Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Untitled 20
FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2000 at 7:00 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Request for a variance from the 5 foot bluff setback for the construction of an addition located at 7501 Erie Avenue, Dennis Fisher. 2. Request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide a 1.1 acre lakeshore parcel into 2 single family lots on property zoned RSF and located on Lot 11, Block 1, Sunrise Hills 1st Addition, 7303 Laredo Drive, Lucas Igel Addition, David Igel. 3. Appeal Administrative Decision of Staff s interpretation of the sign standards for Villages on the Ponds, Bokoo Bikes. 4. Wetland Alteration Permit request for a septic hauler site located on Park Place, Metropolitan Council Waste Haulers and City of Chanhassen. 5. Consider an amendment to the City Code to allow petting farms as a conditional use in the A2, Agricultural Estate District, consider an amendment to the City Code to allow petting farms as a conditional use in the A2, Agricultural Estate District and request for a conditional use permit to operate a petting farm in the A2 District, located at 7461 Hazeltine Blvd., Susan McAllister. NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES ONGOING ITEMS OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. INTERVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANTS Uli Sacchet Teri Wirth _-t W CITY OF CHAN ASSE PC DATE: 03/15/00 CC DATE: REVIEW DEADLINE: 04/02/00 CASE #: VAR #2000-2 BY: Kirchoff, C. STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for a variance from the required 5 foot bluff setback for the construction of an addition. LOCATION: 7501 Erie Avenue (Lot 3, Block 1, Hiscox Addition) APPLICANT: Dennis Fisher 2610 Zanzibar Lane Plymouth, MN 55447 (277-4408) PRESENT ZONING: 2020 LAND USE PLAN: ACREAGE: DENSITY: RSF, Single Residential, Low Density 37,250 sq. ft. (.85 acres) N/A SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a variance from the required bluff setback to remodel the existing garage and construct a garage addition on the existing home. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because of the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that they meet the standards in the ordinance. Fisher Variance March 8, 2000 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Section 20-1401(b) states that on parcels of land on which a building has already been constructed on June 1, 1991, the setback form the top of the bluff is five (5) feet or existing setback, whichever is more, for additions to an existing building. (Attachment 2) Section 20-1401(a) states that structures, including, but not limited to, principal buildings, decks, and accessory buildings, except stairways and landing, are prohibited on the bluff and must be setback from the top of the bluff, the toe of the bluff, and side of a bluff at least thirty (30) feet (Attachment 2). Section 20-6915(5) a states that front yard setbacks are a minimum of 30 feet for properties zoned RSF, Single Family Residential (Attachment 3). Section 20-1124(2) (f) (1) states that no garage shall be converted into living space unless other acceptable on -site parking space is provided (Attachment 4). BACKGROUND According to Carver County records, the home on the subject site was constructed in 1968. In 1996, the site was replatted with the Hiscox Addition. The replat realigned property lines to provide a 10 foot west side yard setback for the existing home. The applicant is requesting a variance from the required bluff setback to remodel the existing garage into living space and to attach a three -stall garage to the existing home. The home is located in the bluff and does not maintain aM setback. The top of the bluff has been established at the 958 elevation contour, which runs through the corner of the existing garage. ANALYSIS The applicant would like to construct a 1,068 sq. ft. garage addition. The existing home has a two -stall attached garage. The existing garage will be remodeled into living space and a three -stall garage addition will be located to the south of the existing garage. A portion of the existing driveway will be raised in elevation to accommodate the new garage. The proposed garage floor will be 5 feet above the first floor of the existing home. A new stairway will offer access to the existing home from the driveway. The proposed addition is on the uphill side of the house, away from the bluff area. Site Characteristics The lot is 37,250 sq. ft. The buildable area is limited by the required 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks and the 5 foot bluff setback. A bluff is located on the southern portion of the property. The existing home is significantly lower in elevation than Erie Avenue. The first floor elevation of the home is 956.7 and the street is 965.7 feet. Fisher Variance March 8, 2000 Page 3 Permitted Use This site is zoned RSF, Single Family Residential. A single family home can be legally constructed on the site. The zoning ordinance (Section 20-1124 (2) f) requires two parking spaces, both of which shall be completely enclosed for single-family dwellings. Currently, a single family dwelling with a two -stall garage is on site. Reasonable Use A reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet. A "use" can be defined as "the purpose or activity for which land or buildings are designed, arranged or intended or for which land or buildings are occupied or maintained." In this case, because it is in a RSF zoning district, a reasonable use is a single-family home with a two -stall garage. The property owner currently has a reasonable use of the site. Nonconforming Setback The existing home maintains a nonconforming bluff setback. The zoning ordinance permits a nonconforming structure to be maintained or repaired but only to 50 percent of its value. It also states that a nonconformity shall not be increased. Specifically, the ordinance states if a setback of a dwelling is nonconforming, no additions may be added to the nonconforming side of the building unless the addition meets setback requirements. The proposed garage addition does not meet the required 5 foot bluff setback and will expand the garage area at the nonconforming setback. However, any expansion of the footprint will increase the nonconformity. Bluff Setback The bluff setback was developed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to protect bluffs from the negative impacts of development. According to the DNR, "the 30 foot structure setback from the bluff top provides a minimum distance between the bluff top and the planned or proposed foundation, walls or eaves of a structure for the maneuvering of building materials during construction." They also define the bluff impact zone as the bluff and the land located 20 feet from the top of the bluff. This area should be preserved to maintain the natural appearance of the bluff and prevent soil erosion. This home was constructed in 1968 prior to the adoption of the bluff ordinance, so a 5 minimum foot setback is required. The home was constructed in the bluff (beyond the 958 contour) and does not maintain a setback. If this lot was vacant, a home could not be constructed on this site without a variance from the 30 foot bluff setback or 30 foot front yard setback. Drainage The grading and drainage plan does not appear to negatively impact the neighboring properties. Fisher Variance March 8, 2000 Page 4 Staff believes the owner has a reasonable use of the property, as a two -stall garage is present on the site. Furthermore, the garage addition will compromise the design of the home and expand the nonconformity. A hardship has not been demonstrated therefore, staff recommends denial of the variance request. FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Finding: A reasonable use exists on the site so a hardship is not present. Furthermore, the proposed addition will expand the nonconformity of the structure and setback. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to many properties in the RSF zoning district. C. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: Although the primary purpose of the variance request is to increase the size of the garage, it will increase the value of the parcel. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The hardship is self-created as a reasonable use already exists on the site. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The requested variance may negatively impact the character of the area by creating an incongruous home. Fisher Variance March 8, 2000 Page 5 f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed addition will diminish light to the plant materials to the west and north of the house. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission denies the request for a variance (VAR #2000-2) from the 5 foot bluff protection setback for the construction of an addition based upon the following: 1. The applicant has a reasonable use the property." Should the Planning Commission approve the variance request, the following conditions shall apply: 1. The addition shall be located as shown on the plans prepared on March 2, 2000 by RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd. 2. The applicant shall work with staff in the final alignment of the storm drainage pipe. The grading plan shall be revised to maintain drainage in a sheet flow versus a swale around the west side of the structure. 4. The applicant shall provide a grading, drainage and erosion control plan prior to building permit issuance. Attachments 1. Application 2. Article XXVIII. Bluff Protection 3. Article XII. RSF District Requirements 4. Section 20-1124, Parking Requirements 5. Survey and Addition Plans 6. Public Hearing Notice gAplan\ck\boa\fislier 00-2 vandoc 1/00 13:15 FAX 612 937 5739 CITY OF CHANHASSEN [a 002 c CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: \-)V-161Q,,S C ADDRESS: `1501. `q=�"'V- -a Jm . TELEPHONE (Day time) 0'7.y RF CHA NHASSEN FEB 02 2000 OWNER: `SA, , ADDRESS: -*-& I o Zin zi ba �, b? P1Ym144 th, M/J �5T+-/f7 TELEPHONE: �� 1 `i11-L_ Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit Variance � 7q Non -conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development" Zoning Appeal Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review` X Escro r Filing Fees/Att Cost"` �F 4�aY[y UP/SPR/VACw /AR VAP/Metes (YanBounds,$400 Minor SUB) Subdivision' TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building iater4al-siampl" must. be- submittedw#14 site plan reviews. • .. .. . .. . .104 am.) "' Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE -When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. r 01/21/00 13:15 FAX 612 937 5739 CITY OF CHANHASSEN IM003 t- t CITY OF CHANHASSEN r1___,V ED 4 FEB 0 2 2000 UEPf ���A1\�\� ci�al�finvv�.�r rL��viYUVI.I pRDJECT NAME LOCATION -klm \ qv_k(�Vll LEGALDESCRIPTION TOTAL ACREAGE WMANDS PRESENT 0-c— -YES NO :PRFSENTZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST 'this application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Deparlment to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A deiermination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certdy that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City.should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of -Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. 1 wilt keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. 1 further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and Information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my ImMedge. The thy hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. .Signature of Ap licant —1 ate Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on ' �' OC) Fee Paid �!� Zr Receipt No. _T_LbV_W) 'The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be malled to the applicant's address. 02/18/2000 FRI 11:20 FAX GIERTSEN COMPANY 16002/004 7501 Erie Avenue Chanhassen, MN February 18, 2000 RE: Variance to add garage @ 7501 Erie Avenue, Chanhassen Planning Commission City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive Pb Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Sirs: We appreciate the opportunity to move into & improve the property at the above address. The existing dwelling was built in approximately 1968 prior to existing ordinances. The structure was built on the SW Lotus lake bluff with cantalivered/post supported floor sections. Since the bluff line runs through the house, a gully presently exists on the front/street side of the house. Since the house. sits lower than the existing cutdesac, the water runoff enters this gully, runs through a beneath the basezztent concrete floor drain Iine (presently shattered from freezing/washing out/undermining the foundation) and exits on the lakeside of the house. 1t is my hope & plan to add a 3 car garage (as per print), stepped up 5 courses of block, fill the gully w/rock & a standard drain field and divert the water around the house rather than through it. It would also be requested to add frost footings and build a block foundation wall directly beneath the existing cantalivered floor approximately 25+121f. We would then eliminate the improperly footed cantalivered post and the possibility of collapse, The approval to correct this hardship situation would be greatly appreciated. Yours truly, Dennis C. & Janis 1. Fisher 02/18/2000 FRI 11:21 FAX GIERTSEN COMPANY Q 00a/004 N (NO 5CAL E DENNIS FISHER LOT 3 k5COX ADZ)ITION CARVER CO. 1'*OIN 02/18/2000 FRI 11:21 FAX GIERTSEN COMPANY W, 10004/004 o9e 930 l M) �� eo a°G ot� of Qet \ 31 ! J N \ \ vo I' `0 n b �N 1 110 �/ 3 I 1; I ' +930.62 1 8 932.2e +928.12 i y/ 93e.10 fw e0� i "I 4oS3 949.43 4467 —t— �_�/ p +94e.14 0 rep, • '� as`j° I 956.12 > r.e ..wl I drlw.ay 065.11 96114' SC� �\s o�,� 8 %:oo 0 Lot 3, HISCOX se.le I Iw LO r- Nco N LO 0 1 _ O N O 0 t) ( 8 / 955.40 75.88 S89e51 '33"E Block 1 ADDITION Certificate of Survey r r DENNIS FISHER 2610 Zanzibar Lane Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 CITY nawn l"mSSEN MAR 0 6 2000 FNGINE -RING DEPT. 1 INCH = 40 FEET LEGEND e - Iron monument found o - Iron monument set and marked with license No. 23968. 17 = Denotes offset iron -_N - Denotes drainage & utility easement . eoo.0 - Denotes existing elevation eoo. = Denotes proposed elevation from grade or development plan Denotes drainage arrow Bearings shown are assumed ---- = Denotes setback line - uG- - Denotes underground gas line -UT- - Denotes underground telephone line BOOK 593 PAGE 65 Drawing File: 2000135M.DWG Project No. 2000135M Drawn By: JWW CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA 1�$ubject to easements of record, if any. I he'reby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by /000� me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. _. ILJLIO ]LTD January 31, 2000 Date Kurt M. Kisch, A License No. 23968 Revision Date: February 15, 2000 RLK — Kuusisto, Ltd. BIlo Mile Circle Dr. Suite #100 Minnetonka, Mn. 55343 (612) 933-0972 Fax: (612) 933-1153 Wr Grading Plan Detail CITY OF CHANHASSEN REMOVED MAR 0 6 2000 ENGINEERING DEPT. Reetwe Dl,turbed elope — w/weod Me, blanket and lawn type seed or ad swl. w r DENNIS FISHER 2610 Zanzibar Lane Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 4930.62 +928.12 00 19.9 i.l J A +934.50 938.10 1 w } 956.5 1 L ,S Go N (V yO o 00 36.E `sot R tis;e 28 8 A� Ne°^G lid OD 948.43 I 00 0 5$ gesa0a I N p X 3Q t tih 9 - 948.12 4 1 i 1n A roposed 9y6.A r9`�W. ,im ; b a cban taro, u `,•�' - r"e rnenc I Precaet concrete neae.au ror eab,ureace drmn ./ X, .1 —tM1.4 d• \`- 4).. _..� all ;. __ \ I rodent shWd to, 8' PE pipe _ _ .. _� \ � _ � 58.12 n E 9eD0 (MNDOT STD Plate 31319) 9 Garage,� tppinlnq all & light 7 ,Dbl to be removed \ \. p.? VT Ne 6 ` a`sd rIt`plMp wa&I 958.71961 9 ... 9 ,. _ 1 R t Disturbed slope nber olanket and 1 ,i/rood T l)pe seed or sod 011 'e9lont \A`g / 1 'tt driveway 1 .% l Z �Q OO •� , .� ,.27 .11'l 1 •1. 17 63.50 ° 75.88 955.49 I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Londder the of the Slate of Minnesota. March 2, 2000 Kurt M. Kisch, MN License No. 23968 Dale I hereby certify that this survey, pion or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Engine er under the laws of the fate of Minnesota. / 1a-e� March 2, 2000 Rose Abel FV Dote S89051'33"E 1 LEGEND I • = Iron monument found O = Iron monument set and marked with license No. 23968. N ® = Denotes offset iron -- = = Denotes drainage & utility easement . soo.o = Denotes existing elevation = Denotes proposed elevation from grade or development plan r = Denotes drainage arrow Bearings shown are assumed 1 INCH = 20 FEET _ s - = Denotes sill fence RLK 1 B KuCLtd. 6110 Bluee Circle Br. Suite #100 RTIC Minnetonka. bin. KULISISTO LTD 55343 (612) �33-153 ..� Fax: (812) A33-1153 Cll'Y F CH NID SSEN RECEMAR 0 3 2000 ENGINEERING DEPT. s� EXI5TING PCU6E N (NO SCAL E ) � Awl r� \jp -ice DENNIS F15I4ER LOT 3 , 5LOC< I I-IISGOX ADDITION CARVER Co. t*OIN 1 N pt't�J J UUE ZONING Secs. 20-1352-20-1399. Reserved. ARTICLE XXVIII. BLUFF PROTECTION Sec. 20-1400. Statement of intent. § 20-1402 Development, excavation, clearcutting and other activities within the bluff impact zone may result in increased dangers of erosion, increased visibility to surrounding properties and thereby endanger the natural character of the land and jeopardize the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the city. To preserve the character of the bluff impact.zone within the city, alteration to land or vegetation within the bluff area will not be permitted except as regulated by this article and by the regulations of the underlying zoning district where the property is located. (Ord. No. 152, § 2, 10-14-91; Ord. No. 249, § 2, 4-8-96) Sec. 20-1401. Structure setbacks. (a) Structures, including, but not limited to, principal buildings, decks, and accessory buildings, except stairways and landings, are prohibited on the bluff and must be set back from the top of the bluff, the toe of the bluff, and the side of a bluff at least thirty (30) feet. (b) On parcels of land on which a building has already been constructed on June 1, 1991, the setback from the top of the bluff is five (5) feet or existing setback, whichever is more, for additions to an existing building. Any new buildings will have to meet the thirty-foot setback. (Ord. No. 152, § 2, 10-14-91; Ord. No. 249, § 3, 4-8-96) Sec. 20-1402. Stairways, lifts and landings. Stairways and lifts may be permitted in suitable sites where construction will not redirect water flow direction and/or increase drainage velocity. Major topographic alterations are prohibited. Stairways and lifts must receive an earthwork permit and must meet the following design requirements: (1) Stairways and lifts may not exceed four (4) feet in width on residential lots. Wider stairways may be used for commercial properties, public open space recreational properties, and planned unit developments. (2) Reserved. (3) Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or landings. (4) Stairways, lifts and landings may be either constructed above the ground on posts or placed into the ground, provided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil erosion. (5) Stairways, lifts and landings must be located in the most visually inconspicuous portions of lots. Supp. No. 9 1273 § 20-1402 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (6) Facilities such as ramps, lifts, or mobility paths for physically handicapped persons are also allowed, provided that the dimensional and performance standards of subitems (1) to (5) are complied with. (Ord. No. 152, § 2, 10-14-91; Ord. No. 218, § 1, 8-22-94) Sec. 20.1403. Removal or alteration of vegetation. Removal or alteration of vegetation within a bluff impact zone is prohibited except for limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning and trimming of trees to provide a view from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of stairways and landings and access paths. Removal or alteration of vegetation must receive prior approval of the planning director or designee. An on -site review will be made to determine if the removal or alteration of vegetation will require new ground cover. In no case shall clearcutting be permitted. City staff will work with the property owner to develop a means of creating a view while minimizing disturbance to the bluff impact zone. (Ord. No. 152, § 2, 10-14-91) Sec. 20-1404. Topographic alterations/grading and filling. An earthwork permit will be required for the movement of more that ten (10) cubic yards of material within bluff impact zones. The permit shall be granted if the proposed alteration does not adversely affect the bluff impact zone or other property. Topographic alterations/grading and filling within the bluff impact zone shall not be permitted to increase the rate of drainage. The drainage from property within the bluff impact zone may not be redirected without a permit from the city. Fill or excavated material shall not be placed in bluff impact zones. (Ord. No. 152, § 2, 10-14-91) Sec. 20-1405. Roads, driveways and parking areas. Roads, driveways, and parking areas must meet structure setbacks and must not be placed within bluff impact zones when other reasonable and feasible placement alternatives exists. If no alternatives exist, they may be placed within these areas, and must be designed to not cause adverse impacts. (Ord. No. 152, § 2, 10-14-91) Sec. 20-1406. Reserved. Editor's note —Section 2 of Ord. No. 218, adopted Aug. 22, 1994, deleted former § 20-406, pertaining to the official bluff impact zone map, derived from Ord. No. 152, adopted Oct. 14, 1991. Supp. No. 9 1274 ZONING § 20-1449 Sec. 20-1401. Reconstruction of lawful nonconforming structures. Lawful nonconforming structures that have been damaged or destroyed may be recon- structed provided that it is reconstructed within one (1) year following its damage or destruction and provided the nonconformity is not materially increased. (Ord. No. 152, § 2, 10-14-91) Secs. 20-1408-20-1449. Reserved. Supp. No. 9 1274.1 Q � maw CL 0 CD a � L CD �•.' N 43 4) a N cu CL S aa;BaaE) as 9Z 14610H § 20-595 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. (7) The minimum driveway separation is as follows: a. If the driveway is on a collector street, four hundred (400) feet. b. If the driveway is on an arterial street, one thousand two hundred fifty (1,250) feet. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 4(5-4-5), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 127, § 2, 3-26-90; Ord. No. 170, § 2, 6-8-92; Ord. No. 194, § 2, 10-11-93) Sec. 20-596. Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "RR" District: (1) Commercial kennels and stables. (Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90) Editor's note —Inasmuch as there exists a § 20-595, the provisions added by § 3 of Ord. No. 120 as § 20-595 have been redesignated as § 20-596. Secs. 20-597-20-610. Reserved. 1 ARTICLE XII. 'RSF" SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 20-611. Intent. The intent of the "RSF" District is to provide for single-family residential subdivisions. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-612. Permitted uses. . The following uses are permitted in an "RSF" District: (1) Single-family dwellings. (2) Public and private open space. (3) State -licensed day care center for twelve (12) or fewer children. (4) State -licensed group home serving six (6) or fewer persons. (5) Utility services. (6) Temporary real estate office and model home. (7) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-2), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 259, § 11, 11-12-96) Sec. 20-613. Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in an "RSF" District: (1) Garage. Supp. No. 9 1210 ZONING (2) Storage building. (3) Swimming pool. (4) Tennis court. (5) Signs. (6) Home occupations. (7) One (1) dock. (8) Private kennel. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-3), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-614. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in an "RSF" District: (1) Churches. (2) Reserved. (3) Recreational beach lots. § 20-615 (4) Towers as regulated by article XCX of this chapter. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5.4), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 120, § 4(4), 2-12-90; Ord. No. 259, § 12, 11-12-96) State law reference —Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an 'RSF" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter and chapter 18: (1) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. For neck or flag lots, the lot area requirements shall be met after the area contained within the "neck" has been excluded from consideration. (2) The minimum lot frontage is ninety (90) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac "bubble" or along the outside curve of curvilinear street sections shall be ninety (90) feet in width at the building setback line. The location of this lot is conceptually Supp. No. 9 1211 0 § 20-615 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE illustrated below. Lots Where Frontage Is Measured At Setback Line r.�...y.• �• " • t e-! • I • %C • ' �S •.• (3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred twenty-five (125) feet. The location of these lots is conceptually illustrated below. Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private driveways shall be one hundred (100) feet as measured at the front building setback line. Neck !Flap Lots Fronj Lot Line 1 1 1 1 10064Lot Width 1 I i 1 L.. L.._. �_.J (4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-five (25) percent. (5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, thirty (30) feet. b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet. Supp. No. 9 1212 ZONING § 20-632 C. For side yards, ten (10) feet. (6) The setbacks for lots served by private driveways and/or neck lots are as follows: a. For front yard, thirty (30) feet. The front yard shall be the lot line nearest the public right-of-way that provides access to the parcel. The rear yard lot line is to be located opposite from the front lot line with the remaining exposures treated as side lot lines. On neck lots the front yard setback shall be measured at the point nearest the front lot line where the lot achieves a one -hundred -foot minimum width. b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet. C. For side yards, ten (10) feet. (7) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. b. For accessory structures, twenty (20) feet. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-5), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 90, § 1, 3-14-88; Ord. No. 127, § 3, 3-26-90; Ord. No. 145, § 2, 4-8-91; Ord. No. 240, § 18, 7-24-95) Editor's note —Section 2 of Ord. No. 145 purported to amend § 20-615(6)b. pertaining to accessory structures; such provision were contained in § 20-615(7)b., subsequent to amend- ment of the section by Ord. No. 127. Hence, the provisions of Ord. No. 145, § 2, were included as amending § 20-615(7)b. Sec. 20-616. Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "RSF" District: (1) Private stables subject to provisions of chapter 5, article IV (2) Commercial stables with a minimum lot size of five (5) acres. (Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90) Secs. 20-617-20-630. Reserved. ARTICLE XIII. 'U-4" MDMD LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 20-631. Intent. The intent of the "R-4" District is to provide for single-family and attached residential development at a maximum net density of four (4) dwelling units per acre. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 6(5-6-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-632. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an "R-4" District: (1) Single-family dwellings. (2) Two-family dwellings. Supp. No. 9 1213 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Variance to Bluff Setback APPLICANT: Dennis Fisher LOCATION: 7501 Erie Avenue NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Dennis .Fisher, is requesting a variance from the 5 foot bluff setback for the construction of an addition ocated at 7501 Erie Avenue. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: w 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. if you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Phillip at 937-1900 ext. 105. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on February 17, 2000. J F -TantaFeail 1 LSNeSt i6 h S _'� 3i ° I- - o -- Yi t J in Lotus Lake S � �/ 77th St 1 s S4 { L Sanooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51600 FRONTIER TRAIL ASSN C/O CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/ CATHERINE S HISCOX WILLIAM KIRKVOLD SCOTT BOTCHER 7500 ERIE AVE 201 FRONTIER CT 690 CITY C R DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PO B 147 ANHASSEN, MN 55317 DENNIS C & JANIS I FISHER DANIEL J & JACQUELINE ANTHONY T & MARY E DOPPLER 7501 ERIE AVE HAMMETT 7508 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 7506 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARTHA E MCALLISTER DONNA WOLSTED TRUSTEE OF JAMES 0 & KATHRYN L MCINTIRE 7510 ERIE AVE TRUST 7531 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 215 KING CREEK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 CHARLES R STINSON & CAROL J CURTIS E & TANYA K HAMILTON TED H & KATHLEEN S DELANCEY EASTLUND 7561 ERIE AVE 7505 FRONTIER TRL 4733 EASTWOOD RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MINNETONKA, MN 55345 STREETER BROTHERS SCOTT A & REBECCA R ELLERAAS RICHARD J CORWINE & ROXANN PROPERTIES 7591 ERIE AVE KEYES-CORWINE 18304 MINNETONKA BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 7600 ERIE AVE WAYZATA, MN 55391 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARIO S & KRESTINE K TIZIANI ROBERT C BLAD BERNARD G & KATHY L RAIDT 7601 ERIE AVE 7602 ERIE AVE 7603 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GREGORY DEAN CRAY WILLIAM & IVY KIRKVOLD PETER J & KATHERINE S DAHL 200 FRONTIER CT 201 FRONTIER CT 220 FRONTIER CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SUSAN C HOFF BRADLEY C & MARY L JOHNSON TED H & KATHLEEN S DELANCEY 221 FRONTIER CIR 7425 FRONTIER TRL 7505 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN B & GENELL M W LEMLEY TODD D OVERGARD JOHN A & JO A FELLMAN 7523 FRONTIER TRL 120 SOUTH SHORE CT TRUSTEES OF TRUST CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 131 SOUTH SHORE CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 WILLIAM & JEANETTE LAPPEN WILLIAM & DOROTHY LEBRUN GREG S & LINDA WILKES 140 SOUTH SHORE CT 7628 SOUTH SHORE DR 7632 SOUTH SHORE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Smooth Feed Sheets TM Use template for 5160'10 STEVEN A & CAROL K DONEN 7636 SOUTH SHORE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DALE L & DEBRA M MUELLER 7645 SOUTH SHORE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JEFFREY J & LENA TAN OTOLSKI 7660 SOUTH SHORE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 THOMAS W & PAMELA C DEVINE PO BOX 714 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHRIS J & NICOLE J NEUHARTH 7652 SOUTH SHORE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARY C MAURICE & SANDRA M SEDO 7644 SOUTH SHORE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT M CREES & JANICE K ALMLI 7656 SOUTH SHORE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CITY OF CiiANgASSEN PC DATE: 3/15/00 CC DATE: 4/10/00 REVIEW DEADLINE: 4/11/00 CASE #: 00-2 SUB By: RG, DH STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide a 1.1 acre lake shore parcel into 2 single family lots on property zoned RSF Lucas Igel Addition LOCATION: Lot 11, Block 1, Sunrise Hills 1st Addition, 7303 Laredo Drive APPLICANT: David Igel 6195 Strawberry Ln. Shorewood, MN 55331 (952) 920-8300 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4 units/acre) ACREAGE: 1.09 acres DENSITY: 1.83 units per acre, gross and net SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for subdivision approval to create two lake shore lots, one 22,613 square feet and the other 24,888 square feet. These parcels shall be accessed via a shared driveway. The existing house on the site will be razed to accommodate the two new houses. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi judicial decision. 1 Lucas Igel Addition March 15, 2000 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY Adjacent zoning and land uses are N - RSF, single family home, S - RSF, single family homes, W - RSF, single family homes, and E - Lotus Lake. Water and sewer are available to the property and currently connected to the existing house. The site slopes from west to east with a high point at Laredo Drive of 940 and a low point at the lake at 896.3 (the Ordinary High Water elevation of the Lake). The two lots will be accessed via a common driveway which will enter onto Laredo at the existing driveway but veer to the southeast, paralleling the south property line. The site has approximately 77 percent canopy coverage. The ultimate canopy cover will be 64 percent. Code requires a minimum canopy coverage of 46 percent. The existing house on the site has a basement elevation of 914.4. The proposed houses have lowest floor elevations of 913.5 and 911.0 on Lots 1 and 2, respectively. (Lot 1 is the proposed northerly lot and Lot 2 is the proposed southerly lot.) The proposed lots are 22,613 and 24,888 square feet. Minimum lot size for shore land property is 20,000 square feet. The neighbors have provided the city with a copy of restrictive covenants for Sunrise Hills First Addition. Item number 18 appears to prohibit the applicant from subdividing the parcel. However, the city does not enforce restrictive covenants. Rather, it is our responsibility to review the proposed development for compliance with City Ordinances. Additionally, the applicant has stated that the restrictive covenants expired in 1987 and are no longer applicable to this lot. The site is accessible from Laredo Lane through an existing blacktop driveway. Plans propose on creating another driveway which would service both lots. Due to the topographic constraints of Lot 2, staff believes the existing blacktop driveway should be utilized for Lot 1 and a new driveway constructed for Lot 2. The applicant must adjust the common lot line between Lots 1 and 2 to assure that a minimum of 100 feet in width is provided at the bend of the lot line and that a minimum of 75 feet in lot width exists at the survey line. This revision will reduce the lot area of Lot 1, therefore, the applicant shall verify that Lot 1 maintains a minimum of 20,000 square feet of lot area. Subject to the revisions contained in this report, staff believes that the proposed development complies with City Ordinance and is therefore being recommended for approval. BACKGROUND In 1956, the Town Board of Chanhassen approved the plat for Sunrise Hills 1st Addition. On December 19, 1956, the Sunrise Hills 1st Addition was accepted and approved by the County Board of Carver County. Lucas Igel Addition March 15, 2000 Page 3 LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the Igel Addition development are as follows: Total upland area (including outlots) 47,501 SF or 1.091 ac. Baseline canopy coverage 77% or 36,576 SF Minimum canopy coverage allowed 55% or 26,126 SF Proposed tree preservation 64% or 30,400 SF The developer meets minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore no replacement plantings are required. Existing vegetation serves as appropriate buffer yard plantings for most of the development. However, staff recommends that plantings be added to the area directly north of the proposed home on Lot 1. This area is currently paved driveway and will become yard for the proposed home. Assuming a 10' x 100' bufferyard, minimum requirements include one overstory tree, 2 understory trees and three shrubs. GRADING/DRAINAGE There is an existing home on the lot that is proposed to be razed with development. Grading plans propose fairly minor grading to develop two new house pads. Both lots are proposed to be two-story rambler, walkout -type dwellings. Grading around the dwelling will encroach upon the 75-foot setback from the lake, however; only minimal tree loss is anticipated with this grading activity. This grading activity is necessary to maintain positive drainage away from the proposed dwelling. At time of building permit application, a detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan will be required with each lot. At that time, staff will address erosion control measures necessary with individual permits. The site contains an existing blacktop driveway that currently serves the existing residence. The plans propose on constructing a new driveway through Lot 2 to service both of the new parcels. Upon review of the driveway layout, staff recommends that due to the steep driveway grades, Lot 1 should utilize the existing blacktop driveway and Lot 2 should have a new driveway as shown. This will reduce the common portion of the driveway which needs to be built 20 feet wide, 7-ton per axle design through the common portion. A cross -access easement for both lots will need to be prepared and recorded for the common portion of the driveway through Lot 2. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site. The existing house is connected to city sewer and water. In conjunction with razing of the existing dwelling, the appropriate demolition permits will be required. The parcel has been previously assessed for one sewer and water unit, therefore, the newly created lot will be responsible at time of building permit issuance Lucas Igel Addition March 15, 2000 Page 4 for one sewer and water hookup and connection charge. The 2000 sanitary sewer and water connection charges are $4,075 each and the trunk sanitary sewer and watermain hookup charges are $1,300 and $1,694, respectively. These fees may be specially assessed against the property at time of building permit issuance. Extension of sanitary sewer service to Lot 2 will involve encroaching upon Lot 1. The applicant will need to prepare private cross -access easements for extension of the sewer and water lines through Lot 2 to be recorded against both parcels. Currently, one water service exists for the existing building. A new water service will need to come from Laredo Lane to the property line to service Lot 2. This will involve open cutting of Laredo Lane to tap the existing watermain. The City, at the applicant's expense, will extend a water service for Lot 2 from Laredo Lane to the property line of Lot 2. Staff recommends the applicant escrow with the City $2,000 to guarantee extension of a sanitary sewer service from Lot 1 to Lot 2. STREETS The site is accessible from Laredo Lane through an existing blacktop driveway. Plans propose on creating another driveway which would service both lots. Due to the topographic constraints of Lot 2, staff believes the existing blacktop driveway should be utilized for Lot 1 and a new driveway constructed for Lot 2. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE The developer shall pay full park and trail fees for one additional lot. One-third of the fees will be payable at the time of final plat recording. The balance of the fees will be payable with the first building permit for a home in this development. COMPLIANCE TABLE AREA (sq. ft.) FRONTAGE (ft.) DEPTH Lake Frontage (ft.) Code Requirements 20,000 90 125 75 Lot 1 22,613 217.3 213.5 87.24 Lot 2 24,888 64.29 * 397 65.73 @ Total 47,501 * Lots accessed via a private drive must have a lot width of 100 feet as measured at the front building setback. @ Lot line must be revised to meet 75 feet at survey line. FTNDTNGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Lucas Igel Addition March 15, 2000 Page 5 Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District subject to revision of the plat as stated in the conditions of approval and verification of the lot area. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions if approved. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Findin : The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. C. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure. f Lucas Igel Addition March 15, 2000 Page 6 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of preliminary plat, Subdivision #00-2, for Lucas Igel Addition, as shown on plans prepared by Carlson & Carlson, Inc., dated February 11, 2000, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must adjust the common lot line between Lots 1 and 2 to assure that a minimum of 100 feet in width is provided at the bend of the lot line and that a minimum of 75 feet in lot width exists at the survey line. This revision will reduce the lot area of Lot 1, therefore, the applicant shall verify that Lot 1 maintains a minimum of 20,000 square feet of lot area. 2. A demolition permit must be obtained before demolishing the existing building. 3. All existing utilities must be abandoned and inspected as required by the appropriate department or agency. 4. Final reports must be provided for any soil correction work before building permits will be issued. 5. Sanitary sewer services must be installed in accordance with the Minnesota State Plumbing Code. 6. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan will be required at time of building permit application for city staff to review and approve. 7. All lots shall maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern. Erosion control measures will be required on the building permit Certificate of Survey. Erosion control fencing shall be installed on the downstream side of the grading limits. A rock construction entrance may also be required at Laredo Lane. 8. The applicant and staff shall work together in determining the paths for the sanitary sewer and water services that creates the least disruption to existing vegetation. The City, at the applicant's expense, will extend a water service for Lot 2 from Laredo Lane to the property line of Lot 2. The applicant shall be responsible for extending the sanitary sewer service through Lot 1 to Lot 2. The applicant shall escrow with the City $2,000 to guarantee the sanitary sewer service extension across Lot 1 to serve Lot 2. A sanitary sewer and water hookup fee and connection charge will be applied at time of building permit issuance on Lot 2. The cost of extending the water service to Lot 2 from Laredo Lane shall be deducted from the watermain connection charge for Lot 2. The applicant shall prepare and record a cross access easement agreement for the water and sanitary sewer lines that encroach upon the lots. 9. The typical 5-foot and 10-feet wide side, front and rear yard drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat. In addition, a 20-foot wide utility and drainage easement Lucas Igel Addition March 15, 2000 Page 7 shall be dedicated over the existing sanitary sewer line that runs through Lot 1. 10. The developer shall be responsible for all city attorney fees associated with the review and recording of the final plat documents, Park and Trail fees, Surface Water Management Fees, and GIS fees pursuant to city ordinance. These fees are due at time of final plat recording. 11. All driveways shall be paved with an all-weather surface such as asphalt or concrete. The common portion of the driveway must be 20 feet wide and built to a 7-ton axle weight design. Cross -access easements and maintenance agreements shall be prepared by the applicant and recorded against both lots. Lot 1 shall utilize the existing driveway alignment and not as shown on the plans. 12. The developer shall submit a landscape plan showing minimum buffer yard requirements including one overstory tree, two understory trees and two shrubs. The buffer yard plantings shall be located directly north of the proposed home on Lot 1. 13. The developer shall pay full park and trail fees for one additional lot. One-third of the fees will be payable at the time of final plat recording. The balance of the fees will be payable with the first building permit for a home in this development." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation 2. Development Review Application 3. Reduced Copy of Preliminary Plat 4. Letter from Gerald W. and Janet Dee Paulsen 5. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List Lucas Igel Addition March 15, 2000 Page 8 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNL�'�' FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Lucas Igel Addition Subdivision On April 5, 2000, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its re�-)u1, consider the application of David Igel for preliminary plat approval o 1 ;", Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed subdivision hr- mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all iw!- speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned RSF, Single Family Resin 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Resider ti ;i 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 11, Block]. 4. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the Planning Commission possible adverse affects of the proposed subdivision. The ; findings regarding them are: 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with a I I regional plans including but not limited to the 3. The physical characteristics of the site, ineludi, topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to ci' . susceptibility to flooding, and storm water dn. proposed development; Lucas Igel Addition March 15, 2000 Page 9 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record; and 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. C. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems. 5. The planning report #00-2 dated April 5, 2000, prepared by Robert Generous is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 5th day of April, 2000. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION Its Chairman ATTEST: Secretary gAplailftlucas igel addition.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Dix y; A Ili,e � OWNER:_ G Q yv� ADDRESS: _CD 19 5 54-4-a,Lo b e r r ADDRESS: S �X 0 r-c W 11 OCR /)1 ry 5?31 TELEPHONE (Day time) _ (o 1 7 9 Z 0 - 8p0 TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment _. Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit — Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit Variance Non -conforming Use Permit _ Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* _ Zoning Appeal Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review* X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"* ($50 CUP/SPR/VACNAR/WAP%Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) x Subdivision* TOTAL FEE $ 7Z A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME i,ti C Ck- ` J- a AAA, -�l LOCATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION ai' (� �)ock l �u�r��e ti�l�s (�54 /�• TOTAL ACREAGE 1, 1 WETLANDS PRESENT YES X NO PRESENT ZONING F L-� D 1 REQUESTED ZONING 5C wA-e- PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Lowy REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION 5q wA 4- REASON FOR THIS REQUEST L o-F This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. ature of of Fee Z—c( — 00 Date 2— It -0y Date Application Received on 2 1 Cr0 Fee Paid l —760 , c Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. 7305 Laredo Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 March 3, 2000 Planning Commission City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 Subject: Replat of property at 7303 Laredo Drive i�", , 013 7_.000 We live adjacent to the subject property that was recently purchased. We have been told that your meeting on March 15th has an agenda item to permit subdividing the single lot at 7303 Laredo Drive (previously owned by the Bairds) into two lots. We wish to express our concern and objection to this change, and call your attention to the following factors. Our subdivision, Sunrise Hills, has Restriction Covenants filed with Carver County. One of these items prohibits reducing the size of any building site from the established size. A copy of the Restrictive Covenants is attached. It seems strange that the purchaser of the Baird property claims not to be aware of the Restrictive Covenants. It is normally revealed by a title search. Our Mortgage Deed explicitly states our property is "Subject to Restrictive Covenants of record dated June 21, 1957, filed July 15, 1957 under document No. 6183". These Restrictive Covenants, which apply to 60 Sunrise Hills residences, have already been upheld in a legal ruling in the 1980's. Your rejection of this application will avoid protracted legal action to reconfirm the validity of the Restrictive Covenants. Adding another residence would adversely affect our property and that of ten or more adjacent properties because of visual impact resulting from two houses in the place of one, and because of the loss of mature trees. Adding another lake shore residence will further overload the capacity of Lotus Lake and contribute to it's environmental and visual degradation. Cordially, Gerald W. Paulsen Janet Dee Paulsen Attachment: Restrictive Covenants (3 pages) �.... � ♦..�..r .�� r r ••.. . r •'•fir r M TftECTIVE COVENANTS TO THE PUBLICt WHEREAS, Hobart A. Scholar and Celina 11. Scholar, husband and wife. are owners of the property duly platted as "Sunrise Hills Virst Addition", Carver County. Minnesota, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of jitles of said Carver County; and WHEREAS. it is the intention and desire of said owners to assure the permanency of said Addition and the stability of the property values therein; and WHEREAS, it is the further desire of said owners to establish restrictions for the mutual benefit of present and future owners of property included in said Sunrise Hills First Addition. NCFJ THEREFORE, in order to effectuate the foregoing, Hobert A. Scholar and Colino R. Scholar do hereby promulgate and adopt the following provisions, covenants and restrictions and 'do hereby make said covenants and restrictions a part and condition of each and every sale, transfer, conveyance or mortgage of said Addition or any part or lot therein; and said covenants and restrictions shall run with the land and shall be binding on all parties heroto and on all persons claiming under them until July 1. 1987. at which time these covonants ' shall be automatically extended for successive periods of ton years, unless by a vote of a majority of the than owners of the lots in said Sunrise Hills'First Addition, it is agreed to change said covenants and restrictions in full or in part. Invalidation of any of these covenants and restrictions hereinafter set forth by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any of the other covenants, restrictions or provisions which shall remain in full force and effect. 1. All lots shall be known, used and described as residential lots. No structuro shall be orect.ed, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any lot In said plat other than one detached singlo-family dwelling not to exceed two stories in hoighth with attached private garage, except as hereafter provided. 2. All garages must be within tho dwelling or attached to the dwelling either directly or by breezeway or other part of dwelling. . Which 3. No shad, shops or out buildings of any kind/may be considered unsightly or objec;lonable to other realdonts of said Addition, may be oroctod at any tilio. ihls reitrlction, however. shall not preclude tho construction of siChtly or attractivo structuros for tho comfort or enjoyment of ownurs of the dwolling and his family. including such structures as non-commercial fainil,}r ErooNjoueas. playhouses and childron's play equipment. 4. No structure -of a temporary character shall be used as a residence j at any time. 5 All buildings hereafter proposed for said Sunrise Hills First Addition • must be erected by Hobert A. Scholar or his assigns. � 6. No building shall be located nearer than forty feet from the front lot line. 7. No building shall be closer to side lot lines than twelve foot. f g. The minimum square foot area, exclusive of garage and breezeway, or porches. of any one-story dwelling shall be 1,000 square feet, and of any one and one-half and two story dwelling shall be 1,200 square foot, and in case of the latter. both floors must be finished. The mini= square foot area, exclusive I of garage and breezeway, or porches, of any dwelling located on a lot with lake- i shore frontage shall be 1.200 square.feet. 9. 1ho exterior of any dwelling placed on any lot in said Addition shall be covered with stone, wood, brick or stucco; and all exterior woodwork must be i1 1 painted. varnished or stained. The exterior of any dwelling must be finished i immediately and must not be allowed to remain unfinished in any part for more 1 than six months from the date of the beginning of said construction. 10. No building shall be constructed of concrete blocks or of cinder block construction. 11. No second hand materials may be used for any construction. ! 12. No building may be moved onto any lot. 13. 14o dogs shall be kept in said Addition except those confined strictly to the owner's property and kept on leash or in control of the owner at all times. Dogs which are habitually noisy shall be doomed a nuisance and may be eliminated from the area. 14. No cows, goats, or any domestic or other animal, poultry or fowl of any hind shall bo kept in said Addition oxcept dogs and cats, and tho keeping of dogs shall be subject to regulation set forth in the proceeding paragraph. 15. No commercial activity of any kind shall be undertaken and carried " 2 - I of, ulton any lot in said Addition, but this rostriction eha11 - 4renlvl� � pursuit of hobbies which are wholly confined withizi the dwelling aW which dim offensive or of'a kind which in any way becomes an annoyance or nuleance to the neighborhood. 16. Each owner of any lot shall have the right to use the playground area, provided by the above named Hobert A. Scholar and Celina It. Scholar for the benofit of purchasers of lots in said addition, for access to and from Lotus Lake by foot. Use of boat slips and channel shall be subject to nominal charge for installation, maintenance and upkeep thereof. No private docks shall be erected on or from the area playground and beach. No buildings shall be erected on the area playground and beach without the permission of Robert A. Scholar. Any and all maintenance and improvement of and on said area playground and beach shall be made at the expense of the owners of the lots in said Sunrise Hills First Addition. 17. Landscaping of any lot on which a dwelling has been constructed shall be completed forthwith upon completion of dwelling construction. 18. Robert A. Scholar reserves the right and privilege to regrade any of said lots owned by him and improve the same by enlarging said lots by consolidating two or more lots or any part of any lots, but in no event to reduce the size of final building sites from the sizes of lots now established. IN TESTIMNY WHEREOF, Robert A. Scholar and Celina R. Scholar have set their hands this day of June, 1957. I`n Presence oft i STATE OF IGNNLSOTA) ) SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) On this =1 day of June, 1957, before me a Notary Public within and for said County personally appeared Robert A. Scholar and Celina R. Scholer, husband and wife, to me known to be U-.o persons described in, and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their free act and deed for the purposes and objectives/therein set forth. 1 Notary vPgbYic • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Subdivision of APPLICANT: David Igel Lake Shore Lot LOCATION: 7303 Laredo Drive NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, David [gel, is requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide a 1.1 acre lake shore parcel into 2 single family lots on property zoned RSF and located on Lot 11, Block 1, Sunrise Hills 1 st Addition, 7303 Laredo Drive, Lucas Igel Addition. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Phillip at 937-1900 ext. 105. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on March 2, 2000. Lotus Lake \' �c � / �r' Sandy C, -�� Smooth Feed SheetSTM CITY OF CHANHASSENC/O SCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY CENTER D PO BOX 147 CH SEN, MN 55317 JOHN T & RUTH E SCHEVENIUS 570 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SUNRISE HILLSC/O CHA S ROBBINS 7340 LON W CIR CHA SSEN, MN 55317 KURVERS POINT HOMEOWNER ASSNC/O MELVIN KURVERS 7240 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GREG H & BARBARA L HEDLUND 748 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CARVER BEACH PROPERTIESC/O ADRIAN JOHNSON 332 2ND ST EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 KENTON D KELLY 6539 GRAY FOX CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARTIN IMMERMAN &ANN HOGAN 481 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DEAN T & SUSAN L STANTON 510 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 1,491 Use template for 51600 THOMAS M & NANCY S SEIFERT NEAR MOUNTAIN LAKE ASSN INC 600 PLEASANT VIEW RD 610 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOSEPH J SMITH PO BOX 213 NYA, MN 55368 RICHARD W & KATHLEEN A DENMAN 6661 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSENC/O SCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY CENT PO BOX CH HASSEN, MN 553117 LOTUS LAKE BETTERMENT ASSN 105 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 FRONTIER TRAIL ASSNC/O WILLIAM KIRKVOLD 201 FRONTIER CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LARRY A & JULIE M KOCH 471 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DONALD N & CAROL J MEHL 490 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GUY L SWANSON 610 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN P & JANE THIELEN 665 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CITY OF CHA�IHIASSENC/O BOTCHER 690 CITY CE PO B 47 CH NHASSEN, MN 55317 GERALD R & JANICE M STRAND 18909 KINGSWOOD TER HOPKINS, MN 55345 CHARLES E & DIANE BOHLIG 5200 RIDGE RD EDINA, MN 55436 STATE OF MINNESOTA-DNRTAX SPEC. - BUREAU OF R E MGMT. 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL, MN 55155 ANNE F JONES 480 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LEONARD P & NANCY M KISKIS 491 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PAUL J & KARI J ROMPORTL &WILLIAM G & VON CILE GARENS 620 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN C & JOYCE M HAGEDORN JON ALAN LANG CONSTANCE M CERVILLA 630 CARVER BEACH RD 640 CARVER BEACH RD 650 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51600 HENRY & G SOSIN FREDERIC OELSCHLAGER ETAL DAVID E & CAROLYN M 7400 CHANHASSEN RD 7410 CHANHASSEN RD WETTERLIN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 7420 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 1RVING RAYMOND TIMOTHY J & DIANE A MCHUGH LARRY P MON &FELIX MON 7440 CHANHASSEN RD 7450 CHANHASSEN RD PO BOX 39553 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55439 HARVEY L JR & CAROL PARKER CHAD ALAN KOEHLER LOUIS S TESLER 7480 CHANHASSEN RD 7490 CHANHASSEN RD 7500 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GREGORY J LINDSLEY &MARIA J NANCY A ENGASSER DENNIS J & TONIE FLAHERTY STOFFEL 7000 DAKOTA AVE 7004 DAKOTA TRL 7510 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CAROLYN BLOOMBERG STEVEN M & MONICA M POSNICK HENRY & SANDRA NEILS 7008 DAKOTA AVE 7010 DAKOTA AVE 7012 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 FRANK W JR & MARGARET M EVAN M NIEFELD CHRISTOPHER K LARUS &HEIDI M HETMAN 7016 DAKOTA CIR GARCIA 7014 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 7018 DAKOTA C I R CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CATHERINE S HISCOX DENNIS C & JANIS I FISHER DANIEL J & JACQUELINE 7500 ERIE AVE 7501 ERIE AVE HAMMETT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 7506 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT IAN AMICK DAVID B SANFORD &MARIANNE M THOMAS M & SUSAN J HUBERTY 581 FOX HILL DR MCCORD 6450 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 6440 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MICHAEL & DEBRA HAYDOCK KEITH M & MARY BETH HOFFMAN 200 REF FRONTIER ERACT RAY 6460(FOX PATH 6470 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 WILLIAM & IVY KIRKVOLD PETER J & KATHERINE S DAHL 7199 FRONTIER TRL L BORNS 201 FRONTIER CT 220 FRONTIER CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 - Smooth Feed SheetSTM Use template for 51600 ROLF G ENGSTROM &LAWRENCE PLEEBENS 7201 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ARLIS A BOVY 7339 FRONTI�TRCHANHA GEORGE J & DIANNE H PRIEDITIS 7401 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT M & LILLIAN H SOMERS 7409 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RICHARD J GILLESPIE &MICHELE M KOPFMANN 7415 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN F & DONNELLA R SEGNERTRUSTEES OF TRUST 30 HILL ST CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN D & ANN M DANIELSON 6607 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CYNTHIA ANN BRICTSON 6613 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 HAROLD G & KATHRYN M DAHL 6631 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PATRICK F & KATHRYN A PAVELKO 7203 FRO _ TRL CH SSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT H GRE---Fy 7341 FRO TRL CHA SSEN, MN 55317 LORNA G TARNOWSKI 7405 FRONTIER TRL PO BOX 382 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 THOMAS W HAROLD 7411 FRONTIER TRL SW CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN R & KRISTI J SESTAK 7417 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT FLYNNVALERIE FLYNN 40 HILL ST CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RAYMOND P & ALICIA L BROZOVICH 6609 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAMES E & ELEANOR KEIPER 6615 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PHILIP O & LUDMILLA J ISAACSON 6633 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SHIRLEY ANN NAVRA 7337 FRONT RL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT H & SALLY S HORSTMAN 73143 FRONTIER T CHANH MN 55317 BLAIR PETER ENTENMANN &NANCY ENTENMANN 7407 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROGER & MARJORIE L KARJALAHTI 7413 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JEFFREY A & LIZA A HILDEN 20 HILL ST CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RONALD E & LEANNE HARVIEUX 6605 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RAYMOND P & ALICIA L BROZOVICH 6609 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LADD R & SUSAN M CONRAD 6625 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DOUGLAS J & ELIZABETH K BITNEY 6645 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 FRANK A & DONNA M KUZMA EVELYN ALBINSON RICHARD W & KATHLEEN A 6651 HORSESHOE CRV 6655 HORSESHOE CRV DENMAN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 6661 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Smooth Feed SheetSTM Use template for 51600 YORIKO M PRICE JOHN M & SANDRA L DAVID & BEVERLY KOPISCHKE 6663 HORSESHOE CRV CUNNINGHAM 6675 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 6665 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DORIS A ROCKWELL JEFFORIE A KVILHAUG &JUDILYN JOHN & BEVERLY RYAN 6677 HORSESHOE CRV W KVILHAUG 6685 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 6681 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 HELEN R HARTMANN SANDRA LEE OLSON CHARLES C & JANET C HURD 6687 HORSESHOE CRV 6691 HORSESHOE CRV 6695 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN R & CAROL W HAMMETT ALAN & LINDA K KRAMER FRANKLIN J & MYRNA A 6697 HORSESHOE CRV 531 INDIAN HILL RD KURVERSTRUSTEES OF TRUST CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 7220 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MELVIN & JACQUELINE D DOUGLAS R & JEANNE E DANNY J & BRENDA L VATLAND KURVERS MACLEAN 7290 KURVERS POINT RD 7240 KURVERS POINT RD 7280 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JEFFREY & MITZI ALFRED A & SUSAN K RONALD C & SHAWN P HAINES VANTHOURNOUT HENDERSON 7340 KURVERS POINT RD 7320 KURVERS POINT RD 7330 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHARLES ALLEN APPLEGATE CHARLES ALLEN APPLEGATE SEYMOUR S RESNIK &SUSAN R APPLEGATE &SUSAN R APPLEGATE 7370 KURVERS POINT RD 7360 KURVERS POINT RD 7360 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHARLES R & JUDY L PETERSON DENNIS ZHU &ZUO ZHI MICHAEL A & JANET A STANZAK 708 LAKE PT 716 LAKE PT 724 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 TERRY D & DEBRA L VOGT TODD D ELFTMANN &SUSAN L GREG H & BARBARA L HEDLUND 732 LAKE PT ERICKSON-ELFTMANN 748 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 740 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ALAN & ANNABEL FOX RICHARD J & EUNICE M PETERS JOANNE LIPE, BRUCE BAIRD 7300 LAREDOD i� 7301 LAREDO DR �&CHRISTOPHER J BAIRD CHAN EN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN N-55317� 1345 LEXINGTON CT CHASKA, MN 55318 Smooth Feed SheetSTM Use template for 51600 ROBERT & LINDA SATHRE 365 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MICHAEL & KATHRYN SCHWARTZ 469 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN R & KATHLEEN A VONWALTER 510 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 THOMAS M & NANCY S SEIFERT 600 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN P & JANE THIELEN 665 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ALAN W & CAROL LENHART 6575 PLEASANT VIEW WAY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SCOTT D NELSON &CATHY HULL NELSON 106 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARK C & NANCY A ENGASSER 7000 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 WILLIAM & MARJORIE SPLIETHOFF 4041 GULFSHORE BLVD N #312 NAPLES, FL 34103 RANDY R & RAYMA LEE SMITH 429 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT L & SANDRA J POST 489 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DOUGLAS J & LANA HABERMAN 520 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN & JANIS R NICOLAY 608 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 THOMAS A & JUDY R MEIER 695 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BRIAN H & JEANNE M BATZLI 100 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 THOMAS V & DARLEEN TURCOTTE 108 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT B & SUE MIDNESS 112 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 THOMAS & MARILYN PALMBY 114 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JANICE L ANDRUS 449 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CURTIS G & CHERI L ANDERSON 500 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 HARVEY W & KAREN E ROBIDEAU 540 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GARY J SCHNEIDER &CYNTHIA CALHOUN SCHNEIDER 640 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN C ARMITAGE &SHONDA K WARNER & MONA J KAHL 745 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PETER A MOSCATELLI 102 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN S & MARIE F KERN 109 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT B & SUE MIDNESS 112 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAY H & SHELLEY H STROHMAIER 80 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GREG S & LINDA WILKES STEVEN A & CAROL K DONEN THOMAS W & PAMELA C DEVINE 7632 SOUTH SHORE DR 7636 SOUTH SHORE DR PO BOX 714 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Smooth Feed Sheets TM Use template for 51600 MARY C MAURICE &SANDRA M MARK O & SUZANNE SENN STEVEN T MESTITZ &PEGGY L SEDO 7160 WILLOW VIEW CV NAAS 7644 SOUTH SHORE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 7200 WILLOW VIEW CV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Smooth feed Sheets TM Use template for 5160® ROBERT H GREELEY 7341 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JON H & JANET B HOLLER 7206 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 HELEN BIELSKI 7209 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAMES R & LINDA D KRAFT 7213 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MICHAEL R & DORTHEA F SHAY 7230 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOEL S & MARY G JENKINS 7305 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SUSAN L JOHNSON 7331 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAMES J & RITA M WALETSKI 7334 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SHIRLEY ANN NAVRATIL 7337 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SUNRISE HILLS C/O CHARLES ROBBINS 7340 LONGVIEW CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEVEN & THERESE BERQUIST 7207 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOSEPH & KATHELEEN WITKEWICS TRUSTEES OF TRUST 7210 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BRUCE K & SUSAN C SAVIK 7215 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ADOLFO & LEONOR ZAMBRANO 7301 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RICHARD & GWENDOLYN J PEARSON 7307 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DONALD M & DARLENE H HUSETH 7332 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 FRED L CUNEO JR 7335 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAMES & LINDA MADY 7338 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PATRICK F & KATHRYN A PAVELKO 7203 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT J THIELGES & TERESE WEST 7208 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 WILLIAM D & SHERRI L MALONEY 7211 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PAUL & ELLEN DIFFERDING 7228 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DAVID J WOLLAN & SUSAN K LIPPKA 7303 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DENNIS W & LINDA A LANDSMAN 7329 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOEL M & WENDY M WIENS 7333 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT L & GLORY D WILSON 7336 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ARLIS A BOVY 7339 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 THOMAS R & SHIRLEY J PZYNSKI ROBERT H GREELEY ROBERT H & SALLY S HORSTMAN 7340 FRONTIER TRL 7341 FRONTIER TRL 7343 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Smooth Feed Sheets TM Use template for 51600 WAYNE L & KATHLEEN J MADER 400 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 HOWARD & MARY JEAN MEUWISSEN 406 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ALAN & ANNABEL FOX 7300 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOANNE LIPE, BRUCE BAIRD & CHRISTOPHER J BAIRD 1345 LEXINGTON CT CHASKA, MN 55318 FELIX & LOIS WHITE PO BOX 96 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN H HARMER & CAROL WALTER 402 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SCOTT SAVITT & JEANNE BORGSTROM 408 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RICHARD J & EUNICE M PETERS 7301 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEPHEN T & REBECCA L CHEPOKAS 7304 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RONALD V & ANN L KLEVE 7307 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LOWELL A & JUDY D VETTER 404 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CRAIG A & MARIAN WESTERMANN 410 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RICHARD & DEBORAH LLOYD 7302 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GERALD & JANET D PAULSEN 7305 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TO: CHA NSEN FROM: 690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 DATE: Phone 612.937.1900 General Fax 612.937.5739 SUBJ: Engineering Fax 612.937.9152 Public Safety Fax 612.934.2524 Planning Commission Bob Generous, Senior Planner March 7, 2000 Appeal Administrative Decision Signage on Three Sides of Bokoo Bikes Wbwww.ci.chanhassen.mn.us REQUEST The applicant is appealing staff s determination that Bokoo Bikes may only have wall signs on two (2) elevations. Section 20-28 of the Zoning Ordinance states "Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 462.357, subdivision 6, the board shall have the following powers: (1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by a city employee in administration of this chapter BACKGROUND On June 28, 1999, the City Council approved Site Plan #99-10, plans prepared by Lampert Architects dated 4/30/99, for an 11,095 square foot 11/2 story retail, showroom and office building on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 4ch Addition, Bokoo Bikes, a.k.a., The Peddler Cyclery. On June 28, 1999, the City Council approved PUD #95-2 granting Final Plat approval for Villages on the Ponds Fourth Addition, creating one lot and two outlots. This site is for the Peddler Cyclery. On September 23, 1996, the City Council approved PUD 95-2, Villages on the Ponds, including a Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment from Office/industrial, Institutional, Residential Medium Density, Residential Low Density to Mixed Use -Commercial, High Density Residential, Institutional and, Office; Preliminary planned unit development for up to 291,000 sq. ft. of commercial/office buildings, 100,000 sq. ft. of institutional buildings, and 322 dwelling units; Rezoning from IOP and RSF to PUD, Planned Unit Development (final reading); and final plat dated "Received September 19, 1996" for two lots and ten outlots and public right-of-way. RELEVANT REGULATION The following is an excerpt from the Villages on the Ponds Development Design Standards: The City of Chanhassen. Agrowing community with clean lakes, quality schoolr, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, and beautiful Barks. A great Mace to live, work, and vlay. I Bokoo Bikes Administrative Appeal March 7, 2000 Page 3 a. Exposed neon/fiber optic, b. Open channel with exposed neon, c. Channel Letters with acrylic facing, d. Reverse channel letters (halo lighted), or e. Externally illuminated by separate lighting source. 3. Tenant signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area unless the logo is the sign. 4. Within Sector Il, architecturally, building -integrated panel tenant/logo sign may be permitted based on criteria that the signage is compatible with and complementary to the building design and architecture. 5. Back lit awnings are prohibited. Projecting Signs The letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign area. 2. All wooden signs shall be sandblasted and letters shall be an integral part of the building's architecture. 3. Signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered and such minimal messages such as date of establishment of business. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band or within the projecting sign and do not occupy more than fifteen (15) percent of the sign display area. 4. Projecting signs shall be stationary, may not be self -illuminated but may be lighted by surface mounted fixtures located on the sign or the adjacent facade. 5. Projecting signs shall be limited to one per tenant on street frontage and pedestrian passageway and my not exceed six square feet. Letters shall have a maximum height of 12 inches. 6. Projecting signs shall be a minimum of eight feet above the sidewalk and shall not project more than six feet from the building facade. Bokoo Bikes Administrative Appeal March 7, 2000 Page 4 7. Plastic, plexi-glass, clear plex, or similar material projecting signs are prohibited unless used in conjunction with other decorative materials. 8. Projecting signs may be painted, prefinished, or utilize exposed metal. Any exposed metal shall be anodized aluminum, stainless steel, titanium, bronze, or other similar non- corrosive or ono -oxidizing materials. Window Signs 1. Window signs shall not cover more than 25 percent of the window area in which they are located. 2. Window signs shall not use bright, garish, or neon paint, tape, chalk, or paper. Menu Signs 1. Shall be located at eye level adjacent to tenant entries and shall not exceed 4 feet in height. 2. Shall be used only to convey daily specials, menus and offerings and shall be wood framed chalkboard and/or electronic board with temporary handwritten lettering. No paper construction or messages will be permitted. 3. Menu signs shall be limited to one per tenant and may not exceed 8 square feet. Festive Flags/Banners 1. Flags and banners shall be permitted on approved standards attached to the building facade and on standards attached to pedestrian area lighting. 2. Plastic flags and banners are prohibited. 3. Flags and banners shall be constructed of fabric. 4. Banners shall not contain advertising for individual users, businesses, services, or products. 5. Flags -and banners shall project from buildings a maximum of two feet. 6. Flags and banners shall have a maximum area of 10 square feet. Bokoo Bikes Administrative Appeal March 7, 2000 Page 5 7. Flags and banners which are torn or excessively worn shall be removed at the request of the city. Building Directory In multi -tenant buildings, one building directory sign may be permitted. The directory sign shall not exceed eight square feet. Pole Directory Sign l . Pole directory signs consisting of single poles with individual nameplate type directional arrows may be located within the development. 2. Pole directory sign shall not exceed 15 feet in height. 3. Directory signs shall be a minimum of eight feet above the sidewalk. 4. A maximum of eight directory signs may be provided per pole. The maximum size of an individual sign shall be 18 inches long by four inches wide. 6. Poles shall be a minimum of 10 feet behind the curb. DISCUSSION The design standards are specific regarding the location of signage: Wall business signs shall comply with the city's sign ordinance for the central business district for determination of maximum sign area. Wall signs may be permitted on the "street" front and primary parking lot front of each building. In this instance, the street front and primary parking areas are Lake Drive (south of the building) and the parking area (east of the building). While the property does extend up to the north along the sidewalk, the primary parking area is to the east. To the west is an outlot that eliminates this parcel's direct frontage on Market Boulevard. AmericInn and Houlihan's have either direct street frontage or primary parking areas on three sides of their buildings and are thus permitted signage on up to three exterior elevations. As part of the approval, the city included the following condition: "Provided that signage is only proposed on two building elevations, the applicant may choose which two elevations will have Bokoo Bikes Administrative Appeal March 7, 2000 Page 6 signage". We have, therefore, already permitted some relief from the strict interpretation of the regulations. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission affirm staff's interpretation of the regulation regarding signage for Bokoo Bikes that signage may be located on two elevations only. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Kelly K. Vigil to Kate Aanenson dated 2/21/00 2. Fax from Vernelle Clayton to Bob Generous dated 2/16/00 3. West Elevation with Sign Area 4. North Elevation with Sign Area 5. East Elevation with Sign Area 6. Sign Image Sign Schematic 7. Reduced Site Plan - The Peddler Cyclery 8. Reduced Building Elevation The Peddler Cyclery 9. Memo from Mika Milo to Vernell Clayton re: Village on the Ponds, Architectural Review Committee review of proposed sign for `Bokoo Bikes' store g:\plan\bg\bokoo bikes admin appeal.doe CNIGILCompaniesud . 2/21/00 Ms. Kate Aaenson Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Ms. Aaenson: ►f' 1'r EJ CITY U I am writing to appeal an administrative decision regarding the exterior signage for my new building/business, Bokoo Bikes. I respectfully disagree with the interpretation request that this decision be reversed, and allow for three exterior signs, for the following justifications: • The signs' high quality is in keeping with the construction standards we have established (see attached specifications from Sign Images). • The signs' scale and locations are harmonious with the architecture (see attached elevations). • The building is visible to drive by traffic on all four sides The north side faces Highway 5 and a third sign on this side will increase our exposure greatly. • My husband, Ed Vigil, recently spoke with Bob Generous regarding this matter. He indicated that he would approve our signage plan after it was approved by the Village on the Ponds Architectural Committee (it was approved, see attached fax to Mr. Generous from Vernelle Clayton of Lotus Realty). • A precedent has been set by two neighboring buildings within the Village on the Ponds development, AmericInn and Houlihan's both have three exterior signs. We would very much appreciate your efforts in presenting this issue to the appropriate City staff promptly as we need to start production as soon as possible. Please let me know if you have enough information to proceed with this request. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Yours truly, V Kelly K. Vigil 11191 Burr Ridge Lane, Eden Prairie, MN 55347 • (PH) 612-942-0887 • (FAX) 612-942-0860 Fob-17-00 11:05A Lotus Realty P_O1 1 z,c/ru , tt1i;ALT1 SEEN' G �laf�q � G Pl?Qa1 OUS3 DATZff- X1Wffff I q TO N FROM Vgrnalle Clayton pAIP Re: Vigil Sign Plan Mika has been trying to get out of town since Monday, so I have had only one brief conversation with him regarding the Vigil Sign Plan since you and I spoke. In that conversation 1 let him know that the location of the proposed Jign for the north elevation had been changed, thus alleviating his Ct)nvern regarding the location. 1 then verified the scale on the sign contractors drawings, drew the signs to scale on our file copies of the elevation drawings and faxed a reduction of each to Mika this inorning. His office called me a few minutes ago to say that Mika had stopped in at the office on the fly after a meeting and before departing for a brief vacation. He -checked my fax and asked his office to call me to say Thanks for the research. Tell Vernelic I agree with her. A copy of my fax to Mika containing the continents to which lie said he agreed is attached. SSf WEST 70TH STAEET ■ P.O. BOX 235 ■ CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ■ (612) 93445.98 0 FAX (612) 934-5472 P-GS Feb-17-00 11:07A Lotus Realty N, Fab-27-00 22:06A Lotus RQalty IC 30- 1 8i a P. 04 * I^• ..YIM "I'" Fob-17-00 11:06A Lotus Roalty o: • it d P.03 A �� r t e8 i �-o z 8 rA r-, a J L 7 w a 79 W • ■ O a o Z �J� F�- 0 U) c0 t m two 0 0 p = isV 11 7 1 1 0 &-L. J7 -n - r T .' I r � �� t Y y fa�; G eiosauUM 'uasseyuey:) € zz !� r �121 IDAD 2131003d 3Hl # WF `�s 1 • jog Suipp�S pasodoJd # a a R 1I s !fa W W 9 ti9t � a s noWi11 J! i�i19 `t x`� 111.1[dJ�ji� 'i�����y���Yi�� � =� II II i oo`>e W 4! �J # '�# • ##j�m, a pia t: Y�J'jr�1# #11I1l I#l°�iFg;} 1 111'j lll�ir�-.' .N„ as 1 # 7 t 7 F 1 ...,.......dial E,t ! a..._._#ai3ili �........ o.... e•i..... ........ ..i� eii. Wo - III^• . �- L r Nil on rlos*UUIW 'uasseyuv4V�1131�J1� 2131aa3d 3Hl-l�l 411j03 ;�wpp�e pasodoJd ! E ! 111. e !. Yd 1;; I!. � • FROM : Sign Images, Inc. PHONE NO. : 612 428 1599 Fib-14-00 10:4BA Lotus Realty fl"17 /,0be 13:15 61956582U3 Mar. 07 2000 09:41AM P1 P.OZ F1r A►';fit• ��► �= t N ENIORANDUM VcMalle Clayton Lotus klcalty services 651 Wwt 7e Street Chanhassen, UN 55317 CC � �� B.abarr Generous Ftam: Mika Milo, .A.IA Rz: Village on tba Ponds, Architenbusl Review Committee review of proposed aigns for "Sokoo Bikes" star -- Bused on your and the City of C> ssen's ftquest, and the black & white Copies of the sign paokAge proposed, we are issuing the following camaents: 1_ -Ilie amity pinta ob=v ,Zrs W rtvivw the proposed signs dimensions and tweas for cota%nnaaae with city ordiz%•ssaas. 1. The sign desigi, wi$t the pelt painted to natzh tho buildings b=kgrouad color, is aeceprabie and approved by A. R, C However, it appears that the signs on all throe locations are meant to be 12'61" long sad 4' high (7) Whit- that tnsky fit 0A the Fast aftuance elevations, it may be too big fot the other two lomlions-, tspet ially vtt the North elevation n=ow tewcr. 3. The position of this signs on the Notch tower does not look in harmany with the Tower's atchiwdtnral elements (too crowded). Is it possible to elimbiate the mnopy.abmt the dom and place the sigo there instead? Consideration tv the above suggcsdons would be aMrecistod: Please feel fiat to contact the if you have any quo%ions. Thank you for your attention to fWa Matt= and have a.great. holWa9 wetkead! sincerCly, Mika Milo, AIA 250 Prairie Center Drive Stu, 207 E4= Pratde, r.V4 a53441'ltone: 61y9a4-6242 Fay 612-944-a106 E'miii sross(�rna�►tch.com 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 46 MEMORANDUM TO: 690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 FROM: Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.937,1900 DATE: General Fax 612.937,5739 Engineering Fax 612.937.9152 SUB7: Public Safety Fax 612.934.2524 Web www. ci. canhassen, inn. us Planning Commission Phillip Elkin, Water Resources Coordinator March 7, 2000 Wetland Alteration Permit — Metropolitan Council Liquid Waste Hauler Site Improvements Site and Grading Plan The applicant is proposing to fill 0.13 acres of an ag/urban wetland for the , construction of a liquid waste hauler site in the City of Chanhassen. The site is located on Park Place across from the City's Public Works Garage. This site will basically be a parking lot where commercial sanitary sewer septic system providers can empty sewage directly into the city's sanitary sewer line. Currently, there is no site for this service within the City of Chanhassen. Currently, when a commercial vendor has to dispose of waste, City Public Works staff must lift a street manhole and supervise the disposal. By constructing this new site, the city will have a permanent place which will not require staff attendance and sewage can be safely and legally removed. The City of Chanhassen has contributed an outlot to this project located in the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park development. This outlot is adjacent to a wetland on the north and an existing parking lot on the south. Access to this site will go over an existing drainage ditch into a larger wetland complex to the north. Impacts to the drainage system are considered incidental, however, there will be some filling of the wetland needed to create this site. Because of the availability and cost of land within the City of Chanhassen, there are very limited locations for this project. This site was chosen because of its proximity to the Public Works Garage where City crews can assist and monitor activities of haulers. The Metropolitan Council is funding this project, while the City is providing the site and the wetland mitigation through the City's wetland bank. This project was originally scheduled to be approved administratively. Once it was determined there would be wetland impacts, staff initiated a wetland alteration permit to comply with City and State rules. Staff's recommendation is that this is a much -needed project. It benefits the entire city in the services it provides and is the type of project the wetland bank was established to serve. City staff is recommending approval of this wetland alteration permit. Tlje City of Chanhassen. Agrowing coinnzuntt�, with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. Wetland Alteration Permit #00-2 March 7, 2000 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #00-2 to permit the filling of 0.13 acres of an ag/urban wetland for the construction of a liquid waste hauler site." ATTACHMENTS 1. City of Chanhassen Wetland Banking Inventory. 2. Grading and Utility Plan. 3. Public hearing and property owners list. . USI\volt\eng\phillip\wetlands\liquid waste site permit.doc U vC rn 0000 00 00 00 �6 M kt� N V' N kn ✓� � � M M M N N N 00 � � M C� 00 M ..i N dF iF WD M �^ N 00 z cu o U N O U � N c � cd U cz Cd U N U 4 U o a, m N�> U O za84) U a :� za* 01) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Wetland Alteration APPLICANT: Metropolitan Council and Permit City of Chanhassen LOCATION: Park Place NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicants, Metropolitan Council and City of Chanhassen, request a Wetland Alteration Permit for a septic hauler site located on Park Place. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Phillip at 937-1900 ext. 105. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on March 9, 2000. 1 KIMBE 2 Kelly Co 3 Nichola - r - - W - —, 8 - ---- 1..---- �?h stre --- _. McGlynn Dr l \ Park Court J j -- C) I I_ Coulter Blvd_ - -_ -- \ - -- - W Park Road -g � �jri ' � I P� o 1 Essex Rd 4 Rosewood Dr v Dr e�ae%� Powers Place; V'� A— �; I s Nms \off .\�4P ®09Is Jasel slagel ssaippd QAH3AVQ CITY OF CHANHASSE SCOTT BOTCHE 690 CITY ER DR PO 147 C ANHASSEN, MN 55317 UNITED MAILING INC 1001 PARK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DUKE REALTY LIMITED PTRSHP 1550 UTICA AVE S STE 120 ST LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 STEVEN C WILLETTE C/O LAKESHORE EQUIPMENT 7851 PARK DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DUKE REALTY LIMITED PT P 1550 UTICA AVE 120 ST LOUIS , MN 55416 GARY F GOLL 1455 PARK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN JER-GENS PROPERTY MGMT CO SCOTT BOTCH 4645 OLD KENT RD 690 CITY NTER DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 PO, BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ALFRED A IVERSEN PMT CORPORATION 1500 PARK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DUKE REALTY LIMITED PTRSHP 1550 UTICA AVE-S--STE 120 ST LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 GERALD J BOWEN FAMILY TRUST C/O STEVE NOSEK & R KARLSON 701 4TH AVE S STE 700 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 ROBERT D & CARMEN J CHRISTIANS 6851 CARDINAL COVE DR MOUND, MN 55364 CHANHASSEN HRA 690 CITY CENTER -DR PO BOX-1'47 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O,,- SCOTT BOTCHER✓ , 690 CITY CENTER DR PO B¢X'147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 K & L PARTNERS 7870 PARK DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DUKE REALTY LIMI TRSHP 1550 UTICA S STE 120 ST LO ARK, MN 55416 DUKE REALTY LIMITED PHP 1550 UTICA AVE E 120 ST LOS K, MN 55 UI416 DAVID W BROCKPAHLER C/O DAY - CO CONCRETE CO 1340 PARK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 THOMAS ZWICKEL JR 18298 NICKLAUS WAY EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 CHANHASSEN HRA� 690 CITY CEN- -R- P O BOX�jA, CHAiQHASSEN, MN 55317 FLENINGE PTRSHP C/O LARS E AKERBERG 121 3RD ST W PO BOX 158 CHASKA, MN 55318 RAY E JOHNSON 11001 HAMPSHIRE AVE S BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN MEMORANDUM TO: 690CigCenter Drive, POBox 147 FROM: Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.937.1900 General Fax 612.937.5739 Engineering Fax 612.937,9152 Public Safety Fax 612.934,2524 Web wwwci.chanhassen.mn.us DATE: RE: PROPOSAL Planning Commission Planning Staff March 8, 2000 Issue Paper - Petting Farms in A-2 Zoning District, Susan McAllister, 7461 Hazeltine Blvd. A zoning ordinance amendment to allow petting farms as a conditional use in the A-2, Agricultural Estate Zoning District. The intent of the A-2 district is to preserve rural character while respecting development patterns by allowing single-family residential development. SUMMARY The purpose of this memorandum is to present and address the issues associated with allowing petting farms. As staff first discussed this proposal with the applicant the use appeared to be farni related. Presently, it is more of a petting zoo. The first step is to decide if the city wants a petting zoo/farm use in the city and if they do, where should they be located and under what conditions. If the Commission gives the staff direction to pursue a change, the next step will be to prepare and present a zoning ordinance amendment based upon comments received from this report. BACKGROUND Any proposed code amendment affects all similarly zoned property. The zoning ordinance does not address petting farms as accessory uses. When staff first contemplated the use it was under the guise that it would be ancillary to a farm use, something akin to apple orchards were you pick your own apples with the primary use of the property being agricultural. A petting farm or zoo may not be an ancillary use. While it is not the staffs intent to review a specific proposal at this time, it would be impractical not to take into consideration the applicant's request. It includes animals not customarily found on a farm (including peacocks, chinchillas, pheasants, prairie dogs) and retail activity (story books, natural fertilizer, eggs and farm related gift ware). 5, The City o f Chanhassen. Agrowing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, and beautiful parks. ATreat place to live, work, and play. Planning Commission Petting Farm Issue Paper March 8, 2000 Page 2 Other Ordinances As part of the review process, staff contacted counties within the area to determine the prevalence of regulations for petting farms. Petting farms are not specifically addressed so ordinances dealing with agricultural businesses and recreational uses are presented in the following summary. A petting farm is ultimately a tourism -based agricultural use. Carver County: Farm -Related Business — Business directly related to the conduct of commercial agriculture provided the following criteria are met: A. The business is 70 percent farm related under 1 or more of the following criteria: 1. The business provides a repair of maintenance service for equipment unique and necessary to agricultural operations, or; 2. The business produces a product or involves a process that utilizes locally grown or produced commodities, or; 3. The business involves sales and/or purchasing of products of the local agricultural economic or of goods unique and necessary to agricultural operations. B. Sewage can be treated by an on -site sewage system and in accordance with Ordinance 421. C. The business is of a scale that the demand for support services such as sewer, water, police, fire protection, roads or streets, can be accommodated with the context of the service levels available in the commercial agricultural area. D. The business is operated in conformance with the conditions of an approved plan of operation and the applicable provisions of 2.02 and 2.04. E. The applicant submits a copy of Worker's Compensation Insurance or signs an affidavit stating that he will not have any employees. Scott County: Outdoor Recreational Use: In intensive recreational uses requiring large amounts of space such as shooting clubs, golf courses, archery, driving range, ice rink, and similar uses that are privately and publicly owned and operated with the intention of earning profit by providing entertainment and/or recreational opportunities for the public. . Planning Commission Petting Farm Issue Paper March 8, 2000 Page 3 This type of activity is a conditional use in the General Agricultural District A-2. ANALYSIS As previously mentioned, initial information from the applicant indicated the site would be operating as a farm. The proposed plan is of a much higher intensity and could probably be considered a zoo. Thus, not operating as an accessory to an agricultural use, but a commercial operation. This type of activity could operate in the A-2 zoning district, but with specific standards. The following section several issues and concerns associated with this proposed use. Issues associated with a petting�farm/zoo Acreage: o Should a minimum lot area be required (10-20-40 acres)? o Surrounding land uses and proximity to other residences. Use o Should the use be limited to farm related animals with a permanent residence home on the site or can it be more "zoo like in nature? Limit the number and type of animals? o How many guests would be allowed at one time? The McAllister proposal has 20 parking stalls and space for two buses. There will be other employees. Accessory Use vs. Primary Use of the Site o Should a maximum floor area be specified? o If the use is not accessory to the principal use it may be more commercial that agricultural in nature. o How would a primary vs. accessory use be determined? Access o Should the activity be required to be accessed from an arterial or collector roadway? Other Agency Permits o A standard for this type of use should require that permits be received from all agencies that have jurisdiction (i.e., Carver County, DNR, USDA) Retail Activities o Should retail activities be prohibited? If they are permitted, at what scale (percentage) and what sort of things? Customer Parking o Should the parking area be improved, hard surface, gravel or maintained lawn area? Planning Commission Petting Farm Issue Paper March 8, 2000 Page 4 Staff believes the concept of a petting farm is fine for an agricultural zoning district, however specific standards need to be prepared that protect the neighboring properties, limit the scope of the project and protect the character of the agricultural area. RECOMMENDATION Staff is seeking direction on this ordinance amendment request. Attachments 1. "Agricultural Zoning: News, August 1993. 2. Properties zoned A-2. 3. MN Statute 97A.041. Managing Growth, Protecting Farms" Zoning Exhibition of Wildlife. g:\plan\ck\zoning ordinance amendments\petting farms in a-2.doc Agricultural Zoning: Managing Growth, Protecting Farms By Tom Daniels Farmland protection has come to be recognized as a key ingredient in the overall effort to manage growth. More than 400 local govern- ments now employ agricultural zoning both to manage growth and to protect farmland. Hawaii, Oregon, and Wisconsin have enacted statewide zoning programs that emphasize agricultural zoning. Zoning's primary purpose is to separate conflicting land uses. Local governments use agricultural zoning to promote the continu- ation of agricultural activities in suitable areas and to minimize residential land uses that are incompatible with farming. In rural areas, agricultural zoning usually reflects the current land use and often the "highest and best" use. But agricultural zoning is fre- quently found in the rural -urban fringe, a band of land 15 to 40 miles outside major metropolitan centers where farming is giving way to residential, commercial, and industrial development. In the fringe areas, many residents do not understand that agriculture today is essentially an industrial land use. Although the sight of green pastures and rolling cropland is aesthetically pleasing, people who move to the country to be next to farmland are often in for a rude awakening. The sound of heavy farm equipment late at night or very early in the morning does not fit in with the rural idyll. Nor does the smell of manure or drifting chemical sprays or clouds of dust. And slow -moving farm machinery can tie up traffic. Agricultural zoning has become popular as a low-cost approach to growth management. It is also the foundation for successful purchase -of -development -rights (PDR) and transfer -of -develop- ment -rights (TDR) programs, such as in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, and Montgomery County, Maryland. As part of a comprehensive planning strategy, agricultural zoning can be the first line of defense in farmland protection. Enough farms and farmland must be placed under agricultural zoning to create a "critical mass" that can enable farm -support businesses to remain profitable. Agricultural zoning should also limit the number of nonfarm uses allowed. For example, some ordinances allow golf courses as an outright permitted use. A more immediate concern is how many nonfarm residences will be permitted. The test of the strictness of an agricultural zoning ordinance is how much nonresidential development it will allow. This is also a test of how reasonable the ordinance is in striking a balance between farmland protection and allowing the land- owner some potential for nonfarm development. This balance, in turn, depends on three factors: local politics (whether local citizens want to protect farmland and whether local officials will enact and fund programs for land -use regulation and land protection); how state courts regard agricultural zoning (as a government taking of property value or as a legitimate use of government police power to protect the public health, safety, and welfare); and the expectations of farmland owners concerning what they can or cannot do with their land. AUGUST 1993 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Local citizens together with local officials and planners need to decide on land -use goals for the community. Do they want farmland protection or open space protection? The appropriate techniques will depend on the answer. If local elected officials are wary of passing strict land -use ordinances, and if the courts are reluctant to uphold agricultural zoning, then farmland will be converted to a nonfarm use sooner rather than later. If farmland owners have long harbored notions of selling their land for "cop -dollar" nonfarm uses, then enacting Lancaster County, Pennsylvania agricultural zoning may be politically difficult unless some kind of compensation, through property tax breaks or purchase of develop- ment rights or both, is offered. Some farmland owners argue that land -use restrictions take away their equity. This is not altogether accurate. Equity is what was paid for the land plus mortage principal payments. Equity does not include anticipated future value in a nonfarm use. Government is under no obligation to guarantee a landowner's capital gain. Courts in Oregon and Pennsylvania have upheld agricultural zoning, and it has not been challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court. Even the recent Supreme Court decisions in First Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles and Nollan v. California Coastal Commission have not resulted in an assault on agricultural zoning ordinances as some planners feared. Nonetheless, agricultural zoning has not fared well in some states such as Massachusetts, where two -acre zoning is the standard. What passes for agricultural zoning is really large -lot residential zoning and beats no relation to the minimum amount of land needed to support a commercial farming operation. For example, Delaware's three counties have a half -acre minimum lot size in their agriculture and general purpose zone. Another problem is that the lack of coordination among jurisdictions can easily frustrate comprehensive regional agricultural zoning. Also, even the most carefully prepared zoning maps and ordinances are subject to variances, zoning amendments, rezonings, and special exceptions. As a result, zoning is notorious for its lack of permanence. In short, if local officials and the courts support local ordinances, and if farmland owners perceive agriculture as a reasonable use of their property, then agricultural zoning can be an effective tool. In places with little development pressure, farmland protection is not a crucial issue. But in areas with moderate to intense development pressure, local officials, courts, and landowners are facing complex options. Farming is a business, subject to changing economic times and technology. It must be profitable for land to be zoned for agricul- ture. Also, advances in technology may mean that less land is needed for farming in the future. Protecting the land base is but one piece of the puzzle in the overall maintenance of a viable local or regional farm economy. But the land base is the one factor over which local governments have some control. Census projections indicate that by 2050, there will be 383 million Americans. Worldwide, there may be as many as 9 billion people. The need for food, shelter, office space, retail space, and production facilities is clear. The challenge is where to locate these buildings and how to make them mesh into an efficient and attractive pattern of land use. Innovations in Lancaster County Lancaster County lies about 60 miles west of Philadelphia and is an island of green in the Boston -to -Washington corridor. It is the leading agricultural county in the Northeast and ranks among the top 20 nationally with an output of $845 million in farm products in 1991. Lancaster County is a major producer of milk, poultry, hogs, and tobacco. Agriculture leads the local economy and contributes much to the county's $400 million -per -year tourist industry. Lancaster County is well-known for its Amish and Mennonite people, many of whom are employed in farming. Two-thirds of the county, roughly 400,000 acres, is still in farm use. But 422,000 people live in the county, with more than 545,000 expected by 2010. Since the early 1980s, it has lost about 3,000 acres of farmland yearly. Perhaps the biggest problem arises from people buying a few acres in the country for the open views. They often do not anticipate the noise, dust, and odors. Lancaster County's farmland protection efforts involve both voluntary programs and local land -use regulations. The first line of defense is called "effective agricultural zoning." In most townships, this means that a landowner is allowed one building lot per 25 acres, with the building lot subject to a maximum size of two acres. This type of zoning is also known as fixed -area -ratio zoning. For example, the owner of 100 acres would be allowed to subdivide up to four lots and a maximum of eight acres, retaining 92 acres for farming. Some township ordinances allow a building lot for acreage above the multiple of 25. For example, if a landowner has 60 acres, three lots would be allowed rather than two. In others, only two would be permitted. Two townships permit only one building lot per 50 acres. Since the average farm size in the county is 85 acres, this is quite restrictive. Torn Daniels is director of the Agricultural Preserve Board in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Opinions in the article are his own and are not necessarily those of the board or county. Some townships use sliding -scale zoning, in which the number of lots allowed varies with the size of the farm parcel. There are now 280,000 acres zoned for effective agriculture in Lancaster County, and it is found in 36 of the county's 41 townships. The combination of fixed -area and sliding -scale zoning has worked well in Lancaster County in balancing some rural residential development with farmland protection. And it is probably a more effective form of zoning than the large mini - SLIDING -SCALE AGRICULTURAL ZONING Brecknock Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania Total Number of Dwelling Units Size of Tract in Acres or Lots Permitted At least 1 but less than 6 acres .............................1 At least 7 but less than 30 acres ...........................2 30+ acres.............................................................. 3 Plus one additional unit or lot for each 50 acres to a maximum of 10 dwellings mum -lot -size zoning employed in Oregon where, for example, a 40-acre minimum is standard in the productive Willamette Valley. The Oregon approach means that a landowner with 100 acres could subdivide one 40-acre lot for a "farm -related dwelling" and retain 60 acres. There is also a provision for nonfarm -related dwellings that has been much abused. The Oregon approach has resulted in a large number of "rural ranchettes" or "hobby farms" within agricultural zones. One criticism often leveled at agricultural zoning is that it is easily changed. In a recent study of agricultural zoning in Lancaster County, Robert Coughlin of the University of Pennsylvania found that nearly four times as much land was placed in agricultural zones as was removed between 1980 and 1990. Coughlin reported that "a desire to protect farming and the way of life it implies underlay the decisions of most townships to adopt agricultural zoning. That desire resulted in action when it was combined with strong leadership and the experience of development that threatened the local farming economy." (For a copy of the study, "The Adoption and Stability of Agricultural Zoning in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania," contact the Department of City and Regional Planning, 127 Meyerson Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6311, or call (215) 898-8329.) In 1992, the Lancaster County Planning Commission removed rural cluster or "open space" zoning from its growth management plan. The fear was that rural cluster would encourage the accommo- dation of new residents in the countryside and thereby increase the possibility of conflicts between farmers and nonfarmers. The plan advocates the creation of urban and village growth boundaries to promote more compact development patterns and discourage sprawl into farming areas. Limited rural residential development is allowed as part of the agricultural zoning ordinances and on five - acre lots in "resource" areas where there are physical and environ- mental limitations to farming. Zoning and the Right to Farm Every state has enacted a right -to -farm law to protect farmers from nuisance suits concerning standard farming practices. There have been few direct legal challenges to right -to -farm laws, but nuisance suits against farmers are fairly common. They are expensive to farmers and threaten to restrict the operation and profitability of farms. Some townships in Lancaster County have included a nuisance disclaimer in their ordinances. Although the disclaimer will not stop nonfarm neighbors from complaining about nearby 2 I farming activities, it weakens the ability of nonfarmers to gain standing in filing a nuisance suit. A step beyond the nuisance disclaimer, called a resource easement, has recently been implemented in Fremont County, Idaho. In its agricultural zone, owners of new nonfarm parcels must record an easement restriction that acknowledges that farming practices may conflict with residential activities. The easement runs with the land and must be in place before any new home construction commences. Farm -Based Business Ordinance Eleven townships in Lancaster County have adopted a farm -based business ordinance as part of their agricultural zoning regulations. Limiting farm -based businesses to areas zoned for agriculture reduces the likelihood of conflicts with residential development. The farm -based business ordinance permits certain on -farm enterprises and agricultural support businesses, which can supple- ment farm income, improve the efficiency of farming, and provide employment for farm family members. Farm -based businesses must remain an accessory use, secondary to the primary agricultural use of an actively farmed property, and should not interfere with adjacent farming operations, cause nuisances for nearby residences, or generate large amounts of traffic. Most townships permit farm -based businesses by special excep- tion or conditional use. Special exceptions are granted by the local zoning board of adjustment. Conditional uses must be approved by AGRICULTURAL NUISANCE DISCLAIMER OF WARWICK TOWNSHIP, LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA All lands within the Agricultural Zone are located within an area where land is used for commercial agricultural production. Owners, residents, and other users of this property or neighboring properties may be subjected to inconvenience, discomfort, and the possibility of injury to property and health arising from normal and accepted agricultural practices and operations, including but not limited to, noise, odors, dust, the operation of machinery of any kind, including aircraft, the storage and disposal of manure, and the application of fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides. Owners, occupants, and users of this property or neighboring properties should be prepared to accept such inconveniences, discomfort, and possibility of injury from normal agricultural operations, and are hereby put on official notice that Section 4 of the Pennsylvania Act 133 of 1982, "The Right to Farm Law," may bar them from obtaining a legal judgment against such normal agricultural operations. the local governing body and are usually reserved for uses that will have a significant impact on the entire community. The farm -based business ordinance includes limitations on size through a floor -area maximum of 4,000 square feet, a maximum of six full-time nonresi- dent employees, a 100-foot setback from all property lines and location within 100 feet of the farm residence, and a maximum of one acre devoted to the business, including outdoor storage, parking, and any buildings. Also, the types of businesses allowed are often listed. Local officials are warned not to approve subdivisions solely for the creation of farm -related businesses. Earlier this year, the Iowa Senate passed a bill allowing counties to create "agricultural enterprise zones," which would offer property tax breaks and immunity from nuisance suits for agricultural operations such as feedlots. These zones could be formed virtually anywhere on county land at the request of at least 50 petitioners. Opponents cautioned against spot zoning and preferred comprehensive planning to determine appropriate locations for the zones. The Iowa House rejected the senate bill, and a conference committee report favored promoting the creation of agricultural areas under existing Iowa law. These areas provide farmers with some protection against nuisance suits involving standard farming practices. The law that finally passed requires that, if a court determines that a nuisance lawsuit is frivolous, the plaintiff must pay court costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred by the defendant. It also allows the creation of new agricultural areas of just 300 acres, rather than the current 500 acres. At present, there are 41 agricultural areas in Iowa. The Farmland Protection Package Agricultural zoning is best employed as part of a package of farmland protection techniques. One of the biggest giveaways . consists of farm property tax breaks that have not traditionally been linked with agricultural zoning. This connection needs to be made to ensure that real commercial farmers are getting the tax break and that farmers who do not want the tax break cannot easily sell out for development. Also, land should be zoned for agriculture in order to be eligible for purchase- or transfer -of -development -rights pro- grams. This will keep down the cost of any one purchase, enable more development rights to be acquired, and give some protection to farmers who have sold or donated their development rights. The danger is that a preserved farm can act as a magnet for development around it. This defeats the purpose of farmland preservation. Agricultural zoning helps give some assurance that preserved farms will not be surrounded by nonfarm development. For example, in Lancaster County, more than 15,000 acres of farmland have been preserved, and nearly all of that farmland and adjacent lands are zoned for agriculture as well. In Montgomery County, Maryland, more than 30,000 acres of farmland have been pre- served, mainly through transfer of development rights. The TDR program was made possible largely by the downzoning of 78,000 acres to agriculture at a density of one lot per 25 acres. The Future Agricultural zoning will remain an important ingredient in state and local growth management efforts. For the foreseeable future, most population growth can be expected to occur in or next to metro- politan counties. Many jurisdictions across the U.S. will continue to struggle to formulate growth management responses both to curb rising public service costs at a time of tight budgets and to maintain open space and the elusive "quality of life." The future profitability of farming, however, remains a large question mark. If federal budget cuts force major reductions in farm programs, then grain and dairy farming will suffer. If the biotechnol- ogy revolution takes hold and the production of meat, milk, and grains soars, then prices will fall and many farmers could be forced out of business. In short, agricultural zoning makes sense only if agriculture is profitable. Nonetheless, its legal foundations are fairly strong. It is often the political will to "downzone" land to agricultural use or to refrain from rezoning land out of agriculture that is lacking. L.A. Retains Village Aura in Brentwood By Ellen Wolfe For decades, Brentwood Village has provided an enclave of small shops and tree -lined streets in the heavily developed Los Angeles Westside. Despite development pressures, action taken this spring by the L.A. City Council will ensure that this tiny shopping district will retain those features. The village occupies just 3.4 acres along Barrington Avenue just south of Sunset Boulevard. The surrounding area is a mix of single- family homes with larger -scale commercial and residential uses lining major boulevards. Brentwood Village, in contrast, is a district carved into 40 small lots, its small-town charm defined by an eclectic mix of shops and restaurants. Don Taylor, a Los Angeles city planner and hearing examiner, says the council's action strikes a compromise among merchants, property owners, and Brentwood residents in surrounding neighbor- hoods. The zoning agreement halves the development density allowed in. Brentwood, restricting floor space to three-quarters of the lot size. Current property owners, however, were granted grandfather rights, allowing them to renovate or rebuild up to the existing floor space and height of their buildings. Those rights are restricted to single lots, however, to prevent massing structures on several parcels, Taylor says. He notes that many of the buildings in Brentwood Village are "functionally obsolete," and the zoning agreement preserves property owners' right to upgrade their buildings. "The agreement assures that the community can continue to enjoy the pedestrian -friendly atmosphere of the village," Taylor says. "At the same time, existing property owners will not be penalized if they want to rebuild or improve their properties. The agreement accommodates both sides." The zoning of Brentwood Village ignited an intense debate in 1991, when city council member Marvin Braude proposed limiting the square footage of new buildings to three-quarters of the lot size. The Brentwood Chamber of Commerce mounted strong opposi- tion, maintaining that many existing property owners would be out of conformance with the new regulations. In addition, some of the buildings in the village are nearly 50 years old and will require modernization or replacement, chamber members argued. The Brentwood Homeowners Association, with ] ,100 mem- bers, fought for the zoning restrictions to ensure that large-scale projects typical of nearby boulevards, such as the Wilshire Corridor, would be banned. Ellen Wolfe is a free-lance writer in Los Angeles. N.J. Improves Site Standards New Jersey is boosting the creation of affordable housing and streamlining its development approval process through a new law signed by Gov. James Florio in February. The law aims to lower housing costs by making residential land development Zoning News is a monthly newsletter published by the American Planning Association. Subscriptions are available for $45 (U.S.) and $54 (foreign). Israel Stollntan, Exeeutive:Director; Frank S. So, Deputy Executive Director. Zoning News is produced at APA. Jim Schwab, Editor; Michael Barrette, Luke Bogash, Mark Booczko, Fay Dolnick, Sarah Dunn, Michelle Gregory, Marya Morris, Amy Van Doren, Reporters; Cynthia Cheski, Assistant Editor; Lisa Barron, Design and Production. Copyright ©1993 by American Planning Association, 1313 E. 60th St., Chicago, IL 6063'. The American Planning Association has beadquar[crs offices at 1776 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20036. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing front the American Planning Association. Printed on rea•cled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber and 10% pos[consumer waste. practices more predictable and by establishing cost-effective and uniform site improvement standards, which will "represent a consensus of informed and interested parties and adequately address their concerns." A 12-member Site Improvement Advisory Board, operating within the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), will develop the site standards. The board, which first met on July 27, includes the DCA commissioner (nonvoting), the DCA housing division director, and 10 other members appointed by the commissioner to four-year terms. By law, these include two professional planners and eight representatives from designated statewide organizations. The board must submit its recommendations by the end of next January (180 days from its first meeting). It is expected to follow the recommendations of the Model Subdivision and Site Plan Ordinance written for DCA by David Listokin and Carole Walker of the Center for Urban Policy and Research at Rutgers University (available from APA's Planners Bookstore for $54.95 [$49.95 for APA members and PAS subscribers]). Although these standards supersede existing site improvement standards in local ordinances, they do not override local zoning powers or any state laws, such as the Pinelands Protection Act. Also, a municipality or developer may seek a waiver of any site improve- ment standard that it feels would jeopardize public health or safety. Fay Dolnick Call for Information Zoning News is seeking information on jurisdictions' experiences with zoning for highway interchanges for a future issue, as well as on the use of restrictive covenants by planning departments. Ordinances, planning documents, and related materials are welcome and should be sent to: Jim Schwab, Editor, Zoning News, APA, 1313 E. 60th St., Chicago IL 60637. GXeports Paths to Approval: Overcoming Obstacles to Bay Area Housing Development The Residential Approval Process: Development Regulation in the Bay Area Rolf Pendall. Bay Area Council, 200 Pine St., Suite 300, San Fran- cisco, CA 94104. May 1993. 16pp. Free; 164 pp. $25, respectively. The speed and efficiency with which local governments process and approve development applications is always a prime topic of discussion for planners and developers. This study uses data from 33 Bay Area jurisdictions to determine how environmental impact requirements, general plan amendments, and other considerations affect the approval process. One interesting finding: Most jurisdic- tions process proposals for affordable housing faster than those for market -rate housing, but a few use the process to stymie the introduction of affordable housing into their communities. The first volume above is a summary; the second details the specific statistical findings and includes case studies of individual communities. 4 Minnesota Statutes Display Document 4 of 6 Page 1 of 2 Minnesota Statutes 1999 Display Document 4 of 6 a Chapter Title: GAME AND FISH Section: 97A.041 Text: IB 97A.041 Exhibition of wildlife. Subdivision 1. Definition. For the purposes of this section, "wildlife" means any wild mammal, wild bird, reptile, or amphibian. Subd. 2. Possession. A person connected with a commercial enterprise may not possess wildlife in captivity for public exhibition purposes, except under permit as provided in this section. Subd. 3. Permit. The commissioner may issue a permit to possess wildlife for public exhibition to an applicant qualified by education or experience in the care and treatment of wildlife. The permit fee is $10. The commissioner may prescribe terms and conditions of the permit. A permit issued under this section shall include a condition that allows an enforcement officer to enter and inspect the facilities where the wildlife covered by the permit are held in captivity. Subd. 4. Permit application. An application for a permit must include: (1) a statement regarding the education or experience in the care :and treatment of wildlife of the applicant and each individual employed by the applicant for that purpose; (2) a description of the facilities used to keep the wildlife in captivity; (3) a statement of the number of species or subspecies of wildlife to be covered by the permit and a statement describing where and from whom the wildlife was acquired; http://www.revisor.leg.state..../Ascend%26M%3D4%26K%3D97A.041%26R%3DY%26U%3D 3/7/00 Minnesota Statutes Display Document 4 of 6 Page 2 of 2 (4) a signed agreement that the standards prescribed by the commissioner will be followed; and (5) other information requested by the commissioner. Subd. 5. Care and treatment. The commissioner shall adopt, under chapter 14, reasonable standards for the care and treatment of captive wildlife for public display purposes, including standards of sanitation. Subd. 6. ..-.More Mo WEP. i� Eli! RIMIIIIII EN ITO Iq Moog ago; littp://www.revisor. leg. state .... /Ascend%26M%3D4`/`26K%3D97A.041%26R%3DY%26U%3D 3/7/00