Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Agenda and Packet, Part 2
CITY OF • G CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM ;Ltior ;itv rdmhlstrator TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner .0 f5/ie_„ a DATE: June 8 , 1988 SUBJ: Reassign Conditional Use Permit, Jack Brambilla (o/ iJ rdd (CUP #88-4) BACKGROUND On October 16 , 1978, the City Council approved a conditional use permit for a used car dealership on the Jack Brambilla property located on the north side of TH 212 opposite of the Shakopee "Y" . Section 1 of the permit is not assignable to another person unless approved by the City. On March 7 , 1983 , the Council reassigned the permit to another applicant but this was not executed by the proposed operator. On April 25 , 1988 , the City Council approved a conditional use permit for outdoor display of merchandise. specifically landscaping products . The applicant for this use has decided not to occupy the property. ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting reassignment of the permit to Wholesale Transportation, Inc. , owned and operated by Ken Stevens , for used car sales . The original permit has been revised to indicate the current zoning district as well as to include conditions of appro- val from the most recent application regarding the site. The new occupants of the building have been advised of the conditons and have agreed to comply with the permit. RECOMMENDATION Staff has prepared this item for Council action given the City' s 1978 decision on the property. Section 1 of the permit gives the city the ability to accept or deny a new occupant of the building. The permit has been prepared to insure that all cond- tions previously required on the property will continue. Staff recommends approval f the permit as shown in Attachment #5; however, the City Council can require a new conditional use per- mit application, if so desired. Brambilla CUP June 8 , 1988 Page 2 ATTACHMENTS 1 . City Council minutes dated October 16 , 1978 . 2 . Conditional use permit dated October 16 , 1978 . _ 3 . City Council minutes dated April 25 , 1988 . 4 . City Council minutes dated March 7 , 1983 . 5 . Proposed conditional use permit. 6 . Location map. — Council Meeting October 16 , 1978 -2- and Regulations and their overall plan were given to each councilman and staff. NORTHERN CABLEVISION, INC : Mr. Stephen Swimmer was present to discuss a notice of intent to propose to the Minnesota Cable Communications Board, a cable service territory that involves Eden Prairie, Bloomington, Richfield, St . Louis Park, Hopkins , Minnetonka, and Edina. Staff recommended the Council take no action at this time so that staff can gather feedback from municipalities directly involved. BILLS : Councilman Pearson moved to approve the October 16 , 1978 , bills as presented. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs , Councilman Pearson, Neveaux, and Geving. No negative votes . Motion carried. LAKE RILEY SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION: The city has received a request to extend sewer south of Shore Acres to serve a new home being built at 9251 Kiowa Trail . Ted Dockendorf, Mr . and Mrs . Peter Pemrick, and Barry Bershow were present . RESOLUTION #78-62 : Councilman Pearson moved the adoption of a resolution to hold a public hearing on November 6, 1978 , at 7 : 00 p .m. to consider the extension of sanitary sewer to serve the four lots between Shore Acres and Bandimere Heights or to extend sanitary sewer to also serve Bandimere Heights . Resolution seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor : Mayor Hobbs , Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, and Geving. No negative votes . Motion carried. METRO CLEAN AIR COMMITTEE : Marge Christensen was present to discuss _ developments under the new Clean Air Act. Councilman Pearson was appointed as liaison from the Chanhassen City Council to the Metro Clean Aid Committee . -- OAKMONT REDESIGN, RESOLUTION 911721 : No representatives were present . The developer is proposing to subdivide the property located on the west sides of Lakes Ann and Lucy into 26 22 acre lots . Resolution 911721 prohibits the Planning Conusission from considering _developments beyond the sketch plan stage in areas not served with sanitary sewer. The Assistant City Planner feels that this request is premature with respect to the anticipated city policy towards development and growth in the unsewered area and also beyond the spirit and intent of the city ordinances and planning practices and recommended that the council uphold Resolution 911721 . Councilman Geving moved to accept the Assistant City Planner ' s recommendation. Motion seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in favor : Mayor Hobbs , Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, and Geving. No negative votes . Motion carried. The Council requested that the City Planner and City Attorney review existing zoning in the city for Planning Commission review and recommendation to the City Council . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - BRAMBILLA USED CAR SALES : Jack Brambilla was present seeking a conditional use permit for a used car lot at 609 Flying Cloud Drive. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval subject to the following conditions : Council Meeting October 16 , 1978 -3- 1 . No customer parking occur within the southerly ten feet of the property. 2 . That no excessive noise be generated on the property. — 3 . That lighting be directed away from the highway and no string light; be allowed. 4. No parking of vehicles for sale within the southerly 25 feet of — the property. 5 . That the pump islands will be removed. 6 . That this be strictly a sales facility. — 7 . That landscaping improvements will not be necessary at this point in time . 8 . A maximum of thirty cars be allowed for sale at any time on the property.The Assistant City Planner recommended approval of conditions 2-8 of the Planning Commission recommendation. He further recommended _ that customer parking be limited to the area directly in front of the existing structure on the property. The City Manager recommended approval subject to the following condition A. The applicant meet the requirements as set forth by the Planning Commission. B. That the applicant be allowed to use the property, as set forth by — the Planning Commission, for an 18 month period of time, during which time period the applicant shall remove the existing hardsurfacing, instal a split rail fence or other fencing as approved by the Planning Commissi.Q and carry out acceptable plantings , as set out by the Planning Commissic C. That the applicant, in accordance with verbal assurances previously given, will agree in writing to submit to the City and carry out remodeling of the front and side elevations of the existing structuf' D. That the owner and applicant agree to the above conditions in writing. Councilman Neveaux moved to approve the conditional use permit subject to the following conditions : 1. Customer parking will be limited to the area in front of the sales _ building and so marked. 2. That no excessive noise be generated on the property. 3. That lighting be directed away from the highway and no string lights be allowed. — 4. No parking of vehicles for sale within the southerly 25 feet of the property. 5. That the pump islands will be removed. — 6. That this be strictly a sales facility. 7. That landscaping improvements will not be necessary at this point in time. 8. A maximum of thirty cars be allowed for sale at any time on the property. 9 . The conditional use permit will be reviewed by the Council in the llth month. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor : Mayor Hobbs , Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, and Geving. No negative votes . Motion carried. FRONT YARD/SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST - GORDON TOCK: Mr. Tock is requesting a seven foot side yard variance and 19 foot front yard setback variance in order to build a garage on his property at 6598 — Huron. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals recommended the Council ?. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BRAMBILLA ' S, INC . WHEREAS, application has been made by Jack R. Brambilla on behalf of Brambilla ' s, Inc . , for a conditional use permit to establish a used car dealership upon a tract of land within the City of Chanhassen commonly known as 609 Flying Cloud Drive and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS , the subject property is zoned C-3, Service Com- mercial District; and WHEREAS, the outdoor display of merchandise for retail sale is permitted on lands zoned C-3 only upon issuance of a conditional use permit as provided in Chanhassen Ordinance 47-C; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Planning Commission on September 27, 1978 , to consider public comment on the issuance of the within conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has given considera- tion to the application and has recommended the grant of a conditional use permit upon certain conditions; and WHEREAS, the City Council has given due consideration to said application and the foregoing recommendations and has determined that in the grant of the within conditional use permit, the standards of §23 . 06, as amended, of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance have been met; and WHEREAS, §23 . 05 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance authorizes the City Council to impose conditions and require guarantees upon the granting of a conditional use permit to insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties; NOW, THEREFORE, a conditional use permit is hereby granted to the applicant herein to maintain an outdoor display of motor vehicles for retail sales , subject to the following terms and condi- tions, all of which shall be strictly complied with as being necessary for the protection of the public interest: 1. Permit Not Assignable . This permit is personal to said applicant, and shall not be assigned without written consent of the City. 2 . Description of Property. The premises subject to the within conditional use permit are as described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof; and the within conditional use permit shall apply to the entire property. -1- • • 3. Outside Storage of Motor Vehicles . The outdoor storage or display of motor vehicles shall be subject to the following conditions : a. Said outdoor storage or display shall be limited to motor vehicles offered for sale . b. No outdoor storage, display or parking of vehicles offered for sale shall be permitted within the southerly 25 feet — of the subject property. c. Said outdoor storage as display of motor vehicles offered _ for sale shall be limited to a maximum of thirty (30) such vehicles at any time on the subject property. 4 . Outside Storage Prohibited . With the exception of trash facilities and with the exception of motor vehicle parking, no equip- ment or other personal property shall be stored or displayed outside of the subject building. Trash facilities shall be screened from view from U.S . Highways No. 212 and 169 . 5 . No Outside Work . No work or repairs shall be performed on any vehicle while the vehicle is standing in a parking area; and no work or repairs shall be performed on any vehicle while standing out- side of the building on the subject property. 6 . Customer Parking. Customer parking shall be limited to the area immediately in front of the existing sales building; and said area shall be clearly designated as the customer parking area. _ 7. Removal of Pump Islands . Applicant agrees to remove the pump islands presently located on the subject property, to the satis- _ faction and approval of the City, on or before the opening of the used car dealership to the public . 8 . Lighting Plan. Applicant agrees to prepare and submit to the City a lighting plan which shall include the location and candle- power of all exterior illuminaries . No string lighting shall be per- mitted. All illuminaries shall be directed onto the subject property _ and away from U. S . Highways No. 212 and 169 . 9 . Noise. Noise emanating from the activities conducted on the premises shall be within the standards adopted in the Chanhassen Zoning — Ordinance. No public address or other audio paging system which emits noise in excess of said standards shall be utilized on the subject property. _ 10 . Public Welfare. The establishment, maintenance and opera- tion of the use shall not be detrimental to, nor endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. 11 . Nuisance. The proposed use shall not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property, nor diminish nor impair property values in the immediate vicinity . -2- 12 . Other Regulations . The applicant shall comply with all City Ordinances, state laws, and regulations of state agencies and departments . 13 . No Changes in Use Permitted. The outdoor display use of the above-described premises shall be limited to display of motor vehicles offered for sale, and no changes in the use shall occur except as may be permitted by an amended conditional use permit. 14 . Proof of Title . Upon request, the applicant shall furnish the City with evidence satisfactory to the City that it has acquired a possessory interest in the subject property. 15 . Permit Subject to Review. The City reserves the right to review the within conditional use permit at any time to determine com- pliance with all conditions of the permit; and conditions may be added to the permit at any time if deemed necessary and in the public interest by the City following notice of public hearing and following public hearing thereon. If the City determines that the applicant has not strictly complied with the terms of the permit, the permit may be terminated at the option of the City. All City expenses incurred in the enforcement of the within permit shall be the obliga- tion of the applicant, and may be recovered by the City as a special assessment against the within described premises . 16 . Expiration of Permit and Mandatory Review. The term of the within conditional use permit shall be twelve (12) months , commencing on , provided, however, that said permit shall be subject to the review of the City Council in the eleventh (11th) month thereof. In the absolute and sole discretion of the City Council, said permit may be renewed for successive terms of twelve (12) months each. 17 . Reimbursement of Costs . The applicant shall reimburse the City for all costs , including reasonable legal and administrative expenses , incurred by the City in connection with all matters relating to the administration and enforcement of the within permit, and the performance thereof by the applicant. Adopted this 16th day of October , 1978 CITY OF C ASSEN By ATTEST:, Mayor 1 t City Clerk/Manager -3- , i y Z ACCEPTANCE The undersigned applicant and occupier of the above pre- mises hereby accepts the terms and conditions of the permit herein granted, and agrees to be bound by the terms thereof . Signed this — 1/,c,I day of -72 -a_ , 197 y . BRAMBILLA'S �INC . � A,( — Jack . Brambilla, Its President — STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss . — COUNTY OF CARVER ) On this day of , 197_, before me, a notary public within and for said County, personally appeared Walter Hobbs and — Donald W. Ashworth, to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Mayor and the City Manager, respectively, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, that the _ seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation, and that said instrument was executed in behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its City Council, and that said — Walter Hobbs and Donald W. Ashworth acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss . COUNTY OF CARVER ) On this /. - day of ,j,24._r , 197 t , before me, a notary public within and for said County, personally appeared Jack R. Brambilla, to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did — say that he is the President of Brambilla ' s, Inc . , a Minnesota corpora- tion, that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation, and that said instrument was executed in — behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors, and that said Jack R. Brambilla acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation./ e..........~.~......,NNN,............k44, C7-7--)- <C):/,(.--s' A-/a4--1-1-l) (-')/(-4-4-464- ;•.-°-�. KAREN J. ENGILHAROT J Notary � blic �t o NOTARY PUBLIC—MINNESOTA CARVER COUNTY — My Commiss' L .,.es.:::,:,1965 wr -4- EXHIBIT "A" That part of Government Lots 3 and 4 , Section 36, Township 116, Range 23, described as follows : Commencing at the West Quarter corner of said section; thence South along an extension of the West line of said Government Lot 4, a distance of 14 . 65 feet; thence Northeasterly deflecting to the left 106°21 ' 30 " a distance of 1327 . 05 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be described; thence continuing northeasterly along last described course 170. 35 feet; thence Northwesterly deflecting to the left 89°15 ' a distance of 50 feet to a point marked by a Judic Landmark; thence continuing Northwesterly along last described course a distance of 473 . 2 feet to a point marked by Judicial Landmark; thence North- westerly deflecting to the left 63°38 ' a distance of 40 feet to a point marked by Judicial Landmark; thence Southwesterly deflecting to the left 25°30 ' a distance of 146 feet to a point marked by a Judicial. Landmark; thence Southeasterly 545 .52 feet to the actual point of beginning, a point being marked on the last described course by a Judicial Landmark, distant 50 feet North- westerly of actual point of beginning. CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Irl APRIL 25, 1988 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Geving, Councilman Horn and Councilman Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Barbara Dacy, Lori Sietsema, Larry Brown, Jim Chaffee and Pat Farrell, City Attorney. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the agenda as presented with the following additions: Don Ashworth wanted to place an item from the Administrative Section dealing with Gedney under the Administration Presentations. All voted in favor and motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommenda- tions: d. Conditional Use Permit Request for Outdoor Display of Merchandise for sale, James Freeman and Brambilla's Inc. e. Site Plan Review for Expansion to City Hall, City of Chanhassen. f. Resolution #88-31: Re-establish Public Hearing Date for Tax Increment District. g. Resolution #88-32: No Parking Resolution on Bluff Creek Drive. 1. City Council Minutes dated April 11, 1988 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated March 8, 1988 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated March 22, 1988 _ Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated April 12, 1988 All voted in favor and motion carried. 1(A) APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR STRATFORD RIDGE, ROBERT PIERCE. Councilman Boyt: The only problem I have is the map is wrong. If you look at the last page of the map, or if you just take my word for it, you'll see there are two canoe racks. I want to be very clear that those canoe racks should not be approved or I would move to approve this without the canoe racks. Mayor Hamilton: Why can't they have a canoe rack? Councilman Boyt: It has to do with our beachlot ordinance and specificcally I don't believe this has been granted approval as a beachlot so I don't think we should be approving two canoe racks when those are in fact approved. — Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to ask Barb first of all to clarify that. • REGULAICHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL M(:ING MARCH 7 , 1983 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order with the following members present : Councilwomen Swenson and Watson , Councilmen Geving and Horn . Mike Thompson , Planning Commission , Craig Mertz , Bob Waibel , Bill Monk , — I Scott Martin , and Don Ashworth were also present. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag . APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved to approve the agenda with the following additions : Status of Lake Use Ordinance , M. T. C . , and Metro Council . Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in fav Mayor Hamilton , Councilwomen Swenson and Watson , Councilmen Geving and Horn No negative votes . Motion carried . CONSENT AGENDA : Mayor Hamilton asked if Council members wished to remove any items from the Consent Agenda . Item 2 , Sign Ordinance Variance Request , Lot 1 , Block 3 , Chanhassen Lakes Business Park and Item 5 , Year End Transfers , were removed from the Consent Agenda to be discussed later in the meeting. Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager ' s recommendations : 1 . Replat Lots 3 , 4 , and 5 , Block 2 , Chanhassen Lakes Business Park , Opus Corporation , to two lots . Annual P-District Review . '4 , Conditional Use Permit Assignment , Brambilla ' s Used Car Sales , 609 Flying Cloud Drive , Ray Stewart . Revise Penalty Structure for Utility Bills , Ordinance Amendment , Final Reading. 7 . RESOLUTION #83-06 Allowing County to Issue Bonds for 201 Program Construction . 8. Cable Television Advisory Committee Appointment . Barbara Orlowsky. 9 . Adjust 1983 Plumbing Inspection Fees . Motion seconded by Councilman Horn . The following voted in favor : Mayor Hamilton , Councilwomen Swenson and Watson , Councilmen Geving and Horn . No negative votes . Motion carried . PUBLIC HEARING 201 PROGRAM Mayor Hamilton called the hearing to order and requested a motion to continue this hearing to May 2. Councilman Geving moved to continue the hearing on the 201 Program to May 2 , 1983 . Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson . The following voted in favor : Mayor Hamilton , Councilwomen Swenson and Watson , Councilmen Geving and Horn . No negative votes . Motion carried . PUBLIC HEARING YEAR IX COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS Mayor Hamilton called the hearing to order. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the use of Year IX CDBG funds . The HRA supported the staff recommendation to allocate Year IX CDBG funds for Senior Citizen Housing Site Acquisition ( $40 , 000 ) and Program Administration ( $1 , 832 ) . A motion was made by Councilman Horn and seconded by Councilman Geving to close the hearing. The following voted in favor : Mayor Hamilton , Councilwomen Swenson and Watson , Councilmen Geving and Horn . No negative votes . Motion carried . Council Meeting March 7 . 1983 -2- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS : Mayor Hamilton moved to authorize staff to make application to use $40 , 000 of Year IX funds for the Senior — Citizen Housing Site Acquisiton and $1 , 832 for Program Administration . Motion seconded by Councilman Geving . The following voted in favor : Mayor Hamilton , Councilwomen Swenson and Watson , Councilmen Geving and Horn . No negative votes . Motion carried . MINUTES : Councilman Horn moved to approve the February 14 , 1983 , Council minutes . Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton . The following voted in favor : — Mayor Hamilton , Councilwomen Swenson and Watson , Councilmen Geving and Horn . No negative votes . Motion carried . Councilman Horn moved to note the February 9 , 1983 , Planning Commission minutes . Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton . The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton , Councilwomen Swenson and Watson , Councilmen Geving and Horn . No negative votes . Motion carried . DERRICK DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT: Mayor Hamilton - There are several items that need to be handled in regard — to this item this evening. First of all , I would like to review the motion that was made April 26th 1982 at our regular Council meeting . You received that motion in your packet , entitled Conditions of Approval , Fox . Chase Development. What we did was to go back through the minutes of the Council meeting of April 26th . We used the official transcript that was taken by the Court Reporter so we have a verbatim transcription of the minutes of that evening. We went through and picked out everything that seemed to apply to the motion so what you have before you is the information that was contained in that motion . The reason for doing that is that there were many, many items included going back more than one or two years . I want everyone to have an opportunity to review what actually had been moved to be certain that that is what everybody had intended with that motion . I think you will that in item 3 there was some confusion , certainly on my part , as to the interjection of the attorney ' s comments about dockage. That is one of those items that may or may not need to be clarified . As I understand it this motion as it is right now is really nothing more than a prelude to writing the development — contract . These are the guidelines that we are going to use when the development contract is developed . The motion does not have to be stated exactly word for word because then you go back in the development contract and more specifically define what you intended . Councilman Geving - The note that the attorney interjected , I remember comments as I sat next to Russ , and I think they were only a comment on his part . It lends no credence to the formal motion . He merely made an interjection stating an opinion giving two alternatives and if I were to separate that statement into two parts , " including private docks — without prior approval " I think what he meant there was that , that would be part of the development contract . At least that ' s the first part of what he intended and the second part "on an individual basis , by the City Council , pursuant to the Conditional Use procedures " then he went on to give another alternative which was , you could go ahead and approve this development contract allowing for x number of docks in the development but that the homeowner would have to come before the City Council on an — application by application basis . I think that is what interjected here , that in my opinion is meaningless to the entire evenings Council conditions that were summarized and I personally think that they should not have been — CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WHEREAS , application has been made by Wholesale Transportation, Inc. on behalf of Brambilla' s , Inc . for the transfer of a conditional use permit to re-establish a used car dealership upon a tract of land within the City of Chanhassen commonly xnown as 609 Flying Cloud Drive and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof ; and WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned BF, Business Fringe District; and WHEREAS, the outdoor display of merchandise for retail sale is permitted on lands zoned BF only upon issuance of a con- ditional use permit as provided in Section 20-773 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, Section 20-233 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance authorizes the City Council to impose conditions and require guarantees upon the granting of a conditional use permit to insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties . NOW, THEREFORE, a conditional use permit is hereby trans- - ferred to the applicant herein to maintain an outdoor display of motor vehicles for retail sales, subject to the following terms and conditions all of which shall be strictly complied with as being necessary for the protection of the public interest : 1 . Permit Not Assignable. This permit is personal to said applicant, and shall not be assigned without written consent of the City. 2 . Description of Property. The premises subject to the within conditional use permit are as described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof; and the within con- ditional use permit shall apply to the entire property. 3 . Outside Storage of Motor Vehicles . The outdoor storage or display of motor vehicles shall be subject to the following conditions : a. Said outdoor storage or display shall be limited to motor vehicles offered for sale. b. No outdoor storage, display or parking of vehicles offered for sale shall be permitted within the southerly 25 feet of the subject property. c . Said outdoor storage as display of motor vehicles offered for sale shall be limited to a maximum of thirty ( 30) such vehicles at any time on the subject property. 4 . Outside Storage Prohibited. With the exception of trash facilities and with the exception of motor vehicle parking , no — equipment or other personal property shall be stored or displayed outside of the subject building. Trash facilities shall be screened from view from U.S . Highways No. 212 and 169 . 5 . No Outside Work. No work or repairs shall be performed on any vehicle while the vehicle is standing in a parking area; and no work or repairs shall be performed on any vehicle while — standing outside of the building on the subject property. 6 . Customer Parking. Customer parking shall be limited to the area immediately in front of the existing sales building; and said area shall be clearly designated as the customer parking area. 7 . Fuel Storage Tanks . The applicant shall comply with the fire code as to use and location of said tanks . 8 . Lighting Plan. Applicant agrees to prepare and submit to the City a lighting plan which shall include the location and candlepower of all exterior illuminaries . No string lighting shall be permitted. All illuminaries shall be directed onto the subject property and away from U .S . Highways 212 and 169 . 9 . Noise. Noise emanating from the activities conducted on the premises shall be within the standards adopted in the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. No public address or other audio paging system which emits noise in excess of said standards shall — be utilized on the subject property. 10 . Public Welfare. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use shall not be detrimental to, nor endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. 11 . Nuisance. The proposed use shall not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property, nor diminish nor impair property values in the immedate vicinity. 12 . Other Regulations. The applicant shall comply with all City Ordinances , state laws , and regulations of state agencies and departments. 13 . No Changes in Use Permitted. The outdoor display use of the above described premises shall be limited to display of motor vehicles offered for sale , and no changes in the use shall occur — except as may be permitted by an amended conditional use permit. 14 . Proof of Title. Upon request, the applicant shall fur- _ nish the city with evidence satisfactory to the City that it has acquired the possessory interest in the subject property. 15 . Permit Subject to Review. The City reserves the right to — review the within conditional use permit at any time to determine compliance with all conditions of the permit; and conditions may be added to the permit at any time if deemed necessary and in the - -2- public interest by the City following notice of public hearing and following public hearing thereon. If the City determines that the applicant has not strictly complied with the terms of the permit, the permit may be terminated at the option of the City. All City expenses incurred in the enforcement of the within permit shall be the obligation of the applicant, and may be recovered by the City as a special assessment against the -- within described premises . 16 . Ingress/Egress. The applicant shall prepare an appropriate driveway access plan acceptable to City staff . The certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the plan is approved by the Planning and Engineering Departments . 17 . Sewage Disposal. The applicant shall provide the City with the proper septic tank pumping contracts over every three years starting on the effective date of this permit. ACCEPTANCE The undersigned applicant and occupier of the above premises hereby accepts the terms and conditions of the permit herein granted, and agrees to be bound by the terms thereof . Signed this day of , 19_ WHOLESALE TRANSPORTATION, INC. By Ken Stevens Its President STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss COUNTY OF On this day of , 19 , before me, a notary public within and for said County, personnally appeared Ken Stevens , to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, did say that he is the President of Wholesale Transportation, Inc. , a Minnesota corporation, that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation, and that said instrument was executed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors, and that said Ken Stevens acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. Notary Public -3- CITY OF CHANHASSEN — Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor Don Ashworth, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) — On this day of , 19 , before me, a notary public within and for said County, personally appeared Thomas L. Hamilton and Don Ashworth, to me personally known, who — being each by me duly sworn did say that they are respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the Municipal corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said _ instrument is the corporate seal of said municipal corporation, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its City Council and said Thomas L. Hamilton and Don Ashworth acknowledged said instrument — to be the free act and deed of said municipal corporation. Notary Public -4- _ EXHIBIT "A" That part of Government Lots 3 and 4, Section 36, Township 116, Range 23, described as follows : Commencing at the West Quarter corner of said section; thence South along an extension of the West line of said Government Lot 4, a distance of 14 .65 feet; thence Northeasterly deflecting to the left 106°21 ' 30" a distance of 1327 . 05 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be described; thence continuing northeasterly along last described course 170. 35 feet; thence Northwesterly deflecting to the left 89°15 ' a distance of 50 feet to a point marked by a Judic Landmark; thence continuing Northwesterly along last described course a distance of 473 .2 feet to a point marked by Judicial Landmark; thence North- westerly deflecting to the left 63°38 ' a distance of 40 feet to a point marked by Judicial Landmark; thence Southwesterly deflecting to the left 25°30 ' a distance of 146 feet to a point marked by a Judicial. Landmark; thence Southeasterly 545 . 52 feet to the actual point of beginning, a point being marked on the last described course by a Judicial Landmark, distant 50 feet North- westerly of actual point of beginning. } 11 i/ A POND la --- ((IV, • L `i • -MAIL (G. I F �n 411 //t c........ :-.,'-:<.---.1.t...) ir 4 Jo to* e`' A2 Q� Qv / - O f 1 — — �� CREEKWOO� - — 11. fF — ' Il - FA R M Ra fro -- _II �, ).5. cfts 111.111. k 1 69 9 • _ L-01`0" 1, -/ c1 /lR / CE i 1 /t1'0i 0A44 . LAKE LSek ( NE -- 9 1 _ A2 ' . r . • . . • • - — p/ CITY OF SHAKOPEE BRAMBILLA'S INC. . 'III Sekn (612) 445-2611 Winnebago' Used Cars Rentals 114 NORTH HOLMES • P.O. BOX 37 • SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 DORIS BRAMBILLA June 7, 1988 City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55318 Dear Barb Dacy, Our Y-Store" property has been occupied as a used auto lot threw j December 1987. A new renter would like to open business as soon as possible under " Wholesale Transportation Inc. " The owners of the company are Ken Stevens and Skeets Held. Please put us on the June 13th Council meeting for approval of the new lease. Thank You, Sincerely, Doris Brambilla _ Is LAW OFFICES GRANNIS, GRANNIS, I'ARRELL & KNUTSON DAVID 1.. GRANNIS - 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER: DAVID L. GRANNIS.JR. - 1910-1980 POST OFFICE BOX 57 (612)455-2359 403 NORWF_ST BANK BUILDING DAVID L. HARMEYER VANCE. B. GRANNIS ELIJOTT B. KNETSCH VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR. 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE, MICHAEL J. MAYER PATRICK A. FARRELL . BERG DAVID L. GRANNIS, III SOUTH ST. PAUI., MINNESOTA 55075 TIMOTHY J ROGER N. KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612) 455-1661 May 26, 1988 Note: On May 9 , 1988, the Council Mr. Don Ashworth, City Manager requested that the Attorney Chanhassen City Hall prepare the attached Findings 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 of Fact. Approval is Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 recommended. RE: Charles C. Erickson - ! s4 Application for a 4 ' Side Yard Variance ( (? Dear Don: Pursuant to your request, enclosed please find Findings of Fact and Decision concerning the above matter. Ve • ours, GRAN IS, GR, NI , FARR • & ) NU -: ' , P. .: 11 . •=•er N. Kn¶'son RNK: srn Enclosure cc: arb Dacy MAY 2 i 1988 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CITY OF CIHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA IN RE: Application of Charles C. Erickson for a four foot side yard variance for purposes of constructing and addition to a single family home. — On May 9, 1988 , the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Charles C. Erickson for a four foot side yard variance at 3621 — Ironwood Road, in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota. The applicant was present and the City Council heard testimony from all interested parties wishing to speak at the meeting and now makes the following Findings of Fact and Decision: — FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is located in the RSF (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. 2 . A variance is sought to allow the construction of a 12 'x24 ' master bedroom with bath. The addition extends to within _ six feet of the side yard of the lot. The minimum side yard lot setback without a variance is ten (10) feet. — 3 . The home was located and constructed on the lot before the City's first zoning ordinance was adopted. 4 . The addition cannot be attached to any other side of the house because a kitchen and living room are on the east side of the house, a large tree prohibits expanding to the south, and — a garage prohibits expanding to the north. 5. It is not feasible to construct the addition any narrower. 6. The lot to the west of the subject property is large and vacant. The builder on the adjoining property has the ability to locate his building pad to compensate for the variance. 7. Granting the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and are in accordance with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. Granting the variance will not substantially affect the public welfare or surrounding properties. DECISION The applicant's request for a variance is hereby granted. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this day of , 1988 . CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Don Ashworth, City Manager — -2- a - IP 05/19/88 City of Chanhassen Page 1 --(-- PAYROLL CT3ECT( REG= STER MAY 20, 1988 eck Emp Check 40 Number Nbr Employee Name Amount 002626 1201 ASHWORTH, DONALD 1 , 186 . 25 002627 1202 ENGELHARDT, KAREN J 695 . 54 40 002628 1203 DUMMER, NIKKI 293 . 72 - 002629 1204 EKLUND, STEPHANIE 24 . 33 40 002630 1206 SCHULLER, NORMA L 288 . 51 002631 1207 MEUWISSEN, KIM T . 453 . 90 - 002632 1301 MEUWISSEN, MARY JEAN 562 . 92 002633 1303 CHAFFEE, THOMAS L. 858 . 84 40 002634 1304 DUNSMORE, CAROL M. 459 . 55 002635 1701 HALL, EUGENE H. 150 . 31 -� 002636 2110 CHAFFEE, JAMES A . 1 , 063 . 00 002637 2502 JULKOWSKI , RONALD F. 857 . 51 002638 2504 KIRCHMAN, STEVE A . 714 . 01 * 002639 2505 BARKE , CARL E . 714 . 06 002640 2510 HARR , SCOTT 905 . 92 002641 2602 MADDEN, STEPHEN J . 702 . 53 002642 3101 WARREN , GARY 1 , 119 . 48 - 002643 3103 KLEIN , DONALD J. 158 . 54 002644 3104 BROWN , LAWRENCE A 726 . 17 _w 002645 3201 SCHLENK, GERALD W 614. 71 002646 3202 BREHM, CURTIS 606 . 69 002647 3203 GOETZE , DUANE E . 636 . 36 002648 3205 WEGLER , MICHAEL 766 . 64 40 - 002649 3207 THEIS , JAMES M. 643 . 55 002650 3208 SAUTER, STEPHEN M. 487 . 90 4P 002651 3701 BRC)SE, HAROLD 606 . 14 002652 3801 GREGORY , DALE J . 542 . 61 002653 3802 SCHMIEG , DEAN F. 624 . 93 002654 3890 ERNST , JENNER F. 315 . 16 002655 4201 SIETSEMA, LORRAINE 686 . 02 1- 40 002656 4202 HOFFMAN , TODD572 . 94 002657 5201 DACY , BARBARA JOAN 766 . 63 002658 5202 OLSEN , JOANN 669 . 82 002659 5203 CHURCHILL, VICTORIA E. 553 . 44 r 0 002660 5204 GERHARDT, TODD R. 634 . 70 002661 7201 BOUCHER, GERALD 844 . 25 002662 7202 KERBER, ARTHUR M . 664 . 73 r 4P 002663 7203 ZIERMANN , CURTIS 561 . 84 002664 7205 EILER , CHARLES A 685 . 28 **** Grand Totals **** r .' 24 , 419 . 43 1-40 r OP r • - 06/01/88 City of Chanhassen P1YRoLL CI3EC REG= STERae 1 • JUNE 3 , 1988 • 40 Check Emp - Number Nbr Employee Name Amount IP 002666 1101 HAMILTON, THOMAS L . _ 002667 1102 HORN , CLARK 299 . 00 w 002668 1103 GEVING, DALE 199 . 00 002669 1104 BOYT, WILLIAM S . 199 . 00 002670 1105 JOHNSON, JAY E. 196 . 10 - 002671 1201 ASHWORTH, DONALD 196 . 10 * 002672 1202 ENGELHARDT, KAREN J 266 . 85 002673 1203 DUMMER , NIKKI 695 . 54 - 002674 1206 SCHULLER , NORMA L 374 . 91 r 002675 1207 MEUWISSEN, KIM T. 390 . 01 002676 1301 MEUWISSEN, MARY JEAN 562453 . 92 - 002677 1303 CHAFFEE, THOMAS L. 562 . 92 a 0026778 1304 DUNSMORE, CAROL M. 244 . 3858 . 84 002679 2110 CHAFFEE, JAMES A . 244 . 34 002680 2502 JULKOWSKI , RONALD F. 857 . 5 1 , 063 . 00 - r 002681 2504 KIRCHMAN , STEVE A . 14 . 0 1 002682 2505 BARKE , CARL E . 714 . 01 002683 2510 HARR , SCOTT 714 . 06 - 002684 2602 MADDEN , STEPHEN J. 905 . 92 002685 3101 WARREN, GARY 677 . 53 002686 3103 KLEIN, DONALD J. 1 , 119 . 48 002687 3104 BROWN, LAWRENCE A 150 . 20 - 002688 3201 SCHLENK , GERALD W 726 . 17 002689 3202 BREHM, CURTIS 614 . 71 : 002690 3203 GOETZE, DUANE E . 604 . 34 - 002691 3205 WEGLER , MICHAEL 636 . 36 • 002692 3207 THEIS , JAMES M . 765 . 79 002693 3208 SAUTER , STEPHEN M. 683 . 55 - 002694 3701 BROSE, HAROLD 487 . 90 • 002695 3801 GREGORY , DALE J . 606 . 14 002696 3802 SCHMIEG, DEAN F. 541 . 41 002697 3805 RC)SENWALD, JAMES 173 . 08 - r 002698 3821 PRESTON , SCOTT M. 73 . 45 002699 3822 HALLBERG , LEIF A . 189 . 22 002700 3823 ROJINA , ANN M. 102 . 34 - 002701 3890 ERNST , JENNER F . 132 . 06 002702 4201 SIETSEMA , LC)RRAINE 218 . 19 002703 4202 HOFFMAN , TODD 686 . 02 002704 5201 DACY, BARBARA JOAN 612 . 32 - 766 . 63 • 002705 5202 OLSEN, JOANN 669 . 82 002706 5203 CHURCHILL , VICTORIA E. 539 . 50 (0 002707 5204 GERHARDT, TODD R . - 634 002708 7201 BOUCHER , GERALD . 0 752 . 002709 7202 KERBER, ARTHUR M . 1 , 1707o . 2s 4002710 7203 ZIERMANN , CURTIS 06; 002711 7205 EILER , CHARLES A **** Grand Totals **** - CP 0 is ( ( ( C C ( IZ I C C i C C C C 4 C C C C n -. 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 . n -3 W W W CC CA CA CZ CA C.) CO CA C..) CA ClA CO C...) C..) CA C..) CA C...) C...) W x -< r - 1-* -- r --- ,-" --• r — r -- r -• r r r — CO CA CO CA CA CA C.) CO Co C..) CO C...) C.) C..) C.) C.) CA C,..) W CA CA C.) W 0 0 (7) m O) co co co ( Cr CT (T CT (T CT CT Cn CT A A A A A A A 71 K1 CT A W N r O CD CO -) m CT A W Cs) r 0 CO CO -) co co A co st n x 9 N r z r Co 9 x 9 r 0 O - N CD3 Cl) O 0 O Ca CO r I-, O 0 O --) O (T r CD C.) CO Co co C) N 1- r O r CO Cr O O C) C.) 0 CT C.) CD r CD N CO CD CD (T CD r N N r W O CO O A -1 O 0) r r A CD (T O r r N -3 --7 Co N r W W 0 C O) O 0o ' O A O (T co m O co r O p-• A W co N 0 CO CO 0 CT 0 N O 0 CO CO 0 r 0 0 0 A 0 W 0 CD W Co (T y O O H 9 Z Cl) z > co 3 3 C. ro Cl) C) C 3 3 > z z 9 'O 3 n ro ro n 0 0 '-3 0 -3 -3 2 Z 9 C H Z7 • Z Cr H 0 0 H x 1-1 71 0 0 Z7 9 M7 9 Z Co 9 Crl Cl) H Z7 Z7 'C Z 0 Cl) CO Cl' n x Cr x R.• Cr 9 n Z C' H 9 • cn ro Ro H H R. En Z E H H H 0 ^. x ., r+7 z 3 3 9 0 m X H r 0 z n I - a H C C -3 a Cl) > > C by M b7 r 3 f z Cl) r-1 9. 0 r.H Cl) Cn I-I C 2 > Cl) 1-4 > tr) 3 0 m m 9 Cr9 -- — Z H 2 Z 'e ro 3 Z Cl) Cn z -3 z z a 'r1 Cr1 Cr)H 3 z CA 7C m C 7C 0 x 'V 7a -3 0 -3 H C Cl) Cr C) cn m Z7 MI H 77 0 tr 'r7 m r a 0 Z m 0 r 1-I 0 o r '�r1 m Crz a Z MI x C -. a H -3 C 3 'r) m Z7 3 -< C) --I • > n 3 •3 3 t=1 H Z z to tri to > n m m ') cn cn n Cr) H n H < m n m n C 0 -3 Um) m ,-3ra" > C H -•' a Cr cn x O Z7 H '-' r 1-1 H r a -C1 — ro 9 r o 9 n z > 9 3 m x) 0 ro r 0 x 9 o z z z o c z Co ro m 0 z 0 z r z 9 E x x I m x Cl) • C' x ro --I Cl m > cn > 0 > C cn al co r' -r1 Cr1 ,C C cn -< En "Cl Cl) Z7 ro n -C Z7 -C 9 m (n CO (n (n • no 0 u) cn z n 9 n m Cr1 > 99m n o > 93 • n 9 > 9 0 O Z Z Z Z Z Z 0 C) z Z 3 0 Z Z Z b7 0 C]Cy 0 C7 el 0 0 I I r C --, -3 H '-C Cl) 'z) n ro n'r1) 0 0 I C/) cn C H C -3 H n n 0 C C]r '11 ro ro H Z Cr1 m Z H > m o• o m• by t 7 C m H m t 7 0--I 0--I 0'-' 0 o S1 -+ < r r < IH r m 2 C) z 0'-4 C) C) Cr 77 9 tr1 r I-I r C' Z H Z) z'x) En Cn C r m Cr1 m m r m CD -3• -3• • m m H Cr r m Cr1 H-< H m H R7 H H --I cn ro ro cn 1.-1 Cr) - 77 MI MI n MI 7:7 'r1 9 n ro ro -, "Cl 1C1 Z7 Z7 Z) 9 9 C 0 H H x x H H I•-I• --I I-1• Z7 77 >< x -3 x x 1-1 x r1 1--I 1--1-r m m 0 0 3 Cr1 9 Cr C)9 Co 2 9 Cr) Cr1 C ro C 0 --I O 0 to m by ro Z to Z Cr1 Cr1 I Crl0 0 ro 9 z m z Z • a • CO • (n r cn Z t.1 Cr Z CD X = - - 0 Z 9 -<Z m Cl) m Crl - r - - 0 C') -3 H < ro 3 ro n n -C 9 Cl) En ro 1-1 C 9 77 9 0 0 0 9 b H CC)y 0 --I C 11-4tr) ED CO m > n m'c m -< 3 3 CC/ r z z() Z 0 Co -< m H9 -3H9 'v ro r m (n 1-1 2 to ro taro m — m 9 I-I to '-1 9 to C.1 rr1 •C) MI C><r z Z Cl) > > ro r m m m m (n cn -< -< 9 C) • ro > > 9 H H C C C a 0 0 C" r 0 — C) z z rn m r Cr r — Z7 M (D CD C ro ' cr 0 0 F•• -- C) r 4 — 0 CT ,gyp b7 0 I-• r a t7 Ca G G CD R. O) 0) I r r W N I 1 co Co Co O — 0 -0 e L L L L L 0 0 ! L l l t. 1 - 0 II ( i ( i n — H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n H W CO CJ CJ CJ CO CO CO C.) CO CJ CJ CJ CJ CO CJ x -< I-, '-.' - F+ --- '--• '--, r '••' H F•• --+ r-- H m CO CJ C.) CJ CO CO CJ CO W CJ CJ CO W CJ CJ CJ n 0 CO CO Cp v v - J v -.1 J - -3 0) 0) CT 0) 71 al N r 0 CO CO �1 CO CO .A. CO r 0 CO CO -) 0) C.) n — CO x a z 9 x A 9 CO 3 Cl) O N 'A CO W 1-• W Cl) 7 VI 'A CL CO 0 0 CC CO 0) 0) CO C.) Z O 0) N CD ND 4> O A N CO -.1 r1 -) CJ C 0 CO CO 0 Ut 0 'A 0 N CO C71 0 --) CT at. C.) CO z 0) 0 .P 0 CO 0 `) 0 W .- r 0 Ut 0 0 -4 CO • CO -1 0 N 0 V) O CO 'A 'A 0 0 0 O CO CO ,-3 N — CO D. 3 a H C) 'V a < 3 Cn 117 0 C C 3 ')) .71 n n H H 0 C) 0 m 0 z -3 0 ao • 9 a H 0 Z Z a X Cn n H • 9 CC7 m Cn z 21 27 Cn r n m z RR a - .3 7: a -3 r 9 • 9 73 U) -3 n m 3 Cl) m n m H H 0 z H 3 9 0 — m 0 H x H a - a 0 n z 3 9 3 Co a 0 z Cl) 3 Cn Z n CO CO H C Cn to H 1T7 n -3 m n 3 9 m m • 0 n m H > n Z 'z7 • m H x Z 3 Cl) ro 9 n m 3 Z 2 0 cs) 3 x7 n m 0 7: 'U -3 a x xl C m -< 0 9 n ')) r m m H 2 9 -3 ala z 7: a0 0 r ') H x H — x > rn m 3 .< H z m C) -c '•0 "3 < n m m n H m H m x Cl) 0 H 'V z 0 z 9 9 3 H a z C Z Cn C) -3 9 H m Cn • r "3 Cn 9 C m -< — C N 1-0Cr) a Cl)Cn C) H 9 C) 99m 9 C] 0 Z Cn zzz z 0 CD n oa as a Cn r Ha H "C7 C) 'U a 3 3 C]iv)h7 C]'U a a ') a7 r "d 'v Z -3 m m m 0 H H Om• O• m m m m 9 0 C n H r -•••3 m CO m Cl) z 2 a H z m C) al m '0 2 Cr) C m r m -3 Cl) -3 n Z H• • H• m m Cl) • a -3 H ro -< - a n) ao n 2 C 2 x - i 9 C) 0 r H x 00 H HH. H• P7 x) + ro 0 rn 9 H 0 n Co m C 0 z u)z 9 CD 9 m r l Cn C m ro I Cr) m Z > m Z n • n• a s m 3 a, I. -3 Cn m Cl) z z -3 0 - o - C) > n 0 w — n x < a 3 3.0 .0n n < 1--+ x • a a m a m 9 a 9 0 0 H z 9 Cl) Cn O a 0 m -< m-< 3 3 C) H Cl) co C m H H -3 H 9 H 9 'V '-i7 m • m Cal n xoxxC Cn r Cr z z + 'a H < m m m m Cn Cn C 9 r n ro • C) > 9 H H C) — , 3 Cr) 9 a -3 H Ha m m -< -< H H r 'o > > 0 0 H m U) a z Z H H r r -< H m m N z , 0 — r 0 N00az a Cl) co < v O 0 c C) CD 'C7 N CD CT C c CD c+ R7 'T — CD -S • a a CD H i- t' o n n c•+ 'l 3 a a 3 o�- --0 o x 'C - H H Cl) CD H 3 7 0 N• CD '1133H•1-$3 0 n a Co F+•H•GO c+ 7 3D Co ct -S a a 7 co co — CD 0 x c C c+ c+ T CD DC 3 DC M 3 CD co co ') a CD W CA D) c+ c+ a7 CD atl 7 'c7 H CD N N't CD A) CD a n Ni H T7 c+ K lA . . Cn R7 F-' — @ O• 'I C $ a000D O 0 R7 4-- 0 w co m 0 a - co 3 'Y C '0 C CD H a c+•-a's a 0 F'` CD 131 CD CD c+ 3D — c+ w a < c+ I• H 4-•En rna 'D cr,Mt 0 n 00 3 3 W 0) W F-•- 0 — a 0 ill e L L L L. L 0 . ! l I. l t l ' A a 1 ) f I t t4P. Vr T t. rt r t r r Cr ;- r r t Ca 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) -3 Ca) C.) Ca) CO C.) C) C.) CA Ca) C.) w Ca Ca) w CO Co GO CO Ca CO w G) C.) CO w w C -< N. r r r r r r r r r r r r N. r r r r -- r r r r r r r m A A A A A A A A A A A A A A .A A A A A .A A A A A A A C) 0 �l --1 �1 -1 -1 -1 -4 -1 -.1 C7) Co C) O) a) CA 0) 0) a) Cn C7 CT CT at at CT CT 74 M co -1 (7) CT A Ca N r 0 CD Co �l Cn CT A Cs) N r 0 CD CD -1 0) C.71 A C.) St C7 x a Z a x r a N 3 Cl) r r 0 A r G,) Cl) - - - - 0 CD CJ N Ca) r N )- CO -1 CO CO 0 0 r Co N r r C.) N r Z 1.-• CT N CO A 0 N.) (7) co CJ1 0) co CT A co N C7) -4 Cl' CT 0 CD -4 CT C 4.. N 0 r A co .--• r CD Cn CO CO Ca N.) GJ CD 0 O CT A CT Ca) CC CO CD CT 0 Z O O 0 N CT -1 CO N 0 0 N -3 A CO CO 0 C.) 0 N 0 -3 W Co -3 0 0 O O CO CT 0 Co UT O O 0 r O Cl' r V1 0 0 0 0) 0 A co CO 0) O O •-3 9 — C7 M C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) m C. 3 > a > C7 9 9 m 9 -3 9 0 C) 77 m 0 0 0 C = = - CD 9 9 9 77 1--I a c c Cl) o 77 77 a 3 0 9 -C m ro 3 3 > a 9 9 > 77 C m 0 3 D -3 > Cl) z -3 -3 77 m t7 G) r C) CO a -C 3 3 Cl) ro z z z < < < z -< 0 z o a X C r m a s H C C 7e 1-4 x z x m to m z m m 0 r 0 7:7 --. 7D a 0 a C) m z z 9 z a a 9 7D 03 7D --. D m c) .-. t7 m a m c) a t7 r o is:, ' H cn Cl) Cl) z o D m > > ra hl • > r --. c Cr a C) C) C C Cl) Cr) Cl) C) C] 0 0 X m Z C -3 a Cl) .-3 Z C] Cl) '- r r --. 9 9 a C m m m o 0 0 I z a -3 Cil m Cl) a 0 a 3 z 9 .3 C H -3 77 to z Z Z C C C -+7 • 3 7D m t7 Z > C Z Cl) .-3 z C m 3 1.-1 1--. a r Z z z m Cr) a -3 X 0 7, (D m -3 .-1 9 -3 al 77 m 0 0 U) r m m -3 -3 -3 07 r C a 0 -3 m m Z -3 Z Z Z U) 9 '-. 9 -< -C -< 77 C] Co 77 Cl) 77 m 9 z Cl) C) -3 co CC) Z Z 77 3 --' C Cl) C -3 Ro Cl) Cl) 77 -3 CD a m z m --. -3 -3 -3 Cl) r c Z m 0 -3 — m 1-1 C) am z r D 77 7D .-3 0 9 C --. Z R 0 C m 'Z m C7 < 0 Ro C •C m m m C: 0 r 77 Z Z CO C) Z 1•-4 I-4 m > > > 70 r -3 > C) Ro X 9 Co) -3 -3 C) C) CA 0 C] LA Cr) Cl) m -< - 3 9 m 0 m 0 0 -3 r C C C t7 m a -3 -C -A 77 O .-( D 77 77 .-. Co m Cl) '-1 77 z m m m co z --. C) 77 9 Z C n z V C 77 77 70 0 C') z) 0 — 0 Cl) p to a a I 1 r -3 CO 0 Cn 7D 77 Cl) 07 Cl) -3 •=1 m m m 07 0 3 C CO Cl) 3 3 Cl) CO Cr) 27 Cl) c) C 7D > C C m m C 7, C 7D m m m m m r 9 m C 9 9 '--1 C C r m 9 r m 9 r 01 0 ro ro ro 1-1 0 a m m m Cr) z m 1-. m C r -I r ro C 0) C r Cr) C < 9 --+0 • ro Z C < U) Cl) Cl) Cl) H 9 Z CO "Cl 9 z m 0 ro z • a 9 Cr) 0 C)r r H r m - - - - 9 Z -3 - C 77 •-3 9 r r Cl) 77 Z 77 0 — C" .•-, m ". Rs R•• --. H H r t-•--. m N M C.) 0 --. H + 1--4 H C) m m m z m Cr) Cl) Cl) Cl) - z z co m m z m m m 9 m Z C I + Cl) m U) 3 3 Cl) G) Cl) + m m Co) m C) 9 m CO Cl) 9 Cl) Cr) Z 3 Cr) 0 r ID- 9 9 - - 77 77 77 7D r Z 77 - Z - - C7 9 0 C.) -3 + C --. --. a .-3 < < < < 9 + 0 < + C) + + I .77 -•.O Z Z < Z m 77 .--. N 1-1 -Y Z m .-1 < m 0 0 Cl) Z Cl) co 9 X C CD -3 -3 m CD SD 9 C) C) C) C) CC X C) m X m C 1-1 -3 Z X Co 1-1 9 3'Tl • x C --f m m m Cr) 9 3 m C 9 3 -T) n7 0 • 9 9 m Z 0 m H - - -I C H z + Cr) 9 H 0 a H 1-. Z - .a Cl) -+ m Z Cl 0 '1 ,--4 -3 -3 C) m -3 C) Cl 9 m -3 ro Z Cr) -3 m 77 CD r CL 3 Z m m m r Cl) m m m r C Cl) m a 0 - a 9 m r m 0 r 07 m - 77 U) •-3 - C) t7 (a cn •-4 z a 7, --. Cl) .--1 --. 77 m •-3 --. --. Cr) -3 0 m a -3 a r -3 m m 0 0 x N3 r m r .-. m 3 3 Cl) Cl) -1 • 0 Co 3 Cr) H 3 0 07 z < 0 -< h0 < 0 9 9 C.) • r r CD < m CD r H C) Cl) C) -7 m C]m Cl) 'Tl r CD (D r t7 . -3 3) 0 r C7 r 0 G (D C7 w -S G N Al c+ C3. (D A) -i 0) 3 7: 0 c+ rh C 0 (D 0 0 C) r-•- CD 0 CD .-•) -•- H. 0" C C )-• C M 7: C '1 M -h Cl '< 0 r M c+ m CD M 9 .- -- 0 C) 0) r 'r- C I-- 0 L. co -) r 0 0 l•-• 0 w w I-'•c+ G C) 'C) -S Co CD 0 C CD CD 0 O 0 (D (7' CD 7: '0 (D -s 'C (D 0 0 Pr r -s CD C) Co -f 00 r r X" 77 -• - Cu CO 01 W CO a (D 0 CO r'1 '1 CO ,1 C7 0 .0 C '-3 0. - X C "1 0 c+ E ro 0 Co C ..- Co M r- 0 c+ 1 In 0 Co 0.- .0 0 '< .-•- < 4 -t r 0 '< Cl. r '< r 0 (D CD 0 Dr G] CD 0 -1 C) -•- 0 x(l 0 c+ c+ - 0 -S A. A '< M'< ID 0 3 M r ..� - x so 9 X (D CD 'C Co Co r 0 0 C7 r 0 0 \ CD -•• C 0 < G • - CD C7' r -•- n E 0 n W • • elll C l l_ L 0 • ! l l l l l ' • • l 4 l . n H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 moo co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o n H w co co co co co w CO w W w W W Cu w w w w w CO w C.) W w w C.) 3 •C r r I-• 1-• r r -• r+ ,- ►+ r r r r r '-. r r+ r r .- ►+ r r r r m CO to to CO CT .a ,a ,a .a 'p .a .a .a .a .a ,p .a .A. ,a .. . 'A. .a .a .a as n 0 O o 0 0 0 CO CO CO CO CO CO CD cD CD (D Co CO CO Co CO co CO CO CO CO -4 CO "3 .a W N r 0 (0 Co -1 CO 01 at. co CV r 0 CO CO -1 Co Co .a W CV 1H 0 CO It n - m 9 CO 9 = r y 0) 3 CO r CO CV I-• CO - W CO a r CO 3-1 I-. CO w CO H. W r _ w r C.) 3-. r 0 z -1 r CO -4 O CO CO O CO CA N 0 O -1 -.1 DO N 0 W I-. C71 CO 1+ J C CO O N O 0 0 CO 0 0 CO CO C71 O to 01 CO -.1 O N 0 CO -1 CO -1 Cr( N CO O o 0) 0 0 0 CO 0 0 -3 CO o o 0 0 0 N 0 CD 0 Co 0 CO C71 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 w O N Co .a 0 o 0 0 0 Co 0 0 0 .a O (71 0 O -1 ••9 9 3 r r r CO r 9 H MI H H CO C. CO 0 C) C) G) 0 '9 "3 CO m CO Z C) n 0 > m CO m 0 9 z 0 0 n CO m 0 0 9 0 93 CO • H m Cl) r CO H CO CO X ''"1 9 •e -Q 0 3 Z 3 3 Z CO CO r < z Z .-3 CO m Cl) CO •-3 CO •C r n CO H m G) Z 9 9 z r m CO • CO m • CO CO -3 CO CO CO c c r CO CO CO r n CO CO •a CO CO n H CO CO .4 H •-a 9 O C m CO CO it) CO CO 0 oil CO •-3 0 • 9 9 • 9, CO .1 to H m CO 9. 3 c r CO H m CO r r .3 1-1 0 C 9 0 m H C ro CO CO CO m H 9. CO H H 93 H C r .3 0Cam] "3 CO Z •EI -e C 0 -3 9 C) 01 0 n a C m x 9O Cy 3 3 Z H r CO 3 r 90 H CO r 0 9. "1 0 •-3 CO CO 9. 3 CO H Z CO 3 m CO 711 9 m CO < CO H 111 3 0 H n CO n 3 m H 9 H CO CO r z CO0 Ca 0 -3 n m -e CO H 3 0 CO 0 90 CO 'C-1 CO -3 - COCO 9, H C:7 C9 CO CO H CO Cr) CO - n 9 H H 0 1-4 0 CO CO COz 9 CO R• n - 4) CO � o CO 9 CO CO CO 9 CO 0 CO •m3 H ro n z H r m 0 •-3 CO En 9 0 CO CO n C CO 0 CO ro . •4 - CO• -e 9 9 • (3 CO CO CO 9. CO CO CO CO En ' COCOCOCOto -3 CO En Cl) .-3 CO En H CO Cl) CO C) CO CO En .4Cn ro r T1 9 C m c 9 m C C 9 90 00 O CO 9 9 9 03 C .•3 Cr m 3 9 9 9 CO CO - r ro CO CO r ' '•Ciro r 9 O W ro 9. r r r 9 MI CO •O Cd CO H H r CO ro C 9 ro Cn Cn 9 • ro ro 9 C 7C O ro C 9 9 9 C ro m ro ••3 3 Z Z 9 Cn Z CO r - n C r C O m Cn n r m 90 CO CO m r CO r .4 .•3 -3 90 - r CO O H '-I 93 H + -i hI H r CO H r H H F-1 r H H H n m m H H O) CO m CA H m m m m + H m CO m m CO m m Z 9 Z Z m CA m Z 1 CA O m 'S1 CO 3 Cn O U) + ro Cn + Cn U) Cn + Cn LEl Cn H r 9 9 m m Cn r + C •3 + 'ai + H m•H H + + + H 1-1-1 - 3 tzl Enn C) + CO 0 I - C H Z C m CO 9O 0 93 90 0 'CI < CO CO m '-+ < CO CO Z Cr) Cl + CO H m iD CO 9 H+ 'T1 9 Z E CO 9 M 3 CO CO CO 0 m 03 9 3 m 9 • x C 9 H 0 '3 H 9 9 9. I-I '=1 m 93 H 3 3 9 CO 5C m f,) H 3 C) - H H C) Z 0 3 H Z 0 0 G) CO H CO H 9 9 0 H CO n CO m nro CO H HC C) H m m CO H n H n -3 •-3 m 0 ro CO r 3 CO C r 3 CO Z n 3 CO Z O CO CO Z m r CO CO CO r 9 - m CO - H mm - C) 9CO 0 - - - 0 m C 93 - CO C - CO 93 H CO CO r m Cl) H H CO CO H 9 H r H H CI)",O .•3 H H 9 9 -3 ('1 CO m H m Cl) m m m r r m .1roH ro H rororo � �.E1 -e b ti rC .a CO O - "'1 'zl 90 '21 3 Cs1 'T1 'z1 'T '1 r r 01 'Ti I21 0 CO CD C) 1�• Ir• CO CO CO '1 (O(0 r CO r 0 hl r '1 0 Co CO C - 0 Of O 1) CD 0 0 0 04 co 0) 0 En Orl 0 +1 W 1-1 I HI 01 1•A 1•$) H1 M .1 .1 CD r• 1•h •1 I•0 01) r• 1-0 + 1-0I Co C)93 i-.. C) 13 1 1-.- H. CD DCI r r• i-.- 9 • .0 0. y co CD CD 0 CD '1 c+ CD CD CD 1-,- O• IC-•. CD c '0 .t .1 0 •1 CD CD •1 '1 .1a V r - ao • r .1 C) n 04 CO s 11 01 to c+ CO B CO 0i 01 0 CD S •4 Cl' .0r H at. 3 7 r 0' P+ Co C1 n 01 01 01 11 CO 11 0 '4 `C 3 •4 01 0 'C .4 K w - 0 r• 'C O (D 0 C. CD a c+ H 1 I-.• 1r.1 CD - O CD Dl 11 5 CD 0 CO H. c+ a HI CO W. CD m n r .0 0' r C cr r•CD tt 'C - W 2 CD O cr n - CD Cf c+ r• I-A • • e L L 1. L L 0 • e i l t i t • A • t t 1 • I t Or c r I I r f r f t t { 1'. e I i^ a H O o O o 0 0 0 0 o co o O O O o O O O O on O O O C) '-3 CJ 0) W CJ W CJ C.) CJ W CO CJ CO W C.) Ca CO CJ 0) Ca CJ W CO W W CJ x ~C r r- r r r .- I r r r r r r r r r r r . . . . . . r m (l1 CT (r CT CT CT CT CT Cn Cr CT CT CT CT CT1 C7I C11 C.71 C 1 C 1 C11 CT (T (T (T C) O N N co CO N N N N N N r r r r r r r r 0 0 0 0 0 71 '.1 CO CO �1 0) M A CJ N r 0 CD CO 7 0) (T A Ca N r O CD CO -4 0) (71 ti C) x a z 9 5 a 3 Cl) CO N En CT N CJ CT N r r A r CD r A CT CO z A CO -4 A 0 CT CD C17 N N N A -1 Cr -4 (T 0 N A Ni N CD N CO C m... CT A CJ 0 C71 1 0 A) -1 CD COCD O CJ O CD (.71N (a 71 O CO M CT O (T CT) Z o co O A r O co O O CO CD N O CJ C) O) O O) 0 N O 0 O O C 0 -.) O A A A CO 0 0 A O 0 O CD A CO O A O N O O O 0 N 0-3 a — CO En t7 CI) C.) Cn Cl) Cl) 3 2) 21 ro '3 ro Z £ C) 3 3 3 C. 3 3 3 r C) C] X CO £ X 3 .2. C)) > m m x m m 3 0 '-I Z H 9 a I • <m 2) Z '-I a z C) < 12e 0-3 m 0 £ • CO z • 0 3 C] < 77 3 r C) C7 C)) > En a -3 7c H C7 Z C m m Z £ m 9 r r C C x 0 0) H 0 23 03 '0 2 m 3 77 I C] m CI) H 0 '0 z a 0 C "0 C7 CD 0-3 '0 'C 9 r H U) Z C H C O CA 0 a - z r C O /3 m 0 En "C) Z O C) m H Z '3 3 0 Cf1 9 r H C 0 C En C m Cn 2 CO ro IH C Z r r 3 C] £ a r C — En '3 C Cl) Z '< H (.1 23 I a r 0 0-3 a a CO C) 3 3 Z En 9 a c m 'n En C) £ C) En C7 En z m o 0 '< En 3 0 03 m 3 m Z to '0 0 '3 x m H 0 0 C 0 2 77 25 ro 9 C7 m 9 •-3 X 2 2 ro x 2) C a r 9 S 3 r m H 2 x x H 21 m C) 0 ro r m 0 3 21 01 r ro r CCI R3 9 H > 0 En z En 2) • q3 C '< £ En C7 '-I •3 C) a CO C 2 r Z '-3 C1 C7 CO - - CA z .-4 0 Z CO CO 0 rn '3 0) 0 '3 — n r C) m 3 0-1 m • o i-i 0-03 ro 0 H H 0 H m . m .0 Z r R. 0 CO ro £ 3 CD z r z 9 Cn c En Cn 0 C 9 9 a ro = C) '< a H z H m - c (n C .3 z '3 a H - a z '< ro 23 0 a . 0 '< '< m Z Z z C) C .• m - 73 21 ..< C•) zz C +3 9 a '< z Cn 0 0 0 r 2J En Cr) "0 3 Cn Cf) CD En h) Cn Cn ) Cn 0 Cn En 3 En 3 '•3 r Cn Cn 3 En U)2) ro R] c > C) a C C C C m C C r7 c M C C a a 0 21 a 9 3 a C C m m 0 .0 n0 '0m " .0m0 % a < Za 21 o 9 Z Z'v b u) '0 ' Cn .0 I-I ' z 0 , C' C• Z CC.0 • - C-. C -3 '3 r r r r - r r - r C) r r '3 77 03 m I 2 r •-3 C) r 23 O �- + H I-I )-I m H 1-I I--1 H Fi H H m H 4-( m H r ro H r7 C H+ C7) m m Z Z m Cam) m m U1 m m CO m m m Z m 's) C m '3 Z H m ro I 3 CD Cn 0 9 Cr)Cn En En m En U1 m En m Cl) CO > N C + q3 En 0 > '0 U1 3 r 9 Z- - - - m - - 27 - kJ - - z m a 0 z --3 - 9 0 C.) H C + a C) c C C 0 + C' '3 x + r 0 - 0-' I Z m Z m m< ro C H ro m H C H m 0 m CO 23 9 CO m m z CO CO '3 2 £ Cl k)C)1 2) m C) C 00 CI m ro .0 01 £ a CO £ + k)a 2 H a 3C.:: 0 ID m 0 C m x 3 C 2 3 a + I-I m > + Z c- m - C) 0 '!J 9 H H 0 H 0 H H m H F-( a 0 Z .n 9 3 '-I- r m C '3'(1 C) 77 C) m '0 C) Z ro 0 '3 m r I--I + m m .3 m .0 C) ro C m En CO m a r a r a 3 r '3 3 m m U1 C z U1 0 m 3 3 r 9 .3 Cr) - r 70 m m 3 m 3 m m m 2 - 01 0 H - C 77 CO m C7 0 H H H Z U) En Z En Z H 2) 3 H H 01 Z O m C" '3 Cn 9 0.3 0-3 '3 9 '-3 I-+ ro 0 3 ro a CO a I-I m x r r m 0 m - r En + — '3 3 H Cl) Cn 3 a 3 v1 x '< '0 C) .0Z '0 .1 0 H ro Z CT Cn (n o En 'l1 r 3 9 CO '0 C7 ) co > m C) co C7 En I-- C) a- '1 CD C) 9 DEI t7 0 71 r-• 0) (D A) CD rn 0 9 (D 0 0 () c+ K of D 0 N- r 0 Cr 's r+1 t • '•C T7 W rn (D r• Iy r rh r CD 0 rn 3 rn a — r Ir- z ro CD a '1 M- to co Imo- A+ N- () 0 3) a co C) 0 - C1 C+ a CD '1 (D H CD 9 (D r- (D '1 £ Ct o O '1 C7 C) '1 0 !L 01 (D m ` CO "i • Cl '1 co X C 0) c CO CD (D CO Dq (n Z 'Cl ro - ' (D .0 x ro 'Y — 91 Cn CD 3) (D AI CD I-- '< tv a se a. '< a '1 c co () o - C Cl- •< o m W C-i 0 En '1 m x CD — 1-“ a ,-,- co CY 0 a a < r•- (D a c — cm • tr L I l l l 0 0 • l l l l l I A II c t t ( f C C f ( f t t t t t t t t , <' t (' (" f' i ( a - -, 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n a CJ CO w w ca CO CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ w w w CJ x -C H r r r r r H r r r r r r r r r r tI) O cn cn Cr Cn 01 cn cn cn cn cn cn Cn Cn cn v+ cn a 0 -3 .a. A A A A A CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ W W C.) C.) 7C ,.1 9 Cn A W N r 0 CD co -.1 C) Cn A C.) N � O r' CD is a — w x 0 a '21 z > x 9 -' 3 U) CJ Cv r N a) NJ NJ - 0 cy — CO r N r -•. A Cn C) NJ A N r Z a - Cn CJ —) Cn C.) C) CJ r CO CJ CJ C) CJ Cn -4 0 C Z C.) �1 O Cn 0 C) A -3 0 A A O CO O A r 0 t.1 r • Z a �) A O 0 O -.1 O A 0 C) C.) O 0 O CO 0 v PO • cD 0 O o cn cn C.11 0 O A 0 0 0 r 0 Cn H Cn N — A 9 o o 0 -3 C\) X a7 2 Cn E 0 z < < C C C -3 H H a a a )-I 0 -, • H a 9 9 m 9 z • • 2 2 0 C" C.1 3 n Cs) -3 2 r a a --I Cn Cn C --I 2 r a a a trl x al c ram) -< a z a c • • a x x r z a o r)) ay o n x r.1 n 9 9 0 m C.1 • 2 CA Z 2 0 2 70 E ~7 < 0 A a a7 Cn 0 C.1 Z -C7 9 C) t.1 a 9 a 9 r C 7C - a7 [s) x7 a7 -tl 3 a -+ U) z r Z C A Cl) -3 X H r 0 2 C 9 --1 -3 -3 t7 C -3 -3 3 2 0 --I 0 -, r 0 n 3 -. Cn -C 1-.1 r)1 -c 0 A Z Z > z E u) C z ro 2 ro -a 2 9 H an z a C) a -3 r O a 0 x C R. — A --I • CO r H C.) 9 '] 0 C 3 Z cn W -3 'v cn x Cl) Z -C --1 C) 1-4 9 3 z 0 r 0 o H m a z -' a a a a 0 'v A z to 0 a z -Cl r m •< co ri) rl) Z 2 Cl) 9 3 r)J a Cn 4 co C -C — Z o a -C 9 -3 H 0 9 2 9 9 992 Z ZZ- 0 0 0 0 L-. Cl) Cl) Cl) al Cl- 3 3 H a) 't7 Cn H z1 '=1 3 Cn(J) 'P.) Cl) .d — C C 9 m a7 C)1 a 2 Cs) a) C 75 rn C.1 9 C C a) C C 7 ' '-Cl CO Cl' m --I 2-a 9 'V a) 'C 9 t.1 a) I.1 2'V t)1 0 C .15 Cn 9 Cr) 2 n z < • Cn -C < Cl) co a-C7'if Cl) R1 ' n a - H xH m - r m - - Hrr - r 2 0 I-I z H H 9 t) r + H r tt1 H r H C) t.1 H Cs) Cl) 2 ZZ Cn R) Cl) Cl) Z cm a Cl) Cif -i1 I Cl) '-Cl co Ci7 G) e 9 + 3 m co + C=) a 9 co to ti) c --,, - H 2 Ii 2 a 2 - a7 a7 2- - CO - 0 CJ — + < 9 Cn 0 H I-1 c -3 < < C) < I < H z 0 m 2 2 --I 0 2 1-I --I Cif<C)1 I-I C Cl) Co C 7 + E a a a -3 n -+7 > a a t'1 0 a C*) co ' x a C41 -+1 3 --I • CA 0) 1--4 t'-1 t.1 3 x C C)1 Cam) -, 3 0 '-Cl 09 2 - " 2 a--'-' --I n m m C ayH -, a -, Hn-o a ro r 3 Cr) CO C.1 2 C C41 2 m r 3 r 9 C.1 Cn - r a72 0 H a 2t<C.1 C.1 0 — • Cn tr1 t-1 Cs1 I-I !-I I-'U)Z Cl) C)1 Cl) m 2 Cn r -4 C-' 1r a H r , x 3 I-I O.to .3 to I-I 'Cl 2 r -< . "U • G] Cn m Cl) — 's) 3 a N 0 CD --' a CD 0 — O -- Cu I-• ro C to w °. oa r r 7 Cn C) MP rD C -1 -- CD • -f CD — CO CD -5 n C Cl c+ -. to 0 C) `c -1 N 'n 3 t7 a) 'G .• P l l l L l A • f ( t t t t , A • t I 1 00 . ' ;k INVOICE 4a3a7 MINNEAPOLIS • DENVER • PHCE,+.X City of Chanhassen DATE: March 31, 1988 1:10 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 JOB NO: 7-8804 ATTN: Mr. Gary Warren, PE t _ City Engineer RE: Frontier Park Replat For Professional Services rendered in conjunction with the replat of Lots 5-9 lif .N4 IFrontier Park. Billing is consistent with our Downtown Contract dated May 8, 1986, and our proposal dated March 10, 1988. Partial Payment #1 n.= I �"5r 1 Period through March 31, 1988 �""` — I Billing not to exceed $6,200.00 /,,2 Z: : a: :s Hours 3.0 i 3-Person Field Party 10.5 2-Person Field Party 16.0 29.5 - Salary Cost x 2.0 .. $411.93 x 2.0 = $ 823.86 EXPENSES: Reproduction 2.06 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ 825.92 Total Billed to Date = $825.92 - APR 2 1 1988 CITY OF CHANhASSEN BENNETT RINGROSE. WOLSFELD. JARVIS. GARDNER INC • THRESHER SQUARE • 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55415 • PHONE 612/370-0700 N • INVOICE 111111T � 47634 M1NNEAPOLIS • DENVER - PHOENIX Cityof Chanhassen ` DATE: December 31, 1987 • 690 Coulter Drive L Chanhassen, MN 55317 JOB NO: 7-8712 ATTN: Mr. Gary Warren, P.E. City Engineer RE: Stratford Ridge Plan Review Professional Services rendered for plan review and recommendations for the Stratford Ridge Development as per our written proposal dated November 9, 1987. Billing is hourly not to exceed $2,000.00. L_ Classification Hours Sr. Professional 14.0 L Professional II 45.2 Technician II 16.0 Technician I 1.0 77.2 Salary Cost x 2.0 S 1,562.49 x 2.0 S 3,124.98 Maximum Amount to be Billed $ 2,000.00 TOTAL AMOUNT. DUE — — ( S 2,000.00 ‘, - I° I - r''31 _ u ' IIL; 1 BENNETT. RINGROSE. WOI.SEELO. JARVIS. GARONER. INC • THRESHER SOIARE • 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55415 • PHONE 612/3700700 - ic0hJ4 r 1 •S „ CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 600 EAST 4TH STREET PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 (612) 448-3435 e► NNESO COUNTY OF CAI VEQ INVOICE z/ DATE : 5/17/88 INVOICE NO. : 108 TO: City of Chanhassen Barb Dacy, City Planner 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 T . H. 212 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS AND STUDY REPORT Distribution of HNTB Inv. #2-12389-11-51 $19 ,938 . 24 Chanhassen 9 . 375% $1 , 869 . 21 Chaska 9 . 375% $1 , 869 . 21 Eden Prairie 9 . 375% 51 , 869 . 21 Carver County 9 . 375% 51 , 869 . 21 Hennepin County 9 . 375% 51 , 869 . 21 Metro Council 15 . 625% $3 , 115 . 35 Mn/DOT 37 . 500% $7 , 476 . 84 TOTAL 519 , 938 . 24 Account Balance : 90 . 00 Invoice Amount: 51 , 869 . 21 AMOUNT DUE: 91 , 869 . 21 Please make check payable to : CARVER COUNTY TREASURER Remit to : Carver County Public Works 600 East Fourth Street, Box 6 Chaska, Minnesota 55318 Attachments : HNTB Invoice r2-12389-11-51 Statement of Account• MAY 19 198u CITY OF CHANT.., civ Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer ��� -cO,j G /I' / ' ? ALLEN J. WALLIN i� •�. y �� CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE Carver County Sheriff CHASKA600 T STREET MINNESOTA 55318-2190 16121 448.3435 �n /4'NE50,C / COUNTY OF CQVEQ - May 23 , 1988 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 6x � ` • Dear City Administrator or Township Clerk: c/ 4 As you may know, the 1987 Contract for Police Services requires the County to determine if the estimated 1987 hourly rate of — $29 . 55 reflects the actual cost of hourly service. The County has recently performed this calculation and determined that the actual cost of 1987 hourly service is $30 . 08 . The contract also _ provides that "The Municipality will pay to the County the dif- ference between the estimated amount and actual cost. " The attached County calculations result in an actual hourly serv- ice cost for 1987 of $30 .08 , as compared to the estimated hourly rate of $29 . 55 per hour - a $ .53 per hour increase. Since your municipality contracted for 7 ,665 hours in 1987, you now owe the County $4 ,062.45 for 1987 police services. According to the contract , the Municipality may pay the dif- ference within 60 days of receipt of this notice of the amount — due. If the Municipality cannot pay the amount due within 60 days after notification, payment must be made in full , or in two installments concurrent with the semi-annual payments due for — 1989 police contracts . However , payments made after the notification period shall be subject to 6% interest on the balance due. On a related matter, I will soon be forwarding to you the es- timated hourly rate for the 1989 contracts. As always, if you have any questions regarding these calcula- tions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Al Wallin Sheriff MAY 2 6 1988 Enc. � ►Y OF CHANHASSEN Affirmance Action/Equal Opportunity Employer LeFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ a Professional Association 2000 First Bank Place West Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Telephone: ( 612 ) 333-0543 May 6 , 1988 if Mr. Don Ashworth City Manager City of Chanhassen 7610 Laredo Drive — Chanhassen, MN 55317 - Re: Downtown Redevelopment Project (Chadda) For All Legal Services Rendered Through April 30 , 1988 As Follows : 4/02/88 Telephone call from A. Merry regarding . 25 status of development contract on housing. 4/12/88 Telephone call from B. Johnson regarding . 50 meeting on Housing Bonds; office conference regarding same . 4/14/88 Telephone call from R. Thomasgard regarding . 25 meeting on Chadda housing bonds . 4/15/88 Telephone call from T. Gerhardt regarding . 25 meeting on housing bonds and note to R . Batty regarding same . 4/15/88 Telephone call from D . Ashworth regarding . 50 option agreement and involvement of Chadda in further development . 4/15/88 Office conference regarding results of . 25 meeting on housing bond issue . 4/18/88 Telephone conference with D . Ashworth . 50 regarding Chadda ' s further involvement in district . 4/21/88 Review option agreement and master 1 . 25 redevelopment contract; telephone conference with D . Ashworth regarding same . 4/21/88 Telephone call from T . Gerhardt regarding . 25 — inducement resolution . 4/26/88 Proof memo regarding remaining issues in . 50 connection with housing project . 4/28/88 Telephone call from A . Merry regarding . 25 meeting on grocery store project . .._.�.�. _J - MAY 1 2 1988 CITY OF CHANhASSLN City of Chanhassen Page 2 4/29/88 Telephone conference with D . Ashworth . 50 regarding housing bonds , housing parcel contract , grocery store, retail contact and option agreement . 4/29/88 Telephone call from R. Thomasgaard . 25 — regarding Super Value project . Total Services : 5 . 50 $660 . 00_ For all Disbursements as follows : 4/27/88 Quicksilver Express 15 . 50 — 4/27/88 Quicksilver Express 13 . 75 Total Disbursements : $29 . 25— 0 Total Services and Disbursements : $689 . 25 -I Re: T.H. 101/5 Intersection Improvements For All Legal Services Rendered Through April 30 , 1988 As Follows : 4/01/88 Checked on status as passed in both Senate 1 . 00 and House; Chanhassen provision in Senate Tax Bill , is not in House Tax Bill ; reported same to R. Batty; discussed with Sen. Schmidt and A. — Loehr. ( 3/29/88 ) 4/05/88 Telephone conference with F . Hoisington . 50 regarding TIF legislation; telephone _ conference regarding same. 4/06/88 Telephone conference regarding TIF . 40 legislation status . 4/06/88 Discussed idea for amending Chanhassen 3 . 00 extension into Conferred Tax Bill of Increment Financing District with Rep. B. Kelso, Sen . Schmitz and A. _ Loehr; Rep. Kelso discussed with Speaker Vanasek and majority leader Wynia . 4/07/88 Telephone conference regarding TIF bill and .40 extension of TIF district . 4/07/88 Monitor tax conference committee ; check 2 . 00 with Rep. B. Kebo on Chanhassen amendment . City of Chanhassen Page 3 4/08/88 Telephone conference regarding status of . 50 special legislation. 4/11/88 Attended tax conference committee meeting; 2 . 00 talked with Rep. Kelson and Sen . Schmidt about Chanhassen amendment . 4/12/88 Attend tax conference committee; reported 2 . 00 to Rep. Kelson and Sen . Schmidt ; Chanhassen provision still moving . 4/13/88 Monitor tax conference committee ; office 2 . 00 conference regarding same; covered process with Sen Schmidt and his aide. 4/14/88 Work still continues in tax conference 2 .00 committee; Chanhassen amendment still alive. 4/15/88 Continue monitoring senate house tax 2 . 00 conference committee ; have reached an impasse on property tax . 4/18/88 Followed tax conference committee; 2 . 00 _ Chanhassen provision still alive. 4/20/88 Monitor tax conference committee; discussed 1 . 00 Chanhassen amendment with Rep. Paul Ogren . Total Services : 20 . 80 $1 , 293 . 00 For all Disbursements as follows : 4/27/88 Quicksilver Express 11 . 90 4/27/88 Quicksilver Express 21 . 00 4/27/88 Quicksilver Express 10 . 50 4/27/88 Mileage and Parking 9 . 40 Total Disbursements : $52 . 80 if47 Total Services and Disbursements : $1 , 345 . 80 Re: McGlynn TIF District For All Legal Services Rendered Through April 30 , 1988 As Follows : 4/01/88 Telephone conference with D . Ashworth . 50 regarding TIF project . 4/07/88 Telephone conference with D . Ashworth . 60 regarding effect of TIF bill on establishment of TIF district . 4/11/88 Telephone conference with B . Dacy regarding .30 TIF project . City of Chanhassen Page 4 4/25/88 Telephone conference with B . Dacy regarding . 50 TIF project . — 4/28/88 Review of TIF legislation ' s impact on . 50 proposed TIF district . 4/29/88 Telephone conference with D . Ashworth . 50 — regarding TIF project . 7 Total Services : 2 . 90 $246 . 50— • Re: Housing Plan — For All Legal Services Rendered Through April 30 , 1988 As Follows : — 4/15/88 Meeting with R . Thomasgard, B. Johnson and 3 . 10 underwriters from Piper, Jaffray _ regarding housing plan ; review housing element from City comprehensive plan. 4/18/88 Telephone conference with T. Gerhardt . 30 — regarding update of housing information. 4/19/88 Review of resolutions calling for public . 60 — hearing and adopting housing plan and program. 4/20/88 Telephone conference with R . Thomasgard . 40 regarding housing plan . Total Services : 4 . 40 $374 . 00 — LeFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ a Professional Association 2000 First Bank Place West Minneapolis , Minnesota 55402 Telephone: ( 612 ) 333-0543 May 6 , 1988 CLIENT SUMMARY 511 City of Chanhassen MATTER # MATTER NAME FEES DISB PREV BAL TOTAL B2887 Downtown Redevelopment Project 660 .00 29 . 25 1 , 821 . 90 $2 ,511 . 15 _ 5529 T.H. 101/5 Intersection 1 ,293 . 00 52 . 80 5 , 645 . 72 $6 ,991 .52 5604 McGlynn TIF District 246 . 50 645 . 37 $891 . 87 5707 Housing Plan 374 . 00 $374 . 00 TOTAL : $2 , 573 . 50 $82 . 05 $8 ,112 . 99 $10 , 768 . 54 TOTAL CURRENT MONTH: $2 , 655 . 55 I declare under penalty of law that this account , claim or demand X,e4p is just and correct and that no part of it has been paid . mei kg r?..) . Signature of Claimant 143,o S" e tx,1 Sr VV��� U.S. FUNDING CORPORATION 3055 Old Highway Eight Minneapolis, MN 55418 612/782-2520 May 16, 1988 /22 3"o City of Chanhassen 7 — City Hall (/6 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 — Att: Don Ashworth INVOICE Re: Chanhassen IRA Tax Increment Financing CHADDA For professional services rendered in connection with the above described — engagement, which services included: reviewing documents, making recommendations, attending meetings and otherwise providing those services essential in evaluating specific development proposals submitted to the City and assisting in the construction of recommendations with respect to TIF Policy to be submitted to the HRA and City Council for consideration; From February 15, 1988 through April 30, 1988 20.50 hours @ $60 per hour $1 230 00 Please remit payment in the amount of $1,230.00 to U.S. Funding Corporation. — U.S. FUNDING CORPORATION — By: i ,.-4-- /-. Andrew K. Merry President db Note: My acquisition of U.S. Funding Corporation, a broker-dealer firm,was completed last week, subject to approval by the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) , Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) , and the State of Minnesota. With consent of these regulations, I will also change _ the name of the firm to Mericor Financial Services, Inc. I expect to have the necessary approvals by mid-June. Until then, my firm will operate as U.S. Funding Corporation. 15 MINUTES CHANHASSEN BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW MAY 16 , 1988 A meeting of the Chanhassen Board of Equalization and Review was called to order by Mayor Hamilton on May 16 , 1988 , at 7 : 30 p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Hamilton, Councilmen Horn and Geving. Councilmen Johnson and Boyt were absent. Mayor Hamilton stated that the Board would accept comments from public this evening and then ask the Assessor to review each comment and make a recommendation back to the Board. The Board of Review will reconvene on Monday, June 6 , 1988 , at 7 : 30 p.m. to take final action on each property. Attached "Exhibit A" lists each property owner and their comments . Motion by Hamilton, seconded by Horn to adjourn the meeting at 10 : 15 p.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried. EXHIBIT "A" BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW May 16, 1988 Ref. Name/ No. Address Parcel No. Comments 1. Jim Wehrle 25-2130100 He is President of the Near Mountain 241 Mountain Way Homeowners Association. This area has (for all Near boon reassessed for the second year in a Mountain) row instead of the 4 year cycle which was promised. 2. Lloyd Anderson 25-2021260 Tast years valuation was $71,900. He 6981 Redwing Lane put a $20,000 addition on his home and the value increased to $104,700. The additional value is unlivable. 3. John Dorek 25-2021260 Valuation increased from $1,100,000 to Chanhassen Bowl $1,476,000. He feels that is too much 581 W. 78th St. of an increase. 4. Dick Schwegman 25-6860020 A private appraisal was conducted by Chan Center Newcomb and Hanson Appraisal and they Partnership estimate the value of this building at 80 W. 78th St. $835,000. The Assessor's established the value at $1,149,100 for 1988. This is 35% higher than the private appraisal. In 1986 the property was assessed at $1,286,000 and in 1987 it was assessed at $937,000. Feels the valuation should be lowered in line with the private appraisal. 5. Larry Zamor 25-8900030 Valuation was 835,000 in 1987 and it Chanhassen Inn increased to $1,300,000 in 1988. He 531 West 79th St. added on eight new rooms which cost $115,000, yet the increase was $450,000. 6. Henry Dimler 25-1600680 Valuation increased fran $69,000 in 1987 961 Western Drive to $77,000 in 1988. He feels this is too much of an increase. 7 & Julius Smith 25-2150050 The value of this vacant lot in 8 Representing Christmas Acres increased Clients 27%. Feels that is too much. 25-0025000 The value of this half acre parcel increased 20% to $65,200 and no improve- ments were made to the property. 25-0020610 The value of this older home increased 77% fran $41,600 to $73,800 in 1988 with no improvements being made. -1- a Ref. Name/ No. Address Parcel No. Comments 7 & Julius Smith 25-0020600 The value of this home increased by $78,900 8 Representing or 22%. Improvements were made to the Clients property, but after a private appraisal for insurance purposes, the insurance company raised their replacement value by 9.6%. — Instant Web 25-5650080 The assessor has valued this 14 acre parcel at $5,593,300. After giving can- — parisons of other property in Chan Lakes Business Park and replacement cost estimates fran their architect, they _ feel a market value of $4,662,000 is more reasonable. This is based on using 90% of the land value which they feel is $20,000 per acre and 90% of the full — market value of the building which they feel is $4,900,000. United Mailing 25-5650070 Based on similar comparisons used for the Instant Web property, they feel that a fair market value for United Mailing is $3,815,500, not $4,138,600 as recam- — mended by the Assessor. This is based on a using 90% of the land value which they feel is $19,000 per acre and 90% of — the full market value of the building which they believe is $3,644,500. Two acres of this property is unusable — because it is a public easement for walkway and under watershed district control. Victory Envelope 25-5660010 Using the same formulas applied for the above two parcels, they feel that the land value of this property should be _ $251,400 compared to the Assessor's valuation of $512,200. Nearly 5 acres of this parcel is unusable because of the public walkway and watershed — control. They agree with the Assessor's ultimate building valuation of $3,309,600 except that they believe the — building will not reach its full econo- mic value for several years. They feel penalized for planning ahead and building a facility large enough to house their needs for many years to cane. -2- 7 Ref. Name/ No. Address Parcel No. Comments 9. Scott Gavin 25-4070130 He bought the property for $30,000 and 1851 Lake Lucy Rd put a garage on it which is not finished yet. The value increased to $56,000 and it should not be more than $40,000. 10. Ann Sevey 25-2020620 Value increased $9,100 in one year. Her 7016 Chaparral Ln neighbor's twin home is valued at $68,000 and her's is at $76,000. 11. Todd M. Adams 25-6300160 Value was $279,000 in 1987 and increased 469 Pleasant View to $340,000 in 1988. This is a 21% increase and is too much when no improve- ments were made. 12. Ken W. Wolter 25-8100090 Value increased fran $112,000 in 1987 to 341 Deerfoot Tr $133,200 in 1988. This is a $21,000 increase. His neighbor's property is assessed at a lower value and Eden Prairie has the identical have which has a 1988 value equal to his 1987 value. -11 13. James Carlson 25-2300110 The 1986 value was $109,500. In 1987 he 7020 Dakota Cir put an addition on and the value increased to $159,700. Now the value has increased to $193,000. The value of two homes in this neighborhood have not changed in the past two years. Other homes in the neighborhood are unequal. 14. Harvey Parker 25-8400060 Assessed value in 1987 was $92,600 and 7480 Chan. Rd. it increased to $128,900 in 1988. Two building permits were taken out to repair the home. 15. Richard Steller 25-6030020 This was a new house in 1987 and valued 6321 Steller Cir at $149,800. The value increased to $170,500 in 1988. 16. Robert Finley 25-1220030 Moved in this home in 1986 at a value of 740 Vogelsberg $77,400. The value increased 29% in the Trail last two years to $98,100 in 1988. There is no sewer and water to this property and he feels the valuation is too high. 17. Frank Reese 25-1100210 Has adjoining parcels in both Carver and 6200 Chaska Rd. Hennepin Counties. The property is assessed at $16,000 per acre. The par- cel in Chanhassen is .8 acres and was -3- 8 Ref. Name/ No. Address Parcel No. Comments declared unbuildable. Either the parcel should be buildable or the valuation should be lowered. 18. Barbara Allison 25-6300250 Valuation was 68,000 in 1987. They 6681 Horseshoe Cu remodeled last year and the valuation — increased to $199,600 in 1988. Their neighbors also remodeled and their home is twice as big and valued $32,000 _ lower. All other homes in the neigh- borhood are better homes with lower values. 19. Douglas & Carolyn 25-0220500 The property was reassessed in 1985 and Barinsky the value was increased based on improve- 8731 Audubon Rd. ments made in 1984. No other improve- ments have been made since that time. Now there is a 75% increase in value. The County' s system of assessing only — new/resales is illegal. 20. Cheryl Newton 25-2090150 The 1987 valuation was $115,000 and 6228 Cascade Pass increased to $125,300 in 1988. No improvements were made. Why the increase? 21. Dennis Karstensen 25-7610050 A 15% increase in the market value is 7482 Saratoga too large over the past three years. He • refinanced one year ago and the — appraisal was only 1.59% more than he originally paid. 22. Ken Weigel 25-2110040 Wants to know the formula used to assess — 6370 Near Mtn. Blvd his hare. Why is he being assessed every year? He's at 92% of the market value now and he feels that is too high. 23. Marge Rossing 25-1602061 Her 10 lots are taxed $845 versus her Carver Beach 25-1602071 neighbor's 11 lots are taxed $420. 24. Richard Rossing 25-1601490 Valuation increased fran $82,500 in 1987 to $96,000 in 1988. He built a shop at a cost of $4,000 and feels his valuation — should not have increased $13,500. The Assessor also included a greenhouse used only for storage which is not a -- permanent structure as it sits on railroad ties. -4- 9 Ref. Name/ No. Address Parcel No. Comments 25. Rodolfo Alejo 25-1980150 Disappointed because his assessed value 7465 Chippewa Tr. is only $73,000 when he paid $79,400 for the property. 26. Ron Mielke 25-8800190 In 1986 he built a gazebo/storage shed 405 Santa Fe Tr. for about $800. Valuation increased from $86,000 in 1987 to $100,000 in 1988. Neighbor's properties are not assessed this high. Requests a valuation of $84,500 or less. 27. Charles Markert 25-0090310 Value has increased $13,500 over last 7461 Hazeltine Blvd. year and no improvements have been made. 28. Mark Rogers 25-6150140 Value increased fran $97,300 in 1987 to _ 3851 Leslee Cu $106,200 in 1988. A 9% increase in value equals a 17% increase in taxes. He paid $118,000 for the property including points, which should be deducted from the purchase price. 29. Darcy Westlind 25-2090010 Value increased fran $89,200 in 1987 to 6211 Cascade Pass $98,900 in 1988. She has only lived there for 10 months. Why this type of increase? 30. Sherwin & Shirley 25-2400060 Their house was built and completed in Taradash October, 1986 and was assessed in the 61 Sandy Hook Rd. fall of 1987. The County should not continuously reassess property. They received a 12% increase in valuation bringing the 1988 value to $205,300. If only new parcels are increased, unequal taxation occurs. 31. Tan Akins 25-2100130 Same concern as other Near Mountain 6203 Cascade residents. He thought that houses would Pass be reassessed based on the 4 year cycle. 32. Ray Roettger 25-1400110 Objects to the excessively high tax paid 3221 Dartmouth in relation to the same size and types of hones in other parts of the State. Wants to know the assessment formula. 33. Gary Dungey 25-0030400 Valuation increased fran $107,000 to 1910 Stoughton Ave. $198,000 in 1988 with no improvements made. Wants to know why such a large increase. -5- 10 Ref. Name/ No. Address Parcel No. Comments Gary Dungey 25-0340100 1988 valuation of $224,000 for 21 acres of mini-storage, .16 acres on green acres, and 5 acres with buildings ,ccros high. — 34. Kevin Dauwalter 25-5500440 Purchased his home for $135,000. What 6300 Castle Ridge is the assessment ratio being sought, i.e. 92%, 95%? 35. Tan Kraker 25-6040140 Gave examples of 5 properties (4 in 6441 White Dove Chanhassen and 1 in Victoria) that are -' for sale in the County that are assessed at anywhere from 52% to 79% of market value. His property is assessed at 95%and would like to lowered to somewhere between 50% and 70%. 36. Dennis Vanderbur 25-2400270 He moved in in 1987 and just received a 7008 Sandy Hook Rd. $7,000 property tax bill. He's assessed at the 96% to 97% range and wants the City to look at the system used for setting — values, i.e. new properties assessed at 97% versus existing being 90% or lower. 37. John R. Stephens 25-2000810 Withdrew his name. _ 6800 Chaparral Lane 38. William Austin 25-1601530 Value increased fran $58,200 in 1987 to — 749 Carver Beach $78,900 in 1988. He built a garage for Road $5,000. This is a 39% increase. Feels it is too high. — 39. Chris Bellino 25-3451020 Purchased the home in January. An 8140 Dakota Lane appraisal was completed by the lending institution which paralleled the cost of the home. Now, 4 months later, the Assessor increased the value by $15,500. Why? — 40. Keith Sheser 25-2130080 Value increased fran $138,800 in 1987 to 261 Mountain Way $141,900 in 1988. No improvements were — made to the home and he thought it was assessed on a 4 year cycle. 41. Charlie Coffee 25-7610090 His assessed value increased fran 7474 Saratoga $108,000 in 1987 to $148,000 in 1988. He put on a $13,000 addition. Feels that his house would not sell for that — amount of money. -6- 11 Ref. Name/ No. Address Parcel No. Camrents 42. Robert Peterson 25-6030040 This is a new home valued at $160,000 in 1988. His neighbor's house has 2800 square feet and is assessed at $61.00/ sq. ft. He feels his home should be based on the same criteria which would equal $134,000. He presently has it listed for $165,900. 43. Dan Danir rmann 25-2090060 He has an 1100 sq. ft. home that was 6221 Cascade Pass reassessed from $100,600 in 1987 to $106,400 in 1988. Why the increase? 44. Fred Plocher 25-6500140 All parcels are assessed at $97,000. Red Cedar Cove 25-6500130 No are finished and two are shells. 25-6500150 The first unit sold for $133,000. 25-6500160 45. Gerald Barber 25-4450080 Wants to schedule a future date for tax 3850 Maple Shores review as he was out of town. Drive 46. Robert Zima 25-2130070 Feels the assessment of $139,500 for his 271 Near Mtn Way 1500 sq. ft. , two bedroom house is too much. 47. Robert M. Bowen 25-2550050 Feels that an assessed value in excess 6275 Powers Blvd. of $305,100 is too high. 48. Ed & Donna Clark 25-1601430 Property raised 20%. Due to unstable 6859 Yura employment, a tax increase would cause a real hardship at this time. 49. Gary S. McGlennen 25-2140060 Protests his assessment and authorizes _ 6240 Near Mtn Blvd. the Near Mountain Association President to represent their interests. 50. Glenn & Bonnie 25-1800460 Valuation raised from $95,300 to Hagerran $103,700 with no improvements made other 8021 Cheyenne Spur than wallpapering, drapes, etc. An Assessor has never visited their home so how does he know what kinds of improve- ments exist? Feels the valuation is too high. 51. Robert & Marilyn 25-8010250 His estimated taxes are $10,000 per year Wolf and he feels that is way too high. While 7636 So. Shore Dr looking for a house in Chanhassen, there were other houses located on Lotus Lake with taxes ranging from $5,000 to $6,000. -7- � 2 Ref. Name/ No. Address Parcel No. Comments 52. Wynifred Fynbo 25-1601330 Feels the assessor's estimate of her _ 6865 Nez Perce 25-1601340 house is incorrect. She has a very basic 1100 sq. ft. house and it is esti- mated at $113,700. She receives another tax statement with an estimated value of — $9400 which is non-homestead. She feels that this is one parcel and all should be homestead and that she should only — receive one tax statement. 53. Rick & Cynthia 25-1990050 Feels their assessment is high as they Yokiel purchased the house for $107,680. Their 741 Bighorn Drive assessment is 10% to 20% higher than their neighbors. 54. Mavis Skalle 25-1980320 They purchased their home in February. 780 Santa Vera There is a conservation easement which, for all practical purposes, eliminates — 55% to 60% of the lot for their own use. They feel that this will adversely affect their market value. 55. Doug & Jane Cook 25-8570190 The assessed value of $183,400 would 290 Trappers Pass create a market value of $203,800 - more than they paid for the property. — 56. Peter Whatley 25-2110060 Assessment increases in Near Mountain 201 Mtn Way have increased in varying amounts, some have risen modestly and others signifi- cantly. Why? Does not feel the ser- vices they receive properly reflects the — amount of taxes they pay. 57. John R. Stephens 25-2000810 They received a large increase in _ 6800 Chaparral valuation and no major or minor improve- ments were made. Neighboring property owners received only a small increase. 58. Douglas Dougherty 25-8570030 Market value and taxes too high. What 301 Trappers Pass percentage of market value is property taxed at? Haw was assessed value deter- mined? Are older homes with same owner ever reassessed? Why are Carver County taxes higher than other metro areas? _ 59. Michael Ludwig 25-5500420 This is a new home approximately 2i 111 Shasta Cir. West years old. No changes have been made to the house. The value increased from - -8- 13 Ref. Name/ No. Address Parcel No. Comments $112,900 to $120,000. They were origi- nally taxed at a high level and the 4 year guideline was The home at 6228 Cascade is identical to his and is valued at $115,000. His neighbor's assessment went down $1,000 to $108,000. 60. W. Sinnen 25-2500040 Feels a reduction in assessment is in 8800 Sunset Tr. order because the property originally included a house on 15 acres. Nov the property has been subdivided and includes the house on 3 acres. How can the value increase by 20% under these conditions? 61. Robert & Margaret 25-2090170 The value increased $11,700 over last Seeley year and no improvements were made. 6232 Cascade Pass They contacted a realtor who stated that they could not get any more for the prop- erty now than what they paid for it. -9- ) r7 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MAY 23, 1988 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Geving and Councilman Horn STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Larry Brown, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann Olsen, Todd Gerhard, Lori Sietsema and Roger Knutson APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the agenda with the following additions: Councilman Johnson wanted to discuss '— Cheyenne wetland and posting of dumping areas under Council presentations; Councilman Boyt wanted to discuss lot size and landmark trees under Council presentations and Don Ashworth wanted to discuss Church Road. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Resolution #88-45: Reappointment of Pat Swenson to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. c. Findings of Fact, Sunnyslope Homeowners Association, Variance to lot width and lot area requirements for a recreational beachlot. d. Findings of Fact, Sever Peterson Preliminary Plat Extension. e. Approval of Ordinance for Cable TV Ownership Transfer, Final Reading. f. Approval of Development Contract for West Village Heights 2nd Addition, Charlie James. g. Approval of Development Contract for Eight Acre Wood, Eric Canton. i. Approve Amendment to Larson First Addition Platting Agreement. j. Approval of Park and Recreation 1988 Capital Improvement Program. k. Approval of Accounts. 1. City Council Minutes dated May 9, 1988 Planning Commission Minutes dated May 4, 1988 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated April 26, 1988 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated May 10, 1988 All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 lc-8 Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 CONSENT AGENDA: (B) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE STABLE, 3931 ASTER TRAIL, DALE COLLINS. Councilman Boyt: What I would like to see happen here, according to the discussion of the Planning Commission, it appears to be a reasonable use of the property being that it's 5 acres. My problem with it is that it sits on property zoned residential single family. I think if that parcel is split up, an 1,800 square foot pole barn would be inappropriate. I would like to see us put a condition on this that should the property be subdivided, the pole barn -' would be removed. Mayor Hamilton: Wouldn't that be a hardship to a conditional use that we look at annually? Councilman Boyt: We can put this down as one of the conditions of approval. Don Ashworth: When you buy property you have the authority to establish any conditions at that point in time. The removal of structure as a part of their filing would be a normal condition. Would you like to designate that at this time, that's fine. Councilman Johnson: You could have more. . .making that a condition if this is — already stated. Councilman Boyt: It states an intention. I don't think it does damage to anyone. It provides a protection to us from that. .. — Mayor Hamilton: Mr. Collins, do you understand what Bill is suggesting? Do you have any problems with that. Dale Collins: No, I can live with that. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Conditional Use Permit for a Private Stable at 3931 Aster Trail for Dale Collins as presented with the addition of a condition that upon the property being — subdivided the pole barn will be removed. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: (H) APPROVAL OF CHURCH ROAD EASEMENT AGREEMENT. Gary Warren: Just today we received the cost estimate from Northfield, the — contractor for the Church Road, the force main construction for the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and because they're going to be out working on Church Road basically starting even today, we need to get Council approval of change — order amounts suggested by the contractor so he can go ahead and do the sanitary sewer and watermain improvements that you had earlier authorized. The handout that I gave you earlier here is their cost estimate. Basically for your information, the northern part they estimated $13,608.00 is actually about $2,000.00 underneath our engineer's estimate and the southern half which was estimated at $22,957.00 to improve the watermain came out $2,000.00 over because _ of water connections that were missed in the plans. Basically, there are my 2 i 9 Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 quotes and request Council authorization. ... --ir- Mayor Hamilton: Since we pulled this off why don't we just.. .Shorewood's recommendation. I know that they maintain the park. It wasn't clear to me where the line is between Shorewood and Chanhassen in that area. Gary Warren: 62nd Street. Mayor Hamilton: Down the middle? Gary Warren: I'd have to verify that. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I was just curious why we were asking them to cooperate with your...approximate $13,000.00. Normally that is something. .. I'm not aware that they have the wearathol to not give us the easement for this project if we don't do what they're asking us to do. I think they're not totally unreasonable things except that trees that are damaged be replaced with trees of equal caliper. I think it would be more reasonable for you to take trees out of our own nursery to replace them and less expensive. Gary Warren: The Commission has already, from what I'm told, reimbursed Shorewood to get the easement for the forcemai.n construction. Basically the City has been compensated for trees out there so I would be very surprised to see if we got anything further on reimbursement. Mayor Hamilton: So it's not really an out of pocket expense for us? That's all. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Church Road Easement Agreement with the noted additions. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Hamilton presented Certificates of Appreciations to Howard Noziska and Robert Siegel for their years of involvement on the Planning Commission. Mayor Hamilton was also presented with a Certificate of Recognition to the City from the Senior Community Services just prior to the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NO. 2-1 AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order. Mayor Hamilton: Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Councilman Johnson: Don's recommendation is to table action.. . Mayor Hamilton: Even if we close the public hearing, the public can make comment. 3 Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 — Councilman Johnson: You want to reopen another public hearing in the future _ when all the information is available? Mayor Hamilton: No, the public hearing lasts for a period of, the public hearing for this particular meeting. .. — Don Ashworth: You're waiting to receive comments from both the school district and the County. I'm on their agenda for Tuesday but whether you open or close _ it or leave it open, as long as everyone recognizes that we are going to be receiving that, I don't know if there is a procedural problem. Maybe Roger could chose an alternative. Roger Knutson: Since the School Board and the County haven't been notified, . . .you may wish to leave the hearing open. I think it would be best to leave the hearing open. Mayor Hamilton: Don, do you want to give us your comments? Don Ashworth: In light of the fact that...has testified and that the item will be coming back, I would like to defer my report. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table the public hearing on the Tax Increment District No. 2-1 and Economic Development District until the next meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. — KERBER BOULEVARD ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS. Mayor Hamilton: We received the bids for roadway improvements. I don't know if you guys need anything additional. Councilman Boyt: I have a comment. My question is, what's the status on wetland alteration permits on Kerber Boulevard? Gary Warren: There was a memo to the Aclninstrati.ve Packet at the last meeting concerning the need for a wetland alteration permit. That memo basically said that we had proceeded with the filling along Kerber Blvd. as part of our _ emergency measures on the downtown retention basin. Jim Leach who was involved, Jim looked at that. He was scheduled to look at it but he was the person to look at wetlands and give us an opinion as far as the condition. Councilman Boyt: Alright. As long as we're making some progress. It seems to me that somebody is dumping there. Is that the City that's adding fill to that area? Gary Warren: The fill that is out there, some came from Retail West construction over here and we have a sign out there now in response to that. There should not be anything. I went by it again to make sure. '- Councilman Boyt: Are we going to do something to stabilize that slope? 4 Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 Gary Warren: Part of Kerber Blvd., the plans and specs we have included the installation of wood fiber blankets along that whole side slope after it's been 'r seeded and that will be done as a part of the contract. Councilman Boyt: That's all I have. Mayor Hamilton: I have the same concern as you do Bill. I see no reason why we can't plant oats or rye grass on the side of that hill right now so if it rains it will grow and at least hold the dirt from running off there. If we get a hard rain we're just washing dirt down to the pond down there. Gary Warren: We've got hay bales all along the down slope side of the hill there. We will be, as a part of the Kerber Blvd. improvements, you recall we will be putting a trail up on the top side there and a lot of that top surface area and some of the side slopes will be modified as a result of construction. Mayor Hamilton: What does it cost to put some oats or some rye grass in? It can't be very expensive. Gary Warren: $500.00 to $600.00. Part of what's missing is that there isn't a lot of black dirt out there. You just have clay and until there's topsoil, you will have difficulty growing almost anything right now. If you put the bales out there and they will stabilize that until we do get the construction going where we would have the black dirt and take care of it properly. Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps we should think about making a second fence so that you're filtering as much as possible should we get a heavy rain. I think we should take some precautions. Councilman Johnson: My question is how does the master plan for Chan Pond Park fit in with the changes to that hill? Has Park and Rec been coordinated on this one? I know tomorrow night's meeting they have a master plan for that park up on their board. Don Ashworth: From the engineer's meeting out on the field with them to go through the plans for this approval and Koegler is meeting there as well. Resolution #88-46: Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to award the bid for the Kerber Boulevard Roadway Improvements to Imperial Developers in the amount of $336,379.30. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-263 (6 & 7) OF THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENT FOR A DOCK AND ONE CANOE RACK/DOCK REQUIREMENT, FIRST READING, ROBERT PIERCE. Mayor Hamilton: Since this item requires a four-fifths vote to pass or deny and we do not have four people here, the Council will have to table this item until our next regularly scheduled meeting. Councilman Johnson: It only takes two votes to deny but four votes to pass. 5 9 1 O,I L�1 Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: I think in all fairness to the applicant we should have the full Council here. That's exactly what we did last time and I see no reason we should take the opportunity to deny it now without the full Council. Councilman Boyt: I supposed I can meet with staff after the meeting. There are some items I would like them to look at in regards to this. Better after the meeting than now. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section 20-263 (6 & 7) until a full Council is present. All voted in favor and the motion carried. — PARTIAL VACATION OF WEST 64TH STREET, HSZ DEVELOPERS. — Mayor Hamilton: Barbara, we've covered this item rather thoroughly the first time and I would like to have you just perhaps review briefly the position that you left us with last time we discussed it and perhaps where we're at today. — What has taken place since that time. Barbara Dacy: There's an old saying that you usually shoot the bearer of bad — news and I'll probably get shot. State law says for vacation requests that if it's petitioned by a single person, you have to have a four-fifths vote to approve also. I did not anticipate both Mr. Geving and Mr. Horn being absent tonight. There's a real question on whether we can even proceed on this item. Mayor Hamilton: It's certainly a significant item. (-- Councilman Boyt: I think that what we need to do and what we can do, if we could give some sort of intention of the Council. This amounts to money out of everybody's pocket to delay this. On both of these issues, 4 and 6. — Barbara Dacy: Would a special meeting be considered by the Council. Mayor Hamilton: Let me ask Roger this. Could we, if the Council were inclined, the three of us here this evening, could we allow the developer to go ahead with the construction pending approval of the disposition of 64th Street which is something we've done in several residential developments in the past? I believe — we're going to reach a mutual understanding and agreement on this issue. Since we can't deal with it this evening, like Bill says, it's money out of everybody's pocket. Roger Knutson: First to vacate a street you need a public hearing. This has not been advertised for a public hearing. Barbara Dacy: Yes it has. Roger Knutson: You got it advertised? — Barbara Dacy: Right. Roger Knutson: Okay, then you can accept the document.. . The potential problem I can see, it takes a four-fifths vote to approve the vacation. It takes a simple majority vote to do the plat. 6 Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 Barbara Dacy: At that last meeting the Council approved the plat subject to resolution of the vacation issue. In other words, a specific condition of approval. So to proceed on your option would not be possible because it was that condition of approval... Mayor Hamilton: Anybody that could come up with the developer and begin grading on that site. Barbara Dacy: Depending on which option the Council chooses though as far as vacation of the street, that could affect the grading plan, at 64th Street. If — time is a problem, I know nobody likes to come to more meetings than they have to. Mayor Hamilton: I guess our next option is to have a special meeting. I want — everybody here for this item. Clark Horn was called out of town because of his father and we don't know where Dale is. He may have been called out of town on business so all we can do is we can set a tentative meeting for later this week — or next Monday. Then we could at least contact the other two members and find out when they're going to be in town so we can at least have a quorum to deal with this item. Councilman Boyt: Might I make a suggestion? I think that it's important, we've got quite a few of the neighbors here, that they may have a position that they want to present that would have some impact. I think if people go to the trouble that it is sometimes to come, it might be worth our time to listen to whatever their presentation is. Then we will at least have heard it and maybe some of them won't need to come back. Mayor Hamilton: Except I think it's important for the other two members to hear the same thing. I realize they can read it off of the transcription, if it's done by then. I just don' t want something to be lost in what everyone has to say and having the Council hearing it. Councilman Boyt: I agree. I have a couple of questions. Did MnDot come back with a response on where the origin spot was that the 1,100 feet? Barbara Dacy: Yes, I clarified that with Mr. Green this afternoon and he said — he would accept a new street intersection measured 1,100 feet from the center line of TH 7. Councilman Boyt: So that means that there could be some sort of intersection in the Reed property? Barbara Dacy: It would be roughly located along the south lot line of the Reed — property. Councilman Boyt: Have we got any information that helps us on how people who are to the west of this development can get onto TH 41 i.f we shut off 64th? I've heard and I do not remember exactly from the drawings we say a year or so ago but I understand that there's going to be a right turn lane on TH 7 that will enter TH 41 without having to stop at the stop sign. Barbara Dacy: Into the development you mean? 7 Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 Councilman Boyt: No. Onto TH 41 off TH 7. Barbara Dacy: How about if, I'm not sure I understand your question so I'll explain to you about the development and you can tell me if that's what you need to know or not. There will be a full intersection on TH 41 to the commercial — development. A right-in only from TH 7 into the commercial site. If 64th Street is closed off, depending on the Council's decision, it could be realigned out to TH 41. If it's closed off, people on the western part of the _ neighborhood over here would have to use the existing accesses to TH 7. Washta Bay Road, Orchard Lane, Sandpiper. Councilman Boyt: On Orchard Lane, that's the one I'm interested in, it would seem to to me as though, with all the work that's going to go on on TH 7 one of these days, is it going to be possible for those folks to fairly easily go south on TH 41 if they lose 64th Street? Barbara Dacy: If they lose 64th Street, that would force all the traffic through the TH 7/TH 41 intersection. There would be no other means to get southbound on TH 41. They would all have to go north to TH 7 and then south. — Councilman Boyt: That helps me. My issue on 64th Street is simply the impact on the people to the west and of course the impact on the property owners. It's — my understanding, and maybe when we open this up to public discussion, when we hold a special meeting, this can be cleared up. It's my understanding that the people to the west, given a reasonable access onto TH 41 off of TH 7, can live _ with losing 64th Street. That's my understanding. And if they can, then I'm quite comfortable with closing off 64th so fran my perspective, I think that a very workable solution can be worked out. Mayor Hamilton: I had suggested the possibility of the feasibility study being conducted on this issue. Where this access should be located. Since we haven' t a quorum and I think that's a good opportunity for you to conduct a feasibility — study to give us more information. Perhaps if we're in agreement to do that being done now and perhaps we could bring this item back. .. Councilman Boyt: I think that what we're talking about here is the best way to spend the available money. I would rather see us encourage the developer to work with the property owners out there and spend money in that regard than to spend the money on doing a traffic study on what's going to happen to 64th — Street. Mayor Hamilton: I understand he has been working with the neighbors. — Councilman Boyt: I think he has been working with them but what we're saying is let's take some of that available money that he could spend resolving their problems and spend it on the traffic study. I'm not sure the traffic study is — going to put us any further ahead so I'd rather see the money spent resolving the issues of the property owners. Don Ashworth: The traffic study portion is as complete as it can be. In other words, the portion that's been done by BRW. At this point in time though, we really are not in a position to advise the Reeds for example on how much money _ it would cost to built that section of 64th Street to their property or the 8 — 14)5 Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 Gowens or the cost of the cul-de-sac. We don't really have any way to analyze -47 one proposal versus another. That really was not what staff's recommendation was. Councilman Boyt: What we do have though is an intent that the developer and the Reeds and the Gowens have worked out in an attempt to resolve that issue. Now I don't think that the City needs to be involved in gathering additional information if they have already got a basic agreement. Don Ashworth: I don't believe that's the case. At least as of Friday I know that the Reeds were very concerned with sane of the promises and beliefs as far as would this road go through their property. Would it not. What the cost would be to them. Would they really get their fair shake out of this proposal. Mayor Hamilton: Let me ask Gary Rood, I see he's here, and the Gowens had a meeting yesterday with the neighborhood and if you could tell us what the results of that meeting were. If there was anything conclusive that may help us here. Gary Reed: We did have a meeting and Bill and I invited some of the other Councilmembers here. It was short notice so some of you didn't cane but we did have a good show of neighbors in the area. We. were able to hammer out some proposals. .. cul-de-sac into our property. We discussed with Ben Gowen the option of cul-de-sacing it now with a short cul-de-sac and cul-de-sacing down into the property to give us access from TH 41. Mr. Gowen and I, he would like "" the City to look at that. .. .the proposal of going with the cul-de-sac into the property. .. We worked out an agreement with Mr. Zahn on that. .. We feel that, as in talking with all the neighbors and getting everybody's heads together, we have representatives from the western section, that this is the best option for everybody involved. Let me point out again, you have a .. .in your packet there on the State lots and. .. That's the option there. We settled on the City survey. Mayor Hamilton: So you're satisfied with that? Councilman Johnson: Those eight lots, are all residential? You're not looking at any commercial along this cul-de-sac? Gary Reed: That's true. Councilman Johnson: And from when I talked to Don earlier today about how to split Oriole. Another question is, to follow up on something Bill said, is the right turn lane in going, is that going to be extending far enough back where that can also be used as an acceleration lane for Oriole? Barbara Dacy: Unless the developer would have more specific plans, I don't know if he worked out the specific details on that. Councilman Johnson: The entrance to the shopping center? Barbara Dacy: Right. John Uban: That will continue all the way down to the entrance of the shopping center. It's along the intersection itself. 9 ti �� n xuo Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 Councilman Johnson: From Oriole? John Uban: Not from Oriole. Are you talking along TH 7 or along TH 41? Councilman Johnson: TH 7. How far west on TH 7 does that start? John Uban: Yes, it goes back to Oriole. Councilman Johnson: Right now they're turning right onto TH 7 I believe without -- any type of acceleration lane. This would then give them some acceleration. John Uban: Plus that also helps to allow that new stacking left turn for people _ heading west and wanting to go onto Oriole from TH 7 so that widening there and the configuration of both the deceleration and acceleration lane and the left turn lane all cane together because of that widening. Councilman Johnson: That helps a lot in that intersection. The other thing is, in our traffic studies, I didn't really see anything specific about how many people from Orchard I guess it is, actually turn onto Oriole and use 64th out to — TH 41 per day? Councilman Boyt: 150 cars. Councilman Johnson: No, that's not right. That's 150 going both ways. Councilman Boyt: Right. 150 cars that go out 64th Street counting the round — trip on 64th. Councilman Johnson: Yes, but that doesn't say how many people from Orchard come in, take a right and come over to 64th and go out. That's somewhat of an important number to know because those are the people we're cutting off. Barbara Dacy: Tony Heppelmann from BRW is here. — Tony Heppelmann: We don't actually have a count of the people actually making that movement but an estimated number of people that live along Oriole and along — 64th and subtracting out from 150 we came up with an estimate of about 75 vehicles a day, both ways, that come from west of Oriole and go out 64th. So about half of the total was that. Councilman Johnson: What would it take to do a count there? To confirm that estimate? Barbara Dacy: Put the city's traffic counters out there. Gary Warren: We use our counters to get the numbers that are out there right now. Councilman Johnson: Would the counters tell us how many people are making that turn from Oriole? Tony Heppelmann: It probably would be easier to do it manually and just keep track of the numbers. — 10 Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 Councilman Johnson: I think so too. To me that's somewhat of an important number because in talking to the neighborhood several weeks ago when they had one of their neighborhood meetings with cookies and coffee, we were talking that there's very few people that actually make that. The way the road lies off to there, taking a very sharp turn as I said before. Most people go up to TH 7 and take it. I think that's an important factor. My assumption right now is that 75 might be high. With the improvements to TH 7, I'm really kind of leaning towards the cul-de-sac as long as there's not going to be commercial on there. Limiting commercial will reduce the traffic in future years. That's where I'm sitting. I'm leaning very heavy towards the cul-de-sac. With the TH 7 improvements, so just to give people a feeling of where I'm at. Mayor Hamilton: The neighbors have reached agreement and I wish I had. .. If that is satisfactory to them, it certainly is satisfactory to me and perhaps this will give us a little time since unfortunately we can't move ahead with this...to get some additional information to the Council to see that that's what you agreed upon. Betty Lang: I have a question. What does this do to the access to Herman Field? You're talking about making a cul-de-sac there. Where will this end? Mayor Hamilton: Oriole take them down to the cul-de-sac. The access to Herman Field will remain as it is at the present time. There's no change to that as I know. Roger Knutson: Barb's brought to my attention that Mr. Reed owns all the property abutting the street that will be vacated. That being the case, if he wishes to petition this Council to vacate it, you only need a majority vote which unanimous. .. Mayor Hamilton: Mr. Reed I guess I'd have to ask you then if that's something you'd like to have done? Mr. Reed has the option of petitioning the Council to vote on this item tonight. If you would want the Council to act on this item this evening, you could petition us to do so. If not you have that option also and we'll have to wait for a full Council. Gary Reed: I own it with my brother. He's not here tonight. Otherwise I'd probably do that. Gene Conner, 2521 Orchard Lane: In regards to the traffic flow on 64th, on a report on Orchard, my wife and you notice I said my wife. I don't necessarily share her concern but she will not turn left off of TH 7 onto Oriole in terms of the east. She almost got rear ended one day there and she turns left at the light and goes down to 64th and goes in that way. I'm not against the cul-de-sac on 64th Street. I do feel very, very strongly however that any cul-de-sac has to be tied completely to a left turn lane off of TH 7. Councilman Johnson: Absolutely. I almost got rear ended at the same place and I don't like to take that turn either now. Councilman Boyt: Mr. Reed, I would like to request that you contact your brother and see if we can make some progress on this. Maybe we consider not acting on what we can't act on anyway but if you could get ahold of him and come 11 196 Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 back later, we might be able to still resolve this. The other thing is, I believe that Barb's information about where MnDot is willing to accept another entrance and exit off of TH 41, that it doesn't have to happen on Mr. Gowen's — property at all. Therefore, we do have two options for a long extension and two cul-de-sacs that would be within the City's ordinance. Barbara Dacy: Mr. Green did state to me on the phone that MnDot would accept, if another road was to come in this way, that they would not require Mr. Gowen to alter his driveways. In other words, Mr. Gowen's driveway can exist as is. Councilman Boyt: All this can happen and his property is untouched? So I think both of those options will still fly. Roger Zahn: I'm Roger Zahn, president of HSZ Development. Maybe if we could just retreat a second and get a point of clarification from the Council here. The Reeds are owners in joint tenancy with their brother. In other words, they aren't divided, one-half interest in all of that property. That's not that the property is split so it may well be that we'd never exactly face that issue before but it may well be as legal fact they are owners of that property. They are owners of all of that property so the question is, when it's joint tenancy, can they make that request or do you need both joint tenants? I don't know why you would. If you're in joint tenancy with your wife, do both the wife and the husband have to join in a petition to vacant? That's essentially the question and I would say probably no. Roger Knutson: Obviously Mr. Reed couldn't sell the property without his brother's consent. He could sell his half interest in it but he couldn't sell the property.. . I don' t think the Statute's a 100% clear. You may very well be right but I think the considerate thing to do is not cloud the record with that sort of thing. If I were proceeding with that development, I would want as — little. .. Otherwise you just take a risk that someone can use later. Mayor Hamilton: You've heard what the three councilmembers here are telling — you. As long as you work with what the neighbors are coming up with and what you're coming up with and.. . We will be attempting to make a special meeting. Roger Zahn: Yes, I really appreciate that. — Mayor Hamilton: We'll keep you informed. Don Ashworth: If I'm hearing the Council is pretty well in tune on this issue. Potentially we can set it for Thursday evening at 5:00 or 6:00. Mayor Hamilton: I think we should make it as soon as possible but Jay's saying he's going to be out of town the rest of the week. Councilman Johnson: No, in town. — Mayor Hamilton: It's hard telling when Clark will be back. We can find that out. Don Ashworth: Clark thought he would be back within the next couple days. 12 — 99 Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 dr- Mayor Hamilton: If that doesn't inconvenience anybody who's here, we'll attempt to meet at 6:00 Thursday evening if we can get everyone together. Councilman Boyt: Let's be sure we include Pierce and this on the same night. Mayor Hamilton: There might be a couple more items. Councilman Boyt: So what we've agreed to do then is to hold the meeting on — Thursday at 6:00. Mayor Hamilton: If we can have a quorum. Councilman Boyt: It would be certainly very helpful if the Reeds and Mr. Zahn had worked out an agreement by then. For my part, I certainly want you to keep the option open of having two cul-de-sacs that live within the limits set by the City Ordinance. As I mentioned that may not carry today but I would like you to think about that option. R & R LAND VENTURES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WOODHILL ROAD: A. SUBDIVISION OF 3.5 ACRES INTO 7 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO DEVELOP WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS B WETLAND. Barbara Dacy: The Planning Commission, at their meeting, recommended approval — of both items but they did want clarification regarding the status of the drainageway that traverses through the eastern part of the property which is located on the transparency right here. Mr. Jim Leach from the U.S. Fish and _ Wildlife Service inspected the site on May 13th. He said that although the drainageway does exhibit wetland characteristics, he said that it's not protected by DNR or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and is considered a drainageway and not a protected wetland. So the Planning Commission's concern regarding whether or not the plat would have to be amended is resolved. In fact Mr. Leach endorsed the proposed creation of the stormwater retention pond in this location to act as a filtering basin prior to the storm water entering into — the wetland area to the east of the Yuma Drive paper right-of-way. He also recommended that a part of the pond be deepened to permit shortage of water should occur on a long term basis, he's afraid the ponds is shallower in the southeast part of the site. Although staff recognizes that those are viable objectives for a pond to promote the stripping of nutrients before entering the wetland area, there was an overwhelming concern from the neighborhood at the public hearing regarding whether or not there is going to be standing water in - that pond. A number of the neighbors in the area have children and there was concerns about those safety issues. Therefore, staff is still maintaining it's original recommendation to create a pond as proposed as shown on the proposed _ drainage plan. The Planning Commission also added three conditions regarding the submission of a decd restriction regarding tree removal, soil borings to be submitted upon building permit application. That the developer negotiate with the City Engineer regarding curbing along Lots 3, 4 and 5 and that a 10 foot roadway and utility easement be platted on the south right-of-way of Woodhill Road. As to the wetland alteration permit, Mr. Leach's comments have been received and he approved the proposed grading and planting plan. Therefore, Council can adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval subject to compliance with the conditions of plat approval. 13 Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 — Mayor Hamilton: Ron, did you have anything you wanted to add? Ron Krueger: Yes, one point that you covered here. The one on the curb. I — believe at the Planning Commission meeting there was. ..and the drainage in that area, the water seems to...running along the north side. I really don't see any purpose for putting a blacktop curb along those lots. I'm not concerned with the first... The other item was the applicant shall dedicate Outlot A to the City of Chanhassen prior to the commencement of any grading. We have agreed to dedicate the outlot but the problems would be, we'd like to get busy and start installing this storm sewer to get at least some of these houses built and we still have the final plat to get approved and it has to go to the County and there's one of the lots that has a tax title problem so if we're not able to do any grading prior to the deeding of the outlot, it's probably going to take — about six weeks. Perhaps in the development agreement. I'm sure there will be words in the development agreement to cover the deeding of the outlot to the City. Councilman Johnson: You said that the Fish and Wildlife and the DNR don't consider it a wetland, what about our ordinance? That's what the Planning Commission talked about. They were pretty sure those would be our wetlands. Barbara Dacy: The primary distinction is that yes, there's no question that there's running water through it because it's a drainageway. And yes, there are — reed grasses along it because it's wet in the area but it's considered a ditch. A drainageway and not a wetland. It's very similar to what we did in the Rod Gram's subdivision with the creek that runs through there and the Triple Crown creek. Well, there used to be in that area there. Maybe I'll use the example on the west side in the Saddlebrook area. Councilman Boyt: Didn't we open that up and make a pond out of it? Barbara Dacy: In Saddlebrook? Yes. I believe our crews did alter this drainageway also for improving the flow through. — Councilman Johnson: They should have spread the fill out a little better around the edge to make it look nicer. I wish there was something we could do about the grading. .. I'm hoping that the other side of the road will develop and get rid of some of those shacks and problems on the other side of the road too. I think that this is another fine area that seems kind of.. .similar to our conservation easement. Little easement that we could work out to discuss what can and can't be done within the woods. Obviously, you take out the diseased trees that you're required to take down but I think that's something that ought to be taken on a future agenda where we talk about.. .to help try to preserve some of the wood... -' Councilman Boyt: If we look at the motion as recommended to the City Council, number 1 talks about clearcutting. I think in that should be added reference to — trees being proposed for cutting should be reviewed by the Forest Service and City Engineer. That's not in there and I think that should be standard operating procedure for the City. Then in number 5, Gary it's my understanding that we have put in our standard development contract that the City is going to be responsible for erosion control and we're going to charge for that. 14 10 Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 Gary Warren: The City will be responsible for removal of erosion control and —17 there will be a charge for that. Councilman Boyt: Okay, we should modify 5 to reflect that. It says that the responsibility will be on the developer and I believe it's 1.00 a foot to remove? Gary Warren: That's correct. Councilman Boyt: Then I think as a part of this we should post that Woodhill Road be as a no parking area. I gather from the discussion it presently wouldn't support parking. I think that we should, as part of our conditions of approvement, if possible, require that all homes have a sump system and drain tile. As I recall our ordinances, we require that the lowest level of the house be 3 feet above the water line. Do you recall that? Gary Warren: You're talking about 2 foot from the high water mark. Councilman Boyt: It's 2 foot above, not 3 feet above? Gary Warren: 2 feet above the high water mark. Councilman Boyt: As I look at where the current line is for the marsh, maybe that's no problem. I guess I was looking at the drainage ditch. There are quite a few references in the Planning Commission notes about flooding on Lot 5. — T Are we in touch with that? Larry Brown: Yes. The applicant has submitted calculations to try and address the flow that would flow over the corner of Lot 5 in the event of a large storm. Part of the house pad elevations can be addressed as well through the building permit application. We're not locking in now house pad elevations at this time. Councilman Boyt: Are we indicating that these are buildable lots without variances? Barbara Dacy: Yes. Councilman Boyt: I know from a square footage standpoint but what if this lot can't be built on from a water table standpoint? What if they have no way of accessing this lot without cutting across an area where the water table is 1 foot below the ground? Does that then make them unbuildable? Larry Brown: I think those questions will have to be answered once the soil borings are submitted to the building inspection department. Councilman Boyt: Can we approve this without soil borings being taken and indicate that this is a buildable lot? Once we plat this, aren't we saying it's a buildable lot? Gary Warren: Maybe Roger wants to address that. I guess my opinion on that would be that platting the lots but that does not absolve the developer from certain things. Like bad soils, for example, regardless of water, if he has a buildable foundation. 15 202 Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 Councilman Boyt: It seems to me that the City is faced with variances with some frequency where a lot has been platted and it's found that it no longer fits the City's ordinances and yet we pretty generally grant those variances through the hardship of not finding another use for that piece of ground. Gary Warren: In certain setback areas, those variances I would agree with you — but as far as conditions such as soil stability and ground water, I would be hard pressed to come up with a variance that we've approved. Councilman Boyt: So you're telling me that even if this lot was unbuildable, we — wouldn't be faced with a variance request to build on it. You wouldn't be able to grant it, is basically what you're saying. Gary Warren: I'm saying that in order for him to build on any of these lots, he still has to be able to comply with the ground water and soil stability issues. Roger Knutson: I suppose potentially Gary, I don't know anything about these lots. .. Gary Warren: In which case he's complying with the ground water condition. The — basement that's above the ground water. Roger Knutson: So you would need a variance before he can get that house filed? — Councilman Boyt: Okay, I'm just trying to protect the future property owners. On the issue of the wetland, the National Wildlife Service, I gather, is _ suggesting that the wetland be a more permanent wet area. Is that right Barbara? Is that what you're suggesting? The neighborhood is saying they want it dry? Barbara Dacy: The wetland, the actual wetland is off the property. Councilman Boyt: This is the pond you're creating. — Barbara Dacy: And the pond area, yes, Mr. Leach recommended that we could create a deeper part of the pond in the northern area and a shallower area to encourage vegetation and so on and during the Planning Commission meeting that was an issue of concern. Councilman Boyt: The neighbors talked about there was a good bit of water — around this area already. I don't know exactly how I feel about the issue. I hate to create a hazard. I also hate to give up potential wetland area that we could develop. I understanding in reading the Planning Commission Minutes that _ there is a considerable number of trees that are going to be loss due to grading. Is that right? Gary Warren: Correct. — Councilman Boyt: And these are mature trees we're talking about. What can we do to save them? Gary Warren: It will come up I guess to the builder or property owner or developer, this is the building plans. We call out for grading plans for review _ for a building permit as we have in Shadowmere and other areas and say what 16 — Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 "" `' trees are you going to save. It's to their incentive to save the trees except for those that are diseased or damaged. Councilman Boyt: Well, no it isn't. It's not to their incentive if it keeps them from developing that piece of property. They'll come in and they' ll put 10 feet of fill in there and kill that tree. Gary Warren: I guess what I meant to say is that from a monetary standpoint, the lot is worth more to have trees on it. Barbara Dacy: Mr. Boyt, I guess we attempted to be, as you can tell from the grading plan, that there will need to be a certain amount of work conducted. On one hand we didn't want to lead the Council down the road by saying that there will be a lot of trees saved. We wanted to be upfront with that but in order to compensate that, by establishing that grading limit boundary, preserving the southern half of those lots, maintain the property from the Triple Crown subdivision and do our best to review the tree removal plan and you have a good suggestion with the DNR forester. Maybe we do have some added help in that area when we have the grading. .. Councilman Boyt: I would recommend that a condition be put on this that we minimize fill that would lead to the death of a major tree. I would say anything over 10 inches. I'd like to see the fill minimized to save those as much as possible. We have the capability of building on Lot 5, which is barely above the water table, according to the neighbors, then we certainly have the -- IL capability of minimizing fill and protecting as many trees as possible. I think we should go with that on 10. My last point is 20o road incline. Basically I don't think this piece of property warrants five lots. I don't think we should put five more families on a road that has a 20o decline/incline and a surface only 16 feet wide. I won't vote against it because of that but it just seems to me it's not safe. That's all. Mayor Hamilton: I had a question on item 3 also. I'm curious why we're asking for Outlot A to be dedicated prior to any grading when it hasn't been done in the past. It would seem to me that that's a City, rather.. .condition. I think this can be accomplished by putting something into the development contract and I think in the past it's been overlooked in some cases where we haven't gotten the outlots deeded to the City as we should have but I don't think this is the right place to do it. Gary Warren: Exactly Mr. Mayor. We've had problems catching up with some easements and outlots that haven't been carried out even as a result of being in the development contract. I would suggest, I wouldn't request here but I would like to get some deadline maybe where we could put out some realistic date that the developer would do where we could expect to have the deed transferred so we have something that's not nebulous out there. Mayor Hamilton: I think as long as the developer knows and had agreed that he's going to transfer that, there shouldn't be a problem. I would think that the City would want him to finish his grading anyway. Why would we want to have it deed to us? He could say we:_1 now it's yours. I'm not going to finish it. I don't know, why should I? It's not my property. 17 204 Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 Gary Warren: Conditions of the development contract and plans would require that he have to do the work out there whether we have ownership or not. I guess I'm saying...we could use a letter of credit I guess as a back-up. If he hasn't provided us with a deed we'll use his letter of credit. Mayor Hamilton: Can that be put into the development contract? Gary Warren: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: So you can strike that from one of the conditions. Then item — 12 on curbing. Could you make a comment on that please? Larry Brown: The curbing, the reason that they had stated that the curbing was to be negotiated is through the plans and specs mode, their initial intent was to make sure that the water along Lots 4 and 5 did in fact make it to the pond and not flood out the front of those lots. Right now Mr. Krueger and myself have yet to sit down and take a look at the low points to find out whether — that's feasible and that's why they're allowing him to negotiate with the City Engineer. Gary Warren: That would either be, probably more appropriate along with review of the plans and specs. We would make a review of it at that time. Mayor Hamilton: Then the discussion on the trees. That is a beautiful piece of — property and there are many trees on there. I think a lot of their will be saved because the building pads will be in the north side of the lots. However, you do have to take some trees to make room for a building pad. I think we've — talked about this so many times that when we hired a forester to help us with these things, he told us that trees will die if you do. .. You expect that as a part of development. I certainly hate to see a nice treed area like this, some of these trees are being developed but. . . It is a valuable asset to the property.. . A lot of people looking for lots with trees on them. They're hard to find. I have no other items. Councilman Johnson: Just to follow up on the trees and grading. Looking at the grading plan, with the exception of Lot 1 and Lot 2, some of the very front part of it, the entire Lot 3, 4 and 5 are going to be regraded bringing that up to 4 foot of fill and 2 foot or so over almost the entire Lot 4. There's not going to be on the front half a lot of trees saved on Lots 1 and 2. Truthfully when I went down through there, there's a lot of real small grubby trees on the front side of those lots like somebody has cleared it once before. There are some — mature trees but primarily 1 inch type stuff. It's pretty scrubby. It would be interesting to get some of those, replant whatever you can. With a tree spade move than around if you've got some that are saveable and after you fill, go — back into the frontyards. Use your own thing as a nursery if it's possible. Just a suggestion obviously. Do you know that operation down east, a logging operation going on down there. — Mayor Hamilton: The person has been trying to develop a buildable lot and what's happened is they've got all kinds of trees off. The owner has been doing that. — Councilman Johnson: How deep, if you expanded the pond, where there was some water, would we be talking 6 inches of water? I think a lot of people are — 18 ,ra.• Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 concerned about getting a high water where the kids would drown. Is what Mr. Leach is looking for is something for ducks to swim in? Barbara Dacy: Right. Councilman Johnson: With wood duck houses and stuff? We have a beautiful area for wood ducks. Mayor Hamilton: ...improving a ditch that goes through there so I suspect that there's wildlife... Councilman Johnson: We're not talking a real lot of depth of water. Just enough water to promote the wildlife. During the storms we do go to 2 to 3 to 4 feet deep during a large storm. Whether it's totally dry or has 6 inches in it to start with. Is there a way we could say that the average depth shouldn't exceed a foot of something or a design that we are going to hold water in? Gary Warren: I think it'd be more appropriate to just specify an outlet in the rear that would control elevation. With the grading we cut what the maximum depth would be. You have a 928 outlet, you put a rear a 930, it will be 2 foot down on the east end and there will be 0 depth. That would be the way to do it. Councilman Boyt: That's just the reverse. I would move approval of Subdivision Request #88-5 with the following conditions and changes. On number 1 I would add Forest service and City Engineer. Also add the grading and fill be minimized to save trees. That means that we simply have the ability to ask for trees to be saved. Then I understand we struck 3. That 5 has the addition of $1.00 per foot for removal. Gary Warren: He's still dedicating the outlot. Councilman Boyt: Right but it's no longer in this? Gary Warren: It's still a condition of approval. It's just that he doesn't have to give it to us prior to starting of the grading. Councilman Johnson: Strike from prior back. Councilman Boyt: Then that addition I just made on 5, I'd like to add a point 14, no parking on Woodhill Road. I'd like to add a point 15 which is so much common sense it defies logic but that a sump and drain tile will be required in the homes in this development. Mayor Hamilton: If that's a motion I'll second it. Ron Krueger: I had a question on the erosion control. In other words, we don't do it. Gary Warren: The City has a standard development contract now which the City public works force. ..erosion control in new developments because sometimes we want to leave that in for a year or sometime after finishing the project when the developer and everybody else has gone away. Ron Krueger: So in other words, we can't remove it? 19 .206 Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 — Gary Warren: In no case can you remove it unless you have the approval of the City. Ron Krueger: That is an option... Gary Warren: The City will remove under the development contract. The City will remove and you will be charged $1.00 per foot for removal. — Mayor Hamilton: Is this an item that is negotiable so if he would agree to remove it and he's finished with is grading and everything, that his crews take it out? Gary Warren: It's kind of defeating the purpose of our generic contract. We're _ trying to get consistency because it does get difficult to remember who we said can remove it and who can't and that's why we said with this saying the City will take care of it. Mayor Hamilton: I'm not saying not to have it in there. I'm just saying, I don't see any reason why you and the developer can't negotiate that. If you're satisfied with the way it is and he's still got his crew there, I don't see any — reason why he can't take it out. Gary Warren: Contrary to the contract we're approving. Mayor Hamilton: I guess it doesn't make any sense. I see no reason why staff doesn't have. . . Gary Warren: Normally the erosion control is left in place for some time after the improvements are done. Especially on an area such as this where we've got a lot of steep grades. Councilman Boyt: What I'd like to see happen there is that we collect the money and if per chance if this worked out, we give it back to them. If it doesn't the City has the righ to take them out. That way it becomes the developer's — responsibility and the City doesn't have to chase anybody down. Mayor Hamilton: Just a comment on your 15 with the sumps and baskets. — ...anybody I've seen or dealt with... The developer is not building the house and I don't think that we, on developer's contract, one of his conditions, if he's not building the house, that we can tell him that the builder has to put _ sumps and baskets in that house. He's not the builder. He's only the developer of the property. He's not the builder. Councilman Boyt: We tell them sometimes where they can locate a house. We tell the developer any number of things. About house positioning, tree removal. Mayor Hamilton: That's fine but that doesn't have anything to do with the — actual construction. When it's something within the house and the construction. I'm not disagreeing with you as far as doing it. Quality builders do it but I'm not sure that we can tell R & R that it has to be there when you have no control over that. — Roger Knutson: It should be put in the development contract.. . Maybe there's no dispute on that point. Co you have any problem with that? 20 ;07 Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 Ron Krueger: We have covenants.. . These lots are going to have to rest... I don't know what deeds we've got. You may say the City says you have to do it but... Roger Knutson: As far as it having teeth, it's in the development contract that is recorded against the lots. You don't have any problems. RoxAnn Lund: Don't you have strength in the building application? Mayor Hamilton: Not in the building permit application. Councilman Johnson: In reviewing the building designs, if we find that the ground water is so high we can't, I find that hard to believe. Councilman Boyt: This takes care of it. It's real simple. Mayor Hamilton: But again I think perhaps rather than having it as one of the conditions it should be in the development contract. Councilman Boyt: Is the development contract okay with you? Gary Warren: For the sump pumps? Fine. Councilman Boyt: Do you want to make a note to make sure it's in there. So I remove that from a part of my motion. Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Subdivision Request #88-5 based on the plan stamped "Received May 2, 1988" and the grading and drainage plan stamped "Received May 19, 1988" subject to the following conditions: 1. There shall be no clearcutting of the lots at any time. Grading, erosion control and tree removal plans shall be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application for Lots 1 through 5, Block 1. The applicant shall file the proposed deed restrictions upon satisfactory review by City staff, Forester and City Engineer. The grading and fill should be minimized to save trees. 2. The developer shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee completion of these improvements. 3. The applicant shall dedicate Outlot A to the City of Chanhassen. 4. The applicant shall erect a snow fence immediately south of the proposed grading area to prevent removal or destruction of trees outside the proposed grading area. 5. All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the commencement of any grading, and once in place shall remain in place throughout the duration of construction. The developer is required to review all erosion control measures periodically and make the necessary repairs promptly. All erosion 21 gaanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 control measures shall remain intact until an established vegetative cover has been produced, at which time removal shall be the responsibility of the developer at $1.00 per foot. 6. The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District. 7. Wood-fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all distrubed slopes greater than 3:1. 8. The develper shall be responsible for daily on and off-site clean up caused by construction of this site. 9. The plans shall be revised to show that the storm sewer pipe located at the — southwest corner of Outlot A shall be extended 10 feet beyond the existing watermain along Yuma Drive. 10. The applicant shall provide the City with revised storm sewer calculations which verify the adequate capacity of the storm sewer system prior to the final plat review process. 11. The applicant shall submit soil borings for each lot as part of the building permit process. 12. The developer shall negotiate with the City Engineer for curbing for Lots 3,4 and 5. 13. The developer shall provide a ten foot roadway easement along Woodhill to provie for future road improvements and utilities. 14. There shall be no parking on Woodhill Road. — All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Boyt: I would like to suggest that the staff look at including creeks, whatever you want to call those bodies of water in the Wetland Ordinance. Councilman Johnson: Drainage areas. Councilman Boyt: I hate to get into the business of saying that unless somebody — put a drainageway in, it is not a wetland. On the other hand I think if we don't have the ability to protect streams and creeks, we have a problem. Mayor Hamilton: But if it is a drainageway, that's happened to other places down the road and above ground.. .but it's still the same type of thing as this it's just the other way around. If you open it up you can say it's a wetland because there will be emergent vegetation on it. — Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Wetland Alteration — Permit Request #88-6 based on the plans stamped "Received May 2, 1988 and May 19, 1988" subject to the following condition: 22 .t Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 1. Compliance with the conditions of plat approval for Subdivision #88-5. All voted in favor and the motion carried. BROOKSIDE MOTEL, JOSEPH NOTERMAN, 789 AND 790 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE: A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-773, THE BF DISTRICT TO ALLOW RECREATIONAL CAMPING FACILITIES AS A CONDITIONAL USE. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 4 RECREATIONAL CAMP/TRAILER SITES. Mayor Hamilton: This is another ordinance amendment where we need to have four council persons present. Consequently we'll have to table this for our next regularly scheduled meeting which will be June 13th. I don't think there's anything pressing on it. Councilman Johnson: He wants to get it in for the Canterbury Downs season but he's not here tonight. Councilman Boyt: I can tell you that it's not going to get my vote. Councilman Johnson: Nor mine. Mayor Hamilton: Nor mine. Councilman Boyt: We can't pass it but we can defeat it. 1- Mayor Hamilton: Personally I prefer to allow the other councilmembers to make comment on this. If he is curious about what our feeling is, he's got it. So this will be tabled until the 13th. REQUEST TO RELOCATE TRAIL EASEMENT, HIDDEN VALLEY. Roger Knutson: Let me point out one thing. Before you take final action on this, the signage in that area is to relocate a trail and vacate a trail. .. or otherwise, you need a public hearing. This has not been advertised for a public hearing this evening. Discuss it and whatever but you can't act on it. Don Ashworth: There's no use discussing it then is there if you discuss it at the time of public hearing as well? Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to tabke the request to relocate the trail easement for Hidden Valley until staff has advertised it for a public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-1251 (A) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT LARGER ON-PREMISE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS THAN THE REQUIRED FOUR SQUARE FEET, FIRST READING, DATASERV. Mayor Hamilton: This also needs four people present. 23 1() Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 Barbara Dacy: The applicants would like to request if you could consider this on Thursday's meeting? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR LAKE LUCY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND SET THE ASSESSMENT HEARING DATE. Mayor Hamilton: It would be my opinion that we stick with the original — assessment of $11.25 and $22.20 and pick up the additional $6,657.00. Do you guys have a comment or any problem with that or do you want Gary to make a presentation? Councilman Boyt: All we're asking to do is to set the date and you're saying you want to keep it as it is? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. Councilman Boyt: So you're opposed to this? — Mayor Hamilton: No. What I'm saying is I want to remain as we initially said we would. Councilman Boyt: That means that the City is going to be absorbing that $6,000.00. I'd be curious as to the logic behind that. Gary Warren: I can give an update. As I mentioned in the staff report, I didn't have the numbers and I do now on State Aid Fund which obviously ties into the question Bill asked here. Real briefly, we all understand the project and where it's coming from. The State Aid portion of the project, obviously has to come out of the State Aid Fund. The amount of those dollars, we've got some recent updates here of our State Aid balance. As of 1987 the understated balance, we were 186,000.00 roughly. In 1988 because we've gone through and — we've boon updating our list and we've obviously boon adding mileage to our system, we have $248,500.00 roughly of funds this year from State Aid. The total of those two is $434,500.00 of a balance that's available to us. We do have encumbrances from Lake Lucy Road and Lake Drive East because of projects that we're finishing up now. That will be drawing out of this balance. Basically the way the assessments rolls are set up right now for Lake Lucy Road, _ we are roughly $114,000.00 that will still come out of this balance to pay off the Lake Lucy Road project. And Lake Drive East, the portion between TH 101 and Dakota that we built, there's about $25,000.00 that is finally getting used so to try to give those encumbrances from the total, you leave about almost a $300,000.00 balance in our State Aid funds for this year. Bluff Creek Drive which obviously is on everybody's list here is the only project at this time slated for those dollars and our most recent estimate of construction dollars with our 30% overhead i.s $667,000.00 of which the policy, as it stands right now, 20% of that would be assessed so the net proceeds that would be utilized from State Aid is $534,000.00 less the $294,000.00 that's available to us leaves $239,000.00 balance of the next year's coverage. So basically Bluff Creek Drive — would still be funded as we had initially thought with two years of State Aid money. This number here, the 1989 construction allotment, I'm just saying the same thing for 1988. With the recent 3% increase in gasoline tax and the... — 24 c) - Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 being increased, I think we'll be seeing some increase in State Aid dollars so I would suspect these numbers are low. At any rate, we're still within the original philosophy as far as use of our overall State Aid funds on Bluff Creek that will be funded over a two year period so the extra dollars from Lake Lucy Road are not a major impact on the State Aid funds. Obviously we'd like to take those as far as we can but we're still within our goals. Councilman Boyt: We undoubtedly agreed that the property owners were going to pay a certain percentage of this road. The assessments. Right? Gary Warren: That was in the feasibility study, that's correct. Councilman Boyt: And we have an increase in the actual cost of building the road. Gary Warren: That's correct. Councilman Boyt: So it seems to me that we would apply a percentage into what the property owners would be paying. Gary Warren: Actually the logic in the feasibility study was to have the abutting property owners pay, for example Lake Lucy Road existed in a previous alignment. The properties that abutted Lake Lucy Road were charged an equivalent section for modifying soiluar sub-base and putting a bituminous _ overlay because they had an existing road versus the property that when through the Merele Stellar plat. That was new construction but again there was a calculation made as to what an equivalent resident section would be because this road is a 9 ton road, our State Aid Road. The assessments were really based on some calculations and Jeff Roos is here from McCombs. He and I recently went through this based on some equivalent sections in relation. Councilman Boyt: You're telling me that we could have built the road we assessed them for and covered it with the amount we assessed them and the City's participation in that? That where the additional cost came from was that we built more road than we thought we were going to build at the start? Gary Warren: I'm saying and the estimate comes from the feasibility study which was February, 1986. At that time the estimate for an equivalent residential section in general terms was going to be $11.25 per front foot and $22.20. Councilman Boyt: What I'm struggling with Gary is I want to know why the citizens of Chanhassen should pick up the $6,000.00 bill if the City agreed earlier that the residents were responsible for certain portion of this. The residents of that immediate area. Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps Jeff Roos from McCombs can shed some light on that. Jeff Roos: Councilman Boyt, when we went through the feasibility portion of this project we had three or four different alternate types of roads that we were considering and we were also looking at different ways of assessing it. What we and the staff sort of narrowed it down to, we looked at typical assessments that would be levied for residential streets in other projects and we found at that time. ..and said that's what the typical residential road assessment should be to the Lake Lucy Highlands project. They went from a State IMmo 25 �1G Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 Aid road being planned to a residential road. That's how we set that figure. We then, due to statements made by the residents on the old Lake Lucy Road, they said they did not want a typical residential road. They liked their rural road so we looked at what the typical cost for a rural road would be. That's the 24 foot mat over the existing gravel and that came out to $11.25 per foot and that's how we established that number. It was our intention that we would assess those rates to the abutting properties and all items not covered were.. . — Councilman Boyt: If I've got this correctly, you're telling me that the City Council in 1986 agreed that it was okay for an urban area to have a rural road.They didn't build it but they said yes, that's all you're going to pay for. So now they were buying...but what the sense of the two members of the Council is we want to maintain the cost of 1986 for a project that we are just now _ finishing. We finished what, a year ago. We're billing right now. Is that the flow of what you guys are saying? Let's bill them in 1986 for what we build in 1987? Mayor Hamilton: What I'm saying is that the $6,657.81 that the project went over should be paid through by the State Aid funds. It should come out of the State Aid Fund dollars. Those dollars that are in the State Aid Fund should be — spent on State Aid roads so if this is a State Aid road, I think it's good use of the dollars. The times that we let the bids it was.. .$6,000.00 is pretty minimal. We haggled a long time with the residents on this to come up with the $11.25 per front foot that they should pay. I think that's a reasonable charge. Councilman Boyt: We have basically committed our State Aid funds through all of next year. We are looking at another very large project in road construction and it would seem to me that we need to protect some State Aid money to see us through the next year. I would like to see the whole Council vote on this issue. I think this is one of those issues that over the next year and a half we're going to come back and be turning residents down because we have no State Aid money. We'll either delay their project or we won't give them the money we'd like to give them and I think it's an important decision and we ought to get all five people. Mayor Hamilton: Let me ask you a hypothetical question then. If the bids for Bluff Creek Drive come in significantly lower than what the engineer's — projections are so we have additional funds available projected in our fund for 1989, how are we going to handle those funds? The funds keep coning in every year and the engineer says we can expect some additional funds with the increase in taxes and the additional highways. Councilman Boyt: What I would like to see us do, I think it's important that we're consistent. I think if the bids came back lower on Bluff Creek road than we anticipated, we're not going to turn around to the people living on that and say but we told you we were going to assess you $259,000.00 so we're still going to assess you that. We don't do that. We would reduce the amount of money they — pay in assessments so now we're finding that actually building the road was more expensive than the City anticipated and I'm saying that philosophically I think that the residents have a part still to pay. I think that's a difficult enough issue that I would like the other members of the Council to vote on it. — Roger Knutson: A point on one thing. This is a preliminary assessment roll. It is not the final assessment roll. The final assessment will be after the — 26 1 Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 hearing. You could, if you wanted to, the City Council, set this up until the hearing and then at the hearing when the whole Council's here, if that's the case, you can increase those numbers... Mayor Hamilton: I don't think that's such a bad idea. You can make those options available in the notice that the hearing is going to be held and they will either be maintained at the level they were previously or the $6,000.00 will have to be reassessed against the abutting property owners and that will be decided at the time of public hearing. Councilman Johnson: One thing, you can also base it upon what the bids come in on Friday for Bluff Crock. If the bids do come in under on Friday for Bluff — Creek, go with $11.25. If the bids come in over on Bluff Creek and Bluff Creek doesn't need the whole $9,000.00, then we will want to go the other way. So we can say prepare the rolls next week after we open the bids on Friday either at $11.25 or $11.80 depending on what happens with Bluff Creek. Don Ashworth: I think Roger just stated, you can send out the roll as it is right now which would produce the higher dollar amounts. At the public hearing the Council as a whole could determine to reduce that, you would not have to go through any additional process. Roger Knutson: You can change the amounts... Don Ashworth: You could send this out just as it's being prepared here. That takes the most conservative position. At the hearing you can reduce them down to the $11.25 or either way. Councilman Johnson: So the rolls in here are at the $11.80? Gary Warren: The roll here has bccn prepared at the lower rate. The $11.25. Roger Knutson: The only thing wrong with doing that, you're dealing with a lot of parcels and if you've ever changed what you sent out, set out at any rate and then you change it, everybody has to be renotified. That's after the conclusion of the assessment hearing. Mayor Hamilton: What if we notify them of both potential, either or? Send out one notice and say it's either going to be $11.25 or $11.80. Roger Knutson: The Statute says you've got to give them the proposed assessment. Maybe you're better off postponing the decision until the Council can agree, unless the three of you can agree on something. Don Ashworth: You're saying if they send out the $11.80 they can not reduce it to $11.25? Roger Knutson: Oh sure they could. Don Ashworth: Okay, that's what I was trying to say. Roger Knuson: The only thing about that Don is if you're going to send out _L after the hearing then, you have to send out notices to all these people again telling them what the new rate is. 27 91 Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 Gary Warren: I would opt to go out with the position that we send it out at a higher rate. It's easier to go back than it is to up everything at the assessment hearing... We do want to set the date for June 27th or we are proposing June 27th which would give us a little time. The public notice for the newspaper is looking at I guess, this is a long weekend. Councilman Johnson: Public notice in the newspaper, does that include any dollar amounts? Gary Warren: Just advertising for notice of the hearing. — Councilman Johnson: So we can confirm the date of the public hearing without actually deciding until after Friday night which rate? — Gary Warren: I really wouldn't let Bluff Creek Drive influence you. You could be talking like on Kerber Blvd., over $100,000.00 difference. Really this is a — minor amount. It's still important to us but it's minor. Councilman Johnson: When you're paying $9,000.00 in a $100,000.00 difference, yes there's not much. Councilman Boyt: I would like to see them go out at the higher rate. I think people will come in. They'll comment. The Council may very well decide to — accept the lower rate and I think that's one way to make progress on this. Mayor Hamilton: If we send it out at the lower rate... Councilman Boyt: Right, I'm saying send it out at a higher rate. Roger Knutson: I don't have that part of the Statute with me. Mayor Hamilton: I'd prefer to send it out at the higher rate. We can always lower it. Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the preliminary assessment roll for Lake Lucy Road Improvement Project No. 85-19 at the rate of $11.80 and $23.30 per front foot and to call an assessment hearing for June 27, 1988. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Gary Warren: Point of clarification. The higher rate will actually be the amount to cover the excess that we're talking about. Not the higher rate that we talked about earlier.. . Councilman Boyt: We're covering their portion of that increase. Obviously the City is still a part of that right? — Gary Warren: Their portion of the increase. Councilman Boyt: Let's take their percentage of the total bill on the road. The total bill on the road went up but they're not paying that whole increase are they? 28 91 Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 Gary Warren: We're talking 10%. Mayor Hamilton: $600.00? Councilman Johnson: What was their percent of the bill in the first place? Gary Warren: $201,000.00 was assessed of the total of $810,000.00. Mayor Hamilton: I think what was presented to us was $600.00 assessed back to the property... Councilman Boyt: It was my understanding that that $6,000.00 was their portion of the interest. Gary Warren: No. Councilman Boyt: No, that was the whole increase? Gary Warren: The whole. Councilman Johnson: So it would be 25% of the $6,000.00. Gary Warren: $1,500.00. Councilman Johnson: So now we're arguing over $1,500.00? Councilman Boyt: Alright. I withdraw my motion. For $1,500.00 I'd rather keep it the way it is. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to reconsider the previous motion and send out the assessment roll at the rate assessed in 1986. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Preliminary Assessment Roll for Lake Lucy Road Improvement Project No. 85-19 with the rates of $11.25 and $22.20 per front foot and Resolution #88-47 to call an assessment hearing for June 27, 1988. All voted in favor and the motion carried. OIL RECYCLING ORDINANCE, FIRST READING, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Councilman Johnson: He says waste oil is considered a Class I flammable liquid. I doubt that. Class I flammable liquid has a flash point below 70 degrees F. We're talking about 72 degrees. Unless you mix a lot of gasoline in your motor oil. I currently handle this at work and we do not label a shipment or anything else as a Class I flammable liquid like that at all. It will burn but not, in fact it's not even a Class II flammable liquid or combustible liquid. Councilman Boyt: Maybe what we could do is take some comment on this and bring it back. 29 1d Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 Councilman Johnson: I kind of like the option of you change it and you sell it, - you will accept it for recycle. I've worked with small quantities. It's tough to get a oil recycler to come out and pick it up. The only oil recycler you will find that will come and pick our used oil up will only do it after we have 100 gallons. It gets to be a little sloppy. It's inefficient for him to come out for 50 gallons. Say you've got a 55 gallon barrell. You need to have two 55 gallon barrells. If you start talking, if Kenny's Market had two 55 gallon — barrels of motor oil, that's just not compatible with a grocery store. A gas station is compatible with it. A grocery store is not so I really think that the gas station, our two gas stations in town and if we have new gas stations, that they should provide this service. When we talk about diking, they're talking about tanks and not barrels. If this were hazardous waste such as PCB's or something, we would have to have it in drum quantities but there's also some very cheap ways to do that. Councilman Boyt: This says, as a proponent of this all along, I would like to suggest that we follow up on Jay's suggestions but that we also add a line to — point (a) on page 2 which says that used oil should be accepted at no charge. That point (b) under Section 16-40, indicating that the sign should be 8 x 11. It should be large enough to see. I would like to also see staff, since they're _ going to be reconsidering this looking for more information, consider that we add a portion to this that says any business selling gasoline products shall be required to construct oil storage facilities and accept used oil. That would grandfather in the Holiday stations and those that already have the gas pumps in the ground. It would say to new operations that are going to be selling gasoline, while you're putting one of those in the ground, you best put something in that will hold oil, if we find that it has to be kept in underground storage. I'd like to keep the City out of the oil collection business and I think one way to do it is to make it available. I'm a little concerned that we might be saying to two gas stations in the City of Chanhassen _ that they have the responsibility for accepting oil for the whole city. That troubles me. I'd like to see that spread out. We're about to have a few gas stations built in town and I think it's appropriate to require them to have something to accept used oil even if they don't change it. Mayor Hamilton: I had a couple of questions. I wondered what happened to the Cennex station. Apparently they change oil regularly and sell produts.. . Big A — Auto Parts sell probably more oil in this town than anybody else even though they don't change oil or they're not supposed to. I have seen people in their parking lot changing the oil. They jack the car up and change it right in the _ lot. I think some work needs to be done on this because some of Jo Ann's comments in here about cost not being fair to all of the stores but it would seems as though the cost would be unfair to the stations. They need to do the storage and dispose of used oil, they're going to have to raise their price to • — compensate for that which actually takes them out of the oil selling profit. I suppose if you're going to have your oil changed by a station you can go to the station but it would seem to try to keep this fair to do that if we had some type of a tax or surcharge or something on all oil sold in town to be used for disposal of that oil. I'm not sure how we accomplish that. It's a thought. It would scan then to be more fair to everybody. I'm sure you only have a few disposal sites but at least then, and I think as you said Bill, I think it's — unfair for 2 or 3 stations to have to pay for disposal of oil that's purchased at Big A or anyplace else. Their price remains the same. Now Gary Brown or any other station has to somehow pay for disposing of that oil and how do you — 30 1 ! Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 -r accomplish that? I can't believe there isn' t a cost to them. If they're going to accept it, that means they have to have one of their people show someone where it is or take it and put it into their container. It's not cost free to store this oil for disposal so just some comments tonight. I think it's unfair the way it's written. I don't know how we can work it.. . Councilman Johnson: Tom, if we were a metropolitan government, the taxation side of that would make sense. Quite frankly, I buy my oil where it's on sale. Generally it's another town. I buy cases at a time when it's on sale. In other words, that money that is paid.. . But you do have a good point on Big A and auto part stores. To me that is a compatible place to have a drum or two of — oil, if properly stored. They may not have much storage room in there. I would guess it's having it around food items that it's incompatible with. Selling oil is not a major part of Kenny's business. It would be a much bigger part of SuperAmerica or Holiday or the new stores. I agree with Bill as far as the new ones. If you're putting in a new gas, putting in a 200 gallon oil tank at the same time is not a large bother. It's not a huge expense in comparison to putting in the big gasoline tanks. The rules are getting tougher and tougher for putting in underground storage tanks. Mayor Hamilton: I think it's a good idea to have whoever's going to be using the oil or have sane products to have a disposal site. I don't know if we'll ever have another site like Hanus where they dealt with that kind of thing all the time and they just threw theirs against the wall I guess. I think we can control those types of operations too. If you're working on motors, you're changingoil in equipment, you should have a disposal place. I think some of these contractor's yards, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask them to do the same thing. Sane of those contractor's yards have 20 or 25 or 30 pieces of equipment. They obviously change the oil in them. They don't always do it in the garage and of course you find some in the field. In the wintertime when you bring their stuff in and get them ready for winter, certainly at that time they could change the oil, we should have some requirement for them to have someplace to dispose of their oil so we can see that they're actually disposing of it someplace other than the ground. Councilman Johnson: Talking about in the field, when a contractor's got a earth grader or whatever out in the field, he goes in and changes the oil which I've noticed a few oil filters and puddle of oil out behind the Chan Vista area one time where they changed the oil in the bulldozer one day there and left the filters and everything. It said Caterpillar right on the side of it so you knew that it wasn't somebody with a car. Mayor Hamilton: They all do it and it's hard to control. You have to have someone standing out there watching. Councilman Johnson: We can put it in the development contract too. If you go out there and there's oil filters on the ground for Caterpillars. .. Councilman Boyt: I would like to make two suggestions. The first one is that I think we should, if we can handle this with the sewage so the City should certainly be able to develop some means of requiring of places that use a great deal of oil to show either a pick-up contract or show appropriate disposal is being done. We can do that with people having to have their septic systems pumped out. It's not that much different. I suggest that staff look at that. 31 Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 — The other thing, I think the City should consider that this is a public need and the City needs to get involved in some way covering part of the expense of a collection stations.. . It's clear that it's something that it sounds like the Council is ready to deal with. It's just a matter of working it out so it fits into situations well. REVIEW 1988 GOOSE REMOVAL PROGRAM. — Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the continuation of the Goose Removal Program for 1988. All voted in favor and the motion carried. — COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Hamilton: Okay, Jay you wanted to talk about the Cheyenne wetlands and the dumping area. Councilman Johnson: I'm not sure if I'm making a right name. This is in the Bloomberg subdivision right off of TH 101. They're filling the wetlands and there's not a darn thing we can really do about it. It's prior to our wetland ordinance and everything else. The builder is putting a house pad 40 foot back versus the normal 30 foot setback. As far as I know they've been asked politely by staff to consider going 30 foot back instead of 40 foot back and not disturbing the wetlands as bad. I would like to politely ask the City Council to ask them the same thing. Would you please put this, because we have no power to tell them to do it, but we're saying that the City of Chanhassen is concerned about our wetlands and if we could save another 10 foot of this wetlands or even — 5 foot. Compromise to where it's not 35 foot back from the street, that we would appreciate it. I would like to see all of us here for this issue also. That's all I really want to do is have staff write a letter, the City Manager _ write a letter to the builder saying that the City Council would like him to reconsider his position on this building. Even though he's building the foundation right now, he's out there bulldozing it in today, he can still at this point move his house 5 feet forward. — Mayor Hamilton: I think that was something that was approve in the 70's. It was probably one of the dumbest things this City ever did. I've asked him — personally not to even build any houses there because it's ruined that wetland completely plus the drainage. They've messed up the drainage that used to go from Kurvers property over there and now it goes the other way. Kurvers now _ have the drainage from Bloomberg's property. It's just a really unfortunate situation. It's too bad. .. Councilman Johnson: It's not Bloomberg Companies doing it. It's just a private — builder. Mayor Hamilton: Bloomberg Companies were the ones that had the permit to fill — it. I asked them not to fill it and they're the ones who sold the property. .. Councilman Johnson: I do a lot of driving around the City and see little roads and drive down and find a dump at the end. For about a year or so I hadn't found very many than all of a sudden I can find, the big one is Bluff Creek Golf Course that is continuing to be used. Scott Harr is doing an excellent job in — 32 Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 jumping in and starting to investigage but he tells me there's nothing he can really do other than investigate. What I've seen other cities do is when they find a dump site they put up a sign right there prewarning them, no dumping. By order of the City Council there will be no dumping at this site. -' Mayor Hamilton: Violators will be prosecuted. Councilman Johnson: It tells them we're already looking at that site. What it does they go find another site but it may turn some people off. At one site we went out to actually look at a lilac bush and ended up finding a dump site along the side of the road. Some people just dump their garbage with their addressed mail in it and everything. Scott's going to be looking into that one. The County is also looking at this. Don Ashworth: We can't go on private property but we can put it on public right-of-way as you enter those areas. Councilman Johnson: Is there anyway we can say, if you abandon, tear down a house and abandon the property, most of these sites are old farms so there's a convenient little road that we have to block that road? When you tear down the old farmstead that you block that road? The existing purpose of the road, you're not using it for your farm equipment then you have to block that road. Don Ashworth: There's no way you can do that. They come back for approval from the City and ask for it otherwise. Councilman Boyt: How about an abandoned roadway situation? Councilman Johnson: It's an abandoned driveway into an old house and somebody goes in and starts dumping stuff in there. If we find that there's dumping being done on this so there's something illegal going on that road, would that be sufficient for us to then close the road? Mayor Hamilton: You could do the similar signing, ask the owner to do signage that I've seen in other areas in the County. The same situation. They stick a sign at the entrance to the driveway that says no trespassing, no dumping. They make it explicit and we're watching and you hadn't better go in there. . ..Put up something. Councilman Johnson: One thing we are doing is that our public safety group is going to the owners and saying you will clean these up and once the owner has cleaned up the place 2 or 3 times, I'm sure he will want to do something. I just wanted to see if there were any suggestions. I guess we can put the signs in the right-of-way. One of the problems with doing that is then somebody can run off and hit your dump sign. Mayor Hamilton: The thing to do is to work with the property owner. Bill, you wanted to talk about lot size and landmark trees. Councilman Boyt: I have two areas that I would like staff to investigate for potential ordinance. On lot size, I think given the situation that we had a month or so ago on Lake Minnewashta pointed out that we should address the issue of what happens when a developer comes in to develop property and the abutting properties are considerably larger. I would propose that we investigate a lot 33 J Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 — blending adjustment to our ordinance that says that when development of property adjoining existing lots of 30,000 square foot or more, those abutting lots shall be required to match that size up to 30,000. I think that what we're offering to the developer is to put a lot in next to another large lot. By saying 30,000 that means that lot could someday be resubdivided if the person so chose to do that but that it would give protection to the people with the larger lots. I feel we really had our hands tied in that situation. I think this will give us — that flexibility. Barbara Dacy: The Planning Commission also asked staff to look at that issue. They weren't as specific as you did but now that things are back to full staff, we're going to push for that. Mayor Hamilton: At least a transition or something so it's not from half an acre to 12,000. Councilman Boyt: I think that one possible modification of this might be that when you've got a lot greater than 15,000 square feet, the abutting lots will match you up to 30,000 square feet. I don't think we should be in a position where we require a developer to come in and build a 1 acre lot next to a 1 acre _ lot. That's overly restrictive. Mayor Hamilton: You'll see the same thing with the Eckankar property as it develops. You have Greenwood Shores and those are all third of an acre I — believe. We wrestled with this lot size with a proposal for that site. The lots abutting those were not the same size and we eventually got there but we'll sec that issue again because whoever's going to develop that is going to try to — come in with small lots. There should be a transition. Either the same size or just slightly less than the other addition. Councilman Boyt: So let's pursue that with some haste. Then the second ordinance I'd like to investigate is I think we should have a landmark tree ordinance. I think that developers have mentioned several times that if they were a private lot owner they could come in and cut all the trees down. I don't — think the City should allow that to happen. I would propose that we consider saying that any tree with a 10 inch or larger caliper, unless dead or diseased would require approval of the City to be removed. Or a modification to look at when you're investigating that is that any healthy tree that is removed shall be replaced with a 4 inch caliper or larger trees to equal the caliper of the tree that was removed. If a 10 inch tree was removed, it can be replaced by two 4's _ and a 2 for instance. That doesn't exactly replace it but it gets at the idea that we need some means of controlling trees that have become prominent in a given neighborhood. You all dealt with that highway situation and the driveway just the way I would have also dealt with that two weeks ago but I think this — again gives us the ability to say that we're not treating developers really any different than we're treating anyone. Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. . Submitted by Don Ashworth — City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim — 34 _ �1� CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION VNEDII"ED REGULAR MEETING MAY 18 , 1988 Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Annette Ellson, Steven Emmings , Brian Batzli and Jim Wildermuth MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad and David Headla STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner ; Jo Ann Olsen , Asst . City Planner and Larry Brown, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING : SUBIDIVISION OF 5. 5 ACRES INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES AND LOCATED EAST OF TH 101, 1/4 MILE SOUTH OF CR 14 AND ADJACENT TO HALLA NURSERY, ROBERT J. BURESH. Public Present : Name Address Robert Buresh Applicant David Halla 10000 Great Plains Blvd . Don Halla 10000 Great Plains Blvd . Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Robert Buresh: I 'd just like to put this issue to bed. I would like to get access to the property with a public street i.f possible and my second option would be to do it with a private drive . In talking with Don and Dave, I think there ' s a consensus that they want a street and a public street would be desirable. I was wondering if it would be possible to recommend a 30 foot public street with no parking on there so they wouldn' t have to go through the expense of replatting their existing plat . Emmings : You ' re aware though that there ' s a problem with MnDot in that there can ' t be another road coming off of TH 101 so close to the road that ' s platted in for their development . Robert Buresh: I don ' t have a solution for it other than if they put that street in , that has already been approved in their plat , possibly we could hook up to it someway and not go out to TH 101 but loop back around . Build a 30 foot street that would , when their plat finally develops and their streets are going in at that time, that we will do everything to cut off and come through that door . Emmings : Have you talked to them about that possibility? Robert Buresh : Briefly. I don ' t know that we specifically mentioned that but we talked about a 30 foot street on hi.s. The issue of the two accesses onto TH 101 didn' t come up in our conversations but I just threw that out now as a possible option. Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 2 Emmings : Okay, anything else? — Robert Buresh: Nothing else . Dave Halla : Let me try to go through this real fast so we don ' t take up — much of your time. Going back over the history to refresh your memories on this . Originally Roy Teich came into the City of Chanhassen wanting a building permit to give to hi.s son-in-law as a gift for 5 acres. At that — time Russ Larson was your Attorney for the City of Chanhassen . He ruled that because of our deed , and it ' s still in that description today, that that road was ours exclusive i.n perpetuity, that easement . So Larson made — his legal ruling and said in order for Teich to get ingress and egress by using that easement Halla ' s had to give him permission , which we did in a document which you ' ve probably got in front of you now that Roy Teich ' s Attorney drew up. He spelled it out . We had a premonition that in the — future that additional lots would be sold. Well , very shortly after that thing was done, Teich sold this piece that Bob Buresh is trying to get a building site on now, to Dipwick and then Dipwick sold it to Nikolai and — then Dipwick got it back and then Lindquist got it and now Buresh is getting it from Lindquist. In all of that time, I put that road in there to service my house which is on the end . I hauled in there some 225 , 000 _ tons of rock. I paid for that myself. I haven ' t had one bit of cooperation from Teich . Hardly any cooperation from Graffunder on the maintenance of that road. I believe it was in 1981 or 1982, we were sued by Teich on Graffunder ' s behalf for parking cars along that road . He won that lawsuit and Judge Thomas Howell , a District Court Judge rules that we could not park cars on that road. But he also ruled that that maintenance in that agreement was upheld and that they had to be responsible for the _ maintenance . Now we tried on a number of occasions , at least 6 or 8 occasions meeting with Lindquist , meeting with Teich, meeting with Graffunder , meeting with Pauly, who is Tecih ' s son-in-law where the whole thing got started , trying to get them to agree on maintenance. They — absolutely refused to do anything . We ' ve given Graffunder a bill . At one time he said I ' ll pay half of the bill . It was $890. 00. He won ' t pay it. Snowplowing in the winter is a real pain . I have to plow that all the way — out. Graffunder is not the kind of the people that anybody would want for a neighbor . He won ' t plow that driveway until after I opened it up and then four days later . The snow can be 2 feet high in there so I have to plow it wide enough so I can get out . He won ' t do any maintenance . When we tried to maintain the road and we run a mower down there or something , his wife is out there just hollering and they got the Sheriff out there . Oh, you ' re getting a little gravel over on our grass or something. They - cut their grass along the road , blow their clippings out on the road . That seeds down so the road gets all green . We go over there with some weed killer and spray the grass on the road , not on their lawn but on the —, road , she calls the Sheriff on us because we' re spraying weeds in the road . It ' s been nothing gentlemen but a pain in the behind . You can ' t anybody to agree for maintenance and I have refused to do any maintenance. I have been doing it all these years since I ' ve lived there since 1970 and - not one of those other people has even shared. We have talked with each one of them. Teich , Graffunder , Pauly and Lindquist and not one of them will share the expense. We ' re not going to take them to court and sue — them over it but we' ve already got a commitment and I ' ve got the records Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 3 right here if anybody wants to see it from Judge Thomas Howell who ruled on it, that the agreement is upheld. Now also in that agreement and I 'd like to read this to you so that you ' re aware of it . We' ve got a copy here but let ' s go on the second page. And it says here, construction of home begins . It says vendees agree not to object the Village of Chanhassen granting the vendors or said Vernon Pauly and Judith Pauly a building permit . Vendors or their assigns agree to pay for maintenance along subdivided lots for a period of five years after said subdivision use after which time and in the event there is joint use of the said easement property, the parties hereto agree to share the maintenance costs over the easement property. Emmings : I wonder if I can cut this short . I want you to say whatever you ' ve got to say but if I can summarize this in a way that ' s fair to you . It seems to me that what you ' re saying is , . . .all the responsibility for the road even though other people use it . Number two , you ' ve got a point that the road is really your ' s exclusively. You have the exclusive use of that easement? — Dave Halla : Correct . Emmings : And I guess one of the conditions , are you aware the one of the conditions that the City has imposed on his being granted the right to subdivide is documentation that would verify that his property has a right to use that easement. In other words , putting the burden on him to show the City before this actually goes through, that ne has the right to use that easement? Now does that satisfy your concern? Dave Halla : Let me a couple of things in here and I think I can answer your question because it ' s spelled out in this agreement . Don Halla : One of the questions you ' re going to come up with is would I allow for a resubdi.visi.on. We 've already brought and paid for three separate redoings of subdivisions . I 'm not going to pay for anymore . I ' ve gotten it approved . I don ' t want to open a can of worms because there is a chance that if I go through with another subdivision , you folks might demand that I connect my subdivision to the subdivision to the east . That ' s $100 , 000 . 00. I 'm not paying $100 , 000 . 00 in lots sale , putting in a road , redoing the plans , everything else. I 'm not going to pick up that tab so my answer is no to that one . We were disapproved on having the road to the south once. We didn ' t want to get into a lawsuit on it so we put it all on our property. We tried to play the game but I said if I 'm putting it on my property and not bringing it down and using that 30 foot easement because that ' s . . . That was disapproved so I guess I 'm saying no. Bottom line. Emmings : Same question to you . Assuming that we would approve the subdivision, if we would place a condition on his ability or condition the approval again , satisfying the City, if he has legal right to use that easement , placing that burden on him, does that satisfy your concern with respect to use and maintenance of the road? Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 4 Dave Halla : No. Because you ' ve still got the same situation. Even _ though Teich signed it, Roy Teich, and it says in there that it ' s binding upon their heirs or assigns , he won' t honor it . Graffunder has got the same thing and it' s a recorded document. Graffunder won' t honor it . Emmings : So what you ' re saying is there' s an agreement there that you ' re having problems enforcing? Dave Halla : Right. Emmings : That ' s a problem between you and your neighbors . Dave Halla : Also, this subdivision has always been referred to by the City Planners and by their Attorneys as Teich' s illegal subdivision. He stuck that thing in there when he couldn ' t do it in the beginning and all of these people have been stuck with it for years . Now, Buresh comes out there and he likes it and wants to build a house and all that on there, but you don ' t solve the problem like that. If you people go along and _ approve this, all you' re doing is creating a bigger problem. Nobody will honor the maintenance agreement . The only way you can enforce it is to go into the court and end up with a big contest and nobody wins anything . _ It' s a mess . It' s not going to get any better and until it ' s resolved, I 'm not in favor of anybody else using that road because I 'm the guy who ' s the goat that paid for all of it and I 've enjoyed all that that I want to . Don Halla: Aren ' t you just complicating it? Shouldn' t the horse come before the cart? The road thing should be approved first before you approve a subdivision of that lot and multiply the problem. If there is access and if there is a legal easement that serves this property, that should be determined first. Then secondary, go through a subdivision instead of creating two lots that have the same problem. Emmings: Jo Ann, has our Attorney looked at this and said whether or not he thinks the position of the Halla ' s, that they have the exclusive right to the use of that road is correct? What does he think? _ Olsen : Two fold . He addressed this issue with the Halla subdivision in a letter at all . It was just one lot, he was saying that yes, they do have the right to use that . —' Emmings: That Buresh does? Olsen : Yes . He had a copy of the easement but once it was subdivided it would be creating a new lot and the City is essentially a second buildable lot there . That ' s where he ' s started to say that we better have the guarantee that that would be serviced by that access . Emmings : What does the City Staff think about the ordinance. . . Should he have to do that as a part of the application process rather than having it as a condition on approval or don' t you care? Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 5 Olsen : Typically yes we would have that . . . I don ' t see why it couldn ' t be done. That it could still just be a condition. Emmings : Is there anybody else from the public here that wants to speak on this one? Robert Buresh : First of all , if you do not give a public street and it does remain as a private easement , I go on record publicly as stating that I will be a good neighbor and honor my portion of any maintenance or upkeep agreement. I don' t anticipate any problems in that area . The second thing , I ' ve been delayed because the Halla ' s were going to develop. I could have done this a long time ago and I ' ve been put off essentially over a year now waiting for this to happen and waiting to see what the Halla ' s are going to do. Now they did so now all of a sudden a new issue comes in . Where we already got an opinion from the City Attorney once that legally I can drive to that piece of property. Divide them into half acres now and you divide them into 10 little pieces or 2 big pieces or maintain 5 1/2. Legally I can still drive to that property. My Attorney has checked it out thoroughly. . .and we talked to the City Attorney today and we have to send some more documents over or maybe the same documents but I 'm beginning a little bit anxious . Now that I hear another issue after waiting over a year and waiting for the Halla ' s to do their plat and I agreed to that because I thought . . .mine should be a function of theirs rather than them being a function of mine or we end up with something that wouldn ' t be in the best interest of the City. But I ' ve waited patiently for them to replat and now that they have, I would like to proceed as fast as possible and not be delayed by another issue that I think has already been settled . Dave Halla : I think you people have an opportunity here , right now and the City Council has the other opportunity in the next week is to say hey, if this is the way i.t is , you people live up to that agreement , part of _ the condition if we pass an approval is that everybody agrees to pay that maintenance . If you don' t do that , all you ' re going to do is have a bigger mess and we ' re going to end up in a lawsuit and the City. . . Emmings : There ' s nobody here that wouldn ' t agree with you that the people who are using the road , it makes sense that they share in the cost of maintenance . Dave Halla : He might be a good neighbor . He ' s saying he ' s got good intentions but the other people, I 'm telling you I wouldn ' t walk across the street and wave at them. Erhart moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted i.n favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed . Batzli : You can probably talk about the legal issues all night but I don ' t think the best thing to do would be to make this a public road I guess at this point in my mind . I believe that that person who owns the 5. 6 acres or whatever it is , probably does have the right to use that driveway but I don ' t know if he has the right to create a bigger burden on Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 6 that driveway and he probably doesn ' t have access from any place else . We _ could probably talk about that legal issue until we ' re all blue in the face . I don ' t really like requiring the applicant to provide documenta- tion to the City. That he has the legal right to do that because I think the only thing he could do for the City would be to probably get some sort — of declaratory judgment such as a lawsuit. You ' re basically asking him either to agree with the Halla ' s up front or basically sue them to get judgment. I don ' t know what other kind of documents . I don ' t know what — kind of documents staff envisions that he ' s going to be able to get . Olsen: We' re just going to have their Attorney speak together with our _ Attorney and to confirm that he does include that in the subdivided lot . . . Brown: The intent of the conditions was that the applicant provide some existing documents . In the time frame we were not able to locate it but we were under the assumption since that property or parcel in the past seemed to have access or appeared to have access to it , that there must be some document out there so the intent was just for the applicant to provide an existing document . Not to come up with a new one . Batzli : You ' re basically asking him to perform a title search to determine if his deed restrictions to his property includes use of that access? Brown : Correct . — Batzli : Even if it doesn ' t . . . I don ' t think I like making that a public road much better . If it is true that that property already has legal _ right to use that road , I think the addition of one more lot , basically by subdividing that lot in two would be a much better solution than . . . Wi.ldermuth : I think we should look at the resolving the two parties . As — far as the subdivision is concerned , it appears to meet all the subdivision requirements . The road issue apparently has got to be resolved between the two parties . The City is not a part of the agreement . That agreement and the legal description of Mr . Buresh ' s property is probably. . . Ellson : It sounds like a complicated matter . I 'm trying to think of what we have the right to do and I can ' t say anything more than saying yes , that ' s an okay plan . I can understand why MnDot says no public road and I feel like my hands are tied. I 'm thinking what I can do. I feel for this — guy with the no fun neighbors and I feel like Mr . Buresh will probably keep up his end of it but it isn ' t in our jurisdiction to say. . .we can ' t really write in a condition like that to my knowledge so I feel like all I _ can say is I like the one recommendation where it ' s okay to come with the easement and unfortunately it ' s their problem. I 'm sure you ' ve got no love loss with those neighbors , I probably would take them to court even though more people lose . They might as well be one of the losers because . . .but that ' s about where I 'm at . Erhart : I don ' t have any questions or comments . — Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 7 Emmings : I feel that pretty much the way Annette does in that I think we ' re here looking at a proposed subdivision and the subdivision seems to be alright . The problem is the access to it and there there ' s a long legal history that I don ' t think we really get involved in. It seems to me, the way to resolve this , the only people objecting right now to your proposal Mr . Buresh are the Halla ' s and if you can come to an agreement with them between the time this leaves here and by the time it gets to the City Council , it would seem to me then that there would be clear sailing . I know there are ways to write agreements such that if people don ' t live up to their agreement, you have an agreement in writing, laying out what the property owners will do. Agreements that will run with the land so it doesn ' t matter who owns them, where i.f they don' t live up to those they' ll be assessed and become liens on the property, they can be foreclosed upon. I ' ve written them myself and it ' s always a pain in the neck to enforce one because it means a court action but you ' ve got a real strong tool because you ' re basically telling the person if you don ' t live up to it we ' re going to foreclose on your property. If you guys can sit down and talk and come up with something and get your attorneys to draw up an agreement . . .maybe you guys can could get along . Maybe you could all go together and take on the other parties who don ' t seem to be as willing as you are to help. That ' s just an idea . Erhart moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to approve Subdivision of 5. 5 acres into two single family residential lots on property zoned A-2, Agricultural Estates for Robert Buresh to he serviced by a private drive with the following conditions : 1. The applicant shall provide documentation which verifies that the subject property has the right to use the 30 foot easement . 2. The applicant shall provide a driveway access plan which shall address a turnaround as requested by the Fire Inspector . 3. The approved septic sites must be staked and roped off prior to construction on the site . 4 . Type I erosion control shall be installed along the south and east sides of Lot 2, Block 1 prior to the commencement of any grading . 5. Wood-fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all disturbed slopes greater than 3 : 1 . 6 . The developer shall be responsible for daily on and off-site cleanup caused by construction or construction traffic from this site . All voted in favor and motion carried . Emmings : I 'm sure you understand , that does include the condition that he has to satisfy the City that you ' ve got a right to use that road at this point in time . If you guys come to some agreement between now and the time it gets to the City Council , that won ' t be an issue anymore . Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 8 SIGN PERMIT VARIANCE TO SECTION 20-1260 TO CONSTRUCT AN 89 SQUARE FOOT _ PYLON SIGN ON PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED AT 615 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, SUPERAMERICA STATION, ROMAN MUELLER AND SUPERAMERICA STATION, INC. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Emmings: Is the 78 foot sign they have now, was that grandfathered in? Olsen : Right and that was approved by a sign committee so that was approved and has been grandfathered in. Roman Mueller : My name is Roman Mueller representing SuperAmerica , 1240 West 98th Street, Bloomington, Minnesota . I think she ' s presented our — case here quite well . I think there ' s one error and that ' s that our standard sign is 22 feet high , not 26 . The sign company submitted this for us and marked that dimension in in error . We would like to maintain — 80 square feet. You can see our logo on the sign is 40 square feet at this point in time . The rest of the sign is informational . In this case with this particular location , the lower half where the drawing shows Instant Cash , would actually be a third product in there with pricing . We — are required to have pricing on our signs . The question becomes whether or not we will show pricing on two or three products . Emmings: The sign that you ' re asking for now is how high? Roman Mueller : The one we ' re requesting? Emmings : The one that you ' re asking for . Roman Mueller : Our standard pole with sign is actually 22 feet instead of — 26 feet . It ' s shown on page 26 . The 16 foot dimension was shown . Emmings : The present sign was 24 feet high so this one might even be not — as high. Roman Mueller : Correct . We' ll be dropping it 2 feet from what the current sign is . In the area , looking at it, I 'm sure you ' re all familiar — with it , it is along the highway so there are relatively good traffic speeds and we feel that something of larger size gives you the ability to view it while you ' re traveling through there in traffic and at that speed . — If you have any questions of us, please ask . Emmings : Alright . There is no one here from the public on this issue so — is there a motion to close the public hearing? Erhart moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted — in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Erhart : Is this sign standard? Did you buy large quantities? — Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 9 Roman Mueller : Yes it is . I already have the sign . They were in bulk quantity from our manufacturing in Cincinnati , Ohio. Erhart : So what we' re looking for is a variance. Okay, that ' s the only question I have. Roman Mueller : There would be a variation of about 12. 8 square feet from where it is. Erhart : My position on this is that it ' s so close to the sign that ' s already existing . That it poses enough hardship that it makes it worthwhile . Let me summarize . The ordinance requires 64 square feet . Theirs is 80 that exists . Emmings : It ' s presently 78 and they want to make it 80 . Erhart : I know but the ordinance is 64. It ' s so close that you visually couldn ' t tell the difference between 80 square feet so I 'm in favor of approving the variance . Ellson: I was wondering , what ' s the reason for replacing the one you have currently? Roman Mueller : The new logo package. SuperAmerica has changed their logo from the old SA that it was before. A red letter and a blue letter with a more script style to the current style that it has on here which we ' re putting up in about 500 locations in the midwest and eastern states. It would be the only one that didn ' t have it if we didn ' t change it currently. I think the Metro area we ' re got about 10 left to do. This is the only one we ' re requesting a variance . I think that everybody here would recognize the value of a corporation' s identity which is their logo . If Northwest was still flying Republic it would look a little funny. Ellson: I can understand how you got grandfathered in and how you kind of lucked out because of that but I 'm probably in agreement with staff that if nobody else can have one that big than I can ' t see that they take special circumstances . Wildermuth : I 'm inclined to agree with Tim. The difference between an 8 by 8 sign and a 9 by 9 sign, roughly is pretty. . .but I do think the sign ought to meet the maximum height requirement and with that standard package you probably do accomodate that . Roman Mueller : We can cut the pole down for that . That ' s really not a problem. Batzli : Is there only one size sign from your corporation? Roman Mueller : There are two sizes . An 8 x 10 which is what this is and a 10 x 13 . If you ' d like us to put a 10 x 13 up , we 'd be more than happy to oblige. That ' s the standard sizes . The majority of cities has the size sign within those limits and that ' s how the sizes were based . X size for placement where we could get x and the other larger or smaller for the Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 10 other size . — Batzli : Are you suggesting that you haven ' t made other exceptions for special size signs? Roman Mueller : We have made exceptions . There ' s no question about that . We ' re dealing on one right now where it ' s not so much the size as the shape . They do not want us to change the shape of the current sign so we — are conforming to the previous sign size but with those size signs, we also have a separation section that has the pricing and products called bowtie. You notice the old sign there currently has the SA logo . Then — below that , not counting what we' re dealing with now, is the product type and price so if you counted both we 'd actually probably be over what we have here . Batzli : I guess I understand the importance to get a standard logo and I 'm inclined to agree that having been grandfathered in at 78 feet , I don ' t think increasing it 2 feet is setting much of a bad precedence . I also like the fact that they' re actually lowering the height so I 'd be inclined to go for a variance . Emmings : I agree with Brian and Tim and Jim I guess . For the same reasons. It ' s such a minimal difference from what they have. In fact we ' re getting something back where they' re lowering it . That part won ' t apply and it ' s only 2 feet larger . That said, is there a motion? Wildermuth moved , Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend _ approval of Sign Variance Request #88-4 for an 89 square foot sign to measure no more than 20 feet maximum height from ground level for the SuperAmerica Station. All voted in favor except Ellson who opposed and motion carried . — Ellson : It ' s setting a precedent that everybody else can have big signs later on . — Dacy: Was your motion maximum height of 20 feet? Wildermuth: Yes . Emmings : That ' s what they had said they were willing to go with that. Roman Mueller : Measured from the ground where we install the sign because you referenced the station . There might be a slope in there . Emmings : Where do you measure from when you measure the height? Dacy: The ground . Erhart : I think there ' s a big difference in the one on the industrial site because they were asking for 12 feet and we asked for 4 and I don' t see this setting the same type of precedence. — Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 11 PUBLIC HEARING : RICHARD ERSBO, 1211 LAKE LUCY ROAD, PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO LAKE LUCY ROAD: A. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO CREATE FIVE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS . B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO DEVELOP WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS A WETLAND. The staff report was waived as there was no public present besides the applicant . Emmings : Have you seen the conditions that the staff has put on this? Richard Ersbo: Yes . Emmings : Do you have any problems with those conditions? Richard Ersbo: No . Emmings : Do you have anything you 'd like to add to the staff presentation? Richard Ersbo : No . Erhart moved , Ellson seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Batzli : I guess I 'd like to recommend that we include the staff report by reference into our Minutes of the meeting here since we get the staff report on record . I didn ' t have a whole lot of questions . I thought the conditions were appropriate except for this one storm water retention pond . Were we going to talk about the within 200 feet of a wetland? Since we ' re talking about storm water retention ponds , I guess I was kind of curious as to exactly where that was going to be . Dacy: That ' s going to be located in the northwest corner of this lot right in here . Batzli : Is that going to be similar to the one we talked about last time? Dacy: No, this is much bigger in scale and character . It ' s much smaller than that one . Brown : As a matter of fact , staff had originally looked at not having storm water retention pond simply for the fact that the increase in run- off due to the rooftops of the homes due to the cul-de-sac really wasn ' t adding a whole lot of additional flow. However , on the other side of the coin obviously we can ' t ignore the sedimentation process that occurs in a holding pond before discharging out into the wetland . The pond is going to be very minimal in size . More to answer the question , I don ' t know at Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 12 this point , something we can cover through the plans and specs phase of it — but it ' s going to be very minimal at best . We had to at least extend the courtesy to the Watershed District since they' re in charge of evaluating water quality. Batzli : That part I guess that I didn ' t get yet is that your requirement that they receive a drainage easement from the adjacent property owner . Where ' s adjacent? Which one? — Brown: That would be to the east . Batzli : But in your report you say the drainage is directed to the west so you ' re saying that instead of directing it. . . Dacy: He ' s right . It ' s west . It ' s the easement going into the wetland — from the culvert. It ' s on the west side. Batzli : I 'm confused now. You ' re draining things to the west correct? — Brown: Correct . Batzli : So your acquisition of a drainage easement is to the east? Brown: There are two easements in question here. Number one, the easement to the east is strictly, it states in condition 3 that the applicant shall pursue a utility easement . It has nothing to do with the drainage and our motive for that . . . Batzli : I 'm i.n agreement with your utility easement . I ' ve only been talking about the within 200 feet of a Class A wetland . Who do you want to get at the drainage easement from? Erhart: Doesn ' t that property drain through there now? Brown : The property does drain through there now but the applicant has — shown on their plans, since this is the property boundary line here, over here this parcel is owned by Mr . Ordenblad and this pipe is shown extending onto his property and therefore the applicant again has the — responsibility of providing the City with either some sort of easement document or revising his plans such that his pipe stops here at the property boundary. No way that he can extend that pipe into somebody elses property. — Batzli : He ' s got a culvert going under the road then? Brown: Yes . Batzli : So that ' s going to drain hi.s holding pond into the next door neighbor ' s property? — Brown : Correct . Dacy: Into the wetland . Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 13 Brown : Into the wetland . However , it will be at the predevelopment runoff rate. Batzli : So you want the easement just because the pipe sticks out of the property a little bit? Brown : If the applicant wants to pursue that , yes . We would like to have that pipe extend out to the edge of the wetland . However , if it comes down to a hard situation and they can ' t reach an agreement , then we' re certainly willing to look at a revision of this plan. Wildermuth : It looks like the easement requires about 30 feet . Brown: Correct . Batzli : I guess I would like to clarify what we ' re trying to do there . I would rather make a strong recommendation that we would like to see that it goes to a certain point and he work with staff or the adjacent property owners. That ' s it. Wildermuth : I agree with Brian that we should word that just a little bit differently. Other than that, I have no other questions . It looks like the staff report all of the requirements for the subdivision are satisfied . Ellson : Nothing here . It looks fine . Erhart: That ' s the only thing I had was again, I think we should change item 2 to basically say to work with staff to create a drainage solution that will be acceptable to both the City. Otherwise I think it ' s great . Emmings : I don ' t have anything ei. ther . . . so i.s there a motion on this? Ellson moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #87-36 as shown on the plat stamped "Received April 19 , 1988" subject to the following conditions : 1 . A berming and landscaping plan shall be submitted prior to final plat approval providing screening on the two double frontage lots adjacent to Lake Lucy Road . 2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee proper installation of these public improvement . 3. The applicant shall pursue a utility easement across the parcel to the east of the proposed plat such that a manhole located 20 feet south of Lake Lucy Road may be eliminated . 4 . Drainage swales shall be provided between the proposed house pads and the upstream slopes to provide adequate drainage around and away from Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 14 the house pads . _ 5. The applicant shall maintain the 50 foot right-of-way and driveway as shown in Attachment No . 3 until such time as the proposed north/south road is extended to the south as a public roadway. 6. The watermain shall be jacked under Lake Lucy Road . 7. The applicant shall exert all due care to minimize destruction of Lake Lucy Road . All restoration on Lake Lucy Road shall be to the existing 9 ton section specifications . _ 8. Two 20 foot utility easements shall be provided as described previously in this report as part of the final plat review process . 9 . The applicant shall provide stormsewer calculations which verify the preservation of the pre-developed runoff rate and all storm sewer capacities as part of the plans and specifications review process . _ 10. The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District . 11 . Wood-fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all disturbed slopes greater than 3 : 1. 12. The developer shall be responsible for daily on and off-site cleanup caused by construction of this site . All voted in favor and motion carried . Erhart moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit Request #88-7 as presented on the plans stamped "Received April 19 , 1988" subject to the following conditions : _ 1 . Creation of a stormwater retention pond on the northwest corner of Lot 1. 2 . The applicant will work with staff to create a culvert drainage solution beyond the holding pond which is acceptable to the property owner to the west and to the City. 3. Approval of a permit from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources . _ 4 . Compliance with the conditions of subdivision approval No . 87-36 . All voted in favor and motion carried . — Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 15 PUBLIC HEARING: DEVELOPMENT SITES LIMITED LOCATED WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO AUDUBON ROAD IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THE CHICAGO MILWAUKEE RAILROAD TRACKS : A. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN YEAR 2000 LAND _ USE PLAN TO ADD 12 . 2 ACRES TO THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA AND TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM AGRICULTURAL TO INDUSTRIAL. B. REZONING OF 5. 6 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK. C. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO CREATE 5 INDUSTRIAL LOST AND TWO OUTLOTS ON 62. 86 ACRES OF PROPERTY. The staff report was waived as there was no public present except the applicant . Emmings : Does the applicant want to make a presentation? Have you reviewed the conditions that the staff has imposed upon approval . Rick Sayther : Yes . I 'm Rick Sayther and I have read the report and yes , we worked pretty closely with engineering and planning. We' re in agreement . Emmings: Anything additional you wanted to add? Rick Sayther : I don ' t think so. I 'd sure be happy to make a presentation if you want one . I certainly came prepared to do it but if you don ' t want it. My brother Rock, the owner of Industrial Custom Products was supposed to be here in about 4 minutes . You might want to know something about his business . Wildermuth : Sounds like an interesting business . Rick Sayther : I learned some things reading the literature . Erhart moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Erhart : I liked the literature . In fact , I can use some of those kinds of products . Are you the same engineer working with McGlynn by chance? Rick Sayther : No sir . Erhart : The question i.s , you don ' t see any problem with providing utility lines and working with the firm that' s doing the engineering there? Finding space to combining water? Brown : Maybe I can clarify a little bit . Mr . Sayther has been very cooperative in working with the McGlynn site. The engineers for the Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 16 McGlynn site is VanDoren , Hazard , Stallings . It ' s not critical that they — combine utilities . That it should be a condition that it is absolute. We would like to combine and both applicants have talked to each other and have indicated that yes an arrangement can be reached . It ' s just a matter of how and both of them have been very cooperative. - Rick Sayther : When McGlynn came in it was before we had started our process . They proposed to run the sewer up the east side of the lot line — a ways before they crossed because if they went directly across the road and got to the corner of Park Road and Audubon they'd be on our land and they probably, rather than seek an easement from us they just chose to go a different way. It ' s easier to cross right at Park Road because if you go up the east side of the road with the sewer you' ve got conflicts with underground utilities . Other buried utilities and on the west side there ' s an open shot . I think it will be a little cheaper to cross — together and do it at the intersection . Erhart : That ' s not a condition anyways . The business , does it intend to _ use one of these lots and resale the other one? Rick Sayther : Yes . Erhart : Which lot do you intend to use? Rick Sayther : Right now we' re talking about Lot 2, Block 1. The large — one . Lot 2 up here is the largest of the lots and the whole reason for my brother to move to Chan was to get a bigger site. He wants the flexibility to have a bigger lot . He would go there and I guess hi.s long term plans is , this lot might not even be big enough for 20 years from now. He might later want to expand out into the area that doesn ' t have sewer service and isn' t going to be zoned properly either . Erhart : The MUSA line basically extends along the northern boundary of this land currently? Dacy: Right . It roughly runs just south of the Park Road intersection straight across. The zoning line runs along this line . Erhart : This is the first time I ' ve seen an extension of the MUSA line for a development. Is it basically the rule of thumb that we ' re using here in a sense is that if you can run at gravity flow, that our City is prepared to go to Met Council to get an extension of the MUSA line? Is that it? Dacy: Right . Because it ' s such a small area , 12 acres and because it can — be served by using sewer lines within that gravity flow area , we are petitioning to add it as opposed to the previous application where you had land swaps. Met Council still has to approve this and there ' s no guarantee . So far their staff has indicated that they would , the Met — Council staff would support it . Erhart : Basically on the fact that it ' s gravity. . . The other question I had was , I think we state that the additional sewer will not have a Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 17 significant impact on that zone . 24 , 400 gallons a day. I thought that was a lot . If you could somehow get my mind right on that . Dacy: In comparison to the total capacity of the system. . . The 100 , that ' s not going to throw us over our capacity limits for the lift station . Brown : Plus the fact those numbers , correct me if I 'm wrong , that ' s designed at 2 . 5 peak for design purposes . In other words , for sizing of facilities there' s quite a fudge factor in there. Rick Sayther : The numbers that are used are not specific to my brother ' s company. He ' s a dry producer . He doesn ' t use water . It ' s just a rule of thumb for industrial use and it ' s supplied by the Met Council . In fact 2, 000 gallons per day per acre is what they are considering in typical industrial situations . Erhart : Alright , that ' s the questions I had . I guess the fact is it looks like he ' s a real nice division in the industrial and future residential area or ag . The fact that the sewer is there and the street is there and being it ' s across from the industrial park, I would support it . Emmings : Now are you comment on all of those three? Erhart : Basically they' re all tied together . I think unless I hear some other arguments , so far I support it . Ellson: I like it . No other comments . Wildermuth : I think this is a very good example of industrial subdivision and should be a real asset to Chanhassen . I think the company that is _ anticipating moving into Chanhassen is one we consider non-polluting manufacturer . Rick Sayther : My brother is real proud of the fact that , maybe he ' s slapping me at the same time but he says I have real jobs that I provide to people that really do something . Not like you Rick. You ' re selling your time, I 'm selling a product . Batzli : My questions , I guess two of them. The first one was , our interim cul-de-sac. Is the road not going to be put through the outlots when they. . . In other words , is the proposed cul-de-sac going to be the end of the road? Rick Sayther : Our proposal now is to stop, we would plat the right-of- - way through those two lots but we would build the street in green until such time as there could be an extension . Really the reason to stop it here is that someday, presuming there ' s going to be more sewer area out there sometime someday. Later one there will need to be utility extensions in the right-of-way. If we alrady paved over that area we'd have to take it out so that didn' t seem like it made a lot of sense . I 'm showing the street stopping where the gravity sewer stops . Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 18 Wildermuth : The cul-de-sac will be paved just like a street . Rick Sayther : Yes , it would be a regular street except part of it would be ripped out . — Batzli : Would we normally require that the easement be included? The plans that I 'm looking at I don ' t know that you really showed that a — different cul-de-sac was going to be built . The staff report did and so my question is, do we want to put in our conditions that that easement will be put through the outlot at this time so we don ' t get into a problem — later on when the outlot is going to be developed without access to a roadway? Dacy: I think that ' s fine . Maybe the condition should read that the right-of-way be platted to the end of Outlot B. We really don ' t want to be creating a public right-of-way in an outlot . Erhart: You' re talking about rather than not change the plans today as opposed to what might happen? Rick Sayther : The staff asked during review, what are you going to do in — meantime? I was trying to address what we would build now instead of at sometime in the future. Erhart : So your cul-de-sac is going to end there . The question is should we require an easement to the end of that. Batzli : To the edge of Outlot B at least . Rick Sayther : What my proposal is , is to plat the right-of-way as if this weren ' t here . Plat the 60 foot wide street down through here and then — grant the City an easement for this circle. For the half of the circle that ' s outside of the right-of-way because it ' s a separate document that could be recorded . Or it could be shown on the plat too and vacated — later . I guess it wouldn ' t matter . The intent is to set up the lots the way they really would be. It could either be a separate easement or on the plat . Batzli : I don ' t know that it matters . I guess which ever way the city staff would want it to go. The other question is , what is the likelihood of success when we petition the Metropolitan Council for an extension of the MUSA line that they' re going to grant that? Dacy: Given that the Met Council staff has indicated that they would — support it, I would say that our chances are, I believe Pat Law used the percentage of 79% . Batzli : Do we want to approve this conditional upon the extension being — granted? Dacy: I think I have that in the motion don ' t I? — Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 19 Wildermuth: The first one. Batzli : You ' re approving recommendation of the subdivision separately. Dacy: Right and the land use plan amendment to amend the Year 2000 MUSA line to include 12 acres and redesignate it to industrial subject to the approval of the Metropolitan Council . Batzli : Yes , so we recommend approval of the land use plan . Dacy: Are you saying that you want the subdivision approval contingent upon land use plan amendment approval? Sure , that ' s fine . Batzli : Those were my two questions . Emmings : I agree with Brians later point . I think it should be tied in . I don ' t have any problems with it . Batzli moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Land Use Plan Amendment Request #88-2 to amend the Year 2000 MUSA line to include 12 . 2 acres and to redesignate this acreage from agricultural to industrial subject to the approval of the Metropolitan Council . All voted in favor and motion carried . Erhart moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Rezoning Request #88-2 to rezone 5. 6 acres of property from A-2. Agricultural Estates to IOP, Industrial Office Park as shown and as described in the preliminary plat dated April 26, 1988 with the condition that Metropolitan Council approve MUSA line extension. All voted in fa and motion carried . vor Batzli moved , Erhart seconded that the Planning approval of Subdivision Request Commission ao aso shown on q #88-9 to create 5 industrial lots o the followingothe plat stamped "Received April 26, 1988" and two conditions : and subject 1. The applicant shall enter into a ahe pppvice the development contract guarantee the City with the necessary financial with the propo er installation of sureties tt City The these public improvements . 2. the cppnecant ion shall provide sufficient utility and future repair of utilitiesy easements alon to facilitate n9 the west side of Audubon Road, 3 . The applicant shall of a revise the gradingmaintains Plan to show the provides adequate short the pre-developed Construction storage for a 100 year frequency runoff rate and 4- The applicant shallquency storm event . calcu preservation provide of thestorm sewer pre-developed runoff land°all which verify the rate storm sewer Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 20 system capacities as part of the plans and specifications review _ process . 5 . The road profile shall be revised to show a landing zone which meets the Minnesota Department of Transportation ' s guidelines and shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer as part of the plans and specifications review process . 6. The proposed right-of-way shall be revised to a 60 foot right-of-way width, and shall maintain a 60 foot radius at the end of the cul-de-sac as per ARticle 3, Section 28-57 (b) of the Chanhassen _ Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed right-of-way shall be platted to the edge of Outlot B and submitted to the City Staff a plan signifying the amendment to the right-of-way. _ 7 . All utilities shall be jacked underneath Audubon Road. 8 . Subdivision is contingent upon the MUSA line being approved by the — Metropolitan Council . All voted in faovr and motion carried . APPROVAL OF MINUTES : — Erhart moved , Wildermuth seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 4 , 1988 with the change noted on page 52 by Brian Batzli regarding clarification on the voting outcome for the motion . — All voted in favor and the motion carried . ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REGULATIONS , DISCUSSION . Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . — round this where I said , why would I Emmings : We had a long discussion a garage in my frontyard but — come in for ahanrednin here tow refleant ct bu ild hat . nothing was c g Olsen: That' s where we discussed it . The frontyard , you still have the 30 _ foot setback. That way you wouldn' t have to do a variance . 30 so MyEmm point then and I read it and it was kind of confusing lot — aybegs: myself clear on it . My rearyard on a rip haven' t made in my frontYard which is the maybe I ' t build a garageical would say that I can this from the lake . The street sthatwoncriparlan lots ► side of my house away this , why don t we say _ Mypoi is s i.n residential districts shall place for d garages and storage building t on riparian lots or something no detached 9 front or side yard excep get a building in the then I can come i.n and simply be located point being ' h the variance process . — like that . The to go through than having permit rather the front setback. Dacy: But you still have to meet Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 21 Emmings : I always have to meet every setback. I know I have to meet the setbacks . I just wonder why I have to go through the variance procedure. No one builds their garage between their house and the lake, I don ' t think. Dacy: So you ' re looking at either 7 or 8? Emmings : I don' t know. I was trying to modify number 1 but maybe you have a better idea . No , 7 stays just like it is . Dacy: What I 'm saying though is, that would be the section. We' re trying with each numeral have a serparate rule for each numeral . Emmings: Then do you want to add another number? Dacy: Number 7 pertains to riparian lots . Erhart: Why did you come up with number 1 to begin with? What was the objection to having the detached garage in the front or side of the home? Dacy: That ' s standard practice in most zoning codes . Batzli : I 'm losing the chain of thought here . I guess from the neighborhoods I 'm from, the garage is always detached and it ' s always between the house . Wildermuth : It ' s on the side yard or rear . Batzli : No, front . Emmings : Where I grew up it was always rear . Batzli : It depends. If you ' re in the City and you ' re going down the alley, it ' s always in the backyard but in a lot of more ruralized , just kind of places I 've seen, quite a few garages are in the front yard because it' s right up against the road and you ' ve got the house set back. Erhart : I think you ' ve got to remember where we started on this thing . It started about six months ago when some guy came in here with 7 acres on RSF district and wanted to put up 30, 000 square foot barn. Somehow now we ' ve got this around to we' re talking about accessory buildings . In today' s marketplace, no one builds a single family house in a small lot with detached garages . I 'm not even sure that that ' s an issue . I almost think by adding number 1 that we may create a problem that really doesn' t exist . Batzli : It may be that there are smaller homes located about that don ' t have a garage. Erhart : I would think they would want to put it i.n the rear . Batzli : It depends on whose street i.t is . Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 22 MOM Dacy: An example of that is in the Carver Beach area . Those older areas and typically they are within the 30 foot setback and we do have the ability to put them through the variance process so we can evaluate _ exactly close that it should be. I really recommend that you keep 1 in there because then law, even with the previous ones , stands up in this book. Emming : It ' s not a bad general rule . Dacy: Right . Exactly. For separation of buildings and the street . . . _ Erhart : Did you have anymore on that Steve? I want to get back to this . Emmings: No. I guess I 'd like to find a way so if a person on a riparian — lot wants to build a garage, they can come in for a permit and make sure they meet all the setbacks but not have to go through the variance. There isn ' t any doubt that if I come in as a riparian lot owner and I want to -- build in my frontyard, I 'm going to get that variance . The City' s not going to make me build between the lake . They' re not going to make me put it in the rearyard . Dacy: I 'm not going to say always but you ' re chances are increased . Emmings : Isn' t this one of those situations where we can let staff handle — it through the permit process rather than having to make a person go through the cost and expense? Dacy: What I was thinking of to discuss would be to add on a sentence that on riparian lots the detached garages , do you just want to exclude it only to detached garages as opposed to storage buildings? Emmings: I don ' t know. Dacy: There ' s an aesthetic standpoint . _ Emmings : I would say garages . I guess I wouldn ' t mess with the accessory buildings at this point . I would say garages . Dacy: That detached garages may be located in the frontyard but it must maintain the front and side setbacks . Erhart: I think with your 4 and 5, the way it ' s coming out right now, it ' s not getting accomplished what I see accomplished including what I 'm concerned about. That is , it ' s a situation where essentially a subdivision , even though it ' s in the A-2 or RR district , is essentially a group of small lots . Generally with our current ordinance the tendency is to do 2 . 5, economically that size. They come out just like an RSF _ subdivision and the concern is that on these buildings, the houses are uniform. Again , like anything else it ' s to avoid a situation where they come in and put in a metal building in the middle of a residential area . The way it reads now is it ' s kind of mushy so what I 'm saying is , maybe '- what the real cutoff here is when do you get out of this subdivision Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 23 cluster and when do you get into the rural area? I 'm not opposed to metal sheds at all in the rural areas . . . Dave would argue that not on 10 acres . 5 seems reasonable to me. Bluff Creek , the Hesse Farms , a lot of these where you ' ve got 100 homes coming in there putting 2 1/2 acres , they are all 2 1/2 to 3 acres subdivision so when you ' re done there is the temptation to put that metal shed when somebody has built a $300, 000 . 00 home . I would rather adjust this acreage thing down to 3 acres if you have a concern about this bigger building rather than making it a conditional use because what happens in conditional uses we forget what the intention was . Ellson : Why don' t you make the point that this is trying to eliminate metal sheds? We spent a little bit on that one before. Erhart : We can combine all of this in one . What I 'd like to do is anything below 5 acres they can not be allowed at all and erase the condition use permit . Secondly, make them argicultural . Change 5, detached garages on all residential , all lots less than 5 acres must be architecturally consistent . Now if the Commission feels 5 acres is too big , rather than making this mushy, I 'd rather reduce the lot size so everybody feels comfortable that we ' re doing a service for this subdivision. Does that make sense? Emmings : Where I 'm confused is if the detached garage , obviously that doesn ' t include accessory buildings . . . Erhart : The way you have it now, detached garages . You just restrict it for residential districts . A-2 I assume is not at all . Dacy: No . I used the term in all residential districts . Ellson: Even A-2, that ' s residential . Erhart : I see . So you are including the A-2? Dacy: Maybe you can clarify it to make sure detached garages in all agricultural and residential districts must be architecturally. . . Erhart: I think you should say 5 acres or less . On lots 5 acres or less . Batzli : If a guy has 240 acres then who cares what his detached garage looks like? Erhart : Do the same as you did in item 4 . You use the term 5 acres or less . Dacy: It ' s still the perception of architectural continuity. Ellson: If it ' s going to be a garage, you have to have walking distance to the house . Dacy: The 5 acres really came for the storage buildings . Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 24 Erhart : We' re differentiating between detached garages and accessory -- buildings? Dacy: Yes , because the storage buildings , then you ' re getting into metal _ and all that business and you really shouldn ' t be . . . Erhart : Does this change then allow us to put up metal buildings in lots less than 5 acres? Dacy: We are not saying anything about metal buildings . Erhart: Are we differentiating between accessory structures? Dacy: You' re differentiating between detached garages and storage buildings . Emmings : Do we have definitions for each of those in the ordinance? Dacy: We have a definition of a garage and building as a structure . Erhart : What about the guy who comes in and saying I 'm not proposing that I build a detached garage. I 'm proposing to build a storage shed . Emming : That I 'm going to put my car in . Erhart: Yes , so all of a sudden this doesn ' t apply anymore . Dacy: We do have a definition of a garage. Erhart : All I want to do is prevent someone from coming in and saying I 'm building a 1, 200 foot metal building . Batzli : On accessory structure it doesn ' t have to be primary. . . so he can put up an accessory structure without coming in for action. Emmings : We do have accessory structures? Dacy: Right. Erhart : Why can ' t we just say on item 4 , change it to say in the A-2 and RR district no detached , or in all these districts , no detached garage or accessory structure? Dacy: Because you ' re forcing people to , instead of going to Montgomery Wards or just getting those. . . . _ Ellson : The little ones , you ' re telling them they can ' t have them. Erhart : I 'm saying no accessory structure shall exceed 1, 000 square feet on lots 5 acres or less . Change the words from detached garages to accessory structures . Dacy: Start over . On 4 or 5? Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 25 Erhart : On 4 . In the A-2 and RR districts no accessory structures shall exceed 1 , 000 square feet . Dacy: That ' s there . Erhart : You' re using the term detached garage. Dacy: And storage buildings . Erhart : Okay, I 'm satisfied . I guess I was thinking of storage buildings I was thinking of those little tiny buildings but you ' re using the term to describe all of them. Okay, I 'm satisfied . Batzli : I 'd rather see the terms defined than coming up with detached garages and storage building which isn ' t defined anywhere . Emmings: Accessory structures seemed broad to me. Dacy: Storage buildings are listed as an accessory use in the district . Storage building i.s an accessory structure. Emmings : If accessory structure is the broadest term, why not use it? Batzli : We have pools under that. Parking lots. Dacy : This got back to your original discussion between use and structure and we beat each other over the head and that ' s why we came up with storage . What are we trying to regulate? Storage buildings and garages . They' re all accessory structures , yes . Erhart : What happens with a horse barn? Dacy: We' re calling those a private stable . Batzli : Private stable would be an accessory structure . Dacy: Private stable is a conditional use. Wildermuth : It ' s in a classification all by itself. Erhart: I go back to what I originally said, we should change the whole tone of accessory structure shall not exceed 1, 000 square feet . Dacy: But the term accessory structure includes docks , pools , garages , storage buildings, tennis courts . Ellson : Didn ' t we talk about this before? We came up with storage before . Batzli : I didn ' t like storage then and I still don ' t like it . Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 26 Erhart : Let ' s just take the storage out and let ' s say just buildings . Accessory buildings . Emmings : There you go. _ Dacy: I think we need to be consistent though with other terms in the ordinance and as long as we' re listing storage buildings as listed accessory uses , we should try to keep that . — Erhart: It ' s clear to you that a horse barn? Dacy: That could be number 8. Erhart: Why don' t you just state detached garages . . . Dacy: Because a private stable is a conditional use in the single family and it ' s a permitted use in the A-2 and RR. That ' s an issue. Do you want to review the size of the buildings through the conditional use permit — process for private stable depending on the number of horses and the acreage or did you want to set a maximum acreage for calling it an accessory structure? As a conditional use it can be the principle use of the land . Erhart : How big was that stable? Dacy: I think that was over 1, 000. I think it was 1, 300 or 1 , 400 . Batzli : I would recommend personally, that we come up with a definition for our definition section for a storage building . What is a storage building and that would solve our problem. Then we can use it. Then I like using the term but I don ' t like really creating terms that we know what we ' re talking about right now but is somebody tries to come in later — and it ' s not defined anywhere . Emmings : You might include it in the definition means we do not . . . -- Batzli : It ' s going to be a building that ' s not connected to the main structure . Emmings : Not used primarily for . . . Batzli : Not used primarily for whatever . — Emmings : Whether it' s cars , stables or anything . Batzli : You have to define what it isn ' t rather than what it is . I would rather be . . .because then you take in both the Sears barns and the bigger pole barns and whatever else . Dacy: Okay, we can do that . Jo Ann just pointed out that private stables is an accessory use so if we ' ve got 100 acre parcel out in the A-2 district , then as written they would need a conditional use permit . No , — they wouldn' t. Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 27 Wildermuth : If it ' s under 1, 000 square feet it doesn ' t. . . Batzli : Proceeding onto number 4 . . .but then we leave our detached garages and storage buildings and start talking about accessory buildings . Are you differentiating between the accessory building and the storage building? Emmings : That ' s the term you didn ' t want to use but you also used it down in (c) . You used accessory buildings . Erhart : Going back to that one , that sentence ought to be eliminated . If we ' re going to have a rule against 1 , 000 square foot buildings , then let ' s just make it a rule. Batzli : That begs the question on what do you allow on 5 acres or more? Erhart: We' re not imposing restrictions . Batzli : If we leave that in there you have to go through the conditional use process . Dacy: I think that ends up the way it ' s being written but I think the way we had intended it was for 5 acres or less . Batzli : I don ' t read it that way. Dacy: Then that should be clarified . Erhart : What are we trying to clarify? Dacy: Our intent was that if it was an ag lot , not part of the subdivision as you had described , that they may need a building more than 1, 000 square feet and rather than having them come in for a variance which means a hardship has to be demonstrated whereas a conditional use permit is a little more flexible. Erhart : My concern is that we permit everything . Batzli : Over 5 acres . Erhart : It doesn ' t say over 5 acres . If you ' re going to change it to say that if you had more than 5 acres and you wanted to build 1, 000 square feet and come in for a conditional use permit , I 'm all for that . Dacy: That ' s an option. You could be getting a lot of conditional use — permits for accessory buildings and/or , as written , there is no restrictions on accessory buildings in the A-2. I should say, they can' t be in the front and side yard and so on but that ' s about it . Erhart : You ' re saying with the proposed ordinance change or as the current ordinance reads? Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 28 MOM Dacy : The current ordinance reads the same way. You can have 100 acres — and you can' t have it in the front and side yard . Erhart : Let me try to clarify this . Let ' s say we have in sentence one in _ paragraph 4. We agree that the wording , detached garages and storage buildings with your definition Brian , is perhaps acceptable . Then the question becomes , as I read it, we add another paragraph that allows someone to come in for a conditional use permit . To me that ' s the — question on this. Am I right or wrong? Emmings : You' d rather have them come in for a variance? — Erhart : Yes , because I think if we ' re going to write it , why would we write a rule . . . The rule is written for a good reason . If we believe that it ' s a good reason . — Dacy: How about if we do this? Shall exceed 1 , 000 square feet on lots 5 acres or less and add some language for lots used primarily for single — family purposes . Erhart : Farms on 5 acres or less . Is everybody with just eliminating that conditional use sentence or do you want it to stay in? Batzli : I ' d be happy to eliminate that sentence but I still think this section might raise the issue of what happens when you ' ve got more than 5 1 acres . tl Erhart : I 'm assuming what it says is if you ' ve got more than 5 acres , you put up anything . Batzli : I 'm assuming that as well . Emmings : I don ' t know if I want to throw out the sentence . The only thing , if somebody had a good reason to put up over 1, 000 square feet on a 5 acre piece . If you look at our standards for issuing a conditional use — permit where it can ' t depreciate surrounding property value and it has to be aesthetically compatible . If we could control it to that extent . Erhart: No, I 'm all in favor of that . . .horse barns . I agree with that . My concern is that when this comes in we won ' t really sit down and think about it . Emmings : I don ' t know. 1, 000 square feet is not a lot for 5 acres in case somebody wants it. A machine shop or if somebody wants to use it to build cabinets or something like that . — Erhart : . . . I 'd even go to 1, 500 square feet on 5 acres . Just cut the whole thing . Instead of 5 make it 3 . I don ' t think we ' re going to see anybody selling in the rural more than 5 acre lots. If some guy wants to split 10 acres into 5, than I don' t care what kind of buildings he puts i.n. Batzli : I think 3 acres is probably a good number to go with then . Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 29 Emmings : Okay, so if you put 3 acres in the first sentence and eliminate the second sentence and have it say that over 3 acres there are no restrictions on properties greater than 5? Wildermuth: As long as the setbacks are satisfied . Batzli : That ' s my next question . Why do we have setback requirements for the RSF and . . . Dacy: We' re just establishing different setbacks for RSF and R-4 . Erhart: I think the confusion that Brian and I have is when you use the word residential district and I 'm not sure in our minds , because the A-2 says Agricultural Estates , we' re not sure that your language covers that. '- Dacy: We are specifying the district though. Erhart: You ' re saying that no detached garages or storage buildings in any residential district shall be located in the required front and side. Dacy: In number 3 we' re specifying . . . Batzli : RSF and R-4 . So if you lived in A-2, you could put . . . Dacy: You would go by the original ones in the A-2 district. They would be in the front and rear . Batzli : So what you ' re doing is you ' re actually lessening the standard in RSF and R-4 districts? Emmings : Residential districts Tim, in the ordinance are RR, RSF, R-4 , R-8, and R-12. Dacy: Now we' re increasing the setback because right now they can have it back to 5 feet within the rear yard. Now in the RSF district we ' re saying if it ' s 200 or less you can put it 5 feet on the rear and 10 on the side . If you ' re over , you' re up to 15 feet . Batzli : What would the normal rear yard setback be? Dacy: For an accessory building it ' s 5 feet . Batzli : So if it ' s over 200 square feet . . .but according to the ordinance , A-2 is included in a residential district. So if you had A-2, are you limited by the setback in some other section we' re not looking at? Erhart: The same goes for paragraph 5. You need to say residential and agricultural districts . Emmings : So you want to add all residential and the A-2 . Erhart: . . . item 1 and item 5 and we add A-2. Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 30 Batzli : I want to retract everything I said about that second sentence in paragraph 4. I ' ll let them worry about that when the time comes . . . Dacy: So the second sentence of 4 is dropped and that ' s it? Emmings: You should have the first sentence in 4 changed to say. . . Erhart : And 5 in all residential districts and the A-2 district . What — about, is it just detached garages that have to be architecturally consistent? What about storage buildings? Olson: We talked about that and storage buildings they didn' t have to be designed to make those . Batzli : Can we differentiate the Sears barns by saying that under 200 — square feet doesn ' t have to be and over 200 does? Just a question . Ellson : You can get those things mighty big and already prefab and then _ to ask to paint it your color and have a roof the same, that ' s asking a lot . Batzli : I thought I would just ask though . Dacy: There is also the deed restrictions . . . To be honest I think a detached garage is but at least there it ' s something that is dependent on — the structure. Erhart : I 'm talking of that small lot subdivision from putting metal — sheds in . What happens in 2 1/2 acre minimum and you ' ve got a consistent neighborhood and the temptation . . .and the next door neighbor can ' t do that. You ' re trying to protect the value of one neighbor against what some other guy will do. That ' s what I 'm trying to do . Ellson: You buy those things already made and then to go back and make them architecturally sound or then you ' ve got to go back to your stucco — house or whatever . Emmings : Barb, we have unanimously. . . to A-2. You ' ve got to change where _ you put all the argicultural districts . You can ' t put A-1 up there. You can ' t enforce this . It should be in A-2 and all residential districts . So 5 should be changed to just say A-2 and all residential districts . Erhart : The last question remains I guess is do we want to take lots of 2 1/2 acre subdivision and allow these metal storage sheds . That ' s the question and I 'm proposing that we add storage sheds to 5 to prevent that . — Batzli : I think by limiting size you ' re going to allow the Sears storage shed and you' re going to eliminate a guy coming in with a 45 x 17 ' x 30 ' Lester . I don' t think we can regulate the sheds. I 'd sure like to think we could . Emmings : I don ' t think we' ll have a problem. . . Do we mean now just — residential districts and you ' re using accessory building and do we want Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 31 them included in A-2 here or not? Dacy: If the structure is used for agricultural purposes , that can be interpretted as the primary use. Erhart : I think the basis of this whole thing applying to rural areas is that in the 3 acre or less lots . If it ' s 10 acres. Dacy: This could pertain to RSF or multiple family. We just don ' t want garages built. Erhart : I agree . All I 'm saying is if agreement . . . in any residential district and on any lot less than 3 acres in the A-2 area , no accessory building or structure shall be built and so on . I think what you don ' t want to do is get the 20 acre parcel out there and prevent some guy from putting a storage shed up. That happens frequently. Earning : Okay, so we say in any residential district or less than 3 acres . A-2 lots than 3 acres . Then it says no accessory building . Dacy: Change it to storage . Emmings : Storage building and that ' s all? Dacy: Yes . Batzli : What ' s the difference between an accessory building or a storage shed? Dacy: Let ' s just say no storage building , detached garage or accessory buildings shall be erected . _ Erhart : The best term you ' ve found i.s accessory building . It accomplishes what we' re trying to accomplish . Batzli : I would agree . I would say there , accessory use . You ' re looking for accessory everything . Dacy: Again , anytime you say no accessory use that means docks . Ellson : You can ' t have a porch . Dacy: That covers it all . Emmings : Let ' s try that and see how it works . Erhart : Is this coming back to us? Dacy: Yes , Jo Ann and I were just talking that it ' s been so long we should really readvertise for a public hearing with the changes . Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 32 CONTINUE BF DISTRICT DISCUSSION. Erhart : All I want to do is , if we can settle the question of whether we want to deal with planning issues or we want to get into the legal issues . If we want to get into the legal issues , we ' ll never get this through — here. We ' ll never get this out of here. Emmings : I mentioned to Tim when we were sitting here that maybe we — should find out the legal problems involved before we spend time working on this . Tim ' s point was that we should ignore the legal issue . . . .move it onto the City Council , we should do the planning decision and let them — worry about the legality and I think that makes a lot sense . Dacy: As a matter of fact, Roger went out and looked at these sites today and we had a talk about it in preparation for tonight ' s meeting . Emmings : Why don ' t you tell us about that . Dacy: He is really concerned about changing the zoning to ag on the majority of these properties where it can ' t be proven that it is an economically reasonable use of the property as an ag use . For example , _ the cold storage. That will be non-confomring . Maybe a better example is the Jack Brambilla ' s lot where that small building was . If that ' s vacated and we change it to A-2, it ' s really dubious that the City can prove that that ' s a viable lot for either ag purposes or for a single family home. — Erhart : He ' s already there right? He' s grandfathered in. We ' re not economically changing that . _ Dacy : It ' s just a vacant building . Ellson : Then he comes in with a new person as a renter . — Dacy: How about if I just finish . He followed that up by saying maybe what we should do is the City has used an appraiser in the past and not — having the appraiser do a formal report but just going out there under site inspection and look at values of some of these properties because the Attorney is concerned that by rezoning we may be taking . He said that ' s fine if you ' re willing to pay for it . That kind of gets to the issue that you ' re talking about . The Council is the one that authorizes , especially the rezoning and authorizes acquisition of the property. Another alternative other than rezoning to A-2 is that the City become a little more ambitious in creating . . . for this area . Either frontage road or some set of standards that are going to try and resolve the traffic issues and the zoning issues . That is possible . That means a public improvement project and assessments back to the properties . They have to have some type of use of the land that ' s going to enable them to pay off the assessment . It ' s like between a rock and a hard place. Emmings : One question . Is the BF zone that we ' ve got down there now, as small as it can be to cover the properties that are already there? Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 33 Dacy: Yes . As a matter of fact originally it extended over to the municipal boundary. I can have Roger write his feelings up for you. His main concern is the taking issue. That ' s fine if we ' re willing to buy it . Erhart: Someone would have to come to the public hearing and then . . . Is it important enough that we want to do anything about it? Long term land use. Emmings : I don ' t know if this would make sense . Do you think we ought to let the City Council , do you want to just pass this up to the City Council or should we ask them to give us direction on this? If they want us to take a look at it . Dacy: What I could do also , if you want , kind of a parcel by parcel analysis of, there are 8 properties in there. Have the appraiser evaluate it . Have Roger analysize it and then you have a better feel for the entire history. Emmings : Shouldn' t direction for something like that come from the City Council? Batzli : I guess what I 'd propose is that we make a resolution that we would like to see that preserved in A-2 and we want the City Council to look at it then give us direction . Just make a resolution . Erhart: If the Commission thinks what we' re proposing here is a good idea then let ' s go to Council and say we think , without getting into details at this point, we think it ' s a valid and good planning proposal and we'd like them to look at it . Emmings : Let ' s send Tim' s updated letter along and that further consideration be made . Erhart : I called Eden Prairie on this subject , the Minnesota Valley, and what I got from this phone call , they have what they call a conservatory district . It covers this area down there , the Minnesota River Valley. The Purgatory Creek Watershed and the Bluff Creek Watershed. What it says is you ' ve got your zoning districts but within this conservatory district there' s also a condition and it ' s on density and types of use. It ' s sort of like a. . . that overlays these special areas . I consider the Minnesota Valley and the Bluff Creek area is the same potential for that so that was kind of, I was talking to Barb about this , about getting someone to come over and just talk to us about preservation of green areas and these areas — in general . Try to give us some direction on what to do to get those areas preserved. During the small time I ' ve been here I 've seen where it ' s been easy to come in and the next thing you ' ve got a subdivision coming in and it doesn' t hit you that night, it ' s inconsistent with the real long term opportunity to have a green area . We don ' t want it right on Bluff Creek which years ago we already sort of planned to make it as a green area but it never really got official so we missed it . . . .Bluff Creek Green ' s did. Came back and negotiate to get some easements . Dacy: For? Planning Commission Meeting May 18 , 1988 - Page 34 Erhart : It was a walking . For Bluff Creek for the golf course . That subdivision along Pioneer Trail . We approved it all the way through. I remember Thompson asked a few questions and the developer caught on to plot within this. Batzli : Is that something that should go in the Comprehensive Plan? Our overlay? _ Dacy: Our wetland , your floodplain and shoreland ordinances all are now overlay districts right now Don called me back and he said that that _ conservative district did not apply to the Minnesota River Valley. I asked him to write a letter to us clarifying what are the regulations for the the land immediately abutting TH 212 . Erhart : Anyway, their whole valley area is zoned agricultural . Dacy: He said what they have besides the ag zoning is they do have _ restrictions on steep slopes which is similar to our zoning . Batzli : Are we unanimous in wanting to implement Tim ' s plan? Emmings : That ' s what I wanted to ask. Do you need a formal motion or resolution or something? Dacy: Why don' t you go ahead and move. Erhart moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission would like to change the BF district to A-2 in the location east of TH 101. The City Council should take into account the comments of the City Attorney and the appraiser to give direction on whether or not to pursue with that application . Also , that the City Council take into account Tim Erhart ' s letter regarding this issue. All voted in favor and the motion carried . Erhart moved , Ellson seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 45 p.m. . _ Submitted by Barbara Dacy City Planner — Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSIONUNEDITEri REGULAR MEETING JUNE 1, 1988 — Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 35 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad , Brian Batzli , James Wildermuth and David Headla STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FOR A 60 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CHAN VIEW, HERITAGE PARK APARTMENT PARTNERS . Public Present: Name Address Tom Zumwalde Applicant George Beniek 412 - 76th Street West Sue Welliver 7611 Huron Avenue Barbara Dacy presented the staff report . Conrad: I got a call from Brad Johnson saying he was on his way from St . Paul . He ' d be delayed but he would be here . He ' s not trying to dodge it but we' ll open it up for public comments , if there are any from the applicant . Any comments at all on the revision to this particular apartment building. George Beniek: I live on 412 West 76th Street . I guess my only question is, was there, I imagine there was a public hearing on the initial which I don ' t recall ever receiving a copy of . What' s the purpose of the change now? To who' s benefit is the change? Is it more units going to be in there? Dacy: No . There is no change in the amount of units that were previously — approved by the Council in 1987. The only thing that' s changed is how the building is sitting on the lot . Basically it ' s shifted more to the south and has become an "L" fashion as you see there. The north/south and the east/west access as opposed to a "U" formation . As to who ' s benefit , I don ' t know. George Beniek: Why are they requesting the change? Is it our purpose to know that? Dacy: The architect is here. Tom Zumwalde : I can try and answer that . I am Tom Zumwalde , the architect on the project. I designed the original project and also the revision to it. The original project , we did not have a contractor Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 2 — involved . We did not have a lot of marketing input . In the last year we got a contractor involved and we ' ve dome some marketing input and those —' are the prime reasons for the changes in the configuration. With the original building that was "U" shaped , we had a lot of units that were pie shaped with minimal exterior walls looking up to an inside court. From a — marketing standpoint , the people we talked to felt they were less useable or less rentable. Less desirable units. From the construction end, all of those wedges in the building were very, very costly and what was _ happening was we were spending so much money on those that the rest of the building would have suffered for it . So what we feel , in the super configuration is that we ' re getting a much better , more efficient building . The units have increased an average of 24 square feet per unit . — They' re much more liveable than the other ones were. Basically those are the reasons . George Beniek: The heights of it is going to be approximately how many stories? Tom Zumwalde : The same, it ' s 3 stories . The identical number of units . — The same number of parking spaces. Basically just the configuration change . George Beniek : It will conform to allow the senior citizen access? Handicap? Tom Zumwalde : There are three handicap units in the building . Totally — accessible. As far as rent levels and all of that , I wish the developer were here to answer that . I really don ' t have all that information . Sue Welliver : I live on Huron Avenue. I own a double bungalow there and I 'm concerned also about my tenants and myself, since I live there, is access. There ' s going to be 60 units and you ' re going to have a lot of parking and that type of thing and a lot of cars . How are you going to get out onto 78th Street without any stop signs onto 78th Street? It' s very difficult right now. If you' re going to put that up and have the only access onto that road, how are you going to get back out? That ' s what I ' d like to know. Dacy: The access to the apartments will be from Chan View and there will — be two access points. One opposite the Huron Avenue intersection. Here' s Huron Avenue here. The entrance to the parking lot will be directly opposite of that and there will be another access further to the east on Chan View. So cars entering and leaving the site will come from Chan View, iff they' re going to be headed to Great Plains Blvd. , they' ll go over to here and then go south to the Great Plains Blvd . and West 78th Street intersection which there' s a stop sign at that point and West 78th — Street is now a flow through on that . There 's no four way stop. That was eliminated with the reconstruction of the south lane of Great Plains Blvd . . Additionally, there could be traffic that goes west on Chan View — that would eventually hit Laredo. The City is just finishing up, we' re reconstructing Laredo Drive as it intersects West 78th Street. There ' s a right turn lane now that will be on Laredo Drive going onto West 78th Street. — Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 3 Sue Welliver : Yes , but I mean when you try to get onto West 78th Street, that is the most difficult now that they eliminated the four way stop sign there . Also , on Laredo , eliminating that . You want to go east , anyway from there, it ' s very difficult. We have to wait 5 to 10 minutes and that ' s just normal time. You get into rush hour and it ' s terrible. Dacy: I agree. There' s a considerable amount of traffic on West 78th Street in both locations . In this location in front of Kenny' s, because that leg is part of TH 101, MnDot 's requirement was that we remove the stop signs along West 78th Street to promote the flow through on West 78th Street and to control the traffic coming from Great Plains Blvd. onto West 78th Street . There ' s no question that during peak hours that main street is a busy street. I can' t dispute that . Sue Welliver : Are they going to do anything? Are they going to suggest to do anything for that for the residents in this apartment unit also? Like are they going to put a four way stop on Laredo and West 78th or do you know? Dacy: No , there are no plans to put a four way stop at either location . Again, MnDot is requiring us that we can' t have stop signs on that leg of what is known as TH 101. What ' s there now can control the traffic but yes , it' s going to be busy during peak hours. I don' t know how else to explain it . Sue Welliver : I have rental property right now and that ' s one issue that we have right now is because you can ' t get out. Now you build a 60 unit apartment building , those owners are also going to have the same problem there. I think they should look at that and I think the City should decide on putting in stop signs . There ' s a church there with children going across. I think there should be stop signs and I think this is just going to add to the congestion. Conrad : It sure will add to the congestion by putting in 60 more units there. There ' s no doubt about that. I guess the question becomes , Barbara , you ' re telling us that the intersection at TH 101 or West 78th . Is that 78th? Dacy: Yes . Conrad : That MnDot really does control that and what i.s our influence in terms of the traffic problems? Dacy: As you recall also , the City has a long term plan , it ' s really not long term because we' re trying to accomplish it along with the four lanes of TH 5 , creating a new leg of TH 101 that would go through the Apple Valley-Redimix property, cross TH 5 and hook up into Lake Drive East . That would take a significant volume of the north/south traffic from TH 101 and take that out of going through the downtown area but there is going to be this interim period in here where the north/south traffic on TH 101 is going to be going through the downtown area . George Beniek: How many parking places are there shown on their plan? Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 4 Dacy: 108. Tom Zumwalde : The building has a 60 car garage below it . There' s one garage space for each unit and then 48 open stalls out in the parking lot. The same as it was before. _ George Beniek: So there will be a basement in the building? Is that right? Tom Zumwalde: That would be the garage, correct . Conrad: The parking lot did look small didn ' t it? -- George Beniek: Yes . Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed . Conrad : Tim, we' ll start down at your end . What are your comments? Erhart: I really don' t have any. I think the building space is unusual — space . It' s built well and I think it' s adequate . Emmings: I don ' t really have anything . I liked the other building better but so what. Conrad : Yes , the other building was prettier . Emmings: This one ' s efficient . Ellson : I don ' t have any comments either . I think it ' s just fine. — Conrad: Nobody' s talking about traffic. Brian? Batzli : I was going to talk about landscaping but I ' ll talk about traffic a little bit. Kenny' s is going to stay where it is isn ' t it? Throughout this whole development so we' re not going to lose any traffic . . . I guess I would recommend that, I ' ve seen the paster of that church has — asked that stop signs be put in there, at least so people can get across the street to go to church. We' re adding potentially 108 more cars a day or more. When you talk about back and forth trips , a lot more congestion at that intersection. I guess I would like to see whether we can convince MnDot of some other way before we get people getting inpatient and trying to pull out and creating havoc at that intersection because I think it ' s a problem. I personally waited there trying to get out of Kenny' s market — for , it is several minutes. That ' s not really an exaggeration. I guess I 'd like to see something . I don ' t know what we can do i.n this particular instance but it sounds like MnDot is kind of calling the shots on it but I — do think that ' s a concern . Not having been involved in the original building, I don ' t know if I like the original building or not. Your one condition that asks for the additional plantings , what are you going to , I _ didn' t understand where that ' s going to be. Chan View and the parking area? You' re just going to have more plantings in that one strip? Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 5 Dacy: Yes, in this area. Batzli : Do we require a certain plantings to be put in? Are we going to get like little pine trees that are going to take 15 years to grow to shield this thing? Dacy: No . The ordinance requires for evergreens that they be a minimum of 6 feet at planting and I believe the landscaping plan, in some cases there were taller trees . Batzli : Because this is going to be a 3 story building and when you have a 6 foot pine tree, it' s going to take 20 years to mature and you have a single family homes in the area , I don ' t know. Obviously the people are going to have to look at the building for a couple of years no matter what you do . That' s all . Wildermuth : I guess I have a question about the storm water runoff. Jim Lasher , in his letter , spent quite a bit of time talking about an on-site retention. . . Dacy: Part of the problem in determing that , the ultimate storm sewer plan is that the City needs to finalize it' s plans for the drainage of the abutting properties. This site here is where a daycare center is proposed to be located and all of these properties here interrelate so what we ' re trying to do is have BRW and the applicant on this project work together so there is on-site retention on this property and make sure that it ' s properly directed to whatever is finally determined on the daycare site also . It ' s hard at this point to give you a definitive answer of the catch basin over here or here. Wildermuth: There doesn' t look like there ' s going to be room for a catch basin on this property. Dacy: If you' re talking about a retention pond . Is that what you mean? The City' s intent was to create a storm sewer system and piping and so on so an actual pond wouldn' t probably be used . There might be a very small depression in there but it was my understanding from BRW that we ' re looking at a storm sewer system. Wildermuth : With an underground garage , I can see a lot of problems there. Like with the storm that we had last year. That ' s going to be flooded because that whole area is low and it all drains . I think what we should do is strengthen the language for the storm water runoff. Put in provisions that that be made . . . I guess we ' re looking at the BRW letter . That 's all I had. Headla : . . . Even if there' s City' s storm sewer that will catch the runoff , then this apartment complex will pay for that? Dacy: Yes , the applicant is responsible for all necessary storm sewer improvements from the runoff from their property. Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 6 — Headla : Does that appear to be adequate to allow that storm sewer to take _ care of it? To me that seems that ' s the logical way to go but is there anything else we should be looking at? Dacy: The intent of condition 1 from staff was taken from BRW' s letter that we want final utility and storm sewer plans from them. That will be reviewed both by in-house engineering staff and BRW. Before they get a building permit, they' ll have to satisfy those issues . — Headla : Did you get any input from the Fire Department today? Dacy: People from the Fire Department talked to me today but . . . Headla: I talked to Steve yesterday and I said I want to know if we recommend approval of this , is the Fire Department going to require any — additional fire fighting equipment? His first comment was , well we ' re ordering the aerial ladder . We' re ordering that so we' re covered there. I said , is there anything else? He said I don ' t know, I ' ll have to talk _ to them. I said , well get back to Barb on Wednesday. Dacy: No, Steve did not talk to me. The primary fire protection equipment is the requirement for sprinkling so that ' s the number one best — defense as far as. . . Headla : I 'm not talking about defense. I 'm talking about we got hooked into being required to have an aerial ladder in this City. Have we overlooked something else that we can ' t charge the apartment complex for or are the general taxpayers going to have to pay for it? Dacy: Not to my knowledge will there be any other need for any other type of equipment. The aerial ladder is a significant addition to Chanhassen ' s fire fighting capabilities . Between that and the requirement that the — building be sprinklered is the best that we can do. Headla : Last time we beat around quite a bit on the soil borings . Have they done any of that work? Dacy: I know soil borings have been conducted on site . The area where the parking lot is is where most of the poor soils are located . '- Headla : They will have to take special precautions there so that doesn ' t break up in a short period of time? How do we cover that? — Dacy: The applicant will be responsible for maintaining the parking lot in an acceptable condition and I believe they will be soil corrections . Tom Zumwalde : As required . There are a lot of borings that were done on the site and I 'm not certain exactly how bad it is down at that end but we' re putting in concrete curb around the entire lot . Putting in a — bituminous parking lot. That ' s a rental property. We ' ll be forced to keep it up just to keep it marketable. Headla : Where do you have all your trash containers? Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 7 Tom Zumwalde : The trash collection area will be in the basement of the building or the garage. Headla : Will they be coming in from Huron to go in there? Tom Zumwalde: That' s correct . Headla : That tends to be off of where the real soft soil is? _ Dacy: The poor soils, from my understanding , were over in this direction . Tom Zumwalde: It gets worse as you get into this direction. . . Headla : What do you do, you take soil borings and based on what you find that determines the type of base you put down? Tom Zumwalde : That ' s correct . Headla : And the City Engineer has to approve that? Tom Zumwalde : The City Engineer will be approving all that . . . Headla: That' s all I have. Conrad : I don ' t have any additional comments . I think those that I 've heard are real valid comments and maybe whoever makes the motion might want to say something in there that the City Council decides what the traffic impact on West 78th Street might be. Maybe review whether we should pursue some kind of a stop sign on West 78th . Headla : I 'd like to talk about that again . When does it look like TH 101 will go through by that Redimix and that? Dacy: Hopefully during the 1992-93 timeframe . Headla : Once it does that , then we would be able to put up a stop sign. . .? Dacy: Right . What would happen is that that portion of West 78th Street would revert to local control . That would no longer be TH 101. Headla : What if it takes them two years to get that thing totally built , then that would be two years when . . . Conrad : It ' s a problem right now. I know that and this will add a little bit to that and it may be an opportunity to look at the whole situation. I don ' t know what the flexibility of the State i.s but we may, somebody may want to ask the City Council to look into the matter. Is there a motion? Wildermuth : I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Final Plat Amendment for the Heritage Park Apartments POD #87-1 based on the plans stamped "Received May 12, 1988" subject to the following conditions : 1 through 10 and I think the items in the BRW letter referred to in condition 9 should be specifically spelled out regarding storm water Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 8 — handling . I would assume that it would have to make adequate provisions to handle . . . Does anybody have any suggestions on the traffic situation? — I think the traffic situation in terms of what the City will be allowed to do after . . .and TH 101 gets rebuilt, in terms of the natural course of events I think if that situation becomes really bad . . .specifically read it — into the motion. Wildermuth moved , Earnings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Final Plat Amendment for the Heritage Park Apartments PUD #87-1 based on the plans stamped "Received May 12, 1988" subject to the following conditions : — 1. A detailed utility plan showing water , sewer and stormwater connections as well as fire hydrant locations shall be submitted and — approved by the City Engineer prior to building permit issuance . 2. A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted indicating the _ additional plantings to be located between Chan View and the parking area. 3 . A pedestrian walkway shall be provided on the site in conjunction with — the development plans for the retail projects to be developed to the south and east of the parcel . 4. Detailed facia and signage plans shall be submitted for Planning Commission and City Council final review prior to building permit issuance . 5. Removal of the existing single family residence shall be accomplished prior to building permit issuance. 6 . Detailed lighting plans shall be submitted prior to building permit issuance. 7 . All parking areas shall be lined with concrete curbing . — 8. Compliance with the comments as noted in the Building Department memorandum dated May 25, 1988 . — 9. Compliance with the comments in the letter from BRW dated May 25 , 1988 , specifically #6-11 on pages 2 and 3 and #1 on page 3 . — 10. Compliance with comments as noted in the Fire Department memo dated May 27 , 1988 . 11 . Compliance with the comments in the letter from BRW dated May 25 , 1988, specifically spelled out regarding the storm sewer . 12. Direct City staff to research the traffic situation prior to City Council review. All voted in favor and the motion carried . Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 9 PUBLIC HEARING: JAY KRONICK, PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO TO WEST 78TH STREET, 1000 FEET EAST OF DAKOTA AVENUE/TH 5 INTERSECTION: A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-714 TO PERMIT RETAIL GARDEN CENTERS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY DISTRICT. B. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE YEAR 2000 TO REDESIGNATE 1. 7 ACRES OF INDUSTRIAL TO COMMERCIAL. C. REZONE 1. 7 ACRES FROM IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT TO BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY DISTRICT. Barbara Dacy presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad opened up the public hearing . Dacy: Unfortunately the applicant' s in Maryland . Conrad: Did we send out notice for the public hearing? Dacy: Everybody within 500 feet . Conrad : And to the owners of the Chanhassen Office building have not called you nor Redman Products? Dacy: No . Batzli moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed . Conrad : I guess we' ll take them one at a time in terms of our comments . We' ll start Dave, down at your end and talk about garden centers that is a conditional use in the BH district . Headla : Really the only comment I have is I like the idea of a garden center , the whole bit. I 've got a fear of the unknown. If we say yes to this , for a garden center , I don ' t see how we can control other garden centers. Unless we . . . Conrad : It is a conditional use . The point in this district is to make it a conditional use which means we see it. It gives it the opportunity to occur . It doesn ' t give it the total right . It does have to come in here and we can apply whatever standards we want to it. Do we have standards in here that would help us review later? A center would meet certain conditions? Dacy: For garden centers specifically, no we don' t. Conrad : So typically I like to see conditions. If it is a conditional use , what are we looking for to guide us in granting it as a conditional Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 10 — use? Staff hasn ' t prepared that . Maybe what we can have input on but it ' s only, how many BH districts do we have, two? — Dacy: The BH district is located primarily along TH 5. It stretches from the Hennepin County border then west to the end of West 79th Street. — Conrad : So I think Dave, what we' re saying , that ' s the district and we ' re saying it now can , it' s not permitted , it' s now possible to have garden _ centers but it ' s not automatic . They have to come in and talk to us . We don ' t have any standards to evaluate whether it ' s good or bad but it ' s a question right now. The concept in my mind about highway business district was quick in and quick out, low intensity. The concept was we had limited traffic . We had limited road use in those areas and we wanted to help the highway traffic through gas stations or restaurants get in but the idea was not that that pattern was to go through the rest of the — Chanhassen. It was to help cars going on TH 5 find services that they needed . Maybe Chanhassen residents could out there too but it was really key that we didn' t have real great traffic handling roads at that time so we weren ' t looking for real intensive uses . We were really saying this is — a district that services cars that are going out onto TH 5 for whatever the basic needs are . Whether a retail . We ' ve got retail down there obviously so that' s not a problem. It ' s just whether you believe. In my — mind , to tell you where I 'm at right now, it ' s whether we believe that this is a traffic generator , that it ' s going to go. Is it like the Gardeneer? Is it like a Frank' s? Is it going to generate traffic that we can ' t handle in that area and in my mind, that ' s the question that is still open . Dacy: In comparison to what is already permitted , fast food restaurants , — financial institutions , automotive service centers, retail shops , liquor stores , motels and hotels, I think garden center , even a Frank ' s Nursery, because it ' s so specialized, I 'm positive that the trip generation reports — for a garden center are lower than those types of uses that are already permitted . Batzli : Except on Saturday morning . — Wildermuth : That ' s part of the advantage of having a garden center . The pressure will be on weekends rather than during the week. That ' s not a — good intersection there . Conrad : These are all independent actions that we' re taking . We can make it a conditional use. This particular application may not be appropriate but if we feel that it ' s appropriate in that area , then we can make it a conditional use for business highway and that ' s the only district we 've got . That ' s the only business highway district going along TH 5 that — we' ve got in Chanhassen. Headla : I feel comfortable right now but I 'd like to hear what the other — inputs . Wildermuth : I would like to see that parcel stay business office . I 'd _ rather see another office building there. . . but I guess I can ' t come up with a good reason why. . .a nursery or garden center . 1. 7 acres is Planning Commission Meeting June 1 , 1988 - Page 11 certainly adequate size. I don ' t know how big Frank ' s is . . . Batzli : I guess two questions came to my mind . Why are we rezoning and doing this thing , wouldn' t that normally be part of the process of a conditional use permit? When we see what the guy has put together rather than rezoning it to suit a conditional use permit application that we may not even approve? Dacy: Two reasons . Number one , the applicant has a purchase agreement on the property and wanted to pursue this application to see if the City would even consider rezoning the entire thing to business highway. Number two, yes you do have a specific request that you can pretty well bank on a conditional use permit application for a garden center at this location but tonight you ' re basically being asked, are you comfortable with rezoning this particular parcel , in total , to business highway? Are you comfortable with all of the uses i.n that district to remove the split zoning on the property to entirely business highway? If you just wanted to act on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment and would prefer to postpone the other two applications , that ' s certainly within your power . Batzli : I guess from my own point of view, I don ' t know that a garden center is any more intense than these permitted uses . In fact , if it' s going to be a conditional use, I think we are going to take a look at it to make sure it ' s appropriate . As far as rezoning , I don ' t know that I 'm comfortable rezoning this not knowing why I 'm rezoning it . Dacy: Again , the applicant doesn ' t want to have the parcel split by both zoning districts . He wants one consistent zoning for the entire parcel . That ' s the reason for the rezoning . Batzli : But he doesn' t own the land at this point does he? The applicant? Dacy: No , he has a purchase agreement . Ellson: He' ll buy it contingent on all this happening? Dacy: Right . Batzli : I guess I 'd prefer seeing either the landowner and the applicant . I understand but that' s just what I would prefer . Dacy: The landowner di.d consent to the application and Jay had to make the decision of which meeting he had to come up to. Either the City Council meeting or the Planning Commission for flight schedules and so on so he opted for the City Council . Ellson : I don ' t see any problem with a garden center . I think we 'd be in trouble if we tried to say no i.n the business highway. Especially when you ' re saying outdoor display of merchandise , screened outdoor storage. . . Whether I want it or not isn ' t really what I get to chose. It doesn ' t look like it would fit in here and according to some of these other things , I don' t see how we can no to a garden center. I 'm kind of on the side of Brian . We' re zoning this just because some individual wants it Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 12 — zoned that way and I guess I don ' t see a whole good reasoning on that. In _ the staff ' s report you ' re basically saying . . . will not have a significant impact on the availability of industrial . I guess I can go along if you feel that but I just don ' t feel strongly that there are some really good reasons . Some guy would like all of these things , so okay then we' ll — rezone it just for one individual . Emmings : Do you only want us to comment now on the . . . Conrad : All three. We started with one but that . . . Emmings : I don ' t have any problem with rezoning . . . I 'm curious about TH — 101. Does any configuration of TH 101 potentially involve this land at all? Dacy: It' s too far to the east . Batzli : They' re not planning on putting a stop sign at that interchange _ though are they? At that service road there for TH 101? Do you know where I 'm talking about? When they realign , the last time I saw the realignment , was there a stop sign there or did they move that service road back? — Dacy: TH 101 will be realigned . There will be a median in Dakota and West 78th Street will "T" into that and continue on. So where ' s the stop sign? Batzli : Will there be one where the access is currently? Dacy: Here? Batzli : Yes . Dacy: Yes . Erhart : What has happened? We' re now looking at TH 101 being realigned at TH 5. The last time we talked about it we were. . .of the industrial . Did that go through? Dacy: No . Erhart : The last I heard it was kind of a dead issue . Apparently it' s still alive? Dacy: Yes , the City is still going to try and pursue it because it ' s a vital part of the transportation system. So one means of doing that was — the tax increment district but there are other financial means available . Erhart: So 1992 that will include. . . — Dacy: We ' re going to try as hard as we can to achieve that date . Erhart: On the other place where we allow garden centers now is in the BG district? Planning Commission Meeting June 1 , 1988 - Page 13 Dacy : That ' s correct . Erhart : Then that ' s essentially the downtown? Dacy: That ' s west of the downtown area. On the Burdick property and the James property. Erhart : What do you see as the difference between the intent of the general business district and the business highway? Is it something to do with TH 5? Dacy: Yes . The general business district permits much greater and more intense variety of uses. The Chairman ' s description earlier of the intent of the business highway district was accurate . The listed uses in the zone are specifically oriented to the traffic flow. Erhart : Even when you go downtown you almost have to get into your car to go across the street. Where the bakery was . Dacy: Right . There are some similarities and there are some differences . Some of these in the BG district would need a much larger land area whereas a business highway district primarily consists of smaller , 2 to 3 to 4 acre parcels so there are some differences between the two . Erhart : On that access road , say you come out of this nursery and you go east , your route back to TH 5 i.s what? Can you get back onto TH 5 going east? Dacy: At the present time , no . When TH 5 is four lane , there will be a full movement intersection at Dell Road and TH 5. Erhart : So someone coming from the direction as Dell Road , they come down 78th Street and . . . Dacy: Right . Erhart : Most likely the traffic going into that area would take the TH 101 exit . . . Dacy: That ' s another point as far as the garden center i.s concerned . It ' s the type of use as opposed to a fast food restaurant because from a marketing standpoint , a garden center you really don ' t need that immediate direct access as where this property could be a prime site for a fast food restaurant because of it ' s location . _ Erhart : Fast food restaurants are allowed? That ' s a permitted use in the area? Dacy: Right . Erhart : The problem is , it ' s more of a problem up there with street layout . Given, I guess I 'd agree with other commissioners , given the other uses that are already allowed as a conditional use in this area , it Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 14 would almost be senseless to . . .garden centers in this area . . . I ' d be in favor of adding that as a conditional use. As far as the zoning is — concerned , I guess my history of being on the Planning Commission is you can try to accomodate people who own the land if it doesn' t otherwise cause an intrusion on who abuts , I guess I 'm in favor of it . . . Conrad : I don' t have a problem with the zoning ordinance amendment to make it a conditional use . Philosophically though, I like the garden center . Therefore , the other two things I don ' t mind . In this particular — case I really would like the industrial use . I would prefer to see a plan to persuade me that this garden center will add to the area and until I see that plan , even though it ' s more concrete than , I 'd like to see — something concrete before I rezone the property. I have to be persuaded . I 'm not at this point in time. I 'm concerned with traffic . I don ' t have a problem with graden centers in the BH districts . Headla : Are you. . .or against this? There ' s a lot of Council members talking about beachlots. . . .where a contractor . Conrad : It may actually work in that area but I just don' t know enough right now to rezone it just because somebody' s asking to rezone it. I think we can get him the philosopic feeling that yes , it could work in the — zoning district . Headla : Let ' s talk a little bit about that . Because it doesn ' t , how many possibilities can it be? If we rezone it , do you prefer to see it more industrial? Conrad : Yes , I think so . I see an office building on one side and I see — Redman on the other . That ' s kind of the way I thought that area would develop. There ' s some good rationale for putting a garden center in here mind you because the intensity would be on a Saturday-Sunday and therefore — somebody could persuade me that just because of traffic patterns and things like that , that it could be a benefit in terms of overall Chanhassen. I don ' t know that right now. I don ' t know what they' re planning . I don ' t know what they' re thinking about how to develop that — land . So philosophically I wouldn ' t do it but i.f somebody gave me, in this one case , if somebody gave me a concrete example of what they' re thinking of, I might be tempted to change the zoning for them. — Headla : What if somebody came in and wanted to use that for fast food? Conrad : I wouldn' t do that . I think that ' s just a traffic generator that would be bad all the time . Emmings : But they could do that . — Ellson : It ' s legal . Headla : They can have that and maybe we should go for the garden center because it could be a whole lot worse . Conrad : You ' re right . — Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 15 Wildermuth : The best of all worlds would be an office or distribution center . . . Ellson : That ' s not saying it never can be by having a garden center . Conrad : I think we did put the auto service center in there didn ' t we? What ' s the differnce between an auto service center and a garden center? Headla : How is that garden center working out over in Eden Prairie? Have they had any problems there do you know? Dacy: I don ' t know. Headla : If you don ' t know, it probably isn ' t a problem. Dacy: I wouldn ' t know. Tim Erhart asked a question that couldn ' t be heard on the tape . Dacy: The best that I can say that , typically when the zoning district lines are drawn . . .boundaries . This parcel was overlooked unfortunately it goes right through the middle of this parcel . The parcel is operating as a split as two zoning districts . Erhart: So it makes sense to zone the whole thing? Dacy: One way or the other . Erhart: Most of this land . . . Dacy: With the office use you are going to get more peak hour traffic , morning and afternoon and that ' s going to exasperate the traffic situation . With a manufacturing facility, the same thing . Conrad : It could by chance be quite complimentary to the area . Then on the other hand it' s a little bit out of sync with what ' s there . Is then a motion on the zoning ordinance amendment to permit garden centers as a conditional use? Emmings moved , Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #88-7 to amend Section 20-714 , Conditional Uses in the BH District as follows : (5) Garden Centers . All voted in favor and the motion carried . Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Land Use Plan Amendment #88-3 to redesignate 1. 7 acres of industrial to commercial subject to the approval of the Metropolitan Council . All voted in favor except Batzli and Erhart who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 2 . S Planning Commission Meeting June 1 , 1988 - Page 16 Erhart : Why do we need approval from Metropolitan Council on this? Dacy: Because we ' re changing our Land Use in the Comp Plan. It would be a minor amendment through their office. — Ellson: How did it get split like this in the first place? Normally we would never have done this sort of thing? This was always a one person , _ one owner land? You ' re saying this was just part of an oversight? Dacy: Right . Batzli : By voting for this , what we ' re going to do is move the BH line over . Erhart : Or you could go the other way. Conrad : Your reason Brian? (for voting in opposition) Batzli : I 'd like to see something in writing , more concrete as to what they' re proposing to do with this property prior to changing the land use. — Erhart : I want to add my vote to opposing also . The reason I would like to have just a little better analysis . . . Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Rezoning Request #88-3 to rezone 1. 7 acres of property from IOP, Industrial Office Park to BH, Business Highway District subject to approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment by the City Council and the Metropolitan County. Emmings , Ellson , Headla and Wildermuth voted in -- favor of the motion. Batzli , Conrad and Erhart voted in opposition of the motion . The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3 . Conrad : Brian, your reason? Batzli : Pretty much the same reason as well as the fact that I 'm not convinced that it shouldn ' t be rezoned entirely to IOP. Conrad : Tim you voted . IMMIM Erhart : Same reasons I stated before . Conrad : My reasons , I would like to see a concrete proposal in front of _ us . I 'm extremely concerned about the traffic problem that may be generated with the new realignment of TH 101 . Emmings : . . . I think you told me that we can ' t proceed that way. We can' t consider rezoning , we can ' t demand they have a plan taken into account in the anlysis of whether or not we ' re willing to rezone. _ Planning Commission Meeting June 1 , 1988 - Page 17 Dacy: I 'm still conferring with my previous opinion . What you ' re deciding on the rezoning issue is if you ' re totally satisfied with all of the uses in that district being applied to that parcel , yes , you may have a specific site plan that ' s coming in at the same time but you 've got to be aware that that specific site plan , that he developer could call it a picture, the property is sold and you could be looking at another use for that district . You just can ' t based your approval on the rezoning solely on that site plan. Batzli : I would like to state that I don' t think there was any real analysis of what that property could be zoned . Should it be zoned IOP? What should it be there? We were presented this as if it ' s going to be a garden center . There was no anlysis of what the use of that particular site should be . Emmings : Except half the site is already exactly the zoning we gave the whole thing so I suppose to the extent that the . . . Batzli : I know but it' s arbitrary on which way you want to make the whole lot. I think we' ve should just look at that . Emmings : I guess the answer to that would be , either one didn ' t have. . . Dacy: We can certainly do that analysis for the Council . Conrad : That ' s would be appropriate . I think they would appreciate that . Steve, you ' re absolutely right . This is philosophy here. This is ivory tower non-specific but nobody' s persuaded me that we should change it . I can go either way and the only way I can go either way is to see the real stuff and the real stuff is not here . In the absence of a real thorough staff investigation of what ' s the best and in the absence of the applicant being here , I don' t want to change the zoning . Emmings : My thinking on that issue, this particular item that we ' re mulling over tonight is , you could spend four years deciding whether it would better to be BH or IOP and we wouldn ' t be any further along than we are now. Conrad : Right . But if we saw the applicant and they had a plan , we might be able to make some real good positions but the applicant doesn ' t want to sit here tonight . PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTIONS 20-695 , 20-715 , 20-774 , 20-795, AND 20-815 TO PROVIDE FOR MINIMUM BUILDING AND PARKING SETBACKS FOR LOTS ADJACENT TO RAILROADS AND RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS , CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Public Present : Name Address Darrell Fortier Architect and Land Planner for Frank Beddor Planning Commission Meeting June 1 , 1988 - Page 18 _ Barbara Dacy presented the staff report . Darrell Fortier : We appreciate first of all , the City' s attention to this detail . We personally never found it confusing . We thought the ordinance — was fairly clear and we believe, up until now, that the ordinance indicated that we were abutting a railroad tracks , just as we did when we built United Mailings and when we built Instant Webb and when we looked at — other developments here. If that ' s causing the confusion , we'd certainly appreciate that the confusion be clarified so we may get on with our plans . We believed , up until now, that the original conditions , about six years ago when we received concept and site development approval of Park One , was that we were actually going to be allowed a zero setback for building and parking . We had an earth shelter proposal and there was a considerable debate with the Planning Commission and Council . We really -- since have backed off that proposal and we developed what is a plat that you see in front of you. We have since then also agreed that a 20 foot conservation district for preservation of some of the trees would be _ appropriate . I 'm not sure if anyone has been through the Drive there in Park One but we maintain what we believe is a very beautiful area and we have tried our best to preserve as many trees as possible and we ' ve cooperated , we think, with the staff the best we can. Putting through a drive that really blends well with the environment but in doing so we have relatively narrow and deep, I shouldn ' t say too deep, some of them are only around 250 feet for depth . We don ' t object to having a 20 foot building and parking lot setback from the railroad . That ' s what we believe we have now when we established the 20 foot conservation easement . We would not be opposed to having that clarified and established . That ' s a minor difference . I believe the ordinance right now is saying , or what — you ' re proposing is suggesting 25 for building and parking . We would just as soon keep it consistent with the conservation district and make i.t 20 feet. If you' re willing to get 0 and 10 feet right now, and that has to be clarified . We are a little bit confused also about the language in the present ordinance the way it ' s written and perhaps I could ask Barbara to interpret this for me. If that ' s acceptable to you . Barbara , in our _ first sentence here under the proposed ordinance on page 3 , it reads off street parking areas shall comply with all the requirements , etc . . Where you add the new language you say, abutting railroad trackage and commercial or industrial districts . We ' re wondering why the word and is in there and the word or . This seems to us that we would have to abut a railroad trackage and a commercial or industrial . We would rather see it simply saying if you ' re abutting a railroad trackage or commercial or — industrial . Dacy: For a rear setback. Let ' s say you weren 't abutting a railroad track and you had a rear yard situation with another industrial use. Then — there should be that rear yard setback between two abutting industrial uses . There should be some separation. Darrell Fortier : I guess I 'm still confused . Dacy: Okay, as written the ordinance said i.f you abutted the railroad track you could go down to zero , right? If you didn ' t have a railroad track , otherwise the ordinance said . . . Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 19 Darrell Fortier : 50 feet to a residential . Dacy: No, let ' s skip residential . If you didn ' t have residential and you had a lot here and commercial lot here. Or industrial and this was your rear lot line, you 'd still have to meet your rear setback which is 10 feet , right? Darrell Fortier : That ' s correct . Dacy: So what we were trying to say is that those parts of the City where you did , and this would be a reason for putting it in , where you did for example let ' s take Instant Webb, you abut a railroad track and you ' ve got industrial zoning right next door also . We wanted to make sure that yes , you could park right up to the railroad tracks . In this case, if this area was single family or residential , then that would trigger . . . Darrell Fortier : The difficulty we find when we look at the land abutting a railroad track and commercial , for one property line to abut to this , there are two uses , it would be difficult on one side. How does the diagram you' ve drawn , if that was a railroad track between the industrials , wouldn ' t you say the industrial abuts the railroad . Not the railroad and industrial . We would say it abuts one but it doesn ' t abut both. It abuts the railroad tracks and beyond . We certainly agree with abutting both . Abutting trackage and something . When you only have one property and that one property side going there, it becomes confusing to us . If there was someway to clarify that we would certainly appreciate it. The same is true when we get down to the other paragraph that ' s being added where it says , abutting any residential district and railroad trackage. The way we look at it , it was stated that residential could be on the north and the railroad could be on the east but they would not both be on the north side . Am I making my point reasonably clear? That ' s where the confusion is coming into us . Dacy: Our concern is that the zoning line runs right along the railroad tracks . Ellson : Between? Dacy: Right . The Commission needs to decide what type of status do you want to put on the railroad tracks? If that just happens to be the common land between a residential zone and industrial use , does the existence of a railroad tracks justify the zero setback back to the tracks? That ' s what you need to decide and that ' s fine if you do . Erhart moved , Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Conrad : Barb, I need you to diagram this for me. I 'm really struggling with this . When I think I get it straight , I need you to raise that board . . . Planning Commission Meeting June 1 , 1988 - Page 20 — Dacy: Let ' s say here ' s the railroad tracks , we ' re going to have an — industrial lot here, industrial here and this lot is residential . The zoning line for the residential runs along the property line and along the railroad. The question is , in this case, the proposed ordinance says if you abut railroad tracks . . . Conrad : Would you do me a favor? What the current ordinance says . — Dacy: Okay, the current ordinance says , if you abut the railroad tracks you can park right up to the railroad tracks . Wildermuth: Railroad easement . Dacy: Correct . _ Conrad : Does it matter what the other district is on the other side of the tracks? Dacy: Let' s just ignore that . This is case 1. Case 1, you can park up to the railroad tracks and the building setback is 10 feet. In this case, staff ' s concern is that because the zoning district line exists right here — and because the ordinance as written it says when you have an industrial commercial district abutting a residential district , you should have a minimum rear yard of 50 feet. That ' s one sentence but then there' s another sentence in there that says , but if you abut railroad tracks you can park right up next to the railroad tracks . So we' re trying , when you have this situation , you ' re trying to say, what should we do in this situation? Should we still allow them to park up to the railroad tracks? — Do we recognize the railroad itself as a separation and buffer or do we reduce this or should we keep it the same? Mr . Fortier was saying , I didn' t think there was a problem in the first place . So if the — Commission wants to direct staff that that ' s the way we should be interpretting that section , that makes our lives a lot easier , that ' s sure but our Attorney said , it ' s kind of ambiguous and you can get into a situation that could be challenged . Conrad : Okay, let ' s talk about what the railroad tracks does do from a buffering standpoint. Is it typically elevated? — Dacy: Yes . Conrad : So by itself, other than the fact that three times a day a train comes through, do you believe it is a good buffer separating industrial from residential? Dacy: Yes . Erhart : What ' s a typical railroad easement? _ Dacy: I think on this drawing it ' s showing as 130 feet . Conrad : What ' s 130? — ` Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 21 Dacy: The railroad right-of-way. It ' s at least 100 . Erhart: So it ' s more than the number of feel we require anyway. So what ' s our Attorney talking about? Dacy: Some precedent maybe later on . Ellson : It just seems like you could say it easier . Dacy: That' s what in the report we were saying. In the locations in the City that has railroad going in the commercial and industrial areas . For example, in the industrial are the railroad is elevated and there is significant grade change as well as the 20 foot conservation easement. That lessens as proceed west into the downtown areas . In that case you ' re talking about a distance factor . Plus , there still is the requirement of screening between commercial and industrial and non-commercial and industrial areas . Batzli : Did you evaluate this in light of perhaps light rail going through here as well? What we would do down in that area? Dacy: With the light rail use as opposed to a railroad use , this particular track is used on a fairly consistent basis . From what I know of light rail , they are supposedly less noisy. Batzli : But more often . Dacy: Potentially, it could be . It depends on how many trips it makes . Batzli : As far as where the districts come together and where the light rail would go , you' re on a different line . . . Dacy: That line would be the railroad line that goes south of Lake Riley and then along the TH 212 area so that ' s the line that would be proposed for light rail . Batzli : Right , but did you look at if it would impact that area at all? Dacy: In this area we still have the same slope and elevation conditions . It is so far up and there is a ravine at the base of these properties that it ' s going to be low impact . As a matter of fact , anything building in this area would have to be , and remember from the contractor ' s yard application, we' re going to have to go more towards . . .because it slopes back. Wildermuth : How would the conservation easement come into . . .on the Beddor property? Was that negotiated? Dacy: They went through the platting process in 1986 prior to this ordinance being adopted and that was established by the Council with the condition to number 1, preserve a screening area along the rear of the lots so it was a condition of plat approval . Planning Commission Meeting June 1 , 1988 - Page 22 — Wildermuth : It almost seems like a good idea in any case . A conservation — di.strict . . . Headla : Railroad trackage bothers me. I 'd like to see all the terms — changed to railroad right-of-way. I like the crux of it. I guess I keep thinking . . . railroads in it . Dacy : If a railroad doesn ' t exist and you have an industrial lot or a commercial lot directly abutting a residential lot, then the 50 foot setbacks still apply. We' re only concentrating on those applications with railroad tracks . Headla : I mean . . .and railroad tracks along here . Ellson: There' s still 100 and some feet inbetween them. If you took out the tracks , there . . . I wonder if they might have problem with the current one. Discussion said for lots directly abutting any residential . I would _ think that if there ' s a railroad track that ' s not a direct abut , or whatever the term would be, therefore you ' re covered . Maybe you want to put in parenthesis , railroad means not abutting or something like that but I think that ' s spells it out absolutely perfect . — Dacy: I think there should be some clarification if that ' s the way the Commission wants to do it , maybe just adding a paranthetical statement — saying this does not include lots that abut railroad trackage. Ellson : Something like that . I think this makes more sense. Maybe like you said , you ' ve have problems where there ' s . . . — Darrell Fortier : I realize the public hearing is closed and I appreciate the chance to speak again . I did forget one other thing that was — important . When we did the platting of Park One , we gave up an additional 10 feet of right-of-way for the convenience of designing the crossing at Dell Road and West 78th without knowing what the alignment is going to be . _ We simply did it for convenience of the engineering staff and road design . At the same time it was understood that we were giving enough but we didn ' t want to be giving up more even more of the land so at that time it was agreed that the plan would either be reverting back to Park One or — even simplier yet , would be a relaxation of the setback requirements on Lot 7. Right now we hear there is a 15 foot proposal for the side yard on Lot 7 . This is the property with one lot that addresses the Eden Prairie — side. We'd just like to refresh the City ' s memory on that . Perhaps Barbara if you go through the records or talk to the Engineering again , it was simply a convenience to expand the right-of-way district because at the time, Eden Prairie was not interested in constructing the road . I think the same thing is true of the 60 foot right-of-way that was extended all the way down the east side . Dacy: The 50 foot setback, you mean the residential setback? Darrell Fortier : That ' s correct . I think because there ' s only a road , — this road ' s not as wide as a railroad track . . . Planning Commission Meeting June 1 , 1988 - Page 23 Dacy: That ' s another good point . Maybe we should add , instead of a _ railroad tracks separating a residential and industrial , why don' t we have the street right-of-way. Ellson : I think we just have to define directly abutting . There are things that do not make them direct. These things include railroad trackage , easements and roads and things that prevent them from being direct abutting . Dacy: As a matter of fact , the previous ordinance , the 1972 ordinance had an exclusion for areas that were separated by street right-of-ways so the idea . . . statement disclaiming railroad right-of-ways and street right-of- - ways so that would be a good idea . Conrad : Wo we need to make a decision on the 25 feet? The staff recommendation of 25 versus the 50? Dacy: To be honest , that number basically came from knowledge that the conservation easement existed out there already. If what I 'm hearing from the Commission, if you don ' t want to establish a specific setback and just say what the district regulates now is appropriate when you have situations where the lot abuts railroad trackage, that ' s fine . It would be less confusing as far as staff was concerned . Instead of throwing out another number . Conrad : Would anybody like to pursue the 20 or 25 foot setback as originally drafted here? Does anybody want to document that setback in the ordinance or should we let it be loose as has been in the past? No feelings? Headla : Have we had problems in the past? Dacy: To be honest, because we ' re anticipating applications in these specific areas , we really haven ' t deal with this issue but it ' s coming and we'd like to get it resolved . There are a couple of applicants going through the process . Headla : What ' s that you mentioned when you have industrial , a road right- of-way and then homes on the other side? What ' s that dimension? Is that the 50 foot setback if you ' re abutting a street right-of-way? Industrial with homes on the other side of the street? Dacy: That ' s part of the issue that we ' re looking at . We have no setback as you 've described that situation now. What the ordinance is saying if the rear yard directly abuts a residential area , then we need another 50 feet. Batzli : So if there was a road you would be looking at , the other setbacks are as follows language? Dacy: Right . Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 24 Headla : Did the Park' s people , the Park and Recreation look at this at — all? Dacy : No . — Wildermuth : I think uniformity as far as the last sentence, side street side yard shall be a minimum of 25 feet in all districts . Dacy: That ' s referring to corner lot situations . Where you have two streets abutting a lot , that is defined as a corner lot and the side street yard is that yard that ' s not the front yard but the other side of the lot that abuts the other street . Emmings : You brought up one other thing here and I just want some — clarification. You talked about the screening . . . Now obviously if you have two industrial uses abutting one another and you ' ve got a street there. If there ' s a railroad track. . . is there any screening requirement? Dacy: We ' re saying that we would still enforce the screening requirement dispite the existence of the railroad tracks . Emmings : Okay, so if there was trees on part of mine , that screening isn ' t going to take land so in effect, even though it says there is no setback requirement because you have a screening requirement , you will end up with a setback from the railroad right-of-way anyway. Is that right? Dacy: Yes . Wildermuth : Is the screening requirement the conservation easement . . . ? Dacy: Yes . _ Conrad : And that ' s the basis for the staff recommendation of 25 feet setback. Dacy : It was some type of a distance . . . Conrad : We need that, whether it be 20 or 25, is that in step? What does — that do for us with it? How does that help? Dacy: You could divide extra feet of area to work with. To be honest with — you , there ' s not much difference . Emmings : When you get to the screening requirements , how did that one wind up being? — Dacy: It basically went on some total . . . Emmings : So you guys took into account what was there and did something reasonable to provide some screening? Dacy: Right . — Planning Commission Meeting June 1 , 1988 - Page 25 Emmings : That seems to be the better way to go because first of all , railroad right-of-ways seem to provide plenty of distance. What ' s one other thing you ' re looking for? The other thing is screening . We ' ve got the screening requirement that we should be sure applies to these situations and then allow staff to be able to be flexible with the developer . Maybe there' s a hill but maybe it' s only 15 feet but maybe that ' s enough then . That spot will screen it from the other use and we don' t need to be always straight hard lines . Conrad : Does the screen , we keep rashing here from one thing to the next , does our screening ordinance, does the screening requirement ordinance , will it take care of, should we review it to see how it applies in this particular case by a railroad track? Dacy: That ' s the best I can give you in help one way or the other . The - screening requirement is you have to have a 6 foot opaque screen between an industrial or commercial and residential . You ' re got to have a consistent screening . Emmings : We' re talking about between a commercial or industrial use and the railroad right-of-way that has the same residential on the other side? Dacy: Are you saying that you want to look at that also to see if that ' s required? Conrad : We would like to possibly, as you suggested , we don ' t know that we need 25 feet. I don ' t know that I need 20 feet. If we' ve got a screening requirement that solves the problem, I might just feel comfortable with the screening requirement versus a distance. Emmings : Because you already have the distance. Conrad: Right, the distance is already there. The only thing i.s , with railroad tracks are typically flat and that' s not a screen . That ' s flat . Therefore , I would look at that to see if that ' s solving any of the problems that the distance is attempting to solve. Barb, would you like us to table this item and have you take a look at it? Dacy: No . Conrad : You ' d like to get rid of this? Dacy: Yes . In order to construct a 6 foot screen, either between berming or vegetation , you' re going to need at least , at least 10 feet of land area so that planting materials can be maintained at least at minimum. That ' s what the landscape ordinance and we recognize other issues . I think we really need to clarify the parking and building setbacks on this issue . I hate to have it linger on and on unless you guys really don ' t think it ' s okay. Conrad : We' re not seeing the need for a setback at this point in time. At least I 'm not . Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 26 — Darrell Fortier : I 'm sorry my eyes aren ' t quite well enough to recognize Annette' s last name but I think she really has hit the nail right on the head . The confusion is whether or not the property abuts the railroad or whether it abuts residential . If we were to say that there will be — some . . . which says abutting a railroad is not to be considered as abutting residential even if residential were across the railroad tracks. I think we ' ve got to clarify that . The presence of screening requirements can certainly be reviewed with sight lines , etc. when the building plan is reviewed and we already have screening requirements . . . that gives you at lesat, even if the residential were built across the railroad tracks , that gives you at least 130 feet or 150 feet of distance . It is far more — generous than the majority of residential developments would have that abut highway or something . The issue of getting rid of the confusion that the Attorney' s brought up, are we abutting residential or are we abutting — railroad seems to be the most germain issue . If we could get rid of that issue tonight, I think our whole lives would be made a lot easier . Conrad : Annette , how did you think you could sove that problem? Ellson: Something like either a parenthetical phrase that is distinguishing a road and a railroad as separating that . — Conrad : And you would put that where? Ellson : The ordinance as it is , I like. I would just go that one line that says areas shall be 50 feet unless directly abutting any residential and then say something to the effect of a railroad track or road , what ever we might else think of . A horse path. Who knows what else we might _ have around here , are considered separating and abutting , whatever . I can ' t rewrite it but I 'm basically saying that we want to say that those things are separating that and therefore you ' re not abutting that — residential . In other words , we ' re trying to let them know that the 50 feet isn ' t required if there' s a railroad tracks . If someone tells me what is going to constitute not abutting a residential . — Batzli : In other words , what you ' re trying to say is direct means direct . Underline directly. Ellson : That ' s exactly how I had it in my notes . Just underline directly. Emmings : You can ' t indirectly abut something . Ellson: Or define the exceptions of what we mean by not directly. Which _ gives you a parenthetical phrase , does not directly would be where a railroad track ' s involved , a road ' s involved , whatever . Conrad : Okay Barbara , how do you want to work this to get us out of this thing? Dacy: Taking Annette ' s suggestion , I would add the following after the — second to the last sentence . Planning Commission Meeting June 1 , 1988 - Page 27 Emmings : I don ' t know what you ' re looking at . Dacy: Look at the first ordinance . Conrad : 1216? Dacy: Yes . And number 6 there , second to the last sentence , the minimum rear yard shall be 50 feet for lots directly abutting any residential district . (This does not include lots which abut railroad right-of-ways or street right-of-ways . ) Batzli : I don ' t think that clarifies it well enough . You ' re talking about the . . .with that directly adjacent to the railroad tracks . With what you just said , you could have a residential on the side yard , railroad tracks on the back yard and yet you ' ve just fit your definition . . . Conrad : Do you have an alternative plan? Batzli : No, I was trying to put together some language. I was just trying to say something about , what we ' re not talking about is when there' s a railroad or road immediately between the two properties. I was trying to come up with language that said that . Wildermuth : Let me try something . Off street parking areas shall comply with all yard requirements of this section except that no rear yard parking setback shall be required for lots directly abutting railroad tracks rights-of-way and commercial or industrial districts . No side yard shall be required adjoining commercial uses for off street parking facilities . Ellson : You didn ' t mention residential . Wildermuth : No parking areas shall be permitted in any required side yards . That ' s what you want to say. Dacy: As written? You don ' t want to change anything as written as far as that ' s concerned? Wildermuth : Well , what we would be doing here is crossing out two words , except that , and taking . . . Dacy: I guess I don ' t understand what you ' re . . . Wildermuth: You want. . . Dacy: No , that ' s existing now and I don ' t want to mess with that . It ' s saying that if you directly abut another commercial or industrial use you can establish adjoining off street parking facilities and the side yard setback wouldn' t be imposed. You could have a shared parking lot situation . I guess Brian , I still don ' t understand where you ' re coming from with your comments . Planning Commission Meeting June 1 , 1988 - Page 28 _ Batzli : If you were talking about the rear yard abutting that , I would have agreed with you. You just said it abutted . Dacy: The minimum rear yard shall be 50 feet for lots directly abutting residential district (a railroad right-of-way or street right-of-way) . This would not apply to lots abutting the railroad right-of-way or street . Batzli : If your rear yard , you ' re talking about your rear yard line abutting that , then maybe that will work. You ' re not limiting yourself to that. Make that on the side yard . Dacy: So you want to eliminate the word rear? Batzli : No. It ' s got to be parenthetical . I 'm trying to limit your _ exception to the rule. If you ' ve got a railroad going down your sideyard , you ' re abutting that, then you don' t need a rear yard setback under what you just said . Dacy: I see what you ' re saying . So then you ' re saying in the parenthesis then , qualify that by saying , this does not apply for lots having rear yards abutting railroad rights-of-way or street rights-of-way. Emmings : If this helps , isn ' t what we ' re trying to do , would it help to get away from where we ' re talking about rear yard , side yard, front yard , whatever and we ' re talking about whatever boundary abuts either the railroad right-of-way or the street right? So why don ' t we just say that when a property line abuts a railroad right-of-way or street right-of-way there will be no setback requirement but it will be subject to screening requirements . Dacy: I think if we did eliminate the word rear in that sentence , we ' re still saying that if you ' ve got a residential district abutting a commercial or industrial district , you need 50 feet . No matter what type of yard. Rear , side or front . Batzli : Okay, so just take out the word rear . Dacy: Right, and then say if the lot abuts a railroad right-of-way or street right-of-way, we' re saying that you don ' t have to have the 50 feet . Batzli : Yes, I will agree to that . Emmings : Read the way for them. Dacy: The minimum yard shall be 50 feet for lots directly abutting any residential district (this does not apply for lots abutting railroad right-of-way or street right-of-way) . Emmings : But you only want to exclude it on the side where it abuts and you' re not doing that yet in your language. Dacy: Okay, help me. Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 29 Emmings : I did . I read what I would say. Where the property line abuts a railroad right-of-way or street right-of-way. Batzli : (Except the side street side yard . ) That ' s legit though. Getting rid of that one. Emmings : I don ' t understand it but if everybody else does , I ' ll vote for it. Where the property line abuts the railroad right-of-way or the street , the setbacks for that yard shall not apply but it will be subject to screening requirements. That' s the idea . I don ' t definitely know how to say it . I think that ' s what we' re trying to get at . Dacy: There' s got to be some way that we can use that an existing sentence and add an exclusion . Emmings : Why does it have to be? Dacy: It just seems to be a lot easier . Ellson : It' s seems the logical way. Conrad : It ' s going to be hard for us to draft this . Dacy : If you can agree with the intent of saying that 50 feet is not applicable when the lot abuts railroad right-of-way or street right-of- _ way. Emmings : It ' s the line . It ' s the particular line . It ' s not the lot itself isn' t it? Ellson : You' re saying if the railroad is in the rear than the rear setback doesn ' t have to be that. If the road ' s on the side than the side setback doesn ' t have to be that . That' s what he ' s worried about . Emmings : Right and you ' re saying if it abuts it on the rear it doesn ' t have to do it on the side . We ' re worried about the particular side that abuts only. Dacy: Correct . Erhart : You ' re not putting that in your language . You need to go back and do that. Dacy: What we ' re saying is , if the yard area directly abuts a residential district you have to have 50 feet . Emmings : You have to have 50 feet on that yard . Dacy: Okay . ( If a portion of the lot abuts a railroad trackage or street right-of-way, this section does not apply. ) Erhart: Only for that portion . Planning Commission Meeting June 1 , 1988 - Page 30 — Dacy: I just said that . I said this portion . — Batzli : Can we take about a 5 minute break here and just get together and try to draft something? — Conrad : I don' t think we need to . I think we have given Barbara . . . I 'd prefer not to draft wording to an ordinance by the Planning Commission . It ' s just not appropriate but the intent Barbara , I guess we'd have to agree with what Steve is saying . I don' t know that there' s a practical aspect to Chanhassen in what you ' re saying . Emmings : Where there' s a railroad or a road , you ' ve got the distance. Now we ' re concerned about the screening . So we ' re not so concerned about setbacks except in so far as screening takes a certain amount of land . — Conrad : Does everybody agree with what Steve said in terms of philosophy? Barbara , if we agree philosophically with Steve ' s , if that' s agreeing _ with some kind of an intent , what would you prefer to have us do? We can' t make a motion on absolute words because they' re not there yet . Dacy: I would recommend that you move to amend the Section as listed on — page 3 of the staff report. State your intent and then I ' ll get with the City Attorney to draft the language. As a matter of fact , what I ' ll do is have the Attorney review verbatim Minutes to make sure. Conrad : Do you have a reason to move it through the City Council in two weeks? Dacy: I don ' t think it could get to Council by the 13th anyway with him having to review the Minutes but it would certainly be on the 27th. Conrad : So it could be back here for our next meeting? Dacy: So if you wanted to table it until the next meeting . . . Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded to table action on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Sections 20-695 , 20-715 , 20-755 , 20-774 , 20-795 and — 20-815 until the next meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved , Erhart seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 18 , 1988 . All voted in favor except Conrad and Headla who abstained and the motion carried . OPEN DISCUSSION. Conrad : Let me introduce this . Commissioner Erhart would like the Planning Commission to discuss the attached at Wednesday' s meeting . Tim, I think as I said before the meeting started , this is really a nice analysis . You did a real nice job of reviewing the situations down there. I appreciate that . That ' s really terrific . Steve , did you have any Planning Commission Meeting June 1 , 1988 - Page 31 recommendations that you wanted to give? Emmings : Yes , I just think too , Tim has made a very compelling case here . Both from the way you handle contractor ' s yards when they' re moving into the A-2 district and I think this ought to go to staff and they should give us their input on what Tim has proposed here and we should consider it as an amendment to our Zoning Ordinance . Conrad : I guess we could go over this tonight Barbara , verbatim or Tim could give us an overview of it . It ' s real understandable. I 'm not sure that he needs to do that . What Steve is saying he'd like staff to review it and comment on the specifics of it and tell us where staff feels it is inappropriate or look for the loopholes or look for the reasons not to make this an amendment . -- Dacy: We have reviewed it and give the approach as similar to the one that you took with the BF district. That maybe we should send this to Council . If the Planning Commission endorses it , give i.t to Council as a discussion item. Say this is where the Planning Commission would like to head on a potential zoning ordinance amendment issue . Emmings : The choice between letting them have a first look at it as opposed to sending them specific language to change the ordinance? Dacy: It might be good this way so that the Council can get a feel for where the Planning Commission i.s coming from as a whole on this . Erhart: Except the last paragraph, I think there' s only one paragraph that ' s missing . Rather than just passing , you say here ' s a great idea and pass it to Council . I think it' s worthwhile having Commissioner ' s comment on some of these items before we pass it on . I agree that we shouldn ' t try to create language here at this point and get to the specifics but I think in this kind of thing , they really need to look at the comments of the Commissioners . Emmings : I don ' t agree with you for the simple reason that we don ' t very often pass them something that ' s so thoroughly explained . Conrad : It ' s real logical . Emmings : I think what we ' re saying , I think that ' s a good idea to pass it up to the Council just maybe with a comment that we think that based on this we should make some changes to the Zoning Ordinance . Dacy: We could schedule it for the 27th . Kind of reserve a special area . Erhart : So you ' re basically, your comments are that you ' re in agreement with all of it? Emmings : Well , we' ll talk about that . Erhart : So what you ' re looking for from the Commission is saying to them, we ' re generally in favor of that going to the City Council . Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 32 Emmings : Do they want us to basically look at the zoning amendments to bring the zoning ordinance in line with a lot of the things that you ' re discussing . — Conrad : Is there anything in here that somebody would like to bring up as something we wouldn ' t want Council to see? Something that we don' t agree _ with in Tim' s analysis . Is there something that ' s really objectionable? Wildermuth: There' s one thing that occurred to me as I read it. . . . the A-2 district out there? Almost everything is already is A-1 and one of the things , in addition to letting in A-2 would be to require that the contractor ' s yard . . . in A-1. Erhart : There is a substantial difference between A-1 and A-2. Wildermuth : But in your own table analysis here . Erhart : There is on lot size and so forth . Dacy: The A-1 is 40 acres and that ' s specifically for ag preserve . — Erhart : You eliminate A-1 and there are only two parcels in the whole city in A-1. Dacy: We can ' t eliminate A-1 because State Law says we have to provide for a zoning district to allow it . Wildermuth : That was just a thought that occurred . Dacy: The only staff comment is on the contractor ' s yard. That might be — a little politically messy because four years ago the Council went through a process to amend the agricultural districts at that time to allow contractor ' s yards so now you have a process four years later that ' s _ proposing to eliminate them and Tim and I have talked about that . Wildermuth : This is a different Council . Dacy: Exactly and that ' s another reason that I think it would be good to have the Council discuss this thoroughly before you start notifying property owners and conducting a public hearing . _ Headla : What was your point? Dacy: My point was that four years ago the Coucnil specifically amended the agricultural district at that time to include contractor ' s yards. Now this amendment would go back and exclude them. Remove them as a conditional use so I 'm saying that four years is relatively a short time — span and I talked about this with Ti.m and that might be politically messy for some of the Council members . That ' s the reason why it should be discussed though . Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 33 Conrad : What we 'd like to do then , if we send this up to Council for their discussion and their direction to staff . Erhart : Are we all saying generally favorable direction on this? Conrad : I ' ve got some small nit picky things . Erhart : You ' re using just the Minutes to support that? Conrad : I think in our motion we can. . . Erhart : You' re looking for a motion? Conrad : Yes . Erhart : Okay. Conrad : And send this to City Council to provide staff with the direction and I think under that motion we can comment that the Planning Commission endorses this particular paper . Is there a motion? Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded to send Tim Erhart ' s memorandum dated May 27 , 1988 onto the City Council for them to direct staff and the Planning Commission with regard to it ' s content and further action on it , noting that the Planning Commission finds this to be logically explained and an all around good idea . All voted in favor and the motion carried . Emmings moved , Ellson seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 50 p .m . . Submitted by Barbara Dacy City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION UNEDITED REGULAR MEETING MAY 24 , 1988 Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7 : 40 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Mady, Curt Robinson , Mike Lynch, Larry Schroers , Ed Hasek and Sue Boyt MEMBERS ABSENT: Carol Watson STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema , Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman , Recreation Supervisor COUNCILMEMBER PRESENT: Councilman Jay Johnson _ APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Robinson moved, Lynch seconded to approve the agenda as amended to move item 12 , City Center Park Layout to after item 5 and to add discussion on Seeding Hockey Rinks and Carver Beach. All voted in favor and the motion carried . APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Hasek moved , Mady seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meetings dated April 26 , 1988 and May 10, 1988 as amended . All voted in favor and the motion carried . GREENWOOD SHORES REVISED PARKING PLAN - MARK KOEGLER. public Present : Name Address Don Chmiel 7100 Tecumseh Lane Dick and Janet Lash 6850 Utica Lane Bruce Arnold 6850 Utica Circle Mike Koch 6870 Utica Lane Jeff Farmakes 7100 Utica Lane Mark Koegler : . . . take a look and see if it ' s possible to get parking in the upper portion of the park instead of the lower portion. The area that we were looking at specifically was keeping it as close to Utica Lane as possible and was tucking the parking back in this area . The reason for doing that is the tree line on this side and there ' s a residence over on this side, a car would head in away from that residence . There ' s adequate room there to accomodate pulling in movement, backing out, circulation in terms of cars that can utilize the parking lot . The thinking was that when the four spaces are full , anybody that even remotely starts to drive up this entrance can see that they' re full and hopefully exit and leave and find parking elsewhere or come back at a later date or whatever . This scenario has not been developed just beyond a quick sketch to see how it could be done . It can be done with fairly minimal grading and tree removal . I think there i.s one tree that presently sits right in here that ' s an inch or so in caliper that needs to be relocated . Then we have to cut a little bit on this side and fill a little bit on this side which we can handle without a major retaining wall or anything else. That would require presumably some kind of control point then to be put here in addition to here so that the City would still have the option of closing off the lift Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 2 station . The advantage to putting parking on the upper portion would be that it would be possible then to remove some of the gravel area that ' s part of the circulation pattern down below because that ' s not really needed to service the lift station. That then would be space that could _ be used for other purposes . Whether it ' s an active play area or just open space or whatever . So in summary, the only major change is keeping the same number of spaces but bringing them up to the top portion instead of down in the lower. Hasek: Mark, you ' ve got a dash line that runs around the "grassy area" down below by the transformer there and the lift station. Is that — currently gravel and going to be grass? Mark Koegler : If I remember correctly, that is grass at the present time . I guess it falls . . .what that line delineated . There ' s a wall I — know only on this one side. That was a remnant from the existing conditions . That ' s not part of the plan . The only thing that ' s changed on this plan is really adding this little nodule of parking here and — moving this area down below. Schroers : Mark, in your opinion , would that new proposal delete safety _ hazards from having to drive up from down below where you can ' t see? Do you feel this is a safer area to park? Mark Koegler : Presumably it ' s safer . Certainly it ' s more convenient in — terms of the public being able to easily assess whether or not the lot has space available or not and not having everybody to have to drive in and try to turn around to come back out . Schroers : And you don ' t have to pick up speed to get up over a hill where you may have visibility problems? Mark Koegler : There ' s a rise kind of where the posts are that is kind of reflected in the berm being off on the west side there so there is somewhat of a rise that still exists. You ' re not coming up . . . — Schroers : Can you see the street from there? Mark Koegler : I believe you can. We don ' t have any elevations. Again, this was just scratch form. We ' ll illicit your comments and we ' ll take a look at some of those in detail . Schroers : If we decide to go along with this , you could probably put in there that as you sit in your car in the parking lot we would want to be able to see the street without having to go up a rise. — Mark Koegler : It could be. It may mean that off of the width of that asphalt the existing gravel may have to be cut down somewhat . I don ' t know. Again, we don ' t have calculations on that . It' s not much of a rise there . Hasek : I recall when we were out there that there was about a two car — landing at the top there and it went back beyond those posts. I don ' t Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 3 recall exactly how far . . .but two cars could stop at that landing there with a flat turnaround. The only other problem that goes to visibility was the location of the sign where you park. We want to think about maybe relocating that too based on discussion . Sietsema : Another thing to consider with this layout is that it ' s much easier for public safety to drive by and see what the parking conditions in the park are . See if people are parking illegally. They don ' t have to drive into the park either to just check on parking . Mady: I ' ll open it up for public discussion. Dick Lash , 6850 Utica Lane: A couple of things I 'd like to address here. First of all , I believe this here kind of represents a debate on this thing . In the last meeting I was to up here, I 've been to several , we, concerned citizens , viewed our point and then the Council had their say. Any debate I ' ve ever seen you have one side, another side and two rebuttals . I think we should have a rebuttal here for one thing . We got into a little bit of an argument last time because there was no rebuttals allowed . The second thing I 'd like to bring up is there is another option here and this is my opinion only but this thing the way I understand it , Greenwood Shores Beach was a neighborhood park at one time. I have not heard anybody on this Council or at the City Council address maybe making it a neighborhood park again . There are other neighborhood parks in Chanhassen, which you ' re well aware of , and I don ' t think anybody wants the City to move in and do anything to them. The City has spent minimal money on this thing up to this point . They paid no money for that lot down there. I believe it would make Greenwood Shores happy. It would be a headache off this Council and it would also benefit our taxpayers. Putting four parking spaces in there at the taxpayer ' s expense , I don ' t see as spending good money. Putting four parking spaces in there, I live as far away from the beach as you can get in Greenwood Shores , just about . I 'm just about as far as you can get from there. I believe by putting the four parking spaces in , you ' re not going to bring murderers and rapists in there . What you ' re going to bring in there are kids . You ' re going to have beer parties down there. -- You ' re, going to have littering . My yard ' s got litter ever since the darn beach has opened up. The more people that know about it , the more my yard shows it . My van has been ripped off from my driveway. I ' ve had bicycles stolen out of my garage . This is since the beach has become public . Granted it ' s been public since I ' ve lived out here but the more people that know about it the more damage I see around my house. The more it' s advertised and four parking spaces and being expanded to 8 or 12 or whatever phase 2 is going to be on this thing , is more advertising . You people don ' t live there . There are certain people on this Council that do live i.n areas that have neighborhood beaches . Those of you who live there think of it as if the City were to take over your beach and say we ' re going to do this to your beach. How would you feel? Thank you . Jan Lash, 6850 Utica Lane : This plan to me is , not that I 'm in favor of it at all , it ' s the best of the ones that I ' ve seen and it says on it that it ' s out of proportion or it ' s estimates or something like that Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24, 1988 - Page 4 because it looks like you'd have to have maybe a little matchbox cars to — fit into those parking spots there. The beach looked really big and the parking spots looked really small so anyway, I think you 'd end up with a lot of grading and different things because there is quite a slope right _ there . I guess I feel that bringing in fill and grading and leveling and all the stuff that you'd have to do is going to cost quite a bit of money for something that I really haven ' t heard very many people ask for . We 've come to many meetings on this . We were here last summer . We 've been here before about it . We ' ve been here three times so far this year . Each time we ' re fewer in numbers because it ' s getting to be pretty old and the season is getting into sports and people have a lot of activities and we don ' t have time. It wasn ' t publicized this time in the paper at all which kind of upset a lot of people who had no notice at all about this meeting but I haven ' t seen you guys produce anyone other than the people on your board who are in favor of it . You say you took a survey. — You heard from people, you want improvements. I guess improvements is kind of an abstract interpretation on everyone ' s part . The people who have been here and they' ve given you petitions with over 100 signatures of people who don ' t consider this to be an improvement . Not to the value of their home . Not for the neighborhood and not to this small beach. We think it would be more of a detriment . It was closed by the City years _ ago after they took it over from Greenwood Shores because there were so many problems with it . Many of you maybe didn ' t live here back then . I really don' t know how long you ' ve lived here but there were a lot of problems down there that have been solved by closing it and I really am -' opposed to opening it and having all those problems back. Now that we have them under control , I don ' t really see the point of it . As a citizen and taxpayer of Chanhassen, I 'm opposed to the wasting of tax _ dollars , which I think this is , along with a lot of other changes that I along with a lot of people in Chanhassen that I ' ve talked to , do not like . We' re sick of change and we ' re starting to get to the point where we think it ' s change for the sake of change, whether it ' s good change or not . We feel a lot of these things are getting rammed down our throat . When we come to meetings that is suppose to be a democracy in this City, when we voice our opposition and people kind of rise over and do what they want. I for one am getting really sick of it and I think a lot of other people in town are too . So , it ' s coming down to mostly the principle of the whole thing . Like I said to start with , this is _ probably the best of any of the plans that I ' ve seen but I basically am opposed to opening up all these problems again . Mr . Hasek must not agree with my point but there are many other people in favor of it . I would like to see someone at this meeting other than the Board who I feel is your responsibility to fulfill your job and doing what the people of Chanhassen want. People have come and said they don ' t want this . We don ' t understand who we ' re fighting when we 'd like to be working with the — City on things. It seems like all we do is fight with you . Don Chmiel , 7100 Tecumseh Lane : I guess one of the things that I would like to bring out so it ' s put into the Minutes is number one, the City Council has taken a position on this particular park back in June 1, 1987. And to quote the last paragraph contained of the motion and I 'd like to read this verbatim. Mayor Hamilton moved , Councilman Geving — seconded that Greenwood Shores Beach not have any parking added . That Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 5 the no parking signs on the streets remain as they are. Access to the beach be available only to the City personnel to work at it ' s lift station and it remain a neighborhood park . There will be no boat launching at Greenwood Shores and staff will meet with Jim Chaffee to patrol and enforce violations occurring at Greenwood Shores and the City be instructed to look at devising a new gate system for the entrance into Greenwood Shores Park. Also , that Carver Beach Park and it goes on . I guess the position that I 'm taking here is , from my understanding , the Park and Recreation is an advisory council . Council has last and final decision and has taken that position by the June 1, 1987 Minutes of that particular meeting . I ' ve also had discussions with a couple of the Council members and it is their opinion that this exactly as they so stated . I feel that there is pre-emption by the board or by the Commission overriding the rule of the Council who has the jurisdiction . Therefore , I am very hopeful that this does go back again to the Council , which I see no reason for , that the Council will support our position . Thank you . Jeff Farmakes , 7100 Utica Lane : I ' d like to address a couple issues in regards to parking at Greenwood Shores . I was here two weeks ago when we had the meeting . I apologize that I got upset but I felt that the dialogue here was not any type of situation that was conducive to us arriving at some sort of settlement on this issue . You have on record over 100 taxpayers who are opposed to this issue. I think that it ' s worth more as far as the discussion goes than to simply cut one and another off . I think that we verbalized what our opposition is to this issue . I still do not believe that this proposal addresses those issues . I think that when you consider the amount of taxes that are paid by that many individuals and the amount of people who show up here at these meetings , that constitutes obviously significant concern on the part of the people who live there. We are not opposed , I believe , to the issues that you are talking about in allowing access but I believe that there are other options available . I do not see those options up there on the board . Going back to last year , I saw again one proposal brought to the City Council . It was a plan similar to this . It snowed no relationship to the parking issue in relationship to the park as it stood . It was simply a plot plan with no surrounding area for relationship for that plot plan into the park itself. The other issue I 'd like to bring up is that if you' re going to come up with a counter proposal here , that it certainly would be in keeping with what we ' re talking about here that it be in relationship to the park as it stands . Certainly if you ' re going to put park by the parking within a park that size which is where it is stated as 3 acres , it is not . The cleared area is much under that . It ' s probably not much more than an acre. If you ' re going to put four parking stalls in that area in relationship to single family homes , you certainly should want to show the homes in relationship to that area to show the recreational facilities that are there in relationship to that area and it should be a specific relationship. It should not be an approximation and yet we continue to show these approximate plans in the issues that we ' re discussing . What we ' re bringing up over and over again is concentrated access for our children and to that park. Two , it ' s relationship to single family homes in the area and three, the size of the park itself. It ' s a very small park and to sort of kill the patient , Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 6 to make your issue in regards to all parks must have parking in them, — regardless of how they were designed , penalizes the people who have been living there for 30 years . The fact of the matter is that when that park was built this whole area was farm fields and those issues were simply _ not addressed when those roads were designed and those houses plotted . If the City can not put those in to put in parking facilities in that particular area without penalizing either the homes in the area or the people who use the park presently, they should look to alternative — methods of putting in parking . Now there is an area that Larry mentioned that is also adjacent to that area where there are presently paved trails leading up to that park. That area the most probable fact will be — developed within the next one to two years . That ' s an opportunity for the park board to work with the developer and with the City Council in addressing the issue of building parking that is secluded and not _ objectionable to single family residence homes in the area and is not in a position to concentrate parking for our children into the park. I think it would certainly be more beneficial and the citizens here would think that you were considering their views if you would look at — alternative plans rather than the two here that we ' ve actually seen up on the board. Thank you. Dick Lash : I 'd like to say one more thing here. I 'd like it noted that this is not good representation of the opposition to this plan. It would have been had this thing been publicized . I got a phone call last night from one of the few people in the neighborhood that got a letter saying — that this meeting was here . In the future if you ' re going to dink around with my neighborhood , I would just as soon that it show up in the newspaper so I can read it on my own without a phone call . We would have — had the place filled if it would have been advertised. Mady: That is the extent of public discussion . The first question Lori , who was contacted for this meeting tonight? Sietsema : The people that live within 500 feet of the park . Boyt: I think we need to , if this comes up again, we need to notify everyone who ' s been here . Hoffman : That 500 feet of the park does fulfill our legal obligation . That is the ordinance that we are required to fulfill so she i.s not delinquent if those people were notified . Mady: Could it show up in the newspaper though next time? Is there a problem with that? Sietsema : No. Mady: We do have a problem from time to time getting our portion of the agenda in the space. Don Chmiel : My suggestion would be that at the last particular meeting that we had people here, everyone had signed in and that list I think — should have been notified . If they were here with interest they should Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 7 have been notified . Boyt : We do that sometimes don ' t we? Sietsema : Yes . Schroers : Several things have crossed my mind . The first thing I 'd like to say is that what I 'm expressing I 'm just expressing from my own personal experience . Having worked in parks and recreation for more than 10 years and from the input that I ' ve received from the other members of the Commission as well as the residents from Greenwood Shores . A number of things have been said that their concern about the problems redeveloping if the park is opened . My experience has been , when you have an area that is an undeveloped area , an area looks like no one ' s really doing much with it , not taking much care of it , it just kind of looks like an open area , that ' s the type of place that kids are looking for to go and drink. If you have an area that ' s developed and well taken care of and patrolled on a regular basis , that is a deterrent. That ' s been my previous experience there . Your point of bringing up what the City Council has already moved on makes me think that I would like to talk to members of the Council again because I was under the impression that we had a directive of sorts that we wanted to be consistent with what we were doing in the parks and that we wanted to have parking and we wanted it to be fairly accessible to all the residents of the City. I think we need to get back together with the Council and sit down and get the uncertainities out of that and see if we want to address each part as an independent situation and look at it or if we want just an established policy and say that each park is going to be accessible and that it ' s going to have so many parking spaces depending on what the useage is or the size of it in relation to the size of it or whatever . I see that there still needs to be a lot of work done before we come to any conclusion . Hasek: I ' ve got just one quick question of Lori . Last time we talked a little bit about the boundaries of this park compared to the property that seems to be discussed as potential future residential piece . Does it? Does the park abut that piece of property? Sietsema : Yes I believe it does . The whole trail around the lake does . Schroers : Lori , would you say that we have 75 feet on either side of that trail? Sietsema : There ' s an 80 foot strip around the east side of the lake . Schroers : 80 feet from the shoreline? Sietsema : Yes . _ Schroers : That was a good point that Mr . Farmakes made that I 'm sure that area is being considered for development and to work with the developer to acquire access where there probably would be a reasonable solution to look at. The problem that I see there i.s that there is a Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 8 really steep hill going down along that whole area that I think may have something . . . Hasek : I guess my comments in relation to that are , first of all that _ neighborhood is not proposed and just because it ' s planned doesn ' t mean that it will be developed . The market goes up and down in a very short period of time. We ' ve seen a lot of single family developments in the last couple of years here and there is no indication that that ' s going to — continue. We want to have accessibility into that park which is, like Larry has stated , our feeling that was necessary, then I think we should work to get it into the park as it exists and if we want to expand that park and add parking when and if the new neighborhood comes on line , we can do that at that time. I just wanted to respond to some of the things that were said . First of all , a public hearing is not a debate . It ' s handled very separately. If debates are going to be needed in this thing — than that will have to be set up but a public hearing is simply comment by the public by the governing body. . . .governing body but we are commissioned . The Council has the ultimate word and you are correct , all — we do is give directives and they can at any time choose to bring an issue to their attention and have a motion on i.t and that' s basically what we' re doing here . Whether it ' s closed or not by a motion passed _ doesn ' t mean that we can ' t bring the issue up again if we so choose . That ' s what we have chosen to do at this time . There was some discussion about the drawings . Scale of the drawing . Designation of the parking stalls . The sketch format that ' s shown here. I believe the gentleman is correct, it would be nice to see it in context. However , at this level , this drawing , as it ' s labeled sketch plan , is completely appropriate. This is the type of thing that I myself presented to Park Boards , Planning Commissions and Councils almost on a daily basis in my job and the scale I 'm sure is within a tenth of what it should be. There ' s no reason to assume that the parking stalls are smaller than they have to be to accomodate parking and that the parking area is any smaller — than it needs to be to accomplish parking . I would like to suggest that I think it' s one way of solving the problem that seems to be security. I think that working with , perhaps move some of the berm that ' s out in — front there with minimal grading and perhaps removing the side of this , could be recommended for a faction of the cost of the previous plan . I certainly think it ' s a valid approach and would like to pursue it . A _ comment was made as to the value of the homes and a negative impact . I would challenge anyone to find a relator who would stand on his career that a park next door would negatively impact anyone' s home value . Quite the contrary. I think that you would find that for every one person who '- wouldn ' t want to live next to the park would probably be drawing more people that would want to live next door to it and may in fact make the marketplace for your home larger than it was previously to having the — park not there. An observation on my part . It was stated that there was some discussion about giving the park back to the neighborhood . I certainly wouldn ' t go for that . I don ' t think that i.s even in the ability of the City to do that . They' ve got the park in public trust — right now and it ' s my understanding that when the park was in fact acquired by the City, it was generally understood that the neighborhood didn ' t want it. Potentially one of the reasons was because they felt that i.t was in their neighborhood and if they could get the City to Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 9 participate in maintaining that park that i.t would be to their benefit . Robinson: I apologize for missing the meeting two weeks ago and I guess I wasn 't aware of the fact that the City Council made that move to June of 1987. That ' s less than a year ago . Yes , I agree Ed that we can bring it up again . We can bring it up as often as we want but I 've been on the Park and Rec Commission for 2 or 3 years now and I don ' t know how many times we' ve talked about this park and as you voice your opinion , I would have hoped that June , 1987 with that motion by the City Council and you ' re exactly right , we are an advisory board to the City Council , I would hope that would put it to bed . That ' s my only comment . Lynch : Most of the business that we see in rather routine and our actions are prescribed by City Ordinance, State Law, Metro Council guidelines , our own multi-year plan that we work on constantly. Occasionally there are issues such as this that are interjected on the schedule . Two years ago we had scheduled a short , informal meeting with the City Council that is a conversational get together to make sure that we ' re going in the direction that they like to see us going since they are the authority. I kind of felt that in the last meeting we were directed to see that there was parking in these parks . This is the reason why we took this up again in the first place. We were directed . I guess I 'm kind of like Curt and Larry. I ' d like to see the Council decide what they want to do here. We' re volunteers and you guys spend your time coming down here . We spend our time here and sometimes it seems a little frivilous when we ' re told to do one thing and then it stops on the way and gets upstairs again . I agree , I think we ought to have some sort of consensus from the Council where they expect us to continue . We' re using our time , Mark ' s time, staff time and citizenry time. The issue looks like it may be dead . Jay, do you have any comments? Councilman Johnson : Actually I believe the June 1st meeting was a — petition to have the parking signs removed from the street from one of the residents who lived along the street . As far as I was concerned , we had a one year timeframe that we were going to have Greenwood Shores not have parking and we were going to observe what was going on during that one year timeframe and get the Public Safety Director to see what ' s going on and that Carver Beach would be opened and Carver Beach would be watched to see if there was a problem at Carver Beach. So we' ve taken a two part approach . Open one park and leave the other one closed . There was a time period. That ' s how I remember it. Mady: That ' s what the discussion was at the June meeting . The motion that was made by Tom did not reflect all that discuss prior to. However , if you read the complete set of Minutes of the Council meeting , Mr . Geving started out stating that he had to walk from Carol Watson ' s house to even get to the park and it went from there . In that discussion the Council told staff that they would like to see the park closed for a year ' s time . After that we would then review it again . So the motion was to close the park down, make sure the gate was up and keep everything that was supposedly happening there , from happening for at least a year to see what we could do. We have succeeded in that doing that . That is Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 10 what is in those Minutes if you read the complete set of Minutes . — Jeff Farmakes : We read the complete set and that is an inaccurate statement . Mady: Excuse me, you are out of order here . That ' s where I 'm going with this . Councilman Johnson : That ' s the way I understood what we voted on the first time. This was a one year trial basis . . . Jeff Farmakes : If you have the Minutes and read them, that ' s an inaccurate statement . Boyt : When I talked to Bill about this he was under the same impression — Jay was. That he wanted this reviewed so that ' s two of the guys . I didn ' t talk to Dale or Tom or Clark but Clark was the man who said we want parking spaces in all the parks so he directed us to look at that .That was the private meeting between Park and Rec and the City Council . Lynch: And Dale was at that meeting also . Jeff Farmakes : The only issue in regards to the year was reviewing whether or not the police was enforcing the law. Mady: Can we go back to the format that we were going to have for this meeting . Boyt : This is the interpretation that Bill has and Jay has and so that ' s what they' re going to work from. They won ' t necessarily take them, I guess the verbatim Minutes , they want us to look at this again? What we recommend they might not approve when it gets to City Council . My — concerns were the berm at the top of the hill blocks viewing of the park and I think that adds to the danger down there. Kids meandering . I drove up there , I couldn ' t see into the park so I think we . . .berm. The — design of the park itself with the woods , it ' s beautiful . That adds to it being a great park place . I think we need to look at a separate trail entrance for children that goes next to the road . That ' s one of the concerns that I ' ve heard over and over again is kids getting in and out of the park so it could go along just adjacent to the road. I would not consider giving this park back to the neighborhood . I don ' t think we could do that. I don' t think the rest of the City would be pleased with — us if we did that . I think we need to do a better job of just letting the neighborhood know when . . . It addresses the concerns that Pat brought up when she was here last summer . Hasek : One last quick question and I 'm sorry. . . I guess it was stated in the last meeting that we had with the neighbors that I was unclear in reading through the Minutes as to exactly what the motion is . There ' s just a paragraph that was made however the motion was actually started much before that and there was a lot of discussion that happened during that and it ' s really unclear and I guess I would like to have some idea — as to what actually the motion was and what was voted on . I guess I 'd Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 11 have to agree with some of the other commissioners that if this is a dead issue that we should get off of it. However , if it ' s not a dead issue, I would like that we move quickly, as quickly as possible to get it established that parking spaces within that park and move onto other things . It ' s become just . . . to work out this issue. Mady: First thing , the comment concerning why are we looking at this again . Because the Council did close the park a year ago does never preclude us from in the future doing something there or anywhere else . — Life changes . Everything changes and if we come with an idea of something that seems to be appropriate, that ' s what our function is as an advisory body to the Council is to bring ideas to them. Be talking with our neighbors . Other people in the community. Finding out what the needs are . What the desires and wants are . What the dislikes are and that ' s what we try to do twice a month up here is discuss various opportunities to the City. It is my firm belief that this is an opportunity for the entire city. I think it ' s going to enhance the park for both the residents who have been appearing here as well as the rest of the City. We are not giving up the opportunity of closing down the park by putting this parking stalls in . We will continue to have the gate at the top of the hill right off the street. With this proposed plan there will also be one right after the end of the parking area to prevent cars from going further down but would allow the City engineering department to go down and check the lift station at any time as they need to do that . I think the plan that Mark has come up with here , the sketch that you ' ve got now i.s a lot better than what we ' ve seen previously. It keeps more of the park just the way it i.s as park. A park shouldn ' t be a parking lot although it does need to provide access to all people . Sue ' s point of concern the trails around the driveway is a good point . We need to delineate exactly where the parking and what other surface is i.n that park. It ' s more than just gravel . Gravel is to prevent people from driving there if they so desire . Our earlier plan showed bollards and chains going through and along the entire parking and roadway area . That would prevent vehicle travel on any portion of the park other than the parking and driveway area. The comment concerning looking at options in the future on the other parcels adjacent to are very well taken . We will definitely once that parcel of concern becomes developed , look at that piece because it is adjacent to our trail and between two park areas . We would probably get additional parkland here. That isn ' t any real guarantee that we will get anything . It is my feeling that we need to provide the citizens of Chanhassen access to this park as easy as possible with minimum impact and I think this might be the best plan that does that . If we were to build an access in the other area , undoubtedly we would have to build an extensive road down to it . The earlier estimate that Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the parking plan for Greenwood Shores I believe was in excess of $4 , 000 . 00 but by moving it to the top of the hill I 'm guessing that we can get this done pretty darn cheap probably using city staff to do the bulk of the work. If we had to build a road from another area we' d be talking thousands and thousands of dollars and we simply don ' t have that money to be spending at this time . We could get by with a $2, 000. 00 to $5 ,000 .00 expense to enhance this property at this time but I don ' t believe we ' re going to be looking to spend $30 , 000 .00 plus to put a road into a park that we already have Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 12 sufficient access itno right now with the current road . All we need to — do is delineate parking area so our tax dollars , and actually it' s not a tax dollars as much as capital improvement fund which comes out of fees charged against building permits . Those are the monies that we ' re _ spending and I believe that ' s money better spent . What I 'd like to do is at this point make a motion to direct staff to come back to us with a new drawing of this plan showing scales , bollard and chain and a gravel parking surface with a trail going along side of the road into the park and connecting into the Lake Ann Trail . To investigate whether or not the berm is providing an obstruction from viewing the street and if so , to come up with the cost estimates to rectify that situation . _ Investigate whether or not the berm is there for , what purpose the berm is actually there for . I 'm not sure if it ' s there to obstruct view of the park or if it ' s there for water runoff purposes or what. Why the berm was constructed there . Maybe you should look into that . Ed had — mentioned the trees so we do need to move the park sign because it ' s probably, if I recall , it is preventing your view from coming down into this park. It probably could move down some. Somewhere off the driving area so that it opens up the site more . Mark Koegler : Just a clarification. Should we make the drawings , there _ have been comments this evening about scale, the drawing is to scale . It was based on field measurements that were triangulated with a tape measurer rather than on a survey. Under those circumstances we always like to put a note on there saying those distances are approximate . The — parking stalls for example on that plan are 10 x 28 feet. The extra length being to allow turn around room. The beach Lori and I taped off and if I remember right it was somewhere in the neighborhood of 97 feet — wide . The actual sand blanket area itself so they are essentially to scale however they are not survey dimensions and they are not totally accurate . So I 'm not sure what the context of your motion means in those terms . Does it mean that ' s a suitable level of definition for now? Mady: Yes it is . Mark Koegler : Otherwise you ' re talking about incurring costs . Mady: I don ' t see any reason to incur survey costs . Dick Lash : I 'd like to point out that from the sand beach to the trail it ' s noted on here as approximately 10 to 15 feet. That certainly isn ' t showing up that way on this map. If that ' s the case , that distance there — is greater than all four stalls . Mady: Mark, you ' ll have to check that out . Mark Koegler : The trail that was shown in there may be off . That wasn ' t part of the measurements so much as the upper area , the light post , the large tree which is where the picnic table sits and then the relationship to the beach area but we can pin that down a little bit more . Mady: Also throw in the relationship to the other homes in the area . Specifically Jeff ' s home. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 13 Jeff Farmakes : There are two other homes also adjacent to the park. One across the street and one that is on the east side as well . Schroers : I wanted to ask Mark , on your plan you ' re drawing in the access and then you' re parking off to the left. What I had envisioned was basically just off-street parking where that berm is and not going down into the park at all . In your opinion, is something like that feasible? Mark Koegler : I guess we ' re operating under different assumptions . The assumption I had going in was to try and retain the berm as much as possible and use it , in fact to a certain degree , at least from a certain view angle, to a limited degree, hide the parking so it had less impact on the surrounding residential properties . So we were trying basically to leave the berm undisturbed and tuck the parking back in behind it . The other option is certainly viable one if the sense of the Commission is that you want to open up the view of that park more in general . It ' s my understanding and I guess after a number of these meetings that the berm along with some of the rocks and the bollards and the trees that exist are acting as deterrents to keep vehicles out of there and we ' re trying to leave that as undisturbed as possible. Mady: One of the reasons , just the discussion I would like to see us avoid right at the street level because they' ll be backing out on that curve and right on that hill . That would be a worse situation forcing a person to have to back out onto that hill . Dick Lash : Mr . Mady and Mr . Hasek say this is a good plan . Maybe it is but a month ago or three weeks ago I was up here to a meeting and Mr . Hasek thought that last plan was just dandy. As a matter of fact he wanted to expand that plan. Mr . Mady was in favor of that plan too. Now they' re in favor of a different plan . If we come up with five more maybe they ' ll be in favor of them. It just seems like any plan you put in front of these two gentlemen they' re in favor of as long as it involves parking . Robinson : I 'm still concerned about the Council ' s reaction and the fact that we ' re going to go ahead , spend some more money. Why? Further studies with the possibility of it being shot down by the Council . I wonder if we should get a reading from them again. Mady: I 'm not sure what Jay' s feeling is . I ' ve talked to Bill and one other council member . Right now there are only two Council members that I ' ve talked to . . . Robinson : But to go back to the last June motion . Mady: The motion is not the entire feeling of the Council . The Council Minutes were very extensive on it and I sat through that entire meeting . Boyt : There are new council members elected in the fall , they could change their minds on anything . . .so whenever they change members they do Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 14 change their directives . Lori and Don talked about this . — Sietsema : It was staff ' s interpretation that this was to be reviewed after a year . Based on the opinion of Public Safety was and whether we could control the park or not . Councilman Johnson : . . . is that Dale modifies his motion but the motion is not even in there . There ' s a summary of what the typist thought the — motion was at the end but the motion is totally missing from the Minutes . I just sat here reading and I couldn ' t find the motion . Jeff Farmakes : We also had about 30 people in that meeting and what was in those Minutes was our understanding. Mady moved , Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission direct staff to come back with a new drawing of this plan showing scales , bollard and chain and a gravel parking surface with a trail going along — side of the road into the park and connecting into the Lake Ann Trail . To investigate whether or not the berm is providing an obstruction from viewing the street and if so, to come up with the cost estimates to rectify that situation . Investigate whether or not the berm is there for , what purpose the berm is actually there for and to show the adjacent homes in the new drawing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . Mady: Once Mark has prepared the final plan that we put in the motion, please contact everyone in Greenwood Shores who signed in at the previous meeting . We ' ll attempt to get it published in the paper . We , — unfortunately are low on the totem pole . We' ve asked for it every time but we don ' t always have it. Jeff Farmakes : I have a question . You made a statement that two — councilmembers are positive on this issue. I 'd like to ask , are they positive on the parking or are they positive on the review issue? Boyt : They want us to review. Jeff Farmakes : Is that what you ' re saying Jim? Mady: No, I 'm saying both . Jeff Farmakes : My question is , in fact if the Councilmembers are — already. . .even before you make a recommendation , what are we even having a hearing for? Mady: We have to discuss these things . Jeff Farmakes : Are we also allowed to come to the City Council meeting and express our opinion? Mady: Yes . Jeff Farmakes : And is that to make any difference? Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 15 Mady: Your voice is as good as my voice. Jeff Farmakes : I don' t think that that is true. When these decisions , as you ' re apparently saying , are taking place outside of these meetings . Mady: There are no decisions being made outside . Jeff Farmakes: You just said . . . Mady: I talked to my neighbors and people I know in the community and since I 'm on a city commission and they' re involved in the city, we usually talk a lot about city items . That was one of the city items we happen to talk about at that time. What they do at Council meetings may be totally different from that . Boyt : I think you implied Jeff that those two councilmembers had already made up their mind . Lynch : I think each of the councilmembers has a personal viewpoint regarding whether there should be or should not be parking in all parks . I think that is probably a preconceived philosophical opinion of theirs . So what we' re asked to look at here i.s how we' re going to accomplish it . Jeff Farmakes : That ' s what I understood of the direct interpretation of the Minutes . In fact there were some confusion from Geving as to , stating that what you were doing was not what he was requesting . If you can address those when you' re rereading those Minutes . I don' t have them in front of me now but whether or not that ' s true , because he was one of the ones that brought it up at that initial meeting you had in January. Mady: We 've got a number of things on our agenda and whether or not you _ agree with us looking at this or not , at this point i.s inmaterial . We've been looking at it for four meetings now and we will possibly look at it again. Jeff Farmakes : I just don ' t believe it ' s inmaterial . MASTER PLAN FOR CHANHASSEN POND PARK - MARK KOEGLER. Sietsema : If I could make a quick comment before we start on this . I did get some questions regarding this being on the agenda without notifying homeowners within the area of Chanhassen Pond Park . The reason that I did not notify people was because we were at such a preconcept plan that I knew that the Commission wasn ' t aware of all of the area that we owned out there. About the trail and I don ' t you to appear like you don ' t know everything that ' s going on so I wanted you to know exactly what we have. Where we are with it and come up with some ideas and when we actually do start getting some things that gel , we will invite everybody within 500 feet of this park . Schroers : I want to ask that before we address this issue in public again, that we get together with the City Council and that we come up Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 16 with something solid that we all agree upon. Either the Council wants — parking or they don ' t want parking or it ' s us that wanted it and not them but we need to be together if we ' re going to get something accomplished . We can' t be split. We can ' t be uncertain of whether the Council ' s given _ us a directive to request parking or did they not . I think that we need to get together with the Council and really decide and get together on this program before we pursue it any further . Sietsema : So do you want me to set up a special meeting with the council before we bring this back to you or before Mark even does anymore work on it? Lynch : We haven' t had our meeting with them that we normally have. Schroers: Either that or if it could be added to the Council ' s agenda and just say, does the Council want us to have or develop a policy regarding parking for the Chanhassen parks or do we want to look at each park individually and what makes the most sense but I do think that we — need to get the gray area cleared up because in my opinion we don ' t appear to have our act together here. It ' s like we' re saying one thing and the council might be saying something else and then they' re both being misinterpretted . Sietsema : I don 't think that you ' re going to get a clear concise answer out of the Council of if they want parking or not . I don ' t even know that you ' ll get a clear concise answer of whether their interpretation was that we should review this again this year . I don ' t know that you ' re going to , I could get a motion . I could probably get a majority one way _ or the other . Schroers : Anything would help. Mady: A comment there . I don ' t believe it ' s our chore or our task to voice whatever it is the Council wants us to do . I think it ' s our vote , what we' re up here for is to look at each individual item, determine what — we feel is best and our opinion for the City of Chanhassen and make an effort to present that to the Council . At that point the Council will determine whether or not they agree with us or not but I don ' t think we _ should have to try to state what the Council wants us to state . In other words , we should be stating what we want so want we think the city wants , the citizens want . Take that to the Council and let them make a decision based on what they know. — Schroers : I agree with that . I think just what ' s happened in the past here with the motion, whatever it was , it just kind of reflects a bad — image of us as though we' re really not on top of our situation here and it also sort of reflects that on the Council so I was just hoping that we could get together a little bit and reach an understanding so we know what direction we' re working towards . Lynch : I do think the Council has the right to expect us to address items that they' re particularly interested in. That ' s all I see this as . — It ' s not something that would have been addressed , I don ' t believe. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 17 Sietsema : But also , you are the park and recreation experts and the Council isn ' t always aware of everything that ' s going on in the park and recreation area of the City and you ' re supposed to be the ones that are bringing pertinent things to their attention. Whether they are interested in them or not , at least to bring them to their attention . I know this is a gray area because the Minutes aren ' t clear . There was a summar of the last part of that meeting where the motion was made and it is unclear but I have no doubt that all through the season that we were going to bring this back. In fact , Don directed me to bring this back to the Commission so it was his interpretation. Schroers : I remember that . I remember that we had discussed all that . That we were going to close it for a year and monitor it to see what the situation was and kind of use Carver Beach as an experiment . Have it open. I remember all of that so I don ' t have a problem with that at all . Councilman Johnson : We ' re missing 7 minutes here because just a paragraph or two before where this summary motion is in there, which Nann does , she summarizes the motion at the end of every thing . Geving says I 'd like to amend your motion Mr. Mayor . Now I went back through everything Tom said according to those Minutes in front of that and there' s no motion who Geving seconded , is amended so somehow the actual verbatim motion didn ' t make the Minutes but the summary at the end did . I remember the Council in our joint meeting last year directing it . Clark has brought it up . I know Clark i.s completely for it and we just passed the money to do it Monday night . Sietsema : The other thing is I wrote a memo to the Park and Recreation Commission as an update on this item for the June meeting last year that _ summarized what happened at the Park and Recreation Commission so it was clear in my mind then. Mady: What we' re seeing here is what I said in our Minutes of the last meeting to them, is they' re picking and choosing pieces out of the Minutes to suit their point of view, which they have the right to do but the Minutes don' t always necessarily reflect what actually took place at the meeting . Let ' s go on . We need to get our other stuff . Mark Koegler : Just to clarify Mr . Chairman . The work that we did most recently, doing this little sketch is not something that we charged you for at all . It was a couple of hours worth of work . Very minor and we just wanted to see it get done . Now that this thing keeps kind of snow balling, I realize as it goes on, the clock has to start somewhere . We ' re talking minor costs but still you should be aware that a decision like that do have financial . . . Okay, basically tonight I think Lori provided a good opening reason for not being surrounded here by Chanhassen Pond area residents with their view. All I 'm essentially on right now is a fact finding mission for this evening and I think we started that off with the tour which, at Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 18 least for me, opened up some new opportunities that I didn ' t know were — being considered with the road improvement and the trail and possible potentials there . Wanted to just kind of walk through some of the assumptions of what I have absorbed over dealing with this site over any _ number of years , 8 or 9 actually by now and just to make sure that we have some parameters defined so we can come back to you with an option or options that attempt to meet those . I laid some of those out in my memorandum in the form of a couple of things . First of all the series of — assumptions on what type of use and what activity the park would see and then finally some specific questions aimed more towards you getting down to issues of what do you want in the park in terms of facilities . Who do — you want the users to be? How accessible? Those kinds of things . The trail for instance that we' re reviewing . The City ' s is an 8 foot bituminous concrete mix , depending on where you are , multipurpose path which obviously services bikes and whatevers . Connections to the park. — How do you envision those being handled is a real issue that I thought of tonight . The park right now is really more pedestrian oriented . Is it to take on a pedestrian and bicycle type of interest or is it to be — pedestrian and maybe wheelchair or something only? . . . Those are some of the things that I guess I would like to hear from the Commission tonight . Who do you assess as being the users? What kind of facilities do you _ want to provide? How much of a natural environment versus , I don' t know what you would call an enhanced , man-made environment with some of the wildlife nesting platforms and some of those kinds of things that we can move within that space . How do you want to approach this whole thing? — I guess I 'm kind of letting it back to you. Perhaps with first of all are the assumptions that I have made correct? If not , I think those should be corrected by this body because that obviously is the course — that I 'm trying to head it in . Then specifically some of the questions that have been raised . Lynch : I like the roadside trail that ' s going to follow the inland park — contour on that ridge next to Kerber Drive. I think the combined overlook and sledding area is a great idea . It ' s new. We hadn ' t heard of that before but that ' s tremendous . It ' s another way to get a use out of the park. If we could work up entrances and exits from the park on the southwest/northwest corners to Kerber Drive and the northeast corner for the easement we have with the neighborhood to the north and then our _ existing southeast entrance. All but the existing entrance should be able to be accomplished where the ramp might be because it doesn ' t require steps or the existing one was too steep to attempt with any other method . Back to the overlook and sledding area . If we can work in the — southeast entrance right next to that on some sort of a gradual switchback. That will give us an opportunity to have a sledding area with an easy walk right back up the hill that would keep the kids from — walking up the hill in front of the sledders and being injured . You have to make it real convenient or they won ' t use it . I 'd like to see an in park path completely sort of navigate the lake and we have what was I think was about a year and a half ago , met out there and walked off the contours . I think the contour is about 4 foot above the water level with the contour level that we decided could go all the way around . Schroers: Did you state that in there? Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 19 Sietsema : I recall 952 . Lynch : The only other item, last but not least is we had always depended on that cattle underpass to be an outlet directly into the land that we had for a trail on the north side. Now we' ve got a trail on the north side that starts nowhere and goes noplace. I 'm really interested in who decided to close the overpass . Why we didn ' t hear about it first . Sietsema : It was brought up here before . Lynch : The road being opened? Sietsema : Yes , it was . I talked about it another time but I think it wasn' t in a formal presentation, it was in passing but I will research on why that was not an option . There were summaries and that that was not going to be possible to use it . I don' t know if it was going to have water in it or what but I ' ll look it up and bring it back to you . Lynch: I really think to cover the tracks now that you can ' t get under the highway easily and it would have been a neat feature. Councilman Johnson: I discussed that with our City Engineer because he is the person responsible for doing that . He was of the opinion that it wasn' t a good access . That it was too short , too narrow. That two people couldn ' t pass . Walking down that , one person would have to back up to get out of it. It was kind of an emergency situation . Bill and I have given him a lot of hard time for doing that without a wetlands alteration permit too but they did it under an emergency powers deal that they had to get rid of the dirt and whatever and they put it there . It did give us a better opportunity to put trails on that side which is something I wanted instead of the trails being on the other side of _ Kerber Blvd . . I ' d like the engineer to look at whether it ' s possible to get back underneath there and do it because I totally agree with you but I think it was pretty much Gary Warren ' s decision to drop the dirt on top of it. Mady: At this point they can easily di.t it back out . I would think you can dig it back out again. Lynch : I ' ve been through it and I never thought it was that narrow. It may turn out to be very difficult to extend . I don ' t know what the cost of that would be . Sietsema : I ' ll look up why. I know that I was given a reason why and it sounded like a good reason to me and I thought that I had let the Commission know but I ' ll look it up and let you know next time. Boyt : I heard a rumor that we hadn ' t actually finished acquiring that property. Sietsema : We do . They went to closing and it ' s all done . Park didn ' t pay for it. It ' s part of the project. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 20 Boyt : But the City had first choice in buying that property. The guy went behind our back and sold it to someone else who then sold it to us at 10 times the market value . Councilman Johnson: You' re saying that Kerber . . . Sietsema : Sold it to Rick Murray and Rick Murray sold it to us . Councilman Johnson: Rick Murray sold it to us for what he bought it for . _ Sietsema : It didn ' t come out of Park budget . Boyt: I 'm sorry_ I wasn' t at the walk through. Did you talk about — putting parking on Kerber? Mady: Yes . Cut down those two knolls . — Boyt : I think we need to decide if we want to continue to have a sliding hill in Pryzmus ' backyard . Mady: The way we were looking at the . . . Boyt: Do you know which lot it is up there? — Mady: I ' ll show you where we were looking at . The overlooK is probably going to be right in here . We' ve got it sufficiently wide enough where — we can do it in this area . Boyt : Right here is the sledding hill . Do we want it to stay there? Mady: Unofficially it ' s not a problem. Boyt : Well , does it look good continuity wise? We' ve got this nice — grove and then all of a sudden there ' s a slash through there with nothing growing . Schroers : Another thing there is that that is basically a south or west facing slope there and you don ' t design a sliding hill on a south or west facing slope because of the cost of it . Councilman Johnson : You ' re doing an east facing slope on this site over here on Kerber . Boyt : I just have a few things to say about this . I want Novak Fleck to get out there and clean up the pond because that ' s their garbage in the pond . It looks like an industrial waste area out there . There is stuff _ in the pond and around the pond . In the bushes . Then I would like to go to the teachers at the elementary school and ask them how they would like to use this . Sietsema : I called Mack and he said anything that was natural that would Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 21 enhance the wildlife and the different kinds of plantings and stuff . He said also if the trail is put in all the way around the pond with some interpretive signing that where you stand there and you look out and if you look to the left you ' ll see a certain kind of tree or watch over the pond you might see some certain kind of birds or geese . Some interpretive signage along the way. He said that the school ' s been using that park to take classroom for outdoor study for years . Boyt : I would like signage there. I see that' s one of the points in here . Lynch : In fact we had a resident at one of the meetings during the land acquisition on the north side that talked about being a volunteer mom and taking the troops down there every spring to take their little walk throughs . Councilman Johnson : I ' d like to see a little nature study center . I picked up some stuff at the Conservation Commission Service that talked about school nature centers . This is to build one in the backyard of the school . Put the pond in. The school settling pond and stuff just fits right in with that kind of thing . Boyt : Maybe the school can take that on as a project . Just my things are the Pryzmus sledding hill . Sietsema : So you want to see it taken out? Boyt : I would like to see trees planted in there. I would like to see it look like the rest of the hill . Lynch : We ' ve talked about that in the past . As long as 3 or 4 years ago. Mark Koegler : Mr . Chairman , could I pursue a couple of questions? First of all you brought up the issue of parking . The overlook parking to me has a different context than parking serving park users , if you will . It ' s shorter term. More apt to turn over kind of thing I would presume . Does that agree with your thinking and if so , do you want to get into the issue of do you have 4 spaces or 5 spaces or something else for park users? For somebody that wants to spend an hour or two there . Lynch: I think you can be double duty. I see no reason why we can ' t have an overlook with, you ' re not going to have an overlook that fits one car . You ' re going to have to have an overlook where you can have 3 or 4 cars perhaps just to give enough room to turn around and make it safe . If there is going to be a sledding area there, then you ' re going to want some small little parking spot of 4 to 6 cars . Maybe I 'm being naive but that spot for parking seems very inoffensive as far as neighbors would be concerned because they' re so far away and you laugh. Maybe I am being naive. I ' d like to see parking right next to that overlook area so they can get in and walk down . Sietsema : Off of Laredo? Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24, 1988 - Page 22 Lynch : No , not on Laredo . On Kerber where we ' re talking about the — overlook. I 'd like to see to drop an entrance in there, a little switchback entrance that is relatively low grade so they can walk back up from sledding so in the summer they can park there and walk around into _ the park. I think you' re asking for a rutted foot path down the hill to put an overlook there. Think about every State overlook you 've ever been in that overlooked anything neat and you drove there and they' ve got a neat fence and you look on the other side of the fence and there' s these — scuffed , dirty, washed out paths going down to whatever there is to look at so let ' s put something there. Sietsema : How about some Eagle Scout steps? Lynch: No, I really don' t like the steps. I would like to see us develop, if this Kerber Drive that we ' re looking out at the park, from the grading work they' re doing , they' re going to do more in there. There i.s no reason at all why they can ' t switch, run south and then curve back north and one switchback fairly level grade, 8 foot wide path to match — everything else that ' s down there . I think that should be paved even though the flat trail of the park should be gravel because the assorted yellow is going to wash out like the other old one did but as soon as you — get into the steps , you ' re forced to on the other side. There' s a safety consideration . There' s accessibility by senior citizens , handicaps and so forth. I 'd like to see two entrances on that side and I 'd like to see them both fairly flat grades that people can get in and out of . — Boyt : I have two more . We talked about bikes . I know it ' s used for bikes right now. The kids are using the hill and the bridge to get home — so we need to decide if that' s okay or not okay. I 'm wondering if Lori. or whoever , when are the trails going to be put in with Novak Fleck development? Sietsema : That will be the City that does that and it will sometime this summer when they start getting out and doing that . They will go all over but right now they are overwhelmed with what has to be done . It ' s on the — list . Lynch : The new paving on the Laredo side? — Sietsema : That was my question. There was originally some talk about having 2 , 3 or 4 parking spaces right at that entrance . Lynch: I don ' t think it would be a bad idea . Boyt : I ' d rather see it on Kerber . — Mady: I would like to see on both places . Lynch : I would too but I 'd like to see as much easy access as possible . Si.etsema : I don' t know if there ' s enough room to have turn around area at that site . Would they have to back onto the street? — Park and Recreation Commission Meeting — May 24 , 1988 - Page 23 Mady: We have the opportunity there . Point of information , the Council approved putting a trail along Laredo last night as part of our Capital — Improvement Program and that will be done this year . Now talking with Larry Brown, there' s sufficient area on both sides of Laredo in the City right-of-way to build a trail . I would think there would be sufficient space to maybe put an off street wide spot on either side but probably — across the street from it , to allow three cars to sit there parallel . Parallel park. Lynch : I wouldn ' t want to see head in . Mady: No, not head in but that way you can keep them off the trail . You don ' t want them pulling back and forth over the trail but you ' re going to have a safer spot for people to pull off and park and walk across the street and go into the park. — Councilman Johnson : There ' s kind of hill on the other side . Mady: Yes , it might have to be cut down . Councilman Johnson : I think the west side of the street would be easier . One of the neighbors already parks his car out there on the trail . Mady: Since we ' re building the trail probably on that side of the street , I 'd like to keep the cars away from the trail . Mark Koegler : Clarify parking for me. You want parking off Laredo . See what can be accomodated off-street . If there is nothing that can be done there, we' ll look at limited adjacent to the street parking . Somewhere — in the 1 to 4 vehicle range, depending on . . . Mady: No more than 4 . 2 to 3 should be sufficient . Sietsema : And you wanted 2 parking spaces off of Kerber then? Two parking areas? — Mady: If we can . I like Mike' s idea . If you can put another small spot at the top of one of the hills . Mark Koegler : I might have missed that . Run that by me again . Sietsema : Two parking areas with park entrance . — Lynch : Kerber is here . We really don ' t show the full extent of the parkland now but where the curve does that , we' re coming around and as we had explained tonight , their idea was to run the on-street trail , — actually inland in the park and around the contour here through the woods and come out on this side . We have just enough land , I was told anyway, originally where it hits up Kerber that we do have an access way here. So what we talked about years ago would work well . The overlook here with a little entrance to get down in to the bottom of what would be the sledding area or the bottom of the overlook. The trail comes through this area . A couple of picnic tables in here on that knoll . Beautiful Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 24 spot . You can park there and walk down to that . The trail itself would come up to Kerber here. You 'd then be able to access the around the lake trail here , there , from Laredo and our easement here . The trail will go all the way around the lake at about the same elevation and Y back into _ the existing trail right through the edge of this little woods . Sietsema : Okay, but you were talking two entrances into the park, pedestrian entrances into the park off of Kerber . Not two parking areas . — Lynch: Right there and one parking area which would be against the knoll exactly right here . But this entrance will be right next to that _ overlook parking . No other parking on Kerber so we' re talking parking here and parking up one , Laredo and I don ' t think it ' s probably suitable . . . Hoffman : Mike do you feel that if you ' re going to develop a sledding area in that area, it ' s going to become popular and 4 to 6 spots are going to handle the load if that becomes a popular area to use? — Lynch: Maybe not . There is sufficient room along that , it appears as though there ' s sufficient room along that area to develop more if we ever _ had to because they were talking about taking the grade out where that existing fence line , not shown here . I wish we had just a little more here but a fence line that runs right along here. They had bulldozed out back to about here then you saw it start again here and run along and — they' re going to take that whole hump out and use that for fill someplace where they' re trenching . Well , that would be a fairly wide area there . There' s reason at all why in the future if we wanted to put additional _ off-street there that you could put , what do they call that , lay-in curb where you come off the street. Like a lot of the State pull-offs. You come up off the street and there ' s a curb here and there ' s actually a little roadway here and you have parallel parking all the way along the side but there ' s a lot of room there so if it got to be a real popular thing , sure, no problem. One of the few accessible hills in the City. Mady: The road is going to be a 44 foot wide curb and gutter street so there would be, unless they put no parking signs along it, would allow for parking along the street . Safe parking along the street . Hoffman: Along four lane? Mady: A 44 foot wide street that ' s two lanes . They' re not going to mark — off four lanes to my understanding . Schroers : How wide is the street at Kerber as it exists right now? Is it 44 feet now? Mady: It ' s like 32. It ' s the standard . Schroers : Because I jogged through Kerber earlier tonight before the meeting and where the cars were parked across from the school field up here , when there was traffic coming from both ways , it was pretty tight . — Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 25 Mady: He showed it was going to be another 6 feet off the asphalt mat now. One other thing , in your assumptions Mark you were talking about man made wildlife shelters , nesting platforms , bird houses . I know we ' ve talked about it previously. We would just as soon not put in nesting platforms for like geese and that . One of the things we do have is kind of goose control problem. Schroers : We' re paying to ship them out now. Mady: We don' t mind seeing a few down there but we ' re not going to invite them in either necessarily. Now wood duck houses would be fine because they don' t seem to be messing up our beaches . I guess I move for nesting platforms for geese and that type of thing unless they' re for deer and things like that. As a matter of fact, it 'd probably be unsafe for deer with all the development going in there . You ' re going to have homes along the entire area there with a lot of traffic. You probably wouldn ' t want to invite deer to come crossing those roads . Mark Koegler : The one assumption that I had outline is on the opposite spectrum to Sue ' s comment on the more active kind of nature observance with signage, with interpretive sign boards or something . That will be changed to reflect in general thinking . How far do you want to go with that? I pose the question because part of the planning we had done for Chanhassen Estates that was part of a LAWCON grant we had done little keyask kind of structure with some intrepretive type boards telling here ' s what you might see kind of thing . Do you want to go that far or do you want to have just little signage boards? Numbers along the way? Little box , take a pamplet . Here you ' re at number 3 . You ' re overlooking a certain type of habitat. Here are the species that frequent that habitat . Do you want to wait to hear from the school further? Boyt : No, I think we have enough information from them. I don' t know anything about what the alternatives are . Mady: I don' t know, I ' ve seen a keyask, I don ' t think I really care to see them right in the middle of a park. Right at the entrances , at the various entrances that would be nice right there but once you get into the park, I want it to be as unintrusive as possible . * A tape break occurred at this point in the meeting . Lynch : . . .pictorials and there was a lot of defacing of those . Schroers : We' re not using the plexiglass anymore but we are using very good signs . I guess the best way to say it is that our system feels as though signs are totally essentially. We have a sign staff that' s full time person in there who makes the signs and he can ' t keep up with them. We are going completely by demand on signs . Basically what it is , we have picked out a color that we call park brown , it ' s more of a dull _ brown and we use white lettering and there ' s a variety of signs . We use symbolism in some places . Pictures of a dog on a leash with a slash , no dogs . In other areas the signs are just lettered and written out specifically stating what we want to state . We have difficulty signs . Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 26 Parking signs . We' ve got signs that will tell you when it ' s time to go home. We just leave nothing to anyone' s imagination really. My personal feeling on that is that we have gone overboard . It ' s almost an insult to a person ' s intelligence. You can stand at any given point in the use area and count 50 signs . I wouldn ' t think in an area that we want to get — too carried away with signs but they are helpful and they are beneficial and what you want to do is do them in good taste. Have nice signs . Not red , white and blue that jump out at you in a natural area. Just keep them natural brown and maybe sometimes just a diagram of an oak leaf on it saying directly in front of you is a stand of natural white oaks and a diagram of an oak leaf on it . You don ' t have to get real carried away _ saying that this oak tree here is 55 years old . . . A lot of them are wooden signs bolted to posts that most of them are 8 foot posts and we drive them so , we like to have the bottom of the sign at 42 inches so these 8 foot posts are driven in . If you want them out , you have to work — at it. They generally end up tearing the sign off and it ' s easier just to bolt another sign on than it is to try and . . . so I guess that ' s our basic concept right now is to make the sign that somebody is going to _ come and vandalize and that you can later replace . We ' re using large black heavy metal posts and signs. I would just say that we would want to have something that practical and that does the job and that ' s not expensive. Boyt : I 'd like to see some plant identification . Robinson: I 'd like to see it left natural as much as possible. I was wondering if anybody had any ideas . In the southwest of the pond where it ' s kind of marshy, will we leave that? Is there water in there? _ Councilman Johnson : We ' re having the Fish and Wildlife is coming out to evaluate that area as far as wetland and whether it ' s a protected wetland . I think it ' s currently on the map as a protected wetland . The — little pond that' s in there, the settling pond which Chan Vista was doing is undersized for what they wanted and it was going to be expanded but the City obtained the upper area so the little shape of that little pond is supposed to change. How you do that and what shape it does end up eventually probably will be up to you all too to look at . That was a trade-off in the development there is that they only had to build half of _ their pond at this time and when we obtained the other ground we ' d build the other half of the pond . How that ' s been put into your plans or if you guys even vote on that part but as far as I was thinking that . . . The pond as is , they just dug it straight out . They didn ' t do the Fish and Wildlife recommendations of having gently sloping sides . They just mucked it out . It drops from 0 to 4 foot deep right now so you ' re not going to get your emergent vegetation and the things you want . The little pond, if we ' re going to create it into a wildlife, otherwise it ' s going to sit there. Robinson : I 'd like to see it kept as natural as possible . Mady: When we do expand it , that would be a good idea to expand it with the gentle slopes . _ Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 27 Schroers : Quickly, Mark asked about users . I go through that area frequently and you have a good cross section of the community using the area along Kerber Blvd . now. You have kids biking . You have people jogging . People walking dogs and there are couples in evening just going for a walk so everyone is using it now and it ' s used a lot . I would expect the use to get even more as the developments increase and the improvements are made that will make it more attractive. One thing that we want to take into consideration as far as the parking is concerned . You' re also going to have to be dealing with snow removal . The city is going to have to plow that and there is going to have to be a place to push the snow so that it doesn ' t interfere with the sliding operation . And if in fact we have a declared wetlands down below, are you sliding on that? I guess I would have a question there . Then , that nice mature knoll of trees where they plan to run the trail in off of Kerber a little bit and maybe put picnic tables or whatever in there . I think that is fine with the exception that I am intimately opposed to the disturbance of any of those mature trees . As far as construction damage near them or removal of any of them, I am definitely opposed to it. On the wildlife situation , I agree that I don ' t think we want to try to attract any geese into there . They seem to like that area on their own so I 'm sure that there will be an opportunity to observe geese . However , the wood duck houses would be a very desirable addition I think and if we could get up maybe four wood duck houses , I think that would be welcomed . Other than that, the area is just naturally going to support a few shore birds and swallows and snipes and the type of birdlife that inhabits the area . I think that will pretty much take care of itself . We definitely don' t want to have any feeding stations . I guess that ' s all I have. Lynch: One thing that I think is important to get into the record right now since this is the planning stage, we want to find out about the cattle path. Other than that , what ' s the neighborhood just south of that? Sietsema : Chan Vista . Lynch : Chan Vista , okay. The turn around from which our access , we have that easement access that goes down to the corner of that steep hill . The Chan Vista access that ' s shown here . I feel for all intensive purposes is sort of out of the question. Our original concept there was to try to pick up an access on that corner because we didn ' t know at that time what the acquisition was going to be like for the western side of the property. We didn ' t know what it was going to be like for entrances from Kerber into the park so that was sort of an ace in the hole. We realized that the grade was tremendously steep and that it would be a very difficult entrance but it was one of those things , we didn' t dare walk by. If we get it , we ' ve got it in case we needed it but in light of the development possibilities that we have here I don' t believe that that particular access is useable . Councilman Johnson : It ' s not steep at all . That ' s an old farm road . Boyt : We really need to do something with that because there ' s a big erosion problem through there . Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 28 Lynch : We went out and looked at it and walked up and down it . I don ' t think I 'd want to put safe access down there without steps. Again, if we want to discuss that . Councilman Johnson : It ' s hard to tell exactly where it is . That ' s one of the ways , the school has the path on Chippewa Trail and if they' re coming down, they' ll probably go down Chippewa Trail or they may go out to Kerber and down. Lynch : They can really go down Kerber or Laredo . We' re going to have a trail there . Councilman Johnson : They have a trail connection now, an asphalt into the school from Chippewa as they' re working on making that trail all the way out to the school property. Boyt : Is that trail our maintenance problem because it' s coming on the — neighbors on each side of that trail that don' t have grass yet and . . . Sietsema : Yes , it is ours . Boyt : They need to put up some erosion control . Mark Koegler : Two quick items . We talked a little about bikes down in — there. It ' s going to be pretty hard to preclude them. I assume we should definitely encourage them? Is that a fair statement? Mady: I don ' t have any problems with kids bikes going down there . Mark Koegler : But you ' re not intending that to be part of the planned use to go down and around that pond and back out . Boyt : I think we need to put up a sign saying no motorized vehicles , that' s our policy because there are some kids that drive down there . — Sietsema : There was a sign . Mady: There is a sign that says no motorized vehicles . Boyt : Is it still there? Sietsema : It was there last year . Lynch : I think we might require a lot of these entry points now, what — Larry does in the metro are is they have these bollards out there that you can walk through but you sure as heck can ' t drive through them. Schroers : We ' ve had double no unauthorized vehicles signs beyond this point and I was standing right there the other day and it said Hennepin Parks right on the side of my truck and a guy comes driving through . I said hey, don ' t you see those signs? You ' re not supposed to drive in — there. He says , that ' s okay I ain ' t going to stay. He thought if he Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 29 was just going to drive in there for a little while it would be alright . Signs aren' t the total answer . It ' s just a means of controlling . Councilman Johnson : Neighbors that I ' ve talked to as far as the path all the way around the pond are really looking at a walking path . Not really a biking path or anything like that. I just talked to some new neighbors , Mr . Castleberry and his wife who are going to be living around the pond here. They bought the third lot down from Kerber . She was very concerned about keeping the path as far away from the pond and where it stays as much as nature. So that' s the same kind of people moving into Chan Vista as what we had had out here . People getting next to here want to see it as low level useage as possible. Robinson : What was your other point Mark? Mark Koegler : Building platforms? There ' s one viewing observation platform over there to the east where that circle and cross there is . We' ve talked now about it automobile/pedestrian oriented observation on the west side . Our other platform areas appropriate to let people sit down and take a look at things and we ' re going to handle that with benches . Lynch : Benches would be the most appropriate because the hill on the south is awfully steep to try to route somebody up. The only really good viewpoint spot is that large tree on the north and that ' s in a nature easement. A conservation easement. I ' ve been told that we can' t put a trail there and we can ' t cross it . If the trail on the west side does go through those mature oaks , we have a couple of picnic tables there , that ' s another nice spot . As long as we don ' t get cluttered like with the signs , you maybe can have a little sit down spot on either side . The north and south side . That ' s where we can have our bench . Boyt : By the tree? Mady: Yes , about halfway down . FINAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW - MARK KOEGLER. Mark Koegler : There are two topics that we talked about previously and I don ' t think we really need made any corrections in terms of text. The policy that currently has been proposed for walkway trails and then some discussion on Moon Valley. As you recall the Commission had expressed an interest in somehow at least identifying that facility as a recreational resource and leaving some ambiguity if ever anything happen in the future , if the circumstances were right , perhaps some ownership or user could be agreed upon. So that ' s the text we brought back to you tonight . You will still see this one last time because there are more editorial comments . Number changes and things that we pointed out before that we ' ll make in the final draft once it is typed and available . The main thing this evening is to review these two blocks of text that you hadn' t seen previously. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 30 Mady: I had a comment on the walkway trail areas . It says , Chanhassen — has adopted a policy of placing walkways/sidewalks adjacent to all new public streets excluding cul-de-sacs . I have no problem with saying that, I just hope, I think that' s what we' ve done. Boyt : We' ve tried to put some on some long cul-de-sacs so we could put excluding cul-de-sacs of less than a mile. Something like that . Mady: Excluding short cul-de-sacs . Sietsema : Cul-de-sacs of a reasonable length . Schroers : I 'm glad to see that you ' ve got this Moon Valley included . I think that ' s real nice. CITY CENTER PARK LAYOUT , JIM MADY. Jim Mady: Two weeks ago Sue and I were out there , we were coaching our daughters playing ragball and we were just sitting up there watching our kids play ragball and I asked her , I said don ' t you think that maybe how _ we could design this park so we could utilize the space a little bit better . There are only three diamonds out there . A lot of space . They' ve got that running track in off by itself and there ' s a baseball diamonds that are kind of hit and miss up there . We talked a little bit — about maybe putting some kind of a nice play structure area . . . To me that whole park should just be , take all of the raw land there and say, what ' s the best way of utilizing the whole space. Now realizing that we MEM have to work with the school for a lot of that but I 'm also looking at there ' s approximately 4 acres of land north of the tennis courts. We may want to acquire that . There ' s a strong possibility that there ' s a , working on the Community Center Task Force was that a community center site in the coming months that that whole parcel of land up there may get a look at . Boyt : Do you know who owns that? Mady: Yes , Klingelhutz owns that piece of land . That ' s what I understand . Councilman Johnson : My wife ' s been investigating that piece of land . The ownership of that is a very big question. It used to be Tom. It was — Tom, then it was Doug . The taxes were getting paid but the County doesn' t know who' s paying them. Tom said he sold it. . . There ' s barbed wire running along the edge of the school playground and that ' s one of my — wife ' s issues . She' s trying to find out who the heck the landowner is to get the barbed wire . Tom very politely told her he sold it 8 years ago . Mady: Anyway, why I was looking at the park is hopefully by the end of summer we ' re going to know, a lot of us , what we can and can ' t do up there and then come back for an overall use for that. I 'm thinking that we should start from scratch saying where everything is doesn ' t — necessarily mean it' s going to be there . The warming house needs to be Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 31 improved anyway. It ' s just kind of eye sore sitting up there anyway. It ' s just a mess up there and I 'd like to see us just design that whole park so keeping that in mind when we start talking about trails along here . . . Mark Koegler : The reason I get a kick out of that is that whole thing , as you well know, kind of grew in stages . The school did their thing and then when this building started taking shape we go the bright idea let ' s turn that into more of a park with the hockey rinks . Okay, let ' s put a plan together and Don, at the time , you know how Don is , we don ' t need a plan. He had a guy out there on a P-9 , back and forth. . . That ' s indictive of the way that whole thing just kind of grew and it probably looks like that. It serves a purpose . Mady: We could probably put in two more fields up there with a plan . They could probably accomplish a lot of things out there and handle a lot very nicely. Sietsema : I think that in there somewhere we had money to do a master plan so we could have a picture that we can look at when we' re talking about it . Boyt : It ' s not listed . Sietsema : What would it cost to do a layout of what is existing and put the boundaries on paper so that we have a plan? Mark Koegler : The problem I ' ll have with that is the same problem you have with Greenwood Shores in that we don' t have any information to go from. There is no topography. There are no good boundaries so it depends on how far you are willing to go with that . The site obviously, for the most part is flat with the exception of some of the contouring _ that was done around the rinks so I would think we would need some field shots just to verify the grades . Sietsema : So it needs to be surveyed then? Mark Koegler : I wouldn ' t say surveyed per se. We could just take a few elevations out there and get some distances so it ' s probably in the normal . . . Sietsema : The $2 , 000 . 00 range? Do you want to put something like that in the 1989 Capital Improvement Program? Mady: I think we need to . Sietsema : From a staff ' s standpoint , when we come up and talk about these different things in parks , it ' s nice to go to the file and say this is the boundaries and this is what we have here . I 'm trying to work toward getting that on each one of the parks . Boyt : It sounds pretty responsible . It sounds like the right thing to do. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 32 Mady: By doing that , we need to include all the area including like where the Fire Hall is , the school , right from Laredo to Kerber . Whatever this street is now that we created . Mark Koegler : Coulter? Mady: From Coulter all the way over to Santa Vera . Probably that whole area because there' s that whole approximately, what I think is about . . . That might be a nice addition . I know we are looking at the tennis courts, they' re going to be redone in the coming couple years . Sietsema : Again , we don ' t have the money in the 1988 budget to do that but it would be something that would be put in the 1989 budget . Mady: But that ' s something I want everbody to be aware of that that ' s what I 'm looking forward to is starting to redesign some things . With Kerber being redesigned and trails coming in . — Mark Koegler : I don' t know if you noticed the plans tonight but they are talking improvements on the school property. Mady: They' re talking an 8 foot bituminous walkway. I 'm a little leary of doing that right now because I think we need a plan out there before we start throwing some more asphalt out there. We need to know where — we ' re going . I don ' t think what we' ve got there is good . It ' s functions right now but as the City grows , we need to find out from the school board if they' re going to expand the school . — Boyt : They won ' t be. . . They' re so poor . . . Sietsema : At my high school we have 8 temporaries that have been there — since way before I graduated which was 10 years ago. There was only four when I was there and now there ' s 8 and we just built a new school that was completed 3 years ago and they' re going to have 2 new temporaries out — there next year . Mark Koegler : They' re doing a fairly extensive amount of grading back _ there. Just for your information, it goes basically around the tennis court area and then ties into that outlot trail connection over on Chippewa Trail . Mady: Who designed that? We didn ' t even . . . Sietsema : The school district was involved with that . The trail that ' s in here . Mark Koegler : Where the tennis courts are there in the middle , Kerber _ over here , all the shaded area is new. They will putting in thi.s trail . Robinson : Where are the tennis courts? Mark Koegler : Right over here . Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 33 Sietsema : Outlot A or whatever it is . Councilman Johnson: That' s Outlot B. Sue was talking about the dirt being on it . Sietsema : That ' s already paved . Councilman Johnson : They had to pave it to bring the kids in the school . The kids are already starting to use it. There are a lot of kids in Chan Vista . That ' s a lot of asphalt. Boyt : I don ' t think that ' s going to interfere with what we want to do. Councilman Johnson: If you extended this way right here, you could put a full ballfield into here if you got some more territory right there . Mady: Any kid that I 'm looking at, to me that tennis court . . . Schroers : Mark, when you guys look at a development or something , in your original plan or sometime before it gets to the point where it ' s just too late , is maintenance taken into consideration . An area that ' s going to need to be mowed . Do you look at it as in terms of the grade is not too steep so they can run the mower on it? Mark Koegler : Generally yes. It depends on the parameters of the project . If it ' s a private residential development and a homeowners association kind of thing , certainly that ' s a concern that usually goes into the covenants . If somebody has to maintain that , we want to make sure that it ' s maintainable . If it a municipal project , we usually work with the maintenance people to see what areas they want to maintain and what areas will just be allowed to maybe go natural or be planted . Schroers : The reason I ask , we have a considerable ongoing development projects and I don ' t think that is even taken into consideration and we have some hillsides immediately adjacent to entrances where we know that they' re going to want to be manicured and highly maintained and they don' t make lawn mowers to go up those hills . REVISED 5 YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. Mady moved, Boyt seconded to table the Revised 5 Year Capital Improvement Program. All voted in favor and the motion carried . 1989 LAWCON GRANT APPLICATIONS . Sietsema : LAWCON grants applications will be due in early July. Generally we don' t usually get this much time to prepare our applications but every minute is needed so I want to get your ideas and it has to be approved by Council what we actually submit . If there are new projects they take a lot of time to prepare . Mark gets involved so it looks like Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 34 a nice package when we present it . The Lake Susan Park entrance road and — boat access is something that was done last year so it' s just a new cover letter and beefing it up so it will earn more points . The Lake Lucy boat access , I put a question mark by there because I don ' t know how much it ' s _ going to cost . I don ' t know if there ' s land available that we can acquire. I don ' t know if it' s possible to put a boat access on the lake . I 'm setting up a meeting with the Watershed District and with DNR to review the whole lake and get DNR' s , what they accept as a standard, as an approved boat access for this whole chain of lakes clean-up project and where they would suggest that we put it in. I don ' t know that the channel between Lake Ann and Lake Lucy is definitely not possible but it looks pretty slim. Because of the water elevation we may be draining Lake Lucy into Lake Ann . There may be a possibility that DNR would accept a portage type situation but if we do that they may require that we make that into a non-motorized lake . I don ' t know all those things yet . I will be meeting with those people within the next week to week and a half to get that firmed up and I can bring that back to you. We can still work on that later . The Lake Susan Park, if you recall in the — last year and a half we acquire 6 to 8 acres adjacent to Lake Susan Park . It would be the area from the current boundary to where Lake Drive East will be put in. We didn' t want to have industrial between the park and _ the road . There is a possibility that we could use that for more active uses so that was something that is a possibility for the athletic type of grant . Boyt : How many. . .could we put? Sietsema: Not more than two . Boyt : I was thinking about , since there ' s such a need , I don ' t know how much that affects . . . Sietsema : There is a lot of need there but the intent of Lake Susan Park is to serve the industrial park. So if we put a ballfield there, I was thinking and this is just my own concept of what I ' ve been thinking all — along , is a practice field for the industrial leagues . For the adult leagues because we don ' t have extra fields for anybody to practice on but Little League is definitely possible too . Also , maybe a fitness Vita _ Trail or whatever those are called , that they could do on their noon hour . There ' s also going to be a lot of trails that connect in that you can get from the business park over to Chan Estates and different areas once we have all our trails connections . That was a possibility. — Submitting a grant to acquire the land in the southern area so we wouldn ' t have to necessarily use all of our $300, 000. 00 or maybe get a bigger chunk . Typically you don ' t get a grant for more than $40 , 000. 00 -- from the athletic type grant . The next one was Herman Field . It looks like our access road will be off of Forest Avenue so we do have to acquire the easement there and get in there and make a development . _ Again , that project was put on hold to see what the development on TH 7 and TH 41 was going to do. One of the things we'd like to do is to submit a smaller grant that would be a $30 , 000. 00 to $40, 000. 00 project . Don ' s thinking is that maybe to have a $20, 000. 00 that hasn ' t been spent — and they' ll put it towards a small project . I don' t know if in reality Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 35 that ' s the case or not because they really go by the point system. Especially after last year when we had a $300, 000. 00 project that they granted us $12 , 000. 00 for . Boyt : Have you found a project for that? Sietsema : I guess the Herman Field or the Lake Susan Park. Again, these are ballpark figures that I have put in here . I don ' t want to exclude the possibility of our Lake Ann park shelter that we have applied for continuously. That continues to score quite high. Just hovers underneath the approved projects so if we can beef that up with more water uses and more mutli-purpose type uses , that may be approved eventually too. Robinson : Is the park shelter , are you saying . . . Sietsema: I neglected to put it on . It ' s always in my head and I just didn ' t get it typed . I think that we should continue to apply for that . Robinson: The $1,000. 00 range is that? Sietsema : That ' s $100 , 000 . 00. The boat access , the Lake Susan boat access one scored very high last year too and I think if we include a fishing pier and beef up the trails and the multi-purpose uses there , that we may have a good chance with that one too . Especially if we show how all the trails in that area that we have acquired so they will be ` going with the Lake Susan Hills West subdivision . We got the rest of the west side of Lake Susan . The trail along that side of the lake so that may give us some more points . The other thing is the community support , letters , give us a lot of points too . But anytime you increase the amount of use that you can have on the water . Increase the different types of uses . Increase the different more seasonal uses , you score more points . Mady: Do you need a motion on that? Sietsema : I don' t know if we want to do all of these. I need some direction as to which ones to approve. I don' t know that we should go with more than four . Typically we go with three . Especially if they' re new projects . It ' s costly to prepare the application and what not if it' s a new project but again, the Lake Ann Park one with the park shelter , that one ' s no cost . Lake Susan Park boat access and entrance road, that would be minimal cost to do that one . I would definitely say we should go with those two . Robinson : I ' d say the Lake Susan Park , that fitness area-ballfields , that ' s your $30, 000. 00 to $50, 000. 00 one? That ' s your low cost one? Sietsema : Yes , or Herman Field too . Mady: I could see putting both of those in . I 'm not sure about southern Chanhassen one because we just don' t have any information for that . Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 36 Sietsema : Yes , that one would be pretty tough to get the information in — a month. Mady: And your Lake Lucy boat access , until we get some definitive information. Sietsema : That one ' s really iffy but I think it ' s really key. I think if there may be a possibility that they would beef up some points on that — one because this million dollar project depends on it . I don ' t know if LAWCON gives a rip or not if we improve our water quality. Mady: I can see throwing that in there. Sietsema : I can bring that one back to you because I 'm not going to know anything for about another week and a half to two weeks anyway so I can — bring that one back to you. Mady: Are you including canoe racks on any of the lake ones? — Sietsema : No , we don' t have canoe racks on any of them. Mady: I can see the City getting into the business of renting canoe rack space. Sietsema : On the Lake Ann Park shelter , that had a boat rental . — Mady : That had boat rental but I can see us some of what Minneapolis does on their lakes . Putting two canoe racks and renting out space . — Hoffman: They have specific items , specific facilities if this is included . It scores a point . If a canoe rack is not in their repetoire , then it doesn' t even matter . Sietsema : I think that I included some of the things that they look highly on. — Schroers : Just a brief comment . I know that rental facilities are another taxing situation on maintenance. I don ' t care what it is , if — it ' s a canoe rack or whatever , but it is definitely a maintenance item. It ' s something that the maintenance is going to, at one point in time , have to spend some time and money on . That ' s something that we want to keep in mind . — LAKE ANN PARK DEVELOPMENT , VERBAL REPORT. — This item was tabled . APPROVE PURCHASE OF TOTLOT EQUIPMENT . Sietsema : These were all projects that were approved in the budget last — night at the City Council . This first one is for Lake Ann Park . If you Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 37 recall , we needed the totlot equipment acquisition for up in the ballfield area but we didn't want to approve the totlot equipment at the beach area and remove what is existing . There are two structures down there that have, we would be taking both of those and putting in this that would have swings on both sides , a slide off of this side with the four platforms and then this would be a chain ladder here . It ' s got most of the stuff that was there with the school . This is $5 , 000. 00. Robinson : We ' re talking Lake Ann? Sietsema : Yes , this is Lake Ann down at the beach. This includes the redwood board enclosed around it with the peat gravel in the middle and then that would be equipment in that area . We had the representative go out with Dale and make sure that there' s enough room between the trail and the trees that it will fit in there without having to cut any trees down or move the trail . That is slightly over budget but because the one at Chan Estates is slightly under , the bottom line is that it ' s within the budget . Lynch : Any leftover cast away playground equipment you have, I need . If Dale wants me to go out and do some work to save it , unless they' re just going to drive a bobcat over it and crunch it out . We need some for one of the scout camps for the family area . Sietsema : This one is for Chanhassen Estates replacing the old broken up equipment with equipment that ' s there . We' re taking out the teeter totter and the merry-go-round . Boyt : Are there any swingsets? Sietsema : There are a lot of swings . This will be putting in a tunnel slide, chain ladder , and tire swing . This would also enclose the area where the existing horizontal bars are so that includes . . . This one is Greenwood Shores . Robinson : I 'd like to wait and see what happens . If we go through that we' re not going to put any parking up there, we sure as hell aren ' t going to spend money on a totlot are we? Schroers : They have already indicated the fact that along with the parking they would not like to see totlot so that ' s going to another whole issue . Mady: Our budget has already been approved . This i.s money we ' ve already been allowed to spend . It doesn ' t have to go to the Council . Boyt : It doesn ' t have to go to the neighbors either . Mady: Neighbors either . Sietsema : I don ' t know that they' re against totlot . It means they have to have parking to have a totlot. Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 38 Lynch : Or that means an additional outside neighborhood draw. - Schroers : They are basically against any development at Greenwood Shores . Boyt : That ' s just some of the people . There are other people in the neighborhood . Mady : There were a couple of people who wrote letters to the City saying they were in favor of parking . Sietsema : So do you want to proceed with this one then? Mady: Sure. Robinson : I will disagree with that until we find out . I don ' t think we should spend any money out there if we ' re not going to have parking in. Mady: The only thing that will prevent us from putting parking in is if this board told Lori not to put parking in. The Council is not going to be reviewing this any further . — Sietsema : They will be looking at the parking . Mady: The parking budget ' s already been approved . Sietsema : They' ll still review it. The interpretation was that they wanted to review it after a year . They approved it in the budget but that doesn ' t mean that they necessarily, I would never go out there and put parking in there without it going to Council first . Boyt: So we do need to wait on this until the parking is approved . Schroers : Let ' s just deal with this contingent on if we get our parking . Mady: Approve it contingent on parking going in . Sietsema : This is the four platforms going up to and then another one with a chain ladder , swi.ngset , slide . There' s a hanging bar here . There ' s a fire pole . At any rate , within this yellow line indicates what ' s there and that is within the budget or very close to it . It ' s only $317 . 00 over budget and this would be $1 , 700 . 00 more at Phase 2 . - Also included in the budget was a boardwalk for North Lotus Lake that would go out into the marshland . Out into the open water . What they have is what they call a superdeck. It' s this plastic material that — floats on the water . There ' s no maintenance. They leave it in all winter long . It can be chewed down a little bit but it won ' t get cut through . Schroers : What is the life expectancy and the cost? Sietsema : It' s expensive but it lasts forever . Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24, 1988 - Page 39 Schroers : They give you something in writing that says it lasts forever or they will replace it? Sietsema : 15 years I think is what they have. Lynch: Lifetime guarantee. Sietsema : And it comes in beige, green and white . Lynch: What ' s the width on it? Sietsema : It can go almost as wide as you want . Boyt: How many feet can we afford this year? Sietsema: I think 100. I don ' t remember what the cost per section is and I apologize for that. I was going to look it up before I came down but I remember when we figured it out , it was about 100 feet that we could afford . What I don' t know is how many feet it is out to the water . I don ' t expect you to make a decision on this tonight . It ' s just that I wanted to show it to you. What could potentially happen like is in that last page there, is having a fishing pier at the end of that out into Lotus Lake. Lynch : A fishing pier better be a floater too . You could drive posts to China. Sietsema : I need an action on whether you want me to buy this equipment or not. To order it. Mady: I ' ll make a motion that staff go ahead with the plans to buy the equipment as shown on the budget contingent on the Greenwood Shores piece of equipment , that that be contingent on the parking area being approved . We are not holding the play structure over the heads of anyone. We ' re just simple realizing that Council will not approve spending money in a park area that is not being allowed to utilize for the entire public . Boyt : We could order it at any rate and then just put it in another park if Greenwood Shores isn' t approved. Even two. Hoffman : Lake Ann . Boyt : Yes , Lake Ann could use another one . Hoffman: By the ballfield . Boyt : Or down at the beach where there ' s a picnic area . There ' s lots of kids. Mady: That ' s my motion . It includes the play decking too . Sietsema : Do you want to buy that right away? Do you want to order that or do you want to wait on that to see how many feet we' re going to need Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 40 utlimately? I 'd hate to just go halfway out and then stop. — Lynch: I don ' t want to be the guy who has to go measure. Mady: I don ' t see any problem with us buying 100 feet of it . If we need 200, next year we can buy the second hundred . Schroers : We don ' t want to install half of it . — Sietsema : What color do you want? The green or the brown or the beige? Lynch: Sand, tan or green? Sietsema : I like the green personally. Mady: In the winter and in the late fall , green is going to look terrible . Sietsema : But it will at least be seen in the winter so the snowmobilers don' t . . . Lynch : You don ' t want it to match the reeds so well that people with some vision problems will walk right off the edge. My mother has only 20o vision and she does things you don ' t realize until you have a family member like that, what a hazard some things are. She walks into glass — doors that don ' t have a safety line . Mady: We ' re looking at green I guess . — Mady moved , Robinson seconded to direct staff to order the equipment as shown on the budget contingent on the Greenwood Shores parking area being approved . Also , ordering 100 feet of green superdeck. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mady: Were there any other items Lori that you needed to have? I think we've got people signed up long enough that we can handle the Council meetings . — Sietsema : Yes . Robinson : Can all this wait for two weeks? — Sietsema : Yes . Schroers : I have one thing . On our next agenda I would like that we add, in writing to our agenda that we' re going to look at additional maintenance personnel and invite Dale to the meeting and see what it is that he feels that he needs. Right now the only thing he feels that he can do is just keep up with the mowing . Sietsema : I don' t have an argument with that but it' s not really our jurisdiction . Park maintenance is under engineering . Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 41 Boyt : Maybe you can make the Council aware of it . Mady: What Larry is saying , we want to look at it and we' re not getting done what we want to get done so we need a recommendation that the Council review their budget next year , maybe we can get a little help so we can get some things accomplished instead of waiting until September to do park improvements which aren' t going to get used for 9 months. Maybe to build them in April . Schroers : We may want to bring in somebody on line who can tune into what ' s happening before we get into all this stuff . All this stuff comes on line at one time , there' s going to be a lot of work to do . There' s seems to be, at least a slow down on the shelter at Lake Ann. Nothing ' s going on with that . Sietsema : I 'm glad you brought that up . I did want to update you on that . I called the Legion and asked them if the City could take it over and I ' ve contacted two carpenters . They' re going to submit quotes by the end of the week and we ' re just going to have them go out and finish it . Mady: I thought they were going to have it through at the end of the month. I get a lot of comments out there on Wednesday nights . Sietsema : The Legion defies procrastination . Don ' t ask me. I 've had so many deadlines from them. Two years ago it was going to be Memorial Day. Then it was going to be the 4th of July. Then it was going to be Labor Day and then it was going to be the next Memorial Day. This has been going on for three years . I did contact them. I think the shakes are on now. Mady: They had them on one side . Sietsema : They had them on partially the other day but I don ' t know if they' re completely done. Schroers : I hadn ' t noticed that anything had been done lately. Sietsema : I will update you the next time on who we contact to finish it and what their time line is . Lynch : One other thing . My favorite pet peeve , the trail over at Carver where there' s sand and all that good stuff . I 'm sorry I missed the meeting and I mentioned to Jim to have it looked at . I 'm getting senile , I don' t remember real well but I 'm certain that floating docks , sailboat moorings and such items were handled by the Lake Study Commission because I was on that for 3 years . The guy has to have a permit from the City to have a stationary floating overnight anything . Sietsema : I checked the park ordinance and the water surface useage ordinance and I called Roger and I called the DNR and I called the County and no, they can not have a dock and no , they can not moor boats overnight but there' s nothing in there that says that you can not have a Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 42 raft . There ' s nothing that prohibits anybody from putting a raft in the — water and taking it out in front of your house and leaving it there. As long as it ' s so many feet out , so many feet deep, so many feet high, has reflective whatever and I think they need a permit from the County. _ Lynch : I could park one in the channel . Sietsema : It can ' t be more than 100 feet out. You can put it anywhere. — Lynch : The channel is certainly 100 feet across . . . . right now saying , how come that ' s out there? We were told we couldn' t have one. — Sietsema : Beachlots , under the beachlot ordinance there ' s something different. Lynch : The lake ' s the lake you ' re telling me . Sietsema : But under the beachlot ordinance there is but because this is — not a beachlot , it ' s different . Lynch : Once you get on the lake , you ' re telling me you can ' t tell — anybody where they put anything as long as they' re so far out, so deep and has reflectors on it . Sietsema : Maybe I spoke wrong . You can get it out in front of the park and you can put it out in front of private property. I think the only place you can ' t put it is beachlots . Hoffman : No difference . The beachlot ends at the shoreline of the lake . Lynch: Once you get in the water . . . Sietsema : All I 'm saying is it ' s lack of verbage of in other ordinances and what we have to do is include the definition of a raft . Robinson : I think we better leave it unclear . Lynch: We ' re going to have some more line up out there. Now, right now — there ' s the same rowboat , the same canoe plus a new canoe . A brand new shiny canoe with a brand new shiny chain laying down there. Sietsema : Where? - Lynch : On the trail right where they always were . Sietsema : South of the old boat access? Hoffman : We had a person call from Greenwood Shores wanting to take his — canoe down there and chain it on park property. He didn ' t see why that was such a bad idea . Dick Lang , then he asked about the boats that are moored out there at this time. There ' s the paddle boat that' s always moored out there and the sailboat or something that they moor out in front of Greenwood Shores . Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 43 Lynch : Now, on property north of the old boat landing , there ' s 3 or 4 boats overturned on that and there ' s one sailboat moored right off of it. One thing I meant to say too when I read the Minutes of last week , I was in on putting the original trail in. The amount of sand that was in that spot was minimal then and we did the whole trail through there . If you walk the trail now, the trail stops there because nobody in their right mind is going to walk through 18 inches of loose sand to get to the other side so the other side is totally grown up now. That trail was built and shipped all the way down to the boat landing from the beach . Somewhere underneath there was a woodchip trail . Sietsema : I have that on the agenda and I ' ll put it back on because you didn' t want to get into it tonight but I ' ll put it back on for the next meeting . I need clear direction on where you want me to go with this . Are we going to have Carver Beach wars? Are we going to have ordinance amendments? Mady: We need to discuss it . Lynch: I 'd like to see those boats taken out of there. Sietsema : I will contact Scott Harr . Lynch : One' s got a Iowa registration on it and one' s got an 1986 Minnesota registration , the other has no registration . Boyt : Maybe this is one of those things that we need to talk to Public Safety about when we get together with them. Lynch: Perhaps , but if the neighborhood is made aware, several people get fined $50 . 00, the boats aren ' t going to be down there anymore. Otherwise, you ' re going to tell them to take them out and they' ll say okay, take them home for a couple of weeks , long enough for you to go check and then they' re going to go right back down hill . Sietsema : That ' s pretty much what happened . Hoffman: The day after our previous meeting , after our walk down there , I did write a note to Public Safety listing the license plates and the description of the boats down there so they were made aware of it at that time . Robinson : Did they do anything? Hoffman : I didn ' t follow up on it . I ' ve not asked them since that time . Sietsema : I ' ll talk to Scott tomorrow and find out . Mady: We also need to talk to Public Safety concerning , Curt mentioned that a boat trailer that was parked in the Bloomberg ' s new development down by Peter ' s house . Public Safety was called . The officer showed up and ticketed the boat. He put a warning ticket on it . No $50. 00 fine Park and Recreation Commission Meeting May 24 , 1988 - Page 44 ticket . That guy, who cares? He got away with it . He ' s going to get — away with it next time probably. We' ve got the ordinance. Council has looked at it and said let ' s do it . I think the Sheriff ' s got to be made aware that we want it done. They don' t have the flexibility of putting _ warnings out there . The neighborhood , every time I talk to somebody in that neighborhood , they ' re screaming about the boats on the lake. It ' s got to be done . We can ' t let the Sheriff ' s department be making those decisions for us . — Schroers : I ' ve got one question and I ' ll shut up for the rest of the night. Can anybody tell me why the trail between Lake Ann and Greenwood _ Shores has chains between the entrances? Sietsema : Because they didn' t hold shut. What happened was they had designed them so that they would hold , they locked in that position so — you could walk between the two and someone came with a car and pushed them open so they just flopped . The only way you could keep it closed was to chain them then. — Schroers : So now you have to go around to get on the trail? Robinson moved , Lynch seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned . Submitted by Lori Sietsema Park and Rec Coordinator — Prepared by Nann Opheim MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MAY 19 , 1988 Meeting called to order at 7 : 00 p.m. by Chairman Wing. Members Present: Takkunen, vonLorenz , Hamilton, Bernhjelm, Blechta, Wenzlaff , Wing, Castleberry, Gregory Staff Absent: Directors Chaffee and Harr Visitors : Mary Durban, Villager MINUTES: A motion was made by Takkunen and seconded by Blechta to approve the minutes of the last meeting as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF' S DEPARTMENT: Chief Deputy Castleberry was present and discussed his personal history and background, and reviewed his experience in the City and with the Sheriff' s Department for the new PAC members present. He also discussed the issue of local versus contract policing. He expressed his viewpoint on both issues and how each related to the city and its future. 1988 Police Contract: Castleberry recently met city staff to discuss the 1988 police contract. He stated that a general agreement to purchase 24 hours of patrol in 1988 was agreed upon. _ This will give the city 24 hours of dedicated patrol and three power shifts , i .e. a second car three times weekly. These addi- tional hours will not be pro-active by any means . The new CSO' s and staff may have to fill in during peak periods . Wenzlaff inquired into the hourly breakdown of calls . These issues were discussed as such and the call load created by Filly' s , summer versus winter, radar runs, etc. , were discussed. Jim felt the deputies have little time to "visit" . 1987 cost estimates were short. The City will owe approximately $ . 53 per hour additional at years end or about $4 , 062 additional dollars . 1988 contract costs are expected to rise 4% over 1987 . (Editor' s review: 1987 estimated hourly rate was $29. 55 per hour at a contract rate of 21 hours . Actual hourly rate now deter- - mined to be $30. 08 or a shortfall of $4,062 owed on the 1987 police contract. Estimated hourly rate for 1988 is an additional 4% or $31. 28 for an estimated contract cost of $275 , 837 . Sheriff' s Annual Report: Castleberry presented the department' s annual report for 1987 . Takkunen noted that on page 4 , 43% of investigated crime was in the east sector. Jim pointed out that the population was also. The east did not necessarily have a higher crime rate, but rather the higher density had more calls . Bernhjelm inquired into the costs and the effect of these costs incurred by the Bicek trial on the cost of the police contracts. Jim explained that there was no cost to the cities . The trial was payed by the county from "base level" monies . PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 19 , 1988 — PAGE 2 Blechta inquired into the time alloted or available for traffic, _ i .e. radar, etc. Jim stated that it varies with the deputy and his particular interest but that at the most, 30% maximum on a good day would be spent on traffic enforcement. vonLorenz noted that the present police contract generally allows for patrol only and specialized duties such as crime prevention, are not mandated duties , and as such, are not being pursued in a — pro-active manner. Jim would like to see adequate patrol which would allow for some pro-active community service work. Bill Bernhjelm felt that, to be effective, all police officers should have crime prevention training. Castleberry noted that the county had a way to go in that regard. Takkunen brought to Castleberry' s attention her numerous phone — complaints and her continuing concern for hunting and/or gun shots occurring in seemingly close proximity to her house. Jim will follow up as he can. CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT Recruitment: Chief Gregory stated that there as been some pay — off for the efforts expended. The department is up to 31 mem- bers . Six have applied in the past 6 months . There is a con- tinued need for members and therefore recruitment efforts . — Referendum Issues: Gregory discussed the referendum issues, i .e. the status of the new building and the aerial truck. The _ building is planned for a fall start and the exterior will be up prior to winter. The aerial truck is being speced at this time. Three manufacturers are the front runners with a rear mounted ladder the main consideration. — Monthly Report: A new monthly report form is in use and breaks down the department' s activities. 29 calls were noted for April with rescue dominating as usual . Hamilton noted that the depart- ment has become more of a rescue squad than a fire department. Takkunen inquired into the daytime manpower levels . Dale stated that it varied from 5 to 15 with mutual aid utilized quite often on day fire calls . Gregory discussed fire department pay rates per call , training, — and retirement benefits for the benefit of new commission members . He also noted that on busy nights , the Dinner Theatre parking is blocking fire lanes and fire access to the building. Better _ patrol and enforcement is needed. CSO UPDATE: Wing noted that he had reviewed the top three can- didates for the positions offered. Two will be hired part-time — and should begin soon. An additional vehicle is planned. V ' PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 19, 1988 PAGE 3 COMMUNITY SURVEY: A survey of the community to determine public safety needs and desired service levels was discussed. Types of surveys (phone/mail) were reviewed. The validity of such infor- mation was considered. Blechta felt a survey could be a useful tool and shows our interest. Bernhjelm noted Jim Chaffee' s packet and Item 1 which suggests a survey of the community prior to future planning. Hamilton suggested that the present com- mission represents the community quite well and these decisions are the responsibility of the commission. Wing suggested this item be tabled until the next meeting when Chaffee can discuss his goals for such a survey. STAFF PRIORITIES: Wing discussed the recent staff retreat and the priority list which was a result of this weekend. Wing will include the necessary information in the next packet and will place this item on the next agenda. NEAR MOUNTAIN BLVD/PLEASANT VIEW ROAD: At Chaffee' s request, the commission reviewed the intersection and resultant problem at the named intersection. The commission found itself in agreement and supporting the local residents and, as such, in support of the staff' s position suggesting the corner be realigned. Wing offered the following motion. Motion by Wing that the Public Safety Commission, after review of the problems associated with the intersection of Near Mountain Blvd. and Pleasant View Road, feels that a design problem exists and was overlooked during construction. The commission thereby supports the local residents and staff in their contention that this intersection be realigned to allow right turns . The rebuilding of this intersection is supported by this commission. The commission would further recommend the city approach the contractor ( s ) involved to assist the city in defraying costs . Motion seconded by Takkunen and passed unanimously. WARNING SIREN AT MINNEWASHTA REGIONAL PARK: Takkunen inquired if Chaffee had contacted the county regarding inclusion of a warning siren in their new construction at Minnewashta Regional Park. vonLorenz will follow up on this item and report back to the com- mission. City sirens were discussed and the new members brought up to date on the history and the actions of the commission. Wing asked Bernhjelm his opinion of these sirens and their use in Edina. Bill noted that warning sirens are expensive and subject to failure and never provide 100% coverage. Wenzlaff suggested that sirens be on any survey the commission might use. _ WORKSHOP: A large portion of the evening was spent reviewing the history and present status of public safety issues in the City. The police contract, local issues , ambulance service, fire department, costs , etc. , were discussed and reviewed. The history of the contract system, the commission , etc. were reviewed. Hamilton, Wing, Takkunen and vonLorenz all presented PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES _ MAY 19 , 1988 PAGE 4 their opinions of the status , needs and future of various public safety issues in the city. Alternatives and costs relating to the present contract system were discussed. Wenzlaff questioned — the large dollar discrepancy between the present police contract and the costs of city owned police departments . Castleberry explained that base level was the service the city could expect solely through county tax dollars . Takkunen noted that a signi- ficant item in the contract' s success was the city' s exercising its half of the contract making it a true contract. FILM: The commission viewed a film titled "The Hollywood Nightclub Fire" which killed 165 people and caused a review of existing fire codes nation-wide . The point of the film was to — emphasize the importance of strict fire code enforcement and the outcome which may occur without such adherence to code. The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 50 p.m. — The next meeting will be one week late - June 23 , 1988 at 7 : 00 p .m. , tentative location at the Main Fire Station . The agenda — will include: 1 . Community Survey 2 . Staff priorities — 3 . City parks , patrol, and the Park and Recreation Commission 4 . Siren , Minnewashta Regional Park — 5 . CSO Update, Job Definitions Submitted by: Richard Wing, Chairman 5- C I TY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA.55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM _. TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Gary Warren , City Engineer • DATE: June 9 , 1988 4.- /3 SUBJ: Award of Bids, Bluff Creek Drive Roadway Improvements File No. 80-5 On May 17 , 1988 , bids were received for the Bluff Creek Drive Roadway Improvement Project. As summarized in the attached letter from William R. Engelhardt & Associates dated June 3 , 1988 , six bids were received and appear very competetive which also reflects a good understanding of the project requirements . The proposing contractors all have strong reputations for doing paving work of this nature. The low bidder , Midwest Asphalt Corporation , has provided an estimated base bid of $595 , 901 . 50 ( see Attachment No. 2) . An alternate was also bid with the pro- ject which called for concrete curb instead of bituminous curb. This would add $14 , 079 . 00 to the low base bid for a total bid of $609 , 980 . 50. The $4. 15 per foot unit price quoted by Midwest the contractor is very competitive for concrete curbing , especially in light of the long-term maintenance benefits associated with concrete versus bituminous curbing ( the enclosed brochure on "Why Curb And Gutter?" may be of interest) . I would therefore recom- mend that the alternate be accepted. On May 4, 1988 , the City received formal notification of plan approval from MnDOT for the project (Attachment No. 3 ) . Likewise, we have had good success in obtaining easements on the project in that all necessary easements have been acquired at minimal cost. The contractor is anxious to proceed with construction of the project and with the Council award of contract this evening we should finally be able to proceed with this long-awaited project which first was contemplated back in the early ' 70s. Unfortunately , it appears that maybe our good bidding climate has run out , at least for the moment. I am sure you recall the favorable bids we have received on projects such as the Public Works Garage which was approximately $100 ,000 underneath the archi- tect ' s estimate, Kerber Boulevard improvements which was approxi- Don Ashworth _ June 9 , 1988 Page 2 mately $35 ,000 under estimate and, of course, our Phase I downtown redevelopment project which was $290 , 400 underneath the estimate. The low bid with concrete curb and gutter alternate is — approximately 19% over the engineer ' s pre-bid estimate or an additional $125 ,400 . This is calculated utilizing a 30% overhead and administrative markup. Two factors have impacted costs on this project; both relate to the preservation of trees and conservation issues and the protec- tion of neighborhood property. The first issue which has — increased costs from the pre-bid estimate is MnDOT ' s requirement that a 40-foot clear zone be provided on either side of cen- terline for any roadway without curb and gutter. The original design anticipated doing a rural section from Hesse Farm Road north to County Road 14. Since this section would necessitate a 40-foot clear zone, a number of trees and other obstructions in the clear zone would need to be removed. This would especially — impact the Hesse Farm property in which tree removal was a sen- sitive issue in the easement negotiations . The alternative cho- sen was to include curb and gutter and a 28-foot urban section — roadway versus the original 24-foot rural section. The second cost factor which has been discussed previously during _ plan and specification authorization is the necessity for a concrete-crib retaining wall along the southeastern slope of this roadway area. Approximately 6 ,500 square feet of retaining wall is necessary to deal with the severe side slopes , tree cover and — drainage issues along the area near the Bed and Breakfast and the Gilbertson property (see attached plan excerpt ) . The concrete crib retaining wall including earth fill is bid at approximately — $227 , 700 . Bids for this item ranged from $196 ,500 up to $263 , 900 . Other retaining wall construction types were con- sidered for this roadway , however , it was felt that the apparent 10 % savings in construction costs could lead to unreasonable compromises in long-term integrity of the wall for this applica- tion. The overall cost impact to the local assessment roll and utiliza- tion of State Aid funds based conservatively on no future increases of State Aid allotments is as follows: — Bluff Creek Drive construction cost plus 30% $ 793,000 Assessable portion ( 20%) -158, 600 Balance from State Aid 634, 400 Less 1988 unencumbered State Aid balance -294, 685 Future year ' s State Aid encumberance 339 , 715 Less 1989 State Aid (assume equal to 1988 ) -248 , 449 Balance from 1990 State Aid Allotment $ 91 , 266 Don Ashworth June 9 , 1988 _ Page 3 Assessment Impact $158 ,600 divided by 66 units = $2 , 403 per unit versus $1 ,622 per unit in the feasibility (i .e. 48% more) versus $2 , 023 per unit pre-bid estimate ( i . e. 19% more) . It should be kept in mind that this proposal still only calls for the local resi- dents picking up 20% of the project costs. Many residents are aware of these anticipated increases as a result of the easement negotiation process . While no one likes to see increases in costs , the only alter- - native available is to go forward with the clear zone criteria and eliminate the concrete crib retaining wall and instead do extensive side slope grading and tree removal along this roadway. In some cases , grading would be extended well into the neigh- boring properties ' front yards and in the case of the retaining wall we would be talking about tree removal and grading over several acres of land. The Gilbertson 4-acre parcel, which recently received a building permit , in particular would be severely impacted. It is therefore my recommendation that the City Council award the Bluff Creek Drive Roadway Improvement Project , No. 80-5, to Midwest Asphalt Corporation of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, including the alternate bid for concrete curb and gutter for a total award of $609 , 980 . 50 . Attachments 1. Letter from Bill Engelhardt & Associates dated June 3 , 1988 . 2 . Midwest Asphalt Corporation Bid Proposal. 3 . May 3 , 1988 letter from MnDOT. 4. Plan Excerpt . 5 . March 9 , 1988 Staff Memorandum. 6 . Brochure - "Why Curb And Gutter?" , American Public Works Assoc. WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES, INC. 1107 HAZELT!NE BOULEVARD CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 ,6121 448-8838 June 3 , 1988 City of Chanhassen c/o Mr . Gary Warren — 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen , MN . 55317 RE: Bluff Creek Improvements Honorable Mayor and City Council Members : Enclosed is a Tabulation of Bids which were received May 17 , — 1988 , for the above named project . Six bids were received ranging from a low base bid of $595 , 901 . 50 to a high base bid of $703 , 815 . 85 . The base bid received included concrete curb from — Hesse Farm Road south to State Highway #212 , and bituminous curb from Hesse Farm Road north to County Road #14 . An alternate bid for concrete curb and gutter in lieu of bituminous curb for the entire project was also received . The alternate curb bid ranged from $609 , 980 . 50 to a high bid of $733 , 085. 35 . This means the cost for the concrete curb on the entire project will be an additional $14 , 079 . 00 to the base bid of $595 , 901 . 50 . — The low bidder is Midwest Asphalt , Inc . They submitted the low bid for both the base bid and alternate bid . We have worked with this contractor on several projects and find their work to be satisfactory . They have also completed and performed well on several projects throughout the City of Chanhassen and have an excellent reputation throughout the metropolitan area. — The Engineer ' s Estimate for this project was $55 , 000 . 00 . The estimate included costs for modification required by MnDot — State Aid engineers during their plan approval process . State funding was approved for the entire project . In other words , all work contained on this project , including all storm sewer work , will qualify for State Aid funds . The State engineers determined — that all of the storm sewer work qualified for funding due to the steep slopes and severe erosion problems . This is highly unusual for an entire project to qualify for funding . — We recommend a contract be awarded to the low bidder , Midwest Asphalt , Inc . The City Council has the option of awarding the base bid of $595 , 901 . 50 or the alternate low bid of $609 , 980 . 50 . Our recommendation is to award the alternate low 4-1 City of Chanhassen c/o Mr . Gary Warren June 3 , 1988 Page 2 bid . This recommendation is based on previous experience with , and , problems that can occur from a maintenance stand point for bituminous curb . Again , the alternate bid does increase the cost of the project by $14 , 079 . 00 . Very truly yours , WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES , INC. William R. Engelhardt WRE/ las encl . ( 1 ) TABULATION OF BIDS - — BLUFF CREEK DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS M. S .A. S . PROJECT NO. : 194-104-01 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA — TOTAL ESTIMATI ESTIMATED BID/LOWEST — BASE ALTERNATE COMBINATION ( CONTRACTOR BID BOND BID BID ALTERNATES Midwest Asphalt Corporation 5% $ 595,901.50 $ 14,079.00 $ 609,980.50 Hardrives, Inc. 5% 611,632.20 13,708.50 625,340.70 * Alexander Construction 5% 618,737.41 12,226.50 630,963.91 * Preferred Paving, Inc. 5% 648,126.00 16,302.00 662,946.00 * Wm Mueller & Sons, Inc. 5% 653,463.30 20,007.00 673,470.00 * Northwest Asphalt 5% 703,815.85 29,269.50 733,085.35 — * Bid Corrections w -_ _ r REVISED PROPOSAL BLUFF CREEK DRIVE STORM SEWER, STREET CONSTRUCTION, CURB AND GUTTER M.S .A.S . PROJECT NO. : 194-104-01 — PROJECT NO. C . P. 80-05 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA DATE: May 27, 1988 City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive — Chanhassen, MN. 55317 Gentlemen : II-- The undersigned, ►Y 14 k,,QSt' �5 k&(+ ` 0 ��•• r (3 , , as bidder, proposes and agrees to furnibh all laboe, materials , equip- — went and supplies required to completely construct storm sewer, street construction, curb and gutter in accordance with the Plans and as described in the Specifications as prepared by William R. Engelhardt _ Associates , Inc . , Consulting Engineers, Chaska, Minnesota, for the following lump sum and unit prices : 2021 . 513 Mobilization ( 5% Maximum) Lump Sum $ 1 5,00O •° ROADWAY ITEM UNIT. — NO. CONTRACT ITEM UNIT OUANTITY PRICE TOTALS 0105 .609 G150 Textile Fabric S.Y. 1 , 333 $ /.00 $ /, 333''9 1803. 500 Erosion Control L.F. 6 , 085 $ 3.y° $ .10,GC‘too 2101 . 513 Clear & Grub Right-of-way Lump Sum $ 55",S00. 00 — 2104 . 501 Remove C.M. Culvert L.F. 302 $ 6.60 $ #5 0.6° ; 2105 . 501 Common Excavation C.Y. 5 , 253 $ a.so $ l3i3 a. .so • — 2105 .505 Muck Excavation C.Y. 1 ,480 $ h&c' $ 0, 36 .°° 2105 . 507 Subgrade Excavation C.Y. 500 $ a•`+' $ 1,a -S•°°. 2105 . 533 Salvaged Aggregate — (Stockpile) C.Y. 5 , 660 $ I• "S $ /O,Nl/•O° 2105 . 535 Salvaged Topsoil From stockpile C.Y. 2 , 636 $ 2'Y0 $ 6,3a6.yc 2112 . 501 Subgrade Preparation RD. STA. 70 $ $oo° $ 3,s Op.° 2130. 501 Water 1000 (M) Gal . 250 - $ /0.0° $ .25-O0.00 — 2211 . 501 Aggregate Base Cl . 5 ( 100% Crushed) Ton 16 ,415 $ L1.45 $ R3,0Y6' 2221 . 501 Aggregate Shouldering C1 . 5 — ( 100% Crushed ) Ton 50 $ ‘.Sa $ 3 •°G 4+�AxAme + ��-. REVISED PROPOSAL PAGE 2 ' ITEM UNIT _ ' NO. CONTRACT ITEM UNIT OUANTITY PRICE TOTALS 2331 . 504 Bituminous Material for Mixture Ton 165 $ /40," $ 0)-3, /00 0 2331 . 514 Base Course Mixture Ton 3 ,000 $ 6.10 $ /c, 300 c 2341 . 504 Bituminous Material for Mixture Ton 114 $ (HOP° $ /5,46C 2341 . 508 Wearing Course Mixture Ton 1 , 742 $ gas— $ /9,371 , 5( 2357 . 502 Bituminous Material , for Tack Coat Gal . 1 ,038 $ too $ /oMs.c 2411 . 507 Concrete Crib Walls S. F. 6, 484 $ jr3,O $ 02./5, 92 2422. 511 Earth Crib Filling C.Y. 1 , 250 $ //.00 $ / 3.756. ° 2531 . 501 Concrete Curb & Gutter Design B618 L.F. 5 , 931 $ Y./CS c).1{/613 . 2531 . 507 6" Concrete Driveway Apron C.Y. 76 $ 9.5.00 $ ?, aa02( 2531 . 511 7" Concrete Curb Opening C.Y— 15 $ 7640 $ / Ya1-;or 2554 . 501 Structural Plate Beam — Guardrail (Design A) L.F. 490 $ /5.co $ 1),350•` 2575 . 501 Roadside Seeding Acre 5 . 5 $ 70.00 $ 3&5 5 2575 . 502 Seed Mixture 5 Lbs . 275 $ e.2 ' $ 597.S 2575 . 505 Sodding S.Y. 14 ,000 $ /.30 $ /8-aOO-")` 2575 . 511 Mulch Material Type I Ton 11 $ /50.00 $ /650.c 2575 . 519 Disc Anchoring Acre 4. 5 $ /5,00 $ 4:7, 2535 . 501 Bituminous Curb L.F. 7 ,410 $ .2.3c $ /6.,0=9,s STORM SEWER — 2105 . 511 Common Channel Excavation C.Y. 600 $ J•5 $ 9yff.00 2501 . 515 12" R.C. Pipe Apron Ea. 5 $ .Zsl.°$ 4Yys 2501 . 515 15" R .C. Pipe Apron Ea. 4 $ 315,00$ 1,a,60.0C 2501 . 515 18" R . C . Pipe Apron Ea. 1 $ 311(,00$ 3`li .( 2501 . 515 21 " R. C. Pipe Apron Ea. 3 $ 34%. o$ /, iFta..00 2503 . 511 12" R. C . P . Sewer Cl . V L. F. 557 $ /4.as $ 9.ocl.as 2503 . 511 15" R. C. P. Sewer C l . V - L. F. 90 $ I'1.G0 $ /,S_'`/ .` ' 2503 . 511 18" R. C. P. Sewer _ Cl . V L. F. 668 $ 19.75 $ /3,304, _ 2503 . 511 21 " R . C . P . Sewer Cl . IV L. F. 413 $ 0?3,10 $ Q53'0. • ' REVISED PROPOSAL PAGE 3 ITEM UNIT . — NO. CONTRACT ITEM UNIT OUANTITY PRICE TOTALS 2503 . 511 24" R.C.P. Sewer Cl .— III L.F. 130 $ a7,3c. $ 315-9 9 00 2503 . 521 28-1/2" Span R.C. P. Arch Sewer Cl . 2A L.F. 32 $ 39.*1 $ )1�76, tst 2506 . 508 Construct Manhole w/castings, Design F Ea. 1 $ ,0$0.00 $ /,oSD .« 2506 . 508 Construct Manhole w/castings, Design F ( 6 ' D i a. ) E a. 1 $ I,'1 i.So $ 1.41'1 •SC 2506 . 508 Construct Manhole w/castings , Design G Ea. 3 $ C9?•5D $ 3,g9a.,5-C — 2506 . 509 Construct Catch Basin . . Design G Ea. 3 $ 8,a.so $ Q,677.So _ 2506 . 509 Construct Catch Basin Design 4021C - Ea. 7 $ 7 $7.5'' $ 5--,S1?•5"v 2511 . 501 Random Riprap Cl . II C.Y. 35 $ 2i.00 $ 13s.ec 2511 . 51,1 Granular Filter C.Y. 17 $ /5• $ .7-67 ?c 3226.000 Corrugated Steel Pipe, 24" L.F. 21 $ 3/•5-6 $ ‘6/•Sd 3226 .000 Corrugated Steel Pipe 12" L.F. 24 $ o2/.cb $ Spy, o, — TOTAL ESTIMATED BASE BID $ 5'9S, 90 / . SC — ALTERNATE BID - CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER, DESIGN B618 IN LIEU OF BITUMINOUS CURB 2531 . 501 Concrete Curb and — Gutter B618 L.F. 7 ,410 $ ,/5 $ 3o, 1751 . 61 Add - Deduct (Circle o — TOTAL ALTERNATE BID- -ADD DEDUCT (Circle One) $ IY) 0 '1 1 TOTAL ESTIMATED BID WITH ALTERNATE $ G071 1 k0,s. REVISED PROPOSAL PAGE 4 A bid bond or certified check in the amount of at least Five Percent ( 5%) of the total estimated bid is enclosed herewith a — guarantee that if this proposal is accepted , the bidder will enter into a contract and furnish a performance bond within ten ( 10 ) days after his proposal is accepted, and it is agreed that said bid bond or certified check shall be liquidated damages for bidder ' s refusal or inability to contract and furnish bond. If this proposal is accepted , bidder agrees to commence work within ten days after acceptance and to complete all work on or before the date specified in Paragraph C-7 of the Specifications , subject to the provisions of the Contract Documents . It is — understood and agreed that this proposal may not be withdrawn within 30 days after bid closing date and that the Owner reserves the right to reject any or all bids and waive formalities . I , the undersigned , state that the organization which I represent will be compliance with applicable Federal and State Statutes and City of Savage ' s adopted Affirmative Action Program concerning non-discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity. Receipt of the following addenda to the Specifications is — acknowledged : Addendum No. / Dated L 3 /9F,f- Addendum No. Dated Addendum No. — Dated — Addendum No . Dated ( Individual , Partnership , Corporation) By : 4eat.42..." Addres7 de3S — • /7,6 MINNL.JOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION OFFICE OF STATE AID 7/`' TRANSPORTATION BUILDING ST. PAUL, MN 55155 - May 3 , 1988 PHONE: 296-9875 ul Gary Warren Chanhassen City Engr. 690 Coulter Drive Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 In reply refer to: S.A. P. 194-104-01 qLA_S, C .�� DaAvC5 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Dear Mr. Warren: We are sending under separate cover a set of reduced _ sized prints and the original plan for the above referenced project. This plan has been approved and you are now authorized to advance the status of this project. Final approval is contingent upon receipt of a resolution prohibiting parking on both sides of the street. Sincerely, Juliel Skallman State Aid Plans and Spec. Engineer cc: W.M. Crawford-C.E. Weichselbaum, Dist. 5 File-420 MAY 0di1988 /� 4 "T1—r,,_(.R}w�,�,,,-1— 3 CITY OF CHANHASSEN ",-. , % )1, , i •,. - ..../cyci jo --) . . Q9 46 �gJ r----- , -----...._ • © Z t . O — I • \ 4 V Z t• : r 1 0 V7 1 • . 7 t 3')1C1 J 0../' . . ; . ' . \\\)\\\N \ • , . . ..._._,.7. ?•-., 1: . ' '-''. i— Z I • ‘.: -.--‘1 X .. ., ,... . \ -• •Cf) 14.1 CC :04 r •, V ./ 4. . 1 . .2 /� ■ J ` O� cr -� c I: G-� N O v• p rn i tt n n it u n ':.-,. ., 1 q�.- — G' o x F. ` : 1 \� � • F7iIN m I1 • 1 F—d + + \" _ 1• �w to to NN •., .. 0 . A. • i 1 . • • . . . . z . . . . 0 m(r)0 .. . ..._ __. J• . .. _., .I � 1 l I . ..• OccHFd- . . .. • 4 9 9d -1 , .... .. . �~t a ;I i 9� �b ° , ,, ,-,z•'‘ •-...•,) \ .1. • 1 \\ s, ':-I, \ •-, X- II ' itS.\. \r, 's >z.L ‘• , 2 ' • '. .‘-, I....'. • • \ '••:;''..„., ' - 1 CC 1 IS co 0 3N11H-�� I1; M \ cn I •• y l " o �zw x ,:. 1. ■, a w rn I-- J 0 .!,0i• 0lA(n \ \•, , i• , ‘... .., t i. 5 . iv. . ,. a �ti \ : .• \ t"' . CITYOF �� • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager ✓✓✓ FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer f-, DATE: March 9 , 1988 0111111°' SUBJ: Approval of Plans and Specifications for Bluff Creek Drive City Project No. 80-5 On April 6 , 1987, the City Council authorized preparation of construction documents for Bluff Creek Drive road improvements. This is based on the feasibility study prepared by Engelhardt and Associates dated March 11 , 1987 . The attached plans have been prepared in accordance with this feasibility study. The roadway which is an existing 22-foot wide gravel road in poor condition, is proposed to be upgraded utilizing the City' s rural standard section, i .e. 24-foot roadway with drainage ditches from County Road 14 ( Pioneer Trail) to West Hesse Farm Road. The southern portion of the roadway from West Hesse Farm Road to Trunk Highway 212 will be the City' s urban roadway section uti- lizing barrier concrete curb and gutter and storm water drainage piping to properly handle the runoff and slope difficulties in this area. The steepest grade on the new design is 8% . As anticipated, a certain amount of muck excavation will be necessary to address the poor soils on the north half of the project. What was not anticipated in the feasibility study however, is the need for concrete crib retaining walls along the tighter portion of the roadway corridor from the railroad tracks ( station 56+75 ) to just past the Bed and Breakfast (HSE no. 1161 ) station 64+00 . This is a trade-off between the cost that would be otherwise for property acquisition and extensive side slope grading . The horizontal alignment of the road has also been improved in particular at the location of the Bed and Breakfast where we have jogged the road 10 feet to the northeast to get further away from the Bed and Breakfast property. This had an impact in increasing our retaining wall quantities but is a necessary improvement for clearance in this area. A1 &A4 � Don Ashworth March 9 , 1988 Page 2 The feasibility study estimated the total project cost to be $535 ,282 . The revised engineer' s estimate including the 30% mark-up for contingencies, legal , administrative and engineering is $667 , 580 or an additional $132 , 298 . This increase results directly from the need for retaining walls which had not been anticipated in the feasibility study and which is estimated to _ cost $146, 398 including the earth fill. When Council accepted the feasibility study, they indicated a preference for assessing 20% of the project costs to benefitting property owners . The remaining cost would then be paid from the City' s Municipal State Aid (MSA) funds . The feasibility study envisioned that this would encumber a little over two years of — State Aid allotments based on $215 , 000 of annual allotment being received from the State. Fortunately, we have recently received the State Aid Apportionment Report for 1988 which indicates that the City' s State Aid construction allotment has increased by — $62, 365 for a total 1988 construction allotment of $248 ,449 . This year a significant amount of time was spent updating our — entire MSA "needs" reports to maximize the system needs . This, coupled with the recent legislation which appears to have a good chance of passing which will provide more state monies into this _ fund ( see administrative presentation item no. 16 ) , should assure us that next year ' s allotments should be as good as , if not better than, this past year . If it remains the same and the construction bids are as estimated by this recent engineering update, this — project will consume a little over two years of our State Aid construction dollars ( see Attachment #2 ) . We obviously will be closely watching the bidding process to see how the project pans out as it relates to the engineer ' s revised estimate and also the allocation of State Aid funds in the future . The plans are currently under review at the State Aid office and we anticipate receiving State approval to proceed with the pro- ject by the end of March . It is therefore recommended that the City Council approve the plans and specifications for Bluff Creek — Drive improvements as prepared by William Engelhardt and Associates dated February 19, 1988 and that staff be authorized to advertise for bids. Attachments : 1 . Area Map 2 . Feasibility Study Excerpt, Page 7 IIIIIIIII..gi.0 Z. \ i 7 INE 111.M.M11.1.11.1.111WEIVI 1) o N.P. 1d3),D 0 ® WIIIIIMINIMI . W cr U icy w V NV ��o .... moo _ NMI — 4--,, IL____1..:" I__ I r#11:14 wlia *4111 2P ' ; cp _-z — ` I . . N /f ( In , I • . 4. 4 •�j • �n Il • _ O•i bah' R,-, 0 cr . livitio t4..- Ili • • 3 J: Ot r CC- • • - "' i 1' r + Vf; \A - \ZL_,/_i,_J_'1,;, jai .. 1 `''tip • I _ — -' - - "08nane • Larry Kerber June 12. 1988 • _ 6420 Powers Blvd. Chanhassen, Minn. 55317 1 /3 Dear Councilmen, 1.01 - • GG We apologize for sending this letter so late but we wanted to f review the proposed screening plan for Curry Farms first. We first received it on Saturday (6-11-88) in the afternoon mail. We have been residence in Chanhassen for the past 17 years, 10 [ 1) a UUU years at the present location. We hope to continue at our present _ location for many - many more years satisfying the needs of the local home owners in our surrounding area. With the present development next to us we are forced to look into the future of our surroundings which were private at one time. We have reviewed the proposed screen- ing plan and feel a need to address some concerns. In reviewing Barb Dacys plan she did use our suggestion of reducing the height of the orignal 11 - 12' evergreens to 16 - 8' evergreens thus keeping Centexs cost for these trees at approximately the same price while providing for a greater number of evergreens. These 16 evergreens planted 10' on center will not cover the entire entrance outlot area as her plan indicates. Dacy also did not address the berm or screening for the right turn lane as suggested at the previous council meeting. We have noticed the traffic a great deal. A great majority of the traffic uses the entrance on our south line. Very little uses the Lake Lucy Road entrance. We feel in this case one must strongly consider a solid screening for the entrance outlot and right turn lane so it provides a visual block and noise barrier and should do so all year around. Dacy proposed 15 evergreens on the lower south and west lines at 20' to 40' on center which will never provide adequate screening or block. Of the 15 evergreens, 13 are to replace the trees that we will lose when Centex fills our property in an attempt to prevent the re- occurrence of the flooding which occurred this spring. The net coat result of this plan to Centex is an increase of 2 - 6' evergreens. Planting could only be benifical on their property since Centex has grades 10' higher than our grades. Planting on our property would not be effective. We are concerned that the landowners will request screening in the future. We want happy long lasting heighbors and we feel it is reasonable to plan for the future, our and theirs. As an attempt to determine what is reasonable we consulted with some local nurseries for help. They felt it would be reasonable to see a semi-block within the next 8 to 10 years. The nurseries suggested • either a' double row of 6' spruce staggered and planted 10' to 12' on center or a single row of 6' spruce planted 8' to 10' on center. We therefore would like to ask the council to use their judge- ment to determine the additional trees needed to satisfy the language of condition #14, (screeing issue) attached tothe approval of phase I in Curry Farms. Thank You. c3S14,,i 6 JUN -1 1988 CITY OF CHANhA -w Larry and Kathy Kerber CITYOF ci /„. CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager _ '6l0%,f) FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner 150410 DATE: June 8 , 1988 SUBJ: Review Landscaping Plan Along Kerber Property Line Curry Farms ( Subdivision #87-19 ) The City Council at the May 9 , 1988 , meeting directed staff to work out a reasonable solution for the landscaping plan along the Kerber lot lines. At issue were two areas: 1 . The south and west lot lines; and 2 . The area in the immediate vicinity of Devonshire Drive and the right turn lane from Powers Boulevard. The proposed plan included in this packet is based on the following guidelines : 1 . The tree requirements in the landscaping ordinance requires planting of one tree for every 40 feet of parking area for a commercial or industrial use. 2 . Adequate screening of Kerber' s contractor' s yard area as one enters the site from the right turn lane from Powers Boulevard or turning left into Devonshire Drive from Powers Boulevard. The proposed plan locates 15 six foot evergreen trees along the south and west lot lines . This number was determined by using the one tree per 40 foot standard ( a 370 foot west lot line and 225 feet of the south lot line abutting Lot 1 of the Curry Farm subdivision) . The landscaping proposed near Powers Boulevard between the Kerber structures and Devonshire Drive have been rearranged and additional plantings proposed from the landscaping plan considered by the Council at the May 9 , 1988 , meeting. Now proposed are 16 eight foot Blackhill Spruces instead of the ori- ginal 11 twelve foot Norway Pines . The Kerbers indicated during a site visit on Monday, June 6 , 1988 , that more trees at an 8 foot height would be acceptable rather than the smaller number of twelve foot pines . The additional 8 foot pines can be so located Mr . Don Ashworth June 8 , 1988 Page 2 — to wrap into the existing vegetation along Powers Boulevard into — the Kerber property. This placement would not affect site distance at the intersection and would address concerns raised by the County ( see Attachment #1) . Further , the evergreens can be located in the crucial points where the view of the contrac- tor' s yard can be seen from Devonshire Drive, as recommended earlier by Mark Koegler . It is my understanding that Centex will install the landscaping as proposed in the attached plan. The Kerbers remain concerned about the effectiveness of the proposed fifteen trees along the — south and west lot lines . They are concerned that the number of trees proposed will not be adequate to screen the rear portion of their lot. They are also concerned that future homeowners will continue to request the city to require screening along these lot lines . Mr . and Mrs. Kerber will be present at the meeting and they may request that a standard of one tree per 20 feet be used on the south and west lot lines rather than the proposed. Given that the landscaping ordinance provides a standard for commercial and industrial developments , staff would recommend the one tree per 40 feet. As to the Kerber' s concern regarding future _ complaints from future property owners , staff would recommend that the city advise these potential lot owners that the city has required Centex to make future owners aware of the existence of the contractor' s yard and has required the additional landscaping which has not typically been required in other plat applications . Unless the Kerbers expand, the proposed plantings coupled with future lot owners ' landscaping meets the intent of the Council ' s — original condition of plat approval . Note that the evergreen trees are proposed on the west side of the berm along the west lot line so that access can still be — achieved to the creek and drainage area and so that the trees can be maintained better by future lot owners . Further, the trees on Lot 1 are proposed out of the swale area as not to prevent the — direction of drainage along this lot line. NOTE: Concerns received by the Reamer ' s will be addressed during plan and specification review at the June 27 , 1988 , meeting. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the landscaping plan as shown in Attachment #4 . ATTACHMENTS 1 . Letter from Bill Weckman dated May 24 , 1988 . — 2 . City Council minutes dated May 9 , 1988 . 3 . City Council minutes dated May 4 , 1987 . 4 . Proposed landscaping plan . C v� KCO /I • •. CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE _ -~� "" t� 600 EAST 4TH STREET PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT • . s l CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318 (612) 448-3435 �l rim E 5 0.0 COU\TY of CA VEQ May 24 , 1988 Mr. John Spiess Centex Homes Corporation 5959 Baker Road Suite 300 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Re: Curry Farms Development Dear Mr. Spiess : This letter is a follow-up of our telephone conversation the other day concerning the Curry Farms Development. As discussed , Carver County has an existing 100 foot right of way width in the Curry Farms area. The right of way line is approximately 50 feet from the existing road centerline. In response to your questions concerning tree planting in the area, the following would apply : 1 . ) The County would not allow any trees or shrubs to be planted within the road right of way . 2 . ) Anything outside the right of way line ( in this case greater than 50 feet from the road centerline) is out of the jurisdiction of the County . There may be set back requirements that the City of Chanhassen has con- - cerning tree plantings . If planting is intended at or near the right of way line , one should realize that, depending on the species of tree , if future growth of the tree encroaches onto the right of way , it may be necessary for the County to trim the tree back to the right of way line . 3 . ) The new entrance to Curry Farms located on CSAH 17 ( Powers Blvd . ) is located in a 45 MPH speed zone. The recommended sight distance for an intersection at this location would be approximately 800 feet to the north and 600 feet to the south . As discussed by phone , this would be from a point 3 . 5 feet high at the intersection to a point 4 . 0 feet high on the road . The effort should be made to achieve and maintain this sight dis- tance . It is my understanding that the sight distance question was addressed at the preliminary stages of this project development. MAY'{ 2 1988 Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer .I r OF' CHANhASSEN c c Letter to John Spiess May 24 , 1988 Page 2 Hopefully this letter will clarify some of the questions and con- cerns you had in this area. If you have questions concerning this memo, feel free to contact me. Sincerely , William J . Weckman, P. E. Assistant County Engineer WJW/cj r cc: Barbara Dacy , City of Chanhassen ✓ — City Council Meeting - May 9, 1988 FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, CURRY FARMS PHASE II. Barbara Dacy: The submittal for Council approval tonight is the final plat which creates the remaining lots in the Curry Farm subdivision. The final plat. It is not a grading plan or.. . In the staff report I review all the conditions from preliminary plat approval. What I'd like to do is review what appears to be one of the outstanding conditions that is under dispute from Centex and the property owners adjacent to the parcel, Larry and Kathy Kerber. That pertains to the condition 14. The condition read in the approval of the May 4, 1987 Minutes that the applicant shall submit a landscaping plan providing landscaping for lots abutting the contractor's yard. In reading through the Minutes it appeared that much of the discussion was occurring regarding screening between the proposed Devonshire Drive from CR 17/Powers Blvd. and Larry Kerber's property to the north. This represents Centex's proposed landscaping plan. From the Minutes this landscaping buffer was to act as a noise buffer and a visual screen from the people in the Centex subdivision and the Kerber's contractor's yard. We had Mr. Koegler review the plan and he made same comments and suggestions which are included in your report. However, in meeting with the Kerber's and Centex this afternoon, the request from the Kerber's was that they felt that that landscaping requirement meant all the way down the south lot line and along the west lot line at the base of Kerber's property. So at this point staff is asking for the Council's clarification on this one condition. It was our interpretation that it pertained to just this area. However, there is an issue here that has been brought up by the adjacent property owner. Secondary issues that arose out of the construction season, out of Phase 1 were, and I'm going to try and summarize some of these and then the City Engineer can help me out or clarify things but there was issues pertaining to the clogged drainage facility through the rear of Kerber's property as well as the concern from flooding and ponding in the rear of Kerber's property. Both Centex and the Kerber's have met several times and those issues were also discussed this evening. What was agreed upon was that there would be a structure built in this creek area in the rear of the Kerber's property which would allow Mr. Kerber to cross the creek and mow the remainder of his property and he would consent to having his attorney draft a maintenance agreement to allow the City to come in and maintain that ditch so it does not get clogged again. Secondly, there is a contention on the Kerber's part that ties in with this original plat condition about screening along the berm. Mr. Kerber is saying that he won't go along with the fill proposal from Centex unless there are additional trees to break up the expanse of the berm along the west property line. Another issue that was addressed is, from Devonshire Drive, Centex has agreed to give an access easement to the Kerber property so they may future resubdivide and get street access from the proposed roadway. This area, which was originally plotted as Lot 1 of this Curry Farms development would then be in turn conveyed to the City as an outlot so we would retain this. Kerber's have also agreed to maintain the area. Not replace the plants but would maintain the area. So, what do we have left? At issue, the bottom line is that the Kerber's are contending that the landscaping should go all the way down the south lot line and the west lot line. There are also other issues that are still outstanding from the construction season for Phase 1. That being the fill and the drainage issues and I forgot to mention the turn lane issue into Devonshire Drive and additional landscaping for the corner here. So you can tell we need Council clarifications on exactly what happened 15 City Council Meeting - May 9, 1988 on May 4th of 1987. I know the Kerber's are here and John Spiess from Centex is here. Mayor Hamilton: Gary, did you have anything additional you wanted to include? Gary Warren: No, I think again after our meeting today there still are some — things that don' t necessarily take Council action but the developer and the Kerber's have to kick around a little bit more but for tonight's meeting at any rate, the issue of the extent of the condition for landscaping is the key. Mayor Hamilton: Is Mr. Spiess here? John Spiess: Yes. — Mayor Hamilton: Do you have any comments you want to make? John Spiess: Not at this time. It's only that we wanted to make sure that we were all interpretting what was said at that meeting was that this was a contractor's yard and that was what we were trying to screen. I think the issue of abutting lots, etc., etc., was something that why it was said or why it was even discussed at that point or what brought it about was that this is what we were talking about here so that Mr. Kerber could park his trailers and use his contractor's yard at this point without any undue problems to the — adjacent property. Councilman Gevi.ng: Mr. Spiess is it your understanding that you have _ responsibility for plantings in that south lot which is an outlot? Was that understood on your part? That you would put the original plantings i.n there? John Spiess: Yes. — Councilman Geving: You're willing to do that? John Spiess: Yes. The plantings have been changed. We had proposed Norway Pines at this point and it's been suggested that we use Black Hill Spruce as a hardier variety evergreen for the salt, etc.. There are two ash trees and the _ dogwood tree there with the intent that that possibly could be the access point for Mr. Kerber when he'd like. At this time we're trying to get the access closer to the house itself on Lot 1 of the Curry Farm development. The issue of the turn lane is that Mr. Kerber would like to sec a berm there so that he may take more advantage of his property. Also, screen himself or his property from that turn lane which was installed as per Carver County. The sight distance there was a factor. We showed plantings 30 feet behind the property : — line which is approximately 60 feet from the patchel edge of the blacktop road there at CR 17. Councilman Geving: What is your view about putting the plantings on the — western side of this property and the berming? John Spiess: Our view, the plantings along anywhere else that we felt all — along this was the only area we've been talking about. We have discussed this with staff and it was just that this area here was to give the contractor's yard that screening from the rest of the property. We've also, in fact, with — 16 City Council Meeting - May 9, 1988 our people who buy the lots and houses are purchasing the agreement that Mr. Kerber does have a contractor's yard there and that is in writing. Councilman Geving: So your opinion always has been that there has never been any question about the berming and the plantings on the western side of the Mr. Kerber's property, is that correct? John Spiess: Yes. There has never been any question about it. Councilman Geving: The only discrepencies I understand it is in the height of the berm? John Spiess: Yes. According to Mr. Kerber and maybe long ago the site plan was supposed to bermed up here. Right now it's very narrow there where it says _ 30 feet minimum. Probably 15 to 20 feet across and then of course it widens up to the fence so the berm would be narrow and tall there with a narow base. As we've seen all along the highways and everything where they put berms, trees they plant on top of them don't tend to do so well. They drain well but. .. Councilman Geving: In effect you have really done a lot more berming and plantings that I anticipated, at least on the south side of Mr. Kerber's property and now from tonight's discussion, I've learned that you've even given him right-of-way access to that road which was never in the original plans. John Spiess: Mr. Kerber is contending and would like to have an access. Therefore, easement purposes that he would grant to the City down into that ditch. There's also a sewer line down there and it makes most sense to have that across there. It's a pretty long piece of property for the homeowner who would eventually buy the lot where is now our model home and maintain that so it's a low maintenance scheme right now with the pine trees and mulch. Very low maintenance. Councilman Geving: Have you resolved the problem with the corner of the lot where it's very low and water collects as it drains to the west. Right i.n the corner where you've made the new berm. Have you resolved that? John Spiess: We reached an agreement here with Mr. Kerber last week. A verbal agreement, if you will. There's a letter I wrote to him which basically showed this earth fill limit. We started off with a narrower version or a smaller version down where that contour says about 958. 958 in here, we thought that maybe we'd fill that area down there to alleviate some of the ponding that had occurred. Actually what had occurred, it backed up on Mr. Kerber's property, in fact back up into here somewhere, was that this pipe, culvert, 36 inch culvert became plugged early this spring. Ice dam type of thing on this shaded side and it caused us to back up. As soon as the City got in there, the City crews, Mr. Kerber finally let them in and they came across here and put the sewer cleaner in there and the water was gone within an hour. It ponded. It does flow here although it does flow slowly. We started out with this small bit of filling and then we come to this agreement type situation here that we will in fact build this low spot up to about maybe 5 fact of fill here. Raise the sewer manhole and at this point, it's steeper from this point to here and then it's also, this would be about 5 feet of fill. This would be zero. This would be somewhere, 2 1/2 feet of fill and this would be zero over here so the 17 City Council Meeting - May 9, 1988 water would still drain to a ditch now farther onto our property and against our berm but it will drain to this drai.nageway which Mr. Kerber will give to the City as a maintenance easement. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, Larry do you have some comments you wish to make? Larry Kerber: First of all on the fill issue. This filling is, as you know, an attempt to alleviate that back-up that occurs and will occur again. It's not just because a culvert plugs up. That whole creek from CR 17 to Centex's culvert freezes up. It's froze up for as long as I've lived there and it will — continue to do so because like he said, it's flat. They now run water out of their culvert year round where formerly that whole creek froze up every winter. Now we're trying to run water continually at a trickle. As it comes out of their culvert, runs on my side, hits that flat area of approximately 300 feet, it freezes and dams up so the fill is an attempt to keep that water contained within that creek. Working with Gary as another resolution to keep the water moving during the wintertime is to take out my culvert and replace it with some — type of structure resembling a bridge so I can still get across my property. Whether this is going to take care of it or not, I don't know. If the creek is going to continue to freeze up. However, the fill, it was an attempt on their — part to keep it from backing up on my property. Once i.t gets to that point, if the water does indeed freeze all the way up and gets to the height of the new fill, I don't know what's going to happen. That's why I say, this fill is an _ attempt to do this. It may be a final resolution. Another thing, on the fill, it's not just one sided. Centex is bringing in the fill. I am taking down a fence on my property putting it back up. I'm taking out 10 trees I have planted there with no reimbursement to me. I am seeding that ground. Mulching it and making sure the seed grows so it's not a one-sided deal. I'm putting out plenty of my time to help with this fill project and I don't think it's my responsibility but I'm willing to work with them. I guess the trees gets us to — the screening issue. I told John I'll take out the trees there as long as they're going to put something back. The screening issue states, landscaping or screening on all lots abutting contractor's yard. I assumed it meant all lots abutting my yard. I use my whole piece of property. I use the whole south line. I have an upper garage. I have a lower garage. I've got stock- piles. I park by trailers in that lower pasture. I can't this spring because it's too wet. I can't get down there but as soon as that fill gets in maybe that problem will be alleviated so I understood or I assumed it to be around my whole yard. I don't expect a wall to wall stack of trees around my yard but I expect some type of screening. I think I brought this issue up last fall that _ nobody's been out and talked about that screening. I don't know how they could approve it or why they signed the whatever you signed, the construction agreement to go ahead and they never talked to me about what they were going to do. Another comment I'd like to make about the screening, so far I know it's nice screening but every project has an entry landscape plan and what they've done so far is little more than an entry landscape screening. They've added a few more trees at our request because their original plan had an approximately — 50 foot opening between the two large shade trees which viewed right into my yard which really was worthless as far as any privacy. Like I say, every subdivision I've seen has entry landscaping. I just don't think adding a few _ trees other than their standard entry landscaping is satisfying the condition of screening my yard. Another thing, the trees aren't just for my benefit. They're not planted on my property. They're going to be on their lots. 18 97 City Council Meeting - May 9, 1988 They're going to add value to their houses. Certainly I don't think they want that person further down in the model home there on the south side to have his backyard looking into my stock piles of materials that I'm using. I don't think it's just a one-sided thing. The trees aren't just for me. They're not even on my property. I'm just asking for a buffer so people aren't looking in and objecting to what's going on there. Another issue, that will bring us to the right turn lane. That was not presented. I never found it anyplace on page 1. I don't know if anybody knew it was going in. I certainly didn't until they came out and excavated for it. In looking at other projects around, the right turn lanes are usually contained with the boundaries of the project. On mine, it was not because of the access there. Now I'm going to have a right turn lane that's going to start 20 feet to the north side of my driveway, cut across my driveway, continue along my property until their entrance. I think the turn lane itself is dangerous enough for my driveway. It's creating a situation of turn signals on. Are they turning in my driveway or to the subdivision? Aside from the safety issue, I think I should have some screening just like all their turn lanes are screened. I can look at other subdivisions. I can look right up the street. I can take Saddlebrook. They all have berms and trees contained within the subdivision. I think if they're going to put it past my place, there should be some screening right at my boundary. Out here the cars slowing down, starting up, turning in, they'll be able to look through my yard. They're holding their landscaping screen back 30 from the property line. There's a wide open corner there. Approximately 30 feet or 40 feet of that diagonal. Certainly I do have some trees there now. They are back probably 40 feet from the lot line or 30 feet from the lot line. They're older trees. Chinese Elm. They're only green for maybe 4 to 5 months out the year. They aren't going to give me any screening from that turn lane. I guess that's about all I have to say about it and I guess to touch on that right-of-way easement that they've offered me, that is nothing other than what was stated at the Phase 1 approval. I think Dale brought it up. It was in the Minutes. Dick Putnam agreed to it. That long strip of land on Lot 1 should be given to the City as right-of-way or should be taken as an outlot. So that's nothing other than enforcing what was said in the original Minutes so I just don't feel they have given me anything other than what they were suppose to or what was agreed to before this other issue came up. I guess that's about all I have to say on it. Karen Reamer: This is not on the issue of Larry Kerber. My name is Karen Reimer. We own property to the northwest corner of the Centex development of Phase 2. I believe it's Lot 1. Is that right? Dacy: Right. Her lot is at the end of proposed Ashton Court. Karen Reamer: When we bought our property 22 years ago, we bought a chunk of land, the caretakers house out of the middle of Four Meadows and that's the way that has been. The address now is Teton Lane but we are really not on Teton Lane. We're off a private road of Teton Lane extension. The road comes fairly flat, rises slightly and then as it gets to our property line, it rises sharply. Our driveway is set in curbing. It comes up to the top of our hill, comes around, down and connects again with the road that goes off this way that used to lead into the horse meadows. Three sides of that driveway are contained within our property. Set in curbing. The 16 foot easement road, access road on the bottom is not our property but we have a permanent easement 19 y Council Meeting - May 9, 1988 — over it. It is built right into our legal description. Centex has platted that. Has disappeared that road completely. They have platted their lot directly up to our property line. We have two concerns over this. One is landscaping. If something is not done, we would not be really adverse to vacating the easement but something has got to be done with our south road because otherwise we're going to have a road that goes through three sides of our property and flares into our neighbors yard and it's going to look awful. So I've talked to Mr. Spiess about this and we haven't had an opportunity to get together before tonight's agenda item. But a much more serious concern to us is that we sit on a very, very high hill. The two lots to the east of us _ are much lower. I'm very bad on grades, but it's got to be 15 to 20 feet downgrade from our house. From the highest point on our hill to those two lots. I think our driveways are going to act like gutters. Just any water is going to wind up in the basement of those houses is our real concern if this is — not carefully done. We have been advised to get an indemnification from Centex. If this should happen, people are concerned we're going to wind up with lawsuits from our neighbors because that is clay ground and when it gets very dry it gets just like brick. The water just washes right off instead of soaking in. Similar problem off of our driveway. Certainly when they build Ashton Court they're going to have to crown that and grade that properly. If that does not tie in with our gravel driveway up to the property, once again I think the water is not going to run properly, flow properly. So we've got a concern about landscaping, which we don't think should be our expense and we have a concern about the drainage. Thank you. — Mayor Hamilton: Gary, can you comment on Mrs. Remmer's property? Are you familiar with that? Gary Warren: It's a new issue to me. I was going to ask John maybe. Have you had a chance to review this? John Spiess: Westwood Engineering, our engineer for the project, I've discussed with him what we can do about the grades there. Right now we have a grading plan which you don't have in front of you but it is a preliminary — grading plan that we're trying to figure out all of the grades and problems we might have in Phase 2. We show over at Mrs. Remmers, that the grade appears very steep the way it's drawn right now. Our road, or our cul-de-sac Ashton _ Court, will be filled up a certain percentage. The grade will be changed there to actually bring that up a little bit and of course our house lot on Lot 1 there will be above the street level. When I spoke with Mrs. Remmer this week over the phone, she and her husband would like to meet with me at some later — date. We couldn't do that right now so we planned next week sometime or the end of this week, if we can, to get together and go over some of the grading problems she has and the concern that if she leaves Ashton Court in the dead of winter and heads up her driveway, if she doesn't get a good run at it, she gets stuck in the bottom and that's the way it's graded right now. It actually has a flat spot just before you go up the driveway. I talked with Westwood Engineering about doing something on our side to actually increase that grade if at all possible. Of course, the grades from our Ashton Court leading over into Mr. Donovan's and on and on, it just mushrooms out. However, I think with a little work, we'll show how on the grading plan how we can in fact raise — Ashton Court a little bit to help gently rise up to her driveway instead of just like it does now. It almost stops and then goes up. That's not the way 20 City Council Meeting - May 9, 1988 -11- the final grading, or preliminary final grading plan, that Ashton Court is intended to be nor does it show that way. Mayor Hamilton: Would you want to comment on the easement also? John Spiess: The easement unfortunately was missed by our engineers and missed by our title company who researchs all our work for us. I've been in contact with Ted Cameron who is the Carver County surveyor and he said that obviously we missed it so at this point Mrs. Remmer has said that she would possibly vacate that easement if she could be assured that the driveway, that's one of the issues along with the driveway. Landscape screening. Karen Remmer: If I may just say, Centex has been perfectly willing to discuss it. It's just that we haven't had an opportunity to get together but I did want to bring the matter up to you. .. Kathy Kerber: I have a few things I'd like to add to what my husband had said earlier. The first thing is about the screening. When John Spiess was out to us on the 28th of last month, we talked about screening and we talked about all the lots. He came to us and say yes, we can do that. We can screen along all the berms in the back and the lots that abut our contractor's yard. He had no problem with it. Then we didn't hear back from him and all of a sudden we get the packet from Barb Dacy and in here he's got just the front entrance screened and that's all he wants to do. Now he comes and says one thing to us, and now he comes and says another to us. Also, another thing going back to the drainage, I'd like to remind you that last September Larry and I spent a lot of time, a lengthy discussion on the drainage and at that time both Gary Warren and Kevin Clark from Centex told us, almost gave us almost a 100o guarantee that we would never have any drainage on our property. They even said they were backed up behind the Minnehaha Watershed District. Now we have the flooding on our property this spring. Not only that, it ran into the sanitary manhole on the corner of the property. The lift station down at Christmas Lake ran day and night and it took them about 4-5 days to figure out what the problem was. Now these people are saying we're never going to have a problem and obviously we have. There's a mistake made. I think somebody should correct it. It shouldn't be us. And based on this, Centex would like us to sign, saying that they are totally free of any responsibility to us if we allow _ them to fill our property. I don't think that is fair because both Centex and Gary Warren told us last year that we would never have a drainage problem. Now baesd on that, how can we say yes, we should go ahead and consent to this, that we're never going to have a problem again. That just can't be. That's all I have to say. Mayor Hamilton: Gary, do you want to comment on that? Gary Warren: The flooding problem caused by the culvert, it has flooded in the past as I think even the Kerber's will acknowledge and it just flooded out in an area to the west of the property that didn't have the retention basin in that location. The statements that we made were that the run-off rates and 1 they were accurate statements, the run-off rates are actually reduced from what the pre-development rates are because of the detention ponds. Our sanitary -? manhole in the southwest corner of the property has evidence that it's taken water from previous years prior to, we found debris and things stuck in through 21 City Council Meeting - May 9, 1988 _ the manhole ring so there's evidence that that manhole has had water problems even before this year so I guess I find it hard to believe that it has all been just as a result of that detention pond. Jack Fess: I live at 6280 Ridge Road. I built a new house there 6 years ago on former John Edward's parcel and we're very involved with the lake as you know from the last go around that we've had over the last 2-3 years. We're _ very concerned, I'm very concerned relative to some of the precautions that are taking place relative to this development. Relative to that creek. Relative to the fertilizers in the future and what's going to be done to make sure that our lake is not contaminated. After all this has been said and done, all this — time we've spent trying to preserve these lakes around here, if for some reason we went through the horse farm problem, that we contaminate Christmas Lake because of the development over there, it would be terrible. Shame on us so — I just want to put into the Minutes that a report got out on our lake last week that there was possibly an overflow in a development. Our Homeowner's president was called. The Watershed I believe was being called and I guess the — main thing we want to do is not create a problem here. The bases are covered but I think we better make sure the bases are covered. I want some assurance that the bases are covered and the future problem, not only with fertilizer but do we have a potential problem over there with this problem that we spoke to here tonight of running into that lake there. That is obviously where the water goes into that lake is out the other end into Lake Minnetonka. So thank you. _ Mayor Hamilton: I had heard that same thing Gary, that there was a report out on Christmas Lake that the water quality had declined some and I don't know if _ there was any specific reason why or if they knew why. Had you seen that? Gary Warren: I haven't seen a specific report. I know that, as Mrs. Kerber eluded to, our pump station there was working overtime because of the water — that was backing into that manhole and one of the side benefits of being able to raise, add the fill here to this corner of the property would be to get our manhole up an addition 5 feet and out of a potential ponding area. So that's — the only thing I can elude is that would relate to that occurence. Mayor Hamilton: Should the ponding areas that have been in place in this development, shouldn't they really take care of a great deal or a major portion — of any run-off, the nutrients that are going to come off of the yards? Gary Warren: The series of ponds that we have on the development definitely — have some benefit to cleaning the run-off plus the fact that a lot of the nutrient hit, so to speak, I would say was probably from the horse barn and that being gone now, we should say some good benefits in the quality of run-off coming from the development. Councilman Johnson: Do we have any, it seems like there are several outstanding preliminary plat conditions. This seems to be the time. Are there — only two phases in this project? Phase 1 and Phase 2? We're through, we're out, we're gone? Barbara Dacy: That's correct. 22 City Council Meeting - May 9, 1988 Councilman Johnson: Okay, this seems to be the time to get the conditions fulfilled. This is our last level. If they get Phase 2 final platted right now and get the go ahead to go, I guess we have grading permits and a few things like that to hit them with. Have most of these conditions, I see you have 1, 2, 6 and 10-15 basically here. How are we getting on filling those? Barbara Dacy: Basically the only condition that needs clarification is the landscaping condition on 14. I've addressed all the other ones that are noted there and that's the main issue. How much landscaping should be along the property line? Karen Remmer: Excuse me. I'm sure I'm out of order but I'm very new to this. Do I understand that the City Council does have the authority then, if they directed Centex to be responsible for this landscaping to Kerber's, you could so direct them to be responsible for landscaping for us? Mayor Hamilton: That's correct. Karen Reamer: Then I would like to request that. I'm not sure that's part of those 14 items. Mayor Hamilton: I'm sure we'll address that in our conditions. Councilman Johnson: There is a slight difference in that the landscaping directed at the Kerber's was to protect the people in the subdivision from the contractor's yard as much as the contractor from the subdivision. It really # has, in my mind, has the reverse purpose. We have a contractor's yard adjacent to the subdivision and generally we require the contractor to put up berms. To put up trees and everything. In this case, we're requiring the new guy to put it up because it's an existing contractor's yard. It's kind of an opposite situation. Other contractor's yards around town we're going after the contractor's to replant their trees and put their berms up and keep their berms going to protect the City from the contractor's yard but I think you can work with Centex. Centex will work with you. They have shown that they will do some working. I know they've had a difficult time on this project. I think there are some nights that they probably shake their heads at the end of the day. I guess what I just said about contractor's yards is I had the fooling that we were protecting, we're talking about the berming here. We weren't talking about protecting the contractor from the adjacent homes but the adjacent homes from the contractor's yard. Now if they don't do anything between the house on Lot 1 and the contractor's yard, then that home has had no shielding so I can see going down a little further down than what they're considering the outlot so that the angle from that home into the contractor's yard is shielded i.f possible. There is an elevation problem there. There may not be a lot they can do along there. I don't personally consider the backyard even though there is some uses going on there, I've never reviewed Larry's conditional use permit to see whether that's a part of the contractor's yard or not but primarily the contractor's yard to me is the front area where the house i.s and where he does a majority of his work. Cr a majority of the movement of his vehicles. That's what I would see being protected but I believe we 1 probably should come down a little further than that outlot to catch that angle between the house and his main barn there. The filling looks to be solving a bit of an existing problem but one that has been exaggerated by having the pond 23 Y 'CT.y Council Meeting - May 9, 1988 _ there. By putting up the berm where the water used to back up and go onto what's now the Curry Farm's property, it now backs up onto Kerber property so in my mind there is a direct cause and effect there in that the flooding used to occur elsewhere. Where there always has been flooding, it has probably been exaggerated by the filling but that's only an impression. In order to really find that, we'd have to lift that. I think there is some give and take. That the filling is going to help the Kerber property in future sales or whatever and I think there's been some good negotiating going on there. I see some give and take on both sides. This winter has not been that wet of a winter. If we had backing up problem this winter, I think we can think back about 3 to 4 _ winters ago and it would have been considerably worse. I hope that on the Reamer property we can get some landscaping. I don't know how much landscaping can be done if you're that much higher. It's tough but this is kind of a last minute thing. I would like to see same work done there. Obviously the - easement is a legal problem that will have to be worked out and that seems to your ace in the hole. You've got his easement. So that's where your negotiating point comes with him on the landscaping. I'm not 100% sure that — the City can require the landscaping there. It's generally for noise and other things to protect both existing homeowners from new traffic. It's not like they're putting a highway next to you or one of their main roads. Karen Reamer: No, but it certainly makes our property look lousy. If the road connects to nothing. Our road goes around three sides of the house and runs into the neighbors yard. — Councilman Johnson: Yes, that part they have to work out. I'm not sure on the landscaping because obviously I haven't gotten out and looked at your problem because I only heard about it right now. Karen Reamer: I just thought the landscaping could do away with that south road is all. Councilman Johnson: I think we're working in a void here until we actually see something. Is staff confident that we've got enough here to get everything? — Barbara Dacy: Again, as far as the Reamer entry is concerned, grading issues obviously have to be addressed during the plan and specification reivew so _ there is another step here. Unfortunately, the specific condition of approval on landscaping pertained to the Kerber's and not to the Reamer's so you need to look at what was approved during preliminary and is the Council satisfied with those conditions to give final plat approval for the second phase. — Councilman Johnson: Okay, then to put it real easy, I believe we've got enough for final plat approval of the second phase except for I'd like to make sure that the angle between the house on Lot 1 and the contractor's yard is effectively covered by screening. Councilman Geving: I think we do not have enough information from my — standpoint to do a final plat approval tonight for the second addition. I pulled this off the consent agenda tonight specifically because the last sentence says that staff would meet with Centex and the Larry Kerber's this — afternoon to resolve the outstanding issues. I don't believe that's happened. I know that you met but I don't believe the issues have all been resolved. Now 24 City Council Meeting - May 9, 1988 tonight, I hear a new player enter the field, Mrs. Remmer and I think we've got some new issues. I'm not convinced that the 8 items that are listed on our final plat approval here have been totally resolved. On item 14, my impression was that Koegler would go back and do some landscaping and that there were to be an agreement finally between the Kerber's and Centex on the noise barrier and visual barrier, and I don't know if that's happened. I'm not convinced that we'll ever get 100a approval from anyone on this. There has to be a point in which the Council says that's it and make a decision. Maybe that's what you're asking for Barbara. In your view, Barbara, can you say that all the conditions for final plat approval have been met by the developer in this project? Barbara Dacy: I can say for the exception of number 14 and that's why we need Council clarification. Because the way the condition was worded is different from the discussion during the Council minutes of May 4th and each party, staff feels that the landscaping between Devonshire Drive and Kerber's was what was discussed. However, the Kerber's feel that it should go all the way down the south lot line and along the west lot line too. We met this afternoon and those positions were reaffirmed and the decision was well, we have to get the Council clarification on how they interpretted their actions. Councilman Geving: So you're really only looking at item 14 at this point? Barbara Dacy: Right. Councilman Geving: Everything else has been met in your view and the remaining issues, the comments that have been made mostly tonight by various individuals are, in your opinion, are they personal in nature? Personal wants over and above the requirements of our ordinances? Barbara Dacy: As to the fill issue and the turn lane issues and so on, those _ occurred as a result of the Phase 1 construction and will have to continue to be worked on and an agreement signed and so on. Councilman Geving: Okay, but if we went ahead with the plat approval of the second phase, that still would be an outstanding issue as far as the grading issue and the berming and so forth? Barbara Dacy: Grading plans for Phase 2 will have to come back. Councilman Geving: I guess from my viewpoint Mr. Mayor, if we could just zero in on 14 and resolve that, maybe we could move ahead. That's all I have. Councilman Horn: I think this is, as several people have commented, a difficult issue. I think there have been a lot of compromises that have happened and maybe some changing expectations of what's required. I remember when we granted the contractor's yard, an expansion to the garage area there which seemed quite large at the time, it seemed to me that the purpose was to enclose as much of the operation as possible. Make sure we had indoor storage. It disturbs me a little this evening to find that there is an intention to park machinery in the back part of the lot because I thought the intent of this expanded area, which we approved on a conditional use permit by the way which can not be overintensified, is being contemplated. It may have been stated 25 aL ` City Council Meeting - May 9, 1988 then that it is not clear to me that there would be areas of material storage on the lot either. Contractor's yards in my opinion are somewhat interim uses of property until an area gets totally urbanized, to allow that kind of business to exist in an area that a person can allow it to happen without paying the exorbinate costs of settling in one of our commercial areas. In fact, I pushed to have that happened because I think it's important to have the independent contractor's in our area. On the other hand, the statement that I recall when it comes to the screening issue is that they screening issue would be resolved to the Kerber's satisfaction. That's the comment that I seem to recall. Whether it's accurately reflected in the Minutes, it's not stated and — I'm not sure it was clear in any of our minds as to just how far that went. I didn't feel at the time it was our intent to totally screen the development from the contractor's yard. I felt that the bigger issue at that point was _ protecting the Kerber's fran the impact of a development adjacent to his that could affect a future plan he may have for developing his property. That seemed to be a big concern at that point, is that if he were to develop at some later point, his property would not have the same value that it did. I think — Dale hit it right on the head when he said it has to come to a point of where do we say that this is enough and that people have gone as far as they can in meeting the intent. I was surprised to hear several of the issues that have gone on beyond what we had discussed in the past but I do feel that there can be more of an effort made to screen that property. It's not clear in my mind whether it makes sense to screen the whole western side of the property. It would appear to me that it may be more reasonable to screen that within the — applicant's property rather than on top of that berm. I think the realities of the dry periods that we have in this state make it very difficult to grow certain things on a berm. It's not clear in my mind at this point what's reasonable. I do recall some of the statements made and I think it's a tough issue. As I drive by there, it seems to be getting better and better every day. I think the major concerns I had at the beginning of the project are _ being resolved at this point. I think we're getting very close to getting it resolved. Mayor Hamilton: I agree with the others that 14 needs to be worked on some and — I would like to sec it worked on to the point that Larry and his wife agree that the landscaping that's being done is in agreement, in reasonable agreement with them because it's similar to a case we had in here a couple weeks ago. We — tried to hold it up contingent upon another person's approval. It's really difficult because it could go on forever. Larry may never be satisfied. I don't know if that would be the case but it's possible but I think you need to be reasonable and I think that you will be and I firmly believe that. I think Larry has some very good concerns. Especially berming by the turn lane. If he has had to remove some trees off his property to accomodate the fill, I think those trees should either be replaced for hi.m or a similar type tree put in. — Development that takes place, in my opinion shouldn't cost a neighboring property owner a great deal of money just because a development went in. So if you had to remove trees, I think they should be replaced for you. I would also like to see a condition put on that the landscaping and easement issues are to be resolved with the Renner property as a part of the plat approval and I would really like to see, and I'm not sure how we accomplish this but I think it's important that somehow we test the run-off coming off this property going into Christmas Lake. Now whether or not the City accomplishes that in conjunction with the developer or with the Watershed District or how we go about 26 City Council Meeting - May 9, 1988 accomplishing that, I think that I would like to see that be a condition that we at least work with the developer and do some testing of the run-off to see what the condition of it is so we know what's coming off of there. We can monitor it from time to time to make sure that it's improving. I believe what Gary's saying is correct, that it probably will improve the condition overall but let's see what it's doing right now and monitor it to see if it doesn't improve over a period of time. Those are the conditions I would like to see put on for the approval of the final plat. Would that be reasonable with you Barb? Would those issues be reasonably easy to clarify? Barbara Dacy: Again, the Reamer issues can be addressed during plans and specifications or the grading plan for Phase 2. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, but I would like to see you make it a condition so that does get accomplished so that Mrs. Ramer is satisfied that all of her concerns are met. Councilman Geving: Is it your advice then Barbara that we table this item for another two weeks? Mayor Hamilton: I think we can move ahead with the approval with the conditions can't we? Barbara Dacy: If you so choose. Again, the landscaping issue is really the _ main issue of dispute. Mayor Hamilton: But that can come back to us on another, can't that come back as a consent agenda item again? The landscaping issue. Barbara Dacy: Right, if you wanted to approve the plat subject to a revised plan coming back for Council review, that's up to you. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I'd like to see it approved tonight with the three conditions that I mentioned. The landscaping plan. The resolution of the Remmer property concerns and the testing of the run-off into Christmas Lake so we can at least see that those items have been addressed and that they've been resolved to all those concerned. Barbara Dacy: The Reamer grading issues really, because they involve grading and detail analysis of the grading plan, we won't be able to resolve those until we get a grading plan in. Meanwhile the developer does need to final the plat and so on to get the documents prepared. I want to make it clear to the Council that you will have a hook in that issue with the grading plans. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, so we'll have to see a grading plan prior. .. Barbara Dacy: Before even an attempt to resolve their issue. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, so then that should not be a condition. We could have two conditions. Your issue is still going to be resolved. LarryKerber: Can you touch on that turn lane issue because I guess, my big concern with that is, I had no idea that turn lane was going to pop up until 27 City Council Meeting - May 9, 1988 they came out there and dug up the road and started paving. I would like to see some screening. Mayor Hamilton: I would like to see the berming of the turn lane, as I had mentioned, included with the landscaping plan as a part of that review. Gary Warren: Landscaping acceptable in lieu of berming? Berming and/or landscaping? Mayor Hamilton: Sure, I think so. I think it should be shown to Larry so he can see how it will look. Councilman Johnson: A caution on testing of run-off at this point because we — have no baseline data as to what the run-off quality was prior to this point. While I think it actually is a good idea but if the numbers come out, we don't know what has caused those numbers. It may not be Centex. It may still be — continuation from the old horse barn, etc., if the numbers come out high. While I'm supporting it, I just wanted to throw a word of caution in there that it would have been nice, again to have made this test once prior to any _ construction and then done it after the construction to see an improvement type situation. Unfortunatley it's too late. Mayor Hamilton: I agree with you but I would like to start someplace. If we — start now in testing and we ccc what we've got, if it appears to be bad, I think we can make some adjustments further on down the road. Whether it's to make the sediment pond deeper, wider, something to affect the run-off. Councilman Johnson: I agree. The other thing I'd like to do, they're now changing to convey to the City an outlot and they're going to be placing plantings in that outlot. New plantings, the first two years of the plantings are the most critical years. I'd like to sec that Centex is responsible for those plantings for a period of two years. Mayor Hamilton: Is that normal? Councilman Geving: I think one growing season is normal. Gary Warren: Usually one growing is normal. Mayor Hamilton: When they're on berms though, they can last a year and then — die the second year. Councilman Johnson: The difference here is a lot of the plantings go on their - property that they're new homeowners are going to maintain it. This one has to go, the City will have to start maintaining this property and from what I've been catching from certain landscaping folks is that beyond the first year, the _ first two years is when you really have to keep that stuff well watered until the root systems are well established so I'd like in this case, since the City is taking on the responsibility and they're going to be owning the property, I'd like to see that we have good healthy stuff growing there and I'd like to go two years instead of one. Mayor Hamilton: Okay. Anything else? 28 City Council Meeting - May 9, 1988 Councilman Johnson: I haven' t heard from the other three as to what their defintion of landscaping is. I think we're at a point on item 14. They've been negotiating a long time and they still seem to be a long ways apart. I'd like to know the guidance from the rest of the Council on whether they believe landscaping should go all the way down the south property line and all the way across the west property line or whether we should extend to this limit or as I said, extend further down which I've made my thoughts known. I think staff wants that type of guidance and we're at the point where we're not going to resolve it without it. Mayor Hamilton: Since I have a great deal of confidence in our staff to resolve this issue, I think that they should review the landscaping plan and make what they think is a very reasonable suggestion for both sides and present that back to us. Hopefully it will satisfy the Kerber's and it will also satisfy Centex. I feel that the staff is in a position to negotiate with both sides really to reach a mutual agreement and bring that back to us and I'd feel very comfortable with them doing that for us and then having us review it and approve it. Karen Remmer: Just one more point. I didn't say this very well but Mr. Horn touched on it, for the 22 years that we've lived in our little house in the middle of four meadows, our landscaping did tie in with the meadows around it. Now the Centex is coming in to change it and unless our landscaping is changed, _ . then it will no longer tie in and I think it will diminish the value of our property. We aren't asking for anything outrageous. We just want our lawn to tie in with our neighbors. I first brought this to Barb Dacy's attention about two weeks ago when we became aware of the easement. She has a rather lengthy letter from me on this that she said was not in the package. That's our only concern. We don't mean to be difficult or tie anything up. We just want to tie in with the new feel for our neighborhood. Mayor Hamilton: I think we understand that and I think those are the issues that will be addressed for you and be resolved. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the final plat approval for Curry Farms Phase II with the condition that staff work out a reasonable solution to the landscaping plan between Larry Kerber and Centex and that testing be done concerning the run-off from Curry Farms into Christmas Lake. All voted in favor and motion carried. SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST AT 3621 IRONWOOD ROAD, CHARLES ERICKSON. Mayor Hamilton: This was on the agenda for the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Dale, maybe you can tell us what happened? Councilman Geving: Earlier this evening the Board of Adjustments and Appeals met and discussed this item and we had a split vote on the approval. One board member voted for it, two members voted against it and it's being brought before the full Council for further consideration. 29 , - - 277 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 7-- 5 L( CENTEX HOMES CORPORATION, PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LAKE LUCY ROAD AND COUNTY ROAD 17: A. SUBDIVISION OF 53 ACRES INTO 81 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALTER CLASS B WETLANDS. — Jo Ann Olsen: This is a subject made up of two parts. The first one is a subdivision proposal and the second one is a wetland alteration permit. It's — 81 single family homes in the single family district. The net density is 2.13 units per acre. The lots layout is within six lots and there are some variances that are required. Eight of the lots didn't meet the 90 foot minimum public street frontage requirement. Six of them are on cul-de-sacs and three of them are flag lots. The cul-de-sac lots could be adjusted with the lot line being adjusted and Staff did recommend that those lots meet the 90 foot street frontage requirement. The flag lots required a variance and the Planning Commission did approve those variances. Some of the lots also required a variance to the 150 foot lot depth requirement and those were also approved as a part of the subdivision approval. There are also some triangular _ lots and Staff recommended that those be adjusted. We have spoken to the applicant and he has shown some preliminary designs for making those more standard configurations. As far as the streets, the site is adjacent to CR 17 and Lake Lucy Road. It also is adjacent to Teton Lane which connects with — Lilac Lane which is partially within Chanhassen and partially within Shorewood. The City of Shorewood has submitted two letters stating their concern with the development using Lilac Lane and has requested that the City — include Lilac Lane on any feasibility study if Teton is moved to be improved as a public street. Carver County has approved the access location onto CR 17. As far as utilities, sewer and water is available through an internal _ watermain and also along Lake Lucy Road. Drainage, the applicant have worked very hard to maintain the natural characteristics and have provided a ponding system that is maintaining the existing run-off. The drainage is consistent with the City and Watershed District and is being protected with an easement. — Vegetation, the applicant again has worked closely to preserve much of the vegetation and the only areas that are going to be impacted is where the street constructions will take place. Staff is recommending that a — conservation easement be granted along the 982 contour along the southern wetland area and the 992 contour around the northerly pond where the park area is. We are also requiring silt stablization and erosion control. As far as _ Lhe Park and Recreation Commission, they reviewed the proposal and determined that the area was park deficient and recommended that the development provide park area. The applicant is proposing approximately 6.38 acres of active park area and the Park Commission has reviewed this park proposal and has approved — it. They were concerned with the wet soils but the applicant has assured them that it will be drained adequately after every rain storm. That you will be able to use the field within 24 hours. They are also recommending a trail — along Lake Lucy Road, an off-street trail and internal trails around Roads D, B and G which will also connect with the park. There are several outlots with the subdivision. Staff is positioning that these are unbuildable until they meet the City's requirements. Finally, the street name, Staff is recommending 1 that Teton and Lake Lucy not be used just to reduce any confusion. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision with the condition 23 ( City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 that Teton Lane shall be improved to an urban section and shall connect the subdivision with Lilac Lane and that Staff will work with the City of Shorewood to address the concerns on the impacts of Teton and Lilac Lane and if the street configuration is changed, that the preliminary plat shall again be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Also, the subdivision is next to Larry Kerber's contractors yard and we are requesting that the applicant landscape or berm part of the property so the property owners would not be impacted by the contractor's yard and we are also requesting that the developer be responsible for notifying lot owners that there is a contractor's yard at that property that has been approved by the City and will remain there until they decide to move or ceases to do business. So we added those two conditions that the applicant shall submit a landscaping plan providing landscaping for the lots abutting the contractor's yard and that the applicant shall be responsible for informing potential lot owners that a contractor's yard exists. Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps the developers would like to present their overview of the project. Tom Boyce: I'm the president of the Minnesota division of Centex Homes. Centex Homes is a subsidiary of Centex Corporation which is listed on the New York Stock Exchange. We're currently building homes in 21 cities across the country. In Minnesota we're a relatively small builder I guess building between 150 and 250 homes per year. We're currently building projects in Eden Prairie and Bloomington. We hope to build one here in Chanhassen and are planning projects in Apple Valley and Mendota Heights. In Curry Farms we will be the builder as well as the developer. We will be building homes in primarily two price brackets from $110,000.00 to $140,000.00 and from $140,000.00 to $200,000.00 because of the two distinct areas we've got there on top of the hill and the low kind of standardized lots. For the most part it will be primarily what we would classify as a move up neighborhood. We started the project back in October and I met with the Staff and the neighbors a couple times. At least at the Planning Commission meeting one of the major concerns was more with Teton Lane and Lilac Lane than really with the project. I guess we've tried to deal with that as best we think we can. We looked at a number of alternative plans to serve the upper portion of the site as well as Teton. Saw the possibility there of us purchasing Teton and actually dedicating it back to the City for potential future improvement later anyway. I have a couple other people I would like to introduce and I can have them walk through the plan briefly with you. Dick Putnam is with Tandem Corporation and Tandem is the planner for us on the project. Keith Nelson is right behind him with Westwood Planning & Engineering, the engineering consultant on the project and Kevin Clark is next to Keith and he will be the project manager for Centex out there on a daily basis. I guess I would like to ask Dick to kind of briefly go through the plans and then we're here to answer any questions that you or the neighbors would have. Dick Putnam: I'll try to be very brief. Between the Park and Rec Commission and the Staff and Planning Commission, I think we have beat most of the issues around and if you get a chance to go through your packet and look over the Planning Commission discussion that went on for a couple hours, I think most of those issues were pretty well discussed. If I could I would like to 24 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 1 highlight what some of those major concerns were. Maybe we could start with the easiest one. There was a major concern initially about the project that _ the property was being overdeveloped. We looked at probably eight to ten different ways of developing the site ranging from 100 units of single family under your Planned Unit Development Ordinance with 12,000 foot minimum lots to what we'll call a larger lot concept which is reprsented here on the plan — that's before with roughly 80 to 81 lots. I guess through the process of hearing what some of the folks around the site had to say, the Staff and then looking at some soil borings, and I can appreciate the discussion you had _ about Lake Lucy Road. When we took an extensive set of borings throughout the property, we found the soils were very variable. From bottomless where the auger never did hit anything that was worth a darn to 3, 4, 5 feet of bad soils with good underlying materials so the soils really changed quite a bit throughout the site. That provided us with some very good information. As you might expect the poor soil areas correspond to where they were low. That's nothing you would expect except in one area which was right up here — where there is a riding ring today which is right off of by Teton. Evidentally, that was a marsh at one time because under about 4 or 5 feet of reasonably good soil was about 8 feet of organic soils. You wouldn't know it by looking at it so every once in a while you get surprised. What we looked at was if you can put a plan together that had some densities that made sense in the scooe of what the City of Chanhassen was looking at in your Zoning Ordinance as well as some of the concerns that the neighbors brought, we'd be — money ahead i.e. out goes the Planned Unit Development idea with smaller lots and a little higher density and back to your more conventional zoning approach. The other thing was that since we were on the cutting edge of the — MUSA line and the Urban Service line is on our western boundary and then again on the southern boundary on a portion of Lake Lucy. The areas west and south are outside of the MUSA. We had kind of the unique situation where abutting _ owners, some of which would be very interested in the ability to connect to sewer, others had absolutely no interest whatsoever and wanted to make sure that our project wasn't going to force them into sewer service and urban costs. one of the things we did do quite consciously was in the southwest — portion of the site, which is the knoll and primary wooded area, we tried to make those lots as large as possible to reduce the grading and just basically cut the streets in and let what amounts to custom homes go in on rather large — lots, 30,000 to 50,000 square foot. I guess that responds a bit to the terrain as well as some of the quality and size of the neighbors adjacent to us. Another thing that was brought up that we tried to address was the park issue. I think that was quite well discussed at the Park and Recreation Commission meeting. The plan that you have in your book which is a blow-up of the park area shows some changes in the grading in that area that will allow some development of park facilities in the future that the Staff and Park and — Rec Commission felt were important there. The plan has changed slightly. After the Park and Rec Commission meeting we provided a trail connection, parking area and made sure that the park area was large enough to accomodate — the facilities that the Staff had outlined to us. Ballfields, tennis courts, totlots, that sort of thing. Keith might touch a little bit on the issue of 1 how the ponds and that sort of thing work. Basically, this is a revised grading plan. You can see that there are a couple ponding areas in the park. — Those are connected with storm sewer and the other portion of the property is graded so it will work for those facilities. The other issue that we dealt 25 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 with early on in the project was the question of wetlands. What we had on the site in terms of wetlands and what we ought to be doing with them. We were made aware early on by the Staff that the City was very concerned about wetland protection as well as wetland enhancement so the Staff had arranged to have a biologist from the Fish and Wildlife Service, Elizabeth Rockwell out to the site who looked at the site and basically her recommendations and her appraisal of it were included in a letter to the City that basically came back and said that there is one good wetland area which is in the southwestern corner of the site which has water on it. The balance of the site is, through years of agriculture draining horse operations, farming, whatever, really didn't degrade it to the point where it isn't functioning as a wetland really at all so what we did was look at it and said to enhance the site, first of all. Deal with the poor soils that we have in some of those areas. Provide for a water detention system, ponding area that will help in clearing up the water and that sort of thing. Holding the water on the site before it can be discharged in the natural drainage to Christmas Lake and also take the water that comes from off-site. There is drainage through the site in really three directions. East of CR 17 where the pond is there is an overflow here. There is a wetland area that's north of Lake Lucy but flows into our site coming from the south and there is a culvert system going under Lake Lucy Road. There is also a ravine on the western portion of the property by Jim Donovan's property that comes up back and hits a little lake that's up here. Those three areas provide drainage into our site. That drainage then goes out under CR 17 through a wooded ravine down toward Christmas Lake. We're all very aware of Christmas Lake. In fact, Keith Nelson, our engineer, is a skin diver in Christmas Lake so we were well aware of the concerns about the water quality going off the site and I think the system that Westwood has designed will work very well in that case. It also provides some zip and pizazz frankly to the back of the lots with ponding and some natural areas around those ponds should make for better lots quite frankly. The other thing and I'll just touch on it with this map, because of the terrain that we have, where we have probably 60 to 70 feet of grade change on that site, if you go look at it right now you would say you need a mountain goat to get around. That's both good and bad. From our perspective for homesites, if you're trying to provide $150,000.00 to $200,000.00 homesites, it good and we've been able to keep most of the trees that you see which are located, lucky for us, along the slopes and by the same token it allows us to put some homesites on top of those hills. Both on the southwestern portion and up where the riding arena is today without really disturbing very much. It results in big lots that we think will be some really, really nice homesites. That's the good news. The bad news is that because those lots are in a strange shape, we call them flag lots or some rather odd shaped things, they don't necessarily meet the requirement that says 90 feet 30 feet back from the street. They may be 150 feet 70 feet back from the street but they aren't 90 feet at 30 feet. I guess what we've been asking is, in a lot such as number 5 for example, which is up here off of Road G, at the building pad setback we're at about 110 feet or more in width. Unfortunately is you take a straight 30 foot setback because the street curves, we're probaby closer to 60 feet and we've got an easement for another flag lot as well as a trail easement coming there also. We think that's an awfully nice lot. The lot is very large square footage wise but doesn't really meet that standard so what we would be looking at is, wherever we [E7 building, if we choose to build 40 or 50 feet back from the street rather than 26 281 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 T a straight 30 foot, that we would have to have a 90 foot minimum setback and we feel on all of the lots in the project that won't be a problem at all. The flag lot like number 6 or number 5 in the same instance or down here, 13 is — probably the most vivid example, where we build going across that lot with the minimum at the front with a 90 foot setback, we think that would meet the requirements that your city has. Lastly, I guess I would just hit Teton Lane — and Lilac Lane. As Tom mentioned, Road G really is on the Teton Lane alignment. I guess early on when we talked with some of the neighbors and got a jist of what some of the issues were, where some folks would like to see 4 or 5 homes on the site instead of 50 or 80. There is also concern about — access. What we found was that Teton Lane is a private easement, 33 feet. It's owned by Mr. Carlson who owns this chunk of property which is listed as an exception. It provides easements to I think there are probably 13 or 14 — separate people listed on that document surrounding this area. It became evident to us that there were some very different opinions as to what the status of Teton Lane should be and what it will be in the future. We heard a lot of stories about somebody tried to give it to the City back 15 years ago and the city wouldn't take it and a number of other things. The bottom line for us was that this site has a lot of exceptions that we're building around such as Mr. Loris' house or Reamer's house up in here or Carlson's property or the Kerber property or the Jacques down on Lake Lucy Road. We're really kind of fitting in, if you will, to an existing neighborhood. Granted some of the homes are very, very high value and some of them are very not very high value and they may be within 300 to 400 feet of one another. It's very, very difficult to take a $300,000.00 or $400,000.00 house versus a $70,000.00 house that are 400 feet from each other and come up with a compatible type. I think you can appreciate the problem. As it related to Teton, we felt that the solution was to acquire the right-of-way and provide that to the City as public right-of-way to do with what you choose and that would mean talking to all of the affected property owners who have access to it and finding out if it should be closed off. If it should be improved. If it should be a mat of asphalt applied to it. If it should be given back to the people who take their access from it for them to maintain but one way or the other for the — City to be in a position I guess to determine what happens to it rather than currently the situation where the fellow who owns it is not real wild about continuing to pour gravel and oil and money and new culverts and all these things on it because he doesn't feel it's his responsibility for everybody to use it so our solution is, we've gone out and signed a purchase agreement contingent on approval with Mr. Carlson to purchase the right-of-way that you see here that cuts across this property as well as the 33 feet of right-of-way — that he has that goes out to Lilac Lane. We would improve Lilac Lane within the confines of our site and that little road H that provides access to Reamer's property and we would do that at no cost to anybody else then we -- would convey the right-of-way from that link, which is roughly the pillars if you've been out there. If you are used to that area, it's close to where the pillars would be. To provide that right-of-way to the City and they would then make some judgments on what to do. It's going to take a while. If you were at the Planning Commission meeting, you would have gotten the jist that there is no simple solution at this point in time. The letter from Shorewood which I did have occasion to talk with the City Manager today from Shorewood, didn't really provide anything any easier to understand either because I wish we would have known about the meeting and been allowed to attend the meeting. 27 — City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 I mentioned to him that I think he ought to have a couple positions presented rather than the one that was presented by some folks who talked to the Shorewood Council so at this point the solution to Teton is at least we're providing the right-of-way and it allows something to happen in the future. — Quite frankly there are very few units, there are about 18 units in our project on top of the hill, if you count Loris' house and Reamer's, that's about 20 units that are in the general area that would conceivably use this area as well as the existing one or two homes that access it right now so the number of units that would go north would be fairly small to begin with and I guess the traffic wouldn't really be a significant number. At this point maybe what I'll do is ask Keith to very quickly explain the drainage system for you and utilities other than the sewer and water on all the streets that you would normally expect but the drainage system Keith maybe you can touch real quickly on. Keith Nelson: As Dick indicated I am a diver so I do have a special interest here with the water quality on Christmas Lake. Just to go over the drainage here, it's sort of complex. There is a lot of drainage from off-site that does drain through this site. There is a large wetland basin up to the west that does drain through a ravine to the proposed ponding areas and out through culverts. There is drainage from this wetland area that there is presently storm sewer through Lake Lucy Road and empties into another wetland basin that's located south of Lake Lucy Road and again through other culverts. A drain that does contain north and then it goes out the same point out through CR 17. There is another large wetland basin on the east side of CR 17 and there is a controlled culvert and controlled inlet that does discharge into he site and again flows through the site back to this ponding area and out back under CR 17 through this 36 inch storm sewer pipe. We looked at a storm water management plan for the entire area. We've looked at possibly restricting some of the flows off-site to utilize some of that existing ponding boundaries that are available and again we did this same thing on site with the construction of five ponding areas and we can really restrict the rate of flow in the developed condition at approximately one-third of what the flow is now in the peak rate of flow in the undeveloped condition so again for grade restrictions we are really dropping down the amount of run-off that will exit the site via this area in pond #4. During construction phase you want to minimize erosion. There is extensive grading around the site. Not in the wooded areas but in other portions of the plat. These wetlands that we are going to be construction are going to be constructed such to enhance a wetland type growth and vegetation. A ponding area will be constructed to clean 1 and 3 feet beneath the outlet pipes proposed that will restrict rate of flow so these areas will act as pumps as say basins or sump traps during the construction phase which will catch a lot of the sediment. During construction the first thing we would do is excavate out these ponds, construct the berms, trying to hold the water, contain it on-site and before the outlet culverts are construction, and we won't put those pipes in until all the grading is done and turf is established. We will seed and mulch everything upon completion of grading. What we will do to these berms is — construct like a rock filter. We'll actually put in a large pile of rock as part of the berm and what that will do is let the water trickle through and will filter out a lot of the sediment and will hold a lot of the sediment back in the ponding areas so again I think we're really going to minimize the 28 283 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 Jr- effects downstream, mainly Christmas Lake. I have forwarded a copy of my drainage plan to the Watershed Engineers. They have reviewed it. They have no problems with it and we will be making a formal Watershed Permit — application. Mayor Hamilton: That concludes all of your presentation? Perhaps we can start with Clark. If you have any questions or comments you wish to make. Councilman Horn: I like the layout. I think the park worked out fine. The storm sewer system looks good. I like the protection for Christmas Lake. One — question I did have though is that you only showed us four housing types. I didn't see any housing types in what you would call your other section. These obviously are the higher priced homes. — Tom Boyce: The house you have right there is $120,000.00 to $140,000.00 house. We try to give you a range. Councilman Horn: Every one of these is a two story or split level. What about ramblers? Tom Boyce: We don't build any ramblers. Councilman Johnson: I would like to say I appreciate all the time you've done in the saving of the trees and a lot of the work you've done here. I think it's an outstanding project as going. On the north side it's pivotable on Teton Lane. Without Teton, the whole north side falls apart with that being _ an extremely long cul-de-sacs and no real way to get out without having to go into the neighbors to your west and back down somehow or another and with the wetlands and stuff in there I don't think that's feasible at all. It's an extremely difficult piece of land to develop in there and I really appreciated all the hard work you're doing on this including the lot that you're putting together on here. What is your phasing plan? Tom Boyce: We would be working from the south to the north. Councilman Johnson: Okay, so there is some time on Teton Lane to work it out. Tom Boyce: Maybe Dick would like to some them some alternate plans. We've looked at I guess 7 or 8 different plans. Councilman Johnson: Yes, I was impressed at the Planning Commission meeting of how many different plans you had. I think you were up through F or G. Tom Boyce: There is another way to serve the area to the north and you — probably saw it at the Planning Commission meeting. The only way to do that is through the area right now that's proposed as park which may mean some other things would need to shift around I guess. How does the City feel about — long cul-de-sacs? 1 Councilman Johnson: I personally am very much against long cul-de-sacs from a — 1 public safety point of view. That's why to me Teton Road is very pivotable to get to the people in Block 6, Lots 1 through 6 in an emergency would be very 29 1 C1 .e City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 tough without Teton Lane and Lilac Lane and the cooperation of Shorewood so for a city of our size it's going to be a challenge for you and our city. Are 1 we going to be starting a feasibility study on Teton Lane in the near future or how does that work? Mayor Hamilton: That's a possibility that we'll get to here in a few minutes. Don Ashworth: That's a recommendation of approval. Councilman Johnson: I would to see that the park entrance between Block 6 and Block 5 be a more direct route to the park. If there was some way to work it in between Lot 5, Lots 1 and 2 or 3 and 4. The more direct access, that would make even Lot 6 a more nice remote lot rather than having a trail around that lot. For somebody that really wants their privacy back on that flag lot. On the lots like Lot 5 of Block 5, I would like to see us make sure that the houses aren't built up towards the front of the lot. Is there anyway we can do that Barb or Jo Ann? Tom Boyce: I have absolutely no problem addressing that in the development agreement. Put it so the house has to be built where it's at least 90 feet wide? I have no problems with that or deed restriction. Jo Ann Olsen: You just have a minimun setback that you can't get any closer to the road frontage. Councilman Johnson: What I'm saying is on a couple of these lots, to be specific Block 5, Lot 5 at the 30 foot setback he has about 70 feet and this is on a turn which is similar to on a cul-de-sac. If he goes back another 20 foot he'll hit his 90 foot width. I'm saying is there some way we can assure that he'll be back that additional 20 foot to hit that 90 foot width so the homeowner can't come in and say I want mine 30 foot up and then he builds it that way. Jo Ann Olsen: The only thing that would stop him from being able to do that is the width of the house. The sideyard setbacks would prohibit that. Councilman Johnson: Unless they build the house deep and narrow. Jo Ann Olsen: You can make it a condition that it would have to be set back at however many feet. Councilman Johnson: All housing setbacks have to be at 90 foot width is what Tom suggested. That could be an easy condition on here. Mayor Hamilton: It would be in the development contract. Otherwise it can't be done. Councilman Johnson: Okay. There are several of those. I agree with the triangle lots. I don't like triangle lots personally. I hear you are getting rid of those. Is there something being done on Block 2, Lot 5 which has a 81 foot frontage? Just as you come in on Road B, second lot in. Is that going [E7 to be readjusted to give us the 90? We have the 90 at the housing setback on 30 285 A. City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 ir- that one but there is no reason for it on a straight street. If we have a curve or a cul-de-sac, there is a reason to use the house setback. Jo Ann Olsen: I believe the lot lines can be adjusted. Councilman Johnson: Are we requiring that adjustment to be made in here? — Jo Ann Olsen: It was in the conditions. In the condition that said all lots shall meet the 90 foot frontage requirement. _ Councilman Johnson: Okay, that is part of condition 1 so that will be done. Councilman Geving: I have a few questions. Basically I want to make sure that the comment regarding the various lots that the Staff indicated could be adjusted will be and I'm looking at your staff report on page 3. Six of the lots which require a variance can be adjusted. Have those been adjusted? Jo Ann Olsen: They haven't yet but that's part of the conditions that they must be. Councilman Geving: Is there any imagination that could be used on the three triangular lots that they can look to some kind of a scheme? Could you show me how you might do that? — Dick Putnam: What we end up doing is just expanding Lot 12. All the lots have plenty of square footage in them so what we do is we but off the back yards here on 9, 8, 7 and 45 and just create a larger, deeper backyard here and then these are wider in the back. That's what I reviewed with the Staff. Councilman Geving: Okay, so Lot 12 will be extended to the south. I was a little bit concerned about Lot 6, Block 6 and it's access however you do have a substantial size lot there and I think we can build a pretty nice home on that lot. It's rather steep. Normally I would object to that but I think we — can fit a house on there. Also on Lot 13, Block 2 is a very narrow corridor there but I don't have the footage here but it's a big lot and off that cul- de-sac I think we could also make that. I had some other comments regarding _ the Teton Lane. I don't know how that's all going to work out in response to Shorewood. You may not be doing us a great deal of a favor by dedicating that back to the City because then it becomes our problem and from there I don't know what we're going to do with it because eventually it's going to have to be, if we go through the feasibility study and build the road, somebody is going to have to pay for it. We'll have to take up that issue but I'm not so sure we're really getting a favor by picking up that roadway. Do you have any — thoughts Staff on what could be done there? Barbara Dacy: Again, the preliminary plat as proposed shows a connection to Teton Lane to Lilac Lane. The Planning Commission was very specific that if the Council, as part of the plat approval does not recommend improvement of Teton or including Teton at all in it's plan, that it go back to the Planning Commission. It does result in long cul-de-sacs and if the Council chooses not to improve Teton Lane or require it's improvement then Staff is recommending that we take another look at the access issue. However, Staff is recommending 31 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 that the connection exists now and we are recommending improvement of Teton Lane as well as the Council initiating the feasibility study process. Councilman Geving: Okay, we'll address that later. Is there a Park and Rec Commission member here tonight? If not, what were their comments in regards to this? Is it basically a lowland that they are going to be picking up? 6.38 acres. We talked about getting a swamp, an area that can be improved. Mayor Hamilton: If I remember right, didn't they say that it was quite lowland but you were going to do some improvements in it to try and eliminate some of the water. Tom Boyce: It's a very flat lowland. There is no drainage out of it. What we're going to do is go back in there and improve it. Build the ponds to hold the water. Councilman Geving: I guess I know that it's quite low in there. My personal feeling is we'll take the 6.38 acres but I'm not sure about park dedication refund of any kind. That will have to be worked out by the Council to off-set the addition of parkland that we would accept. Do you understand what we're talking about? Dick Putnam: Not exactly, no. Councilman Geving: Well, it's a point of negotiation for the Council to accept your 6.38 acres but at the same time we wouldn't necessarily have to give you 100o credit for that land. It might be a 50o credit for park dedication fees. Currently our park dedication fees run about $400.00. Better than $400.00 per unit. We might give you a 50o reduction because of the land that you're giving us for the park but not necessarily 100o so that anybody buying a home, picking up a permit would still have to pay possibley something towards a park dedication fee to develop that park. Do you understand now what I'm saying? Dick Putnam: I guess we do. What we talked with the Park and Rec Commission about was, rather than giving you land we were giving you a park. Councilman Geving: But now you're talking to the Council. Dick Putnam: I'm talking to the Council the same as I'm talking to everybody and that is we can do one of two things. We can give you a park that's developable, seeded, ready to go, that's dry and going to meet all your conditions that the staff and your engineers will approve the grading for and will do the grading as part of our project and that will more than meet our requirement for park contribution. If what you're telling us tonight is, well gee whiz maybe... Councilman Geving: I'm not telling you gee whiz. Dick Putnam: Maybe the land isn't good enough as a park and there should be a park contribution on top of the improvements we're going to make to the land, then yes, you're right. We better talk about that right away. 32 ( ( 237 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 — ; ir- Councilman Geving: That's a Council decision. We make that decision. Don Ashworth: I think we need to come back to the Council potentially. We could meet as well Councilman Geving and go through the level of grading that is proposed on this site. I have some concerns as well as to the suitability _ of those soils. You are absolutely right, we've got to make sure that they will be dry and the level of improvements that they are going to do to those, to the property, could greatly off-set the necessity for additional monies. I feel confident that Lori and myself have been working with them in that area. — I'm sure we're aware of your concerns and we will bring the item back to you. Councilman Geving: Okay, that's fine. I have just one other comment. I — think I had a note or two on the plat itself. I had made a comment regarding Lot 5, Block 2 and Block 2, Lot 7 and you have made those adjustments. Is that what you're telling me Jo Ann? For the lot width? Jo Ann Olsen: Not yet but they will be. Councilman Geving: How about the road that we identify as Road I. Isn't that — a rather unusual cul-de-sac? Is that an unusual cul-de-sac for maintenance? Jo Ann Olsen: It is kind of a bubble but the reason it is designed was to — protect the wetlands and the slope area and vegetation. Councilman Geving: Do you agree with that? From the Staff's standpoint you agrcc with that? — Jo Ann Olsen: From the Staff's standpoint we saw several different street alternatives and this one preserved the area the best. — Councilman Geving: I have no other comments. Mayor Hamilton: You said you were going to do not only the developing but the building. Will you allow other builders in the area? If I came in and wanted to buy a lot and have somebody build there, you don't allow that? Tom Boyce: Usually not. It's certainly not our intention at this point. If the interest rates are at 17% tomorrow and somebody wanted to buy a lot it would be difficult for me to say no but no, that's not our intention. — Mayor Hamilton: There are a lot of people here. Is anyone here that would like to make a comment or ask a question about the development? Marc Simcox: I live on Lilac Lane across from Teton. I think the big concern that I have and that most of the residents have is that a lot of people are going to pay to improve the road that is going to serve only one individual — who lives on that road presently but in order to really serve a development and that's the major concern. I've been done quite a bit of work to try and Idiscover what exactly is going to occur and I keep finding that everything is — being proposed and improved prior to finding out exactly what's going to happen Teton Lane which we're really concerned about. As it presently sits, Teton Lane is abutted on two sides by one property owner who has approximately 33 28 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 800 feet on one side and then three others who own about one-third a piece. Out of all the property owners only one of those actually uses Teton Lane. The others exit and go on Lilac Lane which of course in most cases would have to approved at least for drainage. The way the developments been proposed now, there has been no northern access but to cut down the length of the cul- de-sacs on the northern side of the project other than through the use of Teton Lane. One thing was mentioned in the Planning Commission and the plan was covered and turned over pretty rapidly, I didn't get a chance to see how the road layouts worked but that used and addressed the possible use of this path. The cul-de-sac here, I guess it's Road E where it goes over Road G. The cul-de-sac in the corner of your Block 3, Lot 15. That was used at one time when the sewer was being constructed on Lilac Lane for temporary access. I spoke with the County today about that because we were informed at the Planning Commission meeting that the Council didn't want the access there so I did speak to the County and they said they have no objection to that as long as it's a safe intersection with proper sight distances. I think the sight distances there are probably better than they are at the proposed exit on CR 17 and Road D. There would be some extra grading involved to do that but the costs would not come out of the Teton Lane abutting property owners to provide that access. It probably isn't a whole lot different distance wise if that was used than if Lilac Lane and Teton Lane connection was used to access those cul-de-sacs in an emergency. Mayor Hamilton: What's going to be proposed, so we don't go on about Teton Lane all night, is that we're going to suggest that a feasibility study be conducted to look at not just Teton but the alternatives to that particular road and how that may fit into the project then we can take a closer look at that and look at just one issue and discuss that and scc how that is going to be resolved. Marc Simcox: That's in a feasibility study? Mayor Hamilton: You bet. That's what the study would be about. Marc Simcox: The plat is not going to be approved as it exists until that has been taken care of? Mayor Hamilton: No, that's not true. The plat can be approved with the condition that the feasibility study needs to be completed on Teton. Marc Simcox: The one concern of course by the property owners there is that the City and the developer want the feasibility study to show the Teton Lane is required, that's exactly what the feasibility study will show. Right or wrong that's the way they are feeling. What we would suggest is that Teton Lane would be used for access onto the development and the rest of it dedicated to the City until such time that that property may be developed 20 years in the future and the City can then go in and do something. . . Mayor Hamilton: I think that's what our feasibility study will tell us. When it should be developed and in what manner and how the road configuration should be for the development. 34 289 - City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 ir- Jim Donovan: If I might I would like to step up here and just show you something here. I'm the owner of this piece of property here. I own from here up to Lilac and from Lilac down to here. This is the road that we're — talking about Teton here. I'm concerned that this road here would then become a public road if was deeded to the City of Chanhassen for the benefit of the development down in here. The taxpayers here are not the largest taxpayer in this thing here now. I would be virtually thrown out. I bought this piece of property, came from Bloomington two years ago and I dreamed about this thing for 14 years and purchased this piece of property and the adjoining piece over here and now I see this happening for the benefit down here. Not for the — benefit of the people here. I can assure you I will put this in writing and anything you want, this will never, never, in my lifetime, ever be developed. These people here are going to have to pay. I'm going to have to pay for the — benefit of this thing. Mayor Hamilton: That's what the feasibility study will show. Jim Donovan: I understand that but I just want to impress upon you that the people here feel that the feasibility study is a foregone conclusion that it's going to say that for the benefit of this we're going to be sacrificed because — of bigger tax benefits to the City of Chanhassen then what this property now gives. Mayor Hamilton: I hope we can do a better feasibility study than that. Just because you have property there and you're not benefitting doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to be charged for the road at this time. Jim Donovan: Somebody has to be charged for the road. I understand that. What we're saying is that this is not necessary to have the exit go here. It can go out here to CR 17. Lilac Lane is a very bad exit right now. It's very — bad. Come out here onto CR 17 would be much better. We don't know what a feasibility study, if we're allowed to have input into a feasibility study or can we come to a hearing or is there a hearing. — Mayor Hamilton: Absolutely. When the feasibility study is completed, it will be put on an agenda and it will be discussed at that time and all alternatives will be looked at will be discussed and opened to the public as is any other meeting. Jim Donovan: Okay, thank you. — Barbara Dacy: Just to further clarify Mr. Donovan's comments. Before we discuss the feasibility study, the first action before the Council is the _ subdivision preliminary plat approval. If you approve a plat as proposed you are in essence looking at a connection to Lilac Lane via Teton Lane and obviously the property owners are proposing instead of doing that, offering an alternative to make a connection to CR 17 by a second access so there is a — second option proposed tonight. The first option is what the developer has proposed on the preliminary plat and the second option is what you just heard from Mr. Donovan and Mr. Simcox. Just to reiterate that subdivision approval is first and that would really dictate authorizing the feasibility study to improve Teton Lane. By approving the proposed plat, you are giving direction 35 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 to improve Teton Lane. Mayor Hamilton: To authorize a feasibiilty study not to improve it. Barbara Dacy: Right, I just wanted to clarify that. Jim Donovan: We're not being sacrificed, is that what you're saying? Barbara Dacy: No, I'm just saying that they are offering a second potential access plan. Mayor Hamilton: That needs to be considered in the feasibility study. Don Ashworth: I don't agree. In the feasibility study we will look to the other access. If that is the recommendation per the Planning Commission recommendation, they would have to look at that new access. Barbara Dacy: Then the developer would also have to indicate to use some type of phasing plan so some of the lots that could be affected by this secondary access are not affected so we're not approving final plats until the feasibility study is complete. Don Ashworth: That's fine. I don't see where it's a problem though as I would hope to have this completed within the next 6 to 8 weeks and I'm sure it will be a more difficult process but I think we faced Creekwood, Bluff Creek and a number of other challenges and I think we can face this one as well. Marc Simcox: Just to make sure that we have this correct because we heard this a couple different ways. We were told before that the feasibilty study does not decide whether or not it's done. The City Council approving a plat decides that it's going to be done. The feasibility only decides how it's going to be done. So if the Council approves the plat, it is going to be done. The Teton connection is going to be made. Mayor Hamilton: Not necessarily. If we approve the plat, we are also saying that a feasibility study needs to be done to look at Teton Lane improvement and alternatives. Councilman Johnson: Tonight we're approving a preliminary plat, not the final plat. There is a considerable difference here. The preliminary plat says that this is a way we can do it. This is a way we see to do it. There is a feasibility study going on. There can be changes made between now and the final plat. Marc Simcox: We're real concerned about that. Tom Boyce: We can certainly final plat the south half of the property first and plat the upper half as an outlot. I guess that's what we had intended anyway. To final plat the southern portion of the property. [E7 36 291 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 ir- Larry Kerber: They are proposing I think it's their main entry from my south property line, is that correct? Councilman Geving: That's correct. Larry Kerber: My concern would be the amount of traffic coming by my place. MIN You are going to be putting in a road, I won't benefit out of that road. It will run approximately 10 to 15 feet from my property line and I would just like to see that road, their main entry road contained within, at least one lot within the perimeter. I look here at other projects in the area, I can't find too many with the main entry accesses another abutting property owner. I don't know what's going to happen with Teton but I can end up with all the traffic coming in and out of that project at my property. Mayor Hamilton: I don't know how you can figure you can get all of it. Lake Lucy Road is going to get some. There will be another entrance someplace. _ Councilman Horn: A proposed alternative as I see it would be on both sides of it. They have a main street road B on the south and then a proposal on the north. Councilman Geving: He could get hit with both of them. Mayor Hamilton: Potential yes. It depends on what the feasibility study says. Councilman Horn: Somebody is going to lose in this thing. He's either going to have a road on both sides of him or it's going to go out to Lilac. It's not going to stop. Mayor Hamilton: We'll consider that. It's something else we need to take a look at. Larry Kerber: Yes, I would just like to see something between the road. A Lot if there is anyway they can route it just because of the special type of operation I have going on there. Councilman Geving: I was thinking in Larry's case, when I looked at this plan, I was kind of hoping we could curve that Road D between Lots 20 and 21 and leave a single family home abutting his land. That leaves a problem though with Lot 1. Could the developer work that out? The reason I'm saying this is because when I looked at this plan, I understand what Larry's saying, if we could have a buffer there of one lot, Lot 21, I think that would solve Larry's problem and get him another 100 and some feet away from that road. Dick Putnam: What our interest is quite frankly is to build the largest berm _ and put the most vegetation we can right there. If you recall in the Staff Report at the Planning Commission the recommendation was that we screen off the abutting lot which is Lot 1 from that property. The reason being that Larry has a contractor's yard and three stall garage for equipment and a -- parking area right there. The last thing I want to do is put a house there because when he starts equipment at 6:00 in the morning it's not a 37 ' k City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 particularly good thing but by the same token, the best neighbor from our perspective is quite frankly a road and large berm and plantings and rocks and that sort of thing. That will go a long ways to solving any of his concerns, which isn't for his house because his house is on the other side of all that equipment. It's the concern that the people driving by there will object to that particular use in the future so our interest is to build a screen that he won't bothered by us and likewise by him. Councilman Geving: I'm not so sure. I haven't been out to Larry's place recently but if I looked to the south from his garage, I don't believe there is a whole lot of land that you can make a berm with. Larry, when you look at the area to the south of you, doesn't that go down? Isn't that a depression? Larry Kerber: It drops off almost from my property line, is the start of the drop off and it drops off quite severely. Councilman Geving: I don't know where you're going to be the berm. Dick Putnam: The first thing we have to do is we have to fill the area where the road goes because you have to have a flat grade not like Lilac so it's going to be flat. Right now it drops off but there is going to be dirt brought in there to bring it up. In the process of bringing that up, I told Larry what we will be doing is building a very large berm. If he wants us to put part of it on his property and move the trees he has put in on his side up higher, we would be happy to do that do we'll do it on our property but I think our interest, in this case, are entirely the same. We want to build a separation that's permanent and I think that's what he wants too. Councilman Geving: Dick, could we call that area to the north of the road there, just as you come in and to the north, could we call that an outlot? Dick Putnam: Sure. Frankly it might be easier to make it part of the public right-of-way if you would like and just come right across like that. That might be a posibility or we could keep it as an outlot, whichever is easiest. Councilman Geving: What do you think? Don Ashworth: That sounds like a solution for both sides. Councilman Geving: Just so we have a separation there. I think that's what we're looking for. Dick Putnam: That's our interest 100%. Councilman Horn: Is the biggest concern going up to Lilac the assessment or is it the actual road going through? So they are both equal? Marc Simcox: I would say that the assessment is one of the biggest issues because there are so very few people to absorb that assessment. The impact on Lilac Lane, I don't know how the grading would be done and how they can improve the grade as you come up from Mill Street because it's a fairly steep grade and also continues steep to the south and also drops to the north. I 38 293. City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 don't know how that grade will be improved. It's already now, anybody who drives up that road can tell you it's a constant wheel spinning all year round on that road and as an access, I don't know how the grading can be changed. Also at the top of the hill you have to make an immediate left turn onto Teton which is also a grade and that's a real problem in the wintertime for people to get up. I live right across the street from Teton and so far I've had two — vehicles in the last four years that have come over my wall and it's about a 8 foot drop or 7 foot drop. r Mayor Hamilton: Okay, I think all those concerns will be addressed in the feasibility study. Councilman Geving: I want to ask a questin of the developer. Would you be willing to pay for the improvement of Teton to Lilac? Tom Boyce: No I wouldn' t. Councilman Geving: The answer's no. Dick Putnam: We can purchase some of the property on either side of it, sure. — Tom Boyce: I guess I tried that at one point. Councilman Geving: I'm placing this question before you because you are really the major contributor to creating this problem. Tom Boyce: There are other alternatives to develop the site. This is the alternative that we felt was best and I guess Staff felt was best and was the one we presented. We did look at access to the northwest. We don't own that property and we looked at acquiring a number of other pieces in there but quite frankly it just didn't make common sense. Dick Putnam: If you just focus in on this F business, this reflects what I think was suggested. Connection out through the city property and I guess you do have some control over what's done here because you own the chunk of property in question which is this triangle right here. This represents a connection through Lot 15 onto our site and we talked to the Staff about that. To be perfectly honest with you, the reason we proposed what we proposed was that the road that's there today is not going to be maintained by the guy who owns it anymore. That's just a fact of life. I don't know if Mr. Carlson is here tonight but he quite frankly is not going to continue it and there are people asking him for dust nuisance control and all this business and it was pretty obvious to us that something was going to happen here between the neighbors. Not us but between the neighbors. The other reason was that the Staff had indicated the City would like to see a public street connection. Not only for what happens with our project but just for the area in general and look at it from a total perspective of public street access of all the properties. Public Safety, the neighbors pointed out very eloquently that Lilac Lane and Teton are terrible in the wintertime. You can't get up. If 1 somebody has a heart attack, you'll never get an ambulance up. They convinced me that they ought to have another way in and out so what we did is said okay, here's a way to connect it. Quite frankly, we'll plat it and over the course 39 9(14 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 of the feasibilty study and the time it takes to resolve the issue, if alternate F is what you want us to do, we'll revise the plat here so it won't bother anybody. The dust control problem the gentlemen has ain't going to be resolved. Jim Donovan: It's not going to be there. The dust is not going to be there. Dick Putnam: The problem is going to be that people who have access to it today will continue to have access. We have not built one thing up there and the folks are having problems and they have called the City and they complain, whatever. Mayor Hamilton: Thanks very much for your comments. I think that's plenty. Franco Loris: I have lived up there for 19 years now. I've walked many times by that road from Carlson...so all of a sudden this company is coming in and they are picking it up and they are going to improve it..but that's not true. I would have bought it from him but just the road, not those old shacks. I would be willing to do that right now but not for a public access. I would maintain it too because after all I've been up there for 19 years and I guess it's for my use as well. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, that's something else that should be included in the feasibility study is talk to Franco. I think a motion is in order. We have two items before us. A subdivision of 53 acres into 81 single family lots with the conditions as outlined by the Planning Commission and the Park and Rec Commission and a Wetland Alteration Permit to alter a Class B wetland. Councilman Johnson: When does the feasibility study get approved? Mayor Hamilton: That's item 13 of the conditions. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Curry Farm Subdivision as shown on the preliminary plat dated April 2, 1987 with the following conditions: 1. Lot 13, Block 2, Lot 6, Block 5 and Lot 15, Block 3 shall receive a variance to the 90 foot lot frontage requirement with all minimum house setbacks at the 90 foot lot width and all other lots shall meet the 90 foot frontage requirement. 2. The triangular lots shall be changed to reflect a more standard lot configuration. 3. Teton Lane shall be improved to an urban section and shall connect the subdivision with Lilac Lane. 4. An access permit for Road D shall be requied from Carver County. 5. A conservation easement at the 982 foot contour shall be provided around the westerly side of the pond in Block 2 and along the southerly side of the park area. 40 295 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 Jr- 6. A conservation easement at the 992 foot contour shall be provided along the northerly side of the park area. 7. All necessary drainage and utility easements shall be provided. 8. The conditions as established by the Park and Recreation Commission — dated Apri 9, 1987. 9. The applicant shall provide acceptable drainage calculations for the _ determination that the park area will drain properly. 10. The outlots shall not be considered buildable. 11. The street names shall not contain the names Lake Lucy or Teton. 12. The conditions as established by the City Engineer in his report — dated April 17, 1987. 13. Staff shall work with the City of Shorewood to address their concerns — on the impacts on Teton and Lilac Lane and if the street configuration is changed, the preliminary plat shall again be reviewed by the Planning Commission. 14. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan providing landscaping for lots abutting the contractory's yard. 15. The applicant shall be responsible for informing potential lot owners that a contractor's yard exists. All voted in favor and motion carried. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Wetland Alteration Permit #87-6 with the following conditions: — 1. The Class A wetland shall be preserved by a conservation easement established at 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark. _ 2. The applicant shall provide drainage easements over the ponding areas throughout the site and not allow any alteration to the areas. All voted in favor and motion carried. Mayor Hamilton: What will the timeframe be, Barb or Gary, you'll be doing the feasibility study? Gary Warren: I would say 6 to 8 weeks we'll be done with this. Mayor Hamilton: Be sure to include the alternatives that we looked at and be sure to talk to Franco so we can pursue that avenue also. 41 C I T Y O F P.C. DATE: May 4 , 1988 CAN�3SSE�? C.C. DATE: May 23 , 1988 \�1 Y CASE NO: ZOA 88-4 Prepared by: Dacy/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section 20-1255 ( 2 )a. On-Premise Directional Signs - U �11 LOCATION: _ J-77/5/ep' — CL s7vi8si Q APPLICANT: Philip J. Martini DataServ, Inc. 19001 Lake Drive East Chanhassen . MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: ACREAGE: DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- S- E- C� W- W WATER AND SEWER: PHYSICAL CHARAC. : 2000 LAND USE PLAN: DataSery ZOA May 4 , 1988 Page 2 BACKGROUND The Planning Commission considered a variance request for DataSery to permit the construction of 12 square foot directional signs . The Planning Commission recommended denial at the January — 20 , 1988 , meeting. The City Council at the March 14 , 1988 , meeting denied the variance request. Based upon the Planning Commission and City Council comments , DataSery has submitted a zoning ordinance amendment application to analyze the directional sign requirement . ANALYSIS _ The intent of a directional sign is to provide direction for pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Typically, directional signs do not contain advertising signage. Section 20-1255 ( 2 ) dictates — that on-premise directional signs cannot exceed four square feet. These are typically exemplified by "enter" or "exit" signs , e.g. McDonalds directional signage or in the case of larger sites , "employees parking" , "loading area" , or "visitor parking" . The DataSery application was discussed in terms of whether or not a larger industrial size property, in its case 69 acres , should _ trigger larger directional signage. Other communities regulate directional signs as follows : Carver County - 4 square feet Eden Prairie - No maximum number of signs but total area of signs cannot exceed 32 square feet — Minnetonka - 4 square feet Shakopee - 4 square feet As is shown , four square feet is a typical size requirement. Should the Planning Commission consider amending the ordinance, it is recommended that the ordinance be amended to read solely for industrial districts in excess of a fairly large acreage — threshold as proposed by the applicant. Amending the ordinance to 12 square feet for all directional signage would not be appropriate for establishments such as fast food restaurants or _ other smaller commercial establishments that do not need larger directional signage. Further , the size of the property of smaller establishments is such that a larger sign would cause a greater intrusion . One can assume that the larger the sign size permitted for direc- tional signs , the more opportunity there will be for advertising or placement of the name of the company. The intent of the directional sign should be maintained so that adveristing is not permitted. Removing the area for "DataServ" on the sign would — mean a 9 square foot sign rather than a 12 square foot sign. The rationale that the applicant is proposing is that the acreage of the site would dictate a larger enterprise with larger number DataSery ZOA May 4 , 1988 Page 3 of employees . Thus a larger sign size is needed to direct traf- fic. However, a larger sign size would be dictated if there is a need to provide direction for several movements rather than to provide a larger sign for more employees . If the Planning Commission feels that a larger sign size should be permitted for large industrial parcels which would be occupied by larger buildings with several access drives and turning move- _ ments , 9 square feet can be appropriate. The applicant has pro- posed a threshold of 40 acres. This would apply to not only the DataSery site but to the McGlynn site and some of the larger par- cels south of the railroad tracks in the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. The Planning Commission also discussed that the ordinance lacked a regulation regarding the height of a sign. The ordinance should be clairified to provide for a maximum height. It is recommended that the maximum height of five feet be allowed. This matches the maximum height permitted for ground low profile business signs in the residential and neighborhood commercial districts . This requirement would Keep the sign from being obtrusive. RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion : "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #88-4 to amend Section 20-1255 ( 2 ) Directional Signs to read as follows : a. On-premise signs shall not be larger than four ( 4 ) square feet. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five ( 5 ) feet . The number of signs shall not exceed four ( 4 ) unless approved by the City Council . Should the Commission feel that a larger directional sign area can be permitted for industrial districts only, the following language is proposed: c . On-premise signs for industrially zoned land in excess of forty ( 40 ) acres shall not exceed twelve ( 12) square feet. The maximum height of on-premise directional signs shall not exceed five ( 5 ) feet. The number of signs shall not exceed four ( 4 ) feet unless approved by the City Council . It should be noted that the sign would not permit identification of the company name. Also, to clarify a previous question at the Planning Commission meeting, the square footage of the sign is measured by the perimeter of the extreme limits of the actual DataSery ZOA May 4 , 1988 Page 4 — sign message surface and excludes any structural elements outside _ the limits of the sign. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION — The first motion made by the Planning Commission was to amend Section 20-1255 ( 2 ) to allow on premise directional signs for — industrial zoned land in an excess of 40 acres to not exceed 12 square feet. The maximum height of the sign would also not exceed 5 feet from the ground. This motion failed with a vote _ of 2 to 5 (Wildermuth and Headla voted in favor) . The Planning Commission then made a motion to recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment request #88-4 to amend Section — 20-1253 ( 2 ) Directional Signs to read as follows: a . On premise signs shall not be larger than four ( 4 ) square — feet. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five ( 5 ) feet from the ground. The number of signs shall not exceed four ( 4 ) unless approved by the City Council . Wildermuth and Headla were opposed to this motion ( see attached minutes ) . STAFF UPDATE The Planning Commission action reflected a majority of the — Commissioner ' s belief that the ordinance did not need to be changed to amend the sign size. The Commission did feel that it was important to amend the ordinance to clarify the maximum height of a directional sign ( the Planning Commission ' s final motion) . The City Council needs to determine whether or not the direc- tional signage for industrial districts should be increased . At minimum, it is recommended that the Planning Commission ' s recom- mendation as to the maximum directional sign size height be — included in the Council action . The original Planning Staff report in the analysis section discussed a proposed maximum of 9 square feet and the recommen- dation proposed 12 square feet . To clarify, Planning Staff' s intent was to recommend a maximum size sign of 9 square feet in industrially zoned areas . This was made clear to the Planning — Commission at the night of the meeting; however , we have left the report as written to avoid further confusion. In any case, Planning staff supports increasing the sign size in industrially _ zoned areas over forty ( 40 ) acres . The attorney representing DataSery has submitted a letter in response to the Planning Commission action ( see Attachment #9) . DataSery ZOA May 4 , 1988 Page 5 CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #88-4 to amend Section 20-1255 ( 2 ) Directional Signs to read as follows : a. On premise signs shall not be larger than four ( 4 ) square feet. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five ( 5 ) feet from the ground. The number of signs shall not exceed four ( 4 ) unless approved by the City Council. Should the Council feel that a larger directional sign area can be permitted for industrial districts only, the following language is proposed: c. On premise signs for industrially zoned land in excess of forty (40) acres shall not exceed nine ( 9 ) square feet. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five ( 5) feet from the ground. The number of signs shall not exceed four ( 4 ) unless approved by the City Council. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Letter from Philip Martini dated March 22 , 1988 . 2 . Application . 3 . Typical directional sign detail four square feet. 4 . Site plan for DataServ. 5 . Sign detail 12 square feet . 6 . Planning Commission minutes dated January 20 , 1988 . 7 . City Council minutes dated March 14, 1988 . 8 . Excerpts from City Code. 9 . Letter from Dan Ryerson dated May 18 , 1988 . 10 . Planning Commission minutes dated May 4 , 1988 . c (I) C . ...... • . . datasery :(:.,.,,...,:_.: y ., 12125 Technology Drive • Eden Prairie • Minnesota 55344-7399 • U.S.A. e s., ,: 612/829-6000 y ('March 22, 1988 tr 1 !r yN-BK ' Jo Ann Olsen F ; , li.i'44 'r , j,. � Assistant City Planner • Zy,'rSr `11- 4,. City of Chanhassen - a ..: ' t }(• „3. .„1. Z aS�Y w,. � S�iY�s� , i ;r.' I ( f 1 �-� �}'��,�i�F 9'+�'f> v€€°a �-e.Ff S�'w�- �v RAt t , ; � � i§l.� e � ��� ,�+ 3,> °•ii+.�,��% t 690 Coulter Drive_ :• t . 1E` i o r+ _ y'f � :•t Yt-�a'I ;' i-� ;' Y "' F' g' 't°� eta rJ•:4 ' 1! 5 n#7'i�. p:. P.O. Box 147 -�_� .' i" ti;ry-t ,s ' T,.it 14.• !,3 f -Y'` i i ; 5 �131• � f t� i;`, iti- i is ,( Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' '.. �r( rFr .,� � �}�,x ^� � }a` Dear Ms. Olsen: • - Enclosed is our application for a zoning text amendment. It is my understanding •its , 4 ,rk � , that this item has been placed on the agenda for the April 20, 1988 planning • _., i 4x;.' commission meeting. • Mks The reason that we are requesting this amendment is to allow us to put signs on ouri. i _;''� property larger than the four square feet that is permitted under the wording of the xa"' ? current ordinance. The signs that we currently have designed are 12 square feet in ;'} k`, ~`=`;E, ',' area. We feel that this larger size is more appropriate for a large land area such as t ',.::;;,,,:‘,-.-- our ' Chanhassen site. Specifically, some of the following facts indicate the need for : '.; ;-' larger signs: t, 1. The size of the site, being nearly 70 acres, indicates the need to be able '•`,-', ':'3. to see the signs at a greater distance. `; 2. There will be approximately 300 employees initially assigned to the site, ' so it is obvious that large and easily visible signs will be required to , r kK maintain an orderly flow of daily traffic. 14 ,: 3. If large semi trailer trucks making deliveries to the site are not properly , , "" x`s directed to the shipping areas, it is possible that the drivers could end up `' ;ri . '� in areas of the site where it is difficult or even impossible to turn a large 1 ,, p g : truck around. t a . 4. The number of employees assigned to the site could double or triple -" ,ta 'y � the next few years if Datasery decides to expand on the Chanhassen site -= ; ;t 5 �1� , s rather than the Eden Prairie site. Part of the decision to expand on the •z , Chanhassen site rather than the Eden Prairie site will be based on the • 'r` ,.� � convenience and safety of access which would be promoted by larger n-.�{, 'v4 ,.-r . signs. ,k , ;._ 5. If Datasery does expand on the Chanhassen site, the increase in size and,, �, ;:' , number of buildings would also support the need for larger directional '�- • nr - signs. .. f„f,;Ff; ' -' 9. _ „ , '`, y. 'f 4'y8 I v � i i0. z '_i..` i 7 ' ' i S �', ,,-7,.+f. * .4'AliAt ` " i., 1 2 f ' 9. i - }` /'., ..�5 r .ASS 4,5 SfF J? S ,C J .7 A 11 I 3 f� 7t 4 ;' N , F Y. PJM0026 Y1. - i+,F • ,, t r i :42- e ;c ? ,y t�T { ,sy. #' , i s. �, li lq. .a h r+c '" 1 r _4 1' ..71C- b AO t iklt... t,,� r-..4 f s. " i 1 @ i.,t,l.:-.,:--;.. �, -� �, � Representatives in London•Dusseldorf Munich Amsterdam•Los Angeles•Dallas•Atlanta a I � �,,,. ,- a I` ..9. t t Y b Ms. Jo Ann Olsen Page 2 ' • March 22, 1988 ;£tJ sf T :t s : ,1 sr ! >I .For the above stated reasons of safety and accessibility, considering the size of the t t;,fi ` • 1 " ,site and the number of employees assigned there, an amendment to the zoning text 4. a? ,.. 4,; s,, , • : f # as requested in the attached application would seem Iogical. Since many of the ,,t • P• II • aovereasons for the sign would apply to any larger development site, such an {amendment would ser th fa• ' y u require any additional information or if you wish to discuss the matter . t:;' } °}# l further• , please contact me at 829-6653. • ��r �i'� —�S z.f ! 1.!{ k�tf2 J4. i ( {,:,tJ •r' } 'ray ,ylf , +t .}C "pfRF • \I'1 t`i.�`'k11h.YY-31 4 !$ '` i{ A, rit�t t�,Jf�,Very truly yours, ' ;, ) ,• FJ &t r; , ' • , •s�.i,,y,nl}J_ +sl•t! E. , • , , •,i . I ,,•,., t .. + K ,,,.,, :, y _ s'`t}� DATASERV, INC. ,; } I� q}t 1 r�u + .i5r ` • i J 4s• Phillip J. Martini • , t Counsel . PJM:dkn , —. • f ;a; YFa i , t tit-..:i,�+`• • • • • — ? t �. It'F't,f!, 1/ i S < r ny�A.p} •, �Vt ♦Y f 1 t >FFrYj fte r �1 ! .1 i r:ta\ i,++((99r � $ti! ,piolT�I 'tre !, f f , • dt ▪ • F 1f �, t JG`iJ y, +1 �la l' r ... i J S �-t) ti-Z�k.JF � tr' 7 • {ss at, -.rti, y J:3.•▪ �.. #Sy£ 4 #.: '� - 4 ( • ., !1 , f .Pt 7+i}'�'v 1 t' dt •� Y�: f 4 }�,.�+ i • t f 1J,}Yi S5..F��S tt i'.7✓ �F-�.1 k • r r • 1 ,. , t a CI Kt. j .; ; - 1 a 1 •7.t, �y�•,'• •• )�:Z, ) ,a { 1: . r t-r ty , r�+ x ` 's ' ! i i 'Q F •k,7rirw ' # 1'y s. , ,. ,: j s t 4 t 6 ';} 4i i l• yrW Tyr �syi rS• 1+� - ..! 1 . 1,' f • �'y '1 tt {j.. ,t iv�.rY .'SJ •. 1 : .�- ,i. >F..{4� S A'2 ! l'} iI R,,�111,, f 1 1 y�XtI Y ,L�t,� ,t • �} . ', '4 . ,' ',pj •' -026 ,7z.s;r,�J...8 {: 7 J',T-7•a ` i tt �aA Fr '37 a +ggjj..%� !I T y, 1.♦ t Pe i-- ! t'' ,+ .^ a ?`'. v;r'f-1,y ''4 ti.}g- ♦ 1,p + '.. _I 1 1 . .•'r 3„5-f�,b . x' r k § L :� ! — >A r r: - i� e '7 ,�gF..++i���,,�. :r ..,t -4T f. >K"fk�-i z>fdv# v ' fi Y'( (l � f•' -'t�_gielii f'..2- � ;.1 r4'd w S'' ..4� • 7?',4 5� F'';•-�Y*, ° , r ..}7 I £�-�,..-„.. t'...S J '-'` $" ''7 ,¢k lrs� i•. s t }>1- ; ,.I 1¢ ".:Tj.•• t tl;;X• A r "� �y ti r f� � +z.,'•;1: .• ^s' S`" t ,r �, •: _ fc '2r.. i; A te+ S ki4: , r1Y ' • q) -r; 4F Ytr. i3;"s;t ,+ ^ i 3, ¢ } y ,t Yr'�? 4`ri, 4�e:G 4-�4,., i.1_'r - ..f:•'4 i' -:--A,—?t w2..?. r3 � ,i `i'fi g'+ x .. LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN — 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 LEASEHOLDER )( APPLICANT: Dataserv, Inc. OVER: Dataserv, Inc. ADDRESS 19011 Lake Drive E. ADDRESS 12125 Technology Drive — Chanhassen, MN Eden Prairie, MN 55344-7399 Zip Code Zip Code _ TELEPHONE (Daytime ) 829-6653 TELEPHONE REQUEST: Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan — Preliminary Plan Zoning Variance Final Plan XZoning Text Amendment Subdivision Land Use Plan Amendment Platting Metes and Bounds — Conditional Use Permit Street/Easement Vacation Site Plan Review Wetlands Permit XPROJECT NAME Datasery Chanhassen Office Park PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION — PRESENT ZONING Permitting on-premise directional signs for 1OP parcels X REQUESTED ZONING over 40 acres, of 12 square feet. USES PROPOSED 0( SIZE OF PROPERTY 69.3 acres )( LOCATION 19011 Lake Drive East XREASONS FOR THIS REQUEST Larger on-premise directional signs are necessary for visual effectiveness and noticeability, proportionate to the size of the tract and the comparatively larger open spaces and buildings -- thereon. LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) Attached IIPIPPP. - -C.:... 1. .... II --•-•-•-•. T- -f- ______• ;„... 1.....a , . - _ , .• . . : . --V---14r----,----Iii— , , -0 .A-- --; 1: ._ 1,4 , Shipping & Receiving .ip •-- %.----- Employee Parking t -----e-- — i ..A....I 1 I i ,....• I 1 Visitor Parking .4 1 , , r1••• I ' : ! : : 1 1 I it ;-/-If--e• _..,,,?: :•----, _ ,--- ,=-; ,. ....; ._ i — ,... • , , ,.._ ,,, --_,_ - • ---_.> .-- -... --.--., ...„ - :-. - :::,-%•:,-_;— ;••••<' ../..5.= 1i 1 • .--, ..., ; ...., ., _ ,• . , ; • • ,--- -• .. . , ....... vs\ ; , _......• : ..., .....",„.„- ; • _••:. - .---.ii -:-...: \T--...!...... • ; •;,---eh--„,- : --- . . ._ : i : . 1 I i : I. i I • I I I ; I ! 1 i , a.m. I I i ' . I . I 1 I i i i.n.. I i . I ! l . . 1 : .. 1 11% .. ID—.. .. -....-- ... ---- --- "0. 0 — lii. — -.=.r. I r• I I I 1 •,,, .--"-- I —n/f77 CA i/ . .... • ,.. --- - SiC7o___1 _ _ ",..) • -.3 _1 . % ; .. —3-1. . - , . _ ... •-, i i . . i 1 - ' . --. .' . ,,-% • :',$'" .%-7.--,•.2-.1 L-I -„,' -- ....-- . - ....;•- . ; - --- ;D '4r I .., i iC I I ..I I .-- '°I -- • ._. Dakota Ave. y • , • `',- : 1 .. • a _ k ...., - '2. --- / / • • �d � D ` Y" � 3 (- (-- (5"r', ---‘, — • .-:- , a 4 J. Jy m T. '_..,.1...:t_._.-"_V.e.-,„.-.;r.,...;.i...ri.......r,;..„.:e.,-....4.G..,.l:,j..-,...-.,...-r.!..'.1.*-'-7".).—.-i..-..„..-17-...—.7..—._ '3 :_! u 9 1 ; am i.I. VI'L-:4--•-:\"-7 l ,..i::— i r -il. .,t:..,...,- '''s\N...1‘,\.•\,, k i , i .:1 , .. \\:i g ( g / 1 .4 i i ) 1 : E`,,0 • \ ., . ,7,,.. f. I ,__ , i 1 ..: : ",-'I • .0(i -. . ,.• t !: • " if' - 1 4"in-74 1 . r i- r-:--) • I - ) ,---- • 1 , _ L ``�1 -.r ig 0 a» ,YIS 16ZLfZ8Zli ^ 8ODSS NW'sll�auumi aJkO I� - ws^� � i t - 40 _X '_' 'i Pa-IS a>f IsaM ZIi= uosaxkal�5 — )NI 03 \J1N/\A dti 1� � 3•_1 +v-1 ►I bo �l ssau d�-- ,1311111117111\ a �O nd a4dlva iatuolsnD �r 41111# Jo//JJaddOKI a117 SI FiJ JP S!QL suotstAaa aIL',S ` / IlI I� / Ito_147 Il0_il / ,LiIff YII-,I ri I iTrEi .4 a..,, --N ` 1 MI 2 1 �, Ql , 1.0,ce . ,!,,,,-__ _,, ..,,, — i .._ et) W' - i _____ _ •\lig I cd ,_ 6 Q) n� —•�- . — r_ OT , I L\ u A 1 0.. .„... u► D J 5 i Z ;,J .c,a t._al c: -r \ 14, I W �04>s. i >5 �� 3 ^^ ` ' ED p d11 ge' as2 &- 9 Qp Lim ,� t i ��- as ups SIil1 0' ~ es , Q S 0v1 n t- ,-4--,- is- — 4� t)( --) is ,C _ g3.k r 1+1 t + 7----,,r--I: tt imi F -I. ,., q , („, . ci) - 11.aa��� Ic -p max-: , ^l Cn i c �— ,i v — 'W c c� m !a CD °' -- _ 0 — O A i ,i ' l I` :: o c L5 >+ CD , CZ ° a °; j0.2 — �_ 0 E. O C ? .- au . E —, - •— > cn Cc Iw a I2. \\ - E a3 -J - wa - IIHIIII — — i 11, 1 lir---4---1-7"--t--r;:c), 0-, ,v, it',4--tz 1:40-01,7,7,4,T;;,:::1-, garct �}vAl / no i y S N 1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 20, 1988 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 35 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart , Steven Emmings , Ladd Conrad , Annette Ellson , Brian Batzli and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: James Wildermuth VARIANCE TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A 12 SQUARE FOOT ON-SITE DIRECTIONAL SIGN ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP , INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 19011 LAKE DRIVE EAST , NORDQUIST SIGNS (DATASERV) . PUBLIC PRESENT: Steve Hertz Nordquist Signs Bonnie Wagner DataSery Ann Rolling DataSery Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the sign variance request . Steve Hertz: I 'm with Nordquist Signs . We have done past work with — DataSery and I think the main emphasis here is , their intent to come in with a uniform sign program. They do have approval to put up a freestanding sign identifying their corporation which carries on their _ logo and their letter style . They went so far as to take it one step further and look at their directional situation and design something that would coincide with that . This goes back to what they have at their main corporate offices which are in Eden Prairie. So in taking — over this site, they wanted to follow through with that and create a uniform sign program. I think you ' ll see by the design of the signage that it is not overpowering . The main intent is to make something that ' s easily legible as people drive through the site. Again , I think it needs to be emphasized is the fact that the site is very large and there is going to be future development on this site. _ Presently the letter sizes there are 2 1/2 inches on the upper case so we' re not looking to advertise. We ' re looking to identify and direct traffic . At this point , are there any questions that I can answer? There are also representatives of DataSery here that would like to speak. Conrad: Maybe we ' ll have some questions for you later on Steve. — Bonnie Wagner : I ' m representing DataSery here tonight . I wonder if we could refer back to your overhead of the actual facility and the access , or the approach to the building? In viewing the access to the — building , we feel that this presents to us and our customers and to our shipping and receiving people a hardship in that you have to by-pass the building on TH 5 and then you have to identify how to — approach or to actually access the building . So you pass the building on TH 5 and then you turn left and then just after McDonalds you have to turn into the left, which is not visible to you. You have to _ travel some way towards the entrance of the building and as you enter the front of the building , there is a very limited , small visitor parking lot . We do not want that to be a thoroughway. We do not want Planning Commissi ( Meeting C January 20 , 1988 - Page 2 traffic to go through to the front of the office. That ' s maintained strictly for a small visitor situation . So the traffic has to flow through the road, around to the side of the building . At that point we have to identify to them where is employment parking . Where do you go for shipping and receiving so we' re proposing that these directional signs are necessary to us and to the community because if we don ' t direct this traffic appropriately, you have residential areas immediately next to the property of DataSery so we want to eliminate jams , confusion and get the traffic in and out of there as appropriately as we can and as quickly as we can , as a matter of fact . We are planning to move our headquarters to the Chanhassen site in the near future so we expect, we are experiencing a great deal of employment growth. We ' ve outgrown the Eden Prairie facility in just a year and a half so we expect to move into Chanhassen , probably about 300 people immediately and then our future plans are to move our existing headquarter base into Chanhassen and build and construct new buildings and have a campus environment , if you will . So we feel that these signs will be necessary and informational at this point and will be utilized as we grow. We ' re hoping , if it ' s possible, then we can actually utilize our existing signs yet out of the Eden Prairie site if they conform and if they are maintained along our identity. Any questions? Conrad : Not yet . Thank you Bonnie. We ' re pleased to have your company in Chanhassen . We ' ll open it up to anybody else who may have a comment on this subject . Erhart moved , Headla seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Headla : What ' s the address of DataSery in Chanhassen? Steve Hertz: 19011 Lake Drive East . Headla : So Lakeland Drive, if someday turns off of TH 5 , they ' re going to make a left hand turn at Lakeland Drive . The same as they were finding in the other business . Bonnie Wagner : I 'm sorry. Headla : Wouldn ' t somebody coming in trying to find DataSery would turn off of TH 5 and as they go down now Dakota , they ' re going to turn on Lake Drive, since that ' s your address . So , the sheet I have here has one directional sign there. Maybe they would make a turn there which would be a logical thing to do . I think the sign ordinance is good . I don ' t see where we' re working a hardship and I do support the Staff ' s position . Batzli : I think I need to abstain on this matter since I was an Attorney for CPT and worked on the transaction to lease the facilities to DataServ. Ellson: I 'm correct in that we' re just talking about the on-site ones . They ' re also looking at off-site which goes to the Council, right? Planning Commissic( Meeting (�January 20 , 1988 - Page 3 Olsen : That ' s right . Ellson : I agree that they probably do need signs but I think the recommendation of just taking the company name and logo off and keeping the height of the arrows and the direction exactly the same — would probably accomplish the same thing , so I pretty much agree with the staff recommending to stay with the smaller size. Emmings : I think the signs are not unattractive and they don ' t particularly bother me but they don ' t conform to the ordinance. I ' m not persuaded by the notion that because it ' s a larger site, you need _ larger signs . I think that 's kind of a silly way to set up an ordinance . So if you have small sites you put up small signs and big sites , big signs . You may need more signs , but I don ' t think you need bigger ones . I don ' t know if you ' ve had a chance to look through our ordinance and see what ' s required for us to find , in order to grant a variance, but those factors are laid out and I didn ' t hear anything said that would convince me that it would be appropriate for us to — find that a variance would be necessary. So I too would support the staff recommendation on this . Erhart : The ordinance states that we ' re limited to four on premise signs no matter how big your campus is . Currently, the signs at the CPT building are 4 foot? Do they have signs at the existing building? No signs at all? There must be a reason for your requirements being — different than CPT. Bonnie Wagner : They maybe had signs prior but there are no signs at the site at this time . I do not know if they were there prior . Erhart : No I mean your requirements are somehow different than CPT for signage? Apparently dramatically different . — Ann Rolling: We feel the access to the building is confusing based on there is no direct access to the building . We don ' t know what — problems CPT had . . . Erhart : I guess the only question I had was maybe if we' re going to _ have something , run it proportional to it ' s size of the facility, would be the number of signs , not the square footage. I don ' t have any more questions . Conrad: I agree. I think I could have been persuaded on the number of signs because of the size of the facility. I guess the only thing I would raise, 4 square feet for directional signs is still pretty — small . I 'd lay it out and look at it , and from a car and from 40 feet away, it ' s not a big square footage for signage for directional signs . I could be persuaded to look at the ordinance and review that aspect to say 4 feet might not be big enough in general for Chanhassen for directional but I don ' t think that ' s going to help you in this particular case. I don ' t think it needs to be 12 . It could he 6 . It could be 7 but the 12 . I know what you ' re doing . You ' ve got signs — that are useful right now and I understand that that ' s a good practical business decision and they'd be attractive signs . We have an ordinance that we ' ve applied to all our current business park - Planning Commissiori ,fleeting A January 20, 1988 - Page 4 — residents and so far we haven ' t heard , staff correct me, we haven ' t heard a lot of negative feedback about the sizing . However , if we do , I think we could take a look at that issue and make sure that directional signs and the sizing is appropriate for the business name. We' re not trying to penalize anybody for trying to move traffic around but in this particular case, my comment would be, I feel comfortable with the ordinance. I think it could be altered if you told me that it ' s not big enough to really move the traffic but I don ' t think Chanhassen would come back with a 12 foot size. That 's my personal feeling . Ann Rolling: I had a question . They layout of the sign would be, what we have for the existing buildings , like a 4 square foot sign, the actual area that the sign takes up is the same area that we have. We ' re just utilizing the face . The face carries straight down to the ground rather than two poles holding up 4 square feet . Conrad : What ' s the interpretation of that Jo Ann? Olsen : You do the size from the face of the sign . Not necessarily from the highest point . From the poles you don ' t measure. You just measure the face of the signs . Ann Rolling: I guess what I ' m saying is , we ' re utilizing that area rather than . . .create clarity and aesthetically pleasing . Conrad : What we' re trying to do in Chanhassen is , we certainly want to advertise the good members of the business community. We ' re not trying to restrict that but we ' re also trying to keep signage from being everyplace and if we keep some kind of constraint on it , then one, aesthetically it looks better , but two , everybody 's not competing with everybody else trying to get bigger and better signage . Actually saving money in the long run for our business friends . I think my general feeling is I ' m comfortable with the ordinance as it is. Headla : I think we'd be sending the wrong signals to those people if we allow one company . Then another one can come in with other rationale. Conrad: I think the deal is Dave, we 'd have to take a look at the ordinance . I don ' t know that a variance is appropriate in this case. I think taking a look at the ordinance is the only thing and I think as our friends from DataSery go to City Council , maybe the Council can give you a feeling of whether they feel that a revision of the ordinance would be appropriate. We ' re always happy to take a look at that . I think that ' s the solution . Erhart : Do we currently limit the height of these directional signs? On premise directional signs? Some guy could put up a 12 foot high or perhaps even higher? Maybe even 18 and still be at 4 square feet. They could put it on the top of his building if they wanted . That pertains to the question that was asked about using the feet of signage. The factis , somebody could walk in here with a 12 foot high sign and we wouldn ' t need to look at it. Headla : There would have to be a particular need for that though. • Planning Commission(meeting January 20, 1988 - Page 5 Erhart: But we couldn ' t deny it though . - Emmings : Why would somebody do that to themselves? Ellson : If it was a directional sign for a car , it 'd be pretty hard to see it . Emmings : They ' re trying to put it someplace where people could see it . Conrad : I think the premise is it ' s got to be a functional sign . Go — this way for shipping . Go that way for receiving. Go this way if you ' re an employee. We have to meet that need so functionally, we have to meet the need of moving the traffic the right way. I think a - case could be made to me that you need more than 4 square feet to do that . I could relate to that problem but I can ' t relate to this particular situation . Erhart : I ' m not trying to relate to this . I could agree that it might be that it should be a little bit bigger . The issue that comes about is , on one hand the intent is to not make the sign any more — obstructive than or aesthetically displeasing as possible. We have the ordinance allows them to go , we greatly restrict the size of a sign but we don ' t restrict the height and to me , the height is just as — important as the size. So all I ' m saying is , we sort of have a hole there . There probably is a couple good reasons to look at the whole ordinance . Size and height and to review the question of using the legs and how does that relate to the height and size. Conrad: Were we reviewing the sign ordinance? Wasn ' t there mention that we were going to do that? — Dacy: Yes , in the upcoming months so this could be incorporated as a part of that review. Conrad : It doesn ' t help DataSery right now. It ' s sort of a unfriendly welcome to the community what you ' re hearing but maybe, we will do that . We will take a look at least as we review the sign ordinance in the next couple months to make sure that . . . Ann Rolling: Do you know when that 's going to be because for the - amount of money that we ' re spending , I guess I 'd like to maybe hold off on that . We were planning on moving people into that building by the end of February or march, our waiting to see what happens. Conrad : We don ' t have a specific time to review do we? Dacy: After the meeting that will take place on Monday, staff will — have a better idea as far as the time schedule but there won ' t be a public hearing schedule in February or March. It would probably be at the end of March, beginning of April . We should have a better idea - next week on the schedule. Emmings : There 's one thing you eluded to , and I ' m not sure anon understood it right . Do I understand that you already have these Planning Commissiofieeting 47. January 20 , 1988 - Page 6 signs and are using them at another facility and want to move them out here? Are these brand new? Bonnie Wagner: We are proposing brand new signs , yes . Conrad : Okay, anymore comments or questions . Is there a motion? Emmings moved , Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the sign variance request to permit 12 square foot on-premise directional signs . All voted in favor except Batzli who abstained and motion carried . PUBLIC HEARING; SUBDIVISION OF 2 .5 ACRES INTO FIVE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5 , SCHWABA-WINCHELL, APPLICANTS . Public Present : Ellie Schwaba Applicant Kevin Winchell Applicant Earl Heatherinton 7351 Minnewashta Parkway Jim Borchart 7331 Minnewashta Parkway Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this subdivision request . Ellie Schwaba : There is one other thing that I 'd like to mention . There is an existing home on the property and our intention is to do major renovation to that home. It ' s in pretty much mediocre repair and . . . to upgrade that home to the value of the new homes that will be built. Earl Heatherington , 7351 Minnewashta Parkway: My property runs at the complete east side of the property in question and also the north end of the property. It' s interesting to note that the court here caught the fact that it is only 2 . 19 acres . It ' s not 2 1/2 acres . In the Planning Commission ' s wisdom, from 1980 until 1988 , you have approved a total of 33 subdivisions in this area . in these subdivisions there are various number of units and various gross acreages involved with each . What I ' d like to submit to you that in almost all instances of all of these units that have been approved since 1980, that the vast majority in almost every case, the lot sizes that have been approved are of a 1/2 acre or greater . I ' d like to submit this is your document and I ' ve done the mathematics and I 'd like to submit it for your review and to check these figures out . In the case of the property that has just recently been developed in the last couple of years called Maple Ridge, on Maple Shore Drive, there are 13 single family homes located on 7 acres which is an average layout per home of 23 ,455 square feet . 21 ,780 feet is a half an acre and I 'd like to submit these . I 'm sure that the gentleman that developed that property would have liked to put more lots in there. My point is simply that you ' ve got a situation here with an odd parcel of land — that ' s been obviously divided in such a manner as to meet the ordinances period . Lot 1 , 15 , 011 square feet . Lot 2 , 16 , 809 . Lot 3, C City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 lO • r I J • good job and they moved along extremely well last fall to get as far as they — did so I'd like to commend you on the job that you're doing. I think it's good and I hope you can continue to do as good a job for the rest of the project. Gary Ehret: Thank you. Maybe the one thing I could add is that, how we arrived at what you have seen tonight, BRW, we keep what we call an item record account. On this entire job I can tell you where you spent every single — dollar. We keep track of every single fitting. Every single hydrant. Every single piece of pipe and we sat down with Shafer Contracting for about a day and a half and hammered out every single one of these items. Where they went. Should we pay for it or shouldn't we so I guess if it's any comfort, any single '— councilmember can feel free to contact me and say I want you to tell me where I'm buying any single one of these items and I can do that. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $291,201.66 as itemized in the March 9, 1988 correspondence from _ BRW and establishing a revised contract estimated ceiling of $2,725,772.96. All voted in favor and motion carried. NORDQUIST SIGNS, DATASERVE LOCATED AT 19011 LAKE DRIVE EAST, ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT: i -- A. VARIANCE TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A 12 SQUARE FOOT ON-PREMISE DIRECTIONAL SIGN. B. APPROVAL OF SIZE (12 SQUARE FEET) OF AN OFF-PREMISE DIRECTIONAL SIGN. Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant has requested that item B be addressed first. The — ordinance requires that the City Council approve the size of an off-premise directional sign. The applicant is proposing to locate the sign just south of the McDonalds site. This is TH 5 and McDonalds and they're proposing to the — directional sign approximately south of Lake Drive East. The directional sign will be 12 square feet in size. Staff is recommending that 12 square feet is acceptable for this purpose. The purpose of an off-premise directional sign can be confusing for people who have to turn off of TH 5 onto Dakota and then — know where to turn so we are recommending approval of the off-premise directional sign. Councilman Boyt: What's our ordinance say about the size of the sign? Jo Ann Olsen: It says nothing. It just says it's for Council approval. Councilman Boyt: Any size sign at all? Dan Ryerson: I represent DataSery tonight. I don't have much to add to — staff's report except a primary concern here, after discussing this with the other property owner, who I might add to staff I now have the signature, has been primary the amount of traffic that we feel probably will stray down Dakota and end up in the residential neighborhoods. Some of this would be truck c -3_ City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 traffic. A way of illustration, I guess this would apply to the next item too, just very briefly a graph that shows the growth that we have experienced and projected in DataServ's employees. As you can see from 1987 to 1990, that almost doubles. Approximately one-fourth of these employees projections are going to be in Chanhassen. If that 70 acre site is further developed it could be more so we're looking at 750 employees alone on this site and the need for some traffic control starting out at the end of Dakota.. . Councilman Johnson: In the drawing of the sign they're proposing, they utilize 12 square foot of signage. About 6 square foot of it and the rest of it seems to be just plain blank sign. Why do we need that much blank signage? You can put in a 6 square foot sign. The bottom half of this is just plain white. Dan Ryerson: I think the answer to that, and we do have one of the artists who was involved a little bit in the actual design but I think the answer has more to do with the height of the sign to catch the attention of the driver. I suppose that bottom could be simply open air but the design of all of these signs that we have asked approval for, i.s very similar in the shape and the construction which would be standard on these signs. The main reason is to put the height of the name and the indicational arrow. Councilman Johnson: Right, which you do on the top 2 foot. Mayor Hamilton: But you've got to get it up there somehow. Councilman Johnson: There's lots of ways to get it up there without putting, I'm not sure what color or whatever I'd like the bottom half to be that's unobtrusive as possible. What I see is room on this sign for future signage. I see the whole bottom half of this sign is sitting there. Now this may be a good added point for future businesses or whatever who may develop out that way. It seems to me that what we need at that corner is a directional sign to the business park which currently only has DataSery in it as the only person in it. What I sac as every business that ever establishes out there, we've got a lot more land that could possibly be developed out there, is going to want a sign on this corner. Very soon this corner is going to have six 12 square foot signs on it for the six people living there. I'd rather see Business Park East or whatever the name of the business park is there pointing that direction and then below that say DataSery and have room for whatever as other companies go into there. Mayor Hamilton: I like the design of your sign. I think Jay may have a good point. If the bottom part, perhaps the City at some time could approach DataSery and say, may we put on there "Drive Carefully" or "Speed Limit 30" or something. "Caution, Children in the Neighborhood". Something that would be of a community value rather than just leaving it blank so that may be something would be beneficial to the City as well as to your own company. Dan Ryerson: Certainly we're not ruling that out at this time. I guess we don't know right now what direction future development might take. Mayor Hamilton: I just had a question on the arrow that you have on there. It's awfully small. Is that going to be big enough for someone to see? City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 ti Dan Ryerson: I guess wiser heads than I have decided it is. Somebody designed this and I know they've done this in color. I believe that the lettering i.s in red and the sign itself is blue, is that how you describe it? — Ann Rolling: The sign is gray. The size of the arrow and the size of the letters are according to specifications. — Mayor Hamilton: What color is the arrow? Does it kind of stand out so the driver sees it? Ann Rolling: It's maroon. Tim Erhart: On this particular thing I was going to suggest to make the sign — tenporary. ..businesses down the frontage road, you can put four signs like this with the business park sign. Make this a temporary one feeling there are more businesses. .. Mayor Hamilton: Temporarily permanent sign. Councilman Boyt: First I agree with that. It makes a lot of sense. The other -' point is, you say specifications on the arrow. Who's specification? Ann Rolling: It's based on legibility of the sign. .. [-- Councilman Boyt: The Uniform Sign Code says a 3 inch letter? Dan Ryerson: That's what we understand. Councilman Boyt: Let me understand your logic. You've got a big sign, or will have off TH 5 i.n front of your building saying DataServe similar to what's in — Eden Prairie. Is that correct? Okay, that's an easy to sec sign so they're not going to have any trouble knowing geographically about where you're located. Then the reason for this sign is because we in fact all want to keep — semi-trailers out of a residential neighborhood and other business traffic so we want them to turn here. The smallest thing on the sign is the arrow. That doesn't make any sense to me. The only reason we want that sign there is so they'll know to turn. — Ann Rolling: How big should the arrow be? Councilman Boyt: I would say, if it was me, make the arrow the biggest thing on the sign. Dan Ryerson: One other thing, we actually looked at the placement of the sign because as you are going down Dakota and Lake Drive is the way you'll turn. The sign is on that side next to Lake Drive. If the sign was across the street, then I would agree that the arrow might be a lot more consideration but I — you're going that way, you see that road and the sign is there on that side. I think the very placement of it i.s a strong indicator of that's the way to go. Councilman Horn: I think it's their sign and it's their arrow. City Council Meeting - ?:{arch 14, 1988 , a Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the 12 square foot size for the off-premise directional sign located as shown in Attachment #2. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson and Councilman Boyt who opposed and motion carried. A. VARIANCE TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A 12 SQUARE FOOT ON-PREMISE DIRECTIONAL SIGN. Jo Ann Olsen: They are proposing three on-premise directional signs. The Zoning Ordinance allows them to be a maximum of 4 square feet. Staff is recommending denial. The Planning Commission also recommended denial. We felt that a typical 4 square foot directional sign will still be, even though it's a large site, will still be able to be used because there will be more traffic that's driving down the road and it will be driving at a slower speed and will be able to see the parking to turn into. We felt that the 4 square feet would still be appropriate for a DataSery sign and did not feel there was a hardship to grant the variance. Dan Ryerson: I think at this time, and I don't know if this is the appropriate to do it or if we would have to go back and make another application but I think perhaps the original application was unfortunate in that it asked for a variance on size which otherwise are automatically permitted up to number 4. I believe that instead of asking for that variance, that there's another section of the Ordinance that we would come under where we would be allowed two of _ these signs as low ground level business signs on-presmise. That is a permitted use and if we would be so permitted to amend the application, I would drop the request for a variance and simply ask the Council to grant at this time those two signs on-premise under the classification of the low business sign. These would qualify in size in every way. Actually they are considerably smaller. The requirement of the actual sign surface starts 2 feet up and goes no more than 8 feet high and we would be well within that. We could live with the two signs on-premise. Again, on-premise, although I don't know that the sign category that I've just described would limit us as to the content of the sign but it is doing some of the same things that the directional sign would do. There really doesn't seem to be any limit as to what we can put on it. We do feel a strong need because there are several roads going to employee parking lot, visitors parking lot, shipping and receiving and many of the same concerns about not putting the business and truck traffic through the residential neighborhood may apply. The safety concerns of not having it go straight to visitors parking and employees parking. Mayor Hamilton: I just wanted to ask Barb, I don't have a copy of the ordinance with. Jo Ann Olsen: The ground mounted is only one permitted per street frontage. Technically you just have one on TH 5. Also, that big sign that you do have in the front, I know we were discussing whether or not that was a directional but actually that's a ground. That was 80 square feet was the maximum. Dan Ryerson: I thought that was a development identification sign. P34. City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 Jo Ann Olsen: Development identification is more for like Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. Dan Ryerson: I understood that the permit, and that sign is under permit, was the sign in that category. Jo Ann Olsen: Was the ground low. Actually when we checked it out, the ground — low profile, it was. Dan Ryerson: To the extent that we're asking for a variance, I guess I would — ask for the extra sign as a ground low profile business sign. Jo Ann Olsen: But then you would only get one on-site diretional sign. Mayor Hamilton: I think you have to decide what it is you want and then perhaps come back to us. Dan Ryerson: I guess the question is, do we have to come back or could we simply remove the variance part of the request that's come up here because the ground level business sign is simply a permitted use.. . _ Barbara Dacy: Mr. Mayor, I would suggest for purposes of this case that the Council go ahead and act on their request. If it is denied, then you would have the right to come back anyway. Staff feels uncomfortable with the — proposal that the applicant has made tonight. At first blush it doesn't appear appropriate but I think the Council should make a decision and then you can go from there. — Councilman Horn: Could we further be willing to say that we would approve a sign that does not require a variance? Barbara Dacy: A sign that does not require a variance, we would just process it anyway. Councilman Horn: So as long as he's got that, he doesn't have to come back? Barbara Dacy: I don't want the applicant to be walking out of here with the — impression that they're going to be able to have another sign because we'r reading the oridnance the way he's proposing as he can't. Mayor Hamilton: We should act on it as they requested this evening and then — you and the applicant can arm wrestle over how you're going to go from there because if a variance is not needed, you'll have your sign anyway. Dan Ryerson: We'll be happy to come back if this is too confusing. Mayor Hamilton: It's just difficult to change at the last minute. We have a - proposal before us. That's what we had prepared for and to change at the last minute to something when we don't have all of us have an ordinance in front of us to review it ourselves, is not proper procedure as far as I'm concerned. 47 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 Dan Ryerson: I think we've addressed the questions on the requested variance is that this particular signage, considering that this is a 70 acre site, I think that is an argument in favor of having a slightly bigger directional sign, if we went at it as a directional sign only, because it's quite a long drive that goes in there. I think just as a matter of scale. It's not as easy to see a sign that's sitting in a big open area as it is to where there may be many buildings or shops or other driveways. Again, the person entering on Lake Drive covers quite a distance before he actual comes to the DataSery parking lot where he turns. Again, this particular signage is really quite unobtrusive when you consider the size of that parcel. OMNI Councilman Johnson: I'll comment and motion at the same time. I think the request is totally inappropriate. There's no other facility in the area. There's only one building you're trying to get to. There are only two roads going in. You don't need 12 square feet of sign to get in there. I'm surprised that they would even request it coming into town here. Councilman Boyt: I seconded it for a different reason. I think you probably have some very good business reasons for wanting those signs. I'd like to see you try and do them in the context of the ordinance for 4 square feet. I think you can do that and I'd sure like to Gee you give it a try. JMayor Hamilton: I think if there's a problem with the size of the signs, we ought to take another look at our ordinance and see if it needs to be adjusted. I have absolutely no problem with this as it's attempting to advertise with their logo on their place of business. We're trying to encourage businesses to come to town. If you can't put up a sign that says you're here, what's the sense of being here? It just really kind of bothers me. We've gone through this other times when people don't want to put up signs. We ask a business to come into town and as soon as they say yes, we'll come, we say but you can't put a sign up. I don't agree with that at all. I think if it's needed, we should change our ordinance. I think perhaps out of this, that's what we may do. End of my comment. Councilman Geving: I certainly agree with you Tom. I don't want to frustrate anybody that comes in here trying to build a business in Chanhassen. Mayor Hamilton: We're happy to have you here. Councilman Johnson: By the way, the arrows on the typical 4 square foot sign are bigger than the arrows on the off-site sign. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to deny the variance to the Zoning Ordinance to permit a 12 square foot on-premise directional sign for DataServ. All voted in favor and motion carried. _ APPROVAL OF GRADING PERMIT, B.C. BURDICK. Roger Knutson: Is this in the form set forth here in your packet? i § 20-1 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sign means any object, device, display, or structure, or part thereof situated outdoors, or visible through a window or door, which is used to advertise, announce, identify, display, direct or attract attention to an object,person, institution,organization,business,commodity, t. product, service, event or location, by means, including words, letters, figures, design, sym. bols,fixtures, pictures, illumination or projected images. Sign, advertising means any sign which directs attention to a business, commodity, service, activity or entertainment not conducted, sold or offered upon the premises where such a sign is located. Sign, bulletin board means a sign which identifies an institution or organization on the premises of which it is located and which contains the name of the institution or organization, the names of individuals connected with it,and general announcements,of events or activities occurring at the institution or similar messages. • Sign, business means a sign which directs attention to a business or profession conducted, or to a commodity or service sold, offered or manufactured, or to an entertainment offered on the premises where the sign is located. • Sign, business directory means a sign which identifies the names of specific businessE-. . located in a shopping center and which is located on the premises of the shopping center ;c, identified. Sign, campaign means a temporary sign announcing, promoting, or supporting political 1 candidates or issues in connection with any national, state, or local election. Sign, canopy or marquee means a sign which is mounted, painted on, or attached to any projection or extension of a building that is designated in such a manner as to provide sheite;- or cover over the approach to any entrance of the building. i Sign, construction means a temporary sign erected on the premises on which construction is taking place,during the period of such construction, indicating the names of the architects. engineers, landscape architects, contractors or similar artisans, and the owners, financial supporters,sponsors,and similar individuals or firms having a role or interest with respect to the situation or project. Sign, development identification means a permanent ground low profile sign which identi- • fies a specific residential,industrial,commercial or office development and which is located on I the premises of the development which it identifies. PrSign, directional means a sign erected on private property for the purpose of directing pedestrian or vehiclular traffic onto or about the property upon which such sign is located, including signs marking entrances and exits,circulation direction,parking areas,and pickup . and delivery areas. 47 Sign display area means the area within a single continuous perimeter enclosing the extreme limits or the actual sign message surface, but excluding any structural elements outside the limits of each sign not forming an integral part of the sign. The stipulated maximum sign display area for a sign refers to a single facing. 1152 ".*r.. ZONING § 20-1255 Sec. 20-1255. Signs allowed without permit. The following signs are allowed without a permit: (1) Campaign signs, not exceeding twenty-four (24) square feet in area. The sign must _ contain the name of the person responsible for such sign, and that person shall be responsible for its removal. Such signs shall remain for no longer than seventy-five (75) days in any calendar year. The city shall have the right to remove and destroy signs not conforming to this paragraph. (2) Directional signs. a. On-premises signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The number of signs shall not exceed four(4)unless approved by the city council. b. Off-premises signs shall be allowed only in situations where access is confusing and traffic safety could be jeopardized or traffic could be inappropriately routed through residential streets. The size of the sign shall be approved by the city council and shall contain no advertising. (3) Signs or displays which contain or depict a message pertaining to a religious,nation- al,state or local holiday and no other matter and which are displayed for a period not to exceed seventy-five(75)days in any calendar year. (4) Informational signs not exceeding sixteen(16)square feet. (5) Integral signs. • c> . (6) Motor fuel price signs are permitted on the premises of any automobile service o station only if such signs are affixed to the fuel pumps or are made an integral part of c, ; a ground low profile or pylon business sign otherwise permitted in that zoning o 0 district. Motor fuel price signs affixed to a fuel pump shall not exceed four(4)square " JD • feet in sign display area.When such signs are made an integral part of a freestanding • business sign, the sign display area devoted to the price component shall not exceed r" thirty(30)percent of the total sign display area of the sign. (7) Nameplate signs not exceeding two(2)square feet. CA a (8) Nonilluminated construction signs confined to the site of the construction, alteration a or repair. Such a sign must be removed within one(1)year of the date of issuance of -+33 the first building permit on the site and may be extended on an annual basis. One(1) m sign shall be permitted for each street the project abuts. Commercial and industrial signs may not exceed fifty(50)square feet in sign area, and residential construction signs may not exceed twenty-four(24)square feet in sign area. (9) O.S.H.A. signs. (10) Signs of a public, noncommercial nature erected by a governmental entity or agency including safety signs, directional signs to public facilities, trespassing signs, traffic signs, signs indicating scenic or historical points of interest, memorial plaques and the Iike. 1261 DAN T. RYERSON Attorney At Law — 7600 Parklawn Avenue South (612) 831-5793 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 May 18 , 1988 City of Chanhassen _ 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ATTN: Ms . Barbara Dacy City Planner RE: Datasery sign ordinance application Dear Ms . Dacy: — This is to set forth, for your consideration, Dataserv' s position on the reasonableness of its request for directional signs of approxi- mately 3 X 4 feet at its Chanhassen location. Although your efforts — in studying this situation and communicating with us are very much appreciated, we must recognize that so far we have been held to a very narrow application of the City' s sign ordinances . If the Council — upholds the most recent Planning Commission action, Dataserv' s 70 acre site would continue to be allowed no more directional signage than a 15 ,000 square foot lot in BN zoning. We feel that such a result is both arbitrary and illogical. When our variance request was denied, we followed up on suggestions made by Commission and Council members and brought the present request for an — ordinance amendment. The amendment, with its proposed 40 acre size threshold, would affect few parcels in the City. It would allow the owners of such large parcels to make a use of their property that has — absolutely no deleterious effect on the public health safety or welfare . We hope to persuade the Council that it is not within the City' s interest, and may not even be within its power, to regulate beyond those concerns . — We have shown that 12 square IOW foot signs are so proportion- ately small on a 40 acre site (1 . 7 million square feet) that they have — much less visual impact than has a 4 square feet sign on a typical BN lot. In fact, such signs located in the interior of a 40 acre tract are all but invisible from adjoining tracts or public roadways. — Buildings , landscaping, and parking lots on the 40 acre tract are all of large dimensions and it is reasonable to make these signs visually proportionate . Omb Moreover, there is already precedent in your ordinances for larger signs on IOP tracts . Both Ground Low Profile Business Signs and Wall Business Signs are permitted to be 80 square feet in IOP versus 29 square feet in BN (almost 3 . 5 times bigger) . Why not directional signs? Both the Council and the Commission have discussed at length the content of the signs , the size of letters and arrows , and what di- rections really need to be given by Dataserv. With all due respect, those are matters for Dataserv' s business judgment and are not within the legitimate regulatory interests of the City. The City should refrain from substituting its judgment for Dataserv' s , or from impos- ing purely esthetic notions , and examine only whether signs of 12 square feet on 40 acres tracts will adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of the community. Planning Commission members spoke of "clutter" as a concern in sign regulation. We agree that excessive signage is visually dis- tracting and displeasing. It is ludicrous , however, to suggest that 4 signs of 3 X 4 feet on a 1 . 7 million square foot site could amount to "clutter" . I would observe that, under your ordinances , that same 40 acre site could be 40 individual lots of the 1 acre minimum, each containing a business with its allowed IOP district signage. Datasery looks forward to a long and mutually beneficial rela- tionship with Chanhassen. The number of its employees, the scale of its operations , and its potential for future growth and development mean that it will be an important contributor to the community. No doubt there will be many occasions for dealing with City government. We hope that we can always count on reasonable and objective treat- ment. Very truly your. , _w Dan T. l'yerson DTP./aa cc: Phil Martini Mike Klug Planning Commission Meeting May 4 , 1988 - Page 42 Dacy: If there appears to be a way that again , if it is going to be considered by Council , staff can prepare those items . I can envision right away that we would limit it to 8 period and the landscaping and the — lighting issues and so on. So between staff and Council , we can address that if we get that far . Conrad : There ' s only one condition that I would feel essential and that ' s that there be a holding tank and not a drainfield . I don ' t agree with drainfields down there . That is a commercial use in an unsewered area and the only way that I would allow any expansion would be if these additional — four RV sites were put into a tank and that tank is pumped and not in the drainfield. That ' s the only way that I would accept those additional four units . 1 • PUBLIC HEARING: ...› ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-1251 2 (A) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT LARGER ON-PREMISE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS THAN THE REQUIRED FOUR SQUARE FEET, DATASERV. Barbara Dacy presented the staff report. Conrad : What ' s the size of that lettering Barbara on that sign? Dacy: On the detail , the area is 2 1/2 inches . Conrad : That ' s pretty small . Do we know that a 2 1/2 inch sign from 100 feet away is legible? Emmings : What ' s the No Smoking sign? Conrad : That ' s probably 4 inches . Dacy: You have to think of the speed of the vehicles going through these sites . They' re not going to be going 30 or 40 mph. They' re going to be going much slower than that . — Conrad : It kind of seems that legibility should dictate what we ' re doing here. Legibility and the need for directional signs and I don ' t know that _ we ' ve said , if somebody told me that you need 3 to 4 inch letters from 80 feet away because it ' s readable, I think it ' s a case to consider change because we have certain words that have to be used in directions . Receiving . Shipping . Visitor Parking . We know what space will put a 4 — inch word on a sign . Dacy: Hold that thought just for a second . On their 12 square foot sign — proposal , you have the same size letter but it ' s on a bigger sign. I don ' t think it ' s necessarily the size of what you ' re trying to convey as to the number . How many directional movements do you need to tell people which way to go? That ' s our rationale . _ Planning Commission Meeting May 4 , 1988 - Page 43 Conrad : I think it ' s both . I think a case could be made that there could be 4 or 5 different directional things on a sign. The other thing is that the people in the sign business say that at 50 mph you ' ve got to have at least an 8 inch letter to see it. Okay, we' re not going 50 and we' re not looking at it from 500 feet away. We' re probably in a 30 mph zone or less so I know it ' s not 8 inches that we need to provide but what is it? Dacy: I think what they' re proposing is a 2 1/2 inch tall letter is consistent with other applications . Even a McDonalds entry sign is smaller than that . Conrad : They don ' t have trucking , shipping . Dacy: No , I meant the letter size . Conrad : This is a public hearing and we ' ll open it up . Dan Ryerson: I 'm here on behalf of the applicant. What I 'd like to do in a minute , I ' ve got some enlarged pictures that might help to illustrate what it is we ' re asking for and the relative perspectives and proportions . . . I should emphasize that we ' re not here tonight on any kind of application for any particular sign or the content of any particular sign . I think actually the ordinance has addressed that adequately in determining where advertising can and can not be placed . If it were to be a permitted use to have a larger sign , that would obviously be something that we would have to deal with the staff for the adequate provisions of the sign . I do think that staff might have lost sight of one thing in making the recommendation to 9 feet and that is , subtracting what was on our original idea for the sign and leaving only the three entries that were left, we don ' t know that would necessarily be on the sign. We did show an application for a sign originally showing shipping and receiving , visitor parking and employee parking . However , there may very well be other things . These are going to be regulating roads that are actually well within the site and there may be directions such as "Do Not Enter" or "One Way" , "No Parking" . Something to that effect . There could be a number of things that have to go on this sign. As far as the size of the letters go , again I don ' t know if anything in the ordinance addresses that. I think the visibility of the sign i.s certainly our concern. That somebody driving in there is going to be able to pick up that information without making a wrong turn and that he ' s going to be able to pick it up from 4 or 5 directional entries . I think that the size of the lettering , the speed or the distance to the sign are certainly all relevant factors but others are proportion . The scale of the sign in the site that it ' s sitting in . What we suggest is that a 4 square foot sign , let ' s say 1 x 4 feet which is exactly the same under the ordinance whether it ' s on a 100 foot , half acre commercial lot say like the McDonalds . They have that sign right out in the street where they ' re looking at it or whether that is swallowed up in the middle of a great big , we have 69 . 5 acre site . It simply is not as easy to pick i.t up. It ' s not as easy to see as you ' re approaching the sign. From another point of view, a sign that ' s inside a site that big is not intrusive. In fact , we tried to take these pictures to illustrate, I think you ' ll see , you have a hard time seeing that there ' s a sign there at all . From the nearest publicly traveled Planning Commission Meeting May 4 , 1988 - Page 44 thoroughfare or the nearest property off of the actual site, the 60 acres , you can ' t even see this much less read it . The real concerns about regulating signage, whether it ' s intrusive. Whether it ' s offensive. Whether it ' s distracting or too bright or whatever , really is quite — different here because they are far away. One of the things that I might suggest that the Commission consider is the requirements, that there might be some setbacks requirements given if larger signs were triggered because — the intent of most of these is to regulate internal traffic. Anyway, just to show you some comparison here in scale , if I may, you ' re all familiar with the DataSery site. This is a picture of part of it. You can' t get it all in without a wide angle lens but this is out by TH 5. On the left — hand side of here you see the existing identification sign which is out by TH 5. That by the way is a sign that ' s probably 6 or 7 times larger than the one we' re talking about but the way it appears in proportion or — relation to the overall site , I think gives you an idea of what that site actually presents is an overall picture with signage on it. The second thing we did just for purposes of illustration is to take 12 square foot _ on a board , there ' s no writing on this . It ' s simply to illustrate relative size , and we put this on one of the interior streets . This is within the DataSery site. Approximate and typical location where the sign would be placed . The first picture shows you approaching that sign from two car — lengths away. That ' s it right in the middle of the picture. The next picture shows that same sign board , that same location although this is taken now from down at the end of the road going into DataSery right on _ the edge of Lake Drive. So in other words , this is what you 'd see from the nearest public thoroughfare and that sign now, you have to look, it ' s over here by the building just off to the left . You can see the little dark colored rectangle . Then the last view, this is taken right out by — the edge of TH 5 . This sign board is i.n the same place and obviously if we met this thing you couldn ' t read or even tell that it is a sign I don ' t think. By the same token , if you looked at the second picture , if one of — these signs were placed out near Lake Drive by the turn in, that ' s what it would look like as we approached it . These are , as I say, kind of hypotheticals at this point but we feel that 12 square feet is a _ reasonable size and certainly the 5 foot height we have no problem with . Ellson : I have a question for you. Wouldn ' t some of these problems be eliminate if you just had more? — Dan Ryerson : More signs? Ellson : Right . More 4 foot signs . Because you ' ve got such a long distance. The ordinance as it is now would allow at the City Council ' s discretion , more than 4 . Therefore , people wouldn ' t have quite the distance. They'd come a little closer and they'd read one and they'd go a — little further down the road and they ' d read another . Would you be able to solve those problems with just more signs? Dan Ryerson : I guess we did talk about that . What we came up with was that if you came to an intersection in the property, like the one we ' ve illustrated here , where there ' s a parking lot to the left , shipping and _ receiving is straight ahead and there ' s a parking lot to the right. You 'd have to line them up like BermaShave signs . I think that would be a lot — Planning Commission Meeting May 4 , 1988 - Page 45 less attractive. A lot more visually distracting than having one neat sign with all the directions but we did think about that. Batzli moved , Ellson seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Erhart : I appreciate your photos and I just can ' t imagine why, are you requesting one 12 foot sign are you trying to change the ordinance to four 12 square foot signs allowed? Ellson : Industrial would have the larger size . Erhart : Four? Was it 9 feet? Dacy: Right . On page 3 of the staff report , proposed item (c) would address what the applicant . . . Erhart : No , I mean how many signs of that size? Right now the ordinance allows us to have up to? Dacy: Right the number of signs shall not exceed four unless approved by the City Council . Erhart : Right so now we ' re saying four 12 foot signs or four 9 foot signs and I just can ' t imagine, you have one large sign out in front for them to find the building and I don ' t understand why you would want to confuse that statement with a bunch of other signs of the same size . Dan Ryerson : They wouldn ' t be anywhere near that size. The sign out in front is 6 times bigger than these are. The signs that we ' re talking about , the directional signs , are really to give a series of directions . We have our truck traffic and visitor traffic and I think , I didn ' t bring the graph with me but the projection right now is that there will be shortly 750 DataSery employees alone and there ' s a considerable amount of traffic resulting and a safety factor is involved too . People walking across the parking lot and crossing the street where there ' s truck traffic . The streets that we have on the site , as you notice in the pictures , are very much like city streets . Erhart : How large is the DataSery sign that ' s out there right now in the front? Dan Ryerson : I don ' t know the exact dimensions of it . Dacy: It ' s about 80 square feet . That ' s the one right out by TH 5. And that ' s permitted by the ordinance for an identification sign . Dan Ryerson : And that doesn' t particularly stand out . A 40 acre piece is a quarter of a mile on each side. Erhart : I guess just in thinking about this whole thing , when you come into a site you don ' t generally go to one spot and then all of a sudden Planning Commission Meeting May 4 , 1988 - Page 46 have to make all of your decisions at that point . It would seem to me that it would work better to have more signs , more smaller signs and allow people to make fewer decisions but allow them to make them as they go along and they get to the point where they have to make decisions. Even — the last time you were here I had suggested that in an agreement that we allow a number of signs depending on the acreage. Perhaps one sign for 10 acres or something like that. I 'm still not convinced that we want larger _ signs . Particular due to the fact that the ordinance as it exist says four and it appears that all of the neighboring communities have four . I still favor the idea of expanding the number of signs . Dacy: The other option is , as Eden Prairie does , they set a maximum on the amount of directional signage. You have 32 square feet but that ' s it. So if you have three 12 square foot signs or one 32 square foot sign or eight 4 square foot signs . That ' s an option . Erhart : Just one last note, I would be in favor of adding another square _ foot because I think it makes sense to have the company logo on these directional signs. Limit it to that because you can get into an industrial park and you ' re not sure which shipping dock arrow you ' re looking at so I don ' t quite understand why we prevent people from having — their logo on these directional signs . Dacy: It ' s a subject of interpretation if it actually says McGlynn, _ DataSery or Opus Corporation . If they have a little cookie or bakery in there. The intent is that it ' s not to be for an advertising sign. It ' s for a directional sign . So if the Commission wanted to look at the defintion of directional signs and say company logo would not be permitted — but not advertising . Wildermuth : At this time we do permit the name right but not the logo? — Dacy: No , we don ' t permit anything . Wildermuth : The directional out on the corner of Lake Drive and Dakota , what ' s that going to indicate? It ' s going to have a couple of arrows . Dacy: No , the off-premise sign was approved by the Council . — Wildermuth: Separately? Dacy: Separately under the off-premise sign provision . They do not need a variance for that. That was provided for in the ordinance . Wildermuth : You didn ' t say that in here though did you? — Dacy: No. I didn ' t think it was germai_n really because it was a separate issue . Wildermuth : So the off-premise sign will probably have something on it . Dacy: It says DataSery on it. Planning Commission Meeting May 4 , 1988 - Page 47 Wildermuth : Shipping and Receiving and Employee parking . Emmings : I don' t see any reason to change the ordinance. The answer that ahead of this intersection they' re going to have to stack signs like BurmaShave signs was cute but I don' t think it makes any sense. There are only three ways you can go at that intersection . You can go left , right or straight ahead . The sign that we' ve got an example of in our materials shows three different items with an arrow and it looks very nice. The N on the No Smoking sign is exactly 2 1/2 inches tall . Very readable from plenty far enough away to give a person all the information they need so I don ' t see any reason to change the ordinance . The only other thing I 've got , and I wouldn ' t change it for industrially zoned . I would not be in favor of making the letter (c) change. As far as the change to Section (a) , I think that ' s fine. The only thing I can see is somebody coming in here saying , you ' re trying to keep the top of the sign within 5 feet of the ground and somebody' s going to come in here and say, my sign is only 5 feet high from the bottom of the sign to the top of the sign and I thought that ' s what you meant . We could just make it clearer . Ellson: Just say not to exceed 5 feet from the ground . Emmings : It sounds dumb but believe me , it ' s one of those things that will come up if we don ' t . . . Ellson : Right , they' ll have a sign that goes all the way down. Emmings : It will wind up being 7 feet high from the ground . Ellson : I don ' t see a reason for changing it . I think you could accomplish what your problem is if you had a lot of space. These signs are set up for people who are driving so they' re going along and if that first sign at this point because there ' s only four , is way down there and they can ' t read it , I just say put another 4 foot sign because City Council can allow you to expand to 5 and it just has all the arrows straight . Then when you get down you see your arrows . It ' s just helping people drive in and by the time they' re in the driveway they' re going pretty slow. I can ' t see changing it . I think 4 feet is large enough to read and the fact that you could add more if you have a huge driveway should do just fine . Batzli : I think the problem isn ' t the number of employees , obviously but with the number of visitors and trucks coming in and out because they' re the people that are going to need directions , not your employees . So I think the number of employees is really kind of irrelevant but I do think in a large operation , if they do expand they have several loading dock areas and such , they may have a very valid concern that 4 feet isn ' t enough space . I think in a large industrial area or parcel of land , I can picture the need for a larger sign. I think it ' s a somewhat reasonable request . Wildermuth : I agree . I think we should upscale with a large parcel of land and especially with a large building . Having driven through the area this afternoon , the signs that you have are very small . I would be in Planning Commission Meeting May 4 , 1988 - Page 48 favor of adopting the (c) provision here . — Conrad : The 12 feet? Wildermuth : Yes . Headla : I don ' t like changing ordinances but if you have that much land _ and you can ' t see the signs from the road , strictly the people that are on the property, why are we trying to control it? What ' s the intent? Conrad : Eliminating clutter . — Headla : Clutter in somebody else' s business . Dacy: The other intent is that usually the sign ordinance says that you can have one pylon sign or one ground mounted sign and then x number of directional signs . The ordinance is trying to allow the business to have their identification signage but put a limit on all the other accessory — types of signage that it needs so you don ' t have an over cluttered sign or you don ' t have a large sign directly adjacent to a residential area . Yes , we ' ve got to have some give in there to allow a business to do what they — need to do to direct traffic and that ' s the issue that we ' re trying to deal with. Is 4 square feet reasonable sign size for a directional sign on an industrial zoned piece of property? I think there is a need to control it . Wildermuth : I agree . There is a need to control it but when a company looks at spending 6 or 7 million dollars for a building , they' re not going — to make big mistakes on signage . The signs are generally going to be pretty tasteful . - Dacy: There ' s no qualm with how the signs are going to appear . If they are internally illuminated , we should be looking at the relationship, as the applicant suggested , to adjacent properties and how they appear from public rights-of-ways . I certainly agree, I know DataSery can do a good job . Headla : If we look at the ordinance , I think it applies very well to our — industrial park. When we look at something that ' s got such large acreage, you ' re got 750 cars going in and out possibly some shipping and receiving , you ' re going to have traffic . You want to be able to read a sign a lot _ easier than if you had 3-4 cars going in . Also , if you can ' t see the sign from the street , the general public , I don ' t know why we want to , you can ' t see it like from the road , I don ' t see why we want to control it this close. I think that person should have a right to do some of those — signs . Dacy: You just pointed out a couple of criteria that you want to make — sure , we may be confident that the DataSery site can make that but maybe the Commission does want to say in there that the directional signs shall be screened or shall not be able to be seen from public right-of-ways . — Planning Commission Meeting May 4 , 1988 - Page 49 Headla : That would be appropriate criteria . They should be screened but if we can ' t see them from the public road , why do we care? If the people want to invest that much money in a sign and they' ve got valuable property there and they' re trying to achieve a goal , are we trying to do the thinking for them? I think we are . What ' s the difference between that and no parking signs painted on some of the buildings? I guess I 'd kind of like to see us take another look at it and give consideration of when we have large acreage and I don' t know what the definition of large is but I 'd like to see us take a look at that and considering the amount of traffic and if we can screen the signs . Conrad : I haven ' t been persuaded what the size should be tonight of the sign. Directional signage is really tough. It ' s a tough business . It can help a business . Making it small doesn ' t help a business . I don ' t know that businesses typically know how to make signage. I find them incredibly naive in designing signage. I 'm sensitive to this particular request however . Somebody could create a scenario real easily for me that they need 4 or 5 names on a sign and that our square footage does not help. The restrictions right now I think are pretty tough. Especially on the site that we ' re looking at . On a typical site , a big site like this , a case could be made that there needs to be 4 or 5 different directional messages and you can ' t cram the messages together . They' ve got to be spaced apart. They may be long messages . There typically not in red . They typically are tasteful so they' re not in colors that jump out at you. Typically you have to look at them a little bit longer and therefore, I 'm pretty sensitive to making the signs bigger . I haven ' t been persuaded what the size is. There ' s not been a case to say that it should be 5 feet or 6 feet or 12. In the absence of doing a major study, I guess I could feel real comfortable saying we could bounce up to 9 feet right now. I 'm comfortable there . Somebody could make a case that it should be bigger but nobody has and until that happens , I could go along with (c) , if somebody made the motion , but I ' m not convinced that 4 feet by 3 feet is necessary. I 'm not convinced that that ' s necessary yet. Somebody could make that case to me and I might be sensitive but I 'm not there yet . Wildermuth: Just look at the exposure that you have. How many industrial sites in excess of 40 acres are left? Dacy: The McGlynn site. This site and there is a substantial amount of acreage across the railroad track in the business park. If you look at , as an example for the 12 square foot sign , they' ve got the same amount of directional messages as on the 4 square foot sign except that this is spaced and presented in the sign in a larger context. If you eliminate the DataSery you could add potentially two more directional messages so the larger the sign, potentially the larger amount of directional messages that you could give . Now given a 4 square foot sign , you could get 3 in there. If it ' s up to 9, depending on the size of the letters and their spacing and how they appear from the passing traffic , you could get the same amount on a 9 square foot sign . It ' s just closer spaced together . Conrad : What ' s Lyman Lumber . Lyman Lumber has a similiar problem don ' t they? Don ' t they have some directional sign? Planning Commission Meeting May 4 , 1988 - Page 50 Dacy: I can ' t recall right off the top of my head right now. Conrad : They have some confusing signs out in front of their place and they were real concerned that they didn ' t have enough size to direct — receiving and shipping and what have you but that was a while back. That was probably a year and a half ago or something like that. Dacy: The only other guide that I could give to the Commission would be that the smallest sign size that ' s allowed for a free standing pylon or a ground mounted sign size is 24 square feet . You ' ve got to pick a line in there that you ' re saying it' s a directional sign versus a very large sign — that could be used for another purpose . We' re talking a difference of 3 square feet and to be frank, we felt that the 9 square feet could accomodate 3 to 4 directional messages if that ' s what the Commission wants . Conrad : So we ' re all over the board here . Headla : I 'd like to see us put up three or four sample signs over on DataSery and have it out there for two days and every one of us go look at it. See how it fits on a big location. I think I could make a much better — judgment seeing that . Conrad : How big a deal do you want to make this? Dacy: Perceptionwise , 3 square feet driving out there is not going to be a big difference but the Commission ' s got to decide what can they live with from the ordinance standpoint? — Conrad : I think Dave, you ' re absolutely right . If we really wanted to do a good job of determining sizes , that ' s exactly what you do. Mock it up, you put it out on site and you take a look and say what can I live with . Headla : That isn ' t that big a deal to do . Conrad : The big deal is mocking up the signs . That ' s the big deal . Ellson : Sticking them in the ground , the whole bit . — Dacy: I know the applicant ' s been wanting a decision on this . Headla : Do they have any signs similar? — Dan Ryerson : The Council did approve the off-premise directional sign . That ' s the one out at the end of the road by Mcdonalds and that is I think — virtually identical to the one that Barbara is showing on the slide . It ' s a 12 square foot sign. That ' s not up yet . Headla : Do we have a 4 or 5 or 9 foot sign available of any kind? Dacy: The closest I 'd be able to come is actually buying a board that ' s 3 x 4 and 3 x 3 . I don ' t know if the city has signs . Planning Commission Meeting May 4 , 1988 - Page 51 Dan Ryerson : We ' d be happy to loan you the 3 x 4 board we used in the pictures here. Headla : What are your when you entering Chanhassen , where it says Chanhassen , how big is that sign? Dacy: I don ' t know. Headla : I just have a hard time visualizing a sign of a particular size out on a big site like that. I don' t think I could make a good recommendation . Conrad : Let' s figure out what we want to do . We could ask the applicant if he wanted to mock some signs up for us and we go out . If it ' s worth his time or we can pass the motion that 12 feet , 9 feet , staying as is . Whoever makes the motion has the power here . Emmings : I 'd just like to throw one other thing out and that is as far as things , this has all gotten a little theoretical and academic here it seems to me. Things we know that we have this ordinance for a while and everybody' s been able to live with it . Conrad : Not necessarily. Emmings : Who hasn ' t? Conrad : Lyman . Emmings : What happened there? Conrad : They put it up and I 'm not sure what ' s. They' ve tried to live with it. Emmings : And they put it up within the ordinance? Conrad : Yes . Emmings : All our neighboring communities , Minnetonka , have the same restriction and we don ' t have any evidence in front of us that it ' s a problem except for Lyman Lumber . We know that they want to have bigger signs but . . . Wildermuth : How much industry does Minnetonka have? Emmings : I don ' t know but we don' t know that they can ' t do it . They don ' t want to do it and I don ' t know if that ' s a reason to change the ordinance. I don ' t know if I want to change the ordinance just because, I thought the purpose behind the sign ordinance , maybe I ' m wrong , was to have uniformity of sign in the city and I don ' t care if the place is 40 acres , 30 acres , 90 acres , they ought to be uniform if that ' s the point. Otherwise, why do we have the ordinance? Planning Commission Meeting May 4 , 1988 - Page 52 Conrad : I don ' t think uniformity is the key thing here . If we wanted — uniformity, we'd tell everybody what color to make their signs and whatever . I think the point was clutter . The sign ordinance was really to keep the amount of clutter of miscellaneous signs to a minimum. To provide some kind of standards. Emmings : Then what is the compelling reason here to change from a standard that was set, however arbitrarily? — Conrad : And it probably was . Probably used other communities for a guideline in that case. The compelling reasons would be that you can' t — display visibly enough messages in a big site that has multi-different locations to go to . Employees this way. Visitors that way. Shipping this way. Receiving that way. You could theoretically come up with 4 or 5 different directions . Emmings : Or 100. Theoretically. Conrad : I ' ve seen them. I ' ve built them so it ' s not that I , I ' ve built these things where I ' ve had to route people different directions and as I say, I haven ' t heard a case where we have to have it . It hasn ' t been _ presented here tonight but I can imagine a scenario where it would be necessary and the 4 feet is restrictive . The question is how much energy do we want to put into this issue besides the last 45 minutes of our life . Wildermuth moved , Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #88-4 to amend Section — 20-1255 (2) Directional signs to read as follows : c. On-premise signs for industrially zoned land in excess of forty ( 40) _ acres shall not exceed twelve ( 12) square feet . The maximum height of on-premise directional signs shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground . The number of signs shall not exceed four ( 4) unless approved by the City Council . — Wildermuth and Headla voted in favor , the rest voted in opposition . The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 5 . Emmings moved , Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #88-4 to amend Section — 20-1255 (2) Directional Signs to read as follows : a . On-premise signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The — maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five ( 5) feet from the ground . The number of signs shall not exceed four ( 4) unless approved by the City Council . All voted in favor except for Wildermuth , Headla who opposed and Headla Planning Commission Meeting May 4 , 1988 - Page 53 abstained . The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3 . Emmings : That one states what the ordinance states presently and the only change being in the height restriction . Headla: They increased it to what? Emmings : No , there just was never anything in there before . Erhart : Dave, are you suggesting that we put a clause in there that ' s automatic that the number of signs increase with the size of the site rather than going to the City Council? Headla : No , I think that ' s good . Let the Council negotiate that with who it comes from. Conrad : The reason Jim for your opposition? Wildermuth : I feel sign size should have some correlation to the size of the parcel and the size of the building . Conrad : I feel sign size should be reviewed in more depth to give us a better understanding of what the appropriate size of a sign should be. APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Emmings moved , Ellson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 20 , 1988 . All voted i.n favor except Erhart who abstained and motion carried . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, FINAL REVIEW OF TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER, MARK KOEGLER. Mark Koegler : At this hour I have my normal precise version. The material that you have in the packet may look like something you ' ve seen before and it substantially is. In preparing notes with Barb, there were a few changes that took place referencing items that the Commission had commented on previously. Everytime we look at this we find there ' s something else we overlooked and there ' s a couple more things we talked about adding today. Specifically Audubon Road which we left out which is now being discussed with planned improvements . This shows the Comprehensive Planning continually evolves . . . Aside from that , just any comments from you that you would have is what we ' re interested in this evening . This will come back to you again in the entire package. We ' re fairly confident now that the two remaining sections being primarily implementation and utilities will be wrapped up in the next 30 to 60 days and we ' ll have the entire document for you at that time. So with that , any comments that you might have. Conrad : Who reads this primarily? I go back to that . We' ve discussed this before. Really is Met Council real interested in what we put in 9 _ ' C .C. ATE: May 4 , 9+ — I „..„6 C 11 11I1 TY UAOF 88C.C. DATE: May 23 , 1988 Y CASE NO: ZOA 88-5 CUP 88-6 Prepared by: Dacy/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 1 . Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request to Amend the Business Fringe District to Permit Recreational Fm. Camping Facilities as a Conditional Use. 2 . Conditional Use Permit for Recreational_Camping Q Facilities . — 0 ` LOCATION: 780 and 790 Flying Cloud Drive APPLICANT: Joe Noterman 4-ee. 1205 West 6th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 PRESENT ZONING: BF, Business Fringe ACREAGE: Approximately 3 acres DENSITY: N/A ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- BF; proposed contractor' s yard S- A-2; Minnesota River Valley 5( E- BF; proposed contractor' s yard and Bluff Creek 0 W- A-2; single family home and vacant commercial w WATER AND SEWER: No municipal services available to �. the site. (I) PHYSICAL CHARAC. : Site is bounded by Bluff Creek on the east. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Agricultural ___..._._LL_._Ie. i .... • I.11111111 . . . . •t, . .......N At...-,--:;,_.::::-.-.' -":1.1:4,(.-;: Ar ik/.. • • Alfia:artem.,tirigilli11111 111 4.--c 1114,1 d , .i ! F. -4 . A,* -` •r. -, -,, .. . . ,b, , . •4*-.4 '7.k A2 ......,, ...,.. 4 . .,..s . # ,es . ‘,. ..,... ,..,, ... ... / _ • z.,,. -.61.,...,,,,.. _. _ . --.----- ... HEM FARM _pa gif II 3 (.9 , / # c iiiiiillihrsihtiko,E. „.. ..Aiov•-fijjoo 111 el, rar.„, %.1• Wil. - •..... -.••• . ....... , ..7.. -÷- -7;-•-:,•-;. . - 1lrl4‘:.. ..t..,-*. I' - -7- W ., , , i fIij L A , . . (.......i. . ; : OR1 . e %,..._........._ .-=.;___. SAT' le • • '‘4 t s:Arc/40.4c ‘• • . . ,.4... . „..... ,. . : ,.. • A2 FAcki rieS • • • ...., .... • 4 4#. . a • . .40MIL .. - 0 CITY OF SHA , •' ;., ... . _ ... ...... • Noterman ZOA and CUP May 4 , 1988 Page 2 BACKGROUND The applicant operates the Brookside Motel and leases recreational vehicle sites . Originally, the site was zoned C-3 , Service Commercial in 1972 . The commercial district at that time permitted motel and hotel uses; however, did not permit camp grounds or recreational vehicle parks . Upon affidavits received from adjacent property owners , the City Attorney' s Office in 1982 determined that four recreational vehicles occupied the site prior to 1972 . It was the city' s position at that time that the owner could continue leasing four recreational vehicle sites ; however, it could not be expanded in scope. The applicant, over the past four years , has been petitioning on a regular basis to increase the number of sites to 8 . (The file also shows that increasing the number of sites beyond 4 requires a state license . ) The applicant was advised that there could not be an expansion of the non-conforming use. Therefore, in order to achieve the installation of four additional units, a zoning ordinance amend- ment would have to be processed to permit the use and then a con- ditional use permit issued to permit the installation. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Typically, zoning ordinance amendments are evaluated to determine consistency with the intent of the district and compatibility with other uses permitted in the district and finally, their location within the city. Currently, recreational camp grounds are not permitted in any district within the city. It is apparent that this application is solely one to accommodate the existing use in the district . It is doubtful whether or not one would seek out a parcel in this district for a recreational camp site. However, the Commission and Council have to determine whether or not such a use is appropriate in its current location . The intent of the Business Fringe District is "to accommodate limited commercial uses without urban services" . Recreational camping facilities depending on their size does demand disposal of sewage and provision of water service . Either on site treat- ment system must be provided or in some cases , the recreational vehicles contain storage tanks where temporary one night campers can dispose of sewage at designated sites in the metropolitan area. Although seasonal in nature, this use can generate signi- ficant amounts of sewage use such that on site sewage treatment systems should be provided for those campers staying for fairly lengthy periods of time. Further , given the number of recreational vehicles entering and leaving the site (which are fairly large vehicles) , and given that there are little turn lanes or bypass lanes available, such a use could cause an additional traffic hazard that is not ( (Noterman ZOA and CUP May 4 , 1988 _ Page 3 necessary beyond the existing driveways and traffic conflicts that currently exist . As to compatibility with the other uses in the district, it is — clear that such a use can be more intensive in terms of traffic and septic system use as well as a visual appearance. However, some uses such as automotive service stations would tend to generate a more regular traffic pattern. — RECOMMENDATION Based on the location of the BF District and because the proposed use is not compatible with the intent of the district, it is recommended that the Planning Commission deny Zoning Ordinance — Amendment Request #88-5 . However, if the Commission and Council wish to amend the ordinance in order to remove the non-conforming status , specific conditions should be determined and established. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission recommended denial of the zoning ordi- nance amendment. Wildermuth dissented ( see attached minutes) . Because the zoning ordinance amendment was denied, there was no action taken on the conditional use permit. STAFF UPDATE Should the City Councl approve the items , the recommendations of the Fire Inspector should be included as well as any other con- ditions . CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council deny Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #88-5 as recommended by the Planning Commission . — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Should the Commission and Council amend the Zoning Ordinance, a conditional use permit is needed for the applicant to install additional recreational vehicles . The existing on-site septic system was upgraded after the storm in July of 1987 . The capa- city of the septic system can accommodate the sewage generated by additional four units; however , any further expansion would not be able to be accommodated. — The applicant currently has six RV' s existing on the property. Two of them are currently vacant awaiting Council action on this — item. c <7 Noterman ZOA and CUP May 4 , 1988 Page 4 Also, existing on site is a mobile home which is currently being rented to a tenant . The city has executed a number of inspec- - tions of the property in regards to fire and building code viola- tions for the mobile home. Given our findings on the zoning ordinance amendment request , we cannot recommend approval of the conditional use permit request should the city amend the Zoning Ordinance. However, should such an approval be given , the following are suggested for conditions of approval : 1 . Compliance with all fire and building code requirements for existing RV' s on site including the mobile home. 2 . No more than 8 RV' s hookups will be permitted. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Application . 2 . Letter from Joseph Noterman dated April 11, 1988 . 3 . Site plan . 4 . Letter from Craig Mertz dated September 30 , 1982 . 5 . Letter from Don Ashworth dated October 8 , 1984 . 6 . Memo from Steve Madden dated May 5 , 1988 . 7 . Planning Commission minutes dated May 4 , 1988 . C C - LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN — 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 ( 12) 937-1900 r cp ... APPLICANT• C 1.74 7 'K. OWNER: ADDRESS �1( � G�6-y ADDRESS ; Jl/. .Sly-3 7 7 - r y-cr' Zip Code Zip Code — y, TELL NE (Daytime ) 3�—C-7 TELEPHONE 4" c_ 3 F 7 REQUEST: / Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan — Preliminary Plan Zoning Variance Final Plan _ Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision — Land Use Plan Amendment Platting X Metes and Bounds — Conditional Use Permit Street/Easement Vacation Site Plan Review _ n Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME Q .)A.22.... — PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION — PRESENT ZONING 15(7- (7n41-04.0 REQUESTED ZONING l rJ _ s - USES PROPOSED (t.,' , SIZE OF PROPERTY / f LOCATION � � -1 - — REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary ) • City of Chanhassen Land Development Application Page 2 FILING INSTRUCTIONS : This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions . Before filing this application , you should confer with the City Planner to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application . FILING CERTIFICATION: The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all applicable City Ordinances . Signed By Date Applicant The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been authorized to make this application for the property herein described . Bysi, Date Fee Owner Date Application Rec ived Application Fee Pai Ft7 City Receipt No. * This Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/ Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their meeting . c- • _ g.eft, _ 47 ( 2-e it- z _ 57 Z e ; 4; t/ae---5t//f-' yr -- /sz), 2-- . 71, _ _ �-���1� � 7j-( AA6 A _ 7:4 /, 67(-2 /f- -e/4 ez(- _ _ '(-"`"` -o-=--^ - ___ -4-(i/v7 c)z-(21-4) cz / ( 443-t/(C) q),,\ I 6-/tp OiS 4C 00)-vt4- . . . • c a 4 - '--------4---- p.„,./Q _____ ____ cL3( ..... . L:._*:....,A t,..._.........................._...........' :7 . - Pr... '44 ( ff.... . , j i ! __ til i ..rer. ,... 4... --- 1 , (2) ) . _ . . 1 IT - 1/ _ '--4---. : I -------- . 1 1 - — I i j------(. I I I . i 0 .....: ! (,__ c;'-`'`Ce's• ,,,7>'' / /f ' infm . c-. ..L. i 1 I . .1 : i 7.-.'. . . . . . . '1 ) il . , . eS I J 1 Q, ..., . 4- ,i ,r• ; ....i ''` r, 0- ', • - - I lc I 7: ) i I of: ! a • .. . ..., -4-- c> ...... , -I --7 `4-- - .44- ---.4 - --: _---- r------il. I --,.------ „,,,,,--F--„,;:.,..„....,ci — , , I _____„ 1 . . _... ...___ , ,...„ ....„ , , . , . . , ..7 ...2",.. -*---------_. I t-- .1 -l.7'' -S• Q..._ •-•,.. ".' .----.' 1 1 f ' 1 ) V I - . ,-- .- ,--.--) , 1 4 d 1 _ -t- -.4 — ---- -- -I---' 7- .---...._ti.,.._ .....4. • .-- A ,-7,, , LARSON & MERTZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1900 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST RUSSELL H. LARSON MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE CRAIG M. MERTZ - (612) 333-1511 OF COUNSEL September 30 , 1982 HARVEY E.SKAAR MARK C. MCCULLOUGH - Mr. George Donnelly Chanhassen Building Official Chanhassen City Hall — Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear George: — As per your request, I enclosed the proposed text of a letter to Mr. Schneider at the State Health Department to utilize in response — to his request for City approval of the Notermann recreational camping area application . If you have any questions, please call me. Very truly yours, CRAIG M. MERTZ Assistant Chanhassen City Attorney — CMM: sas enc RECE1v tD Q�i 0 198Z - CITY OF CHANHASSfV C September 30, 1982 Mr. C.B. Schneider, R.S . , Chief Section of Environmental Field Services Minnesota Department of Health 717 Southeast Delaware Street P.O. Box 9441 Minneapolis, MN 55400 Re : Notermann License Application Dear Mr. Schneider: This letter is written in response to your recent request that the City of Chanhassen approve the pending application of Joe Notermann, now pending in your office, for a recreational camping area license . Please be advised that this approval cannot be given by the City of Chanhassen. Under existing ordinances, the Notermann property, located near the intersection of U.S. Highways 169 and 212 , is zoned C-3. Commercial campgrounds and recreational vehicle parks are not allowed in the C-3 zone. As we understand the history of the Notermann property, it was used for limited recreational camping purposes prior to 1972 when the current zoning restrictions were adopted. However, that usage never exceeded four individual camping sites . Because that limited camp- ing usage apparently pre-dates the adoption of the zoning restric- tions, the Notermann property has the legal status of a "non-conform- - ing use . " Under Chanhassen ordinances, a "non-conforming use" may continue in operation, but it cannot be expanded in scope. Any increase in the scope of the Notermann recreational camping area beyond the permissible four sites is not allowable under existing Chanhassen ordinances . Inasmuch as one of the camping sites is occupied by a trailer home which Mr. Notermann is renting on a monthly basis , there are actually only three camping sites available on the subject property . Our in- - vestigation indicates that, historically , this camping area has been operated on a seasonal basis . We note that in his license application Mr. Notermann is applying for a year-round license, rather than a seasonal license, and that the license requested would allow for eight camping sites . The City of Chanhassen objects to the issuance of anything broader than a seasonal (i .e. , May 1 to November 1) license for four camping sites, including the site of the rental trailer. Any broader usage of the property would not be in compliance with existing zoning regulations . Mr. C.B. Schneider -2- September 30 , 1982 _ The Notermann application does not have an "approved zoning permit" as required by Minnesota Statutes § 327 .16 (3) and such approval cannot be given by the City under existing ordinances . Very truly yours, GEORGE DONNELLY Chanhassen Building Official GD:sas CIT'{ OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 October 8 , 1984 Mr. Tony Notermann 1100 Fourth Avenue P.O. Box 158 Shakopee , MN 55379 Re: Brookside Motel Chanhassen , Minnesota Dear Mr . Notermann : The City ' s prosecuting attorney, Thomas Grundhoeffer has notified this office that resolution of the legal status of the Brookside Motel facility should best occur through direct correspondence from myself to you. Accordingly , I hereby state and certify that the City of Chanhassen officially recognizes that up to four recreational vehicle sites and one mobile home rental unit have existed on the subject property for several years . Accordingly, the City shall treat these uses as legal non-conforming uses under the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance . In making such cer- tification as to the legal non-conforming use status of the above stated uses , both the City of Chanhassen and the owners of the Brookside Motel facility are fully cognizant of the definition of and regulations regarding legal non-conforming uses under Chanhassen Ordinance. I would hope that the above statement is sufficient to resolve the differences that have occurred during the past years . In light of these differences , I would ask that you acknowledge receipt of this letter in behalf of your client , the owner of the Brookside Motel facility . Sincerely , bitril 6-444).414'/f4 Don Ashworth City Manager D A, CITYOF _ , -, .,, , G CHANHASSEN _ ,,,,, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 — (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM — TO: Barbara Dacy, City Planner FROM: Steve Madden , Fire Inspector A — DATE: May 5 , 1988 SUBJ: Brookside Motel Upon review of the site plan for Brookside Motel , I request the following: 1 . All mobile homes will be a minimum of 10 feet a part — ( National Fire Code 501D, Section 2-1 . 3 ) . 2 . All sites must be marked and identified ( National Fire Code — 501D , Section 2-1 . 4 ) . 3 . All electrical installation shall comply with NFPA70 , _ National Electric Code. Additionally, a permit is required for all electrical work. 4 . A complete fire detection and alarm system must be installed — in all buildings and connected to a central dispatch center . 5 . Fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A: 20B-C must be — installed. These extinguishers must be installed with a maximum travel distance of 75 feet ( National Fire Code 501D , Section 2-2 . 2 and National Fire Code 10-8 , Table 3-2 . 1 . ) — 6 . An area must be installed for the protection of L.P. tanks . No containers shall be stored under vehicles . 7 . Do not burn (recreational fires) without a permit. If you have any questions , please contact me. c Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 37 PUBLIC HEARING: JOSEPH NOTERMAN, BROOKSIDE MOTEL, LOCATED AT 790 AND 780 LYING CLOUD — DRIVE, PROPERTY ZONED BF, BUSINESS FRINGE DISTRICT: 1. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-773 , THE BF DISTRICT TO ALLOW RECREATIONAL CAMPING FACILITIES AS A CONDITIONAL USE. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FOUR RECREATIONAL CAMP/TRAILER SITES . Barbara Dacy presented the staff report . Conrad : Could you go into a little bit more detail the two reasons for denial , sewage and traffic. Can you expand upon that a little bit? Dacy: As far as the sewage is concerned , each of those units generates a certain amount of sewage on a daily basis. Either an on-site treatment system is provided or the tanks for each RV are taken elsewhere for disposal . Usually you ' ll get a large number of these units located on site and you would typically have to install a septic system that is larger than a typpcally required septic system for a single family home. For example , out on the site right now he has a gallon storage amount of about 3 , 000 gallons and a typical single family home would require a septic tank of approximately 1, 200 to 1, 500 so you have an increased amount of septic demand and that ' s just for 8 units so that was the one issue . The second issue , as far as traffic is concerned , the size of the vehicles generated by this type of use, we want to make sure that there' s adequate lanes available , by-pass lanes and turn lanes . In the TH 212 area right now that does not exist . Basically what staff is saying is that this area is not an appropriate location for that type of use . Joseph Noterman : I think it ' s pretty well covered . This motel has been in existence for 46 years prior to the city owning that land and I ' ve owned it approximately 8 years . For this 40 years they' ve had campers and RV' s in there . I just would like to expand it to 8 units so I can help myself a little economically. Taxes are $5, 000. 00 out there and it keeps raising . Do you have the letter that I wrote? Conrad : Yes . Joseph Noterman : I think that letter pretty well covers my intentions there. Erhart moved , Headla seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Headla : How close is that Bluff Creek to like this drainage field? Dacy: Bluff Creek is about, if I can refer you to the site plan, the creek is about within 20 feet or maybe 30, correct me if I 'm wrong , from where the existing RV spaces are right now. On the site plan, it's on the Planning Commission Meeting May 4 , 1988 - Page 38 bottom of the picture here . — Headla : I agree with the staff ' s recommendation . That ' s all I have. Wildermuth: How often do you have to have the holding tank pumped now with 4 RV' s? Joseph Noterman: We don ' t have a holding tank. We have a brand new drainfield that we put in last year because of this heavy rain that we were talking about earlier tonight . We got the brunt of that in our storm sewer system and our drainage fields so we put in about a $3, 000 . 00 or — $4 , 000 . 00 drainfield . Brand new. So it channels the septic tank and into a little tank and this tank pumps it into a tank. Of course we do pump it every fall . We pump all the tanks in case the solids would build up. I don ' t think we'd have any trouble for 4 or 5 years but this is just a precautionary measure . Wildermuth : Is the new drainfield adequate to handle four additional units? Joseph Noterman: More than adequate yes . We have room to put another — pipe in the event it wouldn ' t be enough so we have room for 10 pipes but we only have 2 pipes . Dacy : What he ' s explaining is that there is enough tank storage there . They may need to add another drainfield trench but they do have adequate area . The building inspection department has evaluated that . If the four additional units are there, they can be accomodated . -' Wildermuth : The traffid is certainly a problem down there . Turning on and off of TH 212 with large vehicles . I guess it argueable whether four — more turning in and out off off TH 212 pose a significantly greater threat or not. I have no further comments . Joseph Noterman : For your information , this business is primarily seasonal . From the 1st of April to the 1st of November and all winter there ' s very, very seldom, on a rare occasion there might be one RV sitting there . Otherwise , there are no RV' s there. — Conrad : Just remember , for the rest of us , as we look at this right now, we ' re really not looking at the particular application . We ' re kind of saying in the fringe business district is this use valid but it ' s almost a contradiction to begin with . I 'm sorry I 'm speaking out of my turn but we put the fringe business district there simply to accomodate existing uses . _ It ' s not like the district was designed for something . It was designed to accomodate something that was there and make it conforming . Dacy: Yes , to a certain extent that ' s true but there is also a decision at that point not to include his use as a conforming use. There is a conscience decision made not to include it. Basically it really comes down to the Commission and the Council need to decide whether or not they want to see this use continued as a non-conforming use or do you in fact want to amend the ordinance to make it legal? You have to decide whether Planning Commission Meeting May 4 , 1988 - Page 39 or not it' s a use that you should discourage or encourage. Batzli : That, of course, boiling it down to that question means to me that we don ' t have the benefit of having the input of the people that made that conscience decision x number of years ago as to why they in fact decided , and it may have been some of our members here , but myself not having had the benefit of why it was determined that recreational campgrounds weren ' t allowed in the City, I don ' t know that I really want them allowed in the City personally as well , just off the top of my head but I don ' t know, I guess I haven ' t heard a whole lot which would indicate to me that in this particular case it would be such a bad thing . But to amend the ordinance that basically it would be a conditional use in the business fringe area to me is a silly amendment to the ordinance. I 'm struggling right now. Ellson : I agree with staff ' s recommendation . Emmings : I can ' t wait to hear what Tim has to say. Erhart : You all know my position on this one . Conrad: I think for the record . Erhart : I would be against increasing the intensity of use in the BF district. Any intent to increase the intensity. Conrad : Why did we exclude this use from the fringe business district? Dacy: The very fact that the RV' s were not conforming in the first place, the Commission and Council felt that they didn ' t want to sanction those and allow them as a legal use. Now the motel use was permitted under the C-2, under the older zoning ordinance rules but when the new ordinance was changed in 1987, they eliminated motels and hotels because of the septic issues and the traffic . Basically it was a decision that the RV' s had been non-conforming up until this point and at that time there was no reason to make them a legal conforming use . Conrad : My belief is that they still should be kept out of the fringe business district . I believe for all of the same reasons that staff is giving to us and from the prior decisions that have been made. I think they were valid decisions . Therefore , my feeling is that the fringe business district should not be amended to include this particular use . Emmings moved , Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to deny Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #88-5. All voted in favor except Wildermuth who opposed and motion carried . Wildermuth : The motel and the recreational vehicle parking areas existed before the ordinance was passed so he' s been grandfathered in . I really don ' t see where four more units are going to make that much difference in the use . Especially in view of the fact that he' s got a septic system adequate to handle it. 1_ Planning Commission Meeting May 4 , 1988 - Page 40 Conrad : But philosophically. — Wildermuth : Philosophically I can see the point but I think in this particular case, I 'd like to see us find a way, or I 'd like to see the — City find a way to allow this to happen . I don ' t think that motel , 25 years from now I don' t think that ' s going to exist. Conrad : I would almost agree with your feeling other than the septic problem. I think if I heard that he had a container that got pumped versus a drainfield down there, I think I could accept some kind of accomodation. Somehow if it was legally possible. Staff is saying that — it ' s not legally possible to do it but if it was and if there was a way to pump that out, then I think I might be persuaded. On this particular case , four more units doesn ' t make much of a difference but on the other — hand , the drainfields down there is not something that I 'm comfortable with. I think a commercial use . . . Wildermuth : But it ' s sized more than adequate. — Joseph Noterman : It' s approved by the State Health Department . They wouldn' t approve it if it wasn ' t any good . Of course you ' ve got to — remember we could under the grandfather law. I 'm just trying to be nice and try to get along with the city. I can go around and get petitions and I can go to court and I can fight it . Do all this kind of stuff and I do _ have a grandfather rights which the City Attorney has acknowledged . Of course if I was aware of the rezoning that they did , I owned it before it was in the City of Chanhassen . The City of Chanhassen came in and said hey, we can ' t operate a motel out there . That ' s kind of ridiculous . — Conrad : Chanhassen generally has a problem with that area down there in terms of traffic and in terms of . . . Joseph Noterman : What else is it suited for at this present time? Conrad : That ' s true . Joseph Noterman : Am I going to bulldoze everything down and just let it lay there. Someday somebody is going to come in there and want to build — a big motel . Wildermuth : That ' s right . Someday that ' s going to be a valuable piece of property. Josephy Noterman : At the present it isn ' t worth anything except for what it ' s being used . But it isn ' t quite big enough for a big motel . It isn ' t — quite big enough for a big RV camp. It isn ' t quite big enough for what? What is there? A service station . I don ' t know. Conrad : I think tonight what we reacted to was amending the zoning and really not specifically looking at your parcel as such . The request was a zoning ordinance amendment and I think that ' s what we reacted to saying _ that in a fringe business district, that particular use is not appropriate based on those decision making rules . . . 4 C Planning Commission Meeting May 4 , 1988 - Page 41 Joseph Noterman: Then I should have the fifth of my taxes if I 'm not legal but they don' t think of that under your ordinance. Conrad : I know what you ' re talking about . Dacy: If it ' s the Commission ' s wish or desire or feeling or whatever , staff could certainly pursue to see if there is any other means to allow him to have four additional units . I 'm not aware of that right now. Conrad : I think it would be wise when this item goes to City Council that you would be prepared to offer them different alternatives. If there were any legal alternatives that City Council could pursue if they so wished . Joseph Noterman: I shouldn ' t even have to come to the Planning Commission . I shouldn ' t even have to come to the City Council . City Hall should go ahead and tell me go ahead and put a few more spaces in. Let' s not go through all this rigamaroll . Conrad : We do have zoning ordinances that restrict that and everybody who owns a piece of property in Chanhassen is govern by those zoning ordinances and that ' s what we ' re looking at . That ' s why we meet every couple weeks taking a look at those particular things and they have to make sense . They have to make sense . Joseph Noterman : Laws are made flexible and they' re made to stretch. They' re made to bend . They' re made to put in place where they are wrong because you may have picked your ordinances from Hutchinson or another place and you put them into Chanhassen and you have to change them as they apply. Really. But you ' re not doing that . Conrad : We decided that it ' s not appropriate to change it in this particular case . Councilman Johnson : On the , what I consider the very unlikely happenstance that they get a four-fifths vote to pass this at the Council in a couple weeks which I don ' t think will happen , but if it did happen I would like some guidance on special conditions to be added to this type of facility. I didn ' t see that . Landscaping . Screening . Noise restrictions. Light restrictions. What kind of special conditions would the Planning Commission like to see . Batzli : All those. Conrad : The reason we didn' t Jay is because we turned down the amendment and didn ' t get into the conditional use permit. However , based on a request , if the City Council did elect to agree with the applicant that the property should be included in the business fringe district , do we have any thoughts on what the conditions for the additional four sites would include? Erhart : It ' s 15 after 10. I just don ' t think that ' s on the agenda to be honest. C Planning Commission Meeting May 4 , 1988 - Page 42 Dacy: If there appears to be a way that again , if it is going to be considered by Council , staff can prepare those items . I can envision right away that we would limit it to 8 period and the landscaping and the — lighting issues and so on. So between staff and Council , we can address that if we get that far . Conrad : There ' s only one condition that I would feel essential and that ' s that there be a holding tank and not a drainfield. I don ' t agree with drainfields down there. That is a commercial use in an unsewered area and the only way that I would allow any expansion would be if these additional — four RV sites were put into a tank and that tank is pumped and not in the drainfield. That ' s the only way that I would accept those additional four units . PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-1251 2 (A) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT LARGER ON-PREMISE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS THAN THE REQUIRED FOUR SQUARE FEET, DATASERV. Barbara Dacy presented the staff report . Conrad : What ' s the size of that lettering Barbara on that sign? Dacy: On the detail , the area is 2 1/2 inches . Conrad : That ' s pretty small . Do we know that a 2 1/2 inch sign from 100 feet away is legible? Emmings : What ' s the No Smoking sign? Conrad : That ' s probably 4 inches . Dacy: You have to think of the speed of the vehicles going through these sites . They' re not going to be going 30 or 40 mph . They' re going to be going much slower than that . Conrad : It kind of seems that legibility should dictate what we ' re doing here. Legibility and the need for directional signs and I don ' t know that _ we' ve said , if somebody told me that you need 3 to 4 inch letters from 80 feet away because it ' s readable, I think it ' s a case to consider change because we have certain words that have to be used in directions . Receiving. Shipping . Visitor Parking. We know what space will put a 4 inch word on a sign. Dacy: Hold that thought just for a second . On their 12 square foot sign proposal , you have the same size letter but it ' s on a bigger sign. I don ' t think it ' s necessarily the size of what you ' re trying to convey as to the number . How many directional movements do you need to tell people which way to go? That ' s our rationale . ID , BOA DATE: June 13 , 1988 CITY 4F C.C. :' 8710 E: CASE : Variance Prepared by: Olsen/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Variance Request for a 45 Foot Variance to the 75 Foot Shoreland Setback Action by City Administr-',r ZEndorsed Modified LOCATION: East end of Red Cedar Point V ort . J "rte . CI. APPLICANT: KK Design — Q John Kosmas 6112 Excelsior Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: 28 ,684 square feet DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- Lake Minnewashta S- Lake Minnewashta QE- Lake Minnewashta 1..7 W- RSF; single family W WATER AND SEWER: Available to site. (/) PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The lot is a peninsula surrounded on three sides by Lake Minnewashta. 1990 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential ., J , I Ld ' PO6200 _ l . . _ /� W. • 62ND ST ..+ 7 ff • �� ■ mow ii WW I.• 6300 /// • - A 4 ii$StErigrzue °,. ' al i .k, ,,,,ilir,ellawssa wiplimis ii_ __---- ,/, - s A -iji lit: r----__ / / a .4,,ii, av 8 Ea 6400 so. / ANL-dom.\ tk e z Az 1 ri „fir g14,1, r#401r pir ;14.4 E 2 i _ __,_,_ 11111 ‘1 • IllWaekNti, 6600 k h . 4 4�,naisvirr. :.:4?fle?"14.:464cli. 1 iit41/1 Amil'4441ptiallr A..4/61.3 1 iralr5ft.-11--".411.111111111 _ — t%.ram 570• •- 41kai 4•gili . .I A so LAKE - -.. 6800 P� I QM / 690o RSF N E �' A S H T A RD 7000 K'NGS ROAD v\ PUD-R 1 t I 7100 4 ix:r) LAKE ,gt a.'1,.c. ' III,. '�. �, p P°SQCt - y ''srJoE ► • �►•4./ Vartane�t. - POND ? — 2 \11{MIUIL111 1i//i L. : :E.IMO\C-\\ -' --:--- i — F" - �` E MAPL SNORES 7300 — . H- DRIVE c) Alin II i, riD •,_ '400 .4=\ t ..,l itil5:,,, T N S Myr s 500 — ) KIM itO . 'w 4 \ -.... — _ , _ , i n .. . ._, . .. 40 , - , _ 700— z [ — 900 S _ _ _ �� KK Design Variance June 13 , 1988 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The Shoreland Ordinance requires a 75 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark for any structure (Attachment #1) . BACKGROUND On August 3 , 1987, the Board of Adjustments approved the variance request for an addition to the subject residence to be located 38 feet from the ordinary high water mark (Attachment #2) . ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to construct an addition located at the northeast corner of the existing structure to provide a windbreak from the winter north winds and to screen the enclosure in the summer . The proposed addition will be located 30 feet from the ordinary high water mark of Lake Minnewashta. The pro- posed addition will be constructed on an existing stone patio. Existing vegetation to the east and south will be maintained and the vegetation to the north will be relocated or replaced to minimize visual change from the lake. The subject site is completely within the 75 foot shoreland set- back (Attachment #3 ) . Therefore any addition to the home would require a variance. The purpose of the shoreland setback is to preserve the view of the shoreland from the lake. The proposed addition (essentially a porch) will be constructed on an existing stone floor and will not increase alteration of the site. The addition will be screened from all sides from the shoreland and should not adversely impact the view of the shoreland from the lake. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the Council shall not grant, a variance unless they find the following facts : A. That the literal enforcement of the Ordinance would cause undue hardship and practical difficulty. * The shoreland setback prohibits any additions to the home without receiving a variance. B . That the hardship is caused by special conditions and cir- cumstances which are peculiar to the land and structure involved and which are not characteristic of or applicable to other lands of structures in the same district. * The site is a peninsula surrounded by Lake Minnewashta and is completely within the shoreland setback. KK Design Variance June 13 , 1988 Page 3 C . That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preser- vation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. * A variance is necessary for any improvements to the site. — D . That the special conditions and circumstances are not a con- sequence of a self-created hardship. r * The conditions of the site create the hardship. E . That the variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the City of the neighborhood wherein the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance . — * The addition will be screened from the lake. RECOMMENDATION — Staff recommends the Board of Adjustments and Appeals adopt the following motion : — "The Board of Adjustments and Appeals approves a 45 foot variance to the 75 foot shoreland setback with the following conditions : 1 . The structure must not extend beyond the existing stone patio. 2 . The applicant must provide landscaping to screen the addition from the north. " ATTACHMENTS 1 . Shoreland Ordinance regulations . 2 . Staff report and Board of Adjustments minutes dated August 3 , — 1987 . 3 . Site with setbacks . 4 . Application . — 5 . Site plan . ' ( . • RULES AND REGULATIONS NR ID shoreland ordinance in accordance with the class of public waters, high water elevation,and location of roads and highways. (aa) The following minimum setbacks for each class of public waters shall apply to all structures except those specified as exceptions in NR 83 (c) (2) (ff): ' 1 (i) For Natural Environment Waters: at least 200 feet from the 91")) ordinary high water mark for lots not served by public sewer and at least — 150 feet from the ordinary high water mark for lots served by public sewer. (ii) For Recreational Development Waters: at least 100 feet from the ordinary high water mark for lots not served by public sewer and at least 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark for lots served by public sewer. (iii) For General Development Waters: at least 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark for lots not served by public sewer and at least 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark for lots served by public sewer. (iv) Furthermore, no structure shall be erected in the floodway of a river or stream as defined in Minnesota Statutes 1974,Section 104.02. (bb) High Water Elevations — In addition to the setback require- 7 ments of NR 83 (c) (2), municipal shoreland ordinances shall control place- ment of structures in relation to high water elevation. Structures shall be F�Fjv placed at an elevation consistent with any applicable local flood plain man- agement ordinances.When fill is required to meet this elevation, the fill shall be allowed to stabilize to accepted engineering standards before construction is begun. When no ordinances exist, the elevation to which the lowest floor, including basement, shall be placed shall be determined as follows: 9 For lakes,ponds, and flowages by (a) an evaluation of available ` flood information and consistent with Statewide Standards and Criteria for Management of Flood Plain Areas of Minnesota or (b) placing the lowest floor at a level at least three feet above the highest known water level. In those instances where sufficient data on known high water levels are not available,the ordinary high water mark shall be used. (ii) For rivers and streams, by an evaluation of available flood in- formation and consistent with Statewide Standards and Criteria for Manage- _ ment of Flood Plain Areas of Minnesota. (cc) Proximity to Roads and Highways No structure shall be placed nearer than 50 feet from the right-of-way line of any federal, state, .�� or county trunk highway; or 20 feet from the right-of-way line of any town road,public street,or others not classified. (dd) All structures, except non-residential agricultural structures,shall not exceed 35 feet in height, unless such structures are approved as part of a planned unit development pursuant to the procedures set forth in NR 83 (e) (4) tom, c ) The total area of all impervious surfaces on a lot shall not exceed 30 percent of the total lot area. (ff) Exceptions: 'Boathouses may be located landward of the ordinary high water 7 Board of Adjustments Minutes _ August 3 , 1987 17 Page 2 realize that small lots have limitations . She stated that she has no problem with the variance since it will be adjacent to a — ponding area. Johnson stated that he had no problem with the variance request. _ Hamilton moved, seconded by Johnson to approve the rear yard variance request. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Request for a Shoreland Setback Variance to Construct an Addition, 3601 Red Cedar Point, Dick Schlener. Olsen presented the staff report to the Board. Hamilton stated that is a beautiful site and felt that what is being requested is a good proposal . He does not agree with the — landscaping condition. Watson stated that she had no problems with the variance. She — felt that where the bitumious exists now is worse for the lake than the addition. She felt that the addition would not block anyone' s view and would not be detrimental to surrounding proper- ties. Mr. Schlener stated that they might want a deck on the north side of the addition. — Hamilton stated that a deck on the addition no wider than 6 feet would be fine. Johnson moved, seconded by Hamilton , to approve the variance request for the addition with a deck no wider than 6 feet and that the addition must comply with building and fire codes . -' Approval of Minutes Watson moved, seconded by Johnson, to approve the minutes as written. Watson and Johnson voted in favor . Hamilton abstained. Watson moved, seconded by Hamilton, to adjourn the meeting at 7 : p.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried. U I T Y O F BOA DATE: August 3 , 1987 CEANTA,SN C.C. DATE: ` \L!' � CASE NO: 87 10 Variance Prepared by: Olsen/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Variance Request to the 75 Foot Shoreland Setback V •-- LOCATION: East end of Red Cedar Point APPLICANT: Dick Schlener ���� � c/o Immcast 200 Commerce Circle South Fridley, MN 55432 . PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: 28 ,684 square feet DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- Lake Minnewashta S- Lake Minnewashta I- E- Lake Minnewashta W- RSF; single family WATER AND SEWER: Available to site . PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The lot is a peninsula surrounded on three sides by Lake Minnewashta. 1990 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential V O 'J , I . . Z../ . • I'I I.) 6200 1 r�_ r. 4e: ... . M I r. /.-r•--- W. 62N01 ST A 6300 /I TglA1foil to._ . , 'mar. - ...law • 14 __A Ali,A` o•vite,..- . , V;110 r te: .... elkr------- a ; 6400 .a� N• fr L...10 it, r, vex at i • ce 2 , I i iliq‘, 1 _ Wilt Ii•Mil 1,41' It. 6600 „ 16- .406 bit-4.: , \ iNg tig-4 4 �� . /Aral' . aii 4/1V0-i " ' .) 17fr 6700 i `�� Q d ' &fah. 4 i ;'�' , � C� •F (21 i r � 'LAKE . � ',,� - 6800 ' 4. / N N E W A S HTA 6900 i RSF RD 7000 r.'NGS ROAQ `'� PUD-R Z ' ;ill 1 - i� ill - 7100 4 Q LAKE ' _ 4. tiQ/ '/ + R '/%1►i • B'r)�cS2Ct t y Z ST✓OE �`' 'z'• - IIIP far-IghC',C� E_ e . F O DPoN•, , `` 7200 �11�0v \��� — i `` MAPLE SHORES 7300 — • 1- l DRIVE Y? V ,1111114 T,Nt 7400 tiW1a.�' ' , LS \\ 4 7500 */} t7���,,5,': r. . — �� wad 7600 --� } �. ........fel: - . k I ' . -- '• ' - .p. .--,, . _ , . 7700— • - - iii i _ _. • I800_- _____ _ - - - - - �._ Schlener Variance August 3 , 1987 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The Shoreland Ordinance requires a 75 foot setback for the ordinary high water mark for any structure. Section 6-6-2 requires each single family residence to have two enclosed parking areas (Attachment #1) . Section 3-5-5 provides for residential alterations of non- conforming structures when they improve the liveability of the units (Attachment #2) . ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting to construct a 22 ' x 34 ' , two story addition to an existing one story home. The site is located on a peninsula at the end of Red Cedar Point and is surrounded by Lake Minnewashta on three sides . The existing structure is non- conforming in that it is within the 75 foot shoreland setback. The required setbacks are shown on Attachment #3 . The entire site is within the setbacks . Therefore , any addition to the home requires variance. The applicant is requesting a 37 foot variance to the shoreland setback for an addition to the single family home. The addition will include a two car garage with a second story for additional living area. The proposal is removing bituminous surface which exists at the edge the property along Lake Minnewashta and is preserving the existing trees to the south. The Zoning Ordinance requires a single family residence to have enclosed parking for two cars . The site currently does not have a garage and the proposal will provide the required enclosed parking . The existing home is 704 square feet. The Zoning Ordinance requires a rambler style home to have 960 square feet or a two story home to have 600 square feet on the first floor with an attached garage. The proposal will bring the existing home up to city standards. The proposed site plan is also working with the existing features of the site. The Department of Natural Resources reviewed the variance request and recommended that if the variance is approved the applicant should landscape the area where the bituminous surface will be removed to help screen the addition from the north side of the lake. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the Council shall not grant, a variance unless they find the following facts : A. That the literal enforcement of the Ordinance would cause undue hardship and practical difficulty. Schlener Variance L — August 3 , 1987 Page 3 * The literal enforcement of the ordinance would not permit the applicant to provide the site with a two car garage and addi- tional living area to conform with required standards for single family development. B. That the hardship is caused by special conditions and cir- "umstances which are peculiar to the land and structure — involved and which are not characteristic of or applicable to other lands of structures in the same district. * Because of the shape and dimensions of the property, enforce- ment of the shoreland setbacks is preventing construction of additional features typical of single family construction. C. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preser- vation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. * It is questionable that the existing structure can qualify as a "reasonable use" . Granting the variance would preserve and allow substantial property rights . — D. That the special conditions and circumstances are not a con- sequence of a self-created hardship. * The hardship is not self-created and is a result of the shape -nd dimensions of the land. E. That the variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the City of the neighborhood wherein the property is situated and will be _ in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. * Granting the variance will not cause adverse impacts to surrounding properties . It would be in keeping with the — spirit and intent of the ordinance as it will allow the building to be brought up to required standards . RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request with the following con- ditions be included in the motion: — 1 . The applicant shall provide landscaping to screen the addi- tion from the north side of the lake. — 2 . Compliance with appropriate building and fire codes . ATTACHMENTS — 1 . Section 6-6-2 of the Zoning Ordinance . 2 . Section 3-5-5 of the Zoning Ordinance . 3 . Setbacks . 4 . Existing features . 5 . Proposed site plan. — 6 . Application. a._. .. _ rt Said fence must - I. ••I iuur ,pace onwns ate groan uuur area of me,pcun, ux .,, Y• mined in one of two ways.In determining the height of the•W ECS defined in Article il. over eight(8)feet the total height of the system sh'1.the included.System height shall 2. Where fractional• aces result,the parking spaces required shall be measured from the base of ( wer to the highest possible ex- be construed tel he next largest whole number. tension of the rotor. 3. Other Uses.Othk sea not specifically mentioned herein shall be kept: A. A ratio of one(1)foot to one(I)foot between the distance determined by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals.The factors of the closest property line to the base of the WECS to the to be considered in such determination shall include size of building, being used on the height of the system. type of use,number of employees,expected volume and turnover . B. A maximum system height of one hundred seventy-five(175) of customer traffic and expected frequency and number of delivery feet. or service vehicles. The shortest height of the two above mentioned methods shall be 7.1 4 Yards.On-site parking and loading facilities shall not be permitted in �iovidexi it is stored used in determining the maximum allowable height of a WECS the required front yard,side yard or rear yard,except as provided in system.The height of a WECS must also comply with FAA Regula- Article V. (4)fat.. ., _ lion part 77 "Objects Affecting Navigable Air Space" and/or 7-1-5 Buffer Fences and Planting Screens.On-site parking and being areas - . •• , - MnDOT Rule 14, MCAR 1.3015 "Criteria for Determining near or abutting residential districts shall be screened in conformance • Obstruction to Air Navigation." with the provisions of Article VIII. 3-snowmobiles may • '.'2. Setbacks. No part of a WECS(including guy wire anchors)shall 7-1.6 Access. - , wod front setback. }` - be located within or above any required front,side or rear yard• I. Parking and loading space shall have proper amen from a pubic - • x.;eta -; .,- Gr.• shall be WECS towers e setback from the closest property - right-of-way. • LES: ,,s: , line one(I)foot for every one(1)foot of system height.WECS 2. The number of width of aeons drives shall be located to minimize •• al or agricultural shall not be located within thirty(30)feet of an above ground utility traffic congestion and abnormal traffic hazard. line. 7-I-7 Location of Parking Facilities and Combined Faaiidn.Required on- ' • -- - arked or stored out- 3. Rotor Size.All WECS rotors shall not have rotor diameters greater - . site parking space shad be provided on the same lot as the principal '- ,s*, "c les may be kept than twenty-six(26) feet. • building or use.except that combined or joint parking facilities may y ens to the zoning 4. Rotor Clearance. Blade arcs created by the WECS shall have a _ . be provided for one(I)or more buildings or uses in Business Districts "`_?�'x., minimum of thirty(30)feet of clearance over anystructure or tree _ _ ..` `'i• - l:: and in Industrial Disvicts�provided that the total number of spaces,, "-� ',Wvdl-kept,operable within a two hundred(200)foot radius. ` -shall equal the sum of the requirements for each building or use. m5. Rotor Safety.Each WECS shall be equipped with both a manual 7-1-8 Construction and Maintenance. • .' . .. • be permanently af- and automatic braking service capable of stopping the WECS • . I. In Multiple-family,Business Office'and Industrial Districts,park- it removal. - .operation in high winds(40 mph or greater). ing areas and access drives shall be paved with a dust-free,all- in the rear or side 6. Lightning Protection. Each WECS shall be grounded to protect weather surface with proper surface drainage,and concrete curb. marking or storage against natural lightning strikes in conformance with the national 2. The operator of the principal building or use shall maintain park- a permitted herein, Electrical Code. ing and loading areas,access drives and yard areas in a neat and • 7. Tower Access.To prevent unauthorized climbing,WECS towers serviceable condition. regard to the loca- must comply with one of the following provisions: 7-1-9 Lighting.All commercial,industrial and multi-family parking lots shall ing and unloading A. Tower climbing apparatus shall not be located within twelve be lighted.Lighting shall be directed away from the public rightof- T (12)feet of the ground. way and adjacent Residential or Agricultural Districts. red no higher than B. A locked anticlimb device shall be installed on the tower. 7-1-10 Required Number of On-Site Parking Spaces.On-site parking areas securely supported C. Tower capable of being climbed shall be enclosed by a lock-. of sufficient size to provide parking for patrons,customers,suppliers, • locks or support ed, protective fence at least six(6)feet high. visitors and employees shall be provided on the premises of each use. 8. Signs.WECS shall have one(1)sign,not to exceed two(2)square The minimum number of required on-site parking spaces for the follow- -iCor living,sleeping feet posted at the base of the tower and said sign shall contain the ing uses shall be: 7)consecutive days. following information. 1. Assembly or exhibition hall,auditorium,theater or sports arena cy conditions when A. Warning high voltage. -one(I)parking space for each four(4)seats,based upon design onal vehicle power B. Manufacturer's name. capacity. districts.Routine C. Emergency phone number. 2. Auto sales,trailer sales,marine and boat sales,implement sales, . „mutes per month. D. Emergency shutdown procedures. garden supply store,budding materials sales,auto repair-one :N RESIDENTIAL 9. Lighting. WECS shall not have affixed or attached any lights, (1)parking space for each five hundred(500)square feet of floor reflectors,flashers or any other illumination,except for illumina- area. strict.Fuel storage tion devices required by FAA Regulations Part 77 "Objects Af- 3. Automobile service station-four(4)parking spaces,plus two(2) rear yard,subject letting Navigable Air Space" and FAA Advisory Circular parking spaces for each service stall:such parking spaces shall be ,m-noed in accordance 70/7460-IF,September 1978"Obstruction Marking and Lighting". in addition to parking space required for gas pump areas. inted in earth tone 10. Electromagnetic Interference. WECS shall be designed and con- 4. Bowling alley-seven(7)parking spaces for each bowling lane. -suitable screening strutted so as not to cause radio and television interference. 5. Churches-one(i)parking space for each three(3)seats,based 11.Noise Emissions.Noises eminating from the operation of WECS on the design capacity of the main seating area,plus one(I)space )RS:STORAGE shall be in compliance with and regulated by the State of Minnesota per classroom. `'io exterior storage Pollution Control Standards,Minnesota Regulations NPC I and 6. Dwelling: Aiding enclosed by 2,as amended. A. Single-family-two(2)parking spaces,both of which must mod area.Covered 12. Utility Company Interconnection. No WECS shall be intercon- /) be completely enclosed.No garage shall be converted into liv- cempted from these netted with a local electrical utility company until the utility corn- ing space unless other acceptable on-site parking space is r pany has reviewed and commented upon it.The interconnection provided. _ of the WECS with the utility company shall adhere to the national B. Multi-family-one(1)parking space per efficiency unit,1.5 b :d from general il- Electrical Code as adoptedy the City of Chanhassen. spaces per one bedroom unit,two(2)parking spaces per two the site from which 6-20-8 Ornamental Wind Devices. Ornamental wind devices that are not a or more bedrooms.Senior citizens housing shall have i/.spaces WECS shall be exempt from the provisions of this Section and shall per dwelling unit.At a minimum,one(1)space per unit must resembles a traffic conform to other applicable provisions of this Ordinance. be completely enclosed. told create a hazard 6-20-9 Inspection.The City of Chanhassen hereby reserves the right upon is- 7. Financial Institution-one(1)space for each two hundred fifty suing any WECS conditional use permit to inspect the premises on - (250) square feet of floor space. with fixtures used which the WECS is located. If a WECS is not maintained in opera- 8. Furniture or appliance store-one(1)space for each four hun- lighting.Shielded - tional condition and poses a potential safety hazard,the owner shall dred(400) feet of floor space. take expeditious action to correct the situation. 9. Hospitals and nursing homes-one space for every two(2)beds, 6-20-10 Abandonment.Any WECS or tower which is not used for six(6)sue- plus one(I)space for every two(2)employees on the largest single ,,,;f '"'" itial district except cessive months shall be deemed abandoned and shall be dismantled and shift. its of the principal. • removed from the property at the expense of the property owner. 10.Manufacturing or processing plant-one(1)off-street parking guests. Fence re- SECTION 21. ANTENNAS AND SATELLITE DISHES space for each employee on the major shift and one(1)off-street e:met. 6-21-1 Satellite dishes,television antennas and radio antennas shall be per- parking space for each company motor vehicle when customarily misted accessory uses within all zoning districts, provided they meet kept on the premises. - c into or within the the following conditions: 11. Medical and dental clinics and animal hospitals-one(1)parking he City Council. I. A ground mounted dish shall not exceed fifteen(15)feet in height space for each one hundred fifty(150)square feet of floor area. ,led with the City, above ground level.Radio antennas shall receive a conditional use 12. Mortuaries-one(1)space for every three(3)seats. ition shall contain permit prior to installation and shall not exceed forty-five(45)feet 13. Motel or hotel-one(1)parking space for each rental room or in height. suite, plus one(1)space for every two(2)employees. 2. No satellite dish or antenna shall be located within the required 14.Office buildings(administrative,business or professional)-three front yard setback or side yard setback. (3)parking spaces for each one thousand(1,000)square feet of floor • I 3. Ground mounted dishes and antennas shall be set back from all area. adjoining lots a distance equivalent to the height of the dish or 15. Public service buildings, including municipal administrtion t Inspector for the antenna.Ground mounted dishes and antennas shall be located ten buildings,community center,public library,museum,art galleries, - shall be forward- (10)feet or more from any other building or structure on the same and postofriice-one(1)parking space for each five hundred(500) lot and shall not be located within a utility easment.Location shall square feet of floor area in the principal structure,plus one(1)park- .n the application ...'tnot adversely obstruct views from adjacent property. ing space for each four(4)rests within public assembly or meeting +rty owlets within 4. A building permit shall be required for the installation of any dish rooms. e budding.Failure or antenna.Building permit applications shall require the submit- 16. Recreational facilities,including golf course,country club,swim- ` te proceeding. lion of a site plan and structural components.When a dish or amen- ming club, racquet club, public swimming pool -twenty (20) 'Se City shall corn- net is located on the roof of a building,the applicant shall furnish spaces,plus one(1)space for each five hundred(500)square feet the City Building official with building plans and structural corn- of floor area in the principal Structure or 2 spaces per court. lutere portents displaying the means of securing it to the roof of a building. 17. Research,experimental or testing stations-one(1)parking space ' repair. The Building Official must approve the budding plans before for each five hundred(500)squat feet of grow floor area within •-- installation. , " - the building,whichever a greater. J tL I -- _ .._. tie_ .....1.....is T.w.w net Rat 44 , a could cause un- .. ...._... 6. Comparability of appearance. SECTION 5. NONCONFORMING USES• In determining such conditions,serial consideration shall be given 3-5-1 Nonconforming Builr'e. and Uses.The lawful use of a building or land .:onditions and fir- to protecting immediately adjac if roperties from objectionable d structure involved existing at the time of Adoption of s Ordinanceeo may er continued,E cept views,noise,traffic and other negA.4 characteristics associated with although :able to other lands such uses. such use doer not conform with the provisions hereof.Except 3-2-5 Denial for Noncompliance.If the Council denies a conditional use per- enlargeeerdnafter provided,nonconforming uses shall not be extended or .ry for the preserva- mit.it shall state findings as to the ways in which the proposed use does 3-5-2 Nonconforming Lots of Record.Single-family lots in the A•2 and RR •y rights. not comply with the standards required by this Title: :es are not a onse- 3-2-6 Permitter.A conditional usebe deemedets established prior is the effective date of this t Ordinance n o ith- permit shall be issued for a particular use be as buildable lots. In the RSF and R-4 districts, notwith- and not for a particular person. standinglimitations imposed or adversely affect 3-2-7 Revocation.Failure to comply with any condition set forth in a condi- by other provisionsoy u ofdi this aydie erected a of the City or the tional use permit,or any other violation of this Title,shall be a misde- on any singlye dot of recordg and customary the effective accessory boil this rdi be tied and will be in any at ite rot is ap bl the date p rov d private reef meaner and shall also constitute sufficient cause for the termination of vided that it fronts on a public right-of-way or approved private street ordinance. the conditional use permit by the City Council followingapublic hearing.mdy dwellingas a g• and provided that the width and area measurements are at least snance. 3.2-8 Expiration. If substantial construction has not taken place within one:Ice the followingfive percent or ore lots of the minimum of lots nts of this ofd is with year of the date on which the conditional use permit was granted,the permit is void except that,on application,the Council,after receivingIf two(2)o s more ion oa combinations e ne lots and portions of lots with disability, age or contiguous stof frontage in single lxrpar are record on the ef- reommendation from the Planning Commission,may extend the per- fective date of this Ordinance,and if all or part of the lots do not meet mit for such additional period as it deems appropriate.If the conditional the width and area requirements of this Ordinance for lots in the district, of a single-family use is discontinued for six(6)months, the conditional usepermit shall driveway and onethe contiguous ur o e of lots shall ab e nd nood too ibeo o undivided such ar parcelafor become void.This provision shall apply to conditional use permits issued the purpose of this Ordinance and s 1 prior to the effective date of this Title,but the six(6)month period shall used or occupied which does not meet lot width andarea equirementtss t (e.g.gas, water, not be deemed to commence until the effective date of this Tide. of this Ordinance,nor shall the parcel be so divided that any remaining versely affect the lot does not comply with such requirements. SECTION 3. TEXT AMENDMENTS AND ZONING DISTRICT f the City or the CHANGES 3-5-3 Discontinuance. ad will be in keep 1. In the event that a nonconforming use of any building or premiises thee. 3.3-1 Authority. The Council may from time to time by a four-fifths(4/5) discontinued or its normal operation stopped for a period of one _ vote of the entire Council adopt amendments to this Ordinance including (1)year,the use of the same shall thereafter conform to the rcgula- I be filed with the the zoning map- nonconforminglions of the district in which it is located. as establi iledshed by 3-3-2 Procedure. • 2. In the event that the use of a advertising sign strut- f s application.led Proceedings to amend this Ordinance shall only be initiated by thea ture is discontinued or its normal operation stopped for a period al circumstances. of six (6)months,said structure shall be removed. Council, the Planning Commission or a petition of the property on for variance, ow�r(a)• 3-5-4 Alterations.If no structural alterations arc made,a nonconforming use :ce for a hearing 2. An application for an amendment shall be fled with the City.Peti- of a building may be changed to another nonconforming use of the same i such appeal or tions by property owners requesting change in a district boundary or more restricted intensity by has bees changed use permit.Whenever aa rton- y(30)days after shall be accompanied by a map or plat showing the lands proposed conforming use of a building been to a more restricted use :wring the Board five hundred(500)feet of the boun- or to a conforming use,such use shall not thereafter be changed into to be changed and all land within — in person or by daries of the property proposed for such rezoning together with the a less restricted one. mailed not less names and addresses of the owners of lands in such area. 3-5-5 Residential Alterations.Alterations may be made to a residential pro- �erson who filed PAY containing nonconforming residential units when they will improve 3-3-3 .Public Hearing.No amendment shall be adopted until a public hearing e case of an cep• has been held thereon by the Planning Commission.Notice of the time, the livability of such units,provided,however,that they do not increase situated wholly the number of dwelling units in the building. place and purpose of an amendment hearing shall be published in the operty to which official newspaper at least ten(10)days prior to the day of hearing.When 3-5-6 Restoration.No nonconforming use,building or structure,except single- :dresses of such an amendment involves changes in one or more district boundaries af- family dwellings in a residential district,which has been damaged by nistrator from fecting an area of five(5)acres or less, notice of the hearing shall be fire,explosion,flood,act of God or other calamity to the extent or more mailed at least ten(10)days before the date of hearing to each owner than fifty percent(5004)of its assessed market value may be restored. A nonconforming use,building xaed to decide of property within the area proposed to be changed and owners of pro- o r structure which is damaged to a lesser n of the Board pro- perty situated wholly or partially within five hundred(500)feet of the degree may be restored and its previous use continued or resumed — property to which the amendment relates. The failure of a property vided that restoration is completed within one(l) year following its shall serve only owner to receive notice as specified herein shall not invalidate the public damage and no enlargement occurs.Notwithstanding Section 5-2 above, I then make the appropriate,notice shall asingle-family residence may be restored to its original location. hearing or the amendment proceeding.Where • sit within thirty also be given to affected homeowner's associations. 3-5-7 Normal Maintenance-Maintenance and repair of nonconforming uses If a development is proposed adjacent to a lake or will affect the usage is permitted. _ 3-5-8 Issued Permits. Nothing herein requests within of the lake,the applicant shall provide the City with a list of property contained shall require any change in tuired hearing, owners abutting the lake at the time of appliction-The City shall pro- plans,construction or designated use of a building,or structure for which or persons,erg_ vide mailed notice to the lake homeowners as in compliance with the a building permit has been issued prior to the effective date of this Or- pplicant or any with affected durance,provided,however,that the entire building shall be completed procedures above.The applicant is responsible for meeting — Bred(500)feet homeowners, according to such plans as filed within twenty-four(24)months from es,may appeal 3-3-4 Commission Action. Following conclusion of the public hearing held the date of issuance of said permit. I with the Zon- by the Planning Commission,the Commission shall report its findings 3-5-9 Status of Variances, Conditional Use Permits, and Planned Unit of the Board's and recommendations on the proposed amendment to the Council. If Developments. If a conditional use permit, variance or planned unit card shall also no report of recommendation is transmitted by the Planning Commis- development for a specific use o r structure has been granted by the City,sion within sixty(60)days following referral of the amendment to the theuse or structure shall not be deemed nonconforming, but shall be 1 may reverse, deemed allowed in such district.Further,existing uses which are allow- Commission, the Council may take action on the amendment without ealed from the awaiting such recommendation. ed as a conditional use in the district in which it is located that have all the powers 3-3.5 Council Action. Following Planning Commission consideration or to not received a conditional use the expiration ppermit shall not be deemed nonconform- ,hin thirty(30) p ation of its review period,the Council mayadopt the amend- in8 if they meet required standards provided in this Ordinance.. • ment or any part thereof in such form as it deems advisable,reject the SECTION 6. SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURES c Council,and amendment, or refer it to the Planning Commission for further 3-6-1 Approval Required. The City Council, with the advice and recom- a that the con- before issuance of a building permit in the multiple fermi- and a ' consideration. mendation of the Planning Commission,shall review SECTION 4. BUILDING PERMITS,CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY, plan applicationpprove a site . FEES !by the Board ty districts and in the business,office and industrial districts. Expan_ late of an ap• 3-4-1 Building Permits. sion of a budding I. No to any manner which results in a different intensity nisvator,the person shall erect, construct, alter, enlarge, repair, move or of use,including the requirement for additional parking,shall also re- with the pro- remove,any building or structure or part thereof without first secur- quire site plan approval g the Board's ing a building permit. 3-6-2 Exceptions. The following shall not require site or building plan ( 2. An application for a building permit shall be made to the City on approval: a form furnished by the City.All building permit applications shall I. Construction or alteration of a single family or two-family res[den- be accompanied by a site plan drawn to scale showing the dimen- dial building or buildings accessory thereto; usually allow- sions of the lot to be built upon and the size and location of anyEnlargement of a budding by less than ten 10 irumstances 2. ( )percent of its gross existing structures and the budding to be erected,off-street parking floor area,provided that there is no variance involved and also pro- f that the use and loading facilities and such other information as may be deem- vided that the City Planner approved and •ire been met. ed necessary by the City to determine ompliance with this and other in the leaseable s ace ofa multi-tenant e rbui!building where the application, 3. ChangesD land use ordinances.No building permit shall be issued for activity change does not intensify the use, require additional parking,or it conditional in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance.The City shall issue provided in result in an inability to maintain required performance standards. a building permit only after determining that the application and 3-6-3 Application.Application for a site plan review shall be made to the Ci- dd on the af- plans comply with the provisions of this Ordinance, the State ty Planner on forms provided by the City and shall be filed three(3) 'ugh specific Building Code and other applicable law and ordinances. weeks in advance of the Planning Commission meeting at which it is iditional use 3. If the work described in any budding permit is not begun t which it is within to be considered.The application shall also include: ninety (90) days or substantially completed within one (I) year I. Evidence of minimum a following the date of the issuance thereof,said permit may become 2. The applicti nwfee;and nership«an interest in the property; use building void at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator uponp ) tinting areas sion of documented evidence. Written notice thereof shall the 3. landscape Complete architect or other designgtstpred architect,al, civil includeengineer,e ens,the rela- transmitted by the Cityto professional, to the -�vnental im- permit holder, stating that activity following: authorized by the expired permit shall cease unless and until a new A. GENERAL: building permit has been obtained. I) Name of conditional 3-4-2 Certificates of Octursancv. - ,. .,. ..i . • . • iri C i 1 6 -- --1.JI (.5, i C•f i,• ••••:. 1 i tZ:1°.> K• . . • .-- 4 i i I / g- I t PI ' 0 // I I / /3- •/ i „,. I I ' cr. ,__I 0 33 , J Z j; 0. f I I ' Inn - I . Ci • I •/ Zs'.-la.ea--I '..; ,...„ -- (--\ , .. . ' 116.00 .... , -a' ,1 • 4-0. ; ii s — v _ '.-11 i i • e ......_ 1: I ,. ., ,c„,\r• I ; :-.i- 1• .,,,b 'i / ‘....V ..... I" :1 —3° i -..a 4See ' I• .I -, — c II1 ..* 1I.'.,....,., _..,J....... i / — . 20 . /fr r i /I w ....., ., L I ,/ ...1 ... ...) . P-- ..:1•., 1 j • At 30 s II rrt z /f,, ... . • Ci /t •am..... C 41. . i• re limo It( 1111 l i ,.-\\..,„.„.../..../................./...„.7.Vi CP) ( •1.1 '1 VI ie' {' • . li . \ • .. 1,k am. . \. - i \\ . -••••.-,__.________.,.....„._. . •• ----.......____ \\ t 1 sm. \:,.............„.. /) • .,..." • \-•••,_,.....,,,,,. -••-•'</"'-' •—'-_-.:•-•-'-' . ..._,_:::,_..........,....„.....„____ I... CI kl* Ir. rrl • .._ .. to it3 c) _ . C, _. a c = / rn / nl -�� _ r . 'AI ...... / , '—rn—' , r"..l. X C E P c 'T r 0 o' io \ r e 47.a. I'a '.'ate . {-' i moo' . r ~ / iti :) s 1 Q' oI N n ` > 1.,y m r 1 o v ID m �� -v4 y l I" ..l h r, m v / ; if to 70m / i• I x • /"7/ 6o D 7 Ip i/ y rn 1 /A/ fr.] N r 1 1 ;/ _ lyr l e to/ 1 I I 11 I I a, �`,ice+I I / o j7/ A f• IRON J1: ii '.) �, /l a'' -f II6.06 o 'pie li r Z.:::' (: I SO'. .I II • j - ,i -• lys ( _ .. c VI tl :.t." 11 m // v ;' m z z / V1 S / ch H l r ,I y� a 2 h I'I V n A ._.. AIIMIMINNIII®' L-- ............ rrl 0 f' i, MORA'DUM July 31, 1987 TO: Chanhassen Board of Adjustments and Appeals — % Jo Ann Olsen, City Planning Office 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN. 55317 FROM: Paul W. Larson 3609 Red Cedar Pt. Dr. Excelsior, YIN. 55331, and, J. Donald Knight 3605 Red Cedar Pt. Dr. Excelsior, MN. 55331 SUBJECT: Application for Variance from Shoreline Management Setback requirements for Schlener property located on part of Lot 1, Block4, Red Cedar Point,. Lake 21innewashta. (3601 Red Cedar Pt. Dr. 55331) I. Since both of the above will be unable to attend the meeting on August 3, 1987 to consider the above request we are submitting our recommendations in this Memorandum to the Chanhassen Board of Adjustments and Appeals in care of Jo Ann Olsen, Ass 't City Planner, City of Chanhassen. 2. Our principal concern is that approval of a variance from existing Setback Standards in this case not be construed as a precedent to grant similar exceptions by the City for other property in this area. 3.If action taken in this matter contains a stipulation that no such precedent is so established we will not object to the -proposed Schlener Plan and its required variation for the following reasons : a. The unique location of this dwelling away from other residences; b. The unusual limitations of the extremely narrow property on which the proposed construction would take place ; c . The desireability to provide garaging for vehicles which must otherwise continuously be ”arked out-of-doors; d. The plan provides for retention of existinc trees and landscaping to include, we Presume the :led Cedar trees and bushes native to this area and from which the Point derives its name . e . vo other feasible solution to the residential needs of this property are apparent. ?At � (signed) Paul W. Lars n ` J. Donald Knish CD Cc) _ ....... IJ..1 --J (...-.) (.1) _• ...--- 47 ,, . •",..., ... ..s....z.2 qc...::, \. ,..., 1 Li 'CC. Wm. t% I i Z." # /i ) . • •1.1 I 1\'1. Li..1/• :) • ' I ) ., •i ;1 i ., z —.. .. . ; i ) • . . __. ,a z . ., 0..M . . 5: -... .: ,; '•DrOf „ --cl •- ) ti, ( .1 ',.. I) \) 0 Z. .0 . if I"' 1 S t 9. -1 it --.._ /j I I .8.. ____--—--11 8 I (r i ...17...;..1 i :7:: IN A. 11 r— - . II / • . orzz. . .___ it. i L _ I f , . . , . , ., ). _9 t-- ; —..... , — I ......_ /._ j 0(, -....,... , 41 4.. - 0 - i. tj NI ,„/I`'. t 0 C••. IT1 I 0.1 ..., (... 0 • /f . ..., ‘.7. .333. .. .., . , 11 ,' I I th,•11 • /I . °•P' r (\...) I. • '----; 09911 • ...• . I.• i-•03'81•", 7... . NOW ,.. • c:, I) •r„ .10 r I _ . . .... ...: , I oc s.8 I .s. o i I -c c / I I. 1 '1Z81: I I '. • ... 1 _ -c . • ,,_... c) 0 ll• iI I I „ i i I 1 •t LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 • (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: K.K. Design-John Kosmas OWNER: Dick Schlener Office: ADDRESS 6112 Excelsior Boulevard ADDRESS c/o Minncast 2 0 Commerce Circle South St. Louis Park. Mn. 55416 Fridley, Mn. 55432 ZipCode - Zip Code TELEPHONE (Daytime ) 922-3226 TELEPHONE Daytime: 571-2747 REQUEST: Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan Preliminary Plan X Zoning Variance Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision Land Use Plan Amendment Platting Metes and Bounds Conditional Use Permit Street/Easement Vacation Site Plan Review Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME Addition/Remodeling Schlener Residence PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION R-1 , Single Family REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION No change PRESENT ZONING R-1 , Single Family • REQUESTED ZONING No change USES PROPOSED Single Family • SIZE OF PROPERTY 28,684 s.f. ( .65 acre) LOCATION East end of Red Cedar Point REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST Due to the limited width of the property and the recommended 75 ' shoreline setback, this variance is requested for the proposed addition located at the Northeast corner of the existing structure. The proposed addition will provide a wind break from the winter North winds and a screen enclosure during the summer. It will be of a post and beam type construction, with matching roofing and the existing stone patio surface will remain as the floor surface. No vegetation at the East and South will be changed and those on the North _ will be relocated or replaced to help minimize the visual change of the Point. LEGAL DESCRIPTION (See attached drawing) Ni- --= i� — A q / — — as v — al a[ 4 `il _ — J 4 4 • Z — 4'• 8861 N111,ICGd 4. " o.1I` — �_ x a a, • La — I 0 t= .,.., 1,11,.!:. , ,.. 0 ._ , .77.77 4 ,� s N N= I 4% p a- - 0 j t i it — 0 Ihiasi,uIIIIIIR,INII IIMIN♦Wi II ��t I IINLI� Y�IIrlWr1�`Y ■NII6irumil • - ''".0 0 886t g T AVW _ f I / ! 1 El I =i- _1 s 13.1 � , 4,..-7-& • _ . . ., 1 . • , . ,...., , _ . , ir,1,--_--' -7, , _3. __.. . ,. si% 2.., . ), _ _____ .„_ . c. . _ _ . _ ._,- ' .al t _,_ ,'. ,;, I ..., ---t% ,_ _. om-"'= --.1 w -iiii I;'I 9 III .„L \ . .,„ bi; .,,:ii,,,.,,,;.,,,..„. -4 j 1 1 • I 1 t I. • t