09-7-88 Agenda and PacketAGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMI4ISSION
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEIT{BER 7, 1988,7:30 P.M.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE
OI,D BUSINESS
I Conditional Use Permit to locate a church in the rural
ilistrict on property zoned RR, Rural Residential District and
located on the east side of IIwy. 41 approximately one nile
north of Hwy. 5, westside Baptist Church.
* * ITEI.{ * 2 HAS BEEN TABLED * *
SuperArnerica, locaEed at the southwest corner of Hwy.7 antl
Hwy. 41:
a. Conditional Use Permit Request to permit gas pumps onproperty zoned BN, Neighborhood Business District.
b. Sign Variance request to allow a 45 square foot grounal
1ow profile sign instead of the permitted 24 square foot
ground low profile sign.
Site PIan Approval for a 3,200 square foot convenience
s tore .
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2
3 Preliminary Plat to subdivicle 10.75 acres into 27 single
family lots on property zoneal RSF, Resiilential SingIe Family
and located at 6720 Glendale Drive, approximately I mile west
of Minnewashta Parkway, Countsry Oaks, Dave Johnson.
4
** ITEI4 #4 HAS BEEN TABTED **
Conditional Use Permit for a landscaping contractorrs yard on
l2.I acres of property zoned A-2, Agricultural Estate and
located on Galpin Boulevard I mile north of H!ry. 5, Dave
Stockdale.
Minnewashta Meadows, Iocated at the north\dest corner of Hwy.
7 and Church Road, GarY Carlson:
5
a.Land Use Plan amendment to change the designation from
Residential Low Density to Residential Medium Densicy on
property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family.
Rezoning from RSF, SingIe Family Residential District to
R-8, Mixed Medium Density Residential District.b
-/L
CALL TO ORDER
6 Preliminary plat t.o subdivide 46,700 square feet into 2single family lots of 24,300 and, 22,400 on property zoned
RSF, and located on Lone Cedar Circle bet$reen Lake
Minnewashta and Hwy. 5, Ralph Kant.
DeRand Corporation, located on County Road 17, approximatelyI mile north of Hr^,y. 5, Oak View Apartments:
a.Preliminary plat to subdivide 18.9 acres into four R-l2lots and 2 outlots on property zoned R-12, High DensityResidential District.
Wetland Alterat.ion Permit to direct storm water into aClass B wetland.
c Site Plan Review for 136 Apartment Units.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Section 20-814 topermit day care centers in a free standing building as a con-ditional use on property zoned IOP, Industrial Office ParkDistrict.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Section 20-814 to permit
day care centers as part of a multi-tenant building as a con-ditional use on property zoned IOP, Industrial Office ParkDistrict.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
OPEN DTSCUSSION
ADJOURNMENT
7
b
8
9.
t
CITY OF
EHINHISSEN
690 COULTER DBIVE O P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
;:'l:fn hY Clt) Ai'nlnkitlt!
.,.-,.r"ea-
y'
MEMORANDUII,I
TO: Planning Comnission and City Council
FROM: Planning Staff
DATE: August 10, 1988
SUBJ: Westside Baptist Church Conditional Use permit
6-u-gs__
-*--?:!/-:-€6 --'
The attached proposal was tabled at the July 20, 1999, planning
Conrnission meeting. The body of the report is the same as pre-sented on July 20, 1988, with a jrew staff update and recommen-dation on Page 4.
CITY OF
EHANIIISSEN
P.C. DATE: July 13, 1988Aug. 17, 1988C.C. DATE: Sept. 12, l98g-
CASE NO: 8a-9 CUp
Prepared by: Olsen/v
Fz
()
JLL
PROPOSAL:
LOCATTON:
APPLICANT:
6801 Hazeltine Boulevard
Westside Baptist Church
Conditional Use permit for aOutside of the Urban Service Church to be Located
Area
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:
WATER AND SEWER:
PEYSICAL CHARAC.:
2OOO LAND USE PLAN:
N-
S-
E-
w-
RR, Rural Residential District
10.04 gross g.42 net
RR; s ingle fami Iy
family and vacantRR; s ingle
RRi vacant.
RRt Minnewashta Regional park
Not avaiLable to the site.
The. site contains a Class A rdetland on thenorth portion of the propelty and the Lake.lil^r".::::pror is instairea' tr,i"rgil-th-!-rLe. tnere rs a steep slope on thesouthern portion of the sitl wtrictr-'isheavily vegetated.
Residential f,ow Dens i ty
STAFF REPORT
sko
tdFa
IJU oo!
I
oo@
oo-E-
oo 8q
ooF
ooot
Ctl
oo
!'N8
@NN TAN R RO
or
Rtrio a xo
w. 67 Tlr STREE T
\.,r
\I
tl
PIN
o
a
o--
,l lhrr
tCIEIIJ
-sA
g
6
WEStrCREvrE
LAxE
r
RR
0
eLAE
eq6 00(A)LIA\
r
,/_l
@
PUD-
@
HUi nl sotl
,il
ll
ooJ)N
oo
@(\J
T
IKLl<--
Iv
ol
,,.^
Section 20-594 aIlows churches as
Rural Residential District.a conditional use in the RR,
Section 20-259 regulates the following conditions for churches
outside of the MUSA Line:
a The location ofprovided on the
two acceptable drainfield sites must besite.
b. The individual sewage treatment system must be in comfor-
mance with Chapter 19, Article IV.
c. School and daycare accessory uses are not permitted
unless approved by the City Council.
Section 20-258 regulates churches generally requires:
a The site shal1 be located on a collector or arterial
roadway.
b. The structure must belines.setback 50 feet from all property
Parking areas sha1l be setback 25 feet from streets andnon-residential property and 30 feet from residentialproperty.
No more than 70t of the site be covered withsurface and the remainder of the site is to
"andscaped in conformance with Article 25.
imperv iou s
be suitably
REFERRAL AGENCIES
Building Inspector
Fire Inspector
Asst. City Engineer
DNR
ANALYSI S
Attachment
At tachmen t
Attachment
Attachment
tt2
#3
*4
#s
The applicant is proposing to construct approximately a 5,000square foot church on property zoned RR which is locited outsideof the MUSA 1ine. Therefore, the site would have to provide tvroacceptable septic system sites to support the church. The siteis adjacent to State Highway 41 and will have one access point
f rom Hrdy. 41. There is a large Class A hretland locat.ed in ttre
ltlestside Baptist CUP
July 13, 1988
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
d.
Westside
July 13,
Page 3
Baptist CUP
1988
northern portion of the site and the Lake Ann Interceptor isbeing constructed approximately through the center of the site.There is a large stand of mature vegetation on the sou t portionof the site wj.th a steep slope towards the north.
The proposed church is meeting the required setbacks for a churchand is providing adequate parking. Although the site is not inan industrial, commercial or multipte family district, staff issti11 recommending that the parking area be paved with a bitumi-nous surface due to the high amount of traff i-c that will be usingthe parking area. Staff is also reconmending that the parkingarea be curbed with bituminous curbing rather than the normallyrequired concrete curb. The applicant has not provided any addi-tional landscaping to the site other than the existing vegeta-tion. As part of the condiLional use permit, the site plan isrequired to provide landscaping as stated in Article 25. Thisincludes perimeter landscaping, interior lot line landscaping andlandscaping of the parking area and building. Since it is such alarge site with only a portion of it being developed, staff would
agree to lanilscaping only the southerly portion of the site wherethe parking and church is proposed. The site plan meets all ofthe requirements as far as parking, lighting and lot coverage.
Since the property is located outside of the MUSA Iine, the sitehas to provide two acceptable septic sites approved by the cityrssoil consultants, Dr. Machmeier and Mr. Anderson. The applicanthas not provided the city $rith two recommended septic sites andthe appropriate soil borings at Ehis time. The reason the appli-cant has not yet provided this information is because they arepursuing with the Met Council and $rith the city the opportunityto hook into the Lake Ann Interceptor which is locaLed throughthe site. The applicant wishes to connect to the Lake AnnInterceptor rather than installing a sepLic system at this time
and then hooking into the Lake Ann Interceptor in the future.
Before the conditional use permit can be approved there must be
two approved septic sites on the property. In speaking with the
Metropolitan Council, it was stated that a MUSA line amendment to
allow the church to hook into the Lake Ann Interceptor rvould not
be viewed favorably unl-ess the septic system rras failing or that
due to the construction of the Lake Ann Interceptor and otherphysical features of the site, two septic system sites could not
be located. The Met Council is writing a letter to this effect
which wil-1 be handed out at the Planning Commission meeting. The
applicant has submitted letters from a soil consultant stating
that there are no acceptable sites for a septic system on theproperty. Staff has visited the site with Mr. Anderson and has
found that there are areas outside of the construction limits ofthe Lake Ann Interceptor and Iocated in the tree area south of
the church that could be used as septic sites. Staff is
Westside
July 13,
Page 4
Baptist CUP
1988
reguesting that the applicant
sites can be provided. Staff
acceptsable sites and that theseptic system.
provide information showing whereis not convinced that there are no
church cannot be supported by a
Drainage, crading and Util-ities
In his attached memo, the Assistant City Engineer covers grading,
drainage and other engineering issues for the proposed church.
RECOMtvIENDAT ION
Until the applicant submits the proper soil information regardingsoil borings and septic site locations, staff cannot recommendaction on the conditional use permit. Two acceptable septicsites must be provided before the site can be permitted to bedeveloped. Therefore, staff is recommending that the planning
Commission table this item until the applicant provides therequired soil boring data locating two acceptable septic sites onthe property.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended tabling lhe con-ditional use permit review until the applicant providea staff\dith proper soil data which locates thro acceptable septic sites.
STAFF UPDATE
On August 8, 1988, Drs. Machmeier and Anderson visited theWestside Baptist Church site t.o determine Lhe suitability of twoseptic sites. The applicant provided data on a site located bec-ween the church and wetland and on a site located in the forestedarea south of the church (see amended site plan). Drs. Machmeierand Anderson have verbally confirmed that the two sites areacceptable and t.hat additional areas for septic sites areavailable. They have provided a l-etter with their comments (seeAttachment *14 ) .
Staff also visited the site srith the DNR Forester to determinethe impact of locating a septic system within the forested area(Attachment #12). Alan olson stated that the woodlot was in needof thinning and that removing some trees for a segtic site wouldbe beneficial . MnDOT reviewed the site plan and -stated that anaccess permit from the Highway Department woul-d have to bereceived prior to installing the proposed driveway (Attachment
#13).
As stated in the body of themeeting the setback, height,report, the
and parking applicant is
requirements of
previous
l ighting
Westside
JuIy 13,
Page 5
Baprist cuP
1988
the Zoning Ordinance. The parking area is recommended to belined with concrete curb (see Engineer's report). The applicantis also required to provide screening between the vehicularaccess areas and right-of -r.ray (Section 20-1190, Zoning Ordinance).
Since it has been confirmed that. the site has two approved septicsites, the conditional use permit meets the specific conilitionsfor churches and churches outside the MUSA line (see ApplicableRegulations). The location and activities of the proposed churchwill not negatively impact surrounding uses or traffic patterns.
The use meets the standard conditions for conditional use per-
mits.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Auqust 17, 1988
At the August 17, 1988, Planning Commission meeting, the appli-cant questioned whether or not the city could enforce the 50 footfront yard setback from a road.way easement. The applicant feltthat since it was not a dedicated right-of-$ray that the setback
would not be required and that the parking area and the churchcould be locateal closer to the roadway easement and a septicsite could be located outside of the forested area and closer tothe church. Staff stated that they felt that the 50 foot setback
could be enforced but that if the Planning Commission wished,
staff would confirm this vrith the City Attorney. The Planning
Commission asked the applicant if they wanted Lo table actionunEil the setback issue coulil be confirmed, or if they wouldprefer the Planning Commission to act on the site plan as pro-
posed. If a new site plan was proposed by the applicant they
would have to go through the process again. The applicant statedthat they would prefer the item be tabled until the issue could
be resolved. Therefore, the Planning Commission unanimously
recorunended tabling action on the conditional use permit for
locating a church outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area.
STAFF UPDATE
Staff confirmed with the City Attorney that a 50 foot setback
from a roadway easement coulal be enforced by the city. The defi-
nition of a setback in the Zoning Ordinance is as follows:
"Setback means the minimum horizontal distance betereen a struc-
ture and the nearest property line or roadrvay easement line . ,
Therefore, the required setbacks of the Zoning Ordinance have to
be maintained from road.way easements. Staff has sent a letter to
the applicant stating that the 50 foot setback would have to be
maintained and if they wished to sti1l amend the site plan to
contact us.
Upon
site
confirming that the 60plan had been recorded
roadway easement shown on the
Carver County, staff found that
foot
wi th
Wests ide
July 13,
Page 6
Baptist CUP
1988
recommending the Planning Commission adopt the following
the 10 acre subject parcel, subdivided off of a 35 acre parcel,
has been recorded without city approval . Therefore, the subject
site is still part of the parent parcel. In order for the 10
acre parcel to be Iegally separated from the 35 acre parcel apreliminary plat will have to be processed. Rather than
requiring the applicant to receive preliminary plat approval at
this time which would further postpone construction of the
church, staff is recommending that approval of the conditional
use permit be conditioned upon the applicant receiving prelimi-
nary plat approval within one year. If the applicant does not
wish to plat the property, then it would have to be considered
one 35 acre piece rather than a l0 acre parcel and an amendedsite plan would have to be submitted showing the whole 35 acre
parcel .
RECOMMENDAT I ON
Staff is
motion:
"The Planning Commission reconunends approval ofPermit #88-9 for a church to be located outsidethe following conditions:
Conditional Useof the UUSA with
t. The applicant must receive preliminary plat approval for thesubject site by September of 1989, unless the property ovrners
agree to have the parcel remain as one undivided 1ot.
2. The two approveC septic sites must be staked and preservedprior to receiving a building permit.
3 Provide a landscaping plan which provides screening betweenthe vehicular access areas and abutting right-of-way asrequired in Section 20-1190 of the Zoning Ordinance.
4.The applicant sha1l receive an access permit from MnDOT priorto installation of the church driveway.
A fire lane must be installed for the entire length on eitherthe east or west siile of the building. The fire lane, atleast 20 feet in wiilth, must comply with the City ofChanhassenrs requirement for an al1 weather surface meetingurban standards. Whichever side is chosen, a clear accessmust be maintained by designation of a ',Fire Lane".
The main driveway shal1 have "No parking Fireinstalled.Lane" s igns6
5
The applicant sha11 provide a revised grading plan r,{ith stormsewer calculations which verify the preservation of the pre-
developed runoff rate and alI storm se$rer capacities as partof the final review process.
7.
Westside
July 13,
Page 7
Baptist CUP
1988
8. The developer shal1 obtain and comply with a1I conditions ofthe Watershed District permit.
9. Wood fiber blankets or equivalentaII disturbed slopes greater than
sha1l be used to stabilize
3 :1.
10. The developer shall be responsible for daily on and off sitecleanup caused by the construction of this site.
II.Al1 erosion controls shall be in place prior to the commen-
cement of any grading, and once in place shall remain inplace throughout the duration of construction. The developershal1 be responsible for periodic checks of the erosioncontrols and shall make all repairs promptly. A1I erosioncontrols sha11 remain intact until an escablished veget,ative
cover has been produced.
I2. A revised plan which shows bituminous parking antl curbingshall be submitted as part of the final review process.
ATTACHI{ENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
r1.
).2.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Sections from City Code.
Memo from Building Department alated June 15, 1988.
Memo from Public Safety Director dated July 8, 1988.
Memo from Asst. City Engineer dated July 6, 1988.
DNR response dated June 21, 1988.Letter from applicant dated June 13, 1988.
Letter from Dona.Ld Schneewind dated June 27, 1988.
Letter to the Met Council dated June 20, 1988.
Application.
Letter from Metropolitan CounciL dated July 1, 1988.
Planning Commission minutes alated July I3, 1988.
LetEer from DNR Forester dated JuIy 27, L988.
Letter from MnDOT dated JuIy 25, 1988.
Letter from Machmei er,/Anderson dated August 9, L988.
Planning Commission minutes dated August 17, 1988.
Plan stamped "Receiveil August 10, 1988".
s 20-257 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
Sec. 2G257. lVholesale nurseries.
The following applies to wholesale nurseries:
(1) The site must be on a collector street or minor arterial as identilied in the compre-
hensive plan.
(2) The minimum lot size is frve (5) acres.
(3) All storage and yard areas as well as buildings must be setback one hundred (100)
feet from public or private road right-of-ways and frve hun&ed (i00) feet from an
adjacent single family residence,
(4) The site must be located along a collector or minor arterial as identified in the
comprehensive plan.
(5) All outdoor storage areas must be completely screened by one hundred 000) percent
opaque fencing or berming-
(6) Hours of operations shall be from ?:00 a.m. to 6:00 p-m., Monday through Saturday
only, work on Sundays and holidays is not permitted.
(7) Light sources shall be shielded.
(8) No outside speaker systems are allowed.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 9(5-9-1(6)), 12-15-86)
Sec. 2G258. Churches-Generally.
The following applies to churches inside:
(1) The site shall be located on a collector or arterial roadway as identifieil in the
comprehensive plan or located so that access can be provided without conducting
trafiic through residential concentrhtion.
(2) The structure must be set back frfty (50) feet from all property lines.
(3) Parking areas shall be set back twenty.live (25) feet from streets and nonresidetrtial
property and thirty (30) feet.
(4) No more than seventy (70) percent of the site is to be covered with imperviogs surface
and the remainder is to be suitably landscaped in conformance with article xXV.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 9(5-9-1(?), 12-15-86)
Lt74
Cr
(
L-+
Sec. 20.259, Same-Located outside MUSA line.
The following applies to churches located outside the Metropolitan Urban services Area
line:
(1) The following must b€ provided for review:
a. Location of two (2) drainfield sihs.
b. Two (2) soil borings on each dr.ainfield site for a total of four (4) soil borings.c. No percolation tests for drainfield sites where the land slope is between zero and
twelve (12) percent.
(
_(
ZONING $ 20-263
d. One (1) percolation test per drainfield site where the land slope is betweenthirteen (13) and twenty-five (25) percent.
Areas where the land slope exceeds twenty-five (28) percent shar not be considered asa potential soil treatment sitc.
(3) The sewage treatment syst€m must be in conformance with chapter 19, article IV.
(4) School and day care uses accessory to the church use are not permitted unlessapproved by the city council.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 9(5-9-10), 12-15-86)
Sec. 2G260. kivate stables.
The following applies to privatc stables:
(l) Stables shall comply with chapter E, article Itr.
(2) Stables must be located a minimum of two hundred (200) feet from wetland areas.(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, 5 9(5-9-1(8), 12-rb-86)
Sec. 2&261. State-licensed day care centers.
The following applies to state-licensed day care centers;
(1) The site shall have loading and drop off points designed to avoid interfering withtraffic and pedestriatr movements.
(2) outdoor play areas shall be rocated and designed in a manner which mitigat€s visualand noise impacts on adjoining residential areas.
(3) Each center shall obtain all applicable state, county, and city licenses.(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 9(5-9-1(9), 12-15-86)
Sec. 2G262. Hospitals and health care facilities.
The following applies to hospitals and health care facilities:
(1) The site shall have direct access to collector or arterial streets, as defrned in the
comprehensive plan.
(2) Emergency vehicle access shall not be adjacent to or rocated across a street from anyresidential use.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 9(5-9-1(10), 12-15-86)
Sec. 2G263. Recreational beach lots.
The following minimum standards apply to recreationat beach lots conditional use inaddition to such other conditions as may be prescribed in the permit:
(1) Recreational beach lots shall have at least two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage.
(2\
(
tt75
I
MEMORANDUU
TO: JoAnn Olsen, Assistant City Planner
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Inspector
DATE: June 15, 1988
SUBJ: 88-9 CUP (Westside Baptist Church)
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 9s7-1900
CITY OF
CHINH[SSEN
\a.r.
Assuming R & D Soils Consultantst (Don Schneewind) site eva-Iuation is correct, a buildingr permit can not be issuecl without aIetter from lletropolitan Waste ControL Commission authorizing
connection to existing sewer line. The usual SAC determinationletter from Metropolitan Waste ConErol Commission will also berequired.
Erosion control measures tooutlined by appl icant .
protect nearby waterways should be
t--r
CITY OF
EHINHISSEN
DATE:
690 COULTER DRIVE . P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 9s7-1900
MEMO RAN D UM
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City planner
FRO[{: Jim Chaffee, public Safety Director
SUBJ:westside Baptist Church
July 8, 1988
Iane"
Please contact me if
regui rements.
you have any questions regarding these
I have reviewed the site plan for the proposed WestsideBaptist Church and the following items wiIl be reguired:
1. A fire lane must be installed for the entire lengthon either the East or West side of the building.The fire lane, at least 2g feet in lridth, mustcomply with the city of Chanhassenr s reguirement foran all weather surface neeting urban standards.
Whichever side is chosen a clear unobstructed accessmust be maintained by designation of a,'Fire Lane,'.
The main driveway shall have ',no parking firesigns i ns ta11ed.
2
*z
CITY OF
EHINHISSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 553.17
(612) 937-1900
I{EMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROI,!: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer
DATE: JuIy 6, 1988
SUBJ: Conditional Use Permit
Planning File No. 87 -5
for westside Baptist Church
CUP, hlestside Baptist Church
cb.
This site is located on the east side of State Highway 41
approximately one mile north of State Highway 5. The 8.42 acresite is composed of a rolling topography with a grove of maturetrees along the southerly border of the site and various scat-tered mature trees throughout the entire site.
Sanitary Sewer
Municipal sanitary sewer service is not available to the site.
The plans accurately shorp the Metropolitan Waste Control
Corunission 36-inch diameter interceptor going through this par-
ce1 . The plan proposes a sanitary sewer service hook-up to thisinterceptor. This site is outside of the Metropolitan UrbanService Area boundaries which v,ere set by the Metropolitan WasteControl Commission (MWCC). At the date of this report, no evi-
dence was given by the applicant that would permit the applicantpermission from the MWCC to connect into the interceptor. It is
assumed at this point that the site will have to be served by aseptic system. Because the location of the septic sites may
change the entire plan, the septic system sites should be ana-lyzed prior to preliminary approval. Staff is therefore recom-mending that this item be tabled until this issue can beresolved. The septic system site should be reviewed by theCityrs consultant , tlr. Machmeier.
tlate rma i n
Municipal water service is not available to the site at thistime. Therefore, the applicant shall have to tlevelop on-sitesources.
#a
Roadrday
The applicant has shown the driveway access for the proposedparking Iot consistent with the suggested alignment for the
suggested future extension of Lake Lucy Road. It should be notedthat the extension of Lake Lucy Road may be hindered due to theprotected DNR wetland adjacent to the suggested right-of-way for
Lake tucy Road.
The applicant sha1l submit for approval by the City Engineer aset of calculations verifying that adequate sight distance existsfor the access onto State Highway 41 prior to final site planreview. An access permit by the State of Minnesota will berequired prior to the corunencement of any construction on site.
Due to the anticipated traffic volumes from the site,
recoimmended that the parking area be paved and lined
minous curb as a minimum.
ir
wi th a bitu-IS
Grading and Drainaqe
The grading plan shows a minimal amount of grading along thesoutheast side of the parcel to create the proposed church pad.
The proposed grading will require the removal a portion of theexisting grove of trees which borders the southerly property
boundary. The proposed grading plan does not address on-siteretention. A revised grading plan and calculations which verifythat the predeveloped runoff rat.e has been maintained should be
submitted to the City Engineer prior to final site plan review.
Erosion Control
SimilarIy, erosion controls should be addressed as part of thisrevised submittal.
If the Planning Commission chooses to approve the site, the
f ollowing conditions apply:
Recommended Conditions
I The applicant sha11 provide a revised grading plan with
sewer calculations which verify the preservalion of the
developed runoff rate and all storm sewer capacities asof the final review process.
s tormpre-
9ar t
2
3 Wood fiber blankets or equivalent
a1I disturbed slopes greater than
sha11 be used to stabilize
3: I.
Planning Commission
July 6, 1988
Page 2
The developer sha11 obtain and comply with all conditions of
the watershed Di,strict permi t .
Planning Commi ssion
July 6, 1988
Page 3
4. The developer sha11 be responsible for daity on and. off sitecleanup caused by the construction of this site.
5. AL1 erosion controls shal1 be in place prior to the commen-
cement of any grading, and once in place sha11 remain inplace throughout the duration of construction. The developershalI be responsible for periodic checks of the erosioncontrols and shall make all repairs promptly. AIl erosioncontrols shaI1 remain intact until an established vegetativecover has been produced.
6. A revised plan which shows bituminous parking and curbingshall be submitted as part of the final review process.
To G$rn O/sr,,From
o e.?
Subiect *-/5 */t/ee/
[:5E
Arvt&t-r<-v -o
/L,tL/2/
*ts Z b,?toor.t,3 tl
rt ,a I
n
:EPLY 00
JUir ;3 i t9t8
Date signed tjlrY oF cHANtiarcr,,r
WilsonJones
:F^YLr!E
'ORM4.9i)2'C^RI:r?6it . Pff' x rto llr u s-a
n:C::i!:i;-:-:i,.'.lll'r:,llli: aC:',', i.TUiiJ Pl,\K COPY
a
Ei#s
Westside Baptist Church
6A0I HAZELTINE BOULEVARO
P.O. BOX 63r
CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 553I7
16121474-1419
PASTOR BRYAN PIKE
June 13. 1988
suitable place to bol* becar-ise r_tf tle di.sturbance to the prope.rty
r.rastE ser.rer lj.ne ttet is eoine in aruj tle trrildj.ne sight as r.rell-.
City of ghenlEssen !
tlpon agiication for Lanrl Developent t'{e-stside Baptist Gtir:rch is r-questingyour permission to lnok-up tn the netro waste ser.rer I i..'.,e that is nruring ri.ght
acrc,ss our Iand. rr'le ti"e're conrulted wlth a Tnstaller/Designer nared Donald
tlchneewlnd about the possibllity of soil borlrres for tie tno septic s ightsrequired for this applieation and have been inforred by him that there is no
b:r the retrn
When we were p:rchas irrg the prolErLy He r+ere infornr=d bryof Met Omc i1 tla " r+e could be corrsidered as a exception and a1Iowed to h_.ok
'rp if or:r ei-ty rcruJ-d suboit sueh a Leqrtest for us.
lfr. i,chneeq,ird is wj_]1irre and iri1l be .:r-_ndirrq you a ler,ter t _r conf irrn theproblem with a septic system on our prolerty.
I l*Ile tlds letter e-'+iairr= why lie have nr-,t sr.tb[ittel t]e septic requ--:t3-!ythe cit:,r and if y,:,u lnve,, a1p' qr-restj.orrs ple..ase Cou.+;et ne.
Sincere I'',
Bry-an Pike, Pa:tor
@
115E5 110th Street
Cologne, lN 55322
Jwte 27, 1988
Pastor Brian Pike
P.0. Box 531
Chanhassen, lN 55317
City of Chanhassen
Re: hoperLy at 5801 Hazeltine Blvd
ep
''../-
na1d. A.erind
R&DSoilConsultants
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIY=3
Jtill2 -,
' t,.,t8
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT'
/
Dear Slrs,
R & D Soil Consultants ras retained by llestslde Baptist Church tocond.uct soil borlngs and percolatlon tests to instirr an onslteseptlc system.
After: revi erlng the site plan and. architects proposed slte for thesysteo' it was d etqmined. that the sites that were prevlously selectedhave been compacted by vehicle trafflc anil no 1on6er suitabll for thesePti c systeu.
l{e were also lnforreil that erLensive serer work is belng done in thearea and. the renainlng sites available would. be excavated..
R & D Soil Consultants feels that the stte renai[in6 north of theproperty is not sultable because of the high rater Ievel and theexisting pond. the property to the south of the proposed. buiLiinshas too great of slope for a nound. system (appro*. l&ft).
Ttre Chanhassen City Nj.nance 10-B requJ.res tro suitable sltes foronsite septic sexage treatnent and rlth the inforoation glven thereare not two sites ava.i1ab1e.
((
CITY OF
EHINHISSEN
690 COULTER DFIVE . P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
June 20, 1988
t Dear Ms. Pahl:
On June 13, 1988, the City received an application for a con-ditionaL use permit to permit the Westside Baptist Church toconstruct their church in the rural district off of Hwy. 41 (see
Attachment #1). pastor Brian pike has been in contact with youdiscussing the possibility of hooking into the Lake AnnInterceptor which runs through the church property. The reasonfor this request is to permit him an alternative to tr.{o septicsystems on the 1ot. Due to the alteration of his Iot from rheconstruction of the Lake Ann Interceptor and construction of thechurch and parking 1ot, it may be difficult for him to locate t$roacceptable septic system sites. Attached is a Ietter from pastor
Pike stating that a consultant, Dona1d Schneewind, has reviewedthe site and determined that two septic sites are not possiblebecause of the disturbance to the property. pastor pike istherefore requesting that the chuch be all-o$red to hook into theLake Ann Interceptor.
Pastor Pike has stated that in his discussions with you that ithas been stated that there is a possibility of the church hookinginto the Lake Ann Interceptor. To proceed with the conditionaluse permit application, the city needs to have confirmation fromthe MetropoLitan Council that this in fact is true and whether ornot r.ve shouLd initiate a land use plan and MUSA line amendment.
Please contact me as soon as possible with your comments andplease feel free to call if you have any questions.
S incerely,
)o/D-.- oWA
Jo Ann OlsenAssistant City planner
JO: v o
Ms. Pat PahlMetropolitan Counci 1
Mears Park Center Bui.lding
230 East Fifth StreetSt. Paul-, MN 5 5I0I
AppLIcANT : wEsTsIDS tsApTIST CHTJRCH
ADDRESS € 6801 Hazeltine BIvd.
Chashassen l,ln. 55317
zip code
TELEPHONE (Daytime ) 474-1419
REQUEST 3
Zoning District Change
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Variance
Zoning Text Amendment
f,and Use PIan Amendment
Conditional Use permit
ite Plan Revi ew
PROJECT NAME I.IOSTSIDE BAPTIST Ci{URCH
LAND DEVELOPI{BNT APPLICATION
CITY OF CEANEASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317(612) 937-1900
OWNER:
ADDRESS
TELE PHONE
Zip Code
Planned Unit Development
_ sketch Plan
_ Preliminary plan
_ Final Plan
Subdi vi si on
_ Platting
_ Metes and Bounds
Street/Easement Vacation
Wetlands Permit
PRESENT I,AND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
REOTJESTED LAND
PRESENT ZONING
USE PLAN DESIGNATION
K ,IL
REQUESTED ZONING
USES PROPOSED C'1'rrc.l Si:e
SIZE OF PROPERTY .ross - 10.04 AC.':et - 8.42 AC.
,-801';azel-tine 31','d. C:lanhassen ::n.LOCATION
REASONS FOR THIS REoUEST To :iutld a churc,'] :uildin c.
*7
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary)
This application must be completed in fu.l_I and be typerrri.ten oicrearly printed and must be iccomlani"a-ty ar.r information andplans required bv "oplicarie
-air;'o;;i;"nce provisions. Beforefiling this aporicriion, v"u .i,"i,rj-;;;;.. with rhe city prannerto determine iire so"ci ri.- "iai""r';; ;;;-pro.edural requiremen.sapplicable to your application:----- -"*
City
Land
Page
FTLIN G TNSTRUCTI ONS:
Signed By fu"-*^:L
of Chanhassen
Developmen t Application2"
The undersiqned reoresentative of the applicant herebvthar he is iamiliai witn irre-lr;;"il;.i";;qrii"."ri!"itapplicable City Ordinances.
certifiesall
Ap lican{z*/--*-^
Fee wne r
,L Date 6-C-f3
Date 6 -t5- XlSigned By /1.-"-*^;-l*
Dale Application
Application Fee
City Receipt No.
Recei ved
Paid
This Applicarion wi l1Board of Ad j us tmen tsmeeLing.
be
and
cons idered
Appeals at by rhe
thei r Plann j.ng Commiss ion/
,:{.:**.',.
FILING CERTTFTCATTON:
The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been:::::l;ff: ro make tiris appric".i".*r"r".he property herein
(/,-,",<-
Ihrt l,.rt of thc Iotth?!rt 0u.rtcrS.ctlon 4, Toxnshlp ll6. Rangc 23'
dcscrlhed at follors:
SubJ.ct to ca3?lneot fol St.tG Hlghrry t{o. al.
ol thc
Carrer
Sou thr. s t Qtlrrter of
County, ,ll noa3ot.,
Connrenclng at thr north€tst corn?r of 3ald llorth?tst
0u!rter of tha South?rtt 0ulrter; thancc South 0l d!9r??3
03 lnute3 05 seconds Iast.. !33un.d. br.rln9, 'rlonq thc
"rrt I ln! of s.ld llorth?rst 0ulltr? ol thr Sorrth.!st
0uirt"i . dlstittcc of 52il.l5 fcrt to the polnt of
hrglnnlng ol thc lend to bG d?scrlbed; thanc! Xorth 89
ilcqrces 0l rlnute! 05 3econds Le3t. ! dlstinc? of 371.21
fcit to r I lna herelrtft?r rcfcrrad to es I lna A; thQn(e
southiesterly rlonq !rld Llna A t dtstrncG of 896.18
f?et to the south llna of srld llorthreit 0urrter of the
Southetst 0u.rter; theoce €.3tcrly llong i.ld 3outh I ln?
to th. 3outh!rst corn?r ol J!id llorthel3t 0uarter of the
South..rt Ourrteri th"nc? northerly tlong slld c.st I lne
to th? polnt of beqlnnlng.
l-lne A ls de3crlbrd at follors:
Beglnnlng.t. polnt on th.3outh lln? of srld llorth..st
0llirter at th? south€rst 0u!rter dlst!nt 685.3, fcFt
rpstrrly froln the south?rst corner of srld tlorth?t!t
0uart?r of th? Southel!t 0ulrtrri thence northerrtrrlr.
lr dlitence of 206a.91 f.rt. to r Polnt on th! rrst lln?
of s.ld Southerst 0u.rt"r of th. llorth2ltt Qulrter dlst'nt
58r.25 f?"t oo.th.rly f.on the 5outhrlst coln?r of 3tld
Souther3t 0u!rtar of thc llolthe.st Qulrt?r and t!ld I lnc
th?rr t c rntl nlt I n9.
eoltlltenclng rt thQ southe!!t cornc. of thr iortherit 0u'
of th. So;thc.st 0u.rter of Scatlon 3. Ior'nihlp ll6'
I.nq. 23, C.rver Coxnty. l'llnn?sott i thanca llorth -01drgierr (')! rlnutca 05 ioconds yett' rssulnrd haarlng'
alonq the rrst llnc of 3rld llorth..st qrrrrter of tha
Sorrtherrt 0u.rte. r dlst.oc? of n0.00 fcct to the polnt
of hcqlnnlnq ol the (cnter I ln. to be d?tcrlbcdi thtnc?
northiesteriy . dlrtancE of t0r.5n feet rlong t
nontrngentlri curyQ conctv! to thr northe!str hrYlng r
.adlUs of 292.08 t.et lnd r c"ntrrl .ngla of 2l d.9r?e5
05 lnlnut.'1 l6 secord3, tha chord of 3ald curve hrring t
bcrrlng of llorth {5 deqr?e3 l3 nlnutes l? s?condl Yetti
thrncr llorth 35 drgre€! l0 lnutes 2a s?condt L?tt
tangrrt to li3t curv? I dlstrncG oa 122.?O fe?t: thcnc'
aorihxorterly r dlttrnce o, ?3r.96 fe?t alon9. trngent
cu.r. conc"re to thc rotthr.6t, h.vlng a r.dlu3 of 18l'
ieet rnrt . centr.l ,ngl e ot l5 d?grees l6 nlnutr! 22
seconrts; thoncc llorth ,0 d.greas 56 al nute! '6
t"cond3
Ye!t r;lstanco of 190.00 f"Gt.nd 3ald center lln2
thPra terlttlnttlng.
rtar
Irl
l3
I
ft.tt.10.04
8.r12
lc.lc.
t,",7 v:
SuhJ?ct to r 60 foot pernineht a!sam"nt for str'et 'nd utlllty
pr.ios.s orer rnd tcross the ahovc descrlbcd p!'Gcl ' Ihr centrf
ilne of srtd Gt3?lrlalt l3 d?scrlbad rs tolloYt:
I
lt"
Gn0Ss l tA .
It I ARtl .l3r.2a, 9.1.
365.90s 3q.
I
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL u"oo Park Centre. 230 tust Fifh Street, St. paut. MN. sstol
July 1, 1988
Jo Ann olsen
Assistant City Planner
City of Chanhassen
590 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesola 55317
Dear Ms. olsen:
I am respondlng to your letter to Pat Pahl of our staff on the request of
Paslor Pike for the I'iestside Baptist Church !o connect a proposed church to the
Lake Ann Interceptor. Pat has taken a positlon as deputy director in another
depart&ent at the Council and, I alu sorry, is no longer handling these isaues.
I, however, had an opportunity to talk with Pat regarding her conversatlon wlth
Pastor Pi-ke.
As you knol, the site of the proposed church is located outside lhe Metropotitan
Urban Service Area and ls covered by the Lake Ann facility agreeoent.
Therefore, j,t lril1 no! be brought into the MUSA. In Patrs conversation wlth
Pastor Pike, the paslor asked about the possibility of a future connection to
the interceptor. She indicated that sonetj.ne in the future thls uould bepossible. She did not know the church was intending to proceed in two Eonths.
tlhen she learned about i!, she called Pastor Pj.ke and inforned him that the
connection at this tine would not be conslstent wlth the Lake Ann agreaent.
The Council has no evidence lhat an onsite slrsten couLd not be installed to
serve the church and an exception w111 not be granled at thls tj-roe.
A possible solution is for the church to proceed wlth the installation of an
onsite systen. If the systen faiLa in the fuLure, the church could hook up tothe Lake Ann lnterceptor at that time. If the cj.ty ordinance requires tlroonsj-te systen locaLlons and only one can be slted, the clty nlght consider avarj.ance and require only one.
I hope this is hel pfuJ, and apologize for any confuslon that might have
occurred .
Sincerely,
Soger Israel
Director of nesearch and Long Range planning
nI/pb
cc: Pastor Brian Pike . .- -;i i-:lJbto
612 29t-6359
[1y''2r^---,a
JUL i 2 ]988
clTY OF CHANIiASSEN
{
_{
Vice Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at.7:35 p.m..
MEI"IBERS PRESENT:
Batzli and David
Ladd
HeadIa
Conrad, Annette EIlson, Steven Emmings, Brian
Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Wildernuth and Tin Erhart
STAFE. PRESENT: Barbara Dacy,Planner and Larry Bro$rn, Asst.
City Planner;City Eng i nee r
PUBLIC HEARING:
SUBDIVISION OF 7 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT AND TO CREATE64TH STREET CUL-DE-SAC ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL sINGLEAND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 54TH STREET AND HWY.ADDITION, GARY REED AND HSZ DEVELOPMENT
A NEW
FAMI LY
4I, REED
Conrad moved, BatzIi secondedvoted in favor and the motion
item untj.I JuIy 20, 1998. AIIto table thi s
car t ied .
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LOCATE A CHURCH IN THE
PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANDOE HWY. 41 APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE NORTH OF HWY. 5
CHURCH .
RURAL DISTRICT ON
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE
, WESTSIDE BAPTIST
Public Present:
Name
Brian Pi keJim Dalhart
Address
Westside Baptist ChurchArchitect for Applicant
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Headla: You say they lookedthat just an opinion?
at Ehe site. Did they take borings
Olsen: We did not take borings at that t j.me. There was a bigdug with the Lake Ann Interceptor so he did get an idea of whatwere like and then the topography. There wai area to work, itthat $re had not been given any information to prove there was asite out there.
Emmings: Is the appl icantthi s t ime?
here and does he want to make a presentalion at
or ].s
hole bei ng
the soils
was j ust
boring
L
*u
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETI NG\ JULY 13, 1988
Planning
JuIy 13,
Commission Meet i ng
1988 - Page 2
Brian Pike: yes, I have aone soil boring. Actuallyhere isn't it? Doesn't it
Bri.an
It
Pike:
few things to say about this.
tero that are in this area. The
come across this rray?
[fe t ve
pond
giveu her
is over
OI sen :comes along the bottom.
So is this 150 setback correct with this pond over here?
Olsen: Yes.
(
Brian Pike: we gave her tr"ro in this area and shers asking for a secondsite. This serrer that's coming through right through her6 is going down52 feet and the man some time ago asked foi permission to move their dirtover this line down into this area over here-. We had given himpermission to do that so when r brought, you see a lett6r in there fromMr- schnee$rind from R & D soil consultants. He said this area, it lookedrike the water table, and he also looked at this hole thatrs right here,and the water tabre he said looked too low for over here. Then he saidthe only other spot is up in this forest area which is a mature forestrand and we have done everyEhing we could to keep them from knocking thosetrees down with this septic rine coming through. rn fact, the foreit landthat you see right here used to go out to her6 and they took out stuffthat they totd us they were not going to take out. th6y're going tosupposedry compensate us for that. we're Lrying to savl these trees andshers asking us to put, to do a soil boring up in rrere. we're saying thatwe donrt want to put it up in there. r'v6 s-ought some advice and somecounsel from other forks and they say that it ii a possibility up herealthough schneewind said he thought th.t the grade ias too steep so $redidn't pursue this. AIso, becauie we were ="6ki.,g, as the applicationsays' an opportunity to hook up to the Metro waste sewer line thatrsrunning right through the middle of our property. Originally when itbecame clear that they were going to comi r-ight-througi the miadre of ourproperty, we said at that time we would like to hook ip. I spoke to arady named Mi.ss pahr. That was some time ago. Not tl"ro months as theletter states. when r spoke with her she siid there courd be somethingconsidered called an exception. Thatrs the firsE time r heard of anexception. - To get an exception she said. you had to go through your Citybut it wonrt be rikery that you'll get this exceprion uniii-it'i proverr-that-you've actually purchased the property and |ou're getting ready tobuild so we waited because we did not ino, how fast we iere going tobuild. Hor', fast we were going to grow. How soon we needed to move fromthe location that we needed to move from here in chanhassen. so vre waitedand, it began to look r-ike, as we did some searching and research, that wecould build. we found someone that was wilring to-finance ana we found abuilder. that thought that we could put the tuiiai.ng rp.o r" plan onproceeding. Slow but sure and werre ready, at leait it look. Iikefinancially, and the builder has designea- inis design for us. Thishooking up to the sewer line is the only tning thatis hording us, iE rookslike to us. For us to put a septic "ysi"* up j.n this tree grovrth, itmeans knocking out some mature trees that are not going to 6e repJ-acedvery easiry- when we know we're going to hook up [o tie sewer rine inmaybe r995r is what Miss pahr first siid to us because it's zqgg beforethey open up to anybody outside the sewer line. rs that "o.r."ta
(
{
Planning
July 13,
Commission Meeting
I98I - Page 3
{
-(
Dacy: At minimum.
Brian Pike: she mentioned to me 1995 and again, it seems to us that withthis thing going right through the center oi our property, that we shouldbe an exception to this rure. we discovered that we- wou-ld use less thanone household, one residentiar household. The urban sewer line is justthe other side of the pond from us. werre not real far fron that sEwerline and there isn't anyplace thatts undisturbed except that littre 150foot stretch she shows there bet$reen the construction tinit and the pond.Again, that is rovr land over there so it would probably require a moundsystem-which again Eo us is a rittte bit more money foi " fempor.ry systemthat $ril1 hold us until the yeax 2AA0.
guess the point is that if the I'tetropolitan Councilletter that says theyr re not going to allow you as
Theyr re not going to let you hook up.
Hnmings:
written us
except i on .
I has
ana
Brian Pike: The Metropolitan Councila position to me.
has not relayed exactly that firm of
90t
Enmings: It says i.n one paragraph, the Metropolitan Council has a letterthat says an outside system could not be installed to serve the church andan exceplion will not be granted at this time. we canrt get, the pranning
Commission is not going to get in a wrestling match between you and theMetropolitan Council or between you and the staff. yourre going to haveto satisfy our staff that youtve got some way to dispose of this selrage.If you can hook up, fine. It makes sense but if you can'E, we,re goiig tohave to have the on-site septic systems. There canrt be any two wiys -
about it. There's no third alternative that I can think of and as far asall the stuff you've told us so far, this is aII ho$r, the problems yourvehad getting the Metropolitan Council to see the light to do what you wantto do and that really doesntt concern us. Therers nothing i{e can do aboutthat.
Brian Pike: About Met Council?
Enmings: Right.
Brian Pike: WeLl Met Council has mentioned another option to us thathasn't been mentioned. In here there's no menEion of our other soiLborings that's given to you. I'm having a struggle definitely and I don'tfeel like I'm having a struggle so much hrith Met Council. Met Council istelling me that it's up to this staff.
Enmings: ?o do what?
Emmings: Let me
Brian Pike: Irve
Brian pi. ke:saying they
teI I you, Irve got a letter dated July 1, 1989.
the same letter right here.
To recommend to them or not to recommend to them and theyrrecan't recommend because of those two possibilities that they
(L
Planning
July 13,
Commission Meet j. ng
1988 - Page 4
{
disagree erith Mr. Schneewind about as being possibilites.
Emmings: we hire professionar consultants because we donrt know aboutsewage disposar and we rery on them for their technicaL expertise and ifit comes down to a showdown between Mr. schneewind and our city .etuin"aexperts, traditionarly we follow r^,ha t our experts telr us. Th;trs what wehired them for. r have to ask the staff if ihis Mr. Machmeier and...
Olsen: Jim Anderson.
Emmings: And have they said thathave two on-site systems?
Olsen: Right, but $re need theone $ray or the other.
they think itrs possible that they can
information, the soil borings, to prove it
Brian Pike: We gave them Ehe t$ro. We haven,t heardthe tr^ro because theytre st j.ll waiting for the otherSo when it comes down to that subjeclive of being inthat makes the determination on whether or not thosethat you? Them? Us or Ehe Council or $rho?
Emmings: r suppose if thatrs your alternative site, there $rourdn't be anyreason it r.rourd have to be disturbed. rf you could use the primary site$/here there are no trees, you may never ne6d the secondary "itu.
-'yo;-;;y
never need it at all 0r you may never need it untir you,ri re able to ho6kup into the Lake Ann rnterceptor. There's no reason to think right offhand that you're ever have to take out a tree if your -pri;;;y site isbuirt correctty and maintained correctry. That w6urd Le what r vrourd say.
orsen: And Mr. Anderson commented that they wouldnrt be crearcutting ahuge area.
&mings: And rrho do you get that f rom?
OIsen: The appl icant .
Enmings: Why do they have to cut anything?
Olsen: They donit. ThaEts just an alternate
Brian pike: so you said two acceptable sites,were reading the site.
OLsen: Receive the soj.l borings.
any comments about
ones up in the trees.the trees, who istrees come out? Is{
site but if they
at least that's
do.
the way we
Brian
which
Emmj.ngs: We can t tto us is we canrtinformati.on in. T
Pike: So they need soil borings in the trees.we would be tabled and stopped at this point?Is that an issue by
L process your appl.i cat j.on. I think what staff isprocess this application without having all thehe information isn I E rn.
sayr ng
PI ann ing
July 13,
Commission Meeting
1988 - Page 5
{
Brian pike: So two soil borings?
Emmings: I don't know. Whatever they require.
Brian Pike: Two soil borings. The other soil borings, $rervethem mentioned in all of this. Were they not acceptable? Hachec ked ?
we need are the two sets of soil borings withwhich you have not done. you havenrt realtyborings that were taken previously.
never had
beenVEthey
the site shown
shown. Those
OIsen: What
on the plan,
are two soil
Brian Pike: We showed where they were on the site plan.
Olsen: Right. What we need
!,rhere that site is proposed.site so the soil consultants
is to have on the site plan to show the area
We need to have that area staked out on thecan go out there and see exactly $rhere it is
Br ianpIan.Pike: But we did give you t r^ro and we did mark those two on the site
Enmings: ThaE's not what she said. Shethe site plan an outtined area where you
show them where the borings are and that
said she needs to have defined onplan to build your drainfield andand then show the alternative.
-(Brian Pike: We did that didntt we?
Emmings: Have you seen it Jo
Olsen: Werve gotten two soil
Emmings: It sounds to me likeyou come into the staff office
do you need so v/e can complete
Brian Pike: Yes.
Enmings: Have you done that?
Brian Pike: Yes.
Ann ?
bor ings shorrn .
there I s a communication problem
and just said, here,s our plan.
our application?
here.
Wha t Have
more
Olsen: Hers been explained whatrs needed.
Brian Pike: It's just been this issue about the trees. I guess Irvetalked to other people in the City, on the City Council and they believethat up in those trees, those trees shouldn't be taken do$rn so Irve beenhedging and saying that this is an exception. I want my city to make anapplication. Met Council says they canrt do anything until our City Staffmakes an application to them.
&nmings:
Ol sen :
whaErs your und er s tand i ng ?L
I,ihatrs happened is that there has been a
(
Brian pike: A block.
olsen: A communication block. what rrve been saying is we need, for usto go to Met Council, the
_
only vray that they're goin! to accept it, th"tLand use pran Amendment, is ii there's no way tnit 116 c.n proirid" iepticsites so ve asked the applicant some inforiration to confirm it. He hasbeen under the opinion thit maybe we donrt even need to do inat.
nnmings: It's pretty clear to me though, hrhat needs to be done here isyou have- to identify the two sites thai you propose for the septic. cetyour soir borings in so the staff can rook ai tirem with oui consuttantsand r"re can make an informati.ve decision then as to vrhether or not lre,vegot sites here that can be used for the septic system or-not.
Batzli: I think hrhat he's trying to say is he submitted one set ofborings and if that area is not icceptalle, he doesn't want to have to goand take a second set up in the tree3. r ahink what he,s actuarr.y tryingto ask the staff is, have they examined those soil uorings so is there atleast one primary site available.
Brian Pike: Because Met Council says if there's nothardship case. Theyrve also mentioied another thing
f swap that they,re willing to do and that h,e weren,tL the other day.
two, then we are ato us about a landinformed of until just
the Metropolitan CounciI. Werrenecessary and theyr re notand as she went and looked atcase and i t \^rould be cons i derd
Emmings: rt seems to me that arr this stuff ought to be done before vrerook at it. rt seems to me that that can't be resorved at the pranningCommission. Ladd, I'm going to ask for your guidance on if,i". It wouldseem to me that we're looking at issues ihat ie don't normarry look at.This stuff usuarly gets ironed out before r^re get it and that,s furtherevidence to me that the thing ought to be tabled untir everybody has lheiract together and then vre can look at it. What do you thinki
Conrad: yes. We need the two separate sites.
Brian Pike: Wetre asking to go hook up tosaying that the septj.c sites to us ar!n'tnecessary because, as we look at the sitethe site, it is a site that is a hardshipas an exception.
(
Planning Commission MeetingJuly 13, t98g - Page 6
Emmings: But then go convince them that you shourd be hooked up and thenbring your plan back and that's fine. we won,t worry about the septicsites.
Brian pike: Convince who?
Emmings: The Metropol i tan Council.
Brian Pike: It,s these two that I have to convi.nce.
Pl ann ingJuIy 13,
Cornmission Meeting
1988 - Page 7
{
Emmings: Okay, staffdo that but we can't first and then Metropolitan Council. yourtldo anything. Thatrs preliminary to coming in
have to
here.
two sites and we looked at all
1i ne going through, webasis for applying to Met
adv i ce
your ,I think
Headla: You've got to do step 1 before you move to step 2.
Dacy: The soil borings need to be done period.
Conrad: Inie donrE know if the first borings are good or bad and you,resaying that you donrt want to do the second ones until the first ones arein and r think we need to see both. we can go to Metroporitan council andsay it's.a hardship. r guess r would have a hard time 'saving that there'sa hardship if you have to take down a tree and r think we,re as sensitiveas any community in the Twin cities when you tark about taking down trees.we want to preserve trees rike you do but-if you were "sring ;" if taii;;down I or 2 trees or something is a hardship iirut ,oorJ-ruqii." us to go-to Met council and say this is a rear hardship, r think r ioura have ahard tirne saying that. If you said we have to level 4 acres of property,that may be a hardship but rrm not hearing that. you're not givin! us'enough information to make any kind of decision. yourre not piovidingstaff with the minimum that our ordinances require for us to processanything so I think itts just best, before r.re set direction and say weagree with you that it-is a hardship or we disagree. r think you rearryhave to get all sets of information into us.
{Brian Pike: I guess when they asked us forthe disturbed property from Metro Council'scoul-dnr t see two sites and so that was theCouncil for a variance.
Conrad: Our staff is saying there are. With their technicaltheyrre saying there are two sites so I think between you andwhoeverr s helping you do the engineering and the city itaff,yourve got to narrow in on that.
Jim Dalhart: Irm working with the church.ordinance but I believe it does say that youtrees in the forested areas. you basicallyacres as large quantities?
I couldnrt find in the
need city approval to
answered that you l ook
zoning
r emoveat 4
conrad: No. r made that stuff up. DonrE hord me to the actuar wordsthat r used. The key, and we spent some time making sure that in theunsewered area we donrt want to porlute. Therefore] our new ordinance,u"q i!'s relatively new, requires t$ro alternative sites. A primary siieand if that one fails somewhere down the line, we want to know thattherers a secondary site. we donrt want to encourage pollution. whetherit be from a house or a church or industry. That,s-thl reason for thatordinance and it's rerativery new and we'ie doing things that r thinkdeserves the environment that your church brould like and tne communitylikes. ThaE'!s what chanhassen is asking for right now. we have to knowif there are those alternative sites. 6rr"e ," inow that, then we canproceed- rf we know that therets not a secondary site avairabre, we canreact to that but right now we don'it know and th,t's r.rhy werre saying wecan't even provide y5u any advice right now. we need to know if therers a
(
Planning
July 13r
Commission Meeting
198 8 - Page 8
{
secondary site.
through with ouragain.
That I s sort ofstaff and your
the next step thatengineering people
yourve got to
and come back
go
to us
Jim Dalhart: part of the church's conceunit building and a site in the trees thto it. That's another reason the church
Emmings: you have to only identify itit but you have to identiiy it.
rn
ey
This
pumpto go$ra s
the
is simply. . .
would have torelunctant
is the firstprobably upthat way.
on site. You don't have to use
conrad: But you $rourd be forced to use it if the first system faired.
Brian Pike: According to Metfirst system fails. Is that
Olsen: If your system failsthey vrould wish that you use
Council, then they would look at it if ourright? Is that what you read on that letter?
and therers an alternate site, I believe thatthat.
Enmings: you donrt know how they're going to be looking at that. Metcouncil doesn'!t exactly stay con;tant on issues either ind you get 10years down the road and you have a failure in your septic system, they mayhave a whole different idea that yes, they wouid ".."it you as an
r exception.at. that time. Maybe at time yo-u'd be pushei out even furtherL Dur rnere's just no way to know.
Headla: v{hy are rrre spending so much time tarking about Met councir? wearen't even part of it. . Until they satisfy the ;taff requirenent=. yor-donrt do anything so listen to the staff aid tnen tfreyise going to'wirfs,ith you and if there isn't a site avairabre, trren voi,ie got their totarsupport. in going to Met council. But by doing un "id run on them, r thinkyou.re just delaying the activity.
Brian pike: Sir, we,re not trying to do an end run on them.
Headla: ThaErs what it appears when they say yourve got to do thesethings and Met Council says you've got t; ha;e- their iupport.
Brian pike: The rray this thing proceeded vras, r was told to come up witha letter from a soir consultanl ttat said theie i"nit-iro sites. I wentand brought a soil consurtant out there. He 100ked and he said, wellthere isnrt. so r sent the retter in and they she went out there with thecity Engineer and they rooked over Ehe p.op".ty. rtrey -aian,t do r berieveany test- No tests so on his opinion, it came-down t6 iwo opinions ;il-i-can understand taking the city opinion. r wasnrt trying to do an end run.TIr" srry, my person that r was wirling to pay to do tfre ioir uoring; -;.i;"'
there aren'!t tr.ro sites out there. vou said'yorr--iiy-nigineer ";ie t;;;.are.
/ Enmings: Did he base his opinion on borings?
Brian pike: He based it upon, no.
PI ann i ng
JuIy 13,
Commission Meeting
1988 - Page 9
{
Emmings: You can hire an expert to say anything.
Brian Pike: We hired him to come out and do soilwhere? He said all of this is disturbed land.
Emmings: Maybe
can identify the
Communicate wi th
Brian Pi ke:your guy andlot of thi s
by. coordinating with our consultants and staff, maybe theylikely sites and your man can do the borings.the staff and get them what they want.
We did and she said probably the end resultour guy going out there on the property andcommunication has been in the tait week-here.
borings and he sa id
of thi slook it is hav ingover. A
Emmings3 Irve got one question on this. From time to timeabout the extension of Lake Lucy Road out to TH 41. wherein relation to this property?
I I ve heard
does that come
Olsen: We have only an approximate 1ocation.
Brian Pike3 Nothing rs been set in stone from what werve been told.
Olsen: The approximate location is in here.
{ Batzli: Are you going to be reserving the right_of_way?L orsen: As an easement? we are reserving it at this time but therersnothing to prevent them from building on it aE this time.
Jim Dalhart: The church couldn't build on there?
Olsen: Not if we don't have an officiat right-of_way.
Dacy: We wouldnr t recommend it.
Erunings: First. of a1l, doesor is there a motion?
anyone else have any other comments on this
Conrad moved, Batzli seconded that the planning
until the applicant provides the required soilacceptable septic sites on the property to thefavor and the moti.on carried.
Commission
boring da taCity Staff.
table this itemlocating twoAII voted in
{
Headla: Do you know erhat the Met Council is doing? They just keepplaying hardnose? It seems like this would be an ideal iiluation.-
Dacy: The Lake Ann Facility Agreement has a lot to do with that. Toarlow one. property to hook up, you can have a rot of implications from theMet councils standpoint for all of the properties alon! tne MUSA rinethere. Number one, therers no acreage avaii-able to lan6 swap. Number
i19l !!" City has to do a parcel by parcel analysis of the entireMUSA line if we want to add addi.tional acreage in so it's going to be a
Pl ann i ng
JuIy 13,
Commission Meeting
1988 - Page l0
r
PUBLIC HEARING:
REPLAT OF LOT 6 OF SUN RIDGE ADDITION INTO TWO LOTS (2.5 ACRES AND 39.8AcREs) oN PRoPERTY zoNED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED AT THE ENDoF THE cUL-DE-sAc oF sUN RIDGE coURT, L/2 tllILE NORTH oF LYMAN BOULEVARD oN
AUDUBON ROAD, ROD GRAMS.
Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on this item.
timely process with no guarantee
Headla: So it isnrt just the ayethat affect it?
Dacy: Yes.
Emmings: Barb, just one question.t-he 46, he can only put two housescorrect?
Batzli moved, Ellson secondedfavor and the motion carried.
Headla: Therers a driveway coming
map where that would be there?
for any applicant to get acreage added.
or nay, therers a 1ot of other things
If he
on all
add theof that 2g
6g
acres outacres, is there to
that
{
Dacy: Thatrs correct. Therets one existing house here so he'd be alrowedone here and then one stil.l on the big lot.
Emmings: He could divide it up anyway he wanted to but...
and that i s it.Dacy: He gets two more units
Emmings: Is the apptj.cant present?
Dacy: I donrt know r.rhat happened to him. Although he does, he is theanchor for Channel 9 so hers probably at work.
Emmings: Are there any members of the public that. are here to comment onthis. It is a public hearing.
to close the publ ic
The pubJ. ic hearing
hearing. AII voted in
was closed.
off of Audubon. Can you sho$, me on the
Dacy: As part of the original plat approval, I think thatbet$reen these two lots. The road entrance is just to theand there is a driveway to an existing house to the north
was right herenorth of thatof this site.
t Headla: There's a couple of homes there isn't there?
Dacy: yes. The existing house here. Therers thatbeing constructed here and then this Iot is built on
huge house thatrs
and this one too.
STATE OFh!h!trs@TA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAT RESOURCES
21$ E. Frrcntage Rd.
Waconla, ltr. 55387
442-2317
Jo Ann Olsen
City Planner
690 Coulter St.
Chanhassen, I4:e.
7 /27 /88
Subject:
Use of the woodfot for a selrage system drain site. The trees located just
south of the the building site has been suggested as a possible <irain site.
This raould be possibfe if the tr€es were thinned out in order to rnake room ror
the drain field. The tree roots woufd have a tendency to grlow into the tile
lines that would make up the drain fie1d. There is also a problem cf chemical
damage to the trees from a drain field especially if softened water is needed
at the si.te.
Trees $Jould need to be removed i,I order to place the system. The trees that
are leftfrom the renr3vaf operation wourd benefit because of freedom frr:rrr
competition that exists nori, The Ncrva.y pine trees should have been thinned
ten years agc in order to maintain a healthy growLh pattem, They also need
to have sotue of the conrpeting hardwcod trees removed frrom around the pines.
The health of the stand would be improved frorn a thinrrirrg operation and a
drain system could be focated in the dir.ection of the w.ood1ot.
AIan E. Ofson
DNR-Forester
Waconia
ADMINISIRAIIVE SESVICES ' WATERS, SOILS, ANDGAMI A O FISH ' PARK! AND TECREATION
AUG (} ] lgBB
MINERAI.S . I.ANDS AND f ORE sIRY. TNfOXCEIAENI ANO FIEI.D SENVICE *t>
55317
Church site on Hwy. 41
.4 '.- - 't.'
/
CiTY OF CHANTiASSEI''I
t_ft
Minnesota
Department of Transportation
District 5
2055 No. Lilac Drive
Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
(612)5s3.8403
July 25, 1988
tts. Jokm olsen, Assistant CiEy Planner
city of chanhasseo
690 CouLter Drive
P.0, Box 147
chaohassea, UiDresota 55317
Io Reply Refer Tor 315
s. P. 1008 TH 47
Plat review of l{estside Baptist Church located
E. of TH 4L, 314 ni. S. of TH 7 in
City of Chanhassen, Carver Cou.D.ty
Dear Hs, Olsen:
W€ are in rceipt of the above referenced plac for our review in accordaoce
$ith Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03 Plats and Surveys. We find Ehe
plat acceptable for further development with consideration of the fol1oe-
ing comments:
Dimensions betweeo the existing highuay centerline aod the adjacentplat boufldary should be shourr on the pIaE.
It appears that the proposed eDtrance is desi.$red so that. a future
street sould be consEructed at this location. !!n/DOT currenEly ouns
access control irl chis area which will be the determiniog factor ia
the location of the proposed entrance. Ao eotrance peroit musL be
applied for and approved before any const.ruction within the higbway
right of uay may begin. h'hen application is made, the specific
location and design of the entrance wilL be deternined.
It appears that a Riley/ Purgatorr'/ Bluff Creek Hatershed permit uill
be required, as well as a DNR permi.t. Drainage appears to be away
from the high&ay.
If you have any questions in regard to this review please contact Evan
Green at 593-8537. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sin re
M. Cra o P.E.
District Engineer
Steve Keefe
MetropoLitan Council
Roger Gustafson An Egual oPPortunttg Emploaer
Carver Co. Publ ic llorks
JUL 27',1988
CITY OF CHANI.IASSEI,I
cc:
/)
,.:,--i: i::9
RESOURCE ENGINEERING
Rogcr E. Machmeicr, PE
29665 Neal Avenuc
Lindstrom. MN 55M5
(6t2\ 257-2Ot9
James L. Anderson. C.PS.S.
3541 Ensign Avcnuc. Nonh
New Hope, MN 554,
(612) 593-5338
EVALUATION OF SITE AND SOILS DATA
FOR
ONSITE SEWAGE TREATHENT SYSTEM
FOR
PROPOSED WESTSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH
CITY OE CHANHASSEN
by
ROGER E. UACHMEIER, P. E.
JAMES L. ANDERSON, C. P. S. S.
August 9, 1988
SPECIALISTS IN ONSITE SEWAGE TREATMENT
EVALUATION OF SOILS AND SITE DATA EOR
ONSITE SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM
EOR PROPOSED WESTSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH, CHANHASSEN
On Monday, August 8, soil borings were made to verify
solls data collected and submitted by R & D SoiI
Consultants. We nade a soil boring approximat.ely uridway
between borings B-1 and B-2 and found the soil texture to be
a sandy loam to a depth of 12 inches which changed to a loan
texture with mottling indicating seasonal saturation at a
depth of 24 inches. The soil data as submitted for this
Particular site appeared to be reasonably accurate. Erom
the topography, it appears that the proposed mound area
could be reoriented so that the long axis would be
approximately paralleI with the Iso-foot setback from the
pond. The top of the knoll area is relatively flat and
there apparently are other portions of the area that may be
suitable for the installation of a setage treatment mound.
The 15O-foot setback distance needs to be firmly established
and field staked by that authority responsible for the
setback so that there is no future argument or discussion
about the setback Location. The l5O-foot setback must be
staked before any further site and soils investigation for
the design of a mound on the location designated ,'primary
Sept ic Area . rl
We then noved to an area along the
lot which had also been investigated by
Consultant6. A soil boring in the area
south edge of the
R& D Soi 1
of B-4 encountered
Westside Baptist Church
sandy loan to a depth of 8 inches shere clay loam texture
t,aa encountered. This boring hole was stopped at a depth of
about 20 inches because of an obstruction. Another boring
hoLe waa nade approximately 12 feet sest of B-{. Soil
texture graded fron sandy loam to loam with no evidence of
mottling at t5 inches as the consultants indicated for
boring B-{. The soil was a dull color and there irere sooe
variationa in color but none of which indicated seasonal
saturation. At a depth of 33 inches, the texture changed to
a silt loaur but with no evidence of mottLing shich would
indicate seasonal saturation. The soil texture changed to a
loan at a depth of 4 feet without any evidence of seasonal
saturation.
The soil texture in the boring hole which re made
appears to be suitable for the installation of drainfield
trenches, however, additional borings will need to be taken
to a depth of at least 3 feet deeper than the bottom of the
proposed trenches. The area is covered with a planted grove
of red pine varying in diameter from 4 to 8 inches. The
tree rows are not on the contour so that if drainfield
trenches erere installed, a number of the trees would have
to be removed. Thinning, however, may be beneficial to the
stand of tree6. The slope of the area delineated by borings
B-3 and B-4 is approximately 20 percent as measured nith an
Page 2 of 6
Westside Baptist Church Page 3 of 6
Before any further site investigations for a sewage
treatnent system on this property, an estiBate shoutd be
made of the maxinum daily sewage flow which would be used
for sizing the septie tank or tanks and an average daily
aenage flow which would be used for sizing the soil
absorption unit. This infornation is necessary so that the
site evaluator identifies an adequate area of soil suitable
for the soil absorption unit. The estinate of seh,age flow
should include the days when the congregation is present for
either services or fellowship activities plus the day-to-day
sewage flos for staff who are on the premises. A design
rate of serrage flow is necessary for the design of either a
trench or mound system.
The location as proposed for the church building would
apparently change the existing contour lines according to
the map dated 7-26-88. The natural contours must be atlowed
to remain if the sewage system is installed in the area of
the red pines on the south portion of the property. It may
be necessary to readjust the location of the church and
parking area to the north if the area amongst the existing
pine trees is used for the soil treatment system. There iE
also considerable area along the south property line to the
west of the proposed church location that should be
Abney hand level. This slope is somewhat steep for mound
conatruction but is suitable for tEench instaltation.
Westside Baptlst Church Page 4 of 6
investigated as far as soil suitability for an onsite sewage
treatment aystem. There iE a natural drainageway from the
aouth leading onto the propeEty and this would need to be
considered when designing the Eewage treatment system.
There should be. howeveE, an area approximately 60 feet $ide
by several hundred feet long that could be investigated for
the suitabllity of drainfield trenches. Such trenches can
be installed in forest vegetation and the major trees
allowed to rena in.
There is another potential site for a drainfield in the
southwest portion of the property. There are also some red
pines irhich have been planted in this area along with other
nooded vegetation. Again, if the soil is suitable,
drainfield trenches could be installed on the contour !rith
the major trees being allowed to remain and the area allowed
to return to its wooded vegetation. Effluent lrould need to
be pumped to the area from the sewage source. This is true,
however, of the other sites which were also investigated on
the property.
Drainfield trenches can be located in wooded vegetation
saving those trees which are located between the trenches.
while the construction is somewhat more difficult with the
trees present, the remaining trres rrill likely have no
adverse effect but rather a beneficial effect upon the
operation of the system. with drop box distribution, only
Page 5 of 5
those trenchee rhich are needed to hydrauLically accept and
treat the eeptic tank effluent will be supplled rlth
effluent. If effluent is ponded in a trench, roots will not
grow into this oxygen-def ic I ent septic tank effluent but
will grow to the wet 6oi1 surrounding the trench where
oxygen is present, thus increasing the effectivenesa of the
setage tEeatBent system during the growing season. Those
trenches which do not receive effluent wilI be dry and there
will be no attraction for the roots to grow towa.rd or into
these trenches. This condition wiII be true rrhether
gravel-fllled or gravelless trenches are installed.
Gravelless trench consists of a corrugated plastic
tubing surrounded by a geotextile fabric and elimlnates the
need for rock or gravel in a drainfield trench. The
advantage of the gravelless trench is that construction
activity is considerably less since no trench rock need to
be distributed on the site. The gravelless trenches are
carried to and placed in a 2{-inctr wide level trench
excavation by hand. cravelless trenches installed in the
wooded area would minimize the amount of treea that would
need to be removed and hrould minimize the amount of
construction activity neceEsary.
It is important to note that surface drainage will have
to be carefully assessed and evaluated when this property is
developed. There is drainage from the property immediately
I{es ts ide Eaptist Church
Westside Baptist Church Page 6 of 6
I hereby declare that I am a certified Slte
Evaluator and Onsite sewage Treatment System
Designer (Certificate No. 845) as designated
by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
and that this site investigation was
conducted by me or under my direct
supervis ion.
J s L. An erson, C. P. S. S.
I hereby certify that I am a Registered
Professional Engineer in Minnesota (Reg. No.
6745) and that this site investigation was
conducted by me or under my direct
supervision. I also declare that I am a
certified Individual Sewage Treatnent System
Designer and Site Evaluator (Certificate No.
53O) as designated by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency.
E
Roge
REM,zj jm
E. Mac me!.er,P.E
to the south which ls sooded at the Present time. If the
abutting property is developed and the rroodB removed, there
may be considerably nore runoff onto the property being
evaluated. Provision should be made to direct all runoff
through the property without causing any darnage or
i nconven i ence .
W) ^.1^.,^;r^
(
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 17, 198 8
Chairman Conra<i called the meeting to
Tim Erhart, StevenMEMBERS PRESENT:
Jim Wildermuth and
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAEE PRES ENT:
Pl anner
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LOCATE A CHURCH IN THE
PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANDOF HWY. 41 APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE NORTH OE HWY. 5
CHU RCH.
order at 7:30 p.m..
Emmings, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli,
RURAL DISTRICT ON
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE
, WESTSIDE BAPT I ST
David Head1a
Annette Ellson
Barbara Dacy, City planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City
Headla: I'm not quite sure I understand wherethe Planning Commission recommends approval ofNumber 1, the two approved septics siles mustprior to receiving a building permit. Arentt
Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report.
Head1a: And I understand therethis or with the applicant. Theagree with aIl this?
Olsen: I donrt know if they
it says page 5, July 13th,Conditional Use permi t.be staked and preserved
they staked now?
Olsen: We're just saying that they have to remain staked.after a site has been approved or when grading of the siteof times they're not properly roped off and the sites are
A lot
beg ins ,
damag ed .
of times
a lot
really isn,t any other hard spots withapplicant is aware of aII this and they
Headla: Do
Bryan pike:
you
oh
have
yes.
r rd
any hard
I have
agree lci th it.
spots with any of
a few. Do you want
this?
to hear?
Headla: I guess like to hear if there's a serious disagreement.
Bryan pike: When we put the site plan together, we had this 6g footeasement going across as werl as the sewer rine that you can see crearry,this stiped rine going across. when we came to the pranners, we were tordthat r.re needed a 50 foot setback from that 60 foo.- eisement road andoriginarry when we put thi.s site plan together we designed the parkj.ng
l9t: r" see the edge of the parking tot, it is 50 foot exactLy from thaE50 foot easement road back and the church which we originariy wanted toput up in the corner, the church that we origi.narly ,ait"d to put up herefacing this way we moved dohrn here because oi the -so feet .q"ii r.o. thiJroad. we noticed in the Minutes of the last meet.int on"-oi'you asked thema quesEion about the possibility or whether they ha6 reserved easementrights. we understood thaE there were not. Irve done some checking withour attorney and there are not. we understand Ehen that it is stiri
(
t
Planning Commj.ssion MeetingAugust 17, 1988 - page 2
{
possible for us to move-our buirding up in here and build in this area.rf we did that' it wourd. open up a lrimary site. This rine riqht n-ie-isthe sewer construction rimits. -we aia giire them p"i.i"=i.. to move doerninto here some dirt that came from this 52 foot hote that they had overhere but thi.s area hasnrt been touched where the church is. rt r.rourdenable us to put a primary site right next to our building. The soilborings were done right in here. fre feer for the pri*iry-site a simpleseptic system, if it fits with the soir borings. i-g;t-ini" reportyesterday. r sent my secretary after it at 4:30 and r rooked at it laterin the afternoon- Then r called the architect about 5:as si some of thisis new to us but what $re'!re being tora is that a *"""a iy=i"m 350 feetaway is going to cost us about gi2,og6.gg to put up. r'rim what Machneiersays at the end of this report, it sounds tike he ihought we might have toeven pump to that 350 foot mark. rs that what you und6rstood? so thepumping wourd be an additionar cost to us as werr. what we,re hoping isto be allowed to make an adjustment to this plan to swing that uuitalng upand werrr submit new soir borings into that irea that is-rijrrt berow thechurch or if it's required by you, we'rl do the whore thingl we were notgiven an understanding that we courd put the church up in i.hat areabefore. we were tord that we had to itay back 50 feei from that 60 footeasement.
-(
Erhart: There is a 6g foot easement or there isn,t a
Bryan Pike: There is a 60 foot easement with propertybehind us so they are not land locked to the east.
Erhart: So the City has that easement right?
Bryan Pike: No, the City doesn't have it.
Olsen: This plan is providing a 6A foot easement for
60 foot easement?
owners that are
the future road.
Erhart: Because you,ve asked them to provide it?
Bryan Pike: Who's providing it?
olsen: You show it on your site plan that you're providing that 60 footeasement.
Bryan Pike: We provided the 60 foot easement for the people that webought the property from to the east. Brian Klingelhutz, LelandGetschaEch and LeIand BasaIm and LeIand Getschatch-
Erhart: So thatts j-n your contract with them?
Bryan Pike: Itts in our city. The city has nothing...
Erhart: But it's in your contract.
Bryan pike: The 60 foot easement is but no 50 foot setbacks on both
s ides .
t
{
Planning Comm j. ss i on t4eeting
August 17, 1988 - page 3
Erhart: WeII, that doesnrt matter.
Bryan Pike: Oh yes it does. There,s I.5we couldnrt touch that 9re can now Eouch.
acres of land that we lrere told
Erhart: But you have to provide, does that contractthat 50 foot easement is going to be?
Conrad: Jo Ann, explain that. Arefrom a 6g foot right-of-vray?
say exactly where
$re talking about a 5g foot easement
Bryan Pike: rt says that 50 foot easement is right here and we checkedwith our _Attorney and that is all . they got. ThEy don,t have any rightsto a 50 foot setback. r don't think inientionalry uut we didn't haveproper information when we sent this to our archilect and we want to movethat building to gain as much of our property as we can. rn fact when wemaster pranned this thing, if.we ever grow to the point of needing bi.ggerbuildings, which we hope we wirr somediy, we rearr-y rimited ourserves topoint where we have to cover everything just about-out theie with parkinglot to meet the current city require*enti for our next uilger buiriing.
a
(
Olsen: A 50 foot setback from an easement.
Conrad: And that was r^rhose condit j on?
Olsen: I'm sure this was information
Lake Lucy to be continued through thatmai.ntain that 50 foot setback.
Erhart: Our ord inancenot from an easement -
that was given, there isproperEy and that would
plans for
be best to
states that a 50 foot setback exists from a street,
Enmings:
stay back
And does the50 feet from
the right t.o have
easement or donrt
property ovrnerCi ty
tha t have
road this
we?
olsen: Technically it,s from right_of_way.
Dacy: We recommended therequires from a street.that property.
Emmings: Lakeabout Ehe road
50 foot setback because thatrsSooner or Iater there will be a
what
road
Lucy. You,re tal ki ng aboutfrom the people beh i nd?
Lake Lucy or are you talking
to Iandlock,
r ight?
the -Zoningtraver s i ng
Olsen: Erom right-of-way.
Erhart: An easement for right_of_eray?
Emmings: The 60 foot easement they have through there,otherwise they have...is a eg foot'easement foi a road,
Olsen: Right.
(
(
Planning Commission Meet i ngAugust 17, 1988 - page 4
Enmings: But once itrs there it.s there right?
Dacy: Right.
Dacy: Lake Lucy. The applicant is sayingthan he should be aware that if Lake f,ircyand/or. building may become non_conformingsetback.
well, I vrant to move closer,
Road comes through, his parking
because they,re erithin Ehat
Emmings: It sounds tolook at it no!r?
me like they vrant to change the site plan. Can we
Conrad: You do want to change the site plan, is that r,/hat you,re saying?
Bryan Pike: t^Ierre not asking to make a major change but...
Conrad: But you do want to change the site pLan?
Bryan Pi ke: yes .
Do you want to just have us table this untit you can brj.ng it
_{Bryan Pike: If you think that that is.._
Conrad:
back?
Conrad: Itrs sort of up to you. We'd like to see what youtake to City Council versus somethj og that's kind of wel1,where this is. We'd really like to see the absolute final.
Conrad: Okay. If we find too many cases where vrer re not seeing somethingclose to whatrs going to go to City Council, we will table it. tf we fin6one or two that we think you can sorve in two r^reeks vrith staff because wethink that there's an agreement, then we don't need to see that final pianthat you're going to present rui it you continue to add different issuls,then $rerll table it and have you briiq it back so r^re can see more.
Bryan Pike: Okay. There,s. two other points that are in here and they areconditions that hre want to bring up. ifrat is, we $rere wondering if r;;;;enough screening. rt rooked liled- in the ordinance that the scieeni.ngthat we have would be appropriate. rf we,re not, r don't have the sp6ciesof theses and we're going to have to by and get them but we do havescreening that is in here. There is m-ore aciuarry than we show. we don'ts-how every tree that's here- some of these are pret.ty good sized trees.we had-a picture up here that we courd show you iorn" -of -the.. rt said inEne ordrnance that if there was already exist j.ng, that that could beconsidered as part of the screening. and we don.t have to screen for aroad that as we understand, this is the firmest that rrve heard about thisroad. Each time r've asked there's arways been Ehe possibitity that th;a
really want to
werre not sure
for us
show you
areas
(
Bryan Pike: I don't kno$, how you all function but is it possibleto say we lrant to move it up here? We have our architect here toexactly on the condition we courd conti.nue on and cover the otherthat are mentioned in here that are talked about?
{
PJ. ann i ng Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - page 5
road $rould never go through. If that roadwasting a lot of space and effort. Okay.shurbs. Is that a possibiJ-ity? Do we needis what our question is?
Dever goes through, then we're
We have a picture of thoseto put that extra screening up
Emmings:
screening?
What extra screening? Where does it say he has to have extra
Olsen: The ordinance requires that therevehicular area and the road right-of-way.out there.
Emmings: But r^rhat r see here Jo Ann is it says they have to provide alandscaping plan. courdn't they present that pran ind if theie's adequatescreening, I supposed they wouldn,t have to do more. As I look at this,arl yourre being required to do right now is provide the randscaping plan.You can put the existing vegetation on that and as long as theyr aa - -
sa ti sfied.
Bryan Pike: Okay. So we submit that to That par t?
be screening between the
?here are some existing trees
Olsen: Yes. The only thing that doesn't
Headla: Hers gotall gravel . I waselse. I'll pass.
you?
a 11ow
me really...across the street
conv j.nced he needed blacktop
to count is...
L Bryan Pike: The only other thing was the paving. The paving of theparking rot. werre wondering if vre can stiy wiih g.ur"1 . rt wourd be oursincere desire and hope to put pavement out there because it'd be a rotnicer but- our budget right now, wourd not allow us to buird the buirding.rt r^rould be an addit)onaL g2i,agg.ag to put that in right now and r{er retrying to buird a building and wer.e =uyi.rg that in this area, we,re notgoing to be disturbing anybody. or. t.iffi" frow is definitery not thetraffic floe, that's right across the street in Minnewashta parl and thatis not paved. It,s all dirt so we,re wondering if that were doing.
Conrad: I{e'II mull that through. Okay, Dave. yourre still on.
there.but he
He's
sited
right, that's
sometlt i ng
Conrad: Let me throw itpresented, do you \ranL tois going to be different?back here or do you vrantwrth it as it is and Iet
Headla: I think itto throw it back tothey j ust a littlernvolved with that.that.
back to Dave. In terms of the plan that,s beensee that back? Are you concerned that the planWhatrs your feeljng? Do you want that to cometo do it in conditions? Do you feel comfortablethe City Council have at it bave?
was an interesting question that you askedBarb and Jo Ann, are they comfortable wj.thways away if they make Ehe change? They,veAfter vre get done I'd like to hear their
and I hrantit? Are
been soopinion on
Conrad: Jo Ann, r.rhat do you think?
(
{
-L
Planning Commission MeetingAugust 17, 1988 - page 6
Conrad: Letrs talk aboutstill don't know what, ifstandard ?
from a right-of-way. I guessstandard, a 50 foot setback, it
olsen: That's the first I've heard of it too and r would expect it to bea major change. They,re changing all the parking area also.
Conrad: You would change the septic site too I would imagine.
Bryan Pike: The primary site.
carey Lyons: My name is carey Lyons, ...the architects and we aredesigning their structure. That wourd be the intent. To move the churchto this area to arrow the primary septic site. To move to tnis area sothe church would not be required-to go 356 feet ana possirty-p.r.p to thatprimary site because it would be a suitabre site adjicent to it. Therewould be some rearranging -of- parking and access to the building and therewould be the rerocation of that one site but beyond that r tirinr we couro!'rork vrith the staff to meet arr your requiremenls and not hold the projectuP.
thi s
that
setback
is our I
15 a
Olsen: Itrs fromright-of-\^ray-a dedicated right-of-way and this isn,t a dedicated
Conrad: It isn,t a dedicated right-of_way.
Batzli: What section is that in? What section is
Dacy: The rural , it's under the RR setback. It's
that 50 foot se tback?
50 feet.It's more of
Ordinance so I
public or pr ivate
that, then the applicant j.s
of the building in the future.
an issue for. . .
Batzli: WeIl, right-of-way is not defined in the Zoningdoubt itrs right-of-way you're talking about.
Olsen: It's from the property line.
Batzli: Easement, on the other hand is and itrs eitherfor what that's worth.
Dacy: Again, if ittstaking his chances as
not 50, if j.t's belowto the non-conformi ty
Conrad: And what is the
what?As far as
As far as allo$ring them
At this point, none.
They might end up with ais in.
risk to the City?
to build wi_thin thi.s setback area?
Dacy :
Conrad:
Dacy:
OIsen:
street church with barely a setback once the
C
(
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - page 7
Conrad: So once
ol sen: You might
Dacy: And we donrt
maybe itrs an issue
Bryan Pike: Do you
extra space in there
Dacy: For a 60 foot
could accomodate two
roadway is a typicallanes of traffic and
right-of-way for a street which
boulevard areas.
on both sides of the road then?
the street goes in.
have a church parking lot...
know if theyrre talking 4g feeL or 30 feet or what sothat sre can resolve. I donrt know.
build 60 foot roads through there? Is there not some
any$ray?
Bryan Pike: So there is some extra space
Dacy: Yes, but that,sthe right-of-way, thatutilities, pole Iines,
Wildermuth: How cLosebuilding?
not included in your setback calculation becauseboulevard area may be used for installation oftrails.
to the easement do you propose to place the
{
Carey Lyons: We donrt know at this point.thi.s afternoon so we havenrt had a chanceexactly where it would best fit and allowadjacent to the building.
Batzli: I think we al-so have the
condi tional use.
I{e just discussed the issueto analyze it to determinethat primary site to move up
conrad: r'm going to inEerrupt you. rf they don't know, r think we haveto table the issue untir, if yourre tal-king a coupre reet, r think wewouldnrt mind it but if you don't knohr yet;.r thi;k we've got to have you
!"gyi"g. If you were here saying we arE going to do it exictly this wiy,r think we could probabry pass somethinq 6oncitionea upon that- kind of -'
knowledge but if you donrt know yet, am I off base? I don,t want tobelabor a meeting v/hen we are probabry going to tabre it if they donrtknow. I guess I'm kind of uncomfort"Lf".
Headla: I think itrs appropriate Ladd.
Emmings: The other issue is, if there's a strong rikelihood that therersgoing to be the extensi.on_of Lake Lucy Road goin! through this p.op.iiy inthe future, r think they'd be foorish not to tak; it inlo account even ifthey don't have to. I'\re ought to make sure we know what our basi.s is forimposing it because r thinl there should be that setback from thateasement that r^re menti oned.
basis to look at that since this is a
1 ionlad: So if you'd like to revise your pl-ans, I\ tonight wiEh the plans as you've presented and wemotion but if you do wanE to change them, we willcome back and tell us specifically what you r,rant
think
could
tableto do.
we could go aheadpass a favorable
this untjl you can
{
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - page 8
Carey Lyons: I
easy to see that
Bryan Pike: I think Jo Ann has alreadythat is legally, that the City can take
can understand your point and your stand and it,s veryyou feel that way but it,s also, you should alsoappreciate that if we're allowed to buird within that 50 and we just arenow made aware of it, why are we the only ones to be penalized?
conrad: r just think you should know that what the pranning commission'srole is, is to take a look at as close to absolute plans as possible so wecan make right decisions. what you,re telring us ii you'". irr""""t.a-r",-and through whatever reasons, r understand that you just found out someinformation this afternoon and r appreciate that and you can't react in afew minutes but on the other hand, our role here is t6 take a look at whatreally is real. What really is being, r^rhat you want and so far, whatyourre saying is we want to change a lot of things. parking lot.Location of church. septic systems and r think it's not apfropriate forus to say we agree because we don.t know rrhat you're talking about yet.so we understand that you got new i.nfomration and you certainry have theright to change whatever you've got but on the othEr hand, from our role,r think itrs not appropriate for the planning commission to react tosonething. our charter is to react to something that's being presented asactual and you don't have that to us tonight.
Bryan Pike: How long of a delay are we...
{ Conrad: I think itts a simple, straight forward. I guess it,s going to- depend on where you want to locaEe the church. r think generally r,re r,rouldask staff if they really believe a road is going to go through t-here, Ithink thatrs what Mr. Enmings just said, if there is a road ihat weanticipate that wiII be going in there, werre probably going to hold youto that 5g foot setback. I think what we challenge staff to do is sa!, isthat a real thi.ng. rf the road is kind of imaginary and we may never- doit from the City standpoint, then we take a Iook at that and say, gee ifwe're not convinced that it'!s needed for chanhassen, then we'd be able toslip some of those maybe standards or regurations, whatever. But if theycome back and say, yes we realry bel-ieve to serve the neighborhood to th6east, there has to be a road there, then werre probably going to upholdpretty much the standards that we set. And I think it's also to yourbenefit.
stated that it isn't something
Emmings: Thatrs something $re $rant to look into.
Batzli: I would disagree with j.t for one. Itm just
Emmings: I found a definition for right-of-way here.
Batzli: But i.t,s from, j.t's a setback. If you go toit as roadway easement. Easement is both a public or
Headla: But we havenrt adhered to that.
reading the Statutes.
setback, they define
private right.(
{
Planning Comm j. ss i on Meeting
August 17, 1988 - page 9
Batzli : I dontt
Code says,
know r^/hat werve adhered to. I'm just reading what the
Bryan Pike: What does that mean?
{
Conrad: These are two lawyers, I don't knov,r. Let's try to resotve thatbefore the motion occurs. It means we donrt, as lay people up here, wedonrt understand what the law specifi.calry commands u= t6 ao.- as nianningcommissioners, we don't know what's right or wrong and werd rike the stafito consult and tell us $rhat is appropriate. So ii we donrt have toenforce the 50 foot, if you have fulr right to use that 50 feet, thatrsyour perogative. we donrt kno$r. we can'|t terl what our ordinance istelling us to do right now. Therefore, if we tabte it, $re're tarking twoweeks. Youtre two weeks further down the rine. rs that right Jo Ann?Can we sneak him on the next agenda?
Olsen: Sure.
conrad: so werd bring you back as soon as hre can which is two weeks fromnow so werl1 delay that. rt may be to your benefit. on the other hand,if you want to run with what we see, r ihi.rr w" can react to that. wehavenrt discussed bituminous. r think the other thing they deserve tohear though, a littre bit of conversation on what we want to do vrith theparking lot. Jim, what do you want to do wj.th the parking 1ot? Theydonrt want to pave it.
Wildermuth: I thi nkdesirable to pave it in view of the contours invotved, it r.rould be very
Batzli: I agree with Jim.
Emmings: I agree.
Erhart: I agree.
Bryan Pike: Does the ordinance require it in that area?
Eor commerciat, it states for any commerciar or industriar uses oruses_like that, they must be paved. Concrete curb. Itrs in thesection. rt was staff's interpretation lhat the amount of traffic
conrad: r think the same. we'|d like to see it paved. At reast r thinkyoutre taken care of. on the landscaping. That looks clean to me. pavingyou've got to do probably. Based on wfiat werre saying. City Councildisagrees with us occasionarly. we get invorved ii "6itr.g precedent andthings rike that in terms of what tht ordinance. rE's hari io. us to..y,well you don't need to pave and we understand the financial considerationsthat you're under but rrhen the next group comes in and says they donttwant to pave, $re don,t always have rationale to say why yiu donit need toand why they should. so typical-ry we uphord tr," oia i n'.n6" -b""u o." tt"ordinance, is driving a lot of our decisions here- lihat I'm saying is
I:::: fooking at rhe ordinance. The Cj.ry Council- may have a ditf6rentoprn].on.
OI sen :similar
park j. ng
t
{
{
Planning Commission MeetingAugust 17, 1988 - page 10
on that parking area is sirnilarrural areas where therers a lot
Run of f into r.retland locations.
Br
IN
OIsen: Staff $rou ld recommend
Planning Cornmission.
other uses that vretraffic where i t's have proposed ingoing to be eroded.
to
of
yan Pike:. Whterpretat r on atof InBEdBIStea*"8:. to be sayins is thar iils her
Conrad: You persuade us that itrsordinance, I think you may have asay church. you could dig into itinterpretation on how we iead it,
Bryan Pike: Would it be wrong fand then present our change to tthat?
not based on your interpretation of thechance because it doesntt necessarilya little bit and say, based on ourwe donrt need to.
or us to say go
he City Counc i 1?
plan for
wrong to
wi. th
Is
this
tha t tonight
do
that it probably be taken back to the
Conrad: What do you rrant to do?
donrt want to throw thatBryan pi ke:
CounciI.
We poli.tical hot potato at the
Bryan Pike: See, werre pressed for building before fall. I.Ie're in asituation where we're meeting at 126g in another church. we're hoping toget it up. rf we have. to break frost ground, we know that wetre not loingto be able to afford that.
conrad: r suppose that's your right. rtrs not the process we rike toforrow because typicarly we kind of like to crear the way for the cityCouncil so that when $re say something regarding planning-, they say yes.The planners. These lay people who think they,re kind of ptanning.- rneyagree with it. rt makes sense bur on the other hand, you have the right-to go in and say this is what was approved. Herers another plan that wasnot approved and you potentially could present it to them. ttreyimmediately, itrs a gambre on your part. They courd table it aid say sendit back to Pranning commission because they hiven't reviewed it this way.rtrs a gambre. rt would cost you an additional tvro weeks but it's sort ofup to you.
Batzli: Jo Ann, what is the likelihood that MnDot gives up an accesspermit for the current arrangement of their driveway?
orsen: r spoke with Evan creen and he sounded rike that wourdn't be muchof a problem.
Batzli: So with this condition, you probably wouldnrt have a changeapproving it with them applying for the driveway access permit? theygrouldn I t have to change.
Olsen: Right.
{
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - page lI
Conrad: Irm glad you.re doing that. I'dother comments on this one? I didn't letthis one a great deal , but anything else?
prefer you to come back. Anyyou folks to my right talk about
Emmings: I think Ird look at theshould make a motion to table it.look at it and maybe Bryan couldover there because I think we can
we should get a legal opinion onsimple for them.
same thing that Bryan did. I think we
We should also have the City Attorneyjust outline what he's been scribbting
impose the 50 foot easement but I thinkthat because thatrs going to make it real
Batzri moved, Hnmings seconded that the planning commission tabre thismatter in order for the westside Baptist church to determine whether theywant to rearrange their site plan and arso move that the staff has theCity Attorney review whether a 50 foot setback is required in the RRdistrict in this case and the setback is defined asa roadr^ray easement.The definition of easement includes both pubric and privatery nera rights.AII voted in favor and the motion carried.
Olsen: And just forthem. I had to call
eri th them by phone.
the record,
somebody to
we did not have aget their repor ts
current address forto them. I rve talkedfLDacy: The point bej.ng that what
when he received that report.he represented is not exactly true as to
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 76.5 ACRES INTO TWOACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES,
96TH STREET, TII.I ERHART.
LOTS
AND
OE 66.5 AND Ig
LOCATED AT 775 WEST
PubIic present:
Karen Hasse 630 West 96th Street
Jo Ann OIsen presented the staff report.
Conrad: Itrs hard for me to understand theAnn. If you could graphicly help us.30 and 60 foot easement Jo
{
orsen: rt's in the rural area so any roadway easement right-of-way wourdhave to be 6g feet. we did obtain 30 feet when the Worm iroperty -amethrough, the Jeurissen and Worm property so r,rha t we are requestiiq fromthe applicant is the additional 30 feet that wourd be neceJsary to provideus with the 60 foot and it wourd jog up. Typicarry you would want it to--continue straight across. what we're laying- is ttrit- these properties. iheonl-y time you can acquire that right-of-way easemenE is when trre properiy-is pratted and these two pieces oi property can not be subdividea- uniii '
CITY OF
EHfr}IIIfiSSII[
P.C. DATE: Sept. 7, 19gB
C.C. DATE: Sept. 26, 1988
CASE NO: g8-21 SUB
Prepared by: Olsen,/v
STAFF REPORT
Fz
C)
=LL
ko
hJF
U)
Preliminary plat to Subdivide 10.75 Acres in:co 27Single Family Lots
PROPOSAL:
I.OCATION:
APPEICANT:
Encors
utloc A of pleasant Acres
Ac,th by city ldmtnishtdr
Par t
67 20
David,fohnson
Shorewood Oaks Development6100 Auto Club Road, +314Bloomington, MN 5543g
of
G1
, cdilieL
Rejocted--
Oav 1 '2'r,i
Dlts ScDmited to Comnislifia-.-79
Lot 5 and Oendale Drive
Date Submided lo CoUr
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:
WATER AND SEWER:
PEYS ICAI, CEARAC.:
2OOO LAND USE PLAN:
The site is fairly leveltrees and box elder.
Lov, Density Residential
with inmature
N-
s-
E-
w-
RSF, Residential Single Family
72.72 acres/gross 10.75 acres,/net
2.51 units per acre (net)
17,346 s.f. average lot size
RSF; single family & cemetery
RSF; single family
Minnewashta parkway & Lake Minnewashta
RSF; church
City water and sewer is available to the sit
,-1 U
LAKE
ooNt
I
oo()
t)oo
@
ooo!toI!t
o
FIr't
ooo ortrl
oo6
oooo
t
t
t\
t4tilNEVA.tHrA
RD
PUD-R
IAPLE 3HOiE 9oitvE
_l
j
RR
l
l
il
(62 N0
\
]
A
l@
I
\
I Lo..l16q ryleue,Q\\t9rO*)
I
\t
XIIIGS ROA D
111t
-\
U
o
rz STJOE
L AKT
rx
I
l!o
Fo
F
-:_ ^ dsr.-:t
ooo
,@
I
I
F
/t:
I
Country oaks
September 7,
Page 2
Subcii vi s ion
19 88
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
The Zoning Ordinance requires a mini.mum of 15,000 square feet, 90
feet of street frontage, except for lots Iocated on cul-de-sacs,
and 125 feet of lot depth (Attachment *1).
REFERRAL AGENCIES
Building Department
PubIic Safety Department
Engineering Department
Watershed District
Fish and wi litlif e Service
Attachment
At t achmen t
At t achmen t
Att achment
At t achmen t
*2
*3
*4
*s
#6
AN ALYS IS
The applicant is proposing to subdivide Lwo lots of the Pleasant
Acres subdivision containing L2.72 gross acres into 27 single
family 1ots. The site is bordere<i to the north by a row of
single family lots which are part of the Pleasant Acres sub-
division and Glendale Drive and to the south by the Stratford
Ridge subdivision and Ms. Halgrenrs property. The preliminary
plai is subdivided into three blocks hrith a 50 foot right-of-way
pubtic street accessing Glendale Drive at two locations.
Lot Layout
The subject site has L2.72 gross acres and 10.75 net acres after
removing the 50 foot street righL-of-way. A11 of the proposed
Iots meet the minimum requirement of 15,000 square feet and have
at least I25 feet of lot depth. The average lot size is 17,346
square feet isith a net density of 2.51 units per acre.
Lots I through 5, Block 3 and Lot 8, Block 2 do not maintain the
minimum requirement of 90 feet of street frontage. Lots 1
through 4, Block 3 are located along a curve of the proposed
streei. and Lot 5, Block 3, and Lot 8, Block 2 are Iocated
directly adjacent to the curve in the street. The Zoning
Ordinanle permits lots on a cul-de-sac to have reduced street
frontage as long as they maintain 90 feet of width at the
builtliig setbacl line. Since the lots without 90 feet of street
frontag6 are not located on a cul-de-sac, they must provide 90
feet oi street frontage along the front lot line. Therefore,
Lots I through 5, BLock 3 and Lot 8, Block 2 would have to
receive variinces to the lot frontage requirement to be approved.
Staff is recorrunending that the lot lines be adjusted to provide
Country oaks
September 7,
Page 3
Subdivision
19 88
required 90 feet offrontage variances.
bubble cul-de-sac,of this.
street frontage rather than approving
The applicant has suggested creatingbut the Engineering Department is not
6
a
in
lot
favor
Soil
Park and Recreat ion Commission
Staff visited the subject site with wetland experts from the Fishand Wildlife Service and Corps of Engineers to determine whetheror not a wetland did exist in the south central portion of thesite. After three visits to the site, it was determined that awetland does not exist on the site (Attachment *6). There issome wetland vegetation but it is minor in comparison to thedominant upland veget at ion.
There are wet soils tocated on the site as shown from the soilssurvey and past proposals on the site. As stated in Attachment#2, the Building Department has pointed out the fact that thereare wet soils rocated on the site and that soil borings should beperformed for each lot and that at time of building p6rmit appli_cation, a report on the soils and proposed correctiois must besubmitted. The applicant will be periorming soil borings ioreach 1ot for FHA approval. Staff is recomm6nding that ihe appli_canl provide a copy of a soil report to the city for each 1ot andthe street prior to finar plat approvar which c-an be kept on rit.for reference by to the Buildi ng- Depar tmen t and any p.o"p."iir.1ot owners. The soil report will piovide staff wilh- inf6rmationnecessary to deLermine if soil corrections are necessary. Ifextensive soil corrections are necessary then the city aanrequire information on how it will be d6ne Lo ensure ioilstability.
The Park and Recreation commission reviewed the proposed prelimi-nary plat on August 9, 1988 (Attachment #9). ttre plrk anaRecreation commission felt that the area was park deficient andthat park land should be reserved as part of lne subdivision.Typically, it has been park and Recreition policy to r"queii notless than 5 acres for park land. Since 5 aires would be- almosthalf of the buildable area of the proposed subdivision, tne- parrand Recrealion Commission recommended instead that one acre beacquired along the south boundary of the property which could inthe future be expanded when properties to ttr6 south .." ",rb_divided. The Park and Recreati6n commission directed staff towork with_ the. applicant to 1ocate the one acre parcel. Once adecision has been made on dedication of parklani, the park andRecreation commission wirr determine witLer park and trair ieesare waived.
Country oaks
September 7,
Page 4
Subdivi sion
1988
Gradinq,Drainage and Utilities
The PubIic Safety Director has recommended that fire hydrantsmust be located on the plan no more than 300 feet apart and thatthe proposed h,ater system must be looped (Attachment *3).
Staff visited the site with the DNR Forester and found that therewere no areas of trees that needed to be preserved or whichreguired a tree removal plan.
Planning staff recomrrends the Ptanning Commission aalopt thefollowing mot ion:
"The Planning Commission recommend.s
#88-2I as shown on the plat stampedject to the following conditions:
approval of Subdivi sion
"Received J v]-y 22, 1988" sub-
1. Lots I through 5, Block 2 and Lot 8, Block 2, be adjusted toprovide 90 feet of width at the street frontage.
2. The applicant will work with the Park and Recreation
Coordinator to provide one acre of park land along thesoutherly boundary of the property.
3. The applicant shall provide a soil borings report for each1ot and along the location of the streeL prior to final plat
approva I .
The Assistant City Engineer addresses grading, drainage and uti-lities for the site in his memo (Attachment *4).
Mi scellaneous
The Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association has use of arecreational beachLot on Lake Minnewashta (Attachment #7). A11lots that were part of the Pleasant Acres subdivision have theright to use the recreational beachlot (Attachment #8). The sub-ject site consists of two lots which were part of the pleasant
Acres subdivision. The Pleasant Acres recreational beachlotexisted prior to the zoning ordinance amendment permitting themas a conditional use. The recreational beachlot is therefore anonconforming use which cannot be extended or enlarged. Sincethe subject lots are part of Lhe Pleasant Acres subdivision, sub-sequent Iot divisions also have the right to use the recreationalbeachlot. The city cannoL deny the nehr Iot orrrners the right touse the Pleasant Acres recreational beachlot but can prevent
additional docking of boats, installati,on of more docks, canoeracks, etc. which are an extension or enlargement of the use.
REC OM}{ENDAT ION
Country Oaks
September 7,
Page 5
6
Subdivi sion
1988
4. The applicant sha1I provide an amended plan showing firehydrants located not further than 300 feet apart.
5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract andprovitle the City with the necessary financial sureties toguarantee the proper instaLlation of these improvements.
The applicant shal1 service this area by gravity sanitarysewer unless their engineers can demonstrate that Ehis entireparceJ. cannot be service by gravity sanitary sewer.
The applicant -!ri11 provide the City with the necessary uti-Iity easements across this parcel to service this par-el bygravity sanitary se$rer unless otherwise demonstrated that Ilift station is necessary.
7
I The applicant sha11 obtain andthe Watershed District permit.comply with all- conditions of
The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with thenecessary documentat.ion to verify that the 100-year stormevent and emergency overflow conditions for the proposedponding site wilI not affect the adjacenr propertiei.
I
2
3
4
5
6
7I
ATTACHMENTS
Excerpt from Zoning Ordinance.
Memo from Building Department dated August 3, 1998.
Memo from Public Safet.y Department dated August 3, I9gg.
Memo from Engineering Department dated Auguit 31, 1989.LeEter from Watershed District dated August 5, 1999.Letter from Fish and Wildlife Service dated August II, I9gg.Site plan showing Iocation of each 1ot.Articles of Incorporat.ion of pleasant Acres HomeownersAssociation.
Memo Erom Park and Recreat.ion Coordinator dated August 11, I9gg.Prelimj.nary plat dated JnTy 22, 1999.
9.
10.
o
CITY OF
EHINHISSEN
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jo Ann O1sen, Assistant City Planner
FROM: Steve Kirchman, Building Inspecto. \4k.
DATE: August 3, 1988
SUBJ: Planning Case 88-21 SUB and 88-13 WAp (Shorewood Oaks
Development )
Past experience r./ith other builciings in this area indicates thatbuilders in this proposed subdivision will probably encounterhigh water tables. The Carver County Soil Survey shows a largeinclusion of Cordova silty claiz loara which typically has a water-table Cepth at 1 to 3 feet.
Becuase of past problems in t'his area, a soils engineer shoulCinvestigaLe each loL to determine its suitability as a buildingsite. SoiI borings and corrections or reconmendations should besubnitted with each permil application.
tra
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
CITY OF
EHINHISSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City planner
FRO : Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Oirector \.
DATEs August 3, 1988 I
SUBJ: Planning Case 88-2I SUB and 88-13 WAp ( Shorerrood Oaks
Development
Fire Chief Dale cregory and I have reviewed the prelininary platreview and wetland alteration permit for subdivision 10.75 acresinto 27 single family lots. The following changes must be made:
1. The hydrants must be no more than 300 ft. apart.
2. Locate existing hydrants on the p1an.
3. Insure that the system is a complete Iooped system.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask.
VI
CITY OF
EHINHISSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 'I47 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROU:
DATE:
SUBJ:
Planning Conmi ssion
Larry Bror{n, Staff Engineer
August 31 , 19 88
Preliminary PIat Review for Country Oaks Subdivision
Planning FiIe No. 88-2I SUB, David A. Johnson
This site is located at 6720 Glendale Drive, approximately one-
fourth of a mile west of Minnewashta Parkway. The existing site
is composed of a gentle topography with mature vegetation scat-
tered throughout the site and an existing creek near the north-
west corner of the subject parcel.
Sanitary Sewer
Municipal sanitary sewer service is available to the site by an
existing 8-inch diameter sewer main which exists along Glendale
Drive. This plan also proposes a lift station and forcemain io
the proximity of Lot 1, Block 3. As the Commission may recall,
staff had a concept study completed throuqh the platting process
of Stratford Ridge which is located immediately to the southwest
corner of the subject parcel. This comprehensive study had ana-
lyzed the sanitary sewer versus the topography in this area. The
study concluded that this area coultl be serviced by gravity sani-
tary serrer. The applicant needs to address this matter by
revising his sanitary sewer plan such that the area may be ser-
viced entirely by gravity flow. This may require additional uti-
lity easements within the proximity of Lot l or Lot 2 of Block 3-
The applicant should submit plans and address this matter prior
to final plat approva l.
wat erma in
The plans propose that watermain be placed throughout the sub-
diviiion via the existing waternain off of Glendale Drive. It
should be noted that the proposed watermain through the right-of-
way shown along Lots 4,5,6, 7, 10, 11 and 12 of Block 3 main-
tains a distance of l,OO0 feet. Although the }ength of dead-end
n desirabl-e, it is anticipated that the
ts will keep this line from becominq
will facilitate future development to the
watermain is less tha
number of proposed Iostagnant. This l- ine
south if required.
Fq
Planning Commi ssion
August 31, 19 88
Page 2
Acce s s
The applicant is providing for a 50-foot right-of-way which isconsistent with the City standards for urban construction.
Gradinq and Drainaqe
The applicant is proposing a maximum proposed street grade of6.0t as compared to the City's recommended maximurn of 7.0t. Wefind that these proposed street grades are acceptable.
The applicant's engineer is proposing a storm water retentionpond down on the northlvest corner of the site. The naturaldrainage for the entire parcel at present flows to the northtyestcorner and through the creek located near the northwest corner.I have received several phone cal1s from the homeowners asso-ciation regarding this proposal and the ponding site. The adja-cent residents are concerned with drainage and how it is going toaffect their properties. I have assured them that staff will bereviewing the proposed ponding site further through the plans andspecifications review process to make sure that all emergencyoverflow facilities are available such that it does not increasethe runoff onto their properties. f.urther verification from theapplicant's engineer uilt be required prior to final plat appro-vaI to verify that the 100-year storm event maintains adequileseparation from the existing home sites.
Erosion Control
Recommended Condit ions
The applicant shall enter into a development contract andprovide the City with the necessary financial sureties toguarantee the proper installation of these improvements.
The applicant shaIl service this area by gravity sanitarysewer unless their engineers can demonstraLe that this entireparcel cannot be service by gravity sanitary selrer.
2
3
4
The applicant erill provide the City with the necessary uti-lity easements across this parcel to service this par-cel bygravity sanitary sewer unless otherwise demonstrated that ilift station is necessary.
The applicant shall obtain and comply r^rith all conditions ofthe Watershed District permi t .
1
The plan does not address erosion control. A revised grading,drainage and erosion control plan shal1 be submitted to the aityEngineer for approval prior to final plat approval.
Planning Commi ssion
August 3I, 1988
Page 3
The applicant's engineer sha1l provide the City with the
necessary documentation Lo verify that the 100-year stormevent and emergency overflow conditions for the proposed
ponding site will not affect the adjacent properties.
MINNEFIAHA
WATERSI.IED
GREEK
DISTRICT
LT(I M INNTTONI(A
P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
80480 0F fttAtAffn$ Camille D. Andre, Ptes. . Alb€rt L Lehman . John E Thomas
James R. Spensley . Richard R. Mille. . Robert D. Erickson . C. Woodrow Love
ls
August 5, 1988
Ms. JoAnn 0l sen
City of Chanhas sen
P0 Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear l4s. 0l sen:
l,le have received the information you forwarded concerning the Country Oaksresidential deveiopment near Lake t4innewashta.
The development appears feasible and will require a permit review and approval
by the Board of Managers of the t4innehaha Creek Watershed District.
Some of the District's concerns in development of this type include that:
l. The quality of storrnvater runoff leaving the site after development shail
be equivalent to runoff quaiity for the existing condition. thiscriteria shal1 be analyzed and met for runoff pioducing events with areturn frequency of one year.
2. Appropriate erosion controi rcthods are in place to prevent the transportof sediments off site during and after construction.
3. Prompt restoration of the disturbed area be completed uri th seed and mulchor sod,
4. Requirenents jisted under Ru)e D may a1 so apply.
Thank _you for the opportunity-to-corffnent. If you have any questions, pleasefeei free to contact rp at 473-4224.
Sincerely,
EUGENE A. HICKOK A}.ID ASSOCIATES
A Division of James lvl. ,{ontgomery, Consulting Engineers
Engineers for the Di stri ct,t,^(."A^^-
Kevin C. Larson , Engineer
Board
L. Smith
R. Brandt, Brandt Engi neeri ng
AUG i] i] I9BB
crrY oF chAi\hAsssll
ff5
cc:
wrIERSfiE0 loutortt
Following our on-site revie\,r, Jerry Smith and I haveconfirmed the delineation of the vretlands at tvro sites; onenear Lake tucy Road, and the other Northwest Nursery Company(see field 5-nvestigation dated June 30, 1988).
At the Northwest Nursery company site, Jerry Smith and Iagreed on the location of the wetland boundary. I"Ie agreedthat some fill activity may have already occuired, and weagreed that r^retlands will- be impacted should any additionalfill be placed on the two locations we investigitea at thenursery.
At the Lake Lucy Lake/Lake tucy Road site, Jerry and Iagreed on t-hs boundary around approximately 90% of thewetLand perimeter. The 10% difference ties in a south$restggller and is not planned for fil1 activity, so thedifference in our j udgments need not be fuiiher reduced.
Sub ect:Report of Field Investigation of Three WetlandSites within the City of Chanhassen, carverCounty, Minnesota
Field Investigator:PauI Burke, St. PauI Field Office
Date: August, 11, 1988
The developer for the sitescene and $re i.rere abLe toreducing wetland impacts .conversation with Mr. Carderell on the conclusion that hisplans would like1y be covered by a nationwide permit, and. weadvise<l him to work out the remiining wetland -issues'with
Ms. JoAnn Ol-sen of the City of Chanhassen.
The field investigation team of O1sen, Smith, and Burke al-sovisited the proposed location for the Shorewood OaksDevelopment. This wetland call has been clouded bycontradictinq judqments over the past year. At firstobservation, Jerry and I could quickly see why there $reredifferences in wetland caI1s; the site contains severalspecies of facultative hydrophytes that are distributed inclumps around the lower 3 acres at the site. The positiveindi.cators include topography (the 1ow end of the iield) andthe following plant species:
Reed canary grass ( pha]aris arundi,nacea )American elm
Box el-der
( UImus americanus )
,adi sc
Jer
Mr. carderell, arrived on theuss plan modifications forry and I closed our
(Acer negundo
*qt
However, the field was dominated by grasses and bromes thatwere not recognized as members of the vretlands plants 1ist,and the field contained several examples of Canada goldenrod(Solid?qo cana4ensis) and red cedar (Juniperus virginiana).Both of these later species are uplandlfEEIEl and=Ea--cedar, in particular, is intolerant of saturated rootsduring the growing season. Due to the lack of obligatehydrophytes, the lack of dominance by facultativehydrophytes, and the presence of upland j_ndicator species,it was determined that the subject sj_te r^ras not a wetland.
n\{t
,<€wA SH14
i,0
(E €
I
t2
W DRIVE
ENOAL DRIV E
3 MAPLE ORIVE
a
(
!
?I
RESTVI
,lt
V,E
o-,q
"t""
:li
CHAFLES AN DE RS
--f - __.-ia'
-.1
i
1 L1/l)
E
548
HOWARO E HALLGREN
Bl< 9A
AA R SARA MAY HEAOLA
aN7
tt
BANAANA MAY HEADLA
!i 7r, P 274 ' ,?,
CItA6LES H LAWSON
;A
(e
( a )t-l
ll III
t. )t
-""1"
7
i.erie[s]ttL
5 /6
3._.il
'o ', i
12
r5
l9r'f
PLEASANT ACRES HOM! OWNER S4wl'>lE
3
5
./
OUTLOT B
t.
2 (a.
'5
a1
/t '{ .rQrL'
I;III
2
3 2
a
t5
(
ri
2
l
t5
l3
4
tZ
a T9
_6
2
,5
I
tE
AIJG 15 ',Aa 6A:45 P.3/6
37t)699<
ARnCLtS OP IuORtoR/lTloN
0!'
X*"/e
AR?ICLSS OS IN-@p.P0&,'.TI0N enrared into rhi6 Zth rla of !.larch 1968by and between the undcrsiEned subrcribers, all a dulr a t t€ns of
Po
ited Strles, uho herehy associ.ate theoselveg together as a bodytitic qnder a$C ?ursuant to ihe p;ovisiDns ot ChaDtrr fl7, !,t!rne.otaStatus Annotated, knoun as tle llinnesola NcnproflE CorporalioB Actr and tbe:,ai!opt the follorrtng gaolrsed Chsrt€a:
Tle nahe
Association.
AtrlICIE I
oI ttls Corporation shall be plealarrt 6creE Uor.e Orrners
A<TICLE 11
(l). the purpose of tbb Corgorariet 6hatl bc:
I
2
5
RecEeation facilities for residerls of the pleasant
^crcsCodrrnity, Chaohassen vil]age, Carwer Ccunty. Minncsola.
fo organize. establirh, conduct aod maintain aacilities analacccBriodalions to engble its rEnbers lo Gnjqy outaloor recreatio[on properli. oessd by this Corporation.
AGT! CLE ItI
noi aflord pec'rniary gain, incidentally or
To construct. hirc, Purchasc, orrn, leale, oper.tc, Jqairoge, natntaiIr,
acquire by 6ift br devise, arld !O sell and disggse of all sGalr d personal propcrtrr :recessary. iocident or convenient !o tlre
cenduct sttd purpose of this Corporation..
To asseis such dues and r5intenan4e fces to its neEbel6 ss an3y Derecessary for the furtheranc. of the l'rrpose of the Corporation.
fo bcrror rnodey fo! cotporat6 prlaFoses and Eo rdke, acceptr indorge,
execrile aod is-r:lt I'tor.rissDry noteg, bills of cxctrangg, bonis, deUeo-tuses or other obli€alirns froh Ciiiz to tir.€ Eor. lhe purch.se otgre;erty or for any p'riposa in carrying ort the aiur and purposeg
og the CorpDra;io!l, and l. seco;e F.ayF.€lrt oi any such obtigationgb, ooatgaS€, plelgc, assiEnie:rt of deed of truit o! oLherwige.
(B) !h€ foreSoing clauses 5h.Il be eorstrued both as objects acd porers,
.nd enunelation of s?ecific purposes therei.n ahall noc be hetd tolinit or restEict in any ..raoner ths gorcrs of thir Cor?oratloo, aad.r€ in fuEtherance of .nl in addition to, and nei in tioitation of,,the general !to..rer' c,rnferrec by rhe la*s.o! the St3!o oE Hinnasots, -and each ot thc purposer, objcct! aod gr.ers speaificd ln lhia a.ticl€6hall be reearded as i;:jcpende^t purposes, objects altd pglJeG6 anal ahallln no wisc be li:t.i.!ed bt r€fer€ncc io or inEerenca froEl thc lera|ls o!
any other cleuse, paragreph or s!aieme:rE of lhir er!icle.
4
L
ihis Corporatio( shall
oltelvise, to its LPibcri,
c-1_6
H6
Plcasani Acres llone olneas l,ssociation'
P.4/6.
*+Yrfu"
ATTICI,E IV
fhe period of duration olshall be pe.petua t.corporate existence of this Corporation
lhe tocation ofstate ist Route 1r
AR?ICLS V
-tbe registered office of the Corporatior in tblsBox 836, Excelslor; Itionesora.
The Corpora tiona scal.
Aettct E vl
6hall have no capitat sto.L anal siall not have
'l
Excelsior, l,ti.rn.ExcetsioE, irlon.
Pleasant
Pleasant
Plensant
Plsasact
PI€asant
Excelsior,
Excels ior,
Ercelsior.
ItinD
inn
RoDeE! J. Lindahl, ?residcit -Hilliam J. Kerberr Vice Prciident -K: ren A. Ande!son, Secrelary
Janes D. llarCy, TreasuEer
Jsr€s D. Eennyhoff, &epresenLa!iwe -
Routc I
IlDule I
Roule I
rlcute I
Rourc I
Tbe Banagcnent of this Corporatlon shatl be vest€d in a Board ofDirectora of not less than three, nor !:ors tt'rn ten, alt of $hcm shill be
heEbers ot the Coagoration. ii.e lirrt Baard of Directoas is to be conposof the persons ehose na4es anr-l addresses are set f,orlh in Article Sevcnhoreof. Said gersons shall hgld oftiae f.r a tern of orre (l) year ard untheiE resPecllwe soccessors shatl be dlrly elected and qual.ified.
A&TICLE VIIi
In the case of a r.rcancy !n rhe goard of Dlrecrors, the
ed
tit
he
tenure in ofticeof e successoi Ehall be the reda:,nder cltie terir of the director
such \€caBcy.
leaving
ARIICII IX
There shall be no pers:naL tiabilily of [)ehbers for corporete obl 1ga
ons and there s5:ll ba no irethod of enforcen€it and cotleclioo oE eo rp.te obligatione agains! the aenbeEs.
AiiTI CLE X
fhc oe{Deaship ol this Co!.?o.ation shall be :.initcd to rcsid€nt3 of
*ti
area kn6r:r as Plealaot Acre9, Chsnha6sen Village, Carver Counly, llinne3o!a.
b at"
e-rc ri ,ea m'as
[- '.)
ARTICLE IZI
The nanes and addresses of the grese[t perscns who are Eo acE nsincorporators ahd in-ihe ca?acity of grlncipit officers (oircctors) untllEic EeleCtion of thcir srrccossors aac as follo,,.r!
+
e-
P.5/6
^RTICLU
XI
the right lo repeal, qlter'o. ameod thi.s charter a! any ticB i5
hereby e:<pressly reseEved, bu! any alteratign, oodiflcelion. or a!0edlss4t
Eade to said charter shatl be governed by and shall Eot coBflict eith thg
pEgvisions of the )rioBesota Nonprgfit Corpg.ation Act.
unto se! our hands this 14thIN TESTI!,oNY WHEREOE, e. bive her€
day of l{erch, 1958
llitne3ses:-l
a
l.larch,I95E
county,Persooally aPPsar€d,
Robert J. Lindahl , lrilliao J. lGrber, Kiren A. tnderson' JaEe6 D. Bennyhoff
& Jaoes D. Hardy , to Ele knq"'rl to be the persons described in and !]ho oraecqted
Ehe Ecregolng instruoert and ackno4lodged that th€!. executed tha saeg 6s
thBir freo aat and deed.
STATE OF }IINNESdDA )
) ss.
@U!rTY oF ltErfiEPlN ) or thk 14th day ot
boEore rs e
^-otaEy
Public r,rith-ii-EiE-Eor saia
tE
!r.i -iJ.\. I +.i L.-{i,.\rL-r-'r
ri {. i--.
ia.t;i,;i"llS'3?A ij
IDil:i].!:iiilli Of g:,,1i :
I hemur ceilrii t:i?t t:ie $:tiin
initrune;ll r,rii iri:J li, recird i[ tiis
oltice o, the / / ;r, ot hht-ztr.A.D.$€E;:?;,@;,
,nd was drly rcc dcd in Baot Y--24
ol loc0rloraiions. o,l oace/.1,,12* {/iL..,.*.*
() So.r6rary o, Srlto
APPR'D llt-ED
c
L c1.l-':
AJG 15 '88 B:45 x-#
Jriitr x
,1I r:.r
.-r
lfJG 15 'AA @:47
fJ-' 5/ossss
Ot e- ,/
at'
i,fi25 ,l
I e [,-f.
Lg"-,:-j
:?a?:6s 699I s c03.00:or.
-ol:i-li o. ,.tiriiSTEF 0i DEEDS
STATS 0:: \,:;j
".:isol4C4Uii y ui r:,,..i.J-:a
I h!. ,r4 : r?ifu th!;r tr :L.jt!;: t t..:,.r--!!:!
ltlit Jii.! 1,., , t,:- I :.: :":! ;... ,. :.t,tJlg.,,llllryr. x.,,.gg i9. .. 1,,.,1
-. . -t: _ ',t . !:4!i .t.! ir:t r:ar.t . :.: ltvk-r 7... .;..tflfu.t:' -,,,.l/t.iii.
..9aA.L.. U, lbzt<a-n' ..-- .-
% rn'-.&-
Et. t 8-o-/ $a
OF'ICE OF REGISTER OF DEEDS,
STATE OF [lIiII\, ESOTA,
County of Henaepi!
I lerby cetily tbat tb. uitbiL in-
ba ;a b* s{fifu lot
A. D. )958, e,
a *as duly ,ecat.led in BaL ri o!
He,n pi, Cobtt! R.corAs
oaoalc. 370699s
3?r- s/3u
R .t'.
)
t[01. ,. .|rbt/,zlL|1/A".,*
L
Uoss
i
I
I
7a.r/4
CITY OF
EH[I{HISSEN
690 COULTER DHIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ :
Jo Ann 01sen, Assistant City Planner
Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator
August 11, 1988
Country Estates
I
Realizing that a request of 5 acres irom this 10 acre site wouldbe unreascnable, the Commission woul.i Like approximatley 1 acrealong the south boundary of this development. The rationale forthis location is that additional parkland can be added rrhen
development occurs to the south.
The Park and Recreation Commission has lirected staff to workwith the developer to identify a parcel elong the south boundaryof the site for parkland. They have asked that this item bebrought back to them before going Eo the City Council.
ia
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the site plan for
Country Estates at the their las-r meeting. The Commissiongenerally has a policy to requesr parkland of not less than 5
acres in size. In this case, hoaever, they feel that a smallerrequest of parkland is aporopriate because this area is so defi-
cient of such.
I,AND DEVELOPIIENT APPLICATION
CITT OT CEAIIE.AS SEN
690 Coulter Drive
ChatrhasseD, MN 55317(612) 937-1900
APPLICANT:(--)+,) l, Jn/;OWNER:/-4 CL/oO K
ADDRES S f,+ ru {-ADDRESS Ltoo ol"L,40 1z //
55?7
TELEPHoNE (oaytime) Y 7t-floo Code fEtbrr(0tE LEPHONE 88v-3982 . ZiD Codeh",---o?D;-
PROJECT NA}18
PRESENT I,AND
REOUESTED LAN
1p
USE PLAN DESIGNATION
D USE Pf,AN DESIGNATION
Zoning District Change
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Variance
Zoning Text Anendment
Land Use Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
Site Plan Review
Planned Unit Development
_ Sketch Plan
_ Preliminary plan
Final PIan
Subdivi s i on
\,/A elatting
_ Metes and. Bounds
Stree t,/Eas ement Vacation
Wetlands Permitx_
lz_srPRESENT ZONING
REQUESTED ZONI
USES PROPOSED
NGS
Jt
srzE oF pRopERry 1a ,12- a-gLaJ
A
LOCATION e/"
Rnaqn^rc
That part of GoverrurEnt Lot 5' Section 5' TcaInshiD 116' Range 23 lyijlg South
of the south une of Lttl"i, "i
'--a-r ' eiocx 9 '.einsavr ACRES and lvjns west
of tle extension soutneriv-;iG wt;i line of outlot A' PLEASAIIT ACRES '
and -dz c^^+ ^r c.airl ftn/errfient Lot 5 lYing Faqt of ttE
ilIa *ta of tfrc south 396 feet of said Goverflre:
"*t".,!io., soutrrerrv tt t# iEIi il;;; "tia outrot A' and rvjrrs west or
a line described as follot*s:
Beqijlnijlq at a point ot'
'it'I'so"tn line of- said.GoverrfiEnt Lot
594.2 feet East of an t"tir"*"i to*t tho":fl thence North
i;;;id;;".h ii". rso feet and there tertlLinatans'
5. distant
ffitroa ,. PLEASANT ACRES, accordjng to trE recorded plat tltereof ' carver
Corinty, Minnesota.
\
?G1"7boo znoi"'/
Q3l - 7ao / Rco /f, ,FE.o,/
REQUEST:
)t
City of Chanhassen
Land Development ApplicationPage 2
FT L TNG IT\STRUCTION S:
FTLING CE RTIFT CA?TON:
S igned
>!-.-Signed B
F
City Receipt No.
t This Application willBoard of Adj ustmentsmeeting.
Date Application Recdf. ve
Application u"" n^,,#/)70
?-JJ-8r
29 3i7
t0c eJq *,1pt-
This application must be completed in fu,l_I and be typewritten orclearly printed and must Ue a"co.pani.a-Oy a.LI information andplans required bv aopricauie-a;t;t;;i;"nce provisions. Beforefiling this applic"ii?!, you shoirld confer with the City plannerto derermine rhe soeciri.'"iain"i;; ;;;'p.o"edural requiremenrsapplicable to your'application. --'-- ---
The undersigned reoresentative of the applicant hereby certifiesthat he is familiai witn lrre-ir;;u;ii;"irr"quiremenrs of aL,applicable City Ordinances.
1
The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has beenA::::ii::: to make this appric"ti""-i",.,the ploperty herein
nt
Owne r
Date
d t
too ia+
be cons idered
and Appeals at
l5o 641 C.z
ltik-
2,5
I
t'lD -by the
thei r
,
I
I
Planning Commission/
Dat e
PHONE: l6'l2) 884-3aa2
Shorewood Oaks Develo pment, fnc.
6 r 00 AUTO CLUB ROAD o SUlTE314. BLOOMINGTON. MN 55438
,July 25, 1983
To: Neighbors of Proposed Country 0aks Development
Regarding: I'leeting - 7:00 p.m. Thursdal,, August 4, 1988
Dear Neighbors:
I have reserved the chambers in the lower level of the Chanhassencity hall so that we may get together and discuss any questions and
concerns that ycu might have regarding the pending project. It will
be heipful to everyone to have your .innut prior to the upcomingpublic hearings et the pianning conmission and city council.
I am enclosing a copy of the letter submitted to the citygiving information about myself and my companies.
Please attend this meeting or call me at my home office 884-3882
or rry construction office E35-5400.
Thank you.
S i nce rely,
Da d A. Jo hnso n
Presi dent
Encl .
Barb Dacy - Cjty of Chanhasserr
tu-;L-.-.-
A.
PHONE: {612) 884-3882
Shorewood Oaks Develo pment, Inc.
6I00AUTOCLUBROAD. SUITE 314 o BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438
INFORJT,ATION REGARDING:
David A. Johnson
Estate Bvlker, Land Developer, Builder
Real Estate Agent - Bloomington Realty
Real Estate Agent - The Realty House, Inc.
Reai Estate Byrker - The Real ty House, Inc.
Real Estate Broker - .Iohnson-Laden Co., Inc.
Also 2/3 Stockholder and President
Broker and l/25 Stockholder -The Realty House, Inc.
Prcsident of lhe Realty House, Inc.
Vice President and 50% Stockholder, Johnson-Reiland
Construction, I nc.
President and 50% Stockholder, Shorewood 0aks Development,Inc.
Real
I-l-68 to 5-l-69:
5-l-69 to I970:
1970 to 1972:
1972 thru 1975:
I976 thru present:
1988:
1975 to 1986:
]980 to 1986:
1987 to present: President and I00% Stockholder, Shorewood 0aks
Developnent, Inc.
.l988 to present: President and l00Z Stockholder, Johnson-Johnson &
Johnson, Inc.
Because of health reasons, Dan Reiland and I swapped our 50% stockownership :g that he now owns I00% of Johnson-Reiiand construction, Inc. andI now own 100% of Shoreulood Oaks Development, Inc. and 100% of a newconstruction conpany, Johnson-Johnson & .lohnson, Inc.
Shorewood 0aks Development, Inc. has deveioped the following projects:
l. Southcross Woods - Burnsville: consisting of 77 single familylots and 32 townhome sites.
2. Highland V Estates - Burnsville: 30 townhomes
3. Shorelood 0aks - Shorewood: Z3 single family lots sold andoptioned to Lundgren Brothers Constiuction. -
4. Sunmit Oaks - Burnsviile: i49 single farnily executive lots for
homes $200,000.00 and up with homei cumentiy being built by
Johnson-Reiland Construction, Inc. and 4 othLr buiiders, plusa 4 acre strip retail center in Burnsyille.
Page 2 - Information Regarding - David A. Johnson
Brentridge - Shorewood: 24 single fami)y 1ots, Johnson-Johnson &
Johnson, Inc. is building the homes here. As of July ,l988, there
are 8 homes under construction ranging from $.l85,000.00 to
over $300,000.00.
My next project is just now being presented to the city of Chanhassen.It will be called "Country oaks" and consists of 27 lots, one of which
has an existing home on it at 6720 !"lapl e Road. I intend to have pr"otective
covenants governing both the size of the homes and the construction design
and materials. At this point, I anticipate the homes selling for a price
of $150,000.00 to $200,000.00. I have not decided if Johnson-Johnson &
Johnson, Inc. will be the oniy builder orif I will sell lots to other
builders. In either case the architectural control committee will make
sure that this is a quality project.
David A. Johnson
Pres i dent
(
P.C. DATE: Sept. 7, I988
C.C. DATE: Sept. 26, 1988
EHINHAgSEI[
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO: LUPA 88-5
Rezoning 88-1
Prepared by: Dacy: k
Fz
()
=LL
Eo
trJF
U)
Land Use Plan Anendment Request to redesignate
8.6 acres from low density residential to
medium density residential.
Rezoning request from RSF and R-4 to R-8,
Mixed Medium Density Residential
LOCATION :
APPLICANT:Gary Carlson
3831 West 62nd
Excelsior, MN
S tree t
5s331
of Church Road and StateNorthwest corner
Highway 7
PROPOSAL:1.
2.
PRESENT ZON ING:RSF, ResidenLial Single Family and R-4,
Mixed Low Density Residential District
ACREAGE:8.5 acres
DENS ITY :4.L9
4.72
unitsunits
per
per
acre
acre
( gross )
( net )
ADJACENT
AND LAND
ZONING
USE:N-
S-
E-
w-
RSF,
RSF,
RS F,
RSF,
City of Shorewood Park
Chanhassen Fire S tat ion
Single Famil-y
Vacant wetlands
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the property
PHYSICAL CHARAC. :This site is fai.rIY
located off-site to
Ievel with the wetland
the southwest .
2OOO LAND USE PLAN: Residential , Iow density
CITY OF
A Boo
OT
!'
I
ooo oot-
ooo
rr)oo
rt
ooot g
14
oo
@
oooo\ttl
6300
64OO_
5500
CA
La<,oq"*,,cF KEe,cr.lr) l-ANz, !{tp n-5t.1A'.4gN Y.lY Eh-]l
at
Ilc)
..r...,6500
670
6800
8900
TrOo =--...-
7200--
LAKE,
IIINIIEUA., HTA
PUD-R RD
L
7000
G,
C
\
300'l7 IAPLE 3xonEg
DiIVE
.oo
I
T
7@O
w.7 l62t{0
\
r
A I
t
,vF-
€lrtIr
I \I--!lll9E_io A o
aU'
rz
E
lro
ts(-)
-.]CrF
77oo---F
IB
I
I
LAKI
REFERRAL AGENCIES
Building Inspector
l,!nDOT
Public Safety Director
No adverse
At t achmen t
Attachment
commen t s .
*4
#s
BACKG ROUND
On April 11 , 1988, the City Council approved the preliminary plat
request to subdivide the subject property into 12 single family
lots and 4 twinhone 1ots. The Council also approved the rezoning
of the twinhome lots along TH 7 from RSF to R-4. A wetland
alternation permit was also received. The Planning Commission
reviewed these items at the March 16, 1988 meeting.
The development contract for construction of the street and uti-
lities has been executed and the plat is currently in the process
of being filed with the Recorder's Office. Utilities have been
installed on the property and preliminary road lvork has been ini-
tiated.
AN ALYS I S
LAND USE PLAN AI"IENDIVIENT
The applicant is proposing the construction of 12 twinhomes and 4
fourplex homes on lots that have been aPproved and platted for
single family and twinhome Iots (see building elevations and
applicant's letter). The proposed number of units totals 36
units which equates to a development density on a net acreage
basis of 4.72 units per acre. The development density exceeds
the development density permitted in the current Comprehensive
PIan which at this time is a maximurn of 3.4 units per acre in the
1ow density residentiaL category. The applicant is therefore
requesting that the Land Use PIan be amended to redesignaLe this
site to a medium density parcel.
The current Comprehensive PIan idenLifies the range
tlensity land as from 3.5 units per acre to 6.9 units
The proposed Comprehensive PIan is written to a1low
per acre to I0 units per acre. The project would be
the threshold of Iow density to medium density.
for meoiumper acre.
4.6 uni.tsjust above
In reviewing the Land Use PIan and Zoning ordinance in the past,
the Planning Commission has identified two areas to be suitable
for higher density development: in Lake Susan Ilills wesL, south
of the Industrial Office Park district and around the doerntown
area. other areas in the City where townhouses or multi-family
units are located are the Chaparral development, the Saddlebrook
development, the Red Cedar Cove to$rnhome development and the
Minnevrashta Creek subdivision located across the subiect pro-
Carlson LUPA 88-6 and Rezoning 88-t
September 7, 19 88
Page 2
Carlson LUPA 88-6 and Rezoning 88-1
September 7, 1988
Page 3
Despite the developerrs intentions to build the proposed types ofunits as indicated on the plan drawings, the City must sti1l con-sider whether or not the subject location is appropriate for ahigher density development category. Under the current
Comprehensive P1an, up to 6.9 units per acre would be permitted
on the property. Under the proposed Comprehensive PIan, up to 10units per acre would be eligib1e. Currently a1l of the land useon the north and west side of Lake Ir{innewashta is designated aslow density residential except for park areas and the commercialarea on the southwest corner of TH 7 and TH 41. Redesignatingthis parcel as medium density would be a departure from Lhe ori-ginal Iand use plan.
The medium density l-and use category would dictate a rezoning toR-4 or R-8. The R-8 district permits not only two familydwellings and, townhomes, but multiple family dwellings as we1l.Although, as pointed out by the applicant, this site is wellIocated at an intersection and is isolated on the west by thewetland area and the park to the north, the City must stilldecide as to wheLher or not this type of l-and use is compatiblewith the existing land use patterns, Further, given that theCity has already approved a development plan for the parcel whj,chcurrently matches the Iand use pattern in the area, it must bedecided whether or not intensifying that pattern is rvarranted.
Sewage capacity exists to accommodate the additional units thatcould be located on the property. Church Road, as part of theconstruction of the Lake Virginia Forcemain, wiIl bereconstructed to an urban section roadway. TH 7 in this locationcurrently has traffic counts of approximately 10,000 ADT.A significant amount of traffic would use Church Road south to TH7. The small amount of traffic that r,Jould travel back throughthe neighborhoods to the north would be minimat as there is nodirect route to any major destination point Lo the north.
The proposed land use change, however, does pose a change ofcharacter from the existing large 1ot single family developmentcurrently existing in the Church Road area. Although theapplicant proposes construction of only 35 units, 50-60 unitscould be located on the property.
The Iots in the subdivision could be combined to have apartmentbuildings or another form of multiple family construction suchthat they would be allowed to construcL up to 7 units per acre.
perty. In fact, one of the reasons for approval of rezoning thesubject site to the R-4 and RSF zoning plan was because of thelocation adjacent to TH 7 and a simi,lar zoning and land use pat-tern on the south side of TH 7.
S UMMARY
Redesignating the parcel lo medium density departs fron theexisting land use plan and would constitute a change of density
and character from existing development. There are options,
however, to contsrol the types of housing through the rezoningaction.
REZONING
Carlson LUPA 88-6 and Rezoning 88-I
September 7, 1988
Page 4
The applicant is requesting rezoning of the site from RSF,Resitlential Single FamiIy and R-4, Mixed Low Density Residentialto R-8, Mixed Medium Density Residential Distlict. The R-8
district permits two family, townhouses, and multiple family
structures. The submitted development plan indicates 4
fourplexes to be located on Lots 9, 10, 11 and 16 and the
remaining lots in twinhomes. The R-8 districc does require 150
ft. of 1ot depEh. Lot 4 and Lot 1 do not meet the I50 ft. lot
depth requirement. Variances would have to be granted, or a
replat would have to be filed. A11 other lot area and setback
requirements are met. by the proposed development plan.
Despite the developerrs good intentions to build Ehe units as
proposed under the R-8 zoning, the lots can be combined and lhe
zoning district would permiL apartment buildings and townhome
stsructures that could be developed on the property at a higher
density than intended by the applicant. Secondly, while staff
has no objection to the proposed housing styles and. encourages
their location within the city, it is a departure from t.he
existing land use pattern.
Another zoning pattern contemplated with the applicant is
rezoning the entire parcel to R-4 which would permit twinhomes
throughout the subdivision. Lot sizes would have to increase on
the twinhome lots to 20,000 sq. ft. some lots would have to be
subtracted under the R-4 pattern ( replatting would have to be
accomplished). The R-4 rezoning would not require the land use
plan amendment because the density would still be within the low
density range.
Another option is to rezone the trrinhome lots to R-4, and the
fourplex lots to R-8. ?he R-4 zoning would stiLl require reduc-
tion in the number of lots ( replatting) and the R-8 district
would be limited to four lots. The R-8 district would still
al1ow apartments or other forms of attached housing if lots were
to be combined. The land use plan change would still be
necessary.
A t.hird option would be tso designate the development as a PUD.
The PUD could stipulate construction based on a specific develop-
ment plan. Rezoning actions, in contrast., cannots be based on
specific contract or pIan.
Carlson LUPA
September 7,
Page 5
88-6 and
r988
Rezoning 88-1
ff the City is agreeabJ.e to the applicant's proposal-, the pUDthe R-4,/R-8 option would limit the construction to two familyfourplexes. (There would be a possibility for the R-B lots topermit other mul-ti-family structures if lots were combined.)
rt should be noted that during the plat review the city and lrnDornoted that the driveway entrance on Lot 16 should be located asfar north as possible. Therefore, the southerly drivewayentrance into the fourplex on Lot 16 would not be permitled andshould be realigned in some manner to share with the north drive-way or Lot 16 should, as originally proposed, remain as atwinhome lot.
The proposed units will be rental and notIncluded in the attachments are drawingsproposed fourplex and two family.
or
and
individually owned.of the exteriors of the
The City Attorney has also advised that the ordinance wouldrequire that the fourplex homes on Lots 9, 10, 11 and lG wouldrequire site plan review prior to construction. As
n or., written, the ordinance only exempts single family and throfamily construction from site plan review requiremenls (Section20-106). A development plan similar to the one attached wouldhave to be submitted and approved.
A.revised utility plan showing service connections should be pro-vided to the City Engineerts office for approval .
SUM!4ARY
ii
cou 1d
and
RECOMMENDAT I ON
By rezoning all of the parcel to R-8, there is the possibilitythat Ehe lots can be combined to allow apartment or othermult.iple family dwelling structures at a density of up to g unit.sper acre. This land use pattern would be more intense than theexisting land use pattern in the area which consists of singlefamily homes and twin homes. On the other hand, if the Citywishes_ to approee the applicant's proposal, other options aieavailable to implement the proposed development ratirer thanrezoning to R-8.
Further, the Commission and Council should also note thatthese applications are approved that a similar applicationbe processed for the site on the southeast cornei of TH 7Minnewashta parKway.
Given this analysis and given the City's past policies on loca-tion of higher density districts, staif aL this time cannotrecommend approval of the rezoning and land use plan amendmentchange as proposed. Staff and applicant have diicussed otheroptions which should be discusse-- Oy the Commission and the
Counc i 1 .
Carlson LUPA 88-6 and Rezoninq 88-1
September I, 1988
Page 6
If the applications are approved by the Planning Commission andthe CounciI, it is recommentied that the applicant:
1 S ubmi t
to the
a revised utility plan
lots.showing service connections
2. Submit a site plan application
If the Planning Commission chooses tofollowing motion is recommended:
the 4 fourplex homes.
the application, the
for
deny
"The Planning Commission recommends denial of Land Use PIan
Amendment Reguest f88-6 and Rezoning Request #88-1 based on thefollowing tindings:
The densit.y permitted in the medium density residential
category and t.he R-8 zoning distrct would permit a land
use pattern which is more intense in scale and character
than the existing land use pattern.
ATTACHPIENTS
1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Letter from applicant dated July 26, 1988.
Excerpt from existing Comprehensive PIan.
Excerpt. from proposed Comprehensive Plan.
Letter from MnDOT dat.ed April 27, L988.
Memo from Jim Chaffee dated August 26, 1988.
Examples of fourplex and two family elevations and floor
Letter from Mike Kerber dateal August 24, 1988.
Letter from Mark and Patricia McPherson dated August 5,
Letter from Terry To1e.
Application.Lot sizes.
Land Use Plan.
R-4 and R-8 Districts.
Development Plan stamped Received August 5, 1988.
p1ans.
1988.
II.
12.
13.
14.
July 26, 1988
City of Chanhassen
590 coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55318
cary D. carlson
Deve l oper
Dear Sirs:
I am the owner and developer of lilinnewashta Meadows, a newsubdivision that has been recently approved. The property iscurrently zoned R-l for Lots 1 through 8 and 12 through 15.Lots 9, 10, 11 and 16 are zoned R-4. I woul,d like to requestthat it be rezoned to R-8 to permit the construction of fourover/under four family homes that look like twin homes on Lots9, I0, 1I and 15 and ten overlunder two family homes which willlook exactly like single family homes on the balance of theIots. I believe that this rezoning will be in the cityrs bestint.erest as nell as being the best possible use for t.he
pro per ty.
I am proposing this change for a number of reasons. Theyare as follows:
1. The property is not ideally suited for singlefamily residents. The property is immediately
North of a very busy Highway No. 7 and isacross from the Chanhassen - Lake MinnewashtaFire Station. The property is bordered on theEast by a collect.or street, Church Road. Northof Minnewashta Meadows is the Cathcart NeighborhoodPark. The property to the West is wetlands and
appears to be unsuitable for devetopment. Theproposed change in zoning norks well because theproperty is not ideally suited for single familyresidences and is isolated on all four sides.
The property owners that are affected by thiszonLag, are in favor of the proposal.
The neighborhood would remain very residentialin appearance. The two family homes are allover/under residences and look very much likesingle family homes.
4. The proposed use does not. have the highestdensity Ehat R-8 would permit. Zoning of R-gwould permit. a maximum of 6E units. trt yproposal would be to build only 36 units onthe 8.77 acres. R-1 or R-4 peimit.s 28 units.
We would be willing to agree to a maximum of36 units in this subdivision.
)
3
The dwellings proposed lrould be
units. The design includes the
excellent rental
following:
r)
Ouality construction.5.5' insulated air space between separateceiling and floor joists to eliminate
sound transfer from unit to unit.
2 x 6 construction with R-22 ralls.
Aluminum clad thermal windows.
R-50 ceil ing insulat ion.
No maintenance s iding.
Aluminum soffit and facia.
Adequate garage and off street parking.
Electric garage door openers.Tightfist Whirlpool gas furnaces.
Highest quality vinyl floor coverings and
carpets.
Each unit will have its own washer and
dryer hookups.
Large closets.
BeautiEuL Tudor Oak kitchens with a breakfast
Dining room with swing patio doors leading to
large deck or pa t io.
The roof lines will be varied (Hip, Dulchhip,
and so forth). There will be a diversity
of the look of the dtrelling units and the
enEire project will be a very attractive,
pleasant place to l ive.
Two of the homes will have handicaP
accessability (this is something Ehat I
feel strongly about - I am the parent of
a handicapped child ) .
s)
The homes sould be filling a major need in the
city of Chanhassen, Lhat. for aEfordable rentaL
housing. At, the presenL time there is very
little rental property for families available.
A family in a unit with a lawn and a yard for
children t.o play is much preferable to an
apartment bu ilding.
the
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
m
n
o
bar.
a
P)
6
7. The Iots are adequate size to handle the tt o and
four family homes. The proposed two family homes
are all on lots that are in excess of 15,000 square
feet and the four family homes are on lots in
excess of 20r 000 square EeeB.
The planning commission and the city stafE have been
excellent to work with in refining the plat and improvement
plan for Minnewashta Meadows. A11 of Ehe commission members
ind council members devoE.ed considerabl.e time and effort in
5
a
b
c
d
f
s
h
1
)
k
rrorking out the best pLan for both the city and for me. Inthat plan I did agree to and make concessions for the city in a
number of areas:
(1) I granted a street Easement for eventual hookup tothe property to the West.
(21 I donated land 17 feet x 523
Church Road improvement.
(3) I am clearing up any of the
on the property including a
garage.
feet to the city for
present buildings
home, shed and
Thank you very much for your consideration of thisproposal. If you would like any conditions or modifications inthe proposal, I wou),d certainly be more than happy Lo meet withyou and go over any concerns that you may have. f am alwaysavailable to answer your quesEions.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
\
,,1 --rC\ /1
. '-.fr.,wt ^.-''.( /n , (.\ ^--cary d.l carrsd * '1--"J4-' '\
(4) we are establishing a berm on the South side,to protect the entire neighborhood from thenoise and traffic of Highway No. 7.
(5) Sewer and water access has been provided to thatportion of Church Road East of Minnewashta Meadows.
(6) I provided an additional 20 foot nat.ure trail
Easement all along Church Road.
(7) Minnewashta Meadows will be planted with severalgroupings of naEive sugar maples to blend into thepark to the North.
Probably the clinching facEor for me is that by buildingoverlunder units we have dwellings Chat are the right size forthe lot.s. We will be building affordable housing and we willbe doing it without any public assistance or subsidiarieswhatsoever.
,Residential - Medium Density (R-14D) - ttre residential _ MediumDensi ty designation is intended to accommodate mul tiple uses andmore specifically, townhouses and quadrominium units. A grossdensity range of 3.5 - 6.9 dwelling units per acre is cov6red bythis category and the average density is estimated at 4 dwellinguni ts per -acre.
Residential .- High Density_(n-H!) - The High Density categorywhich includes units over 7 dweriings per acre, is intend6a toaccommodate apartments and condominium type uses. !lithin thisdesignation, 8 dwelling units per acre ii consr,dered;;;;ai;for Chanhassen.
!jnSle fami 1y housing has. histor.icaily been the mainstay ofChanhass-enrs housing stock. As noted earl.ier, tne peiiiniage ofsingle family units compared to the entire housing 'base has-beendecreasing in recent years. This trend is expeci6d-io-coniinr"throughout the 1980rs. By 1990, it is anticiirated that apIrox-i.mately 65% of.the community's housing stock wi lr be in tirL towdensity range (primarity single famil! uses) ina:SZ wi'.1 i"ie inother categori es. A breakdown by denii ty citegory appears inthe fol lowi ng table.
'I u- 50
199O Housing Mix
Residential -Residenti al -Residential -Residential -
Rural Dens i ty (R-RD)
Low Densi ty (R-LD)
Medi um Density (R-14D)
High Densi ty (R-HD)
\)
t%
65%
28%
6%
This mix assumption forms the basis for land consumption forecasts.
Land Consumption Forecast
Gross I and needs for 1990 can be cal cu I ated utilizing the definedunit mixes and density characteristics. The land consumptionforecast for 1990 is based upon the Metropolitan Council',s MUSAline and population projection of 11 ,000 beople. Chanhassen,sland consumpti on forecast is based upon a poput ati on of 17,000which, as mentioned previously, the City iebis will occur around1990.
In 1980 , Chanhassen had 2
Ci ty' s System Statement,3,700 by 1990 providing 1
,0 67
th at
,633
dwel I i ng units. Accordi ng to
number is ex pec ted to increase
new dwel 1 i ng uni ts.
the
to
By applying the anti ci pated mix percentages, average densitiesand.allowing a 50ii overage in total Iand-demand, CIanhassenanti ci pates the fol lowi ng res i den ti al growth.
Uarr<et conditions consiitute one of the strongest individualinfLuences on housing type. Energy costs, f :.iancint i"a----materials cosrs, land prices ana intlation have sijiiiicantimpacts. on buyer preferences. rn order to forecasf a reasonaorefuture -housing composit.ion, density cLassificati"ns *""i-[.--defined.
difficult to forecast, the Chanhassen
.on density rather than specifyingintended to provide flexibiliti :.i ttreto acconmod.ate changes in housing styles.
categories are used in the Comprehensive
( PROJECTED RESIDENTIAL MIX)
Since housing types areland use plan will focushousing types. This isdevelopment process and
Four residential densi ty
PIan:
Residential-Low Densi ty ( R-L)ranging from L .2 Lo 4.5 drde[i - Lor,{ density consists of unitsng units per acre net density.gross density of .9 to 3.9 unitselogment type within this categoryy detached housing. An average n6tper acre will be used as a guide inosals that occur within this zone.
Ees ideptial-I.afqe Lot (R-LL) - This category has net density ofIess than 1.1 dwel1in, lnlts per acre (approximate gross density-..9-units per acre). Develoiments within trii"-"itEs.;; ;;;like1y to be either Iarge 1ot estates or rural , agri6ultuialIyoriented dwellings. For future land use projecti6n ;;;;;;;., ""average.net density of 2.5-acres.per unit wiit ue osla.' r,i.g"1ot resident.ial is presently limiied to the Hesse !,arm "r.. i.,southern Chanhassen and scatrered sites within the ;;;";;i ruraluse.area. Large lot-residential developments will 5e subject toa minimum lot size of 2.5 acres and wili Oe restricted to ageneral density of I unit per I0 acres. Addi tionak.goiuiorymeans may be necessary to enforce this stan,iard.
This equates to an approximateper acre. The predominate devis expected to be single famildensity of 2.9 dwelling unitsthe review of development prop
to accomrnodate multipleensity apartments. A ne
Res idential-Med i um Density (R-M)is intended
and lower d
The Medium densi ey designationunits including townhousest density range of 4.6 to 10by this category equating toto I units per acre. The5.8 dwelling units per acre.
dwelling units per acre is coveredan approximate gross density of 3.7average net density is estimated at
Besidential:Hiqh Denglty (g-H) - The High density category whichincludes units over Io dwElfing units p6r acre, is intena6a coaccoru[odate apartments and higier density condominium usei.!{ithin this category, 10 dweliing units per net. acre has beenused as an. average for projectioi purposes onIy. Actual de;_sities within the high_denliuy catlgoiy may be substantiallyhigher depending on individuai siue-chiracteristics and loca_tional cri ter ia.
!1ng1e family housing has historically beenChanhassen,s housing stock. the perclniage
-9-
the mainstay ofof single family
rg"ffi
/-f((
Minnesota
Department of Transportation
District 5
2O55 No. Lilac Drive
Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
April 27, 1988
Barbara Dacy, City Plarurer
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen ' UN 55317
Re
?GtveEfiffin
fuWVt,C.,i,ii: ....
?x*z;tt,!tu/tF: ,t
&riT,
(*
(612) 593- 8403
.,---.::!.:-)
APR 2 9 19gg
CITY OF CHANT.,ASSEN
l{e are io. receipt of Ehe above referenced plaE for our review in accordance
eith Llinnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03 Plats and Surveys. We find the
plat. acceptable for further development with consideratj-on of the following
comments :
- Residential developnenE is a very noise sensiEive land use. Present
noise levels along T.H. 7 exceed stale standards tor residential
developmenc. The city and developer should be aware that l'ln/DoT r.rilI
not provide any type of noise abaLement measures for new development
adjacent to exj-sLing highways. l{e suggesL every efforE be nade in
design of the developmenE to lessen the impact Lhis might have on iL.
- As you knoer, the T,H. 7 corridor study Ehrough this area recoumended
widening T.H. 7 to a five lane section' At this point' I,re have not
studied that plan in detail and Eherefore ue do not knoo hot, widening
night. impact the proposed developmenE. Lots platted directly adjacent
to I.H. 7 should probably be deeper chan normal, if possible' Eo make
the plaL nlore conrpacible wiLh future plans.
- It appears EhaE the Plat is designed so that no direct access to T.H.
7 is alloued. t{e are in agreeflent Hith this.
- The driveway for Lot. 16, BIk. 2 should be locaEed as far norEh as
possible,
- Future widening of T.H. 7 could restricl the drainage capacity of the
exisEiug ditch. The existing entrance to Lhe Lifl SEation llas an 19"
CUP inplace and lhe inpLace culverc upsErezlm at Church Road is a 24."
This could be a problenr if drainage to the existing ditch is increased.
S.P. 1004 T.H. 7 - Plat Revierd of
ltimeerashta ueado$s located i.o NW Quadratrtof T.H. 7 & Church Road io cicy of Chanhassen,
Carver Couo.ty
Dear l{s. Dacy:
An Equal Opportunitlt Emploger
t{
- A dimension betereen Che exisLing centerline of T.fl. 7 and the plat.boundary should be shoh,n on the plat.
rf you have any questions in regard to this review, prease contact EvanGreeo at 593-8537. Thank you for your cooperation in this natter.
Barbara Dacy, City planner
April, 27, 1988
Page Ti{,o
S
t{.M Crawfo
District
cc: Steve Keefe - lle ican Council
Roger Gustafson - Carver Co. Engineer
CHINHISSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P,O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
TO:
EROM:
SUBJ:
Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planne
Jin Chaffee, PubIic Safety Director
Rezoning 88-1 and cUP 88-6 (Carlson
Meadolrs )
August 25, L988
L
we have reviewed the Minnewashta Meadows development plan and
the following requirements must be made:
306 f eet
should be
nnerrash ta
apart.
noted
I Eire hydrants not to exceed
Existing hydrants (if any)
on Church Road.
CITY OF
MEMOR AND UM
DATE:
)r
N)
,-
t-
J:
r
k HJ
L
ffi ffil
+
L-F
onou^o F.oo^ l-r
2016 squ.re reel
csrdoitt piorv*E s\icdtI cro!4 rm 56342
I
I
m.roo4
design M-1004
GARAGES ARE
FOUR-PLEX HIGHLIGHT
A plan tike thit difficutt to find,
will be welcomed by the many
persons who are seeking income units
with attached garages. Here each
unit has its own private garage and
inside access to their living area which
contains two bedrooms and the
extra convenience of washer-dryer
behind doors as part of the bathroom.
40,320 cubic {eer
(not incl. garage)
tu:
r__'l trnl:
::. rf.ll
iilt
D
.oJ
?
6s
€4E€5
{54'
€E=
b
q
&t/a
lt
-rltr C
Dtrou
IEH
lEs
'E-Et
EIH
l.ir l r.
I
{
a
2
?
..-./1
\ld
E
Fs!
irhdrr
T
0F
I
I
I
)
)
q
{
nr
ar
Z
gqqr
E E
It$EeE$ -'E
=6oc!.J
EqEqfr{ciPPdn"66iird
5
I
i
rr-
,r-t-
't-z
,
"tt
?oP
Cr{Lteat{
3-Crg
HE
q>1
8<tr r"1dz3g
Lh'
!
z
0)II
e-{l!
I
L
t-
ol
I-
{n
tI!
=t-k
E€
$1rr>
lo
=o,3rl
.!ct
E3
!
ot2 t2,-
H
F.c
0
t
tr
$h
q
E
x
t
0
r -l
ri
f-o
t--J
ar
q
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
x
EI
L -1.>.\r,
!t
q
ri-l F',#r aLlJ J
i]+
ig
og
EO
fiE
CIi
E!cto\C'lr
JTPtm
IBlrFl-tr
IP
E
:!zE' rrx
tlo.
E$
H
eEi Et-
l.)-r
I
__1or
-or
E
({pI
e5
6
0
RqJu
oie.
nn
oP
aio
pfr
is
y
Bg
P
j-- o
iiP
=
E
F:.
!8
ES
s
o
=(
o
II
0
!
E!
E
E ,
I
6 i
{?
$
93.:ETo
J
6
tr
Ei
ir.
T
5
tla;
.i.::
GE L
L
ry,
I
lp1c'it
t:
i$
{
f
="it).dl,i8
I
-o /-86-\
o
I
__1
B
Bs
q
\!-
fto
s
PI
x
L
s
+
I
s
rlt
't
+
Tt
u
!
!
N-
0=
t JX
e.F
-4.0m
rrt
=f.L
rn
t
$
6amI
t-
tFl
r'lr-'rl
6
T
tE
tr-
.!
$_
a
r
\,
IcI
=e
\x
\_iq
E
i
!'
9$
ury
d$
$
J
Fr$zn
a6'-ot
6It
IiJ
'E
$$
$
L
I
I
.:
!-
N
t-
0,
i\J
I
6
T
q
F"
5
(}
=r1iGCI
'"[i,I
I
-t
m
_l
l
_l
I
-.1
E-Oa-o I9Ht.ma
4P
i$E56
:
tsa
o
E
:
E
f
o
?
i
I
I
is
IE
7
I
_(!
xs
sB
I
!JLJEI,]
iEqIn
a
E
4
o
=-
t_
I
r
io
)97
9
6F
x)7
i E59a
F6
I
?:
S
E
5
I e
I
z
EII
9il!oI
IIo
s
1
I
tr!T trtrtrD
$
0
il
,0
q
D
TA
o
L-{
rn
IFl{
l1
lo
lL
q
5l
(,
,
T
fir-\
--_1
(-t)
s1
rx
fiIrn
{I
0
F
d
-!\-
!
o
I
?
PI;
ft
R
!
3
I
$
1cf
,!
I
=F
Ii(1
F
R
0!t
(,
E
(c
\i
l-t-'
l
I
IIt Ep
$tx
r
c:
IT
orl
-A
I
o{I
t
biI
I
lf:-----r rr.'-:It
I
o
d
$
o.
sR
t
/rlfnn
mrrrlfi
E
q
'r'l
lo
r--1
$
R
rn
q
E
a
7
6n
E
it
I
@
h
T
t-
t J
+:
{6
,!
t I
_3,
$;
F;r.G8
tr
di3.
ct
=,
:!r'!I
ls
:" !:
: l:-
r(It
\
f,Ao7.'
0tif
6P
5r
P
&
E
o
$
lI
lB
(
t
I
t
.
{
I
ri
I
r
t
I
r
1
r
I
I
r
r
I
r
{
E
q
9
:-
otg
a>
a
B
I
,$
E
$
it
I
c
d
E
o
B
fl
$
3
e
E
5
B
I.I
b
E
E!
c
E
<t-
0
I
I
q,
rc
t
n
19orqrit
P:
ni
R;
6
!l
E
s
I
E
E
t,
I
,
EI
HI
!T9 HE
P9'8 qrB
iEf, gE
r*-P
EiEI
Bk53si
q ....
I
ff
E0
E
E
9
#n
Btt:
>:c15
ii\at).}-
E1
IR
6l\*
q
?rdEt
'=B E :F
I,HE
[$cE
r=e 3
;=Pi I5sE
6
B
I
$
s
B
E
E
i
It
o\l
E
o
P
o
a
d ,f
$F
€6i
HE
8esa
3E
9
o
Pq,I
E
I
.\
I
a
bq
Eo
f_I
e
B
\.N
si
sE
6
ot
j.
ilE
:( t2
li,
ER
63
to
E
H
b
o{oF
slitlof
$g
8sI
(\
d
8
s
3
}:P
ntr5.s90
Ia5
ra.y t
EIE
Isko
ftlALiIS!-EtErB"Ia?,trrltEli
o
P
Hx
=fi
frF
g$
D
$
T
I:
zt t
trl
il3
,a
:c
i:
G8 I6-)
t'</:
e
;ls.lo
1q
ln
IP
E
Ep
s
F
Er;t{
ffi
Ic7
zt
E
E: IE
q
E Efi P
6!
Trl
iE
$
-\r
i!
--1
I!r)o3
E
Frrl
5
P
D
rr
ot
h
,0
c)
C
R9ot
8Rtq
7q
i
6
E:
d
fio
n\Vlx
tat=
FIC
Irn
IE
l\
P
(
F
J.
d.
P
ul
,
^t+n
5C
(
F
c
Eq
HE
,>
!
FI!
so
1-6 1J rc
u
o
c
F
l4t_
t;F
l:
*li \
,rd
tr
E
3i
cr
Jti?
;6:-
IGE L
r
o_
0
I
IU
p$
TI:
i:i
r
I
T--J
F
q
to
ok
rE F
E
p
r
Irl
{
7
TI
C
-{
Rl//
1-orq.
I
u!tt1cB
uFqq&
zr Y,r.E.
frcoBxJG
2l r.r.:.zf r,r.r.
AE:9BNB LAV.sol
,aLaS5gtElNR-cc3
E!Hel'l_6".JK
4v'
(
XIE') I}EL UU,'E Ib/EL 'L6A
. _l- -I
o
E (tu trE lI
4 CDJU EFE I.
cEllElJfEo AIJO
lraYEo lrJrD llil
(o!.rrfl
I
ELRIX
r"'t*Stf
A)Jtt)tv,
lr9
z 6tre a-Uu?rdt' (UJrre 41E J+v6?2 nrltr \cc€56 t$.reL lrltlo.rc Ol LFEg (t\aL u[rl
/i\wA5rE ,4,oMe-rPC
\!/ Lb XJ\LE
6\ cdJuEcrlou Dru. ri\ coJu€d1dJ ofL.
\E / 2/,r.. t!O' \9./ y'.r,.o.
IIIIIIII II
w.H.
w.H.
\IIAgI-IER
offiF tz'lE.- ,I'oae./-
$A5HEq
..J ?ri! Aur.rDN!, Cr+rec'fl.i19Ma{,E lntU l<€,59 $+rCL .Itl4 3 t)llQB tgYgL ulr?
ae-awe.
1b_'ertlR.
oo
rnta l."ra! f 14.
au
Lod6R LeleL?u*-
LoNt. tarL cE[r.k2
DJPI'.EY
-.-.---\.-r)-l
I
\
L4rEE LeYer fuaa^-
WATER I5OM RIC
lt
Pl-Ulol(li
ttttttlltlttttttt I
t
1l
LAv.
5@L-
-).-..
i.
i
;:.1
l.r'r-fn
.B
.an I
,i,: i:
I 3.
,:a-i!: i
.:.., .,..
"1
.
:i::l
E3
;t:-
R
Errt
f,
tn
DC-\-1
NI:Dlrlmt<
l\-qlrl=Itnt>
t=tt-
Ft-o
LE
Z
el!:
rt
o
-)
E:]Nq>,
!;a3
u
I oC=
E,E
,Ea((H,-]
'..rti:
.r-- ! .r::r-':. LJJ \,..r,-;<r e?{i.r rt
.E
;r'l r:r',fa-.
i..,
i
.l
lr','.oti,l
p
E
p
I
Et
I
I
i C )lx
F'
L
t-
,,8
J
r1,
!.-
c
{
,)J.Ft P
.; -'' :
.:-: i
ilI
tl1
;;
1
-'!'
tl
r a+i
-.-: " . ;: ,r;i.'.-' ' '. -: .+..i
Lt '.. '
,:" ,I
;'j-r,ir.
... ..., I
;1;
tB9(uP
IilN
F;E
dq
IErf
IgP
ldc
ffi5'{;,-FI
1S
He
s5
FS
oo
t-
\+
It
B
+
oC=
9-I
+
LI
,/t
e
!
tr=at,
\
IIo!
rtrlfit-
o
F
P
a
t.,9i
u
J
aq I
-- n
6 ,5q
EErt!F
I
sd
:f
rA
I
t
lIt
++
9c.asl
REL
%j
$1
rt
8
8
1t
e
cgTFTEA>oq
:if,*05 {i
uE3
EiE;d9
o
lE
IP
H
sla
HE
orGD
lF,,!- I
BI EI
H5c
dE
F
n
Ea
0oo
TD
}Q
lP
I
xt-
E
ES
F9
F
de
E
Ea
E9,-E
{83g
d
Eii
8F:
EfiE EE
P6B F
i3R !t: F 6
t
a
I fl
I
r!lll
F
I
I oI ()o +€
qI
ts
6I
0
H
:Ef
I
h
F
1a
HIt
fl
tq
I
l.
5
E
3
F
d
i
{I
a
P(
E$
I
5
0i
Ii
o
8
Pql
luf
o
-l
E
I
{
P
-{q
li
I
IE
TrJ
te
slF
!5
IP
tIlr
a
E
b
IcI
P
T
h
aI,r
P
l6:Jh
<tlzE
I.!tn
sH
5
it55s,h
:t
EEiEY
E
EF
E
,I IIE
E
3crc
8t6t
l.Jtr
El-
ct3ID6
ttl
?l
!iEi8!
38
3B
!
:,i
\l+
+
I
I
I\
I
I
I
e.
*-t
w-
I
I
\
l
q
(
t:-
:(r
{r,r(
CZ-L"""-..t
(
(
(
(
%-/ a{ ur?
(
(
(
(
C
L
(.
LL
L
\_
{-
.i
L
L
(
(.
L/(-L
.,'I
L
-)
LL
-1.7
-Vlrr-r; /- rr?1*/;/ * ".--"- 4
,*f"*& 4 €-7 4.2, ,.
u-/'-Are, rta
".2 aia,/ y zJ// U.-./-, ?",-/
,A-Zuz..<-'-4
C-77<?/a-
o- '-4*d//,/r.rt^,/,rrooo-*.uo/" /taraz.., /a2A
AljG ,1', 1969
viIYOFCHANiTASSLiI
frfff I f"f/"* "-r
)14-A.- E J-.--z
L
5 August 1988
City Counci 1
City of Ctrantrassen
690 Coulter Drive
ChantEssen, I{irnesota 55318
Dear l.lernbers of the Counci 1 ,
hb are the property orlrners, and residents, of I-ot ? Sc-rnid's AcreTracts. This property is located to the !,rest of the MifflelEshta
t€adolrs developEnt planned by Gary Carlson.
hb have revieeEd his plans for the proposed R-g zoning variance he hasrequested.
l{e lave no opposition to this planned zoning variance provided therewill be no assesnEnts agairuit our property is a resulC of thisdevelogrent. olr position on this zoning variance is also corditionalon the inclusion of the road$Ey easeteni running east-rrest from thedevelolxrEnt to the p$lic cartvray on the north boundry of our
ProPerty.
Sirrcerely,. ') | /
\-'=--:- , .l /',2'-7711 Z ^/ / ;22, a / 54/ >.-
-;Z///1,;12//t lgz<-
I.,tark ard Patricia I'tacplErson
fu)r"v
C-I
hr--E
E
I.AND DEVELOPUBNT APPLTCATION
CITY OF CEANEASSEhI
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhasseo, MN 55312(612) 937_1900
APPLICANT: Ga rv Car 1s on O{NER: Same
ADDRESS 3831 West 62nd Streer ADDRES S
Excelsior I,rN. 5 5 331
Z Ip CodeTELEPHONE(Daytime) 6t21474-33 54 TELEPHONE
REQUEST:
x Zoning District Change
Zoning Variance
Zoning Text Anendment
Land Use plan Amendment
Conditional Use permit
Site plan Review
_ Platting
_ Metes and Bounds
Stree t,/Eas ement Vacati.on
wetlands permit
Zip Code
PROJECT NAME nn shr Me d ows
PRESENT IAND USE PLAN DESTGNATION S insle famil y residentia 1 densi t
REOT]ESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION M xed edium densit residential dis
PRESENT ZONTNG
Lot
Lot
1-8, 12-15,
9-11 & 16.
B
B1
Single Parnily
v
lock
ock 1
1 RSF
R-4 Two Fami -1y
REoUESTED ZONING R_g Mix ed Medi um De
USES PROPOSED Resident ia1
SIZE OF PROPERTY 8 6 acre a
IOCATION tw uand r an o
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST See attache tterd 1e
LEGAL DESCRfPTION (Attach legal if necessary) Minnewa shta Me ado WS
Planned Unit Development
_ sketch Plan
_ Preliminary plan
_ Final plan
Subdi vi s ion
V IC IN ITY MAP
rooo'
LOT AREAS:
SCALE' I"/' a pa lots
15 , ooo s. F.'
15,000 s.r.'
15,000 s-F.
15,575 S;F.,
'-2t',355 s.F.
_'t7;-s6o s.F.
18,720 s.F.
16,670 s.F.
44,670 s.F.
25,770 s.,F.
2J,._8,70 s. F. '
15,600 s.F.
19,070 s.F.
15,660 s.F.
17,400 s.F.
28,920 .s. F.
41 ,850 s. F.
_ Carlson
62nd Srreet
xN.55331
47 4-3354
Tiel La.rd Surveyors, rnc.Lane Nor thN.55441
Engelhardt Associates, fnc.
-ne Boulevard
.55318
DEVELOPER:
I IPTTON:
-r, Schmid's Acre Tractsr.116, R.23
v
1{ING: R-l
JNG:
Block 1, Lot 1
Lot 2
Lor j
Lor 4
Lot 5
' Lor 6
LoE 7
LoE 8
/"o,
40,
,r(o,
LoE
Lor
Lot
Lot
/ro,
R.0
TOTAL ACRES
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
L6
I{
374,090 s.F.8. 59 ACRES
Single Fami.ly MINIMUM RE I{UIREMEN\
SETBA.GKS:
F ron
Rear
Side
ee t
eet
30
30
10
AREA:
R-l Zon
R-4 Zon
1
I
IRONT LOT I DTH T FRONT SETB ACKR-Zo ing 9 Feeting 100 eet
UTILITY &. DRAINAGE SEMENT:
Being
and 1Oright-
vide adjoinl n 1ovide ad j o ini.ng trf-vay 11nes.
R-4 Z
5 t lines
eec
.!:
PROJECT NO.87-I2O-53 SHEET 2 OF 4 SHEET$ ,1.,;.'I
L
l2-L5, Block I
Fam i 1y
-and 16, Block 1e'nily
Feet
15,000 s.F.20.000 s.F.
4)..
,- .:
!SA .s,uB
CA
fi 8P8
I
8 8
STATE 1-c*
6600
;
i
D
3;o.i
0,)
HWY. NO
"l7
or
It5
I
,t
,i
?
aaaaaaaIaaaI
I
f,:
Fzf,o
6
5 araaaaaLA K'
rtfl 11 E Y A 9
ZONING $ 20,631
Sec. 2G614. Conditional uses.
The following are conditional uses in an "RSF" District:
(l) Churches.
(2) Private stables, subject to provisions of chapter 5, article III.
(3) Recreational beach lots.
(4) Commercial stable with a minimum lot size of five (5) acres.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 5(5-54), 12-15-86)
State law reference-Conditional uses, M.S. $ 462.3595.
Sec. 2G615. Lot requirements and setbacks.
The foliowing minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" District subject to
additional requirements, exceptions and modihcations set forth in this chapter:
(1) The minimum lot area is frfteen thousand (15,000) square feet.
(2) The minimum lot frontage is ninety (90) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac
shall be ninety (90) feet in width at the building setback line.
(3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred fifty (150) feet.
(4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-live (25)
percent.
(5) The setbacks are as follows:
a. For front yards. thirty (30) feet.
b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet.
c. For side yards, ten (10) feet.
(6) The maximum height is as follows:
a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet.
b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 5(5-5-5), 12-15.86)
Secs. 2G616-20$30. R.eserved.
ARTICLE XIII. "R4" MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Sec. 20-631. Intent.
The intent of the "R4" District is to provide for single-family and attached residential
development at a maximum net density offour (4) dwelling units per acre.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 6(5-6-r), 12-15-86)
r209
7I
-l II
1
-T
I
f
,
Ilt
$ 20-632 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
Sec. 2G632. Permitted uses.
The follorving uses are permitted in an ,.R_4,, District:
(1) Single-family drvellings.
(2) Tr.o-family drvellings.
(3) Public and private parks and open space.
(4) Group home serving six (6) or fewer persons.
(5) StateJicensed day care center for twelve (12) or fewer children
(6) Utility services.
(7) Temporary real estate ollice and model home.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 6(5-6-2), 12-15-86)
Sec. 2G.633. Permitted accessory uses.
The following are permitted accessory uses in an ,.R-4,, District:
(1) Garage.
(2) Storage buildings.
(3) Swimming pool.
(4) Tennis court.
(5) Signs.
(6) Home occupations.
(7) One (1) dock.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, S 6(5-6-A), t2-l5-86)
Sec. 2G634. Conditional uses.
The following are conditional uses in an ..R4,, District:
(1) Churches.
(2) Boarding houses.
(3) Recreational beach lots.
(4) Private kennel.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 6(5-64), 12-15_86)
State law reference_Conditional uses, M.S. S 462.3Sg5.
t2to
-tI
I
Fi
fi
*
*
*
:
**
:
*
1
-
ZONING $ 20-652
Sec. 2GGil5. Lot requirements and setbacks.
The fo'owing minimum requirements sha, be observed in an ..R-4,, District subject toadditional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter:
(l) The minimum lot area is as follows:
a. For a detached single-family dwelling unit, fifteen thousand (15,000) square feetper unit.
b. For a two-family dwelling, ten thousand (10,000) square feet per dwelling unit.
(2) The minimum lot frontage is as follows:
a. For a single-family dwelling, eighty (g0) feet.b. For a two-family dwelling, fifty (b0) feet per dwelling unit.c' If the lot fronts on a cul-de-sac the width ofthe lot at the bu,ding setback rinesshall be:-
-1. -In
the case of a single-family dwelling, eiChty (g0) feet.2. In the case of a two.family dweIing, fifryi5o; feet.
The minimum lot depth is one hundred fifty OS0) feet.
The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is thirty (80) percent.
The setbacks are as follows:
a. For front yards, thirty (80) feet.b. For rear yards, thirty (80) feet.c. For side yards, ten [0) feet.
!'he maximum height is as follows:
a. For the principal structure, three (3) storiedforty (40) feet.b. For accessory structures, one G) story/fifteen (1;) feet..80, kt. v, $ 6(5_6-5), 12-15A6)
Secg. 20.6it6-2G650. Reserved.
ARTICT.E XIV. *B€'MIXED MEDIInU DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Sec. 20{51. Intent.
fire intcnt of the Rg District is to provi.e for single-family attached residential deverop.ment at a Eaximum net density of eight (g) dwelling units per acre.(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ ?(S-?-U 12-15€6)
Sec. 20652. Permitted uses.
The following uses are permittcd in an ,,Rg,, District:
(1) Townhouses, two-family and multi-family dwellings.
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
oNOrd.
1211
$ 20-652 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(2) Public and private parks and open spaces.
(3) Utility services.
(4) Temporary real estate offrce and model home(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, S 7(S-?-2), 12-15-86)
Sec. 2O{53. Permitted accessory uses.
The following are permitted accessory uses in an ,.R_g,, District
(1) Garage.
(2) Storage building.
(3) Su'imming pool.
(4) Tennis court.
(5) Signs.
(6) Home occupations.
(7) One (l) dock.
(Ord. No. 80. Art. V, $ Z(b-7-3), 12-tb-86)
Sec. 2M54. Conditional uses.
The follorving are conditional uses in an,,R-g,, District:
(1) Day care center.
(2) Group home serving from seven (Z) to "i*t""n (16) persons.
(3) Boarding houses.
(4) Churches.
(5) Recreational beach lots.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 7(5-7-4), 12-15-86)
State Iaw reference-Conditional uses, M.S. $ 462.ASgb.
Sec. 2G655. f.ot requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an .,R,g,, Disrrict subjecr rr.additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter;
(1) The minimum lot area is as follows:
a. For a twofamily dwelling, seven thousand frve hundred (?,500) square feet perdwelling unit.
For a townhouse or multi-family dwelring, five thousand live hundred (5,500)square feet per dwelling unit
b
72t2
a
E
k
t
i
CITY OF
EH[NHASSEN
STAFF REPORT
P.C. DATE: Sepr. 7, l9B8
C.C. DATE: Sepr. 26. 1988
CASB NO: 88-23 SUB
Prepared by: Olsen,/v
Fz
o
=(LL
ko
ldF
U)
Preliminary plat of a.46 1700 Square Foot SingleFamily Lor inro Two Singie r..iiv-i"I"-it 22,400 and24,300 Square Feet
3820 Lone Cedar Circ1e (Lot 4, Block I, Cedar Crest)
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
WATER AND SEWER:
PEYSICAL CEARAC. :
2OOO LAND USE PLAN:
The site has city se,rer and water.
The site abuts Lake Minnewashta and Hiry.with a topography sloping Eowards Laie'-Mr.nnewashta.
Residential Low Dens i ty
Ralph and Carol Kant3821 Lone Cedar CircleChaska, MN 55318
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:
RSF, Residential Single Family
46 ,700 square feet
L.87 u/a
N- Lake Minnewashta
S- Highway 5
E- RSF; single family
W- RSF, single family
5
--ll-u-qlioAo i
ao
E2 OE
LAKT
-lcre.
L'f x t
PUD-R
IAPLE 3HoA:s
OiIYE
io.l CF
tvl.2tNw
I4ANT
RD
A2
I t- -.,
\
\
@
)
$
a2 rt) srrt G f?-
i
w
Y OF CHANHASSE}I
RF
I
I
l!o
to
\l
-\
-J
Kant Subdivision
September 7, 1988
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
The Shoreland Ordinance requires minimum lot area of 20,000
square feet for riparian lots (Attachment #1).
The Zoning Ordinance requires
frontage (Attachment *2).
a minimum of 90 feet of street
REFERRAL AGENCIES
Public Safety Department
Engineering Department
Building Department
ANALYS IS
Attachment #3
Attachment #4
No corunent
The applicant is proposing to subdivide a single family 1ot into
two singl-e family lots. There is an existing residence located
on the westerly portion of the Lot r{ith the easterly portion of
the property proposed to be subciivided from the original parcel.
The property is bordered on the north by Lake Minnewashta and on
the south by Highway 5 with a city street right-of-way located
between the lot and Hwy. 5 (Attachment #5). the proposed sub-
division maintains the required front and side yard setbacks for
the existing single family residence.
The subject site has a total area of 35,900 sguare feet. For the
Iots to meet the required 20,000 square foot minimum, the appli-
cant is proposing to vacate a portion of the unimproved city
street right-of-way located between the subject 1ot and Hwy. 5
(Attachment #5 and shown in green and red on preliminary plat).
By vacating a portion of the slreet right-of-way, the lots will
receive additional square footage. LoL 2, Block 1, wiII receive
1,800 square feet for a total of 22,400 square feet and Lot 1,
Block 1wil1 receive an additional 9,000 square feet for a total
of 24,300 square feet. The lots directly to the east of the sub-
ject site, Lots l and 2, Block l, Cedar Crest, receive access
from Hwy. 5.
The City Council will review the proposed
September 26, 1988. The preliminary platject to approval of the street vacation.is not approved, the proposed subdivision
area requirement of 20r000 square feet.
street vacation on
approval wi 1I be sub-
If the street vacation
would not meet the 1ot
with Ehe vacation of the street right-of-way, the lots maintai.n
the required 90 feet of streeE frontage. Lot 2, Block 1, main-
tains street frontage along tshe remaining street right-of-way and
Lot 1, Block 1, maintains required street frontage along Hwy. 5.
Kant. Subdivis ion
September 7, 1988
Page 3
There is an existing field drive from the subject site to Hwy. 5(see plat). The subject site has access from Lone Cedar via agravel drive. The new lot, Lot 1, Block I, will also maintain
access to Lone Cedar via a gravel drive. It is preferred by thecity and MnDOT thaE Lots I aod 2, Block 1, maint.ain access from
Lone Cedar rather than using the field drive to Hwy. 5.
Gradinq, Draina qe and Utilities
The Assistant City Engineer reviews grading, drainage and util-i-ties in Attachment #4.
Mi scellaneous
The lakeshore of Lot 1, Block I is bordered by a strip of vege-tation and cattails. Staff is recommending that the Lot owner ofLot I, Block 1, must submit a plan for city and DNR revier., priorto installing a dock and removing any vegetation. Complete clearcutting of the lakeshore vegetation should not be permit,ted.
RECOMMENDATI ON
If the street vacation is approved, the proposed lots wiII meetthe required lot area for riparian lots and required streetfrontage. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission adoptthe following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision
#88-23 as shown on the plat stamped "Received August 15, 1988"
and subject to the following conditions:
1. The proposed street vacation must be approved by the CityCouncil with each lot maintaining at least 20,000 square feetand 90 feet of street frontage.
2. A plan for the installation of a dock and removal of anylakeshore vegetation must be submitted to city staff forapproval.
3. The applicant shall submit plans for the construction of thedriveway for Lot 1, Block I to the City Engineer for approvalprior to final plat review.
4. The applicant shall obtain $rritten approval by the MinnesotaDepartment of Transportation for the construction of thedriveway onto Lone Cedar Road prior to final plat reviehr.
The proposed driveway for Lot 1, Block I shal1 maintain aminimum separation of 100 feet from State Higheray 5.
5
Kant Subdivision
September 7, 1988
Page 4
6. A ]5-foot utility and drainage easement shall be centeredover the l2-inch diameter watermain for the entire length ofthe right-of-way to be vacated.
. Shoreland Ordinance.. Excerpt from Zoning Ordinance.. Memo from Public Safety dated August 26, 1999.. Memo from Engineering dated August 31, 1988.. Plat showing right-of-way.. Proposed vacation.. Lots 1-3, Block 1, Cedar Crest.
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
ATTACHMENTS
1r-o's
-."{
L-\ZONING
$ 20-631
(4) Commercial stable with a minimum lot size of live (5) acres.(Ord. No. 80, Arr. V, $ 5(5-54), 12_15-86)
State law reference_Conditional uses, M.S. $ 462.gS95.
Sec. 2G615. Lot requirements and setbacks.
The fo'owing minimum requirements sha, be observed in an ,,RSF,, District subject toadditional requirements, exceptions and modification" .ut fo.th in this chapter:
(1,
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
,a. ( irtr(li!i()natl uses'
fh. ri,tt{,rving are conditional uses in an,.RSF" District:
Churches.
Private stables, subject to provisions of chapter 5, article IIL
Recreational beach lots.
The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand G5,000) square feet.
The minimum lot frontage is ninety (g0) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul.de.sacshall be ninery (90) feet in width at the builairrg
"utlr"f. firrl.'
The minimum lot depth is one hundred frfty (180) feet.
The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty_five (2S)percent.
(5) The setbacks are as follows:
a. For front -vards, thirty (30) feetb. For rear yards, thirty (80) feet.c. For side yards, ten 00) feet.
(6) The maximum height is as follows:
(3)
(4)
a. For the principal structure, three (B) stor.ieVforry (40) feet.For accessory structures, three (B) storiesrfo*y i+Ol f""r.(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 5(5-5-5), t2_1S-86)
Secs. 2G616-20.6i10. Rcserved.
ARTICLE XIII. "R.4'MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Sec. 2G631. Intcnt.
The intent of the "R-4" District.is to provide for single-fam1y and attached residentiardevetopmenr at a maximum net density
"f ;"". i;;;;";l'i;"rrrrr" 0." u""".(Ord. No. 80, ArL V, $ 6(5-6-r), 12-15.86)
PI
0
1209
(c
NR AJ SIIORELI.\D !'tAI]\GE\tE:\r
minimize llood daoages, to maiataia.property varues, ald to ,,aintli! naturalcharac.elislics of sborelaods a-ua aa jaceit 1i"l", *irs]LJ"i-.iilillorclesaordinances shill coorrot lot sizes, ptatemeot.f ,i*1,;;;';;i;i;, "ia .t,.r"-trons of shorehEd areas.
(l) Lot Sizc
All lgts ioteoded as resideotial buildiog siles plftred or created by orctcs a.odbounds descriptioo afrer the date of.inacrmior ot rtre-muorliplt ilor"lanaordioance sball cooforo to the folorvrog utrDeostoos:
(aa) For Nrtural Eovironmeo_t lVaters: I-os Dor seryed by publicsewer sbatl be.l€asr 80,000 square {eet (app*xi--"t.i' i- ""iisl- io "r.aaud at tersr 200 feer ia rvidth ir rhe.bui.tdi"c'ji;;-*;-",r ;be-;r;'i;ary bighwater mrrk (for tos abuuing a. public warer-). bs ;;;jl;;iii. ..*r".and.whicb abur a pubric rvaGr shaU q._ 3;];;;t 7ilof iqi# r,.li'f"ppr"*-rmarery I acre) i! rrea. and a! teasr 125.f€er h l,iia,l .-i*" !;jirig. l;;and at.the-ordinary high u,ater rnr1k. 1+ri ",n; i;; i"."Ii ii,-. puuri"server sball be ar le3sr 20,ooo squarc-feer (appro.rirn""iy ii'..i.ii,n .r."
"noat leasr 125 fect i! widrh at Lhe Luildiog tine'.'
- '
(bb) For Recrcational Developrnent Waters: Lots not served by pub-lic server shall be_at _lear! .lo,ooo iqyr". t9!1- t"iliritni"r"iy"i-..rot inarer. aDd ar least 150 feet itr widfi ar-rhe.buildi!g jt; inJai'tte oraln.ryhigh rvater mark (for lors abuui.og a. pr,blic ,"ate-r;- Loi"'I"-*Jiv p"Uf i.server and.rvhich abut a public rvatir shall U" ot t.air zt,ti-OO ..qu!1e-iejt 1ap-pro..(rmatcly th aqe) a alee aad at.leas!.75. feet ia r";arn ai it-lJr-lf aiog id.a-nd.llt the ordiorry hish warer mrrk. All other lG,;;J;;; iu-u-lt" ,..r.,shall be ar teasr 15,000 square feer in arer -a "i1".;; ij je"e,t ii ir-.i"<iri., "r rt.building line.
(cc) For Cenerel Development Witers: Lots not slr!ed bf. a publicserver shall be ar leasr 20,000 squire feet f"pprorlrnrrJ ,u.-".iJf i" "r." nnoat leirst-100 fcet in rvidrh at drc building ii,ii "na .rlt! oia*".v'i.,i*'" l*,.,mrrk (for Iots abulring a public rvareri I_or, ,..ria'Uy . p,,iii" ..ir",
"no\lhich abut-a puclic r,,;atcr, shajl be:rt Icast 15,C00 squtre i.e[ io ar::r rodat lrf,st.75 fcct in rvidih at rhc building line ::rd at ,U! ..-i.r..y ii-.r, *r,",m3rk. II orher lrlr scrved bv , ", rutiJsc,'eriielii;;,-t.;;;-i6,cid .qrr."feei in:rlef, 3nd .t le:rsr 75 fcit iri ,ularl, "t tte uuitj,ni'liiri"' '"'"""
(
(
t
(dd) Substanderd Lots: Lots of record in rhe olice of the CountyRegister-of -Dccds oo rhe date of euactmcnt oi lh. l\Iuoicipel Sio."i"na O.Ai_nirnce \lhich do not r:1e-,t rhe ..",,iren
"nrs.
oi N R S;1.i <ijJii-,#i.+ <culfl:J,l: :ll:y^..1 ::_buitdin3 sires'provid..r,r.r, ui" i,'p!,ii,lii'in'ii" .ooios
111.]:r'. -.,,o, rJ.rn separtre ownersbip from asurrirr'l.rnds rnd sanir:i)i andormensronf,l requrremeo:s of the shorelf,n(l ordioencJue ccmpt;:a rvith,insoltir as prf,.cricrble. Erch municipet ordineqce ;"r,,;;;i.:;;;it th"r.st3n(llrdr and critcrif. sct a min'imrrm.sizc for srrbsiana:rj-iot:; oi i,rpor"othcr rcsrricrions on ths dcvetonmcnr o( sr:bstrnc-ercloii, i..rrJrg',t," ii.-hibiiion of deveropnrent unril ihe i;tsraJiiJ'i"itil' ".i'i.".ij:
-by puulicseyer :lnd rvaler.
(ce) E:rceprions - Erceotions to the provisioos of NR 53 (c) (l)(1a). thrgy^q!--(L:e] _rnf,y be permirr.d for ptro'n.a-U"li O.".iop",i.nr" pur-surnr to NR 55 (c) (+).
(?) Phccment of Stnrclurcs on Lots
The plecement of stnrcntrcs on lots shall be controlljd by rhs municipf,l
6 (,
i>
((
J
:
iIL
CITY OF
EHINHISSEN
TO:
rROM:
SUBJ:
DATE :
690 COULTEF DRIVE ' P.O. BOX I47 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMO R AND UM
Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner
Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director
SUB 88-23 and Vacation 88-5
August 26, 1988
Public Safety has no input at this time on this preliminaryplat and street vacat i on .
Ye
EHINHISSEN
690 COULTER ORIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEUORANDUM
TO: Planning Cornmission
FRou: Larry Broirn, staff Engineer
DATE: August 31, I98I 4
SUBJ: freliminary Plat Review and Vacation
3820 Lone Cedar Road
Planning FiIe No. 88-23 SUB and 88-5
Request for
vacation, Ra1ph Kant
This site is located on the northeast corner of the intersection
of State Highvray 5 and Lone Cedar Road. This 1.1 acre site is
composed of rolling topography with mature trees scattered
throughout the site. The entire 1ot slopes tor.rard Lake
Minnewashta.
Sanitary Sevrer
Municipal sanitary sewer service is available to the site by theexisting 10-inch diameter sewer main which has been extended
along the northerly portion of the lot. A sanitary sewer service
has been provioed for the proposed Lot 1, Block 1.
Water Service
Municipal water
12-inch diameter
existing 1ot.
serv1ce ls
wat ermai n
available to the site by an existing
Iocated immediately south of the
Access
The City is fee owner of the right-of-way located immediately
south of the existing lot (refer to attachment l). The Minnesota
Department of Transportation recommends that the existing "fieIdroad" which accesses State High'day 5 be abandoned. The applicant
has indicateo that if the City will vacate the public right-of-
!day, he witl provide access to the proposed Lot 1, Block I from
Lone Cedar Road versus State Highway 5.
The existing driveway which services the existing residence main-
tains a separation of approximately 100 feet from State Highway
5. It is recoNnended that the proposed driveway share the
CITY OF
Planning Conmi ssion
August 3I, 19 88
Page 2
existing access onto Lone Cedar Road. Final plans which addressthe construction of this driveway sha1l be submitted to the CityEngineer for approval as part of the building permit process. Itis also recommended that the driveway receive written approval
from the Minnesota Department of Transportation prior to finalplat approval.
Any "normal" vacation process would proceed with each adjacent1ot orrner receiving one half of the vacated parcel. Unaler thisproposal-, the applicant is requesting that the vacated right-of-
way added to his property along. The County Surveyor has indi-
cated that this process is possible if the other adjacentproperty owner, tot 3, Block 1, located immediately east of thesubject parcel, signs a "quit claim deed" stating that theyrelease any interest for the vacated property ( refer to attach-
ment 2). The applicant has stated that the owner of Lot 3, Blockt has indicated that they are agreeable Lo the proposed vacation.It should be noted that Lot 3 gains access directly from State
Highway 5. It is recorunended that a privaLe driveway easement infavor of Lot 3 be maintained from the lot to Lone Cedar Road(refer to attachment 3). Although the topography across theright-of-way to be vacated is extreme, this easement would leavethe owner of Lot 3 an alternative if the State desireo controlled
access for State Highway 5 in the future.
Since this right-of-way is adjacent to State Highway 5, it
recommend.ed that the Minnesota Department of Transportationvide the City with written confirmation that !hey have nointerest in having the City maintain fee ownership for thewidening of State Highway 5.
is
pro-
fut ure
The applicant should provide the City with a copy ofclaim deed" for Lot 3, Block 1 prior to the vacationwhich may be processed by the City at a Iater date.
the "quitprocess
over the 12 - inchright-of-rray to
Gradinq and. Drai na ge
Easement s
The plan does not propose any grade change.
Erosion Control
Type II erosion control will be required to parallel thenortherly property boundary immediately south of the 1akeshore.A revised erosion control plan will be required as part of thebuilding permit process.
A I5-foot wide utility easement will be requireddiameter watermain throughout the length of thebe vacat ed.
Planning Commission
August 31, 19 88
Page 3
It should also be noted that the plan indicates the seLbackdistances from the shore land. The proposed house pad must beoutside of the existing drainage or utility easements.
Recommended Conditions
I The applicant sha1l submi t
driveway for tot I, Block 1prior to final plat review.
plans for the construction of theto the City Engineer for approval
2 The applicant sha11 obtain written approval by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation for the construclion of thedriveway onto Lone Cedar Road prior to final plat review.
The proposed driveway for Lot I, Block I shaLl maintain a
minimum separation of 100 feet from State Eighway 5.
A 15-foot utility and drainage easement shall be centeredover the 12-inch diameter watermain for the entire length ofthe right-of-way to be vacated.
Right-of-way diagram.
Diagram of adjacent propert ies.
Driveway easement iliagram.
3
4
1
2
3
AtLachments
O.L. B
'..j,
3aDel
F UC
ROBE
3
EIT
2
ADOI
3
2
RNE 3 CIRCLE
Ar60
s1
_t.
LA KE877TH
(n It
tr.,:
50o(E
G
9oi
( !.-
*i
7
PFOPOSED VACA TION AND SUBDIV
l1I
!4r::r -
z 2
ts
'' F.'
-'j3
2z.
,t
5
a_.
:.
2
I
I
I
ATTACHMENT 1
4
<d 3
O.L. B
B UC
ROBE
lT'
2
ADDI
IATTACHMENT 2-rINE 3 CIRCLE
LAKE
.-.
l.rt..,:.;,..,,;:i.
.r.c,
...r3.
3.s
G
(to
G
50o
87 ((t
OO
Co
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS :..':':
Pt
7
2z-
I
'.
E
\.r3
4
2:.
I
,., z
2
t.
I
-,.1
IT
...i'
f,,'
.;i
2
'>,r
g
IT
2
ADD
2
RNE 3 CIRCLE I ATTACHMENT 3
Laxe
3q
(. tr:
r'.50oG
-o
a
''..-.
PROPOSED 30 fr.
IVEWAY/UTILITY ESMT.
ia,,
z 2
I
E
5
(.\
''-j 3
4
2
r :,.
t.
.,..:.
s)l
I
I
I
I
I
;
/
I /
\iir
?.
o-
SE
Fo
zz
=
o
a(
z)
,tjH
{!
t:
s J
0
+
i-
(i:,
A'r
I
6
---
I
nl
*,
-)l'
I
T
T
IIi
q<
i\.:>'
r
I I
\
rir
{E
Fo
zz
=
OA
O=
zl
\
,q',.!a
cj -a
s5
I
N
nl
(-.
*ta
l?
.
J
e*
-a
1o G (i:,
lr-l
q
A.
in;
IYTIti!HEO IOUXD RY
MINNEHAHA
WATERSHED
CREEK
DISTRIGT
0rl ilvE,l
Arlgust 30, 1988
Ms . JoAnn 0'l sen
City of Chanhassen
P0 Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE Subdivision of a parcei located on Lone Cedar Circie
into two single family lots (SUB 88-23)
I have received information concerning the above -referenced proiect. Under
Rule B:5(c) this project is exempt from the permit requirements of the
District.
Dear l,ls . 0l sen :
If you have any further questions, please contact me at 473-4224.
Si ncerely ,
EUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES
A Division of James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers
Engineers for the Di stri ct
,l*'^n
Kevin C. Larson, Engi neer
bt
0lTY OF CHANhASSr..i
P.O. Box 387, Wayzala, Minnesota 55391
mf80 0t fif6fr& Camille 0. Andre, Bes. . Albert L. Lehman . John E Tlomas
James B. Spensley . Richard 8. Miller . Robert 0. Erickson . C. llJbodrow Love
AUG J r 1988
(r
c
TELEPHONE
REQT]EST:
PROJEC? NAME
PRESENT I,AND
REOUESTED LA
I"AND DEVELOPXENT APPLICATION
CITY OA CE]IIJHASSEN
590 Con]-ter DEive
Cha.uhasseD , MN 55317(612) 937-I900
tt€N rln
€
zip Code(Daytime )
Zoning District Change
Zoning Appea1
Zoning Variance
Zoning Text Amendment
Land Use plan Amendment
Conditional Use permit
Site plan Review
P:Lanned Uuit DevelolrEeat
_ Sketch plan
_ Preliminary pJ.an
_ Final plan
TELEPHONE
/ rlatting
_ Metes and Bounds
Street,/Eas enent Vacation I
Wetlands Permit
USE PLAN DESIGNATION
ND USE PIAN DESIGNATION
PRESENT ZONING
REQUESTED ZONING
USES PEOPOSED
SIZE OF PROPERTY
LOCATION
REASONS FOR THIS REQ UE ST
rpp-LrcANr: F*tpt] E,&canu t, t&ttfowNER:
ADDRESS 3820 LONg. CEDAR. CIR, ADDRESS
l\4
x.--=-
J
LEGAL DESCRIPTfON (Attach legal if necessary)
{City of Chanhassen
' i.'|3 3t"t''oPment Apprication
EIIIN G TNSTR IONS:
lf1; lnnU"ation must be completed in futl anri ha +,,_^.-_ j !.clearly printed and m,,Ii ;:*:^^:_':. .l :ull ald be typewriLte
F,,*;,.ff i:.:s"ir":irj:i.Li;iiii;;: j:i"ii":ii.iriift ii:i j:::".
:;" liiffij;t;flj.,:*;ij:]r*i#:s :::.;:":i:l.il;.!i:lii::::.
FTLI CERT T !'r
The undersigned reorthar he i
"
- i"*iiiIIr-es entative of the applicant herebyappticable citv oratXjl:.::" procedurar' ;"s"ii"#'=iI"It a
rti fi es
11
Signed By
Signed By
Date Application
Application Fee
City Receipt No.
l2 cirrAppi1c an t
Fee O igne r
This 6ppfi6aEion wilIBoard of Ad j us tmen LsmeeLing.
Date
=rT\H-D11C*,1
Recei ved
IPaid
be
and
cons i.deredAppeals at by thethei r Planning Commi ss ion,/
C
Date
The undersiqned hereby_certifies that the applicanc has been:::::il::: ro make this appric..i".*i"i. rhe propeny herein
EHINHISSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
HEMORANDUM
TO:
FROT:
DATE:
SUBJ:
Durlng the leviev of thls applicatlon, staff felt that issuesreqarding the proposed access onto povers Boulevard, as itrelates to the West ?8th Streat Detachnent proJect, could bercgolved by naking Dinor levislons to propoied plans forPovers Boulevard.
As you ale arrare, BRH ls the Cityts consultant fo! the West78th Stleet Detachnent proJect. Unfortunately, unforeseentechnical problens becane evldent 1ate in the day on thisdate. It 18 antlclpated that these lssues vlII force thedeveloper to shift the location of the proposed right of eay(for the access onto Posers Boulevard) to the extr;ee northuest or south rest corner of the parcel versua thecentrallzed locatlon nou being proposed. Even then, theCarve! County Engineer is Office has serious concernsregaldlng thls proposal.
I nust apologlze that these concelns rrere not resolved at aneatller tlue, hovever staff is reconnendtng that theapplication recelve the feedback fror the ilannlng ConElssionadopt the notlon that this item be tabted untll the accesslssues Day be resolved.
CITY OF
PlannlnE Connlss lon
Larry Broen, gtaff, Englneer
septeEber 2, L988
Arldendun to the Staff Report for pleliDlnary plat
Revleu and Slte plan Revtev for Oak vlGv AparttrentE,
Planninq FiIe 88-2{ SUB and 88-25 glte plan.
EH[I[H[SSilf
STAFF REPORT
Fz
()
=LL
ko
LrjF
@
Subdivision of 18.9 acres into two R-I2 lots
and 6.8 acres and two outlots of 4.7 and f.4
Wetland alteration permit for draining stormwater into a Class B wetland.
Outlot B of West Vi.Ilage Heights located directly
east of Pohrers B1vd. and west of West Village Townhomes.
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
of 4.7
acr es .
I36 apartment units on propertySite plan for
zoned R-12.
DeRand Housing Development
2201 wilson Road
Arlington, VA 22201
John Duffy
10850 Highway 55
Plymouth, MN 55429
PRESENT
ACREAGE:
DENS ITY :
ZONING :
18 .9
R- 12
acres
Lot ILot 1
11.9
11. I
(net)
(net)Block 1 =Block 2 =
units/acre
un it s/acre
R-12 and RSF, Saddlebrook Subdivision
BG, James property
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:N-
s-
E- R-12, West Village Tohrnhomes
w- R-12, Eckankar site
Available to the site. .
The site has extreme topography on Lhenorth and, northwest portions with someheavily vegetated areas and a Class B
wet land .
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Designated as high density.
CITY OF
P.C. DATE: September 7, 198g
C.C. DATE: September 26, I98B
CASE NO: 88-24 SUB, 88-14 !{Ap
88-15 Site plan Revir
Prepared by: 01sen,/ktm
WATER AND SEWER:
PHYSICAL CflARAC. :
t
I
l
Z
-aaa
4 iaJltrr),
ll
RC
LAI(E
4
\
EItt
--.1
BG
t
LAKE SUSAII
RX
u
LA
ood
UD-R
-l&o
RSF
ot
o
-to
5t
R
1
I
E
R12
€
t
q
c(I
I
BDD
Al(E
CItoP
-.-.--
rrtttSH
CIiCL:
_. R8 t
F
J(D
RS
RD
il
R12
oak View SUB, wAP and Site PIan Review
September 7, 1988
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGUTATIONS
The Zoning Ordinance states that the intent of the R-12 District
is to provide for townhouses and multiple family residential
structures at a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre.
The setbacks in the R-12 District are 25 feet front and rear and.
10 feet on the sides rrith a maximum 1ot coverage of 35t and a
maximum height of 40 feet or a three-story principal structure.
The minimum lot area in the R-12 District is 3,600 square feet
per dwelling unit for multiple dwellings and a minimum 1ot fron-
tage of 150 feet.
REFERRALS
Building Department
Public Safety Department
Engineering Department
Carver County
watershed District
Park and Recreation Dept.
PRELIIqINARY PLAT REVIEW
"Must receive a watershed District
permit. "
Attachment #6
Attachment
Attachmen t
Attachmen t
Attachmen t
t*2
#3
#4
#s
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 18.9 acres into two R-12
lots of 4.7 acres anil 6.8 acres and two outlots of 4.7 and l-.4
acres. The Zoning ordinance requires a minimum lot area of 3,600
square feet per dwelling unit for multiple family dwellings and
150 feet of 1ot frontage. Lot 1, Block 1of the proposed plat
contains 4.7 acres. The applicant is proposing to locate 56
multiple family units on Lot 1, Block I. To meet the 1ot area
requiremenL of 3,600 feet per ttwelling unit, Lot 1, Block l must
coritain 4.6 acres. Lot 1, Block 2 contains 6.8 acres and is pro-
posed to have 80 dwelliog units. To meet the lot area require-
ment Lot 1, Block 2 is required to have 6.6 acres- Both lots
contain more than l-50 feet of street frontage. Therefore, Lot 1,
Block l and Lot 1, Block 2 meet the minimum lot area and frontage
requirements for multiple dwellings in the R-12 District. Outlot
A ind B both contain over 150 feet of street frontage. There is
no proposal for development of the two outlots to determine the
minimum lot area that is required. When Outlots A and B are pro-
posed for development, the lots would have to meet the required
1ot areas for the use proposed as determined in the R-12
District.
Oak View SUB, WAP and Site Plan Review
September 7, 1988
Page 3
The site is divided in half by a 50-foot public right-of-way.
The public street connects County Road 17 with the West Village
Townhomes and eventually Kerber Boulevard. The applicant is alsoproviding a 50-foot wiile drainage and utility easement throughboth Lot l, Block l and Lot I, Block 2 which vri11 service the
apartment units and contain a private drive. The applicant isalso providing necessary easements al-ong the front, side and rear1ot lines of Lot 1, Block l and Lot 1, Block 2. The side utility
easements are sho$rn as 6 feet and should be reduced to 5 feet attime of final plat. In Attachment #4 the Assistant City Engineerreviews the proposed public street and private ilrives, the pro-
posed access onto County Road 17 and connection to Kerber
Boul-evard .
As part of the original subdivision which divided the WestVillage Townhomes parcel from the subject parcel, it was requiredthat access to the parcel to the north be provided. The appli-cant must therefore provide a 50-foot roadway easement for accessto the north. The applicant has submitted a plan with one al,ter-native for a northerly access (Attachment #7). This access willbe reviewed. by staff to determine whether it is a suitable loca-tion.
RECOMMENDAT I ON
The propos
district a
adopt the
eliminary plat meetsaff is recommending
wing motion:
requ irementsthe Planning
of the R-12
Commiss ion
ed pr
nd st
f o11o
the
tha t
The Planning Commission recommends approval of preliminary plat
It88-24 to create two R-12 lots of 4.7 and 6.8 acres and twoOutlots of 4.7 and 1.4 acres rdith the follovring conditions:
Any future development of Outlots A and B must conform to theIot area requirements as required in the R-12 District.
1
2 The side yard easements shown as 5 feetfeet prior to final plat approval,.
shal1 be reduced to 5
3. The applicant shall enter into a development contract withthe City and provide the City with the necessary financialsureties to guarantee the proper installation of the public
improvements.
The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions ofthe Watershed District permit.
The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions ofthe Access Permit issued by the office of the Carver CountyEngineer.
4
5
6
Oak View SUB, wAP and Site PIan Review
September 7, 1988
Page 4
The proposed public right-of-way sha11 be revised such that
it meets the existing centerline of the 75-foot roadway ease-
ment for West Village Road. At such time that Oak View
Apartments receives final plat approval , staff is to proceed
with authorizing a feasibility study for the extension of the
proposed roadway from the easterly property boundary of Oak
view Apartments to Kerber Boul-evard.
SITE PLAN REVIEW
The applicant is proposing to devel-op Lot 1, Block I and Lot 1,
Block 2, into 136 rental apartment units. Lot 1, Block I would
contain 7 apartment buildings each containing 8 apartment units
and Lot I, Block 2 would contain I0 apartment buildings each con-
taining 8 units. Lot 1, Block 1 contains 4.7 acres vrith a net
density of 11.9 units per acre. Lot 1, Block 2 contains 6.8
acres with a net density of 11.8 units per acre. Therefore, both
lots are rvithin the required of the maximum density of 12 units
per acre.
Lot 1, Block l, and Lot 1, Block 2 will be serviced by a public
street located through the center of the site with the apartmenE
units being serviced by private drives. The applicant had origi-
na1ly proposed to maintain lhe internal roadways as public
streets also, which would have required a 50 foot right-of-way
and a 28 foot street with curb and gutter. By maintaining the
internal roads as public streets, the lot area was reduced so
that the applicant could not meet the 1ot area and density
requirements for the R-12 District. Therefore, the applicant is
proposing the internal streets as private drives.
If the applicant provides the 28 foot public street standard for
the privale drive, the impervious surface of both Lot 1, Block I
and Lot I, Block 2 exceed the maximum of 35t for the R-12
District with a Iot coverage ratio of 43t. For the applicant to
maintain the number of unils proposed on each lot, the private
drives would have to be reduced' to 22 feet in width with 12 ioot
driveways. In his memo, the Assistant City Engineer addresses
recommended standards for the proposed private drives. Should
the 28 foot wide street be required by the City, the proposed 1ot
lines could be shifted to the i^Iest to allow the 35t lot coverage
to be maintained. Staff cannot recommend that a variance be
granted to permit a 43t lot coverage for Lot 1, Block 1or Lot 1,
elock 2. If the l-ot tines have to be adjusted and an amended
preliminary plat would have to be provided-
7. The applicant sha11 provide a 50-foot roadway easement bet-
ween the proposed public right-of-way and the northerly pro-
perty boundary prior to preliminary plat approval by the City
Council.
Oak vrerd SUB, WAP and Site Plan Review
September 7, 1988
Page 5
The site plan is providing the required. rear and side yard set-
backs. The site plan does not provide the required 25 foot frontyard setback from the public street in certain areas. The appli-
cant provided 10-foot setbacks from the public street r,rhere thesides of the apartment buildings are adjacent to the street. A25-foot front yard setback is required in these areas. Theapplicant shal1 have to provide an amended site plan with thecorrect setbacks.
A11 of the buildings wiII be serviced internally by the privatedrives lvith no direct access from the public street. Each unitwill have its own attached one car garage. The applicant iS pro-viding 292 parking spaces. 272 parking spaces are reguired. Theapplicant is providing the additional parking to accommodateguest parking. State Building Code requires 6 handicapped apart-
ments for an apartment complex with 136 units. Each apartmentunit is required to have 2 parking spaces, 1of which isenclosed. Therefore, 12 handicapped parking spaces are required.
The handicapped apartments must be distributed throughout the
complex and cannot be located within one building. Each unitwill have two bedrooms r.{ith one and a half baths, washer anddryers and the exterior will be a stucco and textured masonitewith brick trim. Attachment $8 provides detaifed information onthe project.
Lands capi nq
The applicant is providing extensive landscaping along thepublic street and private drives as shown on page 9 of the siteplan packeL. The applicant is also providing detailed
landscaping for each uniE as shown on page 10 of the site planpacket. The zoning ordinance requires a strip of land at least10 feet in depth between vehicular areas and abutting right-of-way. The required strip of land must have at least one tree per
40 feet and a 2 foot berm or hedge. The applicant is providingthe required trees afong the right-of-way but must submit an
amended plan showing 2 fooL berms betereen the public right-of-way
and the parking areas. The ordinance also requires at least 50*winter opacity. The landscaping plan must be amended to includeevergreens to obtain the 50t winLer opacity.
Staff had the applicant submit a tree removal plan to designatewhich trees on the site are going to be removed. There areseveral mature Burr Oaks located on the site, some of which areover 100 years o1d. Staff visited the siee with the DNRForestor, AIan Olson, and determined tha! there was no way topreserve any of these trees with the proposed public road andimprovements to the site. Staff and Alan Olson reviewed theproposed landscaping plan and felt that the number of Red Oaksthat are being proposed should be increased and that some oaksshould be cl-ustered in areas on the site to provide similarstands of trees that are being removed from the site. Thegroupings of trees could also include MapIes and Basswood.
Park and Recreation Commission
Attachment #8 states erhat staffrs
Recreation Commission wi 11 be.
recommendation to the Park and
Miscellaneous
The applicant has not provided details on location of or thescreening of trash receptacles. The applicant must provide aplan for sLaff approval which shows the location of the trashreceptacle which must be screened on all sides. The public
Safety Director requires fire hydrants to be spaced no more Ehan300 feet apart and aII house numbers must be clearly identifiedfrom the road (Attachment #3).
RECOMMENDAT ION
Although there are several issues $rhich require planthe applicant wished to have the Planning Commissionsite plan at this time. Staff recommends that the
Commission adopt the following motion:
amendments,
r ev i er^r the
Planning
"The Planning Commission recommends approval ofas shown on the site plan dated August 15, 1988following conditions:
site
wi th
plan # 8 8-15
the
Oak View SUB, WAP and Site plan Review
September 7, L988
Page 6
Ur. Olson felt that the number of Maple Crimson Red and MapleRubrun, as shovrn on the landscaping p1an, should be switched sothat there would be ten Maple Crimson Royal Red. Staff is alsorecommend.ing that the proposed trees along the public streetbe mixed for variety instead of planting i row of the same treesas proposed. This would also help prevent any disease of t.hespecies being easily spread.
In summary, staff is recomrnending that the applicant provide anamended landscaping plan that provides additional- Red Oak,increase the number of Maple Royal Red over the Maple Rubrun, mixthe species along the public street, provide a plan for thegrouping of oaks, maples or basswoods on the siLe, provideberming between parking areas and. public right-of-wiy and provide50t winter opacity.
I. The applicant shall maintain a maximum of 35E lot coverage
f or both tot .l-, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2.
2. The applicant shall provirfe an amended site plan whichprovides 25-foot front yard setbacks from the public streets.
3. The applicant shalI provide 12 handicapped parking spaces and6 handicapped apartments which are distributed throughout the
complex.
Oak View SUB, WAP and Site Plan Review
September 7, 1988
Page 7
4 The applicant shalI provide anprovides the following:amended landscaping plan which
a) Additional Red Oaks.b) Increase the number of Maple Royal Red.c) Mix the species along the pubJ.ic street.d) A plan for grouping of Oaks, Maples or Basswoods on the site.e) 2-foot berms between parking areas and public right-of-rday.f) 50t winter opacity.
5 The applicant will provide fire hydrants no morefeet apart and shalI provide house numbers whichidentified from tshe road.
than 300are clearly
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
There is a Class B rrretland located on the northwest corner of thesite (Attachment #9). Staff visited the site with the Corps ofEngineers and Fish and Wildlife Service who determined thal itwas a Class B wetland but not a high quality rdetland. Thelvetland would benefit from increased water directed to the site.The applicant is proposing to direct storm lvater through adissipation structure into the wetland. The applicant is notproposing to make any physical alterations to the hretland.
The dissipation structure will reduce the velocity of the stormwater runoff prior to it entering the wetland which will reduceerosion of the wetland where the pipe is Located. Staffrs con-cern is the quality of runoff entering the wetland. Section20-440 of the wetland ordinance controls storm water runoff intowetl,ands (Attachment #10).
One option to remove debris, pollutants and siLt from the stormwater prior to it enterinq the wetland would be to remove itwithin the dissipation structure. The problem with Ehis optionis the maintenance of the structure. The structure must bLperiodically cleaned so that the sedimentation does not enter thewetland. Since the sedimentation is collected within the struc-ture it cannot be seen when it needs to be cleaned except throughroutine inspection of the structure. The City would prefer notto be responsible for such a hi gh-maintenance structuie. If thedeveloper is made responsible, ihe guality of maintenance isfurther reduced since the developer-does not visit the site onceit has been developed.
A preferred option by the City, Watershed District and Fish andWildlife Service is to create a holding pond where the pipeenters the wetland which would act as a sedimentation bisin.This would be easier to maintain since the basin is highlyvisible and it can be seen when sedimentation needs to beremoved. In addition, a holding pond is a natural and preferredrvay to remove sedimentation from storm water runoff.
Oak View SUB, wAP and Site plan Review
September 7, 1988
Page I
The basin wil-l have free formincrease shoreline length andfeeding and resting birds.
The size of the ponding area wi1l depend on the amount of runofffrom the site and must be sized to miintain predevelopment rateinto. t.he rernaining wetland. A storm water management plan isrequired to provide the necessary data to determine th-e size andcapacity of the holding pond. The outflow velocity from thedissipation structure to the holding pond should not exceed 4feet to 5 feet per second. The design of Che holding pond mustmeet the following conditions established by the fish indwildlife Service:
(no even-sided) shape toprovide isolated areas for
The basin wilI have uneven, rolling bottom contour forvariable water depth to (a) provide foraging areas forspecies of wildlife feeding in shallow water (0.5 - 3.0feet ) and (b) encourage growth of emergent vegetation inareas of shallow water and thereby increase interspersionof open water with emergent vegetation.
The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from anexisting wetland bei.ng fil1ed) on bottom of basin to pro-vide a suitable substrate for aquatic vegetation.
e The basin will have water level control (culverts, riserpipe, etc.) to minimize disturbances of wildlife usingthe wetland.
The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland
surrounding the basin to minimize disturbances of
wildlife using the wetland.
RECOMMENDAT I ON
The Fish and wildlife Service and Corps of Engineers felt thatthe eretland could be improved by adding an area that wouldperiodically contain r4rater. Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission reconunends approval of Wetland
ALteration Permit *88-I4 with the following conditions:
t. The applicant shall provide a detailed plan wiEh the design
of the holding pond which shall be sized to maintain storm
water runoff aE predevelopment rate.
a
b
c
d
f
The basin wilI have shallow embankments with slopes ofI0:1 - 20:1 for at least 30E of the shoreline to
encourage growth of emergent vegetation as refuge andfood for wi1d1ife.
Oak View SUB, WAP and Site Plan Review
September 7, 1988
Page 9
The outf 1or4, velocity from the dissipation structure sha11 not
exceed 4 ' -5 ',/second.
3. The holding pond shall be designed to the following standards:
2
a
c.
The basin will have free formincrease shoreline length andfeeding and resting birds.
(no even-sided) shape toprovide isolated areas for
b The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of10:l- - 20:1 for at least 30t of the shoreline to
encourage growth of emergent vegetation as refuge andfood for wi Id1i fe.
The basin -rsi11 have uneven, rolling bottom contour forvariable water depth to (a) provide foraging areas forspecies of wildlife feeding in shal1ow warer (0.5 - 3.0feet ) and (b) encourage growth of emergent vegetation inareas of shallow $rater and thereby increase interspersionof open water with emergent vegetation.
f
The basin ryil1 have a layer of topsoil (muck fromexisting we!land being fi11ed) on bottom of basinvide a suitable substrate for aquatic vegetation.
anto pro-
The basin will have water 1evel control (culverts, riserpipe, etc.) to ninimize disturbances of wildlife usingthe wet.Land.
The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upJ-andsurrounding the basin to minimize disturbances ofwildlife using the wetland.
3 The applicant shallentire wetland.
provide a drainage easement over the
ATTACHMENTS
Excerpt from Zoning Ordinance.
Memo from Building Department dated AugusL 22, l-9gg.
Memo from Public Safety Department dated August 26, I9gg.Memo from Engineering Department dated August 3I, l9gg.Letter from Carver County dated August 19, I9gg.Merno from Park and Recreation Department dated September I,r988.
Plan with access to the north.Information on project.
Location of wetland.
Wetland Ordinance.Application.
Preliminary plat dated August 31, 1988.Site Plan dated August 15, 198g.Tree removal plan dated August 3I, l9gg.
1
2
3
4
5
5
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
d.
i-ree:E; -. - :-..:-: :.' ;
i
ZONING $ 20-673o
o
(2) The minimum lot frontage is fifty (s0) feet per dwelling unit except that in the case of
a lot that fronts on a cur-de-sac, the width of the Iot at the buirding setback line shalr
be as follows:
a. If a two-family dwelling is located on the lot, fifty (50) feet per dwelling unit.b' If a townhouse or murtipre-family project is located on the rot, one hundred fifty(150) feet.
The minimum lot depth is one hundred fifty (1b0) feet
The maximum lot coverage is thirty-five (85) percent-
The setbacks are as follows:
a. For front yards, twenty-five (25) feet.
b. For rear yards, twenty-five (25) feet.
c. For side yards, ten (10) feet.
The maximirm height is as follows:
a. For the principal structure. three (B) stories/forty (.10) feetb. For accessory structures, one (1) story/fifteen (15) feet.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 7(5-?-5), 12-15-86)
Secs. 20-656-20-670. Reserved.
ARTICLE XV. "R.12'' HIGH DENSITY BESIDEIYTIAL DISTRICT
Sec. 20-671. Intent.
The intent of the "R-12" District is to provide for townhouses and. multi-family residential
structures at a maximum density of trvelve (12) drvelling units per acre.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 8(5-8-1), 12-15,86)
Sec. 20-672. Permitted uses.
The following uses are permitted in an "R,12,, District:
(1) Torvnhouses, trvo-family dwellings and multi,family drvellings
(2) Public and private parks and open space.
(3) Utility services.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 8(5-8.2), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-673. Permitted accessory uses.
The follorving are per.mitted accessor.y uses in an',R-12', District:
(1) Garage.
(2) Storage building.
t213
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
C
t-i
$ 20,673 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(3) Swimming pool.
(4) Tennis court-
(5) Signs.
(6) Home occupations.
(7) One (1) dock.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 8(5-8-3), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-674. Conditional uses.
The following are conditional uses in an .'R-12" District:
(1) Health care facilities.
(2) Day care center.
(3) Boarding houses-
(4) Group home serving from seven (7) to sixteen (16) persons.
(5) Recreational beach lots.
(6) Temporary real estate office and model home.
(7) Churches.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 8(5-8-4), r2-1b-86)
State law reference-Conditional uses, M.S. $ 462.8895-
Sec. 20'675. Lot requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements sha, be observed in an '.R-12,, District subject toadditional requirements, exceptions and modilications set forth in this chapter:
(1) The minimum lot area is as follows:
a. For a two_family drvelliag, seven thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet per
dwelling unit.
b. For a townhouse or multifamily dwelling, three thousand six hundred (8,600)
square feet per dwelling unit.
(2) The minimum lot frontage is as follows:
a. If a two_family dwelling is located on the lot, fifty (50) feet per dwelling unit,except that if the lot fronts on a cul-de-sac, the rot shall be fifty (50) feet in widthat the building setback line.
b. Ifa townhouse or multiple-family project is located on the lot, one hun&ed filty(r50).
(3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred fifty_five (155) feet.
(4) The maximum lot coverage is thirty-five (35) percent-
o
e
12t4
C
I
I
!--ElEiE*fL!!r.-=j!-lg;l&1-__.,*--:^; .
ZONING
$ 20-692
(5) The setbacks are as follows:
a. For front yards, twenty-five (25) feet.b. For rear yards, twenty-frve (2S) feet.c. For side yards, ten (l0) feet.
(6) The maximum height is as follows:
a. For the principal structure, three (B) storieVforty (40) feet.For accessory structures, one 0) story/fifteen (1i) feet.(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 3(58_5), 12_15_86)
Secs. 2G6?6-20690. Reserved.
ARTICLE XVI.'BN' NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DIS'TRICT
Sec. 2Mgl. Intent.
The intent ofthe "BN" District is to provide for limited low intensity neighborhood retailand service establishments to meet daily needs of residents.(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 10(5-10_l), 12-15-86)
See. 2G692. permitted uses.
The following uses are permitted in a .,8N,, District:
(1) Convenience stores without gas pumps.
(2) Neighborhood oriented retail shops.
(3) Self-servicelaundries.
(4) Dry cleaning and laundry pick-up stations.
(5) Day care center.
(6) Personal service establishments.
(7) Professional offices.
(8) Small appliance and shoe repair shops.
(9) Health services.
(10) Veterinaryclinics.
(11) Utility services.
(12) Shopping center.
(13) Private clubs and lodges.
(14) Community center.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 10(E-10-2), 12_15-86)
o
o
C
12t5
City of Chanhassen
590 Coulter Drive, p.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
( 612) 937-1900
To:
Date: August 16, 1988
From:
Development plan Referral Agencies
Plarning DepartuEnt
Subject:
Planning
Thefi1
By : Jo Ann Olsen Asst. Ci Planne.r
rn -o1$er for us to provide a co,plete analysis of issues for planning @rmissionarui city council review, we. would appreciaL your connents and recu[Endationsconcerning the irpact of this proposlf on traific circufiilon, ol"ti['.na p._posed future utility services,- st6rm water diai.nage, and the need for icqr:iringpublic lands or ease'rFnrs for park sites, siieeL-#;i;;i-friI"Ji.t , ""autilities' r{here specifig neeiis ". p.oui-rs-."r1t, we $,ourd rike to have aIrritten report. to Ehis effect frctn tire "g.o"y .-na*.,ed so that lee can nake arecu[rendation to Ehe planning Connissioi ana City Co:ncil.
above described application for approval of a land develogrellt proposal wased with the Chanhasse! planning DepartrEnt on Arqust 15, 19 88
This application is scheduled for cons ideration by the Chanhassen plann lngConmission on Septernber 7ty liall. we lvou.Ld a
at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers appreciate receiving your crcrtrrEnts by no laterChanhassea Ci t
than st2 1 8 You may also appear at Ehe planning Conrnissionmeetingrt you so desire.
Your coolEration and assistance is greatly appreciated.
1. City Departnents
City Engineer
City Attorney
City Park Director
Pub1ic Safety DirectorBuilding Inspector
Watershed District Engineer
Soil Conservati on Service
) MN Dept. of Transportation
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
llinnegasco
!.tI Dept. of Natural Resources
Tqlephone Cofipany
(M!/, or united)
pectric co@any
@) or MN Vatley)
DOI4DEN Cable Systern
Roger !4achrEi er,/Jim anderson
U. S. Fish and t/iildlife
Carver County Engineer
r/i,\_/o
o
o
@
@
C
LI.
@
€)
14.
Other
acres
v,etl-and a-l
B
and site revaew to
on CR
Plan (Gk Viee,ApartrrEnts )
lrater a
Case:
develop
storrr-
rprth of ltdrl
5
Gb.@
.41
e)
acres
EHINHISSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMOR AND UM
TO:
EROM :
SUBJ:
DATE:
Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City planne
Jim Chaffee, PubIic Safety Director
SUB 88-24, 88-14 WAP, and 88-15 Sit
Apartments )
August 26, 1988
Plan (Oak View
PubIic Safety has reviewed the
and the following requirements
Apartments Si te Plan
Fire Hydrants to be spaced no farther than 300 feetapart.
oak
are
Vi ew
made :
I
2 House numbers
from the main
on each unit
road.
clearly i ndent i f iable
CITY OF
CITY OF
EH[NH[SSEI{
690 COULTEH DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 'I47 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 553,17
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commi ssion
FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer
DATE: August 3I, 19 88
SUBJ: Preliminary PIat Revie!, and
Oak View Apartments, Derand
Planning File No. 88-24 SUB
Site PIan Review for
Housing Development
and 88-15 Site Plan
4
This site is located on the west side of County Roadmately one-ha1f mile north of State Highway 5. Thissite is comprised of a rolling topography with mature
scattered throughout the site.
17 approxi-18.9 acre
vegetation
The subject parcel -rsas platted as part of the West Village
Heights plat which i^ras approved by the City Council on April 20,
1988 subject to several conditions. The appropriate cooditionswill be discussed with each corresponciing section of this reporL.
Sanitary Se'*rer
Municipal sanitary sewer service is available by an existing8-inch diarneter sewer main which has been extended to theeasterly property boundary. This existing sewer main was sizedand installed to service the anticipated development for the sub-ject parcel.
The plans also indicate;a concept plan for additional units alongthe easterly side of Outlot A at a later date. The plans proposethat a stub be constructed fron the Cityts existing trunk sani-tary sewer main along Powers Boul-evard such that a new entranceor street to the north may be constructed without disturbing thepresent proposed street if the outlots do develop.
Waterma i n
The plans propose that a looped system be constructed from theexisting 12-inch watermain along County Road I7 to the existing8-inch waLermain stub that has been provided at the easterlyproperty boundary. We find that this plan is acceptable.
Acc e ss /Ri ht -of-Way
The applicant has provided for a 50-foot width right-of-way
between Block 1 and Block 2. This right-of-way extends from
County Road 17 to the easterly portion of the p1at. This accessonto County Road 17 (Powers Boulevard) will require an accesspermit from the Office of the Carver County Engineer. The ini-tial review of this subdivision received negative coflunents fromthe Office of the Carver County Engineer. These comments were
spurred by the Cityrs Concept Plan for Phase III of the Downtown
Redevelopment which involves widening County Road 17 between
State Highway 5 and the new West 78th Street detachment to afour-Iane road. The County was concerned that the access onto
County Road 17 would promote an i1Iega1 left-hand turning move-
ment from the development onto County Road 17 ( refer to attach-
ment I). Two options for the access onto County Road 17 exist.
The first option considered was to move the proposed public
right-of-way to the north. The existing topography would dictate
excessive fill amounts on top of the Cityts existing trunk sani-tary sewer. This was not desirable.
The second option that existed vras to analyze the options for the
Downtown Redevelopment Phase III Concept Pfan. Further review
by BRw has indicated that several acceptable options exist to
accommodate this additional access onto County Road 17. Two ofthe preliminary alternates that exist are shown on attachments 2
and 3 as sketched by BRW. The County has stated that they arewilling to look at how the two plans fit together and will offerformal written verification at a later date. Staff is recom-
mending that this plat proceed with the understanding that any
changes needed to accornmodate both designs for the proposed
public right-of-way will require that the applicant resubmit the
applicalion and go through the planning process if major changes
are requi red.
The applicant is proposing that the looped streets for Block I
and Block 2 be constructed and maintained as private driveways.
The plat proposes that this 50-foot easement be a drainage and
utility easement. It is recommended that this utility easement
be modified to state that it is a roadway drainage and utility
easement in Lhe event that an improvement project is required in
the future. The applicant is requesting that these private
driveways be constructed Lo a width of 22 feeL back-to-back of
curb such that they meet the "green space" requirements of the
Cityts ordinances. Staff is recommending that these streets be
maintained at a 28-foot back-to-back of curb (consistent with the
city standards for urban construction) even though these are pri-
vate streets. The street section that wiII be constructed
through the public platted right-of-way wilI be a 35-foot width
to meet the anticipated demand of this type of development.
PJ-ann ing Commi s s ion
August 3I, 1988
Page 2
Planning Cornmi ssion
August 3I, 1988
Page 3
Through the site plan development of the property inmediately tothe east (West ViIlage lteights Townhouses), City staff requestedthat a 7O-foot roadway easement be dedicated to the City for the
purpose of constructing a through street from County Road 17 to
Kerber Boulevard. At this time, the developer of the WestVillage Heights Townhouses was to construct a private driveway toservice that site from Kerber Boulevard. Staff is recommend.ingthat if the final plat for Oak View Apartments is approved, afeasibility study be initiated to extending the proposed public
roadway from Oak View Apartments through the West Village Heights
Townhouses site and ultimately to Kerber Boulevard. The antici-pated demand by the proposal necessitates that this roadway beextended to Kerber Boulevard.
The centerline of the proposed public right-of-way on theeasterly property boundary does not match up identically to theexisting centerline of the 70-foot road.way easement dedicated tothe City from the West Village Heights Townhouses site. A 6-footgap exists between the proposed right-of-way and the existingroadway easement. The applicant's engineer has been advised ofthis and states that he will shift the two centerlines such thatthey meet at the property boundary.
As per the platting conditions for the West Village iieights
Townhouses, the applicant is required to provide a means ofright-of-way or easement such that access can be gaine<i to theproperty immediately north of the subject site. The applicanthas recognized this and is proposing that an easement be givenwhich would parallel the westerly line of Block I. This has beenproposed such Lhat the access from the easement onto the proposedpublic right-of-way would line up with the access on the louthside (B1ock 2, refer to attachment #4). Staff is concerned aboutthe extreme topography in this area and will be requesting thatthe applicant provide cross-sections for an accepLable roidwaywithin this easement area to guarantee that this plan is in fictfeasible. Staff is requesting at this time a 50-foot easement tofacilitate this road-$/ay.
The plans propose thaL Block l, Block 2 and Outlot B.wil1 begraded with Outlot A remaining intact. ?he applicant is pro-posing that a ponoing site be construcLed on tne northwesi cornerof the parcel- to maintain the predeveloped runoff rate and pro-vide adequate storage for a 100-year st6rm event. The precisesizing and location of this pond wiII be finalized throirgh theplans and specifications review process.
Gradinq and Draina qe
It should be noted that several mature treeswill be required to be removed.
throughout the site
Planning Commiss ion
August 31, 1988
Page 4
Erosion Control
The applicant shaII enterthe City and provide thesureties to guarantee the
improvement s.
into a development contract withCity with the necessary financialproper installation of these public
the plans propose that the entire site be wrapped with erosioncontrol fencing. We find that this plan is ac-eptable.
Recommended Conditions
I
2 The applicant shal1 obtain andthe Walershed District permit.comply with all conditions of
3 The applicant shall obtain and comply with alLthe Access Permit issueo by the office of theEngineer.
conditions of
Carver County
At t achment s
1
2
3
4
Concept Plan for four lanesAlternative 1 - County RoadAlternative 2 - County Road
West Village Heights Plat.
on
t7
l7
Coun tyas per
as per
Road 17.
BRW.
BRW.
4. The proposed public right-of-way sha11 be revised such thatit meets the existing centerline of the 75-foot roadway ease-ment for West Village Road. At such Lime that Oak ViewApartments receives final plat approval, staff is to proceeowith authorizing a feasibility study for the extension of theproposed roadway from the easterly property boundary of OakView Apartments to Kerber Boulevard.
5. The applicant shaIl provide a 50-foot roadway easement
betr'reen the proposed public right-of-way and the northerlyproperty boundary prior to further revie!,r.
PLAN SET
NES
I
RCo
CARVEB COUNTY COURTHOUSE
600 EAST 4TH STREET
CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318PUBLIC WORKS OEPARTM ENT
(612) 448,3435
COUNTY OT CAPVflB
Thank-you for the opportunity to submitare any further questions, contact me at
August II, 1988
Ms. JoAnn Ol senCity of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive/P O Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Oak View Apartments / 88-24 SUB
Dear Ms. Ol sen:
We have rev iewed the Oak View Apartment proposal and submit thefol l owi ng comments:
The access onto CSAH 17 (Powers Blvd. ) is in direct conflictwith the proposed plans for the re-location of the 78thStreet intersection currently being deve'l oped by BRw. Car-ver County will withhold any further comments on thisproposal until this issue is addressed and reso.lved.
our comments. If thereyour conven i ence.
Sincerely,
d;z U"a/L-rz^^--
Wi 11iam J
Ass i stant
WJW,/c j r
Weckman P. E.
County Eng i neer
Allirnotive ActioniEquol Owo unity Enplow
We have had previous discussions with Mr. John Duffy, the
developer and Larry Brown, Assistant City Engineer, concern-ing this proposal .
EHINHISSEN
MEMORANDUM
TO: JoAnn Olsen, Assistant City Planner
FROII: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coorclinator
DATE: September 1, 19 88
SUBJ: Oakview Apartments
The Park and Recreation Commission will be reviewing the siteplan for Oakview Apartments at their September 14th meeting. I
undertand, however, that the Planning Commission will be
reviewing this item before that time. Therefore, I have included
staff's recommendation for your review. P]-ease bear in mind that
this is not the Park and Recreation Conmission's recornmendat ion ,but StafErE recommendation to the Commission.
Consistent with the Comprehensive Trail P1an, trails (sidewalks)
should be constructed along West Villaqe Road, Additionally, a
20' trail easement should be obtained along the east side of
Powers Boulevard.
The proposed development involves 135 units, a potential popula-
tion of roughly 275 people. 275 people create the need for 3.6
acres of parklanC. This area is not park deficient, however, and
wilI be adequately served by City Center Park and Chanhassen Pond
Park if trails (sidewalks) are installed to move this population
safely.
Recomme ndat i on
It is the recommendation of this office Eo accept park dedication
fees in lieu of parkland and to require the construction of
trails along West Village Road, and a 20 ft. trail easement along
the east side of Powers B1vd. in Iieu of the trail dedication
f ees .
CITY OF
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 9s7-1900
?a\,.)e*. aul+)tL (c l ' ^ r'i' 'r)
t.r
i;
I
I
:
?
i
.- :i %.
t8
I
"T
8-E-5
rlxd
.(l
1f,
n
;
IN
<x
."0
I,i
i8
I
I *l
OAK PARK APARTMENTS
CHANHASSEN, MN
A Feasibility Study
PREPARED FOR:
DeRand Corporation
2201 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington, VA 22201
I
,7€
I
I
BORDNER ASSOCIATES
686 W. 92ND ST. (92ND & LYNDALE)
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55420TELEPHONE 612-881-1546
August 8, 1988
lli l l iam J. Fahey
DeRand Corporat i on
2201 lli lson Blvd.
Arlington, UA 22201
Dear Mr. Fahey:
Enclosed please find our feasibility study on your Oak View Apartment project
Iocated in Chanhassen, Minnesota. This report includes considerable information
on general development trends in the Southwest Suburban area of the Twin Cities
metropolitan area in which Chanhassen is located, Recent increases in employment
and the extremely rapid pace of population growth and related development in EdenPrairie to the east are now, and will cont'inue to affect the development of the
Chanhassen Area.
Your plans call for the development of 72 two bedroom units
townhouse style buildings, with units ranging in size from 930feet with planned rental rates from $485 to $550 per month.
in
to
In surveys conducted of existing projects within the area, we find a vacancy rateof 1.3 percent in two bedroom units. lie also find that the most compirab'leproject, also located in Chanhassen, has 100 percent occupancy in similar units
and is naintaining a waiting Iist for new units.
We believe that your project matches the needs of the marketplace in projectsize, unit size and amenities and should experience a rapid ,,ient-up,,.
PIease call on us directly should you have any guestions
contained in this study.
nine "8-P l ex "
1,000 square
concern i ng i nformat i on
Yours tru 1y,
George E. Bordner
GB: wp
E nc l osu res
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE ()F COIITEIITS
PURPOSE AIID SCOPE 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTIOII. ......... 1
AREA ORIEIITATIOH
H I STORY.
LOCATION.
ACCESS.
SOUTHI{EST SUBURBAN AREA
POPULATION TRENDS
MOVEMENT BARRIERS
URBAN SERVICES BOUNDARY.
CHAIHASSEII DEVELOPI.IENT
EMPLOYMENT.
MAJOR EMPLOYERS.....
EMPLOYMENT POTENTIAL.
NEIGHBORING EMPLOY},IENT CENTERS.
DO},INTOHN CHANHASSEN REDEVELOPMENT
RESIDENTIAL OEVELOPMENT.
BUILDING PERMITS.
AREA APARTUENT I'IARKET
VACANCY RATES.. .....11
APARTMENT SURVEY. .........12
PROJECT FEASIBILITY
COMPARABLE PROJECTS. ......I3
ABSORPTION RATES.. .....,...14
VACANCY RATES.. ...........15
RENTAL RATES. ......I5
SUMI4ARY RECOMMENDATIONS..... ......I5
I
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
7
7I
9
01
GROIITH PATTERNS
LAND USE TRENDS
I
1
PURP0SE Al,lD SC0PE
The purpose of this report is to assess the feasibility of multi-family
development of a proposed six plus acre apartment site in Chanhassen, Minnesota.
The scope of the study includes an examination of various factors in operation
today which may affect the growth and developrnent of the Chanhassen area, as well
as an investigation of the existing apartment market.
PROJECT DESCRIPTIOII
Oak View Apartments is a proposed 72 unit complex of nine 8-plex buildings. All
72 units are planned as 2 bedroom, I 1/2 bath residences. A townhouse style
development, unit sizes will run from 930 to 1,000 square feet in size with each
unit having it's own attached garage. llashers and dryers will be included with
each unit. Five percent of the units will be handicapped accessible and the
exterior will be stucco and textured masonite with brick trim. Projected rents
will range from $485 to $550.
The project is planned for a 6+ acre site located in the northeast quadrant of
the intersection of Powers Road with State Highway 5 and 78th Street. The Oak
View sjte is inrnediateiy to the west of the redeveloping downtown core of the
city of Chanhassen. The slightly elevated terrain of the property will give the
Oak View project exceptional visibility for rental purposes as well as providing
a pleasant yiew for tenants.
AREA ORIENTATIO}I
H i storv
Chanhassen, unlike many other metropolitan area suburbs, is an histor.ic center
of trade. The present downtown area has served as a business district for the
surrounding area for many years. The original village hall, which still stands,
was built in 1898. The city in its present form was incorporated 26 years ago
in 1962.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
Locat i on
The city lies in the northeast corner of Carver County. Eden Prairie lies
directly to the east while the city of Minnetonka and various Lake }linnetonka
cities are adjacent on the north. The Minnesota River valley borders the city
on the south while the more rural oriented comrunities of Chaska, Victoria and
Laketown abut the city on the west and southwest. Downtown Chanhassen is roughly
5 miles due west of Interstate 494 on State Highway 5 (see Area Map).
Downtown Chanhassen is roughly 5 miles due west of Interstate 494 on State
Highway 5. Highway 5 is the major east-west highway serving the area and is the
major access route into the nore developed portions of Minneapolis-St. Paul.
A number of north-south arterials serve the area, from State Highway 101 on the
east to State Highway 41 (Hazeltine Btvd.) on the west. Powers Blvd. (County Rd.
17) provides north-south access between the central areas of Chanhassen and
Excelsior three miles to the northwest. The subject site lies adjacent to Powers
B l vd. nearits i ntersect i on wi th State H i ghway 5.
For the purpose of this report, the Southwest Suburbs have been defined as being
those cornrnunities lying essentialIy south of U.S. Hwy. 12. north of the Minnesota
River, west of County Highway 18 and extending r'rest to the easternmost boundaries
of the rural townships of Watertown and Laketown.
The Southwest Suburbs are mainly second ring developing cities. Over the last
ten years they have been one of the Twin Cities' fastest growing areas. The 1980
Census showed 104,551 persons in the Southwestern Suburbs, for a compound annual
increase of 2.5 percent since 1970, a rate much greater than the overall
metropolitan area compound annual growth rate of 0.58 percent.
I
Access
The Southwest Suburban Area
2
TABLE I
POPULATION TRENDS - SOUTHWEST SUBURBS
1980 1987
Averag
Percen
nnua l
hanqe*
eAtc
Chanhassen
Chaska
Eden PrairieMinnetonka 3
Victoria
Minnetonka Lake
Communities:
Deephaven
Exce I s ior
Greenwood
Long Lake
Minnetonka Beach
Mi nnetr i sta
Mound
0rono
Shorewood
Spr i ng Park
St. Bon ifac i us
Tonka Bay
}layzata
Wood I and
4
4
6
5
53
63
87
06
B6
78
72
87
23
87
685
I,397
3, 700
544
8,485
10,018
26,2t4
42,636.2,103
,671
,587
655
,969
593
,584
,849
,212
,921
,508
,084
,453
,668
496
819
352
938
776
850
359
346
263
683
425
4.22
2.6
9.5
1.5
5.7
6
8
6
8
I
I
3
3
2
I
3
9
6
4
I
I
3
71
52
65
74
57
23
3,8
2,5
5
1,5
5
2,8
7,5
6,7
4,2
1,0
6
3
7
5
6
3
2
1
3
9
7
4
1
1
I
3
-0.2
0.4
0.0
L.7
0.4
1.5
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.4
3.4
1.0
0.2
-0.8
280
845
646
465
857
354
621
526
Tota I B5,BB4 t12,120 137,62t 3.0%
Metro Area 1,874,612 1,985,873 2,153,533 t.2%
Source: U.5. Census; Metropolitan Council; Bordner Associates
According to Metropolitan Council estimates, the 3.0 percent annual growth rate
of the area was over twice the growth rate of the netropolitan area as a whole.
Chanhassen had the third fastest growth rate of all southwest area cities. Eden
Prairie, which lies adjacent to Chanhassen on the east was the fastest growing
of the Southwest coarnunities at 9.5 percent per year and in fact has been one
of the fastest growing conmunities in the Twin Cities metro area.
Movement Barriers
The two major natural barriers to population novement in the Southwest Area of
the Twin Cities are the Minnesota River and Lake Minnetonka, both of which
3
Area 1970
seriously constrain north-south population f low. The presence of these natural
barriers are important in understanding the growth patterns of this area.
Groy{th Patterns
As can be seen in Table I, Minnetonka city and the various Minnetonka Lake
conmunities have relatively low growth rates. illustrating the fact that these
areas have already undergone a major portion of their developnent, Table II,
following, Iists land use data from a 1984 survey by the Metropolitan Council.
Note that the percentage of vacant land remaining in Minnetonka and the Lake
Corununities was quite low, even in 1984.
TABLE II
1984 LAND USE TRENDS - SOUTHI.IEST SUBURBS
Area
Chanhassen
Chask a
Eden Prairie
Minnetonka
V i ctor i a
Minnetonka Lake
Comnunities:
Deephaven
Excelsior
Greenwood
Long Lake
Minnetonka Beach
Mi nnetri sta
Mound
0rono
Shorewood
Spring Park
St. Bon ifac i us
Tonka Bay
I{ayzata
llood I and
617
441
744
038
9
22
t7
3
1
6
I
4
2
Acres
Vacant
9,509
Tota I
Acres
Percent
Vacant6:€
7t.2
51.1
26.5
51.?
69. 1
31.2
22-5
0.0
291
387
870
978
197
26
t2
130
47
14,529
280
6,268
1 ,664
t7
475
198
480
-0-
1,552
435
385
583
311
9,775
3,t25
5,979
8,634
390
687
634
2,138
404
I
I
t2.7
6.0
3.1
22.3
15. 1
73. 5
9.0
39.2
19.3
4.4
58,672 121 ,958 4B.r%
The direction of population growth in this area has been from the essentially
developed areas of Bloomington, Edina and the eastern parts of Minnetonka into
4
Tota I
Source: Metropol itan Council; Bordner Associates
a
h
t.-&.- -rr. I
, r''!'liii
T.:
t"
!
i,t
rt I,lA
tr-'1
t
II{F
{
ll;
E
I
I
$
I,f
.l
'*
t'Li
ti
t
al,'rd
l11
r,
t,'
/
I
'-..
IJ.i
v
l\
{c
't
f )
I
lCt=
L1
trri'
ri
iI
1a
I
I
.t
ul,F'
@
I ir
l!,
:
,/
, "a
l.\
,; 1. ,
o-ri!
\i
i
t'
EI
t
ri
J
i'Ei
i
t
i,I
i
!
,,1'
aa5
o
-I
I
!.
l.:i'.
I.t'
!
I
t.
I ', ,'.:\f't'
,}
'J\
,rr
:
t.l
:
;"t*.
.4.-
l{Y
tt,
=U'
cto
!
!l
f
I
western Minnetonka and Eden Prairie. This was controlIed in large part by
movement barriers in the area (Minnesota River and Lake Minnetonka) which
funneled deveiopment in this direction. The northeastern corner of Chanhassen,
which lies adjacent to Eden Prairie, is presently experiencing population growth
that is a natural consequence or extension of the development which continues
to occur in Eden Prairie.
Urban Serv i ces
The Metropolitan Urban Services Boundary (M.U.S.A. Line) shown on the Area l.lap
represents the line past which urban services (water, sewer) will not be extended
prior to the year 2000, as presently planned. The rationale for the boundary
was to contain "urban sprawl" and encourage development within a nore compact
metropolitan area where services could be delivered more economically and
efficientiy. The effect of the M.U.S.A. Line in the Chanhassen area is evident
from a reading of the map. Present residential road patterns, which ind'icate
population distribution, now lie almost exclusively inbound from that line. It
can readily be seen that the future effect of the boundary will be to intensify
the development pressures on land within the northeastern Chanhassen
area.
CHAilHASSEN OEVEL()P},IEIIT
As noted ear'l ier, Chanhassens' development is in part an extension of growth
westward from Eden Prairie as welI as southward as an extension of the
residential areas surrounding Lake Minnetonka. This is quite evident on the
enclosed aerial photographs,
Emp I oyment
Residential expansion conmon ly occurs jointly with
opportunity. The availabil ity of new jobs has been
population growth in the Chanhassen area, as well as
Eden Prairie to the east.
an
an
in
increase in emp.loyment
important determinant of
the explosive growth of-t
-t
5
I
In the past Chanhassen has been, in part, a "bedroom" corrnunity for other areas
of the Twin Cities, with residents living in Chanhassen but working elsewhere.
That has become less of a factor with the continuing increase in employment
opportunities in Chanhassen itself. An employment survey was conducted by the
city of Chanhassen in the spring of 1986 and again in the spring of 1988. This
survey showed total full time employment increasing from 2,340 in 1986 to 2,626
in 1988, This is the equivalent of a 5.9 percent annual growth rate. This is
shown in Table III, following.
TABLE I I I
CHANHASSEN EMPLOYMENT
Ful I T ime Part Time
Chanhassen presently has a nunber of major firms employing over 100 persons.
They are Iisted in Table IV following.
United Mai l ing
Bloomberg Compan 'ies
The Press
I nstant |lebb
Empak
M. A. Gedney Co.
Victory Enve lope
Mai I i ng/Pre- sort
Dinner Theatre
Printing
Printing
Electronics Mfg.
Pickles & Dres s i ngs
Mfg. /Pri nt Enve I opes
450
315
300
250
200
132
t25
Source: "Conrmunity Profile", Minn. Dept. of Trade & Econ. Devel.
6
1986 2,340 869
1988 2,626 914
Annual Percent Increase 5.926 2.6%
Source: City of Chanhassen; Bordner Associates
Major Emp I oyer s
TABLE IV
CHANHASSEN MAJOR EMPLOYERS
Chanhassen city staff report two significant new
construction and one yet in planning.
emp I oyers ,one beginning
McGlynn Bakeries has begun grading on a 77 acre site in Chanhassen Industrial
Park for a 100,000 square foot plant to be completed by the sumner of 1989. This
is the first phase of a planned larger complex. Initial first phase employment
is projected at 100 full time jobs.
An un-named "high tech" firm is planning a 330,000 square foot facility (90,000
sq.ft. office & 240,000 sq.ft. manufacturing) which would initially have 660 full
time ernployees. Construction in the Chanhassen Industrial Park would begin in
the fall of 1988 or the spring of 1989. Chanhassen city staff rePorts that this
company has narrowed their plant location choices to the cities of Chaska and
Chanhassen, with Chanhassen having a decided edge.
Neiqhborinq Emp loyment Cen ters
1980
1986*
Average Annual I ncrease
*Most recent est imate available
Source: Metropolitan Council; Eden Prairie
15 , 000
29 ,000
tl.6e"
P
'lann i ng Dept; Bordner Assocjates
7
I
Emplovment Potentjal
0f equal importance is Chanhassen's proximity to surrounding major Twin Cities
employment areas. The Eden Prairie "corner" (west of County Rd. lB and centered
around the intersection of I.R. 494 with State Highway 5) was identified by the
Metropolitan Council as a major employrnent area in a 1980 employment survey.
At that time, 1980, 15,000 workers were estimated to be employed in the area.
In 1986, just six years Iater, that had increased to 29,000 workers, the
equivalent of an average annual increase of 11.6 percent.
TABLE V
EDEN PRAIRIE 'CORNER'
EMPLOYMENT
i
Il
I
!
E s -EH-- rr
'ts oF -H. 5-.iH
grsr;e5ls,:Hg;EgEJ*F
;gEgEF$FE:gEEiHEHEEEHE
'r*
-.I,11
,lI
t'.
ilt o
1
I
C
.l
IG
z
2
\.
,q
tu
a
.\.
r
\
.!
I\
,l
e
].
t\
t!Y
"\t-* -
\
I
t,
6t
+!
e
,
,
I
Li
,
)
l2
tl
-(.
I
il-.,
,.^
,v
+
\
t/
L
I
.l
l{T
trri
IZ;.;
IIT .
U) ,, ,,A,r^,
EIIr( f+-
=lit"-
e{fq
'\
IZ
=
{
,
6
\
o 1,l
i*}
t
&
e
I
hi
e
UJF
o 2
a
a.l
!n
tl
I
l.rt
(
1
i
I
!
a, :.
d'
I
a
IIt\
.t
t
t
I
I
ttt"'
t
,;
I
I
v)5
o
/"
I.
-OAiE6 FG-A6at'o^?66i F -6
I
I
fi
t!,:
ih!klt
i
As is apparent on the enciosed area map, this major employment area is within
a very short driving distance of Chanhassen.
Other major Twin City employment areas, such as the heavily industrialized
business area in and around Minneapolis Industrial Park (494 &12155) as well as
the heavily developed 494 "strip" area in B.loomington, are within easy driving
reach of Chanhassen residents via Interstate 494 and State Highway 5 (now being
upgraded to four lanes).
The current redevelopment of downtown Chanhassen is important to the Oak View
apartrnent project since it is located directly on its western edge (see aerial
photographs ) .
As noted earlier, downtown Chanhassen is an historic central business district
as opposed to newly developed retail areas of many of the newer Twin Cities
suburbs. In a sense, the downtown area has been anchored for many years by Herb
Bloomberg's Chanhassen Dinner Theater and unique shopping arcade. This has given
an identity and focal point to downtown Chanhassen that otherwise would not
exist. The Central Business District is presently undergoing renovation and
redevelopment including road real ignment and landscape beautification. In
addition a nurnber of new projects are now underway or in various stages of
planning. These are shown on the enclosed occupancy aerial photograph and are
I isted as follows:
1. Professional Services Building - Planned 20,000 sq.ft. to begin
construction in Spring of 1989, To include 9,000 sq.ft. doctors clinic
and 1,000 sq. ft. space for 24 hour emergency medical services offered by
Haconia/Fairview Hospitals. (Photo Key #6)
2. Convenience Retail Center - Approximately 18,000 sq.ft. with Brooks
Superette. Chinese Restaurant, Video, Liquors, etc. (Photo Key #3)
Downtown Chanhassen Redele]elrngn'q
--lD
t
T
I
1
1
I
.I
T
1
I
1
1
-I
I
I
I
3. Day Care Center planned 6,000 sq.ft. facility. (Photo Key #7)
4. Major Neighborhood Shopping Center - planned 70 to 90,000 square feet
anchored by 16,000 sq.ft. Coopers Super Valu (with expansion area to 30,000
sq.ft.) and Hardware Hank. Being developed by Marcore, this project is
slated for construction in the coming year. (Photo Key #16)
6. Convenience Retail Center - is planned by James Co. as a 30,000 sq.ft.
convenience center anchored by PDQ. This project is immediately south of
the Oak Vierv Apartment site. (Photo Key #18)
7. Proposed Shopping Center - also planned by James Co. as a major retail
center this site also Iies directly adjacent to the Oak View project on
it's southeast side. (Photo Key #19)
Res i dent ia I Development
As noted earlier, the M.U.S.A. line (metropolitan urban services boundary), shown
on the accompanying area map, limits significant residential development to the
northeastern corner of Chanhassen by Iimiting the area in which metropolitan
services wijl be extended. Growth occurring in the area is shown by the
following table which sumnarizes building permit data since 1980 for the city
of Chanhassen.
v
1
5. Proposed 100 unit Raddison "Country Suite" Hotel, - Construction is
scheduled for the fall of 1988 on this facility which, combined with the
Chanhassen Dinner Theater, will help to solidify downtown Chanhassen as
a destination point. (Photo Key #17)
r--l
F-l
TABLE VI
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RESIDENTIAL BUILOING PERMITS
(IN NUMBER OF UNITS)
Dup.
Single Multi-Familv Familv*
Twnhme. Apts,Tota I
t9B2
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
2
8
34
38
8
2
1B
Tota I 911 92 18 I ,141
Source: City of Chanhassen
TABLE VII
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS
EDEN PRAIRIE 1982-1987
1982
1983
l9B4
1985
1986
1987
341
559
892
822
780
785
10
420
90
1 ,096
975
411
Total 4,179 3,002
*ln buildings with 2 or more units
Source: Metropolitan Council; Eden Prairie Planning Dept.
From 1982 through 1987 Eden Prairie and Chanhassen together have issued building
permits for multi-family dwellings (2 or more units) totaling 3,232 living units.
The Apartment Guide lists multi-family apartment vacancy for Eden Prairie and
Chanhassen at approximately 6 percent in the spring of 1988. If, as is likely,
IO
S. F.
19
60
108
189
246
289
3;
24
20
8
32
L20
2t
104
166
265
262
323
Also as noted earlier, Chanhassens deveiopment is in part an extensjon of growth
patterns in Eden Prairie adjacent on the east. Eden Prairie has been one of the
fastest growing suburbs in the Twin Cities as can be seen in the table below.
Tota I
351
979
982
1 ,918
1,755
1,196
7,181
r-l
the living units represented by these permits are built by the end of 1988 and
with an overall vacancy rate for all mu'lti-family units of 6 percent then the
area will have absorbed 434 multi-family units per year (3,232 x 6& /7) during
this time span. Chanhassen itself absorbed 31 units per year.
Continued increase in inunediate area employment.
Continued development of Downtown Chanhassen providing
with necessary services and shopping faci lities in an
sett i ng.
Continued westerly expansion of development from Eden
Continued southerly expansion of development from the
area.
AREA APARTI'IE}IT I.IARKET
Vacancy Rates
Area Rate
1
2
3
4
area res i dents
attract i ve
Prairie.
Lake Mi nnetonka
B I oomi ngton
Chanhassen
Eden Pra i rie
Edina
Exce I s ior
Hopk i ns
M i nnetonka
St. Louis
5.88%*
3. 98
6 .80
8.45
3.30
1.99
13.09*
4 .45
*Data i nf I ated by new
Park
construction
Source: The Apartment Guide; Minnesota Real Estate Journal.
11
Development pressure for continued residential development in the northeastern
corner of Chanhassen will continue and likely increase over and above rates of
recent years, primarily for the following reasoris.
A list of vacancy rates for apartment projects was compiled for southwest
suburban cormunities from data supplied by The Apartment Guide. Vacancy rates
were compiled from a May, 1988 survey of selected projects.
TABLE VIII
SOUTHI.IEST SUBURBS
VACANCY RATES
Note that Chanhassen's rate is one of the Iowest in the area, exceeded only by
Excelsior and Hopkins, both of which are older more established conmunities.
Project Survey
A survey of area apartment units was conducted during the first week of August.
Ten representative projects were investigated, falling roughly within a 5 mile
radius of the site location. This included 4 projects in Chanhassen and 6 in
Eden Prairie. The basic results of that survey are listed in the table below.
The concentration of the survey was on the present supply of 2 bedroom units and
the current vacancy of those units. The Iocation of all units is shown on the
enclosed Area Map and the first column of the table Iists the projects map key.
TABLE IX
AREA APARTMENT SURVEY
Two Bedroom Units
Map
[9-Y
1
P
&N
roject Name
umber of Un i ts*
Year
Built
Size in
sq.Ft.
979- 1 183
Units Vacancy
Vacant Rate Rent Ranqe
Parkway Apartments
375 - 0196/246/33
Eden Cormons
196 - 01128168/0
Lakeview Hi IIs
t70 - 6/124/40/0
|lindsong Apartments
70 - 0/0170/0
1987 I 0.4% $605-630
2
3
4
5
Eden Glen Apts.
70 - 0/18149/3
Edenvale Apartments
t75 - 0ls6/11613
1985 900-977 0 0.0% $565
1970 950 L 2.52 $490
1987 946 t 7.4r, $635-710
1986 930-10s0 0 0.0% $595-660
6
7 Quaj I Ridge
r08 - 0/4t/67/0
LZ
1982 949 I 0.9% $s60
1986 877-1032 4 5.9% $615-695
TABLE IX (CONTINUED)
Map
(eJ
I
P
&N
roject Narne
umber of Unitsr
Year
Bui It
t97A
Size in
sq. Ft.
970
Two Bedroom Units
Units Vacancy
Vacant Rate Rent Ranqq
2 2.94 $525-550
I
Chanhassen I'leadows
t38 - 0170l6810
Carver Court Apts.
24 - 0/12/12/0
t976 900 0 0.0& l4z0
10 llest Village 1988 1000 0 0.0% t540
64 - 0/015618
*Number of Units Key: Total - Studio / IBR l2 BR / 3 BR
Note: Bold projects are located in Chanhassen. Non-bold in Eden Prairie'
Source: Bordner Associ ates
Note from the above table that vacancies in two bedroom units in the surveyed
projects are very scarce. Out of a total of 792 two bedroom units, l0 were
available for rent giving an overall vacancy of 1.3 percent.
AIso of importance is that with the exception of the llest Village Townhouses now
under construction, all of the Chanhassen units are over 10 years old, the most
recent being the Chanhassen Meadows complex in 1978.
PROJECT FEASIBILITY
The 64 unit West Village development merits special consideration since the most
common sense approach to feasibility Iies in an examination of the success of
comparable projects in similar areas.
Comparab le Pro ject s
l3
llest Village, which lies adjacent to the Oak View site on the east, has an
essentially identical location, although the Oak View site will have, because
of the terrain, a superior view for tenants and visibility from passing traffic
for rental purposes. Hest Village, with a mix of 56 two bedroom and 8 three
bedroom units is presently under construction.
1. Location - essential.ly identical
2. General design - 8 plex townhouse units
3. Size of units - roughly 1,000 sq.ft.
I,lest Village and Oak View are dissimilar in the fol lowing points:
1.Oak View has attached garages - l,test Village has separate "in-line"
garage structures.
2. The terrain of Oak View's site provides for increased view and
visibility.
3.Oak View's average rents will be somewhat less than llest Vi11age.
In summary, West Vi llage and Oak View are very similar projects, with Oak View
having some slight edge in the above listed points. l'lest Village now has
approximately 40 units complete and rented, Management reports that a wait'ing
list exists for the remaining units such that the l{est Village project is
expected to be 100 percent occupied at completion this year,
Absorption rates
The absorption rate for multi-family units in Chanhassen was noted earlier as
being 30+ units per year from 1982 through l9B7 (does not include Hest Village).
However, that rate is in part a reflection of the lack of developer initiative
in supplying more significant projects to take advantage of the expanding
Chanhassen market. 0f nore significance is the overall Chanhassen-Eden Prairie
absorption rate of 434 multi-family units per year over the same time period.
i4
I
t{est Village and Oak View are similar jn the following points:
t
t Our survey of vacancies in two bedroom units revealed a shortage of such units
in the marketplace. 0verall two bedroom vacancy in surveyed facilities was only
1.3 percent.
Rental Rates
0verall two bedroom rental rates for surveyed projects are considerably higher
than those proposed for Oak View. However many of the surveyed projects were
larger complexes with other amenities. Within the irrnediate Chanhassen area,
Oak View's rate structure is extremely competitive with the new l{est Vil lage
complex. 0ther existing Chanhassen projects are lower in average rents, but are
priced correctly for the older, less attractive proiects that they represent.
The primary reason for the increase in population pressure in Chanhassen itself
is the dramatic increase in employment in the area. Plans for present business
and industrial expansion will provide the support for a continued increase in
population in the coming years. The existence of the M.U.S.A. line dictates that
new population development in Chanhassen willbe confined to it's northeastern
corner in and around the present downtown area.
The proposed Oak View Apartnents, 72 unit two bedroom comp'lex, is well conceived
to match the demand for such units in the Chanhassen market, Vacancy rates for
such units are extrenely low, most Chanhassen facilities are older and not
competitive and the one comparable new project has units that are renting out
as they are completed with a waiting list for those not yet finished.
T
I
T
I
T
l
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
Vacancv Rates
Summary Recommen da t j on s
The 72 two bedroom units planned here should be easily absorbed in the existing
market.
-D
.{It
,rl; ;'i.t$IF
\h
x:
I.t
4
I
t
.t
I
I
I
{
ij
I
I
tl rl
I
',.
,
:
i!,
aa
i
rJ\le/
i
a
'rl I
,1,?
t
i
I
i,t
!I
I
I
H
t
{'
a'
i
'i
I
)I
I
i
,+.
:l
IUF
a
t
i
e
&t i
o
I
lr
I
Goc,
I
ootto
,.
lr i
(.{t
E-
l
-
I
:..i
oI
ox
z
UI
m
=
I
o
-l-
zI
u,
o)mz
ai
T$
.,++ie
=z
m{ozx
t-
xm
o
-{fro
iii!i!
,
@
I '1
^t,,
i
,!;
*l
ili
; -rl ll
,
?l
lr
;i!II
a
t-E
lt
aa
'A,jri
tl,f
,"'
t zz
m-lozx
l
*
mo
m
-oa
1'
m
iz
a
rn
T'
t
tr!!:."-9l-ri(;&ii
Itrr.rnorrf uttrrtl
j
,rrtrarrE !!trrcl
I@ :--;tr___r:r;_i;
-
t
I,rrrlortE lr!rirt!
;ili
[llIIT
trrrnotru u!rrre
ttla
ttt
TEE
EIH
@I@
-*.;n, - 'F r. -1,;r.';- 'a,Itrrrrorru !!rrrql
:
F
;
F
I
llrrlln
IUlllt
lIu
trrlnorr{ u!lrrE
ffil
I,rrrDotrE lI!rr,E
;
I
I
-l\
liEI
:l:i'
:l
Ll
li
l!
l:?l.r
I
J
I
1
:l
rl!!l
h
i,1
:l
'tl(l 1-'ii'
:t.
.t:
rl
!-'r
I
r.\y
I
I
:l =
I
;l*
I
.._::
.t
J
"l
1
|?i
i
l
t
II
tr:
:
:
t,
H
-+
I
I
II
-.<.,:,: .\".
,.1..
l
\:..
,.: '. '''t'.'' \
,,,,(o-,, (o.. .lD.,--- (o,IO
6
\
V
i.,1
{\
v
.\
I
\.t
I)
I
r-
I
+PA)
\
\
o
\
(
I
lli
ilr
lt
a
o
{
o
$
+(x
m
.l \it. \,
I5i'.
I
\
,l
6
l
I
I
/
i
o
/:
\
,/t-
\(
\
I
:3
197 9€
E a Una,?y tAst
a
^\
f.qr
"PE
p
t'..r o''l
ia- .
,ei'i
.Ll
-1' 7
L
(t
Z
I
K
$ 20438 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(6) Dredging in any wetland area is prohibited during waterfowl breeding seasou or fish
spawning season, unless it is determined by the city that the wetland is not used for
waterfowl breeding or fish spawning.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 24(5-24-8(2)), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-439. Discharges.
(a) Soil loss from a construction site any part of which is in a wetland or within two
hun&ed (200) feet ofthe wetland that is within the wetland watershed shall not exceed a rate
of more than two (2) tons per acre per year.
(b) Projected soil loss from a completed construction project shall not exceed one-half ton
per year if any part of it is in a wetland or within two hundred (200) feet ofa wetland that is
within the wetland watershed.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 24(5-24-8(3), 12-15-86)
Sec. 2G440. Stormwater runoff.
(a) A minimum increase in volume of stormwater runoffto a wetland from a development
over the natural volume of runoffmay be allowed when necessary for use of property but only
when it lvill not have a ne! adverse effect upon the ecological and hydrological characteristics
of the wetlands. In no case shall the restrictions on runoff set out belorv be exceeded. Since the
total increase in runoff rvhich can be permitted is limited. the council rvhen considering
permit applications shall consider, in addition to the follorving, apportionment of increased
runoff opportunity to all rvetland property within the surrounding wetland area.
(b) stormwater ru,off from a development may be directed to the wetland only rvhen free
of debris and substantially free of chemical pollutants and silt, and only at rates which d.o not
disturb vegetation or increase turbidity. sheet flow and other overland drainage of runoff
shall be encouraged.
(c) The proposed action shall not cause stormwater runoffon the wetlands to take place at
a rate which would materially exceed the natural rate.
(d) The allowed total increased runoff, in combination rvith the total fill allorved, shall not
cause total natural flood storage capacity of the rvetland to fall below, or fall belorv further,
the projected volume of runoff in the whole developed rvetland rvatershed generated bv a
5.9-inch rainfall in twenty-four (24) hours.
(e) The allowed total increase in runoff, in combination rvith the total fill allorved, shall
not cause total natural nutrient stripping capacity of the wetland to fall belorv, or fall below
further, the projected nutrient production from the whole developed rvetland ryatershed.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 2{(5-24-8(4)), 12-15,86)
C
GSecs. 2(M41-20-175. Rcserved.
1194
Sro
ADDRESS -r,>o \ *.\.{"t
I,AND DEVELOP ENT APPLICATION
CITT OF CEANEASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317(612) 937-1900
OWNER:
ADDRES S >>o \
L.^- O*
APPLICANT :-*-.\ {Dc-V,
,.1 --)zY-)-o \
Ip code zip codeTELEPHONE (Daytime )
REQTJEST:
TELE PHONE
Zoning District Change
ioning Appeal
Zoning Variance
Zoning Text Amendment
Land Use Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
Site Plan Review ' '.-,i
Planned Unit Development
_ Sketch PIan
_ Preliminary plan
Final plan
Subdivi sion
X elatting
_ Metes and Bounds
Str eet,/Eas ement Vacation
Wetlands Permit
.-.,\.,.-\PROJECT NAME
REQUESTED LAND USE
PRESENT ZONING
PLAN DESIGNATION
g - 12-
?- r:-
REQIJESTED ZONING ?-
USES PROPOSED
SIZE OF PROPERTY Tq,. Y
(: Cu..-:)
LOCATION
REASONS FOR TEIS REQUEST *\-}x\c,s.o. e
o.J\\*. a \\ \,\\(-\-:";u
trtu
,J.
,J"
Jo
So
So
rSo
tr 4.<-
I
)
X
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATIoN ? - Tz.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary )--
City
Land
Pag e
of Chanhassen
DeveLopment Application
2
This applicaLion must be completed in full and be typewriLten orc'l'early printed and must be iccompaniea-oy all information andplans required bv aog^l-lca! e cia;-o;;i;"nce provisions. BeforefiIing this applicaiiorr, you shoirld confer with the city plannerto determine the soegj f ic- ordinan.. "nJ-pr".edural requirementsapplicable to your'.ppii..ti"-il-""= '"" ,
FILING INSTRUCTIONS:
FIL ING CER,T TF TCAT ION:
Signed By
Signed
The undersiined reoresentative of the applicant herebythat he is familiai wirh the ;r;;";;;"i"requirements ofapplicable City Ordinances -
certifiesall
Date A-
The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been:::::ii:;: ro make thi.s app1ic"ii""-i","the properry herein
AppIic
ee Owner
Date ?- rS - t q
Recei ved
Paid l1O 1prltlt-t anu.- ov)F-, YLrr'L.flJ4 F6t .
Date Application
Application Fee
City Receipt No.
rhis ApplicaLion will beBoard of Adjustments andmeeting.
cons idered
Appeals at.
by rhe
thei r Planning Commi ss ion,/
>.^-
EHfii\IH[S5T$I
STAFF REPORT
Fz
()
=LL
Zoning Ordinance amend.ment request to amendSection 20-814 to allo$, state licensed day carecenters as a conditional use in the IOP, IndustrialOffice Park District.
PROPOSAI:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:N-
S-
E-
w-
WATER AND SEhIER:
PEYSICAI CHARAC. :
2OOO LAND USE PLAN:
CITY OF P.C. DATE: Sept. 7, 1988
C.C. DATE: Sept. 26, 1988
CASE NO: 88-15 ZOA
Prepared by: Dacy: k
ko
IJFa
Rome Development
1450 Park Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317
zoA 8 8-I5
September 7,
Page 2
BACKGROUND
1988
The City Council approved the Zoning Ordinance amendment to allowstate licensed day care centers as an accessory use in the IOp,Industrial Office Park District on Jul-y 11, 1988. The planning
Commission reviewed this request at the June 15, 1988 meeting.
Instant Web has since decided not to install a day care facilitywithin their building (warehouse demands) and would like to pur-sue a free-standing facility along with United Mailing andvictory Envelope.
ANALYSIS
During research of Ehe Zoning Ordinance amendment for day carecenters as part of an industrial building, it was determined thatother communities al1ow these uses as a ,,supporting and minor',use i,o the principle use. Eden Prairie, Chaska and Minnetonkapermitted these uses as part of either a muLti-tenant officebuilding (Chaska) or as a part of the principle building (EdenPrairie). None of these communities allowed day care centers asa permitted or conditional use such that a free standing facilitywould exist.
Staff advised the applicant to petition to amend the ZoningOrdinance to a11ow state licensed day care centers as a con-ditional use in the IOP versus a permitted use in that the primaryintent of the district is to provide for light manufacturing and -
industrial activities. Day care centers ara permitted in ai1 ofthe commercial districts except the BF, Business Fringe distri,ct.As a conditional use, the City would have the ability to control-the location of the day care center in relation to otherindustrial uses to insure that adequate separation is maintainedand to insure that adeguate access to the site is provided.
As was discussed during the original Zoning Ordinance amend.ment,provision of day care services in industrial parks is becoming amajor concern to employers and is becoming popular to include inemployer benefit packages. This type of use is such that staffdoes not feel that there would be a number of requests to locatea free-standing day care center in the busi-ness park such that itwould occupy a large amount of indusLrial zoned 1and. It isrecommendedi ho!,rever, that the Zoning Ord.inance be amend.ed toinclude Section 20-292 which would be a repeat of Section 2O-26twhich estabrishes conditions for state ricensed day care centersin the residentiar distri-cts. The main concern of these faciri-ties is adequate loading and drop-off points as well as locationand construction of outdoor play areas. Again, as a conditionaluse, these issues can be addressed as wel-I as the issue of loca_tion in relation to other industrial uses.
zoA 88-15
September 7,
Page 2
1988
RECOMMENDAT I ON
It is recommended thatfollowing motion:
Additionally, to add Section
Care Centers:
the Planning Commission adopt the
"The Planning Commission approves Zoning Ordinance Anendments
Request 88-15 to amend Section 20-814 as follows:
(L3) State Licensed Day Care Centers.
20-292, State Licensed Day
1 The site sha11 have loading and drop-offpoints designed to avoid interferring withtraffic and pedestrian movements .
Outdoor play areas shal1 be located and
designed in a manner which mitigates visual andnoise impacts of adjoining residential areas.
2
3 Each center shall obtain applicable
county and city licenses."
state,
ATTACHMENTS
Application.
Letter from Roman Roos dated August 10, 1988.
City Council minutes tiated July 11, 1988.
Planningr Commission minutes dated June 15, 1988.
Section 20-26L.
I
2
3
4
5
LAND DEVELOPHENT APPLICATION
CITY OF CEANEASSET|
690 Coulter Drive
ChanhasseD, MN 55317(612) 937-1900
APPLICANT:
ADDRESs Lrtg Peez- 6 !et
a2
TELEPHoNE (Daytime )
REQUES?:
Y?I.Z'5
PROJECT NATYE
Zoning District Change
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Variance
Zoning Text Amendment i. :
tand Use Plan Amendment
Conditionat Use Permit..-1- *
Site Plan Review
P^.- Da, G..
Planned Unit Development
_ Sketch Plan
_ Preliminary plan
_ Final PIan
Subdivi sion
_ Platting
_ Metes and Bounds
Street/Easement Vacation
Wetlands Permit
h\o OWNER:
ADDRESS
?*"?-,
Sr*r t
ss)7
rp code Zip Code
TELE PHONE
Carrt*,.
PRESENT I,AND USE
REQUESTED LAND US
PRESENT ZONIi\G
PLAN DESIGNATIoN TO F
E PLAN DESIGNATION
ToP
rAL
REQUESTED ZONING
usES pRoposED T)o.. &
F o D,vcltr
ar L t 't!,
SIZE OF PROPERTY I,L 6F L.E Bracr. Z
LOCATI ON t-?
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach 1ega1 if necessary) Pr*fl]-Lor3 B r+
r-oc-2.
rt
c/
La *o v +ssco Lsts
((
r
I
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
August 10, 1988
Dear Barbara:
This letter supplements our land development application with a
descrlption of the project and the areas of concern to be addressed.
The project ts a 5,100 square foot day-care facility deslgned to service
the needs of the employees of Instant Web, United l4ailing and Victory
Envelope. The tenant will be a new day-care corporation setup to meet
their employeers needs. The site was selected because of lts location;
providing isolation rrith a background of trees.
There are several areas of concern for reviewal and they require action
through the plannlng process.
Conditional Use Pernlt and zonlng Text Anendment
A. It ls ny understandlng that Staff and Council have addressed
the issue of day-care in the IOP. I belleve the finding was
that a day-care can be a conditional use in an existing
building.
B. We are requesting that Staff and Council nodify their
findings to include our day-care facillty as a free standlng
building and perElt conditional use. This action would
probably require a zonlng text aDendment and a conditj-onal
use permit.
Site Plan Review
A. We have submitted a site drawing to define the project with
regard to topography, location, aecess and parklng.
B. If we have a favorable opinion, rre l.rll-1 lnove directly into
an elevatlon drawing and flnal plans and spec lf l-cations.
ROME DEVELOPMENT CORPORAT]ON
1450 PARK COURT. CHANHASSEN, irN s5317. PHONE (612) 47+2125, 867-1886
I
2
.'-;:1'r 1J
AUG 12 1988
(
\'/
Ms. Barbara Dacy
Clty of Chanhassen
Planning Department
590 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, l,lN 55317
RE: DevelopEent of Phase /lII, Iot 3, Block 2
Chanhassen Lakes Business Park
Ihe building will be owned by Rome Properties and is intended to be
Phase ilII of my original 1985 development on Lot 3, Block 2. Phase ill is
a 16,000 square foot offiee warehouse.
(C
Page 2
Subdivision
A. The total parcel, Lot 3, Block 2, contains the existing
Phase /lI project; an office warehouse on a portion (1.4
acres) of the land. Thls portion of the parcel Is defined
by metes and bounds.
B. I.lith the lnclusion of Phase /ltt, we will replat the land
lDto trro distinct parcels, even though we will own both
proj ects.
C. The entry to the day-care w111 be 30 feet ride and will be
handled by a pernanent easement or by l-and ownership.
Assessment Reduction Agreement
A. Lor 3, Block 2 has approxlmarely $16,000.00 of special-
assessEents agalnst lt. Past yearly pa)rnents have been made
to reduce it from Ehe amount left after the Phase /lI
reductions in 1985.
B. Ile are requesting the ERA to alIow Phase /lII to reduce this
aEount by fhe normal process wlth any balance paid off at
completion of the proj ect.
Barbara, this should cover all the ltems that rre discussed. I am askingfor your help and guidance in the preparation and subnittal of any other
lnformation necessary in the planning process for timeliness and
background.
Thank you.
Slncerely,
3
Roman R. Roos
RRR: ud
Encl.
4
rQfly Courrcil l.{eeting _ JuIy 11, 19g8
ZONING ORDIMI€E AMB{DMSII RXOUEST TO AMEIID STCTION 20-813 1A AL'OW CHILD CAREfiffim.* AN ACcEssoRY usE rN rHE rop' ruoustnraL oFFrcE PARK lr*rit*icl, rl*st
Hliirfftttttt r think Re&nan Eoducts already has a daycare center in their
Barbara Dacy: thatrs c.rrect. that vras urrler our former ordinance a*i thefonner ordinarre did allow that tlrp. ;-.;;!ory o"..
Hlilrfl:t::nil1.*t"* itrs a sreat idea. rtts reartv near that ccm;ranies are
Councilnan Bot'E: , S1!k.T n:d-Io.b specific -about the users of the dalrcarecenter ' r think thev need to be limited-'to-.t ira.* wtro have parents srproyedin the Irdustrial ,.ik or mal,be ".r* *itt -tn;t'particular
erployer r*tere it,slocated ' r donrt think r"e. want to encourage ii."n".o daycare centers to takepeopre from the qenerar
-pubric in an ina*iir"i orrice pair.- iiiJ-l-..ur soodidea for the chiidren or ti* 6pi.-orh;;;i^;;".".
Counci Inan Ceving: I tlink that,s probably already built in.
I4ayor Hanilton: Do you know what the scope of your operation is going to be
licf w3rre1: Ihe primary E rpos of course r^rculd be for the enployees of]T:*L webb cqnpanv- lihat vou run into is r."e-have .*r" iui.rv-"i{iiii.u".costs that are associated with. regulation.. --constrr"tion
rearry has to be buirtdurirg contingency so, I'm trying to fi;-; q; way of phrasing this. I thinkthat it roourd make the thing i rot -or" a".riJ-ir yo,, had the escatrE hatch ofopenirg it up to other peopie in the office park, if for whatever ieason... Itwoutd make the project I tot *ore f.u.ibi;-d;; the rong haul.
I4ayor Hailton: I think that,s what Bill and Clark are sying. As long as itrsfor the people in the office pu.f., p"opi"-"rt o-iork there.- H6t n*""=uiiryscmeone t*ro works up on T,7 arri wants- to just drop tir"i. "tiia- oii-;;-y"r.
?:IE:" center since there are other daycaie centeis ro hantle ti,os"-iyh or
councilman Boyt: r think .*e need to v,Drd tl't sqneway because as it stands now,anyone could ccne in ard say I rrant to put a daycare center in the IOp.
Barbara Dacy: r,lot as a [Ermitted use. I€ have to have an established permitteduse in the irdustrial first before you can nu"" "" acessory use.
Counci lman Bo)rt: Okay, I guess that covers my concern.
Counci lman Horn moved, l,tayor Hamilton secorxled to approve Zoning OrdinanceAmerrlment Request #gg-r0 to amend section 26-g:'3. permitted Acressory uses ofthe rop, rrdustriar office park oi.iii.i, i. iilr",*,
(4) State I icensed day care center.
AII voted in favor ard the motion carried.
I
L
46
t
Planning
June 15,
Commission Meeti ng
1988 - Page t9
tenants.
Wildermuth: I,m surprised he didn't haul it off.
Brad Johnson: It is being hauled away this week. As I said, itrs part ofa.general clean-up thatrs under procels. rf it were .i.;;;; up, !ve, rIfigure out a solution-but the soiution, untir there is that kind ofproperty. -. r wourdn't believe it had r_not gone back and guys rike BobNaegere owned it and a guy by the name ot... Both of those were ofconsiderabre net rdorth it-tir" time and ihe prace just kept going nowhere.
Ernmings: so this j usttake any action?goes onto the City Council and we don't have to
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
CENTERS AS AN ACCESSORY USEINSTANT WEB, INC..
TO AMEND SECTION 2A-8L3IN THE I OP, INDUSTRIAL
TO ALLOW CHILD CARE
OEFICE PARK D I S TRICT,
{
Public Present:
Richard Warren
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff reporE.
Chairman Emmings called the public hearing to order.
Conrad moved, Wi lderrnuth secondedin favor and the motion carried.to close the public hearing. AIl votedThe public hearing was closed.
Dick Warren: Irm Dick Warren with the Instant Webb Company. I srrote theletter that is included. in-the packet. r tord Barb that r ivould bringalong a copy of the revised 4,3i00 foot structure pran to give you a senseof what that wourd 100k rike. rtrs the same concept. The fundamentarissue is werre dealing with so.many autio., space ratios, it,s a Iittlebit like designing a...and.we just'couiJn,t get the job done in thestructure design. rrm availabre for .rr,, queitions t6at yoo-r,urr. otherwiseI don't have any furt.her comment.
EILson:idea isoffice
I love it. I love thegreat. You can hire me
idea. I think it'sany time because I,d great. I thinklove to have an
you ' re
that had a daycare. I thi.nk itrs wonderful -
Conrad: No comments. I think itrs a good idea.
Batzli: I had a commentI reread the definitionbe why don,t we make ituse so 5 of I and half aIicensed, I donrt have a
and I realized probably how silly it is no$, thatof an -accessory use and my questi6n'w"=-g"irrq to-a conditional use but it'i i permitt"J ."""=.o.y
::::l^:f !fr: 9.ther, r suess, and since thev're'prooLem wr th that.
(
Pl- ann i n9
June 15,
Comrnission Meeting
1988 - Page 2g
{
Wil,dermuth: ExcelIentthink they're probably
center.
idea. I think Instant Webb isthe first company in Chanhassen
be commended.
have a daycare
to
to I
Emmings: I have no comments. I agree with Annette.
(4)
AIl
State
vot ed
Licensed Care Center.Day
andin favor the motion carried.
{
Emmings: At this point you just
Olsen: That this is okay. The
easier to see what the changes
know that we. . .
is in bold hopefully to make it
want to
ne$, stuf f
were.
Emnings: We're going to tabLe this I guess.
Conrad: So we're not going to have a public hearing.
Emmings: So werre not going to have a public hearing and I think
theyr re asking for is our comments as to the content of this when
come back on the public hearing so they want to be sure that wetre
agreement with srhat this says at this point in time. If anybody,sreservations, just go ahead and speak them out.
wha tit does
ingot any
Conrad: The only thing that I find interest j.ng is the City Council, whowas very concerned about 1,666 square foot accessory building and werationalized Lrggq as a good sized three car garage and a shop. That's
how we came to that lrggg feet. That makes sense to me. I have no other
comments but that's a number we could certainly move around. i^rhether ittsl,gUg or whatever. I think City Council will move it to where they wantto move it anyway so I don't really care.
Emmings: The 3 acres is the same thing. It could beIt coul.d be 5 or 9 but I think it.'s reasonable. Thenthat this basically says, that it brings together vrhat
many times before.
?
does
we
It could be
everybody
tried to do
feeL
so
Ellson moved, wilderrnuth seconded that the planning commission reconunendapproval of zoning ordinance Amendment Request #gg-1g to amend section2g-8L3, Perrnitted Accessory Uses of the IOp. Industrial Office parkDistrict as follows:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 2g-9A4 AND SECTION 2g-5T5(68),
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO PROVIDE SETBACKS AND MAXIMUM SIZE OE ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES, STORAGE BUILDINGS AND DETACHED BUILDINGS.
Olsen: Werre asking you to table it right now until we can republish. wewant to publish the whole thing so people can see it.
d*
ZONING
d. One (1) percolation test per drainfield site where the land slope is between
thirteen (13) and twenty-five (25) percent.
(2) Areas where the land slope exceeds twenty-five (25 t percent shall not be considered as
a potential soil treatment site-
(3) The sewage treatment system must be in conformance with chapter 19, article IV.
(4) School and day care uses accessory to the church use are not permitted unless
approved by the city council.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, S 9(5-9-1(7), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20.260. Private stables.
The following applies to privat€ stables:
(1) Stables shall comply with chapter 5, article III.
(2) Stables must be located a minimum of two hundred (200) feet from wetland areas.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, S 9(5-9-1(8)), 12-15€6)
Sec. 20-261. State-licensed day care centers.
The following applies to stateJicensed day care centers:
(1) The site shall have loading and drop off points designed to avoid interfering with
trafhc and pedestrian movements.
(2) outdoor play areas shall be located and designed in a manner which mitigates visual
and noise impacts on adjoining residential areas.
(3) Each center shall obtain all applicable state, county, and city licenses.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 9(5-9-1(9), 12-15-86)
Sec. 2G262. Hospitals and health care facilities.
The following applies to hospitals and health care facilities:
(1) The site shall have direct access to collector or arterial streets, as defined in the
comprehensive plan.
(2) Emergency vehicle access shall not be adjacent to or located across a street from any
residential use.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 9(5-9-1(10), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-263. Recreational beach lots.
The following minimum standards apply to recreational beach lots conditional use in
addition to such other conditions as may be prescribed in the permit:
(l) Recreational beach lots shall have at least two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage.
1175
$ 20-263
CITY OF
EHINH[SSEI[
STAFF REPORT
P.C. DATE: Sept. 7, 1988
C.C. DATE: Sept. 26, 1988
CASE NO: ZOA 88-L4
Prepared by: Dacy:k
Fz
()
=(LL
ko
LdF
CN
Zoning Ordinance amendment to amend Section20-874 to allow state licensed day care centersas part of a multi-tenant building.
PROPOSAL !
LOCATION:
APPTICAN?:Richard And.erson
Heitman Financial Corporation
10371 l{est 78th St.
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:N-
s-
E-
w-
WATER AND SEIiIER:
PEYSICAL CEARAC. :
2OOO LAND USB PLAN:
The City Council approved the Zoning Ordinance amendment to a11owstate licensed day care centers as an accessory use in the IOp,Industrial Office park District on July 11, 1988. The planning
Commission revieweil this request at the June 15, l9B8 meeting.
zoA 88-14
September 7,
Page 2
1988
BACKGROUND
ANALYS I S
Staff advised the applicant that a separate ordinance amendmentshould be considered for this application. Our initial interpre-tation for a day care center as part of a multi-tenant buildingr{as that it could not be considered as an accessory use as itwould be one of many principle uses in a multi-tenant building.Secondly, staff felt that the City may lrant to evaluate thesefacil-ities as part of an existing muLti-tenant building in a dif-ferent manner than would for a free-standing facility.
The applicant has requested this Zoning Ordinance amendment inorder that the day care center can occupy space in the Heitmanbuilding (former Chanhassen Lakes Business Center phase Ibuilding) and convert a portion of the parking area for the out-door play area.
In Chanhassenr s case, the same type of issues hold true for the
Igitlnar.r building or the other mul-ri-tenant buildings in the park.The building is constructed based on a parking ratio of officeand warehouse space. 9!99 a specific use such as a day carecenter occupies the building, then other standards should apply.It is recommended that a day care center be a conditional u-seprior to occupying a rental space in a multi-tenant building inorder for the City to insure that the pedestrian and traffi6
Staff contacted other communities specifically regarding day carecenters as part of an existing multi-tenant building. Chaskapermits day care facilities in their industrial parks. The LadyBug Day Care Center in the Jonathan Industrial park occupies acorner of the building and has an outdoor play area fencedbetween the road and the ouilding. fen splce! in the parkingarea are specifical.ly reserved for the use. St. Louis park wascontacted regarding the day care facility in the Minneapolis WestBusiness Center (see Attachment #1). In this particulai case,the City did require a special use permit prioi to installationand required that adequate stacking and parking area be availableto provide for adequate drop-off and loading ficilities. The St.Louis Park example did convert a portion of the parking area forthe outdoor play area. Because of the play areais proiimity to amajor highway, Ehe City requested a special analysis from tire daycare operators regarding carbon monoxide and lead poisoning. Itwas determined thats there hrould be no adverse impact from ihe
h ighway.
- zoA 88-14
September 7,
Page 3
1988
conflicts are minimized, that there is aalequate loading andoff area, and that the outtloor play area is located in suchmanner so that access to the play area is safe from trafficconflicts or loading activity conflicts. In this situation,the City agrees to amend the ordinance, the operators of Lhecare center would have to apply for a conditional use permit
drop-
a
if
day
The same standards that are currently inters in the residential districts wouldsituations as well. Again, the primaryfacilities.
place for day care cen-be appropriate in these
concern is parking access
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended thatfollowing motion :
the Planning Commission adopt the
I'The Planning Commission recommends approval of Zoning
Ordinance Amendment Reguest 88-14 t.o amend Section 20-814 asfollows:
(14)State licensed day care centers as part of a multi-tenant bui lding.
AdditionalIy, to aild to Section 20-292, State Licensed Day
Care Centers:
i The site shall have loading and drop-offpoints designed to avoid interferring withtraffic and pedestrian movements .
Outdoor play areas sha11 be located and
designed in a manner which mitigates visual andnoise impacts of adjoining resiciential areas.
Each center sha11 obtain applicable state,
county and city licenses.
3
ATTACHMENTS
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
Newspaper article dated Monday, August 15,
Park Day Care Center.Letter from Richard Analerson dated August
Appl-ication.
Reduction of site pJ-an for location of day
Planning Commission minutes dated June 15,
City Council minutes dated July 11, 1988.
1988 re: St. Louis
r8, r988.
care center.
1988.
I -..,rnJ,.,,.,,*ro,l*,.-,!t{** Pr,t 1,"
Commercial real estate/
Another busy day (care) at the office
wtcn O. Miii.lDolt WG'l EBi.iB c.nl.l in $ Louir Plrr hd .
,icric for i$ l.n.trti l.rt er.k. .on.ol rh. rmlll6r on6 rrovrd.d lh.cakatiim.nr
To roddl.n rnd Dcshootcu ftomfi. Ch'ldrcn! L..irinr C.nkr enfodd . tuurins (nd',rion of .iBv
BilrySDid.i to.n.slh6i. i..udL.icc of ollicc qork.B. iom. of
*holl! rcE rh. !i.8c* rr.nlt.
Th. eclsion illustrakd lh. incF,s-
i.8 d.src to *hi.h ctildE. arc bc.
in8 *.. -.nd hclrd - in bulinc5sruing!, h .l$ hr8hl'lhl3 . sroqins
EcoSnrhon by omc. Dark d.v.loD.rt
lhar on{n. d.yarc tacilifi.s lrc h!llr.cliv. ,meniry lo Doknliat r.s..nr! Som. dcvclopcB rrc wiltrnr loprov'd. d.y<aE orErato *nh bGlo*-hlrtd l.re ntlr to prehol..n
on{n.childnE enl.r.
Th. Childr.nl L.rrnins C.nt.r
oDcn.d in ,un. on th. liBt lloor of.
rcnod.lcd o0i.. tlildinr ii tn. Min-
n.apolir w$i Bu!n.!t C.nr.r, t660
S H*a, I00. ll L lic.n*d for uo to
94 chrrdBn an.l hli sbout 20.niott..t. llrhousn @foon<lcr FEn Sh.,kid sh. crp.ctr r nlnb.r of n.w
chrrc.! in $. ncrl fcs monrhr{lv6i.
cally ! rrm. olh.avy.nrottm.rli.'
Snc! eid hcr markcr rcca.ch loundu iimalina d.hlrd tor childr.rcc..r.n on th. *ork.il.. 'P.oot. rr.
*ortiDs lonr.r houR lnd lhcv'l'k. toh.v. rh.ir childEn ctok lo rh.m,.ih.srd
Kyn Krixht, martclinr dir.cbr f6t
rh. MinncaDotrr wcn aulii$ ccn.
lcr, sid Shc.\
'nrcrc!r 'n
oncnrnsanon{rlc (cnl$ fir *cll *nh l.nd.n.
blscd d.vcloDcr MEPC3 int r.n in
bringins n.w *Bic.s ro rh. 2O-v.rF
old o,Iie,arr. "wc h.v.3,5m pcc
cHolcE ls
EUERYTHINGWITH
ANNUITIES,
elect, dont se ttle r_-;L,_
Otlicarlf,arohou.c
Space lor Re.t
1900 Sq. Fr.
Now Construcrion
Sevag6 ofl Hwy. t3
ld€al lor smatt busin6sr
lrnatola llranclal
oaralolnarl Col.,Itrl127n
Developmont
-
Susan E. Pelerson and
Richard Meryhew
i4 $ch !p6e. Don An*.ny. r oan-n.t in lh. T*in Ci .! om.. .a D'l-l.t bakd d.v.lopd Tonm.ll Crow.rid thc N.* Horizoo! Child C.;
cenlcr ii thc Norhrndrl. Oflie
Patk hE! b..n rn .th.tiv. b.n.6rforr.n.nr
Ahhoush no company omciah h.v.r.id lh.y E( convrned lo roc.tpra in Nonnrnd.lc bv rh. .vr .
.bihy ol.h'ld oE. ri; h..n h.L
rion.d .r on. ot th. frcloB in rh.
dccilion,"
^nk.ny
ed. H. sd iruN., kv.I.l y..6 rso gopcd cr-ccul,r.t pl.Gd I nirh vrtuc otr hrv-rn!6.3itc dly or! forcEptoyer.
Ractionr lo $r enki ehich is tcdlcd itrr p${8c*ry b.r,an r*o otlh. comol.r't lhc omft r.#Eh.vc b..n urifornty Dorliv.. An:k.nY !rid. "W.vc h.d.o c.n.pltinri ,., llr bc.n inr.r$tin. lonor. thlt rh.E vc b..n tu]rv..;m-m.nl' by p.orl. rho ddtrt t.E ch,l.
drcn in lh. dry{lEClnl.r. Th.v svn3. brcrlh of tr.!t !t ro siird:
kidr DI.yi4 ou6id. fi.iroma wift
pl..r. ton lh. wortph.c.-
Elalno centfl ooiho uo
Winfi dd D.v(toD;cirs-tnc'. Edrnah.r i.rn.d consltuctron on Nonh:coun conmons, r tt4 mrthon r.hirenl.r in Blarn.. Th. ll2,O@{auarc.
too! ccnr.r. on rh. honh.r{ ..n.r
orHwy, l0.nd NE. J.lTcRon Sr.. i!sch.dulcd to oBr nc rn"- i".(hor Rra,t.B w,[ b. pi. i TiM r.rd Durhah SDoni: orh& r.n-.nl3 in(ludc Hya[ L.Bt S.r,.cr
P.l3 Plui. Shrndcrs Booksand 8..":ly Ma( J6(thn.S<o( A35(ratca ofM'nn.apolir i! th. hennr r!.nt ,o,?
LonE Lake has newcentett n! tr\. Tn*n C.nrcr.44.mG
rqurrc-toor r.rarl !nd om.c..n,rr nn
H*.y. 12 ir t ng bk., hctd,ts rhndoEnrng \alurd.r. Th. rnt.r, ihichrr /u Dcrccnr l.a5cd. hour.r rh. p'n.
nclocl.n HuB r.uaurrnl. Lonr trt.Hard*r., snydcr Dtur. Minn;onrMusic ud orh., ilrrit .nd r r.t.nanll. Thc t ns kle Ctrnrc. oftFiicd by Mcthodil Hcltrh Chtri. rlo opcn
'r
th.ccnlorn S.prcmb.r:
Antcny sid rhc (.t.13 l.sc dv.hcnG atr rbout hdtofD r.r ;Li
and nor.d lh.lconstuctron costi to;lh. ccn'.r s.E aboul Sl5 b lzl r3qur. toor hid4 rhan ome !.,..''Ir .c.d.d loB or Dtumbinr d iirhoc h . Uddi. ro,r.k s;d ,rra.nd. @mm.EirJ-rd. tit.h...- h;Mid
Slc Du.klcy, pr.sid.nl otNcw H.n,zon, eid t. @mpany ha! thrrr of
't514 ccntcB iD olllc (onrDlcr6 andwrll orcn lwo orhcB carlv n.rr v.rr''Ir's r 3rcein8 l(nd," sirc sd: r'u\.d ro bc
'har ,.opt. "outd o.rv
drop rhcirchildEn *nhrn thrc. nir.'(
ofhonc, bul
'hra!
no tonrcr rd! ArNo.mlnddk. 97 p.@nr 6f $. p.c
BGK b bullding in Btatne
Ryrn Consltudio. Co. otM'n..rlwIii hrs bcsun buildrm.tl I m,trl;n.adquan.a rnd huut!.rrr,n!pl.nr in Blrin. for B(iK Frnirhrn;ry3lcmi rnc, a natcr of hi nnr.n:trly infraa.d (€u'Docnl. Ti. hu't.i-
L.a. shth will rr(tud..l.0{o 5auarcrc.r or hrnutacturi.r sDa.. r.dlu,ouj lquad lat ol ollcc !D!cc. tr(hcdulcd lo tr conrDtctcd rn a.mh.
b.r. BGK h movrni trom rh. phm.
ourh Eutinc$ C.nlff in pDmourri.
Sl.llrrlt.. Su$n E, P.kson ov.Bconhocl.l r..t dr.t. o. th. Mrncrrolh tld. olrh.6.r. r'.r
plc worlins hcr! lnd .r. iwaE th.r!n incr.asins nuhb(r of *on.n .Eeorki.r, hc r.id, D.y crE! fi6.
Khtl'r !.id h. hrd b.!n sarhrnr
for csrc tor h* oqn r{odaur}l.B. !;h. talizcd lhc lru!lBnon ofdEnrr
in ryrn! ro find carty.E+jbk dlver.." HirdrusnreB, rs tT monlhirnd 27: y(aB. .ow 6F .n.6ll.d ir
Childrcn! k.minrC.icr, h. eid.
"ll ! ev.d ! Iot ofGartDodalion)
lim., and irl crlrcm.ty .rlrEdivc rob. .bl. lo ltop hy !t tunch o. ofi.r
timcs lo *. rhc lid,." h. {id 'h
8iv.5 you ! rood kn$ ol kcurilvkno*int$ar rh. kidr ir. N.rby.'
Knixhl laid rhc dcvcloocrr !..nr
3160,000 ro rcmodct rh.;mcc.;a(
ro lD(illcarons a! r d.v{.r..;h,".
.nd lorun oukd. olai.round ,ndofr.r.d lhc ccnrr i.rc-rabt. t.r!.r.mr. Shc. slid rhc dcv(loDs .ts!si!l.d lfi( ...lcr in t ll'n! n@r-
Orh.r d.tcloDcR h.vc tourd trN.or frcilri.r ro b..n nd in m.d.i.
Tox Deferred
Annultlec
W. or.lnd.o.nd.nr.
W. rhop lo7 .h. b..r.
Coll829.000O
FINANCIAT HORIZONS
Arrthq&t 'w.k N
Piece
of mind.
A pic(c otJim Kk,lnrhnrl\
n ndMllol)tnlrnr
qrsrnd l(nlch )r)ur hern.
l,i,k ror ln\ Inrbi sights irl Il(n,.
Jim Klobuchr in Metro.
Star'ltlbune
'R LI
5 HEATTAS
2 tclrturuxY sPonts c^t
I RIVIERA
! ,lssEtloEi vtnstoi
'88 BUtCt(
SA[E!* 225 CABS *
BUERI(LE
. HwY 61 AT t-694
ST.,PAUL 484-0231
,-'2.,
I I()\\'(.rn thc i!t(r(ut(\. ttc|L, 56Ulrr h,rl'rlllnrg.rndy,(,,nrt, flr!,irlh(\rrncI'I'l,.rci onlr,n( N.rf n, rn;tt,,Ur
Tcn{l.r\( rlrc t!tLr(((iu\.t}cor 5o(r\t
)r )r' r lollx,rircd McrLdcsJtcnl
uK[ l\0 0nrlR DEAU! tN Tli[ \t0Rl.t)
s..rour.urhork.Jhtn( xr.rM.Nd.nsrn.d.rt..
In The Thrin Cities
,llt
r!,
t.
,., No onc .nnuity i€ Dcrf.rrty suited fu J
A, rvridw,vAnnu,,vc.n,.,. ll.yllr'lil[jr1"il,,:l*:"liP:i],i+,,
I
August 18, 1988
Ms. JoAnn OlsenCity of Chanhassen
690 Coulter
Chanha.ssen, MN 55 317
re: Amendment of City Ordinance to permit Day
Care Facility in Industrial Zone within
Warehouse Building-not free standing
Dear Ms. Olsen:
Enclosed is an Application for subieet Amendment
eovering a property described as Lot I, B 2,
Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 5th Addn. Prev-
iously I fited with you a proposed floor p1an.
Please schedule a" hearing on this matter at
your earliest convenience.
Yours very t ruly,
ANDEBSON ASSOCIATES
By
BICHARD W. ANDEBSON
RWA/ a
enclosure : Applicat ion
cc: New Horizon Child Care Center
Heitman Financial Corpor,rliion
CORPORATE REAL ESTAIE RELOCAIION CONSUUIANTS
City West Business Centeq 6567 City West Parkway, Minneapolis, MN 55344 (612) 94+2053
SPPf.TCANT: HEITMAN FINANCIAL CORp OWNER:
ADDRESS
HEITMAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION
ADDRESS ro37r I{. 70th street 10371 W. 70th Street
E en Prairie Eden Prairie, MN 55344p Code(Daytime I 944-0233 TELEpHONE 944-0233 zip codeTELEPHONE
REQTJEST:
x-
zoDing Distr j.ct Chai-.ge
zoning Appeal
Zoning Variance
Zoning Text Amendment
Land Use plan Amendment
Conditional Use permit
Site plan Review
?lanned Uait Deve].opment
_ Sketch plan
_ preliminary plan
_ Fina1 plan
Subdivi si on
_ platting
Metes and Bounds
Vacat i onStree t/Easement
Wetlands permi t
PRESENT LAND UsE PLAN DESIGNATIoN TndustTial
REQUESTED LAND USE PIAN DESIGNATION Industrial
PRESENT ZONING Indust r i a1
REQUESTED ZONTNG Indu-strial
USES PR,OPOSED c1 it within wa rehous e
SIZE OF PROPERTY
LOCATI ON
ES
REASONS FOR THIS
within Igarehouse
Chan ha ssen . llN
ce doeREQ UEST
ou 1-t d
h ave
n
an immediate area
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal
Lakes Business Park Sth Addn
Torrens Cert if ica.te 15858
ang, notwithst andinodesire for day caie
office and warehousefacifity.
a it
users
if neceCarver I Lot 1 B 2ssarv
Co un't
Chanhassen
I,AND DEVETOPI{ENT APPLICATION
CITY OIl CEI\Nr{assElJ
690 Couiter Drive
Chanhassen, !.,tN 55317(612) 937-I900
MN 55344
PROJECT NA"UE
oa-
a
I t
--+:
o'tg
\rr:
,tl \
9 L
1
L
o
o
(o
o
ii\
I
1:f
,:;--
-,......
'iq
.t' :
-:=__$_>_ 1
ot.i
c.iLL.)4
.ri)
t
"rl
\
1
:*. r
.1.
tB
.:
E.a
(
a9...
t,
\\"t
1
v
Cn
<\
o
\
oE
>gi= !i
t
Y\o,o
;si$r>:sF-
*'\
..J
l
:,
.l:l'i,,'I "i:.:, . i:,1 ,l
.::|
:, .',.:
. ,., i,]
. :.:
";
',:l:1.,.:
'':.::\,-;)
=: ,:.1
;':
'.7
. .. ::
.l:t
ii..;
I Qftv courcil r4eeting - Jury 11, 1988
46
ZONING ORDINAT{CE AMMIDMENI REQUEST TO AMMD SETION 20-813 TO ATI.OW CHILD CAREcENTms As AN ACCESSORY usE rN THE roP, $rDUsrRrAL oEE rcE PARK DrsrRrCI, FrRsrREADING.
!'tayor lhnilton 3 r think Re&nan Eoducts arready has a daycare center in theirfacility.
Barbara '.cy: lt't r s correct.
'trat
gras under ou! former ordinance arrr ttreformer ordinancre did allow that tyIE of accessory use.
l'layor Hanilton: r think itrs a great idea. rtrs really neat that ccm[Enies arewil1i.rg to do that.
c'ouncilman Bo)'E: r ttrink -rre need to be specific about ttre users of the dalncarecenter. I think tlrev need to be 1jmited io children ,116 ;;-p"r;;tJ.r,pfoy.ain the Irdustriaf mix or ma],be even with that particutar sq)Ioyer !*tere itrslocated- r don't think rc. want.to enceurage rilensed daycarl "'".ri"i=-io tux"people frcrn the senerar E:blic in an irrr:siriir ortice $ri. itisl-r".r soodidea for the children of the people wi,o ruoiX tir".".
Counci lman Ceving: I ttrink tlnt,s probably already built in.
I4ayor 'anilton: Do you knohr what the scope of your operation is going to be
Dick l€rren: Itre prirnary pu.rpose of course rrculd be for the qrq>loyees ofrnslani. I,"bb c-<rnpanyr ,,hat you run into is rre have sone rairrl si6niii"""tcosts that are associated with. regulations. oonstruction .."iiy-#;-[; be built9:ti.g contirgerrv so, I.'T Eryins ro tirn a good vny or lnr"Ii6 Ai":- r thinkthat it r^ourd make the Ehing I t5t roo.e a*ui"-ir 6o tJ rh;-;"#'i,.a.n or
"pel,i.rg .lt up to other peopie in tlre office park, if for whatever ieason... It$/ould make the proj ect a lot more feasible oirer the long haul.
l4ayor Hailton: I think that's what Bill and Clark are sying. As lonq as ittsfor the peopre in the office p.rx, peofi"-o,to *.x ti,"."l'-iti.J."L'irrysomeone who v,,orks uD on Tn 7 ard r"nnts- to just drop ti,.ii "iriia' I;;;;'yoo.
::1ffi:. c.enter sinci there are other daycaie centers to harrlle those type of
councilman Bo]'t: r think r.re need to $Drd Lhat sqneway because as it stands now,anyone csuld cqre in ard say I lrant to put a daycare center in the IOp.
Barbara hcy: tdot as a tErmitted use. I€ have to have an established permitteduse in the irdustrial, first before you can have an acessory use.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, I guess that covers my concern.
counci lman Horn moved, r4ayor ,amil ton secorded to approve zoning ordinancEAmerrtnent Request #gg-r0 to ame.l section 2o-gl3, permi tted Accessory uses ofthe roP, Irdustrial office park District, ii fofror*,
(4) State Iicensed day care center.
A11 voted in favor ard tlre motion carried.
F
t-
h
PI ann i ng
June 15,
Commission Meet i ng
1988 - Page 19
(
tenants.
Wildermuth: I'm surprised he didn't haul, it off.
Brad Johnson: rt is being haured away this week. As r said, itrs paEt ofa.generar clean-up thatts under process. rf it were cleaned up, weillfigure out a solution but the solution, until there is that ki;d ofproperty... r wouLdnrt believe it had r not gone back and guys like BobNaegele owned it and a guy by the name of... Both of those-were ofconsiderable net worth at the time and the place just kept going nowhere.
Emmings: so this just goes onto the city councir and we don't have totake any acti on?
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 2g-8I3
CENTERS AS AN ACCESSORY USE IN THE IOP, INDUSTRIAL
INSTANT WEB, INC..
TO ALLOW CHILD CARE
OFFICE PARK D I STRICT,
(
Richard warren
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Chairman Emmings called the public hearing to order.
Dick Warren: Irm Dick warren with the Instant webb Company. I wrote theIetter that is included_ in the packet. I told Barb that I would bringalong a copy of the revised 4r3OO foot structure plan to give you a senseof what that would look like. Itrs the same concept. The fundamentalissue is we're dealing with so many ratios, space ratios, itrs a littlebit like designing a...and we just couldn't get the job done in thestructure design. rrm avairable for any questions that you have otherwiseI don't have any further comment..
PubIic Present:
Conrad moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All votedin favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was cLosed.
Ellson: I love it. I love the idea. I think it,s great. I think you'reidea is great. You can hire me any time because I'd love to have anoffice that had a daycare. I thj.nk it's wonderful.
Conrad: No comments. I think it's a good idea.
Batzli: I had a comment and I realized probably how silly it is nord thatI reread the definition of an accessory use and my question was going tobe why donrt we make it a conditionar use but it's a permitted aicesioryuse so 5 of I and half a dozen of the other, I guess, and since theyrrericensed, r don't have a problem vrith that.
(
PI ann ing
June 15,
Comrnission MeeEing
1988 - Page 26
(
Wildermuth: ExceI lentthink they're probably
center.
idea. I think Instant Webb isthe first company in Chanhassen
the Planning Comrni ssion
Request *88-I0 to amend
r oP, Industrial office
be commended.
have a daycare
r ecomme nd
section
Par k
to
to I
Enmings: I have no comments. I agree with Annette.
ElIson rnoved, Wildermuth seconded thatapproval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment2il-813, Perlnitted Accessory Uses of theDistrict as follows:
(4) State Licensed Care Center.Day
andA1l voted in favor the motion carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 2q_9g4 AND SECTION 2g_6L5(68) ,ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO PROVIDE SETBACKS AND MAXIMUM SIZE OF ACCESSORYSTRUCTURES, STORAGE BUILDINGS AND DETACHED BUILDINGS.
O]sen : We I re asking you
hlant to pubfish the whole
it right now until r.\re can republish. Wepeople can see it.
to tab 1ething so{
Emmings: At this
Olsen: That thi seasier to see erha t s okay. Thethe changes
point you just want to know that we...
new stuf f
were.
is in bold hopefully to make it)
Enmings: Werre going to table this I guess.
Conrad: So we're not going to have a public hearing.
Enmings: So werre not going to have a public hearing and I thinktheyrre asking for is our comments as to the content of this whencome back on the public hearing so they want Eo be sure that we,reagreement with what rhis says at rhis loint in-ti.u.--it-.iiuoay,"reservations, just go ahead and speak ihem out.
conrad: The oni-y thing that r find interesting is the city council, whorras very concerned about 11 06U.square foot accessory buiJ,ding and werational,ized l,SqO as a good siz;d thr;; car garage and a shop. Thatishow we came to that 1, gqo feet. That r-k"" ="n." to rne. r have no othercomments but that's a number we cou.rd certainly .orr" i.ornJ. whether iE,sl,u6o or whatever. r think city councii wir.r *""" it-i.-wtrere tney wantto move it anyway so I don't reilly care.
wha tit doesingot any
,1
does
!ve
It could be 4.everybody fee Itried to do so
Emmings: The 3 acres is the same thing. It could beIt could be 5 or 9 but I think iE,s reisonable. Thenthat this basically says, that it brings together $rhatmany times before.
{
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEET ING
AUGUST 17, 1988
Chairman Conrad cal- I ed the meeting to
Tim Erhart, Steven
order at 7:30 p.m. .
Emmings, Ladd Conrad, Brian BatzIi,MEMBERS PRESENT:
Jim Wildermuth and
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRES ENT :
P I anner
David Headla
Annette El l son
Barbara Dacy, City planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LOCATE A CHURCH IN THE RURAL DISTRICT ON
PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE
OF HWY. 4I APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE NORTH OF HWY. 5, WESTSIDE BAPTIST
CHU RCH .
Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report.
Headla: Irm not quite sure I understand where it says page 5, JuIy 13th,the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use permit.
Number I, the two approved septics sites must be staked and preservedprior to receiving a building permit. Arenrt they staked norr?
Olsen: Werre just saying that they have to remain staked. A Iotafter a site has been approved or when grading of the site begins,of times they're not properly roped off and the sites are damaged.
of timesa lot
Headla: And I understand there really isn,t any other hard spots withthis or with the applicant. The applicant is aware of all this and they
agree with al- I this?
Olsen: I donrt know if they agree wj.th it.
Headla: Do you have any hard spots with any of this?
Bryan Pike: Oh yes. I have a few. Do you want to hear?
Headl-a: I guess I'd like to hear if there's a serious disagreement.
Bryan Pike: When we put the site plan together r we had thj.s 60 foot
easement going across as well as the sewer line that you can see clearly,this stiped line going across. When ere came to the planners, we were toldthat we needed a 50 foot setback from that 60 foot easement road andoriginally when we put thjs site plan together we designed the parking
Iot, we see Lhe edge of the parking lot, it is 50 foot exactly from that
50 foot easement road back and the church which we originally wanted toput up in the corner, the church that we orig inally wanted to put up herefacing this vray we moved down here because of the 50 feet again from thisroad. We noticed in the Minutes of the last meetj.ng one of you asked thema question about the possibil-ity or whether they had reserved easementrights. We understood that there erere not. Irve done some checking withour attorney and there are not. we understand then that it is st iII
possible for us to move our buj lding up in here and bui 1d in this area.If we did that, it would open up a primary site. This line right here isthe sewer construction limits. !,ie did give them permission to move downinto here some dirt that came from thj.s 52 foot hole that they had overhere but this area hasn,t been touched where the church is. It wouldenable us to put a primary site right next to our building. The soilborings were done right in here. !{e feel for the primary site a simpleseptic system, if it fits with the soil borings. f got lhis reportyesterday. l sent my secretary after it at 4:30 and r looked at it Laterin the afternoon. Then r carled the architect about 526a so some of thisis new to us but what wetre being tord is that a mound system 350 feetaway is going to cost us about gr2,00g.gg to put up. From what Machmeiersays at the end of this report, it sounds like he thought we might have toeven pump to that 350 foot mark. Is that rrhat you understood? So thepumping would be an additional cost to us as we1l. What we,re hoping isto be arrowed to make an adjustment to this pran to swing that buitainq upand we'11 submit new soir borings into that irea that is right berow the -
church or if it's required by you, we'Il do the whore thinq. we were notgiven an understanding that we could put the church up in ihat areabefore. we were told that we had to stay back 50 feei from that 60 footeasement.
Planning Cominission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - Page 2
Erhart: There is a 60 foot easement or there isn't a
Bryan Pike: There j.s a 60 foot easement with propertybehind us so they are not land locked to the east.
Erhart: So the City has that easement right?
Bryan Pike: No, the Cj ty doesn,t have it.
Olsen: This plan is prov j.dinq a 6A foot easement for
Erhart: Because you've asked them to provide it?
Bryan Pi ke : Who I s prov J.d j. ng i t?
Olsen: You show it on your s j.te plan that you,re
easement.
50 foot easement?
o$/ner s that are
the future road.
providing that 60 foot
Bryan Pike: !,Ie provj.ded the
bought the property from toGetschatch and Leland Basal-m
foot easement for the people that weeast. Brian Klingelhutz, LelandLeland cetschatch.
6A
the
and
Erhart: So that's in your contract \^/i th them?
Bryan Pike:in our city. The city has nothjng...
Erhart: But
Bryan Pike:
s ides .
in your
60 foot
It I s
it's
The
contract.
easeinent is but no 50 foot setbacks on both
Planning Conm j ssion l,leeting
August I7, I988 - Page 3
Erhart: I,IeIl, that doesn,t matter.
Bryan Pike: Oh yes it
we couldn I t touch that
Therer s 1.5 acres of land that we were told
nov, touch.
does.
we can
Erhart: But you have to provide, does thatthat 60 foot easement is going to be?
contract say exactly r.rhere
Bryan Pike: It says that 6g foot easement is right here and we checkedwith our Attorney and that is atl they got. They don,t have any rightsto a 50 foot setback. I don,t thj.nk intentionally but we didn't haveproper i.nformation when we sent this to our architect and we want to movethat buj.Id j ng to gain as much of our property as vre can. fn fact when wemaster planned this thing, if we ever grow to the poj.nt of needing biggerbuildings, which we hope we will someday, we really Ijmited ourselves topoint where we have to cover everythj.ng just about out there with parkinglot to meet the'current City requj rements for our next bjgger bu j.lding.
Conrad: Jo Ann, explain that.from a 60 foot right-of-way?
Are \"re talkj.ng about a 50 foot easement
ol sen :A 50
And
foot setback from an easement.
Conrad :that was whose conditi on?
Olsen: I'm sure this was information that was given, there is
Lake Lucy t.o be continued through that property and that wouldmaintain that 50 foot setback.
plans for
be best to
Erhart:
not from
Our ord i nanc e
an easement.
states that a 50 foot setback exists from a street,
Ol sen :
Erhar t :
From r ight-o f-way.
An easement for r ight-of-way?
Emmings3 The 60 foot easement they have through there,
otherwise they have...is a 60 foot easement for a road,
Olsen: Right.
to landlock,
r ight?
Emmings: And does the
stay back 50 feet from
have the right to have'thjs property owner
road easement or don't we?
City
that
OIsen: Technically itrs from right-of-way.
Dacy: we recommended the 50 foot setback because thatrsrequires from a street. Sooner or later there will be athat property.
what
road
a
the zon i ng
tr aver s i ng
Emmings: Lake Lucy. You're talking about Lake Lucy or are you talking
about the road from the people behind?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, f988 - Page 4
Dacy: take Lucy. The applicant is sayingthan he should be aware that if Lake Lucyand/or bujldinq may become non-conforming
setback -
well, I want to move closer,
Road comes through, his parking
because theyrre within that'
Dacy: Right.
Emmings: It sounds tolook at it now?
Enmings: But once it's there itts there right?
me like they hrant to change the site plan. Can we
Conrad:
back?
Do you r^rant to just have us table thjs unt j.1 you can brjng it
Bryan Pike: If you think that that is...
Conrad: Itrs sort of up to you. We'd like to see v/hat youtake to City Council versus somethj ng tnat's kjnd of we_Ll,where this is. We'd really lj.ke to see the absolute fina].
really want towe're not sure
Bryan Pike: I donrt know how you a1I function but is ic possrbleto say hre want to move it up here? We have our architect here toexactly on the condition we courd continue on and cover the otherthat are mentioned in here Ehat are talked about?
conrad: okay. rf we find too many cases where r"/erre not seeing somethingcrose to whatrs going to go to city council, we will tabre it. rf we findone or two that we think you can solve in two weeks with staff because wethink that there's an agreement, then we donrt need to see that finar pianthat you're going to present but if you continue to add different issuls,then werrL table it and have you bring it back so we can see more.
Bryan Pike: okay. There's_ two other points that dre in here and they arecondj.tions that we ,?"! t9 grir-rS up- in.t is, we were wondering if;; h;;enough screening. rt looked ri.ked in the ordinance that the scieenj.ngthat we have would be appropriate- rf we're not, r don,t have the sp6ciesof theses and we're going to have to by and get them but we do havescreening that is in here. There is m6re actuarry than we show. we don'tshor', every tree thatrs here. some of these are pietty good sized trees-we had a picture up here that we could show you -ome of -ttrem. rt said inthe ordinance that if there was ar-ready exist;.nq, that that courd beconsidered as part of the screening. and we donit have to screen for aroad that as r^re understand, thj.s ji the firmest that I've heard about thisroad- Each time rrve asked there's arways been the possibirity that th;l
for us
shor., you
areas
Conrad: You do want to change the site plan, is that what you're sayi.ng?
Bryan Pike: We're not asking to make a major change but...
Conrad: But yot do want to change the s ite plan?
Bryan Pike: Yes.
Planning Commission Meeti ng
August 17, 1988 - Page 5
road would never go through. If that road never goes through, then werre
wasting a lot of space and effort. Okay. We have a picture of thoseshurbs. Is that a possibility? Do we need to put that extra screening upis what our question is?
Emm j.ngs :
screening?
What extra screening? Where does it say he has to have extra
Olsen: The ordinance requires that there
vehicular area and the road right-of-way.out there.
be screening bethreen the
There are some existing trees
Emmings: But r^rhat I see here Jo Ann j.s it says they have to provide a
landscaping plan. Couldnrt they present that plan and if there's adequate
screening, I supposed they wouldnrt have to do more. As I Iook at this,aII yourre being required to do right now is provide the landscaping plan.
You can put the existing vegetation on that and as long as theyrre
sati.sf ied.
Bryan
ol sen :
Pike: Okay. So we submit that to That par t?
Yes. The only thing that doesn't
Bryan Pike: The only other thing was the paving. The paving of the
parkj.ng lot. We're vrondering if we can stay with gravel. It would be our
sincere desire and hope to put pavement out there because it'd be a lot
nicer but our budget right now, would not allow us to build the building.
It would be an additional $27,A60-0o xo put that in right now and werre
trying to build a building and we're saying that in this area, we're not
going to be disturb j.ng anybody. our traffic flow is definitely not the
traffic flow that's rrght across the street in Minnewashta Park and that
is not paved. It's all dirt so we're wondering if that were doing.
you ?
al Iow
Headla: He's got me realIy...across the street
all gravel . I was convinced he needed blacktop
else. I'Il, pass.
to count is. . .
Conrad: We'11 mull that through. Okay, Dave. You're stjll on.
there.but he
Hers
sited
r j.ght, that's
some t]r i ng
Conrad: Let me throw it back to Dave. In terms of the plan thatrs been
presented, do you want to see that back? Are you concerned that the plan
is going to be different? what's your feel i.ng? Do you $rant that to come
back here or do you r"/ant to do it in cond j.tions? Do you feel comfortable
with jt as jt is and let the city Council have at jt Dave?
Headla: I think it was an interesting question that you asked and I want
to throw it back to Barb and Jo Ann, are they comfortable with it? Are
they just a little r^rays ahray if they make the change? Theyrve been so
involved with that. After we get done I'd like to hear their opinion on
that.
Conrad: Jo Ann, what do you think?
Planning Commission Meetlng
August 17, 1988 - Page 6
OIsen: That I s the first
a major change. They I re
Conrad: Letrs talk aboutstill donrt knos, what, if
standard ?
I've heard of it
changing all the
I would expect it to be
area also.
too and
parking
Conrad: You would change the septic site too I rrould imagine.
Bryan Pike: The primary site.
Carey Lyons: My name is Carey Lyons, ...the archj tects and we aredesigning their structure. That wourd be the intent. To move the churchto this area to allow the primary septi.c site. To move to this area sothe church wourd not be required to go 350 feet and possibry pump to thatprimary site because it would be a suitable site adjicent to it. Therewourd be some rearranging of parking and access to the building and theretrould be the rerocation of that one site but beyond that I think we courdwork with the staff to meet arr your requirements and not hord the project
uP.
thi.s
that
setbac kis our
from a right-of-way. I guess
standard, a 50 foot setback, it I
15 a
OIsen: Itrs from
r ight-of-way.
a dedicated right-of-way and this isn.t a dedicated
Conrad: It isn't a dedicated
Batzli: What section is Ehat
Dacy: The rural , it's underan issue for. . .
right-of-way.
in? What section is
the RR setback. Itrs
Ehat 50 foot setback?
50 feet. It's more of
Batzli: well, right-of-way is
doubt itrs right-of-way you're
not def i. ned in thetalking abouE.
Olsen: Itrs from the property tine.
Batzli: Easement, on the other handfor what that's wor th .
Zoning Ordinance so I
is and it's ej-ther public or private
Dacy: Again, j.f it's
taking his chances as
not 50, if j.t' s belowto the non-conformi ty that, then the applicant isof the building in the future.
Conrad: And what is the
$rha t?As far as
As far as allowing them
At this point, none.
They might end up with ais in.
risk to the Cjty?
to build within this setback area?
Dacy :
Conrad:
Dacy:
Ol sen :street church with barely a setback once the
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - Page 7
Conrad: So once the street goes in.
Olsen: You might have a church parking lot...
Dacy: And we donrt know if they're talking 4q feet or 30 feet or what so
maybe it's an issue that we can resolve. I don't know.
Bryan Pike: Do you build 60 foot roads through there? Is there not someextra space in there anyway?
Dacy: For a 6g foot roadway is a typical right-of-way for a street hrhichcould accomodate tr.ro lanes of traffic and boulevard areas.
Bryan Pike: So there is some extra space on both sides of the road then?
Dacy: Yes, but that's not included in yourthe right-of-way, that boulevard area may beutilities, pole I ines, trails.
setback calculation because
used for installation of
Wi ldermuth: How c1o se
bu i 1d ing?
to Ehe easement do you propose to place the
Carey Lyons: We donrt knor,, at this point. We just discussed the issuethis afternoon so we havenrt had a chance to analyze it to determineexactly where it would best fit and a1lor., that primary site to move upadjacent to the building.
conrad: Irm going to interrupt you. If they don,t know, I think we haveto table the issue until, if you're talking a couple feet, I think we
wouldnrt mind it but j.f you don't kno$, yet, I think werve got to have youknowing. If you were here saying we are going to do it exactly this way,I think we could probably pass something conditj.oned upon that kind of
knowledge but if you don't know yet, am I off base? I don't want to
belabor a meeting when we are probably going to table it if they donrtknow. I guess I'm kind of uncomfortable.
Headla: I think it's appropriate Ladd.
Hnmings: The other issue is, if there's a strong likelihood that therersgoing to be the extensi.on of Lake Lucy Road going through this property inthe future, I think they'd be foolish not to take it into account even ifthey donrt have to. We ought to make sure vre knovr'what our basis is for
imposing it because I think there should be that setback from that
easement that we mentioned.
Batzli: I think rde also have the basis to look at that since this is aconditional use.
Conrad: So if you,d Iike to revise your plans, I think we could go aheadtonight with the plans as yourve presented and we could pass a favorable
motion but if you do want to change them, we will table this untjl you can
come back and tell- us specifically what you r^rant to do.
Carey Lyons: I can understand your point and your stand and it's veryeasy to see that you feel that r^ray but itrs also, you should alsoappreciate that if we're alrowed to buird within that 50 and we just are
now made aware of it, why are we the only ones to be penalized?
conrad: r just thj.nk you should know that what the pranning commission'srore is, is to take a rook at as close to absolute prans as possible so wecan make right decisions. what yourre terring us i-s you've presented us,and through whatever reasons, r understand that you just found out someinformation this afternoon and r appreciate that and you canrt react in afew minutes but on the other hand, our rore here is t6 take a look at whatreaLly is real. What really is being, what you want and so far, vrhatyourre saying is we want to change a Iot of things. parking lot.Location of church. septic systems and r think it's not aplropri.ate forus to say we agree because we don't knorr, what you,re tatking about yet.so we understand that you got new infomration and you certainry have theright to change whatever you've got but on the oth6r hand, from our roJ.e,r think itrs not appropriate for the planning commission to react tosomething. our charter is to react to something thatrs being presented asactual and you don't have that to us tonight.
Bryan Pike: How long of a delay are we...
conrad: r think it's a simple, strai.ght forward- r guess it's goi.ng todepend on where you want to locaEe the church. r thi;k generalry we wourdask staff if they rearry berieve a road is going to go tirough t-here, rthink thatrs what Mr. Emmings just said, if theie is a road that weanticipate Ehat wirl be going in there, werre probabry going Eo hold youto that 50 foot setback. r think what we challenge statt to do is sa|, isthat a real thing. rf the road is kind of imaginary and we may never doit-from the City standpoint, then ere take a loof at- that and siy, gee ifi.re I re not convinced that it's needed for chanhassen, then we'd -be ibte toslip some of those maybe standards or regurations, whatever. But if theycome back and say, yes we really believe to serve the neighborhood to th6east, there has to be a road there, then werre probably g5in9 to upholdpretty much the standards that we set. And r think itls-al-so to yourbenef i t .
Bryan Pike: r think Jo. Ann_ has already stated that it isn't somethingthat is legally, that the City can take.
Planning Comrnission eeting
August 17, 1988 - Page 8
Emmings: Thatrs something we erant to look into.
Batzli: I rdould disagree with it for one. Irm
Bnmings: I found a definition for right_of_way
just reading the Statutes.
here.
Batzl-i: But j.trs from,it as roadway easement.
i t' s a setback. If
Easement is both a
adhered to that.
you go
publ ic
setback,
private
they defineright.
Head1a: But we haven't
to
or
Batzli: I donrt
Code says.
know rrhat we t ve adhered to. I'm just reading r.rhat the
Bryan Pike: What does that mean?
Conrad: These are two lawyers, I don't know. Let's try to resolve thatbefore the motion occurs. It means we donrt, as lay people up here, wedonrt understand what the 1aw specifically commands us to do. As Planning
Conmissioners, we don't know whatrs right or wrong and we'd like the staffto consult and teII us what is appropriate. So if we donrt have to
enforce the 50 foot, if you have full right to use that 50 feet, that'syour perogative. We donrt know. We canrt tell hrhat our ordinance istelling us to do right now. Therefore, if hre table it, we're talking twoweeks. Yourre two weeks further down the line. Is that right Jo Ann?
Can r^re sneak him on the next agenda?
Olsen: Sure.
Conrad: So $rer d bring you back as soon as we can which is two weeks from
now so erer lI delay that. It may be to your benefit. On the other hand,if you want to run with what we see, I think we can react to that. wehaven't discussed bituminous. I think the other thing they deserve tohear though, a little bit of conversation on what we want to do r^rith theparking Lot. Jim, what do you want to do with the parking lot? Theydonrt want to pave it.
Wi.ldermuth: I think
desirable to pave it.
in view of the contours involved, it would be very
Batzli: I agree with Jim.
Emmings: I agree.
Erhart: I agree.
Conrad: I think the same. We'd like to see it paved. At Ieast I think
yourre taken care of on the landscaping. That looks clean to me. Paving
youtve got to do probably. Based on what we're saying. City Council
disagrees vrith us occasionally. We get involved in setting precedent. and
things like that in terms of what the ordinance. IErs hard for us to say,
well you don't need to pave and we understand the financial considerations
thaE you're under but when the next group comes in and says they donrt
want to pave, we donrt always have rationale to say why you donrt need to
and why they should. So tyPically we uphold the ordinance because the
ordinance i.s driving a lot of our decisions here. what Irm saying is
ere're looking at the ordinance- The City Council may have a ilifferent
oplnron.
Bryan Pike: Does the ordinance require it in that area?
OI sen :similar
par k j. ng
Eor commercial, it states for any commercial or industrial
uses like that, they must be paved. Concrete curb. Itrssection. It r.ra s staff's interpretation that the amount of
uses or
i. n thetraffic
Planning Commission Meet ing
August 17, 1988 - Page 9
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - page I0
on that parking area is similarrural areas where therers a lot
Run off into wetland locations.
other uses that wetraffic where it's
to
of have
going
proposed i.nto be eroded.
Brvint an Pike: Wherpretation atof L ur.rdqlqlaAd_her to be saying is that itrs herthat oro l nance.
conrad: You persuade us that it's not based on your interpretation of theordinance, r think you may have a chance because it doesn'i necessarilysay church. you could dig into it a little bit and say, based on ourinterpretation on how we read it, rre don't need to.
Bryan Pike: Would it be wrong forand then present our change to the
tha t?
us to say go
City Counc i I ?
plan for
wrong to
tonight
do
wi. th
Is
this
that
Olsen: Staff would recommend
Planning Commission.
that it probably be taken back to the
Bryan Pike: See, we t re pressed
situation where we're meeting atget it up. If we have to breakto be able to afford that.
for building before fall. Ilrerre in a
L:OO in another church. Wetre hoping tofrost ground, we know that we,re not going
conrad: r suppose that's your right. rtrs not the process we rike tofolIow-because typically we kind of like to clea! the way for the CityCouncil so that when we say something regarding planning; they say yes.The pranners- These ray people who think they're tina ot prannin!. Theyagree vrith it. rt makes sense but on the other hand, you -h"ve the rightto go in and say this is r.rhat vras approved. Herers another pran that vrasnot approved and you potentially could present it to them. itreyimmediately, it's a gambre on your part. They could table it aid say sendit-back to Pranning commission because they hiven,t reviewed it this'wiy.rtrs a gamble. rt wourd cost you an additionar two rdeeks but it's sort ofup to you.
Batzli: Jo Ann. what is the likeli.hood that MnDot gives up an accesspermit for the current arrangement of their driveeray?
olsen: r spoke with Evan creen and he sounded rike that wouldn't be muchof a problem.
Batzri: so Lrith this condition, you probably wouldntt have a changeapproving it with them applying for the driveway access permit? t6eywouldn I t have to change.
Olsen: Right.
Conrad: What do you want to do?
donrt want to throw Ehat poljtical hot potato at theBryan pike:
Counc i I .
We
Planning Commission Meeti ng
August 17, 19BB - Page 11
Conrad: Irm glad you're doing that. I'dother comments on this one? I didn,t letthis one a great deal, but anything else?
prefer you to come back. Anyyou folks to my right talk about
the record,
somebody to
we did not have aget their repo r ts
current address forto them. I 've talked
Dacy: The point being that what he represented is not exactly true as to
vrhen he received that report.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 76.5 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS
ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES, AND
96TH STREET, TIM ERHART.
oE 66.5
LOCATED
AND 10
AT 775 WEST
Publ ic Present :
Karen Ha sse 530 West 96th Street
Jo Ann OIsen presented the staff report.
Conrad: Itrs hard for me to understand the 30 and 6g foot easement JoAnn. If you could graphicly help us.
Olsen: It's in the ruraL area so any roadway easement right-of-way would
have to be 5g feet. we did obtain 30 feet when the Worm property came
through, the Jeurj ssen and worm property so what we are requesting fromthe applicant is the additional 30 feet that would be necessary to provide
us with the 60 foot and it would jog up. Typically you would want it tocontinue straight across. What we're saying is that these properties, theonly time you can acquire that right-of-way easement is when the property
is platted and these two pieces of property can no! be subdivided until
Emmings: I think I'd look at the same thing that Bryan did. I think weshould make a motion to table it. We should also have the City Attorneylook at it and maybe Bryan could just outline what he's been scribblingover there because r think we can impose the 50 foot easement but r thinkwe should get a legal opinion on that because that's going to make it realsinple for them.
Batzli moved, Emmings seconded that the planning Commission table thismatter in order for the Westside Baptj.st Church to determine $rhether theywant to rearrange their site plan and also move that the staff has theCity Attorney review whether a 50 foot setback is required in the RRdistrict in this case and the setback is defined as a roadway easement.
The definition of easement includes both public and privatefy nefa rights.AII voted in favor and the motion carried.
Olsen: And just forthem. I had to callwith them by phone.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - Page 12
sewer and rrater is available sosubdivided, we do need a streetto acquire 30 feet is you don't
Conrad: Who would have to acquire it?
Olsen: The Ci ty.
if, in the future, thj.s property isaccess to Elintlock Trail, you would havehave the...on the Erhart side.
Conrad: And thatsubdividing? Why
Olsen: If thesethey could. . .
road would
would tha t
benefit them because
road benefit them?
they would be
properties subdivided when sewer and water was in, then
Conrad: We could get the other 3g feet butis...them and the City would pay for them?
until they do, all we can do
QIsen: Right. If the subject property, sincethis could subdivide before sewer and water andstreet to here is necessary to connect it up toimprovement would benefit the worm property.
it has so much acreage,if it is found that athis property, the street
Karen Hasse, 630 hlest 96th Street: When you taLk about easementroadrray, does that also mean an easement ior .ry trailway systemdeJ-ayed untir subdivision can take prace on thal present acieagez
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order,
for the
r,rould be
orsen: Theyrre two different subjects actually. what the park and Reccommission did decide not to require any trail easements at this timeeither until the property is su6divideO-.
Erhart: I,d Iike to makeanybody here, the purpose Presentation. I just wanted tothe subdivision is only because,
Tim
for my
of r epea t
we
Conrad: If he wants to subdivide the property to the north, we can forcehim to provide the additional easernent at that time?
Olsen: Right.
conrad: werre not rocked out of it? rf he is wanting to develop and theneighbors to the south are not, $re can get our furl G0 feet if we want tozrf he subdivides- Right now he's onry wanting to give the 30 because hersobviousry not interested in subdividing. r donrt *now if itrs not obviouibut hers not interested. He's not trying to give up more than he needsto.
O1sen: Riqht. It's usually the road is split.
conrad: Right, because it is benefit to both sides. r guess r just wantto make sure that r^rerre not locked out. The city is not locked 6ut ofgetting additional r ight-of-way.
Planning Commission Meet i n9
August 17, 1988 - page 13
bought the property on a contract for deed g years ago and the barloonpatrment is due in April which requires us to get a mortgage. Today, vriththe foreclosure laws that the State of Minnesota passed a couple yearsago, banks wiII not provide mortgages on any piece of property over L0acres in size because they can not foreclose on it. So what werve had todo, just apply for a mortgage is to go through the subdivision processwhich is what this is. To carve out the area around the house of 9.gacres so when we go in to apply for a mortgage, we have to show them ahouse and less than 10 acres. We have no intenion of subdividing orselling the 10 acres or anything at this time. We're simply foltowing therules that the State and mortgage companies have provided. I agree withthe comments that you had Ladd on that easement. I think either us or anyof the neighbors on West 96th Street really particularly want a streetextended beyond where it is so I donrt think anybody is saying they wantit. I thj.nk it's logical at this time, as long as we're doing thisprocess, to pick up the 30 feet which is traditional where there could be
someday I suppose a street when sewer and water comes in. I think that
makes perfect sense. If someday somebody vranted to go in and subdividethe whole thing, they would put a whole pattern of streets in there thatwould be somewhat in line with that in mind to bui1d... along the streetproperty.
Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. AIl votedin favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was cLosed.
Emmings: I guess I would be in favor of there being a 30 foot easement
from the east property line over as far as Flintlock Trail. I guess j.t
makes sense to me to pick that up at this time not knowing what's going to
happen in the future so at least werve got that much because it looks likea natural connection. The only thj.ng I'm wondering about is if itshouldn't go all the r^ray down to that Homestead Way so that whole thinkpotentially would be looped but I guess for no\"r, I don't see any reason todo a 60 foot easement. I think if we have 30 feet dor^rn the trail thatrs
good enough. That's all Itve got.
Batzli: Did we get
you used to have?
the amended plat? Did your condition 2 disappear that
Olsen: No, we don't have the amended plat.
Batzli: I agree basically \^rithget a 30 foot easement and up to
we'll be able to hook back in.
what S teve
EI intlock
I agree that we
seems appropriate
sa id .
Trail
shou 1d
and
Wil-dermuth: Staff recommendations look appropriate.
Headla: Appropriate.
Conrad: Me too. Any motion?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - page 14
Wildermuth moved, BatzIi seconded that
approval of Subdivision Request #88-18maintain a 66.5 acre parcel as a metesfollowing conditions:
the Planning Commission recommendto plat one I0 acre parcel and
and bounds description with the
1. The applicant provide an amended plat creatingLot I and maintaing Parcel B (56.5 acres) as adescription.
Parcel A (10 acres) as
metes and bounds
2 The applicant provide at least a 30 foot roadway easement along thesoutherly property line up to Flintlock Trait.
AII voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GARDEN CEN?ER ONBH, HIGHWAY BUSINESS AND LOCATED ON WES? 78TH
PRODUCTS, JAY KRONICK, AND
3.7 ACRES OE PROPERTY ZONED
STREET JUST WEST OF REDMOND
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GARDEN CENTER AND HOLDING POND
WITHIN A CLASS B WETLAND ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, HIGHWAY BUSINESS AND
LOCATED oN wEsT 78TH STREET JUST WEST oF REDMoND PRODUCTS, JAY KRONICK ANDClTY OE CHANHASSEN.
Publ ic Presen t :
Name Address
Jay Kronick
Gene E. ErnsE
AppI icant
122 West 6th Street, Chaska
Barbara Dacy presented the staff report.
Jay Kronick: Iim the applicant, Jay Kronick. I,11 start out by sayingthat most of the changes to the existing site plan that staff iarecommending... The berm arong the parking area with the hedge would needsome cuts in there that...access to the parking lot. ...I'd al-so Iike tomention that Irve agree to provide a screen rrhere the mul.ch and bags offertilizer wil-l be stored. The plan does not show that presentry. Thereis an additionar impact...across the rairroad tracks. That wourd take theform either of some kind of fence right next to the building...wourd restbetween the screen... A coupre of minor changes from what i have shown onthe site plan. The exterior lighting as propcsed, therers one high sodiumfixture proposed. otherwise. rrve proposed. some soffit lighting aiong thefront which is directed straight down, medium i.ntensity. The gravel-roadwhich back from the parking area to the north is to be construated by thecity primariry for access to the storm rrater pond to be constructed backthere. r've discussed with the engineering staff the appropriateness ofusing that for my own business use and not for customer use- and r don'tthink the plan mentioned that. r incruded... r also am concerned withthe traffic and the appearance of the site. I chose to Iocate j.n
chanhassen rather than other areas because r like the nature of the town.I want to be a part of it and I erant my business to grow and prosper andto do that itrs going to have to be... r do intend that the business wirlgrow. Thatrs why half the property is left vacant at this point. That'svrhy I bought a parcel of this size, or am planning to buy a parcel of thissize rather than one of hal-f the size because my future needs will.-.ofthis size. Irve got a plan to grow. Otherwise it wouldn't make a lot ofbusiness sense. I enjoy the nursery business. Itrs fun but I,m also hereto make a living. The site is intended to handle what I anticipate will-be a reasonable volume of use for the first few years. Unfortunately Icanrt be more specific than that. I donrt know how fast the business isgoing to grow. I can give some projections based on...but the site asdesigned is adequate for initial and the first few years. I have a toughtime agreeing to a review of the screening after the one year. That,sreally the only problem I've got with this. you see my plan. I thinkit's reasonably clear as to where I v/ant to store materials and what typeof materials and I would just assume that we proceed carefully at thispoint and say these are the things that need to be done to effectivelyscreen in and then come back several years down the road when I go toexpand to the other side of the property and need to apply for whateverpermit or conditional use that you need at that time for the expansion andthat seems to be the appropriate time for review. I'm submitting myinitial facilities to what you see on the plan. It seems to me that afair deal ought to be to impose the conditions now rather than to come
back a year later after I'm in business and comply with that. I view thatas a little unfair. I'm willing to work on making it real nice.
Headla moved, Wi ldermuth
in favor and the motion
seconded to c]ose the public hearing. Al,] voted
carried. The public hearing was closed.
year round operation?
open for business year round, yes.
Headla: would this be a
Jay Kronick: I would be
Headla: It seems to me I got hung up on one thing. f remember when the
Chanhassen Lawn and Sports were in here, we severely limj.ted them on
outdoor sales. The Last time we reviewed SuperAmerica, $re restricted
their outdoor sales. I think we've got to follow and be consistent in ourpolicy and say, outdoor sales we don't do here. I donrt know how far to
restrict that. Now maybe it's bigger berms. More trees around the sides.I think we've got to do something like that to be qonsistent. Bernie, if
he put big berms, could he go ahead and have some tracters and Iawn mowersoutside. I think we really restricted his business. I think what r^re did
was right but I think we also have to be consist.ent.
Conrad: Barbara, can you compare the situations for us?
Dacy: Sure. The superAmerica site is located in the Neighborhood
Business district whj.ch has a different intent and a different goal ratherthan the Business Highway District. Bernie Hanson's proposal was in the
Business Highway District. Council did allow outdoor display of I think
we established t2 tracters and 14 lawn mowers so there was a Iimi ted
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - Page 15
amount of outdoor dispray. Again, with this use, the garden center is thenature of the use. They're not advertising, he's not displaying pots andgarden clippers- He's disptaying plants that need to ne outsiae.- ourrecommendations for the screening were aimed at trying to just screen thestructurers use to support the plans and the pots inai the|,re located inbecause there are going to be a series of arbirvitaes. th6re are going tobe a series of evergreen trees. Not necessariry use trees to screen thetrees.
BatzIi: Didn,t we distinquish thoughsales in Chanhassen Lawn and Sportsino outdoor sales allowed?
Planning Commission Mee t j. ng
August 17, 1988 - page 16
Dacy: That t s correct. Brianrsdisplay and that is consistentis for the actual transactions
Bernie .
between outdoor display and outdoor
He could display them but there were
Headla: We had a discussion on where do you draw the Line.
correct that r.re allowed the outdoorwith this application. The sal.es buildingand that's the same thing we did with
Batzli: But we're not making it a conditionhas an outdoor booth that during peak periodsout in the backyard and they stirl ringinq upgoing to let them do that in this one?-
Dacy: The application that was submitted, bybuilding, I had assumed that the reg j.ster isyou want to clarify that for the record, youYou might erant to clarify with the applicantbe an outdoor booth.
here. For
they have
sales out
rnstance, Frank I sa couple cashiersthere. Are r.re
Jay Kronick: I have no intention of selling materialbe brought in or a receipt would be brought in and aIIbe rung up inside at all times. That's essential.
Headla: r think the business is appropriate. r'd tike to see it be inhere. The rest of it I like. It,; ju;t, I donrt know. Are we inconflict with some of the others? siourd vre put in a higher berm? youleft it at 2 feet- r guess r wourd have felt- much bettei and it may hurtbusiness if we raise it to like 3 feet or make it... As you're arii.rng-byin the car, r don't think you'd see arr those tables or d'o you have someinformation on the 2 feet that they wouldn't see tbat?
Dacy: A berm along the front j.s 2 feet and they vriltmaterials on top of that. The Commission, it,s withinwant to require a higher berm.
Headla: I suspect you've done some background work on it, that,s why Ivras asking that. Just to bring that out. Okay, thatrs all I have.
wirdermuth: The question r have, item 6 sanitary sewer service sharr have
3- sald trap prior to discharging into the public sanitary sewer system.what ts that about? Is that in lne stoim sewerz
ind icating the saleswjthin the bui Iding and ifcan add that as a condition.if therets actually going to
outside. It rrrould
transactions would
be planting
your pervue, if you
Dacy: I know itrs not the storm sevrer and Laxry, that'squestion I forgot to ask hirn but he obviously feels thatand itrs an engineering detail that they have to address.
Wildermuth: It doesn't sound logical. I think the staffgood job of addressing the issues here. I think they putanalytical report. I have no further questions.
the
it,s
one
necessary
has done a
together a
very
good
Batzli: I guess just reading Larryt s report, he does tal-k about it in hissanitary sewer section. The second paragraph of that section. I don,tknow why they'd need it either. I'm assuming they're not taking all theirwater from their outdoor \.rater and putting it in the sanitary sevrer butanyway. I was kind of looking at this and I just pictured Frank's at peak
seasons and I donrt think the parking lot is going to hold everybody whois there buying all their fertilizer and stuff and my question was really,I assume you calculated the number of parking spots by the square footageor whatever your formula is. Is that right?
Dacy: Right. 18 spaces is being proposed and we talked about that withthe applicant. we used the greenhouse area and came up with some type ofratio on the outdoor display area. carden center use is not specified byordinance. Therers a section in the ordinance that allows the Cj.ty
Planner to review what's being proposed and make a determination and wefelt that the 18 would be appropriate.
Batzli:
there?
Dacy :
ex pa nd
east.
Is there going to be parking allowed on West 78th Street right
No.
to
The advantage to the site
the east and add on another
is tha t
tier or
they do
parking
have the
directly
ability toto the
Dacy: Correct.
Batzli: Are we going to see thjs again as some sort of, you'I1 see j.t
again as part of the building process?
Dacy: That I s correct.
Batzl-i: But a building this square footage normally wouldnrt require asprinkler system?
Dacy: That I s correct.
Batzli: Even though it may have flammable weed killers and other thingsstored inside?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - Page 17
Batzli: I guess I feel that 18 probably wonrt be satisfactory if his
business takes off at all and I'd like to see more spots if poss ible. I
assume the pylon sign meets a1l of our signage requirements?
Planning Commission Meeti ng
August 17, 1988 - Page 18
Dacy: Thatrs correct- According to the UBC and their classification onthis building and it,s occupancy.
Batzli: I guess Ird like to see the public Safety Director take a lookboth at qrhat may or may not be stored within the sales buiJ.ding and alsowhat the rdater useage of this place will be during water shortages becauseI assume they would be exempted from watering bans. I also had the sameconcern about differentiating between outdoor sares and displays. r thinkif we limit some applicants by specifying that they can,t perform outdoorsales rather than displays, we should be somewhat consistent.
Conrad: So you want the trees inside?
Batzli3 No, I didn't say that. They can display them all they want outthere but they're not going to set up cash registers outside.
Emmings: Condition 4, I agree with the applicant,s statement that, Ithink we ought to do it nor^r. We ought to look at this thing and figureout whatrs going to be adequate. Tell him he has to do it. I think itrsalways hard to go back a year later aod tell him he,s got to do more.Especially if his screening involves plants that arenri going to havegrown to their furl height in a year. r can see you want to reave thedoor open a little bit but if that's the case, if we're going to Ieavethis in than r think itrs got to be rewritten because ari it says is thesite will be reviewed in a year and it doesn,t say what you'1l io if youdeem it to be jnadequate. r! it's goi.ng to be reit in, -r changed it justto read that the screening of the si te sharl be reviewed in one year ;ndif the city determines that the screening is not adequaEe, the alplicantsharr be requited to do additionar screening. l,take it say sometiring. rfthatrs what you mean to say, then ret's say it that way but on the otherhand rike r say, r'd be inclined to say letrs evaluate the plan and thenjust impose it now and take number 4 out a1l together
Conrad: Letrs follo$, that up. What's the concern that we don't haveright screening right now or what,s going to change in a year that wecanrt anticipate? Obviously we don,t know everything but !,rhat are youthinking Barbara ?
Dacy: r think maybe steve described it the best as far as to leave thedoor open to make sure that the greenhouse is screened. To make sure thatthe dispJ.ay area is properly contained. what the applicant has suggesteJis that instead of number 4 that you put in a condiiion that says iheconditional- use permit shall be requiied prior to expansion of the use.rf you want to go the route of approving lhe pran wiln tne conditions isis and making it clear that if he wants to come back and expand theconditional use permit is required at Ehat time.
Emmings: Won't that be the case anyway?
Dacy: yes. I,m just offering that just to
the
make it clear.
applicant understands.Conrad: Restating what is required so the
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - Page 19
Dacy: If itrs a contractorrs yard, no.
Emmings: But letrs say, if they do have trucks and Bobcatsfor doing plantings, Irm assuming that they cantt be parked
Dacy: Hers got to be able to do the things that he needs tothe materials i-n and out. The vehi.cles that he has describedvehicles that would be involved in a contracter's yard.
Dacy: That's not whatr s being proposed, correct?
Jay Kronick: Itrs not being proposed but I would ask the question, whatis the limit on the size truck thaL I might have? I propose a truck for avehicle, a small pick-up truck. Where do you wish to draw the line? Iwill need a forklift for my business. I don,t anticipate needing a Bobcatbut if I decide to get into the landscaping contracter's business, IrlI
move that operation off somewhere else where it's suitable. this is aretail fac i 1i ty.
Emmings: what you're asking me is what is the limit? I don,t knor^r.
What is the limit? What would he be allowed to do here and not do?
Emmings: Isagree. This
time over at
and a des i gnyard type of
Emmings: 1 dontt
wanted to expandis the lot thatrs
have to come back
it clear that, you mentioned Shorewood Nursery and I guess Ilooks to me like that type of operation and I spend a lot ofShorewood... As far as you mentioned that they have trucksbusiness and so forth. It's kind of, almost a contractorrsuse. This could not be used that rray I take it?
and so for th
there?
do to move
are not
of
from
Jay Kronick: If I could add one thing, I anticipate the possibility
landscape contracter's bringing their trucks in and buying materials
me or truck traffic would come into the site.
see
this
in
to
any problem with that. And it's clear that if you
onto this area that's marked future expansion, whichthe IOP, anything you wanted to do over there, herdthe Planning Commission and the City Council?
Enmings: Now this is a big open field
for storage? If he ever needs storage,place to go to Put it.
out here and vrhat
it's going to be
if
an
he does
obv i ous
use it
ea sy
Dacy: Your conditional use permit is based
he's only shor.ring the display on the north
and thatrs all that would be permitted.
approval of this plan and
south side of the building
on
and
Emmings: Okay. You went through this analysis with the traffic and
came up with this L,lgq ADT figure which you thought was real high.
were that high, would everything be adequate then? You could handle
you
rf it
that?
Dacy: Itrs hard for me not to say that because whatis any, trip generation analysis is different than a
there's not outparking demand
there
Dacy: Thatrs correct.
Planning Commission MeetingAugust 17, 1988 - page 2A
analysis and you could have tripsIeaving. 18 parking spaces couldcan't answer your question as to
Emmings: From what I observed, again over atbe adequate. If the use of this is going toShorewood, I think it's adequate.
Dacy: Shorewood, I donrt think therers evenItrs just a gravel driveway off the road and.
comrng j.n,
be adequa teif 18 spaces
staying for 5 minutes andfor the length of stay. Iis adequate fox L,LOA ADT.
Shorewood, I think it mightbe similar to what's over at
close to 18 spaces there.
Dacy: Itrs the applicant's intent, he has bought the entirewants both sides for his use. They are separately describedif he so chooses, to sell off the ioe parcel.
Emmings: I don't think I've ever seen 1gpart thatrs in the IOp, there,s no chanceseparately or sold for some other use or
Emmings: If something Iike that wouldappropr iate?
Dacy: The ordinance woul-d allow for aparking lot situation and I think that
Erhart: The gate is intended for
Jay Kronick: yes.
Erhart: So the gate,s not part ofhours?
cars in there at onethat could be brokensomething Iike that?
time.off The
property. He
so he could,
Emmings: And the setbacks as far as the buirdi.ngs are concerned would bealright is that, for whatever reason would becom6 u ="p.r"ie parcet?
Dacy: rn the rop District, it's 3g foot front setback and the sidesetback is the same, so therers no change there. tfre fOe pircel canaccomodate some type of smalI industriai office.
Emmings: Are we looking at the alteration permit now?
Conrad: We really haven I t.
Emmings: r like the fact that the staff report puts in the 12 points fromthe conditionar use permit and anaryzes thii thi-ng based on tnose 12points- r rhink we ought to do thai "ir tn" ti.e. r rhink it;i-piJuaurya 10t of r"ork but r Lhink it's a rear good approach to do that because itrearly waxes it- you knolr_exacEly wheie you; i" coming from. r donrt haveany quarms about the outside dispray but i think t4er5's something to u.--1ai! fo5.being. consistent in taliing about the restricting of sales. Idon'!t think this is simirar to storing pop cans outside of a superAmericaor even la$rn mowers.. .
happen, would the setbacks be
joint parkj-ng situation. Jointwould happen in this case.
what, securing it at night?
the business during the operating
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - page 21
Jay Kronick: It will be left open during the...
Erhart: Then there's no fencing around. The gate is simply to preventpeople from using your parking Iot at night? Okay, in the ;inte;timewhat, you say you're going to be open year round, what are you going toseII?
and
take
year
Jay Kronick: Bird supplies. Food
January and February I'm going toclose off the option of operatinggreeks in the winter months.
feeders. Christmas in season.a vacation. I would not want to
round but I may close for a few
Erhart: I assume yourre going to setl Christmas trees?
Jay Kronick: Yes.
Erhart: I
of staf f I s
think it's a good plan. I also wanted to comment on the formatpresentation. Itrs really helpful to get this down.
Conrad: It is. The socket lighting. Do we havesocket Lighting? Is it soffit or socket?
any problem wi th the
Dacy: Soffit.
Conrad: What
of the g ravel
do we need to do in
road back through?
terms of the applicant's request for use
Dacy: I think that we could work with him on that. The only issue that Iwant to resolve about having the general public using the road is only fora liability standpoint and I'm sure we can come to some type of agreement.Either a yes or a no. It is agreed that the City wilt be constructing agravel road and we should look at the liability issues.
Conrad: I donrt kno\^/ what to do lvith the screening issue with 4. I dontt
know how to define that. I think the applicant should know what we'rethinking about and if we cantt define what we might be J.ooking for,I guess my preference is to eliminate it although I do appreciate staff's
comments because we don't really know what we're doing in terms ofscreening the r^rhole site. we don't know what it's really going to lookIike until it goes up. But on the other hand, I don't know that you can
hang this over his head so whoever makes the motion, yourve got to dealr"rith condition 4. I think we need some clarification on condition 6
because I don't have a clue what that means.
Wildermuth: In reading Larry's report, I understand what that's a1Iabout. Thatrs the sedimentation and dirt.
Conrad: The natural run-off from the garden center.
Wildermuth: This is strictly the sanitary sewertrap to keep dirt from getting into the sanitary
system. Itrs a real sand
serrer system.
Planning Commission Meet i ng
August 17, 1988 - Page 22
Conrad: Okay. And I think the condition ofbe dealt with. The orrners of the propertiesnotified of this public hearing? And they,requestions on this. Is there a motion?
no outside reg i ster sto the east and westnot here? I have no
should
wer e
o ther
Headla: Was this one
bui ld i ng?
sodium light going to be? Is that the one on the
Dacy: Yes. That will be located on the doors.
Emmings: Irll move the the planning Commission recommend approval ofConditional Use permit #88-]3 based on the Site plan stamped ,,Received
JuIy 26, 1988" vrith the staff conditions I through 12 except striking out4. Deleting number 4. I guess in place of number 4, just to keep thenumbering neat werII put in a condition that says that there wiII be nooutside sares of merchandies as opposed to outside display of merchandiseand to clarify that the sales transaction will take pLace within thebuilding just as the appricant said was his intent to do. r'd also riketo condition approval, I'd like to add a 13 that says that he shall alsocompry with aIr conditions of the wetland Arteration permit, assuming itrsgranted to him. Just to tie again those approvals together.
Dacy: Is that going beyond condition 2?
Emmings: Irm sorry, did I miss something there?
Batzli: Thatrs approval not compliance.
Emmings: I rrant compliance with the conditions so Ithere Barb is, instead of having a 13, ]etts alter 2with the conditions of the wetland Alteration permit
BatzLi: Approval and compl iance?
Enmings: If he gets approval then he's gotsaying. It hasntt been approved yet.
BatzI i : Correct.
guess what I'd doto say, compl iance
#88-8.
to comply. f see what you're
Safety Director Eake abe stored j.n the buiJ.ding
Emmings: Let's do it that way.
Headla: Second.
Batzli: I guess I would Iike to see the public
look at the intended use of materials that willto determine if sprinkling wilI be required.
Emmings:
can just
Conrad: That can be a directive toIf the use of this site exceeds theapplicant obviously wiIJ-, more than
Do
do?
we have to have that as a condition or is that something you
staff before
expectat i onIikely wi I1
gets to City Council.
I8 parking staIIs, thethe rest of the land
it
of
use
to east. If that gets incorporated into the same business, will ere havean opportunity to review Ehe screening and alt other issues on thisparticular parcer? rf arr of a sudden he comes back and he starts puttingparking on the property to the east, erill we be able to revie$, the aiteplan as we look at it or the current site and enforce any additionalconditions at that time?
Dacy: Yes. We did that with the Lyman Lumber application because it
woul.d be part of the total site so I'd say yes.
Conrad: If the building,
and parking requirements,think Irve answered my
if he choosesif he chooses
quest i on.
to sell that parcel off andto build a bigger building,
Emmings: Tell us what
own
the answer 1s.
Conrad: Yes.
Batzli: If the gate is closed at night and there is an emergencyrequiring people to get into the building, how are they going to do that?
Dacy: The Public Safety Director and the Fire Chief reviewed that issue.
What they suggested is that it be Iocked by chain and lock because they
have cutters in their truck to cut through a chain so that was reviewedspecificalJ.y.
Batzli: I was surprised that Dave didntt ask his question of wiII we need
more equipment. We've got the bolt cutters already.
Headla: Irve got a question on the parking lot. you always talk aboutcurbing and sometimes you put concrete curbing and sometimes blacktop and
now it isnrt discussed.
Dacy: The plan does indicate concrete curbing around Ehe edge of theparking area so that's a standard condition.
Enmings moved, HeadIa seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit Request *88-13 based on the site plan
stamped "Received July 26, 1988" and subject to the following conditions:
Installation of a 6 foot evergreen screen along the south, west and
north eralls of the greenhouse and installation of a 2 foot hedge al,ongthe east side of the display area in front of the sales building.
Approval and compliance with WetLand Alteration Permit Request #88-8.
The applicant shall file a plat application in conjunction with the
City of Chanhassen to reserve the necessary utility easements and toproperly convey the northerly portion of the site to the City.
1
2
3
4 There shalI be no outside sales of merchandisedisplay of merchandi se.
as opposed to outside
Planning Commission Meeti ng
August 17, 1988 - Page 23
sales
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - page 24
o
The applicant shal-l enter into a development contract withand provide the City with the necessary financial suretiesguarantee the installation of these public improvements.
The sanitary sewer service shall have a sand trap prior tointo the public sanitary sevrer system.
Details for the installation and connection of the sanitarywater services shall be submitted to the City Engineer forprior to final approval.
the
to
Ci ty
di scharg i ng
sewer and
approvaL
befinal
8 A check varve shalr be installed on the sanitary sewer service priorto discharge into the public sanitary sewer system.
The proposed utirity easements shall be revised to incrude a 4g footwide utility easenent which shall cover all of the existing andproposed utiLities.
)-9. A revised grading, drainage andsubmitted to the City Engineerreview process .
erosion control plan sha 11for approval as part of the
II.
L2.
The proposed water ser v ice
accordance with the I a testSpecifications for UtilityAssociation (AWWA) .
connection shall be "wet tapped" inpublished version for the StandardInstallation from the American water works
Details for the service connect.ion to the lgshould be submitted to the City Engineer forapProvaI.
i.nch d i.ameter waterma inapproval, prior to f inal
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
WETLAND ALTERATION PERM I T.
Dacy: This is a joint application betr{een the city and the applicant.The storm water management plan that rras done for ln. city by our engineeridentified the need for a storage pond in this area and uion- reviewi;g a;;site, werve been able to work with the appricant to creatl a storm waterfacility in the northerly r.G acres of the site. werve arready receivedthe Armey corps approval pernit and now we're going through ttr6 atteraiionPermit to compry with our own ordinance requir6menls. .l irir r,eech inspecteJthe site rast May. we are cooforming to the standard 6 condition= oi tn.-U.S. Fish and wildlife Service. Staif is recommending approval .
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order.
Batzli moved, Wildermuth secondedin favor and the motion carried.close the public hearing. All votedpublic hearing was cLosed.
to
The
6.
7.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - Page 25
Emmings: I
Condi ti ona 1
changed number I to read, compliance with the conditions ofUse Permit Request #88-I3.
Conrad: Anything else? Is Lhere a motion?
Batzli moved, wildermuth seconded that the planning commission recommendapprovaL of wetland Alteration permit #gg-g based on the plans stamped
"Received JuIy 25, 1988" and subject to the following conditions:
I
2
Compliance wi th
Compliance wi th
voted in favor
conditions of Conditional Use permit Request #88-I3.
the Army Corps of Engineer's conditions of approval .
and the motion carried.All
PubIic Present:
Name Address
Shirley BrewerEverett Ol son
Harry Li ndbery
Barbara Dacy presented the
Chairman Conrad called the
City of Chaska
2675 Flying Cloud Drive
Hopkins, MN
staff report.
public hearing to order.
Harry Lindbery: I got a copy of a letter sent to the City and...crossingon that creek, tr,ro areas that he had 14 inch culvert. It ran over thecenter 1ines...I have those sitting there just waiting for the okay for apermit to build that road in there. VJe were going to go ahead and thenBarbara Dacy says well, hold up until you get your permits so theyr resitting there waiting to be installed.
Conrad: Have you rev j.ewed the staff report? Have you looked at the staff
report and the conditions? Any comments on the conditions?
Harry Lindbery: No.
Conrad: Okay, good. Thank
werll open it up to others.
I'm sure werll
comments?
you.
Any
have questions. Now
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EOR A CONTRACTORS YARD ON 39 ACRES OF PROPERTY
ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES AND LOCATED ON HWY 212, JUST WEST OF THE
ASSUMPTION SEMINARY SITE, HARRY LINDBERY.
Planning Commission Meetj ng
August 17, 1988 - Page 26
Everett Olson: I live right across the road from him. That road thatgoes down in back and... You've trucks and cars going in and out, whatkind of a dust mess are you gojng to have then? We,re the only ones alongthere that take care of it anyway so are we going to make something niceror are we going to make something more like the Seminary? you know whatthe Seminary looks like? We donrt need another trashcan Iike that.
Conrad: Sir, the staff report saidbe an asphalt drive going back.
that it was a recommendation that it
Everett Olson: What hours ?
Conrad: So itrs not a dirt road.
Everett Olson: Well, the way it was stated. That's what she read.
staff recommendationDacy: I said the applicant is proposing gravel. Theis that they pave it.
Harry Lindbery: We have avery minimal. I would saythere now. It would. . . out
hours wilL the trucks be going in aII hours ofbig trucks or little trucks?
large CatepiIlar. A large...but that wouldour traffic would be less than what is donethere right now today.
is saying the hours of operation would be from
Everett Olson:the day r ight ?
Conrad: The
7:.AA a.m. to
And what
Are they
staff repor t
6.gg p.m..
be
out
Everett Olson: That field thatrsgoing to be? Is that eventuallygrain drill there and there's old
Harry Lindbery: Werre planning toanything. we havenrt even removed
and do it.
on this side of the trees...what,sgoing to be a junkyard? There's ansheds and some dead trees.
clean that up but I haventt
the...untj.l we get the okay
tha t
oId
touchedto go ahead
Everett olson: I,m asking about that fj.eLd there.
Harry Lindbery: There was
soybeans in there.a man that wanted to take and rent that to put
Everett Ol son :
Harry Li ndbery:
Everett OI son :
I mean you
No.
You I Il be,
wonrt be storing equipment there?
everythl.ng will be in back of that tree line?
Harry Lindbery: Now l0 or 2A yeaxs down the road if we wanted to dosomething different, we'd come back and ask the pranning cornmission tochange it. r have over 4g acres there but r can,t look down the road r0or 2q yeaxs ahead if we rrant to do something different.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - Page 27
Conrad: Anything else? Any other comments?
shirley Brewer: rrm shirley Ber.rer from the city of chaska. Fortunatelyyou're staff... I just want to reiterate some of the things that I...interms of-..and it is a straight shot right down onto this iontractor'sarea. We share.-. As far as the screening goes, Barb is absolutelycorrect that...r would just want to encourage you to screen the besipossible... I erant to share with you some of Lhe things sre areexperiencing with traffic on the highway. That is a most dangeroussituation going out of two curves and we do have a trucking firm locatedto the south of that area. There are a minimum amount of trucks that comein and out of that site and basically there is movement at all hours...sugar haulers... Even rdith that $rerve had . . . fortunately no accidentseven though they are very slow pieces of equipment and they're moving intoand leaving the site... The trucking facility that was approved in -
Chaska, we al,1ow only right-in and right-out turns so we wouldnrt havetrucks stopping.and crossing through the...and I think thatrs probably oneof the reasoDs. . . I would question. . .
Dacy: I did visit rrri th him at his site inof the officials at the City.Hopkins. I did not talk to any
Shirley Brewer: On your on-site inspections, did you...
Currently hers operating his business out of his home as wel-l asother satellite facilities at other industrial parks.
Shirley Brewer: ...we understand the need for contractors yards, believe
me.
Dacy :
hav ing
Conrad: I want to thank you for coming here and while you,re here,part of Chaska that overlooks this, tell me about whaE's developing
the
there.
Shirley Brerder: Itrs a combination. We have a concept plan. The person
who purchased the acreage purchased 350 acres. The concept plan that was
shown $ras a combination of commercial and primarily residential....residential proposed in...depending upon where the subdivision is.
Conrad: As it abuts up to the Hesse Earm property, \dhat is going there?
Property lot sizes are what?
Shirley Bre&rer: we have a proposal for 5 acre sitqs... I can't assurethat that's going to happen. we don't have the large acreage lots...successful with the development just north of that site has 4 to 7 acreIots and they've been for sale for 3 to 4 years with only one sale. Thatdeveloper...came back with a replat r^rhich sold out in the first year withthe Iots. . .
Conrad: I appreciate that and I thank you for your update. Just sharing
some concern that I've had when we saw what vras going next to Hesse Farms
many, and I donrt know how many months ago but it didntt look in sync rdith
what Chanhassen had and maybe werIl never get anything in sync with whatis there but it seemed way out of sync at the time when we looked at it
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - Page 28
but it wasnrt close. I take this opportunity. I thank you for comingsharing your thoughts but I guess I also take a chance to say, we wantbe a good neighborhood and sync in things with you but vre al-so like youdo the same with us. What I saw first proposed certainly was not.
and
to
to
Erhart moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. AII votedin favor and the motion carried. The public heiring was cloied.
Erhart: Irve been quiet tonight saving myself for the next two issues.Thank goodness it's still early enough to breathe some fire. Let me ask aquestion here first. Am I someplace else or is this an A-2 district?
Dacy: this is an A-2 district.
Erhart: Thank you. I guess what scares me the most about this, and IteII you the timing is great because I had the opportunity to go throughall the ord council meeting Minutes of 1984. Two things. one that scaresme, that this proposal, rather than here coul,d be rj.ght next door to meand we could be having the same meeting and could be Iooking at anindustrial project right next door to an area where r,ve pul a tremendousamount of effort to make it rural and residential. Secondly, going backto 1984 where we adopted for the first time in recent. histoiy where weeven alrowed contractors yards, you rook at the spirit of the discussionand basically the reason they passed it, the reason they incorporated thecontractor's yard was to allow the smal1 guy who worked out of his housewith maybe a truck, to continue that use and not be non-conforming unlessI read it wrong. Maybe that's what I wanted Eo read but that's the way Iread it and so we passed the contractors yard ordinance. r look at this,this refrects r guess the rast stage in a pattern of proposals we've seenin contractors yards. The next step obviously is a contractor comprex.Itrs the next logical proposal to see. Read it. The A-2 district-. Theintent statement is for preservation of rural" character whire respect.ingthe development patterns by allowing single family residentialdeveropment. r think you know what, r could tark on this for 2{t mintuesand Ird just be saying it aII over again. I guess the next step issomething that r read very interesting on page r0 of the Minutes wherescott Martin is talking about, what does a conditionar use permit mean? rguess being on the Commission now for over 2 years or something, 1guess r've a}ways been sort of under the impression that when iomethingcomes in for a conditional use permit and it meets all of the requirem6ntsthat werve stated, then somehow you have to pass it through because Idon't think werve ever turned one down. Now r see where a discussiontakes place where that may in fact not be the case. In fact thecommissioners and the council decided that if everything just doesn't fitand they don't want it, that hre can turn it down. That relates back tothe comments when we passed this ordinance that we can allow contractor I syards. They readily admit and it appears that they all agree that insomeplaces in the A-2 area, even despite \re may be trying to protect therittle guy from not forcing him out of town, there are some areas that donot lend thensel-ves to contractor,s yards and the way wetre protectedthere is that vre have this conditional use permit that we as commissionersif we decide that this is not this is not tlre appropriate place for this,
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - page 29
we can vote it down.
commissioners see thestaff sees it?
The question
cond i ti onal
I have, is
use permit that the r^/ay otherprocedure? Is that the way
Dacy: Yes. If the Commission wants to recommend denial, ifthe Iocation is inappropriate for whatever amount of reasonsyou can determine, you have that right. That's exactly whatuse Is.
you feel thator facts tha t
a conditional
Erhart: Any comments on that? Is that the way you see it Ladd in termsof the Cha i rman?
Conrad: Werd like to think that we have been wise enough to determinewhat those conditions are in advance so it forecasts to the potentialdeveloper what we're Iooking for so we donrt hraste their time exploringsomething that may not fit and typically when r.re put something into aconditional use permit, I don't think we spend enough time thinking ofthose conditions. We charter staff. We have staff to do it but I donrtthink we really, and maybe wetre not smart enough to think of a1Isituations but I think we kind of put it on staff's shoulder to thinkabout it and maybe that's not appropriate. It is conditioned on thingsthat werre looking for and I think legally speaking, an applicant could goback to those conditions that are satisfied in any other case. yet on theother hand, if we're looking for a certain type of development and itrskind of clear based on those conditions what wetre looking at, then fthink we can vote it down. You need to hang your hat on something if youvote it down.
Erhart: I think the problem here is, and I donrt want to start gettinginto the next agenda but the problem is you've got an intent statement fora district here. You have a use that werre allowing that is incompati.blewith that so what we've tried to do is put together a list of conditions.
The fact is, no matter how many conditions you put in, it doesnrt fit andI think I'I1 stop there before we get into the next d j.scussion but I thinkthatrs the problem we have. Irll stop there and let me get into thisspecific proposal. I know the area well. I was down there agai.n today.
Simply you start out with Hesse Farms and those people paid a tremendous
amount of money, a lot of money and I assume people in your development
are paying a Iot of money for this view of this valley. Itrs putting anindustrial use in there jus! is not compatible. I wish I would have takenthe time to make some calls to some of those people. I would have likedto have seen more comments here tonight from the neighbors. The question
is are they far enough away, so far that they didnrt get notified?
Dacy: The folks in Hesse Farm rrere notified because the boundary of theparcel goes all the way up to the railroad tracks.
Erhart: The second thing is, we do have an industrial area right nextdoor. If you really think this is an appropriate use, I hope you agreehrith me, let's just change this to BF. It certainly doesnrt fit with theA-2. Again, I think we're going to end up with utility poles and storagejust liker this isn't a tittle guy in the house working out of his garageanymore. These things aII evolve. This one has evolved and he's
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - Page 30
starting... The nature of any business is to grow. It has to grow andthis is going to grow just like aII the other contractor's yards and thecity canrt run down there every year with a polaroid camera and determinevrell, you grew and therefore yourre fitting the conditional use permit.Itrs unrealistic. I also agree that it's a very dangerous systemsituation down there. The area does not have the access roads for a largeamount of traffic going in. That's one of the reasons why we zoned j.t
agricultural and low density residential. I r./ould just hope that theCommission would agree with me that itrs an inappropriate use. Even ifit's allorred in a district, that's inappropriate for this particular area.
Conrad: Because it,s too big.
Erhart: It does not fit at all with, ifthe area, it's too big for the intent of
change tonight. It just doesn't fit witharea.
werre looking at specifically forour ordinance which I hope wethe residential character of the
Conrad: But it's permitted.
Erhart: Thatrs what I was trying to get at. I think it's allowed if wethink it fits with the area and r think we shourd be exercising our rightand our responsibility to eliminate intrusions and not to allow intrusionsand this is an intrusion. rt's agricurtural low density residentiar area.rtrs without a doubt an intrusion. whether or not we change the ordinancetonight,. it's just common sense. This does not fit. Itrs an agriculturarlow density res j.dential.
Emmings: rrm a rittle ambivarent about not having any contractorts yardsin the A-2. It doesnrt offend me as much as it offends Tim because ithink it's kind of is a natural kind of rural use. It sure isnrt aresidential situation. ...trucks in a residentiar area and r guess youcourd say we're going to restrict them to the industriar areas but thatrsnot really appropriate either because if r've got a business fike a lot ofthese contractor's yard folks do, they,re not it home. They leave withall their stuff in the morning and they come back with arr iheir stuff atnight and they're not rearly running a business and just to store theirmachinery and some of the things that ttrey use, it s6"m. .".sonable theyshourd be abre to do that on their properly when they've got a uig piec;,of property. r thought what we did before in arrowing them into [r," e-2,part of the reason was to get a whole bunch of non-co;forming uses atleast pigeon hored someplace. rt seems to me thatrs what $re were doing.The guy whots a smarl operater who's living in a rural area, let him s{orehis stuff there. This plan seems to be a iuch rarger scaLe and r donrtIike it but I donrt kno\^r where the dividing line ii. Thatrs the hard partfor me and I donrt reatly have anything to offer. I guess rrhen I look atthis, to me it seems to me the scate ii too large for that area. r didnot drive dor^rn to see this property and I wish t hud Uut I didn't. Onpaper it's a beautiful pj.ece of property. It doesn't really seemappropriate. There are all kinds of houses up on the bruff there lookingdown into a 5 foot fence isnrt going to make iny difference so r don'tIike this proposal. I dontt think it.s appropriate but like I say, Idon't feel rike r know erhat or maybe thati s rearly the next issue-here,
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - page 31
I donrt knohr how to define the dividing line.
Batzli: In Iooking at thi.s inJ.tiaIly I didn't really get the impressionthat it r^ras too grandiose of scale for this piece of property although Iheard from both Tim and steve that they both felt it was too large and notin place. I guess I'm not sure on that. I kind of had viewed the ideahere of, it's in writing. It meets requirements that have been set and intheory the law is supposed to allow people to act reasonably in theirdealings and it seems to me that we set the expectation here that if youcomplJ with your criteria, werre not just going to say weII, we don,t likethis. Somebody is going to have a bad view and werre not going to atlov,it. I'm in favor with modification of several of the conditions forapproval of this contractor's yards. Thatrs not to say that I likecontractorrs yards in the A-2 district but I think we,ve established thatthey can go in there at this point. we might try to change that latertonight but right now they are pernitted. I think it is somewhat of anunsafe condition however. If you're going to be hauling telephone polesonto this site, you're going to need one heck of a long Ieft hand turnIane to get it out of the traffic. Thatrs the concern I have as r^rel I as Ithink we should assert our somewhat standard language about having apumper contract on the holding tank.
Wildermuth: I definitely agree with the pumping contract on 9. I don,tsee legally how we can turn it down at this point. If it would come innext month, we probably could. I guess if you had to envision acontractorrs yard, this one vrould be one to fulJ-y screen naLural-ly.
Almost in the center of a large parcel of Iand. I guess werre a littleIate with our ordinance.
Headla: I had a
diesel oiI tank?
question for the owner. Were you going to bury the
Harry Lindbery: Yes. We were thinking of it. If we would comply withthe Codes, the fire Codes and the State of Minnesota and contact... Itwould be just for our use. It wouldnrt be for sale or anyth j.ng. One man
asked about poles. well, the only time we would bring in a load is if wehad to be out at a job site... They would l-eave right at that time.
Normally we Ioad either at a St. Regis of Shakopee...
Headla: How big are the tanks you think you'd be puttj.ng in?
one big enough
Ioad. I assume
Harry Lindbery: We would try
advantage of the price on theabout 8,09A to LA,Agq gallons.
Headla: In l0 years, do you think you'll be burying another one?
Harry Lindbery: No because by taking the whole transport
about 5 cents per gallon and there would no use to put inIong as it would suffice.
to put ln
transport
so we
that
cou Id
wou ld
ta ke
be
Ioad, you save
another one as
Head Ia : So you'd
carry a semi load
want to put in like aplus some because you
2g , qgg
aren't
gallon
going
tank so you canto pump it dry?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - Page 32
Harry Lindbery: Normally your price break is about 7,qTA to g,600 gaIl-onsso the man in the shop would stick the tank, Irm sure that he couldcontrol his...and I think that would probabLy be 10 days to 2 weeks. Itwoul-dn't be that one would have to come in everyday or anything like that.
Headla: Okay, you answered by questionr thanks. When I looked at this Ireally had a couple of questions. First one was, it's always nice to sayno you canrt do this or whatever but one of the things, you want to lookon the down side of it. If this didn't go in, r^rhat could go in or whatmight be more appropriate? I guess I feft there were many things thatcould go in that would be much more appropriate. particularly alongagricultural 1ines. The other thing that I really started asking myself.I don't know if you run into detail, on Resource Engineering and I lhinkit's just a tremendous by Machmeier and Anderson, pige 3 to 4. I thinkthey wave just a tremendous flag in front of us. They,re talking aboutburying a diesel fuel tank. They're talking about semis coming in.Theyrre talking about maybe washing them. Trying to contain the dieselfuel- and youtre always going to be changing or you,re going to be workingon these vehicJ.es, trying to contain, catching all that in a holding tanft.It just doesn't work IOAZ of the time. Give me 2g years and I,II bet youcan go out there and you,ll, find plenty of polluted rrater. Not sayingthat people donrt have good intentions. They can have 100? goodintentions. you just don,t contain all that. On the paper here, it sayswe've got very porous soil. Itrs dangerous. we,ve got a creek runningright through there. I just donrt see over a period of time how we cincontrol that. I thj.nk we.re looking for trouble. primarily on theenvironmental issue, I don,t think this is appropriate. I think werve gotto look for more agricultural efforts.
conrad: other contractorrs yards, in terms of the size of this versus theother ones that we have in Chanhassen, how does this compare?
Dacy: This proposed application is up to 15 vehic.l-es and that isconsistent with the operation that we approved with the Admirar wastel'lanagement site at rH r01 and TH 2r2. The Merre volk operation as werl asGardeneer operation is similar. The same number of employees on site.
Conrad: To f ol low
the tr ucks ?
up on Davers comments, how do we control discharge from
Dacy: The site has been graded and the proposed elevations are such thatthe run-off is proposed to be directed into the holding tank and the otherremaining part of the run-off would be directed into tie retention pond.rf r take your comments correctlyr you're saying thatrs fine but th-ere maybe some things beyond that might occur.
HeadIa: That
down also.
and the porousity of the soil. Not just run-off but going
Dacy: Al1 r can say to respond to that is that we have worked with theappricant to address those concerns to make sure that the waste watercoming out of...holding tank and run-off from the parking lot is going to
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - page 33
go to the retention pond and therers a skimmer on that.
way I can sit here today and say that therers absolutelyhas to be designed for the standard, the diesel tank hasfire codes. That's just a given in the requirement.
There I sno...
to meet
just no
The tank
aI1 the
Conrad: what could this site be used for?
Dacy: Other than agricultural activities, it could be resubdivided usingthe I per 1g calculation, we would allow 4 building sites. The list ofthe other conditional uses, whoLesale nursery, cemetery, metal extraction.
Conrad: I think the next item on the agenda will resolve the intent. Ithink my perspective of contractorrs yard, I'II take maybe some of Tim'sthoughts are really secondary to the primary purpose of living. I thinkto clarify some of Tim's comments, I don't feel it's appropriate that
werre out looking for major commercial development. I always felt thatcontractorrs yards lvere a support to somebody who had an occupation that
was living there. That just had accessory equipment. That's been realclear to me in the Iast couple weeks or months. Obviously this is not thecase that deals with that as a part of the ordinance but in dealing withthis one, Itm having a tough time finding a reason to deny.
Emmings: I think what he just said, there's a lot to it. Here'sof property thatrs being purchased for to put this business on it
opposed to someone who's primarity involved in living in a ruralthat this is accessory or secondary. ...a business that requires
have some machines.
Dacy: What yourre discussing is really standard number 2. WilI
consistent vrith the objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan
chapter meaning the Zoning Ordinance. Again, the Commission hasability to state whatever findings it feels that the application
consistent or not consistent with what you feel the ordinance is
dictating.
a plece
as
situation
him to
and
the
is
be
this
e i ther
else do you want for use? Agticultural? Thatrs not athere is it?
Erhart: There's farm fields right down in that area right now.
use, that's using a very minorBut in terms of the intensity of
of the whole property.
Conrad: Tim,practical use
Conrad:portion
what
down
Erhart: That's what it used now. It's farmed.
Conrad:rigbt?But we all understand the right to use it for something e]-se
so you prefer to have four houses?
Erhart: I donrt know that it makes any difference. I canrt build a 37floor tower on my property because itrs not allowed and itrs incompatible.
I dontt understand why we have to, if it's not the greatest farming land,
whoever bought this property realized it was in the va).ley and it's Iikelyto be more sandy soil. FifI it with whatever our zoning and our
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - page 34
comprehensive plan dictates just like
Conrad: Any other discussion? Does
Erhart: Irm willing to make a motionConditional Use Permit Request *88-11
Headla: Second.
Emmings: Whatever we do we're going
Conrad: Wer11 have to.
Wildermuth: I agree. Webasically it Iooks like aa 4g acre parcel . It's weto be appropriate use.
Erhart moved, HeadIa seconded that the planning
denial of Conditional Use permit Request #gg-II.denial except Wildermuth and BatzIi who opposedcarried with a vote of 4 to 2.
everybody eIse.
anybody want to make a motion?
that we deny the approval ofas presented to us.
to make sure $re lay out our reasons?
Commission recommendAII voted in favor ofthe motion and the motion
books
don't
aI I I
but
conrad: The conditionar use permit is not approved with a 4 to 2 vote.The reason Brian for your nay vote to turning it down?
Batzli: My reasoning is that r think we've got an ordinance on thethat we should stand by it. If we don't like it, hre amend it but Iknow that we really have valid reasons to turn this down. AII andthought it was a pretty good proposal. I had some concerns with itnot enough at this point to reject it.
have a set of ordinances on the books andgood proposal. It's virtuatly in the middle ofIl screened from the highway. I! would appear
Conrad : Ird like tous who voted against
words?
continue on and give the Council reasons for those ofit. Tim, can you condense your feelings to a fe$,
Erhart: Again, just an overarl feering that this is not compatible with arurar, rearry itrs become a low density residentiar area. r also amswayed by a coupre new points that $rere brought up and that it doesn,teven meet the intent r think of the original ordinance which was based onhaving someone who lived at the site use their storage shed or garage.This is not intended...at all. Essentially an offic6 and wareh6use-building. r think Dave made a great point on the potential poltution.This is an area thatrs particurarly s-nsitive to p-oltution but moreoveritrs the incompatibirity lrith the iurrounding usel and what our overalrintent of this area is. In both our ordinan6e and our Comp p1an.
Emmings: I essentially agree with Timrs comments. I guess this is theA-2 and this is not, aLthough we do have an ordinance r.re have to dealwith, this is not a permitted use. Itrs not a permitted accessory use,it's a conditionar use which r think allows us to look at it much more
Planning Conmission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - Page 35
carefurry. As far as the standards themselves are concerned, it's clearfrom reading the history and the approval of contractor's yards at alr inthe A-2, that ere intended to include those people who were riving in therurar area and this was sort of a secondary or accessory use of Lheirproperty rather than being the whole reason for developing the property asthis plan seems to be. The scale of this seems to be, to me, =tifl to6rarge- rt would be more appropriate to an industrial area. r think thetraffic issue is an extremery important reason. The reference to thetraffic and as far as aesthetic compatibility, r think is standard r0.With the types of developments that are going on in the Bluff, and justwith the generar nature of the river valley itself, r donrt think tnis isaesthetically compatible.
conrad: My comments, r think the applicant did a very nice job of workingr^rith staff and presenting a good pran and working issues out. r commendhim for that. I feel that I have two concerns in terms of trafficproblems on TH 2L2. In terms of the potential pollution problem downthere which may be worked out. Hovrever it,s still, based on my commentsbefore, I feel that it's a greater intensity of use than I anticipatedthat we could allow in a contractor, s yard. I felt that contractorrsyards should be a secondary use to that site and commerciar businessesshould go to our industrial areas.
Headla: I agree with you Ladd. It's a very good proposal and I thinkthey tried hard but if I look at the year 2ggq and think of the way it'sgoing to expand and the number of spills that are going to happen ind I'mnot saying the people arenrt trying diligently. you just donit controlthings I00%. ?hen the petroleum products that go into the soil and intothe rrater system, the whole area's affected. That really could go over aIarge area.
PUBLIC HEAR I NG:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTIONS 2q-572 AND
CODE CONCERNING PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN THE A
ESTATE DISTRICT, CITY OF CHANHASSEN.
2g-574 OF THE CITY
2, AGRICULTURAL
PubIic Present:
Name
J. Ha I Ig ren
David Stockdale
Diane Weeks
Emmlngs:
one and
Could
vote on
6869
7 2Lq
I ask a question? Are
every one?
Address
Mi nnewashta
Galpin Blvd .
we going to go through these one by
Conrad: I think we have to set direction.
one at a time?Emmings: Can we get done with
Planning Corunission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - Page 36
Dacy: Most of the people
issue. This is a public
you could take action on.
in the public are here for the contractorrs yardhearing. We had intended on some of these that
Emrnings: What are they?
Dacy: This is a Zoning
Emm j.ngs:
approved.
Yes , so we are
Amendment.
make a motion whether each one is
Ord inance
going to
Dacy: Yes, either approved or reave as is or recommend for further study.
Conrad: I suppose we could approve them. I guess my comment reflects,they are conditional use permits and I donrt see the conditions. Iftheyrre going to be conditional, I don,t know what the conditions are yetand therefore I.was having a tough time approving any of these tonight.
Erhart: I think what Barb said, there were some that areforward.pretty s tra igh t
Enmings: If werre eliminating things, that's no problem. We can approvethem with recommendations that staff bring them back.
Olsen: And the ones that we.re recommending to add already haveconditions. Just generally, what's been suggested is to eliminatecontractor's yards, bed and breakfast and minerar extracti.on from the A-2District and then to add temporary retail nurseries, churches,recreati.onal beachlots, golf courses, group homes for 7 to 16 persons andpublic buildings to the A-2. Itlt go through the f j.rst three that we,rerecommending be eliminated. The first one is contractor's yards. As TimErhart has presented, it was first, the ordinance was a condition to allowfor the existing contractor,s yards in the rural distr j.cts. Staff hasgone through some of what would happen if we do remove the contractor r syards so we agreed that they are coming in each time and not necessarilythe whole business that t.hey're accomodating on the side. we do hesitaleeliminating it from the A-2 district just because then arl those existinguses that do have a conditional use would become non-conforming.
Conrad: And so what?
OI sen :
closed
Conrad:
So they
manag i ng
Olsen: No.
Conrad: In
never Iiked
They can not increase their size but if they
down for one year, they could not rebuild.
burnt down or if they
That has nothing to do with regulation. Being able to regulate.
become non-conforming, it doesn.t restrict our ability to bethese yards in any degree?
applying the conditions that r"re had on?non-conforming uses. In this particular I know
case,
that staff hasit sure looks
Planning Commission Meet i ngAugust 17, 1988 - page 37
l-ike it's a
conforming.
good alternative. I don,t kno$, why staff doesnrt like non_
orsen: First of all-, it seems rike the intent of the whore ordinance inthe first place was to make them so they were no longer non-conforming.currentry they are a conditional- use which has specific conditions thatyou can eliminate those specific conditions from the ordinance. Withspecific conditions to each site, with that conditional use we don't knowif that's...
Emmings: Wouldn'tregulation on them
they be grandfathered? This is, that would have no
r.rha t soever ?
Olsen: Thatrs what I think.
Conrad: I would think that their uses would be fxozen.
Ol sen: They can I t expand
have no
but whether or not. . -
right to...if you can't impose the conditions we
why staff has
regulat i ons
conditional use
contro].
Emmings:
have.
But you
Conrad: There is something to that and I think that isalways told us to make them conditional so you have thebecause when they're non-conforming you lose control.
E'mmings: Because we had all those people coming in forpermits at the time because we wanted to give them some
Batzli: What would happen if we made another conditionsecondary use?
that it be a
olsen: That was one of staff's recommenda t i ons . rnstead of eriminating
them completely, is to come up with more strict conditions and what rarewere trying to define is tirat they must be an accessory use.
Erhart: I think we have to find out specifically the answer to thatquestion is to what happens if the current use is conforming and we makeit non-conforming so specifically what happens?
Olsen: Most of the
use.
condi.tions are those standard conditions that we would
conrad:
OL sen :
Batzli:
Emmings:
Batzl i :
Are you totalLy confident of what you just said?
The standard is, yes.
What's the gentlemanr s name that runs the excavating business?
LowelI Carlson.
Isn't he a non-conforming use?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - page 38
Emmings: No. He never came
non-conforming.
Batzli: Werve never actually
in for a conditional use permit. He's stitt
Hrunings: We havenrt been able
imposed our
to because
OIsen: Evas i ve.
Emmings: He didntt have to apply for a conditional use permit. He wasgrandfathered in.
HeadIa: He keeps expanding.
olsen: We do have a difficult time controlling that and enforcing...
staff report but I just rranted to
conditional use?
he's been. . .
Conrad: Let's continue on withraise that issue.
yo ur
OLsen: Just a few specific conditions that we added with that conditionaluse permit. I think that if you eliminate it as a condiEional usepermit... The standard conditions of the ordinance would no longer beenforceable because it is something that is recorded with the County. Insummary, we would rather not have them non-conforming uses. We wouldstill have some control but it just appears that the conditions that we dohave now are allowing uses that contractor's yards maybe aren,t
appropr iate.
Conrad: I don't know how werre going to hold a public hearing on thistonight if we keep opening them up and closing them down on each issue.I guess Ird Iike to hear the publicrs comments if they do have any on thisparticular subject. we'II run this real loose. Itd just like to open itup. Ird just like to open it up once and close it once on this whoLeissue and get their comments as we hit different items rather than openingup for each item. Are there any comments on this particular aspect ofcontractor's yards that anybody would like to bring up?
Diane Weeks: I just hate to see you eliminate contractor I s yards as aconditional use. There are many that are very good and I think...take
ar"ray those as a conditional use, therefore... It just doesnrt seem like aresponsible thing for a governing body to intentially make a property non-conforming. It seems Iike...intentionally the I5 propertiesnon-conforming. Up to a few years ago we went through aII the hoops andmade all the appJ.ications and did everything you told us to do. We'remeeting all the conditions as far as us personally concerned...
Dave Stockdal-e: I live on Galpin Blvd.. I applied for a condi.tional usepermit a few years back and prior to the buying the land I purchased theproperty, I put my own business out there... Right no\^, I,m enjoying rawland. We applied for a conditional use permit identical to what wasapproved a few years back and simirar to the... what r saw denied earrieris the way our... the conditions for denial...conditional use permit.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - Page 39
Diane Weeks: I just wanted
something would happen...weliving on that property...
to make... If
would if werre
we happen to have a firenon-conforming but we're
orstill
Conrad: What do we r,rant todirection do we want to set?
do on contractor's yards right now. which
Erhart: Is that true if they burn down that your use is eliminated?
Dacy: The way the ordinance reads is that no non-conforming use buildingor structure except single family dwerring which has been damaged by fir-,explosion, flood, act of God or other calamities to the extent of morethan 50? of itrs assessed market value may be restored.
Erhart: Okay, thatrs the building and structure.
Dacy: No, it says non-conforming use, building or structure.
Erhart: How do you rebui],d a use?
Dacy: The use of having the contractorrs yard use. storage of vehicres.
Erhart: Whether or not a contractorrs yard, the garage or shed burns downin the A-2 area... I agree, we wouldn, t want to find ourselves in thesituation where a garage burned dor.rn and that business. . . I think r^re'vegot to be careful to set up that situation. That wouldn ' t be fair.
Dacy: It's still a use but if the primary use of the garage is to housethose vehicles, what would happen is that the assessed narket value ofthat use would have to be determined...
Erhart: Whether or not yout re a contractor I s yard, it means you wouldhave to have a garage...
Dacy: Correct.
down, you can't
If itrs a garage for
rebuild iL because of
your personal vehicles and it burns
outside parking.
Conrad: Just
something if
i ssue .
opinions on
we so desire
what directionor we can j ust
like to go. We can
direction for staf f
yourd
set a
vote on
on thi s
Erhart: I'11 give you my comments here. I don,t have any problem, I havetwo contractor's yards on West 96th Street where I live. For the mostpart theyrre not a problem the way they are and f alonrt think thosenecessarily are so much the concern however I do want to point out thatthere is probJ.ems with those 10... It really comes from, the buildings arevery nice but jt comes from the outdoor storage. Thatrs the problem withthe Lowell Carlson property. Wetve had some problems in our area withoutdoor storage that tends to accumulate and I think what Irm trying toget to here is that I think we can adequately regulate and find i way towork with the existing contracEorrs yards and yet basically place amessage that the City is growing. This is becoming more and more of aresidential area and that at some point here, or this is a good point to
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - Page 4g
quit expanding that use. The \,ray we have it now, although you might saythat because of the l mile radius thing, the thing is, you can get one ofthose guys quit and then another guy like the application r^re say today andI think it's a good time to just basically make it non-conforming and quitthe expansion of that use. I think there are too many problems. Irm not
suggesting problems in my area or that the people here cause the problems
but Ifm looking 20 years ahead. It's difficutt to define what itrs likeon the south today is on one end of the spectrum. I know Ronnie has got anice brand new house and everything and it's fairly clean and how do you
define that? I think it's a timing thing and I think itrs time that we do
i.rhat Eden Prairie some years ago and say that we are now going to protectour lov,l density residential rural areas because there are so many peopleliving out here now and we're going to make contractor's yards non-conforming. The option to that is, just make it more strict. I guess I'dbe agreeable to that too. Obviously I think we all agree that we have todo something but instead of looking at just making it the primary usebeing their residence, make it a condition that too, I think we shoutd tryto eliminate outside storage.
Emmings: I would not be in support of making cont.ractor's yards non-
conforming uses. I think it would be better to have a set of standards.
Maybe they should be more strict but have a set of standards that rder recomfortable with and rely on those standards and the general conditionaluse standards to prove or set restrictions on contractorrs yards. I thinkit's much better to have, it seems to me what was going on when, or itrsobvious thatrs what hras going on when this contracEor's yard was madeconditional uses was to start to get some control over them to keep themfrom expanding. Keep them becoming problems and if we turn them into non-conforming uses, I think we'lI have them of all coming back again and wecanrt get rid of Lhe ones that are here. We don't have to make more. Irmparticularly concerned with the scale of the one we looked at lonight so Ithink as a matter of theory, I think itts better to have good standards
and I i.rould recommend that we'd better spend working on those standards so$re're comfortable with them and so that they work rather than giving up on
them .
Batz1i: I agree with most of Slevers comments. Thatrs not to say that ifthere was a way to eliminate them in the A-2 district, which we would runinto the non-conforming problem, I would be in favor of that as weII butit doesnrt look like it's going to go that way so I would recommend tryingto consider a new set of standards where we would be insuring that it'i asecondary or accessory use. Yourre going to run into problems such asthis gentleman that has split off the land running into the same problem
Tim had trying to get a mortgage. He's going to try and get acontractor's yard with this other parcel of land, it's going to have to beoffice definition of an accessory use if it,s on an adjacent parcel .
Wi l-dermuth :
rather thandistricts.
I agree. It sounds like we need to change our regulationsa straight outlawing of contractor,s yards in the A-2
Headla: I feel we
Steve mentioned, I
should have a contractor I s
think we ought to look at.
yard but the conditions that
One of the things I think
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, f988 - Page 41
that we
things,really want to controLif we can control that the size. That's one of the main
can control a lot of the problems.
IS
we
Conrad: I agree rrith your comments. Let,s direct staff to
some of those conditions that may give us a little bit moreterms of size. What else besides size are ere looking at?
take a look atcontrol in
Dacy: Employees.
Conrad: Number of employees.
Batzli: Can we make it a different setback from wetland areas?
Wildermuth: How about trucks to and from the site?
Dacy: Vehicles would be the best way.
Conrad: Take a look at accessory use, secondary use versus primary use.
Headla: Let me just make the comment on traffic. Lowell Carlson hasseveral vehicles and theyr re going up and down but I dontt think iErswrong. I think it's appropriate. I don't have a problem with hisvehicles going back and forth. It's the other huge trucks go up and downthe parkway...so vehjcle useage like that for like a ma and pa operation,let them have it.
Erhart: Can I ask Ron, how many vehicles do you have...in your operation?
Ron: Two trucks.
Headla: I thinkgreat big d i esel
Conrad: So that
be appropriate.
Erhart: You I ve
three truc ks ?
Hnmings: When
information atto be used and
the type of equipment. When you start bringing in thesetankers and burning diesel oi1.
from an environmental standpoint, the equipment type mayThe amount of outside storage.
got what, two besides your personal vehicles you've got
r^re approve these as a conditionaL use, do we record thatthat time? The number and type of vehicles that are going
keep that information here so we alhrays know that?
wi thConrad: Intensification is something werve never been able to deal
either. It can border on being unfair. We can freeze the use that
whatever you apply for, thatrs what you get but on the other hand,
cases r^rhere intensification...and thatrs why itrs a conditj.onal, usestill have a hard time measuring the real impact.
in thebut we
Emmings: But on the other hand, lf you see someone coming in with a plan
and theyrve got a building and they're going to put all their vehj.cles aregoing to be inside and their outside storage is going to be minimal andtheyrve made provisions for screening and so forth so it can not be seen,
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - Page 42
what do that doesn I t bother me.
Okay, does that kind of give you someConrad:
feel?
we care?
Anyth i ng
I donr t
else on
know.
this?
Diane
coming
Weeks:
in. . .
I was just wondering, you're talking about...and people
Conrad: Yes there are. Not on yours but on other contractor's yards andthere are cases where they are poorly maintained. There are abuses and wehear about the abuses at different times during the year. I think what
Chanhassen has tried to do is accomodate a limited scale use of property
because \"re've al$rays thought it was fair to do that. The primary intentwas, at least my philosophy has always been, if somebody else had propertyand they had some work that's associated, they should be able to work offof that property. That seems right to me. Tonignt we saw something whereit was obviously a larger scale. Thatrs just big and all of a sudden weget a little bit nervous I think, or I am when I see somethj.ng like thatbut going back to your question, there are abuses in contractor's yards.There are traffic patterns that the neighbors just complain about. Wetelr contractor's yourve got to use certain road access and if they have aIot of trucks going to that location, those different truckers donrtalvrays take the preferred highway pattern so you create traffic patternsthat maybe you prefer not to and then the neighbors come in and complainso itrs not consistent and it all depends on the scale and nature of theoperation. The other reality is, Chanhassen is growing and neighbors aremoving. VJhether we want them or not, peopLe are moving jnto Chanhassen.Werre trying as a Planning Commission, trying to figure out where thatputs us. Let everybody use their property fairly but also be realisticand say there's growth out here and somehow we have to anticipate what,sgoing to happen r^rhen those people reach us.
Emmings: Maybe some things that we can look at areAnother thing that I,m wondering r you just broughtapproved any contractorrs yards under the standards
have?
setbacks for storage.it to mind, have wethat we presently
Dacy: The Admiral Waste application
ordinance... before alt these folks
r^rhen they went through the
through the process. . .
and
came
Emmings: Except Lolrell. I guess my question is this. As far ascomplaints that we get, if any, do we keep track of those by the way?
Dacy: Yes. Since lre've had the Code Enforcement officer-
Emmings: Do we have any ability if we get complaints about one particurarcontractorrs yard, do we have any way, I supposed if he,s violating yourstandards then you use your enforcement but if it's not violating iomecondition of the permit, then therers nothing you can do about iL?
Dacy: If the complaint is valid and if they are violating any ordinancerequirements or permit conditions. rt depends on what theyrre complainingabout and what actuaLly is occurring.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - page 43
Emmings: It would seem to me that the types of complaints that arein, all ought to be constructive to us as to what kind of conditionsshould be imposing I guess is rrhat Itm trying to say.
coming
we
Erhart: Your thing is, Ird like to tie down the actual use a little morespecifically. One thing rj.ght now where we're using it for actualcontractorrs yard, landscape contractor, building contractor but r^rhen youtalk about these garbage trucks under contractor's yard, I think we oughtto tighten that up. BasicalJ.y let's talk about people who run theirbusinesses out of their garages or storage sheds.
Conrad: Next item. Bed and Breakfast.
ol sen :
bed and
we feel
We feel
Bed and breakfast. when this ordinance was amended, we researchedbreakfast quite a bit and we came up with specific conditions thatwiII allow bed and breakfast to be compatible in the A-2 district.it should be maintained as a conditional use in the A-2 district.
Erhart: The reason why I brought these to your attention is because I donot have strong feelings one way or the other on the rest of them but Istarted writing up a philosophy of hhe A-2 district and these got broughtin so don't feel that on the rest of the issues that I have no strongfeelings one way or the other. I'm not against bed and breakfast
es tabl i shments .
Conrad: Does anybody r^/ant to eliminate bed and breakfasts from the A-2?I guess the 5 rooms is really arbitrary. I guess I could go along withthe 5 rooms but there are great bed and breakfasts with 7 rooms. I thinkit's just an arbitrary number. If somebody came in here and had a usewith 7 rooms, I would be ready to change it on the spot. That's my onlycomment. Itrs just as good as any other number.
Batzli: I like 5. t hate to disagree but 5 is a great number for a bed
and breakfast and I would hold f irm. Irve been in a lot of bed andbreakfast in my day and 7r- they donrt cut it. You want the small homeyfeeling of a bed and breakfast. Not this large bussl ing hotel of 7 rooms.
Erhart: Can I come in at my house and make that into a bed and breakfast?
Dacy: As
Erhart:just...
Emmings:
Erhart:
Dacy: If
Emmings:
a conditional use.
That I s what typical-ly
Is it the intent of the bed and breakfast to use old homes or
is built.
motel out there?We' re
it,s
wha t
not. . . to build a
owner occupied.
are you thinking?
Planning Commission Meeti ng
August 17, 1988 - Page 44
Erhart: I just bring it up.
BatzIi: I'm being slightly facetiousbut Irm envisioning this smaLl ownerexperience with them is overseas and
meet people along the way. I don,thotels in the A-2 district.
say hold the line at 5 rooms
type place. My only
real,l,y neat and you get totrying to let people build
when I
occupied
they're
envrsl.on
Emmings: Maybe it's the place to put a little intent statement.
Conrad: You donrt want to turn the asssumption seminary into a bed andbreakfast? Something Iike that would be really intriguing for me and Idon't know how we justify it but it was a case where it might be aninteresting use down there. I would like to do something totally out ofthe ordinary right now and ask if there are any other comments f ror0 thepublic on any of the items. Is there a motion to close the public
hear ing?
Olsen: Werre saying if you want toto see what impacts it would have.
remove it, we should study it further
Conrad: Should we direct staff to study it further ?
about mineral
want to put i ntolot of time.
Erhart: Yes, I think so. I have a concern
Wildermuth: Especially with only one site in the City.
Conrad: I donrt know how much study youdoesn't seem like it,s worthy of a whole
Conrad: I'm not in favor of mineral
Chanhassen but I guess I would likesay is there any. ..
I see no benefit totake a look at it and
extraction.
to have staff
Olsen: We just have to work out...
Erhart: Barb, we had a question here while you were out and that was, ifvre were to eliminate contractor's yards or letrs say mineral extractionand they are now under regulations of a conditional use permit with anumber of conditions, do we lose that ability to enforce those conditionsonce vre eliminate them from the ordinance?
Dacy: No and lrll confirm that with the City Attorney but I would say theopposite. Yes, we would be able to enforce the conditions of theiroriginal approval. The non-conforming status really protects the Cityfrom the use from expanding. For us not to be able to enforce the
Erhart moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. AI1 votedin favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Conrad: Letrs run with the bed and breakfast and letts keep it in there.There's mineral extracEion.
extraction.
this. It
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - Page 45
conditions of approval , then they can go hog wi ld.
Emmings: Yes, but you know what youtvejust said is, we can pass an ordinanceuses to come in and get conditional useconditions on you and then werre goingpermit and make you non-conforming usesyourre destroyed, and by God, I'1I telllawsuit against the City. That,d be a
done there. I guess what you've
and drop all your non-conformingpermits so we can impose
to jerk out your conditional useso that they can't expand or ifyou, Ird be willing to take overdirty tr ick.
as non-conforming anyway becauseacres so they're non-conforming
Erhart: Yourve got one of those guysthey're not...and none of them have 5
anyway.
Hnmings: Well, how would they get
acre standard
permi ts?
and all those other standards werenr t
a
Am
Dacy :
passed
Because the 5
until 1987.
Olsen: There may be other issues.
Headla: What happens if I want to clean up my barnyard with a Bobcat?I supposed to get a permit for that? I see you talk about grading inhere. I come through with a Bobcat and I scrape my barnyard. Farmersscrape their fields. Where do you draw the Iine on grading?
Dacy: Thatrs part of the reason why we're saying we prefer to study it.
Headla: Okay, I agree.
BatzIi: Is mineral soil?
Dacy: Yes.
Conrad: Okay, look into that more.
Erhar t :
tonight?
Okay, is anybody prepared
I vote just to eliminate
just to eliminate mineral extractions
them.
Conrad: But we could aIlow
could we accomodate a farmerduring the selling season?
it temporarily. Hov.r could
who wants to seLl produce
we
on
do this? How
their land
Erhart: I know you're not going to vote for this but I keep coming acrossthis idea that you can make a temporary use. I looked back in the Minutesagain and I read, in I98I a permit was issued and I can't figure out underwhat section of the ordinance but $re issues a permit in 1971 for a 5 year
condit j.onal use permit. Now isn't that a temporary permit?
Olsen: Temporary retail nurseries. Number one, we can't really controltemporary use and we just feel that retail nurseries is too intense a usein the A-2 distr ict.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - Page 46
Dacy: Thatrs illegal .
Emmings: We got a letter from our
Conrad: I really like that idea.
Emmings: And that's what theyrre
why can't we enforce that?
Attorney that says it's il1egal.
You ! ve got 3 years.
asking for. You say give me 3 years.
Erhart: our Attorney. r guess the one that hit me was the ferlow who nordis downtown so I think it aII worked out. His initial proposal was to puta retail nursery out in our, actually it was our RR district. I just feltit was sort of ridiculous. civen that r^re could give this guy a temporarypermit, if we could enforce this temporary, it made good sense to take THLgL or TH 5 and al-Iow then to put a temporary use. That was my onlythought.
Dacy: What Roger is coming back and saying is that State Statute saysthat if it runs with the land, then the property owner has realized icertain amount of investment of that use and on the 1and. For the Citycome back 3 or 5 years later, even though he may have agreed to thatcondition and come back and say, no you can,t do iE an).more, Roger wassaying that the City is on shaky ground because the temporary nature ofis not really valid. He has made a solid investment in that land.
Emmings: Under the conditional use section it says that they are notpersonal but run with the land. so you throw that into that calculationand that makes it, thatrs Ehe problem but if you couldn't make thempersonal, what if we had some way to give a certain individual the rightto do soinething on a piece of land for a certain period of time? Donitcall it a conditional use permit. CaIl it something else. Call it aI icense .
to
1t
Ernmings: No. If it,s a conditional use, why canrt there be a license?
Dacy: Even if itrs a license for a business, that use still has toconform with the zoning ordinance. we just can't estabrish another set...
Headla: Why canrt we ask him to post a bond that he's going to get outafter x number of months?
Dacy: You canrt
or. . .
Headla: Yes, but
i.ncentive.
Dacy: But sti 1I
with or withoutconsistent wi th
avoid that though. Itrs either permitted, accessory
the same issue.
if yourve got the money in hand, he,s got a little more
Dacy: It's still
requr. r r ng
money, rrhat
State law.
to leave
Attorney
within ais sayi ng
them
the
certain amount ofis that I s not
time,
Planning Commission Meeti ng
August 17, 1988 - Page 4'l
Conrad: ...It seems like if you vrant to make an investment and buildstructure and you know that it has to comply or it has to cease afterthat doesn't seem like an unfair thing and I donrt understand that.
this
tr
Erhart: Especially if you're going to deny
and it would seem to me you could allow...
it. You can deny it entirely
Emmings: There's a conflict here too that sorneday might be a problem buta nursery is defined as an enterprise which conducts retail and wholesalesale of plants groi4rn on the site. That could be an agricultural use ornursery as accessory and directly related to the care and maintenance. Itdoesn't say anything about. . .
Conrad: Okay, churches. Add churches- Anybody against churches?
Anybody concerned with the recreational beachlots?
Batzli: I guess backing up to the churches for one moment, I am really
disappointed that this church who has that interceptor line running I0feet outside their door can't hook up to it. They'xe l5g feet or whatever
away from a Class A wetlands. The perfect time to do it and there's so
much red tape around here, they canrt hook up. It amazes me.
Conrad: That's just the way it is.
stuff and you have to live up to it.You sign a contract and you sign
Batzli: Itrs Iike that guy last time
moved out of Pllmouth to Chan only to
P1)rmouth.
who instead of fighting City HaII
find that we were just as bad as
Emmings: Golf courses are okay?
Conrad: Staff is looking for direction. Keep them smaLl or make them
big? I don't care if they're big or small. what do r.re care?
Batzli: For instance, the Lafayette Club. Let's Iook at that.
hole golf course. Residential all around it. Now obviously it's
Iake as a huge buffer and a railroad tracks running right behindplace like that, I don't know. I guess I would call a City like
Minnetonka Beach or wherever the heck they're located in and ask
there's complaints about a big club Iike that on a small piece of
because they have functions continuously. vJedding,receptions and
everything el se.
Headla: It isn't that easy access to it either.
Batzli: I was trying to think of other ones that were big that
of receptions or not so big actually that were built up around,
instance, Minnetonka Country CIub. Are they in shorewood?
Small 9got theit but a
if
I and
have a 1ot
for
Emmings: Yes.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 17, 1988 - page 48
Batzli: Fairly close to residential on the oneright over the 10th fairway to residential.
side and they just go
Emmings: In Hopkins, oak Ridge has houses on two sides of it.
Erhart: It gets back to this non-conforming thing. we have a golf coursein our City and we make it non-conforming. ft's a resource there thatrsnot welL done but I think itrs starting to get to a point where it'sstarting to come along. I'd like to see us encourage that place to gro$,into a real asset. Right now they can't grow.
Enmings: Yourre seeing housing developments now where theyr re beingadvertised as built around golf courses.
Erhart: Look at the one in Victoria.
Batzli: What's the one in Eden prairie?
Conrad : Edenvale.
Batzli: Condos built a1I the way around it.
Erhart: Theyrre doing one out itere in Victoria. The golfof the subdivision.
Conrad: But here you recommended that it be a conditional
Erhart: What \^ras the option, a perrnj.tted use?
Conrad: Yes. It probabl-y should be conditional. I thinksize and the fact...
Olsen: And in the unsewered area too.
when we talked aboutthey have a lot of
and it is unsewered,
course is part
just the shoe
it was
wha t
use in the A-2.
Batzl,i: I think that was our initial concernbecause if we do make it a Iarge facility andteceptions and all, that kind of thing there,kind of problems are we going to run into?
Conrad: We're saying to staff on this one, lre think a bigclubhouse is acceptable. Are we not saying that? !{hat weare their conditions that \^re might vrant to hold upr Group
golf course andre nov/ looking
homes.
Emmings: I don't know much about group homes.
Batzli: I donrt have any idea what a group home is.
OI sen :
Dacy :
HeadIa:
we have a definition
We have one now on the
of one.
north side of TH 5
farm.The old Harold Vender
Planning Commission Meeti ng
August 17, 1988 - Page 49
Erhart: And
recommend i ngthe A-2?
them in the A-I?allow them in the
we
is
allow
if we
That I s my argument forA-1, why wouldn't we a1low them in
Ol sen :
Conrad:
Erhart:
Conrad:
Ol sen :
Conrad 3
could,
moti on
Anyway, I
do you want
It was always the intention.
Yes, it should be. public buildings. Any feelings on that?
Same thing. Itrs allowed in the A-1.
Going back to group homes. Do we have conditions for the A-1?
They have to be a mile...
think that takes usto handle all thesewith beachlots.
through it. I think the things wecollectively? We could make a
OI sen :
that dealt
I have a recommendation that covers this.
Erhart moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission
adding churches, recreational beachlots and group homes for
persons as conditional uses in the A-2 Distr ict. AII votedthe motion carri-ed.
r ec ommend
7to15in favor and
APPROVAL OE MINUTES: Erhart moved, Enmings seconded to approve
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 3, 1988presented. AII voted in favor except Batzli who abstained andcarried.
OPEN DISCUSSION:
the
AS
the motion
Erhart: Barb and I talked about the last meetingI think I sort of spoke on behalf of the Planning
on indicating that we were all concerned, we feltto try and resolve this TH 101 thing...
on this TH
Commission
that issue
I0l thing.
a 1i ttle bit
was impor tant
Emmings: Whatrs the status right now?
Dacy: It's going to Council Monday night. PursuaDt to the Planning
Commission's directionr w€ dr€ investigating other options beyond thenorth and the south Ieg. We met with MnDot today to try and determine
some type of understanding of schedule so depending on which options is
chosen, r^re wouldnr t lose TH 5 as proposed so we're hopeful but cautious.
Batzli moved, Wil,dermuth seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted infavor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at II:15 p.m..
Submitted by Barbara Dacy, City Planner
Prepared by Nann Opherm
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P,O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
CITY OF
THINHISSEN
On Friday, August 26, L988, staff visited several developmentsites with the DNR Forester, Alan Olson. Upon visiting the sitesit was found that there rrere areas of mature and val,uable vegeta-tion which will be removed during development. Staff discussedwith Alan Olson tlirections tha! the city could take to have more
control over preserving importaot stands of vegetation. Mr.
O1son suggested that it was possible to inventory existing vege-tation within the boundaries of the city with topography mapsthat the DNR has and then making site visits to the areas that
were highlighted from the topography maps. Once these areas have
been mapped and inventoried, it would be possible for the city to
create an ordinance that would preserve the more important areasof vegetation from developnent in much the same manner as
wetlands are preserved.. Mr. Olson is willing to t{ork with staff
to create an inventory of areas of vegetation that should be pre-
served.
An example of what coulrl be ilone with such an ordinance, is if a
subdivision is proposed over a large area of land which contains
an area of vegetation that was designated as nva1uab1e", the city
coulil require areas of the vegetation to be preserved. Mr. Ol-son
knew of one other subdivision erhich the developer preserved areas
within the subdivision over 20 years ago. Todayr the areas that
have been preserved are mature forested areas which have nature
trails through them and are used. by the neighborhood. St.af f willalso research 1egal implications of this idea.
RECOMMENDATION
Given the Planning Commissionrs past concerns on this issue,staff will continue to pursue preparing a preservation ordinanceincluding a program to inventory sensitive woodland areas.
However, this item will also be presented to the City Council fortheir concurrence.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commiss ion
FROlrl: Jo Ann Olsen. Asst. City planner b
DATE: August 29, 19 88
SUBJ: Tree Protection Policies