The URL can be used to link to this page

03-01-89 Agenda and Packet FLU AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 1989, 7 : 30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Subdivision of 22 . 8 acres into two lots of 1. 9 and 20. 9 acres on property zoned RR, Rural Residential and located on Ches Mar Drive ( Gross property) , Ches Mar Farms Realty. 2 . Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a church on property zoned R-4, Mixed Low Density, and located } mile north of Hwy. 5 and west of Powers Boulevard, Eckankar Church, Peter Beck. NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES OLD BUSINESS OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT • CITY QF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900A7tinr. ,y T,. MEMORANDUM iia TO: Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Hanson, Planning Director 3I -87 DATE: February 17, 1989 SUBJ: Ches Mar Realty Subdivision This item was last before the Planning Commission on November 2, 1988. The item was tabled at that meeting at the request of the applicant. Previously, this item had been on the October 19, 1988, Planning Commission agenda. It was tabled at that time to allow for the City Attorney to address the right to require the property to be subdivided. The City Attorney' s response was con- - tained in the packet for the November 2, 1988 , meeting at which time the applicant requested taoling of the application. At this time, the applicants have requested this item be brought back before the Planning Commission for further consideration. No new information has been submitted with this request to con- tinue this item. Therefore, the staff is recommending the same action that staff had recommended in the memorandum dated October 26, 1988. RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision Request #88-27 as shown on the plat stamped "Received October 10, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: 1. The lots must be platted and cannot remain as metes and bounds descriptions . 2 . Parcel A must maintain a minimum of 2} acres . 3 . A 35 foot roadway easement shall be dedicated to the city along the northerly property boundary of Parcel A of the sub- ject plat. • Planning Commission — February 17 , 1989 Page 2 4 . The applicant must enter into a development contract with the city designating that Parcel B has only one building eligibi- lity. The development contract must be recorded as part of — the recording of the final plat. 5 . Parcel B shall be designated as an outlot and is considered _ unbuildable until it is combined with the adjacent property or provides two approved septic sites and street access . The development contract stating the required conditions shall be recorded against Parcel B. — 6. A 15 foot yard way easement shall be provided along the westerly property boundary of Parcel A. — ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Tim Keane dated January 26, 1989. — ▪ Planning Commission minutes dated November 2, 1988. 1 . Memo to Planning Commission from Jo Ann Olsen dated October 26 , 1988. — 4 . Letter from Roger Knutson dated October 26, 1988. 5 . Planning Commission minutes dated October 19, 1988. 6 . Staff report for Planning Commission October 19, 1988. _ 7 . Copy of RR, Rural Residential District zoning requirements. 8 . Memo from Larry Brown dated October 12, 1988. • Letter from Tim Keane dated September 26, 1988 . 10 . Copy of application. — 11. Copy of 1983 Half Section Map for area. 12. Copy of 1988 Half Section Map for area. 13. Reduced copy of legal descriptions and plat showing the two — parcels. wME3 P.LARKIN . ROBERT L.HOFF MAN LARKIN, HOFFMN, DALY �C LINDGREN, PEAT LTD. DAVID JFRANCIS E.GIBERSON JER r. QALY AMICHAEL T.MWRIM D.KENNETH WEAVER ANDREW W. DANIELSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLESANR LE WENOELL R ANDERSON WILLIAM S.BRANOT GERALD H.FRICOELL VINCENT O.ELLA ROBERT B. TLOCR RACY R.CICHHORN-HICKS ♦OBER E MULLIGAN 1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 2000 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER ANDREW J MITCHELL ROBERT J.HE MN[33[r JOHN A.COTTER* c. CON 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET BEATRICE A.ROTHWEILER CDWAAD J..DRISORISCOLL PAUL B.PLUNKETT GENES MILER BLOOMINGTON,MINNESOTA 55431 MINNEAPOLIS.MINNESOTA 55402 AMY DARR GRADY GENE N.FULLER ALAN L.KILDOW R DAVID C.SCLLEGREN KATHLEEN M.PICOTTE N(WMAN RIC HERO J KE[NAN TELEPHONE 16121 835.3800 TELEPHONE 16121 33B•6610 e•rHERINe BARN ETT WILSOH� JOHN 0-FULLMC4 AN JEFFREY C.ANDERSON ROBERT E.BOYLE TELECOPIER 16121 835-5102 TELECOPIER:6121 338-1002 JEFFDANIL. AN E3 FRANK I.HARVEY TODD M.VLATKOVICH RICHARD A.FORSCMLER TIMOTHY J. MCMAMUS CHARLES S.MODELL JILL I.YRIEDCR3 CHRISTOPHER J.OIETZEN NORTH SUBURBAN OFFICE GREGORY E.KORSTAD J OHN R. CRAAGLINDA H.FISHER 8990 SPRINGBROOK DRIVE,SUITE 250 LISA A.A.PETERSON LISA RAY BEN THOMAS P,STOIi MAN GARY gEHN[KE STEVEN G.LEVIN COON RAPIDS,MINNESOTA 55433 THOMAS H.WEAVER FOAR[ST O.MOW LIN SHANNON K.MCCAMBRIDOC MICHAEL C.JACKMAN TELEPHONE 16121 786-7117 MICHAEL S.COHEN JOHN E.OICHL DENISE M.NORTON JON S.SWIEBZEwsKl TELECOPIER 16121 786-6711 GARY A.vAN CLEVE THOMAS J.(LYNN MICHAEL B.BRAMAM JAMES P.QUINN JOSEPH W.DICKER TODD I B. IKAN SOLO Reply to Bloomington COVEUNE F. DIETZ STEPHEN B.SOLOMON PETER R.BECK ROD EN L.KNACK RUA.•0.WIVES J(ROMC K ILL OMAN RURETICH JULIE CHRISTOPHERRC OALDH, J.HARRI !- GERALD L.SECT RONALD M,STARK JR. JOHN B.LUNDOVIST - NA DATLE NOLAN SHARON MA41KAr CANAGA L. A L,f2AU THOMAS B. r,.15. OF COUNSEL January 26, 1989 JOHNRA MCHLIGH RICHARD A.NOROBTE .ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN Mr. Steve Hansen City Planner City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: Ches Mar Realty Subdivision Dear Steve: As discussed, this letter is offered to request that consideration of the Ches Mar Farms proposed subdivision previously tabled by the Planning Commission at its meeting of October 19, 1988, be brought back for consideration at its meeting of March 1, 1989 . I look forward to. meeting with you to review this matter on Tuesday, February 7, 1989, at 1:30 p.m. , in your office. Sincerely, Timothy J. Keane, for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. kw cc: Steven Loe TJK: BLOs JAN 27 1989 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION — REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 2, 1988 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 30 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Steve Emmings , Annette Ellson, David Heala and Brian Batzli MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart and Jim Wildermuth STAFF PRESENT: Larry Brown, Asst. City Engineer and Fred Hoisington, — Planning Consultant SUBDIVISION OF 22. 8 ACRES INTO 2 LOTS OF 1. 9 AND 20. 9 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED ON CHES MAR DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE NORTH OF HWY. 5, GINER GROSS , CHES MAR FARM REALTY. This item was tabled per the applicant ' s request. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CLASS A AND CLASS B WETLAND INTO STORMWATER RETENTION BASINS LOCATED AT OUTLOT A AND LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 3RD ADDITION, JUST NORTH OF LAKE 1 SUSAN AND WEST OF HIGHWAY 101, PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, — ROSEMOUNT, INC. . Larry Brown presented the staff report. — Conrad: Just a quick question Larry. The road between the two is not an alternative, is that right for whatever the option is that City Council . . .? Brown: That' s correct. That road will not be going in. Conrad: Where' s it going? Brown: That roadway is part of Market Blvd. . You and see, it' s not real _ clear here but we will be proposing an entrance down at this point here. Part of this crosses over into the Ward property and we consented to obtaining easements through the Ward property as part of the Lake Drive feasibility study for probably this access. — Conrad: This item is a public hearing so we' ll open it up for public comments. If there' s a representative from Rosemount who would like to — make a comment. Bob Worthington: I ' ll introduce our case on the application that ' s before you. I 'm Bob Worthington with Opus Corporation. We are going to be the _ developer contractor for the Rosemount project which is going to be considered. The site plan item is last on your agenda, really the operation for that is somewhat out of context if you don' t take it within — the area of concern, the entire site plan. In terms of the alteration permit, that was filed in conjunction with a site plan and plat 4 4 . CNYOF \ CHANHASSEN ,0 t 4,V 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner A DATE: October 26 , 1988 SUBJ: Ches Mar Realty Subdivision On October 19 , 1988 , the Planning Commission tabled action on the subject proposal until the City Attorney could address whether the City had the right to require the property to be subdivided and to address other legal issues raised at the meeting. Attachment #1 is a letter from the City Attorney addressing these issues. As part of any subdivision proposal , staff reviews the applica- - tion as to how it meets the intent and requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance requires a mini- mum of 2# acres and a maximum density of one unit per 10 acres for rural lots . These regulations were adopted by the City and have been strictly enforced by the City. The proposed sub- division provides the opportunity to create a conforming lot ( 2i acres) which is why staff recommended condition #2. The appli- - cant must prove hardship, which is not self created or an econo- mic hardship, before the city can approva the lot area variance. Section 20-906 ( 7) of the Zoning Ordinance specifically states that "a development contract must be recorded with the County establishing the number of building eligibilities remaining on a property" . Even if only one building eligibility is remaining, the ordinance requires the development contract. Thus staff recommended condition #4. Parcel B can be designated as an outlot which is considered unbuildable until replatted and certain conditions are met (until two acceptable septic sites have been provided and public street _ access ) . A development contract is the proper format to list any conditions required for the outlot to be considered buildable. As far as the conditions for roadway and driveway easements , the city should not create a parcel which does not have access and should take the opportunity to provide the required right-of-way for land that could be subdivided in the future. Thus conditions #3 and #6 . T) Planning Commission October 26 , 1988 Page 2 CONCLUSION Staff believes requiring the subdivision of the proposed property is the correct process for the applicant to follow. The Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances were created and adopted by the City. The ordinances contain regulations which govern subdivisions, — minimum lot requirements, access requirements, etc. Staff applies the regulations of the ordinance to each proposed appli- cation to provide consistent planning throughout the city. Staff — does not, nor should they, make exceptions on a case by case basis. It is the responsibility of staff to enforce the regula- tions adopted by the City. It is the prerogative of the Planning — Commission and City Council to make exceptions or grant variances to the ordinances. The conditions established by staff as part of the subdivision — review for the subject property are consistent with the require- ments of the City Code. Therefore, staff is recommending appro- val of the subdivision with conditions as stated below. — Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the subdivision maintaining the 1 . 93 acre parcel , the applicant will have to receive a lot area variance from the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and the City Council. Staff will schedule the lot area variance for the Board of Adjustments and Appeals prior to the City Council meeting which will review the subdivision propo- sal . RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision Request #27 as shown on the plat stamped "Received October 10 , 1988" and subject to the following conditions: — 1 . The lots must be platted and cannot remain as metes and bounds descriptions. — 2 . Parcel A must maintain a minimum of 2f acres. 3 . A 35 foot roadway easement shall be dedicated to the City — along the northerly property boundary of Parcel A of the sub- ject plat. 4 . The applicant must enter into a development contract with the city designating that Parcel B has only one building eligibi- lity. The development contract must be recorded as part of the recording of the final plat. Planning Commission October 26 , 1988 Page 3 5. Parcel B shall be designated as an outlot and is considered unbuildable until it is combined with adjacent property or provides two approved septic sites and street access. A development contract stating the required conditions shall be recorded against Parcel B. 6 . A 15 footdriveway easement for Parcel B shall be provided along the westerly property boundary of Parcel A. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Letter from Roger Knutson dated October 26 , 1988 . 2 . Planning Report. LAW OFFICES — GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON DAVID L. GRANNIS- 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER: DAVID L. GRANNIS.JR. - 1910-1980 POST OFFICE BOX 57 (612)455-2359 VANCE B. GRANNIS 403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING Eulorr B. KNETSCH MICHAEL J. MAYER VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR. 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE TI tIOTHY J. BERG PATRICK A. FARRELL — DAVID L. GRANNIS,III SOUTH ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55075 ROGER N. KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612)455-1661 DAVID L. HARMEYER October 26, 1988 — Ms. Jo Ann Olsen Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Ches-Mar Farms Realty Subdivision Application Dear Jo Ann: You asked me to respond to several questions concerning the — Ches-Mar Farms subdivision application. Your questions and my responses follow: Q. Is subdivision of the property necessary since Parcel "A" was — split off in 1974? Answer: Whether it is necessary is really not an issue since the City is responding to an application. The City did not approach the owner and ask him to subdivide his property. The owner has filed a request for a subdivision. A warranty deed dated October 4, 1972, recorded March 27 , 1974 , split the property into Parcels "A" and "B". The subdivision was not approved by the City. The split, without City approval, violated the City ' s subdivision ordinance, Ordinance No. 30, — § 13.01 , and should not have been recorded. Minn. Stat. § 462. 358, subd. 4b(3 ) . The ordinance and state statute required City approval for any subdivision creating a parcel — two and one-half acres or less in size. Parcel "A" is less than two and one-half acres in size. In addition, Minn. Stat. § 462. 358, subd. 3c provides: Effect of Subdivision Approval. For one year following preliminary approval and for two years following final approval, unless the subdivider and the municipality agree — otherwise, no amendment to a comprehensive plan or official control shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout, or dedication _ or platting required or permitted by the approved application. Thereafter, pursuant to its regulations, the municipality may extend the period by agreement with the OCT 28 1988S_ CITY OF CHANT hASbCc • Ms. Jo Ann Olsen October 26, 1988 Page Two subdivider and subject to all applicable performance conditions and requirements, or it may require submission of a new application unless substantial physical activity and investment has occurred in reasonable reliance on the approved application and the subdivider will suffer substantial financial damage as a consequence of a requirement to submit a new application. In connection with a subdivision involving planned and staged development, a municipality may, by resolution or agreement, grant the rights referred to herein for such periods of time longer than two years which it determines to be reasonable and appropriate. Subject to the limitations specified in the statute, this means that the City can require compliance with new subdivision and zoning ordinance requirements even after a subdivision has been approved. Q. Are "outlots" unbuildable? Answer: Section 2-1 of the City Code defines an "outlot" as "a platted lot to be developed for a use which will not involve a building or which is reserved for further replatting before development. " An outlot cannot be built upon, but the owner can replat the outlot and then build upon it. Q. Is requiring dedication of street frontage a compensable taking? Answer: Minn. Stat. § 462. 358, subd. 2b authorizes the City to require the dedication of land for streets as a condition of subdivision approval. The seminal case on the taking issue is Nollan v. California Costal Commission, 97 L Ed 2d 677 (1987 ) , the Supreme Court held that a City may condition approval on a dedication requirement if the dedication substantially furthers a governmental purpose and if there is an "essential nexus" between the approval sought and the dedication requirement. The Supreme Court cited with approval a Minnesota case, Collis v. Bloomington, 246 N.W. 2d 19 ( 1976 ) , which was in turn cited by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in Middlemist v. City of Plymouth, 387 N.W.2d 190 (Mn.Ct.App. 1986 ) . In Middlemist, the Court held that the City can require the dedication of land for roadways without compensating the developer if the need for the road was caused by the subdivision or by a "group of subdivisions" approved over a course of years. The City in the current situation therefore can require the dedication of right-of- way without compensation, if the need for it is caused by the proposed plat or by other development in the area. Ms. Jo Ann Olsen — October 26 , 1988 Page Three If the City Council wants to waive platting requirements, it has the authority to do so. Minn. Stat. § 462 . 358, subd. 4 (b) . The Council or Board of Adjustments and Appeals may also grant lot size variances. The decision to grant the waiver or variance are policy decisions. — V= • yours, GRA' h. IS C 'ANNIS, A'RELL & K .TSO ' , _ ANL % BY: ----- Roil'''. — Ro' N. Knutson RNK: srn Planning Commission Meeting October 19 , 1988 - Page 9 C5. The applicnat shall meet the requirements of the Building Department . All voted in favor and the motion carried . _ PUBLIC HEARING: SUBDIVISION OF 22. 8 ACRES INTO 2 LOTS OF 1. 9 AND 20. 9 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED ON CHES MAR DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE NORTH OF HWY. 5, GINGER GROSS, CHES MAR FARMS REALTY. Public Present: Name Address Tim Keane 7900 Xerxes AVenue So. , Bloomington _ Mark Kelly Representative for the Gross ' Brad Johnson 7425 Frontier Trail Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Tim Keane: My name is Tim Keane, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South , Bloomington. I 'm here on behalf of the vendor of the property, Naegle Trust, Ches Mar Farms Realty, trustee . Also with me this evening on behalf of this item is Mark Kelly who' s representing the buyer of the property, Charlie and Ginger Gross . Very briefly, the circumstances that gave rise to the need for this request was an option, I don' t know if this will clarify things any better . In 1981 Charles Gross entered into an option agreement with the Ches Mar Farm Trust on behalf of the Naegle Trust to purchase the homestead on this parcel which is a 1. 93 acres . That was a legal lot of record at-. the time that the option agreement was entered into. There was a condition in the option agreement that there was a life estate that would continue, that would be a condition precedent to closing on the option agreement. That life estate came out of being this past spring with the death of Margaret Johnson. The Gross ' then requested that the property be conveyed under the terms of the option agreement. In 1981 this was a separate lot of record . It continues to be a separate lot of record. However , it did come under common ownership and there was the same tax identification number for both properties. In approximately 1985 there was a State Statute passed that gave municipalities the authority to review tax divisions. This is not a division. We have two separate parcels of record . This is a technicality to approve a tax division. The City upon request, requested that this property be platted in response to the request for the tax division. We agreed to the request for going through the subdivision procedure. There would be a more simplified process and that would be a resolution of the City simply to waive the platting requirement and agree to the tax division to the County. But we did agree to the platting requirement . A couple things I 'd like to note that what this is not. This is not a development proposal . This subdivision will not bring about any new development . No new Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 10 Cconstruction. No new homes. We won ' t have any additional traffic out — here. There will be no intensification of the land use. We have one homestead out there. We' re simply trying to convey that one homestead. It will create no additional demands for public services or parks, fire, — police. Nothing will change. It' s simply a legal convenyence. I would like to emphasize that it is an existing legal lot of record. We' re only here to fulfill our obligation to be able to enter a deed to divide it. We do have the one existing home out there. It does meet all of the — setback requirements. The request is for approval of the subdivision. We' ll also request a variance, a lot area variance pursuant to the request for the 1. 93 acre subdivision . Addressing the conditions that were — recommended by staff, we agree with condition 1. That it is platted. That it would not be a metes and bounds. It would be a platted by Lot and lot description. As to Parcel A, if Parcel A were to be required to _ increase to the 2 1/2 acre standard , we would have to have the vendor and vendee, 7 years after the transaction was negotiated and contemplated under the existing zoning , and understanding that we have a separate lot of record, to go back and negotiate for . 57 acres to come up to the legal — minimum. I 'm not sure what would be accomplished but it would put both buyer and seller or vendor and vendee in a very awkward position trying to agree upon just exactly where that extra .57 acres should come from and what the value of that is. I do believe that it does create undue hardship, both on the vendor and vendee and I 'm really not sure what' s accomplished by bringing it up . 57 acres . Item 3, the 35 foot roadway C easement to be dedicated to the City along the northerly property line . — The proposal to split off the land , again, doesn' t create any additional demands. The burdening of this parcel with a 35 foot roadway easement , in no way is related to the request to simply split it off. I would request — that that condition not be included . It would be a condition again later on, an agreement entered into 7 years ago, the Gross' certainly do disagree with the request for the 35 foot roadway easement across their _ property. Number 4, the applicant enter into a development contract with the City designating Parcel B as having only one building eligibility. Again, looking at what this is, simply a conveyence out of an existing lot of record , I would question why the restriction' s being placed on 20 acres — that will be actually the remainder. In the alternative, we certainly would agree to designating that as an outlot with a development restriction that it not be developed until it is replatted. That, I think — would accomplish what the City is trying to achieve without unnecessarily burdening property and the chain of title. Any examination or consolidation of this property could be looked at in the context of an overall larger plan. That was referenced earlier. Number 5, Parcel B must have 2 approved septic sites prior to final plat approval . Again , we' re not requesting development of Parcel B. I believe that that condition can be addressed in the same manner as designating Parcel B as an outlot with a condition that it not be developed until there is a new subdivision . To go out and venture where those septic tests should be taken would be nothing more than a stab in the dark. No one knows where a logical homesite would be on Parcel B. We don ' t have a development proposal for that at this time and to require septic tests without a development plan seems like a fruitless exercise. Again , a condition to restrict development until it' s replatted would address the City' s — concerns on that item. Number 6, the applicant shall provide trail • planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 11 easements , fees required by the Park and Recreation Commission. We haven' t heard what the recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission is and we' re not prepared to address that. Number 7, a 15 foot driveway easement for Parcel B be provided along the westerly property boundary of Parcel A. Again , I believe we can achieve that with the same restriction as noted previously. That we don' t develop Parcel B until it' s replatted and if indeed we do have the restriction for the consolidation of a future development with access on TH 41, it can be addressed in that context. With that , I would respectfully request that the subdivision be approved as applied including the request for the variance from the 2. 5 to 1. 93 acre minimum. I 'm available for questions . it Mark Kelly: I 'm Mark Kelly on behalf of Charles M. Gross and his spouse. Two comments . My client' s interest is a personal one. We' re dealing with a transfer of title and as Mr. Keane has noted that actually it began 10 _ years ago. It was in 1978 when Ches Mar Farm sold off an interest that it had come into, ownership from Margaret Johnson but Margaret Johnson held back a life estate. - Anyway, trasferred it to Mr . Pelitier who then sold it to Mr. Gross in 1981 and Ches Mar Farm approved that transaction. That is of record as of June 1, 1981 and that has been my client ' s home since that time. He has resided there and continues to reside there. This was not something that could have been completed earlier . . .simply because the convenyence could not be done until , unfortunately the death of Margaret Johnson. That occurred back in April and we' re trying to move as quickly L as we can to complete the final transfer of the title. This is much like a contract for deed essentially. The problem is that the legal description, which are of record in the County Courthouse, don ' t happen to match the tax legal description and what we' re simply asking is that the City recognize what is essentially an existing , non-conforming tax legal description with the actual property description. We' re grandfathered in. We were in existence well before your 2 1/2 acre minimum. The City can not tell my client effectively to buy some more land because you can ' t own what you already essentially own. He already has an interest. We just haven ' t been able to get the deed as such but he has a legal title to it. So we' re not asking the City to waive it ' s zoning laws. We' re asking the City to recognize that it has a grandfather situation. Whatever it may choose to do with Parcel B is really quite independent of my client' s concerns which as Mr . Keane has properly noted , we' re not looking to increase the use of Parcel A. We' re maintaining it' s use as it has been heretofore . As far as some of the suggested requirements for this arrangement might be approved as suggested by the staff of the City. Obviously my client has only purchased 1.96 acres which at that time was not a non-conforming zoning use. The requirement of a 35 foot roadway easement is a taking of my client' s property interest . Effectively it would benefit property behind him and the City doesn' t have a right to take that from him. Similarily, any requirement for trail easements or 15 foot driveway easements are also an imposition. These people have a legal interest in this land and I would hope that the City would recognize that and allow us just to conform with the tax identification, legal description at this time to what is already of record . I 'd be happy to answer any questions. Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 12 Brad Johnson : I 'm Brad Johnson, 7425 Frontier Trail and I represent the — owner of the property to the east and west , the Kirk property. We have been , as you know, attempting to come back to you sooner or later with a package that will hopefully be acceptable to you. During that period of time though, we realized that, we could never figure out why the property was divided the way it was in the first place. I think the gentlemen have just answered the question. Nobody did it legally in today' s world. After Gary purchased the property, we discovered that there was only a 25 — foot easement allowed which he gave in the review process for the road. It ' s required in that particular area to have a city road into that property and 60 foot wide easement. We' re faced with the fact that — either , if ever , could be today, could be 10-15-20 years from now, access is going to come into that property from TH 41. I think Jo Ann has found out, I read the staff report, that MnDot would not allow another access _ point to come into Outlot B. At least at our current reading so we' re faced with, if the City is ever going to have that property developed by some developer , whether it' s the guy who owns the property at the present time, you' re going to be faced with the problems that we' re being faced with which is that sometime down the line nobody said you've got to have a certain amount of property given for access to the property to rear . Now I don' t know if that's a taking . We' ve been involved in other subdivisions where access is required as part of the subdivision. This is considered to be a subdivision of land and it seems to me you have the right to do that so we are concerned as property owners to the west, that this issue be resolved and not left in the air because basically from our — point of view, that we have to negotiate with the Gross ' or at MnDot for access. It makes it fairly difficult to do it . We' re not opposed to negotiation but that ' s our concern. A 35 foot easement . We also are — purchaser of the property to the south of Outlot B and we would like to request some type of access to that with an easement . We would like to have it considered to be an outlot, as Mr. Keane has requested so we can _ go ahead and either come back with a logical development or not and allow us to proceed with we had planned in doing. We' re not discussing , as has been pointed out, any development of the site but I want to point out that there are problems on that site. By not dealing with them now, we' ll have to deal with them again and again and again until ultimately there' s some solution to the problem. I think the primary one happens to be what was perceived by most as the access that was grandfathered in. If the City — rules that you can ' t have a 25 foot wide public easement, that it has to be 50 or 60 feet, we' re stumped. We would like to request that you leave the 35 foot easement in place and require the 15 foot easement on the west end side to give them access to Outlot B with that particular purchase and — that you leave it as an outlot as Mr . Keane has required rather than a developed lot. . . Conrad : Brad , what were your comments about the outlot? Brad Johnson: You ' ve got Outlot B, it' s called Parcel B. I think Mr . _ Keane asked that it be called an outlot rather than a lot so that somebody could back later . Conrad : Yes , and your comment to that was? — Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 13 Brad Johnson : That ' s fine. I think that ' s a good way to do it. That makes it, I guess not buildable until somebody comes back with a plan. I don ' t think somebody is going to build one house on there currently but long term, if nobody bought that lot, there is no access. Let' s just say we didn' t complete our acquisition and now that Outlot B is sitting there and Jo Ann can give you the answer to MnDot' s feeling about two accesses there. You' ve basically landlocked the property. It doesn ' t appear to be landlocked but you can' t get access off TH 41. I don' t know if that' s true or not . I 'm just saying , if that is in fact true, it ' s landlocked . We had assumed you could but I 'm not sure now, since we found out we can' t. I 'm just speaking , as I said , for having dealt for the future. . . Mark Kelly: Only one thing that Mr. Johnson raised and that is the concept that the City' s can serve over a 60 foot wide easement. As far as my client' s home, and I ' ll point this out, the City can not use it' s municipal power of emminant domain to benefit one property owner . That is effectively what Mr . Johnson has just asked you to do. He' s saying that he doesn ' t want to have to negotiate with my client . He'd rather not talk about the road with Ches Mar Farm and their counsel . He would prefer that the City use it' s municipal power to benefit one person and not for public purpose. As we indicated , this is pre-existing situation. With that in mind , I will trust that you will not abuse the powers of emminent domain for what is obviously a rather selfish purpose. —( Erhart moved , Ellson seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Wildermuth : Let ' s say that Lotus Realty and Gary Kirt did not purchase Parcel B or Outlot B or whatever we might designate that , at this point there would be no access to that property. Olsen : The Zoning Ordinance does not allow on a collector , you' ve got to have a quarter of a mile separation. And plus MnDot has said that they would not permit an access . . . Wildermuth : So technically we really couldn' t allow this subdivision of this parcel landlocking one of the parcels? Olsen : Without providing . . . Wildermuth: Without providing an easement . Has the City Attorney looked at this at all? Olsen : Yes, he' s aware of the objections by the applicant . Wildermuth: And what does he say? Olsen : We have the right to require it to be subdivided because it' s under single ownership. By splitting Parcel A, subdividing it off , you' re creating a . . . lot. Technically the legal description is . . . 3 by dividing it C. the Parcel B. . . Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 14 Erhart : Did you say it' s on a collector or arterial? — Olsen: It 's a collector or minor arterial . . . Erhart : If it' s a collector , it' s only 400 feet. We have to clarify what it is . Wildermuth: Jo Ann , this is technically a subdivision? — Olsen: Yes . Wildermuth : And that' s why we' re talking about park fees and trails? Olsen: Right. The Park and Recreation Commission did review this on _ Tuesday. Actually they did bring it and they determined that they did not need any trail easements because they would have enough right-of-way on TH 41 to provide for that trail . Since the building permit will not be coming for it, I doubt if they will be required a trail easement. I was — just told that today. They can confirm that with Lori Sietsema , the Park and Rec Director but they will not be requiring trail easements . Wildermuth : I don' t know what to think about item 4 . I guess item 4 and 5 are in keeping with the idea , the fact that you' re creating a subdivision. I guess basically I agree with the staff report . Batzli : I was, I guess, curious, Tim probably can answer this . Was the life estate . . .did you say? Tim Keane: Excuse me? Batzli : Was the life estate recorded as part of the. . . Tim Keane: Yes . Batzli : So that ' s been recorded at the County for however many years? — Numerous years? Tim Keane: Yes . And it is a parcel of record . This is not a subdivision. A subdivision is a formality but it is creating this lot. We' re not creating any new lots . Batzli : And our Attorney says it' s a subdivision because of the common ownership? Olsen: Any lot that is combined and under single ownership, becomes — essentially one lot. For it to be separated, you have to go back to the subdivision process . Mark Kelly: If that was the case, then every subdivision that is developed by a developer , the second it ' s recorded and under the common ownership of the developer , all of the lots are suddenly, I mean it ' s a fiction. It' s not correct. Simply because adjoining parcels are under — commn ownership does not mean that they merge. Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 15 Olsen : That ' s how our ordinance defines it and that ' s the way we've done it. When it ' s a lot of record , even like with Carver Beach where they' re all separate parcels of record but they have combined to form parcels that meet the requirements . Batzli : So if we did designate Parcel B as an outlot , that wouldn' t satisfy your problem because of the fact that it' s technically a subdivision? Olsen : Right . We would still need to have some of the conditions that we requested to make it clear that Parcel B only has one building eligibility. It could be sold off as a separate parcel . . . Tim Keane: If that were to be the case, we would have a cloud running on the title of that land that would be very difficult to remove. In the event that Parcel B were joined with another one through a replatting process, that still runs with the title. And the same goal of the City to assure that development could be guided and a plan can be accomplished by your restriction, either by a development agreement or we would certainly agree to an agreement running with the land that property not be developed until it ' s resubdivided so that outlot designation would not be. . . It - would only be developed if it' s subdivided. It seems to me that all the goals the City is trying to accomplish in terms of orderly development , — could be accomplished . . .without creating the unnecessary problems. Batzli : What Tim is asking for , by designating this as an outlot is basically requesting a variance under our , what may be a formality but under our current definition in the ordinance is a subdivision. In order - to make that not a lot , there would have to almost be a variance type situation to designate that an outlot. Olsen : To allow Parcel A. Batzli : We have to basically designate , in order to conform with the density requirement, only one buildable site can go on that lot. So you ' re basically asking for another variance to designate it as an outlot rather than. . . Olsen : We want to make it clear that even if that' s combined with additional land, at 20 acres, years down the line when it' s sold off, that 1 unit per 10 acre is still in effect . In fact people are going to be thinking that they have 2 building eligibilities. For us to maintain that 1 unit per 10 acres as we' re required to do by the Met Council , we want to make it clear that Parcel B has only one building site. Tim Keane : Excuse me. I hate to belabor the point but we have many mechanisms to regulate development of the land . And to create encumbrances on the title, . . .chain of title is an exceptional burden . For example, if sewer and water serves the area and we now have 15, 000 square foot minimum lot sizes , you still have running in that chain of C_ title an encumbrance restricting that parcel from one building unit eligibility. I think the City can contemplate the rationale, organized Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 16 Cdevelopment patterns without creating those inordinate encumbrances in our chain of title. You have the regulatory mechanisms to do that and I woulde respectfully request that you employ those rather than creating this encumbrance on the chain of title. There are many unforeseen changes— could come that encumber by adding that restriction . . . .but to designate Parcel B as an outlot, we' re not building . . . No one could come forward to obtain a building permit for an outlot without having that replatted and _ coming back through this Planning Commission and the City Council for approval for a development plan . Conrad : But once it' s an outlot, there are no restrictions. Once there' s — an outlot there, I 'm guessing but all of a sudden, the 1 for 10 is no longer. They basically have lost what staff is trying to recommend here. Batzli : I guess what I 'm looking at is, Parcel B and assuming we would give a variance on Parcel A which is a big assumption, Parcel B is approximately 20 acres . What they' re gaining in one additional house under the current zoning. My whole point, I guess I 'm kind of helping — belabor the point is that this thing was of record . It was contemplated years before our City had these zoning ordinances. I 'm inclined to try and work with the applicant here to do what they contemplated years ago . — The fact that it was recorded. It was of record. These people do have an interest in the land . I think we ' re trying to impose an awful lot of stuff on them. That doesn' t satisfy, I haven' t even addressed the roadway — C easements because I think that it' s probably good planning that we do impose some of those easements . But as to forcing them to put an encumbrance on this lot , I agree with the applicant . That ' s all I have. Tim Keane: Just to finish up a thought. If the life estate restriction had been removed prior to either (a) the statutory requirement that now a municipality can review a tax division, or (b) the creation of the 1 in 10 — restriction , the development pattern changes . It was only the removal of the life estate contingency in 1988 that gave rise to the circumstances. Going back, it' s only a technicality of the tax division that brings us here and requires us to subdivide this parcel . — Ellson : I could see maybe allowing a variance to have A be less than 2 1/2 acres. Especially if it' s been divided that way on record and things — like that. I don' t necessarily agree that you can just leave that other side and when the problem comes up, then deal with it. I kind of like to see some sort of solution on B like the road access and maybe even that _ building development. The idea behind the 2 septic sites prior to appoval , is that basically because if they can ' t find two septic sites now then they should never be able to have a home on there or something? Olsen : It ' s just a requirement of the ordinance. It ' s just a guarantee that that site is a buildable site. Emmings : But not if it ' s an outlot . You wouldn ' t have to do that if it were deemed an outlot. Is that right? Conrad: That' s right . — Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 17 C Olsen: We' ve been told by our Attorneys that outlots are still a lot and they. . . Emmings : But they' re not buildable so you ' re not talking about building them. Conrad : There could be an implied buildability statement in that though. If you create an outlot. . . Emmings : We do it all the time. The requirements that are attached to these outlots are not ever the same as the lots that are created in the subdivision because you know it ' s going to come in later and that ' s going to be attached to conditions . Ellson : That' s what I need to understand because I guess that ' s part of the thing that confuses me. You ' re saying at that time you would still be able to impose whatever you wanted? The 1 home or what have you even if it was an outlot? Olsen : I 'm not sure that you could still deny, if somebody came in with that outlot and requested division of that site, I 'm not sure that we could deny that building permit. Emmings: You could if it didn ' t have the septic site and it was required . That' s no problem. There might be a question about the number of eligibilities . We might be giving that up but if they couldn ' t put in the septic system, we wouldn' t have to give them a building permit. Right? Olsen : But they could come back and say that . . . Tim Keane: If I may clarify the distinction. An outlot may be sold . . . However , by State Statute the designation on the outlot is the same language in all 87 counties in the State and it ' s affected the same. That it' s not a buildable lot. It has to be replatted in order to be a developable parcel . Conrad : Do we know that for sure? Emmings : An outlot in our ordinance is defined as a platted lot to be developed for a use which will not involve a building or which is reserved for future replatting for development . Reserved for future replatting . Conrad: To me it implies it can be developed . Emmings : That ' s not what it says . Ellson : It sounds like when you do the replatting , then you come in and try to conform with them but right now as an outlot it can' t be developed . Olsen : That ' s fine . An outlot is fine but staff is not reviewing that . But it' s still . . . sewer and water was there that would change the density. �.. It' s valid but the ordinance does require that you have to record the building eligibility for what you ' ve used and what is left. It's a policy Planning Commission Meeting October 19 , 1988 - Page 18 (7 for the whole district to maintain the 1 unit per 10 acre. If he wants to — not have the public context , he wants a deed restriction or something on that outlot . It ' s just a technicality. Because that 20 acres is going to be used for Ches Mar Farms and they are going to be using . . . — Emmings : In my own my mind I feel very strongly that Parcel A should stay precisely the size it is for the reason that Brian suggested. That land was the subject of conveyence between these parties prior to the time that — our zoning ordinance was adopted . And to go back and say that these parties have to cut a new deal involving more land , is something , I don' t know if we have the legal right to do it but we shouldn ' t have. To me — that ' s just wrong . If I put myself in the place of the Gross ' and just ask myself as a matter of fairness. In the position of either party and ask myself as a matter of fairness , should I have to go back and buy _ addition land after I ' ve already made a deal to purchase a piece of land for a certain price. The answer ' s a big no . It just isn ' t right . So I think that should be carved off of there in it' s present size to allow those people to complete .the deal that they originally agreed upon. That — would knock out condition. Condition 3, on the roadway easement, now we' re in the hard stuff because they can sit there and say that they don' t contemplate development of Parcel B or what I believe should be an outlot. — I think that is the way to go on but if we do that, I think we ' re doing two things that are real foolish from a planning standpoint and that is , number one , we' re creating an outlot that ' s landlocked and I don ' t want to do that. That seems to me to be foolish. The other thing is , we' re kind — of sticking our heads in the sand , or we would be, if we ignore the fact that the obvious intention is to join the balance of Ches Mar Farms that isn ' t involved in this platting with Outlot B and develop it as one — parcel . I don' t really have a good answer there. I don ' t think that the City again , should be allowed to impose on that Parcel A a 35 foot easement, which is real substantial it seems to me, on Parcel A. For that _ matter , I don' t even think we should put the 15 foot one on the back side. But it seems to me that these people, the Gross ' and the people who are going to own Parcel B or Outlot B on the Ches Mar Farm area ought to get together , maybe before we approve this plat and maybe it should be tabled . — Some accomodation should be made between those parties so that we don ' t have to create what are obvious problems. If we approve this the way they want it, there' s going to be a 25 foot easement going back to Ches Mar Farms to serve this entire area and that is foolishness . I don' t think there should be a development contract now. I think if Parcel B, or it should probabl be an outlot, has two eligibilities, I just don ' t think it ' s that big a deal . When these two parcels come into the same — ownership, Parcel A comes into the person owning both with all kinds of restrictions on it. It ' s not like he owns both lots free and clear of all obligations. That's what makes this different and why I think we can — think of this in terms of a variance without worrying about setting any kind of a precedent. There are all kinds of obligations on the part of this. I want it to convey what he said he would convey on this property. _ He' s got to be able to do it. We can' t make it a legal impossibility for him to do that . For now I think that should be an outlot which takes care of condition 4. It takes care of condition 5. I agree, it' s foolishness to make them go out and drill holes in the ground out there at this point — in time when they don' t have any idea how it' s going to be developed Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 19 Cbecause if it' s an outlot and they come back and they can ' t show that there are viable septic sites out there , they' re not going to be able to build there. That ' s all . It will stay an outlot . I think number 7 I would knock off for the same reason because what will happen is it will wind up, I don ' t know how they' re going to get access to TH 41 but the road system that ' s going to be internal to those two parcels when they' re developed , will all have to come out of their own land . I think the Gross ' deserve to get what they bargained for . Conrad: How can you create a landlock Parcel B though? Emmings : We can' t. That' s the significant problem in this to me. I don' t want to vote on this . Ellson : I like your idea of tabling it. Maybe it does need to be looked at . Emmings : The only thing I don ' t like about tabling it is we' ve got. . . Wildermuth: Technically you can ' t recognize the fact that the outlot is going to be sold . . . At this point it ' s got to stand alone. Emmings: Right and it' s landlocked. That' s why I think there' s, but the other part of this is , there ' s a Parcel A there that needs to and should — be conveyed to the people who live there. That' s the dilemma for me. It ' s how can we create this landlock Parcel B? We heard some talk about selfish purposes here. The Gross ' have a great opprtuni.ty for selfish purposes in all of this too in that they sort of hold the , they' re the gatekeeper here and they can say you want land to put a road in, it' s a lot of dollars a foot . What should happen here is that these folks ought to get together it seems to me somehow. I don' t know how we can force them. That' s what I 'd like to do. It might be easier to sit over there and you figure this out and come back with a plan for the whole piece because from a planning standpoint , I don ' t like approving this . Conrad: Why are you so concerned about the 35 foot road easement going i n? Emmings : Because I think that the Gross ' have a right , why should they have this entire road on their property? Why should they have that 35. . . Conrad : They only have half of it . Emmings : Do they though? What you ' re saying is not right . I think right now their property from this map, it looks like it runs down the center of their road . Do they already have 12 1/2 feet on their side and now we' re asking for another 35? Brad ' s shaking his head no. What do you say Brad? Brad Johnson : There' s a 25 foot easement on the way in and at some point —r there would be a paved road in. . . \ . Emmings : From the survey we' ve got in front of us , it looks like most of it sits over on the Gross ' side of the actual roadway. • Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 20 Brad Johnson : At some point up here there are marks on the edge in some places. The roadway would only be 28 feet wide. . . It would require a 60 foot. It ' s a rural area . If the road never goes in there, it ' s got to be _ 60 feet wide easement. The road is only 24 feet . If it ' s a rural roadway, or 28 feet . . . It ' s a problem and no matter how you do it, the other alternative. . .is to forget all this and somehow you say that access can come from either direction but if access is ever brought in from the — south, then they have to vacate the road. It' s a catch-22 deal . Emmings: How does the person on the north get in then? — Brad Johnson: They come around. We had a plan. Emmings : Oh yea , that ' s right . — Brad Johnson: I 'm just saying , it' s a problem that probably should be addressed and I realize Mr . Kelly says we' re thinking greedily but we are — getting landlocked . If it worked out like you were thinking about it, the greed might be on the Gross ' side rather than our side. . . Emmings : Putting a road south of the Gross ' one road that would go into that property maybe makes some sense but that ' s not the plan that ' s in front of us but there ought to be a plan so there' s access to this property. I can' t see how we can approve this now without having some — kind of plan for access . It doesn ' t seem to me that it ' s right to impose it on the Gross ' who I think have a right to get what they' re running for . I would have liked to have seen a letter from our Attorney addressing the — legal issues because it ' s a mine field and we don' t really have much direction that I think we need from our Attorney to tell us how we might get Parcel A out of there as it is and yet somehow apply whatever pressure is necessary to get these folks to come up with some kind of a plan for — the whole thing so we don' t get a landlocked parcel . Erhart : This is a fun one . The first thing that hits me is your comment — Jo Ann that because the subdivision ordinance is one owner , if an owner of the property buys the platted parcel next to him, that because of some ordinance that we have, they become one parcel . I find it unbelievable _ that we have an ordinance like that . It would be even more far fetched if it would be found legal so yes, I 'm not asking you to answer the question but I sure would like to ask our counsel . Conrad: Our Attorney says it' s true . Erhart : No , he says that there ' s an ordinance like that . I guess I just — can' t believe it. That you could enforce such an ordinance or that it could be legal . If you ' re the owner of B, and let ' s say you have fellow 1 out there and fellow 2. You' re fellow 1 and you own B and fellow 2, he' s _ looking at buying Parcel A. What you' ve done is you' ve created a different value for the two different persons because you' re the owner of B. You ' re getting faced with requirements that the other guy doesn ' t have and that ' s just totally unfair . — Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 21 Conrad : I tend to agree . I don ' t understand that . I honestly don ' t understand what the point of that was. However , it tends to be something that ' s on our books . The ordinance is there apparently. We have to deal with it. Brad Johnson : Is the ordinance two unplatted lots? Tim Keane: It' s a metes and bound description . Olsen : It ' s under a definition of a lot and a lot is only separated by something like a street. Erhart : Can you find that ordinance? Olsen: Which is what we' ve been using . . . One or more lots of record which at the time is filed is created by an owner or developer . It ' s under the subdivision ordinance too. Erhart: I didn' t follow you on that one. Olsen: A single tract of land shall consist of one or more lots of record . It ' s under the Subdivision. . . Lot meaning separate parcel or tract area of land undivided by any public street or a private road which has been established by plat , metes and bounds , subdivision or otherwise permitted by law. Erhart : I didn ' t see it. Olsen : That ' s the way our Attorney has interpretted it for us . Erhart: Could you read it again for me . Olsen : Lot means a separate parcel or cract or area of land undivided by any public or approved private road . Erhart: Is this page 20-1. Is that what you ' re looking at? Olsen: No. 97 in the Subdivision Ordinance. Conrad : We' re not going to figure it out Tim. Erhart: It seems to me that we ought to, you ' re bringing up an ordinance and we' re the Planning Commission , we ought to be able to find the ordinance and look at it. Olsen : It ' s under the interpretation about those definitions of the law. Erhart: Could you read it for me again? Olsen : It ' s a separate parcel or tract of land undivided by any public street or a private road. We have had several cases of where. . .and the Attorney has always used this interpretation. . . .split off a portion or even an existing separate lot of record from that. Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 22 Tim Keane : The ordinance is dated when? Olsen: The subdivision ordinance? Tim Keane : The one you just quoted . Erhart: Is this the one I 'm reading? A lot means a separate parcel , — tract or area of land . Is that the one you ' re reading? Where does it say anything about single ownership? It says separate parcel of land. You' re looking at two parcels of land of record. — Tim Keane: The comment I need to make is that, if that ordinance referring to post dates the transaction which occurred in 1978 and then _ reoccurred in 1981, is essentially inmaterial because these parties weren ' t on notice at that time of any condition that you ' re referring to. There' s a legal interest in land that my client signed on for and it ' s of record . You' re attempting to impose conditions post hoc the situation and — it can' t be done. Batzli : Tim, the definition that talks about single ownership is the — definition of subdivision, not lot. If you ' re confused because it doesn' t talk about single owner , you have to turn the page and look at the definition of subdivision where it does talk about an area under one owner . — Conrad : This is stuff we' ve got to have our Attorney do guys . Erhart : If we can ' t understand these ordinances . This is just so clear cut Ladd . I don ' t know. Emmings : But I don ' t think , I think our Attorney should look at this but I don' t think he should look at this and try and justify the position that staff has. taken . He should look at it and tell us what our options are and how we can get where we want to get to which to me, and it may be — different for each one of us , is breaking out Parcel A. Not landlocking B and somehow having access to what right now we believe to be the most likely scenario which is the combination of that outlot with the rest of Ches Mar Farm for development. Now we 'd be accomplishing something . Batzli : And if for instance we basically asked Parcel B to take the entire easement of 60 feet up to Ches Mar Farms , in the event of some occurence they get the whole 60 feet on the outlot. Something like that might be an option . But putting the burden on B where the development is going to be rather than A which is the contemplated transfer from years — ago. Erhart : Well , I read it while you were talking there. How you can take that paragraph that talks about the dividing a parcel of land and then reversing it to come to the conclusion that ' s stated in the staff report is beyond me. It is just beyond me. Conrad : You' d like to have it explained? Planning :.ommission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 23 Erhart: Yes . Conrad : Tim, any other comments? Anything else? Erhart: Let me move onto the next one. That' s very irritating because it kind of strikes home because I just bought a parcel of land next to me and all of a sudden it' s one plat is just ridiculous. You go up and I sat through this meeting this morning of the candidates and they' re all concerned why the citizens get upset at the City. It' s things like this that get people upset at these things. Batzli : But it probably helps you because then you can use your entire parcel as being subdivided so you have more room for density. Erhart: You go through a lot of money to put these plats down and then all of a sudden it doesn ' t ,mean anything . Well , anyway. My comment on this one is the whole premise for any of the recommendations are baseless . Let me go through each one . I do think we need to get a legal opinion . One way or the other . We' ve got , from a planning standpoint. Go one step further . Did we decide whether this was an arterial or a collector because it makes a big difference as to accessibility onto Parcel B or outlot B? _ Olsen : The City Engineer reviewed it and stated that they would not . . . Emmi.ngs : Mark, do you %now is TU 41 a collector or an arteria? Do you know off hand? It ' s on the Chapter you wrote on Transportation . Wildermuth: TH 41 is an arterial street in the City' s Zoning Ordinance. Erhart : I think somehow we ought to come up with an easement. In fact there is no other access to the Ches Mar Farms except for that driveway right now, right Brad? Brad Johnson : Yes . There ' s two alternatives . I don' t think we would . . . either one unless we want to be sandwiched inbetween . One is to come in on the south side. If somebody bought to the property to the south of B, they could come in that way. In this particular case, if we did not have at the present time a purchase agreement or option for B, if I was Gary Kirt I 'd be up in arms because you' ve really just strangled him. Erhart: But we have to assume that you ' re not buying B. Brad Johnson : Right . So if you ' re not buying B, I tell you what , you landlock the back from a City' s point of view. Erhart : Yes and we' ve made that point of view. That ' s right so I think the City. Brad Johnson : What they could say is that the land they' re developing in the back, one way or another an easement has to happen. It turns out that the applicant owns technically the whole parcel . Don' t you technically • Planning Commission Meeting October 19, 1988 - Page 24 r ' own it? Tim Keane: We' re contractually obligated . Brad Johnson : There are two parts . All I 'm saying is , give it back. Somebody has to vacate that 25 foot easement which we' ve suggested . Currently we have to negotiate either with the City for vacation or the two owners of the property on both sides . Emmings: It ' s not a public road . Brad Johnson : If we made it a public road . If the people in the back said we want a public road in here, you can not provide one. That' s what the problem is. So we could vacate the one to the north and have a 60 foot easement across Outlot B set up that would bring people out to the Ches Mar Farm property and that ' s possible. It just has to be then , who allows the vacation. There are possibly two other people saying they won' t allow it to be- vacated . Just remember our plan , we could bring it in that way. But we didn' t know that we were going to be subject to only one access point . Erhart : I think the logical thing to do is to get this easement through this lot, or one of these lots at this time so I 'd like to see us impose the 35 foot easement either along the south . 30 foot easement along the south border or 35 on the north border . If you don ' t think that ' s reasonable, then you' re going to have to convince Council and run it up. That' s what I 'd like to do. Tim Keane : It should be noted that you ' re essentially taking property. . . Conrad: We understand. You ' ve talked to us about that . Erhart : If you want to battle it, then go ahead and battle it . I think from a planning standpoint . . . I think we should ask for the easement for that ' s what I would recommend on that one . I think goes along with what — Steve is saying, I think. Condition 4, I don' t think it applies because it' s already a lot of record . Item 5 does not apply because that ' s a lot of record. Quite frankly, the 15 foot driveway doesn' t apply either . The — real problem comes in, to be honest with you, if you take the view that this is a lot of record , is that you can ' t restrict. That ' s right, you' ve still got the problem with the easement because you can ' t restrict parcel _ B from access to TH 41 but you still create Ches Mar with no access points . The only condition i guess I would put in is to provide a 35 foot easement for the lot. Conrad : This is a strange area altogether . It was developed strangely. Contrary to a whole lot of things that are good common sense things and now we' re dealing with a lot of stuff to try to resolve it. Going down, I — don' t think we need a 2 1/2 acre parcel . I think there' s good rationale for a variance to that . I want a 35 foot roadway easement there. There' s no doubt in my mind I want it done. Point 7, I think we need a 15 foot easement there. I think 4, 5 and 6 can be taken care of with an outlot as — far as I 'm concerned. I guess my other recommendation is we table this Planning Commission Meeting October 19 , 1988 - Page 25 thing . I 'd like to have staff review all the comments that occurred and come back with something that one, with a Legal opinion on some of the stuff that we' re dealing with because we certainly don ' t know what' s happening . I think the applicant has some common sense approach to some of these things . Our ordinances just don ' t make sense to me right now and I 'd like them explained. I think possibly if it' s still a legal mumbo jumbo , we need an attorney here the next time we review this item. Those are my concerns. Some of my comments may not be fair but I 'm going to solve a problem with my statement . Erhart: So you' re asking us to table it? Conrad : I think we should . I wouldn' t have the foggiest idea what I 'd approve tonight or do. I don' t know. I think if we took a vote on each of the 7 items we'd be all over the place on this thing . I 'd sure like the applicant and staff and an attorney and folks and Brad , maybe mess around with this thing and see if you can come back with something that maybe responds to some of our comments . I can' t believe you still have more to say. Go ahead though. Tim Keane: Simply a question . When do you meet again? Conrad : That ' s a good comment . We meet in two weeks . Erhart: I ' ll move that we table . Wildermuth : Second . Conrad : Under discussion , I 'm sure the applicant would like to move along -- and that' s the reason for his comment. Jo Ann, what kind of staff work load do we have? Olsen : We can get them on for the 2nd . Conrad : And what would we bump if we did do that? Is it an okay agenda to do that? Olsen: Yes . Erhart moved , Wildermuth seconded to table action on the Subdivision of 22. 8 acres into 2 lots for Ginger Gross, Ches Mar Farm Realty. All voted in favor and the motion carried . C I T Y O F P.C. DATE: Oct. 19, 1988 fOl� � CEANIIAS EN C.C. DATE: Nov. 14 , 1988 CASE N0: 88-27 SUB Prepared by: Olsen/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 22 .8 Acres of Property Into Two Lots of 1 . 9 and 20 . 9 Acres — Z LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Ches Mar Drive and Hwy. 41 • Q Approximately 1 Mile North of Hwy. 5 U J APPLICANT: Ches Mar Realty Tim Keane 4300 Baker Road, Suite 4 Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & — Minnetonka, MN 55343 Lindgren 1500 NW Financial Ctr. Mr. & Mrs . Charles Gross 7900 Xerxes Avenue So. _ 2703 Ches Mar Farm Rd. Bloomington, MN 55431 Excelsior, MN 55331 v- � PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential r'cjected mtP ACREAGE: 22 . 8 Acres DENSITY: �C ! ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- RR; Minnewashta Regional Park/Ches Mar Farms S- RR; single family E- RR; single family W- PUD; Ches Mar Farms WATER AND SEWER: No sewer and water available to site. — F-W PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site currently contains a single family residence and the remaining parcel is open — (f) space with steep topography and lakeshore on Lake Minnewashta. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Medium Density -r _ -� )C/ _ I Eilb II sli 4, sh; =It IIIT i ill 4 '.tet '� 1111 .... 11101111111111k, - r . ...4 Et] r p ( ,4, r ,._,,.__ ... .t. 3, a likk IV _E . 4. ,)0 , ,, P _ A S `H T All'r .; ID ' %:_ t • ,,..,, • ._ Pe'90 ��0 1VI I = &„...55 . 411, i I RR wi\ `E ` 740.0 4ta4 /+ _1 Ii) .. .._. .. . I : .... .._ POND A • } 6 O • N ---.�� at — •^AY - Z 1/4 1---___1 _ A2 ' it .: ;"►,, Ches Mar Realty — October 19 , 1988 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The Zoning Ordinance requires rural lots to maintain a minimum — lot size of 2# acres and a density of one unit per ten acres. The lots must have 200 feet of street frontage and a lot depth of _ 200 feet. REFERRAL AGENCIES Engineering Department Attachment #2 Park and Recreation "The Park and Recreation Commission — will be reviewing the subdivision on October 18 , 1988 and may be requiring trail easements along Hwy. 41. " ANALYSIS The applicant, Ches Mar Realty, is requesting preliminary plat — approval to subdivide 1 . 93 acres from a 28 . 2 acre parcel . Parcel A, which contains the 1 . 93 acres , contains a single family resi- dence that has been rented by Charles and Virginia Gross . In — 1983 , the Gross' s had the option to purchase the property. Parcel A was a separately described lot. The owner of Parcel A purchased Parcel B and under the regulations of the subdivision ordinance Parcel A and B are considered one parcel since they are — adjoining properties under single ownership. The applicant is proposing to subdivide Parcel A from Parcel B in — order to permit the transfer of the property to the Gross ' s. The applicant is proposing to maintain the 1 . 93 acres which is the original description of the separate lot of Parcel A. The appli- _ cant understands that the city requires a minimum of 2f acres and that a denisty of one unit per ten acres must be maintained. If the subdivision is approved, Parcel A would be transferred to Charles and Virginia Gross and Parcel B would be transferred to — Lotus Realty which is pursuing a subdivision of Ches Mar Farms. Parcel A meets all the requirements for a rural single family lot except that it does not contain 2 .5 acres. Parcel B contains the required acreage and also meets the required lot frontage and depth requirements. Staff is recommending that the area of Parcel A be increased to provide the 2 .5 acres as required by the — ordinance. There is an existing septic system on Parcel A therefore, soil — borings were not required. The applicant has not provided soil borings for Parcel B because this property will be joined with the Ches Mar Farm property and subdivided as part of that sub- — division application. There is no guarantee that Parcel B will Ches Mar Realty October 19, 1988 Page 3 not remain as a separate legal lot of record. Staff typically requires that soil borings be provided and approved by the city' s consultants prior to plat approval . Therefore, staff is recom- mending that soil borings be performed and two septic sites be approved prior to final plat approval . Parcel B would also have to receive an access permit from MnDOT to be serviced from Hwy. 41 if it remains as a separate parcel . MnDOT and staff feel that any separate access for Parcel B would not be preferred and Parcel B should be serviced by Ches Mar Drive. Staff is recom- mending that an easement be provided across Parcel A for driveway access from Ches Mar Drive to Parcel B ( see Asst. City Engineer' s memo) . The Zoning Ordinance requires rural lots without sewer and water to maintain a one unit per ten acre density. The subject pro- perty contains 22 .8 acres and is therefore permitted two dwelling units . Since the applicant is subdividing off one parcel that already contains a single family residence, the remaining parcel, even though it contains 20 . 9 acres , is only permitted one dwelling unit. Staff is therefore requiring the applicant to enter into a development contract with the city which would state that Parcel B is limited to one dwelling unit to maintain the one unit per ten acre density of the existing parcel . If Parcel B is combined with additional land it will only provide eligibility for one dwelling unit and not two dwelling units . The applicant is required to plat any parcels that can no longer _ be subdivided. Both Parcel A and Parcel B would not be able to be further subdivided because of the minimum acreage requirement and the one unit per ten acre density requirement. Therefore, both lots must be platted and should be shown on the plat as Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the "Ches Mar" subdivision. In the attached memo, the Assistant City Engineer addresses the requirements for a roadway easement to be provided on the northern portion of Parcel A. Since the property is located out- side of the urban service area, a 60 foot right-of-way is required for a public street. There is an existing 25 foot ease- - ment as part of the Ches Mar Farm property located north of Parcel A. To provide the 60 foot right-of-way. Staff is recom- mending that Parcel A provide a 35 foot roadway easement on the northerly portion of the property. RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision #88-27 as shown on the plat stamped "Received October 10 , 1988" and subject to the following conditions: Ches Mar Realty _ October 19 , 1988 Page 4 1 . The lots must be platted and cannot remain as metes and bounds descriptions . 2 . Parcel A must maintain a minimum of 24 acres. 3 . A 35 foot roadway easement shall be dedicated to the City along the northerly property boundary of Parcel A of the sub- ject plat. 4 . The applicant must enter into a development contract with the — city designating that Parcel B has only one building eligibi- lity. The development contract must be recorded as part of the recording of the final plat. — 5 . Parcel B must have two approved septic sites prior to final plat approval. 6 . The applicant shall provide any trail easements and/or fees as required by the Park and Recreation Commission. 7 . A 15 foot driveway easement for Parcel B shall be provided along the westerly property boundary of Parcel A. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION — The Planning Commission tabled action until a legal opinion could be provided by the City Attorney regarding the city' s ability to — require the site to be subdivided. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Excerpts from Zoning Ordinance. 2 . Memo from Larry Brown dated October 12 , 1988 . 3 . Application. 4 . Planning Commission minutes dated October 19 , 1988 . 5 . Preliminary plat. — § 20-575 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE b. For rear yards,fifty(50)feet. c. For side yards, ten(10)feet. (6) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure,three(3)stories/forty(40)feet. b. For accessory structures,three(3)stories/forty(40)feet. (7) The minimum driveway separation is as follows: a. If the driveway is on a collector street: four hundred(400)feet. • b. If the driveway is on an arterial street: one thousand two hundred fifty (1,250) _ feet. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 3(5-3-5), 12-15-86) Secs. 20-576-20-590. Reserved. ARTICLE XL "RR" RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 20-591. Intent. The intent of the "RR" District is to provide for single-family residential subdivisions intended for large lot developments. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 4(54-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-592. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an "RR" District: (1) Single-family dwellings. (2) Public and private parks and open space. (3) State-licensed day care center for twelve(12)or fewer children. (4) State-licensed group home serving six(6)or fewer persons. (5) Utility services. (6) Temporary real estate office and model home. (7) Agriculture. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 4(5-4-2), 12-15.86) Sec. 20-593. Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in an"RR" District: (1) Garage. (2) Storage building. (3) Swimming pool. 1206 ZONING § 20-595 (4) Tennis court. (5) Signs. (6) Home occupation. (7) One(1)dock. (8) Roadside stand. (9) Private kennel. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 4(54-3), 12-15-86) — Sec. 20-594. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in an "RR" District: (1) Churches. (2) Private stables. (3) Public buildings. (4) Recreational beach lots. (5) Commercial kennels, stables and riding academies. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 4(544), 12-15-86) _ State law reference—Conditional uses,M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-595. Lot requirements and setbacks. — ( The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RR" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum lot area is two and one-half(21)acres,subject to section 20-906. (2) The minimum lot frontage is two hundred (200) feet, except that lots fronting on a _ cul-de-sac shall be two hundred(200)feet in width at the building setback line. (3) The minimum lot depth is two hundred(200)feet. (4) The maximum lot coverage is twenty(20)percent. — (5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards,fifty(50)feet. — b. For rear yards,fifty(50)feet. c. For side yards, ten(10)feet. (6) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, three(3)stories/forty-(40)feet. b. For accessory structures, three(3)stories/forty(40)feet. (7) The minimum driveway separation is as follows: a. If the driveway is on a collector street, four hundred(400)feet. 1207 § 20-905 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 20-905. Single-family dwellings. All single-family detached homes shall: (1) Be constructed upon a continuous perimeter foundation that meets the requirements of the state building code. (2) Conform to the following standards for living areas: a. If a one-story rambler design, have an area of nine hundred sixty (960) square feet. b. If a split level design,have an area of one thousand fifty(1,050)square feet. c. If a split foyer and two-story design,have an area of six hundred(600)square feet on the first floor plus a two-car garage must be attached to the single-family structure. (3) Have an earth covered, composition, shingled or tiled roof or other materials ap- proved by the Uniform Building Code as adopted and amended by the city. (4) Receive a building permit. The application for a building permit in addition to other information required shall indicate the height,size, design and the appearance of all elevations of the proposed building and a description of the construction materials proposed to be used. (5) Meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code as adopted and amended by the city or the applicable manufactured housing code. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 6, 12-15-86) Cross reference—Technical codes, § 7-16 et seq. Sec. 20-906. Rural lot building eligibilities. _ (a) All lots located outside of the Metropolitan Council's Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary shall be created in conformance to the requirements of article X or XI of this chapter. (b) A new single-family building may be established or a lot containing an existing single-family dwelling may be subdivided only if the following provisions are met: (1) A one-unit per ten-acre density is maintained using the following guidelines: 0-19.99 acres equals one(1) single-family unit. 20-29.99 acres equals two(2)single-family units. 30-39.99 acres equals three(3)single-family units, etc. (2) Existing parcels of record established prior to February 19, 1987, shall be deemed as buildable lots. This provision also applies to those lots affected by paragraph(10). (3) All lots shall have the minimum frontage on a public road as regulated in sections 20-575 and 20-595. To reduce the number of driveways on collectors and arterials,up to two(2)parcels will be allowed to be accessed by a private easement. 1230 ZONING § 20-907 I _ (4) All lots must have soil and water conditions which permit a well. (5) All lots must have conditions which will permit two (2) on-site sewer systems in- stalled in conformance with chapter 19, article IV. — (6) The one (1) unit per ten-acre density applies to contiguous property under single ownership. Acreage under single ownership, which is not contiguous, cannot be — combined for increased density/building eligibility on one(1)of the parcels. Transfer of development rights from one(1)parcel of land to another is not allowed,except as permitted in paragraph(9)below. — (7) Once a building eligibility has been used for a property,a development contract must be recorded with the county establishing the number of building eligibilities remain- ing or documenting that no building eligibility remains. Transfer of development — rights from one(1)parcel of land to another is not allowed. (8) Each site must have at least one (1) acre of area which can support two (2) septic system sites, a building pad and well with a slope of twenty-five(25)percent or less. (9) Parcels which do not have public street frontage and are landlocked may transfer building eligibilities to an adjacent parcel which does have public street frontage and — meets other provisions of this section. (10) Applications for subdivisions in the rural service area as identified in the compre- hensive plan to contain a development density of one (1) unit per two and one-half _ (. i (21/2) acres will be accepted until 4:30 p.m. on January 15, 1987, if the following information is submitted to the planning department: — a. Completion of the application for subdivision. b. Submission of the public hearing list of surrounding property owners. c. Submission of a boundary survey with the proposed lot pattern. — d. Submission of required application fees. • Further,these applications must also be accompanied by additional data required for _ preliminary plat approval in a manner which will achieve preliminary plat approval by July 1, 1987 unless the city council deems to table final action on the application until after July 1, 1987. L(Ord. No. 80,Art. VI, § 7, 12-15-86) - Sec. 20-907. Height regulations. — (a) Where the average slope of a lot is greater than one(1)foot rise or fall in seven(7)feet of horizontal distance from the established street elevation at the property line, one(1) story in addition to the number permitted in the district in which the lot is situated shall be — permitted on the downhill side of any building. (b) The height limitations stipulated elsewhere in this chapter shall not apply to the following: — (...- (1) Barns, silos, or other farm buildings or structures on farms; church spires, belfries, cupolas and domes, monuments, water towers, fire and hose towers, observation — 1231 CITY OF \ CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer DATE: October 12, 1988 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for the Naegele Property Planning File No. 88-27 SUB, Gross This site is located on the west side of State Highway 41 approximately one mile north of State Highway 5 . The property involved has one existing residence at this time. Mature vegeta- tion is scattered throughout the site. Sanitary Sewer This site is outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) ; therefore, municipal sanitary sewer service is not available to the site at this time. The plans do not address the location of two septic system sites for Parcel B. Approved sites should be located prior to final review. Watermain Municipal water is not available to the site. On-site sources will have to be developed by the applicant if additional construction is pursued. Access This parcel receives access from State Highway 41. A 25-foot roadway easement exists along the southerly boundary of the pro- perty located immediately north of Parcel A. To insure that access could be gained to the "Ches Mar Farm" located on the northwest corner of the property, an additional 35-foot roadway easement is requested along the northerly property boundary of the proposed Parcel A. This would yield a total right-of-way width of 60 feet which would conform to the City ' s standards for rural construction. Planning Commission October 12 , 1988 Page 2 State Highway 41 is classified as an arterial street by the City' s Zoning Ordinance. It is recommended that Parcel B would — receive access by the existing driveway onto State Highway 41 such that accesses to Highway 41 may be kept to a minimum. It is recommended that a 15-foot driveway easement be granted between Parcels A and B located along the westerly property boundary of Parcel A. Grading and Drainage The site does not propose any changes to the grading and drainage. — Recommended Conditions 1. A 35-foot roadway easement shall be dedicated to the City — along the northerly property boundary of Parcel A of the sub- ject plat . 2 . The plans shall be revised to show the location of two approved septic system sites for Parcel B prior to final plat approval. 3 . A 15-foot driveway easement shall be provided along the westerly property boundary of Parcel A. Ow= ..AMrT P LARKIN 7 Pf AT ....BERT HOFFMAN LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALYL LINDGREN, LTD. CAVI°JFRANCIS C.GIp[RSON JACK F.DALY MICHAEL T.MCKIM D KENNETH LINDGREN CHARLES R.WEAVER •NDREW w DANIELSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW HERMAN L.TALLE WENDELL R.ANDERSON Sow GERALD N.FRICOELL 'WILLIAM S.BRANDT ROBERT B. ITIOCK VINCENT O.ELLA RHH TRACY .CICORN-HICKS N T M HLLME ROBERT J.HEEMNNESSEY 1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 2000 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER ANGREw J MITCHELL JOHN A.COTTER. C. DSCON EDWARD J..DRISCOLL OLL 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET BEATRICE A.ROTHWCILER JAMES PAUL B.PLUMKETT GENE NP FULLER BLOOMINGTON,MINNESOTA 55431 MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402 T PARR GRADY Imp DAVID C.3[LL[RO REN ALAN L.KILOOW RICHARD A KEENAN TELEPHONE 16121 835-3800 TELEPHONE 16121 338-6610 KATHLEEN M.PICOTTE NEWMAN CATHERINE BARNETT WILSON. JOHN O.FULLMER ROBERT E.BOYLE TELECOPIER 16121 835-5102 TELECOPIER 16121 338.1002 JEFFREY C.ANDERSONDANIEL L.BOWLES I MA FTODD M VLATKOVICH OR RICHARD A. ORSCNLER CHARLES S.MODELL TIMOTHY J....MANUS CHRISTOPHER J.OIETZEN NORTH SUBURBAN OFFICE JILL I.FRIED RS JOHN BEATTIE GREGORY E. ORSTAD R, CRAIG A.PETERSON LINDA .S 8990 SPRING BROOK DRIVE,SUITE 250 LISA A.GRAY THOMAS P.STOLTOLTMAN GARY A.RENNEKE STEVEN O.LEVIN COON RAPIDS,MINNESOTA 55433 THOMAS M.WEAVER FORREST 0 NOWLIN SHANNON K.MCCAMBRIDOE MICHAEL C.JACKMAN TELEPHONE 16121 786-7117 MICHAEL S COHEN JOHN E.DIEHL DENISE M NORTON JON S.SWICREEWSKI TELECOPIER 16121 786-6711 GARY A.VAN CLEVE pRA THOMAS J.FLYNN JAMES P QUINN MICHAEL B. JOSEPH w. DICKER T000 I FREEMAN JACOUCLINC F.DIETZ STC PH CN B.SOLOMON . Reply to Bloomington GAYLEN L.KNACK BECK RODNET D.IVES JCROMC JULIE A.WRASE SHERRILL CMAN KUREM TICCHRISTOPHER J.HARRI GERALD GCRA LD L.SECK RONALD M.STARK.JR. Ppm JOHN O.LUNDOUIST SHARON L.ORCNNA NOLAN MARIKAY CANAGA LITZAU THOMAS B.NUMPNREY,JR. OF COUNSEL JOSEPH GITIS September 26 , 1988 JOHN A.MCHUGH RICHARD A.NOROBYE .ALSO ADMITTED IN Ms . JoAnne Olsen wl,°DNSIN City Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: Ches Mar Farms Subdivision Application Dear JoAnne: As discussed today, please find enclosed the application and application fee for the subdivision request for the subdivision of the homestead known as the "Gross Property" . Background As noted previously, the purpose of this application is to permit the conveyance of the Gross homestead from Ches Mar Farms Realty Company to Charles and Virginia Gross . Charles and Virginia Gross entered into an option to purchase this property in 1983 . The homestead site had previously been a separate lot of record and the lot lines were reflected by a legal description and on county half-section maps (See Exhibits A & B attached) . This legal description and separate lot description formed the basis for the property optioned by the Grosses under the option agreement . Although previously a separate lot of record, the City Subdivision regulations do not recognize this as a separate lot when it and the adjoining lots are under common ownership as in the present case. The lot size of the gross parcel to be subdivided is approximately 1 . 85 acres . The minimum lot size in the RR district is 2 . 5 acres . The approval of the subdivision will require the granting of a variance from the minimum lot size regulations contained in Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. The Chanhassen subdivision regulations Section 11 provides for variances with a finding that the following conditions exist: 4> LARK IN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LI\DGREN, Lrn. Ms . JoAnne Olsen September 26, 1988 — Page 2 1. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience; — The hardship in the present case is the fact that the parties to the agreement previously contracted to purchase what was in 1983 an individual parcel . The optionor contracted to sell and the optionee contracted to buy the parcel as historically described and shown on section maps and surveys . The inability of the optionor to convey title to this — separate parcel creates significant practical and legal problems. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience and is not a creation of the actions of either the optionor or — optionee. 2 . The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land; The parcel property lines generally follow existing field conditions delineating the state Highway 41 on the west, an — access road to the north, a slope to the west and south. It appears that these boundary lines generally follow the topographical contours of the land. 3 . The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property; This is a very unique set of circumstances applicable to this property. Specifically, the creation of this lot under an option agreement based on a previous lot that came under subsequent ownership. — 4 . The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the — purpose and intent of the Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. The variance request is nominal. The minimum lot size under the code is 2 .5 acres and the existing lot size is approximately 1. 85 acres. There is substantial open space around the residential structure and the proposed lot and -' setting is very much in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The approval of this subdivision will not result in any new development to the gross property but only allow the optionor to fulfill its obligations to the optionee. LARKI\, IHOFF'IAN. DALY (S LI\DC:RE , LTD. Ms . JoAnne Olsen September 26, 1988 Page 3 We respectfully request the approval of this subdivision and variance. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, 14 Timothy . Keane, for LARKIN, OFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. TJK:AWOs Enclosures LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION — CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 • (612) 937-1900 — APPLICANT: Ches-Mar Farms Realty, OWNER: Co. _ ADDRESS 4300 Baker Road, Suite 4 ADDRESS Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 Zip Code Zip Code TELEPHONE (Daytime) 932-9885 TELEPHONE REQUEST: — Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development • Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan Preliminary Plan Zoning Variance . Plan Zoning Text Amendment X Subdivision • Land Use Plan Amendment Platting Metes and Bounds Conditional Use Permit Street/Easement Vacation Site Plan Review Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME Ches-Mar Farms — PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION RR REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Same PRESENT ZONING RR REQUESTED ZONING NA USES PROPOSED Residential SIZE OF PROPERTY 1. 85 A LOCATION — REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST Convey existing homestead LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) City of Chanhassen Land Development Application Page 2 FILING INSTRUCTIONS : This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions . Before filing this application, you should confer with the City Planner to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application . FILING CERTIFICATION: The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all applicable City Ordinances . Ckes- In4r F . teI Ar—I ty gy : S ✓ rt - m.eje. it 17P��tNcr Signed By /Sy .� -�- } Date September 26 , 1988 Applicant _ The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been authorized to make this application for the property herein described . September 26, 1988 Signed By Date Fee Owner • Date Application Received Application Fee Paid City Receipt No. * This Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/ Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their • meeting. -...f: .1 J'' _---moi—a• C i '106 71 . I /' ' 1 'D. 3e6 6 3.41- } , I. n JOAN Viii..FR 31 33 t6 r ._......../-___ BK 146, P 14 „ -Jti . O W N v, o 7 crp Q i N 87°26'w 2N W Y / i �m • I I oWILLIAM 1~ ' BK 118, P 275 • Q JOHNSON ;p BK 101,P 590 '74 SO 'Os 1-- -- .. 71-. , ,S � O . o -.208.71" __ h W �. fi le BK 128, o F. A ------ _ r/Z3.aso.., P 297 i m cot 6RO or .4 sr o I I ' .........ii 900 s?CI •�C•� s?bc• I,. 6S 9 — 1. i• 6°2O BOJ�9 N14 52'E ..� 6 1 , .:s • - MARLYN M. PELTIER °�v s690 BK 143, P 502 20,F SS O IIa m BK 98, P 529 S• w so / 's. 1047 68 0' / — h66o? 0 y /fi JANET GILBERT BK 116, P 545 BK 119,P 565 .tea / S.W. CARLSON -- / .. 9K 60, P 429 • ---- -f/ i3' 200•- ' — %. .14,•-••• -2 9,4 O 16.3< ._' } -.264.44- o WALTER WHITEHILL `s. • 96.62 `j14s3a / ' • OK 119, P 125 90• 9� f Q 0. ROY o we It SCHMIDT "'� \ BK 62,P 435 a BK 134, P.512 p 5,5 '900„ N ./O. I T / .90. / J 200 !// — ALICE TOWLE / \ •�J OK 136, P 501 B 503 I s'.›.1.: �s w N —•-. T7° ,o ALICE TOWLE 90° ^1 BK 120,P.64 /s BK1I0, P416 1� B 3/ BK 136, P505 / 'LTJ Os 9O° qO 1 — / Q4 A/h 61) ... ...464.44• ° • • / V i 40 6 b / J• V /25.34 -- ° — ` �/. .. fib 00 EXHIBIT A ((// 1983 1/2 Section Map6 _ 690 .T M" T BK 4U SCP /►+' v IIM . . . - . . • . . - - ws..•...... ' ______:.... a........_ j . t I . 1 o 4.24q1•25!"- -;.4 E.g.;---.2-- -T-=-_,,...4.rtrz. I i1221.4.1P41.011--,2----•7:••..r.-..---2:74.---1-7.--e---:.-.-14-2- 1 • I '='-•-•-e••••••••;:=7-z!-------azzaz zez,..zairazaaara...-4:-..ss 71- far-7-'t'ai.:.:- .C.---4-:il•-•--72...- ------;---- -...-z:• --..,-.17! -•-•-•—•1=-.Irr III::.:-.. -...f...41--za-:.-tIE -E;E;2327'zi::==ii ='1 Z.;:f:;.-, :as-t"! IF! ••••••I*-".• ,._ -- 1 "!:- ri I-• j- ••F 2-i- is d:I-0:-ri -izit. -Et ll- i z.ii 2- : .1 . A bl r.:1si: ,... - 1.4.:. H.,14:4 4.=.4.. ..r.:-11 .41 iir„...- , 9: I ,- • ...!-- ::-•- :•.•11r! ill 9,•= * •• 1:2:1 ii _ :ft. . .1 i .;.!7•1:1,0i:1•-•4i-..•-:7--:-= 1•'-z ti!Iiii. 8.-:et-tii ..; . - •----:--------,--•-••==.-.-: 7.•--: -:.-: .1 ...:. : ..: Imp .i - ;.:1 i. ....4..z.r..---,.=,..........,.---_-_•,-z„,.. .L.z.. 19.4.r.isiiE :1121 . - -- -=-,.-. -.:s-------s--2 _ ___. if 1 21 11.1' I . , , 2 .2„. 2 1... ,i'at. A • _ . vit---17: _,,,m.;4? .-... . - • " - -:-.4.ev• .- *fit ;'••••-IV . • ... iiimit r4ii „......._.;_- 1. 4 ft-11:1 " - "rs-zVe ki•F.:t.i _IG . :: zizzlii 2.6r 'nisi Hi: i al I- : 1111‘77. . ._ '•••;:t. iz--•• ,- , -•-• 0 ._ ,1::: • ...,..7H- ,:e... - . :4.-::- — - . r- ... :i; _ _. - ifi. t .r..:p, : : a I—.: . _ : •.1i.• x- : .--.._I • -...ti .: __......( pin I iiiil lit , . ,..rt _ • _ , 1 - 2.221 zr=m-...za-a-zorzs.•••.s-÷-1-Trai z-_--7.7 2 Zr:-...:r F,.474--.. E.-1-.7-= ::•-•-•:7:-..-:4_•1-7_: :1-1•1 I.e. • - . =-7.---•'•=•:i••=7:::z=-7-'-',--z !‘aaa! ar=iF=4:::i.tlez. s il: ....-"wir :--•-•-=:::::,-._-.u.,-,s i ,..J. - ..L. ...:. t. .-L-':--i•-:-7-7-:-77--5•77•77•-''7:11?-: i-TI =•-•:-.7.--C-5tit-1:11: ig - - .•.• . .... ......-- • • ....„„:.E___1:::„....1•Li..... ..,,::::„......-_.i_,--.--;,....;:, _,.....-ii4.:: . _:%_:::; .2i.:.:...,3;r.i:.1 fi::. ---..„---.., ar. ia----___--- 4-74,„„-: ,-1 ...... .:.„ .... .,... ii-"ui---z•-•- -----,.-_- _--_:_-: „...,---... .7.7.__,-...F„ ,e. , ,1., .. ... 1 8: = ,-•- -zr.:t ....,..„, _..•• 1- ..,..r-----,-7---m-.:.--- : :.-la rt 2.2.22.2.2=7:”. •--rya.,r :az t„..„:11:-.112.4 it is - "zr_ . .. ,../ 1 .-- • • - t -•*: Cr.. ..- .e. ••••• - • 4.a 3• -. ze=.:=.=Erlii T-iiii:-/I L.2 3"°- if" i2i! . .2 . 4" • fte,,..,.... ,..... ,....I Ir ''' . .7,•••• - - -...., • • •• • . - •-• •• t .0 I • .. , ..a si..,..• Jill. -1% 4:---:;•-•i- • . .. . • • 4 f 4 ,' .• . 1 . a r .._- - Pilint ItaTat • I:915- Zia rill :. -8. •• fi f•::: z-i ...,- I I ..: . -zo• As...... .• 1:ti :.!:Psei i -:Hi ': •I'..t as F 'I,- :': zi.••_i i 2: . ‘...;;;PC ,. • --• - thiiii 1:f • Vsi fil • , .• rs.rrer. ..•• i ' :' t‘ • rr 2;1! 1-. .- 2- .2 .142 :ft saw •Iz - stt& • si ...•- in. I'tti f i :•••zzi 'i 4•111D .21'.-"I II -Ills if irii: ; Jai} ,... :... s• • • • liti ii ai is i sr= • • oc, AN .:t . : Fri :. i '"7.• II n.4 —.. ..1-!•1 4. it I 4.z. . :4. I ' tte.€2 4.1 its• Za• . t./... g--- . .- --- - -s-i ,fIr•T i - a. . _ss ? 4i.: s i • • ,0 • .• • • ci ..... .:. 01, 3.2, : ..... z - 4:4 11.1R - . • 'n •a • I o .4\.": •'••• - il."--- • t in y ti • ..s. I- ..1 „., • ri V 0 NI, •Jb1. ,., .‘• ,•Z • -. ? . 1••-a.• . - ).-..--• : .• 0• r - - ... '-i. ;1. • .. • 4 IMIIIIIIPM. .. _ CITY 4F CHANHASSZN ‘ L‘, _ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 D -'rte" MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager '`- !' "' DATE: February 22, 1989 . SUBJ: Conditional Use Permit for Construction of a Church in the R-4, Mixed Low Density District This office would strongly suggest that both the Planning Commission and the City Council request that the City Attorney provide an opinion as to the city' s discretion in approving or denying the proposed permit by Eckankar. It is my belief and suggestion that this opinion be given at the outset of the public hearing at both the Planning Commission and City Council level. I� y� ( ��. 1 C I TY O F P.C. DATE: March 1, 1989 - �� ,04 CUAUAE C.C. :::89: ::P271 ;89 ar CASE Prepared by: Hanson/v STAFF REPORT - PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit for Construction of a Church in the R-4, Mixed Low Density District z LOCATION: Located i mile north of Hwy. 5 and west of Powers Boulevard U Cl. APPLICANT: Eckankar by Eckankar Robert I. Hoffman P.O. Box 27300 c/o Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren New Hope, MN Q 7900 Xerxes Ave. So. , Suite 1500 55427 Bloomington, MN 55431 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family, R-4, Mixed Low Density, and R-12, High Density Residential ACREAGE: 174 acres DENSITY: N/A ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- RSF; existing single family Q S- IOP; existing industrial office park E- RSF, R-4, R-12 & BG; existing residential & vacant W- RR & RD; Lake Ann & Lake Ann Park _ WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. _ PHYSICAL CHARAC. : 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Shown as Residential-Low Density, Campus Business & Commercial EcKankar Church CUP — March 1, 1989 Page 2 BACKGROUND This application is for conditional use permit approval for a — church pursuant to the requirements of the City Code. The Code provides a definition of churches. The applicants have provided documentation that they are a church as defined in the City Code. — Churches are allowed in six ( 6) of the zoning districts in the city. The Office and Institutional District allows churches as a permitted use, subject to site plan approval. The RR, RSF, R-4, — R-8, and R-12 Districts allow churches as a conditional use sub- ject to the conditional use provisions of Article IV of the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. The issuance of a conditional use permit is subject to the general issuance standards of Section 20-232 and the specific standards for churches contained in Section 20-258. In addition, the application is subject to site plan review requirements of the Zoning Chapter . This divi- sion establishes requirements for submittal of site plans to comply with requirements of the Zoning Chapter. ANALYSIS The applicant has submitted a complete site plan package pursuant — to the information to be submitted. In reviewing this infor- mation, a few items need to be noted. SITE PLAN COMMENTS 1 . Height of Building - The applicant has noted the height of the building as being 65 feet from the lowest point to the highest with the height being 50 feet on the front side. The zoning code measures height from the average ground elevation adjoining the front walls of the building to the highest — point of the building. The maximum height allowed in the RSF, R-4, and R-12 Districts is 40 feet or three stories, except for "places of public assembly in churches, schools, and other public and semi-public buildings, provided these are located on the first floor of such building" . In this case for every 3 feet of height above maximum height noted for the zoning district, the side and rear yards shall be — increased by an additional foot. This application exceeds this setback requirement substantially, and is in compliance with zoning requirements. — 2 . Landscaping - The plans as submitted comply with the code requirements pursuant to Article XXV. Staff would recommend the addition of trees in the center landscape islands of the — parking area to provide a more visual break in the parking surface. Section 20-1234 of the Code requires all landscaped areas to be protected by concrete curbing. The applicants have shown curbing around all landscaped islands, however, Eckanxar Church CUP March 1, 19d9 Page 3 the perimeter of the parking area and edge of the access drive are not curbed, nor are the landscaped islands at the end of the access drives. The latter should be curbed. The perimeter of the parking area where head in stalls are shown, should be curbed to provide a defined curb stop. Other curbing would not be necessary for landscape protection, but may be appropriate in some areas for drainage. 3 . Signage - The single sign complies with City Code requirements . It is our understanding the sign will not be illuminated. 4. Lighting - The plan calls for two types of lighting to be used - on the property. Pedestrian areas near the front entrance will be illuminated with 42" bollard lights. The vehicular areas will be illuminated by 25 ' high pole fixtures with down cast fixtures. Staff would prefer a shorter pole of l5 '-18 ' in height which would be more in Keeping with the typical street light height for residential areas. The trade off is this would require more lighting standards on the site. General Issuance Standards for Conditional Use Permits The Planning Commission and City Council in issuaing a conditional use permit must find that the use: 1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. The proposed use exceeds the city requirements for zoning district and specific conditional use standards for churches and therefore would find the application in compliance with this criteria. 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city' s comprehen- sive plan and this chapter. The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address churches other than recognizing churches as part of the public and semi-public development, a dispersed land use in the community. The proposal is in compliance with the zoning standards and conditional use provisions for _ churches . 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. With the large setbacxs and the vast amount of land com- mitted to be left undisturbed the proposal will not change the essential character of the area. Operation and main- tenance is similar to any other church facility with ser- vices on Sunday mornings and other events during the week. Eckankar Church CUP - March 1 , 1989 Page 4 4 . Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. The use as a church will not be hazardous or disturbing to neighboring uses. 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. Adequate services are available to the site and the appli- cant is extending the services to the facility. There have been no deficiencies noted by persons or agencies who pro- _ vide the services.- 6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic - welfare of the community. The proposed use will generally create less need for public — facilities and services than if developed residentially pur- suant to the present zoning. The applicants have agreed to bear their share of costs for public improvements . Like any _ church, Eckankar is a tax exempt religious organization. 7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. - The proposal will not generate excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, odors, rodents , or trash. 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. - The proposal has been designed to provide access pursuant to city requirements . The traffic information shows no traffic - congestion nor interference with traffic. 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major signifi- cance. The proposal will not impact solar access , natural, scenic or historic features. Eckankar Church CUP March 1 , 1989 Page 5 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. the area sround the facility will be left in a natural state thus preserving a large buffer between the facility and surrounding land use. The exterior materials of the struc- ture will be dark bronze anodized aluminum. The roof is to be gold anodized aluminum. In order for the latter to be compatible with the area, the roof should have a matte finish to minimize glare from sunlight. Also, the structure should not be bathed in light. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. With the size of the site and the generous open space buffer between the facility and adjacent properties, staff cannot justify an impact_on property values. 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. The site is located on a collector roadway ( Powers Boulevard) and access is provided directly from Powers Boulevard and not through a residential area. The structure exceeds the minimum setback of 50 feet from all property lines . The parking areas exceed the required setbacks of 25 ' from streets and 30 ' from residential property. Less than -0% of the site is covered with impervious surface and the remainder is to be landscaped in accordance with Article XXV. The applicant is in compliance with the specific cri- teria for churches as a conditional use. REFERRAL COMMENTS The following referral comments have been received on this pro- - ject: Building Inspector 1. The building is a two story building - UBC Sec. 420. 2 . Height of building is 55 ' - UBC Sec. 409 & 424. 3 . SBC 1340. 0300 Subp. 5 requires handicap parking space to be located " . . . . as near as practicable to the building entrance . . . " ; 190 ' is too far away. The six handicap spaces should be moved to the east or west of the drop- off area of the parking lot. Fire Inspector 1. The building is to be completely sprinklered, (Minn. Building Code Appendix E Sec. 1305. 6905) ; Eckankar Church CUP March 1, 1989 Page 6 2 . A fire alarm system shall be installed in accordance with — NFPA requirements ; 3 . An additional fire hydrant shall be installed in the area — of the front entrance; 4 . Both service drives shall be posted "No Parking Fire Lanes" ; — 5 . Lock box shall be provided by the front entrance; Alarm annunciator panel shall be located by the main entrance. Minnegasco -' 1 . Natural gas available. Carver County Engineer 1 . The nose of the proposed island cannot extend into the — right-of-way of CSAH 17. The right-of-way line is 50 feet from the roadway centerline. The County would prefer that the entrance design be simi- lar to the design of the entrance on the east side of CSAH 17. 2 . A plan must be presented showing the proposed road grade and cross section. The plan should identify the need for the large radius on the proposed entrance. It is the _ preference of the County to have the radius less than 50 feet. 3 . Turn lanes will be required on the entrance. The — entrance application should include the turn lane design details. City Engineer 1 . The applicant be required to submit construction plans and specifications for the installation of the watermain and — sanitary sewer lines for approval by the City Engineer. 2 . Runoff calculations be submitted to confirm that the pre- development runoff rate criteria of the Watershed District and the City are being complied with. 3 . A drainage easement be dedicated to the City in accordance with the attached legal description and sketch to accommodate -torm water runoff . Eckankar Church CUP March 1 , 1989 Page 7 4 . Necessary permits from the County and Watershed District are obtained and complied with prior to construction. 5 . A roadway cross-section shall be submitted for review along with the skimmer detail plan as discussed in the EAW for the parking lot area. 6 . The applicant shall use Type III erosion control throughout the site. • Agencies With No Comments Public Safety Minnesota Department of Natural Resources U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Park and Recreation Agencies Not Responding NSP NW Bell MNDOT Soil Conservation Service Watershed District RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #89-1 for Eckankar Church subject to plans and descriptive -acket stamped "Received January 23, 1989" with the following conditions : 1 . Add trees to the center landscape islands with parking lot. 2 . Curb the parking lot edge where head in stalls are shown, and the landscape islands at the end of the service drive. 3 . Entrance sign is not to be illuminated. 4 . Lighting poles reduced to 15 ' - 18 ' in height. 5 . Roof material to have matte finish and not glare. 6 . Exterior of building must not be illuminated. 7 . The nose of the proposed island cannot extend into the right- of-way of CSAH 17. The right-of-way line is 50 feet from the roadway centerline. Eckankar Church CUP _ March 1 , 1989 Page 8 The County would prefer that the entrance design be similar to the design of the entrance on the east side of CSAH 17. 8 . A plan must be presented showing the proposed road grade and cross section. The plan should identify the need for the large radius on the proposed entrance. It is the preference of the County to have the radius less than 50 feet. — 9 . Turn lanes will be required on the entrance. The entrance application should include the turn lane design details. — 10. The applicant be required to submit construction plans and specifications for the installation of the watermain and sanitary sewer lines for approval by the City Engineer. 11. Runoff calculations be submitted to confirm that the pre- development runoff rate criteria of the Watershed District and the City are being comolied with. 12 . A drainage easement be dedicated to the City in accordance — with the attached legal description and sketch to accommodate storm water runoff. 13 . Necessary permits from the County and Watershed District are obtained and complied with prior to construction. 14. A roadway cross-section shall be submitted for review along with the skimmer detail plan as discussed in the EAW for the parking lot area. 15 . The applicant shall use Type III erosion control throughout the site. ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated February 7, 1989. — 2 . Memo from Mark Littfin dated February 9, 1989 . 3 . Letter from Bill Weckman dated February 15, 1989. 4 . Memo from Gary Warren dated February 17, 1989. _ :. i ,16..4 CITY QF ,.; . .. ,„ CHANHASSEN \ .,, I ,,:. ..r 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: ovi,, DATE: February 7 , 1989 — SUBJ: Planning Case #89-1 CUP (Eckankar Church) 1 . The building is a two story building - UBC Sec. 420. 2. Height of building is 55 ' - UBC Sec. 409 & 424. 3 . SBC 1340. 0300 Subp. 5 requires handicap parking space to _ be located " . . . . as near as practicable to the building entrance . . . " ; 190 ' is too far away. The six handicap spaces should be moved to the east or west of the drop- off area of the parking lot. • CITY OF CHANHASSEN 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: February 9, 1989 SUBJ: 89-1 CUP (Eckankar Church) The following is a list of requirements: — 1. The building is to be completely sprinklered, (Minn. Building Code Appendix E Sec. 1305. 6905) ; 2 . A fire alarm system shall be installed in accordance with NFPA requirements ; 3 . An additional fire hydrant shall be installed in the area of the front entrance; 4 . Both service drives shall be posted "No Parking Fire Lanes" ; 5 . Lock box shall be provided by the front entrance; -` 6 . Alarm annunciator panel shall be located by the main • \1t CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ,/� 600 EAST 4TH STREET\ CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318 (612) 448.3435 t. •NNE50� COUNTY OF CAQVEQ February 15, 1989 Stephen Hanson Planning Director City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN. 55317 RE: Planning Case 89-1 CUP (Eckankar Church) Dear Mr. Hanson: We have reviewed the proposed Eckankar Church CUP and submit the following comments: The proposed entrance appears adequate in concept but Carver County will re- quire application for an access permit from the Carver County Engineer's Of- fice. As part of the application Carver County will require detailed informa- tion concerning the following: 1 . The nose of the proposed island cannot extend into the right of way of CSAH 17. The right of way line is 50 feet from the roadway centerline. • The County would prefer that the entrance design be similar to the design of the entrance on the East side of CSAH 17. 2. Alan must be p presented showing the proposed road grade and cross section. The plan should identify the need for the large radius on the proposed entrance. It is the preference of the County to have the radius less than 50 feet. 3. Turn lanes will be required on the entrance. The entrance ap- plication should include the turn lane design details. Thank you for the opportunity to submit our comments. If you have questions concerning the comments, feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, FEB 16 1989 William J. Weckman, P.E. Assistant County Engineer CITY OF CHAN HASSEN Affirmative Action;Equal Opportunity Employer CITY OF . Ji` CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 - (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM - TO: Planning Commission a\ FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer(..-C"4\ --- DATE: February 17, 1989 SUBJ: Eckankar Church Conditional Use Application File No. 89-1 CUP The following are my thoughts concerning the Eckankar conditional use permit application. As a part of the documents submitted for review, the applicant has prepared an evironmental assessment - worksheet which , in detail , reviews the proposal for the site. As this is very complete, I will not reiterate the description of the project but rather refer you to that document. - In general, I find the application very complete. The following are a few items of interest/concern to note: Sanitary Sewer The applicant has proposed to service the site via a 6-inch sani- tary sewer line. The City' s minimum standard for a line of this nature is 8-inch diameter. The discussion in the EAW references the preferred alternate of connecting to the sanitary sewer at _ Saddlebrook Curve. From a capacity standpoint, it would be the preference of this office that the sanitary sewer be connected to the City' s existing 8-inch trunk as shown on sheet 6 of the applicant' s plans and not at the Saddlebrook Curve location. - The applicant will be required to obtain a permit from the County for crossing County Road 17 and, in all likelihood, will not be allowed to open cut County Road 17 for this connection. - Watermain The applicant shows looping an 8-inch watermain into the property from the City' s existing 12-inch watermain along the west side of County Road 17. I am presuming that the size of this watermain has been established in accordance with the peak sprinkler - demands for the facility, although I have not been provided with those calculations. Specific plans and specifications would be required to be submitted for final approval by the City - Engineering Department, at which time valve locations and other specifics of the construction would be reviewed. Planning Commission February 17 , 1989 Page 2 Roadway I would concur with the Assistant County Engineer' s comments con- cerning the large radii proposed at the entrance and the other comments as noted in their February 15 , 1989 correspondence. The 30-foot wide street width appears sufficient. The plans did not include a typical section for this roadway which shall be sub- mitted along with the construction documents for this site appro- _ val. The trip generation information contained in the EAW appears to confirm that the level of service impacts to the adjoining connector roadways will not be adversely affected by this site development and use. As part of the submission of the typical road section, concrete curbing along the entrance drive would be required. Also, if the watershed district concurs, barrier curbing should be constructed around the parking lot perimeter. It should be noted that the City is currently working with the Municipal State Aid Office to hopefully obtain concurrence for a frontage road along the north side of Trunk Highway 5 across the Eckankar property. This is to address the future access needs which are restricted by Highway 5 . This also represents the need for the City to provide alternate frontage road capabilities to service the properties including the Lake Ann Park area. A road- way easement along this southerly portion of the property abutting Trunk Highway 5 may be desirable by the City from the Eckankar property in the future. Drainage/Erosion Control/Site Grading Again, the EAW goes into detail in explaining the proposed grading for the site. From my perspective, the drainage plan appears compatible with the site and provisions have been made for accommodating storm water runoff in a detention basin to the north of the church site. Calculations have not been provided to confirm that the predevelopment runoff rate is being maintained; however, a crude evaluation appears to indicate that this is being accomplished. The EAW references a skimmer which would be proposed for cap- turing solids and floatable runoff from the parking lot area; however, a detail has not been provided for review at this time. An erosion control plan was submitted supplemental to the origi- nal plan set spelling out the areas for placement of the erosion control. The City would require the applicant to utilize its Type III erosion control, i .e. hay bales, silt fence and snow fence in combination. Necessary erosion control measures would also be required as a part of the construction of the sanitary sewer and watermains for this project. The EAW does not address the common criticism which is received on any development within the Riley Creek Watershed, that being Planning Commission — Feoruary 17, 1989 Page 3 that any increase in surface runoff volume from developments within this area has a leaching effect on nutrients (phosphorus ) from Rice Marsh Lake which impacts Lake Riley. Although typi- cally this is an unavoidable consequence of development and it should be recognized as an impact. As noted in the EAW, the City has communicated with Eckankar in December ( see attached letter) seeking to acquire a ponding ease- ment for storm water management purposes on the southeast corner of this property. A portion of the existing site will be accom- modated in this ponding area which also used to be the gathering point for drainage from the properties to the east of Powers Boulevard, i .e. James, Burdick, et al. To protect the City' s interests concerning the construction timeframe for the West 78th Street detachment project ( 87-2 ) , the City Council recently authorized commencement of condemnation proceedings for this site _ in the remote instance that we are not able to reasonably obtain this property in the near future. The site grading will eliminate one 0. 3 acre Type I wetland and, — as noted, will be replacing this wetland with a 0 . 3 acre storm water retention basin as shown on the plans. Recommendation It is therefore recommended that the conditional use permit #89-1 _ for the Eckankar church be approved with the following con- ditions: 1 . The applicant be required to submit construction plans and — specifications for the installation of the watermain and sanitary sewer lines for approval by the City Engineer. 2 . Runoff calculations be submitted to confirm that the predeve- lopment runoff rate criteria of the Watershed District and the City are being complied with. 3 . A drainage easement be dedicated to the City in accordance with the attached legal description and sketch to accommodate storm water runoff. — 4 . Necessary permits from the County and Watershed District are obtained and complied with prior to construction. 5 . A roadway cross-section shall be submitted for review along with the skimmer detail plan as discussed in the EAW for the parking lot area. — 6 . The applicant shall use Type III erosion control throughout the site. Planning Commission February 17, 1989 Page 4 7. Concrete barrier curbing be included on the entrance roadway and parking perimeters . 8 . The applicant address the nutrient loading impacts to Riley Lake. 9. The applicant address the concerns of the County Engineer as presented in the February 15, 1989 correspondence. 1J. The applicant cooperate with the city in the future siting of a frontage road paralleling T.H. 5. Attachments 1 . February 15, 1989 memo from the County. 2 . October 28, 1988 letter from the City. 3 . Pond easement, legal description and map. 4 . Type III erosion control detail. %1 F.R C 004,14.41 — � 1 ;• CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT T 600 EAST 4TH STREET (612) 448-3435 CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318 14'NES0 COUNTY OF CAQVEQ February 15, 1989 Stephen Hanson Planning Director City of Chanhassen — 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN. 55317 RE: Planning Case 89-1 CUP (Eckankar Church) Dear Mr. Hanson: — We have reviewed the proposed Eckankar Church CUP and submit the following comments: The proposed entrance appears adequate in concept but Carver County will re- quire application for an access permit from the Carver County Engineer' s Of- fice. As part of the application Carver County will require detailed informa- tion concerning the following: 1 . The nose of the proposed island cannot extend into the right of — way of CSAH 17. The right of way line is 50 feet from the roadway centerline. The County would prefer that the entrance design be similar to the design of the entrance on the East side of CSAH 17. 2. A plan must be presented showing the proposed road grade and cross section. The plan should identify the need for the large radius on the proposed entrance. It is the preference of the County to have the radius less than 50 feet. — 3. Turn lanes will be required on the entrance. The entrance ap- plication should include the turn lane design details. Thank you for the opportunity to submit our comments. If you have questions concerning the comments, feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, FEB 1 s 1989 William J. Weckman, P.E. Assistant County Engineer CITY OF CHANHASSEN Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer CiTY C EUEASSEN O Y : 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • October 28 , 1988 Eckankar 120 Scott Drive P.O. Box 3100 Menlo Park, CA 94026 Re: Registered Land Survey No. 88 , Tract 3 Drainage and Roadway Easements File No. 87-2 Gent'-et e::. As you have been made aware over the past year , the City of Chanhassen has authorized construction of improvements on County Road 17 near Highway 5 and the detachment of .0iest 76th Street approximately 330 feet to the north from its current connection with County Road 17 just to the east of your property . This pro- ject basically completes the downtown redevelopment _:mprcvements and is schedule for c^_nst_uCticn in 1939 . =:1e attach d excerpt — from the approved feasibility study shows the overview of the project as it relates to your property . As a part of this prciect and the storm Nater management pian for • the area, the City of Chanhassen is interested in acquiring ease- ments for ponding of storm water in the natural low area located in the southeast corner of your property . The general location of this easement is shown in blue on the attached Exhibit A. The City likewise is seeking temporary construction easements which are shown in green on the attached :tap. We have also taken the liberty to make provisions in .this plan for location of a fron- -age ro.d for accesring your site. The Only guide that we have had`at this time to use in this regard is the previously approved but never recorded "Chaparral on Lake Ann" plat approved by the City in 1981 . The purpose of this letter is to initiate discussions for obtaining these easements and your input as to the roadway access to your site. Since the southeast corner of your property is a natural lowland area, it is an ideal site for accommodating storm water runoff from the developments of which your property would be a significant contributor. We are therefore seeking your 1W13-1.1H1 :9T 63. :=0 334 N .Aankar — .ctober 28 , 1988 Page 23 cooperation in obtaining these easements an would appreciate — your response and comments. As indicated above, we are looking for 1989 construction of this — project and therefore need to move prudently forward with the acquisition of these easements. After you have had a chance to review this information , please feel free to call me at (612) — 937-1900 . I will be happy to answer any questions that You may have. • Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN — L/ AW•10.4.....4.---------\ ry Warren, P.E. - — ity Er ineer GG.r:. t.^t — Attachments: 1. Feasibility Study Excerpt. 3 . Exhibit 3 - Enlargement o: Easement. — cc : Roger Knutson, City Attorney Gary Ehret, SRW Peter neck, Attorney 1W-l:3-11w 90:91 6::. so 33- #28, 7-8805 LAND DESCRIPTION FOR THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN All that part of TRACT B, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 88, files of the Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota, which lies southerly and easterly of the following described line and its extensions: Commencing at the most southerly corner in the easterly line of said TRACT B; thence on an assumed bearing of North 0 degrees 37 minutes 28 seconds East, along said easterly line of OUTLOT B for 1000.00 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 89 degrees 22 minutes 32 seconds West for 675.00 feet; thence South 27 degrees 37 minutes 28 seconds West for 1185.04 feet to the southerly line of said OUTLOT B and said line there terminating. • I hereby certify that this land description was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the Stake of Minnesota tete ( `Keith E. Dahl MN REG. NO. 18418 Date 1"E.;10tvG.. kCi {5.) 1 11� .— • CC a o • ! o =' 1 Q � CC i W tr • • \ . ` Q i \ . U . \ ,\,....- .i \ . §i. • AA _. N,00$1?-4.a, P7- • c ZS*IS agtal . • \ , -...r .:..... ty Iwo 1 \ , .. 1 . O O . .. i00o; X66 L:-°4_,P.— Y . . 0 ++ RICHARD 2POSE rte- — ---- --- .J .'s_ _ G DOC '9566 fV� i...-.....__._.- I l .,.‘"•'\ --F --L_. "'- 'i ..LSA �`u O_ n -.�_-.. g I / `�-77, • ✓' , ( J J.1 r'•• - .J,// di ' A rt! 1 + 1, 1 rt 1 i1 , 1 ' l` ,,..:,-,•• -T--.^�-�..,�".'.1.�.i �' nom. —~ ,�.\ (\\l`� 1 I 1 ,; , �` 1 _5 - `,., ice, .i, n s--/ CJI 'i ,� �`L.i '� `I _ �L. - `" \ I, ! �•_ 2 _ - o .._/ _ '.I i ' �� . ; _24:.....,1; • N.,.. I,- i i• , \,, I . 4. .- or '7"-1 -k.' 1 .0111 ;I -.. '• ...‘"1"0"1. . P • _fic. •••• , , 1 ; 4 ''''. .1\,1\ • ''': :1774 .. SP. • 1` - . . ., �� 0 , , \: , 'r\.. .i 4 . . ' '1' �I 1r r % . / et st. 1.. !r,.1-.1V; ,. 4 "1 ..0••-0••.•.4 'r ' ' t ;,c 4..F.•.4.::•:' 11 :��. ,.,,,,'s, ;1 , - - 4.411-r"or ' 4 . " . --:. 1-. ----...- .. .-.. -“ - -• \. : . ilt o 1:7‹: \14,.' i 10'. :••••• F , / yr,,' 1,SI Ain !N. ----. I. 1., . , ., ... ...,. I . EINOVII V: I.. L •••-• _...-.--- _,.0... - ._ _.-........-----i--------.....00-_,..-:„... ... ,_-,--:, kNo..1 /11'4111.6r idea-. . -- ‘ (4' r. . ----7, Irl ' ' Wi # /X'Alt) ).::/1 III ' "--.‘ , ' ..,•Aljrit'grak\) I '— Ai-A ; i or , r----; ::% ,-. - t .11111kRifipAS -,,.;, ‘—..-‘/ - tiijic iNit: , • i-I:t ,;,. ..__ i "4., i . t.,..;:i ri i I/ -.. L._ . ,.1.......- ' 11\ii : :c ' �� ` 1,,fge , if 1 ' " / iUV oh a � I° 1 / ( fF • \ /..,'•••••••'... WO. --,-,:-I\z,_ - •••\.;..."-.. •-• ••••- - .....,...-- 11 I' ;,e, 41 ' ' : . - • . \,./ri.-/ ,,, _______,._ s ,,---_-_:-.-:-. ..s\ -----.---irz-_.--__:,,- !4i , .. i. . ...,: ' •� C 1 �`� � ,�/,!�j: lila I �r _ iir ,. f1 /11, I, '. i • •ice 1 I • _ '�`, 'moi'/,,/''yi '} o ,.� '`�\\\ .fes rte• '' - Il L' Y �'�� / A- / • i . . . \. � •- 1 r• I : ,,,,,1 _pi ,..: ; ...„ . ,,d/ .., ..:irt, .„, , , \ \ . ; 1; 1 . a ;ail • 4emil. 113 W/40111240 ir , if . 4 - ' . % „,,, . ., . ii, , , IN,...... ie.. ...0../4 40 .,i/ • ‘ ,., , _÷, • _ . 1 ,..3. 41, % % .t1 q ' 1 v -mooii\jk...,,zi..----i ..t ._k. . :.:1 ii' l I I k ' .ItN...iii.•?,,...,%.111 ,,,A*4101 1111 WION 9 r '41 ....... lir /1,,//1 4//Ati. I I If .; 7 • !., 0 II -- t.T..-:, / —____ - -, _/,--:."..,- lij .,,, .. . - , � , , /IN iti. iri/ ....,'/' -*-............--• ! iiikii /7,,,/ ........,....." IN ...1:.t, —— ,,qt... 4? ; i '111 2 ... 9.4% .;„:.,,i • `mss w T`'•'1,','' .."11.1441P. I '290 ..i-` ^. ■ 'CTPOSTS FIRMLY (POS? SMAEI,!C OAK OR STEEEI RECC'.:1.:F x0E0 .0 MOUNT NOG A.KS T3 POSTS. T • TOE-tN MEFN00 • 1 MIRAFI 100X.FASTEN '':/NOG RILLS, i RAILS OR SIAVLE3. • .//%�%/ / 1s ////.`3"LON.00PTN Iiii fii I , _ A.DIG TRENCH B l AY IN FA8RIC aanCKrILL EROSION CONTROL FENCE-TYPEI _ STEM •TNCf POSTS SUPPORTfSED TO ` 1 . SNOW roost I \—rilinVifinlinnfirl"nrifinIl• Rj ...77 i I :171 n1I I II • i . HA•01 tr•A.PaLES Tr0 SE.BARS OPi•CN THSOUEA EACH BALE j J1i2'-2'1NTO CPCuy0 VLE AS TO SE TECESSE0 A- GPM*ELOW GPAAND PEO TO SNOW FENCE _EROSION CONTRE2 OL FENCE-TYP STEEL FENCE POSTS SHALL BE u5E0 TO 1� ` \ SuroORT SNOr EENC[ • I . InnlnUM In' u1uwt mIIn IImutu!aJ SILT PEKE • %® 1 � ` HAr aR IE C TMp 55 CARS ORnfN TH. n.2•-r IN.o cAow.o ..LO TO 85 SALE I'IELor 65505 555 W1SE0 TO S OW CF ZCI: [ycc ERaSION CONTPC I __FENCE-TYPE 3 . I, CITY OF �` SILT FENCILE E t • iSCALE r— N DATE • PLATE NO. 5212 LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 ( 612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: Eckankar, by OWNER: Eckankar Larkin, o man, a y indgren, Ltd. _ ADDRESS Robert L. Hoffman, 7900 Xerxes ADDRESS P.O. Box 27300 Avenue South, Suite 1500 3001 Louisiana Avenue North Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 New Hope, Minnesota 55427 Zip Code Zip Code TELEPHONE (Daytime) 835-3800 TELEPHONE 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 X Conditional Use Permit Street/Easement Vacation Site Plan Review Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME Eckankar Church PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Low, Medium and High Density Residential REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION No change PRESENT ZONING RSF, R-4, and R-12 Residential REQUESTED ZONING No change USES PROPOSED Church SIZE OF PROPERTY 174 acres LOCATION Northwest Quadrent of Intersection of TH-5 and County Road 17 REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST See attached letter. LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary ) Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 88, Files of the Registrar of Titles of Carver County, Minnesota. m00% MIN 11 .p •••• r••• =mg. am. mm. 411111 MM. IMO 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 ByA,LJ Date January 23, 1989 Aop' can t Robert L. Hoffman, tor Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. for Eckankar The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been authorized to make this application for the property herein described. By Signed g ' � � � �� Date January 23, 1989 Fee Owner Peter Skelskey, Priest • Eckankar Date Application Received January 23, 1989 Application Fee Paid $150.00 City Receipt No. * This Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/ uxuataX.MOCAlajliMaNYffiLUX4114X.WENSMAK at their February 15, 1989 meeting. JANES P.LARKIN GAVID J.PEAT ROBERT L.NOFFMAN LARKI\, HOFFMAN, DALY & LI\DGREN, LTD. FRANCIS E.GIBCRSON — JAR�- K i OALY NIC"AEL TO MKIM ^N.KENNETHINDGREN HFESWEAVER DREW DANIELSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW ..EGNAN L TALLE WENDELL R.ANDERSON H LL,AM S.BRANDT GERALD H.FRIEDELL VINCENT O.ELLA ROBERT B.wHITLOCK —RACY R.EICHHORN-HICKS ALLAN E.MULLIGAN ANDREW J MITCHELL ROBERT J.HENNESSEY 1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 2000 PIPER JAFFRAV TOWER JOHN A.COTTER. JAMES C.ERICKSON BEATRICE A.ROTHWEILER EDWARD J. DRISCOLL 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET PAUL B.PLUNKETT JAMES P.NILEY Y DARR GRADY GENE N.FULLER BLOOMINGTON,MINNESOTA 55431 MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402 AN L.KILDOW DAVID C.SELLEROREN KATHLEEN N.PICOTTE NEWMAN RICHARD J.KEENAN TELEPHONE 16121 835-3800 TELEPHONE 6121 338-6610 CATHERINE BARNCTT WILSON• JOHN D.FVLLMER JEFFREY C.ANDERSON ROBERT E.BOYLE TELECOPIER 1612)835-5102 TELECOPIER6121 338-1002 DANIEL L.BOWLES FRANK I.HARVEY TODD M.VLATKOVICH RICHARD A. ORSCNLER .1,MCATIMOTHY J.Me MANUS CHARLES S.MODELL JILL I.FRIEDE RS CHRISTOPHER J. DIETNEN NORTH SUBURBAN OFFICE GREGORY C.KORSTAD JOHN R.BEATTIE CRAIG A.PETERSON LINDA FISHER 8990 SPRINGBROOK DRIVE,SUITE 250 LISA A.GRAY THOMASS P.STOLTNAN GARY A.RENNEKE STEVEN D.LEVIN COON RAPIDS.MINNESOTA 55433 THOMAS H.WEAVER iOPPE ST D.NOWLIN SHANNON K.NCCAMBRIOGE MICHAEL C.JAC KHAN TELEPHONE 16121 786-7117 MICHAEL 5.COHEN JOHN C.DICHL DENISE M.NORTON JON 5 SwIERTEWSKI THOMAS J.FLYNN TELECOPIER 16121 786-6711 GARY A.VAN AMA JAMES P.OUINN MICHAEL B.BRMAN JOSEPH w. DICKER TODD L FREEMAN Reply to Bloomington JACOUELINC i.OI CTE STEPHEN B.SOLOMON GAYLLN L.KNACK .M CCK RODNEY D./YES JEROME JULIE A.WRASE SHERRILL OMAN KURETICH CHRISTOPHER J.HARRISTHAL GERALD L.BECK RONALD N.STARK.JR. JOHN B.LUNDOUIST SHARON L. DAYLE NOLAN MARIKAY CANAGA LITZAV THOMAS B.HUMPHREY,JR. January 23, 1989 Oi COUNSEL JOSEPH MCTIS JOHN A. HUGH RICHARD A.NOROBTE Mr. Steve Hansen, Planner - WISCONSINTTEOIM mmo City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: Application for Conditional Use Permit for Eckankar Church Dear Steve: This letter and attachments are submitted on behalf of our client _ Eckankar, in support of the enclosed application for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a church (the Church) on their property located at Highway 5 and County Road 17 . Enclosed please find the following application materials: o Completed and executed land development application; — o $150 .00 filing fee; o Complete site plans, including: — Zoning Map/Land Use Map Site Zoning Plan _ Site Context Plan Site Plan Grading and Drainage Plan Utilities and Lighting Plan Landscape Plan Illustrative Site Plan Site Sections — Building Plans, including: upper level plan, lower level plan, elevations; L_1RIiI\, IIOFFMA , DALY & LINDG=RE`, LTD. Mr. Steve Hansen, Planner January 23, 1989 Page 2 We have prepared the following additional materials to assist you in reviewing and analyzing the application for a Conditional Use Permit: o Environmental Assessment Worksheet. An EAW is not required for the Church because construction does not approach any mandatory threshold for the preparation of an EAW and has no potential for significant environmental effects . However, we have prepared the enclosed EAW to assist you in evaluating public utilities, drainage, transportation and related issues . o Application Requirements for a Conditional Use Permit. This summary provides information required to be submitted and refers you to the appropriate plan or document which complies with each application requirement. ° Standards for the Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for a Church. This summary sets forth in detail compliance of the Church with the specific and general standards set forth in the City Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for a church. The Church meets all the performance standards of the Zoning Ordinance and the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. A list of the owners of all properties situated wholly or partially within 500 ' of the Eckankar property is being prepared by Carver County Abstract and Title Company and will be submitted as soon as it is available. City and County records show that Eckankar is the owner of record of the property and has paid real estate taxes and assessments . Eckankar is a tax exempt religious organization under Section — 501(c) (3) and a church under Section 170(b) ( 1) (A) (i) of the Federal Internal Revenue Code and Section 1 .511-2 (a) ( 3) (ii) of the Income Tax Regulations. Eckankar's priests are authorized under the laws of the state of Minnesota to solemnize marriages . Confirmation of this authorization for Priest Peter Skelskey is attached. Eckankar purchased its property at the intersection of Highway 5 and County Road 17 in the City of Chanhassen in 1985 for the purpose of locating its international headquarters thereon and establishing an international administrative campus . A concept plan for the first phase of the campus, including an administrative office building and a design, graphic, audio visual and publishing facility, was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Chanhassen in 1985. LARKKIN, IIOFr>I_ N, ID_1LY c LIND(;1 EX, [:r1). — Mr. Steve Hansen, Planner January 23, 1989 — Page 3 Eckankar subsequently withdrew its request to rezone the property to — allow the international administrative campus and located its international headquarters in the city of New Hope, Minnesota, instead. The city of Chanhassen subsequently rezoned Eckankar's property from Planned Residential to RSF, R-4 and R-12 . It is our — understanding that following this rezoning the City commenced the process of amending the Comprehensive Plan land use designations to be consistent with the zoning, but we do not know the status of this — amendment. We are therefore showing existing land use designations as low, medium and high density, consistent with the intent of the City Council in rezoning the property. — Churches are allowed as a conditional use in all three zoning districts which encompass the Eckankar property. The Church will be a building consecrated to religious worship, where people will join — together in public worship under the aegis and direction of a person authorized under the laws of the state of Minnesota to solemnize marriages . The Church will include an 800 seat sanctuary, caretaker' s — residence, classroom facilities and other areas as detailed on the floor plans submitted, all as permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Office space will be provided to serve the administrative staff of the Church only. The international headquarters of Eckankar will continue — in New Hope. The plans submitted and the Environmental Assessment Worksheet set — forth in greater detail the specifics with respect to the Church building, site plan, landscaping, etc. We have designed the Church to be entirely consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance, including the specific and general standards of the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for a church in a residential district. The Church complies in all respects with the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan, as detailed in the attachments to this letter and the submission — materials . We submit this application for consideration by the Planning — Commission at its February 15, 1989, meeting. The entire development team would be more than happy to meet with you at any time between now and then to answer any questions or provide any additional information you may require or find desirable. — Sin erely, /GatIr1Z Robert L. Hoffman, for _ LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. kw Enclosures — PKB:DQ8s NOTICE OF FILING 'TAME: J � �k� Yg-tir ?our Ministerial Credentials have been filed in the County of HENNEPIN, State ,f MINNESOTA, on /HA2 v , 19 g Q , in Book /78 , PageLQ -nis is a permanent filing as long as you remain a minister in good standing rithin the same denomination. This notice should be maintained in your .rmanent file for future reference. Dale G. Folstad, Director of Licensing Henn in County, Mt nessota BY . 21.„7_)-76 (.LJ Deputy Jr. 1251 (10-86) APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Section 3-6-3 of the City Zoning Ordinance requires submission of the following application materials for site plan review: — o Application Form Provided o Evidence of Ownership or an interest in the property City and County records show that Eckankar is the owner of record of the property and has paid real estate taxes and assessments. — o $150 Application Fee Provided o Complete Site Plans, signed by a registered architect, civil engineer, landscape architect, or other design professional. — The following plans have been submitted: Zoning Map/Land Use Map Site Zoning Plan Site Context Plan Site Plan Grading and Drainage Plan Utilities and Lighting Plan Landscape Plan — Illustrative Site Plan Site Sections Upper and Lower Level Building Floor Plans _. Building Elevations o Name of Project Eckankar Church o Name, address, telephone number of the applicant, engineer, and — owner of record. Owner of record: Eckankar P.O. Box 27300 3001 Louisiana Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55427 Applicant: Eckankar, by: Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. Robert L. Hoffman _ Peter K. Beck 1500 Northwestern Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 ( 612) 835-3800 Engineering and Landscaping: Barton-Aschman Associates , Inc . Dan Lutenegger Barry Warner William Scott Nidness 111 Third Avenue South Suite 350 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 ( 612 ) 332-0421 Architecture: Korsunsky Krank Erickson Architects , Inc . _ Ron Krank Peter Sussman 300 First Avenue North Suite 500 Minneapolis , Minnesota 55401 ( 612 ) 339-4200 O Legal Description Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 88 , files of the Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota . o Date proposed, north arrow, engineering scale, number of sheets , name of drawer. Application submitted January 23, 1988 . 14 sheets of plans prepared by Barton-Aschman and Korsunsky Krank Erickson Architects, Inc . , have been submitted. Each sheet contains north arrow, engineering scale, and such other relevant information as necessary. ° Vicinity map showing relationship of the proposed development to surrounding streets, rights-of-way, easements and natural features . See Plans submitted including Zoning Map/Land Use Map and Site Context Plan. o Description of intended use of the site, buildings, and structures including type of occupancy and estimated occupancy load. See January 23 , 1988 , letter from Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. , and the Environmental Assessment Worksheet and Plans submitted. o Existing zoning and land use. The Eckankar property is zoned RSF, R-4 and R-12 . Construction of the Church will be in the area of the property zoned R-4 . Existing land use is predominantly agricultural . See Zoning Map. 2 . o Size of parcel in acres or square feet. 174 acres o Gross floor area of each building. The Church will be a single 48, 000 square foot building. — o Percent of site covered by building. 0.4% ( . 7 acres) . — • Percent of site covered by impervious surface. 3. 3% (5 .7 acres) . o Percent of site covered by parking area. - 1.3% (2 . 3 acres) . ° rojected number of employees. — Approximately 20 . o Number of seats. 800 . o Number of parking spaces required. 276 . — o Number of parking spaces provided including handicapped. 290. o Height of all buildings and structures and number of stories . The Church will be a one story building with a lower walk-out level . The height of the Church, as measured according to the Uniform Building Code, will be approximately 37 feet. — The greatest distance from grade level to the highest point of the Church roof will be approximately 65 feet, at the walkout level . At the front of the Church, this distance _ will be approximately 50 feet. The height of the Church is substantially below the maximum height allowed for places of public assembly (which includes churches) under Section 6-10-2(2) of the Zoning Ordinance. o Property line dimensions, location of all existing and proposed structures with distance from boundaries, distance between — structures, building dimensions, and floor elevations . See Site Context Plan, Site Plan, Grading and Drainage Plan, _ and Floor Plans . Lot area, frontage, depth and setbacks substantially exceed ordinance requirements . 3 . -- o Grading and drainage plan showing existing natural features (topography, wetlands, vegetation, etc. ) as well as proposed grade elevations and sedimentation and storm water retention ponds . See Grading and Drainage Plan. o All existing and proposed points of egress/ingress showing widths at property 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 . See Site Plan. All City standards have been complied with, and the driveway has been aligned with existing Saddlebrook Curve, consistent with City Policy. ° Vehicular circulation system showing location and dimensions for all driveways, parking spaces, parking lot isles, service roads, loading areas, fire lanes, emergency access (if necessary) , public and private streets, alleys, sidewalks, bike paths, direction of traffic flow, and traffic control devices . _ See Site Plan. All requirements of Article VII of the Zoning Ordinance and other applicable City standards have been complied with. ° Landscaping plan in accordance with the provisions of Article VIII . See Landscape Plan submitted. The Landscape Plan complies with or exceeds in all respects Article VIII of the Zoning Ordinance. The Church has been located on the Eckankar property to preserve all woodland areas located on the Property, in accordance with section 8-7-2, of the Zoning Ordinance, as shown on the Site Context Plan and the Site Plan. o Location, access, and screening detail of trash enclosures . All trash will be stored within the building and accessed as shown on the Lower Level Floor Plan and the Site Plan. o Location and screening detail of roof top equipment. All mechanical equipment will be inside the building. There will be no roof top equipment. o Location and detail of signage. Signage will be limited to a single entrance sign as shown on the landscape plan. This sign will comply with all requirements of Article IX of the City Zoning Code, will be setback 30 ' from the property line, will not exceed 5 feet in height and will not exceed 24 square feet of sign display area. Copy on the sign will not be visible from residential 4 . uses or districts along adjoining side and rear yard property lines . ° Lighting location, style and mounting. _ See Utilities and Lighting Plan. All lighting will comply with Section 6-17 of the Zoning Ordinance. — ° Building elevations from all directions . See elevations submitted. 0 Utility plan identifying size and direction of existing water and sewer lines , fire hydrants, distance of hydrant to proposed — building. See utilities and lighting plan. 0 List of proposed hazardous materials , use and storage. There will be no hazardous materials used or stored on the Property. 0 Proposed fire protection system. The Church building will be fully sprinklered as shown on the Utilities and Lighting plan. Section 3-3-2 of the City Zoning Ordinance requires that the name and address of each owner of property situated wholly or partially within 500' of the property be provided. A list of the owners of all properties situated wholly or partially within 500 feet of the Eckankar property is being prepared by Carver County Abstract and Title Company and will be submitted. Section 3-2-2 of the City Zoning Ordinance requires that all applications for conditional use permits include a Site Plan that illustrates the following: ° Proposed land use The Church is illustrated on the Site Plan submitted and described further in the letter dated January 23, 1989 , from Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd . , and the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. 0 Building mapping and functions Building mapping and functions are set forth in the Floor Plans submitted. 5 . o Circulation and parking areas Circulation and parking areas are illustrated on the Site Plan submitted. ° Planting areas and treatment Planting areas and treatment are illustrated on the Landscape Plan submitted. o Sign locations and type The Church will have only one entrance sign, which is illustrated on the Landscape Plan submitted. ° Basic lighting concerns Lighting for the Church site is shown on the Utilities and Lighting plan submitted. o Relationship of the proposed use to neighboring uses The relationship of the Church building and parking areas to neighboring uses is illustrated on the Site Context Plan and discussed in the January 23, 1988, letter from Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. , and the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. o Environmental Impacts An Environmental Assessment Worksheet is not required for the Church because construction does not approach any mandatory threshold for the preparation of an EAW, and has no potential for significant environmental effects . However, an EAW has been prepared to assist the City in evaluating environmental, public utilities, drainage, transportation and related issues . o Demand for municipal services Impacts on municipal services are discussed in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. 6 . PKB:DQ9s STANDARDS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHURCH Article II, Subsection 1 of The City Zoning Ordinance defines a — "church" as: A building or edifice consecrated to religious worship, where — people join together in some form of public worship under the aegis and direction of a person who is authorized under the laws of the state of Minnesota to solemnize marriages . A church may include living quarters for persons employed on the premises and classroom facilities . The following are not considered as churches: camp meeting grounds, mikvahs, coffee houses, recreational complexes, retreat houses, sleeping quarters for — retreatants during spiritual retreats extending for periods of more than one day, bible camps with live-in quarters, publishing establishments, ritual slaughterhouses, radio or television towers — and transmission facilities, theological seminaries, day care centers, hospitals, and drug treatment centers are not churches . The ''ckankar Church will be a building consecrated to public worship — where people will join together in public worship under the direction of Eckankar's leaders, who are authorized under the laws of the state of Minnesota to solemnize marriages . The Church will include an 800 — seat sanctuary, living quarters for a caretaker, classroom facilities, and other areas as shown on the floor plans submitted. The Church will not include any of the uses identified in the Zoning Ordinance as not considered a church. The Church will be constructed in the portion of the Eckankar property zoned R-4, mixed low density residential . The Zoning Ordinance allows — churches as a conditional use in the R-4 zone. The remainder of the Eckankar property is zoned RSF, single family residential, and R-12, high density residential . Churches are also an allowed conditional — use in each of these zoning districts . Section 5-9-1 (7) of the Zoning Ordinance establishes specific standards for churches in residential districts. These standards are as follows: A. The site shall be located on a collector or arterial roadway as — identified in the Comprehensive Plan or located so that access can be provided without conducting traffic through residential concentration. The Church is located on and will be accessed from County Road 17, which is identified in the City' s Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan as a collector roadway. Access is -' provided so that no traffic will pass through residential concentrations . B. The structure must be set back 50 feet from all property lines . The Church will be set back 1980 feet from the north property line; 1 , 960 feet from the south property line; 930 ' feet from the west property line; and 820 feet from the east property line. C. Parking areas shall be set back 25 ' from streets and non- - residential property. Parking areas will be setback over 2000 feet from the property line on the north; 1565 feet from the property line on the south; 950 feet from the property line on the west; and 590 feet from the property line on the east . - D. No more than 70% of the site is to be covered with impervious surface and the remainder is to be suitably landscaped in conformance with Article VIII . 3 . 3% ( 5 . 7 acres ) of the Eckankar property will be covered with impervious surface following construction of the Church. The remainder of the Church building site will be landscaped in conformance with Article VIII , as shown on the landscape plan submitted , and the remainder of the property will be seeded in prairie grasses or, where currently grass , undisturbed. E . Churches outside the MUSA line must provide additional information. The Eckankar property and the Church are both located entirely within the MUSA line. Secton 3-2-3 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes the following general standards for conditional uses : 1 . Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City. The Church will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City. The Church will be located approximately 1000 feet from the nearest residence to the east, across County Road 17 ; and over 2000 feet from the nearest residence to the north. Approximately 20 people will be employed at the Church and this is expected to be the maximum number of people on the property during a normal weekday. There will also be small meetings at the church on some evenings and church services on Sundays . The Environmental Assessment Worksheet concludes that the Church will have an imperceptible impact on local streets and intersections . The EAW also demonstrates that the Church will produce no environmental impacts which would be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city, and will have no potential for significant environmental affects . 2 . Will be consistent with the objectives of the City' s Comprehensive Plan and this Ordinance . The Church will be consistent with the objectives of the City' s Comprehensive Plan and this Ordinance. The Church fully complies with all of the performance standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, including the specific and general standards for churches , and therefore is consistent with the objectives of the Ordinance. The Church complies with all of the policies in the Comprehensive Plan which are directed at or applicable to this application and therefore is consistent with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 3 . Will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area . The Church will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and _ will not change the essential character of that area. Eighty-five ( 85 ) percent of the Eckankar property will not be disturbed as a result of the construction of the Church. The essential character of the area will not change. The Church building will be constructed of the highest quality materials including natural Minnesota limestone. This high quality building, coupled with the extensive landscaping around the construction area, will be compatible with the intended character of the general vicinity. In addition to design and construction, the Church will be operated and maintained so _ that it will not change the essential character of the area. 4 . Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses . _ The Church will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses . The Church building will be 2000 _ feet away from residential structures to the north, approximately 1000 feet away from residential structures to the east, over 900 feet away from the park on the west and over 2000 feet from the industrial uses to the south. There will be no hazardous or disturbing activities of any type occurring at the Church and the Church will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses . 5 . Will be adequately served by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use . The Church will be adequately served by essential public facilities and services , including streets , police and fire protection, drainage structures , refuse disposal , water and sewer systems and schools ; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. Streets : The Church will be adequately served by County Road 17 , as demonstrated in the EAW. Police and Fire Protection: Police and fire protection services are located less than one mile away, which will be adequate to serve the church. Drainage Structures : The Environmental Assessment Worksheet analyzes drainage from the site and concludes that drainage structures will be adequate to serve the Church. Refuse Disposal : Eckankar will ensure that refuse disposal services are provided to adequately serve the Church. Water and Sewer Systems : Water and Sewer has been extended to the property in the past few years and has been paid for by Eckankar. These services are adequate to serve the Church. See the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Schools : The Church will not have a need to be served by local schools . 6 . Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The Church will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Streets : The EAW analyzes the streets and intersections which serve the Church and concludes that the Church will have no adverse impacts or impose any excessive requirements on the street system. Police and Fire Protection: The Church will be sprinklerad and will not create any excessive fire protection requirements ; the Church use is also not a use which has any potential for imposing excessive requirements on police services . Drainage Structures : The Environmental Assessment Worksheet analyzes drainage for the property and drainage structures and concludes that the Church will not create excessive requirements on public drainage structures . Final drainage plans for the Church will fully comply with all City and Watershed District requirements . Refuse Disposal : The Church use will generate very little solid waste, much less than virtually any alternative use of the Eckankar Property, and will not create any excessive _ requirement for refuse disposal . See the Environmental Assessment Worksheet . Water and Sewer Systems : The water and sewer extensions - recently constructed to the property have been designed to accommodate a significantly higher use than will be experienced with the church use, which will not create any _ excessive requirements on these facilities . Schools : The Church will not impose any requirements at all on local school services . Economic Welfare of the Community: Eckankar has promptly paid, in full, all special assessments for public improvement projects . Eckankar will continue to bear its share of costs for appropriate public improvements . 7 . Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. The Church will not involve uses, activities , processes , materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, _ fumes , glare, odors , rodents , or trash. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet concludes that the Church will produce substantially less traffic and noise than - housing on the Eckankar property would. there will be no smoke, fumes or odors generated by the Church. Trash will be all be enclosed in the building so there will be no rodents _ or trash which would be detrimental to any persons , property or the general welfare. The lighting plan has been designed to protect against any glare that would be detrimental . 8 . Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares . The Church will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares . The driveway for the Church is aligned with Saddlebrook Curve to eliminate turning movement conflicts and in conformance with City policy. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet concludes that traffic generated by the Church will have an imperceptible effect on surrounding public thoroughfares and intersections and will not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic . 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic, or historic features of major significance. The Church will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic, or historic features of major significance. Construction of the Eckankar Church will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any solar access . There are no historic features of major significance on the Eckankar property. The Church has been specifically designed to preserve the natural and scenic features of the Eckankar property, including the woodland areas and the existing rolling topography of the property in general. The Church has been located and designed so that construction will involve a minimal amount of grading and land disturbance, substantially less than would occur for housing. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. The Church will be aesthetically compatible with the area. Approximately 85% of the Eckankar property will remain exactly as it now is following construction of the Church, and will therefore remain compatible with the surrounding area. The Church itself has been designed to the highest quality standards and will be built of high quality materials . The Church is within the maximum height allowed -- for residential zoning districts, and is far below the maximum height allowed for places of public assembly. The building and landscape materials have been specifically selected to be high quality and aesthetically compatible with the Eckankar property and the surrounding area. Because of its location on the site, extensive landscaping, existing topography and distances, the Church will be aesthetically compatible with the area. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. The Church will not depreciate surrounding property values . Surrounding residential properties are located from 1000 feet to 2000 feet away from the Church building. The Church meets all and substantially exceeds most of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Because of its location on the site, extensive landscaping, existing topography and distances, the Church will not depreciate surrounding property values . 12 . Will meet the standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in — Article 5, Section 5-9 and 5-17 . The Eckankar Church fully complies with the specific — standards for churches in residential districts, as discussed above. 7 . PKB:DROs — 1 •. -- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 /%% �/ 1' I i i l l 1 1 1 `,I l l , . . , . , 1 1 . . , 1 1 jj l - .t,,,..,,:!.,. ..11,.,..t„..).i.4,-,...—ie..:. . kirs- L.',- \ . . .. .... ,., ,, . f = C.A , .' klilts4 169- .1114"'""---.1 ,4r, 0, 7.4.... ;-.L, --.t ',. .___.'i - •:" r . i I ' ` - o ric I •ka .1 0 '4. \ -- • - —•- 1 �- : W W Z- - AVI i ; i• . _ i - ---,w- :-.4.;,:ii..,--4:;., •- 1 1 1 2, ...f ... — - F • 4 v m- ,� H X33333 � ; � � < < 1 M f N J — % L 4-1 _ i � Y a � A N r 7e I C tii - - i 2 - _ ' 74-7:%<, 40-44" .I . y _ Is .r ¢ a a odiaxii I Li . 1!!w wr..; :..� ,:.'' —: - u U 8 ❑©M0®®®®D❑M�I® 1 t Z Q- ti tiePill' N J J IJJ I I I I I I I I 1 • I 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1.1 1 1 ii 1 i 7 r,. Cl) :3[2 I I ... r°Z i N r• 14.1_.r. Z 11 1. 1 1 ..; N 2 e0 0 P.- [ ,1 Q 37` — II 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 I I . , ry,en g 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I i . _ 0 ,� ��• 1 !RT n ye S 1. W `,dia.: 1=;=__ •r; 111.111' � , __it 111► •= ��y c.'tistR. PI — 111E ik 1.16 imi A__ ATF:0.--' -y1�..„.. g r — L,„`Prill i 0 a I II 411 11 7_ - ,,, __,, . 4„ ..t. I I I I I I ! 1 , . 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 . . J�.7aiR--.....,—: ' ' '-- 46,* , - �' I YID ` r • L , �' i % *4. 7.-...7 kg , , , ,.. . . \\ ....____ P CD0. of B j!t i YI �iI C till I1 _ / ;p�� 1- - 6 E !II • SII �0 , :� r�1/ j •"Nil :NIA <I ,. • 1 � I ��1�11# il11141 '` -"�a :i iti!iiiiiiiiiiii i t 1 I 1 1 1 1 11 ' 101 I I i i 1 1 1 1 I t i 1 g _. \,......, . �� I z 4 3 \ __ O O O Z z Z - _ Cill,(111' i.s . ' . '. 1 t 11/,, t. • ,� ♦1 06 ��• , tom' • 1, , / _1 r./ 11+1 111.1 .�' I - , 1 1 ,- , _ _ = • JI /-- r , 11 1 I ' I Z I J / • �J __-- - 8 , !1\11 _•/ 1 � - - ,i % V I I J ,\1 �� _-'. /'/ I it 1 , �/ 1/,. G / 1 --- -� I I - I I ��/I Z I ` '--- '\� I\ \-' '�-� -/ �I/ 11 �J/__ / (!\ ; ; --1 ',' , ' /1 I / , -\ / 17f.-t % /1 L..... \., ...J co i � �r Q f ` < iQ Z - Q . . U = _ U • a 'ail. — ` I . s iI. %- e ..., ,..i. ,Il \\., a Mil- X Mom - c3. \\*....°, w ' ....... • -N i 1/ 1\.-.11 '1.14°//1 ;.",!....--------••Z.s1 I1J A ....!:-- , I_\ ‘‘ N% •-...I iZ .11..„\-• •./ , I C..\--:..'.... '---., ,„.,,r ,0::,,:_s . ,.... I t , , . ..., ,.:....:,......, ___, . ,___,, , 1111011115 PM Si \ ... I ---- . 1 , , 1 t 1 I •11 1 • I I 1 t 1 / •1 s� / l I I �♦ I t \\I - / t_' 1 ten+ g / `/ I ; _ 1 ♦I 1 \ r - 1 " I I' / a `I_--/ -' ��o I: CC • ♦ I 1. ---- �/ r/ t r--� , C ! _ , ,�' ,1 1 1 -- ___ --_- Ate. 4 ♦ f ` ._- ' -J' , I. ___ . , ,- , Cn 'I- --- _ --_ ` . i-) '-- , I 1 i • 1 `• a- ,,,,, ♦ 1 I ♦ I I Q _/ I I ,, < . ....,, r.,,, _ - J I Y Z .... .... ._ . cn N W W41 cc co Q t 0 W u ^ P n Cr) IOm = U O -: 0 n I H g ,I 4C 0 ro f 0 X •1 0 0 0 LLy N<¢ W U .- ♦ O 17 1 IV C H N /7 N CC F UW LL N W a0 W 'i 4 S 59 Q W CC 5 , ij- '- w (off ca H r `\ • Z m } > (r3, Q a O G yr e, \ 9mmm 2 s, -, 5 0 0 0 2 W W .4 r` J:1,- co W W W LL ¢ 55 4 (.7N ., O > tN fel-, 2 W_ 1H UU U ¢ O O9 i W W 2 22 5 O .4 .'. W lz W W w m N N U • N N N W t <2 -I O a •S • u_• O O O W O u.O OO LLm r `0. 4 O y W W W W W W L J O Z r/� 0 W U U U 2 J . !/J I y. \S- V) t al c) d ill u: d J - (13' n — – ..o l- al- -_ tO I 1 1 CM 1 cit terf -i . m . \ • i ,era , • d - - -- -- - . \ \ :__1..:,,. . 0 I . .\,...„„aug......._„2 4 '''' (I) ,.., , 4111111* 1 °-- = w ••� I s < Z � l i . i., 111‘,... . .....44:1: 7 I1C:,- : i N.'s\ • z S. ' "011111t i 74(efkrre . - • • 11 . t iMIR a ,. /. . , co r, . r„"1,4 1 ii 'ljr, ' ilr, iallb4.....\ g 4 • IC-4\ U) ,,,,,,- ''' I \ - Z • le 0 .. �:�.: ice• \` -400)7I. io',• ; 1 W U weiew...m.ri • .. .- :-,/ I 0... _ _ : • / . _ � - o 16 1 0 , / I N 1\ \\\\ .`\ \ --- —I� / / .r•0 • _.• j J�6- fib. — / /i \ / .. _ ‘ t / • 1 *- - ; \ / ,„'/ i • 1 0' $i —I i r __ = r AN♦S 3 .o .a_-- -•••- "8 il ] T • i v e \ .... ' ` , et-e • . , . Ili t / ••••..... —• J \ _cele J ' , 7 - i`• O. - . /• - O 2 — E !• V s5 //C Cn• 9 s' "1- t= � G W • W Z \ }d +. LIJ • Y v, \ ... _..... Q i :: ''-- _77:**.j. < \ r 10D• /1 – / ,1 11 .: tij V° tet— ` .o.• 7 • ---,--`„•?, , • 1 /AS\\ . . , N. Ill 1 i U T- : -' e,// / r. - tp` ); i l \ / —lei• � ``�` \\ \ / �.. c / J �4� ! '�`'+*‘ \ / / i G,rel rS. — ,. / �y�p — 1, l 1 , , I I 1, � ,1 , � ►. `t i � / / --N ' +fit. I �' -' �,. f, L y44, am\ \ 1 -'--- rete 1II • / , i ' 1 1 . le , — \ \ \\ 1\ 1 / i, l___\ J 11 \` r ��" •• /• , I \s {e 1 1 111 1 \\'- , / -� N —! I i i i/ •' .- ' �.' � .... uMrs3 ,o _,.. *.. •:0li , oi ♦ 1 A 1, .- " - ^ I •Y! i e IIIDl ^• I - . a. _J I - 8r -a i {. . s CC , . ( / ...- . gig- ili ( : i 1 '. - ' tb co N 1 Z - 1 .`9— t!ilsA:G CD+ -- � •- \ t /,'..:et -rOu \E.S,e f '• -- -- - : , O — . ....2,.. ..1' • _ . 4,tp # Op i C'4 Alk i .s ight. .r41 --. .r.. e4 �� ♦ Z C 3= - .C', :0, t k ' Q _ CO • � ; • ' ._. •r`r/ trt ' C: , /A• �C•`' 1 \ .. it OO eY ray • ,fi ./"/. • • •- •. L% Z k. - Q \ \ ,i I'l i •o�IS •' . 1 \ .— :b >s 1 �7 c►,�. 4 6. .: n y..• ---a —`— I -WI. 1 Z _.M• 1: ..% ' �: .. r^ t:41.i/ate': �.;.' I. .. -,• . tea,= .► r� A ! o'....- / /�1'/ -'i 1: i.:::11 •► •111 •1 Q 'moi ..'V sSi Rist, 1'v i4at� `( .►'. 0 .f / D. i ,••• � .i' J :t ' - �� . !t % , q Olp� -` ` \ , h._ , 2 2 1 kJ ' N. , \ ` i i i d i i i i i Id id ii / ji, :I- � \\ I--*. \�.t 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 E € $ $ $ Vlb III f/ ,ii i , / I 1 fl -•— _— it ip1 t if �,.N 45a, � ' ' • «• `�,� m, •-g,,, / / 1 i tG� .%%i/�W I l'i3iiI�Ilil !li1aitillii Li11Ii, !/ ,. ,_ i ,iItIl ' ! 111 *4 - ,...� ;.\ ' / > •— _ = - s . : : 7: 2 2_,.. s - • I . g ! sr i , \'. ' 1 I — Sets + ^\ 1 ' I — \ \ \ IN ' / ' i ' --_ \ 1 -. — - — �� • ) ' I�;1 1 1 — . - ff _. t.-o- 7-:-.--,, -.--:-----, - - ` o .� _ T ..,-2......--Nionvoird.. _ � , J/ \ •r cG- 1 1=a / � / / / , / / • • . ` — • 1 ' i / Y / V lilt - J r•'- ` III ):, I �o \ .,S...1.:::// / -i�' I' \ \ I' 40 \ J f \ 1 ` :7)) , 1 I I ��• 1 / ▪ .ice \ \ ' /t/ I I .. I, 1 .• . ' 1 • 1 . / ., .: NII1 . \''., ' , \ .0 i i•" o•' W ''s-: ••• __ .- / / •• . ' AA\ • ' ••••-• ,,j � I I ( ç .i 4 te; ;� _ — ,. ,,�, :-. .' n 1 I I r 1.•-•• r _ • X11`\ ',11, r r W :. -. - _ t..) ,,,s• - "C. : . ....mi .\...( • -4.! . 1 . . . \ .•,. .... •._ ; .=•.?. i 'f • 41) ,510.,.... .0v-..i. 5 5------. ; 1 . I,cal goo' (�' 1 Q p /), /►gyp:,Y: •C�� Q'•.: 1 _ - =- ` \ Z _. -rte r• Cii — • JO . Li.i c.) --- - — . , .# r. G 1 -- ^\ \. - \ _/ / / $i — // �� • il I I 1 r 1 f. ._ —— — � ! / / —•_�tia , '...`,, I, , •___ , ! —' / f ' I ( . \ - -� 1 / 1 �/ 1 '1" çT �• 111I1 I111 , / 1 1 r/ _ rat. \ 1 I / /'/� • ! 1 lit 1 1 \ \ 1 �` 1'1 111` / 1//+ ��'—_.�J ►1 \� — �/ -� i,' •, /' f I ' 1 "I _ y� Of�;1] O U W "' = Q N%1 0 0 e . ;ii till = U)t = w I iliti 1 Z i 141 0 — of ei z — 1 0 . Q w Y f a : �Q = i Y z 1 440 . i , . i .W _ . . 0 MIMS i• I R�4 r •• - 1 . . '60, s. _ 4 .-.• ( f ::: . - . 's,. .,,. m - I Ra a - c Voit, �+ _ iiirn CD + ., ` . = a I- V 0 - CC 0 ♦ S • W • ii it ♦ =• z ,,, , i . ,,,____.____ ,... 1 do I : 1 ; .. 0 I > • - ■ 'J ..� • / ■ J 2 - a ,, % i s ' ==== ...-..--...... I /. ' - . T : ...N CI) Ilik Co Z Q - _ a = ,____ :.•) . i 4 1 ,- ©i i. { + d Q — 7-N1,_ :_. . 0 i ' 4 -ffii mi . , w 1t ! I . W J a II • Q• a — , ''- 1 C 1 Afl) 4, .. v i 1 • d 4 - Ili Ili! 1itiH1 - < I 1-- 0 0.._--------- ." ..,, 1 . CC ° . ., . , . , 1 , w • <:. = In 1 om . # __.• . . i I 1 _. . 7 yr i r ,,,... „ — 0 is <4 1 I n • - I I :1/4,, :I CC Z \ i - .... - 4....., < Li • \ 0. • \Li ..;' I ... •' 1", • ..• CO . ',.. ',.1.A.:.% • 1 „'" ,,-----„, .1 1 \---. < - --! i ,... , z < 1 , I s b- 44 r- . , i _ z__ , Y I ._ . , . . . . . ..‘ ,.._...... .. %.,7%-%• : - ,... __., ... 4- 1.- Y-b s tk. \ *,- 1 1:1 It'111(1- - 1.P 111111 .• N , 1 ii Ili * U o lCC co = W z ' U — r g", . yM _____ ,, _ W Z llllit J < L, _ LIE W hel W I (I) F47 , IL z z ci) ,, v � r. O ¢ _ 1 i. < =N., LL mg • z u_r_ ,_ . . r 473 ' a F ,,, (,. DM r o • LLQ U 11 ao "1::\• — 41'44,s (,,,!,,..0.„J1.-r`, - .,.P 6 Z i tilir \i t viii , limn • = a H r1:11: CC CO U o 1. El .... u z Z z i_ IS. . c ( (. d ° C Z .. c ■•_`i 1 ,....... W 4.E W Z ..,.... .., , ,....... i1 1 .1.11. 11. ...irrds• W IjI"" W Mi ;,- cc cn iu • I Z __ p r- I h` Q 110. W ^ �, _ — - , i. 0 �� • Z EN 1- a Whi . . .I "iiiiciE ; U -,.. co ....._ ,. LLI c.) - ' ::. z 111111 i r s5 . 1 4, C�-,_ '�,, .g itiii Sty_�t,� t 3' , 4. CARVER COUNTY ABSTRACT AND TITLE CO., INC. �k - CARVER COUNTY P.O.BOX 106,121 WEST 4TH STREET,CHASKA,MINN.55318 (612)448-5570 ABSTRACT&TITLE Dale B. Kutter David E. Moonen — January 24, 1989 Larkin, Hoffman Law Firm Attn: Bob Baer — 7900 Xerxes Ave. South Bloomington, MN 55431 According to the 1989 Tax Books in the Carver County Treasurers Office the following persons are listed as owners of the property which lies within 500 feet of the following described property: — Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 88, according to the records in the — office of the Register of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota. 1. Dan J. Fisher 5. Robert & M. Anderson — 7090 Utica Lane 7090 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 2. Jeffrey & Julie Farmakes 6. V G Enterprises, Inc. _ 7100 Utica Lane 4032 Shoreline Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Spring Park, MN 55384 3. Donald & Mary Lou Chmiel 7. Harry E. & M. Benson 7100 Tecumseh Lane 7101 Tecumseh Lane — Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 4. Gerard W. & K. Maher 8. Larry & Carol Watson 7101 Utica Lane 7131 Utica Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 JAN 2 6 1989 CItY OF CHANHASSEN 9. Ronald G. & G. Pauly 18. James A. & J. Way 7080 Shawnee Lane 7126 Utica Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 10. Gordon & M. Smida 19. John C. & M. Kurimchak 7081 Shawnee Lane 7130 Utica Ln. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 11. Gary & Katherine Downing 20. Thomas J. & Mary Krueger 7101 Shawnee Lane 7136 Utica Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — 12. Paul E. & Lisa J. Vandiver 21. Jean B. Jarrett 7141 Utica Lane 7140 Utica Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 13. Merlyn R. & P. Kinkel 22. Elizabeth A. Sweeney 7090 Redman Lane 7146 Utica Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 14. Dale J. & R. Gregory 23. Richard W. & Linda D. Severs 7091 Redman Lane 7150 Utica Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 15. Raymond & Cheryl Tobias 24. Roger Thomas McCall 7101 Redman Lane 7313 Pontiac Circle -- Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 - 16. Gregory Blaufuss & 25. William Townsend Barbara Jo-Klick 7317 Pontiac Circle 7116 Utica Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 26. Lynn I. Jellison 17. Wm. E. & K. Engebretson 7315 Pontiac Circle 7120 Utica Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 27. H. David & Patricia Strot 35. Steven J. Botkin & — 7311 Pontiac Circle Tamra J. Hodge Chanhassen, MN 55317 7291 Pontiac Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 28. David L. Borneman 7303 Pontiac Circle 36. Eugene C. & Laverna A. Stavlo — Chanhassen, MN 55317 7283 Pontiac Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 29. Donald H. & Florence Carruth 7307 Pontiac Circle 37. Bradley R. & Patricia A. Allen Chanhassen, MN 55317 7287 Pontiac Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 30. Gary J. & Beth Lehman 7305 Pontiac Circle 38. James S. Fastling & Chanhassen, MN 55317 Sandra Otto 7285 Pontiac Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 31. Michael J. & Stacy A. Oltmanns — 7301 Pontiac Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 39. Russell T. & Bernice Billison 7281 Pontiac Circle — Chanhassen, MN 55317 32. Robert G. & Donna Hoban 7293 Pontiac Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 40. Catherine L. Westphal 7273 Pontiac Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 — 33. Tracy M. Salzl 7297 Pontiac Circle _ Chanhassen, MN 55317 41. Dana McArthur-Sanko 7277 Pontiac Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 34. Carol M. Dauwalter — 7295 Pontiac Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 42. Michael & Dialetta Bertelsen 7275 Pontiac Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 43. John E. & Carol E. Meyer 52. H. Ray Brendan & Margaret Brendan 7271 Pontiac Circle 7243 Pontiac Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — 44. John W. Fox 53. Leroy L. & Alice M. Berg 7263 Pontiac Circle 7247 Pontiac Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 45. Paul J. Pettinger & 54. Nancy L. Hankinson Jean M. Pfleiderer 7245 Pontiac Circle 7267 Pontiac Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 55. Mary Ann Meyer - 46. Michael & Barbara Coldagelli 7241 Pontiac Circle 7265 Pontiac Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 56. Tom & C. Workman 47. Albert W. Day 7233 Pontiac Circle 7261 Pontiac Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 57. Everett V. & Helen L. Clauson 48. Mark D. & Katherine A. Ritter 7237 Pontiac Circle 7253 Pontiac Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 58. Francis & Eileen McGinn 49. Oiva & Helen J. Pesonen 7235 Pontiac Cirle 7257 Pontiac Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 59. Marty C. Jacobsen — 50. Alice A. & Aaron E. Potter 7231 Pontiac Circle 7255 Pontiac Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 60. Martha K. Parker 51. John & D. MacKenzie P.O. Box 552 7251 Pontiac Circle Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317 61. Helen C. Brancel 70. Boyd A. & G. Jean Bushey 7306 Pontiac Circle 1006 Pontiac Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 62. Douglas A. & Robyn L. Broberg 71. Gary A. & Barbara J. Enger 7302 Pontiac Circle 1004 Pontiac Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 63. Gerald & Joey Woodard 72. Carolyn J. Ingmundson 7300 Pontiac Circle 1000 Pontiac Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — 64. Mary M. Morton 73. Richard & Cheryl Ganci 7304 Pontiac Circle 1001 Pontiac Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 65. Lee & Karen Valle 74. Diane Marie Lundeen — 7294 Pontiac Circle 1005 Pontiac Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 66. Robert Swanson & Rose Schmidt 75. Wendie Bame Cousino 7290 Pontiac Circle 1007 Pontiac Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 67. Randy C. & Cheryl J. Heuer 76. Scott L Berg 1016 Pontiac Court 1003 Pontiac Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — 68. Margaret Morgan & 77. David B. McFarlin Diane M. Morgan 19400 Highway 7 1014 Pontiac Court Excelsior, MN 55331 _ Chanhassen, MN 55317 78. Linda D. Klodnan — 69. Lynette Linaman 1015 Pontiac Court 1002 Pontiac Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — 79. Robert Bishop 88. Philip J. & Sandra Peshek 7260 Pontiac Circle 7234 Pontiac Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 80. Rita Ann Wetzel 89. Scott H. Trick 7301 17th Avenue South 7310 Pontiac Circle Minneapolis, MN 55423 Chanhassen, MN 55317 81. Jean A. Sundby 90. Larry A. & Gayle Sanders 2121 Fast Grand #B9 1035 Pontiac Lane Escondido, CA 92027 Chanhassen, MN 55317 82. Secretary of Housing & 91. Allan & T. Erdahl Urban Development 1070 Butte Court 220 South 2nd Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Minneapolis, MN 55401 92. William & Susan Olson 83. First Federated Savings Bank 1060 Butte Court Suite 200 Chanhassen, MN 55317 6640 Powers Ferry Road Atlanta, Georgia 30339 93. William Herzog 1050 Butte Court 84. John & Veeda Denardo Chanhassen, MN 55317 7254 Pontiac Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 94. Cory Eastlund 1040 Butte Court 85. Marianne J. Laurent Chanhassen, MN 55317 _ 7236 Pontiac Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 95. Jeffrey Stunmitz 1030 Butte Court 86. Dale L. Craig Chanhassen, MN 55317 7232 Pontiac Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 96. Daniel Mahady 1020 Butte Court 87. Gail Whipple Chanhassen, MN 55317 7230 Pontiac Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 97. Mark & J. Johnson 106. Clara Winters — 1010 Butte Court 1001 Butte Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 98. Mark & Mary Lang 107. Richard & Cynthia St. John 1000 Butte Court 991 Butte Court — Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 99. Gregory & C. Alessandra 108. Colette Perry 990 Butte Court 981 Butte Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 100. Builders Development Inc. 109. Theodore & Timothy Neirman Suite 210 971 Butte Court 1055 E. Wayzata Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Wayzata, MN 55391 110. Donald & S. Johnson — 101. Douglas & Lona Holcomb 961 Butte Court 1051 Butte Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — 111. Howard & J. Thornton _ 102. Joseph Tully 7361 Cactus Curve 1041 Butte Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 112. Frank & Geraldine Emery 103. Timothy & D. Smith 7331 Cactus Curve 1031 Butte Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 113. Mark Erie 104. Lee Patten 1021 Saddlebrook Trail 1021 Butte Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 — Chanhassen, MN 55317 114. Donnie & Teresa Adkins 105. Paula M. Pedersen 7300 Cactus Curve 1011 Butte Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — • 115. Frontier Midwest Homes Corp. 124. Omega Development, Inc. 3908 Sibley Memorial Hwy. 7835 Brooklyn Blvd. Eagan, MN 55122 Brooklyn Park, MN 55445 116. Lawrence & C. Willeke 125. State of Minnesota 7320 Cactus Curve Dept. of Transportation Chanhassen, MN 55317 Metro Square Building St. Paul, MN 55101 — 117. Joseph Rock & Susan Stefansky 7340 Cactus Curve 126. Metro Lakes West Mini-Storage Chanhassen, MN 55317 c/o Mark Senn t Excelsior, MN 55331 118. Kerwin & P. Osborn ` ' a 980 Saddlebrook Curve '•v Chanhassen, MN 55317 127. LSR Properties 1450 Park Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 119. Robert & Kathleen Tabor 990 Saddlebrook Curve Chanhassen, MN 55317 128. Chanhassen Park Place Partners 530 West 79th St. - P.O. Box 443 Chanhassen, MN 55317 120. Zachman Bros. Construction 4620 West 77th St. _ Suite 104 129. Steven Willette Edina, MN 55435 7904 Monterey Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 121. Q & E Homes, Inc. 7739 Flying Cloud Drive 130. City of Chanhassen Eden Prairie, MN 55344 690 Coulter Drive Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 - 122. JVK Quality Homes, Inc. 11417 Hansen Blvd. Coon Rapids, MN 55433 131. Lloyd Engelsma c/o United Mailing, Inc. 1001 Park Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 - 123. B. C. Burdick 426 Lake Street Excelsior, MN 55331 132. E. Jerome Carlson, et al 135. Prince R. Nelson _ c/o Instant Webb, Inc. c/o Moultree Accounting Corp. 7951 Powers Blvd. 4950 Wilshire Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Los Angeles, CA 90010 133. Frank Beddor Jr. & Marilyn 136. Richard S. Brose — c/o Victory Envelope 8575 Scandia Road 1000 Park Road Waconia, MN 55387 Chanhassen, MN 55317 134. West Village Townhouse Partners — 9979 Valleyview Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Carver County Abstract & Title Co. , Inc. LRP:nls This company does not assume any liability for the accuracy of this report. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 15, 1989 — Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 35 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Emmi.ngs, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli , Jim Wildermuth and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart — STAFF PRESENT: Steve Hanson , Planning Director .— Emmi.ngs moved, Batzli seconded to move the Organizational Items on the agenda to after the Approval of Minutes . All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: - WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE FILLING IN AND SODDING OF A WETLAND ON — PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 100 AND 80 SANDY HOOK ROAD, BOB PFANKUCH AND STEVE FROST, APPLICANTS . — Public Present: Name Address — Mr. and Mrs. Bob Pfankuck 100 Sandy Hook Road Mr . and Mrs . Steve Frost 80 Sandy Hook Road Cindy Gilman President, Lotus Lake Homeowners Assn . — Thomas Gilman 6613 Horseshoe Curve Lane Barbara Montgomery 7017 Dakota Avenue Susan Conrad 6625 Horseshoe Curve Lane Steve Hanson presented the staff report . — Conrad : Just one comment. Our wetland ordinance is more restrictive than the DNR' s and our wetland ordinance specifically talks about areas above the ordinary high water mark. Basically what staff is recommending in — this report is saying that the areas that are sanctioned by other governmental bodies will get some feedback. I 'm curious what we' re talking about in terms of the property that' s above the ordinary high water mark which our ordinance governs . Hanson: The area above the ordinary high water mark is. . .Fish and Wildlife talked about . Conrad: So in the red? Hanson : Yes . Conrad : And then in the blue? l • Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 2 • — Hanson: The blue is actually the edge of the shoreline. In the alternative, we looked at establishing. . . In talking with Fish and Wildlife, they thought that was probably going a little too far . _ Conrad: Okay, we will open it up for public comments . What I would like to do is have the applicants for the permit speak to us first . Either of the applicants in relation to the staff report or anything else, if you — would like. Mrs. Pfankuch: First of all , I 'm a little unclear about the recommendation. Is Is this . . .? Hanson: No . That' s just representative. In his memo, I believe he stated a size in the last paragraph that they should be 15 feet in length and come back inland 30 feet. Mrs. Pfankuch: And what is the blue line? — Hanson : That' s just delineating where the edge of the water is now. Mrs. Pfankuch: So they' re asking for a triangle between our property. One between our property and the Monroe' s property and one between our property and. . . Hanson: Right . Mrs. Pfankuch: Well , all of the information is in the file but what we — were attempting to do i.s get rid of the loosestrife. We called a contractor and he came down and started to do the excavating and the Village came and looked at it and told us to proceed. We certainly want — to cooperate with the DNR and whoever . We don ' t want to cause a problem. I guess we' re not totally convinced that loosestrife is less of a problem than that sod . We didn ' t have cattails. We had loosestrife totally. 7 feet tall . You couldn' t see anything but loosestrife. As far as wildlife, now now we' ve got geese living on the shore. In fact , they' re a nuisance. Our dock is slippery from the geese so as far as wildlife, they certainly like it better now. That isn' t to say that we we don' t want to — cooperate, we do but I guess we' re a little unclear about exactly what we' ll accomplish by tearing up however much we' re talking about here. Conrad: I think, and I don' t know if I can be a spokesperson for that -" because I haven' t seen the plan and I 'm not an expert in the area but we do have a wetland ordinance and we' ve been pretty restrictive on a lot of your neighbors . Having built boardwalks where they would like to put — docks. They had different opinions of what they'd like to do but we enforce the ordinance because the runoff , especially through your area is significant. With the wetland behind your house and Herb Bloomberg ' s wetland being destroyed , which is probably one of the best wetlands in town, that whole area is real susceptible to, the water quality is really going to take a major hit every time we destroy a little bit of wetland . But I don' t know that that' s an issue. It just happens that that — particular problem i.s in your area . But also , there is a lot of water that' s going into the lake and we, as a community, have been trying to Planning Commission Meeting February 15 , 1989 - Page 3 prevent that kind of runoff . Whether it be wetlands that are under our control or wetlands that are under DNR control or somebody elses . It' s been a city policy to be real stringent on what we do. Mrs. Pfankuch: And we don' t disagree with your having a policy. Certainly we don ' t want to cause a problem. The loosestrife , our understanding when we started the project , was that the loosestrife was a _ major problem. It certainly was a noxious thing on our shore. We had these big clumps of yuk and the tires would float in and stick in it and it was a real mess . It ' s hard for me to be convinced that loosestrife is better. You were talking about the wetlands , where? Behind our — property? You mean up where they' ve dug out the cattails and build the houses? Conrad : Yes . And the only reason that happened is because they got the permit to do that many, many years ago. They had a subdivision that superceded our ordinance. That ' s probably one of the best functioning wetlands in the city. It' s beautiful but it ' s being buried right now. It' s not your problem and it doesn ' t really, it may end up to be a little bit of your problem but that has nothing to do on this particular one. — Mrs . Pfankuch: We have the sewers also , and I 'm sure you ' re aware of that. We have two sewers on our property. One between ours and Frost' s property where the water runs down and then out a culvert. Now the loosestri.fe had totally filled that culvert . That was not draining into the lake. It was backing up and doing whatever because the loosestrife had clogged the opening of that outlet . That stuff, I don' t know what you know about it but that stuff is like, like from outerspace. It just takes — over. But we' re certainly not in disagreement with talking to the DNR and see what i.t is that they' re proposing . We don ' t want to be disagreeable here but we are concerned about the lake and certainly about ecology but that loosestri.fe is awful . • Conrad : Thanks for your comments . — Cindy Gilman: I live on Horseshoe Curve. I am currently the President of Lotus Lake Association. I guess a couple of the things that I was concerned about is that you said that the loosestrife is a problem and — that it needs to be handled . There are chemical treatments to handle the loosestrife so that the wetlands can become healthy again and help be restored instead of clearcutting and filling in and then there would be no chance of any type of a natural filter to help the lake along there. I also question, I guess the way it was done . The contractor that did it , I assume most contractors know that there are laws that they have to follow. I had someone come in to look at part of my lakeshore to help redo i.t — because it was falling apart and most contractors are aware that they need to clear things through the DNR. That there are things that are properly done and things that are not properly done on a lakeshore. Anyway, so I question the contractor . The contractor that filled it in. I guess i.t bothers me that it was gone ahead and done and then after the fact , they are looking to get the permit now instead of before. It seems that there was an awareness there. There was an awareness of the purple loosestrife and you knew that was a problem and why you didn ' t seek help or talk to Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 4 counsel or talk to people to find out what you could do about the loosestrife and what was legal and what was not. I guess that ' s it . Thank you. Thomas Gilman : I 'm also from Horseshoe Curve and I guess my problem with this is that this has been done previously where people have come i.n. They' ve altered their land . I don' t think these people just fell off a — cabbage truck and I think that they know that you need a permit for this type of thing . I think that they decided to step ahead of the law. Have the work done figuring it would be easier to come and get a permit — afterwards . I think they should be required to return it to it ' s natural condition and then once that' s done, then come i.n and make this presentation because this is an afterfact . I don ' t think that the lake was taken into consideration. I think that the loosestrife is being used as kind of a scapegoat. Conrad : Two quick comments . What are the contractor ' s responsibilities — Steve when they start excavating around a lake? What do they have to do? Do they need a building permit? Wildermuth : Do we require an excavating permit of dirt contractors? Hanson: Yes . Wildermuth : So he didn ' t come in and apply for one? Hanson: I found an excavating permit i.n the file. I don' t know the .— history behind when it was done. It could have been done after they had started but I 'm not sure if that' s true or not. Conrad : Would you make sure that City Council knows whether it was true or not by the time this gets to them. Wildermuth: It sounds like the contractor ought to be. . . — Conrad: I think so. The applicant made some comment about staff giving the permission to go ahead and maybe that was the permit but I 'm curious — about staff saying go ahead. Mrs. Pfankuch: Do you have a copy of the permit? A copy was sent to you. Hanson: I think it ' s the last page in your packet . Wildermuth: The question is, did that predate the work or postdate it? The actual work. Mrs . Pfankuch : It did not postdate. . . Conrad: Steve, can I assume that when it says paid , 23918 that that means we gave, the applicant gave money which basically says we gave permission? Is that what it takes? — Planning Commission Meeting February 15 , 1989 - Page 5 Hanson: Well , that ' s where I 'm a little confused because normally on a - permit there' s someone who has signed off on it. I 've only got his front sheet and I don ' t know if there' s something signed on the back sheet or not. Conrad : I think by the time this goes to City Council , you should know a little bit more and maybe Mr. Ashworth can fill us in a little bit on that . Any other comments? Barbara Montgomery: My name is Barbara Montgomery and I live on Dakota Avenue about a block above where this development is. I guess I would - just like to say, I ' ve lived there a very long time. My husband and I moved in in 1960 and I feel very protective of the area. Very protective of the lake. I loved it dearly and I 've watched and watched and watched as all of the growth has taken place. Somehow I just have the feeling that perhaps some of the people who are moving in are not enough aware of the importance of keeping the lake clean and what' s going to happen. Who wants to live around a dead lake full of dead fish? It does — happen . It ' s happening to lots of the lakes . I 'd just like to make a plea maybe for more public understanding. Maybe for more respect. Maybe for tougher policing of the ordinance. I guess that ' s all I have to say but I really feel very strongly about the area and I think maybe that all of you do or you wouldn' t be out here. Headla moved, Batzliseconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . — Headla: Mrs. Pfankuch, you indicated that the, I don' t know what your exact words were. You got the go ahead from the Village. What exactly were you referring to? You got the go ahead from the Village. Mrs . Pfankuch: It ' s in the permit . Have you seen the permit? May I show you the permit? - Headla : I 'm not sure if I 'm looking at the same thing you are. Mrs. Pfankuch: Our contractor, they stopped the work and they came down — and looked at it and they issued this permit . My understanding is that the permit. _ Headla : Okay, it ' s the same thing . So you interpretted that as the go ahead? Mrs. Pfankuch: Yes . They didn ' t say stop. Headla: You indicated here the reason you were doing it is to improve lot to lake. I see no mention on loosestrife at all but yet that tends to be the dominant reason now. Mrs. Pfankuch: It' s always been the reason. - Headla: I didn' t see it on the application. Planning Commission Meeting February 15 , 1989 - Page 6 Mrs . Pfankuch : I didn' t do the application so I don ' t know but we had an early letter, in fact I think it predates that application, discussing the _ loosestrife . I don' t know about the chronology. I ' ve got some other information here. Headla : That ' s fine. I guess I look at this the same way I started out — the first of the year. I think we should not go for a lot of conditions on a permit . I think we ' re loading down the staff . I see no reason why this even came before us until those 3 conditions that the staff — recommended to approve, I see no reason at all why those conditions shouldn ' t be met before the Planning Commission even sees that. At the best, I think we ought to table it until they do get approval . I don ' t _ know what the DNR is going to approve. Our conditions are a little more restrictive and I 'd like to see that before I 'd even consider approving this . That ' s all I have. Wildermuth: I 'm trying to find what our ordinance is . It should be under the boats and waterways section right? Hanson : It ' s under the wetlands section. Wildermuth: I see it. How and in what manner are we more restrictive than the DNR in terms of. . . structure? — Hanson : I guess I 'm not necessarily sure that we' re more restrictive. I think we have a more detailed review and we require them to do a wetland — alteration permit and when you do that , that ' s when you have the flexibility to allow what kind of alteration you do. Normally I think in this situation , if they had come in, I doubt you would have looked at an alteration other than allowing them to have a boardwalk out to the dock. I think that would be your normal approach to this situation, if it was undisturbed. Wildermuth : If that ' s the case, if that were the approach that we would have taken initially, where a wetland alteration permit would not really have been an issue, or according to the ordinance structure would have — recommended a boardwalk, I think that their shoreline should be restored to it' s original state and if a boardwalk is desired by the property owners, then I think that would be appropriate. I 'm surprised that Paul _ Burke in his original letter where he used some fairly strong language saying that the wetland alteration permit should definitely not be granted , would come back and make what appears to be a relatively token requirement of these 15 by 30 triangles . Right across from that property was the Dolce property or adjacent to that and we. . . Conrad : We didn' t let them do anything . Wildermuth : The Planning Commission did not allow anything to be done there. The City Council did not allow anything to be done there. I think if we go along with Paul ' s latest recommendation, we send a message to — Lakeshore owners that they can perform this work. They can alter the wetland and come in for a permit after the fact and it ' s alright . I Planning Commission Meeting February 15 , 1989 - Page 7 further think that it ought to be very difficult for this contractor to - get an excavating permit in the City of Chanhassen i.n the future. That' s all I have. Batzli : I guess I 'd like to feel the way Jim does to some extent. I look at that permit that was issued, which we don' t really have all the facts on it but if I was a landowner and my contractor went and brought me back a permit like that, I 'd go ahead and do it. For us to say now, that - well you shouldn' t have done it and we don ' t know under what circumstances we issued a permit, I think is a little bit critical on our part so I guess I 'm not in a position to say they should or shouldn' t have been - able to do it and I 'm not going to cast stones at this point because I think to some extent they may have depended on that permit and I 'm not going to, I think there' s been kind of some allegations that they acted i.n bad faith and I 'm not willing to take that step right now. Wildermuth: But there' s no indication the permit was granted. You pay the fee when you file the permit . From this we can ' t tell anything . Batzli : I know and I can' t tell anything and that ' s why I 'm trying not to cast stones one way or another . But what I guess I 'd like to see happen is I would prefer at this point, without knowing additional facts, we' re making a judgment when we' re i.n a position where we don ' t know all the facts. I assume that we ' ve got these triangles here because there' s culverts running between the property lines? Or no? Where are the culverts located? Bob Pfankuch: Not in all cases . Mrs. Pfankuch : There' s one culvert between our property and the Frosts . Batzli : Okay. I would assume that this report was generated on where the main runoff occurs between the properties and I 'd like to think that Burke is the expert and I 'd be, at this point, without knowing other facts, say go ahead and do it his way. Conrad : Did the same contractor do the work on Colonial Grove? Hanson: I assume so. I don' t know that for a fact . Wildermuth : I don' t think so . Al Smith wasthe contractor on the Colonial Grove job. Hanson : On the entire subdivision , is that what you' re talking about? — Conrad: No. That' s sort of before your time. I shouldn' t have addressed it to you. Wildermuth : This one looks like Harlan Johnson. Something Johnson. Conrad: Didn' t we have some problems with Colonial Grove dumping, well , that ' s another story. Planning Commission Meeting February 15 , 1989 - Page 8 Ellson : I don ' t have a whole lot new from what these gentlemen said. I 'm pretty much in agreement. I 'm surprised that this compromise is what' s being offered by Mr . Burke , to tell you the truth. I would want it to be, _ go back to where it' s supposed to be. I think it does again send a bad signal to people. If we put in laws to protect these things , the wildlife and you want the nests to grow there and things like that and this can happen as easily as this did , it really disturbs me. Barbara ' s letter is dated on the 29th of June and there was a reply and yet the application for this alteration permit isn ' t done until January. I don' t know about that. I don' t know why it wasn ' t filed. If Barbara went on this and — there was conversation, I think they' re almost forced to the point of making this come to a head and they were trying to avoid it as much as possible rather than facing i.t head on by letting them wait this long . I would see going back and putting the 50 feet back to where it is. I don' t even like the compromise of these little triangles . I don' t think that ' s fair to the lake or fair to all the people that we have told you can not do this in the past . Except you guys because you already did i.t and — I realize that. I don' t think that ' s fair to anybody else and to what we' re trying to preserve with these lakes . Emmings: I would like to know from the Pfankuchs and the Frosts whether or not they knew prior to doing any of this work that there may be DNR and City or Fish and Wildlife regulations that would affect what you want to do with your property? We haven ' t heard you say whether you knew. . . — Bob Pfankuch: Can I comment again? Can I say something in addition to that? You' ve discussed a whole lot of things that some of the answers are — available to you that were not presented on open discussion prior to. I think this needs to be a give and take session. It ' s not like we present our case and you guys talk about a lot of things and sometimes in ignorance because they haven ' t been discussed . It ' s how much do you present them with in this case? Number one, the contractor, Harlan Johnson. Harlan was recommended to me because he does work on Lake Minnetonka. On the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka and works in the — communities i.n Lake Minnetonka taking care of weeds, racking the lakeshore so I assume that he knows something about taking care of lakes . I am not a lawyer. I am not an expert i.n the DNR or wetlands or on the city — ordinances. I am a property owner . I have a responsibility. I thought I exercised that by hiring a contractor that does work on Lake Minnetonka which is supposedly the great lake of Minnesota , or at least for the Twin Cities. I hired Harlan Johnson. He came down and estimated the work. He talked to my neighbor Steve. We agreed on a price . Said, do you know what you' re doing? You work on Lake Minnetonka , you must? Yes, no problem. I hate to say that ' s ignorance and I 'm still responsible and I agree with that. I still am and he' s only my agent but it' s not like you have to go to the legislature to do a little work on your lot is what I 'm thinking. He' s the expert. I hired the expert, although still _ responsible. Harlan proceeds with the work. Somebody comes down and stops them. He goes down to the City Hall . Comes back that same day and said it' s okay. I was working without a permit or whatever . The permit ' s been granted and I ' ve been allowed to proceed and complete the work. And — we can argue about how much was started and how much was left but it ' s a very clear point i.n fact, according to Harlan Johnson and according to the Planning Commission Meeting February 15 , 1989 - Page 9 documents , that the City allowed the work to proceed . Now I had talked to - Barb Dacy shortly after I moved into this property. Granted, I 'm not a 20 year old landowner who has seen this grow from an urban , wonderful green reserve lake into an urban recreational lake. That' s another argument. You may be a protectionists and you may think that we need to grow. I hate to bring that in but it is a fact of life. Now there are several other facts having to do with this . The sewer which runs , and it ' s a sewer by the way, which runs down between my property and the Frosts , - carries all of the garbage out of the city street directly into the lake. Tin cans , pop bottles, you name it. Several unmentionables flow into the lake until they' re impeded by the weeds and they build up and eventually - shoves this whole nasty garbage out onto the lake. The fact that there' s 50 feet of almost impassable weeds makes it impossible to police and clean this wonderful Lotus Lake lakeshore. Of the trash that ' s left by the ice fishermen , meaning the bottoms of fish houses frozen into the ice and can' t be removed, which I personally removed this year after I had access to them. And the tin cans and the pop bottles and the tires and all the garbage because I 'm on the bad side of the lake which i.s where the wind - blows so I get all the garbage. If I don ' t have access to that , I can hardly be expected to clean it although I was in up to my hips in the muck, this wonderful wetland , estolic soil or whatever it ' s called by the - DNR. Carrying all of this garbage sitting on the lakeshore. I mean it' s really a beautiful site. You ought to come down and see it. In fact , what I recommend is that you table this whole discussion until next August and I 'd invite you all down on a Saturday to look at the lakeshore, that • which has been improved by Frost and Pfankuch and that which has not been improved and you can decide what is the best thing for Lotus Lake. I 've got to believe that you would be in our favor. I do an awful lot of work — on that lakeshore. As far as wetlands are concerned , right now in this drought condition which may exist for another 50 years , there is now 50 feet of wetland out beyond the end of my 35 foot dock which in 3 weeks time takes loosestrife from seed to bloom and more seed. You just can' t imagine what that' s like. It ' s totally destroyed . There was an article published in the Chanhassen Villager which talked about loosestrife in great detail , published last August and I brought copies along and — highlighted the issues. It totally destroys the area for wildlife. The issue about wildlife is bunk. If you have loosestrife, you don' t have wildlife. I have personally picked up one of those clumps . I swear to god it weighed 150 pounds. This big nasty, mucky, floating mess on the shoreline and you just about can' t destroy it . I put so little sod in , the City Planner said about a foot, if you look at the plot , I think that the elevation i.s 6 inches . It' s a half a foot over what the ordinary high water level is at the finish cobble wall , as it ' s called . The rock wall that I put in. I believe that if the lake comes back to it' s natural level so it'd be at the top of the wall which will prevent the loosestrife — from growing. The loosestrife grows right at the edge of the water and then it proceeds from there in both directions , is a totally unmatchable plan . It has been declared a noxious weed . The property owners are responsible for it' s removal and the only removal is a totally nonselective chemical called Rodeo which has to be sprayed on the plants . That means it kills all of the growing things. All. According to the DNR, Hollandhorst , whoever he is , I believe it was from the DNR, once you — do that, the next year, the only thing that grows on this valuable wetland Planning Commission Meeting February 15 , 1989 - Page 10 is loosestrife . That ' s the only thing that comes back. Would you like to pour Rodeo into Lotus Lake? Because the weed grows in the water , not in the dirt . That' s the suggestion to take care of loosestrife. It is a _ noxious weed and it is the responsibility of property owners to remove it . In fact , the State has offered funds to help the property owners remove it. We didn' t ask for that. We didn' t throw in 6 feet of fill like was done in cattail swamp on TH 101 . I put in 6 inches of dirt only to level — it. That was the only purpose of the fill was to level it so it could be sodded so it could be managed . Yet , the pictures , the colored pictures that were presented, shows that the loosestrife is continuing to grow up _ through the sod . I mean I didn' t bury it to the point where I killed it . I thought I did or I thought I would but at least I can mow it and keep it down. This stuff grows to 7 feet . If anybody' s been out to the Old Log Theater and looked around the grounds out there, you can see that that property has literally been taken over and destroyed by purple loosestrife. That is a very real hazard. It' s a hazard to Lotus Lake. It doesn ' t do anything to the wildlife , the property owners , the lake users and it prevents me from cleaning up the garbage that rolls down the storm sewer from the street. Dead animals. I mean you name it, it ' s there. If you think that it ' s great for Lotus Lake, God help all of us . End of discussion. Any other questions? Conrad: Did that answer your question? Emmi.ngs : No . My question was whether or not you were aware before you hired this contractor to do work there that the work you were proposing to do might be subject to DNR regulations, City regulations or regulation by any other governmental entity? Bob Pfankuch : Steve, I started out by saying that I 'm not an attorney. _ I 'm not familiar with the DNR. I 'm not familiar with Chanhassen' s regulations regarding wetlands . I hired a contractor who does work on the lake. •Does work on Lake Minnetonka and on Lotus Lake a fair amount. He probably never will again after this and with or without cause, that ' s for — you to decide. The point is, I hired a lakeshore contractor who does a lot of work for governments around Lake Minnetonka . The natural assumption is that this person knows what he' s doing. If you need a _ permit , if you need a wetlands alteration permit , a building permit, I mean when you hire a contractor you expect that person to be able to do those things. That ' s a normal expectation and I carry the responsibility. I accept that but, isn' t that normal to expect that? Emmi.ngs : I guess it just doesn' t answer my question. Bob Pfankuch: The question is no, I was not aware that anything was required on Lotus Lake but I was aware that if it were required, it would be recognized by a contractor who does work on a lake in Minnesota in the Twin Cities area , Lake Minnetonka . Emmings: Is that true for the Frosts as well . That you were not aware that this would be regulated by any government at the time? Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 11 Steve Frost : The contractor came down and he got a permit and I assumed that everything was okay. He got the permit. That was our understanding . Emmings: So again , then you' re telling us too that prior to the time the - work was begun, and I 'm not talking about the time of the permit. Prior to the time the work was begun, you were not aware that there were any governmental entity that might be regulating what it was you were going to do to your shoreline there? Mrs. Pfankuch : We came and talked to Barbara before. I don' t know, a year before and we said we' ve got this loosestrife all over the shore. — What can we do? And she said, well we' re not sure what to do about it. That' s what she said. She said, we' re not sure what to do with it. If you can get rid of it, get rid of it . That ' s what she told us exactly. We didn' t do anything until later when we decided to call Harlan because we didn' t know what to do. She certainly didn ' t say to us , you dasten touch the loosestrife because it has all these valuable properties and I resent the implications that we' re trying to do something underhanded . - We' re concerned about ecology also. Bob Pfankuch : I ' ll do nothing to the lakeshore, and you come down in — August and look at it. You' re going to not be happy. It' s like a cesspool . Mrs . Pfankuch : It was just full of junk. Emmings: Mr. Frost didn' t answer my question. — Steve Frost : I left it with the contractor to do what he knew he needed to do to get permits and anything that he had to do, that' s your job. I 'm hiring you to do that. Emmings: And did you say that to him before he started his work? That if there were any necessary permits, he' ll get them or did you just assume he' d take care of it? Was it discussed at all with him? Steve Frost: . . .he would do that. That was part of his job. When I hired him, he' s supposed to do that . Emmings: Did you get an estimate from him? Steve Frost : Yes . Emmings: Was it written? — Steve Frost : I think it was yes . Emmings: Were there any items on there for permits or anything like — that? Steve Frost : All he gave us was a total of the job I think. Planning Commission Meeting February 15 , 1989 - Page 12 Emmings : The application for the excavating permit , I don ' t know, do you get an excavating permit when you fill something in as opposed to removing? Hanson : Yes , you would . In both cases . Emmings: The excavating permit is real vague. It ' s hard to know what they' re going to do but I think there was a screw-up in our , it looks to me like there was a screw-up in whoever might have issued this excavating permit because it clearly included a wetland . There should have been a — wetland alteration permit which can only come from the City Council . Something got screwed up here. Who knows what but maybe you can find out more about it between now and the City Council , like Ladd suggested. The _ other thing , I wondered why we' ve got another property involved here . This Colonial Grove property and their property is affected by this plan of Fish and Wildlife to do some restoration here too but they' re not in front of us for a perm-it. AIM* Hanson : I became aware of that officially when Paul and I went down and looked at the property to see that that area had been altered too. I — assume that i.t was done at the same time but I don ' t know that it was or not. Bob Pfankuch : It was . — Emmings: It was all done at the same time by the same contractor? Bob Pfankuch: Yes. And it was mentioned in one of the complaints from the City in an earlier letter and then subsequently dropped for no stated reason other than the fact that probably 150 people belong to that Association . .1.101 Emmings: Just comment wise , first of all , I have no doubt that the Pfankuchs and the Frosts did something that they thought was an — improvement to their property and they don' t have any desire to hurt the lake. I 'm not even remotely suspicious of their motivation but the problem we have with doing nothing here is that i.t makes it, like Jim said, it becomes the smart thing to do to be dumb. To be unaware of regulations that are there to protect the lake . If I go out and do the work, I get my hand slapped and maybe I have to sit and listen to people talk nasty about me but I wind up basically with what I wanted . Whereas •••••• if I go and apply to the City for a permit to do the same work, I 'm going to be denied . So that really puts a premium on being a cowboy and that sure is not what we want to see. On the other hand, I don' t think it will — serve any purpose at all to punish these folks by making them return that 50 feet to what it was if the people who are supposed to understand this thing from a technical point of view, like Burke, think that something can ._ be done to get some value to the wetland back there such as this plan. Whether this is a reasonable plan or not , I have no way of knowing but I would trust that he does so I guess I 'd be inclined to go along with the staff recommendation as a way to get the matter resolved . And I guess I 'd — say to the Frosts and the Pfankuchs too, that we really see a lot more of this than we want to . We' re constantly seeing people coming in here Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 13 asking for wetland alteration permits after they've altered the wetlands — and it' s real irritating to us. You ' re presumed to know what city ordinances are and Mr . Pfankuch is absolutely right when he say it ' s his responsibility. It is. So I guess I 'd go along with the staff - recommendation but the only change that I 'd make is on number 3. If this is approved, that the applicants provide a schedule and I 'd just insert the words , acceptable to the City Staff , for completing restoration. Just so the schedule is a reasonable one. I guess I think that whatever DNR, the hoops that DNR and Fish and Wildlife make them jump through I guess would be punishment, if that 's what it is , enough as far as I 'm concerned . That ' s all I have. Wildermuth: Just for a point of clarification. Did we actually issue a wetland, or I mean did we actually issue the excavating permit to this contractor? Hanson : That' s where I 'm unclear whether it was or not . The only documentation I ' ve come across is what was in the packet . Wildermuth : Mr . Pfankuch said that the contractor came back and said that everything ' s alright. He applied , made the application. Mrs . Pfankuch : They came down with the contractor and looked at the property. The City did. They were down there walking around with Harlan Johnson. Now we assumed that if they came down and they gave him this permit, we had no reason to believe that . . . Wildermuth : It sounds like we' ve got an internal problem. Headla: We don' t know what the story is . Wildermuth : I 'm surprised that this excavating contractor with his experience and working in wetlands and Minnesota , wouldn' t know that he had to come in for a permit up front . But even after he did come in for the permit, if he did get a permit , an approved permit , apparently the — City didn' t raise any objection. Emmings : He may be savy enough to know that it does pay to be a cowboy. Headla: There are very successful men in our company who' s motto was, you' re better off going ahead and do what you want to do and get it done, beg forgiveness and get your hand slapped than get prior approval . Boy, he got a lot of stuff done. I see the same thing here. Emmings: I ' ve given that as advice to clients because it does work. I — don ' t know what you do as a City to stop it but hers we had the perfect opportunity to stop it. We discovered it was going on and stopped it and then let it continue . That ' s our fault . That ' s the City' s fault , it — seems to me. Mrs . Pfankuch: We heard a lot of talk about wetlands after the fact also. We didn ' t even know this was a wetland . We tried to mow it. We'd go down there, it wasn' t a swamp. It was just clumps of loosestrife growing. Now Planning Commission Meeting February 15 , 1989 - Page 14 we realize it ' s an exotic wetland but . . . Conrad: I hate to be an educater and I don' t like doing that in this _ situation but I think the things that you see being a litter in the lake are minor compared to what a wetland does. Again, I 'm not going to bore you with details here but a wetland is really taking the chemicals out of the stuff running into the lake. The tires and some of the stuff that you — see, that ' s fine and it ' s disgusting and we agree. Bob Pfankuch: How about the Rodeo sprayed into the lake? — Conrad : Rodeo would not be acceptable in my mind but purple loosestrife is better than destroying all kinds of filtration. Grass is not a filtration system. It doesn ' t do the job. Wetlands , the thing with purple loosestrife is it chokes out the cattails and now the cattails don ' t have a chance to grow. So if you showed me how you are restoring it so the cattails could grow, I could understand it but you haven' t done it. The grass is not a filtration . Mrs. Pfankuch: I don' t know if that can be. _ Conrad : I don ' t know that it can be done either but what you ' re telling me is not a solution to the problem. Bob Pfankuch : You need to come down and look at it. Conrad: I see it fairly frequently and I 'd be happy to. Again, I 'm not trying to be an educater , well I am. I am. Susan Conrad: I just want to make a comment about the education. I don' t know how long you' ve lived on Lotus Lake but every year , at least once a year, a newsletter goes to every homeowner on the lake educating about the value of wetlands. Also, in the newspaper , the Lotus Lake Association has published articles about wetland value and about the control purple — loosestrife and the value of loosestrife so we have not only, as an Association, sent out letters but we have held meetings and talked and educated and we have done that for at least 5 years . So not being aware of wetlands and not having them identified, unless you just moved onto the lake. Wetland identification has been available to all of us and sent to all of us on Lotus Lake and all of the city but the Lotus Lake Homeowners _ Association has gotten that information to their homeowners . And as far , I have just one more point, as far as the DNR recommending taking the wetland back to it' s original state . My experience, which most of you know has been years with the DNR, has been that their jurisdiction ends at the high water mark so they will not even venture to recommend anything beyond that. I would ask the Planning Commission to invite the Corps of Engineers in to tell you what the value is beyond that because they are _ the only agency I ' ve run across that can give you a total picture and doesn ' t get hung up in jurisdictions . They do have a jurisdiction ending but they are a recommending body rather than permitting in many cases . Fish and Wildlife does that even better so they can tell you the whole picture and I 'm sure that' s why the DNR is saying to renovate a portion of it . They can only talk to the portion that they' re responsible for . • Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 15 — Conrad : I want to make a few comments without being redundant for other comments. One, it looks like there was an internal problem and I really would like, I really do need staff to tell us what happened . The comments - from the applicants are valid. If we don' t catch it , if our staff doesn' t look at the documents , these are charted wetlands . It ' s not that they' re not charted. They are so it looks like we screwed up and I need staff to review that . And staff to review it to tell us how they' re going to prevent that. I just doesn' t make sense to me. Secondly, I 'm not sure whether the applicants knew what they were doing or not and I 'm real concerned with the contractor and I guess we should, I 'd also like to have — staff tell us what they would recommend that we do to the contractor who was doing this. Anybody who is in the area knows that Chanhassen is a tough ordinance , period . And we do that for a purpose because we have a lot of lakes and we have a lot of runoff and a lot of building . Contractors should know so I guess Steve, I 'd like to have staff review to us what we should do w-ith a contractor' s that more than likely knows what he' s doing . Third , I agree. I don' t think we need to restore the wetland — totally. We can probably do with what Mr. Burke is recommending here and get some value out of it and I would hope that we could agree. I think my biggest concern is we really have been strict with your neighbors and your — neighbors care. They care a whole lot. I think we don' t want to set an example, for whatever reasons , we just don' t want to set an example that it can be done. We want to set an example that people still care about _ this and I think you do. I guess I ' ll take Mr . Burke' s recommendation as being valid and acceptable. On the other hand, I 'm not convinced Steve that we' ve really looked at it from our ordinance standpoint . Again , it ' s an easy way of looking at this thing and saying, well , this other agency — who controls everything above the high water mark says this but I want you to be real confident that our ordinance, that we haven' t set an example for another situation. If this is fine , this takes care of the problem, I 'm okay with that. If what Mr . Burke says is going to filter the runoff that' s coming down between the houses and get the maximum value , that' s okay with me but I want staff to tall us and if you need help from the Corps of Engineers or whoever , I think we' ll ask them that. The question — in my mind is whether we issue the permit. I 'm really hung up and the really philosophic thing is that a wetland alteration permit which has been already, the wetland' s been filled in. We issue a permit to restore — it. I don' t know. I don' t know how to deal with that one. Those are my comments . I 'd take a motion from somebody. Emmings: I'm going to move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-13 subject to the conditions that are set forth in the staff report with the addition that I mentioned in number 3 where the applicants provide a schedule acceptable to the City — Staff for completing restoration. Batzli : I ' ll second it. What do we do with Colonial Grove? Conrad : That' s another comment . I think they should be in here. Emmings: Well, we' ve got people here who' ve made an application. I think that ' s not part of this . I time somehow we' ve got to tell them they' ve Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 16 - got to come in and apply for a wetland alteration permit too . Thomas Gilman: And they can get their hand slapped too. Emmings: Well , yes . I guess it ' s not my job to beat people up when they screw up. Especially when the City seems to have screwed up at the same time. — Conrad : I think it is a separate issue but I think we do want to . Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #88-13 subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to City Council consideration , the applicants agree to mitigation plans and requirements of Minnesota Department of Natural — Resources and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2. Applicants receive permits from Minnesota DNR. 3. Applicants provide a schedule acceptable to the City Staff for completing restoration. Emmings , Wildermuth and Batzli voted in favor of the motion . Ellson, Headla, and Conrad voted in opposition to the motion and the motion failed with a tie vote of 3 to 3. — Ellson: I move the Planning Commission recommend denial of the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-13 . Batzli : I ' ll second it for discussion purposes. What good is that going to do? — Wildermuth: That' s just the converse of what we just voted on. Ellson: I want it to go forward to the City Council with something but I want them to hash out the details. Like you said, it will be on record that they got the okay to do it. I don' t want that to be there. Conrad : But the main reason I voted against Steve' s motion is because he talked about, we' re really reacting to what the DNR said and I don' t know that we' re reacting to what our ordinance says . — Wildermuth: Our ordinance, I wasn' t too proud of our ordinance when I just read it . Emmings: My comment there Ladd would be. Our ordinance tells us what to do when somebody comes in and applies for the permit prior to doing the work. We got a problem with our ordinance maybe when people come in and — say, I ' ve already done the work and now I 'm here to get the permit. Maybe there should be a provision in there. I 'm not even clear why they applied Planning Commission Meeting February 15 , 1989 - Page 17 for a permit. Conrad : Because the staff has been asking them to . - Emmings: But what if they just said, no, thank you? Conrad : Then we'd have to legally take care of that . Emmings: That got them in front of us . Their application got them in front of us and then I guess , I don ' t know. I don' t think our ordinance tells us , gives us much guidance in this case. Conrad : It doesn' t. Headla : Does the ordinance give you any guidance if they don ' t follow it? Or the best we could help for is that, I think Jim pointed out that you judge it from how would you treat other people if they came in with the permit? IF it' s a boardwalk, the worse scenario for these people would be — then that they'd have to go back to that and I don ' t believe in penalizing them like that. But to me that would be one way that does it . - Emmings: I suppose the other thing you can do here too, if you want to send a real clear message, the City Council I guess could ask, what they have done there may well be a criminal offense under the ordinance and they could ask the City Attorney to review it for prosecution. That would IMMP certainly get people' s attention. But again , that' s not our function here. — Conrad : We should be doing what is best , what the ordinance intends and that doesn' t set a precedent for future situations . That' s what I want to accomplish . Emmings: I agree and it seems to me, if they come in and they' ve got a wetland there and they say we want to modify it, then we look at our ordinance and we say no , because we' ve done that before right next to — them. We say, no you can' t do that . You ' re going to just have to live with your loosestrife and put out a boardwalk and that' s that . - Wildermuth: But the contractor came in and got a permit approved . Ellson: But it wasn ' t signed . Wildermuth: But if you read this letter from Barbara real carefully, towards the back of your packet. Read this letter from Barbara real carefully. Your contractor , Mr . Johnson , promptly complied with our — requests to submit plans and the needed information for issuance of a grading permit. It implies that the grading permit was granted because she goes on to say, however , it has come to our attention that the area in _ which you conducted the grading may have contained wetland vegetation . So apparently, when whoever it was from the City went down there with the contractor to look at this thing , somebody from the City agreed to the permit. The implication is that the permit was granted and Mr. Pfankuch said that he had a permit. So you can ' t fault the property owner . Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 18 Emmings : We' ve got a wetland , we want to alter it . We say no . I think they' re coming in at a point where, what ' s there? They' ve got an altered wetland . They' ve removed the wetland or destroyed it and we' ve got to — say, what are we going to do now? Given that as the baseline, it all depends on what you want to pick as a baseline. They' re coming in and saying, here' s what we' ve got now and we' ve got a plan here, again, I have no way of judging it' s efficacy as restoring wherever the properties are , — the wetland you want to keep, but at least there' s somebody here who says that this will do the job to get it back to at least some sort of reasonable . . . — Wildermuth: There' s no question in my mind how I 'd vote if somebody were coming in for a permit and no work had been done. No question at all . But I think there' s an event here that took place that it ' s not a black and white issue. Emmings : And I think we' ve got dirty hands. — Batzli : Well I 'm glad the two people that voted for the motion are in agreement now. Emmings: You voted for it too. Batzli : Yes, but I already agreed with you two. — Wildermuth: Yes , but I didn ' t agree with you to begin with . Conrad: Dave, your disagreement stems from what? How is somebody going to swing your vote? Headla : I don ' t believe that it should be denied . I really believe it should be tabled until we find out what in the world did we really tell these people . I think staff can tell us . I want to see what the DNR has to say. I have no idea what they' re going to say or the other appropriate — parties. Then I think the people ought to be able to look at that and then whatever is recommended, then come in with a schedule. Then we can act on it. We' ve got something documented . Until that, I don' t think we — ought to touch it . Conrad : This is under discussion of a motion for denial right? Okay. _ That' s not bad Dave. If we don' t know. We can vote on it, we can kill it or she can withdraw it if she so chooses but I think you' re absolutely right. We don' t know what staff did. Steve hasn' t done a good job of researching the staff on this one and I think even whether , he can do it — for City Council or he can do it for us. We might as well hear what it is . We' ve got the ordinance and we can help that ordinance. We can help improve it if we understand how it doesn' t get enforced. It' s probably good that he bring back a scenario of how this happened . But I also think I 'd like, other comments that you said. I 'd like staff, things that come in at the last second just bothers me. Staff hasn ' t reviewed this and reviewed it to see how our ordinance pertains, which is my problem. My biggest problem. It' s coming in today and staff hasn ' t told me how our ordinance gets impacted by the recommendation so I guess there' s some Planning Commission Meeting February 15 , 1989 - Page 19 validity for tabling it other than the fact that we have to bring it back in. That' s a real pain. I hate to do that to anybody but . . . Bob Pfankuch : I asked for you to table it for 6 months . Conrad : Well , 6 months of water going in, if it' s bad water, is probably not worth the risk but I think. . . — Bob Pfankuch: . . .water that goes into that lake? Conrad : A whole bunch of bad water goes into the lake and we probably - spend more of our lives up here looking at the bad water than we care to think about . Bob Pfankuch : May I ask that the City sewer from the street be removed? Not be allowed to drain into it. Wildermuth: I guess if it ' s any comfort, in a new subdivision that wouldn' t happen because there would have to be some kind of a ponding area but I don ' t think you want a ponding area in your backyard before it goes into the lake do you? Batzli : I think the City might want to look into a catch basin or a screen or some sort of trap if that' s in fact what' s draining into the lake at that point from a storm sewer . Conrad: Where is all the Colonial Grove, being that that wetland i.s being used up by a contractor , where i.s that water going Steve? Is it coming — between? Hanson : I have no idea . Conrad :. Can you find that out because that just fascinates me. Most of that' s coming in from Eden Prairie. Most of that water is coming from under TH 101 going into the wetland . I 'm just real curious if it' s going — to the subdivision to the north . Wildermuth: It' s going into all the basements around it. Conrad: But anyway, Annette, you ' ve got a motion. Ellson: I withdraw the motion. Conrad: Do you want to or we can vote on it? — Ellson : No , I 'd rather withdraw it and Dave, why don' t you do yours . Conrad: Do you want to withdraw your second Brian? Batzli : Sure. Headla : I would like to make a motion that we table this . I 'd like to get better definition of what direction the Village really gave these Planning Commission Meeting February 15 , 1989 - Page 20 people . If we really gave them the wrong direction, I think we' ve got to look at it a lot different and maybe the City has to suffer the consequence . I 'd like to understand , see what the DNR i.s going to _ recommend and then have our applicans look at it and submit some type of schedule and I think at that time the Colonial Grove people should be part of this. Wildermuth : Second . Headla moved , Wildermuth seconded to table action on Wetland Alteration Permit #88-13 so staff can research what happened at the City level . To find out what DNR is going to recommend and then that the applicants _ submit a schedule, which the Colonial Grove people should be included with . All voted in favor of the motion to table and the motion carried . Conrad: Steve, when do you think this will come back? Any idea? A couple of weeks? Hanson : I doubt it. I don ' t believe I ' ll have a response from DNR in that period of time first of all. Secondly, I 'm not sure what type of problems I 'm run into trying to research it because I think I 'm going to have to do some of that by phone calls with previous staff because I don' t -' believe there ' s anything in the file. REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR PARKING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS, ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED JUST EAST OF 480 WEST 78TH STREET, CHANHASSEN PROFESSIONAL BUIDLING - PHASE I, ARVID ELNESS ARCHITECTS , INC. Steve Hanson presented the staff report . Conrad: Brad, what do you think? Brad Johnson : We' ve given them some modifications that are minor , from _ our point of view. You' ve got to remember , this is being designed by the City for us . That ' s why he does the presentation. Conrad: You can be critical now. Brad Johnson : I think it will work fine. He' s gotten our comments. It looks like most of them have been put in there. Like I said, it' s pretty — close to what we were requiring . In fact , the traffic guys have to look at it. . . You should note that we have taken 15 feet off the back of the south side of the apartment building and put it into the parking lot. That has been done as part of your previous approval of the site plan for the apartment building . That' s why this original sidewalk had wound around here. It was getting too close to the rooms . You know, for a public walk right next to somebody' s bedroom i.s not a good idea so it was — pulled over to the right. We' re really excited about this whole project because it just has a real nice look to it . The way it all comes Planning Commission Meeting February 15 , 1989 - Page 21 together , assuming we get it all done, it will be. . . This is 450 feet - long . Will really take care of that thing. Because it ' s been pulled forward , it will not obstruct . We' ve still got a lot of open space even though something ' s . . .right in the path . . . It will work out real good . We ' re happy. Good acceptance by the tenants and the people like that . We hope to sometime during March getting a permit . Batzli : I guess I had one question. Why are we putting the one right-in/ right-out entrance right by that intersection? The clock tower intersection. Does there need to be an entrance there? - Hanson: On one of the plans in your , it' s the second plan in, it shows the overall improvements . Right in that particular location there' s a median that comes back. Right now if you drive out there, the curb cut is up is about right in here and you can make the left hand turn around that median and get in. Batzli : I guess my question is , why do we have any entrance there right - at that intersection? Hanson: I know that that' s been in there from day one on the plans . Brad Johnson: At one time it was thought that they would remove it but if you look at , if you look hard enough at it , you really don' t want to run all of your traffic through this parking lot to go to the clinic so the tenants required that there be an entrance here. So that their customers can get in and go into the area. It will be probably more of a right in then a right out but it really makes , if you look at it without this , this - is going to be a major roadway and it wasn' t designed to be that . Batzli : Wouldn ' t they go in in that underpass there in the middle of the building? Brad Johnson : The way the clinic is set up, this entrance here will probably go, people come down, it will be serviced, if you' re coming this way, the human element is never one to backtrack. The clinic is on this end of the building so people coming along and want to go into the clinic and they' re going to occupy this end , possibly will go up in this. People — that are going to use this portion will come in here. People that are going in there will probably come in here. Batzli : But your argument doesn' t buy anything with me because you' re assuming everybody is coming from the east and if you look at from the west , you' re going to have the same problem with people using the parking lot to get all the way to the other end of the building . Brad Johnson: They can' t turn left here. - Batzli : I know that. They' re going to turn in at your full access and go all the way down. Brad Johnson : Here? • Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 22 mom Batzli : Yes . Brad Johnson : Yes . Batzli : Then why bother i.n one case to let them zoom all the way down but from the other direction suddenly it' s a big issue and you got to put in another entrance? Just a question. — Brad Johnson : And the answer is , we looked at it the other way and we felt that we were putting too much pressure right in there. It ' s a right — turn, left turn here to get into here. This way it' s just a right turn in. Batzli : To me it defies logic but if there' s a logical explanation for — it , fine. Brad Johnson: And I think what we' ve done is , the danger has been the — left turn in. That ' s where I see the problem i.s the left turn into that . Batzli : I guess from what I see i.s we' re going to really encourage a lot _ of U turns right in the downtown drag here, up and down our city. A lot of U turns all over the place with a lot of the way we' re designing this personally. If human nature is to go up to where you want to turn in, I can just picture people coming up here and snaking all over the place — making U turns and everything else. If that ' s really what human nature says . Conrad : Where ' s the U turn being made? Batzli : We' re right-in/right-out everywhere and I can just picture people _ coming up here to the full change intersection and taking a U turn back around and everything else . I guess I don' t see this as being well thought out at all . If their argument is that we need a right turn in at the clock tower because you don' t want people racing all the way down — here, then what ' s the difference of people coming from the west? They' re going to zoom all the way down here unless they come up and take some sort of U turn up in this area . Conrad : And Brad would say, yes , we haven ' t solved it for the west but we solved it for the east. MEMO Batzli : That ' s not a solution. Brad Johnson : Our problem with traffic is this movement . Downtown. — You' ve got a stop sign here. People are coming up here with a stop and they have to go through this intersection and come around and come back. Batzli : I gues I 'm just not convinced that you ' re not going to have a lot of traffic from the south and west and I don ' t see the problem has been solved i.n any way for those two directions. You' ve solved people coming from the east on that one right-in turn but you haven ' t solved other — problems. I 'm not a traffic expert. I 'm just saying, I see one thing solved and you' ve got 2 or 3 problems here that we' ve saying , well , we Planning Commission Meeting February 15 , 1989 - Page 23 solved one. Conrad : But traffic goes through the arch doesn ' t it? Batzli : From this direction you ' re going to be coming back. Their argument for having this is that you don ' t want people to come zooming through this area . Their going to come zooming through this area to get down to this then . Conrad : But they could go through the arch too if they want? — Batzli : No, they can' t because. . . Conrad : Oh , we' ve got the right-out . Okay. Batzli : And if they' re coming up from this direction, they' re going to have to go all the way around and zoom through or , I don' t see it being solved at all. Maybe there' s not a solution. I 'm not trying to say that - I 'm the expert but I 'm raising the issue. Wildermuth: Maybe a better answer is to take that whole median out of — there entirely. Batzli : I think that ' s dangerous . I agree that that should be in there if they' re going to have an entrance right there because I wouldn' t want to see people cutting in front there. Wildermuth: There' s just one thing that bothers me when I look at this — and that is , if we ever want to widened West 78th Street, which I think should happen at some point , maybe not in the next 6 months or maybe not in the next 18 months but it probably ought to happen at some point , these buildings that are very close to the street are really going to limit our options. Brad Johnson: We' ve added 11 feet to it. That was one of the recommendations from the very beginning. What ' s happened is that we've had to move everything back and that ' s what they' re doing back here. The building' s been shifted back . . . Wildermuth : So that' s been kind of taken into consideration? _ Brad Johnson: We cut back our landscaping . If you look at the previous plan , we had more landscaping back here and more space here but that ' s all gone because we moved the building back. — Emmings : I ' ve got a couple of things. There are design standards having to do with the width of parking spaces and how much back up space you' ve got and all that , does this plan meet all of those kinds of standards? Hanson: Yes . Wildermuth: Including radius ' around these pylons at the end of the rows? Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 24 Hanson : I think before we said that there may be a problem because we were concerned with that distance and this meets what the standards are . Those spaces are 9 x 18 as far as the space of the parking spaces . — Emmings: Those are standard parking spaces? They haven' t been trimmed down to meet the site or anything like that? Hanson: No. Emmings : And the number of spaces meets our ordinance and terms for the — functioning? Hanson: Yes . Emmings : I noticed down on the right hand corner , I 'm looking at sheet 2, and it ' s on some of the other ones , there' s a place here that I want to go as soon as the meeting ' s over . It looks like it ' s called a Reality — Office. I 'n curious what that might be. I think we could all use some. Is that your office? Brad Johnson : I don' t know what you' re referring to? Oh , that ' s Klingelhutz' . Wildermuth : That' s Klingelhutz' realty office. — Emmings : Well , it says reality. Brad Johnson : Like I said, we didn ' t do the plan . Emmings: I wasn' t being critical . I 'm kind of interested . Conrad : Anything else? A motion. • Headla : I 'd like to make a motion that we approve it but I ' ve got so much — reservation on that sidewalk, I don't know how to work that in. Conrad : What do you think about Steve' s, Steve is talking about filling — in the balance of that little triangle there. Headla : I 'm so scared , I think that sidewalk' s going to have a lot of traffic and I can just see kids on small bicycles and I can see — skateboards going through there . Emmings: Won' t there be stop signs? _ Headla : That ' s the kind of thing , either speed bumps or stop signs and then I think that ' s adequate control but isn' t this the time where we should at least ask the engineers to look at that? Conrad: That' s a good comment. The snow plow people will love that but that ' s. . . — Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 25 Headla : That ' s why I hesitated on the speed bump. To me a stop sign is a — logical thing to do but how they talked about a right-in and then turning . You come in and then all of a sudden you' re stopping again . I 'm not a traffic person. I don't know what makes sense there. Emmings : I think people ought to be moving slow in that parking lot anyway and I think stop signs are a big inconvenience and that' s fine with me. Headla : I ' ve seen so many accidents in parking lots and they' re needless and it' s due to speeding. I 'm going to make a motion we approve this — concept plan but make a recommendation that the traffic engineers take another look on the safety of that sidewalk as it goes through the parking lot . Emmings: How about the other conditions? Headla: Yes . And the other conditions submitted by the staff . Emmings: I ' ll second that . Headla moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plans for the parking area of the north side public parking lot as part of the site plan review of the Chanhassen Professional Building #88-17 based on the plans stampted "Received February 8 , 1989" and subject to the following conditions : — 1. Platting the area . 2. Submittal of final facia , signage and exterior building lighting for Planning Commission approval prior to issuance of building permits . 3. That the traffic engineers take another look on the safety of the sidewalk as it goes through the parking lot. All voted in favor except Batzli who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Batzli : I think that they should look more at what they' re doind with the traffic around that area. Not that I 'm against the plan in general . Conrad : But you' re concerned with the traffic movement from the west . - Batzli : From the west and south. I don ' t think that, if it' s good enough to do in one direction, what are they doing with the other direction and I don' t know that they' ve really thought about all that. Emmings: What do you mean by from the south? Batzli : Coming up TH 101 here. Planning Commission Meeting February 15 , 1989 - Page 26 Emmings : But then won ' t they have the right-in at the archway? Batzli : Yes . Emmings: Isn ' t that okay? Batzli : I don ' t know. They' ve got to get back out and it depends on — where they' re trying to go. If you guys are trying to slow down traffic in the parking lot , I don ' t think you ' re going to do it by putting in a stop sign. If you' ve ever been at 7 Hi or Cub Foods on a busy shopping — day, nobody stops at those. They glide right through almost running over and creating havoc. If you' re actually trying to get people where they' re trying to go with entrances and exits , I don' t think this plan _ does it . That ' s why I 'm just saying, I 'm going to dissent from the motion and say, I don' t think that was looked at . Conrad: Do you see an- alternative that' s readily. . . — Batzli : No. That ' s not my job as I think you ' ve once said , or somebody said it. I 'm not a traffic engineer but from the answers I got, I don' t — think it was looked at a whole lot . APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Batzli moved , Ellson seconded to approve the Minutes — of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 1, 1989 as presented . All voted in favor except Wildermuth who abstained and the motion carried . ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS. ELECT CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 1989 . Emmings : My idea and I mentioned it to some people already, but first of all I 'd like to nominate Ladd for Chairman. — Wildermuth : And I ' ll second that. Emmings: The primary reason I think Ladd ought to be chairman is that he has more patience here and it kind of makes me kind of irritated sometimes but I think it ' s important as far as . . . Ellson : Letting everybody speak out . Emmings: He does such a good job of handling the public hearings and — giving everybody I think a feeling that they have had an opportunity to be heard and he explains the procedures all so well . There may be other people who can do the same job but I don ' t know. I know that Ladd can . I ' ve chaired a few meetings and it' s a lot of strain. It' s a little extra strain . It ' s a lot easier to sit out here on the sidelines and take pot shots. And for that reason, I think maybe as far as the vice chair goes, maybe Ladd wants to let the vice-chair chair some meetings just so that he — can get out on the sidelines. The one thing we miss by having Ladd in chair is getting his comments earlier in the decision making process . A Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 27 lot of times I 'd like Ladd to fill me in on the history of stuff before I - start asking my questions and forming my opinion. What I was going to suggest for the vice-chair is that maybe we rotate that and that everybody, or anybody, unless somebody just plain doesn' t want to do it . That maybe every 4th meeting or whatever Ladd whats to do or whatever anybody wants to do, we have a substitute chairman or something like so we all get that experience too of chairing the meetings so there is some experience with this as the membership changes also. That was my notion. Conrad : Annette , would you like to chair meetings? Ellson: An easy meeting I would handle but some of those hot and heavy ones, I would be. . . Conrad : But you would consider chairing a meeting? Would you? Ellson: Yes . — Conrad : Brian, would you consider chairing a meeting? Batzli : I 'd consider it . Conrad : Jim? Wildermuth: I 'd consider it. Conrad: Dave? — Headla : I have no interest at this time. Emmi.ngs: I think Tim would probably. He' s been here long enough. Conrad :• I have no great need to be chairman folks . I think on one hand I think Steve would do a great job as being chairman. I think Steve has a good comprehension and is able to steer things . I don' t have a great need — to be the chairman. If you feel comfortable having me do that, I would do it. However , I really think it' s important that new people, well , not new people. You' re not new anymore but that others start chairing this far — more than what we have in the past. I just think that' s really important. So if that means somebody new comes in and becomes chairman , that ' s fine with me or if we rotate the chairmanship or the vice-chairmanship so let ' s _ say on a monthly basis or let ' s say 2 out of 4 times , half the times somebody else is chairing it besides me. I think that might be a way to do it. Other than that , I think there are other people here that can chair the meeting so I don' t feel uncomfortable nominating somebody else — for the chairmanship. Headla : What would we do then? Have like Steve be the vice-chairman in — case you aren' t here and then he takes control of the meeting until we have appointed a chair? Conrad : I haven ' t asked Steve to make sure we can do it but I think we - have to have official chairman and vice-chairman but I think in Planning Commission Meeting February 15 , 1939 - Page 23 practicality what I 'd like to do is see if we can have different folks chairing the meetings. If that is legal . Hanson : I ' ll have to check on that. There are two things. I think first of all , if you want to do that, I think we may need to make an amendment to your By-laws because right now it just provides for a chairman and a vice-chairman. — Batzli : But you can suspend any rules by unanimous vote at a meeting so in theory you could have the chairman call the meeting to order and then — move to have somebody else chair the meeting if you really wanted to . Headla: Could we just plan on going that way but have Steve look into it to see if there' s a problem? Hanson: Sure. Conrad : What do you think? What should we do? Headla: I like that idea . Batzli : I say yes, I 'd have an interest in chairing the meeting but that doesn' t mean I want to do it. I think that you do a real good job of chairing the meetings and when you' re not here, the meetings are real short when Steve does it. I ' ve been very happy with the leadership you two have provided in that regard and having been on the Planning Commission only a year, it' s actually helpful to not be chairing a meeting when you' re in my position because you don ' t have the historical background and some of the working knowledge that more experienced commissioners have. So to be honest with you, in the next year I don ' t envision myself being all gung ho to chair a meeting. Personally. Other commissioners might feel differently. Conrad: Jim, what do you think? What do you want to do? — Wildermuth : I agree with Brian . I 'd do it once in a great, great while but I have no burning desire to do it and I like the way the commission — functions now with a chairman and a vice-chairman . Conrad: I 'd sure like to get out of the every two week role. Headla : I can see where you 'd want to get out of that role. Batzli : But then I guess we should ask Steve, if Steve were re-elected as vice-chairman , would he want to chair more meetings? Emmings: That 'd be fine. It doesn' t make any difference. It takes me more time to prepare for a meeting if I 'm going to chair . That ' s my only. . . Bill Boyt : The Park and Rec Commission has gone to the plan that you ' re — just talking about. I would encourage you to do the same because part of, I think the learning opportunities that you ' ve got is to take on both Planning Commission Meeting February 15 , 1989 - Page 29 roles . It also prepares a city because we have more trained people and — having a trained chair is a hard thing to find. From my standpoint, I 'd like to encourage you to do it as I think a service to the city. - Emmings: To rotate? Bill Boyt : To rotate . I thought your plan as you discussed it sounded really good to me. You' re not forcing anybody to take the chair but you' re making a ready opportunity for them to do that and I think the learning experience would be good for the city to have one more trained person. Conrad : Are you saying one more? Do you like to rotate to different individuals? Bill Boyt : What I mean by it is more trained . Conrad : Annette, anything? Ellson: Like I said , I wouldn' t mind doing it but . . . - Conrad: You could be the first female chairman that we' ve had for 100 years . Chairperson . Ellson: I think you should give people the opportunity, if it' s an easy item with two things or something. I just don ' t like, every fourth time it will be a guest chair . That will be the one where it ' s that beachlot thing or something and we know how volatile those get. That would be — devastating . Emmings : The thing there then might be to just look for opportunities . - For you to look for opportunities . Conrad : That would be the only way that I would want to serve as chairman again because like Bill said, I think it' s real important that other people start taking this role. I think I know how to do it but I think it' s really important that other folks know too. I would like some other folks to , on occasion, take the role and Steve I think you can do that — pretty well and I think Annette, Brian, Jim, Dave, I think you can all fill in and do that. So anyway, if that' s your choice, if you feel like we should do that. Does somebody want to nominate a chairman and a vice-chairman? Emmings: We already nominated a chairman and that' s been seconded . We' re supposed to do this really by written ballot. Batzli : That' s when we vote isn ' t it? — Hanson: Yes, that' s when you vote. Batzli : I nominate Steve. - Headla: I second it . Planning Commission Meeting February 15 , 1989 - Page 30 Conrad : Any other nominations? Batzli moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the nominations . All voted in favor and the motion carried. Nominations for Chairman and Vice-Chairman were closed . Conrad : How do you want us to vote? _ Hanson: If you read the By-laws, it says you ' re supposed to vote by secret ballot . I don' t know that there ' s a ballot. I can pass out sheets if you 'd like to do that . Ladd Conrad was elected as Chairman and Steve Emmings as Vice-Chairman of — the Planning Commission for the year 1989 by unanimous vote. REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS. Conrad : Did anybody see any changes to the By-laws? Batzli : Typos in Section 4. 1. Five lines down. "Fro" and "chosed" . Conrad: Everybody comfortable with the 11: 00 p.m. curfew? — Ellson : How do we enforce it? Conrad : You really can' t . Ellson :. Right , so why do we have it? Conrad : We ask for Steve to try to use that as a guideline in setting the agenda . The other thing we can do is we can monitor during the course of a meeting and be telling people that the meeting ' s lasting longer but I _ think if they' re here for a public hearing, we' ve got to listen to them. Ellson : I 'm just wondering if it ' s all words and no go. Why do we have it in there when truly we can' t do that? Conrad : Only to help set the agenda . Only to be a guideline . I like the attendance. I think we' re all pretty close to that except for Tim but he' s pretty close isn' t he? What is he? Bill Boyt: 70%. A little less than that . Conrad : Is there a motion to accept the By-laws . Emmings moved, Ellson seconded to accept the By-laws as written with the changes in Section 4. 1, the typos on the words "fro" and "chosed" to be corrected. All voted in favor and the motion carried . Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 31 - ELECT HRA LIAISON. Conrad : Jim, you' ve been the liaison. You ' ve done a really fine job. Wildermuth: I 've gone to a lot of the meetings but I haven' t given any reports because there' s a lot of stuff that goes on in closed door sessions . All the good stuff gets decided behind closed doors . Conrad : And you' re not there? - Wildermuth: You can' t be there. Conrad : Would you consider continuing to serve? Wildermuth: Sure . Ellson : I ' ll nominate Jim. Batzli : I ' ll second that . — Conrad : It would be good , and we don' t give you a chance to talk about it and that' s typically because we ' ve been getting out at midnight but I think, how do we, and Steve maybe you can help us on this . I think we need reports to be agenda items . Hanson : We can add that . — Emmings: Reports back on City Council action should be an agenda item. City Council action on items that we did as well as reports by Jim on the HRA. Batzli : What happened to our idea on our agenda having out list of open items and progress reports? Emmings: Old Business . All this stuff you' ve got on your list here. Conrad: Right now it' s pretty clean. The goals and agenda items. During — the course of the year it gets added to so there could be 20 items out there. We need a way to track them. In the past I ' ve had a manual little list myself but I think there should be more of an offical way so I 'm not _ the only one keeping track and maybe you can make a recommendation how you'd like to manage that rather than having you have a tickler file. We should see, and it could be on a monthly basis, a status report what the progress is for you saying , hey, I don' t have time. We ' re not going to — get to it for 6 months so at least we know. On some frequency we have this report back that goes not only to us but to City Council . Wildermuth: . . .wetland ordinance. If we' re really going to put some strength into the thing , we ought to say that any work done prior to application to approve it automatically voids the permit and the wetland has to be restored to it ' s prior condition period . That takes the monkey off of everybody' s back and a lot of the discussion of it so we don' t get Planning Commission Meeting February 15 , 1989 - Page 32MID -� these cowboy efforts . Conrad : Can you take the thing so you can bring it back to us Steve when _ we have some time and decide how we deal with these after the fact situations? We do have a nomination for the HRA liaison. Jim, a motion has been made. Ellson moved , Batzli seconded to appoint Jim Wildermuth as the Planning Commission' s HRA liaison. All voted in favor and the motion carried . _ 1989 GOALS . Headla : I ' d like to bring up one. You ' ve heard we talk before on our coniferous leanings on the tree ordinance. I don ' t think we really favor enough of our native deciduous trees . In this last month now, the Minnesota Volunteer came out and they showed recommendations on how you take care of conifer trees . Particularly when they' re alone or if you just have one string, you 've got to put burlap up so the sun doesn' t scald _ them. You ' ve got to also protect them from the wind . I 'm not a treeologist by any means but I really would like to see us revisit that. I think there' s other ways to give adequate screening . I think the Arboretum has developed some very good native bushes to give us screen and — I 'm thinking right now of McGlynn Bakery down here going around their parking lot. Then another change I 'd like to see in our ordinance is that when somebody goes through and butchers the land and blades it down, every _ tree because it' s under 4 inches, I think there' s an obligation there to replace it with equivalent wood . Somebody can say, well box elder is a trash tree, knock it down but it' s got a lot of the aesthetic value. It may not have good commercial value and I 'd like to see us revisit that r tree ordinance from that point of view also. But I think there should be several people involved with that . Conrad: Does everybody agree that we should revisit our landscape specifications? I don' t know if that ' s what we call it . Dave' s first comment whether we go deciduous more. Do we want to look at that? _ Ellson: Is the ordinance saying it has to be? They have to be pine trees or are they saying a permanent screen is what I was under the impression it was under . If they come through and they could have a bush that will get that permanent screen, I don ' t believe our ordinance is saying it ' s got to be evergreen . I know Jo Ann is always saying, add more evergreens but I think it might already be that way but I 'm not sure. — Headla : One of the questions that I ' ve asked before, the answer has been, we have to have all that screening. The implication is the only way you get it through those trees . Wildermuth : Yes, because they don' t lose their leaves. Emmings: I think we ought to put it on the list. I think if anybody things it' s worth looking at we should look at it . Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 33 — Conrad : Could I ask Dave that you kind of look at the ordinance , or the current plan. Ellson: Do it in a Tim report . Conrad : Yes . Tim just does a nice job when he goes out and reviews it for us. Rather than stymied or a lower priority, if you could look through the ordinance and maybe bring it back and talk to Steve about it. Headla: Okay. Conrad : Just flag areas where you think we should take a look at . Headla: Okay, and the other one, Tim and I wanted to do is get involved with a trails committee. Emmings: Have a subcommittee? Headla : I don' t know but Tim and I want to get involved with the trails committee. I think we compliment each other very well on that and I think — there' s other input as well . I think that ' s a little different . Ellson: You' re saying by the fact that it never came through to us when they had those changes and things like that? Headla: That' s part of it. But that isn' t part of our goals . We want to work that off line . Emmi.ngs : Now you ' re running into the Park and Rec and I think maybe we' ve had, that issue came up and showed us that there were some areas maybe where our work overlaps their work and we' re not too clear on why that issue never came here because it seemed to be a planning issue. But maybe what we need to do is get some better definition from the City Council as to what we' re supposed to be doing and what they' re supposed to be doing and maybe there' s some specific issues where there needs to be a joint effort. — Batzli : Perhaps we should look at a liaison for the Park and Rec Commission or vice versa. I think the point was also raised by, we were talking about there was park deficiencies in some places and did the issue come in front of us or not and it appeared to me that there was a total lack of communication between our two groups . Conrad : But the park liaison, would that be on an on-going basis? Is — that what you were thinking Brian? Batzli : I don' t know. Let ' s have it rotate . I 'm just talking off the — top of my head. Conrad : Do you have any interest in that area? Planning Commission Meeting February 15 , 1989 - Page 34 Batzli : That was the problem. I knew if I said that . No, my interest in it lies in deciding and at least trying to open up some line of communication . Whether that' s me attending their meetings or not but for _ instance, I have no clue what areas of this city are park deficient and/or why and/or how that fits in with our zoning map. I 'd like to at least have a presentation by them to tell us what the heck they' re doing and what their long range plans are to put parks in and in what areas and why. — I think that affects us . Emmings: Isn' t that in the Comprehensive Plan? — Conrad: It' s in the Comprehensive Plan and that ' s where our consultant has gone out and got their input . We haven ' t seen it necessarily until it comes back official . Batzli : Did we look at that part of the Comprehensive Plan yet? I don' t recall seeing that. -- Ernmings: I ' ve seen i.t but I don ' t know if it was formally. I don' t think in this go around it ' s been. _ Conrad : It' s taken us so long to do this which goes back to a major issue. Last year , I 'm off the subject because I 'm on a pet peeve here . Last year we talked about completing the update to the Comprehensive Plan and we didn' t do it. And nobody really, and that ' s my fault as much as anybodys . We just slipped it. So what are the penalties . Nobody' s yelling. Met Council ' s obviously not yelling. Who' s priority is that to update the plan? Is it just a City? Was i.t a nice thing for our Planner to do? Was it a requirement of Met Council , do you know Steve? Hanson: From my perspective it should be a priority of the Planning Commission. A number one priority because that' s telling you guys what you ought to be doing . From my own perspective it ' s a high priority. Conrad: Bill , as we updated these, did staff bring you the different sections as we went through them? Bill Boyt : Mark Koegler would come in occasionally and talk about status reports but we never saw that you approved anything. If you were. Maybe it' s waiting for one grand lump presentation. Conrad: That was the way it was going to be rather than on a piecemeal basis . Again , boy we' ve beat this one for over a year now. I think we' ve got to get our hands around this thing. We ' ve got to give City Council a — deadline when it ' s going to be done and if it ' s not urgent , then we can put the deadline off a little bit but I think it ' s almost to the point, in my perspective, the revisions have been out there so long , we may need to make revisions to the revisions . They' ve just been sitting there. Hanson : I think you ' re hitting it on the head . I ' ve met with Mark Koegler about getting a revised schedule on something that he can live with and I can live with to wrap it up . I 'm getting that proposal from him either by the end of this week or the first of next week at the Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 35 latest . I would suggest bringing that , when I ' ve got that , bringing that back to you as far as setting a time line on that . That' s what I 'd like to do on all these items is set time lines on them. From my perspective, it' s getting to the point where it' s very critical that we get that done because I think what you ' re going to see , if my vision is right by the end of the year, you ' re going to start seeing requests to plan the areas outside the MUSA boundary and you ' re going to start seeing requests to extend that. There are some things that are starting to happen that are - starting to cause that as far as the sewer capacity. Met Council bringing that up and the plant' s going to be expanded by 1992 and that will all be on-line. I think a lot of the development communities , looking at what ' s - left i.n the City and saying, hey, spots , for the types of users we want to bring in aren' t available out there. How do you want to deal with it? I ' ve had them come in and say, essentially say, can we do the Comp Plan for the City so I think there' s going to be a lot of pressure from that aspect. It' s critical for us to wrap up this Comp Planning effort that ' s being done and really -roll into Phase II if you will . I think we' re, right now we' re quite a ways behind that power curve and that makes me nervous because I don' t like being in the position of having to be i.n a reactionary mode. - Conrad : Even already I think you ' ve been around where we' ve got the updated Comp Plan but it really hasn' t been approved yet so it doesn' t apply. We' re based on the old plan . Emmi.ngs: That' s a perfect example of something that if it should become a priority item, it ought to appear on our agenda every time so that we, if we don' t do anything else but just , it will keep us aware of it . — Otherwise we forget. We plow through these items and even if it ' s just to say, we haven ' t made any progress or we' re still waiting for a report or whatever but it will keep it right in front of us . Wildermuth: I think the Planning Commission has got to take a position on how they view requests for extending the MUSA line. At some point I think we' ve got to do that . Conrad : That ' s a big City issue that Don and Bill have to handle. - Emmi.ngs: That is on the goals sheet . A-3 and A-2. Wildermuth : Okay. Conrad : Back to trails , and I didn' t want to forget it. I made us go on a tangent off of it. I don' t know Steve, if you stimulate something within staf and City Council to define our role and the trails in the -- community. We have to be involved somehow so I guess we' ll look right now for your guidance with Don and maybe a recommendation to City Council as to how you think you should bring in the Planning Commission. That doesn ' t mean we take over the responsibility but we do have to be involved not after the fact but for comments for planning considerations. Before the final plan is cast , we have to be involved. We can be responsible if somebody wants us to be but that' s not as essential as our involvement. So I think that has to be on this laundry list . What else? Anything Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 36 else? And David, forget about you being on , I think when we find out about our role, that may stimulate how you get involved. If there is a committee on trails, I think that can be , you and Tim can get on that _ committee. What I wanted to do is make sure that we had a function for the Planning Commission in the trail system but if you want to volunteer for something with Tim, I think that'd be outstanding . Headla : Yes , and the two of us wanted to go in there together . Conrad: In everybody' s mind , are trails sidewalks? Are they the same or _ different? Bill Boyt : Quite different . Conrad : Is there an issue on sidewalks in town that we care about or does anybody care about sidewalks? Bill Boyt : There' s a big issue about sidewalks for somebody. . . They are related issues but they' re quite different. A sidewalk is what somebody puts in front of a residential development . A trail is what you put in _ connecting major areas of the city, which may or may not have a house, generally wouldn ' t have a house around it in our city. I think of a trail as what you see along TH 5 in Eden Prairie. Headla : Did you call that a trail down here, in Lake Susan Hills or whatever? Remember when they went in through to the west and around the houses there. _ Bill Boyt : But that' s not what ' s being built there. They' re going to build 4 foot wide sidewalks . Headla : That ' s how that ended up? Bill Boyt : They' re going down, what is it TH 101 there? That ' s a trail . There along TH 101. The Park and Rec Commission has very specific definitions that they worked out over the last couple of years a general standard for what they' re trying to do. I think it would be very helpful _ if you two groups were talking about this issue . Batzli : Talking on any issue . Bill Boyt : I like your idea Brian . I think you 'd find the Park and Rec would probably swap off with you so that you could have somebody come to their meeting once or twice a month and have somebody come here or something . Emmings: Do they meet twice a month? Bill Boyt: Yes . Batzli : It 'd be an interesting way to do it . Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 37 Conrad : Do we want to throw sidewalks on some kind of a list? Does that - interest anybody? It is an issue. Emmings: I just don' t know what it is. I don' t know what the issues are. Don Chmiel : I think there's a lot of pros and cons to that specific issue. Sidewalks . Especially for a lot of the residents . There are areas where they probably go to and from, specific schools or areas where - they' re going to be involved . Community center , things of that nature. When you start talking sidewalks in front of people' s homes, you get a lot of dead indians who start beating tom toms because I 've already had some — people talk to me about that. They move out to this area specifically for the openness that we have. They move out here to put sidewalks like they have in Minneapolis or St. Paul . They like the openness. They like the green. It' s a lot of good pros and cons to those issues. Conrad: Yes, I know there are. You look at Eden Prairie and they don' t have sidewalks everyplace but they do have some and they' re sort of a compromise between a trail and . . . Wildermuth : Do you think that ought to correlate to lot size? Conrad: I have no idea. It' s one of those issues you want to say, does anybody care about sidewalks in town and should we look at it before something happens or before nothing happens or whatever . I don' t know and there may not be any good solutions but I 'd feel a little bit embarrassed when Eden Prairie has some sidewalk systems for people, not in front of everybody' s house but they can move people through Eden Prairie and we' re — developing and we can' t move people except on a road and that seems real naive. I don' t know. I don' t know where it goes. To be very honest, I don' t know what the defeat of the trail system, what that really means which is almost a case of, I need . . . What does that mean? Does that mean that we' re not going to require the right-of-way for trails? Does it mean we simply are putting them in? I guess I 'm just naive on that whole subject and probably need a staff report coming back telling us what that — does mean and how it affects what we ask future developers to do for us . There aren' t any easy answers on some of these but we' ll raise the issues for you Don. Other issues , growth of the industrial park. Do we have — enough industrial space in the community? Hanson: It' s a tough question to answer . There' s a lot of ways to look at it. Enough industrial for the amount of residential and the amount of area that' s in the MUSA line right now and so forth, yes probably. If you want to expand it, no there' s not . Another question is , how big do you want, how much industrial do you want? Wildermuth: Or do you want another area? Another place. — Conrad : To me it seems, because it' s been a rather successful industrial park right now and it doesn' t look like we have a lot of room for growth, it seems to me an issue that we should look at it because if we really want to maintain that, bring in new residential growth doesn' t really help taxes, if we care about taxes , and we don' t as a Planning Commission. Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 38 That' s not our role. Emmings: It doesn' t? Conrad : New residential growth hurts , it costs money to bring new people in. Emmings : Up for a certain period of time. Conrad: Almost on a per unit basis . — Hanson: If you do a cost benefit analysis, typically, and there' s exceptions to everything but typically you ' ll find residential does not pay it ' s way. Emmings: Ever? Not even after 30 years? Hanson: No. Conrad : I think it would be a neat issue to raise right now in terms of do we have enough industrial? Do we want more? Does it make sense to plan for the next 20 years? Right now we have a chance to do it if we want to make the zones. Now' s the time because the Comprehensive Plan is still , well , it might be a good time to do it . So I would put that , and — there' s obviously some associated items to that. Residential growth but I sure like the industrial . I 'd like us to look at the industrial park. The only other subject that I have on this list, and a lot of this stuff, I — don ' t know if it' s our role or not but Light Rail Transit . I keep hearing that thing pop up and I don' t know. I don' t know what route. It appears it ' s the southerly route but still , I ' ve got to believe it ' s going to _ happen and I don' t think we' ve really taken a good look. Batzli :. I don ' t think it' s in our Transportation Chapter . The impacts of what that would do. Conrad : We said, and I can recall this pretty clearly, we said we want to know where our parking lots should be so that we can get there or park there or something . Ellson : We also said we want to show that we' re in support of it . Conrad: But that' s sort of tokenism type of stuff . Hanson : And there' s a lot of ways to look at that . I think the typical — way is if you have a light rail transit station, first the gut reaction is to put parking lots there. If you look at what ' s being done in Washington D.C. areas, they' re starting to extend that out. Some of those areas , they' re taking just the opposite. They' re saying , we' re not going to provide any parking at that station because the land' s too valuable. What we' ll do is we' ll develop a bus system that goes out from that point because you don' t want to tie up all that land with parking lots. What — you want to put at the station is you want to put in a lot of your retail use. All those kind of support things so that you get the people coming Planning Commission Meeting February 15 , 1989 - Page 39 out of the transit station and you capture them at that point in time on - the way home. Ellson : Yes , pick up their dry cleaning on the way home from work. Hanson: Exactly. And if you look at some of those areas back there that are just starting now, they' re doing some unbelieveable redevelopment . - Wildermuth: Who are they doing that for? Are they doing that for people or are they doing that for the developers and the retailers? I ' ll tell you, after I got off the el in Chicago, the last damn thing that I wanted to do was ride a bus . Conrad : It ' s interesting but I think it' s an issue that we should take a little bit better look at. Again, Steve, I think we could keep you busy for a long time. You've got great job security here. We can have you looking into a hundred- things and we' ve got to prioritize them. What I hope we can do is take this list and maybe we' ve not finished with it yet but to pass it up to Bill and the City Council so that they can get some input on those items and say no , they shouldn' t deal with this , somebody else should or whatever but I would hope that would be our next - step is to take this , and then we also should prioritize and we also should time line this stuff too. What other issues? I cut it off but anything else that people have? Ellson : Is this sign ordinance thing , I remember way back when BRW was here talking about an overall sign theme for the city and all this stuff . Is this part of this sign ordinance or are we looking at the size thing — and the height thing and that sort of thing? Do you guys remember when that happened last year? Emmings : That was the central business district signage. Ellson: Yes, that sort of thing and it sort of went away. I don' t think anything was ever done on it. They had a nice presentation and talked about someplace in California that had boots and these other things, you remember for the shoe store . It was just one of those things that I wondered whatever happened to it. It was Carmel , that' s where it was . Emmings: We told him to bring it back and show it to us and we never saw him again. Ellson: You' re right . Conrad : What are we talking about on the sign ordinance? Hanson: I put that on there because I ' ve seen in on one of the lists somewhere . What was in here was review sign ordinance, partially — revolving around gas canopy signage. Batzli : I thought we were going to also review. . . Hanson: Illuminated versus non-illuminated signage. Planning Commission Meeting February 15 , 1989 - Page 40 Batzli : I thought we were going to review large industrial sites and the size of the signs to direct them around large sites as well . _ Conrad : The City Council , they granted the signage. We didn' t change the ordinance. Batzli : I thought Jim and I said that it was going to make a lot of sense to kind of look at the size of the site because it doesn ' t make much sense to have a 50 acre site and give them 2 signs. That was our proposal and I — don' t know that that was really something that we were going to look at or not. Emmings : Have you all taken i.n the sign down at the driving range? Ellson: I drive by it every morning . Emmings: It ' s just comical . Batzli : Were we going to review the sign ordinance, as I recall , another issue of signage came up on the temporary storage and whether they could . . . Ellson : Whatever happened with those guys? What 'd you say to them? — Bill Boyt: They didn' t get it . Conrad : So there probably are a series of small changes to that ordinance that we should be looking at. Batzli : If we want to do anything about it . Conrad : And we probably should. Signage, as you grow in downtown, signage becomes a real headache . More retailers , more signage and we' ve got to make sure that the signage ordinance is right and fair and the right thing . Emmings : That brings up another point too that we talk about and we talk about it from time to time but a lot of times it ' s real difficult to anticipate. The issues that come up are never those that you thought of. But then what we have to do is seize on that as an opportunity to revise the ordinance . Everytime we have to think, what can we now go back and do that will handle this for the future i.n a general ordinance. Ellson : Right , storage sheds also became a hot ticket . Batzli : Or we could go to the Napoleonic code method . Bill Boyt : You mentioned storage sheds. Jo Ann a year ago did some great work on mini-storage construction . It had all sorts of recommendations on an ordinance and it never came back. That would be one where I think it — would be good to be out i.n front and she ' s already done the work so maybe it ' s . . . Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 41 — Ellson : I thought we closed it. Wildermuth: That' s done . Emmings: We looked at that 2 or 3 times . We went over and over that. Bill Boyt: Well maybe it' s ready but we never voted on an ordinance. Emmings: We had setbacks for the size of buildings and we had . . . — Ellson: Except on the lake you can do this. We thought of everything . Batzli : Was that our sideyard setback? No, that was a different one . Emmings: No, we had the rear and side yard setbacks and it depended on if it was one of these small tin buildings or under a certain number of square feet. Ellson: I was under the impression that we were done writing that. — Conrad: I think we are. Emmings: And it had for a garage. It had a maximum size on a garage. Bill Boyt: That came to Council and there were some questions, as I recall , questions about size. David had raised some things about the size versus the lot but that' s a separate issue from the mini-warehouse . Emmings: You' re talking about mini-storage like. . . Bill Boyt: Like out on TH 5. Emmings : I don' t know if we did that did we? — Conrad: No, we didn' t do anything on that. That' s a signage issue. Isn' t that a signage issue , the mini-warehouse . That ' s what I thought it was . -- Bill Boyt: When the mini-storage thing came to the City Council most recently, they wanted a sign along the side of it and that was denied . I 'm thinking more now about the work that Jo Ann got into as to how many of these units you'd want in one place. Some places require the caretaker to be on site all the time. That sort of thing. We don' t have that in our ordinance anywhere. — Hanson: The sign was the pylon sign? Bill Boyt : Yes , they wanted to put it on the hill . Hanson: They' ve come back and submitted their signage that meets the Code . One on the side that faces the street coming in and then there' s another one that runs along the side facing TH 5. Planning Commission Meeting February 15 , 1989 - Page 42 NMI Headla : You mean the one they've got painted on the building? Hanson: No. Ellson: It was going to be up in the bushes . Hanson: The letters are 18 inches high and they run for 47 feet . Conrad : That ' s a real strange deal . They have so much visibility there. Headla: Well , that sign they' ve got there now has visibility. Conrad : They' re coming back. Hanson: No, they've submitted pursuant to what the City Code allows . Ellson: The one they have now is a temporary. Conrad : Yes , and that ' s plenty. Bill Boyt : You' re saying that the City Code allows a sign of that many square foot? 47 feet long and 18 inches high? Conrad : If you add up to 80 feet . — Hanson: That adds up to 80 feet . Conrad : That stinks . That ' s just terrible. Hanson: And I think that points up what Steve was saying is that you _ don' t know the problems until something happens . I guess I look at TH 5 and to me, that would be a logical place to have a signage requirement that applies to TH 5 that accomplishes certain things and I think what you'd suggest, you want to identify that industrial area so if you' re a business out there , that' s how you identify somebody to get to you is you' re going to that industrial park and then once you get inside of the park, then you look for the signage to the business . _ Conrad: They' re really abusing . Emmings: I 've got another item that somebody brought up and I think it was Tim that brought it up. That was zoning subdivisions in the A-2 to RR. I think that was another thing we were going to take a look at that we all felt might have some attractive features. You might add that to the list . Batzli : Taking the 10 acre kind of lots and make them RR? _ Ellson: Because they' re turning towards that anyway. Emmings: I don ' t remember that much about them but I think there were a lot of the features of the RR zoning that there' s no sense in not having them in any subdivision. Planning Commission Meeting February 15 , 1989 - Page 43 — Batzli : I thought we brought that up in our discussion about contractors yards. We talked about rezoning certain areas RR from A-2 and those were the areas that we talked about doing it in. Emmings: I don' t know. Could be. It would be unusual but it probably should . — Conrad : That should be on the list . Okay, Steve do you see things as you come from a different area? What things do you think we should be covering? Hanson: I ' ve been trying to look at the list and decide which things are the most important that can be accomplished this year . I guess there' s a couple things. Especially after having been here for a while, the one thing that I see, what I see as the most important thing first of all is getting a solid set of- procedures that have to be followed with a developer ' s packet when they come in to resolve the problem that we have — every meeting and what David suggested on the one thing is like on the wetland thing, how come it' s here when they haven' t met any of the conditions? Well , the problem is , they don ' t know what the conditions are — until the Friday before this meeting because that' s when we' ve gotten referral comments back. If you look at some of the other areas , and I wasn' t sure if it was unique to Colorado or not , in looking around at some _ of the cities around here it' s not unique but typically what a lot of the cities will do is they' ll set up what they call a design review committee. So what happens if you as a developer are coming in and you want to submit plans, you come in and the city staff has a regular meeting — date for technical review of applications and they come in and they submit their applications. Staff goes through them. Goes through a check list. Determines if it' s complete first of all . If it ' s not complete, you give them everything back and you say, come on back when you' ve got your package together . Once they' ve got everything that ' s required and the key to it is being able to tell them up front what they have to do. Right now that ' s a little difficult to do with just the way some of this stuff is written. So the one thing is to make sure that they know what has to be done and they go out and they do it. I ' ve had developers come in that have asked for that package and they say, boy we'd like to see you do it — because we hate going into a city, even though it ' s a quicker process , we hate going in and not knowing what the problems are until the staff has written the report to the Planning Commission. The way the design review committee works is you come in and you have a complete submittal , you submit the stuff . The staff is under a deadline to review those plans . Sit down with that applicant in two weeks . Here' s all the things we' re looking at . Here ' s how you can apply and here' s any problems we see. You — go out and make all those changes and when you' ve got all the changes made, you submit the plans and we' ll schedule you for a meeting . The idea is, when it comes to the Planning Commission, they' ve essentially satisfied all the regulatory requirements and the only time that they wouldn' t be is if they disagree with what' s being required or if there' s something , for example like on a conditional use where some of those items are negotiable. Then there may be a difference of opinion but at least what happens if you boil it down to what are the real issues that we' re Planning Commission Meeting February 15 , 1989 - Page 44 talking about . That takes a little time to get the bugs worked out on that but that ' s, from my standpoint , that' s a priority because we waste a lot of time on the applications on dealing with that as well as trying to — deal with just citizen phone calls that want to be able to do something on their property and being able to research that and find that , staff spends a lot of time. The one way I see it resolving that is if we had a lot of the land use stuff put on a computer , if it was all computerized on a data — base management system but personally I think that that' s a lot lower priority. That' s something that would save a lot of staff time and provide a better service for the people that are out there so they don' t _ have to wait 3 or 4 days for us to go down and pull files on a PUD that was approved in 1973 to find out if a lot , what restrictions were placed on that. I guess the second priority that I see is getting the Comp Plan completed. Wrapping up what' s been done and getting that done. Then , what I see as a third priority is dealing with a lot of these issues that we' re talking about that affect changing the codes . That ' s why I grouped all this stuff under zoning code amendments . The contractors yards and — updating the zoning. Updating the zoning map is a minimal type of thing but it hasn ' t been updated for almost a year and a half . There has been some rezoning. We have a lot of little things coming up as far as zoning amendments . Contractors yards and just to bring you up to date, we did take that to Council last Monday. Correct me if I 'm wrong Bill but the consensus that I heard from City Council was really kind of two pronged . There was a portion that said, let ' s eliminate them. There was support for that. There was a portion that said , let ' s go the mom and pop way. My sense was that the leaning was really towards eliminating them and the swing vote on that was do the morn and pop thing if we can put a date when it expires . What the legal advice is is that you can ' t do that under the conditional use permit, although there is legislation being proposed that would allow that type of provision to be placed on it but whether that _ would go through the legislature or not in a session is anybody' s guess . My indication was to proceed basically with what the majority of the Planning Commission had talked about. Conrad : Should we publicize the fact that we' re doing this? Figuring out what we should be working on for 1989 and have a public hearing or have the opportunity for citizens to come i.n and say why aren ' t you working on — this? Nobody will show but would that be fun to do or should we just forget about it? We' ve never done that. Here we are , we' re scheduling work and the citizens always come i.n and complain, why aren' t you doing this and that , we can publicize the fact that we' re curious about what they think the City should be, what type of changes to zoning and whatever . Headla : Shouldn ' t that be up to the Council if they want to? Conrad : Well, it could be. Batzli : I thought we were going to send our final list to the Council to help us prioritize it anyway? Why can ' t we get the public input? Conrad : Bill , what do you think? Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 45 Bill Boyt : Well what I was going to encourage you to do is , Park and Rec — a couple of years ago surveyed the community for park needs. Trails was one of those. I 'd really like to see, building on your point , that maybe you all could stimulate a survey. Maybe it could go out with one of the city bills that gets sent out or maybe just a separate mailing or maybe there'd be another way to do it . I don' t think you ' re going to get, I think you' re right , if you put this in the paper is an awfully nice gesture and I 'd like to see you do it but I think you' re looking at your audience. Headla : Let me make a suggestion then. Maybe build on that. If you — maybe would have some of these meetings over at the, you know there' s a place west of here that we call western Chanhassen . Maybe Planning Commission meeting once a quarter or once a half a year should be held there and ask the people. Maybe we should be up at the north end . Northeast end. Maybe we should be down in Tim' s area once a year. Maybe you want to pick for a particular agenda but I would like to see us get out and get to some of these areas and maybe we could get somebody to - attend . Hanson : I think if you want to do something like that , what I would — suggest is that you do it not necessarily to handle our normal day to day element type stuff but if you had it tied into the Comprehensive Planning effort and amendments to the rezoning so that you go out into some of these specific areas say having almost like a workshop on issues that would really pertain to those geographic areas of the city. Headla : I was thinking like having it over at the old West Jr . High when — we were talking about that Super Value. There' s a lot of local people I think would have come that far . Strictly an idea . You don ' t have to decide on it but I 'd like to do it next time. It gets some of the people out in western Chanhassen who have never been here. • Emmi.ngs: Going back to temporary conditional use permits like for contractors yards. Every time that comes up, I used to ask Barbara and Jo — Ann why couldn' t we use a license instead of a temporary conditional use permit and no one ever answered that. I know we can' t have temporary conditional uses but I don' t see why if it was a matter of licensing, that — we then couldn ' t add the same kind of controls that we have under a conditional use but also limit the length of time the license was good for . I don' t know if that ' s another way to reach the same end but Roger maybe could be consulted on it. Hanson: That' s a good question . — Conrad : Did we talk about , is there a noise ordinance? Are we okay on noise? _ Batzli : There kind of is a noise ordinance isn ' t there? It ' s the nuisance ordinance but there' s not a specific noise ordinance right? _ Headla : I was going to bring it up but you'd tell me there' s no way to measure it so I decided not to bring it up again . Planning Commission Meeting February 15 , 1989 - Page 46 Emmings : There ' s probably State laws that apply. Bill Boyt: We have an excellent noise ordinance that got defeated. The Public Safety Commission and staff recommended it ' s approval by the last Council . Maybe this Council will be more. . . Emmings : What was it to do? Bill Boyt : It was an ordinance that defines specific actions the City — could take to control noise. Emmings : Are there State laws on noise? Bill Boyt: Sure. Emmings : Did it adopt those? — Bill Boyt: Sure. Conrad : Steve, what I 'd like to do, when this comes back after City Council review, I want it on the agenda where we kind of finalize priorities and work schedules but I 'd like to make sure we get some publicity on it so make sure that you and I are talking in advance and I can talk to the Villager . So we can make a story out of it more than boring work and maybe that will be our opportunity to say folks , if you want to come in and see what we' re going to work on, anybody interested with a good idea might possibly show up . Batzli : I think we have seen some people coming in and I think given the _ right article and the right incentive, they might come in. For instance, on a tree overlay and such . I recall several developments where there were people that told us they moved out here for the trees and wetlands and everything else and maybe if we tell them we' re going to work on some issues, they' ll come in and present their opinion . Conrad : Anything else? Anything else under open discussion? Hanson: I ' ve got a couple of things. I was going to suggest one thing on _ the agenda just from the standpoint of organization. What I have used in other areas is, towards the end, rather than an open discussion is items from the Commission so that if somebody has something that they want to bring up, somebody could bring it up at the meeting but if there' s something specific , we could also put it on the agenda so the people know. I think it helps you if you know that there are other items that some of the other commission members would like to talk about so you have a better idea how long a meeting might last . Also, similarly I would have a section for director things. Items that I might want to bring up that aren' t , more of just a discussion thing and again , just so we have some idea how much i.s really on that agenda . A couple things that I did want — to cover with you though i.s just, as far as some of the things that have happened that you may not be aware of. I mentioned the contractors yards. Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 47 On the Taco Shop, that was also , it had been tabled by the Planning - Commission and forwarded to Council for some direction relative to whether there was any interest in pursuing acquisition and City Council on Monday did essentially authorize the City Attorney to proceed with acquisition - for that particular property. On the Ver-Sa-Til site, the industrial building, you may recall it' s behind the Press and it' s about 97,000 square feet and we also had a replat on that area . That was approved . That was all approved at Council on Monday night. Then the other item I wanted to bring you up to speed on just briefly is on the recycling . Jo Ann has been doing a lot of that and in all honesty was put somewhat on a back burner while she' s been gone but she did come in and write some stuff — up and we had RFP put together a draft that we had sent out to contractors and got some input back from them and then Monday night we had that on the Council agenda for authorization to put out the formal RFP so the recycling can get going . We' re roughly about a month behind what we had informed everybody that we would doing so the request for proposals on that will be going out- shortly. — Conrad: That' s really a curbside pick up? Hanson: Yes . And it will be essentially a one year demonstration to see — how that works and then there will be a recycling committee that will get set up to look at how we ought to handle some of the other issues related to that in the coming years . Then the other thing I wanted to do was let you know some idea of what your work load is looking like in the next couple meetings . At your next meeting you ' re going to have the Eckankar proposal for a conditional use permit and basically it ' s a request to build a church facility on the entire parcel . The entire 174 acres . But — there will be that item. Also one that you' re probably intimately more familiar with than I am is the Ches Mar subdivision. The two lot subdivision . That' s coming back. I can ' t tell you that anything has been resolved after talking with the Attorneys on both sides but from my understanding , the one attorney is requiring the other one to go ahead and pursue something so they' re pursuing something and saying we don' t have an answer for the access question that was apparently the hang-up previously so that will be coming back. That' s all that ' s scheduled on that meeting and I would venture to say that it will take the evening . — Conrad: Eckankar , it just depends. Are you getting calls? Hanson: Yes . I 'm expecting that we' ll have a fairly full house. Conrad: That could be a two hour meeting real easily. Emmings: I take it that people don ' t want to see them build here? Is — that what the calls are? Hanson: Yes. Emmings: And what are the reasons that they give, just out of curiousity. They just don' t want it? Conrad : You' ll hear it . That' s a real volatile issue . Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 48 Hanson: Then the March 15th meeting , the application deadline is next Monday, Tuesday. Right now I 'm expecting we' re going to have 4 to 6 — applications coming in ranging from subdivision west of the Near Mountain area that was shown as a condominium area and they want to come back and change it from condominiums and go to single family. It ' s the high knoll that sits up there. I suspect that that application will come in . — There' s another subdivision application. I 'm drawing a blank on what it was. I believe there' s an industrial building that will be coming in. I know there' s 2 or 3 other things that I ' ve talked with people and — whether they can get their information together or not, those will be coming in . The other thing Planning Commission ought to be aware of is , I ' ve taken the stand with the applicants and tried to be consistent on _ this in the last , basically the last month, when the applications have come in, I ' ve tried to go through and do a review of whether they' ve had everything . If they haven' t had everything that ' s required in the regulations as near as- I could tell , I ' ve taken their packets , sent them a — letter and said it' s incomplete and I wished them along . That has happened on the Eckankar proposal . Initially it would have been on tonight . I ' ve tried to be fairly consistent with that and I ' ve tried to be very conservative. Just so you' re aware of that so if you ' re getting phone calls , you know why. Conrad : As long as it ' s reasonable. Obviously it makes sense to us . — You' ve got to have the information. Likewise, we need the information too from the referral agencies and what have you so we need that. Hanson: I just wanted to bring that up because there has been probably 3 applications that I ' ve given back and one of them decided not to go ahead , which was at least for the time being. I think part of it was they _ realized they just didn' t have everything and some other problems and it ' s a conditional use. It's a cold storage down on TH 212 and TH 169 coming back for the second building . So that has backed off. The Admiral Waste will be coming up to Council on the 27th for their extension request . Conrad : On the Near Mountain , when we change the phases that we pre-approved, I think you' ve got to give us some rationale for allowing a — change. We negotiated with them 6-7 years ago the whole subdivision, PUD whatever it is. Was it a PUD? And part of that was negotiating the hill into high density or clustered to save the hill . You' ve got to help us as _ they come back wanting to go lower density, residential but yet destroying more of the hill . Hanson : That ' s what I asked them when they were in and they had the — proposal . I basically told them the issue that I saw, reducing the density is one thing and maybe that appeals to the neighbors but I don ' t know but I would venture to say that based on the plans that I saw before, for what' s out there, you' re going to have a larger impact as far as actual impact on the site itself because there' s going to be some heavy duty grading on it. Conrad : The neighbors will be hostile. Guaranteed because they worked real hard to kind of preserve some of that area . It didn' t matter how Planning Commission Meeting February 15, 1989 - Page 49 many people were there as long as you preserve the area . That was rather important so it will be interesting . Batzli moved , Wildermuth seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10: 35 p.m. . Submitted by Steve Hanson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim