Loading...
1988 10 05 e CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 5, 1988 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Ladd Conrad and Brian Batzli MEMBERS ABSENT: Annette ElIson, James Wildermuth and David Headla STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner and Larry Brown, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE CREATION OF A POND IN A CLASS B WETLAND, 1200 LYMAN BOULEVARD, BRENT MILLER. Public Present: Mr. and Mrs. Brent Miller 1200 Lyman Boulevard Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. e Brent Miller: My name is Brent Miller. I am the property owner at Lyman Blvd.. I had a couple questions. What determines a wetland area? How does the City determine a wetland area? Olsen: The vegetation, the type of soils. Brent Miller: So do they make an on-site inspection of the area prior to? I guess what 11m trying to say, I assume there was a wetland plan that was adopted in 1984? My question is, how do you determine what a wetland area is without going on the site prior to my applying for this permit? Olsen: What they did was they used a lot of the DNRls maps or they had an aerial of some vegetation and standing waters and soils. Your wetland had been designated... Brent Miller: By the DNR? Olsen: By the map adopted by the City which consolidated DNR information. Brent Miller: Prior to my digging this, and before I contacted you, I went to the DNR and also to the Carver County Soil and Water Conservation. Both of them, both places showed no wetland, Class A or B on my property. I guess also when I did purchase the property back in 1984, the developer did not inform me that the land was a wetland area. Is he supposed to inform me by the plot sheet or by someway notifying me that it is wetland area. The City approved it right? The development? It Olsen: Your subdivision was approved prior to the wetland ordinance. What happens now is that the wetland will be designated as part of a subdivision procedure. The area will be designated as wetland area and protected and it will have to show up on future site plans. But it is a Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 2 e protected wetland by the City and it had been confirmed twice by Fish and Wildlife. Brent Miller: This is after the fact that I inquired it right, you determined it was a wetland area. You determined it before that without informing me it was a wetland area? Olsen: No, I told you it was... Brent Miller: You said the developer had approval of that property before the wetland came into effect. I bought the property in 1984. The plot sheet that I got did not show a wetland area on that. So it was approved before 1984 and that's the reason why... Olsen: In the fall of 1984. e Conrad: But I don't think that's relevant. Is it reI event at all? If it's a designated wetland, regardless of when the plat was approved or when you bought it, it is a designated wetland period. The DNR gave us a map of where the wetlands were. We adopted their map for Chanhassen. Regardless of whether it's on their map or not, if you have a wetland, based on vegetation and based on soil, you can't dig in it without a permit. So timing in this case, Jo Ann correct me if I'm wrong, but timing is not a factor. It's simply a case where you have a wetland and you wanted to do something to it and we have a regulation, as does the DNR but we have a regulation that says you can't without a permit. Brent Miller: But the DNR did show that it was a wetland there on their map? Olsen: The DNR may have told you that it's not protected. We have a lot of wetlands that we protect that are not protected by the DNR. Brent Miller: The City doesn't have to contact the private owners? Olsen: We did go through a whole public hearing process during the wetland alteration ordinance. We did not contact every single owner. That's why when you come in, we look at it then. Brent Miller: That's all I've got.b Conrad: Jo Ann, in the case where somebody has a wetland on their property and they decide they want to do something to it, and they're not putting in a building, they want to do something to that wetland, what is to catch that? Would an owner expect to, what's going to trigger any kind of staff review of what they're doing? If there's not a building, we're not talking about a building permit here. What's going to get staff involved? ~ Olsen: When they contact us, that's when we're notified. A lot of times they will contact the DNR or other official agencies who then contact us. But we really have no idea of what's going on in every back yard. Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 3 e Brent Miller: How is a person's taxes affected by the wetland area? Conrad: Normally they're much lower. Brent Miller: How is it that the County Assessor had no knowledge of my property being a wetland? Conrad: Then I think you should inform him and I think it's typically a case, and we've looked into this in the past that wetlands are, wetlands is non-buildable property, period. Typically it's taxes that way. More than likely you could ask them how it's assessed and you can make some adjustments for future years. You don't have any recourse for the past to my knowledge, and I'm getting out of my league when I start talking about taxing but I understand from past... Brent Miller: ...the fact that the City did not contact me telling it was a wetland...where I've been paying taxes for the last 4 years and all of a sudden it's... Prior to buying that, I had no knowledge... I was told it was a buildable lot. Conrad: A building lot you can put one house on it. That's a buildable lot. Anywhere that's permitted. Any other comments? e Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Does this happen on a regular basis? We approve this after the fact? Olsen: It has happened a couple other times. One of the most recent ones was a dock that was installed through a wetland in Lotus Lake. Batzli: Are these the normal conditions that we put in? Olsen: ...in a conditional use. Batzli: I guess one other question I had. You indicated there was an attachment dated January 25th. Did we not get that or wasn't there a second letter? Olsen: The second letter is just referring to the letter to Brent Miller stating that the Corps of Engineers, he had contacted the Corps of Engineers...to see whether or not it was in violation of the Corps. They have stated that... Batzli: As I understand it though, the second person from the DNR that went out there, Paul Burke, he said that it appeared to him that the pond was constructed according to the normal 6 conditions that we would have imposed if the applicant had come in before hand? - Olsen: He said to alter it would have harmed the wetland more. Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 4 e Batzli: But as far as slope and that kind of stuff, that was all... Olsen: It was pretty close. He did provide a uneven bottom. The wetland vegetation has grown back around the pond to provide the protection for wildlife. He was satisfied. Batzli: What's our rationale for passing this after the fact? Olsen: Again, to go in and fill it would be more of an impact to the wetland and actually would cause...to the wetland. Batzli: Speaking hypothetically, what would it take before we'd prosecute somebody who did this? Olsen: If we would have found that he had, what he had done had harmed the wetland, we would not recommend approval. We would recommend that it be returned to it's original state. Where that dock is on Lotus Lake, we did make a change so that the conditional use would have less impact to the wetland. Batzli: Okay, I don't have any more questions. e Emmings: I guess I don't have anything different than Brian. It's irritating that people will find out there are regulations they're supposed to follow and then refuse to follow them but I guess if there's, it's a no harm, no foul situation so I'd vote for it on that basis but I'm just wondering though if it wouldn't be appropriate, since we know about this situation, to take some pictures out there of the situation as it exists presently and put them in a file so if there's any further alterations later on, we have some evidence of what it was. Just as a suggestion. A good basis for prosecution. Erhart: Let me ask Jo Ann, if Mr. Miller had come I'm sure it was explained that this land was wet, requirements for him to do what he had requested? required from him? in, which he did and what would have been the What would we have Olsen: For a wetland alteration permit he would have to provide a plan... Erhart: So it would require a surveyor. Would it require contours? Olsen: Yes. Erhart: And how far away from the pond? How big an area would have to be surveyed? Olsen: Typically the whole wetland area. But our major interest is... e Erhart: So you had requested... Olsen: He would have been shown where the boundaries are. Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 5 e Erhart: Can I ask what it cost to have the pond dug? What do you think a survey would have cost? $200.00 to $300.00? Does it include all contours? When you did that before the pond was dug... My point is, I think it's great. My view of the wetland is that it's not wet. He's got about 30 acres of closed wetlands without any open water and for someone to invest and improve the wetland and bring some open water, I think is good. Obviously I would have liked to have seen you follow the Cityls procedures. My concern is that the City encourage, I should say, we have a lot of wetlands in the Chanhassen area that are closed and grown over. I'd like to make sure that we donlt discourage people who want them, that we donlt discourage them making their investment in such a way that we work together to try and improve the wetlands. I'm not suggesting that you did but discourage them in terms of what kind of hoops they have to jump through and the expense of the drawings and surveys and so forth. I guess I only put that in as a comment in general. Obviously I would have liked to see you follow the procedure. I drive by everyday. I think itls a nice little pond. I see ducks and geese in it. Therels no ducks and geese in anyplace around there so I support it. e Conrad: I guess Ilm disturbed about two things. One, there's really no way to, we haven't found a way to inform people what our wetland ordinance is speaking to and we kind of hope that somebody comes to the City to stumble into us. The second is that this particular thing happened after the fact. Mr. Miller, the staff report tells me that they told you a year ago that it was a wetland and that you couldnlt dig in there without a wetland alteration permit. I'm curious why you went ahead anyway. Brent Miller: After I found out what it would cost...the neighbor right adjacent to me has the same...put up a pole barn... Olsen: The survey didn't show a wetland on his land. Brent Miller: If I would have applied for a building permit, I wouldn't have had to go through this... Conrad: Jo Ann, the other case that he's mentioned, what happened there? Olsen: We get surveys that show the building site and where the buildings are and the setbacks and if the wetlands don't show up on it, then we're not aware that there is that wetland out there, we just sign off on it. Conrad: They're signed off because we're not visiting the site? Olsen: If they put it on the plan, we don't Conrad: And how corne we don't do that? e Olsen: Because I get about 20 a day on my desk and we don't have the manpower. Conrad: So it's a manpower issue? Olsen: Yes. Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 6 e Batzli: Or is it an issue of trying to match up the building sites with our overall map? The wetlands? Olsen: We've got a pretty good awareness of where wetlands are. We check those pretty closely... Conrad: Is it unrealistic to have sites checked out? What do other communities do? Olsen: Every site? Conrad: Yes, every site. Maybe that's wrong. Maybe I'm misspeaking. Maybe it's so obvious that we don't need to check out some things like when we're in town and we're putting on a deck or putting on a porch. I don't know but are we different than other communities? Olsen: I don't believe so. I don't know off hand if they do a site by site inspection. The building inspectors are out there too...on other regulations and they do see a wetland or something, they will contact us. e Conrad: So if it's a staffing problem, who's staffing problem is it? Is it a building inspection function? Is it a planning function? Olsen: It would be under planning. Everyone signs off buildings. The planning looks at the setbacks... Batzli: If a wetlands is partially defined by soils, isn't the building department the one that has to sign off on that aspect of it? Olsen: If you have wetlands, you need to determine if there is a wetland. If you look at vegetation or soils... Again, most of the lots out there, they don't have soil borings performed on... Batzli: When do we normally require soil borings? Only if we think... Brown: Only in areas such as Woodcrest where it's fairly obvious that we'd expect to see poor soils. Erhart: I think there's a real problem here. We've had two garages built in wetlands down by me and I've contacted Jo Ann and Barb about both of them to try and figure out how these things, this is before I even understood the whole process but within the last 3 years. It's incredulous to me that these things got as far as they did before anybody. They had discovered them about the same time I did. Conrad: It's real irritating. The gentleman, Mr. Miller is doing it because he saw somebody else do it and they did it on a much grander scale so therefore no big deal. e Erhart: It's a big difference in putting a building down there. Are we prosecuting that guy now? Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 7 Ie Olsen: The City signed off on it. Erhart: Is Ron now pretty aware or is the building department... Olsen: Yes. In fact I had one the building inspectors out measuring with that fellow yesterday but again, if it's not ana site plan or it's not an area that we know is a wet area. Erhart: I think we have made a lot of changes in the building inspection department. Very positive changes. Conrad: Is this a case, it bothers me, this is a case where we want Jo Ann or staff to come back with a recommendation on the situation? If we've got it happening, it's a case where we're just trusting the land owner. There's nothing triggering anything here. Do we want staff to look into it a little bit or should we just say there's nothing we can do and we're comfortable with the way it is? Should we have staff report back? Batzli: I'd like to hear their recommendations for what can be done to have something be put in the specs somehow or would it take another person? e Conrad: Could you do that Jo Ann? Make recommendations to us, what it would take and the costs of implementing such a thing without a big consultant oriented research project. Emmings: It isn't as simple as looking at an overlay because that will only catch the ones that are obvious and well known. Erhart: You alomst have to go back and try to put the wetlands on all plats. Conrad: You go back and that's what we stayed away from. We adopted the DNR map and just trusted that it was as accurate and that we couldn't spend the time to do it ourselves. To go back through the entire City of Chanhassen to develop our own map. I suppose that's one alternative. Erhart: One of the things you could do is hand out with any building permit application, a small map that shows all the wetland area in the City. One of the questions in the building permit application, I believe, is there a wetlands? Isn't that one of the questions? Well, the idea is that with the application is a stapled map that shows all the wetlands and the question, does this application involve any of the areas shown on the attached map? If the guy says no, then he's blatantly misstated the facts. e Conrad: Okay. Put that down on the things to do list Jo Ann. else on this issue? Is there a motion? Anything Erhart moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to approve the Wetland Alteration Permit #87-15 with the following conditions: Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 8 e 1. No additional alteration to the pond shall be permitted and no additional fill material is permitted within the wetland area. 2. The wetland area surrounding the pond shall remain in it's natural state. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli: steve, did you want to include that as a condition? You just wanted to make a note for the staff? Emmings: Yes, it's just a suggestion. I don't want it to be a condition. PUBLIC HEARING: ROME DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LOCATED ON LOT 3, BLOCK 2, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, ON PROPERTY ZONED lOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK (1450 PARK COURT) : A. SUBDIVISION OF LOT 3, BLOCK 2 INTO TWO PARCELS OF 2.25 ACRES AND 1.36 ACRES. e B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 6,700 SQUARE FOOT STATE LICENSED DAY CARE CENTER. Public Present: Roman Roos - Applicant Jerome and Linda Carlson Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. e Roman Roos: Roman Roos from the Rome Corporation. A couple weeks ago we came before the Planning Commission with a zoning text amendment to allow a free standing day care within the lOP. As of last week we had the first reading and approval on that so this evening we're here to continue that process. It is actually a two part process. One will be the replat to allow a site for the proposed day care center and the second would be the site plan approval. This evening we have Jerome Carlson and Linda Carlson here. The day care center is going to be used by the employees of Instant Webb, United Mailings and victory Envelope and Linda Carlson has been working with the architect to prepare the overall structure and the use of that structure for the employees of those companies. I think this evening I've got behind me a map showing the Lot 1, 2 and 3 of the original business park. What we're doing in essence, we have Lot 2 in the orange. Lot 1 and Lot 3. Back in 1984, I built this building down here. At that point in time it was my intent and probably noted to Council that we would eventually put in something in the better portion of this lot. When I put Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 9 e together this project, we needed approximately the 4 acres to do that. We knew this would...the plan so this evening what I'm trying to do is to put these two parcels together and make them one new lot with this configuration. That's about 2.25 acres densely wooded...and we think an ideal site for the type of use... To address a couple of the issues on this replat, at the present,time I've got 3.8 acres on this parcel. As a matter of fact,...creating this new parcel. We're about 72% building structure, impervious surface on this site so about 2% off. According to City Ordinances, it has to meet a certain percent. We would have to make some adjustments there. Possibly a line shift or possibly I'm going to address the Council that we have to the property line the 70%. We also have a fence along the green way to the property line and a main road along with TH 5. So whether that's a real critical thing or not, I think it's easy to address. If we have to shift the line we'll do it. I'd prefer not to do that so we can maintain... The other issue I think is our replat. The size of the parcels and the frontage of the cul-de-sac and frontage to TH 5, I think we're meeting all those requirements. If this replat is recommended for approval of Council, then we'll want to come back to you with and show you the site plan. I'll kind of walk through that and then I'd like to maybe... e Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart: Is the applicant agreeing to add the 40 feet of additional right-of-way to TH 5 if it's required? Were you willing to add the additional 40 feet of right-of-way, if that's required, to show it on... Roman Roos: When we get into the site plan review I can show you where that exactly is. That's right now... I don't know if I should be addressing the site plan concurrent with this or not. If you want to just address this issue now and go through the site plan... Erhart: We're talking about the site plan now. Emmings: No. We're looking at the replat. Erhart: I'm sorry, the replat. that as one of the conditions? I was just wondering, why wouldn't we add Olsen: MnDot hasn't formally requested it yet. When I spoke with them last week on Friday, the person I was talking to was going to talk to the upper echelon of MnDot to determine whether or not they did want to acquire right-of-way at this time. They didn't have the amount of footage of additional right-of-way that was necessary determined yet. Erhart: That never stops us for asking for additional right-of-way along e pioneer Trail or TH 101 or anyplace else? Olsen: I asked them and explained to them that this was a plat and if they could request additional right-of-way... That's where we left the issue kind of open...to get it onto the final plat. Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 10 e Erhart: If you take 40 feet off there Roman, what does that do to your lot size? If you take 40 feet off the northern line that was included in the lot size. Roman Roos: Tim, we've allowed for that. We've put in the extra footage... The only thing it might infringe upon, and that's not known at this point in time but we're back 50 some foot from our property line...a portion of the road extend into that area, that is not a problem but if MnDot does require that, we can shift that portion... I guess an easy way to show you right now, coming from our property line to this point here, we come into the building 50 foot so we know, we feel very sure that we're clear of what MnDot wants to require in terms of excess land. This portion right here is the playground and it does extend past the 50 foot mark into that zone somewhat but until we know from MnDot what is required, we'll have to adjust our playground accordingly if it is a problem. We feel a few years down the stream, ...to shift that playground, we feel is a very, very minor problem... Erhart: I guess this TH 5 improvement is a pretty certain thing. Roman Roos: I'm sure it is. ~ Erhart: I wouldn't want to see us have to go back and undo something. Roman Roos: Tim, I think I'm probably going to lose the first row of the mini- storage when that happens but yes, I'm quite cognizant of that and I don't, as far as this project, we've allowed for that and I don't see any problems whatsoever. Much like a project that you looked at prior, across from the mini-storage on the opposite side is a 25,000 square foot building. That also was covered with the same type... Erhart: That's my question. Emmings: I don't have anything. I think it's a reasonable thing to do. Batzli: I had a question, the cross easements. Why would we be doing it on the replatting rather than the conditional use? For parking? Olsen: Why wouldn't we? Batzli: Yes. Why don't we have that on the plat rather than on a conditional use permit? Olsen: As far as the site plan for the conditional use permit, we can put it on both. ~ Batzli: But if this gets built and later the conditional use goes away, aren't we going to have a problem? Olsen: It will always be recorded. It will be part of the conditional use permit. Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 11 e Batzli: So it won't be recorded contingent upon the conditional use? Olsen: If he wants it to have parking on a separate parcel, he has to provide that easement. Batzli: Okay. That was my only question. Conrad: I don't have a question. Only thing, Roman I want the 70% impervious surface. You've got to get that somehow. Roman Roos: I think Ladd we can work that quite easily. I don't want to go for a variance. That process is open to me but I think we can... The reason I saY...Ladd is that 20 foot easement, which Larry's aware of, we're going to have to somehow over here significantly... That's 10 foot on this property line and 10 foot on that property line. So we'll have to shift 10 foot to gain the extra 2% and I don't think we'll have a problem because... Whether it's serviced on this side or that side, it's kind of a blending issue because of the green space from the western part of this building in that direction. So it's a technicality and I don't think it's hard to address and get an answer to. Batzli: But if you have to do that, aren't you squeezing your building further down? e Roman Roos: I don't think so on the setback. We've got 10 foot on this side line and 10 foot on this side. The average shift is 10 foot. I guess the bottom line, if I have to go back to the City and say I'd like to have a zero lot line side yard setback for this particular project and only this project, it does make sense. I'd rather stay away from the variance process. If I can logically persuade Council along with Planning Commission to go this direction knowing that we have this additional 10, 15, 40 foot of greenway already tied to that, it's skirting the fine lines if you go back in terms of what was the intent of that ordinance. The intent in terms of green space. In terms of zoning ordinances, no we'd be shorter than 2%. I think there's a reasonable solution. I guess I'm looking towards the Planning Commission for their recommendation. I would really like to hold this line as it is for the two reasons that I've already stated. I don't really want to shift the lot lines 10 foot or 6 or 8, whatever requires to get to that extra 2%. With the amount of land, I guess one of the things that I hurried by is that on this particular site, we be granted a variance. We'd like to stay with the variance procedure and since it's... I'm really open. Worse case scenario, I'd shift... 2% is about, on that site is roughly 2,000 square foot... Conrad: Roman says he's open. I think we can make our motion. Emmings: If he's open, have it in there as a condition if he can find a way to work that out with staff between now and the Council. _ Conrad: I guess we're not going to tell you how to do it. want you to do it. How it works... I think we Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 12 e Emmin9s moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #88-22 as shown on the preliminary plat stamped "Received September 29, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: 1. An amended preliminary plat shall be submitted for City Council approval which maintains a maximum of 70% impervious surface on Parcel A. 2. The plat shall be revised to show a 20 foot wide utility easement centered on the existing 10 inch diameter watermain which traverses Lot 2, Block 1. This easement shall be extended between Park Court and State Highway 5. 3. The plat shall be revised to show the appropriate side lot and front and rear utility easements prior to final approval. 4. The final plat shall be revised to reflect the additional roadway easements for the widening of State Highway 5 if MnDot forwards to the City written confirmation that additional easements are required. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Ie CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 6,700 SQUARE FOOT STATE LICENSED DAY CARE CENTER. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Conrad: Before we open this up for public hearing, does anybody have any significant concerns with this particular permit? I'm just trying to, Roman probably wants to talk to us for 20 minutes here. If we've got some concerns, I want to make sure that we give him time. Otherwise, I'm going to provide him with some direction to do this fast, if we can. Anything? Okay, we'll open it up for public hearing. Roman why don't you take us through kind of quickly. I'm sorry to do that to you and I'm not trying to play this down but I think, I'm also saying that we probably like what we're seeing. e Roman Roos: It's just a 6,600 square foot building for the employees of... The building itself, we feel we've addressed the parking issue. We've got expansion capability here and possibility here... The entry is quite...if you're coming in...identify the project, if you will. The traffic flow which was narrowly addressed..., will be minimal because it's traffic coming in, dropping the children off and back up and drive out to the Park Court area. The playground, the issue of not...MnDot, we think we've addressed that issue in excess of what MnDot's going to require. It will be about 65 from the center line of the road. We're at 50 foot from the property which is way in excess of that so I think we won't have a problem. Jo Ann will have that answer very shortly when she gets back to MnDot. The playground, if we encroach upon that area, we can shift that area at that point in time. ...short of that, the landscaping, we're Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 13 e trying to save the majority of the trees on the site and it's something... Conrad: How much do you have to take down? How many trees? Roman Roos: It's a very densely wooded area. We're going to lose a lot of the scrub timber but we are retaining these evergreens located here, here and there's two more in this general... The landscaping plan that you have is a more exact plan... I think we've lived with the elevation changes, it's not that great... Short of that in a very short summary, that's it. Emmings: Does that entry archway, has access for fire trucks and stuff been taken into account in the planning? Roman Roos: That's one of the things our architect is addressing right now. We would like to put the entry in because it's a visual...visual theme. We're cognizant of the cost. Right now that entry does not have to go but if we can do it economically and meet the City standards, we will probably do it. But at this point in time the concept is...but it would have to meet all of those. e Emmings: Do we have ordinances that cover something like that in terms of access and emergency vehicles? Olsen: When the building permits come in, they will have the details on it. Emmings: I like the idea. I just don't want blocking important traffic. Conrad: This is a public hearing. We'll open it up for other comments. Mr. Carlson, do you have anything? Jerome Car 1 son: I sent you my letter. It ind ica tes that... It also indicates in the letter that although we base the size on surveys that we've taken, those surveys have now become a year old. We think there will be a significant change in the needs of our employees. However, because we don't want to have a shortage of space, there is a possibility that we have undercalculated or overcalculated, whichever the case may be, and we may have a time frame in which we are actua~ly garnering some business, child care business from some other facilities until we fill the facility. But in the other way, there is an additional 1,300 to 1,600 square feet that we had negotiated with Roman to have in that building for our future expansion... In the meantime that will be leased out, if we are successful in leasing out some... Those are things that I said in my letter. e Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart: I think it's nice. I wish you'd build it big enough so my employees could use it. I'm just curious overall, why would you put the play area on the north adjacent to TH 5 as opposed to putting it on the Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 14 e west side up against the trees? What was the reason for that? It would seem to me to put them between the building and the trees would have been quieter. Roman Roos: Tim, I don't have an answer. All I know is that in laying this thing out to make it fit right on the site plan and spacing, they wanted to use the trees and what have you for the children. If you put a playground in there, you'll cut out more trees. We didn't want to do that. I think by the time, when you look at the landscaping, we're going to have very heavy screening in that area. I don't they're even going to see the playground and they want to be able to take t~ kids into the woods. I don't know if that's the correct answer but I think it sounds good. Erhart: On the fence, do the kids get to go outside of the fenced area? Roman Roos: Only under supervision. Linda Carlson: It's required to have a fenced area and they be supervised by State Regulations. e Erhart: But it is common to take them out of the fenced area and walk them through the woods or something during the day or is that not common? Linda Carlson: Most places don't have that. Erhart: Don't have the fence? Linda Carlson: No, they all have fenced areas. Most places don't have woods. Sometimes they will go on field trips to parks. Erhart: But is there a rear door or something that allows them to go out there. Linda Carlson: Yes. Erhart: And what you're saying is if TH 5 takes an additional 40 feet, that's going to bring the boundary line very close to the fence area? Roman Roos: You've got to remember that 40 foot, as I understand it, the 65 that was originally set up by MnDot was from the center line of the new aligned road. As I Jo Ann was saying, either staff nor myself know exactly where that's at and we wanted to make doubly sure so we said, from our property line another 50 foot so that boundary is going to fall within that area someplace. Erhart: Someplace and then you're going to have to adjust the landscaping? e Roman Roos: Right and like I said, by the same token, as far as the State is going to take on that, it's only built on the width of a normal road and highway. The rest is green space too so it may not impact what we're in. If it is, we'll have to shift... Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 15 e Erhart: The proposed future building, is that for the same purpose? Roman Roos: The proposed building site is much like 1984. We wanted to address the issue that the site is big enough to put another building on. As I told Jo Ann, if that were to happen, we don't know when. We'd have to come back in for a replat, the same process we're going through today so we feel there is adquate land there, we can service a small building. Erhart: For a daycare? Roman Roos: Good question. I wish I knew the answer Tim. I don't. We know there is...that they'll address in terms of, probably the watershed talking about setbacks. Those are all questions that we can address at that point in time... Emmings: I think it's a good plan and I like it. Batzli: What did we ever decide on, we are going to save a lot of trees as far as trying to rope off so they don't drive over the root systems and things like that. Do we have any kind of... e Conrad: Highlight those out with a snow fence, as I recall. Olsen: What we can do is have them stake out the potential grading and then visit the site with the DNR forester. He can make a judgment then as to whether or not additional trees will actually be damaged or should be included in that site also. Roman Roos: This is very mature woods. If you go down there, there's no question... There is a very mature in the northwest and we're trying to limit the elevation of the building so when you come down the road there isn't a big structure. It is our total conviction that we want to save as many trees as we can. That's why we're actually marking the trees on that landscaping plan. I don't, sometime in the construction process you can not save what you what to save in trees but we're trying to save a major, about 23-18 inch diameter size of trees. We will save those one way or another. As a matter of fact, this entrance, these are huge 50 foot pines and we're making a point of we're actually putting a retaining wall down... You start getting the DNR involved in this thing... Jerome Carlson: The building is really in a very tight spot. There isn't apparently much leeway. ...certainly have to take certain trees. We are trying, we're hoping to save as many as possible. It's fair to say that I feel strongly about that. I don't know what this verification with the DNR is but we're going to save whatever can be saved and there are limitations on where you can put our building pad. e Conrad: I don't think there's a question on that. I think you're sensitive to the woods that are there. Brian's comment was, and we've seen it throughout Chanhassen where we look at what's there, say preserve what you can. They try to preserve what they can but the guys with the bulldozers are running bulldozers and they're moving earth. The root Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 16 e systems get damaged of your oak trees and whatever. I'm not sure if we're talking about oak here or whatever but anyway, we were talking about putting up a snow fence so at least those guys with the bulldozers have some kind of idea that when they get closer to a tree than where this fence is, they're going to damage it. That was the base of Brian's comment. We're just losing all sorts of trees because really the people running the equipment are, they're right there. The tree's still standing but it dies within a year and that's the basis of Brian's comment. Roman Roos: Brian, I don't have any problem at all. If you not on that fencing plan, where we..., there's been a lot of mention to that building line. We'll try to save those three oaks that are in that general location so as Jerome says, it's very tight building the pad is tight... We will address that issue... Batzli: My only thing in condition 1, the applicant should not only provide the city with a cross easement but it should be recorded as was earlier stated if that's what is going to happen to it anyway. Conrad: Anything else? Do we have a motion? e Batzli: I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-14 as shown on the site plan dated "September 16, 1988" with the following conditions. Conditions 1 through 8 provided in the staff report and insert at the end of condition 1 the words, for recording against the deeds of the subject property. Something like that I guess. Emmings: Why don't you just say, you will provide the City with a recorded cross easement? Batzli: Okay. With a recorded cross easement. Just insert the word "recorded". Emmings: Second. Batzli moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-14 as shown on the site plan dated "September 16, 1988" with the following conditions: 1. The applicant provide the City with a recorded cross easement to allow proposed parking for the Rome Development building on the subject site. 2. The applicant submit an amended landscaping plan which provides additional landscaping between the day care facility and the mini- storage warehouse facility including evergreens. ~ 3. The site plan must meet any additional conditions as part of the zoning ordinance amendment for day care facilities in the lOP District as conditional uses. Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 17 e 4. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 5. The proposed driveway shall maintain a 12 foot separation from the existing driveway located to the south on Park Court. 6. The applicant shall supply the City Engineer with details (storm profile sheet) for the installation of the storm sewer which shall include details for the rip rap, flared and sections and energy dissipators prior to City Council's approval. 7. The erosion control as delineated on the plan shall be revised to reflect the City's standard for Type II erosion control (staked hay bales and snow fence). The erosion control plan shall be revised on the plan set to reflect the City's standard for Type II erosion control. 8. The driveways (proposed and existing) shall be signed appropriately to designate one-way traffic for each driveway (refer to Attachment #1). A signing and striping plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to final plat approval. e All voted in favor and the motion carried. SUBDIVISION OF 87.3 ACRES INTO 5 INDUSTRIAL OFFICE LOTS AND TWO OUT LOTS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT OUTLOT A AND LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 3RD ADDITION, JUST NORTH OF LAKE SUSAN AND WEST OF HIGHWAY 101, PROPERTY ZONED lOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, ROSEMOUNT, INC. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. e Bob Worthington: Mr. Chairman, given the fact that you're in a hurry and given the significant nature of the project, in a way it's going to be very difficult for me to give a very short presentation this evening because we are very pleased to be able to present the beginnings of what for us is the Rosemount, Inc. manufacturing facility which all of you know is relocating and constructing a major facility here in Chanhassen. The process that we're talking about which is now being interpretted through this plat started several months ago. As you know Chanhassen was in competition with another community. Was able to persuade the Rosemount people that this would be a good community for their facility and Rosemount indeed committed to the community. It was just two days ago that Opus was selected as the contractor for the project and now we are in the process of evolving the site plan which we're going to be corning back to you for your approval on next month for this facility. We've kind of been running for a while. We're very pleased that we're able to start the process this evening. We think we'll have an EAW which is a mandatory requirement and Alan Schaft is ready to submit that to the State for their comment and...multiple comments back and hopefully finding no major Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 18 - e adverse impact...environmental issues that have been identified as new research on the site. The major focus of course is the larger 57.57 acres upon which the development will take place. I can say this, even though we're not here this evening to talk about a site plan, that it will be on the southeastern corner of the site. The building will be located and access will be provided off of Lake Drive which will be extended in a slightly different configuration than was proposed when you approved previously the Detroit Deisel project on this site. There's going to be a conference center on this site which...in terms of the building. They're going to corne in with a much needed and very important facility for our park as well as the community. We think we're going to have an exciting plan to show you in about a mbnth and we hope you agree with that. We reviewed the staff report and have no objections to any of the stipulations that have been recommended as conditions of approval for the plat. We do want to comment on the fact that, as was indicated by staff, that the lot that they want to make into an outlot is going to be a difficult one to develop. However, we disagree with the language that it's an undevelopable site. We think it is a developable site. It will require perhaps some variances in order for it to be fully developed. We think that should 10 be shown as a variance, perhaps...could contribute to the overall image and prosperity of the park. So with those comments, I'll step back and I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. I think the staff report pretty much covers basically what it is we're looking for this evening. Hope that you agree with it's recommendation that she spoke to. Erhart moved, Ernmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: I think I only had one real question. That was, the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this indicating that 2 acres of parkland along the eastern boundary be dedicated. Is that something we're trying to be addressing in this preliminary plat? Olsen: There essentially already is a deal established between Opus and the City and the Park and Rec Commission, they agreed that to receive that outlot of 2 acres for parkland to be combined with the Lake Susan Park. Batzli: Which outlot are we looking at? Olsen: Outlot B. Batzli: Is that condition, is it to be deeded to the City? What's the deal? Olsen: It can be made a condition of the subdivision. Essentially it's kind of an internal deal. e Batzli: It normally would not be made a condition? Brown: I think what's going on here is that this may have been covered in the purchase agreement which at this time I'm not privy to but I believe Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 19 e that was incorporated into that purchase agreement and for us to make it a condition may enforce something else than what was stated in that agreement. I only say that as a caution. I'm not sure what the content was. Batzli: I guess I will leave it up to staff's consideration to determine whether it needs to be a condition before Council approval because I'm obviously not privy to the purchase contract that you have. Bob Worthington: I might be able to shed a little bit of light on that. As you know, with all subdivisions, the city has the discretion of imposing the park dedication fee which can be paid in the form of land or cash. In this instance, because the City an interest in expanding Lake Susan Park, we negotiated land as a part of the dedication requirement with a cash balance and that is why it is a special purchase agreement stipulation between Rosemount and Opus and the City. So that's basically why that is a requirement. Batzli: So that's already been inserted in a purchase agreement? Bob Worthington: That's right. e Batzli: Council. I guess I'd just like staff to verify that before it gets to City That's all I have. Emmings: I don't have anything. Erhart: Market Blvd. is shown on here as a through street going south. Is that the plan or is that depending on 2 or 2A? Olsen: 2 or 2A. Erhart: If it's 2, which TH 101 goes the existing route, than Market Blvd. would end at Lake Drive East? Olsen: It would not be realigned as it's shown. Erhart: So it would basically T into Lake Drive East. Olsen: There has been discussion to make a full intersection. Erhart: Okay, but we would, this plat it reserves, we're safe no matter which way we want to go? Obviously I like developing Rosemount in our City. I'll be waiting to look at the site plan. e Conrad: I had no questions other than the second point on the recommended motion. I guess staff is saying it's probably an unbuildable lot. I don't know that we want, I personally don't want to communicate that I feel it is buildable. I feel real strongly, I think the words you mentioned, you didn't like the terminology. I think it's fairly weak terminology allowing you an alternative but I personally would never set you up to think that we would be in a position to grant a variance or variances. I get uncomfortable that we're setting up parcels that need Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 20 e variances to build and therefore, I feel comfortable with this motion. I think it's still pretty soft, granting an opportunity to Opus to look at it. Yet on the other hand, I wouldn't be telling you the truth if I thought, I would really feel strongly about sticking to Chanhassen's ordinances especially when we're dealing with such a large parcel. Erhart: Jo Ann, is the potential for 40 foot additional right-of-way required off of that Lot 1 there as well? Olsen: For TH 5? Erhart: Yes. Olsen: TH 5 is going to be improved to the north of that site. Erhart: It's not going to adversely affecting it? Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #88-25 as shown on the preliminary plat stamped "Received September 20, 1988" subject to the following conditions: - 1. Approval of the proposed vacation of Lake Drive East. 2. Lot 1, Block 3 shall be designated as an Outlot and deemed unbuildable until it has been shown that development of the site can occur while maintaining the required setbacks from the roads and wetland. 3. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the installation of the public improvements. 4. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit and DNR permit. 5. The Rosemount site shall address all on-site ponding required to maintain the necessary water quality standards which are to be determined by the environmental assessment worksheet. 6. The applicant shall provide the necessary construction and utility easements as deemed necessary by the feasibility study for Lake Drive East. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-421(11) OF THE WETLAND ORDINANCE TO CLARIFY THAT THE CITY HAS CONTROL OVER DREDGING OF WETLANDS IN PUBLIC WATERS WHICH ARE LOCATED IN LAKES WHOLLY WITHIN THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN. . Conrad: Jo Ann, anything other than the obvious here? ~ Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 21 - Olsen: No. Conrad: I guess what you can clarify for me is why the words that you used are going to do that. They don't seem to say anything to me so we're clarifying something that doesn't say anything. Olsen: We're stating that dredging within the wetland within public waters. Conrad: But it didn't say. My concern was, we didn't have control over anything below the ordinary high water mark, right? Olsen: This allows us that control. Conrad: Because it says... Erhart: Including public waters. Olsen: Technically our Attorney didn't feel that we needed anything but we wanted something that would point it out. e Erhart: If we didn't need to do anything, then why couldn't we have some control over Rivkin? Olsen: It was felt that there had just been a recent court case in Mound that settled that. That determined that the City did not have control but that case was not entirely in Mound. It was shared, I think with Minnetonka. Erhart: Our position was that we felt it was basically... Olsen: Right, where actually we do have. Batzli: The City Attorney basically went to the Attorney General to ask for an opinion on a case such as that. The opinion came back that if it was within a city or if there was a joint powers agreement between cities, and the lake was within those cities, they would have some sort of jurisdiction in those instances as well. So if we have wetlands lying along boundaries with other cities, what we should actually do is enter into joint power agreements with those cities so we have control of those as well. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. e Conrad: Brian, any other comments or do you think we should be following through on what you just said? Do you want to give staff some direction? Batzli: Well, I didn't think this was a problem personally, in reviewing it. I thought it perhaps is, I guess I don't understand what the Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 22 e definition of public waters is and maybe it's defined in our ordinances somewhere but if public waters is defined as somewhat narrowly, then the question is, I hate to say it, it begs to question, what is a private water, is the problem in my mind. I didn't find public water but I didn't look real hard I have to admit so I didn't know what it meant. Because public land is defined but public water isn't. That was my concern that I, not knowing and unfortunately not taking the time to call up the City Attorney to ask him why he used those words. It may be that he took them out of the Attorney General's opinion because I think the Attorney General used those words, public water. It may be that they come out of the Statute that grants cities with the authority so I may have looked in the wrong place. It's probably not in our code, it's probably in the State Statutes but I guess the bottom line for me is, if the Attorney feels comfortable with this and public waters is somewhere defined, I say go for it. I think we have to make sure that public waters is defined broad enough to include private waters, if you will. It also, I think, should be amended shortly, once we determine if we have wetlands bordering bordering cities, what would it take to enter into a joint powers agreement as to those areas? Those were my comments. e Ernmings: I just don't know if digging and dredging and filling is all the things you can do in a wetland that we want to prohibit. I guess I wonder if we coulde say, digging, dredging, filling or in any other way altering. We want to give people the idea that they can'~ do anything in there unless they come in. I don't know if it's necessary but I'd like to see that in there. The only other thing I had is on the very last sheet we got a copy of the ordinance that the Mayor's supposed to sign and it has an "s" on it and it shouldn't. That ought to be fixed. Erhart: I like the idea of having no altering. Leave enough room, I think that's a good idea because people are always trying to find someway to get around words. I think that one is a good one. I think of it as including public waters, if it gives us a little more strength, which seems to be somewhat of a vague issue, then I'm all for it. Conrad: Brian, could you make the motion on this one? Batzli: I think Steve had the only change. Conrad: you to do questions private? But you really wanted staff to look into, I guess what I'd like is make the motion but also to ask staff to follow up certain such as public water. What's the difference between public and Getting rid of the "s". Batzli: Okay, I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment #88-13 to amend Section 213-421 (11) as follows. To read digging, dredging, filling, what word did you use? e Emmings: Or in any way altering. Batzli: Or in any way altering a Class A or Class B wetland, including public waters lying wholly within the City of Chanhassen. I'd also like to recommend that the staff look into those points that I raised. One ~- ".-". . Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 23 - being, do we need a definition of public waters? Two, what wetlands or public waters lying jointly within Chanhassen and neighboring cities, which we might look into entering a joint powers agreement as to those area. Erhart: I'll second it. Batzli moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment #88-13 to amend Section 20-421 (11) as follows: "Digging, dredging, filling or in any way altering a Class A or Class B wetland, including public waters lying wholly within the City of Chanhassen." 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 September 21, 1988 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. e Erhart moved, Batzli seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.. Submitted by Jo Ann Olsen Asst. City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim e