07-05-89 Agenda and Packet AGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, JULY 5, 1989 , 7 : 30 P.M.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE
CALL TO ORDER
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Wetland Alteration Permit for filling in a portion of a Class
A wetland on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family
and located at the southwest corner of Kings Road and
Minnewashta Parkway, Daryl Kirt.
2. Preliminary Plat to replat CHADDA Addition into 4 lots,
zoned CBD, and located at the northwest corner of Great
Plains Blvd. and West 78th Street, Colonial Square.
3 . Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend the City Code, Section
20-237, Revocation and Inspection regarding Conditional Use
Permits.
NEW BUSINESS
OLD BUSINESS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
OPEN DISCUSSION
4 . Zoning Ordinance Amendments.
— ADJOURNMENT
* The following items were deleted from the agenda:
2 . Preliminary Plat to subdivide 100 acres into three single
family lots and one outlot on property zoned RR, Rural
Residential and located on Tanadoona Drive, west of Hwy. 41
and north of Hwy. 5 , Kurt Laughinghouse.
3 . Preliminary Plat to subdivide 9 . 5 acres into 18 single family
lots on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and
located south of Pleasant View Road and east of Powers
Boulevard, Van Eeckhout Building Corporation (Vineland
Forest) .
4 . Preliminary plat to subdivide 18. 93 acres into 11 high den-
sity lots on property zoned R-12, Residential High Density
for 182 condominium units located on Outlot B, West Village
Heights (between Powers and Kerber Blvd. , north of W. 78th
Street) , Cenvesco (Oakview Heights) .
5 . Wetland Alteration Permit for alteration of a Class B wetland
on property zoned PUD-R and located just east of Audubon Road
and south of Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, Lake Susan Hills
West 3rd Addition, Argus Development.
.
_ , C I TY O F P.C. DATE: July 5, 1989
CHANHASSE C.C. DATE: July 24 , 1989
4y . NCASE NO. 89-6 WAP
Prepared by: Olsen/v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Wetland Alteration Permit for the Partial Filling
of a Class A Wetland
F
z
- a
V LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Minnewashta Parkway and Kings
Road
Cl. APPLICANT: Daryl and Debra Kirt
- Q P.O. 692
Chanhassen, MN 55317
_ I
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
ACREAGE: 6. 28 acres
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- RSF; single family
—
S- Lake St. Joe
E- PUD; townhomes
W- RSF; single family
WWATER AND SEWER: Available to the site
PHYSICAL CHARAC. : A majority of the site is a Class A
wetland with lakeshore on Lake St. Joe.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
NI
-� —� 62No sr t
I
YR
0
,-.4 44 1.7— i.4:11- 11 11111 ,Igi log liq Milk.1 -iit ''-8-R°141.,- s' '. .
rm 24%11/674111:.11111:01%
evgfr ma le"
m� ■ '-'_ga iii WIZ Mt It ,-/ tip_
4.
x.:SWig
- -,e, AMis..‘ Pr - - A -wiagfftla,.'
iji4p c :. . Dzi z •
Or , .-_. -11 c_s x bib" iiib, .
,,,,- ... obi.
__,1‘..... --.....44 A .
.,, ---"–* es,\."*"aiiii ,; ,i(-7 ,
, . - . wriwile#1,/
_ .._ Omfon,..* . . . . ,.
•; IITO e , 11111Pi„ \ '
-.1 al. Aetticti-irit LI-401 011 la - .
ippr T. - 4.1-x wog. .. , - -
Orli LSI ' z Mil 71
I
1— f
LAKE .
f!'! / N N E
RSF � LY a s N r A
W' °..�t�f ci .1
e
�' ` RD
K'NG ROA . 1 .\- PUD
_ .
l J -
•
-� / _
�? )STaCF_ ... 2' ••q
I
= PON• ?it
I _
a =, t
1 �.}�,� - r-- �-sem i-
!I 0 11111,0
W f%► / RR
MAPLE 3HC.tE3
DRIVE t.H �
IZ.3 I _
71
1 T_,..., I�•y,DppN> ..
t -- Pi'/ --' ORiti
, i
Z:_ r r �A
l 4: ,---
•
-
.. ,- , .. ,,,,,„„p
r-----naceF-2/. :---.-....------...... ,____. 4 -- • ..
• JLi Hil
r�
Kirt Wetland Alteration Permit
July 5 , 1989
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20-421 requires a wetland alteration permit for any
digging, dredging, or filling of a Class A or B wetland.
Section 20-437 allows a minimum amount of filling of a wetland
with the following considerations :
1 . Any filling shall not cause total natural flood storage capa-
city of the wetland to fall below or fall below further the
projected volume of runoff from the watershed generated by a
5 . 9" rainfall in 24 hours. Since the total amount of filling
which can be permitted is limited apportionment of fill
opportunities for other properties abutting the wetland shall
be considered.
2 . Any filling shall not cause total nutrient stripping capacity
— of the wetland to be diminished to an extent that is detri-
mental to any area river, lake or stream.
3 . Only fill free of chemical pollutants and organic waste may
be used.
4 . Filling shall be carried out so as to minimize the impact on
— vegetation.
5 . Filling the wetland areas will not be permitted during water-
fowl breeding or fish spawning season unless it is determined
by the city that the wetland is not used for waterfowl
breeding or fish spawning.
ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a wetland alteration permit to allow
a portion of the Class A wetland to be filled to construct a
single family residence. The subject site is an existing lot of
record of over 6 acres with the majority of the site containing a
Class A wetland. Since the site is an existing lot of record,
the applicant has the right to build on the lot. The applicant
received a variance to the 75 foot wetland setback from the
City Council on June 26, 1989 (Attachment #1) .
The applicant is proposing to fill a small area in the northeast
corner of the Class A wetland. The area of wetland proposed to
be filled is of poor quality in which filling over the past years
has already occurred. The better quality portion of the wetland
is located south of the area that is proposed to be filled.
Staff visited the site several times with the Fish and Wildlife
Service to determine the edge of the wetland and the extent of
filling which would be acceptable. The area and extent of the
Kirt Wetland Alteration Permit —
July 5, 1989
Page 3
wetland proposed to be filled meets the recommendations of the
Fish and Wildlife Service and meets the intent of Section 20-437.
Although the applicant has the right to build a single family —
residence on the property and could in fact request more of a
wetland alteration, they have instead worked with the existing
conditions to have as little impact to the wetland as possible. _
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the —
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland —
Alteration Permit #89-6 as shown on the site plan dated June 23 ,
1989, subject to the following conditions :
1 . Type III erosion control shall be installed as shown on the
site plan.
2. The applicant shall receive a permit from DNR and the Corps —
of Engineers.
ATTACHMENTS —
1 . Variance report.
2 . Site plan dated June 23, 1989.
— .i.
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
CITY OF CIIANRASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
• (612) 937-1900 -
- n APPLICANT: ,•
(/1 cony/g �.r,(rG /�T OWNER ' e�
J r»
•ADDRESS ..... .(____42-2) Q� ADDRESS _3
C`]Ctr7%kSSen S53J7 •
TELEPHONE (Daytime) ¢g!g a Zip dde -- Zip Code
03 TELEPHONE
REQUEST: - 9a47/-1/4"
Zoning District - �= - .
Change _
Planned Unit Development - ``'
• Zoning Appeal
_ Sketch Plan
_ Zoning Variance Preliminary Plan
Final Plan
_ Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision
Land Use Plan Amendment
Platting
- -
— Conditional Use Permit Metes and Bounds
Site Plan Review
y
Street/Easement Vacation --
)( Wetlands Permit
PROJECT NAME -
- PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
PRESENT ZONING
• REQUESTED ZONING
• USES PROPOSED Sin / �,�,../
S
_ SIZE OF PROPERTY (o....).611 AFS ) 6 70 4-77 WepiA — 580.cD hAsT —396.3h s0c�_
LOCATION ,KNG S ,e0 A ti ci.,oC, 7)-/z4,4/EJ 4 c //7 4 SO,4,�,c A V 7/<./. ip 467
yi ,ed ot-i s)
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST , t. _ 71 (�
LA, 4. rel �-t- 1
1.15C I
— LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary )
J U N 7 1989
•
CITY.OF CHANHASSEN
•
City of Chanhassen
Land Development Application —
Page 2
•
FILING INSTRUCTIONS :
This application must be
clearly printed and must bemaccompaniedpleted in uby all ll and inform
plans required bytypewritten or
filingnapplicable City Ordinanceprovisions .
s Before and
this application Provisions .
to determine the specificordinance and procedural
ould with the City
applicable to your procedural requirements Planner
application .
•
FILING CERTIFICATION:
The undersigned representative of the applicant herebyt• —
that he is familiar with the procedural of all
applicable City Ordinances . ' requirements cer�ifi
es
/
Signed By AIL
Applicant _ Dat e �S
\\) .
The undersigned hereby certifies that
• authorized to maize this application ,�the applicant has been
described. for the property
herein
"
Signed By _i_g__ _____________l �vim, _
Fee Owner Date _ftca/z27ZAT____
• &5 W 9 _
Date Application Received t -?--6
Application Fee Paid dl )00 JJ
•
. . .City Receipt No. ,',.?-7(: S'- '
* This application will be
Board or considered by the Plannin
Adjust�ents and Appeals at their g COission/
meeting.
gb
(CcpuN-
Mi IV
DESCRIPTION
Commencing at the Northwest corner of Section 8, Township 116, Range 23 and running thence East on
the North Section line of said Section, a distance of 199 feet to a point thereon, which said point is the
point of beginning of the land to be herein described; thence continuing East on said North Section line, a
distance of 471 feet to a point in the center of County Road No. 3; thence turning and running South 6
degrees 14 minutes West, along the center line of said road,
South 13 degrees 35 minutes West a distance of 197.8 feet to a pt point, whiche of is o feet
Southto a point; thenceosite the ed Ce
dar
Point Road; thence turning and running northwesterly to a point ich is 580 feet due South from the
— point of beginning; thence turning and running North a distance of 580 feet to the place of beginning.
Lying and being in Government Lot 1, Section 8, Township 116, Range 23.
L
A � ....
l
CITY OF
BOA DATE: June 26 , 1989
C.C. DATE:
:Cc.,. /4LL\\'';',,,47CEANEASSEN ll.r CASE NO: 89-7 Variance
Prepared by: Olsen/v
STAFF REPORT
.
PROPOSAL: A 50 Foot Variance to the 75 Foot Wetland Setback
for a Structure
E
l —Q
0 -
LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Minnewashta Parkway and Kings
Road
—
u... APPLICANT: Daryl and Debra Kirt
Q P.O. 692 _
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family —
ACREAGE: 6. 28 acres
DENSITY:
t/7
�� —
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- RSF; single family _6/.2/ /, _ —
Q S- Lake S t. Joe 4 74)
E- PUD; townhomes
0 W- RSF; single family
w
F.F. WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site
PHYSICAL CHARAC. : A majority of the site is a Class A
wetland with lakeshore on Lake St. Joe. —
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
4 —
Kirt Variance
June 26 , 1989
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20-409 of the Wetland Ordinance requires a minimum struc-
ture setback of 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark.
ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a setback variance from a Class A
wetland to allow them to construct a single family residence.
The 6 . 3 acre site is located at the southwest corner of Kings
Road and Minnewashta Parkway. A majority of the site is a Class
A wetland with a small portion of buildable area located in the
northeast corner of the site. The lot is an existing lot of
record and therefore must be permitted to have a single family
residence located on the site. The applicant has worked closely
with staff and with the Fish and Wildlife Service to properly
stake the edge of the wetland and to locate the proposed single
family residence where it would least impact the wetland. The
site plan locates the proposed home and garage in the northeast
corner of the site where it is meeting the 30 foot front yard
setback and is also maintaining a sanitary sewer lift station
easement located in the northeast corner of the property.
Staff has visited the site several times with the Fish and
Wildlife Service to determine the extent, the type and the
quality of the wetland. The wetland is of lower quality where
the applicant is proposing to be within the 75 foot setback and
is also proposing partial fill for the construction of the home.
Staff feels that the applicant has tried to situate the house as
best possible with the existing conditions of the site and is
trying to maintain as much of the 75 foot setback as possible.
The closest portion of the proposed structure (garage) would be
25 feet from the edge of the wetland.
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the
Council shall not grant, a variance unless they find the
following facts:
_ A. That the literal enforcement of the Ordinance would cause
undue hardship and practical difficulty.
* The literal enforcement of the 75 foot setback from the edge
of the wetland would not allow a single family structure to be
located on the lot.
B. That the hardship is caused by special conditions and cir-
cumstances which are peculiar to the land and structure
involved and which are not characteristic of or applicable to
other lands of structures in the same district.
* The hardship is caused by special conditions and circumstances
of the lot. The parcel is an existing lot of record with the
Kirt Variance —
June 26 , 1989
Page 3
majority of the site designated as a protected wetland.
Without a variance the site would not be buildable.
C. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preser-
vation and enjoyment of substantial property rights .
* The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of substantial property rights.
D. That the special conditions and circumstances are not a con-
sequence of a self-created hardship.
* The special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence
of a self created hardship.
E. That the variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect
the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the City of
the neighborhood wherein the property is situated and will be
in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. —
* The applicant has worked closely with staff and Fish and
Wildlife Service to ensure that the impact to the wetland of
the proposed house would be minimal. —
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board of Adjustments and Appeals adopt the
following motion:
"The Board of Adjustments and Appeals approves of Variance #89-7
to permit a single family residence to be located 25 feet from
the edge of a Class A wetland as shown on the site plan dated
"June 21, 1989" with the following conditions :.) —
1. Type IZ[erosion control as shown on the site plan will oe
installed prior to any alteration of the site. —
2 . Any additions to the garage or home within the required set-
backs will require additional variances . "
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Zoning Ordinance excerpt —
2 . Site plan dated June 21, 1989
§ 20407 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(4) Sedimentation basins for construction projects.
(5) Open storage.
(6) Animal feedlots.
(7) The planting of any species of the genus Lythrum.
(8) Operation of motorized craft of all sizes and classifications.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 24(5-24-5), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-408. Prohibited uses in class B wetlands.
The following uses are prohibited in class B wetlands:
(1) Disposal of waste material including, but not limited to, sewage, demolition debris,
hazardous and toxic substances,and all waste that would normally be disposed of at a
solid waste disposal site or into a sewage disposal system or sanitary sewer.
(2) Solid waste disposal sites, sludge ash disposal sites, hazardous waste transfer or
disposal sites.
(3) Animal feedlots. - •
(4) The planting of any species of the genus Lythrum.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 24(5-24-6), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-409. General development regulations.
Within wetland areas and for lands abutting or adjacent to a horizontal distance of two
hundred(200)feet, the following minimum provisions are applicable:
(1) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand(15,000)square feet.
(2) The minimum structure setback is seventy-five(75)feet from the ordinary high water
mark.
(3) Septic and soil absorption system setbacks are two hundred (200) feet from ordinary
high water mark.
(4) The lowest ground floor elevation is three(3)feet above ordinary high water mark.
(5) No development shall be allowed which may result in unusual road maintenance
costs or utility line breakages due to soil limitation, including high frost action.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 24(5-24-13), 12-15-86)
Secs. 20-410-20420. Reserved.
1190
P. C. DATE: 7-5-89
C I TY 0 F C. C. DATE: 7-24-89
CASE NO: 87-28
ClIANIIASSZN
Prepared by: JoAnn Olsen &
Hoisington Group Inc.
STAFF REPORT
- PROPOSAL: Preliminary &Final Plat request to subdivide 1.96 acres into four(4) lots.
Z
— a
LOCATION: Northwest corner of Great Plains Boulevard and West 78th Street
—
a
a' APPLICANT: CHADDA Hagen and Mason Investments
P.O. Box 100 33 Tenth Avenue South, Suite 100
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Hopkins, MN 55343
PRESENT ZONING: CBD, Central Business District
ACREAGE: 1.96 acres
DENSITY: N/A
I-
Q ADJACENT ZONING
- AND LAND USE: N- R-12, Vacant Multi-Family and Dry Cleaner
S- CBD, Pony/Pauly
E- OI, St. Hubert's School
— W W- CBD, Commercial Uses
I-
7 WATER AND SEWER: Municipal utility services are available
PHYSICAL
CHARACTERISTICS: The site is relatively flat and occupied by Colonial Shopping Center
and Loren Anderson's Gasoline Station
1990 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial
• • . 1 P UD—R --11°' 1.
. erip. 1 ci, ow, 0.0,1- 0„,„44
Ti.4!ifie n Iv .7 \\ ,: - -*owe' _ -
_ .. MO W../ Illib. ))
(I( etlaUligi
s1 OMNI
,,..:::- :� '��► 111111,
,_.
m;F
I
P��►�,�� LAKE
\- - -- - --7 1..:vip
bith,
_ ,
.k* #4.#(44i0 ', ? .
&vow mow A' --
0 ___, ,•
co g ���Or f!Tf irl lap ,t. ,
R ii ,______,„.HIII r„„VNYa! T:� _ —74
R 1 .
r. ... .,..,z.v,
to. M. .��l • .....
it ,„,mid., _ - .-- -
il 0. 'Jr.._.....41 i ra -‘#,, _
UMW
8
R 1 2 r V
' . - -. .� .� IT mir I. rI It growej c.)
..
.,:„ =if limr4-... 4
<".r au Lit .a rm
Y UMW*,:III//�1: , *f 11111,11 ,;.‘,IT,' �;l IPsuniii •P
`••- I �� ii:
1111111111 / w ,
NS ���O.F- :1111 /�', .
BG ATI B P 111,1 0,-,%'-'0,of. ' ..- -
1111/111111
. fikad‘- ' : .-wel'flii,1 170'0 , e) °Al! '
....!--- ,
, , ---------.-6 GI Illsvirr „Al - 5 1'14:`'.31-4.
�_ • I OH , .....,
W A� �C� . ... . ..
1 .r �i•
12:70700).dd !ail lirefirol:
IOP I OI ...la IA ia rak. 4
-ow
Va • v .4 u
--1 --._____\N , _ • 3
'g 11.:..414" "el ;
t 41 �ij�Ni ■ �:i 411 Will
"Is
RSF
82c� W I
/ _, - _�AKO AN
_
'r MARSH - ----
ciacur f
RS .. , LAKE SUSAN ;gym
r
RD 'V '` RicE - sH
1iP
86 T ST
-11111— PONOCM - 4--
R 4
R4
CHADDA Second Addition
July 5, 1989
Page 2
BACKGROUND
This is the second time that the CHADDA Second Addition has been
before the City of Chanhassen. On July 20, 1987, the City
Council approved the preliminary plat (Attachment #1 ) . Final
plat approval was granted on February 8 , 1988.
The original plat included three lots (Attachment #2) . Lot 1 was
to have been occupied by Building Block Daycare Center facility.
A small parcel lying between the daycare center lot and Loren
Anderson' s gasoline station was proposed to become part of the
City' s municipal parking lot. The original Lot 2 contained
Colonial Shopping Center, the southerly portion of which was to
have been divided off by metes and bounds and placed in the
ownership of the HRA to be used for pulbic parking lot improve-
ments.
For a variety of reasons, the Loren Anderson parcel has been
added to the plat at the request of the City and the City has
entered into an agreement to purchase the Anderson property so
that it might be cleared and used as part of the north side
public parking lot improvements.
Since the original plat was approved, the daycare center has
decided not to purchase the parcel lying westerly of the Colonial
Center and the HRA has an agreement with CHADDA to purchase that
parcel, including the original small Lot 3 . It has also been
agreed that the Chanhassen Realty Company property should be
divided into two lots as part of the platting process and the
northerly line of proposed Lot 4 correlates with the southerly
edge of the Colonial Center sidewalk. Since the original appro-
val , all of the concerns relating to the original Lot 3 , the
inclusion of the Loren Anderson parcel and the division of the
Chanhassen Realty property to reflect future public parking needs
have been resolved.
ANALYSIS
The proposed plat for CHADDA Second Addition includes four lots.
Proposed Lot 2 contains Colonial Shopping Center which is sche-
duled for a major face-lift to be completed in 1989. Proposed
Lots 1 , 3 and 4 are to be incorporated as part of the City' s
public parking improvement project ( site plan included) . While
the City will own proposed Lots 1, 3 and 4 , cross easements are
being prepared by CHADDA across the rear of Lot 2 , behind the
Colonial Center Building and Lot 1 to provide access for Phase I
of the Medical Arts Project.
Because Lot 1 has no street frontage and, therefore, technically
requires a variance to be platted as a lot, we are recommending
that Lot 1 be redesignated as Outlot A and that each of the other
three lot numbers be changed accordingly.
CHADDA Second Addition —
July 5 , 1989
Page 3
Public easements that already exist will be shown on the final
plat. Included is the sanitary easement over the west side of
the Anderson property. Easements that are still needed and must
be shown on the plat include a triangular drainage easement
behind the Colonial Center structure plus a 25 foot drainage and
utility easement behind that same building as illustrated in —
Exhibit 1 . Also needed are 15 foot utility easements for water
and sewer over Outlot A plus a 15 foot storm sewer easement
through the middle of the Colonial Center parking lot (Exhibit
2) . All of these latter easements are need in the event the city
does not become or remain the owner of said parcels. Also, an
existing sanitary sewer easement which is no longer needed shall
be vacated (Attachment #5) .
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision —
#87-28 as shown on the plat dated June 23, 1989, and subject to
the following conditions :
1. A change in lot numbering including the redesignation of Lot
1 as Outlot A.
2 . The provision of additional easements as per Exhibits 1 and
2 . All easements to be verified by BRW before filing of the
plat.
3 . Acquisition of requisite cross easements over Lot 1 and
Outlot A.
4. Vacation of sanitary sewer easement.
ATTACHMENTS
1 . City Council minutes dated July 20 , 1987 .
2 . Original plat. —
3 . & 4 . Existing conditions.
5 . Sanitary sewer easement.
6 . Exhibit 1 . _
7 . Exhibit 2 .
8 . Staff report dated February 2, 1988.
9 . Staff report dated July 20, 1989.
10 . Application.
11 . Plat dated June 23 , 1989.
_ 82
City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987
4. Installation of fire hydrants as required by the Fire Department and111
coordinated with BRW.
5. Revision of the site plan to indicate the gas pumps 50 feet from the
edge of Laredo Drive.
6. Compliance with all other conditions of approval from the original
plan review.
7. Special consideration be made for the safety of the service drive.
The Public Safety Director should review the plan to determine the
appropriate technique for the safety of the service drive and shall
report back to the Council with his findings.
8. Mr. Hoisington shall review the revised landscaping plan.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 2.15 ACRES INTO 2 LOTS TO CONTAIN THE
KENNY'S SUPERMARKET BUILDING AND A DAYCARE FACILITY, LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET AND GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, WATERFORD DEVELOPMENT
AND CHADDA.
Barbara Dacy: The parcel, as you are well aware, is located directly west of
where the existing Kenny's market is on the north side of West 78th Street.
Currently the property that is represented on your preliminary plat sheet is
the property that's indicated by a solid black line. The daycare center is to
be located on the northwest corner. Also indicated on the plat is the edge of
the gas station. That's this parcel right here. You will also note that
between the boundary lines of the gas station and the proposed day care center
there is a 20 to 30 foot strip that's located in this area. Basically what
the plat is doing is creating this new lot in the northwest corner of the
site and one of the recommendations is to resolve this 20 to 30 foot strip.
CHADDA has indicated to staff that this will become part of the parcel to the
south so the revised preliminary plat will reflect that. As you are also
aware, the HRA is in the process of considering authorizing condemnation of
that parcel and the HRA would be responsible for the demolition of the gas
station. Therefore, the area could be cleared so that area could be used for
parking area for the proposed facility. By creation of this lot in the
northwest corner of the plat it is technically landlocked and we had addressed
that issue in the report. There will need to be cross easements filed for
access purposes. However, in all practicality the lots will have street
frontage from a practical standpoint. BRW has also provided some comments
about the proposed storm sewer plan and access for utilities that are
recommended as a condition of approval obtaining necessary easements to serve
that parcel. The Planning Commission at their meeting did recommend approval
of the proposed plat subject to the four conditions that were in the staff
report.
Councilman Boyt: BRW and Hoisington's comments, I would like to have those
addressed sometime.
30 ay.T
City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987
Councilman Geving: This is the time to do it.
Barbara Dacy: I think a number of Fred's concerns had to do with the site
plan issue. BRW did have sane concerns about utility easements.
Councilman Boyt: I think you've written those into your proposal so I'm okay
with that.
Councilman Johnson: Looks good.
Councilman Geving: I have no comments. I like what I see and I think Staff
has done a good job in bringing this to the Planning Commission and the
recommendations are in order.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Subdivision
Request #87-28 subject to the subdivision of a revised preliminary plat
indicating the following:
1. Identification of additional parcels, such as the Anderson parcel, as
lots.
2. Identification of utility and drainage easements.
3. Consummation of an acquisition agreement by the HRA of the Anderson —
parcel including execution of proper access and parking cross
easements in conjunction with the ,filing of the final plat.
4. Inclusion of the 20-30 foot strip into Lot 2 or the parcels to the —
south.
All voted in favor and motion carried. —
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A DAYCARE FACILITY LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF _
WEST 78TH STREET AND GREAT PLAINS BLVD., WATERFORD DEVELOPMENT AND CHADDA.
Barbara Dacy: This transparency is the interim parking plan and it shows the
location of the 5,900 square foot daycare center. As we talked about earlier
in the item regarding the commercial revenue bonds, one of the items that we
did look at was potential reuse of the building if it were to swing from the
daycare center to another use. Based on those parking requirements, —
additional parking spaces are going to be needed from the parking area in
front of the Kenny's building and the area that will exist after we remove the
gas station. Again, cross parking easements will be needed to be filed. Of
more importance though is, as was pointed out by our consultant was the
overall function of the site especially during peak traffic hours during drop
off and pick-up times especially under this proposal there is kind of dead end
that's formed along the west lot line. Mr. Hoisington suggested that the City —
consider a municipal improvement project for this parking area and for the
area to the west so an overall circulation can be achieved. The City Manager
also wanted to address that issue and after I'm done I think he wanted to make _
a couple of comments about that. Further, the proposal is a separate free
31 —
dAIIA 2D A !' D IT
0,,,,.,(1._1/ 1-- 1--451--
. \q
•
_ d 1 / I 'I;10.,�i
S I /in
r� eOCH,
1 , •
-
9h/ond '
Ork
4 s3g w
�' -338
Drainage and -; \ X38- i
w T U ,Ii><y'Easement
.`
7950
I
—
\ //
200-°0 -- 1 �.
! °
N'
1
10
' ID 7°- I GZ
N iOro,nage andUt'ilify `�
I
oC '��� Easement
z . ,_.,
. 1• ` 51y „.„_. W
Sao• < ;s� Drornage_and z -J
�4a i Ufilify Case men3 / - o
I . \1 - r1 13612 m
_ N89•43'56'W •
„.1N606. ,p e 3 2
I.
1 N 1 N .T.7H0V) '`
N
6 ..-----1 TS - I 135 t8 C4 gO
?3-22
60.Op-
7 •. II o iiO Cr)(U O X88'06'20"W� n c, oZ.d0a0000O ZO—
5e Q Q0N- 0,0 -- aZo
0 I
p o
P
° I
e m
Ito ~Q
Z . Drainage and
-I- -- _ _ 'L't,I i f Eosemenr"” W
o I — �� `�- — __..J OC
Ne6°06'20• ./ o C7
-- --- ' 151.86-- 17
-
90•
C.S.A. HWY. NO. 16 o
.___i___ _ 1
r.1138.0s*20"W 1
•
S.irne 01 meSE.%ot,r7e SW 1/4 PO 00-
1:12— M
m
1 il- .7
P—
c ti m `1' = m .— Imo, .........."-
•
ON N , o N
j u N
O ' - .
p O __ — G 91- —
0
151
19 11-� 9 9 z
to to
JIlNOLIA I
66 001 ffl ,�
IZ U b O m0
e N r"-- O , 8 m 6 V an dIwo
_ > ' 66 \ELI
W ,�_ \001
- el lia.
1 O In > >2 ,-
NHf - inN a a 11 yy
a 0- O c
41Ell 3 '7 lf) N Y = m
00 co
- n Z -J---
1
Cr _
a o a M Q o _ C£ICC
00 o a = a. U � •
N A
N (� i
W Y _ A
O m m A
.1 m Y U/7 I
49'Z11 99C�k — 99 I r _ __.1 31d1S
t •"----$.1.-6 1
os
-,
' FS of .10
n"...Tr
Z N
j� a �� a 66 � nda<a
veozrn
V',r)1l�r
O •
O� 3it YYYOY
•
L m m m J CO
�/ A11flvd 0 .�if. ►66 'J
NO2�fH L. ..
6o 44)g
U
tnm°V K�Zn Z I !
Z ccta
0
(j-) (� Z�VA 07r� N n H WO p
O Q,(�N za'a T Y Q 1.;)
x •cc w . o CCM �U n v z
A O�mn mmQb --i I, Q_ U f n
h J Z 2 r m Y Z Y Q Y a I Z N n O p f
2LLOY QmWm \md W d W m a. 1 Nd
L/ ,.p1 o0umm �m fLZcJ xm Z -O�
!' - I ip n Z
- " - i e n a
01 a) Mir OL OL •
•sl nl W m J Y Y Y
— 0 • roo. — o
C 0 t m m 0 m
il0no08I o
894f1 .' { :OL CL _ o
I , CD --001- I ��
J r • m O
co
r
I's1n0 f8l �rvo� ar
A m
•
Qaaa ap� aaa �a
LD JNDa 1/1, V1001.p O J-
A_ n r_ z n A r Z W-
W YY Y ][
,• Qmmm G82 xmmmV am
SO `N
A Q
_ In r
O O W•
1
Qa
r
TZ
- p
VM01>1 R cr O a In
Nr - - Z rn x
a
= M
�' In (.0N- U f92
n
VZ S N li
�31CH > 4
X4
Y f[ f£
O — =o
0
OS
A
i
I
I
•
3 STORM SEWER
N
:...ED STORM SEWER
ON CURBLINEED
V PARKING SURI'=40"
0[E
OSED ELEVA
EIf
•
CNAN
i
V/Ew
/ / / / / / / /
/ `r
Illlll/ II � r , / / Il11110- / / / / :
I1 /
r . L
HERITAGE PARK
APARTMENT BLDG
F.F 981.0 __) : i—T
I QGZ.
1- \ \ \ I I 1 - i2,. 12° ��"`f
\ ,.
n
- ❑ - a %p `s? — Lor ) o
3••
00 RETAIL CNO
•. • U 1 'I I I I I I I I I '3 I FIRST FLOOR ELEV. 974.0 Z
II 4
all /i
/ ofaaa" / 3 C' , j, I rI I I I I " J.. ;Ii:1 97411.1
ill a;MIll
' '� �1N �' I I 1 1 i � g
-��r� ACP ` 115" I ' (12° 12° I + .-. ---
F.F.975 5 _ e 4 w 4 • 4 •
_�����I �� 0 IIIIIII HI 913 ! I18,,
I� �t `. ..
• RETAI 5 r Lar/� 117T 3
F.F.976.6
��r . 974 •'75 B� �� I I g74 I j I t I
,Ma v 4.b
-_, -13 . 3 I
k
I ne,ear te•bly nw, ,e.. plow, -7-- GAIGRINtL o..E ALll CITY OF CHANW
eaeedgahea e• ripen mei - --'I't11 ' AEvISgN:JYV 19�@
D•SD0,e0 a eq..yyer„r,a„«, _ NORTH SIDE PI
e..OMe.eMe aa0 Mho, I ewe Oelr
X H I B I T 6 R••••4141 Fre/ee.,enel Elan... =
a:0e, the s"le s ,,,M si., ,, "7.7•".' PARKING L(
Sic,loae :tt.OZ le Sri Ii. '�`.�....:�••
=ES.N Br GA SvAvE'BK NO GRADING STORE
.-_,R4AN Br ?.. ,_,_71
_
...—
Doe ''o"". pep. AO'614° S.A.P. NO. SHEET 6 OF 8
i �: _�
.t•tl' It t . . '� 1.
:'-',I•
D D ,,, , .. !
CH A ,;. , ,.
/' I A T.E-it
_.
/ �11 .
,r? 4
l Sy line a{'h,. \ K 1 I �,
6 `yam /N74./S' QrI `,I w ,
36.4, • 1/4"
_
,/� _ ,33$
I Drainage and y 38-..
{e--•-~T Ufa/t Easement
So
Sanirory Sewer easement ' `G' '� 13 A4'
^!�`
•
1 per Sookst of Deeds Page 4481\. -
'` � 200..• —ma -- I.j�
1
I iii
I '�: c4. ? 7 c 33
r�,�Q-''�'j�/G '1�-Q' `lncress and Egress
M `4SC1 '"jo, G3i►� Eosemenr I 1 I
1S C
�j � gr.) I
6,1 is / N•A:.•.- 7b i /r._�� I Q
'6[ --..---. ..> l
aa.00 (: i�$I f �� ..J 3 _
• iM N
`
I N89.4 '56'L./ `rs
rml1 Li w ' �o _. •✓._ a. IroS.
r
,ioj -' I. o rl I - Esem Iia
� L
N -- .4
1 •1 1 y N �`>IB.W y! 41
1` I y, t36.Ie.
`{ o -61 .—
j ' -Ic .00-... I 0• a x
o Ns8"os 20^w./ • N• I `ptnct, o .:f
41. �, q pOoa I N =?O 111
QI
TA" 10
� , <' 1 Ui'
: 8; '1 i ,--
I
ol Ilhiblk in °I .
1 / 4n T —
°V.
JI
Z Jra,nooe and
oAirh Utrlr>tr��Eosemerr`'� c
PROPVSFD R-0.w. .
h i "I —
W
'L4,
1 a, 4 iltOra
N v o f
\-- -----•:... - --A
r
ski
11:7'. : 2
/ 1 _ _____ _
•
�' / L
- 44 . , . c__i_
w \r) ATI 0 c
w L._ N
.fl 4-- t,i • _
4) a -, - .(\ 0
1 P \.__ _ c,% cr., oz . i
4 1 . .
..• • :
t_ .
, . . __ tNi
. LA
_ . c.,
'7-K%).1
t o
1
i
%_ ~` .••
m/
11\ii.iiii !
-1... . I
m c
c Fp .: ...-- . hi61 1 171 °91m
._•Th i• / - — -
(_.T ct, -
J. ---- G, 01. s,----t,
\ CV
t
0 E N °-"
_rr ,Nk".
- C a) 3 Q .. L1
,t/ n/ 1)) -- 1 1 1 r`0 ,-- -
-
•
N -
(1)
t'-,d
TE VALVE
i
\TE VALVE
/-----------------ss------..._.
ill VFW
/ = III
/ / / /-----J --__
I ' ll / / / —
. llIl / II.�
r I / I r
•
HERITAGE PARK . -----____________,j
APARTMENT BLDG. I ;1
`1 t, ID \
R \\ \ \ I l 11 l
PROPOSEDI HYDRANT
'1L ci
R I I 1 __ I STI 4 I m
SAO.5�..) .• RETAIL
g (� �JA♦� Z
1 . 1 I 1 � VA SA16 SI I � ; _ I -
TERM' I
I 1 POO MED!eh I ;
y� SANITARYISEWERNib
`000 Q
1411/ 4 U'21I I I I I
,i " ," �= I IIII I I _
/ CONNECT TO EXIST J
0 1 111 1 144,
F.F. 975.5 -+ SE to
IVII� -4L '"I I I : il I I 1 .1/4..." "..--i\F'3 < I —
0 �. RETAIL ^s —CONNECT TO EXIST
IIIIIILI : . ' • . II21 1 .
t r r 1--e--a..1 d. \
DCATE J I EXIST HYDRANT---4'•
T. HYDRANT 1 0 EXIST. 8"SANITARY SEWER
j•--EXIST. 6" WATERMAIN
-
•
1-.)&tps I .....• e..•wip .yl •e.• .1.., --7— CSRK:.....Zi-E ''�"'— CITY OF CHANHAS,�
•.Kohne... mien N. -__ titiV ne,..s NS.K 1�'E --'
&(.11%a Iii- (Z . " '"'"""ri.•ee �.ti NORTH SIDE PU1
•..Me••Nw w. ..of 1 M. ..Iy
M.y.•e.1 n./N•.•.•1 CMwwe.
wogs. . . s•..w 11... :1.1.1.• —;••;b-� PARKING LOT
Sot
t4n '=t 021' H14. SANITARY SEWEJa
::..ES:ONBY p R Su.NE•B.tiJ
?RAN'N BY Mr.Li__ AND WATERMAII
•
o... liVei +. N j!±° S.A.P. NO. SHEET 5 OF 8 Lir
I b,
�p . CITY OF
‘4' f
r. CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN,`;a►r MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
J .
77
FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Plan er l /5-/,17
DATE: February 2 , 1988
SUBJ: Final Plat Approval - CHADDA Second Addition '/-; "s %
BACKGROUND
On July 20 , 1987 , the City Council approved the preliminary plat
for Building Block Daycare. The preliminary plat was conditioned
upon the following:
1 . Identification of additional parcels such as the Anderson
parcel as lots.
2 . Identification of utility and drainage easements .
3 . Consummation of an acquisition agreement by the HRA of the
Anderson parcel including execution of proper access and
parking cross easements in conjunction with the filing of the
final plat.
4 . Inclusion of the 20 to 30 foot strip into Lot 2 of parcels to
the south.
ANALYSIS
Since preliminary plat approval , the HRA has proceeded with
authorization to execute the agreement required by condition #3 .
Concurrently, the City Council has approved the feasibility study
to create a public parking lot in front of the Kenny' s complex.
By so doing, Lot 3 will be used as future access to the west and
the city will obtain ownership of the southerly portion of Lot 2 .
Gary Ehret has identified the proposed location of the lot line
through proposed Lot 2 that would divide the municipal parking
lot from the Kenny' s building. This line coincides with the edge
of the sidewalk in front of the Kenny' s building. The final
plat should be amended to indicate this new lot line . Therefore,
the city will own Lots 3 and the southerly portion of Lot 2 . The
daycare will own Lot 1 and Herb Mason , owner of the Kenny' s
building will retain ownership of the northerly portion of Lot 2 .
Mr. Don Ashworth
February 2, 1988 —
Page 2
The proposed final plat has been reviewed by Gary Ehret from BRW
to confirm that the proposed placement of drainage and utility
easements is consistent with downtown utility planning
( stormwater, sewer and water) . Existing on the lot as shown in
Attachment #1 is a sanitary sewer easement which provides access
to the existing sewer main. Through the redevelopment process,
this sewer main will be abandoned and the easement will no longer
be necessary. An easement vacation application will be filed and
will be brought before the City Council at the March 14 , 1988 ,
meeting. Because the parking area in front of the Kenny' s —
building and the daycare center will be a municipal parking lot,
cross easements as originally required will not be necessary.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the final plat
for CHADDA Second Addition subject to the following conditions : —
1 . Vacation of the existing sanitary sewer easement through Lots
1 , 2 and 3 .
2 . Revision of the plat to locate a lot line through Lot 2 as
recommended in Attachment #3 .
3 . Execution of cross parking easements.
4 . Transfer of clear ownership of the southerly portion of Lots —
2 and 3 to the City of Chanhassen.
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Location map of existing sanitary sewer easement.
2 . Proposed municipal parking lot site plan.
3 . Proposed lot line through Lot 2 for municipal parking lot. —
4 . City Council minutes dated July 20 , 1987 .
5 . Proposed final plat stamped "Received January 6 , 1988" .
I TY 0 F 2. DATE: 7-8-87
�
C.C. DATE: 7-20-8'1
. r
MAN :US : EN
' r CASE N0: 87-28 SUB
Prepared by: Dacy:k
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Preliminary plat request to subdivide 2 . 15 acres
into two lots .
E--
4:1(a
LOCATION: Northwest corner of Great Plains Blvd . and West
78th Street
APPLICANT: Building Block Nursery Herb Mason
School and Day Care Center Hagen and Mason
3650 Annapolis Lane North 33 Tenth Ave . S . #100
Plymouth , MN 55441 Hopkins , MN 55343
PRESENT ZONING: CBD, Central Business District -7/62 4-7
ACREAGE: 2 .15 acres
DENSITY: N/A
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- R-12 , Vacant multiple family and dry cleaner
S- CBD, commercial uses
E- OI , St . Hubert' s
- W- CBD, commercial uses
W
l— WATER AND SEWER: Municipal utility services are available .
PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site is currently developed with
commercial uses and is fairly flat .
1990 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial
Building Block Nursery —
July 8, 1987
Page 2
REFERRAL AGENCIES
BRW See Attachment #3
Fred Hoisington See Attachment #4
BACKGROUND —
The proposed plat includes three existing parcels (see Attachment
#1) . The Mason property contains the existing Kenny' s Market and —
Dry Cleaners. The Anderson parcel contains the existing gas sta-
tion. To the west of the Anderson parcel is the Roger Pauly parcel
which contains the Beauty Parlor/Tanning Salon building. The _
proposed day care facility is to be located in the northwest
corner of the Mason property.
The Anderson parcel is currently under purchase negotiations by the —
HRA (developer of Retail West) . It is intended that the gas sta-
tion be removed from the property in order to become part of the
parking lot contemplated in the overall proposed development plan —
proposed by CHADDA ( see Attachment #2) .
ANALYSIS
The submitted plat indicates two lots , Lot 1 which contains the
Kenny' s building, and Lot 2 , the proposed day care center. The
existing Anderson parcel should be identified as Lot 3 as it will
be under separate ownership from the remaining parcels . The
Pauly building is also indicated on the plat sheet. This should
be Lot 4 if it is to remain part of the overall plat. _
A 20-30 ft. strip between the day care center parcel and the
Anderson parcel will exist. CHADDA intends to acquire this
parcel. It is recommended that this strip become part of Lot 2 , or —
the parcels to the south, as part of the HRA acquisition so a
remnant strip is not created.
Lot 2 , as proposed, is landlocked. In order to grant a variance
for a lot that does not abut a public street, the following
findings must be established:
1 . The hardship is not a mere inconvenience.
The Anderson parcel directly in front of the proposed site
of the day care center is currently under negotiation for
purchase by the HRA. Despite the ownership, the area will be
used as parking area for not only the day care center, but
for parking for the Kenny' s building and the Retail Central
building to the west. Cross easements for access by all uses
in the Retail Central and Retail East buildings will be
necessary. The hardship is not created by the applicant;
rather, the hardship is created by the process of redevelopment.
Building Block Daycare
July 8 , 1987
Page 3
In fact, access to the Pauly and Anderson parcel is currently
under investigation. There may not be access to either of
these parcels. If so, access would be gained from Great
Plains Blvd.
2 . The hardship is caused by the particular physical surround-
ings, shape or topographical conditions of the land.
Because of the existence of three lots under separate
ownership, direct frontage cannot be attained.
3 . The condition or conditions upon which the request is based
are unique and not generally applicable to other property.
The circumstances affecting this project is directly involved
with the acquisition of two to three parcels . This situation
is unique to the downtown area.
4 . The granting of the variance will not be substantially detri-
mental to the public welfare and is in accord with the pur-
pose and intent of the Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and
Comprehensive Plan.
Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the
surrounding properties . Because the parcel will have full
access by easement and because the area will be used as
parking area, the proposed is keeping with the intent of the
ordinance.
Grading and Utilities
As noted by BRW, sanitary sewer service is recommended to serve
the parcel from the new service to be installed behind the
Kenny' s building. Water service can be provided from West 78th
Street or Great Plains Blvd. Utility easements for both water
and sewer services will need to be reserved on the plat.
The revised storm sewer plan needs to be prepared and reviewed
by BRW to coordinate with drainage patterns on adjacent parcels
as well as their ultimate distribution to the storm sewer system
to be installed this summer. Easements should also be dedicated
where necessary.
Access
As noted earlier , easements for access and parking will need to
De executed across adjacent parcels to serve Lot 2 . These ease-
ments will be part of the title of Lot 2 , so that if the use
— changes to another commercial use, access is maintained. The
applicant has submitted an interim parking plan indicating pro-
posed traffic circulation patterns prior to full development of
Building Block Daycare —
July 8 , 1987
Page 4
the north side of West 78th Street. This is discussed in more
detail in the site plan review.
RECOMMENDATION —
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following
motion: —
The Planning Commission recommends approval of subdivision
request #87-28 subject to the submission of a revised preli-
minary plat indicating the following: —
1 . Identification of additional parcels , such as the
Anderson parcel, as lots . —
2 . Identification of utility and drainage easements .
3 . Consummation of an acquisition agreement by the HRA of
the Anderson parcel including execution of proper access
and parking cross easements in conjunction with the
filing of the final plat. —
4 . Inclusion of the 20-30 ft. strip into Lot 2 or the par-
cels to the south. —
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval subject
to staff' s conditions .
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: —
It is recommended that the City Council approve Subdivision
Request #87-28 subject to the subdivision of a revised prelimi-
nary plat indicating the following :
1 . Identification of additional parcels , such as the
Anderson parcel, as lots . —
2 . Identification of utility and drainage easements .
3 . Consummation of an acquisition agreement by the HRA of
the Anderson parcel including execution of proper access
and parking cross easements in conjunction with the _
filing of the final plat.
4 . Inclusion of the 20-30 ft. strip into Lot 2 or the par-
cels to the south. —
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Application.
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900 /
APPLICANT: �c DA OWNER: 64'16„i4ASS� �ttt C u
ADDRESS P G • OlC O ADDRESS 114-
O U
I /
c�Licr2 l"""am wES
CIA- ►1-1,-ssc S,-2,317 jcras SS 3.43
Zip Code Zip Code
TELEPHONE (Daytime) q( 3--LtS 31 TELEPHONE q 3Y - 7C.
REQUEST:
9 46o Nor-rH 2rvo —„•
V\,.Acc.virk X357 /3 4-42-5-.6
Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development
Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan
Preliminary Plan
Zoning Variance Final Plan
Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision
Land Use Plan Amendment )‹ Platting
Metes and Bounds
Conditional Use Permit
Street/Easement Vacation
Site Plan Review
Wetlands Permit
PROJECT NAME Li- V rA 7,rD.
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Col,,A-,--/-"-c-Jr"--
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION 4.(s”
PRESENT ZONING Cie D
REQUESTED ZONING SQ.lsnr�
USES PROPOSED 1\41,,,u<<ie/32 1442-ican,6. L /yvr) C,,n,.,,zfJ
SIZE OF PROPERTY /lpc. (,- O60
LOCATION N 1Vt,evS ISiv0
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary )
— AL C I T Y O F P.C. DATE: July 5, 1989
1::! F
qC.C. DATE: Ju ly 24 , 1989
z91
CASE NO: 89-1 ZOA
C
I Prepared by: Olsen/v
—
— STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-237 of the
— City Code, Conditional Use Permits
l._
z
— a
V LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
— Q
—
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
—
DENSITY:
—
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N-
- S-
E-
i.
- Li w-
W WATER AND SEWER:
PHYSICAL CHARAC. :
2000 LAND USE PLAN:
ZOA for Conditional Use Permits —
July 5 , 1989
Page 2
BACKGROUND
When the City Council reviewed the conditional use permit for the
Eckankar Church, they requested staff to amend the zoning ordi-
nance to provide regulations which would require an annual or
more frequent inspection ( Attachment #1) .
ANALYSIS
Currently, Section 20-237 of the City Code under conditional use
permits gives the City the Power to revoke the conditional use —
permit under the following regulation:
"Failure to comply with any condition setforth in a con-
ditional use permit, or any other violation of this chapter,
shall be a misdemeanor and shall also constitute sufficient
cause for the termination of the conditional use permit by
the City Council following a public hearing. "
The proposed amendment to this section removes the words "or any
other violation of this chapter" . The reason for removing that —
statement was that it was very broad and difficult to enforce.
The proposed ordinance amendment is also providing a second sec- _
tion under the revocation and inspection heading. This section
would read:
"The City Council may order annual or more frequent inspec-
tions
to determine compliance with the terms of a conditional
use permit. The property owner shall be notified in advance
of the City Council' s review of the permit. " —
The second section was added under the direction of the City
Council to require annual or more frequent inspections of con-
ditional use permits to ensure that they comply with the con-
ditions of the conditional use permit. Currently, the zoning
ordinance does not require any inspections.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance _
Amendment #89-1 to Section 20-237 of the Chanhassen City Code as
written in the attached ordinance noted as Attachment #2. "
ATTACHMENTS —
1. Ordinance amending Section 20-237.
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20, SECTION 20-237
OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 20-237 of the Chanhassen City Code is
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 20-237 . Revocation and Inspection.
(1) Failure to comply with any condition set forth in a
conditional use permit shall be a misdemeanor and shall also
constitute sufficient cause for the termination of the
conditional use permit by the City Council following a public
hearing.
(2) The City Council may order annual or more frequent
inspections to determine compliance with the terms of a
conditional use permit. The property owner shall be notified in
advance of the City Council's review of the permit.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately
upon its passage and publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen this
day of , 1989.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Don Ashworth, City Manager
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
— JUNE 21, 1989
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 35 p.m. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad,
Brian Batzli , Jim Wildermuth and David Headla
STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner , Gary Warren, City
Engineer and Mark Koegler , Planning Consultant
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, PARK ONE 3RD ADDITION
INTO ONE LOT, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, QUATTRO ADDITION, ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP,
INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED ON WEST 77TH STREET, FORTIER AND
ASSOCIATES.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order .
Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Conrad : Just in general , I won' t go around the Commission. Any comments?
Anything?
Emmings : I would change one word in the recommendation where it says the
final plat should provide the typical front, side and rear easements. I
would just change typical to required . Typical , I don' t know what that
means.
— Emmings moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision #89-2 to replat Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Park One 3rd
Addition into Lot 1, Block 1, Quattro Addition as shown on the preliminary
plat dated May 25, 1989 with the condition that the final plat provide the
required front , side and rear easements . All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE FILLING AND DREDGING WITHIN A CLASS A AND
— CLASS B WETLAND LOCATED ON LAKE DRIVE, SOUTH OF HWY 5 AND NORTH OF LAKE
SUSAN, CITY OF CHANHASSEN.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order .
Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted
in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 2
Headla : The purpose of this wetland is it to help Lake Susan to have —
better quality of water going into Lake Susan or is it just vegetation
right in those wetlands?
Olsen: Which wetland?
Headla : Any of those wetlands you talked about now.
Olsen: Currently they do provide areas for water retention prior to
entering Lake Susan .
Headla : Okay now, are we degrading the water quality going into Lake Susan
the way it' s proposed?
Olsen : With the mitigation , that' s one of the purposes of that and no we
are not. We are still providing for the same amount. For the runoff to
still be contained prior to it entering Lake Susan .
Headla: I don ' t understand how you' re providing the same amount. You
aren' t planning to include the Eckankar effort now are you?
Olsen: Well some of the mitigation also includes wildlife habitat and
vegetative areas that are being moved.
Headla: That doesn' t help Lake Susan. I 'm more concerned about the water —
quality going into Lake Susan . I think we have to have the road and I 'm
questioning, is it appropriate to spend more money to keep the water
quality equal to what it is now going into Lake Susan rather than . . . --
Olsen: That was one of the reasons we were working closely with that
mitigation area just north of Lake Susan and we feel that we are still —
providing the same amount of protection.
Headla : That' s all I have.
Wildermuth : Is there any change that will take place as a result of item 4
Jo Ann that is not reflected on the map that we currently have for Wetland
#4? —
Olsen: Oh for Wetland #4?
Wildermuth: And 5.
Olsen: Wetland 4 might, that won' t be changed at all and again that ' s the
one that' s already been totally altered anyway. Number 5, that' s the one
we' re trying to work at to even remove it further from being impacted so
that will result in Market Blvd . being shifted somewhat to the west and it
might also result in Rosemount' s access drive being shifted to the south. —
The Lake Drive that currently shows kind of going through that Type V
wetland , that' s not going to , we' re going to work on moving that completely
out of the wetland. Either to the south or to the north of it. That will
not stay where it' s shown now.
— Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 3
Wildermuth : Why wouldn' t we table this until you' ve done that?
— Olsen: That' s not part of this extension or what we' re approving right
now. The Lake Drive that is going through the Ward property, that ' s not
part of this.
Wildermuth: The number 5 wetland is part of this consideration?
Olsen: Right.
Wildermuth : So why wouldn ' t we table this until you made that final
determination?
Warren : The number 5 wetland is the one that the consultant and I went out
in the field with Fish and Wildlife and we looked at it , it was the one
that kind of came up at the last minute so to speak. Even in the field it
was determined that the actual boundary of that wetland is subject to a lot
of judgment as to where the westerly boundary of it is and we' re waiting
for the Corps of Engineers to actually help us with that field
— determination . If anything , the impacts will be better from what we ' re
proposing because we'd be moving the road west if we can at all . We've got
some tough geometries with the alignment of TH 101, which will be
— ultimately TH 101 once the trunk highway is realigned, that restrict us a
little bit in just how far we can move it but we are trying to get it as
far away as possible at this point. So the alterations and the mitigation
that has been looked at are looking at it under the current alignment and
this is what the Fish and Wildlife has given us the reading that since we
are on the perimeter of that , sort of that marginal area of the wetland ,
that the mitigation areas, they felt comfortable with could be done in the
mitigation area 2 or mitigation area 1.
Wildermuth: It looks like the extension of the old TH 101, it looks like
- Wetland 4 and 5 could be, you could eliminate going through 5 all together
by just continuing Lake Drive over to where the current TH 101 is. Is that
something that you' re looking to? Is that an option?
- Warren: As Jo Ann was trying to address, Lake Drive, I don' t know if you
have an overhead Jo Ann that might show it but Lake Drive East from Market
Blvd. , which goes right through Wetland 5 is not in this current proposal
— and that alignment is subject to re-evaluation . When the Ward property is
interested in developing, that's when that roadway would be built. That is
really not a part of this project at this time . The original proposed
alignment for that roadway was to follow on a continuous alignment with the
current Lake Drive without having that off set . In fact there was quite a
number of transportation studies done to evaluate if it was negative impact
to separate that intersection but actually we found that if anything it
- improved the traffic in that area . But that element, that piece to the
east is not a part of this application and is something that will
definitely be given close scrutiny to mitigate the wetland issues at that
— time.
Wildermuth : So technically the number 5 wetland is not part of this at
all? That would come up when that little stretch.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 4
Warren : Market Blvd . is nipping the westerly edge of number 5. I don' t
know what plan sheet maybe would show that for you the best but it' s in
this transition area that' s hard to define and we are recognizing and have —
conceeded to the Fish and Wildlife that we are willing to take whatever
mitigative measures that they are willing to enforce upon us here .
Wildermuth: It just looks like a shame to impact the best of the wetland
areas there at all when there ' s an opportunity to avoid it all together .
Warren: I think the best of the area will not be damaged. If a current —
alignment of Lake Drive to the east were built as it' s shown on this plan
sheet, that would definitely be a problem. That's where we' re saying we' re
going to have to take a good hard look at that when that road comes in and _
see if that can' t be located some other place. I 'm looking at Figure 1.
That presents the best picture.
Wildermuth : Right now Figure 1 shows it going right through the middle of —
it.
Warren: But that ' s not a part of this project. Maybe I can just show you _
on your plan. This project right now is this roadway. This is not a part
of it. And it may end up this alignment will come back to here, completely
avoid that or go south of it. In all likelihood it might go south of it
because the Ward ' s are interested in preserving this for a developable site for the commercial site. But to run it right through here is not a part of
this project and it probably would not be allowed .
Wildermuth: That' s all I have.
Batzli : I think it might clarify the issue , Jim' s issue, if we some how —
specify in one of the conditions that that is not part of the permit
because I don ' t think it' s clear from our recommendation or the conditions
here and I think part of it is probably due to the fact that it was a late
breaking item. Either exclude it or modify exactly what portions we are —
approving of wetland alteration I guess. My question Jo Ann was, do we own
the mitigation #1 area right now? The City?
Warren: Number 1, yes .
Batzli : That' s already on park property?
Warren: Correct.
Batzli : And the mitigation area #2 is Eckankar but as I understand it --
they' re negotiating to purchase or condemn that portion.
Warren : Condemnation has been authorized by the Council . We' ve exchanged _
correspondence with Eckankar . We believe that we will be able to settle it
without having to go through condemnation .
Batzli : How many acres are we talking about purchasing there? �"
— Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 5
Warren : For the Eckankar?
- Batzli : Yes .
Warren : Approximately 23, a little over 23 acres .
Batzli : And what' s going to become of that site other than a wetland area?
Warren : A wetland area is a big part of it . Then future extension of West
78th Street, if you will , as a frontage road on the north side of TH 5 is
in the long range Comprehensive Plan ultimately to continue with the
frontage road concept west to the Lake Ann Park.
Batzli : But there' s no plans for a city park there or anything else?
Warren: Well there have been several things talked about as far as
ultimate and I 'm sure you ' re maybe well aware of them. Ultimate civic
center and schools and other things in that southern part of the parcel for
Eckankar that could be added on and worked with around there but seeing as
we've got Lake Ann Park just to the west, there' s no proposal here for a
city park.
— Batzli : That' s all I had .
Ellson : Brian brought up the question I already had with his answers so I
don' t have anything .
Emmings : I don ' t have anything additional .
— Erhart : Precisely what is the plan for mitigation site 1? We show an area
here but what exactly are we going to do?
- Olsen : There' s one other plan that shows it. In addition to that they
would have to give all the basics. Comply with the Fish and Wildlife.
Warren : Page 6 too of Gary Ehret' s report specifically lays out 8 items.
Olsen: It gets into the types of vegetation that will be provided.
— Erhart : What' s the design depth?
Warren : It varies . Basically we' ve taken the Fish and Wildlife ' s
criteria that' s been requested in the past .
Erhart : And is that supposed to be Class A or Class B when it' s finished?
— Olsen: It will be a Class A.
Erhart : Open water? The total size of that was about 3 1/2 acres? Okay.
— In putting the street in, if a developer puts in things we require that we
have a tree removal plan on improvements . When the City puts in a street ,
is there any equivalent process that we require or should consider?
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 6
Olsen : It ' s always something that we look at prior to locating the street
but no, I don't know that we really do. Usually when. . .we have the
boulevard landscaping along with . . . individual calipers .
Headla : I can' t hear you Jo Ann.
Olsen : I 'm saying that we usually have like a landscaping plan that goes
along with boulevard plantings for replacement and when we look at the —
alignment of the road , we also look at the existing conditions . I don' t
know that we use a caliper per caliper for the roadway.
Erhart : I assume we don ' t do any tree replacement at all when we put
streets in?
Warren : The Lake Drive and Market Blvd. sections do call for , I don' t
remember the exact dollar amount but I think it' s maybe $70, 000. 00 worth of
streetscape improvements , trees , plantings, low level shrubs, of that
nature. Not the intensity of the downtown but there is a planting plan as —
a part of those construction documents that I think could be looked at as
some form of replacement if you will .
Erhart : Okay, and that' s going to be done prior to any of the land being
developed? That is going in as part of the street improvement?
Warren: That ' s part of the construction document package, that ' s correct.
Erhart : Okay, in the future I guess I 'd like to see that as part of the ,
when we review these kinds of things although I guess this is simple a —
wetland alteration. I think it' s important to some degree that we
maintain , the City maintains similar standards as private developers . I
wonder about that. I 'm very pleased that we' re doing that. One last —
thing , I guess somehow I didn' t make the connection of this plan to the
mitigation. I 'm very pleased to see that we' re substantially improving the
wetlands. I think that' s something . In the Chanhassen area we' ve got a
lot of Class B wetlands that even having a smaller area by improving them —
can improve the overall wetland situation that we have. Applying that same
thing to number 5, I guess I 'd prefer to see us use some mitigation and
improvement of the wetland if there ' s not a problem with the trees as —
opposed to trying to put an unusual design in Market Blvd. and tight curve.
I 'd like to see you open up some of these Class B wetlands with permanent
open water for nesting. That' s the end of my comments Ladd.
Conrad : Okay, thanks Tim. The mitigation area Jo Ann on site 1, what is
that right now? We own it. It's part of the park property but is it a
wetland now? —
Olsen : It' s a real marginal Class B wetland .
Conrad: Okay, so we' re improving a marginal wetland.
Warren : It ' s been farmed quite a bit in the past and this is also the area
where the Lake Ann interceptor project was part of the wetland alteration
for that . They came right through the middle of this area also .
— Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 7
Conrad : What are we losing in the other wetlands Jo Ann in your mind?
Wetland 2, 3 , 4, are we losing anything there as we put a road close by?
Olsen : 4 is already gone . It ' s part of the Rosemount . That ' s just a
— holding pond now. Numbers 2, is the larger Class A wetland . It' s really
just taking a northerly portion of it. It will be cutting away some of the
vegetation that' s surrounding the wetland but it won' t be impacting it
enough that it will be destroyed or anything like that .
Conrad: So you ' re not seeing a drainage issue, if 4 is draining into 3
isn ' t it? That' s what we' re letting them do.
Warren: 4 will backflow into 3.
Olsen: Right . And number 2, the one north of Lake Drive is not. Number 5
is the one we' re really going to try to work on and as we stated, the
westerly portion isn' t the better part. It ' s a hardwood wetland so the
reason they don ' t want it altered is because it' s impossible to replace.
It takes 50 years to replace that so that' s where, we will not be impacting
that center where the hardwoods exist now. It' s just the edge. But again,
we feel comfortable. . .
Conrad : And you think there' s a net gain? Again , when you tamper with the
wetland, I think the City, we always talk about Fish and Wildlife and all
the other regulatory agencies but our ordinance really talks about
maintaining a zero degregation of what we' ve got. It sort of sets the
standard as the city does something with wetlands, it sets a standard for
how we uphold what the developers do. Very similar to what Tim was talking
— about and I want to make sure that you' re very familiar with wetlands. I
just want to make sure we' re real comfortable that we' re setting a right
standard . We' re saying it' s beneficial to put these roads in for
— transportation purposes but we' re also saying at the same time that we' re
getting , the Chanhassen residents are maintaining a wetland quality here
and it ' s at least equal to what it used to be.
- Olsen : I 'm comfortable that it' s equal and the two real important wetlands
out there are not really being impacted much. They have been worked
around . And the other ones that are being altered are being improved or
— mitigated so I feel that it' s an improvement.
Conrad : So what kind of precedent? When we set a 1 : 1 offset ratio and
we've adhered to it almost, it appears 1 to 1. Is that our standard for
mitigation for future? Does this set a standard?
Olsen: We try to get that and not all the times we do. This time we
- really are . They are doing 1 : 1 and they' ve really. . .
Conrad: Who is they?
Olsen : We. The City and then working with BRW as the consultant .
Conrad: So that' s sort of what we' re saying to future developers 1: 1?
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 8
Warren : I think it depends too Jo Ann on the wetland class . For example
Paul Burke from Fish and Wildlife in the wooded upland wetlands where
they' re more valuable than say your Class A' s, then maybe you' re looking
for 2 or 3 to 1 type of a mitigation so it depends really on what type of
environmental issue , type of wetland you' re working with. He felt
comfortable. . .compliment to the City in the fact that they were willing ,
the Fish and Wildlife was willing to take the City' s verbal agreement that —
as far as the wetland V issue was concerned, that we would be making this
further restitution in 18 months on some of our other projects . He said
that' s a testimony to the track record that the City of Chanhassen has here —
in enforcing our wetland ordinances . I think it really comes down to
looking at each wetland and what you' re damaging and whether it' s a 1: 1 or
2: 1 or more.
Conrad : But it always seem easy Gary to make a change for habitat . We can
move this wetland over and the ducks will follow it but I 'm never confident
in terms of water quality that, it' s real debateable whether you can create —
a wetland, a new one that really does a job for water quality. Sometimes
you can, sometimes you can' t but it' s easy to justify it for habitat
rationale. I just get a little bit nervous , especially because this is an
area where we' re paying attention to and there ' s a lot of money and the
newspaper ' s kind of tracking some things in terms of the quality of the
water in this whole watershed from Lake Ann through Lake Susan and Riley
so I get a little bit nervous when we start pushing wetlands around but it '—
looks . . .
Olsen : We' re really not pushing too many around . —
Conrad: To a non-technical person it looks okay to me. I guess all I can
say is I just hope that we are holding the standard that we feel —
comfortable measuring other developments by. My only other comment
reinforces what we said before in that I 'd hate to see a connection from
going right through and we' re not responding to it tonight apparently but
the wetland 5. I 'd hate to see even on a plan like this that a road is —
going right through the center of the wetland. That kind of bothers me so
I would hope that any, especially since it' s a Class A wetland . I can
accept B' s being moved and altered a little bit but Class A' s I don' t like. —
Anyway, those are my only comments .
Batzli : Are you going to be done realigning Market Blvd. by the time this _
gets to City Council?
Olsen : I know we looked at some options .
Warren: This will be on the Council ' s agenda Monday night so no.
Olsen : We' re already in the process of looking at some alignments to see —
if it will work.
Warren : Construction is scheduled to start July 10th if the Council awards
Monday night. Bids were recently opened on the project. —
— Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 9
Batzli : So Council won' t even have a chance to look at your final
alignment before approving it?
Warren : Council has seen the final alignment as it shows here and any
modification that we would propose on that alignment would go back to
- Council and we would expect to bring this , it' s an important issue
obviously because we have to be construction staking for the roadway for
the contractor so it' s something that we are working on as we speak here.
Batzli : You also said something about down the road in 18 months you might
improve other wetlands as part of the bargain for cutting through number 5
there. Is that accurate?
Warren : That ' s written right in the conditions here, if I remember your
condition right. What it relates to is the Eckankar pond site. To pick up
on a comment earlier about the actual water quality benefitis , with the
Eckankar pond and the City's West 78th detachment study here, we actually
are taking runoff that used to come directly through the Burdick property
here at CR 17 and TH 5 and run under the road and straight across country
— into Lake Susan and now when the improvements are done with that project
which should be this year also, we' ll be diverting a lot of that flow to
the Eckankar pond which will be a 2 pond system. From there into the
— City' s business park ponds west of CR 17 and there into the creek into Lake
Susan . So that should be a significant improvement on water quality in
addition to the improvements that we' re going to be doing on mitigation
area #1 so I feel very comfortable that we' ve done some good improvements
here to the hydraulics especially.
Conrad : Anything else?
Erhart : Yes . I 'm probably about as enthusiastic about wetlands and
wildlife as anybody and for your comfort Ladd I think one acre of Class A
wetland is worth many, many acres of Class B. More importantly from the
standpoint of staff and Planning Commission, I guess I 'd be extremely
disappointed if in any mitigation proposal that we see in the future we' re
destroying a Class A wetland on a 1: 1 or any ratio for another wetland to
— be created , any created wetland has to be Class A because of the value of
the Class A and the fact if you' re in doing construction anyway, the
creation of the Class A wetland is very inexpensive if you already have the
— equipment in place. I guess that' s the message I 'd like to leave . That' s
probably what you ' re already thinking so and that ' s what we' re doing
exactly here.
Conrad : Footnote is A' s are well controlled by everybody else . Our
ordinance really has it' s hands on B's which is outside of what other
regulatory agencies have control over . The only thing that our ordinance
— really did is say Chanhassen, we can take a good look at what ' s being done
to the B wetland and if we can take a B and make it an A, that' s
outstanding . Anything else? Is there a motion?
Batzli : I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland
Alteration Permit #89-5 for the construction of Lake Drive and Market Blvd .
with the following conditions 1 through 4 set forth in the staff report and
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 10
including a sentence on the end of condition 4 which says , Lake Drive East , —
as depicted extending east of Market Blvd. on Figure 1 dated, whatever this
is dated , is not a part of this application .
Ellson: I ' ll second it.
Headla : On the first area , did we negotiate to try to get that to an A?
Gary already said it' s been farmed and taken away and taken away some of
that area already. What we' re looking at is greatly reduced and now we' re
reducing it more.
Emmings : They' re making it into an A.
Warren: Mitigation area 1 would actually be an A.
Ellson : So they are trading up so to speak.
Batzli moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-5 for the construction of Lake
Drive and Market Blvd. with the following conditions : —
1. The mitigation areas #1 and #2 as shown on Figure 1 will provide the
criteria as recommended on Page 6 of letter from Gary Ehret dated June
14, 1989.
2. The mitigation area #2 would be initiated within the next 18 months and
a separate storm water retention basin shall be used as a two pond —
system to absorb the most severe impacts from water level flucuation
and roadway contaminants entering the adjacent wetland .
3. The applicant must receive permit approval from the Corps of Engineers
and the Watershed District.
4 . Staff will work with the alignment of Market Boulevard and Lake Drive —
to reduce the amount of impact to the #5 wetland. Lake Drive East, as
depicted extending east of Market Blvd . on Figure 1
is not a part of this application. —
All voted in favor and the motion carried .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 11
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 100 ACRES INTO THREE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND
ONE OUTLOT ON PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED ON TANADOONA
DRIVE, WEST OF HWY 41 AND NORTH OF HWY 5, KURT LAUGHINGHOUSE.
Public Present :
Name Address
David Getsch 7510 Dogwood
John Getsch 7500 Dogwood
Mr. and Mrs. W.C. Getsch 7530 Dogwood
Craig and Barbara Freeman 7431 Dogwood
Martin Jones 7321 Dogwood
— Thomas Kordonowy 6100 Apple Road
Linda Oberman 7450 Hazeltine Blvd.
Conrad : Just a point of clarification addressed to Jo Ann . We have
reacted to this application before and so has the City Council but the
applicant has not carried it out I assume so therefore the applicant is
- back. There' s no timeframe for when the applicant can come back with a new
preliminary plat? Just for our information.
— Olsen: He never went through the whole process . It got as far as the
Council and then they had that street .
Conrad : So the applicant decided it didn' t like what the alternatives were
based on the Council ' s . . .
Olsen: At that point it was determined by the public that they didn' t want
— to have Dogwood improved.
Warren : I think the applicant withdrew and the neighborhood also did not
— want to pursue the street ownership transfer .
Mark Koegler presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad
called the public hearing to order .
— Kurt Laughi.nghouse: I 'm Kurt Laughinghouse and I am representing the
owners of, there are now 3 different owners of the property. Mark
Koegler ' s introduction is exactly right . The development of this plat and
— what is turned in as a plat and submitted to the City has grown over the
last month in fact . Ini.tially our intention was just to come in with the
20 acres that comprised the three lots that you see there and then we
decided to hold the entire 100 acres . Just yesterday I learned that , and I
think I can better explain this , just yesterday I learned that we need to
move what shows up there as Walter Zimmerman , we intend to move that 5
acres in fact to the east 100 feet. So we want to add that to the plat.
— Plat that property. Clear up all these descr. iptions . We actually have a
third application. We don' t have that third applicant in writing who owns
Planning Commission Meeting _
June 21, 1989 - Page 12
that property so therefore I just wanted to introduce these two changes to
you this evening. Maybe make some points. The public had already been
notified and I know that some of the neighbors are here who may have —
comment and then I would ask that you continue this until July 5th. So if
I may use this overhead . The plat that you received in the mail and were
studying, the differences here are almost indetectable to you but there are —
two. One is that this large parcel to the center of the property which is
80 acres was marked outlot. It is now marked Lot 4. Then secondly, we
have added this Lot 5 and that is yet another applicant . This property was
not included in the application which I turned in a month or so ago. So —
those are the two changes . They' re substantial enough of course that the
staff should react on them and I wouldn' t ask you to react without having
some time for staff input . One of the major changes , one of the major —
effects is that any plan to put a road through the middle of this would not
work and that was one of the recommendations I believe of the staff.
Wanted a road through the middle of this large property so that' s going to _
be something we' re going to have to work on .
Conrad: Why would it not work, just out of curiousity?
Kurt Laughinghouse : The owner of this property is Mr . Tom Kordonowy who is
here this evening and he intends to put a house in this vicinity and also a
barn and live on the entire 80 acres so it is, in effect is not going to be —
developed. It' s going to be one homestead as will be the case with the
other three lots . Of course this lot is in effect already in place. So as
Mark Koegler suggested, the biggest issue is the road. I guess I should
talk about that . Currently, there are three issues that I 'd like to
introduce and answer questions on and then you can do what you choose. The
City currently owns a 20 foot right-of-way that runs along , that is
Tanadoona Drive and then is Dogwood Lane all the way down to this point and —
then there' s a quarter of a cul-de-sac on this 17th lot here that is owned
by the City. Now this is a plat from 30 or 40 years ago. Perhaps longer .
Nevertheless , that is the physical and legal situation. This proposal —
suggests, we propose to dedicate an additional 40 feet of right-of-way and
cul-de-sac here in this area so the City would have the appropriate 60 feet
of right-of-way in this area. Now, that ' s the dedication. We also have a
special situation here . You notice , it ' s not clear to you perhaps but
there is a dotted line that runs this way. Now when this property, the
Zimmerman buildings were separated from the whole parcel several years ago
and is now a separate parcel . The City did not take a dedicated right-of-
way here. The City took an option to purchase this 40 feet and that ' s why
that' s outlined like that. So we left that remark there to remind us we' ve
got to deal with that always . Then secondly, we put an outlot here, we' ll _
call it Outlot A and that' s the 40 feet in front of the property here at
this point. That ' s to remind us we' ve got to deal with road right-of-way
dedication or something at that point. We would like not to dedicate any
more right-of-way. That ' s certainly going to be the point of contention . —
In effect we are adding 3 more dwelling units to the end of this Tanadoona
Dogwood road and that , as is suggested , as stated in the engineer ' s report ,
is essentially a mile long cul-de-sac and people living at the end of —
cul-de-sacs have all the problems of potential weaker fire protection ,
weaker police protection. They understand that. The people who have
purchased this lot , contingent of course , this lot and this lot understand
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 13
that situation and that' s agreeable to them. They are not expecting a
paved road. Nevertheless, that is one of the biggest issues. Now, the
second issue, not the same as dedication, i.s paving . About a year ago, let
me stop myself and say this . This line depicts a power line that comes up
— from TH 5 and i.s the source of power for all of these properties and that
actually goes out here to the farm buildings. Last summer Minnesota Valley
Electric Coop came in and cleared a 50 foot or greater swath along the
- entire power line. Going right through the mature maples and oaks and
everything . They were reacting to the fact that there had been storm
damage to trees that had cut the power so they reacted strongly. You all
may visit that and see if I 'm overstating that . I 'm understating it quite
a bit. Nevertheless, shortly after they finished that work there was
another storm and another power failure because they didn' t get all the
trees . Maybe that proves they should have taken more. Nevertheless , here
— is our dilemma. We have here a 50 foot swath right through the trees with
a power line into the house . If we pave in here, in the right-of-way, we
will have to cut another 40 or 50 or greater swath of trees out. We simply
ask your authority not to do that . If we have to pave anything , we can
perhaps put temporary easements along the power line in favor of the City
and pave those if that ' s appropriate. If we need a cul-de-sac or an area
big enough to turn fire trucks around and oil delivery trucks and Dayton' s
— furniture trucks , which I would guess have gotten down there anyway and
gotten out but we do need that kind of a space we can also do that here in
the vicinity of the power lines or not. We can also pave it . We ask not
— to pave it. So roads in one issue number one. Paving is issue number two.
And the third issue is trail easement. We thoroughly agree with the City' s
plan to have a trail network around the city and around lakes. The City
owns , when Crimson Bay was platted down here , a 20 foot easement was
brought up to this property line. To our south property line. The staff
report calls for a 20 foot easement around the entire property to get back
here to Tanadoona. We request that we cut that easement back to a 20 foot
— easement around the back of these properties to get back to Dogwood here.
Now I don' t know what the plans for the entire city are in terms of trails
but it seems to me ultimately you want to get from here to here and go
- around the lake. I don't know that so that ' s certainly disputable but if
that ' s the goal , this is a shorter route . Further , Mr . Kordonowy and his
family are going to put a barn up here and run horses. His question to us,
to the City I guess , if we have to have a ' 20 foot easement around the
entire property, that amounts by the way to almost exactly 4 acres of
property. Where does he put his fence for his horses? Does he put it on
this old fence because they city is not going to develop this easement for
— many, many years or does he put it 20 feet inside that line? That ' s the
dilemma that' s created by putting a trail easement here that in effect is
not going to be used for a long time. Not going to be developed for a long
time. We think that the purposes of the City can be served by putting that
easement around the back of these lots. 10 years from now, 30 years from
now, as was indicated in the other . . . that was up here, this is all open
farmland now. It' s got corn growing on it. 30-40 years, whenever sewer
- and water arrives at this site, something else may happen to these
properties. Roads are going to be different. Park trails are going to be
different . I think it' s premature and that ' s part of my argument , to plat
— all those things right now. So that's my presentation briefly and I 'd
certainly be happy to answer questions but we might also might want to see
Planning Commission Meeting —
June 21, 1989 - Page 14
what the people have to say.
Koegler : Mr . Chairman, just two other items. Kind of really reminders from what happened a couple years ago. Mr. Laughinghouse referenced
Crimson Bay to the south and there was a review at the time of making a
street connection to the south to Crimson Bay and it was just determined
that literally topography precluded it . It was given really a good
thoughtful look and was determined totally to be infeasible. The other
thing is the difference between the plat now and then is the plat that
would have been approved back in 1987 did show dedicated public —
right-of-way 40 feet all the way around the west and north sides of that
property. So had that preceeded and had the road issue have been resolved,
that would be right-of-way today. Now they' re proposing not to include —
that as right-of-way so there are just some subtle differences between the
two plans from 2 years ago and the one current.
Conrad: We have a choice. We could table the item for future
considerations and to take a look at what Mr . Laughinghouse has presented
or we could listen to input from anybody who has come here tonight. I
guess my preference is to listen , maybe instructive for any staff review or —
our direction to staff so if that' s acceptable to everybody, I think I 'd
like to conduct the public hearing and we can continue the public hearing
also until the next time. Would there be any comments related to the —
presentation tonight? Mr . Laughinghouse or anything that the staff has
talked to us about. Any public comments?
John Getsch : I 'm John Getsch, 7500 Dogwood . . . . the road easements and the —
di.scussions along those development plans , still presents a problem on what
is going to be the long term plan for the road and the easement for any
improvement of the road . The way it stands right now, what' s presented , —
there is no long term plan for any improvements of the road and that' s a
concern . Right now it' s a 20 foot wide, almost single lane all the way in
and that presents a problem. . . —
Conrad : Let me interrupt and see what kind of reaction I can get from Mark
or Jo Ann on that. What are the City' s responsibilities at this point in
time given that the property is, the applicants do not really want to —
develop fully. They want to put a few houses there. What' s the City' s
responsibility in this case in requiring an upgrade to a bad road? We' ve
treated it in the past as it' s the only time we can require that when —
there' s something happening . So what are our options I guess . Future
options. Mark, do you want to tackle that?
Koegler : Yes , I ' ll address that and perhaps Gary will want to join in the
chorus on this one. Just very briefly, the feasibility study that was done
a year or so ago looked at a series of alternatives . This was Option A,
which I believe if I remember right was the lowest cost option. It was the
one that was recommended at the time. I think primarily due to the cost
factor. What it resulted in is a street that does not meet current city
standards in terms of width. The reason for that primarily being the mound —
treatment system that sits right there. The positioning of that relative
to the lot across the street just really make it impossible to get anything
wider than I think it' s about a 18 foot road section through that
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 15
— particular area so there is a constriction here that had to be dealt with
and that was the way that was done by building a road that did not meet
current standards. The second alternative that was looked at was a
variation that brought the road in past the Zimmerman parcel and then
turned and went across and then it came back up serving kind of a hammer
head cul-de-sac arrangement off of either side. Again, you had the
constriction here regardless . That was another alternative that was looked
-- at. Option C was similar . . . Once again you still have the constriction of
coming back however. Finally, Alternate D that was looked at brought the
road on the interior alignment and this was partially due to what I guess
— you'd term as kind of a ghost plat that was done by the developer at that
time for informational purposes only and it was indicated as such. Then it
actually showed a potential for a lot arrangement that radiated off of this
reflecting that 75 acres ultimately being developed into I think it was
— initially 10 acre parcels. It was again, I think it goes without saying ,
we still had the 18 foot roadway right there. You ask a question that is
really difficult to answer because the proceedings of the Planning
— Commission and Council ultimately on this item will probably be the answer
to the question that you pose in terms of where do you go with providing
street on this. It' s my understanding that the City' s practice over the
last 2 years since this originally surfaced was to require a minimum road
improvements for all rural subdivisions . You in your own mind can say
where is the threshold? We' re adding 1 house, 2 houses , 3 houses , 4 houses
to an existing bad situation. Where do you draw the line? I don ' t ,know
— that any of us have a definitive answer for that but the general staff
consensus though is that , as you indicated Mr . Chairman is that now is the
time when the subdivision is being approved that perhaps the most leverage
— is evident in terms of being able to accomplish some improvement of that
area. Whether it' s a full improvement or whether it 's securing the
right-of-way or whatever that ' s defined as .
Conrad: All the alternatives were real expensive.
Koegler : They really were not tremendously difference in cost . They were
— to some of the individual parties . They ranged, as I indicated, from about
$250, 000. 00 to $300 , 000. 00 and that was about a year ago so those numbers
are still reasonably accurate but the actual assessment to some of the
various parties did vary quite a bit under that scheme depending on where
the road alignment went. The assessments that didn ' t vary tremendously
probably were to some of the existing homes that are on Lake Minnewashta
and I think as a ballpark those ran from I ' ll say $1, 500. 00 to $4, 000. 00
depending on lot frontage .
Warren : I might add Mr . Chairman , Mark has summarized it I think pretty
— well. It's a difficult issue no matter how we look at it here. Some
properties are in advance of being ready to be developed because of the
City not being able to provide adequate utilities . Adequate roadways and
_ some of this nature . I think that at sometime has to be addressed . That
maybe they' re a little bit ahead of their era so to speak. This is in the
next area for the move of the MUSA line and we all I think are very
familiar with whether that ' s the 1990 's and it' s hard to believe that 1990
— is almost here or whether it' s a 2000 line or someplace in the middle so
I really think an eye has to be kept to that because we' re not that far
Planning Commission Meeting —
June 21, 1989 - Page 16
away from this area being further eligible to subdivide and it ' s the
ability to further subdivide lots that would make the distribution of the
cost for a roadway of this nature more palatable . More lots able to be —
subdivided. I look at it almost as there ' s somewhat of a self-imposed
hardship here in that this total property I believe would sustain 10
building units and in the application we've seen prior to this one, it was
the developer ' s choice only to plat 3 units basically. If they were to
come in and take all 10 units for example, then there' s 10 units to help
defray the cost of the roadway. So there is sort of a self imposed issue —
there that is, take it for what it's worth. When we have looked at these
in the past as far as rural subdivisions , it has been I think a very strong
line with the City' s part to upgrade roads to full rural standards and we
do have a rural standard versus an urban standard to recognize that we
don' t need curb and gutter necessarily and that expense in some of these
roadways . In addition in this issue , we have existing access that I think
even the existing residents would chime in, as was mentioned earlier here,
that is a less than desireable access . In general I think everybody would
like to improve if we could get some reasonableness to the dollars here.
The section that was proposed for the existing roadway, to sneak by the 201 —
community system out there, I think did recognize that we were trying to be
sympathetic to local conditions in a certain regard and were willing to
accept an 18 to 20 foot road section instead of the city standard rural
section. I guess I throw those comments out for some of the things that —
really have gone through our minds here on what's right for the property
and the property owners to have to put up with .
Conrad: I 'm going to throw it back to you sort of later in terms of, I
don' t think it' s our job to force a developer to develop and require them
to put in maybe $300, 000.00 or $200,000.00 worth of road improvements _
forces them to develop so it' s a difficult situation. It is a public
hearing. I wanted to respond, you asked a question and I was trying to get
some comments back from the staff on that . Go ahead with other questions .
John Getsch: That is the issue on the road. The other thing is what Kurt
has brought up and that was where the power lines come through. That
really created, up until there was solid woods for probably a third of the _
property that went along parallel to the lake. That now has been 50 foot ,
60 foot wide swath is cut right through there and cleaned out so there' s
kind of a natural area that is no longer wooded . That ' s something that
needs to be addressed. Kurt brought it up and I think it' s noticed by —
everybody that has gone in that road during the last year . It has changed
significantly and that needs to be recognized as some way to preserve the
forest or whatever you want to call it and that needs to be recognized . —
Conrad: It is embarrassing what the power company did there. I just can' t
believe that they could go in and take down what they did . —
John Getsch: They sprayed again in the last couple weeks to kill anything
that was growing back.
Conrad: Yes, that's just amazing .
Koegler : Kind of a follow-up to that . The feasibility study that was -
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 17
— published in June of last year was prior to the time the guy showed up with
chainsaws so that's a new piece of information that was never considered as
a part of these alignments and that ' s certainly something that should be
looked at as a part of this. The feasibility study when it laid the
alignments in there, took great care to try to minimize tree removal . That
was one of the major issues of making alignment through there so it's kind
of embarrassing to sit here a year later and find out there' s a corridor
— through there now. That needs to be taken into account.
Barbara Freeman: Barbara Freeman, 7431 Dogwood . Could you give us some
- idea of your long range plans on the trail proposition that Chanhassen has
through that area?
Conrad: Jo Ann?
Olsen : That was part of the Park and Rec Commission ' s recommendations and
Mark might be able to address that a little bit better .
Koegler : The City' s Comprehensive Plan is shown as a series of trails
basically going around and connecting major points within a community and
the Minnewashta Regional Park would be one of those. It' s not specific to
say exactly how you would get from Point A to Point B other than to
indicate that it' s a desire to make the connection. For example the trail
perhaps in some areas may run along TH 41 and then may go back into the
park or it may run through the property and go back into the park. That ' s
not been determined yet but again, back to 2 years ago when this was
approved , the easement that Kurt Laughinghouse described was a part of the
— approval at that time around the perimeter of this site to accommodate that
movement . The City has gone out with 2 referendums over the last few years
and I 'm sure you' re aware it has not been approved and certainly that has
had a major impact on the feasibility to build those trails so
realistically, as I think Kurt eluded to again, those trails are quite a
ways off in the future but the right-of-way generally is trying to be
secured now for those to bank that if you will for future development. So
— the alternative that again was just raised is another one of those factors
that will be looked at over the next couple of weeks prior to the time this
comes back to see if that has any validity compared to the original
improvement that occurred on the south and east sides.
Conrad : Other comments?
- Linda Oberman: Linda Oberman , 7450 Hazeltine. We own the land adjacent to
the outland area, the 80 acres. Can you show you on that map, I didn' t get
your name, Mr . Kordonowy? Is that right? What land did you purchase and
— what are you planning to do with that, farming? What areas?
Tom Kordonowy: My name is Tom Kordonowy and I 'm acquiring this property
for single family home. The 80 acres I 'm acquiring is everything other
than this 5 acre section here, the old Zimmerman homestead and these three
lots are being divided for Mr. Foster and I guess someone else so I ' ll be
owning the balance of the property. Tanadoona to Dogwood , back up and
— back. The house I 'm proposing to put in will be located here right where
this number is in front of the tree line . The reason for the addendum or
Planning Commission Meeting —
June 21, 1989 - Page 18
change to the plat , the 100 foot segment we' ve asked , the Bergen' s home is
5 acre piece is the only logical place for my road to service my single
homestead is , this starts to get quite low. The topography is rising
through this little wet area substantially to the highest point in the area
which is here so I plan to come in with about a 9 9 in topography which is
the same as what's here. That encroaches on what is now the Bergen —
homestead so we ' re simply swapping a 100 foot parcel for this piece for
this piece like that. That' s the purpose of it. It benefits Mr. Bergen
because the farm where he' s actually farming is very, very close to his —
living room right now. It' s to his advantage to actually move that way
over . This lower area is a little west of us so these options , and I
haven' t seen these options , our household here will be pre-empting I 'm sure
any roadway going through here. We have no interest in that . I 'd be happy —
to answer any questions you may have and I appreciate your direction at
this point so several weeks from now when we come forward we may resolve
this . I 'm moving my family into a condominium which I 'm not very anxious —
to do for the period of time it takes to build this house so the quicker
I 'm able to put a shovel in the ground and make this my home, the happier
we' ll be so any input at all from the Commission would be most gratifying . —
Conrad: Thanks for your comments .
Linda Oberman: . . . farming that? —
Tom Kordonowy: It is now a farm and it is really appalling this tree swath
that goes through there. —
Wildermuth: If the road were to follow that utility easement , that swath
that was cut through there, how would that impact you and your plans to
build your home? —
Tom Kordonowy: It would go through what is going to be my house.
Kurt Laughinghouse: There' s a two part answer. One is, along here that
would be desirable more or less but then the power line goes straight
through here and this is approximately where the, the power line doesn' t —
show up on the other may but this is approximately where the Kordonowy' s
home will be. Then the wooded area runs out around here also. You had
another question and I didn' t quite get it . Is your home one of these two
homes right here? —
Linda Oberman: Right. I was just wondering if he was going to farm that
land or . . . _
Tom Kordonowy: I personally will . . .
Linda Oberman: Would you be open to selling 5 to 10 acres of that?
Conrad : Other comments?
Dave Getsch : My name is Dave Getsch, 7510 Dogwood . Certainly the
neighbor ' s preference and I speak for the neighborhood. At the last
meeting I was voted to be a representative to speak to the Council and -
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 19
— Planning Commission on this . Our preferences obviously are to keep
property as close as possible to what it presently is in it' s present
state . Certainly we' re very much in favor of someday wanting to use 80
acres for basically the same purposes as it's presently been used for and
also as much preservation of what stays there and what is a gorgeous ,
gorgeous area. We want to work at all possible to maintain what' s there.
Certainly to try to improve the road somewhat but not lose some of the
— uniqueness of what' s there. We certainly want to turn it into a thorough-
fare. That ' s just our preferences .
- Conrad : Other comments? Okay, we' ll close the public hearing for tonight.
Erhart: I ' ll move to close the public hearing .
Emmings: Well continue it to the next meeting so they can react .
Erhart: Okay, I ' ll move to continue the public hearing .
Conrad : That' s a better motion.
- Emmings: Second .
Erhart moved , Emmings seconded to continue the public hearing until the
next meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried .
Conrad : I think what I 'd like to do right now, let us go around the
— commission briefly but kind of give some direction to staff so that when it
comes back to us , we may have a clearer idea than I currently have of what
we want to do here. Again, I don' t know that we want to belabor it
tonight . I think we want to more than belaboring issues is give staff some
direction to explore alternatives for us before it comes back here. Tim,
comments on what we' ve seen tonight and directions .
- Erhart: I guess the way to look at this is if the road didn' t exist. One
of the ways to look at this is if the road didn' t exist at all and the
developer was attempting to subdivide 3 lots off on the extreme end of the
- property from where his access is and in that case what are our
requirements? Private driveway or does it require a 60 foot easement to
get in 3 new lots?
Olsen : You could have a private drive but we would most likely be requiring
the 60 foot right-of-way.
— Erhart : Right , so normally we would require the easement in that case so I
guess again, without having full discussion, my immediate reaction is to go
back, I think which is what we previously, didn' t you state Mark that' s
- what we ended up the last time was just requiring easements to get in
there. I tend to think that was probably where we were going to end up
with this again, but not to improve it at this time.
Emmings : Building on what Tim said, can you have a private drive with this
many houses on it? I thought there was an upper limit on the number of
Planning Commission Meeting —
June 21, 1989 - Page 20
houses that can be served by a private drive.
Olsen: Three lots you can have. The other ones, no you can not have. —
Resident : What was the answer?
Emmings : The answer is no . What is the maximum? Is it 5 or 4?
Olsen: It' s 3 and then in the rural standards it states that you can have —
2 so there' s some discrepancy there.
Emmings : Looking at the Code , on the subdivision code under Section 18-39
it says that in order to approve a preliminary plat and a final plat, the —
City Council has to find that the proposed subdivision is not premature.
One of the things that makes it premature is if there' s a lack of adequate
roads. If I remember , I was here a couple years ago when we looked at this —
thing at that time and everybody agreed that the roads in there were
inadequate . At least that' s my recollection of what happened back then. I
think there should be a 60 foot easement going all the way in. I can see _
that maybe some allowance is going to have to be made for that spot where
the mound system is. I think things like that can be taken into account
for something like this but the easement we should have. How much
construction of the roadway should be done, I think is we can talk about
but I 'd probably, if this is the best opportunity we' re going to have for
cleaning up what' s a bad situation. It' s a very long cul-de-sac. We don' t
like that . As a matter of policy, we don' t like the long cul-de-sacs .
Whether people agree to submit to the extra lack of fire services or the
potential for not being able to get any emergency services or not, that' s
not something that' s just in the hands of the landowners but it' s a concern
of the City too and I don' t think we can. . . —
Martin Jones: The fire trucks can get in there now.
Emmings : I know.
Mrs . Getsch : An 18 wheeler was in there last week.
Resident: It's still there .
Emmings : I 'm telling you what I think. —
W.C. Getsch: I know but we can tell you what actually happens . . .
Emmings : Reality doesn' t interest me. This is theoretical .
Martin Jones: I ' ve driven the fire truck down the road many times so
I know it goes down and it comes back out.
Emmings: What is the reason that we have roads like we do and the reason
that we don ' t like long cul-de-sacs? —
Olsen: It's public safety.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 21
— Warren : Secondary access .
Emmings: That's all I have.
Ellson: I think that we should probably do some sort of minimum standard
roadway improvements at this point. I also think that the reservation of
the trail easement should be left as was recommended. That' s it.
Batzli : I guess taking what I consider to maybe the easier issue first. I
think the trail easement , I think Park and Rec if they didn' t consider why
— they were going around the back end. If they just thought we did it this
way last time, let' s do it again , I guess I 'd like to see them reconsider
whether they really need it around the entire parcel or if it would make
_ more sense to jog it back to Dogwood there and not knowing their reasoning
for what they proposed, I don't have a good basis on which to judge that at
all . I don' t believe I was here to consider this last time around but as
far as the roadway improvements but I kind agree with Ladd, or his earlier
— comment anyway. Maybe he' s not really in agreement. Maybe he' s playing
devil 's advocate but the question as to whether we should force the
developer to develop the road at this time. I don' t know that it' s the
inadequacy of the road is going to be further exacerbated by the addition
of 3 lots when it appears that the reason that it' s inadequate is due to
the existing lots currently in there. But on the other hand, I do think
due to public safety concerns , there should be some sort of upgrade or at
— least planning for the future and it looks like the only way we can do that
at this time is to get some sort of easement and perhaps minimally
blacktopping it or something else. It seems to there was some sort of
— discussion about whether you go in and build a 60 foot road or just kind of
blacktop it now and upgrade it later . I don't know.
Wildermuth : I guess my thinking is , with the addition of 3, 4 lots or
parcels there. One being the 80 acre parcel . We' re not looking at that
much greater load on the existing roadway and the upgrade at this point
probably ought to be up to the people who live on the road. But I think
— the easements should really get some consideration this time around .
Headla: As far as the trail goes, I would assume that the Park and Rec
— wanted to go from Point A to Point B. If I understand the proposal , the
trail will go from A to A-. It never even gets to B+ so I sure would want
the Park and Rec to look at that . Look at it closely. As far as the road
_ improvement, if they all agree, they don' t want to improve it, they've got
the problem and a lot of people back there have been happy for many years
so I guess I 'm inclined to say let it be.
— Conrad : My comments . I agree with getting the full easements at this
point in time. I think we really don' t know what' s going to happen but we
have to get the easements so if that ' s the 60 foot easement that we need ,
that we have to get that. I don' t want to force a developer to develop a
property I think right now yet I want them to be able to use it and I don' t
mind the way they' re dividing it right now. I think we do Mark, as you
suggested , we' ve got to look at that power line as they' ve cleared it out
— because it' s a big new piece of information and I think that plays a role,
at least in how do we get access to those particular 3 sites . The trail , I
Planning Commission Meeting —
June 21, 1989 - Page 22
think that should go back to the Park and Rec for their comments . I guess
my only other concern right now is , if there future potential to continue
to split off? When the MUSA line goes out there. Back up. I 'm —
comfortable allowing the subdivision as we see this yet I 'm still
uncomfortable at what point we can say no , you can ' t add one more house to
this. Based on the zoning right now, can they add additional , how many —
additional could they add?
Olsen : You' ve got 100 acres and you can have 10 units .
Conrad: 1 per 10 so they could literally 7 more?
Warren : They could add 5 more. He' s platting Zimmerman as a lot. —
Olsen: Right, and that's something that we have to determine if we would
have to determine if we would consider that one of the building —
eligibilities. Since they' re including another one.
Conrad : So they could put 5 more there . Okay. It gets kind of difficult
to know what to say. Those are my comments but I think that we need the
easements . It' s a difficult situation but I think if we get those
easements, at least we have our options open but I personally don' t think
we need to , the neighbors are saying don' t develop. Well , I 'm not sure —
what the neighbors have said. They' re basically saying to me we don' t
want any assessments . I 'm not sure what they think of development or
improvement of the roads but my impression is they' re happy living the way —
they have lived there and I don' t think 3 more units or 4 is going to
disturb the balance out there so I don' t feel that we need to force any
kind of road development in at the current time other than making sure that
we have our options open for the future and that probably means to me
covering our options and getting as much property for easement as possible.
Anyway, those are my comments .
Tom Kordonowy: If the Commission were to acquire an easement around the
entire property, if they saw that to be appropriate, wouldn' t it be ,
insofar as I 'm taking this 80 acre portion for a single family house,
wouldn ' t it be appropriate . . .on the west side of Dogwood to take the entire
right-of-way or easement out of this parcel . However , this parcel is not
being developed , it wouldn' t be a fair arrangement to take half of what
would be the required right-of-way from here should this develop and take
the other half on the other side. If at a later date , I as an owner here
were going to develop this , then I would think it would be appropriate for
the City to say you' ve got to dedicate additional right-of-way. . . I 'd be —
concerned that the City now has the easement or right-of-way and they say
we' re putting in a blacktop road and you' re the benefitting party, you' re
paying this portion of it. That would be a burden.
W.C. Getsch : I don' t think Camp Tanadoona is going to hold still for that.
Tom Kordonowy: They wouldn' t be taking the easement from them at this
time. They'd only be taking half an easement .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 23
_ W.C. Getsch : I 'm talking about any assessment or anything else . They' re
in bad enough shape as it is .
Conrad : Right. No , we understand that. There was a lot of logic in what
— he just said. Is there anything that would contradict that logic Jo Ann?
Olsen : I' ll let Gary answer that.
Warren: Thank you Jo Ann . The comment about Camp Tanadoona I think is a
reality as far as if at some time in the future, if that's the way you' re
- going to look at this , if you' re going to want to build that road and want
to build it to city standards, the City would have to go through
considerable expense to probably condemn, if you will , the portion of the
right-of-way that we would be deficient. Now whether that' s from the
— Campfire property and actually my recollection, the topography out there
is, you talk about trees and you talk about some tough topography. The
further to the north from that roadway, you get into some real difficult
— topography.
Conrad : So the situation would be, if we only required half the dedication
of the easement on the property that' s now being looked at and platted ,
basically what , if we only required half of it , then what we' re saying to
the current residents is we probably can' t. If nothing else happens on
that property, we' re probably not going to upgrade that road for a long
— time. That ' s basically what we' re saying. If we only require the half of
the easement for rural road or whatever that we'd like to have, the options
of improving that road for the current residents are neglible until the big
parcel develops .
Warren : They' re certainly restricted as to what you can do and quite
honestly what I prefer about Alternate D, putting cost aside for the
moment, is the fact that to pursue the alignment along the current roadway
as we' re all aware, when you get down to the northwest corner there, the
bottleneck, the sharp right angle turn, that is a very undesireable
— alignment and in the alternates that we showed and the feasibility study we
showed cutting across that meadow land area which actually is a beautiful
meadow land area. You still have to deal with the bottleneck at the
- community mound system whereas if the road is brought in through the
property, we can deal with reasonable geometrics to put in the proper
access and then you only have a compromised road section for the piece that
goes to the north, the hammer as Mark calls it, and the other three
quarters of the roadway is a full city standard roadway. That' s what I
guess is attractive from an engineering standpoint about if you' re going to
take easements , if you' re going to follow the existing alignment , then
— you' re locking yourself into the future probably about trying to upgrade
with that existing alignment . Whereas if you take another easement , maybe
if you' re going to restrict it to not using it for a while, I don' t know
what kind of restrictions we could put on but at least get the easements
where you ultimately might want to build the full city section .
Conrad : I liked the D alignment . In my mind that was the right way to fly
— yet that may not work with the owner 's plans. He' s got a house that ' s
probably he' s situating and that probably doesn ' t work but conceptually
Planning Commission Meeting —
June 21, 1989 - Page 24
you' re right.
Kurt Laughinghouse: I think what you just said argues against taking any —
interest for roads as follows. If there' s one person owning this 80 acres
and it is platted as lot , the only way it can be further subdivided is to
come back to the Planning Commission and Council and then the whole game is —
open again for roads. So if this plat is approved as we propose it , and
there is dedication here so there' s a full 60 feet available on the front
of these lots , but there is no dedication around the rest of the property
in effect unless we deal with this in here. In that situation, the City
controls. If anybody wants one more lot , then the City says okay then now
we need the road here or we need a road here. We need something else.
And , and if water and sewer come this far , to this edge of the lake, Camp —
Tanadoona will not be able to resist the amount of money that will be
offered for that property. . .and that will probably be developed too and a
Campfire camp will be built 30 miles further west in another more secluded
wooded place . Then this sewer system is no longer needed . If and when
there' s any redevelopment, either because of the water and sewer or because
this low owner of Lot 4 in this case decides they don' t want to have the
horse farm anymore, the City controls. If the City needs easements , they —
take easements where they need them so really what we' re doing , although
we' re going through a platting process which is an urban process , we' re
really dealing with 5 and 10 acre lots . This is a rural situation forced
into an urban process. I think we ought to. . .
Conrad : Mr . Laughinghouse , you' re right yet it takes the power away from _
the City and the power away from the neighborhood right now that are
currently living there under your direction. Now' s the time in
subdivisions that the city can make improvements and what you ' re suggesting
is don ' t do anything right now and basically the power will be left with —
the individual who owns the large parcel there, when they want to develop
and the City is locked out of improving road access to the current
neighbors. Yet I have heard the current neighbors say some things that say —
maybe they don' t mind that .
Dave Getsch : We might want the road coming down the hill before the _
hammerhead, we might want that widened a little bit. We certainly want to
have easements so we can do something like that .
Conrad: But you' re comfortable the way things are today aren' t you? —
Dave Getsch : Yes but we don' t necessarily, there are times when it' s less
than desireable trying to get in. For instance when the frost goes out in
the spring and you park your car on top of the hill and walk in . That ' s
less than desireable. After a good gully washer is less than desireable
but what I 'm saying is that it has a certain charm to it . . .we certainly
want the easements.
Warren : The City can always vacate easements . I ' d rather get the bird in
the hand and give it away in the future if we don' t use it.
Conrad : I think you' ve heard a lot of comments . Is there a motion to
table this item until , what do we table it for Jo Ann? For staff review of —
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 25
the new information?
Olsen: That would be best.
Batzli moved , Emmings seconded to table acition on the preliminary plat to
subdivide 100 acres into three single family lots and one outlot for Kurt
— Laughinghouse until staff has reviewed the new information. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE MUSA BOUNDARY TO INCLUDE 140 ACRES
INTO THE METROPOLITAN SERVICE AREA LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF LAKE ANN, 1680
— ARBORETUM BOULEVARD, MICHAEL GORRA.
Public Present :
Name Address
_ Mike Gorra Applicant
Leander Kerber 1620 Arboretum Blvd.
Bernie Schneider P.O. Box 103, Chanhassen
Mark Koegler presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the public
hearing to order .
Bernie Schneider : Mr . Chairman, I 'm Bernie Schneider . I represent the
Chanhassen Legion. I 'm not quite clear what this . . . I didn' t quite follow
you on that.
Koegler : The City is in the process of updating it' s Comprehensive Plan at
— the present time which a review of the MUSA line is a part of that effort.
That effort has been underway for some time and we feel that within 60 to
90 days the planning aspect of that will come to a close and a lot of the
documentation that will be needed to support this application with
Metropolitan Council might be available at that time. For example we' ll
need to provide them with some information on how the property ultimately
is going to develop. What the sewage flows will be so they can consider
what impact that has on the regional treatment systems . So what I guess
we' re saying is it' s a very complex issue and the documentation that will
make that issue perhaps a little more clearly discernable is going to be
— available in 2 to 3 months . It ' s not available as we sit here tonight .
Conrad: Bernie, it' s my guess that with the information that the staff
compiles , you' ve got a much better case than going in there right now
without it. Other comments from the public? Anything else?
Koegler : I want to emphasize I guess on the record that the kind of
— comments that I just made assume that the plan to a certain degree will
support this application and we don' t actually know that tonight. I guess
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 26
that ' s what will be verified within the next 2 to 3 month period . I don' t
know if Mr. Gorra is here. I did speak to him on the phone and discuss the
possibility of this recommendation which ultimately then did occur . He was —
apprised of the potential for a recommendation on some delay. I don't know
how he feels about the 2 to 3 month time line .
Conrad: Any other comments?
Emmings moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted
in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed .
Headla : What information is available now that wasn' t available when the
Baptist Church tried to get the MUSA line changed? I see a lot of support
now trying to get it changed but I didn' t see any support for them and they
had about the best argument I think I ' ve seen to get it changed.
Olsen : They didn' t actually make application for that . That was just part
of the site plan, their conditional use permit. They were saying that they
wanted to connect to it and we explained to them that they would have to
make application to proceed with that but in speaking with the Met Council ,
this is different . This really could be acting as an extension of the MUSA
line. They were just in the middle of, I mean you had a lot of land
inbetween them and the MUSA line. They had the interceptor going through —
their property but the MUSA line was nowhere near them. It is a lot
different than this property and the bottom line is they didn' t actually
make the application for that.
Headla : I see the village giving a lot of support to this where I don' t
think they really gave the church any support and I thought they had an
excellent case . —
Conrad : David , Jo Ann' s point was that it' s almost like spot zoning . It
was like a parcel way away. _
Headla : I understand her point . I still think they had an excellent case .
I guess I really want to see a plan on this thing. I think we ' re just _
potato chipping this thing and kind of random hit so I ' ll go for your table
or denial but I think tabling is the reasonable way to go.
Conrad : What ' s potato chipping? —
Headla: Take another piece here and another piece there.
Wildermuth : Mark, in 60 to 90 days , what would you recommendation be?
That we go after a much bigger parcel to include in the MUSA line rather
than coming back to the well again later?
Koegler: You' ve summarized the major concern. That how many times can you
go back to the well versus taking a very big bucket the first time. I
don' t know that this piece, if this piece was recognized in the 1982 —
Comprehensive Plan as being one that should be serviced in the near future.
Presumably that is to occur. I don' t know that that means this is priority
number one or maybe there' s another piece somewhere else that still should —
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21 , 1989 - Page 27
be priority number one. That' s what we need to determine but our position
is that it needs to be looked at in a larger scale then simply focusing on
this one 140 acre piece.
- Wildermuth : So you might want to look at a 500 acre piece?
Koegler: Precisely.
Wildermuth : I 'm in favor of tabling .
Batzli : I 'm also in favor of tabling it until we can take a larger picture
and look at it.
Ellson : Same. Nothing new.
Emmings: Same thing .
— Erhart : I think the developer is agreeing to wait 5 years to development,
waiting 90 days to get the thing run through smoothly as opposed to a fight
makes a lot of sense so I guess I 'd be in favor of tabling it.
- Conrad: I agree with tabling it. The guideline Mark that you' re using to
determine what the needs are for the City. As you update the Comprehensive
Plan, that update is to take us through what?
Koegler : Through the year 2000.
- Conrad : So what you would come back with in 60 to 90 days is a MUSA line
change that would take us for our current needs up to the year 2000?
Koegler : I hedge a little bit on that answer because as far as the Comp
— Plan goes, there' s a couple of areas that go to 2010. Transportation has
certain projections in element that go out beyond the year 2000 and
I believe the comprehensive sewer policy plan may also , just in terms of
— looking at flow projections and so forth but essentially we' re still
targeting the year 2000. Again, we won' t be looking only at the MUSA line
but the City' s entire development structure of which that' s a major
component so I think that time the information that will be available will
be a little more clear in terms of how you address this issue .
Wildermuth: It' s really going to be complicated by where the 212, where
— that lies right? Whether you go south with the line to bring in more
territory or you go west of TH 41.
- Koegler : Yes . To a certain degree Mother Nature has provided some very
discernable physical barriers in Chanhassen and to look at the
comprehensive sewer policy plan that' s there now, if you take the map
behind you. Essentially everything that's outside of the area that has
- different zoning categories , the A-2 will require a Bluff Creek interceptor
to come up from kind of the southeast portion of the city diagonali.ng up to
the northwest to effectively service much of the southern area of the
— community. That' s not true when you get into the northern portion because
the Lake Ann Interceptor has the ability to provide service to some of
Planning Commission Meeting _
June 21 , 1989 - Page 28
that . So essentially I don ' t anticipate that there would be any major
change in the thrust that certainly the northern part of the city is still
to see the development first with it being phased in over a longer period
of time than the south.
Conrad : So you' re going to take us through the year 2000 in the —
Comprehensive Plan. I 'm trying to digest what you just said .
Ellson: Possibly a little longer .
Conrad : In terms of land use , you' re taking us through the year 2000. We
will go to Metropolitan Council , we are updating the Comprehensive Plan
right now. I don' t see any timeframe for turning our Comprehensive Plan —
update in because we' ve been playing with it for 2 years so obviously
there ' s nothing , no hammer over our head to get it updated right? So
they' re not expecting this?
Koegler : They really still are . They, if they is the Metropolitan
Council .
Conrad : Yes , they are.
Koegler : They are because in the context of the Lake Ann sewer agreement , —
there were changes called for . The changes that were submitted were
somewhat of an interim nature until such time as the City could go through
more of a wholesale review of the plan and an upgrading improvement of the _
plan so you ' re correct . I can' t even sit here tonight and tell exactly
what the final adoption schedule will be but I certainly can tell you that
I 'm comfortable that within 90 days we' ll generate all the land use data
that will allow you to make a decision to say yes, we want to approve this
and see what happens or no , we do not . I think that ' s the key ingredient
in the whole thing.
Conrad : And when we do that , we take that into Metropolitan Council and do
they have to react to it?
Koegler : Certainly. There really are two ways that this could be —
approached. You could approve Mr. Gorra' s application and basically let
him carry the flag into the Metropolitan Council and try to sell it or you
could upgrade the Comprehensive Plan update and take the entire document in —
of which his property potentially is a piece and say here' s what ' s in the
best interest of the City as a whole and it just happens to possibly be
consistent with Mr . Gorra ' s goals. —
Conrad : Okay. Jo Ann , remember 2 weeks ago , I 'm real concerned about
financial implications of growth. I 'm not real interested Mark in
dedicating land for residential if it' s going to increase tax burden
because we really haven' t dedicated enough for commercial/industrial . And
I 'm not sure that your going out there looking at , you' re looking at needs
based on units. Maybe some trends but you ' re not out there looking at —
financial impacts of we need so much industrial land to grow to compensate
for the new neighbors that are coming in that are going to increase our tax
base . I 'm real interested in the 60-90 day process . One, to be educated —
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21 , 1989 - Page 29
by Don Ashworth or the City staff on this but two , to somehow merge some of
these concepts and I know it ' s not going to be an exact, this is not a
science but I 'm real fascinated by the fact that I just don' t think we need
to be out there dedicating residential growth areas when we may not have
— the commercial/industrial to compensate for some of the cost factors . Can
you respond to that Mark?
- Koegler : Yes . We are addressing that and have addressed that
preliminarily. Not exactly from the same slant that you just referenced .
If I understood you correctly, the thrust of your remark was you want to
look at it from a financial context of what types of land use carry various
types of burden if you will that relieves the residential taxpayer or
spreads it more equitably and looks at the community more in that context.
I think your underlying assumption is that means there will be more
— commercial and industrial land designated than perhaps is presently here.
Conrad : I need an appropriate amount, whatever it is.
Koegler: We have been approaching that from a little difference tact in
not necessarily saying what' s the financial implications but do we have
enough commercial and industrial land even if the growth rates parallel
what they are today. If you recall we had a discussion that probably
occurred 6 months ago that cast serious doubt on that fact that there is
enough land designated right now in the plan to accommodate both commercial
— and industrial . We' ve gone through some very brief scenarios in the
industrial park and looked at what had been absorbed over the last 10 years
and what might be absorbed over the next 10 years just with even a straight
line growth projection and there were deficiencies there so my answer to
your question is we are going to be supplying some of that information but
not necessarily with the same slant and you may want to add that slant and
hopefully we' ll end up at the same place.
Conrad: I 'm hoping we can add that slant.
— Olsen : Yes , Don has been . . .
Conrad : And I hate to belabor this but the thing that concerns me Mark is
sometimes cost don' t increase linearly. They increase in steps and a major
cost becomes school . You build a school out here, I don' t know how that
affects taxes. Sometimes we might even be able to plan to make sure we
have enough industrial in place and to a degree restrict residential
— development until there' s enough industrial in place or commercial to help
ease . . . Anyway, we need a motion on this item.
Wildermuth moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
tabling action on Land Use Amendment Request #89-2 due to the fact that at
the present time the City of Chanhassen lacks sufficient background
information to fully support approval of the request . All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
Planning Commission Meeting _
June 21, 1989 - Page 30
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 18 .93 ACRES INTO 11 HIGH DENSITY LOTS ON
PROPERTY ZONED R-12, RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY FOR 182 CONDOMINIUM UNITS —
LOCATED ON OUTLOT B, WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS (BETWEEN POWERS AND KERBER BLVD. ,
NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET) , CENVESCO (OAKVIEW HEIGHTS) .
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public
hearing to order .
Mary Cully: My name is Mary Cully. I 'm with Hedlund Engineering and —
represent Cenvesco. As has been stated, we have been before you on this
particular parcel with the same product essentially but we were asking for
a PUD which was not designated zoning for this parcel . We are now coming —
back with a similar product . We feel that we conform with the R-12 intent
of the zoning as Jo Ann mentioned. We met all the impervious and the
density. The densities are much lower than the 12. Generally they are 9 _
to 10 range with an average of 10 units per. acre. The tree issue, this
development has the removal of 9 large oak trees . The landscape plan shows
the replacement of 120 trees of different types , varieties and granted
smaller size caliper inches that will be removed are a little over 200 and —
we are replacing them with nearly 300 caliper inches. In the project prior
to this , the Durand Corporation, the DNR forester did come onto the site
with staff and it was their viewpoint that, and I ' ll read it. Staff is on
site with the DNR forester Alan Olsen and determined that there was no way
to preserve any of these trees with a proposed. . . Staff and Alan Olsen
reviewed the proposed landscape plan , this was the old landscape plan and _
asked for an increase and variety of plant materials. So just for the
record I wanted to show that this site has been visited by the DNR forester
and it was his judgment that unfortunately these trees cannot be saved .
They' re trying to save whatever we can and there may be a possibility of 1
or 2 more trees being saved. We feel that they can with a lot of
precautions . It ' s not a guaranteed thing but from my interpretation of the
DNR's feeling is that is what he' s saying that they just can' t guarantee. . . _
Since we all know the project well , it' s probably appropriate that I answer
questions considering the hour and time limit.
Conrad : Okay, when we get back here for our comments , I 'm sure we will —
have some questions of you. It' s a public hearing . Any comments?
Additional comments?
Batzli moved , Headla seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. —
Emmings : My overall comment is that again I think parking is a serious
deficit in this plan as it was in the other plan. Again, the only parking —
that ' s being provided is the garage space and the space immediately in
front of the garage for guests and events and things and I 'm probably going
to vote against it just on that ground alone . Otherwise , I don' t mind the
plan. I think it certainly fits better than anything we' ve seen before.
With respect to the preliminary plat , subdivision , I think we should add a
condition that the approval would be conditioned upon compliance with all —
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 31
the conditions of the site plan and the wetland alteration permit. I think
the number of curb cuts should be reduced out to Jenny Lane. Particularly
when you consider that the sidewalk is going to be going along that south
edge too. Not only is there an awful lot of curb cuts but the sidewalk is
— planned for that south side of the road .
Mary Cully: The north side.
Emmings : That' s not what I just heard .
Olsen: When Gary was discussing it, he was saying the south though. I can
double check that.
Emmings : I know the difference between north and south, I just don' t know
— where this thing is going. She said south.
Mary Cully: Oh, I apologize.
Olsen: Yes, it says the south side. The Park and Rec .
Emmings : And that' s where a lot of these curb cuts , that ' s where the over
abundance of curb cuts seems to occur although there are some on the north
too but anyway the number of curb cuts onto Jenny Lane I think ought to be
reduced. That would be an important thing to do. They' re quite a bit
— under the impervious surface limit and I think probably something could be
worked out, at least try to. I don' t have any way to judge whether the
landscaping is adequate or inadequate and it' s something I 'm very concerned
about when I see that the site plan asks for an amended landscape plan to
address that. I assume that will then just be, the staff will determine
whether or not it's adequate and I 'm willing to let staff do that. Number
one I think the staff has the right idea about requiring more and number
— two, judging from what the City Council has to say about those oak trees ,
they' re going to be taking a greater look at that as well . I would again
modify the conditions on the site plan to add a condition, site plan
— approval is conditioned upon compliance with all the conditions of the
subdivision approval and the wetland alteration permit. Again , just to tie
that back and forth . Under the wetland alteration permit , I think we' ve
got the wrong number. Under the wetland alteration permit it should be
89-14 instead of 88-15. 88-15 is the site plan so that first number under
the recommendation should be 89-14 and then condition 3, it says approval
of PUD concept and development plan . All that' s gone by the board so that
— shouldn' t be in there. Number 4 says approval of site plan 88-14 and I
think we should just strike that out because it should be 88-15 but let' s
just strike it out and just put in a third condition that says that
approval would be conditioned upon compliance with all the conditions of
subdivision and site plan approval . That will again, tie them all
together . Other than that I don ' t have anything else right now.
- Ellson: I 'm just as concerned about what I was the first time and that' s
the trees . I don' t even recall now how many total there are. They' re
removing 9. How many trees are not being removed or are trying to be
— saved?
Planning Commission Meeting —
June 21, 1989 - Page 32
Olsen : Two are trying to be saved .
Ellson: And their chances are, we don' t know but basically 9 out of 11 are —
being taken out and are most of them in this double frontage lot area or a
good portion of them? If I recall it was kind of stretched up.
Olsen: Yes, they are up in this area. In the double frontage.
Batzli : I don' t mean to interrupt but if you go with the Alternative A and
turn the townhome there, are you then wrecking all of the trees?
Olsen : I haven' t seen it but I would assume you are. It' s real doubtful
that these are going to survive with any type of grading around it. This —
doesn' t actually show the tree line but , the drip line is what they call it
and it leaves about half as much would not even touch it. . . Because
they' re oaks , they' re real susceptible to disease. —
Ellson: I guess I 'm still concerned about that and I don' t know that we
have a whole lot of power but . Not only do I recall reading about how the
DNR said that we'd probably have to remove them but that's what the plan as —
it is or as it was then, but we' ve also stated and it' s also been discussed
by the new Council that we want to start designating protected tree groves
around the city and I think this should be the first one. I don' t like —
that many being gone which is probably 100% and whether it' s 300 trees or
3, 000 that are 1 inch round or 2 inches compared to 1, 100 year old oaks , I
think we really lose out on that. I think that we come out on the short
end of the stick. I had a question on the double frontage lot . That' s
basically something that we don' t recommend or this is something we don' t
allow?
Olsen : The subdivision ordinance does not allow it unless it' s on a
collector or arterial .
Ellson: So if they took that building out there wouldn' t be a problem?
Olsen: Well it's still a lot.
Ellson: I know but it' s like 10 units or whatever . I was thinking well
maybe some of those trees are in there. Take the building out and you' ll
save 5 of them or something . I guess I 'm not convinced that we'd have a —
solution to this problem that we don' t allow them yet we' re going to allow
this one . I don' t see that we have a good reason for allowing this one but
you know she' s trying to find a solution but it still kind of designates it —
as a double frontage lot and I don' t know that we have a good reason to say
okay, this one we' ll let go. Those are some of the concerns I have.
Mary Cully: Can I just say something about the trees? Also it is the —
grade of the trees to develop any kind of road, it would be hard to save
them because there ' s a change in the grade of 10 feet so you have to
consider grade in addition to location. —
Ellson: But we had one option last time where we saved more. Not as many
as I would like but a few more. I don' t know.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 33
Batzli : Just getting back to Steve' s comments . The Park. and Rec ' s
proposal did say the trail should be on the south side of Jenny Lane so
that is going over all of the curb cuts and I agree that that' s probably
— not the best place to put that. One of my questions, and this is a real
question by the way, where is the appropriate place to say, or not say,
when we' re looking at potential expansion of the site. For instance,
— everywhere on every page we see plastered a future apartment building which
in theory is not being considered tonight, isn' t that correct?
Olsen: Right .
Batzli : Should that not be one of the conditions that we are not
considering that and not approving it at this time?
Olsen : Yes , we could say that.
Emmings: Why do we have them on there? Why do we have something that
we' re not considering on the plat that we' re looking at?
Olsen : It' s always up to the option of the applicant to show that. It
seems like when they don' t show it.
Emmings : Then we want to know what it' s going to be. Yes, that' s right .
Olsen: So I had said, yes show it.
Emmings : I think you' re right actually. I think I 'd probably like it on
there. I think I 've said that in the past .
Batzli : I like to see it on there. It' s just I think I 'd like to state
- and make it clear to the applicant that we' re not approving that at this
time.
- Olsen : We can have that said as a condition because we' ve had that before
where it ' s in the report and we know it but somebody else in the future
might not.
Batzli : My next question was regarding the 300 inches which replaces the
trees that are being removed. Is that in addition to the landscaping
requirement required under the landscaping ordinance or is that just the
— trees that are required under the landscape ordinance? Is this in addition
to or just a part of?
Olsen : Additional landscaping we' re requesting?
Batzli : Yes .
— Olsen : Right . In the landscape ordinance they require berming and
screening between vehicular areas and units in the development and the
landscaping plan does not provide all of that . They have, I just saw today
— an amended landscaping plan that they are providing those requirements so
it' s not necessarily additional landscaping just to replace the trees that
NEM
Planning Commission Meeting _
June 21, 1989 - Page 34
are being removed . There are other sections in the ordinance that are
being met.
Batzli : There was some things in the public safety questi.onaire stating
that they needed more information. Water supply calculations. All this
kind of thing . Has that been submitted? —
Olsen: I don't know. I don' t believe that has yet.
Batzli : So we really don' t know what the outcome of this middle building —
is. We don' t know where the improvements for park are going to be. We
don' t really have a good idea about the curb cuts . I think if it was up to
me tonight, I 'd move to table this. —
Wildermuth : I agree with Brian. I think we' ve got to table it tonight
because of the curb cuts. Because of the double frontage on Jenny Lane. I —
guess I have to be very honest and confess that I wished we hadn' t zoned
this the way it was zoned because I don' t like to see a project like this
this close to the City Hall .
Conrad : Well let me respond . We' re trying to put high density. I ' ve
never been against this project because of density and obviously you ' re not
talking to me in your comments right now but you' ve never listened to me —
before but the point was to put a high density close to city so you could
walk. If we were going to have high density, this was not a bad location
to do it.
Wildermuth : I understand that. I 'm just looking at the other high density
areas around the community and it isn' t a pleasant prospect. I hope this
one is better . In terms of construction materials. In terms of basic —
design but at this point I would agree with Brian. I would table it or be
in favor of tabling it because of the curb cuts and double frontage on
Jenny Lane. That' s basically it. _
Headla : If we didn' t do anything with this property, you' re probably one
of the most knowledgeable on this, how long do you think those oak trees
would last? —
Ellson : What ' s his question?
Conrad: How long do oak trees live?
Headla : Based on this area , do you think they'd live 5 years? 10 years? —
20 years?
Koegler : You' ve asked a very difficult question to answer . The answer is
if they' re in their undisturbed state as they' ve been for basically a 100 —
years with the exception of some farming operations in that vicinity,
presumably they could stay healthy for another 50 years or 100 years .
Olsen : That ' s what the forester said too.
Headla: They could survive?
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 35
Koegler : Pending natural disasters like tornadoes like that went through
in 1965, sure.
Headla : Okay, the reason I ask this is, even if they did take them down,
in 10 years if they' ve got over 100 trees planted, 100 trees would in 10
years and I think they made a pretty good choice in trees they tried , would
— we be further ahead. Today we wouldn' t be but in 10 years, do you think
we'd be ahead in the aesthetic value of trees?
Ellson: That's a personal opinion.
Conrad : Mark' s mouth is quivering .
- Koegler : Talk about objective questions , that' s really one. 10 years , I
think the largest tree I saw on there was 2 1/2 caliper inches. In 10
years that ' s going to grow to 4 inches , maybe 6 inches if it' s an Ash if
it's something that grows faster. You judge it with your own aesthetics .
Is a mature crown oak the same as 100 4 inch trees , 6 inch trees? To some
people it probably is equivalent, to other ' s, perhaps not. I can' t answer
the subjective aspect of your question.
Headla: I guess I didn' t expect you come back that they could live another
50 years. Okay, thanks . One thing in going through here, I didn' t see the
— inspector had different comments in here. I didn' t see any of the
inspector ' s comments put in the recommendations .
Olsen: The building inspector ' s comments?
Headla : Yes .
— Olsen : They were more relating to just to let the applicant know that they
might have to be sprinklered and things like that. It' s really when they
come through with the building permit, they have to meet those requirements
— so that's why I didn't put it in at the time. The one that should have
been put in was the Public Safety and I don' t think I got that . I did miss
that one. It should refer to his memo. The building ones, those will be
taken care of later . It ' s just to let them know.
Headla: That will happen when they get the permit?
— Olsen : Oh yes . They' re quoting the UBC Code.
Headla: On that Jenny Lane, will there be no parking signs there?
Olsen : I don' t know that that' s been determined that they won' t.
Emmings: With all the curb cuts there won' t be any place to park anyway.
Headla : Would that be, I 'm guessing but I would suspect it' s going to be a
lot of problems in the days when people come out here. People want to be
— on the streets . They' ll have to park on the streets . Will that solve the
problem or would that create more of a problem by having no parking?
Planning Commission Meeting -
June 21, 1989 - Page 36
Street parking?
Olsen : The design of the street , I don ' t know that it' s going to allow —
parking on either side. It gets into engineering again but if it' s
designed that it can handle the parking on one side or the other , then it
shouldn' t be that much of a traffic problem but if it's not designed in
this, it will be a problem and it should be signed no parking . I think
what they usually do is leave it no parking and if it becomes a problem,
then they sign it if that' s what they felt was appropriate in this case .
We've been through this so many times, at one point we were going to have •=•1
it no parking .
Headla : I think this is a big improvement over what they put in before. —
It' s like when you' re designing something and things go together good, you
feel real comfortable and I don' t think the design is quite here yet. I
really would like to see him go back and look at it again with all the curb —
cuts and the way that road goes through there. It seems to create a lot of
problems. From my point of view, I guess I 'd like to see you go back and
solve that loop problem with the road and curb cuts and add more parking .
That' s it.
Conrad : Okay, thanks Dave. Quick comments I guess . Did you ever
consider, the road that loops off of Jenny Lane, did you ever consider —
making two cul-de-sacs off of that? Is it important to keep that a
continuous road back there? Does that make sense?
Mary Cully: We got feedback from the Fire Department that that' s the way —
they wanted to see it.
Dean Johnson : They did not want cul-de-sacs. —
Conrad: I 'm sure you' ll get different feedback even up here. Yes, I know.
Was that ever of interest to you to do some cul-de-sacs going back in —
there? In other words, and I 'm not trying to redesign your plat right now
but would that have benefitted let' s say trees? Lessen the amount of road?
Mary Cully: It probably. . .probably be worse. —
Conrad : I'm not a planner , not a professional planner but if you just kept
the same configuration of road there and just basically didn' t connect it, —
you' re going to end up with maybe 40 additional feet or something between
the two cul-de-sac spots going in. Still accessing the same buildings .
Mary Cully: The length of cul-de-sac . . .
Conrad: Does it exceed that 500 feet? Would that do that?
Olsen : I don' t know that we saw plans of cul-de-sacs so I don' t know.
Conrad: Would you advise them not to do that? The cul-de-sacs? —
Ellson : They already said the fire people did .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 37
Olsen : I don' t know, no. It never was shown so I don' t know that it' s a
preference or that it wouldn' t have been permitted .
Conrad : If there were two cul-de-sacs there we wouldn' t have double
— frontage lots would we?
Olsen : No. It would remove, well you could possibly have. I don' t know
— how it would work if you had a cul-de-sac going like this.
Conrad : So what would that mean? It would still have double frontage?
What would we have? That's another option is one cul-de-sac.
Olsen : It' s something we could look at .
— Conrad: You' re comfortable Jo Ann then in solving the double frontage
issue simply by splitting that lot?
Olsen: It's the way. . .
Conrad : Meet the intent of the ordinance is what you' re saying? What are
the negatives of having, if we allow a double frontage here and we set a
precedent and a rationale for that precedent is what? Is there rationale?
The applicant wanted to do it that way? How do we allow that? Basically
we can ' t unless we divide it the way you' re saying .
Olsen: Right and even then in looking at it, you could still define that
as a double frontage. The ordinance . . . it ' s a front yard if you' re facing .
The front yard is where you have street frontage so that lot has street
frontage and then if you split it in half, it has two lots with 3 front
yards so you could still , the way it's defined now, I guess it ' s confusing
but you could still look at it as a double frontage no matter what you do
— because you've got streets on all sides. The way that you orient the
building really doesn ' t. . .
— Conrad : One of the double frontage restrictions is what?
Olsen: Just so that they do. . .you accommodate that. I think the reason
was so that you didn' t have a street or existing lot and then another
inbetween that. The back was facing the front yard kind of like an alley
situation. The way that it' s written is so if you do have double frontage
lots, that you always have the front of the homes facing . . .
Conrad : So it' s really out of respect to the neighbors?
— Olsen: How it' s going to work overall . I think double frontage was mostly
used for single family. For large lots with individual units on it so
that's where you get into, there' s nowhere in the subdivision ordinance
where it doesn ' t apply to this but really that ' s where it was for was for
single family.
Conrad : Does it apply to this? Yes it does .
Olsen: Yes, it does .
Planning Commission Meeting _
June 21, 1989 - Page 38
Conrad : Philosophically, do you think it applies to this?
Olsen: I think you could get by with that being with berming and
landscaping .
Conrad : So really the precedent that we set is not a negative precedent
because maybe we should, maybe double frontages is not negative in this
particular high density zoning district?
Olsen: We prefer, you always prefer not to have it. We just don't know, I
guess the best alternative is like a cul-de-sac but the way, if you want
that looped, then there's really no way to get around it unless you just —
delete that whole lot or have it an outlot that can' t be developed.
Conrad: What do you think about my thoughts for the cul-de-sac scenario? —
Do you like them or don' t like that idea?
Olsen: Well I 'd like to see it. It' s hard to comment when you can' t
picture it. —
Conrad : But we haven' t advised the staff other than the fire department
advising the applicant that they didn' t like cul-de-sacs. We haven' t —
really directed them to a different design?
Olsen: I don't know that they were told that they couldn' t do cul-de-sacs .
In my conversations and with the public safety it was always that this
would be designed to accommodate wide enough, this is back when it was
going to be a private drive and it was going to be narrow, that it be at
least 20 feet or 24 feet wide to accommodate the fire trucks so cul-de-sacs —
did not get discussed .
Mary Cully: On the double frontage lots , it does also say that if it can' t —
be achieved, getting away from the double frontage, that you could add the
10 foot and require that that extra 10 foot be bermed and landscaped .
I guess that's the interpretation I took. The one road that parallels
Jenny Lane is almost like a frontage road and we use that. . . Double —
frontage. . .single family is to have somebody' s backyard against a road but
with this product you really don' t have a backyard so we provided 25 feet
setback all around the perimeter of that lot where normally you'd have a 10 —
foot setback on the side but to compensate we put it at 25 around the
entire perimeter . It could be appropriate that one of those setbacks
should be 35. —
Conrad : Would it upset you from a sales standpoint to have one long
cul-de-sac? Cutting off the eastern access, bringing up the road to
service the three units north and to the west , is that something you just —
wouldn' t want to do? Again, I 'm thinking maybe there are trees, there' s
some concern with trees and I thought our cul-de-sac length was 500. We
just looked, I 'm not sure where we are on cul-de-sacs anymore but what' s
the negative of having one long cul-de-sac there Jo Ann? Might it save
some trees? I 'm talking about not having the eastern connection.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 39
Mary Cully: I think the diameter of cul-de-sac would be 100 feet and the
pavement would be 80 so you' re talking pavement where the trees are so you
have to maintain the western entrance for the eventual apartment .
— Conrad: I 'm not worried about the west.
Mary Cully: I 'm saying with the possibility of the cul-de-sac there, it
— would mean a wider expansion of pavement.
Olsen : I don' t know if the trees would be saved . Also , when you talk
about that high amount of people living in that area, they could possibly,
public safety might come back and still want a secondary access even out of
that cul-de-sac.
— Conrad : Why?
Olsen: It' s just a lot of times whenever you have a cul-de-sac there, it' s
— a lot of . . .
Conrad : You get 2 1/2 units exiting , half of the center deal are exiting
right on Jenny Lane right so we don' t have that many individuals that we' re
servicing up there Jo Ann.
Olsen : I picture if you' re going to have a cul-de-sac coming in there ,
— trying to get everyone to get off of Jenny Lane. It' s hard to talk about
it when you really can ' t even picture it.
Conrad: Right. And obviously I don't know if we' re saving anything. A
lot of people like cul-de-sac living and it keeps it away from the
thoroughfare. I don't know that there's a benefit to having two access
sites in there other than I 'm sure the fire department will say yes there
— is but we've been ignoring, we' ve got a lot of new development going in out
here and for some reason we' re pretty comfortable that long cul-de-sacs are
not real negative. We' re allowing them but again I would make that trade.
— It'd be a trade-off and I think the developer would want to , it ' s obviously
in their interest, they'd be interested whether their property is more
marketable or whether there' s some negatives to that but that just looked
_ like a solution to me that maybe we have ignored. Generally I find this
better than the PUD concept and maybe it' s sort of a shell game but there
sure, it' s just better looking in general . Don' t know how to solve the
double frontage issue and Jo Ann , without your guidance, I think it' s tough
— for us. This is a planner ' s deal and I guess without your specific saying
no it can ' t be done , my guess right now is I would go along with allowing
it because we'd set a precedent in this district and I don' t mind setting a
precedent in this district. I simply don' t mind it so basically ignoring
our guidelines. In terms of the preliminary plat, I think it' s better . In
terms of the site plan , curb cuts are too many. Flat out . There are just
plain too many. It's not good planning . There' s a trade-off. Impervious
surface for curb cuts and I don' t know what the trade-off is right now so I
guess I could back on my word and say I 'd like 17 curb cuts if we have to
put in a whole lot more parking area or road area but at this point in
— time, it' s probably worth using up some of the impervious surface that we
haven ' t used to get your curb cuts there. It also makes sense to have
Planning Commission Meeting _
June 21, 1989 - Page 40
fewer simply because we' ve got a trail there unless we moved the trail to
the other side which seems logical to me but I guess as long as we've got
it on the south , we' ll keep it there . The parking , geez, we continue to
talk about parking for guests and we don' t have any standards to enforce so
the planning staff basically, Jo Ann you haven' t given us any guidelines on
this in the report. You' re just saying it' s no different than before and _
therefore it' s up to our whim basically whether we like it or not. Mark,
do you have any standards for parking for visitors for a development like
this? You work other areas . The City has no guidelines .
Koegler: You' re not alone. A lot of cities have a 2 1/2 car requirement
for multi-family, one of which has to be covered . That 1 1/2 is commonly
taken up in driveway area and it' s only when you have a PUD or you have
some conditional use or something that you have a little more leverage to
require guest parking or suggest strongly that it be added to the plan that
that necessarily occurs . It' s certainly plats of this nature that , I ' ve _
been involved in reviewing for other cities, we have tried to obtain guest
parking .
Conrad : The City has no leverage right now, right?
Olsen: Technically, no. We'd have to amend the ordinance.
Emmings: Why not?
Conrad: No standards .
Emmings : We don' t have standards but this is a site plan review and you' re
saying that we can' t . . .
Conrad : We don' t have an ordinance that speaks to the problem.
Emmings: Well it' s simply not addressed but if we see it as a deficiency _
in the plan , what do we do , just ignore it?
Conrad: You can kind of negotiate with the developer and see if they can
solve it. —
Headla : We don' t have a limit on curb cuts either but we' re sure pressing
that one.
Conrad : I think there is a safety issue in curb cuts and I could feel real
comfortable talking safety. No doubt about it especially when you've got a
trail going through there. You' ve got 17 curb cuts and every 35 feet
you've got a curb cut and you' ve got more traffic than a single family unit
going out of there. I don' t have a problem with that one Dave. Not at all
but parking, I don' t know. —
Batzli : It may be a safety issue as well .
Headla: I think you'd have a problem because not everybody would agree on
the appropriate number . So in your own mind you wouldn' t have a problem
but overall there would be.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 41
Conrad : The development to the east of this , they don ' t have any parking
do they for guests?
- Olsen : I can ' t remember off hand if they do. It ' s not a significant
amount, no. That was a big discussion when they went through too .
— Conrad : They do have some but it would be where Jenny Lane goes in so
their guest parking is going to vanish.
Olsen: And it is being used all the time too . Every time I ' ve gone out
there that parking in Jenny Lane right-of-way is used.
Conrad : What' s the negative to the City in not having enough parking?
— Anything? They' ll just park out on Jenny Lane and then we' ll get
complaints so we ' ll put up no parking signs . Then what?
— Olsen: Bus service out there.
Conrad : We' ll shuttle them in from a parking lot. I don' t have an answer .
Okay, but somebody who makes a motion will . My only other thought, Park
and Rec said put in a volleyball court, half basketball court and several
other things. They made their recommendation and we really don' t know
where it is on the plan. Where it might go. Well , we have to adopt that
— right? If they make that recommendation, that' s nothing that we have to
put our name to , right?
Olsen : You can say you' re not in support of it but it still goes right
onto the City Council . The Park and Rec also, they get final determination
approval of where that is located .
- Conrad : Is there leverage on that? Just out of curiousity, is that an
exchange for park dedication fees or they' re just saying we'd kind of like
to have this?
Olsen : No , they' re saying you have to do it.
Conrad: Under what right do they have to put in a volleyball court unless
they donate a park?
Olsen : They can require a certain amount of acreage in their ordinance,
— the park ordinance. I think it came out to like 6 acres because of the
density or the number of units , they could have required 6 acres of
parkland. Because it wasn' t park deficient but it still was the
— surrounding park areas are almost to their capacity that they said okay,
you don' t have to provide the 6 acres but we want like around 1 acre, 1 1/2
acre with volleyball , basketball so they' re kind of coming to a compromise .
Plus they still have to pay some of the park fees and trail fees so they do
have the authority. They could have flat out said give us 6 acres or else
they could have said just give us money.
— Conrad : But we don' t see it here right now right?
Planning Commission Meeting —
June 21, 1989 - Page 42
Olsen: No . They could have possibly changed their plan because it does
have to go back to Park and Rec. They still have control where it' s
located so they can ' t put it in the wetland or in that slope . —
Conrad: Any comments? I see twitches out there.
Mary Cully: The park, that area of volleyball is not shown on this plan
because we got different information from Lori . When this plan was done
she said it was not a park deficient area and all this sort of thing and _
since that time she has . . .about the volleyball area.
Dean Johnson: Well their meeting was just last week. So until you have
the meeting you don' t have any permission, know where to put it anyhow. —
Since they work with you to put it in, it' s nothing that you can have on
these plans obviously before it comes to you people so I 'm sure that's why
they also put in their stipulations that it be worked out at final plat
time.
Emmings : If you cul-de-saced this one road they get a whole bunch of land .
Dean Johnson: Quite honestly I think your idea is not too bad. I would
take it a step farther myself and actually make it two shorter cul-de-sacs.
Conrad: That may be better and staff may not, by the way staff may not
agree with me. They have some technical reasons for they don ' t really like
cul-de-sacs and I find some good reasons for them and they add to the charm —
and some neighborhood type of deals but there are some emergency service
type things so again, when I say c 1-de-sac, I 'm saying that ' s not a bad
trade-off but they' re probably going to have some other thoughts on that
subject. —
Dean Johnson : Again , when you get back into first of all the issue with
the double frontage lots, you have something to go by. We sat there and —
looked at it and say well if we turn the streets and now the streets are on
the side lots which is where turning the building came from. Now do you
have double frontage lots? You know, you have a real gray area there in
which you to do a cul-de-sac, then you somewhat take that gray area out of
there and I have no problem doing that . I guess what I would like because
obviously I don 't want to be tabled again, I like you people.
Conrad : We enjoy your coming here every 2 weeks to talk to you. It' s a
good time.
Dean Johnson : So I guess what I 'd like is a recommendation to work with
that. Either cul-de-sac it. Go back to fire and see what they would want
in this thing and then come back with the best recommendation up to Council
with that too. As for the cuts on the curb, to be quite honest with you, —
if I could get a little bit more impervious surface on a couple of those
lots, I would rather go with the drive in going there also. I personally
don ' t like to see all those curb cuts on it either so I 'd like more of a —
recommendation to say allow me to put a little more impervious surface on
which (a) would give me some more visitor parking and (b) be able to get
all the curb cuts off so that ' s the type of recommendation I prefer to see _
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 43
if I could .
Emmings : They' re at 28% now and the limit is 35% or isn' t that right?
— Olsen: I think you have to look at each individual lot. Some of them are
really right up there, 35% like now but that ' s again where it came more
into play in the PUD on how you looked at that.
Dean Johnson: Can I make one more comment here? Obviously I 'd like to be
more a part of the. . .other stuff too. The impervious surface just got
tight. But the other thing that comes in, I 'd still like to make one last
pitch for the zero lot line on this site. I would rather get the. . .of the
homeowner it' s County for processing plats and also to a surveyor for
surveying the inside of the buildings . The better way out of it would be
— able to give the guys and the homeowners a better unit is to , so to speak
lessen the soft cost which is what something like that is. I don' t know
how at this point we can allow it. I guess I 'm looking for suggestions but
_ I would still urge, still think the zero lot line is . . . Even if it' s
through a variance or I don' t know how. It does mean about $1, 500.00 I am
going to be able to put into the units which I had planned to put into the
units.
Conrad : We weren ' t against the zero lot lines but to get to that ordinance
and what have you, it forced you into PUD and you are not a very good
— PUD the way it looks. It just doesn' t classify.
Dean Johnson : So now we' re in a catch-22. So what do you do? You have
an ordinance that really doesn' t relate to this type of a unit you know and
we went the PUD route to. . .
Conrad : If you brought in a really creative PUD and you save some trees
- and you bundle some units together, I think you could probably get that
through. I think when we zoned this a while back to R-12, we really
thought it was going to be apartment buildings . That' s where we were at.
— Obviously market structure and you being there , you can do anything you
want and you know what the market demand is but again we' re thinking
apartments . Close to downtown. Nice brick apartments . Terrific . Okay,
well now you' re bringing in something that especially when you give us a
PUD, it really didn' t, it wasn' t one and you got caught by that but I think
you can come back and save a few trees. You see the other thing we' re
doing is trying to keep open space and the first thing you brought in just
— looked, you can have density and still have open space. They' re not
contradictory but typically that moves you up .
Dean Johnson: So you' re looking at an apartment .
Conrad : Yes . You' re ending up with the problem. It' s not ours but those
are basically some philosophies that we' ve carried forth around Chanhassen
and the residents like it. That ' s why they moved out here. They like the
open space so if you had somehow been able to bundle things together , give
us some greenery around , keeping the impervious surface down, I think we
— would have gone along with you but it didn' t look that way. This looks
good as a subdivision and I think we made some changes to it. You' ve got
Planning Commission Meeting _
June 21, 1989 - Page 44
some problems here. There is somebody who doesn' t like parking and
somebody who doesn' t like trees and maybe a majority that want to table it
so you may not be happy with where we' re going tonight but I think you got
some time. If you came back with a zero lot line deal that looked creative
in a PUD, I think we'd look at it.
Dean Johnson: We'd have to lose too much density to do that .
Conrad : You might .
Dean Johnson : The economics of the thing right now also hedges on the HRA
so you' re sitting there saying you know, you gain one place you lose
another . It ' s something that you always struggle with in land planning and —
those types of things. I realize that but the numbers got too low in order
to do it and it kicked the project out. The project wouldn' t go at that
little of density so now I guess what I 'm trying to do is sit here and say —
well this is something that the same darn building you know but let ' s give
the customer something. Let' s try to find a way to do it so I guess you
know I 'm looking for a recommendation from you guys even if it' s a
recommendation onto the Council to look at this same project only allowing -'
zero lot lines or something on that line because it is going to go to the
customer because just to stay within the concept of the idea we have trying
to compete with rent, it' s going to need to go onto the customer . . . —
Conrad: I don' t know what we can tell you right now. If anybody has any
advice. You see the problem is , my comments are going to come back and _
it' s going to reduce your density and I don' t think you survive by reducing
density but it saves some of the things we'd be very interested in doing .
Giving us open space. Finding a volleyball park , totlot, whatever so I
could see saving some trees but I don ' t know that you can live with what my —
recommendations would be.
Dean Johnson : It becomes financially infeasible . —
Conrad: Right. It probably is. Anyway, I heard some comments here for
tabling . I guess my comment would probably be, we could pass this along to _
City Council with a lot of restrictions. It appears to me there are 4 or 5
things that really should be analyzed pretty good and I wouldn' t pass it to
them and I think if they were doing their job they'd bump it back to us so
therefore my feeling would be to table this until we can see the curb cut —
review, the impervious surface analysis and maybe taking a look at a long
cul-de-sac and a couple of the other things. Don' t know that we can save
trees but maybe we can bundle some parking in to this by bumping up some —
impervious surface but I think I would prefer and normally I wouldn' t mind
just passing along to the Council but I think it' s to your benefit. I
think it ' s to the City' s benefit to bring it back and solve a few of these
problems. Other than that I think it' s a better looking proposal than —
before. Those are my short comments . Anybody want to make a motion?
Wildermuth: I move the Planning Commission recommend tabling of Site Plan
#88-15 for 182 condominium units as shown on plans dated June 2, 1989 .
Conrad: Is there a second?
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 45
Emmings : Are we going to table just the site plan or the wetland
alteration permit and the subdivision request as well? There are three
things going on here.
Wildermuth: I think we probably ought to table them all .
— Conrad: I 'd table them all, yes .
Emmings: Is that your motion to table the whole package?
Wildermuth: Table all three.
Conrad : Is there a second?
Batzli : Second.
Conrad : Discussion. You men and women have a choice to get this out of
here. Just make your recommendations to the City Council .
Emmings: There are enough things, I was for moving it on but I guess I ' ve
kind of been persuaded by other people' s comments that there are enough
things up in the air so it really wouldn' t be, it probably would be useful
to look at it again.
Wildermuth moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
tabling action on Subdivision Request #88-24, Site Plan #88-15 and Wetland
Alteration Permit #89-14. All voted in favor and the motion carried .
Conrad: We' re going to see you one more time.
Dean Johnson: What am I going to change? I have nothing .
Conrad: The curb cuts. You've got to show us where the park is. You' ve
got to show us the impervious surface . Those things we need to take a look
at. It's not here and we'd just like to see it before City Council .
Dean Johnson : The impervious surface is there. . . 35%. I can' t change the
curb cuts because if I do I change the impervious surface so consequently I
- would come back with the same thing .
Conrad: Is that right?
Olsen : I haven' t seen that to prove that the impervious surface will be.
If it is and they do have to go over , they' ll have to go before the Board
of Adjustments to receive a variance to that zoning requirement.
Mary Cully: But you' re requiring that . . .
— Dean Johnson: You' re going beyond your own ordinances . I can' t. . .your
ordinances because we wanted to get the thing passed so we met your
Planning Commission Meeting —
June 21, 1989 - Page 46
ordinances except for possibly the . . . Everything else is going to have to
come back.
Emmings : That' s another issue that has to be looked at before it comes
back too because our ordinance says you can ' t have it. From what I saw at
the City Council last time, there were a lot of folks up there who were —
very liberal minded in application of our ordinances.
Conrad : Basically what you' re asking is , you'd like us to turn it down.
Do you want us to turn it down?
Dean Johnson : What I want, I can ' t change. I 'd like you to recommend
going over impervious or I 'd like you to sit there and say deal with the
double frontage and this way or that way. I can take and cul-de-sac the
thing and bring it back to you again but if that' s the only option.
Conrad : On a parcel this big , it' s really not tough to meet our standards.
Seriously. If you had a 12 acre or 4 acre piece of property, I could see,
and crimped between some different things, yes . It might be hard to meet
our standards. This is a big parcel. I don' t know why you can' t meet the —
standards that we ' re trying to set . I really don' t. Everybody else does.
Impervious surface, everybody, I can't think of a case that hasn' t come
before us where they haven' t met it. —
Dean Johnson: This does meet it .
Conrad : Then you won' t have a problem. —
Dean Johnson: It still meets it. It meets it now and you've turned it
down because it meets it. —
Conrad : We' ve turned it down for other reasons . We haven' t turned it
down, we've tabled it. —
Dean Johnson: Or you' ve tabled it for something that I can' t bring back to
you a change. I can' t change the impervious surface.
Conrad : Yes you can .
Dean Johnson: It will be coming back the same way. —
Conrad: Then we could reconsider our motion and turn this down. Therefore
you could get to City Council in two weeks if that ' s what you'd like to do .
You' re saying I have no other alternatives. One, we are interested and so
are they as to where the recreation facility is going . There' s some
things, and you do have the right to go in and say we want 17 curb cuts .
You do have that right . Planning staff is saying no. We' re saying it
doesn' t make sense. We haven' t seen that too often and City Council could
along with them so I think we could sit here and say, we wanted to see it
back because we thought there were enough things that might be changed that —
we could just send it through and therefore they would follow our lead and
it would go through at their level pretty quickly but your alternative, if
somebody made the motion to reconsider what we just did , to forget about —
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 47
tabling it, which I 'm not sure that somebody would make the motion but they
could make the motion to turn it down because of and you could fly up there
and see what they say.
Wildermuth : As far as the parking is concerned , not every lot probably has
to have additional parking space. You've got a couple lots. You've got
some leeway to work with impervious surface to provide some additional
— parking .
Dean Johnson: Not without dropping density.
Emmings: I guess if what he is saying is that he' s going to bring back the
same plan next time, then it' s senseless to table it. Then we' re just
wasting his time and ours. If you' re going to sit there and tell us you' re
- not going to work with the staff on the concerns that we' ve raised tonight,
and I would like to know whether you are or not because if you don' t plan
to bring back any different plan, then I would certainly make a motion to
- reconsider what we've just done. But if in the meantime you can
constructively work with the staff to try and iron out some of the things
that have bothered us tonight, then I think it should be tabled and we
should look at it again. So you should tell us, if you' re just going to
- bring it back the same plan, then I think we should vote on it one way or
the other . See you can sit out there and say what you want us to do and
recommend this and that but we' re not going to do that. That ' s not the way
— we perceive our function. You' re asking us to do something that we haven ' t
done for anybody else and it's not the way we operate and I guess what we
need to know from you is if, basically the choices that I ' ve just outlined
- I think.
Mary Cully: We have worked with staff .
- Emmings: I know you have and I 'm sure it' s frustrating because the fire
department wants one thing and they want another thing and we want
something else. But there' s 7 people up here and you' ve seen nothing but
— unanimous votes tonight. Usually we' re kind of , we wind up not having this
much trouble with projects as we've had with yours and maybe that' s a
message that you' re trying to stuff too much in here. I don' t know but
that's my personal feeling that you' re stressing things. You' re pushing
everything to the limit for density and while I understand that from a
financial point of view, that's not my concern. I don' t care see so from a
planning point of view, if you' re over stressed on those items, maybe you
— ought to consider cutting density, I don't know. But if you' re saying
you' ll only come back with the same plan , we need to know that . If that ' s
your intent, then I think we should reconsider what we just did.
Dean Johnson: I think we will probably be working with staff on the double
frontage lot. I don' t really expect to be able to work with the impervious
surface.
Emmings : Why is that?
— Dean Johnson : Because we can' t afford to drop really the total units we
have. To get more impervious surface or to get a driveway in there as
MOM
Planning Commission Meeting _
June 21, 1989 - Page 48
impervious surface , I have to drop units .
Emmings: Well you' re right. You' re at 35 on some lots right now.
Apparently you' re at 33, 34 . You' re 9% on one lot .
Dean Johnson: That' s the apartment building. _
Emmings : Okay, but you' re real high on all of them and I don' t see how
it's going to work either but maybe there is a way to make it work or a way
to make it work on a few units. Or maybe, I think you heard some talk up
here tonight that maybe we' re willing to trade a little higher impervious
surface to get more safety. Because there' s a safety concern we' re worried
about the number of curb cuts, maybe we' re willing to go a little higher on —
impervious surface . I don' t know but that ' s the kind of things that were
said up here and I 'm sure they heard all that and will try and work with
you to get a couple of lots at least down to one curb cut instead of 3 or _
4.
Dean Johnson: I stated the same thing . If you people are willing to allow
a little more on a couple three lots that have big driveways on them, I
would just as soon do that. I would also just as soon add some parking
spaces but what I can' t do is drop density.
Emmings: I understand that but what we' re asking you to do is work with
staff and see if you can' t find a way to reduce the number of curb cuts
even if it might mean , first by trying not to go over 35% but if you have _
to here or there, maybe we' ll trade it off for the safety we perceive that
we' ll be gaining .
Dean Johnson : I would just as soon work that way but there' s one other
problem that I do see and that is, when you people do say, say we add more
to the parking and we get over the impervious surface there and let' s say
we have 36% or 37% on a particular lot, that type of thing . We work out _
the double frontage lot . Now I 'm over when I take this plat in front of
Council , I 'm asking for something that varies from your ordinance. I have
the possibility that I could be just thrown out because now I 'm over R-12.
That's the other problem that I face in doing it. It' s that if we do pass
here, then the Council goes and says gosh darn, we don ' t want to see over
35%. We' re not doing it and then we' re all back. . .
Emmings: That ' s right .
Conrad: There aren' t any guarantees .
Emmings : We can' t control their decisions .
Dean Johnson: I realize that so that's why I 'm saying it' s hard for me to
go over the 35%. The curb cuts are an allowable thing so that ' s why we
chose to go that way.
Conrad : It might be best , I 'm not sure that I 'd change my impervious
surface. I don' t know that I 'd go over my standard .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 49
- Emmings : No one has even really looked at it to see if that' s going to
happen. What we' re doing is instead of driveways we' re putting in one long
thing and has anybody drawn it out and measured it to see if it' s possible
to do it at least on a couple of lots?
Dean Johnson: That' s what we have done is originally all of them were
going to have the collective driveways. That went over the impervious
— surface so consequently that' s why the plan changed to what you see now. It
worked in reverse.
Emmings : If it' s impossible, it' s impossible. I don' t know but I don' t
know if it's been tested. Have you looked at it to see, of course we can' t
be designing his plan anyway.
— Conrad : There' s some benefit for turning this down and sending it to City
Council so they get some immediate input. Whether the City Council would
be interested in allowing some variances , I guess that' s the Board of
— Adjustments isn' t it that would consider variances. Is there a benefit to
moving this through to City Council Jo Ann?
Olsen: Just so they will get their decisions but a major point is that
park. That ' s almost an acre or so that they' re going to have to provide
and it would probably be interesting to see that before it went farther .
That does impact the plat .
Conrad : Do you think it' s good to hear what the City Council says?
- Olsen: I think that we could, we have the ability to say to them that
that ' s too many curb cuts . We definitely have the legal ability to say
that's too much.
- Conrad : Yes, I 'm comfortable with that. From the developer ' s standpoint,
I don't know if it's going to save him any time. If we bounce this up with
a negative vote they can at least test the waters up there and see if
— somebody's willing to go over .
Ellson: You' re saying by that time it gets to there it will have a parking
place.
Conrad : They' ll know more and they' ll see where the park goes and maybe I
don' t care where the park goes and I don' t care if it' s 17 or 18 curb cuts .
Emmings : It might not be all negative either . I don' t have any problem
with the wetland alteration permit and I don' t really have a problem with
— the subdivision except for the double frontage lot . It ' s more the site
plan review where my objections are.
Conrad : We' ve already gone through and made a motion to table this item.
Does anybody want to reconsider it? Okay. Motion stands as voted upon and
our request, you may be coming back with the same thing in 2 weeks or
whatever and Jo Ann, can we get them on in 2 weeks? I guess I would like
— you to do that if we could bump something else to bring them back so we can
do something. Do you think we can do it?
Planning Commission Meeting —
June 21, 1989 - Page 50
Olsen : Do you know when the Park meets?
Koegler: Next Tuesday.
Olsen : It 'd be good if it' s tabling , to get Park and Rec to review the
plan so if we can get that on.
Koegler : They' re meeting next Tuesday and presumably that could be added
to their agenda . —
Conrad : I think that makes sense to do.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 9. 5 ACRES INTO 18 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON
PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED SOUTH OF PLEASANT
VIEW ROAD AND EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD, VAN EECKHOUT BUILDING CORPORATION
(VINELAND FOREST) .
Public Present :
Name Address —
Scott Edwards 915 Pleasant View Road
Mr . and Mrs . Greg Elliott
Jeff Beck Carver Beach Estates Developer
Chuck Van Eeckhout Applicant
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the public
hearing to order.
Conrad : More than likely if we follow the staff report the public hearing
will be continued to another evening but I think it's worthy of getting
comments right now on what the issues are so we can consider them and staff
can in the interim. Are there comments?
Scott Edwards: I 'm Scott Edwards. I own the key section of the lot in —
question where the road would come from Pleasant View. . . I guess my
concern would be having a right-of-way coming approximately about 4 feet
from my house. . . I 'm also concerned with a temporary road when there is
already a 60 foot easement on the east section of my property. What would
be the need of another temporary road?
Conrad : Jo Ann , can you sketch on one of those diagrams where? —
Olsen: I 'm not sure where the temporary. . .there' s an existing one there
right now. When we originally met with the applicant , we were looking at —
access through here, a cul-de-sac and then using the easement that' s there
now that serves the houses down there as an emergency access . What he is
talking about is that existing one and what the applicant I think is doing —
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 51
was going to be working to switch easements to give him this one back and
take. . .
Emmings : You two wound up understanding each other but it went right by
- me. Can you put up that other drawing. You' re pointing at stuff, I can' t
see what it is.
Batzli : The plans show it , the 16 foot easement . Gravel drive they call
it. 16 foot. It' s right in the middle.
Emmings: Okay. And is the property that you own inbetween those two
things?
Scott Edwards : Yes .
Emmings : It ' s that whole long narrow piece?
— Scott Edwards: Yes . The front is 185 feet.
Olsen: To answer your question was that the City has stated that they do
not want this as a temporary easement. It will go through as a full street
standard .
Conrad : What did you say? The easement will . . .
Olsen: That easement gives rights to this property right now. . .service
from Pleasant View.
Emmings: Driveway basically.
Ellson: But it turns into a road .
Conrad: And it' s right there. It' s between those?
— Chuck Van Eeckhout : I 'm Chuck Van Eeckhout . I 'm the applicant here and
I do want the matter considered tonight and I don' t want to . . . The only
real question that I think is important is the access to the north . So
this is my property, this meets all the city codes. All city ordinances .
All state statutes for subdivisions . We are asking for no variances . Our
lots are oversized and the reason we oversized them is I 'm a builder and I
don' t like to be sitting on an excellent lot and have to take all the trees
— down so we oversized the lot. We' ll have some site flexibility with the
houses to jockey around to get the best possible siting to help save trees .
I own this property. I 'm proposing an easement which is a normal legal
— procedure to get this public street . This would be a public easement .
What I 'm asking is, and it isn' t really a variance but what I 'm asking is,
doesn ' t it make more sense not to put in the full city street here at this
time but rather put in a very serviceable paved road on this easement until
perhaps Mr . Edwards wants to develop his land . Then we relocate the road
down the center. If Mr. Edwards never develops the land, we can upgrade
this very easily then to a full city standard . What I 'm saying is , I 'm
— proposing not to plat this at this time. The real input I 'm looking for
from the Planning Commission is their judgment as to whether or not they
Planning Commission Meeting —
June 21 , 1989 - Page 52
want this platted down there. I can plat this right now. If that' s the
case, I ' ll do that. I ' ll plat it now. I believe it's wisest not to plat
it. Rather operate off of this very, very serviceable easement. I own —
the property. It will service the property without question. The other
negative comments were the south access . Did we discuss and I guess at
this point I simply disagree , my professional planner disagrees and there
is some argument obviously and it ' s just simply a matter of a planning
question that certainly would consider the Planning Commission' s opinions
on without question but I prefer to have the cul-de-sac subdivision here. _
We feel it ' s much better for the people on Pleasant View not to have this.
There ' s a tremendous amount of traffic back there and . . . feeder system and I
don't think we need to create another feeder street through there which is
what would happen whether want to call it that or not. The only way to get —
down Pleasant or to get into Excelsior is to go a good bit to the west and
then down or up and back to Chanhassen. Also, I really feel the character
of a neighborhood like this is a beautiful size. It' s 18 lots. Those —
people will know one another . They' re relate to one another . There will
be a pocket of activity. They' ll do things together and they' ll have a
homeowners association. It will be a much better functioning part of the
community and if we have a thoroughfare going through there with everybody
more or less getting lost . Public safety concerns , I 've been involved in
public safety for 31 years and I have never known a case where a cul-de-sac
street caused somebody to have very serious problems because a fire truck —
couldn't get through. A fire truck can drive across lawns. They can go
through barricades . They can really go through a lot of places . From a
public safety point of view, on the police end , this is a safer situation. _
It ' s easier to control crime in an area like this . Anybody coming in there
has to go back out again. You can' t come cruising through here. You can
come cruising in and cruising out . People are going to notice you more
that you ' re up to no good. I really feel for Chanhassen and my future —
residents and the Pleasant View people, and my planners feel this way, this
is the most desired proposal . I don' t know what I would change. In the
absence of strong input on the part of the Planning Commission, I would —
propose we leave it like this and this is my submittal .
Emmings : Could I ask a question?
Chuck Van Eeckhout: Sure.
Emmings : Since Mr . Edwards doesn ' t want to give any of his land for the —
easement, I understand that the whole easement would simply be moved over
so that it ' s eastern edge then would be on the property line rather than
the center line?
Chuck Van Eeckhout : That ' s correct .
Emmings: But it'd be the same width? It'd still be a 50 foot easement? —
Chuck Van Eeckhout: I 'm proposing to use a narrow easement but it really
makes no difference . My property is being tied up with this easement —
anyway on an interim basis, I 'm willing to just let this property sit then
until such time as this develops or something else happens .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 53
Emmings : So it'd be the full 50 feet then?
Chuck Van Eeckhout: Yes .
Emmings : How does that affect Lot 1 which is already down to 15, 080?
Chuck Van Eeckhout: We'd probably have to make some minor adjustments
— there. We do have like 4, 000 feet per lot , we' re over like 20 some percent
on the overall plat. We'd probably have to adjust that on that westerly
connection. Make some minor dimensions . We haven' t finished all the
computer dimensioning yet so there would be just some minor sliding of lots
here and there . They would all , in effect if you divide that few square
feet and even them up there amongst those lots, we' re talking about 10 feet
or something per lot .
Emmings : You think you could accommodate that?
— Chuck Van Eeckhout: The people who work on it, there' s no question about
it. There' s no problem at all .
Conrad : Okay, it is a public hearing . We' ll continue the public hearing .
Any other comments?
Jeff Beck: My name is Jeff Beck and I 'm one of the developers of Carver
— Beach Estates. Nez Perce now is a real narrow street. There' s only 20
feet of right-of-way going down to Mr . Van Eeckhout ' s property. As he
said, it' s a very, very steep grade. I know, I was out there when they
- were building there and I just can' t understand putting that through there
would be a big detriment to my project. I 've lost a lot sale already
because of that easement there and the people said to me, is that ever
going to go through? I said I doubt it because of the constraints of the
amount of. . .and because of the grade. They called the City and the City
said well yes, it could go through. As a matter of fact, you could be
assessed . Well I knew that wasn' t true because you can' t assess them if
— they don't have frontage. I like the character of cul-de-sacs. I live on
a cul-de-sac in Crystal . My kids play on a cul-de-sac . If you do decide
to go through Nez Perce, are you going to go back and widened it to the
south? There' s no way you can get two fire trucks . . . There' s not going to
be any utilities down from Nez Perce or Lake Lucy Road either so I just
really can ' t see that . I would like to see the cul-de-sac myself.
— Greg Elliott: My name is Greg Elliott and my wife and I are building a
house at the end of Fox Chase right now so we were glad to see the comments
that Jeff wrote . . .not considering the road to go through. We purchased
— that land at the end of Fox Chase because we like cul-de-sac living also .
I don ' t know if you' ve seen that cul-de-sac but it' s a very steep grade
going down so we' re glad that it's not going to go through.
Emmings : Is that what' s on our map as Fox Path?
Greg Elliott: That' s the development that' s Fox Chase. The other concerns
— we have, maybe Mr . Van Eeckhout can help us with the value of the homes
that are going to be going in there? The homes at the end of Fox Chase are
Planning Commission Meeting —
June 21, 1989 - Page 54
$300,000 . 00 to $400, 000. 00 homes . I 'm wondering what' s going to be
immediatley adjacent to us. And the last concern was the design of the
last row of homes . —
Chuck Van Eeckhout : As to the value of the homes , they' ll be roughly
comparable to what's going into Fox Chase. There are $220,000. 00 homes in —
Fox Chase I believe and we' re a custom builder of homes . The last five
homes I 've sold, I haven't sold them under $275, 000.00. . . Very nice
quality, wooded subdivision with oversized lots .
Wildermuth moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted
in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . —
Conrad: Jo Ann, you recommended tabling. Talk to us a little bit about
the secondary access road . Tell us again why you want to table it right —
now.
Olsen : The reason why we' re tabling it right now is both the engineering
department and the public safety department felt strongly about having a —
secondary access . In addition to that they feel strongly about having the
full right-of-way and the full public street standard, at least that now.
In the plans that we had gotten did not provide that at this time so with —
those other options, the secondary access or a full access from the south,
whatever is chosen , that alters the rest of the plat as far as utilities ,
etc. so we really didn' t have enough to go on. Tonight is more to get —
Planning Commission' s input . If they agree with the applicant that what
he' s proposing is what you want to see and then that' s what we could work
with him. We' ll work with this plan and review it and see that that ' s
right. —
Conrad : So you would not want us to make a recommendation that would get
this along to City Council . You really want to bring that back to us . —
Olsen : We haven' t reviewed the whole site as it is proposed now because it
wasn' t a complete application.
Conrad : Okay, let' s talk about the secondary access then. Staff ,
engineering and fire department is saying secondary access. What do we
believe on that? Any comments on secondary access? —
Ellson: You said you felt real strongly about the thru way because of some
weaknesses in the way the system is kind of right now in the City? —
Olsen: Again working with engineering, they were saying that was their
strongest, even more so than not having the full right-of-way and the full
street standards. What they felt more strongly about was having that full ,
the street connection from the side.
Conrad: To service what? To service this development? —
Olsen : I think they' re just looking at it because of the traffic problems
that we do have and to alleviate some of that congestion down in Carver —
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 55
- Beach. So yes, the result would be a thoroughfare going through there.
Batzli : They don't like necessarily the access from the east. They want
the south in order to have a better flow path of traffic?
Wildermuth: But why? None of the neighbors, the neighbors to the south
don ' t want it. The neighbors to the north don' t want it.
Olsen: I can see if Gary' s here and bring him back down.
Conrad : It is a standard to have two accesses basically.
Emmings: We' re always looking for the second access. Somehow on this one
it doesn ' t seem like it makes a lot of sense. Where is that Forest Street
— going to the north? We've got that Forest Street dead-ending, or to the
west?
— Chuck Van Eeckhout : That would be future to the property to the west that
presumably could go out to the west and be able to use that as a connection
to get the secondary access . Again, without creating this thoroughfare
problem, the application will not change. . .secondary access on Nez Perce.
We have decided through a lot of planning that we do not want the access to
the south so we would want the Council to turn that down if that would be
your recommendation to have that. The City was not strong about that and
— I 'm surprised they' re taking a strong stand on it. They said you shouldn' t
do this because the grade' s too steep. Go out to the north.
- Olsen : I don' t remember them saying you shouldn' t do it . I remember one
of our meetings where we stated that the standard was 7% and that' s usually
what we stick by but there are a lot of times when the slopes do not permit
that. They have allowed a higher percentage but I don' t know that they
ever said that they didn' t want it.
Conrad: Would the grade be more than 7% in this case?
Olsen : Oh yes .
_ Chuck Van Eeckhout : The other comment is that Fox Chase has some 50 lots
off of one access to Pleasant View. We would be destroying the nicest part
of the woods and creating ugly fills. . . in the prettiest part of the woods
so those are, from a planning point of view. . .
Conrad : Okay, let' s go around. Jim? Comments on what you want to do
tonight.
Wildermuth : I like the idea that the developer is talking about putting a
full width street in, even if they' re going to be temporary character but I
don ' t know what . . .
Conrad : I don ' t think he said that. Did he say that?
— Wlidermuth: Didn' t you say that?
Planning Commission Meeting —
June 21, 1989 - Page 56
Chuck Van Eeckhout : I 'd like the street surface to be designed adequately
to not, if we design it to carry the loads but not necessarily the full
width at this time because we are going to be potentially taking it out in —
a period of 3 to 5 years depending on Mr. Edwards 's . . .
Emmings : The full easement would be there but it would be a sub-standard —
road.
Chuck Van Eeckhout : We would bond and guarantee the performance of the _
road. We would do that without any problem.
Conrad : He just wants to have part of that road taken out of the
neighbor 's property when they develop but then there' s no guarantee that
that neighbor , that might never happen . It probably will but it might not.
Wildermuth: I 'm inclined to go along with the idea of having it be a —
cul-de-sac but if it is a cul-de-sac , it' s got to have a full standard
access road to the north.
Batzli : I, of course , thought our neighborhood was going to be a —
cul-de-sac and I built on it and I hate to beat the dead horse here but at
the time that our , almost half of our neighborhood showed up and cried
foul , everybody decided that it was an absolute necessity and I don' t know —
what' s changed here. I don' t necessarily understand why, what the
difference is between this and several other developments that we' ve
required it in so I would say that we need a second entrance. The one _
thing that I 'm interested in is what would be the setback required from Mr .
Edward ' s property if we allowed a temporary road?
Olsen: We would consider that. It would become a front yard along the —
street there .
Emmings : I think he' s asking , where would the road pad go . —
Batzli : Where would the road go in relation to his property? Mr. Edward' s
property. Can you put it right up to the line?
Olsen: There' s no setbacks for roads or driveways .
Emmings : This has come up before and I think it' s outrageous but that' s
the way things are.
Batzli : For instance if he was built before the City even had a code and —
he' s 8 foot of his own property line or 6 feet, whatever the sideyard
setback is, you'd still put the road right next to his house?
Olsen: I 'm not saying that's where we would put it . —
Batzli : But I think that' s another reason to table this because I have no
idea where his house is and I 'm not willing to put a road 2 inches or 10 —
feet away from this guy' s house right now. Any kind of road .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 57
Chuck Van Eeckhout : He' s indicated there was 4 feet from his property
line.
Scott Edwards : It' s something that should be planned out .
Wildermuth: Is that acceptable to you at this point?
— Scott Edwards: Of course I 'd like to see the road as far away from my
house as it can possibly go. That's where I 'm at.
Ellson : I know that Nez Perce Road and it is a lousy one for a thru way
but I also know that in all of our comprehensive plans we don' t have a lot
of north/south going through our city. It ' s a weakness and everything like
that but I can' t see that being the connector. I also don' t like assuming
— that in 3 years it' s going to be brought up to a road standard that we
require based on hearsay or assumptions that there' s going to be more
development in 3 years and that. I think if there' s 18 people coming in
— here and if this is the only road then I think it should be up to speed
with every road we require all over and not allow for who knows what period
of time some temporary something that 's not quite what we'd require for
anybody else. Did that make any sense? Maybe that' s the way I am.
Conrad: You' ll have to read the Minutes.
— Emmings : I 'm even more wishy washy than Annette . I really have a problem
with this one. I think the builder has made a lot of good points about,
there does seem to be quite a grade here that ' s a real problem for a road
- but engineering I figure must have taken that into account. A lot of the
issues like that are technical in nature and I could see passing this along
and letting the engineer make his pitch to the City and letting the builder
make his pitch to the Council and just letting go of it but on the other
— hand, since we have to move that road over from where it' s shown here. Oh,
I agree with the comments that , I don ' t like this notion of a temporary
road. If it goes in, it ought to go in as if it were a permanent road .
— But somehow in this particular application, having this be a cul-de-sac
arrangement doesn' t bother me and I know that every other one that' s come
in here, I can remember always proposing a secondary access but somehow on
this one, the plan kind of makes a lot of sense to me the way it is and it
looks like they' re well out there, at least is the potential for future
connection out to the west which maybe influences my comment but I don' t
know. I could see tabling it so we have we have a final plan in front of
— us before we send it on. The other thing is Brian, you have to realize
that the reason that we destroyed your cul-de-sac and put a thru street
there was because you were living there. That was personal in nature.
Batzli : Understandable.
Conrad : I like the plan and I guess my preference right now, and I 'd like
to see staff really do a good analysis of the secondary road but I wouldn' t
be in favor of it at this point in time. I see all sorts of justification
for not connecting. All sorts. I 'm in favor of a permanent road going in
— because I don ' t know how to orchestrate when we would upgrade it . If
somebody had a better idea how to orchestrate when to upgrade it, I might
Planning Commission Meeting —
June 21, 1989 - Page 58
pay attention but at this point in time, simply because road access is an
issue and if we' re not going to have secondary access, I guess I can
persuade myself that we need to bring the access into this area to our —
standard right away and the fact that it's servicing 18 houses I think is
important. I think Mr . Edwards, we've done this before, we get into
problems when we bring roads in past people's houses. That really bothers —
me. I wouldn' t want it to happen to me but I don ' t know that we have any
standards to help us here but I guess, that bothers me and I don' t know
that we' re going to solve the problem. I would like to table it because
staff hasn' t really analyzed this to the extent that they normally do —
because they were thinking , there were going to be some other issues that,
there are other issues to examine. I do want to table it. I think the
staff hears our comments and I think it would be important that they —
analyze what we said versus what the staff requirements are and to bring
this back when we can and review it with all the information that staff
needs and taking a look at the subdivision. Any other comments? Anything —
else? I ' ll accept a motion.
Batzli moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission table —
Subdivision #89-8 pending further analysis by staff of the access issues
through the development . All voted in favor and the motion carried .
CONVENIENCE STORES MORATORIUM, MARK KOEGLER.
Conrad : Let ' s do this , Mark I 'd like to table our discussion on —
convenience store moratorium unless there' s a good reason to go over it
tonight .
Koegler : The moratorium expires July 1. I don' t know, obviously there' s
not a flood of applicants beating down the door . That doesn' t make any
difference .
Emmings : I could say, why don' t we have him go ahead and , what he' s asking
for and approval to go ahead and draft an ordinance based on your analysis .
Isn ' t that right? —
Koegler : Correct. That would be the next step.
Emmings: Sounds good to me.
Batzli : I second the motion.
Conrad: Are we all comfortable with that?
Wildermuth : Yes . I like the table that you made. I think it ' s quite —
appropriate. The only thing that I didn' t like about the table was where
you had an x under business fringe for automotive service stations . Why
not a service station in the business fringe? —
Koegler : That was a specific question I was going to ask is the BF. I 've
taken, for purposes of discussion, a hard line approach here with the Comp
Planning Commission Meeting
June 21, 1989 - Page 59
- Plan saying that essentially the only uses that would be allowed in the BF
are the grandfathered uses that are there. I wouldn' t be promoting
expansion of that. You really take that doctrine to heart and say we' re
not going to allow new uses to go in. We' re not going to make those
permitted .
Batzli : Can I jump over what you just said. Someone, one of several of
— the council members I think talked about business fringe didn' t they as a
priority for us to look at? What did they want us to do with the business
fringe?
Olsen : We only had time to just grab the sheets .
Ellson: Didn' t get any elaboration.
Olsen : They didn' t give any specific.
Batzli : Buy I assume they' re wanting us to limit further development in
the business fringe so this would go along with that.
Olsen: They wanted to change the BF to the A-2 district.
Emmings : Would we be looking at that as part of the Comprehensive Plan?
Of the A-2 I suppose so I 'd be in favor of not adding any uses to it.
— Business fringe has always been kind of like a twilight zone to me.
Koegler : You can air that in a public hearing on the ordinance aspect too.
Emmings : Okay. Let' s move it along .
Conrad: You don' t even need a motion do you?
Koegler : Just some direction just to prepare in accordance .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved, Elison seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 7, 1989 as presented . All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE.
Batzli : While we' re here, can we just mention the City Council update?
Did this, the Fortier and Associates, the condition that curb and gutter
— must be provided was included?
Emmings: Yes. I was there.
Olsen : Right . I' ll explain it. My understanding was the way it was . . .
engineering really wanted it so I threw that back in saying that the staff
is wishing that we want the curb and gutter . It was on the Consent and
— I had them pull it off so there could be discussion.
Planning Commission Meeting —
June 21 , 1989 - Page 60
Batzli : Well I voted against it so I 'm happy to see it again .
Olsen: That is how it turned out . They put back the curb and gutter .
They also put back the per caliper inch per caliper inch. . .
Emmings : We took it out and they put it back in . That ' s why I say, there —
was like a bunch of fundamentalist ' s preachers up there . It was a Council
meeting as they were using the zoning ordinance as their Bible .
Ellson : And last time I was there it was just the opposite .
Olsen: They did say. . .Dave Stockdale to the Board of Adjustments .
Emmings : He ' s got to ask for a variance in order not to have curb and
gutter down that road .
Batzli moved , Emmings seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11 : 40 p .m. .
Submitted by Jo Ann Olsen
Assistant City Planner —
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CITY QF
.0111v CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner cco
DATE: June 28, 1989
SUBJ: Open Discussion
Attached please find proposed zoning ordinance amendments for
Planning Commission discussion. Section 1 defines which con-
ditions imposed by the zoning ordinance are more or less restric-
tive and defines that the term "density" shall be meant as "net
density" . Section 2 adds 200 feet for private and commercial
kennels and stables to the wetland ordinance setback section.
Section 3 adds an enforcement section to the wetland ordinance.
Section 4 better defines a structure. Section 5 amends the fence
ordinance so that all in-ground swimming pools shall be protected
by a fence. Section 6 concerns conditional use permits which the
Planning Commission is formally acting on at the July 5th
meeting.
Also attached is an ordinance amendment to the City Code pro-
- viding regulation of erosion control and a cash escrow to ensure
that erosion control is provided and the clearing of dirt and
picking up of litter and debris is controlled. The final attach-
- ment is an ordinance amending the zoning ordinance by allowing an
"interim use" ( temporary conditional use permit) . Prior to
holding public hearings on these proposed amendments, staff would
like the Planning Commission to comment on the amendments.
LAW OFFICES
GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON —
DAVID L. GL+NNIS- 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER:
DAVID L. GRANNIS,JR. - 1910-1980 POST OFFICE Box 57 (612)455-2359
403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING EuIOTT B. KNETSCH —
VANCE B. GRANNIS MICHAEL J. MAYER
VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR.* 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE TIMOTHY J. BERG
PATRICK A. FARRELL SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075
DAVID L. GRANNIS, 111
ROGER N. KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612)455-1661
DAVID L. HARMEYER
•Also ADMITTED To
PRACTICE IN WISCONSIN June 15, 1989
Ms. Jo Ann Olsen
Chanhassen City Hall —
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: Zoning Ordinance Amendment —
Dear Jo Ann:
Enclosed is the ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the City
Code which has been revised to incorporate the changes you
suggested in your letter of May 24, 1989. —
Very truly yours ,
RANN S, GRAN 'IS, FARRELL
& ' U
BY: —
Roger N. Knutson
RNK:srn
Enclosure
.JUN 19 1989 -
k.i fY OF CHANHASStN
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains as
follows:
Section 1. Section 20-3 of the Chanhassen City Code is
amended to read:
(1) Where the conditions imposed by any provision of this
chapter are either more or less restrictive than
conditions imposed by other ordinances, the ordinance
which is most restrictive shall apply. When this
Chapter provides both general regulation as well as
specific regulation of a subject, the specific
regulation shall apply.
(2) When the term "density" is used in this chapter without
specifying "net density" or "gross density" it shall be
construed to mean "net density".
Section 2 . Section 20-409 of the Chanhassen City Code is
amended by adding subparagraph six to read as follows:
(6) The minimum setback for private and commercial dog
kennels and stables is 200 feet.
Section 3 . The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding
Section 20-441 to read as follows:
20-441. Enforcement.
(1) Violation of Article VI , wetland protection, or of
the terms of a permit issued thereunder shall be a
misdemeanor punishable by ninety (90) days in jail
and a $700. 00 fine.
(2) Any person who alters a wetland in violation of
Article VI shall apply for a wetland alteration
permit and shall pay a filing fee double the
regular fee. The City Council may require the
violator to restore the wetland or take other
mitigative measures.
Section 4 . The definition of "structure" in Section 20-1 of
the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read:
r06/15/89
Structure means any of the following:
(1) A building, fence (except a strand wire agricultural —
fence) , shed, stable, advertising sign, portable
structure, dog kennel, stock pile, dock, boardwalk,
culvert, and hard surface parking area, but excludes —
driveways and sidewalks.
(2) Anything constructed or erected, the use of which
requires more or less permanent location on the ground —
or attachment to something having a permanent location
on the ground.
When a structure is divided into separate parts by an
unpierced wall, each part shall be deemed a separate
structure.
Section 5. Section 20-1021 of the Chanhassen City Code is
amended to read:
All in-ground swimming pools shall be protected by a fence
not less than four (4) feet in height. All gates shall have
the latch installed on the pool side of the fence. All in- _
ground pools installed prior to February 19, 1987, shall
comply with this Chapter within 180 days of such date.
Section 6. Section 20-237 of the Chanhassen City Code is —
amended to read as follows:
20-237. Revocation and Inspection. —
(1) Failure to comply with any condition set forth in
a conditional use permit shall be a misdemeanor _
and shall also constitute sufficient cause for the
termination of the conditional use permit by the
City Council following a public hearing.
(2) The City Council may order annual or more frequent
inspections to determine compliance with the terms
of a conditional use permit. The property owner _
shall be notified in advance of the City Council's
review of the permit.
Section 7. This ordinance shall be effective immediately —
upon its passage and publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen this
day of , 1989.
-2-
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Don Ashworth, City Manager
-3-
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
403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING ELLIOTT B. KNETSCH —
VANCE B. GRANNIS
MAYER
VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR.= 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE
TIMOTHY
J. BERG
PATRICK FARRELL
TIMOTHY J. BERG
DAVID L.A.
FARR GRANNIS, IiI SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075
ROGER N. KNU-TON TELEPHONE(612)455-1661
DAVID L. HARMEYER
•ALSO ADMITTED To
PRACTICE IN WISCONSIN June 22, 1989
—
Ms. JoAnn Olsen
Assistant City Planner —
Chanhassen City Hall
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317 —
RE: Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance
Dear JoAnn: —
Enclosed for your review please find draft of Ordinance amending
Chapter 20 concerning grading and erosion control. —
Very truly yours,
GR' ' 'I. , GR•NNIS, FARRELL
& K TSO►
Roger N. Knutson
RNK/lmd
Enclosure
cc: Gary Warren
J UN 2 :> 7989
CITY CF CHANHASSE(y
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, AND THE CITY'S ZONING
ORDINANCE, CONCERNING GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains as
follows:
Section 1. Section 20-94 (a) of the Chanhassen City Code is
amended to read as follows:
20-94 (a) : Construction activity involving grading or excavation
shall comply with erosion control practices and
instructions received from the City Engineer. Before a
building permit is issued, the permit applicant shall
post a cash escrow of $500 with the City Clerk to
guarantee compliance with the City's erosion control
practices, City Ordinance, clearing of dirt from
streets caused by construction activity, picking up
litter and debris, and to reimburse the City for any
damage to streets, curbs and sidewalks caused by
construction activity. The cash escrow may be used by
the City to cure default. After the construction
activities have been completed and the site
stabilized, the cash escrow, less and funds used by
the City to cure default, shall be returned to the
permit applicant.
Section 2 . This ordinance shall become effective
immediately upon its passage and publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen this
day of , 1989.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Don Ashworth, City Manager
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN
CITY CODE BY ADDING PROVISIONS CONCERNING INTERIM USE PERMITS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 20, Section 20-1 of the Chanhassen City
Code is amended by adding a definition of "interim use" to read as
follows: "interim use" means a temporary use of property until a
particular dace, until the occurrence of a particular event, or until
zoning regulations no longer permit it.
Section 2 . Chapter 20 , Article IV of the Chanhassen City Code
is amended by adding Division 5 to read as follows:
Division 5. Interim Use Permits.
Section 20-381. Application, Public Hearing, Notice and Procedure.
The application, public hearing, public notice and procedure
requirements for interim use permits shall be the same as those for
amendments as provided in Article II, Division 2 , except that the
permit shall be issued on the affirmative vote of a majority of the
entire council. Although specific submissions required to complete an
application for an interim use permit may vary with the specific use
and the district in which it is located, all applications for such
permits must include at minimum a site plan that clearly illustrates
the following: proposed land use, buildings and functions, circula-
tion and parking areas, planting areas and treatment, sign locations
and type, lighting, the relationship of the proposed project to
neighboring uses, environmental impacts and demand for municipal
services.
Section 20-232 . General Issuance Standards.
The planning commission shall recommend an interim use permit
and the council shall issue interim permits only if it finds that
such use at the proposed location:
1. Meets the standards of a conditional use permit set forth in
Section 20-232 of the City Code.
2 . Conforms to the zoning regulations.
3 . The use is allowed as an interim use in the zoning district.
4 . The date of event that will terminate the use can be identified
with certainty.
5 . The use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is
necessary for the public to take the property in the future; and
R06/21 /89
6. The user agrees to any conditions that the City Council deems
appropriate for permission of the use.
Section 20-381. Termination.
An interim use permit shall terminate on the happening of the
following events, whichever first occurs:
1. The date stated in the permit;
2 . Upon violation of conditions under which the permit was issued;
3 . Upon change in the City's zoning regulations which renders the
use non-conforming.
Section 3. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by
adding the following:
Section 20-557 to read as follows:
The following are interim uses in the "A-1" District:
1. Mobile homes (compliance with Section 20-905 is not required) .
Section 20-576 to read as follows:
The following are interim uses in the "A-2" District:
1. Churches.
2 . Mineral extraction.
3 . Contractor's yards.
4. Mobile homes (compliance with Section 20-905 is not required) .
Section 20-676 to read as follows:
The following are interim uses in the "R-12" District:
1. Real estate office and model homes.
Section 20-696 to read as follows:
The following are interim uses in the "BN" District:
1. Churches.
2 . Outdoor display of merchandise for sale.
Section 20-716 to read as follows:
The following are interim uses in the "BH" District:
1. Churches.
-2-
Section 20-736 to read as follows:
The following are interim uses in the "CBD" District: —
1. Churches.
2. Outdoor display of merchandise for sale. —
Section 20-756 to read as follows:
The following are interim uses in the "BG" District:
1. Churches.
Section 20-775 to read as follows:
The following are interim uses in the "BF" District:
1. Churches.
Section 20-816 to read as follows: —
The following are interim uses in the "IOP" District:
1. Churches.
Section 4. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by
deleting the following Code Sections:
1. Section 20-555 (3)
2 . Section 20-574 (3) —
3 . Section 20-574 (6)
4. Section 20-674 (6)
5. Section 20-694 (4) _
6. Section 20-734 (1)
7. Section 20-903
Section 5. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by —
amending Section 20-1376 (a) to read as follows:
It shall be unlawful for any person to remove, store or excavate —
rock, sand, gravel, clay, silt or other like material in the city, or
to fill or raise the existing surface grades, without receiving an
extraction permit for mineral extraction. Such permits may only be _
issued in the zoning district when mineral extraction is listed as an
interim use.
Section 6. This Ordinance shall be effective August 1, 1989, —
following its passage and publication.
-3- —
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen this
day of , 1989.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Don Ashworth, City Manager
-4-
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
403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING ELLIOTT B. KNETSCH
VANCE B. GRANNIS MICHAEL J. MAYER
VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR.* 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE TIMOTHY J. BERG
PATRICK A. FARRELLSOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075
DAVID L. GRANNIS, III _
ROGER N. KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612)455-1661
DAVID L. HARMEYER
.ALSO ADMITTED To
PRACTICE IN WISCONSIN June 21 , 1989
Ms. JoAnn Olsen
Assistant City Planner —
Chanhassen City Hall
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317 _
RE: Interim Use Permit
Dear JoAnn: . —
Enclosed is a draft Ordinance. The Ordinance makes the following
interim uses: (1 ) Churches in all districts except agricultural —
perservation and districts when churches are currently a permitted or
conditional use, (2 ) mineral extraction in all districts when the use
was previously listed as a conditional use, (3 ) all uses previously —
listed as a temporary conditional use, and ( 4) contractor' s yards in
rural areas when the use was previously listed as a conditional use.
Please let me know what changes you want. —
Very truly yours,
GRAN , FARRELL
'SON
BY:
Roger N. Knutson
RNK/lmd
Enclosure
JUN 2 ' 1989
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
REVISED JUNE 14 , 1989
ONGOING ISSUES STATUS
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ISSUES
1. Comprehensive Plan Update Ongoing
2 . Amendments to MUSA Boundary Ongoing
3 . Future Use for Areas Out- Ongoing
side the MUSA Boundary
B. ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
1. Contractor' s Yards City Council Approval -
May 3 , 1989
2. Update Zoning Map Ongoing
3 . Blending Ordinance Ongoing
4. Rezoning BF Distict to A-2 Ongoing
5. Convenience Store Moratorium Ongoing
6 . Sign Ordinance Ongoing
7. Update Zoning Code Ongoing
8 . Trash and Recycable Users- Ongoing
Where should they be located?
9 . Wetland Violations - Add Ongoing
section to wetland ordinance
10. Tree Ordinance - Mapping of Ongoing
significant vegetative areas
11. Rezoning of 2i Acres Lots Ongoing
to RR District
12. Noise Ordinance Public Safety proposed an
ordinance which was denied
by City Council
13 . Storage -
14. Front Yard Fencing
15. Standards for R-12 Ongoing
Developments - Parking,
garages, architectural
standards
REVISED JUNE 14 , 1989 —
ONGOING ISSUES STATUS —
16 . Heliports
17. Restricting Amount of Tax
Exempt Land
C. OTHER ITEMS
1. Update development proce- Close to completion —
dures including submittal
dates, design review com-
mittee, submittal check list
and process
2 . Computerize land use files, Waiting for intern —
permits, conditions and
expiration dates on a par-
cel by parcel basis
3 . Wetlands mapping by Fish Estimated to be completed
and Wildlife Service. by July 1989
4 . Trail Involvement of
Planning Commission
5 . Light Rail Transit
6 . Recycling of Oil
7. Eurasian Water Milfoil Public Safety Involved
8. Review of the impact of
Residential Development
on the financial structure
of the city.
9. Temporary conditional use
permits.