Loading...
01-04-89 Agenda and Packet /L:66 AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 4 , 1989 , 7 : 30 P.M. . CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE 7 :00 P.M. Interview Planning Commission Applicant 7:15 P.M. Organizational Items 1 . Elect Chair and Vice-Chair for 1989 . 2 . Review Planning Commission By-Laws. 3 . Elect HRA Liaison. 4 . Goals for 1989 . CALL TO ORDER ( 7 : 30 P.M. ) PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 . Carl Carrico - Property zoned RR, Rural Residential and located on Lake Lucy Lane, approximately mile west of Yosemite: a. Subdivision of 12 acres into 13 single family lots. b. Wetland Alteration Permit to Fill and Dredge a Portion of a Class B wetland. 2 . North West Nursery located on the west side of Hwy. 101, just south of County Road 18 , Mark VanHoff, applicant: a. Conditional Use Permit for expansion of a contractor' s yard on property zoned A-2, Agricultural Estate b . Wetland Alteration Permit to alter a Class A and B wetland 3 . Wetland Alteration Permit to Create a Pond in a Class B wetland, on Property zoned A-2, Agricultural Estate and located at 1551 Lyman Boulevard, George Dorsey. 4 . Wetland Alteration Permit to Dredge Silt Accumulation from an Existing Channel in a Class A Wetland on Property Zoned RSF, Single Family Residential and located generally South of the Lots Fronting on Washta Bay Road, Minnewashta Manor Channel Homeowners Association. OLD BUSINESS 5 . Heritage Square Apartments , Review and Approval of Conditions of Site Plan Approval to be met prior to Construction of Project . NEW BUSINESS 5 . Site Plan Review for a 21 ,600 square foot office ouildinQ, on property zoned CBD, Central Business District and located just east of 480 West 78th Street, Chanhassen Professional Building-Phase I , Arvid Elness Architects, Inc. — OPEN DISCUSSION 6 . Woodcrest Neighborhood - Discussion of Covenants and — Restrictions . APPROVAL OF MINUTES _ ADJOURNMENT CITYOF \ CHANHASSEN • • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 -• (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Steve Hanson, Planning Director DATE: December 29, 1988 SUBJ: Organizational Items 1 . Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson The Commission is required to elect a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson. Nominatiomay be made at the meeting. Staff will provide ballots for voting at the meeting. 2 . Review Planning Commission By-Laws Section 7 . 4 requires the 3y-Laws to be reviewed and adopted at the first meeting of the year . A motion of approval is recommended. 3 . Elect HRA Liaison The Planning Commission needs to appoint a commissioner as a representative tc the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The HRA meets the third Thursday of every month. Jim Wildermuth is the HRA Liaison presently. 4 . 1989 Goals The Commision has adopted work program goals each year. We should discuss goals for 1989 at this meeting. Copies of last year' s goals are attached for your review, as well as a copy of a memo from Jo Ann Olsen dated November 18, 1988. We should discuss goals at this meeting and staff will draft the goals for adoption at the next Planning Commission meeting on January 18 , 1989 . • CITY i= CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner \ ) DATE: January 6 , 1988 SUBJ: Review of 1987 Activities and 1988 Goals and Objectives Attached for your review are the Planning Department Goals for 1988 as well as the Department' s evaluation of goal achievement for 1987. Also provided is a summary work tasks completed by the Planning Department and a computation of planning cases processed in 1987 compared to previous years. In reviewing 1987 work tasks , the following items stand out: 1 . Completion of all requirements of the Lake Ann Sewer Facility Agreement. 2 . Administration of 134 planning cases , a significant portion of which were rural subdivision as well as major urban sub- divisions (Lake Susan Hills West, Saddlebrook, Kurvers Point, Shadowmere) . 3 . Adoption and implementation of the revised septic system ordinance. 4 . Continuation of the Comprehensive Plan update process which now includes a proposed trail plan. 5 . Continued participation in the Coalition of the Southwest Communities regarding the Metropolitan Council' s preparation of the water quality policy plan and the transportation policy plan. 6 . Continued participation in transportation studies such as the Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition for the improve- ment of TH 5 and TH 212 and the initiation and execution of the Joint Powers Agreement for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement and Design Study Report for TH 212. 7 . Concept alignment review of the TH 212 corridor. Mr. Don Ashworth January 6 , 1988 Page 2 The Comprehensive Plan revision process is approximately 50% complete. The revised Land Use and Housing Chapters have been reviewed by the Planning Commission. A delay in the update pro- cess occurred because the Park and Recreation Commission ini- tiated the park needs survey and a comprehensive trail plan for the city. Since this effort is completed, the Planning Commission is about to begin the final review stages of the plan update. The Transportation Chapter which will undoubtedly be the most controversial as major changes are being proposed. The public hearing process that will occur this year will focus on the proposed new intersection of TH 101 and TH 5 just west of Dakota Avenue. Also to be discussed is the rejuvenated process _ for the construction of TH 212 with proposed interchanges at TH 101 and the extension of County Road 17. While conducting the Comprehensive Plan update process , the City did meet with the Metropolitan Council several times to resolve issues regarding the Lake Ann Sewer Facility Agreement. At this time, the City is in full compliance with that agreement. _ In administering the 134 cases this year ( the most cases pro- cessed since 1984 ) a number of road improvement issues surfaced. As of this date, several road improvement feasibility studies are in process: Woodduck Lane, Tanadoona Drive, Teton Lane, and the realignment of West 78th Street. These projects signify the con- tinuing infill development in the older areas of Chanhassen and also represent a positive step toward proper transportation planning. The one goal in 1987 that was not achieved was the computerization of Planning Department data. Major objectives are to develop a "land parcel based" information system as well as to develop planning case, septic system and socio-economic information retrieval. Because there now exists a coordinated effort in house to achieve this goal department wide, this goal can be achieved in 1988. Attached are status reports of the Southwest Metro Transit Program and the Solid Waste Program. The Assistant Planner has established a smooth working program for spring and fall leaf -" pick-up in conjunction with the Public Works Department; however, more work looms on the horizon as local governments are respon- sible for developing programs consistent with county and regional solid waste plans . A Solid Waste Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan will be developed by the Planning Staff for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan update process . The Southwest Metro Transit operation will reach a significant milestone in 1988. The 18 month demonstration program will , expire in June of 1988 . The Southwest Metro Board will be — evaluating whether or not the decision to opt-out from the MTC Mr. Don Ashworth January 6 , 1988 Page 3 -' service was appropriate. As the Assistant Planner details, the Southwest Metro service has learned alot in the past year and is building on success. It appears at this point that the service will continue. The remaining goals of the Planning Department are ongoing acti- vities which are administered on a day to day basis. It should be noted that while these goals seem very general in description, these activities take up a significant portion of the Planning Department Staff' s time during the day. The Planning Commission was equally busy in 1987. Besides the Comprehensive Plan review process, the Planning Commission was involved in the TH 212 concept alignment review process and was obviously busy with the significant amount of case load this year. Three commissioners will be appointed by the City Council in January. y �- C 1 U L cc E r3 a C) rn U O''O r+ •'•t C C) • C C U • C) • ml Q N f3 Q1 r-! — b >. 3cL . • I-Ps )-i U) O M C) . C) is CJ ria — 4-) U ).4 C) 3 Q := 4_f ✓ rJ — C u) d-) C) c., E O > O 0 U ,-4 U rCi U Q JJ r C, C r > a C) O a) U (..7 -.-i M to CD Q 0 a, O < — ni H b . E -I .e Ca M O V) q h ,) — 1 ,-1 4..) - a 4-) C 0 o, Q :c la E Cr) — C H C) co4-4-4 U .-1 Z E U •.-4 OU EL) rC C) x a W H U — < N >1 NTS 73 'Cy 2n1 4-) a• o rou)st it • II o >-. o r+ rn- u ), .58 La a) Taiga) 4J qN 0 al •SNC -- — 0 I • b w - ' ON U) , i M. 3 w .9 $_, _ < •4 NW a --44 a U) u) 61 H W � •C H 'U 'CI >4 O a) 08 � a � ' A > ' I00 ,-4 • U H (3 .• LL +) 'L34.) •aC _ )U BYLAWS PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CHANHASSEN The following bylaws are adopted by the City Planning Commission to facilitate the performance of its duties and the exercising of its functions as a commission established by the City Council pursuant to the provision of Subdivision 1, Section 462 .354 Minnesota State Statutes anotated. SECTION 1 - Duties and Responsibilities - Planning Commission: 1 .1 The Planning Commission shall serve as an advisory body to the City Council through carrying out reviews of planning matters. All final decisions are to be made by the City Council. 1 . 2 The Planning Commission shall prepare a Comprehensive Plan for the future development of the City and recommend on amendments to the plan as they arise. 1 . 3 The Planning Commission shall initiate, direct, and review the provisions and standards of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations and report its recommendations to the City Council. 1 .4 The Planning Commission shall review applications and proposals for zoning ordinance amendments, subdivisions, street vacations, conditional use permits and site plan reviews and make their recommendations to the City Council in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. 1 .5 The Planning Commission shall hold public hearings on development proposals as prescribed by the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances . 1 .6 - Establishment of Subcommittees The Planning Commission may, as they deem appropriate, establish special subcommittees comprised solely of their own members . SECTION 2 - Meetings: 2 .1 - Time Regular meetings of the Commission shall be held on the first and third weeks of each month at 7 : 30 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 690 Coulter Drive, unless otherwise directed by the — Chairman, in which case at least 24 hours notice will be given to all members. Regular meetings shall have a curfew of 11: 00 p.m. which may be waived at the discretion of the Chairman. All _ unfinished business will be carried over to the next regular Planning Commission meeting. When the regular meeting day falls on a legal holiday, there — shall be no Planning Commission meeting. 2 . 2 - Special Meetings — Special meetings shall be held upon call by the Chairman, or in his absence, by the Vice-Chairman or any other member with the concurrence of four other members of the commission, and with at — least 48 hours of notice to all members. Notice of all special meetings shall also be posted on the official City Bulletin Board. — 2 . 3 - Attendance Planning Commission members shall attend not less than seventy- five (75%) percent of all regular and special meetings held during a given (calendar) year, and shall not be absent from three ( 3 ) consecutive meetings without prior approval of the — Chairman. Failure to meet this minimum attendance requirement shall be cause for removal from the Commission by action of the City Council. — SECTION 3 - Commission Composition, Terms and Vacancies : 3 . 1 - Composition The Commission shall consist of 7 voting members. Seven members — shall be appointed by the Council and may be removed by the Council. • 3 . 2 - Terms and Vacancies The Council shall appoint seven members to the Commission for terms of three years. Vacancies during the term shall be filled — by the Council for the unexpired portion of the term. Every appointed member shall before entering upon the charge of his duties take an oath that he will faithfully discharge the duties of his office. All members shall serve without compensation. 3 . 3 - Quorum Four Planning Commission members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Whenever a quorum is not present, no final or official action shall be taken at such meeting. -2- SECTION 4 - Organization: 4 .1 - Election of Officers At the first meeting in January of each year, the Planning Commission shall hold an organization meeting. At this meeting, the Comission shall elect from its membership a Chairman and Vice-Chairman. This shafl.be done by secret ballot. Each member shall cast its ballot fro the member he wishes to be chosed for Chairman. If no one receives a majority, balloting shall con- tinue until one member receives the majority support. Vice-Chairman shall be elected from the remaining numbers of the same proceeding. If the Chairman retires from the Planning Commission before the next regular organizational meeting, the Vice-Chairman shall be Chairman. If both Chairman and Vice-Chairman retire, new offi- cers shall be elected at the next regular meeting. If both Chairman and Vice-Chairman are absent from a meeting, the Commission shall elect a temporary Chairman by voice vote. 4 .2 - Duties of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman The Chairman or in his absence, the Vice-Chairman, shall preside at meetings, appoint committees from its own membership, and per- - form other such duties as ordered by the Commission. The Chairman shall conduct the meeting so as to keep it moving rapidly and efficiently as possible and shall remind members, witnesses and petitioners to preserve order and decorum and to keep comments to the subject at hand. The Chairman shall not move for action but may second motions . SECTION 5 - Procedure: 5 .1 - Parlimentary Procedure Parlimentary Procedure governed by Roberts Rules of Order Revised shall be followed at all regular meetings . At special work session meetings, and when appropriate, the Commission may hold group discussions not following any set parlimentary procedures except when motions are before the Commission. SECTION 6 - Public Hearings: 6 .1 - Purpose of Hearings The purpose of a hearing is to collect information and facts in order for the Commission to develop a rational planning recommen- dation for the City Council. 6 .2 - Hearing Procedure At hearings the following procedure shall be followed in each case: -3- a. The Chairman shall state the case to be heard. — b. The Chairman shall call upon the staff to present the staff report. Required reports from each City Department shall be — submitted to the Planning Commission before each case is heard. c. The Chairman shall ask the applicant to present his case. — d. Interested persons may address the Commission, giving infor- mation regarding the particular proposal . — e . Petitioners and the public are to address the Chairman only, not staff or other commissioners . f . There shall be no dialogue among the Commissioners, giving information regarding the particular proposal . ( The Planning Commission members may ask questions of persons addressing the Commission in order to clarify a fact, but any statement by a member for any other purpose than to question may be ruled out of order. ) g . After all new facts and information have been brought forth, the hearing shall be closed and interested persons shall not — be heard again. Upon completion of the hearing on each case, the Planning Commission shall discuss the item at hand and render a decision. The Planning Commission if it so desires , may leave the pablic record open for written comments for a specified period of time. h . The Chairman shall have the responsibility to inform all the parties of their rights of appeal on any decision or recom- mendation of the Planning Commission. 6 .3 - Schedule At meetings where more than one hearing is scheduled, every effort shall be made to begin each case at the time set in the agenda, but in no case may an item be called for hearing prior to the advertised time listed on the agenda. SECTION 7 - Miscellaneous: 7 .1 - Planning Commission Discussion — Matters for discussion which do not appear on the agenda may be considered and discussed by the Commission only when initiated and presented by the staff and shall be placed at the end of the agenda. 7 .2 - Suspension of Rules The Commission may suspend any of these rules by a unanimous vote of the members present. - -4- 7 . 3 - Amendments Amendment of these bylaws may be made at any regular or special meeting of the Planning Commission but only if scheduled on the meeting agenda in advance of the meeting. 7 . 4 - Review At the first meeting in January of each year, these bylaws shall be read and adopted by the Planning Commission. Adopted: Date: Chairman -5- DATE November 28 , 1988 APPLICATION FOR CHANHASSEN COMMISSION POSITION DESIRED Planning Commissioner ALTERNATE NAME: Steve Emmings BIRTHDATE (OPTIONAL) 7 . 1 . 44 ADDRESS 6350 Greenbriar Avenue HOME PHONE 612/474-1853 BUSINESS PHONE 612/333-4500 HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN CHANHASSEN 5 years+ HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION ATTAINED, PLUS DEGREES, IF ANY Law Degree, 1976 , University of Minnesota. CURRENT EMPLOYMENT: (GIVE POSITION, EMPLOYER, AND BRIEF DISCUSSION OF DUTIES. IF EMPLOYMENT IS RELATIVELY RECENT, DISCUSS PREVIOUS EMPLOY- MENT AS WELL) Attorney, Law firm of Sieben, Grose, Von Holtum, McCoy & Carey - representing plaintiff in cases involving personal injury and/or professional malpractice. ACTIVITIES AND AFFILIATIONS: (INCLUDE ELECTIVE OFFICES AND HONORS OR RECOGNITIONS RECEIVED, IF ANY) American Bar Association, Minnesota State Bar Association, Minnesota Trial Lawyers Association, Minnesota State High School Mock Trial Competition (as coach and judge) ] IN.Ae ..4n1 PLA N rs f lis soe, C►v�r► C - - e. REASONS FOR SEEKING THIS POSITION AND SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS: I have interest and some experience in land use and city development issues. I get a sense of satisfaction from serving my community. I have no ax to grind. IN FILING THIS APPLICATION, I UNDERSTAND THAT A COMMITMENT OF MY TIME, ENERGY, INTEREST, AND PARTICIPATION WILL BE INVOLVED, AND I AM PRE- , PARED TO MAKE SUCH A COMMITMENT IN THE EVENT I AM APPOINTED TO THE ABOVE COMMISSION. SIGNATURE:' DEC 8 21988 CITY.OF CHANHASS.N DATE ���� � APPLICATION FOR CHANHASSEN COMMISSION POSITION DESIRED R 'r2 /9/(%1 (7."1/Vo (r//� TERNATE NAME: I ,a Lid ,q.i BIRTHDATE (OPTIONAL) -S17',4_ ,/42A77 /� ADDRESS �a Cf✓se CA Te, 1 )V¼1 ' _ HOME PHONE -iL/ BUSINESS PHONE 77/ HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN CHANHASSEN / 7 (71 JZ- LJ HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION ATTAINED, PLUS DEGREES, IF ANY f/f !S / CURRENT EMPLOYMENT: (GIVE POSITION, EMPLOYER, AND BRIEF DISCUSSION OF DUTIES. IF EMPLOYMENT IS RELATIVELY RECENT, DISCUSS PREVIOUS EMPLOY- MENT AS WELL) 4/ itc , ACTIVITIES AND AFFILIATIONS: (INCLUDE ELECTIVE OFFICES AND HON S OR RECOGNITIONS RECEIVED, IF ANY) l9?/iV,► f' -�� �rC� „fir- 14W%, 41C:allOr ,g1 &2,y1. 1 7 lc-S/t())*--1 1/77,7Lrc-S 1 el -e' / I ! - A J / REASONS FOR SEEKING THIS POSITION AND SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS: 1i NEVIIS 71 11 IN FILING THIS APPLICATION, I UNDERSTAND THAT A COMMITMENT OF MY TIME, ENERGY, INTEREST, AND PARTICIPATION WILL BE INVOLVED, AND I AM PRE- PARED TO MAKE SUCH A COMMITMENT IN THE EVENT I AM APPOINTED TO THE ABOVE COMMISSION. Ado SI ' T,YIRE. s Nov 3 Q 1988 C:11 Y. OF CHANHASSEN DATE e, t"I- 1 /7 Fr— APPLICATION FOR CHANHASSEN COMMISSION POSITION DESIRED flI.4..✓,Y ;L( Co,{,^•(SS «,v' ALTERNATE NAME: ;? 7 /1aLA BIRTHDATE (OPTIONAL) )../"../1-7- ADDRESS G :ATGpf,.04- turtSN%,4 Oji - ;' l= yc' c: .5r017 HOME PHONE 6- 9 BUSINESS PHONE 7 3 / - HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN CHANHASSEN `' 2 S HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION ATTAINED, PLUS DEGREES, IF ANY l3S CURRENT EMPLOYMENT: (GIVE POSITION, EMPLOYER, AND BRIEF DISCUSSION OF DUTIES. IF EMPLOYMENT IS RELATIVELY RECENT, DISCUSS PREVIOUS EMPLOY- MENT AS WELL) l eocr-0,7" A/4 _ f=,9�'� < <:9r`c ulpI SCS•>set) u P.4/.� ;acs H•/ 1 ,c 1cCfhVIC.9,C/Ce•ST rf() <5 ACTIVITIES AND AFFILIATIONS: (INCLUDE ELECTIVE OFFICES AND HONORS OR RECOGNITIONS RECEIVED, IF ANY) ;��;k� ,�, ��. ,- •�,� REASONS FOR SEEKING THIS POSITION AND SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS: /(u ,pcsrt r f)L' rttcrc= rc «i e f .7-,1-/44/- .55e- cJ /5 ;+ .S fl j o the Tic, ret �C ' 7 L ,/ IN FILING THIS APPLICATION, I UNDERSTAND THAT A COMMITMENT OF MY TIME, ENERGY, INTEREST, AND PARTICIPATION WILL, BE INVOLVED, AND I AM PRE- PARED TO MAKE SUCH A COMMITMENT IN THE EVENT I AM APPOINTED TO THE ABOVE COMMISSION. SIGNATURE: NOV 2 2 1988 CITY OF CHANHASSEN DATE /_ APPLICATION FOR CHANHASSEN COMMISSION POSITION DESIRED I . �:• , , ALTERNATE NAME: (; M t r: 14 4r BIRTHDATE (OPTIONAL) ADDRESS ") 6 r tL it" HOME PHONE BUSINESS PHONE ""7 -WL HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN CHANHASSEN - HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION ATTAINED, PLUS DEGREES, IF ANY (;Sr=,- CURRENT EMPLOYMENT: (GIVE POSITION, EMPLOYER, AND BRIEF DISCUSSION OF _ DUTIES. IF EMPLOYMENT IS RELATIVELY RECENT, DISCUSS PREVIOUS EMPLOY- MENT AS WELL) ; ACTIVITIES AND AFFILIATIONS: (INCLUDE ELECTIVE OFFICES AND HONORS OR RECOGNITIONS RECEIVED, IF ANY) - REASONS FOR SEEKING THIS POSITION AND SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS: IN FILING THIS APPLICATION, I UNDERSTAND THAT A COMMITMENT OF MY TIME, ENERGY, INTEREST, AND PARTICIPATION WILL BE INVOLVED, AND I AM PRE- PARED TO MAKE SUCH A COMMITMENT IN THE EVENT I AM APPOINTED TO THE ABOVE COMMISSION. - I LS EKAATU R E: Nov 2) 1988 CILY,OF CHANhASStiv AWARDS AND HONORS (continued) First Place Award, Nez Perce County Fairgrounds Design Competition; Lewiston, Idaho; 1983. American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) ; South Dakota State University, student chapter President, 1982-1983. Tiernan Scholarship, South Dakota State University, 1982. The Nature Conservancy, research grant to study the effects of various native prairie management practices on Cypripedium candidium (Small White Lady's - Slipper) , 1980. MEMBERSHIPS AND ASSOCIATIONS American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) Minnesota Horticultual Society University of Minnesota Landscape Arboretum Woody Plant Society Hennepin County Master Gardener REFERENCES Reference list available upon request PORTFOLIO Project portfolio available upon request KEVIN G. NORBY - 6801 Redwing Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 EDUCATION Bachelor of Science majoring in Landscape Architecture; South Dakota State - ' University (SDSU) , Brookings, SD; Graduated May 1983. GPA 3.65, 4.0 scale. .4e National Student Exchange Program majoring in Landscape Architecture; - f University of Idaho, Moscow, ID; Spring 1983. Associate of Science Degree; Willmar Community College (WCC) ; Willmar, MN; • Graduated June 1981. RELATED EXPERIENCE Gardeneer Incorporated; Chanhassen, MN; May 1984 to present. Major respon- sibilities include site design, cost estimating, bid preparation, construction detail preparation and construction management of upper bracket residential and commerical landscape projects. Supervisor - Scott Bradely, A.S.L.A. City of Lewiston Parks and Recreation Department; Lewiston, Idaho; May 1983 to May 1984. Responsibilities included the design and installation of irrigation and landscape plans for city owned parks and properties. Super- visors were Michael Moon and Ivan Pixley. Lakeland Nursery; Willmar, MN; May - September, 1981 and 1982. Responsi- bilities included deck, patio and retaining wall construction, plant installation and plant maintenance on residential and commercial landscape _ projects. Supervisor/Owner - Larry Rice. South Dakota State University Horticultural Department; Brookings, SD; January - May, 1982. Responsibilities included maintenance of university owned research greenhouses and plant materials. Supervisor - James R. Maples. Lakeland Nursery; Willmar, MN; Summers 1979 and 1980. Responsibilities included the care and retail sale of landscape plants and materials. Performed general maintenance and landscape construction on residential and commercial landscape projects. Supervisor/Owner - Larry Rice. AWARDS AND HONORS Certificate of Merit, Minnesota Nurserymen's Association; Haugland Residence, 1987. Certificate of Merit, Minnesota Nurserymen's Association; Hoben Residence, 1985. In(,re ase c,.(A rine � -� t� c t tACft c.se. U .��tcl1 C� �t ck- �w 5`>e..t I . c1 G`raw 1, A S G� 't-a'1`.¢.0 w AC- �K�e..�1- _C- 1 v� c LcI_vAL ssc.n t — c MU.r't+t e Cl w ii (1 . rroc e ' t -i. L,c.L Lie_ A ec:I de. 4L.L. -t vA,.�c� 1�, `1 i L. (Pr 00.•(-- Gln, t 1 1.rcA c A `--k Gt wLc. -A1.e w< row ik.p — 1 j1A • We Kc,..-A. —6 �+-tcNe re*povk4.71Uc ae crlovt' rey r \' t `Av. k use fc ticce.. prey ccrA`fitovl so... ... c�na. e -\--es.. gfsw'tZ ,:Ge.1.`k( , 4Lfe.. Le, 1ne. ..A. c.. qK A c\e ce.1 a l 1 1 `J 1 l5,ck1loN uhd t1eq<< ntit 1ce �i 6-11%."1 re 0.c-d . —�t, GA,c-w ...c.0 .Ati A0(4)S `�ow� Q�e.�ek tr•Q ril u1 tc:\. IIAAKC H_ 6� C�C1h 1'5 1C ` —40 1-t „ e vl (. o) LA- at. l ` 1` l 1 � t�. Ivy (�wt(\.cn.l', w A It 1� \4\ er- do swL ke c.,T c l �-� (S�-ue- I rr 1 � 1I C mitc1 t,b%'IJe . Nyetit ri vllC, ` of tA^ 1"7 vtk. .ctA.4 , c.(T ct ht2¢-A'1.rt 0 tlL 11i bo1,e�� cf,�-- � �-F' <<� A �Ita� ��-� La. ( fit- f ( � �'(_ ( j ( `t Aid,A-ac-Ty , FSI d o1 t �I*l.e CitaALf'6e K PiinRe.r —I[ g.r, I- na;tC.-A a rea- . 11 rr r I t aecJ os d IyGI..V705vt rega.i- 1 I n. �- c KA-4_100r. of :cpcdIll Ile. 1 erk. c i d IAA`A�c,AA I►� e AIL, \e- ��- l�� t1 Lc. Aat,�tit`(aLovk. ���rd e U la 1 kA L.0 s `� � b 2 �e..c. _ k-L wltcplatt1 /Owt,�ii,lvl J.,...\i\ k se. 'c.e. "Gr vc.`.-- 1 n->«reh *L- - tie ( ._ IMt AI r►q I te» �rG^� -� O N d_ '�v-'ikQt. e�CtxKe-J — - tMC (1- t�< 14 G, e ,1— C . 1 \,.." 1\e 241 -to o 1 N Q-c 1 La.-1- u.re. tn.�c4..�v..-L.. v. o� k vkmo tt 4cLUe / 'X C I L d o GA N A c o tne-e-nite t� 7isbu cif I vt cu i v t c1� r u vt �-L,c p lcl IA,V\ r-� ` Y I )( (..corv.wtt �iic•vl wAl(t. 1� cam freVt ew tic..ul�? 0..... A. re? co. ct15 1 t- ti. c0hAtMQ.KC1=�1i 1 1 — c,.vt c! ��K �e b,,tLj (..J��C�� (,,,k1\ Le- GII G s cc.`I-t CA. IA. d. \aeci&LA- ' 1 Act c-R_ 46 l l 1C.4-Z\- t� _t I l{t Lie-. ..�- ane\I e..-t_. I c� 1 w�. �=ho�.� .e c{� I t f e1fle- `� 5 `� � t� N cc. wo-t� d �c. � v a�ua.l� c.,).1 „Loy( —1, 1/4 („z_ f C. I.G..N 1ti445e .ti LDwn.vAl`- (01• i DATE [(J' 17)- D ,7 1 APPLICATION FOR CHANHASSEN COMMISSION POSITION DESIRED A.14N141461 (�,►...11..(I (01.1 ALTERNATE NAME: / ` Attt,) 6. 112 -r BIRTHDATE (OPTIONAL) ADDRESS ( ,5 0 tE4>10 V Li4-Nt=_ rte+-1 A.4\3)44' J — HOME PHONE 414-)1i1 BUSINESS PHONE clq'eL44 HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN CHANHASSEN ld•, — HIGHEST (LEVEL` OF EDUCATION (ATTAINED, PLUS DEGREES, IF ANY P7acf p 1011? Ae re e, C LA.A Lot P e /�fl:,�^i L c_41,k re J 1 CURRENT EMPLOYMENT: (GIVE POSITION, EMPLOYER , AND BRIEF DISCUSSION OF DUTIES. IF EMPLOYMENT IS RELATIVELY RECENT, �RECENT, DISCUSS PREVIOUS EMPLOY- MENT AS WELL) ctul.°( t��1C, IK (�11cchl� I t (lea-i'7. 1-0-J5(T JAPtikft-,r 0.6 1ax1 a 5(p-114 (1 P.k IfirP.o rrtl f ; • Ri-te. I i441.4(E. {�Ph111A , t 1 I'191(1 ct pal i pre -571 . OVI •l. _a. 1 ' ACTIVITIES AND AFFILIATIONS: ( INCLUDE EL CTIVE OFFICES AND HONORS O RECOGNITIONS RECEIVED, IF ANY) 1, ,,(,f {RPh jc, .,Z, e Ca v� �mr 1 r '� REASONS FOR SEEKING THIS POSITION AND SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS: 6vt 0. doim. 1 aat, i..t e Ad , ; 4„.f._ ct .., ;— c Gt �� ci..,,e_ A. t :00 E' i I v1 , 7'4 `V 7 I •IA- • •- a' 0 • . . 7 , •. ! L • ctCG i- S 2 vl i vt(o/� cud CI ,3,......: • . ,o , , ._ 0. , • • • ,..• 4 •/_•' �� :': IN FILING THIS APPLICATION, I UNDERSTAND THAT A COMMITMEOF MY TIME,��()LeC ENERGY , INTEREST, ANI) PARTICIPATION WILL BE INVOLVED,----. 10 I AM PRE- PARED TO MAKE SUCH A COMMITMENT IN THE EVENT I AM AP/PINTED TO THE - ABOVE COMMISSION_ /URE : z In — x r• r• � K nw m r- tn CD z n H n C O • rr rt 0 C I TY O F P.C. DATE: Jan . 4 , 1989 CHANHASSEN C.C. DATE: Jan. 23 , 1989 kdi CASE NO: 88-19 SUB Prepared by: Hanson/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 5 . 3 Acres (net) 11 . 7 Acres (gross) into 13 Single Family Lots Z - O LOCATION: Located at the Northwest Corner of Lake Lucy Road and Lake Lucy Lane APPLICANT: Minnesota Texas Properties 4445 West 77th Street Edina, MN 55435 PRESENT ZONING: RR; Rural Residential ACREAGE: 5 .3 acres ( net) and 11 . 7 acres (gross ) DENSITY: 2 .5 uper acre net) 1 .1 unitsnits per acre ((gross) ADJACENT ZONING -AND LAND USE: N- PUD-R; Pheasant Hill S- RR; Lake Lucy Highlands - Q E- RR; single family Q W- PUD-R; Pheasant Hill WATER AND SEWER: Sewer and water is not available to site. PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site contains a Class B wetland in the southwest corner . The remaining has slopes toward the north with sparse vegetation. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density - .... db.... . . .,. . um • ,_,,t4,--?„,,,,:,,.. ,... .. „ ,-- , -. 1 ;• ▪ t Ly 1 0,.....ar .., • , Tcomme• — . : iv... s • / .ii: • , # ; . 3••••••11• • •00...". 1 ' 77„ .1-.. 4 away as lab, 3 0 mow.ri 6 4“.••MOM ? C.` ommett ! 11 aairaildillIIM C 1 g•••C.'1.. .,'...• : ' ' ' • .. V ...m.o.,- • , • t: ' • .. .ii;,,, w.. i •••••A •-• = ! . - Wi a 441 : • ,"2„.......11.. i 1 2 _ iir_...7,.....:..::2...,:. :_.:.:-;4, .. „,x,..., s _ 'or .... - .. .. --Iii a - —4 , .. •••••••••a•MO II, / .5 A §1 2 No- i( •/.; . . ....0. • 4.40 Ho ..... ..... . / ! a g5t... ,... r. 41(1 . 4:' 1 I •4 2 % - Lir, Evill .0. : C.- OM*. 2 ai , ,........... p.: --,;„ atti.n), total 4___ Lake Lucy ▪AWL 1 -:- H ,...i. : i az . ,••••••••••.•• -Z • 11. . SITE 1 ,i/ , ........ - - 110-- .... _--- - i I ___ . CHANHAS I 1 I Late Arm UTICA LA 'PIZ a....... .. 1 e , ......, :::,1.......___I I -. .. : P . .. I • to • - et oi ...NY• iri”, Lake i s 1 • i: • ‘....-,N,---.. ..01 . ,.. . —sguiril, . C : ..........•.. —mu liz :" _ —. - hi 11§iiillkilgia -4— I !1 ro. EilltliP- .1 I ; 12j I -°°Erum et.vt7=uto illM" Irs:. 1"-i"I 5-0 in* r 1 Is 1 * _--- --- 4-y, -311MMEIKS:-.---'"ra . , 1 14. R:,...I)1 r .... 7 1 '7/- 13 - ;-,i• — • :-• 'fication or , _. • direct -•••,, ,-••• -.. ; i , i • ..., - . -,,, , p. ••••••••• •••...% A r's .-Th I C r i itered lend I - i i. , •• , . • .: , ;.-.: 7. .1. . i o (.....„ ; i k Le, ' t_ 1"4‘ 6 I—‘ I ‘ 1 \. U._ C.A.R.TDA.R.MI-JI_JM &_ASSOCIATES, II•TC L A NO SURVEYORS _ 8110 EDEN ROAD Erten Prairie Minnesota. 85344 Phone 612-041 30 e 6508 - Scale le ......- c:,..),/ Revisions Drawn By Date -- - , - L•• Date 4 --- '' - 8 --I, . , -,1.-- s, A s:it i Dr'n -'..2,- Ckd Ii---.) 2 /.1) - - I. _ '•-• Job No. CriA1-:'. K•,:r.7# !..a r s L '::- (.7" 1 - '7 - 8 • — BOOk Page e.... - - . -. - _ -Y. ...- Minnesota Texas Properties/Carrico January 4 , 1989 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-906 provides rural lot building eligibilities ( Attachment #1) : ( a) All lots located outside of the Metropolitan Council' s Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary shall be created in con- formance to the requirements of Article X or XI of this Chapter. 1 . A new single family lot may be subdivided only if a one unit per ten acre density is maintained. 2 . All lots shall have the minimum frontage on a public road. 3 . All lots shall must have soil and water conditions which per- - mit a well. 4 . All lots must have conditions which will permit two on-site _ sewage systems . 5 . Each site must have at least one acre of area which can sup- port two septic system sites , a building pad and a well with a slope of 25% or less. 6 . The minimum lot size of a rural lot is 2f acres with 200 feet of public street frontage. REFERRAL AGENCIES Asst. City Engineer Attachment #2 Building Department Attachment #3 Park and Recreation Attachment #4 Fish and Wildlife Service Attachment #5 Fire Inspector Attachment #6 ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to subdivide the subject property into 13 single family lots . The property will be provided access from a road extending south of the Pheasant Hill PUD from Duck Lane to Lake Lucy Lane on the south. The property is zoned RR which conforms with the Comprehensive Plan for residential areas located outside the MUSA boundary. The requested subdivision is in violation of these zoning requirements and would need to be rezoned in order for the sub- division to be approved. Minnesota Texas Properties/Carrico January 4 , 1989 — Page 3 Before a rezoning request could be approved for this site, the MUSA boundary would have to be amended to include the property. As it stands, the application is in violation of Metropolitan Council' s Metropolition Urban Service Area boundary. — In order for the proposed development to be approved, the City' s Comprehensive Plan would need to be amended to include the area — within the service area. Subsequently, the Met Council would need to amend the MUSA line to include the property so that full services can be provided to the site. If these are approved, _ then the city could entertain a request to rezone the property to RSF which allows for lots of less than 2i acres , after which the proposed subdivision could be approved. The Met Council has taken the position that amendments to the MUSA boundary should not be considered until such time as the city has acted favorably on a development request. Therefore, the applicant is requesting action on the preliminary plat in order to have approval of the proposed project to take to Met Council for consideration of an amendment to the MUSA boundary. The Park and Recreation Commission has identified this property as the appropriate location for a park to serve the area of Chanhassen noted as Zone 4 in the Recreation Section of the — Comprehensive Plan on Recreation. The intent of the Comprehensive Plan was to obtain a 5-10 acre parcel for a future neighborhood park. The Park and Recreation Department has been _ negotiating with the owners on the purchase of this property. Recent appraisals by the city and property owner have resulted in significant differences in value. These negotiations are con- tinuing. The City has requested VanDoren Hazard Stallings to do an evaluation of other potential park sites in Zone 4 to determine if other suitable sites exist in the area. Results of that ana- lysis may identify other sites or confirm this property as the suitable park site for the area. Subdivision Evaluation If one assumes the above items are resolved and/or approved, in a manner which allows for the subdivision as presented, then the following assessment can be made of the proposed development. The lots would front on a street extending north from Lake Lucy Lane to Duck Lane. The access to Duck Lane utilizes an outlot platted to preserve an access to this project. The grading for the project would be for the lots on the west side of Carrico Lane to be walkouts . Outlot A is 4 .24 acres and contains the identified Class B — wetland. The intent is for this wetland area to be maintained. Minnesota Texas Properties/Carrico January 4 , 1989 Page 4 Outlot B is a tract to the east of Carrico Lane on the north side of Laxe Lucy Lane. This outlot is the result of keeping Carrico Lane far enough to the west to provide adequate separation from Lake Lucy Road. Ownership of these outlots is not addressed on the plan sheets . Options would be dedication to the city or as common ground to be owned and maintained by the homeowners . The latter would appear to be logical as these areas are not suitable for public recreation areas . Lot areas within the project range from 15 , 048 square feet to 22 ,716 square feet with the average lot being 17 ,877 square feet. Proposed lots conform to requirements of the RSF District. Please refer to the attached referrals for additional comments . RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat of Carrico Addition #88-19 based on the plans stamped "Received December 12 , 1988" , subject to the following conditions : 1 . This approval is intended to indicate a willingness on the part of the city to consider an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and subsequent rezoning of the property to RSF, provided the Metropolitan Council approves an amendment to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area to include this prop- erty within the service boundary. 2 . This approval is contingent upon a finding by the Parks Commission and City Council that this area is not the appropriate location for a future neighborhood park. 3 . . All concerns in attached referrals be resolved prior to sub- mittal of final plans . 4 . Completion and approval of a wetland alteration plan to miti- gate impacts on the existing wetland area. § 20-905 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 20-905. Single-family dwellings. All single-family detached homes shall: (1) Be constructed upon a continuous perimeter foundation that meets the requirements of the state building code. (2) Conform to the following standards for living areas: a. If a one-story rambler design, have an area of nine hundred sixty (960) square feet. b. If a split level design, have an area of one thousand fifty(1,050)square feet. c. If a split foyer and two-story design,have an area of six hundred(600)square feet on the first floor plus a two-car garage must be attached to the single-family — structure. (3) Have an earth covered, composition, shingled or tiled roof or other materials ap- _ proved by the Uniform Building Code as adopted and amended by the city. (4) Receive a building permit. The application for a building permit in addition to other information required shall indicate the height,size, design and the appearance of all — elevations of the proposed building and a description of the construction materials proposed to be used. (5) Meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code as adopted and amended by the ( — city or the applicable manufactured housing code. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 6, 12-15-86) Cross reference—Technical codes, § 7-16 et seq. Sec. 20-906. Rural lot building eligibilities. (a) All lots located outside of the Metropolitan Council's Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary shall be created in conformance to the requirements of article X or XI of this chapter. — (b) A new single-family building may be established or a lot containing an existing single-family dwelling may be subdivided only if the following provisions are met: — (1) A one-unit per ten-acre density is maintained using the following guidelines: 0-19.99 acres equals one(1)single-family unit. — 20-29.99 acres equals two(2)single-family units. 30-39.99 acres equals three(3)single-family units, etc. — (2) Existing parcels of record established prior to February 19, 1987, shall be deemed as buildable lots. This provision also applies to those lots affected by paragraph(10). — (3) All lots shall have the minimum frontage on a public road as regulated in sections 20-575 and 20-595.To reduce the number of driveways on collectors and arterials, up to two(2)parcels will be allowed to be accessed by a private easement. — 1230 ZONING § 20-907 (4) All lots must have soil and water conditions which permit a well. (5) All lots must have conditions which will permit two (2) on-site sewer systems in- stalled in conformance with chapter 19, article IV. (6) The one (1) unit per ten-acre density applies to contiguous property under single ownership. Acreage under single ownership, which is not contiguous, cannot be - combined for increased density/building eligibility on one(1)of the parcels.Transfer of development rights from one(1)parcel of land to another is not allowed, except as permitted in paragraph(9)below. (7) Once a building eligibility has been used for a property,a development contract must — be recorded with the county establishing the number of building eligibilities remain- ing or documenting that no building eligibility remains. Transfer of development rights from one(1)parcel of land to another is not allowed. (8) Each site must have at least one (1) acre of area which can support two (2) septic system sites, a building pad and well with a slope of twenty-five(25)percent or less. (9) Parcels which do not have public street frontage and are landlocked may transfer building eligibilities to an adjacent parcel which does have public street frontage and meets other provisions of this section. (10) Applications for subdivisions in the rural service area as identified in the compre- hensive plan to contain a development density of one (1) unit per two and one-half (21/2) acres will be accepted until 4:30 p.m. on January 15, 1987, if the following information is submitted to the planning department: a. Completion of the application for subdivision. b. Submission of the public hearing list of surrounding property owners. c. Submission of a boundary survey with the proposed lot pattern. d. Submission of required application fees. Further,these applications must also be accompanied by additional data required for preliminary plat approval in a manner which will achieve preliminary plat approval by July 1, 1987 unless the city council deems to table final action on the application until after July 1, 1987. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 7, 12-15-86) Sec. 20-907. Height regulations. (a) Where the average slope of a lot is greater than one(1)foot rise or fall in seven(7)feet of horizontal distance from the established street elevation at the property line, one(1)story in addition to the number permitted in the district in which the lot is situated shall be permitted on the downhill side of any building. (b) The height limitations stipulated elsewhere in this chapter shall not apply to the following: — (1) Barns, silos, or other farm buildings or structures on farms; church spires, belfries, cupolas and domes, monuments, water towers, fire and hose towers, observation 1231 C I TYF CHANHASSEN0 :,2 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 — MEMORANDUM — TO: Planning Commission FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer DATE: December 29, 1988 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Carrico Addition File #88-19 SUB, #88-12 WAP, Carl C. Carrico This site is located on the north side of Lake Lucy Lane on the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Lake Lucy Lane and Lake — Lucy Road. The site is comprised of a low lying area part of which is classified as Class B wetland. Mature vegetation is scattered throughout the site. This site is outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) . The applicant has made application to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) for the amendment to the MUSA boundary to include this area. The Metropolitan Council has stated previously that they would not amend the MUSA boundary until such time that the City determined through preliminary plat approval that this proposed land use was feasible. Approval of the final plat will obviously be contingent upon the receipt of written acceptance by the MWCC to amend the MUSA boundary. Sanitary Sewer If approval by the MWCC is granted, municipal sanitary sewer ser- vices can be obtained by extending the sanitary sewer service from Wood Duck Lane. We find that this plan is acceptable. Water Service — Municipal water service is also available to the site by the pro- posed extension watermain from Wood Duck Lane to the intersection — of Lake Lucy Road and Lake Lucy Lane. As the Commission is aware, the City Council approved the feasi- _ bility study for the extension of the Lake Lucy Road trunk water- main on November 14, 1988 . We would expect that this development be looped into the Lake Lucy Road watermain and also participate _ in the appropriate trunk charges which will be established as part of the final assessment roll. Planning Commission December 29, 1988 Page 2 Mr . David Hughes, who is the immediate property owner to the northwest of the subject site, has recently indicated that he may subdivide his property and is interested in obtaining municipal services for this area. In the event of the amendment to the MUSA boundary, the Hughes property would have the potential to required municipal services as well. The Hughes property would be required to loop their water system to ensure that adequate fire protection exists . Staff is recommending that a 20 foot utility easement be reserved along the north side of the proposed Lot 1, Block 1, of the Carrico plat. This easement width con- forms to Section 18-76 , subsection C of the City' s Subdivision Ordinance. Roadway and Access The applicant has provided for a 50 foot right-of-way which is consistent with the City' s standards for urban construction. A 50 foot right-of-way does exist between Lot 2 , Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 3 of the Pheasant Hill Addition such that the proposed road may access Wood Duck Lane. The applicant would be responsible for all costs of construction for the entire roadway purposes to Wood Duck Lane. The applicant has proposed roadways which have a maximum street grade of approximately 5% which is less than the maximum allowable street grade of 7.0% . The proposed 50 foot right-of-way maintains a design speed of approximately 15 mph through the 90 degree bend adjacent Lot 5 , Block 1 . This design criteria does not meet the city standard design criteria for an urban roadway. The applicant' s engineer felt that by creating the bend this would prevent Carrico Lane from becoming a major thoroughfare for the Pheasant Hill Subdivision. If the Commission approves this plat layout, the applicant will be required to post speed advisory plates warning drivers of the limited design speed for this area. The applicant has provided for a 120 foot separation between Carrico Lane and Lake Lucy Road as Carrico Lane accesses Lake Lucy Lane. This distance allows for two cars to queue at the stop sign of Lake Lucy Road and Lake Lucy Lane and allow for a left hand turning movement from Carrico Lane onto Lake Lucy Lane. We find that this is acceptable. The Hughes property is landlocked with the exception of the 33 foot easement which exists along the southwest quadrant of the Carrico property. Staff is recommending that a 50 foot easement be placed over the existing 33 foot easement such that the Hughes property could be developed according to the City' s standards for urban construction. Obviously this is based upon the Hughes property receiving the amendment to the MUSA boundary in addition to the Carrico property. Planning Commission December 29 , 1988 "- Page 3 Grading and Drainage The grading plan calls for grading of the majority of the area — lying outside of the existing wetland. The Commission should realize that this will involve removal of the majority of the trees that exist on site. The applicant is proposing that the Class B wetland be used as the stormwater retention area required to maintain the pre- developed runoff rate and provide adequate storage for a 100 year — storm event. Staff has reviewed the calculations submitted by the applicant' s engineer and finds that adequate storage is available to meet the city' s standard criteria. The house pads along the Class B wetland were analyzed to insure that a safety overflow exists for the ponding area/wetlands to insure that they would not be endangered in the event of a storm which exceeded the 100 year event. Our calculations show that the stormwater would overflow from the north side of Lake Lucy Lane to south side of Lake Lucy Lane prior to impacting the house pads . We find that this plan is acceptable. Erosion Control The plans do not address erosion control. A revised erosion control plan shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer as part of the plans and specifications review process. — Recommended Conditions 1 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the city with the necessary financial securities to insure proper installation of these public improvements . — 2 . . The applicant shall provide the city with written approval from the Metropolitan Council which documents the amendment to the MUSA boundary prior to final plat approval by the City Council . Failure to obtain such documentation and approval will result in denial of the plat. 3 . A 20 foot utility easement shall be placed over both proposed storm sewers . 4 . A drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated over the proposed stormwater retention area. 5 . The plat shall be revised to include a 20 foot utility ease- ment along the north side of Lot 1 for watermain purposes. Planning Commission December 29, 1988 Page 4 6 . It shall be the applicant' s sole expense for constructing the — roadway connection between Wood Duck Lane and northerly prop- erty boundary of the subject site. This will not be assessed to the neighboring properties . 7 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 8 . A revised erosion control plan shall be submitted as part of the plans and specifications review process. — 9 . All utilities and roadways shall be constructed consistent with the city' s standards for urban construction. -4‘ CITY,__A CF OBANHASSEN „„' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Hanson FROM: Steve Kirchman y-A L/ — DATE : December 22 , 1988 SUBJ : Planning Case 88-19 SUB & 88-12 WAP (Carl Carrico) The proposed subdivision may contain soils that are unsuitable for building. The developer should retain an engineering firm to do a soils investigation to determine the suitability of the underlying soils for building. Corrections would have to be made — at unsuitable house pads before building permits could be issued. The Building Department has the option of requiring soils tests at each suspect house pad before issuing a building permit . — CITY 4F ife„ CHANHASSEN _ 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Park and Recreation Commission FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: December 8 , 1988 SUBJ: Appraisal for the Carrico Property The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the site plan pro- posed on the Carrico property, located next to Pheasant Hills and Lake Lucy Highlands, at their last meeting. The Commission directed staff to have an appraisal done on the property and to work with the Carrico' s to agree upon a price for the entire site. The procedure for this direction would be for each party to have an appraisal done and negotiate from there. This item was sche- duled to appear on the December 13 , 1988 agenda anticipating that the appraisal prepared for the Carrico' s would be available. Unfortunately, such is not the case. To review the appraisal prepared for the City would have little meaning not knowing the Carrico' s position. Therefore, it is staff's recommendation to table action on this item until the Carrico' s appraisal is available. 1�ENT of Jti TAKEas Q�+., 'United States Departmentmommeem of the Interior tal -m• mmesmommeemm FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WI WO ■ — "S"" 'YO ST. PAUL FIELD OFFICE (ES) 50 Park Square Court IN REPLY REFER TO: SPFO 400 Sibley Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 — July 11, 1988 Ms. JoAnn Olsen Assistant City Planner City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 — Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Ms. Olsen: In response to your June 30 , 1988 request, Mr. Paul Burke of this office conducted our on-site review of four wetland — sites within the City of Chanhassen. I am enclosing herewith a copy of his report for your information. — If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us at your convenience. — Sincerely, Robert F. Welford — 7 Field Supervisor Attachment L:9 FY CHANhASSEN y, Subject: Report of Field Investigation of four wetland sites within the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota Field Investigator: Paul Burke Date: June 30, 1988 Following my on-site review, I have determined that wetlands are present at each of the four subject sites, and each of the first three sites have been or will be impacted by site development. Site No. 1 This is a lake shore wetland behind the Colonial Grove Tennis and Beach Club, 80 Cheyenne Terrace, and 100 Cheyenne Terrace. The affected area appears to have been recently filled to an elevation of approximately 1 foot (vertical) above previous grade, sodded, and stabilized at the water' s edge by a cobble wall. By examining the condition of the shore line vegetation on each of the bounding property lots, I found evidence of hydrological conditions that would confirm my determination that the adjacent properties are palustrine emergent and palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands (Circular 39 Type characteristics of 2 , 3 , and 6) . The evidence provided the positive identification of each of three parameters needed for wetland delineation. The soils were a peaty-silt (histosols) , and all histosols are a hydric soil type. The vegetation canopy was dominated by red-ozier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) , and ground cover consisted primarily of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) , broad-leaved cattail (Typha latifolia) , and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) . Each of the above species are classified as FACW+, or wetter designation, .hydrophytes. The water level at the time of the site visit was less than one vertical foot below the median elevation of the affected wetland. In consideration of recent drought conditions, it is reasonable to assume the hydrology of the site ranges from saturated to permanently flooded. Barring any information to the contrary, we can assume that prior to the recent shoreline enhancement project at this site, most, if not all, of the recently sodded area was a wetland with characteristics and values similar to those found on the adjacent properties. The majority of these wetland values could be recovered if the fill were removed, and the area allowed to revegetate. 0.6 2 Site No. 2 This is a wet-meadow type complex adjacent to the Northwest — Nursery Co. site in Chanhassen. With the use of a plan view of the earthen work proposed by the nursery company, I was able to identify, in approximate terms, the areas intended for the placement of fill. Starting at the north side of the nursery, near Highway 101, I found the proposed re-contouring will result in the loss of between 1/2 and 3/4 of an acre of palustrine emergent, saturated wetland (Circular 39 characteristic of Type 2) with reed canary grass dominating the site. With only minor — modifications, the nursery' s plans can be completed resulting in only minimum loss of wetlands at the site. On the west end of the nursery, I found a similar wetland — characteristic, with evidence that the margins of the wetlands have already been filled. I would estimate that approximately 1/2 of an acre of wetland has already been — covered by fill dirt. The plan view was contoured with solid lines marking the existing land contours, and dashed lines showing the proposed contours at the completion of — their project. The plan view would indicate that a substantial portion of the tree and shrub lot at the western most end of the nursery is situated on fill. It is my determination that the wetlands adjacent to the nursery ( southwest of the barns) have been filled and that no additional fill can be placed at the lower end of the site without placing fill in a wetland. If the nursery company intends to proceed with their site plans, they should be advised to first contact the U.S. Army Corps of — Engineers, St. Paul District, for compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Given the evidence of recently deposited fill, I would recommend the land owner to contact the Corps of Engineers immediately, regardless. — Site 3 This is wet-meadow just off of Lake Lucy Lane, north of Chanhassen and near the intersection with Lake Lucy Road. The site, approximately two acres in size, is a palustrine emergent, saturated, wetland (Circular 39 characteristic Type 2 ) dominated by reed canary grass, and cattails. The entire site is a Type 2 wetland, with the exception of minor undulations near the upper periphery. The area was mowed some time just prior to our site visit, but the hydrophytic vegetation was left as thatch and easily identifiable. Given the extent of the wetland boundary, no fill could be _ placed adjacent to the roadway, regardless of configuration, without fill being placed in wetlands. Any site plans that 3 -)///f approach this wetland from the upland side, opposite the roadway, will need to be carefully reviewed for possible wetland impacts. Site No. 4 This site is just north of City Hall, below Kerber Boulevard, and on the floodplain of an adjacent lake. The lower contours of the site are dominated by hydrophytes such as reed canary grass and cattails. Generally, the wetlands form a small ( 1/4 acre) basin near the recent road fill and grading work on Kerber Boulevard, and the wetlands continue down toward the lake in a narrow strip, perhaps 150 feet in width and 800 feet in length. There is one wide spot in the wetland strip about 3/4 acre in size, and it is located about mid-way between Kerber Boulevard and the lake. This site has a medium-to-high potential for the enhancement of wetland values by deepening and re-contouring the site. Also, since upland conditions do exist over much of the site, a hiking trail, with benches at suitable observation points, could be constructed around the perimeter of the site and the lake to make the site more accessible and enjoyable to the public. 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN \ , , *;•' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Stephen Hanson, City Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Inspector DATE: December 15 , 1988 — SUBJ: Planning Case #88-19 SUB & #88-12 WAP I have reviewed the subdivision of land in reference to Planning Case #88-19 SUB & #88-12 WAP. R.--.:commendations at this time are — fire hydrants are required to be spaced at a maximum of 300 feet. Also as utilities are being ins;:alled, there must be 10' clearance around fire hydrants . If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. __ F DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY G� z; ST.PAUL DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS r 1 tel 1135 U.S.POST OFFICE&CUSTOM HOUSE 6 � y �I ST.PAUL,MINNESOTA 55101-1479 • '''"""7" October 24, 1988 ATTENTION OF Construction-Operations Regulatory Branch (89-128N-12) Ms. Jo Ann Olsen Assistant City Planner 690 Coulter Drive PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJECT: Carrico Addition; wetland encroachment for roads and lots in the NE 1/4 of section 3, T 116 N, R 23 W, Carver County, MN We have reviewed the information provided us about this project. The work is authorized by a nationwide Department of the Army permit, provided the enclosed conditions and management practices are followed. This determination covers only the project referenced above. If the design, location, or purpose of the work is changed, the project proposer should contact us to make sure the work would not result in a violation of Federal law. Our telephone number is (612) 220-0360. It is their responsibility to insure that the work complies with the terms of this letter and the enclosures. IT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED STATE PERMITS AND APPROVALS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE PROJECT. THIS NATIONWIDE PERMIT AUTHORIZATION IS CONTINGENT UPON STATE APPROVAL. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Tim Fell. Enclosure(s) en Wopa ef, Regulatory Branch Construction-Operations Division Determination: 330.5 (a) (26) This is based on the plans signed and dated on October 7, 1988, by Mr. Frank Cardarelle. 111 iJCT 1988 CITY OF CF-{ANFIASSLN MINNESOTA Authority for the following activities 1s given at 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) : [ 1/1/7330.5(a)(26) Discharges of dredged or fill material into the waters listed in paragraphs (a)(26)(i) and (11) of this section except those which cause the loss or substantial adverse modification of 10 acres or more of such waters of the United States, including wetlands. For discharges which cause the loss or substantial adverse modification of one to ten acres of such vaters.including wetlands, notification to the district engineer is required in accordance with Section 330.7 of this section. (Section 404) (1 ) Non-tidal rivers, streams, and their lakes an impoundments, including adjacent wetlands, that are located above the head waters. (ii) Other non-tidal waters of the United States, _ including adjacent wetlands, that are not part of a surface tributary system to interstate waters or navigable waters of the United States (i.e. , isolated waters). Regional Conditions [_] Majority of the Project Requires State Permits and/or Approvals Any person intending to discharge dredged or fill material into Minnesota- designated "Protected Waters" shall submit an application to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) before beginning work. Activities are authorized under this nationwide permit after the applicant obtains all applicable Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and/or Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) permits and approvals. Work may proceed upon receipt of all applicable MDNR and/or MPCA permits and - approvals. Other State and local authorizations may be required. This discharge of dredged or fill material would cause the loss or substantial adverse modification of: [—v] Less than one acre of waters of the United States [ ] Between 1 and 10 acres of waters of the United States Krc 1 1 (See reverse side. ) I ,-0ans0[:11.:-.3 — p 7 7 M to, o r• n rt rt to CO C r- o• o 0 0 r• 7 7 r• co 0 v rD 7 7 rt rt rt n m C 7 (D n r-, rt a r• rt O a (D rt rt n rt (D a r. p' M I-' •t rt 7 rt y C' r• r• N •-' —' 7 r r r• —' �< 1-'• r• VO o J as 1,71 CD - (D w 0 Ul t.) CD •--' H A lo (D N ...• B 0 UI n a. • • O O ' p•. • to ' 7 .• ' C- - a... • r• rt rt rt (D M M 7 C •• rt (D o (01 (D 7txj cotD p H r• H. H rt H rt0-3 - M '-3 o (D ' H PI H a '1 7 Co 7 rt c- 1:71 co 5 a a n n P• r• a 7•• 0 7' (D rt U. CD k a t o CD Cl. d o 7 a a E ] a rt r• o r• p,• :• rt a s `Y rt r• rt 0' rt O rt p.- rt a r, _ rt rt a rt rt p .rt co 7 7 7 r ., n o M m rt 0 rt rt D'�' P. r• rt h rt r0D a. p'' 7. m `C ? Co Co C `CD < 7. a a. 7 OD N. ? 7 (D 7 7 ,y 0 t... 7• .1 '^ (D rt rD � B `< CD CD (D a `< .0 00 9 a a (D fD rt n Ca rt Z H. 7 Co 1/44 m n(D rt c a 7 n rt n (D a ° V) a n h rt O a H C0 fD rt r• rt rt rt 01 ►� rt rt m m' ro 7 rt rt rt Z 7 7 rt '* r• a p.. moo , C CO n (D H• H. r• ( n rn © p.. Co Co (D Cl) r. tT C rt 7 n 7• m d m n 00 C H. H. d rt �. O rt r✓ n r• a m try' rt a m r• p f+. Co H9 fD p.. 7 o r 7 co rD N. rt rt `C G Pt 4 n 4 (OOD Oo t' c. G (D rtrt. fD 9 rt rt mrt (0 't7 M Nrt- m m a. E a ID t q E a 8 rt FE 03 03• rt rt H. 'y (D •S M 'C `U. C p~-+ H r0U.A .b la--• (D I-,• rt h„ 00 Z (D 0 7 E3 "H p~• m m PI 00 •-•r• N H /••' n 7 M a. r• �-' m F. kc a. R F, _ O DI rt • rt CD 0 7 ~ 1-1 P3 n• n co H rt rt rt 7 7 rt rr-• fD a 7 p-' O ri a (D H - rt 0 7 m 7• (D co p•. 0 00 r, a. o .< rt (D o a. 0 r• B 7 rt 0 • CD 7 CO rt h 00 rt p•'00 00 Z n b r• H. CO CD rD 00 < n m ° a aa. d m a (D tf ro •i 7co. 7 a el o' 7 0 0 a CO n rt C p.. O. 0 CC ° m £ < H.a. a r* rt CD C 0 7 03 aG, a " o Pi •n ,r,; a � °� B C H. G rD 0 m O H. `•< h rt U) c CO H. h 7 7• rt co `C a a N r• CD p'' rt r F'' r. p' m w r0 r• rD 7 _ a a r m c- N a r. D PS F' 1 ' rot, rat G n a Y+ O� 7 rD rD m r ' fD 00 to `< rt "� 7 rt 0 Cl) 9 �• n a C 9 B M — m rt m H. O Co Ca. 97- a rt rt 0 a Co o 0M o co a FM,, (D s 7. < 7' n rt n `<• O �, 0 (rt D a rt 7rt' p-' (p 0-0 rt rt t--co ' co et, tD a v m pa• 7' •V n 7 F. N• M '• r' rt ►+, w gyp,. E A CD O n �• r• rt Ort Uri rt H• 7 tY CD H• En a a m CD a rD - £ n O CO 7 r. 't 7° rt m rt co c p' rt ? r+ a Q CD N (D o. 0Cl) rt QO C r�' r•00 0 r "-• .d m b a' 7 a• E E a rt a r' f.. n H. "t rD ,°* ,-1 7 r• rt a a a H. r• rt r• a 7 oo a H. ,,, 0 a m rt t a. r•� p.. • O rt (--' ,n d r• b rt n 7' O rt '0 rt t• 0 CD< ~ 0-' 0 ._ rt 0' N C C' E ° rD b rt h 7' h O a Co h CO 7 rt C F.. h CD H. n rt rt 0 7 a 0 (D Co 7 p~,• 7ri. r. a H 0 d M ° Z 7 8 7 C• rt rt rt itI s E '� o M co ti rat 9 co •b g P1, a. 00 0 0 M PI (D a n rt a n o - ial C n 070 rt r N• = o- 0' p,, A CD CD m M. n ,y r to r-+ 7 G e a h •t p,, r D rt m n a CO r► a 7 n ID rt rt '1 ft r• m O (D N a 0 rtC 00 rt 7' rs H. C• 00 rt 't • r• E (D 9 m CD r-r, rpt CD r' C' C' 7' p£•. o 7 Cl) a �, Co a rr•� 7 7 7 al `C (D H. Co r- 7 a r• rt n r. (D G rt b m `C C a - >4 7 n .. P1 00 m ro n C' ~ — P' �'• n rt n 'b "t rt rt • 2 rt rt h 0 7 a 7 " a C 0 0 n Co m ' f D o 7 < n r• a ° n rt a P. a a' m m r• rt m .d 7 rt (D Cl) rt rt (D C C ° 7 r rD ft, C 0 _ 'r7 0- m rrGpt fD C m D OrO. 7 a (D m co 4:-.) M rT a. CD 0 CO C (D Z '� rt NZ rt 7 n CD CD Uri t.j' n u4. (D n 7 rt m a. a 7 7' rt p•. 0 rt n rD 0 B •v rt m rt rt (o I. o rt 7 rD r• r• a. 7 r' rD 0• 0. 0 o, rt r• P•'CI 0 7 c r• ~ Cl) 0. (CD rt Ft — Co O. 1< CD per., 7 m (D a co n C a .D `C 5 Cr (D a. a rt n p-• .U7 ro t•-' 0 rt rt 0 *' r✓ a. n 0 co p.• rD g C r• M P. t M 0 Cr r a. "Cl• m %D a• 7 rt 1y rrt aro rt (D PI a N a n a ft k< n Co 01 rD 0 rt H (D rt rD .a (D rD p ▪ rt C r• P. 00 H m ?s' El rD c a. 0o a. c 7• C 00 r• a `C 0, "r C CY cn rt (D c' m a- [n M rt C CD m rD rD (D (D O. rt rt rD E (D E to (-1 r• 7 7' p' rD C) 7 rn (D rt p.. ry C• rt 0 n 0. . rD r C < 7' p-. n n 0 - ID p, r• (D p (D p, frt C' rD .t rt p.. r P. r--• B f-' rt r 1-' — fD P. p. 9 n CD rt r• •+, £ r. C B £ 7 C r• 7 rD 0 M rf r• co a• rD a C m n (D 7 0 rt 7 k (D 7' .-. m rt •• rt r' U1 r. 1--' rD rt 7" C' 0 r• (0 (D En ° rt < c to a. r• a (D rt n p• ..., n rD 7 ro a. 7• M Co 7 cT7 b En CT/ r_r a• r• (D rD s< n r• 't a. 7 0 M co — p. 7 CD 7 r• rt r• P• 7 O� r• a. M p C a. 00 00 00 co a. b D p. r•00 C m (D a r9 700 rt C b P1 C .-' rD Cr r-• O• (D I 0 CD P. rt �< (D C p•' a. r• C n m r• '1 ft CD m m in o — .. a. 7 City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 — Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612)937-1900 Date: December 13, 1988 — To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Stephen Hanson, City Planner Subject: Preliminary plat to subdivide 12 acres into 13 single family lots and — a wetland alteration permit to fill and dredge a portion of a Class B wetland on property zoned RR and located on Lake Lucy Lane, approximately 4 mile west of Yosemite. Planning Case: 88-19 SUB & 88-12 WAP (Carl Carrico) The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on December 12, 1988 __ In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and pro- — posed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a — written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Corission on January 4, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later _ than December 23, 1988 . You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. __ 1. CityDepartments MN Dept. of Natural Resources -- 6:)C) City Engineer 8 a Company c City Attorney ,tiW Be1�? or United) City Park Director Public Safety Director E ric Company Dip � I! e Building Inspector SP or MN Valley) �= _ l V)e) Watershed District Engineer 10. DOWDEN Cable System nr;r,ral vra Soil Conservation Service 11. Roger Machmeier/Jim Anderson 71?/,7:7:' 4. MN Dept. of Transportation 12,,,% U. S. Fish and Wildlife CU.S. Army Corps of Engineers 13. Carver County Engineer — ±. V• Minnegasco 14. Other . . _-. _. - - — 1Z-15-if› **** REVISED PLANS **** DEC l. 91988 No , tke, loon -Ft Ick f09 lAktA 41 Aiv)- 4 (nom U, -. . .: 9111t4U1 .h �M asco inne 9 A Company of Diversified Energies, Inc. December 21, 1988 Stephen Hanson City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Planning Case:88-19 Sub & 88-12 WAP Dear Mr. Hanson, Enclosed are your prints with our mains shown in red. Individual services are not shown. These locations are approximate and must not be used for construction purposes . We see no problems with serving proposed new addition, or with our existing facilities , unless there are any R/W changes on Lake Lucy Lane. Please send me a set of your final plans so that we may determine our involvement. Sincerely,�� Le.066 �C �� x"59• �� Dale H. Sodahl Sr. Design Specialist Minnegasco, Inc. Engineering Services P.O. Box 1165 Minneapolis, MN 55440-1165 /dr Encl . 700 West Linden Avenue P.O. Box 1165 Minneapolis, MN 55440-1165 ;11-t, MINNESOTA TEXAS PROPERTIES Waterway Tower, Suite 940 4445 West 77th Street 433 East Las Colinas Boulevard Edina, Minnesota 55435 Irving, Texas 75039 612-831-8109 — 214-402-9692 November 16 , 1988 Ms . Joanne Olson City Planner _ City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen , MN 55317 Dear Joanne : Persuant to our recent discussion regarding the property on _ Lake Lucy Lane . We are requesting that the city grant us an extension on our application for planning and zoning. We are asking for the extension due to the realignment of the road that allows access to the property from Lake Lucy Lane . As you are aware , we are also discussing with the Park and Recreation Department , the possible purchase of a portion of the property . It is our intension to appear before the Planning Commission _ at their earliest convenience . Sincerely yours Thomas H . Carrico 0 V 1 7 19888 Li 1-Y OF CHANI-,ASSENV LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: ►'h;,,mte , cx.a.s OWNER: ate 1 e. 12c ri t 7 ADDRESS Llici4S -1-) S tz ' ADDRESS yi/i//r 777" Slr[p • fr t;A0. ► Ss� 35 fa;: Mtn 55 35 Zip Code Zip Code TELEPHONE (Daytime ) 4E, - )Oq TELEPHONE REQUEST: $ Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan Preliminary Plan Zoning Variance Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment !c Subdivision ;;( Land Use Plan Amendment ]C Platting Metes and Bounds Conditional Use Permit Street/Easement Vacation Site Plan Review Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME _ car., PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION f? REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION k 5 1-=-- PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING c ',- USES PROPOSED ; / / / SIZE OF PROPERTY Z A LOCATION i 4<n_ ,� c REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST S :4 eft-T.T. e Y-T,j- LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) • a) m y 00 - .0 . N O 3 W tJ 0) •O CO aJw e Y L O O M .0 0 Q! a) 0 U CO .-1 O C s. .. •71 U .-1 0) u..ti.0 SW 4. !.r a) CO al .)6 CO .. ea 1 o U CO 0 a► C ...T �. d 1 .-1 ,X* 3 11 COC 0 C1 .1 .0 CO 4.J -4 e0 w ,.4 CO CO 74 a) m a% m O O O a+ ,d C N O. a) a-; u co .••1 11 a) 0 O u a) .1 CO.G '.0 CO W L ..1 C m O.k* +i eel CO m co m .-1 u ...4U b 4a 0 L •1-1 +1 m CO CO O. .i • L 1.1 00'.-1 .CO 1. 10 00• 0) L W O N w m .0 CO CO CO O C) C7 L s 07 O C •O L 00 C) C 0 ••• CO 0 •••..0 u .CO CO 0) CO U •C CO mum .0 U 0 1+ 0..0 co o ,a 0) CO 0) �. U 7 U .0 C L co co e+1 u r. 10 0 L 00 w +-1 C a.1.' co O 'O L a) a) L 0 a) a) L 10 C aJ 14 u a) o. 00 0 O ,. a) C e'1 Cil 0 a 0 -- .0 0 4.1 .= 3 W F m D. .-. w 0 L ++ Z u 0 U. co a) a) a) Z SOD CO 0) - a) 1r1 ri C!) L 7 a) C47 a) m L U +� C u O CO CC' U .- 1.' E a) a1 0 .0 d C.) .0 a) m C 3 v IQ .c a�.1 m ,. 7 • .0 a) '- m r1 0 .F* u W CO u U X L 3 13 a a) � L CO Z 0 0 a.1 1n 4.1 ..0 u 0) 10 W L 'O x t0 W 0 0) 1 C •. y 0) 0) e•1 7 e•-• (1) u a) b co m W O ,i u aJ "O C!) U u a) W u 0 - ° • U a) ° O O G u L) r1 a) C/) •.O W •w W JJ W L 0 SD COm 3 ,. CO Ci Q1 O 00 L ri eU 14 11 .^r L �.._ L+ ° 0 ^ I+. •° , / ZC1 '-eo CO u CO O CO m 0 e0 0 i., e1 w .-1 ; 4 ,, •. - w Z 7 CO r1 u 1.1 G • p. a) C 1r u 0 01 01 00 Q1 C i u 7 O C L CO U • •.. O C 0 CO a+ .•-1 C L CU U r1 m CO a) 0, e0 Q'. 1J +1 u Z 10 m w .i...e .4-.1 C N S •.C. a) c0 C 7 O .0 -.- 4.1 L ON CI 1 .1a) Q) 10 CO CO 0 a1 1r u .D 6..1 N U Q7 a1 .0 Q) •.1 L L 0 00 4.1 W o00 W CO 0 • a) CO 0 0 L1 11 a.1 u-. A.) ,-I e0 m •.1 m 0 .0 0 u m 0 W > •'4 1n L N m m L CO a) O. c0 00 r1 CD ° co 0. _ a 1!• co r.W C., • Wa1 0 O U .0 a1 a) U CU W O a) •.t 0 3 cn C 44 .0 .a C .: 00to .: mW u CO -T Czl 1n W 0 0 a1 3 i) u a) •a.1 L co m L -../- -e a1 O a) .-+ :. ^ 0 7 L W E L m u N 'O u CO 0 L' ' O 0 m 0 X .0 e•1 r* ,. i1 m O O O E O c0 7 ,. m e•1 L 0) U ^ a) C Cr.) L 0 Z a) ,-1 4-. CO i+ 1.4 U e0 N c) -C u 4.1 a1 01 J i 1t 0 m Z•• 4) 4.1 U .0 O 0 0 v L a) L L 14 7 a . C ^ m u 0) 1J CD O) J0 1. 7 O 0 a) L 00,-1 E0 00 W ^ a) a1 C a) u d cu 4.4 LJ 00 0 O CO Z E W •. -0 u u y O 0 L C y 0 •• u O a) U 0 w a1 CO - CO CO ^ Z C) _ ms W14.. a_) 7. CO Cn .0 0 0 •-.. -+ CO C!] a' C 0) CO= U 0 f 111 C ,• 'O 7 N ° J O O) 0 0 1 L CZ iJ 0 . 0 CO •'41 0 0 r1 r) 0 ; .-1 re 0 0) -n 0 0 CO C I 0 a) . 00 L C 1` •.1 00 G. . Cn .4. • L .14 y,1 .-.1 10 iJ ri .-1 '0 • -i Nu iJ 1:] e+'+ Cr: L a) 0 ^ ti ~ 'C u CO C' m 'O " • 0 a1 - CO I --. O a1 a) - U L a) e.y y ) CO re W •• Yd W u m e�1 '^+ i.1 0) L m W a) CO L W N .- u O a •.=? u .`. 00 L N O rJ eJ a) 3 W L 1m0 00) u C1J 0) ° .i- 0) 00 e.-. •-1 =r11 m L to3 _ a, min a) O a) e) � m - 0) Q ^) 'O m O m 3 0 C C y 0 0 0) W 4 ''' U C L 0 0 OC m U ° a, 7 3 0 3 -1 • C CO '• U 0 00 C7 7.4 O O .--. •.�1 -. L L :J L CL 3 ... C1 '. a) G ' O 0 0 L O .a O -. ^. cJ U Ori -O O .0 ^ U C Z a) 00 ^ s O Cn U -. cn O ^ :, ,, CD CO .- ro a i i-. W L a) L7 L .....:f., L .. ... 1O N Z L 4.. .^.. e"1 L m 10 CO .0 W a) G GO y ):. O a) n Q) -4 a) m --1 7 .; .-3 P1 e+1 co Cl) 3 Z Z L W L co L :.. CO 'O V' L m L '7 m W y. •3 •n '0'fl co 0 3m .J I.' CJ _ - E CO0 _b en 01 U en _ 1+ 0 a CO N • O - H Your Mor( Doorman ///gfj - Tom Nye 11161 _ "T ' 4 t'- o -SES f C ornmiislc. UY 111 /vJMF/J rmn A/ye _z- 1 (•(/ G G �� P4e4r� e7r/ /�i// � ?ra�I sf_ � l r t it,14//") /)//1 (d"r/A-v/ dlri rE� d�f �l P r' 7 '/y S'N`0dr/.�� be/ e7/K//ti Gi V 9"`'�I t ". and,err , ff L1 ' L��r ...N A/. q7 // / . %'Ir Tr'14^I/0 7r frA/41/1.2 1"1-',01/ ,6S1ct. z1/9 /H,°W/. 7 ,' /7 /4v rA r 3-4 c.1/9 my jji7J(74" SH1/4;i fr—: d44/f/ / k X12 (C/ c o j def rci7// tip �"/cs✓�� i// 4 H' l w a V//ate , d 1 /(YJ/. , q�c %6,o i( . /77,1,f'r S�2c— fhdf" wt• dec d// 0N-v2e /'h✓1L A, — (arrr2ex,f- d/ 1961 cG ' fj,h,f v2c , yc GA Morgan Products Ltd. NOV 2 1986 CITY OF CHANhASSEN Your Mor( Doorman Mf.a ) ;• Tom Nye • //pc' �� M►r ,T, /f 9`y//`- k 7 r..d//2 /J ed./ f hr,vr'h A;s �/d��,�f frac"- g/s/M , ,f yp 414M A, 744c.r. , w4 c& /d��,,�/, -f — d cc r old /ora -N/7 oprti-fv ')p rior co f 9rp r w-,y A, AA"v /fT — ‘441///2 /►�C✓r�4, s v/ I L�fr"r Ll<J, r f ‘4,/fkr (/;/ yul Cr/rf — Ccrr/df Sh(hI Al VSfi✓t ov/2 r/ght Av 6y,6Jj ?11 MN%�%r$ "l S G /,1f(rI c!✓ L✓`I rd � a P 0 6��d� d � r 'v/. MORGAN Morgan Products Ltd. — NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a Public Hearing on Wednesday, November 2, 1988, at 7 : 30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to con- sider the application of Carl Carrico to subdivide 12 acres into 16 single family lots on property zoned RR, Rural Residential and located on Lake Lucy Lane, approximately mile west of Yosemite. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a Public Hearing on Wednesday, November 2, 1988, at 7 :30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall , 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to con- sider the application of Carl Carrico to fill and dredge a por- - tion of a Class B wetland on property zoned RR, Rural Residential and located on Lake Lucy Lane, approximately mile west of Yosemite. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner Phone: 937-1900 (Publish in the Carver County Herald on October 20 , 1988 ) *** THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS HAVE BEEN RESCHEDULED *** TO THE NOVEMBER 16, 1988, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING _ AT 7:30 ��a -IN /THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS /0/ k-C74l� Ci-t1 C/b5ch'12� poi 17 IOK�c' p��N c Q LvG /)1( c/ //jxf, //V Awe; / jr /// / — 11461,(5:- Mel, f?• Sr z.41/�l CITY O F P.C. DATE: Jan. 4 , 1989 C.C. :: :85U: 89WAI . CASE Prepared by: Hanson/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 1 . Conditional Use Permit for Expansion of a Wholesale Nursery Operation 2 . Wetland Alteration Permit for Alteration of a Z Class A Wetland — Q 3 . Setback Variance U J LOCATION: 9150 Great Plains Boulevard Cl. APPLICANT: Northwest Nursery Wholesale — Q Mark VanHoef 9150 Great Plains Boulevard Chaska, MN 55318 PRESENT ZONING: A-2, Agricultural Estate ACREAGE: 39 . 48 acres DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING - AND LAND USE: N- A-2; single family residence S- A-2; agricultural E- A-2; single family residence 0 W- A-2; agricultural W WATER AND SEWER: Not available to the site. — PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site contains a Class A wetland in the northwest corner of the site. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Agricultural 2......;/A 86 1 H ST. i'" `yam i ii,,, J RSP f R 1 2 'SF , I I s 3powo E cr I e :. 0 i _ 8 EVARO ir (-- ----- R 18 1, C ` Al ill ..,, _ • . - = i - 9 cs az � RD 1 . A2 , cP9 ic-r--791. 1-9 PUD ;; Aire I -.146// r'. IrIP/i-r!„:17W. ..4" 4. •...„„, •N_ - ' ...._411114. , IV, LAKE — • 9h � RSF R/LEY Cavo #� \ C • u T Pt LR iLt _ �� ---9& o — ..., .140 POND •/ 97' 1 -FAIL n / ::?4. \ � . f -9E to ik, / �c , • .--•. C:-....)-- It ... . 2 Q Qv // 2C • /I 0 / v--.6. 30- W 0 - -- _CM - - 4O(' Northwest Nursery January 4 , 1989 Page 2 ANALYSIS Proposal Northwest Nursery is proposing to expand their wholesale nursery operation requiring a modification of their existing conditional use permit. Implementation of the proposed land also involves a wetland alteration permit and a variance. Each of these appro- vals is discussed separately in this report. Fore the con- - venience of the public, it is suggested that staff present all three items simultaneously during the public hearing process . •-- Conditional Use Permit The applicant is requesting modification of an existing conditional use permit to expand a wholesale nursery operation. On February 4 , 1985 , the City Council approved a permit including a site plan which identified the existing house and barn, buildings "A" through "D" , a yard area, proposed planting screens and a large growing range encompassing the entire western portion of the site. A new site plan dated August 12 , 1988, stamped "Received December 12, 1988" identifies many of these same facilities but is more definitive in breaking down the growing range areas of the site. The new plan calls for the creation of a pond in the north central portion of the site and a shade structure east of the existing house which serves as a main office. Both of these items are addressed later in this report. Additionally, the plan calls for a secondary structure that is shown on the overall site plan does not appear to be of the same shape or dimension of the actual structure that exists on the property. Northwest Nursery is not proposing any changes in use. The busi- ness will continue to operate in the same manner that it has since it was first approved in 1985 . Only the site plan configuration which is part of the formal permit is actually changing. Of the site plan modifications , only one causes concern. TH 101 is currently under the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Eventual construction of the second access will require a permit from MnDOT. Plans for the construction of TH 212 may impact the area around the nursery property. Since exact details of such plans are unknown at this time, it is advisable that the City defer approval of the second access until a later date when right-of-way and alignment plans are finalized. RECOMMENDATION - Conditional Use Permit Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit #85-1 based on the plans stamped "Received December 12, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: Northwest Nursery January 4 , 1989 -- Page 3 1 . The applicant shall comply with Section 20-257 (Conditional Use Standards for wholesale nurseries) of the Chanhassen City Code. 2 . The applicant shall submit a new site plan drawing that accurately depicts the location of the shade structures and all other buildings and features . 3 . Approval of the site plan specifically excludes the second access along the northern portion of the property. If desired by the applicant at a later date, the driveway loca- tion will require a permit from the Minnesota Department of Transportation and modification of the conditional use permit by the City. Wetland Alteration Permit The Northwest Nursery property contains both Class A and Class B wetlands . The approximate locations of the wetland boundaries are shown on the applicants site plan. The areas labeled Class — III correspond to the City' s Class A wetlands the Class II areas correspond to the Class B wetlands. Under City Code, a wetland alteration permit is required for development within 200 feet of a Class A wetland. Additionally, a permit is required for any — digging, dredging or filling in a Class A or B wetland. The Northwest Nursery site plan does not call for the disturbance of the Class A wetland area. The plan does, however, include construction within the Class B wetland. Within the Class B area, the applicant is proposing to remove a number of old stumps _ and create two ponding areas , a small one at the west end of the site and a large one approximately 550 feet to the east. The two ponds will be connected by a proposed drainage ditch. On November 30 , 1983 , a group of people including representatives of _the U. S . Fish and Wildlife Service, Corps of Engineers, EPA and City of Chanhassen walked the site with Mark VanHoef and Mice Nugent of the Northwest Nursery to review all of the proposed improvements . During the visit, the approximate boundaries of the Class A and Class B wetlands were identified by the represen- tative from the Corps of Engineers. Northwest Nursery' s plan has been reviewed by both the Corps of Engineers and the U. S . Fish and Wildlife Service. Due to the — holidays, the City has not received written comments from either agency at the time of the assembly of this report. Both Jerry Smith of the Corps and Paul Burke of the Fish and Wildlife _ Service have verbally indicated that the proposed plan is accep- table. Written comments should be available for presentation at the Planning Commission meeting. Northwest Nursery January 4 , 1989 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION - Wetland Alteration Permit Based upon the review of both the Corps of Engineers and the U . S . Fish and Wildlife Service, staff recommends approval of the proposed wetland modifications . It is suggested that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Wetland Alteration Permit Request #88-1 based on the plans stamped "Received December 12, 1988" subject to the following conditions: 1 . All areas designated as Class A wetlands shall remain undisturbed. 2 . Disturbance of the Class B wetlands shall be limited to the improvements identified on the applicant' s site plan stamped "Received December 12 , 1988" . 3 . All excavated material shall be placed in upland areas . 4 . The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 20-440 of the Chanhassen City Code. 5 . Prior to any excavation of fill activity, all improvements shall be staked in the field and field conditions shall oe reviewed by a representative of the U. S . Fish and Wildlife Service or other individual acceptaole to the City. ( Note: The above conditions may be modified and/or supplemented based upon written comments from review agencies . ) Variance During the summer of 1988, Northwest Nursery constructed a shade structure to protect heat sensitive plants . Although no building permit was issued, the structure was approved by city staff for immediate construction due to the hot, dry conditions that existed during June, July and August. The shade structure con- sists of a series of 4 x 4 posts and 2 x 8 ' support joists with a snow fence roof to screen sunlight. The overall height of the structure is 10 feet. Under Section 20-257 of the Chanhassen City Code, all storage yard areas and buildings must be setback 100 feet from public rights-of-way. The required setback was not observed during construction of the building. The following is a summary of the events that occurred: June 13, 1988 - The City received a letter from Mike Nugent, Manager of Northwest Nursery stating that they intended to Northwest Nursery January 4 , 1989 _ Page 5 build a shade house with approximate dimensions of 85 ' x 110 ' . July 6 , 1988 - Jo Ann Olsen wrote a letter to Mark VanHoef of Northwest Nursery confirming a conversation regarding the — shade structure. The letter specifically referenced that a 100 foot setback was required for all storage areas and structures . July 15 , 1988 - The Chanhassen Building Inspector visited the site and noted that a portion of the structure was located 117' from the centerline of TH 101 and that due to the 66 ' — right-of-way width, the structure should be a minimum of 133 ' from the centerline of the road. The inspector advised the applicant that the shade house would have to be moved 16 feet — in order to comply with required setbacks . July 21 , 1988 - The Chanhassen Building Inspector visited the _ site and issued a stop work order for the portion of the structure that was not in compliance with the required set- backs . At that time, the southeast portion of the shade house was complete and construction was suspended on the — northeast portion. September 12 , 1988 - Steve Kirchman, Building Inspector, wrote a memorandum to Jo Ann Olsen stating that portions of the structure are in violation of the zoning ordinance. He further recommended that the portions in violation be removed before any further permits are granted. — To date, the applicant has not submitted a registered survey of the property locating both boundary lines and existing features . All references of the location of the shade house are based on field measurements by the Building Inspectorrand non-survey plans submitted by Northwest Nursery. Because of a lack of definitive _ field data, the location and setback of the shade structure can only be considered approximate. The information available is reasonably accurate for the purposes of analyzing the required variance. — The shade structure that now exists has an overall envelope dimension of 36 .5 ' x 90 ' with a 12 ' x 48 ' notch out of the — northeast corner . At the closest point, the structure has a 68 foot setback from the right-of-way line for TH 101. Only the southwest corner of the structure actually observes the required _ 100 foot setback. The existing configuration results in the application for the 32 foot variance from the required 100 foot setback. In accordance with the City Code, the actual decision on the variance is made by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals . Sicne the variance is part of the conditional use permit, it is _ Northwest Nursery January 4 , 1989 Page 6 appropriate for the Planning Commission to offer their comments and make a recommendation to the Board. In reviewing the variance request, the Planning Commission should consider the criteria for granting variance as stated in Section 20-58 of the City Code. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the Council shall not grant, a variance unless they find the following facts : A. That the literal enforcement of the Ordinance would cause undue hardship and practical difficulty. B. That the hardship is caused by special conditions and cir- cumstances which are peculiar to the land and structure involved and which are not characteristic of or applicable to other lands or structures in the same district. C . That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preser- vation and enjoyment of substantial property rights . D . That the special conditions and circumstances are not a con- sequence of a self-created hardship. E. That the variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the City of the neighborhood wherein the property is situated and will be in Keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. Additionally, the nature of the structure and the status of TH 101 are also relevant factors . As the Planning Commission knows, the eventural jurisdiction and improvement of TH 101 is unknown at this time. The City is actively pursuing plans to improve 101 south to the planned interchange with new TH 212 . The comprehensive plan calls for improvement of the entire route. Since eventual plans for the section of the road that abuts Northwest Nursery are unknown at this time, it is impossible to predict if additional right-of-way will be needed in the future. Maintaining a 100 foot setback certainly assures that the property will be available should additional right-of-way be needed. Allowing lesser setbacks may compromise future options . The existing shade house is considered a permanent structure by the Building Inspector because the posts are anchored in concrete. Since the structure does not contain interior or exterior walls and has only snow fence for a roof , it could be relocated relatively easily with an almost total salvage of materials . RECOMMENDATION - Variance Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: Northwest Nursery January 4 , 1989 _ Page 7 "The Planning Commission recommends that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals find the requst to be inconsistent with the conditions for granting a variance and therefore deny the requested 32 foot — setback variance. The Northwest Nursery shad house should be relo- cated in such a mannter that all of the structure observes the required 100 foot setback. " _ KEVIN S. AND VALETTE FINGER 9151 GREAT PLAINS BLVD. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 445-2612 December 28, 1988 Planning Commission City of Chanhassen Chanhassen, MN Dear Commission Members: I am writing this letter in response to the Northwest Wholesale Nursery, Inc. 's (Nursery) application for zoning amendment. It is my understanding that the Nursery is requesting to build a shade structure to come within 200' of a water shed. I DO NOT FEEL THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO THIS. My reasoning is of a very basic nature. The Nursery has shown NO respect for others — property in the past and I feel they will go beyond what you would allow, as they are currently doing. They basically have no respect for the property of others. It is my opinion that if you allow them to build the shade structure they will continue to dump more junk and fill into the water shed area and eventually take advantage of the situation and remove the water shed area, and MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL remove the animal cover in the winter time. I also hereby request that the planning commission review the Nursery' s current permits. This request is because they are not operating as they represented they would at the time their per- mits were issued. Let us first review my first contention that they do not respect other peoples' property. We have owned the property directly across Highway 101 from the Nursery for the same period of time the Nursery has owned their land. In the summer of 1986 we noticed that the type of watering system they were operating to water the shrubs on the hill facing Highway 101 was draining on to our property uncontrollably through a culvert under the high- way. We spoke to them in the fall of 1986, the spring and summer of 1987 and the summer of 1988. All they have done is gone to a different type of watering system, which has NOT alleviated the problem. We have now lost five nice evergreens, two forty-foot rows of good producing raspberry bushes and have received, through erosion, approximately eight to twelve inches of sand and bark through this culvert. DEC C 1988 CITY OF CHANHAJSEN Page 2 Planning Commission December 28, 1988 We have spoken to them on numerous occasions and they refuse to — do anything; I have spoken to the city engineer and he puts us on the back burner and does nothing for us. In the Nursery's original meetings with the Planning Commission the Nursery stated they "would not hurt any of the surrounding properties". They have hurt us since day one and are unwilling to cooperate with us. My suggestions to take care of the problem and return things to the way they were is to: 1 ) Block the culvert that runs under Highway 101 just south of the Nursery's driveway. 2) Excavate a ditch along Highway 101 to handle all the run off the Nursery should have. 3) The Nursery should re-excavate their driveway in a man- ner that would eliminate us receiving all their gravel and bark. — These are items that have been discussed with the Nursery before and they refuse to do anything, they have not even come up with a counter proposal . My second area of concern was that of reviewing their permit to operate as a nursery. If you will review the comments made at their hearing in 1985 you will see that they assured the planning commission that they would be a "tree farm". It is true that they do grow trees. However, the greatest share of their busi- _ ness is that of a broker. They are constantly having semis haul trees in and out during the spring and summer. There is also a great deal of noise coming from there, due to the two Bobcats they have. These machines run from 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM every day including Saturday. If they were in fact operating a "tree grow- - ing nursery" the noise would be substantially less (ie. there would not be the amount of Bobcat noise that there currently is) and there would not be the volume of large truck traffic that there is now. With a "tree growing nursery" we would also have the peaceful country atmosphere that was there when we first purchased the property. I believe this operation has gone far beyond the original an- ticipated guidelines set forth by this commission. For this reason I request that you do not give this business any further considerations. I further request you review their previous request and compare it to their current operations to determine if they are in fact operating within the guidelines that they themselves had previously set forth. Page 3 Planning Commission December 28, 1988 Thank you for your consideration in this matter. We look forward to a favorable decision declining the Nursery's request. Sincerely, &a/.21669 / �_,% ENT �` TAIL NIDE aft. pi United States Department of the Interior MAMA - FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICEOM — 44..eh 1. ST. PAUL FIELD OFFICE (ES) 50 Park Square Court IN REPLY REFER TO: 400 Sibley Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 SPFO December 9, 1988 Ms. JoAnn Olsen, Assistant City Planner City of Chanhassen — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Ms. Olsen: We have reviewed the comments contained in Mr. Mark Koegler's memorandum dated November 30, 1988, regarding the — Northwest Nursery Wholesale, Inc. , project. We concur with the details provided in the memorandum and we reiterate our offer to review the final project staking prior to fill — placement activities. If you have any further questions regarding this project, please contact Mr. Paul Burke of my staff at your convenience. Sincerely, — . •� y - / James L. ith Asst. Field Supervisor .NORMwnT NORTH WEST NURSERY WHOLESALE �cneceT MNOLtlALL INC. 9150 GREAT PLAINS BIND. CHASKA. MN :55318 112 '445-4088 December 5, 1988 MEMO To: JoAnn Olsen From: North West Nursery Wholesale, Inc. Date: December 5, 1988 Subject: Follow-up Site Plan North West Expansion Comments: 1 . Enclosed please find revised site plan as requested from our meeting of November 30th at the Nursery. Please note that both Class II and Class III Wetlands have been denoted per Mr. Jerry Smith's recommendation. Also find proposed relocation of pond area. 2. After review of Mr. Mark Koealer's memorandum I would question his notation of : "AV portion of the field area is in Type II (U.S. Fish & Wildlife) Wetland area and cannot be filled. " My understanding was that this area in ques- tion was not Class II Wetlands, and that Mr. Smith flagged the appropriate boundaries which exempted Field "A" from Wetland compliance. Otherwise, I was in full agreement with all information recapped by Mr. Mark Koegler. Sincerely, 11l•CA- n) MARK VAN HOEF ,: .„, VanrikonEnt Hazardi Stallings' - kar.a.•ems...•vwn.,. MEMORANDUM TO : Jo Ann Olsen FROM: Mark Koegler DATE : November 30 , 1988 — SUBJECT: Summary of meeting held at Northwest Nursery Wholesale , Inc . on November 30 , 1988 IN ATTENDANCE : Mark VanHoff , Northwest Nursery Wholesale , Inc . Mike Nugent , Northwest Nursery Wholesale , Inc . Jerry Smith , U . S. Army Corps of Engineers — Paul Burke , U . S . Fish and Wildlife Service Catherine Grissom Garra , U . S . EPA , Region V Water Division , Chicago Mark Koegler , VHS , Inc . , Representing the City of Chanhassen COMMENTS: A field review of the site was conducted focusing on the — three areas that are outlined on the attached sheets . Area E which lies at the northeast corner of the site was the first area observed . Federal agency representatives did not have any problems — with fill activities in area E providing that the limits of fill generally correspond to the extension of the east/west plane of the northern wall of the existing shade structure . This would _ generally allow the nursery to fill the area down to and including the 892 contour shown on the plan . Area A is the site proposed as a future tree growing field . According to federal agency representatives , a portion of the field area is within the Type II ( U . S . Fish & Wildlife) wetland area and can not be filled . Mr. VanHoff was informed that the nursery can grow trees within the area and , if necessary , can conduct plowing operations within the growing field area . If needed , the nursery can also construct an access road along the southwest portion of the growing field providing that the road generally follows the toe — of the existing slope. Area C contains both Type II and Type III wetlands as classified by the U . S . Fish and Wildlife Service. The pond as shown on the site plan dated "Received August 29 , 1988 " is not acceptable DEC 0 1988 3030 Harbor Lane North BIdg.II, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447-2175 612/5i:5-T10'31.� because it lies within the Type III wetland . The line of delineation between the two wetland types is generally consistent with the eastern edge of the proposed pond . Representatives stated that they could support fill and the construction of the pond within the Type II wetland which comprises the area identified on the plan as "Proposed Shrub Growing Field * Exhibit B . Wetlands in Areas A and C were located in the field by Jerry Smith with orange flagging . After review of the site , Mark VanHoff indicated that he would revise the site plan to show the wetlands as marked in the field and modification of the proposed pond . Upon completion , he will forward copies of the plan to the City of Chanhassen for review by the Planning Commission and City Council . Upon receipt of the plan , the Corps and Fish and Wildlife Service will respond with appropriate comments in writing . Paul Burke indicated that he would review the staking of the proposed pond improvements prior to initiation of construction if desired by the City of Chanhassen . Please advise me if , in your review of this memo , you find that your interpretation of any of the subject matter varies . R . Mark Koegler cc : Paul Burke Catherine Grissom Garra Jerry Smith Mark VanHoff z -4 5 . . : ▪ . . . , , . :,„ • . . . : : , _ , v. .._. ;-_ _ , 4 ; w ' ; ' i Pr j N i i i p� 4.11 O 11 t z 06r aITI ., l j s e o � , . _ .�. 0 f I • . I a Ti , "1 • - - 7. ;: PI Z ) ii c , z i ; I • i� I'; ; t — 4, , _ • _ ; Gtf ^^(fit \ 1 .ice � \ \ 1 I - W .- Ds . �� �� -, I .\' dreCtP1146f , - 7.. , ,ii,, \\\N. - ` �-_ • • _ _ - . . ..... , ...,.... _ , .. _. �� .,....,., . „ �' 4. , Mb. ...,„_, , • 1f _ \, , •♦ `i / — - a — y♦ .� �\ I .41 •i .--- ' • . ' \I.:. fi ski,•:›E. f • T ` ,: �4 / r • , t \ : / ! , I ...... `. l ‘..\:,s t ‘......." 4",..> ' , `\ ,� ,, s.,�. yy�� ;t \ D, �' �, • iis'Ai .'l r WE: �neb.,k / \ . {,�_ p — L.s 'N-1 N1.1.1 y 3H R.I.• \ , T 1167 •� 4: /.:::::4/.;111:1 Nipslr- — • -&il! S . / _ • \ t`. �, f, ---------------'-' ..et 4 . • --- ,' • ', ,I\.fir f 11 .- .� MIH i1 ... 1 , ++•err-^ • ) 1 / \ \ \ . 1 `t r _ \\ \\ p \ ...‘,.\\\‘ , .r., : `•R SD I _� 1 ♦ film&:` f:_".4.1/4.......**........- / - \: .\ \ • 054 f5 sktie.AE. ‘` , \ ,.' ,T ,i...Ass,.,, \:::,... . -ricez..-"A / r 411k Nts .37 • .. \ ♦,` \\.\\ ''.Z}..,:k ♦\ V ‘Mm\ —Sf - .. \ .. \\ AC T t .. ` I. , — 1,. �� ♦E- •.,,�,.er INN, . (1‘ 1 _ 1 DI et- - 'LOt��+14. i, !e/ . `- .Ss D �• . '. id./vi)jt) .---- Iti. 1i , ..t...-i.1 ' 1r--\ 1 j i f \ 1/ .4 .14, :moor, 1�a�° '� ,A,r 7j N - i. : 1 rlwr7 ;44E-tr) rIIIIII- • - lair: 1 re P‘ist' . ; 111,11111,11.11111t p! ,& re, .k.v .'. •,t' • fr'l ,cr- i'‘ 1 \ 1 • ..(ki . ..-. A.--,....• . ., _ r itir d: \ 1!•Iti- i: li)pirld-64) ?-3A. 4,; : dd I Ari. .a ♦ +a 1 .,y� , k4 i i, --'14i1\1 x P�+ is •- rt,�, . . ; - T ,- 4... vs A 4/r) 1 g 1 % A mai. - - i 4.7 -•• . ' A I -r. _ , _moi_ ''111) r( e--D ,N-,,.,✓,", 1� 1 • *Emma • FxNi► ►r-!'i rook E.Rig r- i Mark Koegler and Future City Planner November 3, 1988 — Page 2 3 . Northwest Nursery - The Northwest Nursery needs to receive a conditional use permit for expansion of the wholesale nursery • and a wetland alteration permit for alteration to the Class A _ wetland. I spoke with Mark VanHoff today (11/2/88) and they will be making application on November 7 for the December 7, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. The revised plans need to show the exact location of the wetland on the site and staff will be meeting with Mark VanHoff and Paul Burke and hope- fully somebody from the Corps of Engineers to determine the exact boundaries of the wetland. 4 . Pfankuch/Frost ( 80 & 100 Sandy Hook Road) - These two residents reside on Lotus Lake. In the summer of 1988, they filled in a portion of a wetland adjacent to Lotus Lake, claiming that — they did so to remove purple loosestrife. Staff visited the site with Paul Burke from the Fish and Wildlife Service and determined that a wetland was filled and some of the fill — should be removed to permit the wetland to return to the site. It was felt that filling in the wetland was not the proper way to remove purple loosestrife and in fact has not removed purple loosestrife from the site. All of the information is in Wetland Alteration Permit #88-13 . (Vicki - I will be writing a letter to the involved parties — stating that they must submit a wetland alteration permit application . Please send a copy of this letter to Mark and he can refer to file for more information. ) 5 . Tree Protection Plan - Alan Olson (DNR Forester) during the winter months of 1988 and 1989 will be identifying and inven- torying forested areas within the city boundaries of — Chanhassen. This will involve aerial photography and on site field checking. Mr. Olson should have his field work completed by March of 1989 . The purpose of this is to — designate important stands of trees which should be con- sidered to be preserved by the city from development. There ' should not be too much staff involvement at this point, but _ be aware that this is in the works if the City Council asks what the status of it is. A file is being made with the information in it. 6 . Retail West Shopping Center - Jim Winkels representing the Retail West development is in the process of pursuing Planning Commission and City Council approval for the shopping center sign. The site plan approval for the shopping center required that the sign receive Planning Commission and City Council approval. Staff has been working with Mr. Winkels and Jim Lasher from BRW to provide a design that meets city ordinance — requirements and also meets with the downtown redevelopment plans . Currently, there are many illegal signs on the site and staff has stated to Mr. Winkels that these have to be — CITY OF cHANHAssEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: JoAnn Olsen, Assistant City Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Inspector t DATE: September 12 , 1988 SUBJ: Planning Case CUP 85-1 WAP ( Northwest Nursery) Applicant constructed a shade structure this past summer on the north side of the office. Portions of the structure are in violation of current zoning ordinances . This should be removed before any further permits are gran ed . trnn��STATEnnOF DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PHONE NO.296-7523 METRO REGION DIVISION OF WATERS FILE NO. - 1200 Warner Rd. , St. Paul, MN 55106 September 8, 1988 Ms. JoAnn Olsen City of Chanhassen — 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: EXPANSION OF A WHOLESALE NURSERY, COUNTY ROAD 18 AND HIGHWAY 101 Dear Ms. Olsen: Thank you for submitting the master plan for the above referenced proposal. The area south of County Road 18 and west of Highway 101 contains a 37 acre, Type 3, Department of Natural Resources protected wetland. Therefore, any alterations below the ordinary high water elevation of -- this this basin would require a DNR Protected Waters Permit, and development should be designed appropriately. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or Metro — Hydrologist John Fax at 296-7523. Sincerely, s_.4, — /e/12-- '''.--/ //- '''‘v Mike Peloquin '- Intern F293:kap FG 1'138 L.11 Y OF CHAIN t JiJ:J:..'...I.m• AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER �ENt Ot T rP i: TAKpRIDEE fig.... A Unfir ited States Department of the Inter. , ior ►® �., mmmmmmimmImm FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE samisme ammo im ST. PAUL FIELD OFFICE (ES) ■ 50 Park Square Court �' IN REPLY REFER TO: "PFO 400 Sibley Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 .luly 11, 1988 Ms. JoAnn Olsen Assistant City Planner — City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Ms. Olsen: — In response to your June 30 ; 1988 request, Mr. Paul Burke of this office conducted our on-site review of four wetland sites within the City of Chanhassen. — I am enclosing herewith a copy of his report for your information. — If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us at your convenience. — Sincerely, i - -Th > r.' / /-. / _._----r --:0,----- ::,/' y __. ....r- V �—. / / l i Roel . Welford /' Field Supervisor — Attachment — 1.1P8 L.rY :;F CHANF-ASSEN 2 Site No. 2 This is a wet-meadow type complex adjacent to the Northwest — Nursery Co. site in Chanhassen. With the use of a plan view of the earthen work proposed by the nursery company, I was able to identify, in approximate terms, the areas intended for the placement of fill. Starting at the north side of the nursery, near Highway 101, I found the proposed re-contouring will result in the loss of between 1/2 and 3/4 of an acre of palustrine emergent, saturated wetland ( Circular 39 characteristic of Type 2) with reed canary grass dominating the site. With only minor modifications, the nursery' s plans can be completed resulting in only minimum loss of wetlands at the site. On the west end of the nursery, i found a similar wetland characteristic, with evidence that the margins of the wetlands have already been filled. I would estimate that approximately 1/2 of an acre of wetland has already been -- covered by fill dirt. The plan view was contoured with solid lines marking the existing land contours, and dashed lines showing the proposed contours at the completion of their project. The plan view would indicate that a substantial portion of the tree and shrub lot at the western most end of the nursery is situated on fill. It is my determination that the wetlands adjacent to the nursery (southwest of the barns) have been filled and that no additional fill can be placed at the lower end of the — site without placing fill in a wetland. If the nursery company intends to proceed with their site plans, they should be advised to first contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, for compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Given the evidence of recently deposited fill, I would recommend the land owner to contact the Corps of Engineers immediately, regardless. J Site 3 This is wet-meadow just off of Lake Lucy Lane, north of Chanhassen and near the intersection with Lake Lucy Road. The site, approximately two acres in size, is a palustrine emergent, saturated, wetland (Circular 39 characteristic — Type 2) dominated by reed canary grass, and cattails. The entire site is a Type 2 wetland, with the exception of minor undulations near the upper periphery. The area was mowed some time just prior to our site visit, but the hydrophytic vegetation was left as thatch and easily identifiable. Given the extent of the wetland boundary, no fill could be placed adjacent to the roadway, regardless of configuration, without fill being placed in wetlands. Any site plans that 1 01 Orq Minnesota C� d 144' Far, to Department of Transportation l < District 5 � 2055 No. Lilac Drive oFGolden Valley, Minnesota 55422 (612)593_ 8403 October 24 , 1988 Ms . Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 In Reply Refer To: 315 S.P. 1009 T.H. 101 Plat review of Northwest Nursery Wholesale, Inc . located W. of T.H. 101 and South of Lyman Blvd. in City of Chanhassen Carver County Dear Ms . Olsen: We are in receipt of the above referenced plat for our review in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 505 .02 and 505 . 03 Plats and Surveys . We find the plat acceptable for further development with consideration of the following comments : - Proposed plat will affect existing wetland. DNR, Corp. of Eng. and Riley Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed permits will be required. Existing rate of runoff and drainage areas should be maintained. - It is recommended that access to T.H. 101 be limited to one driveway with right turn and by-pass lanes • provided. A permit will be needed before any construction may begin on Mn/DOT right-of-way. - As you know, Mn/DOT is currently developing preliminary plans for future T.H. 212 which includes realignment of T.H. 101 near Lyman Blvd. This realignment could affect existing alignment on T.H. 101 as far south of Lyman Blvd. as 1000' (+/-) . Because the plan we received did not have exact dimensions on it, we are unable to determine any impact this might have on the plat. We would like to receive a plan with specific dimensions in relation to land corners so that a more detailed review may be made. An Equal Opportunity Employer Jo Ann Olsen October 24 , 1988 Page 2 If you have any questions in regard to this review, please contact Evan Green at 593-8537 . Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. e • , 1 1011111115 if W. f District Engineer cc : Steve Keefe - Metropolitan Council Roger Gustafson - Carver Co . CITYOF CHANHASSEN .Y( ;. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 August 18, 1988 Mr. Mark VanHoff North West Nursery Wholesale — 9150 Great Plains Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 -- Dear Mark: On August 15 , 1988 , I received your proposed site plan for the — expansion of the North West Nursery and the letter explaining the future expansion of the site. For the city to proceed with the conditional use permit and wetland alteration permit process, you will have to submit 26 copies of the site plan, the application — fee ( $150 for conditional use permit and $150 for wetland altera- tion permit) and a property owners list within 500 feet of your site. The site plan will have to contain the topography of the — site with proposed grading and drainage. For the wetland altera- tion permit, we will need details on the proposed pond such as grading and elevations of the pond and the size of area of the wetland that is proposed to be filled. If the shade structure, currently under construction, is not moved to meet the 100 foot setback from your property line a variance to the conditional use permit requirement will have to be received. The next application deadline is August 29, 1988 . For you to meet the requirements of being permitted to construct the shade structure, you must make formal application by August 29 , 1988. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, tea+-�►� Cr. _A Jo Ann Olsen Assistant City Planner JO:v Council Meeting February: , 1985 - -7- Councilman Horn - I thought the suggestion was that we eliminate this lot as a building lot . Is it that or is it to raise the level of the floor? Councilwoman Swenson - It ' s to make it a slab instead of a basement . Councilman Coving - My earlier suggestion was to eliminate the lot . Pat came through 9 { with a fairly good idea , maybe the building style would alleviate that particular problem and as far as I am concerned I thought it was a good idea . Mayor Hamilton - Then one of the conditions of the approval of this subdivision could be to have a review of Lot 1 so we can see at the time someone comes to you and says I want to buy that lot then perhaps you had better tell them to come and see us or _ when they figure out what kind of house they sight want to build there then we still reserve the right to review prior to their finalizing the deal with you . Councilman Horn - I would like clarification from the attorney , are we in a position to do that on this property? Roger Knutson - Under the circumstances I think that would be a workable solution . Randy Herman - I think that ' s agreeable as long as you are not going to unduly restrict any type of a structure on the property as long as it ' s understood that what we are really looking at is what type . Councilwoman Swenson - Maybe what we should do to follow up on what your suggestion is , Mayor , since Lots 1 , 2 , and 3 are the ones that are going to require the varian- ces , let ' s take a look at those when they come up and grant these variances as they cone instead of giving a blanket variance for all three right now . Don Ashworth - From a staff standpoint if you wanted to look at the one lot when the plat was completed you have got a specific time frame out there . Going through a conditional use permit process is very difficult and may hamper sales . I guess I would just as soon take a look at the plat once it is completed and if there is a — problem do it at that point in time . Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit — for twelve single family residential lots known as Piper Ridge with the condition that the Council maintains the option of reviewing a structure to be built on Lot 1 and that compliance with drainage and street improvement recommendations as noted in the City Engineer ' s memorandum of February 1 , 1985 , City Council minutes dated December 17, 1984, and building setback variances for Lots 2 and 3 . Motion seconded by Councilman Horn . The following voted in favor : Mayor Hamilton , Councilwoman Swenson , Councilmen Geving and Horn . Councilwoman Watson voted no . Motion carried . — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT , WHOLESALE NURSERY , GREAT PLAINS BLVD . Mayor Hamilton - We reviewed this just a couple weeks ago and we rezoned . Has _ anything changed since that time? Barbara Dacv - No , everything that you see on the site plan represents what the applicant plans . — Councilman Horn moved to approve Planning Case 85-1 , Conditional Use Permit , to locate a wholesale nursery at 9150 Great Plains Blvd . as depicted on site plan #3. — Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton . The following voted in favor : Mayor Hamilton , Councilwomen Watson and Swenson , Councilmen Horn and Geving . No negative votes . Motion carried . J CITY F \ I k cBANBAssEN 1 _ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 Action by City Administraibit • Endorses Modified STAFF REPORT Rejected Date TO: Chanhassen Planning Commission Date Submitted to CommissioA FROM: Barbara Dacy , City Planner Date Submitted to Council DATE : January 18 , 1985 SUBJ: Conditional Use Permit for a Wholesale Nursery PLANNING CASE: 85-1 Conditional Use Permit GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant Mark VanHoff 10550 Nicollet Ave . S. Bloomington , MN 55420 Status of Applicant Purchaser Owner Lawrence Klein 9170 Great Plains Blvd. Chaska , MN 55318 Requested Action Conditional use permit approval. Purpose To operate a wholesale nursery. Existing Zoning R-la, Agricultural Residence District . Location 9150 Great Plains Blvd. Size 39 acres Existing Land Use Single family residence and agri- - cultural activities . Adjacent Land Use and Zoning North: Single family residence; R-la South: Agricultural; R-la East: Single family residence; R-la West : Agricultural; R-la Mark VanHoff CUP January 18, 1985 '- Page 2 Adopted Comprehensive Plan a. Land Use Plan: The site is located outside of the Urban Service Area and is designated as Agricultural on the adopted Land Use Plan. b. Transportation: Great Plains Boulevard is designated as a collector. Zoning History Wholesale nurseries were approved as conditional uses in the R-la District by the City Council on January 7, 1985 . SPECIAL INFORMATION Physical Site Characteristics The site contains a Class A wetland in the extreme northwest corner of the parcel. ANALYSIS _. The applicant is intending to operate a wholesale nursery on the sub- ject parcel. The applicant intends to utilize the existing driveway for access to the existing structures as indicated on the attached site plan. Nursery stock is intended to be grown in the area indi- cated as holding areas. The applicant is also intending an area for greenhouses/propagation facilities. The proposed location of these facilities will be screened by vegetation on the south and will be screened to the north because of the slope of the land. The applicant also intends to locate vegetation along Great Plains Boulevard and _ along a portion of the southern boundary. The southwest portion of the property will be used for additional growing areas. The proposed use should not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. Existing access from Great Plains Boulevard (which is a collector) appears to be adequate for vehicles that will be entering and leaving the site. There is adequate turn around area and parking area in and around the existing structures to accommodate vehicles. Because the applicant intends to install landscaping along Great Plains Boulevard and around the property, the visual impact of this — use should be minimized. The applicant has indicated that his acti- vity is limited to licensed nurserymen and not the general public. Mark VanHoff CUP January 18, 1985 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION The Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit Request #85-1 to locate a wholesale nursery at 9150 Great Plains Boulevard as depicted on the Site Plan labeled as Attachment #3 . " PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #85-1 on a motion by J. Thompson and seconded by M. Thompson. REPORT ATTACHMENTS 1 . General location map. 2. Aerial photograph. 3. Site Plan stamped "Received January 21, 1985" . 4 . Application. 5 . Ordinance No. 47-AY. 6. Planning Commission minutes dated January 23 , 1985 . / " L a J a F- Q — cc 1 Ill ,,,-,,,, BOULEVARD --., .. r 7-__-., II aii vit. T25zb S tom' NI - letup...se/2y At/ . 1.: mkt& --=At ,-. le MI I • Q,, ELT R/L � tib Y=;; if Ix POND i I ni j l 961TH, ST'REE T I _ I I _. POND P'ONEER ~ — TRAIL (I-R- 14 - 1 ,p ri4,, ..... .. Qv ') — s.< I — a. Lo l I _ Rff - CRFEKWOOD _r---q cr- _ - � N HfcSF FA Pm Pn i X' Fi • IEa x' F / , % AknT 1, -",,,.....1 I \ 1 RC f 8 \ I X69_......___.-----."—i �11�� 5- _,.Ic /-- F •• tet .:.Z.;�r_K r.pat',- ` ti _ — o. - - Viri • G .41--1"-:44x' ,t!^• Win*,__- . S • i.Jt — �• ;4j.. Wit,. - .s .� r.; _^ • .� ' . � ` •a._it f� �: rl:t s .zj',M.. 4r 'u � .,` � S -..t". 'I' `f , te�a. Tri • " j ',-„- .. y - • ,% ` •'�'� i� • . 1,_ ,^. .s _ _ ` ; _ -. - - --_. fr . _s _ F _ r,. y7 -wl•G.-• �, '• , .� j� .•,%'`-'1.;T-ria. -,40,..;-..„ •� •( �•• 3.- • 4=�..`........--.1 ; .'s�F'�.'�.j?.,� ....-,.:2-4,-:,...r.-*, _ } `ta3's}. . i 2,....7.4.-.�L^�.... .eu, :." •. - - �...•- -'7.':'• -_'' 6-r-i ..�Jr - •�' ., ., - , 4 <F't`•` r .-,,,,!.I.''1--- 'rt'.•" ,. A,'��-97,... "'.' - 's •• •` t -s '/ 'a3 .y. ,. !-::...,-..-r.,4..--,%\.-- t • :.-1.-:.--4-4-:W;•,-:." * f'/r(•Z... --t- - :1 A. t c7 M A. �� t ii �J'• "i, -"�7'�`kyr -a - _ ...et,-:.A.�i. `' -w . ..174_ -.--_=--,-:,-,----_-_---- . r� ` `.• -{.'►•��.^. •_.1Y.. Yf. .moi +"��,rc�..w A.. -j.i ;-`i .+x�j'_ Y`, +..�y r'•• 4.1.04-1 i' r'�"R�-;G s"� - �s�`•'_3F � �- :+br=":if. ' 'r P`�r. t{T ,Ft�'` - 'i�w.1�,•..s�S - r• .%, "' .S _ r- �: a'y. j.r+ r---..---- v_•., • �Lh �:.".1.114,.„.,) t- ;�! -r-. - -• -� .� � f: ;,...40.4.„. �„`'t' � `y #f ^.}, �'i.�a'� --�• x� �-.-�. •;y N"1`• •_ •— 3 .�r• •iiY r;f ;#••a` ('f. i3• i i1 ¢• •_S 1- 4744 r .-.4,,,.!5 Rc. 0......K S LR r > *-- -l. "' •,_-..-- 1., -_ - r .Y'� • '. t••, '+l-Tri s -, 4A . . .-t.. I i� ,• af't_.- --1-v: ,.. 1 s„,..-_i,,,__...... rzer. 16, 1-1-, � 01 M ::".7..--.,...-1-",-.,.-,i'---= 'C illy 1 - ' �,� y�- _ i• !in;e�jl., . •. r _ - t'' ^�.et 4 --.----;,-...'-..---,*414`4't-1---12-:- 'saaq. r.R. �• ..,.i �Y M Le•*- . • ji 7'�} -st+ ham., �.=�►" a. '�-`.: ,tet-r � .��:;,.... ,. 7 z s } .r ill... 4. r'E .i•l^ '� _..,..� 01 •-_{iril Taj III +�AP-�F�y�F., -- . . - S - r[k .s1 �., • )-1-11 +r• ..i'VA..�'ilt. t.tom 1+ `! � , ri. ;r ; , . • - -.••••••••••—•-_-___.----- -. 5 ;t.• ,.1...!---•-.-.-7 s- !'.:�n�,J ,?�r� .,4-.--,-!4- te ,,"t .._ ...,$ .„, -• '+i a :t 'Mt_ ?%.rn. y 1., sem: .`-.. .+�'/v�ir,>_.l. - _ K z 7 fir l s .j' t�r►--�I. •'1-�� '.•• '`j.,• C} �L ,,ri}j •. ..-• ..+L ,yam .A 4 , N4.1:.77' ;{T� .„-4,... k, _•-may.-•- -•py ,:• t '1... lk a.N.' Y • z 1r. -';"1. • 04 t a • t .4 r',if�as ►' ,It: $c w ti. { ` ., „�, - i.'t'0` - •'•k"F`i••. _ -a_ :17.,.".:..• -i•4.-.-.47!• 4,- - ice`,. I � ' L e ':s. •-4.:.St 'A ��r�...,)• .�Y 5 . _.•...14 ''t.�'+: t•i � •-.1144k: 11: a• • - .r�.• •a. �!�• arc. R 1I. • r.{ �p t, y�t,. 3 _ y i .. • " ' vs, -, -1. E a - .*4•;i,;•. '+y4 :. "'' � t iy._ -.t: : "V:',?-4-A k•(• ter`. •r- _• - . • • • ,1--4.•::7--• a "' :4.rl c..4- � 1 ••"ifs •" • i tip''S,e' '!a -a 't :- - , — LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONt U '�� fc, �f-, CITY OF C2ANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive au„,,. ' �- y Chanhassen , : ^1 35317 ( / ,512) 937-1900 I 'cc — APPLICANT: Midi- LSF OWNER: I 1 ADDRESS 105 N ``(,L T AJ€ lj ADDRESS NOCVMkifcnt4 ` Fv1 9511r20 Zip Coae Zip Code — TELEPHONE (Daytime) -34-4SZ TELEPHONE Kt -2159 REQUEST: Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan — Preliminary Plan Zoning Variance Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision Land Use Plan Amendment '. Platting _ Conditional Use Permit Metes and Bounds Street/Easement Vacation Site Plan Review PROJECT NAME PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION ,(91;;,0_00-14 ' REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATIO — N PRESENT ZONING ra-(a • REQUESTED ZONING — u/ILIS ES PROPOSED /1 A,,1W (,� f4k''tP — • SIZE OF PROPERTY sS ;c7 ✓ .,OCATION 4i5t gfx-wr pulit1y EswO L/RE: ONS FOR THIS REQUEST i IIJ.ct�►+E � leei,4iZ- 4 cG�y�E�1 i404,,.. c l� i`lm.61,% ca •ii `ta{. 1 , .� LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary ) ecessary ) (over) 4-1 1 / 1 • City of Chanhassen Land Development Application Page 2 FILING INSTRUCTIONS: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or • clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions . Before filing this application , you should confer with the City Planner to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application . FILING CERTIFICATION: The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all applicable City Ordinances . Signed By 114‘k- q-VikkDate 112/ -464 Appli nt The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been authorized to make this application for the property herein described. Signed By Date Fee Owner Date Application Received Application Fee Paid City Receipt No. * This Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/ Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their - meeting if the application is received by • C CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 47-AY AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4 (RULES AND DEFINITIONS) AND SECTION 6. 04 (USES BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITHIN R-1A, AGRICULTURAL RESIDENCE DISTRICT) OF ORDINANCE 47 AS AMENDED — HERETOFORE AND ENTITLED "CHANHASSEN ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 47". THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS : SECTION 1 . Section 4 (Rules and Definitions ) of Zoning Ordinance No. 47 is hereby amended by adding the following definition : Nurseries : An enterprise which conducts the wholesale of. plants grown on site as well as accessory items directly related to their care and maintenance (but not including power equipment such as gas or engine lawn mowers and farm implements ) . SECTION 2 . Section 6. 04 (Uses by Conditional Use Permit Within an R-1A, Agricultural Residential District) is hereby amended by adding the following language: _ 14 . Wholesale nurseries . SECTION 3 . Effective Date . This ordinance shall become — effective from and after its passage and official publication. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 7th — day of January, 1985 . ATTEST: Don Ashworth, City Clerk/Manager Thomas L. Hamilton , Mayor (Public hearing held by the Planning Commission on December 12, 1984) Note: First reading of this ordinance was approved by the City — Council on January 7, 1985. Approval of final reading is recommended. MINUTES CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 23 , 1985 Chairman Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. Members Present James Thompson, Thomas Merz, Ladd Conrad, Bill Ryan, and Mike Thompson. Members Absent Susan Albee and Howard Noziska PUBLIC HEARING — • / Conditional Use Permit Request #85-1 for a wholesale nursery on property zoned R-la, Agricultural Residence District and located at 9150 Great Plains Blvd. , Mark VanHoff, applicant. Public Present Mark VanHoff 10550 Nicollet Ave. S. , Mpls. Dacy explained that the applicant is intending to operate a wholesale nursery at 9150 Great Plains Boulevard. She stated that the applicant intends on using the existing driveway and structures as indicated on the site plan. She noted that the proposed location of the facilities will be screened by vegeta- tion on the south and screened to the north by the slope of the land. She also stated that the applicant intends to locate vege- tation along Great Plains Boulevard and along the southern por- tion of the parcel. She stated that the proposed use would not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties and the existing access from Great Plains Boulevard appears to be adequate for vehicles that will be entering and leaving the site. She also indicated that the applicant' s activity will be limited to licensed nurserymen and not the general public. Mark VanHoff noted that when the Zoning Ordinance Amendment for — wholesale nurseries as conditional uses , the Planning Commission was concerned about retail sales from the premises. He stated that the only clientele would be licensed nurserymen such as 'retailers and local landscapers. He also noted that the Commission was concerned about the traffic flow into the nursery. He stated that the operation would have a possible total of 75 to 100 accounts and would generate approximately 7 to 10 customers daily. He also wanted the Commission to know that they only har- vest in the spring and fall and the storage would be for these crops (burlapped) until sold. He also noted that the greenhouse would be used for a propagation facility to take clippings, root them and then plant outside. ATT-m1-141C-4: T$lk•/, Planning Commission Minutes January 23 , 1985 Page 2 M. Thompson moved, seconded by J. Thompson to close the public — hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. After the explanation from the applicant, the Commissioners did _ not feel that this activity would be detrimental to the surrounding properties. J. Thompson moved, seconded by M. Thompson, that the Planning — Commission recommends the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit Request # 85-1 to locate a wholesale nursery at 9150 Great Plains Boulevard as depicted on the Site Plan labeled as — Attachment # 3 . All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING Final Plan Amendment Request #79-2 for Near Mountain Planned Unit Development on property zoned P-1 , Planned Residential Development and located along Chanhassen Road, Near Mountain - Partnership, applicant. Public Present Peter Pflaum Lundgren Brothers Construction Rick Sathre Mike Pflaum Olsen stated that the applicant is proposing to increase the Type B area by 19 lots in exchange for 13 Type A lots and 6 condomium - units . She also noted that, in addition, the street alignment and shape of the ponding areas have changed slightly but will not impact the design and would allow for a better lot layout. She _ explained that development is taking place in the Type C area where the front and side yard setbacks are 25 ' and 5 ' /10 ' . The developers intend to continue these setbacks into the Type B area. She stated that staff believes the reduced setbacks can be continued into the Type B area without adversely impacting the surrounding property. She also noted that staff is recommending that a berm be continued along the Type B area and also would - like the developers to further discuss with staff their phasing plan for Near Mountain. Peter Pflaum explained that as they develop the project, they are getting more of an idea of how they want the different type of homes to be phased together smoothly. He stated that they have decided to change the line between the Type B and Type A phases because of a natural tree line or wooded area and by doing that are dropping 13 larger lots (Type A) and 6 condominium units and adding 19 Type B lots . Conrad moved, seconded by Merz to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. a. ENS Ot .4" ����, Timis= e; ameeemm PRIDE IN United States Department of the Interior =": ^, mmummmommw -1' • ommommmmm FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE MIMI I• MI ■ 41°'" kJ.1 ST. PAUL FIELD OFFICE (ES) 50 Park Square Court IN REPLY REFER TO: SPFO 400 Sibley Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 July 11, 1988 Ms. JoAnn Olsen Assistant City Planner City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Ms. Olsen: In response to your June 30 , 1988 request, Mr. Paul Burke of this office conducted our on-site review of four wetland sites within the City of Chanhassen. I am enclosing herewith a copy of his report for your information. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us at your convenience. Sincerely, t. Robert '. Welford /' Field Supervisor Attachment (1\)(3te- c,12) CITY 31:CHANhASSZN 1-///r Subject: Report of Field Investigation of four wetland sites within the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota Field Investigator: Paul Burke Date: June 30, 1988 Following my on-site review, I have determined that wetlands are present at each of the four subject sites, and each of the first three sites have been or will be impacted by site development. Site No. 1 This is a lake shore wetland behind the Colonial Grove Tennis and Beach Club, 80 Cheyenne Terrace, and 100 Cheyenne — Terrace. The affected area appears to have been recently filled to an elevation of approximately 1 foot (vertical) above previous grade, sodded, and stabilized at the water' s — edge by a cobble wall. By examining the condition of the shore line vegetation on each of the bounding property lots, I found evidence of hydrological conditions that would _ confirm my determination that the adjacent properties are palustrine emergent and palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands (Circular 39 Type characteristics of 2, 3 , and 6) . The evidence provided the positive identification of each of — three parameters needed for wetland delineation. The soils were a peaty-silt (histosols) , and all histosols are a hydric soil type. The vegetation canopy was dominated by _ red-ozier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) , and ground cover consisted primarily of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) , broad-leaved cattail (Typha latifolia) , and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) . Each of the above species are classified as FACW', or wetter designation, :hydrophytes. The water level at the time of the site visit was less than one vertical foot below the median elevation of the affected wetland. In consideration of recent drought conditions, it is reasonable to assume the hydrology of the site ranges from saturated to permanently flooded. _ Barring any information to the contrary, we can assume that prior to the recent shoreline enhancement project at this site, most, if not all, of the recently sodded area was a wetland with characteristics and values similar to those found on the adjacent properties. The majority of these wetland values could be recovered if the fill were removed, and the area allowed to revegetate. 2 _,////: Site No. 2 E This is a wet-meadow type complex adjacent to the Northwest Nursery Co. site in Chanhassen. With the use of a plan view of the earthen work proposed by the nursery company, I was able to identify, in approximate terms, the areas intended for the placement of fill. Starting at the north side of the nursery, near Highway 101, I found the proposed re-contouring will result in the loss of between 1/2 and 3/4 of an acre of palustrine emergent, '- saturated wetland (Circular 39 characteristic of Type 2) with reed canary grass dominating the site. With only minor modifications, the nursery' s plans can be completed resulting in only minimum loss of wetlands at the site. On the west end of the nursery, I found a similar wetland characteristic, with evidence that the margins of the wetlands have already been filled. I would estimate that approximately 1/2 of an acre of wetland has already been covered by fill dirt. The plan view was contoured with solid lines marking the existing land contours, and dashed lines showing the proposed contours at the completion of their project. The plan view would indicate that a substantial portion of the tree and shrub lot at the western most end of the nursery is situated on fill. It is my determination that the wetlands adjacent to the nursery ( southwest of the barns) have been filled and that no additional fill can be placed at the lower end of the site without placing fill in a wetland. If the nursery company intends to proceed with their site plans, they should be advised to first contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, for compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Given the evidence of recently -' deposited fill, I would recommend the land owner to contact the Corps of Engineers immediately, regardless. Site 3 This is wet-meadow just off of Lake Lucy Lane, north of Chanhassen and near the intersection with Lake Lucy Road. The site, approximately two acres in size, is a palustrine emergent, saturated, wetland (Circular 39 characteristic Type 2) dominated by reed canary grass, and cattails. The entire site is a Type 2 wetland, with the exception of minor undulations near the upper periphery. The area was mowed some time just prior to our site visit, but the hydrophytic vegetation was left as thatch and easily identifiable. Given the extent of the wetland boundary, no fill could be placed adjacent to the roadway, regardless of configuration, without fill being placed in wetlands. Any site plans that C 1 TY O F P.C. DATE: 1/4/89 ` 1 CIIANHASSZN C.C. :: :88:3: CASE Prepared by: Hanson/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Wetland alteration permit for alteration of a Class B wetland on property zoned A-2 to create a wildlife pond. z U LOCATION: 1551 Lyman Boulevard. Q_ APPLICANT: Patricia and George Dorsey Q 1551 Lyman Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: A-2, Agricultural Estate ACREAGE: 40 Acres DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING -AND LAND USE: N- A-2, Residences S- A-2 , Agricultural E- A-2, Agricultural W- A-2, Agricultural W WATER AND SEWER: Not available to the site. (f) PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site generally slopes to the south and west with the Class B wetland located to the south. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Agricultural . r — , ... 0 m Q‘ A / A2 . Q : 11/7 .. .. __ __ __ ,_______ . ... . ) 1 J i _i I C` c . f N 0 ., Z W YI LYN "V ! il.f.... 1 ,..„.„ 1 ,.._., . . 1 . tii A2 1 Apprem(rno- 4 Loeu'�lo)1 oc--po.posecii co _ Pkily - � t4 r (CN1 — - - o1 m :: > > « fs, - a .�f 1 I 1 N it , '. • . V -'_7....-) t,„ p . t i 1 L s I. 3 7 . _ __- 1 ` "or S r ( BC G,. Dorsey WAP January 4 , 1989 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20 . 421 requires a wetland alteration permit for the creation of a pond within a Class B wetland. BACKGROUND The applicants have met with staff to discuss the creation of a wildlife pond on their property. Jo Ann Olsen met with Dr. Elizabeth Rockwell of the Fish and Wildlife Service on site. Dr. Rockwell felt that construction of the pond in the wetland would be beneficial if the standard six conditions of the Fish and Wildlife service were followed. Those conditions are outlined in Attachment #1 . ANALYSIS The applicant has provided a proposed plan for the pond. This plan provides a free-form shape with appropriate slopes . The bottom of the pond will be uneven as specified in the third con- dition of the Fish and Wildlife Service. The basin will have a water level control . The applicant needs to place a layer of topsoil (muck from an existing wetland being filled) on the bot- tom of the basin. A fringe of shrubs needs to be added on the upland surrounding the basin. The applicant has noted the disposal site for materials to be excavated and provided erosion control measures on the downslope side of the disposal site. RECOMMENDATION The planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit No. 88-16 with the following conditions: 1 . Written approval of the alteration plan from the Fish and Wildlife Service that the proposal conforms to their six con- ditions for ponds . r _ City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 i. (612)937-1900 ✓ v�•v Date: December 13, 1988 4.4,40 — i , �JJU To: Development Plan Referral Agencies E(1Cai I' From: Planning Department By: Y• Stephen Hanson, City y Planner • Subject: Wetland Alteration Permit to create a pond in a Class B wetland on property zoned A-2, Agricultural Estate and located at 1551 Lyman — Blvd. Planning Case: 88-16 WAP (Dorsey) The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on December 12, 19RR • -. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and pro- posed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a — written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on January 4, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than December 23, 1988 . You may also appear at the Planning Commission — meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. _ 1. City Departments e)MN Dept. of Natural Resources — City Engineer 8. Telephone Company b. City Attorney (NW Bell or United) c. City Park Director _ d. Public Safety Director 9. Electric Company e. Building Inspector (NSP or MN Valley) • 9 Watershed District Engineer 10. DOWDEN Cable System 3. Soil Conservation Service 11. Roger Machmeier/Jim Anderson 4. MN Dept. of Transportation AfP U. S. Fish and Wildlife 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 13. Carver County Engineer r. 6. Minnegasco 14. Other 12- IS-0S- '. oe - n o DNR Itct-ed e a/p al..W 6t-v2- c, 12d - -- ' ~~ ~- ~- • ' ~— • _ - .. - . . ----___-_-_------ — ' - - � x ' - \ - � — \� ~~ '� -__._ -__-__. --_ -----__--_' \ _-_--- --- --P----[���-- �T� ���� H�� NO. . -_- ��7 ^ " - 14.7L..... --- ? . --—......—. ( : !I / 1 I ______ ___- • ,-----, i , •s• // / ii / ; i ( ":---...-- \ I : ,— ,.A I 1 / II 1 1 i \ C / /Z-.7 I v\ ,,,__ L C I TY O F P.C. DATE: Jan. 4, 1989 \ 104 1 .� MANIAS :EN C.C. ::E:88W::1 Jan. 1989 YCASE Prepared by: Hanson/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Wetland Alteration Permit to a Class A Wetland for Dredging an Existing Navigation and Boat Mooring Channel z - a V LOCATION: North Shore of Lake Minnewashta Cl_ CI. APPLICANT: Minnewashta Manor Channel Homeowners Qc/o Harry Niemela 2901 Washta Bay Road Excelsior, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: RD, Recreational Development Lake RSF, Single Family Residential ACREAGE: 940' in length x 50 ' DENSITY: N/A ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- RSF; single family Q S- RD; wetland E- RSF; single family 0 W- RD; open water W WATER AND SEWER: N/A PHYSICAL CHARAC. : Wetland and lake channel 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Lake z _ Z ( • ( a M g�rAR v:11 fret• iii '‘ '9 . 41*8 _ . - tn0. .....,---r '_ i1 . : Il „ liar • J' --•.---.77.- . •f i' ` $ NO v'� -. ... \ s. /i *t.: _. /0 /19 D. � �L� Fi o • / c),9 .. •liN �, � . !� (A � �9sCi 0 0 A ce-T, - , - All (7. Q.0 4 -441 7 . 'aillsoft-._ :. cn M... . , MEW • irvM-NNW ,, A o 7 . o j �, oo Lo dam,' O - 2 �� • o 0 . 2 • 12e -4 ALF ooc�'n oN, :TANAGERS. . I v� pA g0 0 s — ill" o millik • • LF �: ' - \ oq `wed tl i� tr 4l ;..'. VJt, O O+ o• . _ p . — �. �o . a - w• LANE . , � • t. _w , c^, I N a'. eo _ � • ' • \ i —_� Minnewashta Manor Channel Homeowners January 4 , 1988 Page 2 BACKGROUND This is an existing channel which provides access to lots in Minnewashta Manor. The applicants are requesting a permit at this time to dredge the channel to remove silt accumulation from the channel. The dredging will occur this winter while the lake is still frozen. ANALYSIS Staff visited the site with Paul Burke of the Fish and Wildlife Service to evaluate the proposed dredging. It was his opinion that the dredging could occur without detrimental impacts to the wetland area along the channel provided no disposal was done in the immediate area and that equipment stay within the defined channel. The main concern was with the disposal of the material. The applicants initially proposed a location off of Sandpiper Lane. This was found to be a wetland area and was dropped from consideration. At that point, the applicant suggested they would find an upland area on which to dispose of the material or remove the material to a disposal site outside of the city. The applicants contacted the city about a site south of TH 7, east of Arbor and west of the channel that extends north from Lake Minnewashta. We visited this property with Larry Smith of the Fish and Wildlife Service who identified one area of the pro- - perty as a wetland. He felt another portion of the site, while technically a wetland, was a marginal wetland area. He felt if the fill material would be kept up on the slope and away from the existing swale that the fill material could be placed in this area provided erosion control measures were put in place. The applicants have provided a grading plan for the fill area which appears to respect the concerns of Larry Smith. The plan is being referred to Fish and Wildlife for their review. The plan does not indicate how the material will be transported to the site. The applicants are desirous of getting this approved so they can complete the work while the lake is in a frozen state. RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-17 subject to the following conditions: 1 . Final approval of the disposal site by the Fish and Wildlife Service. 2 . Identify the access road. CITYOF CHANHASSEN \, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM _ TO: Planning Commission FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer DATE: December 29, 1988 SUBJ: Dredging On Lake Minnewashta #88-9 WAP, Minnewashta Manor HOA, Harry Niemela On November 28, 1988 , the City Council amended Section 20-1 of the City Code which requires an applicant proposing to alter any wetland, including wetlands within the public waters, to proceed through the wetland alteration permit process. The application from the Minnewashta Manor Homeo.aners Association proposes the dredging and cleaning out of an existing channel used for boat access along the northeast corner of Lake Minnewashta. — Investigation of the site has confirmed that the channel has been dredged previous to this submittal . The first two plan sheets submitted by Minnetonka Portable — Dredging Company shows a plan and cross section view of the pro- posed dredging area. The applicant plans to dredge the channel while the ice maintains a depth all the way to the lake bottom — thus allowing for minimal disturbance through the construction process while ensuring safety for the dredging equipment. Staff also requested that the applicant submit additional plans which — showed the proposed dumping site for the excavated material. The third sheet which has been included in the packet dated "Received December 29, 1988" shows the proposed grading plan for the dispo- sal of the dredged material. Attachment #1 shows the location of — the proposed fill site. Comments in this report will concentrate on the fill site as the — channel dredging shall be handled in the normal process of the wetland alteration permit. The applicant has provided for erosion control along all fill areas. The erosion control shall be revised to reflect the city standard for the Type II erosion control ( staked hay bales and snow fence) prior to the commencement of any construction. — The proposed grading plan would leave a slope of less than 5:1. We find that this plan is acceptable. _ LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 — APPLICANT: ADDRESS ADDRESS ) 3- �,,� Zip Code Zip Code TELEPHONE (Daytime) TELEPHONE //I REQUEST: Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan Preliminary Plan Zoning Variance Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision Land Use Plan Amendment Platting i Metes and Bounds _ Conditional Use Permit Street/Easement Vacation Site Plan Review Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION//" PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING USES PROPOSED SIZE OF PROPERTY �' ���� / ��y y ✓, LOCATION /�/ 4Y REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST /e ./,(;/ (2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) City of Chanhassen Land Development Application Page 2 — i FILING ,INSTRUCTIONS : This application must be completed in full and be typewritten _ clearly printed and must be accompanied by all informationand_ r plans .required by applicable City Ordinance provisions . Before filing this application, you should confer with the City Planner _ to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. FILING CERTIFICATION: • The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all applicable City Ordinances . Signed By ��t�,� �� ^ '/ Applicant , v' ,fte- • The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been authorized to make this application for the property herein described . Signed By ����� �� _ � Dat a 72 — Fee Owner ; • Date Application Received Application Fee Paid City Receipt No. * This Application will be considered by Board of Adjustments and A the Planning Commission/meeting. pPeals at their Minnetonka Portable Dredging 500 West Lake Street Excelsior, MN 55331 Mr. Steven Hanson City Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Street Chanhassen, Mn 55317 Dear Mr. Hanson: Enclosed is a completed application for the wetland alteration permit for the proposed dredging at Minnewashta Manor. Mr. Harry Niemela has signed the application as the applicant and co-owner of the channel property and will represent the channel homeowners. At this time, we are requesting that you review the dredging portion of the project separately from the filling aspect of the project. If a potential fill site becomes available within the city, we will file an application for filling prior to the dredging activity. At this time it appears the only option is to remove the fill from the city and to place the spoil material in an upland site of the contractors choosing. Should you have any additional questions, please contact me at 474-9454, or Harry Niemela at 470-1515. Respectfully Submitted, , ,41krit) Clifford Reep Minnetonka Portable Dredging C I TY O F P.C. DATE: Jan. 4 , 1989 C.C. DATE: Jan . 2 \I CUA UA SEN3 , 1989 CASE NO: 87-1 PUD _ Prepared by: Hanson/v • STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Review of Detailed Facia, Sound Proofing, Lighting and Signage Plans for Heritage Park Apartments Pursuant to the Conditions of Approval for the PUD Plan LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Chan View, Opposite pposite the Huron Q Avenue Intersection, North of West 78th Street U APPLICANT: Mr . Thomas Zumwalde Heritage Square Investors Butler No. Bldg. , Suite 200 Limited Partnership 510 First Avenue 7101 York Avenue So. Minneapolis, MN 55403 Edina, MN 55435 CHADDA Q P.O. Box 100 Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: R-12 , High Density Residential CBD, Central Business District ACREAGE: 2 . 6 acres DENSITY: 23 units per acre ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- RSF & R-12; single and multiple family QS- CBD; commercial uses fd E- R-12 & OI; dry cleaners/St. Hubert , 1 W- RSF; single family W WATER AND SEWER: Available to site r� v I PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site is level with poor soils along Chan View 2000 LAND USE PLAN: High Density Residential & Commercial Heritage Park Apartments January 4 , 1989 — Page 2 BACKGROUND This application was initially reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council in May and June, 1987 . Final plan amendments were approved with conditions by the Planning Commission on June 1 , 1988, and by City Council on June 13 , 1988. The approval included eleven (11) conditions . Of — these conditions , the following were subject to Planning Commission and City Council review prior to building permit issuance: 1 . Detailed facia and signage plans. 2 . Detailed lighting plans . 3 . Detailed sound proofing standards . ANALYSIS The facia details call for exterior materials to be a rock face block base with cedar lapsiding on the first two floors and cedar shake siding on the third story. Balcony areas will be cedar _ lapsiding with steel latice railings . The materials are similar to the clock tower on 78th Street. Colors have not been spe- cified at this time. Signage plans call for entry sign at the westerly drive. This ground sign structure is 13 feet in length, 6 feet in height and 4 feet wide. The sign display area is 12 square feet. The sign is located 5 feet back from the property line and 15 feet from the curbline of Chan View, which should provide adequate site distance assuming Chan View is not widened. An additional 5 foot setback would be preferrable. The sign is located only one foot from the access drive. It would be preferrable to increase this setback, to improve visibility of the parking spaces behind the sign and allow space for snow stacking for plowing the access — drive. The sign is to be illuminated by ground spot lights. These lights should be installed to only light the sign and must be -permanently fixed in place. — The lighting plans call for 20 foot poles with high pressure sodium directional box lights . A lower height of 12 ' -15 ' would be more consistent with the downtown area and lessen the impact to the adjacent residential area. The walkway along the rear of the building will be lit with 4 foot high bollard lights. The walk is intended to provide access to the downtown. This walk — aligns with the main vehicular access from 78th Street to the proposed Chanhassen Professional Building. In reviewing both plans, it would be logical to provide a walk on the east side of the apartment complex to align with the exsting clock tower on 78tn Street. (Refer to Chanhassen Professional Building staff report) . Heritage Park Apartments January 4 , 1989 Page 3 Sound proofing was discussed at City Council with regard to mini- mizing sound transmission between apartments . The interest was to minimize sound more than in typical apartment construction . The building code requirements are for a 50 STC rating. The pro- - posed details specify ratings of 52, 51 and 55 for corridor walls , party walls and floors . Building Department has suggested means for reducing sound other than additional wall thickness are minimizing back to back plumbing areas , eliminate penetration of party walls, put closets on party walls and other construction techniques . RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the detailed sub- mittal of facia, signage, lighting and sound proofing standards for Heritage Park Apartments #87-1 PUD based on plans stamped "Received December 26, 1988" , and subject to the following conditions: 1 . Increase sign setback to be 10 feet from property line and 5 feet from driveway. 2 . Lighting for sign shall oe permanently directed only on the sign. 3 . A lighted walkway added to align with the clock tower. 4 . Applicant shall work with staff to minimize sound transmission between apartments . '5City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: There's some confusion on that issue and that's what we're trying to clarify I think. That's the reason for the tabling I believe. Councilman Horn: That's part of it. The other part is finding out what current sign sizes we have in this city because if we're way out of line than we should change our ordinance. Councilman Johnson: Roman, the 80 square foot sign you currently have, is there a possibility that some other station, is the same sign used nationwide? I mean you're not going to eat that sign and just let it sit in the warehouse. I'm sure you'll find use for it. Roman Mueller: I'm down to three stores in the State of Minnesota right now. That's it. This is one of them. The other one is in Mankato and the other one is downtown St. Paul. Councilman Johnson: Could they use an 80 square foot sign in either of those? Roman Mueller: St Paul I have three faces on two sides for a total 6 faces and each one of them is well over 80 square feet. The other one is in Mankato and that's getting a 10 by 13 sign. Right now we're just going to adjust the placement of it with the City. Could I use it? Potentially yes. At what time I don't know. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FOR A 60 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH AND ADJACENT TO CHAN VIEW, HERITAGE PARK APARTMENT PARTNERS. Mayor Hamilton: We also tabled item 3 to go along with this item. Barbara Dacy: The Planning Commission recommended approval of this item. One of the major issues of discussion at the Planning Commission meeting was the traffic issue and those concerns were voiced from people that live in the neighborhood to the north of the proposed site. The concerns were about regarding the removal of the stop signs at West 78th Street and Great Plains Blvd. and as we noted in the staff update, we know that the Council is well aware of MnDot's position on traffic control along this stretch. We put a note that this only confirms that the City's intent to try and realign TH 101 as soon as possible and get the north/south traffic out of downtown and on it's own realigned roadway. In a nutshell, this overhead reflects the original building location and building configuration on the site. What is now proposed is more of an "L" shape building which is located on the site approximately 70 feet now further south of the lot line to the existing 2 1/2 story apartment building but it is 10 feet closer to the west lot line. The applicant has submitted a good landscaping plan to maximize so that the yard areas around the building is providing for good yard space. The Planning Commission also adopted the previous conditions of approval that were imposed during the 1987 review as well. I know that the Council is concerned about the design and exterior quality of the building. I now see that the architect is here for the applicant that could probably better address those questions. [77 Brad Johnson: I thought maybe first of all we could review the process that we' re going through to get everything in order since we did change them around a 46 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 7 little bit. You have before you two decisions to make. One is the inducement resolution for the bonds that we plan on using to finance that and that's the part that you tabled. Inducement resolution will allow us to use housing revenue bonds to finance the project and those of course have no on-going direct obligation other than to the project for payment. In addition to that, as you also have before you a housing plan, the city has no updated plans. Is that right Barb? We had to redo the housing plan as a part of our condition for the bond so that's also in there. I think both of those are somewhat formalities in bonding processes. The second thing is that we've been asked, we formed a new partnership to own the project and we were asked by that partnership to redesign the building to fit with what they perceive is a better plan and design. That's what we're submitting to you. It's been approved by the Planning Commission with their recommendation. We've had basically no neighborhood, we had a meeting on our own with the neighbors and the Planning Commission meeting and in both cases their only concern was 78th Street intersection so you guys can take care of that on item 19. I'd like to introduce Tom Zumwalde who is the architect for the project and then back in the corner is Jay Weiss. He represents Weiss Construction who will be a general partner in the project. Tom Zumwalde: I understand there were some questions or comments concerning the elevations. Let me first tell you why we're going through this process. Brad mentioned.. .and what we found is we did some marketing . . .Maxwell of Minneapolis and also got some input fran the contractor in terms of cost and both of those were important factors in taking another look at the design and configuration. The original building was kind of a question mark shape with a lot of angles in it and what happened as a result of that is you end up with a lot of pie shaped 1 units with minimal exterior wall and a very wide space in the inside of the building. Marketing felt that was not very desirable. It also a lot of pie — - shaped rooms. Another thing was wherever you hit one of those angles you have some real severe structural problems. It's very costly so we looked at those and we looked at the costs that it would take to accomplish that and could that money be better spent elsewhere in the building? Looked at a new design and a new design that is virtually the same square footage as the original. I think it's perhaps 200 square feet bigger. Something like that but almost identical. The same height. The same unit count. Everything. The big difference is that the average unit size increases 24 square feet. The units are much more marketable. The building is fully sprinkled now. The units have washers and dryers in them. A lot of amenities that we weren't or would not have been able to originally offer in the program. Those are basically the reasons why we've taken another look at it. In terms of the exterior, we're looking at pretty much the same pallet of materials that we were looking at originally. Certainly the same type of character. The original building was a combination of brick and horizontal lap siding. What we're looking at on the proposed building and unfortunatley I don't have it colored for you but I think you can see pretty much the configuration. Again, we've got brick and we've got a series of two different types of lap siding breaking at the third level. You can sec the darker divider. We also have balconies in all of the units now versus the original proposal which had either balconies or bay windows. The balconies will project from the facades of the building so they break up what is perceived now as a longer plan and I think will be successful in bringing down the sale of the building. We had the tower initially. We've maintained that element. That's still the focal point of the building. That's pretty much it I guess. L-- Mayor Hamilton: I think Bill had some concerns about the construction of 47 City Council :Hooting - June 13, 1988 materials. Councilman Boyt: Let me deal with probably one of my bigger concerns. Soundproofing that's going into it. I would assume that this is probably built as a typical apartment is built and that's not soundproof enough. Tom Zumwalde: The guidelines for an apartment building are party walls. . .which are standard. You find that pretty much in...housing. Apartments. It doesn't matter. It's kind of an industry standard. There are ways of increasing it slightly but again the cost of it is considerable to do that. We're certainly going to meet all the standards. There's no question about that. Councilman Boyt: Tell me what this rating of 50 blocks in terms of sound intensity. Does it block my neighbor's bass from their stereo? Tom Zumwalde: Probably not. Councilman Boyt: One of the things, when we take 60 people and we put them together and if this was your apartment building without city assistance, this would be an interest of mine but it wouldn't be as concern but the City is becoming involved in this and as such, I think one of the things that we could do is we can say to people, there are 60 people living in here but once you get _ inside your doors, you're a unit. You're not bombarded by people from the outside. That makes your place very attractive and I think that it's worth the possibility of say for instance double sheet rocking which is fairly inexpensive really since you're only putting a finishing coat on the outside surface. Tom Zumwalde: Let me explain it a little further. Party walls that you have to use in an apartment project have to have tests run on them. . . Double layer of - drywall is certainly one of them. .. What we can do if you have something specific in mind in terms of an STC. . . Councilman Boyt: It's been a while since I've seen those ratings so the general idea is let's block stereos for instance. I know that a total block is completely unrealistic but we can probably block 90% of it and so I'd like to see your work on that and with the prospect that we're going to go above the industry norm for an apartment building. The other concern I had was really more a maintenance of the exterior. I recognize this is certainly a cost factor but what is going to something like an all brick do to your cost? You currently have about a third brick now and the rest of it is lap siding. Tom Zumwalde: It increases it. Perhaps Jay could address that. Councilman Boyt: Give it to me over like 30 years. When we consider maintenance of the lap siding versus the brick. Jay Weiss: There are maintenance costs incurred. However, as a reserve it is set up manually that we pay for those expenses of exterior maintenance so that'a requirement of the lender to have a reserve set up so without it the dollars sit there and just accumulate. This program better uses the dollars for the intended use. I never looked at 30 years to be honest. We can only give square foot costs in terms of installation. [77 48 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 Councilman Boyt: I look at the apartment buildings that are there by the railroad tracks off of TH 101. Don't those have brick exterior and we don't have any city money in that building do we? So I think there is an advantage in having an exterior that's going to last at least 30 years or longer and it would be nice to know how much that's really going to cost us in terms of rent. Eventually all these things get reflected back into rent and I think we have a lever from the public money standpoint that we wouldn't normally have. Mayor Hamilton: I think you also need to consider who's going to, what market are they attempting to reach for people to be in there and the more you continue to add in such as brick which is very expensive, if you're going to require that, than you to continue to cut out the bottom level of people who can afford to be in there. If the City is going to be, as you say involved in the funding of this through tax increment financing, it would seem to me that we may want to have as broad a base as possible. People who can afford to rent in this building. Councilman Boyt: Yes, I agree with you and it's my understanding that there are 10 units that we're providing for senior citizens or how many units Brad for senior citizens? Brad Johnson: This building is designed for 24. It's an adult building and the target market is over 55 years old. We also set it up so that 24 of the units have been set aside for low to moderate income at the expense of the developer. That's the kind of building. We can not do an FHA building that's specifically for seniors so if we can target the rent to seniors initially. Their concern is we don't build it for seniors than what do you do? We don't have a true senior building where you've got a ruling senior, they just don't do that right now. They used to do it. Mayor Hamilton: So are your rents flexible enough so as the cost of this building continues to go up, the people who are going to be able to rent in here will remain the same? Brad Johnson: The problem that we have is we can put an all brick exterior on this and we're already capped on our rent. That does .not increase the rent. In other words, the lenders say you can rent this for so much in Chanhassen but the amenity package and the exterior package does not increase the rents. They take out the dishwashers too...so washers and dryers and things that we're putting inside the building but things on the outside do not. We added another $60,000.00 worth of exterior, there's no way that we could be reimbursed for that building cost. The money that the City is assisting this project, I might also say the building was previously approved as the same type of siding it has. Wood and brick. The money that the City is assisting this project on is going to directly to the tenants. Not the developer. In other words, we're going to develop, how we're doing it is that the other issue is the tax exempt nature of our clients and by providing 24 units for low and moderate income qualifies us to offer this at about 2% lower interest rate. We have an agreement with the City that the money that they give us in assistance, that we've requested will be repaid to the City in addition to all of this so that's how it works. The additional funds that have to go back in the district, the agreements that are involved. The first agreement had to do with additional land. The second one the City is advancing us approximately an additional $40,000.00 a year of tax revenue that will pay for this and that will be used then to basically subsidize 49 y Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 those 24 tenants. However, the developer is required also to pay back those funds over a 12 year period. Don Ashworth: I was just going to basically say the same thing. Maybe just a slight twist on it. The performer that the HRA looked at in establish a subsidy level considered two portions. One to the developer and one to the units themselves. Set up to try to turn this and reduce the number of years. The subsidy level right now turns positive in the 6th year or from the 6th to the 7th year. The total agreement though is written over a 12 year package. We have been pushing for the performer to maintain that 6th to 7th year position. Additional costs that we may put into the project, what that will do is keep the project from turning positive to the 7th, 8th, 9th year. In other words, reduce the monies that Brad was talking about that would be repaid to the City so there is some benefit to us in not pushing through additional costs. I'm not saying that we shouldn't look for the best materials and the best project. I'm just saying, you can not look at those as though they're dollars that they're just simply going to absorb. We probably will absorb them. Councilman Boyt: I think that if we're looking at 12 years here and then basically, as I understand it, the building is privately owned. It's operated like any other apartment building. Is that correct? And I'd like to think that we have a building that's going to be standing and as pretty as it looks like it's going to be today, 20 to 30 years from now. There's certainly plenty of examples of buildings that are of this nature so that's why I'm a little concerned about a wood construction exterior. Tom Zumwalde: I know what you're saying about brick...it's a major, major cost. If you look around at a lot of what I consider newer luxury developments around town, they are for the most part wood sided. It's not a cheap, chinsey material and this is.. . I think to put the brick on it would push it way into the cadillac realm and that's really out of the realm of. .. Councilman Boyt: I've got just a couple of questions and then I'll stop. There are 24 units that are low to moderate income. There are, I saw the figure 5 units that are handicap accessible? Tom Zumwalde: Three units. Councilman Boyt: Isn't that set by the size of the building? Okay, well I would think that it's well worth the City's money to improve the sound barrier. That just makes it a better place and it's not all that much more expensive and I will give up on the brick. Councilman Horn: No comments. Councilman Geving: I think this is certainly something we've been wanting in _ Chanhassen for a long time to increase our housing base with a major complex such as this. I'm certainly all for it. I'd like to know a little bit more about where this lies in relationship to Chan View. How much further back from Chan View is this location now than it was previously? I'm quite surprised that we didn't get a lot of homeowner input on this but apparently it's also the fact that we have a buffer there now. We already have apartments on those corners and people are used to them and I don't think that they feel this is a threat. It's actually a major improvement. How many feet would you say that would be? 50 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 Tom Zumwalde: The original proposal was approximately, almost the same distance from Chan View. Barbara Dacy: It met the setback in the front which is 25 feet off of Chan View. Councilman Geving: Then the street will be lined up with Huron. The street I live on so I could come right into the apartment complex when I get to be 55 and ready to occupy it. I'd like to know are these units, are these units that are going to be sold? Strictly a rental arrangement. Strictly rental and you are marketing for an age group in the 55 seniors, let's say rather than young married with children? Brad Johnson: Yes. The building has been basically designed as an adult building. One bedroom, den. One bedroom and then two bedroom swingle units which means they've got a living room in the middle and a bedroom and a bath off of two, each bedroom and a bath are off on either side. Generally speaking those types of units are designed more for adults. One or two adults living in it. I won't say that we won't get a lot of children but we've got quite a few and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just the building isn't limited to that. The other thing is that we've got quite a bit of new units that are coming abroad that are more designed for families. Two bedrooms. Three bedrooms in different configurations. Young families don't tend to like to have their children not next door to them. 1 Councilman Geving: Brad have you thought of any security measures in the parking areas? Is there going to be a parking garage for each of the units? Will there be a security type of arrangement that you'll have there? Brad Johnson: There will be a push button operator for each person to get into the garage. It's a fully secured building. You just can't get in. Councilman Geving: Okay, so you thought about all those angles. Brad Johnson: What we're trying to do is fulfill, we've listened with the neighborhood over in that area and they would like to see this, at least one of these types of buildings go in put in there. Councilman Geving: Let me ask you a question about your landscaping. I don't see too much about the landscaping plan or what I would see as I drive down Huron and look at this facility. What kind of shrubery? How's it going to look to the viewer? Tom Zumwalde: Through your ordinance you require so many trees planted around the perimeter of the site and that was volunteered. A fair amount of buffer type of... As you get out here along Chan View, there is berming along this side and again the trees every so far with a shrub lining. Then again a perimeter landing along this side. We'll have to develop that patio area in here and ultimate connect it to trails... Councilman Geving: What about the recreational facilities? Is there anything in the building itself designed for the residents? 51 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 Tam Zumwalde: Yes, in this corner of the building there's 3,000 square feet on the first floor that is a party roam, community kitchen, bathroom. Councilman Geving: Where they could put on an open house type thing? And there's a kitchen in there? Tom Zumwa lde: Yes. Councilman Geving: Just another quick question. What are one of these units going to cost to be when I get to be 55 and want to move into it a single unit. Brad Johnson: Let clarify that. Through the City participation we're setting aside 24 units that will go to low to moderate income which means that the people living in that unit will have to or 60% of the median income for a single or family. That's in the range of $12,000.00 to $16,000.00 a year and they can spend a certain percentage of that money for their income. That's just for the 24 units. We've also set that aside primarily for the senior citizens. That's the 55 and older group. If we can't find that group in town, than we have to rent it to everybody else. The other 36 units are open to all adults at our -- market rate and our rate of rental runs something like $350.00 at the low end and up to $675.00. Now the units themselves we can not, this is another rule, we can not take a two bedroom unit and not rent it as a subsidized unit. _ There's no special units. It's just the individual. Each unit will have it's own thing and we'll have a base rent period. If a person qualifies for a unit, there's no, it's not like a Section 8 housing or something like that where we've got a certain kind unit. We'll basically have the same kind of units available to everybody. Councilman Geving: That's the kind of questions I'm getting from the residents in the community now. How much does it cost? What are they going to look like? What are the amenities? I'm hoping that you'll be providing the newspapers, we've got all the papers represented here tonight, with that kind of information. Brad Johnson: We've got to go through this process first. Councilman Geving: You'll get it. One other question since you did indicate that you're going to have balconies, are those going to be cement balconies or are they going to be wood? We had a big problem over in Eagan I believe with a fire on the balconies and that kind of thing. What are the balconies going to look like? Tom Zumwalde: In fact I was reading the Minutes from last year. They are wood. -" The construction of the building above the garage is wood frame and the balconies will also be wood. As I recall in the Minutes last year, I believe the City has an ordinance... Councilman Johnson: I don't have a lot of questions on this. I see where Bill's caning from. I can't support you right now Bill on this because I can't _ get a grasp. I don't know what that cost differential is. From where they're coming from the standard building thing going up to the next step and how much noise reduction you get with that next step. If you said the base noise there's [7: not much that stops it. My neighbor who lives 200 feet, more than 200 feet away from me, his base goes blasting through my walls and I've got extra sized walls 52 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 and everything. I see where you're coming from but in this case we don't have Ienough information to go with. I can't put something on here that's going to kill this project. I think this potential important to the Cityand cost increased to this project, like you say a double layer drywall, when you start talking 60 rooms, you're talking a lot of money. I'm not sure if you're going to have a significant increase. I think apartment management can control sound in an apartment. Just like the apartments I used to live in in Texas, it took the management to do it. There was nothing I could do about it. We had a rock and roll group four apartments down. There was nothing I could do about them as far as construction wise. Otherwise, I see this as a benefit to the City. Mayor Hamilton: When you build your walls, I guess just to follow up on what Bill's saying, are they 2 x 6, 2 x 8 construction? Do you do a single wall for two sides or do you actually build 2 x 6 walls? Tom Zumwalde: Typical would be a 2 x 4 stud with some. ..on one side and 5/8ths on the other side for sound insulation. There are 6 plate 2 x 4 studs staggered on that plate... There are a whole variety of them. Some of them increase the fire rating more than they increase the sound deadening so I would have to go back to the book and look at... The increase in sound deadening isn't that great even in a really significant wall. It only goes up to perhaps 55... It costs more to do it than you realize. Mayor Hamilton: I know some of them do a double wall which I would think would improve it a lot or go through a 2 x 6 wall so you get additional insulation in there would help I would think. Brad Johnson: I guess the best thing is there has been a tremendous increase, since many of you live in apartments, in apartment sound proofing and if anybody is really interested we have one that was built to this spec that is currently being rented if you want to go visit one, we'd be more than happy to buy you lunch and drag you over there. It's in St. Louis Park and it's basically the same standards as this building. It's designed for seniors. Councilman Boyt: I think this is an issue that if there's a way that we can put a condition on this that leaves the issue open so we can look at the cost trade- off, quiet is one of the most expensive things we can buy anywhere. This is an opportunity to build same more into the building if it's at all economically justifiable. I just think to make that decision without the chance to examine is to miss an opportunity and I'd like to see us create a window so we can look closer. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you. Is quiet the most expensive thingwe can buy or the most precious? Councilman Geving made a motion to approve the PUD amendment as presented by staff and Mayor Hamilton seconded the motion. Councilman Boyt: What about adding something on the sound? I don't know exactly how to word that but do we need... Barbara Dacy: What they were discussing is that condition 4 requires that the facia plan came back. If you wanted to add something in that condition to address the sound proof issue. 53 14ty Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: You'll get another shot at that review of their building plans specifically. — Councilman Geving: We'll see that again so we won't have to include it tonight. You understand what we're trying to do so come back to us with that. _ Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve PUD Amendment Request #87-1 subject to the plans stamped "Received May 12, 1988" and the following conditions: 1. A detailed utility plan showing water, sewer and stormwater connections as well as fire hydrant locations shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to building permit issuance. 2. A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted indicating the additional plantings to be located between Chan View and the parking area. 3. A pedestrian walkway shall be provided on the site in conjunction with the development plans for the retail projects to be developed to the south and east of the parcel. 4. Detailed facia and signage plans shall be submitted for Planning Commission and City Council final review prior to building permit issuance. 5. Removal of the existing single family residence shall be accomplished prior to building permit issuance. 6. Detailed lighting plans shall be submitted prior to building permit issuance. 7. All parking areas shall be lined with concrete curbing. 8. Compliance with the comments as noted in the Building Department memorandum dated May 25, 1988. 9. Compliance with the comments in the letter from BRW dated May 25, 1988, specifically #6-#11 on pages 1 and 2 and #1 on page 3. 10. Compliance with comments as noted in the Fire Department memo dated May 27, 1988. 11. Items referred to in BRW's letter be specifically spelled out regarding storm sewer. All voted in favor and the motion carried. — PROPOSED HOUSING PLAN AND PROGRAM. Resolution #88-58: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Housing Revenue Bond Program and Housing Plan for construction of the Chanhassen Heritage Square Apartment Complex. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 54 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 1, 1988 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 35 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad , Brian Batzli , James Wildermuth and David Headla STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner PUBLIC HEARING: �" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FOR A 60 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING ON ti\ PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CHAN VIEW, HERITAGE PARK APARTMENT PARTNERS. Public Present: Name Address Tom Zumwalde Applicant George Beniek 412 - 76th Street West Sue Welliver 7611 Huron Avenue r Barbara Dacy presented the staff report . Conrad: I got a call from Brad Johnson saying he was on his way from St . Paul . He' d be delayed but he would be here. He' s not trying to dodge it but we' ll open it up for public comments , if there are any from the applicant . Any comments at all on the revision to this particular apartment building. George Beniek : I live on 412 West 76th Street. I guess my only question is, was there, I imagine there was a public hearing on the initial which I don' t recall ever receiving a copy of. What' s the purpose of the change now? ._ To who's benefit is the change? Is it more units going to be in there? Dacy: No. There is no change in the amount of units that were previously approved by the Council in 1987. The only thing that's changed is how the building is sitting on the lot . Basically it' s shifted more to the south and has become an "L" fashion as you see there. The north/south and the east/west access as opposed to a "U" formation. As to who ' s benefit , I don' t know. George Beniek: Why are they requesting the change? Is it our purpose to know that? Dacy: The architect is here. l Tom Zumwalde: I can try and answer that. I am Tom Zumwalde, the architect on the project. I designed the original project and also the revision to it . The original project , we did not have a contractor Planning Commission Meeting — June 1, 1988 - Page 2 C- i involved . We did not have a lot of marketing input. In the last year we got a contractor involved and we' ve dome some marketing input and those are the prime reasons for the changes in the configuration. With the original building that was "U" shaped , we had a lot of units that were pie — shaped with minimal exterior walls looking up to an inside court. From a marketing standpoint, the people we talked to felt they were less useable or less rentable. Less desirable units. From the construction end, all _ of those wedges in the building were very, very costly and what was happening was we were spending so much money on those that the rest of the building would have suffered for it. So what we feel , in the super configuration is that we' re getting a much better, more efficient building. The units have increased an average of 24 square feet per unit. They' re much more liveable than the other ones were. Basically those are the reasons . George Beniek: The heights of it is going to be approximately how many stories? Tom Zumwalde: The same, it' s 3 stories . The identical number of units. The same number of parking spaces. Basically just the configuration change. — George Beniek: It will conform to allow the senior citizen access? Handicap? Tom Zumwalde: There are three handicap units in the building . Totally accessible. As far as rent levels and all of that, I wish the developer were here to answer that. I really don ' t have all that information. — Sue Welliver : I live on Huron Avenue. I own a double bungalow there and I 'm concerned also about my tenants and myself, since I live there, is — access. There's going to be 60 units and you ' re going to have a lot of parking and that type of thing and a lot of cars . How are you going to get out onto 78th Street without any stop signs onto 78th Street? It' s _ very difficult right now. If you' re going to put that up and have the only access onto that road, how are you going to get back out? That ' s what .I 'd like to know. Dacy: The access to the apartments will be from Chan View and there will be two access points. One opposite the Huron Avenue intersection. Here' s Huron Avenue here. The entrance to the parking lot will be directly — opposite of that and there will be another access further to the east on Chan View. So cars entering and leaving the site will come from Chan View, iff they' re going to be headed to Great Plains Blvd. , they' ll go over to here and then go south to the Great Plains Blvd. and West 78th — Street intersection which there' s a stop sign at that point and West 78th Street is now a flow through on that. There' s no four way stop. That was eliminated with the reconstruction of the south lane of Great Plains — Blvd . . Additionally, there could be traffic that goes west on Chan View that would eventually hit Laredo. The City is just finishing up, we' re ( reconstructing Laredo Drive as it intersects West 78th Street. There' s a _ right turn lane now that will be on Laredo Drive going onto West 78th Street. Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 3 Sue Welliver : Yes , but I mean whenou trytoget onto West Y 78th Street, that is the most difficult now that they eliminated the four way stop sign there. Also , on Laredo, eliminating that . You want to go east , anyway from there, it's very difficult. We have to wait 5 to 10 minutes and that ' s just normal time. You get into rush hour and it' s terrible. Dacy: I agree. There 's a considerable amount of traffic on West 78th Street in both locations . In this location in front of Kenny' s, because that leg is part of TH 101, MnDot 's requirement was that we remove the stop signs along West 78th Street to promote the flow through on West 78th Street and to control the traffic coming from Great Plains Blvd. onto West 78th Street . There' s no question that during peak hours that main street is a busy street. I can' t dispute that. Sue Welliver : Are they going to do anything? Are they going to suggest to do anything for that for the residents in this apartment unit also? Like are they going to put a four way stop on Laredo and West 78th or do you know? Dacy: No, there are no plans to put a four way stop at either location. Again, MnDot is requiring us that we can ' t have stop signs on that leg of what is known as TH 101. What' s there now can control the traffic but yes, it' s going to be busy during peak hours. I don ' t know how else to explain it. (I Sue Welliver : I have rental property right now and that ' s one issue that we have right now is because you can ' t get out. Now you build a 60 unit apartment building , those owners are also going to have the same problem there. I think they should look at that and I think the City should decide on putting in stop signs . There' s a church there with children going across. I think there should be stop signs and I think this is just going to add to the congestion. Conrad : It sure will add to the congestion by putting in 60 more units there. There' s no doubt about that. I guess the question becomes , Barbara, you' re telling us that the intersection at TH 101 or West 78th . Is that 78th? Dacy: Yes. Conrad : That MnDot really does control that and what is our influence in terms of the traffic problems? Dacy: As you recall also , the City has a long term plan, it' s really not long term because we' re trying to accomplish it along with the four lanes of TH 5, creating a new leg of TH 101 that would go through the Apple Valley-Redimix property, cross TH 5 and hook up into Lake Drive East. That would take a significant volume of the north/south traffic from TH 101 and take that out of going through the downtown area but there is going to be this interim period in here where the north/south traffic on TH 101 is going to be going through the downtown area. George Beniek: How many parking places are there shown on their plan? Planning Commission Meeting _. June 1, 1988 - Page 4 Dacy: 108. Tom Zumwalde: The building has a 60 car garage below it. There' s one garage space for each unit and then 48 open stalls out in the parking lot. — The same as it was before. George Beniek: So there will be a basement in the building? Is that right? Tom Zumwalde: That would be the garage, correct. Conrad: The parking lot did look small didn' t it? George Beniek: Yes . Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad : Tim, we' ll start down at your end . What are your comments? Erhart: I really don' t have any. I think the building space is unusual space. It' s built well and I think it' s adequate. Emmings: I don' t really have anything . I liked the other building better but so what. Conrad : Yes , the other building was prettier . — Emmings: This one ' s efficient. Ellson: I don' t have any comments either . I think it ' s just fine. Conrad: Nobody's talking about traffic. Brian? Batzli : I was going to talk about landscaping but I ' ll talk about traffic a little bit. Kenny's is going to stay where it is isn' t it? Throughout this whole development so we ' re not going to lose any traffic . . . I guess I would recommend that, I ' ve seen the paster of that church has asked that stop signs be put in there, at least so people can get across the street to go to church. We' re adding potentially 108 more cars a day — or more. When you talk about back and forth trips , a lot more congestion at that intersection. I guess I would like to see whether we can convince MnDot of some other way before we get people getting inpatient and trying _ to pull out and creating havoc at that intersection because I think it ' s a problem. I personally waited there trying to get out of Kenny' s market for , it is several minutes. That ' s not really an exaggeration. I guess I 'd like to see something . I don ' t know what we can do in this particular — instance but it sounds like MnDot is kind of calling the shots on it but I do think that ' s a concern. Not having been involved in the original building, I don ' t know if I like the original building or not. Your one _ condition that asks for the additional plantings , what are you going to , I didn ' t understand where that' s going to be. Chan View and the parking area? You' re just going to have more plantings in that one strip? Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 5 _ c Dacy: Yes, in this area. Batzli : Do we require a certain plantings to be put in? Are we going to get like little pine trees that are going to take 15 years to grow to shield this thing? Dacy: No. The ordinance requires for evergreens that they be a minimum of 6 feet at planting and I believe the landscaping plan, in some cases there were taller trees . Batzli : Because this is going to be a 3 story building and when you have a 6 foot pine tree, it' s going to take 20 years to mature and you have a single family homes in the area , I don' t know. Obviously the people are going to have to look at the building for a couple of years no matter what you do. That' s all . Wildermuth: I guess I have a question about the storm water runoff. Jim Lasher, in his letter, spent quite a bit of time talking about an on-site retention. . . Dacy: Part of the problem in determing that, the ultimate storm sewer plan is that the City needs to finalize it' s plans for the drainage of the abutting properties. This site here is where a daycare center is proposed to be located and all of these properties here interrelate so what we ' re trying to do is have BRW and the applicant on this project work together so there is on-site retention on this property and make sure that it ' s properly directed to whatever is finally determined on the daycare site also. It ' s hard at this point to give you a definitive answer of the catch basin over here or here. Wildermuth: There doesn ' t look like there ' s going to be room for a catch basin on this property. Dacy: If you' re talking about a retention pond . Is that what you mean? The City' s intent was to create a storm sewer system and piping and so on so an. actual pond wouldn' t probably be used . There might be a very small depression in there but it was my understanding from BRW that we' re looking at a storm sewer system. Wildermuth : With an underground garage , I can see a lot of problems there. Like with the storm that we had last year. That' s going to be flooded because that whole area is low and it all drains . I think what we should do is strengthen the language for the storm water runoff. Put in provisions that that be made. . . I guess we ' re looking at the BRW letter . That 's all I had. Headla : . . . Even if there' s City' s storm sewer that will catch the runoff, then this apartment complex will pay for that? Dacy: Yes , the applicant is responsible for all necessary storm sewer improvements from the runoff from their property. Planning Commission Meeting — June 1, 1988 - Page 6 Headla : Does that appear to be adequate to allow that storm sewer r to take care of it? To me that seems that' s the logical way to go but is there anything else we should be looking at? Dacy: The intent of condition 1 from staff was taken from BRW's letter that we want final utility and storm sewer plans from them. That will be reviewed both by in-house engineering staff and BRW. Before they get a building permit, they' ll have to satisfy those issues . Headla : Did you get any input from the Fire Department today? Dacy: People from the Fire Department talked to me today but . . . Headla: I talked to Steve yesterday and I said I want to know if we — recommend approval of this , is the Fire Department going to require any additional fire fighting equipment? His first comment was , well we ' re ordering the aerial ladder . We' re ordering that so we' re covered there. I said, is there anything else? He said I don ' t know, I ' ll have to talk to them. I said, well get back to Barb on Wednesday. Dacy: No, Steve did not talk to me. The primary fire protection equipment is the requirement for sprinkling so that ' s the number one best defense as far as. . . C Headla : I 'm not talking about defense. I 'm talking about we got hooked into being required to have an aerial ladder in this City. Have we overlooked something else that we can ' t charge the apartment complex for or are the general taxpayers going to have to pay for it? — Dacy: Not to my knowledge will there be any other need for any other type of equipment. The aerial ladder is a significant addition to Chanhassen ' s — fire fighting capabilities. Between that and the requirement that the building be sprinklered is the best that we can do. Headla : Last time we beat around quite a bit on the soil borings. Have they done any of that work? Dacy: I know soil borings have been conducted on site. The area where — the parking lot is is where most of the poor soils are located. Headla : They will have to take special precautions there so that doesn' t — break up in a short period of time? How do we cover that? Dacy: The applicant will be responsible for maintaining the parking lot _ in an acceptable condition and I believe they will be soil corrections . Tom Zumwalde : As required . There are a lot of borings that were done on the site and I 'm not certain exactly how bad it is down at that end but — we ' re putting in concrete curb around the entire lot . Putting in a bituminous parking lot. That ' s a rental property. We' ll be forced to keep it up just to keep it marketable. Headla : Where do you have all your trash containers? Planning Commission Meeting June 1, 1988 - Page 7 Tom Zumwalde : The trash collection area will be in the basement of the building or the garage. Headla : Will they be coming in from Huron to go in there? Tom Zumwalde: That' s correct. Headla : That tends to be off of where the real soft soil is? Dacy: The poor soils, from my understanding, were over in this direction. Tom Zumwalde: It gets worse as you get into this direction. . . Headla : What do you do, you take soil borings and based on what you find that determines the type of base you put down? Tom Zumwalde : That' s correct. Headla: And the City Engineer has to approve that? Tom Zumwalde : The City Engineer will be approving all that . . . Headla: That' s all I have. Conrad : I don ' t have any additional comments . I think those that I 've heard are real valid comments and maybe whoever makes the motion might want to say something in there that the City Council decides what the traffic impact on West 78th Street might be. Maybe review whether we should pursue some kind of a stop sign on West 78th. Headla : I 'd like to talk about that again. When does it look like TH 101 will go through by that Redimix and that? Dacy: Hopefully during the 1992-93 timeframe. Headla : Once it does that , then we would be able to put up a stop sign... .? Dacy: Right . What would happen is that that portion of West 78th Street would revert to local control . That would no longer be TH 101. Headla : What if it takes them two years to get that thing totally built, then that would be two years when. . . Conrad : It ' s a problem right now. I know that and this will add a little bit to that and it may be an opportunity to look at the whole situation. I don' t know what the flexibility of the State is but we may, somebody may want to ask the City Council to look into the matter. Is there a motion? Wildermuth : I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Final Plat Amendment for the Heritage Park Apartments PUD #87-1 based on the plans stamped "Received May 12, 1988" subject to the following conditions: 1 through 10 and I think the items in the BRW letter referred to in condition 9 should be specifically spelled out regarding storm water Planning Commission Meeting — June 1, 1988 - Page 8 handling . I would assume that it would have to make adequate provisions — to handle. . . Does anybody have any suggestions on the traffic situation? I think the traffic situation in terms of what the City will be allowed to do after. . .and TH 101 gets rebuilt, in terms of the natural course of — events I think if that situation becomes really bad. . .specifically read it into the motion. Wildermuth moved , Earnings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Final Plat Amendment for the Heritage Park Apartments PUD #87-1 based on the plans stamped "Received May 12, 1988" subject to the following conditions : 1. A detailed utility plan showing water , sewer and stormwater connections as well as fire hydrant locations shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to building permit issuance. 2. A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted indicating the — additional plantings to be located between Chan View and the parking area. 3. A pedestrian walkway shall be provided on the site in conjunction with the development plans for the retail projects to be developed to the south and east of the parcel . 4. Detailed facia and signage plans shall be submitted for Planning Commission and City Council final review prior to building permit issuance . 5. Removal of the existing single family residence shall be accomplished prior to building permit issuance. — 6. Detailed lighting plans shall be submitted prior to building permit issuance. 7. All parking areas shall be lined with concrete curbing . 8. Compliance with the comments as noted in the Building Department — memorandum dated May 25, 1988 . 9. Compliance with the comments in the letter from BRW dated May 25, 1988, specifically #6-11 on pages 2 and 3 and #1 on page 3 . 10. Compliance with comments as noted in the Fire Department memo dated May 27 , 1988. — 11. Compliance with the comments in the letter from BRW dated May 25, 1988, specifically spelled out regarding the storm sewer . — 12. Direct City staff to research the traffic situation prior to City L Council review. All voted in favor and the motion carried . CITY O F P.C. DATE: Jan . 4 , 1989 \ �� _ ClIANIIASSZN C.C. DATE: Jan. 4 , 1989 Y CASE N0: 88-17 Site Plan Prepared by: Hanson/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for Phase I of the Chanhassen Professional Building of 21,600 Square Feet Z a V LOCATION: North of West 78th Street and East of 480 West .J 78th Street AI. APPLICANT: Lotus Realty Q P.O. Box 100 Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: CBD, Central Business District ACREAGE: DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING - AND LAND USE: N- R-12; proposed Heritage Park Apartments S- CBD; commercial uses r-- E- CBD; commercial uses W- CBD; commercial uses w WATER AND SEWER: Municipal services are available PHYSICAL CHARAC. : Site is level. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial Chanhassen Professional Building January 4, 1989 — Page 2 APPLICATION The applicants are requesting site plan approval for Phase I with 3 additional phases identified on the preliminary site plan. — Phase I will be for medical and general office uses . The intent is for Dr. McCollum to occupy the majority of the first floor, with occupancy to occur August 1 , 1989 , when his present lease expires. In order to accommodate this time line, we are eva- luating a proposal that is lacking the detail we usually would require. Further the HRA will be responsible for the site design work. This work will be contracted out and detailed plans will need to be brought back to the Planning Commission. ANALYSIS — The review of these plans is based on an evaluation of the total area noted on the preliminary site plan. While the applicant is requesting approval for Phase I , the entire project needs to work • for Phase II to make sense. The total proposal consists of four phases totaling 38 ,400 square feet plus changes in parking and circulation affecting the Riviera and Colonial Shopping Center. — Parking and Circulation The overall parking for the project is adequate, however, from the standpoint of providing balanced parking for the project, there is excess parking at Colonial Shopping Center and a shortage for the Riviera. Please reference letter from Fred Hoisington. The circulation for the Riviera as shown is intended to provide a drop off area. The layout for this is backwards and eliminates what could be valuable parking for the Riviera. The — access drive at this location appears to be wider than needed. Redesign of this access with head-in parking. stalls would provide better parking for the Riviera and should reinforce the easterly — access as the main entrance for the Chanhassen Professional Building. The main entrance to the project is proposed to be a covered — access which ties Phase I and II together. This cover will just be a shell and not intended for occupancy. This access is con- tingent upon the relocation of the existing business which occu- -. pies this portion of the site. If the relocation occurs prior to Phase II completion, then this covered drive should be completed with Phase II . The access as shown provides 16 foot drive lanes . There is the potential for this area to function as a drop-off area, thus tem- porarily blocking the drive. To accommodate this , the drives should be widened to 20 feet or pull-offs provided to minimize congestion at this entrance. Fire truck access will require the Chanhassen Professional Building January 4 , 1989 Page 3 covered drive to have a clearance of 14 feet. The present eleva- tion appears to have only 10 feet. The Fire Inspector has also requested that the first tier of parking north of the building have an aisle width of 25 feet extending to Great Plains Boulevard. The access between the Chanhassen Professional Building and Colonial Shopping Center needs to be redesigned to align the aisles and improve traffic flow. The access behind Town Square Center also needs to be integrated into the overall circulation system. Access easements will be required as part of the platting to provide cross access . In evaluating the building foot print, the front setback from West 78th Street needs to be increased to 10 feet to accommodate side walks, landscaping and potential future widening of West 78th Street to allow for a right turn lane . This adjustment reduces the area behind the proposed buildings , thus impacting the parking area to the extent that parking stalls may need to be shorter than normal. Jim Lasher has noted new standards for parking, which may be appropriate for this project. North of the clock tower, it would be desirable to provide an open space area to reinforce this as an identity for the down- town. In addition, this would be a logical area for the sidewalk from Heritage Park Apartments to connect into. To make this con- nection it is suggested that 2 or 3 parking stalls per row be deleted to make this connection with a landscaped walkway. Loss of the parking in this area would not be detrimental to the pro- ject. Building Area The proposed plans call for a Phase IV of 6 ,000 square feet to be added onto the east end of the Phase I building. This addition would be one story and is not shown in the elevation. There is a concern that this addition will not tie into the project. We would suggest this be reduced or Phase II be expanded. Either way the area should accommodate the open space and pedestrian link discussed previously for this area. The Building Department has noted there are several possible separation problems due to existing lot lines and uses. These will need to be resolved prior to issuance of building permits . Building Facia The exterior materials are to consist of block base similar to the clock tower with cedar lap siding, cedar shake siding, pat- terned grill work, and brick accent entrances which protrude out from the main building . Details on this are still being develop- ed by the architect. Chanhassen Professional Building January 4, 1989 Page 4 Lighting No standards have been proposed at this time. Staff would recom- _ mend that low standards be used consistent with the downtown redevelopment plan be utilized. Signage Details on signage have not been prepared. Staff would recommend that a farily restrictive sign area be defined to identify offi- ces and uses on the building rather than an identification sign be designed to identify the complex. Landscaping No plans have been provided at this time. These will be developed as part of the site development and engineering plans for the parking ara. These plans should be consistent with the concept plans for the redevelopment area. Existing trees should be noted on the plan. — Services No indication has been made on the plans for trash disposal, fire hydrant, utility lines, telephone or electric boxes and vaults. These items should be noted as they are integrated into the plan and appropriately screened and accessible. No roof top equipment -- should oe visible and if any mechanical is to be located outside the structure it should be screened. Preferrably all mechanical should be contained within the structure. Safety Fire hydrants are not shown. Maximum spacing for hydrants is 300 feet. Buildings need to meet N.F.P.A. of the Uniform Fire Code. Parking aisle nearest buildings needs to be 25 feet in width. Main access needs to be widened to 20 feet each way with minimum height — clearance of 14 feet. Platting The entire area needs to be replatted to reflect actual ownership, establish needed easements and remove conflicts . The noted property lines between Town Square and Riveria is incorrect as shown. As — part of this detailed topographic, utility and grading plans will be provided. RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: Chanhassen Professional Building January 4 , 1989 Page 5 "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary Site Plan for Phase I of the Chanhassen Professional Building #88-17 based on the plan stamped "Received December 12 , 1988" and subject to the following conditions: 1 . Submittal of a revised site plan prior to City Council con- sideration of this item which at a minimum contains the following changes : a. A 10 foot setback from West 78th Street b. Dimensions to identify location of the building and parking areas . Parking aisle near building needs 25 foot drive. c . Revision of main entrance to provide wider drive lanes or pull off . d. Revised parking and access at the Riviera. e . Adjust or eliminate Phase IV and provide park site extending north from the clock tower and across the parking lot to Heritage Park Apartments . f . Revised circulation between Phase IV and Colonial Shopping Center . 2 . Prior to issuance of any permits for construction, detailed plans need to oe approved by Planning Commission and City Council for the entire area from Town Square to Great Plains Boulevard in accordance with Section 20-107 , Application Site Plan Review of the City Code. 3 . Submittal of revised plans shall address the following speci- fic conditions: a . Revised parking and circulation for Riviera. b . Plan III should occur as part of Phase II . c. Revise main access to accommodate traffic flow if area is to function as a drop off. Minimun height clearance of 14 feet is to be provided. d. Plans satisfy requirements of Fire Inspector. e. Overall circulation needs to be redesigned to flow pro- perly through all properties . If parking space sizes are to be reduced from normal standard, information needs to be submitted to justify reduced standards and address possible impacts . Chanhassen Professional Building January 4 , 1989 Page 6 f . Setback of 10 foot along West 78th Street for all struc- tural elements of buildings . g . Phase IV plans , elevation and use or eliminate. h . Resolve possible separation problems with Building Department. i . Detailed facia plans, signage and lighting and landscaping. j . All mechanical to inside buildings and service boxes screened. k . Submittal of revised plat for the entire area. 4 . Compliance with comments of the attached referral letters. -- CITYOF . G CHANHASSEN • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer DATE: December 29, 1988 SUBJ: Site Plan Review for Phase I , 21,600 Sq. Ft. Building, Chanhassen Professional Building #88-17 Site Plan Review, Lotus Realty Services This site is located on the north side of West 78th Street imme- - diately east of 480 West 78th Street. As the Planning Commission is aware, in August of 1987; feasibility study for the reconstruction of West 78th Street which included the construe- , tion of a common public parking area for this site was approved. The plans which were prepared by BRW and approved by the City Council included parking lot paving, lighting, storm sewer, landscaping, geometric layouts and a number of parking spaces. As indicated in BRW' s letter dated December 27 , 1988, from Gary Ehret, at BRW, did not proceed with the development of final plans and specifications due to the slower development pace then contemplated. The prelimi:ary plans for the parking lot have been completed and coordinated with the downtown public improve- ments but they were not finalized. BRW has been directeu to proceed with the required process which will presented at the City Council for their review and public hearing prior to proceeding. This new approval will be required for the following reasons: 1 . Public improvements are considered. 2 . Site plan changes are significantly different then those pre- viously contemplated. 3 . The one year approval on the previous feasibility study has expired. 4 . The land ownership has changed. Because BRW will be proceeding with the grading plan, geometric layouts , utilities, landscaping and topography, staff is requesting that the Planning Commission limit their comments to the architectural concerns at this time. Review of the grading and above mentioned items will be considered at a later date. Planning Commission December 29 , 1988 Page 2 It should be noted that a minimal amount of saplings will be removed as part of the grading process. — Recommended Conditions 1 . The applicant shall revise the plan to show Type II erosion — control prior to the commencement of any construction. 2 . All erosion control shall be in place prior to the commen- cement of any construction and shall remain in place until an established vegetative cover has been established. The developer shall be responsible for making periodic checks on erosion controls and making any necessary repairs promptly. Removal shall remain the responsibility of the developer after a vegetative cover has been established. 3 . The proposed grading plan shall be contingent upon approval for the wetland alteration permit for the dredging of Lake Minnewashta as shown in the plan stamped "Received November — 10, 1988" of Region 6 Waters. PLANNING TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING ARCHITECTURE BENNETT RINGROSE. WOLSFELD. JARVIS. GARDNER. INC. • THRESHER SQUARE - 700 THIRD ST SO - MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 • PH 612,370-0700 FAX 612/370-1378 December 27, 1988 Mr. Stephen Hanson City Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen , Minnesota 55317 RE: Site Plan Review Medical Arts Building Downtown Dear Mr. Hanson: We are in receipt of your request to review the site plan for the proposed Medical Arts Building in the downtown area. As you are aware, the only plan submitted at this time is the Preliminary Site Plan/Floor Plan and Elevations sheet dated November 18, 1988, submitted to the City on December 12, 1988. This plan obviously lacks any detail on site plan specifics, therefore, a comprehensive review of the "missing" information is impractical . The perspective of our review will focus on the important coordination issues rather than on the specific details which are missing. In August 1987, a feasibility study was completed which focused on the coordinated construction of relevant site specific issues for a common public parking lot on the north side of West 78th Street. This report was based upon a development plan which is significantly different than the proposal currently before you for consideration. Issues which were considered in the previous feasibility study included: o Parking Lot Paving _ o Lighting o Storm Sewer o Landscaping o Geometric Layouts o Number of Parking Spaces F r '2 1988 .;ITY OF CHP,NhASSCN DAVIDJ BENNETT DONALDW RINGROSE RICHARDPWOLSFELD PETERE JARVIS LAWRENCEJ GARDNER THOMAS CARROLL CRAIGA AMUNDSEN DONALD E HUNT MARK G SWENSON JOHN B MCNAMARA RICHARD D PILGRIMDALE N BECKMANN DENNIS J SUTLIFF MINNEAPOLIS ST.PETERSBURG DENVER TUCSON PHOENIX Mr. Stephen Hanson December 27, 1988 Page 2 This report was accepted by the City Council of Chanhassen on August 24, 1987, and plans and specifications ordered. Because development has not occurred as quickly as contemplated, BRW did not proceed with development of final plans and specifications. However, preliminary plans have been completed and coordinated with the Downtown public improvements which have been constructed. — Our understanding is that it is, again , the desire of the City to control the improvement process on the north side of West 78th Street to insure a — coordinated and controlled effort for all of the necessary public improvements. The site plan specifics for the Medical Arts Building in all phases will be coordinated through the public improvement process which must again take place. Our understanding of the process which will be required includes a new feasibility study which will be presented to the City Council for their review and a public hearing prior to proceeding. This will be required for the following reasons: 1. Public improvements are considered. 2. Site plan changes are significantly different than those previously contemplated. 3. The one year approval period has expired. 4. The land ownership has changed. In order to proceed with the public improvement process, BRW has been directed — to proceed with the required documentation associated with the Medical Arts Building. BRW, as a part of this process, will be identifying and designing the following elements: 1. Grading Plan 2. Geometric Layouts 3. Parking Layouts — 4. Utilities - 5. Paving Plan 6. Lighting _ 7. Landscaping 8. Topography 9. Platting/Lot Layouts This work will take place over the next three month period in conjunction with the development of the Medical Arts Building plans as well as any other proposed development in this area , so that a spring/early summer construction — schedule can be achieved. Mr. Stephen Hanson December 27, 1988 Page 3 Conclusion: The site plan submittal for the Medical Arts Building should be contingent upon the following: 1. Complete coordination with all public site plan improvements. 2. Approval of the public improvement projects by the appropriate City agencies. 3. All easements or other requirements of the City which may be necessary as a part of the public improvement process. 4. All other applicable City requirements such as zoning, setbacks, etc. If we can offer further information, please advise me. Sincerely, BE ' T-RINGROSE-WOLS - VIS-GARDNER, INC. _ . y A. . ret, PE Project tanager GAE/ss cc : Mr. Gary Warren PLANNING TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING • • ARCHITECTURE - BENNETT RINGROSE. WOLSFELD. JARVIS. GARDNER INC • THRESHER SQUARE • 700 THIRD ST SO • MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55415 • PH. 612)370-0700 FAX. 612/370-1378 December 27, 1988 Mr. Steven Hanson - City Planner City of Chanhassen Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Steve, This letter is in response to your request for review of plans for the Professional Building in Downtown Chanhassen. PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 1. Site plan does not reflect HRA action of December 1, 1988, which ordered placement of the building 10'-0" north of northernmost West 78th Street right-of-way. 2. Parking quantities should be checked and verified by Mr. Fred Hoisington for — his recommendations. 3. Site plan does not address the existing sidewalk constructed under the Downtown Redevelopment Project. Will this stay in place or be modified in some way for this plan? 4. Phase 4 should be either eliminated or scaled down considerably to allow for — a major green space around the Clock Tower. 5. The entire building should move 10'-0" east to allow construction of .— Phase I to occur without infringing on Mr. Hanson ' s property. 6. The Phase 2 building should be downsized or repositioned to allow for parking along its west side for the Riviera. 7. Soils information should be reviewed for contaminants west of the Pauly building. — 8. The Daycare Center shown should not be considered under this submittal and was not reviewed. — 9. All issues relating to engineering, landscape architecture, signage and building materials should be reviewed by staff for approval prior to any permits or approvals by Planning Commission and City Council . — 10. Loading, utilities and drainage must be reviewed. DAVID J BENNETT DONALD W RINGROSE RICHARD P WOLSFELD PETER E JARVIS LAWRENCE J.GARDNER THOMAS F CARROLL CRAIG A AMUNDSEN DONALD E HUNT MARK G SWENSON JOHN B McNAMARA RICHARD D PILGRIM DALE N BECKMANN DENNIS J.SUTLIFF MINNEAPOLIS ST PETERSBURG DENVER TUCSON PHOENIX — Mr. Steven Hanson December 27, 1988 Page 2 PRELIMINARY ELEVATIONS 1. The general building architecture appears to be of excellent design quality, with numerous undulations in facades and roof lines which add interest and detail . I urge the Planning Commission to review closely and make recommen- dations which allow staff to maintain the level of detail and design integrity which is currently shown. 2. Specific issues which should be addressed by staff are: A. Building Materials B. Lighting C. Window Treatments D. Access/Egress Points — E. Signage Quantities, Placement and Sizes PRELIMINARY FLOOR PLANS 1. Plans indicate only two access points at ground level on each side. How will the need for additional separate entry points be addressed? 2. Mr. Fred Hoisington should be consulted on locations for specific types of businesses ( i .e. , office, retail , medical ) in relation to current and future parking demands. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments regarding the aforementioned issues. Sincerely, BENNETT-RIS VISE-WOLSFELD-JARVIS-GARDNER, INC. twiljr 4 Janie B. Lasher JBL/sk — cc: Gary Ehret File 62-8711 171- i`t, PLANNING c^ 1z . T TRANSPORTATION _....01J i. - ENGINEERING ARCHITECTURE BENNETT. RINGROSE. WOLSFELD. JARVIS. GARDNER. INC • THRESHER SQUARE • 700 THIRD ST. SO •MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55415• PH. 6121370-0700 FAX. 612/370-1378 r MEMORANDUM ,, 1 DATE: December 22, 1988 ; i TO: Mr. Steve Hanson - City Planner FROM: Mr. James B. Lasher - BRW L RE: Meeting Minutes of 12/15/88 for Professional Building . 1 on West 78th Street and Town Square Apartments a Professional Building • 1 o Tom Zumwald of AEA and Jim Lasher will coordinate building placement and , l' parking bay depths. The building is to be set 10' -0" back from existing -j West 78th Street property line. 1 r o BRW will be handling parking lot design 1 — I .1 o Rich Thomasgard will provide tenant information for first floor spaces o Phase 4 is too large and should be scaled back to one-third its proposed size o Signage will be reviewed closely by the City of Chanhassen prior to • approvals/permits :1 o Building materials must be identified for Planning Commission presentation o HUD must provide written approval of proposed parking easement i o Curb. cut locations and relocations must be addressed as far as costs and —' responsibility. o Additional parking along the west side of Phase II must be provided for the — Riveria Restaurant use. i — DEC :' 1988 '- ..,-;k:::re -i> ` .t. : `..ky..z 174„ x:-:,.21:::,.-7=saor.aM. r-rtrry nr• s. eta+:I ,,, _. -- MINNEAPOLIS MINNEAPOLIS ST PETERSBURG DENVER TUCSON PHOENIX Mr. Steve Hanson December 22, 1988 Page 2 o The proposed drive-thru area should provide drop-off curb indentations. o Soils information must be received from property west of the Pauly building. Town Square Apartments o Additional landscaping along the west and south property lines is to be provided under the apartment contract. o A concrete walking path from Chan View south to the clock tower area is to be provided under the Apartment contract. o HUD must approve all changes to drawings. JBL/lpm cc: File 62-8711 • Hoisington Group inc. - Lana Use Consu;tarits December 21, 1988 Mr. Steve Hanson Planning Director City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Review of Chanhassen Professional Building Dear Steve: We have calculated the parking demand for the north side of West 78th Street from Laredo Drive to Great Plains Boulevard including the Clinic — addition. At full development the peak parking demand period will be 380 spaces during the noon hour. The supply will be 427 spaces including — Townsquare Center's parking (101 spaces). This would suggest that there is a surplus of parking of 47 spaces north of 'Vest 78th Street during the 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. period. In fact, virtually all of that surplus will exist at the far easterly end of the—study area adjacent to Colonial Shopping Center. While overall supply might appear to be adequate, distribution is certainly less than ideal. Generally speaking, Townsquare Center satisfies its own parking demand — and provides approximately 19 additional parking spaces for the Riviera. The Riviera has a parking demand between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. of 72 spaces — which means that it will depend, to a great extent, on the Clinic's parking to satisfy its remaining demand. Based on the plan as proposed, it is my opinion that the Riviera will be short-changed during its noon hour peak -- demand period when the Clinic is also operating at near capacity. It would be my recommendation that the plan for the westerly end of the Clinic project be reformulated to provide a better parking arrangement for the Riviera including parking spaces closer to its front door. That could be _ accomplished by reducing the size of Phase 2 slightly to both reduce the demand for and increase the supply of parking adjacent to the Riviera. We understand that the Riviera owner has opted for a covered drop-off arca in lieu of immediately proximate parking. I am sure that the pattern — established by the proposed drop-off area will not be conducive to a 7300 Metro f31vO — Suite 525 Ear!1a.MN 55435 (ptl)835-9960 smooth flow of traffic from West 78th Street into the parking area because the drop-off area is on the srong side of the driveway. Without a doubt, my primary concern is not with overall parking supply and demand but with distribution.. Will parking as proposed be capable of supporting the Riviera clientel? I believe it will not and that the City should maintain a degree of flexibility with Phase 2 of the Clinic to ensure that the Riviera will not have a parking space deficiency. I am also extremely concerned about the easterly expansion of the Clinic identified as Phase 4. My parking calculations are based on a 3,000 square foot future addition but I have always been of the opinion that the open space associated with the Clock Tower should be expanded to provide for a small vestpocket type park in this location. The Phase 4 addition would not only destroy this opportunity but would block a potential pedestrian linkage between Chan View and the Clock Tower/Urban Park. The Day Care Center is also of some concern though we have computed parking demand to include the originally proposed 6,000+ square foot facility. It appears that this facility is about one-half the original size and provides for no outdoor play area. It has been rendered a non-entity and should probably not be included in the parking computations. _ I recommend as follows: 1. More parking should be provided to serve the Riviera. 2. The Riviera drop-off area should be reevaluated. 3. The easterly expansion of the Clinic (Phase 4) should not be allowed. If you have further questions, please give me a call. _ Sincerely, Fre Hoisington Consultant PARKING ACCUMULATION - NORTH SIDE WEST 78TH STREET — TIME OF DAY — ADJUSTED USE DEMAND 8-11 11-2 2-4 4-6 6-9 TOWNSQUARE •RETAIL 59 67% 40 90% 53 85% 50 100% 59 90% 53 — •RESTAURANT 32 0% 0 90% 29 50% 16 90% 29 100% 32 RIVIERA 80 25% 20 90% 72 30% 24 90% 72 100% 80 — COLONIAL CENTER 59 67% 40 90% 53 85% 50 100% 59 90% 53 CLINIC •MED OFFICE 128 100% 128 90% 115 100% 128 50% 64 10% 13 •GEN OFFICE 52 98% 51 93% 48 91% 47 50% 26 10% 5 — DAY CARE 19 100% 19 50% 10 50% 10 100% 19 10% 2 TOTALS 429 298 380 325 328 238 SUPPLY = 427 Parking Spaces Overall, the Project will have approximately a 47 car surplus during the peak hour on the 90th percentile day and a 189 car surplus during the period 6-9 p.m. HOISINGTON GROUP INC. 12-20-88 PEAK PARKING DEMAND NORTH SIDE WEST 78TH STREET PEAK PEAK MULTI- ADJUSTED USE STT.F RATIO DEMAND PURPOSE DEMAND TOWNSQUARE •RETAIL 15,500 4/1,000 62 5% 3.8/1,000 59 •RESTAURANT 86s 1/2.5s 34 5% 1/2.6s 32 RIVIERA 169s 1/2s 84 5% 1/2.1s 80 COLONIAL CENTER 12,500 5/1 ,000 62 5% 4.75/1,000 59 CLINIC •MED OFFICE 19,200 1/1 5 0 128 0% 1/150 128 -GEN OFFICE 16,200 3.2/1,000 52 0% 3.2/1,000 52 DAYCARE 101 chld 1/10 chld 19 0% - 19 9 empl 1/empl TOTALS 441 429 IIOISINGTON GROUP INC. 12-20-88 CITY QF j' CUANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM — TO: Steve Hanson, City Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Inspector DATE: December 21, 1988 SUBJ: Planning Case #88-17 Site Plan Review 1 . Building must be sprinklered. 2 . One handicapped parking stall must be provided for every fifty parking stalls . 3 . If the building labeled "Paulys" is an existing building, — the east property line may not be moved so as to cause the building to violate required setbacks . 4 . An access easement : hould be orovided for the property co the north of the Riviera, otherwise the property will be unbuildaole. CITY of CHANHASSEN „ , 1/4 40 , 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Stephen Hanson, City Planner FROM: Mark Littfin , Fire Inspector DATE: December 15 , 1988 SUBJ: Case #88-17 Site Plan Review Recommendation at this time: 1 . Buildings must be built in accordance with the Minnesota State Fire Code, NFPA requirements . Further detailed requirements will be forthcoming as planning progresses . A, CITY of AN EN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer 46 DATE: December 30 , 1988 SUBJ: Enforcement of Covenants and Restrictions for the Woodcrest Subdivision File No. 88-9 (pvt) On August 8 , 1988 , the City Council approved the final plat for the Woodcrest subdivision (Attacnment #1 ) . This subdivision is located on the south side of Woodhill Road within the Carver Beach Estates area . The plat for the Woodcrest Subdivision has been filed at the County as of December 29 , 19E8 . Prior to the final recording of the plat , staff issued one building permit for the entire Woodcrest Subdivision treating this parcel of land as one entire parcel until the plat had been legally filed . The home which was constructed is shown on the attached lot survey (Attachment #2 ) . The homeowners located immediately to the south of the permitted lot were upset due to the proximity of the home to the setback requirement which was set forth in the covenants and restric- tions . Condition #3 of the Declaration of Covenants , Conditions , Restrictions and Reservations for the Woodcrest Subdivision states "Building setbacks from lot lines shall comply with the City ordinances and/or any other governmental agencies. No building or grading will be permitted except for terracing or erosion control within 140 feet of the back lot lines . No building or grading will be permitted except for terracing or erosion control within the drainage and utility easement as indi- - cated on the plat of Woodcrest . " The neighborhood is upset because this home has encroached upon the 140 foot mark by approximately 10 to 12 feet. The primary concern is the stand of trees which exist as a buffer between the two subdivisions. From the information that was present during platting, the damage to the trees has been minimal ; however , the homeowners are concerned for the protection and enforcement of the covenants and restrictions for the forthcoming building per- mits for the Woodcrest subdivision . Planning Commission — December 30 , 1988 Page 2 The City does not have the jurisdiction to enforce the covenants and restrictions. You will see by the attached memorandum from the City Attorney dated November 22 , 1988 that the covenants and restrictions are to be enforced solely by the developer and that the City does not have the power to enforce covenants and restrictions. -- After relaying this information to the surrounding residential area , residents relayed their overwhelming concern that the — Planning Commission had intended the covenants and restrictions to be enforced by the City powers to protect the stand of trees which exists between the two subdivisions. It should be noted, however, that the approved grading plan which was incorporated — into the platting,conditions remains in tact and has not been violated. Although I have explained the situation to the homeowners, they wish to have an open discussion at the Planning Commission to discuss the enforcement issues and setbacks . ATTACHMENTS 1 . Staff memo for Woodcrest subdivision. 2 . Survey for Lot 2, Block 1, Woodcrest subdivision. 3 . Memo from Roger Knutson dated November 22 , 1988 . _ CIT'{ OF CHANHASSEN --- �--' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM r ,;1 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Barb Dacy, City Plann r DATE: August 3 , 1988 u SUBJ: Final Plat Approval - Woodcrest Addition, R & R Land Adventures, (SUB 88-5 ) BACKGROUND The City Council approved the preliminary plat for the above referenced subdivision on May 23, 1988 subject to 14 conditions ._ ( see attached minutes) . The City Council approved the develop- ment contract and plans and specifications at the July 11 , 1988 meeting. ANALYSIS The development contract and the plan and specification review addressed the thirteen conditions of the preliminary plat approval except for condition #1 regarding tree removal on the property. The DNR Forester reviewed the site with staff and has submitted _ his comments ( see attached) . The recommendations of the forester are incorporated into the condition of approval for the plat. In addition to the city' s conditions regarding tree removal, the applicant has also submitted the proposed deed restrictions which include restrictions on clear cutting and removal of trees . The applicant has also provided adequate drainage and utility easements along the front and side lot lines. Outlot A, as ori- ginally required, will be dedicated to the City. Conveyance should occur by warranty deed. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the final plat stamped received July 26 , 1988 subject to the following conditions: 1 . Execution of the development contract and submission of all financial securities and fees . Woodcrest Addition August 3 , 1988 _ Page 2 2 . Compliance with conditions of preliminary plat approval including the recommendations of the DNR Forester as repre- sented in his letter of July 27, 1988 . 3 . Conveyance of Outlot A by warranty deed to the City of Chanhassen. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Letter from Alan E. Olson dated July 27, 1988. 2 . City Council minutes dated May 23 , 1988 . 3 . Proposed deed restrictions . 4 . Final plat stamped received July 26 , 1988. • n�STATE i ZI MR DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 219 E. Frontage Rd. Wacon i a, Mn. 55387 442-2317 Barb Dacy 7/27/88 City Planner 690 Coulter St. Chanhassen, Mn. 55317 Subject: Woodcrest The house lots proposed for development are located on a hill. This is going to present some problems for the developer in terms of leveling the lots for the house pads and driveways. The existing tree cover consists mostly of sugar maple,basswood and oak trees that are 6-8 inches in diameter. The front half of the lots is where the site disturbance will take place, I will address my remarks to those areas. The trees whose drip lines fall within the zone of foundation construction will have to be removed. These trees will suffer the most damage during a construction project. Next trees which will require either soil added to or removed from their root zone will need to have wells built around the trees in order to preserve the health and vigor of the tree. Thirdly the paths used by the heavy equipment operators need to be kept to an absolute minimum. Sugar maple and oak trees are particularly suceptable to "construction damage" which includes having their roots crushed by the repeated movement of equip- , ment on the root zone. A little care exercised by the construction company will go a long way in maintaining the good health the trees in this area currently enjoy. The house that is located at the top of the hill seems to have been built with minimal impact on the forest ,I would hope this project would achieve a similiar conclusion. - - AUG11988 Alan E. Olson + • DNR-Forestry �, '•. �. lam'' CITY OF CHANhASSL,I J ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES • WATERS, SOILS, AND MINERALS • LANDS AND FORESTRY GAME AND FISH • PARKS AND RECREATION • ENFORCEMENT AND FIELD SERVICE r joll„T______. \.. ..--: Ko 0 17 , up_amim JT . JJ ] [:I Agricultural Extension Service ISIE University of Minnesota Protectino.g Shade Trees from Construction Damage PatrickN 21-1978 • J. Weicherding Nearly everyone recognizes the value of trees in providing Caring for tree roots. When you install temporary or perma- shade, ornament,or protection to building sites, city streets, nent driveways or traffic lanes, cut nearby tree roots cleanly. and roadsides. All too frequently, however, the trees that make Cleanly cut roots will heal well, and new roots will develop. —• a site attractive are damaged or killed during construction work Trenchers and backhoe equipment are most commonly used by carelessness or inadequate protection. Frequently, it is for such cutting (figure 11. possible to repair such damage or to restore a tree's health, but Bridging. Sometimes it is necessary for traffic to pass near the it is always better and usually more economical to prevent _trees. In this case, use bridging as illustrated in figure 2. damage than to correct it. Before beginning actual construc- tion, it is worthwhile to give careful thought to the protection of trees on the site. This fact sheet provides guidelines for diagnosing construction damage and illustrates various methods of preventing or lessen- ing damage to shade trees from construction work. The infor- Figure 1. Cutting roots near driveways, traffic lanes,or buildings. mation was adopted for use in Minnesota from the University • of Illinois Cooperative Extension Service Circular 1061, "Tree Damage Around Construction Sites." J ..1 DIAGNOSING DIAGNOSING CONSTRUCTION DAMAGE ) J _ Symptoms of construction damage to trees appear over a peri- od of several months to several years after the damage occurs. Because of this delay, people often shift the blame for damage to other causes, and it becomes too late to effectively treat the fill fill I — trees. curb 1 The first symptoms are usually just a slight wilting and shed- ding hed ding of some leaves at the time of construction. Then, in latery/'.-. Wap years, leaf dwarfing, dying of twigs, and, in the case of conifers, Ale1 '��;�!-"�•"i �. — excessive dropping of needles occurs. Trees damaged by con- �l \ _l • 1 struction act abnormally in many other ways, most noticeably - --� i by dropping leaves earlier in the fall than trees of the same ;�1i `� ;-r ,:r-o•.. species in other locations. Early fall coloring usually accom- - „ panies early leaf losses. In cases of severe construction damage, drain tile off-seasoning blooming occurs, and this usually means the tree is about to die. — In addition to noticeable physiological change in trees, con- Figure 2. Using bridges to protect tree roots. struction damage produces other symptoms, If the tree has been only slightly damaged, growth is slowed and resistance to insects and diseases is weakened. U Diagnosing compaction or smothering damage can be difficult because it takes quite a while for symptoms to appear. Trees sometimes die five to seven years after the original damage. The amount of damage, the species of tree involved, and the _, soil type will determine how long it will take symptoms to appear. Some species, burr oak and cottonwood for example, have deep roots and this gives them the ability to survive for long periods in compacted soils that do not have enough air to — support other species. 4 — PREVENTING CONSTRUCTION DAMAGE steel plate 'iirailroad ties Controlling traffic. A basic way to lessen construction damage `� '� to trees is to reduce traffic as much as possible around the con- la111.struction site. Talk this over with your contractor before con- I struction begins. Establish definite traffic patterns and fence 1f off trees, if necessary. Locate areas where soil and building i/ I • materials are stockpiled well away from the drip line of the trees you want to save. I ( — S Watering. Trees that have lost some roots and are in compacted gravel, not crushed limestone which is commonly used for road soil usually need water. work. Crushed limestone will harm the tree by raising the soil — Pruning. When you have pruned a tree's roots you should also pH. The fill soil should be as porous as possible or amended remove a comparable portion of the top part of the tree. Do with sand or organic materials such as corncobs. Sandy soil not pollard, that is, cut back the top branches close to the permits much more natural drainage of air and water than clay, which packs more easily. Two or three inches of sandy soil can trunk. Remove selected branches to the main trunk or to the crotch. Cut branches from throughout the tree to maintain be filled over a root system without harming the tree,while s mmetr 2 to 3 inches of clay soil filled over a root system will kill the y y tree. Cutting and filling. Cut-and-fill damage can injure trees just as Remember, there are no shortcuts to good protection. You — much as compaction. The symptoms of the two problems are may save time and avoid mistakes if you obtain competent almost identical,only in most cases, injury and death occur assistance before you make plans for extensive or complex con- more rapidly from cut-and-fill damage. Figures 3, 6, and 7 struction operations or before you treat trees that have suf- illustrate three of the most common types of cut-and-fill dam- fered from widespread construction damage. Sometimes it — age. Figures 4, 5, 6,and 7 indicate the proper treatment in may be desirable to consult local urban foresters, landscape each case. Fill that covers the root system of a tree will architects, arborists,or other technical experts. smother it by cutting off the air supply and,sometimes,the moisture that the tree must have to survive. -- Issued in furtherance of cooperative extension work in agriculture and If you want to place fill dirt over root systems,follow the pro- home economics,acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914,in cooperation with cedure in figures 4 and 5. Use the complete system for satis- the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Roland H.Abraham,Director of factory results, since installing any one part of it will do little Agricultural Extension Service,University of Minnesota,St.Paul,Min- nesota 55108. The University of Minnesota,including the Agricultural good. Use 4-or 6-inch standard agricultural field drain tile. Lay it in the pattern illustrated in figures 4 and 5. Cover the Extension Service,is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs,facilities,and employment without regard tile with 6 to 8 inches of coarse ''/a-to 3-inch stone. Use creek to race,creed,color,sex,national origin,or handicap. 5� — Figure 3. Cut-and-fill damage. Figure 6. Lowering soil level, r incorrect correct .li — fill new soil level ��� // �- /��/���old soil level soil removed fill //L :71/ r......_.. i. 1. .. (,.,. l."old levelfeliold level 4s. — —/ new level—,,,+rr'r' •• — /i- 1 new level O j ' it - -Ill Figure 4. Proper tiling system for raising ground level around tree. PC • — grout or loose stone dry well fill vent tile ./.§ �/��dra. to old soil level lower level Figure 7. Protecting tree from cut-and-fill damage. field tile e — if possible incorrect method J(... ,.old soil level — fill '� new soil level Figure 5. Drainage system when raising ground level(top view). „, . /' Cover this area with coarse rock 7 ^T^ "�-�+^—--��, old soil level — — —. to 6 inches above tile line -/j','//:, vent tile jj/ fill e�4► a g �e V f. i > / �� o' I II \ f -/t-1,1S1741/4-_ . ' — •�.j'♦1A dry well �� e>•l new soil level ';''' M4 .ngbunM2VO <rea!ti ontimm� drain to surface ;/ 0i *i.. L1 ~ 4�"'eV IiiSiONT.litS ; / ;� 4. drain tile correct method / drip line a ....—_1� - ♦ •.,.,.:,.ec.._.. - - ....,ra.e-..irtiiira,.. i7tis � - . --.....s►.»..fic.Ae3idriseloi 1 v 9 _ Chanhassen City Council - .. .y 23, 1988 IMayor Hamilton: If that doesn't inconvenience anybody who's here, we'll attempt to meet at 6:00 Thursday evening if we can get everyone together. Councilman Boyt: Let's be sure we include Pierce and this on the same night. Mayor Hamilton: There might be a couple more items. -- Councilman Councilman Boyt: So what we've agreed to do then is to hold the meeting on Thursday at 6:00. Mayor Hamilton: If we can have a quorum. Councilman Boyt: It would be certainly very helpful if the Reeds and Mr. Zahn — had worked out an agreement by then. For my part, I certainly want you to keep the option open of having two cul-de-sacs that live within the limits set by the City Ordinance. As I mentioned that may not carry today but I would like you to -- think about that option. • R & R LAND VENTURES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WOODHILL ROAD: A. SUBDIVISION OF 3.5 ACRES INTO 7 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO DEVELOP WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS B WETLAND. - Barbara Dacy: The Planning Commission, at their meeting, recommended approval IIIof both items but they did want clarification regarding the status of the drainageway that traverses through the eastern part of the property which is located on the transparency right here. Mr. Jim Leach from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service inspected the site on May 13th. He said that although the drainageway does exhibit wetland characteristics, he said that it's not — protected by DNR or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and is considered a drainageway and not a protected wetland. So the Planning Commission's concern regarding whether or not the plat would have to be amended is resolved. In fact — Mr. Leach endorsed the proposed creation of the stormwater retention pond in this location to act as a filtering basin prior to the storm water entering into the wetland area to the east of the Yuma Drive paper right-of-way. He also _ recommended that a part of the pond be deepened to permit shortage of water should occur on a long term basis, he's afraid the ponds is shallower in the southeast part of the site. Although staff recognizes that those are viable objectives for a pond to promote the stripping of nutrients before entering the — wetland arca, there was an overwhelming concern from the neighborhood at the public hearing regarding whether or not there is going to be standing water in that pond. A number of the neighbors in the area have children and there was -- concerns about those safety issues. Therefore, staff is still maintaining it's original recommendation to create a pond as proposed as shown on the proposed drainage plan. The Planning Commission also added three conditions regarding _ the submission of a deed restriction regarding tree removal, soil borings to be submitted upon building permit application. That the developer negotiate with the City Engineer regarding curbing along Lots 3, 4 and 5 and that a 10 foot roadway and utility easement be platted on the south right-of-way of Woodhill — IIIRoad. As to the wetland alteration permit, Mr. Leach's comments have been received and he approved the proposed grading and planting plan. Therefore, Council can adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval subject to compliance with the conditions of plat approval. 13 — n,r � • Loanhassen City Council -( y 23, 1988 r Mayor Hamilton: Ron, did you have anything you wanted to add? 111 Ron Krueger: Yes, one point that you covered here. The one on the curb. I believe at the Planning Commission meeting there was...and the drainage in that area, the water seems to...running along the north side. I really don't see any purpose for putting a blacktop curb along those lots. I'm not concerned with the first... The other item was the applicant shall dedicate Outlot A to the City of Chanhassen prior to the commencement of any grading. We have agreed to dedicate the outlot but the problems would be, we'd like to get busy and start installing this storm sewer to get at least some of these houses built and we still have the final plat to get approved and it has to go to the County and there's one of the lots that has a tax title problem so if we're not able to do any grading prior to the deeding of the outlot, it's probably going to take about six weeks. Perhaps in the development agreement. I'm sure there will be words in the development agreement to cover the deeding of the outlot to the Ci.ty. Councilman Johnson: You said that the Fish and Wildlife and the DNR don't consider it a wetland, what about our ordinance? That's what the Planning Commission talked about. They were pretty sure those would be our wetlands. Barbara Dacy: The primary distinction is that yes, there's no question that there's running water through it because it's a drainageway. And yes, there are reed grasses along it because it's wet in the area but it's considered a ditch. A drainageway and not a wetland. It's very similar to what we did in the Rod Gram's subdivision with the creek that runs through there and the Triple Crown creek. Well, there used to be in that area there. Maybe I'll use the example on the west side in the Saddlebrook area. Councilman Boyt: Didn't we open that up and make a pond out of it? Barbara Dacy: In Saddlebrook? Yes. I believe our crews did alter this drainageway also for improving the flow through. Councilman Johnson: They should have spread the fill out a little better around the edge to make it look nicer. I wish there was something we could do about the grading... I'm hoping that the other side of the road will develop and get rid of some of those shacks and problems on the other side of the road too. I think that this is another fine area that seems kind of...similar to our conservation easement. Little easement that we could work out to discuss what can and can't be done within the woods. Obviously, you take out the diseased trees that you're required to take down but I think that's something that ought • to be taken on a future agenda where we talk about...to help try to preserve same of the wood... Councilman Boyt: If we look at the motion as recommended to the City Council, number 1 talks about clearcutting. I think i.n that should be added reference to trees being proposed for cutting should be reviewed by the Forest Service and City Engineer. That's not in there and I think that should be standard operating procedure for the City. Then i.n number 5, Gary it's my understanding that we have put in our standard development contract that the City is going to be responsible for erosion control and we're going to charge for that. 14 ;- , Chanhassen City Council• - May 23, 1988 Gary Warren: The City will be responsible for removal of erosion control and there will be a charge for that. Councilman Boyt: Okay, we should modify 5 to reflect that. It says that the responsibility will be on the developer and I believe it's 1.00 a foot to remove? Gary Warren: That's correct. Councilman Boyt: Then I think as a part of this we should post that Woodhill Road be as a no parking area. I gather from the discussion it presently wouldn't support parking. I think that we should, as part of our conditions of approvement, if possible, require that all homes have a sump system and drain — tile. As I recall our ordinances, we require that the lowest level of the house be 3 feet above the water line. Do you recall that? Gary Warren: You're talking about 2 foot from the high water mark. Councilman Boyt: It's 2 feet above, not 3 feet above? • Gary Warren: 2 feet above the high water mark. Councilman Boyt: As I look at where the current line is for the marsh, maybe — that's no problem. I guess I was looking at the drainage ditch. There are quite a few references in the Planning Commission notes about flooding on Lot 5. Are we in touch with that? Larry Brown: Yes. The applicant has submitted calculations to try and address the flow that would flow over the corner of Lot 5 in the event of a large storm. _ Part of the house pad elevations can be addressed as well through the building permit application. We're not locking in now house pad elevations at this time. Councilman Boyt: Are we indicating that these are buildable lots without variances? Barbara Dacy: Yes. Councilman Boyt: I know from a square footage standpoint but what if this lot can't be built on from a water table standpoint? What if they have no way of accessing this lot without cutting across an area where the water table is 1 foot below the ground? Does that then make than unbuildable? Larry Brown: I think those questions will have to be answered once the soil — borings are submitted to the building inspection department. Councilman Boyt: Can we approve this without soil borings being taken and _ indicate that this is a buildable lot? Once we plat this, aren't we saying it's a buildable lot? Gary Warren: Maybe Roger wants to address that. I guess my opinion on that would be that platting the lots but that does not absolve the developer from certain things. Like bad soils, for example, regardless of water, if he has a buildable foundation. 15 202 /- k Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 Councilman Boyt: It seems to me that the City is faced with variances with some frequency where a lot has been platted and it's found that it no longer fits the City's ordinances and yet we pretty generally grant those variances through the - hardship of not finding another use for that piece of ground. Gary Warren: In certain setback areas, those variances I would agree with you but as far as conditions such as soil stability and ground water, I would be hard pressed to come up with a variance that we've approved. Councilman Boyt: So you're telling me that even if this lot was unbuildable, we wouldn't be faced with a variance request to build on it. You wouldn't be able to grant it, is basically what you're saying. Gary Warren: I'm saying that in order for him to build on any of these lots, he still has to be able to comply with the ground water and soil stability issues. Roger Knutson: I suppose potentially Gary, I don't know anything about these lots... Gary Warren: In which case he's complying with the ground water condition. The - basement that's above the ground water. Roger Knutson: So you would need a variance before he can get that house filed? Councilman Boyt: Okay, I'm just trying to protect the future property owners. On the issue of the wetland, the National Wildlife Service, I gather, is suggesting that the wetland be a more permanent wet area. Is that right - Barbara? Is that what you're suggesting? The neighborhood is saying they want it dry? - Barbara Dacy: The wetland, the actual wetland is off the property. Councilman Boyt: This is the pond you're creating. Barbara Dacy: And the pond area, yes, Mr. Leach recommended that we could create a deeper part of the pond in the northern area and a shallower area to encourage vegetation and so on and during the Planning Commission meeting that - was an issue of concern. Councilman Boyt: The neighbors talked about there was a good bit of water around this area already. I don't know exactly how I feel about the issue. I hate to create a hazard. I also hate to give up potential wetland area that we could develop. I understanding in reading the Planning Commission Minutes that there is a considerable number of trees that are going to be loss due to grading. Is that right? Gary Warren: Correct. Councilman Boyt: And these are mature trees we're talking about. What can we do to save them? Gary Warren: It will come up I guess to the builder or property owner or developer, this is the building plans. We call out for grading plans for review for a building permit as we have in Shadowmere and other areas and say what 16 s l: . Chanhassen City Council May 23, 1988 • mama trees are you. going to save. It's to their incentive to save the trees except for those that are diseased or damaged. Councilman Boyt: Well, no it isn't. It's not to their incentive if it keeps them from developing that piece of property. They'll come in and they'll put 10 feet of fill in there and kill that tree. Gary Warren: I guess what I meant to say is that from a monetary standpoint, the lot is worth more to have trees on it. Barbara Dacy: Mr. Boyt, I guess we attempted to be, as you can tell from the grading plan, that there will need to be a certain amount of work conducted. On one hand we didn't want to lead the Council down the road by saying that there will be a lot of trees saved. We wanted to be upfront with that but in order to compensate that, by establishing that grading limit boundary, preserving the southern half of those lots, maintain the property from the Triple Crown subdivision and do our best to review the tree removal plan and you have a good -' suggestion with the DNR forester. Maybe we do have some added help in that area when we have the grading... Councilman Boyt: I would recommend that a condition be put on this that we minimize fill that would lead to the death of a major tree. I would say anything over 10 inches. I'd like to see the fill minimized to save those as _ much as possible. We have the capability of building on Lot 5, which is barely above the water table, according to the neighbors, then we certainly have the capability of minimizing fill and protecting as many trees as possible. I think 111 we should go with that on 10. My last point is 20% road incline. Basically I — don't think this piece of property warrants five lots. I don't think we should put five more families on a road that has a 20% decline/incline and a surface only 16 feet wide. I won't vote against it because of that but it just seems to — me it's not safe. That's all. Mayor Hamilton: I had a question on item 3 also. I'm curious why we're asking _ for Outlot A to be dedicated prior to any grading when it hasn't been done in the past. It would seem to me that that's a City, rather.. .condition. I think this can be accomplished by putting something into the development contract and I think in the past it's been overlooked in some cases where we haven't gotten the outlots deeded to the City as we should have but I don't think this is the right place to do it. Gary Warren: Exactly Mr. Mayor. We've had problems catching up with some easements and outlots that haven't been carried out even as a result of being in the development contract. I would suggest, I wouldn't request here but I would like to get some deadline maybe where we could put out some realistic date that the developer would do where we could expect to have the deed transferred so we have something that's not nebulous out there. Mayor Hamilton: I think as long as the developer knows and had agreed that he's going to transfer that, there shouldn't be a problem. I would think that the City would want him to finish his grading anyway. Why would we liar:t to have it _ deed to us?- He could say we ] now it's yours. I'm not going to finish it. I don't know, why should I? It's not my property. 17 204 /- Chanhassen City Council - .uy 23, 1988 Gary Warren: Conditions of the development contract and plans would require that he have to do the work out there whether we have ownership or not. I guess I'm saying. . .we could use a letter of credit I guess as a back-up. If he hasn't provided us with a deed we'll use his letter of credit. Mayor Hamilton: Can that be put into the development contract? Gary Warren: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: So you can strike that from one of the conditions. `igen item 12 on curbing. Could you make a comment on that please? Larry Brown: The curbing, the reason that they had stated that the curbing was to be negotiated is through the plans and specs mode, their initial intent was to make sure that the water along Lots 4 and 5 did in fact make it to the pond and not flood out the front of those lots. Right now Mr. Krueger and myself have yet to sit down and take a look at the low points to find out whether • that's feasible and that's why they're allowing him to negotiate with the City Engineer. Gary Warren: That would either be, probably more appropriate along with review of the plans and specs. We would make a review of it at that time. Mayor Hamilton: Then the discussion on the trees. That is a beautiful piece of property and there are many trees on there. I think a lot of them will be saved because the building pads will be in the north side of the lots. However, you do have to take some trees to make room for a building pad. I think we've talked about this so many times that when we hired a forester to help us with these things, he told us that trees will die if you do. .. You expect that as a part of development. I certainly hate to see a nice treed area like this, some of these trees are being developed but... It is a valuable asset to the property... A lot of people looking for lots with trees on them. They're hard to find. I have no other items. • Councilman Johnson: Just to follow up on the trees and grading. Looking at the grading plan, with the exception of Lot 1 and Lot 2, some of the very front part of it, the entire Lot 3, 4 and 5 are going to be regraded bringing that up to 4 foot of fill and 2 foot or so over almost the entire Lot 4. There's not going to be on the front half a lot of trees saved on Lots 1 and 2. Truthfully when I went down through there, there's a lot of real small grubby trees on the front side of those lots like somebody has cleared it once before. There are some mature trees but primarily 1 inch type stuff. It's pretty scrubby. It would be interesting to get some of those, replant whatever you can. With a tree spade move them around if you've got some that are saveable and after you fill, go - back into the frontyards. Use your own thing as a nursery if it's possible. Just a suggestion obviously. Do you know that operation down east, a logging operation going on down there. Mayor Hamilton: The person has been trying to develop a buildable lot and what's happened is they've got all kinds of trees off. The owner has been doing that. Councilman Johnson: How deep, if you expanded the pond, where there was some water, would we be talking 6 inches of water? I think a lot of people are 18 ' Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 concerned about getting a high water where the kids would drown. Is what Mr. Leach is looking for is something for ducks to swim in? Barbara Dacy: Right. Councilman Johnson: With wood duck houses and stuff? We have a beautiful area — f or wood ducks. Mayor Hamilton: ...improving a ditch that goes through there so I suspect that there's wildlife... Councilman Johnson: We're not talking a real lot of depth of water. Just enough water to promote the wildlife. During the storms we do go to 2 to 3 to 4 feet deep during a large storm. Whether it's totally dry or has 6 inches in it to start with. Is there a way we could say that the average depth shouldn't exceed a foot of something or a design that we are going to hold water in? — Gary Warren: I think it'd be more appropriate to just specify an outlet in the rear that would control elevation. With the grading we cut what the maximum _ depth would be. You have a 928 outlet, you put a rear a 930, it will be 2 foot down on the east end and there will be 0 depth. That would be the way to do it. Councilman Boyt: That's just the reverse. I would move approval of Subdivision '- Request #88-5 with the following conditions and changes. On number 1 I would add Forest service and City Engineer. Also add the grading and fill be minimized to save trees. That means that we simply have the ability to ask for — trees to be saved. Then I understand we struck 3. That 5 has the addition of $1.00 per foot for removal. Gary Warren: He's still dedicating the outlot. Councilman Boyt: Right but it's no longer in this? Gary Warren: It's still a condition of approval. It's just that he doesn't — have to give it to us prior to starting of the grading. Councilman Johnson: Strike from prior back. Councilman Boyt: Then that addition I just made on 5, I'd like to add a point 14, no parking on Woodhill Road. I'd like to add a point 15 which is so much common sense it defies logic but that a sump and drain tile will be required in — the homes in this development. Mayor Hamilton: If that's a motion I'll second it. — Ron Krueger: I had a question on the erosion control. In other words, we don't do it. Gary Warren: The City has a standard development contract now which the City public works force...erosion control in new developments because sometimes we want to leave that in for a year or sometime after finishing the project when the developer and everybody else has gone away. Ron Krueger: So in other words, we can't remove it? 19 •• . Chanhassen City Council -k.-ay 23, 1988 Gary Warren: In no case can you remove it unless you have the approval of the City. Ron Krueger: That is an option... Gary Warren: The City will remove under the development contract. The City will remove and you will be charged $1.00 per foot for removal. Mayor Hamilton: Is this an item that is negotiable so if he would agree to remove it and he's finished with is grading and everything, that his crews take it out? Gary Warren: It's kind of defeating the purpose of our generic contract. We're trying to get consistency because it does get difficult to remember who we said can remove it and who can't and that's why we said with this saying the City will take care of it. Mayor Hamilton: I'm not saying not to have it in there. I'm just saying, I don't see any reason why you and the developer can't negotiate that. If you're satisfied with the way it is and he's still got his crew there, I don't see any reason why he can't take it out. Gary Warren: Contrary to the contract we're approving. Mayor Hamilton: I guess it doesn't make any sense. I see no reason why staff doesn't have... Gary Warren: Normally the erosion control is left in place for some time after the improvements are done. Especially on an area such as this where we've got a lot of steep grades. Councilman Boyt: What I'd like to see happen there is that we collect the money and if per chance if this worked out, we give it back to them. If it doesn't the City has the righ to take them out. That way it becomes the developer's responsibility and the City doesn't have to chase anybody down. Mayor Hamilton: Just a comment on your 15 with the sumps and baskets. ...anybody I've scan or dealt with... The developer is not building the house and I don't think that we, on developer's contract, one of his conditions, if he's not building the house, that we can tell him that the builder has to put sumps and baskets in that house. He's not the builder. He's only the developer of the property. He's not the builder. Councilman Boyt: We tell them sometimes where they can locate a house. We tell the developer any number of things. About house positioning, tree removal. Mayor Hamilton: That's fine but that doesn't have anything to do with the actual construction. When it's something within the house and the construction. I'm not disagreeing with you as far as doing it. Quality builders do it but I'm not sure that.we can tell R & R that it has to be there when you have no control over that. Roger Knutson: It should be put in the development contract... Maybe there's no dispute on that point. Do you have any problem with that? 20 y Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 Ron Krueger: We have covenants.. . These lots are going to have to rest. . . I -- don't now what dccds we've got. You may say the City says you have to do it but... Roger Knutson: As far as it having teeth, it's in the development contract that is recorded against the lots. You don't have any problems. RoxAnn Lund: Don't you have strength in the building application? — Mayor Hamilton: Not in the building permit application. Councilman Johnson: In reviewing the building designs, if we find that the ground water is so high we can't, I find that hard to believe. Councilman Boyt: This takes care of it. It's real simple. — Mayor Hamilton: But again I think perhaps rather than having it as one of the conditions it should be in the development contract. — Councilman Boyt: Is the development contract okay with you? Gary Warren: For the sump pumps? Fine. Councilman Boyt: Do you want to make a note to make sure it's in there. So I remove that from a part of my motion. — Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Subdivision Request — #88-5 based on the plan stamped "Received May 2, 1988" and the grading and drainage plan stamped "Received May 19, 1988" subject to the following conditions: 1. There shall be no clearcutting of the lots at any time. Grading, erosion control and tree removal plans shall be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application for Lots 1 through 5, Block 1. The applicant — shall file the proposed deed restrictions upon satisfactory review by City staff, Forester and City Engineer. The grading and fill should be minimized to save trees. • 2. The developer shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee completion of these improvements. 3. The applicant shall dedicate Outlot A to the City of Chanhassen. 4. The applicant shall erect a snow fence immediately south of the proposed grading area to prevent removal or destruction of trees outside the proposed grading area. 5. All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the commencement of any grading, and once in place shall remain in place throughout the duration of construction. The developer is required to review all erosion control measures periodically and make the necessary repairs promptly. All erosion 21 a 2•g .hassen City Council -i .y 23, 1988 control measures shall remain intact until an established vegetative cover has been produced, at which time removal shall be the responsibility of the developer at $1.00 per foot. 6. The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District. 7. Wood-fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all distrubed slopes greater than 3:1. 8. The develper shall be responsible for daily on and off-site clean up caused by construction of this site. 9. The plans shall be revised to show that the storm sewer pipe located at the southwest corner of Outlot A shall be extended 10 feet beyond the existing watermain along Yuma Drive. 10. The applicant shall provide the City with revised storm sewer calculations which verify the adequate capacity of the storm sewer system prior to the final plat review process. 11. The applicant shall submit soil borings for each lot as part of the building permit process. 12. The developer shall negotiate with the City Engineer for curbing for Lots 3, 4 and 5. 13. The developer shall provide a ten foot roadway easement along Woodhill to provie for future road improvements and utilities. 14. There shall be no parking on Woodhill Road. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Boyt: I would like to suggest that the staff look at including creeks, whatever you want to call those bodies of water in the Wetland Ordinance. Councilman Johnson: Drainage areas. Councilman Boyt: I hate to get into the business of saying that unless somebody put a drainageway in, it is not a wetland. On the other hand I think if we don't have the ability to protect streams and creeks, we have a problem. Mayor Hamilton: But if it is a drainageway, that's happened to other places down the road and above ground.. .but it's still the same type of thing as this it's just the other way around. If you open it up you can say it's a wetland because there will be emergent vegetation on it. Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Wetland Alteration Permit Request #88-6 based on the plans stamped "Received May 2, 1988 and May 19, 1988" subject to the following condition: 22 r � . Chanhassen City Counci May 23, 1988 . _t l ' 1. Compliance with the conditions of plat approval for Subdivision #88-5. All voted in favor and the motion carried. — BROOKSIDE MOTEL, JOSEPH NOTERMAN, 789 AND 790 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE: A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-773, THE BF DISTRICT TO ALLOW RECREATIONAL CAMPING FACILITIES AS A CONDITIONAL USE. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 4 RECREATIONAL CAMP/TRAILER SITES. Mayor Hamilton: This is another ordinance amendment where we need to have four council persons present. Consequently we'll have to table this for our next regularly scheduled meeting which will be June 13th. I don't think there's anything pressing on it. Councilman Johnson: He wants to get it in for the Canterbury Downs season but he's not here tonight. Councilman Boyt: I can tell you that it's not going to get my vote. Councilman Johnson: Nor mine. Mayor Hamilton: Nor mine. Councilman Boyt: We can't pass it but we can defeat it. — Mayor Hamilton: Personally I prefer to allow the other councilmembers to make comment on this. If he is curious about what our feeling is, he's got it. So — this will be tabled until the 13th. REQUEST TO RELOCATE TRAIL EASEMENT, HIDDEN VALLEY. — Roger Knutson: Let me point out one thing. Before you take final action on this, the signage in that area is to relocate a trail and vacate a trail... or — otherwise, you need a public hearing. This has not been advertised for a public hearing this evening. Discuss it and whatever but you can't act on it. Don Ashworth: There's no use discussing it then is there if you discuss it at the time of public hearing as well? Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to tabke the request to relocate the trail easement for Hidden Valley until staff has advertised it for a public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. — ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-1251 (A) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE _ TO PERMIT LARGER ON-PREMISE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS THAN THE REQUIRED FOUR SQUARE FEET, FIRST READING, DATASERV. Mayor Hamilton: This also needs four people present. 23 — 4 DECLARATION OF COVEWAMTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS FOR VOODCREST This Declaration is made this day of , 1988, by the undersigned parties representing all the owners in fee and all the encumbrancers of the land hereinafter described lying in Carver County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, R t: k LAND VENTURES, a Minnesota Partnership, is the fee owner of the real property legally descri:ied as Lets 1 through 7, inclusive, Woodcrest, according to the recorded plat thereof. 411ELEAS, Suburban National Bank of Eden Prairie, and United Stales of America Corporation. is a balder of a mortgage on the real estate hereinafter described. WliERKAS, '►ernon Kerber, individual, is the holder of a mortgage on the real estate here:nfaftar described. iUkIL AS, the undersigned parties desire to impose upon and subject said land to certain covenants, condi.,ioos, restrictions and reservations for the benefit of said land and its present and future owners; NOW, TUEkEIAE, the undersigned parties hereby declare, impose upon, and make Lots 1,x,3,4,5,6,?, wooacrest accoriiug to the duly recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the office of be Registrar of Titles in and for Carver County, linnesota, subject to the following covenants, conditions, restriction and reservations, which shall operate as restrictions gassing with the conveyance of every lot included therein, and shall apply to and wind each and every successor in inieiest i. the party hereto, to-wit: 1. Eesidential Purposes. No lot shall be used except for residential purposes, except. that. lets u: portions of lals Say used by hone builders for temporary offices and model buses. kesidenlial purpases incLde dwel:ings and attached garages, swimming peols, tennis courts and attendant structures. Z. Dwelling Specifications. No dwelling shall be erected, altered or placed on a lut cr pera.tled .o remain there other than one detached single-family dwelling not to exceed two stories in height, as measured fro: grade. In the event the :welling includes a walk-out basement to the rear, the basement shall not be counted as a story. :iucb dwelling may have an attached garage for not more than three cars . All structures constructed or placed on a lot shall be coaplel;:ly finished or: the exterior thereof within twelve months after commencement of construction. 3. Setbacks. Building setbacks from lot lines shall comply with city ordinances .ndiar acy other give:naental agencies. No-building or grading will be permitted except for terracing or erosion control within lou feel of the back lot lines. No un Lots 1-5 inclusive. No building or grading will be permitted except for terracing or erosion contrtl within the drainage and utility easement areas as indicated on the pla'. of 'Woodcrest'. 4. Nuisance._ No noxious or offensive trade ur activity sial, be carried an or upon •a.:y lot, nor shall .inyttina be done `.hereon which may be or become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighburhaod. S. Prohibited structures. No structure of a lenperary ciarai .cr, trailer, casement, '•int, snack, garage, bairn, or mike outbuilding shall be used on any lot at any time as a residence either termpor:arl:y or peraacentl... 6. Animals, No Animals, livestock, or poultry of any Lind :.ha.l ce raisec, bred or kept on any ►u t, eccept that. ;dugs, cats and other houshold pets may be kept, provided that they are rot Fept, tired, ur ru nl•itned (.1. any conie.rcial purposes. So sure than two cats and/or dogs shall be kept by the owners of any lot al any one time. ?. Rubbish. Nu lot shall be used or maintained as a dumping ground for rubbish, eleept during c.nsLructiun of subdivision improvements and dwellings. Trash, garbage or oth' r waste shat: nut be kept e:dept .n man Lary containers. All incinerators and other equipment fur storage or disposal of such material shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition lied screened frog view. 9. Signs. No sign of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on any lot except as follows: a. During the initial construction and sales period of the subdivision, one sign no larger than ; feel by 4 feet in sii lay be placed on each lot advertising the lot. for sale, except. in the case of houses advertise,: as model hoses, in which case sultiole signs and signs in excess of 3 feet by 4 feet are permitted. b. After the initial construction and sales period, one sign of not more than one square foot in sire identifying the profession of the occupant of the lot, and one sign of not more than 2.5 feet by 3 feel ►n sire, advertising the lot for salt arc peraitted for each lot. IC. Soil and Trees. No sod, soil, sand or gravel shall be sold or removed from any lot, except for the purposes of excavating for the sonstruction or alteration of a residence on the lot. or appurtenances thereto, or for the prupoer grading thereof, or for road improvement. — ho trees shall be removed from any lot except as necessary fur construction or env,runuentai purposes unless they are ol a size ::sailer than 4 caliper inched measured at a level 4 feet above the ground except as recommended for removal by the City Qj Cianhasseo or any other governmental agency. !i. Architectural Control Coamittee. a. So dwelling, shed or other building, fence, mailbox, newspaper box, light post, entrance aunusent, paveaent, or otbe iaprovement (excluding landscaping) shall be erected or placed upon any lot without. the prior written approval by the Architectural Control Committee of the plans and specifications fur !.he work. b. The exterior color, style and Baterials of any improveaent on a lel shai not be clanged without the prior written —. a_aro+al by the Commitee of the person who will actually perfcra the proposed w,:rk and of the plans and speci:icaLions iur t 4ork. c. Until five years after the City of ;;hanhassen has issued a certificate of occupancy for dwelli::g.: to real estate c scrihed herein, the Committee shall consist of two ►ndividuais appointed by undersigned. Thereafter the Coamiltee shai ,:Insist of three individuals appointed by the homeowners in the plat of 'Woad::rrsl'. d. The Coo ittee shall appoint one member of the Committee to Le Its cnairaan. A .luorca of the C.amitteL shall eonsisl ui two of its acauers. The Committee may act upon the vote or written consent of any Iwo of its Beaters. ;he .:hairaan of tt— C..aailtee is authorized to execute certificates of approval, notic,s of disapproval and similar .nslrosencs effectuating cL aisiuns of the i;uamitlee. e. At least. fourteen (14) days before work is commenced, the owner shall submit to tie !:ucacllee unt cosdletc: s::. of -- pians pians aid sp.cificatiuns (including, without lisitalion, full site plans, exterior colors and nalerials), along with the nasi ui the builder wnu will actually perform the proposed work. f. Within fourteen (14) days after receipt of plans and specifications and the name ol the builder, the Gastttce saa:l ,prove or disapprove them in writing. The Committee may disapprove a builder if the Cusaitic.c determines, iii its sole discretion, that such builder does not meet the Coo ittee's standards of credit worthiness and/or does not build hoses or iaprovements, as the case may be, of the same quality and in the same pride range as the undersigned. The Committee say disapprove plans and specification only for one or sore of the following reasons: 1. Non Compliance with this Declaration; 2. Failure of the exterior of a dwelling or other isprovesent to be of a style coupatible with, ur failure of a dwelling or other improvement to be of the same general si:.e, quality of construction anu pace range as the _ as the dwellilngs and isprove.ents built or to be built by the undersigned in Wouderest. 3. Failure of a dwelling or other improvement to be placed and oriented on its lel .n a manner compatible to the dwellings and other isprovesents built or to be built open adjoining lots ane in a moaner compatible will ler:ale of the lot; ` 4. Failure of the plans and specifications to show ail infcraalion necessary to evaluate the foregoing characteristics. The CuamiLtec's determinations concerning the plans and speci:icatio:is shall be cunciistve. if the Coasittee dis::pprovt the builder ur the plans and specifications, it shall state in writing the reason for stet disapproval and, in the case of Tins and specifications, the deficiencies which Bust be cured to obtain approval. LAW OFFICES GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON DAVID L. GRANNIS- 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER: DAVID L. GRANNIS.JR. - 1910-1980 PosT OFFICE BOX 57 (612)455-2359 VANCE B. GRANNIS 403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING EuioTT B. KNETSCH _ MICHAEL J. MAYER VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR. 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE TIMOTHY J. BERG PATRICK A.FARRELL SOUTH ST. PAUL., MINNESOTA 55075 DAVID L. GRANNIS,III ROGER N. KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612)455-1661 DAVID L. HARMEYFA November 22, 1988 Mr. Larry Brown Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Private Covenants Dear Larry: Private covenants are private contracts governing the use of property. The City is not a party to the covenants, and is not bound by them and cannot enforce them. In Odell v. Eagan, 348 N.W.2d 792 (Minn. App. 1984 ) , the City turned down a plat and cited as a reason restrictive covenants. The City' s decision was overturned. The court held "the restrictive covenants are private matters to be resolved by the parties to the covenants, and not the City. " 'ery truly yob. s, GR,NNIS, GR IS, FARRELL KN 'eN, P.A. — BY Roger ► . Knutson RNK:srn NOV 2 3 1988 CITY OF CHANhASSEN • g. If construction of or exterior changes to a dwelling or other isprovesenl are ceaaeneed: without approval of the — ou:lder and/or approval of the plans and specifications, or if construction of ur exterior charges to a dwelling or other iaprovenenl are completed not in accordance with approved plans and specifications, any owner jf a lot described herein, may bring an action to enjoin futher constructino and to compei the owner to confors the dwelling or f.-ned with pla.is and s;,ecifications approved by the Con ittee, provided that such action shall be commenced and a n,lice of lis pendens shall be — filed no later than ninety (901 days after the date on which the certficate of occupancy is ,sso.d by Lilt appropriate ounicip: authority, in the ease of a dwelling, or the date of completion, in the case of any other isproveaenl. 13. Failure of The Architectural Control Cun ittee. In the event that the undersigned, the C'oanittee and/or the sesbers of the Coar<ittee shall fail to discharge their respective obligation under paragraph 12 of this Declaration, then any owner of a lot described herein may bring an action to compel the discharge of said obligations. Such an action shall be the exclusive reaidy of any owner of a lot described herein for failure of the undersigned, the Committee and/or its members to discharge — such obligations. 14. Duration,_ Renewal. These covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations shall run with the land and shall be a — servitude thereon, and shall be binding upon all of the parties hereto, upon all persons claiming under them, and upon all pe:chasers of all or any of the land described herein and their heirs, assigns. and successors in interest. These covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations shall remain in full force and effect until 20 years from the date hereof, at which tine they shall be automatically extended for successive periods of IU years each unless an instrument agreeing to change the:^ s;.v'enants, conditions, restrictions and reservations in whole or in parr .i^d signed by the i,wners of the mtjurity of the lots .,xprising tie land described herein has been recorded. .�. ererabi!ity. invalidation of any one ur more of the provisions hirein uy ;udgient or court order s!t:cJI not affect any :tee utaec provisions, which shall retain in full force and effect until the dale of i pirallun. U. Mode of 4nforeeaent. Each owner of a lot described herein snail tare the right to enforce the prurisiuns of this ::itruaent in .sisiher o::n name by proceedings in law to recover dsiagc or in equity Lo re'otrait rloiaLiun, against .:any person :.:latlicK ur aLLeacting id violate any covenant or provision hereof; previocd that the remedies in paragraphs la and ld and not .:.e reaedies ul this paragraph 16 shall apply to violations of par::graph i'::. — ,... N ■.n ar 33371:fatrs, inc. ®_ • CERTIFICATE 8080 Wallace Road OF Engineering ien Prairie.Minnesota 55344 ®e �'UNIM SURVEY Land cape Surveying (812)934.4242 ® 1® Landscape Architecture Planning Survey for: Vtc-roiz t A BUll.O EQ S , =1.S C. . , Job No. Sy90 Bk. '$ Pg. 4`6 96o.9 WOOD HILL RC>AD 9ysb 606eop?at.9 o 1io p i�-- o°.% ( fa�,b4 f 0 M IALA 15555 -,90) i (95,, --0 grf3ys Cr) /90 23.61 11 �,.,,,,,,� 190 �aP sa°� NOR1' N �,' ' a; ;017.0 i yys� 30 SCALE ��e Ni / / a'y ;� ,/ L o — N )\i i t‘,1/7g0005E0 tit. / /f pUS E _ \ ��)1 X6.0 ?ar v Dom..... . .i.,. 9ys0 N N % 950 I0149 I /9.0 `6•° , rg41xS) �- /9. O —r 0 _ --852.0 q(19.8—'c' -- -- �-- --- (q°) p p O N O N N Fgo,'oSEOELEVAT/oNS N LoWWST F'- - 950.33 GrARA�G FG0.2,e- •958.0 TOP. of FouNoA7"/ON- 953.3 3 XXX •- C6No.T5 EX/ST/NG ELEVAT/o// XXX) DENOTES PRoPo.E0 ELEYAT/o/J - DE-NOTES DIRECT/o/' Of FL o w op suRFAcE D'A/NAG?E• _ 7 DQAINA(aE : JJTIUTY EASEMENT I �\ • 1� 5 90.OD s — • I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF LoT 2 gt_n4_ I , _ _ PP.OPcSED WCDOCP E.ST [,4 EVEFZ CO a, MINNESOTA. 21e i DAY OF EI°rEME ,19 g� SURVEYED BY ME THIS �, ,�' RONALD L. KRUEGER�� CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -1.) NOVEMBER 16, 1988 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 35 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli , Jim Wildermuth and David Headla STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner and Larry Brown, Asst. City Engineer SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A SELF-SERVICE CAR WASH AND AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE STATION ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HWY. 5 AND TH 101, AMOCO. Jo Ann Olsen and Larry Brown presented the staff report. Jim Fillipi : My name is Jim Fillipi . I 'm with Northstar Engineering consultants and representing Amoco Oil Company. I believe we have been able to work with the staff and the city regarding the driveways and position and the unresolved issues from last time in which we were before you. We feel that all of the conditions with the exception of one that is contained in the staff recommendation are acceptable and we'd like to address the one. We'd specifically like to deal with and that is the { signage on the canopy. We will agree to eliminating the one food shop l sign that is on the north side. There will be just the two building signs on the building. Each of those would be approximately 9.4 square feet in size. The ordinance as we read it or as shown in the front , would permit to. . .have a wall sign that could go as high as 50°% of the wall area or up to 80 square feet which would be. . . 150 square feet of illuminated sign on the building. We are not proposing any illuminated signs along the building . . . . from some of the others that you have seen. Mentioned in the staff report is how the name to direct , for example, is being , sites that do not have canopy signs but at the same time those sites will have in excess of 80 square feet of illuminate wall signage that is visible from the street right-of-way. The signage that is on these two signs is not illuminated in this proposal . In fact, the three canopy signs totaling approximately 35 square feet , they' re 11. 6 square feet each, would be the only illuminated signs on the entire building or canopy at _ night. If those were removed , there would be nothing other than the single pylon sign that would be illuminated to identify that a business is there. We feel that trading 160 square feet of signage for approximately 35 square feet can be a reasonable trade-off and that there is justification for it. If you have any other questions , we can answer them. We' ve gone through and dealt with the staff report and the individual conditions and have no other comments . Conrad: Okay, thanks. We' ll probably have some questions for you in a few seconds. Any other comments from people over here? Dave, do you want to start it out? Headla : Larry brought up one point and that leads to another one. You had in the memo and the contents about the plumbing code. When Larry writes recommendations and some, through an oversight , don' t get included Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 2 — C in a recommendation , do they even become part of the record? Conrad: At this point in time they will. As soon as we read them in. Headla : Okay, but we' ve got to read them into the recommendations . Conrad: Yes. We don' t have to take Larry' s recommendation. — Headla : He had a good point on this plumbing one and that started me thinking . Well gee, what if we just happened to miss it. At least for _ myself, I have to go through these recommendations a lot more careful from all the others. Brown: In this instance, I realize this isn ' t a blanket statement for any — recommendation that's missing in the report but for this instance, this would be required as part of the commercial building permit and be contingent upon meeting these requirements before they receive a _ Certificate of Occupancy. Our plumbing inspector is very efficient at requiring to follow the State Plumbing Code. He has done a very good job in making sure these are enforced . Headla : Can we rely on the staff then to highlight something that might have been overlooked? At times we don' t go through detail on every one of these things. If we miss some point , can we rely on you and the safety director to highlight something in case it is overlooked? Brown: We try and proofread these before they go out but in the instance _ that something is missed, usually we' ll be going through and preparing for the meetings and rereading the reports to make sure that everything is in there, yes. Jim Fillipi : We can, if that would suit your convenience, the car wash plans are standard plans. They do include a flammable waste trap and we can provide a copy of those to the staff report prior to the Council meeting. Headla : I was just looking at the principle. When SuperAmerica proposed _ the place on TH 7, did we evaluate Amoco on the same rules that we used for SuperAmerica like selling items out front? They' ve got a convenience store. It seems like if we've got rules for this one, we've got to use the same rules for the next one. _ Olsen : Right . That ' s correct. The difference between the two was that the SuperAmerica was a conditional use permit. Some of those were conditions of the conditional use permit . . .but those are conditions that could easily be added to this site. Headla : It just seems like signage. Some of the products out front . Any of those things should apply evenly across the board. The one I have a hard time with , he offered an alternative to the canopy. Do you have any comments on that? Planning Commission Meeting November 16 , 1988 - Page 3 Olsen : The ordinance does permit them to have a wall signs . . . Again, we ' ve been pretty consistent with not allowing the gas canopy signs but . . .as a trade off. Headla : I 'm uncomfortable with trade-offs only from the point of view that it appears to be inconsistent. I 'd like to hear comments from the rest of the commission to see how they feel on that. The rest of it , I think you' ve been very up front with what MnDot is willing to do and how they make their decision. I think it ' s up to them. As long as they understand the. . .that' s laid before them. When we go to make the recommendation , I would like to see something about selling products out front like SuperAmerica . That we treat them the same way. That ' s all I have. Conrad : We don' t have that as a standard , the selling of products . That was a condition because primarily the neighborhood up there. It' s not really set into any standard that we can apply them but it is something that we can talk about. I don' t know that there ' s an inconsistency between how we handle here and there. I don ' t know that we' re treating them unfairly one way or another . Headla : I guess I 'm raising a question more and opening it for discussion. I haven' t really decided on it but I wanted to raise the question. I think it' s important we do treat them similar . . . .why they '- aren' t treated similar, fine. Wildermuth: I think this application is different from the SuperAmerica application as far as selling merchandise out on the apron is concerned . This is not in a neighborhood setting . The SuperAmerica application was an exception. Two things bother me a little bit. We don' t know how much land MnDot is going to need for widening TH 5 so I don ' t know how we can position or how the building can be positioned at this point. Olsen : In the case of TH 5, they have adequate right-of-way. Batzli : In MnDot ' s letter they talked about TH 101 might be widened . Wildermuth: Right. TH 101. Olsen : The problem we have with that is that we can not require the applicant, ieven if we knew how much additional feet, this is just a site plan and does not require us to look at that . That will have to be. . . condemnation. . .MnDot or the City were to take over TH 101 at that time. Wildermuth: What in your estimation will come first Jo Ann? The upgrading of the roadway or the construction. . . Olsen : Construction of the site I 'm sure will come first. Wildermuth: It just seems like we' re kidding ourselves if we don' t that that into account at this point while there' s still an opportunity. Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 4 — Olsen: They understand that additional right-of-way will be. . . It ' s not really going to, we' ve been hearing 11 feet , 14 feet and it will impact more the landscaping than it will impact the building itself. The _ setbacks will be reduced. It' s simi.liar to what happened with the new storage facility on TH 5. They constructed a storage facility right where that will be taking property but again. . . If they had platted the property, you could require them to dedicate the additional right-of-way. — Wildermuth: I guess if I could ask the applicant, do you plan to take that into account? The additional . . . Jim Fillipi : There is approximately 15 feet between the front edge of the canopy and the current right-of-way set us back at 25 feet so even if that were moved another 15 feet, you would still have, and with the single — driveway going in, you would still have a totally conforming building and canopy as far as the setback goes and as a good circulation route around the pumps and the building . — Wildermuth: That would bring the roadway that much closer though . That is assuming that they allow a single cut through the median. That would bring the roadway that much closer to the pumps , the one island . Jim Fillipi : We think that with the adoption of the 2A alternate and the shifting of the traffic volume from TH 101 to TH 5, that will — substantially reduce the need for the widening and additional lanes in TH 101 at this location . North of the railroad tracks , you ' re sitting with one lane in each direction and then in this location you would not need to _ take additional property to provide two lanes . . .and then if there are median cuts. There may be some but with the 2A alternative adoption, we think the pressure for additional right-of-way is substantially reduced . Wildermuth: I guess the other point that I have is that I don' t see satisfaction of the hardship test for a sign variance. That ' s all I have. Batzli : I thought we talked at length last time about access along the north part of this piece of property someplace. Do you recall that at all? Olsen: The Gary Brown car wash? Conrad : That ' s the car wash. That' s Gary' s car wash and that ' s separate . — Batzli : Separate deal . Then I don' t have any questions on that. I guess I was curious about the two future gas pumps , extension of the gas canopy. — What factors do you look at for not deferring that for review process? Why did you decide that wasn ' t a problem now? Olsen: In review of the site plan, it would still meet all the setbacks '— and the circulation was still adequate . . . Batzli : I was just curious what factors you looked at. I didn ' t have an — opinion one way or another myself. Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 5 Olsen: How it impacted the site plan itself whereas the separate car wash was. . . Batzli : What percentage of the parcel right here is impervious? Do you know? Is there any hope at all that that future addition will ever be put in? Olsen : It can go up to 70%. Jim Fillipi : We ' re currently 57% is landscaping and in the future it would go to, if the future addition was put in, it would go to 35% landscaping and 65% impervious under the future addition. Currently right now you have 43% impervious. Batzli : In condition 7, Larry, is this your condition? The tank for used oil? Olsen: No , it' s mine. Batzli : Was there some specific tank that you would turn into to have them install? Olsen: The City has been trying to establish locations that the public can take used oil . Amoco offered to provide the tank facility for that . Batzli : I guess I was just looking at the wording that you provided there. Shall provide the tank for used oil. What you ' re really looking for is a waste oil receptacle? Olsen : Yes and they are showing that on the site plan and making it clear that it' s going to be there. Batzli : I guess my right-of-way question goes away. In looking at the signs, I don' t know that there's a hardship for a variance and I don' t know that the applicant has really provided us with, did show that there is one other than they want it and it' s a good trade-off. I 'm really not in favor of it at this time. Ellson: My first reaction to this is , I don ' t feel we need another convenience store. I think we have Kenny' s and we have Holidy right across the street and Brooke ' s just up and we ' re planning a PDQ. We ' re soon going to be Chanhassen, the home of the Dinner Theater and convenience stores . Come on in. But this is their property and I realize from the standpoint of operating a business , this is the way it' s going . I 'd like a nice service station there. I think that ' s what we need in Chanhassen but they can certainly do with their property what they want and I think as far as adding another convenience store, I can' t really stop all that. I agree with Dave regarding the display of outdoor merchandise on the sidewalk is a good one to add to this. Maybe we haven' t done it always in the past but I think it would be a good thing to add to convenience stores and this type of thing from maybe this day forward or even since the SuperAmerica forward because I think that can be a nuisance when you' re going in and out of a store like that and I don ' t • Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 6 -- think it looks nice. I think the location more than compensates this location for competing with Brooke' s. I don ' t necessarily go along with the square footage comparison of Brooke' s to this one. If we' re going to compare how you' re going to compete, you 've got a location over them by a — mile so I really think that you' ve got an edge in other areas where maybe they don' t. The square footage of sign isn' t equal . That really doesn' t concern me and I don' t think that it' s worth allowing the canopy signage. — Emmings: On number 3, it' s the condition where they have to combine into a central access with the center median when the cut across from West 79th _ is installed . I think we should probably add a sentence to that, unless there ' s already some provision that plans for the central access should be reviewed and approved by the City Staff before construction. I don' t know, would that be done automatically? Olsen: . . .that could be. . . Emmings : Okay. Then in number 12, it says proposed buildings will be moved 5 feet to the south. We' re only talking about the car wash there. We' re not talking about the store itself are we? Jim Fillipi : I think we'd move the entire site. Emmings: That' s all done? — Jim Fillipi : Just to maintain the separate between the car wash and the pumps. There is sufficient room to move it. Emmings : I was just going to add the car wash . . . I just have, for my own information Larry, water from the car wash goes into the sanitary sewer? MOND Brown: Maybe the applicant can address a portion of this but normally what happens is that they are charged sewer area charges by the amount of water that they use . Most often in this type of installation, they will — install a water recycler to cut down on the charges that they have to pay to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. Unless the plan has changed, I ' ve been told that they are planning on doing that but the final affect is yes, it will go into the sanitary sewer . Emmings : What are the considerations there in terms of where, why do you want waste water from the car wash to go into the sanitary sewer? Because — it might have oils and grease and soaps? Brown: Soaps become a large problem. Obviously you wouldn' t want the — detergents flowing into the wetlands or lakes so it almost dictates that it goes into the sanitary sewer . Emmings: Would it matter what kinds of soaps you use? I don' t know. I 'm — just curious. Brown : It would really create a poor situation with nutrient stripping — which we depend on within the ponding arears and sedimentation areas . That would foul things up. Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 7 Jim Fillipi : The car wash is using recycled water. We have gone to a high pressure, low volume. It takes approximately 18 gallons to go through a car wash . Previous history with the Waste Control Commission has been. . .units for the rollover car washes so that' s the type of volume of water we' re specifically talking about in terms of rollovers. Emmings : While you' re up there, if I could ask you a question. You' ve heard a couple people talk about merchandise stored outside of the building for sale. Do you plan to do that? Jim Fillipi : The only place that we would have available for doing that would be just in a small sidewalk area in front because the sides of the sidewalk and the building must be cleared for the handicapped access. So just the design of the layout of the facility does not lend itself to stacking merchandise on the sidewalk. We normally would not have a problem with a condition like that. Otherwise, a case of pop, whatever would be placed out in front. Emmings: What would be your reaction to a condition that there not be merchandise stored outside for display or sale? Jim Fillippi. : I don' t think it would have a major impact. Emmings: Then my only other question is on canopy signs. I ' ve been here through at least 3 canopies and I know you' ve never allowed a sign on a canopy and I 'm not sure why. We don' t have anything in our sign ordinance about it. Olsen : The sign ordinance does not really permit them. Emmings: It doesn ' t allow them but it doesn ' t say you can' t have them either . Olsen : Exactly. It' s just been sort of past policy. Emmings: Right. Now we 've done that with the last 3. I know we' ve said no signs on the canopies and then we' ve made that stick. Do we have any canopies in Chanhassen with signs on them? Olsen: We have Q-Superette who has changed to Total . We allowed . . .two sides. Emmings: Now why did we allow that? Olsen: They' re clustered . . . Emmings : So we don' t really have a rationale here to apply? That ' s all I 've got. I don' t know what to do about the canopy signs. I think that' s L a tough one. If we've allowed it in the past when people have asked for it but it seems to me that other people have wanted it and we 've said no. Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 8 I" Erhart : Let me get this straight. We do allow pylon signs. The issue of signs on canopies, I just don' t know how many signs you really need. If you have a pylon sign, wall signs , it just adds more visual garbage there. _ I think we offer enough signs. I realize that when someone new comes down the highway they have to be able to identify what it is but I think it' s adequate. The existing pylon sign, how tall is that? Jim Fillipi : It was built at about 24 feet for height . The key is that we do not have any illuminated building sign and in the evening hours , the only illumination that is done is the Amoco along the canopy. Typically — around the Twin City areas, food shops and homes are not lit at night. . . Erhart: The pylon will be lit. My question is , if you only allow a 20 foot pylon sign, this is a 24 foot height. Olsen: They' re going to change. . . Erhart : So even though they' re coming in with a whole new site plan, and I 'm not suggesting that. . . Olsen : They' re going to change it a little bit. — Erhart: Help me again to understand , what' s the trade-off on signs? I know you' re proposing to have more signage than what' s permitted but what — is this trade-off you ' re talking about? Jim Fillipi : The ordinance permits 80 square feet of signage per street — frontage. Erhart: Maximum. Jim Fillipi : Maximum. Or 50% of the wall area . We have more than sufficient wall area to obtain 80 square feet on two sides of the building that we' ve currently eliminated . The total area that we' re asking for on — three sides of the canopy, each of the ACM' s has an area of 11. 65 square feet and at that point we' re about 35 square feet in terms of the word Amoco and that' s a trade-off of 160 square feet for 35 square feet. Erhart: If that' s what it is , I guess I would agree with most of the other conditions. I just don' t feel that it' s necessary to have all that signage and would like to maintain the existing ordinance and apply it aMln here. I don' t have a problem with outside goods as long as it ' s kept alongside the building . What I wouldn' t want to see is to have materials out by the street. — Jim Fillipi : We' ve never put it out there. . . Erhart: But when business gets tough and like you say, you get too many gas stations and stores in town, sometimes you get creative marketing ideas so, I personally don' t have a problem with the materials as long as it ' s alongside. Otherwise, I like the plan . I think it would be an — improvement to that entrance. Planning Commission Meeting November 16 , 1988 - Page 9 Conrad : A couple questions . Jo Ann , you want , I 'm struggling with why we want a right-in. The southerly access, you didn ' t like the way it was proposed as a right-in only and a no right out . I 'm curious why staff does not like that. Olsen: Mostly it came from engineering and Larry can speak to that and also Fred Hoisington and BRW will confirm that the way it' s designed was similar to like. . .not designed well . People still coming to out. He just felt that the way it was designed it was going to be more of a conflict. . . Conrad : There' s a good chance there' s going to be a center island or a divider. I kind of like how that' s structured. I like the right-in the way it is. Although I understand that people will try to get out there too. Larry, what' s your thought on that? Obviously you had some input. Brown: We had , not knowing MnDot' s position fully the last time this came through the Planning Commission, I had suggested or rather in trying to work with this and compromise , had suggested the right-in only. We said that we would take a look at that as an alternative. Part of the problem is , as Jo Ann mentioned , down at Q-Superette we do have a similiar type of situation where we tried to restrict traffic movements. MnDot' s policy is well established in that they don' t care for these islands because when somebody, let' s take in this case, if somebody were to try and go against the intended flow, they actually create a bigger traffic hazard trying to get around the obstacle that we've placed than if they were to have a full - movement intersection and just take the right hand turn. So you almost , by trying to fix the solution, you almost create a larger hazard out there. Conrad : So there' s no scenario where you can imagine that this would be appropriate? Brown: I can' t rule it out as a total never situation but it' s uses are limited. In this instance I would definitely recommend that be a full movement intersection. Conrad : Is that a detached car wash on the northern part of this? And then north of that is another car wash. Then to the east we' re going to have some more car washes . Do we have any control on creating a little car wash neighborhood here? I don' t know that there' s a significant need for another car wash next to another car wash . I see a very marginal utility. Olsen : There' s nothing in the ordinance that would prohibit the number of car washes. Conrad : So we don' t have any control , in this particular case Jo Ann? It ' s not a conditional use so we really are locked out of saying why are we putting that there. Olsen: I don' t know if we can speak. . . Planning Commission Meeting November 16 , 1988 - Page 10 1• Immo Jim Fillipi : I don' t know what the future will hold on the future of car washes. The car wash to the north and the car wash that we' re proposing are for essentially two different types of customers . The one that ' s going in on this site is a roll over. You can stay inside of the car . — It' s a drive thru one meaning that you do not get out and detail the car , do the drying or do the hand washing so it' s a two different market. There ' s a situation in Brooklyn Park in which there is an Amoco facility with the rollover car wash and after we were in, a full service with dryer and detailer , that went into the north of that. And to the north of that is a self service wash at the same time and all three are doing quite well _ in that area because they serve different markets . Conrad : Okay, I ' ll buy that. Batzli : Where do we find out if this is a brushless car wash? It does have brushes? Install an obsolete car wash, I don' t know. Conrad : I 'm with Tim. I don' t have a problem with outside storage of merchandise as long as it' s controlled . Headla : What do you mean, as long as it ' s controlled? — Conrad: As long as we' re not putting it all over. In other words , if it' s at the front of his store, underneath a sheltered area , like most — SuperAmericas are. Right by their door, I just don' t have a problem with that kind of merchandise . Headla: How do you control just that amount? Conrad : You say it ' s limited to those 4 feet that surrounds your building. There' s an easy way to do it . — Headla : To me the problem is how do you really control it. Conrad: If you mean monitoring, yes that ' s a problem but if you say you can display merchandise within the 2 doors , entry and exit doors or whatever, for those 4 feet between them. I think you can locate where that _ merchandise can be displayed. Like we did to the garden center , where they wanted to display their tractors , we did the same thing there. We said you can present your tractors . . . Headla : We did control that , yes . What about that one over here? Did we control that on merchandise? Emmings : I don ' t think it came up. Conrad: That didn' t come up. Emmings: I don ' t think anybody thought of it. The first time we thought of it really was with the SuperAmerica. Conrad : That would be a different situation because that' s part of a shopping center and then I 'd kind of react differently. But as a stand Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 11 alone, self contained unit , I think visually this stuff is away from the traffic. Wildermuth : And it' s not in the neighborhood . Conrad : And it' s not in the neighborhood. It ' s in a business area so I don' t have a problem. In fact , I actually do like that merchandise. They typically merchandise stuff that' s needed. It may be salt pellets. It may be charcoal . It may be Coke. It may be a convenience to people and I don ' t have a problem with that. As long as it ' s not abused and typically good operators like Standard or Amoco or SuperAmerica, they' re good merchants. They typically don' t abuse those priviledges. So anyway, that' s my comment there. I don ' t know, whoever makes the motion has the power here. I don' t see a hardship on the signs although it does bring out some interesting points. I think if we' re going to administer canopy signage a certain way rather than not talking about it , I think our ordinance should talk about them. Which therefore, I think the bottom line tonight for me is to not allow them to do it but also to open it up and take a look and see if that' s the way we want it. More than likely I feel comfortable excluding it but I guess I 'd like to see staff review it and present it to us and City Council so we can make an active decision versus probably no decision that we've had in the past on canopy signage. Maybe Pat Swenson had some thoughts back then. Right now Jo Ann I 'd sure like your work. The other thing that I heard was illuminated versus non- illuminated and I think that' s an interesting situation too. At least for us to review. See if there' s a difference. Those are my only comments . Anything else? Is there a motion? Headla : Let me make a motion but let me comment first. I 'm going to recommend that we go along with item 6 and my rationale for that is , until we can adopt a policy on canopies , I 'd like to see them all treated the same. If we approve this, why can' t every single one come back in? I 'd kind of like to see us be able to handle it before we go with it. I 'd like to make a motion that we approve Site Plan Review #88-11 with the conditions recommended by staff . Then I 'd like to include in that, item 13, the one about the plumbing code. Larry I think was the one who can put in appropriate words there. Brown: The applicant shall submit details for the inflammable waste separater to the City Engineer for approval prior to the issuance of building permit. Headla : You convinced me about the products out front. Erhart: Second. Ellson : I want the thing about the displays . They' ve already said they don' t mind. They' re not going to object. If SuperAmerica agrees that they' ve gotten this before and they don' t object to taking it off , I think that it' s becoming a real nuisance to people and I think these stores know that and that' s why they' re always bending on this issue. I think if we had a bunch of people in, they'd all say we don' t like it , like me. . .he' s Planning Commission Meeting November 16 , 1988 - Page 12 — already said they wouldn ' t strongly oppose it and I don ' t know why we' re trying to be. . . Conrad : I 'm not trying to be a good guy. I 'm just saying , it' s a — convenience. When you think of what' s displayed outside. Ellson: But you can' t even get outside parking . You can only go in that — one little area where the door is. You have to walk on the street the whole time and dodge cars and you can ' t get up on the sidewalk. That drives me crazy. Batzli : Where am I going to buy my salt pellets though? Ellson: They' ll have them in there. -- Emmings: I agree with Annette. The issue was brought up on the SuperAmerica station. Partly because of the neighborhood but partly just — because I always thing that' s kind of a junky looking part of these kinds of storage places . To me it' s one of their worse features . Just aesthetically. I remember asked him what he felt about it and he didn' t care. They didn' t care so we put that into the conditions. Now we've — just asked him and he doesn ' t. . . Jim Fillipi : We do care. . . — Emmings : But there was no strong objection. Conrad: They would have done anything . Headla : Who would have? Conrad: SuperAmerica would have done anything that wasn ' t a big sacrifice. Emmings : But I don' t know why we want to see a bunch of pop and salt pellets stacked outside. Conrad : I don ' t think you do but . . . — Emmings: You' re talking about controlling it but the motion doesn' t put anything in controlling it whatsoever . — Headla: What about that. . .right across the street? Emmings : But here' s the deal . At that time that that thing was approved , we weren ' t thinking about it. That was not an issue on that. It was never raised to us. It should have been raised to us here by the staff , in my opinion, because when they' re looking at this one I think they ought — go back and look at what we did at the other ones and tell us what we did . ( I wrote it down over on this one because I remembered it from SuperAmerica but then like Jo Ann points out, that was a conditional use permit where this is a permitted use. But as far as whether we have to do it here. Almost every issue we take changes over time and if we use the rationale Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 13 that we approved it once so we have to approve it forever , we' d still be doing things , we could be painting on the roof of a cave or something. I don ' t know. Things change over time, that ' s all . We changed it with SuperAmerica. Now the question is do we want to continue to do that as a policy or not? I guess a lot of people here, at least think in this zoning area, we don' t. I guess I do. Ellson : And maybe this one is just a small part but the next one that comes in will have a huge sidewalk and then you' ll it will be. . . I 've just got to say no across the board. Emmings: And there' s nothing in this motion that permits any control whatsoever . Conrad : Do you want to amend your motion Dave to include that kind of control? Headla : I really haven' t seen any compelling arguments . I keep thinking about across the street and if we want to come up and say, this is going to be our policy. Ellson : You brought it up in the first place. You said we just had SuperAmerica. 1 Headla : I brought it up and I wanted to hear some arguments on both ways and I was really leaning that we shouldn' t have it but then as I heard the discussion , I thought no. They' re right , I think I 'm leaning the other way. Wildermuth: I like the whole idea . I 've got a bad back so I can just drive by car right up next to it and throw the salt pellets and that case of oil right in the back. That ' s great . Conrad: I don' t find anything wrong with it. Say the SuperAmerica down on TH 4 and TH 5. You don' t even see it. It ' s a matter , it can get out of hand. Bad merchants can abuse that. Good mechants don' t. They know how to merchandise and they all do an effective job. I respect the lack of polluting, the visual too so I agree that we don' t want to do that. That' s the reason we have the sign ordinance. • Headla: Let' s talk a little bit about how you would control . Maybe there is some means for that. Ellson : But then who' s going to moni.ter some of these controls? Headla: Maybe somebody' s got some constructive ideas that you could do that. Erhart : Just require that any outside merchandise has to be stacked within 4 feet of the perimeter of the building and it has to be in the front or 6 feet. Headla : To me that probably would be certainly acceptable. Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 14 — Batzli : I can picture it if it' s a conditional use but this is a site plan. What are you going to do if they don' t comply, yank their site? Emmings : I have one other thing . I 'd like to amend , I mentioned it if anybody thinks it' s important. On number 3, that the plans for that central access should be reviewed and approved by the City staff prior to — construction. Conrad : Would you like to amend your motion Dave to include that? Headla: Yes. Erhart: Yes . — Conrad : Thank you for seconding that Tim. Emmings: The only other thing, is 6 clear to everybody where it says, the gas canopy shall not be permitted any signage, including the Amoco stripe name. Can that be read to say that it would allow signage that didn' t include the Amoco name? Batzli : I think it' s including without limitation , the Amoco stripe. Jim Fillipi : We can put the red, white and blue stripe on the canopy, not the name is what you' re saying? Conrad : I would have to assume that ' s true because that' s really design. I don' t think we' re into design stuff. We shouldn' t be. Okay, you haven' t decided to amend your motion in terms of control . Wildermuth: I don' t think we should. I think if there' s an intent, that there ' s thinking that we should control outdoor merchandising in these places , we ought to write it into the ordinance. — Headla : I haven' t seen Amoco, anyplace that I 'd say was really a schlauck outfit. Ellson : It' s not that we' re worried about. . . Emmings: You all said that SuperAmerica was a very well run outfit too but we didn ' t let them have it . Conrad : But that was a conditional use. Batzli : And a neighborhood . Emmings: The rationale here is very muddy. — Ellson: Let the Council grapple over it . Conrad: Yes. They' re the ones that get paid. Planning Commission Meeting November 16 , 1988 - Page 15 r Headla moved , Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #88-11 with the following conditions : 1. The self service car wash will require site plan approval . 2. The two future gas pumps and extension of the gas canopy are approved as part of this site plan. 3. The applicant shall furnish in writing a statement that Amoco Oil Company is willing to reduce the number of entrances and exits to the site to a total number of one if MnDot grants the City a median cut for the proposed island on TH 101. This entrnace would fall directly in line with the centerline of West 79th Street . The costs for the reconstruction would be at Amoco' s sole expense. This statement shall be provided to the City prior to final site plan approval . Plans for central access shall be reviewed and approved by the City Staff prior to construction. 4. The most southerly access shall not be located further south than the existing southerly access and shall be designed for full traffic movement (right-in and right-out) . 5. The convenience store shall be permitted only two wall signs. 6. The gas canopy shall not be permitted any signage including the Amoco stripe name. 7 . The applicant shall provide the tank for used oil and shall allow it to be open to the public. 8 . The applicant shall remove the cars , trucks , etc . , stored on the easterly portion of the site. 9. The plans shall be revised to include the proper storm sewer facilities which connect to the City' s storm sewer system. The proposed curb cut near TH 5 will not be accepted . 10. A revised erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to final site plan approval . 11. Details for the construction of the curb radius for the northerly access will be provided for approval by the City Engineer prior to final approval . 12. The proposed buildings shall be moved 5 feet to the south such that adequate maintenance for the existing utilities may be provided . 13. The applicant shall submit details for the inflammable waste separater to the City Engineer for approval prior to the issuance of building permit . All voted in favor except Emmings who opposed and the motion carried . Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 16 — ( Emmings: I think the plan is fine and I only want to make sure that the issue of the outside storage and sale of merchandise is raised to the Council . That ' s the only reason I 'm voting it down. Conrad: So Jo Ann, there are two issues that are coming up, that should be put on work que someplace. They may not be done by you for the next month. — Olsen : Outside storage? Conrad: Outside storage, yes . PUBLIC HEARING: — SIGN VARIANCE FOR A DOUBLE FACED PYLON SIGN (5 ' X 10 ' ) FOR METRO LAKES WEST MINI-STORAGE ON PROPETY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT 7800 PARK DRIVE, MARCUS CORPORATION. — Public Present : Mark Senn - Applicant Roman Roos - Applicant Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . — Mark Senn : If I could start by possibly correcting something that ' s already been mentioned twice tonight. Where our building was built, it — was not built within the right-of-way for the expansion of TH 5. That is an issue that you addressed prior to the approval of the mini-storage project. At that point the State had no specific location for the highway — but we knew it was an issue we had to address. Prior to approval of the project we had three meetings, if I remember correctly with the City Staff and State Highway Department right-of-way staff. At that time a consensus was reached , both on our part and the City' s part, that it would be much preferred for the highway location to take a northerly location rather than a southerly location from the current highway in terms of the expansion. The reason for that was the City wanted to accomplish a — service road servicing Lake Ann Park and tie it back into the County road . That' s the premise we designed and operated on. Since then now the State has come out with an exact location of the highway but we didn' t see that — at least until after our project had been started. In relationship to it , our buildings yes , are affected by what are called the construction limits of the highway. Not the actual highway right-of-way. When I got into a _ discussion several weeks back with Evan Greene of the State Highway Department, they had since our original meeting on this, researched the issue and found out some federal funds were used in relationship to the Lake Ann Park. . .some sort of fund that prohibited them using that land to — expand the highway. That ' s been a . . .like geez we put a building where the highway belongs but that isn' t the case. We put a building where we were Planning Commission Meeting November 16 , 1988 - Page 17 supposed to put it . Highway plans have changed and conditions have changed and where everybody kind of thought it was going to, they found out after it can ' t go there . Just to make a long story short , that ' s basically it . As far as the signage issue goes , let me try to walk you through why we' re in a hardship situation . Possibly the easiest way to do that is to go back to when the project was originally approved . There were a lot of concerns at the time this project was built over the long expanse of wall created by the mini-storage project . We agreed with staff and then subsequently with the Commission and Council to limit the elevation of the building so only about 6 or 7 feet were actually sticking up above the ground . We built the project into the hill per se and limited the amount of wall space sticking up above the ground. Where the building ' s are actually, I believe they' re around 14 foot clear at that point so we ' re about 8 feet or so into the ground at this point. The next issue that came up was , while we were still concerned about this wall , let ' s put a berm in. So we agreed and we put a berm in . That berm was designed to basically run the full length of the project which further impacts that visual elevation. The next thing that came up was , well let ' s beef up the landscaping . Let ' s intensify the landscaping . Again , no disagreement on our part to intensify the landscaping . Through all these agreements , we had what we thought was an understanding , which has now turned into a misunderstanding because we thought we were always able to put up a pylon sign. Probably the easiest way for me to bring that to your attention is I ' ll refer to the September 8 , 1986 Council Minutes which I believe you have in your packet . If you go to Page 9 . . .when the issue of signage came up, the third paragraph down. Councilwoman Watson stated that she didn ' t see anything about signage . Barbara Dacy stated that from her understanding the applicant proposed one sign for the property. Mark Senn stated that it would be located by the TH 5 side . They hadn' t decided at which end of the building to locate it . Councilwoman Watson stated that she didn ' t want a big red and white sign stamped on the side of the building. Barbara Dacy stated that the sign ordinance will give them the right to install a wall sign or a pylon sign . That ' s the premise we always have taken . That was the premise we created on when we agreed to make all these changes along with the project. Those changes now substantially affect the visibility of that northern wall . Now we ' ve come to the point where we' re ready to address signage which quite honestly on our list of priorities was fairly low. Getting the _ project done was much higher on the priority list . When we looked at the issue of putting signage out on the building , we quickly saw that we were going to have a problem from this building standpoint . One of the things that caused that was , as soon as we had some units available , we hung a banner up there on the outside of the building which I think you 've probably all seen and our manager started referencing that in terms of getting people to the location. We had a number of people come in and comment that we couldn ' t find you so we went out and looked at the situation again and again, a limited part of the wall is visible , especially when you consider the berm in front of it and the landscaping . The landscaping is going to mature and it ' s even going to make the situation worse . Our plans were always to put a pylon sign off of one corner at the edge of the building , i .e . the northwest or the northeast corner of the building . We ' ve settled on the site and we would like to put it basically on the northeast corner of the building . . .meeting the Planning Commission Meeting November 16 , 1988 - Page 18 — r setback requirements . . . The hardship was created by these agreements we reached and by the conditions that have been created around it . This is really not part of the hardship but it ' s an economic reality to us and that is that yes we are in an industrial district and we are in an — industrial park which you could argue a lot of different ways whether mini-storage belongs there or not, but that ' s where we' re at . Probably when you look at the city. . .you come up with one from a use standpoint . The problem is , mini -storage is retail business . It ' s not a typical industrial business . We function off people basically calling in out of the Yellow Pages or advertising saying do you have storage units available _ and we say yes and then they drive down to find the place . Or it would be on the basis of them driving by and seeing a convenience store in the community, they' re back to the phone number or stop in . Our units are all rented on a month to month basis . We function very heavily on a retail basis rather than assessment basis so that agai.n . . . is very important to the success for our operation. Again, I really think we have demonstrated a hardship. . . In relationship to the council minutes and the premise that — we' re operating under , that we were allowed to put up a pylon sign and we now find out after the fact no and if we would really like to request your favorable action on this and allow the variance to put the pylon sign in . _ I ' d be happy to answer any other questions you may have. Conrad : Jo Ann , ground low profile. What does that mean? f _ Olsen : That ' s one of the kind that has the . . . Conrad : Built right on it? Olsen : Right . I believe it ' s 8 foot high height restriction. 8 feet in height. Roman Roos : Some additional comments to what Mark Senn has offered to you . One of the primary concerns at the time we put this project together . . . in terms of stone walls and elevations and . . .accomplish that in the — landscaping . I think that was one of the most important . . .but it ' s interesting to note that we did this project back in 1986 . We also know that the sign ordinance . . . December 15, 1986 . I guess the question I would _ ask is , prior to that time , was pylon signs allowed? That would still like to explain why Jo Ann has . . . We were totally cognizant that we could put a pylon sign in. Unfortunately, as Mark said , it was a low priority issue. . .sign variance to get it done now but it ' s extremely important . One final comment and then I ' ll sit down , according to Jo Ann about the new ordinance, we could have 2 or 3 signs . . . We could also have 2 wall signs . . .along TH 5 . . . . it seems ridiculous to have to do that . . . This — might be a very logical approach. . . Mark Senn : If I might even correct one thing please . The bottom of the sign would be 10 feet off the ground. The sign would be 5 x 10. We — deliberately designed it that way because we don ' t want to have any impact on the visual sight angles coming off of that intersection on TH 5. We don ' t want that sign down so low that it ' s going to impact the vision one — way or another . Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 19 Batzli moved , Emmings seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart : The list of permitted and the conditional permitted uses in the IOP District, refresh me Jo Ann, where does this fit? Olsen : In warehouse is what it came under . Erhart: I wish you had had the Planning Commission minutes from this meeting on this part because at that meeting I expressed my, I guess displeasure with putting that particular business at that location because it was , really was an ideal location for an office being right on TH 5. In the same place, a home office for somebody. I guess the problem that you' re really stating and one that we have here is an area called zoned industrial office park and what you have is a retail business which doesn ' t quite fit the intent of the zoning district even though you look through the conditional and permitted uses , there' s several retail oriented uses in there. It' s really not the best fit. I guess that was why I was a little disappointed in the fact that we were using that site for that use . I feel that even though maybe Barb had made an error in her statement or whatever , as we look into it, I feel that it was clear that the risks associated with moving into that site for a retail business as a sign interest is pretty restrictive. Additionally, I guess my business is j- in that district and I 'm limited to the low profile, single sign and I feel that if somebody is being permitted to put in a pylon signs , then -- golly, I ' d like to have a pylon sign announcing my business there too. I would not be favorable to a variance to this . Emmings: Basically I agree with Tim' s comments . I don ' t know what Barbara had in mind when she made the comment that she did but it' s clearly in error and I think maybe what she ' s saying is , that you have the right to install a wall sign or pylon sign. I think the fact is, there just was no concrete plan on the table and she was saying, to me it says no more than whatever kind of sign they' re going to have that' s going to be coming in the future. There' s no hardship here. I don' t know how we can grant a variance. It' s not allowed in that area according to our ordinance. I don' t think there' s anyway we should allow a pylon sign in the IOP. Conrad : Do you two feel that they have visibility? They can get visibility? Emmings: I think they' re going to have to find a way to get visibility and if they' ve got . . . Conrad : They' re asking for that. Emmings: I don' t have to design their signs . To me that' s their problem that should have been addressed when they designed their facility. —(_ I guess between the combination of ground low profile signs and wall signs, which they' re permitted, I would think you would get the visibility they need . Even if they can' t, I 'm not willing to look at a pylon sign . Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 20 — C Conrad : But they have some alternatives that might be more offensive visually. I 'm just throwing these. They can put up wall signs and get that awareness . That might be more offensive than what they' re suggesting. I just want to make sure you know. Emmings : Yes but Ladd , if they do put up a wall sign , we have provisions in our sign ordinance for what that wall sign can be, is that right? And — if they design it within the parameters that they' re allowed here, even if we don' t like the way it looks , then that ' s too bad for us at that point I guess . They can do that anyway right? _ Conrad: They certainly can. Emmings: And I 'm never going to listen to anybody say to me, hey we can — do something ugly out there so give us what we want that' s not allowed . Conrad : But it can be a trade. It might be a rational . . . _ Emmings: But then we have to say to ourselves, are they likely to go out and do something ugly to get back at us or are they going to do something _ that ' s going to make their facility attractive and I think they' ll do the latter . I hope so. CEllson: I pretty much agree with them both . I can ' t really see how we — could say no to everybody else that comes along if we say yes to this one. They didn ' t have it in their original plans . If we had said yes , because Barbara had seen it in the plans or whatever, then I think it would be — pretty much locked into it but they never really had it in the first place. Conrad : You don ' t think that the berming and that shrubery is . . . — Ellson: I think the berming and the shrubery is what we require of anybody in there. I don' t think we said , by the way do you want to put _ some extra because we'd like it more. I think they' re putting in what we'd require of anybody. Batzli : Where else does the City allow warehousing like that? What other district? Olsen : We allow it as a conditional use permit in the BF district . — Batzli : So they could either have gone in the IOP or the BF? That' s it? Olsen: In the BF district we specifically state cold storage warehousing . . . .whereas in the IOP it' s warehouse. Batzli : Do you know what the ordinance was prior to the 12-15-86 date? Olsen: You mean as far as the pylon signs? Batzli : Yes . Were pylon signs allowed back then? Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 21 Olsen: I can' t remember . I can find that out. Batzli : Okay, so we don' t know whether the 12-15-86 codification amended that part or added? Olsen : I don ' t remember the pylon signs . . .would be permitted . I can double check that. Batzli : I guess I 'm looking at it from the standpoint of, if they were led by the City to believe that they could have a pylon, they might have some kind of case. If we had made them put in additional shrubbing and berming and everything else and they thought they were going to get a pylon all along and they didn' t. But on the other hand , if the Statute read no pylons and this was one isolated instance in which Barb misspoke, I don ' t know that they should have the right to rely on that at that point. I think that should have been something that they should have checked and I kind of agree that that probably should have been part of the plan and agreed upon in advance if they were really counting on getting a pylon. I also have kind of a real sense that the low profiles won' t work or the wall signs. Maybe that' s the case but I don' t know that I really heard them say that we can ' t make it work with what we' re allowing. At this point I 'm not for allowing the variance. Wildermuth : The mini-storage of the caliber of construction that that one is is a good , quiet, non-polluting neighbor . I think they've done a nice job with shrubery. On the other hand , as the industrial park really is a good looking asset to the City and it would be the only pylon sign in that industrial park. I agree with Brian. Unless there was a clear indication that a pylon sign would have been permitted when you came in for approval , initial approval , I 'd like to see them make a low profile sign. Conrad: Because you know it will . Do you think it will? Wildermuth: I don' t think a lot of signs on the building are going to work. Conrad : Speak to us on that issue . You obviously don' t want a low, ground profile because you don' t feel it' s got visibility? You' re going for height . Mark Senn : If we push the low profile signage right out to the limits of the property, yes, it would be visible. We prefer not to push it out to the limits of the property because we don' t think, it really belongs there and I think your ordinance prohibits that anyway. I think there are some setback requirements of about 10 feet . Conrad : What are we, at 10 feet Jo Ann? Yes. So if we push it back 10 feet, you' re saying it doesn' t work? Mark Senn: 10 feet you' re going to be right by the landscaping. Regardless of where you try to keep. . .and especially the mature trees. . . One of the things I 've heard mentioned time and time again up here is there isn ' t one other one in the industrial park but please consider , the Planning Commission Meeting November 16 , 1988 - Page 22 - City did not ask any other building in the industrial park to limit their surface to less than 8 feet. That is a substantial different in relationship to any other building in that industrial park. If I had 13 foot wall area, and don' t get me wrong . . .we wouldn' t even be having this — discussion. But I ' ve got a 6 to 7 foot wall and again, it was something that we agreed to at the time because we were trying to build and design a nice project . We weren ' t trying to get into an argument. . . — Conrad : Wall signs can' t project over the height of the building. Isn' t that right Jo Ann? Olsen: Right. Mark Senn : Ladd , if I could , one other comment . This wasn ' t an isolated incident of the word pylon sign. This was talked about a number of times during the planning stage of the project . You can probably even go back to some earlier plans where we had it x' ed out for pylon signs. We — basically threw the issue of signage out as something we really wanted to address at that time because quite honestly, through the whole city process we were redesigning that project . I remember at least 2 or 3 _ Planning Commission meetings and Council meetings. We made the changes when we did some negotiating , etc. so that was just one of the conditions that we agreed to come back and deal with it then. . . Conrad : You may not have been involved with this . Were you around when this came in? Olsen : This one I think I was on maternity leave. Wildermuth: How far up on a berm can a low profile sign go? Olsen : It can be, as our ordinance says , it can be built into the berm. Roman Roos: Just one final comment. I think if we were to go back and — pull the other minutes , again , I 'm trying to make the position that we went through a lot of detail to get to where we' re at today. I think we really went through, the Minutes from the Planning Commission and the _ Council Minutes, I think you' ll find . . . Again, we' re not trying to do anything that' s detrimental to the . . .or to the industrial park but we feel this is a compromise on our signage. It ' s more attractive than wall signage for retail use. . . — Conrad : Your guess Jo Ann would be that we tried to bury this project to basically cover up the height of the wall for aesthetic reasons so it just — wasn ' t a big wall in the industrial park. So we tried to make that wall less of an impact . Erhart : What more did you do than was required by ordinance in terms of -" what the City was requesting? Roman Roos : We came back with a site plan and . . .additional landscaping. — Erhart: Additional height on the berm or what? Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 23 Roman Roos : We also put the. . .elevations of the wall . The staff was concerned that the look from TH 5 was. . .massive kind of wall so they wanted a low profile. . . Now it' s true we could put a sign on the Park Drive side but no matter where we put it, it just does not seem to do , does not identify. . . Headla : I heard . .a couple of comments . One is the majority of his business comes from the Yellow Pages. Those people come out and ask where it is . I don ' t think you need a 15 foot pylon sign to tell people where you are that are looking for you. They proposed one way to solve alternatives to that problem. They proposed one way. It' s either that way or no way. I don' t believe that' s the case. I think there' s other ways to solve the problem so I would vote against the current proposal of the pylon sign but the City wouldn' t want to face developments coming back with maybe some other alternatives . Maybe there is a possibility that if there is a problem, maybe something on the roof is a logical solution to the problem. I don' t know but I 'd like to see us . . .to possibility some other solutions . Wildermuth: That' s a scary thought . Batzli : I big mayonaise jar tilted to the side. Headla : They don' t need this but what shape of building . . . Roman Roos : You' re correct on the telephone. . . We' re also trying to attract traffic . . .but they will identify that they drove by this service. . . Headla : I think that' s a fair comment but I think there' s probably other ways to get about the same effect that isn' t such a blatant markdown of the land . Conrad : Jo Ann, Brian brings up a good point . Have you gone back through the Minutes and examined what we've led the applicant to believe? Olsen : I went through the City Council Minutes in your packet . I didn' t go through the Planning Commission Minutes. The fact is , is that they still have to, they had to receive a sign permit in effect at that time. They obviously did not request a pylon sign approval at part of their site plan . Why, I don' t know. Conrad : It' s an interesting scenario. I think they weren' t looking ahead because we were trying to bury this project or make the ground profile a little bit nicer so I can see how we may have lost sight of the signage needs. I don' t know. I think there' s an option folks to table it. To take another look at it and see if there is a compelling reason for a hardship or for the fact that we led them astray. I don' t know that we did but I sure can see a little scenario here where I recall this coming in a couple times and we were paying a lot of attention to making it less visible. They did do that. They did listen to us and they did make it a nice effort. Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 24 — T Emmings: Is the applicant asking us to table it? Conrad: No. The applicant is not. — Ellson: Couldn ' t we ask in the interim they look that up? Conrad: We can do that too. I 'm just opening up all sorts of options to — anybody who wants to take charge of the motion. Wildermuth: That little mini-storage in Eden Prairie on TH 4, can you — remember what kind of sign they have? Mark Senn: A pylon sign. Wildermuth: The place is almost hidden below the berm down there. Mark Senn: The pylon sign sits right up at County Road 4 there. Right by — the street that you turn into that berm. Conrad: Generally my comments , it' s not an impulse business. It' s not — where you flash a sign because you want to get the traffic to turn in 500 feet away but I do want to keep you visible. The bottom line for me is, you are kind of a retail business and I think I want to make sure that you' re visible. I don' t know that you ' re not however . You do have the — options and they' re probably not my favorite options of using the wall but they are there. I honestly can' t think of a way around, right now I don' t have enough data to tell me that there is a hardship. We' ve led you astray. We did something wrong . There are some symptons . There are some clues here and there but I don' t see it. It appears that there are some ways , what I want to make sure of is that there are ways that the facility can get that recognition and the name out there. As I say, it doesn' t — need the brash , neon lights . It doesn ' t need huge signage. It just needs to be made aware that it ' s there for the passing traffic. I think there are alternatives available. I guess right now I 'm having a real tough — time saying that we have a special circumstance that will preclude getting us around or that will take us around the current ordinance. Unless you come back in and show us that it just won' t work. As I looked at the .— site, site, it looked like there were ways to do it so I guess what I need to do is either hear back from staff that we really did mislead the developer in this case and whether we table it or send it along to City Council , when it gets to City Council I think that whole sequence has to be well — documented for City Council to review. If we did continue to lead them a little bit away, I think we have an obligation to make the building visible. Emmings: But Ladd, I think Dave' s point is a very good one. We' re not being presented any alternatives. One of the alternatives, if one of the things they did was to put in extra landscaping or berming or whatever , — maybe that could be modified to make more visible another kind of sign that wouldn' t be a pylon sign. Maybe the modification is in the extra requirements or whatever . On the other hand, when I said tonight the — SuperAmerica went along with what we said and you said they would have done anything to get their project. Well , maybe this is not different. Planning Commission Meeting November 16 , 1988 - Page 25 I 'm not persuaded by the fact that they made some concessions to the City, that that imposes an obligation on the City to give them something that nobody else in the IOP has and that ' s a pylon sign which is real different character to me. I think alternatives have not been considered here and that might be a good reason to table it . But tabling would only be meaningful I think if we wanted to do a complete review of the Minutes . I think I was here when this was considered . At least I remember the issue and I don ' t remember things about the signs . It would be kind of interesting historically to review it . The only reason tabling would make any sense to me is if we got a good review of everything that happened and we were presented with alternatives . If we ' re not going to get those two things , then I don' t think it would require tabling . I think this is something maybe we should do more work on before it goes to the City Council otherwise it could take them. See when I looked at this at first it was a very simple issue to me . Now it ' s gotten more complex and I think maybe we need to go into some of these issues . Mark Senn : One thing on that . We' re limited right now to a 30 day temporary sign permit. Conrad : You' d like to see this go forward I bet . Mark Senn : We really need this to go forward otherwise we' re going to be without any identification here pretty soon. To go back and address the question of why we waited until now to comply. As I said , then we hadn' t even , a pylon sign was allowed and we were talking 50 square feet , we were so positive of the requirements of the ordinance, we were led to believe we had a simple administrative procedure to run through. Only when we came in to now do that at the end of the project , we find out that the rules have changed . It ' s rather difficult for us to deal with . Emmings: Did someone specifically say to you , yes you can have a pylon sign if you want one? Mark Senn : Yes , on numerous occasions . Emmings : And who said that? Mark Senn: The City Planner . Emmings : Barbara Dacy said that? Mark Senn: Yes . Emmings : I find that absolutely unbelieveable . Mark Senn: Read the Minutes . Emmings : She mentions the pylon sign in the Minutes . There ' s no question about it . I guess another thing we might do is find out from Barbara what she recalls about what was going on back then . Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 26 — r ( Conrad : The applicant would like us to move on it . That doesn' t mean we have to but the applicant would like to have us make an action. Again, whoever wants to make a motion, they can consider that . There ' s some benefit in going to the City Council . One, there may be some people there — who remember it . On the other hand, if we table it we might be able to give the City Council more accurate information historically. But the applicant has a special problem too. They do need signage even on a — temporary basis so it may be appropriate to move it on. Headla: Let me ask the question. If it looks like this would be turned _ down in our recommendation, what could we do to help you? Mark Senn: In relation to what? Headla : Like this 30 day limit on the sign? Mark Senn: It' s my understanding that that' s prescribed by ordinance. — There' s nothing you can do on that . You have 30 day max for a year period. Olsen : On a temporary sign. — Headla : Okay, so if we table it , can we recommend that that be extended? We' re looking for more information. It seems like that would be a — reasonable recommendation. This is a business we want to keep. Olsen: They' ve got the wall signs up too. . . — Mark Senn : We ' ll be happy to take that down if you want. We put it up and found out it wasn' t working anyway so we just have to take it down when we put the other one out there. — Headla : You' re looking for some identification for people looking for you. — Mark Senn : That' s right . We' ve been running into a real problem with that. The temporary sign we have out there now on the corner, which is _ the lit signs which we have to hook up an extension cord , is serving the purpose right now. Conrad : The applicant would like to move forward I bet you. — Emmings: You have no way to extend that? Olsen : Actually they need a variance. Mark Senn: I believe that' s a variance to the ordinance. Conrad : I do believe the applicant would like to move forward so is there a motion? Ellson : I ' ll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend denial of Sign Variance Request #88-18. Planning Commission Meeting November 16 , 1988 - Page 27 -C Emmings : I ' ll second it. Batzli : I think we should provide direction to staff . Whether that ' s part of this motion or whether that ' s an additional statement after the fact . Conrad : Make it an addition . Ellson moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of Sign Variance Request #88-18 . All voted in favor except Wildermuth who opposed and the motion carried . Wildermuth: I 'm opposed . I 'm in favor of tabling the issue . I 'm in favor of tabling it because I would like to see the background researched to see what understanding there may have been , if there was an understanding . Conrad : Annette , as far as your motion to turn it down , are there things you would like staff to do between now and when it gets to City Council? Ellson : Yes , as we discussed , check into the Minutes and the sign ordinance at that time when they made their original application if we did indeed allow them. There are more references to a promise of a pylon sign. Conrad : Do you want Jo Ann to contact Barbara Dacy to find out what her recollection is? Ellson : I don ' t really think that ' s necessary. Conrad : And the reason for your turndown is , do you believe there are adequate ways to give the applicant the exposure they need at that site? Ellson: Right and I like Dave' s comment, there probably is another option . It would have been nicer to have a choice of things instead of an all or nothing kind of thing . Conrad : Would you make any recommendation to the applicant of what to present when they go to City Council? Ellson : Yes , I would also recommend that they present maybe some other options like Steve had said. Conrad : This item goes to City Council on the 12th and maybe there are some things you can do between now and then. We 'd sure entertain looking at it again but I think instead of tabling it we had a sense that you wanted to take it forward so it ' s there. Not with our favorable response _� but you can deal with that . Planning Commission Meeting November 16 , 1988 - Page 28 — APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Emmings moved , Batzliseconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 2 , 1988 as presented . All voted in favor and the motion carried . PLANNING DEPARTMENT GOALS - DON ASHWORTH. Don Ashworth : I 'm not quite sure exactly what you ' d like to accomplish so if anybody wants to ask any questions . Let me speak first to manpower . As we moved into the 1989 budgetary process , in my own mind the planning department was one of our most critical ones as far as being understaffed . I 'm very concerned in that area . We made increases in some of our other operational areas . Some of that does help planning out. Specifically the whole code enforcement area . . . full time CSO. Full time Fire Marshall position and of course we have Scott Harr who' s position is Chief Code Enforcement Officer . Again , I think. . .planning with a number issues that we ' re faced with or have been faced with . The Seminary problem, etc . . Again, as we moved into the 1989 budget , I really believed that the best make-up for what our current needs are , are to look for or to have in place in the position of Community Development Director or Chief Planner . That person should be a highly experienced individual . 10 plus years of experience. Someone who could draw on experience from other communities or anything with the private sector . A midstream or good planning person who would be in maybe a 5 to 8 year range may be looking for that top — position or maybe not . Then really for an intern type of position . When I say intern I 'm not talking about somebody right out of school . Maybe somebody who has interned in another city where this is their first full time job. With that type of department I really think that we could better survive the type of problems that we' re facing right now when you lose one individual it ' s much easier to get along . Where you have 2 people trying to pick up for 3 rather than 1 person running a 2 member — department . It' s critical . Unfortunately we were not able to fund that additional position as a part of the City' s general budget for 1989 . The issue is not dead . I have taken it back to the House and Redevelopment — Authority and they do have dollars . There is a definite benefit to have in terms of the whole planning process in relation . . . I feel confident at this point in time that they will look at that recommendation very _ favorably. I may be coming back to you in a month and saying , they made a decision not to fund that position but I don ' t think so . I ' ve presented it initially and received a very favorable and strong support . So that would be, at least from my perspective , a recommendation of how that — department should be proposed and the number of people. Included in your packet was the resume of Steve Hanson who was selected for the position of the City Planner . He will be starting the 1st of December . It ' s a Thursday so he will be starting Monday which will be December 5th . In the interim, we don ' t know from day to day whether or not Jo Ann is going to be with us . If not , as you ' re probably aware we have entered into contractual service with both Mark and Fred Hoisington and they' re helping to split out the projects right now. Mark' s role would have to be increased if . . . Are there any questions? Headla : Let me make a comment . It was interesting going through the resume. I didn ' t see anything addressing what I think is one of the Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 29 -f i problems we have with the Village Hall . I don' t think the Village Hall has been very highly favorable. . . You try to talk to the staff, and I 'm not talking about Jo Ann or Barb or anything , but people are so busy they present a very cold, non-caring surface to the people who come in and have questions . . . But the image is that, you' re in a cold business. You don' t care about people. You've got this and you go on. When I looked through Mr . Hanson' s resume, I didn' t see anything on how he interfaces with people. To me, if you don' t interface. Typically engineers are the worse with interfacing with people and I 'd sure like to see something about how he interfaces with people. Don Ashworth: That' s an interesting point. Tim may want to take it into account in this area. We interviewed probably the three top candidates . The City Council interviewed those and the Planning Commission was invited to sit in if they wanted to. Tim did come down to satisfy the Council . . .and you may want to speak to this as well Jay but it is my belief that one of the primary criteria that was considered in that selection process was exactly your point you ' re bringing up. How well the individual protrayed themself in terms of the friendliness , openess , as the type of an individual that we would like to take and have representing the community. One of the candidates was not further considered at all . They just dropped him because he had a negative image. The last candidate, it was really back and forth for a long period of time but I think the final ( decision kind of going on his side was his personality. -- Erhart: Yes, I agree Dave. I think that' s been one of the problems. The City has been so busy here the last couple years , it ' s just a constant battle between do I pay attention to that guy who' s walking up the steps and wants something or do I get this agenda ready for Don ' s next meeting . That ' s a tough problem and it really does add up there out on the street for the public . So I agree with those comments but on the same token , I did have the opportunity to sit in on the interviewing process. We discussed that problem prior to interviewing the candidates and afterwards. I think Mr. Hanson is as smooth as silk. I think he' ll just be an excellent representative of the City. I think that was really one of his top qualifications is that he just really presented himself well . I think we' re in really good shape there. Another question , I didn ' t quite follow you. Now what is the organization going to be. Jo Ann' s going to be out for some time now. Is it just going to be Steve or did I hear you say there was going to be a third person? Don Ashworth : I feel very comfortable that the Housing and — , Redevelopment. . . Erhart : Okay, but that' s still and if though? Don Ashworth: That' s still an if. Conrad : But that would be like a community development director . What position would they fund? Don Ashworth : As I would see it, it would really be the lower intern position. Steve really has the qualifications for a top city planner or Planning Commission Meeting November 16 , 1988 - Page 30 r community development . Those are almost synonomous terms . Jo Ann does a very good solid job for us in her planning position so I would see us bringing in an intern type of a person . Somebody who has the degree . Maybe has interned 1 or 2 summers somewhere. This would be their first full time. . . Conrad : When Scott Martin was here Don , he was community development — director . Is that right? Don Ashworth : That ' s correct . Conrad : But you went away from that concept . Was that because of budget? Was that because of a change in the need? Don Ashworth : It was really ironic because when Scott was brought in , Kraus Anderson had just finished signing the papers for the downtown area and everyone saw a very strong need to negotiate with all the property — owners downtown and the relocation of those people and acquisition of the properties and ail of the things that would be associated with the downtown . Acquisition was actually funded like 75% by the HRA and 25% the City. Scott had no more than got on board and Kraus Anderson said , we can ' t do this . We ' re not going to be able to do this project. They literally took away a good share of duties and responsibilities that we had anticipated at that time that Scott would carry out . Although there is still work remaining within the downtown area as far as moving some property owners , for the most part that is done. Conrad : Who ' s job is it to bring , I 'm not sure how we bring people like McGlynn to town Don . I don ' t know if realtors are doing the bulk of the job or the City is but promotionally, bringing folks into the industrial park is part of a community development director . Is that something that — we need right now? Is that some direction that City Council has given you in terms of we need an individual who is capable of bringing companies in or is there posture really, we ' ll expand when we expand? - Don Ashworth : That ' s going to be part of the goal process that we go through with the City Council . We have 3 new people who are coming on so their ideas as to . . . There are different postures . In some instances people want to take an active position in going out and bringing into communities . That might be the role of a community development director or Steve' s responsibilities . Other cities are going to work with — companies coming in but not necessarily be real aggresive in putting dollars on the table. . . I 'm not trying to evade the answer but I just don ' t know the answer . Conrad : I think City Council has got to , the group ' s got to tell you what they want from the position. Because Dave brought it up, I 'm probably going to get ahead of some of the thoughts but in terms of responsiveness — to the community, I think Don as you know, the staff is doing a lot of work yet we sure hear a lot of criticism. I think there has to be some standards developed for the City or the City Planner or the planning staff — or the people who are talking to the community or the developers . I ' ve heard it from the developers just as well and without getting into names , Planning Commission Meeting November 16 , 1988 - Page 31 and without making this , is not meant to be critical . It is meant to be very positive. I think there has to be some standards in terms of how long it takes to get something , a phone call returned or a project returned. There are just a lot of cases where it takes weeks literally, more than one week to get a response or a follow-up phone call . That ' s one thing that Don, you' ve got to probably get your arms around. You 've got to assess cost and benefits and all that stuff . But the fact is , the community says they call and staff is working on other stuff and they can ' t get on those little projects . Those other things. I think there ' s got to be some standards . There' s got to be a commitment to the community saying we' re going to, and that dictates staffing. If we' re not concerned getting back to the resident within a week, than that' s okay as long as we made that decision . But I 've heard it from the developers and I 've heard it from residents obviously. We hear it on projects that we bring up. Projects that Jo Ann or Barbara can' t get to because there ' s so much going on. There again, what are those standards? What do we owe, how long should it take until we review something and get back and we' re not real demanding here and we haven' t been. We' ve been more accepting. Saying hey, they' re busy and they have been . All you' ve got to do is look at what Barbara wrote in terms of what Planning Department accomplished last year but still , many cases we just don' t get to the task. I think City Council has got to tell you what they expect. We can be part of that process but we don' t control the purse strings and I think that ' s a case where there' s just a standard out there that' s missing right now. Batzli : I think that begs to question though. If you' re going to have standards on that , is the current staffing or proposed 3 member staffing adequate to do that? Or is it adequate to do something other than to react? What about proactive projects that we'd like to see done and they don' t have time to do it at all . Conrad : Actually it' s not a criticism right now. I guess , not wanting to be Don. Not at all . Don Ashworth : We should respond to people within 24 hours . That' s basically the rule I try to follow. Sometimes people will call in and they don ' t want to leave a message. I ' ll call later and that type of thing and about 3 days later I hear , well I wasn' t able to get through to Don Ashworth but I never knew the person was trying to get through. Conrad : But I guess, throw off the comment, I can a similar example to a developer . . .but that' s not the point. The point is , what the standard is . If the standard is we can get back. We may not have a solution but we can get back within 24 hours . I think that' s just the type of standards that we need . Do we have a standards that says there will be a resolution or an absolute statement on what we' re going to do? Is that a week long? Obviously you' ve got all sorts of different types of problems you' ve got to respond to but that' s what I 'm looking for rather than accusing staff. I think we' re really sensitive or feel that the amount of work that ' s been process through here but in doing all this work, there are cases where we' re just not getting back to the people. Planning Commission Meeting November 16 , 1988 - Page 32 — C — Don Ashworth : . . .and I included it into your packet , goals and objectives that the planning department had set for 1988 . . . That ' s a process that we go through each year with each of our people . Take a look at their position description in terms of whether or not it accurately represents what they think they' re doing . Sitting down then with their supervisor and making sure we' ve got a supervisor is saying that's what they should be doing . Coming to a resolution. Updating the position classification — and accurately reflect what it is . . . Again. . .the position descriptions for both the City Planner and Asst . City Planner . . . is really one of setting goals . Staff goals for 1989. I think when Barb started, she went _ back and talked with Bill Monk and said, how do I do this. Bill had given her advice. He said you set your goals for 1989 and if you set them too high, you'd better make sure that Ashworth will keep a copy of what it is and remind you of the jobs you didn' t get done. I think they were a — little more cautious in terms of some of the things that they put onto that sheet of paper trying to make sure that they set their goals for 1988 were reasonable. The Commission , I may be wrong but I thought at one — point in time that you as a group also were looking at goals that you wanted to see. . . I really think that you should because that gives myself and staff a better indication and ability to work on what you'd like to see and to do various things that you'd like to do or haven ' t gotten done, — whatever. Again, we've got a work program for . . . then we' re in a better position to say, alright , staff can handle this . How we go about trying ( to develop. . . I think that' s the process that the City Council . . . — (There was a problem with the tape recording at this point . ) Don Ashworth: . . .The City Council will determine what the overall policy should be. Conrad : Which outline I think sounds good . I think when we've laid out —our goals, I don' t know that they ever went anyplace. They stayed with Barbara to my knowledge and probably didn ' t go up to City Council . Did they? — Olsen : I think they went to the City Council . Conrad: Okay, but I don' t know that we got any reaction back and therefore, the loop, the nice loop is to have City Council taking a look and saying yes, we agree and here are 12 more that you didn' t consider. I think what you outlined Don is appropriate . — Don Ashworth: I can' t remember seeing a sheet . Conrad : Yes we did it . We had 5 or 6 items that we thought were important to accomplish. Don Ashworth : I know I ' ve seen them in the past but I just can not — remember this past year having seen that. Olsen : I think the Council did receive them. — Jay Johnson: Yes . We did review it . Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 33 —C — Conrad : There might have been something that you added . Erhart: Do you have more to discuss or are you open to questions at this point? Okay. What do you see for fiscal year 1989 in terms of, for example in this last sheet that Barb' s done, it says planning cases. You can see that the workload has grown substantially from 1984 . Particularly in terms of subdivisions. Fortunately litigations are down. What do you see for , I see 1988 ' s not on here but what do you see for 1989? Are you seeing the same kind of activity that we've seen this year? Less? More? In terms of subdivisions and site plan reviews and so forth? Don Ashworth: It' s so. . .it' s really difficult to say. For budgetary purposes we use the mainstream developments . It' s higher than I would have like to have seen. . . It' s higher than I 'd like because if you don' t achieve that, then we' re going to get . . . Erhart: The reason I ask Don, I think in particularly the last year . Actually I should go back to the first year I was on the Commission 3 years ago, I think staff had time to support some proactive things and some ideas we had to look into that and so forth. That activity has really ground to a halt in the last year although I think it's picked up just recently. I guess for me personally, I didn' t get on the Planning Commission to review or be involved in public hearings and just to look at it from a reactive standpoint. I felt there was some urgent , the City was changing rapidly and I wanted to be involved with the change and make sure that we had a planning process that was at least staying with the changes and hopefully if we' re doing a good job, we' re ahead of the change. I feel personally that, the thing in the last year it' s gotten real frustrating simply because ideas were discussed and I think we know, I think we can speak for all of us, you already know you don' t even want to ask Barbara or Jo Ann to do it because you know they' re spending 50 hours — a week and you know they just don' t have time. - They have lots of meetings with developers and that' s saddening because that ' s the reason why I 'm on this commission is to plan. I personally feel that if the activity is going to remain at the same level , I strongly support the concept of a community development director and 2 additional people. If we thought back in 1985 or whenever it was , we needed one, there' s certainly more — justification today to create that position. I personally don' t feel that we' re staying ahead in the planning with the rate the community is growing. I think some things are slipping past us. Missed opportunities . I 'm not sure that our Comp Plan, although it may meet our legal — requirements, I 'm not sure that it' s effective the way we do it in trying to develop real plans . As I look at Transportation and Mark, you' ve done a great job. It' s great. It' s a necessary document . It' s very — informative but in the current format it doesn' t really allow you to prevent problems like the TH 101 issue and some of the other things that you always come back and say, golly, didn' t they know this or didn' t we think about this or why didn' t I think about this. I don' t think we can improve on it because I don' t think we have anybody who has time to think about it. I personally think we have to have full time people in the City who look at being in that job for 4 or 5 years. To be looking at what' s coming down the Comp Plan? What are the problems we can see. More than Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 34 — ( just you Don . Look at what' s coming down and bring up issues in front of the Planning Commission and try to say, hey let' s do something today to avoid a problem in the future. I think with the staff we' ve had this last year we haven' t gotten anything to try to do things today to prevent — problems in the future so I fully support , if the development is going to continue at the same rate, that we expand our planning staff. Don Ashworth : I think again it' s an issue that we need to assess at the Council level . How do they want to see. . . There is going to be a sudden stop to development in the next 3 to 5 years , maybe less . We have a 1,000 _ new home subdivision south of TH 5 on Lake Susan. Eckankar of course they have no inclination or desire to develop. Currently we have Saddlebrook, Chan Vista and Near Mountain. I think those subdivisions are almost filled . They may well be filled in the next year or two. How long it — takes that that can go on at Lake Susan South, we' re looking at . . .units per year . Remember a lot of the population of the total units you had were of higher density. We already have one application in for higher — density just to the west of us here. You haven' t seen that much apartment type of construction in the last 10-15 years . . . What this really comes down to is , do we act on the issue of changing the MUSA line or do we simply kind of gain a gasp of air which means taking a period of time before we look to that change. . .and therefore not make that change. . . Some of it may be out of our hands as well . The contract period goes to the Year 2000 and the City will have to demonstrate that there' s a -- ( necessity. . . If that is not done, there will be a very definite restriction in development . I know that doesn' t really solve the problem for the next 3 year period of time but we'd better prepare ourselves for _ that reality if the City has decided that they do not want to see a change in the MUSA line. Erhart : You' re saying that there' s adequate for 3 more years of -- development at the current rate? • Don Ashworth: Maybe a little more time. I guess I 'd stay with 3 because — again, that 1,000 units is . . . The issue would be. . .planning process and the actual putting it in the ground process of development . Emmings: I don' t have too much that' s different than what' s been said. I — certainly agree that we haven' t been able, because of how busy staff has been and Barbara leaving, that we haven' t been able to do the kinds of things that we would want to do and that is frustrating. I agree with Tim — 100%. On the other side , I think there' s a certain amount of, it would be nice if we could find a way to forge some kind of a better relationship with the City Council . I know that I , and I think others that we' ve — talked about, feel somewhat isolated out here. Felt like a lot of times when things went up from here to the City Council , decisions got made up there but nothing ever came back. It even took us a long time to get staff to give us a checklist of what action they had taken on what we'd -" done so we could see what they had done but even after that happened , we didn' t really know why. I quit going to City Council meetings . We rotate that duty and I 'd go sit out there and they'd never ask a question. There — was a real feeling on, at least my part , I don ' t want to speak for anybody else, that once they had our Minutes , they didn' t care. That was also Planning Commission Meeting November 16 , 1988 - Page 35 r frustrating so on the staff side there didn' t seem to be the time to do the kinds of planning that we all wanted to do. On going up to the Council , there never felt like we were doing things together . That we were coordinated. Felt more like we'd take our look at it and then they'd take their look at it. Maybe that' s the way the system is set up to work, I don' t know, but if it is, I don' t know if that' s good. I think there' s work to be done on both ends of there. Conrad: One thing I noticed on the job description Don, there' s nothing called PR. I think there really should be. I don ' t know how you word it but it' s just such a key area. Such a key responsibility. I think Barbara and I think Jo Ann does an effective job in communicating but I 'd like to see it. The other thing that I 'd suggest in the coming years , if we could come up with ideas and I know we keep some manual lists and I used to keep a list of what we suggested for staff to do. Maybe every 3 months we asked where are we. I think after we go through some of this goal planning process, I think whether we computerize it or not , maybe we don ' t need that much sophistication but I think City Council should know what' s been suggested on some periodic basis. Suggested for review. Somebody' s got to manage staff time. Not only us . . .because it' s economically. . . I think that work list should be constantly updated and run by the City Council so they know what we' re looking at and they can give some clues of whether they think it' s worthwhile or not. Erhart: Don, the Comp Plan , who' s the owner of the Comp Plan? Is that the Planning Commission' s Plan or the City' s Plan? Is it exclusively our job to keep that updated? Conrad: It ' s the consultant' s job isn' t it? Mark Koegler : Typically it is , the document is the Planning Commission ' s . The City Council obviously will ultimately adopt. The Planning Commission will closely monitoring . . .and at least start thinking about . . . Erhart: I see in item 4 here in Barb' s letter to you Don that the Comprehensive Plan now includes the trail plan that we developed a year ago. That brings another point, something that was asked here some time ago and I ' ll take the opportunity here to ask. What is the Park and Rec committee' s relationship to this body? Is there any or how does that work? Don Ashworth : I think all commissions interact in their role in reporting back . . . The Planning Commission is really the one who prepares the text , the document itself. To the extent that you obtain information from other commissions , organizations, they are feeding that to you to make decisions to incorporate or not incorporate. Then of course that goes to the City Council . Erhart : Are you referring to the Comp Plan or are you also referring to subdivisions and other things? Don Ashworth: The question was really for the Comp Plan. Planning Commission Meeting November 16 , 1988 - Page 36 — C Emmi.ngs: I think his question was broader . Erhart : Yes , you asked a good question a few weeks ago . When I first got on here, when we went through subdivisions we'd get the Park and Rec' s — recommendations and then we reviewed that and passed it onto Council . Now it' s different. Now the Park and Recs passes their recommendation directly to Council . We don' t see them unless for some reason they have — their meeting before ours and then we kind of get a summary. Am I wrong Ladd? I might be wrong but that' s my perception. Conrad: A lot of it. If Park and Rec had reacted to a development, subdivision , we'd always infiltrate it into the Minutes. There were a lot of cases recently when they simply hadn' t met and we were reviewing the items so we really, we didn' t have anything to review. Erhart : So anyway, I think what we' re wondering , what is the correct procedure? Are we supposed to review the Park and Rec' s? — Don Ashworth : When it comes to the planning reviews , this gets to be. . . because on one side we' re saying let' s not try to create bureaucracy. _ Let' s be able to get people through the process , etc . and then that would go to this commission with that commission' s recommendation. . .onto City Council . All of a sudden we' re in that 60 to 90 days just going through the process. Typically what most cities carry out, if there' s a burning — issue that the Park Commission understands that the Comprehensive Plan development, that there' s some trail section, typically the review of an individual subdivision occurs by that commission and their recommendation — would go directly to the City Council . Now if there is a strong feeling by this body that the Park Commission is not really considering what you feel to be important as far as the Comprehensive Plan is saying, and you wish to consider changing that process or having the two groups meet and — say, we' re really not in agreement here. Our long range plan calls for this type of trail versus the Park Commission, you seem to be approving and making . . . Either of those two processes would work. Meeting with — the Park Commission. That or saying, let ' s come down to a meeting of the minds and in that process the Park Commission do an individual review as it goes to City Council but at least you had a chance to interface with _ them to see what they' re doing. Or we could explore the option of having their recommendation come back to you but I don ' t think that would , I think that adds a lot to the process. Headla : Why? Don Ashworth : Just because it does extend the time. Headla : Why would it? Like the Lake Susan. I think it' s extremely important that we understand what they have in mind that we have to incorporate in the overall plan. It' s just imperative. Like over here by — Christmas Lake, whatever , I think it ' s very important that we get the major ones , I really think we should see a detailed plan. I haven' t heard the rationale why we shouldn' t see them. — Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 37 _ 1 Don Ashworth: The Park Commission has been meeting on a monthly schedule . . .and the schedule here recently. . .did a review at the Park Commission level . Another one the Park Commission is the Park Commission likes to review their Minutes before that recommendation goes out to some other group or to City Council . They' re meeting every 30 days and if a guy comes in and it' s 3 weeks before the next meeting , then they've got to wait for the next 30 day period of time to read the Minutes. Then it goes to the Planning Commission. . .and then to the City Council , you' ve just added 4 or 5 months . Headla : But that problem seems to be solved. I don' t think that' s a problem. You meet once a week and you don' t review your Minutes . That really isn ' t a problem. Don Ashworth: I think the Park Commission has to meet . . . I think the process has not been that bad in terms of them going directly to the Council with their recommendation. If on the major issues you 'd like to. . . that you did want to spend a lot of time, did want to make sure. . . joint meetings or making sure that. . . Conrad : I think we can call special meetings if we need it but typically we' ve been processing stuff so fast because the Planning Department feels under the gun to get it going , for whatever reason. I 've never felt Jr compelled to push things through yet we always get the sense of urgency from the developers that they' re going to die unless they get the shovel in the ground within 12 minutes. Unfortunately we don' t know if we' re dealing with some developers who didn' t do a good job of planning or whether the planning staff has been so busy they couldn' t work diligently with the developer . We don' t know who we' re defending . That puts us at a little bit of a, or at least me, at a defensive position. I don' t mind dragging my heels to flush out some of the issues so City Council doesn' t have to. Over the last couple months, well the last month or so it ' s slowed down to 1 or 2 items a meeting but prior to that , we were really processing stuff. Rosemount Engineering is another example of something that we' re thrashing through and we went through some motions and really didn' t do a very good job of any kind of input to that process. I 'm not upset, I 'm not concerned that Park submits their comments directly to City Council but it typically comes in on the planning staff' s report. And if it' s coming in on their report , it should probably be coming by us and if it doesn' t, it's a major element that' s missing that we haven' t really looked at . Especially in some of the subdivisions where we did have disagreements with what they were doing. Don, I think the bottom line is , we have to see what they' re doing . They should really, we should either be slowing the process down so we understand what' s going on or the Park and Rec ' s got to meet more frequently to get us the information. Not that we' re reviewing it but it is coming out in the Planning packet and it affects how we look at subdivisions and how we look at development . I think it' s got to be there and it' s been missing in a fair amount of cases. I don' t know, maybe not a whole lot over the year Jo Ann. What ' s your opinion? Is it just recent that it' s been missing? Olsen: Recently the schedule haven' t been clicking . I 've been getting the memo from Lori and trying to get the packet. . . Her meeting is usually Planning Commission Meeting November 16 , 1988 - Page 38 — sometimes falls the Tuesday right before you meet . Don Ashworth: The Planning Department is the lead department in terms of anything . . . They are responsible for the agency referral notices out . — They' re also responsible for working with the various departments and coordinating their comments into that . The issue is really wider than just the Park Commission. They' re including any comments that might deal — with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. What their role has been in the whole. . . The Public Safety in terms of the hydrant locations and other types of conditions that may be set . You are seeing the staff _ reports from Lori and Jim Chaffee, from Todd or myself as they may deal with the Public Safety Commission or the Housing and Redevelopment Authority or the Park Commission. During a lot of those incidents you' re not seeing what action that specific group took on that recommendation and — how we bring that back to you, it still does not provide a workable schedule. Conrad : What ' s your sense? Are we developing , I talk to some developers who say it takes us forever to get something through the City . What ' s your sense Don? Compare us to other communities . Are we reacting _ comparably to other communities? We ' re obviously a growth area so . . . Don Ashworth : I think we ' re way ahead of some of the other communities . I think we do everything we can to get these through. Any city, you ' ll hear — these same type of comments . What you' re hearing is not at all , I guess I 'd like to insure . . . Conrad : So really you ' re sense and I think that ' s something that the City Council . I don' t know how they deal with this or communicate to us but I think we constantly feel that there ' s a pressure to get it through. As I said before, I ' ve never been sure if that ' s as a result of just staff not — having enough time to work with the developer and they' ve been out there for 3 months waiting for somebody to talk to them and all of a sudden they' ve got to get it there so let ' s hurry and get it along . Are we — trying to catch up? Your feeling is that we ' re doing a good job so basically I would feel that we could start slowing things down if we needed to. Not that we need to unduly do that but I think just hearing _ your comments , I might not feel so obligated to move the developers through. I 'd much rather have the staff do a better job and give them the support saying , we don ' t have all the data in . In many cases we don ' t have all the data in and until it' s all in, I 'd prefer not seeing it . I — think we should be supporting staff with that posture . They can just tell the developer that the Planning Commission doesn' t want to see them until it ' s all in . But I think City Council also has to agree with that — philosophy. Don Ashworth : I 'm sure that those comments will be considered and again , we will be going through a goal process to try to determine what the — Council would like to have done . This issue is one of the issues that we will discuss . Erhart : Let me bring back the Comp Plan again because it relates to the trail plan. I guess a year and a half ago when the trail plan was being Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 39 developed , I guess I felt that I was representing the Planning Commission on that effort at the time. It was the one that initially we became alerted to this thing when some, particularly the lots down in the Bluff Creek Greens I guess were coming in and there were some, the Bluff Creek itself was in that area and we got a discussion going about whether there ought to be easements and so forth. So I took that particular subject and ran with it on these trails and we worked as a group here with the Parks and Rec to come up with the trail plan. Of course our purpose for the trail plan is mostly, again for land use planning . We put that together a year into a plan and bound it and accepted it into the Comp Plan. It was very disturbing to me in this last referendum that that plan was changed now as it was provided to the public without going back through the process or getting anyone involved . I shouldn' t say anyone but at least getting all the poeple more involved in the development to the initial document of the accepted trail plan. That went out to the referendum. In fact it didn' t even have the City Council ' s involvement to change that. I don ' t understand that I guess . I just don' t understand that . I found out that the referendum. . . (There was a problem with the recording at this point on the tape. ) Emmings: . . .you' re right but the question is, that was obviously, to me, that was really an obviously a Planning Commission issue. You' re planning a trail system for the whole city and the Planning Commission doesn' t see it? That ' s the part that, I don' t even care about the particulars right now but I can' t imagine how that thing got on the ballot without the Planning Commission ever looking at it. Am I missing something there? Don Ashworth: I don' t know of any real change that occurred from the plan that you had approved with the exception of the position on the equestrian versus pedestrian. . . Headla : Did we approve the trail plan? Emmings: We never saw one as I remember . Conrad : Well , we reviewed it . Emmings: We did? Erhart : I don' t know if we ever formally approved it . Mark Koegler : There was at least one meeting that I know of with the Planning Commission. I don' t recall . . .context. Erhart: I agree Don. I 'm not trying to go back and redo everything. Let me just say a couple things. One is that this is right from the original plan that we reviewed was a nature trail . "Nature trails are designed solely for pedestrian useage." The work that I did for that , that was the way I saw it and that' s the way the plan ended. But again, that' s behind us . Unfortunately or fortunately, I don' t know whatever , it didn' t pass and we get to look at it again. I really want to go forward in trying to put together a trail plan. All I 'm asking is that when you do this, is Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 40 — C that when we put the plan together , we do get public input and we do get the input from our elected officials so when we get to the referendum we' ve got a plan that people have been involved with as opposed to the concept that someone, some of the employees of the City are going to sell — the plan to the public . If that' s the purpose for organizing a committee, we' re starting on the wrong premise. I guess that' s what I 'm getting to Don. I think we ' ve got to get , when we make decisions such as , the — example that I stated, is this City going to be involved in making horse trails? That ' s an issue that I think needs some debate. Don Ashworth: Part of the problem out of that, I think that we had a very energetic group who was trying to promote the trails and in that process they made some changes . . .until 2,000 brochures had been printed and things had appeared in the newspaper . . . — Conrad : Thanks for stopping by and talking to us . It ' s almost 10: 30 and that' s usually when we talk to Mark. — CONTRACTOR' S YARD DISCUSSION - MARK KOEGLER. Conrad: Mark, contractor ' s yard. We see your note. Anything you want to explain beyond what your note says? Mark Koegler : No. I was going to offer you either a short overview of this or a lengthy overview and I ' ll give you the option of a short one. Conrad : Yes , give us the short one just to get us thinking about it and off the other subjects . Mark Koegler : The southern part of the City, I guess it ' s been an — interesting thing to watch, at least for me over the last 10 years or so because when I first got involved with the City of Chanhassen, everybody was waving this ordinance around that was 23 or 36 or whatever , — prohibiting development in the unsewered areas. The Attorneys were all excited about it. The clients were all excited about it and as you know, subsequently that was struck down some years later. Then it was interesting being on the outside watching what I perceived as this mad rush of people to meet the deadline imposed as a result of the recent ordinance change. All of these things had I think probably a more significant impact on the southern area of the community than I — anticipated at the time they were occurring . So if you now direct to the southern area of the city, it' s not at all what it was 10 years ago. It ' s basically becoming very residential and that has to have some bearing on — when you look at this issue and probably several other issues as it relates to the ground . It used to be clear that it was either agricultural or not but since that time, again back in the late 70' s, what you' ve seen develop is now in almost three categories . There ' s — agricultural . There' s residential with the 2 1/2 acre lot basis that got in under the wire so to speak and now we have residential at 1 per 10 overall density. In looking specifically at this contractor' s yard issue, — I had to look at that as how does it fit into those 3 very generalized categories of use. I could argue that it could fit reasonably well Planning Commission Meeting November 16 , 1988 - Page 41 without significant irrigation measures in the two larger scale areas . Either agricultural or the 10 acre parcels . In going through Lake Riley Woods , I can ' t see contractor ' s yards fitting into the context of what I think that neighborhood will become. In other words, I 'd like to see very nice housing going in there. . .and that again taints my thinking again on how we see it works . The bottom line in my comments on contractor ' s yards, after reviewing the issue. Reviewing how other communities , both here and in the whole Metropolitan area look at these kinds of things, I don' t find any instances where anybody really considers them anything other than industrial land uses. And you get into the scale argument. If we bring this thing down to a mom and pop scale to try to allow certain people to operate certain businesses , maybe on interim uses or whatever, I think there is a certain area that begs the long term question of what is the best land use for the City in the southern part of the community. As you' re well aware, Don talked tonight a little bit about the MUSA line not being amended maybe until after the year 2000 because of the Lake Ann sewer agreement. To date there' s been no targeting of industrial areas in the south and I don' t see that happening probably in the near term. . .so we don' t know which areas these might ultimately fit into. It' s just a random pattern. I couple that with the experience that the City has had in adminstrating these things. Probably when they adopted it, the 1 mile separation sounded great. Now in reality that' s filled up and where do we go from here. In an adminstrative context , I think once you allow them on any scale, even if it' s a mom and pop scale, it' s difficult for instance if we say, you can only do this , you can only do this , you can only do this. If the owner is there and the Planning Commission has changed , Council ' s changed , staff changed and that began to errode over a period of time so the commitment to looking toward the long term future use. . .the best way that that' s served is maybe not allowing an opportunity to continue any longer. At any rate, coming through all of this rationale, I ' ve at least tried to lay out for you, my bottom line conclusion is that I would question that contractor' s yards are appropriate at all in the unsewered area . There are clearly other areas that answered that question with a no. I don ' t think it' s in the City' s best long term interest and I think it raises some short term problems to do that . If there' s a strong feeling in the City that you want to allow them on a limited scale, I think there may be some techniques that could be used but I still think you have some jeopardy on administrative, day to day operational basis in trying to make sure that you stay with a consistent policy and control this. So the recommendation back to you is to omit them from the A-2 zone. If you choose not to do that, and try to scale them down, you put them in more of the context of an accessory use. Not to create a new accessory use category but to create language as part of the conditional use that makes them accessory to a residential structure. So they are strictly a family business . I think I even use the term family in a possible definition. Keep in mind though that that is defined in your zoning ordinance as it could be 500 people. Family means a lot of things in today' s language. . .zoning ordinance. So there are some suggestions there that if you take exception, you try to define it so that it literally is a small scale accessory use but again, for discussion purposes , I put in some language, some area requirements that deal with that. I think the possibility then of looking at, and this potentially making a simple argument as part of this , looking at some of these rural Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 42 residential areas and . . . rezoning at this point in time is something that may have some merit. So the recommendation back to you is to omit them and if you do not find that to be feasible, to enact a control mechanism similar to what' s outlined to try to make them a strictly defined accessory use . Conrad : Good job Mark. Interesting comments here. Dave, what do you — want to do? The result of this is for us to come to some kind of a consensus and let Mark draft some language for us that might be a recommended change to the current ordinance. So what we' re doing right _ now is setting direction. Whether we outlaw, make them illegal altogether and grandfather in what we've got or modify it to some degree. Why don' t you tell us what you think. Headla : I like the ma and pa , open end . I can ' t tell you why. When I look through here it made a lot of sense and then you left this opening and I thought the wording was good . In reading over your definition , _ where you mentioned. . . , that one I thought could be used. Mark Koegler : That was the second to the last page. Headla: I felt comfortable with that but you still agree it has some real reservations . This one has a lot more restraints than . . .and if you have reservations, I guess. . . _ Mark Koegler : I wanted to make it clear in my comments. . . the zoning ordinance. . . Headla : But they can' t expand from their present set up without another application. Mark Koegler : Correct. Headla : Can that be an appropriate way to control that? _ Mark Koegler : It solely depends on the consistency of the. . . It can be if you have a good . . . to enforcing the policy. You had a couple of variances tonight. We've seen hundreds of variances. . . You see a lot of — variance applications and each one is reviewing on "it ' s own merits" under normal procedure. It' s very difficult to put it out back from a motion and say that' s a reservation that you have but once you allow the opportunity, it ' s hard to say, well it' s now just a minor incident. If you consistently can do that. Headla: I 'd like to hear what Jim has to say. Wildermuth: I think if you look back at the open land in Chanhassen is becoming increasingly more rural residential. Not agricultural . It probably isn ' t a good place for contractor' s in Chanhassen. Jay Johnson: . . . in the definition where it talks about home occupations? Maximum of 1 employees . As such. . .contractor ' s yard . Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 43 Conrad : Home is in the home within the existing residence. I was assuming that this related to out, something outside. Wildermuth : Accessory structure. Emmings: It says it' s conducted as an accessory use in the resident ' s dwelling unit. That' s the definition of home occupation. Mark Koegler : Virtually every zoning ordinance of home occupation has language in it that requires it to look for all intensive purposes , just exactly like a normal single family structure. Any sign that it' s anything but that, signage, parking of vehicles. Batzli : Something that Jim said kind of got me looking in here. Are we trying to just limit it to like IOP? I agree with Jim' s reasoning that I think in view of what' s happened in Chanhassen, it ' s becoming more residential , I wouldn' t like one next to me obviously. They start out with great intentions but a lot of them get out of hand slowly and the enforcement I think has been very weak. I would like to, if we can, eliminate anymore. Ellson : I go along with Mark' s recommendation that they are totally inappropriate in that A-2 or any kind of residential area. I wouldn' t go T for allowing the mom and pop and I think it' s mainly exactly what he said . It' s real easy to say that now but if I 'm the one later on trying to interpret it and it' s a friend of mine and it' s just growing a little bit, you just don' t want to have to deal with it . You'd rather just say black or white. And no white but only if it ' s has this. It ' s just too hard to try to meet the constraints . You have no idea what is going to come about. Emmings: Mark, you' ve done a really good job at distilling or crystalizing the issue. Whatever side you might be on, you treated both sides and this is really a nice piece of work. I underlined two sentences even though I basically agree with everybody else. One is that Chanhassen is rapidly urbanizing and the other one is that in the long term they are compatible only with industrial land use. And those are the two things that sort of stuck in my mind as being what ought to control our decision in this. This is a chance for us to do long range planning in the best interest of Chanhassen down the road which is what we were just complaining here tonight about not having the opportunity to do very often. This is a chance to do it and I think we should just get rid of them in the A-2. Get rid of them except in the IOP I guess . Erhart : I want to comment . I think Mark did just a great job of taking all the issues of this thing and putting it in a 6 page thing and making it so that it really makes sense, even though it pretty much agrees with what I said. You did a good job. It clearly spelled out the issues and I won' t say anything else . I think you know my position. Conrad : I 'm like Dave. I think there' s something romantic and charming about somebody buying 40 acres of property and . . . Planning Commission Meeting November 16 , 1988 - Page 44 — i — Batzli : And putting a bulldozer on it. Conrad : Putting a bulldozer in the garage and going out and cutting down the forest every now and then. No, I still go back. There' s something romantic to that . There' s something nice. I can relate to somebody who wants to do that. Buy 40 acres and maybe have a home occupation out in their garage or their barn or something . — Wildermuth: There isn' t going to be 40 acres left in Chanhassen. — Conrad : The point is , I don' t believe the MUSA line will move for 10 years. I think a contract' s a contract so we' re talking about for the next 10 years we' re going to eliminate this to get ready for the next 40 years. I guess I don' t hear a lot of requests coming into town saying , — we' re not aware of a big demand for contractor ' s yards. I don' t feel badly moving it one way or another as long as we restrict their use. I sure hear a lot of sentiment for getting rid of it. I just keep thinking , — when we' re talking at least 11 years away and maybe restricting somebody' s alternative or option to use it at a less intensive use for , well actually forever. Batzli : But we haven ' t been seeing these ma and pa people come in . We' ve been seeing Admiral Waste people come in. Conrad : And I think that' s a good point Brian. Batzli : If this were the case that we were seeing people who were — actually going to run a small business out of their home, I might be in favor of that but we' re seeing larger scale ma and pa operations come in. They' re not low level uses . Conrad: I buy that argument. Emmings: Isn ' t it going to take lead time to get rid of what we got so we — are ready 10 to 11 years down the road? Don' t we want to do it now so that what' s here clears out we don' t have any new applications to have to consider. Erhart : Let me state Ladd that I would be satisfied, I think we should get rid of them for the same reason. I think you just get something and it' s just impossible to get rid of later on. Not in 10 years but these — things go with the land. The other thing is if they grow, like any business , if you have a business , every business has to grow almost by definition. Very few businesses just stay small . Unless we can define — the little family business . It would be acceptable to me that if we wanted to take what truly is the rural area of south Chanhassen and cut this thing down so it' s a really ma and pa operating out of it ' s garage and then take the other half of south Chanhassen that' s essentially '- residential , as Mark is suggesting , make it an RR such that it is totally eliminated. I think that' s an acceptable alternative. I still think it' s best to completely eliminate them. — Planning Commission Meeting November 16 , 1988 - Page 45 Ellson : We had this 1 mile control supposedly in place and that just got waived for the last one that came in. Even at the Council level so even the controls you try to put in , it still has these . . . Batzli : It was a hardship. Come on. Ellson : I know. I 'm just giving you another example of, who knows when that mom and pop is the next door neighbor and like you said Brian, they' re not the ones coming in right now. Conrad: It sounds to me like the sentiment is to rule them out. In terms of the best way to develop this , Jo Ann is it a wise idea to pass this concept by the City Council? What' s the procedure you want to follow? Olsen : You have that option. Either sending it to Council or you can just proceed with a zoning ordinance amendment. . . Batzli : We need a public hearing . I would think we'd kind of want Council ' s okay before we do that then. Conrad : It' s one of those cases where I 'd like passing it up to hear what they have to say before we spend a lot of time drafting an ordinance and they say, well we haven ' t seen the other side of it . Although they certainly can see Mark ' s comments here. Headla : They see our Minutes . If there ' s a problem. Olsen: The Council will be changing too. If you want to pass it onto the Council now and get their comments . Erhart : I would prefer to see this whole thing just go to the new Council in whatever form we want to pass it up. Either as an amendment or just for discussion. Conrad : There' s a lot of background . Emmings: With Mark' s memo. Of course, there' s the experience. Conrad : It' s all the cases of violations. Let ' s do this. Let' s pass it up to them just in terms of, to get their comments back. I can' t do that. I was thinking that was smart to get their feedback but what do you think? Do you want to pass it up for their awareness or do you want to make. . . Headla : Forget that . We ' re wasting time. Let' s draft something . Conrad: There' s a vote for a draft. Jim, what do you want to do? Wildermuth : Put it up to see what their thoughts are. Batzli : I don't think there' s going to be a whole lot of amendments to be done if we' re just going to eliminate it . It ' s kind of like cut and slash from one section but with that amount of work that has to go into it, I think we might as well just let them approve it before we waste more time. Planning Commission Meeting _ November 16 , 1988 - Page 46 C Ellson : I think they know it ' s coming too. I was at the last meeting when they did that one. I think they' re looking for something on it. — Like Dave, if we bring them the amendment or what have you, it' s like any surprise. What' s this we didn' t know anything was going on with this. Erhart : Didn' t we bring this to Council once already? — Ellson: They got your memo I 'm sure. Erhart : I made a presentation at Council from the Planning Commission. Olsen: They knew it was being considered. They know that staff is — working on it. Conrad: Annette , what do you want to do? Ellson: I just said, didn' t you hear me? I said I want to go on with Dave . Do the amendment . Emmings : When you started out by member I was going to say let' s send it up. Now I 've had my mind changed. That' s how wishy washy I am. I guess I think it is a waste of time because I 'd forgotten that we' ve already had _ some interaction with them on this issue as to whether or not we should work on this , as I recall . Conrad: Yes, but they haven' t seen this . — Emmings : And they said yes , go ahead . I think maybe the thing to do would be to say, let ' s delete it as a use except in the IOP and make sure that we pass Mark' s report on and say, here ' s a good discussion of the issues. This is the way we' ve come down on it and if you agree with us , then act this . That presents them with a nice,- finished product and something to discuss . — Ellson: If not it will come back with comments . Emmings: I guess I would say, let' s get the work done. Conrad : But that means we have to hold a public hearing before they see it. Emmings: We' re going to have to hold one anyway. Erhart: We' re going to have to hold a public hearing before they see it? Conrad : Right . As soon as we draft something , we hold a public hearing _ and we pass it up. Emmings : Let' s go ahead and have a public hearing . I think it ' s alright because they' ve already indicated to us that it was something they wanted to do. Planning Commission Meeting November 16 , 1988 - Page 47 Conrad : To look into right but we don' t know what they want to do . Erhart: I think the fact that there' s two alternatives here to this. Being that this is the issue that I 've been pushing, I wouldn' t mind going back up and saying, look it, here' s Mark' s report. There are two approaches . Conrad : So you'd like to forward it up for their information and input? Erhart: Yes, I think so. Conrad : I 'm for forwarding it up. Tim is for forwarding it up. Batzli : Forwarding it up. Emmings : So am I . Conrad : Can we adminstratively send this forward to the City Council with our opinion that we prefer eliminating them as any use in the rural area and to have their comments sent back to us? Olsen: We can put it on the 28th agenda. cEmmings: Can I make one more comment on this? It seems to me that if we' re going to eliminate contractor ' s yards, I think it' s important that somehow we get a handle on what we' ve got in the City. Again, it seems to me about the only way, I don' t know how it can be done but we ought to identify every contractor ' s yard and find out the extent of their present use. Whether it means going out there and taking photographs or whatever , spend a day and drive around and take photographs of each one, I don ' t know what but find out how big they are so we don' t wind up with people saying , since I can ' t go in here and have a contractor ' s yard, maybe I can rent space from Joe who' s already got a contractor' s yard and just put my stuff in with his . Maybe we' re running a risk of that but we better get a handle on what we've got. I don' t know how that' s done. Conrad : Jo Ann, when you take maternity leave , how long are you going to be gone for? Olsen : Three months . Conrad : With Don as Mayor and two new people on Council , somebody' s got to go through the background on this. Mark, I guess it will be you to do that . They really need a lot of background to look at the problem. Olsen: Do you want that type of information before we go to the Council? Emmings: No . I just think if we' re going to close the door on these things, we'd better know what we've got with it. Batzli : One more comment. I think your idea to rezone it just to 2. 5 acre residential developments to RR is not a bad idea regardless of whether we look at the contractor ' s yards. Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 48 Emmings : Another thing that goes on the list . Now is there really a list someplace? — Conrad : Only if I kept it or Barbara kept it. Olsen: We had that one updated that we gave you. — Emmings : Do you have a list? Olsen : We had one that you got in the memo . Then that memo that Mark and I lists a lot of outstanding . . . Emmings: Would you see that this gets onto the list? — Olsen: I ' ll just keep adding onto it. I ' ll keep that coming with each planning packet because you wanted that and then add with that memo and add what you want. Erhart: To follow up on your comment Brian. I had this discussion with — Jo Ann today. I feel that we should do that. Representing south Chanhassen and living in an area where all these big houses are going up and seeing what' s going on, I really firmly believe that if there is an RR ( area in the City, that is the most representative of the intent statement — for the RR district. I 'd like to see us move to change the area where those subdivisions are to an RR. If the Commission would ask staff to do that, I would really support that. — Batzli : I think we just did. Conrad : I thought we did. I was wondering if I thought of that or if we actually did it. WETLANDS , HORSE TRAILS - TIM ERHART. Erhart : Jo Ann called me on this and I talked to you Ladd about it . I — think this is a bigger subject than just the wetlands thing . I guess, as you can see from my memo on this thing , I 'm concerned about wetlands . On the other hand, I 'm not sure that we have an issue yet. One of the things that ' s going to happen , as soon as you get discussion with horse trails and snowmobile, because if it' s horse trails then it' s going to be snowmobile trails and it ' s going to be 3 wheeler trails. You' re going to get a big, emotional crowd up here. That ' s what was going to happen — tonight . So I asked Jo Ann , Ladd and I discussed it , we said let' s defer it to another time and let' s find out if we really want to get into this discussion . I guess I 'm hoping with the discussion that we had with Don — tonight, that we will go through, when we come up with a trail plan, whether or not it has horses and snowmobile trails on it, 3 wheeler trails , I hope if there' s a process that we follow so we come up with a plan that represents what the public wants , then I don' t think we need to — have this discussion right now on these wetlands and horse trails. If we have a discussion in a timely and orderly fashion as the trail plan Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 49 — 1 t develops so that' s why I 've sort of taken it off tonight . I 'd like to see it happen in an orderly fashion. Conrad : Given that the trail stuff will come back to us and we have to decide and groups have to decide whether to leave it alone or phase it in or do anything with the trails, I think it' s probably worthwhile to defer it to the time when it comes back to us and look at it. Unless Dave you want to jump in and talk the issue tonight . Headla: I don' t think we' re going to gain anything by talking about it. I 'd like to see that trail plan redone. I don' t think it was representative of what I perceive a lot of the people in Chanhassen would like. Tim started it here and I think he' s got some good points that we' ve just got to talk about openly and hold it to the public' s best interest . I live on the west side of Chanhassen, I 'm not sure we got the best shake out of that. Conrad : Unless there' s a contrary point of view, we' ll just defer this item as Tim recommended and wait and bring it up when the trails come back to us . Any other items? Would somebody like to talk about any new business? Headla : Yes , I 'd like to bring up something . I was at the, Annette was there too, at this meeting on Ches Mar. The comment came out again about mailings that went out . This isn' t the first time I ' ve heard people say they didn' t get this or that. I wondered, Jo Ann, some more work again , but to me do you ever do a spot check to see if people did in fact get the mailings? Olsen : We keep. . .do go out, we use the property owners in the applicant ' s file. That comes through an Abstract Company and they guarantee proper names and addresses . Headla : That says we' ve gone through the motions . We' re more interested in getting the job done and to make sure we get the job done, it almost seems that we ought to do a sample. On 2 or 3 mailings, pick out what you think is a reasonable sample. Call the people. Did you get the letter? Yes , okay. If you find that say out of the 3 times you' re satisfied that people are getting it, fine but right now, and the one that really sticks in my craw is the property to the northwest of mine where Dave Johnson sent out that mailing. So many people claim they never got it but I think Dave Johnson in his own mind felt that he really did what he was supposed to do. Olsen : He notified a lot of people on that one. Headla: But only 2 people showed up and some people felt well , you can' t always just can ' t come in the middle of the week. I guess I would like to see a check on some of the mailings to see if in fact the people did get it. Emmings: What can you do Dave? If you take an envelope and you put the person' s name on it and put a stamp on it and put it in the mailbox , you Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 50 -' c find out they' re not getting it , what can you do? Headla: If I know they' re not getting it, I know damn well I can get the _ problem solved but I can' t solve it if I think they' re getting it and then I don' t know if they got it or not. Ellson: You can send it registered mail . Emmings: What are you going to do? Headla : You call the people up. So many people up . If you know in fact you' re doing a good job, fine. You walk away and you know you' ve done a good job. But if you don' t sample what you do once in a while, how _ do you know if you' re doing a good job? Emmings : But if this time I call up 2 people and they didn' t get their mail for whatever reason, does that mean I 'm not going to do the same — thing next time? That is , address an envelope , put a stamp on it and put it in the mailbox. What will I do next time? Headla : I would go back and take a look at the process that I did do . Maybe they used the wrong address . Maybe they had a misspelling. Maybe it ' s a different street address . There' s got to be a reason. Emmings: There' s an easier way to do this. You just put a note on the bottom of the letter that says , if you don' t get this , call the City. Olsen: As far as Ches Mar , that was a matter of a public hearing . Headla : I knew you were going to say that but my point is , that isn ' t the _ only time. If that was the only time I heard that comment, that would be the end of the discussion but that isn ' t the only time. Ellson: It' s also in the paper right? If you' ve got an Affidavit of Mailing , that basically says there' s supposedly to be 10 things sent out and we've got a receipt that shows the Post Office got 10 things and that ' s as far as you can take it. If you show that you' ve got 9, then _ you' re right. Somebody may not have gotten theirs . Headla : I get very frustrated with these comments . I come from more of a database management. Database management is, you get data. You did the job. Yes , I did the job. Here' s the response . I got the answers and you did or you didn' t. Did we do the job or didn ' t we? Went through all the motions . Hey, we' re great guys . The job didn' t get done. I don ' t care about that. I want the job done. You don' t want to go through to the final line and say yes , the job did get done. Conrad: Trying to narrow in on the problem, and a lot of people say they didn ' t get informed . Typically when they don' t get informed , they were not the landowner of record which is what generally happens . The letter of the public hearing went to somebody else but as long as staff says they — sent a letter and they have an affidavit showing it, how are we going to solve the problem? If staff says they sent it , where ' s the missing , and Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 51 —1 somebody says they didn' t get it but it went to the right address. Is it a city problem? It' s the best form of communication, other than calling. Headla : If people perceive it' s a problem, it' s a problem period . I 'm not going to say if it' s a people problem or a city problem but it ' s a problem for us and let' s get it resolved . Conrad : But what' s the solution? Headla : You tell me what they' re real problem is and then I ' ll let you know. I don' t know if there is a real problem or not but I 'm asking to collect some data to see if there is a problem. If people complain about not getting notified and we can say, hey we sent these mailings out. We did a sample. We called the people. They are getting it . We verified our process. I wouldn' t go any further . Erhart: What you' re saying Dave is to take one example and test it through a test? Headla : Do a test sample. Erhart : Take one subdivisions or one public hearing . . . Emmings: All you' re testing is whether the post office can deliver the mail . That ' s all you' re testing . Headla : No, I 'm not . How do I know you' ve got the right name or the right address? Emmings : But you ' re going to run into problems there because of the problem that Ladd just mentioned. People who get the notice are the people who own the property. If they' re not the person who lives at that house, it goes to them at their address. If they live in Florida, they get it down in Florida . But now is she going to call that person in Florida to see if they got it because that ' s the person. . . Headla : I haven ' t heard anybody in Florida complain they didn' t get a mailing. Emmings: Don' t take me literally. Do you understand what I 'm saying? Or do you want her to call the person who' s living on that property and ask them if they got it? Headla : If they send it to an address in Chanhassen, you call that person. I don' t really understand. Are you objecting to having the receptionist call somebody? Emmings: No . Dave, I guess , it seems to me, and I don ' t care , if they want to do it they can go right ahead and do it. I have no strong objection to it but it seems to me that all you' re doing is , you want me to take a letter addressed to Ladd and put it in the mailbox. Now I 'm going to call Ladd up and say Ladd , did you get it? If he says yes . Now I verified that, all I verified is that the post office can deliver a damn Planning Commission Meeting November 16 , 1988 - Page 52 • letter . Now if he says no , what am I going to do next time? I 'm going to do the same thing. I 'm going to put a stamp on it and put it in the mailbox . — Headla : No you' re not . Emmings : Why not? Headla : You' re going to go find out why he didn' t get it? Emmings: I 'm going to go to the post office and say why can' t you deliver a letter . Headla : If I did that , the first thing I 'd go do is verify my mail . Did I have the right address on it? How am I dead sure that I got the right address on it? Emmings : Where do you get your addresses? Olsen: From an Abstract Company. — Emmings: She gets them from the Abstract Company. Headla: I tell you, so many things fall out when you start doing a test sample on it , it ' s amazing . Emmings: I think the Abstractor gets , it' s essentially the tax — information I think. She gets a list certified by an Abstractor . Headla : You' re talking over my head . I don' t know what an Abstractor is . Emmings? Okay, when I have to give notice to somebody. Say I 'm doing a project and I have to give notice to everybody within 500 feet of my property, I have to go to an Abstractor . That' s somebody who keeps — records of land transactions like they do at the courthouse like the County Recorder keeps. You have an abstract on your property or you have torrens property. One or the other . You know what your abstract looks — like. That' s put together by an abstractor . They go to him and say, I need a 500 foot property list . This Abstractor gives you a letter stamped and certified that these are all of the people who own property within 500 feet of your property. Here are their names and addresses . That list is — then given to the City as part of the application and they use, that' s how they get their addresses and names of the people who have to be notified . Then they do an affidavit that we gave notice to all the people listed on — the Abstractor ' s certificate . Headla: But then we want to test it to see if it works . — Emmings: The addresses that are on that list are the same addresses the County uses to send the tax statement to you. By God, they probably have it in pretty good shape . I don ' t care but it doesn' t seem to me you' re testing anything other than the post office. That' s my problem with it. That ' s all . Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 53 -- (7 c Headla : I wanted to tell the people who said they didn' t get notified , they can give an explanation. Erhart : What percentage of the people in this group do you think would tell you that they did get notified if you called their home? Headla : I have no idea . Erhart: Is it only 30%? Headla : I don' t have any data at all to show which way to go. Emmings: What is the specific example you ' re basing it on? Who didn' t get notified about what? Headla : The latest one, is the one on the Dave Johnson property. Conrad: Who' s that? Headla : That' s that contractor you know that I really went after . Where he said he had sent the notices out to all the people around and he got the addresses from here. Olsen: No, we did the affidavits . Headla : You did the mailings? Olsen : Yes , for the public hearing but he had a neighborhood meeting . Ellson: They' re saying they didn' t get notified for the neighborhood _ meeting? That was his business but we' re saying . . . Emmings: Now if they didn' t get notice from him, that' s not a city issue. If you' re talking about notice from us . . . Headla: Unless you got the names and addresses from us and I have no idea if he did or didn' t. Ellson : So it may not even be a problem. Conrad: There are cases where there are and usually they' re not the registered land owner . They' re not the land owner . Somebody else owns it and somebody in Florida gets their mail and that' s a problem. I think you' re talking about Jerry Eickus . Headla : That wasn' t a valid meeting anyway. _ Conrad : There ' s nothing you can say other than the City sends out ( letters. They have an affidavit. I think it' s our obligation to make sure that they always do that. They do typically. I don' t know Dave how to solve that. I know what you' re hearing. People love to talk about, I was not informed and that ' s a classic . That' s classic community Planning Commission Meeting November 16 , 1988 - Page 54 — involvement stuff . I wasn' t informed of this . Nobody told me. Headla : But I don' t have any information to go back and tell them they did get it . Conrad : But you can say the staff has an affidavit showing that it was sent. I think in this case, with Jerry Eickus , there' s an affidavit saying it was sent and she' s saying she didn' t receive it. Batzli : Then she should go to the post office. — Emmi.ngs : But there' s another thing too . You may be talking to a person who' s outside, in the case of the 500 foot thing, you may be talking to a _ guy who' s 1, 000 feet away and he doesn ' t get notice. Then we may want to address that. When I came on here to selfishly guard the lake I live on, one of the first things I tried to get through here and was lucky and we got through was a thing where if there' s development on the lake, not only — do you give notice to the people 500 feet around but to all the people who live around the lake because it impacts them all . So in that case, we changed who gets notice. You may want to look and see if we' re getting — the right people notice. Now that would make sense to me. That would be doing something . Conrad : I think it' s our obligation when we hear that , that they haven' t been informed is , us individually, to follow up with the City and find out why not. Headla : Check the facts . Conrad : Yes . It ' s got to be factual and we' ve got to talk to Jo Ann and _ we say, okay show us that it went out . Then I think you can definitely go back to that , and as long as we' re convinced that the address was right and that the City has the affidavit showing it ,- I think we can go back to that person and say, hey you' ve got to look at your mail . But I think — it ' s our job to follow up on that. Anything else Jo Ann? Olsen: I just need to know who of you are coming up for reappointment , if you still all want to be. . . Conrad : Who ' s coming up? I am. — Olsen: You and Steve and Tim and. . . Headla : Me. I think it' s me. Batzli : It might be me. Emmings : Now do we come up in front of the new Council or the old? Olsen: Council did discuss what they wanted to do and the ad that I 'm — going to be placing in the paper will simply state that we have four openings but the present Planning Commissioners who's positions are up Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1988 - Page 55 k still want to continue in that position. Make it clear to the public that most likely those four positions will still be filled . That anyone who' s interested can apply. Then the Planning Commission is to interview the people and the Council will take your recommendation. I just wanted to know if everyone was still interested . Conrad: Is there anybody that is not interested in running again or being appointed again? Erhart : Do we talk about pay first? Batzli : Do we know for sure who the fourth person is? Is it me or is it Dave? Olsen : There' s four but I 'm sorry, I don' t remember who the fourth one is. Headla : I think it' s me. Emmings : I just want the record to reflect that if it ' s the new Council that is considering my appointment, the only reason I was the treasurer for Bill Boyt' s campaign was because he had my son tied up in his basement. Olsen : We' ll call you and let you know. Emmings moved, Headla seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 11: 10 p.m. . Submitted by Jo Ann Olsen Asst . City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim ( CITY OF _ , -1 i= CHANHASSEN \ 1 , , ��' 690 COULTER DRIVE 10 P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 November 18, 1988 Dear Planning Commissioners: Attached is a copy of the memo on the ongoing Planning items. A copy was distributed at the November 16 , 1988, Planning Commission meeting . Items have been added to the list as a _ result of comments from the November 16th meeting. Please review this list and add any other items that you want — Planning Staff to address . Feel free to prioritize the items if you wish. This list can be used as a basis for Planning Commission and Planning Staff goals for 1989. Therefore, more general goals can be added. The attached memo will be your original copy to keep and any additional items added will be sent out as addendums to the ori- - ginal memo. So, please keep the attached memo for reference. You may either submit comments/additions to staff in writing or — by phone prior to the next Planning Commission meeting so that I can complete the list for the new City Planner. Otherwise, you should provide your comments to Steve Hanson at the December 7 , 1988, Planning Commission meeting. If I do not see you before I begin my maternity leave, I wish you all Happy Holidays and know that you will enjoy working with — Steve. Sincerely, Jo Ann Olsen Assistant City Planner JO:v _ . CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner DATE: November 3 , 1988 SUBJ: Ongoing Planning Items 1 . Official map of Highway 101 and Amendment to Chapter 15 of the Comprehensive Plan - The City Council tabled action on amending the Comprehensive Plan and adopting an official map for the realignment of Highway 101 until the official map could be completed by BRW and Fred Hoisington. It was assumed that some time in December the official map would be completed and could be brought before the City Council. This item is a priority item so that when the official map is completed it should be put on the first available City Council agenda. The reports have been written and are in the Land Use Plan File #88-5 . (Vicki - send Mark copies of those reports from the 13/24/88 City Council meeting; Fred' s report, my report on the offi- cial map and amending the Comprehensive chapter. Also, send Mark a copy of Alternative 2A of which we have a copy on my wall . ) 2 . Paisley Park Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage - - _ Paisley Park currently has outdoor storage behind the studio which has not received a conditional use permit. The outdoor storage needs to be screened and Red White from Paisley Park Studios knows that they have to receive the conditional use permit. Since they were so busy this fall with Prince' s con- certs , I let them put it off until this time. I will be sub- mitting a letter to Red stating that they need to come in as soon as possible and make application for the conditional use permit. (Vicki - I will be writing that letter and a copy of that should be sent to Mark and a file should be made for that conditional use permit and a copy of that letter placed in there. Mark Koegler and Future City Planner November 3 , 1988 Page 2 3 . Northwest Nursery - The Northwest Nursery needs to receive a conditional use permit for expansion of the wholesale nursery and a wetland alteration permit for alteration to the Class A wetland. I spoke with Mark VanHoff today (11/2/88) and they will be making application on November 7 for the December 7, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. The revised plans need to show the exact location of the wetland on the site and staff will be meeting with Mark VanHoff and Paul Burke and hope- - fully somebody from the Corps of Engineers to determine the exact boundaries of the wetland. 4 . Pfankuch/Frost (80 & 100 Sandy Hook Road) - These two residents reside on Lotus Lake. In the summer of 1988, they filled in a portion of a wetland adjacent to Lotus Lake, claiming that they did so to remove purple loosestrife. Staff visited the site with Paul Burke from the Fish and Wildlife Service and determined that a wetland was filled and some of the fill should be removed to permit the wetland to return to the site. It was felt that filling in the wetland was not the proper way to remove purple loosestrife and in fact has not removed purple loosestrife from the site. All of the information is in Wetland Alteration Permit #88-13 . (Vicki - I will be writing a letter to the involved parties stating that they must submit a wetland alteration permit application. Please send a copy of this letter to Mark and he can refer to file for more information. ) 5 . Tree Protection Plan - Alan Olson (DNR Forester) during the winter months of 1988 and 1989 will be identifying and inven- torying forested areas within the city boundaries of Chanhassen. This will involve aerial photography and on site field checking. Mr. Olson should have his field work completed by March of 1989 . The purpose of this is to designate important stands of trees which should be con- sidered to be preserved by the city from development. There should not be too much staff involvement at this point, but be aware that this is in the works if the City Council asks what the status of it is. A file is being made with the information in it. 6 . Retail West Shopping Center - Jim Winkels representing the Retail West development is in the process of pursuing Planning Commission and City Council approval for the shopping center sign. The site plan approval for the shopping center required that the sign receive Planning Commission and City Council approval. Staff has been working with Mr. Winkels and Jim Lasher from BRW to provide a design that meets city ordinance requirements and also meets with the downtown redevelopment plans . Currently, there are many illegal signs on the site and staff has stated to Mr. Winkels that these have to be Mark Koegler and Future City Planner November 3 , 1988 Page 3 removed prior to the other application process continuing . Mr. Winkels will be getting in touch with the tenants to have the illegal signs removed. Another outstanding issue is the motor fuel price signs for Brook' s Superette. The site plan review did not permit any signage on the canopy and the zoning ordinance only allows 4 square foot signs for motor fuel price signs to be located on the fuel pumps themselves. Brook' s Superette may be requesting a variance to the sign ordinance to allow additional or larger motor fuel price signs . Also, the developer of the site must resolve the issue of the fence behind the building. Staff has contacted Mr. Winkels about this issue and this needs to be resolved in the near future. There currently is a memo in the planning file from Barb Dacy discussing the issue of the fence and landscaping. (Vicki - Send Mark all of the information for site plan appro- val for Roos mini-storage facility and copy of application and site plan and sign design for sign variance . ) Wetland Map - Staff has contacted Mr. Paul Burke from the Fish and Wildlife Service about using the Fish and Wildlife Service to update our wetland map. Mr. Burke said that they would be very pleased to do that. Mr. Burke stated that the Fish and Wildlife Service would review aerial photographs and also make on site visits to create a complete and up to date map designating the wetlands within the City of Chanhassen. There would be no cost to the city for this except for to buy the maps from the Fish and Wildlife Service and that we could also purchase mylars from them so that we can make our own maps . In addition, Mr. Burke will be working with the city to possibly come up with a computer program that would allow staff to punch in a certain area of the city and determine whether or not a wetland does exist on that site. Mr. Burke said that they would be initiating this in November or December and the map would probably be completed some time in March. Again, there is not too much involvement from city staff at this point but you should be aware of what is going on because the City Council and Planning Commission is very interested in this . I will be writing a memo to the City Council and Planning Commission updating them on the Fish and Wildlife' s offer to update our wetland map and I have also asked Paul Burke to write a letter covering what it is they are proposing to do. Mr . Burke' s number is 290-3131 in case you need to get in contact with him. He is also our contact for any wetland alteration permits . He will visit the site with staff to determine what type of wetland it is and whether or not the proposed alteration is appropriate. Mark Koegler and Future City Planner November 3 , 1988 Page 4 November 16 , 1988 Pryzmus Mini-Golf Course and Driving Range: John Pryzmus is requesting amendments to his conditional use permit to permit him to have lighting, signage, extended hours of operation, etc. for his mini-golf driving range operation on Hwy. 5 and Galpin Boulevard. It was reviewed by the Planning Commission and returned to staff to looK at amending the ordinance to include regulations for lighting standards , signage, hours of operation, etc. for mini-golf and driving ranges . The Pryzmus conditional use permit file contains all of the updated information. The information has also been given to Mark Koegler. Reviewing Amendment to the Wetland Ordinance to Section 20-409, General Development Regulations: I would like to amend this sec- tion by adding that stables shall not be permitted within 200 feet of a wetland. This is a condition of approval for Conditional Use Permits for private stables in the RR and RSF Districts . The A-2 District allows stables as a permitted accessory use and therefore a stable in the A-2 District which is located on property that contains a wetland would not have any specific setbacks . The wetland ordinance itself should be amended to contain this condition so that all areas in the city would have to comply with the setback. Moon Valley Mineral Extraction: Moon Valley is a non-conforming use located on Hwy. 212. It contains a mineral extraction faci- lity and shooting range. This fall the owner of Moon Valley began extracting minerals on the north side of the property where it is serviced by a road from Pioneer Trail in Eden Prairie. There have been complaints about this activity in that they did not receive a mineral extraction permit and that it is questionable as to whether or not this could be considered as an extension of the existing non-conforming use since. Staff has been in contact with the attorney representing Moon Valley and has requested that a they proceed with a mineral extraction per- - mit application or else a stop work order on the site would be issued. It appears that the owner of Moon Valley will proceed with the mineral extraction permit although they claim that they do not need to do this . They are accepting bids for the cost to provide the survey and recent information necessary for the mineral extraction permit process. Once they receive these bids _ they will make the determination whether they will pursue it or not. Should they decide not to pursue it, a stop order should be immediately issued. The City Attorney Roger Knutson is aware of the situation and should be contacted to issue the stop work order permit if needed. General background - Moon Valley is extracting clay from the site for the Eden Prairie Landfill. They are assuming that the mineral extraction will be completed within the next two or three weeks . The applicant has stated that he will not continue to use the northerly site as mineral extraction but will instead maintain the site as is for possible Mark Koegler and Future City Planner November 3 , 1988 Page 5 future subdivision. Staff is requiring the mineral extraction permit so that we would have control over the extent of mineral extraction and the reclamation of the land. The property is in the A-2 District and mineral extraction is permitted as a con- ditional use permit. Staff chose not to request the applicant to receive a conditional use permit since that would allow mineral extraction to be continued on that site. A mineral extraction permit would have a set time limit. NOTE: Activity on the site has stopped for the winter. Staff is reviewing whether court action should be taken to require the applicant to still proceed with the permit now rather than wait until the applicant initiates activity again in the spring. The applicant' s attorney stated they will not proceed with the permit now and still question whether they would have to in the spring. Review A2 and BF Districts - There is a file on this with updated information. Review Sign Ordinance - Planning Staff has been directed to review permitting or prohibiting gas canopy signage. The sign ordinance does not specifically address gas canopy signage. Staff should also review illuminated vs . non-illuminated signage. Review Convenience Store Requirements - Several cities are amending ordinances to require service stalls as part of con- venience stores. The current direction of companies ( i .e. Amoco, SuperAmerica, etc. ) is to remove service stalls and have just convenience stores and gas pumps. Staff has contacted the City of Bloomington for a copy of their ordinance. The Planning Commission also wanted staff to review outside storage/display of sale items . Christmas Trees Sales - Review ordinance to allow seasonal sales . Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Sign Ordinance - To provide regula- tions for IOP District signs for large IOP lots and large IOP developments (single buildings, i .e. Rosemount) .