01-18-89 Agenda and Packet Fde
AGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 1989, 7 : 30 P.M.
—
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE
CALL TO ORDER
PUBLIC HEARINGS
NEW BUSINESS
1 . Site Plan Review and a variance to the parking lot require-
ments for a 696 square foot addition to the Chanhassen Taco
Shop on property zoned CDB, Central Business District and
located at 195 West 78th Street, Guy Peterson.
— 2 . Site Plan Review for a 97,600 square foot office/manufacturing/
warehouse facility on property zoned IOP, Industrial Office Park
and located on Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 , Block 2 , Park One Third
Addition, Ver-Sa-Til, R. Johnson Construction and Development.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
— OLD BUSINESS
OPEN DISCUSSION
ADJOURNMENT
d'i
CITY OF
Date: 1/18/89
. ' I cnANuAss: NicP...Cc..
Date: 2/13/89- !�„ epared by: Steve
Hanson/Fred Hoisington
ft._ AIIIIINIOMMIL
STAFF REPORT
- PROPOSAL:
Site Plan Review for a 696 square foot addition to the existing
Fm Chanhassen Taco Shop Restaurant (addition of 32 scats).
Z LOCATION:
QNorthwest corner of Highway 5 and Dakota Avenue.
— �V APPLICANT:
�.J Mr. Guy S. Peterson
Cl... 910 Nez Pcrce Court
— Q. Chanhassen, MN 55317
Q
PRESENT ZONING:
B11, Highway and Business Services District
—
ACREAGE:
+/- .75 acres
DENSITY:
N/A
— ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
N - R-12, Apartments
S - BH, Highway and Business Services, Service Station
- Lr E - BH, Highway and Business Services, Single-Family Residence
and Office Building
W - BH, Highway and Business Services, Rcd-E-Mix Cement Plant
0
— WATER AND SEWER:
W Available to property.
PHYSICAL CIIARACTERISTICS:
The property is an odd-shaped lot surrounded on three sides by streets. Soils
and slope conditions arc good for development.
1990 LAND USE PLAN:
Parks and Open Space.
+.
4-...............„..........._ — - - ,.......
0 am
, \
• ege in. •
IR 1 2
t.O. ...
• ,et
CO _
I. •:- . 4 iti ..... . 0 co .
ao ' ' '-\ , ,. . _
lib 6
• "alli . ' •; , ilie tfirAigg '• t 8 I
11 , :
,
-k E •:. 0%1_ . _
• '- C/,‘ %;).. ..•....
t i- 1 a .a 111.11111/ NOW V = w .r.• \../ r% ' 1 .
d701, . .. imp men INIMI law r WV t
. .
.,.. . ... • Maid gim, Tr rj rAl
Location of Proposed Addition l''' 4'
- ; t,". ' ' • ' 2 :-.. (-------A
)
_
t3-4iii W T H ST 0
lLitit ST I_Allya. • <,- .. ', '
all rigirli.. '
; •
MI . .• NE .
P • • BD ihr.-m —es
lt' #001111111 1 :1 II
- 416.6...- 1.4 1•••;!
, ..;..1.:0•••••."1111V1111011.5 '4,v/int" 0
I OP
(be. ..." i Pwellir 7 - f. fd we al* /NW
- . imia• 1614....:. c
s r 4
A r E 1
? IGH - '111:0. -- IN 11 '7: :It Miti a 1111110wir- .. „ 0
1111 I norpf. as Lei IL' 414 -, ••,t 0 0
,. ... . -
0 0 011 ' 1
I 1.
iv III
co
- .1.
co_ —
---: tool kvataohl vde a V : eloo
KUP41S t, ** •
) \ () ? d 1
• I
1
/ ( ?
I
,...... ---...) ...." qt.
•-i 11.111%Wil .M NI Iph
t •Relp
4. RSF
, — 8200
_-
AN .
., 1111KAKo A4
• A S
r. ,
MARSH * -
A 8300
• ..1 C I R CL E
_
ti.
CE SUSAN
D
,/4 ri
41,•1 7"r4111/ RICE M 1 "SH LAKE
/ -4-,
ST
1 _.\
: . ,' —
8600
-....._ _ _
VI,
. 1114
. :
86 T. _
•
p•
;
0 '
R > , r r -
RSF
.
4 -----8700
c7j3 r - • .
,
F
CI) p
z R 1 2 *t. 8800 ...
• Ft-- .r
' POND -()
a A I-,
:- ;.
., .
.1
<I
LAI ".4
-
t .... • s
CC :
CD
. ,
R18
.
-' -
1 lilt A r
- - -
ZONING HISTORY
February, 1972: The property was zoned C-3, Commercial Service District as
part of the adoption of Zoning Ordinance No. 47.
February, 1974: The property was zoned CBD, Central Business District as part
of the adoption of Ordinance No. 47-A.
December, 1986: The property was zoned BH, Highway and Business Services
District.
BACKGROUND
In June, 1982, the applicant applied for a Conditional Use Permit to construct
an addition onto the west side of the existing building which was previously a
drive-in restaurant. The owner wished to change the use of the property to
an off-sale liquor store. The owner did not pursue the Conditional Use Permit
and instead opened a taco shop in the existing building. Since the Taco Shop
was similar to the previous use and structural changes were not necessary,
the City did not require a Conditional Use Permit at that time.
In August, 1985, a Conditional Use Permit was granted for a 12' x 30' addition
onto the west side of the Taco Shop Restaurant. Since it was an intensification
of a use in a CBD (Central Business District), it required issuance of a
Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit was issued subject to four
conditions:
1) A 20 foot separation be maintained between picnic area and parking
stalls.
2) The Conditional Use Permit be reviewed if parking capacity is
inadequate to handle present traffic or if internal congestion poses
significant safety hazards.
3) The permit be reviewed in one year.
4) The permit be contingent on meeting Health Department and Building
Official's regulations.
2
PROPOSAL —
The applicant is proposing a 696 square foot addition onto the west side of _
the restaurant. The addition will include a public restroom, additional seating
for 32 people, and expansion of the kitchen area. The current building has
984 square feet, no public restroom, and seating capacity for 48. The addition —
will increase seating to 80 and total building square footage to 1,680.
There are 33 existing parking spaces. Five spaces are located along the east
side of the building, 19 are on the south side of the property, and nine are
adjacent to Apple Valley Red-E-Mix (see Site Plan). No additional parking —
spaces are planned. Major variances are being requested by the applicant to
avoid ordinance compliance in matters of setback, curbing and landscaping.
ANALYSIS
General Comment
The 8.5" x 11" Site Plan submitted by the applicant does not meet Site Plan
Review requirements. The following items are missing:
a. Complete site plans signed by a registered architect, civil engineer,
landscape architect or other design professional.
b. Boundary survey. —
c. Name of project on submitted Site Plan and date proposed.
d. Tabulation box - Percent of site covered by parking area, projected
number of employees, number of parking spaces required and —
number of handicapped parking spaces.
e. Location of all existing and proposed structures with distance from —
boundaries and building dimensions.
f. Vehicular circulation systems showing location and dimensions for all
driveways, parking spaces, parking lot aisles and loading areas. —
g. Landscape plan.
h. Lighting locations, style and mounting.
i. Signage details. —
j. Building elevations from all directions.
k. Fire hydrant location, proposed fire protection system. _
1. Trash storage location indicating closed containers within a totally
screened area.
3
We do not believe the Site Plan submitted correctly reflects the existing
situation.
Parking, Driveway and Access
Parking number requirements are satisfied since 28 spaces are required by
ordinance for a fast food restaurant (1 space per 60 square feet of gross floor
area). The applicant indicates there are 34 existing parking spaces. The
submitted site plan suggests that parking spaces 33 and 34 are of insufficient
width. In addition, the plan shows parking bay lengths of 16 feet in the west
parking area and 17 feet on the south side. Design guidelines for a parking
space call for a minimum length of 18 feet.
Driveway access on the south side of the building appears to be inadequate.
The dimensions shown on the submitted site plan are in error. There appears
to be less than the 24 foot minimum requirement for a two-way traffic
driveway.
There will be access problems to the Taco Shop since only right-in and right-
out traffic movements will be permitted to future Highway 101. There will
be no left turn median cut at future Highway 101 which will generate a
significant number of U turns at West 78th Street during peak noon hour or
lunch time periods. A private railroad crossing is proposed to serve both the
Taco Shop and Apple Valley Red-E-Mix from West 78th Street. There is a
potential problem with this railroad crossing in that the railroad may not
wish to issue a permit and/or that the crossing may be prohibitively
expensive to build and signalize.
Setbacks
Zoning Ordinance parking lot setback requirements are 25 feet for front yards
and street-side yards and 10 feet for side yards. The majority of parking
spaces do not meet setback requirements and most spaces have no setback
from property lines. If parking lot setbacks were met in all respects there
would be insufficient space for parking areas and driveways on-site.
Technically, the restaurant does not meet either parking number or setback
requirements.
4
Landscaping
There were no landscape plans submitted with this proposal. For existing —
sites, the Landscape Ordinance states: No structure shall be expanded unless
the minimum landscaping required is provided for the entire property. _
Because parking lot setback requirements cannot be met, there is insufficient
space to meet perimeter landscape requirements. In addition, there are no
interior landscape plans as required by ordinance for open vehicular use —
areas containing more than 6,000 square feet of area or 20 or more vehicular
parking spaces.
Curbing
Concrete curbing of parking lots and driveways are required in the BH
District. The submitted Site Plan does not indicate any additional curbing for
parking areas and driveways. _
Lighting
All commercial, industrial and multi-family parking lots are required to be
lighted. There were no lighting plans submitted by the applicant.
Signage
No detailed signage plans have been submitted.
5
RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning Staff recommends denial of the Site Plan for the Taco Shop for the
following reasons:
1. Future Highway 101 will not be allowed to have a left turn curb cut for
access into the Taco Shop which will cause a significant number of U turns
around the median (with West 78th Street and Highway 5). From a traffic
standpoint, this is a less than desirable solution to accommodate traffic
movements and access. If approved, the proponent should be required to
state in writing that he understands and will assume full responsibility for
loss of future access.
2. Considering the high visibility of the Taco Shop from Highway 5 and West
78th Street, landscaping and screening requirements for vehicular use
areas are especially important but will not be satisfied.
3. The 1990 Land Use Plan designates the Taco Shop property as Park and
Open Space because of its key location as a main entryway to the
downtown area. Expansion would be contrary to the City's Comprehensive
Plan land use designation.
4. The property owner cannot or does not intend to meet a substantial
number of zoning ordinance requirements concerning setbacks, curbing
and landscape requirements. Therefore, a number of variances will be
required. While the shape/size of the parcel may represent a hardship,
and warrant variance consideration, the magnitude of the variances is
simply too great to warrant approval as requested. The proposal is one
which blatently disregards the City's zoning requirements.
5. The Site Plan, itself, is incomplete and in error and a legitimate evaluation
of the proposal cannot be made.
Todate, an acceptable solution to access the Chanhassen Taco Shop from
future Highway 101 has not been found. Acquisition of the property was
contemplated as a possible action as part of the Highway 101 Feasibility
Study and costs were included for such acquisition. We would, therefore,
strongly recommend that the City give immediate consideration to opening
negotiations with Mr. Peterson to acquire the Taco Shop.
6
Attachments:
1. Site Plan Review Application dated October 17, 1988
2. Site Plan of Existing Conditions _
3. Site Plan of Proposed Addition
4. Letter from Steve Hanson, Planning Director, dated December 23, 1988
5. Letter from Building Inspector, dated January 3, 1989
6. Letter from Consulting Engineer, BRW, dated January 5, 1989
7. Development Plan Referral Agency letter stamped "Received
January 9, 1989"
7
Jam . I •
pr
b .% n'f '
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
APPLICANT: 31/4 6f/PSSV-.v S/0/0 OWNER: (6-) y C, Pe -e rs P,U
ADDRESS X9.5" CVP57- 7,'7` S ADDRESS / k-Z P-P/ 6 C2.
A1?-0))NCS"e=0) SS 3i CAp.A.1hASSe.J A/A/ 5-5-3/
Zip Code Zip Code
TELEPHONE (Daytime) G317/-. 3-,/ TELEPHONE `-//7/7/-3G0?-
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
Metes and Bounds
Conditional Use Permit
AeStreet/Easement Vacation
Site Plan Review
Wetlands Permit
PROJECT NAME ��('Q
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
PRESENT ZONING R
REQUESTED ZONING
USES PROPOSED
SIZE OF PROPERTY ?/? 4#) .
LOCATION b,,kd�/9 g 7//✓Y�
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST .,(%PC'j) Pvbc/c ,1/7.7/Tj0,1,q/ 9 ,,yig
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary)
- -
TMa A.1.• r..gal•r 4,..t...•.41.1.14. ut tT.aw•r,✓4.- rmc Aiet. c .$r aware*a:=ScahMi13 .- r ' •
Awa•r;..r. .0•.+. N/a r'r4sr 94,4.4/!*.II‘71,14 III it r fA$r Orae MO.f+04 r••l 12 \ ,4.5 '.1\• .( , —
u....�« 1Z2.1T' Jain . _r•.so..i..i ".....4"'Are f \J �.I '-11{
\tkort .:"..........,""
( V\ —
I
s-` `i \1 A SA,. d\i. k, 1
Zi
- Z.4••••/.1 • :\ y �t1 .7`''- •-
\c„. gyp1 w14.
�.�
,. i.. \
v `
\ A.T... ..:,:a
•
. '2' -----.....; 1. \ • .
•
\„,..••••"----.., -c• -.. \ .1\-3- \ . 1
-.1•••••• \\"...4. \\
w `\ P.
Mr
0
. \1:k.41.1........ .
r-`` ti
‘,..- \ ......\----"---; ,_
I
Q
v,\ A \
7 r� (W s
.L w ' I r-
• L
:: ....
•
.� - / <- 8
ion a
I
r -
T •
J •
• • • \ 1
-
`\\ •
I.^ IS • -
. , •
_ \` -• 2
t c.
.1
• .` IF
_ - ---.
--&
__.:;,:,�, h.„.,..„,.....2.14
.�-. �. . _ _� _ ��
—1 TO s.MOAT MIA fre.mrr.cf'•N.c ihre.romw gs..m.r•avee mehlsRJOewsr4WCTee¢Seetlswl3 ` -.
.-
/ws s r Lira .F•iw• ilea r'iusi O.wa.reA aF 7666 1/4A rE.As r pa144ro.ql Sic Meal a1 /,{3'
�' /O 7,J=•rte C(111-T.L.�_/a_rs� in•c i. �.3 iix✓' 4....--".....
_ ..j
•STI
;` `y:,1ce \.fig. . ` I •l
L lase (C'
rak 7.52 ;41
30 ..
7.'‘,..
t.ss \
L� ' i ♦ of �C. C1 I
.1.... �• _ II”( v�`�r,Lr•\ JSe
• •c .s"o pC",..,,
n b s.. •E r- S .
"I. 6'c. 7'' C� t4:‘,7.1...
- I. ' .4 y
S.
•
f / ` N
\''.4..1 \41 i a a
1 P
."
Z.
51/2
IA. Et
s'. Y `
�\ r �� Q I v
.�\ 'n
I r •
s �' ; I
p ' t
IL T.. -q4,.. N
a t goy 6- Q a
L '. "Ij 4.4 ...t. i•
L
X37 i
I .. L
I _ sod' e S
•
w •
•
7. 1;) I
I x . __. e7.z.s' 1 g
• \ \\ / ' I. .
I.
• 0
•
_ I = A
_ 1.
•
• I . I ; s
r
•
I
5- \ •-S .
•
t �
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 —
December 23 , 1988
Mr. Guy Peterson —
Chanhassen Taco Shop
910 Nez Perce Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Response to Site Plan Application and Variance Request
Dear Mr . Peterson: —
In reviewing the application material submitted to us regarding
the addition planned for the Chanaassen Taco Shop, the following
deficiencies in meeting Zoning Ordinance requirements are noted:
1 . Zoning Ordinance parking lot setback requirements are 25 feet
for front yards and street side yards and 10 feet for side —
yards . The majority of parking spaces ( 20 out of 33 shown)
do not meet this setback requirement.
2 . Because parking lot setoack requirements cannot be met, there
is insufficient space to meet perimeter landscape require-
ments. In addition, there are no interior landscape plans as —
required by the ordinance.
3 . Concrete curbing of parking lots and driveways are required
in the BH District. The submitted plan does not indicate
any additional curbing.
4 . The application for Site Plan Review has a number of missing _
items . It is recommended that the following items be submit-
ted:
a. Complete site plans signed by a registered architect, —
civil engineer, landscape architect or other design pro-
fessional.
b. Boundary survey.
•
c. Name of project on submitted site plan and date proposed. —
d. Tabulation box - Percent of site covered by parking area,
projected number of employees, number of parking spaces
required and number of handicapped parking spaces . —
Mr. Guy Peterson
December 23 , 1988
Page 2
e. Location of all existing and proposed structures with
distance from boundaries and building dimensions .
f . Vehicular circulation systems showing location and
dimenstions for all driveways, parking spaces, parking
lot aisles and loading areas.
g . Landscape plan.
h. Lighting locations , style and mounting.
i . Signage details .
j . Building elevations from all directions .
k. Fire hydrant location, proposed fire protection system.
1 . Trash storage location indicating closed containers
within a totally screened area. -
5 . Specific findings need to be made for variances pursuant to
Section 20-58 of the City Code. Attached you will find a
copy of this section. I would suggest you address how each
of these applies to your situation.
In order for City Staff to properly review your site plan appli-
cation, it is in your best interest to complete the missing items
required for site plan review. If not, we will aegin processing
your application as presently, submitted and discuss the insuf-
ficiency of the application with the reviewing bodies .
Sincerely,
r •3 r
Stephen Hanson
Planning Director
SH:v
Enclosures: Variance Requirements 20 .56 - 20 .60
Site Plan Requirements 20 .106 - 20 .108
cc: Fred Hoisington
Don Ashworth
!cITY OF
1
1*.
NEAS SEX
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 A__Cfk
DATE: January 3, 1989
SUBJ: Planning Case 85-7 CUP (Chanhassen Taco Shop)
1 . Applicant has an outstanding building permit (#2201)
dating back to 2/88 . This permit must be finaled before
any other permits are issued.
2. This is a commercial building. All applicable items on
the "Commercial Building Permit Requirements" handout
must be submitted before permit issuance. The handout is
enclosed with applicable items marked.
3 . Existing building and parking areas must meet all provi-
sions of SBC Chapter 1340 , building code handicap
requirements .
4 . Existing kitchen facilities must be approved by the MN
State Board of Health as being adequate to handle the
increased load.
PLANNING
,� .' TRANSPORTATION
ENGINEERING
BRW. INC THRESHER SQUARE 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS.MINNESOTA 55415 PHONE 617/170 0700 FAX 612/370 1378
January 5, 1989
Mr. Stephen Hanson
Planning Director '—
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317 —
RE: Site Plan Review
Chanhassen Taco Shop —
Dear Mr. Hanson:
As you requested, we have reviewed the ahove-referenced Site Plan submittal . —
Dur review has focused on the relationship of this site to the proposed
realignment of TH 101 which will he aligned directly to the east of this site.
Utilities
1. Sanitary Sewer -
This site currently has sanitary sewer service. Lack of information
does not clarify sanitary sewer service needs for the expansion area,
however the assumption is that no new service will he necessary, or if
so, that the existing service will meet the needs of the expansion. —
2. Water Service -
This site is currently served by City water. Similar to the sewer, our
assumption is that a new water service will not he necessary for the
expansion.
3. Storm Sewer and Drainage - —
Uncontrolled storm runoff currently occurs on this site. The proposed
expansion will not materially impact the amount of storm runoff.
Roadways
1. Site Acess -
This site currently has all access from Dakota Avenue/West 78th Street.
Full movement in all directions can occur. The approved layout for the
relocation of TH 101 proposes a right-in/right-out driveway entrance
only. (See attached sketch). A right-in/right-out driveway is the only —
acceptahle option for this particular site.
AN AFFILIATE OF THE BENNETT FuNGRO"E VHDL SFELD.JARVIS CANONLR INC GROIN'
DAVID J BENNL TT DONALD W RINGROSE RICHARD P WOI.S*ELD PETER E JARNI i I AWRENCT.1 GARONLR THOMAS f CATtR(X I (MAN;A AM(,NU SEN .N MAI IIE i 1,nil
MARK G SWENSON JOHN B MCNAMARA RICHARD D PILGRIM DALE N BECKMANN DENNIS J SUTUFF JEFFREY L BENSON RAIN I C SLUM DAVID L GRAHAM
MINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX TUCSON ST PETERSBURG
Mr. Stephen Hanson
Page 2
January 5, 1989
The continued functioning of this husiness, and in fact the expansion of
this business, will contribute significantly to potential traffic
problems at TH 101. Specifically, a full median which also permits
right-in/right-out movement may encourage U-turn movements on TH 101.
If we may he of further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
RRW, Inc.
Gary A. Ehret, PE
Project Manager
GAE:mr
cc: Mr. Gary Warren
Mr. Fred Hoisington
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612)937-1900
Date: December 29, 1988 JAN 0 9 1989
CITY.OF CHANHASSEN
To: Development Plan Referral Agencies
From: Planning Department By: Steve Hanson, Planning Director
Subject: Site plan Review and Variance for a 696. square foot addition & parking
area of the existing Chanhassen Taco Shop located at 195 W. /8th Street
on property zoned CBD
Planning Case: 85-7 CUP
The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was
filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on 12-26-88 —
In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission
and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recoendations _
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 frau 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 18 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at
Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later _
than January 9th . You may also appear at the Planning Commission
meeting if you so desire.
Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. _
1. City Departments 7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources•
_
a. City Engineer 8. Telephone Company
h' City pt}ornoy (NW dell or United)
c. City Park Director
d. Public Safety Director 9. Electric Company
e. Building Inspector (NSP or MN Valley)
2. Watershed District Engineer 10. DOWDEN Cable System
3. Soil Conservation Service 11. Roger Machmeier/Jim Anderson _
4. MN Dept. of Transportation 12. U. S. Fish and Wildlife
5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 13. Carver County Engineer —
6. Minnegasco // s— R9 14. BRW
Nr04P c...Stc: 1� .c. f7af �� a / Other _
�S rc • �-. 15. Jerry Boucher
CITY OF
\ ,
L
_ 1 _
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer0110
DATE: January 12 , 1989
SUBJ: Site Plan Review for a 696 Square Foot Addition to the
Existing Chanhassen Taco Shop Restaurant
Planning File No. 88-19 Site Plan , Guy S. Peterson
Attached is a letter of review from Gary Ehret of BRW dated
January 5, 1989 which outlines the basic concern of the utili-
ties, roadway and access (refer to attachment #1) .
Chapters 20-106 and 20-107 of the Chanhassen City Zoning
Ordinance list the requirements which are necessary to properly
address the site plan review (refer to attachment #2 ) . The
information which was forwarded to the City is lacking sufficient
detail to meet these requirements. In addition, section 20-107 ,
subcategory 3 in summary states that the plans shall be signed by
a registered professional . The City feels that this is important
such that we are not open to any liability caused by the design.
It is my understanding that the applicant does not wish to pro-
- vide any more information and has requested that this review go
before the Planning Commission and Council. Under these cir-
cumstances, it is the recommendation of this office that this
site plan be denied until such time as a proper review may be
conducted with the pertinent information necessary.
Attachments
1 . Letter from Gary Ehret of BRW dated January 5 , 1989 .
2 . Excerpt from Zoning Ordinance Section 20-106 and 20-107.
Er—'
� i t�w� TRANSPORTATION t(�� ]] T TRANSPORTATION
n ENGINEERING
BRW INC. • THRESHER SQUARE • 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS.MINNESOTA 55415 - PHONE 612/370-0700 FAX 612/370-1378 --
January 5, 1989
Mr. Stephen Hanson
Planning Director —
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Site Plan Review
Chanhassen Taco Shop
Dear Mr. Hanson:
As you requested, we have reviewed the above-referenced Site Plan submittal .
Our review has focused on the relationship of this site to the proposed
realignment of TH 101 which will be aligned directly to the east of this site.
Utilities
1. Sanitary Sewer -
This site currently has sanitary sewer service. Lack of information
does not clarify sanitary sewer service needs for the expansion area,
however the assumption is that no new service will be necessary, or if
so, that the existing service will meet the needs of the expansion.
2. Water Service -
This site is currently served by City water. Similar to the sewer, our
assumption is that a new water service will not be necessary for the
expansion.
3. Storm Sewer and Drainage -
Uncontrolled storm runoff currently occurs on this site. The proposed
expansion will not materially impact the amount of storm runoff.
Roadways
1. Site Acess -
This site currently has all access from Dakota Avenue/West 78th Street.
Full movement in all directions can occur. The approved layout for the
relocation of TH 101 proposes a right-in/right-out driveway entrance
only. (See attached sketch) . A right-in/right-out driveway is the only
acceptable option for this particular site.
l\f�C.a....Y
AN AFFILIATE OF THE BENNETT RINGROSE.WOLSFELD JARVIS GARDNER INC GROUP ,y/yJ 4 N 0 9 1989
DAVIDJ
ROSE
OLSFELD
IS
G BENNETT WENSON DONALD
JOHNN B McNAMMARA RICHARD
RICHARD WD PILGRIM PETER DALE N JBEC MANN LAWRENCEDLNNIS GARDNER
RA LI F THOMAS
JEFFREY L BENSON L CRAIG
RA PrTC ^'Sr i I I
MINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX TUCSON ST PETERSBURG
40/
Mr. Stephen Hanson
January 5, 1989
Page 2
The continued functioning of this business, and in fact the expansion of
this business, will contribute significantly to potential traffic
problems at TH 101. Specifically, a full median which also permits
right-in/right-out movement will encourage U-turn movements on TH 101.
If we may be of further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
BRW, Inc. S
614) !/ALXAAj±/
Gary A. hret, PE
Project Manager
GAE:mr
cc: Mr. Gary Warren
Mr. Fred Hoisington
§ 20-94 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
•
(d) Every effort shall be made during the building permit application process to deter-
mine the full extent of erosion control required. However, the city engineer shall be empow-
ered to require additional controls to correct specific site related problems as normal inspec-
tions are performed.
(e) All erosion control measures noted on the approved plan shall be installed prior to the
initiation of any site grading. Noncompliance with the grading and erosion control plan shall —
constitute grounds for an order from the city engineer to halt all construction.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 4(34-4), 12-15-86)
Secs. 20-95-20-105. Reserved.
DIVISION 6. SITE PLAN REVIEW —
Sec. 20-106. Required.
(a) The city council, with the advice and recommendation of the planning commission,
shall review and approve a site plan application before issuance of a building permit in the
multiple family districts and in the business, office and industrial districts. Expansion of a
building in any manner which results in a different intensity of use, including the require-
ment for additional parking, shall also require site plan approval.
(b) The following do not require site or building plan approval:
(1) Construction or alteration of a single-family or two-family residential building or
buildings accessory thereto;
(2) Enlargement of a building by less than ten (10) percent of its gross floor area,
provided that there is no variance involved and also provided that the city planner
approved the enlargement; and —
(3) Changes in the leaseable space of a multi-tenant building where the change does not
intensify the use, require additional parking, or result in an inability to maintain
required performance standards.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 6(3-6-1, 3-6-2), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-107. Application.
Application for a site plan review shall be made to the city planner on forms provided by 411
the city and shall be filed three (3) weeks in advance of the planning commission meeting at -�
which it is to be considered. The application shall also include:
(1) Evidence of ownership or an interest in the property;
(2) The application fee; and
(3) Complete site plans,signed by a registered architect,civil engineer, landscape archi-
tect or other design professional, to include the following:
a. General: •
1. Name of project. —'
1166
ZONING § 20-107
2. Name, address, and telephone number of the applicant,engineer, and owner
of record.
3. Legal description(certificate of survey may be required).
4. Date proposed, north arrow, engineering scale, number of sheets, name of
drawer.
5. Vicinity map showing relationship of the proposed development to surround-
ing streets, rights-of-way, easements, and natural features.
6. Description of intended use of the site, buildings, and structures including
type of occupancy and estimated occupancy load.
7. Existing zoning and land use.
8. Tabulation box indicating:
(i) Size of parcel in acres or square feet.
(ii) Gross floor area of each building.
IMED (iii) Percent of site covered by building.
(iv) Percent of site covered by impervious surface.
(v) Percent of site covered by parking area.
(vi) Projected number of employees.
(vii) Number of seats if intended use is a restaurant or place of assembly.
(viii) Number of parking spaces required.
(ix) Number of parking spaces provided including handicapped.
.41111
(x) Height of all buildings and structures and number of stories.
b. Site plan:
1. Property line dimensions, location of all existing and proposed structures
with distance from boundaries, distance between structures, building di-
mensions, and floor elevations.
2. Grading and drainage plan showing existing natural features (topography,
wetlands,vegetation,etc.)as well as proposed grade elevations and sedimen-
.. tation and storm water retention ponds.
3. All existing and proposed points of egressiingress showing widths at prop-
erty lines, turning radii abutting rights-of-way with indicated center line,
width,paving width,existing and proposed median cuts,and intersections of
streets and driveways.
4. Vehicular circulation system showing location and dimensions for all drive-
ways, parking spaces, parking lot aisles, service roads, loading areas, fire
lanes, emergency access (if necessary), public and private streets, alleys,
sidewalks, bikepaths, direction of traffic flow, and traffic-control devices.
5. Landscaping plan in accordance with the provisions of article XXV.
6. Location, access, and screening detail of trash enclosures.
7. Location and screening detail of roof top equipment.
8. Location and detail of signage.
9. Lighting location, style and mounting.
10. Building elevations from all directions.
11. Utility plan identifying size and direction of existing water and sewer lines,
fire hydrants, distance of hydrant to proposed building.
1167
§ 20-107 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
1110 12. List of proposed hazardous materials, use and storage. —
13. Proposed fire protection system.
(Ord. No. 80,Art. III, § 6(3-6-3), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-108. Issuance building permit and certificate of occupancy.
A building permit may be issued if the proposed construction conforms to the approval
granted by the city council. A certificate of occupancy may be withheld if construction is not
consistent with the terms of plan approval and will not be issued until the terms of plan _
approval are met. Minor changes to the approved site plan may be made after review and
approval by the city planner.Major changes shall require the submission of another site plan
review application.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 6(3-6-4), 12-15-86) --'
Secs. 20-109-20-200. Reserved.
ARTICLE III. ZONING DISTRICTS GENERALLY AND —
ZONING DISTRICT MAP
Sec. 20-201. Establishment of districts.
The city is divided into the following zoning districts:
Agricultural Districts
"A-1" Agricultural preservation district.
"A-2" Agricultural estate district.
Residential Districts
"RR" Rural residential district.
"RSF" Single-family residential district.
"R4" Mixed low density residential district.
"R-8" Mixed medium density residential district.
"R-12" High density residential district.
Business District
"BN" Neighborhood business district.
"BH" Highway and business services district.
"CBD" Central business district.
"BG" General business district.
"BF" Fringe business districts.
Institutional and Industrial Districts
"OI" Office and institutional district.
"IOP" Industrial office park district. —
1168
C 1 TY O F P.C. DATE: Jan . 18 , 1989
� C H A N H A S C.C. DATE: Feb. 13 , 1989
_ 1 Y � �
CASE NO: 88-18 Site Plan
Prepared by: Hanson/v
•
STAFF REPORT
_ PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for a 97, 400 Square Foot Office/
Manufacturing/Warehouse Facility
F-
z
- LOCATION: Lots 1-4 , Block 2 , Park One Third Addition
V West of 184th Avenue, North of W. 77th Street and
Southeast of Quattro Drive
APPLICANT: R. Johnson Construction Del Bogema
CL 7204 West 27th Street 7009 Oxford Street
St. Louis Park, MN 55426 St. Louis Park, MN 55426
PRESENT ZONING: IOP, Industrial Office Park
ACREAGE: 8 . 29 acres
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- IOP; presently vacant & partially
developed industrial
S- IOP; The Press
E- Residential - Eden Prairie
W- IOP; industrial uses and vacant land
F— WATER AND SEWER: Presently available to the property
Q PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The property is an odd shaped block surrounded
by public streets on all sides . Soils and
slope conditions are good for development .
Existing stands of trees on south edge of
property as well as along northern portion of
(f) property with a large drainage area also
located on the north end.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Industrial
• rL.,� - 1 _..d ••
t ✓1�' I 'D—RI
r ? 6700
` ' '' '� I
;` f
--•6800
I RD /t�1Asc _
���10 11 6900
OR L OT/JS ���-
1 imia.. ,
limi ,� "Me04%;::. :;A 7000
,...,'. .M._t1M1i p11t1s•,1Pk.1It.,V.;.A,iIIvt.M.
\14\, . L 6.13*4\,/P,
•.-4.,41
--,,i
--7 00 ?fzopos
EE.
D I
F A1' -1 7200 1
sv—6oi,a.1-....-.1-
,.4
A Y,g 1E
4N.
.-
las. ■■■.��t f��� �
I 2
=./„ tiIla� �� `` \ 1, i 7400
o
�0 wr•CV:- , — --R 12 co8 op
et, :• �1F• ' 0 _) 0 - 7500
; .:4fritt. Ira VA ' •1 Ol /�
• -iiir `.
■ z l■U .11:1V'MT ow: I �i1 [ !- !IiiüIA
1 : 00
t■�Ng I �ifigp x`: .....11111,11 :"1::`I::111 _ _2 ti-, z • 7700 I
1�� �.. ti.� (1 ,.11 •
■ 11111 14lw. TM sT:111 11��/
BD LIEff ,-; ' 'ow 4 ,i la non. . TaoO
„mei :
noo_ _ _--- -....-,- ..,,,,,_ „In 0,,,,.3 Ai .., .... _ 3 10P
galfrw_ vat. _ 1.0. • Elton: %ow _I
IN 11-1" digid0 wm�im, ii.,":101. .., miz 1111•44,. divri
'+ 1 �
IGNW AY 'fit; �`LI� L 7. i� it.4,'� o 0 800
0 i1:1701,1'. . - is- ■
ii ss . 10 Ft a oBerw.4p co co
Lti
Ma';;11)19.1;al It 9 '- 11
s.lr),, e, ` 8100
4 -a cil (.-.- 5)
i � �� r ■ � J ;
,17 q1//�INS �1� •. •• m' — 8200 ti�
. 0- E RSF
Ver-Sa-Til Site Plan
January 18, 1989
Page 2
BACKGROUND
This area was subdivided in 1986 and received final plat approval
on October 20, 1986 by City Council. The applicants have bought
all four lots within Block 2 , Park One Third Addition. The pro-
posed plan meets the lot requirements for the IOP District.
Specifically, the maximum lot coverage in the IOP District is
70% . The proposed plan has a lot coverage of 50% . The minimum
setback for this particular parcel is 30 feet all the way around
the perimeter and all of the improvements are outside of that 30
foot setback requirement. The maximum height requirements in
this district allow principal structures up to 50 feet. The pro-
posed structure is 22 feet in height for the manufacturing area
as well as for the two story office area.
The building itself will consist of 75 ,000 square feet of manu-
facturing and warehouse space and a two story office area of
11 ,200 square feet on each floor. The office area of the
building will be located on the southeast portion of the proposed
structure. The loading and unloading area as well as trash area
is located in the western portion of the site. The trash area is
proposed to be enclosed within the existing building so that
there will be no outside storage of trash on this particular
site.
ANALYSIS
The applicant' s have submitted a very complete package. In the
process of reviewing their plans, they have come up with one
change, which has shifted the building and site improvements to
the south and west from the original submittal. The purpose of
this shift was to reduce the impact on the drainage area to the
north as well as reducing the impact on the tree areas which
exist along that northern area.
Landscaping
The proposed landscaping plan indicates the desire to maintain
existing tree coverage surrounding the proposed building as much
as possible. The southeast portion of the site presently is
lacking any existing tree cover and in this area they are con-
centrating the majority of the new plantings along that par-
- ticular edge. This is also the side which is adjacent Eden
Prairie. It is unclear on the plans whether all of the existing
tree cover on the site is being saved and which portions would be
removed. We have requested that the applicant roughly stake out
the existing tree area that would be disturbed and the potential
trees to be removed on this particular site. This ara will be
marked on site Monday or Tuesday before the Planning Commission
meeting.
Ver-Sa-Til Site Plan
January 18 , 1989 —
Page 3
On the eastern edge of the property where no tree cover presently
exists, the applicants have proposed a landscaping scheme in this
area that is consist with the requirements of the zoning code for —
landscaping between the right-of-way and the vehicular use areas .
This particular area slopes from the right-of-way up to the
parking area. This existing slope will provide a buffer from —
properties to the east.
The code requires landscape areas to break up parking. In this
particular case, the requirement for the existing area of parking —
would be 4 ,440 square feet. In looking at the proposed site
plan, the areas along the eastern and western edge of the prop-
erty appear to have sufficient landscaping to break up that _
parking. The large parking area running from east to west along
the southerly edge of the property, however, could be broken up
more with additional landscaping. It is suggested that 8 of the _
parking stalls in this area be removed and be replaced with
landscaped areas. Suggested distribution of the landscaped areas
would be removing 2 parking stalls on the east and west end of
the center parking area and adding those to the landscaping shown
on the ends . Then deleting 4 parking stalls in the middle of
that parking strip and devoting them to a landscaped area.
The site plan shows 209 parking spaces with the lost of eight (8 )
spaces the site will still meet required parking with 201 spaces
and only 184 required.
Trash and Mechanical Equipment
The site plan notes that all trash is to be included within the
structure itself and there will be no outdoor storage of trash.
The plans do indicate mechanical equipment to be located on the
roof will be screened. Details need to be submitted for this _
screening.
Signage
The applicants have designated a ground sign to be located
towards the front entrance of the office portion of the building
well within the property itself . The size of the sign is 80 _
square feet. The dimensions are 16 feet in length and 5 feet in
height.
Lighting
The plans indicate all exterior lighting is to be mounted on the
building. Details on this lighting need to be provided to indi-
cate and show that the light will not shine onto adjacent proper-
ties . This lighting should also be shielded so as not to be
visible from adjacent properties .
Ver-Sa-Til Site Plan
January 18 , 1989
Page 4
Platting
The proposed building as situated sits over four existing lot
lines which have platted easements along those lot lines. As a
result of this , the applicant will be required to replat this
area into one lot. This plat has been prepared by the applicant
and will be presented to the Planning Commission at their next
regular meeting on February 1st.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #88-18
based on the plans stamped "Received December 27 , 1988" and
revised plans stamped "Received January 11, 1989" , subject to the
following conditions:
1 . Additional landscaping be provided in the parking area.
Specifically, this should include converting 8 parking stalls
to landscaped areas .
2 . All rooftop mechanical equipment will need to be screened and
detailed plans provided.
3 . Details on exterior lighting need to be submitted to show
that lighting is screened and will not be visible from adja-
- cent properties .
4 . Conditions from referral agencies:
a. The building must be sprinxlered.
b . A checklist of requirements is attached that must be
must as a part of the building permit process .
c . Fire hydrants need to have a spacing of 300 foot maximum.
d . Fire Department needs 25 foot minimum clear width on
parking rows for emergency vehicles.
e . Inside trash storage area shall be protected by an
improved automatic sprinkler system.
5 . The applicant shall receive and comply with all conditions of
the Watershed District permit.
6 . The applicant shall install all erosion controls prior to the
commencement of any construction . All erosion controls shall
remain in place throughout the duration of construction. The
developer shall be responsible for making periodic checks of
all erosion controls and making any repairs promptly.
Ver-Sa-Til Site Plan
January 18 , 1989 —
Page 5
7 . The plans shall be revised to incorporate the City' s standard
driveway apron for commercial development as depicted in _
Attachment #1 of City Engineer' s memo.
8 . The plans shall be revised to include typical sections for
both types of driveway surfaces . —
9 . The applicant shall be responsible for all debris and clean
up on and off site resulting from the construction of this _
site.
10 . The applicant' s engineer shall provide the city with a full
set of "As-Built" mylar reproducable copies prior to
receiving a certificate of occupancy.
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Application —
2 . Site plan documents .
3 . Referral comments from the following:
a . Memo from Larry Brown dated January 12 , 1989.
b . Memo from Lori Sietsema dated January 11 , 1989 . —
c . Memo from Mark Littfin dated January 5 , 1989 .
d . Memo from Steve Kirchman dated January 4 , 1989 .
e . Letter from City of Eden Prairie dated January 10 , 1989 . —
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
APPLICANT: R.Johnson Const. & Dev. ,Inc. OWNER: Del Bogema
ADDRESS 7204 W. 27th St. ADDRESS 7009 Oxford St
St. Louis Park,MN 55426 St Louis Park, MN 55426
Zip Code Zip Code
TELEPHONE (Daytime) 920-1222 TELEPHONE 929-0626
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
Metes and Bounds
Conditional Use Permit
X Street/Easement Vacation
Site Plan Review
PROJECT NAME Ver-sa-Til Associates, Inc.
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Industrial
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Industrial
PRESENT ZONING I.O.P.
REQUESTED ZONING I.O.P.
USES PROPOSED New office/manufacturing/warehouse building
SIZE OF PROPERTY 8.29 acres
LOCATION NW corner of W. 77th St and 184th Ave W
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST Site plan review for new building
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary)
Park One Industrial Park Block 2
DEC 2 7 1988
(over) CITY OF CHANHASSE:Ni
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 t ;:��.i� '"7"�� • Date Dec. /2 - Z 7—
Robert \T: v Applicant Johnson —
R. Johnston Construction & Development, Inc.
The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been
authorized to make this application for the property herein
described.
ei
i
Signed By ESVoiw �� //�/I Date Dec. 7 t-� 15 IR —
F-e Owner
11:1B.._. _
"er-sa-' Associates, Inc. —
Date Application Received 42-',= 7-ics
Application Fee Paid /A7—6 b'
City Receipt No. d
* Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/
Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their
meeting.
Q. FIRE SPRINKLER
_ Install a wet type fire sprinkler system. This system is to be reviewed
by I.S.U. Canmrcial Risk Insurers and the City.
Design criteria: N.F.P.A. # 13 Ordinary Hazard Group # 3. .21 density
over 1,500 sq.ft. and 130 sq.ft. spacing per head.
Sprinkler Heads: Warehouse - Standard brass upright heads installed on
exposed piping.
Office - Chrome semi-recessed heads installed on
concealed piping.
Sidewall heads under overhead doors.
. , - v. . , .1 Wall-Paks
Tvijvii i � SERIES 70/400 W. 35 W. LPS s
z .
Wet Locations r •
_
I
• :I
HOUSING-Rugged cast aluminum. Stainless steel external hardware. Dark bronze polyester
powder finish standard. I. -
OPTICS-Specular anodized aluminum reflector with prismatic borosilicate glass refractor. -1
Sealed and gasketed lens. ,or,--___
BALLAST-High power factor,factory-tested ballast. Electrical components:200 Watt and less,
mounted on back housing;250 and 400 Watt, mounted on front cover.
INSTALLATION-Accommodates back and top wiring. Use condulet tee for feed-thru wiring. Mounts
on any flat surface.
APPLICATION-Pedestrian areas, underpasses, stairways,garages, loading docks. -
ORDERING INFORMATION
Lamp Type Catalog Voltage Ballast Lamp Weight
&Wattage Number (Specify) Type Description Lbs.-Kg.
70 TWH 70S HX-HPF 22.5 - 10.23
70 TWH 70SN R-NPF 22.5 -10.23
70 TWH 70SR R-HPF 22.5 10.23 -
100 TWH 100S HX-HPF 22.75-10.34
100 TWH 100SN R-NPF Med Clear 22.75-10.34
H,yn 100 TWH 100SR R-HPF 22.75 10.34
Pressure 150 TWH 150S + HX-HPF 24 -10.91
5.,d um 150 TWH 150SN R-NPF 24 10.91 _
• 150 TWH 150SR R-HPF 24 -10.91
200 TWH 200S 120 26 11.82
250 TWH 250S 208 Auto- Mog Clear 34 15.45
400 TWH 400S 240 Reg. 44 20.00 -
277Peak-Lead Mog Clear 24.5 - 11.14
total 175 TWH 175M 480 25.75 11.70
r.,t.pe 250 TWH 250M
100 TWH 10011 19.5 - 8.86
• 'r'r`ury 175 TWH 175H CWA Mog Coated 21 -- 9.54 -
"''"'r 250 TWH 25011 23.75 10.79
_i,S 35 TWH 35LPS HPF-LAG D C Bay Clear 12.6 5.72
.,,,s 55 volt lamp. 100 volt available:specify on order.
For additional information and photometric data, refer to Hi-Tek Submittal Sheet: TWH
OPTIONS ACCESSORIES i �
s...,,..to Catalog
C..No Description Number Description
15'•4"
SF Single Fuse 120,277V PEK Photoelectric cell kit i 120V1 ;40 cm
OF Double Fuse 208.240.480V NOTE:For more details.see Outdoor Accessories p 58
- TP Tamper Proof Screws �-��
TB Multi-Tap Ballast(120,208.240.277V) 1---16%-42.55 cm -
I -PE. Photoelectnc Control 120,208,240 and 277V
1 -TWWG Heavy Duty Wire Guard i
-OC Architectural colors.(Specify-see p.161) ;sr"
n
-ORS Quartz Restrike System
LS Lamp Support
tltipTE r,r more details.see Outdoor Options.p.56. V-1 -
---:'dctory for use with tap ballast. 20.32 cm
:.;(..e.:as a separate item.Consult factory for usage.
•
0
0 00 Cr [0 H
N O 00 CO J W
H1 N. N. N -J O 0. N U
.o 0 o HO
O. M K1 N 07 U
M P N N
0LI) -.-• P
O M.+... O
OO 0 N ..•
W H H
F ,-.-4
4 U tI
•• N = 0 Q1
N W H O
WC F-O C
1Ci a N C...
ax Wa ._.
•• X W
• W W W
p W
H• CflZ U ial NN
W H 19 l7
Z
M H
W •• WU 0 as
H U U N >
H H M J V `•
U)U)J H
i-w Z O
Z
>, u
Z Z Z Z 0 H H
« W0 N
0. 0- C W W HH
60 •( <
C0 U U U O p
rU U
C J J
0 C a K O
p �_ .-
•"�� uu HH x.Z.5 i 8J��
J > 4 W In W W /~ /,
M••• W•+ ' f- F- W W
■ p+' CJ
L d 5w� �.� as HH r o
I-y g 3 3 H H
w c0zz zz as V�`J' SV[��
i-+['2 OL H F-cc z 4 < W UJ 1.P •"
�[7�7 ��11 F- 1- VV �7
H 0 7 C~_•N V J J Z Z �/•�%� L
OO O O H H � V/✓
W u-owti o as x = C� L.
C C L�7 a OO NN �
-- al O 0 CO N 01 Al W W 0-' C H Z r N.
am .0 U(� `t 4 < W W H H ��
S CN E Z In ZZ ZZ lLla. S� `0.
o em= H < <an Cana N .....
�` ? L7.1i�<
I SN. i' h CH H _ _ _
V O 1- F• O O 1C- o ff
Y H
0 0
O
I N
N
a a .O
S O N Al
J W 2 H .O
H O J 0
—
t m O< Al X CL Cr a�
N1•P2 0• ,j �1 �
o O Z N 0 �4 \7::.)�W . O H •-. I
a >O N Z .O J U
W W 0 La
J 6 L��
I . F- Vf •• F, t111 ..Qk......\\:s.k
UU) a ` w =` fH•1 w u 1
W < � N w
Zr ..r. O LL it 3t
r1oW �_ � w \ `•
a. r Y
•
)-Z z a z 1 W x = �.4 7 7
1 aha - Y < , 0 O Li r
rr r -1 0 °� U t,I L
. UUUU 0 H o J p �� -I.
4. • W.
_ In
W 0 S N
4- OO O
N M M M
S o O O
t
.... ' \
1 I '
r r r
• I -
1
1
I
1
1
1
I •
N N O G Y
V 0.- u
a
L U r V -
4
o
F- Va -
r -I M 01 L - U
-• O 111N
0. L e7 0 N••-
Lel u N r r .-1 01 >
.a 11 6 4 CC
> C Ii..
O 0 C r t O N
1 O Oo m4
-4 01 g 41¢ 16
I 11.1
N 0 01 0 C U a - i r
L 0 -4 n V i i
• a) .• W >- 0 .0 0 4 r - y�O C
W r 4 0 U u1 01 a N 3 0•C
O N r O r N 0 �YI
•
N 4 0 N o +. 2 r 0 L
0 N r 0 a P
\ •• Q O ' M V C 11 O
o w 3> ••
,I • a 011
o r - ZZI' Z IA 0 2 61 N V 1
W ~ .-1 01 O CI E L'0 U 61 L m
W 40 > W2 2 C a .01 4 of a V O N NM
4 2> 1J0 I-I L V ..0 rL O N rV > 3 C L
0 wLI W NNr d 61 'Ox .r.- ,- 0
LI L N L. 41 -I r
U W CZ 0 W CC J J W O IL U C 20 61 0 V '0 61 4 in ,C,
0 W W Q 0 0.-JJ O 4f Y r 0 N L r O r O co
0-.0 NIA U h-- c)
14 t) Y � c0„ 3 L
y1 L \0 C r I
.0 4'� C 7 L
H F- 4 3 44-, Y 0 V r a n U �41r�p 4M
O 11/ II
N 0 0 0 4 0 N N ; L C V C L G v 41 r
VIA w L q
O• > 0 .\•I V •~ .2 C 0 O1 a w.a
P 0 r 4
is .i 'D• +• O N Oi N U .•- a H.-
M r 67 E 4 2 O CO • L.0.- 4'.0 Y >
C[ 0 .-4 44.1 00 -4 U L • O
U 4' 4 .4 . a a >1L 4C. C V
H - EE
111M
N U 0 > '0 .•I O .0 T 0 4'1- U N
OC -1 L 0
✓p ►1 >4 a A -I 0 N 'D • U L H.-•I I
o 0 O N .~•i C L C N
A .t L• r «[ • a • 7 L NN
o 0 u1 .0 01 >4 W 61 t 00 In u `- a 7 a i 0 DD 0 -
-1 Z C. • 61 v Y V 0 3 V >.'0
o .N. � o C r >, Lo 1 L CU ... C-4 L
CI .0 41- . a r 61 r-1 II a
✓ L 3 N r OIC $'r_a 14 a
N N Y M N • L J 6J C Cra V N C: D1 H V 14=
✓• 41 U 0
y N I I 0 0 r -
E C41 C L•
N +• N Z 0 -1 C
N .. CO N H 0. 4 V 0A L d U U V 01
+' 3 41 Q YI .r 4 inn 0 171 a rN= >, 0 4 4. 61
h IA •
L 0 4 0 a a 0 • 0 41 4- L > > C
I 7G 41 L 01 3 •00 0 L 4, 0 4 C•'I.4 W
0 r W r 41 O • .0 .0. r M N•.- 01.-1
✓ r !o yf 0 0 .-• Id N C N {�I1 C.•••0
v a .0 4 +N' .-+0 7 •0 0•O•.N - V 3.- u L 0 q
l--1 N N 3 [ 0 - 10 u1 W r N t r L 41
a s '0 > > - L4 N N II 0: 0 0 > U 3
C
W 3 I •U II .-1 r-.1 I N Z II tZn •- a i •- >.o6 U.0 61
H .• 7 C I I-1.11 0 r0 .0 O II (A O r U. 6iO 0^ 4 a C
N (WDC '000 HNZJ -0 0 .041 N {11 0
}. ,. •• a 11 r• II 4- Z 0
•+ J •0 r a r • V L 61 r L
W L - 41 0o 4 0-1 4 4 44 4I N M .. V 41 C•-
O= yay-U a.0 I E 11 F- OJQtil 0 i-• X ni ` g,53
W Lu= W •aC,O II W W Q J LD O 0 4 LA O .L yI N Y ynI 4
= LL. _ < 0 O 61 0 r 7..- C 0:'.•
U I > ID CC< CC " fA J 0 0 0 .+ W • 0•Y- 4'0 6I 0
IX r W 4 4 11 H W 0 0 0 u1 IA I L r 0 N'0 N. 0 L
W X N I-I-• S r W CC J N W W W 1 1 ••1 0 411 .0 r L V C N r
rU W In U < W W 0 CC LD W-1••1 O `- 4 CM 41 OL.-40C
(�-... �Y J 3 a 1I--I u1 u1 .. 2w 41 N111.L rY L >46
Y 0_r < I- •• •
W 4 0 4 r 0 W S 41 S +' G O O C L
CX 4 N LA X LI1 LA CLQ 4 W^ X Z m 0- r N U
R V C L Cl. 7.a n
2 0 IL u1 •-W W Z fD O. r N U
61
41 y 0 4- 0 +• V 4
�(p� W S .IL W v '0 C 4 N U o
J r L U U 4- W -, N 1A 1 u1 •4 U r 4 Y 4''0 >.0
y�
013.-4 L r 4 C r
104 m Ori 1-1 J ca.r I- Z > V 3 r C
W ..- 4•.-.1 3 L1--I C U
U
.- 4 d 41•- L as
J r- •11 Ix 0 2 L U __
Y
4. I II •
. 1 r r ., • r-
C I TY OF
CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
_ TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer
DATE: January 12 , 1989
SUBJ: Site Plan Review for a 97 ,400 Square Foot Office
Manufacturing Facility , Lots 1 through 4 , Block 2
Park One Third Addition
Planning File No. 88-18 Site Plan, VersaTil
This property is located on the northeast quadrant of the inter-
section of Quattro and West 77th Street. The site is comprised
of open field areas with mature vegetation adjacent to the pro-
perty boundaries. The northeast corner of the property is a
stormwater retention pond for the Park One development.
Sanitary Sewer
Municipal sanitary sewer service is available to the site from
the existing 8-inch PVC sewer main along West 77th Street. An
8-inch service has been provided to the property boundary along
the south side of the subject parcels. This type of manufac-
- turfing facility will generate metal shavings and other metallic
debris which has the potential to harm the City ' s lift station
pumps immediately downstream of the subject parcel . In addition,
it is anticipated that the manufacturing facility will be using
various cleaning fluids or solvents. In light of this infor-
mation, we are requesting that an inflammable waste trap be
installed on the service line prior to the public sanitary sewer
line. This inflammable waste separator should be constructed
with a sump to act as a sediment trap to catch any metallic sha-
vings or other debris which has the potential to enter the
service.
Watermain
Municipal water service is available to the site from the
existing 8-inch water service along the southerly property boun-
dary. It should be noted that the services to be installed
should minimize damage to existing trees.
Planning Commission _
January 12 , 1989
Page 2
Roadway and Access
The plans propose bituminous parking and B-6-12 curbing. We find
that this plan is acceptable.
The applicant has provided for two separate access points, the
first from Quattro Drive and the second from West 77th Street.
The loading dock and reinforced bituminous surfacing to support
truck loading has been located along Quattro Drive. It would be
reasonable to assume that all the large truck traffic will be
located on Quattro Drive. The applicant has provided for a
120-foot separation from the intersection of Quattro Drive and
West 77th Street. We find that this separation is adequate to
accommodate semi-trailer traffic.
It should be noted that the City' s standard driveway apron should
be constructed on both driveway entrances (refer to attachment —
#1) .
Grading and Erosion Control --
The plans call for a minimal amount of grading on the site. The
majority of the site has been limited to cut and fill depths of —
approximately four to six feet with the exception of the north-
west corner of the site which borders the storm water retention
area. Fill depths along the edge of the parking lot will be
approximately six to ten feet and may require some removal of
mature trees . Staff has reviewed the grading plan and finds that
the plans have minimized the amount of grading necessary for a
project of this magnitude. —
Drainage
The plans denote a curb cut along the westerly docking area. It
is staff ' s recommendation that this curb cut be riprapped with
Class II riprap to the 915 contour. This will eliminate the
anticipated erosion problem that often occurs with this type of —
curb cut.
Staff is also recommending that the curb cut located on the
northwest corner of the parking lot be replaced with a storm
sewer system to the drainage pond to minimize the erosion
problem.
Recommended Conditions
1 . The applicant shall receive and comply with all conditions of
the Watershed District permit.
Planning Commission
January 12 , 1989
Page 3
2 . The applicant shall install all erosion controls prior to the
commencement of any construction. All erosion controls shall
remain in place throughout the duration of construction. The
developer shall be responsible for making periodic checks of
all erosion controls and making any repairs promptly.
3 . The plans shall be revised to incorporate the City' s standard
driveway apron for commercial development as depicted in
attachment #1.
4 . The plans shall be revised to include typical sections for
both types of driveway surfaces .
5 . The applicant shall be responsible for all debris and cleanup
on and off site resulting from the construction of this site.
6 . The applicant' s engineer shall provide the City with a full
set of "as-built" mylar reproduceable copies prior to
receiving a certificate of occupancy.
Attachment
1. Driveway apron .
15'R VARIES (CURB CUT) .15 R r
DEPRESS 8—STYLE CURB
I,12.,
/ ,, ,,, . ? . ,.. . . , , . , , , . , lie . ; - r A. - - .• \ ' ' - . .. '' • • ;\
IF SIDEWALK IS EXISTING OR TO
BE INSTALLED, THE CROSSING' SHALL
BE AS PER PLATE 5202 :5'R--f- . I
J
I
•
S � / I �
EXPANSION JOINT
2" t
_)
/. 0 .} , , f _•T i' v-e -:VC, �a.=.•---''o---'0.' , : :.-,4...1 -G r.l
CONCRETE SLAB SHALL BE 6'"
EXPANSION JOINT THICK , REINFORCED WITH •
6"X6"— 6/6 WELDED WIRE
FABRIC AND SHALL HAVE 4"
COMPACTED CLASS S GRAVEL BASE.
INDUSTRIAL
j DRIVEWAY DETAIL
SCALE IN, 1 DATE PLATE NO. 5207 . 1
r... .. ..� w..., - _.-. - - ._ r. .. --4�i- . ..�s�r.►w.r«+�rriirr�r- --r..wrs......w..��wa:a� ►
CITY OF
\ , k , • GcHANHAissEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Hanson, Planning Director
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator
DATE: January 11 , 1989
SUBJ: Ver-Sa-Til
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the site plan for the
proposed Ver-Sa-Til development at their January 10 , 1989
meeting. The Commission did not feel this was a park deficient
area or that additional sidewalks are needed. The Park and
Recreation Commission recommended that park and trail dedication
fees be collected in lieu of land dedication or trail construc-
tion.
3b
CITY OF
-A` G CUANBASSEN
\ ¼ # _
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Hanson, City Planner —
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Inspector
DATE: January 5 , 1989
SUBJ: #88-18 Plan Review Office/Manufacturing/Warehouse _
Upon reviewing the site plan, additional fire hydrants will be
needed on site with spacing of 3U0 ' maximum. Parking lot lanes —
shall have a minimum of 25 ' clear width between rows of parked
vehicles . Inside trash storage area shall be protected by an
approved automatic sprinkler system. _
9�
.: -.-, CITY OF
_ , . A , 2,,,...
\, 1/4cHANHAssEN
'Ll.,„
: 6," 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
— MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Hanson, City Planner
—
FROM: Steve Kirchman, Building Inspector ck +
DATE: January 4 , 1989
—
SUBJ: Planning Case #88-18 Site Plan Review (Ver-Sa-Til)
1 . Building must be sprinkiered.
—
2 . A checklist of requirements is enclosed. These require-
ments must be met before a permit is issued.
*4
— ; ,
COMMERCIAL BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
1 . Planning Department approval
2. State Board of Health approval ( if required) _
yes no
a . Onsite sewage treatment system design
b. Pool and filtration plans and specs
c. Kitchen and restroom plans and specs
d. Building plumbing plans and specs
3. SAC letter —
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
350 Metro Square Building _
7th and Robert Streets
St. Paul, MN 55101
Don Bluhm 222-8423 —
yes no
4 . State Fire Marshal approval ( if required)
5. Survey
6 . Landscaping Plan (prior Council approval required )
7 . Bond or Letter of Credit (covering cost of landscaping,
bituminous surfacing, and curb and gutter )
8 . Soil Tests
9 . _ Signed Utility Plans - for approval by Engineering Dept. _
10 . Energy Calculations
11. Architects Plans - signed by MN registered architect —
12 . HVAC Plans - signed by MN registered mechanical engineer
13 . Sprinkler Plans - signed by sprinkler design engineer
14 . Electrical Plans - signed by MN registered electrical
engineer —
15. Erosion Control and Drainage Plans
Submit two ( 2) complete sets of plans and specs
Allow a minimum of two weeks for plan review and approval. —
Plans must be reviewed by Engineering Dept. , Planning Dept . ,
Fire Marshall, and Inspections Dept. (Building, Plumbing, and
HVAC) .
eiP
City of Eden Prairie edBn
— City Offices prairie
7600 Executive Drive • Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3677 • Telephone (612) 937-2262
January 10, 1989
Steve Hanson, Planning Director
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Steve:
Thank you for submitting the grading and landscape plan for the Ver-Sa-Til building
on Dell Road. After reviewing the plans, Staff is concerned about the amount of
screening for the parking from the residential neighborhood to the east. Because
the opportunity for berming does not exist, additional coniferious plantings may
help. If this item may be addressed as part of your review process, it would be
appreciated.
Sincerely,
City of Eden Prairie
Donald R. Uram, A.I.C.P.
Assistant Planner
DRU:bs
JAN 11 1989
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
STAFF REPORT —
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner —
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: January 6, 1989 .,... —
PROJECT: Anderson Idlewild 2nd Addition
LOCATION: South of West 78th Street, west of Highway #169, north of Lake —
Idlewild
APPLICANT/ —
FEE OWNER: Calvin A. Anderson
REQUEST: 1. Preliminary Plat of 8.56 acres into 1 lot, 1 outlot, and —
road right-of-way with variances to be reviewed by the Board
of Appeals.
Background 1.. ••\\�',•:,. `C-REG l.1 2 \\.. / —
The Eden Prairie Comprehensive Guide '••.�; ,:�\. % �L�-:,, ' - \ _
Pl an depicts this site as guided for �;', C-RE - ER'" -REG•SE,
Office. The surrounding area to the 6 , ""
40
west is also guided for Office, ;D`" ....\t\ • t 'l —
while the property to the south is
guided C-Regional Service. Specific ir. 'a � (�,.
1
land uses include the American J PROPOSED SITE
Baptist Homes building, zoned i; -=- , —
Office, to the West; the Eden :-q.• V •
k .
Prairie Convenience Center, zoned C- 'I
• ' '�':•'•••• 'C-REO-SfiR• i
Regional Service to the east; Lake : Osi;:;t �;:tL;;: -
Idlewild to the south; and, West "••�••���,�'' . _ 0.
78th Street, to the north. This I
parcel is part of the original ,.F '.. �. .LiF1' -22
Planned Unit Development for the (:OFC, —
Idlewild Office Center approved in 1 11 W 11 P‘.113 ' liii -
1983. The original Idlewild Office Uf^ ', _. /'
C•REG-REG � 1
Center phasing plan depicted a total - .f..,, W '�f/ s L.--- —
of 2 buildings on this approximate .....,54 .0h1-(.:„,..,. ; •V•' •
, A OFC
site containing 56,400 square feet -7C-REQS TA- ' _14 ( t
(see Attachment A) . • � <..
-HW _
Preliminary Plat C 1 1
The proponent is currently re- d ' —
OF� .
questing the preliminary platting of ` C - REG
8.56 acres into 1 lot, 1 outlot, and -�.'' ti,. ."-tr
•,� — A �N. /-. _
„ AREA LOCATION MAP
a�
Idlewild 2nd Addition 2 January 6, 1989
road right-of-way. Outlot A, containing 2.89 acres , is the location of Lake
Idlewild, which is proposed to be dedicated to the City of Eden Prairie. Lot 1 ,
containing 4.02 acres , is proposed for future office use as indicated in the
original Lake Idlewild Office Center PUD. The remaining 1.65 acres will be
dedicated to the City for road right-of-way for U.S. #169 and West 78th Street.
Because the property is currently zoned Rural and no rezoning request has been
submitted , two variances will be required. Lot size within the Rural zoning
district is a minimum of 10 acres and requires a minimum lot depth of 300 feet. The
proposed lot size is 4.02 acres and has a lot depth less 300 feet. With a future
rezoning application anticipated as office, these variances will not be required;
however, other shoreland variances may be necessary. Staff is recommending that the
preliminary plat be revised to include a 50 foot trail easement along the lakeshore
in order to continue the trail started with the Eden Prairie Convenience Center.
The actual construction of the trail will not be required until the property is
developed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff would recommend approval of the request from Calvin A. Anderson , for the
preliminary plat of 8.56 acres into 1 lot, 1 outlot, and road right-of-way, based
upon plans dated January 3, 1989, subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report, dated January 6, 1989, and subject to the following conditions:
1 . Prior to Council review, proponent shall :
A. Revise the preliminary plat to reflect a 50 foot trail easement
adjacent the Ordinary High Water mark of Lake Idlewild.
B. Submit documentation regarding the location of the existing access
easement located along the west property line.
2. Receive approval from the Board of Appeals for variances necessary for lot
size and lot depth within the Rural zoning district.
3. As part of a future rezoning request, submit plans for review by the
Planning Commission and City Council .
e 1111111
=
. I 2
i A = .T.Tif q
-. i ). , i,04 2 rli ;
. ,, i., , 1 : :2; : Iti:
: : '.1:::::, ' a ! i
?..'.i :: :
-...._„....,,,,T-'----....„,...„....„. Z ! trr e .. L �% ri:�
5 1
i Oil&r
\ • \ ri _ _, ..,
2 < co c. z;.:cit--, - ;3 ; i!III. t 2 ..,--:.;_.; ti
\-,..,. -
� ) IISIwa ■ rb t3
� iti 'rS
s =C.
I--------H- ------- ------- .-- _____
I I
- ~ I�� 7;i/0/1 Ott.; 7:i I
/. �. - ,., =___ —_- __,1=r..r.__- — -.. _ _ it
%l% /. .•—'--- ---_—�s` ` _ ` —`�C ` .
� A t
1 /- -_-- T°�T��• • /` • 3
. ,,,'->-if . ' '. itr. —
44-,—4, 7',---:;•- • V\ . .
/ ••• -•-• "... ; 747— _ ._._ - ....iN4, „,_ \ au. :i ,V4.......,_•. .4.. . illffiL \1,
7 ///// 1 -1 /t- / //1.- // i••X- \ -'77.4:119.N\.1 11 et ., .
/ ./,1•1 ' s. ' 1 II( .\,. 1\ \ ill k \ \
(1nc� J
_ , : 1 A. .•'.. C\'\\::... -%-al_, „ .
+�`
•/ i • \ t, ,Nr ., g \ ),1 4..,1:O,\,,P\,\‘ • \\
ii
.-&.._.,::.1,-!A I _ *NV .
/1/ I i :! - Op " ; , 4‘\.• i ,ilit, - — N‘ ... \.•,,
f \1\1�fi ' �'
1 ; 1 s IG S A 1 41.9 /` I fI.1 411
1 N fg1% \ �t‘\.:1\i‘,.:IX\ !/, ,\ \
1 1 — I .6 ‘i
i � �f � #
i 1 Igirillrikl,\,./
1 • dg ( ') '
CAN jk/ �J/ii /� //f ---7.-...--;%'
III
1 :
1 -f • 1 Nil c�i. , • I
I
_`� ; tif i
!
`a
Y
F `
• 1 �'
P r i I i►_ 11Fele 1 . t S
T
�i ` . r
I 9 _ M
�� :
- - ATTACHMENT A
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 4, 1989
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 40 p.m. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad,
Brian Batzli , Jim Wildermuth and David Headla
STAFF PRESENT: Steve Hanson, City Planner; Larry Brown, Asst. City
Engineer and Mark Koegler , Planning Consultant
PUBLIC HEARING:
CARL CARRICO - PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED ON LAKE
LUCY LANE, APPROXIMATELY 1/2 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.
Public Present:
Name Address
Frank Cardarelle Representative for Applicant
Carl Carrico Applicant
Tom Nye 1641 West 63rd Street
Mr . and Mrs . Dave Hughes 1780 Lake Lucy Road
Carol Droegemueller 1740 Pheasant Circle
Pat Johnson 1730 Lake Lucy Lane
Jim and Doris Mielke 1645 Lake Lucy Road
Mrs . Palmer 1690 Lake Lucy Road
Mark and Tracy Williams 1655 Lake Lucy Road
Warren and Arlene Phillips 1571 Lake Lucy Road
Steve Hanson presented the staff report.
Conrad : Steve, just a comment . We've never , to my knowledge, this is
almost like spot zoning. We' re spot MUSA lining and we' ve always got the
feedback through staff that if we need to expand the MUSA line, we should
be doing it not on a spot basis. We've got to do it and they've got to
agree to it, at Met Council on a total redrawing of that line and they
have not been willing to do that. In fact we are contractually tied into
not doing that from my understanding . They had specifically said no.
When they have done that, it has been land swaps. In other words, we' ll
put this into the MUSA but we' ll put something out of the MUSA. The
recommendation right now is you' re telling us that we should do something
we' ve never done in the past and that ' s to approve a site plan or
subdivision given the fact that it' s outside the MUSA and that ' s not how
we' ve done it in the past . Has Don Ashworth recommended that we do it
this way or has the legal advice changed or, try to help me understand why
we' re doing this?
Hanson : It ' s really so the applicant can get a reading on whether the
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 2
MUSA line can be amended . Obviously the one stand is to say, we' re not
going to support the application because we believe the MUSA line where it
exists now should remain that way and if we' re going to do it , let ' s do a —
major amendment.
Conrad : Are we trying to test Metropolitan Council again? Is that what
we ' re doing? —
Hanson : I guess that would be my reaction, yes , that we are .
Conrad: Okay. I 'm not sure how I want to handle this because this is a
little bit different . Is the applicant here? Would the applicant like to
make some comments on the staff report or things that we should know?
Frank Cardarelle: I 'm Frank Cardarelle, the surveyor representing Carl
Carrico who is here, who is the applicant. We are fully aware of the
staff report and we have nothing further to add . We have worked with the —
staff and the engineering department and the whole reason is that this
happens to be just a little piece out of the MUSA line north of Lake Lucy
Road. Obviously in order to develop it, it almost has to be hooked into
the sewer . It ' s high. It will work. It fits into the sewer and water ,
the scheme of things. In order to do that, we were told that this is
about the only possible way that we can do it . Again , it ' s kind of a
catch 22 like the staff said. We were under the impression that there was —
2 or 3 particularly pieces that had the same problems that this particular
piece has . Granted, if the Park Department decides they want to purchase
the whole thing and the applicant and the Park Department can get together —
on price, then it ' s all moot. It won' t matter anyway but something on the
particular piece of property has to be done. It happens to be just this
little tiny piece cut out of the section. Why it was left out, we don' t _
know. It ' s a hardship case as to what do you do with a little tiny piece
of land that sewer is all around it. Sewer and water. It' s very small
and it is kind of a hardship. That ' s where we' re coming from. This was
the recommendation that we do follow in order to do something with the —
property. If you have any other questions , I 'd be glad to answer them but
I don' t think there' s any need to go through a presentation when he' s
already done it. _
Conrad : Steve, do you have a graphic that you can put up and show us
where the MUSA line is? Do you have an overhead?
Hanson: No, I don ' t .
Frank Cardarelle : The MUSA line runs just around this little piece. It' s —
from Lake Lucy Road north , just on the north boundary of this and on the
easterly boundary and westerly boundary of this piece of property.
Conrad: Why was this property not included before?
Brown: Maybe if I can add a comment here. Obviously Met Council , at
least from my estimate at this time, determined where that MUSA line was —
established . Right now prior to Barb Dacy leaving , she made a submittal
to the Metropolitan Council . They were concerned about land swaps and
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 3
making amendments to the MUSA line . What areas could in fact be served by
sanitary sewer via gravity system. MWCC has had the philosophy that if it
can be serviced without a lift station, we will consider the amendment .
Our Comp Plan is being revised to try and incorporate all possible areas
that in fact the topography information that we do have on file , to try
and analyze these areas and find out why they should in fact be included
in our Comp Plan , but unfortunately that study has not been fi.nalized as
of yet. So right now this i.s kind of, as Steve pointed out, a catch 22
system. We know that it can be serviced by gravity system but whether Met
Council wants to amend it, we don' t know.
OWN Conrad : Is it logical that this area be included? Is there a good case
to include this that Met Council would listen to? They' re obviously
saying don ' t move the MUSA line. We' ve gone to them how many times and
_ it' s all land swaps. Contractually we' re tied to not putting it in so is
there a good case to go there? What ' s the case?
Brown: All I can tell you is that. . .
Conrad : The developer wants to develop it?
Brown: The developer wishes to develop it and it can be serviced by
gravity sanitary sewer .
Conrad : And it can be? And why wasn ' t it included before? Okay. We' ll
open it up for other public comments. What I 'd like you to do. You can
stand where you are or you can come up and talk into the microphone if
it' s working. Whatever you ' re comfortable with. What I would like, if
you have comments , i.s to state your name and address for the public record
and then we'd sure like to hear your comments. Are there any?
Tom Nye: My name is Tom Nye. I live approximately slightly north of thi.s
property. What separates this whole development from me is Klingelhutz '
Pheasant Hills 4th Addition. We' ve had a lot of water build up on my
property on 63rd because much of Pheasant Hills and that area drains
through my property. It has recently been rectified so it ' s flowing into
some additional holding ponds and makes it way to Lake Lucy and so on. I 'm
concerned I guess , if thi.s is all filled in , that the water will not be
able to flow, make it' s natural way to the swamps and so on which I think
the corner between Hughes , that Lot 1 is pretty wet . I 'm just concerned
that it might get dammed up and won' t be allowed to exit my property.
Down the road . If he makes allowance for that , I guess I wish him all the
luck in the world but I 'm concerned that, you ' ve got to be concerned about
the people up river . The way the water flows , it could move back and get
dammed up. That ' s it.
Frank Cardarelle: Just to answer that. All the storm water will go to
the south and west and through this. In fact the dredging operation which
i.s not addressing , we met with the Department of Natural Resources and
Corps of Engineers. The only thing that we would be doing is taking the
small area where the storm water would go as it traverses through this
particular project on to the storm drainage to the southwest. It' s on the
- grading plan . The grading plan you have with the packet .
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 4 —
Dave Hughes : My name is Dave Hughes . 1780 Lake Lucy Road. My property
is there on the left. Concerning that drainage, I 'm the one that should —
be concerned about it because I 'm the low end of this process and it ' s
true that in our 4 , 000 year storm, we took some water down in that area
but normally that hasn' t been a problem. It seems to flow through
adequately. I 'd like to address two issues. One, this MUSA line in —
general . I don ' t understand the process . I 'm not a developer . Mr . Brown
has been most helpful in bringing me up to speed as to the processes
involved here but it seems logical to me that you have, of course Pheasant —
Hills development on the west end of Lake Lucy and you have, what is that
development called on the east end? Where the farm was developed? Curry
Farms? Curry Farms developed on the east end and both of them come down
to Lake Lucy Road . Lake Lucy Road is a south end boundary of the MUSA
line on both ends. Now it ' s true that the . 9 miles which is distance
between those two developments , which is the length of Lake Lucy Road , the
old Lake Lucy Road. I 'm sure there' s specific spots along there that —
gravity wise wouldn' t flow into the sanitary system but generally
speaking, all that land between those two big developments would flow
probably just fine. I 'm sure that Mr . Brown and Mr . Hanson ' s department —
are going to address that and probably are going to make a recommendation
that everything down to Lake Lucy Road or from Lake Lucy Road north be
included in any MUSA line movement. It would seem logical . I believe, is
i.t Mr. Conrad? You asked , you wonder why it wasn' t included , that
particular piece of property and I don' t understand the processes except
in talking with Klingelhutz I understand that nothing that a developer
hasn ' t brought in and gone through all the processes and shown all the —
plat plans and made all the applications , they just won ' t put anything
else but that. It ' s obvious that the folks down on the east end of Lake
Lucy, that Curry Farm development , a major development , a major contractor _
with all the lots and all the planning and Klingelhutz on the west end did
all the necessary things and they got it done. And all of us property
owners inbetween, we ' re all small . Mr. Carrico is probably a little
larger than some of us but relatively speaking to those two developments, —
we' re small property owners and we ' re not in a position to undertake the
grand program to get a MUSA line in like those two developments did . So
we'd like the City, I would think, I certainly would and I know Mr . -
Carrico would and I 'm sure most of the property owners inbetween those two
developments. Let' s just get that MUSA line right down at the same place
it is for the big developers on both ends . Lets just get i.t filled in
there so all of us smaller property owners can take advantage of that -"
development as the community' s developing . It ' s obvious the community is
developing. The two big developers have brought that development to that
point and now we got caught in the middle. If it ' s one at a time, it —
sounds like it' s a very difficult process with the Met Council but if
that ' s the way it has to be done because we can ' t move the line to Lake
Lucy Road and take care of it all at once, than it' s got to be one at a
time. I mean , it' s just a logical progression .
Conrad: Just a comment. I 'm not sure that that ' s how it happened , your
scenario. Big developers being involved and they do obviously. There was —
some logic in where the MUSA line went. There were some people involved
many, many years ago that determined how i.t went but most of the time it
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 5
depended upon one . The Metropolitan Council telling us how much land we
— could put in within the MUSA line, period. They said you can have so
much. Originally we wanted a little bit more. They moved it back. The
second criteria, we looked for logical boundaries . The logical boundaries
are roads or whatever , and also where you can get your sewer service.
Your gravity sewer service so there are logical reasons for some areas
included and some areas not . There' s a logical reason , or there' s
rationale why this wasn ' t and that ' s why, I don ' t think they' re going to
—
listen to us unless we know why it wasn' t and then, is there new data
telling us that' s something different than what we saw before? But
anyway, I don ' t think it was the big guy versus the little guy in this
— case.
Dave Hughes : You just defined my lack of understanding in that area . How
this process is going. I thank you for that. I sort of ask you folks.
—
Are you going to recommend that line to be moved south of Lake Lucy Road?
And if not, why not?
— Conrad : That' s what we' ve got to decide.
Dave Hughes: You folks should be coming to us rather than us coming to
you, the way I look at it. Now I understand it' s a momentum thing and
priorities and you' ve got a lot of things and I understanding engineering
is doind that . Plans to do that. I would hope it would be a work
together. Do you know, i.s there anymore property in Chanhassen that Metro
—
Council says you can include or have they said , that ' s the boundary?
Conrad: We' ve got a line right now and it' s good through the year 2000.
Dave Hughes : So they only consider it if you' ve got an overall
proposal . . .
—
Conrad : Contractually speaking , and we have signed a contract to my
understanding, that says we will not move outside of that line until the
year 2000. My understanding .
Dave Hughes : They will reassess that I assume if the City makes an
overall recommendation? Not by parcel but by the overall city development
need I suppose .
Conrad : That' s the logic . That ' s what bothers me about this particular
thing because it' s like spot zoning. You don' t do that. You go and say
—
we need property. We need more land in Chanhassen to develop based on the
needs that we' re projecting and this i.s an isolated case and it doesn' t
really say, maybe we should be looking at other areas besides just this
one if we need more land . But again, contractually speaking, they' re not
going to change based on the feedback that I get . Just some comments .
Dave Hughes : As a point of inquiry. The initiative to approach the Met
Council to expand the MUSA line to meet the needs of the City, who
instigates that? Is that your group? Engineering? Is that Planning or
is it a . . .
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 6
Conrad : We may recommend it. We may recommend it and send it to City
Council. City Council says yes, that probably makes sense and then it' s a
matter of how much staff energy they want to spend versus the other items _
on their agenda. All the other things that the City has to do, to see if
they really want to go after changing the MUSA line. The MUSA line is a
tough one to change. Metropolitan Council is a really strong group and
basically we haven' t touched it unless there' s a land swap. That' s what —
we' ve done in the past. The other thing we' ve done in the past is we've
typically had the developer go over to Met Council and talk to them and
see what their openness for change is. That 's why this is a little bit —
different scenario for me to listen to. Where we' re recommending, we ' re
looking at a subdivision before we can even manage the MUSA line. Saying
we need to expand the MUSA line . That ' s what we should be doing as a
Commission rather than reacting to one particular property and the City
council should be telling us , yes it ' s worth our energy to really look at
that MUSA line and make a major recommendation to the Metropolitan
Council . —
Dave Hughes : Where is that? Is that process started in our City or do we
pretty much say, all the lots , we have all the development property
available that ' s needed at this time to sustain growth?
Conrad : Mark, what are we doing?
Mark Koegler : As part of the Comprehensive Plan update , there is work
being done on revising the Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan which
addresses the MUSA line issue . I think Larry eluded to that before. —
That' s in the process and I don' t know what the completion date is. I
assume it ' s pretty much in the next couple of months .
Brown: As I understand it, that' s correct. If I may add to that. The
Metropolitan Council , the contract that we signed to get the MWCC trunk
line through the City of Chanhassen basically states that we will not go
for an overall amendment to the MUSA boundary until such time as all areas —
within the MUSA boundary at this time have been developed. That way
they' re saying , these are the areas that we' ve designated . We' re putting
our priorities there and we will not go for an overall amendment until _
that time.
Carl Carrico: Larry, do you remember the date of that contract?
Brown: No.
Dave Hughes : As I understand it from talking to Mr . Klingelhutz, and I —
could stand to be corrected, but I understand that his property was
outside of that boundary under the contract . And he, through sheer
preserverance and applications and responding to all the necessary —
requests , got an amendment and got his in so obviously there is a policy
by which this can be done. And I understand in talking to you too Larry
that Metro Council has said that they won ' t even consider it unless the
Planning Commission inkles that they will consider this development if the —
line was moved . So they said, give us an inkle and then send the
developer over and we' ll consider it. Well , that ' s all they' re asking
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 7
for . He might get stonewalled over there but that ' s hi.s problem.
Frank Cardarelle: I 'd just like to add one thing . We have met with
the Metropolitan Planning Council and that is essentially what they have
said. They feel that this is surrounded by development. It' s a piece
that is logically to be developed next, that they will consider it but it
has to, like we said, the catch 22 is thus, we have to have you approve it
first and then we can go over there subject to their approval of moving
the MUSA line. If they don' t move it, obviously we can' t do it .
Dave Hughes : And it' s apparently been done by Klingelhutz.
Brown: Just a point of clarification. As we' ve seen in the past, we have
made amendments to the MUSA boundary. We' ve been able to swap land before
with a trade for that. I wasn' t referring so much to a small parcel . I
was referring to the overall amendment which I know the Commissioners are
complying with.
Dave Hughes : Was there any swap done on the Klingelhutz land?
Brown: I don' t know.
Dave Hughes : I don ' t know of any. That' s something I spole with
Mr. Hanson ' s department about and with Mr. Brown. Someday when I retire
maybe that' s what I ' ll do with my land . Try to develop it but
specifically why I brought it up is you notice my easement for my driveway
is along the left hand boundary of Mr . Carrico' s property now. It' s a 32
foot easement and to develop the property I would say I have to have a 50
foot easement. The second is , I 've been advised by my engineers , . . .and
Novak, that the access to the property has to be a little bit easterly as
the driveway is shown , redrawn , to make it developable in any reasonable
_ fashion. I only bring it up at this point in that Mr. Carrico has
graciously offered to work with me to move the driveway and negotiate that
but if this development should go through and the City should wind up with
that frontland as parkland , I would just like to petition the Planning
Commission now to know that to make my piece a viable piece for future
development , if this MUSA line ever gets done and all the other
considerations , that I would hope the park people would be sent a message,
hey Hughes likes to, needs hi.s driveway over . I ' ll buy it from them or
buy an easement from them or whatever but I have to get it over
approximately 100 feet east of where it is. The centerline to centerline .
I realize that the Planning Commission doesn' t tell the Park Commission
what they have to do and so on but I 'm just trying to share these with
everybody and I wouldn ' t have your guys job for anything .
Carol Droegemueller : My name is Carol Droegemueller and I live in
Pheasant Hills. The property that was developed by Tom Klingelhutz. I 've
lived there for 4 years . I was one of the early residents there and just
in the most recent discussion, I just have a couple of comments before I
get to what I was here to say. Yes , this property is bordered by the MUSA
line on two sides and two sides it is not so it' s not surrounded by the
MUSA line in my understanding of it. If it' s bordered on the west and the
north, then it is not bordered on the east and south so it ' s just half the
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 8 —
borders . The first comment or what I came here to say is that our area ,
Pheasant Hills is planned to have as many as, I think it' s 80 homes. We
are completely park deficient in that development in terms of useable park
space. We have some outlots that have water on them but in terms of a dry
parkland , we have none . In my conversations with Lori. Sietsema , the
possibility that this property will be developed into parkland was looking
fairly positive if the property values came close enough that negotiation —
was possible. Your recommendation to have this property approved on
certain conditions . I would like to speak to the second condition and
have that be almost be more of a priority that the park exists. That that —
be considered for parkland almost as a priority. I guess that ' s what I
wanted to say. Then I just have a question. If this city approves this
to go to the Metropolitan Council to change the MUSA line and then the _
MUSA line does not get changed because of that committee, than what legal
ramifications are there for the Carricos who want to develop that? Does
the City bear any legal responsibility for having first approved it and
then not having it approved by the . . . ? —
Ellson: It' s approved with . . .
Carol Droegemueller : With those conditions? Okay.
Carl Carrico: My name is Carl Carrico and it' s very difficult for a loud
mouth to keep his mouth shut but basically there' s one point that I don ' t —
think the Planning Commission has been made aware of and that basically
is , for lack of a better name, Carrico Lane, hooking back in with
Klingelhutz, we will be able to give the Fire Department a better circular —
service. Not only for our development but for Klingelhutz' development .
In other words , there will be a loop route in there and I think that' s
very important . When we originally talked about developing this about 8 —
to 10 years ago, that was one of the significants points about this land.
They wanted to make sure that we hooked into Klingelhutz' property.
Pat Johnson: My name is Pat Johnson. I live at 1730 Lake Lucy Lane which —
is across Lake Lucy Lane, immediately to the south of this project . I
agree with Carol here. We' ve been down here at different meetings . I
guess she has a lot of the people from Pheasant Hills have been down here _
talking about parkland. I 'm from Lake Lucy Highlands which is just across
the street and we' ve been talking about parkland . We' ve got hundreds of
kids in this area , many of whom, like my kids , are under 6. I see a —
couple of problems with the plan , although I just saw it tonight . Haven' t
had a chance to talk to the developer but the one problem I see is that it
seems to me that the entryway to the development from Lake Lucy Lane , I
believe it' s part of Lake Lucy Road there but it' s my understanding that —
would be Lake Lucy Lane, is fairly close to the intersection of Lake Lucy
Lane and Lake Lucy Road which is a terrible intersection to begin with. A
lot of us in Lake Lucy Highlands are upset because we have a requirement —
of at least 2 1/2 acre lots because we' re not part of the service and
Lake Lucy Road , although it has a speed limit of 30 mph, appears to be
more like a freeway going through that area. It ' s a very wide road. A
lot of trucks . A lot of traffic . Because we have children , we' re quite
concerned with that. It appears to me from the plan here that the
entryway to Carrico lane would be fairly close to that intersection which
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 9
is a blind intersection and a bad intersection. That would be my first
objection to it. The second thing is, Carol mentioned , as far as the
service line goes , we' re not a part of it. We' re directly to the south of
the proposed development so as I can see it, the service area is moving to
the immediate north and west of this property. Finally we have again,
the parkland area is a big concern to us. This particular piece of
property is a fine piece of property because it ' s one of the few remaining
that can be developed into parkland in our area of the size that
I understand the park commission wants to develop a park and it' s
conveniently located. Therefore, I think that what' s been proposed in our
area anyway, would oppose the granting of the plans to go ahead with this
project at least without some sort of further information being provided
to the public , especially the adjoining landowner . Thanks .
Frank Cardarelle: I have some answers . The road, Carrico Lane is 150
feet , at least 150 feet west of Lake Lucy Road and the intersection of
Lake Lucy Road and Lake Lucy Lane. That was the recommendation. We can
move it further . I think if you' ll note on here, it ' s colored so it' s a
little easier to see, it is 150 feet giving 10 cars , or approximately a 10
car back-up from there to the intersection. Also , we have held out the
4 . 42 acres for park if they can get together at this time. If not, it
will be developed in the future. And again , like I say, it' s a moot point
if they do get together and purchase it for park but on the other hand ,
something has to be done. The developer wants to use the property and
again we have met with Metropolitan Planning Commission. We are trying to
follow the proper procedure to go ahead and do this and that' s why we' re
here.
Pat Johnson: Let me say, we' re not picking on you. You just happen to be
the last one that' s developable out of that area. The problem is a lot of
developers , and I understand the action of the City, the City' s problem
where a lot of developers had set aside this land and for various reasons
the City has decided we ' ll let you do this and this instead of giving us a
big hunk of land. As a result, we' ve got a lot of people, a lot of kids
with no park.
Conrad : Larry, normally there' s an engineering report attached to
something like this. A subdivision. There' s nothing here. Have you
evaluated this?
Brown: My report is. We did evaluate that intersection . We did a mini-
analysis for Pheasant Hill and it does meet the required spacing so a car
can cue up to safely turn onto Lake Lucy Road without creating a problem.
Carol Droegemueller : I forgot to mention also that all of the property
owners in our area had contributed to a park fund , a city park fund, and
the general fund. Not necessarily that it comes right back to that
neighborhood immediately but kind of gets spent as needs present
themselves. We have. contributed to that fund and yet we have yet to even
have a totlot area or anything out there. There' s been a lot of park
development in Chanhassen but we haven' t seen it yet and I guess I 'd like
to go for broke. I 'd like to see the whole piece of property used for
park rather than the 4. 4 that' s remaining in the wetland area or the
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 10 —
larger area there simply because once it ' s gone, it' s gone and you can' t
retreive it.
Pat Johnson : If I can add real quick. The problem is , a lot of these
small acreages set aside, which I guess is private parkland, are wetland
and you can' t use it for a park for kids . What we want i.s something that
we can play ball in. . . —
Doris Mielke: I 'm Doris Mielke and we live at 1645 Lake Lucy Road right
across the street from that and I certainly want to go on record too. —
We' ve lived there some 27 years and we really do need a park in that area
now. There just are a lot of kids and if Chanhassen needs a park
anyplace , it ' s in that area .
Jim Mielke: I 'm Jim Mielke , I live at the same address , 1645 Lake Lucy
Road. Lived there for 25 years . Anyway, what I hear from between the
Kli.ngelhutz property and the Curry Farm, there' s 8 property owners —
including Mr. Hughes and Mr . Carrico ' s property. What I hear tonight , if
you make allowances for this property, Mr . Hughes is the next one in .
Then the next one down the line i.s going to be coming in making the same —
pitch to you and just like a bunch of dominoes falling in series , that
whole row is going to go down from what we have and what we' re faced with
on the south side of the road . A very nice, suburban area with large
lots. My acre is only 2 acres . Not near as large as some of the other —
lots being developed but you' re going to change the whole character of
that neighborhood on the north side of the road plus you' re going to end
up with high density all the way along there with still no playground for —
these kids . The kids are going to be running their trikes up and down
this road where the traffic is now way beyond 30 mph. I think you as a
Planning Commission have a chance to hold the line here and live with the _
Comprehensive Plan and put the parks in the place where you promised these
people to put them. I think this i.s the best thing you could do for this
property. So thanks .
Frank Cardarelle : I have one comment I guess I 'd like to make. This one,
my understanding Larry is that the MUSA line is on the westerly side of
our property and the Hughes ' property. Is that correct? It goes along —
the north boundary of their property and our property, comes down
approximately on our east so it does , just except this small piece out of
it. As I understand , all the rest of the property, all the way to the
Curry property is all within the MUSA line. It ' s just this little piece
north of the road . That ' s my understanding. Now if I 'm wrong , I 'd like
to have Larry correct it at this time so we know what piece we are talking
about is in the MUSA line . —
Conrad : We don ' t have an overlay of the MUSA line right now. Something
new that we haven ' t heard?
Dave Hughes : I listened to the dialogue about parks before when
Klingelhutz, when they were making their proposal to you people and to the
City Council on that development . There has always been a concern for —
that and there still i.s a concern for that. If there' s going to be
something done , I would like to solicit the Planning Commission to get
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 11
ahold of the undeveloped. There are several excellent pieces along the
north side of Lake Lucy Road. Phil Mathiowetz has a nice piece that' s
high and would lend itself for ball diamonds, tennis courts and other
things. A big piece of property on the north side. I would solicit you
people to go and talk to him and make a proposal to him and try to buy it .
You' re talking about, you would have to buy the north side of that
property because the south side is mostly lowland . If the park takes it,
it will make a wonderful pond but it isn' t going to lend itself for
ballfields and tennis courts and other things because there just isn ' t any
flat, high enough area to do it that isn' t flooded any season that happens
to be raining out. Last season it wasn' t. So , I agree. Parks are needed
and that was recognized before. I don' t think there was adequate park
provisions in Klingelhutz ' development to begin with but that ' s a personal
opinion. I 'd like to see our commission, or whoever the people are in our
city, go to these property owners before they come along and want to
develop it and then hold them ransom for a park. Maybe we should get that
done before it gets to this stage. If that is possible in the process . I
don' t know the process but it would seem logical .
Carol Droegemueller : I 'm Carol Droegemueller of Pheasant Hills and in
response to that question about whether this lowland is going to be
suitable for a park. In my conversations with Lori Sietsema , she said
this property, from what she knows of it and they looked at it for quite
some time, is that it really lends itself very well for parkland . It ' s
the kind of wetland that it' s dry most of the time and would require very
little changes to convert it to ball diamonds and tennis courts , a
basketball courts or whatever . Whatever they planned to do with it and
that it would be a good park and not a wetland .
Dave Hughes : We've lived there for 15 years and I 'd invite her to come on
over any season of normal rainfall . You ' ll be wading in water three-
quarters of that property. It stands in water . It ' s a Class A wetland .
Mrs . Palmer : I ' ve lived there for 40 years and it ' s always wet .
Conrad : I think that we hear the signal that there' s a need for a park.
Carol Droegemueller : Is there somebody from the Park tonight?
Conrad: Not tonight. We have a report from them and I think we
understand that there' s a need . I think the City' s responsibility is to
decide where that park goes and I think you made your point real clearly.
We' ve got to decide how much park. What kind of park and specifically
where it goes. Are there other different comments? Anything else that
hasn ' t been said?
Batzli moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted
in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Headla : Larry, what ' s the rationale for when we consider this when the
Baptist Church wasn' t considered at all for the Interceptor? I 've never a
better rationale than the Baptist Church being able to tap into that line.
Why should there be a difference between there and this?
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 12 —
Brown: Right now we know that sanitary sewer exists within a very close
proximity and again, I hate to beat a dead horse but this property can be
served very easily and it' s within close proximity. As far as the church , _
I don' t have any information to tell you whether sanitary sewer service is
in fact within this distance. To say whether it would be amended.
Obviously we' re in a situation here where the Met Council has looked at
the property and said, okay we' re going to give a little and it ' s like —
anything else, a lot of it may be first come, first serve.
Headla : We open this , I think we' re opening a bunch of other things. I —
personally feel I don' t want to touch this thing. I 'd like to see, if
we' re going to do it , if it makes sense, I think there are other people
that probably should be involved. If our people, our staff looks at it
and after looking at that whole area you come back and say this particular —
part is reasonable, then I 'd look at it but until I see that in writing
from our staff , I don' t think we should consider it.
Wildermuth: The argument for park area is very compelling but I think
that ' s an issue that the Park and Rec Board and the City Council have to
take up. From a planning standpoint, I 'd like to see a MUSA line study of —
the area and I 'd like to see what other areas should be included or could
be included rather than just look at this one small 11 acre parcel . One
thing bothers me Larry. In reading your report , you say the proposed 50
foot right-of-way maintains a design speed of approximately 15 mph through —
the 90 degree bend adajacent to Lot 5, Block 1. The design criteria does
not meet the city standard for an urban roadway but yet we really haven' t
raised the issue there. That suggests to me that the plan could be —
improved and probably should be improved before anything is done with it .
Before we could even think about going forward with it . The other thing ,
the third point that I have is that the wetlands are impacted by that
road . Paul Burke from Fish and Wildlife seemed to be pretty concerned
about any fill that was going to be required. I guess when I look at all
of that and I put it all together , I don' t think we' re in a position to
make any kind of a recommendation on this proposal . —
Batzli : I agree with everything Jim said except for the caveat that I
don' t know that it' s not part of our function to take a look at where _
parks go and we' ve talked about that before. But I would like to add that
I don' t think in this case we really looked, or an additional comment
really is , I don' t think that we' ve looked at why we ' re really trying to
rezone this . I don' t know really what the kind of lot densities are on `
the other sides . Why we' re doing it . What is the rationale? The only
rationale I heard to look at rezoning this was that the applicant said
something like it' s the next logical development . There ' s a lot of areas —
in the city that might be next logical developments but I haven' t seen any
kind of factual findings or looking at why we should amend the
comprehensive plan in this particular parcel to RSF from it' s RR and what
impact that may have on the adjacent landowners . So I 'm totally against
looking at this right now.
Ellson: I voice the same concerns . I think one of the reasons we have a —
Comprehensive Plan is you sit down and you do a long range plan before
people all get up in arms and personal about it. I know that if I were
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 13
the Hughes ' I would thinking down the road a piece and if I were the
Mielkes and Johnsons and Millers, I 'd want a park in my neighborhood and
one of the reasons we write this plan out is so that we get a clear
picture before all the personal personalities and opinions get involved
Mom. and everything . I agree with Brian . They want it rezoned simply so that
they can get this many more on here. I think the zoning we picked for the
comprehensive plan should still be the zoning it should be. Again , our
comprehensive plan said that we' re poor in a park in this area and I feel
that that ' s what it should be. I don' t necessarily want to see a
MUSA line study or anything else. I think we should go with what we
planned . I don ' t really see a good reason to rezone this based on one
person. We had that in place a long time and we made other people follow
it .
Emmings : I guess I ' ve got a little different outlook on this than I 've
heard so far. I ' ve got some specific questions first. The road that, as
it comes down toward Lake Lucy Lane , on the drawing that I have, it
actually goes over into that excepted area but I see on the new drawings
it' s been moved over to the west . But is this property owned by someone
else?
Hanson : Yes .
Emmings : Can they build their road right up to that? How can they build
their road right up to that boundary?
Hanson : They can go up to the property as long as they stay within their
own. The road right-of-way.
Emmings: They can have their road right up to the property line with no
setback requirement of any kind?
Hanson : Not for the placement of the right-of-way.
Emmings: That seems to me to be something we better look at. If that' s
allowed . . .
Conrad : The right-of-way can go up to the property line. Not the road ,
the right-of-way could. They couldn' t put the right-of-way on the
neighboring property.
Emmings: But where are they going to build it within the right-of-way?
It sounds like essentially they can build right up to the property. If
our ordinance allows that now, I think we ought to take a look at that .
The road design, having that right angle in there, I guess, as Jim pointed
out, that ' s not too. . . My view of this is , we' ve got residential
development to the north. This area is going to be developed. I thought
this was a very peculiar request . I think I understand it somewhat better
now that it' s being explained during this catch 22 situation but it almost
seems like we' re being asked to give an advisory opinion. What would we
do if and I don' t like to be faced with that. I also don' t like the fact
that the rezoning is separated from the site plan and everything else. It
ought to be looked at as a package but it seems like it can' t be because
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 14 —
the Met Council has indicated that they won ' t act until we do something
first. I 'm not really opposed to approving this plan to let them see if
the Met Council will include it within the MUSA because I think that' s _
kind of an interesting test to be able to send up anyway. I think that' s
a place that we' re headed in the future and we' ve got a person here who
owns land and has a right to attempt to develop it if they want to. I 'm
concerned with, what if this comes back from Met Council and they say yes —
we ' ll include it and we decide not to rezone the property? I don' t like
being in that situation because I 'm afraid we' ll hear from the developer ,
well , we relied on the fact that you approved the site plan and let us go —
onto the Metropolitan Council and now we come back for the rezoning that
you knew was coming and now you say you won' t rezone us. I wouldn' t want
to hear that and I 'm sure that we might if it came to that so all and all
it' s a very unusual proposal . Certainly unlike anything we' ve ever seen
before . But like I said , I wouldn' t mind approving the site plan because
it does meet the criteria of the RSF zone which is what they' ll be asking
for . It does seem to be bordered by similar type of development to the —
north and we all know that' s heading south because the process has been
going on for some time. If it would be approved , and it doesn ' t sound
like it will be, I would say that condition 1 ought to have, it says that
approval is intended to indicate a willingness on the part of the City to
consider an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. I think there ought to
be a second sentence in there that says approval should not be construed
by the applicant as an agreement by the City to rezone or to amend the —
Comprehensive Plan or anything else . I don' t think we want to be put in
that position. As far as, just the way these recommendations are written,
in number 3 it says that all concerns in the attached referral be resolved —
prior to submittal of final plans . I think it' s fine to include the
referrals as conditions or the contents of the referrals as conditions but
if you' re going to do that , I think you ought to list them so everybody
knows precisely what was attached. For example, you say the staff
engineer ' s report dated December 29 , 1988 . Make a list of those right in
here so that when they come back and say what do we have to comply with ,
there ' s absolutely no question about what has to be complied with. Then
the other thing I 'm confused about is on our agenda it says something
about the wetland alteration permit but I don' t see anything in our
materials about that. There' s a condition down here at the end that they —
have to submit a plan . Would this require a wetland alteration permit?
Hanson: Yes it would.
Emmings : But where is that or is that something that would come up later
after they came back?
Hanson : Initially it was going to be part of the request tonight and
I did not put that on there, just keeping that out as a condition. Again
the subdivision is what the Metro Council wants to see .
Emmings: So actually the condition 4 down there should say, the obtaining
of a wetland alteration permit?
Hanson: Yes .
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 15
Emmings: Alright. I think the thing on the church too Dave. You brought
up the church. You know we all thought they ought to be able to tap into
the interceptor but they went over to Met Council and Met Council just say
flat no.
Headla : I don' t see any consistency.
Emmings: But other than that, I don' t really seem to have the strong
reservations about this development that other people do . Parkland is
obviously a very important item to this neighborhood. It' s an issue that
ought to be put , sounds like on a very high priority by the Park and Rec
and by the City Council but I don' t think we can impose it on this land
owner who' s coming here with a plan for development for his land unless
you want to buy his land. That ' s it.
Erhart : Again , providing a little comfort on the Park and Rec issue .
Whether or not this body should be involved in that. I don' t know but we
aren ' t but I might add that 4 of the 5 councilman are here tonight and I 'm
sure all of the comments that were said about parks and recs were taken in
so I think the effort was well worth it . Regarding whether we ought to
look at this. I think again, this demonstrates the error in attempting to
control the growth of the Metropolitan Waste system by drawing an
arbitrary line around the metropolitan area and jogging it around one
person ' s land versus another . I think it underlines the unfairness , a
central planning approach to the waste water growth that it imparts on
landowners . Simply because one landowner happened to be in the right
place one day and the next guy wasn' t, one fellas land is worth 4 times
the adjacent land . Other communities have for years used market forces to
control the growth of their waste treatment system and I think it would be
a far better system in this area to also use those systems . Whereas a
very valuable piece of land could tap into the waste system and simply
would have to pay the price and compete with the next land owner
instead of basically someone making arbitrary decisions. I think I ' ve
stated my position on that before. I agree with Steve. I think if we
would have simply proceeded with this we would have had this thing through
the Planning Commission and back to staff and Mr . Carrico could have been
onto the Met Council yet tonight. I think we ought to proceed to discuss
the merits of the plan . Maybe when we' re all done is that the City ought
to discuss with Mr. Carrico, perhaps ask him to wait . In the first place
I want to say I 'm glad to hear Larry that we are doing a study on whether
looking to see what the possibility of incorporating a land switch could
be served by gravity flow into the existing sewer . I think it makes
totally good sense. The fact is that we' re doing that and what we should
ask the developer here is to just wait until that ' s done and if we have an
opportunity to take a bigger picture, take a broader view and go to Met
Council and find out what the outcome of that is first . Obviously you' re
welcome to go over here. I would propose that you' re welcome to go over
there yourself but we might get more done if we work together on this
thing with Larry and Steve and the Council . There' s another question. I
think Steve brings up a good point here too is that if we were to go ahead
and evaluate the proposal tonight and submit a recommendation to the
Council , possibly a recommendation, I think there is an issue then if
we' re using this as a test balloon. Do we want to come back and spot zone
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 16 —
it? I 'm not too sure how we handle that . Steve and Ladd , you may want to
give that a little thought. With those comments, I guess I 'd like to
proceed with some questions on the development . I 'm assuming that we' re —
going to go ahead and to take a vote on it .
Conrad : If you have more questions , go ahead .
Erhart: Yes, I have some questions specifically related to the
development. One is the elbow in the street design. I don' t understand
that. It just seems extremely dangerous in that how does, if someone is —
proceeding southeast on the upper portion of it and another car is coming
north, what happens at that circle? Are there two stop signs there or
whatever? I think there are bigger issues to discuss but I think that' s _
something that has to be resolved and I don' t think we should try to
resolve that right here. To me that ' s not acceptable unless I just don' t
understand the traffic flow. The second thing is, what is our , maybe you
don ' t know Steve but help me or answer it later , again we have a series of —
lots on the northwest side where the frontages are 72, 73, 77 feet. Is
our policy on curves to put the lot width at the setback as opposed to the
street now?
Hanson : Yes , at the setback is the way it goes .
Erhart: So it' s not just cul-de-sacs? It ' s on the outside curve of any —
street?
Hanson : Yes . —
Erhart : What is it , just quickly, not taking a lot of time, what is it
that we' re doing with the wetland? Is it simply putting in the road or is _
there more to it than that?
Hanson : There' s some modification to the wetland . The way that it exists
now due to the road. It' s been mentioned the concerns that Paul Burke had —
and he' s had a concern about it but he' s also said he doesn ' t have a major
problem with that alteration.
Erhart : Okay. We' re going to see that wetland alteration?
Hanson: What I have suggested is that if you want to go ahead with the
subdivision and do the subdivision solely and give an okay on that and —
hold the alteration plan until such time. . .
Erhart : Okay, that' s specifically what I 'd like to do. That ' s the last —
of my questions and I guess I 'd like to see us proceed with a positive
reaction on this . Either the City or the developer can go to Met Council .
—
Conrad : My quick comments. I have some problems with the design.
Specifically the elbow and the street into the wetland and I think there
are some things that , this just doesn' t quite feel right in terms of the
design . In terms of the procedure, in terms of going to Met Council , it —
seems kind of futile to me unless we had some good rationale in going
there . It ' s like how many times do you want to go back unless you have a
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 17
good case . And to let them go in with one case, unless we had some
rationale by saying here we had a mistake. It really is an area that
could be hooked up real easily and areas to the east and west are all okay
and this is just a real unique situation. I don't see the rationale right
now for going to Met Council . My preference is , and I don' t mind sending
up test balloons but I want to have a good case when we go there. Why
waste staff time? Why waste the developer time when maybe we don' t have a
good case and I don' t think we do. We' ve played with the MUSA line enough
to know, unless staff is telling us they' re more receptive to changing
their response. I guess I 'd prefer to see this item tabled and have staff
tell us what they believe should be done to look at the MUSA line in
- general. Now Mark is working on the Comprehensive Plan with us. I think
we have some other studies being done. I guess I 'd just hate to take this
out of context of a bigger picture and wasting a lot of energy. For sure
if this goes , well than we have some other things that other people would
want to include and it just really doesn' t seem like good planning to me
at all . I 'm not even tempted to roll this one to City Council until
somebody tells us that it makes sense to do it this way. And I think I 'd
like to have staff or City Council tell us it makes sense to do it that
way. But right now I 'm not comfortable at all sending it forward. My
preference is to table it until Mark has a Comprehensive Plan done that
says the MUSA line should be moved and here are the places where it should
be moved in. I just have no interest in going or allowing somebody to go
to Met Council with 10 acres or 11 acres of property. I 'd like to go with
a bigger picture than that . That ' s my feeling .
Emmings: Can I ask you a question. It' s my understand that what could be
happening here is that the applicant will be going to the Met Council .
- The only thing he'd be bearing from the City is the fact that we had given
approval to the preliminary plat . The City isn ' t going to say, we think
they should be included. We' re just saying that if. . .
Conrad : It' s implied that we think it should be . If we let it develop in
small lots , it is implied that the MUSA line should be changed. It ' s
implied that the zoning should be changed and we totally agree with the
developer. That' s implied. In my mind it is. I don ' t know. We haven' t
looked at zoning in this case . Again, we' re saying this is the right
zone. We haven' t looked at the zoning yet.
Emmings: No we haven ' t said that .
Conrad: Well , if you allow 15, 000 square foot lot sizes, you have
insinuated to the developer what you want on this land .
Emmings: That' s your view. I don' t think you have to look at it that
- way.
Conrad : The developer will look at it that way. It' s what signals you
want to send .
Emmings: If he gets our approval on the preliminary plat and if he' s
approved by Met Council , than he has to ask us to rezone and amend our
Comprehensive Plan , neither of which we might do .
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 18 —
Conrad: I think that' s unfair to them.
Emmings : But that ' s what he' s asking for and if he ' s asking for that , why
should you say it' s unfair to him?
Conrad : I don ' t want to send a signal that says I want to rezone and I —
want this particular design right now. I also need a signal coming
from Park and Rec telling me what they thing where a park should be and if
this is parkland, I feel uncomfortable saying that we want a development —
there when we have a feeling that there might be a need for a park.
There' s a lot of loose ends that I 'm not comfortable with right now and
therefore , and I really want staff coming back and saying, there is
rationale going on a piecemeal basis to go after the Met Council and see —
if , use this as a test balloon . I don' t believe that staff will come back
and say it to us that way and I think with Mark ' s input, we may do a
different approach . It' s one of the biggest issues that our new mayor and —
city council are going to deal with is development of Chanhassen and how
much. How much do we want to deal with the Met Council and where does
that MUSA line go. But that ' s my personal opinion. I just don' t want to —
deal with it this way. There are other ways of dealing with it and
sending it over there. Those are ways of doing it. They' re not my ways
of doing it. Basically, we have a lot of alternatives . Approving it .
Approving it with some recommendations. Tabling it. Turning it down and —
sending it along to City Council . Tabling it doesn ' t get it to City
Council . Turning it down or saying something positive about it ,
recommending approval of it gets it to City Council for their comments . —
Your choices in making a motion can consider those alternatives and I ' ll
accept a motion right now.
Headla : Let me make a motion on that but let me give some rationale on
it. I don' t object to the property being developed but I think we have to
have a plan . What' s going to be the impact with the MUSA line? The
parkland and the adjoining properties all along that line. I 'd recommend, —
I 'd make a motion that we table this . I 'd like to see the staff do a
study on the gravity flow. What' s the impact if we do go, bring that
within the MUSA line and what ' s going to be the impact and requirements —
for parkland? I think this one gentleman , and I don' t know who it was
now, brought up a very good point . If we expand the MUSA line there ,
we' re going to put in a lot more properties . A lot more kids . A lot
more people. What ' s going to be the impact to that area? —
Wildermuth: I second the motion.
Conrad : Was that a motion?
Headla : I started with the rationale and then I made the motion. I ' ll
—
make a motion that we table this proposal for the time being and have the
staff do a study on the impact if we increase the MUSA line and that based
on the study Larry mentioned , the gravity flow. What ' s going to be the
impact on requirements for parkland. There' s a third point. The gravity —
sewer and parkland .
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 19
Elison: And density were you saying?
Headla : Well then the density goes into that. I guess maybe those two
points brought it together .
Erhart : If we table it , what is the time limit? Is there a time limit on
tabling a proposal or what ' s the procedure for that?
Conrad : Let ' s ask Steve. What type of time? We ' re basically saying ,
tell us more. We need some legal opinions . We need staff telling us what
procedurally the right way to look at more areas . Specifically right next
_. to this. I think what we' re looking for is some staff advice. Not
necessarily on this parcel but in parcels in general in this area and a
program as to what we' re going to do. Some of that' s going to do in the
future for all of Chanhassen . This gets into City Council stuff so it' s
kind of tough but what type of timeframe would you see that coming back to
us in?
Hanson : Larry has a question but one thing I would see as, the way that
you talked about it, it opens up in a lot of respects Pandora' s Box. As
far as how far you take that evaluation of what you want to include within
the MUSA line. Obviously if there' s no parameters on it, what ' s not
within the MUSA line right now but I think my understanding of what you' re
talking about is those areas that would logically be called infield lines .
Jay was kind enough to go grab a copy of the overhead of the plan with the
MUSA line on it and the property that we' re talking about. The Carrico
property is sitting right here . It runs from there , this is the Hughes
property right here. I would assume that you ' re talking about, for
example this whole area and whether you want to include other areas in
that, I don' t know.
Conrad : Okay, should we limit what we' re asking staff to do as
specifically to that area north?
Elison : If you' re doing a MUSA line study, is i.t fair to just do it for
their neighborhood because like he says , that Baptist Church would want
it? I think that we should send i.t onto the Council with one or the
other .
Conrad : A yea or nay versus a table?
Ellson: Right .
Headla : However , when you look at it , they' ve already made the point it ' s
easily accessible, that particular area and I think that' s got to be
criteria on expanding any MUSA line . Is it easily accessible? If you' re
going to run 1,000 feet, I don' t think that' s necessarily easily
accessible.
Conrad : Can you get back in 2 weeks to us a recommendation as to how to
handle this specific group of parcels north of Lake Lucy Road?
Brown: Obviously with the contracts that we' ve been mentioning and with
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 20 —
all the other constraints that go with it , obviously Met Council has in
the past said, if you give us this area , we need to swap another area .
That' s precisely what we' re looking at through that Comprehensive Plan. —
Trying to take in all the constraints , and there are many of them that may
not have been mentioned this evening . For us to take a look at this one
area, I think we' re putting the blinders on. We' re duplicating work that
this study is already in the works . I guess what I 'm trying to get across —
is if you recommend tabling it until you can get some valid information on
the MUSA, I 'm afraid the only thing that' s really going to give you a fair
answer is the Comprehensive Plan which isn' t due to be completed for a —
couple months .
Headla : That was my third point . Would we be going to the Met Council in
an organized manner? Look, this is our plan. This makes sense. This —
doesn ' t make sense and there may be just that little nitch in there that
makes sense but at least we gave it thought. It isn' t helter skelter .
Batzli : I guess from the standpoint of if we' re asking staff to do some
legwork, I 'd also like to see them look at that. If we' re going to extend
the MUSA line to that area or look at it , we should also be looking at _
rezoning that entire area rather than this one parcel .
Conrad : Based on what Larry is saying , we' re not going to get to the
bottom line for a couple of months. Staff may not have a fair evaluation
for a couple of months . In that light , we literally, we may want to vote
it yea or nay and get it to City Council so that they could add their two
cents to the issue . —
Wildermuth: Maybe the way to address the MUSA line issue is to put it in
the Comprehensive Plan.
Erhart : Ladd , can I ask the developer what he prefers to do?
Conrad: I don' t know. —
Erhart : He may be willing to wait until the study is done.
Conrad: You would like a reaction wouldn' t you? I guess , do you have a
timeframe? Would you like us to do some studying? It may take a couple
of months.
Carl Carrico : I can understand your problem because I ' ve heard all of you
discuss it. But, basically I think you still have my under control if I
go to the Met Council and see if I can do it . If it ' s necessary to wait
for the Comprehensive Plan, I guess it ' s certainly going to delay my plans
for development but I 'm here to cooperate . I 'm not here to , I have 4
children of my own and I like parks too but they like to eat too. I don' t _
think it' s your purpose and I 'm sure you' ve consider , delaying this
decision is going to hurt me but I 'm willing to take it on, withdraw my
request until the Comprehensive Plan is completed . I would prefer to be
able to go to the Metropolitan Council and see if I can get it done. I
don ' t think it' s going to hurt anybody. When I come back, you still have
to approve my plan anyway. I understand that you don' t normally do it
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 21
this way but I 'm going to have to do it anyway. It ' s not the City who ' s
going to have to do it. Mr . Cardarelle and I are going to have to go
Metropolitan Council and see if we can get it done. If we can' t get it
done, then whether you approved it or not isn' t going to make any
difference.
Conrad : You'd like us to react to it tonight then? Basically you'd like
us to react to it tonight so you can take it up? We' ve got 5 or 6 more
'- items on the agenda tonight so we' ve got to get this going somehow. I 'm
just going to take your comments to say, react to it tonight. Don' t table
it . You don ' t want to withdraw it .
Carl Carrico : If you want to table it, I 'm not here to make. . . I 'm not
going to make the decision for you. I ' ve lived in Chanhassen. I ' ve
developed a lot of property in Chanhassen and I like Chanhassen. Probably
a long time before most of you were here so I really believe in this town
and I want the best thing for the town too . I ' ve owned the property since
1972 so it' s not a quick suede shoe operation.
Wildermuth : I could really get behind the idea of taking it to the Met
Council if the proposal was a good solid proposal . If the road issue was
taken care of and if the wetland issue was taken care of and if we took a
look at a little larger picture as far as the rezoning . The implied
rezoning is concerned . I guess that would be why I would want us to table
it for the moment. Have it come back. Rework the road. Let staff look
at the zoning issue for the general area up there . Than I could feel a
lot better about supporting the proposal . It ' s kind of like, I 'm going to
compromise my principle to support a philosophy or are you going to
compromise your philosophy to support a principle?
Conrad : Are you in favor of tabling it for a short period of time?
Emmings: No.
Conrad : Do you feel comfortable with the design as presented?
Emmings: No.
Conrad : You don ' t?
Emmings: I have reservations about the road plan. I think that left hand
turn in there is a bad thing unless somebody can convince me otherwise
but I don' t have problems with the rest of it . I also don ' t like the road
coming against that other piece of property. But I don ' t think it ought
to be tabled . Usually we don' t have this much dissention here . Usually
we find a consensus. That' s suggests to me that this is an important and
doubtful issue and I think the thing to do is to let the Council give us
some direction here by sending it up to them. If they reject it, we' re
going to know the next time one of these comes along , what the approach is
going to be. Otherwise, as long as it' s very, very clear that we may want
to look at some other things on the site plan and that by giving this
preliminary plat approval we are guaranteeing them absolutely nothing or
agreeing to absolutely nothing in terms of rezoning or amendments to the
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 22 -'
Comprehensive Plan , if they understand that , than I 'm willing to pass it
on so they can go see if the Met Council will buy their notion.
Headla : I bet I can find the Council ' s opinion without it going to
Council . I don' t see where they' re really going to add value and I think
we' re just wasting more time.
Emmings: I 'm not going to guess what they' re going to do. I haven ' t even
met them.
Conrad : Dave, in terms of what you'd like to do. Given the fact that we
may not want to keep this out there for months, would you be comfortable ,
when you table it , based on satisfying Jim' s concerns in terms of the
roadway, redesigning the site a little bit, the subdivision based on some
concerns . The wetland . The road . Maybe the staff making some
recommendations on the whole area back to us in terms of zoning and staff
making , let' s see is there anything else? And park. Maybe we get Park
and Rec type of input in. Those four things. If those came back within a
limited period of time, is that what you' re looking for or are you looking
for something broader than just this area when we table it?
Headla : I think it' s primarily that area . I want to see it a little more
organized than what I see right now. We don' t even know the impact of if
we started letting small lots go in there. —
Erhart: Are we voting on. . .
Conrad : We' re voting on tabling it . We' re voting on the motion to table.
Headla moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission table
action on the Preliminary Plat for Carrico Addition #88-19. Conrad ,
Wildermuth, Headla and Batzli voted in favor of the motion. Emmings ,
Ellson and Erhart voted in opposition of the motion and the motion to —
table carried with a vote of 4 to 3.
Conrad : The item will be tabled . Steve , timing wise , what do you think?
Hanson: I think the one thing from what I feel I owe the Commission is to
come back to you in two weeks with nothing less than a detail on the
program on how to deal with the issue if you will . Also, an anlysis on. . .
may go on for several months . If that' s the case , I 'd want to be able to
advise you that that may be. If we ' re looking at a long term situation
that may totally affect the way you want to deal with it.
Headla: Will you give us the status on it then like before the meetings
type of thing so it doesn ' t just slide and slide?
Hanson : Yes , what I 'm suggesting is that I would come back at your next
regular meeting and give you a staff report on what it would take to deal
with it.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 23
PUBLIC HEARING: NORTH WEST NURSERY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HWY 101,
JUST SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 18, MARK VAN HOEF, 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.
Public Present:
Name Address
Mark Van Hoef Applicant
Rick Dorsey
Kevin and Valette Finger 9151 Great Plains Blvd .
Mark Koegler presented the staff report on this item.
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order .
Mark Van Hoef: I 'd just like to add one thing to the report and that is
in regard to the shade structure. The chronological timing which he' s got
in his report is all accurate and fine in correspondence to all the
written correspondence that went on between the nursery and staff . What
wasn' t in there was the fact that in June, the first week of June when we
realized there was obviously some damaging weather that would be
occurring , we at that time contacted verbally Jo Ann Olsen trying to find
out what procedure we had to pursue to get some type of shade structure up
to protect some of our shade tolerant plant material . At that time, and
this is again in early June , we were told that we had to have a blueprint .
We had to have photos. We had to go to the Building Inspector and that
process , when I came up to the City and started to go through that , I
impressed upon her the timeframe that we' re dealing with. We at that time
sat down and discussed it . She thought there would be no problem. I
still should submit the blueprints and a formal application but in
discussing that with Jo Ann , her comment to me was that we had to adhere
to a 50 foot setback. Now it wasn ' t for 2 weeks that she followed up with
a written letter than said it' s 100 foot and unfortunately, what ' s not in
this report is that construction was before the first of July so when that
letter came to our nursery, the structure was already up. The only thing
that was not completed was the overall lathe and at that time when the
inspecter came out he put a work stopage. Now I share that with you just
so it doesn' t look like we were told that we had to have 100 foot setback
and we just went out and randomly put it up wherever we wanted . If you' ll
note, the report states that we are 68 feet back and so that would have
adhered to the verbal 50 foot setback that we were told that we could
pursue. The only other thing that I would state and as Mark' s got in his
report , you talk about any work that' s going to be done on TH 101 and the
fact that that 100 foot setback would provide an easier condition to have
people come in and use a little more of the land . If you' ll note on the
plan, the house that we now are using as an office is closer to the road
than the shade structure. So if we have to move the shade structure,
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 24 —
that ' s fine but keep in mind that the house is actually closer to the road
than the shade structure is presently as it stands. I think those are the
only comments I wanted to make.
Rick Dorsey: I ' ve got property on Lyman Blvd . . I just had a question as
far as expansion of the growing yard. How big and what kind of traffic
problems would be involved with trucks going in and out . —
Mark Van Hoef: The only expansion that we' re really going to do as noted
on the site plan , is less than a 2 acre canned expansion. The majority of —
the listed areas that we were requested by staff, Jo Ann Olsen, was that
there was a lot of area on the original site plan that we submitted in
1985 that we didn' t feel that we were going to need for several years .
Well we planted up to 15 acres . We' re out of room in terms of any
plantings so to do anymore expanding, I thought all we had to do was get
the plow out and till up the land and start planting . She alerted me to
the fact that anytime I went beyond what was noted on the original site —
plan , I was no longer in compliance with our original site plan and
therefore no longer in compliance with the original conditional use
permit . So what you see in front of you is the complete expansion that we —
would foresee us ever using. That was brought up by Mark that we also put
in a proposed secondary road access because in the spring when we are
shipping and receiving plant material , it' s rather congested because we
are using semi-trailers to bring plant material in and ship out plant —
material . That secondary road would definitely not be something we want
to see happen right away but again , we were encouraged to put all our
future considerations on the map. So in reference to the question at —
hand , the only physical expansion i.n terms of actual container area would
be less than 2 acres . All the rest of the expansion would be in field
operation.
Conrad : Traffic?
Mark Van Hoef : Taffic , if you go back to your 1985 notes on our receiving —
our conditional use permit, there was some discussion as to traffic. At
that time we were talking about the possibility of doing any retail sales
on the site. The feeling of the Planning Committee at that time was that —
due to additional traffic pressure that any retail sales would provide,
they didn' t want to see us doing any retail . So at that time we said we
won ' t pursue any retail and the only traffic that we have is heavy traffic
in the early spring because that' s when all the harvesting and the —
receiving of the product is done . You have to understand the nursery
industry is an industry such that we harvest only in the spring . So we' re
digging our tree . We' re shipping our tree . We' re dealing our trees in a —
3 to 4 week period. From there on out, there is no semi traffic but
rather contractor traffic that comes i.n and picks up material . So in
reference to the traffic issue, I guess the majority of the traffic that
we ' re looking at is early April to end of April to early May and then
after that it' s all customer traffic, which according to our expressed use
permit , we have the right to bring our customers in and they' re picking up
their materials . —
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 25
Kevin Finger : My name is Kevin Finger . I live at 9151 Great Plains
Blvd. . I think I live across the street across from that nursery but from
what he just said , I don' t know if I do or not . I 'm sorry, the reason I 'm
coming up here is I came to the City Hall Thursday and Friday and this was
not available so this is the first time I ' ve been able to see it. I guess
the thing, he keeps talking about harvesting trees and the only thing we
ever see from across the road is semi truck loads full of trees coming in,
dumping them off starting at about 7: 00 in the morning and the Bobcats
running all day long moving trees around until about 9: 00-9 : 30 at night .
Chanhassen is supposed to be a nice, quiet area. It' s not there. I look
back and what I saw when they received their conditional use permit , was
that they were going to be mostly a tree growing nursery. They have 15
acres of trees . That' s not a tree growing nursery. They broker trees .
They move trees in. They move them out. They' re all balled when they
come in. They' re all balled when they go out . Granted I know you do some
but I know a lot of people who work for you and that' s not the bulk of
your business . I have a real problem about giving them more yard space.
Right now they dump water onto our property on a steady rate. I 've talked
to them for the last 3 years to try to have them do something . Supposedly
they changed their watering system. I still get the same runoff that goes
underneath the culvert under TH 101. I ' ve talked to City Engineering .
Oh , they' ll work on it. They haven' t done a thing. Help. I need
somebody to help me, a little citizen who' s lost six 4 to 6 foot evergreen
trees. Two 40 foot stretches of good raspberries. I know it' s no big
deal but it is to me and there' s an area probably 200 square feet that I
can' t mow in front of the house because it' s too wet and I ' ve got about 12
to 14 inches of sand . Another thing , they' ve excavated the road and with
all the trucks going over it, it' s really nice. Every time there' s a rain
storm, we get about another 3 or 4 inches of bark and sand on our
property. So before they' re given another opportunity to expand their
conditional use permit , I think the two things should be looked at that
was given on their first permit and that is, number one, the number one
thing that was mentioned by the Planning Commission was , would they hurt
any of their neighboring properties . And it was absolutely, they would
not. Well , I ' ve talked to them for 2, it ' s actually 2 1/2 years because 3
years would be right now. About 2 1/2 years and they haven' t done
anything . They haven' t talked to me and now they want to expand their
yard. Trust us all , we may never do it. We' re going to give them 2 1/2
more acres of pots . Where do you think they get them? Do you think they
grow them? No, they bring them in by trucks every spring starting about
May 1st . So I am opposed to it. I hope you got my letter . I dropped it
off. I guess you' re to represent us, the small people, that don' t have
the big nursery that comes in with their big plan and all that stuff . The
small people can' t get it until you come to the Planning Commission
meeting . I don' t understand why it wasn ' t available here but that
irritated me quite a bit. I wasn' t even aware of the first two things .
I came in and asked what it was about and I was told that it was about the
shade. I wasn' t told anything about the wetlands or about the increased
yard so I 'm very upset and I think something should be done to help me .
Thank you.
Mark Van Hoef : Can I respond?
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 26 —
Conrad: Sure.
Mark Van Hoef : I guess what he' s saying , he' s got three problems. The —
major one, and I read his letter , is with regards to the runoff. He' s
right , he has approached the nursery. However , what he hasn' t told you is
that the culvert which he wants us to divert is not our property. And
Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City Engineers come out and —
inspected the property and we were in full agreement that they wanted to
divert any of the water that runs off of our property, they are more than
welcome to do that. All they have to do is dig a culvert under our —
driveway, let it run down the roadway and fall into the ditch but that' s
not even our property. I really take exception to the fact that he is
upset with our future expansion on an issue that we have no control over . _
If he wants us not to water our plant material , than we really can' t stay
in business . The other thing I take exception to is the fact that he ' s
eluding to, we keep talking about a tree growing operation. When we
approached the City Council , that' s what we said the majority of our —
business was going to be. However , if you look at our application and the
conditional use permit we received , it was as a commercial wholesale
nursery and we are operating as a commercial wholesale nursery. We are —
operating by the explanation and definition that you have in your city
ordinance and if someone takes exception to that , than I guess you' re
going to have to change the verbage in the city charter because we are
operating under those guidelines . I guess the third issue is the problem —
with the container area and it' s really not consistent with the fact that
he doesn' t like our runoff because if you' ll note on the site plan, any
expansion is in the rear of the property so any of the runoff on that —
expanded area would not reflect his property at all anyway.
Conrad : Okay, thanks .
Kevin Finger : I ' ve got one rebuttal . The culver that goes under and he
talks about it. Keep in mind that he' s . . .and that was all grass on that
hill so naturally the . . .would handle that without any problem. That ' s not —
the case. There' s about 8 garden hoses going on that hill into the
culvert. You guys , I can ' t get any help from the City Hall .
Conrad: Other comments?
Emmings moved , Batzli seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in —
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Conrad : Just a quick comment . Mark, there' s no wetland alteration permit —
in our packet. Is there a reason for that? Is there a wetland
alteration? I went through mine again.
Batzli : The form itself?
Conrad : Yes . And typically on that form we ask for justification for the
applicant why. —
Emmings : Oh you mean the application permit?
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 27
Conrad : Yes . The permit itself says what is it going to do. What' s the
harm. What' s the benefit. What' s the rationale and that' s not here so
it' s tough for me to react . Normally we also get staff to react to that
permit. Just for those of you who are here, we do try to preserve
wetlands because they' re a vanishing part of our country and what we ask
the applicant to do when they want to build or build close, we ask them,
is this going to improve the situation? Typically they can make it so it
improves the wetland. We have structured that in Chanhassen so we don' t
necessarily get rid of the wetland but we allow developers to play with
them sometimes and actually improve the drainage and improve the habitat
for wildlife . In this I don ' t have very good feedback on anything , to
tell you the truth. Mr. Burke' s letter is real confusing and doesn' t
tell . It ' s in different terms than what I 'm used to . I just have a
personal problem with some of the data that' s here in terms of the wetland
alteration permit. It' s not here . It' s not in our packet and we do need
that. That was just a quick aside. Tim, we' ll start down at your end .
Erhart : I assume we want to talk about all three things?
Conrad: Everything, yes .
Erhart : Regarding the expansion of the conditional use permit . What' s
the distance between the new driveway and the proposed driveway?
Brown: Approximately 350 feet .
Erhart : And what' s the ordinance require on an arterial? Isn ' t it 1, 200
feet?
Brown : Right . If my memory serves me correctly, we need a quarter of a
mile. Obviously TH 101 falls under the jurisdiction of MnDot and we would
basically look for their recommendation.
Erhart: Yes, except our ordinance has, a flat arterial , I think it ' s
1, 200 feet. I think that ' s an issue. The argument , I might add , in
driving by there in the spring there is a lot of trucks going in and
occasionally some have backed in. If that can be at all avoided by
adding a second driveway, there' s a positive aspect to that although I
think on this plan , I think there appears to be enough room for the
turning around of all semis isn' t there Mark? In your current plan here?
So the backing in of trucks won ' t be required in the future? Okay.
Regarding, let me jump ahead to the wetland. I 'm a little confused about
exactly what alterations we' re making here with the wetland . Are we
moving the lines that were drawn on here by the Fish and Wildlife fella
Burke? These are the lines as they exist currently? They' re not the line
that differentiates a Class A wetland and Class B wetland? The edges are
not changing? Correct?
Mark Koegler : That is correct . They are, if you look at the area of the
Class B wetland, in the proposed shurb growing field. It says proposed
shurb growing will be right on above there and there' s a little notch
there. In the middle of that it says . . . Do you see where I 'm at?
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 28 —
Erhart : Okay.
Mark Koegler : That area , the coordinates come back and said , that area
alone the applicant could deposit dredged material from the pond as long
as it was level . That ' s the only area outside of the excavation of the
pond that would be modified as a part of the wetland alteration. The —
Corps letter also references , and I haven ' t seen a copy but they did send
along some typical section type data to enhance the wildlife value of the
ponds that they' re proposed to create as a part of their berm. —
Erhart : That ' s the 10: 21 slope?
Mark Koegler : Yes.
Erhart : Going back to that again . Would you explain to us again that
filling, is that filling in an existing Class B wetland? —
Mark Koegler : The area that we' re referencing is this portion right here .
Here is the exhibit that came back from the Corps which they have —
indicated the hatched area A, which is referenced . They have a copy of
the letter you have, . 3 acre site that could be used to place fill
material from the pond . They' ve come back and found that to be
acceptable. The rest of the wetland, the Type A is totally undisturbed .
The rest of the Type B is only disturbed insofar as the two ponds and the
connecting ditch are constructed.
Conrad : Doesn ' t our ordinance say that' s not acceptable though?
Depositing debris within 200 feet of a wetland .
Mark Koegler : The ordinance does reference upland areas which was part of
my original recommendation. And you can stick with that or you can agree
with the Corps . Presumably the material that comes out of here can as
easily be placed somewhere else on the site if that' s your desire. I —
don' t think that would be a big hurdle to anybody. But the Corps has come
back and said, for the purposes of a nationwide permit, that' s an
acceptable place to deposit that material . —
Erhart: The reason I ask, I think our ordinance on wetlands is stronger
than the Corps generally. I think in following our ordinance , I think the
material would have to be deposited somewhere on existing highland areas
just to follow in line with what we apply to other people in our following
ordinance. The drainage ditch, there' s a note here that says drainage
ditch that goes between the easterly pond and the westerly pond . Does
that mean that that ditch, the bottom of that ditch is lower than a Class
A wetland?
Mark Koegler : I would assume so , yes . There' s no contour information
shown there but the ditch obviously connotates a lower elevation.
Erhart : Is that a drainage ditch just between the two ponds or does that —
go along someplace else?
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 29
Mark Koegler : It only goes between the two ponds as proposed . Presumably
the applicant' s intent, and I think he can speak to that, is to pick up on
other things, some of the drainage that' s coming off these irrigated
fields and channel that to the ponds .
Erhart : Is that right Mark? Essentially the drainage ditch is to drain
the future tree growing field area into one or those two ponds?
Mark Van Hoef : That whole field that you' re looking at, at one time was
farm. It was an alfalfa , in fact it' s in your packet . The aerial photo.
Barb Dacy, when she first presented to the committee , showed that as being
farmed at one time. The only thing that we' re talking about doing is
stumps that were left on the outside perimeter of that field are still
there. In removing them we' re going to create some pockets anyway and we
wanted to connect the two ponds with the ditch along that border .
Erhart: I just want to make sure that that ditch is not intended or will
inadvertently act to lower the water level in that Class A wetland .
Mark Koegler: The indication from the Corps was that that would not occur
and they specifically address that . . .
Erhart: I go back to my feeling of the growing of trees in the area .
This is really an agricultural use and I have no problem with growing the
trees. I do it on my farm so I don' t have any problem with that .
Currently there is no open water existing on this whole wetland is there
except for that half . . . so what we' re creating here is open water where no
open water exists on several , maybe 30 or 40 acres of Class A marsh . Is
that a correct summarization of what we' re doing?
Mark Koegler : My knowledge of open water is restricted to one visit . . .
Erhart: And that' s pretty much correct.
Mark Koegler : There' s no open water on the entire Class A or Class B
wetland in that whole area.
Erhart : I personally worked with the DNR. I believe in an area as large
as this where essentially it' s grown over cattails and so forth, that
opening up some areas for duck hatching is an improvement to the wetlands.
I just think we should all concur that we don' t want to see any fill of
the deposits in the existing wetland . I would ask that we be assured that
the deposits were put on the highland someplace so I would favorably
respond to the creation of the ponds and so forth . One last , regarding
the variance . I can see perhaps where there may have been some confusion
about the 50 feet or 100 feet of TH 101. I think there' s been confusion
ever since I ' ve lived here and been on the Planning Commission on what in
fact the right-of-way is and what the plan is. I think a way to look at
this problem and to get out of it without creating a lot of hardship on
the owner is, I question the interpretation of the structure as permanent .
I would question that . There' s no walls. There' s no roof and I suggest
in reviewing that, that point of it, if future right-of-way was needed , it
'- would be easy enough to move. I guess I 'd be in favor of allowing it to
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 30 —
stay but with the requirements that no addition was made to that
particular structure and nothing was done to make it more permanent .
That ' s my feeling on that . Lastly, I feel that there' s not enough —
screening on the business, particularly as it grows further north. I
would like to see Mark has put some very nice evergreens , of course he
gets a good deal on them I think, over on the south side of the property
and along the south and along TH 101 on the south end of the property. I 'd —
like to see that same thing done on now the north end as they are building
some permanent/temporary structures and so forth . Back in the old
conditional use permit it says that the hill screens it. When I drive —
south on TH 101 , it doesn' t screen it for me and I don' t think it screens
it for others . It is a business. We require businesses in our industrial
park to screen and the ordinance relating to these two wholesale nurseries —
is that we do require 100% opaque screening from the highway I do believe.
And I 'd like to see additional screening between that proposed driveway up
to the house. Not necessarily screen them from the house. With all that,
I ' ll pass it to Steve. —
Emmi.ngs : Starting with that storage issue , I guess under the conditional
use permit, it says that the applicant has to comply with Section 2257 and —
2257 speaks to screening . It says that all outdoor storage areas , this is
on wholesale nurseries, all outdoor storage areas much be completely
screened by 100% opaque fencing or berming . I don' t see this addressed in
the staff report as to whether they' re in compliance with that at this
time or not but I see it' s a condition. And as long as they' re aware of
that , that that condition is being included, I guess then after that it' s
just a matter of enforcement . Mr . Van Hoef said we should look up the —
definition of a wholesale nursery so I did. I think he might be surprised
to find out that maybe what he' s doing isn ' t within the definition. It
says here that a wholesale nursery means an enterprise which conducts the _
wholesale of plants grown on site . That ' s it . As well as accessory items
directly related to the care and maintenance of plants. I 'm not sure that
all the trucking in of , you know I was surprised frankly to find that. I
thought that you would be right but that is what the definition is and I 'm —
not sure that what you ' re doing there complies with that definition. I 'm
very concerned about the neighbors complaints. I guess I want to know
from Larry why, if he' s looked into this drainage problem and what , if —
anything can be done to resolve it so these people don' t have. Water ' s
bad enough but when you' re getting sand and a lot of bark and debris with
it, that' s awful . What' s the problem there?
Brown: I ' ve been waiting to comment on this issue . I 've been out and
visited with Mr . Arlen Finger three times that I can recall . All three
times , after visiting with him, seeing the problem, I went back over to
the nursery and gave them notice that hey, you' ve got a problem over here.
You need to take care of it . All my attempts to do so failed . My next
route was to go to MnDot saying , hey you' ve got a problem with the culvert _
out here . It ' s clogged . Please take care of it . MnDot did come out and
clean the culvert at one time but they have failed to do so since. As the
applicant did indicate , MnDot has jurisdiction over this . The other
attack is , how do we resolve the problem? When this application came in, —
unfortunately the consultant was not aware of this problem nor did I place
a review in here on this problem. What our intention was, and I was going
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 31
to be adding this condition, or asking that this condition when the
discussion was through, is that as a condition of the conditional use
permit , that the applicant submit a revised grading and/or erosion control
plan which solves this problem. I think through the creative use of
berming or putting up some other type of vegetation or even using the silt
fences that we have in place along some of the other developments, we may
be able to rectify this situation.
Emmings: Okay, so you think there is a solution out there?
Brown: Yes I do .
Emmings : Have they been cooperative? Have you suggested to them that
they do certain things to fix this problem?
Brown: We have asked them to take care of the damage that has occurred on
the other side. Now obviously our powers, we' re stretching our power
there but we have asked them, yes .
Emmings: But have you asked them to changehis operation i.n any specific
ways to prevent the problem?
Brown : My last site visit out , I talked with the receptionist that was
out there and informed her that we would expect to see some sort of
immediate action to take care of the erosion problem, yes .
Emmings: Okay, so there hasn' t been any real specific things? Just a
general?
Brown: No , since this permit has been a long time in coming and we knew
that it was coming in, we' re going to attack it at that time.
Emmings: I guess for the property owner across the street too , he should
know that the Section 2257 that he has to comply with also restricts hours
of operation from 7 : 00 a .m. to 6: 00 p.m. . So again, there are provisions
here that maybe will affect the operations of this and somewhat mitigate
the problem that you' ve raised but these things don' t enforce themselves .
You should be aware of what they are and you' ll have to try to get the
City to enforce the ordinance complying with that . Enforcement is always
a problem. With the added condition that Larry just mentioned, that the
applicant submit a revised grading and erosion control plan to eliminate
the consequences of all this runoff on the neighbor , as long as there' s
compliance with the rest of those conditions , I have no problem with the
conditional use permit. As far as the wetland alteration permit goes ,
with the extra information that Mark gave them when Tim was making his
comments, I don' t really have any problem with the wetland alteration and
I think we can do what Tim wanted to do simply by destroying condition 3
to what it was before. Mark just amended it i.n his comments. It
previously read all excavated material shall be placed in an upland area .
Mark amended that to say, or areas approved by the Corps. I think what we
should do is just have it read , all excavated materials shall be placed in
upland area in compliance with the Chanhassen ordinance. Otherwise, I
have no other comments on the wetland but on the variance. I guess it
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 32 —
would be my feeling that if Jo Ann recalls telling this gentleman that
there was a 50 foot setback, I think we ought to ask her . If she recalls
that she did that , I think it ought to stay there but with the conditions —
that Tim put on it. He shouldn' t be made to move it. If on the other
hand , Jo Ann told him 100 feet from the beginning and it wasn' t built
there, than I don' t think a variance should be granted.
Ellson: I too was concerned about the Finger family problems and the
additional condition 4, revising grading and erosion control plan. I 'm
not quite sure, are we saying that we' re going to approve or if it' s going —
to eliminate the problem? It' s going to reduce the problem? Or what' s
going to be considered acceptable? I think anybody who has a culvert in
their yard is bound to get more water than someone who doesn' t no matter
where you live. Granted he' s certainly got a lot more water across the
street than most people but like Steve said, I think the bark and the sand
have got to be the absolute worse part of it so even if it' s something
like that erosion. I 'd like a little more specifics. To who' s —
satisfaction is this plan going to be? Our City Engineer ' s? Is that
basically it?
Brown: That would be my intention, yes .
Ellson: Well, I ' ll trust you Larry. If it went for the Finger ' s
satisfaction or Mark' s or what have you, I 'm not sure that we' d ever come —
up with a satisfactory solution. So we' ll go with a city employee. Than
I guess I could see that . I agree with these two. I never even thought
about the berming part of it , 2257 and they made a good point so I could _
see adding that in a little more detail maybe in condition 1. Instead of
basically saying, we' ll comply with the Section , make a point about the
berming that we necessarily haven ' t seen in one . The other two , I don' t
know, I think Jo Ann is a lot like me. She has to have the actual facts
in front of her and I ' ve seen her do this with me when I ' ve called her on
things. Say one thing and then later come back and tell me another so I
don ' t believe it ' s not possible that she said 50 feet . I can believe it —
because that' s the way I am too. I really hate granting variances but the
point he made about the house is even further up than this screening deal .
I would go along with Tim that we' re not going to add to it. We' re not —
going to . . . the possibility of taking it down but I can ' t see that this is
that big a deal . I would probably let it go.
Batzli : I like the submission of the erosion control plan. I think we —
may want to specify that one of the things it' s intended to correct is the
runoff to the gentleman' s property across TH 101. The wetland alteration
permit, I guess I would like to see a condition 7 stating that the —
applicant shall insure that the elevation of the proposed drainage channel
will not adversely affect the Class A wetlands so that everybody' s clear
on what this thing is going to do. That we received his indication that —
it' s not intended to adversely affect it but I guess I would prefer that
that be a condition. I had a question for Mark. He' s going to build a
pond right against the Class A wetlands, according to our map here
correct?
Mark Koegler : Yes .
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 33
Batzli : And you indicated that the typical 6 conditions that are normally
in there would apply to that pond? Did you say that earlier? About the
slope and all that other good stuff?
Mark Koegler : I referenced the wanting to avoid the storm water runoff
provisions that were a part of the wetland alteration permis would apply.
Conrad : That ' s not it . Those are conditions from the DNR.
Batzli : They are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conditions typically
are included in ponding areas of this type . Are those include in here?
Mark Koegler : I don' t know that I had it. The item that I added with
item 6 was a reference to the Corps ' permit requirements . The Fish and
Wildlife, essentially in this particular case, and Paul Burke specifically
has essentially not commented , if you will in any level of detail other
than to say that basically it ' s under the Corps' jurisdiction and he
agrees with their findings and then offered to conduct the visual
inspection which might tie in to some degree to item 7 prior to the time
that the actual disturbance occurs . Stake the location where the drainage
ditch in the field . . .
Batzli : I guess typically we look at whether a ponding area is going to
kind of be a deep, open water pond , if you will or an enhancement to the
wetlands in accordance with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service' s
recommendations for a wetland type area. I guess what I 'm hearing is that
they apparently didn' t really look at it for that . He just concluded that
this was under the Corps' jurisdiction?
Mark Koegler : Let me respond to that in a couple of ways . First of all a
little elaboration. Connecting with the Fisheries people and the Corps '
people and everybody else was very difficult with the holidays intervening
inbetween so as a result unfortunately some of the material literally came
into the City yesterday. If it' s your desire, I would suggest as a part
of the grading and erosion control plan that they submit, that they submit
a section on the proposed pond construction in conformance to the Corps
criteria that' s been submitted along with this letter of December 29th .
In that way, the City would have on file the intended construction packet
for the pond . There is no elevation or section right now of the pond
submitted with this plan of materials to the City so we' re hoping to
request that so that again Paul Burke has something to review in the field
when he goes out there.
Batzli : So you would actually put that in the conditional use permit , the
fourth condition? That the grading and erosion control plan be submitted
to the City Engineer?
Mark Koegler : I suppose more appropriately would be a number 8 in the
wetland alteration permit that is part of that process that the applicant
submit upon their application by the City a section of proposed pond which
is consistent with the recommendations of the Corps which again relates to
this maximum 5 feet depth , gently sloping sides , and so forth to produce
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 34 —
the wildlife habitat that is desired.
Erhart : That ' s a Fish and Wildlife recommendation.
Emmings: The ones that we' re talking about up here right now are Fish and
Wildlife .
Mark Koegler : They' re pretty well in sync . Again, both of these agencies
and both of these gentlemen we' re involved in . . .
Erhart : There' s a regular handout , I ' ve got a copy of it. I could swear
it was the Fish and Wildlife. It is the item that he just mentioned .
Mark Koegler : From my understanding , they are synonymous . Not the —
agencies but the recommendation.
Batzli : I guess I 'd like to see that added as a condition. One other —
thing, correct me if I 'm wrong, do we often times not link the conditional
use permit with the . . .
Emmings: If we want to.
Batzli : Well , do we want to?
Emmings: Yes .
Batzli : But we haven' t here? —
Emmings: It' s number 5.
Batzli : Did I miss that?
Emmings: I wrote it down but I didn ' t say it .
Batzli : Well , I would like to see that as a condition that we link the
wetland alteration permit with compliance of the conditional use permit
and basically vice versa . One other question for Mark and then I 'm pass —
the torch here. My question is, how can they realistically build this
pond without dredging in the Class A wetlands?
Mark Koegler : The field conditions are pretty definitive when you' re out —
there. There is a stand of willows that actually sits right on the edge
of the A and the B so physically there is a very definitive reference in
the field as to where they' re at so it should be totally possible to
construct totally within the Class B area and not disturb the Class A.
Again, that ' s part of the rationale behind having a final verification of
staking a pond outline. I see no reason why the applicant can' t do that.
Batzli : Are they going to kill all the willows when they' re digging the
pond? Or is that a silly question? I 'm sorry, I said I was just going to
ask one more question. That was all I had . On the variance, I kind of —
like the idea of asking Jo Ann if she remembers telling him that before we
would say one way or another . I think it was an emergency type situation
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 35
and she did tell him where to build it and he did it , I think it' s tough
for us to at this time to tell him to tear it down. I think that 's kind
of silly.
Wildermuth : I 'm wondering if this conditional use permit is for a nursery
or whether it' s for a contractor ' s yard. The operation doesn' t seem to
fit our ordinance ' s definition of a nursery very well as Steve wrote just
a little earlier . I think one of the conditions for looking at the
conditional use permit, there' s got to be satisfaction of adjacent
property owners. I understand Mark that we don' t have all the information
on the wetland alteration permit but reading Paul Burke' s description of
this thing, I get the impression that there was a lot of fill work done
even before the application was made which is strictly in violation of the
ordinance.
Mark Koegler : Again , it ' s my understanding and I apologize for probably
none of us having a consensus of information here. With Jo Ann gone,
we ' re doing the best we can. It ' s my understanding there was some
material deposited on the edge of the, probably the tree edge in the Class
B wetland which is primarily potting material . That ' s what I believe
triggered one of the initial responses from Jo Ann that a wetland permit
needed to be obtained and that the conditional use permit needed to be
modified. There has been no more filling that I 'm aware of nor have I
seen any evidence of any since that time so I think you may be right .
There was a minor amount of filling that did occur which triggered the
response from City Hall initially, or one of the triggers .
Wildermuth: I understand what the applicant is trying to do here but I
really get the feeling that he' s doing pretty much what he wants to do and
the ordinances really don' t make an awful lot of difference. That seems
to be the theme that runs down through the conditional use permit, the
wetland alteration permit and then this variance issue. I am in
agreement , if Jo Ann remembers that she did say 50 feet, fine. Other than
that it just comes down to one individual ' s word against another. If it
comes down to one individual ' s word against another regarding the
variance, it doesn ' t meet the test. It' s a self created hardship and it
doesn ' t meet the test . That ' s all .
Headla : The Planning Commission magazines , the Planners or whatever .
They had an article this last time. I 'm not trying to impress you that I
read it all the time. I started to read this one article and in that
article it mentioned how decisions we make, how that can impact the time
on the staff . We can give them a tremendous load or really give them a
lot lighter load and let them do a good job on what they' re after .
They' ve got limited resources . You' ve only got so many people and
indirectly we can control how much they are going to do. I started
thinking about that and I ' ve been turning it over in my mind and I 've
decided that I 'm going to look at two things this year . I 'm going to go
at the reviews , two things. If somebody tells me there' s a sense of
urgency, I 'm not going to listen to them. We got some of them tonight
that they want things approved because there' s a sense of urgency, they
got it done and how many times I think all of us in business, one of the
best ways to get something passed , if you want to get it rolling , wait
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 36 —
until it ' s about midnight and just ram it through. I see that type of
thing going and I think we' ve got to really look at that type of thing .
The other thing you want to look at is getting stuff that' s incomplete. —
We okay it and then we expect the staff to have everything ready for the
Council meeting . I don' t think we should do that. What we approve should
go unadulterated right to the Council , period. If they can' t get it to us
in time, that ' s not our problem. That ' s their problem. An example of
this, and I want to save this page because I think Jim had some good
points here , the applicant shall submit a new site plan drawing that
accurately depicts the location of the shade tree structures and all other —
buildings and features . Why didn' t we get a good , accurate drawing to
begin with? In no way am I , and I may be alone but no way am I going to
approve something going to the Council when it doesn' t accurately depict —
it to us so what we look at is going to be different than what the Council
gets . Give us the real story to begin with . I don ' t like it where you
had a neighbor , you had a real problem with it , maybe you weren' t given
direct direction to get it corrected . You knew there was a problem and —
even tonight you pretty well said, well he didn' t do this or he didn' t do
that. I don' t see where you ever took corrective action and I just don' t
think that' s right. I think you created the initial problem, I didn' t see —
where you did anything to correct it. The lift trucks going for a long
time. We really, and Lyman Lumber did a good job in trying to be
cooperative. When a neighbor complained abou the noise , Lyman Lumber
listened to it and they really tried to take corrective action. I hope —
you' ll look at that in the same spirit . What can you do to reduce the
noise to your neighbors? I think there' s a lot of room in there to work
on . I think Steve did a good job tonight looking up the definitions of —
what really a wholesaler is and that may help to solve part of the
problem. On the field investigater Paul Burke , at the bottom of the page.
The last paragraph, halfway through where he talks about the recent —
shoreline enhancement project at this site , most if not all of the
recently sodded area was a wetland with characteristics so on and so
forth . Apparently he went and sodded the wetland . Now there ' s a common
theme here. You ' re taking and you' re taking. I guess I 'm frustrated —
because you keep nitpicking . You potato chip us and we can ' t ever go in
and stop one little thing but the theme is you keep taking and taking and
that ' s it . —
Conrad : Okay, thank you Dave. Quick comments . For allowing the
expansion, this is really close to a contractor ' s yard in my opinion . _
It' s not called that but it' s real close . To allow expansion I 'd really
have to concern myself with the neighbor ' s concerns. The runoff. The
noise plus things that we' ve identified . Filling the wetlands and I
haven' t seen evidence that the applicant has worked with the neighbors . —
Maybe he has and maybe he hasn ' t . It ' s tough typically to judge on that
but the runoff, I think Larry' s got a solution to it. The noise appears
to be a problem. I wouldn' t want to live across from something that , if —
it' s true, that machines are running and that we' re actually bringing in
material . I wasn ' t aware that we allowed that here but I see a whole lot
of problems. I wouldn' t allow expansion until those problems are solved .
If we want to build it into approval tonight to make sure those problems —
are solved. The wetland filling is kind of a concern to me and obviously
a concern for the neighbor in the area . We do have to help him out or at
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 37
least make sure staff and the applicant are getting together to resolve
these problems. In terms of the wetland alteration permit, a couple
things. I really do need to see , for me to look at it, I need to see an
application form saying this is what we' re doing and why we' re doing it
and how we' re going to benefit the wetland and I haven' t seen that , which
I said to begin with. Number two, putting a ditch in a wetland is
contrary to anything that I ' ve ever seen . A wetland is supposed to filter
and the B wetland filters for the A wetland. Well , running a ditch
through there doesn' t do anything . It totally destroys the purpose of the
wetland that we've got there. I 'd really like to see Mr. Burke or
somebody review what the applicant is intending to do. I 'm not convinced
that this has really been done. That Mr. Burke knows what has been said
and then I 'd like to see staff recommend to us what , in terms of our
ordinance and what we say about a Class B, what the benefit of this is
based on our ordinance and I haven' t seen that done . So I have a real
problem with the wetland issue right now. I think the ponding, Tim I
agree with the ponding . That there ' s some benefit down there . That we ' re
conformning to the standards. I haven' t seen the benefit. Then again, a
lot of it goes back to there' s no permit , there' s no request here and I
don' t know what the information is. It ' s incomplete. The variance.
Again, I would have a tough time approving a variance until I 'm convinced
that the other issues have been solved. The runoff . The noise and all
that kind of stuff . If Jo Ann said 50, that ' s again , geez, I don ' t know
that I can go along with that but anyway. I have some real concerns on
this and I think there are ways to solve this tonight to get it out of
here and to put the burden on staff to work with the applicant to make
sure but I think just having a nursery across the street from a
residential area and the fact that there' s water problems created by that
nursery, has to be solved . It just has to be solved . Period . Before
expansion is granted, period. In my mind. Anyway. I would sure
entertain a motion .
Emmings: What do you thing ought to be done?
Conrad: I don' t know. I 'm not making the motion.
Emmings : No , but what is your opinion about it?
Conrad: This should not have been here tonight .
Emmings: Yes , it' s incomplete .
Conrad : It ' s real imcomplete and it' s partial data and it' s sort of , I
hate to put people through this from the public but we' re kind of running
with new staff and a whole lot of other things and we haven ' t met for a
while so part of that is just the fact that we' re getting things back
together again and I apologize for not having it all together but I really
would not have wanted to see this tonight until all the information was in
and the applications were correct and staff made some comments so I don ' t
like it. I hate to say it but I 'd get it out of here tabling it or doing
something with it.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 38 —
Emmings : How do you feel about the fact that a large portion of the
business seems to be trucking in and trucking out?
Conrad : I don ' t like that . That' s not the intent of what a nursery is in
my mind. It' s a growing area but I don't know. This gentleman across the
street said there' s noise at 5: 00 a.m. . I don ' t know if that' s true or
not but if there was a registered complaint where we would have it on —
record in City Hall , we should go back and search for those complaints .
If the gentleman called into City Hall , we would have it on record that
there was noise at 5: 00 a .m. . If not , it' s a problem. We can' t prove —
anything but if that' s there, we would have it. I think the runoff is, a
grading plan is great for the runoff but again , I would have liked to have
seen a grading plan before we sent it to City Council so it' s here. We' re _
saying let' s get it out of here and let somebody else do it but basically
it's kind of an incomplete case that we' re looking at right now. So it' s
up to somebody, one of you who wants to make a motion and do something
with this . —
Emmings: I think in light of the fact , does delay in passing this screw
up your plans in anyway Mark? Is this something that has to be started —
right now or can get started a month from now? Does it makes any
difference?
Mark Van Hoef : The ponding has to be dug in the winter . —
Emmings: So we' re talking about until when?
Mark Van Hoef : The first of March . I would like to add one thing . There
is an application for a wetland alteration. I don' t know where it is .
Conrad : It ' s not here . Maybe you turned it in and we just don ' t have it.
It may not be your problem but there' s just a lot of little things.
Somebody said 50 foot and we don ' t know if it' s 50 or 100. There' s not a
permit here and then there' s some filling of a Class A wetland a lot of —
little things like that that I 'd like to get straighten out . Things that
bother me .
Wildermuth : I recommend that we table this entire matter until staff has
had an opportunity to look a conditional use permit in light of either a
nursery or a contractor ' s yard . Also , has an opportunity to get the
wetlands package together more completely and clarify questions regarding
who said what on the variance issue .
Hanson: And the grading plan? —
Wildermuth : And the grading plan.
Emmings: All of the comments that we' ve made.
Headla : I ' ll second that .
Emmings: I guess I think it' s appropriate . I 'm up to number 9 in
conditions on the wetland alteration permit and there' s an awful lot of
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 39
them that are , this has to be done before it goes to Council and that has
to be done before it goes to Council or that staff has to be satisfied. I
think since that one was so far out of whack, it seems to me maybe we
ought to just table the whole thing and come back and do it all over
again .
Wildermuth moved , Headla seconded to table action for North West Nursery
on a Conditional Use Permit and Wetland Alteration Permit for additional
information . All voted in favor and the motion carried .
Hanson: I guess the one thing I would ask is, in the motion you just made
it was part of the direction that the applicant address the conditions
that had been presented and discussed?
Conrad : I think it would be real wise?
Hanson : I guess the reason I 'm asking is, essentially you' re asking him
to provide some additional information so we have those items to bring
back? I guess the question is more directed at the applicant that he' ll
have those revised plans in.
Conrad : There ' s nothing that' s really preventing us from reacting kind of
quickly? It' s not like our next 13 agendas are filled?
Hanson : No .
Conrad : We can react as soon as the information comes in and the
applicant gets back with a few of those things?
Hanson: Is it fair to say that we' re planning that that information has
to be in about a couple weeks before?
Conrad : It really should be.
Hanson : I just don' t want to be in the position of them coming in and
saying here it is the meeting day.
Emmings : That' s always true. If they want us to act on something , than
they' ve got to get the information to you with enough lead time so that
you can get it to us in the packet so we' re not getting sheets at the last
minute.
Hanson : I assume part of this is a referral back to Paul Burke and some
of the other agencies?
Conrad : So Mark would you come in probably tomorrow and rehash this with
Steve so you kind of get a game plan of what we just said over the last
hour and a half which is not easy to summarize . I think that ' s a pretty
good starting point.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 40 —
PUBLIC HEARING:
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.
Public Present :
George Dorsey, Applicant
Rick Dorsey
Steve Hanson presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the
public hearing to order .
Rick Dorsey: I just have one comment . The question being the shrubs on
the upland side. We will do that if necessary but introducing something
to the area that ' s not natural , we question the need for it. —
Ellson: Is that under one of the six conditions?
Conrad : No , it ' s just under the analysis portion . Dr . Rockwell is
really quite a good expert that we have a lot of confidence in. Any other
public comments .
Headla moved , Emmings seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. —
Headla : I went on that field trip with Dr . Rockwell and Jo Ann . She
spoke very highly of what they' re proposing and I don' t remember any
discussion of shrubs at all . That ' s all I have to say. I 'm highly in —
favor of it.
Wildermuth: It' s refreshing to see somebody creating a wetland rather
than trying to fill one in. Is that a topographical map Steve?
Hanson : Yes , it is . —
Wildermuth: On the north side of the pond where we' re proposing that the
shrubline be put in.
Hanson : Let me clarify one thing on the shrub line. The reason I put
that in the memo is when you look at the six conditions of the Fish and
Game, there ' s a reference in there . The shrub plantings around it . I
have not been privy as to whether Dr . Rockwell may have suggested that as
a condition or not so either include it as just one of the standard
conditions that they normally have utlized for that improvement .
Wildermuth: What I 'm wondering is what ' s the difference in elevation
between the surface of the pond and where the proposed shrubline would be?
Hanson: The top surface of the pond is, I believe it' s 889 versus 890 up
here. Very shallow.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 41
Wildermuth : If we did persist in requiring that shrubline in there, it
would essentially block the view of the pond from the. . .
Rick Dorsey: They would also probably die .
Wildermuth: What' s your feeling on that Steve?
Hanson : My feel on it is, I put it in there because it' s listed in our
standard conditions and that' s why in the recommendation I said pending
getting that written response from the Fish and Wildlife on what their
recommendation on how to those six standards would be applied to this
particular case . What the applicant is saying is what they recommend , I
don' t have a problem with that. I 'm not asking for something more.
Wildermuth : I 'm not either .
Batzli : I assume that , is this the plan that you received from the
applicant that we' re looking at here?
Hanson : Yes .
Batzli : I guess I 'd like to see , typically on a wetland alteration permit
we reference the plan with what they' re going to do and I 'd like to see
that included either in any proposal or recommendation that we want to put
that you ' re recommending approval of the wetland permit based on plans
that we' ve got in front of us . I don' t have a good feel at all for
whether they need shrubs or not to be quite honest with you. I don' t
recall that being one of the six conditions . I know I see them there but
I never recall seeing that one before so it surprises me. I guess I would
leave it to the experts in this being the Fish and Wildlife Service saying
whether they think it ' s required in this . If the person visited the site
and never mentioned it, I say we can leave that one off but I would like
to see that what they' re going to do here is what we see in front of us
tonight .
Ellson : I 'm pretty much in agreement with all these guys . I ' ll go along
with what the experts say but it seems to be like some of the other
things. I wish we would have had it as of now. Maybe we should be giving
people dates as to when they get all their ducks in a row or what have you
but here we are again approving something without the other thing again ,
but I could do that. That' s about it.
Emmings: This is the first one of three that your application doesn ' t say
a damn thing.
Conrad : Steve, it ' s not the right one . I wasn' t even going to bring that
up.
Owings: I like the reasoning though. Required by the City. It looks to
me from the six conditions that if there' s going to be any shrubs at all ,
they' re actually supposed to be right down by the edge of the water is
what it sounds like. Not up the hill but again, I ' ll go along with
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 42 —
everybody else in that . I think it ' s a reasonable approach to run the
plan by Fish and Wildlife. If they' re satisfied that it meets their
conditions , that ' s certainly fine with me . Otherwise, it looks like a _
fine plan.
Erhart : I think it' s a great plan . I also think that placing shrubs down
there is an expense that' s unneeded because in that area , what' s going to —
grow is going to grow and what ' s going to die is going to die . There ' s so
much vegetation there that it would quickly reseed itself and that will
take care of itself and go back to it ' s natural state . —
Conrad: Yes, I like the plan and I don' t think we need the shrubs. Is
there a motion?
Batzli : I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland
Alteration Permit #88-16 based on the plans stamped received, I 'd like
staff to fill in when they were received , subject to the following —
conditions and then the 1 condition that' s set forth by the staff .
Emmings : Second . —
Batzli moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #88-16 based on the plans stamped
"Received December 12, 1988" and subject to the following condition:
1. Written approval of the alteration plan from the Fish and Wildlife —
Service that the proposal conforms to their six conditions for ponds.
All voted in favor and the motion carried .
PUBLIC HEARING:
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. —
Public Present :
Name Address
Harry Niemela 2901 Washta Bay Road
Steve Hanson presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the
public hearing to order .
Conrad : Does it meet our ordinance?
Hanson: As far as the disposal area?
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 43
Conrad : Yes . X number of feet away from wetland?
Hanson: In all honestly I have not gone through and verified all that.
Harry Niemela : My name is Harry Niemela . I live at 2901 Washta Bay Road
so I am one of the property owners along the dredging area or the
shoreline . I might say Steve that we should probably be corrected on
this. The fact that we are not the Minnewashta Homeowners Association
that made the application but I think that the application was put into
you correctly. It' s just that we stand to say that we' re not the
Association. We are just the shoreowners . We have submitted that
applications of course through the normal channels with the DNR and we've
had a positive indication from them that we' ll get approval for the permit
from the DNR. We also made application with Watershed and all the other
agencies and so forth involving this process of getting a permit for it.
Everybody has been favorable to this point. I understand too with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the City to this point . All the homeowners are
quite in favor of it as a matter of fact because from an environmental
impact at this point in time . This winter with the water level of the
lake really low, we are creating at least an environmental impact on the
lake itself plus with the disposal site that we have found and what we
believe is an approved site, will be the closest with the least amount of
liability of trucks going out onto TH 7 which was the only other
alternative that we have. They are really basically running along the
shoreline of the lake. Not really out on the lake but close to the
shoreline which is really right on the shoreline you might say almost, to
this disposal site and the disposal site , I believe Steve, I would
estimate it to be about 400 feet on the lake and then they' re going right
up to the site so it' s not a long ways away from it . So it ' s a very
capable situation for us and it is very important for us to this this
winter . Otherwise, if the lake does go up, we' re talking another 2 1/2 to
3 feet of water that they' ll be operating off to get the job done and that
brings in a very escalating cost factor to the shoreowners along with the
environmental impact that it might have too . So we do need to have a
decision on it as we are of course hoping for an . . . We need to start the
work in February.
Herb : I have a comment . I 'm Herb. . .at 2050 Chan View. I 'm also a
property owner on the lake too. One of the side benefits of this ,
besides our own useable . . .about 10 years from now. Within the last 4 or 5
years, you know the water level has been what we would consider normal at
some periods . The fish spawning hasn ' t occurred because of the depth .
Hopefully this is going to correct that situation too and make Minnewashta
a much better fishing lake.
Ellson moved , Batzli seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Headla : I understand there' s some illegal activity going on up there. It
seems like there' s tree removal going on at night. The beaver come up out
of the water and cut down the people' s trees . No , I don' t have a comment.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 44
Wildermuth : One thing that is kind of interesting though, no where do we
talk about how much material we' re going to move, either in cubic yards or
in depth. —
Brown: On the grading plan it does state that 4130 cubic yards will be
removed.
Wildermuth: That' s fine.
Batzli : Larry, you talk in your report about erosion control . Has that —
been provided to you? Erosion control shall be revised to reflect the
City standard .
Brown: They have indicated the precise location of the erosion control . —
The plan certainly has not been amended to show the Type II erosion
control . We realize that the applicant , with all the information that we
required , was working under a tight timeline and we were as well so I —
would ask for that prior to commencing with any construction.
Batzli : Should that be a condition, compliance go with your memo? —
Brown: Yes .
Batzli : The only other thing that I had was I ' d like to see again, -'
whoever makes the motion, that we ' re basing this on a plan stamped
December 16th and December 29th , 1988 .
Ellson: I have no problem with it. I 'm just interested, how does this
thing work? I can ' t picture how they do this . Is there a quick way to
explain it to me. I just can' t picture how this thing works. Is there a
little Bobcat that goes in there? A water proof Bobcat? I 'm all for it.
I certainly want- better fish quality and things like that. I 'm sure if I
lived there that would drive me crazy so I 'd be more than happy to help
you clean up your part of the lake. —
Emmings : I 'm a little bit familiar with this but this is the means by
which you all gain access to your property I take it . Are you having —
problems getting back there this year?
Resident: We can' t get our pontoon out there .
Emmings: I know. I have a pontoon on the same lake so I 'm very familiar
with what you ' re talking about. Right now, when I look at this plan and I
see this finger of whatever , coming up here as Outlot A, that' s all lily —
pads and so forth isn' t it?
Resident : Cattails .
Emmings : Cattails? Then the area where this thing is proposed is all
open water?
Resident : It ' s supposed to be .
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 45
Resident: At one time.
Resident : It will be when it' s done, yes .
Emmings: Okay, but what' s growing in there now?
Resident : Muck.
Emmings : Is it just muck or is there cattails?
Harry Niemela: It' s open water at the normal water level . In a normal
year it' s open water .
Emmings : Okay, and this year it' s?
Resident : Mud .
Emmings: I agree with Brian ' s changes . I think since these people are
proposing to dump on another person ' s land and they' re asking us to
approve that , that we should have a letter from that person.
Resident: We' ve got it.
Emmings : I don ' t care if you ' ve got it. I think the City ought to have
it as part of the application so get it to the City so we' ve got it. I 'd
add that as a condition . I have nothing more.
Resident: Mr. Boyer was here earlier but he couldn' t wait.
Erhart: I think it' s fine . I guess just as a condition, sometimes these
plans tend to get reinterpretted once you get going. You may want to add
_ a condition that says that in doing this excavation that you can not
increase the size of this channel .
Hanson : Other than what ' s shown on the plan?
Erhart : The temptation always comes in later . Gee, we can improve this a
little bit by eating away here and sometimes the things aren' t, those
kinds of rules are not exactly reflected on the plan. Since really the
plan defines what gets . . .
Headla: What about page 2 Larry?
Brown: Page 2 does give the precise cross sections that are proposed so
if it came down to a question of whether they were doing additional work
than proposed , we 'd be able to check on it .
Erhart: I 'm talking about changing the route of the 50 feet channel and
the cross sections don' t show that. That ' s it Ladd .
Conrad : My only comment is that I believe that this whole set should
conform to our ordinances too in terms of our wetland ordinance . Distance
away and whatever. Is there a motion?
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 46 —
Emmings moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-17 based on the plan stamped —
December 16, 1988 and the grading plan stamped December 29 , 1988 and
subject to the following conditions :
1. One is approval of the disposal plan by the Fish and Wildlife Service. —
2. Identification of the access road .
3. A letter from the owner of the property on which the spoils would be
dumped .
4 . Compliance with all of the provisions of the City Engineer ' s report. —
5. Subject to a check by staff of the City ordinances to be sure that all
of this is in compliance with those ordinances . —
All voted in favor and the motion carried .
HERITAGE SQUARE APARTMENTS , REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF CONDITIONS OF SITE PLAN
APPROVAL TO BE MET PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT.
Steve Hanson presented the staff report .
Tom Zumwalde: I have one brief comment. My name is Tom Zumwalde, the
architect . We' re in the process right now of putting construction
drawings together on this project and should be completed by the end of —
the month . At that point we' ll be submitting them for final approval .
The owners asked us to prepare and have alternate for this project for
face brick, if the budget allows it. What I would like to do, if
possible, if we get approval on this . . . if he' s able to add the brick to —
the building , that we don ' t have to come back through this process . It ' s
unknown at this point whether or not there' s going to be room in the
budget for it but if there is , he would like to do it. —
Conrad: I would see no reason to come back to us to add brick. Brick is
better . I would encourage that .
—
Tom Zumwalde: That' s all I had .
Erhart : Sidewalks . Post lighting material . Are we continuing the theme —
of the downtown? Approving the sidewalk material in the design. We' re
designing the curbs. All the wooden posts stained gray I think it is . Is
that theme being carried through this? We' re asking how it will be tied _
into the clock tower? The sidewalk. Are we carrying the downtown theme
into the landscaping and the sidewalks and so forth?
Tom Zumwalde : I 'm assuming the sidewalks will be just a standard concrete —
block.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 47
Erhart : Do we have any special standards on our downtown sidewalks Brad?
Brad Johnson: On this particular case, the actual site plan for this
whole area except for . . .will be done by the City as a public improvement
which we' ll cover better I think maybe in the next discussion.
Erhart : I was referring to this plan. We seem to have a theme in the
City regarding the sidewalks and the little posts and all the signs and
everything and I 'm just wondering if we can carry that theme into this
site. That ' s all .
Brad Johnson: At somebody' s expense.
Erhart : Well , we always have the ability to ask up here. To my surprise,
most times they go along.
Brad Johnson: That hasn' t come up at a meeting of any.
Erhart: I 'm just suggesting , my reaction is that I 'd like to see us carry
the theme of the city into this site plan. Whatever standards we apply to
the sidewalks and lighting and posts and so forth. That' s the only
comment I have.
Brad Johnson : What you ' re saying is you 'd like to see lighting along that
block?
Erhart : If that ' s what we' re doing downtown , yes .
Emmings: It says the walkway along the rear of the building will be lit
with a 4 foot high, some kind of lights I ' ve never seen the word before in
my life.
Erhart : Okay, if that ' s the case , than I 'd like to see us use the same
ones, the same designs that we' re using downtown.
Tom Zumwalde: Brad , I 'm not sure if any of those 4 foot bollards have
been used in the downtown area .
Erhart : In the park?
Brad Johnson : In Heritage Park there' s some.
Emmings: I don ' t have any other comments on it .
Ellson : The only thing I had is the materials are similar but colors have
not been specified. I doubt the would give us a shocking pink or
something but do you want to mention color? It would be nice to do a
color . That' s probably minor but I can' t let it go by without saying
something .
Batzli : I don ' t know how I can top any of these comments so I don ' t have
anymore.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 48 -'
Wildermuth: As I look under the recommendations , I don' t see anything
about the height of the street lamps or the lamps in the parking lot so
I 've added a fifth item there. They should be 13 feet conforming with the _
other light standards.
Headla : They hit them all .
Conrad : I have nothing unless we trade our sidewalk for brick in the
front of the building. No comments .
Emmings : Can we explore what Jim asked about a little bit? When we' re
talking about the light standards outside, reducing them from 20, did that
include the parking lot? _
Tom Zumwalde: That' s what I was specifically referring to was the parking
lot. Right now on the plan there' s 3 of them within the parking area and
then there ' s another one up towards the entrance where you drive in . —
Emmings: And those are the ones that you' re talking about?
Tom Zumwalde: Yes .
Emmings: Okay.
Erhart : I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
detailed submittal facis, signage, lighting and so on with the four
conditions listed plus the fifth condition that the lighting height be —
altered to 13 feet. That ' s the parking lighting height I believe. And
item 6, that we continue the sidewalk design, sidewalk lighting signage
theme used in Heritage Park throughout the site. —
Ellson : I ' ll second it .
Erhart moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the detailed submittal of facia , signage, lighting and sound
proofing standards for Heritage Park Apartments #87-1 PUD based on the —
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
the driveway.
2. Lighting for sign shall be 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 .
5. The outdoor lighting height shall be altered to 13 feet . —
6. Continue the sidewalk design, sidewalk lighting'signage theme used in
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 49
ApprnA
Herd- age—Ra-rk throughout this site.
All voted in favor and the motion carried .
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 21 , 600 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING, 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.
Steve Hanson presented the staff report .
Brown: Point of clarification. There was a clerical error on the tail
end of my memorandum. What appears to be page 2 is an arbitrary page.
I 'm not sure where it came from. My memorandum ends at page 1.
Conrad : Brad , do you have any reaction that you want to talk about here?
Brad Johnson: I think Tom' s prepared to answer anything on this site.
I 'd like to point out that we' ve been having meetings with the City and
we' ve collected some comments that in general are pretty much being
addressed and I think that has to be clarified . I want you to remember
too that this is a four phase project. One phase is very important to get
going and that' s the first phase . The next three would deal with an
extension and that overhang and the possible expansion east . . . We have a
concept here that we'd like you to have you accept for all four phases .
Tom will be go through and bring you up to speed on what we' re asking for .
Tom Zumwalde : This is an original drawing that you would always see. It
is . . .specific information. Part of the reason for that is because it
covers about 20 parcels of property here and we have very limited
information in terms of who owned them. How big they were and a number of
other things. Also, part of the problem was that the City and the City' s
consultant was going to be doing a municipal parking lot so our biggest
concern initially was to try and find what the extent of our work would be
in order to put this building together and how much would be done by the
City and by BRW. We had a meeting , I believe in December with Steve and
Jim Lasher of BRW. Before that meeting I prepared a site drawing on a
little larger scale so we could see what we' re talking about . I started
to focus in on the two buildings . This is 78th Street down here. Phase
1, the two story building . Phase II , a one story building . . .and then the
proposed Phase IV over here. This being the clock tower and this is
Heritage Park Apartments . On this drawing I had arbitrarily laid out
parking. Again taking it a step further than perhaps I should have but I
wanted to feel reasonably comfortable myself that the building and
parking . . . and so forth. In our discussion that day, the way it ended up
was that basically what we are looking at is the building and the building
pad and that BRW would prepare all the documents for the parking lot, for
the sidewalks surrounding the building , the landscape plan , the grading
plan and the utilities . They would also be getting the surveys and so
forth. Everything else that was required . Out of that meeting that day,
one of the things we talked about is , as Steve had mentioned, is pushing
the building back farther from 78th Street and also shifting it over to
the east a little bit so that if the Lawn and Garden Center stays longer
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 50
than , construction of Phase I could begin before the Lawn and Garden
Center is decided . . . What I did was again, taking a look at that site and
prepared an updated one which I unfortunately didn' t get done in time to —
get out to everyone but I did give Steve a copy today. On there, again it
reflects our meeting and the comments from that meeting . I shifted the
building back from the property line such that the protrusions that you
saw. . . The extensions on the front of the building are 10 feet from the —
front property line and I shifted the building to the east 10 feet such
that the Sports and Lawn Center, whatever. Hanson' s property, would be
left intact and there wouldn' t be any problem crossing the property line —
there in the construction of Phase I . I then just laid out the parking . . .
I suggested on here some landscape. Again , wherever one of the extensions
of the building occurs , typically here, here, here and here, that _
eliminates the parking spaces . A little better on here . It made no
mention of tree species or bushes or anything else. That' s something that
BRW will be preparing and we' ll be working with them on it. I had gotten
a report today with staff comments and I guess I would question a couple
of them. One is Phase IV. After the building suggests , you can see on
here that I think the buildings as they' re laid out on here, start to move
away a little bit from the clock tower and leave the mini-park area there
that we had talked about I believe in December . One of the problems with
not including the Phase IV is that Dr . McCollum' s clinic is going to be on
the first floor of this building in this area . One of his requirements is
that initially he talked about a 6, 000 square foot expansion. He' s —
looking at about a 3, 000 square foot expansion now. If we are hemmed in
here or can ' t do anything , it' s going to create a problem for him. The
other part of the building on this side would be the Waconia Hospital so
the entire floor , first floor would be those two tenants . When and if
Pauly' s is no longer there and that property is picked up, if there were
3, 000 square foot expansion from the Phase IV to the building , it could be —
done in such a way that it would occur back in this area and I think still
maintain that community park around the clock tower so that building
wouldn' t be encroaching . . . I know if we cut up the access , with direct
access to the clock tower in this direction but when you look at it, —
visually it ' s nice. You ' ll be able to see the clock tower from walking
down this path but realistically, you ' re directing pedestrians to this
point. This is perhaps the worse area of town to try and cross the —
street. So if you directed traffic to this point and then over this lot ,
the impact of crossing 78th Street. . . I guess what I 'm saying there is ,
we' re going to need a Phase IV, a provision for a potential Phase IV of
about 2,000 square feet. The other thing that concerns me a little bit is —
the fire department comment on being able to get a truck through here . If
we look at 14 feet of clear in there, it throws it really out of scale I
think with the rest of the building . We' ll get into that a little more . —
I put together some color elevations of the three phases . We' ll start
with Phase I . What we' re looking at picking up on the building is again a
combination of the wood lap siding , the cedar shakes and some brick. Part —
of the problem with our firm doing several buildings on top of each other
is trying to keep each one individualized . It ' s tough. It ' s kind of like
a balancing act . I think we' ve achieved a little different look with
this . . . I mentioned a combination of materials. These are projections on —
the building . They would be brick masonary and we pick up some grill work
in some of these areas. You ' re looking at a small . . .type window to break
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 51
up the large glass surfaces and the potential perhaps for signage on these
lighter colored bands. Now this building would have a limited number of
tenants so signage would be fairly minimal . On the Phase I building ,
we' re looking at a one story building very similar in character, the same
materials but perhaps a greater number of tenants . Some dentists .
Perhaps some attorneys. Doctor offices. Things like that with individual
entrances so we give each one an opportunity to have his own signage above
the door . Third phase, the connecting lane, would be again the same
material . It' s basically brick but relatively open on the inside and
perhaps. . .construction something like that . This is intended to be a
metal grillwork that will pick up the same character as the grillwork over
here. Also the grillwork over in this area and along the railings and so
forth . If we go to 14 feet in there , basically we would be eliminating
that and creating a very large and very awkward type of opening. Part of
the problem when it gets that large is that everyone can get through
there. You' ve got the potential for a semis and other things to try and
get through there. I think it would keep it down on a smaller scale. . .on
the overall proportions of the building . Secondly it will avoid the
problem of people trying to get through there that weren' t intended to go
through there. As far as the safety is concerned , the Fire Department is
over here. I suppose somehow or another they probably could get through
there. I guess my feeling is that it' s probably okay in height . . . When
you put all three phases together , you end up with about a 448 feet of
building in Phase III here which is a one story. . .and two story over here
as Phase I . I guess what we' re asking for tonight is approval so that we
can proceed with construction drawings for Phase I . Dr . McCollum' s lease
runs out and there is some time pressures to kind of move it along .
Brad Johnson : I 'd like to just comment on a couple of things that are
important to us. One is the timing of the project. I 'm sorry you read
that book before . If we don' t accomplish our timeline which we are
happily on, there will be no medical clinic in the community because his
lease is done in August and his building will be at that time leased to
somebody else. That' s just a problem we' re facing. We did not know that
until November of this last year . First of all we had to go through the
HRA and get them to approve this , which we did in November . Secondly, we
do need expansion space to the east to live up to what is required by the
clinic in their lease for some expansion space on the first floor that
they can grow with . I think again, some of these issues as far as the
parking and everything are either in the City' s area right now and/or
would come back into our control through a redevelopment agreement . For
example, if the City doesn' t do the parking lot, than we have to have the
right to do that . That would come through a right that we would have with
the HRA right now. The HRA has a redevelopment agreement. They are
agreeing to deliver us a site to build on. Actually own the whole site
and when the parking lot comes, we' ll sell them that park. Should they
not fund the parking lot by the time the building is open, than we' ll have
to build the parking lot to those standards ourselves so it ' s kind of
_ catch 22. That ' s up to the City Council to make a decision whether or not
they want to have a parking lot or not . They have passed in the past , is
that not correct Larry?
-" Brown: That ' s correct .
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 52
Brad Johnson : I think in the past it was approved but because they did
not build it within a year, will have to fund it and that's kind of a _
sticky with us because we have a really tremendous time pressure on this
particular project. Or at least on that one portion of the building . As
Tom said , we' re looking for concept approval of the building so we can
start construction drawings. That ' s the most important thing. I don' t —
think the final site plan is as important as the construction drawings and
the process that we have to go through. Thank you.
Erhart : In the first place, there' s a lot of stuff here that we normally
see such as the landscaping. When are we going to see that?
Brown: If I can address that question. As you may have read in Gary
Ehret' s report from BRW, because we' ve overlapped the year deadline, we' re
going to have to go through the entire process once again . Public
hearing. Feasibility study in getting these plans approved so you will
have the comment period , if you will , to address the landscaping and
grading and everything . It' s a unique situation in that because this area
was designated to fall within the parameters that we established with the _
downtown redevelopment district, the City at this time felt that the only
way to control that was to do this as a public works improvement project .
Unfortunately, once again, we' re facing a big time crunch. I think the
developer has . . . trying to work with the site plan while we work out the —
other details.
Erhart : So we will see it at some point in time? Like a month or so —
we' ll see a landscaping plan?
Brown: You will see the plans as the biggest constraints were the —
topography constraints basically and those that break out with the
preliminary plans for the parking lot . I wouldn' t expect that that would
change much given the other constraints that are on it.
Erhart : Going onto the . . . I had number 1 here on the conditions . The 10
foot setback. How is that going to provide a right turn lane?
Hanson: The 10 foot setback is not going to provide the right turn lane.
The right-of-way is where that right turn lane will exists . But without
the additional 10 feet. . .
Erhart : The right-of-way on what? The street itself?
Hanson: The right-of-way line is right here. The area that' s highlighted --
in yellow, to build the right turn lanes , that area is lost , if you will ,
for landscaping .
Erhart : Yes . Okay, so that' s where it would go?
Hanson: It would go here and the 10 feet what that allows you is an
adequate distance to maintain landscape improvements to be installed along —
here.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 53
Erhart : Is the are drawn in yellow so that if we decide to pull those
out, the median and make it a 4 lane street, that ' s what the yellow is?
Hanson: I don' t know.
Erhart : In a serious sense . Is there adequate space there? If the City
50 years down the road decided that it didn' t want a median anymore and
they wanted the new main street to be 4 lane, is there adequate spacing
for that with this building?
Tom Zumwalde: We got the dimensions here that they got from BRW. Up in
the centerline of the right-of-way, the curb line now is 21 feet. This
curb line. It ' s a 16 foot right-of-way. So if you took the center island
out it would be. . .and if you were going to show a 12 or 14 foot drive
lane, that would be 26 feet.
Hanson : Move the curb north 5 feet, take out the center median and you'd
have 4 lanes. Four lanes with no left turn lanes and no right turn lanes .
Erhart : I understand that and that' s within the area that' s yellow?
All I 'm suggesting is that we preserve that option. I 'm not suggesting
that they. . .but reserve that option so if some future city government ,
we' ll be all long and gone, if they want to be able to use the space . . .
Hanson : I would say you' ve got adequate right-of-way to do that . What
the 10 feet does is allow that sidewalk to not be within the right-of-way.
That ' s on private property. Also, the 10 foot was a requirement of HRA
when they reviewed the plans too.
Erhart : You' re comfortable that we ' re okay there? We are going to get
then to see the revised parking lot for the Riveria sometime? One of my
comments even before , Tom you may want to respond there , I don' t quite see
why, given what the requirements to have a 14 foot drive thru there would
do to the architectural design of the building , I don' t understand why we
need to do that. The Fire Department can come in from the east. They can
come in from the west . It looks like they can also may or may not be able
to come through the alley behind Town Square Center and maybe even through
the apartments . It just seems to me there' s plenty of access there. In
looking at the view of the building and changing that to a 14 foot
requirement , really will add some. . .what he building will look like when
you' re standing on the street level . I guess I just don' t think . . . What
do you mean resolve possible separation problems with the Building
Department? I didn' t quite understand that.
Hanson : I 'm trying to remember what the separation problems were. One of
them I know is located around Pauly' s as far as separation here and the
gas station obviously there needs to be separation. . . My understanding
is that once we get final plat for the project , then that will be
resolved .
Erhart : Pauly' s, that' s a gas station now?
Brown: It ' s starting to click here. There' s requirements in the building
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 54 —
code that state , it had to do with the old store front situation that you
saw. That if they were right up against the lot line, then you needed to
build a parapet wall such that if one structure caught on fire, there was _
a barrier there. Now if we go through and replat the area and the lot
line is no longer there and it' s no longer a problem. Easy way to get
around that.
Erhart : Lastly, I generally agree that you ought to combine Phase II
with Phase III . There' s no reason not to do that. I also, somehow, I 'm
not sure if Phase IV fits . Why can' t the good doctor occupy with only —
Phase II? Use that 6, 000 square feet over in Phase II area? That' s
really not, that' s still up in the air?
Tom Zumwalde: The additional space, that would involve having, a lot of —
that building . . .
Erhart : You would be opposed to splitting that up? Well , I won' t say —
anything more about Phase IV at this time.
Emmings : What' s Waconia Hospital going to do there as a tenant? _
Brad Johnson: They' re going to provide physical therapy, sports medicine
and primarily occupational health for the local businesses . The emergency
clinic, if there is one, there will be an emergency clinic which we —
perceive will be near the hospital . . . So they won' t have an emergency
clinic. It won' t be a 24 hour but 16 to 12 hours .
Emmings: You ' ve just got to be careful when you have your emergency.
Brad Johnson: I think you ' ll hear mostly it' s kids here. That' s what
they' re doing . Through their support and with Dr . McCollum and ourselves ,
this whole thing is happening. We will get into the signage issues ,
special . . . signs . Good identification so we' re going to come back on
signage. We want to conform to the downtown sign standards and it has
certain standards that already are here. It ' s a professional area .
You' ll see a transfer of your signage requirements of professional now are
starting to look like . . . We haven' t gotten to the signs yet so that ' s why —
we haven' t addressed it but we are going to have to identify our tenants.
It' s a choice of being on the first floor of Phase II , as tenants , with a
sign on the main street and second floor of the current first building and
give them a bite out of the square foot if they don' t choose the first
floor . They have a real big change now with how people perceive where a
professional should be. . . .have to deal with it every day. . . Signs are
important. Right doctor? And these things are all in our lease. —
Emmings : This is another one of these plans that we' ve been bombarded
with tonight that are real half baked and that' s no cut. I 'm not being _
disrespectful . It ' s an important addition to the city and I think it ' s
great to have that building right there downtown. I think it' s a nice
looking building . I like everything about it. I just don' t know much
about it. It' s real hard to look at this but I think that I could very —
easily be persuaded to table this until we know actually what it' s going
to be. On the other hand, I think it ' s so important that, and I 'm taking
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 55
my coaching from Dave too. Not to rush into these rush situations but
this does seem to be one. I think it ' s such an important addition to the
City that I could just as easily be persuaded to put it through if
I thought , if I could be assured that we' re going to have a chance to look
at these other items that we normally see at this time, at least in the
near future. My other comments were pretty much like Tim' s. I do
strongly agree that these three should be made to occur with Phase II . If
Phase IV is important , there must be a way to work it out . Even if it ' s
offset to the north a little bit to give a little more room around the
clock tower . It would seem to me there would be a way to do that but I
sure wouldn' t want, right now it's just a ghostly little thing down there
on paper and I wouldn' t be very eager to do anything that would indicate
that we' re approving that. Now the buildings are moved back a little bit ,
is that going to, do you think that ' s going to screw up the parking plan
back there in any way?
Hanson : That ' s part of the standards. Essentially the way it was laid
out. . . I believe it was about a 3 foot setback on the front side. On the
back side of the parking lot , we had enough room to do the parking . . .
What we' re having to do through that parking area and through some of the
sidewalk and landscape areas , is essentially pick up 7 feet .
Emmings : But then, do we have standards for these parking lots in our
ordinance now or do they come from something else?
WEI
Hanson: The ordinance now, it refers to another standard. I think it' s
something out of a traffic manual .
Emmings: And are we going with that standard or have we gone out and
found a different standard because we need one there?
Hanson: What we talked about was a need to reduce some of the ,
essentially deal with the situation we have with the amount of space
that ' s there . When Tom and Jim Lasher and myself met , Jim said , there
had been some recent standards and I have not seen the standards yet and
I 'm not sure who put them out? I don' t know if it came from landscape
architecture or if it came from transportation in here. So I haven' t
been able to verify what those standards are but they felt they could pick
up space if they needed to to preserve that 10 foot setback on the front
side through the parking . I don' t know how short those spaces are. I
don' t know if he' s talking 18 foot depth , 24 or 22 foot drive or what that
standard is . He had mentioned that the overall width would go down to at
least 58 feet. In all honesty, I don' t know how you can get it down to 58
feet and make it work.
Emmings: I think that ' s a big item. We sure don ' t want to build any kind
of substandard parking lot if it' s going to, I feel like it allows it now
and if it' s less than what I 'm parking in now, it ' s going to be awful . As
far as the need for the fire department to get under Phase III , we' ve got
a Public Safety Commission right? I think those people ought to have some
input into this. It would seem to me to make sense that you could get in
from one end or the other but I think we ought to , somebody ought to ask
them what they think is necessary. I think they like to get everywhere
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 56 —
all the time but other than that , I don' t have anything .
Ellson: I don' t want to look at it until I get a lot more. I think our _
City is pretty good about working with people and pushing things through
but this is just way too much out. I think you ' re asking us to do a lot
without anything here . One of the things I like is to look at all the
things. I like to see the landscaping thing over here and how to make a -
decision tonight. If I know in November , I can certainly sympathize with
you but I would rather see you working 24 hours a day to give me more
information. I don' t care about that side of it but I don' t think it ' s _
fair to us or fair to the planner , fair to Steve to have to write up every
single exception that' s missing and try to cover his bases and ask for us
to approve it that way. I 'd want to see it tabled until we get a lot
more .
Brad Johnson : Can I answer that question? That is not our problem. It ' s
the City' s problem. We would have it all done but we have to live within —
the City' s process and the process is you have to have a public hearing .
It' s about a 3 month thing. It' s going to come back to you. You' re going
to see everything . It' s going to be like what they did before which was —
already approved and had gone through the City. This whole parking lot
was approved once before . There shouldn' t be no real major changes . It' s
just not within our control . That ' s what we realized about a month ago.
It' s not within our control to propose anything there. We' re building on —
a pad which the City is going to provide. Now we can' t go out and design
something and then have it redesigned by the City. I would prefer to try
to figure out a solution to that problem because you have the controls . —
First of all your own city staff is designing it and we' ll probably meet
all the standards that you' ve set. I think if that is a major issue,
we' ll just have to back off and not do the deal and you ' re going to lose
this project. That ' s it . We can not miss, I 'm not trying to force
anything through but what we' re saying is , we' ve got two months. We need
to get our working drawings going. Okay. Site plan can wait a month or
two but we can not proceed and invest $60 , 000. 00 in the building . The —
timeframe, a site plan can be done from an architect' s point of view,
pretty quickly. It' s the process that we have to live with in the City.
We need, that' s what I said in the beginning, an approval of the building
so that we can proceed with what is the longest part of this whole thing
and that' s the plans and specifications of the building . We can come
back, we' ll be back before the City is going to be coming back with the
site plan. I don' t know when. I ' ve got a meeting with them on Friday. I —
know they' ve been busily working on the whole thing to try and get it done
but that ' s our problem. I hope you guys can address the problem because
we' ve got , I think quite a bit here . As much as we always have relative
to the building. And we are building on a pad. It' s not our parcel .
Batzli : Being somewhat at a loss as to how to respond to that last
comment, I ' ll read the comments I had previous to it. Regarding Phase
III , I guess if the fire department actually needs it and it doesn ' t fit
in aesthetically, I 'd say get rid of the whole thing rather than having it
be an eyesore. I might myself have reservations about the rush nature of
this, etc. . Notwithstanding what you just said, I would like to see us
provide, and we are going to get a chance to review the entire thing down
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 57
the road , I would like to see us have a medical center . Medical clinic in
town so I guess with the provisions that we have and the conditions , I 'd
like to see us move on tonight .
Wildermuth: Agree.
Headla : I don' t go along with the time constraint . I bet they haven' t
even tried to negotiate a 90 day extension. This is a tremendous clout
that they' ve got with these threats . Oh, I figured out. If they would
line the fire truck up in the Dinner Theater parking lot, I bet they could
get it right through that pass . Go over that center piece. I think
that' s got to get resolved. What I was thinking on this is, I don' t want
to see it go to a motion that we approve anything but I think it ought to
be considered as information only. We certainly can put in our comments
and let it get to the Council and let them comment on it. They' ve got to
get the job done. At least they would know which way the wind is blowing
on it . From what I see , yes, I think it' s a good start. But if we
approve it , what would we approve? There' s 18 conditions here that they
want . Basic conditions so I ' d suggest we make the vote on it as
information only and we like what we see so far .
Conrad : My thoughts . Under 1 (e) . That seems to be an interesting point.
Phase IV. Steve, what are we trying to do? Are we trying to create a
park at that point? What are we trying to do?
Hanson: I guess what I would label it as a pocket park. It ' s not an
area , an active park. I think what you' re trying to do is , you ' ve got the
clock tower out there and you want to allow enough open space out there to
reinforce that element that you put there and not have it lost against the
front side of a building. I think you' ve taken the step of saying , this
is an identity for the downtown area and what we' re suggesting is we need
to reinforce that element that you put up there and not have it get lost
in the other things. I think that can be accomplished in several
different ways. What I 'm saying right now, I have no idea if it ' s going
to become lost or not . What they submitted is , they want to do an
extension that way and as an extension of the existing building coming out
with the same kind of footprint , I don' t think it' s going to work if we
really want to maintain that as an identity. It' s not to say that some
extension couldn' t work but I don' t think we have enough detail to say, to
put our blessing on it at this point in time. The other thing I mentioned
is , what we' re looking at is an approval for just the first phase at this
point in time.
Conrad : In terms of the 14 foot clearance , I guess I don' t know how to
react to that one. We' re being told by the fire department that they want
it. Whether it ' s essential or not .
Brown: If I could comment on that . I guess everyone has seen comments
come through here from the fire department. They look at it and you say,
is this a valid comment or isn ' t it? Hopefully, all of them are valid and
withstand any sort of criteria that we can put up against them. I offer
this as a suggestion . Between the time, if you decide to have us go to
City Council , bring this back to the Fire Marshall and Fire Chief and take
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 58 —
a look at this and have them either reinforce it or deny it . I guess I
myself would be at a loss, looking at this . I don' t fight fires and I
don ' t know, I don ' t have any standard from my profession to base that on. _
Conrad: I guess I need to know if it' s critical or not. Based on what
Tim is saying , it looks like they can get to the whole building from
almost anyplace so to have a shortcut through, I don' t know that, I 'm not —
sure that the shortcut is necessary. Yet if they say it' s critical , then
I think we have to pay attention.
Emmings: I just wondered , is the median , if the fire truck is going east ,
are they going to be able to turn in there anyway? They can' t turn in
there anyhow and that ' s where they' re going to be coming from.
Brown: The other reservation I have is, why go under a burning structure.
Conrad : Okay, moving along . Those are my comments . Phase IV seems kind —
of nebulous. Brad, I 'm not sure, I know Dr . McCollum needs additional
space or may need it . I think it' s probably important for you and I don' t
know how contractually you' ve tied into that but on the other hand , it
doesn ' t look like it ' s been solved at this point in time.
Brad Johnson: In your ordinance, on that particular project, we can build
right up to the line . According to the ordinance so we would build —
anytime in the CBD area, there' s no setback so you' ll have to buy that
property. The City doesn ' t own that nor do they own Pauly' s so you' ve got
a budgetary thing that the HRA hasn' t spent. You ' re talking $100, 000. 00 —
to $130 , 000 . 00 for a park. I 'm just saying , it' s an issue that first of
all the HRA has to agree to purchase the property.
Conrad : I don ' t have a problem reacting to the Phase I right now.
Brad Johnson: We just looked at the ordinances and said well , we can
build right up to there. Don said don' t build over Pauly' s so we pulled
it back. Then we had a problem with space. We have a lot of requirements
from the clinic as to what we can do. . .so we felt it was within the
ordinance that we were living up to that. We had not thought about what —
Steve mentioned . . .but that is Phase IV. It ' s an issue that, it may not
get done today.
Conrad : But it' s there and Mr . McCollum needs to know that there' s —
expansion, right?
Brad Johnson : Yes . Well , there ' s still this meeting that has to happen —
with you guys and that' s the meeting with BRW to finalize some of these
questions they raised . All of these questions about the site plan . One
of them will be, how this is all worked out and I think that' s what we' re , _
we ' re going to one side. We have to have 3 , 000 square feet . We ' re
restricted in this particular project, it ' s been delayed a year so far in
getting going . The problem simply is Bernie Hanson. Otherwise we
wouldn' t have any of these kinds of problems . We wouldn' t have this
big . . .and all those kinds of things so we' ve reached the point now. Dave
can speak to that, we tried to extend his lease. He can' t. That' s the
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 59
problem.
Conrad : And I wasn' t even addressing that . I 'm addressing Phase IV which
seems to be a little bit of a problem as I look at it right now.
Brad Johnson : yes , and we don' t have a solution. It' s all part of that
site plan.
Conrad : But I think we have to come up with a solution real quickly for a
lot of different reasons. But anyway, those were my only two comments on
the 14 foot height and I think we need further clarification from the fire
chief on that issue. Then just a comment on the Phase IV. I agree with
combining Phase II and III . I think that ' s probably something we should
do and most of the other comments. I also think we should push this
through. I think we need a fine medical clinic and I think we need the
hospital coming into town. You' ve seen the Commission react to a lot of
problems similar to this tonight so this is just right in line with the
other things that we've seen.
Brad Johnson : My question is , is there someway to do this that would
assure that we come back with the things. . .
Conrad : I think you are. I 'm pretty comfortable that you ' re coming back.
Brad Johnson: We have no choice. We will be back.
Ellson : And boy you better be ready if you do.
Emmings: And you want to too don' t you?
Conrad : Is there a motion?
Headla : Let me try my idea on for size if there ' s anybody who agrees?
I make the motion we approve this as information only and we viewed it
favorably.
Conrad : Is there a second? The motion dies for lack of second .
Erhart: I ' ll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Preliminary Site Plan for Phase I of the Chanhassen
Professional Building #88-17 based on the plan stamped "Received
_ December 12, 1988" with the provisions 1, 2 , 3 and 4 as listed in the
staff' s recommendations. I 'd also like to change item 3 (d) . I would
like to leave, plans satisfy requirements of Fire Inspector and add ,
that staff would again review the requirements for bringing through
Phase II overhead entrance . And to emphasize that the Planning
Commission feels that it shouldn' t be done unless it was absolutely
required for safety purposes . Were there any other changes?
Batzli : Do you want to right-of-way to 1 (a) ? You' re talking about the
right-of-way.
Hanson : No , we' re talking about the setback in the existing right-of-way.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 60 —
Batzli : Correct . We want to add that we' re talking about West 78th
Street right-of-way.
Conrad : Is there a second?
Batzli : Second. —
Erhart moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend —
approval of Preliminary Site Plan for Phase I of the Chanhassen
Professional Building #88-17 based on the plan stamped "Received December
12, 1988" with the following conditions:
1. Submittal of a revised site plan prior to City council consideration
of this item which at a minimum contains the following changes :
a. A 10 foot setback from West 78th Street right-of-way.
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 be approved by Planning Commission and City Council for the entire
area from Town Square to Great Plains Bouelvard in accordance with
Section 20-107 , Application Site Plan Review of the City Code. _
3. Submittal of revised plans shall address the following specific
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. Minimum height clearance of 14 feet is to
be provided .
d. Plans satisfy requirements of Fire Inspector and that staff will
again review the requirements for the Phase II overhead entrance. —
The Planning Commission feels that it shouldn' t be raised to 14
feet unless it is absolutely required for safety purposes .
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 61
e. Overall circulation needs to be redesigned to flow properly
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.
f. Setback of 10 foot along West 78th Street for all strcutural
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 .
All voted in favor except Headla who opposed and the motion carried with a
vote of 6 to 1.
Headla : Lack of adequate information.
WOODCREST NEIGHBORHOOD - DISCUSSION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS .
Larry Brown presented the staff report on this item.
Bill Eggert: Thank you for everybody being here at 12: 30 tonight.
Larry' s been very helpful on this project in bringing it to the attention
of the Planning Commission. I just want to state a couple of things
- before I give you some of the details here. I know several of you viewed
the site personally before it even came to the Planning Commission. There
was an interest , Annette , you' re a resident in the area so you have a
- personal interest in it. David you were out and looking primarily at the
wildlife and had concerns about the water control and that type of thing
and you exhibited a genuine concern about our interests in the area and
the interest of the City of Chanhassen . Unfortunately, things didn' t go
according to plan. We felt it was necessary to bring it to your
attention. Perhaps at this point i.n time anything to be done might be a
moot topic. There' s probably nothing that can be done to correct the
- situation but perhaps in the future, if somebody can benefit from what
occurred i.n our area. So what I 'd like to do is just walk through, and
Larry' s already capsulated a couple of things. The agreement was 140 foot
covenant from the back line of my property. I ' ll just mention that I 'm
directly behind the property up on the screen and that was the agreement
with the developer at that time. If I can indulge in your patience for
just a few minutes . I ' ll quote from some of your Planning Commission
meeting notes. From May 4, 1988, Roxanne Lund was assuring all of us that
a
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 62
in the Covenants that we have proposed , City ordinances, no building or
grading will be permitted except for terracing or erosion control within
the 140 feet of the back line . My question about the Covenants . Her —
statement was, what we' re saying is that we' re approximately 140 feet from
the vacated dot to the back line. What you have to do is basically some
clearing of the underbrush which makes it more environmentally sound and
I believe there was a forester out there that said some of the underbrush —
needs to be removed to make the trees more healthy. I ' ll pass some
pictures around in a few minutes of the clearing of that underbrush .
Ladd, you made comments to the effect that there had been some cases —
closer where trees had gone down and I think that caused a major concern
and that' s why we' re enforcing a little bit of knowing what trees were
going down on property. That these things are assets to our community and
we' re fighting for those assets for our community. Barbara Dacy stated at —
this same meeting that the staff condition is that they submit a tree
removal plan along with their building permit application. Staff would
also enforce that grading limit line as identified as part of a plan.
That we would not allow tree removal beyond the grading limit line that' s
indicated on the plan and the Restrictive Covenants can be a condition of
approval and will be recorded by the applicant against the property. —
David , you asked specifically if this was an enforceable requirement and
Barbara' s response was, I think it' s some good tools that we' ve
implemented since some other subdivisions in the past , the tree removal
plans have really helped staff enforcing them. The private restrictions —
are enforced by the homeowners in that 5 lot subdivision so you' ve got a
couple of tools that . . . I think that the real intent here was to try and
protect everybody' s interest . In fact , Brian you made it a point in your —
comments , as a general point I 'd like to see the Covenants included .
Annette , you mentioned that you were positive because you thought that now
we' ve got to think of the neighborhood and although they' re not
required . . . they didn' t have to put a covenant in there , but they are and
they don' t have to leave those trees, but they are. I have some
suspicion about what their intent was from the beginning . Okay. David ,
you expressed a concern later on in that hearing on what, to quote you, it —
says , I like what' s written there but I want to cover it more for what
happens in 3, 4 or 5 years. A tree removal plan as it ' s stated here
doesn ' t cover that does it? And Larry' s response was , that ' s correct. In —
relying on the advice of the City Attorney, we have very little control of
that with the exception of the Covenants . That is the control that we
have. That ' s it as far as the Planning Commission meeting and my comments
on that. I also have, and I believe you have the statement from the
Department of Natural Resources . From Alan E. Olson dated 7/27/88
commenting that the existing tree cover consists mostly of sugar maple,
basswood and oak trees that are 6 to 8 inches in diameter . Also , —
extracted from his comments at that time, it says next, trees which will
require either soil added to or removed from their root zone will have 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 needs to be kept to an absolute minimum to minimize construction
damage. A little care exercised by the construction company will go a
long way in maintaining the good health of the trees in this area —
currently enjoy. Then there' s a comment that the house located at the top
of the hill seems to have been built with minimal impact on the forest and
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 63
I would hope that this project would achieve a similar conclusion . What I
would like to show are you some rough pictures of a home that has been
constructed in the area and the results of the clearing in the area . If I
could just pass this along please. As you have an opportunity to review
the pictures , what you' ll see in sequence is , first of all the new home
that ' s being built in the area with notations where the structure is
actually built in relation to the 140 foot covenanted area . As indicated
by Larry, it' s encroached in that area. It' s hard when we' re looking at a
plat map or a proposed building site to envision what it has done to the
environment but I think a picture tells a thousand words in that respect
and it' s fairly clear that it' s encroached rather significantly into that
so called protected area . In addition, the design of the home wouldn' t
necessarily have to put that 12 foot extension into the protected
covenanted area . It' s also my impression from, in fact the owners of that
home are present here this evening . It' s my impression that they were not
aware specifically of what the covenant was until they closed a couple of
days ago and was informed that it' s now been changed from 140 to 100 foot
covenant. There seems to be some question in that too. Also, in the
pictures being circulated , you might note that Lot 1, which is the lot
directly adjacent to the new home, is still wooded. The pictures aren' t
very good but it gives you an idea of what kind of woods were in the area
before the construction took place. Number 1 has not been cleared at all .
Number 2 had the least amount of damage and I think largely due to the
influence of the owners of the home who were having the home built. Lot 1
is already staked out with stakes 120 feet from the back lot line so I
would suspect that that will encroach at least by 20 feet on the 140 foot
covenant. Also , in the group of pictures is the cutting , clearing and
grading efforts on Lots 3 , 4 and 5. As you can see, it 's substantially
more than the clearing of underbrush to help cultivate the growth of the
trees. I guess our efforts here tonight, or at least my efforts here
tonight are those first of all , to bring it to the attention of the
Planning Commission. There may be some people who felt that through the
MED
Covenants and Restrictions we did have recourse if there was a violation.
It appears that there is very little recourse at this point in time, is
the position of the City Attorney. There may be some recourse among the
property owners within the five lots of the development. However , it
appears that at least the one home in the development right now, the home
that ' s been constructed, is not on the board determining the covenants and
restrictions and they have already altered it from 140 feet to 100 feet
without any of their input. So I have a concern that the developer is
kind of running rush odd over everyone' s intentions here. The Minutes
_ that came from the City Council meeting, express the same concerns
essentially that were expressed here at the Planning Commission level . I
would like, and I wanted to bring it to this commission first but I 'd also
like to bring this to the attention of the City Council after we' ve had an
opportunity to look at it here tonight too because I think that everyone
in this room and the people who sit on the City Council are trying to act
in a responsible, concerned manner for the residents in the area and I 'm
not so certain that the developer in this situation had the same intent .
One other issue that may help us, at least , the trees have not been
removed from Lot 1 and there is a provision in the approved development
plan that there would be a tree removal plan submitted with any building
plans . There ' s the possibility then , if there ' s any deviation from the
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 64
grading plan or any trees that are being asked to be removed by the
builder , that the City could enforce approval on that before it' s done. I
guess that' s the sum total of my comments . _
Conrad: I appreciate that. Just some comments on my part. We've got to
figure out what we want to do other than noting your concerns . Is the
City doing anything right now Larry or Steve? —
Brown: We do not have the power .
Wildermuth : They can' t do anything through the building permit process?
Brown: The only thing that they have violated at this time is the
Covenants and Restrictions .
Conrad : And that' s theirs .
Brown: And that' s a binding contract between the developer .
Conrad: What was the development contract that we entered into with them? _
It had no stipulations in terms of these things?
Brown: The development contract is essentially a contract between the
developer and the City. Now the developer , the specific condition was —
that a snow fence be installed immediately south of the proposed grading
as indicated on dated plan. . . In fact the developer did do that and the
contractor reasonably complied with that barrier. Now all of a sudden the —
contractor/developer has met that criteria and performed by it . Now all
of a sudden we change hands to a builder . When the builder buys the lot
or a homeowner buys the lot . . .
Conrad : So what was our mechanism because we wanted this 140 foot
setback. What was our mechanism to make sure it happened?
Brown: We don ' t have that mechanism.
Conrad : But that was our intent but it didn ' t get in because it was put
in the Covenants that apply strictly to the lot . I 'm sure that ' s what
staff was thinking so that the property owners would specifically know
that there are restrictions . I see the idea . It sounds right but what is _
our assurance that it gets done? There was none right? So therefore, it
was sort of a folly. It was really naive thinking that we could go from
the City Council saying there should be 140 foot setback to the situation
where the Covenants and Restrictions don' t include that. There' s no way
to get those into the specific property restrictions . Absolutely no way
so basically the bottom line is , this is a stupid way to do it. Is that
right?
Brown: Yes it is .
Hanson : What happens a lot of times in the heat of the debate you might —
say, when the issue is coming before you and you ' re looking for some type
of a mechanism to put it in and quite often people view it as , from a
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 65
developer ' s standpoint , it ' s easy to say yes , we' ll put it in our
Covenants and Restrictions . In fact, we' ll give you a copy of them. Then
when it gets down to having to make a sale, make a deal somewhere, if they
haven' t sold it out and you have a lot of property owners that are aware
of that, it' s easy to make that change because we as the City are not a
party to it. I think a better way to deal with that is to put a plat
restriction on the plat which you approved so it ' s something facing the
plat, it ' s a legal document that the City is a party to. But the
Covenants , you really don ' t, you ' ve got nothing to stand on, come back to
and even though your intention at the time. . .
Conrad : And there' s no way to put it into the development contract? That
it could pass down from the developer to the builder . In this case had it
been specifically in the development contract , would we have had recourse
to go after the builder? That just seemed like the logical , I remember
this quite well and it seemed like the logical thing to do but obviously I
didn ' t catch it and maybe it ' s not the right thing to do.
Brown: We impose plat conditions that are routinely incorporated into a
development contract and the development contract is then recorded against
the property itself. Again each lot so I would say that platting
conditions run with the property. We do that routinely. I think as Steve
mentioned , maybe in this instance , this was a classic example of where the
developer stands up in the heat of the moment and says, I ' ll put it in the
Covenants and Restrictions .
Conrad : You know what would be good , as this goes up to City Council ,
when will this go?
Brown: It will not be this next one because the agenda has already been
published so it would have to be the following.
Conrad : I think it' s really good that staff provide a recommendation in
terms of, hey this is not the way to approach this one and this is how we
should do it in the future. Steve, I think that' s really quite important .
Setting direction for the future I think is key and then come back and
explain it to us so we understand . The second thing is the recourse at
the current time. I guess that will be up to you and I don' t know that we
have any mechanism right now to help you with the situation.
Unfortunately it happens a fair amount of time. Dave got surprised on a
parcel close to him. Whether it was clearcutted or whatever , things
happen that way. You try to button it up. It appeared to me that we had
it buttoned up and it didn' t happen .
Bill Eggert : It appeared to all of us that way I believe too. Maybe one
thing that happened from the official planning or at development, the
initial covenant called for 120 feet and the developer was anxious and
eager to offer an additional 20 feet in the covenant and came back at that
planning session and said we' ll go 140 feet . If nothing else , coming away
from this, my thoughts to you would be, if this particular developer came
in front of me with another project , I 'd look at him with a jaundiced eye.
At least make every effort to help those people in the immediate area .
Planning Commission Meeting
—
January 4 , 1989 - Page 66
Conrad : And for sure that will happen but that ' s no help to you right
now. Obviously we' ve got to be concerned with a developer that breaks
their word .
Headla : Who should control that? When you issue the building permits?
Conrad: That' s kind of what I 'd like to have staff come back and make —
some comments on. There was some good logic for putting it into the
Covenants and Restrictions. It seemed logical at the time.
Brown: I think the direction is very clear . The only vehicle that we
have is development contracts which will be recorded and runs with the
property. Therefore, I guess it' s just reinforcement . I know I felt as —
much as anyone did. Any conditions or concerns that we have, have to be
incorporated into that development contract . It ' s good education the next
time a developer stands up and says Covenants and Restrictions. We can
say, forget it. It ' s in our development contract . —
Batzli : As I recall , we' ve had this issue arise since that time where
people have been concerned about water drainage and we have requested that —
something be recorded against the property. That they can' t adjust
drainage swales or some kind of contours . I don' t know how we' ve done
that in the meantime but I 'd be curious to know how many times we've
attempted to do something about it since this because I do recall —
personally making a condition saying something like this was going to be
recorded against the plat or something .
Ellson: I remember somebody saying , against the plat? That' s so much
work. I think you should just do it this way. I kind of remember that .
Batzli : It would be real interesting to know what we' ve done in the
meantime because I know we didn' t do it in a covenant but we tried to do
it another way as well .
Emmings: Are we sure? From your comments and from the comments he read ,
are we sure that we didn' t make it, either a condition of approval or that
it wasn ' t recorded against the plat? Has staff looked to see that we —
didn' t do it?
Brown: I reviewed that and every indication that I found at the time, it —
didn' t come out as a specific condition because we had, we were so wound
up in approving this grading plan that only called for grading within the
first 100, the front 100 feet. It really gets down to a sticky issue.
How much can you tell a landowner that they can or cannot do with their —
land? We may have already or don' t have control to be quite honest. If
somebody wants to go out and cut down a tree , do we have an ordinance in
effect yet that protects us from that? I don' t think that we do but I
will review those conditions one more time and Minutes .
Emmings : And review the plat conditions too because it may be, there were
comments that he read out of the Minutes that sure made it sound like —
people were trying to do that and Brian has a recollection of that. If we
did it , let ' s make sure that we find out in a hurry so we go out and make
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 67
sure they' re doind Lot 1 correctly if it' s staked . Because once the
— house is built, you ' re not going to do anything. . . .put that house
there, nobody' s going to move it anywhere but if it ' s just staked, you can
do something about it. I think that' s something you should get on in a
hurry.
Conrad : Thanks for coming in . We' ll see what happens . Stick with it.
— We appreciate your comments and looking out for the future too.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Batzli moved , Ellson seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 16 , 1988 as presented.
All voted in favor and the motion carried .
Batzli moved, Ellson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 12: 50 a.m. .
Submitted by Steve Hanson
City Planner
Prepared by Nann Opheim