The URL can be used to link to this page

05-18-88 Agenda and Packet.t ". AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 1988, 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Richard Ersbo, 1211 Lake Lucy Road, property zonedSingle FamiIy Residential- and located south of andto Lake tucy Road: a Preliminary Plat Approval to 1 2 Subdivision of 5.5 acres into two single family residentiallots on property zoned A-2, Agricultural Estate and locatedeast of TH 101, l mile south of CR 14 and adjacent to HallaNursery, Robert J. Buresh. Sign Permit Variance to Section 20-1260 to construct an g0 square foot pylon sign on property zoned A-2, AgriculturalEstate anC located at 615 Flying Cloud Drive, SuperAmericaStation, Roman Mueller and SuperAmerica Station, Inc. RSF , ad j acen t l... create five single ilevelop within 200 family lots feet of a 4 Wetland Alteration Class A wetland. Permit to b NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF I4INUTES OPEN DISCUSSION 5. Continue BF District Discussion. 6. Accessory Structure Regulations, Discussion. AD.IOURNMENT Land Use Plan Amendment to amend the City of Chanhassen Year 2000 Land Use Plan to add 12.2 acres to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and to change Lhe land use designation from Agricultural to Industrial. Rezoning of 5.6 acres of property from A-2, Agricultural- Estate to IOP, Industrial Office Park. Preliminary plat approval to create 5 industrial l-ots and 2 outlots on 62.86 acres of property. CALL TO ORDER Development Sites Limited located r.rest of and adjacent to Audubon Road immediately north of the Chicago Milwaukee Railroad Tracks: a. c. CITY OF EHf,NHASSEI'I P.C. DATE: May 18, .l_988 C.C. DATE: June 13, 1988 CASE NO: 86-32 SUB Prepared by: Olsen/v Fz C) =LL ko tdFa Preliminary PLat for the Subdivision of 5.6 Acresinto Two Single Family Lots Approximately i Mile South of Co. Rd. 17 and i uiteEast of TH 101 PROPOSAI : APPLICANT:Robert Buresh 5817 Hanson RoadEdina, MN 55436 PRESENT ZONING: ACREAGE: DENSITY: A-2; Agricultural Estate 5.6 acres 2.8 units per acre A-2; The northerly part of the site slight slope and is open area. southern portion of the lot has slope and is heavily vegetated. Ila1la Nursery/Hal-]-a Subdivis ion vacant,/single family single family vacant Not available to property.WATER AND SEWER: PEYSICAL CEARAC. : ADJACENT AND LAND ZONING USE:N- S- E- w- A-2i A-2i A-2i has a Thea steep Agriculture STAFF REPORT LOCATION: 2OOO LAND USE PLAN: t I F trJE(, ) B RO A2 RD L 'KE RI LEYSF ) A2 L PUD- .rl"J.I AIL IF ( PO O (p )-l , I : sst FA lIl q /re(d:*., a^,z)A,tt?0) tlcr'{rd I r-) \) BF .-iiEt { bo, --=F- Buresh Subdivis ion May 18, 1988 Page 2 APPTICABLE REGULATIONS The application will be reviewed under the old ordinance regula- liolg since the application was made by the January 15, 7ggi,deadline. Therefore, the requirements for this subdivision is 2iacres per lot with 180 feet of street frontage. Each 1ot must provide two approved septic system sites. RET'ERRAL AGENCIES Asst. City Engineer Building Inspector Fire fnspector BACKGROUND On March 72, L98'1 , the City Council approved an extension of therural subdivision deadline of July L, 1987, preliminary platapproval for Robert Buresh until January 1, I988 (Attachment #I).The Buresh property is l-ocated south of the Ha11a Nursery, eastof Highway 101. It was fel-t that the Buresh subdivi.sion shouldwait until the HalIa subdivision was completed and the streetissues resolved. Since the Ha11a subdivision has been approved,Mr. Buresh received one more extension to the deadline until July1, 1988, for preliminary pLat approval (Attachment #2). The second deadline extension was approved to allow Mr. Buresh to have the soil borings completed and reviewed Dy Mr. Roger Machmeier and Mr. Jim Anderson. There is an existing 30 r-oot easement which serviccs Lrro exisLiug residertces and Liic iiaiia. iiu-use]jy r-o il-re rrol:Lit. i.ie l0 r\JUL ee.t:- rllcllu ,Ya5 !recrr-eq qu Ptvvr\re lraract wILrr riOirie . l.laint€ila^lCe oi Lrre ear€rtreriL itas Car.rse.l seve!ai a{Jurrieriis oetliee^1 the Lyvo resicierrls ,iro use i t . Any irrcrease in Lire use ofthe 30 foot easement is opposed by one or the landowners. Staff had hoped to resolve several of these issues wiLh the Hal1a sub- division by having the easeinent improved to a public streeE and prov:.de Lhe lots adjacent i.o the easement with proper street f ront.age. The Hal1a subdivision proposed an iniernal- street norLh oi tire easeiiierl c wiij.cir wd,5 dpprove..r oy Lrre ciLy. Iirereioie, Lire proolems i:elalcd L,..r uire use or Eire 30 ioou easernenc ssrri ex1sc. A!'iAI, iS I S The applicant is proposing to subdivide 5.6 acres into ttvo singlefamily lots. Lot 1is 2.7 acres and Lot 2 rs 2.9 acres. The proposed site is divided rdith a northerly lot and a southerly Iot. Both of the lots have two approved soil treatment sites ( Attachment #3). See attached See atlached See attached Buresh Subdivision May 18, 1988 Page 3 Street The 30 foot easement is adjacent to the proposed site on the north and easterly property lines which coulil service both proposed 1ots. The Subdivision Ordinance permits four single family lots to be serviced by a private drive (Attachment #4). There are currently five properties with land adjacent to the 30 foot ease- ment, PauI Graffunder, David Teich, the subject site, David Hafla, and HaLla Nursery (Attachment #5). PauI Graffunder has an existing home being serviced by the 30 foot easement as does David HaIla. David Teich's property is approximately 19 acres and has an existing home on it which is serviced off of Hwy. 101. The Teich property could not be subdivided under the one unit per ten acre density and the property adjacent to the roadway ease- ment could not be used as a single family }ot. The Ha11a Nursery which is adjacent Eo Lhe easement to the north has been sub-divided and wifl be serviced by internal streets from County Road 14 and Hwy. I0I. The remaining property is the subject site which is proposed for two single family lots which would resultin four lots being serviced by a private drive. The remainingproperty adjacent to the easement would not use the easementsince it cannot be subdivided. There are two options for the city to pursue with this proposedsubdivision. The first would be to permit the lots to be ser-viced by the existing easement as a private drive. The proposedsubdivision of two lots would equal four single family lots on aprivate drive. Therefore, the lots woul-d meet the city ord.inancewhich permits four single family lots on a private drive. Inaddition, the Fire Inspector has recommended a temporary tur-naround to be installed to ensure fire access. The temporaryturnaround would have to be located where it would service bothof the proposed single family 1ots. The second option rsould beto require the easement to be improved to a public street. DonHalla, the owner of the property to the north, has submitted aletter objecting to increased use of the existing roadway ease-ment and. has stated thats he is in favor of the easement beingimproved to a city street (Attachment #6). The only way for theroad to be improved Co a city street would be for the Halla sub-division to be replatted to create a public street $rhere theroadway easement now exists and to remove the proposed streetdirectly north of the easement. Mr. Ha11a has not indicatedwhether or not. he would be opposed to replatting his subdivisionand including the 30 foot easement as public street. MnDOT wouldnot permit the roadway easement to be improved as a city streetonto Hwy. I01 with another road directly to the north. As recommencled with the Halla subdivision, staff would preferthat the roadway easement be improved to a public street. toresolve all of the underlying issues resulting from the use ofthe easement. But given the past action of the city, a publicstreet may not be feasible at this time. Therefore, the private Buresh Subdivis ion May 18, 1988 Page 4 drive may be the only option. Staff feels that the four lotswould meet the city ordinance by being serviced by a privaiedrive with the easement improved to p;ieate driveivay itandaids. rf the private tlrive is approved, the city Attorney recornmendedthat the applicant provide verification that the sirbject properryhas the right to use the 30 foot roadway easement. 0pon ieviewof the easement document which grants the right of thi easementto David HaIIa, it is not clear that the subject property alsohas Lhe right to use the easement. Should it Ue proved Lhat tneproperty does not have the use of that easement, Lhe propertywould be landlocked and could not be subdivided or deizelopecl. RECOMMENDAT ION From a planning perspective, the ideal plan wou1,i improve the 30foot easement to a public street and be included in Lhe UaLlasubdj.vision. Mr. Don Ha11a would have to consent to replattinghis subdivision for the public street option to be feasible. In the event that Mr. Halla would not wish to replat, t.hePlanning Commission and City Council can permit the four lots tobe serviced by a private drive. Two additional lots using theeasement rrri11 not pose saf ety hazards. Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the sub-division lrith the 30 foot easemenL being improveC to a publicstreet, staff recommends the following condition: I 2 Shou1d the city approve the public street option, Mr. Don Ha11a must be willing to replat Great plains Golf Estatessubdivision to remove the internal street servicing Ehe HaIlasubdivision from Hwy. 101 and improve the 30 foot easement toa public s treet. Type I erosion control shalleast sides of Lot 2, Block 1grading. along the south cofiunencement of be i ns tal ledprior to the and any 3 4 Wood-fiber blankets or equivalentall disturbed slopes greater than sha11 be used to stabilize 3 :1. of the sub- recommends the which verifies that the 30 foot ease- The developer shall be responsible for daily on and off-site cleanup caused by construction or construction traffic fromthis site. Should the Planning Commission recommend approvaldivision being serviced by a private drive, stafffollowing condi tions: The applicant shal-l provide documentationthe subject property has the right to use ment. I Buresh Subdivision May 18, 1988 Page 5 2 3 The applicant sha11 provide a sha11 address a turnaround as The approved septic sites musLto construction on the site. driveway access plan ehich requested by the Fire Inspector. be staked and roped off prior Type I erosion control sha11east sides of Lot 2, Block 1grading. along the south commencernent of be instal,Iedprior to the and any 5 Wood-fiber blankets or equivalentall disturbed slopes greater than shall be used to stabilize 3 :1. 6. The developer sha1l be responsible for daily on and off-sitecleanup causeC by construction or construction traffic fromthis site. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 City Council minutes dated February 9, I987.City Council minutes dated January 11, 1988.Report from ilim Anderson.Excerpt from Subdivision Ordinance.Plan showing existing homes and 1ots.Letter from Don Ha1la dated April 20, 1988.Planning Commission and City Council minutes from Halla sub-division. Memo from Asst. City Engineer dated May 12, 1988. Memo from Building Inspector dated May 11, 1988. Memo from Fire Inspector dated May 5, 1988.Application. Preliminary plat dated December 7, 1987. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 4 ATTACHMENTS .J .)t)ncil Meeting - Pebruary 9, :lggT Ditch sections would be upgraded, right.I{arren: 1l Klingelhut2; goE novr. that irould give it a 30 foot roadway surface tl1at you haven,t Gary Warren: rt actually wourd give r,ou a 24 foot. width rural tEaver surfaceard we're compromisino on pulr1nS 3 f;; ;;.h side for tbe drainage ditchesso thar,s h,here r^re carie up-with ih; t;-;";i.--- Mayor Hamirton moved ' councirman Hom seconded to approve subdivision Requestf|fi3i,fr ::HlJlS" preriminarv fi"t-;-&-;""ember 17, re85 with rhe 1. AlI lots mlst be serviced by Sunset Trai1. 2. Dedication of a five (5) foot street drairEge arrt utility easement*;Ttff ::"H'lli:"*rtv rine Litirl ptai to *p..Jii" iisi.-.r- 3. Approval of a final_ grading and drainage pLan for Lot 2 at time ofbuilding permit appt icatioi. 4. tocate the building and treatment systems on Lot 2 out of thedrainage way. T5. Widening to 30 fee-t those portions of Sunset Trail vrhich are less ithan 30 feet in .,rid th ard improvement of the turnarourri "t tr,. il.U, tend of Sunsetn Trail to the tS foot radius. 6. Drainage ard utility e3sements shal,l be dedicated.arri labeled asnecessary along lot lines. 7. Specifically look at-Lot 5 IEr ur. Machmeier,s comments regardingIocation of the mourd systen sic-.s uJ tfr" house site. A1l voted in favor and motion carried. "*rg9!q+?Hr*gP]xq APPRovnL pEADLTNE FoR rHE pErERsoN,/JEURTssEN/r^tuR-$m _-;: Mayor Hamilton stated thab this item was looked at some time ago bec:use ofthe probrem eri rh rhe designarion of rhe Trr zri ,ight-"i-".v ",i-.n!-Jl"-ir.,n ]oith suuaiviaing the properry when they o"nlt x.,or where &re i"J'l.'gii.q a" Courcilman Horn moved, Councilman Ceving seconded to approve, at the time thenew Zoning ordinance Soes. iltg- 9flect, the approval aeadfine for tnI '-"' Peterson/Jeurissen/r.rurenr Subdivision Uo .raiuary 1, I98g. Aii-r;i; in favorard motion carr ied. r t+l f, 1-4L\ l-courcirman ceving moved, @unci.lman Horn seconded to deny the request for thestreet name charge by Birl streeg/ ard leave the street nErne as sinnen circlewith the stipuration that city staff contact the Rottlurd company, make surethal_gily maps are changed accordingly ard that p:bl ic safety pJple arenotified. A11 voted in favor and motion carried- City Council Meetj.ng - January II, l98B CONSIDEMTION OF PTAT APPRO\AL D(TENS ION EOR RURAL SUBDIVISION: A. E'. I _i ^'.1 , ( i,,I t SEVER PETERSON AND GILBERT TAURENT ROBERT BURESH iExE'-nriE-wooossourH ACCEFT PI,ANNING COMMISSION RESIGNATIONS AND APPOINT NEW MM.IBERS. Courri lman Horn moved, l,fayor Hamilton secorded to approve plat approvalextension for rurar subdivision for sever peterson ina cirLrt Gur".,t, nourtBuresh anl take Ritey l^Icods south. Ar1 voted in favor and motion .u.rl.d. ACCEHT STORM9ATER MANAGEMENI PIAN courcilman Geving moved, Mayor ttami lton seconded to accept the stormeraterManagement pran prepared by Barr eng ineering company datid september, iggz ardq?!.t\i: plan be adopted -as a gulae to dealing ,itt "to.*r"tEi-."r,6;awithin the study area. At1 voted in favor anil'motion catried. t L Councilman Gevirg moved, Councilman Johnson secorded to accept theresignations of Robert siegel ard Howard lioziska from the elJnning commissionard to serd them a certificate of Atpreciation. Arr voted in favor ard motioncarried . councilman Boyt: r think it shourd be more than a certificate ofAppreciation. I think it should be sqne sort of a plague or sqnething. courci lman Geving: r don,t l<now about that Birr. llot for ccrmission members. Councilman Boyt: They donate a lot of tjme. Mayor Hamirton: rtrs something that in the past we have always given lettersof appreci.ation. rt doesn,t m6an it has to itay that way. Counci lman Boyt: It seems to me that a plaque is reasonably inexpensive.I_trs-, somethirry a person might be more init in'ed to put on their erall. That,sny thought. l'la-yor. Hamilton: I think that's something that we need to have ToddrnvesElgate possibly to look into something rike that. A praque ant perhapscome back to us with some t]4)e of information *iitt"., on ii *rat *" .luia rooxat ard see if it lrould be a -;tandard thirg for all of our cqrmissions. -- ,t -.qc,(19 tt RESOURCE ENGINEERING Roccr E. I\Iachmeicr. PE 19665 irvcal Arc'nue Lintlstronr. MN 5-50-t-5 (612) 257-2019 Jamcs L. Anderson. C.PS.S 35,11 Ensign Avcnuc. North New Hope. Mir" 55.117 (612) 593-5318April I3, 1988 JoAnn 0lsen, Assistant City Planner City of Chanhassen P.0. Box ,l47 Chanhassen, MN 55317 0n Friday, April ll, I made a field visit with Robert Buresh to the proposed Buresh Addition. I checked the proposed soil treatment s'i tes and corresponding soil boring data submitted December ,l0, .l987. I found that all of the soil treatment sites indicated by those datato be suitable for the installation of sewage treatment mounds. In addition, I checked the indicated mound site on Lot l. The area proposed for the house would also be a suitable area for the instailation of a sewage treatment mound. By using this as one of the treatment sites, it provides more options for the potential ov,ners. Si ncerely,z J ame s RE SOU R L. Anderson, C. P. S. S. CE ENGINEERING JLA/jjm SPECIALISTS IN ONSITE SEWAGE TREATMENT Rc: Buresh Addi ti on Dear JoAnn: I found while field checking this subdivision that the soil borings and the proposed system iocations corresponded with the field staking and data submitted in December. Both of the lots have at Ieast two potential treatment system areas and Lot I has at least three. a'i: i l i:3E Cl-f Y J,: CirAt\, ..iiJ:i\ p3 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 84 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE The City Council of Chanhassen orilains: Seciion l. Section 7-16 (aI) (5) is hereby amended asfollows: (5) UBC Appendix, Chapter 35, 38, 55, and 70i Section 2. Section 7-18 (b) is amended as follows: (b) Upon return of a building permit to the cit.y by theholder t.hereof , with proof satisfactory to the Building Officialthat no construction was undertaken pursuant hereto, he shal1refund tc the holder the building permit fee paid by him exceptthat twenty percent (20t) of the fee paid or twenty-five dollars($25.00), whichever is greater sha1l be retained by the city. Asimilar refund sha11 be made of any plan checking fee paid exceptthat no refund shal1 be made if the city has caused the plans tobe checked. Section 3. Section 18-57 (n) is amended as folfows: Section 18-57 (n) - Public streets to be constructed. in sub-divisions Iocated j.nside the Year 2000 Metropolitan UrbanService Area l-ine as identified in the City's CornprehensivePlan sha11 be constructed to urban standards as determined bythe City Engineerrs Office. Streets to be construcEed insubdivisions located outside the year 2000 Metropolitan UrbanService Area shal1 conform t.o the rural standard requirementsas prepared by the Cicy Engineerrs Office. The constructionof private streets are prohibited. Private drives which providethe area outside of the year access to four lots or less in 2000 Metropolitan Urban Service Area may be allowed subject to the following condi.tions: a. Reservation of a 60 foot easement; b The private drive shall be constructed to applicable citystandards when the drive provides access to 3 or 4lots.Private drives in these situat.ions may contain a gravelsurface. Private drives to be shared by two lots do nothave to raeet the above referenced city standards ifdeemed appropriate by the city. Subdivisions in excess of four lots shall be required toconstruct a public street with a paved surface incompliance with applicable city slandards. Direct accessto a collector or arterial street shall not be permittedwhen an internal public street is provided. *1 ; J c soo!2 \ so"s2 w '( 425.59 & P C1 €- Bl,l ;F slvI 6t$9 ..c rs9 g6 I oahv a16 --,5 [rl5=cD\/T _s n 4-\,\co \e : 0ro s oo 52 li oc 52'E 3 7 _....J6Sc44'39"E ..'46-A4 ,, s 5to 57'of"E'_ O.6t Il.64.21'5s'E,'ztt-g'' s66. r!'a9-E -rt2.96: z 'l tF Y' rt $F *{ f90.t2 -N 5ao OA'Wtoo.65 a36.9 m *d, 9v !1- 62.-.r c, g -l rl.6N "'LZ- \ -%v6 ' nao Nr D. 1 o AD +u 1 -"ti b-c\ -_ 6 oc55'It"E :-.t29O. tt-- L-a r6ac 69,t t.24'!2"E ot.7 a6 (- rrl.I 6 _tl ^f,ET -t(,-sio€ 6x D'c) I '.,ti!9oo! w.' 2t4 25 l\ April 20, 1988 City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 ATTN: City Planning Dept/Barb Dacy Dear Barb; It. has been brought to my attention thar there is a preliminary subdivision, which has been approved for the lots, which are being subdivided by Mr. Robert Buresh (file #86-36). It is my understandin!that no agreemenr has been made with Halla Nuriery or DonalI and David Halla regarding the use of said roadway, With any roadway use by additional parties, we would definitly request the road becomea city road with the necessary upgrading, so as to handte 20 tonper axle trucks. At the same time we would request that theroad be black topped and made and dedicated to the ciry for main-tenance purposes. We have received no notice of any hearings re-garding this propery before the planning commission or the c;unciland wish to express our opposition to any additional sub-divisionor egress onto this road until the legal matter of the road is set-tled. Thanking you for your immediate attention and courtesies and theforwarding of this letter to the city council and planning commision. I remain sincerely yours, ,,LANDSCAPE DESIGNERS, CONTRACIORS, GROWERS'' rNc. MAITING ADDRESS 1ffiD Creor Ploins Blvd. Chosko, Minn.toro 55318 100 Acrc Growing Rongc - 3 lrtjl$ Soulh ol Chonhorsen on HwY I0l (612)4456s55 APR 2 2 1988 CITY OF CHANTiASSLi\ :/ - -t -/?(L"ol < tYot-'l"| _-cL Don E. Halla, President / Halla Nursery, Inc. .TTIE PLACI, T() CO TOR PL..INTS I'l.{I CNOII'" YOUR "NAIIONAI I,ANOSCAP€ AWARD- wlNNING NURSERY fOR OESIGNING I, PLANTING frA DEH/skj IARG€rREE t I City Council |,feeting - July 6, 19g7 (, I with the recormendations that have been provided ard move on. Counci lman Johnson: Does the developer have a problem? ActiDg Mayor Gevino: frm not worried about the developer. Let,s worry aboutthe Council. Can w6 make a. motion on Ur. -r*oi rend_at ions provided to-G oyffi:t.X'H_ff :?.mi#r*. ," :*i."a"-Ii^'lL r". widths. ooes anyone councirman Bo]rt moved, oouncirman Horn secorded to approve the finar platI:irffil lffii;il3f I stamPed "G;""i-l;; 16, i;Bz;-;;-.;; ff:' L E<ecution of a devel.o;rnent cDntract and suhnission of financialsecurities. 2. E<ecution of the reqr:ired clnservation easernents. 3. iiil.i*";i:ilon the prar to show rhar side tot line easements are A11 voted in favor ard motion carried. AcEing Mayor Gevinq: The d.irective to the Staff is ttrat we review, havestaff go back anl Lke a 10'ok.t ti- ".G"i "# oring it back to us arrl arsobring back Block 4 on a porenrial c;;nr ;;;;. We don,r need ro see iragain other th,an on trr,e ionseni aq.;;:"' -r='-" + ffi-@*ffi#="ffiffi**il*Ar*E Acting Mayor Geving: . tet me say one thing to the councir and to the staffbefore we move int6 Ehis a,?. .r".igi,t';J are discussirg a lot ofsubdivisions. rhey are rea).ly cruciSr foi what happens in these subdivisionsare going to be tle vray. the city rook" io.. y"u.. to come. r,m most concernedabout a very important issue ..a tn"t-i=-"tere our -trairs are going to beconnecting arl of these s.bdivisions uJ t ,.nt.staff to "p*iii..irvurderstand my direction_ to you..i1 i. ;;r.y subdivi,"ion m.r.-. iii=-p.*ision forthe trail connection. r tno-, tni= ;*; -tJ the park and Rec people uut insistupon giving us a recommendation so "tnat ttrese ,irr euentu.irilii-unt .nalook like some kirxl _of. a. sysrem. N"t-;;;' j19SqO .ard .i.."9ri*-pi.".". okay,do we all urrlerstand-.tf,.t3' .rt"i,._I";rr,; -crucial point fo ,,,e. --lloring onthen, let's go onto item 5, I,tr. HaIIa,s i-rtAi.rri"ion. Jo Ann orsen: the property is rocatetr south of -cR 14 and on the east and westside of rH I0I. rtis ipfii 1rt" l*" p".-tl. It,s- single family. They aIIhave at reas. 2 L/2 acres and g0 feeE of sireet _frontage on thE rots. thePlanning Commission approved the subdivision.. The first time it went in frontof them it was tabled- L".u=e .f tfr" .ti."t- rssue where they had privaEedrives rather than pblic streets ror e."n -rot. They then came in with thisnew proposar wirh a pubric s.reer going to the ceni6r ;';;'""";; harf of \I rI 27 . :l -^ r l #'t Juc City Council l,reeting - JuIy 6, l9g7 the subdivision- rt avoids the easement issue which is on the southerryportion of rhe properry but-ir.does stirr pro"ia"-iionl;; ;;; ;ii1f i"*that- is proposed in the. subdivision and tne rrigtrway depaitment r,u" upp.orruathe location Art tha lots had the septic sit6s approved uy ttn cil_'1r1sconsultants. with this new arignment tf the roadr- -they had'to piouid. " or"al ternate site. The pranning. commission approved or ttre rear1ffi""i "r ti,"road and the proposed subdivision with the -condition that ti,.=i, *r-*ir typ""f lcgetea by.the-Soil Consul tant. elso, the first plan Ua * "rti.i'rocared approximatrey in this location on t.ot 13 whictr is now r,ot 13: fteglrpose of the outrot vras to alro$, for t]e straightening or m ror -strooia tr,utever be proposed in the future. what sEaff is now recoirmending is approval ofthe subdivision that all lots shall have the area that h,as oncE- outfoi a tonow-be. designated unbuildahle area- staff is recommending approval 0f thegrbdivision with the corditions set in the ..poit. rr yori w6ira r*e-r-couraread through those. Acting l,tayor @ving: D,lo, it's. not. necessary. We all have your report.P-rgnning commission acti.on as is noted is riirry straight folward.' i trrirrr .tthis time r think werrl hear from the aeveroper-. H)vrever, I think it wouldercumbant upon the deveroper or Mr- Harra, il there a representative here?Are you speaking for yourself? Don Halla: yes. L t- Acting Mayor Ceving:your develolment. Is there anything you wouJd like to Say? llell us about T"_fll1t. the purpose. of course of our developnent coming in at tJ:is point ::-I":lIy Eo. preserve the value of our property. rt is not- my desire but I :-:,:::"- into doing a subdivision at rhis point in time. i have been veryscrargnt torward about iL My ideas ard my concept is to drag my feet. ooiigthe least tt't r can so r can remain in t},6 nurseiy business 6ut-rather than P"ip at" value of my property reduced by three-fo-urths, I felt tf,uu it ,"u"trErErnent that we did this at this time. stirr rrm not rooking to realry clmeback in here ard do a complete development like we just saw a iew minule.before- r vrould rike t}re opportunity'to a..g .y feet and stay in tle nurserybusiness *F f""p it more rural wrrici, as t ind6rsuna, is reitty *Gt -tr= coucnir and the pranning comm ission wishes it to be. 'that's arl'. ii you r,aveany questions, I would be happy to answe! tlem. @uncirman Horn: Reauv r onry have one concern with this proposar. It r.ookslike, a nice rayout. My'conceri though is thatt a very bad corner on TH r,01.I: t{leJe any plans to sEraighten thal out and white "6 p...fuaJ-. pi..'tstraighten it out, what's beirry proposed? It looks to me like tnL'Jioposearoad that comes just around the torner has a very short sigirt aistance.' Gary ldarren: There aren't any prans from the state as far as rH rol isconcerned but r think it's arr tied in to the !H 2r2 and TH 101 hai becomeobviousry very importanr to ,s. vJe have reserved ih" ;;.;r-A.i- "f-!!.a oeour cordition. pursuant to the outlot nou, so that we could take steps iinecessary to improve that corner.t to -..9, o C City Courcil l4eeting - Juty 6, 1987 @uncilnan Horn: Is that enough? cary warren: I think short of having the feasibility done on it, I think thiswill give Lrs enough t9 give us a reasonable sight distanc€ curve instead ofthe sharp angle that r.re have at this point. Councilman Horn: This proposed road just to the north of ttre sharp berd isnot going to interfere with any change in that area? Barbara Dacy: Ga!y, I don't know if you've gotten the revised plat in your EEcket. Yourve got the original one. Jo Ann Olsen: It should not impact t}Iat at all. It would still allow forthat intersection to connect with 11I I01. @unci lman Horn: the lorarcr cul-de-sac. Jo Ann Olsen: This $,ould all bectrne lard that r,rould have to be exterded. Councilman Horn: that's my only concern. Councilman Boyt: This is my both sides of trl 10I situation. Have you decided which side of TH 101 the trail is going to go down? Carol watson: We already have some trail easement along tlE west side of IHlgt. lbr.rever, after you cross G 14 and you start up around that curve, the erest side of Ttl 10I is not a nice place for a trail unless yourre a gopher or something like that. so then we had a consideration of having the trail then switch to the east side of ltl l0l. It is however not a particularly niceplace to have people walking and biking and crossing Ttl 101 either. So itkird of got left like that because we didn't know vrhat plans there were to change TH I01. I think we were Ieaning more towards leaving the entire trail on the west side ard having to come up with some configuration where the trail could be done on the west side of TH 10I. It may be steep in tl1e base but crossing IIJ IgI did not seem like a very viable possibilily. people walkingpets and bicycles and children and all these things. As these develognents add quite a few people to these trails, and Eden Prairie has such an extensive system not far from here at all. However, they're going to cross TH 101 to get. to Eden Prairie section at the pioneer Trail there you are going to cross. Councilman Boyt: You may have meant this in tle recommendation but the way the recornmendation reads, it salls off-street trails alorg lTI 1gI ard my onlything I lrould suggest with this develognent is that we have that clearlystating both sides of Ttt I01 until this gets resolved. At that point then we r.rould take one of those easements and release the other one. Carol Watson: I think we were kird of leaning towards the west side simply because we already own a trail easment down Ttl I0l further on the west side ofIH 101. !€ already have scrne eassnent. Councilman Boyt: Mr. Halla, would you be agreeable to giving us an easemenE on both sides until we can clear this matter up? d 7 29 -! I I a t t City Courcil t4eeting - JuIy 6, l9g7 Courrci lman Johnson: problem with that. Don IiaIIa: I donrt see that it shoutd be any problan. Counci lman BoyE: I r.rould like to thank the planning CommissionrepresenEative, you gulxs did great wort< strailtrt."i.,g o"f -"-o*" of the issues Acting-. Mayor Ceving: I teoC to agree with youE cpmments on tl," trailspecifically at this time_ because -we ."urrf aon't know whictr is the best ;#:: rf the Hallas wourd asree to do trr-It i ti,i"x tr,ui;il ;-.;.d Carol Watson: Itrs kind of a. muddy issue because since you,re going to cross$l I01 to connest to Eden prairie 6"cur"" tfr.V **" in on pioneer Trailtowards chanhassen- we ei.ther ".o"" "J pion*r ltail arrd TH 101 and have some*# :f"::."rroLled crossins il;;;rhr,re -iiri" ti,". where we can stay on the @urni lman Johnson: Iive _got one major issue arrl a cor4>Ie quickies. OourcilrecornrnerNlations item 5 ard item , aie no tonqer varia Lcarie -tLy -ro,ira uokay if $re $rere usinq the .ru.,. Gt "aaftf* .'i*,e blueprints uof,r.;.. *ingthe Jury 2rd' rn one- case -the .*d h.. ;;;"i! u"*, moved ard in the othercase there is no tot 9 or L0 anymore r."ir"" tt" 9 ard ro are now 4 and 5 andthat corrtition has already been met b";i;;riy. rhe other thing is on what isno$, calred tot 13 ard it,- part ot conaiiion'i trr"t tt" ortrot A shall on theJune rst preriminarv ptat shau u. a*.J o.r-oioaure. This is part of bothIot 5 and rot 13. is -such, tt e re.ai-r,ali "f-r,ii f : is less than 2 I,/2 acresard :s such atl of Lor 13 r.rould be d;;; ,-rru-rilarur.. r have a soluti.on SH?h rllr:#.?" rhe road i*!-"itsii.rr-"iiti, .,,a ",,.rJit,-ylJ[-io. " Don Halla: MnDot has a probtem with that. It has to go where it is. Ihat,sthe spot t'at MnEbt wanG it- they feei fi"tl. -tir. least probrems foraccidents. l- Don thlla: Ihey got a problem with that because it drops too quickty on thevertical, sight d istance problern. David Harra: Iet rne exorain that to you because r was out there r.rith .inDot.They go out Ehere with a rurer anr se-t tt"t-iril, at 37 or 39 irrhes and at acertain speed limit tha.'s on tt*t road in -tr,ai'a.=ignated area you have tohave so many feet of clear view ard it's aone ,rery scientificarly. rf you,veever ren them do it vou canrt argue with it b"".r"u it,s so practical a&ilg:?l -i: comes righf our. rf t6"y say ufrar s wnere ir has Eo be, rharrsI"rEre rE has to be because you have to -h.re ro many fee. of cr-earance at thatmile per hour. courci lman Johnson: r have nc problem with *rat. what rrm trying to do ismake sure that Lot 13 is buildabre. t- t- , You mean coming G0-70 feet up the road, they got a {ao 11 City Council I'Eeting - July 6, 1987 Counci Iman Johnson: be unbuildable. It r^rasnrt designated as an outlot, then all of t3 would Barbara Dacy: r think what you could recommend is tf,at the westerly 150 feetof Lot 13, that's stirl reave! 625 feet for iotu.e res.ruaivision ara' a-aequaearea for the two septic system sites- w.erlr go back and double check tiat butthe westerry 169 feet.of that was the originai area that we looked at as partof Ortlot A. councilman Johnson: But tiat reaves it well urder 2 r/2 acres in tot 13.be an easement until a decision for TH 16r is made so 13 bec.rcmes buidable butthey can't build out where they may realign ftt 1OI. Acting Mayor Gev ing: Gary do you have a comnent on that? I vrould like tohave your corment on that, the reconmendation. Ga5V.I?..r-*, If you just want to call it a roadr.ray easement instead of aunbui ldable outlot? Barbara Dacy: Gary Warren: portion of it. the lsesterly 160 feet. the original intent was to put it as an outlot and reserve that I .l- Courci lman Johnson: these plans don't show it as an outlot. Barbara Dacy: But because of the realigned road arrargement, in order to getthe 2.5 acres and so on, the planning Co-mmission's recommendation was toreserve the westerly portion of that as unlcuil-dable. you can describe it byeasement or a deed or some type of restriction as a part of the titre for thatIot. htre can work out the legal means. Gary Warren: As long as we restrict it I,ve got no problsn. @uncilman Johnson: I donrt want to take out a lot that,s got 13 I,/2 acres toit because at some time in the near distant garaxy or so*"ihing we;re going toactuall,y change TH I01 there ard put a bridge across that crevile. Don tialla: Originally there was a discussion tlat they were going to do thatror- a -year so give Lhem time to see that there hras ever going to be a need oran)My would ever agree to do that. Ihat was the origirial. @uncilman Johnson: werre trying to get the state to look at IH L01. Theydonrt wanE it. Actiog l4ayor Geving: tet,s come to sorne conclusioo. councilman Johnson: The last issue was werl siees, r had some concern on thel.rel I -sites being downgrading it, not from downgrading it topographicatty luthydrorogicarry dobrngrade the grourxrwater where the sepcic =y"-tems ur" g-oi.q.Primarily on tots 10 through 13. r don'E know what t[re groi:rd water i! ttrere.My exper iencre is it's probably head ing down tolrrard the cieek ard the river I .,. -* Zdi..;a 31 r c there so itrs probably headed south unress they've got some realry unusuardrainage in there. Jo Ann olsen: rhe soir c'onsultant definitery rooks at ar1 the drainagepatterns. courri rnan Johnson: the drainage pattern on top of the earth does not matchtle drainage .IEttern under ttre earttr arn a sligirt movement rike this. Au rIdant to say is letrs be careful on those werr lites there. r trrinr trrere maybe a chance that r'rerrr have septic systems contaminatirg vori o*r-".ii". rtdepends upon how deep you put the wetls of course. Don Halra: r think a 10t of the di fference here is betr.{een ttre originar ptanard this one, the street moved to tt. north. i woura think the houses wouldnove to the north ard satisfy your problqn. counci lman Johnson: rhat's exactry right. you had those houses a tong waysback. A lot of driveway. I double aiyone woul- actualLy go. Don Halla: Ihatrs because the roadway used to be on the south. Acting l6yor Geving; Any more problans, concerns? Courcilrnan Johnson: l{c, I think werve made good progress. I agree with this. Councilman Horn moved, Acting l,fayor ceving seconded to approve SubdivisionRequest #85-31 as shown on tie pieliminary pfat ilated .ru1-y 2, L9B7 "utjlt tothe following conlitions: :l 1. Ihe applicant receive access permits from lrnDot and Carver County. 2' ' Th= finar prat shalr provide for a roadway easemeot dedication of 22feet on ei ther side of TH r01 and 17 feet on the south side of cR 14,east of TH 101. 3. litlaE was shown as Out.lot A on the June l, LggT preliminary plat shallbe deemed as a roadway easernent until the reatiinmenu of -in-iii i"determined. City Council l4eeting - July G,L987 4.kovi.sion of a sides along TH L 2g fcot trail easment for off_street trails on bothl-01 ard G 14. r 5 All stleet improvements shall conform with City standards for ruralconstruction. Acqui.sition of.a. drainage. easement through t,ots 4, 51 6 and 7, Block2 coincident with the ravine ard porxting;.;.- AIl slope areas in excess of 25? shall be restricted from any arrt allbuilding ard gradirq activitj.es. 6. 7. 5Z " -.'. t '€.t*,e IU E City Council t4eeting _ JuIy 6,1987 t 13 Drainage and utility eas;i;;:;.; ;ii'ilir;i;'m.?S:ll: dedicated as necessarv ror Approval of t}e final o:gTn, FS.j.s. ard rosion control plan bvthe-!i!V, Warershed oistricE-ard om "'rr:;;pJi;"* wirh allconditions. L0. Alproval of tl.e prel-imina:y plat is crnditioned rpon two soiltreatment sites. lnr 10t wh6re -y "it " have been changed due to therealignment of the street .na i.ia5 rJt*r of lot lines. All voted in favor ard motion carried. 8 9 8.5 ACRES INTO I 5 SINGLE EAMIL Y LOTS LocATm At 6239 I Jo Ann Olsen: *. ,""ti:11a is proposing 15 singte famity Lots. Ihe site islocated betereen chasika. noad - a.r: llr...y iifi- nluo. It is zoned RsF, SingLeFamily. A11 the .ors have 90 f"ea;;'si;;f i.o.,*n" and ar leasr 15,0s0square feet of lot area.. The planning C;;i";:'.n approved the subdivision.rhey did tabre it once rhough r.i stuir-to 'rl-view wittr the appricant if a roadcour'd be developed off of ciaska noua i"in"i-ihan off of Murray Hilt Road.1:_:.:?Yrnood obj ecred t"- tir. uoiiuy r+ii-f n""O access because of the hillgorng to the norrh. \y rer! rhar tnJ sisrrt Jistance-r*-p.Ji-.#.i.,!. a*increased traffic would -be_ a hr1*q. --r.9-il-prf cant dia propose an arternatepran which r'r1 show in just a minute. rt ilterea the site armost compretedbecause of -the steep slo[E. SEaff and the plannrng Commission bothrecommended thar rhar nor be approved. a"o*,". 'G;;ir;i ; ti,"on.".nabout was with the outlots -arrl ihe planning Cor*l..ron recommended approvalthat the ourror-s be offered t ti',. ."ighb"'.. t" trr" ";.th-;;-i#-"Hil ..othat if that isn't an "pti9! t,.at tfrey'ao -leco,i" pu.a of ,ot 15 and 3 so thecity wourd not be resoo'nsi,e loi ;-J;dl"iin-'i;T. Anorher issue is rhe parkand Recreation Commis'sioo, they had not ,.rrl3".A it at the time of thePranning comm ission meeri.ng. ihey trave .in." tt.n -ana tnev -aiJ i.q.iilairgthat a trair easemenr be piovided'arong a-.r"-noua _"g ?ri" "i..s"iIl'ra, iaveasement up to tre cul-de-sac ard then th"y .r" go10g to be workirg with the:!11i"-T..-d rhe prorErry owners ro the jouth t-o ro-.ur" ; ;;;. e.":"-easement to qo throuoh to access the schoor site- .Again another issue is trproad access. the endineer and staff visited the siEe to see if it does haveadequate sight distaicre- b, "{" nort}r iE tras approxima tLey 3Os to 400 feet ofsight distance. Tb the south it_fras appioximJiey ZOO to 300 feet. Itrere isadequate sight distarce ard staff feft'ifrai tl," .t.""t proposed would beadequate' we arso felt that trre aaaiiio"ai iol" onto Murray Hirl Road wourdnot be a negtive impact. The other is.u. "1s -tf.,rt the lots did not conformwith the surrounding Lots- the area, tnl rol=-ln tie surrounding neighborhoodare larger from 30,006 on up. Staff had Eo stress tlle point that thi;subdivision is meeting the minimum ..qri.;;";;; of the zoning ordinance andalthough they are not the aH)roximare "ir" "= -tt " "*i=ting-ili;-aH;:."neeting the requirements of Ehe ordinance and technicauy it can nof be deniedbecause of that. So those are Ehe main issues Etr,at the planning Commissionhad and were addressed and again ur. pi.."i"g c"*r" i"=i;-;il';.:";,.r"" I 33 ,-,.-- J c ( CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, I98 7 Chairman conrad MEMBERS PRESENT: called the meeting to order at Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel , Hoh,ard Noziska 7r40 p.m.. Ladd Conrad and David Headla and James I{ildermuth Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City planner and -prar:ner-SUBDIVISION REQUEST TO SUBD I VI DE PROPERTY ZONED A- 2, AGRICULTURAL 105 ACRES INTO 37 SINGLE EAMITY LOTS ON ilsreTE-euo-r.6eat-eD-EE-EH-E-36ET-HwEE-rauo SOUTHEAST CORNERS OF HWY 1gI AND ao. RD. 14, DoNALD Eft,r,e. Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report on this subdivision request. Conrad: This is not a public hearing but I think werll ask for somecomments. Mr- Halla if you would like to talk or have a representativetalk. Bob Bruno: rtm an attorney for Mr. Harra. r was here at the last meeting.we have a better picture of this northerly alignment. this is all HarraNursery. property right now. This portion has quite a few growing trees on( it. quite a large number of large trees. Anywhere from 7 inchej in\.,liameter. The Harla Nursery buirdings are rocated over in this area inBlock 1, Lots 8, 9 and 10. After the last meeting when the planning commission requested that we provide some dedicatLd streets instead ofprivate drives, we did meet with some of the land owners down to the southof Block 2 to see if there was sone agreenent that could be reached aboutthis easement. At the present time there is an easement which abuts thesoutherly line of Block 2. rtrs 30 feet wide. The road going on thateasement. A11 of this property hras deeded at one time or-anoLher to Roy andMarlas Teich and they provided a number of easements to people. Theyprovided an easement over that 30 feet to Halra Nursery. rt was to Davidand Donald Halra which has been assigned and is now owned by Halra uurserywhich provided access through that easement to each one of ihese landowneisin this area so ar1 of these people here had access to this road which isthe next 30 feet south of the line there. what we propose to do, sincethese landowners to the south are not interested in- paying for anyassessments. Were not interested in turning land whatsoever to the buildinqof a road over that 30 feet and improv ing that 30 foot road which is no* i 'road, is going to be a road forever. rt,s on the deeds. rtrs in p..f"ioityfor roadway and drainage purposes. rnstead of burden them, they alanlt wanito be burdened with paying for assessments, we decided to put the roadentirery on the proposed subdivision and we did that by mo-ving it 5 inchesto the north. Now that wourd put two abutting roads together lut r think wehave come up $rith a picture here now with the northerly-route that r thinkis going to resolve alr the issues. All of the lots hJve got access to a / pubric street. There is a through situation. something staff wanted for L:rre ancl satety purposes to allow emergency vehicles access from either the Planning June 24, Commission Meet i ng 19 87 - Page 2 (north or the west. r think this pran is very workable. The entrance ontoTH 101 is staggered from here. we don't have a situation $rhere you've gottvro abutting streets. you can have 90 feet of roadway here or 9a footdoubre entrance onto ?H r01 that really amounts to. MnDot has technicarlyapproved the outlet here next to another outlet and I frankly don,tunderstand why they \,rould do that. To me, as a driver com ing- doern the roadaround this curve to be suddenry confronted with a doubre enir.nce onto THL6L, l.just think would be pretty dangerous. Therers a very poor sightsiEuation here because of alr the uruJh growing up in this -raiine. itatbrush is not o$rned by the applicant so there isn'! any contror over who isgoing to cut Ehat.brush,down to improve the sight rinLs there. Moving it upEo the north r think- we're going to sorve the Jafety issue of having a-double outret right here. Moving it to the north, lrt or the lots iitt uerenumbered- Accordingty there wi.rr be a Brock 4 and then Lots 1, 21 3, 4and 5. The Iots up to the north here are Block 2, Lots 1,2,3,4, 5 and 6and werve simpry revised the phasing schedule which renumbered theseparticular lots. r guess r have some problem with what staff has suggestedabout this being done- as a .municipal improvement project and the rea66n tneywanted to do that r think is so they courd assess the owners the south. wedon't need to do that anymore vrhen the applicant is going to be furnishingthe road himself. we had a phasing plan, if you foriowed the phasing ptaiit called for the lots down in this area to be developed first-and ttienthese lots, these lots. There vras a pattern to it because the appticaot didnot vrant to disrupt his nursery business all that much. there aiE trees ,zhere- If this _road is to be put in as a municipar improvement, it's going\:o be. compretery ruin alr the phasing. rt's going to immediately turn ali _ of this- property into residentiar. rt's going to remove some very maturetrees along this right-of-way and that would be a tremendous expense to theHalla's so .this pran r think makes a rot of sense. rt $rilr be paved as theowner originally proposed to be done. I don,t see any objection to the- phasing in as we had proposed earrier. we would rike to -keep that phasing.Itrs pretty crucial to my client's business here to be able to remove theJetrees as time goes on so he can prant and put these roads in at his own - expense and obviously assess them to each one of his own lots as he seesfit without the city or another contractor becoming invorved in buildingthis whole thing and then the problem of the assessment. of all the owneis Ithink is cumbersome. putting a road abutting a 3g foot easement on here- doesn't solve any of the problems. That easement has been existing inperpetuity and we might as well put the road futly on Ehe applican-t'sproperty and Iet him pay for the entire thing and Iet him phase in as he - sees fit. That's just what this pran does. rt allows for him to continueon erith his nursery business and not put all of these lots into immediateresidential status \rhich they would be if the city needed to build this - public street the way the staff is proposing. He $rourd be forced to serlthese rots immediately. He doesn't want to do that. He vrant.s to keep thenursery business. He erants to remove the trees in this area gradually anilin a logical manner so I think we would recommend that this alternate be- approved. r think it answers as many questions as anything. yourre arwaysgoing to have this easement problem to the south. Itis not going to be. cured by abutting the street onto it because that road is going to be there. \_\11 these landowners and HalIa Nursery alJ. have the right to ule that 30 Planning June 24, Commission Meeting 1987 - Page 3 ( r feet and thatrs going to be there. The only eJay Ehat courd be resorved isif the city or some other government condemmed it and took it because rightnow, alr of these property o$rners have private rights to that road and eventhe years isnrt going to take that a&ray so I think this is a very logicalway. MnDot has approved this entrance over here on TH 101. It,s quite aways away from this very sharp, dangerous curve dovrn here with a mlximum ofsight distance. Much better sight distance than there lrould be at what theStaff is proposing. What used to be Outlot A is not Lot 1, Block 4 and wedon't mind the restriction on what was Outlot A provided itrs got areasonable time put on it. To says it's going to be unbuildable forever fthink is unreasonable and we suggest one year for the City or MnDot orwhoever is going to take TH 101 and straighten it out there. They make somedecision about whaE they're going to do within a year. To say that it willnever be built upon I think is unreasonable. Somebody has to be able to useit at some point in time. we wourd agree that outl0t A could be restrictedfor one year. Number 2 on the reconmendations here require a dedication, ofcourse, we are talking about a right-of-way easement along here. We don'tlike it. We're giving an additional 27 and 17r an additional 44 feet therewhen there is no one who has any plan to approve highway 101. No one wantsthe road and to give L20 feet of right-of-way which is what this wouldamount to is a bit unreasonable. Again, these are fairly narrow lots. Noone would be building in that portion anyway. We would allow that portionof it if that's necessary. I don't think anyone would want to build thatclose to TH 16l so I don't that's a concern as long as it's an easement andnot the street. Again, number 5, I guess here we have an alternative to .tumber 5 which is to have the applicant build the road and not have the Cityor County become involved in a municipal project. Any questions about thisalEernative? I know itrs kind of a last mi.nute situation but r^rhen Staff came up with moving this down to next to the this ooe, we felt that thiswould just serve us much better as a street. Conrad: I think we'll have questions later on-Itrs not a public hearing but does anybody haveinformation that they would like to share withquick question Jo Ann, how do you see the publicthat, how do you see that. Iand developing? Are there any comments?any other relevant us on this subject? Okay,improvement road, south of Olsen: T9 h99 an application in for one of the sites but it's presentlyhold until this one has been resolved. Other than that, itrs under thalunit per 10 rule. There are no intentions from what I've heard from theProperty owners to develop it but there is one site that does want todevelop 5 acres into two buildable lots. The only other large propertyowner is Teich and exactly how much he has I don't know. on one Conrad: with the applicantrs new plan vrhich totally puts the burden onthemselves and makes a lot of sense for phasing and for not forcingprenature development of the property, $rhy should we not consider thatseriously?rea I Olsen: Werre not:refers having the to not cons i derjust to provide saying road, it seriously but Staff stillstreet frontage to those existing Pl ann ing June 24, Commission Meeting 1987 - Page 4 -r {\ and any future homes there to the south. with the street being rocated onthe southern property line or even if they wanted to do it hari and half,that provides those properties with pubric street frontage so they willalways be rnaintained to provide better energency and safLty access. Conrad: But they donrt want it apparently. Paul Graffunder: That is incorrect what he said. AII of the propertyor'rners that were at the meeting said they will give the 30 feet that istheir property already as an easement towards the roadway. They said theywould give that up with no probrem rrhatsoever. r just winEed to make thalclear. Bob Brunoi r guess r have to dispute that. Irve been in contact with DaveTeich who owns the l0 acres in this area right here. He would not give anyadditional land unless he was guaranteed that he vrould not pay anyassessmenEs for it and that totally killed any idea without totalcooperation. It would have to take total cooperation for this to bepossible. I wrote him a Ietter requesting the same thing. I had anagreement drawn up even so far as to have an agreement drawn up which wouldhoLd him harmless from any assessments but he wourdn't sign that so we donrthave I00 ? cooperation. Conrad: So the negative, if we follo\., the plan that,s just been submitted,ooEentially werIl be creating another road sometime. Headla: Has Teich gone on record with the votes, he isn,t here is he? Ishe going to notice the vi l lage that he does not $ranE to participate? So werearry don't know from any other source what his position is? what bothersme is I tend to like the one discussed this afternoon because apparentlyfrom $rhat we know, and Im not sure that what we know is accurate but fiomwe think vre know, he does not want to be involved with assessmenEs. Thatrshis decision. Have you had a chance to look at this pran that came in thisafternoon? Olsen: Yes. Headl.a: Do they meet the minimum acreage on the calculations on lots? It would have to to be all it.Olsen: I haven't gotten acceptable. Headla: If that meets the minimum to consider it unaccepEable? acreage requirements, is there any reason Olsen: No, again they are both acceptable itrs just Staff had preferenceover the other. Headla: I guess I kind of like Ehat plan that came in this afternoon because apparently not all parties r{ant to pay for assessments. lfhy involveihem in something they have no control over? I guess all the other Plann ing June 24, Commission Meet i ng 1987 - page 5 ( t recommendations were good. I donit have any further questions. Emmings: Would the driveway for Lot 9 be on the new road that you proposedthere rather than out to TH lgl? Bob Bruno: Access erould be along this area. Itrs now Lot 4, Block 2. Emmings: I guess erhat I was wondering is if Lot 5,if you could get 5 ontotha t road as weI Iwith this p1an. to prevent another access onto TH 1gI if we were to go Don Halra: The County has approved that onto cR 14 and MnDot approved Lots9 and r0 to be together on that. The ord 9, r'm looking at the o1d numbers.4 in the ne$, numbers, 4 would be on the public road, not off of TH 1gl. Theonly one wourd be Lq or 5 in the new numbering system that would have accessto TH 101. That access point is approved by unDot. And 6 has an access.roint to the north which was approved by the county. There is a possibiritythat. 5, except yourre not going to meet your requirements for road frontageis Ehe probrem. you could go to Ehat r,ot 5 and try to bring it in on thafside s treet. Emmings: rrm not sure about that because we approved another one here.werve gone around on this issue where yourve got the road frontage on oneside and bring the driveway out the oEher. Bob Bruno: perhaps an easement could be over this small area. Emmings: r like this second pran that has come in because it gets theentrance of that road away from that corner. r guess r like that and r likethe fact that we can bring another internal lot 5nto that roadway in ttre new4.. r guess all r would rike to say is it seems to me it would be nice toeliminate that other access onto TH 10r and bring Lot 5 down there as erellor -even consider, if you're not going to do that, consider putting ttre new sand 6 together on a neutral drivLway. rt would be nice to have t-he roaddown on the souEhern edge but if there is any one property owner thatdoesnrt agree than it doesn.'t make aoy sense at a1t itren r go for this pran.otherwise, rike they say, that road will be there forever arid for ttre p6rsonwtto disagrees or rrho doesn't want Eo use it or anything e1se. outrot i, ifthat were to be buildabre, how would it have acceJs? fihere would hisdriveway be? (rou aruno: His wourd right at this point here onto the public road. Bob Bruno: I think you might run into problems with Lot 3 here. Headla: Is there a turning problem? Is that rrhat yourre saying? Bob Bruno: No, I donrt think therers a turning problem. I think itis aproblem of taking acreage on these three lots here. Emmings: Let's go up one lot further. 6 will access where? Pl ann ing June 24, Commission Meeting 1987 - Page 6 {Emmings: Thatrs real small. Can they do that realistically? Don Halla: we tied outlot A into Lot r and made a 3.7 acre rot so rearLy ithas been eriminated as an outlot. r think it becomes a moot point for tiefuture. ,A11 you would do is restrict a person didn't buitd tithin x numberof feet of that corner or something and iolve the problem sirnply. Emmings: so there is no more outlot A? rt nohr has become part of Lot 1? Don Halla: Correct. Erhart: r generarly agree that the last proposed pran for the streetsprobably makes sens_e considering the issues. Mostry r think it's prettymuch up to the developer to propose streets and thei try to get th6mapproved. r'm getting a rittl-e concerned here that we rnade i last minutechange and werre not covering atl the issues prior to the planningcommission taking a vote on it. r guess r question this one whether weshould have it come back and have it go through staff to rook at it again.one of the issues r think is Lots 9 and 10. with the new street tayout itwould seem to me that l-ot division where it's an east/west lot diviSion now r.ourd be changed Eo the north/south. rt might require a little bit of\ihuff ling around of a couple of other rots but therefore you would have both9 and 10 accessed by your new east/west road. Emmings: So we probably donrt need condition numberunderstanding. Then what werve got down as conditionanymore either. I dontt have anything else. Bob Bruno: Itrs possibl-e that we could put an easement new lots 4 and 3 then with that 11 i sn't mean i ng fu I to service th is 5 completeLy soErhart: I'm talking about changing yourare sPl it. Iot. Ehey Dacy: Therers sorne background on that. The calpin Blvd., the reason $rhythey require such a large right-of-way section on calpin Blvd. is that t-hecounty in their 2qgg rraasportation pran has planned ior the realignment ofTH 4I dovrn to the new TH 2L2 and potentially across the river. That's:eally not the year 266A. That's post the year ZqqA. Mr. Otto,s Bob Brunos I thi.nk that,s a possibility. Erhart: That would solve the problem with easements and everything erse. Don Halra: The square footage is there. you might get some odd rot linesin there as r see it rooking at iE from here you might end up with a rearnar rov, point. Erhart: We're looking at another subdivision, in fact Wally's, where thecounty wants 150 feet off of the bourevard for an easement. you have L2a onTH 101 which to me is 50 times the traffic on a state road and then 15g feeton County Road 14. What's the sense of aII that? Planning June 24, Commission Meeting 1987 - Page 7 ( Erhart: Regarding goingStaff's opinion? Are youthat you can clean up the subdivision is within that concept alignment. rn that case there was noofficial map adopted. If r could make one more comment. The applicantmentioned that there are no prans to improve TH 101, that may or may not bethe case. Everybody can sit there and argue when TH r01 is gting to- ueimproved but nonetheless itrs going to function as a minor arteriat. Giventhe growth of the southwest area and especialry it's direct route toshakopee area and the major recreational facirities that are located do$rnthere. That's why hoth the state and the city feel it's necessary that weat least reserve additional area. ahead and voting on this thingsatisfied that if we go aheaddetails and bring the thing up Olsen: we just want to make sure that some of that Outlot,of Lot I, is reserved.which is now part conrad: r like the pran that came in today and my question is just the sameas Timrs. r don't want to vote on something that you have not ieviewedthoroughly but if you're comfortable that you can idministratively handlethe issues between now and when they get to City CounciI, I guesJI'mcomfortable moving it out of here. The onry ttring r would iike to do ishave old Lots 9 and r0, r would really rike to have those serviced on aninternar street and would rike to see that in a prat that wourd get to cityCounc i 1 . tonight, whatts and vote on thisto Counc i I ? {t Headla: Did they have to do any soil borings here? Did we change thelocation where the drainage fields would be? Dacy: cood po int . Olsen: If you readjust Lots 9 ar,d, Lq, it looks like whatever lot wouldbecome to the east will not have two soil sites. Headla: Did you have any trouble in the area with borings? OIsen: No. conrad: In terms of the realignment, r'm not sure that we're going Eo havea decision in a year rike the applicant wanted on TH r0l but on the otherhand the termi.nology says untit rn rgr alignment is aetermined which is sortof never, never t ime. Dacy: we just wanted to reserve the ability to conduct a feasibiliEy studyin that particular location. Not to resorve any issues but just to see ifit could be realigned in that area. conrad: which it probabr.y shourd be if the cost is reasonabre but thetiming of something like that would be when? (ltsen: As soon as the City initiates that. Pl ann ing June 24, Commission Meeting 1987 - Page 8 what was designated as outlot A, which is now a part of Lot' I, shaltbe deemed unbuildlabe until the TH l0I realignment is determined. -( L Dacy: We could conduct it within a year. conrad: so the statement of that thiril point in the motion, are we talkingabout feasibility study or are we talking about the actual determination oithe realignment? Dacy: Just conducting the feasibirity study. other issues have to beresorved down the line rike if it,s designated as a trunk highway. rs thestate going to turn that back to the county or the city? we-'re 'just roo[i"gfrom a pure engineering standpoint to see if we can tuitd a road in thatarea . Conrad: So Barbara, is the third point on the motion, is that wordedproperly? Olsen: It should be changed to Lot 1 shall reserve... Emmi.ngs: rrve got a suggestion, maybe what we could do is say that what vraspreviously designated ai outlot A aha11 be deemed unbuildabll even though ithas now become part of Lot 1. Conrad: So you're not too concerned as to r.rhen? Emmings: If we do it that way it doesnrt matter. ?hey can build on Lot 1.They can build on what is now Lot 1. Headla: They could put it right on the old property line of Outlot A. Emmings: Yes, they $rouldnrt have to r^rorry about a setback but that area,they just canrt build in that area what was previously Outlot A. Dacy: That's right. They couldn't anyway because it.s only 1.3 acres. HeadIa: Sometime in the future they're going to come in vrith a proposal toput a house Ehere. Emmings noved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #85-3I as shown on the plat dated June I, 1987with the revised plat for Block 2 distributed June 24, 1987 subject to thefollowing conditions: 1. The applicant receive access permits from MnDot and Carver County. The final plat shall provide for the dedication of an easement forroadway purposes of 27 feet on either side of TH lgI and 17 feet onthe south side of CR 14, east of TH lo1. 2 3 Planning June 24, Commission Meet i ng 1987 - Page 9 (4. 6. 7 Lg. Provision of a 20 foot TH 10I and CR 14. trail easement for off-street trails along The o the A1l street improvements shal1construction.conform with City standards for rural east/west roadway along the southern line of Lots 5, 6, 7Block 2 and outlot A should be moved to the north accordingalternate plans submitted by the applicant. and to 8 through Lot s and ponding 4, 5, 6 and 71area. A11 slope areas in excess of 252 shaIl be restricted from any andall building and grading activities. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated as necessary forplacement of aIl utility improvements. Acquisition of a drainage easementBlock 2, coincident with the ravine Approval of final Grad ing ,City, watershed Di s tr ict,conditions. Drainage and Erosion Control plan and DNR and compliance with aLl by the rl.Lots 9 and 10, Block 2 shallinternal street.share a common drive access of f of an L2- Approval of plat is conditioned upon approval by our consurtantdrainfield site and soil boring locations on any rots erhere thedrainfield sites have been changed due to lot rLalignment. All voted in favor and motion carried. of SUBD I VI S ION oNlRopERTy ROAD, ROBERT S OMMER . REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 8.5 ZONED RSF, S I NGLE ACRES INTO EIETEEN SINGLE FAMTT.V I,^TE EE s r o nIt r e r,- e u o r,6ce r e-Dlrtig g:cfrffiaEAM I LY 5 o Headla: Do you keep this June 1, 19g7 plat on file? In two years when youtwo are promoted to better positions, we won.t be here to look at thedocumentation, wiIl there b6 any documentation available? Olsen: We wiIl revise the preliminary plat. Headla: So this particular one will be on file? Olsen: It will get on file. PubIic Present:t-- - cHabtHess eN pLANNTNG coMMrssroN REGULAR MEETING /PRIL I, L987 Chairman Conrad MEMBERS PRESENT: Howard Noziska MEMBERS ABSENT: STAEF PRES ENT: ET;nn er. PUBL IC F;ETImi HEARING: called the meeting to Tim Erhart, Steven R-1A, Agii cultural 105 acres into 37 SingIen-e s I a G'E-iEr l--D6n-EnE- oE v e 7:35 p.m Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad,and David Headla James Wi ldermuth Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City nary P at Request to subd i v ide order at Emmings, on property zoned AppI i cants. FamiIy Lots Ha11a, PubIic Present: Mr. and Mrs. Robert Buresh Greg Gra f funder - Alan Teich Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report. f :b Brunner: Irm the attorney for Don Halla, one of the applicants. We\nink we've provided a plan here which complies with all of the subdivision - requirements of the City. We have looked at the Staff Report and it appearsto me that the major problem that we have wiLh lhis and the major problemthat the Sta f f has with our proposal here is the i ssue of the private drives - versus Eurning the existing easement into a public street and connecEing toanother public street. We've chosen the private drive approach in order toavoid some possible Iitigation with the landowners to the south and eastover that easement that is to provide the land for a dedicated street. I -donrt see in the Staff Report any specific reasons why private drives should be disapproved as far as this particular property is concerned. It appearsthat the arguments that are put forward about pr ivate dr i. ves, as I read over - it, I think a private drive can exist anyerhere in the city. I don't see anyreason vrhy this particular area would be particularly unsuitable to having Private drives. The Ordinance allows three lots to access onto a private drive and thatrs the way we've designed it. We understand now that there is-consideration of increasing that to five Lots on a Private drive. We havethree on each private drive. we think that complies. As far as the accessonto TH 10I, there can be a frontage road put in Eo connect the private -drive to the present access on TH 101. There is an access for Lots 15 and 15 of Block 2. That has been approved by the Department of Transportation. ThaE access could also serve Lo be joined to the private drive put on Lot 17 _ through 20. Erhart: would you explain to us again what his private drive is for Lots '7, 18, L9 and 20?! PlanningApriI 8, Commission Meeting 1987 - Page 2 rBob Brunner: This area here. Erhart: so you're serv i ng vrhich lots? 19 and 29.Bob Brunner: Lots 17, L8, Erhart: That I s four 1ots. Don Halla: Actually it's serving 18, 19 aod 20. Lot t7 already has accessoff of TH I01. That is connected to the cul-de-sac and those four lotscould go both directions. They could service all of those, 18, 19 an'd 2qfrom the cuI-de-sac even if necessary. Dave Ha1la: The proposed private drive there, Staff's argument that thatrrouldnrt be maintained is a moot point because staff arready requires in the Planning that that be a blacktopped road so whatrs wrong with a blacktoppedroad in there. If they put a blacktop road in there thatrs going to seiveEhose lots. Thatrs not going to become a problem. Bob Brunner: r guess one of the other points that we rearLy dif fer f rom thestaff Report is in relation to Ehe park dedication being required to providea 2g f,ooL easement in addition to the park dedication fees. We think weought to be credited vrith that easement for the dedication fee by some -formula that you courd $rork out. we think it's pretty burdensome to have to { : both. A 2g foot easement along aIl of that roadway is a tremendous>mount to dedicate- Robert Buresh: I,m in the process of purchasing 5 l/2 acres from peterLink. The property that we're purchasing is S 1/Z acres right in here. Irmgoing to be at the end of this private elsement. we started out purchasingthe property with the understanding that it was going to be a private driv6going in there and we share some kind of maintenince upkeep cost with theneighbors and we wourd stirr be content with that. Hoi"u"i, if a publicstreet is anticipated at any time, r would just as soon, personarr-y, see itgo in now and have it out of the way so we w6uld not dupiicate some of ourcosts and it would just service my property that much easier and then rwourd proceed with dividing my 5l/2 acres into two 2 l/2 acre piecesservicing both on a public streeE. Paur craffunder: r own 5 acres directry here, southeast of TH rgL on thesouth side of the easement that is there no!r. My wife and r and r think rcan speak for another property owner down the ro,d, rearry donrt have aProblem with a public road going in Ehere at this time. Jo ann has madereference to an Agreement between Hallars and the other landowners on wherethe property would come from if the road was ever to be expanded. ThatAgreement Hallas neglected to file and was not pubJ.ic record when Ipurchased by property r believe so iE really doesn't have much Eo do withmyself. If the property is converted into a public street, I believe ingiving 30 feet of my o$rn Land. As far as improvement costs, I don't kno!, ,''hat wourd be fair to charge the southern landowners. we didnrt ask for the\,.nprovements. Hallas are the ones who are going to benefit from it. I'lI - Plann i ng April 8, Commission Meeting 1987 - Page 3 -rgive up my 30 feet for a public road but r donrt believe it would be fairthat we share the cost half and half or even more than half which r think iswhat the Hallas wanE to do. David Teich: r olrn the land south of that easement road norr/. The Hallaproposal to ded i ca te that easement and an add i ti onal 30 feet to make it the- 50 feet that the city requires. r'm in favor of Ehe private drive if we seethat it's alright. one thing Halla is considering is rimiting use of theroad as it stands as it is nor./. r don't rearLy have a probrem with that - being proposed as a road and reave that 30 feel on the iouth side private. Erhart: would you explain this whore thing to me? rrve read it but r stirrdon't completely understand it. Olsen: The Easement Agreement? - Erhart: Yes, go through this street again here. The 30 feet and 50 feet.HalIa is asking fox 6g feet off of somebody elses property for a publicstreet or a private drive at this time or what? OIsen: The Agreement says that whenever that would be improved, whateverland is necessary for that improvement wiII be given by party A. party A isDavid Teich's property. f :hart 2 30 feeE or 60 feet? - Olsen: whatever is necessary. It doesnrt say. Erhart: what was the intention when this agreement was written? was theintention that they provide all the land for the whole street? Dave, in- your opinion, what was the intention of the Agreement when it was written? Dave HalLa: I really don,t know. I wasnrt involved in the land at that -time. It belonged to my father who the agreement was signed. It was anagreement signed for Halta's benefit in the event that we subdivide it, thatthey would have to provide the public road. There is no mention in the -Agreement that if Al was to subdivide, which way the road was to go. Bob Brunner: Thatrs not exactly right. I've got a copy of the Agreement.That Agreement provides that in the event a road is dedicated at that- location that the additional property needed for that dedication would comefrom the land to the south. That is clearly what it says. - Erhart: why would you need an Agreement at al1? Bob Brunner: That Agreement was made at the time so that an individual _with a home on the corner of TH 101 that Graffunder's no$, own, it was madeso that building permit coulal be issued for building that house. It rras asigned agreement to allow Mr. Teich to subdivide his properties so Mr.oauly couJ.d build there. Planning Apr i I 8, Commission Meet i ng 1987 - Page 4rErhart: I donrt understand what that has to do with the Hallars? Dave Halla: Let me exprain this thing a little bit here. r'lr go back andgive everybody a littre b j.t of history on this thing so they can understandit from the beginning. Number one, when Roy Teich,J son-in-law, VernonPaury wanted to get a building permit, he came to the city councir here. Atthat time Larson was the Attorney for the city. He made the determinationthat that road was Halla's exclusive easement. rn order for pauly to getegress and ingress onto TH 101, Harla's had to give him permissioi to risethat easement. teich's Attorney drew up this Agreement. By doing so and fSvi.ng us sign it, vernon pauly was abLe to get buildi.ng peimit and uuitahis home. when that Agreement was written, there were -c6rtain things pui inthat Agreement that if future expansion was done down the road, that H-a1la'sbuilt the road and maintained the road, that additional property requi.red tomeet the cityrs requirements, lrould come out of the propLrty to ttre-south.This was ar1 signed up front. r m ight be gett i ng into i point of ra$, butwerre wirling to litigate it. The decision has alreaay been made by JudgeTom snor., that the Agreement is upherd. we rdere sued by teich throulhcraffunder for parking cars arong the easement so ere auiaea by the -court,s decision and did not park anymore vehicres along the easement. we havemaintained that road al1 of the time. r built tfrat road to get down to myhouse which is down at the very end of that road and I have maintained tliatraod practicalry alr by myself aLr this time. During that time they havehaured one or two loads of gravel since 1972. NeithLr one of them want to { rare. in. the. cost of maintaining that road. we feel that the easiest thingto get the thing resolved so there are no more arguments about it is to malieit a public road. Then they don't have to r^rorry ibout maintaining it. T;;;already signed the Agreement. Mr. Graffunder'J argument that he didn,t see-the Agreement is a moot point. rt's just rike r'v6 got a lot for sale.rf you don't check out my title, thatis not my f,ault that your builder wirlnot provide. The document was agreed. rt wa! signed. rt iecame a part ofthe building permit. precedence had arready been established. rt has beenrured on. That maintenance agreement has bEen upheld. we haven't enforcedit because we know about the personaliti.es of thl people involved in it andwe would just as soon not get involved in another Jitu-ation so vle havenrtpush that maintenance agreement. However, if push comes to shove, we'rewilling to take it because it's already been igreed upon by the iudge. Thething is already there. rt'!s just a matter if-everyo-ne is going to-ag.ee i.,an am icable ma tter or if we have to litigate the th ing for an agreement tha thas arready been signed and that the principals agree-. Thatrs the whoLecrux of the thing. Now everybody can say that they don't know about it andthat it wasn't recorded. rt doesnrt have to recorded to be a regal documentbecause it was signed and witnessed by the people. olsen: If r could crarify one thing. rn speaking with our Attorney, thisis a long issue but as far as the city is "on.".n6d, it'sl private 1."".-between the parties and the City has to make the determinati-on whether-theywant it as a public road. rf Ehe city erants a public road to go rigt,i ----' through the middre of Hallars property, they can make that deci.sion] rf { they. want it to go trhere it's proposed, Uhey can also make that decision.L.rether that Agreement is proper or not is between the private parties. - PI ann ingApril 8, Commission Meeti ng 1987 - Page 5 -rDon Halla: At this point in time, the way it sits $rith that private road,there are three accesses on it already. HaIla Nursery has one. Graffunder _ has another and David Halla has one. So as it sits, that private roadt.hat's in existence will not allow for another building permit in there sothat would prevent the other 5 I/2 acxe tract from being used. Actually, if we wanted to go for a fourth one, Teich could access the property too. we -really have four on there at this point. Mr. Teich has also subdivided, when I say Mr. Teich I mean Roy Teich, not Dave, did subdivide his propertyinto two pieces already. He has a 5 L/2 acre tract that was iliscussed here - already and also another tract on the other side. Dave Halla: I want to make one last comment about that road. That's _already a 30 foot wide road along I $rould say one-third of the road and it'sgot a gravel base that Irm sure Dave Teich will back up and Graffunder alsois aware of it, that that is an alI weather road. I hauled somewhere around 285,0Aq tons of rock on there for Class V that's required for a base road so -you've got one-third of that road already built 30 foot wide and I kno$, thatthe City or the Planning Commission is not going to require a 60 foot wideroad. It might require a 60 foot easement and the way to keep everybody -Erom getting their knickers in a twist and the Iandowners to the south is toleave the road as it ex i sts r ight now and they can give the extra 30 feet orwhatever is required for the easement but the City doesn,t need to make a 60foot wide road in there. A 30 foot wide road is plenty adequate to drive-two semitrucks back and forth by each other and sti11 have room on the r- ides. Mr. Graffunder's argument that it would come to close to this house\s really not, if the City uses sone common sense and says leave the thing -where it is on the north side of the part right now and the part that hasnot been expanded, that's not going to bother anybody really because that'skind of in a field. where Bob's piece is down on the south is kind in a low area and the road needs to be expanded a litt1e wiiler to the south there-anywry so that's not really going to hurt anything and j.n one way it would be a benefit down there. The road as it is built right now, yourve got one-third of it already buiLt there close to the City's specifications. Don Halla: The City has already set precedence- I'm doing exactly what is discussed right here, at the colf Course just outside of our road. The roadis actually sitting like this- The blacktopped area is sitting against ourproperty line on the south. That blacklop was done by the City so !,rhetherit's one side or the other of an easemenE, in that case they decided to putit all on one side. Erhart: Which blacktop was that. the south end on Creekwood on the very south end of- Dave Ha1la: ThaE's on all the way down. _Don Halla: They expanded completely on the north side of that easement. Dave Ha1la: There is a section line there where most roads are constructedhalf-way on each side of the section line. rhis deal there was a horse trade --\-.one way back in a coon dog's age that 3 rods and 4 feet out of the west Planning April 8, Commission Meet i ng 1987 - Page 6fside of our property was given out of the property to Ehe $rest to allow forthat road on the south end there which was aIl, on our property north of thesection I ine but the City decided rather than go to the expense to move thething to the south, where it should be half-way on each side of the centerline, they left the thing where it is and put the blacktop in there andthatrs the way it is. That's $rhat werre talking about here is the samething. That rdourdn't get Mr. Graffunderrs feathers stirred up because thatwould stay exactly where it is right now. Erhart: Maybe the reason is obvious but can r ask Don or Dave, the reasonagainst providing 30 feet of your property for half the road? Don HaIIa: The reason for not putting il 3g-39 will be two things. Therewould be a problem with the vridth of Iots meeting your criteria. If youlook at these square footages, this was computer designed frankly to make itmeet the City's requirements as it is. you could in fact take the 3g feetout of the north end if the City would be amicable to having 2.4 acre lotsalong there and not have the length requirement that they have now becausethey wouldn't need it exactly according to specs. It wouldn't hurt becauseyou can see how deep they are but you would end up r.rith about 2.4 acres perLot. Maybe 2.45 even. Itrs very little. It vrould just be under thatwithout giving up a whole 2 L/2 acxes of land. Erhart: If you provide a 30 foot road easement on the north end versus | :oviding a 30 foot road easenent on the south end, why doesn't that affect\ne lot size the same? OIsen: Not the property. Don Halla: They take the square footage out of the lots. Olsen: That 30 feet will be on their property. Erhart: Yourre talking about doing the same thing to theirs. Olsen: It wilI become public right-of-way down to the south, Erhart: And that's not added into the square footage. Olsen: You take that away from the lots. Erhart: Where, up here it erouldn,t be? Olsen: Easements don't reduce the area. Dave Teich: Irn not sure why we're discussing this road anyway. Theproposal is their own private drive. That road is not affecting all theIots private or otherwise. As the proposal stands, that provides HalIa,saccess f or aLl their own Iots f or their own bene f it, the question of the ,.oad is moot. David is talking about the Agreement was signed and has been!.:held. That case dealt solely with the question of parking on that Conrad: road. we're talking about it because of whether it be a private or public we We good Dave Teich: Are you entertaining the thought of having that road pubric? - conrad: werre going to have to make that decision tonight whether webelieve it should be going that way or erhether we beli6ve it's adequate as aPrivate road. - Dave Teich: f guess I'm confused then becausesaw it in here, it says it was a private drive.the original proposal as I - conrad: But they donrt meet our standards. !{e have to decide whetherbelieve it's good road design. rf we believe itrs good for the future.berieve itrs good for future subdivisions. we berieve it's going to be - for any kind of future access. Those are the things ere have to decide. Dave Teich: Are you entertaining making that road public? - Conrad: As t'\:ave Teich: - proposed? s oon And as we you' I1 close the public hearing werll probably... go ahead without it being proposed or is it reaLly developer go back andI can speak for youEonight. That's why Don Halla: rtrs being proposed as a private road here right nov, with threeaccesses and nobody else could have access. Dave Teich: Itrs already a private road wi th else could bui ld. three accesses. - Don Halla: Right. Nobody This 5 acres to the south... Erhart: I think the answer, we can recommend thaE the come in with a plat that shows is as a publ ic road. IfLadd, I think thatts what ure can do and we may do thatthe questions. -Bob Brunner: I guess as long as that's an alternative that's being proposedhere, I ldant to speak against it. what we have proposed is a series ofprivate roads and there is an existing private road and I guess I don,t - understand ho$, the private road system doesn't meet your specifications. Your Ordinance provides for three accesses onto a private drive. That wiIIbe provided here. The flavor of the Eestinony that,s been offered here, ifthe recommendation is to make that southerty private drive into a public-street, yourre going to have some litigation h-ere deciding vrho's g6ing io Ueproviding that 1ot area. Who is going Eo be compensating r^rho? I guessthatrs what ere've been trying to avoid. Werre trying to accommodatea veryone here who's affected. If there are some specifications that you - Planning Commission Meet i ngepril 8, 1987 - page 7 -teasement road. rt had nothing to do with property agreement. rt was aquestion of parking. rs there something that you want to talk about the_ road as being proposed. Noziska moved, Headla seconded and motion carr ied. to close public hearing. A11 voted in favor ErharE: That already has more t.hanis limited to three correct?three houses accessed and our Ordinance Olsen: Yes. Erhart: r guess what r,re're saying here is that this now proposed futureroad has nothing to do r.rith the proposal on the table herL. If we put in aprivate easement, how do Lots 5, 6 ind g get access? Through that ixistingprivate road? That comes up through the Lop easement or thi top cul-de-sai? oLsen: rt has several private drives in there. r guess they could come .,7 rom cR L4 but the most logicar one would be coming of f the cu1-de-sac or -\rivate easement from TH lOI. Erhart: So werre realLy lookingExplain to me this phasing thing.something that's done typically? at the one How does from the Ehe City cul-de-sac from CR 14.handle that? Is this orsen: Typica.rly it's done through the Deveropment contract and they haveto do c.ertain improvements within one year. The first ro rots on BLock r andthen when they are done with that Ehey $rirl do the other one. rtre purpos-of the phasing is to keep it moving. I.rake sure that the pubric impiorrlmentsare provided in a timely manner. Erhart: Is there a tine limit on these phases? olsen: we dontt have a time limit, no. But again, typically, the firstphase wirr take trro years. That,s usually wna[ it wiii tate-and then theyvrill meet to start the other one. rt's nLver happened where it has been inephase and then nothing for several years. _ nrhart: What we're Iooking L ttempting to handle it as a at' heretypical is a piece of property that werrephase subdivision in the sewered area Planning Commission MeeEingApril 8, L987 - page 8 ,twant. to make to those private drives to make Ehem more appearing to you, ofspecific objections that you have to those private drivei that aie oiingproposed. rf there is some specific objection that you have to a priva[.edrive, lre erould like to know $rhat it is. But to jus[ say that becauseprivate drives are not acceptable, the ordinance lllows thern. The ordinanceaILows the private drives. Conrad: Werll get into any of our reasons. If we agree with yourstatements, the Pranning commission wirr terl you. night now -we're takingthe input that yourve got and we're going to kick that around ourselves aidsee overalr if we rike the design of $rhat werre rooking at. Thatrs going tobe a rrhole unit that we're rooking at and werre trying to nake decisioni-on-good access and appropriate access off of TH 101. Are there any nee, commen t s ? - Planning Commission Meeting April 8, 1987 - Page 9r-n which typically occurs over a looking at doing this over 15 Olsen: That vras a number that Erhart: It could be 50 years? period of 3 to 4 years maybe. I guess werreyears. was mentioned that the applicant provided. Olsen: It could be. If maintain the nursery for they do several not want to years. develop it. If they $rant to Erhart: What happens in a normal subdivision when it is platted in phasesIike this and the Ordinance changes say after phase I? Does that affect Phase 2 and Phase 3? Olsen: If itrs been finalized does not affect it.and recorded with the County, the Ordinance Erhart: So say Phase 2, in this case, that,s recorded They donit pay the lot taxes though until improvements - saying is they can grandfather this thing indefinitely Ordinance just by getting this plat? with the County.are in so $rhat yourre under the old Olsen: If the City approves it. f rhart: What obligation do we have to - Olsen: Itrs aII set in the Development approve Ehe phasing plan? Contract. Itrs negotiable. Erhart: Can you say no? -Olsen: If the City agrees that they can not sit on it for a couple years, we can put that in the Development Contract and give them a deadline. _A9ain,. the issue hasntt come up before. It's all negotiable. EEhart: I guess if we don't tike the layout our best resort is to not be soagreeable on this phasing plan right? Olsen: With the proposal as it is norr, with the private drives, there areseveral variances because they do not have the public street frontage. Ifyou don't like it and you're looking for a reason to deny it, you have a- reason there. The Zoning Ordinance requires each street to have therequired public street frontage and with the private drive, they are notproviding that. Erhart: So again, just repeat the issue here as we're looking at it, phase development over 15 years and in order to attempt to grandfather -thing in under the old Ordinance. olsen: I don't knos, if that was a this -L rhart: The biggest thing that i ntent i on. getting out of doing that is that he the he' s Planning Commission MeetingApril 8, 1,987 - page I0 tis allowed Eo put 2 L/2 acre lots over this entire piece of land from nowuntil who knows when which is diametrically opposed to the current Ordinancewhich requires one unit in 10. I personally don't have any problem withthat since I argued against that particular ru1e. On the other hand, foranybody after January 15th in the rural area that comes in with asubdivision, he's going to be required I and 10 and the City srent really outof itrs r.ray to allo!, people to come in in plenty of time with the oldOrdinance. Therefore, it's my opinion and I think $re ought to take everyadvantage to get this subdivision structured so itts agreeable to the City. To use this phasing method to make this thing come out right because wetregoing to be living with this subdivision and in the process it looks Iike itmay go on, if the developer wishesl for a number of years. With that IrtIget into the issues of the proposed subdivision itself. Number one, if wealIov, Don Ha1la to grandfather the 2 l/2 acre lots in there, I guess I canagree erith that but I am definitely opposed to aLlowing him to put anyprivate driveways directly on CR 14 or TH 101. Under our new Ordinance, increating that Ordinance, $re used all kinds of effort to try and preventdirect driveways or having private driveways onto the arterials. Before Iwould vote for this thing, I rdould like to see a street Iayout here whereall the lots were served by interior streets for the subdivision. Ipersonally don't think that's too much to ask because every subdivision thatwe've approved in the rural area that I can recall recently, they have hadthat. Are there any lots in the Gagne property that had direct access to THI0l or CR 14? (r""r,: rhe first plat that came through. appr oved ? Olsen: Is rdasnrt. Erhart: So there were no lots in the Gagne property with direct access onTH 101 and CR 14 and that's just north of this piece. Dave HaLla: There is one on CR 14. erith the nee, plat did the Gagners get Olsen: No, I think that was changed. any credit for the park ded ica t i on along CR 14 Erhart: what was Erhart: Secondl y, fees resulting in and TH 101? the lrail system that they provided which was Olsen: No. Erhart: So again, thats's obviously an argument that you can make if you r"rant but I think werve seen other devei.opers come in and provide this 20foot easenent. Again, my opinion of. 2 l/2 acre lots, a 2g foot easementalong an arterial is not really takiog Land away from those rots. The otherthing r erourd like to see us do is relieve the r00 f oot. setback on one sideof the lot. Againl r personally think we voided it in the new ordinance and - PL ann i ng April 8,r -L Commission Meeting 1987 - Page 11 I've seen it houses. result in some really weird Iayouts of Ehe way people put they cone in for a building permit they rrould be under the l0- Ol sen: When and 10. - Erhart: That would allow them a Little bit more frexibility in raying outthe septic system sites. rn summary, r, personally think I woutd like to seea street system as recommended by the City Engineer. Regarding phase 2, - running through from CR 14 to TH 10I and then perhaps with an interior cul-de-sac. That that street would serve all the lots in this subdivision onPhase 2 including Lots 14, 15 and L6 and that be an improved street. As faras Block 1, I donrt have any problem with thal other than again, I do not- bel i eve ere should al low a private access on Lot 3 as a temporary acc es s. l.Ii th that, thatrs enough. - Enmings: What are the problems with private drives Jo Ann? variances because they do not haveOlsen: Number one, you're granting street frontage. Emmings: Not even with regard to the Ordinance _ experience. What kind of problerns have you seen / lsen: werve seen that after several years that:orne to the City and they vrant the Citi to start but just through practical with private drives? the proper ty maintaining owner sir.usually Emmings: Some do and some donrt. Olsen: And then they wi11a1so come and ask for their street to be improvedto a public right-of-way. Then we have these little streets that are justout in the middLe of oowhere and are not planned for future connections.It's not good planning. Emmings: There have been a lot of maintenance problems with those roads.In fact, that's been typical of those roads hasn't it?. It appears to me _with 17, is wrong but maybe it's irrelevant but with 18, 19 and 26 for sure,Iooking at vrhere the house pad is Iocated on the plat, it would appear to metha! that was intended also to have it's access on the proposed future roadas it appears on this plat. I also note on the Staff proposal there is a -question about the sewer and water since they are going to have individualtreatnent systems. It said the consultant recommended two soil treatmentareas of 6g feeu by 80 feet and the Staff is recommending that a new plat be - submitted designating two 5g by 80 foot treatment sites. There are two treaEment sites on each lot? Ho$, big are they? Olsen: They came out to about 3,000 square feet. We just need the Iargerones- Thatrs what the consulEant suggested that they show the typical sizetreatment areas just Eo make sure that lhere is adequate room. +-_,mmings: These are smaller? PlanningApriI 8, Commission Meeting 1987 - Page 12rLOlsen: These are very smalL. Itts just a minor detail. Emmings: It may be minor but I Ehink it oughE to be done. I agree it'sprobably a smalr thing to do and r think they vrourd have an opportunity todo that erhen they redo it for the roads. r also don't like thl road sy-ste.at all. r think it all ought to be served internally and r wourd agre6 withthe comments that have already been stated. The other thing, r remember when_ we did the Gagne property to the north, there was a grLat todo aboutmatching up the entrances across cR 14. rn fact, we wounb up going over awetland, alrowing Gagne to arter a lretland because it was so- iiporlant tohave those entrances across from one another. rf you rook down TH 101,theyrve got their's coming in alr over the prace arid r think maybe when theyredraw the roads. . . Olsen: We did go through MnDotthey to be rather than directly thatrs trhere MnDot preferredwith that and across. Don Halla: Line of sight is the rightL6t.way for preventing accidents on TH serves Lots 12, l3 and l7 olsen: Actually, they said the idear, rrhen r just talked with Evan Green,where Highway is and then there is a 933r they said ideally that rrould be;because thatrs right at the crest of the hirr, that would be the idearconnection from Block 2. But the existing connection is okay. They did not,r rnE them to line up with each other. Emmings: That cul-de-sac thatts dor"rn there thatand so forth, if TH l0l were realigned. Olsen: It would have to be extended. Emmings: But is there a big ravine tbere? Can you do that? Olsen: You can do it but it's difficutt. Dave Halla: That road aintlifetime in this room. never going to be realigned in anybodyrs Emmings: I think what we,re doing. yourre trying tolifetimes so I think we have to look at those isiues Emmings: I don't have any other comments. - siegel: I agree wi th much of what has already been said.'as do we have any idea about going that far south: Does Dave Halla! rf you know the history of that road, it was ox trailoriginally and the county gave it to the state and the sEate gave it backthe county and the state's got it back now and nobody does anfthing aboutit. chances of ramming that dovrn their throat and miking the; striightenout, that aint going Eo happen. plat it for beyond our anyeray. to ir My on 1y questionthe MnDot say - Planning ApriL S, Commission Meeting 1987 - Page 13 -ranything about realigning? _ Olsen: They said if you can plan for it, yes, they will do it.thaE MnDot really isntt putting much money into TH l0l at all. siegel: But can we legally put a condition like we've got on that for that- lot to be unbuildable? Olsen: Yes. Siegel: Because that is terrible and with private roads coming in alongthat section, I can imagine that would be a real death trap for egress and _ ingress. It is right now if there were that many property oerners living on1t. Siegel: Aren't we going to be moving further north on realignment of TH 10I-and have a decision made on whether TH I01 is turned over to Hennepin i. 'eunty, Carver County or the cities involved and wouldntt that effect... - Conrad: Nobody wants that road. Siegel: we are getting to the point where development north towards TH 5 is _ going to be decided. It was decided for the length of TH 101 instead ofjust a portion thereof. We're not tatking about 50 years in the future. Wefre talking about the next couple years. And the intersection of TH 2L2is going to affect the need for straightening out and the realignment of TH - 101 so werre not tal-king about 50 years from now as Mr. Halla referred to.It could be that we will be realigning or someone wilI be realigning TH 101within the next few years. Itts not that we're going to upgrade it into a - four lane highway but it m ight be stra i ghten out to remove some of the oxcart r.rheel tracks. Noziska: At the risk of reiterating a lot of what's been said already, I-agree with the Staff as far as the private drive versus the public streetquestion. Without a doubt I think the lots needs to be realigned. I just think we got stuck vrith a horse. Therers a lot more that needs to be done - with this plan before it's going to go and I think that probably part of itis administration on Staffrs part. I think t.he park dedication fee questionis moot. I think the precedence is already set there. Of course, when this _ comes seriously before the group I think it's quite realistic to expect aphasing plan. Those are my comments. aII shouLdnrtto all of us. The fact is pay an equal amount Why do we Look at qeadla: I guess I donrt understand why we -,\- or park fees. Itrs going to be a bene f it Conrad: You can put that restriction on but I guess you go back to say, - Eechnically you've got to tetl the property owner that you canrt take hisproperty away unless yourre really convinced that somebody's going to dosomethi ng with this at some time so that rrould be your decision. If you - think they i^rill fill it up and straighten out the road, if you think thatmight happen. Planning Commission Meet i ngApril 8, 1987 - Page 14 ?tindividual particular parties? If the property comes in front of my place,I'm supposed to give 30 feet and the person behind me doesnrt. I don.tagree with that. I also don't agree with TH 10I being straighten out in thenear future. I think that's tremendous to leave that curve in there. Itstops speeders. I wish I had a curve like that in front of my house. Ido agree with Tim to the extent, I think there should be an i nternal r oadsystem. That it goes out on CR 14 or not, I dontt care but I think all thelots should be serviced internally. Jo Ann, did you have any comments onanybodyrs statements during the public hearing? Olsen: Just about the private drives and where theySubdivision Ordinance. felt it was meeting the Headla: Can together? you explain r,rhy the Staff feels the cul-de-sacs should be tied Olsen: It j ust always provides a secondary access. A through street. the houses are located now on the print, are they tied to Ol sen: No . Headla: How about for the drainage fields?{ bt r.n, No. HeadLa : A1l we're saying OIsen: Right. Headla: Do you kno$, r"rhysoil treatment sites? OIsen: No. is this is a possibility? they used 3,Agg feet rather than 4,800 feet in the Headla: Where that location? Don HaIIa: That hras 4,89A. AIl you have Noziskas Thatrs a moot point. the original number we were given. V{e can go to theto do is draw a bigger square. conrad: r don't rearly have anything to add. r think as you can hear thePlanning commission is more in favor of the staff's positi;n. rn fact,probaby to a person and as r look at it, it's not a iear good roadway pran. ::9*. u pure ivory tower road system. It,s certainly not fhe Uest and tthink r lvourd probabry recommend tnat you take anot-her rook at it. rn termsof what the Harlats vJould like to do, we have a couple options here. we canturn it down and that wourd get you to city councir or wL could table it andthat would send you back in drawing and you could back to us maybe with,.'nother design. r'm just curious r"rha t your preference wourd be and that-Lresnrt mean $rerre going to follow up on that but it may tell us. rf you Planning Commission !,teet i ngApril 8, LgB]. - page t5 r'would like to present it to the City Council this way and somebodythe.moti.on may take that into consideration. any pr6ference on howtonight assuming that werre negative at this tim-ef who hre makes m ove Bob Brunner: r guess r would like to see some di rection f rom you as to r.rhat _ you might be willing to approve. conrad: r think what peopre have said tonight, there are some specificissues that they have tarked about but r guess we said r., e reaLLy donrt want - access off of our main roads. TH l0r and cR 14, whatever. rndividual rotaccess. werre tarking about interior roads. Thatrs what we've done inother large subdivisions like this. werre looking for interior roads and Ithink to a planning commissioner, we feel that th;t's just good pranning and- again, we're looking at it from a very theoretical, iv6ry tower aspect. rthink thatls one thing and r see here in Btock 2 real eaiy ways of makingthose connections. They are obviously a lot more costry theJ what you'v6 - presented but from the standpoint of us concerned with good interioi roads.Enough access for houses. Enough emergency vehicle ."c6"s. Even looking atfuture subdivision which is going to be potential, this particular ptan isnot conducive to anything in my mind and r think r.rhat we-rre primariiy saying- is you get some intLrior- roadw-orks and werre also or at reast I,m sayingthat the intent of the private drive is a different intent than what r'mseeing you use it for here. I look at the intent of Ordinances more than I- look at the letter of the ordinance. This is abusing that. r think you canf 'nd ways to get three lot service from a private drive but I don't see thattne intent that that ordinance had out there is being well served by this - particular design. _ _we are not designers of roads and t think the city cancertainly come and herp you on that but what rve heard from the pran;ingcommissioners was pretty consistent in terms of road access. we wourd rikeEo put them interior. we wourd like to get those properties served and r- see a rot of other probrems with the property to the louth but r'm not evenconcerned with that right nour. rrm really focusing on yours but as prannerswe actually should be concerned with how those loti are- served. And unfort- - unately you donrt have agreements between property owners and we can,t forceyou to do that but given that fact, I guess I have to make you a selfconLained, well designed unit and r don't see that yet. My preference $rourd - be serf contained and expandable to the south but that,s n;t there rightnow. I guess I would like to see a better design. Bob Brunner: If it goes to City Council and they deny it, trhat's the- possibility of you seeing it again? Conrad: Whatrs the timing on that Jo Ann? Olsen: July lst is the deadline. conrad: But if they turn it down, how quickly can a deveroper come back-with a new plan? Aie there any restriclionsZ- r^lsen: Thalrs a good question. r wourd have t.o confer with the Attorney.{-- Planning April 8, Commission Meeting 1987 - Page L6rConrad: I don't think there are any restrictions. I think all you have todo is come back. My feeling and I guess I can't speak for the Councilis Lhat they wouldn't want to see this to be very honest and I've been around for a couple years but it's your right. If we make that decision, itwould be your right to take it there. You may hear their opinions but Ithink they r"rould send you back but you canrt count on ny one person opinionon tha t. Dave Halla: I srould l-ike to ask one question. As I understand it from irhat Tim is saying there and the comments that are said o! not said, everybody is. more or less in agreement with Phase I on the $rest side of TH 101. Youdonrt have a problem with that. It's the property on the east side of TH 101 that yourre not real happy lrith. Conrad: Pretty much so. Thatrs where most of our attention is. I thinkthere were some comments hovrever about interior access for Lots 14, 15 and 16 on Block 1. Emmingss Thatts Block 2 isn't it? Dave Halla: The natural terrain of the Iand in there does not lend itselfto access to that cul-de-sac on the south end because of the rise in theland so the road already existing, Creekwood, is the natural access forthose three lots.{L Conrad: Tim did you make sorne comments on that? Erhart: The only comment. I made on the side 1 was this request for atemporary access to Lot 3 directly from TH 10I. Don Hall,a: Thatrs an existing access that is there right now. Erhart: There isn't a building there is there? Dave Ha11a: It serves the nursery property. Itrs a legal access. Olsen: You could make a condition that that erould have to be closed. Conrad: Tim it was you who said it hras Lot 14 and 15 that you eranted itserved from a cul-de-sac. Erhart: It r^ras Lots 14, 15 and 16 on Block 2. Don Halla: Just to get everything out. I feel I'm being forced into asubdivision. You folks, t.he City Council and so on, came t.o certain agreemenEs that they are going to change lot size and basically take aeray agood portion of the value of my property. I would like to stay in thenursery business. I really am being forced out of the nursery business andto go into a subdivision or at least preserve my value of my property by 4 doing a subdivision. Otherwise, I'm losing 3,/4th,s of it. That.s realfyL why werre here tonight is for me to preserve the value of my property thit - Planning Commission MeetingApril 8, 1987 - Page 17 7-thas been up there. It really is going to hamper by taking 10 acre lotsinsEead of 2 l/2. Thatrs really Iike taking 3,/4th's of the value. I have -no choice but to do this. r stilL wanE to be in the nursery business. 15years from noe, I rrould like to be in the nursery business. I think itrseasy. neighbors. rt doesn't create probrems but r have to at reast preserve my right for future development so as to not lose the value of my Iind.- Thatrs really erhat rderre trying to do. rtm going to do the minimum that rrnforced to do so r can still stay in the nursery business. Thatrs rearly myattitude to$rards these streets and so forth. I r.rould be happy if they ient - in 25 years from now. According to what yourre saying, you folks is whatyou $rant to do for the City. you would be happy if they went in 25 yearsfrom now. You donrt vrant development. r don't want development exattryeither but r want to preserve my land varue. Thatrs really where rrn coming- from in this situation. Conrad: But we have to assume you are going to develop. Don Halla: I understand that and I appreciate that. As far as the phaseddevelopment I trould like it longer than shorter just to handle that question -as far as that goes. As far as working something out with a street on thesouth and so on, there can be some discussion with Jo Ann. We discussedthat question. will they give us an extension whire we go through the courtsystem? According to Ehe documents and according to the lawyers we have-discussed this with, if we take Ehe time to go through the Court system, { rat witl be handled but that is what it's gii.ng to iake. We,re t-rying Eoiheet the deadlines that are imposed too. Dave Halla: r would like to add one last comment here. r have a littre bitof an interest. Not as much. r settled out my interest in the corporation _so I basicalry retired but this bottom piece down there that kind of jutsout on the end where I have my house in, I've got that divided into lots.Lol. 7, I already own. Number 5 and 8 wiII be proposed lots. I,ve got aninterest about maintaining the varue of my property dor^rn on that end because -of Ehe situation that's going in now. If it's going to be one lot in 10acres then I just have one lot in that whole area. Right now I coutd havetwo more lots in that same 10 acre piece. Conrad: Okay, Planning Commission I think werve said our thing. I don't know if werve helped them redesign this at all but I would certainly accepta motion. I didn't hear any direction from anybody saying whether r.re should-table it or return it. Bob Brunner: I wou ld - that you table it and like come to give you back with a my preference on redesign. behalf of Don Halla, Conrad: I think thatrs probably a Noziska: Erom a planning sense to them. wr se decision. standpoint that makes more sense and if it makes Planning Commission MeetingApril 81 1987 - Page 18ra.Noziska moved, Headla seconded to table the application reguest for apreliminary plat to subdivide 105 acres into 37 singre tamily rots until theapplicant provides an amended prat which eriminates the privlte drives andand provide internal public streets taking into consideration the generaltliscussion of the Pla.nning commission. All voted in favor of tabring theitem and motion carried. Noziska: ol sen : Noziska: dr i ves? Olsen: How long ago did this thing come in? It came in in early December, Iate November. Has the applicant been aware that we were ruling against private They were trying to force the easement issue and as they stated,Ehey $rent to Court and their solution to that was a private drive. We Ietthem know right from the start. Don Halla: Can I ask one question of the private drive? There was anagreement with both the city, the Highway Department and the county as faras the private drives and the entrances, that they be on certain rots andthere vras no question or problem there untir $/e came up with these otherprivate drives. (lsen: It was accep tablethe Planning Comm i ss ion,drives. $rith MnDot and Carver County. Ifit sounds like they want everything I can off speak forof i n terna 1 Conrad: That's Jo Ann speaking for the planning Commission. Emmings: She certainly is speaking for me. Conrad: I think she's speaking for all of us. Noziska: Itrs guite feasible t.o eliminate the Dave Halla: You only have consideration of twopoint it out to you. Right down here with Lotthat had egress and ingress onto TH 101. Enmings: What about Lot 14? private dr i ves. entrances on TH l0I. I'lL15 and 16, are the only lots Dave Halra: Lot 14 had access off of cR l4 on a very extreme corner betweenLot 13 and 14 line and the reason that is is because this is a high hill ulon here and it would be hard because of the terrain to get it any-other ' prace so they agreed, MnDot and carver county, that thaa wourd be the bestprace to put it was over on that Location there and it eras far enough awayfrom the corner rrith the line of sight not to impose a traffic hazaid. tfrat (-a-s -tlre onLy other one on cR 14 was that one on the corner and then Lot 15LrO 16 r.rourd share a common entrance. r was out there personatly with MnDot Site PI an Efiifa-inq-by 53,8f0 zoned I OP,property _ Street, Redmond Products, Inc. Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report. Review for expansion of an office,manuf actur i ng/warehousesquare feet for a total rnaustr-f af OJf-ice -pa;F of 10 8 ,915 squa i e feet on and located at 18930 West 78th - Paul Strother: I'm with C1uts, OrBrien, 'f :at t've reviewed the Staff Report and\f tne cond itions . Strothers Architects andI donrt have any problems I can saywith any Bob Cordell: Irm with Redmond products and it looks good to us. Conrad: Just to clarify, Jo Ann, yourve read Art Kerber,s note but- comfortable with the pr6vious recorimenda t i on ? Olsen: Yes. It has enough water to supply the need for it now. Conrad: Who made the previous review? - OIsen: Jim Castleberry. Headla: I see you supply hair products. Are you going to do any _ repackaging? Transfer chemicals from one container to another? Bob Cordell: we do manufacture hair care products. - Headla: What kind of chemicaLs are involved? Bob CordelI: Water with fragrances. Headla: Do you have any leftover and disposal problem? aob Cordell: Very small amounts. we wash out. tubs or packings. feel - Planning Commission Meeti ngapril 8, 1987 - page 19 and if you peopre ever have an opportunity to go with them, they rearlyeducate you. They get out there with their gauges and sight .nd ha.r" theirline of views so many feet at so mant mires per-hour so tiat you got crear- view. Thatrs where we put it because of whai they suggested. Don Halra: They fert it was designed probably cutting down 4 or 5lots to- try and limit to those t!ro. Dave Halla: rf you go up and rook in that area, the speed linit is greatl,y - reduced because yourre coming around that curve. rt,s a 15 mph speed' linitin that area and because of that speed rimit imposed on there, we- thought itr.rould cause no additional traffic problem in allowing that. - Conrad: Okay, werl1 see you back here. CITY OF EHINHISSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 II{EMORANDUM TO: Planning Commiss ion FROI!: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer DATE: May 12, 19 88 SUBJ: Preliminary PIat for Buresh Planning File No. 86-32 SUB, trU Subdivision Robert Buresh This site is located I mile east of State Aid Highway 101 approximately i mile south of County Road 14. The 5.6 acre siteis composed of a rolling topography with a ravine located on thesoutheasterly property boundary. A 14 to I6-foot wide gravel field road serves as access to the siLe along the north side ofthe northerly property boundary. Vegetati,on ranges from young Sumac trees to a variety of mature trees scattered throughout thesite. Sanitary Sewer This site is located outside the lletropolitan Urban Service Area(UUSA). Therefore, on-siLe waste treatment sites will be requi red. A11 proposed prior to the septic system s ites commencement of any Water Servi ce should be staked grading. and roped-off available to the site. Therefore,to develop on-site sources for Roadway As mentioned previously, a L4 to 16-foot wide gravel roadway which exists outside the described property along the northerlyproperty boundary, serves as the only access to the proposedsite. At the time of this report it lvas not clear as to whetherthe applicant has easement rights to this access. Documentationregarding the easement rights for the applicant should be pro- vicled prior to final plat approval. Ha Municipal water service is notthe applicant will be required water. Planning Commi ssion May 12, 1988 Page 2 Article 3, Section 18-57(n) of the Chanhassen City Code statesthat 'rPrivate drives which provide access to not more than four(4) lots may be allowed." At present, there are four "buildable',lots, if developed, that would depend on this access. The proposed access could be constructed to the City's standardfor rural private drives (refer to Attachment No. 1), however,there are several other benefitting property owners. Staff hasreviewed the existing 16-foot driveway and finds this accepLable.Itlaintainence of the private drive is so1ely the responsibility ofthe owner. A l0-foot roadway easement shall be provided alongthe north and south property boundaries to facilitate future developmen t . Grading and Dra inage Type I erosion control should be installed around the south andeast sides of the lot. Recommend.ed Condi t ions 1 2 The applicant sha1l proviile the City easement documents for the access to final plat approval. with the appropr iate the site prior to the Type I erosion control shall east sides of Lot 2, Block 1 grading. be installedprior to the along the south and cornmencement of any 3 4. Wood-fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used Lo stabilize all disturbed slopes greater than 3:1. The developer shall be responsible for daily on and off-site cleanup caused by construction or construction traffic fromthis site. 1. Standard for Rural Driveway The plan proposes that grading be limited to the house pad only. hle find that this is acceptable. Erosion Control Attachment s a'un. @MPACTED SUB - BASE e. 24 4 (t/2" NOTES: R/W REOUIRED MIN. ST. GRADE MPD(. ST. GRADE 2' g{otLDER (TYPICAL) CI{ANHASSEN ENO: DEPT. ENGR.: G.WARREN DRAWN BY: T. DEAN DATE: 2-20-87 SCALE: NONE =N F t .\ar 4 28 B" cLAss 5 cRAvEL - MoDtFtED floo% cRrJsl€D) FOR RL'RAL PRIVATE D RIVES 60' o.5 .a 7,o.4 ! I REVISIONS: ,, TYPICAL SECTION lltlttlttltttt CITY OF EHINHISSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1 900 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE : SUBJ : Jo Ann 01sen, Ass istant Steve Kirchman, Bui lding City Planner .rLcX Z"Inspector May 11, 1988 Planning Case 86-32 Subdivision, Buresh It should be emphasized to the developer that this departmentwill not issue building permits or septic permits unless two (2) undisturbed septic treatsment sites are available. Sites should be marked rvith steel stakes aL approximately 15r on center. Theyshould be roped off wit.h 3/15 syntheLic rope. Orange or redflags should be placed at approximately 8' on center. AlI contractsors should be mada aware of the importance of preservingthe sites. A lot rrithout tv/o (2) availabl-e sites may be unusableforTtoSyears. *l MEI,IORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE : SUBJ : Jo Ann O1sen, Steve i,ladden, May 5, 1988 Buresh, 86-32 Fire Inspector 6e0 couLrER DRrvE . p.o. r?J;ilr; ,:#INHASSEN, MTNNESoTA ss317 Assistant City Planner CITY OF EHINHISSEN )fr*- Subdivi s ion Upon review of the plans for Buresh, I request a temporary turn- around be installed. This would insure fire access (UniformFire Code, Division 11, Section 10.2071a1). If you have any guestions, please contact me. F,c {\ IIf.ND DEVEI.OPXENT APPLICATION CITY OP CEANEASSEN690 Coulter DriveChanhassen, MN 55317(612) 937_1900 OI^INER : APPLICA,NT: ADDRESS ?ELEPHONE (Daytime ) !r!R,i- ra S a 55tt3 i Zi p Code ADDRESS /e?3'g <. code cr1i { lELEPHONE tay-3at I Zoning District Change Zoning Appeal Zoning variance Zoning Text Amendment Land. Use plan amendment Conditional Use permit Site Plan Review PROJECT NA.I.IE PRESENT I-AND USE PTAN DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND OSE PLAN DESIGi,IATION t,D F C =\TM lrvrlJ.-t(l REQUESTED ZOr\rNG USES PROPOSED STZE OF PROPERTY LOCATION REASONS FOR THIS REQ IJEST Planned Unit Development _ Sketch plan _ preliminarT plan _ FinaL plan subdivision X e1"tti'g _ Metes and Street,/ Easement Wet.Lands pernit Bounds Vaca t i on nl LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) { CITY OF EHf,i\IHf,5SEI'I P.C. DATE: May 18, 1988 C.C. DATE: June 13, 1988 CASE NO: 88-4 Sign Prepared by: O1sen,/v STAFF REPORT Fz () =LL ko IJFa Proposed Sign Variance to Permit an 80 Sguare FootPylon Sign in the A-2 District PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: 615 Flying Cloud Drive SuperAmerica Station Roman MueIler 1240 West 98th Street Bloomington, MN 5543I PRESENT ZONING: ACREAGE: DENSI?Y: ADJACENT ZONfNG AND I.TAND USE: A-2, Agricultural Estates N- s- E- w- BF; A-2 t cold storage facility (under const.) flood plain and open space vacant anil motel vacant drive-in A-2; A-2 i WATER AND SEWER:Not avai lable . 2OOO LAND USE PLAN: PEYSICAL CHARAC. :The site is level on the north side. Parks and Open Space TF A I L C3 I IflII LAKE tcER N E J -.G- POfl O I A2 e vo A2 CITY OF SH AKOPEE Section 20-L260 Non-conforming uses under the Sign Ordinancestates that when the principle use of land is legally non-conforming under this chapter, all existing or proposed signs inconjunction with that 1and, shall be consideiEd-i6nT6lfring ifthey are in compliance with the sign provisions for the mostrestrictive zoning district in which the principal use is allowed ( Attachment #1). SuperAmerica Sign Variance May 18, 1988 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS ANALYS I S The applicant has an existing sign which isarea and 24 feet in height (Attachment #4).proposing to replace the existing sign withsign to conform to the new standard company The proposed sign is 80 square feet in signheight. Section 20-7L2 of the BH, Highway and. Business Service Districtand BG, General Business District permits convenience stores withgas pumps as a permitted use (Attachment #2). Section 20-1303, BH, Highway and Business District and BG,ceneral Business District signs permits one pylon business signnot exceeding 64 square feet in sign display area sha1l be per-mitted per lot. A pylon business sign greater than 64 squarefeet but equal to or less than 80 sguare feet may be permittedafter securing a conditional use permit. Such signs shall beIocated at least 10 ieet from the property line and shall notexceed 20 feet in height (Attachment #3). 78 square feet. in The applicant isa new SuperAmericaidenti-fication plan. area and 26 feet in The use of the subject site, convenience store rrith gas pumps, isa 1egal non-conforming use in the A-2 District. Any existing orproposed signs must be in compliance with the sign provisions forthe most restrictive zoning district in which lhe principal useis permitted. The most restrictive zoning district which allowsconvenience stores with gas pumps as a permitted use is the BIl,Highway and Business District. The Sign Orilinance permits a 64square foot pylon sign in the BH District. An 80 square footpylon sign is allowed as a conditional use. Staff interpreted the ordinance to require a 54 square foot sign.The applicant is therefore requesting a variance to the signordinance to permit an 80 square foot pylon sign (Attachment l+5). Applications such as these gives the city the opportunity to makenon-conforming uses come int.o compliance with City Code. SinceSuperAmerica applied for a new sign permit it allor.rs the city torequire installation of the sign in conformance with t.he SignOrdinance. Staff is recommending that a 64 square foot sign bepermitted with a maximum of 20 feet in height. SuperAmerica Sign Variance May 18, 1988 Page 3 RECOMMENDAT ION Planning staff recomrnends the Planning Commission adopt thefollowing motion: "The Planning Commission recommends denial of Sign Variance Request #88-4 ror an 30 square foot and 26 foot high pylon signfor the SuperAmerica Station. The Planning Commission recommendsthat the pylon sign be 54 square feet in size with a maximum of20 feet in height. " ATTACHIiIENTS Section 20-L2L6 of City Code.Section 20-7L2 of City Code. Section 20-1303 of City Code. Approval of existing sign. Proposed s ign. Appl i ca t ion . 1 2 3 4 5 6 $ 20-1258 CHANHASSEN CMY CODE removal of any sign that is not maintained in accordance with the maintenance provisions of this article. (Ord. No. 80, Art. D(, $ 11, 12-15-86) Sec. 2G1259. kohibited signs. The following sigrs are prohibited: (1) Advertising signs. (2) Advertising or business signs on or attached to equipment such as semltruck trailers where signing is a principal use of the equipment on either a temporary or perma- nent basis. (3) Motion signs and flashing signs, except time and temperature signs and barber poles. (4) Projecting signs. (5) Roof signs, except that a business sign may be placed. on the roof, facia or marquee of a building provided it does not extend above the highest elevation of the building, excluding chimleys, and provided: a. Roof signs shall be thoroughly secured and anchored to the frames of the build- ing over which they are constructed and erected- b. No portion of roof signs shall extend beyond the periphery ofthe roof. (6) Business signs which advertise an activity, business, product or service no longer produced or conducted on the premises upon which the sign is located. where the owner or lessor of the premises is seeking a new tenant, such signs may remain in place for not more than thirty (30) days from the date of vacancy. (7) Wall graphics. (8) Portable sigas except as permitted in section 20-12?2- (9) Signs which are tacked on trees, fences or utility poles. (10) Home occupation signs, except for one (1) identifrcation sign. The sign may not exceed two (2) square feet in area. (Ord. No. 80, Art. IX, I 3(9-3-2), 12-15-86) Sec. 2G1260. Nonconforming uses. when the principal use of rand is regaly nonconforming under this chapter, all existing or proposed signs in conjunction with that land, shall be considered conforming if they are in ('ompliance with the sign provisions for the most restrictive zoning district in which the principal use is allowed. tOrd. No. 80, Art. IX, $ 4, 12-15-86) o o -R( L2U s/ o o o ZONING $ 20-7 52 Sec. 2G735. Irt requirements and setbacks. The follorving minimum requirements shall be observed in a "cBD', District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and mofifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum lot area is ten thousand (10,000) square feet. (2) The minimum lot frontage is one hundred (100) feet, except lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall have a minimum frontage of sixty (60) feet in all districts. (3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred (100) feet. (4) there is no maximum lot coverage. (5) There are no minimum setback requirements for front, rear or side yard- (6) There are no maximum height requirements for principal or accessory structures. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 12(5-12-5), 12-15-86) Secs. 20-736-20-750, Reserved. ARTICLE XIX.'BG" GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT Sec. 2G751. Intent. The intent of the "BG" District is to provide for downtorvn fringe commercial develop- ment identified as the least restricted business district. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, S 13(5-13-1), 12-15-86) G Sec. 2G752. Permitted uses. The follorving uses ar.e permitted in a ,.BG" District: (1) Bowling center. (2) Day care center. L $\ Convenience stores rvith or without gas pumps. (4) Standardrestaurants. (5) Entertainment. (6) Apparel sales. (?) Personal services. (8) Health and recreation clubs. (9) specialty retail ( including but not limited to jewelry, book, stationery, bible, camera, pets, arts and crafts, sporting goods). (10) Small appliance and similar repair shops. t22L d-.ot Q 20-7s2 (11) Funeral homes- (12) Financial institutions, including drive-in service. (13) Newspaper and small printing oflices. (14) Private clubs and lodges. (15) Miniature golf. (16) Veterinary clinic. (17) Animal hospital. (18) Offices. (19) Health care facilities. (20) Motels. (21) Supermarkets. (22) I{ome improvement trades building supply centers. (23) Garden centers. (24) Utility services. (25) Bars and taverns. (26) Fast food restaurants. (27) Automotive service stations. (28) Community center. (29) Senior citizen housing. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 13(5-13-2), 12-1b-86) Sec. 2G753. Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in a ,.8G" District: (1) Parking lots. (2) Signs. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 13(5-13-3), 12-15-86) *c, 2G754. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in a ',BG" District: (1) Outdoor display of merchandise for sale or rent. (2) Truck, automobile, farm implement, recreational vehicles and boat sales and service. (3) Equipment rental. (4) Screened outdoor storage. 1222 o o I CHANHASSEN CITY CODE o o ZONING s 20-7 t2 b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet.c. For side yards, fifteen 0b) feet. (7) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, one (l) story. For accessory structures, one (l) story.(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 1O(S.10_S), 12-lb_86) Secs. 2G696-20-210. Reserved. ARTICLE XVII. 'BH" HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS SERVICES DISTRICT Sec. 20.Zll. Iutent. The intent of the "BH" District is to provide for highway oriented commercial develop-ment restricted to a low building profile. (Ord. No. 80, Arr. V, $ 11(S_11.1), t2_1S_86) Sec. 20-?12. permitted uses. The follorving uses are permitted in a ,.8H,, District: (1) Financialinstitutions. (2) Fast food reshurant. (3) Automotive service stations. (4) Standardresraurants. (5) Motels and hotels. (6) OIfices. (7) Retail shops. (8) Miniature golf. (9) State-licensed day care center- (10) Car wash_ (- (fU Convenience store with or without gas pumps. (12) Psyse..1 service establishment- (13) Liquor stores. (14) Health senrices. (15) Utility services. (lb) Shopping center. r o t2t7 l- L I $ 20-Zt2 CHANHASSEN CITy (.()t)1,. (17) p6rr"r" clubs and lodges. (18) Community center. (19) Funeral homes. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ r1(5-11-2), 12-15-86) Sec. 2G?lS. permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in a ,,Bl 1,, I ) (l) Signs. "' 1 Lr:il I r'l (2) Parking lots. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ r1(5-11-B), 12-15_86) Sec. 2GZf4. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in a .,BH,, District: (l) Outdoor display of merchandise for sale. (2) Supermarkets. (3) Small vehicle sales. (4) Screened outdoor storage. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 11(S.11-4), 12-15-86) State law reference_Conditional uses, M.S. g 462.;ii,:r, Sec. 2&715, Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum n additionar require'md;;::'J:ffHr.l:1,[..:*:;:",,::,,:,;1,[District subject to (1) The minimum district area is ten (10) acres. ,l.his ,,,condirion use permit in the case or "*pun"ion of ,,;:,.|.,'::,,:::, ,,1,,, may be waived by a (2) rhe minimum lot area is twentv,h^,!--_r,"^ ^^ " rrrr r rrl"listrict. (B) rhe minimu ,,,o, r.,,,:".'J,"""jl jiffijrt::::') ).' r I I't'/'!'|,, r.',.,. cur.de.sac shau have a minimum f,""*.";;;;;,,,i,1,.:,:::;',,' rhar lots rronrins on a (4) The minimum lot depth is one hundred fifty os6) [.,.1,. "' "t ,,irty (60) feet. (5) The maximum lot coverage is sixty-five (68) perccnt.(6) Off-street parking areas shall comply with alt ,,,,.,rexcept that no rear vard pa'king seiback "hrr, ;.:;,.::,,:::l.l',,,',nunt of rhis section,railroad trackage; and, no side yard "h"il ;';;;;:ll".l.i, ,,," ,nr" directly abutring uses establish joinr off.streer parking facilities, all;.,;;,:,':" ,, .djoining commercialthat no parking areas shall r" p""-irr"J i. 1.", '.]llj::il,: ,x.ction 20,1122, except Minimum rear yard sha, be fifty (50, i""i *',"r"'0,L:il,ilffiT::.:,"t"rfl.i e f 1218 o $ 20-1301 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE ..._.--) collector street as designated as such in this chapter. Such sign shall be located so asnot to conllict with traffic visib,ity or street maintenance operations, and shall besecurely anchored to the ground. (Ord. No. 80, Arr. tX, $ S, 12-15_86) sec' 2G1302. Neighborhood business and insfitutional districts. The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any OI or B-1 District: (1) Ground low profile business signs. One (1) ground low prof e business or institu-tional sign not exceeding twenty-four (24) square feet of sign display area shall bepermitted per street frontage, with a maximum of two (2) such signs per lot. Suchsign shall be located at reast ten (10) feet from any propergr rine and shall not exceedfrve (5) feet in height. (2) Wall business siga' one (1) wa, business sign shall be permitted per street frontagefor each business occupant within a building- The total of all wall mounted signdisplay area shall not exceed ten G0) percent of the total area of each building w;upon which the sigrrs are mounted. but no individual business siga shall iceedtwenty-four (24) square feet in sign display area. A walr business sigrr shall not bemounted upon the wall ofany building which faces any adjoining residential districtwithout an intervening public street. (Ord. No. 80, Art. IX, $ Z, 12-15-86) Sec. 2G1303. Ilighway and general business districts. The following sigrs shall be allowed by permit in any BH, BG, or BF District:(l) Ground low pro{ile business signs- One (1) ground low profile business sigrr shall bepermitted per street frontage, with a maximum of two (2) such signs p"i lot. Sochsigns shall not exceed eig-hty (g0) square feet in sigrr display ar". .roi b" greute. thaoeight (8) feet in height. Such sigls shall be located at least ten tfOl ie"t *om.[property rine' In no case sha, any lot contain more than two (2) freestanding businesssigns, whether such signs are pylon or ground low profile signs- (2) folon business sign. One (1) pylon business sign, not exceeding slxty-four (64) squarefeet in sigrr display area, shall be permitted per lot. A pylon business sign greater :hr" "t-ty-f"". ,61L"quare feet, but equal to or less than eighty (80) square feet, maybe permitted after securing a conditional use permit. Such sigas shall be locatcd atleast ten (10) feet from any property line, and shall not exceed twenty (20) feet inheight. In no case shall any lot contain more than two (2) freestanding U*i"""""1g"",whether such signs are pylon or ground low profile signs. (3) wall business signs. one *) wall business sigrr sha, be permitted per street frontagefor each business occupant within a building. The total of all wall mounted signdisplay area shall not exceed lifteen (15) percent of the total area of the building wallupon which the sigrrs are mounted. No individual business sigrr shall exceed eighty(80) square feet in sign display area. A wall business sign may be mounted upon anywall of a principal building. a C N 1268 #j a o o ZONING (4) Development identification signs. one (1) development identification sign, not ex- ceeding sixty-four (64) square feet of sign display area, shall be permitted for each major entrance into any commercial development of three (3) or more buiidings. For the purposes ofthis paragraph, "major entrance" shall be defined as the intersection of any local or collector street serving the identified development with any arterial or collector street so designated as such in this chapter- such signs shall be located so as not to conjlict with tralfrc visibility or street maintenance operations, and shall be securely anchored to the ground. (Ord. No. 80, Art. IX, $ 7, 12-15-86) Sec. 2&1304. lrdustrial ofEce park signs. The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any IOp District: (1) Ground low profrle business signs. one (l) ground low profiIe business sigrr shall be permitted per street frontage, with a maximum of two (2) such signs per lot. Such sigrrs shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. Such signs shall be located at least ten (10) feet fiom any property line. (2) wall business signs. one (1) wall business sign shall be permitted per street frontage for each business occupant within a building. The total of all wall mounted sign display area shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the total area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted. No individual business sigrr shall exceed eighty (80) square feet in sign display area. A wall business sign may be mounted upon any wall of a principal building. (3) Development identification signs. One (1) development identifrcation sign, not ex- ceeding ninety t90) square feet ofsign display area, shall be permitted for each major entrance into any Industrial OIIice Park of three (3) or more principal buildings. For the purposes of this paragraph, "major entrance" shall be defrned as the intersection of local, collector or arterial street serying the identified development with any arterial or collector street so designated in this division. Such signs shall be located so as not to conllict with traffrc visibility or street maintenance operations, and shall be securely anchored to the ground. (Ord. No. 80, Art. IX, $ 8, L2-15-86) Sec. 2G1305. Central business district. The following signs shall be allowed by permit in the B-3 District: (1) Wall business sign- One (L) wall business sign shall be permitted per street frontage for each business occupant within a building. The total of all rvall mounted sign display area shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent ofthe total area ofthe building wall upon which the sigrrs are mounted. No individual business sigrr shall exceed sixty- four (64) square feet in sign display area. The design and location of all business signs in this district shall be in keeping with the purpose and intent of this article and theo 1269 s 20.1305 oft reques t rrtas on JuLy 10, 19 ,? Overall Desi n for Cit si s (Bob I'Iaibel ) :Use Coordto use fo r-nator, exp.La r-ne the style of s.Lr government- and park-related ar 1-23-81 Page 2 Sign Comrnittee lleeting Knudson Insurance A Siqn: Di scus s ion , Ordinance No. 35:timet abi-or th e compJ-etion of Ms. Rust noted this sign permit80, and r,ra s denied due to thefact that it rcas not in conformance with existing ordinancestandards-. The applicant had now returned with a neh/ proposalto meet the suggestions given by the Committee in ,futy. ftvras noted the sign could not exceed 15 percent of the totalarea.of the wa11 space. Discussion occurred. on the proposaland lts compliance vrith Committee suggestions. ltr- .lohnsonmoved to approve the style of the proposed sign provided thatwhen the sign was installed, it would be in comptiance withordinance square footage standards and. would nol be in excessof 15 percent of the total waII area and that the sign was tobe placed in the area on the wall betrveen the window-and themansard area. Mrs. Swenson second,ed. the motion. A11 voted aye.Motion passed. s e Mr. Bob Waibel, Landn the city was proposingas. Mrs. Swensoncondition it be scaledinance and that theMr. Johnson second,ed. moved to approve the proposed design on theto size Limitations rvithin the existing orddesign be consistent on a city-wide baiis.A11 voted aye. Motion passed. Suoerarne ric aSi (Suburban Li ht in ?he applicant was re-ting sign to its forrner ed for the proposed loca- quest rng perm] ssLon to re-ocate an exislocation. This sign was formerl y approvtion but r.ras requested by the St ate to remove the sign tempor-arily due to construction of Hi ghways 169 and. 2L2. Super-amer Ica has norv been informed that they may move the sign backto its or iginal location by th e State and they are requestingpermis s io n of the Sign Committ ee to do so. The sign constructionwas withi n ord.inance requ irernents ryith the excegtion of height.The propo sal is for a hei ght of 24 feet and the ordinance alIows\6 for 20 feet and the notat ional graphics plan allowed for 25 feet. I4rs. S\renson moved to approve the sign permit request because itwas_ a request to re-locate to a formerllr-approved site and it y?Y19. be a.hardship _to requesr the app:.icanl to reduce the sign'sneLght by 4 feeE.- There was no recoi& of a previous variance.She noted the sign did conform to the proporld sign ordinance.Mr. ,fohnson seconded the motion. e11 votla aye. Motion passed. ef The Committee discussed thethe proposed siqn ordinance. ournment: ee mee 1nq at Mr. Johnson moved. to adjourn the I-23-SL Sign Corunit-I0:30 a.rn. Motion was second.ed by Mrs. Swensons adjourned at 10:30 a.m.and meeting wa *+ ,.@ a/*Y .-I..r.. - SUPERAMERICA resulor 1.23' 1.3 A',unleoded : o - 1.. q. o -ts Co lor s ! Red, '^/t'';Te', t BIo<' #s SUPERAMERICA E.E - .-; -t b 8'ot' POLE SIGN FACE - DETAIL AREA - 90 Sq. FT. r{o sc^!E b -tt9 itotE: LOwEi PORT|ON O SIGN PANEL MAY VABY. tttl t] \ TRADEMARK POLE SIGN { i I lnstant Cash,,L - l rtlllllllll tl I nl I U 9 tr 9 ! nt aclInus I APPLICANT : ADDRESS IAND DEVBIOPTEIT APPLICATION CITY OP CEAIIEASSEf, 690 Coulter Drive Chaobassea, Mll 55317(612) 937-1900 Rdn.an Mrra'l l er OTiNER : ADDRESS24o llest 98th Street1 s rAm ly'es 5ta ons fnc, et 4 z 1p Code B1 ooninston. MN n Mzip codetime)f6i2 ) 88 7-6171 TELEPHONE ( 612 ) aB7-61oo 554?,1 TELEPHONE (Day REQTJEST: Zoning District Change Zoning Appeal slgn-- Variance zoning Text Anendment Iand Use Plan AEendEent Conditional Use permit Site plan Review ' Sketch plan _ Preliminary plan _ Final plan Subdivision _ Platting _ lbtes and Bounds Street,/Easenent Vacation Wetlands pernit PROJECT NAME PRESENT I.AND USE P REOUESTED LAND USE PRESENT ZONING LAN DESIGNATION PLAN DESIGNATION REQUESTED ZONIr-G USES PROPOSED SI ZE OF PROPE8,TY LOCATION REASONS EOR THIS REQUEST F n C1o Drive LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) fra Planned Unit Development fncorporate new Corporate Logo into existinslocation to .o fdentification Pl an. City of ChanhassenLand Development ApplicationPage 2 This application must be completed in fuLl and be typewritten orcrearly plinted and must u" i"co.p.ni.i-oy arr information andprans required bv ""pricalie-;;il"il;il"nce provisions. Beforefiling this applic.Lion, you shoirLd "oni., with the city plannerto determine the soeciric'orainin"J iii-p.o"A;.;i-.!i;ir!i3r,."applicable to your appfi.cationl-" FT L ING INSTR UCTIONS: FTI,ING CERT IF ICATION: The undersiigned reoresentative of the applicant hereby certifiesthar he is familiai wi*r irre'lr;;.;;;"i";.quirements of alrapplicable CiEy Ordinances. The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been:::::iiff: to make rhis appri-iir".-t"i'.lh;-;;;;;;;y..il,;i;.. Signed By Signed By> Date Application ipplication Fee City Receipt No. App tcan E wne rRetn,ouac e.pr,.tu4.f- Receieed Paid Dat e 4.zt .O Dat e 4t a Planning Conuni ss i on,/ t Thi.s Application will bBoard of Adjustments anmeecing. onsideredppeals at by thetheir ecdA CITY OF P.C. DATE: May 18, 1988 C.C. DATE: June 13, 1988 CASE NO: 87-36 SUB,/88-7 wAP Prepared by: Dacy: k STAFF REPORT Fz () =LL ko trJtU' Preliminary plat approval to create 5single family 1ots. Wetland Alteration Permit for development within 200 feet of a Class A wetland South of and adjacent to Lake Lucy Road approximately 500 feet west of Powers BIvd. PROPOSAL : LOCATION: APPLICANT: 1 2 Richalal Ersbo 1211 Lake Lucy Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 wiIIis GilIarti 515 Morgan Ave. North Mp1s., MN 55405 PRESENT ZONING: ACREAGE: DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AT{D LAND USE: WATER AND SEWER: PEYSICAL CEARAC. : RSF, Single Family Residential 5.03 acres N- s- E- w- RSF, Curry Parms Subdivision RR, Rural ResidentiaL RSF, Single Family RR, Rura1 Residential and lletland Municipal services are available to the site. Topography slopes tso the south existing resid.ence on the rear and east, of the parcel. 2000 LAND USE PLANs Lohr Density Residential EIIANH[5SEI[ IEFl fllrtotrci 0 ST I t uotl(t T.,) L_ w, dI LAKE LUCY RD f a L ( :J u I t RSF oo LAKE ANTI ,/, RD \.R12 € (at V6 { flU \n : ) I aT rx srREt r I I t ! i \.. ll li LA L 01 R R1 R12 :ll t' I -l 8_ rlr,BG I J l I Ersbo Subdivis ionlWAP May 18, 1988 Page 2 REFERRAL AGENCIES City EngineerFire DepartmentBuilding Department M nDNR BACKGROU ND Attachmen t At tachmen t No adverse Attachmen t #1 {t2 commen ts #3 The. subject property was consid.ered by rhe City Council for asimilar preliminary plat in 1978. The request at that time wasto create four lots in the front 300 feet of the property. Theplat at that time did not include the existing relid6nce. ttreCity Council, on January 22, 1928, approved tf,e preliminary platrequest; however, because of 1ack of watermain to the a.eal theapplicant did not pursue the subdivision. Because preliminaryplat approval has expired, the applicant has resubrnitted hisapplication. In this application, staff requested that heinclude a lot for the existing residence. ANALYSIS The proposed lots meet the 1ot area, 1otrequirements for the RSF District.width, and 1ot frontage In preparing the street layout, the proposed street pattern rdascreated so that minimizing conflict points on Lake Lucy Roadcould be minimized and the easements reserved for potentialexpansion to adjacent 1ots. Arlingt.on Court, a cu1-de-sacapproved in the Curry Farms Subdivision, is located approximatelyI50 teet east of the proposed street entrance. this otf-set isadequate and, in fact, it is a better street arrangement as itwill minimize conflict points and turning movements enEering bothcul-de-sacs. Because each cul-de-sac serves a smal1 number of1ots, there should not be a significant amount of trafficgenerat.ed at these intersections during peak hour periods. As is noted on the plat, a 50 foot right-of-way is provided toto the fifth parcel where the existing house is located. The 50foot right-of-way can also be extended if needed for the parcelto the south by a proposed 50 foot. easement. Creation of the 50foot right-of-way gives the existing home street frontage. Therefore, the proposed plan not only accommodates both existingstreet and house arrangements, it accommodates potential sub-division patterns for adjacent propert.ies. An application on theKerber property to the east was received last year but hraswithdrawn by the applicant. Because this area near the por.rers Boulevard intersection has several property or"rnerships it isnecessary to preserve future street easements to discourage directaccess of driveways to Lake Lucy Road. Ersbo Subd ivi s ion,/WAP May 18, 1988 Page 3 The two lots abutting take Lucy Road are double frontage lots.The Subdiqision Ortlinance requires reservation of a ten footscreening easement. A berming and landscaping plan should besubmitted to provide screening of these thro rear yards. This screen should not extend into the area where a smal1 stormeraterpond is required to be created (see Engineering report). RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt thefollowing moti on: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision Reguest #87-36 as shovrn on the plat stamped "Received ApriI19, ]988" subject to che following conditions: 1. A berming and landscaping plan shall be subnitted prior tofinal plat approval providing screening on the two doublefrontage lots adjacent to Lake Lucy Roaal . The applicant sha1l enter into a development contract withthe City and provide the City r{ith the necessary financialsureties to guarantee proper instalLation of these public improvements. The applicant shal1 pursue a utility easement across the par- ceL to the east of the proposecl plat such thau a manhole located 20 feet south of Lake Lucy Road may be eliminated. Drainage swales shall be provided beEween the proposed house pads and the upstream slopes to provide adequate drainage around and away from the house pads. 2 3 4 The applicant shalL maintain the 50-foot right-of-way driveway as shown in Attachment No. 3 until such time proposed north,/south road is extended to the south aspublic roadway. and as the a 7 8 6. The watermain shall be jacked under Lake Lucy Road. The applicant sha1l exert all due care lo minimize destruc- tion of Lake Lucy Road. A11 restoration on Lake Lucy Road sha1l be to the existing 9-ton road section specifications. Two 20-fooL utility easements shaIl be provided as describedpreviously in this report as part of the final plat review process. The applicant shall provide stormse$rer calculations which verify the preservation of the pre-developed runoff rate anda1I storm sewer system capacities as part of the plans and specif ications review process. 9 5 Ersbo Subdivi s i on,/Wap May 18, 1988 Page 4 10. The developer shal1 obtain andthe lIatershed District.compfy with a1I conditions of 11. Wood-fiber blankets or equivalentall disturbed slopes greater than 12. The developer sha1I be responsible forcleanup caused by construction of this shal1 be used to stabilize 3 :1. daily on and off-s itesite. The subject parcel is located adjacent to a Class A wetland.This wetland is a.l-so protected by DNR. The proposed developmentplan directs runoff from the street and rooftops to the norlhwestcorner of the site and then discharges into the adjacent vretland.The engineering office has recommended that a pond be created inthe northwest corner of Lot f to retain the runoff prior todischarging into the wetland. Although a small- amount of runoffis being generated by the proposed development, the proposed ponallocatsion will help in strippi,ng sediment from the runofi. JimLeach from the U. S. Fish and Wild1ife Service inspected the siteon May 13, 1988, and agreed that the pond should be created. Healso recommended that site screens and hay bales be installed atthe inl-et and outl-et to trap as much sediment as possible. Discharing of the runoff will occur across the adjacent property ownerr s land. A drainage easement should be obtained from theproperty owner prior to final plat approval to insure that theproposeC drainage plan can be accommodated. DNR has notified staff that a permiL will be required forconstruction of the proposeC discharEe into the wetland. WETLAND ALTERATION REVIEW ANALYS I S RECOMMENDAT I ON Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt thefollowing motion: "The Planninq Commission recommends approval of WetlandAlteration Permit Request No. 88-7 as presented on the plans stamped "Received April 19, 1988" subject to the following condi tions : I 2 Creation of a corner of Lot stormwater retention 1. pond on t.he northwest Acquisition of a owner. ilrainage easement from the adjacent property Ersbo Subdivision/WAP May 18, 1988 Page 5 3 Approval of a permit from the ltinnesota Department of Natural Resources. 4. Compliance with the conditions of subdivision approval No.I7-36 . ATTACHMENTS I"lemorandum from City Engineer dated May I2, 1988. Memorandum from Steve Madden dated May 5, 1988. Comments from DNR.Application.Detailed location map showing location of Arlington Courtand Devonshire Drive. Area map showing potential future street alignments.Planning Commission minutes dated September 27, I979.City Council minut.es alated January 22, I979.Preliminary Plat st.amped ',Received ApriI 19, 1988". 1 2 3 4 5 6 7I 9 EHINHISSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE . P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEI4ORANDUM TO: Planning Commi ssion FROU: L,arry Brown, Staff Engineer # This site is located on the south side of Lake Lucy Road approxi-mately 500 feet west of County State Aid Highway 17. The five-acre site is comprised of an open rolling field with an existing home located on the southerly portion of the site. DATE: May 12, 1988 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Ersbo Subdivision Planning Fil,e No. 87-36, Ersbo Sanitary S eerer The depth of the proposecl sanitary sewer in the proposed cu1-de-sac is approximateJ-y 6 feet tleep. Those portions of the sanitary sewer which have less than I feet of cover shal1 be properlyinsulated. A 20-foot utility easement should be provided aLong the easterlyproperty boundaries of the two easterly lots to facilitatepossible future developrnent. SimiIarIy, a 20-foot utility ease- rnent should be provided along the conmon lot line of the twosoutherly lots to facilitate future development to the north(refer to Attachment No. 2A, B, and C). Watermain l4unicipal water service is also available to the site by an18-inch watermain which exists along the north side of Lake LucyRoad. The plan does propose a 300-foot dead-end watermain. Although this is typically avoided wherever possible, location of #J- I CITY OF Municipal sanitary sewer is available to the site by an existing8-inch sanitary sewer line which has been installed from CSAir 17to 450 feet west on Lake Lucy Road. It is recornmended that theapplicant pursue a I0-foot utility easement across a portion ofthe property to Lhe east such that the manhole located 20 feetsouth of Lake Lucy Road may be eliminated (refer to AttachinentNo. I ) . Planning Commi ss ion May 12, 1988 Paqe 2 the existing hratermains do not lend themselves to looping of thewatermain until future development to the rrest occurs. the por-tion of the porposed 6-inch watermain underneath Lake Lucy Roadshoulil be jacked und.erneath the roadbed to minimize the destruc-tion of the n ewly-con s truct ed Lake Lucy Road. Roadway The plans propose a cu1-de-sac which has a proposed streeL gradeof 6.5 percent as compared to the City's recommend.ed maximum of7.0 percent. The proposed right-of-way is 50 feet in width whichis consistent with the City's standards for urban construction. The plat also proposes 50-foot right-of-ways to the north andeast of the entryway and bubble respectivety. this will facili-tate access to the east and north without incurring any adcii-tional connections onto Lake Lucy Road which is a collectorstreet. It is recommended that the 50-foot right-of-way locaLedon the westerly property boundary of the southsrest lot ( refer toAttachment No. 3) should be maintained by the applicant untilsuch time as development occurs south of the pIat. Grading and Drai nage The proposed grading plan ca1ls for cutting down of a portion ofthe hillside located to the southerly thro lots. Maximum cutareas are approximalely 8 feet to the south, while filI depthshave been kept to approximately 3 feet. It is recommended that drainage swales be constructed betr^reen allthe house pads and the upstream sides of the lots to help directdrainage around and away from the proposed house pads. Drainage from the development is directed to the west via theproposed storm sewer system and eventually in the existing r,{et land located to the west. The proposed plan maintains thenatural drainage path. The pLans do not address oo-site ponding and will need to be revised as per the Watershed Districtis recommend.at ions as well as the Department of Natural Resources(DNR). The proposed plan shows the storm serrer pipe extendedonto the neighboring property to the west. The plans should berevised, or the applicant shall provide the City with theappropriate easement documents prior to the final plat review. Erosion Control The plans docontrol plan of the plan s not address erosion control . Therefore, an shoul-d be submitted to the City for approvaland specificat ions review process. eros].0n as part I Planning Commi ss ion lrlay 12, 1988 Page 3 Recommended Conditions The applicant sha11 enter into a development contract withthe City and provide the City with the necessary financialsureties to guarantee proper installation of these public improvements. The applicant shall pursue a utility easement across the par-cel to the east of the proposed plat such that a manholelocated 20 feet south of Lake tucy Road may be eliminated. Drainage swales sha1l be provided bet\./een the proposed housepads and the upstream slopes to provide adeguate drainagearound and away from the house pads. 3 4 The applicant sha11 maintain the 50-foot right-of-waytlriveway as shoern in Attachment No. 3 until such timeproposed north,,/south road is extended to the south aspublic roadway. and as the a 5 6 The watermain shall be jacked under Lake Lucy Road. The applicant shal1 exert all due care to minimize destruc-tion of Lake Lucy Road. A11 restoration on Lake Lucy Road sha11 be to the existing 9-ton road section specifications. Two 20-foot utility easements sha11 be provided as describedpreviously in this report as part of the final plat reviewprocess. The applicant shall provide stormserrer calculations whichverify the preservation of the pre-developed runoff rate andaII storm sewer system capacities as part of the plans and specificat ions review process. 7 8 9 The developer the Watershed shall obtain and comply with all conditions ofDistrict. l0- wood-fiber blankets or equivalent a1I disturbed slopes greater than 11. The developer shall be responsible for cleanup caused by construction of this Sanitary Sewer Diagram Easement Diagrams (A, B & C) Right-of-Way Diagram shall be used to stabilize 3:I. daily on and off -si tesite. 1 2 3 z. Attachment s {(e g0 oU ^[q' $ri(6 N. . t+ tz rc--411,2. lbl.o E 4e.s., wqq"&a'/-:- ((4 I I REMOVE MH /I ) F _) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t) o lEl ; I I ) sP).q- N' nt- ( i l. l\./a sl.1 o q (r',/ Mtf o It_ t t I 1 I I I t. 9( , tt-''o I .1* -/,." t0c (1zR- \ (" R. 16r,,A i^. ,r ./OO€ I i t't --r. ,\3 I h % ? I P \ \I ,a+ f \ e .% \ T I I i \ I I h v V t I t55lIr{ o o It t: t- ) I s \. , a5o ,r .fl , ili ,..1 It .-t :l 't 1 I I t I I t ,t .t rit t:; I, Ji U:Ir' t- I I q tI 4U((./( > t:ll !. ,)i I I L t i I t I I l I f (.i \, {a -.? -,},:.. ,{-^I..ir"1l 'l.- t-.' . R ,1 M I !-------J. q lo r- / I ,t .l I ,l,I I c;l:rl I ,.-!i),*. /., t t- /1- / ,\' .,lol.! I .l N I s"" ? 20 FT.+rA6 MEN & I ol,/,,, o* 7 o J t il .l I ,446) t ! ) I I I. I i Zx. , {rt (o q -. ;)_hg' $NNG Nw .a !-,_ t^Jw q'-t I I --- t+ tz rc'-4 $.2lbl.o E r\ r-"\-7tu.e 1 L,' -=-\ 4ob4--/\ nt- { I I IL- t/ rl \:,, -\ I- t. I I t- 'rao' -'.EAsEtag:sfi. l_ I Il- Ir( > I 5E ! I n ft (vq- N'J 9 i \ I I ; I )r I I \ t ''i o / q J .^r lr !{:6 -) ,' 1" 4U.a (l-.I !7 I fi Mlf --..- 100 4 t) .t rt. tAn ,l) ,Y- (- 0;' I ;)\ /ooe-,-u h-1\---+. / \.i loq I \/' /ro/ ? Ul i/rl t1!'l I \ u?,.% (1zA I v I E T _/.t \) .t I t i I I I I \ \ I -to ) -r \AteIr? I :i \'{ -&r! iitiiiriif. i \ ,i t Ii:+b \1 ' , o/7r.---,,eAD /6;.50 -, ttI-:,-\ .,t \ io' ? 1 A ^|t( ?to *or-rz .f t-L) ,ol.t \I ela ,ab 9',oS iq' \ l) lr1,.\) N \ /, I L. I/ /,EtIo c) c, o' o t I .l N I I'\) boO) O))\ l \ I I l'-, .. N\.l\l\l-- I I Id U ( -_;-/ >a *2,// 1e' / I i I I I ? ( ( CITY OF EHINHISSEN I.{EMORANDUI.{ TO: Barbara Dacy, FROM: Steve Madden, DATE: May 5, 1988 SUBJ: Upon review of the site plan for Ersbo, Iarea on the main street. entering the areaDivision II, Section I0.207tAI ). 690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 City Planner Fire Inspector Ersbo, Subdivision Request 87-36 and Wetland AlterationPermit No. 3 8-7 request a turnaround(Uniform Fire Code, If you have any questions, please contact me. #a- City of Chanhassen 590 Cou1te! Drive, p.O. Box .l_47 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ( 512) 937_1900 Fron: May 2, 1988 DeveloEtrEnt plan Referral Agencies Planning Department By : Barbara Dacry, City plarmer PreISubject:i:nirary plat ard l.,etland al_teration perrdt request to create5 suol e fardL Lots on 5 acres loca ted south of and adjacent to InkeRoaoiteFa]fns 1Sr"On Planning Case: 87-3G SUB ard 88-7 rcP (Esbo) The above described appli cation for appro\ral of a land d evelognent proposal wasfiled with the Charhasser Planning Departnent on ApriL 25 19 88 This appli.cation is scheduled for consideration by t.he Chanhassen planning Conmission on trlav L8. lqgg at 7:30 p.rn.1n the Council Chanbers aEChanilassen Ci ty iialL. I.Je wouLd appreciate receiving your co[irEnrs by no laterti'tan rn.order for us-to provi.de a ccirerete analysis of issues for pranninq ccr::Rissi.onand city council review, we would appreciaie you! cdrrents and reco,Ereldaticnsconcerning rhe inpacr of rhis propoial on traific .ir*rition, oiilGi"a pro_posec fut';re utiLity services, srorm wat--r drainage, anci the need for acg.ririnlpublic lancis or easelents for pa.rk sites, street ex!.*nsions o, irprou.G;,;dutj.lities. where specifig neeas or probiens exist, we t-"ra-iit"="J';;; .rvritten report to this effect frorn tire agency concerned so that we can nra,ke arecc lrerdatio:t to the planning Comrdssion ana City Council. I meeEJ-ng 1t you so You nEy also appo*ar at Lile PLanning Cotnrssic;r Your cooperaEion and assistance is greatly appreciated. City Departrrents 6 city Engineerb. citv Attornev @ city park Diiector (R zutf i.c Safery Director.9.r Building InspecEor t) |Watershed District Engiaeer /jl ,O * Dept. of N-atural Resources Telephone Conpa.ny (NW BeLl or United ) f9) nr*t i.. conoanvv (NSp or run vifrlvl Soil Conseruation Service I0. DO.\DEN Ca5le Sys.-ern 11. Roger nrachneier,/Jim Anderson 4. MN Dept. of Transpor-.ation 5 U.S. Arjrry Corps of Enginee-rs S. Fish and ,iildlife BEg,B [\,iED l-lL: t L2. U 1'e"\ *i.,n*u""o nHrrfi d" /o- /3/ uJ C-?---'\C e 14 13. Carver County Engineer L+. N. %./p/--ur-o-,..rn -n REGION VI ATERS // Q'^"2,"/'. &.,*,tE o5,-..' co^-{t-o I ArA'.-',^ Pir'*t f n"edt r-ir/ J)1"r.\ {-a.->e,r ONR Pr N" &tt b./,- o 4d " { /o- /3 /^) ,x-//"^r/ -,s' "t*"o( N"*d -4s , _a- I,AND DEVEI,OPIIEIIT APPf, ICATION CITY OF CEANEASSETI 690 Coulter Drive ChaDhassen, MN 55317(612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: ADDRES S 1p Code TELEPHONE (Dayti,me) 7.d- - 297 z- REQUEST: Zoning District Change Zoning Appeal Zoning variance Zoning Text Anendment Iand Use Plan Amenilment Conditional Use Permit Site PIan Review PROJECT NA.N{E -'.r)t/oU- r'l5OWNER: ADDRESS 1p Code TELEPHONE X Planned Unit Development _ Sketch PIan _ Prelininary plan FinaL Plan Subdivi sion _ Platting Metes and Bounds Str ee t,/Easement Vacation Wetlands Permit PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION ? USE PLAN DESIGNATION fi,^n-' Ir., REQI'ESTED LAND PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING USES PROPOSED SIZE OF PROPERTY LOCATION REASONS FOR ?HIS REOUEST LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) #( ( /tlt la,u 11, R,, ?,lt r o 2Ml F +65 oJt--J K 22..?Y 3 zZ P1 q dt: l.\ 'ir.....\ '- -b,.. 'r,J"r " A .€ ro 7: q :-:t'TON lco U RT ,:+,,. ?/' au!<'tI kt/Au- ,u q T CD?o .. ,- t,| ,t's,.l tlJo t <x\ #,'wi , 1 CIRCLE Eh CARVER 2S ,j 1irl-, tL 'lt: ralio. >i 'irl rFt2l o,o ii!tr I ] E Gu, @ G - trJ 9i .r'i .J Ir t-t a l_ t- Ir t \\\\\ :-a o,3:! cisi 'i-i T+ t irrcA UAE :RICHARD ORTET{BLAD' 8K ll7, P 175 t l.t- F t: et rrr LEWIS A. UOITALLA 8X 95, P 235 !('I oo I I o 6rt ; ?i r5 I 1 4 7 !t- zo t 2 3 &-ACKSTAO ADOITK't{ (Vocol.6 HEllr{ JACqJES J Ot{r cLARr !x lot, Pzaa 20 R.L, PETERSON BX 97, P 319 - 2t5 .,AMES C RAVI3 E( t4a, P 96 SYLVESTEi ?iU'I{AU aK taor P to! rot I I J 1 50 2l roO ,8 6 o CI I 17 :l I II I I I !!o I*i iE;Torl o[ | -:._ rgo _f Z I t:l r5 4 7 6 oca tt- zo 2 3 I {Vocor?d B-ACKSTAD ADOtrlON I ;|.r TON lcou PT rttfAu- Fo F-J -tt't5 3o tz Z. 7 IrrIr I P o 2 MIN K6 ,'ae ro i t, A s dr.'t'i r:l..2 rno( oca ..i,. I OAH CIRCLE \\\\\ CARVEn 2A q ,r. uc o)ao .> tUo :Iroo i ,J )) $\ ln"I50 F r )-! FI: i E.ai_ of =ls-l + Ft ot+ t2l o, ii-{ d 1 .E ti ul i L L I , RICHARD ORTETIBLAD' BK lrl P r75 \ri.f s+ ':rc LEWIS A. YVOITALLA BX 95r P 235 I (Do I 50 o o9 ? 6 lrJ I., @N Ioj: <oiE.(jro ,rSI-- rgo - I Ar o G] U> z rt l, N z NOo0c_{ r.rIo 9-- TE R L, PETERSON BX 97, P 3r9 2t5 - JAIIE 3 C. nAvrg lrx t4a, P 96 SYLVESTER 7iL'TNAU ax r4or P to3 lI I I .-l +-Yq '.. I 17 ,ir. I o-, 1 I I I i I5-.,8 1 ltr HELEN JACQIES 12 I Ollll tx rot, P a4 I I r0t 2f Planning Conrnissil- Meeting SepEember 27, L97i -6- That rvoul d give us an oPPortuniti, to go to Council andtalk to Ehern about the proposal and what we are tryingdo and get an idea as to whether it would fly.to ( Menbers w-ere polled as to their feelings on recommending the Councilrescind the resolution. Dick llatthevrs - tr'iith the lakes there it should have sevrer.Tim Stone - I think there are a variety of other planning considerationsbesides the financial base of the city that come intoplay here and I have to swing with Dick,I feel uncomfortableconcerning this proj ect.Jerry Neher - I would like to see it postponed rmtil such time as the sew Hud Hollenback -Walter Thourp s on - Roman Roos - IE i Bob Waibel er isI agrer'11 s pret irnninent agree .ty much unanimous on the resolution. I,Ie wouldpostpone any further action until there is some statusof the sewer. That would be the recormrendation of thePlanning Conmission to the Cormcil . In all fairness to the developers, that 9L1-7 2L appliesonly to planned unit develoDments. There is a poisiblealternative route where they ask for rezoning to asubdivision classification. In other words they dropbelow the 24 Lox minimr:m threshold for the planired uiLi cdevelopment. That would invo lve another reZoning inthe unsewered area . SKETCH PI-AN - RICHARD ERSBO: Mr. Ersbo is proposing to subdivide The property is located on zoned R-lA. A11 of the lots approximatety 1.5 acres into four lots.the south side of Lake Lucy Road and is shown are deficient in lot area. Bill Brezinsky -I{e has shown a 60 foot right-of-raay coming into theproperty. That can be reduced to 50 feet. Althoughthe Subdivision Ordinance does require a 60 footright-of-way radius for the cul-de-sac, this is such a short cul-de-sac that we would reconnnend thata variance be given to reduce that to a 50 footradius. The lots are under 15,000 square feet. We feel with this reduction in the width of theright-of-way and by shifting the lot lines betveenLots 1 and 2,and 3 anil 4 to the south he vril1 beable to pick up four lots that have 15,000 squarefeet in area. As far as the status of Lake Lucy Road, our indicationsare that the most right-of-way that will be neededin the future is 80 feet. Right now there is 66feets, tr^le would reconorend Ehat they dedicate a sevenfoot right-of-way easement on the north side ofLots I and 4. Hud Hollenback moved to hold a public hearing on October 25, 1978,to consider the Ersbo subdivision request. llotion seconded by Tim Stone and unanimous ly approwed. ( #7 ( 'Planning Comnissi( l,leeting October 25, L978 { -4- Roy Barke - In talking to all of the people I have always stated thatif I anr a problem I would- like you to tell me so that wecan work together to eliminate the problem. I don't !,rant tso become the- scape- goaE for every problem in the tneighborhood but I have always stitld I would actually \ assist the people to either attach a filter to the soirrceof it or to remedy the situation. Even rf,ithout the towerI have been on the air in different antenna's which areless efficient which do cause more problems with' interference and I have been on the^ air since the firstspart of June and I have had no complaints in that area. W-hen- 1'oy look at amateur radio or iny type of transnitting lhe higher the antenna Ehe less probiem'you are going to -have. you do have a limitation on how high you can goand that type of thing but what r do have"is'at a rersonableheight-so that I don'i have that problem as much as Iwould if I had to go down to a reil small antenna which is. almost on- th_e ground or a wire antenna along the housewhich would be a greater risk for the neighEorhood. I'Ialter Thompson rroved to recornmend the council grant a conditionaluse -permit for the erection of an anateur radio-transuission antennaat 6901 shawnee Driwe and that the setback will be such as the heightof the tower and antenna wirl not fa11 outside the lotline. The pErmitwill be-subject to review upon complaints by neighbors. Motionseconded by Tiur SEone and unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARING SUBDMSIOU AND REZONING - RICHARD ERSBO (- Roman Roos called the hearing to order at 8:10 p.m. rvith the fol-lowinginterested persons present : - Richard Ersbo Bob PetersenIlendell Gravelun The Assistsalt city Planner read the official notice as published inthe Carver County Herald. Mr. Ersbo submitted a revised plan showing reconmended changes to theCity Engineer. The Assistant City plannei.did not receive " copy. Dick Matthews moved tci close the public hearing. Motion seconded byI'Ialter Thompson and unanimously alproved. Hearing crosea-ii-s;i5 ;1.. SUBDIVISIO}I AND REZONING - RICHARD ERS BO:Dick l{atthervs moved toive staff time to revier., Sryenson and unanimous ly cable actthe revis approved . ion unt ed plan iI Novem ber 9, L978, xoMotion seconded by Pa t RILEY/PURGATORY CREEK I,IATERSHED DISTRICT :The watershed district hasreque s ted aII proposals ( review and corment . of one acre of-Iarger be sent to thern for Council tJteeting Jari ry 22, 1979 { approval to subdj-vide his property atresiclential lots- Sanitary sewer is eof the property. The nearest water seeast. The Planning Comnissj-on held aapproval of the subdlivision and rezoniManager/PLanner recommended approval cnake all public improvements inclualingpetition for extension of municipal wa approval of a conditional use pernit for hisBlval. The Planning Commission held. a public approval of the cond.itional use pernit. yard variance to construct an attached. garage Great Plains B1vd.. The Boaral of Adjustments recomrended denial of the request- -3- councilman Matther,{s moved to end.orse Gayre Kincannon as !4etroporitanTransit commission representative from precinct H. I'roti.on seconded,by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs,Councilmen Pearson and Matthews. Councilmen Neveaux and, Geving voted.no. Motion carried.. SUBDIVISION REOUEST - RICHARD ERSBO:Mr. Ersbo was present seek.;ngp 1275 Lake Lucy Road. into four'l \ xtended to the northeastern cornerrvice is approximately 4OO feetpublic hearing and recot[Dendealng to R-1. The Assistant City onali t ione d. that the applicanta looPeal krater systern, and alsoter to serve the property. counciLman itatthe\ds Doved to accept the Assistant city !,tanager/planne! t srecomDendation, leference planning Case p-594. Motion seconded byCouncilman Pearson. The fo11owing voted in favor: Mayor Eobbs,Councilmen Pearson, Matthews, Neveaux, and. ceving. No negative votes-Motion carried. NATURAL GREEN, CONDITIoNAL UsE PERMIT: David t, Councilman Pearson moved to table action anal direct thb City Manager,along with Bruce Pankonin, Jerry schlenk, and Bob liaibe1, preparea narrative on the past history of this proposal. I{oti-on second.ed. byCouncilman ceving. -The foltowing voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Counci].men Pearson, llatthews, Neveaux, and ceving. No negative votes.Motion carrieal. SIDE YARD VARIANCE _ GREGORY HOOPS:Ur. Hoops is a fi].l permi-t to install 6850 Chanhassen Road. A Creek Watershed District requirements therefore a be required. Luce rrras present seekingbusiness at 156 O Arboretum hearing and. recommended. requesting a 7r10' to his home at and. Appeals met 25O cubic yards of dirt on her property atletter was receiveal from the Ri].ey Purgatory stating this project does not meet theirgraAing and.1and alteration permit wil]' not side 7604 and Councilman Neveaux moved. to deny the request based upon the planDing report anal the minutes of the Board of Aaljustments and. Appeals r CaseP-608. trlotion seconded by Councilman Matthews- The followj_ng voted infavor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Matthews, Neveaux, and ceving. No negative votes. Motion carried.. FIIL PER}IIT APPLICATION, JEAN IOVETANG: Ms.lovetang is requesting' J Councilman Neveaux moved. to accept the Build.ing Inspector,s report ofilanuary 11, 1979, and aIlov, the fil]. permit. Motion secondedl by CouncilrUatthews. The foll-owing vofed in favor: Mayor Eobbs, Councilmen pearsor Neveaux, llatthews, and ceving. No negative votes- Motion carried. CONSEN? AGENDA:l,layor Hobbs asked if any on the consent agenda- council ,member rri sheal to Uayor llobbs askeal that item adiscuss any items +r I I' {G It : I I I ( V ((40 q- N h 56t6t tlEr i I :! r \it,-9 L I l .,u I :t ,l 1 ,] 'l l i t.t ir i:r I , ,' li tt I crl t 2 // .l// / rn /t t_ . c:l hl'!' *ob4 -_ /65o-. -, vu., -2 J I I ; I I I I I l,.1 1lrl LLi! t, 1/ ir ,/ooc 4 L -%t I I {- : .t N I ."* <.. \'a,rz.'ro r I '.\ I '.- ^o $' btt" \ i\ It $ N .:'_.,eADr--+ I I ), q t,t \f L, I _t i I I aJ, t"" I I I,t I I I CITY OF EH[NHASSE}I P.C. DATE: May 13, 1988 C.C. DATE: June 13, 1988 CASE NO: 88-2 LUP, 88-2 Rezone and 88-9 SUB Prepared by: Dacy/v STAFF REPORT Fz C) =LL ko UJF U) Land Use Plan Amendment to Add i2.2 Acres to Metropolitan Urban Service Area and to Change Land Use Designation from Agricultural to Industrial 2. Rezoning From A-2, Agricultura.l- EstaEe to IOP, Industrial Office Park Preliminary PIat Approval to Create 5 Industrial tots and Two Outlots LOCATION: APPLICANT: 3 PROPOSAL: I the the WATER AND SEWER: PEYSICAL CHARAC. : 2OOO LAND USE PI,AN: IOP and A-2 62.86 acres IOP A-2i IOP; A-2i & A-2, future Mcclynn site antl ag r i cultureagriculture N- S- E- w- industrial Timberwood Estates Municipal services are available to aportion of the site. The site slopes to che west and containsportion of the Bluff Creek Floodplain. Agr i cul tural West of and adjacent to Audubon Road, immediately north of the Chicago Milwaukee Railroad Tracks Development Sites Limited 15311 Knob HilI Curve Ittinnetonka, MN 55345 PRESENT ZONING: ACREAGE: DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: e.r p RSF : ./\ E o' R4 R12 I € J A2 l \) friJ 4RgA FoR tAlD- ? @t4tuN{t|cAtr PUT :o rD f \ LA KE ATIII RD -t \ \. gl E o J @ oc LJ =o o- c o )> rrtT&*r- Development Sites Limited May 18, 1988 Page 2 REFERRAL AGENCIES City Engineer DNR Fire Inspector BuiJ.ding Department BACKGROUND In L982, the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan identified onlythe northerly 40 acres of the Mcclynn site as being within theMetropolitan Urban Service Area boundary. In 1984, the City "swapped" out of the MUSA area a 29 acre rural subdivision(Hi1lside Oaks locaEed at the intersection of Powers Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard) in order to include an additional 22 acresof the Mcclynn site and a small subdivision (Piper Ridge) neartake Minnewashta into the urban service area. The Cityts action was based on the application of Electro Craft, a manufacturingfirm which intended to develop the site at that time. As now drawn, the MUSA line bisects a portion of the Development Sites Limited property. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT Analys i s Given the location of the existing MUSA line, the request is to expand the MUSA line to encompasss approximately 12.2 acres andto redesignate the Iand use designation from agricultural toindustrial. The 12.2 acres can be served by gravity flow sewer service. Because of the minor acreage involved and because the 12.2 acres can be serviced by the exisLing sewer mains locateal at the intersection of Park Road and Audubon Road, the addition to the MUSA will not have a significant impact on sevrer capacity. The applicant has estimated that approximately 24,400 gallons per ilay would be generated. The Engineering office has also verified that the additional industrial development can be accommodateal into the existing system. Adjacent parcels to the north anal east are industrially designated on the land use plna and zoned IOP. The railroad tracks along the southern boundary of the parcel serves as a barrier to the A-2, Agricultsural zoning and land use to Lhe south. Part of the parcel will remain in two outlots. Outlot A is outside of the MUSA area and is zoned A-2. The applicant has indicated that this parcel would potentially be used for single family development sites. outlot B is directly adjacent to the proposed industrial subdivision. This site \.vould not be able to be served by sewer and water until after the Year 2000 when the city is authorized to expand its urban service area. Attachment *I Attachment #2 Attachment #3 No adverse comments . In surunary, the proposed land use for the 12.2 acre area isappropriate given its location adjacent to existing industrialparcels. Further, the site is buffered from agricultural usesby the railroad tracks and is well served by Audubon Road whichwill be improved to an urban section. RECOMMENDAT I ON Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt thefollowing motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Land Use plan Amendment Request *88-2 to amend the Year 2000 MUSA line toinclude 12.2 acres and to redesignate this acreage from agri-cultural to industrial subject to the approval of theMetropolitan CounciI. " RE Z ONI NG Analysis The current Zoning Map zones Lhe northeasterly portion of thesubject property as IOP. The request is to rezone the 5.6 acresimmediately south of the 7 acre piece to IOp (this includes aportion of Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 3, Block 2 arrd a portion of Lot2, Block 1). If the land use plan amendment is approved, it is recommended that the Planning Commission rezone this area to IOp.The second and final reading of the ordinance amenCing the map toredesignate this area as IOP will not be adopted until the landusa plan amendment has been approved by the Metropolitan Counciland t.he development contract and letter of credit submitted forthe proposed subdivision. RECOIt.lMENDAT I ON Planning staff recommends thefollowing motion: Planning Commission adopt t.he "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Rezoning Request88-2 to rezone 5.6 acres of property from A-2, Agricultural-Estates to IOP, Industrial Office park, as shown and as describedin the preliminary plat dated April 26, 1988., PRELIMINARY PLAT Analys i s The preliminary plat is proposing to create 5 industrial Iots and t r^ro outlots to be served by the construction of Audubon Courtfrom Audubon Road. The proposed lots meet t.he lot size and fron-tage requirements stipulated in the IOp District. Development Sites Limited May 18, 1988 Page 3 Development Sites Limi ted May 18, 1988 Page 4 Approval of the preliminary plat would only be for Blocks I and 2and does not include the lot pattern proposeC on Outlot B. Thisis merely shown as a potential extension of the subdirzision when seerer and water service is authorized to be extended into a expanded MUSA area. The applicant has submitted an interim planfor the cul-de-sac on Audubon Court to terminate at the lot line betrrreen Lot 2 and Lot 3 of Block 2. The applicant will also berequired to install a stormwater retention pond. The applicantr s utility plan indicates fire hydrants in compliance with the recommendat.ions of the Fire Department. It should be noted that the Bluff Creek floodplain exists throughthe $restern portion of E.his property. If Outlot B is developed,the applicant will need to provide appropriate elevations forbuilding pads and provide for adequate protection from the edgeof the floodplain (900 foot contour). RECOI{I"IEND AT I ON Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt thefollowing motion: "The Planning Commission recommends Request 88-9 to create 5 industrial on the plat stamped "Received April f o11,owing conditions : approval of Subdi vi s ionlots and 2 outlots as shohrn26. 1988", and subject to t.he 3 1 2 4 The applicant shall enter into a development contract withthe City and provide the City with the necessary financialsureties to guarantee the proper installation of these public improvements. The applicant shaLl provide sufficient utility easements EofacilitaE.e the connection and future repair of utilities along the west side of Aualubon Road. The applicant shall revise the grailing plan to shohr the construction of a ponding site which maintains the pre- developed runoff rate and provides adequate storage for a 100-year frequency storm event. The applicant sha1l provide storm serrer calculations which verify the preservation of the pre-iieveloped runoff rate and all storm sewer system capacities as part of the plans and specifications review process. The road profile sha11 be revised to show a landing zone which meets the Minnesota Department of Transportat ion I sguidelines and shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer as part ot the plans and specifications reviewprocess. Development Sites Limited May 18, 1988 Page 5 6. The proposed right-of-way sha1l be revised to a 60-footright-of-way width, and shall maintain a 60-foot radius atthe end of the cul-de-sac as per Article 3, Section Ig-57(b)of the Chanhassen Subdivision Ordinance. 7. All utilities shall be jacketl underneath Audubon Road. ATTACHMENT S Memo from Asst. City Engineer dated May 12, 1988. Conunents from Minnesota DNR. Memo from Fire Inspector ilated May 5, 1988.Letter from Rock Sathre dated April 25, 1988.Letter from Rick Sathre dateal April 25, 1988.Application. Land use map.Letter from Esther Chase dated May 7, 1988.Planning Cornmission minutes dated September 12, 1984.City Council minutes dated October 1, 1984.Flood Plain nap.Plat stamped "Received April 26, 1988". 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 1L. L2. CITY OF EHINH[SSEI[ 690 COULTER DRIVE . P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer DATE: May 12, 1988 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Revie!, for Planning File No. 88-9 SUB, Audubon West Development Sites , Ltd. n{# This site is located on the west side of Audubon Road andnorth side of the railroad tracks. The 62.86 acre site is comprised of a rolling f iel<i with a mature grove of treeswest side of Outlot A. on the on the Page 1 of the plan set dated "Received April 26,proposed lots for Blocks I and 2, and the future3 which will be in Outlot B. 1988" shows thelayout of Block AIso inclutled in the report is the interin concept plan for theconstruction of the cul-de-sac for the current plat application(refer to Attachment 1A and B). Specific comments regarding thestreet configuration wiIl be addressed in the roadway section. Sanitary Sewer Municipal sanitary sewer service is available to the site by anexisting l0-inch sanitary sewer main along park Road. This areais outside Lhe Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Theapplicant will be seeking an arnend,ment to the MUSA boundary suchthat this property can be served by municipal sanitary sewer ser-vice. The proposed lots for the plat submitted can be served bygravity sewer. When the future lots are developed (Block 3),a lift station and forcemain will be necessary to obtain munici-paI sanitary sewer service. The plans propose a I0-inch sanitary sewer main underneath Audubon Road. As you may recall, the site plan for the Ucclynnsite located adjacent to the northerly property boundary of thisplat received approval by the City Council on April 11 , 1988. The utility plan for the Mcclynn site also proposed a 10-inchdiameter sewer main underneath Audubon Road which was to cross Audubon Road approximately 75 feet north of the proposed crossing +t Planning May 12, Page 2 Commi ss i on 1988 shown on this submittal (refer to Attachment No. 2). I havetalked to the engineers for the },lcGlynn site and have reached atentative agreement that they will tie into the proposed utili-ties shown on this plan providing the plans receive final appro-val, and that a utility easement is granLed by the applicant.,In conversations with the applicant, they have indicated in thepast that this woulil be acceptable. The sanitary sewer mainwhich crosses Audubon will be sized to handle both the proposed developments as vrell as the future developments. !{at erma i n The plans propose that a 12-inch diameter waLermain is to beextended along the entire length of the proposed roadway andcross under Audubon Road, and connect into the 12-inch diameterhtatermain which exists along the east side of Audubon Road.Similarly, the watermain crossing shall be sized to accomodatethe McGlynn site and future development. The proposed 12-inch diameter watermain along the roadway appearsto be adequate for any anticipated demand. Roadway The road$ray plan has proposed a maxirnum street grade of 6.0 per-cent as compared to the City's recommended standard of 7.0 per-cent. The plans also show a landing area of 3.0 percen!. Theapplicant has been asked to revise the proposed street grades totry to attain a landing area with a proposed grade of I.0 percentor less. The applicant has indicated that they will adjust thesegrades as part of the plans and specifications review process. The applicant has provided for a SO-foot right-of-way. As perArticle 3, Section 18-57(b), the street righL-of-way width ior aconmercia 1,/i ndust r ia I street is 60 feet, with a pavement width of36 feet. The right-of-way radius for the cu1-de-sac should alsobe 60 feet with a back of curb radius of 48 feet. Gradinq and Draina qe The plans do not address on-site ponding. The proposed plat doesleave more than adequate room for a ponding site. The aiplicanthas agreed to provide a temporary ponding site for the cuirent The applicant has provided a concept plan for !he construction ofa temporary cul-de-sac until the Outlot B has been subdivided. We find that this concept is acceptable with the revisions asmentioned previously. Connection to Audubon does provide suf-ficient sight distance to the northbound traffic. A traffic ana-lysis for the justification of turn lanes r.rill be required aspart of the plans and specifications review. Planning Commi ss ion May 12, 1988 Page 3 subdivided lots. When thewhich wilI facilitate theapplicant wiII also revise and specifications review Outlot B is subdivided, a larger pondentire site wiII be constructed. inethe grading plan as part of the plansprocess. The applicant has indicated the tentative locations for the tem-porary ancl future ponding sites ( refer to Attachmenl No. 3A andB). We find that this concept plan is acceplable. The applicantsha11 submit drainage calculations verifying the pre and pist-developetl runoff rates as weIl as providing-adequite storige fora 100-year storm event as part of the plani and -specifications review process. Erosion Control The revised grading and erosion control planlocation and installation of erosion control Recommended Condi t ions The applicant shaIl enterthe City and provide thesureties to guarantee the improvements. must address the measures - into a development conLract withCity rrith the necessary financialproper installation of these public I 3 4 5 The applicant shaII provide sufficient utilityfacilitate the connection and future repair ofalong the west side of Audubon Road. The applicant shall revise the grading plan to showconstruction of a ponding site which maintains thedeveloped runoff rate and provides adequate storage100-year frequency storm event. The applicant shal1 provide storm sewer calculations whichverify the preservation of the pre-developed runoff rate andall storm sehrer system capacities as part of the plans andspecifications review process - easements touti 1i t ies thepre-for a The road profile shall be revised to show a landing zonewhich meets the Minnesota Department of Transportation I sguidelines and shaI1 be submitted for approval by the CityEngineer as part of the plans and specifications reviewprocess. The proposed right-of -r,{ay shall be revised to a 60-footright-of-way width, and shall maintain a 50-foot radius atthe end of the cul-de-sac as per Article 3, Section 18-57(b)of the Chanhassen Subdivision Ordinance. 7. AI1 utilities shall be jacked underneath Audubon Road. 2. 6. Planning Commi ssion May 12, 1988 Page 4 8 The applicant shall provide an analysis for turn lanes along Audubon Road as part of the plans and specifications reviewprocess. Attachmen ts 1. Interim Site Plans (A & B)2. Sanitary S e'ive r Diagram3. Ponding Sites (A & B) %u q L z-l mD oc,- m I ct) o o o * o d { 5dil *,- o\ iI '"ro ,o o o = a o * o o oF5 l* 2 o 'r l-- AI SM]rANY SEIET AT! UTIERITAIT PLAX AUIIUBOT WEST ITEYELOPilEN $TEI LIII. oTY Of CHAITHASS€N. vlxllE8ot .,, SATHRE. BERGOUIST' INC. toc soulH BAoaow y . w yzATA. |tN.55ltt . ata-cooo ?, 'x B I I -----------r90ueerHe*9- I -1 I s \^ .o o) a, 8 \ I I , ET rl tt o!iq ctTY oF csANr{ASsEX, 90{NEIOr SATHRE. BERGOUIST, INC. toa SouIN oaoAoway . ty^yzata, L'l. !!ttt . ar!-a000 IIII I 8ruU8, DRilTAGE & ER0S!oI C0IIRoL Ptlr AUDUBOII WEST DEYELOPilErI S[Et tID. --l E 8I\\1 I $ o) 7 'q^ 'o \ T h.L ItI ":9ruI2i\ ot GRlDnG, DRIITAGE & EBoS]o[ GorTnot Pttr AUDUBOII WEST DEUEMPMErI SlTEs tID. o?l ot ct{Aflx^ssEra, rrNl{Elor SATHRE. BERGOUIST, ]NC. loa tlouTh Eao^ow^l . w Yz^la! rat, tStol . arc-4000 I , I D 'c^to o) na, 8 a ({, h t,I ,It iloI 3I SATHRE. BERGOUIST, INC. to! 30ur8 teoaow^l . waYzarl. rta.3!!cl . ata-a000 GBlllltc, 0RAITAGE & ERoSl0x corIBoL PLlr AUDUBOII WEST DEYELOPMEN SITEI IID. | -f o. - r^ssf f.E$- l L l- l- l- \ I ll ttt I I City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, p.O. Box I47 Chanhassen, MN 5S3I7 ( 612) 937-1900 laay 2, 1988 Develo;rnerrt Plan Referral Agencies Planning Departrent l,lAy 0 6 19BB CITY oF CHANFiAssU\I By Barbara Dac1,, City Planner Subject:keli:rdrnn'Plat to creat 5 industri al lots on properEy located westto Audubon Roaci no rth oi the r ALL roao tracks. Planning Case:88-9 sr.rB,86-2 REZCNIE, 88-2 LT]P (DevelofrEnt Sites, Ltd. ) Tf: :b"y". described application for approval of a land develosnenttrled. wrth the Chanhassen planning Deparurent on ApriL 25, 1989 proposal was This a-oplication is scheduleri for consj.dera tion by the Chanhassen planningCqr.ission on M^!, ]a l ooc ty ilalL. hie wou:d appreciate receiving your connenrs by no laterChanhassen Ci at 7 :30 p .m. in the Council Charnbers ac than r,1av 11 . lqRB You may a1 so aDpear at the planning Conir_issionmeering ii you so desire. Your coolEraEion and assistance is greatly appreciated. rn.oJfer for us-to provide a corplete anatysis of issues for planning Ccrrnissionand city Council review, we would appreciaie your cornurts and reomendaticnsconcerning the ir-o'act of this p.opoiur on traific circuration, "*i"ti"g-""a pro-posed Suture ulility services,- sttrm waEer drainage, anci the need for icq..riringpublj.c lands or eassnenr? for park sites, stree- 6:cte-nsions ", G;;;;Es, ardutilities. Where specific neeis or probiems oi"t, ,o. ldou1d like to have arvritten report to this effect frcrn t-he agency concerned so thaE we can ma,<e arecoranerdation to the plalning ccrnrdssioi -rri City Council. .r'i city Engineer I. Cj.ty DepartrPnts l&.i Dept. of Natural Resources Electric Cor-oany .{ NSP or MN Vauey) DCiTDEN Cable Systen Roger tlactl'reier,,/Jim Anderson U. s. Fish and [,iildlife Carver county Engineer OUler b City Atstorney City Park Direcror Public Safety Director Building InsIEcEor l c.>i) (iei 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. !=t l: lBLt YED Rt(f'1N Vt VJAi;RSEAa:). N" \r/R Pr " J. "/4 N-,LrJ f/" ,flro,-/^4 C;.o r-, ! Dr./< ne*- u-t^--^Ar*a/ * 2"---.-- Crb8^;t/'I/-"A,f .1,^'< 6ra @;/ ^h,ff> Date: To: From: a-:< 4. 5. 5,' G @ '/o \\1' Watershed District Engineer Soil Conservation Service UN Dept. of Transportation U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Minnegasco Tele hone Ccx-Dany (NW BeII or Uni:ed) fr) CITY OF EHINHISSEN MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE : SUBJ: Barbara Dacy, City Planner Steve l{adden, Fire Inspecto May 5, 1988 Development Sites, ttd., Subdivision 88-9, Land UsePlan Amendment #88-2 Upon review of the site plans for Audubon Court, I reuqest thatthe installation of fire hydrants be 300 feeE apart beginning at Audubon Road (Uniform Fire Code, Division III, Section 10.301[c]). It- you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. I 690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 TNITUSTRIAL CUSTOI+] PnoDucTs ) LTrr. a O)rNro a roe) O) Nr(o cr)$ cf)lr) tJ) (U+)oa o) Cc =U;c =o-oI oa ofc o) .C c) NN(o IoN(o I{e are pleased to be a "potentr.al" buslness resrdent of chanhassen. Theattached developEent proposal was fornulated prinarily to create a new houefor our business. We are manufacturers of custom pactaging, Daterlalhandling products and general fabricatlons of prastics io custouer specifica-tlon, Our prinary buslness has evolved lnto tire productlon of highlyspeclalized containers for the electronr.cs lndustry. we produce ilanillrrg "napackaging devlces for IBM, Honeywell, I{ughes Alrcraft, Texas Instruments,Bendix and many others for use wlth conputer chips and circuit boards. April 25, 1988 CITY OF CITANHASSEN 690 Coulter Stree t Chanhassen, MN 553Lj Attn: Barbara Dacy, City planner INDUSTRIAL CUSTOM P 4c/ Specralsts rn die cutting and c{nwrtir/g Durlng 1987 we experienced ',explosive" growth ln our sales.were up l50Z over 1986 and are expected to continue growing.on our ability to grow is space. we have been located in nopkins for 6 years but have out-grown our r'land- locked" fac11lty. To justify Eoving, it was considered iiperative tfr"i ,"not only meet our imediate need but that rre plan for tht-?;;ure. Variouslocations were considered and the Audobon Roai property seeued !'ost favorable.To adequately prepare for future growth \re want.d a site that would allowincrenental expansion to 100,000 sq. ft. of space. It ls beyond the curreutflnanclal resources of our flrm to even consiier a parcel of land inBloomlngton, Pl5rmouth or the like when you consider our potential need of5-10 acres. Conversely, we dldntt want to be out of the netro area. TheAudobon Road site per plans attached meets all our criteria and we are anxiousto Eove. As soon as the approprlate approvals are granted, we intend tolmediately begln corsrructLon on a 20,000-30,000 sl. ft. facllity. I wouldantlclpate emplo)ment levels to grow by 5-10 people easily within the first6 nonths i.n the ne, facility. Ultlnately 5 years t d.own-t[e-road r ,ru "o,rfahave 75-150 enployees rnvolved in both sklllad and senl-skllIear positlons. Please advise lf any additional lnformati.on Lrould be deslred on our company,ltrs employees or our potentlal for grorrth. Yours truly, Our revenues One constraint RCS /ws Ro athre DUCTS, LTD. ol all non-metallic materials... I II a !: o ; ,/,1t*l .,,./ with pmtectiveparftagingsolutions, fmm PnoDacrs,Lrd. EOS/ESI) threaten electronic device reliability sensitive microcircuits require continuous protection Volume-conductive corrugated papsrboard open-top bin box Volume-conductive fluted plastic hinged-lid snrpprng container with foam dividor system ,or shipping 10 chip assembtiss Direct contact is not the only way that damage occurs. ESO is defined as a transfer of electrostatic charges between bodies al different potentials caused by direct contact or induced by an energy lield. Current wi flow in any electrical conductor when it is passed through an electrical, electrostatic or magnetic field, or when the conductor is stauonary and the external field either varies in potential or is in motion. This is the principle o, Induction. lnduced current flow in electronic devices causes the same damage or destruction as direct contact. Protecting microcircuits from electrostatic fields requires that they be totally enclosed in conductive barrier materials so that these field etlects will be blocked. Such protective environments are known as Faraday cages. With proper design, they can shield against RFUEMI (Radio Frequency lnterference and Electro- magnetic lnterference) as well. l, ,. "rr"r"n, that EOS/ESD suscepti- bility will not soon be designed out of new devices. ln tact, today's higheF density, liner-line geometry devlces are vulnerable to damage from static at very low voltages-even as low as 3OV. The problem, therefore, requires creative solutions so that sensitive devices will be protected and costly losses prevented. Since static damage can occur at any point during manufacturing and applica- tion-from chip production through component insertion, system assembly and even after-sale service-lhese protective solutions must be implemented throughout manufacture, assembly, storage, handling, shipping and all field service activities. Samples pictured on the cover include the lollowing: VolumBconduclive corrugated paperboard material handling tote (available with custom interiors or dividers and cover) Volume-conductive fluted plastic hinged.lid shipping container with custom ,oam interior Volume-conductive polyethylene loam pouch Antistatic polyethylene toam pouch Anti-static polyethylene foam assembly ,or PC boards Volumeronductive polyethytene loam sel lor computer chips (20 pockets) Volume-conductive sotid ABS/PVC alloy plastic thermeformed tote Volumetonductive corrugaled paperboard hinged-lid shipping container with custom interior ,or PC boards @ (i) Volume.conductive corrugated paperboard - v closed-top bin boxes 2 4 5 6 8 11 1 ELlectrical Overstress (EOS)/Etectrostatic Discharge (ESD) are damaging ,orces which can weaken or destroy sensitive microcircuits. l, exposed to these threatening phenomenon, in excess of 850/o of some devices will fail. physical evidence of the exposure is rarely present and testing will only detect major failures. Devices that are weakened by lhe exposure are rarely detectable. These components are often the cause o, premature failures in the field requiring expensive repair and causing unhappy customers. The annual cost to industry from static-damaged devices has been estimated at $5 billion. # rtrDusrruAL cusror' PRorDUcrs... a full-service source of protective packaging solutions offering innovative desrgn and complete manufacturing Ilndustrial Custom Products producos a variety of llexible and rigid, standard and custom containers and pouches designed to meet the protective needs associated with static-sensitave eleclronic devices. For use during production, higher-level product assembly, in-plant transport, storage and shipment beyond the tactory our packaging addresses the special material handling requirements of these components. Our broad range of engineering and tabrication capabilities along with our technical understanding of anti-static, conductive and electrcstatic shielding materials make lndustrial Custom Products a significant source for ESD protective containers. W" or"r. complete design assistance including evaluation of alternative materials or methods of packaging. Our bins and tote boxes can help you achieve a more efficient flow of material through your ractory-less double-handling, more appropriate storage, and consequently less EOS/ESD exposure. As well as electroslatic protection requirements, we take into account physical protective requirements and financial consider- ations. Our solutions are creative and cost-effective. Our close{olerance, versatile manu- facturing capabilities mean that the tote boxes, bins, kitting and shipping containers we produce can be used with robotics and/or with aulomaled slorage and retrieval systems. Our unique assorlment of production equipment enables us lo economically create both our standard packages and custom designs. Our capabililies include die-cutting, vacuum-lorming, laminating and a number of other complementary secondary linishing procedures. make rNJIDUsfBrAr. cusroil paoDucrs your supplier of protective packaging because... We are specialists in producing static protective packaging for the electronics industry-we understand the problem and we have the solutions. We maintain a large inventory oI conductive and anti-static raw materials for fast response and custom conver- sion intc linished products-lead-times are short. We have a unique mix of manufac- turing equipment capable of perform- ing a diverse range of processes. We can handle your job from start to finish-you deal with a single, respon- sive source. We stock a wide assortment ot standard ilems such as bin boxes, totes and shipping containers for immediate off-the-shelf availability. Product Data Sheets are available. Please inquire with your speciric needs. We are customer-oriented with an attitude and desire to do unusual things and lhe capability to supply creative solutlons to your protective packaging problems. We are a responsive vendor- we ship quality product, on-time, at a fair price. IIID USTnIAL CUSTOIi PnODUCTS, Ltd. 620-622 13lh Avenue So. Hopkins, MN 55343 . 612/935-5219 We perlorm all manuracturing steps in-house-die-cutting, vacuum- forming, laminating-to assure the utmost in quality. lf electrostatic discharge is threatening the reliability of your elec- tronic devices, Take Charge...With protective packaging solutions from lndustrial Custom Products. .. call us. For a prompt quotation, technical assistance or further information contact: o o IRIDUSfH,ii-L Ctj aci'fj .it: i:l:iClI.UC?S $vEIe l..nE s';:, . . i', r,r,..lt-i.,::iaOlr:;teci tab;taat:i :-:ir:l caa,!ai-r:,- (r; rt.r:ierial-c itl aLlsiCntel sDe.:i_ i;catron-;. Si::clalisis ir-r cii; l:1::;-;,., ai irir,.-:,,:, a1t.:;.a)i i,i-,LrSLtt:, r.]talaitals: cC;td:r31i\r:: ano anli-siir!C cCai:-rca;[:.! talrll:].Ir -,t r: :,ta: ,lll.li | (r;lit:i.,-ra.;i 'lje:i.... i-'lcaisj. closa icreranc:. ia ir t it:-i,-: ,. t.-:.-,.. ar-si.::lr .i:/:ltt...rc:, ,i E'Jii/.,.T: i,;-I 11"[ii--]1:\ I::. ',--Ii: gi:i:\.': , . . r OElvl components. Packaging (ESD a scecrarty) e l\4ecrcai converting c Pornt of pr::ch?s9 Cisr:i:,,'.i aa: sit:::-ll.il o D:3 C.:f rn:Sh: ;ai l.:'-:rn!--. i;: a:'.,-,rr -, ,)r::j:,aa, -.a:a e Graphic arrs cj? cijiirnq o Ciean roo;r o:ocucts - I,,S:.]-iC FirClLtTi;S A\AlLAgLi o t : .'\ l''l . \. t ..i-.\.- ..-'.j .1. .i ..y ,2. , r . >'?"1 rl|i.l d.j ti.r'.iinij ttj,.itrr!iio sizg c:to4otiityl ) ,r,;ata;icc- nel3! {i'rrci) icoi:rq , Fciary c:9 cuiirng ! Kiss cLiting . Shcelrng rcii ,'nai!?fleis , ColJ icrminq r l-,re benoing (hctr i:t and colcil decorating '[.fmrnaiing r Penorattng ,: slitring ; Sawing o Shearing J BOU0ng. Assembly. Packagrng o Vacuum iorming o t:_ r:: l ] : o ::i-^..'. rs r :iriiCira i \.1::soi.)ier ' '.rsiilt ri lalri:rs " .: :ai,1y i:iirdr .:1r sa:ro .1-..jtrlrt.i,r:t ! I..o|l|:ollt:3e1,3Urrr3l]n:]isebo!e'c]ilus.I :-,-r.-!.t'N FOR A PRCa,IPT QUO-a.ri:]a:!, ;:'l::: ,:C. .'- .'.5S jST.1i:C- :1.1 F !- 'i-!-3 EII illFOSttAT:CN CO TACT: o]}IDUST]3J.{I. tiJ,57 O;ld[ PIOIDIICT.S 620-62213th Avenue So., Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 612. 935. 5219 -t I i i i '' - .)?' Take charge of static'"aaa Conductive P.C. Board Shippers- Product Description: Conductive PC Board Shippers protect static sensitive circuil boards lrom damage caused by Electrical Overstress/ Electrostatic Discharge (EOS/ESO). These multi-purpose conlainers are designed for both EOS/ESO protection and cushioning during shipping or in-planl handling and storage. Our self-locking design, single-piece construclion boxes are lined with permanently antt-static convoluted urethane foam which conforms to the geometry ot the circuit boards for l OOo/o prolection. Standard containers are suitable lor boards up to '1.5 inches thick, but specialdesigns can be labricated to accommodate unusual shapes. sizes, thicknesses or special board requirements. The standard shippers are supplied fu y assembted. ready to use with the top foam pad permanen y bonded in ptace and the bottom foam pad loose to allow insertion ol paper work in box, il necessary They are also available v,/ith no foam (shipped llat). They are sturdy and extremely durabte with high stacking strength lor storage, multipte unit packing or individual board shipments. Options: o lnducli-shield '' constructiono Specialfoam interiors as defined by board geometry. ElAor MIL STD-129 warnings pranted on lid. Built-in gounding snap. Four materialchoaces. Standard or custom sizeso Specialprinting. Conduclive loam Material Options: Our PC Board Shippers are avaitabte in altthe materials described below. Let us assist you in choosing the most appropriate material tor your specitic application. Blackguard* Our corrugated paperboard consists of two homogeneous carbon-loaded liners with a standard Kraft fluted ;edium. lt otlers excellenl durability as compared to matenals which have a lhin conductrve coating or lamrnate on the tace of standard corrugated board. Bemovalot tape or labels will nol expose non-concluctive malerials as with most other boards. The alkaline-based tormulataon used when producing this conducltve paperboard means our product rs extremely low rn sulfides and chtondes whrch can corrode or larnrsh precrous metalcontacts and terminals. Both sides are sealed with a conductive sealer to eliminate slutfing ot carbon particles. BlackguardPlusr*' This corrugated paperboard consists ot homogeneous carbon-loaded conductive liners and medium creating a lotally volume-conductive product. ln addition to a the benelits provaded by Blackguard, Blackguard p/us provides the ultimate in conductive corrugated container protection untila point of totaldestruction. Only 1009; acid-free paper is used in the production of Blackguard P/us, virtually eliminating the danger ol corrosion or tarnish. Black MagicrM This matedalis a'lOOyo volume conductive polypropylene plas c exlruded into a unique fluted profite. it pioviaes atttfre static proteclion ol our conductive paperboard prcducls plus these added advantages: lt is inert (no out-gassing o, harmlul plasticazers orcorrosrves); it is extremely durable 1-even at low lemperatures); it is wateryroof; it is detergent, solvent and freon cleanable. lt's the Best! rtrDusTnrAl GUS TOIil PnoDu eTs, Lrd. a f BASIC PARTNUMBEH NOMINAL INSIOE DIMENSIONS LxW (All shippers are 2%" Deep) 060-040 070-050 't 00-070 120-080 140-l 10 150{70 160-130 r90-150 220-170 6"x 7"Y 10" x 12" x 14" x 15" x 16" x 19" x 22" x 4' 5" 7" 8" 11" 7' 't 3" 15" 17" t{h'ltisa' Marking Options per ELECTRONICS INOUSTBIES ASSOCTATTON (ErA): per MIL-STD-129: (Required for U.S. Department of Defense activities: also available lor use by industry) (Use E in Prefix)(Use M in Prefix) Aq ATTEIITIOI,I OESEBVE PBECAUTIONS FOR HANOLITIG ELECTROSTATIC SENSITIVE DEVICES w CAUTI()H SENSI]IVE ELECTRONIC DEVICES CIO NOT SHIP OR SIOBE NEAR STROTTG ELECTROSTANC, ELECTFOMAGXMC MAGNEIrC oR RloroacnvE FlEtDs Actualsize ol marking on shipper is 3" x 3" ln addition to our standard products listed above, we can produce pc Board shippers in custom shapes and sizes, in any quantilies, al reasonable prices. We invite your inquiriei. lf electrostatic discharge is threatening the reliability of your electronic devices, Take Charge . . . With protective packaging solutions from lndustrial Custom products. Call us. For a prompt quotation. technical assistance or further information contact ITIDUSTnIAL CUSTOIi PaiOITU CTS TLt d. StyleF - With foam; assembled, ready to useO - Wthout foam, shipped flat Marldngs E - Electronics lndustry Associalion Marking M - Marking per MIL,STO-l2g Material G - Blackguard P - Blackgua.d Prss M - Black Magic E - Econoguard (Blackguad tiner inside only, standard Kraft medium, motfled white outside liner) Special Options Add -S to end of stock number to denote option and specify additional features desired. Example - Foam interiorshipper with Mititarymarking, volume conductive materialsize 14 x 11. Shipper Stock Number: FM-140-110-P Basic PA] 620-622 13th Avenue So. Hopkins. MN 55343. 612/935-5219 HOWTO ORDER All items have a specific slock number using the basic part number shown at lett and adding to it the additional designations below. Foam MlLl erior Marking Material Option Take charge ofstatic'.aa Conductive Bin Boxes ProductDesuiption: Conductive Bin Boxes protect sensitive electronic components from damage caused by Electrical Overstress/Electrostalic Oischarge (EOS/ESO). Designed for in-plant storage and handling orforshipping, the boxes can accommodite Olp tubes or individual components. W€ otfer two basic product types - open top and ctosed top. The open top version is avaitabte in both lu depth and reduced lront styles. Covers are available tor both. The closed top bin boxes feature our exclusive Faraday Flap,". This optional sell-hinging cover is availabte at no extra cost. The Faraday Flap provides easy access to contents !r,/hile ensuring 360" (Faraday Cage) protection. The closed top versions perform dual functions, protecting the contenls from bolh dust and static exposure. They are also stackable lor easy storage. Options: . lnducti-shield'" construction. Reduced or fu -depth lront. Friction fit cover. Built-in grounding snap. Four material choices. Standard or custom sizes. Faraday Flap cover. lnterior dividerso Speciat printing. Antistatic or Conductive foam bin liners Material Options: Our Bin Boxes are available in allthe materials described below. Let us assist you in choosing the most appropriate materhl lor your specific application. Blackguard" Our corrugated paperboard consists ol two homogeneous carbon-loaded liners with a standard Kratt ftuled medium. lt otfers excellent durability as compared to malerials which have a thin conductive coating or laminate on the face of standard corrugated board. Removalottape or labels will not expose non-conductive materials as wjth most other boards. The alkaline-based tormulation used when producing this conductive paperboard means our procluct rs extrem6ly low rn sullides and chlorides whrch can corrode or tarnish precrous metal contacts and terminals. Both sides are sealed wilh a conductive sealer to etiminate slutfing of carbon particles. BlackguardP/asr. This coffugated paperboard consists of homogeneous carbon-loaded conductive liners and medium;reating a totally volume-conductive product. ln addition to allthe beneJitsprovided by Blackguard. Btackguard p/us provides the ultimale in conductive corrugated conlainer protection until apoint ol total deslruction. Only 1OO"/o acid-free paper is used inthe produ.clion ol Btackguard p/us, virtually etiminating thedanger ol corrosion or tarnish. Black llagicrt' This material is a jOO% volume conductive polypropyleneplastic exlruded into a unique,luted profite. it pr;vr;6s alt lhestatrc protection of our conductive paperboard products plus these added advantages: tt is inert (no out_gassing of harmfulplasticizers or corrosrves); it is exlremely dulable 6ven at lowtemperatures): il is waterproof; it is d;tergent, solvent andlreon cleanable. lt's the Best! TNITUSTRIAL C[rSTOtd PntoINI, etrs, Lrd.NI N :-:..--l Reduced front open-top bin (use RFprefix) Full-depth bin (use FD pretix) Closed-lop bin (use CFoTCO prefix) FABADAY FLAP htnged covet HOWTO ORDER All items have a specific stock numb€r using the basic part number shown at left and adding to it the additional designations below Style (reterence drawings abo\re) BF - Reduce Fronl FD - Full-depth CF - Closed-top with Fa.aday Flap CO - Closed-top less flap CV - Fulldepth cover 90!t (lits P/N specified) ilaterial (see descriptions on front) G - BlackguardP - Blackguaid PrusM - Black MagicE - Econoguard (Blackguard liner inside only, slandard Kratt medium. mottled white outside liner) Special Options Add.S to end of stock numbar lo denote oplion and specify additional featu.es desired. Example- Reduced front open-top binwith full depth cover, volume cuductive matenal, size 18" x 6" x 4Y2'. Bin Stock Number: RF-180-060-P Cover Slock Number: cv-180-060-P \/ Reduced Front Basic P/N Material Option Basic P/N Material Oplion Cover Desig- nation DEPTX 6&c 21h"-T-( WIDTH NOMINAL OUTSIDE OIMENSIONSLxWxD 090-020 090-040 090.060 120-020 120-0rO 't 20-060 'r 20-080 120-r 00 120-120 r 80-020 180-040 t80-050 't 80-060 180-080 '180-100 180-120 240420 240-O40 240-050 240-060 240-080 240-100 240-120 256-064 256-100 9xi, 9"xq 9'x 6" lZxf 17x{ 1Z x 6: 12-x8" 12 x. 10" 12x1? '18" x Z '18' x 'f lg" x 5" lg" x 6" 18" x 8" 18" x ,l0" 18" x 12" 24"x2 24' \ 4' 2{x5" 24" \ 6" 24" x 8- 24" x 10" 24" x 1! 25q." x 6Y2" 25Vt" x 10" x x x x x 418 41/2" 41h" 41h' 418 4th" 41h- 41h" 41h" 41h' 4th" 41/2" 41h' 41/2" 41/2" 4Vz" 4Yz" 4V2" 418 4Y2" 41/2" 4Vz" 41/2" 41/2" 4'E ln addition to our standard products listed above, we can produce bin boxes in custom shapes and sizes, in any quantilies, at reasonable prices. We invite your inquiries. lf electrostatic discharge is threatening the reliability of your electronic devices, Take Charge . . . With protective packaging solutions from lndustrial Custom Products. Call us. For a prompt quotation, technical assistance or further information contact: d*tisa' 620-622 13th Avenue So. Hopkins, MN 55343 . 612/935-5219 BASIC PART NUMBER INITUSTnTAL CUSTOT( Pn'OItU CTS, Ltd. o +106 SOUTH BROAOWAY WAYZATA, MN. 55391 TELEPHONE 61 2-476-6000 .\pril 25, 1988 !ls. Barbara Dacy City Planner CITY OF C}IANHASSEI.i 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box #147 Chanhassen }linnesota 55317 Subject:AI]DL]BO{ WEST Developnent Sites, Ltd. Dear lls . Dacy: Enclosed herewi.th ar€ the City approv-a.Ls application of Sites, Ltd. together with the necessary prelirninary plans their requests for: Developrnent to support Preliminary plat approv'al of the subdivision A land use plan amendment A zoning district change. l,trder selnrate cover you have received a ]etter from Industrial Custol Products describing their desire to construct a ner.r manufa,ctur:ingfacility within this property. Ttreir business is currently located in Hopkins, Minnesota, but for space and access reasons they wish to moveto Chanhassen. The bas ic surnmary of the proposal before you is to subdivide 62.86 acresof land lying westerly of Audubon Road, inrnediately north of the Chicago Milr.aukee St. Paul & Pacific Rai Iroad tracl<s. This site is across Audubon Road from the City R.rbI ic l{orks complex and irmrediately south ofthe recently reviewed and approved requesL by IIcGIynn to construct a newindustrial f'acllity. The Developnent Sites, Ltd proposal includes the preliminary platting of 5 new industrial Iots and 2 Outlots, The industrial Iots range in size from Lot 2, Block 2 at 1.28 acres, up to L.t 2, Block lrs 3.5 acres.Ifircdiately west of these 2 blocks is shor.m a "future" Block 3 to beinitially platted as Outlot B. In this Lrea, a future industrialsubdivision is planned !,,hen sanitary sewer can be nade available for developlrent. Oitlot A is shor.rn to the west. This forty acnes ofis zoned 42 and is set aside for continued A2 use. 1 2 3 S ATH RE.BERGOU I ST, I NC.I Figure 1 attached, shoL-s the AUDIJBON WEST site superimposed over theCity of Chanhassen zoning nap which r.ras effective Febrr:ary 19, 1987. You will note that the northeasterly triang-Ie of Iand containing 7.1 acres is currentJ.y zoned IOP r^tliLe the remainder is zoned A2. The eastern portion of the A2 land, is high enough to be serwed by the existing public sanitary sewer. The ALjDI"IBON WEST develognent proposal includes the extension of sanitary ser.rer and r,raterrnain from the Park Road and Ar:dubon Road intersection southwesterly into this property to sen'e the 2 Lots in Block 1 and the 3 Lots in Block 2 at this time, Figure 2 attached indicates the triangle of land proposed for rezoning from A2 to IOP. This }and area of 5.6 acres would contain 5.2 aeres ofindustrial land (net of the roadway right-of-way shown). this 5.2 acre area could be assr:ned to generate 2 r 000/ga11ons per acre in sewage flow following developnent. For purposes of the minor corrprehensive plan amendment necessar)' to bring this land within the I"luSA boundary, the estimated sewage flow from this 5,2 acres would be 10,400/gallons per day. Figure 3 attached shows the zoning districts (IOP ard A2) as we request they be modified with AUDIJBON W6T. We believe this figure best depicts the logic of er:panding the IOP zone. It seens to us that the existinEi IOP bor:ndary r.ras somer.'hat arbitrarily drawn without regard to the high ground still left between the I'lcClynn site and the rai lroad tracks. Please let us lmow lf 1'ou need further inforrnation, our opportrmity to present the develolxrent plans Conrnission and Council we look forr. nd to to the Planning Sincerely, SATTAE-INC Richard W. Sathre, P.E. enc. RltrS,/dn tr[ L [irtr) 6 o-o EF E SN(r Iof,o-\ Lr U,traE oos II=o "nE\ \.1 '€ZE Hs* ScrH*4v SRF()h 2 oora __ _- ooai Flgure I z , FrFI,< t!.b B q i\., oE N E CI m OJ E q N (r @tr t8 g ot d I l TLrO -F o = vE ltaE - - - _.ooot t(rm o (Lo EF E SNtr Iolo.\u c.gaU)E oo a: o0e tItogE \{ 6 @ o 2/ \ L::: F.I t!t6 B u\{ oE N E ol E @tr '18 EE IL U)E oIU = o @fo o,c o N 0)N(E Eo oo-oc o lt o zo oz I t N c Nld $l (E II E f-- Flgre 2 o - I I I IIgr B t\! \.1 oE N E q @E TLatr =zo @ ) o o- = o 9 ot c tr l.L_ p E Iol(L cC E @ stir Lr U,trct) (E 6 o0s aato *nE\ -J o oolto o0aa _ _- ooSt Flgue 3 w / _- _ _. ooot (\t E !+E ot E t I,AND DEVELOPIiEN T APPLICATION CITY OF CEANEASSEN 590 Coulter Drive Chanhasseo, MN 55317(612) 937-1900 APPLTCANT:D-vel *-a^* S , OWNER: ADDRESS tS?ll h."la Ai\\ Cuvve- ADDRESS A*e- lr\i^*.*o"k^ MrJ esz45, Zip Code - booo Zip CodeTEf,EPHONE (Daytime ) REQUEST: Zoning District Change Zoning Appeal Zoninq Variance Zoning Text Amendment Land Use Plan Amendment Conditional Use pelmit Site PIan Review TELEPHONE q -ttlr Planned Unit Development _ Sketch Plan _ Preliminary plan Final PIan Subdivision aLk f<_- 5 X x Street,/Easement Vacation Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAIYE Ao.>ueo^-) 111g5r pRESENT LAND usE pLAN DEsrcNattoll Aa,. -,,.ir, "i USE PLAN DESIGNATION .xtr,,.-( | ',.s. REQUESTED LAND PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING C oP b. At-- SIZE OF PROPERTY 62.86 acre,, LOCATION vx/;+ e7'e- A.,tfuie, PA.^o. s;42 +,h.k REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST 5ZC--tfi^€ LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legaI if necessary)?<. L+4. )\ Plat t i ng Metes and Bounds '3-z- USES PROPOSED #a {r :r-,- r5 (/' L KE ruCY trlal ,_tat ':/l 1 \ 1r\r 1.:; : --;r..1.,..i1 I .'..:.. t.-:l D i1 \r.:'..]l ) tro.o )ensity 3nsity r Density ensity .ffi t6 ! .. I TO NUrs+ vzAcees IIr -.44, I i.'1...'f i22 u3 * I 'n v ,-r7I .t irl.t I ,:r t.t ,41 I tI Lrr€ sus/N :, ':,: ---r--J- - -; i ',I t il I I \ I Lll l, i l Clty of Chanhassen P. O. Box 1tr7 Chanhassen, Mn 5fi17 Thls ls re: hearing on s/t9l$8 whlch I ar sorrY I *i11 be unable to atten . To Whon It Hay Coneern: Attn: Barbara Dacy, Clty I Planr.er Re: your notlce of llay 5, 1988 on hearing of pronosed land use on Parcel of 5.5 acres lying West and adJacent to Atrdubon Road lmredlate\y North of the Chlcago Mllwauko€ R. R. Tracks: llith grordng Industrial land ln thla clty and already abuttlng thls parcel on North, f thlnk lt verT rcrsonable andpracticel to oonflta thls appllcatlon fron Developaent Sltes Ltd. for rezonlng frol farrr land to lnCustrlal. Mlnnetonka, Mn Mav 7. 1988 Io rea o€ 'lflf I 0 1.388 ;lri cF CH.A[,{ rtAssEr{ ctf,ultry; -.*-7''"'L t{1'(- ESTSER J,/ CiiASE 4J00 Aapanwood Trail Hinnetonka, la,. 557+5 9J) d*o .- #r r-.- ( Cha'nhassen Plannin September L2, L984 Page 5 M. Thompson stated that he felt something with his property butshould have a chance to see ifparkland. A11 voted in favor and io*i""ion Minutes a One of the neighbors stated that the City can't taketheir roads now, much Iess add another development. J. Thompson moved., seconded by Noziska to close thehearing. AtI voted in favor the motion carried. care of public J. Thompson felt that the development proposal looked good andeven more so hrith the reduction of the lots. He statea thatstaff should see if they can get the street situation corrected.because that is not the developer's problem. He also stated thateveryone would like to keep their area rural in character butthis is not alrtrays possible. the owner should be able to doalso felt that the neighborsthe City wants to acquire more ( Noziska moved, seconded by Merz, to recorunend approval of theLand Use Plan Amenalment *84-2 changing the land use designationfrom Parks,/Open Space to Residentiit iow Density and to ievisethe MUSA boundary to include the subject parcel. The request isapproved with the condition that it be poitponed for City Councilreview until October 15, 1984 in order lo give the neigh-bors achance to submit a formal request to the park and Recr6ationCommission to see if the City would acquire Mr. Herman's parcelfor parkland. Public Hear inq :Land the motion carried. Use Plan Amendment #84-3 to amend the Com rehensive Land Use PIan from Industrial and A ricultural toIndustrial- on Pro perty located the southwest corner oflnHihwa5 and Audubon Road Electro-Craft Cor ration Public Present a Iicant . report forwith the 7. 32shift theexclusion of Pat and Lee Kerber 1520 Arboretum BIvd.Michael A. Nekrich (Electro-Craft) I42 Cambridge, St. taulJames l4ertes (Electro-Craft) 142 Cambridge, St. eaul Dacy explained that this proposal was to designaLe 22 acres asindustrial for the site of Electro-Craft Copoiate Headquaiiers.She said that the 22 acres is irnmediately south of the -40 acre por_tion. already designated as Industrial . 3he also staiea if,ut tt"southernmost ten acres would remain as agricultural. She -- explained that the site can be served wiih gravity flow sewerservice. She also indicated that in the Land Use plan AmendmentRandy Herman, the additional 22 acEes will be coupledacre Herman property in a petition to Metro Council toMUSA line to include these parcels in exchange for thethe 29.3 acre Hillside Oaks Subdivision. ftrrnuLu€prfr 1 * ( oa Chanhas s en S eptember Page 7 Planning Commission Minutes 12, 1984 {Noziska moved, seconded by Merz to close thevoted in favor and the motion carried. public hearing. AII Noziska moved, seconded by Merz to recommend approval of Land Useplan Amendment gg4_3 changing the rand use designation fromnlndustrial and Agricultuial" to "Industrial', on the 62 acresIocated in the southwest corner of the Highway 5 - Audubon Roadintersection and to revise the MUSA boundary lo include the sub-ject parcer. Arl voted in favor and the moiion carried. Public Hear ln q :Re zoning Reguest #84-3 to rezone pro per ty 1 oca teci at the southwest corner of H 5 and Audubon Road fromR-la,A ricultural Resideoce D rI ct to P-4 P1 anned IndustrialDeveloomen t District, El-ectro-Craf t Corpora t 10n ,applicant. ( Public presen t Pat and Lee KerberMichael A. Nekrich ( Electro-Craft )Janes Mertes ( Electro-Craft ) J. Thompson moved, secondedhearing.by Noziska to close the public Dacy explained that the applicant is proposing a rezoning fromR-1a to P-4 to allow the construction of- corporate headqiartersfor Electro-craft corporation. she stated tirat this pro'posa1 wassubmitted in conjunction with the applicantrs land .r"i pi.namendment. She stated that the proposed district is coisistentwith the adopted land use plan and lhou1d not adversely affectadjacent properties. J. Thompson moved, seconded by Noziska to reconmend approval ofRezoning Request *84-3 which changes the zoning on the 62 acreslocated in the southwest corner oi the ltighway 5 - audubon noadintersection from R-Ia, Agricultural nesi6enc! to pj4, plannedIndustrial Development District. AI1 voLed in favor and themotion carried. Approval of Minutes Ad o urnmen t Merz moved, seconded by M. Thompson to approvePlanning commission minutes as written. ylerz, Thompson voted in favor. Noziska abstained. the August 8, 1984J. Thompson and M-Motion carried. Merz moved, seconded by M. Thompson tovoted in favor and the motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:55 p m adjourn the meeting. A11 1620 Arboretum Blvd. 142 Cambridge, St. paul 142 Canbridge, St. paul Council t'reering *-b{ 1, L984 { Mayor Lamilton npved to. approve t! approve a conditional use permit to arlch, tsn_porary stsrage of a rarketing sales Eailer subjecr to the ioii;;ng anaitions:1- the rrailer musr be renoved r."'n tr.,.-.it"r.i appricati";-f"; dJ.i;g*".approval has not been nade by llovanber fO,-fggl.2' rf application is na_de ana approvea-ana-Jn"tr*tion started, the tra,er- T!.r be renrrved by Septenbef 1, 1985.3' rf the trailer is nrcved on site, its -l0cation be approved by the planningstaff . Motion seconded bv counci*an Geving- the fo,owing rrcted in favor: thyorffi::ffi"T"m.*son and fi.t .",dil.ln", c";i"t;;-;;. No nesati'e ffi.Hffiffi subdivide a 26 acre parcel inro a 12acre parcel and a 14 acre parcel. - - councilnan Horn r.ved to approve the ,,Etes and bounds subdivision dividing a 26 acreryrce1 j:nlo a 12 acre parcer and a 14 acre paicer, phr"hg'c".;- #84:r. lbtionseconded by Councilnan Fy-r:s. qle follouri-ng r,ioted in f#.;-!r.;;; ii*ifto.r,councilwcnen s\Enson and watson, counc*Er c""-g "ra E";:' il-;&tTve .,,rcte_s.Itlotion carried. ffi*.% H'Hffi"er.'ffiffi Htrk # ffi ffi *.Fox Hollow Subdivision irrcI."ri ng the Otto Flon- proper,qr Councilnan Horn noved b- 3ppr9y? ttre preliminary and final- plat reqrEst for thereplac of 10ts in Fox Eorl.e, pRD and -the otto Fion property, pJanning case #84_16.Motion seconded by councilwonan watson. ttre r-iro'^,ing ""t a i" i.*?: i,layorHarnilton, Councili+cnraa watson, Councilren C."i"g ald Horn. Councilicrnan Ss€nsonvoted no. lbtion carried .{ pr.rtrI?.o{RAFT @RPORATION SOT]'IIIWEST @RNER OF III GHIiAY 5 AND AUDUBON ROAD:IAND USE PIAN zu4ENDI4ENT FROIq AGRICUL.ILRAL TO I,.\DUSTR,IAL.Barbara Da6/ -staff is propo lte existing site is split in half by the urban service area. hhat exchange has sing is that as you know if you want to alter the MUSA area an equalto occur tn land acreage. Ttre piper Ridge reqrEst will be lp fCouncil cpnsideraLion on October 15th and what was bei ng proposed or cel plus the pi that tiis tEr- Oaks Subdivisi per Bidge Subdivision will be proposed for the exclusi on of Hillsideon. T?e proposed anendren t rrould extend the industrial area bVapproxfuately700 feet and staff is rec.onren<ii ng approval of Lhe land use designa-tion change and the Mt SA boundary because it can be served by gravity f lc,w serrler andwhereas Hi11si de Oaks carurot. Birl rrbnk - the owners of Hirlside oaics were contacted. a1so. Mr- rc-in9e].hutz had rnproblen with rrhat is proposed because it,s consistent. with his pIat. +-g : .r a{n yicg preside.,,,t of Finance of Etectro{raf t. Electro<ratt s,asr.nclrporate<i back in 19G0 and I carE on board in I9G3. We h,ere about a $2 milliondollar corpa.ny back in 1963 and for fiscal I98iaround s5s'ndiri... -6,- clrporare heacisuarrers Hril'#ifi:'fl"ffiH T*?:t to.utgro&,ing Ehe facirity. wq are a highrech o"""ru.r*J""i-"i.*"ilai" ""o l_systens. prinarilv wE serve the c--anputer indusrry, i"a*t rii""t*riilrr-ilo*arr, -= redicar servicre fiards, q'"t rype "r'tt i"g. ;; are_ highly specialized r.ror sysremsfffi; "*BTlirIi.T., .-iittl" ou.i roo-p"opre wirh q,, 6111rrrr payrolr or a+te ffi$",ffffi ffi "#ffi ,*.".*,ffi f**F"ffi ffi","ffi t- I L r Councilnan @vinq - What is tlte size of the structure? Ji^ qts: - the 120,000-is.scrEthing that, has been kicked around. hle don,t knoe, itf :::= .9199_0 or 120,000 in our fiist.phase. Rishr rD$,,,,= o"",.py abour 9o,OOO.I we have torrlIy outgrorn it. ttre building r,gould be so strrrtured- i:hat itl-,iia LI apanaalle as bur reeds warrant it. councilleEman watson rDved to approve the land use aIIEndIIEnt for ElectrotraftCorporation, planning Case #94-J. lbtion seconded UV C"r""ifir^ rfo.". Itrefollovrinq rmted in-favor: lrtayor lramilton, @uncilwoierr srdenson and watson,ComciLlen Ibrn ard Geving. No negative rotes. lirtion carried. REZONI}E REQT]EST FROU R-1A ID P-4, ELEIRO4AFT ORPORATTON: F"ts'g Eqv - we are recqltlending approval of ttre rezoni"! lu="a on the fact thatthe intent and uses and the requiiene-nts of the p-4 oi"GlZt ".. appropriate forthat location. Councilwcrmn Watson flDved to approve tie re$Est to rezone the property frcrn R_]A toP-4 for the 62 acres on sv{ ctrner of Irighray 5 and Audubon noaa, p':anning c""; -- -#84-3. ltbtion seconded by CourrciJ.mn torn.- Ttre. folrowing *ea in ravoi, - uayorHamilton, councilt,€rFn s\.enson and watson, councilnea ca.ring-.rra xo.n. lro ".giti*\rotes. libtion carried. REIT]EST 10 DEE.ER, A PORTTON OF PARK DEDICATTO\ FEES, FT.ETTRO-CRAHT @RPORAEON:llayor Hamilton IrDrred to table ttris item until a tentative "9.".*i-.""- be reachedbetween l'tr - lbrtes and the city r,tanager. l,rrtion seconded uf counclnan Geying. ltefollowing voted in favor: uayor tiamirton. counci}+oren sr,,ai""n *a-wut*",CouncilrrElr Geving and Horn. No negative \rotes. ltbtion carried. Krq'q qArr,j I?re residents along xioa Trail wirl he suhnitting a perition for ,ro trErking" signs along Kior^a frail. CBTIFICATION OF DELINQUENT UELITT,/DISEASD IREE ICO0IITS:REsol,rrcN +aa-ss: counci@ resorution cer-tifying. delingr:ent utility aad diseased tree a;;unts to the c.ounty aditor torcollection with 1985 real estate taxes. Resorution =.""na.a [v-oili".Iir-[t"".The follqdinq voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, cor:ncilwcnen s,,e"Ji.r-ana watson,Councilren Geving and ltrorn. No negative votes. ltrtion carried ry!ry SRVI9EE. C3RVER OOUNIYj Roger Knutson, City Attorney, distribured aclpy of rhe cpurt f incrings r_ egarciing carver @unty vs. city of ctnnhassen, rgg2Assessr*rt services. rhg city l,tanager distributed . .opy 6r th.bilri;; receivedtoday, ffiober 1, from the county atan tor for assessnelt costs for r9g3,/19g4. TtEbilling lron the county Auditor- uras sr.4posed.ry ca'r curated on ".i*r-"i!L versus thepreviousry prese-nted contractual cost LiDi.ngi. Actua]. costs have been caLcr,.r.tedat aFproxirnately s66, oo0 ver_sus the previous cutractuar. cESt "e sas , obb . Mr.Knutson stated that it was his opinion that the c.ourt erould find the 1983,/19g43::g:snqr billings invalid on the. sare grounds r.sed by tire court E irrlria.e tr,.billing for 1982. Joe Neaton, chairnan of ttre carver county Board of ccrmissioners,was present stating tiEt the crunty tuould certify tfre f9g:,/ige4 ".truf-t"t billingas a part of the city of chanhassen's tax certification when- s*t -,,aT.Lira. rhecity Attorney again stated uBt it was his opinion trrat ttrglg r.ras no Iega.r. authoriEyto nodify the certification of the city of chanhassen nor did ttre statuie providefor naking the levy for 1983/L9g4. rtre city AEtorney noted that he urould startinjunccion proceeciings if the county attarp-tea to ceitify u=""""n rrt s"rri.e. rorL_9.83/L984 or augrpred ro nodify trre certiiiea r"ry, i"-inv-".v1'"1'iJlified b,y ripcity of chanhassen for taxes cou"ctibt" in 19g5. rhe city councir generarry agreedtsi! th" proposed action. of the city Attorney r.ras consistent witlr the continued h:tEf:r:t the citv and in accordani" "ltt 6."ionn:. acrions pr.rio*if taken by Council tteeting q{.r 1, l9B4 c +RMl 955 150 ZONE C (o 5 M5R93 RM 2X ZONE C tl o ZONE C PRIVATEonvE__€2 I ? DAIVE o RM *RM 4 :(o C'rZONE R TVL 7 895 zoNlZONE C f- ZONE A D tL E ZONE 41 IN THIS AREA IS TOO NARROW TO SHOW TO SCALE ANO DOES NOT EXCEED BOUNDARIES OELINEATEO ?cN o1= LDTSI I ( I ( t I ( :) IJ\ 934 ZONE A ZONE C ANO DOES NOT BOUNDARIES O EOEc:x LI TE DEA ZONE A1 IN THI! AREA IS TOO NARROW TO SHOW TO SCALE ZONE A #/ l: t tt CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMITTISSION REGULAR MEETI NG MAY 4, 1988 MEMBERS PRESENT: Tjm Erhart, steven Emmj.ngs, Annette ErLson, Ladd conrad,Brian Batzli, James Wildermuth and David Headla STAFF PRESENT: Eng i neer Barbara Dacy, City planner and Larry Brown, Asst. City A B ZONED RSE, RESIDENTIAL S I NGLE WOODHILL ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1/428lg-2847, CARVER BEACH) : SUBDIVISION OF 3.5 ACRES INTO 7 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO DEVELOP WITHIN 2OO FEET OEWETLAND. Public Present: Name Addres s PUBLIC HEARI NG: R & R LAND VENTURES, PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF NEZ PERCE (LO'r S 2773_2803 AND RoxAnn Lund Ron Krueger Dave S ime Bi 11 Eggert Dave & Diane QuackenbushPeter & Nancy parris Steve & Francis SyversonMichael MasonFily & Margaret ThompsonSteve SmedstadCarlye Peterson Dennis Bur ton Dave Mullenburg Chuck Wa rs fo IdRick Michaels Mark QuinerKleve & Lorilee Anderson Marge Passing Nancy Thurs 8042 Cheyenne, Applj.cant 8080 WaIlace Road, Eden prairie, 790 Preakness Lane 800 Preakness Lane 780 Preakness Lane 770 Preakness Lane 760 Preakness Lane 833 Woodhill Drive 5899 Yuma Drive 730 Preakness Lane 750 Preakness Lane 750 Preakness Lane 740 Preakness Lane 6900 Yuma Dri.ve 6899 Yuma Drive 6889 Yuma Drive 750 Ponderosa DriveI30 Cygnet Place 751 Ponderosa Drive FAMILY AND MILE EAST OF A CLASS B Applicant Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. Barbara Dacy and Larry Brown presented the staff report. Ron Krueger: r guess most of the items have been mentioned already. r'nRon Kruger, Iand surveyer of Lancer Engjneerjng in Eden prairie andRoxanne Lund is here tonight. we bought this lroperty a couple n.onth" .goand we've been rrorking $rith the staf f ever si.nle -not inowi.ng- that one, 36acres of vrater dump into this property and we've been workiig with stafftrying to come up with a storn sewer lystem that wourd sorve some of these Planning Commj.ssion Meeti ng May 4, 1988 - page 2 problems. The lots are basically, most of these IoEs have sewer and waterservice to them norr. Most of the development that's happened in CarverBeach are people who bought 8 or l0 lots and built a home. One guy aleadybuilt a home on it which is klnd of what we could have done in most ofthese lots but being as werre in this business and we r^rant to make a nicedevelopment. Itrs a beautiful piece of land. Therers concern by theneighbors for trees and we want to keep as many of the ameni ties there aspossible and try to solve some of these problems so the people who buildhere donrt end up having their houses washed away. The property will havestorm $rater coming down Yuma Road and Woodhi I1 Road into this area whichjt's been doing for years. After lookjng at trying to design a storm sewer system that woulil handle it, it wasnrt possible to design a systemthat would handle it. The hejght of the road configuration. Theelevations, we tried to see if we could do it and it couldn't be done. The most we could come up rrith was a system that only handled like a thirdof the water. WeIl, handling a third of the water isn't going to do any good when you have a I0 inch rain so at that point what happened here wasit got to be so expensive to build a system that $rouldn't even handle thewater, we decided to drop these lots and create this pond here. Thus,thj.s water that comes in this area would be able to enter into this pond and sedj.ments and whatnot from washing down from the streets $rould settlein there and be trapped in there and the overflow at the other end of the pond would go into the wetland. So that seemed to be the sjmplest solution, We donrt get as many lots but iE's really a better solution all the way around. There also was another small storm selrer culvert coming under Woodhill up the road here which basicalJ.y dra j.ns the backyards fromthe north sjde of Woodhill and there isnrt anything we can do about iE now. It's built that way and all the yards dra j.n that way so we're going to have to extend that storm sewer down along the right-of-way to eliminate that water from our yarCs also. connect it with this other culvert that comes under the road here and then ul-timately all of thj.s would drain into the pond. It's been kind of a push and pull process forthe staff. Werre trying to get some of these djfferent j Eems resolved but we feel pretty confident that tnerve come to a satisfactory solution to it. We had a neighborhood meeting with the nei ghbors and went through this aIIwith them. We are writing up covenants. Their concern was the trees and we are going to have Covenants on the lot to protecE trees on back lots so some of their concerns will be met. Mike Mason: I1ive 833 Woodhj.ll Dr j.ve which is, Irm goj.ng to be surrounded by the new development. I had a couple of questions andthink most of this may go Eo the Commission. Irm not sure. I just this talked about, assessment for the road j.n the future. pubLic inprovement fund. What wj l-l that entail and when wiIl that happen? I hea rd Brosrn: I was just stating that jf WoodhiLl would ever, if the neighborhood would petit j.on the City to jmprove i^loodhj. 11 to support a tvro- way street in thats area, thatrs when i.re r^rould include it. Right now thereare no plans j.n the $rorks for upgrading that street. It vrould solely beif development got thick enough in there and the residents around there were dissatisfied wj.th j.t and petitj.oned the City to do so. Mike Mason: So the city then has no plans at this point? Pl ann j. ng Commission Meetj ng May 4, 1988 - Page 3 Brown: Not at this point, no. Brown: The swale that eras mentionedwhich j.s going to be created towardsjust going to be roughly 1 to 2 footdrainage coming back from the rear ofleast r^rill create a little more of aThat's the only thing. Mike Mason: I'd also ljke, Ron talked about drajnagethey talked about a serale going between Tri.ple CrownwiLl be entailed Jn building that for dralnage? whatremoved? What wilI happen there? and at thi.s meeti.ng and Woodhi II. What wi I1 have to be was thj.s swale back through herethe rear of the house pads and thatrsdip in the back there such that theTriple Crown Estates wiII not, or atbuffer for these house pads in here. Mj.ke Mason: How far up Brown: This swale wiIIpoint here. do those swale go up the hj II? extend from this point here a1l the way up to this Dacy: think Itrs about 106 feet south that I s what he means. of the Woodhj. Il Road rj ght-of-$ray. I Dave Sime:Will that be a ditch so Brown: Yes. It erould be seededof a buffer for these house pads. to speak? or sodded and itrs just to provide more Dave S ime: why wouldn,t that be tiled? Ron Krueger: Anything south of that wj.thin the Covenants. Brown: BasicalLy for the reason because a tile has an expected rife ofapprox imately . 6 years. If we put a drainage swale out th6re, the peopleare avrare of it. They know it's purpose. rf a tile line is out tlreri,peopre have a habit of cutting those tile lines because they,re not real-sure where it starts or where it ends or exactly what purpoie it,s for.If we do the drainage swale concept out there, people ire awure of it.They kno$, exactly whatrs out there and it's more effective. Birr Eggert: where is that in relation to the covenant? The area that,sgoing to be proposed for the Covenant? RoxAnn Lund: In the Covenants that we have proposed. In the proposedcovenants, which r have one copy reft that r can give to you ana ie passedaround other copies to the neighborhood already. rn number 10, the ioi.rsand trees, in the first page under 3 on setbacks, it says that thebuilding setback from the lot line sharl conform to ci.tt ordioances and nobuilding or grading wilr be permitted except for Eerraci ng or erosioncontrol ,,ri-thin L40 feet of the back 10t 1ine. That mi.ght switch io a fewfeet because it'!s kind of straggered there but it wirl be approximately140 feet from the back lot line whi.ch is your back lot ljne.Mike Mason: A concern r have is safety on that road simply because and Planning Commission Meet i ng May 4, 1988 - Page 4 inci.dentally, I think Chan does a real good job of maintainjng that roadin the winter but itts very slippery. We have a front wheeL drive and a 4 $rheel drive car and the front wheel drive has not always made it aroundthat corner and into our drive. With that 2OZ gxade and with cars, carsdon't always go 2g mph down that hill, I hope that this gets approved. Thatrs an issue that I think is a major concern qujte honestly. We get in and out there but j.t's not Ehe easiest thjng to do and r^re're going to be adding 12 whatever more cars on that road and that will also make thaEroad slippier. My guess is that will be a constant issue. The safety issue I think is an important one. Conrad: what would you recommend? Mike Mason: weII, Irm a resident. Public: Donrt built the homes. Margaret Thompson, 5899 Yuma: this pond overflows. There is there. We've had that Problem was done. I'm wonderj ng what's going to happen whena ditch that drains into tbe lake frombefore when development on the top there Bror^rn: I took a look at, that's one of our fjrst concerns. obvi.ously the pond has been sized to accomodate the Lgg year event but as we've seen Iast summer, the LOg year event can be exceeded. These house pads were Mike Mason: I could say donrt build the homes but thatts not going to happen so I don't know. I really don't and that's why I bring it up. Cars come over that hill at a fairly good clip sometimes and Irm not dumping on anybody here but rrith cars coming over there fast in the winter there are some issues that People are going Eo need to be made very well aware of. Itrs not the safest road in Chanhassen. Then just one more thing and I'1I shut up, how is approving a wetland Permit 9o? The alteration. I guess the reason I ask is, I assume that these ordinances were passed in years past with specific reasons in mind and $rhen I see, my question is what is the sense of having the ordinance vrhen wetland alteration permits, variances are given off Ehis? Conrad: One part that's bei ng reviewed tonight i.s, the rule that we have is if there is any change withj.n 260 feet of a wetland, vre want to know about it. We $rant to see what that change is. If we dj.dn't !'rant it changed, we would have said that in our ordjnance but what our ordinance is trying to do is say, bring that change to t.he City so we can review whaE it is. Thatrs the concept of the ord j.nance. Itrs not that werre not allowing it. That ere want to prohibj t building within 2q6 feet. we want to protect the wetlands and if we're convinced the wetlands are protected, than r,retII allow the change. In thj.s particular case they're asking for a pond that will filter the vrater before jt gets into the wetland. supposedly thatrs a posit ive benef j.t. If you're running the drainagestraight into the wetland, the wetland can't handle jE, j.t may just be too much for the r{etland. In this particular case, a settling pond or whatever might be a better solutjon and thatrs what we look at and see if it i.s a better solution. Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 5 checked out versussafe. If the pond back into the ero od s now exists that hrasfoot and a half to have to engluf this t.he drajnage calculatj.ons to make sure that they weredid overflow, the low point is down at thj.s point hereand it would simply f lov,, over into the wetland thatcreated during Triple Crown. Therers approximately a2 foot buffer to any propertj.es out here that wouldwhole area before it would reach thj.s point. Margaret Thompson: I $roods i. nto the Iake. was wrth referring more to where it drajns for us, thatthe changes in the land that would need for... Brown: At this point here? Thompson3 Yes. There was quite an article in the paper aboutMargaretir. Brown: The pond essentiarry is going to, ri.ght nor., the water flow comesdown Woodhill and it cuts across into th is creek here. Nothing isrestricting it from doing so. At that ti.me, during the big storm, it'sjust pouring down there because there'!s no restriction wnafsoever. Thispond i.s going to faciritate thaE. rtrs going to restrict the run-off sothat itrs not coming do$rn in one bj.g wave. Margaret Thompson: lle had l j.ved there for quj.te aand our daughter vrent out just during a normal raina river and the vrater, walking across the water isstreet. This is on yuma. FiJ.y Thompson: And that $rasn, t even a big rajnstorm. Brovirn: That was one of the reasons that we had askedconsider making this outlot and constructjng a largerbuj lding any homes there because vre are well aware-ofthat comes down both wocdhj 11 and yuma at that point.far as to videotaping jt during the rainstorms to seewater is coming down there. Conrad: Theoretically Larry, you eng j.neers can can hold and it can hold a lg0 year type storm. figure out what that pond few years right on yuma storm, Yuma turns into knee deep. Just on the the applicant to pond and notthe amount of r,rater Werve even gone soexactly ho$, much Brown: As a matter of fact, the initjal pond wasthis size and what that did was it mai.ntained thefor the proposed site alone. Now, r^rhen we broughtapplicant and said look, since this area serves as we need to do more or we would request that you doarea to facilitate the enti.re area that flows down approx imately one-third LAg year frequency stormthi s issue to thethe major dra inageway more with that dra i nagethere and hets done so. Steve Syversoa, 760 preakness Lane: Irve got some questions on the pondas far as the diameter goes. The depth goes. That would extend backbeyond vrhat r understand to be the r40 feet, as far as touching the trees.wourd tbat pond be taking out some of the mature trees? we understandit's going to be very sizeable. Brown: Yes, r'm sure there vrould be tree removal for the construction of Planning Commission Mee t i. ng May 4, 1988 - Page 6 the pond pond. The depth vrere to be would be pond right now, to ans\^rer your questi on about depth, if the engulfed by a wave of water at this point, the maximum 4 feet at this poiot. Steve Syverson: Maybe this is part of the... Brovrn: Approximately 55 feet from thjs point to this point. Steve Syverson: And that would be lined then or unlined clay or how wiII that be maintained as far as upgrading? Brown: Depending on the waEer conditions, we do have the option of lining that $rith a clay liner. If we dig out the materials and find that itrs... soil we do have that option right now in viewing this. The information that vre have, vre would probably just construction another pond. $ri th rocks or Chuck Worsfold, 6960 Yuma Drive: Thr first one is I Iive just right here. My house is next to this empty Ijttle corner here owneC by Mr. Johnson erho I thj.nk need to contact about buyj.ng that but last JuIy 23rd, my backyard has still got a sandbar in it from thaE and I know we're not expecting a rain like that. It came through here and I still have evidence. I scooped out a foot or more of sand and I st j. Il have the evidence. I never got it aII. It came right across t.hrough here and the water was at least, even though I live u9, mY basement is up far enough, I was beginnj ng to wonder if it was even going to come up that far. It was comj ng across here and I would say at least a foot and a half to 2 feet deep through there. The other point is, I would like to talk about Mjke's point on thi.s hill here in the wintertime. I don't know, have you ever been dol^rn this road? Do you know how it iusE goes, tike that. l was just wondering, is t.here anyvray, if they do put homes in here, if they have any children at aII. Irve got a little 4 year old boy and one just out of the basket and that, if it's not going to be taken care of, I would just really be afraid, safetywise, because there are a lot of people that do come down that road and even though it's a real tight curve here and they even floor it and go up thjs street as fast as they can. You shake you hand at them. Sometimes it's to no avail but the only other point I would really Iike to recommend, which I was I j.ed to in the beginning because my realtor toLd me that all this land was owned by the City. He told me there would never be any homes j.n there. I was lied to. I was naive I guess. I guess you check out everything but from the environmental or aesthetic point, I've seen deer in there and barred ohrls and great horns in there and I guess maybe it doesn't make a whole Iot of difference to somebody who's out to make a dollar but I guess thatrs the reason that I bought that home. I come from a farm and that's r^rhy I bought the home because I thought it was goj.ng to be left that ivay. Itrs my mistake. Conrad: Appreciate the comments. one that weiIl follow up on a little bit. The gentleman $ras saying that he saw the drainage being up the hill a littl-e bit Larry so werre tal-king not only about drainage from the property thatrs being develoPed but drainage obviously from the rest of thai area. Therers no thought of any kind of, the funneling of water from the rest, how is that accomPlished and I assume that there is no other engineering that vre're planning to make sure that the other water gets Planning Commission May 41 1988 - Page 7 Meeting directed into the pond or am r wrong. what are the plans for any otherimprovements outside of the particular property in question? Broern: Typically in a municipality the standards, in just about all themunicipalities in the Twin cities, they use the r00 yeir frequency stormevent and r have no doubts that at one time last summer during our superstorm, the water very vrert could have come across that area and enguliedthat entire area. That storm has been labered by the Department oiNatural Resources as a 4raa6 year event which is obviousry a lot rargerthan your average storm. There is not a storm sewer syst6m in a cit! tnatcould handle that amount of qrater. r think werve arl ;itnessed that. Asfar as off-site improvements, there is no irnprovements other than r.rha t isproposed here off-site to address that specific matter, no. this is thelow Iying area, one of the low lying areas of Carver Beach. Therers nodoubt about that and to handre a storm of that size, you just can't do it. my mind, this project Iooks like a benefit to the rrholeand I think that's really neat but what I don't understandis there and we haven, t done anythj.ng to make sure it'sinto that pond. That's where I,m at. That's what my Brown: Part of the improvement that we looked at was placing curbingarong woodhill to direct the water to Ehis storm ser^rer- system and get itto the pond. That was real-ly the onry, at that time, feisibre option.The vorume of water that flows down woodhirr and yuma, as Mr. Kruegereruded to, just could not be handled by a conventi onar storm sehrer system.The rarge size pipe that you wourd have to put in there to get it downthere, itrs not cost effective so your only other option is to let thewater flow in it's natural drainage path and keep that path open andthatrs exactry what the applicant has done. rn a normar rainstorm you cansee that the creekbed has been cut by the natural path. He is arteiingthe drainage path through this corner but werre confident that thedrainage will make it down to this pond whi.ch will sort of bufferdovrnstream. Conrad: But in d ra inage systemis if the pond being d i rec tedquestion is. Dave Sime, Preakness Lane: system can carry? Hov, manyyou put out the homes? I'm just wonderj ng, inches of rain wi lL maximum your carry before hours duration. on this pond to wha t that is the system Brown: The Lgg year event is 6 inches per Dave Sime: Wasnrt there also talk abouthold back the sed iments? Brovrn: Being that there is ponded water, Dave Sime: Therers no damming... Brown: Therers a pipe down in this pointflow. hour for kind of a a24 dam that acts as a sediment trap. here which will restrict the Pete Parris, Preakness Lane: At the beginning I think you rrere saying Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 8 that it's supposed to be a dry pond? Brown: CorrecE. Brown: 928. Pete Parris: Nor^, if the water j.s a foot below ground level rj.ght now and nobody can really argue that it has been dry this year and j.t was dry last year too other than the super storm, if the water level is only a foot below ground rougly in 4 or 5Iot there. what are we going to do if we have a normal year? Is the water level going to be 2 inches below ground? You walk back there on a wet year, you could not walk back there without rubber boots on because you'd be squishing all over the place. No t^r you hrant to build homes on that? what you're going to do is Put in a lot of fill and their sump pumps are going to have to be running constant.ly. That just doesn't make any sense to me. They're constantly going to have a problem. These people who buy this last tt o lots are constantly going to be havj.ng problems and everything else. Thatrs why we come to these meetings like this so $re can hopefuJ.ly look out for other fellow people that move into the city or other people who live in the city right now that maybe eventually wiII buy those. steve Syverson i I have another public safety concern as far as that road goes. Yourre talking about guttering it. I knohr just on Preakness you have plows coming through, you have a road that's 13 feet eride. The plows coming through and building uP the snow bank and yourve got all this water Pete Parris: Okay, the way I Iook at it right now, therers no way it can be a dry pond. Itrs been two years now since werve had really any normal rain and therers always water running down that little creek right now. You may call it a drainage ditch or whatever but I call it a creek. There is water running through it. There are ducks swimming in jt. Muskrats in it. That is right now, it is a live, Iiving pond. Itrs not a dry little thing that every Ltg years we have water in it. Right no$r, with the last two years that have been so dry, there is still rrater there. My next question is, what is the water table right there on Lots 4 and 5? The soil tests that you got back, I heard that $rater is about 6 to I inches belor^r the soil right now. Belov, the ground. Brown: If I could ansrder the first question. The dry pond concept, Irm not going to dispute whether therers water constantly running through there or not. My point is that therets not going to be 4 feet of standing water without a rain storm in that pond. It will facilitate that natural flow. If there is a constant flow running through there, so be it. It will be carried out by this pipe and jnto the wetland. The other i.ssue, Irm not sure rdhether the appl j.cant has had soil borings taken. Maybe you'd like to address that. Ron Krueger: I've had them taken. We havenit gotten the reports back- The ones they took on the tr.ro lots we omitted it was about a foot below the surface. . . Batzli: what elevation are you going to have that pipe at Larry? coming down this hill in the tha$, and you've graduaLly got an ice pangrovring out into the street. Then youive got probrem! witrr kids ai far asparking on this st.uf f . peopre wonrt be abie to get into their lots. rjust canrt see anything but problems as far as tiaffic going up and downthat street. Planning Commission Meet i ng May 4, 1988 - Page 9 Conrad: What would you like to Steve Syverson: Come up with a plan. Draj.n the water away. chuck worsfold: on that pond again, r was thinking nore rike towards themi.ddre of the summer, letrs say this was dead i.n the heat and thestagnatation and the smerl and odor and arr that of alr the surroundingwater thatrs coming into that, correct me if trm wrong but r think theiewas a ri,ttle girr striken with encephalitis from Ehe iosquitoes a year,two years_ ago. rrm just wondering, how much of a situation is that goingto. cause if that just is alrowed to sit in there whereas now it'" goi th6natural vray to drainage of taking care of that? do? di. fferent Conrad: I don't know if therers an answer for yourthe creek and it's pretty stagnant right now. It'sdrainages right now, when you take a look at it. question. Irve seennot the best of Chuck Worsfold: It's not because you don't get air between. Ii ke a small down there.lake where The breeze the air of few you is 9etkind in and there far Conrad: As a layman's perspectj.ve, Ibetter than what the creek is offeringLaxxy, do you have a better? to assume a movement at ).s t irne . would have for wa ter pond this Brown: Yes. Again, supposing water cameto this point and out. If no more wateryear, this is going to rema j.n dry so iE,ssituation that's out there now- in at tlrjs point, it wilI flohr comes through here, j.E's a drynot going to be the stagnant Nancy Parris: Assuming that the pond i.s...you say that there is going tobe a swale back there. By arl indications this swale is going to be thecreek that you are replacj.ng so you,re going to have that kind ofsituation... Living on top of preaknesi r see the drainage coming downour street and it goes down that way and adding to it. ri,s comiig fromthe carver Beach area. That's a lot of water- The second point r;a riieto make is that everybody talks about a valid concern and tirey are arlgood points. rrd rearly rike the advisory commjttee to step 6ack and takea look. overall there are a 10t of areas to buy 10ts. chaihassen is abig place with a rot of deveropment going on. ihese five Lots are notcrucial to the development of the city. seeing that there are so manyconcerns, lvhy at this point develop them? Pete Parris: I understood that cityarea j.n the early 70's and that, howis and these houses have been thereright here, has never been developed erater, city sewer was put back in thecome with Carver Beach as big as itfor so long, how come this hasnrt,before? Has there been some other Planning Commission Meet i ng May 4, 1988 - Page I0 reason r.rhy no other developer wanted to tackle this? Conrad: I guess hre could look for the particular reason. I'11 just giveyou an overview. AIl of Chanhassen is developing right now. The pressureis one Chanhassen a whole Iot because Eden prairie is getting filled up and we're growing. As you grow, people decide to seII the property for aprof j.t and you start building houses. It is basically their right to dothat. It takes a real strong reason to restr j.ct that. Otherwise, you have to have a very well thought out reason to restr ict some of the developments so whether there's a reason right now for it, Irve heard alot of drainage probl-ems stated tonight and some safety, which we're always concerned lrith every time something goes in. My view of this is that. itrs solving the drainage for the particular property but it's alsosolving some other real sigoificant drainage problems that the whole areahas. Do you have that same belief? Pele Parris: I believe the drainage area noe, that is back there is forthe betterment of everybody. I think what theyrre proposing, especially those last two houses there, I canrt believe that the drainage, what they have proposed, the way itrs set up with that pond and everything, Ibelieve Lot 5, that house wiII be totally flooded out all the time. Ibelieve they'11 always have a wet basement. Rjght now with the water Ievel only a foot below soil, you canrt tell me, this is a dry year, when iE's going to be wet, that sump pump is going to be working constantly. If not it's going to overflow and Ehose people are goi.ng to have a wet basement constantly. I can see Chanhassen is going up. How j.t.'s growing and everythj.ng. I've lived in this area for 15 years and I've seen how much everything is grovring but I canrt see how developing this little bitis going to help Chanhassen and help everythi ng so much. If r4re're going to start building on swampland, which that is and my opinion and just about everybody elses in that area, when you vralk down there in a semi-wetyear, yourII need boots on. Chuck Worsfold: I'd just like to concur with my neighbor because like Isaid, my property is just up above that and he's absolutely right. Irvegotten to where I can't even mow my lawn in the mid of the summer tr{royears ago because it is that weE back there and Irm talking, I'm up thehill from where, especially that last lot is going to be put in at. The other thing is, if you do decide and they have to go in there, then I would really appreciate some sort of a drainage system in there. Thjs isjust a personal thing because I have a very good friend, I mean I know it f lorrs to the lake but I did not know that I was going to be having to deal $rith a pond where my little boys are going to playing here because I had afriend 5 years ago lose his 6 year old son to someEhj.ng of what we'retalking about puEting jn there. sure, I know it's my responsibility to keep track of my children but curiosity is a big thj.ng with little boys. Irm just saying therers not every moment that yourll be able to keep trackof that. Irm noE saying I donrt know how deep this pond is. ThaErs why Irm a Iittle bewildered exactly what the specifications are. Ho$, Iarge. Where itrs really going to be at. Carlye Peterson, Preakness Lane: Is there an acceptable level for PIanni.ng Commission Mee t. j. ng May 4, 1988 - Paqe 1I building on as far as how moist, how $ret thea foot below the soil or 8 inches below therelevel and if there is, what happens when thattaken, that it automatically can get a houselevel? Do you understand what Irm saying? land can be? We talked aboutis water. Is there a good soj I samples that werewith this if there is that Brown: The Uniform euilding Code addresses part of thatand that will be requj.red as part of the building pernitcan not achieve a structurally sound or stable conditionthen they wonrt be allowed the permit for that lot. soil stabilityprocess. If theyin that area, the stuff. It's not Brown: Correct. Pete Parris: Are you saying, Ietrs say they started digginq there and youapproved the Iand and everything, they started digging and they put in lhefill and alL of a sudden they realize on Lots 4 and 5 we can not get apermit because it is more or less a sr4ramp, by most of our opinioni, andthen what do they do? We reject tbe peririt. They can not Luild a houseand they sit there with a whole pile of torn up stuff and bulldozed up andit's our eyesore oo top of preakness Lane looki.ng down on th is. carlye Peterson: so there is a certain lever that they have to adhere to?If it doesnrt exist, do they create that or does it have to be natural? Can you add filt to a swamp to build a house? Is that acceptable to theCity, is what Irm asking. Brown: If they can meet the soil stability, yes. Carlye Peterson: Okay, but Ehatts after you've addedwith the soil samples that were taken this week? Ron Krueger: I guess I'd like to poj.nt out an alternative that couldhappen. Another scenario that could happen. Mr. Kerber who we have apurchase agreement wi.th on this property, the lots as they are have sewerand water service to them. They've been assessed for sewer and vraterservice. He can sell enough of those loEs to one j.ndividual to make abuirdabre rot. He courd do what we're doing without coming to anything.He could selr off r0 of those rots enough to make a buirdable lot. rE hassewer and water to it arready. rt's been assessed. peopre could come andget a building permit and they could cut alr lhe trees down if they wantedto- If we dontt do this, which werre planning on doing, somebody'l goingto develop the Land. Whether jt,s us or Kerberrs or whoever, and theKerber rs can do thj.s and not do any of Eh j.s stuff. He doesnrt have todeal with the drainage. He can start bui ldi.ng off of the top of the hilland ret the city worry about the drainage. He can cut the t-rees down.That's his property. werre offering a solution that saves as many of thetrees as possible. This property obviously is being dumped on. All ofthe Triple crordn Estates water is coming here. Alr of the carver Beachpropertyrs water is dumping here. obviousry Lhere is a drainage problem whi.ch we're attempting to solve. Mr. Kerber doesnrt have to ao a1r trris.somebodyts going to do this. Pete Parris: Not necessarily. with the wetland they can avoid aII of Planning Commission Meeting May 4, f988 - page 12 the . . . Ron Krueger: sand. Get an They can build up for 26 feet deep and fill it back up with engineeri ng report. . . Pete Parris: They can't alter a r.retland without a permit. Ron Krueger: They can alter it 2gg feet away the wetland and beyond. RoxAnn Lund: I think that some of the residents are a little bit confused. The wetland is to the west of the Yuma right-of-way and is notj.nclusive of this property. This property is not a designated wetland. Never has been. It is zoned residential single family and has no designation as a wetland. Bilt Eggert, Preakness Lane 3 Just a question regarding the 140 feet thatrs designated as covenanted land. Do I understand correctly that that can not be developed on at a later date? RoxAnn Lund: what $re're saying is that ldhere that approximate I40 feet from the vacated dot to that back line, what you have to do is basically some clearing of the underbrush which makes it more environmentally sound. I believe there was a forester out there that said that some of the underbrush needs to be removed to make the trees more healthy. That would be something that would involve changing of the trees over 4 inch diameter.. . BiIl Eggert: Just a comment relative to that, if the find favorably on the development of this proPerty, I to the integrity of the property to maintain that. Commi ss i on think it's should essential Mike Mason: Just one more comment on putting five homes in there. there any way that that could be split up to where maybe there was two dwellings put in there so we wouldnrt have to be cutting into Is there a vJa y to market that to where even one person could build home back in there? IS j ust so much? a nice Conrad: Legally speaking, you only have to have 15,090 square feet of footage. Mike Mason: Irm just sayi.ng as an optjon jnstead of cutting that up into five little pieces to one Person. Conrad: The developer has that option. In this particular case... Mike Mason: Unless Mr. Kerber would ever consider something like that. wish I had a million dollars, I'd buy it myself. I Ron Krueger: I'll sell it to you for a million dollars. Conrad: Once a developer meets the City zoning ordi.nance and the restrictions of l-5,ggt, ib's difficult for us to say you have to go bigger because in that partj.cular zoning district, L5,gg6 is minimum and we have Planning Commission Meeti ng May 4, 1988 - eage 13 found time and timethings that we l ooklot si ze standpoint, more money, a better choice. again we canrt enforce larger lots. There are otherat besides simply lot size however but simply from athe developer makes a decision. Larger lot may bringhouse but iE's his economic decision. IE,s his Mike Mason: I would just like to say that considering some of thedevelopment thatrs gone on in the City in tems of just bulldozingeverything dosrn, I do appreciate what R & R is trying to do. ObviouslyIrm not pleased but if itrs going to happen it,s going to happen. I thinkitrs.nice that some people are starting to take those kinds oi things intoconsideration and r rdourd hope that the planning comrnission as welr as theCity on any future development would take this liinds of things intoconsideration. Conrad: Yes, there have been some cases close to where trees have gone down and I think that caused a major concern and thatrs why we'reenforcing a little bit of knowing what trees were going down on aproperty. The thi ngs that are assets out there, you're fighting for thoseassets in the community. We moved here for some of those ieasons andsometimes it hurts when you see those things going down and the best wecan do is preserve some of that. yet on the other hand, like we alr liketo do hrith our own property, the or.rners do have that right to use it asthey see fit and as it conforms to our ordj nances. I think what werretrying to do in the chanhassen ordinances and the city staff have beentrying Eo protect some of those things that we thing ire important likewetlands and preventi.ng clearcutting and those things. Anything else? Erhart moved, Emm j.ngs seconded to close the public hearing.favor and motion carried. The pubtic hearing vras closed. AII voted in Headla: I see the recoMnendationbeing in before.on number 8, I donrt remember that ever Dacy: The developer shall clean-up? be responsible for daily on and off-site Headla: Is that a new boiler plate yourre going to add on every one? Brown: Yes. The City Council has been disturbed by the amount of thetracking of mud, debris that,s been blowjng across the city from theconstruction sjtes so you can expect to see that on just about al-lsubdivisions that come through here. Headla: I think that's great. Any two-vrheeler. Motorcycle or bicycle,particularly at night when it's raining. I hope to see it on every one.On that pond, is the creek going right to the pond or will there siitl Uekind of a street creek going througb there yet? Brohrn: No, the pond will be constructed in lieu of that creek. Headla: Tonight when r was over there you courd see a coupre of malrards Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 14 down in there and I can just see, if you puE that. pond in there, hereagain we're creating things aesthetically such as over on TH 5. It looksgreat and we think we're doing great for water fowl . yes, they can landthere but there sure isn't any habitat. I wish there was something wecould do to create or not take so much habitat avray from them and I thinkthe way we've got all the structures of our ponding, you're just taking itaway. Just off of Kerber Blvd., all that ponding, it just isn.t good fornesting. Werre taking stuff away from wildlife again. Maybe thererssomething in the future we can do to revrord that. If we approve thistonight, are we saying that we agree with the Covenants on those trees? Dacy: The staff condition is that they submit a tree removal plan alongwith their building pernit application. Staff would also enforce thatgrading limit line as I identified as part of the plan, that ere would notallow tree removal beyond the grading Limit line that's indicated on the Plan. The restricted covenants can be a condition of approval and will be recorded by the applicant against the property. Headl.a: What about in 5 years? Most of thosesay in 5 years some of them started dy j.ng, can do$rn? now are they go Dacy: If the maple trees are dying, thaE could cause an impact some of the other ex j.sting trees. If it can be shown that it good for the trees, the City will go along with it. young maples butin and cut those againstwill be Headla: Do you think this is an enforceable requirement? Dacy: I think it's some good tools that we've implemenEed sj.nce some other subdivisions in the past. The tree removal plans have really helpedstaff in enforcing that. The private restrictions are enforced by the homeowners in that 5lot subdivision so youtve got a couple of tools thatare both municipal and private. Headla: You've got a tool for really holding back the bigger problems butthe next person. . . Dacy: I rm sor r y. Headla: You I re reaIIy the little nit picking Dacy: Th9cuttinq of major J.ntent is that sre certainly don'tthe entire lot and thatrs the intent of going to be able to control the big offender butyou probably arenrt that concerned about anyway. wan t our mass i. ve clearcondition. Headla : level? LayLy.- have we ever refused a building permit due to a high water Brown: I am not going to direct the question of a bigh water level . I have to keep it j.n the terms of all the soil conditions. It involves morethan just the water level . In previous subdivisions we have required thatsoil borings be taken on every house pad and brought in as a part of thebuilding permit process to insure the structural soundness of the soil. Planning Commission Meet i ng May 4, 1988 - Page 15 Headla: Areare adeguate? requ i rements , Brown: Yes. The condition enforcement as part of thealong with the signature ofin the past. Headla: In this case would some of these comments? you convinced that, particularly for 5,If they do everything that we requirethat it is a safe place to put a home? our and now our procedures they pass that could be added to this as an additionalapproval is that each pad submit a soil boringsa registered soils engineer. Werve done that you reconunend we do that nov, that you've heard Brown: We can do that yes. Headla: when we had this big rain this summer, with thethere that if there were homes, anybody would have beenit just be personal property damage? Could anybody havekilled or anything? Is it that serious down there? Headla: Thatrs all I have. si tuat i onin danger been hurt down or would or Brown: Not having the specific daEa available to me, thatrs strictly ajudgment carr whether somebody could possibly have gotten hurt. Therersno doubt that this area drains approximately 33 acres of rand and it isthe low lying area of that drainage path. Irm sure during that eventthere was a great volume of water that followed that path. rtrs not takenlightry- r thi.nk thaE.rs r^rhy the applicant is in here trying to constructa larger pond than what is legally required by our ordinaoce. Wildermuth: I curbing on the Brown: Yes it was. with the curbing option, a stormhave had to have been installed along with that alongthe road. Due to the volume of water that comes downsevrer system became unfeasible. noticed on the recommendation therers nothj.ng sajd aboutsouth side of Woodhi1l. Was that idea rejected? se\"rer system Lrou ldthe entire length ofthere, the storm wildermuth: There i.s According to the plat r,rhat you I re saying? sewer system i t srouldn't a storm map but now ln hand le the road something right? 1i ke that is Brown: The storm sewer system thaE is proposed i.s to handle just the twoculverts that go underneath the roadway. The vast amount of volume that comes down and I think yourve heard this from the property owners, shootsstraight down Woodhill Road and along Yuma Road so thatrs being being leftto go itrs natural path. Wildermuth: What I,m thinking about is the curb on the south side thoughwith angled approaches for a driveway that would direct the water down toit without the storm sewer and curbing. Bro$rn: Itrs possible, yes. Planning Commission Meet i ng May 4, 1988 - Page 16 Wildermuth: That would help defLect some of the rdater that's coming downfrom up above from the north side. Bror.rn: The natural path of the vraterway, having videotaped part of thatduring a heavy rainstorm, the water followed the north side of WoodhiII,if you wiII, up until the time that it got down to where the creek was andthen crossed at that point to the south side and through the creek. Wildermuth: Okay, so what provisions are we sounds Iike you're going to have to build onIot, of Lot 5. You're going to have to fill Wildermuth: So what provisions from the north side of WoodhiIlto keep it from coming over theiErs all below the 949 contour? are going to be made to divert the water where therers currently a natural barrier road and washing over somewhere between, going to make there?the front 80 feet ofin the creek r i ght? It that Brown: The grading plan proposes a 2 to 3 foot increase in the pad eJ.evation, if you will, back towards the house pad. The rrater would bedirected, i.f you have plans in front of you, right at the northeast corner of that lot. Thatrs where the natural drainage $riIl be maintained. The proposed grade out there is at a 936 elevation and by the time you qet up to the house pad it's at a 943 elevati.on so there is that d if f erence to divert the water. wildermuth: It looks like there's a culvert under the road by my map. Is that true? Brown: Thatrs correct. wildermuth: And that will remain? Brown: That I s correct. Wildermuth: If hre fill in the creek, where is the drainage from theculvert going to go? will the culvert be extended into the pond? Brown: Thatrs correct. There's a pipe shown on the plan which carriesthat culvert, if you look it says to construct manhole that wilIfacilitate the extension of that culvert into the pond. wildermuth: Is it possible, I guess Ird like to address the builder, isit possible that you r{ould not put basements j.n houses on Lots 4 and 5? They wilI be split. There wouldn't be basements.Ron Krueger: Wi Idermuth : Ron Krueger: But it would still be dohrn below the below the tra te r tab 1e . No, it wouldn't be buil-t water table. Brown: That's correct. Planning Commission Meet i ng May 41 1988 - Page 17 Batzli: Larry, in your report, I thought you saidfoot easement but that's not one of the conditions.foot easement or somelhj.ng for future upgrade? Brown: Yes I d id. Batzlj: Dj cr ycu mean to include that as a Brown: Yes I did. Conrad: For the street easement? Bror^rn: That wiII be a street, drainage aodconstruction of the culvert along the front someth j. ng about a l0Didn't you want a 10 condition of some sort? utility easement due to theof WoodhiII Road. that outlot - done to it? of theculvert, Batzli: I have a question about theto the city, who the heck takes carethere and maintain it? For instance,actually do those things? outlot in general. Once itrs deededof it? Is the City supposed to go inmowing, things like that and do they Brovrn: Yes, the City would be responsible for maintenance of Batzli: And an outlot of this nature, what would normally be Brown: Normally if there were weeds along the front portionoutlot, those would be cut down and the drainage pattirn, the$rhatever, would be kept clear from debris. Bro$rn: Correct. Batzli: it go to BatzIi: done to sort? So you just let it basical,ly becomenatural whatever? weeds? Yourre going to let Doit? you require once the grading is allFor instance, seed it with anything done, or do lhat anything beanything of that Bror.rn: NormaIIy the restorat j.on does include seedingand specifications. That hriII eliminate the amount ofeventually heads dohrn to the wetland to the south. BatzLi: hlhen would tha tthi ngs ? process occur as a part of the seeding plans and Bror"rn: That hrould be athe seeding goes down. part of the grad j.ng, erosion control- plan before as part of the sed imen ta t i on plans as it Batzli: I guess as a general point, Itd Iike to see the covenantsincluded. At least the portions Ehat I read that were highliqhted.donrt know r.rhat the rest of the covenants say so I donrt inow that Ieven recommend that they necessari.ry arr be incruded but r think thecommisison may want to think about some sort of, at reast resolution,the City Council- look at them. Thatrs atl I have. I could tha t Planning Commission Meeting May 41 1988 - Page 18 EIIson: This one particularly interested me because it's in myneighborhood as well. Irm on Yuma Drive like many of you and it's hardnot to take it personally. Even since Irve been in my house I've hadpeople build on both sides of me which didn't seem like a good thing. It vras like, find someplace else. I kind of like it the way it is which isagain the reason I'm there but I also see thatts the reason they want homes there and I really canrt be selfish enough to say that I can have homes around trees but nobody else can from then on. I can bet you that15 years ago when they were bui lding your home, there were people heresaying we donrt want homes along Preakness or we donrt want homes there asvrell. Itrs perfectly natural to do that and that.rs exactly why we havepublic hearings is to hear that. I think because of comments like whatyourve been giving these people, developers canrt just go in and clearland anymore. I think theyrve now got to think of the neighborhood andalthough they're not required to, they're start j.ng to try to cooperate because of people Iike yourselves. Again, they don't have to put a covenant in there, but they are. They don't have to leave those trees,but they are. I corunend you for speaking out because that kind of thingisn't going to be done unless you do but I really canrt see a good reasonto deny it. This is zoned residential and has been forever. Anyone buying land around Ehere knew that was a possjbility and you have torealize thatrs the vray it.'s zoned. It r.rould be really hard for us to say no you canrt, r.re changed our minds. Legally we can't really do that. I trust the engineers report on the drainage and I think it is a better solution. I think he's also shown going from 7lots, whj.ch $rould have made him a lot more money to 5 and again, we canrt tell him to please makeit 2 because itrs even nicer. Again, he has the right to do what he rdants so I would vote to go along with the Commission and the planning staff recommendation. I agree with Brian about somehow gettj.ng that covenanttied into our recommendation. We will recommend it and make sure thattree plan part is on there, which it is, but someho$, make sure that that covenant isnrt something else and goes by the brayside by the time weactually bring people in there. Emmings: The water issue is obviously a big one and we spent an awful lotof time on it here. I'm just going to kind of ignore it because I thinkif anything, the problem is there. The development of this property isntEgoing to add to it and it sounds to me like they might even be doing something to improve the situatjon a Iittle bit but anyway. When I drove down Woodhill tonight and it's the first time Irve ever seen it, of courseI was struck by how quickly it went downhill and I really share the concerns of the neighbors as to winter use of the road and people and speeds on the road but I guess r^rhat really struck me was how narrow theroad j.s. There was a car parked down there and I really had to slow downto go around it. That concerns me both as to thj.nking about emergencyvehicles again going through there. About people having a lot of peopleover and a lot of cars being parked out on that road from tj.me to time. Ireally think the road is incredibly inadequate. It's fine for whatrsthere I think but for a Iot of the homes in the neighborhood, itrs real.Iyinadequate and I have no idea what the solution is but I think itrs a hugeproblem. I think it's a safety problem for the people who live there and use that road. Thatrs my two cents worth. Planning Commission Meet i ng May 4r 1988 - Page 19 Conrad: But you think it's a problem. Enmings: I think the road should have to be better than it is to havehouses in there but I don't know if we can require the developer to dothat. I donrt know if it's a city problem. I don't know that it's aproblem for this developer but it's certainly a probl-em. I do have oneother thing down here. I can't tell you how often we hear that realtorstell people that thatrs a city park over there and it witl never be builton. We hear that again and again and again and all I can say is, thereare people who Iicense realtors and you should write a little letter to whoever that is. I don't know their formal name but the state licensesthese people and you should errite a letter about that person to thatlicensing board and tell them about the mi srepr esentat i on that was made toyou. In the case of a developer, write to the Attorney General's officeand let them know. If they get enough complaints they might act on it andprosecute which is what they should do. Erhart: In looking at the plan, you're adding a 12 inch culvert that doesnot exist today. Is that correct? Am I reading this right? Brown: Which area? Erhart: Talking about where the ditch exists currently yourrethe center. It appears to me like it,s from the south side of down to this pond? Brown: Correct. Erhart: And what t s the purpose of facilitate that? Brown: That i.s Woodhill Road. j ust to the 12 inch culvert that is underneath Erhart: So the ditch existing di tch? is going to remain as shown on the plan? The Brown: The ditch tha t by the pond there. is out there now wj.lI be for the most part engulfed adding fromthe road Erhart: I'm looking right next to Lot 5rs Brown: That wi l1 be Erhart: So there wonrt be a Brown: There wiII be a swal-e from the pond back to the road where the ditch runs house pad. fil1ed in. ditch there anl.more? in there. Erhart: And your 12 inch culvert is going to handle the 100 year storm? Brown: That 12 inch culvert will handle the drainage that is beingfacil-itated by that 12 inch culvert now that goes under Woodcrest.to the drainage of that yourd have to jump WoodhitI. To add Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 2g Erhart:into the Brown: Erhart: pond and Brown: So now what di tch r iqht you I reat the saying, the 12 inch culvert currently flows end of the road ? Dacy: Even if j.t same principle orrunoff to col l ect Correct . Now what you I reeliminating the was the and Correct . Erhart: Is the ditch a $retland? I vrant to point out something here or Iwant to ask something here. Correct me if I,m wrong. A wetland doesnrthave to be a $retland to be shown on our $retland map. Donrt we also, when ere go in and review subdivisions, as a matter of fact at time go back andlook at all the area within a subdivision and determine if there isadditional wetlands on that area that are not included on our leetlands mapand add them? Dacy: Thatrs correct. Itrs been staff's interpretation up to this pointthat that ditch was not a part of the wetland area. The edge of thewetland area shown in the southeast corner of the plat matches the edge ofthe wetlands thatrs shown on the City's wetland map. cranted this drainageway or ditch drains directly into that lretland. Vte did not vie$,it as a r.retland per se but as a drainageway receiving $raters from uplandareas into the wetland. Erhart: I heard a majority of Ehe time there is water running that ditch.Didnrt I hear tha t? Dacy: Yes there is. Erhart: I think we have not, from $rhat Irve heard here, I don,t think werve ascertained at all whether or not that's a wetland or not. Itmhearing the neighborhood say that it's a hretland v.rho Iive t.here and thedeveloper and Larry, I think somehow werve assumed that it's not a i{etlandand Irm not sure that werre correct. I guess what I'd like to see... doing is yourre extending the culvert to the newditch. determined to be a wetland, you'd stilL have the same problem to address. You have 33 acres of somehow protect the existing rretland. Erhart: Let me go on Barbara. But if the creek j.s a wetland, thencanrt build within 75 feet of that creek which $rould eliminate Lot 5goiog back to our wetland ordinance, removing that creek j.f it has wrunning in it a majoriEy of the time, goes against the intent of ourwetland ordinance. I guess I'd like to see this thing tabled and hadetermine whether this is a wetland or not because I really question house there. I do believe our ordinances, if applied correctly, wilus decide erhether Lot 5 is viable or not. Normally anytime we havewetland we do have someone from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Iook at iUnfortunately this time we didn't have a chance to do that. Maybe v,could have prevented a lot of thj.s discussion but Ird tike to see th happen. you . Inater ve usthatI help at. e at Dacy: rf the commission wants to go ahead and do that, obviously thatrsyour perogative. Another simirar situation that the reason why itaffproceeded on this as presented was because the Rod Grams subdi.vision downon Audubon and L].man BIvd.. That arose a similar situation where Bluffcreek proceeded east/r^rest underneath Audubon Road and the rarger wetlandarea rras on the west side. we viewed that as a creek and not as a part ofthe total wetl-and area. Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 2I Erhart: what did we do with it? Did because we Put it i.n Dacy: Erhar t : No, it was left as is there was no A1l Irm saying is... Dacy: Irm just saying, it vras our interpretation that that was a creekand not necessarily part of the wetland. Erhart: I just find it hardallows us to move a creek. to believe we have a wetland ordinance that a cu lver t ? alteration... Erhart: Okay, on Dave,s comment, this pondbuild a pond thaE's got no water in it lndponds to the DNR's recommendation of the Ibanks. Do we apply that Larry when we canhold water in case of a big storm? Dacy: The U. Ssite on Friday couldn ' t get has is shown in Erhart: But I'm just wondering, do we make any at.tempt at all Eothe Eish and Wi Id li fe? . Fj.sh and l,fildlife guy is going to be coming out to the. He has to cover a three county area. That was why weim out here in time for the plan;ing Comrnission revi6w butthe report, his approval is necessary anyway. thing, it disturbs me that $reI wonder, donrt we specifyia lg/l in 20 foot slope inor do we make them simply to Brown: That would be Fish and witdlife guidelines, correct me if rrmwrong Barb, are instated if an applicant is going into a r.retland andimproving a wetland. creating a pond within the wetLand. This is not thecase, at least as $re assume novr. when we design pond i ng design them within the areas for run-off, recommendations of Brown: No, they are for storm !.rater retention. Erhart: I guess Ird like to see us attempt to do that when we can.Obviously !,re can't do it al-l the time. Lastly, the street. On thisstreet,deal, what happens if we approve th is and the next meeting a plancomes in for the north side to be subdivided? Then the J.ssue is, weivegot more people using this sane little street. If it is what it is andthe real problem is that 5lots wiII not economically afford a streetimprovement, should rrre or could we somehow basically make some kind of astaEement or something or a regulatj.on that if the north side issubdivided, that that street autonaticarry has to be built and whoeverbuys those lots knows that theyr re going to have, they,re going to pay forit because I think whatrs going to nappen here is thai you;re going't6 Planning Commission Meeting t{ay 4, 1988 - Page 22 approve a subdivision, whether it's 4 or 5lots, and then the next onersgoing to come in very shortly. Then you're going to get faced with who'sgoing to make the decision to improve this streettough one because nobodyr s going to want to make $rant to pay for it and the cityrs going to want i Steve Syverson: I talked to a city thought there was a spring possibly they wanted to or not, I donrt knoe, wa ter . worker who worked dorrn there andin Ehere. If that would explainbut there is a small quanti.ty of ?itt. Itrs going to be a. Nobodyr s going toIf there $ras somevrayto say to these lot owners right now that at some point in the near futuretheyrre going to have to pay for a street improvement, I think it wouldsolve a lot of those prob),ems and I have no idea how you do that. Dacy: On the north side of woodhill Road we looked at the ownershippatterns and the lot sizes. With the proposed amount of Iots, five lotsplus the Mason home plus the variance that r.ra s granted to the west of it,plus the vacant lot up on the corner, you could potentially have 11 total homes accessing onto WoodhilL Road. possibly 10 if the corner lot up at Nez Perce would access off of Nez Perce so the Planning Commission then has to decide if woodhill Road is adequate enough to handle a total development of l1 homes abutting Woodhill Road. At this point it wasstaffrs recommendation that in order to accomplish a tvro way streetsection in there, you r.rould drastically change the character of that area because of that 18? slope, that area in there, we'd have to gain a lotwider area to bring that slope dovrn to a typical street grade of 7?. Erhart: Yourre already including an easement for doing that. Erhart: Itm not suggesting that you do anything now. AII Irm saying isthat you make part of that agreement with those lot owners that theyrregoing to know that they're going to be assessed for streeE jmprovements when those northern lots get subdivided because vrhatr s going to happen isitrs going to be a real problem because nobodyrs going to want to decide. Do you understand $rhat Irm getting at? I donrt know if therers a solutionbut letrs get back to this creek thing. I think we ought to correctly deEermine rrhether thatrs a wetland or not before we proceed on this. Headla: Tim, it Iooks like therers been some work done there already. That ditch has been improved. How long ago did that happen? Do you have any idea ? Ron Krueger: The ditch was improved over the last year. They dug it deeper and eridened it out. Headla: So the village is out there changing the wetland. he $rh y Dacy: weII, even 50 feet isn't enough if we were going to be doing a two way street improvement because of that 18t grade is going to be dif f j.cult to work with. We acknowledge that it is not the best situation but we felt that given those facts, that r{,e could have a potential of Il homes, that we can try and do as much as $re can to maybe look at special signing. Maybe we could look at viidening in certain areas. Planning Conu'nission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 23 conrad: Larry, what do you think would be a street improvement? r thinkit's rear important that we naintain the character of the neighborhood. rthink that r^rould be a rear problem if we started putti.ng in a full streetin there. r think the neighbors wouldnrt like it and that wourd be wrong.In your mind though, to improve that street a little better, what wouldyou do? Simply widened it a little more. Brown: widening, even a little bit is going to be diffjcult with that rgtgrade- Trying to attain the proper side slopes required for that courddevastate some of the homes and rrm talking about some of the existinghomes that are out there. The home that is rocated in proximity of tfrat18? grade on the north end side, received a variance fr6m the city councilto buil,d 19 feet from the corner of the house from the existing rituminousmat thatrs out there now. That just adds one more constraint to thepile. Conrad: Therer s no way theyt re moving the street that way. Brown: correct. rmprovements are going to change the character of thatand staff's intent here was it certainly is not the most desirablesituation to have these additional homes access woodhirl Road. However,the number of rots that are on there now, the homeowners right now, rthink yotr've heard tonight a little bit that they certainly r.rourdnttappreciate another ]-arge assessment for th.t roud improvem;nt project. Ata certain time when the rots to the north come in and subdividl oidevelop, then we have a larger number, or at least a more willing group tohave a publj.c improvement project done to improve that roadway. Conrad: But what would that take? Brown: That woulddefinitely i nvo lvelots. take a feasibility study to determineextensive gradj.ng and retaining vraIIs that, It wouldfor some of these Tlm, your comment is a ditch is a wetland. Is that what yourre Erhart: I guess I dontt know. made this ditch, that's a ditch. We should get our consultant inbeen a creek or something, than the City went in there a year ago andI don't knor.r. That's what I'm saying.look at this thing. If it.s alwayswould think that's a wetland. If to I Conrad: Mr. Kerber is the owner right now? Dacy: Bern j. e Kerber. Conrad: And he basically would have the right, whatproperty without a subdivision does he have? right to develop th j s Dacy: These are platted lots organization was operating at by the I920, $/hatever governmentthat time in this area, they gave entire area exists as one Palcel - using numbers as an example ' ZLOA SUbdirride [hese lots. Conlel Lots ' approva I He could to 2ILO \,0 1n - colne and The lust Conrad: cla iming? Planning Commj.ssion MeeEing lrlay 4, 1988 - Page 24 and Lots 25Ag to 25Lg if it meets the L5,060 square foot lot area requirement and 90 foot of lot width, than the city really has no means to demand the conveyence. There is sewer and wat.er and albeit, may not bethe best situation, there is some type of street access to the Iots. Whenthe City did that improvement project in the mid 70rs, they deemed that Woodhill would be a one-r,ray street and said that the 13 or 16 foot wide pavement section was appropriate at that time. They assessed the lots based on that rationale. What the developers are doing is replatting thatentire legal description by Kerbers and creating 5 Iots but by going through the replatting process, the City does have more controls to place conditions of approval. Conrad: To ask the developers some questions. Yourve got your lotsreally configured parallel with the road. Are there alternatives to put those houses in so they conform to the grading or the angle of the hill so theyrre tucked in more? Have you looked at alternatives rather than just butting up to the street? whether end to end, putting them at angles or is that in your mind something thaE.'s not sellable or feasible? Ron Krueger: The reason they are the way they are is we kind of wanted minimum setback from the street so we cut as least amount of trees as possible. You start choking them... It also makes it more difficult to maintain and design a draj.nage sv'rale to extend in that area. Yourve got r ea lly backyards. Conrad: Barbara, do you think that pond at deeded to the City should remain? How would Would it be maintained wild? would that fit would it be groomed, mowed, whatever? bottom that would be typically be maintained? character with the area or the it. in Brown: I Ehink as I stated before, the front boulevard r.rould be mowed as any boulevard is by the City. As far as internal maintenance, Irm sure there would probably be very little done with it with the exception of keeping it clear for the drainage path so it would be left more or less to the wild that you see down to the south or southeast of that. Conrad: Are we missing an opportunj.ty there are or we responsj.ve to the community? I heard the residents say they donrt want a safety hazard there and they don't want an eyesore and a lot of things they don't r.rantso is this solution probably the best i.n terms of what yourve heard themsay? Irve also heard Dave say werre missing an opportunity t.o create ahabitat, wildlife habit j.at. Are we more responsj.ve to Ehe neighbors in the approach that we're taking right now? Brown: Part of the problem in construction the sedimentation retenEion basin, if we were to create a 10:t side slope as often suggested by the Fish and l{ildlife, we give up some of that stored volume and I think you've heard this evening that there's a vast amount of water that f lords down there and it needs to be addressed through that pond. It certainly can be imposed but part of that volume that we need, wouldn't get the volume of water that runs down in that area. Again, I want to make itclear that the pond is constructed as a dry pond. Therers not going to be4 feet of standing water without having a storm.\ Planning Commission Meeting l{,ay 4, 1988 - Page 25 Dacy: If I can just follow up onlarger eretland to the southeast isremain in it's natural state. Wewater management function in herethe areas in that upland area thatthere is a trade off there but in pond. that. You have to remember Ehat thenot being altered at aII and will almost have Eo priori.tize the stormso we can provide the benefit to aIIthe r^rater is going through. So yesthis case the City feels we need that of Conrad: My overall feeling is, obviously wetve got some real problemswith that road and drainage and the thing that I keep seeing is that thepond really does help. The big pond makes me want to justify some ofthese other things simply because I think that big pond is going to helpin the whole water drainage issue for the area. Therefore, I have thesense that we have some control here working with this group of developersversus maybe what the owner has potentiar to do which wourdn't solve anyproblems. Thatrs my general sense. At least $re can solve some of theproblems and we all see some of the ones that are stirl there and maybe alittle bit, some of them that might be created. r guess we should mike amotion pretty soon before midnight. rrve heard one end ask for tabling. rthink an alternative !o tabling, not to say that thatrs what r'm for butt^Ie could pass this on, if we,d like to, contingent on what, whors comingout? Eish and Wi ldl i fe? Dacy: Yes, the earliest I could get him was on Friday morning. conrad: okay, contingent on their findings that this is not a protected$raterway. rf it is a proEected waterhray, r think we have a differentstory but on the other hand we can bring it back. We can invite theneighborhood back another ti.me and put the developers off a couple weekswhich may be beneficial if we feel that so r think thatrs an arlernativefor whoever wourd like Eo make a moti.on. I think r heard that we don,Eneed to landscape that pond. r think that was a concern that I personallyhad. r think there nay be some deed restrictions that somebody may wantto impose or if the awareness that there may be an improvement projectpending. Somehow I feel that that,s never going to happen however. Astreet improvement based on the cost for a limited number of homes.I just have a funny feeling, I donrt hear a solution comj.ng forth but Ithink the comment that there may be Ehat kind of an improvement projectand make the buyers of those properti.es aware that this probably, something that could be worked in. Headla: Let me give it a try so I can get some wording. I make a motionthat the Planni.ng Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #gg-5 withfolrowing condit j.ons. 2 through 10 as the planning staff recommended. 11being that the applicant submit soil bor j.ng- per firryrs wording on that. Brown: That the applicants submitpermit process.soil bori.ngs as part of the building Headla: On 1, I like whatrs written there but Irrrhat happens in 3, 4, 5 years. Our tree removaldoesnrt cover that, does it? cover more foritrs stated here want plan to as Planning Commission Meet ing May 4, 1988 - Page 25 Brown: Thatrs correct. In relying o have very little control of that withThat is the control that we have. n the advice of the City Attorney, wethe exception of the Covenants. Dacy: I think if you wanted to strike number I, werd also suggest thatyou add the sentence, there shall be no clearcutting of the lots at anytime. Then a third senEence, the applicant shall file the proposed deedrestrictions upon satisfactory review by staff. Headla: Okay, so if I bought one of those lotsconditions and you came along 3 years from now would you be aware of those conditions? rea l i zing and bought all theit fron me, Dacy: These conditions are nadeis recorded against the property against each of the Iots. a part of and those the are development contract which recorded individually Headla: So if they do a review on that, you would see that? Dacy: Right. Headla: Yourre really recommending that hre don't requj re curbing? Wildermuth: Sewer curbing on the south side. Brown: The curbj.ng is going to necessitate the addition of a storm sewer system. wildermuth: why? why not make it unsewered? Brown: You an open i ngset by the can add curb i ngto go through. Commission. at Tha t various points, somewhere that has to havecertainly is an alternative that could be Conrad: Just generally curbing runs down streets. Headla: Yes, and for there the way the water was comj.ng across, it seemsLike a natural and that rea1ly shows you what a layman really knows aboutit. It seems natural. Should we put something in just aboul curbingLarxy? I guess we have to rely on your expertise. !'/ildermuth: It would seem like for Lots, at least 4 and 5, maybe 3 Bror.rn: It's certainly an option, yes. Headla: Letrs put the wording in that you negotiate with the developer oncurbing for Lots 3, 4 and 5. Youtve got the expertise. Then I'd like to add one more situation, recomrnend that the Council negotiate with thedeveloper about the cost of whors going to bear the cost of the outlot. Ididn't see anything in the recommendat i ons . The developer would pay forthe outlot, putting in the pine. Brown: That t s correct. Planning Commission Meet i ng May 4, f988 - Page 27 Dacy: That I s erhatrs proposed. Headla: Okay, I missed it then. Brown: That is part of the grading plan. point of crarification of oneof the conditions. The soil borings would be for each lot. Wil,dermuth: Do you have that 10 foot easement in there? EIIson: The utility easement. Brordn: Yes, that is required also. Batzli: Well, Iet's second it and amend it. I second it. Conrad: Are there amendments that yourd like to propose Brian? Batzli: Do you lrant to amend your 10 foot easement? EIIson: I rras just writing notes. I have something about your streetdrainage and utility easements that you said you wa;ted as i part of theconditions but you didnrt add it. r r/rondered how you wanted that worded. Batzli: How about along Woodhill tothat acceptable? Bror.rn: Yes. Conrad: motion. Dacy: I suggested twopart of the motion. the developer shall provide a 10 foot roadway easementprovide for future road improvements and utilities? Is There hras a concern the Covenants be incorporated into the sentence as a part of item l. I assumed t.hat was Batzli: Dave, is part of number I because I didnrtyour motion? Batzli: So there senEence and as a covenants runn i nginclusion in the Dacy: That I s correct. Conrad: Did that motion the two additional senteocesyou recommend number l for inclusion your hea r of io Headla: I didnrt initially then I came back to Iit added on and then Barb added two sentences. I liked I but I wanted say restoration of the pond in number l? I does noE deal !,rith restoration of the pond. shall be no clearcutting of any lots is a secondthird sentence, the developer shall provide deedwith Lots I through 5 per staffrs review and fordevelopment con tr act ? Dacy: No. Number Planning Commission Meeti ng May 4, 1988 - Page 28 Conrad: Batzli: conrad:part of Dacy: He was referring to the plan and specfication review that developer wiII submit for the construction of that pond. Item tthe individual plans for each lot. That wilI be required anyway. That's part of the erosion control. Do you have reseeding it? I thought I heard Larry say that the restoration of the pond wasthe erosion con t roI . Conrad: Restoration? Dacy: Right. Conrad: Brian you finished making your additions? Batzli: Yes. Conrad: In this particular motion we havenrt made it contingent upon Fish and Wildlife just so we all knord that is not part of this motion. Dacy: The wetland alteration permit is the next issue and that is proposed as part of the condition of approval of that item. Another condition of approval of the $retland alteration permit is that they complywith all the conditions of this approval so you have the Eish and wildlife. they're coming and Theyr re not going therefers to inspecting, to look and see BatzIi: But we don't necessarily, r.rhat are they inspectj.ng for rightif the current ditch is a wetlands. when no w? Dacy: That can be part of the direction. They look at if it is or isn't and two, the quality of them so we can have those issues addressed. Batzli: I guess personally I'd rather see it done on the wetlands permit. Batzli noved, Wildermuth seconded an amendment to the motion to add condition 13 stating that the devel,oper shall provide a l0 fooE roadvray easement along WoodhiIl to provide for future road improvements and utilities. AII voted in favor of the amendment and the motion carried. Headla moved, BatzIi seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval. of Subdivision Request *88-5 subject to the plan stamped "Received llay 2. 1988" and subject to the foLLotring conditions: There shaLl be no clearcutting of the lots at any time. Submission ofgrading, erosion control and tree removal plans in conjunction r.rith building permit application for Lots 1 through 5, Block 1. Theapplicant shaIl file the proposed deed restrictions upon satisfactoryreview by city staff. I Planning Commission Meet ing May 4, 1988 - Page 29 The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District. 6 7 8 Wood-fiber blankets or equ i va lent disturbed slopes greater than 3:1 shall be used to stabilize all L6. 9 11. 13. L2. The developer shall be responsible for daily on and off-site clean up caused by construction of this site. The plans shall be revised to show that the storm sewer pipe located at the southwest corner of Outlot A shall be extended 1g feet beyond the existing r^ratermain along Yuma Drive. The applicant shall provide the City with revised storm se$rer calculati.ons which verify the adequate capacity of t.he storm sewer system prior to the final plat revier.{ process. The applicant shall submit soil borings for each lot as a part of thebuilding permit process. The developer shall negotiate with Ehe City Engineer for curbing for Lots 3, 4 and 5. The developer shall provide a l0 foot roadway easement along woodhill to provide for future road improvements and utilities. Erhart and Steve Emmings who opposed and the 4 to 2. A11 voted in favor except Tim motion carried with a vote of conrad: steve, the reason for your negative vote. Enmings: Because I knew itthe City Council looks hard was going to pass and at the road. I think make sure that is very I want tothe road 2. The developer shall enter into a development contract with the Cityand provide the City with the necessary financial sureties toguarantee completion of these improvements. 3. ?he applicant shall dedicate Outtot A to the City of Chanhassen priorto the cornmencement of any grading. 4. The applicant shalI erect a snow fence immediately south of the proposed grading area to prevent removal or destruction of treesoutside the proposed grading area. 5. A1I erosion control measures shalL be in pLace prior to the commencement of any grading, and once in place shall remain in place throughout the duration of construction. The developer is required toreview aII erosion control measures periodically and make the necessary repairs promptly. AII erosion control measures shaIl remainintact until an established vegetative cover has been produced, at erhich time removal shall be the responsibility of the developer. Planning Commission Meet i ng May 4r 1988 - Page 30 inadequate. fspecially if there would ever be any parking on it. I,mreal unimpressed by an excuse that it's going to change the character ofthe neighborhood. For God's sake, we're putting 5 and maybe up to I0houses in there and if thatrs not going to change the character of theneighborhood, I donrt what is. I think it's a ser j.ous problem and there may not be any solution to it and if there isn,t, then I think that oughtto be taken into account nov, rather than after the houses are in. Erhart: Thro reasons. The road. Hor.rever, I think I understood that thething could be sudivided no$, without any road improvements. I donrt knowif there's anything hre could do. I think the reason why I mostly votedagainst it was because there seems to be a question here of the 75 footsetback on a wetlands. Always in my mind a creek is covered by that rureand Ird Like to see that get clarified so that between the Commission,staff and the ordinance, thatrs clarified. So again, Irm glad it gotpassed too but Ird Iike to get that cl,arif ied and then get applied tothis. Batzri moved, Errson seconded that the pLanning commission recomnendapproval of Wetland Alteration permit #8g-6 based on the pLan stamped "Received t{,ay 2, 1988,' and subject to the following condiiions: l. Conpliance srith the conditions of plat approval for Subdivision #gg-5. 2 Recej.ving an acceptable review by Dr. Leach from the U.S. EishWildlife Service regarding the creation of a drainage pond onand itrs impact on the wetlands adjacent to the subdivision. and Outlot A Batzri: rf r could just ask a point of clarification on my rnotion here.Is the current review that yourre anticipating from Dr. Le-ch, whatexactly is that going to entail? fs he going to come out, look at howclose they are to the currentry designated vretland or are they going to belooking at the area that's going to be subdivided? Dacy: what we will want to receive back from Dr. Leach wirr be r, whetheror not the creek,/ditch is or is not a protected wetland. 2, is thecreation of a pond consistent with the wetland ordinance. That it wilrnot have a detrimental impact on the existing rdetland area to thesoutheast of the site. Batzli: Receiving an acceptable review, r guess r lrourd rather amend myown motion. condition l as stated and then condition 2, add at the eni ofthat sentence, regarding the creation of a drainage pond on outrot A anditts impact on the wetlands adjacent to the subdivision. conrad: Do you feel that your motion has Dr. Leach reviewing that statusof that drainage di tch? Batzli: I thought r did. r guess r indicated the creation of a pond butnot necessarily whether that ditch is a vretlands. Planning Commission Meeting l.lay 4, 1988 - Page 31, Conrad: I'd like to amend that by havingwhether the drainage ditch is consideredditch that has been created by the city. Dr. Leach review specificallya wetland or is simply a drainage Batzli: I guess my question is, do we want to block it at this pointthe answer is yes, that is a rretland. What do you want to do with itthat point? Do you v/ant to have them come back and redo what they'vehere so it's not within 75 feet of a wetlands? Conrad: I think I would review it differently if I thought that the ordinance was in jeopardy. If the ordinance stands for something andhaven't reviewed it for itrs intent. I would like to have it back.vote exactly the same as I did but I'd like to know that I was votingoverride the wetland ordinance. Batzli : I I 11 accept that amendment. Conrad:Any wha t other discussion? Erhart:are we voting on now? if at got weI may to Conrad: Werre voting on Brianrs motion but also my amendment have Dr. Leach specifically review the drainage ditch to tellreally is. And if itrs a ditch or wetland, we would Iike to what does that mean? that said to us what tha t knor^, that but EIlson: That if itrs a djtch, they have to a ditch we're come back. approving to go ahead and if itts not Conrad moved, Batzli seconded to approve an amendment to the motion toinclude that Dr. Leach specifically review the drainage ditch to determine whether it is a ditch or wetland. A11 voted in favor of the amendment and motion carried. Batzli moved, ElIson seconded that the PLanning Commission recommend approval of wetland Alteration Permit #88-6 based on the plan stamped "Received llay 2, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance $,ith the conditions of plat approval for Subdivision *88-5. Receiving an acceptable review by Dr. Leach from the U.S. Fish andwildlife servj.ce regarding the creation of a drainage pond on outlot A and it's impact on the wetlands adjacent to the subdivision. Alsoincluding that Dr. Leach review the drainage ditch to determine whether it's a wetland or ditch. 2 AIl voted in favor except Emnings who abstained and motion carried. Planning Commissj.on Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 32 PUBL]C HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERM I T EAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND APPLICANT. FOR A PRIVATE STABLE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSE, SINGLE LOCATED AT 3931 ASTER TRAIL, DALE COLLINS, Barbara Dacy presented the staff report. Dale Collins: I think I comply. Emmings moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. AII voted infavor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart: Whatrs Aster Trail? Dacy: Itrs a private drive that is both in victoria and Chanhassen. Erhart: That's the access to the... Dacy: That's correct. Erhart: And aII of the horse riding wouLd be just on the property? DaIe Collins: On the property and also on that Luce Line trail that runsadjacent to our proper ty. Erharts What is that, road? BatzIi : No, it's an abandoned railroad. Erhart: Do we have any official, in our trail system, do we have anytrails dedicated for horse riding or a trail plan or anything? Dacy: No. Not that Irm aware of. Erhart: Whatrs that trail you're referring to? Are there anyrestrictions on that? Dacy: As you can see, the Hennepin County has acquired that rj.ght-of-wayfor potential Iight raiI. Erhart: So people just use it at this pojnt. Dacy: Right. BatzLi: They've gravled it. Itrs graded so that it's intended for use. Dacy: The railroad ties are gone. Erhart: Again, I just want to point out to the Commission here, we have aproposal for an 1,800 square foot gole barn. IEts just interesting tonote in that we are discussing some restrictions on accessory buildings inthe RSF district as well as other residential- districts so you might want Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 33 to keep that in mind for later discussion Commission for further discussion, whichwefre lalking about 1,299? g6g? when thatI thi nk it comes back tois isnrt it? Dacy: Yes, and you would apply the Commission was aI sothat restriction to. looking at a minimum lot size that Erhart: Yes, but this is RSF district right? Dacy: Right, threshold. we but were basically talking. .. yourre also talking about 5 acres and talking about a Dacy : Erhart: Right. There Emmings: On the corner of Church andto build a bunch of houses in there.into that? What did we wind up doingplan I think to the City Council than Erhart: So here again is a situation lrhere we,re getting a pretty permanent structure in the RSE district that doesn't necessarily fit intothe increased density. Itts okay now at 5 acres but r"rha t do we do withthis building when someone wants to subdivide this 5 acres? Would theytake it down? I think that's the only questions I had. Dacy: Right. They put together that site, Carlson's plat which is rightin here, and the plan that they came up with did not need any variances. They were able to shift lot lines and create an easement in there so theymet all the 90 feet and J.s,ggg square foot lot area. That did require an easement for, if this property would develop and what would happen at thattime if this would develop, and we probably would approve this street hereand werd have a connection into the proposed street and Car1sonr sproperty. Emmings: Okay, I just wondered hor^r that fit together. TH 7 there we just looked at a plan Is that going to change the accessthere? They took a Iittle different \.re S aw . get to the driveway access Dacy: If you drive in here on the cartway now, you canrt applicantrs house. WeIl, you can by foot but there is no in. You have to come in off of Aster. Emmings: And the only thj.ng this property ison home to be would go 1ng this the barn? be located toDacy: Right. the souEhwest The ex i st j. ngof it. is out there and Emmings: When vre talk about ordinance, does it mean just private that he stables, can only I didn't have his Iook i.n the own horses there? Dacy: That I s correct. Emmings: And it's defined that way in the ordinance? the There Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 34 Dacy: Right. Emmings: There's no intention here to board horses? DaIe CoIIins: No. Emmings: I donrt have anything else. Ellson: Nothing to add here. Batzli: I want to know if the City Council has in fact authori zed theestablishment of a horse committee or are you the committee Dave? Dacy: Hers the committee. Batzli: Has the committee looked at this application? Dacy: I hope so. Headla: I haven't seen it. Batzli: so there hasn't been an application. Werre setting up theconditional use but he hasnrt actually applied... Dacy: Well-, number one, I found out tonight that Mr. Headla didnrtreceive his packet so Irm operating at a loss in the first place. Theiotent was that the conditional use permit is typically process firstbecause the City needs to decide whether or not that privaEe stable isappropriate at that location. Since Mr. Headla $ras on the Commission anyvray, I had hoped that he would have been able to have seen the sj.teoffered his opinion. He does review the stable permits when they comeon an annual basis every June. and up Batzli: I guess I just had two questions. One sras I think, actually I'mkilring two birds with one stone, r think r.{e should insert an additionarprovision that they wilr in general comply with hrhatever city and stateIaws.regarding maintenance of horses and animals in general . Whatever.For instance, no horse shalr be permitted to run at targe within the city.r personally had an experience, a run in with a loose horse and althoughyou require that a fence keeps him in, r guess rrd just prefer to see thatthe applicant will comply with applicable codes conaerning horses. Wildermuth: I have nothing. Headla : If r^re approve thi spermit al so? tonight, are we really approving a building Dacy: Yes. Yourre approving the ability offive horses on that property. He wiII stillpermit for the construction of that pole barnpart of the stable use to house horses and so applicant to have up toto fiLe a buildingrn essence, that barn is the ha ve but on. Planning Commission Meeti ng tnlay 4, 1988 - Page 35 Conrad:ir. Conrad: Do hre have any choices on that matter Barbara? Dacy: Number one, you want the buifding Iarge enough.intending eventually to have five horses so you want the enough nor!, so that it can safely and cleanly accomodatethe winter. Number two, given the size of the property located of the site, can not be seen from TH 7r the site advantages of existing trees and so on. Itrs centrallycanrt see where there's going to be any negative impactspartlcular structure. The applicant is bu j.Id ing Ia rgefive horses during and $rhere itrs has good located. I really from this Conrad: So as we look at our ordinancestructures on property and werre saying, was 800 feet. Wasnrt it 800 feet? and we're looking at secondaryI think City Councilrs directive Dacy: l,ggq. But again, this is something that we have to discuss because this, in my view, perfectly appropriate for a private stable. Nowif somebody on a L5,A0A square foot lot comes in with an 1,800 square footpolebarn and puts it 5 feet away from the lot line, thatis the kind of,yourve got talk about where you draw the line. Conrad: Is the IrqAA square foot secondary structure coming back? Whereis that? Did the Council approve that? Dacy: No, the Council hasnrt seen that because it's been Planning Commission. Irve been trying to exist on my ownlast 3 or 4 weeks to keep up so it is on the schedule and have made sure of that. tabled at the here for the Dave and Tim Conrad: So when it comes back to us, we can review not only for, that wasin an agricultural. Dacy: You erere looking at everythiog on accessory Iook at of sorts structures. Conrad: So werll have a chance to take a you feel comfortable that this is not out this. In the inter im with the neighborhood Headla: Werre caught the same way with that one place north of TH 7. Atleast myself, I don't know what the barn is going to be like. Are weconsistent in our thinking on 5 acres, what that building should be like? We dontt have any regulations on the books right nov, to govern Headla: Right, so once i4re say yes to this, then it's... Conrad: Itrs in. Since there are no regulations or restrictions. Headla: Irve got no problem with his having the five. I think thatrsappropriate for the space and therers other people around there and intalking to DaIe before hand right now it's their hoses. At the most itrsmore but itts the dilemma r.rith that building. Are we al-l consistent inour thinking on that? Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 36 Headla: I just wanted to make sure thatnow. Did you have something to say? thatrs one of the requirements Wildermuth moved, Erhart seconded that the planning Commission recommendapproval of Conditional Use Permit #88-5 for the construction of a privatestable for five horses subject to the following conditions: The private stable wetland . shall be located 26U feet from the edge of theI 2 3 The stable shaIL structures. be located l0g feeE from neighborhing residential 4 Land upon which horses surrounded by a sturdy are to be stabled and pastured must be fence which will keep horses confined. wi 11 keep theThe private stable shall, be constructed such that it horses comfortable and protected from the elements. 5. 5. 7. Accumulations of manure we11. shall be located at least I00 feet from any AccumuLations of manure shalI be removed at such periods ensure that no leaching or objectional odors exist, andshall not be allowed to become unsightly. that willthe premi ses The applicant shall comply with the annual stableother applicable lar^rs concerning the stabling and permit procedure andcare of horses. AII voted in favor and motion carried. and whatever ? Headla r Dale, do you realize no barbed wire? DaIe Collins: I don't like barbed wire. DaIe CoIIins: Yes, you were wondering about what kind of a building it was going to be. I'm sure that the term polebarn doesnrt do it justicereally. Itrs one of the best buildings that Lester has put out. Itrs apolebarn the interio! structure but the inside is covered with metal andwill be green which would compLy with the surrounding terrain. With Awhite roof and wetre going to have skylights across the top on the ridge.It would have side windows, skylights the full length. Itts a gl-3,qTq.ggstructure so it.'s not a piece of junk. In fact it will be one of thenicest horse barns in the area. Headla: Irve got a Lester barn. Lester makes a good barn. Planning Commission Meetinglray 4, 1988 - page 37 PUBLIC HEARING: J0SEPH NOTERMAN, BROOKSTDE MorEL, LOCATED AT 799 AND 780 LyrNc cLouDDRIVE, PROPERTY ZONED BE, BUSINESS ERINGE DISTRICT: I ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO TO ALLOW RECREATIONAL CAMPING AMEND SECTION 2g-773, THE BF DISTRICT EACILITIES AS A CONDITIONAL USE. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FOUR RECREATIONAL CAMP/TRA]LER SITES. Barbara Dacy presented the staff report. conrad: could you go into a littre bit more detail the t!,ro reasons fordeniaL, sewage and traffic. Can you expand upon that a little bit? Dacy: As far as the sewage is concerned, each of those units generates acertain amount of sewage on a dairy basis. Either an on-site treatmentsystem is provided or the tanks for each RV are taken elsewhere fordisposal. Usually your11 get a large number of these units located onsite and you would typically have to install a septic system that isIarger than a tyipcally required septic system for a single family home.For exampre, out on the site right now he has a garlon storage amount ofabout 3,bAA gaLLons and a typical single family home would requj re aseptic tank of approximately L,266 Lo l,5AO so you have an increasedamount of septic demand and thaE,s just for 8 units so that was the oneissue. The second issue, as far as traffic is concerned, the size of thevehicles generated by this type of use, $re want to make sure that there'sadequate Ianes available, by-pass lanes and turn fanes. In the \H 2Lzarea right now that does not exist. Basically what staff is saying isthat this area is not an appropriate location for that type of use. Joseph Noterman: I think it's pretty well covered. This motel has beenin existence for 46 years prior to the city owning that land and Irveowned it approximately 8 years. For this 40 years they,ve had campers andRVrs in there. I just would like to expand it to 8 units so I can helpmyself a little economically. Taxes are $5,AgA.0q ouL there and it keepsraising. Do you have the letter that I vrrote? Conrad: Yes. Joseph Noterman: there. I thj.nk that letter pretty hreIl covers my intentions Dacy: creek where Bluff Creek is is about wi thi n the existing RV about, if I can refer you to the site plan, the26 feet or maybe 30, correct me if Irm wrong, fromspaces are right now. On the site plan, it's on the Erhart moved, Headla seconded to close the public hearing. Atl voted infavor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Headla: How close is that Bluff Creek to like this drainage field? Planning Commission MeeEing May 4, 1988 - Page 38 bottom of the picture I agree wi th here. the staff's recorunendation. That's aI1 I have. How often do you have to have the holding tank pumped now Headla: Wi ldermuth: wi th 4 RV's? Joseph Noterman: We donrt have a holding tank. We have a brand newdrainfield that r^re put in last year because of this heavy raj.n that we were talking about earlj.er tonight. We got the brunt of that in our storm se\^rer system and our Crainage fields so we put in about a 93,600.99 or $4,ggg.0A drainfield. Brand new. So it channels the septic tank and intoa littIe tank and this tank pumps it into a tank. of course we do pump itevery fall. We pump aII the tanks in case the solids would build up. Idonrt think we'd have any trouble for 4 or 5 years but this is just aprecautionary measure. Wildernuth: Is the new units? drainfield adequate to handle four additional- Joseph Noterman: More than adequate yes.pipe in the event it wouldnrt be enough so \^re only have 2 pipes. hle we room room ha ve ha ve to put for l0 anotherpipes but Dacy: what hers explaining is that there is enough tank storage They may need to add another drainfield trench but they do havearea. The building inspection department has eval-uated that. Iadditional units are there, they can be accomodated. there. adequa tef the four Wildermuth: The traffid is certainly a problem down there. Turning onand off of AH 2L2 with large vehicles. I guess it argueable whether fourmore turning in and out off off TH 2I2 pose a significantLy greater threator not. I have no further comments. Joseph Noterman: For your information, this business is primarily seasonal . From the Ist of April to the Ist of November and all wintertherers very, very seldom, on a rare occasion there might be one Rvsitting there. Otherwise, there are no RVrs there. Conrad: Just remember, for the rest of us, as we Iook at this right now,werre really not looking at the particular application. Wetre kind ofsaying in the fringe business district is this use valid but it's almost acontradiction to begin with. rtm sorry r'm speaking out of rny turn but weput the fringe business distr ict there simpry to accomodaue eiisting uses.rtrs not like the district was ilesigned foi lomething. rt was desilned toaccomodate something that was there and make it conforming. Dacy: Yes, to a certain extent that's true but there is also a decisionat that point not to include his use as a conforming use. There is aconscience decision made not to include it. Basically it really comesdown to the commission and the councir need to decide whether or not theywant to see this use continued as a non-conforming use or do you in factwant to amend the ordinance to make it regal? you have to decide whether Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 39 or not itrs a use that you should discourage or encourage. Batzli: That, of course, boiling it down to that question means to methat we donrt have the benefit of having the input of the peopre that madethat conscience decision x number of years ago as to $rhy they in factdecided, and it may have been some of our members here, but myself nothaving had the benefit of why it was deternined that recreationalcampgrounds werenrt allowed in the City, I dontt know that I really wantthem allowed in the City personally as well, just off the top of my treadbut r donrt know, r guess r havenrt heard a whole lot which wourcl indicateto me that in this particular case it would be such a bad thing. But toamend the ordinance that basically it would be a conditionar use in thebusiness fringe area to me is a sitly amendment to the ordinance. Irmstruggling right no $/. Ellson: I agree with staffts recommendation. Emmings: I canrt wait to hear what Tim has to say. Erhart: You all knor.r my position on this one. Conrad: I think for the record. Erhart: I would be against increasing the j.ntensity of use in the BFdistrict. Any intent to increase the intensity. Conrad: Why did we exclude this use from the frjnge business district? Dacy: The very fact that the RVrs were not conforming in the first place,the Commission and Council felt that they didn't want t.o sanction thoseand allow them as a legal use. Now the motel use was permitted under theC-2, under the older zoning ordinance rules but when the new ordinance waschanged in 1987, they eliminated motels and hotels because of the septicissues and the traffic. Basical,Iy it was a decision that the RVts had been non-conforming up until thj.s point and at that time there was noreason to make them a legal conforming use. Conrad: My belief is that they sti1l should be kept out of the flingebusiness district. I believe for all of the same reasons that staff isgiving to us and from the prior decisions that have been made. I thinkthey r.rere valid decisions. Therefore, my feeling is that the fringebusiness district should not be amended to include this particuLar use. Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the planning deny ZonJ.ng Ordinance Amendment Request #88-5.Wildermuth who opposed and motion carried. Commission recommend toAll voted in favor except Wildermuth: The motel and thebefore the ordinance was passeddonrt see where four more unitsthe use. Especially in view of adequate to handle it. recreational vehicle parking areas existedso hers been grandfathered in. I real-lyare going to make that much difference inthe fact that he,s got a septic system Planning Commission Meet i ng May 41 1988 - Page 4A Conrad: But philosophi.cally. Wildermuth: Philosophically I can see the point but I think in thisparticular case, I'd like to see us find a way, or Ird like to see theCity find a r.ray to allow this to happen. I dontt think that motel ,25years from now I donrt think that.'s going to exist. Conrad: I would almost agree with your feeling other than the septicproblem. I think if I heard that he had a container that got pumped versus a drainfield dolrn there, I think I could accept some kind ofaccomodation. Sonehow if it was legally possible. Staff is saying thatitrs not legally possible to do it but if it was and if there was a way topump that out, then I think I might be persuaded. On this particularcase, four more units doesn't make much of a difference but on the otherhand, the drainfields down there is not sonething that Irm comfortabLewith. I think a commercial use... Wildermuth: But it's sized more than adeguate. Joseph Noterman: Itrs approved by the State Health Department. Theywouldnrt approve it if it wasn't any good. Of course yourve got to remember we could under the grandfather law. I'm just trying to be niceand try to get along with the city. I can go around and get petitions andI can go to court and I can fight it. Do all this kind of stuff and I dohave a grandfather rights which the City Attorney has acknowledged. Ofcourse if I was aware of the rezoning that they did, I ordned it before itwas in the City of Chanhassen. The City of Chanhassen came in and saidhey, we canrt operate a motel out there. Thatrs kind of ridicul-ous. Conrad: Chanhassen generally has a problem with that area down there interms of traffic and in terms of... Joseph Noterman: What else is it suited for at t.h j.s present time? Conrad: That t s true. Joseph Noterman: Am l going to bulldoze everything down and just let itlay there. Someday somebody is going to come in there and want to builda big motel . wildermuth: Thatrs right. someday that's going to be a varuabre piece ofproperty. Josephy Noterman: At the present it isn'E vrorth anythj.ng except for whatitrs being used. But it isn't quite big enough for a big motel. rt isnrtquite big enougb for a big RV camp. It isn't quite big enough for what?What is there? A service station. I don't know. conrad: r think tonight what we reacted to was amending the zoning andrearly not specificalry looking at your parcel as such. The request $ras azoning ordinance amendment and r think thatrs r.rhat i{e reacted to sayingthat in a fringe business distr ict, that particular use is not appr6priatebased on those decision making rules... Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 4l Joseph Noterman: Then I should have the fifth of my taxes if I'm notIegal but they don't think of that under your ordinance. Conrad: I kno\,, what you're talking about. Dacy: If itrs the Commissionr s wish or desire or feeling or rrhatever,staff could certainry pursue to see if there is any other means to arlowhim to have four additional units. I'm not aware of that right now. conrad: r think it would be wise when this item goes to city council thatyou would be prepared to offer them different alternatives. rf there $rereany legal alternatives that City Councit could pursue if they so wished. Joseph Noterman: I shouldn't even have to come to the planning Commission. I shouldn't even have to come to the City Council.should go ahead and teII me go ahead and put a few more spacesnot 9o through all this rigamaroll. City HaIlin. Let I s conrad: we do have zoning ordinances that restrict that and everybody whoowns a piece of property in Chanhassen is govern by those zoningordinances and that's what we're looking at. That's why we meet everycoupLe weeks taking a Iook at those particular things and they have to make sense. They have to make sense. Joseph Noterman: Laws are made flexible and they're made to stretch. Theyr re made to bend. They're made to put in place where they are wrongbecause you may have picked your ordinances from Hutchinson or anotherplace and you put them into Chanhassen and you have to change them as theyapply. Really. But yourre not doing that. Conrad: We decided that itrs not appropriate to change it in thisparticular case. Councilman Johnson: On the, what I consider the very unlikely happenstance that they get a four-fifths vote to pass this at the Councilin a couple weeks which I don't think will happen, but if it did happen Iwould like some guidance on special conditions to be added to this type offacility. I didnrt see that. Landscaping. Screening. Noiserestrictions. Light restrictions. What kind of special conditions $rouIdthe Planning Commission like to see. Batzli: All those. Conrad: The reason we didn't Jay is because we and didnrt get into the cond j.tional use permit. request r if the City Councj.l did elect to agreethe property should be included in the business have any thoughts on what the conditions for the would i nc I ude? turned down the amendment However, based on awith the applicant thatfringe district, do vreadditionaL four si Ees Erhart: Itrs 15 honest. after I0. I just donrt think thatrs on the agenda to be Planning Commission Meet i. ng May 4, 1988 - Page 42 Dacy: If there appears to be a way that again, if it is going to beconsidered by Council, staff can prepare those items. I can invisionright away that we would limit it to 8 period and the landscaping and thelighting issues and so on. So between staff and Council, we -an-address that if vre get that far. PUBTIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 2A-L25L 2(A) ORDINANCE TO PERMIT LARGER ON-PREMISE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS FOUR SQUARE EEET, DATASERV. OF THE ZONING THAN THE REOU I RED Conrad: That I s pretty small.feet away is leg ible? Conrad 3 What's the size of that Dacy: On the detail, the area is lettering Barbara on that sign? 2 l/2 inches. we know that a 2 L/2 inch sign from I00 12 square foot signbigger sign. Itrying to convey asneed to tell peopLe Do Emmings: What's the No Smoking sign? Conrad: ThaE's probably 4 inches. Dacy: You have to think of the speed of the vehicles going through thesesites. They're not going to be going 30 or 40 mph. They, re going to begoing much slosrer than that. conrad: rt kind of seems that legibility shourd dictate vrhat werre doinghere. Legibility and the need for di.rectionar signs and r don't know thitwerve said, if somebody tord me that you need 3 to 4 inch retters from g0feet away because iErs readable, I think it,s a case to consider changebecause we have certain r^rords that have to be used in directions.Receiving. Shipping. Visitor parking. We knov, what space erill put a 4inch word on a sign. Dacy: HoId that thought just for a second. On theirproposal, you have the same size letter but itrs on adonrt thj.nk itrs necessarily the size of $rhat yourreto the number. How many directional movements do youwhich way to go? That's our rationale. conrad ! There's onry one condition that r vrould feel essential and that'sthat there be a holding tank and not a drainfield. I donrt agree withdrainfields down there. That is a commercial use in an unse$rered area andthe onry way that r would allow any expansion wourd be if these additionalfour RV sites were put into a tank and that tank is pumped and not in thedrainfierd. That's the only $ray that r wourd accept those additionar fourunits. Barbara Dacy presented the sEaff report. conrad: I be 4 or 5the people least an IIooking at so I know think it's both. I think a case could be made that theredifferent directional things on a sign. The other thing isin the sign business say that at 50 mph yourve got to haveinch letter to see it. okay, wetre not going 50 and wetreit from 500 feet array. We're probably in a 30 mph zone orit's not 8 inches that hre need to provide but what is it? could that at not 1es s Dacy: I think what they're proposing consistent with other applications. smaller than that. 2 I/2 inch tall letter is ttcDonalds entry sign is is a Even a Conrad: They don't have trucking, shipping. Dacy: No, I Conrad: Thi s meant the Ietter size. is a public hearing and we'll open it up. Dan Ryerson: Irm here on behalf of the applicant. what I'd like to do ina minute, Irve got some enlarged pictures that might help to illustrate vJhat it is we're asking for and the relative perspectives andproportions... I should emphasize that \.reIre not here tonight on any kindof application for any particular sign or the content of any particular sign. I think actually the ordinance has addressed that adequately in deterrnining where advertising can and can not be placed. If it were to bea permitted use to have a larger sign, that $rould obviously be somethingthat we would have to deal with the staff for the adequate provisions ofthe sign. I do think that staff might have lost sight of one thing in making the recommendation to 9 feet and that is, subtracting what was onour original idea for the sign and leaving only the three entries that srere left, we donrt know that would necessarj.ly be on the sign. we did show an application for a sign originally showing shipping and receiving,visitor parking and employee parking. However, there may very welI beother things. These are going to be regulating roads that are actuallywell within the site and there nay be directions such as "Do Not Enterrr or "one Way'r, "No Parking". Something to that effect. There could be a number of things that have to go on this sign. As far as the s ize of theIetters go, again I dontt know if anything in the ordinance addresses that. I think the visibility of the sign is certa j.nly our concern. That somebody driving in there is goinq to be able to pick up that information vrithout making a wrong turn and thaL hers going to be able to pick i.t up from 4 or 5 directional entries. I think that the size of the lettering, the speed or the distance to the sign are certainly all relevant factors but others are proportion. The scale of the sign in the site that itrssitting in. What we suggest is that a 4 square foot sign, let's say I x 4feet which is exactly the same under the ordinance rrrhether it's on a 109foot, half acre commercial lot say like the McDonalds. They have thatsign right out in the street where theyrre Iooking at it or whether thatis swallowed up in the middle of a great big, we have 69.5 acre site. Itsimply is not as easy to pick it up. Itrs not as easy to see as you,re approaching the sign. From another poj.nt of view, a sign thatrs inside asite that big is not intrusive. In fact, we tried to take these pictures to illustrate, I think yourll see, you have a hard time seeing thattherers a sign there at all. From the nearest publicly traveled Planning Commission Meet i ng May 4, 1988 - Page 43 thoroughfare or the nearest property off of the actual site, the 60 acres,you canrt even see this much less read it. The real concerns aboutregulating signage, whether it's intrusive. Whether it's offensive. Whether it's distracting or too bright or whatever, really is qui tedifferent here because they are far away. One of the things that I might suggest that the Commission consider is the requirements, that there mightbe some setbacks requirements given if larger signs were triggered becausethe intent of most of these is to regulate internal traffic. Anyway, just to show you some comparison here in scale, if I may, yourre aII familiarwith the Dataserv site. This is a picture of part of it. you cantt getit all in without a wide angle lens but this is out by TH 5. On the lefthand side of here you see the existing identification sign which is out by TH 5. That by the way is a sign thatrs probably 6 or 7 tjnes larger thanthe one werre talking about but the way it appears in proportion orrelation to the overall site, I think gives you an idea of what that siteactually presents is an overall picture with signage on j.t. The secondthing we did just for purposes of illustration is to take 12 square footon a board, there's no writing on this. It's simply to illustrate relativesize, and we put this on one of the interior streets. This is within theDataserv site. Approximate and typical location where the sign would beplaced. The first picture shows you approaching that sign from two carIengths away. That's it right in the middle of the picture. The nextpicture shor.rs that same sign board, that same location although this istaken now from down at the end of the road going into Dataserv right onthe edge of Lake Drive. So in other words, this is what you'd see fromthe nearest public thoroughfare and that sign now, you have to Look, itrsover here by the building just off to the left. you can see the littledark colored rectangle. Then the Iast view. this is taken right out bythe edge of TH 5. This sign board is in the same place and obviously if we met this thing you couldntt read or even tell that it is a sign I don'tthink. By the same token, if you Iooked at the second picture, if one ofthese signs were placed out near Lake Drive by the turn in, thatts what itwould Look like as we approached it. These are, as I say, kjnd ofhypotheticals at this point but we feel that 12 square feet is areasonabLe size and certainly the 5 foot height we have no problem with. Ellson: I have a question for you.eliminate if you just had more? Wouldnrt some of these problems be Dan Ryerson: More signs? Ellson: Right. More 4 foot signs. Because yourve got such a longdistance. The ordinance as it is now would allow at the City Councilrsdiscretion, more than 4. Therefore, peopLe wouldn't have quite th"distance. Theyrd come a little closer and they'd read one and theyrd golittle further down the road and theyrd read another. Would you be abieto solve those problems with just more signs? f guess we did talk about that. What we came up with was came to an intersection in the property, like the one wervehere, where there's a parking lot to the left, shipping andstraight ahead and therets a parking lot to the right. yourd them up like Bermashave signs. I think that would be a Iot a Dan Ryerson:that if you i Il ustra tedreceiving is have to Line Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 44 Planning Commission Meeti ng t4ay 4, 1988 - Page 45 1es s sign attractive.with all the A lot more directions visually distracting than having one neatbut we did think about that. Batzli moved, EIlson seconded to close the publicfavor and motion carried. The public hearing was hearing. closed. AI1 voted in Erhart: I request ingl2 square appreciate your photos and I just can't j.magine why, areone 12 foot sign are you trying to change the ordinancefoot signs a 1l owed? Ellson: Industrial would have the larger size. Erhart: Four? Was it 9 feet? Dacy: Rjght. On page 3 of the address what the appIicant...staff report, proposed item (c) would Erhart: No, I mean howallows us to have up to? many signs of that size? Right nor^r the ordinance Dacy: Right the number ofthe City Counc i I . signs shall not exceed four unless approved by you to four Erhart: Right so now we,re saying four 12 foot signsand I just can't imagine, you have one large sign outfind the building and I don'E understand why you wouldthat statement with a bunch of other signs of the same or four 9 foot signsin front for them to want to confuse si ze. out by TH 5. Andsign. A 40 acre piece is Dan Ryerson: They wouldn,t be anywhere near that size. The sign out infront is 6 times bigger than these are. The signs that werre talkingabout, the directional signs, are really to give a series of directions. We have our truck traffic and visitor traffic and I think, I didn't bringthe graph lvith me but the projection right now is that there will beshortly 750 DataServ employees alone and there's a considerable amount oftraffic resulting and a safety factor is involved too. people walkingacross the parking lot and crossing the street where therets trucktraffic. The streets that we have on the site, as you notice in thepictures, are very much Like city streets. Dan Ryerson: I donrt know the exact dimensions of it. Erhart: front? Dacy: Itrs about 80 square feet. Thatrs the one rightthat's permitted by the ordinance for an identj.fication Dan Ryerson: And that doesn't particularly stand out.a quarter of a mile on each s j.de. Erhart: I guess just in thinking about this $rholeinto a site you dontt generally go to one spot and thing, when then all of you comea sudden How large is the Dataserv sign thatrs out there right now in the Planning Commission treet j ng May 4, 1988 - Page 46 have to make all of your decisjons at that point. It eroutd seem to methat it r.rould lrork better to have more signi, more smaller signs and allowpeople to make fewer decisions but allow them to make them as they goalong and they get to the point where they have to make decisions. Eventhe last time you were here r had suggested that in an agreement that sreallow a number of signs depending on the acreage. perhaps one sign for l0acres or something like that. rrm stirl not convinced that we want largersigns. Particular due to the fact that the ordinance as it exist saysfour and it appears that all of the neighboring communities have foui.I still favor the idea of expanding the number of signs. Dacy: The other option is, as Eden prairie does, they setthe amount of directional signage. you have 32 square feet So if you have three 12 square foot signs or one 32 squareeight 4 square foot signs. Thatrs an option Dacy: Itrs a subject of interpretation if itDataserv or Opus Corporation. If they have athere. The intent is that iE's not to be forfor a directional sign. So if the Commissiondefintion of directional signs and say companybut not advertj.sing. a maximum onbut that I s it.foot sign or actually says Mccl ynn ,little cookj.e or bakery in an advertising sign. It's wanted to look at the l-ogo would not be permitted Erhart: Just one last note, I would be in favor of adding another squarefoot because I think it makes sense to have the company logo on thesedirectional signs. Limit it to that because you can get into anindustrial park and yourre not sure which shipping dock arrow yourreIooking at so I don't quite understand why we prevent people fiom havingtheir logo on these directional signs. Wildermuth: At thj_s time we do permit the name right but not the logo? Dacy: No, vre donrt permit anything. 9Ji ldermuth : what I s that The going directional out on the corner of Lake Drive and Dakota,to j.ndicate? Itrs going to have a couple of arror,rs. Dacy: No, the off-premise sign was approved by the Council. Wildermuth: Separately? Dacy: Separately under the off-premisea variance for that. That was provided Dacy: i ssue . No. I didn't think sign provision. They do not needfor in the ord i nance . germain really because it was a separate wildermuth: you didnt E say in here though did you?tha t it was Wildermuth: So the off-premise sign will probably have something on it. Dataserv on it.Dacy: It says Planning Commission Meeting May 4r 1988 - Page 47 wildermuth: Shipping and Receiving and Employee parking. Emmings: I donrt see any reason to change the ordinance. The answer that ahead of this intersection theyrre going to have to stack signs like Burmashave signs was cute but I donrt think it makes any sense. There areonly three ways you can go at that intersection. You can go left, rightor straight ahead. The sign that werve got an example of in our materials shor,rs three different items with an arro$, and it Iooks very nice. The Non the No Smoking sign is exactly 2l/2 inches tall. Very readable fromplenty far enough away to give a person al,l the information they need so Idonrt see any reason to change the ordinance. The onl,y other thing I'vegot, and I wouldnrt change it for industrially zoned. I would not be infavor of naking the Ietter (c) change. As far as the change to Section(a), I think thatrs fine. The only thing I can see is somebody coming inhere saying, you're trying to keep the top of the sign within 5 feet ofthe ground and somebody's going to come in here and say, my sign is only 5feet high from the bottom of the sign to the top of the sign and I thoughtthatrs what you meant. We could just make it clearer. EIIson: Just say not to exceed 5 feet from the ground. Emmings: It sounds dumb but believe wiII come up if we don't... me, itrs one of those things that Ellson: Right, theyrll have a sign that goes all the way down. Emmings: It wilt wind up being 7 feet high from the ground. El-lson: I donrt see a reason for changing it. I think you could accomplish what your problem is if you had a lot of space. These signsare set up for people who are driving so they're going along and if thatfirst sign at this point because there's only four, is rray down there andthey canrt read it, I just say put another 4 foot sign because City Council can allow you to expand to 5 and it just has all the arro$rsstraighE. Then when you get do$rn you see your arrows. Itrs just helpingpeople drive in and by the time they're in the driveway they're goingpretty slow. I can't see changing it. I think 4 feet is large enough to read and the fact that you could add more if you have a huge driveway should do just fine. Batzli: I think the problem isnrt the number of employees, obvjously but vrith the number of visitors and trucks coming in and out because theyr rethe people that are going to need directions, not your employees. SoI think the number of employees is really kind of irrelevant but I dothink in a large operation, if they do expand they have several loading dock areas and such, they may have a very valid concern that 4 feet isn't enough space. I think in a large iodustrial area or parcel of land, I canpicture the need for a larger sign. I think iE's a some$rhat reasonable request. Wildermuth: I agree. I think lre should upscale r,ri th a large parcel ofIand and especially r.ri th a large building. Having driven tbrough the areathis afternoon, the signs that you have are very small. I would be in Planning Commission Mee t j. ng May 41 1988 - Page 48 favor of adopting the (c) provision here. Conrad: The 12 feet? Wi ldermuth: Yes. Headla: I donrt and you canrt seethe properEy, why like the are changing ordinances but if you have that muchsigns from the road, strictly the people that we trying to control it? what's the intent? land are on Conrad: Eliminating clutter. HeadIa: Clutter in somebody elsers business. wildermuth: I agree. There is a Iooks at spending 6 or 7 millionto make big mistakes on signage.pretty tasteful. need to control it but when a companydollars for a building, they're not going The signs are generally going to be Dacy: Therers no qualm erith how the signs are going to appear. If theyare internally illuminated, we should be looking at. the relationship, asthe applicant suggested, to adjacent properties and how they appear frompublic rights-of-ways. I certainly agree, I know DataServ can do a goodjob. Headla: If ere look at the ordinance, I think it applies very well to ourindustrial park. vihen we look at something that's got such large acreage,youfre got 759 cars going in and out possibly some shipping and receiving,yourre going to have traffic. you want to be able to read a sign a loteasier than if you had 3-4 cars going in. Also, if you can't see the signfrom the street, the general public, I donrt know why we want to, youcan't see it like from the road, I donrt see why we $rant to control itthis close. I think that person should have a iight to do some of thosesigns. Dacy: You just pointed out a couple of criteria that you want to makesure, r.re may be confident that the Dataserv site can make that but maybethe commission does want to say in there that the directional signs shallbe screened or shall not be able to be seen from public right-of-ways. Dacy: The other intent is that usually the sign ordinance says that you can have one pylon sign or one ground mounted sign and then x number ofdirectional signs. The ordinance is trying to allov, the business to havetheir identification signage but put a limit on aIl the other accessorytypes of signage that it needs so you donrt have an over cluttered sign oryou don't have a large sign directly adjacent to a residential area. yes, $reive got to have some give in there to allow a business to do what theyneed to do to direct traffic and that's the issue that we're trying todeal with. Is 4 square feet reasonable sign size for a directional signon an industrial zoned piece of property? I think there is a need tocontrol it. Headla: That would be appropriate criteria. They should be screened butif we can't see them from the public road, why do we care? If the people r^tant to invest that much money in a sign and theytve got valuable propertythere and theyrre trying to achieve a goal, are we trying to do thethinking for them? I think ere are. what's the difference between thatand no parking signs painted on some of the buildings? I guess I'd kindof like to see us take another look at it and give consideration of when we have large acreage and I don't know what the definition of large is butI'd like to see us take a look at that and considering the amount oftraffic and if we can screen the signs. Conrad: I havenrE been persuaded rrha t the size should be tonight of thesign. Directional signage is really tough. Itrs a tough business. Itcan help a business. Making it small doesnrt help a business. I donrt know that businesses typically know how to make signage. I find themincredibly naive in designing signage. Irm sensitive to this particular request however. Somebody could create a scenario real easily for me thatthey need 4 or 5 names on a sign and that our square footage does nothelp. The restrictions right no\^r I think are pretty tough. Especially onthe site that we're looking at. On a typical site, a big site like this,a case could be made that there needs to be 4 or 5 different directional messages and you canrt cram the messages together. They've got to bespaced apart. They may be J.ong messages. There typically not in red.They typically are tasteful so theytre not in colors that jump out at you.Typically you have to look at them a little bit longer and therefore, I'mpretty sensit j.ve to making the signs bigger. I haven't been persuadedwhat the size is. There's not been a case to say that j.t should be 5 feetor 6 feet ox L2. In the absence of doing a major study, I guess I couldfeel real comfortable saying we could bounce up to 9 feet right now. I'mcomfortable there. Somebody could make a case that it should be biggerbut nobody has and untiL that happens, I could go along with (c), if somebody made the motion, but I'm not convinced that 4 feet by 3 feet isnecessary. Irm not convinced that thatrs necessary yet. Somebody could make that case to me and I might be sensitive but I'm not there yet. Wildermuth: Just look at the exposure that you have. How many industrialsites in excess of 40 acres are left? Dacy3 The Mcclynn site. This site and there is a substantial amount ofacreage across the railroad track in the business park. If you look at,as an example for the 12 square foot sign, theyrve got the same amount ofdirectional messages as on Che 4 square foot sign except that thj.s is spaced and presented in the sign in a Iarger context. If you eliminatethe DataServ you could add potent ialIy two more directionaL messages sothe Iarger the sign, potentially the Larger amount of directional messagesthat you could give. Now given a 4 square foot sign, you could get 3 inthere. If it's up to 9, dependjng on the size of the letters and their spacing and how they appear from the passing traffic, you could get the same amount on a 9 square foot sign. Itrs just closer spaced together. Conrad: Whatrs Lyman Lumber. L!.man Lumber has a similiar problem donrtthey? Don't they have some directional sign? Planning Commission |,teet j. ng May 4, 1988 - Page 49 Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 5g Dacy: I canrt recall right off the top of my head right now. Conrad: They have some confusing signs out in frontthey were real concerned that they didn't have enoughreceiving and shipping and what have you but that r,ra swas probably a year and a half ago or something Iike of their si ze to a whi lethat. place and d i rectback. That Dacy: The only other guide that I could give to the Commission would bethat the smallest sign size that,s allowed for a free standing pylon or aground mounted sign size is 24 square feet. you've got to pick a line inthere that you're saying it's a directional sign versus a very large signthat courd be used for another purpose. we're talking a ilifference of Isquare feet and to be frank, we felt that the 9 square feet couldaccomodate 3 to 4 directional messages if thatts what the Commissionwants. Conrad: So werre all over the board here. Headla: I'd like to see us put up three or four sample signs over onDataserv and have it out there for two days and every one of us go look atit. see how it fits on a big location. r think r could make a mrlch betterjudgment seeing that. Conrad: Hord big a deal do you want to make this? Dacy: Perceptionwise, 3 square feet driving out there is not going to bea big difference but the Commissionrs got to decide what can they ),ivewith from the ordinance standpoint? Conrad: I think Dave, yourre absolutely right. If rde really h,anted to doa good job of determining sizes, thatrs exactly what you do. Mock it up,you put it out on site and you take a Iook and say what can I live hrith: Headla: That isnrt that big a deal to do. Conrad: The big deal is mocking up the signs. That,s the big deal. Ellson: Sticking them in the ground, the whole bit. Dacy: I kno!, the applicantrs been wanting a decision on this. Head1a: Do they have any signs similar? Dan Ryerson: The Council did approve the off-premise directional sign.ThaErs the one out at the end of the road by uldonalds and that is r-thinkvirtually identicar to the one that Barbara is showing on the sride. rtrsa 12 square foot sign. Thatrs not up yet. Headla: Do we have a 4 or 5 or 9 foot sign available of any kind? Dacy: The closest I'd be able to come is actually buying a board thatrs3 x 4 and 3 x 3. I donrt knorr, if the city has signs. Planning Commission Meeting May 4, f988 - Page 51 Dan Ryerson: !{erd be happy to loan you the 3 x 4 board we used in thepictures here. Headla: what are your Chanhassen, how big is you entering Chanhassen, where it says sign? eJhen tha t Dacy: I donrE know. Headla: I just have a out on a big site like recommendation. hard time visualizing that. I dontt think I particular size a good a sign could of a ma ke Conrad: Let's figure out vrhat we vrant to do. Weif he wanted to mock some signs up for us and wehis time or we can pass the motion that 12 feet, Whoever makes the motion has the power here. could ask the appl icant go out. If iE.'s worth9 feet, staying as is. is as far ashere it a while and Emmings: Ird just like to throw one other thing out and thatthings, this has al1 gotten a little theoretical and academic seems to me. Things we know that we have this ordinance for everybodyrs been able to live with it. Conrad: Not necessarily. Emmings: Who hasn I t? Enrmings: What there? and Irm not sure whatrs. Theyrve tr ied to liveConrad:with it. happe n ed put it upThey Emmings: And they put it up within the ordj.nance? Conrad: Yes . Emmings: All our neighboring communities,restriction and we don't have any evidenceproblem except for Lyman Lumber. We knowsigns but . . . Minnetonka, have the samein front of us that it's athat they \rant Eo have bigger Wildermuth: How much industry does MinneEonka have? Emmi.ngs: I don't know but we don't knor^r that they cantt do it. Theydonrt wanE to do it and I donrt know if thatrs a reason to change theordinance. I donrt kno$, if I want to change the ordinance just because, Ithought the purpose behind the sign ordinance, maybe I'm wrong, was to have uniformity of sign in the city anil I don't care if the pl-ace is 40acres, 30 acres, 90 acres, they ought to be uniform if that's the point. Otherwise, why do we have the ordinance? Conrad: Lyman. Conrad: I donrt think uniformity is the key thing here. If we i^/anteduniformity, werd tell everybody what color to make their signs andwhatever. I think the point was clutter. The sign ordinance $ras reallyto keep the amount of clutter of miscellaneous signs to a minimum. Toprovide some kind of standards. Emmings: Then what is the compelling reason here to change from astandard that was set, however arbitrarily? Conrad: And it probably was. probabl-y used other communities for aguideline in that case. The compelling reasons would be that you canttdisplay visibly enough messages in a big site that has multi-differentlocat.ions to go to. Etrnployees Ehis way. Visitors that way. Shippingthis way. Receiving that. way. You could theoretically come up with 45 different directions.or Emmings. Or Lgt. TheoreEicaIIy. Conrad: Irve seen them. Irve built them so it's not that I, I've builtthese things where I've had to route people different directions and as Isay, I havenrt heard a case where we have to have it. It hasn't beenpresented here tonight but I can imagine a scenario where it would benecessary and the 4 feet is restrictive. The question is how much energydo vre want to put into this issue besides the last 45 minutes of our life. Wildermuth moved, Headla seconded that the planning approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request 20-1255 (2) Directional signs to read as follows: Commission recommend *88-4 to amend Section C On-premise signs for j.ndustrially zoned land in excess of forty (40) acres shall not exceed trrelve (12) square feet. The maximum height ofon-premise directional signs shall not exceed five (5) feet from theground. The number of signs shall not exceed four (4) unless approvedby the City Council. Wildermuth and Headla voted in motion failed with a vote of 2 favor, Ehe rest voted in opposi.tion. Theto 5. Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommendapproval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request ll88-4 to amend Section20-]-255 (2) Directional Signs to read as follows: a.On-premise signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from theground. The number of signs shall not exceed four (4) unless approvedby the city Council. ALl voted in favor except for Wildermuth, Headla who opposed and Headla Planning Commission Meeti ng May 41 1988 - Page 52 Planning Commission Meeting t(ay 4, 1988 - Page 53 abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3. Emmings: That one states what the ordinance states change being in the height restriction.presently and the onJ,y Headla: They increased it to rrhat? Emmings: No, there just vras never anything in there before. Erhart: Dave, are you suggesting that we put a clause in there that'sautomatic that the number of signs increase with the size of the siterather than going to the City Councit? Headla: No, I think that's good. Let the Council negotiate that with vrhoit comes from. Conrad: The reason Jim for your opposition? Wildermuth: I feel sign size should have some correlation to the size ofthe parcel and the size of the bu j.Iding. Conrad: I feel signbetter understanding size should be reviewedof what the appropr i a te in moresize of dep tha sj.gn to g ive should US be a APPROVAL OE MINUTES: Emmings moved, Ellson seconded to approve Commission meeting dated April 20, L988. who abstained and motion carried. the AII Minutes of the voted in favor Plannj.ng except Erhart COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, FINAL REVIEW OE TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER, MARK KOEGLER. Mark Koegler: At this hour I have my normal precise version. Thematerial that you have in the packet may l-ook like something you've seenbefore and it substantially is. In preparing notes with Barb, there werea fev, changes that took place referencing items that the Conmission had commented on previously. Everytime we }ook at this we find therers somethj.ng else we overlooked and therers a couple more things we talkedabout adding today. Specifically Audubon Road whjch we Ieft out which is now being dj.scussed with planned improvements. This shows the Comprehensive Planning continual-Iy evolves... Asjde from that, just any comments from you that you would have is what we're interested in thisevening. This will come back to you again in the entire package. We,refairly confident no\,, that the two remainj ng sections being primarily implementation and utilities srill be wrapped up in the next 30 to 60 daysand grer l1 have the entire document for you at that time. So with that,any comments that you might have. Conrad: Who reads this primarily? this before. Really is Met Council rgo real back to that. interested in Wetve d iscussed what we put in Planning Commission Meeting t{ay 4, 1988 - Page 54 here? How do ere use this as a guideline and what are the bodies thatreally look at that and say, my word, Mark and the City Staff really did some neat things here and werre going to take a look at all that. Is it Met Council that goes through this or is it us that says this is what wedecided to do and we're going to do it somehow? Mark Koegler: Met Council definitely looks at it. They critique it quiteclosely and Chanhassen extremely closely because of the Lake Ann seweragreement. They have to make sure that aII of the land use sections andthe transportation and everything lines up with that other document.Aside from that if r.re get kind of into the realistic world and idealisticworld. Idealistj.caIIy the Planning Commission and City Council referencethis kind of document frequently and with discussions on Business rri,ngedistricts or whatever you can say, well the Comprehensive plan says thisand we discussed this back at that point in time and here were ourfindings. That occurs some but it doesn't occur probably as frequentty asit shouLd. Aside from that use there's another use that those us in the development portion of the business for lhese kinds of things. When we have a project werre trying to get approved, we,re going to be looking atthat language to see what it says the City's poticy is. Whether withinthat framework of that language looking at our specific proposal or thecause werre promoting. Whether thaErs recreational uses j.n the businessfringe district or whatever. You always look at the City's ComprehensivePlan to see r.rhat the Ci.tyrs stated policies are. Conrad: Maybe Irm making a bigger issue out of it than needs to be. Theintro paragraph, the introduction. I don't know who reads it Mark andprobably the technical bodies wiII just skip through Ehat because all itis is fluff. It doesnrt say anything and the reason I bring that up, thefirst sentence, I'm picking on you but the first sentence says,transportation is an issue Lhat faces almost aII Chanhassen residents on adaily basis. That's okay but I'm just saying, it is worthwhile, I thinktransportation is a real big issue out here and itts prjmarily the TH 5deal. If we feel that therers some governing bodies that might read thisintroduction, I would change that to say transportation is the mostcritical issue that Chanhassen residents express or something like that.I would hi.ghlight thj.s so that if there is an agency that really does readthrough this intro, they might say wot4r, thj.s is a big deal and werd betterread it through. I'm probably over extending reality here but I guess Itdput some urgency in that. first line versus I'm gojng to get you into therest of this material and herers a sentence that does it. Ird probably change that first sentence Mark and real.Iy say that it's really quitecritical what this transportation plan has got to do for Chanhassen.Thatrs my comment there. Irve got others but should we go t.hrough it pageby page or do we have comments that anybody would like to make? Doesanybody care? Anybody want Eo go home? Erhart: Werve been through this and made all our comments once.through the comments I made and I thj.nk the changes were made. I looked Conrad: Then whoever has comments, let's make them. Do we realIy haveadequate north/south? On page 5, in examining Chanhassenrs existingtransportation system...the system provides adequate north,/south access in Planning Commission Meeting l{ay 4t 1988 - page 55 terms of facility locations, deficient in east/west. Irm picking on thatone too- rrm not sure that TH r01 is adequate north/south but r donrtknow. Do you feel comfortable with that statement? Mark Koegrer: The reference there rearly is at least there's a definedcorridor where the corridor possibility is not necessarily ever going tobe there in the east/srest configuration... r might just -omment Lada, Iguess personalry am somewhat sympathetic to your comment of making thei ntroductory portion have a little more punch. you probabry find forcesthat. have the argument when iE comes to sewer capacity too. That's thekey issue. so itrs hard to define what really is our absotute key issue.certainry transportation is up there and it probably shourd be a 1ittlestronger . conrad: r donrt know from who's perspective rrm tarking. rf r tark fromthe resident's perspective, there's no doubt. They donrt care aboutsewage unress it backs up but right now therers just no doubt what thenumber one issue is and if r were to look at the energy that was devotedto highways here, politically, whatever, I think I,d ba reinforced thatway too- city council can change it but r think you could use some nicepo!'rer f u I words in there. Batzli: But in that same vein, even the third paragraph when we basicalryacknowledge that the same lever of congestion is going to be there and $rer re kind of helpress and hoperess about the whole thing. That botheredme. Thatrs basically saying this is the most criEical thing we're evergoing to do but we rEalile it's hopeLess so forget it. Thai kind of brewme away- Also, isnrt there such a word as infeasible or is it unfeasible?Just a question that struck me as I was reading it the other day. Emmings: I would g uess Batzli: I don't know, in-. I didn't Iook it up. Conrad: Would you just review that intro page Mark just to make it aspowerfur without going overboard r guess as we can. page 2g, .IH 10r northof TH 212. The last sentence, you stuck in there for me, and I guess Iwanted to hear if everybody is comfortable with that. It says ii aboulevard parkway is to be, my vision is thaE's going to be i maiorentrance to Chanhassen and there should be something special vrith it. Maybe r.rhen we see the cost of that something special when Chanhassen hasto bear the cost of that, we wonrE do it but it says if a boulevardparkway is to be constructed, additional space wiIl be required toaccomodate a landscaped median. Is everybody comfortable with how that's$rorded? Do you want to word it strongly? Do you want to say we recommendthat as a major access in the future for Chanhassen, is there any wordingthat anybody wants to change in that or are you comfortable with the way-it is? On the bottom of Page 29. It's been worded that we may needaddj.tional space . Erhart: Yes, I thought webe a boulevard. were going to recommend that that was goj.ng to Planning Commission Meet i ng May 4r 1988 - Page 56 Conrad: That I s access entryway. the way Ird like to recornmend that it look like a major Batzli: But yet a boulevard. Conrad: I donrt know what it is. I donrt vrant, this sounds real secondary the way it's worded here. Not a major part of the improvementof TH 101. At least I want us to look at the opportunity that r^re may haveto make it a major entrance and my suspect is, because of restrictionsthere and whatever costs, we may not do it but at least at this point intime, I'd Iike to make it sonething that should be seriously coniidered.Mark knows r.rha t !'re t re saying. Mark Koegler: You r.rant to state definitively. to the City of Chanhassen off ofConrad: Yes. As a major futurethe TH 212 interchange. TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT #2 I AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT *2. Dacy: The Planning Commission, according to State Law, needs to fine thatthe proposed land use improvements and the transportation improvements areconsistent erith the Comp PIan so included in your packet is a resolutionthat was prepared by the Attorney's office. In this case itrs LeFevere,Lefler. Theytre our Attorneys on tax increment issues. So vrhat's beingproposed is creation of an economic development district over on theMcclynn site and over the Audubon Road right-of-way and tax increnentdistrict over just the McGIynn site. We can use the use the incrementgenerated from the Mcclynn site to put into a fund to use to improve Audubon Road. The first priority being improving Audubon Road from TH 5to the railroad tracks to a 9 ton section and urban section with curb andgutter. But again, the fiscal and the financial issues are reaLly mainlyfor the Council and HRA. The Planning Commission is lookj.ng at this interms of is what theyr re doing, improving Audubon Road, is that consistentvrith our plans and is the McGIynn site appropriate zoned. The answer isyes to both. Headla 3 Why did we just limit it to the Mcclynn property? that more entrance Dacy3 Tbe property on the easE side of the roadthe tax increment district. We may be tooking atproperty to the south of the railroad tracks andconfirmation from the Attorney's off i.ce on that. is included already in adding additional vre're gett i ng Erhart: On which side of Audubon? East or west? Dacy: On the east Erhart: East and hlildermuth: It I s side. south of the railroad trac ks . consistent wi th the zoning? Resolutj.on #88-1: Emmings moved, Batzli seconded thatCommission adopt ResoLution 88-1 as shown in Attachmentfavor and motion carried. BE DISTRICT DISCUSSION. the 1. PIann ing A11 voted in conrad: Rather than Barbara giving a report, whj.ch wirl wait, r think Timwhy don't you sort of cover your nemo and get us thinking on this. Erhart: Here's an area thatts probably closest to me because I live inthe area and I really enjoy the outdoors and just green areas. I thinkwhat rre have here is an area that's unique and itts been kicked around assort of a pseudo commercial area through the history of the city and itdoesn't quite lend itself to the commercial area. Itrs got some realproblems. For one thing therets no intention, as Barb always says, withinthe next 30 years, that's her standard length of time I gueis heie, toever have sewer and water so yes, it may look obvious to you Jim thatsomeday there will be a Hilton Hotel to replace the existing one downthere but the thing is, therets no plan for sewer and water there. Ifthat was not that way, rrd say yes there's going to be a major deveropmentpossible and all that stuff but in reality there just isn,t that much roomthere either because of the... Erhart: So it's never really going to be a commercial area and $re sort ofslip in a business here and 5 years later another one slips in while theother one runs dovrn and itts not really a commercial area. Secondly,therers not enough rooro to put access road on there to make j.t a saiebusiness area and we certainly don't vrant to seem to spend the money. Wecan keep letting it go on that eray and keep doing what we're doing or wecan Iook at what werre really doing here from a broader perspective andsay, we have a unique opportunity r.rithin the city to preserve this area asa green area for when the rest of the city is all built up in subdivisionsand industrial parks, that we have some unique area that people can get t'othe trails and go cross country skiing, horse riding, hiking or whatever.To support that $re find that what the State south of TH 2L2 has reservedthat as some sort of park. Barb what do they call it? Dacy: That's part of the Minnesota River VaIIey wildlife Refuge. Erhart: In addition, Eden prairie has already basically, I think theyrreconsciencely trying to prevent development in that area. It really isconsistent with what our neighbor is doing so I think there are twopurposes to be served. I think it's a good time t.o do it. Conrad: Excuse me, are they really doing it from that standpoint? IsEden Prairie really preserving and protecting that area for a very pure? ' Planning Commission Meet i ng YLay 4, 1988 - Page 57 Wil-dermuth: My point was though that I think all those little houseswiII... Erhart: Will eventually rot down. Wi ldermuth: But I didnrt want to say that in public. Planning Commission i',teet i ng May 4, 1988 - Page 58 Dacy: Southplain aIl thethere anyway. acre minimum commercial in Conrad: p I annedsort of of TH L69/212 is the Minnesota River VaIIey and it,s flood vray through there so nobody would be able to do anythingTheir zoning in that area is ag zoning. they have a I0Iot s j.ze. No corunercial uses allor^red. The onty thing Eden Prairie is the Lionrs Tap and thatts grandfathered. Headla: But they really expanded that? Dacy: Yes, they did and it's interesEing, itts kind of the same issue asBrookside Motel . Itts an existing business and it went through theirprocess and Council allowed it to expand over the objections of staff soit happens in every community. Eden prairie doesntt have the existingcommercial uses that we do and they have been successful in getting thatto happen. Conrad: But they don't have a strategy with this area Ehat says we wantto preserve it. It's in ag right now which is not a strategy. Dacy: Itrs probably a policy. I knoe, it is in their Comprehensive plan it's rural area. Therers no urban services out there. That Ehereshouldnrt be urbancized development in that area. plus with theMinnesota River Valley plan and so on, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife,that area along the river is... To our knowledge they donrt have any trailsto go into that area. Theyrre not intendingtrail system. The trail and the park area North of the highway. things that are make it a park or to Dacy: p1an. Erhart: And Irm not suggesting that $re go in to some big plan to buyproperty and try to make some part for that. ThaErs just not possible butby making a change from BF to A-2, $re can effectively put that area onhold as a green area, 2O years down the road where maybe you can go backand acquire these places or these properties below the bluff. Secondly,is we could stop this propagation of this traffic problem that everytimesomebody, vre're essentially encouraging businesses, because we,ve zoned itcommercial, everytime you come in here yourre adding more access probremsonto TH 212. we are not sorving that problen and r thi.nk we ought to just eI iminate. Enmings: fs there anything else north of TH 212 to the east and to thewest, is it aII A-2 now except for the BF? Dacy: The BF area, from the vacant old Mobite station,station thatrs vacant, that eastern property line is thethe BF district and the western limit is TH 1oI. that old eastern Dacy: Way over here on the east side. lla sIine of is part of that Minnesota River valley Emmings: Where is the Chanhassen border? Planning Commission Mee ti ng May 4, 1988 - Page 59 Conrad: Is it unique enough aggressive with it but is itpark. Is it park potential? Chanhassen residents off thecharacteristi.c about it that to make it, you're saying don't unique enough to make something?Is it someplace that we want totrail system to and develop? Is we feel should be protected? do anything Make it a get there some Erhart: Yes, I think there are a lot of characteristics of it. Therets alot of lakes and therers the bluffs. The reason I'm saying not do ittoday is one, financial and the secondly Ehere probably is not enoughpeople living here that would reaLly use it but when you consider 2g yeaxs dovrn the road when you've got twice the population and a lot of it filledin, then I think it will be very useable. And our trail plan will becomplete. I think itrs something really worth going for. And therets arailroad bed that goes through it and it will be abandoned. There willeither be light rail transit... Dacy: Thatrs been challenged to my understanding. Batzli: But thatrs a big issue I think in that you're going to haveprobably is going to be a very major f ree$ray running right alongsidething. You might have light rail transit running right through it.kind of a park is that going to be? wha tthis Wha t Erhart: It'd be real nice for the people riding the transit. Emmings: I donrt think Tim is saying let's turn this from a commercialarea into a park. I think hers saying, r.rhat I hear you saying is let'smaintain sort of the natural so that whoLe bluff area that borders thatriver area will sort of be left in itrs natural state rather than having a bunch of . . . Conrad: Hodge podge. Headl-a: That lrould be consistent lvith the way the river is used furtherupstream. You take fH 169 southwest, gee iErs beautiful. Therers a lotof green. Itrd be kind of nice to see that leaving the Twin Cities. Emmings: What's that zoned there? Dacy: A-2. Emmings: Thatrs A-2 and then going the other eray? Dacy: Is A-2. The only other BE is i.rhere we put the mini-storage. Erhart: A ferr, meetings ago $re talked about the concept of having businesson TH 41 and TH 5 and everyone said, how despictable. We canrt have that.This is the same thing. youtre talking about a rural intersection. Thereason again is no sewer and rdater planned for a long time. Itrs the samething that lies there only here, in additi.on to Ehat, we have this, Ithink a real unique area within Chanhassen that I think we ought to bedoing a fe!, things to preserve. Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 50 Erhart: I did vrant to make one otherabout this and he welcomes a proposal Conrad: I thj.nk next meeting ItIl have Barbara go through the staffreport. Tark about the uses of that property and r think obviously thereare some problems $rith that. Letrs continue the discussion next time. point. I did talk to the Mayor from us on this issue. Conrad: I could see it if there was something that we wantedit rather than just being there. Being there is really good.but I donrt know that we can make a rally around that. to do \., i th I 1i ke tha t Erhart: Therers a bal-ance. One is we can preserve it by making it A-2.we can better preserve it by making it A-2 but on the other hand we havethis problem that every ti.me somebody wants to open a business in thatarea is yourve got this traffic problem. So we Lan solve both probtemsmaking it A-2. you,ve got to remember, whaE do we say, almost everybusiness down there is non-conforming anyway except the two we just approved. by conforming in the fri.nge business district exceptall conforming. we created that district to make Conrad: No, they're allfor the motel . They,re them conforming. Erhart: Is that correct? I thought we said they were non-conforming. Conrad: OnIy the motel is. Dacy: The Lhings that are non-conforming are the existing motel whichin the A-2 district, SuperAmerica and that vacant restaurant building.Non-conforming in the BF district is the Brookside Motel and the RVcampsite. The recently approved contractor's yard is conforming. Theoutdoor display of landscape products for Brambilla is conforming. Thecord storage for Mike sorenson is conforming and the rest is vacant orOf course the auto salvage is non-conforming as weII. ls Headl,a: Ird like to bring up twofriend, hers positioned himself toin dirt. IE's aII graded. other subjects. Lovrell CarIson, ourput up a building. Hers been haul-ing thing. here? Conrad: I thought he had to come back here? Dacy: Yes,yesterday.that was the Council direction. Dave gave me a callI havenrt had a chance to follow up on it. Headla: A neighbor called me up rather host j.Ie about lhe whole Conrad: Whatrs Lowell doing? He,s doing it vrithout coming back Dacy: And thatrs unfortunate because r thought that r had an agreementleast from his Attorney that they seemed willing to come back to thePlanning Commission with a proposed plan. Maybe something happenedbetween the councir meeting and now that ticked him off, i donit know. at ag. Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 61 Conrad: Head Ia : dirt. So whatrs he doing? Hets out there building? Hers got it all graded and I donrt know when he hauled in the Emmings: You may want to contact the city Attorney because they may welrhave made the decision, let's do it and see. Thatrs not irresponsibleadvice. He may well have gotten that straight from his. Headla: Then the other point I wantedgive them about 4 or 5 sentences about Iuncheon meeting with the director ofthere. to bring up, Barb, why don'tour meeting with Peter Owen.the Arboretum. Tim, Barb and you TheI were Dacy: We talked about a couple of issues. One about Mr. Owen actuallyproviding assistance as to looking at our landscaping ordinance todetermine whether or not that was adequate. secondly, we determined thatthey really couldnrt provide a site plan review function for us. Thethird item was, as far as the ability for them to provide landscapeproducts, they really are not in that enterprise. They're Erowingdifferent types of species and so on as opposed to distributing them. Headla: He might be interested in critiquing, if we have a majordevelopment come in, he'd criti.que the landscaping plan. And he pointedout things like the way things are novi you have like conifers in ln areathat just isnrt natural for conifers. He would like to see the directionmore t.han actual trees going up lihere they wouldn't normally rise. Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to adjourn the meeting. and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 Submitted by Barbara DacyCity Planner Prepared by Nann Ophe i m Atl p.m voted in favor CITY OF EHINHISSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEII{ORANDU!{ TO: Planning Commission FROM: Barbara Dacy, City DATE: April 29, 1988 SUB.I: BF, Business Fringe Planner District Discussion This item was tabled from the April 20, 1988, meeting. AtLached is a letter from Commissioner Erhart regarding his aguments to rezone the current land zoned as Business Fringe District from TH 101 on the west to the eastern property limits of Ehe former Mobil Station on the north side of TH 2L2. The following analy- zes the uses currently existing and proposed in that area. BACKGROUND The subject are was rezoned to the BF District along with the effective date of the new Zoning Ordinance on February l-9, 1987. Originally, this area and the area to the east r^,as zoned C-3 by the former 1972 Zoning Ordinance (where uoon Va1ley Excavation and Rifle Range exist). Therefore, the city upon adopting the new zoning Map reduced the originally considered commercial area to its current size. There is only one other BF district area farther to the west on T!1 212 immediately adjacent to Chaska novr occupied by Gary Brown's mini-warehouse units. The existing uses on the south side of aH 212 are zoned A-2, Agricultural Estate and are considered non-conforming. The 1972 ordinance did not include this area as commercial and had been zoned R-1a, Agricultural Residence. In the BF District area on the north side of TH 212 east of TH 101, there are currently eight property ownerships: 1) Brooksiale Motel, 2) the former Lydia Teich prop- erty now approved f or AdmiraMaste Management contractor r syard, 3) Brambillars property now authorized for outdoor display of landscape producEs, 4) the Sorenson/Jedl icki property authorized for cold storage warehouse units, 5) the Vernon Teich property which is currently in small aqricultural usage, 6) the former Mobil SEation site, 7) and 8) trdo single family homes. ANALYS I S The City Attorney cautioned thac upon rezoning from Business Fringe to the A-2, Agricultural Estate District, the city would PlanningApril 29, Page 2 Commission r988 have to show that rezoning would not be denying the individual property owner reasonable use of the land. If the property can- not be used for agricultural or residential purposes, the property owner may have a claim for a Eaking. The Brookside Mote1 is currently non-conforming. The contrac- torts yard and cold storage sites are consistent with the current uses permitted in the BF, Business Fringe District as well as BrambiIla's outdoor display of landscape products. Of these four parcels, only the contractor's yard property could be con- sidered for an agricultural use because approximately 8 acres of the Eotal 13 acres could be farmed. The rear of the Brambilla property is less than an acre in size. It is dubious as to whether or not a reasonable agricultural use exists on that pro- perty. The former Mobil Station and the Brookside Motel property have no potential for agricultural use. Except for the Brookside Mote1, the existing and approved uses require litt1e demands as to septic system and well use because of the low number of employees needed to run the businesses. Hor^rever, in the case of the contractor's yard, in order to build a substantial building the property owner is faced with require- ments for sprinklering, installation of adeguate well reservoirs, holding tanks for purnping, and access improvements. While it is true that non-conforming uses should be disconLinued, it. should also be ensured that the property can be used for some other type of use. civen that the city establ-ished commercial zoning for the properties on the north side of TH 2L2 and has authorized a minirnal amount of use in that area, removing the Business Fringe District, if pursued by the Commission or Council, should be analyzed thoroughly by the Attorneyrs Office before final action. The properties on the south side of TH 212 have not hail any type of commercial zoning placed on the property and have existed as non-conformi ties . The city is in a betterposition in this manner in that it is noE renoving any develop- ment rights previously established. As is pointed out by Commissioner Erhart, there are advantages to removing any coflunercial activity along this corridor given the safety issues involved with TH 212 and 169. It vras estimated by MnDOT that in order to construct a bypass lane in front of the subject area, it could cost up to 5500,000. Further, as pointed out by Comrnissioner Erhart, there are visual impacts that do arise from commercial enterprises in this major corridor into the community. Eden Prairie so far has been successful in preventing commercial development along its corridor except for the Lionrs Tap which was previously established. However, as one enters Chanhassen, because of the existence of these buildings and usesfor several years, a commercial pattern was created. Planning Commi s s ionApril 29, 1988 Page 3 RECOMMENDAT ION ATTACHMENT S These issues should be discusseal by the planning Commission forfurther staff direction. This office firmly believes in theintent of i4r. Erhart.r s comments and coocurs with the generalprinciples of limiting access onto a major arterial srlch as TH2i2 and preserving a pleasiog landscape through this area ofChanhassen. Hoiiever, there are potential Iegi1 implicat.ions fromthis action that upon planning Commission diiect.ion shouLd bepursued in nore detai.l-. 1. Location map.2. Proposed corridor study and proposed transportation elementof the Comprehensive p1an. 3. Letter from Tim Erhart dated Apri1 26, 1989. I lave a larger scal_e land use and. property ownership mapwiII be presented ar the meeting. NOTE: which a A2 ,o t4 A2 OF SHAKOPEE k c-3 FA LAKE tcE NE R l.).\q/ --t- {l. s. r! z ( I.9 I I I I I I I 9 bB 42 bx 6 zot9 l I I I ( \ % at"4\\ T- s:i i.t \ \ \ \o 77t ,l.lH N bt ,s \'"1 )r" b.lt t i ! 4{o2 3 z jfI B -at I- I ; -:, ,: o J i l \ i\ Ei ? +. ' Y&- -a) ,€ \)a-% % ^P{<; - I v o-a &"" 'll ."'"';Ii "'1'' * b) E frq, L rp NoUbov l -.t'' l l- I '2 -e I EE HH .!.- ii E[ 2.6 tB I :\--' To: Subject: Date: Being on the Planning Commission and Iiving close to the Minnesota River Vailey area, I have begun to appreciate the unique resource which exists in our city. Unfortunately, our current approach to p1 anning in this area guarantees both a mjssed opportunity and the creation of dangerous traffic conditions by encouraging commercial development w'ithin this area. To the south of fH 212, the area in the valley from Fiying Cloud Airport to Chaska has a1 ready been designated . The north side consists of severe terrain with bluffs and wash outs as you go up the val 1ey wal1. The severe erosion and cl iffs give the area both a unique appearance and environmental quality unique to this area. It also poses substantial danger of additional erosion when development occurs. The City of Eden Prairie has seen fit already to preserve the va1 1ey by maintaining the entire area north of TH 212 in Eden Prairie as Aqricultural . The Eden Prairie ordinance allows only aA 6rtr\fss;r{r,i.i&U#-in thi s district. The only non-conforming structure<in Eden Prairie is Lyon's Tap. The va11ey in Chanhassen for the most part is classified as BF (Business Fringe) which is a commercial use. Over the years, a few businesses have sprung up in this area. Many have gone out of business due mostly to the fact that the area really doesn't lend itself to a business environment being just across the bridge from Shakopee. In addition, the heavy traffic and high speeds discourage stops by motorists along this route. The remai ni ng businesses include: I. Hotel 2. S,/A gas station 3. Junk yard 4 vaurt 'rLs+alNiltr br^^ Plannins Conunission froW ,aWt efit*f?d llinnesota River Valley Plan SlafALS .f,','eA.,,rn |on Apri'r 26, re88 *".,+., t)41 fiPq lff Ar^*to 5. l,lhich are located within the designated conformi ng. and are therefore non - No sewer and uses . ) Businesses on the north side of TH 212 include: l. Shooti ng range ?. Hotel 3. Seasonal retai I nursery 4. 5. These are also non-conforming in the BF district. (Note: water exists or planned for this area thus limiting potential tJe have unfortunately now allowed two new business in this area: Garbage truck cleaning and storage and a retail nursery. Fortunately the garbage truck business is not located directiy on TH 212. Additionally, the nursery is not necessariiy incompatible with Agricultural areas although a severe traffic probiem will have been created when this nursery opens. There are a number of issues which cause me to urge the members of the Planning Commission to recommend that the zoning in this vicinity be changed from BF to A-2 Agricultural Estate. (I am not suggesting we change the BF area existing next to Chaska.) The opportunity to provide for future generations a truly unique green area within the metropolitan area exists today. If we deiay, we will probably miss this opportunity altogether. Much of the area (south of TH 212 and all of Eden Prairie) is already restricted from devel opment. The landscape is del icate and surely doesn't allow itself to devel opment . I 2 2 2 lle are encouraging business to develop along a highway where a long downhill run causes traffic to travel at speeds ranging from 55-70 mph. 0n the one hand, the city is taking the responsibil ity to encouraging the growth of a commercial area but we are not providing the access roads which are required for safe ingress and egress from these businesses. I have voted against each of the two proposals because I cannot in good conscience agree to creating such a dangerous situation. A commercial area requires sewer and water. Sewer and water is not planned for this area for any time within the next 30 years. 4 t 3 Designating the area A-2 is totally appropriate in that a certain amount of agriculture use occurs in the area today. In addition, the area includes fi^n homes which would conform nicely to the allowable uses in the A-2 area. Lastly, the one unit on 10 acre restriction on residential development in the A-2 district would conveniently I imit the growth of homes preventing increased density, further erosion and traffic problems. I believe the urgency of this matter should cause imnediate passing on this recommendation to councii before any additional plans are submitted for businesses in the area. IOCATION AND LENGtt s Prqn Chanhassenrs eastern border (Eden Prairie) to the westem border (Chaska). Approxine teJ.y 2.7 miles. FUNCrIONAL CLASSIPICaTION: Minor Arteria I Plan ) . ( 1987 Chanhassen Ccnprehens ive A'ER'.GE DrrLY lRAFErc' i3:333 l'33:Lf?:r3i'#;l3l* upon consrrucrioo or tlefl T.H. 2I2. DESCRISEOI{: U.S. 169ru.S. 212 is a cornbined roadway traversigg the extreme southern section of Chanhassen. The two lane, undivided higtn*ay carries substantial Eraffic since it, is a segment. of a route connecting western Minnesota to the T{in Cities. PROPOSED LAND USE: Southern Chanhassen is not. served by sanitary saner. Consequently, no nen urban sca le developnEnE has occurred in recent years. A series of "qrandfaEhered" businesses exisEs east of Ehe intersect.ion of U.S. L69/212 ard U.s. I59A.H. l0l. Of t.hese uses, some are conEorming to the business fringe (BE) zone while others are non-con form i ng. The lard use elernent. of the 1987 Ccmprehensive PLan ackncftrledges the existenceof the ocnforfling uses, however, Lanl use pol.icies dlsco:rage their expansioo. tilon-conEorming uses b,y ordinance are protlibit.ed from enlarging or exEendingtheir opera t.ions I - !*,,,' tns-!h.ire. aa U.S. 1691212 (Flying Cloud Drive)- Corridor Study r PRoPoSED TRANSPoRTATToN rtrtpRovEMEMtS: currentty, there are no majortra ns-por ta tidr improvements pranned for existing 1697212. Topography indfloodplain areas in eastern chanhassen and weitern' eden prairie irecl.roe -:iqi [rgq!- luture expansicr. ttre pending improverenr mGr af fecting ixistingu.s. 1-59/2L2 is the planned cqstruction of nen ?.H. 212. ultren the-nen routels built, it will substantially eriminate increased Eraffic aionq -Clre' .ii"ti.groute. Existing 169/2L2 is not adequate to hardle existing iraffic flo*s.rmprovements witl be needed to reduce accident rates and Lnhance public sa fety. ',- - -rtl-i.ii*_ .+-.,EE...-.L Proposed land uses alorq the u.s. 169 e u.s. 212 corridor have been identifiedas a s_ta tement oE lorlg term ciEy policy. In this case, long term is definedas being post. 2000, possibly ?020 or beyond. Ttre city of chanhassen does notplan to expard the business fringe (BF) zone, hencel deveJ.opment will notoccur prior to E.he availability of sanitary serrer senrice. tong terrn landuses follow a therne of diversity in order 1o ensure a future 6alance of f mctlon anl aesthetics. when urban services become available, the norEh side of the u.s. L6g/212corridor is expected to develcp as nredium &nsi ty ard high &nsity residentialwith the exception of the existing commercial area. kcperty on the southside of 169 /212 is within land designated as part of the l,tiniesota valleyNationaL wildlife Refuge. one smill existir! area of cqrunercial (blsiness- Eringe ) exists at the Cta ska border. L., a I Lare gtjat $\ \ I Latc utLcf ,tca I] -j I I l I I Proposed Land Use Lrt( ,tcE I v.\ ,{ ,J^,. -HD MD R_MD P/S P/S --l;-.*r:,5&r, o -{_ -,L I I I t- )I f F aCITY OF EHANHASSEI[ P.C. DATE: C.C. DATE: CASE NO: Prepared by: May 18, i988 June 13, 1988 O 1s enlv STAFF REPORT Fz () =(LL Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-904 forAccessory Structures PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: PRESENT ZONING: ACREAGE: DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:N- s- E- w- WATER AND SEWER: PBYSICAL CHARAC. : 2OOO LAND USE PLAN: ko tdF v, Zoning May 18, Page 2 Accessory S tructures B ACKGROUND The Planning Commission reviewed amencling the ordinance foraccessory structures on l{arch 2, 7988. At that time, the itemwas tabled unti.l staft' could come back with Tim Erhartr s commentsand additional comments on lakeshore lots (At.tachment *1). ThePlanning Commission nanted to have a maximum size for anaccessory structure for lots 5 acres and less. ANALYS I S WhiIe staff agrees that a naximum size should be established foran accessory building in rural estate subdivisions, there mayarise situations where lots 5 acres or less are in fact used foragriculture or stable purposes which may require a largerbuilding. Therefore, we have added a sentence to permit the abi-lity to obtain a condiEional use permit for a larger building. AIso clarified is the setbackriparian 1ots. for accessory structures on Ordinance Amendment 198 8 Staff has made the S ection . following changes to the Accessory Structure No detached garages and storage buildings inresidential district shaII be located in thefront or side yard. I any required 3 2. Detached garages a!r(j .::Lu.:g,:r il:rildings in the RSF andn-4 districts sha11 not exceed 1000 square feet insize and sha11 not occupy more Lhan 30t of the areaof any rear yard. A rear yarC is measured as thearea between the rear wa1I of the principal structure and the rear lot 1ine. Detached garages and storage buildings in the RSF and R-4 Districts having an area up to and equal to 200 sguare feet in size sha1l have a rear setback of tive(5) feet and a side yard setback of ten (10) feet. Any detached garage or storage building over 200 square feet and up to and egual to the maximum of 1000 square feet shal1 have a rear yard. setback offifteen (15) feet and a side yard setback of ten (10) feet. Section 20-904, Accessory Structures. (a) Detached Garages and Storage Buildings. Zoning Ordinance Amendment May 18, 1988 Page 3 Accessory Structures Detached garages in all residentialarchitecturally consistent with theture. 4 In the A-2 and RR Districts no det.ached garagesstorage buildings sha1l exceed 1,000 square feeton IoLs 5 acres or 1ess. An accessory building1,000 square feet may be permitted upon approvila condi tiona.l use permit. districtsprincipal and over of must be s truc- 6. A detached garage orDistrict shall havefeet. storage building in the RSFa maximum height of twenty (20) 7 Detached garages and storage buildings located onriparian lots shalI maintain a setback of seventy-five (75) feet from the or,iinary high water mark onRecreational Development Lakes and one hundred fifty(150) feet from the ordinary high water mark onNatural Environrnent Lakes as designated on theOfficial Zoning Map. or the (b) Tennis Courts and Swimming Poo1s. No tennis courts or sirimming pools shall be locatedin t.he required front or side yard and shal1 mai:.rtaina rear yard and side yard seEback of ten (f0) feet. Tennis courts and swimmiog pools located on riparianlots shall maintain a setback of seventy-five (75)feet from the ordinary high lrater mark onRecreational Development Lakes and one hundred fifty(150) feet from the ordinary high water mark onNatural Environment Lakes as designated on theofficial zoning Map. (c)In any residential district, no accessory buildingstructure sha11 be erected or constructed prior toerection or construction of the principal or mainbuilding but may be erected simultaneously. * NOTE : I 2 The for RSF District regul-at.ions would be amended alsoheight of accessory structures. ATTACHI4ENTS Planning Commission minutes dated March 2, 1988.LetLer from Tim Erhart dated February 19, 1988. 1 2 Plann i ng March 2, Commission Meet i ng 1988 - Page 26 r{. SECTION 2g-994, ACCESSCRY STRUCTURES. Olsen: What werre proposing to do no!, is, number I just states that no detached garage or storage building in any district shall belocated in the required front and sideyard. Number 2 rrouldessentially be for RSF and R-4 districts $rhere it would say, In RSF and R-4 districts detached garages...and then add the remainder ofthis where it was talking specifically about RSF and R-4 $rith theI,A0O sqvaxe foot and maximum of 30? of the rearyard and put that as aparagraph under 2. Then make number 3 as another section under number2 because this wilL be pertaining to the RSF and R-4 districts.Number 4 then is also for the maximum height will be applied to the RSF and R-4 district. If you feel that you want these also for theother districts, we can also add that under number 3 that we added fornultiple family commercial, industrial districts stating that theyshai.L have a rearyard setback of l-g feet. Essentially we,ve got oneas a condition for all districts. Two would be RSF and R-4. Threer.rould be multiple family, commercial and inCustrial districts. Then $re tried to further define a tennis court and swimming pool , wherethey can be located and where they can not. When you took at theordinance now they are considered an accessory use but then you usethe accessory structure setback so ure came up with specificrequirements for those. (c) is the same. Conrad: What did we decide? City Council didn't like the 1,000 footbuilding right? Olsen: They wanted different setbacks and Bill is here to be sure. Emmings: That's been incorporated already. Olsen: Right. Conrad: They Iiterally said in either point Ia garage or a buildj.ng as Iarge as L,AOA feet.them but that rras what they said. or 2, they did not wantNot that I agree $rith Dacy: They did taLk about 800. I Conrad: What are you thinking BilL? Let me gj.ve you our logic,r think when we went through it a month or t{^ro ago. Tom didn,t calron me for our logic during our meetings so I,Il ihare it with you. Werealry took a look at what it wourd take for a 3 car garage and alsowhat it woul-d take to have a littre shop in there and then steve addeda 103 fudge factor or something and we came up with 1, ggq f.eet. Webasically looked at garage starls to be a key there. r think g00 feetprobably vJould work too. I don,t know if there's a great deal ofdifference between BOA feeL and l, eOT feet in our mind but whenI heard City Council talking, I heard numbers that were significantlyIower than the L,ggg. BiII, do you have any comments? Anything to - guide us on this thing based on what you heird? Planning March 2, Commission Meeti ng 19 88 - Page 27 _( { Councilman Boyt: I remember saying at the meeting, when vre firstdiscussed this and I think whaE I could live with is if the outbuilding was never to be rarger than the main structure. rn a sensethat we don't require a house, the minimum house size is Less than1.r006 square feet. Ird like some means of avoiding the situationwhere a person has a 850 square foot house and 1, s'gg foot outbuirding15 feet from the lot 1ine. r have a rearly serious probrem and willprgP?lly vote against this if we come up with !,0AA iquaxe footbuilding and put it closer to our rear 1ot line than ie no, allow a859 square foot house to be. I think that's inappropriate. Headla: What about a little Sears sheet metal utility shed? Emmings: That's vndex 2gg. Conrad: That's under 2gg so therers no problem with that. Emmings: Thatrs erhy we put that in there was that concern for that. Councilman Boyt: If I might just comment one more thing about thatitem, when I think of a single car garage, which is whal I hadenvisioned aboat 20A square feet to be, and see that 5 feet from aback Iot line, I get nervous about that too. What I see as an outbuirding is something where a person can store a la$rn mower or a fewtools and I know staff was going to check into what a typical size ofan outbuilding is. What is a typical size of an outbuilding? Olsen: Itrs always an 8 x Lq, Lg x L6, Lg x 12 and he said up to 26q.Then r always checked around with other cities and 206 was Ehe cut-offpoint for their small buildings and l,ggg was the typical maxj.mum. Dacy: That's in the BuJ. lding Code too. The L,660. Councilman Boyt: That the I,600 a maximum?is hadDacy: For a garage. Tim Erhart garage also. olsen: we first had come up with L,6gq for a 3 car Dacy: Then Tim Councilman Boyt: 850. up wi rh t,sgg. really here to Iisten so take it avray. came Irm Dacy: Thatts the concern about the accessory building be largerthe princjple building. I think that goes right in with (c) andLogical extension of that as far as vrhen an accsssory building isconstructed. I think thatrs easily accomodated if the Commisij.onwants to pursue that. The only exclusion to that erould be if youin an A-2 area and your barn would be obviously larger than yourbut that can be excluded. t han is a -t 9rere home Plann i ng March 2, Commission Meet i ng 1988 - Page 28 { Conrad: The districts that 2 RSF and R-4. letter to RR-1 and A-2 if Iots that werre allowingI think we should. Farm Iots are approximately are below that. If you would some ofcity.the other separately area . to fall unde! the appLies that in to, hisEmmings: Tim wants to expand theyr re 5 acres or less. Headla: And I think we'll want to make that 10. Conrad: I agree with Tim in thosethat are residential in nature. I larger agree. Emmings: I think the makes much more sense Conrad: Is think the 5 Dacy: Your area is zoned max imurn of I , AgO . Headla: Even though I,ve record should when he's not reflect that we alL think Timhere than when he is. Conrad: Hers much more agreeable. there any log ic acres. .. we can use? I hear what you're saying. I !g1ql": Which point are we going to discuss here? We've gotdifferent ones. If we're going to talk about Timrs memo, i don'tthink it should be 5 acres. r think it shourd be r0. Look on thewest side of Minnewashta, you can put up an awfur big buirding thereand-it just doesn't fit into the aiea. -I,d be affec[.ed by it but rreally thing that,s for the good of Chanhassen, that's th6 way itshould be. t Dacy: I think the 5 acres, aII the Hesse5 acres and all the cluster subdivisionsraise.it t.o 10, it $rould probably includedescribed sporatic parcels throulhout che Headla: So we'd knock all but one out in our RSE so you ' re going ??"yr Right. What we're.proposing to do is regulate it by zoningdistrict. Timts concern is out in the rural area. your zoned RSF.You have 10 acres- you have a maximum of LrOAg square feet. Headla: That accompl i shes Emmings: Itrs funny aboutdon't really knov, why. Conrad: It feels riqht butthe Ig but I do like the 5. got Ig ac res ? whaL I wanted. 5 acres, it jusE kind of feels right but I I didn't have a good logic. I didn,t Iike 3, no!, it t s assumedbuildings is left out of (Enmings: frm wondering why in the old numberunder 2, it says detached garages but storage PIannj.ng March 2, Cowrmission Meeting 1988 - Page 29 { { there. Is there a reason for that? Emmings: How about saying detached 200 square feet? Because if they're wouldn I t we want them to be? and storage buildings over to build a bigger building,9aragesgoing Olsen: A lot of times those are sti11 polebarns. the RSF?Emmings: Can they build polebarns in Dacy: Yes. Olsen: But when itrs a garage... do need the thicker walls obviously but Building CodeDacy: You purposes. Emmings: The other thing I've got is, number l says no detached garages or storage buildings in any residential district shall belocated in the required fronE. or side yard. Down under tennis courtsand swimming pools, yourve put in some special language for riparianIots. Again, not Irm getting kj.nd of worried about my own situationhere a little bit but it does come to mind. This would prevent mefrom building a garage on the side of my house a!,ray from the lake without a variance, would it not? what is my rearyard? Dacy: The lakeside. Olsen: So you have a 75 foot setback for any structure. Headla: Itrs the old story, whj.ch is your frontyard. Dacy: The ordinance defines the frontyard as that part that abuts the street. Your case, because you're on a private easement. olsen: You still have to be You could stj.ll, if you houseyour garage in the front. k and thatrs the frontyard. t back, you could still have 30 feet ba was 50 fe C e Dacy: Are you calling your lakeside your front?_L Emmings: I 'm asking. Dacy: Yes. Our concern was that we had a difficulE time trying toenforce that condition on, for example 120 square foot Sears buildingor one of those. When we talked to Tim more about it, he said thatwas his main intent also, was to make sure that the galages at least Iooked the same as the house then. Emmings: Yes, but my frontyard is away from the lake and yourre saying I can't build a garage back there when the road is back there, my car comes j,n there. Irve got to put my garage now... Planning March 2, Commission Meet i ng 1988 - Page 30 ft Dacy: The ordinance defines the lakesj.rle asclose as 75 feet. Between 75 feet and yourgarage. a rear but it canrt be as house you could have a Emmings: my front garage. This is by says I canrt build a detached garagethe street but that is where I rrould in the front and I og i ca 1J.y build my OLsen: You can't have Ernmings:What you I re you erant toDacy: If variance. it rdithin the saying is Irve build a garage setback of the fronE, got to get a variance. in the frontyard, yourll need a r Emmings: But why should we make that necessary on riparian lots? ElLson: How many people wiII that affect? Conrad: Quite a few. Emmings: Everybody who Lives on a lake. Dacy: Especially in the older pLatted areas. Headla: We talked about this before. we still don't have adefinition of a fronE.yard and you vrere goiog to go back and look atthat for me. Dacy: The ordinance defines frontyard as that part of the rot thatabuts the public street. Headla: But thatrs not good enough. you,ve got doubre frontage rots.You've got l akes . Dacy: We define a double frontage lot aIso. Emmings: My poi.nt is this, you've gone Eo the trouble down for tenniscourts and swimming pools of disti.nguishing what you do with riparianlots and why not do the same thing ior garages and storage U"ifi; ngs-, Dacy: That I s fine. OIsen: On riparian Iots? Emmings: Yes. orsen: The shorerand ordi.nance prohibits that withi.n 75 feet. rsthat $rhat you're talking about? Emmings: No it's not. tL PIann i ng March 2, Commission Meeting 1988 - Page 31 r\ Dacy: All werd be doing is repeating what the Shoreland Ordinancesays. You donrt want a Sears thing in thein it and Ehings like that? We on need a lot of variances coming in here with peopleand 262 of the people in Chanhassen live on iakes. Emmings: Irve probably got 259 feet down to the lake from my house.r donrt have any trouble getting back 75 feet. Not that r urourd everbuild a building there. No one in their right mind would but whyc?nrt I- just get a permit to build it in my frontyard in thatsituation? why do I have to get a variance? Dacy: Let me explain this. The intent to permit an accessorystructures in the front and sice yard is, ii the case of the iideyarato not block and access between two lots. The frontyard is tomai.ntain a safe distance betrreen the public right-of--way and any typeof structure for safety reasons. Like in your area a1,o-ng HorseshoeCurve or the Red Cedar point area, there are a lot of those olderggrage: that are right on Eop of the road. I think everybody knowsthat thatrs not the best safety type of situation also s6 thisaccessory buildings not being able to be rocated in the frontyard, !hu_t'! a typical requiremeot in most ordinances. Maybe it should belooked at through a variance procedure in some speciil cases because rthink to allow it outright may be creating more problems than it's vJor th . Emmings: Just think for a minute. If we allowed it on a riparianIot, wheo they come in for the permit they're going to have to meetall the setbacks. If you atlow it in t-he frontyard on a riparian lot,you're not goj.ng Eo run into the Red Cedar point type of situaEion. is someth j-ng like, rearya rd . on a riparian lot they table th is? There are a lot of things have sEaff come and bring it back nextthese considerations and just thinkterms of riparian and that kind of Emmings: shou ldn I t Dacy: Your some type of lake? Conrad: who li ve Emm j ngs: Ithe rest of A11 I rrant be al lowed to in say the intent is to prevent the ability of somebody to constructstorage building between the principle structure and the Emmings: And to allow it in the frontyard in that situation. back that has lifeEllson: j ackets donrt Iakes ( Conrad: Steve, why don't here and I guess I'd liketime that we meet and $rorkabout iE a little bit morestuff. we toin in think we al l k j.nd of I ike, us seem to Ehink that Tim speak about Tim r s, butgood th j. ngs that could _L can even had some Pl ann i ng March 2, Commission Meet i ng 1988 - Page 32 r be incorporated too. Dacy: I understand he ei ther . Headla: I donrt think Dacy: Wer 11 bring it Headla moved, Emm ing s Accessory Structures. rron't be able to make the meeting on the 16th we rrant outbuildings on the lakeside allowable. back. seconded to table action on Section 2g-994,All voted in favor and motion carried. REVIEW PROPOSED STATE ENABLING LEGISLATION. { Dacy: If I could just bring you up-to-date rrhere it is with thelegislature. It is in committee from what I understand no$, andvarious communities have been testifying pros and cons on many ofthese issues. My main j.ntenL of bringing this to your attention is sothat yourre aware of thj.s proposed Iaw because it does have in someinstances, very significant implications on how planning commissionsrdill be operating in the future. Minnesota I think is unique intaking this approach of Iooking at it's enabling Iegislation and doinga compleEe revamp. Looking at other laws like the Metropolitan LandUse Planning Act and looking at how cities relate functionally withcounties, etc.. For example, if you noted on page 30 for conditionaluses, Ir11 just bring the example to your attention. Sonething thaErseasily identifiable. AII the language that,s underlined is what isbeing proposed. What is being proposed j.s that the planning commission is getting a little more authority on conditional usepermits. What it's saying is that the City Council has to considerthat Planning Commission's recommendation and over two-Ehirds of theCouncil must abide by. the planning Commission's recommendation or by attro-t.hirds vote override thaE. So for example, that is different thanerhat r{as law up until this Eime. Another issue in here, this doesnrtaffect the pranning commission necessarily but the composition of theBoard of Adjustment and Appeals. Whatrs being proposed j.s thatcouncilmembers are not going to be permitted to sit on the Board ofAdjustments and Appeals. That is current practice in Chanhassen sothat takes a different approach. There are oEher rarger issues thatgre could go on and on about as far as consistency between comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances and so on, but again, mymain intent was to get you familiar with this so you underltand tlratEhis has direct impact on how you decide issues aird what you can andrrhat you canrt do. If you would like, I could have Roger Knutson comein-and highlight the chances a little bit more. Because on rrhy theydid this or why they did that, Irm not up to speed on. I don,t knoithe history or the rational but Roger could give Ehat. Headla: One point I'd Iike hin to comment on is Chanhassen goinghave liability on us then like Ehey cover the CounciL? Right nor, to they L {{ TiD A- Erhrrt 775 Wcst 96th Srcct Chasla, Minncsota 55318 Pl anni 'i ssi on February 19, 1988 For examp Riley Lak i nc lude t whi ch are Subject: Accessory Buildjng Restriction jn Residential Areas lle _recently discussed applyi_ng res-trictions to the size of accessorybuildings in areas zoned residintial . The result was that ttre -piannin6 commission recommended that the sizes of accessory buildings be Iimited t61000 square feet in the RSF district. I. bel ieve the same good_reasoning appl ies to all resident.ial areas includingthose in the A-2 and RR-l districts'. I bel ieve residential areas in ruraidistricts. can adequately be defined by all lots wh'ich are 5 acres or iess insize. ['lhat makes these sub-divisions sirniiar to those found in th; RsFdistrict'i s that even though the lots are larger, they are alu;te;;; andform a ne i ghborhood. 1e, how would it look if people in Hesse Farms, pioneer Hills, ande lloods started building pole barns? I therefoie recommend thit wehe restriction on accessory building size to ati Cnannajsen-ioii5 acres or iess in size, Secondly, I bel ieve we are already experiencing a problem where people builddetached gara_ges (accessory buildinjs) in re-sidential areas *hi.'rr'oo ,otarch'i tectural I y match the -primary structure (house) and are totatty out orsync with the esthetic values. of. the neighbdrhood. These bu.ildin!s, -most of which a-re metal ' prove to be ternibly unsightiy. ttomeowne"rs' naveinvested a Iot of money.into building archidecturaily pleasing ana lonronn-ing homes and expect to have this investment preserved.' Therefore, I also recomnend that any accessory structure larger than 200square feet on lots of 5 acres or less in s'ize, must have exteiiors mide ofthe same material as the^primary structure. Again, this should afpiy"io aliresidential districts, RSF, RR-l and A-2. /-, --,,rTim"A. Erh a Ttm A. Erhart 775 West 96th Strcct Chaska, Minncsota 55318 February 19, 1988 Pl anni nq Commi ssion Subject: Accessory Building Restriction in Residential Areas We recently discussed applying restrictions to the size of accessory buildings in areas zoned res'idential . The result was that the Planning Commission recommended that the sizes of accessory buildings be limited to 1000 square feet in the RSF district. I bel ieve the same good reasoning appl ies to all res'idential areas including those in the A-2 and RR-I districts. I believe residential areas in rural districts can adequately be defined by a1 I lots which are 5 acres or less in size. }Jhat makes these sub-divis'ions sim'ilar to those found in the RSF district is that even though the lots are Iarger, they are clustered and form a ne i ghborhood. For example, how would it look if people in Hesse Farms, Pioneer Hills, and Riley Lake l,loods started building pole barns? I therefore recommend that we include the restriction on accessory building size to all Chanhassen lots which are 5 acres or less in size. Secondly, I bel ieve we are already experiencing a problem where people build detached garages (accessory buildings) in residential areas which do not architecturally match the primary structure (house) and are total)y out of sync with the esthetic values of the neighborhood. These buildings, mostof which are metal , prove to be terribly unsightly. Homeowners have invested a lot of money into bu'ilding architecturally p1 easing and conform- ing homes and expect to have thjs investment preserved. Therefore, I also recommend that any accessory structure larger than 200 square feet on lots of 5 acres or iess in size, must have exteriors made of the same material as the primary structure. Again, thjs shou'ld apply to all residential districts, RSF, RR-l and A-2. \/y'-21 -t Erhar r Tim-A. FI I il S/t,fif Did you know? How should the city conduct hearings on zoning, subdivision, and other land use matters? In the recent case of Swanson y. City of Blanington, March 25, 1988, the Minnesota Supreme Court gave cities quite a bit of guidance as to how to conduct a zoning or subdivision hearing. For a more complete summary of this case, see the Court deobrbns column this montl. Regardless of how good a city's hearing process is, the city's decision is still open challenge, and may come under the district court review. If the city has followed the guidelines the Supreme Court has now given, tle district court review will be a much quicker, easier, and cheaper process for the city. If the city's hearing pro- cess meets the Court's criteria, the district court should normally look only at the existing written record of the city's hearing and decision; the disrict court $'ill not conduct a firll trial with both sides presenting witnesses, offer- ing testimony, and so on. There are really three elements the city needs to be aware of in conducting its hearing: First, the hearing must beht. Second, there must be a dear and complete record of the entire process. Third, it must be clear tllat the city's decision was based on reasonable con- clusions which came from the evidence people presented at the hearing. We'll try to flesh out these three elements a bit more. Fairness Much of what a court will look for in determining whether a hearing was hir ls ,ust a matter of common sense. All parties should have an opportunity present their views fully and to provide any information, materials, or exhibits they deem appropriate. They should have an opportunity to question other wtnesses, to respond to their testi- mony and to answer questions from others. To the extent possible, cities should bend over backward to give the parties every opportunity to prepare and present whatever they want, and to rnake sure that there is every oppor- tunity for all relevant information to come out. Cities should also be cautious about imposing any time limits on testimony, and especially on testimony from a permit applicant or witnesses he/she wants to present. The city should limit testimony, only if it is clear t}at tle testimony would be irrelevant or repet- itive. The Court several times has com- pared city hearing procedures with the procedures spelled out in the state administrative procedures act (APA). It is not absolutely necessary for a city to follow the APA procedures in pre- cise detail. Nor does the city have to use a hearing examiner; in the Swanson case, the Bloomington council did not use a hearing examiner but instead conducted the hearing itself. But, it is clear tlat the Court considers the APA procedures to be a good example of a hir hearing process, and it would be a good idea for cities to model their own procedures aft.er those of the adminis- trative procedures act. Using a hearing examiner might be appropriate in some circumstances. Proceedings for revoking a permit or variance might be one such circum- stance. In revocation proceedings, using a hearing examiner might help avoid the problem oI the council acting as both "prosecutor" and ' judge. " In any cirse, using a hearing examiner would seem to be one good way to help make sure that the hearing pro- cess is frir and open. The Supreme Court decided the Ssanson case unanimously. However, two justices joined in a special concur- ring opinion in which they suggested that procedures more like the formal rules of evidence that the courts use might be appropriate. Clearly the Coun's real concern, though, is the basic issue of faimess and openness, rather than precise adherence to a specifed set of procedures and rules. However, formal hearing nr.les like the APA procedures or the courts' rules of evidence are set up speciEcally for the purpose of assuring a fair hearing. If a city has followed those rules (or some- thing very similar), it will go a long way toward convincing the courts that the hearing process was in fact fair and open. PAIIIIYELL IGRR FORSTER CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOT'NTANTS 'seroing Cities for ooer j0 /ears' WORLDWIDE 6L2-545-O42L May rgEt 3l t '*tr ,TA . II{AITCIAL AI,DTTS. OOMPI.IAJY@ AI,DTTS. FII{A CIrrL OoItSIrLtElG. liAI{ tGEl.Ent ADvIsoRr SERVTCES The record It is absolutely crucial that the court have available a verbatim transcript of the entire hearing. Obviously, unless a clear and complete record is available, the court will not be able to make a review based solely on the record. This doesn't necessarily mean that cities will need to have a court reporter present at every hearing. It does mean, though, tlat if you don't use a court reporter, it will be absolutely necessary to tape record the hearing. Cities should take every precaution to make sure that the recordhg quality is good, and that the microphones will pick up everyone who testifies-even if the person offering testimony has a very soft voice. Another good possibility is to video- tape the hearing. A number of cities are already set up for cable broadcast of their council meetings and proceed- ings. Even if the hearing itsetf is not to be broadcast over tle cable system, the city could easily use tie cameras and equipment already in place ro tape also part of the formal record. If he/ue proceedng- she receives letters or petitions on the . The mayor, chairman, hearing exam- issue, those documents'tlemselves canmer,. or whoever is conducting the be part of the forma.l record. If there is hearing shou.ld also make sure that all a court challenge of the decision, thispeople testifying clearly identifies will help assurJthat the record beforethemselves each time they begin the court contains a.ll of the inlormation speaking. If witnesses offer any kind of the city received. opinion or judgement, it vrill also be a Of iourse, in deciding whether orgood idea to ask them to describe thek not to use a hearing ixaminer (or background, and.. to explain why they whether or not to tipe record thefeel they are qualifed to make that sort proceedings) the city will want to weigh of judgment. ihe expen-se and effon involved againitEvery document, photograph, graph, the fac'tors like how iontroversia is theexhibit, or display that anyone presents decision likely to be, how extensive should also tec-ome part of the perma- and compliztld are the Iacts involved, l"Lt ,1".o.9 of,the proc€e.ding. .Each how titely is a court challenge of thesuch.ltem should be dearly labeled. city's decision, how much of i problem . It is also possible, especially when a would it be if the courts reversed thedecision is likely to be controversial, city's decision, and so on. - that applicants or other citizens will contact members of tie council or * planning commission outside of the for- I ne deClsrOn mal hearing to present additional argu- The third crucial element that thements or information. If a member is Coun emphasized is the decision thatcontacted individually, he/she should the city makes. It is not enough just tomakes notes of the substance of the have j clear record oi a fair hiaring. ttcommunication and make those notes must also be clear that the ci"ty,s IrloSErcnE srcw 4?.A cnysrEEt competition wilh teatures like our exclusive trip edge, customized mountings andyour choice of electric or belt-driven hydraulics. Find out today why we say, nothing stacks up to a Fisher! P.O. Box "T" Highway 60 East Lake Cryslal, MN 56055 (504 726.6041 1 {00,722.0588 E FORD TANK & PAINTIT{G CO. tNC. SIEEI. ERECIION . SANOBT-ASI|NG AND pAtNTtNG CONTRACT wELDtNG . GENERAT MATNTENANCE TREEZE-UPS . EMETGENCY SERVICE . FIOSI JACKEISff 2I719 CEDAR DRIYE CEDAR., i/tN 55Ot I OVER 10 YEARS EXPERIENCE Painting - silver bright aluminum Oon Rush Box 233 Pilage., MN 56473 612/632.3s64 32 DlsT l\c slr(rwPtows - , All snowplows are not created equal!And in the business of snowplowing. second best won't do. Fisher plows past the YER,NON FORD RES.: 612.753-3523 Street Light Standards TEN FOR $250.00 Ilfuuresota Cities decision was a reasonable one 'nd that 19t lave been adequate grounds for because it wilr create trat[c probrems,,it was based on the inJormation wit_ denying the permii. -iiowever, the might be.nesses presented at the hearinc' .. councit'i writtJn nniiig" i",non.t rt"a In summary, the court,s real con-This means that after heariis aI 9l lo ths ;il'A;,t:ti,: :ecrsrcn was cern is that applicants for land usethe relevant testimonv' the c-ouncil urseo or-tt";il;il"irt concerns permits of any'sort receive a fairshonrd make rormar findinss "f fact for whith ;;";:Tfirrt. rr.trJ ;"#i. r,r,t'r.r,i"r) si".. the ,ppri_based on that testimonv. Th-e council's u..i. . , ',f,]-i"""Ji] lXi. no, on the cant a fair hearingi 2) can prove bv itsdecision_issuing a permit, *gg_, ,"qhb.;h; ;;;:;";.- records that it wis a fair hearing; andvanance, approving a subdivision, council or 'pilil;; commission 3j;;#;;'il iecision was basedrezorung propertv, or whatever-then memo.rs st oui aso'."ilr, t",n,nrl_ ;;;.";;;;-."fiisions drawn frombecomes a matter of aoolving-the irc ;;;;;;'":"."",ri#""'rt. either at the information presented at that hear_standards in the relevani 'oiafunttt or outside trr" r,.rring Jiri* suggest ing, the courts will be satisfied. How-and statutes to the facts- tr,rt tr,"v-r,ir" ffi.d; #;" up their evlr, if the record before tie courtIn the swanson case. for exampre, .in9.. -Ii ;;.;;;;'jT. ,"rr"r. ao.lnl .'i"*- tn-r, the applicantthe council made a formal Endine ihat ooricry-.-1ri"'r ";jt"Jn" u"ro." th; .;;;; , ijii r,#rg from the city,rhe requested subdivision wourd rikerv t *i"i pi*...]. il*ii"[,.u"1 ,rghi iiJ-ll-ri.t-itiru ffiL"e u,. apprcantcause substantiar environment r dam- suggest - to ttre co,art-'fii-tt e. hearing the opportunity to be heard.age' The testimonv from the citv. for- pr ess ",ick ;;;u;, sham anI u"i'"rrv ffi i"u"*i,g these proce_ester, the city ptarurer. and a wrtdlifr fu;41;; ffiil-;,,ff":':J q9 ."1n_ d*";-;;".ift;J; and cheaper tobiologist supported that 6ndins' .The bers r,"a'rrr"riv ,i.a!-i?asion. on defend ttre city'l postion if *rere is awrrnesses outrined rhe *oe of en'iron- the. other hil: tt,.ii '.#d; b" ;; ;;d;"iid.J,;,fii arso put the citymental damage that eich r.ri"vea proutem*wifr"r' rii',ii.i"l"*, tqt ry much stronger posruon to defendwould result from the subdivision' ire/she is .""."ii"J.u*, c.ertain its aecision suciessf,rry. And regard-Under the city's ordinance. the rike[- L*.., .o forg'.r- ii;. i#",r,", uvr,.. i;".-;il;; "dil;il. view it, if thehood of environmental damage was one mind i;;iili-6";. ro"r1'*Llrr", ryrs iiry A;;H;,;tp. to rnake sureoI the Srounds upon which the cor.mcil t iore 0,Jeiring:'ii*"H,il".n"a trrt that everyone,s ui-eJ. -. heard andcould denv a permir' The record arso th". d";;i";;-;" ;ght'[ir," *rm. that the city has a, of the releyantrevealed substantial neishborhood problems,, .hildnt-'L; problem; inforrillo"l, ,r,i-r"-.,rtt can only beopposition' That opposition arone ruoua !aving":,r,,n".ilrt "taT alreloprnent better decision-making. r "We saved around $IOTOOO a year whenw: w:nt in-house with AJpha_BARS instead ot usmg the service bureau.,, "Our working baeklog in the various city deparlments has lasically bccncliminatede along with the rep# hottlcnccks,_ sjncc wc bcgan using ihc conrplete Atpha-BARS systems." Ralph ?*cluua Firurce D ecma Ciry of P4or Ink MN trC*n ,r, wilh irrcrcnsing wrrktoorls anrl rlccn:.usinorlx''xInr;l lnktF..ts rlrrrrrrgl rfir. 1xnu.r of Alph:r.lt{llSrnlegrated accounting sofntare for local gorcmmen,s. Uscd ln, rc:Yes' lowrs v lagcs arrd counrics sincc l9?9. Evcn rhc _Tl""T",k gr9 of Ciries has relied on Alpha-&{RS for)ca^ji flnd out why. nk .oIoae nu oa- nUo Unix Minia ou,llta* tBtt. $tantUnma npa:t ud tovo n -,-l Crrrp/l,t , -A *,"piiu^ CalI our llitmeapolis otfie tolliee for norc infornntion. l-8OO-342-2845 g.rt.26t za-ll tr. tLctr* ,[iy.. siih to,i. ft. ttur. itit :is trrur utult AF.. S.i. ,i. [i[|ia irr SgtO! Big Sky Data SystemsBAR-rU" I II I May 1988 o 33 J Cotrrt decisions Ja1' Squires Supreme Court decisions benefit local government The Minnesota Supreme Court recently reversed two coud of appeals decisions that adversely affected cities. The League Municipal Amicus Program (MAP) 6led amicus briefs in both cases. The fust case is the most important, and applies to all cities. The second applies to cities with civil service com- missions. The first case involved an application to suMivide a parcel oI property. The landowner applied for plat approval. The city council held public hearings and received written reports from the city's director of planning and the city forester. Both recommended denial of the application. Acting pusuant to city code, the council denied the applica- tion, concluding tlnt the proposed suL division would result in environmental damage, and $,ou.ld adversely affect adjacent properties. The landowner cha.llenged the denialin district court. The landowner attempted to submit additional evidence not brought before the city council. The trial court, however. determined tlEt it was proper to decide the case based only on the record produced in the city council hearings. Subsequently, the trial coun granted summary judg- ment to the city. The landowner appealed to the Min- nesota Court of Appeals relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Honn v- City of Coon Rapi,i/s, 313 N.W.2d 409 (Minn. l98f). Gn short, the Court heldn Honn l}f,t a court, when reviewing land use decisions, may consider addi- tional evidence not brought before the local body.) The landorvner claimed that he should be allowed to submit the additiona.l evidence. The appeals court accepted the landowner's argument and reversed the tria.l court. In this case, the Supreme Court reversed tle court of appeals. The Court refned Lhe Honn rule (requiring a "new" trial, with the opportunity to submit additional evidence) by limiting it to situations where a clear and com- plete record is not available, and where the municipal proceeding has not been "fair. " The court stated that " [w]here the municipal proceeding was fair and the record clear and complete, reubw should be on the record-" The Court not or ), limited the Honn decision in a marurer favorable to cities, but also provided some guidance to cities on how they can conduct land use hearings. See the D;d you know co\rnn in this issue of tle magazine. The column discusses how to conduct land use hearings, and why conducting them in this manner is important to cities. J J I I I I I I I I I Mllla. & SahrD.dar's fin.oci.l Consult nls hav€ rn industry-wide ltDutation tor credivitv Th. Smup .lso has ecc.si ro lhe te.hnicd erpcrtisa rnd nrdood o:rlels o[ Miller & Schrocdea Fin2noal, Inc.-orovrdto! over t{ 6 billron tn munioprJ bond ,irirnonq ,;i iust one re.. a! ona ofthe nruons largest muruirpei finrncrrir sp.cirlisB oursde ofVhll Street. No *ooder Mill.r & Schro€der-.dvisad offer- iogs hrva such rn arcallant Ecord for utine off rnd flylng! H€rl} how Milt.r & &hrocder wiI wort for you: fi6t, Mtllcr& S(hrocd.r $illlelm your obF(- tives. Thcn,.pplyint iB.ppoach !o lool debt o 2gaocnt, MiI,e. t Schrccder rvill help you meet your obicctives with nfrr, or ttfnanced, rlteoue-suptloared or ttx-supponed debt. moat- 8r8€ rltmur botrd issuea, rdvanc€ atfundinqs, t2jr incrcment crsh rloss, tll-.xeogl, g€neral otliRa. lioo or turble issu€s. Mrll€r& S(hrocdrr will helg Wur sulf fomu- l.Lpoli(1.rld procrdurE Virh th. help o,Miller & S(hrc€d.is sophsuc:lfd, consunrlr updtnd compurer pmfirms, it will simpLfv rh€ prcp.n- lion ol lour public or n€ptirtfd sde. A Mil.. & SchDad.r{esigtrd pr..nution vill [o r long rzy b hclp rour honds rahrtac dp Nchear po$ibh rrriot. Your oftnng srl ,ljo hzve m.r;. mum impid when it leaches that big audienceol qudjfed pmspeor€ inltslors c ho m.le up Miller & S.hro€d€r s bm.d nruonrl m1rl?r So coflt2cr Mr[er & S.hm€d.r And enioy your flighr! lUiller & Scluoeder financial, lnc Iinancial Consulting Senices. M5 May 1988 idirrstudO .r.&166x i,tB'.rrtt{ll tgl)rr.Bt TDItD I . surlr't.lrotrn ln-r r, $r rttJIo: {rlt)u}]ilt nl h.iro)nt 612ri ! r,i&Ftla,el{or 35 i't I I It is important to note that the decision merely gives cities an extra option in conducting land use hearings. The Court is not saying that a city must follow the hearing forrnat set out in tle decision. Rather, the Coun is saying that if the city follows this format, a reviewing court will limit its scmtiny of the local decision to the local record. For practica.l purposes some cities might not choose to pro- vide the fuI blo*n "trial" at the loca.l level. However, some might choose to follow these procedures in particularly sensitive cases where a challenge to the decision seems Likely. (Swanson v. City of Blmnington, Finance and Com- merce, Supreme Court, decided March 2s, 1988.) The League thanks the law firm of Grannis, Grannis, Farrell and lhutson for volunteering its time and expertise in *riting tle League's amicus curiae brief. The second case involved the requied notice to unsuccessfirl appli- cants for a promotional sergeant posi- tion. The Police Civil Service Commission had notified all police department employees of the promo- tional opening. After oral and written examinations, the commission cenified the names o[ two candidates to the citli council. Prior to the formal amounce- ment of the appointnent, all candidates were informed that the names of the approintees were to be posted the fol- lowing day. Eighteen months later, two unsuc- cessfi.r.l applicants sued. The trial court dismissed the claim, fnding that the action was not co[unenced within 60 days (a requirement under M.S. 606.01). The court of appeals reversed, however, finding that the 60- day period does not begin to run until the unsuccessfrrl applicants are person- ally served notice of non-appointment. In this case, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, fnding tlnt personal service of notice is not necessary. Rather, the court stated that "where the participants entered the proceeding by applying as candi- dates for promotion, the commission must follow its own rules for notifying the candidates of the decision. If the commission has not adopted formal rules, the court must determine whether the notice given constituted due notice . . . due notice requires, ata minimum, that nodce be given u: writing and that it be reasonably calcu- lated to reach the candidate." The court went on to say that "[flor future cases, we suggest that a commission siould determrne before commencing the application process what method ii will use to give candidates adequate notice of its decision and that it should apprise candidates during the applica- tron process of the form of nodce it will provide. " Bahr v. Ci;v ot Litchfield, Finance and Commerce, Supreme Court, March 18, 1988, at 22, col. l. Noteworthy decisions Plat approval As a condition to plat approval, the city required the dedication of a right- of-way. The developer, needing plat approval, agreed to dedicate the land "under protest." The developer later brought an inverse condemnation suit against the city. In this case. the courr of appeals held that developers must challenge dedications pnbr to 6nai plat approval "in order to assure finality of Greater Protection-By-Annual Attention A Proven Yearly Maintenance Plan For Your Elevated Watertowers Walertower Paint & Repair Co., lnc. "The Tank With the Red Roof,' Providing dependable service to municipalities since,92, and otlering the experience, ski ed workmen, adequate insurance coverage and the best o, equipment and materiats to perlorm the highty specialized t;ade ofparntrng and repairing elevated wate.towers. prompt servrce on emergency wintetwotk. lnterior lnspection By Color Video Camera Available. Area Code pO. Box 67515-357-2101 Ctear Lake, towa 50428612-763-5216 Larry Hartwelt Membet ol American Waletwotks Associalion Municipalities 'l 92'l Palios . Planters . Sidewalks Neturel Beeuliful Eanonial Eesy to lnstall trfus{nes, ,rc. " 72@ tro Hyy 63. !@-Z4t.ratia bhFocrEsler, MN 5590. aoGz!-rata our !t L. Conlecl us today! i-!E- It' [: 1.. F Servicing Since RETAINING WALLS 36 Minnesota Cities dedication, give municipalities an opportunity to change their require- ments if the requirements are unrea- sonable, and prevent municipalities from being sued by developers when the only remedy available to a losing municipality is pa1'rnent. " The League Municipal Amicus Program (MAP) filed a brief in this case. Crystal Green v. City of Crystal, Finance and Commerce, Court of Appeals, 1988. Veterans' preference notice ln m unpublished opinion, the court of appeals shed some light on the required contents of a veterdns' pref- erence notice. The court indicated that a notice is adequate if it contains a description of the conduct that consti- tutes the grounds for discharge. Addi- tionally, the court stated that "employers should be mindful to cite all rules allegedly violated. . . ." The court also indicated, however, that "where the substance of the rule and the grounds for its violation are set forth, the ommission of a specific cita- tion to a rule number may be consid- ered no more than a clerical mistake and is not fata.l to the suffciency of the notice. . . ." In re the Matter of John McCreight, Finance and Commerce, Court o Appeals, Feb. 19, 1988, at 29, col. 1. Infliction of emotional distress The United States Supreme Court recently issued its decision in Jerry Fa.lwell's suit against Hustler magazine. The suit revolved around a satirical parody of Falwell which appeared in an issue of the magazine. Falwell's suit alleged, among other things, that the parody constituted intentional inlliction of emotional distress. The lower courts found in hvor of Falwell on this issue. ln this decision, however, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts. The court held that public fgures and public officials cannot prevail on an emotional distress claim u/ess they can show that the publication contained false information and that it was published with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for its falsity. (For a good ana.lysis of dehmation daims by public o6cials or figures on the basis of a publication, see Nery York Times Co. v. Sullivan,376 U.S. 254 t19641.) Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 56 U.S.L.W.4180, U.S. Supreme Court, February 24, 1988.f Defendant's failure to testiS Io certain contexts, a prosecutor may, in closhg arguments, comment on the defendant's failure to testify. In tlis case, the United States Supreme Court upheld the prosecutor's state- ment as a fair response to the defense counsel's argument that the govem- ment had not allowed the defendant to explain his side of the story. The case carves an exception to the Supreme Court's decision m Gritren v. Cafifor- nia, 380 U.S. 609 (1965). United States v. Robinson, 56 U.S.L.W. 4171, February 24, 7988. Homosexuality, a suspect class The Ninth Circuit Coun of Appeals became one of if not the 6rst federa.l appeals court to hold that homoserual- ity is a suspect class for the purposes of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. This case involved army rules that forbid homosexuals from serving, regardless of merit.t atkhs v. U.S. Army,56 U.S.L.W. %71,gth Cir., February 10, 1988. I MINNESOTA VALLEY TESTING LABORATORIES, INC. . ACCURATE. FAST NATIONWIDE SERVICE . 35 YEARS EXPERIENCE . SERVING CONSULTANTS. INDUSTRY, ANO MUNICIPALITIES . GROUNDWATER MONITORING Sampling - Chemical Analysis . PRIOBITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS complere Go/MS - Gc - HPLC - AA . CUSTOM ORGANICS ANALYSIS Tailored lo ldentiry and Solve Your Probtems . HAZARDOUS WASTE TESTING & EVALUATION Toxic - lgnitable - Corrosive 1.800-782.3557 Outstate Ca Collect 1-507.354-8517 (New Ulm) 326 Center St. New Utm, MN 56073 IJlYTL ln Mannesota Call Toll Free Seats 4 or 5 adults. 7lt. to Heavy - stays in place. marntenance. ng. No PICNIC TABLE Handsome. roomy. rugged Will not blow over OLD RELIABLE Comlortable. durable, por- lable, storable. Wood and steel. BACKLESS BENCH Adds to both lormal and in- lormal setlrngs. SENGIIESI iraB[Es]. TLTEEEME:- ' SEDWOEDrand.: (CONGBETE iPARKS,: {.P,LAYGFOUA'DS, ?PO.OrSl,t'Arl.s ?tcttll, a * a fi e. F0 n o EI l Ls II':SBENCH 8ORP.'!33O0sn.Ih9eve. Itr inn apolis,*lN 55406 ,1614't212525 . May 1988 COMPLETE LABORATORY SERVICES 37