conditions of approval : 1. Indicate lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevations for each house pad on the grading plan. 2 . Submit details on corrected pads including compaction tests, limits Jo Ann Olsen 02/16/93 Page 3 of the pad and elevations of excavations to the Inspections Division. A general soils report for the development should also be submitted to the Inspections Division. 3 . Renmane proposed Lake Susan Hills Drive, including a north and south designation in the proposed new name. Submit proposed name to Public Safety Department for approval . 4 . Rename proposed Mallard Court. Submit proposed name to Public Safety Department for approval . enclosure ATTACHMENT # 1 Public Safety Commission February 11, 1993 Page 2 BUILDING INSPECTIONS Building Official Steve Kirchman reported on the 1992 increase in inspections and revenue. Steve also forecasted a slight increase in building for 1993, and an even greater increase for 1994. A walk-thru in new construction (single family & commercial) with the Commissioners will be scheduled this Summer for the purpose of educating the Commission on this aspect of the Public Safety Department's activities. Building Official Kirchman handed out maps displaying the proposed Lake Susan Hills West .__ 9th Addition. Confusion will exist if the proposed street name of Lake Susan Hills Drive is used. He recommended the possibility of renaming the street, which would affect 9 homes. Commissioner Blechta motioned, Commissioner Bernhjelm seconded, to support this recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion passed. This recommendation of the Public Safety Commission will be taken to the Planning Commission and to City Council. PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT Director Harr reported that two inspection vehicles, and the CSO vehicle will be painted by General Motors because of a recall on the paint, which has also permitted a more modern and pleasant lettering to be installed on the vehicles. The City Council, at their 2/8/93 meeting. approved the requesting of bids for a replacement CSO vehicle. Commissioner Beniek, in the absence of Commissioner Johnson, attended the last Highway 5 Commission meeting. Commissioner Johnson will submit a memo to Director Harr on the update of this Commission. Commission Berkland reported that carbon monoxide detectors are available for purchase at many locations. He has contacted the American Lung Association for educational material. This educational material could be available for residents at the Public Safety Open House, Fire Department Open House, City Newsletter and The Villager. Commission Berkland will submit a memo to Director Harr regarding his findings and his recommendation for direction on this project by the Commission. Director Harr inquired if the Commission would like to hold a public hearing regarding shooting boundaries in the City. Discussion followed concerning a public hearing or a public input session during a future Commission meeting. Director Harr will meet with the editor of The Villager to suggest an informational article in a future edition. City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612)937-1900 Date: February 3, 1993 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner Subject: Preliminary plat to subdivide 76.74 acres into 93 lots on property zoned PUD, Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition, Argus Development. Planning Case: 87-3 PUD The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on February 1, 1993. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we _ would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or - problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on March 3, 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than February 19, 1993. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. City Departments 7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources .City Engineer Telephone Company b. City Attorney (NW Bell or United) 6 City Park Director Fire Marshal Olectric Company ee Building Official (NSP or AN Valley) Y 2. Watershed District Engineer 10. Triax Cable System 3. Soil Conservation Service 11. Roger Machmeier/Jim Anderson 4. MN Dept. of Transportation 12. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers C'% Carver County Engineer EMinnegasco b. Environmental Services 14. Other CITY of CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: February 10, 1993 SUBJ: #87-3 PUD I have reviewed the site plan for the Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition and have made the following observations: 1. The street named "Mallard Court" must be renamed. A "Mallard Court" already exists, and could be confusing to emergency personnel responding to a call. 2. The "Lake Susan Hills Drive" east of Powers could present problems to emergency personnel mainly because there is a "Lake Susan Hills Drive" on the west side of Powers. In looking at the proposed site plan, the "Lake Susan Hills Drive" road runs mainly north and south, however, the house numbers are "east-west" numbers. What I would be recommending would be to rename the existing and proposed "Lake Susan Hills Drive, located east of Powers, designate a "North" and a "South" entrance, and renumber the houses that are currently on "Lake Susan Hills Drive", east of Powers. Speaking of personal experience and reviewing emergency runs, there is confusion that exists between "Lake Susan Hills Drive" east of Powers, west of Powers and "Lake Susan Drive" which is a totally different subdivision off Highway 101 south and which has no connecting streets. If "Lake Susan Hills Drive" (east of Powers) is to be renamed and renumbered to a north/south numbering system, now would be the opportune time, before new construction starts. cc: Scott Harr, Public Safety Director Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official Jim McMahon, Fire Chief tip PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER c CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 -T` MEMORANDUM - TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: March 10, 1993 SUBJ: Lake Susan Hills West 9th Addition The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the aforementioned preliminary plat on Tuesday, February 23, 1993. The staff report presented to the commission is attached. The primary focus _ of discussion that evening centered on the preservation of trees. A group of residents residing in the Chanhassen Hills area were in attendance at the meeting. Councilman Wing also was present for the discussion. A representative of the applicant was not present. As indicated in the staff report, action taken by the commission was a formality, but confirmed the conditions of the PUD Agreement in respect to parks, open space, and trails. _ Upon the conclusion of discussion that evening, the following recommendation was unanimously approved: The Park and Recreation Commission recommends the City Council require the following conditions of approval for the Lake Susan Hills West 9th Addition: - 1. Dedication of Outlot E to the city; 2. Construction of an 8-ft. wide bituminous trail along the west side of Lake Susan as indicated on Attachment B, Segments D and E; 3. The construction of an 8-ft. wide bituminous trail along the east side of Powers Boulevard (CR 17) as indicated on Attachment B, Segment B; and 4. Park fees are assessed at one-half of the rate in force upon building permit application. All trail fees have been waived as a part of the development of Lake Susan Hills West. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER �, - _ Ms. Jo Ann Olsen March 10, 1993 Page 2 In addition, construction of trail Segments A, C and F as payment in kind for the right by Argus Development to encroach on park property for ponding purposes is being required. As you are aware, I have spoken with Mr. Ron Isaac in this regard, informing him that the encroachment issue cannot be solved by simply altering property lines. The configuration of Outlot E, as documented on the city base map, is to remain unaltered. Furthermore, it is recommended that the two trail easements identified allowing access to the shoreland trail be consolidated into one 40-ft. easement at the location of the northerly easement. Benefits of doing so include: 1. Minimization of potential conflicts with adjoining property owners. Explanation: The consolidation will reduce the number of affected lots to two; and the doubling of the width of one easement from 20-feet to 40-feet allows sufficient room for buffering. 2. Minimizing impact to trees and vegetation. 3. Reduction of maintenance responsibilities. CITY OF PRC DATE: Feb. 23, 1993 0CC DATE: (�� CHANHASE �1> HOFFMAN:k STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 76.74 acres into 93 lots on property zoned PUD, Lake Susan Hills West 9th Addition �- 1 LOCATION: See location map V a APPLICANT: Argus Development, Inc. 1 18133 Cedar Avenue South Farmington, MN 55024 a. 1 PRESENT ZONLNG: PUD-R, Planned Unit Development Residential ADJACENT ZONLNG AND LAND USE: N - PUD-R S - Park, Open Space Q E - Park, Open Space and Lake Susan I W - PUD-R and Powers Boulevard (CR 17) � 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: See Attachment A, Development Contract dated December 8, 1987 = COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN: See Attachment A, Development Contact dated December 1 8, 1987 . 1 Park and Recreation Commission February 23, 1993 Page 2 DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS: This application falls under the jurisdiction of the previously referenced development agreement between Argus Development, Inc., and the City of Chanhassen. Actions necessary of the applicant to comply with this contract include: 1. Dedication of Outlot E to the city; 2. Construction of an 8 ft. wide bituminous trail along the west side of Lake Susan as indicated on Attachment B, Segments D* and E. 3. The construction of an 8 ft. wide bituminous trail along the east side of Powers Boulevard (CR 17) as indicated on Attachment B, Segment B. *Segment D is an existing trail segment constructed by Argus Development in an unacceptable manner. This segment will be replaced per city specifications. Upon re\iev of the preliminary plat dated January 29, 1993, it was clear that Argus Development had taken the liberty of proposing four stormwater retention ponds be partially constructed on city park property (Oudot E). The proposed ponds are split down the middle with half being located on the applicant's property and half on city property. First, I must say that this is an audacious designation on the part of Argus Development. The city has every right to deny this concept. As an alternative to this, however, I am proposing that the commission consider a bargaining position with the applicant. This "bargain" involves Items A, C and F on Attachment B. As noted in the current descriptions of these segments, the city is liable for the costs associated with these improvements. I propose that in exchange for allowing the applicant to encroach on park property, they be required to construct Segments A, C and F at their expense with no reimbursement from the city for Segment A. Furthermore, that all responsibilities and requirements associated with said trail segments, i.e. negotiations with Carver County, — procurement of permits of any type, site preparation and restoration shall be the sole responsibility of Argus Development. I have discussed this proposal with Ron Isaac of Joe Miller Homes/Argus Development. Mr. Isaac or another representative of the applicant may be present to respond in this regard next Tuesday. In lieu of a personal representative, a written response will be forwarded. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council require the following conditions of approval for the Lake Susan Hills West 9th Addition: 1. Dedication of Outlot E to the city. Park and Recreation Commission February 23, 1993 — Page 3 2. Construction of an 8 ft. wide bituminous trail along the west side of Lake Susan as indicated on Attachment B, Segments D* and E. 3. The construction of an 8 ft. wide bituminous trail along the east side of Powers Boulevard — (CR 17) as indicated on Attachment B, Segment B. 4. Accept the construction of trail Segments A, C, and F as identified on Attachment B as payment in kind for the encroachment by Argus Development on park property. This encroachment shall be limited to ponding of water as identified on the proposed preliminary plat. Furthermore, that the construction of said trails shall adhere to all stipulations previously identified herein. If the commission chooses to take an alternate position, you may choose to construct Segments A. C and F at city expense and direct the applicant to cease showing intent to encroach on city property. .Z4-;11/- - t / A an 11 . 11 9til Zhanhassen , Minnesoj . . ........... ., : -;•-1 oit.1N4 . Y , esti :1yr." . I L.."K VtV n A Y LN t ca • se, • PR S c• %' , .: i/ . 101 in, PARK -\•; ;' •• ql,ale rte• MINNETONKA — '''' ' i''.- at, q •U' i'' ' ,-,,,* °N4 4:'. :...$ . I i .-..,- -,-,, * p;. ,.:44,,,xE ..: *it, , . cratOOD,-"A.Z.-, 1 r, i , I s,...0 4e' 1 Loam _ , lit ,, . :'•=. ,•V.A '- -3 rttitlit-' ,AA . I i ;di i te H �1 �/'� r. i . p I . SNORES:CD + A°..� ( 0`'•I I sysi AOS f%.,44114... 1114Pia Pt 4 - �r td i •• y LIlavIQ 13 Lite t.;,' .,1...„ t..5 P P' / a...,rt. •g::17-kg; , - 0 isMac.9 e t _ ,:k) ,.., '!-S;.-- . 7.--,-. : Jr ,„ , .) :, AAA . .3 SSEN 0 v��.9 V:CyQ•A i ! . • rD. I % ' L.A. 5./ AelliLmi ) lar am al - -Jr - : \ J r- , 4� `�� Morita ; PRA: z1 EDEr A� �A R..Mv.A '% • Sher 4:111�• 't0 ) /' nets'` Wim"'-'°'^ �.` CH�15KA e 6 Led. ' ill 1 yi ‘.%? AYv , ¢ 4. P- �9 MV,. . 0 r:,...:A... _ m it-3.a.' :yEl• 4 , , ) ,., , Le , ,t. C��AIvL. . i 2/ -I., iksp- '5=i AN% -....„, • I �'� .� j 5-I g F • CITY OF CHANHASSEN 41-7%/k/�lf/_�iC' • DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT ( Developer Installed Improvements ) LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST SUBDIVISION , PHASE I ARGUS DEVELOPMENT — AGREEMENT dated December 8, 1987, by and .between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation, ( "City" ) , and — Argus Development , Inc. , a Minnesota Corporation ( the "Developer" ) . 1 . Planned Unit Development Agreement. The Development of this Plat is subject to a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D. ) Agreement dated November 16 , 1987. The terms of the PUD Agreement are incorporated herein by reference (Attachment A) . 2 . Request for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for Lake Susan Hills West (referred to in this Contract as the "plat" ) . The land is legally described on the attached plat , Exhibit "B" . The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on October 5 , 1987. The final plat has not been submitted for approval as of the date of this Contract. — 3 . Conditions of Plat Approval. The City has approved the plat on condition that the Developer enter into this Contract and furnish the security required by it. 4 . Phased Development. If the plat is a phase of a multiphased preliminary plat, the City may refuse to approve final plats of subsequent phases if the Developer has breached this Contract and the breach has not been remedied. Development of subsequent phases may not proceed until Development Contracts _ for such phases are approved by the City. Charges and special assessments referred to in this contract are not being imposed on outlots , if any, in the plat that are designated in an approved preliminary plat for future subdivision into lots and blocks. Such charges and assessments will be calculated and imposed when the outlots are final platted into lots and blocks . 5 . Effect of Subdivision Approval. ( See P.U.D. Agreement) . 6 . Development Plans. The plat shall be developed in accor- dance with the following plans . The plans shall not be attached to this Contract. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Contract, the written terms shall control. The plans are: Plan A--Preliminary Plat with August 27, 1987 revisions and dated "Received September 16 , 1987" , prepared by Probe Engineering Co. Plan B--Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plans dated October 20 , 1987, prepared by Probe Engineering Co. Plan C--Plans and Specifications for Public Improvements with revisions dated December 22, 1987, and dated 'Received December 30, 1987" , prepared by Probe Engineering Co. — Plan D--Landscaping Plan dated November 3 , 1987, prepared by Probe Engineering Co. or materialrnen are seeking payment out of the financial guaran- tees posted with the City, and if the claims are not resolved at least sixty ( 60 ) days before the security required by paragraph 13 of this Contrct will expire, the Developer hereby authorizes the City to commence an Interpleader action pursuant to Rule 22 , Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts , to craw upon the letters of credit in an amount up to 125% of the claim( s ) and deposit -the funds in compliance with the Rule, and upon such deposit , the Developer shall release, discharge, and dismiss the City from any further proceedings as it pertains to the letters of credit deposited with the District Court, except that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to determine attorneys fees pursuant to paragraph 25 of this Contract. 16 . Timber Management Plan. The Developer shall arrange for the preparation of a Timber Management Plan by the Department of Natural Resources Forester for Lots 5 and 6 , Block 1 , and shall clear and reforest in accordance with this plan. Clearcutting will not be allowed . 17 . Trails and Sidewalks . (See P.U. D. Agreement) . 1E . Parkland . ( See P.U.D. Agreement) . 15 . Landscaping. The Developer shall provide for the installation of landscaping in accordance with the Landscaping Plan , Plan D, approved by the City. The Developer shall sod the draina:e scales . All trees , grass , and sod , shall be warranted to be alive, of good quality and disease free at installation . All trees shall oe warranted for 12 months after planting. 20 . County State Aid Highway ( CSAH) 17. An access permit shall be obtained by the Developer for connection to CSAH 17 ( Powers. Bc. levard ) . The Developer shall comply with the conditions of this permit . Carver County is anticipating widening CSAH 17 in the future . The Developer agrees to work with the City and the County :n providing borrow sites for this widening at such time as this project moves ahead . 21 . Existing Assessments/Connection Charges. Assessments exist against the plat from the Chanhassen Hills trunk water main Project 66-2 . These existing assessments will be respread against the plat in accordance with City standards. The Developer acknowledges the City' s connection charge policy and understands that each lot will be charged for its benefit in usage of the municipal utility trunks. This charge will be made as a part of each individual building permit. 22 . Off-Site Easements. The Developer, at its expense, shall acquire all perpetual easements from abutting property owners necessary for the installation of sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water facilities within the subject property and thereafter shall promptly assign said easements to the City prior to the installation of improvements. -5- 41"7-A CAA ÷ A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AGREEMENT, dated November 16, 1987, between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City") , and LAKE SUSAN HILLS, a Minnesota general partnership, and JAMES A. CURRY and BARBARA CURRY, husband and wife (the "Developer") . 1. Request for Planned Unit Development Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a Planned Unit Development to be known as "LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST PUD" (the "Development") on the land legally described on the attached Exhibit "A". 2 . Planned Unit Development Concept Approval. The City hereby grants general Concept Plan approval of the plan attached as Exhibit "B". Approval is subject to the following: development and final stage approval , a negative declaration of the EAW, compliance with the EAW review findings and compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Except as modified herein, each plat shall also be subject to the standards of the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances as may be — amended from time to time. 3 . Density and Use. The following densities are approximate and subject to change: A. Single Family Residential. The total number of single family lots in the development shall not exceed 411. Except as modified — herein, single family lots shall be developed in accordance with the uses, standards, and requirements of the RSF Zoning District. — B. Multiple Family (High Density Residential) . The development shall provide a minimum of 21.5 acres of high density multiple family residential units. The total number of dwellinc 3QLIts_ f — NOV 1 J i?S7 r11 /16/67 CITY OF CHANNASSEM — 4: high density multiple family residential property shall not exceed 375, or a density greater than 17. 4 units per acre. Except as modified herein, the development of the high density multiple family residential shall be in accordance with the uses, standards, and requirements of the R-12 Zoning District. C. Multiple Family (Mixed Medium Density Residential) . The development shall provide a minimum of 23.6 acres of mixed medium density residential units. The total number of dwelling units of mixed medium density residential property shall not exceed 221 , or a density greater than 9 . 3 units per acre. Except as modified herein, the development of the mixed medium density residential shall be in accordance with the uses , standards, and requirements of the R-8 Zoning District . 4 . Parks. The Developer shall dedicate to the City Outlet F (18 . 1 acres) , Outlot G (9. 8 acres) , Outlot H (3 . 9 acres) , and Outlet E. A credit of 6 . 7 acres for park dedication will be given for Outlet E. Unless otherwise required by the City, conveyances of the park land shall be made when the final plat, wherein a park is located, is signed by the City. The land shall be platted as Outlots and transferred to the City by warranty deed. The Developer, at its sole cost, shall grade the land for the City in accordance with a timetable and plans to be furnished by the City. The Developer shall be given a credit of 50% of the park fee per dwelling unit in the plat for the conveyance of the above described land to the City. The balance of the park dedication fees shall be paid in cash in an amount and at the time required by City ordinance and policies in effect when final plats are approved. -2- • • • Ina 5 . Trail and Sidewalk Development. The Developer shall dedicate trails and sidewalks throughout the Development to the City as — indicated on the Comprehensive Trail Plan. This dedication satisfies the City's trail dedication fee requirements. Trails shall be completed at — the time street improvements are constructed in the phase where the trails and sidewalks or portions thereof are located. The Developer shall construct the following trails and sidewalks: (1) . Eight (8) foot wide bituminous trail along the west side of Lake Susan. (2) . Eight (8) foot wide bituminous off-street trail along the east side of Audobon Road; and an eight (8) foot wide bituminous off-street trail along the east side of Powers Boulevard. (3 ) . Five (5) foot wide concrete off-street trail-sidewalk along one side of all internal streets except cul- de-sacs when the streets are constructed. (4 ) . Twenty (20) foot wide bituminous off-street trail _ easement on the west side of Powers Boulevard. This trail segment shall only be constructed if ordered by the City Council . If ordered, the Developer will convey the easement to the City without cost, but the — City will pay for the construction. Construction timing will be at the discretion of the City Council . 6 . Additional Conditions of Approval. A. The Developer shall provide buffer areas, acceptable to the City, between multiple family and single family areas to assure adequate transition between uses, including use of berms, landscaping, — and setbacks from lot lines. B. The Developer shall not damage or remove any trees except as indicated on the grading and tree removal plans to be approved _ by the City and submitted with each plat. Trees shall be protected from destruction by snow fences, flagging, staking, or other similar means — during grading and construction. -3 • - /477,e7/0fCe/C----, (7) 8-Ft. Bituminous Trail Descriptions. Lake Susan West _ Note: These descriptions do not preclude any requirements of the PUD contract. A. The city was paid cash as a part of an earlier phase in lieu of Joe Miller Homes' constructing this segment. In the interest of continuity, however, the city would like to remit this payment, $5,700, plus 5% and include this segment as part of the scheduled construction. B. Nev. construction to be completed with this addition. Trail location must allow for construction this summer. C. This segment is outside of the project area, but again,in the interest of continuity, the city would like to have its construction included in these plans. The city will reimburse Joe Miller Homes for construction costs of this segment. D. Exis:ing unacceptable trail segment. Initial construction was completed at substandard quantities and included poor grubbing and base preparation work. This segment to be rernz ed and replaced in conjunction with the construction of Segment E. E. Nev construction to be completed with this addition which includes two trail stubs connecting to the public street. Southern reaches of the trail will require the use of a gectextile underlying fabric. Final design standards to be approved by the city. A trail stub currently exists at Barbara Court, which is the southern terminus of this trail. The cite ‘kill construct the trail from this stub back to the new construction's terminus at the match line of the Lake Susan Hills West outlot and Chanhassen Hills outlot_ F. This potential segment is being shown for consideration. A connection with the outlot from the street in this area makes a great deal of sense, allowing for non-vehicular traffic to floe from Lake Susan Hills Drive to the outlot. pc: Ron Isaac, Joe Miller Homes _ Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer O z Q s 40 . N V 10 E eip� l�ito• • .Y I_ - t) • • > 1i.^1 -, r • , ...m• v I- ; �e • • 0 W ge g 'i,' •• V > — z ..t „ 0 8 " • ug U .Y s W '- � 0 2 � V1W s► > > =' Sa ; 5 0 � 3 so o E t Z J o Z i o : • • — Q 11 t = • - 2 .. m � L,_ - ' . • r H d ID l _ s ; co ao� • > NOO �r 'Zs-V--CC ___ O. \ \ - . Z ••w • i .• f Q �'. U CITY O F �, BITUMINOUS TRAIL .� • CHANHASSEN .. IIIIIIIIIIE DATE 2-91 PLATE NO. 5216 ..44 -..- -- q- -717.-- v � yam.. 1........./ argiiii'"- _ C' ��I c u H JLEVARp E ,_ !i D�-r I i ®�,� v i; "urui r ��LJ CCLir J • RpQJ 1111.---- r>at� �g Mr VW gyp. 1. P � i PAC1F►•� ST � ,: A,f HIGKWAY c r ..41 •s .._ .. :. • ..fp . - Nigw .SUS' • r r- • eta,qE as t� \'• PARK ' ✓)\ �\ c :• ` ant - it .,: .."1,374,—..„,-_.;„..., \t.% MR. _ / v alir .ak 41, C i CIRC,f ° 1 �� . , �� as LAKE SUSAN -ir1 dilli1644 t-,--7 'i` ii- oa0 1 I i rp wipapow„ . in .. a 0 ` -›,' P-71:1 .4 ,- B X1111111 - - c. , :6 T M ( • 1 ; ; •a•k•%i. liali li , ,"-/- ♦ rrtla -� 4 Ry '1-,, X11 �•,4„% " " r . ' C I" � '• 4 gait n-;,11 ,\„ c ft-, -, lt,iv. ,- .... Iv r• 1 r------ - CrMti - .; Iv\/o _ 1 r • it : 1 III 4 iit am '''di M� EVAR4-- ! _-_J (rL.LL) nil ..1: . r l'... .), Q i_...— off z:. .) -...-e.__s • I , 4 / Qo ; , s I QUO/ NE CH/TS RE - * PARK FI BAND/MVE MO M .....4.4/-- Di• �� i h ' ,-nuu,,„,ry r STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PHONE No. METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 5510_6 PHONE 772-7910 i February 17 , 1993 Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner City of Chanhassentt 690 Coulter Drive T Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: LAKE SUSAN HILLS 9TH ADDITION, PRELIMINARY PLAT (CITY FILE 87 4. - 3PUD) , SUSAN LAKE (10-13P) , CITY OF CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY Dear Ms . Olsen: ii We have reviewed the site plans dated January 29 , 1993 (received _ February 5 , 1993) for the above-referenced project (S. 23 , T. 116N, R. 23W) and have the following comments to offer: i 1 . Public water Lake Susan (#10-13P) is on the proposed site. Any activity below the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation, \ which alters the course, current or cross-section of public waters or public waters wetlands, is under the jurisdiction of the DNR and may require a DNR protected waters permit. The .- OHW for Lake Susan is 881. 8 ' (NGVD, 1929) . • 2 . Portions of the site are within the Lake Susan Shoreland District. The project must be consistent with the city' s V current shoreland ordinance standards. Lake Susan has a Recreational Development shoreland classification. Current city and state shoreland standards A require minimum lot sizes of 20, 000 square feet for riparian lots , and 15 , 000 square feet for non-riparian lots, with minimum lot widths of 75 feet. A number of the proposed non PI - riparian lots do not meet the area standards. However, since this site does meet the overall density standards if evaluated as a PUD under current state shoreland standards, we do not have a concern about this aspect of the development. We are pleased to see that the sensitive area adjacent to the4 lake will be dedicated as parkland and left relativly undisturbed. We would also like to see topographic and vegetative alterations minimized in all areas with steep slopes . • 3 . It appears that the intent is to route most of the stormwater - through settling k•asins, which is good. We would object to having any of the stormwater routed directly to Lake Susan. RECEIVED -` if t: 1 N 1993 CITY OF CSANI-14 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER SEN 1 Ms. Jo Ann Olsen (Lake Susan Hills 9th Addidition) February 17 , 1993 Page 2 4 . It appears that there are wetlands on the site that are not under DNR jurisdiction. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers should be consulted regarding pertinent federal regulations for activities in wetlands . In addition, impacts to the wetlands should be evaluated by the city in accordance with the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991. 5. There should be some type of dedicated easement, covenant or deed restriction for the properties adjacent to the wetland areas . This would help to ensure that property owners are aware that various agencies (including the city, watershed district, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers) have jurisdiction over the areas and that the wetlands cannot be altered without appropriate permits. 6. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. 7 . If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10, 000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, a DNR appropriations permit is required. You are advised that it typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist cc: Bob Obermeyer, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek WSD Gary Elftmann, USCOE Wayne Barstad, Ecological Services Lake Susan file (10-13P) , KCOI,11 4 sY; CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 600 EAST 4TH STREET PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT } / CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318 (612)4481213 Esu COUNTY OF CA VEQ February 18, 1993 — To: JoAnn Olsen, Chanhassen Senior Planner From: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer Subject: Preliminary Plat Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition Comments regarding the preliminary plat for Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition dated January 29. 1993, and transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated February 3, 1993. 1 . Right-of-way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways functionally classified as Minor Arterial (Class II) are: _ Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 2-lane Roadway 2-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100' 110' 120' 150' Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 4-lane Roadway 4-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100' 120' 140' 170' County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 17 is functionally classified as a Minor Arterial (Class II) roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. A 150 foot corridor has been established for a potential 4 lane divided highway. The city may wish to consider an even wider highway corridor along the proposed subdivision if a separate trailway is to be constructed along the county highway. Additional width may also be needed to accommodate public utilities and landscaping. 2. In 1990, the County removed approximately 100,00 cu. yd. of fill material from west side of CSAH 17 and stock piled the material on the east side of CSAH 17. The borrow material is intended to be used for the eventual construction of the additional two lanes on CSAH 17. Some of the material was placed outside, or east of, the permanent road right of way. From the information provided by the developer, it appears that lots abutting the right of way will be located on the top of some of this borrow material. The existing contour lines on the information provided do not match the information the County has as " — surveys from the 1990 project. It appears that it is again necessary to determine a�EQ 93 Affirmatnf Act n/EcfrualOpptnttinirj Emploter ��v� Printed on Reqrled Pap .,.�� J proposed road cross-section through this area to determine the allowable or necessary excavation through the proposed platted area. The County would recommend meeting with the City to determine the future cross-section of CSAH 17 before final approval of the proposed plat. 3. Construction of the proposed street intersection with CSAH 17 is subject to the access permit requirements of Carver County. The preliminary plat indicates that with the addition of another two lanes to CSAH 17, the landing area on Lake Susan Hills Drive at CSAH 17 will be approximately 30 feet in length. The City may want to review the potential impact of vehicles stopping on the 5.5%+ grade approach before entering CSAH 17. Construction of a right turn lane will be required. 4. Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CSAH 17 right-of-way are subject to the utility permit requirements of Carver County. 5. Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within the right-of-way of CSAH 17 is subject to review and approval of the county highway department. 6. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right- of-way (including turn removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need to be completed in a manner that leaves the right-of-way in "as good or better condition" than what existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for the final condition of the county highway right-of-way. A clear understanding of this responsibility will result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the city. 7. As this area develops, the traffic on CSAH 17 will increase. The increased traffic will generate an increased noise level. The County would consider any type of noise abatement project, if necessary, to be the responsibility of the City or developer. 8. Any trees or landscaping completed within the right-of-way must be approved by the County. When locating proposed shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining an acceptable sight distance at the proposed intersection. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary plan for the proposed development. - ,� � ,it i A k� i sMe= Sio u s,4t, a Al.. ► �U-11.-CIT D.� la a Cs-s ou) Mg all ; i '7.' .4. „• ens 7 3 I g rs . 0 ' i.1110 d • limo Nig - r % -1 il ir :411111111111 ler 44' ,tO1J ) - ,.411 MI arlifores - 1.5AG. ' OLTrLOT'Hr. ti 116 \1 pULdII i,• a . . #c . 4: .4 ala �► — Ilk . ii, : %:_____....1,zw, ipt ...Ai_ . : .. !,N4k - ,.....100. 11.4 _ -T ,,,... -, . :6 fitheio:,:: .01,11....: :: „!„,fr , '4 11%. ,,, V , Or' Ci V) 11121 CV elp 11110110 .. .Agii.sigii:::.4";E:F.- •lilt s 3 1111,441/4$ to& : :.. 0 • \ 0 it , .r- . /Y ,dta it i MI ,.1 _ t ...40,.. .. -___-, ,.. - ,....i.......,-..:.a • .t. bl•,;, : „ liti it til ilim) -(-' . .. . .. _. . IV t . MI i .� .� ,.. , . Al 40Pr ' ,: /s/4 0 : , ,, ' ,r ,' A , .../.: -: ''1 j • • • SITE _ n 04j TOTAL GROSS ACRES: 299 TOTAL D.U.: 1007 - ' ,' PUD DENSITY: 3.37 D.U./GR Ot..:,.. §:.M8DWAgeMe. RSF 155.9 AC. _ r ' ifi MULTIPLE (RS) 23.6 AC. V MULTIPLE (R12) 21.5 AC. i - : - • PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 65.7 AC. § 18-60 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (f) Street arrangements for the proposed subdivision shall not cause undue hardship to owners of adjoining property in subdividing their own land. (g) Double frontage lots with frontage on two(2)parallel streets or reverse frontage shall not be permitted except where lots back on an arterial or collector street. Such lots shall have an additional depth of at least ten (10) feet to accommodate vegetative screening along the back lot line. Wherever possible, structures on double frontage lots should face the front of existing structures across the street. If this cannot be achieved, then such lots shall have an additional depth of ten (10) feet to accommodate vegetation screening along the back lot line. (h) Lot layouts should take into consideration the potential use of solar energy design features. (Ord. No. 33-D, § 6.5, 2-25-85) Sec. 18.61. Landscaping and tree preservation requirements. (a) Required landscaping/residential subdivision. (1) Each lot shall be provided with a minimum of one (1) tree to be placed in the front yard. The type of tree shall be subject to city approval. (the city will provide a list of species:. Coniferous trees must be at least six (6 feet high and deciduous trees must be at least two and one-half (21/2) inches in diameter at the time of installation. This requirement may be waived by the city where the applicant can demonstrate that a suitable tree having a minimum diameter of two and one-half (2'/2) inches for decid- uous and six-foot height for evergreen and four(4) feet above the ground is located in an appropriate location on the lot. The following trees may be used to meet planting requirements: Primary Specimen Deciduous Trees Common Name Acer saccharum Maple, Sugar or hard Celtis occidentalis Hackberry Quercus alba Oak, White Quercus bicolor Oak, Bicolor Quercus macrocarpa Oak, Bur Tilia americana Linden, American Secondary Deciduous Trees Acer platanoides 'Cleveland' Maple, Cleveland Norway Acer platanoides 'Columnar' Maple, Columnar Acer platanoides 'Crimson King' Maple, Crimson King Acer platanoides 'Emerald Lustre' Maple, Emerald Lustre Norway Acer platanoides 'Emerald Queen' Maple, Emerald Queen Norway Acer platanoides 'Jade Glen' Maple, Jade Glen Acer platanoides 'Schwedler' Maple, Schwedler Norway Supp.No.4 1010 SUBDIVISIONS § 18.61 — Secondary Deciduous Trees Common Name — Acer platanoides 'Superform' Maple, Superform Norway Acer platanoides 'Variegatum' Maple, variegated Norway Acer rubrum Maple, Red Acer rubrum 'Northwood' Maple, Northwood Red Acer saccaharinum 'Silver Queen' Maple, Silver Queen Betula payryiter Birch, paper Betula pendula icciminta Birch, cut leaf weeping Fraxinus americana Ash, White F raxinus pennsylvanica Ash, Marshall's Seedless Ginkgo biloba Ginkgo Gleditsia tricanthos inermis Honeylocust, thornless Gleditsia tricanthos inermis 'Imperial' Honeylocust, Imperial Gleditsia tricanthos inermis 'Skyline' Honeylocust, Skyline Gymnocladus dioica Coffeetree, Kentucky Ornamental Acer innala Maple, Amur Amelanchier Serviceberry or Juneberry Malus bacata columnaris Crabapple, Columnar Siberian Malus (various species? Crabapple, flowering -Varieties: Dolgo, Flame, Radiant, Red, Silver, Red Spendor Prunus 'Newport' Plum, Newport Prunus triloba Plum, flowering or Rose Tree of China Prunus virginiana 'Schubert' Chokeberry, Schuberts Rhamnus frangula 'Columnaris' Buckthorn, Tallhedge Syringa amurensis japonica Lilac, Japanese tree Tilia cordata Linden, Littleleaf Tilia cordata 'Greenspire' Linden, Greenspire Tilia x euchlora 'Redmond' Linden, Redmond Conifers Abies balsamea Fir, Balsam Abies concolor Fir, Concolor Picea abies Spruce, Norway Picea glauca Spruce, White Picea gauca densata Spruce, Black Hills Picea pungens Spruce, Coloardo Green Picea pungens glauca Spruce, Colorado Blue Pinus nigra Pine, Austrian Pinus ponderosa Pine, Ponderosa Pinus resinosa Pine, Norway !pp.No.4 1010.1 § 18-61 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Conifers Common Name Pinus strobus Pine, White Pinus sylvestris Pine, Scotch Pseudotsuga Menziesii Fir, Douglas Thuja occidentalis Arborvitae Thuja occidentalis Techney Arborvitae (2) The tree must be installed prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy or financial guarantees acceptable to the city must be provided to ensure timely installation. (3) All areas disturbed by site grading and/or construction must be seeded or sodded immediately upon completion of work to minimize erosion. When certificates of oc- cupancy are requested prior to the satisfaction of this requirement, financial guar- antees acceptable to the city, must be provided. (4) No dead trees or uprooted stumps shall remain after development. On-site burial is not permitted. (5) Landscaped buffers around the exterior of the subdivision shall be required by the city when the plat is contiguous with collector or arterial streets as defined by the com- prehensive plan and where the plat is adjacent to more intensive land uses. Required buffering shall consist of berms and landscape material consisting of a mix of trees and shrubs and/or tree preservation areas. Where appropriate, the city may require additional lot depth and area on lots containing the buffer so that it can be adequately accommodated and the homes protected from impacts. Lot depths and areas may be increased by twenty-five (25) percent over zoning district standards. The landscape plan must be developed with the preliminary and final plat submittals for city ap- proval. Appropriate financial guarantees acceptable to the city shall be required. (b) It is the policy of the city to preserve natural woodland areas throughout the city and with respect to specific site development to retain as far as practical, substantial tree stands which can be incorporated into the overall landscape plan. (c) No clearcutting of woodland areas shall be permitted except as approved in a subdi- vision, planned unit development or site plan application. (d) The following standards shall be used in evaluating subdivisions and site plans: _ (1) To the extent practical, site design shall preserve significant woodland areas. (2) Healthy shade trees of six(6) inches or more caliper at four(4) feet in height shall be saved unless it can be demonstrated that there is no other feasible way to develop the site. (3) Replacement of trees approved for removal by the city may be required on a caliper- inch-per-caliper-inch basis.At minimum,however,replacement trees shall conform to the planting requirement identified in division 3 of this article. Supp.No.4 1010.2 Pioneer Engineering 7831883 P. 02 — • LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST 9TH TREE TAGS 51 44" Oak 52 48" Oak 53 14" Elm 54 20" Oak — 55 20" Oak 56 22" Oak 57 24" Oak — 58 12" Oak 59 30" Oak 60 18" Oak — 61 30" Oak 62 12" Oak 63 36" Oak 64 10" Oak — 65 30" Oak 66 20" Basswood 67 30" Oak — 68 24" Oak 69 8" Elm 70 18" Oak 71 22" Oak 72 28" Oak 73 18" Oak 74 24" Oak — 75 38" Oak 76 36" Oak 77 24" Oak — 78 10" Oak 79 10" Oak 80 10" Oak 81 8" Oak 82 12" Oak 83 10" Ash 84 6" Oak — 85 10" BE 86 10" BE Twin 87 8" Oak 88 12" Oak 89 12" Basswood Triple 90 10" Ash 91 40" Oak — 92 38" Oak 93 10" Oak 94 6" Oak 95 8" Oak 96 10" Oak 97 10" Oak 98 10" Oak 99 8" Oak 100 12" Elm Twin Pioneer Engineering 7631883 P . 03 303 12" Box Elder 363 40" Oak 304 10" Box Elder 364 10" Oak 305 14" Box Elder 365 8" Elm 306 8" Box Elder 366 8" Oak 307 12" Box Elder 367 8" Eli. 308 10" Box Elder 368 6" Oak 309 16" Box Elder 369 8" Oak 310 14" Box Elder 370 10" Oak 311 8"-12" Quad Box Elder 371 8" Oak 312 12" Box Elder 372 10" Oak 313 10" Box Elder 373 8" BE 314 24" Box Elder 374 14" BE 315 12" Box Elder 375 6" BE win 316 10" Twin Box Elder 376 14" BE 317 18" Box Elder 377 8" Elm 318 16" Box Elder 378 8" Oak — 319 18" Box Elder 379 10" Oak 320 32" Box Elder 380 8" Elm 321. 34" Box Elder 381 8" Oak 322 48" Oak 382 6" Ash 323 40" Oak 383 8" Oak 324 10" Box Elder 384 10" BE 325 14" Box Elder 385 8" Oak 326 10" Iain Box Elder 386 8" Oak 327 8" Box Elder 387 10" Oak 328 8" win Box Elder 388 8" Oak 320 12" Twin Box Elder 389 8" Oak 330 16" Box Elder 390 8" Oak 331. 14" Box Elder 391 8" Oak 332 48" Oak 392 10" BE 333 12" Box Elder 393 12" Oak 334 48" Oak 394 6" Oak 335 10" Quad Box Elder 395 6" Oak 336 18" Box Elder 396 14" BE 337 20" Box Elder 397 10" Oak 338 12" Box Elder 398 14" BE 339 30" Oak 399 * 340 38" Oak 400 * 341 38" Oak 401 8" BE 342 12" Box Elder 402 10" BE 343 40" Oak 403 10" BE 344 30" Oak 404 14" BE 345 50" Oak 405 10" BE 346 10" BE Twin 406 8" Ell 347 12 BE 407 32" Oak 348 12 BE 408 6" BE 349 10 BE DBL 409 8" Elm 350 18" Willow 410 48" Oak 351 12 Maple 411 44" Oak 352 10" BE Twin 412 36" Oak 353 8" BE 'Rain 413 8" BE 354 36" Oak 414 20" Elm 355 42" Oak 415 6" BE 356 28" Oak 416 8" BE 357 8" Elm 417 6" BE 358 8" BE 418 20" Oak 359 12" Oak 419 16" Oak Pioneer Engineering 7831883 P. e4 423 20" Oak Twin 483 28" Oak — 424 28" Oak 484 24" Willow Triple 425 10" Oak 485 30" willow 426 50" Oak 486 10" Elm Twin — 427 8" BE 487 14" Willow 428 18" Oak 488 14" Willow 429 20" Oak 489 14" Willow Twin 430 22" Oak 490 14" Willow Twin — 431 14" Oak 491 12" Ash 432 40" Oak 492 24" Oak Twin . 433 38" Oak 493 18" Oak — 434 48" Oak 494 28" Oak 435 10" BE 495 38" Oak 436 8" Elm 496 20" Oak — 437 10" 8" Elm 497 18" Oak • 438 10" Elm 498 16" Oak 439 10" Elm 499 18" Oak — 440 6" BE 500 30" Oak 441 6" Elm 501 40" Oak 442 8" Oak 502 12" BE 443 38" Oak 503 14" Elm — 444 8" BE 504 40" Oak 445 8" BE 505 * 446 18" Basswood 506 * — 447 22" BE 507 24" Oak 448 8" Elm 508 22" Oak 449 10" Elm 509 28" Oak — 450 18" BE 510 44" Oak Twin 451 12" BE 511 14" Oak 452 10" BE Twin 512 40" Oak 453 8" Elm 513 34" Oak — 454 6" Elm 514 12" Oak 455 6" Elm 515 28" Oak 456 8" BE 516 24" Oak — 457 8" Elm & BE 517 48" Oak 458 8" BE 518 26" Oak 459 14" Willow Twin 519 10" Oak — 460 6" Elm 520 22" Oak 461 10" Elm 521 - 10" Ash 462 10" Elm 522 48" Oak 463 6" Elm 523 24" Oak — 464 28" Oak 524 8" Elm 465 28" Oak 525 42" Oak 466 30" Oak 526 40" Oak _ 467 32" Oak 527 6" Basswood 468 6" Cedar 528 12" BE 469 14" Willow Twin 529 8" Basswood — 470 10" Elm 530 8" Elm 471 6" Cherry Twin 531 8" Oak 472 32" Oak 532 10�tOak 473 20" Oak 533 * 474 18" Oak 534 8" Oak 475 34" Oak 535 10" Oak 476 30" Oak 536 10" Elm — 477 18" Oak 537 10" Oak 478 24" Oak 538 10" Oak 479 8" Elm 539 8:: Oak Pioneer En9ineerin9 7831883 P. 09 581 24" Basswood 521 20" Oak 582 28" maple 522 20" Oak 583 36" Elm 523 24" Oak 584 20" Basswood 524 30" Oak 585 22" Oak _ 525 22" Oak 586 12" Oak 526 20" Oak 587 20" Maple 527 26" Oak 588 12" Elm 528 24" Oak 589 12" Elm Twin 529 22" Oak 590 24" Oak Trip 530 18" Oak 591 8" Elm 531 28" Oak 592 10" Elm 532 24" Oak 593 10" Oak 533 20" Oak Twin 594 24" Maple 534 22" Oak 595 22" Oak _ 535 24" Oak 596 12" Ash 536 36" Oak 597 48" Bass 537 18" Elm 598 30" Oak 538 10" Elm 599 28" Oak 539 12" Oak 600 24" Oak 540 32" Oak 601 14" Oak 541 38" Oak 602 18" Oak 542 18" Ash 603 28" Maple 543 30" Oak 604 28" Oak 544 24" Oak 605 12" Elm _ 545 26" Ash 606 30" Oak 546 28" Ash 607 10" Basswood Twin 547 36" Oak 608 12" Elm 548 30" Oak 609 14" Oak 549 24" Oak 610 35" Oak 550 24" Oak 611 35" Basswood 12" Bass 551 22" Oak 612 12" Basswood - 552 12" Oak 613 8" Elm 553 10" Elm 614 34" Basswood 554 32" Basswood 615 36" Basswood _ 555 28" Oak 616 24" Oak 556 20" Oak 617 36" Basswood 557 20" Elm 618 36-10- 6 Basswood 558 30" Oak 619 34" Oak - 559 18" Elm 620 28" Basswood 560 28" Elm 621 6" Elm 561 24" Maple 622 30" Oak 562 32" Ash 623 30" Ash 563 24" Oak 624 28" Ash 564 10" Elm 625 24" Oak 565 24" Basswood Twin 626 30" Basswood Twin 566 24" oak 627 32" Oak Twin 567 18" Oak 628 30" Ash 568 12" Basswood 629 18" Oak - 569 28" ELm 630 24" Oak 570 20" Maple Twin 631 28" Basswood Twin 571 30" Oak 632 28" Oak - 572 22" Maple 633 22" Oak 573 14" ELS- 634 20" Oak 574 10" Basswood 635 12" Ash 575 14" Oak 636 24" Oak Twin 576 18" Elm 637 16" Oak Pioneer Ensineerins 7831883 P. 05 • 543 8" oak 603 16" Oak — 544 14" Oak 604 24" Ash 545 10" Oak 605 24" Oak 546 8" Oak 606 20" Oak — 547 6" Elm 607 24" Oak 548 8" Ash 608 24" Oak 549 6" Elm 609 28" Oak _ 550 24" Oak 610 30" Oak 551 40" Oak 611 26" Oak 552 36" Oak 612 10" Oak 553 20" Oak 613 12" Oak — 554 42" Oak Iain 614 16" Oak 555 40" Oak 615 24" Ash 556 10" Oak 616 24" Oak — 557 28" Oak 617 28" Oak 558 24" Oak 618 8" Ash 559 8" Elm 619 10" Ash _ 560 40" Oak 620 24" Oak 561 24" Oak Twin 621 22" Ash 562 30" Oak 622 28" Oak 563 30" Oak 623 16" Oak — 564 50" Oak 624 30" Oak 565 42" Oak 625 20" Ash 566 36" Oak 626 28" Oak — 567 30" Oak 627 24" Oak 568 30" Oak 628 24" Oak 569 20" Oak 629 18" Oak — 570 18" Oak 630 18" Oak 571 8" Elm 631 14" Oak 572 14" Basswood 632 16" Oak 573 36" Oak 633 24" Oak __ 574 6" Elm 634 24" Oak 575 6" Ash 635 10" Elm 576 24" Oak 636 28" Ash — 577 30" Oak 637 14" Oak 578 24" Oak 638 10" Oak 579 24" Oak 639 14" Ash — 580 8" Elm 640 30" Ash 581 16" Ash 641 18" Oak 582 26" Oak 642 18" Oak 583 14" Oak 643 28" Oak 584 30" Oak 644 18" Ash 585 24" Oak 645 30" Ash 586 12" Oak 646 10" Oak -- 587 587 18" Oak 647 10" Oak 588 12" Oak 648 14" Oak 589 28" Oak 649 20" Oak — 590 8" Box Elder 650 24" Ash 591 36" Oak 651 40" Oak 592 28" Oak 652 10" Elm 593 16" Oak 653 12" Elm — 594 16" Oak 654 42" Oak 595 16" Ash 655 24" Oak 596 30" Oak 656 12" Elm — 597 18" Oak 657 24" Oak 598 18" Basswood 658 30" Oak 599 24" Oak 659 42" Oak Pioneer Engineerine 7831883 P . C+r'. 663 36" Oak 723 28" Oak 664 8" Elm 724 24" Oak - 665 10" Willow 725 40 Oak 666 18" Oak 726 18" Oak 667 18" Elm 727 20" Oak - 668 16" Oak 728 20" Oak 669 24" Elm 729 28" Oak 670 18" Willow 730 20" Oak 671 40" Elm 731 36" Oak 672 12" Willow 732 28" Oak 673 24" Ash 733 22" Oak 674 40" Elm 734 12" Oak 675 40" Ash 735 20" Oak 676 30" Oak 736 20" Oak 677 20" Oak 737 30" Oak - 678 20" Oak 738 30" Oak 679 22" Elm 739 24" Oak 680 34" Elm 740 10" Oak Twin _ 681 * 741 10" Oak 682 8" Elrr, 742 48" Oak 683 10" Elm 743 12" Ash 684 10" As744 24" Ash 685 20" Oak 745 12" Oak 686 30" Oak 746 12" Oak 687 20" Oak 747 12" Oak - 688 30" Oak 748 14" Oak 689 10" Oak 749 10" Oak 690 18" Oak 750 30" Oak _ 691 20" Oak 751 30" Oak 692 38" Oak 752 24" Oak 693 40" Oak 753 12" Oak 694 20" Oak 754 24" Oak 695 14" Oak 755 12" Willow 696 24" oak 756 10" Elm 697 24" Oak 757 20" Oak 698 50" Oak 758 10" Elm 699 20" Ash 759 28" Oak 700 30" Oak 760 20" Oak _ 701 10" Oak 761 28" Oak 702 40" Oak 762 28" Oak 703 20" Oak 763 12" Elm 704 24" Oak 764 10" Oak 705 24" Oak 765 12" Elm . - 706 18" Oak 766 12" Elm 707 50" Oak 767 50" Oak - 708 24" Oak 768 24" Oak 709 28" oak 769 10" Elm 710 30" Oak 770 8" Ash 711 30" Oak 771 18" Oak 712 12" El772 42" Oak 713 28" Oak 773 24" Oak 714 24" Oak 774 8" Oak 715 30" Oak 775 24" Oak 716 30" Ash 776 42" Oak 717 24" Oak 777 22" Oak - 718 30" Oak 778 26" Oak .,,_ 779 20" Oak Pioneer Eng i neer i n9 7831883 F'. E17 783 42" Oak 843 10" Oak 784 22" Oak 'twin 844 8" Oak 785 * 845 14" Elm _ 785 * 846 18" Basswood Twin 787 * 847 44" Oak 788 * 848 32" Oak 789 * 849 32" Oak — 790 * 850 14" Oak 791 * 851 24" Oak 792 * 852 24" Oak - 793 * 853 12" Oak 794 * 854 22" Oak 795 * 855 24" Oak _ 796 * 856 26" Oak 797 * 857 16" Oak 798 * 858 24" Oak 799 * 859 40" Oak - 800 * 860 20" Oak 801 28" Oak 861 20" Oak 802 36" Oak 862 8" Oak - 803 28" Oak 863 18" Oak 804 10" Elm - 864 14" Oak 805 26" Oak 865 24" Oak _ 806 36" Oak 866 34" Oak 807 26" Oak 867 28" Oak 808 8" Elm 868 12" Oak 809 8" Elm 869 22" Oak — 810 10" Oak Twin 870 28" Oak 811 26" Oak 871 24" Oak 812 16" Oak 872 38" Oak — 813 16" Oak 873 18" Bass 814 36" Oak 874 16" Elm 815 24" Ash 875 32" Oak _ 816 10" Elm 876 44" Oak 817 24" Oak 877 40" Oak 818 24" Oak 878 30" Oak 819 16" Oak 879 22" Oak 820 24" Oak 880 20" Oak 821 20" Oak 881 22" Oak 822 10" Elm 882 12" Elm 823 10" Oak 883 14" Bass 824 12" Oak 884 14" Elm 825 40" Oak 885 12" Elm 826 26" Oak 886 12" BE 827 26" Oak 887 14" Maple 828 22" Oak 888 10" Elm 829 28" Oak 889 12" Elm 830 48" Oak 890 12" Elm 831 18" Oak 891 18" Elm 832 36" Oak 892 20" Oak — 833 28" Oak 893 10" Elm 834 10" Elm 894 8" Elm 835 40" Oak 895 26" Oak 836 10" Oak 896 28" Oak 837 10" Oak 897 28" Oak 838 24" Oak 898 32" Oak Pf,ll Anil r._,_ 0/1(1 IA" �_1_ Pioneer Engineering 7831883 P. 08 903 18" Oak 963 34" Basswood 904 20" Oak 964 28" Oak 905 16" Oak 965 24" Oak 906 28" Oak 966 18" Oa}. 907 36" Oak 967 24" Basswood 908 28" Oak 968 22" Basswood Tarin 909 38" Oak 969 32" Basswood 910 26" Oak 970 30" Oak 911 30" Bass 971 24" Oak 912 24" Oak 972 14" Basswood 913 24" Oak 973 12" Basswood _ 914 16" Oak 974 10" Bass Twin 915 22" Oak 975 14" Oak 916 38" Oak 976 10" Oak 917 26" Oak 977 8" Elm 918 26" Oak 978 42" Basswood 919 34" Oak 979 35" Basswood 920 20" Oak 980 10" Elm 921 40" Maple 981 36" Basswood 922 22" Maple 982 28" Basswood 923 36" Oak 983 38" Oak 924 40" Oak 984 10" Oak 925 36" Basswood 985 36" Oak 926 40" Basswood 986 20" Oak 927 32" Basswood Trip. 987 12" Elm -- 928 24" Basswood 988 14" Elm 929 28" Basswood989 10 Em 930 36" Oak 990 24" Oak _ 931 40" maple 991 36" Oak 932 24" Basswood 992 12" Elm 933 12" Oak 993 24" Oak _ 934 14" Basswood 994 32" Oak 935 8" Elm Trip. 995 34" Oak 936 12" Elm 996 20" Oak 937 8" Maple 997 8" Maple 938 24" Oak 998 22" Maple 939 24" Oak 999 8" Elm 940 24" Maple 1000 26" Oak (4758) __ 941 28" Oak 942 20" Oak ROUND TAGS 943 24" Oak 501 36" Oak (4759) _ 944 28" Oak 502 26" Oak 945 24" Oak 503 32" Oak 946 18" Oak 504 20" Oak 947 20" Oak Twin 505 24" Oak 949 18" Oak 506 24" Oak Twin 949 12" Oak 507 24" Oak 950 26" Oak 508 22" Oak 951 32" Oak 509 20" Oak 952 18" Oak 510 24" Oak 953 34" Oak 511 30" Oak 954 36" Oak 512 26" Oak 955 12" Asn Twin 513 34" Oak 956 32" Oak 514 24" Oak 957 34" Oak 515 18" Oak — 958 35" Basswood 516 36" Oak -.-„ -- 517 32" Oak COMPLIANCE TABLES BLOCK 1 Lot Area Lot Width Lot Depth Lot 1 12,600 83 148 Lot 2 12,800 85 150 Lot 3 14,150 87 157 Lot 4 14,950 85 172 Lot 5 15,550 83 173 Lot 6 13,900 83 152 Lot 7 13,750 94 146 Lot 8 12,700 141 144 BLOCK 2 Lot Area Lot Width Lot Depth Lot 1 20,875 100 208 Lot 2 22,350 120 220 Lot 3 20,725 104 219 Lot 4 20,775 100 209 Lot 5 20,225 100 203 Lot 6 20,425 100 203 BLOCK 3 Lot Area Lot Width Lot Depth Lot 1 21,825 98 220 2 24,800 116 257 3 22,825 151 241 4 25,650 97 200 5 24,325 90 194 6 16,675 85 189 7 16,475 85 195 8 15,070 90 194 9 15,350 90 179 10 17,017 92 154 1 BLOCK 4 Lot Area Lot Width Lot Depth Lot 1 16,800 100 153 Flag Lot 2 23,000 100 259 Flag Lot 3 27,750 100 288 Flag Lot 4 22,550 100 228 Flag Lot 5 14,525 83 174 6 15,000 87 174 7 16,575 85 179 8 15,000 85 172 9 13,400 86 155 10 15,125 208 136 11 14,575 163 183 12 16,208 98 137 13 22,500 87 161 14 22,935 83 171 15 19,165 85 179 16 17,750 85 179 17 17,400 85 178 18 15,820 116 187 19 15,000 105 193 20 16,320 87 191 21 15,450 115 191 22 15,150 128 210 23 16,000 119 206 24 15,350 89 192 25 16,192 85 190 26 17,680 85 203 27 17,340 85 213 28 18,920 86 220 29 20,972 85 200 30 17,750 83 179 2 BLOCK 4 Lot Area Lot Width Lot Depth 31 18,100 87 176 32 17,950 85 177 33 18,100 85 178 34 17,525 83 176 35 18,250 95 200 36 24,500 100 320 37 28,600 100 320 38 26,225 153 200 BLOCK 5 Lot Area Lot Width Lot Depth Lot 1 19,375 140 208 2 18,250 190 189 3 16,050 124 189 4 15,800 124 183 5 15,625 116 161 6 12,450 97 146 7 12,525 86 146 8 12,450 86 147 9 13,325 83 147 10 14,425 85 158 11 14,650 87 159 12 13, 175 87 148 13 12,700 85 149 14 15,200 83 160 15 18,600 83 172 16 15,650 87 160 17 13,325 83 144 18 14,925 83 159 19 18,400 85 202 20 14,875 100 149 3 21 20,875 86 153 22 31,475 86 195 23 23,800 86 185 24 16,750 100 165 25 19,250 231 169 26 15,000 142 180 27 17,550 95 183 28 26,800 146 183 4 4 I• —II _ ! DI 1 i L 11 rI •t i 4; Jt i ,1li• h �i =111 • �. • ". _ I t.!4 - • t ' 1 11, 1111E I, 1,i„), IE , ! -' Vie' ��' - _ $ ijII!ill ii ,111 11li♦ ` i '11111 ,1 ,11-1f s, 1 , i .� 1 :4 2 11iiilirI1i ! ! iiiWiiui1 - tfl ' ririv r:" y I ft S ES f *1R - k F • ► �; IX i ttri t •_'.-. " 1 • t ' IL I , 1 i ( - .1 .1 I ..i10..../ ..1,- -i. i I vo leo g ,3® / 11. NI 11111 i " Ill 1 qac ' ILi1 I 11 I 1C11i_ is ! Oil Ilii — — its , ii • J., _..7- ;:k-,1;-0-3!d\''s s'. s i.----i. ------ .---- " 4-11:liagegt--:"—:::------. 7:-.--:,....4:-.7ii-,1--,.. . : \ ''.---.. mss ,`-� =�� ap' 4.5t ..• 431.,-- ,17-ip-••—jj,c. ...,..,.0.- .. .1/40_ ....-02,4.• ........„ .,. f ; ------ Iii;lor>, :f 4' .' Z7- €1i:I 41.4'.0 C14117:4101grifelVeAse•‘‘sit li e 1.11;;‘-ille " ' I '"°°.:41711iii141.1.%;Is'...4e..\\''''''s":Asillr4:1.4114...1112,-• ir.: 414111141r%l :111111:k‘‘.. 110000 ,...-(414( 0 ;\ • •vito ..?, . .....-,_, _ _.ii __....f*. " 1:Z/t,, 006 4-°':)'- * I ‘1110R-4111:1C74:10, "7:4 r.:1-;d%1_...‘ ere s'ia,' 11 ,.• , 4. ire,„ 40),,,, , , (A., _ ,5 : - , , , ,....i ,._ , . 11,4,, ..........._7-01,c mum.4 \ 4:_, , -yfr.) --.,7 I�mo'; i .41Iti:c..%::\;.\-.:1‘,‘`L\s, ..‘\''' itirl I c —,I--C-1,„a -s‘ 4; ,—Pill � ,f,. „-e_ ._�J� ,0 ', ! - , , _ ,, _- -.p-T.4-s.“---- ,r-, -t.0- - - � ' I- = .. -- i' Li - li' --'� 1 �''= ij _ __ -,- 0>f1IR36f108 r, _- s_ti_3;ACJC 1__ ! ! ! 3_ 1 i -.:, ,=i E } ; 11 r _�"__ _=�. _-— -- l 4_ t_tom- -`--_�_�,- ��r•�-` �� III ii, 4 I / _'I O • \cstr,sAkPtc4, \•.\\ -`,,\,\; i siCb i ' _ 141 `• i -rN.:\v•\ • , t.\\ , ,.. ..,.\:\ t ,,,‘ ,,,, , ;\\ .. \ 0 \\‘‘IIN it>ii.:4 ‘\ III Z 4C i IkC L\ � , 1 '1`�\ • !� \A \ ,- -- t • \ (Itil ,:::441S;Z.,. Arab' s, • \ ',0,-. •...,. 11.11t / 414, 4Pi t' \ C , \-\ \1..,'''''''' \,I, ‘% % NO%\ \10111 SANt t \litil.k ... + N , I 1 II \*41tNi **-k.t-b.sz 1.. - - «. \\ _,ti -'----4''' .16„: * N (,.. 4% % Ncap / •:-.1-_--. - ea --:- •-. -...' _...-- • . .\W (, .„„.... \''• ` s \ Ntrei.e: 440 - -6. J_'" r 4-:'---.7-2-',4,'-'4, -----_1 tap,co 1 , ..." /` -‘N%%.7,2: ••=r), . . % I •,1: - - - 10 . . ••••,:z..---1:, ci 1 .\ e'-\\> • / ; ; Iiit1;-\ -•- ' • -' . '1.--N\1.„.. .4u-... .-fe / , , ,.ZS'`"'' ',.' , / -,\lkiii, \:;pe V", -\ 1Z1.11.1111...144 , sso'.... •-,, .1'',%.-41 I ,-'''.\\.,,\\. /.........../ alb\ - Z. . ..•., ---' -'.., C:7- --... .'`.., 1. . . \ tIk' • ,‘ . Ai,11 ,-' ../".... \‘i 1'4.\,,,,`,K .' / ./ -: f..-110 - - 1 1 ; 1 1," 4E. i ak - . \,. \ ,.... / . Nrioly 404,41_,Sih, -..--,-.-,- ,-,ips... -4,, •' ,,, , ,1,,,- ? / . . ----,/. '-- ..111. . I ' \ ‘s•‘'-- ----'i- ' - / 1 ' \ ;./.1.1/./. .'' i , . ,..„.........., .,., ..., , ,:., ,.,. , f r--� In ip ILIMIVitaAti: ` if' ,0// Zii., idi', , ‘, . . \„ : ,......, , , _....__ . s, ‘, ,„ ..,, ,,7„.,, ,,,,,,, , , ., ‘,„ , , ...„ ,, ,,,, , ,, J)' r /„ 7/, ,, r � y •' �� x. 15 Vf4AltiV %v , . ; ..).,‘(i,,,,,,/ ,,, . • ,,,,/ i of & ,40 , r._,F0 .•/"."/,' '4. - ..4-- 7or • --: . -' . .- ' ''.4.:' C - - V'' ' ; / 1 i /4\a‘ 'lit\ t44 1 Vt.*: .-.\ .-•'s . ss:;, •-- I ..--- ,,,,' -;',,,;*/ ' 1000":7 ."0:11.1;;;;;9i...... - 4.0,.// i; //firiti\VoT `‘11441:eC \ ki'' .....\\\ I' . \\.`•;:\ ..,... , z / - I lic -4-;"------7".:Alti‘ \ ‘, _ '• •••':.• r••••-- 1 ---"'''''' '11-,,'/' -.6001001:00,0%I. 4///, 4 '-''',./../ _.t--' _,,,,.• / 7-7....,._,......,...--------,____Atti 4,11 Li,:iilit ",•,s-4 i4.:!*4., ,,\ i 1/ V,f`,\ /9•: ' - --.\40V.----7.° 40,• .' - • % %\ ..• NI S '' '1°111; 1„ � ; .. ' �!;° / ,6,,•,, .. / nit ,,,,.0.4 ,104- '� v �� .1 11, -, ,, t l t , , ...4.i ..". , ,, ,,, , , 1,4 i 1 t It ``-- - _� - ' -'. f' '�/ �` ... , , t4....•\ �' A. ' f1.relir\t 1 li -__ I ,'�. e , -- 1 if f - , ,S 71'4/ , 1,-•Itri '..., tri I. ffr: ii .... : i I.1 111 -,- AR • 41-1-t 4 ‘,[31 1 iiir. :i i , i, ... kt : iiiI s • '0,1,1,1....‘ ii.1,:, • \ % i ry.----, I I / ;I : \ -- `s_ 1 13f \\, -", t t, ,,1 • \ ,.r_ tt,40 1 11 // •................... • 1 - 1 //16) •,, ..• I ' •%:_.1/41 . ,i, ,\s, \ • • sss 1\. `• I • 3 1 1 I 1 ,. 1 1 1 mma W C::•> 0 ci) 1 1 1 1 ( 1 I IC tI 1 1 1 ,. • II II ss• • • 's i 1 1 ` F = a \ii % , i I ( )--li:al mil a _ 7 . mie O ii- — F , • • I 11 il I ill pi �-�—J _�_'_ ==��.=�,=_�-__- ^--fi_,77...=.=......„,... --==-} ill E'er - e_ r �- -- -f--�_-- _ - --_'- ——— —�owE!!s —t—iout ofAno .. — ♦ \-�� '� '? '.�s'•.�_-�.-•• ` "' i .t �.-', r 1,1 'I/ • ..- - _- •'' I ••1 t ' '''. 10. r al. .• •••.„...•. /.0.00.1„.•'' I' sior/10; .--aks . - :I --I....71.---. `,---:!:-- • . i ;,‘,•:;- ->" - e- ,--,.. N i ,J's• ' ,'s "._', ., '' '''':, 1":' ' ..- ":' •:, •:-4.- \ II , .-,'...',,• s-- - .....„ e:,,N6. 1 `• ' • 'O..'..ii--d... -- „..•-• , ,• , „ ,, /„. W ri \.-,--- ,,,,-;..1 , 44,,, - , .-_,-,000(,--4,-.,-L-- -tr. ,... , -04 .._. .. .. ,- . oily I _. , 1.4 • •s. \•% ••••::z7..1...",„.,J....••s 4...,1 I. ss \ ,,fr. ?ft:— ---------- - ........ . , __,_ _____... .... • ... ____..... . ,... • .. ....... 1 \ ., .. • , ,I, : ! , , , , .. . . 007 : ... .. ...s• . . ____ • 4 /.';'..".11,40/ .'„. .... '.......::-''::1...••• ..g.''''..I...“•..;.....*"..N \ , s ) i '' mow/\ PI 1 , ; •‘, \ ... • Ilik:`---1111P p ' 1i 1 , • ♦.. N • • \ •• •• t • �,•• •` t \\ \ •• \ 1 , \\•\` �� ,`` • 1 11 : : 00...\\.,.. I I ` • •— • /- ♦••.__ - - %,I . . s. 1 ♦ . '� `. • _ '- ... Ir- �I } . - s1 E — O Iiiiii 111 J. _ ii I 111111 " ' :g.iiiiiiiii at sib 1 I Iif = CP t S ; in MI! r , i — I i�� !tiitIIILnIuu1 ' 1 i0t. i=111111 t `11! I 1 , - p " ! ; ',1e � I i ; ` 1 illi1111Infit3i€ { s- ! 3 / ! } lii � i Ji Sl{{! 1Iastir 111111 (0 , •- E Pi - .. i < . --A. 311j. Ili ' I — ..) J co4.0 ' — 5 '�. s el if 1 1IHll II Iii ; I 11 f; . . t:' V it / + N LL.: , ' ',_ �ri �•V�- lciII' hI i iil j i lift j il ii T:N t` , : ; W i ins {, I , \? H, 1 — we E —„ _ Ifi , / =a = t1I;7 iii! _ am sTl �o� ;17©O ; i.{j I ,I :-- ----------1 7-41 II 10. E-� • I_. 1111661 Q ! iiii. I ii s. 4 ,I — L 1 = // _ , 1111\ / 1.1 ��-� tttlt . '\11 1\ \ \1\1 al , • so,.+\\‘\ \\ ., , \ \\ \ 6414.) •*. \ \ ':\0, \ ! '- 1 t t 71 .r `+` t1 41 1 l 01,11 • t \\ \\� :•`\ • \• I.1 .---=-7, •. • 1 I � s / t `• 1 0 1 \a . , , t 1 11 1 ^i 1 ` `` \ \\ i % .114r. - i A , ‘,‘ \\ L t ,... ......., ......, .,.................,._. ............,.. „,.... , . ... , I,,, , st A.,,,,....,:........ . ._ ..... p .,,tv.\ ,,.. 1\ ‘ ....'".' tP--1 \i,\"V a .•-,,, • %. . N\f„\;s: ‘ \‘‘ ‘, I\‘‘ie. -........... '.7.::-tr''';'-.._.....'•::...,:: -.:':- * -.. i'. .t. 's 'PP, s' . s. ‘ .`• ,‘ ,\;;;/. .• '''Z•-••- - '•-:*:::-::1-4"--4-:,-, ,•—'- - _ ----""*.--- ;'• 4 " 4 ‘• 't s •''' '• \ ‘ , .-'--- -1-c--'. ....,"1,1‘ -..;:e:".-•' *s`.,,, v, i\ \\ \.„, 1 ;61 " ---..�� - A - _-'� I I ! t 111"11\I 1 R ::_•:- ,-:I-- ---1:. .-,' ,/; -1-'.,`,--- :-.- --- %,-..--- - ,. v \�` i; _ --_ + -�- 1 r Iii Iii,111I1, f \\,\\‹........4 ..<-,,,/ , / ,, -\ , .:... •\i'If •ar-i•-••••.•.„, 4 1 . ammoirmsomur•ijk-qt. •••• ,i ) ,"I://,//,',,,,,,,/, ,. \ • 1V' / / ', . � ..`-!'__ ,\ 1 Y . 1 .4' ��'tj-F. tc ♦ / ///rltrirl !/ ` ` .l. ' • I t ,i -': L�•s'yri- 1'. '4'11/17'1;14 ' 1 \ •-":1.-0.- • _-`-/ �1 j',' :••`'•,' '1 tL.• it ri /,� ''�� \ '`:%l///Ilrr1 /r , r -- rr• 1�r r •/,rf% ,N ,,, ,'1•'1 /' 1, ../ / ;3" T+� "i ',1/1 ,////1R!"7 /, I / II t ' / •f:',\ \` ,"/. ./' Ts '1 ' ' //.,: {//// /i _� -4 / 111 '► r -''�/�/��; ,411\% .• .,...",";',./ :g:' cy ti / � �:i// e "'r_--� st �+ /V I ••/ `/ ,,, v,,,,. / • .•;,'",:.%./.?,i X t'''.. " '''•; :-., % I., k ::.-_, ,,.„ ., , I • ' �= � \ 7 � t•' • .' „\;,\ \/, , � . ma A ;1 t i ,',,t 1,1 ;il /• .. -„4110. ,....,,, , ,,,,41,, r' /' ill r / •./ •,r \11111 1 t\\It-111111'1 -/ r 1.- Y,,, 'i / , // / -/--' �; / yY - 111111 I 1 1``t` +:111: 1 =__.,:,_ ' f .PJ • "A �, -//// / / /�_« `t �i 1 111 11 ' '1 _Jir11 �- r- 1- / �L-' '/'- // / .../// / �I!/ 1 .111\t, I! _ •n' _♦ ----1-- / ! •ill / 11' 1 g. ' /' t 1 t 1 1 1 t` /-•r' e / I� • - n • I 1 C t ! _• Ill.: - t f 1 1 t 1 tt \ 1 1 '- / • • ,/ r/ li , 1 1 t . 1tt1 1 1, - / 1 1 •• i- ''it tl Me ' , r , I .-- 01 / , ,i ` • , , . •`, - ..1C.1.11 \; ``\y11 1 t as, M an IT I I •1017.0 11. J • 4 n 11111k if I lb NW 4 $* 1 � E . , 4, sa . molsai O m tt:1144 1 4 adir / ,/ vi‘ At '‘t / <,/% S., 8 ir&tit/ \ trillivir:1111. ',.f,5 te n. \ w 4.� \\ 1 wrangli *NW 0611 / A : ......i. _ . N./ . I . . . N —_ • \ \ 71:\\%.• % \ ./......t1/4\,1111 VA \ \\ ‘ \ ,,, 40 i 1/7--AVA, 110‘ \N\N%• \ • k \‘ .• • e t ‘ su z g vii ,,,,%. : .... \\ ,, , ... 5 i \' 4.i I •, I ' \\ i ♦ \ il i ,,-.— 7_,.. ' 'Ili\ . Silk\'*''''11111111bs• 104.,S1)--;-.:41111:::::;‘\\s. \ -• r f\\. ... .. *84\ s‘\%\,\\-'\\ ''''"41 "'"\\\1\‘‘('-', '''"=-- \ ,4„... „„\ .. \,, , \s‘...';',4,,-• ''\\\\s:", •k _ • iihts:.% NI N. . s. ' / - -I':ti'S‘ ' , ,kb 4, c4:4411"...111, ;74,,, ,. \\‘ •••4 i!..W. ..z.„.-.,.:1.:F.:::::.:-., .._ .A(- .- % '. i\sIciNe\#:., -""*::---:------:t3.-::-•74;.72-,-.;,,,- 1 /' \\$;„\\ ---."-' :ir -s \ ..,40/A".r 4\ (.4)i\......_,. .z........_.... . ... _.. IF if .,!, y�j �� / � riii, /r,J , 1�,, III J i \ � ...:40.1.14. rte' ` -_� i, '/r/ 7,;',/ ,' ! - �� / '\_� al riarj. `�` ` r i . ,v,_=...0 1 tr,,, ,„„,‘ ,, ,, // % \,\:://,:z '>- , , 7, 4,,,, \, ::,__--..,.:„,,z7,4 , , � �L`s• 0,`, 4 s. , 4.77 I I �� , ,, / , , d f 4 ilt 7, , 4 •••• ..,.. Ns .s....„/,,' / //:, . 4110417.‘ t/ i • ) . IVI II' °I:1111.1 I , ., q.7:'>\<1;:''//' \ 40 „.,1,et•,,, / il , I iii.1 411 It ND 3 •;•',,, .'4. _ t 1 i- 7 t , 1 0.s - : , ... -:::„„:. .- ..-- ,..., ,-,- - - ...- -e-:- 7, i*NAI hicail it-V. \ ' --'" - -.-- :-__,- ---,J-7 jp,,,,//7,06\,, \ % '. i 1.1 I* \ fr- . `‘‘s::\ ----_i:----------- ,-,'-;-,:..7 ,' - Oitte, 5 '' 1:1101 / 1.-,::a ...-,‘ '., •,:•,:\\?„7, 1 ...... ‘„,' ,'1160,4100111i; __, iir .,,,,r ..0',ir ' „Ai\ I lit' 1 IV._ .. ‘ \‘‘ \ss:4---'.--..... ,_ „,,,,,;:,, _,,,,,,;,,ve. , ,,,, -...._„ , ,t . ,.-.,„.....,._ ‘, L ,,,,,, 2,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,...„..,)„... ,.., _c_. .4,,--7:::-___„; :1,/, ',',,... _ // ..7.„---7--Art -111%,!I1 , ! ;Ili i IVY'', '''';' A liK/' • 0,,..00111101 Ilk ; l& •: I I %‘ % 111,1;% •/•:,, •' -- , ,e0/ ••••' .t,,,, 111 tit ..s ,,,\\•jl;,::1 ii, --_ / -' rsorz„.. .„,-_,-- _-----i--- illiilk....i-s• 1 ,„,,---,,,,,. i- -f27 -; -- ,e1,..., , . / ., I At 14.1*.wer I I II -..-1 1 1 1 — • -,s--'1'' - --'-<_ _,--ag: ,lir/• -40.-"ik / 41k.... -- i' 0,‘ f ,/, ...s. 1 , 1 SZ----:'.V ..,-./:......_-_---.2"S.,- , • , , / er,...-"" s • ,,, t/ i i it ` il "I ' a i::::::::1 i-7.,:::j'I i tv & ie.,/ 1 1)IA i : s ;! ' I Il � . , IBS � , Jr I .I As / , iti / : .. :,, i If . ... „ , ‘ . I k `711111 e ,e, / / , ,/ . J r/ Ill i IOf ., / I/ �L I , I I\ 1. • I i / 4 I !{ • II- -, — .1-I- '— IIS _ ,It -4 I. 1 - g 2 iiII. . -. 1 s le , a i / / \\ / \ 1 1 1.1 \ 1 1 1 1 .. ..... ... �, - - 1 e•../•...,.. .- 0 3- -___-- /� ,i /' , 1 _ ,.,...• •..'_....•-•-••,:..,:;.- 1� ♦�� ; 1 r- Y _... .,tip . __.,- 0,- I i 1 31 ! ir.;1' _. i.m.... ,/1' I ii I. ‘‘‘Cc7.) — --, ; - �' t ; 1, i;'/ ;1% ,11; /' 1, I1;X11 ,./.:, ! to'1 1 11, - St / i ' 11,1;11. i /, M. , 1 It II T il 1 1 - '- - ft °V—. --I I1 `\ 1 \ / / 7 j't /1'uif • 'i' -- --,m.•-.-. a r iti N E ---, �------ ---- — —} — �— —y-- --�1I `--- T — —t-- -- — • ars- —POWERS- - - CIOULAND �♦ ' .*_fl ! , __ I ' I '4.' s.• i.4'' ' •' It 1 '‘,\.,\ •, . ".."..7":; :%•• ......:" '',./.."',../ I ' i ).k. ' 'IN -..mi v.r...- -,s a Ilth " ,,,, --„. ... i i i i Pik:-": ..4 0 „„,....„ 4,,, , • ,,,,„1 . big a L.- tja 1,- ''''...,- -_ i -.:400 ' -.::: ..„...; - __ -..._ I 1...:---__it'",-6. --S..__-e.....i ..-1 '•' -- / ik , _ ,;‘," ... .1-----r1777—""aftigft ‘11/1 AVOW':,,".ZW:ir-'-ti-ss 's 1/-" ‘,401.1111114111e Ilk.i? —,____- - L i 1 a 1,ba ,, 'Z a••••jii , 'l '.• ,,‘::: Mii % ; ; ;,/,ti,,et - AO-7,,- i ,,..,, :1.s,,,..„rn —„ r , , ,,e, t7----.---41'------.„..„. siftili- , ..40, -,-. -%, , • , , —......- .„,„.„-- ,......,--. !III ^ N" •vs.•s• • Ilk,- 'le ' ii -.. --71:4' : - -. fifrA, '44-4' A -_._-. ..-.N..------- 53%; ' .\\‘','• '‘','s 1'' '6"441\44 ' -1.114 1-------'-- Orw 41' Irf --/-6.° . . '''..- ...../..- -. --12-4.01I/Adell"--- : ' s• '••Z.;7•Nlb*Ilk, __ --'--"".".1116Tnjlill. °°°°;, -...:-.401iiiiiir,..../.:91:/. 1 E'ss' s ‘t1--- •-•VV ;'Ne ..,_., 6.Ylik 1,..- --I fi ..,...-,4 _...." '--, \ \::•.", _4"'"•••.......,,,,..L._._L__" \ ..... 16.' 1.t 1'' / ' — 1 ____....i • c 1 1 „ \ ‘, ,,, l ; '‘1.7.1-- \ \ 12. `- \ , •i: ••• \` • • 1 \ , • it `\ \ \ \. Ai-''' 1 1\• `. , I On \• ... \ te C ",\�\ ,\�~f / 1.�•1 1 \t •,t...k..,..--:) in T..:I //' • `�\ ' 1 / ,,,` `, , r N• 1 1 . \ ` ' 11111 ; — Or v li';i" ' •.1 1 /11/ --'----... _ 1 / \::::'"71111111.4.% . \�SNI 1 t // `I .1 g .\I , %;....,,‘ , / -\s 1 1 •I I Tia1. j� y 1 1 1 1 1•1 11 TO 0' O'S) ... ,,_ . 1 -V 11\11N1.. 1 . sem , `♦ 1 l 1t / 1 1.t I 1 t 1• Iss/ 1 . 1 `\ / 1 1 _ 1 .r \ _ ,,,,,/ 1 F , s s w� - 4 ijks viii _. j: .al ,,— CITY OF CHANIT ISBN 6°^ ASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (0)- N 37-5739 MEMORANDUM V1ippA)‘. TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Se �) `zh FROM: Todd Hoffman, Pa .1 .(r))1� DATE: March 18, 1993 SUBJ: Lake Susan Hills W. In response to the inquiries from the ..ummission regarding park and recreation issues relative to the development of Lake Susan Hills West 9th, I will schedule a second review by the commission on Tuesday, April 13, 1993. I will read the minutes of the March 17 Planning Commission meeting in reviewing their concerns. As discussed this morning, the configuration of Outlot E and the suggestion of swapping Prairie Knoll Park for a portion of treed property included in this proposal will be addressed. Any other issues identified from the minutes under the jurisdiction of the Park and Recreation Commission will be addressed as well. My preliminary reaction on these two issues are: Configuration of Outlot E: The configuration of Outlot E has been mapped on the city's base map since 1988. The park's shape and boundaries were identified as a part of the initial PUD application and subsequently transfers to the base map. Alterations to the outlot's configuration and size will not be considered unless a formal request from Argus Development requesting such is received. Swappine of Parkland: At first glance, I understand why this suggestion was made. The acquisition of treed property in exchange for the open property of which Prairie Knoll Park is comprised seems enticing. However, if this were to be given serious consideration, one lobbyist group (the save the trees group), would be countered by a second (the save the park group). I will, however, bring the issue before the commission for their reaction. pc: Don Ashworth, City Manager is u PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Robert E. & Doris M. Lon 8629 Chanhassen Hills Drive North — Chanhassen, MN 55317 February 26, 1993 Planning Commission City of Chanhassen Chanhassen,MN 55317 Gentlemen: On Tuesday,February 23, 1993.we attended the Parks& Recreation meeting with the purpose of learning more about the plans of the Argus Development Company and more specifically the grove of trees on the east side of their property butting up to the water shed area of Lake Susan. The following are our comments and thoughts regarding the meeting and the future of Chanhassen: 1. The PUD goes back to 1987,but that does not mean that it is written in stone,and that changes cannot be negotiated. 2. One of the Parks &Rec members said in so many words that it is their property.and they can do what they want. To me this was a totally incorrect statement. Government is continually telling,us what we can and can't do. If this statement were true,I could have as many dogs and cats as I wanted without a license: I could build a home without any restrictions,permits,inspections.etc.; I could — build my home where I wanted without worrying about setbacks and being within so many feet from the lot lines: I could add an outbuilding without getting permission;I could forget about shoveling and mowing. The list is endless. Unfortunately I am not able to do any of these things without some _ government body approving or disapproving. Government has even been known to condemn homes and property for highways,etc. 3. We all believe this developer has a right to develop this property,but it should be for the good of the community. 4. This developer is not from Chanhassen. He is from Farmington. He will not have to live long term with the changes he has made in Chanhassen. 5. Chanhassen does not have a lot of treed areas,and it would be a shame to destroy this stand of trees just to develop a few more lots. 6. The trees marked for destruction are old hardwoods with some estimated to be as much as 200 years old,and it will be many generations before replacement trees would reach this magnitude. If these — trees were diseased,everyone would be rallying to save them. Unfortunately these are healthy trees, and no one seems to care what happens to them. 7. We are all becoming very aware of our environment. If we remove this stand of trees what happens then? Besides the changes to the contours of the land with dozing and grading,we will have soil erosion. What happens to the soil that the developer removes to build the roads,etc. There is a t1/7 F4, eta wC�" r t��f Fttr n �99:1z ISI'- N J� c i Y ur t..I'i rsjyJ��l\ protected wetland at the base of these trees,who is to say that he will not dump some of this dirt in this wetland. Eden Prairie recently had such a problem. 8. This area is also the home for much wild life-birds,pheasants,squirrels,woodchucks raccoon and deer. These animals adapt well to suburban living,and they like to eat shrubs,flowers,gardens,etc. Since we have taken away their natural habitat and food source are we then we going to kill our wildlife and further destroy our environment to save our newly planted trees,shrubs,etc. 9. Treed lots are just as valuable to the developer as they are to a prospective purchaser. Treed lots in our area sold for considerably more than the barren lots. I am also sure that the home owners purchasing these lots would rather look at trees than the back of someone's house. 10. It is rather interesting,before our agenda item was presented to the Park& Rec Commission,there was a slide presentation on a nearby area that was concerned about their park and recreation area. A special note was made of one lone tree. This is what this Argus property will be like if we let them continue on their designated path. The purpose of this letter not to stop the development of Chanhassen.but to start developing it in a more responsible manner. We hope that the Chanhassen Planning Commission and the City Council will look at this project as to how we can protect the area trees and wildlife,and still develop this area with minimum damage to Chanhassen's natural setting. Sincerely, Robert E. Long Aff--e-:;" Doris M.Long dlBE6/do _ c: Chanhassen City Council Parks &Recreation Committee JMM—Minnesota ID : 612-473-4224 MAR 17 ' 9; 13 : 17 No . 0C08 P .01 To: City of Chanhassen Date: March 17, 1993 City Council Planning Commission Re: Lake Susan hills 9th Dept. of Public Works Addition a of papas ► TpT/►pm From: Torn & Cheryl Rasmussen i(•�'., .• _ f 8531 Mergansor Court Chanhassen,MN 55317 oop+., • ""4's hone 448-3935 (h) 473-4224 (w) Fix it • /•• :/,) /J I have some questions pertaining to the proposed Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition development. I would appreciate a timely response to the following concerns: FLOODPLAI NS'WETLANDS - Are any wetlands being filled ? If so, does this project meet the requirements of the interim Wetland Conservation Act ? - Is any 100-year floodplain being filled ? Has a Watershed District permit boon obtained ? WATER QUALITY/EROSION CONTROL - It appears from the grading plan, that the slope lending to NUM" ponds is steep — and the potential for an accident (drowning of a child, lawn mower tipping over, etc.) is quite high. Ilow easy would it be for a child to get out of these ponds ? Would it be too slippery ? Is there a bench of 1-2' of water before the deep parts of the ponds ? The City of — Bloomington has determined that anything greater than a 4:1 is difficult to mow. If a accident were to happen, is the City of Chanhassen libel for damages ? In addition, NURP ponds will need to be maintained to be effective. Who is responsible for maintenance and are the ponds cosily accessible for the heavy equipment required to clean them ? - At the developers' 3/15:93 meeting, they stated that they intend to clear-cut & grade the entire site at once. Do they have an erosion control plan ? Will they be placing temporary seeding/mulch over the bare areas to prevent not only water, but also wind erosion ? If a strong, high intensity storm hits, who would be responsible for maintaining the erosion control measures and how soon would they have to repair the silt fences, _ washed-out gully's, etc. Does an erosion control implementation schedule exist? TRAFFIC/TREE CONCERNS - Right now, I feel that the 9/10ths of a mile 50 mph segment of Co. Rd 17 is too high a speed adjacent to this development. Can the City, on behalf of concerned Citizens, — petition the County/State to have the speed limit reduced to 40 mph. This reduction in speed would add only 16 seconds to the commute between Hwy 5 and Lyman Blvd. but increase safety dramatically. I am finding it more and more difficult to obtain access to Co. Rd 17 from Lake Susan Hills Drive because turning left or right from a dead stop into traffic that OFTEN OBTAINS FREEWAY SPEEDS (55 mph or greater) is very dangerous. It's ridiculous to have these speed limit in a residental develoment. With the proposed park (between the townhomes and single family homes) adjacent to Co. Rd 17, my child and her To: City of Chanhassen Date: March 17, 1993 City Council Planning Commission Re: Lake Susan Hills 9th Dept. of Public Works Addition of p1586 ) From: Toni & Cheryl Rasmussen ro i '4,, CY. r ,__ r PmII, -• 8531 8531 Merganser Courtco / �• Chanhassen,MN 65317 ooa,. Phone r , ! i 448-3935 (h) 473-4224 (w) ^/I V,>)v Fax ( j -- !r FeKA I have some questions pertaining to the proposed Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition development, I would appreciate a timely response to the following concerns: FLOODPLAI NS'WETLANDS - Are any wetlands being filled ? If so, does this project meet the requirements of the interim Wetland Conservation Act? - Is any 100-year floodplain being filled ? Has a Watershed District permit been obtained ? WATER QUALITY/EROSION CONTROL It appears from the grading plan, that the slope lending to YURP ponds is steep and the potential for an accident (drowning of a child, lawn mower tipping over, etc.) is quite high. Ilow easy would it be for a child to get out of these ponds ? Would it be too slippery ? Is there a bench of 1-2' of water before the deep parts of the ponds ? The City of Bloomington has determined that anything greater than a 4:1 is difficult to mow. If a accident were to happen, is the City of Chanhassen libel for damages ? In addition, NURP ponds will need to be maintained to be effective. Who is responsible for maintenance and are the ponds cosily accessible for the heavy equipment required to clean them ? - At the developers' 3/15193 meeting, they stated that they intend to clear-cut & grade the entire site at once. Do they have an erosion control plan ? Will they be placing temporary seeding/mulch over the bare areas to prevent not only water, but also wind erosion ? If a strong, high intensity storm hits, who would be responsible for maintaining the erosion control measures and how soon would they have to repair the silt fences, washed-out gully's, etc. Does an erosion control implementation schedule exist? TRAFFIC/TREE CONCERNS • Right now, I feel that the 9/lOths of a mile 50 mph segment of Co. Rd 17 is too high a speed adjacent to this development. Can the City, on behalf of concerned Citizens, petition the County/State to have the speed limit reduced to 40 mph. This reduction in speed would add only 16 seconds to the commute between Hwy 5 and Lyman Blvd. but increase safety dramatically. I am finding it more and more difficult to obtain access to Co. Rd 17 from Lake Susan Hills Drive because turning left or right from a dead stop into traffic that OFTEN OBTAINS FREEWAY SPEEDS (55 mph or greater) is very dangerous, It's ridiculous to have these speed limit in a residental develoment. With the proposed park (between the townhomes and single family homes) adjacent to Co. Rd 17, my child and her JMM—Minnesota ID : 612-473-4224 MRR NO .UU'c R .U1 To: City of Chanhassen Date: March 17, 1993 City Council Planning Commission Re: Lake Susan Hills 9th Dept. of Public Works Addition 1 _ I of popes From: Tom & Cheryl Rasmussen coC'�',,,, 'Y, , ,__ Prom , 8531 Mergansor Court (47,4Co Chanhassen, MN 65317 oopt. • — Phone r , 11=7 )'� 448-3935 (h) 473-4224 (w) 4h Y `!) ''' Fix• FAX I ff I have some questions pertaining to the proposed Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition development, I would appreciate a timely response to the following concerns: FLOODPLAINS'WETLANDS - Are any wetlands being filled ? If so, does this project meet the requirements of the interim Wetland Conservation Act ? - Is any 100-year floodplain being filled ? Has a Watershed District permit boon obtained ? WATER QUALITY/EROSION CONTROL - It appears from the grading plan, that the slope leading to N /R}' ponds is steep and the potential for an accident (drowning of a child, lawn mower tipping over, etc.) is quite high. Ilow easy would it be for a child to get out of these ponds ? Would it be too slippery ? Is there a bench of 1-2' of water before the deep parts of'the ponds ? The City of Bloomington has determined that anything greater than a 4:1 is difficult to mow, If a accident were to happen, is the City of Chanhassen libel for damages ? In addition, NURP ponds will need to be maintained to be effective. Who is responsible for maintenance and are the ponds easily accessible for the heavy equipment required to clean them ? - At the developers' 3/15!93 meeting, they stated that they intend to clear-cut & grade the entire site at once. Do they have an erosion control plan ? Will they be placing temporary seeding/mulch over the bare areas to prevent not only water, but also wind erosion ? If a strong, high intensity storm hits, who would be responsible for maintaining the erosion control measures and how soon would they have to repair the silt fences, washed-out gully's, etc. Does an erosion control implementation schedule exist? — TRAFFIC/TREE CONCERNS - Right now, I feel that the 9/lOths of a mile 50 mph segment of Co. Rd 17 is too high a speed adjacent to this development, Can the City, on behalf of concerned Citizens, _ petition the County/State to have the speed limit reduced to 40 mph. This reduction in speed would add only 16 seconds to the commute between Hwy 5 and Lyman Blvd. but increase safety dramatically. I am finding it more and more difficult to obtain access to Co. Rd 17 from Lake Susan Hills Drive because turning left or right from a dead stop into traffic that OFTEN OBTAINS FREEWAY SPEEDS (55 mph or greater) is very dangerous, It's ridiculous to have these speed limit in a residental develoment. With the proposed park (between the townhomcs and single family homes) adjacent to Co. Rd 17, my child and her JMM—Minnesota ID :612-473-4224 MAR 17 '93 13 : 17 No . 00} F . 01 To: City of Chanhassen Date: March 17, 1993 City Council Planning Commission Re: Lake Susan Hills 9th Dept. of Public Works Addition Ep.oe. � .� To From: Tom &Cheryl Rasmussen i 6A,, f/; r .-_ Pr°m. 1</ ,1r., , • 8531 Merganser Court co co. ., Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dept , ( � r phone, 448-3935 (h) 473-4224 (w) / l r/ • // Axl �� Fax* ,, ".l I have some questions pertaining to the proposed Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition development. I would appreciate a timely response to the following concerns: FLOODPLAINS'WETLANDS - Are any wetlands being filled ? If so, does this project meet the requirements of the interim Wetland Conservation Act? - Is any 100-year floodplain being filled ? Has a Watershed District permit been obtained ? WATER QUALITY/EROSION CONTROL - It appears from the grading plan, that the slope loading to NUM' ponds is steep and the potential for an accident (drowning of a child, lawn mower tipping over, etc.) is quite high. How easy would it be for a child to get out of these ponds ? Would it be too slippery ? Is there a bench of 1-2' of water before the deep parts of the ponds ? The City of Bloomington has determined that anything greater than a 4:1 is difficult to mow. If a accident were to happen, is the City of Chanhassen libel for damages ? In addition, NURP ponds will need to be maintained to be effective. Who is responsible for maintenance and are the ponds easily accessible for the heavy equipment required to clean them ? - At the developers' 3/15/93 meeting, they stated that they intend to clear-cut & grade the entire site at once. Do they have an erosion control plan ? Will they be placing temporary seeding/mulch over the bare areas to prevent not only water, but also wind erosion ? If a strong, high intensity storm hits, who would be responsible for maintaining the erosion control measures and how soon would they have to repair the silt fences, washed-out gully's, etc. Does an erosion control implementation schedule exist? TRAFFIC/TREE CONCERNS - Right now, I feel that the 9/10ths of a mile 50 mph segment of Co. Rd 17 is too high a speed adjacent to this development. Can the City, on behalf of concerned Citizens, petition the County/State to have the speed limit reduced to 40 mph. This reduction in speed would add only 16 seconds to the commute between Hwy 5 and Lyman Blvd. but increase safety dramatically. I am finding it more and more difficult to obtain access to Co. Rd 17 from Lake Susan Hills Drive because turning left or right from a dead stop into traffic that OFTEN OBTAINS FREEWAY SPEEDS (55 mph or greater) is very dangerous. It's ridiculous to have these speed limit in a residental develoment. With the proposed park (between the townhomcs and single family homes) adjacent to Co. Rd 17, my child and her 3MM-Minnesota ID :612-473-4224 MAR 17 ' 93 13 18 No .008 P .02 _ friends will want to cross the road to play at the park. Would you want your child to cross a street with cars travelling at 55 mph or greater? I don't. Can a walkway with lights or a — pedestrian bridge be installed if the speed limit is not reduced ? I'm sure our new neighbors in the townhomes or single family homes will feel the same way that those of us on the west side of Co. Rd. 17 feel. - Getting back specifically to the Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition, does the City have an ordinance pertaining to the number of trees that can be cut down by a developer? At the developer's 3/15/93 meeting, they stated that they can cut down all the trees if they wanted and there's nothing we can do about it because we don't own the property. Is this true ? Can any of the exisiting homes/roads be realigned to reduce the number of trees lost (without the excuse of loss of buildable lots by the developer) ? Also at the 3/15/93 developer's meeting, they stated that they would be replanting a "number" of large trees. How many (2 or 200), where, when, etc. Can a stipulation be placed on their development that they locate removed trees every 20 feet parallel to Co. Rd. 17 along the top of the existing berm on the east side of 17 ? Can the developer also provide an exhibit that not only highlights trees that are remaining (as the current plan does) but also highlights in yellow or red the trees that are coming down ? The current plan creates an optical illusion by only highlighting trees that are remaining, giving a false impression about the number of trees slated for destruction. I would like to thank the City of Chanhassen in advance for addressing our concerns. - 7,r- ,e-. ;i__:,rz,;-.:_= iO- W"'" e4--,— --__ c-7 WE , THE RESIDENTS OF CHANHASSEN HILLS. ARE AGAINST THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE 9TH EDITION OF LAKE SUSAN HILLS DEVELOPMENT. THE DEVELOPMENT WILL DESTROY A NATURAL WILDLIFE HABITAT, DESTROY LAND AND - CENTURY OLD TREES . AND DESTROY OUR NEIGHBORHOOD RECREATION AREA. Name I Address I Signature I j �? /7///. UAS ;£657 C...fp4-t/ /-/cl 4/e k/b 1 _.,0- 1-11 - 1 I ---Z: 2III , 1 .,,r,/,:., • - , 3 Lq(-L ,_ -I* _ 1 I ° _� 1n 4 J;� ` � 51 .0. Y s-cl / // I 5 -- -- -- - � s,/'z' a - �s- -, g,1/4--61,__ 6 _�- 1 - / I ,i -7' T --,,j1„4) ; i:?63 6/.4 4)171,41r44 el: o- 3 a- IL;I / J 3 --- - �'a- I ?C C� sEA) Ati ‘ .., -d._t./-e--/ moi 1 r6 9 Cf./ -�i,9 5,'/45/,k • � I 1 I n,2<tea..,/74ts )111 ( I 0 1 1 �J 1 ` ci).______ 3 - - 1,`m— I � 61%4J-,4 5 , )4.'1,5 b- N i --- - L 5 ---/w4 k'evt4241.,,e4. 4 , 6- .,4 ;4% ,,e./7:24,101,- _ ___ '1 _ _ (4__.5c..Aez 4 / /61104v..e., c ?-o(e_,,,f_J, -,_,,__,, _ 4 & L- / (flriii /fIL/f OW . ,—)iii ; I g(2si 1 i -_itt.-1.,-.f..e.,3.o _- 3 -• - I I ) f I I I f 1 1 , I 1 1 1 My name is Robert Smithburg and I live at 13657 Chanhassen Hills Dr. N. which is across from the southwest corner of the proposed development. I 'm here to raise a serious concern about this development and I ask that the Planning Commission not approve of this development plan until this concern has been satisfactorily addressed. The concern I have is to prevent the destruction of valuable old growth trees. These trees which are 80- 150 years old are an irreplaceable resource. I want the Commission to know that I received a letter _ on March 2 from Joseph Miller informing roe that they have made several design changes in order to address this concern. I thank Joseph Miller and the developer for taking this matter into consideration with regards to saving old growth trees. However their changes do not go far enough. From the neighborhood meeting Monday night I estimate the elimination of over 50% of the old growth trees. an accurate count was not available. I have reviewed the 1987 development agreement. In attachment A. clause 68, the developer is obligated to not remove trees except as approved per plat by the city. I ask the Commission to exercise its authority to not approve this development until the destruction of these valuable trees has been prevented. I also ask the Commission to investigate whether this plan violates Chanhassen's comprehensive plan, the Tree Preservation Act, or any other city ordinances. Please refer to attachment, C-9. 1 believe the planning commission has the opportunity and the responsibility to protect these old growth trees and the environment by what it does here tonight. I also believe the developer has an opportunity and obligation to act responsibly. The standards of the 1987 P.U.D. Agreement are minimums compared with the current standards. I am asking you, the developer, to in good-faith go beyond the minimal contractual obligtions of 1987 and meet the current standards of 1993. Thereby showing the citizens of Chanhassen you are a conscienious and environmentally sound developer who will be encouraged to develop in Chanhassen in the future. c P.U.O. Agreement 11/16/87 Attachment A: Development Contract # 6.8 Special Provisions Exhibit C Not damage or remove trees except as indicated on grading and tree removal plans to be epporved by the city and submitted with each plat. Trees shall be protected from destruction by snow fences, flagging. staking. and other sirifliar means of grading and construciton. C-9 Compliance with Laws and Regulations The developer represents to the city that the proposed development complies with all applicable city, county, metro, state, and Federal laws and regulations. including but not limited to: subdivision ordinances , zoning ordinances, and environmental regulations. The developer agrees to comply with such laws and regulations . 4 20-1178 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE DIVISION 2. TREE PRESERVATION' Sec. 14.1178. Generally. (a) It is the policy of the city to preserve natural woodland areas throughout the city and with respect to specific site deve;cpmant to retain as far as practical, substantial tree stands which can be incorporated into the overall landscape plan. (b) No clearcutting of woodland areas shall be permitted apt as approved In a suhdi vision, planned unit development or mita plan application. (c) The following standards shall be used in evaluating subdivisions and site plays! To the runt cram shasite deaip shall preserve significant woodland areas. - t sh .•e _Ifakletinolles or more caliper at four(4)feet in h t shall be v are no oAber feast e w to develop the (3) tap_laoement of trees approved forremby the city ms be ��. oval -+�,5 KQuired on a cnIl�r, >k^ per,inth basis.At ourumurn2howevereinunt trees shall conform to the planting requirement ider+tifled in division 8 of this article, 4:• During the removal process,trees shall be removed so as to prevent blocking of pubic rightaof•way or interfering with overhead utility lines (5) The removal of diseased and damaged trees is permissible only if they cannot be saved, (6; Trees designated for preservation shall be protected by snow fence or other means acceptable to the city. Protective Measures must be located at or beyond the ground footprint of the tree's mown. No fill material nr construction activity shall occur within these areas. These rowan's must be in place and inspected prior to the start of ceding activity. (7) 'lees designated fou 1 T esrvatsor. thu are I0- ase to xrutructiors activi A be reply«E-by newcompatible trees approved by the city. The cityy __ ulna the, dsvelor replace thane tree, with the lare+cat oparubls treys that are commer- cially available for transportation. ` ora >if- (8) ifilkeoriservation easement/may be required to protect desiirnatecl (Ord. No. 153, f 1, 11.4.81) DTVISION 3. LANDSCAPING STANDARDS Sec. 90.1178. Landscape budget. (■) Landscaping shall be provider.+that meets the minimum landscaping budget provided in the table below *Cross reference—Lar,d.caping and tree preservation requirements, 118-61. tun.No. 4 1364 C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 4/21/93 ClIANIIASSEN CC DATE: 3/23/92 , `Z. CASE #: 93-7 SUB By: Aanenson:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide one parcel to create another Single Family Lot LOCATION: North of County Road 14 (Pioneer Trail) east of proposed Highway 212 Z APPLICANT: Paul Laurent Theodore Kemma Q 16085 Delarama Drive Schoell & Madson (� Carver, MN 55315 10580 Wayzata Boulevard Minnetonka, MN 55305 a- Q PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estate District ACREAGE: 68.53 acres DENSITY: 1 unit/10 acre (gross)-2 units 68.53 acres (net) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - A2/Agricultural Estate S - A2/Agricultural Estate Q E - RR/ Rural Residential and A2/Agricultural Estate W - A2/Agricultural Estate WATER AND SEWER: Not available to the site. Lj.! PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: There is an existing home and barns located on the site. Bluff I--• Creek runs through the property. The site has a rolling topography with a large wetland. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: This site is in the 1995 study area. This site is an island in the of the proposed Highway 212 right-of-way. szlemi__. ... - LY (lc I Tel ' ) - "-/-1 x i :,iii R DZ------1 L____ ,, O/, \ . cy r - --. _.__—Y 1`— — 1 _ \ ' .ssi /l,s_ —,: . — r' .._ f \ ,,,,,,,, ,,/ __ ____M .__I varinwv, (....___Jk,z.. , lb : ; 1 . , oini-djark 1 1 1 ..........1 z....... 7.�` ,, r" J ,oc /7--11-\S ' Q ( . . I ,. i i o e< - . 1 BLUFF ,J� CREEK V. PARK �F �,•-� POND .� ` f E t T ` C �,` y • tip4 /`S M4,.5c Fkp11 • \k *P\ 41R_ J ♦�G • \ . .......1 P D 1 <- , u -- ---I' *:-'-.:- ` rate i Ail Jf Ilk Laurent Addition April 16, 1993 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY Plat The applicant is proposing to subdivide his property into two single family lots. There is a home with accessory buildings on the existing lot. It is part of a farm that remains in operation. The entire lot is 68.53 acres. County Road 14 (Pioneer Trail) runs along the southern property line. A large portion of the 68 acre property will eventually be taken for right-of- way for Highway 212 (Attachment #3). There is a large wetland classified as Ag/Urban north of the existing home and Bluff Creek runs through the property. The subject property is outside the MUSA area and will not be serviced by municipal sanitary sewer or water. A development contract will not be necessary with the subdivision since there are no public or private improvements being proposed. The overall density of this property was calculated using the entire property under the ownership of the Laurents. A large portion of the property will be taken for the Highway 212 right-of-way is still under the ownership of the Laurents. Bluff Creek runs through the property to the north of the existing home and to the east of the home. There is a large wetland located around the _ area of Bluff Creek. The wetland has been classified as Ag/Urban portions of this wetland will be modified with the construction of Highway 212. This subdivision will not affect the wetland. Staff is recommending that the plat be revised to show an easement over the wetland and Bluff Creek and an outlot designation on the Highway 212 right-of-way (see Attachment #3). Lot 1, Block 1, will be 2.25 acres in size. The city recently amended the A2 and RR zoning districts to allow for a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet or sufficient in size to allow for two drain field sites. The Inspections Division is requesting the proposed locations of the on-site sewage treatment sites be submitted for review prior to the final plat approval. This is to ensure that the lot is suitable for two drain field sites. The ordinance still requires a 1 unit per 10 acre density. The created lot meets this requirement. The overall density is 2 units per 68.53 acres. The existing home on the lot will meet all of the setback standards except that when additional right-of-way along Pioneer Trail is dedicated, the barn will be only 5 feet from the property line. The lot being created will have to meet the front and rear setback of 30 feet and side yard setback of 10 feet. Access to Lot 1 (the lot being created) will have to be approved by the County. The County may require a common driveway. This issue will have to be resolved before the final plat is approved. Laurent Addition April 16, 1993 Page 3 — Streets — Future Trunk Highway 212 right-of-way is shown over Lot 2, Block 1 of the proposed subdivision. Staff is recommending that the applicant dedicate the necessary trunk highway right- — of-way; however, as a minimum, the portion proposed for highway taking should be platted as an outlot as this area will be a no-build area. County Road 14 (Pioneer Trail) is classified as a minor arterial Class II roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. The — minimum roadway width of 100 feet is necessary to establish a future two lane highway. The plat currently denotes a portion of the right-of-way dedicated 50 feet from centerline, but the remaining at 40 feet. It is recommended that uniform 50-foot wide corridor, lying north of the — centerline and south of the centerline, be dedicated with the preliminary plat. The property to the south of County Road 14, approximately 17 acres, is under separate ownership. Easements The Park and Recreation Commission has not reviewed this subdivision but Pioneer Trail has been designated for a trail. A trail easement will be required with the final plat. In addition, park and trail fees will be required with the building permit. _ The ag/urban wetland, as well as Bluff Creek located on the site, needs to recorded with an easement on the final plat. The applicant is providing the recommended utility easements along — the lot lines of Lot 1. The Engineering Department is recommending that easements be provided along the lot lines of Lot 2. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - A2 DISTRICT Lot Front Rear Side — Area Setback Setback Setback Ordinance 15,000 sq. ft. 30' 30' 10' — BLOCK 1 Lot 1 2.25 acres 30' 30' 10' — Existing home Lot 2 67.23 acres home 45' 50'+++ 10'+++ — barn 5' Laurent Addition April 16, 1993 Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Laurent Addition Preliminary Plat #93-7 to create two single family lots as shown on the plans dated March 22, 1993, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat a 50-foot wide corridor for County Road 14 (Pioneer Trail). 2. Proposed locations for the on-site sewage treatment sites should be submitted to the Inspections Division for review and approval prior to final plat approval. 3. The applicant shall receive access approval from Carver County for a driveway to Lot 1, Block 1. 4. Park and trail fees will be required at the time the building permit is issued. An 8 foot trail easement along Pioneer Trail shall be dedicated. 5. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat drainage and utility easements over all ponding and wetland areas, including Bluff Creek. 6. The proposed MnDot highway taking should be dedicated or, at a minimum, platted into an outlot. The appropriate side, front and rear drainage and utility easements should also be dedicated with the final plat." ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Dave Hempel dated April 15, 1993. 2. Letter from Steve Kirchman dated March 30, 1993. 3. Proposed Highway 212 right-of-way. 4. Letter from Carver County dated April 5, 1993. 5 Hearing notice. 6. Preliminary plat. CITY OF ____ i tolir1'lCHANHASSEN _ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer 4( DATE: April 15, 1993 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for Laurent Addition File No. 93-10 Land Use Review Upon review of the preliminary plat prepared by Schoell & Madson dated March 22, 1993, I offer the following comments and recommendations: The preliminary plat proposes to subdivide an existing 68.5 acre farmstead located north of County Road 14 (Pioneer Trail) and south of the proposed Trunk Highway 212 corridor into two lots. A portion of the property is located within the Trunk Highway 212 corridor. The City has officially mapped the Trunk Highway 212 corridor through the property which the preliminary plat denotes. Staff recommends that the necessary future trunk highway right-of-way be dedicated with the final plat. County Road 14, which borders the south line of the plat, is — classified as a minor arterial Class H roadway. According to the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study, a minimum right-of-way width of 100 feet is necessary to provide for a future two-lane highway system. The plat currently indicates County Road 14 right-of-way varies from 40 to 50 feet wide north of centerline. Staff recommends that a uniform 50-foot wide corridor along County Road 14 north of centerline be dedicated with the preliminary plat _ for right-of-way purposes. It appears the lot subdivision is requested to provide another buildable lot adjacent to the existing farmstead. The parcel is located outside the MUSA line; therefore, municipal sanitary sewer and water is not available to the subdivision. The newly created lot (1) will be dependent upon approved septic and well sites. A very large wetland and Bluff Creek drains through the parcel. The necessary drainage and utility easement should be dedicated with platting over the drainageways and wetlands throughout the parcel. Since this development does not include any public improvements, it will not be necessary for the applicant to enter into a development contract. is %I: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Kate Aanenson April 15, 1993 Page 2 Lot 2, Block 1 has an existing driveway access from County Road 17. As noted in a memo from the Carver County Public Works Department,if an additional driveway access is requested to Lot 1, Block 1, further evaluation will be needed to determine if another access directly from County Road 14 could be allowed. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Final platting shall include dedication of the following easements: a. Drainage and utility easements over all wetland areas including Bluff Creek and the typical side, front and rear lot lines. b. Future right-of-way for County Road 14 shall be dedicated. A uniform 50 foot wide strip of land lying north of centerline of County Road 14 should be _ dedicated. c. Proposed MnDOT highway taking. 2. The final plat shall be conditioned upon Lot 1, Block 1 being able to support two acceptable septic sites. 3. Driveway access to Lot 1, Block 1 shall be subject to conditions of approval imposed by the Carver County Public Works Department. Should the existing driveway on Lot 2 be — share by Lot 1, a cross-access easement with the existing property owner should be acquired. ktm c: Charles Folch, City Engineer CITY OF CHANHASSEN\ - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 ..s MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official k DATE: 03/30/93 SUBJECT: 93-7 SUB (Paul Laurent) Two proposed onsite sewage treatment sites, each 50 ' by 100 ' , must be located, protected and approved on Lot 1. Location and orientation of the sites must be determined by a licensed site evaluator with two borings performed on each proposed site. Sites must be protected in accordance with City policy #10- 1991 . Recommendation: Staff recommends the following condition be added to the conditions of approval : 1. Proposed locations for the onsite sewage treatment sites should be submitted to the Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval . Is t0! PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER D 7,13g \ \?...4)- 7i:— 53 . • \\ 1 Cr) 77 m m p ° `, t*1 3 . 0 ),,,ii1/4, 7,> 2 / 2.---__,/ I m C - I \ 23113 p� / / N m . • off` 01 _ la O \ p/ +al1.s - \\ j, :' - U te-- S a, v° '��`C3 i i"��. •m.- -. - a 1 , �` ,� _- .-A.-� :.I `` `` �.,wvs�V"�' 'r''' 201 ` p I -� �✓, ' ,� ... Q ;009 �1 -; • -4> 1. t .hit:e ie.-- .. — . r .. _____:______F . / 7) ( • :# /2130i0 ♦I r4ii,.. II/ I 1/ N. 1095 a :16.4 I _ ~ --1 ; II1 -'``'-'-'1.K1: ,.' .:;Th\rf i ' 7 ; 11 , ( \ r ; \--,-.., I1 r z I m 00 1 3?� I .1P3.,p <03 3., \ ° , r N. 34 f ;;' 1A m co ...., A °' i it _c2.______./ \ 3 1 1 —� \ v -v 1 • 7J1ft/ I�F " l \ 7 -• \ 1 P32.02........ 11-4 .......i"."."....tv \ :'-g7: / � /rs Mb A \ e5 IA 80 _ __,_„-_-=:-.-_,..---._—.7-5 ! ( _ _______ _ __, _---:__-_-L,--.------ ---- --.- --n./Ts.-- --g 7,‘.) .......-—."1.7 77-i -- a ___t;:), ----4 " ,,..t...----t T.A30 j 1 OD to o Y * _ { _ r _ o L m c L\ ;1, CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 600 EAST 4TH STREET PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT \� -- CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 (6121 448 ri � r� F 1'NESv f4¢4. 'i'l � } COUTY OF C QVEQ 1Q� C!7 Y L April 2, 1993 To: JoAnn Olsen, Chanhassen Senior Planner From: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer Subject: Preliminary Plat Laurent Addition — Comments regarding the preliminary plat for Laurent Addition dated March 22, 1993, and transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated March 26, 1993. 1. Right-of-way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways functionally classified as Minor Arterial (Class II) are: Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 2-lane Roadway 2-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100• 110' 120' 150' Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 4-lane Roadway 4-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100' 120' 140' 170' County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 14 is functionally classified as a Minor Arterial (Class II) roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. It would appear that as a minimum. a 100 foot corridor should be established for a potential 2 lane highway. The city may wish to consider an even wider highway corridor along the proposed — subdivision if a separate trailway is to be constructed along the county highway. Additional width may also be needed to accommodate public utilities and landscaping. 2. It is not clear on the plat where access to Lot 1 will be provided. If the access is to go onto the existing driveway and share an entrance with the existing landowner using the driveway, that should be acceptable. If the lot will need an additional access onto CSAH — 14, an evaluation would be needed to determined if an access directly from Lot 1 to CSAH 14 could be allowed. 3. I have not verified the proposed highway takings as shown on the plat, but assume they do reflect the TH 212 official mapping which has occurred in this area. 4. Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CSAH 14 right-of-way are subject Affnmatit' Actin/EqualOppetrinn.i Employer- Printed on Rended Paper to the utility permit requirements of Carver County. 5. Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within the right-of-way of CSAH 14 is subject to review and approval of the county highway department. 6. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right- of-way (including turf removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need to be completed in a manner that leaves the right-of-way in "as good or better condition" than what existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for the final condition of the county highway right-of-way. A clear understanding of this responsibility will result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the city. 7. Any trees or landscaping completed within the right-of-way must be approved by the County. When locating proposed shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining an acceptable sight distance at the proposed intersection. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary plan for the proposed development. y NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING j / N , '-.., ,/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING < - — Wednesday, April 21, 1993 - 7:30 P.M. '�j `� , City Hall Council Chambers . S — / 690 Coulter Drive — t \ . / Project: Laurent Addition ; _ ti` — • ----/". . ; I 6 Developer: Paul Laurent ,f -I I I 111. 13 t .- Location: North of Pioneer Trail, just r .--kii \ west of Pioneer Hills subdivision tigliii. oQ� / i r r" 1. A? Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. Paul Laurent proposes to subdivide 68.53 acres into 2 single family lots of 2.25 — acres and 64.98 acres located on property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate and located north of Pioneer Trail, just west of Pioneer Hills subdivision, Laurent Addition. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this _ project. During the meeting, the Planning 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 Jo Ann at 937-1900. If you choose — to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning 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 April 8, 1993. Frank Fox Bruce Jeurissen Timothy & Dawne Erhart 27990 Smithtown Road 1500 Pioneer Trail 775 West 96th Street — Excelsior, MN 55331 Chaska, MN 55318 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Bluff Creek Golf Association Rodney & D. Beuch Lowell W. Peterson 1905 Concordia Street 1180 Pioneer Trail 15900 Hwy. 169 Wayzata, MN 55391 Chaska, MN 55318 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 — Charles & Patricia Webber John & Jackie Daniels Dennis & Polly Denton 1560 Bluff Creek Road 1111 Homestead Lane 1131 Homestead Lane Chaska, MN 55318 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 John Crissinger David Dahlke & Nicole Watson Timothy & Linda Bloudek - Zinpro Corp. 1161 Homestead Lane 1171 Homestead Lane 1151 Homestead Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Wayne & Gayle Wenzlaff Alphonse & Mary Herzog _ 1181 Homestead Lane 1191 Homestead Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1HOCITY QF ss 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I DATE: April 13, 1993 SUBJ: Revocation of Conditional Use Permit, CUP #88-11 for a Contractor's Yard on Property Located at 1700 Flying Cloud Drive - Jeff Carson for Harry Lindbery. On September 12, 1988, the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit (88-11) for contractor's yard activities on property located at 1700 Flying Cloud Drive (Attachment#2). Staff took the position that the Conditional Use Permit had expired because substantial construction had not taken place within one year of the date on which the Conditional Use Permit was granted (Section 20-236. Expiration-Attachment #4). On June 8, 1992, staff noticed outdoor storage of seven trailer/containers and ten round concrete pipes at the subject property. On June 11, June 24, and July 11, staff notified Mr. Harry Lindbery, owner of the property, that the outdoor storage taking place on his property is not permitted and requested that it be terminated. Mr. Lindbery did not comply. Staff referred the matter to the City Attorney's Office. The City Attorney's Office filed a complaint against Mr. Lindbery. The complaint outlined the fact that there was illegal storage taking place on the property as well as the expiration of the Conditional Use Permit (Attachment #3). On January 13, 1993, the City Attorney sent a formal notification to Mr. Lindbery's attorney, outlining the reasons behind the termination of the Conditional Use Permit (Attachment #6). Mr. Lindbery contested the City Attorney's and staff's interpretation of the ordinance regarding the expiration of the Conditional Use Permit and stated that a public hearing is required in order to revoke the permit. Section 20-28(b)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance states that one of the duties of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals is to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by a city employee in the administration of this chapter. The applicant appeared before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and City Council to appeal the determination of city staff. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals had a vote of two to one. On that same evening, the City Council reviewed the is to, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission April 13, 1993 Page 2 proposal. It was determined that the Conditional Use Permit for a contractors yard was still _ valid, and staff was directed to bring back the application before the Planning Commission and City Council to consider revoking it based upon the fact that the applicant did not fulfill the conditions of approval that were approved with the application. These conditions were as follows: 1. All outdoor storage areas must be completely screened by 100% opaque fencing, berming _ or landscaping. A proposed screening plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Work on Sunday and holidays is not permitted. 3. Light sources shall be shielded. 4. No outside speaker systems are allowed. — 5. Compliance with the conditions of MnDOT, including installation of a right turn lane and a left turn lane if required by MnDOT. — 6. Installation of bituminous driveways, parking areas and loading areas. 7. Compliance with the conditions of Resource Engineering as written in their memo dated August 9, 1998. 8. Protection of the two septic system sites during construction. 9. Installation of a holding tank. 10. The building must be sprinklered. 11. Provision of one handicap parking space. 12. Contractor's yard activities only as defined in the zoning ordinance, are permitted. There — shall be no shipping or other non-contractor's yard activities. 13. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the permits from the Department of Natural Resources and the Watershed District permits. 14. All the existing buildings shall be moved off-site and disposed of properly. Planning Commission April 13, 1993 Page 3 15. The erosion control plan shall be revised to include check dams at 100 foot intervals in all proposed drainage swales. 16. The plans shall be revised to include erosion control measures for the proposed construction within the immediate area of Bluff Creek. 17. The pond out-fall shall be revised to include a submerged outlet detail in place of the wooden skimmer. 18. Submission of a vehicle inventory list. 19. No heavy equipment or machinery shall be operating between 6:00 p.m. through 7:00 a.m. 20. No shipping activities shall originate on site. The applicant has not complied with any of these conditions with the exception of obtaining an access permit from MNDOT. The applicant pointed out several facts in his letter (Attachment #5). These facts are as follows: 1. The definition of contractor's yard activities does not require a building; that is Mr. Lindbery does not need to construct a building on this property to use the property for a contractor's yard. Finding: This statement is not entirely accurate. The contractor's yard was approved by the city as a Conditional Use Permit. Part of the proposal was a building to store some of the equipment. This was never constructed. 2. Mr. Lindbery has used his property since receipt of the Conditional Use Permit as a contractor's yard. Finding: If the applicant used the property as a contractor's yard, then he did so without complying with the conditions of approval of the conditional use permit which was approved by the City Council on September 12, 1988. 3. Although your zoning code has now been amended to prohibit contractor's yards in A-2 , Mr. Lindbery's use would qualify as a legal non-conforming use of his land. Findings: The contractors yard never received a Certificate of Occupancy nor was scheduled for inspection by staff to determine if the applicant had met all conditions of approval of the Conditional Use Permit approved by the City Council on September 12, 1988. In fact, it cannot be grandfathered-in because a contractor's yard was not completed at that location. Also, staff visited the site on different Planning Commission April 13, 1993 _ Page 4 occasions as part of our conditional use permit review procedure and never observed any type of activity taking place at the site. 4. Although all terms and conditions of the CUP have not literally been met, negotiations between Chanhassen staff and Mr. Lindberg over the years have, in fact, amended the CUP alleviating the necessity for strict compliance with the permit. (Example: the requirement that he remove all buildings from the property; conversations with staff concluded that moving caretakers into the house on the property would be sensible for policing and safety protection both to Mr. Lindbery and to the City.) Finding: This is addressed in condition #14 of the Conditional Use Permit. What this condition refers to is the fact that there were existing buildings that were to be removed but that did not mean eliminate the storage building for the contractors yard. The applicant also states that staff had concluded that moving caretakers into the house on the property would be sensible for policing and safety protection — both to Mr. Lindbery and to the City. Staff is not aware of when or if this conversation ever took place. 5. City staff is not suggesting violation of the CUP terms but rather has taken a position that the CUP has expired, or in the alternative, the use of the CUP has been discontinued. Finding: The applicant has not complied with the conditions of the Condition Use Permit. 6. A criminal complaint filed in the summer of 1992, regarding improper storage charged Mr. Lindbery with four misdemeanor complaints, are pending in Carver County District Court; Mr. Lindbery has since resolved the alleged problems. The offending units themselves were a part of Mr. Lindbery's use of the property as a contractor's yard. Finding: Outdoor storage in a front yard is a prohibited use in the Agricultural Estate District. 7. Mr. Lindbery has paid $1,164.33 for a building permit to the City of Chanhassen (10/26/89); $34,752.00 for his building shell (3/15/89); $500.00 to MnDOT for their review, all obviously with the anticipation that the building would go up as planned. (Note: The building permit was issued over one year after the effective date of the Conditional Use Permit and yet staff now alleges a one year expiration violation.) Finding: The Building Permit was received on September 11, 1989, which is one day prior to the deadline for submitting a building permit application. The permit was then _ Planning Commission April 13, 1993 Page 5 reviewed and released on October 26, 1989. This permit was for the shell of the storage building only. It was never completed. 8. City staff continued to deal with Mr. Lindbery and the Conditional Use Permit as recent as October 22, 1990, over two year after issuance of the Conditional Use Permit. (These events all took place over two years after issuance of the Conditional Use Permit indicating both that Mr. Lindbery continued to use the property in accordance with the terms of the Conditional Use Permit and that the one year expiration has nothing to do with the construction of a building itself.) Finding: A building inspection was requested by the applicant for October 22, 1990. Staff met with the applicant on the site and requested he meet with Building and Planning Departments to clarify the status of his permit. _ 9. Hearings to consider amendment of the code to eliminate contractor's yard from A-2 via Conditional Use Permit suggest (a) that existing contractor's yards would be handled as legal, non-conforming uses and (b) that no landowner with a contractor's = yard was notified or present at the hearing. Finding: Existing uses only can be grandfathered-in and this is not the case here. Staff did publish the ordinance in the Villager on January 24, 1991, as required by ordinance. 10. Mr. Lindbery has a legitimate complaint regarding the deficiency in the City's procedural process to date: (a) the Conditional Use Permit itself says a hearing will be held if violation is alleged; (b) Code Section 20.237 requires a public hearing to consider revocation of a Conditional Use Permit. Finding: The City Council directed staff to reschedule this Conditional Use Permit to consider revoking it. The public hearing at the Planning Commission satisfies Mr. Lindbery's due process concerns. 11. Mr. Lindbery has met with other agencies as required by the City and has met all requirements of said agencies. Finding: Staff has no knowledge whether this statement is true or not. Based on the foregoing, staff recommends that the Planning Commission revoke Conditional Use Permit 88-11. Planning Commission April 13, 1993 Page 6 ATTACHMENTS — 1. Staff report dated February 18, 1993. 2. Conditional Use Permit (88-11). 3. Letter from City Attorney dated October 29, 1992. 4. Zoning Ordinance, Section 20-236. 5. Letter from applicant's attorney dated February 15, 1993. — 6. Letter from City Attorney dated January 13, 1993. 7. Board of Adjustments and Appeals minutes dated February 22, 1993. 8. City Council minutes dated February 22, 1993. — 9. Site plan approved September 12, 1988. — a . CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 •y, MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals and City Council _ FROM: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I DATE: February 18, 1993 SUBJ: Interpretation of Conditional Use Permit Validity, CUP #88-11 for a Contractor's Yard on Property Located at 1700 Flying Cloud Drive - Jeff Carson for Harry Lindbery. On September 12, 1988, the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit (88-11) for contractor's yard activities on property located at 1700 Flying Cloud Drive (Attachment#2). Staff believes that the Conditional Use Permit has expired because substantial construction has not taken place within one year of the date on which the Conditional Use Permit was granted (Section 20-236. Expiration-Attachment #4). On June 8, 1992, staff noticed outdoor storage of seven trailer/containers and ten round concrete = pipes at the subject property. On June 11, June 24, and July 11, staff notified Mr. Harry Lindbery, owner of the property, that the outdoor storage taking place on his property is not permitted and requested that it be terminated. Mr. Lindbery did not comply. Staff referred the matter to the City Attorney's Office. The City Attorney's Office filed a complaint against Mr. Lindbery. The complaint outlined the fact that there was illegal storage taking place on the property as well as the expiration of the Conditional Use Permit (Attachment #3). On January 13, 1993, the City Attorney sent a formal notification to Mr. Lindbery's attorney, outlining the reasons behind the termination of the Conditional Use Permit (Attachment #1). Mr. Lindbery contested the City Attorney's and staffs interpretation of the ordinance regarding the expiration of the Conditional Use Permit. Section 20-28(b)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance states that one of the duties of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals is to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by a city employee in the administration of this chapter. The applicant is appearing before you to appeal the determination of city staff. There are several facts pointed out by the applicant (Attachment #5). These facts are as follows: if, t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER a Board of Adjustments February 18, 1993 Page 2 1. The definition of contractor's yard activities does not require a building; that is Mr. Lindbery does not need to construct a building on this property to use the property — for a contractor's yard. Finding: This statement is not entirely accurate. The contractor's yard was approved by the — city as a Conditional Use Permit. Part of the proposal was a building to store some of the equipment. This was never constructed. 2. Mr. Lindbery has used his property since receipt of the Conditional Use Permit as a contractor's yard _ Finding: If the applicant used the property as a contractor's yard, then he did with out complying with the conditions of approval of the conditional use permit which — was approved by the City Council on September 12, 1988. 3. Although your zoning code has now been amended to prohibit contractor's yards _ in A-2 , Mr. Lindbery's use would qualify as a legal non-conforming use of his land. Findings: The contractors yard never received a Certificate of Occupancy or was scheduled — for inspection by staff to determine if the applicant had met all conditions of approval of the Conditional Use Permit approved by the City Council on September 12, 1988. In fact, it cannot be grandfathered-in because a contractor's — yard was not completed at that location. Also, staff visited the site on different occasions as part of our conditional use permit review procedure and never noticed any type of activity taking place at the site. 4. Although all terms and conditions of the CUP have not literally been met, negotiations between Chanhassen staff and Mr. Lindbery over the years have, in — fact, amended the CUP alleviating the necessity for strict compliance with the permit. (Example: the requirement that he remove all buildings from the property; conversations with staff concluded that moving caretakers into the house on the — property would be sensible for policing and safety protection both to Mr.l Lindbery and to the City.) Finding: This is addressed in condition #14 of the Conditional Use Permit. What this condition refers to is the fact that there were existing buildings that were to be — removed but that did not mean eliminate the storage building for the contractors yard. The applicant also states that staff had concluded that moving caretakers into the house on the property would be sensible for policing and safety protection r both to Mr. Lindbery and to the City. Staff is not aware of when or if this conversation ever took place. Board of Adjustments February 18, 1993 Page 3 5. City staff is not suggesting violation of the CUP terms but rather has taken a position that the CUP has expired, or in the alternative, the use of the CUP has been discontinued. Finding: Staff agrees with this statement. 6. A criminal complaint filed in the summer of 1992 regarding improper storage charged Mr. Lindbery with four misdemeanor complaints are pending in Carver County District Court; Mr. Lindbery has since resolved the alleged problems. The offending units themselves were a part of Mr. Lindbery's use of the property as a contractor's yard. Finding: Outdoor storage in a front yard is a prohibited use in the Agricultural Estate District. Furthermore, those units were placed after the expiration of the conditional use permit. 7. Mr. Lindbery has paid $1,164.33 for a building permit to the City of Chanhassen (10/26/89); $34,752.00 for his building shell (3/15/89); $500.00 to MnDOT for their review, all obviously with the anticipation that the building would go up as planned. (Note: The building permit was issued over one year after the effective date of the Conditional Use Permit and yet staff now alleges a one year expiration violation.) Finding: The Building Permit was received on September 11, 1989, which is one day prior to the deadline for submitting a building permit application. The permit was then reviewed and released on October 26, 1989. This permit was for the shell of the storage building only. It was never completed. 8. City staff continued to deal with Mr. Lindbery and the Conditional Use Permit as recent as October 22, 1990, over two year after issuance of the Conditional Use Permit. (These events all took place over two years after issuance of the Conditional Use Permit indicating both that Mr. Lindbery continued to use the property in accordance with the terms of the Conditional Use Permit and that the one year expiration has nothing to do with the construction of a building itself.) Finding: No records were found to support this statement. 9. Hearings to consider amendment of the code to eliminate contractor's yard from A-2 via Conditional Use Permit suggest (a) that existing contractor's yards would be handled as legal, non-conforming uses and (b) that no landowner with a contractor's yard was notified or present at the hearing. Board of Adjustments February 18, 1993 Page 4 Finding: Existing uses only can be grandfathered-in and this is not the case here. Staff did publish the ordinance in the Villager on January 24, 1991 as required by ordinance. 10. Mr. Lindbery has a legitimate complaint regarding the deficiency in the City's procedural process to date: (a) the Conditional Use Permit itself says a hearing will be held if violation is alleged; (b) Code Section 20.237 requires a public hearing to consider revocation of a Conditional Use Permit. Finding: The applicant is not in violation of the conditional use permit. The conditional _ use permit has expired, therefore, a public hearing is not required to revoke the conditional use permit. 11. Mr. Lindbery has met with other agencies as required by the City and has met all requirements of said agencies. Finding: Staff agrees with this statement. Based on the foregoing, staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and City — Council find that Conditional Use Permit 88-11 has expired. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from City Attorney dated January 13, 1993 2. Conditional Use Permit (88-11). 3. Letter from City Attorney dated October 29, 1992. 4. Zoning Ordinance, Section 20-236. 5. Letter from applicant's attorney dated February 15, 1993. CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. Attorneys at Law Thoma,J.Campbell (612)452-5000 Roger N. Knutson Fax(612)452-5550 Thomas M.Scott Gari G.Fuchs James R.Walston Elliott B.Knetsch ` Michael A.Brohack Renae D.Steiner January 13, 1993 • Attorney Jeff Carson CARSON & CLELLAND C(41/87 Brookdale Corporate Center Suite 305 6300 Shinglecreek Parkway Minneapolis, MN 55430 Re : Your Client : Harry Lindbery 1.1 Chanhassen Conditional Use Permit 88-i1 • • Dear Mr. Carson: We represent the City of Chanhassen. We have been instructed to notify Mr. Lindbery that the City Planning Director • Paul Krauss has made a determination regarding the above referenced conditional use permit . The determination is as follows: 1. CUP 88-11 is void. City Code Section 20-236 provides as follows : "If substantial construction has not taken place within one (1) year of the date on which the conditional use permit was granted, the permit is void except that, on application, the Council, after receiving recommendation from the Planning • Commission, may extend the permit for such additional period as it deems appropriate. " • Mr. Lindbery installed concrete footings in 1989 . Since that date, no further construction has taken place. Mr. Lindbery has not made an application for an extension. Therefore, it is the City' s determination that CUP 88-11 is void. 2 . In the alternative, the conditional use was discontinued for six (6) months so the permit is void. City Code Section 20-236 states as follows : RECEIVED "If the conditional use is discontinued for six (6) months, the conditional use permit shall become voidjAN 151993 4.41't OF.CHANI1AbbtA Suite 317 • Eagandale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121 7 Attorney Jeff Carson January 13 , 1993 Page 2 — This section shall apply to conditional use permits issued prior to February 19 , 1987, but the six (6) month period shall not be deemed to commence until February 19, 1987 . " Mr. Lindbery has not conducted any contractor' s yard — activities on the subject property at any time, other than illegal storage of containers and concrete pipes . Therefore, the conditional use permit is void. City Code Section 20-236 does _ apply to any permit issued after the effective date of that section, which was December 15 , 1986 . The reference to February 19, 1987 allows a grace period for permits issued prior to February 19, 1987 . It does not have the effect of limiting — section 20-236 to permits issued prior to February 19, 1987 . 3 . The time to extend the permit has expired. City Code — Section 20-236 allows a person to file an application to extend a conditional use permit . Mr. Lindbery' s permit was issued September 12 , 1988 . Mr. Lindbery had until September 11, 1989 to — file for an extension. Mr. Lindbery did not file an extension within the time specified by the ordinance . Therefore, the City Council has no power to grant an extension at this time . If your client is aggrieved by this determination, he may file an appeal with the Board of Adjustments and Appeals pursuant to City Code Section 20-28 (b) (1) (copy enclosed) . — Your client also has the option of meeting with City staff prior to the hearing with the Board of Adjustments and Appeals . _ You may contact Sharmin Al-Jaff or Paul Krauss directly at (612) 937-1900 to arrange the meeting. You previously indicated to me that you wanted an opportunity to review the City' s file on this matter. I do not object to this request provided I am given notice of when you will review the file . Please call if you have any questions or comments . _ CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCH .A. By: Elliott B . Kn: . EBK:mlw Enclosure cc: Don Ashworth Paul Krauss — Sharmin Al-Jaff CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVE. ..AD HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MIN _._,OTA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1 . Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein , the City of Chanhassen hereby grants a conditional use permit for: Contractor ' s yard activities 2 . Property. The permit is for the following described property in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota: That part of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 34 , Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian which lies northerly of the center line of U . S . Highway No. 212 and southerly of the southerly line of Chicago North Western Railway Company. Subject to an easement for Highway No. 212 over and across the southerly 50 . 00 feet thereof . 3 . Conditions . The permit is issued subject to the following conditions : See attached Exhibit A. 4 . Termination of Permit. The City may revoke the permit following a public hearing under any of the following circumstances : material change of condition of the neighborhood where the use is located; violation of the terms of the permit. 5 . Criminal Penalty. Violation of the terms of this conditional use permit is a criminal misdemeanor. Dated: September 12 , 1988 • (' CITY s .ANHASSEN V % By: ,a9: 40 It.. Ma • Orill."1111 B Y: Its Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The f regoing instrument was acknowledged before me this • day of , 19E1, by Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor , and Do/n shworth, City Manager of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. •� "', J^r-._; ,-Tr etary P lic a My em ss::ne.; t r3A / 3 • EXHIBIT A 1 . All outdoor storage areas must be completely screened by 100% opaque fencing , berming or landscaping . A proposed screening plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit . 2 . Hours of operation shall be from 7 : 00 a .m. to 6 : 00 p.m. Monday through Saturday . Work on Sundays and holidays is not permitted. 3 . Light sources shall be shielded. 4 . No outside speaker systems are allowed. 5 . Compliance with the conditions of MnDOT including installation of a right turn lane and a left turn lane if required by MnDOT. 6 . Installation of bituminous driveways , parking areas and loading areas . 7 . Compliance with the conditions of Resource Engineering as written in their memo dated August 9 , 1988 . 8 . Protection of the two septic system sites during construction . — 9 . Installation of a holding tank. 10 . The building must be sprinklered. 11 . Provision of one handicap parking space. 12 . Contractor' s yard activities only as defined in the zoning ordi- nance, are permitted . There shall be no shipping or other non- contractor' s yard activities . — 13 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the permits from the Department of Natural Resources and the Watershed District permits . 14 . All the existing buildings shall be trucked off-site and disposed of properly. 15 . The erosion control plan shall be revised to include check dams at 100-foot intervals in all proposed drainage swales . — 16 . The plans shall be revised to include erosion control measures for the proposed construction within the immediate area of Bluff Creek. 17 . The pond outfall shall be revised to include a submerged outlet detail in place of the wooden skimmer . — 18 . Submission of a vehicle inventory list. 19 . No heavy equipment or machinery shall be operating between 6 : 00 p.m. through 7 : 00 a .m. 20 . No shipping activities shall originate on site. — 2 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, PA. Attorney,.:it Law Th,un.t,J.t:any0.•II ((,12)ai_'.ikNX) sm. R ,_er N. Knutson Fax(612)4i'-i55) Thomas\1.Sc„rt • Gary li. Fuck, J.1111.•,R. Walston Iim Elliott B. Knetsch Nlich.tcl A. Bn,hack Ren.te D.Steiner October 29, 1992 Mr. Scott Harr Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147CDr Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 1 Re: Harry Lindberry 1��JJJ Dear Scott: Enclosed please find a formal complaint against Harry Lindberry. Please take the complaint to Carver County District Court and sign it in the presence of a judge. After it is signed by the Court, please file it with the Clerk of Court Criminal Division. CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. By: Elliott B. tsch EBK:mlw cc: Sharmin Al-Jaff (w/enc. and 10/2/92 letter to Lindberry) Enclosure RECEIVED OCT 3 0 1992 CITY Or oh, Nr1, SEN Suite 317 • Eagandale Office Center • 1 3SC Corporate Center Curve • Ealzan, \1\ 55121 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, PA. Attorneys:It Law Thum:»J.C.unrlkll (612)452.5000 Roger N. Knutson Fax(612)452-5550 Thomas M.Scott Gary G.Fuchs James R.Walston Elliott B. Knccsch October 2 , 1992 Michael A.Bruhack Rcnae D.Steiner ( — D .\-1‘7.:") ! Mr. Harry Lindbery 6901 Maloney Avenue Minnetonka, MN 55343 Re: City of Chanhassen Conditional Use Permit 88-11 Dear Mr. Lindbery: • We represent the City of ;Chanhassen. We have been instructed by the City Planning Department to notify you that the Conditional Use Permit referenced above has expired because substantial construction has not taken place within one year of the date on which the Conditional Use Permit was granted. You are hereby notified that the outdoor storage taking place on your property located at 1700 Flying Cloud Drive is not permitted under the City's Zoning Ordinance. The seven land/sea containers and ten round concrete pipes must be removed within ten days of the date of this letter. Enclosed is a copy of Chanhassen City Code Article 4 , Conditional Uses. You are hereby notified that violation of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance constitutes a criminal misdemeanor. Each day the violation continues to exist constitutes a separate offense. A criminal misdemeanor is punishable by ninety days in jail and a $700 . 00 fine. Very truly yours, CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. By: Elliott B. etsch EBK:mlw Enclosure cc: Attorney Jeffrey A. Carson • Suite 317 • Eagandale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55171 - STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF CARVER CRIMINAL DIVISION FILE NO. STATE OF MINNESOTA (City of Chanhassen) Plaintiff, COMPLAINT - SUMMONS vs. FOR MISDEMEANOR OR PETTY MISDEMEANOR HARRY LINDBERRY — Defendant, DOB: 6901 Maloney Avenue Minnetonka , MN 55343 COMPLAINT COP Scott Harr being duly sworn makes complaint to th above- - named Court and says that he/she believes this information and other persons from whom it is obtained to be reliable and that there is probable cause to believe that the above-named Defendant committed the offense described — below. The complainant states that the following facts establish probable cause: Your complainant is Scott Harr, Public Safety Director for the City of Chanhassen. In that capacity I have reviewed City records, files and inspection reports and believe the following facts to be true. The defendant, HARRY LINDBERY, is the owner of certain real property located at 1700 Flying Cloud Drive in the City of Chanhassen, County of Carver, State of Minnesota (Subject Property) , legally described as follows: That part of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 34 , Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian which lies northerly of the center line of U.S. Highway No. 212 and southerly of the southerly line of Chicago North Western Railway Company. (continued) THEREFORE, Complainant requests that said Defendant, subject to bail or conditions of release where applicable, (1) be arrested or that other lawful steps be taken to obtain Defendant ' s appearance in court; or (2) be detained, if already in custody, pending further proceedings; = and that said Defendant otherwise be dealt with according to law. - Charges: Illegal outdoor Complainant storage ( 4 counts ) Scott Harr Being duly authorized to prosecute the offense charge, I hereby approve this C plai Ordinance(s) 20-909 Elliott B. Kn ch, #168130 Prosecuting Attorney, City of Chanhassen SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR COURT DATE 1380 Corporate Center Curve, #317 Eagan, MN 55121 (612) 452-5000 CITY OF CHANHASSEN V. HARRY LINDBERRY PAGE 2 mist On or about July 8, 1992 , the Subject Property was inspected by a City building official. The inspector observed seven sea/land containers stored in the open on the Subject Property. The inspector also observed approximately ten round concrete pipes '- stored openly on the Subject Property. On July 14 , 1992, the Subject Property was inspected by a person _ from the City Planning Department. The City Planner observed the seven sea/land containers and approximately ten round concrete pipes stored openly on the Subject Property. On October 28, 1992, the Subject Property was inspected by a person form the City Planning Department. The City Planner observed the seven sea/land containers and approximately ten round concrete pipes stored openly on the Subject Property. Chanhassen City Code Section 20-909 - Outdoor Storage, prohibits outdoor storage in the manner that it is being conducted on the Subject Property. OFFENSES COUNT I - ILLEGAL OUTDOOR STORAGE - Chanhassen City Code Section 20-909 - 0 - 90 days and/or $700 That on or about July 8, 1992, in the City of Chanhassen, County of Carver, State of Minnesota, the defendant, HARRY LINDBERY, then and there being, did wrongfully and unlawfully permit illegal outdoor storage on the Subject Property. COUNT II - ILLEGAL OUTDOOR STORAGE - Chanhassen City Code Section 20-909 - 0 - 90 days and/or $700 That on or about July 14 , 1992, in the City of Chanhassen, County of Carver, State of Minnesota, the defendant, HARRY LINDBERY, then and there being, did wrongfully and unlawfully permit illegal outdoor storage on the Subject Property. — COUNT III - ILLEGAL OUTDOOR STORAGE - Chanhassen City Code Section 20-909 - 0 - 90 days and/or $700 — That on or about October 28, 1992, in the City of Chanhassen, County of Carver, State of Minnesota, the defendant, HARRY LINDBERY, then and there being, did wrongfully and unlawfully permit illegal outdoor storage on the Subject Property. • CITY OF CHANHASSEN V. HARRY LINDBERRY PAGE 3 COUNT IV - ILLEGAL OUTDOOR STORAGE - Chanhassen City Code Section 20-909 - 0 - 90 days and/or $700 That on or about July 15, 1992, and each day thereafter, in the City of Chanhassen, County of Carver, State of Minnesota, the defendant, HARRY LINDBERY, then and there being, did wrongfully and unlawfully permit illegal outdoor storage on the Subject Property. • § 20-233 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE AI (b1 In determining conditions,special considerations shall be given to protecting immedi• IMP ately adjacent properties from objectionable views,noise,traffic and other negative character- istics associated with such uses. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 2(3-2-4), 12.15.86) — Sec. 20-234. Denial for noncompliance. If the council denies a conditional use permit, it shall state findings as to the ways in which the proposed use does not comply with the standards required by this chapter. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 2(3-2-5), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-235. Permits not personal. A conditional use permit shall be issued for a particular use and not for a particular — person. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 2(3-2-6), 12.15.86) Sec. 20-236. Expiration. ...4y( =MID If substantial construction has not taken place within one (1)year of the date on which the conditional use permit was granted, the permit is void except that, on application, the — council, after receiving recommendation from the planning commission, may extend the permit for such additional period as it deems appropriate. If the conditional use is discon- tinued for six (6) months, the conditional use permit shall become void. This section shall apply to conditional use permits issued prior to February 19, 1987, but the six-month period shall not be deemed to commence until February 19, 1987. . (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 2(3-2-8), 12-15-86) — Sec. 20-237. Revocation and inspection. (a) Failure to comply with any condition set forth in a conditional use permit shall be aME misdemeanor and shall also constitute sufficient cause for the revocation of the conditional use permit by the city council following a public hearing. The property owner shall be notified in advance of the city council's review of the permit. — (b) Inspections will be conducted at least annually to determine compliance with the terms of a conditional use permit. — (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 2(3-2-7), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 106, § 1, 8-14-89) Secs. 20.238-20.250. Reserved. DIVISION 3. STANDARDS FOR AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Sec. 20-251. Scope. In addition to all other standards required by section 20-232, the standards in this division shall apply to conditional uses if they are to be located in agricultural or residential . districts. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1), 12-15-86) Supp.No.2 1176 CARSON AND CLELLAND ATTORNEYS AT LAW 6300 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY, SUITE 305 JEFFREY A. CARSON MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55430-2190 TELEPHONE WILLIAM G. CLELLAND (6121 561.2800 STEVEN C. HEY FAX ELLEN NI SCHREDER (612) 561-1943 February 15 , 1993 Ms . Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I HAND DELIVERED CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE : Lindbery Application Dear Ms . Al-Jaff : Pursuant to your direction, I enclose a copy of my Memorandum together with Exhibits for my presentation before the Board of Appeals and Adjustments and the Chanhassen City Council . understand this matter is on for hearing the 22nd of February, 1993 , at 6 : 30 p.m. Thank you for your assistance. Very truly yours, CARSON AND CLELLAND Jeffrey A. Carson JAC:nrz Enclosure cc: Harry Lindbery IN RE: THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OF HARRY LINDBERY FOR OPERATION OF A CONTRACTOR' S YARD AT 1700 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor, Council and Board of Adjustments and Appeals City of Chanhassen In September of 1988, Harry Lindbery, owner of the property located at 1700 Flying Cloud Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota, and consisting of approximately 40 acres, received a Conditional Use Permit from the City of Chanhassen (CUP 88-11 ) for operation of a contractor's yard and contractor's yard activities . The zoning district is A-2 . Contractor 's yard activities are defined in the Chanhassen Code as follows : Contractor's yard means any area or use of land where vehicles, equipment, and/or construction materials and supplies commonly used by building, excavation, roadway construction, landscaping and similar contractors are stored or serviced. A contractor' s yard includes both areas of outdoor storage and areas confined within a completely enclosed building used in conjunction with a contractor' s business . Exhibit 1 . Mr. Lindbery has, in fact, used and operated the property identified above within the Code definition of a contractor's yard since that date. At the time Mr. Lindbery made his application to Chanhassen, he intended, and still intends, to construct a 7 , 000 square foot building on the property. Over the past several years, circumstances (mainly outside the control of Mr. Lindbery) have caused the construction of the building to be delayed. I will outline the circumstances of the building delay below. Before discussing the history of the building itself, I would like to point out several facts that should be considered by the City: 1 ) The definition of contractor's yard activities does not require a building; that is Mr. Lindbery does not need to construct a building on this property to use the property for a contractor's yard. Exhibit 1 . 2 ) Mr. Lindbery has used his property since receipt of the Conditional Use Permit as a contractor's yard. 3 ) Although your zoning code has now been amended to prohibit contractor's yards in A-2, Mr. Lindbery's use would qualify as a legal non-conforming use of his land. Exhibit 2 . 4 ) Although all terms and conditions of the CUP have not literally been met, negotiations between Chanhassen staff and Mr. Lindbery over the years have, in fact, amended the CUP alleviating the necessity for strict compliance with the permit. (Example: the requirement that he remove all buildings from the property; conversations with staff concluded that moving caretakers into the house on the property would be sensible for policing and safety protection both to Mr. Lindbery and to the City. ) Exhibit 3 . 5 ) City staff is not suggesting violation of the CUP terms but rather has taken a position that the CUP has expired, or in the alternative, the use of the CUP has been discontinued. Exhibit 4 . 6 ) A criminal complaint filed in the summer of 1992 regarding improper storage charged Mr. Lindbery with four misdemeanors, which misdemeanor complaints are pending in Carver County District Court; Mr. Lindbery has since resolved the alleged problems. The offending units themselves were a part of Mr. Lindbery's use of the property as a contractor's yard. Exhibit 5 . 7 ) Mr. Lindbery has paid $1, 164 . 33 for a building permit to the City of Chanhassen ( 10/26/89 ) ; $34 , 752 . 00 for his building shell ( 3/15/89 ) ; $500 . 00 to MnDOT for their review, all obviously with the anticipation that the building would go up as planned. (Note: The building 2 permit was issue over one year after the effective date of the Conditional Use Permit and yet staff now alleges a one year expiration violation. ) Exhibits 6, 7 and 8 . - 8 ) City staff continued to deal with Mr. Lindbery and the Conditional Use Permit as recent as October 22 , 1990 , over two years after issuance of the Conditional Use Permit. See Exhibits 6 , 9 and 10 . (These events all took place over two years after issuance of the Conditional Use Permit indicating both that Mr. Lindbery continued to use the property in accordance with the terms of the Conditional Use Permit and that the one year expiration has nothing to do with the construction of a building itself . ) 9 ) Hearings to consider amendment of the code to eliminate contractor' s yards from A-2 via Conditional Use Permit suggest (a) that existing contractor ' s yards would be handled as legal , non-conforming uses and (b) that no landowner with a contractor's yard was notified or present at the hearing. Exhibit 11 . 10 ) Mr. Lindbery has a legitimate complaint regarding the deficiency in the City's procedural process to date: (a) the Conditional Use Permit itself says a hearing will be held if violation is alleged; (b) Code Section 20 .237 requires a public hearing to consider revocation of a Conditional Use Permit. Exhibit 12 . 11 ) Mr. Lindbery has met with other agencies as required by the City and has met all requirements of said agencies. Exhibit 8 . With regard to Mr. Lindbery's attempts to construct the anticipated building on his property per his application, Mr. Lindbery has paid over $36, 000 . 00 for building inspection fees, MnDOT fees and for the building shell itself . He has poured footings and was ready to construct or place the building when a disagreement between Mr. Lindbery and a former Chanhassen Building Inspector stopped progress. This dispute involved the type of heating for the building; Mr. Lindbery wanted to place floor heating in the concrete before pouring and the Building Inspector refused. The Building Inspector refused even though the heating 3 proposed by Mr. Lindbery met all requirements of the Chanhassen Code (Uniform Building Code) . The Building Inspector simply had no right to reject Mr. Lindbery's chosen heating method. Exhibit 13 . Additional issues relating to the proper storage for hazardous materials/waste surfaced and took additional time to resolve. Then, unfortunately, Mr. Lindbery crushed his leg in a work related accident and was unable to do any work personally on the building project from June 1 , 1991 to approximately June of 1992 . But for the dispute between Mr. Lindbery and the former City Building Inspector regarding heating, the building that is under discussion would be up and functional. The fact that there is no building on this property does not detract in any way from the use of the property as a contractor's yard. Mr. Lindbery has now been forced to defend criminal allegations and a jury trial is set in District Court this March; additionally, Mr. Lindbery is required to appear before the City to defend the reasons his building is not constructed and, indeed, defend the continued use of his property for a contractor's yard. In fact, he has continued to use his property as a contractor ' s yard from the beginning and would like to continue to do so and construct the building that he has purchased. Mr. Lindbery has never ceased using the property as a contractor's yard and mere statements by staff that he has, without any factual basis or support, cannot be the basis of City action. Mr. Lindbery urges you to consider the above facts and to weigh the relative equities before taking or confirming any adverse 4 Mr. Lindbery urges you to consider the above facts and to weigh the relative equities before taking or confirming any adverse action towards Mr. Lindbery and his contracting yard operation. If you accept staff 's recommendation, you are relegating the property to agricultural use, in effect destroying its present usefulness and value. Based on the above history, this would be both unfair and unlawful . Staff has already concluded that Mr. Lindbery's use should end. There was no fact-finding hearing but mere conclusions, statements made regarding the status of the property. Mr. Lindbery continues to use his property for lawful purposes contemplated by the 1988 Conditional Use Permit. We urge you to affirm his position. Respectfully submitted, CARSON AND CLELLAND 0)-72/ DATED: 1/) , � � Jefi-ey, Carson; ID #1543X Attqr ney for Harry Lindbery 63.Q'b Shingle Creek Parkway Suite 305 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55430-2190 ( 612 ) 561-2800 _ 5 EXHIBITS TO MEMORANDUM TO CITY OF CHANHASSEN DATED 2/15/93 Exhibit 1 - Copy of Chanhassen City Code Section 20-1 relating to contractor's yards Exhibit 2 - Copy of Chanhassen City Code Sections 20-71 and 20- 72 relating to the definition of Non-conforming uses Exhibit 3 - Conditional Use Permit dated September 12 , 1988 Exhibit 4 - Correspondence from City Attorney, Elliott Knetsch dated October 2 , 1992 Exhibit 5 - Criminal Complaint Exhibit 6 - Building Permit Receipt for $1, 164 . 33 paid on 10/26/89 Exhibit 7 - Building Purchase Order showing receipt of $34 , 752 . 00 Exhibit 8 - Letter from MnDOT dated November 1 , 1988 showing payment of $500 . 00 Exhibit 9 - Inspection Report dated October 22 , 1990 Exhibit 10 - Notes attached to Conditional Use Permit dated October 23, 1990 Exhibit 11 - Planning Commission Minutes from April 19 , 1989 meeting Exhibit 12 - Copy of Chanhassen City Code Section 20 . 237 Exhibit 13 - Heating system brochure 20.1 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Church means a building or edifice consecrated to religious worship. where people join together in some form of public worship under the aegis and direction of a person who is • authorized under the laws of the State of Minnesota to solemnize marriages. A church may include living quarters for persons employed on the premises and classroom facilities. The following are not considered as churches: Camp meeting grounds, mikvahs, coffee houses, recreational complexes, retreat houses, sleeping quarters for retreatants during spiritual retreats extending for periods of more than one (1) day. Bible camps with live-in quarters, publishing establishments, ritual slaughter houses, radio or television towers and transmis- sion facilities, theological seminaries, day care centers, hospitals, and drug treatment centers are not churches. Class wetlands means wetland types 3,4,5,6, 7 and 8. In the case of wetlands adjoining a public waters designated as lake or pond this class shall also include type 2 wetlands.Type 2 — wetlands shall also be deemed a class A wetland when adjoining a stream designated as public waters to the extent that it encroaches upon the one-hundred-year floodplain of the stream. Class B wetlands means type 2 wetlands not adjoining a public waters designated as lake or pond nor within the one-hundred-year floodplain of a stream designed as public waters. Clear-cutting means the removal of an entire stand of trees. _ Collector street means a street that carries traffic from minor streets to arterial streets. Conference/convention center means a preplanned. centrally managed development con- taining facilities for business or professional conferences and seminars and containing ac- commodations for overnight lodging, eating and recreation. The development is characterized by architecturally integrated buildings, common use of parking areas, and incorporation of passes recreational amenities into overall site design. Conforming building or structure means any building or structure which complies with all the regulations of this chapter, or any amendment thereto. Contractor's yard means any area or use of land where vehicles, equipment, and/or construction materials and supplies commonly used by building, excavation, roadway con- struction, landscaping and similar contractors are stored or serviced. A contractor's yard includes both areas of outdoor storage and areas confined within a completely enclosed building used in conjunction with a contractor's business. Cul-de-sac means a minor street with only one (1) outlet and having an appropriate turn-around for the safe and convenient reversal of traffic movement. Day care center means any facility or home where tuition, fees or other forms of compen- sation is charged for the care of children and which is licensed by the state as a day care center. Density, gross means the quotient of the total number of dwelling units divided by the gross site area. Density, net means the quotient of the total number of dwelling units divided by the developable acreage of the site. Developable acreage excludes wetlands, lakes, roadways, and other areas not suitable for building purposes. 1144 EXHIBIT 1 § 20.60 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE = Sec. 20-60. Denial. • Variances may be deemed by the board of adjustments and appeals and the council, and — such denial shall constitute a finding and determination that the conditions required for approval do not exist. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, 4 1(3-14(6)), 12-15-86) Secs. 20-61-20-70. Reserved. DIVISION 4.NONCONFORMING USES' Sec. 20.71. Purpose. 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 noncon- forming use, building, or structure; (3) To encourage the elimination of nonconforming uses, lots, and structures or reduce their impact on adjacent properties. (Ord. No. 165, § 2, 2-10-92) • Sec. 20-72. Nonconforming uses and structures. (a) There shall be no expansion, intensification, replacement, structural change, or relo- cation of any nonconforming use or nonconforming structure except to lessen or eliminate the nonconformity. (b) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, any detached single-family dwelling that is on a nonconforming lot or that is a nonconforming use or structure may be altered, or expanded provided, however, that the nonconformity may not be increased. If a setback of a dwelling is nonconforming, no additions may be added to the nonconforming side - of the building unless the addition meets setback requirements. (c) No nonconforming use shall be resumed if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for a period of twelve(12)or more months. Time shall be calculated as beginning on the day following the last day in which the use was in normal operation and shall run continuously thereafter. Following the expiration of twelve (12)months, only land uses which are permitted by this ordinance shall be allowed to be established. *Editor's note—Section 2 of Ord. No. 165, adopted Feb. 10, 1992, amended Div. 4 in its entirety to read as set out in §§ 20-71-20-73. Prior to amendment, Div. 4 contained §§ 20-71-20-78,which pertained to similar subject matter and derived from Ord.No. 80,Art.III, § 5, adopted Dec. 15, 1986; and Ord. No. 163, § 1, adopted Feb. 24, 1992. Supp.No.4 • 1164 EXHIBIT 2 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVE. —AD HENNEPIN COUNTIES , MIN _...OTA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1 . Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants a conditional use permit for : Contractor' s yard activities — 2 . Property. The permit is for the following described property in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota: — That part of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 34 , Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal - Meridian which lies northerly of the center line of U. S. Highway No. 212 and southerly of the southerly line of Chicago North Western Railway Company. Subject to an easement for Highway No. 212 over and across the southerly 50 . 00 feet thereof . 3 . Conditions. The permit is issued subject to the following conditions : See attached Exhibit A. 4 . Termination of Permit. The City may revoke the permit following a public hearing under any of the following circumstances : material change of condition of the neighborhood where the use is located; violation of the terms of the permit. 5 . Criminal Penalty. Violation of the terms of this conditional use permit is a criminal misdemeanor. Dated: September 12, 1988 C^ CITY : .ANHASSE J I Ma • r4 BY• _. 111/ Its Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss - COUNTY OF CARVER ) The fgoregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19E1, by Thomas L. Hamilton , Mayor , and Don Ashworth, City Manager of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. r.._- � r. ..- N tary P 1 i ,TA c_ my prr.-'ss on e.. _ .3.91 / _ EXHIBIT 3 (2 pages) EXHIBIT A 1 . All outdoor storage areas must be completely screened by 100% opaque fencing, berming or landscaping. A proposed screening plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. 2 . Hours of operation shall be from 7 : 00 a .m. to 6 : 00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Work on Sundays and holidays is not permitted. 3 . Light sources shall be shielded. 4 . No outside speaker systems are allowed. 5 . Compliance with the conditions of MnDOT including installation of a right turn lane and a left turn lane if required by MnDOT. 6 . Installation of bituminous driveways , parking areas and loading areas. 7 . Compliance with the conditions of Resource Engineering as written in their memo dated August 9 , 1988. 8 . Protection of the two septic system sites during construction. 9 . Installation of a holding tank. 10 . The building must be sprinklered. 11 . Provision of one handicap parking space. 12 . Contractor' s yard activities only as defined in the zoning ordi- nance, are permitted . There shall be no shipping or other non- contractor' s yard activities . 13 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the permits from the Department of Natural Resources and the Watershed District permits. 14 . All the existing buildings shall be trucked off-site and disposed of properly. 15 . The erosion control plan shall be revised to include check dams at 100-foot intervals in all proposed drainage swales. 16 . The plans shall be revised to include erosion control measures for the proposed construction within the immediate area of Bluff Creek. 17 . The pond outfall shall be revised to include a submerged outlet detail in place of the wooden skimmer. 18 . Submission of a vehicle inventory list. 19 . No heavy equipment or machinery shall be operating between 6 : 00 p.m. through 7 : 00 a.m. 20 . No shipping activities shall originate on site. CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. Attorneys at Law Tr:. c:.t-1 Car..rkll ((II') R. Knut .n Fax 0.12)452.555, Thorn,M. Sou: - G3r. Fuch- '^ ' Ct: Jame-R.Via!--•+n 1 Elli 't- R Kno-ch M:chirl A. Fn.:NA Rena. (1. Steiner January 13, 1993 Attorney Jeff Carson CARSON & CLELLAND Brookdale Corporate Center Suite 305 6300 Shinglecreek Parkway Minneapolis, MN 55430 Re : Your Client : Harry Lindbery Chanhassen Conditional Use Permit 88-11 Dear Mr. Carson: We represent the City of Chanhassen. We have been instructed to notify Mr. Lindbery that the City Planning Director Paul Krauss has made a determination regarding the above referenced conditional use permit. The determination is as follows : 1. CUP 88-11 is void. City Code Section 20-236 provides as follows : "If substantial construction has not taken place within one (1) year of the date on which the conditional use permit was granted, the permit is void except that, on application, the Council, after receiving recommendation from the Planning Commission, may extend the permit for such additional period as it deems appropriate. " Mr. Lindbery installed concrete footings in 1989 . Since that date, no further construction has taken place. Mr. Lindbery has not made an application for an extension. Therefore, it is the City' s determination that CUP 88-11 is void. 2 . In the alternative, the conditional use was discontinued for six (6) months so the permit is void. City Code Section _ 20-236 states as follows: "If the conditional use is discontinued for six (6) months, the conditional use permit shall become void. Suite 317 • Eagandale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121 EXHIBIT 4 (2 pages, Attorney Jeff Carson January 13 , 1993 Page 2 This section shall apply to conditional use permits issued prior to February 19, 1987, but the six (6) month period shall not be deemed to commence until February 19, 1987 . " Mr. Lindbery has not conducted any contractor' s yard activities on the subject property at any time, other than illegal storage of containers and concrete pipes . Therefore, the conditional use permit is void. City Code Section 20-236 does apply to any permit issued after the effective date of that section, which was December 15 , 1986 . The reference to February 19, 1987 allows a grace period for permits issued prior to February 19, 1987 . It does not have the effect of limiting section 20-236 to permits issued prior to February 19, 1987 . 3 . The time to extend the permit has expired. City Code Section 20-236 allows a person to file an application to extend a conditional use permit . Mr. Lindbery' s permit was issued September 12 , 1988 . Mr. Lindbery had until September 11, 1989 to file for an extension. Mr. Lindbery did not file an extension within the time specified by the ordinance . Therefore, the City Council has no power to grant an extension at this time . If your client is aggrieved by this determination, he may file an appeal with the Board of Adjustments and Appeals pursuant to City Code Section 20-28 (b) (1) (copy enclosed) . Your client also has the option of meeting with City staff prior to the hearing with the Board of Adjustments and Appeals . You may contact Sharmin Al-Jaff or Paul Krauss directly at (612) 937-1900 to arrange the meeting. You previously indicated to me that you wanted an opportunity to review the City' s file on this matter. I do not object to this request provided I am given notice of when you will review the file . Please call if you have any questions or comments . CAMPBELL, SON, SCOTT & FUCH A. By: � A Ii . Elliott B . Kn l EBK:mlw Enclosure cc : Don Ashworth Paul Krauss Sharmin Al-Jaff • STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICZ COURT COUNTY OF CARVER CRIMINAL DIVISION FILE NO. A STATE OF MINNESOTA (City of Chanhassen) Plaintiff, COMPLAINT - SUMMONS vs. FOR MISDEMEANOR OR PETTY MISDEMEANOR • HARRY LINDBERRY 1 Defendant, DOB: 6901 Maloney Avenue - Minnetonka , MN 55343 (:: COMPLAINT Q o • $cott Harr being duly sworn makes complaint to th above- named Court and says that he/she believes this information and other persons j from whom it is obtained to be reliable and that there is probable cause to believe that the above-named Defendant committed the offense described below. The complainant states that the following facts establish probable cause: Your complainant is Scott Harr, Public Safety Director for the City of Chanhassen. In that capacity I have reviewed City records, files and inspection reports and believe the following facts to be true. The defendant, HARRY LINDBERY, is the owner of certain real property located at 1700 Flying Cloud Drive in the City of Chanhassen, County of Carver, State of Minnesota (Subject Property) , legally described as follows: - That part of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 34 , Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th 4 Principal Meridian which lies northerly of the center line ' of U. S . Highway No. 212 and southerly of the southerly line of Chicago North Western Railway Company. . (continued) THEREFORE, Complainant requests that said Defendant, subject to bail or conditions of release where applicable, (1) be arrested or that other lawful steps be taken to obtain Defendant ' s appearance in court; or (2) be detained, if already in custody, pending further proceedings; and that said Defendant otherwise be dealt with according to law. Charges: Illegal outdoor Complainant storage ( 4 counts ) Scott Harr Being duly authorized to prosecute the offense charge, I hereby approve this4C; Ordinance (s) 20-909 Elliott B. Kn ch, #168130 Prosecuting Attorney, City of Chanhassen SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR COURT DATE 1380 Corporate Center Curve, #317 Eagan, MN 55121 (612) 452-5000 _ E?HIIBIT 5 (3 pages T CITY OF CHANHASSEN V. HARRY LINDBERRY PAGE 2 On or about July 8, 1992 , the Subject Property was inspected by a City building official . The inspector observed seven sea/land containers stored in the open on the Subject Property. The inspector also observed approximately ten round concrete pipes stored openly on the Subject Property. On July 14 , 1992 , the Subject Property was inspected by a person from the City Planning Department. The City Planner observed the seven sea/land containers and approximately ten round concrete pipes stored openly on the Subject Property. On October 28, 1992 , the Subject Property was inspected by a person form the City Planning Department. The City Planner observed the seven sea/land containers and approximately ten round concrete pipes stored openly on the Subject Property. Chanhassen City Code Section 20-909 - Outdoor Storage, prohibits outdoor storage in the manner that it is being conducted on the Subject Property. _ OFFENSES COUNT I - ILLEGAL OUTDOOR STORAGE - Chanhassen City Code Section 20-909 - 0 - 90 days and/or $700 That on or about July 8 , 1992 , in the City of Chanhassen, County of Carver, State of Minnesota, the defendant, HARRY LINDBERY, then and there being, did wrongfully and unlawfully permit illegal outdoor storage on the Subject Property. COUNT II - ILLEGAL OUTDOOR STORAGE - Chanhassen City Code Section 20-909 - 0 - 90 days and/or $700 That on or about July 14 , 1992, in the City of Chanhassen, County of Carver, State of Minnesota, the defendant, HARRY LINDBERY, then and there being, did wrongfully and unlawfully permit illegal outdoor storage on the Subject Property. COUNT III - ILLEGAL OUTDOOR STORAGE - Chanhassen City Code Section 20-909 - 0 - 90 days and/or $700 That on or about October 28, 1992, in the City of Chanhassen, County of Carver, State of Minnesota, the defendant, HARRY LINDBERY, then and there being, did wrongfully and unlawfully permit illegal outdoor storage on the Subject Property. CITY OF CHANHASSEN V. HARRY LINDBERRY PAGE-3------------------------------------------------- - Chanhassen Cit Cuj COUNT IV _ ILOEGA90Oda�0and OR Tor�G700 20x— thereafte That on or about July 15, 1992 , and each day County of Carver, State of Minnesota then and there being, did w" defendant,of Chanhassen, on the HARRY LINDBERY, and unlawfully permit illegal outdoor storage Property. • • 1 • PUBLIC SAFETY DEPAr'MENT SERIAL NO. B 35 4. 3 Building and Zoning Dik ,n 690 Coulter Drive - P. 0. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 / -t.rL r, �� .,!T , 612 - 937-1900 APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT CITY OF DATF 10-2E.-23 • ADDRESS 3) 17:.)-_, FZ:nni; Clout Drive CHANHASSEN EST. BUILDING VALUE $97.' ...1‘. w Name Harrym -•. T ,v ZONING DISTRICT Z Address 6970 y?ifT1P1" ..WE RES. COM X IND. PUBLIC ° r93 City -i inS 1.� Te:. , 9570_D� r NEW Y EXISTING PI N. ¢O !Name SId Zl- SUBDIVISION t latte.. O U ,Address O� City Tel No LOT BLOCK r X SECTION NORTH HALF SOUTH HALF — I hereby acknowledge that I have read this apo,ication and state that the information is correct and agree to comply witr' the •anhassen, Minnesota s 53?.50 ordinances and the S to of Minnesota la _. egulat� _ . ng construction. Building Signature of ' �� 409.83 • Pe Permittee . // Plan Check $ CALL FOR. LL INSPECTIONS LIS .!i Surcharge , MR TI Q,L�' $ 49.00ON BUILDING CARD S.A.0 $ n/a PHONE 937.1900 FINISH SPAM RE UIR:S 75 .00 !. Sewer Surcharge P IT. S t DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE Park Dedication APAa S PERMIT ISSUED Trail Dedication S TO HFt1^r'p I 1 TYi]P—Z V Water Unit ` ij r SUR. S On the express condition that all work shall be done in accordance FINAL L J.� FMStp.i with the ordinances and building codes of the City of Chanhassen Sewer Unit T ]r w�1uiu and the State of Minnesota This Permit is void if work is not corn- [ menced within 120 days or abandoned for 120 days. - B ung lnspefr7on Division Water Meter J...x�..• $ • — BY ��- f 1� ;Z'� Public Safety Dedicat r ��f(� $ �_ f r Other Fee L- � �� S v1164.33 TOTAL FEE PAID - SITE ADDRESS SHELL �}4'Zi aux Date SERIAL NO. B r 1700 F1yi- Dr. 10-26-89 ir Subdivision Property I.D. No. Contractor Phone No. innlatted 7 7�r>.fi �y 93s-9;70 Lot No. Block Section No. Estimate Completwn Dae Building Valuation 34 ❑N% ]SY, $98,000. —Survey No. Nev Alteration E Repair❑ Addition❑ Demolish❑ Other E _X Residential ❑ Single Family ❑ , Multiple Dwelling❑ No.of Units Other❑ Ispecitic Commercial CE Industrial ❑ Use: storage of Cyst. equipmmt & suppliPs _Kind of Construction Type of Construction IFR IIFR 111 1-hr,N III 1 hr,N IV H.T. V 1-hr,N -SIZE OF WORK- Occupancy ABEHIRM DIMENSIONS AREA ELEVATIONS Group Division 1 2 2.1 3 4 5 x = Sq.Ft. Planning Case No. Sq.Ft. _ x = Zoning District x = Sq.Ft. Use: Permitted ❑ x = Sq.Ft. Conditional ❑ Setback: Front Non-conforming ❑ Side x - . Sq.Ft. Rear Variance ❑ TOTAL FLOOR AREA Sq.Ft. REMARKS: • $6� plan check 50, P $409.83, tax $49.00, sewer s rch. $75.00 IC1; .33c."Th' y,. / D .1 't9 EXHIBIT 6 WedgCor, Inc. DELIVERY/PICK-UP INVOICE JamestowBroN110 D58402 DEALER DEMAND TO COLLECT FUNDS 701.252-7380 P.O.# D5-9396 _ DEALER: REGENCY STEEL SHIP TO: Harry Lindery "CPU" 6901 MaLoney Avenue — Hopkins , MN 55343 Prorate/Community Freight -- Private Private Freight t Per our notification on March 14. 1989 , your order is scheduled to be delivered Within Ten (10) Days of , or picked up on 8 AM, MARCH 22, 1989 . Est. weight: 55.386 - NOTICE: Actual delivery may vary before or after this date as delivery is dependent on material and carrier — availablity. Construction equipment or additional labors should be arranged after the driver contacts you with a more specific delivery date. The dealer has ordered WedgCor to collect funds. WedgCor requires Certified Funds in the amount of $ 34,752.00 , made payable only to WedgCor, Inc., to be collected at time of arrival or pickup. This is not an assignment of terms and conditions of the dealer purchase order or the sales — contract between the buyer and dealer. Failure to pickup or accept delivery at the prescribed time above, may result in community freight _ loss, storage charges, unloading and any other costs incurred by WedgCor. Refer to your dealer and/or dealer manual. Buyer or buyers agent acknowledges the dealer is independent and not an agent or contractor of WedgCor. Original C.O.D. 534 ,752.00 REVISIONS AND CHANGES: *Certified or cashier's check Current C.O.D. $34,752.00* NOTICE:Your building freight was calculated to HO k trIS city limit. If delivery drop site is inside or outside the city. additional freight at regular rate round trip will be added(per Schedule Cin the dealer manual). Your driver will attempt to call in advance with a more specific time and day of delivery.To avoid downtime charges.please take the time to prepare for delivery: 1. Supply stacking materials for proper storage during unloading to prevent damages: 2. Sufficient help and unloading equipment. Missed pickups — refer to dealer and/or dealer manual You or your dealer are responsible for complete inventory of your building. BE SURE TO COMPLETELY INVENTORY YOUR BUILDING MATERIALS! DATE March 15, 1989 SIGNED i/�:��/i/ _ — 5442-4 Two Rivers Printing.In[. EXHIBIT 7 NON"meq Minnesum fso Department of Transportation - District 5 4> 2055 No. Lilac Drive OF TP.W Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 (612)593.84 49 Novemer 1, 1988 Harry Lindberg 6901 Maloney Avenue Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 Re: Permit 5-A-88-56 T.H. 212: C.S. 1013 Loc: Near Jct. County Road 10 Dear Harry: ' The above referenced Access Permit has been approved based on your application dated September 26, 1988. This permit may be obtained at our office upon deposit of a certified check in the amount of $500.00, payable to the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation. Upon obtaining this permit, you will be authorized to perform the approved construction within the State's right of way, subject to the rules and regulations, special provisions, specifications and plans contained in the permit. Since ly,7 4/611_,6L-AL William G. Warden Roadway Regulation Supervisor HARRY LINDBERY 2135 6901 MALONEY AVE. HOPKINS. MN 55343 Nov. 4 19 88 75-1492/910 oRoeao"' State of Pin.Dept .of Trans . I $ x00 .00 *** Five Hundred & No/100 *** DOLLARS SOUTHWEST' rIL�' STATE BANK 7600 PARKLAWN AVE EUM 'A,MINN 55435 / - MEMO Permit 5-A-88-56 • a:0 9 LO L 4 9 210: 20..I 2 5 : II' 2 1 3 5 � •-••••• •- EXHIBIT 8 E f; INSPECTION REPORT 4 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA C: C L 937-1900 r C O INSPECTION FOR pC7 J fDATE TIME , O V oo f 'Z Z �/( - A TIME & DATE INSPECTION DESIRED I ADDRESS l -1r'[tf, (.)v4 PERMIT NO. CONTRACTOR Qr ry.. 1-1 vY Ape r r TAKEN BY: WATER METER NO. REMOTE NO. LOCATION CORRECTIONS r_ c c P (-)F n der 14 jte I opal Z� 1 00(' j a o (dk f VAC >Qvk � rP P � rlhlekr- claii 1_ •Ntr ,11/6._ , , n,„ II Irk t rLe � �f r seq- �`< <'�' P ICING/ I�--- ACC E 0-e0(.CC • Co • _ If no corrections are listed above, approval is hereby given to proceed. You will be in violation of the ordinance if you do not call for the proper inspections and make cor- rection as called for. r I 012N 2 9th /I DatO�Time ItisPector EXHIBIT 9 EXHIBIT A - 77/1 . All outdoor storage areas must be completely screened by 100% — opaque fencing , berming or landscaping. A proposed screening plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit . Hours of operation shall be from 7 : 00 a.m. to 6 : 00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Work on Sundays and holidays is not permitted. 3 . Light sources shall be shielded. 4 . No outside speaker systems are allowed. Ge-- f "• Compliance with the conditions of MnDOT including installation of r k�' L• a right turn lane and a left turn lane if required by MnDOT. 1,, n . 6 . Installation of bituminous driveways , parking areas and loading areas . • id Compliance with the conditions of Resource Engineering as written in their memo dated August 9, 1988 . • i]-1 Protection of the two septic system sites during construction. 9 . Installation of a holding tank. 10 . The building must be sprinklered. 17_.1.] Provision of one handicap parking space. 12 . Contractor' s yard activities only as defined in the zoning -ordi- :qh nance, are permitted . There shall be no shipping or other non- , -. t(''°`` i) contractor' s yard activities . . kt ." 3 The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the ('f` permits from the Department of Natural Resources and the Watershed � ..1,� District permits . i6o`'r"[-''i r. 1S^' . • 14 . All the existing buildings shall be trucked off-site and disposed ':�;� �-• of properly. . 15 . The erosion control plan shall be revised to include check dams at 100-foot intervals in all proposed drainage swales . 16 . The plans shall be revised to include erosion control measures for the proposed construction within the immediate area of Bluff /-- Creek. �L• IL/The pond outfall shall be revised to include a submerged outlet detail in place of the wooden skimmer. f rf' d'� ,;J; ` � 18 . /Submission of a vehicle inventory list. _` 19 . No heavy equipment or machinery shall be operating between 6 : 00 p .m. through 7 : 00 a.m. �'�h v. U, ill 20 . No shippingactivities shall originate on site. ise krcm rc,N 14 EXHIBIT 10 s 6 ,o(z3).p — Planning Commission Meeting April 19 , 1989 - Page 30 _/ PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND CHAPTER 20 OF THE CITY CODE BY DELETING SECTION 20-255, SECTION 20-574, SUBD. 6, AND SECTION 20-773, SUBD. 6 (CONTRACTOR' S YARDS) , CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Steve Hanson presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Wildermuth moved , Ellson seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Batzli : I 'd like the record to show that there' s nobody else in the room except for us and staff . - Conrad : Any general comments? Emmings : I want to ask if the contractor ' s yards that presently exist , - were those people specifically notified of this? Hanson : We did not individually notify them. Ellson : I thought we usually do . . . Emmings : Are you telling us that we ' re not obligated to? Conrad : We' re not. The question is , to be sure. . . Emmings : On one hand . . . Conrad : Does anybody else have any other comments? (Discussion went on between commissioners that wasn' t audible on the tape . ) _ Headla : If we approve this tonight , how' s that going to affect the ones that already exist? Hanson : It won' t. . . Headla : Then I don' t see any reason to not approve it . Conrad : It ' s just that, would we learn anything additional? Emmings : My concern is this . If we' re going to make them, I guess the word is legal non-conforming uses right? My question is , what terminates a legal non-conforming use? If they don ' t use that property for a period of a year , how would we ever know? - Ellson : You ' ve got to tell the neighborhood . Hanson : It ' s the same way we'd know that a conditional use now had - expired . EXHIBIT 11 (2 pa`,$) Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 32 Erhart moved , E:nmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the amendment to the City Code to delete the following sections from the zoning ordinance : Section 20-255 Section 20-574 , Subd . 6 Section 20-773 , Subd . 6 All voted in favor and the motion carried . Erhart: My comment is , as time has gone on on this thing, it's become more and more clear that we are recommending the correct thing . . . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Batzli moved , Wildermuth seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 5, 1989 as presented . All voted in favor and the motion carried . ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING STAFF. Steve Hanson updated the Planning Commission on what work had been done on the following items : convenience stores, wetland articles , zoning code, Ise of matrix and letter from Roger Knutson dated April 12 , 1989. Enmings moved , Wildermuth seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m. . Submitted by Steve Hanson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim r' — ' § 20-233 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE - ^ max"`''" I - (b) In determining conditions, special considerations shall be given to protectin •i �; g miner = �?.- ately adjacent properties from objectionable views, noise, traffic and other negative charal ``"—i.-:,4"4:' I istics associated with such uses. _ - •. (Ord. No_ 80, Art. III, § 2(3-2-4), 12-15-86) -''` -�'-�t - J -=:'wee:'-:. .. i Sec. 20-234. Denial for noncompliance. -- -_ _ -r-c--� — ..4.,- .,ice, If the council denies a conditional use permit, it shall state findings as to the way ' which the proposed use does not comply with the standards required by this chapter. . - '=' ; (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 2(3.2-5), 12.15-86) "='� "`'' Sec. 20-235. Permits not personal. "k `' A conditional use permit shall be issued for a particular use and not for a parti .: •.=:`' person. =.fir;,.. 1_ L _ � -rz- (Ord- No. 80, Art. III, § 2(3-2.6), 12-15-86) _ . • . v h-_- ,,,,,!...,_:_,_. • .._,-. L Sec. 20-236. Expiration. __':,A,�:. _ ._: If substantial construction has not taken place within one (1) year of the date on whii A..---s--4.--7.::: the conditional use permit was granted, the permit is void except that, on application,t.- ---:.--:•.--"-'-- i ; . . council, after receiving recommendation from the planning commission, may extend th-.: ..- permit for such additional period as it deems appropriate. If the conditional use is disco. ==:-': • tinued for six (6) months, the conditional use permit shall become void. This section sh: :L.', -.' japply to conditional use permits issued prior to February 19, 1987, but the six-month peri••k_ ` _ shall not be deemed to commence until February 19, 1987. �- .i (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 2(3-2-8), 12-15-86) i.4 { �� LSec. 20-237. Revocation and inspection. (a) Failure to comply with any condition set forth in a conditional use permit shall be : _-:: . Lmisdemeanor and shall also constitute sucient cause for the revocation of the conditional �_ - ': ffi - i permit by the city council following a public hearing. The property owner shall be notified in f.F.-_. advance of the city council's review of the permit. _ i_ (b) Inspections will be conducted at least annually to determine compliance with the :.�- terms of a conditional use permit. • _' ) (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 2(3-2-7), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 106, § 1, 8-14-89) - — Secs. 20-238-20-250. Reserved. = DIVISION 3. STANDARDS FOR AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Sec. 20-251. Scope. ; - In addition to all other standards required by section 20-232, the standards in this = _- division shall apply to conditional uses if they are to be located in agricultural or residential -: districts. V — (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1), 12-15-86) - Supp. No. 2 1176 EXHIBIT 13 _-__. n a Wirsbo-pePEtRadiant Hydropic Hea ing Systems Wi,s Residential Heating aie l��C; `� Commercial;Industrial Heating 7 M - Snowmelt/Frost Protection s 1144:74, 41&41f:<"% eltor.„S. • 11041: 0.----404?Itstit - •j . • Underfloor and underground hydropic heat distribution y A y7 11 :_r=N_QU) (0) using the world s reading crosslinked polyethylene i(1- tubing technology cc r- - Wirsbo-pePEX Technology For thousands of years. The result is a tubing that is Wirsbo-pePEX is a 3/4-inch •Wirsbo-PEX tubing holds people have known that durable.dependable and external diameter tubing the world record for long- the best way to heat an adaptable to the needs of with a nominal 5/8-inch term pressure testing at enclosed space is to virtually all forms of internal diameter.It is tested sustained high temperatures: — introduce the ,� hydronic and approved at 180°F nearly 20 sears at 203°F heat under the underfloor under 100 PSI.and comes under 175 PSI.and still surface and z h w -• �-' heating.A in convenient coil lengths of going. allow it to - ,-.40: -" '�` Wirsbo-pePEX 400 and 860 feet.In more radiate up and .4 /0--- 4-.. system can be than 600.000 European •Wirsbo-pePEX is listed through the . 4 ordesi1 gned to installations.Wirsbo-pePEX with the American Society area.Until very k . p • meet the needs is proving its effectiveness for Testing and Materials Om recently.no - a of homes. in residential,commercial. (ASTM)under specification distribution apartments, industrial and other numbers F876 and F877. technology had offices,stores. environments. proven capable of sustained manufacturing plants. operations. hospitals.schools.nurseries and man other facilities. .. •Metal piping can corrode and weaken steadily. g •Electric grid systems can ^ -•- --'tr r a 1 • • r'$ F fj -z 'E r t a i fatigue rapidly and are " a * �'� ' f'-'141q " ' ;Itcostly to operate. _ ,t;. -- _. _ ' " ► . ‘-'"..!.•.4-, •Plastic tubing alternatives 0. .7 '�' s can become brittle and • ▪ allow oxygen to invade the ;� .��. + t, system and corrode metal in f ;' • ►•i +•„ ; the power plant. • `;. / �•�, ft ; •v..? .i'• •Rubber compounds can • rs.- l'•.'w. lose elasticity and also •: •�• •t permit oxygen intrusion. ei=mim iymilpiPM111111111111111111s • aimimmi ▪ Wrrsbo-pePEX,a cross- MINIIMMINIM11:0 • linked polyethylene -_ - (PEX)tubing technology, soles these problems and more.Through an exclusive, , ' :� . • • patented process,molecules in Wirsbo-pePEX areollairk-qo '" c•rosslirrled to provide a 1,✓ ♦e plastic with remarkable - _. , ii;.;),, ' durability over a wide range ID. !!� it t _ of temperature and pressure 1 isk' I combinations.In addition. • 4101 Wirsbo-pePEX is wrapped with five layers of a polymer to prevent 1% ` oxygen diffusion into the ."--2."-- !!! hydronic system. �� stk..,-0" 44 1111 t 2too Hydronic Heat Distribution -- 1 In a hvdronic underfloor —' heating system.the entire ' , _ , Ej floor surface of the area to 5 be heated becomes the • radiant heat source. Heat is , delivered by circulating hot 07711 '!:::"'r"- 7,. -. water or another fluid _ _ ;. ._" a through tubing suspended inside the floor joists or entrained within the i concrete or poured-floor -,/ aggregate used as underlayment. True Thermal Comfort Individual:one controls allow different rooms to be maintained A conventional forced-air at different temperatures.reflecting how and when they are used. ..i System Advantages system heats air to a high the different heating needs of exterior and interior spaces.and Because Wirsbo-pePEX temperature,then blows it the comfort preferences of the people using them.Research distributes heat through the through ductwork into the consistent!)shows that radiant heating is the most space to be heated.It's acomfortableform heat. l floor.no wall or ceiling heat p of ...1 ducts or vents are needed. costly and inefficient Eliminating hot-air drafts process:The air must be greatly reduces the overheated to compensate J circulation of dust,dirt, for heat lost in moving it pollens and other airborne from the power source to substances. the space where it is needed. • What's more.since hot air The true beauty of wood. rises.heat collects at the marble and tile floors ceiling while cold air pushes remains visible—the need down to floor level— J to hide them under a rug where the human body because the floor is too cold senses thermal comfort. to walk on is forever eliminated. Wall spaces are 1 { eat in a radiant hydronic — cleaner and less cluttered. n system is transferred Draperies can be hung and from the Wirsbo-pePEX furniture arranged without tubing directly to surfaces compromises based on the within the space to be location of heating vents. heated.Radiant heating completely eliminates the -- "' n a Wirsbo-pePEX hot-air draft created by hvdronic underfloor heat forced-air systems. distribution system, fid` i temperature and comfort In rooms heated with a .:, -...,."1-1.1,.,.4...,.:. can be controlled on a pe hydronic7- ' '-` ' Wirsbo-pePEX IL -•:.-:•:,;�, :. • room-by-room basis. system.people typically 7-9)A Individual zone and system find they are comfortable _ - controls replace the single with the thermostat set ascentralized thermostat low as 65°F.That saves 'common to conventional energy.And because heat __ __ _- heating systems,thus in a hydronic underfloor 1 — improving comfort while system is delivered directly, providing energy savings. low-temperature power Forced Air Malin Radian!Floor Heating sources—including water source heat extractors,solar, Heat distribution in a forced air Near du rzhunnr in a radiant — system is inevitably uneven;hot floors sten:rs e en and consistent geothermal and industrial spots occur near the register and throughout the ronin,there are no waste energy converters— at the ceiling.while cold spots drafts.no hat spots.no cold s/ +ts can be employed effectively. form at the floor 3 J Comfort Without Compromise The human body is a Farthest ay,ay from the the height of a normal adult at floor level.the room must hydronic heating heart are the feet.the body's —meeting and satisfying be overheated at the level of ` system.It circulates heat most sensitise heat sensors. the comfort needs of the feet the heart.If the system is from a central source by The last to receive heat. and the heart. regulated to keep the heart distributing a heated liquid they are the first to comfortable,the feet sense a t. through a network of piping recognize the discomfort ofistribution is the key. colder environment.Either (the blood system).The first a cold environment.The D Forced-air systems are way,the body perceives priority of the system is to goal of a heat distribution unable to match the itself to be uncomfortable. ammaintain the temperature at system(as illustrated in the distribution profile of the the core(the heart).That Ideal Heating Curves Ideal Heating Curve due to need met.heat is sent below)is to provide one of the basic principles toward the extremities. consistent temperatures of thermodynamics: Hot air from the floor to just above rises.To put sufficient heat - ; .t .' 70° :r` DEGREES FAHRENHEIT .17 Ideal me Hiarinc Curve ir y • Ns- Wirsbo Radiant Floor ©• Heating Curve • 65 74` • NAS TMERMOSTAT k HEIGHT MIP" 7 K _ K e Forced Air Heating Curve • pp 80. (° m° Wy�o DEGREES FAHRENHEIT — 1 Ideal Heating Curve Radiant Floor Heating Forced Air Heating For optimum hear distribution. By delivering heat almost Because hot air rises,more heat temperature should be relatively precisely according to the Ideal must be forced into the room to constant from floor-level to just Heating Curve,a Wirsbo-pePEX maintain a comfortable about the height of a normal adult. system assures that all of the heat temperature at floor level. The produced contributes to the heat represented by the shaded comfort of the room's occupants. area at right is excess—wasted People literally"feel"more energy. comfortable. De,yea Po-•esea2r or I Bedto'd!'Tee WArmin Factor Al CaMat al Work') F A Che'ro(IAA Effects of me Floor TempFaiwes of Root Swlace ono the ` An on Tne• .. Sensa•-cr.and fee Sktn TempipWe of OH Feet').and P 0 Fanpe.('The•ma•Comlat') 4 Hc' e: A Design For Any Type Of Installation Wirsbo-pePEX underfloor Apo':—e •_ heat distribution systems can be installed in any type of floor and in an kind of structure: ,tbiovisp...... ,.. . • - ____.- • Res:a..'ans . ,..7-,.. .. , Nurse-les — Factories0‹ • -~ ` .!• . -- _40000 Wood With Aluminum Plates Wood With Poured Floors Waren_Vises In residential and otherorms f of Using Wirsbo's PEXgrid plastic — construction using suspended track system or construction wood floor construction.Wirsbo- staples.Wirsbo-pePEX is fastened Senor: pePEX tubing is run within the to the surface of the wooden sub- — subflooring joists To maximize flooring before the addition of a heat distribution uniformity.the poured floor underlayment. tubing rests in grooved aluminum Da;ca heat emission plates that absorb — and radiate heat from the system . into the floor above. Hospit a is Priso•-s � Gymnasiums �" i. % 4� s ' • . 114. .:,._' • 4dIl '.. .„,".;,-.11, ...;;;•••'-" / rk. • . Coliseums _ * - _ _ :K cam= ��. t;• — Clubhouses Concrete slab Floors Concrete With Peeved floors For basements.factories, For the upper floors of buildings warehouses and other slab-on- using pre-stressed floor systems. Kennels grade Installations,Wirsbo-pePEX Wirsbo-pePEX tubing is placed tubing is tied to rhe reinforcing above the concrete,after which a mesh before the slab is poured. layer of lightweight concrete is Parking Ramps Once in place and pressurized, poured.To maximize the speed Wirsbo-pePEX is virtually immune and efficiency of the installation. to damage from construction the tubing can be held in place by equipment. Wirsbo's unique PEXgrid track 1 Parking Lots system. 5 Make Wirsbo Your Design Partner Wirsbo is one of A Design For Any Technical Design Europe's largest and Type Of Heating Plant Assistance _ most experienced manufac- Wirsbo-pePEX's oxygen No organization in the turing and technology diffusion barrier is one- world has more experience companies.Founded in thousand to fifteen-thousand with hydronic heating Sweden in 1620.it has times more resistant to technology than Wirsbo.No — pioneered hydronic oxygen penetration than any matter how large or unique underfloor radiant heat other unprotected synthetic the installation being distribution in more than tubing used in underfloor planned,Wirsbo has the — 600.000 installations heating today.Conse- design experience and throughout Europe.Our quently.boilers,fittings and resources to support it. exclusive patented Wirsbo- other components are not pePEX tubing technology is limited to high-cost stainless Technical design support . — proving its reliability in steel and other non-ferrous also is available through applications from homes materials.Boiler loop Wirsbo's network of trained and apartments to offices isolation heat exchangers sales representatives coast — and stores,industrial shops are not needed.Neither are to coast.From the heat loss and manufacturing plants to expensive and questionable Individual:one controls allow and structural specifications hospitals and schools. corrosion inhibitors. temperatures to be controlled of your project.we will room-by-room. provide a complete system — diagram and materials list Tubing runs assure even '! (including the tubing layout distribution of heat in every part and full installation —of the room. 1 instructions).We'll also / c=.___z ________ Ii ` consult with you on heat plant sizing and other , design decisions. v ,,\ . _ //p/Z./9________________2_1er---- .,,t — C ' Manifolds on each floor provide AINIMME! I equiet.reliable distribution of heat 'Y(� 71' Mechanical —— . ' -.—-- where it's needed. Room i ,: L l � i � < C — 6 Wirsbo Tubing Manifold '. Specification Fumisr.and instal!.in accordaxe _ Compur r design allows Telesrur Junction 80.1 wits the recommendations of Inc plat einem in N alis. manufacturer.a hyoronic heat closets.stain,ells or disirioution system System shall kir 4 spar es -i = use a rarn+ra.518•irs.de diameter r~—Thermostat Serhur A Clock crosslrn,cec paye., hylene tuoe Returnlle i;AF S • meeting ASTM standard F876-877. Tubes scat be rated 180x!1OC PSI - r~—Thermostat OMO and shall have an Integra'oxygen dif usron barrier to reduce the Supp' -'�""'- End rap with robe.hose Potenta:Of system corrosion • ' r adapter and ah-vent System shah be compete aria snail Pre,rs,on-manuja.cured I I E include system design.tubes.tube de_inr ifir arum-resistants r beros.tube tie-wires neat- — bras.s finings conn ,n ` emission sheets(it required) double and triple array to -.'L Bend Support valves.fittings.manifolds.manifold accommodate up rt,10 • supports,telestats(valve individual loops actuators).room thermostats and 1 15124 AC(UL approved) Installs in minutes withII transformer. Tube shall be common hand tool, - warranted for 20 years:associated MEM accessory items furnished by manufacturer shat!be warranted for 18 months from date of sate. Complete Pre- Typical Data For Various Applications Engineered Package — - Notes A Wirsbo-pePEX Application RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL SNOWMELT A Wirsbo radiant heat distribution underfloor heating systemRoom Temp 65-724 60-724 55-684 25-F : system can be installed in most comes complete with all the Water Temp tE-161'F 90-1404 85-110,F 90.13^°F floors with extremely favorable results Tub ng should not be manifolds.valves.couplings Surface Temp ,5 88`F 75• °F 70 85F •4. F lnstalleo underrteat^walls.in and accessories—including Heat Output 20-35B1.,'1'sc P. 15-30B1A.T so ft 10.208ri so fI 80-150Btu t so r closets on stairs or in locations installation tools—needed. - —.— Temp Drop 10-20-F 10-20,F 10-20,-F 20-351 where future contruction is like:y In addition.Wirsbo-pePEX ----- systems are supported with Flow Loop .O lgpxr• -.1 ppm .1 gar. .2gor, Care must be taken during installation to avoid punctures to a full line of thermostats and Pressure Drop 5-20h H2O 15-40h Ic0 20.50h Neo 20.50h WO tree tubing due to nagl or staple telestats(valve actuators)to Loop Length 150.3751, 250.4001. 300-45011. 150-2401: holes orconstructio' damage. meter and regulate each heat Tube on Center 6.1 12.18' 12-24' 8•10' zone according to Wirsbo's Wirsbo-peDEX tubing is designed _ computerized design NOTE:Above examples are not a complete list of applications.Above factors for use in a low-temperature program. are dependent on each other.Do not base a system design on these average system Operating water values.The lengths shown are averages and not compatible for all installationstemperffiures depend on a varietywithin the application.The heat outputs are averages only Heat loss analysis is of factors.and may need to be required for an actual system. increased in installations whP1e there is an unusually higr heat-loss A 14 irsho-pePE.X srsteet can requirement,in suspended wood operate from any type of boiler.M floor construction,and in water hearing plant. installations where thick carpeting will be installed over the flooring -\ Where a combination of adverse \� -� -. factors makes it impossible for the ..'_ �� N.....„....„.. .„.,-",,,..\ ` \ underfloor hydropic system to ,, provide adequate heal Output at an J mg ,\ acceptable water temperature.the �� installe'is cautioned to reduce \ \\ resistance to upw'a'd flow(by r \\ decreasing the thickness of carpet or pad).use an alternate type of • floor construction,or provide a supplemental heat source such as radiant baseboard bPEX hlogc Wirsbo-pePEX • 7"11"L"---""'17- -- W is irsbringingotecthe proven Patented PEX tubing potential of crosslinked with its flee-laver oxygen — polyethy lene tubing to the diffusion barrier is being Lnited States. No matter used in hydronic underfloor what kind of application is heat distribution systems of under consideration— all types and sizes as well as - underfloor heating. small-scale snowmen and snow-melting.de-icing. groundfrost control systems. • refrigeration.chemical — transfer.potable water Wirsbo Meltaway • supply.agricultural tubing For larger snowmeltin_and3a . —a Wirsbo product can ground frost control. Melta- meet the need. way tubing's one-inch diam- e _ eter is proving its usefulness • Made In America in streets and sidewalks. Our new manufacturing. parking ramps,athletic — distribution and training fields and racetracks,and center in Minnesota allows other outdoor locations. .• Wirsbo to support Europe's — leading hydronic heat distribution technology with Wirsbo R-PEX • . 'i�sxxx`'"' \\\\\\\�\\\"`' close-to-the-customer sales V►-irsbo's pre-insulated w\\\ \\�\\\\\\\ i;; _ .2 iii - �\ and service. R-PEX tubing is ideal for large-scale district heating its A Wirsbo Distributor and heat distribution ' .,, Is Near You systems. - ` - — To find your nearby Wirsbo .. do. representative. simply call r the Sweets Bux•line Service: — 1-800-521-2737.At the prompt.enter the Wirsbo Wirsbo-hePEX • ID#3792. A supply tubing with an — oxygen diffusion barrier that has the ability to replace copper pipes in distribution applications. • It Wirsbo-inPEX • Designed for industrial and — _ other processes from food �- plants to dialysis machines; , „<„,.., available in diameters from 1/8"to 4". 1 , , L. Feel The Heat — WI RS B CI 5925 148th Street West •Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 WIRSBO CANADA 580 Park Street•Regina.Saskatchewan S4N 5A9 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 some money even though we have to spend some. Next item. INTERPRETATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT VALIDITY, CUP $88-11 FOR A CONTRACTOR'S YARD, 1700 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, JEFF CARSON. Sharmin Al-Jaff: In 1988 the City Council approved a contractors yard by approving a conditional use permit application. The contractors yard was supposed to have a building. . .parking area, a driveway that would lead into the building. The existing buildings on the site were proposed to be demolished and removed off the site. There were 20 conditions attached to your report that were the conditions of approval. One day before the permit was to expire, the applicant applied for a building permit . Staff issued the permit . However. . . construction or development taking place on site. The zoning ordinance reads, if substantial construction has not taken place within one year of the date on _ which the conditional use permit was granted, the permit is void. Over the past two years staff has not noticed any construction taking place and we are interpretting the ordinance to read as the conditional use permit as void. The applicant is contesting our interpretation and is in front of you today to — get . . .interpretation. We are recommending that you find the conditional use permit as void. If you have any questions regarding the inspections, with us today is Building Official, Steve Kirchman. He'll be here to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. Is the applicant , Jeff Carson here? Jeff Carson: Yes, your Honor. Mr. Mayor, Council members. My name is Jeff Carson. I represent the applicant , Mr. Harry Lindbery who is present tonight . Mr. Lindbery did indeed, I should also indicate that we were before the Board of Appeals and Adjustments from 6:30 to 7:30 and I will be repeating myself and I apologize to Councilmember Senn. In case you don't know, they recommended the interpretation as Sharmin has indicated. That the permit be voided. Mr. _ Lindbery did receive his conditional use permit and I trust that the packet of information is before the City Council that was submitted by the applicant , which includes a brief memo and some exhibits. It is our underlying contention _ that the conditional use, that the applicant has indeed used the premises since 1988 as a contractors yard. And I put the definition of a contractors yard in the first page of my memo to show that the definition of a contractors yard does not require a building at all. In fact the use of the property, as Mr. Lindbery has made it since 1988, is exactly that . Storing of materials for construction, contracting. That 's his business. It is true that the original application contemplated a building and although we debated at the Board whether or not without a building this application or this applicant could construe or would be permitted to say that he was operating his property lawfully all these years. A literal reading of the conditional use permit doesn't state that you have to have this building. That is this property, which is approximately 40 acres, could be used without a building. Nevertheless, the applicant , and I outline. I don't think I'll go through it again in all the detail. He did intend to build a building, and to that end he obtained a building permit , as staff indicates approximately a year after the issuance of the conditional use permit . A dispute arose and we're having a hard time getting a handle on that , or pinning it down. But in my materials I submitted to you, I gave you a packet of information about the floor heating. It 's a heating system if you will that the applicant wanted to put in this building. The idea was, and he obtained the building permit and 8 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 he bought the shell of the building in 1989, and he's spent $36,000.00 doing that . Obviously intending to put that building on the property. He got into a dispute with the building official, which is at issue about that but he did. That 's his statement . Over the type of heating to use. He wanted to put the tubular heating in the floor and pour the cement . Probably at the time state- - of-the-art . The building official told Mr. Lindbery, no. I'm not familiar with it . You can't do it . That stalled the project and it never frankly got back on track. There was a period of time during this process where Mr. Lindbery was literally out of, physically unable to move forward personally himself on the project . He crushed his leg and was out of active participation for a year on the building project . So these periods of time came and went and they are significant periods of time and that was my reading of the Board of Appeals was, too much time has gone by. You could have and should have come to the City a long time ago. You didn't . Why didn't you, and my answer to that was everything in hindsight is always clearer and it 's better and certainly I agree. He could have and should have come to the city the moment that a dispute arose about anything. I would point out that the staff was actively, at least working on this project over 2 years after the issuance of the conditional use permit . _ The reason I raise that is that the interpretation that the staff is making is substantial completion of the building after one year was not met . Therefore, you voided your permit and that 's that . In the exhibits that I handed you, there is activity from the Building Department , and I would refer you to exhibits 6, 9 and 10 I believe. What it shows is that the Planning Department is, at that time dealing with the permit. In fact Exhibit 10 I believe is the cover sheet of the conditional use permit itself. And then the right lower corner it indicates somebody's doing some research on an issue as of 10/23/90. Significantly greater than 2 years after the issuance of the conditional use permit . My point being that I feel, based on what happened in 1992, that that 's simply the convenient , if you will, answer today. That is, well let 's see. What 's happened here. Time has elapsed. You're out of business. I would also point out that in 1989, when the City went through the process of removing contractors yards from the Zone A2, which is what we are, they had appropriate hearings and those hearings were predicated by published notice but , and I believe it 's Exhibit 11, is a front page of a Planning Commission Minutes where one of the Commissioners looked around the room. This was the hearing to decide on what recommendation the Planning Commission was going to pass to the Council. There's no contractors in the audience. There's nobody that 's a holder of a conditional use permit if you will, and the question was raised. Why isn't anybody here? Were they notified? The answer is no. You don't have to notify people if you're changing the zoning. You just have to publish. Technically that 's probably correct . But the other portion went on to say, what about these people who are operating today? And the answer was, they're non-conforming and therefore they're not going to be effected adversely by this action. Mr. Lindbery was not notified of the change in the zoning and he was not notified by staff frankly that he was running out of time to complete his project at any point in time. Then in the summer of 1992 what happened was, part of his contractors yard activities involved the storage of large and rather unsightly construction box units that he would rent out to other contractors to store their equipment in on site. And instead of putting them down, around behind the berm on his property, which he now knows he should have, he put them up closer to the road and they could be seen. So what happened was, staff saw them. Wrote to Mr. Lindbery. He wasn't responsive and that has led to the presently pending criminal charges in District Court , which we are having to address. He 9 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 has since corrected the problem, by his perception at least , and put the boxes that he uses in his business behind what we consider to be a berm. An adequate berm. In other words, you can't see them from the road and that 's the problem " , here. The upshot of it of course was, staff was looking at this application and at the whole property as a whole. In 1992 they determined that this violation or this voidance of the permit had existed and thus reached that conclusion. Now i ! the applicant can't , that takes us up to about mid-1992. That is from that point forward until today we're in an active dispute if you will, including the criminal charges. The point was made at the Board of Appeals that a lot of time seems to have elapsed between the issuance of the permit and let 's say mid-1992. And I don't disagree. There's a reason for what happened. It may not be adequate in the minds of everyone but it 's what really happened in the real world in this case. He didn't get the building done. He got into the dispute with the Building Inspector and he didn't follow through and he didn't come to the City and ask for an answer as to what he was going to be required to do. And here we sit . The zoning has changed. We're told he's not in a non-conforming status. He wasn't at the meeting where the zoning changed so he can't be in a position to do anything with this property other than use as agricultural, if indeed the use as a contractors yard is prohibited. It is our hope that you will, given all the circumstances, permit Mr. Lindbery to continue his operation by conditional use permit . He would like indeed to construct the building. As I indicated, he's got more than $36,000.00 in actual monies spent for the permit and the shell and the MnDot approval process. He's ready, _ willing and able to complete the project if he can get the appropriate approvals from city staff, which we believe we can do. And by denying him his opportunity to go forward, you're simply saying that the land is not going to be used anymore by this individual for the work that he does, which is operate a contractors yard. A couple of points were argued, debated at the hearing. Mr. Lindbery has used the property during this period of time continuously as a contractors yard. Obviously he did not build the building and so those parts of the permit that relate to construction haven't been met . That also was a finding at the hearing of the Board. I would hope that you would consider this. There's some equities here. There's some technical points. There's some _ questions about what does the Code mean, and keep in mind that he wasn't given a public hearing. He wasn't told that his conditional use permit is in violation or any of that . It was just during this criminal process he was advised that it 's void. It doesn't exist . And I'd like to think that given the history and the relative difficulty of interpretting exactly what that permit means, I think there are differences one might bring to the interpretation of the law as it relates to this permit and I would hope that you give Mr. Lindbery the advantage at least to make it right . I don't see that the city is any the worse off if he does. Clearly he is going to be in serious economic difficulties if he's told he has to vacate the use of that property. I thank you for hearing us, a second time. If I can answer any questions, I'd be glad to. — Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Are there any questions? Mark, do you have any questions at this time? Sitting on the Zoning Appeals. _ Councilman Senn: Basically at zoning appeals, my tact I think was a little different than staff's and City Attorney's I guess. I have a hard time making the connection between the conditional use permit and the argument that no construction has occurred on a building. The reason I have that trouble is that in the conditional use permit , the conditional use permit lacks any reference toI 10 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 a site plan and lacks any reference to a building. Other than some vague ones such as a building must be sprinklered. That type of thing. Yet I don't have much sympathy for the applicant because what I see as a conditional use permit , even though contractors yards activities may be very vague and arguable for many hours, conditional use permit I don't feel is. It says the conditional use permit based on Exhibit A, the condition on Exhibit A, and any violations of the terms of the permit means that it's terminated. And basically went through the conditions, the 20 conditions of which a majority have never been met . Forgetting whether building is a reference point or not a reference point . And I don't have a problem at all denying this permit on the basis that no construction has occurred. Also, that the applicant is in violation of a majority of the conditions of the conditional use permit . I do have a hard time basing some form of denial back on whether a building exists or does not exist . I guess that 's why it ended up here before us because I have that problem. Again I would strongly recommend denial but I think we ought to call it for the reasons it is, rather than the reasons that don't really exist in any documentation because quite honestly I think the applicant concurs that documentation on this is pretty poor. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, in looking through some of this as well. The conditional use so stipulates or even implies. I'm not sure what part of the law leans towards that but . . .conditional use shall be in compliance within one year from date of issuance, and if you're not , your compliance from that timeframe, that permit is void. And construction of a building had not taken place. Whether it 's so stipulated within there or not , that was still part I think of the conditions as it indicates. Councilman Senn: Don, I guess in. Mayor Chmiel: I understand you're not . Yeah, right . No, I understand that . I'm just clarifying that for the record more than anything. Okay_ Michael, do you have anything? Councilman Mason: Well, Mr. Carson certainly presents some compelling reasons but I'm confused as to why all the foot dragging on the applicant's part and why things just haven't happened. I guess I can only speak from my experience but if something goes wrong, it 's just common nature for me to go up one step higher and find out what the problem is and what can be done about it . It seems to me if that isn't done, I'm not , it doesn't set with me. I don't understand. Jeff Carson: Not having been there myself I can't , but let me do this if you would permit this. Mr. Lindbery is here and he does have, at least a response to that . It may not satisfy you but it does involve issues relating to his attempts to deal with plumbing and the things that he was dealing with. If you'd permit him to just address you for a couple of minutes. Do you want to do that Harry? Would you permit that Mr. Mayor? Thank you. Harry Lindbery: Well, where we run into one problem is we wanted to, we put in the pileasters for the building, the columns where the beams. We're building a building with no posts. It 's 70 foot wide and 100 feet long. And we wanted to take the building engineer said we should take from these columns, run rerod into the floor. That way, if you get stress on the top of the building, because due to it 's, on a shape like this, it wouldn't push out and push these columns 11 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 out and that's why if they're tied into the floor. And we had a problem with the plumbing man. He wanted us to put in two separate systems as far as drainage from the building. One from the sanitary where we would have a toilet j in a lunchroom for the fellows. And then another one for the floor drain. So -I- we we told him we would. We went and bought the flammable waste. We had that already but we wanted to put it inside the building and then we had it there and t 1 wanted to hook it up. He said, no. You can't hook it up. You've got to put it _ outside the building. So we took and put it outside. Then we got a concrete sawing company to bore a hole through the footing around the building and we put it on the outside . Then we says, can we hook up the floor drains to it now? He says, no. Now you have to go down to the State plumbing department and get their okay. So the plumber I had hired, and myself, we went down there. The State plumbing man, he said geez. He says, how come you want it this way outside? He said, when you'd have about 50% of the time that would be froze up because he says we've got winters here and he says, I'll never approve that . He says, put it on the inside. And I says, well that 's the way we wanted it . So then, he changed the plan. Then we went back to the city man. We asked him and _ we wanted to put radiant heat in the floor. He says he isn't familiar with that . He says put unit heaters up in the ceiling. And we says, they aren't as efficient and this here, when you heat the floor, it stays heat because if you open the door, the floor's warm. Your air rushes out . When you close the door, your floor is still warm. And I think you have a thing on that radiant heat . Well , what he didn't , he says he wasn't familiar with it . He wouldn't allow it . Then in 1991 I did have an accident . I was on a loader, front end loader and — it 's got a vinyl seat . And I slipped and hit a lever and I got my leg between some framework on the loader and it crushed it . My insurance company doctor, he wanted to whack it off below the knee. That 's where it came, the bone come out =— both both sides and I took and got a specialist and I went with him. He put a rod, it was about 15 inches long and about the size of your finger and he cut both sides open and he put it all back together again and he made me stay off of it . So that kind of tied up the building. But we had drivers going in there and going out of there with different supplies during this time so we didn't abandon it . I was laid up for a while and our other fellows, they didn't want to go ahead and stick the building up but we've had the building all bought . All paid for and everything and as soon as the frost gets out of the ground, I'd like to take and put my rerod in the floor. First put the plumbing in. Put the rerod. Pour it and then so it would hold the columns in and then put the structure up. And it 's out on 212 highway. We don't use any city streets or anything like that so I mean, I don't think we've ever bothered anybody. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Colleen, do you have any? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I guess I'd don't want to be completely blunt about this but I'm having trouble buying some of the arguments Mr. Carson's put forth on, particularly when you say we've never informed of the zoning change. I guess as a business person, you need to keep up on city ordinances, particularly when you own a piece of land and ignorance doesn't prove innocence. However, I do understand the complications in building. But it kind of sounds like you're — complaining because you got caught . Jeff Carson: No. If I may respond to that Mr. Mayor. I'm complaining I guess, -- if that 's what I'm doing, about the timing and the rationale for it . The reason i this really came up was the units that he was storing for other contractors that l 12 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 he rented. The City continued to deal with him really long after the 2 year period was up. There wasn't any time clock on him at that point . In October of '90, they were still dealing with this project . Had he been informed, had the contractors, the people that had contractors yards been informed that they no longer would have been able to operate a contractors yard in an A2 zone following the passage of an ordinance, I think it would have made a difference is what I'm saying. I'm not saying that , well. I'm saying that there can't be that many contractors yards in the city and it would seem to me appropriate to notify those people with contractors yards in those zones that are being zoned out , that that's under consideration. Now the answer to that was, when one of the Planning Commissions addressed it , was the people who are operating are non-conforming. They won't be effected by the change and so there's no need to bring them in. Had Mr. Lindbery been informed that he's about to lose his right or he has a certain period of time after which he cannot operate his yard, any of that , I submit that he would have resolved it right away or got the - extension. Whatever the code would have required at the time. What 's happened here is that for reasons unrelated frankly, he's now being told that , by the way, your CUP is void and I think that , yeah. You can look at it one way and you can look at it another way but I'm trying to bring a sense of fairness to it . I know the city rezoned that property for a reason. They don't want contractors yards in the A2 zone anymore. That 's the underlying message and that 's the city's priviledge. But I think as it effects adversely people who are there and operating, there has to be some kind of a give and take. That 's why, if it seems like complaining, perhaps it is. But I think this could have happened differently and we wouldn't be here. Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Richard. _ Councilman Wing: Mr. Carson, just a beginning question. Are there other employees involved here? Does he have a staff? Is this a company? Jeff Carson: He has employees, yes. I don't know how many but he does have other employees in this business. Councilman Wing: You're not alone on this? Well this was permitted in 1988 and I don't know what 's changed since then, except the zoning. The agricultural zoning. In 1992 terms, what does a contractors yard mean or not mean to the city? And specifically in this area. I guess the first thing I'd like to address is just a concern for your client Mr. Lindbery in that the city wants to get away from contractors yards. They're not in the best interest for the city. They haven't been in the best interest of the city and they've been moved out rather effectively over the last few, well since I've been here. And one of the real painful ones was the Carlson property out on the west end of the city where he's had all sorts of problems and just as he gets everything resolved and gets this building up, residential's coming in and it 's costly residential and they're simply not going to tolerate this type of land use. So the pressure's going to be put on. The complaints are going to come up and my concern for you is that you're going to get , if this was granted, you'll get all your buildings up and everything established and spend these dollars and all of a sudden in will come a plat for a residential area of $400,000.00 homes. They're going to take one look at you and do everything in their power to start moving you out . And then you're going to wind up an island down there and my concern is for your own personal finances in the future. If it 's granted and if the dollars are 13 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 spent to put this in, is it in fact in your best interest , even in the short term, if suddenly residential moves in down there and it becomes a very unattractive land use that simply won't be tolerated. So I have that concern by approving this, and having you invest this money on this contractors yard, you ' may be right on the edge of development that just won't tolerate it and the pain and the hurt that you could be caused, I just wanted to bring that up as an 1 } issue here because I think it 's significant for your own thinking and planning. But at any rate, the permit back in 1988, there's considerable dollars invested here. $1,200.00 for a permit and $3,500.00 for a building and MnDot and there's been a lot happening here and I think there's an awful lot of investment in this expired permit if you will. And although it 's maybe not the direction we want to go, I don't know if the use and the conflict down there has changed since '88 to '92 and this is Mr. Lindbery's business and it apparently meets the use and there's a real loss for him if this isn't continued. So I see the permit — continuation as a real minor issue and a real minor variance. I see the conditions of the permit as the issue here and resolving those. So my preference here would be to give an extension, and I'm going to just pick an arbitrary number of 6 months. Not that 's got no validity any more than 2 months or 1 year but an extension of 6 months which allows staff, number one to review the conditions for being reasonable and is it still the direction we want to go, and either changing those downward or leaving them. And then have 6 months to comply with those or it expires without any further discussion. I think that might be fair to resolve the issue and the conditions as a compromise here because there's too much money invested and if Mr. Lindbery wants to take the — risk of that investment with what 's changing down there, I won't address that . That 's his business but I have no problem with a continuation to allow staff to review the conditions, their reasonableness and then allow compliance of fairly — accelerated way. . .on the other hand it doesn't throw the dollars in this permit ` that were expended over the years. And if there is a conflict , the city and staff and any inspections, we've gone over this time and time again where the ; .a former inspections group and the former planning group didn't follow through and — things weren't documented and so there's some gray areas here that I'm not willing to absorb so I would prefer to give Mr. Lindbery the benefit of the doubt . But it would have to comply with the conditions and that would have to be in an accelerated manner. Harry Lindbery: May I ask a question? Mayor Chmiel: Yes, if you'd like to come up to the microphone. Harry Lindbery: Would that be for the building to be totally complete because we have about 3-4 feet of frost and that won't be out of there until probably about May 15th. Councilman Wing: I would move that 6 months after start of construction. Paul, I won't get into this. I don't know. It 's just the numbers are arbitrary. Harry Lindbery: Then there's no problem. After the frost was out, 6 months. — Councilman Wing: That could be a point . Harry Lindbery: Sure, because no problem with that . /.‘ 14 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 Councilman Wing: I'm not allowing to allow continuation of this unless it 's — complied with. And it 's complied with in an accelerated method but I won't go beyond that . I'd have to allow staff and Council to address that suggestion. Harry Lindbery: Well I just wanted to put out the thing. Do you have any objection to our radiant heat? Councilman Wing: No. That 's what I've got in my house. Harry Lindbery: Well, your plumbing man wouldn't let us put it in. Councilman Wing: Well I don't know anything about that . Maybe there were reasons. I can't address that . . . .the points are well taken. He asks the questions that can be handled elsewhere. I'm just bringing up the big issues here. Jeff Carson: I think he misunderstands the posture of the question at this point though. Councilman Wing: I'm trying to compromise on his. . . Jeff Carson: Yeah, and I think he's obviously willing to do that and that 's really all we can ask of the city. _ Councilman Wing: I have one concern is that I saw Paul start to, he was leaning forward in his chair. If he was going to confront me here, I wanted it done now. Paul Krauss: Well, don't take it as a confrontation. But we're here tonight because of an interpretation issue. We've interpretted this to have never occurred, therefore it's void. And the Board of Adjustments was looking to act on that and that 's the question before you tonight . In taking the action that you've outlined, by granting an extension of something that we think is void, you've therefore said it 's still valid. And that 's an important point . Now you can do that , although I think the ordinance provides that that has to come through the Planning Commission. And then for action by you. But I guess we're real concerned though with some of the fundamental issues here. You know we're often accused of having large amounts of malice and forethought to any number of individuals around town when you know we usually respond to an issue that crops up and the issue in this case was that there was a bunch of trailers all over the front of the lot , and we couldn't figure out why. And we had letters that we sent out to the owner, which were refused and we sent them certified. They sent back to us. We knew that a building had been started years ago and was never finished. We knew that the conditions were never satisfied and apparently, according to the testimony by the attorney tonight , the applicant and his attorney are under the impression that they can go ahead and do anything that they classify as a contractors yard without satisfying the conditions. We take some exception to some of those assertions. You know when you pass something, a package of conditions, whether or not it was before our watch here, as in this case, or whether or not we wrote the staff report , we have an obligation to make sure those things are fulfilled. And when we went out there, we found out that just about nothing was fulfilled. You know yes, there are a whole different set of issues that I don't think are necessarily appropriate 15 City Council fleeting - February 22, 1993 tonight , as to what the Planning Commission and you might ultimately want to do with that area. And yes, the thinking has changed an awful lot since the mid 80's when contractors yards were put down there. We have results of that policy r with the cold storage, metal warehouse buildings that were gouged into the hill. I mean there's a lot of odd ball uses down there. I guess I'd defer to the City Attorney, but if in fact you're looking at granting some sort of an extension, j I think that you have to be aware of the implications, an extension to what . — And I think you have to probably procedurally do it a little differently. Elliott Knetsch: I don't think at this time you have the power to grant an _ extension. I think what you're saying Dick is that you had a valid permit . He made some use and made some purchases based on that permit , so that constitutes use under our ordinance and that never really lapsed. So he in effect does have a permit and now we should look at what are reasonable conditions on the permit . That 's I guess what I hear you saying and if that 's what you're saying, that 's fine. I mean all we're asking for is staff and the City Attorney's offices, if you don't agree with staff's interpretation, then the permit is still in — existence and at that point you can take action to revoke the permit for non- compliance with the terms. Or you can work with the applicant , given the fact that time has changed and their indicated willingness to work with you and hammer out some new conditions that are satisfactory to both sides. Councilman Wing: It just amazes me when you're educated how smoothly you can explain these things. That 's where, there's enough expenditure here that I — consider him to have the permit . And I'm comfortable with that . But I'll be real blunt and say, put up or get out . And there's the rules. You haven't complied. You either comply or you're out of here. It 's black and white. And then it 's a big, I consider this to have been a permit . There has been r expenditures made, and it never expired. I guess, is that the proper wording for my statement? The conditions of the conditional use, they haven't been :. ..f complied wit . I guess that would be my issue tonight and I would expect — immediate compliance. Total compliance or, in that case then we get into the non-compliance issue. Then what happens? Elliott Knetsch: Well, if the permit 's there and it 's not being complied with, then you have the option of having a hearing to revoke the permit for non- compliance or, if the applicant agrees to new conditions, you can put new conditions on. Councilman Wing: So then my 6 months would come in. 6 month restriction on compliance. Is that right? — Elliott Knetsch: I guess I think that could be appropriate if you treat it as, in effect treat this as a hearing on whether or not to revoke the permit and say well you haven't done all these things. We could revoke your permit but we're going to take a less drastic step and say, we're going to let you keep the permit as long as you do these things within a certain time. I think you could do that . — Councilman Wing: Well I don't want to belabor this any more. That 's my position and I'll. . . _. I 16 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. I too have been looking at this rather closely and I see the time to extend the permit has really expired. In lieu of all the letters that were sent by the city and not received, nor accepted, I judge that as a portion that does bother me some. It should have been addressed at that — given time. Jeff Carson: Your Honor, I might add. Those letters related to a violation of the permit. Mayor Chmiel: But nothing was answered. Jeff Carson: No, I just, the purpose of the letters was not to tell him to get going. It was to tell him that something that he's doing with the property is in violation. Mayor Chmiel: And that there were several things in accordance with the Exhibit A contained within that as well that had not been complied with. It seems like there's nothing that has worked through this always straight through. I feel — uncomfortable with it. I don't like to do things or business that way, nor do I expect people to do business that way back to the city. So it 'd be my position at this time to request a motion in regard to this proposal. Can I have a — motion from the floor: Or discussion. Councilman Mason: Could I discuss for a moment before we make a motion? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilman Mason: I share some of Councilman Wing's concerns about the applicant . However, hearing what Councilman Senn said earlier about the fact that we have a list of 20 items that need to be complied with and my understanding is that very few of them have in fact been complied with. And I — guess if, I personally would like to hear from Mr. Kirchman for a moment or two about that. Because my feeling is that has more bearing on this right now. If none of this stuff has been complied with, my feeling is to hold the public _ hearing to revoke the permit and see how that comes out. Which is what we have to do, right? Elliott Knetsch: Staff's taken a position. This is sort of technical. . .and I think Mark and I kind of crossed wires on it at the Board of Adjustments and Appeals too. We're saying, as staff, that the permit has either, is void per no construction within one year. Or alternatively, that it expired because there was no use made of the property pursuant to the permit . So the use was discontinued. Therefore the permit expired. That 's what staff has, that's staff's position. That's what we've informed the applicant . So under that line of reasoning, whether or not he complies with the 20 conditions in the permit is not relevant because the permit is, we're not saying he's violated the permit. We're saying the permit's gone. However, if you would accept the applicant's position that they did use the property. There were deliveries or whatever use — constituted a contractors yard, and the start of the building and so forth, then you would say no. We don't agree with staff. We think the permit is still there. Then the question is, what do we do with the permit. Do we move to revoke it for not complying with the conditions? Or do we look to give them additional time to comply? — 17 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 Councilman Senn: Can I ask a question? — Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilman Senn: If I'm understanding you right then, the action tonight can only relate to whether a permit exists or doesn't exist? Elliott Knetsch: Yes. Councilman Senn: Okay. And the action of whether the thing is void because of non-compliance cannot be addressed tonight? Elliott Knetsch: Yes. That 's right . We should address that separately. If we get to the point where there is a permit , let 's consider revoking it and we should hold a public hearing on that issue. And that would discuss whether or not the terms were complied with or not . Councilman Senn: Well I'd make a motion then that we believe the permit is still there and that we schedule a public hearing for revocation of the, or to consider revocation of the CUP for non-compliance. Councilman Wing: I'll second that because it 's my position. For discussion at any rate. Mayor Chmiel: It 's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Councilman Mason: Staff is saying nothing's happened within a year. And you're r - representing Mr. Lindbery saying things have happened? Jeff Carson: Yes. Councilman Mason: That's essentially what 's going on right now. Jeff Carson: Work that would be defined under the contractors yard, definition in your code, yes. Steve Kirchman: I might , if I may? Councilman Mason: Please. Steve Kirchman: I can maybe shed a little bit of light on that . I made my last _. inspection, a building inspection on October 22nd of 1990 and I asked that Mr. Lindbery come in and apply for a heating permit and a plumbing permit and then he could go ahead and continue with what he wanted to do on the building. I asked that he meet with the Planning Department and Building Department to clarify some issues. He didn't come in so I periodically made trips out to the site to make sure that there was no construction activity on the building continuing. That was my primary purpose. But during those visits, at no time did I see any type of activity that could be construed as being used as a contractors yard taking place, until I made a note to the effect that the containers and the round concrete pipe were on the site. And that date was, well one second. Let me find that inspection. Okay, that date was. 18 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 Sharmin Al-Jaff: June 8th of '92. Steve Kirchman: Okay, June 8th of '92. So at no time before that , between 10/22/91 and that date when I noticed those, was there any construction activity or any activity taking place that could be construed as a contractors yard. Now, I only went out to the site maybe 2 times a year . It 's way down there. I'd stop when I had time so I wouldn't have seen if there was any activity at all but there were no new structures. Nothing gone. No tracks out at the area so, and that 's all I really have to say as far as the conditional use permit . Councilman Senn: I don't doubt at all what Steve's saying. In fact I think he's probably 100% right . Again, I think our basic problem is in the original — drafting documentation of the CUP and the lack of any action for 3 years. I think it 's a lot cleaner. A lot simpler to simply get past that issue and say it still exists. Then go, the real issue is the fact that I don't care what excuse in the world you come up with, I can't figure out one that justifies 4 to 5 years of no action on a CUP with 20 very definitive conditions which have not been even, I mean I can maybe find a couple that have been complied with out of 20. To me, from a city's position, that 's a lot more cleaner arguments than getting into a lot of semantics, especially when you've got a poorly written CUP in the first place and even poorer documentation over 3 years to back it up. — Councilman Wing: I'll just tack onto Mark that I think it gives the applicant time to think about the fact that maybe 1988 was a good time to invest dollars down there. Maybe 1992 is not as good a year to invest dollars down there considering what may be coming his direction. Or, I don't know what date it is. 1993. Jeff Carson: If I may Your Honor, one of the problems of course is that the — hearing itself would simply be a pretext . I mean the decision about everybody's feeling as to what has happened or not happened with respect to certain items on that list is pretty clear. You'll do what you'll do but it seems that everybody's made up their mind about that issue and I hope that the applicant has some opportunity. I liked what Councilmember Wing was saying that , maybe there's something, some common ground here that if the applicant and staff got together and who knows what those conditions would be. They might be more stringent . It might be less energenic a project . There's a lot of possibilities but when I say pretext , I mean it 's simply, you're going to have a hearing so that you have a hearing. Simply do what you're feeling now, it — seems. Councilman Wing: I think the items need to be reviewed. Maybe the building isn't needed. Maybe it 's use has changed a little bit from what you decided. Maybe it 's going to be an attractive contractors yard, but you're going to have to put up or get out . That 's my position. Jeff Carson: Well, that 's not unfair. Councilman Wing: I'm supporting you. Jeff Carson: That 's not unfair. I have no problem with that . If the City says to the applicant , you've got this much time to do this much work to stay in _ business but it never, that was never said before. You can say what you will. 19 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 You can say that Mr. Lindbery is difficult and all of that but I really don't — think he ever was of the mindset that this was what was going to happen. Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to call the question. I Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the City Council finds the Conditional Use Permit $88-11 for a contractors yard on property located at 1700 Flying Cloud Drive is still valid and to schedule a public hearing to consider - revocation of CUP 188-11 for non-compliance. All voted in favor except Councilwoman Dockendorf who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Jeff Carson: Thank you for your time. What then will happen? Mayor Chmiel: This will get scheduled and staff will get in contact with you and let you know when this comes back before us. Jeff Carson: Thank you. Does that come before the Planning Commission? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. You go before Planning, it comes before us. Item number 3. ABRA AUTO SERVICE CENTER, SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, NORTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST AND CHANHASSEN ESTATES AND EAST OF THE EMISSION CONTROL TESTING STATION: A. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 6,494 S0. FT. BUILDING. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN AUTO SERVICE FACILITY IN THE BH DISTRICT. Public Present: Name Address Al Beisner 7549 Mariner Point James Benson 15034 Cherry Lane Vernelle Clayton 422 Santa Fe Cr Donald Hagen 4501 Hunters Ridge, Minnetonka Tom Kotsonas Chan Estates Gerard & Lindsay Amadeo 8007 Cheyenne Avenue Councilman Senn: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Senn: On item number 3, which we're coming to. I guess just so there's no pre-tense that we are again leading anybody down the path or down the road, I'd like to make a motion that this item be tabled until after our Council work session next month. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. For what specific reasons? Councilman Senn: In that the Council work session is to specifically further discuss and seek understanding as well as potential action on a moratorium involving Highway 5. t � 20 CHANHASSEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 22 , 1993 Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order . MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson , Carol Watson and Mark Senn STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Planning Director ; Sharmin Al-Jaff , Planner I ; Elliott Knetsch , City Attorney ; and Steve Kirchman , Building Inspector INTERPRETATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT VALIDITY, CUP #88-11 FOR A CONTRACTORS YARD, 1700 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE , JEFF CARSON . Al-Jaff : This site is located north of Flying Cloud Drive , south of — Chicago/Northwest Railroad . This application first appeared in front of the City Council in September of 1988 . The request was for a contractors yard . The application process went through a conditional use permit and _ the City Council did approve the application . Conditions are attached to your report . One year before the application expired , the applicant applied for a building permit and it was for the shell of the building only . Since then , they built a foundation . However , they didn 't proceed with the construction and the ordinance states that if substantial construction does not take place within 6 months , the application expires . The applicant is contesting that the conditional use has not expired . — That it should go through a public hearing process before their application actually expires . And right there we 're having , we 're not interpretting the ordinance the same way . In this case the application comes in front of you and the Board of Adjustments and Appeals will decide whether the application has expired or not . We are recommending that you find the application had expired . There are some statements that were made by the applicant 's attorney , Mr . Jeff Carson and they are regarding the building and the building permit . With us is Steve Kirchman , Building Official . If you have any questions , he will be available to answer them . And I don 't know if Steve would like to make any comments at this time , or — would you rather just answer questions? Kirchman: I ' ll just answer questions if you have any . Al-Jaff : Okay , thank you . Johnson: Are you the Attorney? Jeff Carson : Yes sir . _ Johnson: State your name please . Jeff Carson: My name is Jeff Carson . I represent Mr . Lindbery . Good evening . I wonder , as part of the paperwork , do you have the documents that I submitted? Johnson: Yes . Jeff Carson : Okay . I ' ll sort of follow along that line of thinking . As I indicated , I represent Mr . Lindbery and in fact did so in 1988 when he Board of Adjustment and Appeals - February 22 , 1993 - Page 2 was before the City Council , Planning and City Council to apply for and - receive his conditional use permit . That was issued in September of 1988 and it was for the operation of a contractor 's yard on his approximately 40 acres , as indicated on the overhead . In preparation for this I went t- the Code and the definition of a contractors yard because one of the points that we are here to make tonight is that Mr . Lindbery has indeed been operating his property as a contractors yard ever since that date . _ And I think that 's a paramount issue , at least as I read the staff 's view of things because they 're suggesting that so much time elapsed and a building wasn 't built and therefore the conditional use permit lapsed . It is my interpretation , as I read the definition of contractors yard , which I 've put on my , reprinted on my material . It doesn 't require that there be a building on a contractors yard . There may be indeed and so I point that out because Mr . Lindbery has during this entire period of time , - although he has had some difficulty , not all through his own fault or devices , getting up his building , which I ' ll discuss later . The idea that he could operate a contractors yard never changed . He has indeed operated a contractors yard since he was issued his conditional use permit . He would like to finish his building . He has footings poured , and as I said , I ' ll get into the problems that he ran into in constructing the building later . Some of the things that I point out , that I 'd ask you to consider - in dealing with this . Obviously zoning has changed in the city since the conditional use permit was issued and if this were the first blush at this subject , we could not ask you for a contractors yard in this zone today . _. And so that makes the impact of your decision and the decision of the Cit• Council even more significant frankly because if you concur with the staf) and take away Mr . Lindbery 's right to use his property , as he has been _ using it , it reverts really to agricultural use and he 's not a farmer . I won 't , if you 've had a chance to read through these , I won 't go through each and every point that I make but a couple of things I think are important . I contend that under your code , Mr . Lindbery has at all times since the Code changed , operated his contractors yard as a non-conforming use . And I have a list of exhibits that I 've attached and your non- conforming section , if it does anything , it 's an attempt to keep uses that_ exist lawfully at the time that a zone changes , in operation . I think that 's an important feature because as you may recall , if you went througL. the Minutes of the 1989 planning meeting when they changed the or took contractors yards away from the agricultural area . I found it interesting - One of the gentlemen at the meeting was concerned that there was no contractors in the audience and pointed that out . He said , there 's nobody here except the staff and the Planning Commission and the staff - technically , correctly said well , we don 't have to invite every contractor to something like this . We 've published in the paper that we 're going to do this . But they went on to say that , and people who are operating _ already are non-conforming . In other words they 're protected . We changec the law but we don 't go and erase all the uses that exist . So the Planning Commission I think was comforted by that and went forward and changed the law . All the while anticipating I believe that it would not - impact already existing uses . A couple of other things . The staff has been dealing with Mr . Lindbery over the years . And in fact , as I point out , and I have exhibits attached , they dealt with him on the issuance of _ the building permit and two different inspections . Those would be Exhibits 6 , 9 and 10 to this attachment . The point being this . That the City was dealing actively with Mr . Lindbery on this site as a conditional Board of Adjustment and Appeals February 22 , 1993 - Page 3 use permit more than 2 years after the issuance of the permit itself . Now the building wasn 't up at that time , and what these exhibits show , Exhibit 6 is the building permit which was referenced by staff . Exhibit 9 is a report that was made about this project on 10/22/90 . And Exhibit 10 is a copy of the reference page . That is actually the attachment of the conditional use permit showing at the bottom that on 10/23/90 there was some research going on and that they were going through the different areas of the permit itself . The point being that for over 2 years after the issurance of the permit , the City was still dealing with the property as a conditional use permit . There was no discussion about the building isn 't up and it 's been a year . Or the building isn 't up and it 's been two years . They were going through the process . Now I also point out that Mr . Lindbery has expended a great deal of money in this , just on the issue of the building itself . And there are exhibits attached to show this . He has spent over $36 ,000 .00 with the building permit and the purchase of the building shell . What happened , and what I explained in a little more detail , is that he got into a dispute with a former building official who 's not employed now , as I understand , over the type of heating the building was going to have . I 've attached , my last attachment is a copy of the floor heating . He intended to put heating in the floor and then pour cement , which is a fairly typical and believed to be better method of heating than what might be more or less traditional at the time . I don 't think it 's terribly innovative but the point was that it was certainly an authorized method of heating by the Uniform Building Code and by the Chanhassen Building Code . But they got into a dispute over it and so that , he would not permit him to do that . That dispute unfortunately is not very well documented by from our perspective he would not have gone ahead and obtained the permit and expended the funds if he was not very serious about getting the building and getting it up . As I said , the footings are out there and so really the building was ready to be placed on the property . Probably in 1989 . I think there 's something else that entered in here that kept Mr . Lindbery personally away from the project of building the building for about a year and that was an injury . He received an injury , work related , and crushed his leg and was out of work for a year . So you know these periods of time , they seem like great lengths of time when we talk about a year here and a year there , but when you think about this process and you think about the time that has gone by , and in Minnesota you think about the period of time when you really don 't construct typically , the winter . Not all that much time has happened . What really has happened here is this . It was last summer or spring when part of the use of Mr . Lindbery 's property was the storage of these big commercial units . He would rent them to contractors for taking to their sites . He was storing them on his property and they could be seen from the highway , and so it was drawn to staff 's attention . They contacted Mr . Lindbery and communicated with him and he just didn 't do anything for one reason or another . They 're huge for one thing . They 're difficult to move . Watson: What are they? Jeff Carson: What are they called Harry? Harry Lindbery : They are storage containers that we rent to electricians and plumbers . They take them to a job and we set them on the Board of Adjustment and Appeals - February 22 , 1993 - Page 4 ground . They 're 10 foot . No , they 're 8 foot wide and 8 foot high and 20 feet long . They have swing doors and they put their electrical supplies or plumbing supplies in there and then they can lock them up . Because if they take them out to a job site , and the delivery truck would deliver - their supplies and by the time they 'd come the next morning , thieves had run off with them because construction jobs don 't have watchmen all night long . - Jeff Carson: I think that , does that answer your question as to what the units were? Watson: Yeah , sure . Jeff Carson : They were big and heavy and . - Harry Lindbery : They 're 20 foot long and 8 foot square . Jeff Carson: They became the subject of inquiry by the staff and actuall have since become the subject of a criminal complaint , which is pending i '.. the District Court . Mr . Lindbery believes he has solved the problem with respect to the placement of those boxes on his property at this point , bur-- that 's what led to the inquiry . That 's what led to the question of , now I 'm editorializing a little bit . This guy isn 't playing ball with us . What are we going to do? What can we do to him? Well , let 's see . Go back through his permit and oh gee , you know . He hasn 't got his building up , etc , etc . Well , before you know it it 's alleged and claimed that his permit is void and he 's out of business . And I think that 's what happened . I think reality is that it became a personality thing and it 's unfortunate . It 's unfortunate on the one hand that Mr . Lindbery didn 't respond when he was notified and satisfy the staff . It 's unfortunate that we get into this debate really of what does the permit mean? What does the law mean? What has happened? Is it a non-conforming use? What happened in the process? You know there 's a lot of things to look at but I think in reality that 's what happened . Otherwise , why would the staff _ have gone out 2 years after the issuance of the permit , inspect the property and make notes and go on with things . It just feels like that 's what happened . It is our hope frankly that we can get this thing back on track . That Mr . Lindbery can continue to operate the property as a contractors yard . He would like indeed to put the building up and there 's a good reason to put the building up so that he doesn 't have to store a lot of the things that he might be storing and has stored on the property outside . I mean there 's a good reason he 's putting the building up , and that was always intended . There 's a couple of things I would , I guess I feel I should comment . In staff 's report , which I received today , I - guess I 'm sort of following the , my comment . Their comment format that was written here . A couple of points I think I should make about this . I said Mr . Lindbery had used his property since receipt of the conditional use permit as a contractors yard . The response is , if the applicant used - the property as a contractors yard , then he did it without complying with the conditions of approval of the conditional use permit which was approved by the City Council . Now frankly , it was an ongoing process . The- property has always been used as a contractors yard so I don 't frankly understand that comment . But I take issue with it . He is in compliance to the extent that the conditional use permit , that the points in the Board of Adjustment and Appeals February 22 , 1993 - Page 5 conditional use permit are applicable . Another point . It says although , I said , although your zoning code has now been amended , Mr . Lindbery 's use has been modified or he 's got a non-conforming use . The response was , the contractors yard never received a certificate of occupancy . Now I didn 't - see in the permit itself any requirement that he obtain a certificate of occupancy . If the code requires him to receive a certificate of occupancy , he was frankly unaware of it . I 'm not aware of the section that requires that . I 'm not suggesting it doesn 't but he never knew of the requirement of a certificate of occupancy . It goes on to say that staff visited the site on different occasions . I take that to mean that we don 't believe that he 's been operating his property as a contractors yard during this period of time . We 've been through staff 's , you know the entire file on this property and although staff has been out to the property on a few occasions , there hasn 't been a great deal of activity by - the city on the property . The last note that we find is October of 1990 . October 23rd of 1990 . So I submit that staff is not in a position , or nobody other than Mr . Lindbery is in a position to say with any certainty _ whether he operated the property continuously as a contractor 's yard . My comment number 8 on the staff report , that staff continue to deal with Mr . Lindbery on the conditional use permit as recent as October , 1990 . The response is , no records were found to support this statement . Well I submit Exhibits 6 , 9 and 10 are in the official record . They do note activity by the City . By the City officials with respect to the property so I consider that evidence of activity on the property . But it is not our hope here or our point to take issue with each . I mean you can get down to the real picky issues and the nitty gritty of things and we don 't want to do that . Mr . Lindbery wants to continue to operate his property as a conditional use permit . As a contractors yard . He feels genuinely that he has the right to continue to do that . He would like to put up the building that was started some years ago and hasn 't been completed yet . We don 't feel that the construction of that building was the , without - which you don 't get the conditional use permit . That 's what the conditional use permit says . Obviously it was contemplated as one of the things that was going to happen in the use of the property but look at _ what a contractors yard is . You obviously can operate a contractors yard without a building . It 's probably a lot better for the business and for the city to have the building in place . I guess that 's sum and substance of our approach . I would hope that you could see your way to recommend to - the City Council that Mr . Lindbery be recognized as an existing use , such as he is , and that we don 't have to continue to debate or fight about the facts . The historic facts of this case . Thank you . I ' ll answer any questions if anybody has any . Johnson : I have a question . Why wasn 't the shell put up to begin with? I guess that 's what , I 've got a problem with that . Jeff Carson: Well , that gets into the business about the type of heating . He bought the shell . He owns the shell . He physically owns the shell . It - cost $34 ,000 .00 and some dollars and he purchased it . At the time he was ready to put the shell on the property , he was going to put the heating units in the floor and pour cement and the Building Inspector said , no . You can 't do that . They got into a debate . That 's what stopped the project frankly . Board of Adjustment and Appeals February 22 , 1993 - Page 6 Johnson: Does the floor have anything to do with the construction of the building itself? Why couldn 't it be put on the foundation? Jeff Carson: Well the floor had to be poured before the building would b put . Johnson: But as I understand , you had the foundation there . Jeff Carson : No . Not the foundation . Just the footings . Johnson: Footings . I ' ll take it back . The footings are there . Jeff Carson : Well , the plan for the building included a cement floor and _ so you wouldn 't , what he wanted to do was put the heat units in the floor The Building Inspector didn 't want the heat units in the floor and he couldn 't , I suppose that debate should have been brought to the City frankly . Watson: So this debate occurred in 1988 or '89? Kirchman : '89 . Jeff Carson: '89 . 1989 . Because the permit was issued in 1989 and that 's when all this started . Watson: Do we have records of those discussions about the heating units and all that? Kirchman: No we don 't . Watson : So no forms were filled out at that time? Kirchman: I inspected the footings and heating was never brought up to us at any time . Harry Lindbery: It was to your Building Inspector . Senn: Well I think we 're getting off the point . Jeff Carson: That was the point . Mr . Lindbery had an idea and he had the_ plan for the heating at that time and the inspector , were you the Inspector sir? Kirchman: I was the inspector that 's noted on the 10/22/90 inspection report . Jeff Carson: No , no . But were you the inspector on site dealing with the heating? Probably not . Kirchman: There 's no heating in the building so a heating inspector was never out . Jeff Carson: Again , it 's not probably worth the debate here . Board of Adjustment and Appeals February 22 , 1993 - Page 7 Watson: No , I was just trying to figure out if we had records indicating that that was the reason the building didn 't go up . _ Jeff Carson: I don 't think the records would ever reflect just that but from Mr . Lindbery 's point of view , that 's what happened . Johnson: Did he ever apply for a heating permit? It was required . Jeff Carson : I think , I 'm not really that well versed on the permitting process . I think it was all encompassed in the . Watson : Original building permit? The original building permit says just a shell . Harry Lindbery: Are you familiar with radiant heat? Johnson : No , I 'm not an engineer on radiant heat . Harry Lindbery : May I show them? Jeff Carson : Well they have a copy of that . Johnson: We have a copy of that . Watson : Yeah , it 's okay . We 're just trying to get inspections and permits straight . Johnson: And I guess another question I have , why wasn 't the fencing process started or finished or whatever? It was indicated it would be done as a part of the conditional use permit . Jeff Carson : Fencing of? I expect the only fencing that would have been done would have been to block . Johnson : Yeah , blocking fencing I guess or . Watson: To screen . Jeff Carson: Screening . Well you know , the lay of this land is such that you can screen items , if you will , from view . Is everybody familiar with the property? You go down and then around and actually there 's a berm that screens quite nicely and as I 've said , and it was our , you know in this big units . Sometimes you build a fence to hide the biggest thing and you 've done more harm with the fence itself . It 's been our view of that , — that the permit required screening , opaque fence , berming or landscaping and that that was satisfied by getting the units that were being stored out of sight essentially . And they really were out of sight too and are _ today . It 's just that they weren 't . They were up closer to the road and that led to the problems . Senn: Sharmin? Are the outdoor storage areas screened with opaque - fencing , berming or landscaping? Al-Jaff : No they 're not . Board of Adjustment and Appeals February 22 , 1993 - Page 8 Senn: Was a proposed screen plan ever filed at the time of the issuance of the building permit? Al-Jaff : I have not found anything in the file . The only thing that has . . . is this one . Right here is the existing building that you see . . . driveway . The proposed building would have been here . Parking is right ` here . But this is all we have . This is the only thing in the file . Senn: Okay . So there is no proposed screening plan? Al-Jaff : No . Watson: Because the original intent was to enclose this , was it not in this building? Al-Jaff : Correct . Senn: Well yes and no , except it takes kind of a giant leap it seems to me . Did the , well hours I suppose aren 't really an issue here right? I mean the hours of operation aren 't an issue under the conditional use permit? Al-Jaff : There is a limitation on the hours . It was between 6: 00 and - 7 :00 . Senn: But there hasn 't been , there 's no problem in relationship to that . How about light sources? Are all the light sources shielded? Al-Jaff : There isn 't a building . Senn: There are no light sources? Al-Jaff : No . Senn: Okay . Al-Jaff : There isn 't in operation that we are aware of taking place . Senn: Okay . Have they complied with the conditions of MnDot , including the installation of the right turn lane and left turn lane? - Al-Jaff : No . Senn: Okay . Is there bituminous driveway , parking areas , and loading areas? Al-Jaff : No . - Senn: Is there compliance with the conditions of the resource engineering has written? I don 't have that memo of August 9th so I don 't know exactly _ what it says but . Harry Lindbery : That would be septic systems . Board of Adjustment and Appeals February 22 , 1993 - Page 9 Senn: That would be septic systems? Okay . Is there protection of the two septic system sites during construction? Well , they never constructed so that 's a non-issue . Has there been installation of a holding tank? Jeff Carson: I think that would come at the same time as the building itself . Senn : Okay . Is there a handicap parking space on the site? Al-Jaff: No . Senn: Okay . Building must be sprinklered . Well , that 's a non-issue if the building hasn 't been built . Contractors yards , okay zoning ordinance . Okay . Comply with all conditions and natural resources and watershed district permits . Did they ever get those permits? Al-Jaff : There is a permit? Jeff Carson: Yes , we did . Senn : Have they been complied with? Al-Jaff : Well there isn 't a building . Senn: No , I understand that . Krauss : So no , they did not . Senn: No , okay . Have all the existing buildings been trucked off site and disposed of? Okay . Erosion control plan shall be revised to include check dams . 100 foot intervals on all proposed drainage . Has that been _ done? Has the erosion control plan been revised? Okay . Bear with me a minute because , the plan shall be revised to include erosion control measures . Okay , so that 's no . Outlet subdivision of vehicle . Submission of a vehicle inventory list? Al-Jaff : That hasn 't . . . Senn : No heavy equipment and machines will be operated between 6: 00 p .m . and 7 :00 a .m . . I assume that hasn 't been a problem . No shipping activities will originate , so that seems like a non-issue . When I was _ looking at this tonight I really got confused because I don 't honestly know who wrote this in 1989 but it 's probably one of the poorest written conditional use permits I 've ever seen . Why , I mean there 's no reference , it seems like we screwed up . I mean there 's no reference in the conditional use permit about a building and the building be completed which is pretty well standard form these days . At least when we do a conditional use permit . Krauss: Except that there is reference to a building in the conditions and you don 't . . . ( There was a tape change at this point in the discussion . ) Board of Adjustment and Appeals February 22 , 1993 - Page 10 Senn: When you look through all of this and shake it all out , what we 're here is not really for an ordinance interpretation question . What we 're here is we 're here to revoke a conditional use permit which has been in - violation for quite some time and the conditional use permit is very specific on that . I mean it says , this shall be done and if I go down this list , almost none of it 's been done . Why aren 't we simply revoking _ the conditional use permit? Krauss : Well that 's been the subject of a lot of discussion and maybe the City Attorney can explain why it 's here and what will happen next . Elliott Knetsch: The reason it 's proceeding in this manner is because I think we 've got a site plan that calls for the construction of the building and the building is a part of the conditional use permit . We wouldn 't have granted him a permit without the building . While the permit probably should have said that , with the site plan that Sharmin just had on the board , I think it 's clear that the building 's part of it . And ever if you look at the last date submitted by the applicant , which is October of 1990 as having staff working on this as a valid permit , it 's still been over a year since any activity whatsoever has taken place on that property- in terms of completion of the building . So what happened here is not unusual . One day before the one year period was up , he got a building permit . Staff worked with that building permit for approximately a year . _ Then it went dead . So the building lapsed for a period of greater than a year . Secondly is the issue of use . And I would agree with the applicant 's attorney that simply not completing a building does not mean he wasn 't conducting contractor yard activities out there . I do agree with that statement . Based on our ordinance definition of contractor yard , if he was using it as a contractors yard , even though the building was not completed , that would be valid use and the use would not have lapsed so that the permit lapsed . However again , I think we 'd find , if we asked Sharmin and we asked Steve Kirchman , if staff has been out to that site since October of 1990 , and whether any contractors yard activity has been taking place , I think their answer would be no . Nothing 's been going_ on . Steve Kirchman was out there because he had wanted to check and insure that there was an active building permit . Things stopped . That permit went dead and so he went out there periodically to check to insure that building was not taking place without a valid building permit . So he was out there a couple of times and he has some logs that back up the dates he was there . It 's also my understanding that Sharmin and perhaps _ other Planning staff have looked at that site and have gone there for the purpose of looking at that site , as well as viewing it as they go around the city looking at other sites , and there has been no activity going on since that time . So staff has taken the position that based on our - existing ordinances , the permit lapsed for non-use . Senn : I understand that all . I 've read all that before you just repeated - it , but the question still remains . Why are we not revoking the conditional use permit on the basis that they 're in violation of their conditional use permit? Elliott Knetsch: There 's nothing to revoke . The permit is gone already . Senn : So that 's your position? Board of Adjustment and Appeals February 22 , 1993 - Page 11 Elliott Knetsch : That 's my position . Senn: So you 're saying there 's no need to revoke something that doesn 't exist? Elliott Knetsch: Right . Senn : Okay . Why doesn 't it reference in the conditional use permit or Exhibit A the site plan you referenced , like it normally would in a conditional use permit? Elliott Knetsch: I can 't answer that . I didn 't write the permit . Krauss : It pre-dates all of us Councilman Senn . Senn: Paul , I guess I 'm real uncomfortable taking an action based on all this supposition whereas to me it seems like there 's a very clear action here . I mean to me the very clear action is that you revoke the conditional use permit . That it seems nobody is debating he 's in violation . Jeff Carson: Well , we would take issue with that . Senn : Would you answer these questions for me again then and dispute any ones that he answered incorrectly? Jeff Carson : The only thing I can say Councilmember Senn is this . The things that you pointed to , all of the construction and the parking and the bituminous and the lane and all that . Senn: Bituminous has nothing to do with the building being built . Jeff Carson : No . That was all going to happen at the time that the building was put up . Senn: But that 's not what the conditional use permit says . Your conditional use permit says , okay . The permit is issued subject to the following conditions . See attached Exhibit A . Termination of permit . The City may revoke the permit following a public hearing under the following circumstances . Material change of condition of the neighborhood where the use is located violation of the terms of the permit . None of the conditions of the permit have been met . . . Jeff Carson : The City hasn 't revoked the permit . The City has taken the position that it doesn 't exist . I 'm taking the position that this property has been operated as a contractors yard from the onset . The fact is is that the applicant ran into a loggerhead over the construction of the building . Nobody in their right mind would pay $34 ,000 .00 for a shell if he didn 't intend to put that shell on the property . Watson : That dispute occurred in 1989 . This is 1993 . I can 't believe that something could not have been worked out or dealt with in the preceding close to four years . Board of Adjustment and Appeals February 22 , 1993 - Page 12 Jeff Carson : Well you would hope so but keep in mind we 've been under criminal penalty or prosecution since . Watson: '92 . Jeff Carson: Yeah , for a year . So I mean that 's what I meant when I said periods of time . Watson: Then we have 3 years . Jeff Carson : Periods of time come and go here and they seem like long , incredibly long periods of time . You can understand them if you take ther„ one date to the next date to the next date . I 'm not saying that this is the ideal by any stretch . Johnson: Steve , could I ask you a question? Did at any time they come in for a heating permit? Kirchman : No . On my inspection of 10/22/90 , I asked that they submit a floor plan , plumbing plan , HVAC plan and sprinkler plan so that they could continue with the heating and do as they wish and also asked that they sel up a meeting with the Planning and Building Department to clear up these misunderstandings and we never heard from them again . Krauss : Mr . Chairman , the reason why it 's brought to you here tonight is • for an interpretation of the Code which is in your area . The Code states that if substantial construction has not taken place within one year of _ the date in which the CUP was granted , the permit is void . We 've determined that the permit is void . The applicant 's contesting our determination . I mean what it boils down to is , who 's position do you agree with . Johnson: I understand what you 're saying . Jeff Carson : And you can readily understand why the parties are taking the different positions but look at that section of the Code contemplates that you have to have a building in order to have the permit . In other _ words it says , construction isn 't within a year you 're out . To operate a contractors yard you don 't need a building . Krauss : That 's not true . I mean this was approved with a set of conditions . The applicant 's attorney seems to be arguing that conditions are irrelevant as long as you manage to squeak something on the property and go do it anyway . This is a package of conditions . It 's typical of the package of conditions that we adopt with every CUP that we approve . You expect compliance with all the conditions . Senn: And the Code says . Krauss : If substantial construction has not taken place within one year of the date in which the CUP was granted , the permit is void . Senn: Okay , so let 's get off the issue of the building which may be fairly vague . Okay . Has any of the other construction , other than the _ Board of Adjustment and Appeals February 22 , 1993 - Page 13 building , occurred on the site? Krauss: No . Jeff Carson: But the point is Councilman , you wouldn't do any of the other construction until the building is in place . That 's the timing of it all . You wouldn 't do that . You 'd do it immediately after the building is in . Senn: So now you 're saying the building is part of it . I thought I heard you a little bit ago saying the building wasn 't part of it . Jeff Carson : I 'm saying the building doesn't have to be according to the literal terms of this permit . But we want the building . Senn: Well but see you 're talking , excuse me out of both sides of your mouth . You 're telling me the building doesn 't count . Then the building counts . You 're telling me none of the other conditions count unless the building built . Jeff Carson: I 'm saying that that 's what was contemplated . Senn : That 's not what the permit says . Jeff Carson: No . But logically . Seen: Okay . Alright . But you are in agreement that 's not what the permit says? Jeff Carson: No . We 're reading the permit the same way and frankly it could be clearer . Johnson: I feel is there was a dispute over the heating , I would have asked , went to City Hall and asked to have gone on the agenda to talk to _ the Council and iron it out if I disagreed with the Building Inspector . I 'm not taking the Building Inspector 's side but I 've been down here jumping on . Jeff Carson: I might have done the same thing sir . You know , and especially in hindsight I 'm sure Mr . Lindbery would do the same thing as well . I mean if I knew he was going to be told at some later date his contractors yard was void , I can assure you that 's what he would have done . Why somebody does something or doesn 't do something at a particular point in time . Johnson: As I understand , it 's one year as I look been involved in this , there 's nothing done substantial in a year and I realize the building didn 't have to be completed . There was very little activity done and the city did let you slide for a couple of years . I 'm assuming that 's why they let them slide . Hope there would be some activity without putting some pressure on you people and all of a sudden , nothing 's been done . Jeff Carson: Well to back off the literal reading of this and that for a moment , I would say this . I would hope that if at a point in time the Board of Adjustment and Appeals — February 22 , 1993 - Page 14 City staff or a city was going to tell somebody who 's operating 40 acres of land as a contractors yard , that unless you complete or unless you do something within 6 months or 30 days , or whatever it is . We 're telling you . We 're going to shut you down or we 're going to void your permit . I — would expect that . Maybe it 's that the government has to be a little mor on it 's toes . I don 't know . But it seems unfair to come after the fact and say , I guess it 's over . You don 't have a chance to follow through . _ You don 't have a chance to put that $34 ,000 .00 shell that you bought on the property . Watson: But it 's been years . I mean it 's real hard to understand why nothing has occurred . I mean a dispute over heating in 1989 causing the fact that there 's still no construction by 1992 , I 'm sorry . I mean any reasonable person . — Senn: It 's inmaterial . It 's not even an issue in the permit . Watson : Well yeah . And there was obviously the intent to build a building which didn 't get built . They did after all buy a building permit . Jeff Carson: Yeah . Watson: Which tells me there was intent to build a building in 1989 which is not there . Jeff Carson: I can 't try to convince you that you 're wrong in your reading of that or that the time that has passed has passed . It did . Bu I 'm saying that it 's , what you 're doing if you take the pro-offered actio or inaction and just conclude that it 's void , is you 're taking a piece of property that has one value and one use and reducing it rather substantially to virtually nothing . Watson: What you want from us is to say that the conditional use permit __ has expired? Al-Jaff : Correct . Watson: That 's basically the action that you are recommending? Krauss : Well I guess the action is basically to agree or disagree with staff 's interpretation of that section of the Code . Watson : How would that be stated? I mean it says here , find the _ conditional use permit has expired . If you want us to have interpretted the Code , exactly how would that be put into a motion? Al-Jaff : That same conditional use permit is void . Elliott Knetsch : I think you can just have a motion that you concur with staff 's interpretation of the ordinance as applied to this situation . _ Senn: If we void the conditional use permit , does he have the option of applying for another one? Board of Adjustment and Appeals February 22 , 1993 - Page 15 Al-Jaff : Contractors yards are not a permitted use in the A2 districts any longer . It was switched from conditional use to interim use , I believe it was in 1990 and then contractors yards were deleted from the ordinance . Senn: But he could rezone the property . Al-Jaff : To? Senn: Something that would allow it . _ Krauss : No , not really . There 's very , well I suppose you can go down to the . Watson: Did you see the property Mark? Senn : Yeah . Krauss: We do have a business fringe district . Watson : That includes Gedney and that storage . Krauss: No , Gedney is actually industrial but Gedney is on sewer and water coming out of Chaska . The only other non-agricultural , non single family uses down there are in the business fringe district . The Planning — Commission has been very relunctant to see any more land zoned BF . Senn: No , I understand . I 'm just asking if it 's an option that the applicant has . Krauss : Yeah , there is a possibility that that yes . That is an option . Senn : And the use would be allowable under some form of rezoning , industrial or . Krauss : Well it does allow things like cold storage buildings . I 'm not sure that it allows the contractors yard . Al-Jaff : It won 't allow contractors yard . Senn : I 've already heard that because contractors yards are abolished but what he 's doing doesn 't necessarily have to be called a contractors yard . Jeff Carson : Could I make just one further point? Krauss: What he 's done to date has not been a contractors yard . Senn: I understand that but that 's why I 'm trying not to get into those kinds of semantics . But he can change the use of his property? Watson : He 's free to apply to do whatever he wishes . Jeff Carson: Could I make a point , one further point please? My Exhibit 11 is a copy of the April 8 , 1989 point in time when the Planning Board of Adjustment and Appeals February 22 , 1993 - Page 16 Commission was considering the start of the abolishment of contractors yards in the agricultural zone . And I submit this , or I put the question back to the city . If at that time they had invited those existing contractors yards or those people with existing contractors yards in to _. advise them what was happening . I mean it 's fine to say well we published . We met the technical , literal requirements of the law but the reality is that in all likelihood no contractor operating a contractors yard read that . So what happened here is that the gentlemen said , there'(— nobody here . We 're taking action to remove contractors yards from agricultural zones and nobody 's here . Why is that? Has anybody been notified? The answer was no . Well why not? Well , they 're going to be grandfathered . So that took care of it . The problem is for someone in Mr . Lindbery 's situation , had that been brought up at the time or had it ever been brought to his attention that unless you get this thing completed to our satisfaction , within a certain period of time , it 's over In effect it just happened and he didn 't know it . That 's really what happened . According to the interpretation that staff has . And I understand how that happens but it doesn 't seem to , you know it kind of doesn 't pass the fairness test if he really didn 't know . If he had been invited to that '89 meeting , or that period of time in the City 's history where you were going to take them away , and he said what about me? Or you know , at that point he 's going to say what about my operation or am I grandfathered or what about it? He 's either going to learn he 's going to do this or else , or that he is . One of the two . And that 's at least in part an answer to the real world . Answer to your question of how much time , all this time had passed . Could have been remedied pretty easily right here . I don 't know how many contractors yards there are in Chanhassen . Can 't be that many . There can 't be that many . I mean if you 're going to take those zones and deal with them , you must have a file where all those contractors are listed . Just tell them that you 're dealing with the zoning that effects the location of contractors yards and I don 't think we 'd have had this problem . And I guess I 'd ask you to perhaps not be quite so technical with the applicant . Say look , get your application in . Get it done within a specified period of time or else . Watson: But we . Senn : Already been done . Jeff Carson: No . Watson : That 's been done . I mean everything has a date . Senn : Can I make a motion? Johnson: First I need a motion to close the public hearing . Senn : I move to close the public hearing . Watson : Second . Senn moved , Watson seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in - favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Board of Adjustment and Appeals February 22 , 1993 - Page 17 Johnson : Okay , now go ahead with a motion . Senn: I ' ll make a motion that we void CUP #88-11 on the basis that no construction has been started on the site to date and that the applicant _ is in violation of a majority of the conditions set out under the conditional use permit . Watson: That will do it? Senn: That 's the motion . — Elliott Knetsch: If that 's your motion . Watson : Will that take care of what it is we 're here to do? Elliott Knetsch: Well it 's published as a public hearing interpretting the zoning ordinance . Watson: That 's kind of why I asked you how do you want us to say this? I 'd be more than happy to second that motion if it takes care of the issue . Elliott Knetsch: I think Mr . Senn heard my , what my proposed motion was and he 's made a different motion so , that 's the motion that 's on the floor . Johnson: Do you want to rescind your motion? Senn: No I don 't . I 'm comfortable with that motion . I 'm not comfortable with the other one . _ Watson : I want a motion that takes care of what we need or we 're going to be back here doing it again . Or the City Council 's going to deal with it and we prefer to take care of our own business . Johnson : It will die for lack of a second . Do you want to make? Watson: Yeah , I want you know , I want what we need in order to put this — issue to rest once and for all . Would you state that again please? Elliott Knetsch: Well , I would suggest that the motion would be that the _ Board of Adjustment and Appeals concurs with the staff 's interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to this application . Watson : I 'm happy . I so move . Johnson : I second . Any more discussion? Watson moved , Johnson seconded that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals concurs with the staff 's interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to the Conditional Use Permit validity of CUP *88-11 for a contractors yard at 1700 Flying Cloud Drive . Watson and Johnson moved in favor , Senn opposed . The motion carried with a vote of 2 to 1 . Board of Adjustment and Appeals February 22 , 1993 - Page 18 Jeff Carson : Sharmin , will there be Minutes of this? Al-Jaff : Yes there will be . Jeff Carson: Printed? Watson: We 've got Minutes . Jeff Carson: Printed Minutes of this action? Watson: We 've got them right here . Jeff Carson: No , of this action . Al-Jaff : Correct , there will be . Krauss : Now this is also scheduled on the City Council agenda . Jeff Carson: Thank you . Al-Jaff : For tonight . Krauss : Following on the assumption that there would have been appeal . I— this case there 's not a unanimous decision at any rate . APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Watson moved , Johnson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals meeting dated January 25 , 1993 as presented . All voted in favor , except Councilman Senn who abstained, and the motion carried . Watson moved , Senn seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p .m . Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim r . � r 1'' ' ' - —_-._.. ___.;...=,.,....,______,/, ___...._ . - , • • � � ) - Po voter A i4111:11:::: �;� L% ; 4%.2. '11 �.PN�I ,O L SS FA W RQ _ ,,,,---- „ff., tsis,. 41 Z H,,,,.. _••••,..•rwm.m.•4m ,........ ... t, • _ ,,„••=110/1 . y., •, \AV - •,. to . ‘ . . 1 — v5V4 .. -, ...-••• . t { ..,§-, G .1. , P /CF .- , NiAkto . ,LO,.k t _ • - ? ,-.41,1‘, -,.. , .... .-.- okot b.iliw FL,,,NG /A-F.' . 4i' • A2_ ...... z . - p: ,,...- .6r: s:-._ Mr' . C ��r r i 1 OP �� ( I`( - ��:;far` Ca `\'�o - SCOT o o '\`. .•R.. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 7 , 1993 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7: 37 p .m . MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad , Matt Ledvina , Joe Scott , Nancy Mancino , Brian Batzli , Jeff Farmakes and Diane Harberts STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen , Senior Planner PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SITE PLAN TO CREATE 27 TOWNHOME LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD , AND LOCATED DIRECTLY EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD , ADJACENT TO LAKE SUSAN HILLS PUD, PRAIRIE CREEK TOWNHOMES , JASPER DEVELOPMENT . Public Present : Name Address Jim Domholt 8251 West Lake Court Andrew K . Olson 8290 West Lake Court Gary Kassen 8270 West Lake Court Tom VanAsh 8320 West Lake Court Kirby & Susan Paulson 8410 West Lake Court Ritra Halling Don Patton Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item . Batzli : One of our concerns last time was that we might be setting a precedent for another one of the medium to higher density outlots from the _ original PUD . Assume for a minute that we allow this one to go to 40% impervious and the other outlot is built with a higher density project . Do you think that they will also be able to go to 40o impervious with a higher density project based on what we do tonight? Olsen : You mean if they 'd be doing the 9 units per acre? If they 'd be doing like the stacked units? Batzli : Yeah . Olsen: Yeah . I do believe that you are setting a precedent . But to be honest , those impervious coverages are really low and for the size of those units or the lots , it 's going to be really tough to meet that . Like the one , you have the long lot , outlot on the west side of Lake Susan or Powers Boulevard . I believe that they probably will be pushing the 29% or whatever impervious is allowed on that site . They 're all low . They 're in the 20 's or the low 30 's . So yes . I believe that you will be setting a precedent . But most likely I don 't know that , it 's hard for me to say what the situation is but we might be even recommending that you , even if a precedent hadn 't been set , we might still be making a similar recommendation . Planning Commission Meeting April 7 , 1993 - Page 2 Farmakes: Does this wind up being a variance of a variance? _ Olsen: What I recommend is that you amend the PUD contract to state that Outlot C , you know change that . Farmakes: It just applies to that specific outlot? Olsen: Yeah . Or you could change it to all . Mancino: No . I think the recommendation is that we change it to all , according to the staff recommendations . It is to change all the outlots . A , which is high density and 8 , C , and D which are medium , all to 40% . That 's in the staff recommendations . Farmakes: Then do we modify the original? Is that a modification then of,.- the f-the '87 agreement and a modification of the '93? Olsen: No , that would be a modification to the '87 PUD contract . But _ then what are you saying , the '93? Farmakes: Well , I understood part of the question here was you were discussing that we 're not gaining that much more by asking the applicant — to conform to '93 PUD standards versus '87 . I understand the contract haE expired . But as a matter of practicality . Olsen: Well it hasn 't expired but it allows you to bring in new regulations . Farmakes: Correct . But as I understand it , there was a 5 year grace period in there and what happens in the future . Does this just deal with this particular , this development? I mean if we start , being that that 's expired . Or I 'm saying it 's expired . I don 't know if that 's the legal — term . Olsen: Right , that 's not the correct term but yeah . _ Farmakes: Are we cutting a new deal here? Olsen: Yes . As far as this site plan , yes you are . Farmakes: Okay , is this going to come back to haunt us? Conrad: It shouldn 't . But the rationale sort of escapes me right now . The standard for the R-8 district is 35% impervious surface . So let 's just talk about R-8 districts . So what the staff is telling me is the standard should be 40% . I don 't care if this is part of this big PUD or not . I 'm just curious about an R-8 district and that 's really the issue here . What should the impervious surface ratio be . Farmakes: Is the motivation though of this particular unit on this particular piece of land , is that , should that be implied to other developments? Conrad: But if you like what you see , then we should . Planning Commission Meeting April 7 , 1993 - Page 3 Batzli : Well we haven 't been brought the rationale to adjust R-8 's in general . Conrad: No . Olsen : No . Conrad: But we certainly can address this as this particular property and I don 't know that it sets a standard . Batzli : See but I don 't know that it does . I 'd like to come up with a rationale for why it doesn 't but I 'm still troubled by why we should amend the density for the Outlot B and D until we see what 's proposed on those areas . Olsen: Yeah , that 's fine . I think one of the reasons that we put that in there was possibly so that if you were comfortable with it on this , that you wouldn 't be setting precedent throughout the rest of the PUD itself . We weren 't you know dealing with the R-8 district at all but there 's no - problem to limit it just to amend that condition just for Outlot C . Batzli : What scares me is that if they need a certain number of units on this particular piece of land and they have to go 40% impervious , if you go with a lower priced medium density unit , of this style , you would need a lot more units apparently to cover than , and if we go to 40% , then I can just picture the next one coming and saying , well now we need 45% because these ones aren 't as expensive as the last ones . And I have a tough time with that . Conrad: Me too . Batzli : And I 'm willing I guess to go 40 on this provided that we can demonstrate , at least to ourselves , that they 've given us something that wasn 't in the original PUD . I mean kind of a quit pro pro here that you know fine that there 's a demand for this kind of housing . That 's wonderful but if they 're giving us additional landscaping and they 're giving us things that weren 't really in the original contract , I don 't have a problem I guess saying okay , we ' ll relax a little bit on the impervious here because I don 't know that 5% is going to matter . Provided that we have proper water drainage off of this site but , and I think we have enough open space here but I really have a problem , and I guess I 'm relying on you to tell me that we have that and from the staff report it looks like we have it but . Olsen: Well there 's no question that over the PUD contract they 're greatly exceeding the architectural design that we possibly could have gotten and greatly exceeding the landscaping . They were only required to provide 500 per unit . I guess I know it 's way beyond that . He could maybe even give you . Mancino : Of course it was 6 years ago too . Olsen : Correct , but that 's all , you know that 's the same we have with the Lake Susan Hills 9th . That 's still , that 's $150 .00 and yeah we know that Planning Commission Meeting April 7 , 1993 - Page 4 that doesn 't provide you anything now . So as far as those two issues , yes— and I guess that 's one of the reasons staff was in favor of this project was because they were , even to begin with , coming with those additional architecture and landscaping . — Batzli : And the other side of the coin is that let 's apply all of the ney standards to this particular parcel and then they probably can 't do this kind of development at all . — Olsen: No , not this one . Batzli : Okay . Farmakes: Then what would have to be done? You 'd have to rezone the — property then? Olsen: No . Batzli : You 'd end up with a different kind of unit . Olsen: Right . Their project would not go . — Farmakes: A 3 story type? Olsen: Yes . Because you really reduce , with the 50 and the 30 feet , you — reduce the size . But then you 'll be reducing the density . They 'd only build 8 units per acre and 35% so it 's just a different project . Mancino: Right now it 's 5 .2 . The density is 5 .2 units per acre . Olsen: Well it 's lower than that now with the one removed . _ Batzli : Okay . Does the applicant wish to address the Commission? Larry Harris: My name is Larry Harris . I 'm an attorney in Waconia . I — represent the applicant and I want to address , I 'll try to short circuit my presentation because it appears that the Commission and staff may have come to an understanding on some issues but I want to address some points ._ First of all in relation to Outlot D . I don 't know that the Planning Commission is aware that my client holds an option on Outlot D and assuming this project goes , and my client anticipates it will , sometime approximately a year from now , my client will be back before this city 's — Planning Commission with a development plan for the same , I don 't want to say they 're exactly the same units because there may be cosmetic differences . There may be slight floor plan modifications to accommodate _ conditions in the market , but I want to be real upfront and address Mr . Batzli 's concerns about what type of precedence are being set . For this type of a project on Outlot D , you 're going to be looking at approximately the same types of densities . I can 't give you exact percentages , whether it will be 38% or 39% but I want to be up front with you that it won 't be the 31% that 's in the 1987 PUD agreement because this type of development cannot work at that . I cannot speak to the other outlots . That is not — part of my client 's concern , although I do know that Outlot A , at least according to the way I read the planned unit development agreement , is Planning Commission Meeting April 7 , 1993 - Page 5 anticipated for much higher density than that which is being sought here . I think it 's important for the Planning Commission to understand that my client has attempted to work with , not only with staff but the adjoining property owners to come up with a development that works with what already exists in that neighborhood . This is not an economic issue . If economics were the motivating force here , my client could meet all of the current P-8 requirements and get 39 units in that property . The problem is they 're going to be , that there will be under a 35% density but they 're all going to be stacked . They 'll have a garage and a half and they 'll probably sell in the $85 ,000 .00 to $90 ,000 .00 range as opposed to the $130 ,000 .00 to $140 ,000 .00 range . That 's not the type of project that my client feels is appropriate for this site . But one of the things , I think it 's important for the Planning Commission to realize is it would generate more profit to build that type of a project . A couple other issues that I think it 's important for the Planning Commission to realize . In relation to the impervious coverage issue . There have been some changes . While one unit has been reduced in this area , additional impervious coverage has been added because in recognition of a suggestion by staff , parking spaces , four guest parking spaces have been added . Secondly , the city has indicated they want flow thru traffic because of public safety concerns . They wanted an area such as this widened . It all makes it a better project . It makes the project look better but the problem is it generates a higher impervious surface . Unfortunately everything is a trade off . But this project is considerably below what maximum density is according to the ordinance , the PUD agreement and your comprehensive plan . The problem is for this style and this configuration of a lot , it being long and narrow , the nature is you 're going to have long looping streets and it generates a lot of impervious surface area . I think it 's important to realize that the difference between 35% and 40% in impervious surface area here is less than 10 ,000 square feet in an 20 ,000 square foot development . And the issue here really isn 't necessarily open space . When the 1987 PUD agreement was entered into the developer , Dunn and Curry at that time , dedicated a considerable amount of property to the city for parks and open spaces . I recognize , the impervious requirements is designed to accomplish two things typically in a city 's ordinances . One , to guarantee _ open spaces within the development . Two , to indicate that there 's land available for dedication . That there will be parks and open spaces . The second requirement has already been complied with here because in 1987 , at the time the original PUD agreement was entered into , there was an appropriate parkland dedication . One of other issues I think is important for the Planning Commission to realize is that when the PUD agreement was entered into in 1987 , no one knew exactly what type of developments were going to be proposed for the multiple unit outlot . The PUD agreement left the nuts and bolts to be worked out when the actual development plans came in . They suggest that if an actual development plan had been come forward in 1987 at the time the PUD agreement was negotiated , that the impervious surface density requirement probably would not have been the 31% they were in the agreement . That 's not to say it was a bad agreement . It 's just to say that there wasn 't a plan in front of city staff and the Planning Commission or the Council at that time where they could sit and layout and see . Okay , this is how a development would lay out . This is how we need to sit these types of impervious surface requirements . I think there 's one other issue , at least as far as the developer is concerned . We are here tonight , Greg Hollings the engineer the developer has retained is Planning Commission Meeting April 7 , 1993 - Page 6 here . Mark Jeffries , the landscape architect who's put together the _ landscape plan is here and I 'll have him make a brief presentation to the Planning Commission to show you how the project is landscaped . To show you that the project is landscaped in a manner that exceeds the requirements of your new ordinance and clearly exceeds what is required — under the 1987 PUD agreement . We are prepared to answer any questions that the Planning Commission might have tonight but because of time tables and development pressures that Jasper Development is under , we 'd like the _ Planning Commission to make a decision tonight . Thank you . First of all , are there any questions that I can answer for the Planning Commission? Batzli : We might have some for you later . Thank you . Mark Jeffries: My name 's Mark Jeffries , Minnesota Landscape Products and I 'm a landscape designer , not an architect . . . Some of the changes that — . we 've made , Jo Ann eluded to . We added one boulevard tree to Lake Susan Hills Drive . Generally , have beefed up the landscape throughout because we were given a little bit more room to do that when they got rid of a r couple units . Along Lake Susan Hills Drive you see 4 bermed areas that were added that were not there . Along the property line which adjoins the neighbors , there was these 3 trees were added and there were some Black Hills Spruce trees added this way and everything kind of slid that direction , which I think there was a concern about screening in that area . We did have a detail the last time we made the presentation on these typicals up here and down here which gives you a pretty good idea of , this- is a typical , a bermed area which flows from some spruce trees into some deciduous trees which is different from a bermed area which kind of stands on it 's own . One other change that we made , since we were kind of back to the drawing board on this , we decided , we kind of rethought the ornamental trees on the inside and I don 't know how closely you go through the landscape plan but the quantities stayed the same but the number of species were decreased from 5 or 6 to 3 . And that was just a design decision . Generally deciduous trees , evergreen trees were , numbers were added and then the berms along here . Those 4 berms were added that were not there . This is the typical that was a part of your last packet . Well.. I don 't know if you had it . I think I showed it at the last meeting and this is the typical berm along Powers Boulevard and this is the one over on the adjoining lot line . Just to give you a look at what a profile of those typicals would look like . . .trees and lower growing shrubs underneatr— the deciduous trees and over here , Jo Ann talked about some of the plants that would be planted in this bermed area . Some of them are quite large . And that has not been a change but some of these plantings along here are — shrubs that get anywhere from 5 to 15 feet high so some are really like small ornamental trees . . .That 's about all I have to add unless you have any questions . Batzli : I 'm having a mental block . We talked to the other , did we talk to the other applicant about salt spray or was it this one? Olsen: It was the other applicant . And we have sent , met with the DNR Forester to confirm what 's good and what 's not good as boulevard trees . Batzli : Did we decide that the Black Hills Spruce , there 's a lot of them a long Powers Boulevard there , are there not? Are those good with salt Planning Commission Meeting April 7 , 1993 - Page 7 spray or are we so far away we don 't care? Olsen: Well right now we 're so far away we don 't care . What we 're doing , we 're meeting with the County next week and we 'll be finding out then exactly how close the street will be coming . You know there 's still that alternative that we might get some land back . But I do have that list now of what 's good as boulevard and we 're going to be comparing that . Batzli : Did the tree committee look at that? Olsen: No . Batzli : Is that something they want to look at? Looking at our list? Olsen: Oh the list , yeah . Batzli : Yeah . They 're going to review that? Olsen: I thought you meant each specific plan . Batzli : Did anyone get that information from that seminar? Mancino: Yeah , I 've got it . In fact I had some questions . Farmakes: Oh there were staff , city staff members at that seminar . Olsen: Yes . And then we also . Farmakes: I think Sharmin was at the seminar . Olsen: Yes , and we 've had the DNR Forester go through the list that we 've got to say what 's good and what 's not as boulevard versus interior . So yeah , we have that now and I 'll cross check that with what 's here . Mark Jeffries: It 's still my understanding that there 's a bike path between here . Olsen: Yeah . I don 't know that they salt those but . Mark Jeffries: . . .mentioned that could be a problem . Mancino: Well I do have a question about the sugar maples on the interior . The landscaping . They are very close to the roadway and I think that when you plow that private street in the interior of the development , there may be . Do you see between I think 10 and 11? Mark Jeffries: Here? Mancino: Yes . There 's a sugar maple and across the street from that there are two . And I see those land areas as being the places where snow will be plowed to and if that snow has salt in it , it will destroy the sugar maples because the sugar maples are very sensitive to salt in the soils . Planning Commission Meeting April 7 , 1993 - Page 8 Mark Jeffries: Yeah . Those are all concerns I guess . You know , when you do a design you have to come up with all this criteria and maintenance is one of those things but as we looked at it , we felt there was adequate room for piling snow in other areas and in those areas to prevent that . Mancino: But there 's still going to be snow there and there 's still going to be salt in the snow and eventually , if you do that year after year , the salt will build up into the soil so that it will kill the tree because a _ sugar maple is listed as being very sensitive to salt in the soil . There are other trees like a black locust or a burr oak that will withstand the salt in the soil . So that 's a recommendation and you can work with Jo Ann on that . Mark Jeffries: Right . Yeah . I think although city streets get quite a bit of salt and sand . Olsen: I don 't know if private drives do . Mark Jeffries: . . .for a private street . Usually contractors that use salt sand , just use enough salt to keep the sand from freezing . They don 't use salt on their roads like the State or the City might to melt ice off the roads so it 's probably not nearly the problem that it would be for- instance out on Powers Boulevard or somewhere else . Mancino: I agree . I 'm just concerned of the build-up and you don 't want to plant this lovely tree and then have it die in 5 years . Mark Jeffries: I agree , absolutely . Batzli : Jo Ann , do we normally include a condition regarding a homeowners association type thing in a development like this? Olsen: You mean as far as maintaining the private drive? Batzli : Yeah . Olsen: Probably . Well yeah , because we 're tying it with the outlot . So yeah , we probably should . Even just add it to number 1 . Add that this be a homeowners association to maintain Outlot A . Outlot A will essentially be the private drive and all the landscaping within the open spaces . Yeah , that should have been added . I 'm sorry . Batzli : Okay . Harberts: Mr . Chair , I just have a comment on landscaping . A comment to staff . Do with it what you want . With maple trees , again in the front , — I 've seen them run into problems with the utilities that service the individual units . Within 5 years the trees have to be removed because their roots are interferring with the utilities , water , sewer , whatever . — I ' ll just throw that out . You might want to look at that . Olsen: You 're talking about in front of the units? _ Harberts : Yeah , I 'm talking front of units . Planning Commission Meeting April 7 , 1993 - Page 9 Batzli : Okay . Larry , is the applicant finished? Larry Harris: We are clearly here to respond to any questions the Commission may have but . . .anything more in the way of a formal presentation . Batzli : Okay , thank you . This is a public hearing . If there 's anyone that would like to address the Commission , you may do so at this time . Please come up to the microphone and give us your name and address . Is there anyone that would like to address the Commission? Tom VanAsh: My name is Tom VanAsh . I live at 8320 West Lake Court . I am one of the homeowners with the property just adjacent to the proposed development . I guess when we moved to Chanhassen 3 years ago we knew that there was going to be proposed townhomes developed and our concerns really were of the idea in our mind that we would have exactly what it appears this Commission is more in favor of and that is of the 35% or 31% impervious coverage . And I guess my thought on that is that 's exactly what I do not want here and that really concerns me because what we 're seeing I think from this developer is a very valid concern for the homeowners in this area . Our concerns were expressed at the last commission meeting and I think he did address those concerns that we had to a point that I guess I 'm surprised . I would ask that this Commission do approve this developer for what he is proposing and I guess for right now that 's all I have to say . Batzli : Okay , thank you . Just to respond to that a little bit . I don 't know that the Commission favors a 3 story development over this or not . Something we try to do in Chanhassen is to get a mix of housing for different types of incomes and different types of densities and different styles of housing . And when this PUD was originally passed , it didn't envision that type of a unit and what they 're proposing is changing it , and that 's why I think we 're moving so cautiously . I don 't think it 's because we favor that but by looking at what 's been done in the past , it appears that that 's what was envisioned as a part of this larger development . And so I appreciate where you 're coming from . That this looks better perhaps and may be favored by a lot of the people surrounding it , and that 's one of the things obviously that 's sitting here in the back of our minds as well . But we 're kind of wrestling with some other things on it 's changes to an agreement and we 're trying to come up with rationale and whether it makes sense . But I appreciate your comment . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Andrew Olson: My name is Andrew Olson . I 'm at 8290 West Lake Court . My concern would be on their north end , on their park view and the landscaping they 've made their improvements with the trees and stuff but there 's still a big space they have left in there and that's a space , from my house I look down in that area . And when I went over and looked at the ones in Waconia , I took the pictures , the Polaroid pictures that you looked at last time , and I was concerned about the blandness . And the shutters and the window treatments they 've done have improved that but it wouldn 't hurt to add two more trees in that space in there just to break up the view for me and that would give those lots additional landscaping for themselves , or spread something out . Planning Commission Meeting April 7 , 1993 - Page 10 Batzli : Would you point on this map to where you 're referring to? Are _ you referring to units , the back of units 5 and 6? Andrew Olson: This one . I 'm up over here . I look down right in here . — Batzli : Jo Ann , is the reason that we didn 't put any , is that where . Andrew Olson: . . .parking on here? — Olsen: No , actually it 's my understanding that the views and your views were still covered . — Mark Jeffries: Jo Ann , that 's the old plan . Olsen: Right , I know . . .They 've added . This is the new one . The colored — map . . . Mark Jeffries: Maybe we 've got a little disagreement as far as what the — sight lines are here . Our intent was to screen those . Olsen: Screen all the sight lines . — Mark Jeffries: I thought that was done with this . And the way we had , we actually stood out on the property and tried to determine that and to the best that we could determine , those were the sight lines . I thought the — sight lines were coming off this direction and we didn't want to completely close that area off . We wanted it to be open the sight lines up for the people who live here out towards Powers Boulevard . Or out — towards that parkland that 's out there . So from my point of view , I would not be opposed to tweaking some of these to do that if they 're not drawn exactly in the right spot . Batzli : Jo Ann , let me ask you something . I know that we were talking about having kind of a temporary pond in that area on the city property . By moving those trees , is that moving it within an area that 's going to stay pretty soggy? Olsen: We don 't have the detailed plans on the design of that pond so I can 't answer that . But I don 't believe it 's going to be . . .yeah but as far.— where arwhere the soil will be saturated and the depth , I don 't have those . Batzli : I 'm just thinking white pine might be the exact kind of tree you — want there . Mark Jeffries: Well those are all you know , concerns when you get to the _ installation , there 's also . . .design and quite likely , when the site is graded , you will make some adjustments with maybe species and where an island may sit or whatever . . .That 's very true . Batzli : Okay , thank you . Did you have anything else sir? Andrew Olson: No , that 's it . — Batzli : Does anyone else? Okay . T Planning Commission Meeting April 7 , 1993 - Page 11 Gary Kassen: My name is Gary Kassen and I live at 8270 West Lake Court and I 'd like to start off by complimenting the builder on how well he — responded to our concerns at the last meeting . I 'm really pleased to see the changes that he 's made and I think they 're very nice townhomes . If we 're going to put townhomes in there , I think they 're nice townhomes . — The concern that I had was , or maybe it 's a question , is the type of trees that you 're going to have along Powers Boulevard and the plan that I picked up from Jo Ann last week listed , correct me if I 'm wrong , Black Hills spruce , Austrian pine , white oak and sugar maple . Is that correct? — Mark Jeffries: That 's correct . — Gary Kassen: Okay . I contacted the Forestry Department at the University of Minnesota and 3 of those 4 are very tolerant to salt . The sugar maple , like was mentioned earlier , is not very tolerant . And they recommend — within 60 feet of a highway that you do not use sugar maple . So I would assume that would be within 60 feet . Olsen: We now know that too and we will be working with that . Adjusting — that . Gary Kassen: As a possible alternative you may want to consider a Norway — maple . They look about the same and they 're very tolerant to salt . That 's all I have . Batzli : Okay , thank you . Anyone else like to address the Commission? Thank you very much sir for your comments . I was feeling sorry for the landscape designer here . We 're all trying to redo his design . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Is there a motion to close — the public hearing? Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. — Batzli : Jeff , do you want to start? — Farmakes: Why not . I 'll be over with first then . I too feel that the developer has responded well to all the points that we talked about last meeting . I 'm not as concerned with the 5% . Looking at that as a problem . — But I am concerned about it as a precedent . And I 'm not , I have to admit I do not understand the legality commitment that the city made in '87 as well as I should . I read the history and so on but it didn 't leave me _ with a good confidence level that I understand the philosophical commitment that the city made . I understand the practical commitment and so on . I am a little nervous though about how long term the city commits . How long do we commit when we change these ordinances over years? Where — we start to become more practical to solve the problem . The problem of developing a large expanse of land and that takes a certain amount of time to develop hundreds of homes upon . Where we leave with the old ordinances and where we begin with the new . And what our attitude is towards that once it 's expired . Do we pick and choose or , that leaves me a little uncomfortable . I would prefer that when that type of event happens , that there 's a better sequence of what we go to , maybe we should be looking at that farther down the line here . But getting back to this project , Planning Commission Meeting April 7 , 1993 - Page 12 obviously up in the corner there against the single family zone , the developer has responded well to those concerns . I 'm not going to get intc— picking and choosing trees . I think that the staff can work that out between the Arboretum and the stuff that was brought back and so on . Obviously in the long run it would save us a lot of time if we would — develop a list of trees that are in restrictive areas . Restrictions in weather and salt and leave that up , like we did with the primary list and let them choose from that . And I 'm glad that the homeowners are pleased with this . We sort of had a series I think of a couple of developments — here in a row where the builder has worked to his neighbors concerns and it seems to have worked out well . And it gives me hope and optimism so that 's the end of my comments . — Batzli : Thank you . Nancy . Mancino: I just have a couple of questions and a few concerns and I also would like to branch off a little bit about the . . .of this proposal because I think that there are some good strengths in it . The questions I have . Jo Ann , I 'm concerned about the limited number of visitor parking spaces . — I mean if I lived here and I 'm going to have people over for , my husband 's family over for Christmas , one day occasionally , and the family reunion , where do people park? I mean I can see the 4 spaces and I see the 2 in — front of our garage . And let 's say I have 10 cars and Lake Susan Hills Drive is now going to be restricted parking . So do people end up going tc the West Lake Court and parking their cars? Olsen: Well it 's wherever they can park . I mean a lot of the private drive itself in here is going to be signed no parking also and , I mean that 's always a concern . Actually we don 't have anything that requires — even the 4 visitor parking . That 's something that we just kind of threw in . They 're meeting all the parking requirements just with their garage . Harberts : It 's called public bus . Olsen : So it 's a good concern . I don 't know , it was an issue where we decided yes we do need some visitor parking but we don 't have any equation— thatsays how much per unit . Yes , there 's going to be always times when there 's not going to be parking that 's acommodated . Also , just the fact that the impervious coverage was already so tight , we didnt ' want to add — 10 . It 's just we wanted the more green space there so , you know what we 've done to address that is to mark the places where we don 't want people to park . I think we realize that there are going to be cases where_ there will be parking along the streets and so we 're being proactive and saying okay , if that happens , this is where we absolutely don 't want it . We don 't want parking , on street parking . And that 's as far as we 've gone . — Mancino : Is this a reason to amend the R-8 and some of the multi density to that standard for visitor parking? — Olsen: Yes . Mancino: Because you know I can see at Christmastime , you have your whole— family holefamily and have a family reunion over , and they 're trapsing from West Lake Planning Commission Meeting April 7 , 1993 - Page 13 Court to your particular unit here . Olsen: Especially when it 's a private drive . Yeah , and they 're narrow . Yes . But again , you have to understand that that 's going to demand more for you to amend the impervious coverage possibly . I don 't know . Underground parking lots . — Mancino: Thank you . My other issue is , I 'm still having a hard time moving from 35 to 40 impervious coverage . I like open space . There are — only 3 reasons to me to justify to move and I 'm still not sold and one of those is the low density of the , I had thought it was 5 .2 units per acre . Is that still? Olsen: Well now it 's , I don 't have my calculator but now it 's 24 units . Mancino: And that 's the gross density? Olsen: Yes . We do gross density here because it 's all , you really can't take out the , otherwise you just have the townhome units itself . It 's not _ like they have a lot and a public street to take out and wetlands . So it was gross acreage . So it 'd be 24 units divided by the gross acreage . So I did not recalculate that for the 24 units so I 'm sure it 's less than 5 , if it was 5 with the . — Mancino: Well no . According to the last staff report , which is from the 17th , you had calculated it . Olsen: 5 .9 . Oh okay . So 5 .2 is the new one . Mancino: Now when the original agreement was written in '87 and it had 9 .33 , was that also gross density? So are these comparable? Olsen: Yeah , that was gross density . And what that was doing is that they had mentioned , during the concept plan review was say like Outlot C was going to have 42 units and Outlot D was going to have you know 56 units so what we did was go back and 4 .5 acres with the 46 units and — that 's where we came up with the densities for each one . Again I 'm not sure where the 31% , 29% impervious coverage came from . _ Mancino : But for the going to 40% we get the lower density . We 're also getting one level units and you know the other thing about this Outlot C is that it does abut Lake Susan Park so that there is open space abutting it . There is a parklike space . So you know , that 's still an issue for me — and I haven 't really decided . But I do know that if we change this particular outlot to 40% , I don 't agree with the recommendation to change the others . I think that each outlot developer should come before us and give a direction . Olsen: And prove his case , yeah . Mancino: Some of the strengths that I think this development brings to us is that it 's targeting a very important housing market and housing alternative , and that is the need for empty nester housing . And I did see — that in the comprehensive plan that it is one of the segments that the Planning Commission Meeting April 7 , 1993 - Page 14 comprehensive plan said that we have a current need for . And that is that 55 to 64 year old empty nesters and I think it does a good job of targeting them . I think the architectural design is of high quality . I think with the changes that were made . I think the landscaping is excellent . Very good. A few changes but I like the landscaping . And I — also think that it 's compatible with adjacent single family home neighborhoods . I think that the owner/occupied townhomes are of high quality design which fits with the single family homes in the area . And I think it will be creating a good mix of homeowners as far as there 's going to be families . There 's going to be singles . There 's going to be couples . It 's just a nice mix . And the . . .is another strength is just the densities . The low density of 5 .2 acres . So that would be a good reason — for the development . And that 's all . Batzli : You initially said you weren 't sold on the 40% but you 've got a _ lot of strengths here that made it sound like you 're leaning a different way . Are you not sold enough on the 40% that you would vote against the project the way it currently stands? Do the strengths not outweigh the 40% for you? Mancino: I would like to hear some other viewpoints . At this point they outweigh . Batzli : Okay . Fair enough . Joe . Scott : Without repeating anybody . I 'm kind of coming at this looking at how this particular development would fit into the housing continuum that I see in Chanhassen and we do a really good job of getting poeple into town who can afford $130 ,000 .00 and up and that doesn 't leave a lot of room for new residents . And where I live , right across the street there are twin homes and judging by how long they 're on the market when they sell , there seems to be a pretty strong demand for , and I think these are — probably under $100 ,000 .00 . So I guess where I 'm coming at this is something that , this is a piece of property that could be utilized for a more affordable housing and I 'm kind of , I think Ladd and I may be hung up on the same thing . When we take a look at the impervious surface number and then say well , for those of us who are concerned with that , looking for compelling reasons to move off of that very easy to understand issue and have the development proceed as proposed . So I still haven 't , in my — mind I still haven 't seen what are we getting that 's unique . What 's interesting . How does this enhance what I call the housing continuum . So I mean that 's what 's getting in my way . So I would say based upon what _ I 've heard right now , I still see the 35% is the stumbling block . Ledvina : Generally I would , I also feel that the other outlots , Outlot A and D . . . I don 't think they should be included with this at this time . This is a difficult issue to wrestle with in terms of affordable housing and all that . I think we have other opportunities in this area with Outlot A being designated as even a higher density with R-12 so , and I look at the overall development so far and I think this arrangement with Outlot C is going to blend in very nice . And I do think the developer has added value to this plan beyond what would normally be expected so I 'm going to support it as it 's proposed and as staff has recommended . Planning Commission Meeting April 7 , 1993 - Page 15 Batzli : Thank you . Ladd . Conrad: I think the developer 's done a good job of responding to some of the neighbors comments and it 's good to see the neighborhood supporting . I think I would too if I had an option of 8 units or 9 units per acre versus what is being proposed . I think I 'd be lobbying for what the developer is asking for . I 'm struggling , there are a lot of pros and cons . There are more pros than cons in this one . I think the units are nice . Obviously when you increase the price by $40 ,000 .00 or $30 ,000 .00 over what it might have been , you 're going to get better units . I think the landscaping is good . The city may make some money on the taxes . I think the support is good . The housing type is maybe new for Chanhassen . Negatives is the "- impervious surface and the setbacks and what we may call affordable housing . You set out a zone or a district and you kind of say hey neighbors , so when people move in you understand there may be some higher density there and that 's what we try to do in some areas . So people can plan on higher density . And then when the market 's not there you sort of wonder well , if the market 's not there for the higher density , should we — let it go . I guess I don 't have a problem letting the higher density go . Sooner or later we 'll have that problem . Sooner or later we 're going to have to find a place because the market 's going to be there and then we 're going to surprise a lot of people by changing the zoning . They 'll be real irritated because they bought it before we changed the zoning . Here 's a case where we kind of said hey , it might be higher density . The developers saying market 's not there . As I look at this , it does meet a need for empty nesters . I can 't allow it to set a precedent unless staff comes back and tells me that 35% impervious surface is wrong . They 're telling me that it 's wrong right now . Olsen: For this site plan . For this style of homes . Conrad: You know philosophically , I guess the bottom line is I need staff to , I need you and Paul , Jo Ann to come back in and tell me why we like 35% . Why 40 isn 't right . The logic is , I thought , to have some space for people to be outside their home . No matter how high we stack them or — whatever , you can go outside and there 's a place for you to sit down , have a lawnchair and a picnic table . That 's why Chanhassen sticks pretty much to the 15 ,000 square foot lot sizes . We don 't particularly don 't try to _ go under that , even in the development in the PUD . We really have a tough time going under 15 . We 're trying to create open spaces where nobody is and people can enjoy it in common and we 're also trying to create space for residents . Residential use in your own yard . I look at this and I — say , well when people go outside their house , and this is what I 'm struggling with . When people go outside their house , where do they go? Maybe they don 't care . But with roads and the footprints of the housing , there 's not a lot of space to be in . And that 's really what bothers , but then I 'll play the flip side . Will the other 5% really make a difference? 10 ,000 feet . Batzli : Divide that by 24 units . Conrad: It wouldn 't . If it was in one spot . . . Planning Commission Meeting April 7 , 1993 - Page 16 Batzli : But you know where they 're going to be . They 're going to be in — their backyard if they 've got a deck . They 're not going to be in the frontyard where all the driveways and stuff is and is there enough room in the backyard to put a picnic table? Conrad: That 's the issue in my mind . What do we think? Batzli : There 's as much room in their backyard as there is in mine , and I live in a PUD . — Conrad: And what do you think about your backyard? Batzli : That 's where we spend all our time . I don 't know . If you wanted a bigger backyard , you 'd live somewhere else , and I had that option . Olsen: And there 's no children here either . Not that that should matter but . Conrad: Why do you say that? Farmakes: Are you putting that in the ordinance? — Mancino: Well there may be . By the time that they , if they added on the bottom level , 2 more bedrooms and you 've got 4 bedrooms . — Olsen: It 's my understanding that children won 't be in here but . Conrad: So the recreation space is on the outside of the property towards— the owardthe road . Batzli : They have as much backyard as I do . Except that they 're sharing — it with somebody right next door , to some extent . But that makes it bigger and smaller I suppose at the same time . — Ledvina: I think the access to the public facilities here is pretty good so that counteracts that situation too . — Conrad: To a degree , yeah . And that 's a positive . Farmakes: I also think with this type of design , it 's kind of ambiguous where front and back is . .— Batzli : Batzli : If there are kids , they 'll be in the street anyway . They 're in the street in our neighborhood . — Olsen: Or the driveway . They don 't like the grass . Batzli : If you 've got to bounce a ball or ride a bike , they 're not going — to be in the grass anyway . Farmakes: But the agreement does allow for a park close-by . — Conrad: So why are we so concerned in Chanhassen about 15 ,000 square foot lots? Planning Commission Meeting April 7 , 1993 - Page 17 Olsen: We just discussed that tonight . Conrad: What is it that compells us to provide every resident with that kind of space , which Brian I know you 're committed to . Batzli : Yeah . Conrad: And wanting space for people to be and if we 're saying with this one we don 't need it . Mancino: Well no , the majority of people may , I mean I wouldn 't buy in here because it doesn 't have enough space for me . I 'm a gardener . I want land , more land around me . So I wouldn 't buy it but I think that there are some people , and I 'm willing to say there are some people that don 't care about that . I don 't know what the percentage is . Batzli : I view it as a visual thing . I view it in this case as I 'm getting enough in trade with increased landscaping and berms and sight _ lines that I don 't need that additional 50 feet per unit or whatever I get if I demanded that 5% . I view it as a safety issue . As enough space for people and a visual thing and in this case I just , I don 't know , it doesn 't bother me . What I would like to do , and I agree with you is , we 've set certain limits somewhat arbitrarily in order to have a limit and to give guidance to developers . And if we think 35 is the right number , we should know why we think it 's the right number as opposed to 40 . And it shouldn 't change based upon what kind of unit you can build based on 35 or 40% . Conrad: Right . Absolutely . Batzli : That 's the only thing the troubles me here except that I look at the other side of the coin and I say , well in this case it doesn 't bother me . They 're giving me enough that I can justify it in my own mind and I don 't think I 'm setting a precedent unless they 're willing to give me the exactly same things on another lot where they want 40% . And they 're going to have to give me a lot of landscaping . They 're going to have to give me enough sense of openness that you 're getting at least as much if you were buying a single family house in a PUD . Which is what they 're doing here so . Conrad: Okay . Why are they giving , how are they giving you enough openness? Batzli : Well I 'm just saying in these backyards it 's as much as I have and I 'm saying . Conrad: All your lot is in the front yard. Batzli : Well I know but it 's around the street so I don 't go there so maybe that 's a problem with this design being along Powers Boulevard . But that 's why I don 't go in the front yard . Because you feel like you 're in a fishbowl . Planning Commission Meeting April 7 , 1993 - Page 18 Conrad: The only absolute is in our recommendation , whether it 's pro or con is that , and I think the Commissioners have said it already in point number 2 here . I 'm not willing to talk about the 40% for the other outlots . And I guess I thought we asked legal counsel to tell us whether — we set a precedent doing that for the rest , and Jo Ann said we did . Now I don 't know if that . Olsen: Well within this PUD I think you . Conrad: No , we can do anything we want within the PUD so 40% here and 35% in another parcel in a PUD should not set a precedent . Should not in my — mind but again I 'm not a lawyer . Olsen: With other R-8 districts , simple R-8 districts , no you 're not setting a precedent . Conrad: Right , right . But I would make that real clear if we did decide to go along with that . That our intent is not to set a precedent for the other outlots . The only other question Jo Ann , on point number 7 under recommendations . We had storm sewer calculations for a 10 year storm event . Why is that 10 years? I thought we always used 100 years . Olsen: It 's with a whole new surface water management and I know that we , at all those meetings that we have , the SWMP meetings , with the new _ design , I 'm really not the person to be answering this but the 10 year is now preferred over the 100 year and exactly why I can 't . Batzli : Ladd , that must have been the meeting you and I missed . Ledvina: If you sized for the 100 year storm , you 'd be making 5 foot culverts all over the place . And when you 're talking about just physical — structures , even if they wash out once in a hundred years , the cost of building that additional sizing is just not worth it . Conrad: That got by us didn 't it? Batzli : Yeah , I don 't remember that . Conrad: Yeah , well it 's understandable . Batzli : We could just build these houses on stilts . _ Conrad: We 've had a couple hundred storms in the last couple years and that can screw up everything you 've done for the previous 9 years or whatever . Batzli : Don 't know how that got in . Olsen: The 10 year now is what Bonestroo is recommending . Batzli : This isn 't our Best Practices Handbook kind of stuff now? Okay . _ Olsen: The 10 year , I can 't tell you . . .but they now come up with the design and 10 year is what they 're proposing . Planning Commission Meeting April 7 , 1993 - Page 19 Batzli : Did you want to address this? Greg Halling: I could answer that question a little bit because I 'm an engineer . The 10 year , like he said , is the pipe design . If you look at 100 year storm and design like swales between buildings and that sort of thing so it can go over the curb , so it will be deeper in the street , that type of thing , on your big storm . On your ponds normally there 's some , the ponds are sized for 100 year storms but the structures , which is the pipe leading out is a 10 year . That 's what they 're referring to . Batzli : Yeah , and that makes sense then with this condition because what it 's talking about is the storm sewer . Did you have anything else Ladd? Conrad: That 's all . Batzli : Okay , Diane . Harberts: I 'm going to be supporting staff 's recommendation with the _ exception of number 2 as was discussed by the other commissioners . I guess just a general question is , what is affordable housing? There 's current legislation right now down at the State Capitol that will basically penalize cities if they don 't have a certain percentage or whatever of affordable housing . It could also dictate what roads will be built and what roads will not be built and 212 is one of those that may not be built depending on , I guess it 's really a question to the city or whatever in terms of some guidance here . What 's affordable housing? Conrad: This is not it . Harberts: No , this isn 't it . Scott: The Met Council will define that . That 's the unfortunate thing . Farmakes : Maybe we can ask the legislators in St . Paul . Scott : Well it 's already to the House . Harberts: It 's on the Senate floor . Mancino: Where do we have affordable housing? Medium density . Olsen: Well we 're getting some now with the Oaks . Were you involved with that? Mancino: Is that the one 's across the street from Target , up on the hill? Olsen: Right . And then the apartment units downtown are affordable . Batzli : But we can 't , other than setting aside some zoned areas , what do we do? Do we have to build it if we don 't have enough? Olsen: Usually you have to subsidize . That 's what 's happening with those two cases . It 's being subsidized . Planning Commission Meeting .,. April 7 , 1993 - Page 20 Farmakes: Does the City though become involved in that? Olsen: The City does get involved . Farmakes: Should we be involved in specifying market prices of homes? I don 't think so . I don 't see where we 're . Conrad: We just have to make sure there are some forecasts to new residents who are moving in so they can understand where we might be tempted to put it so they can make a calculated because when they build , that there 's a chance that affordable housing might be next to them . That 's our obligation . Ledvina: Just so the Commission is aware , the Carver County Housing and _ Redevelopment Authority has contacted our city staff and asked to work with our HRA in seeking out projects for high density and subsidized . So there are some joint efforts that are being initiated . Farmakes: I don 't think Chanhassen has been anti high density as far as apartment buildings . We have some large apartment complexes that are quite old in the community . The question then becomes though , do we builc - a building and there 's no market for it . And it won 't be the first time the government has specified that something be built and there 's no one to fill it up . _ Conrad: You really want the market demand to be there first . Or at least I 'd like that to be . Yeah , if you took a vote of Chanhassen residents , — not many people are going to ask for high density . Scott : No but if you look at the reverse commute issue and you see how many people are working in that part of town or that kind of housing and — coming here to work . So is there a market? I don 't know . Farmakes: There 's also , is there precedent though? We get into , we 're _ getting off the issue here but . Batzli : Diane , did you have anything else? Harberts: No . Batzli : I , on a kind of more technical basis here , I would like to see _ our first condition changed to talk about requiring some sort of homeowners associations in order to take care of the common drive and outlots to the extent there are any on this property . And condition number 2 , I would like to see Outlots A , B , C and D kind of deleted and — say instead something like , this site cannot exceed 40% . I 'd also like to see a 15th condition which talks about sight lines to the north and to review the species of trees for salt tolerance , etc but I 'm willing to , — you know I 'd like to see their landscape designer work with staff just to make sure that those issues are covered and not need to get into so much of a requiring what they do . Our knowledge is that we 're at the formative_ stages I think of our knowledge and that 's dangerous . I think the professionals should be looking at that . You 've been to one seminar I mean . Planning Commission Meeting April 7 , 1993 - Page 21 Mancino: I mean I 've got my list here . I 'm all prepared . Batzli : Anyway , so we 're working on that but I appreciate your patience with us and we have a concern which should at least , I think that demonstrates our heart 's in the right place anyway . On a more big picture level , I believe that this doesn 't set a precedent . I think there 's been kind of a give and take here that at least that would be required in the other areas , like Outlot D for example where apparently this developer has an option . That we would have to see something at least as good as this before we relax it as we did in this case . I think in the PUD we 're safe that way and since the PUD doesn 't generally apply to an R-8 , we 're not setting a precedent outside of the PUD . So I don 't see that as a problem . I think that this development , you know Ladd and I kind of bounced it back and forth there . What is different about this that makes it okay for me and I don 't know what it is . I can 't really put my finger on it other than I feel that we 're getting enough in berming and landscaping and there is enough area in the back that for people that want to live in this type of a unit , I think we 're giving them enough space . And only time will tell . If they sell and they 're successful and they 're well kept for , we did a good job you know . This is not an exact science . But I think , looking at this , that it is , they did a pretty good job on this design and I think they 've met a lot of the neighbors concerns and so I 'm going to go with the staff recommendation to go to 40% , although I would like us to take a look at that in a bigger picture . Not just focusing in on the microcosm of this development and see if 35% is too low and if we 're trying to hold them to too tough of a standard . Or , did we come up with 35% based on the 3 story kind of thing and if we want R-8 and the 3 story kind of units to both fit into an R-8 , what is the right percentage that we talk about then? So , having said that , is there a motion? Farmakes: . . .why don 't you make the motion? Batzli : I can 't make the motion . I would certainly entertain a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Prairie Creek Townhomes as shown on revised plans with the conditions 1 thru 14 amended by number 1 reading , change Lot 25 , Block 1 to Outlot A and homeowners association By-laws shall be submitted to staff for approval and filing against the subject site . Number 2 would be amended to read , after the word coverage of this site cannot exceed 40% . And a new condition 15 would read , the applicant shall submit sight line detail for the northern portion of the development and work with staff to agree on species of trees along Powers Boulevard and internally to the project . I 'd love to entertain a motion that said something like that . Ledvina : So moved . Farmakes: I 'll second it . Batzli : It 's been moved and seconded . Is there any discussion? Conrad: Can you do what you just did? Batzli : I didn 't make the motion? Planning Commission Meeting April 7 , 1993 - Page 22 Ledvina : I made the motion . Harberts: Is this normal precedence that the Chair makes the motion , he can if that 's what 's usually been followed? — Batzli : No , the By-laws say I can 't . Conrad: Sure can 't . Olsen: But there 's no reason they say that . I mean we can change that . There 's no reason . Next meeting we 'll change that . — Batzli : Well , did I make the motion Ladd? Do you think I made the motion? — Conrad: Yes . Batzli : I can 't withdraw it because I really didn 't make it . Ledvina : Do you want a friendly amendment? Conrad: No . Batzli : Is there any other discussion? — Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Prairie Creek Townhomes as shown on the revised plans dated March 25 , 1993 with the following conditions: — 1 . Change Lot 25 , Block 1 to Outlot A and Homeowners Association By-laws shall be submitted to staff for approval and filing against the — subject site. 2 . Amend the PUD Contract to state the impervious coverage of this site — cannot exceed 40% . 3 . The city shall petition Carver County to vacate any unnecessary right-of-way along Powers Boulevard ( CR 17 ) . 4 . The townhome units shall conform tothe design and architecture as proposed by the applicant in their attached narrative dated March 24 ,- 1993 . 5 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City _ and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval . 6 . The proposed walkway along Powers Boulevard shall be constructed — within the development in accordance to the City 's typical 8 foot wide bituminous trail standards , unless it is to be relocated within the County right-of-way by Carver County and City . — 7 . The applicant shall supply detailed sewer calculations for a 10 year storm event for the City Engineer to review and approve . The Planning Commission Meeting April 7 , 1993 - Page 23 applicant shall construct an interim sedimentation basin at the storm sewer discharge point ( Outlot C ) . The basin shall be sized based on contributing area and land use , approximately 0 .30 to 0 .50 acre/feet in size . In addition , the applicant shall pay a cash contribution into the City 's storm water management program in lieu of constructing a retention pond on site for water quality purposes . The City 's surface water management consultant , Bonestroo & Associates , will determine the cash contribution amount . 8 . The applicant shall suppy detailed construction plans for sanitary sewer , watermain , street access points and storm sewer improvements for the City to review and approve . All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City 's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates . 9 . The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits such as MWCC , Health Department , Watershed District , PCA and Carver County Highway Department . 10 . Parking shall be prohibited along Lake Susan Hills Drive adjacent to this development . the City will proceed in preparing a resolution restricting parking along Lake Susan Hills Drive . 11 . The applicant shall incorporate the City 's Best Management Practice Handbook for site restoration and additional erosion control measures during the construction process . 12 . A cross access eaesment should be conveyed to all the lots for use of the private street . 13 . Fire Marshal conditions: a . The marking of fire lane on private and public property shall designated and approved by the Fire Chief [pursuant to 1988 UFC Sec . 10 .207( w )] . See site plan submitted by Fire Marshal for exact location . b . "No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be installed as per indicated _ on submitted site plan [pursuant to Chanhassen City Policy #06-1991 ( copy enclosed )] . c . A 10 foot clear space shall be maintained around fire hydrants , i .e . NSP transformers , telephone , cable boxes , all landscape trees and shurbs . Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance . d . Submit a Fire Marshal approved "Pre-Fire Plan" , pursuant to Chanhassen City Policy #07-1991 ( copy enclosed ) . e . Add and/or relocate fire hydrants as indicated on submitted site , pursuant to 1988 UFC Division 3 . f . Fire apparatus access road shall be designed , built and maintained before and during construction of the townhouse units . Planning Commission Meeting April 7 , 1993 - Page 24 — The driving surface must meet Chanhassen Engineering specifications , pursuant to 1988 UFC 10 .207( f ) . g . Premise identification Policy #29-1992 ( copy enclosed ) . — 14 . Building Official conditions: a . Indicate lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevations for each house pad on the grading plan prior to final plat approval . — b . Submit details on corrected pads including compaction tests , limits of the pads and elevations of excavations to the Inspections Division . A general soils report for the development should also be submitted to the Inspections Division . This must — . be done prior to issuance of building permits . c . Adjust property lines , building sizes , wall openings or a _ combination of all three to comply with the building code prior to final plat approval . d . Provide easements for driveways and private roads to a public way— prior to final plat approval . e . Submit proposed street name( s ) for review prior to final plat — approval . 15. The applicant shall submit sight line details for the northern portion of the development and work with staff to agree on species of trees along Powers Boulevard and internally to the project. All voted in favor except Conrad who opposed and the motion carried with a— vote of 6 to 1 . Batzli : Was there any other no votes? Okay . And your reasons Ladd? _ Conrad: Really the issue of impervious surface and space . Enough space in this particular design for people . I 'm not convinced as we shrunk our setbacks , I 'm not convinced in this design that we have people space built-- in . uilt`in . Batzli : Okay . That 's a valid concern . The motion does carry . When does— this go to City Council? Olsen: It now goes to the City Council on April 26th . Batzli : Okay . Thank you very much for coming in . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli so noted the Minutes of the Planning— Commission meeting dated March 17 , 1993 as presented . OPEN DISCUSSION: Batzli : Jo Ann , did you want to talk to us about this urban wetland coalition memo at all? Planning Commission Meeting April 7 , 1993 - Page 25 Olsen: No . It 's pretty self explanatory . Batzli : Okay . Open discussion . Let me just ask this question Ladd . We 're in open discussion . This is our last item and then we can get out of here . I would be happy from refraining from doing what I just did if it bothers the Commission . In fact , even if it doesn 't bother the Commission . If even one Commissioners is bothered by what , by me stating the motion and asking if someone would like to make a motion like that , I — would be happy to refrain from doing that . Conrad: I think Brian when it facilitates , when you recognize a confused Planning Commission and you think you can condense it , I think that 's real valid to do it . On the other hand the negative is , it doesn 't make us think about , Planning Commissioners think about making that motion . — Batzli : I would agree . Conrad: And I think that 's real important . Your job is not to , it 's our — job to make that motion and your 's to make sure we can do it somehow . So I 've said both things but I think in some cases , when you have a good grasp of the situation , I think you should be , that 's okay with me . But _ it 's really , the Chairman cannot make a motion and that 's in Roberts Rules or whatever . Harberts: It depends on what the precedence in previous meeting . Olsen: It 's in our By-laws . Batzli : It 's in our By-laws and I don 't want to amend our By-laws . . . it 's been the precedence of this group that the Chair does not make the motions . The reason that I did it , and this is not to be condensending or anything else but the group , to a large extent has not had a lot of activity in making motions such as this and that 's why I did it . I was trying to facilitate . If people don 't agree with the motion and want to change it in any way , they should do that . I 'm not trying to ram anything — down anyone 's throats other than to kind of go through the motion process until people feel more comfortable doing it themselves . Scott: Well in my case , I mean I wasn 't particularly nuts about the — situation anyway so I wasn 't going to be making the motion on it . But you 're right , because I 'll look at some of these things and I ' ll go , okay I 'll give it a shot . And you kind of go through it and I know where — you 're coming from because then in a lot of instances , even when I 'm in favor of a particular item , I find it somewhat awkward to sit down and go , kind of go through this but I 'm always willing to do it because that 's , I think that 's causability to go , now what are we really agreeing to here and I recall one time when I went through that and then you asked a really good question about something . And then Ladd , and discussed it a little bit more and I think after going through that effort , we got to be real — comfortable with what we were actually trying to accomplish . So you know , I personally don 't have a problem with if you go and state that . — Batzli : Well I 'm going to do it , I 'll tell you right now , I 'm going to do it very minimally but I thought I had heard a consensus that we were going Planning Commission Meeting April 7 , 1993 - Page 26 to go on this and when no one really jumped into the fray , I just kind of did it . So I apologize if it offends anyone . Conrad: I think I should do it Brian . I guess in this case I wish you — didn 't because I was interested in who was going to say what . And I don 't have any , I have no problem sitting here for 5 minutes waiting for somebody to do it and I really don 't and we shouldn 't feel that pressure _ to do it . I think it 's just a good exercise for us to be thinking about that . And we have no problem if the motion doesn 't get a second . I don 't think people shouldn 't be afraid . . . Scott : Or if you 're not really convinced enough that something should happen to make the motion , because I sure wasn 't . Conrad: See that 's what the silence was telling me a little bit but I was interested in who was going to step forward . And it was you . Batzli : And I wrecked it for you . Conrad: Mr . Large Lot steps forward and makes the motion . Batzli : You wanted to get out of here early Ladd . Conrad: I 've got to go but yeah . _ Farmakes: I think as a matter of practicality he just went through , at the end how he would change the ordinance . It summed up , I thought what the majority of the opinion was so I didn 't see any reason to repeat it . Other than a technical , maybe we should make an ordinance about this . Olsen: There 's no reason why you can 't amend the By-laws . I checked that with Roger and there 's no reason why the Chairman . Batzli : I don 't want to amend the By-laws . I don 't want to make motions but I was just trying to facilitate . Do we have a huge meeting for the next time? Olsen: No , but you 've got Lake Susan Hills 9th . '- Scott : That 's a huge meeting . Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m . Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CITYOF 0°141'74 C A N 11 ASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director DATE: April 15, 1993 SUBJ: Report From the Director At the April 12, 1993, City Council meeting, the following actions were taken: 1. Public Hearing on Lake Lucy Road Extension. The proposal called for the designation of ROW and ultimately construction of at least part of the road which would run from Galpin Boulevard west to Hwy 41. The road is found on our Comprehensive Plan and the City was responding to a request from several property owners in the area. Ultimately, support for the extension seemed to fall apart with 2 out of the three petitioners backing away from constuction at this time. Since there is no pressing reason to build the road right now and since support for aquiring the ROW and sustaining assessments, staff recommended that the matter be tabled. The City Council tabled the item until the parties come to some agreement. 2. Information Meeting on the Proposed Elementary School. Since this item has received so much publicity, I will not dwell on it. Staff has always supported the idea of developing a school at this site due to its importance to the City's land use pattern and now to the Highway 5 Corridor. It was conceived as a major public facility that helps to give the community a focus. It is very important to bridging the corridor with residential uses and green space, and will also provide major recreational amenities. The questions regarding this proposal recently have dealt less with the land use issues than with the financing options. The City Council was split over the use of TIF dollars to help facilitate the school district's aquistion. Ultimately, on a 4 to 1 vote, the Council approved the aquisition. 3. Concept Plan to Rezone Property From BG to PUD at 7400 Montery Drive. Staff reviewed this proposal with the City Council. They all agreed that with appropriate design controls, this use would be acceptable.. Concept approval was granted and staff expects to have the application before the Planning Commission shortly. Is t opt PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ONGOING ISSUES REVISED APRIL 17, 1993 IS SUES STATUS 1.* 1995 Study Area (North) and Hwy. 5 On-going work with Task Force. Grant Corridor Study request to fund $300,000 pedestrian bridge over Hwy. 5 near CBD has been submitted to MnDOT ISTEA grant process. 2. 1995 Study Area (South) Assigned to Planning Commission staff. Work to be initiated as time commitments allow OTHER ITEMS 1. Sign Ordinance Draft ordinance has been completed and will be reviewed by the Hwy. 5 Task Force in April. Staff expects to get it to the PC during May. CC asked that the committee look at limiting the number of sign boards on building exteriors for office buildings. 2.* Tree Protection Ordinance, Mapping Inventory is completed. Advisory Tree of significant vegetative areas Board established by City Council. Currently working on issue. Forestry intern to be hired. 3. Shoreland Ordinance Staff is currently working on draft of the ordinance. Initial comments delivered to MnDNR. Will place on upcoming PC agenda. 4. PC input in Downtown Planning and Ongoing. Traffic Study 5. Review of Architectural Standards to Hwy. 5 Task Force is working on this issue. Promote High Quality Design Will likely influence what is done in balance of city. 1 6.* Bluff Creek Corridor Greenway Park and Recreation Commission is undertaking update of the recreational element of the Comprehensive Plan. Bluff Creek issues to be dealt with in this format. _ Working with MnDOT to install bridges over creek for Hwy. 5 — 7. Temporary uses, sales - new Staff to bring back to Planning Commission ordinance at a future meeting. 8. Sexually oriented businesses PC reviewed on 3/4/92. Sent to Public Safety Commission. Reviewed on 7/8/92. To be forwarded to CC. _ 9. Open Space Zoning Requested by PC. 10. Upgrade landscaping ordinance To PC in April or May. Staff attending standards to meet criteria established Parking Lot Design Conference in March. during Target Review. — * Change in status since last report. 2 r ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION Memo to HRA regarding Contract Proposal to Retain Project Manager for Joint Use Transit — Hub/ISTEA funding. Memo to Urban Wetland Management Coalition. Letter to Steve Schwanke, Metropolitan Council. — Letter to Rental Anhorn, Metropolitan Council. CITY OF0,4 CHANIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 _ (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM — TO: Housing and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director T 14.4.„ DATE: April 14, 1993 SUBJ: Contract Proposal to Retain Project Manager for the Joint Use Transit Hub — As the HRA is aware, work is proceeding forward on the Highway 5 Corridor Study. At a recent — meeting, Chairman Bohn, as well as the Mayor and Councilman Mason, had an opportunity to review a conceptual land use/development plan for the area along the highway located between Dakota and Great Plains Boulevard. There is quite a bit of background you need to be aware — of. I will just bullet point these issues but will explain them in greater detail at the meeting. • The City is moving forward on the acquisition of the Apple Valley Red-E-Mix site. We have already acquired the old Taco Shop site and Hanus parcels. The realignment of Highway 101 will be completed this summer • The American Legion has expressed a desire to consider the relocation and possible upgrading of their facilities. They were prepared to sell the site to Target last year. In addition,the adjacent parcel which is owned by M. A. Mortenson, is for sale. • Southwest Metro Transit is looking for a major park and ride facility in the — corridor. Their earlier attempts to purchase a portion of the DataSery parcel have not been successful. In any case, they have expressed a desire to be further west to be closer to the CBD and industrial park to support reverse commute and circulator services. • Todd Gerhardt has been contacted on several occasions about the possibility of — developing a hotel/motel on the corner of Hwy. 5 & old Hwy. 101 where the Legion building currently sits. — • The Legion/Mortenson property is unusually difficult to develop in a sensitive manner. The land is long but not very deep; access is a problem, being available — Is t4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER HRA April 14, 1993 Page 2 only from Lake Drive; the existing commercial uses are not ideally situated, the existing Neighborhood Business zoning does not provide much flexibility; and perhaps most importantly, there is an adjacent single family residential neighborhood that is severed from the CBD by Hwy 5 and which must be provided with major buffering from the highway, Lake Drive traffic, and whatever is allowed to develop on the parcel. • The land on both sides of Hwy. 5 at the AVR site is high. It is an ideal location for a pedestrian overpass. It could connect the city across the highway and the topography would allow access to the bridge without ramps or stairs. Taking all these factors into account, staff started to put all the ingredients into a pot and stir to see if a comprehensive development proposal could be created that met everyones goals. We met with the Legion leaders on several occasions and found that they are willing to talk. We also gained an understanding of their future goals and financial requirements. Todd has been trying to follow up on the desirability of the site for a motel. We have also had a number of meetings with Southwest Metro staff and sketched up some preliminary designs. We ultimately concluded that the project seemed to have a good potential for meeting the following goals: 1. Find the Legion a new, more suitable home, that meets the needs of their members. 2. Meet Southwest Metro's need for a Park and Ride. It is anticipated that the facility would use very high quality landscape and architectural design. The addition of shed roofs over a portion of the parking area has been anticipated to house a farmers market on weekends. The parking is needed for the bus service from 7-5 on weekdays. Southwest Metro has access to significant funding to acquire and build the facility. It can be used by other uses needing off-peak parking such as a motel and the Legion. Thus, there is a possibility of building 50% of the spaces that would be needed for the three uses if developed independently. 3. Offer space for a commercial use, most likely a motel, that could pay market rate for the land and help to offset development costs. We are seeking to minimize the HRA's financial burden if possible. 4. Develop high quality open space on both sides of the highway at a major entrance into the community. This includes the AVR site and major landscaping areas around the Park and Ride and along Lake Drive. The adjoining residential neighborhood is to be offered an improved physical connection to the CBD and a much higher level of buffering from the highway and non-residential uses than is currently the case. HRA April 14, 1993 Page 3 STAFF ACTIONS TO DATE To date, we have had concept plans prepared by Bill Moorish for the Highway 5 Corridor Plan. Copies will be made available at the meeting. The plans were very well received by the Highway 5 Task Force. We have met with all of the actors, and thus far found support to further develop the concept. Working with Barton Aschman, we have prepared a grant application to MnDOT. Under the new highway bill (ISTEA), funding is now available for a variety of non- _ highway transportation improvements. We believe the pedestrian bridge, in conjunction with trails, the park and ride and the project's ability to reconnect a community split by the highway, is ideally suited for ISTEA funding. The selection process is likely to be highly competitive and we are by no means assured of success, but we felt it was worth a shot. That brings us to our current request. This is a highly complex proposal that involves a number of actors. Each must have their concerns addressed and each, the neighborhood in particular, must be made to feel comfortable. Due to prior commitments on staff time, we are unable to spend the time that is required. Therefore, I have asked Fred Hoisington to give us a proposal, in essence serve as a project manager, to develop the proposal to the point where you can decide if it warrants implementation. Fred's expertise seem ideally suited to the project. Due to the uncertain nature of the project and the many meetings that will be required, Fred has proposed — a cost range from $12,000-517,000. Staff believes this to be appropriate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the HRA direct staff to enter into the attached contract with the Hoisington Koegler Group for consulting services related to the Transit/ Hub/Legion/Hotel/Pedestrian access project. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. H K g 1 February 26, 1993 Housing and Redevelopment Authority City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Proposal To Update The Highway 101 Corridor Study From The Terminus of Market Boulevard To South Of Trunk Highway 212 and/or Seek MnDOT Funding Attention: Paul Krauss, Planning Director Per our discussion on Tuesday, January 26, 1993, I herewith submit this proposal for professional planning services to revisit our original Highway 101/5 Preliminary Alignment and Land Use Study dated September 1989. It is our understanding that the project will entail the evaluation of an additional alignment for Trunk Highway 101 in preparation for its official mapping. It is further our understanding that the realignment evaluation, no matter its outcome, should serve as a catalyst to MnDOT's funding of as much as possible of the Highway 101 construction. WORK PROGRAM Phase I - Evaluation of Alternative Alignment Phase I will include the following services: 1 . Revisions to the original base map to include the reconfigured TH 212 interchange and the precise location of the terminus of Market Boulevard. 2. Collection and review of background information including the City's Comprehensive Plan, Market Boulevard asbuilts, the TH 212 revised plans, SMTC's park and ride plans and such other information as may currently be available which was not available at the time of the original study. Land Use/Environmental • Planning;Design '300 Metro Boulevard Suite 525 • Minneapolis,Minnesota 55439 • (612)835-9960 • Fax:(612)835-3160 Letter Proposal February 26, 1993 Page 2 — 3. Field analysis of the proposed alternative alignment and the identification of any changes that have occurred since the original study. 4. Development of one additional alternative alignment with grading implications, roadway geometrics and right-of-way needs, plus interim alignments, which will be tested by the Consultant and reviewed at an informal public informational meeting. This task will also include trail and other improvements that may be eligible for funding from ISTEA. 5. Preparation and illustration of Highway 101 crossections to be used to facilitate the public's understanding of the alternative alignment and its implications. 6. Preparation of a revised preliminary land use and street plan to reflect the new highway alignment. 7. Meetings with all of the key landowners within the corridor individually and with residents of Lake Susan as a group to generate input, review the new alternative and elicit suggestions (up to six meetings estimated). 8. Meetings with MnDOT as necessary to solicit input, review plan alternatives and recommendations and generate the support and rationale for MnDOT's funding of improvements (up to three meetings estimated). Phase II - Detailing of Alternative Alignment Phase II will include the following services: 1 . Preparation of a plan for buffer treatment between the existing and proposed alignments of Highway 101 in sufficient detail to address probable resident concerns related to noise mitigation and visual access interruption and/or reexamination of the design features of Highway 101 in light of ISTEA and the City's growing expectations. 2. Preparation for and attendance at one public informational meeting to review plans with landowners and neighbors. Letter Proposal February 26, 1993 Page 3 3. Preparation of an addendum to the original study dated September 1989 to include the new alternative, the evaluation, revised plans and recommendations. 4. Meetings with City Staff and MnDOT as necessary to take input and review plan alternatives (up to three meetings estimated). 5. Presentation of the revised plans to the Planning Commission and City Council for review, comment and approval (two meetings estimated). Phase III - Funding Strategy Phase III will include the following services: 1 . Development of Preliminary Construction Cost Estimates and a strategy for the funding of land acquisition and the development of Highway 101 (ISTEA, MnDOT turnback, etc.). 2. Establishment of the rational for MnDOT's funding of Highway 101 improvements. 3. Negotiations with MnDOT to obtain significant participation in the funding of the Highway 101 improvements. FEE AND SCHEDULE For services described as Phases I through III, a fee based on the Consultants current hourly rate schedule plus incidental expenses, not to exceed TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($20,000). Current Hourly Rate Schedule: Fred Hoisington $90/hr (meetings & consultation) Fred Hoisington $80/hr (analysis/report preparation/planning) Diane Klausner $45/hr Secretarial $35/hr Mileage $.28/mile Letter Proposal February 26, 1993 Page 4 Since MnDOT is in need of having our study completed by mid-1993, we propose to complete the first two phases by June 30, 1993. If you have questions, please give me a call at your earliest convenience. We look forward to commencing the project as soon as possible to meet the proposed schedule. -- AUTHORIZATION IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Chanhassen HRA and Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. have made and executed this Agreement for Professional Services, This day of , 1993. CHANHASSEN HRA Chanhassen, MN In presence of: net- ' 1rt''1n-�.� lames R. Bohn, Chair HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC. Minneapolis, MN In presence of: eth. 1Fred Hoisington, AIC R. Mark Koe lerA g g , President Vice President ATTACHMENT A The "not to exceed" figure of $20,000 is the maximum amount to be spent on the project. If staff determines at any time, that the likely outcome does not justify the expense due to MnDOT's position, the project will be terminated. The City will be liable only for work completed up to the point at which a determination is made. ames R. Bohn, Chair Don Ashworth, xecutive Director TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT FUND APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS: Complete and return 20 copies to Merritt Linzie, Director, Office of Highway olio*Live Only Programs, Room 807, Transportation Bldg., 395 John Ireland Blvd, St. Paul, MN 55155, no later than 4:00 p.m., April 15, 1993. (612) 296-1638 l: ENTERAL ATION " _' • 1. APPLICANT City of Chanhassen, Minnesota 2. DATE 4/15/93 , 3. PROJECT/ROUTE/FACILITY NAME TH 5 Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge 4. MAILING ADDRESS 690 Coulter Drive/P.O. Box 147 -CITY Chanhassen STATE MN I ZIP CODE 55317 5. COUNTY Carver 6. CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE NO. — Paul Krauss Planning Director, AICP ( 612 ) 937-1900 14�-aa RO.IECTSIFORMAi7ON = 6: - 7. PROJECT CATEGORY - Check all boxes (d) that appy and indicate the project grouping (0)you wish your project to be scored in PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE GROUPING 0 HISTORIC GROUPING 0 Provision of Facilities for Pedestrians and Bicycles 0 Historic Highway Programs ❑ Preservation of Abandoned Railway Corridors ❑ Historic Preservation SCENIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPING 0 ❑ Rehabilitation and Operation of Historic Transportation 0 Scenic Highway Programs Buildings, Structures, or Facilities (including railroad 0 Acquisition of Scenic Easements and Scenic Sites facilities and canals) ❑ Landscaping and Other Scenic Beautification 0 Archaeological Planning and Research ❑ Control and Removal of Outdoor Advertising ❑ Mitigation of Water Pollution Due to Highway Funds 8.TOTAL PROJECT COST AND FEDERAL AMOUNT REQUESTED 9. LOCAL MATCH AMOUNT, PERCENTAGE AND SOURCE TOTAL FEDERAL AhIoun $ PERCENT • SOURCE COST $ 400,000 AMOUNTS 280,000 120,000 307 HRA Funds 10. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE REQUIRED O Project Description NOTE: Proposals must specifically ❑ Pro ea Location M and directlyaddress each criterion to ap(s) (Reproducible} qualify anreceive points. Pages in ❑ Response to Each Qualifying Criterion each proposal should be numbered with this page as number 1. Proposals Response to Each Prioritizing Criterion are limited to ten 8% by 11 inch pages excluding maps drawings and or photos. 11. SIGNATURE TITLE DATE 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is to build a pedestrian/bicycle bridge spanning TH 5 between TH 101 and Great Plains Boulevard in the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. In addition to simply providing a pedestrian and bicycle crossing of TH 5, the bridge will serve an aesthetic and civic function and enhance the intermodal transportation system. Chanhassen is a rapidly growing suburban community located about 22 miles southwest of Minneapolis. The population increased from approximately 6,300 in 1980 to 11,700 in 1990 and is currently estimated at about 13,000. Almost 7,000 jobs are provided in the city. Chanhassen is an innovator in urban design and environmental protection. The city's central business district has been developed as a compact, pedestrian-oriented area and is the culmination of twelve years' efforts. Transit and transportation innovations such as a park and ride lot and parallel access boulevards will serve to reduce TH 5 volumes. The proposed bridge will further these efforts. The bridge is part of a much larger plan concept entitled "Building Community Across the Corridor" and formulated by the Design Center for American Urban Landscape (University of Minnesota), the City of ChPnhassen, and its consultant, Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Figure 1 shows the whole plan and the location of the proposed pedestrian/bicycle bridge in the inset. This study has developed an urban design vision to build a strong sense of community across the corridor. A major element of this plan is to create a system of paths and parkways, a "greenway" system, with TH 5 crossings that allow the safe, timely, and comfortable movement of pedestrians and bicyclists across the highway. The study specifically recommends a pedestrian/bicycle bridge at this project's location. In addition, a TH 5 Corridor Study (scheduled to be completed in the summer of 1993) also concurs that a pedestrian/bicycle bridge should be built at this location. The bridge design concept will supersede a typical pedestrian/bicycle bridge, serving as a piece of public art as well as a functional part of the transportation infrastructure. A "gateway" effect is desired that welcomes TH 5 motorists to Chanhassen and provides a favorable impression of the community while pulling bisected neighborhoods together. Figure 2 reveals a section and elevation of the proposed bridge. The structural element is provided by a prefabricated steel truss system roughly 220 feet in length. Abutments and piers will consist of reinforced concrete. A 12-foot width provides adequate clearance for both bicyclists and pedestrians over the lengthy span. Vinyl covered chain link fence is included for both the sides to enclose the user and protect the vehicles below from falling debris. The roof consists of a standing seam metal roof, which provides a cost-effective shelter for users while tying into current trends in the downtown area. All elements will be painted, with structural elements giving way to the aesthetic aspects of the project. Landscaping, lighting, and other amenities would be included to enhance the appearance of the facility and its environment for both bridge users and travelers within the TH 5 corridor. Construction of the bridge is expected to be completed in 1994. 2 tf) oh I ad IFV.. \\*oily 1,1.\1 \ ‘ . I tit 0- tel I I,\ \ i . \ ..,:is -'7171,.. 2./....) e ii 4:e%‘\‘ . \."- ---ciLL--47 o i '_'-11 ' y . e 1 CVZ\ /..\ .4 .N-,-,,,\ I�> ,�i.' (f Yom I L � �'� �Y�..-�S. ' JC /........,1,..1 1,,,, . s:;:•,.s.% I ILE-.1. (1, ii,lir-TIN '1"-1.117t4a1\ \ it, \-. - .‘ - \ L__,tz.-.-.1 14\.,-..,- i! .. f,-A,,‘ ` `— \ t/ --i� I r.1� - ' —LYS � V� ��\ \\\-.‘•\fid/ F � ;,... .7. 0:-:-- - \‘'--4., ..-:0---\••.,‘. !.. i 7-3--:i.,- E 7 '' : .it: - ' *Ili ..-\•:' T.47... 1Qui,✓; U :ft-.- • 1\ " . -.-- \ . ..*\• -,. 1\sa-5 1. '''• �� t A ii _-� s i 'i `_ 'k' \t `. a ] - • „'T.......— kit-1 _ 1 ilmer" ii-11. 11 r` - �!', -( A - , //2"j _3 .. o Cam ,,,,.. it.........:„... _at ....wies_or I ,! i c le-1,i ;• L : s L1TJ \ A • t r.i 777'.0 : .,,e..‘ . ..-'-fT,, 4 111141 1;;+5I,; l; ,' t I '" • - l':' ..• /.1.-. /, . 1 ilithli 1111111111 i " If ts r _tiy7-i .././ : 7%. , ,\ 41 I • -.47.S . •. S'•' r.''-/'. . 1 i 11111;111.111111;11111r1�1{• ii f fpf ` 1 {a. . -==.-1—'-L.:--- ---.7 ------_ ' >E / ltilii}i;i Elidtfi![ I t Lid. , 141 i = f II 41 ! ti 1 j 1 t'' ,',i j• _4.t\ ti ' Ipill • : 1 IlihlUith ] ; � 11111 t�' �11111111 jII� `1 , . L__ t tt 11111 FIGURE 1 r IlLli�11111IT ` �' 1 - 11[1: HT,' !IIii IiII I�il(;il!.i;Ilill�iil [1�11i� IH¶I I Ililliilli'' I'il�lil tll�� 7if .rs,41- `-=�f_ /� ,, y Ids , _f�lllllllllll iTa' 8' TRAIL— WESTBOUND TH 5 EASTBOUND TH 5 ELEVATION STANDING SEAM VINYL CLAD CHAINLINK METAL ROOF FENCE ON SIDES ! * �' 8T PAINTED STEEL PREFABRICATED }4-12 CLEAR BRIDGE STRUCTURE4' CONCRETE DECKING SECTION NOT TO SCALE Proposed TH 5 Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Chanhassen, Minnesota FIGURE 2 The future realignment of TH 101 at TH 5 necessitates acquisition of the Apple Valley Ready-Mix Concrete facility on the north side of TH 5. The concrete plant is one of the first landmarks in Chanhassen encountered by westbound TH 5 traffic and is considered an eyesore that maligns the city's identity. Therefore, the acquisition of the AVR site is fortuitous, enabling the city to remove blight and establish public greenspace by redeveloping the area into a park with trails and the proposed pedestrian/bicycle bridge. City tax increment proceeds were used for this acquisition. The location of the bridge is an optimum one for a number of reasons. TH 5 is depressed in this location with a high berm on the south side. The topography enables a bridge span to be built without switchbacks on either side. The bridge will be located adjacent to the planned park on the north side of TH 5 and a planned Southwest Transit Park and Ride facility on the south side (see inset, Figure 2). The bridge will link neighborhoods divided by TH 5 and provide increased access to downtown's civic facilities and attractions. Two divided neighborhood areas will be reunited and access to the pedestrian-oriented downtown will be improved. The city trail system will be improved with increased continuity. The provision of a pedestrian/bicycle bridge will have a significant benefit to the intermodal transportation system, especially within the TH 5 corridor. The bridge will provide access between the pedestrian-oriented Chanhassen CBD and a new park and ride facility operated by Southwest Metro Transit (opening in 1995). Transit in the area will use the park and ride lot as a transfer point between express routes and circulator routes (which run on parallel access boulevards adjacent to TH 5). By tying carpools, bus transit, pedestrians, bicyclists, city trails, and the city's parallel access boulevard system, the proposed bridge will contribute to an increase of intermodal usage and a decrease in traffic volumes on TH 5. RESPONSES TO QUALIFYING CRITERIA 1. Projects which are eligible for Enhancements funds as defined in the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). Response: The proposed pedestrian bridge project serves several of the ten exclusive _ enhancement activities. First and foremost, it is the provision of a facility for pedestrians and bicycles. The project also would qualify under landscaping and other scenic beautification due to the aesthetic qualities of the bridge. This application will be scored in the Pedestrian and Bicycle group. 2. Projects with assured local match of at least 20 percent. Response: The City of Chanhassen has authorized a local match of 30 percent. These funds are being raised through the HRA process. 3 3. Projects for which the proposer assures it will operate and maintain the property and facility for the useful life of the improvement and not change the use of any right-of-way acquired from MnDOT and FHWA. Response: Chanhassen makes these assurances in light of the fact that the bridge will be an integral part of the downtown infrastructure and the community's public works system. The city will abide by whatever written assurances are required. 4. Projects submitted through/by: 1) cities over 5,000 population, etc. Response: Chanhassen's current population of about 13,000 exceeds 5,000 people. The population has more than doubled since 1980. There are 7,000 jobs in Chanhassen. 5. Projects with an estimated total cost of at least $50,000. Response: The estimated total cost of the project is $400,000. 6. Projects with a demonstrated relationship to transportation. Response: As described below in the prioritizing criteria, this project embodies the very goals of ISTEA: providing a truly intermodal link; increasing the potential for environmentally sound, energy efficient modes of transportation; and not only preserving but enhancing community quality. This project is a functional component of the intermodal transportation system that will link pedestrians, bicycles, carpools, and bus transit. This project will enhance transportation demand management in the TH 5 corridor by improving access to the park and ride facility. Chanhassen is an "opt-out" community, and a founding member of Southwest Metro Transit. Ridership this year is up 23 percent and "reverse-commuter" offerings are increasing. The park and ride will serve as a transfer point for express and circulator buses. Bus usage of the city's parallel access boulevards will reduce traffic on TH 5. Chanhassen has a pedestrian-oriented CBD since it is compact, provides sidewalks, and has many public greenspaces. The proposed pedestrian/bicycle bridge will increase pedestrian access to the CBD. This project improves the aesthetics of the area proximate to TH 5. It reduces the barrier effect of the existing highway facility by connecting neighborhoods and improving safety to pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the highway. 7. Projects which are normally part of the mitigation of a transportation project are not eligible. 4 Response: This project is not a normal mitigative action of a transportation project. It will reestablish neighborhood cohesion and pedestrian/bicycle pathways that existed prior to the construction of TH 5. RESPONSES TO PRIORITY CRITERIA 1. The degree to which the project fulfills the intent of the ISTEA. Response: The proposed pedestrian/bicycle bridge is a quality project that greatly embodies the intent of ISTEA. It truly enhances the highway system by increasing the availability of intermodal, environmentally efficient modes of transportation. In addition, this enhancement will improve community cohesion and visual aesthetics by providing a link between neighborhoods severed by TH 5 and by providing an attractive gateway of public art that reinforces community identity. The proposed bridge will enhance the movement of pedestrian and bicycle traffic throughout Chanhassen. As Figure 3 shows, the bridge will provide an integral link in the city's trail plan. The northeast portion of Chanhassen has a number of existing and planned trails, but one of the weaknesses of the system is that TH 5 serves as a barrier to pedestrian and bicycle travel (except further west where a trail crossing will be provided under the highway at Bluff Creek and Riley Creek). Downtown Chanhassen, located just north of TH 5, is a highly bicycle- and pedestrian-oriented area, and the proposed bridge will expand opportunities for these environmentally sound, energy efficient, community-oriented modes of transportation. In addition to shortening the length of many pedestrian and bicycle trips, the proposed bridge will also enhance the safety of pedestrian and bicycle trips by eliminating a crossing of TH 5. This is especially desirable since Saint Hubert's Catholic School in downtown Chanhassen has students that walk to the school from the south side of TH 5; these students cross the highway at at-grade intersections. In addition, attractions for youth in downtown are expected to increase as a community center, entertainment center, and a park expansion adjacent to city hall are all planned in addition to the city library and shopping area. Another planned park, 'Town Square Park" will contain a gazebo and an amphitheater. Safety for pedestrians and bicyclists crossing TH 5 is therefore a critical concern. The proposed project will enhance intermodal travel in the TH 5 corridor because a Southwest Metro Transit park and ride lot is planned to be located immediately adjacent to the south end of the pedestrian/bicycle bridge in 1995 (see inset, Figure 2). Therefore, the intermodal characteristics of the park and ride lot will be enlarged. The park and ride lot will continue to serve carpoolers and bus passengers that drive to the lot. However, with the bridge in place, the lot's accessibility to bicycles and pedestrians will increase, enabling these "untapped" modes of transportation to take advantage of available carpools and bus transit. As described above in Question 6 of the qualifying 5 — t A t t t 8:4'...1.".,-"7 t t e t t e_ t ; t t T- lir t t E t i + + j + �_-' � y ,.'.. ..�{. ...... - — - -- - /-`�' fl- ?� V - • rte' e _ . Ir- -- I - 1;-1 '4- .,c)le cti, o a 1 1 o .,,i I i r., _. ...., • . ---, 0,1„,,04- .---• i ."7'3. " .... ::'. i 7f.ttik. - L p -- x� ` .- - ' 1~, i- . ems .p w __ _. - -' Jt ,,; . •—vc-k = r _. L. _ "ii"--.' ,',8' ,*.• $ 1 _ 1,33 f - '= ,•_7 . . :.s.---- .. . .,.-- VA. lig - -- - - - �-. • ''.PParkAide . t `; - r -_ - -- — i 1 _, TIII 11;..'::;3':'1 it i _ — CITY OF- R �.'� ` _ jr/ j' V.."°. f/ ' G�'IAIJ-i�4SSEN 1 i --- ---,(4'...--,/'/ __ _ TRAIL PLAN / i ' I Total Troll System •; • I - y ' ...- ,,--' • '• 1 , , - _4. — • .•• ••••--- ExatiFQ OrrS tool Warmer,/Brceway , '`' - ` _ :-t? I " Fasting OM-Street Wdewoy/Bkeway /• r i. r;3 i 5 Proposed Ott-Street Troll / -- II • Concrete Stdewabc ( - -- • AdJocent Community Trod Lk* C.. ( r ' - - • • • • • ,--r _ 1-----_--- / • ;I I 1 L . I — FIGURE 3 criteria, the bus service at the park and ride will have a significant role in traffic demand management on TI-i 5. The park and ride will serve as a transfer point between express and circulator buses. The circulator routes will be removed from TH 5 itself by using the city's parallel access boulevard system. Ridership is up 23 percent this year and reverse-commuter services are increasing. Therefore, improving pedestrian/bicycle access to the park and ride could reduce volumes on TH 5 itself through intermodal travel. An additional benefit of the project is that the park and ride lot will receive greater intermodal usage because of its increased proximity to downtown with the proposed bridge. For example, large citywide events are held in the downtown area on several — occasions each year. Provision of the park and ride lot and the pedestrian bridge will enable motorists to park in the lot and walk across the bridge to downtown, thereby reducing automobile congestion and its related adverse environmental impacts. As a park is planned where the existing Apple Valley Ready-Mix concrete plant now stands (on the north side of TH 5), the lot will also serve as a satellite parking facility for the park, with park users simply walking or bicycling across the highway on the bridge. The city is pursuing a farmer's market at the park and ride facility. This could possibly draw pedestrians and bicyclists from the opposite side of TH 5 via the bridge. In short, the proposed project meets the intent of ISTEA to an exceptional degree by providing increased opportunities for environmentally sound, energy efficient, highly intermodal transportation above and beyond a typical pedestrian bridge. The bridge would enhance community quality by connecting separated neighborhoods, improving safety, providing a "gateway" to the community, and providing an aesthetic improvement to the highway environment. 2. Projects with components which have already been funded and/or implemented from other funding sources, especially projects for which the proposed Enhancements funded element would complete a larger project, concept, or plan. Response: As described above in Item 2 of the qualifying criteria, this project will be put on the city's agenda for HRA funds. The project is located within a tax-increment district. The purchase of the Apple Valley Ready-Mix site by the city (also with tax increment funds) is scheduled to be completed in April 1993; this comes as a result of the current TH 101 relocation project. - This project is an established component of the highway system in Chanhassen's Comprehensive Plan. The bridge is an integral feature of the urban design vision in "Building Community Across the Corridor" by the Design Center for American Urban Landscape (University of Minnesota), the City of Chanhassen, and its consultant, Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. The bridge would serve the city's planned "access boulevard - 6 system" that will parallel TH 5, as described in the Chanhassen Highway 5 Corridor Study to be completed in the summer of 1993. The city has committed to cooperative agreements with MnDOT to fund brick pavements and lighting at a number of TH 5 intersections. 3. Projects which qualify in two or more of the ten categories of Enhancements identified in the ISTEA and/or more than one of the three groupings of these categories established for Minnesota's process. Response: The proposed pedestrian/bicycle bridge qualifies for two categories of Enhancements in two groupings, as noted on the cover sheet. The proposed project is, of course, a pedestrian/bicycle facility. The aesthetic qualities of the bridge will be a form of scenic beautification, using public art and urban design features that carry the architecture of the downtown area out to TH 5. The bridge is intended to serve as an attractive gateway welcoming motorists to the city. The Apple Valley Ready-Mix Concrete Plant will be removed by a separate but related city-sponsored project, enhancing the scenic quality of the highway corridor. This project will achieve multiple objectives. 4. Projects which have already gone through a statewide or regional project priority planning process. Response: MnDOT has committed to improvements to TH 5 within the City of Chanhassen. Two state projects from Park Drive to east of the Eden Prairie border completed construction in September 1992. This completed TH 5 corridor includes the location of the proposed pedestrian/bicycle bridge. A segment of TH 5 farther to the west, extending to TH 41, will be improved with design completion scheduled for October 1995, bid letting in February 1996, and completion of construction in autumn 1997. The Metropolitan Council supports TH 5 improvements in its regional strategy program. 5. Projects which demonstrate more than a local impact or benefit. Response: In addition to the local benefit of unifying neighborhoods on both sides of TH 5, the proposed project will provide several regionwide benefits. As illustrated in Figure 3, the city's trail plan proposes links to 24 trails in all of the communities adjacent to Chanhassen, which are Eden Prairie, Shakopee, Chaska, Victoria, Shorewood, and Minnetonka. As an integral improvement to the Chanhassen trail system, the proposed bridge will, by extension, enhance the trail system for users who enter Chanhassen via one of the 24 connections. 7 The TH 5 Coalition includes Eden Prairie, Chanhassen, Chaska, and Waconia. The Coalition regards TH 5 as an important farm-to-market route and supports improvements to the corridor. Southwest Metro Transit will be the bus system that serves the park and ride facility. Southwest Metro serves the communities of Chanhassen, Eden Prairie, and Chaska. The proposed project has the potential of increasing commuter ridership at the park and ride lot, since the accessibility of the lot will be improved to pedestrians and bicyclists (as described above in Item 1). Ultimately, increased ridership on the system would result in greater profitability and increased service to accommodate the increased demand. As described above in prioritizing response No. 1, the bridge would contribute to Transportation Demand Management in the TH 5 corridor, benefitting all regional motorists using TH 5. The public art provided by the bridge would also benefit TH 5 travelers throughout the region. 6. Projects which are partially developed with regards to the federal processing requirements appropriate to the proposed project and/or which can be completed and open to the public for the use intended by the end of calendar year 1994. Response: Several milestones have or soon will be passed in this project. This project is part of a larger planning process. The bridge is an integral element in Chanhassen's Parks, Open Space and Trails Plan, which is currently being updated. An Environmental Assessment has been completed for this segment of TH 5. The City of Chanhassen's Highway 5 Corridor Plan will be completed in the summer of 1993. The bridge will be completed and open for public use in 1994. 7. Projects with an assured local (non federal funds) match in excess of 20 percent. Response: Preliminary cost estimating for this project has resulted in an estimate of $400,000. The City of Chanhassen has assured 30 percent for this project. 8 JAMES P.LARKIN LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. PAUL a PLUNKETT ROBERT DALYL.HOFFMAN ATTORNEYSALAN AT LAW KATHLEEN MO W JACK FNEWMAN D KENNETH uNOGREN MICHAEL I LEBARON GERALD H.FRIEDELL GREGORY E KORSTAD ALLAN E.MULLIGAN GARY A.VAN CLEVE• JAMES C.ERICKSON DANIEL L BOWLES GENE N TODDM VLATKOVICH GENE NFULLER J DRISCOLL 1500 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER TIMOTHY J.McMANUS JOHN D FULLMER 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH TIMOTHY J KERNE _ ROBERT E BOYLE ALAN M ANDERSON FRANK HARVEY BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 66431-1194 DONNA ROBACK CHARLES S MODELL MICHAEL W SCHLEY CHRISTOPHER J DIETZEN TELEPHONE 16121 835-3800 MICHAEL A ROBERTSON JOHN R BEATTIEUSA A GRAY LINDA H FISHER FAX(812) 896-3333 GARY A RENNEKE THOMAS P.STOLTMAN SHANNON K.McCAMBRIDGE •••—• CHRISTOPHER C.JACKMAN CHRISTOPHER J.HARRISTHAL JOHN E.DIEHL WIWAM C GRIFFITH,JR. JON S.SWIERZEWSKI JOH!:J.STEFFENHAGEN THOMAS J.FLYNN DANIEL W VOSS JAMES P.QUINN MARK A.RURIK TODD I.FREEMAN JOHN R.HILL PETER K.BECK JAMES K MARTIN JEROME H.KAHNKE THOMAS J SEYMOUR - GERALD L.SECK MICHAEL) SMITH JOHN B.LUNDQUIST FREDERICK K.HAUSER III DAYLE NOLAN CIUBERTO' MARY E VOS THOMAS B.HUMPHREY,JR. LARRY D MARTIN JOHN A.COTTER• JANE E BREMER BEATRICE A.ROTHWEILER MARCY R KREISMAN MARIEL E PIILOLA OF COUNSEL WENDELL R ANDERSON JOSEPH Girls 'ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN MEMORANDUM TO: Urban Wetland Management Coalition - FROM: Mike Robertson DATE: April 14 , 1993 RE : Update on Wetlands Legislation It now appears that wetlands legislation, including an extension of the interim program to January 1, 1994 , will probably pass during this session of the legislature. On Wednesday, April 7, 1993 , the Senate Environment Subcommittee held a hearing on S . F. 1363 , authored by Senator Stumpf, amended the bill - and passed it out of subcommittee. The bill will reduce the replacement ratio to 1 : 1 in counties in which Sn or more of the pre- settlement wetland acreage exists . The bill also allows the Board of Water and Soil Resources to adopt the proposed rules on July 1, 1993 . - However, local governments are given the option of continuing to operate under the interim program until December 31, 1993 . - At the hearing on April 7, Linda Fisher presented testimony on behalf of the Urban Wetland Management Coalition. The purpose of this testimony was to express support for the extension of the interim _ program and summarize issues of concern to the coalition. Several other interest groups, including the Wetland Conservation Coalition, expressed support for the legislation. - On Tuesday, April 13 , the House companion to Senator Stumpf ' s bill authored by Representative Iry Anderson of International Falls was heard in the House Agriculture Committee and amended to be comparable - with Senator Stumpf ' s bill . It was stated at this hearing that Representative Munger has agreed to these amendments . The Environment and Natural Resources Committee will consider the bill on Thursday, April 15 . Representative Jeff Bertram expressed his disappointmeScEiVED 1993 ` lTY O`CII• r+aSsr:7\4 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY& LINDGREN, LTD. Memorandum April 14, 1993 Page 2 that the interim program could not be extended beyond January. He would like to do a more thorough review of the program and consider potential statutory changes . Representative Steve Wenzel, Chair of the Committee, indicated that the Committee will spend a significant amount of time this summer and fall reviewing the wetland program and rules . These hearings will be a further opportunity for the coalition — to express its views and proposed change in the law. Following completion of committee action this week, the wetlands bills — will be sent to the House and Senate Floor for action. We will keep you informed as the bills move through the process. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. MAR:CMOs CITY TF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 _ April 14, 1993 Mr. Steve Schwanke, Planner Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Dear Steve: As we discussed, I am sending you another copy of Chanhassen's Best Management Practices Handbook. I am also enclosing a copy of the ordinance amendment that adopted the Handbook by reference and requires its use for all grading and development activities. We are rapidly nearing completion of the City's Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan and expect to have the entire document available for review by the end of May. The plan has already spun off many valuable products, including our updated wetland protection program. A copy of our new wetlands ordinance is also enclosed for your records. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional materials. Sincerely, 01.2 Sincerely, Paul Krauss, AICP Planning Director PK:v Enclosures Is to of PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF *14 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 ='s March 31, 1993 Mr. Rental J. Anhorn, Limnologist _ Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East 5th Street St. Paul. MN 55101-1634 Dear Mr. Anhom: — I received your March 26, 1993, letter concerning the Metropolitan Council's Lake Quality Monitoring Program. I was excited to hear about your program since I believe there is an excellent fit between your program and Chanhassen's Surface Water Management Program. As you may be aware, Chanhassen embarked upon a surface water management program nearly 3 years ago. It is a three-phased effort designed to improve upon the city's already impressive wetland protective measures, develop a storm water management plan, and develop a water quality protection program. What is possibly unique about the Chanhassen program is that all three elements are being undertaken concurrently with what we believe to be significant improvements in efficiency and quality of protection. The planning stage of the program is _ nearly completed and it has already spun off several products that are in use, including a new wetlands protection program and ordinance, and a Best Management Practices Handbook for the city. The Chanhassen program is funded through a surface water utility that generates funds on an annual basis. We have already appropriated approximately $5,000 per year for water quality _ testing but have not yet had an opportunity to organize the program. I feel that your approach, which involves community residents, is consistent with what we had envisioned. We believe that involving area residents is important since they are the key to resolving many surface water issues, and that involving them in this matter seems to be an excellent way of educating the community. While I have not yet had an opportunity to consult with the Surface Water Management Task Force or City Council on the appropriation of funds, I anticipate gaining their - support since we have already appropriated some funds for the purpose. Because it seems much more efficient for us to piggyback onto the Metropolitan Council's efforts rather than establish our own, I will be recommending that we support funding for Chanhassen's participation in the is t4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Mr. Rental J. Anhom March 31, 1993 Page 2 Metropolitan Council's Monitoring Program. The information that will be gathered will be put to good use in helping to direct our water quality improvement efforts. I am therefore anticipating requesting that you coordinate annual testing for Lake Minnewashta, Lake Lucy, Lake Ann, Lotus Lake, Lake Susan, Lake Riley and Christmas Lake. Christmas, Rice Marsh and Lake Riley are not located entirely within Chanhassen. We would therefore believe it to be appropriate to have the costs of establishing a monitoring program for these lakes shared with adjoining communities. However, if this is not possible, we may be willing to assume the burden ourselves. Further discussion on these lakes may be necessary. I should also note that our participation will be based upon your agreement to provide data to the city as it is generated. However, I am requesting your assistance in coordinating these efforts with the adjoining communities. It is my understanding that this is the second year of the Metropolitan Council's Monitoring Program. I was informed that last year your contacts were directly with the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District, who declined to participate. I view this as unfortunate; however, you should be aware of the fact that the watershed does not represent Chanhassen in its entirety, nor did they ever contact the City of Chanhassen regarding a potential desire to participate in your program. Since we will be funding the program through the use of local resources, we would expect you to deal directly with us in the future. S' cerely, Paul Krauss, AICP Planning Director PK:Z. c: Cite Council SWMP Task Force Ismael Martinez, Bonestroo Engineering Planning Commission AIMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL M'nr% Park Centre. 230 East Fifth Street. Si. Paul. MN 55101-1634 612 291-6359 FAX 612 291-6550 TTY 612 291-0904 March 26, 1993 Paul Krause Planning Director _ City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Channhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Krause: As you may already be aware, the Metropolitan Council has initiated a citizen-assisted lake — monitoring program for 1993. This year's monitoring, which involves 34 lake sites in eleven watersheds is just getting underway. Although, we have yet to complete the first monitoring season to judge the program's success, I am beginning the process of developing a 1994 budget and will need to estimate the number of lakes which may be involved in the program next year. The purpose of this letter is to determine if your watershed management organization (WMO) or — governing agency might participate in our volunteer monitoring program in 1994 and, if so, which lakes might be involved. Please understand that your response will not be a commitment of any kind. We will not request a firm commitment of participation for next year until late this — summer. Therefore, you will be able to observe the success of this years program, as well as define your own budget and monitoring needs before committing to 1994. The lake monitoring program is designed to provide lake and watershed managers with good lake quality data as well as involve local citizens. As was the case a year ago, we envision that WMOs and local governing agencies will be the primary liaison for the citizens who do the sampling and _ the Council staff who coordinate the collection and analysis of samples. Involving citizens serves the dual role of substantially reducing the cost of obtaining data and at the same time, involving local residents in water quality issues. Citizen volunteers, using simple field collection and preservation techniques, can be trained to collect credible data. The sampling program involves collecting samples from the lake surface at bi-weekly intervals throughout the summer (mid-April through mid-October), for a total of 14 — sampling visits. Volunteers collect water to be analyzed for total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen and chlorophyll, and measure surface temperature and water transparency with a Secchi disk. Water samples are processed and then stored in the citizens' home freezers for later pick-up by Council staff, and volunteers use inexpensive sampling equipment provided by the Council as part of the overall cost per lake site. Council staff will also collect occasional samples for quality assurance. We anticipate the cost to the WMOs or local governing agency in 199.4 w.be, ut — $1,000 per lake site per summer which includes equipment, lab analyses, as well as receiving a copy of the data and a report. The cost will be slightly less the sampling equipment twos®l acquired for participating in this years program. �/ — C!TY OF Ch^^,HASSEA •- • Recycled Paper AUMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street. St. Paul, MN 55101-1634 612 291-6359 FAX 612 291-6550 TTY 612 291-0904 Council staff will assist when needed, but we feel the WMOs or local governing agencies benefit most from the involving its citizens in the monitorin process. The Council will train the citizen volunteers, collect the samples for analysis, provide quality assurance sampling, and report the sample results to the WMOs and local governing agencies. Because the Council's budgeting process goes through many approval levels, it is important that I receive your response soon. Please send me (or phone in) a list of lakes that you might include in the 1994 program by April 14, 1993. If any of this needs further clarification, please feel free to call me at 291-6449. I am looking forward to hearing from you. _ Sincerely, Randall J. Adorn Limnologist ® Recycled Paper t April A IL1993 4 Survey Of Planners/ About 37 percent though that projects conformity throughout the country. More were weakened while less than 23 per- than 90 percent of all communities with Architects Points To cent thought design review improved the design review look at fences and buffers, Design Review Failures quality of their project. parking lot landscaping, screening of Twenty-six of these firms indicated that loading/trash,distance from the street between 10 and 25 percent of billable and location of parking lots as their top Asnapshot detailing the extent, project time was devoted to responding concerns. Environmental issues like out- influence and nature or design to design review requirements. "When door art or fountains,generation of pollu- review in America has been produced by related to the perceived outcomes of tion, site ecology and sunlight and shad- University of Cincinnati faculty through design review,this seems to be a waste ows were at the bottom of the reviewers' surveys of planners and architects across of time and effort on the part of practition- list. the nation. ers,"noted Preiser. In review of building design, about 75 Former Boston design reviewer Brenda Yet few architects can avoid design percent of the communities focused on Lightner, assistant professor of planning review or ignore the wishes of review compatibility with surrounding structures. in UC's College of Design, Architecture, boards if they wish to see their projects Eighty-two percent of reviewers agreed Art, and Planning (DAAP), presented completed. In 60 percent of communi- 'designs which diverge widely from the findings from her comprehensive survey ties, design review is mandatory and the surroundings should not be allowed? of 369 cities,towns and county planning recommendations must be followed for Next most popular at 73 percent was departments at the October 30, 1992 zoning and subdivision approval or build- "new and rehabed buildings should not national meeting of the Association of ing permit. Some 21 percent use an stand out noticeably." Collegiate Schools of Planning in "advisory"process which turns out to be, Lightner said, "This suggests that cities Columbus, Ohio. Lightner and Wolfgang in practice, nearly mandatory. Architects are looking for buildings which are imita- Preiser, DAAP professor of architecture, felt that improvements could be made by tive of existing urban patterns and sit will also present a survey of 160 archi- making the process more objective and quietly in their places. They are saying, tects in the December issue of the less political, but their number one corn- 'Let new building augment the existing American Institute of Architects MEMO. plaint was the lack of qualified profes- pattern wherever possible. Let them be "We need to research the participants, sional reviewers. According to Lightner, quiet and non-controversial. Let them be condition and goals of design review "What these architects mean by qualified similar to their neighbors without actually because the practice is expanding at a professionals is clear. They mean archi- copying them." rate comparable to the adoption of zon- tects. This,the composition of review this emphasis on conformity,thought to ing in the 1930's"said Lightner. bodies or of review staff may become the be widely embraced, does not mean that Of the 78 percent of cities who have critical issue in the acceptance of design all American cities look the same. design review, most have only imple- review by architects." "Because places are different,the same mented the process in the past decade. Forty-four percent of all boards,corn- guidelines on urban conformity can lead Large cities (defined as having a popula- missions or bodies which review design to broad variations from place to place," tion over 100,000)were even more likely did not have a single architect. In places explained Lightner. to us design review, with 93 percent without design review boards,the review Both surveys will be includes in the claiming to use some form of it. Of the was primarily influenced by agency staff. book "Design Review: Practice and — 22 percent of jurisdictions which did not Remarkably, citizen participation in Critical Issues,"edited by Lightner and have it, almost a quarter were consider- design review through a public process is Preiser,which will be published in ing the adoption of design review. relatively rare: occurring in only 18 per- January, 1994. The practice of design review is seen as cent of places, and only two respondents Reprinted from February 1993 Ohio a dismal failure in the view of most archi- claimed that citizen groups exerted the planning Conference Newsletter, tects. Seventy-five percent thought the primary influence on the outcome of the design review in their community was review, either"useless"or had "serious flaws." Site planning review showed surprising Council Of Planning Librarians Call For Bibliographies The Council of Planning Librarians is issuing an official'Call for bibliographies". Students who have recently finished school and may have an extensive bibliography in conjunction with their thesis or dissertations. Practicing planners have completed research through preparing papers of major projects. These can benefit all of us is the field. If anyone has a well-researched bibliog- raphy which would be suitable for publication, please send a proposal to our Editor, Dennis Jenks. if you think you don't have the time to get the bibliography in shape, he will link you with a member of the Council for help. Dennis can be reached at APA in Chicago. He can send the guidelines for publishing a bibliography and answer specific questions relating to the series and to your proposed topic. Any bibliography accepted for publication means a$200 honorarium for the author. For more information call 615-521-2500, Fax to 615-521-2068, or write Gretchen F. Beal, Council of Planning Librarians, Metropolitan Planning Commission, City/County Building, Suite 403, Knoxville,TN 37902. Hoping to hear from many of you!