11-2-88 Agenda and Packet/*
I
CALL TO ORDER
OLD BUSINESS
Subdivision of 22.8 acres into 2 lots of 1.9 and 20.9 acreson property zoned RR, RuraI Residential and located on ChesMar Drive approximately I mile north of Hwy. 5, Ginger Gross,
Ches Mar Farms Realty.
PUBI,IC HEARINGS
*i THIS ITEM HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 15, 1988*T
Carl Carrico - Property zoned RR, Rural Residential andlocated on Lake Lucy Lane, approximately l mile west of
Yosemite:
a.Subdivision of 12 acres into 16 single family lots.
b. Wetland Alteration Permit to Fill and Dredge a Portion
ofaClassBhretland.
d,f'
^rv
3. Wetland Alteration Permit. for the development
and Class B wetland into stormwater retention
at Outlot A and Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Lak
Park 3rd Addition, just north of Lake Susan a
Highrrray I01, property zoned IOP, Industrial Of
Rosemount, Inc.
of
bas
ES
ndfic
a CIaSS Ains located
Bus ioess
vrest ofe Park,
4
NEW BUS INESS
Site Plan Review for a 330r000 square foot office, warehouse
and manufacturing facility located at Outlot A and Lot 1,
Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 3rd Addition, just
north of Lake Susan and irest of Highway 101, property zoned
IOP, Industrial Office Park, Rosemounts, Inc.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
OPEN DISCUSSION
** TIIIS ITEII{ HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 16, 1988*I
5. Planning Department Goals - Don Ashworth
AD'IOURNII{ENT
AGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, L988, 7:30 P.M.
CIIANHASSEN CITY HALL, 590 COULTER DRIVE
CITY OF
EHINHISSTN
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
On october 19, 1988, the Planning commission tabled action on the
subject proposal until the city Attorney coulil address whether
the City had the right to require the property to be. subdivided
and to address other legal issues raised at the meeting.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROII: iro Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner
DATE: october 26, 19 88
SUBJ: Ches Mar ReaItY Subdivision
Attachment *1
issues.
As part otion as t
and Subdi
mum of 2lfor rural
have been
clivi s ion p
acres ) whi
cant must
mic hardsh
f any subdivision proposal , staff reviews the applica-
o how it meets the inlent and requirements of the zoning
vision ordinance. The Zoning ortlinance requires a mini-
acres and a maximum density of one unit per I0 acres
lots. These regulations were adopted by the City anil
strictly enforceil by the City. The proposed sub-
rovides the opportunity to cieate a Lonforming 1ot- (21
ch is why sta?t recommeniled condition #2. The appli-
prove harilship, which is not self created or an econo--ip, before the city can aPprove the lot area variance'
Section 20-906 (7) of the zoning ordinance specifically states
that "a development contract must be recordeil with the County
establishing tire number of building eJ.igibilities remaining on a
propertyn. Even if only one buililing eligibility is remaining,
ihe'ordinance reguires lhe development contract' Thus staff
recomrnended condition *4.
Parcel B can be designated as an outlot which is
orrUrita.fl" until replatted and certain conditio
two acceptable septic sites have been providetl a
access). a development contract is the proper-f
conilitions required for the outlot to be consitle
As far as the conclitions for roadway and drivewa
city shoulil not create a parcel which does not h
it"irra take the opportunity to provide the requi
for land that could be subdivided in the future'
*3 antl *5.
is a letter frorn the City Attorney addressing these
cons i dered
ns are met ( until
nd public street
ormat to 1i st anyred buildable.y easements, the
ave access and.red right-of -Irray
Thus conilitions
Pl-anning Commission
October 26, 1988
Page 2
Staff believes requiring the subdivision of the proposed propertyis the correct process for the applicant to follow. The Zoning
and Subdivision Ordinances srere created and adopted by the City.
The ordinances contain regulations which govern subdivisions,
minimum 1ot requirements, access requirements, etc. Staffapplies the regulations of the ordinance to each proposed appli-cation to provide consistent planning throughout the city. Staffdoes not, nor should they, make exceptions on a case by casebasis. It is the responsibility of staff to enforce the regula-tions adopted by the City. It is the prerogative of the elinning
Commission and City Council to make exceptions or grant variancesto the ordinances.
The conditions established by staff as part of the subdivisionreview for the subject property are consistent with the require-ments of the City Code. Therefore, staff is recommending appro-val of the subdivision with conditions as stated be1ow.
Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of thesubdivision maintaining the 1.93 acre parcel , the applicant willhave to receive a l-ot area variance f rorrr the Board oi Adjustmentsand Appeals and the City Council. Staff will schedule tfie 1otarea variance for the. Board of Adjustments and Appeal-s prior tothe City Council meeting wtrich will review ttre suLaivision propo_sa1.
RECOMMENDAT ION
A35
al ongject
Planning staff recommends the planning Commission adopt thefollowing motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of SubdivisionRequest *27 as shown on the plat stamped ',Received October 10,1988" and subject to the following conditiorrs,
1. The lots must be platted and cannot remain as metes andbounds descriptions.
Parce1 A must maintain a minimum of 2| acres.
foot roadway easement sha1l be dedicated tothe northerly property boundary of parcelp]at.
the
Aof
The applicant must enter into a development contractcity designating that parcel a has onl| one building1ity. The development contract must be recorded as-the recording of the final p1at.
2
3
4
Ci tythe sub-
with theeligibi-part of
CONCLUS I ON
Planning Commission
October 26, L988
Page 3
5. Parcel B sha11 be designated as an outlot and is consideredunbuiltlable until it is cornbined with adjacent property orprovides two approved septic sites and street access. A
development contract stating the required conditions shal1be recorded against Parcel B.
6. A 15 foot driveway easement for Parce1 B sha11 be provided
along the westerly property boundary of Parce1 A.
ATTACHMEN TS
Letter from Roger Knutson dated October 26, 1988.
Planning Report.
1
2
LA\Y OrrrcEs
GaaNNrs, Gn cNr.Irs, FARRpT r & KNrmoN
D^vrD L. G&^NNrs - 1874-1961
D^vrD L. GR^NNrs. JR. - 1910-1980
PRorEssroNAL Assocr^no--
Posr OFlrcE Box 57
403 NoRwBT 8^N( BrrrLDrNG
16l NoRTH CrNcoRD EXCITANGE
SourH ST. P^trL MTNNESoT 5507,
TFI-ECoPIFx
(612) 455-2)59
Eu]oTI B. KNETSCH
MtcH,{E! J. M^YB.
TIMoTHY J. BERG
TETPHoNE (612) 45r-t661
October 26, 1988
Ms. Jo Ann Olsen
Chanhassen City Ha11
690 Coul,ter Drive, Box
Chanhassen, Minnesota
141
55317
RE: Ches-Mar Farms Realtv Subdivision Application
O. Is subdivision of thesplit off in 1974?
property necessary since Parcel "A" was
Answer: Whether it is necessary is reatly not an issue sincethe City is responding to an application. The City did notapproach the owner and ask him to subdivide his property. Theowner has filed a reguest for a subdivision. A warranty deeddated October 4, 1972, record.ed March 27, 1974, split theproperty into ParceLs "A" and "8". The subdivision r,ra s notapproved by the City. The split, without City approval,violated the City's subdivision ordinance, Ordinance No. 30,S 13.01, and should not have been recorded. Minn. Stat. S462.358, subd. 4b(3). The ordj-nance and state statutereguired City approval for any subdivision creating a parceltwo and one-hal-f acres or less in size. parcel ,'A,' is lessthan two and one-half acres in size. fn addition, Minn. Stat.S 462.358, subd. 3c provj-des:
Effect of Subdivision Approval. For one year followingpreliminary approval and for two years following finalapproval, unless the subdivider and the municipality agreeotherwise, no amendment to a comprehensive plan orofficiaL control shal1 apply to or affect the use,
development density, Iot size, lot layout, or dedicationor platting required or permitted by the approvedapplication. Thereafter, pursuant to its regulations, themunicipality may extend the period by agreement with the
!. ---.*. , .-.J
OCT 2B 1988
CITY OF CHANhAssGtr
VANCE B. GRANNTS
VANCE B. GR rNNis, JR.
PATRTCK A. F,{x.RE-L
DAvlD L. Gr^NNrs, III
RoGa. N. KN(moN
D^vlD L. HARMEYR
Dear Jo Ann:
You asked me to respond to several questions concerning the
Ches-Mar Farms subdlvision application. your questions and my
responses fol1ow:
Ms. Jo Ann Olsen
October 26, 1988
Page Two
subdivider and subject to al-1 applicable performance
condj-tions and requirements, or it may reguire submission
of a new application unless substantial physical activity
and investment has occurred in reasonabl-e reliance on the
approved application and the subdivider wilI suffer
substantial financial damage as a consequence of a
requirement to subnit a new application. In connection
with a subdivision involving planned and staged
development, a municipality may, by resolution or
agreenent, grant the rights referred to herein for suchperiods of time longer than two years which it deterni-nes
to be reasonable and appropriate.
Subject to the ]imitations specified in the statute, this
means that the City can require compliance with new
subdivision and zoning ordinance requirements even after a
subdivision has been approved.
O. Are "outlots" unbuildable?
Answer: Section 2-1 of the City Code defines an "out1ot" as
"a platted 1ot to be developed for a use which will not
involve a building or which is reserved for further
replatting before development." An outlot cannot be built
upon, but the owner can replat the outlot and then build upon
it.
O. Is requiring dedication of street frontage a compensable
taking?
Answer: Minn. Stat. S 462.358, subd. 2b authorizes the City
to require the dedication of land for streets as a condition
of subdivision approval. The seminal case on the taking issue
is No1lan v. California Costal Commission, 97 L Ed 2d 677
(1987), rhe Supreme Court held that a City may condition
approval on a dedication requirement if the dedication
substantially furthers a governmental purpose and if there is
an "essentiaL nexus" between the approval sought and the
dedication requirement. The Supreme Court cited with approval
a Minnesota case, Co1lis v. Bloominqton, 246 N.w.2d 19
(1 976), which was in turn cited by the Minnesota court of
Appeals in Middlemist v. Citv of P1vmouth, 387 l-{.y..2d J.901rrln.ct.app.@he court held that the
City can iequi.re the dedication of tand for roadways without
compensating the developer if the need for the road was
caused by tlie subdivision or by a "group of subdivisions"
approved over a course of years. The City in the current -situation therefore can require the dedication of right-of-
way without compensation, if the need for it i-s caused by the
proposed plat or by other development in the area.
If the City Council wants to waive pl-atting reguirements, ithas the authority to do so. Minn. Stat. $ eeZ.:Se, jubd. 4(b).The Council or Board of Adjustments and Appeals may also grant1ot size variances. The decision to grant the waiver or virianceare policy decisions.
Ms. Jo Ann Olsen
October 26, 1988
Page Three
RNK: srn
yours,
IS,
S
BY
N. Knutso
I.ll
CITY OF
EIIINHIESEII
P.C. DATE: Oct. 19, l98g
C.C. DATE: Nov. 14, l9g8
CASE NO: 88-27 SUB
Prepared by: Olsen/v
STAFF R=PORT
Fz
C)
=(LL
>k
ko
hJFo
Tim KeaneLarkin, Hoftman, Daly &
L i ndgren
1500 NW Financial Ctr.7900 Xerxes Avenue So.Bloomington, MN 55431
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT :
of PropertyPreliminary plat
Into Two Lots of
to
1.9
Subdivide
and 20.9
22.8 Acres
Acres
Southvrest Corner of Ches Mar DriveApproximately I Mile North of Hwy.
and Hwy. 41
5
Ches Mar Realty
4300 Baker Road, Suite 4Minnetonka, MN 55343
Mr. & Mrs. Charles cross2703 Ches Mar Farm Rd.Excelsior, MN 55331
PRESENT
ACREAGE:
DENSITY !
ADJACENT
AND LAND
ZONING:
ZONING
USE:
RR, Rural Residential,
22.8 Acres
!,radfien _"r.<
lL:ACted-,--
----
-. --**-dL4/%
i)rio iirlr,i.tit _ r,)fi'rri.iril
N-
s-
E-
w-
RRt Minnewashta Regional park,/Ches ltar F'ar
RR; single family
RR; single family
PUO, Ches l*lar Farms
No sewer and water available to site.WATER AND SE$IER:
PEYSICAL CIIARAC. :The site currently containsresidence and the remainingspace with steep topographyon Lake Minnewashta.
a single fami lyparcel is open
and lakeshore
2OOO LAND USE PLAN:Residential Medium Density
-A&N*"&ft t)aIn :r '^.tr.l '
c
(l
o
\' ',y,
I
,- .v
t
!fit'at::,t;
t"'
t.l,:
;!.
,@'
!
I
;1,
E
3D
1)
HTAA.t I
,
PUD-
9_
o
,
4t'
l.
Y
ll
A2
$'-l-^*-*t-;.'
'sJlrqL-
Lola1r\q +?ez?o-g)2 ,tOot\t(*o>, ?e.P.
oRtv €
U
)'W
fl
I
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
The
Iot
Zoning
SIZE O
Ord i nancef 2i acres
reguires rural lots to maintain a
and a density of one unit. per ten
mi n imum
acres.
The
200
lots must have 200feet.feeE of street frontage and a 1ot depth of
REFERRAL AGENCIES
Engineering Department
Park and Recreation
Altachment #2
"The Park and Recreation CommissionwilI be reviewing the subdivision on
October 18, 1988 and rnay be requiringtrail easements along Ilwy. 41."
ANALYSIS
The applicant, Ches Mar Realty, is requesting preliminary plat
approval to subdivide 1.93 acres from a 28.2 acre parcel . ParcelA, which contains the 1.93 acres, contains a single Eamily resi-
dence that has been rented by Charles and Virginia Gross. In1983, the Grossrs had the option to purchase Ehe property.
Parcel A was a separately described 1ot.. The owner of Parcel Apurchased Parcel B and under the regulations of the subdivision
ordinance Parcel A and B are considered one parcel since they areadjoining properties under single o{^rnership.
The applicant is proposing to subdivide Parcel A from Parcel- B inorder to permit the transfer of the property to Ehe Gross's. Theapplicant is proposinE to maintai:r the I.93 acres which is theoriginal description of the separate lot of Parce1 A. The appli-
cant understands that the city requires a minimum of 2l acres andthat a denisty of one unit per ten acres must be maintained. Ifthe subdivision is approveil, Parce] A would be t.ransf erreai to
Charles and Virginia cross anil Parcel B would be transferred to
Lotus Realty which is pursuing a subdivision of Ches Mar Earms.
Parcel A meets all the requirements for a rural single family lot
except that it does not contain 2.5 acres. Parcel B contains the
required acreage and also meets the required 1ot frontage and
depth requirements. Staff is recommending that the area of
Parcel A be increased to provide the 2.5 acres as required by the
ordinance.
There is an existing septic system on Parcel A therefore, soil
borings were not required. The applicant has not provided soil
borings for Parcel B because this property will be joined with
the Ches lqar Farm property anal subdivided as part of Ehat sub-
division application. There is no guarantee that Parcel B wilI
Ches Mar Realty
October 19, L988
Page 2
Ches Mar Realty
October 19, 1988
Page 3
not remain as a separate legaL lot of record. Staff typically
requires that soil borings be provided and approved by the city's
consultants prior to plat approval . Therefore, staff is recom-
mending that soil borings be performed and two septic sites be
approved prior to final plat approval . Parcel B would also haveto receive an access permit from MnDOT to be serviced from Hwy.4I if it remains as a separate parcel. MnDOT and staff feel that
any separate access for Parcel B would not be preferred andParcel B should be serviced by Ches Mar Drive. Staff is recom-
mending that an easement be provided across Parcel A for driveway
access from Ches l4ar Drj.ve to ParceL B (see Asst. City Engineer's
memo ) .
The applicant is required to plat any parcels that can no longerbe subdivided. Both Parcel A and Parcel B would not be able tobe further subdivided because of the minimum acreage requirement
and the one unit. per ten acre density requirement. Therefore,both lots must be platted and should be shown on the plat as Lot1 and Lot 2 of the "Ches Mar" subdivision.
In the attached memo, the Assistant City Engineer addresses therequirements for a roadway easement to be provided on thenorthern portion of Parcel- A. Since the property is located out-side of the urban service area, a 60 foot right-of-way isrequired for a public street. There is an existing 25 foot ease-menL as part of the Ches Mar Farm property Iocated north ofParceL A. To provide the 60 foot right.-of-way. Staff is recom-mending that Parcel A provide a 35 foot roadway easement on thenortherly portion of the property.
The Zoning Ordinance requires rural lots without sewer and. waterto maintain a one unit per ten acre density. The subject pro-perty contains 22.8 acres and is therefcre permitted two dwellingunits. Since the applicant is subdividing ofr one parcel thatalready contains a single family residence, the remaining parcel,
even though it contains 20.9 acres, is only permitted one dwellingunit. Staff is therefore requiring the applicant to enter into adevelopment conEract with the city which would state that parcel
B is limited to one dwelling unit to maintain the one unit perten acre density of the existing parcel. If parcel B is combinedwith additional land it wilI only provide eligibility for onedweJ.ling unit and not two dwelling units.
RECOII{TI{ENDATION
Planning staff recommends the Planning Cornmission adopt thefollowing motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision*88-27 as shown on the plat stamped ,,Received October lO, 199g"and subject tso the following conditions:
Ches Mar Realty
October I9, 1988
Page 4
]-The lots must be platted and cannot remain as metes and
bounds descriptions.
Parcel A must maintai-n a mi.nimum of 2i acres.
A 35 foot roadway easemenL shall be dedicated to the
along the northerly property boundary of Parcel A ofject plat.
2
3 Citythe sub-
4 The applicant must enter into a development contract with the
city designating that Parcel B has only one building eligibi-1ity. The development contract must be recorded as part of
the recordinq of the final plat.
7 A l-5 foot driveway easement for Parcel B shall be provided
along the westerly property boundary of Parcel A.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission tabled action until a 1egaI opinion could
be provided by the City Attorney regarding the cityrs ability to
require the site to be subdivided.
ATTACHMENTS
Excerpts from Zoning Ordinance.
Memo from Larry Brorrn dated October 12, 1988.
Application.
Planning Commission minutes dateC October 19, 1988.
Preliminary plat.
I
3
4
5
5. Parcel B must have tlvo approved septic sites prior to finalplat approval .
6. The applicant shaIl provide any trail easements and/or fees
as required by the Park and Recreation Commission.
$ 20-575 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
b. For rear yards, fifty (50) feet.c. For side yards, ten G0) feet.
(6) The maxim"yn height is as follows:
a. For the principal structure, three (3) storiedforty (40) feet.b. For accessory structures, three (3) storiedforty (40) feet.
O) The minimum driveway separation is as follows:
a. If the &iveway is on a collector street: four hun&ed (400) feet.b. If the is on an arterial street oDe thousand two huadred fifty (fp5O)
feet.(N. No. 80, Art. V, $ 3(5-S-b), 12-15A6)
Secs. 2&576-20690. Reserved.
C.
(
\ .lnrrcr,n XL.RR- RURAL REsTDENTTAL Drsrnrcr'\
Sec. 2D591. Intcnt-
the intent of the "RR" District is to provide for single-fauily residential gubdivisions
intended for large lot developments.
((hd. No. 80, Art. V, $ 4(S4-t), 12-15-86)
Sec. 2(1592. Pernitt€d us€s,
The following uses are permitted in an .,RR,, District:
(1) Single-familydwellings.
(2) Public and private parks and open space.
(3) State-licensed day care center for twelve (12) or fewer children.
(4) Stat€-licensed group home serving six (6) or fewer persout.
(5) Utility services.
(6) Temporary real estate ofiice and model home.
(7) Agriculture.
(N. No. 80, Art. V, 0 4(54-2), 12-15-86)
Sec. m693. Pernitted acceasory usea.
the following are permitted accessory uses in an ,.RR,, District:
(1) Garage.
(2) Storage building.
(3) Swimming pool.4
\_-
1206 ht
(
ZONING $ 20-595
(4) Tennis court.
(5) Signs.
(6) Home occupation.
(7) One (1) dock.
(8) Boarlside stand.
(9) Private kennel.
(Ord. No. 80, Arr. V, $ 4(54-3), t2-r5€6)
Sec. 2,G594. Coaditional uees.
The following are conditional uses in an ..RR,, District:
(1) Churches.
(2) Private stables.
(3) Public buildings.
(4) Recreational beach lots.
(5) Commercial kennels, stables and riding acad.emies.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 4(54-4), r2-15a6)
State law reference-Conditional uses, M.S. S 462.A595.
Sec. 20595. Lot requirements abd getbacks.
The following minimum requirements sha[ be observed in an ..RR', District subject toadditional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter:
(l) The minimum lot area is two and one-half (2%) acres, subjecr to section 20-906.
(2) The mininum lot frontage ig two hundred (200) feet, except that lots fronting on a
culde-sac shall be two hundred (200) feet in width at the building setback line.
(3) The minimum lot depth is two hunilred (200) feet.
(4) The maximurn lot coverage is twenty (20) percent.
(5) th'e setbacks are as follows:
a. For front yards, frfty (80) feet.
b. For rear yards, frfty (80) feet.
c. For side yards, ten G0) feet.
(6) The maximum height is as follows:
a. For the principal structure, three (B) storiedforty.(40) feet.b. For accessory structures, three (B) etoriesr'forty (40) feet.
(7) The minimum driveway separation is as follows:
a. If the driveway is on a collector street, four hundred (40O) feet.
1207
:r5i*n*;.8**d
I
_(
-C
$ 20.905 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
Sec. 2G905. Si'l gle{amily dwellings.
All single-family detached homes shall:
(1) Be constructcd upon a continuous perimeter foundation that neets the requirements
of the state building code.
(2) Conform to the following standards for living areas:
a- Ifa one-story rambler design, have an area of nine hundreil sixty (g60) square
feet.
b. If a split level desiga, have an area of one thousand frfty (1,050) square feet.. c. Ifa split foyer and twGstory design, have an area ofsix hundred (6fi)) square feeton the first floor plus a tworar garage must be attached to the single-fauily
structure,
(3) Have an earth covered, composition, shingled or tiletl roof or other materials a;l..proved by the Uniform Building Code as adopted aad amended by the city.
(4) Receive a building permit. The application for a buildiug permit in addition to otherinformation required sha, indicate the height, size, desiga and the appearance ofallelevations of the proposed building and a deecription of the construction materialsproposed to be used.
(5) Meet the requirements of the uniform Building code as adoptcd and anended by thecity or the applicable manufactured housing code.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, $ 6, 12-18-86)
Cross reference-Technical codes, $ ?-16 et seq.
Sec. 2O906. Rural lot building eligibilitiea.
(a) All lots located outside of the Metroporitan counc 's Metropolitan urban serviceArea boundar5r shall be created in conformance to the requirements of article x or Xr of thischapter.
(b) A new single-family building may be established or a lot containing an *istiagshgle-family dwelling may be suMivided only if the following provisions are met:
(1) A one-unit per ten-acre density is maintained using the following guidelines:
0--19.99 acres equals one Q) single-family unit.
20-29.99 acres equals two (2) single-family lnits.
30-39.99 acres equals three (3) single.family units, etc.
(2) Existing parcels of record established prior to February 19, 1982, shall be deemed asbuildable lots. This provision also applies to those loli alfected by paragraph [0).(3) All lots shall have the minimum frontage on a public road as regulatcd iu sections2g_5ld and,2O_S9E- To reduce the number of &iveways on collectors aad rrt"ri.k,;;to two (2) parcels will be allowed to be accessed by a privat€ easement.
1230
C-
C
-.r. .-ii=r'-ts!'-ia;: : -j
-;J;i':'#l
l-
\_-
ZONING $ 20-907
(
(
-\
Sec, 2G907. Ileight regulations.
(a) Where the average slope of a lot is greater than one (1) foot rise or fall in seven (7) feet
of horizontal distance from the established street elevation at the property line, oae [) stnry
in addition to the number permitted in the district in which the lot is situated shall be
permitted on the downhill side of any building.
(b) The height limitations stipulated elsewhere in this chapter shall not apply to the
following:
(l) Barns, silos, or other farm buildings or structures on farms; church spires, belfries,
cupolas and domes, monuments, water towers, fire and hose towers, observation
1231
.*u'.!:*.I.
(4) All lots must have soil and water conditions which permit a well.
(5) All lots must have conditions which will permit two (2) on-site sewer systems in-
stalled in conformance with chapter 19, article IV-
(6) The one (1) unit per t€n-acre density applies to contiguous property und.er singre
ownership. Acreage under single ownership, which is not contiguous, cannot be
combined for increased density/building eligibility on one (1) of the parcels. Tlansfer
of development rights from one o) parcel of land to another is not allowed, except as
permitted in paragraph (9) below.
(7) once a building eligibility has been used for a property, a development contract must
be recorded with the county establishing the number of building eligibilities remain-
iag or documenting that no building eligibility remains. ryansfer of deveropment
rights from one (1) parcel ofland to another is not allowed.
(8) Each sit€ must have at least one (1) acre of area which can support two (2) septic
system sites, a building pad and well with a slope of twenty-frve (25) percent or less.
(9) Parcels which do not have public street frontage and are landlocked may transfer
building eligibilities to an adjacent parcel which does have public street frontage and
meets other provisions of this section.
(10) Applications for subdivisions in the rural senrice area as identified in the compre-
hensive plan to contain a development density of one (1) unit per two and one-half
(2%) acres will be accepted until 4:30 p.m. on January tb, 1982, if the following
information is submitted to the planniug department:
a. Completion ofthe application for subdivision.
b. Submission of the public hearing list of surounding property owners.
c. Submission ofa boundarJr survey $'ith the proposed lot pattern.
d. Submission of required application fees.
Further, these applications must also be accompanied by additional data required for
preliminary plat approval in a manner which will achieve preliminary plat approval
by JuIy 1, 1987 unless the city council deems to table frnal action on the application
until after July 1, 1987.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. YI, $ 7, 12-15-86)
i
CITY OF
EHINHISSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commi ssion
FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer
DATE: October 12, 19 88
SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for
Planning File No. 88-27 SUB,
the Naegele Property
Gross
I
This site is located on the west side
approximately one mile north of Stateinvolved has one existing residence attion is scattered throughout the site.
of State Highway 41
Highway 5. The property
this time. Mature vegeta-
This site is outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service
(MUSA) t therefore, nunicipal sanitary sewer service isavailable to the site at this time.
Sanitary Sewer
The plans do not address the locationfor. Parcel B. Approved sites shouldrevlew.
of two septic system sitesbe locaLed prior to final
A rea
not
Wat erma i n
Municipal water
wi 11 have to beconstruction is
Acce ss
is not avai Iab1e
developed by the
pur sued .
to the site.applicant if On-site sourcesadditional
This parcel receives access from State i{ighway 41. A 25-footroadway easement exists along the southerly boundary of the pro-perty located immediately north of parcel A. To inlure lhataccess could be gained to the "Ches Mar Farm" Iocated on thenorthwest corner of the property, an additional 35-foot roadwayeasement is requested along the northerly property boundary of-the proposed Parcel A. This would yield a totat -rignt-of-iay
width of 60 feet which would conform to the Cityrs itandards forrural cons trucL ion.
p).
Planning Cornmi ssion
October 12, 1988
Page 2
State Highway 41 is classified as an arterial streel by the
City's Zoning Ordinance. It is reconmended that Parcel B e,rould
receive access by the existing driveway onto State Highway 4I
such that accesses to Highway 41 may be kept to a minimum. It
recommeoded that a 15-foot driveway easement be granted betweeo
Parcels A and B located along the westerly property boundary of
Parcel A,
Grading and Drainaqe
The site does not propose any changes to the grading and
drainage.
Recommended Condi t ions
ls
I A 3 5- foot
along theject plat .
roadway easement shall be dedicated to the City
northerly property boundary of Parcel A of the sub-
2. The plans
app roved
approval .
shall
septic
be revised to show the Iocation
system sites for Parcel B prior of
to
twofinal plat
3 A 15-foot driveway easernenL shall. be
wesLerly property boundary of Parcel
provided along the
A
AI.rORNEYS AT LA\JV
Lenrru, Honnr"rew, De.rv & LrNoonrr, Lro
I5OO NORTHWESTERN FINAiICIAL CENTER
7900 xERXES AVENUE SOUIH
BLOOMTNGiON, Mll{NESOTA 5543t
TELEPHONE t6r2t 635-3600
TELECOPTER t6t2l 635"5tOa
2OOO FIPER JAFFRAY TOWEF
222 SOUTH NINIF STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, T,iINNESOTA 55402
TELEPBONE r612l 33S,66rO
IEL€COPtER l6r2t 33A-rO02
NORTH SUAURBAN OFFICE
a9go SPRTNGBFiOOt( ORtVE, SUTIE 25O
cooN RAPTDS, l,| tNN E30TA 55433
TELEPHONE t612l 766-7ll7
TELECOPTER t6r2! 766-67ll
Re: Ches }tar Farms Subdivision Application
Dear JoAnne:
September 26, L988
Reply to Bloomington
application andfor the subdivision of the
As discussed today, please find enclosed theapplication fee for the subdivision requesthomestead known as the ,,Gross property,;.
Background
As noted previousJ-y, the purpose of this appLication is to permit theconveyance of the Gross homestead fron chei-uar Farns ReaLt| co.parryto. charles and virginia cross. charles and virginia cross 6nteredinto an option to purchase this property in 1995. The homestead sitehad_ previousry been a separate rot 6t r6cord and the rot lines werereflected by a legal_ description and on county half-section maps (seeExhibits A & B attached). This legar description and separate rotdescription formed the basis for the propert! optioned ui iire crossesunder.the- option agreement. Although- pr6vioirsr! a ""p..it" rot ofrecord, the city subdivision regulaiions do not- recog-nize this as aseparate 1ot when it and the adjoining lots are undei common ownershipas- r:1 lhe present case. The loi size of the gross parcel to besubdivided is approxi.mateLy 1.95 acres. rhe iinimuin ]ot size in theRR district is 2.5 acres. The approval of the suUdivision wiffrequire the granting of a varianie from the minimum tot sizeregulations contained in chanhassen zoning ordinance. The chanhassensubdivision regurations section 11 provid6s for varianc"" ,iir, urrndr.ng that the following conditions exist:
fr3
l{s. JoAnne OlsenCity PlannerCity of Chanhassen
590 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, I,linnesota 55317
L.lnr<rs, I{orrlrrlx, D.r'ry & LrNocnrx, Ltn.
Iils. JoAnne Olsen
September 26, 1988
1. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience;
The hardship in the present case is the fact that the partiesto the agreenent previously contracted to purchase rrhat lrasin 1983 an individual parcel. The optionor contracted to
se11 and the optionee contracted to buy the parceL ashistoricaLly described and shown on section maps and surveys.The inability of the optionor to convey titl.e to this
separate parcel creates significant practical and legalproblems. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience and isnot a creation of the actions of either the optionor or
optionee .
The hardship is caused by the particular physical
surroundings, shape o! topographicaL conditions of the land;
The parcel property 1i.nes generally follow existing fieldconditions delineating the state Highrray 41 on the rrest,
access road to the north, a s]ope to the west and south.
appears that these boundary lines generally fo11ow the
topographical contours of the land.
anIt
3
4
The condition or conditions upon which the request is basedare unique and not generally applicable to other property;
This is a very unique set of circumstances applicable to thisproperty. Specifically, the creation of this lot unde! anoption agreement based on a previous lot that came under
subsequent ownership.
The granting of the variance will not be
detrimental to the public v.elfare and is
purpose and intent of the Ordinance, the
Comprehensive P1an.
substantiaL lyin accord with the
Zoning Ordinance and
The variance request is nominal . The minimum ]ot size under
the code is 2.5 acres and the existing lot size is
approximately 1.85 acres. There is substantial open space
around the residential structure and the proposed lot andsetting is very much in keeping rrith the spirit and intent ofthe Zoning Ordinance. The approval of this subdivision willnot result in any new development to the gross property butonly a1low the optionor to fuLfill its obligations to the
optionee.
2.
L.lnxrx, Honrrrex, D.lry & Lrrsocnn:c, L.ro.
Ii{s. JoAnne Olsen
September 26, L988
Parre ?
we respectfully request the approval of this subdivision and variance.If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
S incerely,
Tinothy
LARKIN,
Keane, for
, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
TJK ! Awos
Encl-osures
TELEPHONE (Daytime )
REQTJEST:
I.AND DEVE LOPI{ENT APPI,I CATIONCI1Y OF CEANEASSMT
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55312(612) 937-1900
932-9 TELE PHONE
APPLICANT: ChCS-MAT FATMS RCAltY,OWNER:
ADDRES S
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343
Code Z 1p Code
Zoning District Change
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Variance
Zoning Text Amendment
Iand Use Plan Amendment
Conditional Use permit
Site plan Revieh,
PROJECT NA.[18 ChES-MAT FATMS
Planned Unit Developnent
_ Sketch plan
_ Preliminary plan
_ Final plan
Subdi vi sion
_ Platting
_ Metes and Bounds
Street,/Easement Vacation
Wetlands permit
Y
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION RR
REQUESTED I.AND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
PRESENT ZONING RR
S ame
REOUESTED ZONING NA
USES PROPOSED Residential
SIZE OF PROPERTY 1.85 A
LOCATION
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST Convey existing homestead
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary)
ADDRESS 4300 Baker Road, Suite 4
cir
Lan
Pag
f Chanhassen
evelopment Application
FTLIN rNS TR,U CT IONS :
FILI CER .F
'FI CATION:
Clcs- rlt^r fa*n €.,-l
yo
dDe2
This application must be completed in full anrt ho l,i^.._.: !rclearri''p;i;a;;"";; musr be i";;;.;;J,ii :ii Hr:IH:Ii::.ilu",
tlil=:i*.:i.l!Ir!i:'r,.fi r. ill,i:T::r=*iiri:ii::ii,;'r*:.applicabre to your ipplication - -'-- --- procedural requirements
.ll;r ]i.i!':ili,i:i,iiif, .ff :";.::.:*.in:"t;i::,*;;.:.cer.,i f i es
t
rt.
t/
l: f^-44
i t<<-
il!di!?i;' ?:'ilx:' :il"':#i f :: :, jf .
!"..n :- :opr ican r has beendescribed. che property herein
Signed By
Signed By
Date Application
Application Fee
City Receipt No.
A/..aJc.P-.**<r
Date September 26, !9gg
Date September 26, lg}g
Planning Conuni ss i on,/
Appli anE
Recei yed
Paid
I This Application willBoard of Ad j ustmen tsmeeting.
be cons ideredaod AppeaLs at by thetheir
,':
Fee Ownei-
9 so.,o
MARLYN T{. PELT IE R
ax r4l, c 5o2
BK [5, P 545
/
*rr!r,
l,!
rr,u,n ,
9
.e
co
?o
-200 7t
6
i'.3- 4r
3333
1
"/
.1- -
8X I18, P 275
s
1O
I
l,
t,,
6ssl
30 lO,
2S
/so
- 26a. aa -
I
[a
i!
a
52EAO
l
IJ3
-t s 6
E3rl
{r.
6 6 ?o
J
t6. !
WALTER WHITEHILL
8X rO,
'
t26 .i9
q(
I.o
^rr"r ro*tr -/a{ rJG, ? 5Ot O 5O!t
.,s
1 ALICE TOWLE
ax r20. P 6alt( rro, ? ata
ax la6, P 605
.f
5
i.
Oo
art",EXHIBIT A
1983 L/2 section !!aP
:st:^J 04t{tx tt6
ttLttAra
JOXN3OT
8l( tot, P59O
87c26'tf
$5i.":l:T.
- ao!.7t..-
1:
9O
BK t28,
P 297
a( 98, P 529
'-200--
ll.]t
JAltEl olLSEiTax 9,? 565
s.u. cARL30l
BX GO, P 429
$.,
lx a2, P 4!lDO. ROY u.n !ct llDT
8{ 13a, P 5t2
o
f,
eP o-
96 52 lt.l!
trl
"i{;t:t.t
r"t
l-: -r
I o47 6A
'->o
ci
t-
r
i;s( tor, p59O
,$O
5O ,Os
>,
-,t'!i
6
Jr
I ,..
I
,1
d
t..
-q>
a
lnt"'i
E
)
9
It
?ol
9O
I
JJi
t
!sIl
$.
/:6 6
i:ir:l
15. f<_
CHES -MAR RE A8'(lrq P s4 :l
.'J
l:
*o:r_1l", wHf TEHTLL ..(q
I,t
:
I
.T
E
o
ii-ll
N
K'
'*.4;
:+
t
I
.l
; :, r
,l;
.i..
:-
i?+r.1i'. 'i:'i.'
'-,- :.,
,
t
..., i:r/vi.
T
.I
I
,
pt
B
2 Section
EXHlBIT
1988 ),/i.'
+
J;a;ii,.";,o
s
q
-2 oE.7l
'l Ja
00c9.'e, grp
DOCi
o :t,
rl ot.!!
4p t,?ii.
r,6!! !c
)
5a. a4:
."
.-l
;.. i.'
.i..,,
--,
;:;I
..J ii;:iri
',' :.. -.1:)
: ' t::
,.. ::1
1a
t,i
65.
I
t
!"
ri
,1,
l-.
.ii
". f1
r
I
t.
529
,:.
.l. a<98, P
.lt
-zoo.-
r:
/..':r
,ill
l.t
/_
o9
... t
t.,:l
i
l.
.t
CITY OF
EHANHISSEI[
STAFF REPORT
P.C. DATE: Nov. 2, 198g
C.C. DATE: Nov. 14, 1988
CASE NOc 8g-15 wAp
Prepared by: Olsen,/v
Fz
c)
=LL
ko
bJta
PROPOSAL: 1) Wetland Alteration permit forWetland and Developnent WithinWetland
Site Plan Review for a 330,000 Squarewarehouse and Manufacturing raciiiiy-
2)
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
Alteration to a Class200 Eeet of a Class A
Rosemount, Inc.Attn: Jeffrey Schmi tr12001 West 78rh Street
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen
Add i t ion
Foot Office/
Rosemoun t
Lakes Business park 2nd
Opus CorporationAttn: Bob WorthingtonP.O. Box i50Minneapolis, MN 55440
N-
s-
E-
w-
WATER AND SEhIER:
PEYSICAL CEARAC. :
2OOO LAND USE PLAN:Industrial
IOP, Industrial Office park
55.8 acres
IOPi vacant
Lake Susan
IOPi vacant
IOP; vacant
The property has sewer and water available
The sitse contains a Class A & B wetland anis heavily vegetated area around Lake SusaThe remainder is natural open space.
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGB:
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AT|D LA}{D USE:
a
I_E r.i,4
BD
I
g
0
roP
x Ros.l'tn.cr*J
INNENclncl.r
LAKE SIISANI
RD
66 TH st
PUD-R;
oz
RSF
I
F
lrJE(,
EVAR
RSF,
t8
PUD-
I
DD
R12 . t a-vl(Er '..aE.
RSF-
RICE I
€
ts
t
G HW AY
T_
oto
)
RD
T
T
A2
I .EF
on
OI
1-l
R12
Opus/Rosemount WAP and Site PIan
November 2, 7988
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20-421 requires a r4retlandwithin a CLass A or B wetland andofaClassAwetland.
The setbacks for the IOP District. are10 foot rear and side yard setback and
minimum Iot frontage of 150 feet, 1ot1ot coverage of 70* and maximum heightfor the principle structure.
alteration permit for dredgingany development hrithin 200 feet
Section 20-438 states the reguirements for dredging wetlands.
Section 20-440 regulates stormwater runoff into wetlands.
Section 5-16-2, of the IOP District aIlo$rs offices and warehousesand manufacturing as a permitted use in the IOp District.
30 feet front yard setback,
IOP District requires adepth of 200 feet, maximumof 4 stories or 50 feet
Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance requires perimeter
and Landscaping of vehicular areas and screening for
sures.
landscaping,trash enclo-
The Shoreland Ordinance limits development within a ShorelandDistrict to 308 of lot coverage (1and within 1000,of a lake).
REFERRAL AGENCIES
City Engineer
Fire Inspector
Building Department
Fish and Wildlife
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachmen t
#2
#3
*4
*s
BACKGROUND
On October 24, J-988, Opus Corporation received preliminaryfinal plat approval for the Chanhassen Lakes Business ParkAddition and approval for the vacation of a portion of Lake
The proposed plat creatsed tot 1, Block I which is the site
Rosemount f ac i l- ity.
and
2nd
Dr ive .for the
The applicant has submitted an EAW
on by the City Council on November
review which will be acted
1988 (Attachment #6 ).
for
2l ,
Opus,/Rosemount wAP and Site Plan
November 2, 1988
Page 3
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
The proposed site conEains trro proLected we!.lands. The smaller
most easterly wetland is a Class B wetland and shown as "Pond" on
the site pIan. The larger westerly wetland is a Class A wetland
shown as "Wetland" on the site plan. The applicant is proposing
to preserve the larger Class A wetland and to dredge the smaller
Class B wetland and use it as a detention basin.
The Watershed District has determined that the site must detain
8 acre feet of water prior to it leaving the site. The proposed
alteration to the Class B wetland would allow 3 acre feet of
runoff to be detained. Any overflow from the smaller wetland
would be directed to the stormsewer and in some cases to the
larger Class A wetland. As shown on the current site p1an,
drainage is being directed to the smaller Class B r"retland from the
majority of the site including the parking area and some of the
roof area and from a portion of Lake Drive. The larger Class A
wetland will- be receiving runoff from the roof. The roof runoff
directed to the Class A wetland was provided Eo maintain water
draining to the \^retland which is currently occurring in itsnatural state. The City did not want a1I drainage to beredirected away from the Class A wetland which could result in the
larger vretland becoming dry.
Staff has visited the site with Paul Burke from the Fish andWildlife Service. It was established that the larger C]-ass A
$ret.land was of high quality and that it should be preserved. The
smaller C.l-ass B wetland could be improved by dredging a portion ofthe wetland to allow open water to be contained in the wetland.
InitiaJ-1y, the applicant had proposed to alter both wetlands and
after meeting with staff changed the plans to alter the smaLLer
Class B wetland and to preserve the larger Class A rvetland.
In his memo, Paul Burke has stated that he would prefer an addi-
tional pond be provided on site to collect the stormr.rater runoffprior to it entering either i^retland. In speaking hrith the
Watershed District, it was felt that the CLass A and C1ass B
e/etland coulal be used for storm water detention prior to it
entering Riley Creek or Lake Susan. The philosophy of the Fish
and Wildlife Service is to preserve wetlands anil if creating
upland ponds from the eretland will help preserve the existing
wetlands, then that is what should be pursued. The Watershed
District philosophy is that wetlands are upland holding basins for
stormwater runoff prior to it entering the Lake and stream system.
The second page of the site plan shows the proposed grading forthe Class B wetland and shows the outlets and inlets to the
ponding areas. The applicant has also provided a wetland infor-
mation sheet which provides additional information on the wetlandalteration applicatj-on (Att.achment #7). The information provided
on the site plan does not adeguatel-y address the final alteration
Opus/Rosemount WAP and Site Plan
November 2, L988
Page 4
to the Class B irretland, the amount of water entering and leavingthe Class B hretland and the amount of hrater entering the C1ass Awetland. It appears that t.here may be more eraLer entering the
Class A wetland than hrhat was agreed. upon at a staff leve1 .Staff had agreed that. some overflow from the Class B r,ietland
could be directed to the Class A wetland only after a certainelevation had been reached and that it was not a large amount ofwater. To preserve the Class A wetland, staff did not vrant fluc-tuating water levels where the water would be raised a few feet
or more on a regu]-ar basis. Therefore, staff is requirinq addi-tional information on exactly what the final alteration of the
Class B pond will be, how much water is going to be contained in
the Class B wetland, how the runoff is going to be cleaned of
sedimentation prior to it entering the Class B and Class A weEland
and how much and horr, often water will be directed from the Class
B wetland to the Class A wetland. The Engineering Department is
also requiring additional technical information on the drainage
of the site (see Engineering memo). Staff is requesting the
additionaL information also to show how the 8 acre feet of water
is going to be detained on site since it appears that only 3 acre
feet is being detained.
The landscaping plan shows the area directly around the CIass A
and Class B r^retland as being seeded. Since the Cl-ass A wetland
is being preserved, staff is recomrnending that the land directly
adjacent to the wetland not be permitted Eo be seedeci and must be
left in its natural state. Staff is recomrnending that the 75
foot setback required for structures be applied for preserving
the area around the Class A vretland. Since Option 2A was
approved for the realignment of H\dy. 101, Market Boulevard wilI
be extended south of Hwy. 5 and therefore the road. between the
two wetlands wiLl be deleted. Therefore, the land between the
wetlands should remain in its natural state. lvhen rreeting with
PauI Burke, it was felt that the Class B $retland could have a
portion of the adjoining land improved up to the edge of the
wetland that could be used for recreation purposes, i.e. picnic
tables, etc.
WETLAND ALTERATION RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of wetland
Alteration Permit #88-15 with the following conditions:
Submittal of a revised plan and calculations which verify the
preservation of the Class A wetland and shows the extent. of
I
Staff is recomrnending approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit
conditioned upon information being provided which verifies the
preservation of the Class A wetland and clarifies tshe extent of
the alteration to the Class B wetland.
2
J
Opus,/Rosemount wAP and Site Plan
November 2, 1988
Page 5
al-teration to the Class B wetland.
Class A $retland shafl be preserved
Class B wetland shall conform to theFish and WildIife as follows:
tofor
A
IN
75 fcot strip around theits naturaL state .
No more than 508 of the land around the Class B wetland shall
be sod or seeded. The remaining 50* shall remain in its
nat.ural state.
4
5
The alteration of the
six conditions of the
c
The basin will have free form (no even-sided) shape
increase shorel-ine length and provide isolated areas
feeding and resting birds.
b The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of
10:1 - 20:1 for at least 30t of the shoreline to
encourage growth of emergent vegetation as refuge and
food for wi 1dIife.
The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for
variable water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for
species of wildlife feeding in shallow water (0.5 - 3.0fee!) and (b) encourage grohrth of emergent vegetation in
areas of shallow erater and thereby increase interspersion
of open vrater with emergent vegetation.
The basin will- have a layer of topsoil (muck from an
existing wetland being filled) on bottom of basin to pro-
vide a suitable substrate for aquatic vegetation.
d
f The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland
surrounding the basin to minimize disturbances ofwildlife using the wetland.
6 Meet any and all conditions of the Site PIan Approval #88-12.
a.
The basin will have waEer level control (culverts, riserpipe, etc.) to minimize disturbances of wildlife using
the \^retland.
The wetland impacts due to roof drainaqe and/or backup fromthe sEorm vrater retention pond need to be idenLified and
appropriate measures caken to satisfy any anticipated pollu-
tion and/or nutrient loading impacLs.
Opus/Rosemount wAP and Site Plan
November 2, 1988
Page 6
SITE PLAN REVIEW
The applicant is proposing to construct a 330,000 square foot
o f f i ce,/warehouse/manufacturi ng facility with 950 parking spaces
and on site loading dock. The site is located on Lot 1, Block 1,
Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 2nd Addition. The site is
bordered by Lake Drive East ( future) to the north, Market
Boulevard ( future) to the east, city parkland to the west and
Lake ed bysusan to the south. The subject site also contains throprotected wetlands in the northeast corner of the siEe. The
topography of the site is very steep along Lake Susan where it is
also heavily vegetated. The proposed site plan is positioning
the building and parking area above the slope area adjacent to
Lake Susan so that tshe existing slope and vegetation will be pre-
served. The proposed facility will house 700 enployees and will
be used as a manufacturing facility for the production of preci-
sion instruments for the measurement and control of temperature
f1ow, Ievel and pressure as specified by businesses in the pro-
cess control industry.
The applicant is providing access t.o the site by two driveways
from new Lake Drive and with optional entry from new Market
Boulevard from the east. On October 24, 1988, the City Council
approved Option 2A for the realignment of Hwy. 101 which proposes
new Market Boulevard to continue south from Hwy. 5 and to be
located east of the proposed site (Attachment #8). Therefore,
the option A entry road between the two r^Tetlands should be
deleted and Option B enEry road from Market Boulevard should be
provided as a substitute. The exact location of the Option B
road from Market Boulevard rvi11 be determined once the exact
location of Market Boulevard and che continuation of Lake Drive
has been detsermined. There is a possibi]-ity that the Option B
road will have to be moved to the south (see Engineering report).
The applicants is providing the required number of parking spaces
and the reguired number and type of light fixtures. The site
plan does not provide any details on location or screening of
trash receptacles. An amended site plan with these details will
have Eo be provided. The site plan is meeting all the required
setbacks including the setback from Lake Susan. The exact edge
of the class B wetland has not been determined. There must be a
75 foot setback maintained from the edge of Ehe altered C1ass B
wetland fron the parking lot.
The Fire Inspector has reviewed the site plan and has recomrnended
thats access for Fire Department apparatus sha1l comply with the
NFPA l-I41, Section 3-1 through 3-4.7. Essentially, the site plan
has Eo provide access to every side of the building but this does
not have to be in tshe form of an access road. The proposed site
plan is maintaining a 1eve1 area around the building which should
provide the adequate access tso all sides of the building. In
addition, the applicanE must provide fire hydrants at least every
opus,/Rosemount WAP and Site PIan
Novemser 2, L988
Page 7
300 ieet (Attachment #3). The Building Department stated that 18
handi:apped parking spaces are required and theats the building
must be sprj,nklered. The applicanL is providing 19 parkiog spa-
ces. The building will be one story in height with a toEal
height of 22 feeru and the site plan is maintaining an impervious
surface of 29*. Since Ehe site is vrithin the Shoreland District,
development of the site must not exceed 30t impervious surface.
The applicant has provided a separate landscaping plan for the
site. The applicant has stated that this is preliminary and t.hey
will submit a plan with the specific types and locations of the
proposed landscaping. The proposed landscaping plan shows
sodding of the open area adjacent to the proposed building bet-
ween the parking areas. The major portion of the remaining site
wiII be seeded with the southerly and westerly portion of tne
site being maintained in its natural condition. As stated in the
wetland Alteration Permit secEion, the proposed sodding of the
property up to the Class A and B i{etland is not acceptable.
Staff is recommending that the applicant maintain a 75 foot set-
back around the Class A wetland in its natural stsaEe and to pre-
serve at least 50t of the land adjacent to the Class B wetland in
its natural state.
The applicant is maintaining the trees along the slope area adja-
cent to Lake Susan and will not be clearcutting any of these
t.rees. Staff is requesting that the applicant provide a t.ree
removal plan showing what types, size and location of trees being
removed from the site of a 4" caliper at 4 feet in height or more
for staff review. The city has the right to require replacement
trees. The applicant proposed significant Iandscaping along the
Option A entry betweeen the two hretland areas. Since this option
is going to be removed, and entry will be gained from the east, a
major portion of the landscaping proposed wiII also be removed.
Staff is reconmending that landscaping be provided along the tvro
other entry areas off of new Lake Drive. The site plan is pro-
posing landscaping along both main enEry ri,ays to the building and
within the proposed parking area to lhe east. The dock areas areparlially screened by a berm directly to the north. It appears
t.hat the docks will still be visible from Lhe northeast and
northwest. Staff is recommending additional landscaping to ful1y
screen the dock areas.
The landscaping plan does not meet Lhe requirements of the
landscaping ordinance ( internal landscaping for the westerly
parking 1ot, perimeter landscaping, berming and landscape
screening of the parking areas, etc.). Staff is recommending an
amended landscaping plan which meets the requirements of Article
xxv, Landscaping and Tree RemovaL.
cradinq, Drainaqe and Utilities
In AttachmeaE *2r the City
and drainage issues of the
Engineer addresses grading, ulility
site plan.
Opus,/Rosemount liAP and Site Plan
November 2, 1988
Page 8
RECOMMENDA? I ON
Planning staff recommends thefollowing motion:
Planning Commission adopt the
"The Planning Commission reconrmends approval of Site plan Review#88-15 as shown on the site plan stamped "Received October 14,1988" and subject to the following conditions:
Option B entry road shall be used rather than theentry road.Option A1
2
4
The location of trash receptacles sha1l be provided on an
amended site plan and they shalI be totatly screened.
5
7
9
The applicant sha1I meet the conditionsas stated in his memo daLed October 17,
of the Fire
1988.
Inspector
The applicant sha1l meet the conditions of the Building
Department as stated i.n his memo dated September 26, 1988.
6. The applicant sha11 provide an amended landscaping plan which
meets the requirements of the Article XXV.
The applicant shall preserve
Class A r.retland.
a 75 foot setback around the
The applicant shall provide a tree removal plan designating
the type, size and number of any trees being removed which
have a 4" caliper or more at 4 feet.
10. The applicant shal1 provide
proposed dock areas.
additional screening north of the
11. Revised plans shal1 be submiEted for approval addressing theconditions contained in the staff reports and including suf-ficient detail necessary for review and approval. An erosioncontrol plan sha11 be included in the submitstals as wel1.
12. Site grading along the
ways shall be adjusted
contours.
Lake Drive and Market Boulevard road-to coincide with finished roadway
13. The first 500 feet of sanitary sewer which parellels theeasterly property line on the site will need to be
3. The parking lot shall maintain a 75 foot setback from thefinished edge of the Class B wetland.
8. The applicant shall preserve at least 50t of the land aroundthe Class B wetland in its natural state.
Opus/Rosemount wAP and Site Plan
November 2, L988
Page 9
coostructed by Rosemounts. A 35-foot easement shall be dedi-
caled along the entire length of the proposeC sanitary sewer
stretch when its alignment has been established by the feasi-
bility study.
14. A 35-foot utility easement shall also be dedicated along thewesterly lot line of the site along the alignment of the
sanitary sewer as established by the feasibility study.
15. A watermain extension should be considered to be constructedalong the aliqnment. of the southeast sanitary sewer service
connection to provide further redundancy to Ehe Rosemountsite with an ultimate hookup to the City's watermain onfuture Markec Boulevard.
I5. The internal piping scheme for the building should address
che need for documentation of recycled or cooling water
discharge in order that proper sanitary sewer credits can beidentified if appropriate.
17. The applicant shall be responsible for reimbursing
for utilizing its ponding facilities to accomxnodate
hrater, less Ehan the 100-year predevelopment runoff
which is not being accommodated on site.
18. The on-site pondiag and storm drainage scheme needs
coordinated with the feasibility study alignment ofDrive storm sewer system.
the City
any stormrate,
to be
t.he Lake
23. The Option A entry road locaCed between the wetland anddetention pond shall be omitted and the Option B entry con-nection shaIl be located to directly oppose the future-
planned connection of Lake Drive East from the Ward property
at Market Boulevard, to be estabtished in the Lake Drivefeasibility study.
19. The wetland impacts due to roof drainage and/or backup fromthe storm water retention pond need to be itientified andappropriate measures taken to satisfy any anticipated pollu-
tant and/or nutrient loading impacts.
20. The alignment and right-of-way dedicated for Lake Drive shalIbe sufficient enough to accornmod.ate a 35 mile per hour design
speetl unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
21. A 36-foot entry drive shall be used for any roads which will
experience truck traffic on a regular basis. As a minimum,
the main access (cenEral) roadway should be 36-foots.
22. A typical section for the roadways shall be supplied for
approval by the City Engineer and concrete curb and gutter
shall be provided Chroughout the site including parking lot
areas.
24. The plans should address the proper movement of pedestriantraffic around the exterior of the building and on the site.
25. The applicant will need to enter into a development contractwith the City to guarantee the proper execution of the finalapproved plans and specifications for lhe site and provialethe City rrith an appropriate financial security.
Opus/Rosemount WAP and Site Plan
November 2, L988
Page 10
ATTACHMENTS
Excerpts from City Code.
Memo from City Engineer dated October 28, 1988.
Memo from Fire Inspector dated October 17, 1
Memo from Building Department dated SeptembeLetter from Fish and wildlife Service dated
1988.
EAW.
Wetland information sheet.
Option 2A.Application.Letter from applicant dated Septenber 13, 1988.Site plan dat.ed October 14, 1988.
Landscaping plan dated October 20, I988.
1
2
3
4
5
988r2
sep
6, 1988.
tember 23,
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
L2.
o
o
ZONING $ 20401
(3) Nonresidential structures. Commercial, manufacturing and industrial structures shall
ordinarily be elevated on fill so that their first floor (including basement) is above the
regulatory flood protection elevation but may in special circumstances be flood-proofed
in accordance with the state building code. structures that are not elevated to above
the regulatory flood protection elevation shall be flood-proofed to Fp-r or Fp-2 classi-
fication as defined by the Uniform Building Code as adopted and amended by the
city. Structures flood-proofed to FP-3 or FP-4 classification shall not be permitted.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 21(5-21-2), 12-15-86)
Cross reference-Technical codes, $ ?-16- et seq.
State law reference-Condfitional uses. M.S. $ 462.3b95.
Sec. 20€78. Residential uses.
Residences that do not have vehicular access at or above an elevation not more than two
(2) feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation shall not be permitted uDless granted a
variance. In granting a variance the city shall specify limitations on the period of use or
occupancy of the residence.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 21(5-21-3(1)), 12-15-86)
Sec. 2G379. Comnercial uses.
Accessory land uses, such as yards, railroad tracks and parking lots may be at elevations
Iower than the regulatory flood protection elevation. However, a permit for such facilities to
be used by the employees or the general public shall not be granted in the absence ofa flood
warning syst€m that provides adequate time for evacuation if the area would. innundate to a
depth greater than two (2) feet or be subject to flood velocities greater than four. (.1) feet per
second upon occurrence of the regional flood.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 21(5-21-3(2), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-380. Manufacturing and industrial uses.
Measures shall be taken to minimize interference with normal plant operations espe-
cially along streams having protracted flood durations. certain accessory land uses such as
yards and parking lots may be at lower elevntions subject to requirements set forth above. ln
considering permit applications, due consideration shall be given to needs of an industry
whose business requires that it be located in llood plain areas.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 21(5-21-3(3)), 12-15-86)
Secs. 20381-2O40O, Reserved.
ARTICLE VI. WEf,LAND PROTECTION
DTVISION T. GENERALLY
Sec. 2G401. Findings and intent,
wetlands are a valuable resource. wetlands help maintain water quality, serve to mini-
mize problems with flooding and erosion, serve as sources of food and habitat for a variety of
lr87
tr
o
$ 20..101 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
{ish and wildlife and are an inregrar part ofthe community's natural randscape providing theaesthetic benefrts of open space and a natural separation of land uses. It is the intent oithisarticle to establish a program of sound stewardship through regulations that strive toward
zero degradation ofthe wetlands by conserving, protecting and enhancing these environmen_tally sensitive resources-
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 24(5-24-1), 12-15-86)
Sec. 2G402. Purpose.
The purpose of this articre is to assure the protection of the general health, safety andwelfare of the residetrts atrd the protection ofthe wetland resources of the city, for now and inthe future, through preservation and conservation of wetlands and sound management ofdevelopment by:
(l) Establishment of wetland regulations.
(2) Requiring proper erosion control practices.
(3) Requiring sound management practices that will protect, conserve, maintain, en_
hance and improve the present quality of wetlands within the community.
(4) Requiring improved water quality in streams and lakes x'ith its att€nd.ant increasein recreational use and value.
(5) Protecting and enhancing the scenic value ofthe community.
(6) Restricting and controlling the harmfur effects of rand deveropment which adversely
allecr wetiands.
(7) Reducing the need for piped storm water improvenrents.
(8) Preventing rapid runoff from devekiped areas.
(9) Preventing pollution from gas, oil, salt, fertilizer, sand and silt.
(10) Allowing only development that is compatible with wetland protection and enhp,,cemenl
(11) Providing standards for the alteration of wetlands-
(12) controlling development outside of the wetland areas that may be detrimental to
wetlands.
(13) Prohibiting dumping of waste in rvetlands.
(14) Restricting the placement of structures within wetland areas.
(15) Drawing attention to the function of wetlands and the impact of urbanization upon
wetlands.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V , i 24(5-24-2t.12.15-86)
o
c
S€c. 2MO3. Interpretation.
Neither the issuance of a wetland alteration permit nor compliance with the conditions
thereof' nor compliance with the provisions of this chapter sharr relieve any person from any
1188
o
ZONING s 10..107o
o
I r'nrx,nsibility otherwise imposed by larv for damage to persons or property; nor shail the
r,'.unce of any permit serve to impose any liability on the city or its ollicers or emplol,ees for
|lrluly or damage to persons or property.
rt rrrl. No. 80, Art. V, S 24(5-24-1D,12-15-86)
;i,c. 2G"104. Establishment of wetland areas.
Lands lying within a werland area shall be subject to the requirements established
lr':r'ein, as well as restrictions and requirements established by other applicable city ordinan-
,,.rr:rnd regulations. The wetland Protection Regulation shall not be construed to allow
rrrything otherwise prohibited in the zoning district where the wetland area is located. The
w,r[land map, entitled "chanhassen wetland Map" dated May 22, Lgg4 is hereby adopted as
l,r r.a facie evidence of the rvetland areas and an official copy is on file in the oflice ofthe city
, h'rk. Land rvithin the wetland areas shall be classifred as class A wetland or class B rr.etland
rrr rlelineated on the map.
r( ,r(1. No. 80, Art. V, $ 24(5-24-3), f2-15-86)
i*!c. 2G405. Determination of wetland area.
An applicant for development which may be in a wetland area shall bring this to the
, rrv's attention. If required by the city, the applicant shall provide appropriate technical
rrrri,'mation, including but not limited to, topographical survey and soil data deemed neces-
rrrrly [br the city to determine the exact lvetland boundary. The city council may exempt land
ll rrrrr r.he wetland regulations if it finds that the land is not in fact a wetland. The city council
rr,rll make necessary interpretations concerning the wetland area based upon the rverland
,,r,rgr, the definition of wetlands and the intent and purpose of this article.
rt trrl. No- 80, Art. V, I 24{5-24-2), 12-15-86)
il.(.. 20-406. Variances.
'l'he city council may grant a variance from the requirements of this article. In addition, a
vr'iirnce may be granted based upon mitigative measures proposed by the appiicant to
I r'r'r'cute, to an equal or greater degree, the environmental and hydrorogical function of the
plrtlund area that is proposed to be altered.
rr tr'rf . No. 80, Art. V, $ 21i6,-24-t4J, f2-15-86)
thrrr. 2G407. Prohibited uses in class rl wetlands-
'l'ltc follorving uses are pr.ohibited in class A rvetlands:
t I l Disposal .f rr.:rstc, meterial includins, b,t not limited to, sewage, demolition rlcbris,hazar<lous lnd toxic substancts. and :rll lvaste that would normally be disposed ofat a<rrlid '.,, rrstc rlrsposll sir., ,,r. ilt r, il se\vil(c (li"l1osal srstem or- sanitary Sewer.r.lt Soltd \\.;rste disp()srrl sitt,s. sltrtlge lrsh rlisposal sites. hazardous waste transl.cr or
' lr -ln,:.tl - r tIS,
.:lr Ji.l)lr(.,,r =oil rrlrsorlltrrrrr .v.tr.rns.
I lsg
$ 20-407 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(4) Sedimentation basins for construction projects.
(5) Open storage.
(6) Animal feedlots.
(7) The planting of any species of the genus Lythrum-
(8) Operation of motorized craft of all sizes and classifications.(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 24(b-24-S), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-408. Prohibited uses in class B wetlands.
The following uses are prohibited in class B rvetlands:
(1) Disposal of lvaste materiar including, but not limited to, sewage, demorition debris.hazardous and toxic substances, and a, waste that would normally be disposed ofat asolid rvaste disposal site or into a servage disposai system or sanitary sewer.
(2) Solid rvaste disposal sites, sludge ash disposal sites, hazardous waste transfer ordisposal sites.
(3) Animal feedlots_
_ (4) The planting of any species ofthe genus LJrirzzl(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, S 2{(b-2.1-6), 12_15-86)
Sec. 20409. General development regulations.
within wetland areas and for lands abutting or adjacent to a horizontal distance of twohundred (200) feet, the following minimum provisions are applicable:
G) The minimum lot area is hfteen thousand (15,000) square feet.
(2) The minimunr structure setback is seventy,five (7b) feet from the ordinary high watermark.
(3) Septic and soil absorption s).stem setbacks are two hundred (200) feet from ordinaryhigh water mark.
(4) The lowest ground floor erevation is three (3) feet above ordinary high rvater mark.
(5) No development sha, be a,owed rvhich may resurt in unusual road maintenancecosts or utility line breakages due to soil limitation, including high frost action.(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 2{(5-24.13), 12-18_86)
Secs. 20410-2G420. Reserved.
o
o
1190
o
o
o
ZONING
DTVISION 2. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
Part A- General Prouisions
Sec. 2M21. Required.
The fo,owing activities are prohibited in the wetrand area indicated unless the citycouncil issues a wetland alteration permit allowing the activity:
(1) scientifrc research projects in a crass A or class B wetland which alter the wetland.
(2) Public works in a class A or crass B wetland except for emergenry pubric works whichshall not require a wetland alteration permit.
(3) Creation of ponds or dams and alterations of the natural drainageways or watercourses of a class A or class B wetland.
(4) Removal from class A wetland of trees or vegetation except hay, crops and diseasedand storm damaged trees and vegetation which shall not require a wetland alterationpermit.
Docks, walkways and boardwalks, within class A or B wetland.
Installing or replacing drain tile or ditches in a class A wetland. Repairing existing&ain tile, in a class A wetland if the property has not been in active agricultural useduring the trvelve (12) months preceding February 1g, l9g?.
(b)
(6)
(7) Development in any class A wetland or within two hundred (200) feet of a class Awetland that is within the wetland,s watershed.
(8) Septic or soil absorption systems in a class B wetland.
(9) Sedimentation basins in a class B wetland.
(10) Any structure in a class A or B wetland except for minor expansion and additions tosingle-family detached drvelings existing Februar5r 19, lggz that do not require awetland alteration permit.
(11) Digging, dredging, filling in a class A or B wetland_
(12) Advertising signs in a class A or B wetland-
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, S 2415-24.7), 12-15€6)
*c. 20422. Application, issuance, etc.
The applicant for a wetland alteration permit shall rurnish the information required bythe city including but not rimited to, a site plan, topographic data and hydrologicar data forthe review of a wetland alteration permit apprication.l wetland alteration permit shalr notbe issued without having been first reviewed by the pranning commission and approved by thecouncil following the review procedures set forth for condiiionat use permits. The "pptiorrtshall have the burden ofproving that the proposed use or activity complies with the purposes,intent and other provisions ofthis articre. A permit must be approved by a three-filths vote ofo
1191
g 20-422
I 20-122 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
the council. The council may establish reasonable conditions which are specifically set forth in
the permit to ensure compliance rvith requirements contained in this article. Such conditions
may, among other matters, limit the size, kind or character of the proposed work, require the
construction of other structures, require replacement of vegetation, establish required moni-
toring procedures and maintenance activity, stage the rvork over time, require the alteration
of the site design to ensure bu{rering, require the provision of a performance security. The
granting ofa wetland alteration permit does not abrogate the need to obtain permits required
by other local. state or federal agencies.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 24(5-24-9), 12-15-86)
Sec. 211423. Inspection of work.
The city engineer may cause inspection of work for which a wetland alteration permit is
issued to be made periodically during the course of such work and shall cause final i;rspection
to be made following the completion of the work.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 24(5-24-11), 12-15-86)
Secs. 20425-20-435. Rcserved,
Part B. Issuance Guidelines
Sec. 2G436. Generally.
No wetland alteration permit shall be issued unless the council determines that the
proposed development complies with the provisions of this part, as well as the intent and
o
o
1192
e
Sec. 2M24. Expiration, renewal, etc.
(a) unless otherwise specifred by the city council, the person issued a wetland alreration
permit shall begin and complete the development authorized by the permit within one (1) year
after the date the council approves the permit application.
(b) The permittee shall provide written notice to the city engineer twenty-four (24) hours
prior to the commencement and completion of the development project. No project shall be
deemed to have been completed until approved by the city engineer after receipt of notice of
completion.
(c) If the permittee fails to commence work on the development within the tirne specified
in this section, the permit shall be void. The council may renerv a void permit at its discretion.
If the council does not renew the permit, the holder of the void permit may make original
application for a new permit.
(d) The permittee may make written application to the council for an extension of the
time to commence work, but only if the permittee submits the application prior to the date
already established to commence work- The application for an extension shall state the
reasons the permittee requires an extension.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 24(5-24-10), 12,15-86)
o
o
ZONING
$ 20-438
purpose of this articre. In reviewing wetrand alteration proposals reference shall be made tounited states Department of Agricurture soil conserratroir service under Runoff, Erosionand sediment control Handbook and rechnical Field Guide. If the city councir determinesthat the required calculations in a particular instance are needlessly burdensome because ofll" . 11. and nature of a proposal, it may agree to a substituie analy"is.(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, S 241fa-24_8),12-15.86)
Sec. 20-437. Filling.
A minimum amount offrlling will be allowed when necessary for the use of property, butoary when it will not have a net adverse effect upon t'u
""oiogi"at a.rd hydrorogicar character-istics of the wetland. In determining whether a iropoJi"r"'iop-"rrt *.r have a net adverseeffect on the ecological and hydrologicar
"t rocterr"ti""li tn" *"trroa, the councir shalrcoasider, but not limit its consideration to, the following factors:
(1) Any fi,ing shalr not cause totar natural flood storage capacity of the wetrand to fa,belorv, or fall berow further, the projected lrotr-J or r.un_off from the watershedgenerated by a S.9-inch rainfa[ in twenty-four (24) hours. since the totar amount offi,ing which can be permitted is rimited, apportionment offi, opportunities for otherproperties abutting the wetland shall be considered.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(Ord. N
Any filling shall not cause total natural nutrient stripping capacity ofthe wedand tobe diminished to an extent that is deteriment"f to ,oV *1, ,iver, lake or $ream.
Only fill free of chemical pollutants and organic wastes may be used.
Filling shall be carried out so as to minimize the impact on vegetation.
Filling in wetland areas will not be permitted during waterfowl breeding season orfish spa*,ning season, unless it is determined by ,n"
"-n, in., ,O" *etland is not usedfor waterfowl breeding or fish spawning.
o. 80, Art. V, $ 5.24€0), 12-lb-86)
Sec. 2G438. Dredging.
Dredging will be allowed only when it will
and hyrological characteristics of the wetlands
follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
@)
not have a net adverse effect on the ecological
. Dredging, when allowed, shall be limited as
It shall be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation.
It shall not adversely change water flow.
The size of the dredged area shall be limited to the minimum required for theproposed action.
Disposal of the dredged material is prohibited within the wetrand district unlesgspecifically authorized in the wetland alteration p".-ii.
Disposal of any dredged matcrial shalr include proper erosion contror and nutrientretention mea.sures.o (5)
1193
$ 20-438 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(6) Dredging in any wetland area is prohibited during rvaterforvl breeding season 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, S 24(5-244(2)), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20439. Discharges.
(a) Soil loss from a construction site any part of which is in a wetland or within two
hundred (200) feet of the y/etland 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 of a wetland thar is
within the wetland watershed.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 24(5-24-8(3), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-440. Stormwater runoff,
(a) A minimum increase in volume of stormwater runoff to a wetland from a development
over the natural volume of runoff may be allowed when necessary for use of property but only
when it will not have a net adverse effect upon the ecological and hydrological characteristics
ofthe wetlands. In no case shall the restrictions on runoff set out below be exceeded. Since the
total increase in runoff rvhich can be permitted is limited, the council when considering
permit applications shall consider, in addition to the follorving, apportionment of increased
runoff opportunity to all rvetland property within the surrounding wetland area.
(d) The allowed total increased runoff, in combination with the total fill allowed, shall not
caus€ t tal natural flood storage capacity of the wetland to fall below, or fall below further,
the projected volume of runoff in the whole developed wetland watershed generated by a
5.9-inch rainfall in twenty-four (24) hours.
(e) The allowed total inoease in runoff, in combination with the total fill allorved, shall
not cause total natural nutrient stripping capacity of the wetland to fall below, or fall below
further, the projected nutrient production from the whole developed wetland watershed.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, S 2{(5-24-8(4)), 12-15-86)
Secs. 20-l4l-20J75. Rcservcd.
1194
(b) Stormwater runoff 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 do not
disturb vegetation or increase turbidity. Sheet florv and other overland drainage of runoff
shall be encouraged.
(c) The proposed action shall not cause stormwater runoff on the wetlanals to take place at
a rate which would materially exceed the natural rate.
o ZONING $ 20-814
ARTICLE XXII.'IOP'' INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT
S€c. 2G8ll. Intent.
The intent of the "IOP" District is to provide an area identified for large scale light
industrial and commercial planned development.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 16(5-16-1), 12-15-86)
Sec. 2G812. Permitted uses.
The following uses are permitted in an "IOP" District:
(1) Offrces.
(2) Warehouses.
(3) Light manufacturing.
(4) Tlade shops.
(5) Heaith services.
(6) Printers.
(7) Indoor health and recreation clubs.
(8) Body shops.
(9) Utility services.
(10) Recordingstudios.
(11) Off-premises parking lots.
(12) Conference/convention centers.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, S 16(5-16-2), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20.813. Permitted accessory uses.
The following are permitted accessory uses in an "IOP" District:
(1) Parking lots and ramps.
(2) Signs.
(3) Retail sales of products stored or manufactured on the site provided no more than
twenty (20) percent of the floor space is used for retail sales.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ 16(5-16-3), 12-15-86)
Sec. 2G814. Conditional uses.
The following are conditional uses in an "IOP" District:
(1) Concrete mixing plants.
(2) Communication transmission towers.
t227
o
o
$ 20-814 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(3) Public buildings.
(4) Motor freight terminals.
(5) Outdoor health and recreation clubs.
(6) Screened outdoor storage.
(7) Research laboratories.
(8) Contracting yards.
(9) Lumber yards.
(10) Home improvement trades.
(11) Hotels and motels.
(12) Food processing.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, $ r6(b-16-4), 12-15-86)
State law reference-Conditional uses, M.S. $ 462-359b.
Sec. 2G815. I-ot requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an ..Iop,, District subject toadditional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter:
(l) The minimum lot area is one (1) acre.
(2) The minimum lot frontage is one hundred fifty (1b0) feet, except that lots fronting ona cul-de-sac shall have a minimum frontage of sixty (60) feet.
(3) The minimum lot depth is two hundred (200) feet.
a
(4)
(5)
The maximum lot coverage is seventy (?0) percent.
Off-street parking areas shall comply with a-ll yard requirements of this section,except that no rear yard parking setback shall be required for lots directly abuttingrailroad trackage; and, no side yard shall be required when adjoining commercial
uses establish joint off-street parking facilities, as provided in section 20-1122, exceptthat no parking areas shall be permitted in any required side street side yard. Theminimum rear yard shall be fifty (S0) feet for lots directly abutting any residentialdistrict. Side street side yards shall be a minimum of twenty-hve (25) feet in alldistricts- Other setbacks are as follows:
a. For front yards, thirty (30) feet.
b. For rear yards, ten (10) feet.
c. For side yards, ten (l0) feet.
The maximum height is as (bllows:
e
a
{b,
a. For the principal structure, four (4) storieyfifty (bO) feet.
_ b. For accessory structures, one (1) story.(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, S 16(E-16-E), l2-t5_86)
1228
Sec. 2G1124. Lighting.
All commercial, industrial and murtifamily parking lots shal be lighted. Lighting shall
be directed away from the public rightof-way and adjacent residential or agricultwal districts.(Ord. No. 80, Art. VII, $ 1(7-1-9), 12-1b-86)
Sec. 2G1125. Required uumber of ou-site parkiag spaces.
on-site parking areas of su-fricient size to provide parking for patrons, customers, suppri-ers, visitors and employees shall be provided on the premises of each use. rhe minimum
number of required on-site parking spaces for the following uses shall be:
(li Assembly or exhibition hall, auditorium, theater or sports areua_One (1) parking
space for each four (4) seats, based upon design capacity.
(2) Auto sales, trailer sales, marine and boat sales, implement sales, garden supplystore, building materials sales, auto repair_One (1) parking space for u""h n*,uhun&ed (500) square feet of floor area.
$ 20-1124
(3)
(4)
(b)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(e)
o
J
Automobile service station-Four (4) parking spaces, plus two (2) parking spaces for
each service stall: such parking spaces shall be in addition to parking space required
for gas pump areas.
Bowling alley-Seven (7) parking spaces for each bowling lane.
Churches-One (1) parking space for each three (3) seats, based on the design capacity
of the main seating area, plus one (l) space per classroom.
Dwelling:
a. Single-family-Two (2) parking spaces, both of which must be completely en-closed. No garage shall be converted. into living space unless other acceptable
on-site parking space is provided.
b. Multifamily-One (l) parking space per efiiciency unit, one and one-half (l%)
spaces per one (1) bedroom unit, two (2) parking spaces per two (2) or morebedrooms. Senior citizens housing shall trave ttrree_fourths spaces per dwellingunit. At a minimum, one (1) space per unit must be completely enclosed
Financial institution-One (1) space for each two hunrlred fiIty (2b0) square feet offloor space.
Furniture or appliance store-One (1) space for each four hunilred (400) feet of floorspace.
Hospitals and nursing homes-One (1) space for every two (2) beds, plus one (1) spacefor every two (2) employees on the largest single shift.
(10) Manufacturing or processing plant_One (1) off_street parking space for each em-ployee on the major shift and one (1) off-street parking space for each motor vehiclewhen customarily kept on the premises.
(11) lt4q6isr1 and dental clinics and animar hospitars-one (1) parking space for each onehundred fifty OS0) square feet of floor area.
L248
o
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
i-
ro
o
ZONING
t
t
'-
(12) Mortuaries-One (1) space for every three (B) seats.
(13) Motel or hotel-One (1) parking space for each rental room or suite, plus one (1) spacefor every two (2) employees.
(14) Offrce buildings (administrative, business or professional)_Ihree (3) parking spaces
- for each one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor area.
(15) Public service bu,dings, includi"g municipal administration buildings, communitycenter, public library, museum. art galleries, and post office_One (f) parking spacefor each five hun&ed (800) square feet of floor area in the principal Jt**"rl, pf*one (1) parking space for each four (4) rests within public assembly or meeting rooms.
(16) Rccreational facilities, includiug golf course, co,ntry club, swimming club, racquetclub, public swimming pool-T$enty (20) spaces, plus one (1) space for each frvehun&ed (500) square feet of floor area in the principal structure or t\po (2) spaces percourt.
(17) Research, experimental or testing stations_One (1) parking space for each five hun-dred (500) square feet of gross floor area within the building, whichever is greater.
(18) Restaurant, cafe, nightclub, tavern or bar:
a. Fast food-One (1) space per sixty (60) square feet of gross floor area.b. Restaurant:
1. Without full liquor license_One (l) space per sixty (60) square feet of grossfloor area or one (1) spaoe per two and one-half (2%) seats whichevlr isgreater.
2. With full liquor license-One (l) space per fifty (S0) square feet of gross floor
area or one (1) gpace per two (2) seats whichever is greater.
(19) Retail stores and service establishments_One G) space for each two hundred (200)
square feet of gross floor area.
(20) School, elementary (public, private or parochial)_One (1) parking space for each
llassrlom or oIfice room, plus one (1) space for each one hundred i,n, tfSOl "qo"""feet of eating area including aisles, in any auditorium or Srmnasium or cafeteriaintended to be used as an auditorium.
(21) School, junior and senior high schools and colleges (public, private or parochial_Four(4) parking spaces for each classroom or offrce room plus one G) space for each onehundred fifty (150) square feet of seating area including aisles, in any auditorium orgymnasium or cafeteria intended to be used as an auditorium.
(22) shopping center-on-site automob e parking shall be provided in a ratio of not lessthan one (1) parking space for each two hundied (200) square feet of gross floor area;separate on-site space shall be provided for loading and unloading.
(23) Storage, wholesale, or warehouse establishments_One (1) space for each one thou-sand (1,000) square feet of gross floor area up to ten thousand (10,000) square feet andone (l) additional space for each additional iwo thousand (2,000) square feet plus onet
12{9
$ 20-r125
o ZONING 5 20.1176
Sec. 2Glllti. Landscaping and screening.
All berths shall be screened from public rights-of-way and from view from the property
across the street frontage and,/or from the zoning district boundary when the adjacent prop-
erty or property across the street frontage or side street frontage is zoned or used for residen-
tial purposes. The screening shall be accomplished as required in article XXV.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V[, I 2(7 -24\,12-15-86)
Sec. 2G1146. Design.
All loading areas shall consist of a maneuvering area in addition to the berth and shall
not use any of that portion ofthe site containing parking stalls. Maneuvering areas shall be of
such size as t permit the backing of truck tractors and coupled trailers into a berth without
blocking the use of other berths, drives, maneuvering areas or public rights-of-way.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VII, S 2(7-2-5), 12-15-86)
Sec. 2Gll47. Required loadi"g areas.
(a) Any use which the city believes requires the provision of designated spaces for the
loading, unloading or parking of trucks or semi-trailers shall provide such spaces and maneu-
vering area in the number and confrguration which shall be deemed necessary in order to
prevent interference with the use ofthe public right-of-way and with vehicles entering onto or
exiting from the public right-of-way.
(b) Semi-trailer spaces shall be at least fifty-five (55) feet in length, ten (10) feet in width
and fourteen (14) feet in height plus necessar)r additional maneuvering space.
(c) Spaces shall not be located on a street side of any building, or, if so located, shall be
provided with screening deemed adequate by the city.
(d) Spaces arrd the associat€d maneuvering area shall be at least fifty (50) feet from the
prop€rty lire of any residentially designated property.
(e) No trucks shall be parked in areas other than thos€ designed for such purpose on an
approved site plaL
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VII, S 2(7-2-6), 12-15-86)
Secs. 2Gll48-2G1175. Reserved.
ARTICLE XXV. LANDSCAPING ANDTREE REMOVAL
DIVISION 1. GENERALLY
Sec. 2GlU6. Intent, scope and compliance.
(a) The intent of this article is to improve the appearance of vehicular use areas and
property abutting public rights-of-way; to require buffering between noncompatible land uses;
o
o
1251
T
T
T
I
t-
o
o
ZONING $ 20-1179
Sec. 2GlU8. I.^ndscaping for service structure.
(a) Any service structure shau be screened whenever located in any residential, commer-cial or industrial zone (except RR and RSF zones). structures may be grouped together;however, screening height requirements wilr be based upon the talest ofthe structures.
(b) A continuous planting, hedge, fence, wall or earth mound shall enclose any servicestructure on aI sides unless such structure must be frequently moved, in which """" "a"u"rr_ing on a'but one,) side is required. Ttre average height ofthe screening material shalr beone (1) foot more than the height of the encrosed structure, but shau not be required to exceeJeight (8) feet in height' whenever a service structure is rocated next to a- bu ding wa[,perimeter landscaping material, or vehicurar use area randscaping material, such wals orscreeniug material may fultill the screening requirement for that side of the service structureif that wa' or screening materiar is of an average height suffrcient to meet the heightrequirement set out in this section. whenever service structures are screened by plantmat€rial, such materiar may count towards the furfrlment of required intcrior or perimeterlandscaping. No interior randscaping shall be required within an area screened for servicestructures-
(c) Whenever screening material is placed around any trash disposal uxit or wastecollection unit whieh is emptied or removed mechanically on a regularly occuring basis, acurb to contain the placement of the container shal be provided within the screeninjmateriar
on those sides where there is such materiar. The curbing shall be at least one (1) foot from thematerial and shall be desigaed to prevent possible damage to the screening when the con-tainer is moved or emptied.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VItr, $ 4, 12-15-86)
Slec. 2Glf79. Tlee removal regulations.
(a) It is the policy of the city to preserve naturar woodland areas throughout the city andwith respect to sPecilic site development to retain as far as practical, substantial tree standswhich can be incorporated into the overall landscape plan.
(b) No clearcutting of woodland areas shal be permitted except as approved in a subdivi-
sion, planned unit development or site plan application.
(c) The following standards sha, be used in evaluating subdivisions and site plans:
(l) To the extent practical, site desigrr shall preserve significant woodland areas.
(2) Shade trees of six (6) inches or more caliper shall be saved unless it can be demon-strated that there is no other feasible way to develop the site.
(3) The city may require the replacement of removed trees on a caliper inch per caliperinch basis. At minimum, however, replacement trees shall conform to the planringrequirements identified in division 4 of this article.
(4) During the tree removar process, trees sha, be removed so as to prevent blocking ofpublic rightsof-way or interfering with overhead utility lines.o
1253
(5) The removal of diseased and damaged trees is permissible.
(d) Tree removal not permitted under subdivision, pranned unit deveropment or site pranreview sha, not be allowed without the approval of " t."" removar pran by the city counc,.Tlee removal plans shall include the content requir"m"rrt" as dictrt"d in section 20-r1?? andidentify reasons for tree removal. The plan .fr"ff Uu .,lU-itt"d three (3) weeks in advance ofthe city council at which it is to be considered.
$ 20-1r79 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
. ^ -(e]_
This section does not appry to single-fam y and twofam y lots of record.(Ord. No. 80, Art. VIIL $ ?, 12-1586)
Secs. 2Gll80-2Gllg0. Reaerved.
DIVISION 2. PERIMETEB LANDSCAPING REQIIIREMENIS
Sec. 2Gff9f. Geaerally.
o
J
(a) where parking areas are not entirely screened visua,y by an intervening bu,d.ing orstructure from any abutting rig.ht-of-way, there shall be provided landscaping between sucharea and such rightof-way as follows:
(1) A strip of rand at least ten (10) feet in depth rocated between the abutting right-of-way and the vehicular use area which shall be landscaped to io"l,rd" u;;-r;r;;one (1) tree for each forty (40) rinear feet or fraction thereof. such ,.*".i"iiu"located between the abutting right-of-way and the vehicurar use area.(2) In addition, a hedge, wall, berm, or other opaque durable landscape barrier of at reasttwo (2) feet in height shalr be placed along theentire rength of the vehi"rJ* ;;;If such opaque durable barrier is of nonliving -ur"ri"l, a shrub or vine shalr beplanted along the street side-of said barrier andie pranted in such a manner to breakup the expanse of the wall- A twefoot U".- muy be used; however, additionalrandscaping at least one ,) foot in height at time of planting shall be instalted. Theremainder of the required landscape areas shall be landscaped "U, g"*"]g""r.iacover, or other landscape treatment.
._ (b) This division applies to perimeter landscaping.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VItr, S 2(8-2-1), 12_15-86)
Sec. 2Gfl92. Required landscaping a{iacent to interior property lines.
(a) where parking areas abut property zoned or, in fact, used primarily for residential or.institutional purposes, that portion of such area not entir"ty
""""".r"a ,isua[y by an interven-ing structure or existing conforming bufler from an au,rtti.rg;rop""ty, there shalr be provideda randscaped buffer which should be maintained urra ""pii"a as needed. such landscapedbuffer shall consist of plant material, wall, or other d,_r*Ut" U"r"lu. at least six (6) feet inheight measured from the median elevation ofthe pa"r.i.rg u.",
"roa"at to the common rot line,and be located between the common lot line and the off-str1"i p*tirrg areas or other vehicularuse area exposed to the abutting property. Fences shalr be constructed according to thestandards in section 20_101g.
t254
o
:
I
I
I
I
1
I
o ZONING i 20-r2r2
(b) This division applies to interior landscaping of such areas.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VUI, $ 3, 12-18-86)
Sec. 2G1212. Landscape area.
(a) For each one hundred (100) square feet, or fraction thereof, of vehicular use area, five
(5) square feet of landscaped area shall be provided.
O) The minimum landscape area permitted shall be sixty-four (64) squar.. feet, with a
four-foot minimum dimension to all trees from edge of pavement where vehicles overhang.
o
(b) In addition, an average ofone (l) tree shall be provided for each forty (40) linear feet ofsuch parking area or fractional part thereof. such trees shal be rocated between the commonlot line and the off-street parking area or other vehicular use area.
(c) Where such area abuts property zoned and, in fact, used for oftice, commercial, oritrdustrial purposes' that portion of area not entirely screened visually by an interveningstructure or existing conforming bufer, shall comply with the tree provisiors ooly ,s pre-scribed in this section.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. Vm, I 2(812-2),12-15-86)
Sec. 2Gll9B. Combihing with easements.
The required landscape bufferyard may be combined with a utility or other easement asIong as all of the landscape requirements can be fully met, otherwise, the landscape bufferyard
shall be provided in addition to, and separate from, any other easement. cars or other objectsshall not overhang or otherwise intrude upon the required randscape b,Iferyard -o"" ih,,,
two and one-half (2%) feet and curbs will be required.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. Vm, S 2(8-2-g), 12-15-86)
Sec. 2Gll94. n=i.tirg landscape naterial.
Existing landscape materiar shall be shown on the required plan and any material insatisfactory condition may be used to satisfr these requirements in whole or il, part.(Ord. No. 80, Art. Vm, S 2(8-24), 12-18-86)
Secs. 20-1195-20-1210. Reserved.
DTVISION 3. INTERIOR LANDSCAPING FOR VEHICIJI,AR USE AREAS
Sec. 2G1211. Generally.
(a) Any open vehicular use area (excluding loading, unloailing, and storage areas in the
IOP and BG districts) containing more than six thousand (6,000) square feet ofarea, or twenty
(20) or more vehicular parking spaces, shall provide interior landscaping in accor.rrnce with
this division in addition to "perimeter" landscaping. Interior ranrrscaping may be peninsurar
or island types.
o
1255
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(c) In order to encourage the required landscape areas to be properly dispersed, norequired randscape area shalr be rarger than three h,rrra.ua nrty rgso) square feet in vehicularuse areas under thirty thousand (30,000) square feet in size, and no required area shalr belarger than one thousand five hundred G,500) square feet in vehicular use areas over thirtythousand (30,000) square feet. In both cases, the teast drmensio, ofany required area sha, befour-foot minimum dimension to alr trees from edge or pru"-"rt where vehicles overhang.Landscape areas larger than above are permitted as long as the add.itional areas is in excess ofthe required minimum.
o
(Ord. No. 80, Arr. VIU, $ A(8_g-1), 12_15-86)
Sec. 2Gf2l3. Minimum trees.
A minimum ofone (1) tree shall be required for each two huadred fifty (280) square feet orfraction thereof, of required randscape .rrea. tr"es st utt t a"e-a clear trunk of at reast five (s)feet above the ground' and the remaining area shalr be landscaped with shruhs, or groundcover, not to exceed two (2) feet in height-
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VItr, $ g(8-g-2), 12-15-86)
Sec. 2Gl2l4. Vehicle overhaug.
Parked vehicles may hang over the interior landscaped area no more tJran two andone-half (2%) feet, as long as a co[crete curb is provided to ".r"*" no greater overhang orpenetration of the landscaped area.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VItr, $ g(8-g-B), r.2_15_86)
Secs. 2GI2IS-2G1280. Reserved.
J
DIVISION 4. LANDSCAPING MATERIALS, ETC.
Sec. 2Gl23l. Generally.
(a) The landscaping materials shall consist of the following:
(1) Walls and fences' walrs shalr be constructed of naturar stone, brick or artificialr'aterials. Fences shall be constructed of wood- Chain link fencing will b" p""--rrJonly if covered with wood strips or plant material.
(2) Earth mounds. Earth mounds sha be physical barriers which block or screen theview similar to a hedge, fence, or wall. Mounds shall be constructed with proper andadequat€ prant materiar to prevent erosion' A difference in elevation between areasrequiring screening does not constitute an existing earth mound, and shall not beconsidered as fulfilling any screening requirement.
(3) Plants. All plant materials shall be living plants, artificial plants are prohibited andshall meet the following requirements.
a' Quality' Prant materials used in eonformance with provision of this divisionshall conform to the standards of the American Association of Nurserymen andshall have passed any inspections required under state regulations.
1256
o
$ 20-1212
I
I
I
r
I
r
I
t-
o
o
(b) The following trees may be used to meet planting requircments
b. Deciduous trees. Shall br
sreater than rirte", ($) ;;o:ff;r{il:_?Jffi:fl::T: ;ilLiffil,,Tover frve (5) feet ofclear wood in arers *t i"t t .re uisliiiirat vehicular use area intersections where an ",r0, ,rr;3,til"*"I"lT";";llillment will control. Trees having an- averag" a.i r"u spreail of crown less thanfifteen (15) feet may be substituted by grouping "a;;:.-" so as to create theequivalent of a fifteen Ob) crown spread. A ,ii.im,,- of ten 60) feet overallheight or a minimum caliper (trunk diameter, ."*"""U six (6) inches aboveground for trees up to four (4) inches caliper) of at l""rt t*,o and one half (2%)inches immediatery after pranting sha[ be required. i""". or"p""r"",ohose rootsare knowl 16 s..se damaSe_ j1.n1blic roadways or otfr". p,rUti. *o.U" shall not beplaced closer than fifteen (1S) feet to ",r"t
-prUtic
*o"'t ", unless the tree rootsystem is completery contained within a barrier for which the minimum interiorcontaining dimensions shall be five (5) feet square and lwe (b) feet deep and forwhich the construction requirements shall be four tal irr"fr"" thick, reinforcedconcrete-
c. Eoergreen trees Evergreen trees shall be a minimum of six (6) feet high with aminimum caliper of one and one_half (l%) inches when planted.d. Shrrzbs and hed,ges- Deciduous shrubs shall be at least two (2) feet in averageheight rvhen planted, and shall conform to the opaciiy and other requirementswithin four (4) years after planting. Evergreen shrubs shall be at least two (2)feet in average height and two (2) feet in diameter.e. Vines- Vines shall be at least twelve (12) inches high at planting, and aregenerally used in conjrinction with walls or fences.f. Gross or ground. couer. Grass shall be planted in species normally grown aspermanent lawns, and may be sodded, plugged, sprigged, or seeded; except inswales or other areas subject to erosion, where soliJ sod, erosion reducing net, orsuitable mulch shall be used, nurse.grass seed shall be sorvn lbr immediateprotection until complete coverage otherwise is achieved. Grass sod shall beclean and free of weeds and noxious pests or diseases. Ground cover such asorganic material shall be planted in such a manner as to present a frnishedappearance and seventy-five (25) percent of complete coverage after two (2)complete growing seasons, with a maximum of fifteen (15) inches on center. Incertain cases, ground cover also may consist of rocks, pebbles, sand rna "i_if".approved materials.
$ !0.1231
Specific Namc
SHADE TREES
Acer platanoid.es.,Emerald eueen,,
Acer platanoidz s,,Crimson King',
A cer platanoid.e s,.Columnar"
Acer p latanoides,.Jade Glen',
A ce r platanoid.e s,.Royal Red,'
Common Name
Maple, emerald queen Norway
Maple, crimson king
Maple, columnar
Maple, jade green Norway
Maple, royal red Norwayo
L257
ZONING
$ 20-1231 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
Specific Namc
Acer p lata no id.e s "Schwedler,,
A cer p latano id.e s "Yariegatum,,
Acer rubrum
Acer rubrum "Red Sunset',
Acer saccharum
Betula papryiter
B etuln penduln. icciminta
Celtis occidentalis
Fratinus pennslyuania laceol.ato,,Mrar-
shall's Seedless"
Gingho bilboba
G Ic dits ia tritent hos iner mb
Gleditsia tricanthos izerrzis,,Imperial,,
Gleditsia tricanthos inermb..Skyline,,
Quercus alba
Qucrcus macroharpa
Quercus rubra
Q uerc us paulstris "Soweign,,
Tilia omericana
Tilia ardata " Greenspire,,
Tilia x euchlora "Redmond,,
ORNAMENTAL TREES
Acer innala
Amelanchier
Malus bacata mlumnaris
McJus (vsrious species)
&zzzs "Newport"
Prunus tri,loba
Prunus uirgininna "Schubert',
Rhamnus frangub "Col','" "-i".
Syringa o.murensls j ap nica
EVERGREENTREES
Picea glauca densata
Piea pungens
Picet pungeli glauro
Pinus nigra
Pinus pndcrosa
Pinus resinosa
Pinus strobus
Pizzs sylueslris
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VIU, $ 5(8-5-1, 8-Ei), 12-15€6)
Common Name
Maple, schwedler Norway
Maple, variegated Norway
Maple, red or swamp
Maple, red sunset red
Maple, sugar or hard
Birch, paper
Birch, cut leaf weeping birch
Hackberry
Maple, amur
Serviceberry or juneberry
Crabapple, columnar siberian
Crabapple, flowering-Varieties: Dolgo,
flame, radiant, red, silver, red splendor
Plum, Newport
Plum, flowering or rose tree of China
Chokeberry, schuberts
Buckthorn, tallhedge
Lilac, Japanese tree
Spruce, Black Hills
Spruce, Colorado green
Spruce, Colorado blue
Pine, Austrian
Pine, ponderosa
Pine, Norway
Pine, white
Pine, Scotch
o
C
o
Ash, marshall's seedless green
Gingko tree
Honeylocust, thornless
Honeylocust, imperial
Honeylocust, skyline
Oak, white
Oak, burr
Oak, red
Oak, soweign pin
Linden, american
Linden, greenspire
Linden, redrnond
1258
T
T
I
I
I
o ZONING $ 20-1251
Sec. 2G1232, Maintenance and installation.
All landscaping materials shall be installed in a sound, workmanship like manner and
according to accepted, good construction and planting procedures. The owner of the property
shall be responsible for the continued proper maintenance of all landscaping materials, and
shall keep them in a proper, neat, and orderly appearance, free from refuse and debris, at all
times. All unhealthy or dead plant material shall be replaced within one (1) year, or by the
next planting period, whichever comes frrst; while other defective landscape material shall be
replaced or repaired within three (3) months.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VlI, $ 5(8-54), 12-15-86)
Sec. 2G1233. Required opacity.
(a) Landscape materials shall be installed to provide a minimum of fifty (50) percent
winter opacity and a seventy (70) percent summer opacity, between two (2) feet above finished
grade level to the top ofthe required planting, hedge, fence, wall, or earth mound within four
(4) years after installation-
(b) The required landscape bulferyard may be combined with a utility or other easement
as Iong as all of the landscape requirements can be fully met, otherwise, the landscape
bufferyard shall be provided in addition to, and separate from, any other easement. Cars or
other objects shall not overhang or otherwise intrude upon the required landscape bulleryard
Eore than two and one-half (2%) feet.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. Vm, S 5(8-5-5), 12-15-86)
Secs. 2G1235-201250. Reserved.
ARTICLE XXVI. SIGNS
DIVISION 1. GENERALLY
o
o
1259
Sec. 2Gl2M. Curbirg.
All lanilscaped areas shall be protected by concrete curbing.
(Ord. No. 80, ArL VlI, $ 5(8-5-6), 12-15€6)
Sec. 2G1251. Purpose.
lhe purpose of this article is:
(1) To establish standards which permit bu'sinesses a reasonable and equitable opportu'
nity to advertise.
(2) To preserve and promote civic beauty and prohibit siglrs which detract from this
objective b€cause of size, shape, height, location, conditiorl cluttering or illumination.
(3) To ensure that signs do not create safety hazar&.
CITY OF
EHINHISSEN
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
690 COULTER ORIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner
Gary Warrenl City Engineer
October 28, 19 88
Site Plan Review
Rosemount Engineering
Planning File No. 88-12 Site Plan
As you are aware, I have hail BRW who is preparing the Cityrsfeasibility study for Lake Drive and Trunk Highway 101 realign-ment, review the site plans and preliminary plat submitted by
Rosemount Engineering. The attached letter dated October 26,1988 contains their review coinments and suggestions.
I would like to highlight and elaborate as necessary on sorne ofthese items for the Planning Commission and City Council con-sideration. It should be noted that several of the items broughtout in BRl{rs report are items of discussion and evaluation forthe Lake Drive feasibility study and will properly be dealt withas a part of that work effort. These items include things suchas utility installation along Lake Drive, service stubs for other1ots, curb cuts, etc.
The plans in general are voir:l of specific details such as pipesizing, type, location of valves, dimensioning, etc. This reportand review can only be looked at as a concept review subject toprovision of final details. Those items which relate spacifi-cally to the Rosemount site plan review and therefore pertinentfor consideration at this time are as follows:
Site Gradinq/Erosion Control
The site grading appears to fit well with the existing topographyalthough the majority of the site wilI experience shaping. Thamasses of earth moved on the l,tcclynn site will not be seen herehowever. the final contours on the perimeter of the site willneed to comply with the new Lake Drive and Market Boul-evard con-tours which will be established as a part of the feasibilitystudy work presently underway.
#;
@*"
Jo Ann Olsen
October 28, 1988
Page 2
Sanitary Sewer
Sanitary sewer sizes have not been indicated on the plan. The
building service line located in the southeast corner of the
building would be a private sewer connection. The sanitary sewer
shown which parallels the easterly property line will be a City
sewer 1ine. In the interest of timing, the first 500 feet + of
this line will need to be constructed by Rosemount since thE
City's utility project wiII not, in all likelihood, be completed
in tirne to meet Rosemount's schedule for service. A 35-foot
easement should be dedicated along t.his alignment for the sewer
installation.
It appears from the plans that any future expansion of the
building will receive sanitary sewer service from the west. this
serrer would be construction as a public improvement as a part of
the Lake Drive project. A 35-foot utility easement needs to be
dedicated along the westerly lot line for this purpose.
Connection of the sanitary sewer should be made to the City's
Lake Ann interceptor, not to be confused ldith the Mi{CCrs Lake Ann
interceptor which also is in this sewer easement and currently
not shown on these plans.
[{a terma i n
The plan does not provide any watermain sizing or pipe type.
watermain will be placed as a part of the cityrs improvement pro-
ject along the entire length of Lake Drive to I'larket Boulevarcl .
ihe extension of this watermain into the site t/riIl be a private
waterinain which rvill be the responsibility of Rosemount, Inc.
Looping of the system around. the building has been provided and
expansion options appear available for the westerly portiou of
the property.
Since Rosemount has potential to be a significant water user, it
might be wise to also extend. a watermain connection in conjunc-
tion with the sanitary sewer service line from the southeast
corner of the building to Market Boulevard to ultimately connect
wiLh the Cityts trunk watermain there.
Earlier indications were for possibLe recycling of cooling water.
The internal metering scheme for the building should address this
so proper documentation of any credits for recycled,/non-sewered
water can be identified. There appears to be a sparse number of
fire hydrants located around the proposed building which should
The plans did not include an erosion control plan although I
understand one has been prepared. This needs lo be addressed
thoroughly so proper protection can be afforded Lo Lake Susan and
tshe wetland area.
The roadway
f i cient t.o
unde r s tood
on the eas tinternally
A 36 -foot
exper i ence
road along
be a<idressed by the Fire Marshal1. The glan d.oes not show anywatermain valving and as a minimum Lhe City will require a gatevalve at each connection of the private watermain system to theCityrs public system. The private portion of the system locatedunderneath the 9-foot. berm along the north side of the proposealbuilding should be properly designed to accornmodate the extramaterial burden. Likewise, soils information shouI,f, be carefullytaken into account when designing these mains.
Storm Drainage
Sizes are not shown on the p1an. As noted, the actual conveyanceof storm water from this pond will be determined as a part oi ttrefeasibility study. The retention pond capacity and oullet struc-ture needs to be coordinated with the Cityis storm se.,ver plan inthe take Drive feasibility. Calculations need to be provided forthe retention pond in order to understand. Rosemountrs proposalfor accornmodating the 100-year storm event and off-siti rltainagethat they are count.ing on from the City's pond located at thenorthwest corner of Lake Susan. It was my understanding that gacre-feet of storage was necessary to meet 100-year, on-sitedetention criteria. The plans show 3 acre-feet are provided.Utilization of the Cityts pond should be compensable by theDeveloper. Likewise, it is impossible to identify from this planthe backup flow condition and impact on the wetland. A pipe con-nection between the wetland and detention pond is shown.-
The plan shows a portion of the roof drainage is to be dischargedinto the wetland to make up for the loss of contributingwatershed area resulting frorn the construction of the buildingand the re-grading of the site. Additional information is neededto define the extent of this roof drainage discharge t.o thewetland and provisions need to be made for adoressing the pollu-tant and nutrient impacts to this wetland from the roof drainage.
A11 parking 1ot runoff is collected with catch basins and con-veyed to the sedimentat ion/iletention pond. The parking areas arerequired to have barrier curbing to aid in the collection ofstorm water as required by City Ordinance.
Roadways
right-of-way aledicated for Lake Drive shal1 be suf-accornmodate a 35 mile per hour design speed. It isthat there may be some difficulties in achieving thisand west end connections of this roadway; however,this parameter should be met.
entry drive should be used for any roads which willtruck traffic. As a minimum I lrou1d expect t.he centerthe west edge of the wetland should be 36 feet wide
Jo Ann Olsen
October 28, 1988
Page 3
Jo Ann Olsen
October 28, 1988
Page 4
consistent with the Cityrs commercial/i ndustrial standards. Adetail for these road sections should be proviiled and concrete
curb and gutter should be provided through the site including theparking lots. The mitldle service drive connection to Lake Drive
should be located to match the new church entry location to thenorth and these details will be worked out as a part of the LakeDrive feasibility study. The Option A entry road should be e1i-
urinated to reduce the impacts to the adjoining r,{etlands since,with the recent council approval of Alternate 2A for new l.,tarket
Boulevard, Option B entryway will be possible now. The actual
Iocation of the l,tarket Boulevard driveway connect,ion sha1l bedirectly opposite the connection of Lake Drive from the ward pro-
perty (see Exhibit "A"). The location of Lake Drive will be
established by the feasibility study.
Trai 1s Walkwa S
Recommended Contlitions
Revised plans shall be submittsed for approval addressing the
conditions contained in the staff reports and including suf-ficient detail necessary for review and approval. An erosion
control plan sha11 be included in the submittals as we1l.
The provision for movement ofbuildings and grounds has not
Site grading along the
ways shaII be adjusted
contours.
pedestrian traffic around the
been addressed.
Lake Drive and r"larket Boulevard road-
to coincide with finished roadway
1
2
4
5
6
3 fhe first 500 feet of sanitary sewer which parel1e1s the
easterly property line on the site i{il1 need to be
constructed by Rosemount. A 35-foot easement shal1 be dedi-
cated along the entire length of the proposed sanitary sewer
stretch when its alignment has been establ,ished by the feasi-
bility study.
A 35-foot utility easement sha1l also be dedicated along the
westerly 1ot line of the site along the alignment of the
sanitary sewer as establ-ished by the feasibility study.
A watermain extension should be considered to be constructsed
along the alignment of the southeas! sanitary sewer service
connection to provide further redundancy to the Rosemount
siEe wiEh an ulEimate hookup to the City's watermain onfuture Market Boulevard.
The internal piping scheme for the builtling should address
the need for documentation of recycled or cooling water
discharge in order that proper sanitary sewer creditss can be
identsif ied if appropriate.
Jo Ann Olsen
October 28, 1988
Page 5
11.
12. A typical
approvalshall be
areas.
15.
Attac hmen t s
LetEer fromExhibit "A"
BRW ilated October 26, Lggg.- Lake Drive connection scheme.
7 The appJ.icant sha1l be responsible for reimbursingfor utilizing its ponding facilities to accommo<iaieh,ater, Iess than the 100-year predevelopment runoffwhich is not beinq accommodated on site.
The on-site ponding and storm drainage scheme needscoordinated with the feasibility study alignment ofDrive storm sewer sys tem.
The wetland impacts due to roof drainagethe storm water retention pond need to beappropriate measures taken to satisfy anytant and,/or nutrient loading impacts.
and,/or backup fromidentified andanticipated pollu-
the City
any stormrate,
to bethe Lake
shal l
des i gn
con trac tthe final
prov i de
8
9
10. The alignment and right-of-way dedicated for Lake Drivebe sufficient enough to accommod.ate a 35 mile per hourspeed unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
A 36-foot entry drive sha11 be used for any roads which willexperience truck traffic on a regular basis. As a minimun,the main access (central ) roadway should be 36-foot.
section for the road.ways shall be supplied forby the City Engineer and concrete curb and gutterprovided throughout the site including parking lot
13. The Option A entry road located between the wetland anddetention pond sha11 be omitteai and the Option B entry con-nection shall be located to directly oppole the futurE-planned connection of Lake prive East iiom the waral propertyat Market Boulevard, to be established in the Lake D;ivafeasibility study.
14. The plans should address the proper movement of pedestriantraffic around the exterior oi ttre building and 6n the site.
The applicant will need to enter into a developmentwith the City to guarantee the proper executioi ofapproved plans and specifications for the site andthe City with an appropriate financial security.
1
2
#:rnRl,.w
PLANNING
TRANSPORTATION
ENGINEERING
ABCHITECTURE
aENNETI BTNGnOSE. WOLSF€LO JAR/rS. GAAONEA, rNC. . THFESHEA SOUAnE.T0O THraO Sr. SEr. . MrNNE{FOLIS. MN 554rs. PH 6r2l370{7m FN( 612rc7Gr378
october 26, 1988
l.lr. Gary l{arren, PE
City Engineer
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, l,lN 55317
GIV OT GilII{ll$$SET
BIIGI$'iriril
00T 27 1988
EIIGIIIEERIHG D[PT.
RE: Si te Plan Review
Rosemount
1,Slte PIan, dated 10/14/88
2A,Grad ing and Drainage PIan,dated 10/14/88
lat oTTlanhassen taEes Business Park 2nd Addition dated
gT?ot88
Preliminary Plat Revi et{
A trunk sanitary sewer is proposed to run along the westerly Iot line
of Outlot A and the easterly lot Iine of the City-owned property. An
existing drainage and utility easement is shown on the preliminary
plat. However, this easement does not appear to be of sufficient width
for the future sanitary sewer. l{e believe the preliminary plat should
reflect a 25-30 foot sanitary serrer easement.
Plan Sheet
P lan Sheet
Prel imi nary
pC
pC
P
our examination of these documents focused on two primary aspects:
1. Compliance with applicable City ordinances.2. Coordination with future Lake Drive and TH 101 improvements which
uill be addressed in the respective feasibil ity studies which we are
currently prepari ng.
Realize that both the Rosenount plans and the Lake Drive and TH 101 proiects are
developing on a cormon tlme line and' therefore, some of the following corments
and concerns may be mute issues t{hich have already been addressed, none the
less, ue fonard them for your information.
1
2. A future storm sewer connection i5 necessary to connect to the storm
outlet from Instant l{eb on the north side of the plat. A drainage and
utility easement will be necessary along the easter'ly lot line of Lot
2, Block 2.
OAVIO J BENNEIT
C]ONALO E HUNI
OONALOWRINGrcS€ FICI,iANOP$'OII]FELD PEIEREJ AUS L,!/vFElicEJGAFONER IHOI'AS'CIAE.L
MAFX G stVEiISON JOH{a McN M AA FE}IAFOO n[cAM O lEN EECXMANN
CBAIG A ,.MUt6EN
oEN6{S J SUIITFF
MINNEAPOLIS ST PETEBSBURG OENVER TUCSON PHOENIX
Dear Gary,
As you requested, re have revleued the followlng documents for the Rosemount
sl te:
A.
B.
c.
Mr.
0ct
Pag
Gary Warren
ober 26, 1988
e2
7
8.
Si te PIan
3. The roadway, as platted, reflects 30 mph curves in three locations. lle
believe that the future design intent for Lake Drive should be a 35 mph
design even if actual posting may occur at 30 mph. At minimum, the
roadway curve at Lot 3, Block 2, should be a 35 mph design.
4.The prellminary plat il Iustrates a!t 2o-foot drainage and utillty ease-
ment for future uater main across Lot 1, Block l. This may not be
necessary as thls r,.ill most llkely be a private uater main.
Carver County should be contacted to insure that they do not want a
150-foot right-of-yay for CSAH No. 17, rrhich woutd impact the westerlyline of Lot l, Elock 2.
Uill it be necessary for the City to vacate the roadway easement for
the Church Drive upon completion of the Lake Drive project?
our understanding is that the City is vacating or has vacated the otd
Lake Drive ri ght-of-u,ay.
The sanitary sewer along the southeast side of the property will pro-
bably be a public sewer Iine. Therefore, an additional sewer easementhrill be necessary.
(pcr 10/14/88)
Is 30'-0o r{idth on the entry drive consistent vrith City standards?
5
6
2 The middle service drive on to Lake Drive should match the new churchentry location if possible. (Since the church entry will have to be
reconstructed under the Lake Drive project, we should have the Iuxuryof maklng thi s happen.)
3. Option I
preferre
Counc'i I
101.
Grading and Drainase Plan (pC2A 10/f4l88)
A. t{ate r Main Issues
ntry Road, on the easter'ly side of the site should be theption for site access particularly in Iight of the Cityision to proceed h,ith the Market Boulevard al ignment for TH
,Edo
dec
4 Is f
I igh
ull vehicular access to all sides of the new building an issue int of fire fighting requirements?
1
1. A water main stub ls shoun serving Lot l, Block 3, in the northeast
corner of the site. our understanding ls that the City has determinedthis site to be undevelopable; therefore, water service to this parcells not necessary.
llr. Gary Warren
october 26, 1988
Page 3
B
2. A water service ls not shown to the existing church. l,re believe a neu
servi ce should be provided.
3. Water services are not shown for Lots 1,2 and 3, Block 2. lle believe
some service to these parcels should be provlded.
4. t{ater main sizes are not shown.
5. t{ill the City Fire Marshall/Inspector requlre fire hydrants on approxi-
mately 300-foot spaclng around the proposed building?
6. l{e believe hydrants should be placed along future Lake Drive.
Sanitary Sewer I s sues
1. lle bel ieve the sanitary sewer ln Lake Drive should be extended further
west to serve Lot 1, Block 2.
2. The sanitary sewer should be extended further east to serve the
exi sti ng chu rch.
3. As ln water Main Iten #1, sanitary service to Lot 1, Block 3, is shown
but not necessary if this Iot is deemed unbuildable.
4. Sizes are not shown on sanitary sewers.
5 How will a future Phase Two building or building addition be served
with sewer?
6. The sanitary sewer serving the building in the southeast corner 0f the
site vill probably become a publ ic sewer majn. The exact location may
not be desirab'le as shown.
C. Storm Sewer I ssues
1 Sizes are not shown.
2. A storm sewer pipe should run to the north through Lot 2, Block 2, to
connect and serve the Instant }leb facll ity north of the railroad
t racks .
3. Storm stubs should be provided along Lots 1,2 and 3, Block 2, and the
church property.
4. The feasibility study will be examining the issue of which way the site
drainage should flow (.l.e., to the east or west), upon outlettlng from
the on-slte retentlon pond. This should not substantlal ly lmpact the
site development of the Rosemount property, but may impact the future
pond outl et pi pe.
GR0sE-r{o}t??-JA
4Ckq
BENN -RIN RVIS-GARDNER, INC.
A.hret, PE
Project Manager
GAE/ s k
5. An outlet structure is not shoyn on the sedimenta on pond ou et pipe.
6. Future plan submlttals should define the intent of the roof draindischarge to the l{etland (contributing area, ou et details, screening,
skirmi ng, etc. )
7. The_final grades of Lake Drive may be adjusted sllghily ln the flnaldesign of the Lake orive project.
D. Roadways
l. It appears as though the alignment of Lake orive on the site pran andGrading and Drainage plan is not consistent with the preriminary plat.
2- csAH 17 modifications may be required to accomodate the new Lake Drive
i ntersecti on.
Future submittals for this project should include details illustrating manhole/catch.basin types, hydrant types, etc. Also, given the proximity to [ake susanand Riley creek, an erosion control plan is veiy importa'nt to this site duringconstruction and should be submitted in the futirre.
As I mentioned earlier in this report, several of the issues referenced aboveare specific to Lake Drive and answers will be more fully developed as the LakeDrive and TH 101 feasibil ity studies are completed
t{e will continue to work vrith the developer to refine each of these issues.
Please let me know if ve can be of further assistance.
Si ncerely,
Mr. Gary Warren
october 26, l9B8
Page 4
I
I
It
I
a
I ET",A,7
"A"t
I
L?Cla
QBq/cF
t
9
u
lJfGl-4Gcoou
,h n'Tch
@uB
@/q€
@ ,o,
It
{i
CITY OF
CHINH[SSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant Ciry planner
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Inspector
DATE: October 17, 1988
SUBJ: S8-12 Site Plan, 88-25 Sub, and Bg-I5 WAp,Ros emount
Upon reviewing the site
r ecorunendat ions :
plans for Rosemount, I have the following
1. The access for Fire Department apparatus sha1l
NFPA 1141, Section 3-1 through 3-4.7.comply with
2 The distances between installed fire hydrants sha11 notexceed 300 feet (see map f-or recornmended tocation of f j.re
hydrants), NFPA, Section 1141, 3-5.3.
If you have any questions regarding the NFPAlet me know -
requirements, please
I-F *-'
LIG'Tf FIXTUNC
(TYPTCALI ----------J
LoAolNO
oocl(
J-
(rO AG PNESERVED)
Loaolt{o
DOC(
ofitot{ a ExTaY no^o
ro irE onlTrEo lF
o
to'-o' sDE
2l
t.
i:
I
I
!
1Il.,
i:
t
I
\i
!I
\,3
'lo\l
t
(Pno a lsPosslBLE
J.
B
303CABS
. 3te cARa +-4-
"o
o t
I
I
!
I
I
I
7AO'
1e7 cans
I
?I CARS
PROPOSED BUILDING
POND
"\\
.\
.\
300'
YAnO SETSACX
o
I
a o
SITE
r9
C
I
I
!
I
I
I
,I tll
?vcy,>:;r7'; h.1i.i'2, tT V YJ;I\{,\J.)
U') Yft'.f, lF\/.. i'1"- t-',\r;yr,--.
rlllltl rlll
CITY OF
EHINHISSEN
!{EII{ORANDUM
TO: JoAnn Olsen, Assistant City planner
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Inspecror *,q ,a.
DATE: September 26, 1988
SUBJ: Planning Case 88-12 Site plan, 88-25 SUBand 88-15 WAP (Rosemount Inc.)
1) Eighteen handicapped parkinq stalls required.
2) Building must be sprinklered.
Opus Corporation has already been in conEact withDepartment concerning exiting and smoke venting.enough information to do a inore complete review at.
690 COULTER OBIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
Ehe Inspections
We do not havethis time.
{*t
(
a
United States Department of the Interior
rrrE- rffi-
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
ST. PAI'L FIEI,D OFflCE (ES)
50 Park Squ.rc Court,$0 Slbley Strcct
SL Paul. Ilnnasota 55101sepEember 23, L988
---I
a-,-a
I
rN REPLY REFSltb
Ms. JoAnn Olsen
Assistant Cj.ty Plannercity of ChanhassenP.o. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Ms. olsen:
In response to your September 8, 1988 request, Mr. PauI
Burke of this office conducted our on-site review of two
wetland sites within the City of Chanhassen.
f am enclosing herewith a copy of his report for your
information.
If you have any questj,ons or reguire additional information,
pl-ease contact us at your convenience.
Sincerely,
James L.h
SupervisorActing Fi
At tachment
sEP 2? 1988
Ifrt
CITY. OF CHANhASSEN
(
I:lemorandur to Fi Ie
subject: Report ofwithin the
Field Investigator:
Date: September 20,
Investigaticn of T$ro Wetland Sitesof Chanhassen, Carver County, MN
Field
City
PauL J. Burke
1988
Following my on-site review, I have found the following:
Site 1:
This is a small (2 acre)
Ehe back yard of Mr. Brenchanhassen. It appears tacre) pool excavated for
excavated naterial beingvegetation. This activit
estimate ) .
$retland (Palustrine Scrub-Shrub)t Miller at 1200 Ltrman Boulevardhat Mr. MiIIer had a smatl (.125
J-andscaping purposes, r"rith thegraded over the adjacent wetlandy occurred about a year ago (my
Ln
l-n
I found the site to be stabitized, rrith a dense mat of reedcanary grass ( Phalaris arundinacea )growing over the gradedfill in a r^retland is athis case was
almost insignificant tod wetland. In principle,this case, such aoloqical impact thanId suggest that an after-roject as it now exists.
filL from ttre pona.While placing
Site 2
prohibited practice, the amount insufficiently smal1, and the resultsthe overall function of the affectethe fill- should be removed. But in
requi-rement could resul-t i-n more ecal-Iowing the fill to remain. I $routhe-fact permit be issued for the p
This is a large tract with tvro wetlands that are proposedfor alteration by the developer (Rosemont, Inc. ).- A;entrance road and parkj-ng facilities are planned that, alongwith some prelimi.nary landscapinq plans, would adverselyaffect wetland sites +1 and *2 (see Rosemont, Inc. sitepIans, dated September 13, 1988). The consulting engineers(OPUS, Corp. ) have gone to sone effort to plan theincorporation of the rretland compl-exes into the aestheticsof the project site. However, the plans appear to emphasizeaesthetics over other wetland functions and values. thetotal values associated rri_th these wetlands is bestconserved by reducing to a minimum the \"rork planned fortheir "improvement. " I $rould recommend that \^,etIand site 1be left undisturbed. Tf the plans call for an employeerecreation site, I would suggest the use of an elevaledboard walk (on piles) with wide spots for tables andbenches -
(
For l.letl-and Site *2, I would recommend that not more thanl/3 of the existing wetLand be excavated for aquatic
enhancement purposes. Eor stormwater storage, I would
recommend the use of concrete cisterns beneath the nearbyparking l-ots and other improvements. Such a system woul-daid in the storage and slo$, release of storm waters, plus
they aid in reducing the insoluble pollutants that are
associated with urban runoff. If the development includes areguirement for storage of cooling water, I would recommendthat the existing wetlands not be used for this purpose
because the daiLy cycles of recharge and discharge, combinedwith elevated temperatures of the water, wouLd significantly
affect the stability of the r"retland biome. Rather, I would
recommend that the 430-space parking area planned for the
southeast side of the plant be relocated to the northeastside of the plant, and the southeast 1ot be excavated for awater storage structure. ALso, since run-off fromj.mpervious surfaces is always a concern with state-of-the-
art pIans, the roof of the plant can be plumbed to drain
into this storage pool, thus reducing the on-site need for
stormr,rater storage capacity by approximateLy 1/3 overpresently planned conditions .
((
To Be Completed By Applicant(Attach addirional
1. WETLAND DESCRTPTION:
WETLAND ATTERATION PERI\,TIT
EVALUATION WORKSHEET
.4 ac res
.2 acres
and Submitted with Appl icationsheets if necessary )
wetland #1 = 3Size: Wertand #2 = 2
Wetland #l _Class: wet I and 2
Class A
Types ?
tocation:
Water s hed
Area of
Class B
Lakes ide
District:
Open Water:
Flows To:
Streamside _ Upland y
Riley PurAa t or Y Cre ek Watersh ed D tri.t
None
D ra i nage South and East
Vegetation Iypes: Hvdrophyt ic vegeration (cattails.sedges, rushesety ot grasses )
OE PROPOSED ALTERATION: Wertand #1 will be sli htly
a nq a varl
2
Soil Types:
DESCRIPTION
altered in its northeast corne r through extenslon of Lake Drive East by
the City. This a l teration should not significantl y affect capacity of
that wetland which will be preserved to funct i on as a tributorv drainagccont inued on artached page)
3. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ALTERATION: To permir storage of storrn rrater run-
off from extcrior parkin roof and other hard sur face bu i ldi ng areas of
the Rgsemount Inc.Manufacturin Facilir y. A 1so , to receive sorne of t hecreared
run-o t f /by tieextens ion .of Lake Drive East and Marker Bl-vd. as( cont inued on attached page )
programmed
4 APPLICABLE WETLAND oRDINANCE SECTIoN: seclion 24, Wetland Prolection
Regulations, Subsection
through
5-24-1/ 5-24-14,Zoning Ord i nance.Chanhassen's
5. A DISCUSS THE IMPACTS
ALTERATION IS MADE:
ON
1ne
TIIE PROPOSED DEVELOPIqENT IF NOfoIlowing a dverse impacts wi 1I occur
as describedifthc wet land alteration in #2 is not ermitted.
A com arab Ie water dischar e holdin basin (ond) will have ro
b e created on another port ion of the site. This(conc inued on attached page)
wi l1 interfere
It7
]
, <r.:ilt: y l.lJ
ocl i 4 rc8{-
Cll Y oF cHANtraco.
Hydric soils (sandv orc, __lanic peats and mucks)
5. B.IDENTIFY AND DISCUSS
ALTERATION: 1) D i recr
OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO WETLAND
2) En 1a rg ingdischarqeinto Lake Su san.
orm sewer I 1 S stem to ca rr direct storm water run-off frorn site to
its east or west.3) Creation of on site pondln g basin.
C IDENTIFY THE
ALTERATION:
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE PROPOSED
The ma ior a dvant aqes of the pro posed alteration are:
1) A l l owine a ma ior portion of the exist ing wetland area to cont inue
to function as a natural sEorn water run-off basin and wildlife habitat area.
2) Enhancernent' of rrater qua I it y of storm water run-off that ult irnately reiIl
6
(continued on arrached page )
USING THE WETLAND ORDINANCE STANDARDS AS A GUTDE, DETERMINE
WHETHER THERE ARE ANY INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE ORDINAI\ICE
AND PROPOSED ALTERATION: T e DurDose. int cn t and s t anda rds
of the City's wetland protcction regulations and relating them to t.he
RosemounE's Inc. proposed development/ the developer (Opus Corporation)
feels that the wetland alteration program proposed for che subject site
have been made consistent with those objectives and sEandards through
mitigative measures incorporated into those plans.
n reviewinp th
-2-
2. Continued
and wildlife habitat area. A portion of the sEorm sewer piping system
will discharge run-off frorn parking and building surface areas of the
Rosernount facility into this wetland. Also, a conduiE will- interconnect
Wetland #1 and tietland #2 to allow overflow from the latter to rhe former
duri.ng high level run-off periods occuring on Ehe site. A11 piping
systens will be sized to assure the preservation of Wetland #1 so that it
is not required to handle much more run-off from the Rosernount Inc. site
than it did during its predevelopmenE phase.
Wetland #2 .'liLL be dredged and reconfigured to handle Ehe najority of the
storm lrater run-off from parking lot and building areas of the RosemountInc. facility. It i{i11 also be alrered by che proposed cxtensions of Lake
Drive East and Market Blvd. as programmed by the City of Chanhassen. Thiswill necessitate the enlargement and reconfiguration of lletland f2 toprovide capaciEy to handle the run-off from all of the aforereferencedprivate devel-opment and public improvemenE activities.
3. Cont inued
as capital improvements by the City of Chanhassen. After alteration, bothwetlands should be consritured to assist with the distiLlation andfiltration of phosphorous, silt and suspended solids frorn storm water
discharge, continue to replenish ground lrater, as well as provide naturalwildlife choosing it as permanent habitat.
4. Cont inued
with Rosemount's future expansion plans and be very costly. It also r.ri11
require land rnade suitable for development purposes to be reserved forwater storage.
2) Developer will have Eo reconEigure storm sewer collection anddistribuEion piping system so that waEer run-off could be directly
discharged to Ehe east and r./est of the site. This will be very costly aswell as require holding ponds developed beyond Ehe boundaries of the LitethaL rnay affect another land owners development plans and/or rights.
3) More water
to be directly
water quality
c reat ing .
run-off from the siEe than is currently proposed may have
discharged into Lake Susan. This would raise concerns overin the Lake Susan basin whic.h the current plans avoid
4) The enhancement of the natural aesthetic appearance of the entry drivearea into the Rosemounr facility through the proposed thoughrful and
responsibLe alteration of these two riretland areas will not occur if the
proposed alteration is noL permitted.
Page -2-
Continuation
5. Cont inued
discharge into Lake Susan.
3) Minimization of the harmful effect of land development that could more
harmfully effect the existing weEland areas.
4) Proposing development around the existing wetland areas that are
compatible with their function and use.
5) EnhancemenE of the aesEhetic quality, scenic beauty and natural
recreational vaLue of the existing wetland areas.
IIII 1t
lLrts4.c'. .
a.. : ,&
:t. ,
'.1" ,':
.3.
.t
A;P P
*,8
-.8*
:^:
L."!l
c.
,.,".1L)E
.<
:r
s'r
&-
I ,,
r,ii ;.
6
!t
0
5P
TEMPORAFY
o
, to4
!31,,i
*-*-*
Ct---...lJi
'0 Tr.'0
l)
I#, ,l,ol REALTGNMENT S: UDY
.^ aoe
q
LJAKE'
.t
!t
!l
1
d
t!
:i
l!ill
!i
J.f.
,)\:
, ..\
6
T
"+o
df+
sUSAN
LA KE
CONNECIION
".f
ff'Jil'Il ,=r::l.==
L/
-v
:-_.i:
i,
il
cs,
'l
ril;l
e
I
D
r--l
, 1 y4}r
.l
?
APPLIC.\\T: OPUS CorDora r i on OWNER:
ADDRES S
ALS OR Inves tors -T6i
9900 Bren Road E.
Minnetonka, MN 55440 Minnetonka. MN 55440ziP code(Daytime) 936-4419 TELEPHOT\E 936-4444
Zoning District Change
zoning Appeal
Zoning Variance
Zoning Text Amendment x
Land Use Plan Anendrnent
Conditional Use pernit
Site Plan Review x
EnviEonmental AssessmenE WorksheeE!
PROJECT NA.UE Rosemount Inc. Manufacturi ng Fac i l iry
PRESENT La,ND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Industrial
REQTIESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION sarne
PRESENT ZONING IOP - Indu
Zip CooeTELEPlIONE
REQT]EST:
x
x
Planned Unit Development
_ Sketch plan
_ Preliminary plan
_ Fina1 plan
Subdivision
x Platring
_ Metes and Bounds
Str ee t,/ Eas ement Vacetion
Wetl.ands pernit
strial 0 ffice Park Distr
USES PROPOSED Manufac urln Facilir
SIZE OF PROPERTY 57.76 acres
LOCATION Loc 1 Block 1 Chan Lakes B usiness Center
REASONS FOR THIS
of f i.ce /wa rehouse
loading docks, f
REQ TJE S T
/manufactu
or Roseoou
To acconuno date cons
nt Inc. for
ring fac i 1i ty wich 95O parking spthe Danufacture of p
aces .and on-s iterecision ins E ruoent s.
truct i n s f r.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary )See attac he d
I.AND DE\IELOP:{ENT APPLICATION
CIT( OF CEANEASSEN
590 Coulter Drive
ChaEhassen, llN 55317(512) 937-1900
ADDRESS 99O0 Bren Road E.
REQUESTED ZONING sane
ilq
Lanci
Paqe
1. \t c,TrD rrF6 ?
TCATION:
of Chanhassen
Developmen E. Application
2
Th:s apglication must be completed in fucr""rri--pii;;;".;;-.usr be iccom;.;-iJ-ii :li *r:Ig:lili.ilu".E,'il;,'ff *=:i,il"::iji:tj:-:iii,3I:ii:,t. p,o,,i "ioi;'-""io,.to derernin" iir. =pu.iri"'"iairIi;; ]i;.::_:r.ih the ciry planner
appricable to yooi-applicat ion roceourar requirements
The undersihned reoresentative of t.he ap_clicant herebythat he is faaitiai ,*itn the lr;;.;;;.itr.quirenenrs ofapplicable City ordiaances.
OPUS CorDoraEion
certi fi. esall
/,u 9'y
has been
herei n
Signed By Et^t
Robert A.
App
worrhi rl.can t
ngton, A ICpExec.utive Director _ Governmental Affairs
Dat e q
c111ifies. that rhe applicanrapprt catj.on for the property
oint Venture !lo. 2n' its Gg.nera1 parEner
!'(.
The. undersigned hereby
_authori zed to make thisdescribeci.
ALSCOR In_v-cstors J
By OpUg-Corporai io
Signed B1z
Date Application
ApErlication Fee
City Receipt No.
I
Fe e Owne f /:;*Date cl
Jeffrey W. Essen
Vice President _ Ceneral Manager
Rea I Estate Deve loprnent
Recei ved
Paid
be
and
cons idered
Appeals at.
by the
thei r
?his Application willBoard oE Ad j us cjnen csmeeLing.
Planning Cornmission,/
',G
OPUS COBPORATION
DESICNERS . EUILOEBS . BEITTOPERS
300 0ous Centet
9!m Bren *oad East
I\rronetonka. M,nnesota 55343
{612t 936-.1444
I\,,la,ln'c Adoress
P0 8ox 150
M nneaool,s lll nnesoG 55.14i'l
September 13, 1988
Ms. Barbara Dacey
Planning Di rect or
Ciry of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P, O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55437
Re: Rosenount, Inc. ,
Chanhassen Lakes
Manuf acturing Facil ity,
Bus iness Park
Opus Corporation, on behalf of Rosemount, Inc. of Eden Prairie and The
Alscor Invescors Joint VenEure No. 2, is pleased to submit Ehe
accompanying siEe and building plan proposal drawings for Rosemount's new
330,000 square foot manufacturing facility which wilI be constructed on 59
acres of industrial- land located on the north shore of Lake Susan in thc
Chanhassen Lakes Business Park.
The subject property proposed for the new manufacEuring facility is
currently zoned as lndustrial Office Park Di.strict (10P) and was the
featured parcel for the Interstat.e Detroit Diesel Manufacturing Facility
approved by the City for consEruction in 1984. The Interstate DeEroit
Diesel Facility, which was to be a major phase of Ehe proposed 495,OOO
square foot Pen lnduscrial Center Development, was never built on the
ProPerty.
RosernounE, fnc. is a world leader in the design and manufacEure of
instrumenEation for the measurenent and control of temperature flow, leveI
and pressure, as required by the Aerospace and Process Control markets.
The manufacEuring facility proposed by Rosernount., Inc. will contain
330,OO0 square feec and employ over 70O enployees. The facility will
manufacture precision instrunenEs for the process control industries which
are currently manufactured in ovned or leased faci lities at other
Minnesota locat ions.
The building, which will be constructed of archiEectural precasc concrete
rrlth metaL panel accent wal1s, wiIl contain administratlve office (20%),
mechanica[, storage and employee servi.ce areas (107.) and rnanufacturing
space (7O7") organized to produce the previousLy described precision
Lns trument s .
Ctus and Arf,l,ates ,n l\,,l,nn€agolrs . Ch caqo . Phoen,r . rrl lwaukee . Iampa . Pensacola
vlo
Dear Ms. Dacey:
\,J
Ms. Barbara Dacey
September 13, 1988
Page -2-
The enclosed siEe and buildi.ng plans which are aEcached as exhibits to theLand DeveloprnenE Application rcquests the following approvals from theCity of Chanhassen in order for Rosemount, Inc. to receive a permit forits proposed Manufacturing Facilityr a) site plan review, b) prelirninaryplat approval, c) vacation of existing streei right-of_way, d) WetlandAlteraEion permiE, and e) EA![ revierr. An explanation for each of theseseparate requests are seE forth below:
a) Site Plan Review - The enclosed sets of plans show the manner in whichtt. iiop6iEE-iinrl.Eruring faciliry wi.lr be ,rrea on rhe subjecr properry,its proposed access from Lake Drive as exEended, and its on_site parklngand loading arrangements. The building will conrain 33O,OOO squaie feetwhich will be subdivided inEo 60,OOO square feer of office; 23O,60O squarefeec of rnanufacturing and 4O,OO0 square feet of storage, mechanical andspecialized employee service space. The building will occupy 13% of the59 acre site, parking will cover an additional !6% for a toial hardcoversite coverage of 297". Future expansion, when called for, will occur onthe r,rest side of the site. Nine hundred and fifty (95O) on_site parkingsEalls erill be provided for employees and customers. Two loading areas,one on the north, the oEher on the r.rest, have been provided for materialsupply to and producE distriburion from the building. primary access wiLloccur from Lake Drive ro the east side of rne bui.laing with secondaryaccess frorn the north. A landscape plan which attempts to preserve thenatural shoreline of Lake Susanl screen loading areas; enhance accessdrives to take on a boulevard characEer, create a unique induscrial themefor fhe manufacturing building and accentuate naEural features such as Ehetwo wetland/ponding areas in the northeast corner of Ehe site, is alsoincluded as a part of Ehe site plan package.
A grading, drainage and uriLity plan indicating Ehe portions ofwhich will be graded vs. those left natural or undisturbedincluded in Ehe sire plan package. The rnajoriry of che utilitiesto service the bui.lding will be extended co the site as a part ofDrive Road extension improvement project scheduled to take place
the site
is also
des igned
the Lake
in 1989.
b) Prelimj-nary PIat - A preliminary plat, whi.ch subdivides the entireacreage of rhe old chanhassen Lakes Business park 3rd Addition into themajor lot and block description upon which the Rosemounr, Inc.manufaccuring facility will be constructed as well as residual lorscreated as a result of the dedication for Lake Drive, is encl0sed erich thesite plan package. The plac, which wilr be named the chanhassen LakesBusiness Park 2nd Addirion, (a 2nd Addirion plar was never filed for thepark) conEalns all of the drainage and utility easements, right_of_way
{s
Ms. Barbara Dacey
September 13, 1988
Page -3-
dedications, and new lot and block descripEions needed tosite plan layout for Ehe rnanufacturing facility.
imp lement the
c) Vacation of Exisring Right-of-Wa - The site plan shows a nevt
the
was
lra s
t he
be
of
the
al ignment for the extension of Lake Drive east of County Road 17 toproposed north/south extension of Market Boulevard from TH 5 chanproposed lrhen the plat for Chanhassen Business park 3rd Additionapproved. Therefore, Ehc port.ion of the oId alignmenc not covered by
new dedicaEion for Lake Drive in the new 2nd Addition plaE rnusr
vacated. A description describing the area to be vacated and a letterpetition from AIscor, the underlving property owrer, requesEing
vacaEion, is enclosed as a par! of the land development application.
d) Wetlands Permit - There are two existin g wetlands within the norEheast
corner of the site. These wetlands are regulatcd by Chanhassenrs uetland
ordinance with oversite from the Fi-sh and f.Iildlife Service and The Corp ofEngineers. The DNR werland standards do not apply ro rhese neclands. The
extenslon of Lake Drive as a public irnprovemenE will create the need Eoalcer the present configuration of thcse wetlands. The site plan proposes
to converE and reconfigure these tr.ro wetlands into wacer holding ponds
thaE will function as landmark entry type amenities that lrill reinforce
and enhance the feeling of arrival inEo the facility.
A portion of the ponds lriIl, remain naEural to assist in the preservation
of any wildlife habitat currenrly existing in those wetlands. (We were
successful in creating a dual function waEer/wetland habitat pond for the
Opus Center Office complex in our Opus 2 Park in Mi.nneronka and feel that
we could recrcate the same type of ponding feature for the subject lreEland
areas. ) In order to aLter Ehe wetland areas as described herein, awetland alteration perrniE is required from the City of Chanhassen.
In surunary, Opus Corporation, in behalf of Rosemount, Inc. and AIscor, the
underl.ying landowner of Chanhassen Lakes Business park, rcquests approvaL
of the site plan, preliminary plat, street vacation, weEland permit and
EAI,I Eor a new 33O,O00 square foot nanufacturing facility for Rosernounc,
Inc. to be located on 59 acres of industriaI land on the shores of Lake
Susan in the Chanhassen Lakes Busincss park. We are indeed excired andmost appreciative of Ehe reception the news release for the proposed
facility has received from che City staff, civic leaders and a number of
Chanhassen residenEs. Our hope is to break ground for the ner^, facility in
,J
Ms. Barbara Dacey
September 13, 1988
Page -4-
llovember of chis year. WhiIe this i.s an extremely ambitious schedule for
a facility of the size and magnitude of what Rosemount is proposing, with
Ehe Cityrs continued cooperation and support we are confident that Ehe
scheduLed time for groundbreaking is ,,do-able,'. Ca11 me if you havequestions or require any additional clarification or informacion as
regards the enclosed applications. Thank you.
With lrarmcs t rega rds,
Ei;rfrL
.)
Robert A. Worthingcon, AICP
Executive Director - Governmental Affairs
RAW / km
cc:Rosemount, Inc.
Alscor lnvestors Join! Vencure No. 2
Joanne Olson, City of Chanhassen
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
ocToBER 19, I988
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m
Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad,
Jim Wi ldermuth
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Brian Batzli and
PUBLIC HEARI NG:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EOR A 18,69A SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR AUTO REPAIR AND
BOAT }TAINTENANCE ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT AND
LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HWY. 5 AND 101, CHANHASSEN AUTO AND
SPORTS CENTER, LOTUS REALTY SERVICES.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Brad Johnson: I'd like to ask a question. I think yourre probably ahrarethat we're in the process of trying to assemble about, I have a map here
that shows it, but there's about 4 or 5 parcels that are involved on the
Hanus site and up until 2 or 3 weeks ago, we thought that the TH l0I
adjustment was going to come just to the east of us. Now on Ehe new plan,
they have the north route. You also have before you a request by AMoco to
change dramatically their particular site. We are working $rith them. If
you get into the details as to lrhat we're trying to accomplish, it's tointegrate that site. We perceive, and this is just backgroundinformation, we perceive that that site has probably, current irnproper usefor a city. It's there however and the building was designed for a truckfacility and there is a conditional use permit that vre believe runs withthe ground that permits the use of a truck facility there. We are, in
ansrrer to I think one of your questions last time Steve, the zoning hereis BH which is very restrictive considering that building is alreadythere. I guess if the building wasnrt already there and erorth quite a bitof money, I don't think werd have that problem but in the BH District for
example, as werve discovered in a meeting a couple times ago, you dontt
even permit automobile service unless you have gas. The history behindthis is that we started to acquire this building because we knew we had torelocate a number of people from the dor.rntown area. They were to be
Chanhassen Laern and Sports. Marine Fiberglass. Scotty's. Loren. Allthe people that were auto related because we perceived this to be oneIocation on what we'll call east of TH 101, current TH 10I, where we couldrelocate service type facilities. We've been trying to convert it slowlyinto an automobile oriented type of repair facility. Tenants have noE.
been knocking our door down and because of the various changes that aregoing on with TH I01, TH 5 all the way around us, it is difficult. Itrs
one of those kind of moving targets from a development point of view. Out
ultimaEe objecti.ve is to integrate that complete site. We are meetj.ng
;
I'IEMBERS ABSENT: David geadla
STAI'F PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City planner
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order.
Planning Commission MeetingOctober 19, 1988 - page 2
Emmings moved, Batzli secondedfavor and the motion carried.close the public hearing. All voted inpubl ic hearing $ras closed.
did we deny the AMOCO proposaL? I might not have been here
to
The
Erhart: Whythat night.
Olsen: It was tabled.
Conrad: It rras tabled because we didn,t know the access. Therecoupre of issues based on access. staff wanted one access to theAMOCO presented two different. An island approach. We also had
were asite.
a concern
no$r, tomorrow, and wirr be here with Matt Fischer who has the Appre varreyconcrete Plant. He wil.l be over here tomorrow and r guess our generarobjective is to change the site and make it better. fre've spent quite abit of time getting it under control. secondly, werve had a number ofrequests from people dorrnto$rn who are about to be rerocated by the HRA inabout.30 days to go somewhere. This is sort of a safe harbor vre fert fora period of time to alror., this and looking at the previous conditional usep?I^it-that was granted, boats were permitted as, iot boat repair. MarineFiberglass, what he does is he doesnl t repai.r king of inexpensive boats.He is a premiere repair, he resurfaces raling saiiboats foi tne fleet overon Minnetonka. He'!s got quite a crientele ana ne happens to bring boatsover here periodically. That's primarily his busineii is doi.rg tfiat typeof thing. r think the facility is okay ior that. r think our storage-atthe present time, it certainly is no better or worse than what iscurrently being stored in there and werre attempting to move. So ourrequest is that you grant Ehe conditional use pirmil. r,d rike to getsome response from you. r'!m not coming with a comprete pJ,an for thitwhole corner at this particular time. r think there ar; issues for thesame reasons you rejected the AMoco request the last time and r thi.nkwe've got to kind of figure out what's going on in totar before thatrsdone. That's kind of where we are. We do need some cash flor., to supportthe building. These guys are tenants that are going to be in there for 3years... werre currently negotiating $rith Scotiy's who is also going tobe coming in front of the Commission.
Conrad: Temporary use then?
Brad Johnson: yes- r think ultimately, r think they're 100king at it asa temporary location because E.hey can,t find another location in ttrecommunity. we perceive a scottyis type operation or Goodyear or whatevercourd make use of parts of the buirdi;g but iE's a transfar in going fromheavy use, truck faciliEy to probably, I guess the best way to lay it is
::T":li:.: I!:I"-iy wife probabry wouia noi drive in for seivice "i,.r"niiyancl rr $re have to convert- it. over a period of time to a store where peopiecan go for service. Thatrs kind of Lhe main Ehought to accomprish, iroreso than we thought. I guess our request, based ulon use was permiitedbefore- rt was used that vray and ii,s a convenience to the HRA so theyhave a prace to move at reast one tenant who right now is having a trar6time to find a prace in the city. r don't thinl it intensifies thatlocation. I think staff is...
with MnDotrs. MnDot has a need for and rrm not even sure ho\,, thatrs tiedin but they would like to really block any kind of left hand turn at theintersecti.on. Coming out of the Holiday going into... But anyway, Ithink our biggest concern was the access.
Erhart: Were they going to tear dovrn the existing car wash then?
Conrad: The car wash is a different site.
Brad Johnson: The ownership there is Amoco owns the station and cary
Bro$rn owns the car wash.
Erhart: And the property? He oerns the car wash and the property and
Amoco owns the other lot?
Brad Johnson: Thatrs the way it is. I think you're going to find a lotof interesting things happening on that corner...next couple years. I'vegot a couple of plans along if you wanEed to see the thoughts.
Erhart: Whatrs going to happen to the...
Conrad: Future use?
Brad Johnson: Herers the problem. You've got with the new TH 101 comingin and the Dakota access, you basically have a triangle that has the
highest traffic count io the City landlocked excepE for an ent.rance from
78th Street. Then you've got aII these other things happening on thatcorner there and intensifying traffic flow. We think some type ofinternal system is going to happen to take the pressure off, just thatinEersection is going to have to be developed. I'1I just give you a
couple of hand out.s Ehat you can take home and think about.
Erhart 3 You're using West 79th to provide that access?
Brad Johnson: You saw the one, I guess you've got the one thatrs on the
map and I'm just saying, this is the kind of things we've been working
with. Now as you can see, the road that we thought was going to be thereisn't going to be there anymore so we have to change our plan but it's
something that you kiod of become...that corner because iErs potentially afairIy...
Erhart: Is thj.s the reason that you have a continuous parking lot through
the whole area?
Brad Johnson: Yes. And werve had Eood Eair that vras interested in coming
and we assume there will be some kind of a Food Fair. we have a movie
theater thatrs interesteal if we can find enough parking. werve got a lotof interesting uses for this particular site but this road system worked
kind of slick but TH I01 is no more going over the Apple valLey Concrete
so hers got t.o start dealing with what hers going to do to this site also.
Erhart: what is the deal srith Apple Valley Concrete? Does that have togo or no?
,Plann i ng Commission Me3tj.ng
October 19, 1988 - Page 3
Planning Comm j. ss i on Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 4
Brad Johnson: Theret s a conditional use permit thatright around 1993? I think he's always assumed...
Emmings: Run out?
runs out what? By
Conrad: In that particular case there was a limit. It taxes my memorybut we were real concerned that that was a focus point of the city and wedidn't want it to be there. so when they wanted io improve the si.te withnew washing facirities to wash out truck; and whatever-, we were realconcerned that they hrere putting in too much investment for a site that we$ranted to purchase and do away with and put something else there so rthink we made it, and boy, I tell you, I could be ,.6.,9, but I think wemade it contingent on a linited peimit. Therefore the!'naa to figure outhow to write off that equipmenE.
Ell,son: Doesn, t that seem iIIegaI?
Erhart: It does make good sense. werve been told, and I,ve trieddiscuss that relating to retail nurseries where you just put a timeon them so they don't invest in the buildings so we lan gee rid ofwhen development comes in and we keep getting told by oui Attorneyyou canrt do that. What you have here j.s the perfecl example.
tolimit
them
tha t
Conrad: WeI I,distorted it.that.
we may have had different attorneys and I may haveI just may have but thatts r.rhaE's in my memory. How we did
Brad Johnson: Actuarry, the Hanus park property lrhere the cement prantsits, is on the Hanus. We go all the way over to TH IOl. Itrs aninteresting problem that obviously doesni t mean... This particularrequest that I have...the HRA and Todd rrould like to see it happen. Theguy who operates, stan who operaEes the fiberglass, had not been able tofind another site in the community that fits fiis particular needs... Hewants people to be able to find, it's sort of a retail business. Theboats themserves, r think stored correctly don.t look bad at arr. They'renot offensive.
Conrad: Do the masts go up when they're stored?
Brad Johnson: so we anticipate they'rI be there for 3 years. He cour.dstay there longer but $re just have to work through our use process.That's some of the ideas. wetve been coming up;ith all kinas of ways ofusing that site. Now our next probrem is, fhe- next probrem will be irorehighway oriented- How do you get into that coming eist? you get a rightin off of TH 5 in that. apple valtey concrete. gow do those tru;ks get inand out of there and the new boats? Therers a lot of questions thatwerenr! addressed in any public hearing because, as you know, the one thatwas chosen was the rast one and it's kind of a surprise to both you andeverybody erse. As I said, everybody from the souih had their ciranceto. - -something - r was at the meeting, the council meeting and nobody hasreally brought up the other side. I met with the guy who 6wns theapartment buildings for lunch today and he was totirry surprised. He,s
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 5
the one that said he waited as long as he could to buird those apartments.Thatrs another problen. We have to deal \rith reality. Right nord I needto get some tenants in there. These guys need a place to go.
Erhart: What yourre talking about here is no intensification of it?...Itis leased or something and he,s goi.ng to store boats?
Brad Johnson: No boat storage. He,s got places for l0 but theoretically,like today, in the fall and certain times of the year when he's got a toaof boats coming and going but he doesn't store them over the winter.
Erhart: Is that in addition to the trucks they store now?
Brad Johnson: No, vre wiII remove someof stuff has been hauled out of there.
of the stuff that is there. A lot
Erhart: The truck business is gettiog smaller?
Yes, definitely. He's no longer in the auto bodybusiness. He is in just truck repair.
Brad Johnson:
manufactur ing
Erhart: What are the chemicals that are associated with fiberglassing?
Brad Johnson:
long Lime.
I can't answer that question. Hers been downtown for a
Wildermuth: Virtually everything is consumed. Therer s very Iittle $raste.Especially for what he charges.
Erhart: I thought there was sanding stuff. Okay. So that,s the guy
that's downtown and he just wants to move out there?
Brad Johnson: And his buiJ.ding vrilL be torn down Thursday. We were aIIset to move in earl ier and then we ran into this thing...
Emmings: I think Tim has hit the things I have vrritten down. I wondered
srhether there vrere any special safety considerations or anything
associated r,rith the materials. I wasnrt clear on what exactly the
business EhaErs in there now is doing. It sounded like it was winding
dolrn but it sounded kind of mushy.
Brad Johnson: Itts mushy because werve got people that have no otherplace to go in aII of Chanhassen. There's no one facility for anybody inthere trying to figure out rdhere to go.
Enmings: But I wonder what, thetell what thaE was doing.
business thatrs in there now, I couldnr t
Brad Johnson: In that particular site, there
vacant, that one little spot but vrhat they're
is nothi.ng going on. That's
doing now is truck repair.
Emmings: Repairing them mechanically or doing body work?
Planning Commission Meeti n9
October 19, 1988 - page 5
Brad Johnson: Primarily mechanically.there but just because of the nature ofuse some molding.
Emmings: Then the onl y
would be maybe a numbersemicolon. Just say, novery clear.
body equipment is no longerbusiness, periodically they
The
the
Emmings: So do they do it jn other locations or...?
Brad Johnson: No.
other thing I felt that would be a good idea to do2, just instead of a period there, put astorage of boats shall be allowed so thatrs very,
be
be
Brad Johnson: euarify it by saying, it's supposed to be transitionar.
Emmings: No, it says, it should then say that uarine Fiberglass shalllimited to exterior staging of 10 boats and no storage of b6ats sharlallowed. Or no seasonal storage or something like that.
Brad Johnson: That's what we wanted.
Wildermuth: Which haveyears.probably all been violated in the last 5 or 6
Hrunings: I kind of assumedit would mean boat.that word, where it said vehicle in that one
Batzli: I read it that. $/ay
Emmings: r know it is and that's what we,re all thinking but r think itwould be good to say it so therers no confusion rater. eut sometimesthese things come back. rn just a matter of a couple of weeks and wecanrt remember what we did or how we did it.
Ellson: I donrt have any other comments.
Batzli: Againr I had several of their commeots but the question I hadwas, the first condition. That they have to meet all the conditions ofthe original conditionar,. use permit-. rt seems that most of the originalconditions deart with vehicle3 so they really don't have to compry iittrvery many of them at all other than perhaps 2.Ag in screening orsomething- Are ere trying to put any othei conditions on them from thatoriginal conditional use per:ni t?
olsen: No. I just wan t. them to be ardare of the existing conditional usepermit that they still have to meet. There $ras some other conditionsbesides storage.
Olsen: It includes, whereand then they say boats...
at first
Ehey say
and then I
service and
kind of wondered I guess.
repair of motor vehicles
Batzli: The intent then is that boatsvehicles in the conditional use permit?
is interchangeable for the word
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 7
O1sen: In the existing one it is. Thatrs the vray it was erritten withthe original conditional use permit.
Batzli: I guess r.ri th that understanding, that concern of mine goes away.I liked SEevers comment about the seasonal storage of boats. Condition 3,the increase in use of the site, do you mean by like the number of boats
theyr re bringing in? By the amount of space they're using or any of theabove? Or do you just want to leave that soft artd fuzzy?
Olsen: I meant that they couldnrt start storing additional
That they were limited to that size. What they're getting
use permit for at this time.
Conrad: What eI se
anyth i ng .
would cause an increase in use? I canrt think of
boats there.
the conditional
Wildermuth: wouldI don't think so.
we have an objecti.on to their leasing more fLoor space?
Olsen: Itrs just a way for us to know what is current on that site.
Batzli: I don't have any other questions.
WiLdermuth: How much floor space does Scott's repair erant?
Brad Johnson: 2,699. Two pieces. The building is L8,A0A in there...bay.
A real big bay.
Wildermuth: I think
toren?
thatts a good use for the building. Can you relocate
Brad Johnson: I'd like to. we've tried to. Quite honestly he's getting
out of downtovrn for different reasons and once they were ready, Loren
woulde move in there also. Originally we got it for Loren and Chan Lawn
Sports and theyr re still here and ere canrt get him out of there. werdIike to see it. The tovrn needs a site for that. werve got Goodyear
looking at the site as a potential corporate storage. Someday. Nothing
moves very qu i c kly.
Wildermuth: I think that woulde be a shame.of smaller businesses than an operation like
I would rather see a number
Goodyear.
Brad Johnson:big building.
They wouldnr t take the whole thing either. That's a really
wildermuth: I think it's a good use for that site.
Conrad: Me too.
Brad Johnson: we need to change it around and make it look nicer.
Conrad: That whole area could.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 8
Brad Johnson: As I say. The zoning question Steve you brought up lasttime, it hrould appear given Ehat that building is there, BH is veryrestrict ive for erhat's. It should be like a BG so our people will becoming back so we donrt have to keep going through this. Becauseeverytime r come in with something. see if we brought in an automobilerepair place, either we have to do it under the cur;ent conditionaL usepermit. Do you remember that? So $/e'd like to come in probably but atthe right -time arong erith a plan and ask for a different kind oi zoning.You should be aware of that site. It's got a lot of potential but it'igoing to be a bear until it gets straighten out.
Wildermuth: who owns the piece between the car wash and the Hanus?
Brad Johnson: We do. That's why we justIook better. Then I discovered all thosecan see the building. The bad nevrs is Ibackyard and I've got to haul it back andleft Ehe berm up front so that you canttthrough the building. When you look out
berm someday.
leveled it to make the building
trucks. The good news is you
hauled aII the dirt over t.o mybuild a berm. We should hav6
see. RighE nor^, you go up rightthere, there will be a little
Emmings: Irll move the Planning Commission reconrmend approval of anamendment Eo the conditionar use permit for the Hanus Facility to permitMarine Fiberglass to be located at the subject site with the ?oltowingconditions. Number one r,rill read as it is except at the end of it Jo Annr.rhere the period is, remove the period and put a paren and say that boatsshall be deemed to be "vehicles" for purposes of construing the originalconditional use permit. Then close the parens, period. Then number tlro,where the period is, remove that and pot-a =emicilor and just say, thenadd no seasonal storage of boaEs shall be allowed.
Batzli: Second.
Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the pranning commission recomrnendapproval of an amendment to the Conditional Use permit for the HanusEacility to permit Marine Fiberglass to be located at the subject sitewith the following conditions:
1. Marine Eiberglass must meet all other conditions ofconditional use permit (boats shall be deemed to bepurposes of construing the original conditional use
the or iginal
rr veh i cles " forpermit).
2
4
3
Marine Fiberglass shaII beboats; no seasonal storage
lj.mited to exterior stagingof boats shalL be allowed.
of ten ( I0)
Any increase in use of the site by Marine Fiberglass shall require aconditional use permi t .
The applicant must meet aII Eire Code requirements prior to issuanceof a certificate of occupancy.
Planning Commission i"lee t i ng
October 19, 1988 - Page 9
5 The applicnat shall meet the requirements of
voted in favor and the motion carried.
the Bui lC ing Department.
All
PUBLIC HEARING:
SUBDIVISION OE 22.8 ACRES INTO 2 LOTS OF I.9 AND 20.9 ACRES ON PROPERTY
ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED ON CHES MAR DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 1MILE NORTH OF HWY. 5, GINGER GROSS, CHES MAR FARMS REALTY.
Public Present:
Name Address
Tim Keane
Mark Kelly
Brad Johnson
Jo Ann Olsen presented
Chairman Conrad caI Ied
79AO xexxes Avenue So., tsloomington
Representative for the Grossl
7425 Erontier Trail
staff report.
public hearing to order.
the
the
Tim Keane: My name is Tim Keane, 79gg Xerxes Avenue South, Bloomington.
Irm here on behalf of the vendor of the property, Naegle Trust, Ches Mar
Farms Realty, trustee. AIso with me this evening on behalf of this itemis Mark Kelly who's representing the buyer of Ehe property, Charlie and
Gi.nger Gross. Very briefly, the circumstances thaE gave rise to the needfor this request was an option, I don't know if this wil-I clarify things
any bett.er. In I98t Charles Gross entered into an optj.on agreement withthe Ches Mar Farm Trust on behalf of the Naegle Trust Eo purchase the
homestead on thj-s parcel which is a 1.93 acres. That $ras a legal lot ofrecord at the time Ehat the option agreement was entered int.o. There wasa condition in the optj.on agreement thaE there was a life estaEe that
would continue, that $rould be a condition precedent to closing on theoption agreement. That Iife estate came out of being this past springrdith the death of Margaret Johnson. The Gross' then requested that theproperty be conveyed under the terms of the opt.ion agreement. In 1981this was a separate lot of record. It continues to be a separate lot ofrecord. However, it did come under common ownership and lhere was the
same tax identification number for both properties. In approximately 1985there vras a State Statute passed that gave municipalities the authority toreview tax divisions. This is not a division. We have two separateparcels of record. This is a technicality to approve a tax division. TheCity upon request, requested that this property be platted in response tothe request for the tax division. we agreed to the request for going
through the subdivision procedure. There wouLd be a more simplified
Process and that would be a resolution of the City simply to waive theplatting requirement and agree to the tax division to the County. But vredid agree to the platting requirement. A couple things t'd like to notethat what this is not. This is not a development proposal. Thissubdivision $riLl not bring about any nev, development. No new
Planning Commission Meet i ng
October 19, 1988 - Page I0
construction. No new homes. We $ronrt have any additional traffic outhere. There will be no intensification of the land use. We have one
homestead out there. We're simply trying to convey that one homestead.It will create no additional demands for public services or parks, fire,police. Nothing will change. It's simply a legal convenyence. I r.rouldIike Eo emphasize that it is an exisling legal lot of record. We're onlyhere to fulfill our obligation to be able to ent.er a deed to divide it.
We do have the one existing home out there. It does meet all of thesetback requirements. The request is for approval of the subdivision.WerlI also request a variance, a Lot area variance pursuant to the requestfor the l-.93 acre subdivision. Addressing the conditions that were
recommended by staff, we agree with condition I. That it is platted.That it would not be a metes and bounds. It would be a platt-d by Lot andIot description. As to Parcel A, if parcel A were to be required toincrease to the 2l/2 acre standard, we $rould have to have the vendor andvendee, 7 years after the transaction was negotiated and contemplatedunder the existing zonj.ng, and understanding that we have a separate lotof record, to go back and negotiate for .57 acres to come up to the Iegalminimum. Irm not sure what would be accomplished but it woutd put Uot[buyer and seller or vendor and vendee in a very awkward position trying toagree upon just exactly where that extra .57 acres should come from andwhat the value of that is. I do beLieve that it does create unduehardship, both on the vendor and vendee and Itm really not sure whatrsaccomplished by bringing it up .57 acres. Item 3, the 35 foot roadwayeasement to be dedicated to the Cj.ty along the northerly property line.The proposal to split off the land, again, doesn,t create any additionai-demands. The burdening of this parcel wit,h a 35 foot roadvray easement, inno way is related Eo the request to simply split it off. f would requestthat that condition not be incruded. It woutd be a condition again iaEeron, an agreement entered inEo 7 years ago, the Grossr certainly dodisagree with the request for the 35 foot roadway easement across theirproperty. Number 4, the applicant enter into a development contract withthe City designating parcel B as having only one building eIigibiIity.Again, looking at vrhat this is, simply a conveyence out of an existing lotof record, r would question why the restrictionrs being praced on 20 icresthat will be actually the remainder. In the alternative, we cerEainlywould agree to designating that as an outlot with a developmentrestriction that it not be deveroped untir it is replatted. That, r thinkwould accomprish what the city is trying to achieve without unnecessarilyburdening property and Ehe chaio of title. Any examination orconsolidation of this property could be looked-at in the context of anoverall larger plan. That was referenced earlier. Number 5, parcel Bmust have 2 approved septj.c sites prior to final plat approval. Again,ererre not requesting deveLopment of parcel B. I believe that thatcondition can be addressed in the same manner as designating parcel B asan outlot with a condition that it not be developed until there is a newsubdivision. To 9o out and venture where those septic tests should betaken would be nothing more than a stab in the dark. No one knows where alogical homesite would be on parcel B. We donrt have a devetopmentproposal for that at this time and Eo require septic tests r{ithout adevelopment plan seems Iike a fruitless exercise. Again, a condition torestrict development until it,s replatted r.rould address the City'sconcerns on that item. Number 5, the applicant shall provide trail
easements, fees required by the park and Recreation Commission. Wehaven't heard whaE the recommendation of the park and Recreation
Commission is and rrer re not prepared to address that. Number 7, a 15 footdriveway easement for Parcel B be provided along the rresEerly property
boundary of Parcel A. Again, I believe rre can achieve that with the sanerestriction as noted previously. That we don't develop parcel B untilit's replatted and if indeed we do have the restriction for theconsolidation of a future development with access on TH 4I, it can be
addressed in that context. With that, I would respectfully request thatthe subdivision be approved as applied including the request for the
variance from the 2.5 to 1.93 acre minimum. I'm available for questions.
Mark Kelly: Irm Mark Kelly on behalf of Charles M. cross and his spouse.
Tr.ro comments. My client's interest is a personal one. We're dealing witha transfer of title and as Mr. Keane has noted that actually it began 10years ago. It rdas in 1978 r.rhen Ches Mar Farm sold off an interest that it
had come into, ownership from Margaret Johnson but Margaret Johnson held
back a life estate. Anyrday, trasferred it to Mr. Pelitier who then soldit to Mr. cross in 198I and Ches Mar Farm approved that transaction. Thatis of record as of June I, 198I and that has been my clientrs home sincethat time. He has resided there and continues to reside there. This wasnot somethiog that could have been completed earIier...simply because the
convenyence could not be done untiI, unfortunately the death of MargaretJohnson. ThaE occurred back in April and we're trying to move as quickly
as we can to complete the final transfer of the title. This is much Likea contract for deed essentially. The problem is that the legal
description, which are of record in the County Courthouse, don't happen to
match the tax legal description and what we're simply asking is that theCity recognize what is essentialty an existing, non-conforming tax legaldescription with the actual property descriptioo. We're grandfathered in.
We were in existence weII before your 2 L/2 acxe minimum. The City can
not tell my clienE effectively to buy some more land because you caort own
what you already essentially own. He already has an interest. We just
haven't been able to get Ehe deed as such but he has a Iegal title to it.
So werre not asking the City to eraive itrs zoning laws. We're asking theCity to recognize thal iE has a grandfather situation. Whatever it may
choose to do erj.th Parcel B is really quite independent of my clientts
concerns r.rhich as Mr. Keane has properly noted, we're not looking to
increase the use of Parcel A. werre maintaining it's use as it has beenheretofore. As far as some of the suggested requirement.s for this
arrangement might be approved as suggested by the staff of the City.
Obviously my client has only purchased 1.96 acres rrhich at that time erasnot a non-conforning zoning use. The requirement of a 35 foot roadway
easement is a taking of my client's property i.nterest. Effectively it
would benefit property behind him and the City dcesn't have a right to
take that from him. similarily, any requirement for trail easements or 15foot driveway easements are also an imposition. These people have a lega1interest in this land and I would hope that the City would recognize that
and allow us just to conform with the tax identification, Iegal
description at this time to what is already of record. I'd be happy to
answer any questions.
Planning Commission MeeEing
october 19, 1988 - page 1I
Brad Johnson: Yourve got Outlot
Keane asked that it be called ancould back later.
B, itrs called parcel B. Ioutlot rather than a lot so
think Mr.that somebody
Conrad: Yes, and your comment to that was?
Brad Johnson: Irm Brad Johnson, 7425 Frontier Trail and I represent theowner of the property to the east and lrest, the Kirk property. We havebeen, as you know, attempting to come back to you sooner or later with apackage that wiII hopefully be acceptable to you. During t.hat period oftime though, we realized that, we could never figure out why th! property
was divided the rray it was in the first prace. r think the gentl-men trarrejust answered the question. Nobody did it legally in today'i world.After Gary purchased the property, we discovered that therE was only a 25foot easement allowed which he gave in the review process for the road.Itrs required in that particular area to have a city road into thatproPerty and 50 foot wide easement. We're faced with the fact thateither, if ever, could be today, could be L6-L5-2g years from now, accessis going to come into that property from TH 4r. r Lhink Jo Ann has foundout, r read the staff report, that MnDot wouLd not arlow another accesspoint to come into outtot B. At least at our current reading so werrefaced with, if the city is_ever going to have that property 6everoped bysome deveroper, vrhether it's the guy rrho owns the property at the presenttiP.", y9o.'re going to be faced wiih ttre problems that-we'ie being iacedwith which is that sometime down the 1in6 nobody said you've got to have acertain amount of property given for access to ihe prolerty to rear. NowI donrt know if thatts a taking. We've been involved in olh=.subdivisions vrhere access is required as part of the subdivision. This isconsidered to be a subdivision of land and it seems to me you have theright to do that so we are concerned as property owners to the west, thatthis issue be resorved and not reft in tne iir because basicarly from ourpoint of view, that rre have to negotiate with the Gross, or at MnDot foraccess. It makes it fairly difficult to do it. We,re not opposed tonegotiation but that's our concern. A 35 foot easement. lie also arepurchaser of the property to the south of OutLot B and we would like torequest some type of access to that with an easement. we would like tohave it considered to be an outlot, as Mr. Keane has requested so we cango ahead and either come back with a logicat deveropment or not and allowus to proceed with we had pranned in doing. werre not discussing, as hasbeen pointed out, any deveropment of the aite but r r.ran t to poin[.'out thatthere are problems on that site. By not dealing \rith them now, werll haveto_dear erith them again and again and again until ultimately therer s somesorution to the probrem. r think the primary one happens t6 be what wasperceived by most as the access that vras grandfathered in. rf the cityrules that you can't have a 25 foot wide pubric easement, that it has tobe 50 or 50 feet, $re're sturoped. we wourd rike to request that you leavethe 35 foot easement in prace and require the 15 foot easement on the rdestend side to give them access to outlot B with that particurar purchase andthat you leave iE as an outrot as Mr. Keane has required raEhei t.han adeveloped 1ot. . .
Conrad: Brad, what were your comments about the outlot?
Planning Comm i ss i. on Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 12
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 13
Brad Johnson: That's fine. I thj.nk thatrs a good way to do it. That
makes it, I guess not buildable untjl somebody comes back \.rith a pLan. Idonrt think somebody is going to buil,d one house on there currently butIong term, if nobody bought that. Lot, there is no access. Let's just say
we didn't complete our acquisition and now that Outl-ot B is siEting there
and Jo Ann can give you the answer Lo MnDot's feeling about two accessesthere. Yourve basically landlocked the property. It doesn't appear to be
Iandlocked but you cantt get access off TH 41. I don't know if that'strue or not. I'm just saying, if that is in fact true, it's landlocked.
We had assumed you could but lrm not sure now, since we found out we
canrt. Irm just speaking, as I said, for having dealt for the future...
Mark Kelly: OnIy one thing that Mr. Johnson raised and that is the
concept that the Cj.ty's can serve over a 60 foot wide easement. As far as
my client's home, and I'II point this out, the City can not use itrs
municipal povrer of emminant domain to benefit one property owneE. ThaE iseffectively what Mr. Johnson has just asked you to do. Hers saying that
he doesnrt want to have to negotiate with my client. He'd rather not talk
about the road with Ches Mar Farm and their counsel . He would prefer that
the City use it's municipal power to benefit one person and not for publicpurpose. As we indicated, t.his is pre-existing situation. with that in
mind, I will trust that you will not abuse the powers of emminent domain
for what is obviously a rather selfish purpose.
Erhart moved,favor and the
El l son
moti on
seconded to close the public
carried. The public hearing
hear ing. Al,1 voted in
was closed.
Wi ldermuth :
Parcel B or
there would
Olsen: The Zoning Ordinance does not allov,, on
have a quarter of a mile separation. And plus
would not permit an access...
Letrs say Ehat Lotus Realty and Gary Xirt did not purchase
Outlot B or rrhaEever vre might designate that, at this point
be no access to that property.
a collector, you I ve
MnDot has said that
got to
they
Wildermuth: So technical- 1y
this parcel Iandlocking one
we
of
really couldnrt allow this subdivision of
the parcel s?
Olsen: Without provid j.ng. . .
Wildermuth: Without providing an easement. Has the City Attorney Iooked
at this at all?
Olsen: Yes, he I s aware of objections by the appl- icant.the
hewi ldermuth: And vrhat does say?
olsen: we have the right to require it to be subdivided because itrs
under single ownership. By splitting Parcel. A, subdividing it off, you're
creating a...lot. TechnicaLly the Iegal description is...3 by dividing itthe Parcel B...
Planniog Commission Mee t j. ng
October 19, 1988 - Page 14
Erhart: Did
Olsen: It I s
Erha r t 3
it is.
If
Batzli : So that,s been
Numerous years?
you say it's on a collector or arterial?
a collector or minor arterial...
it's a collecEor, it's only 400 feet. We have to cl-arify what.
can ansvrer this. Was the
Wildermuth: Jo Ann, this is technically a subdivision?
OIsen: Yes.
wildermuth: And thatts why werre tarking about park fees and trairs?
OIsen: Right. The park and Recreation Commission did review this onTuesday. Actualry they did bring it and they determined that they did notneed any trail easements because Ehey wourd have enough right-of-iay on TH41 to provide for that trail. Since the building permit witt not lecoming for it, r doubt if they wilr be required a Lrair easement. r wasjust tord that today. They can confirm that with Lori sietsema, the park
and Rec Director but they will not be requiring trail easements.
wildermuth: r don't kno$, what to thi.ok about item 4. r guess item 4 and5 are in keeping with the idea, the fact that yourre crealing -subdivision. I guess basically I agree with the staff report.
Batzli: I rras, I guess, curious, Tim probablyLife estate...did you say?
Tim Keane: Excuse me?
Batzli: lvas the life estate recorded as part of the...
Tim Keane: yes.
recorded at the County for however many years?
Tim Keane: Yes. And it is a parceL of record.subdivision. A subdivision is a formality buEWetre not creating any new lots.
Thi.s is not ait is creating this lot.
Batzli: And
ohrner ship?
our Att.orney says it's a subdivision because of the common
Olsen: Anyessentially
subdivision
Iot that
one lot.
Process.
Mark Kelly: If that was the case, then every subdivision that isdeveloped by a developer, the second iE's recorded and under theownership of the developer, all of the Iots are suddenly, I meanfiction. It's not correct. Simpty because adjoining piieets arecommn oernership does not mean that they nerge.
c ommonit's a
under
is combined and under single ownership, becomesFor it to be separated, you have to go back to the
Planning Commission Meeting
october 19, 1988 - Page 15
Olsen: Thatrs hou, our ordinance defines it and that's the way werve doneit. When it's a lot of record, even like with Carver Beach erhere theyrreall separate parcels of record but they have combined to form parcels thatmeet the requirements.
tsatzli: So if we did designate
satisfy your problem because of
subd ivision?
as an outLot, that wouldnrt
that i t's technically a
PATCEI B
the fact
Olsen: Riqht. We would still need to have some of the conditions that
we requested to make it cLear that Parcel B only has one buildingeligibility. It could be sold off as a separate parcel...
Tim Keane: If tbat v,rere to be the case, vre lrould have a cLoud running onthe title of that land that would be very difficult to remove. In the
event that Parcel B were joined vrith another one through a replattingprocess, that still runs with the title. And the same goal of the City to
assure that development could be guided and a plan can be accomplished byyour restriction, either by a deveJ-opment agreement or we would certainly
agree to an agreement running hrith the land that property not be developeduntil it's resubdivided so that outlot designation would not be... Itrrould only be developed if it's subdivided. It seems to me that all thegoals the City is trying to accomplish in terms of orderly development,
could be accomplished...srithout creating the unnecessary problems.
Batzli: What Tim is asking for, by designating this as an outlot is
basically requesting a variance under our, what may be a formal-ity but
under our current definition in the ordinance is a subdivision. In order
to make that not a lot, there would have to almost be a variance typesituation to designate that an outlot.
Olsen: To allow Parcel A.
Batzli: We have to basically designate, in order Eo conform with the
density reguirement, only one buildable siEe can go on that lot. So
your re basically asking for another variance to designate it as an outlot
rather than . . .
Olsen: We want to make it clear that even if thatrs combined with
additional land, at 2g acr.es, years do$rn the line when itrs sold off, thatI unit per 10 acre is still in effect. In fact people are going to bethinking that they have 2 building eligibilities. For us to maintain thatl unit per Ig acres as we're required to do by the Met Council, we want to
make it clear that Parcel B has only one building site.
Tim Keane: Excuse me. I hate to belabor the poiot but we have many
mechanisms to regulate development of the land. And to create
encumbrances on the title, ...chain of tiEle is an excepEional burden.
For example, if sewer and water serves the area and we now have I5rOgO
square foot minimum lot sizes, you still have running in that chain oftitle an encumbrance restricting that parcel from one building unit.eligibility. I think the City can contemplate the rationale, organized
development patterns without creating those ioordinate encumbrances in ourchain of title. you have the regulatory mechanisms to do that and Iwoulde respectfurly request that you employ those rather than creatingt.his encumbrance on the chain of Lj.tle.- Tlrere are many unforeseen chingescourd come that encumber by adding that restriction. ...uut to designafeParcel B as an outlot, we're not buirding... No one could come forward toobtain a buirding permit for an outlot without having that replatted andcoming back through this planning commission and the city councir forapproval for a development plan.
Conrad: But once it,s an outlot, there are no restrictions. oncean outlot there, I'm guessing but aII of a sudden, the I for I0 isronger. They basicalry have lost what staff is trying to recommend
Olsen: Itrs just a requirement of the ordinance. Itrs just a guaranteethat t.hat site IS A
not if
buildabte site.
Emmings: But
were deemed an outlot.
r ight. .
there I s
no
here.
Batzli: I guess what I'm looking at is, parcel B and assuming we wouldgive a variance on parcel A rdhich is a big assumption, parcel B isapproximatery 2g acres. what they're gaining in one additionar houseunder the current zoning. My whore point, r guess r'm kind of helpingbelabor the point is that this thing was of rtcord. rt was contemplafedyears before our city had t.hese zoning ordinances. r'm inclined to tryand work with the appricant here to do what they contemprated years ag6.The fact that it was recorded. rt was of recor&. thesi peopre do haie aninterest in the land. r think we're trying to impose an iwfur lot ofstuff on them. That doesntt satisfy, r haven't eveo addressed the roadwayeasemeDts because r think that it's probabry good pranning that we doimpose some of those easements. But as to ?oicing- them t6 put anencumbrance on this rot, r agree with the applicant. That,s arl r have.
Tim Keane: Just Eo finish up a Ehought. rf the life estate restrictionhad. been removed prior Eo either (a) the staEutory requirement that nor., amunicipality can reviee, a tax division, or (b) thi cr6aEion of the t in r0restriction, the developmenE pattern changes. rt was only the removal ofthe rife estate contingency in lggg that gave rise to !.he circumstances.Going back, it's onry a teahnicality of t6e tax division that brings us-here and requires us to subdivide this parcel .
Erlson: r courd see maybe alrowing a variance to have A be less than 2L/2 acres. Especially if it's been divided that way on record and thingslike that. I donit necessarily agree that you "an just leave that otheiside and when the probrem comei u!, then deil with it. r kind of rike iosee some sort of solution on B rike the road access and maybe even thatbuilding development. The idea behind the 2 septic sites irior toappoval, is that basicalLy because if they can'l find two leptic sites nowthen t,hey shourd never be able to have a home on there or somethinge
it's an outlot. you wouldnt t have to do that if it
Conrad: That's
Is that r ight?
Planning Commission Mee ti ng
October 19, 1988 - page IG
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 17
Olsen: Wer ve
they. . .
Emmings:
them .
been told by our Attorneys that outlots are st ill a lot and
But theyi re not buildable so youtre not talking about building
Conrad: There could be an
If you create an outIot...
implied buildability statement in that though.
Emmiogs: we do it all the time. The
these outlots are not ever the same as
requirements that
the Iots that areto come in la ter
are attached to
created in the
and that ' s goingsubdivision because you know it's goingto be attached to conditions.
Ellson: Thatrs r.rhat I needthe thing that confuses me.able to impose rrhatever youit was an out lot?
to understand because I guess that's part ofYou're saying at that tirne you would still bewanted? The t home or what have you even if
Olsen: I'm notthat outlot and
could deny that
Tim Keane: If I may clarify the distinction. An
Hor.rever, by State Statute the designation on the
Ianguage in all 87 counties in the State and ittsit's not a buildable lot. It has to be replatted
developable parcel.
sure that you could still deny, if somebody came in withrequested division of that site, Irm not sure that webuilding permit.
Emmings: you could if it didnrt have the septic site and it was required.Thatrs no problem. There might be a question abouE the number ofeligibilities. we might be giving that up but if they couldn,t put in theseptic system, we vrouldnrt have to give them a building permit. Right?
O1sen: But they could come back and say that...
outlot may be sold.outlot is the sameaffected the same.in order to be a
That
Conrad: Do $re know that for sure?
Emmings: An outlot in our ordinance is defined as a platted lot to bedevel"oped for a use which will not invoLve a building or which is reservedfor future replatting for development. Reserved for future replatting.
Conrad: To me it implies it can be developed.
Enmings: Thatrs not what it says.
Ellson: It sounds like when you do the replatting,try to conform with them but right now as an outlot
Ehen you
it can' t come in and
be developed.
Olsen: That's fine. An outlot is fine but staff is not reviewing that..But itrs still...sewer and water was there that lrould change the density.Itrs valid but the ordinance does require that you have to record thebuilding eligibility for what yourve used and what is left. Itts a policy
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page l8
for t.he whole district to maintain the Inot have the public context, he wants athat outlot. Itrs just a technicatity.be used for Ches Mar Farms and they are
unit per 10 acre. If he eranEs to
deed restriction or something on
Because that 2A acres is 9oin9 togoing to be using...
Emmings: rn my ohrn my.mind r feel very strongry that parcer A should staypreci.sely the size i! is for the reason that irian suggested. That randwas the subject of conveyence bet$reen these parties piior to the time thatour zoning ordinance was adopted. And to go back ani say that theseparties have to cut a new deil involving m6re rand, is s6mething, r donrtknow if we have the regal right to ao ii rut we shourdn,t have. To methatrs just wrong. If r put myserf in the place of the crossr and justask myself as a matter of fairness. rn the position of either part! andask myself as a matter of fairness, should I have to go back an- Uuyaddition rand after rrve already rnade a deal to purchise a piece of landfor a certain price. The answer's a big no, It just isn,t right. So ithink that should be carved off of there in it,s iresent size to arrowthose people to complete the deal Ehat they origiiarly agreed upon. Thatwould knock out condition. condition 3, on the-roadwiy 6asement, nowwe're in the hard stuff because they can sit there and say that they don'tcontemplate deveropment of parcel B or what r berieve snoutd be an outlot.r thi.nk that is the way to go on but if ere do thatr r think werre doingtt{o things that are real foorish from a p),anning siandpoint and that ii,number one, r{er re creating an outrot thal,s tandlocked-and r don,t $rant todo that- That seems to me to be foorish. The other thing is, we,re kindof sticking our heads in the sand, or ere vrould be, if w" ig.rore the factthat the obvious intention is to join the balance of ches Mar Earms thatisnrt involved in this platting with outrot B and develop it as oneparcel. r don't rearly have a good answer there. r don't think that theCity again, should be allowed to impose on that parcel A a 35 footeasement, which is rear substantiat it seems to me, on parcer A. For thatmatter, r donrt even think \.re should put the 15 fooE one on the back side.But it seems to me that these people, the crossr and Ehe people who aregoing to own Parcer B or outroL B on the ches Mar Farm area ought to gettogether, maybe before we approve this plat and maybe it shourd be ta6red.some accomodation shourd be made between those parlies so that we donrthave to create what are obvious problems. tf w6 approve this the way theywant it, therers going to be a zs foot easement going back to ches MarEarms to serve this entire area and that is foorishness. r don't thinkthere shourd be a development contract now. r think if parcel- B, or itshould probabl be an outlot, has two eligibilities, I just don,t thinkitrs that big a deal. When these tero paicels come into the sameownership, Parcel A comes into the perso., owning both with all kinds ofrestrictions on it. rtis not rike he owns both lots free and clear of alLobligations. That's r,rhat makes this different and why r think $/e canthink of this in terms of a variance rrithout worrying-about setting anykind of a precedent. There are all kinds of obrigations on the p"it oithis- r want it to convey what he said he r.rould -onvey on thi.s property.Hers got to be able to do it. we canrt make it a regal impossiuiliiy f-orhim to do that. For no$, r thi.nk that should be an outrot ;hich take-s careof condiEion 4. rt takes care of condition 5. r agree, itrs foolishnesi-to make them go out and dril,l holes in the ground out there at this pointin time erhen they don,t have any idea how ii's going to be developed
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 19
because if it's an outlot and they come back and they canrt show thatthere are viable septic sites out therel !hey're not going to be able tobuild there. That's all. It r.rilt stay an outlot. I think number 7Iwould knock off for the same reason because what wiII happen is it willwind up, I donrt know how they're going to get access to TH 41 but theroad system thatrs going to be internal to those two parcels r^rhen theyr redeveloped, wiJ.I all have to come out of their own land. I think thecross' deserve to get what they bargained for.
Conrad: How can you create a landlock Parcel B Ehough?
Emmings: We can' t. Thatrs
donrt want to vote on this.
the significant problem in this to me. I
EI I son i
at.
Emmings:
have thi s
Brad Johnson:there would be
I like your idea of tabling it. l'laybe it does need to be looked
Emmings: The only thing I don't Iike about tabling it is werve 90t...
outlot isWildermuth: Technically you cantt recognize the fact that thegoing to be sold... At this point it's got to stand alone.
Emmings: Right and it's Landlocked. Thatrs why I think therers, but theother part of this is, there's a Parcel A there that needs to and should
be conveyed to the people erho live there. Thatrs the dilemma for me.Itrs how can we create this landlock Parcel B? We heard some talk aboutselfish purposes here. The Grosst have a great opprtunity for selfish
purposes in all of this too in that they sort of hold the, theyrre the
gatekeeper here and they can say you rrant land to put a road in, it's a
lot of dollars a foot. what should happen here is that these folks oughtto get togeEher it seems to me somehorr. I donrt know hor., 9re can forcethem. Thatrs $rhat Ird like to do. It might be easier to sit over there
and you figure this out and come back with a plan for the whole piece
because from a planning stanalpoint, I don'l like approving this.
Conrad: Why are you so concerned about the 35 foot road easement going
in?
Conrad: They only have half of it.
Because I thiok that the Gross'entire road on their property?
There t s a 25 foot
a paved road in. .
have a right, why should they
Why should they have that 35...
not right. I think rightit runs dorrn the center oftheir side and now weireno. What do you say Brad?
easement on the way in and at some point
Emmings: Do they though? What yourre saying is
now their property from this map, it looks like
t.heir road. Do they already have 12 L/2 feet on
asking for another 35? Bradrs shaking his head
Emmings: From the survey werve got in
it sits over on the Grossr side of the
front of us, it looks like most ofactual roadway.
Planning Commission Meet L ngOctober 19, 1988 - page 2g
Brad Johoson: At some point up here there are rnarks on the edge in someplaces. The roadway vrould only be 28 feet wide... It rrould require a 60foot. Itrs a rural area. If the road never goes in there, it'; got to be60 feet sride easement. The road is only 24 feet. If it,s a ruralroadway, or 28 feet... Itrs a problem ind no matter how you do iE, theother alternative...is to forget arl this and somehow you say that accesscan come from eit.her direction but if access is ever brought in from thesouth, then they have to vacate the road. Itis a catch_2i deal.
Emmings: How does the person on the north get in
pIan.
then ?
Emmings: Oh yea, that,s right.
Brad Johnsoo: I'm just saying, itrs a problem that probably shouldaddressed and I reali ?= yr. Kelly says we're thinking greeaily Uutgetting landlocked. If it worked out like you were lninking iUoutgreed might be on the Grossr side rather than our side...
Emmings: putting a road south of the Grossr one road that wourd go intothat property maybe makes some sense but that's not the pran Ehat's infroot of us but there ought to be a plan so t}lere," ....i" to thisproperty. r canrt see how we can approve this now without having somekind of plan for access. rt doesn't- seem to me that it's right io imposeit on the crossr who I, think have a right to get what theyrre running for.r r,rourd have liked to have seen a retter from our Attorne| iddressin{ tnelegal issues because itrs a mine field and lee aon,t reiri| r,"ve *ucndirection that r think we need from our Attorney to telr -us how we mightget Parcel A out of there as_ it is and yet some[ow appry whatever prelsureis necessary to get these forks to come up with "o*"-^xiia oi a pran torthe whole thing so we don.E get a landlocied parcel.
Erhart: This is a fun one. The first thing that hits me is your commentJo Ann that because Ehe subdivision ordinanie is one owner, ii an owner ofthe property buys the pratted parcel next to him, thaE ueciuse of someordinance that rre have, Ehey become one parcer. r find it unberievablethat we have an ordinance like that. rt woul-d be even more far fetched ifit. would be found regar so yes, r'm not asking you to .;;;;, the questionbut I sure would like to ask our counsel .
Brad Johnson: They come around. We had a
Conrad: Our Attorney says it,s true.
be
gre areit, the
Erhart_: -l,lo, h9 says that therers an ordinance like that. I guess I justcan't believe it. That you courd enforce such an ordinance or Ehat. itcould be legar. rf yourre the owner of B, and ret's say you have ferrow Iout there and felLow 2. yourre fellow l and you own e ani felrow 2, he'slooking at buying Parcel A. What yourve done is yourve created adifferent value for the -two different persons beciuse yourre the owner ofB-- Y9u're getting faced with requirements that the otier guy doesnrt haveand t.hat's just totally unfair. -
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 21
Conrad: I
understand
tha t I s onwith it.
tend to agree.
what the point
our books. The
I donrt understand that. I honestly donrtof that was. Ho'rrever, i t tends to be somethingordinance is there ap.oarently. We have to deal
Brad Johnson: Is the ordinance tero
a metes and boundTim Keane: It's
Olsen: It's under a definition of
something like a street.
Erhart: Can you find that ordinance?
Olsen: Which is r.rhat weive been using...which at the time is filed is created by
under the subdivision ordinance too.
unPlatted lots?
description.
a lot and a lot is only separated by
One or
an o!'rner
more lots of recordor developer. It I s
Erhart: I didnrt. follow you on that one.
Olsen: A single tract of Iand shall consist of one or more lots ofrecord. It's under the Subdivision... Lot meaning separate parcel ortract area of land undivided by any public street or a private road whichhas been established by plat, metes and bounds, subdivision or otherwisepermitted by law.
Erhart: I didnrt see it.
Olsen: Thatts the way our Attorney has interpreEted it for us.
Erhart: Could you read it again for me.
olsen: Lot means a separate parcel or tract or area of Iand undivided byany public or approved private road.
Erhart: Is this page 20-1. Is that $rhat you're looking at?
O1sen: No. 97 in the subdivision ordinance.
Conrad: Wei re not going to figure it out Tim.
Erhart: It seems to me that we ought to, you! re bringing up an ordinance
and werre the Planning Commission, lre ought to be able to find the
ordinance and look at it.
Olsen s Itrs under the interpretation about those definitions of the law.
Erhart: Could you read it for me again?
Olsen: Itrs a separate parcel or tract of land undivided by any public
street or a private road. We have had several cases of r,rhere...and theAttorney has alnays used this interpretation. ...sp1it off a portion or
even an existing separate lot of record from that.
Planning Commission Meetingoctober 19, 1988 - page 22
Tim Keane:
Olsen: The
Tim Keane:
The ordinance is dated when?
subdivision ordinance?
The one you just quoted.
Erhart: Is this the one Irm reading? A lot means a separate parceL,tract or area of land. Is that the one yourre reading? where does it sayanything about single ownership? It says separate paicel of land. yourreIooking at tgro parcels of land of record.
Tim Keane: The cornment I need to make is that, if that ordinancereferring to post dates the transaction which occurred in 1979 and thenreoccurred in 1981, is essentially inmaterial because these partieswerenrt on notice at that time of any condition that yourre ieferring to.Therers a regal interest in land that my client signe- on for and itis ofrecord. You're attempting to impose conditions post hoc the situation andit can't be done.
Conrad: This is stuff we,ve got to have our Attorney do guys.
these ordinances. this is just so clear
Batzli: Tim, the definition that talks about single ownership is thedefinition of subdivision, not lot. rf yourre co;fused because it doesn'ttalk about single oi{ner, you have to turn the page and look at thedefinition of subdivision where it does talk aUout an area under oneo$rner.
Erhart: If we can,t understandcut Ladd. I donrt know.
Enmings: But r don't think, r think our Attorney should rook at this butr donrt think he shourd look at this and try and justify the position thatstaff has taken. He should rook at it and telr ui what our o-ptions areand -how $re ,can get where we !,rant to get to which to me, and il may bedifferent for each one of us, is breiking out parcer A. Not landiocking Band someho$, having access to r,rhat right now we believe to be the mostl.ikery scenario which is the combination of that outlot with the rest ofChes Mar Farm for development. Noe, we,d be accomplishing something.
Batzri: And if for instance we basically asked parcel B to take theentire easement of 60 feet up to Ches Mai Farms, in the evenE of someoccurence they get the whole 60 feet on the outlot. something like thatmight be an option. But putting the burden on B $rhere the development isgoing to be rather than A which is the conEemplaEed transfer from learsago.
Erhart: well, I read it while you were talking there.that paragraph that talks about Ehe dividing a parcel ofreversing it to come to the conclusion thatrs stated inis beyond me. It is just beyond me.
Hov, you can takeland and thenthe staff repor t
Conrad: you,d like to have it explained?
Planning Commission Meeting
Oct,ober 19, I988 - Page 23
Erhart:
Conrad:
Emmings: Mark,
know off hand?
Wi ldermuth: TH
Yes .
Tim, any other comments? Anythiog else?
Erhart: Let me move onto the next one. Thatts very irritating because itkind of strikes home because I just bought a parcel of land next to me andall of a sudden it's one plat is just ridiculous. You go up and I sat
through this meeting this morning of the candidates and they're all
concerned why the citizens get upset at the City. Itrs things like this
that get people upset at these things.
Batzli: But it probably helps you because then you can use your entireparcel as being subdivided so you have more room for density.
Erhart: You go through a lot of money to put these plats dolrn and then
aII of a sudden it doesn't mean anything. well, anysray. My comment onthis one is the whole premise for any of the recommendations are baseless.
Let me go through each one. I do think we need to get a legal opinion.
One way or the other. Werve got, from a planning standpoint. Go one step
further. Did we decide whether this was an arterial or a collector
because it makes a big difference as to accessibility onto Parcel B or
outlot B?
Olsen: The Ci ty Engineer reviewed it and stated that they would not...
do you know is TH 41 a collector or an arterial? Do you
Itrs on the Chapter you wrote on Transportation.
4t is an arterial street in the cityts zoning Ordinance.
Erhart: I think somehow we
there is no other access toright now, right Brad?
up with an easement
Farms except for thaiought to
the ches
come
Mar
In fact
dr iveway
Brad Johnson: Yes. Therer s two alternatives. I don'E think we would...
either one unless we want to be sandwiched inbeEween. one is to come in
on the south side. If somebody bought to the property to the south of B,
they could come in that rday. In this particular case, if we did not haveat the present time a purchase agreement or option for B, if I was Gary
Kirt I'd be up in arms because yourve really just strangled him.
Erhart: But we have to assume that yourre not buying B.
Brad Johnson: Right. So if you're not buying B, I tell, you what., you
landlock the back from a Cityrs point of v regr.
view.Erhart: Yes and lderve made that point of
the Ci ty.
Brad Johnson:the back, one
the appJ. icant
Thatrs right so I think
What they could say is thaE Ehe land they're
way or another an easemenE has to happen. It
or.rns technically the whole parcel . Donrt you
developing inturns out that
techn ica I ly
Planning Commission MeetingOctober 19, 1988 - page 24
own
Tim
it?
Keane: Werre contractually obl igated.
Brad Johnson: There are two parts. AII I'm saying
Somebody has to vacate that 25 foot easement whichCurrently we have to negotiate either erith the Citytwo owners of the property on both sides.
is,
werve
for
give it back.
suggested.vacation or the
Emmings: It's not a public road.
Brad Johnson: rf we made it a public road. rf the people in the backsaid we $rant a pubric road in here, you can not provide- one. That's $rhatthe probrem is. so we courd vacate the one to the north and have a 60foot easement across outtot B set up that wourd bring peopre out to theches Mar Farm property and that's possibre. rt just hls to be then, whoallows the vacation. There are possibly two other people saying theywonrt arlow it to be vacated. Just remember our pIin,- we coild-brin! itin that way. But ere didn'!t know that we were going to be subject to onryone access po int.
Erhart3 r think the logical thing to do is to get this easement throughthis lot, or one of these lots at this time so i,a tike to see us impolethe 35 fooE easement either along the south. 30 foot easement arong thesouth border or 35 on the north border. If you donrt think thatrsreasonable, then you're going to have to convince council and run it up.That's what I'd like to do.
Tim Keane: rt shourd be noted that you,re essentialry taking property...
Conrad: I{e understand. yourve talked to us about that.
Erhart: rf you want to batEle it, then go ahead and battre it. r thinkfrom a pranning standpoint... r think we should ask for the easement forthatrs erhat r would recommend on that one. r think goes along srith srhatsteve is saying, r think. condition 4, r don't thinl it apprles becauseitrs arready a lot of record. rtem 5 does not apply uecauiS thatrs a lotof record- Quite frankly, the 15 foot driveway aoein,t appry either. Thereal probrem comes in, to be honest with you, ir you tare-ltri view thatthis is a lot of record, is that you can'i restrilt. That's right, yo"'""still got the problem with the easement because you can't restrlct pir..i-B from access to TH 41 but you stirl create ches Mar vrith no accesspoints. The onry condition r guess r would put in is to provide a 35 footeasement for the lot -
conrad: This is a strange area altogether. rt $ras developed strangery.contrary to a whole lot of things that are good common senie things-anlnow we're dearing with a lot of stuff to try to resolve it. Goini down, rdonrt think we need a 2 L/2 acre parcer. r think therers good rationalefor a variance to that. r want a 35 foot roadway easement there. There.sno doubt in my mind r want it done. point 7, r think we need a 15 footeasemenE there. r think 4, 5 and 6 can be taken care of rrith an outrot asfar as r'm concerned. r guess my other recommendatioo is we tabre this
Planning Commission MeeEing
October 19, 1988 - page 25
thing. r'd rike to have staff revie$, arl the comments that occurred analcome back with something that one, with a legal opiaion on some of thestuff that rrre're dealing with because we certainly don't know whatrshappening. I think the applicant has some common sense approach to someof these things. Our ordinances just don't make sense to me right now andIrd like them explained. I think possibly if iErs still a legal mumbojumbo, we need an attorney here the next time we review this item. Thoseare my concerns. Some of my comments may not be fair but I'm going tosolve a problem with my staEement.
Erhart: So yourre asking us to table it?
Conrad: I think we should. I wouLdntt have the foggiest idea what Irdapprove tonight or do. I don't know. I think if we took a vote on eachof the 7 items werd be all over the place on this thing. I'd sure Iikethe applicanE and staff and an attorney and folks and tsrad, maybe messaround with thj.s thing and see if you can come back with something that
maybe responds to some of our comments. I canrt believe you stilt havemore to say. Go ahead though.
Conrad: Under discussion, I'm sure the
and thatrs the reason for his comment-load do we have?
applicant would like
Jo Ann, what kind of
to move
staff along
wor k
Olsen: We can get them on for the 2nd.
we did do that? Is it an okay agendaConrad: Andto do that?
what would we bump if
Olsen: Ies.
Tim Keane: Simply a question. when do you meet again?
Conrad: Thatrs a good comment. we meet. in two weeks.
Erhart: Ir11 move that we table.
Wildermuth: Second.
Erhart moved, Wilderrnuth seconded to table action on the Subdivision of
22.8 acres into 2lots for Ginger cross, Ches Mar Farm Realty. AII votedin favor and the motion carried.
Planning Commission Me-- t i ng
October 19, 1988 - page 26
PUBLIC HEARING:
LAKESHORE EQUIPMENT, PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, LOCATED
ON PARK DRIVE APPROXIMATELY I/2 I4TLE SOUTH OF HWY. 5:
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR
PubIic Present:
Steve Wi lle t Applicant
STORAGE ON 4. T9 ACRES.
Jo Ann Olsen presented
Cha i rrnan Conrad called
Steve willet: cood evening. rtm steve wirl-et and rrm the president ofLakeshore Equipment company. what we are proposing is an out.ide storagearea for docks and boat lifts. we currently iave 6utside storage on ourlocation over on Monterey Drive which is nolhing like what this one isgoing to be. This is all going to be cedar fence. r came to you 2 yearsago when we moved into town when we got an outside storage per;it. istarted r.rorking on the fence and t.he Mayor, Tom Hamirton-and a few of thecouncir rnembers decided well, don't cut down anymore trees and put up anymore fences. Leave Ehe trees to make a naturar screen so thatii tt"-reason for the condition Ehat the outside storage in existence is thisarea in which r'm proposing. r am going Eo own the rand, the building andeverything and we have a very strong vested interest in it. r had pi;kedup the fencing report. The fence is going to be an 8 foot high fenie andsome of the stuff that. wetve got in our slorage yard now, apparentry we,vegrown up so Large, we stacked them rather large in height trris spri-ng.This storage area is now 5 times lvhat hrerve got so we ion,t have to tee itstacked so high so you wontt ever see anything above the fence as well asr have designed in berms going around the entire fence to try to drop theheight of that 8 foot high fence as well. On our property line, if !ro";ifnote along the north edge of our property there,s in Lxisiing berm "ir.uJygoing onto the next piece so that even biings it down a little further so'you're not going to see this big high fence but vrerre still going to beable to achieve our screened storage. we have in the total iandicapeplan, right noh, therers I tree on our entire rot which is about the sizeof your thumb. I put 80 some odd trees on our lot at the cost toLakeshore Equipment of aLmost SL4,Sqq.0g. I am committed to try to stayin Chanhassen if I can. Irve spent a lot of advertising dollari. we,rithe largest in the midwest of our kind and we are doing very, very well.we bring in a lot of trade to Ehe community and this is a necessiiy forour business. The fence is all going to be cedar. Furry stained to earthtone color to seal it and let it brend vrith Ehe rest of the rand. r guessthatrs basicarry it. werre just dearing with the fenced area right n6w?
the staff report.
the public hearing to order.
Planning Comrnission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 27
Conrad: Yes, j ust
to the site plan.
the
Any
fence. Thanks, and ere'I1 call on you when we get
other public comments?
Batzli moved, EI I sonfavor and the moti on
to close the publ ic
The public hear i ng
hearing. AII voted in
was closed.
second edcarried.
Erhart:
use? Is
pr ope r ty
The outdoor, that is included in the ordinance asthere any restrictions on how close the fence canIine? In this case it's not right at the edge.
an acceptabLe
to the
Steve Willet: ...We have plenty of land behind it.
Erhart: The area tha t
landscaping Jo Ann?
you can see, you were asking for some rnore
olsen: The fence does.. .
Erhart: And therer s trees
Olsen: Yes, there is.
Hnmings: wer re only doing
Conrads Yes.
around the fence?
cond i tional use permit, right?
AII
the
Emmings: The only thing I r,rould do again is, number one says that allitems will be totally screened and I erould just add to that, and I,ve
added this in whenever we've looked at mini-storage with walls on it.Again, just add to number I that no stored items may project over theof the fence. Again, so it's just clear. He's said thatrs not going
happen and Irm sure iErs not but just so that,s clear.
Steve Willet: It didnrt happen
maybe a week or tr.ro.
very ofter even over at our other one.
toP
to
Hnmings: Irm not directing this at
with fences around them, Irve tried
Steve Willet: ThaE vras in our last
Emmings: But do You get anYthingpipe sticking up in the back?
Whenever we've Looked atthat condition in.
you.
to put
one.
things
where you have just like a mast, just a
Ellson: It looks fine to me.
Batzli: To get totally technical and
"any" in the second condition I would
it.
somewhat legal here, afterinsert the words rrand alltt the word
That's
Wildermuth: I donrt have anything.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - page 28
Batzri moved, Emmings seconded that the pranning commission reconunendapproval of conditional use permit *gg-17 as shown on the site plan datedSeptember 26, 1988 rrith the following condit j.ons:
1. AIl
no
items stored in the outdoor storage area muststored items shatl project over the fence.
be totally screenedl
z The conditional use permiE must meet any and alr conditions of thesite plan approval for Site plan #88-16.
AII voted in favor and the motion carried.
B. SITE PLAN REVIEW EOR AN OEF ICEIWAREHOUS E
INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, LOCATED ON PARK DRIVB
OF HWY. 5, LAKESHORE EQUIPMENT.
FACILITY, PROPERTY
APPROXIMATELY L/2
ZONED IOP,
MILE SOUTH
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Steve, do you want to react to the conditions that the staff hasConr ad :
Iaid out?
steve willet: As far as the additionar trees in the front, if r could rirould -rike the opportunity to move a couple from someplace eLse because rarready spent g15,atg.gg on randscaping and r think it's substantiar. rcame in.with a plan thinking that fim 9oin9 Eo do it up right and thefirst time we'lr get it through, we'lr get done and there,i not going tobe- anyplace to pur a few more trees when I already spent gl5,qgg.gg. Ildlike to move 1or 2 of those from along that parking- lot area. ff you;finotice, on that plan that you have on the board there, it,s a littl3different from the photocopied plan that r revised because of the bermthat we had to put around the parking area and the pine trees that we puton the berm to screen the parking lot area from the road. r found outlater on that it was just because of headlights but werre going to screenthem a rittre bit more so you don't have to look at the paixing lot. rrdlike the opportunity to move a maple tree or tero and maybe put a coupLepines trees out front. you'lr notice there are some piie tiees on thecorner around the parking area. Maybe if r courd just respace them. rhate to spend any more money.
Conrad: I have nothing. Is there a motion?
Batzli: r move the plaoning commission recommends approval, of conditionarUse Permit *88-17 as shown on the Site ptan dated September 26, 198g withthe forrowing conditions. The first condition reading as staff preparedit with the amendment that the period by a semicolon ind Ehat the pi:rase,no stored items shall project over the ience, be inserted. And thi secondcondition, that the words ',and alltt after the word ,'any', be inserted.
Hnmings: Second.
Conrad:
OI seo :
fine.
Jo Ann, $rhat do you cornment back?
Thatts fine because in other areas he is exceeding. So thatts
Steve Willet: In ansrder to, I donrt know if I,m answering my ovJnquestions or maybe you can run back through them.
Conrad: I just want to make sure that you've read the staff report and we
hear what your comments are. So if you donrt have any comments.
Steve Willet: I do as far as Riley Creek. Riley Creek is right in here.
This is the Riley Creek area. YourlI notice there's tlj,e 2gg foot is shownright on Opus' plot map and thjs is my lot right here to the right. 290foot, that.'s the 200 foot easement Eo E.he north of Riley Creek. I did not
buy any part of that easement. I just bought the lot. My legaldescription is that so if that answers any question about Ehe 26A foot to
Ehe nor th .
Olsen: The creek meanders through there. What this lightoutlot that the City has reEained a drainage easement over
That doesn'E necessarily provide |.F.e 2Ag foot separate. Ithat thatf s 209 feet.
blue is anthe creek area.don't bel i eve
Erhart: Where does t_t)e 2gg feet come from? Is that an ordinance? Anexisting ordinance?
Olsen: It comes from
Steve WilIet: Thatrs
OIsen: Yes.
lhe Watershed District.
from the center of the creek?
Erhart:
Conrad:
OI sen :
For creeks but not
I guess itrs just
He has to ma inta i n
for wetlands? Creeks?
a Plain fact yourve got
a 2OA foot green space
to be 2gg feet back.
along the creek.
Therer s no way I canSteve Willet: Therers no problem with that anyway.get that close to it anYwaY.
Olsen: It Lookedit Iooked Iike itof development of
condition between
Iike when we were reviewing with the watershed
was pretty close but what werre saying is thatthe siEe to the south thatrs taking...that was
Opus and the Watershed District.
District,
beca u se
a
Steve WiIIet: Herers the blue area. This is erhere the blue area starts.
This is my property line. There's over a Lqg foot blue area. If you're
talking from the center of the creek so here's the property line and then
werve got to go all. this distance here. we can measure that out right
now.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 29
Conrad : You I re comfortable that you I restaff is pointing that out that vre wantdon't have the evidence documented rightIike you can. Itts not a big problem.
going to meet that and I thinkto make sure that you do. They
now that you do so. It sounds
Batzli: we may want to change the wording becauserevise the plan. If it can be demonstrated to thedoes meet that, perhaps there is better wording.
Steve Willet: Irm also asking if I can show you,
whoLe bunch of survey costs. The lot is alreidyis dravrn in there. all I'm asking is that we canplat map and shor,, you that thereta 206 foot fromabout .
we're
staff
sayi ng
that it
he has to
already
Olsen: Staff is just pointing it out that it's somethingWatershed District is going to require.
Conrad: Itrs not even us. you,ve got to satisfy them.
Olsen: We make it clear Ehat we erant it.
Batzli: And if we are imposing it as a condition, make itthink we probably can just say that he work with staff and
Steve Willet: Opus did give me a Ietter from Riley CreekWatershed District just before I did my purchase a!reementthey did state E.hat there was a setbaci irom the cieek andhave to compty with that.
Conrad : So shor., us , the Ci ty?
conrad: who is steve working with on this? when you,re worried aboutsetback from the creek.
Olsen: The actual setback from the creek will have to be,enforced that along the river. werve always had them showplan can meet that setback because otherwiie they'IL havedo a new site plan.
r{i thout getting into asubdivided and the creekuse the scale, existing
where we're talking
that the
clear, then I
decide.
and thewith them and
Ehat we wou ld
wer ve alwaysthat that siteto come back and
olsen: Because that iE is going to be enforced. rn working with thewatershed District on rhis site; it tooks rike therets the lossiuiiiivthat that setback is being encroached. rt's with the outdo6r sEorage andthat would have to be adjusted. we just wourd rike to say, rook, m6etthat now rather than approving the site plan, it might ne-cnangea. rrthatrs minor to you and Ehe site plan is changing, ihat,s okay and thatrsnot necessary but they $,irr have to meet that setback to receive theWatershed District permit which is a condition of approval.
steve wirret: rrd just like to in closing, as far as an ansvrer to thequestions that came up. r rrirl comply with att city ordinances. with allWatershed District laws and hre are doing this as a iairly compreheosive
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - page 30
Planning Commission Mee ti ng
October 19, 1988 - Page 3t
plan. Werre a 3 year old company. We,ve gro$rn very fast. For us, thisis undertaking a large project for us and it means a lot of us. Werre ina time frame where I want to try to get down by January I but we're goingto make sure r^/e do it right. As far as the drainage area, I'I1 deal withthe Watershed as far as drainage from the parking lot. I have talked tothe contractors and there's no problem whatsoever as far as puttj.ng in
something that wiII provide us as far as the drainage. Irle'11 work withstaff on that. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time.
Wildermuth: I think aII the bases are covered here. I'd like to reworditem 6. Something along the lines that Ehe plan shall reflect the exactIocation of Riley Creek and that the setback requirements are satisfied.
Batzli: You don't want to put it in under 7?
Conrad: Yes, Irm not wild about erood either.
Batzli3 I agree with Jim. I think 7 should be revised to indicate t.hatthe applicant will someho$, vrork with staff to make sure that the green
space is maintained. One question I did have on that is, in Larry's memo
he talked about I30 foot setback. Didnrt it?
Olsen: Right. I think that vras the closest that the building could be.
There are areas on the applicantrs site that would have to maintain a L30foot setback. The reason we put in the 2gg foot, because the fact that
werre at a I30 foot setback is and therers only one portion on the northsite that can be lgg feet.
Batzli: I guess I didn't follow that.Sorry.
said it aConrad 3 I didn't get it either. You couPle times.
Olsen: You have to have a 2gg foox green space. In going to Ehe south it
l,as allowed to be 70 feet. Typically it is IgS feet on either side of thecenter 1ine. What the Watershed District wanted was for them was to...to
go up 30 feet. They have to add the 3g feet. Because we donrt know
exactly where that is, we said just to maintain the 200 feet.
Steve willet: I was aware of the 130. Thatrs why I said, I wasnrt sure
what the figure was when we were talking. I did get a Ietter about the
130 foot from opus. I was only aware of a 130 foot setback, the green
area. I didn't know that had to be... I still donrt think therers going
to be a problem if it was 2gg. If it comes dorrn to 10 feet or sornething
li ke that where . . .
Batzli: So you were a$rare that you had to qo l0A feet and nov, to 130?
Wildermuth: Under 7 rather. Other than thatl I really don't have muchelse. I vrould just say that I'm sure the applicant vrould like a solid
fence for security reasons but I guess I would much rather see an
evergreen fence all the way around the storage area rather than a wooden
fence.
Planning Commission MeetingOctober 19, 1988 - page 32
Conrad: No.
Steve Willet:
Conrad: You I re
Steve Willet:
do.
Steve WilIet: My eng ineers
some kind of a catch basin.
130 is what I was aware of. They gave up 70 feet before
I have to maintain I3g?
okay.
We'II work rrith the Watershed and do what they want us to
didn't realizeI r^ras conf used .
The storm sewer
we normally draina catch basin or
Batzli: I hras confused because they used the 130 and Ithey were measuring from the center line. That's grhereOkay, the.only other question I have was on condition gsystem which directs the site runoff to Riley Creek, doit directly into a thing like that without some sort ofsedimentation or skimmer or some other..-
olsen: _ r'm sure theyrll have some sort of a catch basin and that wourd bepart of the storm sewer. plan. The applicant does have the option to do astorm water management but the engineering department requested that theyjust provide a storm sewer.
did
We
in
it
say that
figured
the storm sewer we would haveinto the cost of putting it in.
vre
Batzli: So you wouldnrt havecatch basin?a problem if we said that would include a
Conrad: That rrould be our engineering standards wouldnrt it?
Steve Wil,Iet: No, werre going to erork rrith staff on that anyways and thatwould be part of working vrith staff on the changes there. We don,t haveany problem with that. It should be done propeily and Irve got... yourengineers brought it up and when they aia, r went back to the contractorand I talked to him and he said, yesl you could have that so we figured itout and rde are going to put sometling in there...
Batzli: Is that by Laly or something or is that just corunon sense?
OI sen :
require
Yes.ir.Plus they have to get a permit from the DNR which would
Conrad: I don't think we need anything.
Batzli: Okay. Those were my txro questions. Then, I do agree thatshould amend condition I to iay th;t he can adjust his tre6s.
Ellson: I like it. Number 13 has to be inthe conditional use permit? you say, by theconditional use permit says yourve lot to doredundant that yourve got it in both pl.aces.
there even though lrerray, anything in thealso. It seems kindIt I s rdhat we always
granted
of
do?
Steve Wi llet :so...
Emmings:
EIIson:
Emmings:
Erhart:
Conrad:
BatzLi: No, because once he starts moving trees, he,s going
make sure that thatrs stil] okay for that area. I don't wantabout any location. Just insure that it meets standards.
Batzli:
Erhart I
Batzl i :
Erhart:
2gg foot
Yes.
Okay. I Like it. No problem.
It looks like a good plan to me. I have no additional comments.
I agree.
I have no comments. Is there a motion Brian?
Batzli: I move that the Planning Commission recommends appEoval of SitePIan Revie!, #88-15 shown on the plan dated September 26, 1988 subject tothe following conditions. 2 through 5 and 8 through 13 as proposed bystaff. Condition I I think should read, the applicant shall vrork withstaff to insure that appropriate landscaping in the form of evergreensalong Park Drive from the proposed building are...
Conrads "oo "utd exactly lrhat the staff report just said.
Wildermuth: Did you want to say something about Park Drive?
to have toto talk
Conrad: Do you require an additional landscaping? In this case would yourequire a different Iandscape plan Jo Ann?
Olsen: He can just draw on t.he official... Do you vrant to read what you
had for 7 because I didn't get that?
Well, I haven't even nade up 7 yet. I did such a poor job on 1.
got that one.
Do you have a suggestion fox 7?
yes. The plans shall be consistent erith the Watershed District'sgreen span along RiIey Creek.
Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning
approval of Site Plan Review *88-15 as shown on the
26, 1988 and subject to the following conditions:
Commission
plan dated
r ec omme nd
Sep tembe r
Planning Comrnission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 33
Batzli: Let me start over. Strike that. the applicant shall work withstaff to insure that adequate landscaping is provided for the proposedsite plan. So just let him come back to staff and make sure that it all
meets everything we want because Ehatrs what werre basically asking. Hersgoing to start jockeying it around.
Planning Commission Meeti ng
October 19, 1988 - page 34
l.The applicant shall work with staff to insure
Iandscaping is provided for the proposed site
The retail sales proposed for the site shallfloor area of the building.
tha t
PIan.
adequa te
not exceed 20t of the
3 The trash receptacle shall be movedtotally screened.
away from the building and must be
4. Al-l rooftop equipment shall be screened.
5. The applicant must meet the requirenents of the Building Department.
6. The prans shall be revised to indicate the exact tocation of Rileycreek and the normat water rine (NwL) for the sed imenta t ionlretenl ionpond located on the northeast corner of the parcel .
7- The prans shall be consistent with the watershed district,s 2gg footgreen space along RiIey Creek.
8 The plans shall be revised to provide a stormdirects the site runoff to Riley Creek or thebasin located on the property prior to final
The applicant shall obtain and comply with atlDepartment of Natural Resources permit.
The applicant shall obtain and comply with atl
Watershed District permi t .
sewer system which
ex i sting sedimentation
review.
conditions of the
conditions of the
9.
Lg.
1I. The applicant shall submit aaddresses erosion con t rol .
revised grading plan which properly
L2.
13. The site plan must meet the conditionsfor the outdoor storage area.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Bnmings moved, EIlson seconded to
Commission meeting dated october
and the motion carried.
The applicant shall notify the City 48 hoursconstruction which has a potential to impact
in advance of
Park Drive.
any
of the conditional use permit
approve the Minutes of the planning
5, 1988 as presented. All voted in favor
2.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - page 35
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POPULATION PROJECTIONS, MARK KOEGLER.
Mark Koegler: The Comprehensive Plan item is just basically informationalbut to inform you of some of the things that we're doing. Werre Iookingat revising population projections and also incorporating some moredetailed numbers that hopefully will be used as part of the Sewer Policy
Plans being developed now. Basically those revisions fol.low the same
methodology thatrs been used in the past and they simply update andincorporate it in the Metropolitan Council's most recent estiinate that $rasin April of this year. That results in a projected population of l99g of
lg 1065 peoPle and in the year 2qgg, 15,700 people. Metropolitan Council'sofficial "projections" are still 9,A60 in 1999 and Lq,6gg in the year 2A0A
even though the 1998 number is above basically what was projected in L999.
So werre holding it as part of the Comprehensive PIan acceptance process
that those projections wiIl be modified. We are revising some of the plan
text and utilizing those numbers from this point on where it would appearto be supportable again based on facts it's the same methodology r.rhich was
employed pr ev i ous Iy.
Wildermuth: Mark, does this
r ight?
assume that therers no change in the MUSA,
Mark Koegler: Correct.
Erhart! There was an article in one of the local papers recently that
went into quite a bit of detail, I was Looking for a copy tonight because
I thought I had saved it, and basically it eras the Carver County met withtbe Met Council fellow for a breakfast neeting this week I believe on that
same issue. Are these numbers basically the same numbers that our County
is using Mar k?
Mark Koegler: I canrE answer that. I just became aware very recently
that the County is apparently getting some kind of a coordinated effort
together to take a look at population. Basically all forecasts for this
area. I think thatrs something we need to check on...
Erhart: Would you because I apologize. I r.rent through my office trying
to get that for you because it r.rent into the same discussion and I think
the numbers looked similar. Basically the County is cloing it for a
couple of reasons. One is Ehey vrant an accurate forecast to the Met
Council. For one, they're affected on how much aid they get both for
highways and for I think something with welfare or something also affected
by what the state views as their population. It's surprising that it can
be f,Jzzy but apparently it is. I guess I just think if they're making a
stab, vre ought to t^rork rrith them and try to get accurate projections
obviously from the planning body here. It's difficult to do good planning
r,rithout accurate projections. Are you thinking that they're going to play
the same game that they played lrith us in the past l,tark where theyrregoing to try to artifically keep the projections low or clo you think now
they're taking a different view of things? Because the article stated
that on one hand, letrs see for the purpose of fH 2L2 I guess was one ofthe issues. The Met Council is coming out with big numbers but for the
purpose of sewer planning, they were using a different set of numbers.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - page 36
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT DISCUSSION, MARK KOEGLER.
modifications,Conrad: The nex tyou'd kind of like
yourve written into our ordinanceinput on the three different areas.
think
our
Mark Koegrer: r assume the commission is aware, r donrt knord whetherr drew the 10ng straw or the short st.raw but rrm going to be proviclingsome filr in work with Barb being gone and assist to fnn in some thinls. rdonrt know if these were the assingments that were rattling around for awhile but those were the ones she labeled. she atso suppiied me withrealms of material on this in the form of past reports i-na uinutes and soforth, most of which r hav-e waded. through ind arl of which r lronrt pretendto have a grasp of yet. whgt r thought r.rourd be beneficial is if r "i.pivhad a chance to hear first hand in the general sense on each of thesetopics. whatrs the consensus concerns are of the commission. Then fromthere rrerll come back to you on the r6th of November, r berieve is thedate that we schedured for some of this material to get back to you withsome concrete suggestions that you could begin to aii into and support ormodify or rrrhatever. That starts rrrith the r6vision oi the A-2 zona-.Basically my understanding -of the charge is to remove conEractorrs yardwith a minimum extraction from conditionar uses and to rook at thepossible incrusion of temporary retair nursuries. some definition of gorfcourses and public buirdings. Norr, as r referenced some of the t'tinutes jeven as recent as August 17th of this year, some of the planning
commission comments weren't totally in-rine with that charge. igain, someclarification may be in order. There was a conment in the Minut6s for
Does that ring a bell srith you?
uark Koegler: That specifically does not. Holrever, in response to yourquestion, which is kind of an opinion kind of response, the general tonethat rrve seen more recentry coming out of the Metropolitan councir doesseem to be a little bit more, ...necessarily more in line to open to atleast considering arguments. I think that spirit of cooperati6n was aIittle less in the past, shall we say. So I guess I am somewhatoptimistic that these kind of things may have a better chance noir...
Erhart: Wtrat do you suppose the animosity tras?
Mark Koegler: I canrt rearly even speculate on that. perhaps it rras justa genuine thinking that their projections were right and r0 years worth ofgrowth in the southwestern area has proven that t[ose weren'L arwaysr ight .
conrad: Mark, uhat rrere the figures that changed that caused the slightincrease here? I saw a rot of numbers here bui, the number per househord?
Mark Koegler: That rras one factoE that changed but really the key changeiras_the Metropolitan council coming back to itre city with their n6usenoidestimates. of course they taburated the buirding p-ermits and having thitnumber as a base number, it was higher than what we had previously -
extrapulated from there. so it's just basicalry a wholesare adjuitment.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - page 37
example that contractorrs yards may not necessarily be omitted butmodified. Is the tone that those are to be omitted and if so, are youIooking basicall.y at an assessment of what that means and rationals whythat should be...beyond what you've already seen. Itrs that kind ofclarification that I would like to have your thoughts on.
Conrad: Tim, do you want to talk about...?
Olsen: No.
couldnrt...
We said they vrere recorded with the County so they
Erhart: And I think that was a little bit confusing. I think basical-lythe conclusion is Mark that if we do eliminate ne$, contractor's yards bynot allor.ring them, are the conditions that are applied to existingcontractorrs yards still apply. Is that correct?
Mark Koegler: That' s correct.
Erhart: Okay. I seem to remember that was...
Batzli: That was a sticky point.
Erhart: A real sticky point, yes. I think thatrs clarified now. It
comes back to I guess, I don't know if you're looking at me, you know what
my feelings are. I thoughE about it after our last meetiog and Irve gone
back and looked at contractor,s yards and I thought we were going to getinto this again at a later meeting. I \ras going to bring some photos in
and try to get you to see why they're incompatible when you have lotdensities of 2 to 4 acre lot densities. I personally still believe
theyr re incompatible vrith argicultural use but the problem is, if theintent is just for a guy to work out of his garage, thatrs one thing but
by golly, they aII grow. They just alt grow. Itrs the nature of thiscontracting business to grow. The ones in our area now rrhere the guy 2years ago had one very large detached garage, now hers got l that's fourtimes that size.
Erhart: Mark's got my letter that goes over it. Maybe I can shed alittle light on the meeting that we did have when we did talk about it.
Probably helps bring ltark up to Iight on that. We talked about a coupledifferent issues there. I think from eliminating to just to try to betterdefine it so the need would be and what we perceive to the original intentof letter some guy operating his carpenter,s business out of his garage
and his house. I think what we've seen here in the last year really isindustrial. The question came up at that time, the conversation kind ofgot off on a tangent and the question came up, if we eliminate newcontractor's yards by basically taking them out as an allowed or permitteduse, what happens to the existing cont.ractor, s yards. Do you rememberthat discussion? And there was some confusion that, and vre somehow cameto the conclusion that the conditions that vrere set for those contractor'syards when they were established, somehow they wouldnrt have to abide by
them anymore.
Emmings: But that,s probably, yourre not supposed to be able to expand.
Those are arr conditional uses. yourre not supposed to be abre to expandthem without, without coming back but of course-you add 1 truck here. rt'sa bunch of small steps and aII of a sudden you,ve got a mega maII.
Erhart: And the one next to me, which is 390 feet from my driveway, he'sgot 2 cars stored out there now in the back area with a tiailer outsideand Itm going to go over and see if they,ve got Licenses. But it justdoesnrt fit. I had another idea from the last rneeting that if thecommission stirl berieves that contractorrs yards are-permissibre orsomehow consistent r+ith an agricurturar area where you have 10 acre rotsand rarger. Then take a look, if you think thatrs ititl oxay then letrstake a rook at the rural area of chanhassen and find out wheie the densityis in this 2 L/2 acre density and make that alr RR because the RR pistriciin the Zoning Ordinance does not allow contractoris yards. Thatts analternative. rf you rearry feel that we stirt should have contractorrsyards in the rural area...
wildermuth: Tim, therer s another arternative too. rt may not necessarilybe contractor rs yards in the rural areas but how about contractorr s yardsin the IOP areas? yourre still allowing contractorr s yards but you,iegone upscale. Theyrve got a r.rhole new set of criteria.
Erhart: We donrt have a list of specific items in the IOp area forcontractor rs yards or do we?
Planning Commission Meet i ng
October 19, 1988 - page 38
Olsen: It generally comes...contractorrs yards...
Erhart: But do we list contractor's yards in the IOp District?
l{ildermuth: I donrt think so.
Olsen: As a conditional use.
Batzli: Thatrs a philosophical , alnost a subtle question because thendo upscale them and then you take it away from the guy that is tryingrun lris carpentry business out of his gaiage. rou ioiced him to make.
Wilderlouth: But it depends on where you put the threshold... Thatrsrequires some type of... Hol, big can he get before he reaches thethreshold point? Where he,s putting up a 2; ggg squate foot Butlerbuilding...
Erhart: Thatrs exactly what yourve got.
you
to
wha t
Conrad: Before we talk about it any further,Ieft? werre probably contractor yard, rre.vecontractor, s yards.
what problem doprobably fi I led
we
up
ha ve
wi th
Emmings: With the 1 miIe.
the I mi Ie.Conrad: Because of
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 39
Erhart: Except if somebody gets out ofnight Tom Hamilton got up and basicallycontractorrs yards is they just go awaythe facts as lre know it in this one casewant to do something is that if someoneusing it as a contractorrs yard, if youanother guy can come and take his place.
the contractor yard business, onesaid the nice thing about
when people move in. That's not
uP here but the reason that you
does sell his house and he quits
Ieave it in the ordinance, then
Conrad:that we
I
can
toirthink thatr s really good
but to take it out that
get out of there. I don't know
doesn't go with the 1and...
Ellson: It goes irith the owner?
Hnmings: But thatis not a conditional use then. A conditional use runserith the land period. Well see, this goes back to another point. We get
back to this temporary conditional use business again and Hanus and allthat. I still think and Tim nov, has put it on his official work list ofthings to bring up but I think what should be done here is why doesn't theCity have some way to license activities like this? Because a license is
revokable if they don't live up to the standards. It does not run withthe land. Why donrt we have some way to Iicense an activity like this?
Then your ve got a strangle hold on then and $rhen they stop operating, thelicense just expires and they donrt pay a little fee every year.
Conrad: Gee, I really like that.
Erhart: Then you can set a time limit on it.
Emmings: You can set a time limit. Give them a license for \g years. Idonit know if thatrs possible but boy it...
Conrad: It sets up a review process too.
Ellson: I like the idea that itrs array fron the land though.
Emnrings: Yes, you donrt run into all those...
Batzli: I think yourre going for one of the problems but then you may end
up with more of then with the criteria yourve set. If you do away withthe land requirement and within I mile.
Erhart: I dontt think it necessarily has to relate to just contractorrs
yards but we lrere just thinking it r.ra s a good idea...to apply them to
other things that come along in trying to take uses that some of the
people know that therers a problem...
Emmings: I don't kno}, if this will help but it seems to me, one thing rde
have to face square on is whether want an out ban...
Conrad: I think we've got to take a vote right now.
Emmings: I donrt know because it seems to me, I knoe, that I would be infavor of a contractor I s yard where a guy had a couple of trucks. He lives
Planning Commission Meeti ng
October 19, 1988 - page 4g
on the piece of property where the contractor r s yard is and we have anopportunity to say your contractor,s yard will consist of 2 trucks and
maybe a little pile of gravel and stuff but there will be a berm and allthese conditions and standards for hor,, that wilL look. I kno$, on theother hand Irm completely opposed to something that came in like this one
dovrn on TH 2L2. whether the person is Iiving there or not but it'sbasically a guy trying to put 50 trucks. To me it was creating a dump iswhat he was doing but I'd be opposed to something where it was just hisbusiness and he lives somewhere else and it's a pretty intense use. Ifyou could define the contractorrs yard to those things that are on thatone end of the spectrum I just defined or tried to define, that would befine and I-think you canrt. Thatrs the problem. I guess what Ird say toMark is, if you can find a way to define contractor,i yards in that vErynarrow kind of rday and a way that we can enforce it, Iid be willing totake a Iook at keeping contractor's yards around. Failing an ability todo that, then I think we ought...
Batzli: Look at reality and
uses of contractor I s yards.
Irrhether 9re can force them tocontractor ' s yards?
our track record with enforcing conditionat
Do you seriously lvant them to look into
do something in an enforceable rray with
Enmings: I am not going to look at enforcement. That is not my job. Ithink you oughL to take it into account. you shouldn,t stick youi head inthe sand, I agree r.ri th you but if we have a good ordinance, I lhink weshourd try and design a good ordinance and then whether itrs enforced ornot, thatrs not my job.
Batzli: But it has to be enforceable.
accessory to being a home.for a 40 acre contractor's y
government can get in therethings. But I do know thatprobably only, I do know tha
It know that I can come up with the rulesnd a 10 acre. I just don't thinkdonrt think you can come up with thosemile radius is pretty restrictive. We
we make it an accessory use, I thinkefore, we're not getting professional
Werre serving people with real needsy. By the way, they work out of theirthat approach. I don't think we'reer factor that Irm concerned with is, I'dh the land. I think it runs with theut of that, then I think we solved our
Emmings: Exactly. I agree with that. photographs areenforcement as far as Irm concerned.
Conrad: The only thing that I think is real importantsetting contractor's yards up to be an accessory use on
the way to do
is that ere' rethat land,I donard a
and Ithe It ifthat's kind of restrictive. Thercontractor yards coming in here.that want to Iive in the communithouse. Irm real comfortable srithgoing to get abuse. The only othlike to get it out of running witperson. However you can get us oproblem.
Enmings: f donit know if you can do that.
Conrad: Ipaid. You
donrt know ifgot the short
you can do that Markstraw by the way.
but thatrs why you,re highly
Plarin i ng Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 41
Mark Koeg I er :Thank you for that
need to talk about
clarification.
goLf courses, retail nurseries orBa t z1i : Do r4re
buildings?public
Enmings: I thinkpretty $rel I .
the materials that Tim drew up kind of go over that
Conrad: Thatrs pretty consistent support of that.
Mark Koegler: The only final question onIeave it, have you seen denand for people
caII a mom and pop level or have they aIIindustrial uses?
contractor I s yards, before vre
coming in requesting what we
come in requesting essentially
Conrad: Theyr re requesting the industrial uses.
that we turned doern the other day.Batzli: We had one mom and pop
!{ildermuth: Yes, that was a shame.
Batzli: The guy lrho came in who had it and then lost it.
Mark Koegler: So yourre comfortable with the smaller scale...?
Conrad: AbsoluteLy. We basically are dealing hrith a population of 10contractor's yards or something like that. We don't want abuses Mark. Ithink the direction is to get rid of them but here,s a case where we cansatisfy certain people who have lived here and !,rant to live here. Andthere may not be a big demand but we're not trying to encourage thateither. Just trying to be reasonable to people vrho buy a 40 acre farm andthen want to put a little contracting business in there during the offseason. The blending ordinance. This js one that Irm real interested in.It's probably the biggest irritant. It is the biggest irritant of aII theordinances that I see. Itrs a case Mark where we have minimum lot sizes
and as you knoer, we have properties that were developed many years agowith bigger lot sizes. Up to acres and because our ordinance says L5,ggg
square feet, that's all we can hold a new developer to who abuts anexisting neighborhood. As you know in planning, you Iike transitions andyou like to make things consistent within the neighborhood. Over the lastcouple years we have had many, in my mind, outrageous cases where a new
development went in with significantly different lot sizes. Werre nottalking IAZ-20Z changes. Weire talking 3gO* decrease. We're talkingtriple. They're coming in with lot sizes of !5,0A0 and theytre putting
them in an acre to an acre and a half.
Emmings: The guy on the old lot gets 25 new neighbors.
Conrad: Itrs not only that situation but it seems, the only thing thathave. We donrt have a transition. vJe donrt have anything calledtransition other than what you do or what our planning staff t.ells us to
when we start putting in zones. Thatrs the only transition we have. We
we
d
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - page 42
donrt have transitions other than zones.appropriate. I think we,d like to have
don I t know that that's
help us out of that one.
I
you
lotsEmmings: It doesn't havebutting up against...to be all the in a subdivision. Just those
Elrson: Right, a certain percentage of vrhat the ones next to them are.
Mark Koegler: Where do you draw the line in assuming that your role aspeople charged with planning function is new, realize the pioperty willfurther be subdivided at some point in time. As planners we'ie alwayslooking 50 years dovrn the road. rt seems rike a case rike, take Gre6nwoodshores where you've got larger Lots and eventuarry the property of therewilr deverop. That property poses...and there wai a roi oi diicussionabout the rots that wourd abut the Greenwood shores lots. This sameconcept was kicked around then rdithout it being proposed as an ordinance.It was the same point of view, they say, Mr. Dunn, you,ve got to makethose lots bigger. That's a case where it obviously works because youtvegot... You get in other parts of the community, say out on the norEhportion or the northwest maybe you have a couple of 5 acre pieces abuttinga new tract proposed for development. How is that rel,ationihip workingz -
Does that 5 acre piece count against the development or is there somemaximum? Do you only look at blending up to some maximum size?
Enmings: Thatrs your job.
Conrad: Thatrs a good question though.
Wi ldermuth:
scale . . .
What we're essentially talking about 1S blending an urban
Enmings: We're
situation.talking about subdivision against subdivision kind of
Erhart: I I ve
idea. One of
Conrad: When
penciled with this a Lot. I think I,vethe basic things your ve got to...
do you have time to do all this stuff?
got a pretty good
Erhart: one of the things that you've got to ask yourself, before you putdown something on paper to try to define this, is lhat what is the lxtrlmecase? rf someone came into an area where there was alr 40rggg square footlots and sone guy came in to do a subdivision right next and he iays rwant to put all l-5,.ggg square foot lots, the lot that sits next, or therine of lots that sits next to the 4g,sg6 square foot lots, what size doyou want those to be? Do you feel good in going to him and saying .theylve got to be 40?--. obviously th;t.s the extreme but are you going tosay, okay, it's 18? What's the number?
Ellson: A percentage is what I was thinking.
Erhart: Irm not sure you can doIs it 25,Aqg? Is that the max?
it that way.
Let's say the
Mark has to
guy has all
have an idea.
l acre lots and
Planning Commission Meet i ngoctober 19, 1988 - page 43
the guy now starts blending down.
ask yourseJ.f that question beforeIs it 2grggg? Is it 3g,gqg?
What I s
you put
the first ro$r?
anything dosrn.
You I ve got to
Is it 25 t 600?
Batzli: How nany square feet is an acre?
Erhart z 43,566. So thatrs kind of a basic, and itrs andonrt think you can get anything down. If you get thisidea of what everyoner s opinion is, in what I developed,witt], 25,0qA. co to the developer and say, you've got to
25 rggg square foot lots is really asking for a Lot.
opinion and I
done, you get anI kind of came up
have bigger than
Conrad: But rememberl w€rre talking about a transition. Tim, they can
move down to l-5,ggg. Thatrs what the ordinance says. What werre tryingto do is buffer the people, and werre not talking about a brand newsubdivision thatrs totally self-contained or whatever. I don't care hrhatlot sizes are. They can have a 15 next to a 40 as far as I'm concerned aslong as it meets all our different codes but I'm talking about a brand new
one coning into an old and existing one and my concern is that those first
rolrs and as they move away, they can start doing anything they want.
Erhart: Okay Jim, whatrs a big lot? What do you consider a big lot?
Wildermuth: A big lot I think is 40,000 square feet.
Erhart: Alr ighI think what Maissue that r faIet's say tha t
wei re going to
Wildermuth: I donrt know, maybe the cut off
acre plus because otherwise yourre going to
around Hess Farm there thatrs going to be a
lots. 2 and 3 acre lots.
t,
rk
ce
th
ha
Letfs say youtve got a bunch of 4g,AAg square foot lots.
, and I hope lrm not putting words in your mouth. Thein trying to proceed with this and assume that this guy,erers a couple rows of lots. Like you say, over hereve some 15,oqg square foot lots, right? The question is,in your mind, what's the proper size for these lots here? 2A,ggT to
25,A00 Eo 3U,ggg ox to 35t660? It couLd be expressed in a percentage
but I tell you, it's a gut feel thing and this ordinance is coming from usso I think we ought to give Mark what our gut feeling is so he can
proceed.
Wildermuth: I think werve got to look at something along the lines of 568of the abutting lots or some percentage like 50t have to be within 85t ofthe adjoining lot area. Something like that. Then going down from there.85t to 90t. Something like that.
Erhart: Up to $rhat size? Let's say over 2 acre lots.
Ellson: Then we're saying if it's separated by a road
lots can be fur ther
it doesn't count?
Emmings: Could you say, if those subdivided?
1S
end
real
5g,g6q square feet, an
up with something downproblem. Those 2 acre
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 44
Conrad: I think an acre or more, those are large parcels. I don't care
how big they get after an acre. If I had acre parcels on one side of thestreet, what do I want on the other side of the street? If I were theneighbor, been living there for 25 years and all of a sudden they startbuilding. I donrt care if I have l or 5,5 is going to be subdivided sometime.
Wildermuth: Across theyour lot si ze?
street, do you want something with 85t or 9Al of
Batzli: I'd say 7s*.
two-thi rds .
have said 758.
see Bi 1I Boyt I sof about 40 , ggg
EIlson: I'd say
Conrad: I would
Mark Koegler: I don I t recalI.
aware of any other communities that have done something
Mark Koegler:No.
there a way to find out?
Yes.
Emmings: Is
Mark Koegler:
Mark Koegler: Picking up on that, a person who does site planning, Ipol icies. At leastof a sudden say, well I
Conrad: I can hear that.
conrad: Mark, r don't know that we need, and maybe we do to be absoruteand to be fair to developers about it. Therefore, you give them theru1es. I hate arbitrary rules and we just came up iith-one. But iftherers a way to be open. r ar$rays wanted and r ilways assumed when wedeveloped our subdivision ordinances, that we had the flexibility todeverop that transition. The other zone said ls,gga but lre had theability to regulate that and say no, r don't like that lg,00o rot. r lrantthat to be 22rqgg because it's kind of crose to this. Ar;itrary but rthought we were going to have the flexibility to be arbitrary.
wildermuth: But you don't.
Batzli: Did you
up to a max imurnproposal ?
draft
squ a re
of this? He usedfeet or something
75? and it goes
1i ke that in his
Emmings: Are you
1i ke thi s?
prgfer arbitrary rules and ordinances to arbitraryI know what they are going in. At the meeting alilike this shape and this size...
Mark Koegler: But at the same time, again, somer.rhere there hascut off because, as you well know, if you put on your glass andyour crystal baII, 50 years down the road many of these parcels
tobealook in
wi 1I be
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - page 45
subdivided.
Conrad: But I think anything over an acre is not going to be.
Mark Koegler: I guess thatrs a call rrer Ll aIIHopefully werll be around to see that happen.share in that thought but itrs probably a look
Conrad:years.
make and seeI donrt know
in time.
happens.
r would
what
tha t
It might be but again, r^,erre not going to be around here in 50
Uark Koegler: Those properties may subdivide and having to blend with theblended lots.
Wildermuth: I doubt that the ordinance would stand for 5A years anyr,ray.
Conrad: Werre not going to get to a perfect solution here. That's why Isaid, l acre for whatever reason, anything over l acre is grouped together
and that says, lots typically that yourre bordering are over l acre. Thisrow, the first row of the new subdivision has got to be, and we create all
those lot sizes the same. I donrt care if theyrre 1, 5 or Ig because
those are going to be subdivided at some time. I don't care about it butI just rrant, for that 1 acre lot, I want to be within 75t of that acrossthe street.
Mark Koegler:
thresholds and
work.
we'I1 bring
percentages
back some thoughts and suggestions on
and all that and some examples of how they
Conrad: Okay. And pitfalls obviously.
E1lson: Tree removalr that $ras really Davers.
Conrad: Ies, irerre missing Dave on that one.
Ellson: He wants every inch removed be an inch replaced. The 10 inch
diameter with 10-1 inch trees or something.
Erhart: Eden Prairie has an ordinance that apparently norks.
Olsen: we1l, the one they had doesnr t work so they are now amending...
Wildermuth: what would you do if you were trying to put a development in
shadowmere? It would kil1 you. You couldnr t do that.
Erhart: We could learn from their
amending the ordinance to.
experiences and find out lrhat they're
Batzli: Wasn I t
overlay that r,reIs this part of
there more
were going
this or no?
this? Wasnrt there Iike
talk about? A protected
a protected stand
vegetation overlay.
to
to
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 46
Olsen: No. Council al, so
the DNR forester.
thought that thaE was a good idea. We met with
Batzli: We have a r.retland basically overlay through allthis would be a protected tree overlay of mature standswould be basically mapped and you can't go in there andcutting.
the districts andof trees thatjust start clear
Olsen: At least he' l1nice stands of trees.figure out what werve got. We do have some really
Conrad: Anything else on the tree removal? I don't knor., that we would
I{Iant you talking to Dave without the rest of us being around. Any otherdirection on the tree removal? Werre not giving him any kind of...
Mark Koegler: That was actually easy, the trees. The other two, your
comments are helpful.
wi ldermuth :
construction
Jo Ann, what happened to the group thatstandards? The erooden chimneys and tbe
r.ras looking i nto
wood foundations?
Olsen: Theyr ve been working with public Safety and Hor.rard Noziska.
Conrad: There were a lot of things about tightening up building codes.
We can always have a more stringent building code than State canrt !re?Sure. We can have it tighter. That's the minimum?
Erhart: If you take a stainless steel , double or triple pipe and youit daily for heating your house, it would only be a matter of 5 yearsbefore that would burn through and now yourve started a chimney fire.
use
his
s tand
ElIson: Daily to heat your house?
Erhart: Used daily to heat your house.
house and eventual).y the house starts onup to daily use.
...and uses it for heatingfire because they r.rill not
Conrad: Jo Ann, next timeI'd like to know if Ehey're
can you give us
meeting.
a status report of that group?
Olsen: They $rere. It was i{ith Bill Boyt.
Conrad: Bi l1 and Howard?
Olsen: Howard. I just heard like the other
They hit some wall where they couldn.t go andbuilding code or r.rhat. Some State Code...
had to call Ho$rard.
know if it was the
day they
I don I t
Plarin i n9 Commission t'ieeting
October 19, 1988 - page 47
DISCUSSION OF WETLAND ORD I NANCE.
Conrad: You went to a conference, and I havenrt read that yet but also,Jo Ann in your note you talked to us about, in terms of identifyinglretlands, our concern iras \de find out therer s a wetland after somebodyrsapplied for a permit. Kind of after the fact. Your exploring, the wayI read your notes says...
Olsen: We can update the map. I donrt think that that says...
Conrad: And how woulal we update the map?
Olsen: when we were rrorking rdith Elizabeth, they have gone to other
cities and done a survey, site survey. They update it periodically. Idon't know if they will do that...
Conrad: Is that something that takes professional skills to do? Are
there students that can do it?
Olsen: I think it can be students...
Wildermuth: what can we do about these 3g years old spots where theyire
filling in wetlands and building on wetlands?
Olsen: The only way to really stop those are if they come under
the...since theyr Ee already platted and thatrs where we get into the
problems where the builders come in with their old plat and the surveys donot have the vretlands on them.
Wildermuth: So if we updated the maps, wouldnr t that get around that?
Olsen: It sould help me knowing that there's a rretland on their site.
Batzli: When the building permit came in?
Wildermuth: But what about the guy down on TH 101? That eras obviously a
rretland and he went in and filled it in.
Olsen: weII, he dug it out actually.
Witdermuth: So it wouldnrt have done us any good? It was obviously a
wetland.
Batzli: Just east of Lotus.
Olsen: okay, yes. That subdivision, those were all Platted and sold off.
Conrad: Preplatted. Nothing they can do about it.
Batzli: If itrs platted, regardless of t hether itrs in a wetland or not,
they can go in there provided they...
Olsen: If it $ras approved and signed off.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - page 48
Batzli:
other?
But provided that they complying erith the DNR or vrhatever
Olsen: That
not i f ied .
one, I think was the Corps. I think that they... We were
wildermuth: No. They didn't want to getcalled them. I called the DNR. I callederanted to have anything to do with it.
involved. I called them.
the l{atershed District.I
Nobody
Olsen: Theyrve got 2 people I guess erorking...
Wildermuth: They said, no, no, no. That Looks likedonrt show that on our maps. That's a city issue andgoing to do anything about it because...
thatrs a city. wethe City sure isn't
Erhart: Are the lots being filled Jim?
Wildermuth: Yes. It's Ehe one thatrs being filled.been fill,ed and then there are two more lots and thosefilled in too. The filling is already started.
The
are
have
be
trro Iots
going to
Erhart: How can they do that?
conrad: They rdere prepratted. My understanding was lhat they came in thecity and. was willing to give up one of the rots but then, for an exchangefor nothing. But if they did do that they would have to go through arepratting which rrould bring them under the current ordinance which wouldsay you canrt build at all. So therers a case rrhere the developer said Ibought it. rrve got to do something here and r $rant to do it a little bitbetter and we couldn't help hirn.
Erhart: How did you get involved withinvolved in that particular one?
this? Did you just happen to be
Conrad: I just talk to people.
Olseo: When they came in for the
40 feet back from the street...
them 30 feet instead of 40 feet.different plat.
building permit, they pushed the homestried to talk them into at least makinqI donrt reca1l them coming in with a
I
Conrad: A commenL on your note. We canrtflat out statement. Irm kind of surprised
Olsen: ...every site.
closely with them.
visit every si te.that the building
Itts just ainspector. . .
Thatrs why I'm saying that we've been working
Conrad: Do they have a check list when they go there and they say...
if therers a wetland.Olsen: They let me knohr
.Pladn i ng Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - Page 49
Conrad:
give you
ol sen :
Conrad:
form that
found?
HovJ do
a cal l?
They come back.
So when they go out and make anthey fill out to justify their
they do that? How do they let you know? Do they just
inspection,
business or
they have this
document vrha t they
do
to
Olsen: Theyr ve got a form.
form does it say wetland on the area or no wetland?Conrad:
Ol sen :
conrad:
make it
OI sen :
And on that
It, s just...
Is it something that yourd
an absolute check Jo Ann?
like to see on that form so that they
Conrad: Would you look at that. If it works. Maybe thatrs the r^,a y to doit. As Long as theyr re there, that may be the best eyes werve got. Irmnot trying to get planning staff out there except when therers apotential. l'laybe thatrs the \.ray to do it if they're visiting every site.
Why donrt you get back to us in terms of how you think that map can beupdated. Irm not interested in spending $Lg,ggq.AS to update the map,
unless we feel it's hrorth SLg,qgA.gO. It seems Iike there's got to be a
way to solve the problem for something less than that.
Erhart: I suggested the Iast time that we had a question on the
subdivision application form. I do bel.ieve in some cases people come in
who dontt know. What is so ironic is how, you start talking to people whokind of move into the area, some farm people who moved into the axea 50-60
7g years ago and you talk to them about wetlands like we talk about
rretlands and theyrre just so valuable. They look at me like I'm just
absolutely nuts. People were ingrained in those years to think of
rretlands as an obstacle. Sonething to get rid of. Drain it. Let's taneAmerica. Part of taming America is draining every bit of water. Theystill have that, and the government came in and helped then. Paid for it.
Then when you go back there and say we $rant to protect them and rebuild
this land, it's Iike...
Thatrs something we could do.
you turn to the camera and for all
r.rould you like to tel1 them?
Conrad: why donrt
this meeting, what
the farmers rra tch i ng
Erhart: Right now it's something Ehat werve lost a lot of that resource.
Jo Ann Olsen updated the Comnission on the TH I01 realignment.
Olsen: The other thing is, certain people on the Planning Commission
terms are up. What my question was is, !,rhen wetve done this before you
had stated that there are certain things that you wanted to see in
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - page 50
there...and the Council has certain things that they want.live. what they do. There are certain important piints...
something that you want also? When vre bring the applicantsyou erant a checklist that there are certain points that you
important?
vlhere they
Is that
before you, dofelt were
Conrad: The checklist? I don't think we need a checklist here. I think,one, nobodyr s resigned so werre not talking about resigning. ?wo, ifthose that are here are reapplying, I don,t think this is the body thatshould reappoint. I think the City Council shoulde do the reappointing.
Which means I think there should be an interview with the reapplyingcommissioners with Council. I dontt think this body should bl ...
Emmings: I find that personally offensive. If they don't know who I amafter 3.years, they're not going to find out anything about me in a I0minute interview.
Conrad: Letrs put it this way. I think they should have the option ofinterviewing. One, itrs not fair that we interview you. the p-Ianning
Cornmission has never done a fair job of interviewing any applicant.Typically itrs a rubber stamp dear and r donrt know thal ii shourd be arlthe time. r thiok if we had sent Howard to the city council earrier thanafter 6 calls that I had, they might have solved a problem earlier so Ithink the City Council has a nice role to play in terms of the reviewprocess. In terms of you going in...
Emmings: l.ty notion is, if Irve been here, once Irve been here, they caninterview aII the people they want but t.hey already know who I am. Itseems real Mickey Mouse.
Ellson: Except for the nee, people.
Conraal: But Irm not sendiog you
people .
in there to interview against other
Emmings:
obnox i ous
Conrad :
fo r ever term?
No.
who?
The
Emmings:They donrt have to reappoint me.
Conrad:
Enmings:
Ellson: He I s
But thatrs sort of what it feels like I guess. Itrs kind ofto me. Either I put my name in the hat or I don't.
So itrs automatic. So then you donrt like a term? you want a
City CounciI.
saying , put it before them but don't make him go in front.
Emmings: I donrt rrant to go in for an interview after Irve been sittinghere for 3 years. I didn,t think, what Annette said, that there might iea whole bunch of new City Council people who donrt knord me. I didnitthink about that.
.Planni ng
Oc tober
Commission Meeting19, 1988 - Page 5I
Conrad: I think they should have the option. If they're consideringterminating you, they should have the option to interview you. I thinkthatrs the right thing to do rather than they'll take a vote saying Stevedidn't show up for 3 meetings but I think they should be the body thatreappoints without an interview unless they so desire.
Emmings: If I have to interview, thererd be a question in my mind whetherIrd reapply. It doesnrt make sense to me.
Erhart: l.laybe you could reterm it. I agree. If yourve got to go inafter being on this thing for 3 years to try to vie for the job, I agreebut if you look at it from a point of letrs say an employee reviewstandpoint, periodically review... Look at it from a review as anopportunity on a periodic basis to sit dor.rn with council and to discussafter 3 years srhat yourve experienced. The problems you see. Why or whynot you want to stay on the Planning Commission and including stating
these are the changes that I r^rant to see if Irm going to stay on. They
may have the right to do the same thing. cee Steve, Tim, Ladd, we've
enjoyed having you on here but there's a few things that we viewdifferent. From a standpoint of communications, it may not be a bad ideato have just a get together session lrith the Council but I agree with you,
it shouldnr t be like a job applicant interviewing.
Enmings: There should be better communication. There
of communication. Right now there is essentially noneextent that you may talk to the Mayor.
Conrad:
If Steve
that but
knoe, how
somebod y
should
except
some k i. nd
the
in
set
be
to
Olsen: The applications that we get, do you still want to interview them?
Thatrs phony stuff because we never consider the applicat,ions.
reapplies, advertising an opening is, maybe by law rre have to doin technicality, we are deceiving the applicants. So I don'tto solve that problem. I,d rather not advertise if werve got
who is reapplying.
Olsen: Maybe what IrlI do is notify you that you're up for reappointment.
You coulde maybe let me know if you want to stay on. I'11 check and seeif we have to advertise. Council is going to come up with qualities thatthey wanted to see and that's why I was wondering if you had any input
that you wanted to include in that.
Conrad: No, we have totally different things on our mind than they do.
Ellson: I donrt think so either. we need someone from each district ofthe city to have an equal mix. We'd like to have occupations of x, y, z.
That sounds terrible. what if Irm just a concerned citizen for crying out
loud.
Conrad: I think taking the best Person avaiLable. Drafting from
different neighborhoods. If a neighborhood and people are interested
being on our Commission or City Council, they can apply but I think toa quota is a ward, it's a ward system.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - page 52
ElIson: plus the
somebody. . .
commitment that goes along with it. Even if you get
Conrad: See, the last time we interviewed was the very first time we hadmore than 1 applicant. I think werve had reat tough times in thatsituation finding enough qualified people. Somebo6y is going to have tobe prepared, if the Council wants to do it, go out and seek candidates.
Theyr re going to have a problem doing that. I think some of thequalifications are difficult. Basically again, no input from us Jo Ann.They will have total authority to dictate what they r.rant to do.
Olsen: I just lranted you to be airare that they...
Batzli: From vJhat Itm hearing, the planning Commission as a whole isopposed and feers strongry that vre should not have to have criteria thatwe have to match up against?
Conrad: I dontt mind, as I told Boyt, I donrt mind them determining aneed. They should be aware that we're reappointing or that wetreinterviewing. . The meeting before we start interviewing, r think theyshould be t,elling us, based on $rhat they see the needs are of the Cily.Maybe hre have a tremendous need in the rural area. The non-segrered area.I think they should say, please, why donrt you focus some attention, seeif you can find somebody in that area or find somebody rrho has experiencein a certain field because we think you're missing that. But that meansthey have to think about it before we do it. Rather than having somerules that donrt make sense every time, I think I'd Like to fcr6e theminto a little bit of thinking based on what they see us doing and thecomposition at the time and the future needs.
Wildermuth: The danger in having a selectionwith a bunch of clones.
profi le 1S we might end up
Conrad: Tim you wanted toplanning posi tion.talk about interviewing candidates for the
Erhart: rrrl submit that r think the pranning commission ought to have anopportunity to discuss with the City, with th; City Manager or the Mayoror both, just what we feel we need in Barb's replacement from ourexperience with this. The ones vrho have to work with the planner. Iguess Ird feel a rittre left out if they, re proceeding to hire somebodyr,rithout asking this particurar body about whit we feer the needs are.since they haven't come to us, r submit that maybe we ought to go to themand suggest the reasons. . .
Conrad: Any particular qualities that yourre looking for?
some specifics. I donrt want to go into it tonighton Ievels of experience. I guess basically Ird likethe approach, the philosophy about what the plannerrelate to the planning Commission and Council as
Erhart: Yes, Irve gotbut yes, I have ideasto express my views on
does and how they r.rould
PI arin i ng Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - page 53
far as adding their recommendation before vre pass on ideas about that.
The other point, the Mayor or the Council or Manager but I'd like to havethat opportunity to have us have that discussion. Give us thatopportunity. I think it's unfortunate time buE it gives us an opportunityfor us to sit down, whoever is doing the hiring and to kind of go overthat.
Conrad: Are
description?
you concerned with the individual that fills the current job
Erhart: No, Irm not talking about, Irm not suggesting that we interview aperson. Irm talking about defining the job description. Helping rrritethe job description and defining the level of experience. The philosophy
of what that position is. How itrs going to function. I think that oughtto be reviewed by this body. Plus, I guess therers always the issue, do
you go with 1 person or 2 people? Get our input as to how much is oneperson, were we able to function with just Barb and Jo Ann before? Is it
inadequate s ta ff?
Conrad: Irve al.ways been intrigued that nobody asked us. Planning is
probably one of the key departments, if not the key department in the
community as we expand and nobodyrs asked us. Strange. we have a
tendency to focus on just that here and nobody asked us if we think that
vrerre understaffed. But I think it gets into more than numbers. It gets
into qualities and pay ranges and skill levels. I think whether we talk
community development director position here. That concerns me. I think
there is so much, enough staff to react to urgencies but enough staff toreally do some planning Jo Ann which we don't do a whole Iot of. The
Planning staff here, you react. We donrt plan. Itrs a fallacy. I say
we pLan but we react to the development proposals that come in. when we
have a special idea, it takes Jo Ann or Barbara many months to get the
time to get there to review it and thatrs just exactly the opPosite of
what it should be. The ideas that we come up with are probably importantat the time. They shouldnr t be secondary to another urgency or a
developer coming in to effectively do our job in this town as it grows.
think werve got it backwards. We're being pound foolish if we're Eryingto save on budget. we pay it over and over again and $rerll Pay it in
consultant fees and it just is kind of amazing to me.
olsen: I think Don was saying that they already have apPlications. They
have been closed. As of...Friday and the Council is planning on meeting
before next saturday. They're going to meet the applicants and talk...
Conrad: Obviously theyrre going to do something without us. Tim, ifyou'd like to write a note, I think the best thing to do is write a note
or show up. Irm sure theyrd include you. I think what Ird like Eo do Jo
Ann is have you give us some job descriptions. If you could give to us inthe next planning packet the job descriptions of the planning staff, I
think I'd like to take a look at that.
I
Emmings: we get that initial packet that defines... I think Irve got it.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 19, 1988 - page 54
Ellson:
input.
Conrad: Letrs see if it fits. It may be, I guess my motivation is maybenot, I think it's stupid for people to interview staff. Us or the Citycouncil unless theyr re interviewing the city Manager. That takes away allthe responsibility and accountability when the Ciiy Council interviewipeople.
I canrt see them making the decision. f can see them having
Conrad: But whors making the decision?interview. I $rant to set requirementsout some things that I see really wrongThat doesnrt make sense because then I
Somebodyrs got to be rnanager.
Olsen: ...both Barb and I did
know if the City Engineer diil .
Thatrs why I don't $rant toout there. I guess I'm pointingin some procedures around here.don't have anybody to point at.
get interviewed by the Council. I donrt
Erhart: Before you did that, did
3?
they narrow the candidates doi/n to 2 or
OI sen :They
So
narrored them dorrn to 5.
Conrad :Tim, where do you want to take thi s?
late.
conrad: r think itrs too late. Do you r.rant to pursue just taking a rookat qualifications in general and having the planning commissioo come .rprrith statements. r think it's appropriate that we itart tarking a litirebiE about the type of staff that... -
Erhart: I rdould like the planning Commission ask Don Ashlrorthus at our next meeting and basically give us, basically tell uscriteria involved with the strategy in ttre pianning delartment.department plans for the next 3 years.
Erunings3 It sounds like itrs too
OIsen: The strategy?
Erhart: whatrs the plan.
Conrad: Werd like to know how the planning
accomodate growth that we see in the next 3
department is being staffed toto 5 years.
they going
way
wer re
to come
the
Wha t
to
the
Erhart: Whatrs the structure? whatrs the philosophy? How areto relate? Whatrs your position relative to the new person?
Conrad: Anything eLse? A motion to close the meeting?
Erhart: I've got a couple other things. Somebody had an idea on theout of here last time about how to operate procedurally so we don't,someone had the idea that we keep a rist of functions or things thaicurrently working on.
'.PIanning
October
Commission Meet ing
19, 1988 - Page 55
Emmings: Old business.
Ellson: The more you see them the more to get
lre ' reUntil theyrre done. UntiI we
Erhart:
meet i ng
It doesn't mean we cover then all.
Thatrs right. It doesn't nean that we cover each one at everybut werve got a list that lre kind of...
A running tally.ElISon:
you want
all agree
them .
done working onErhart:
them.
EIlson:
Erhart: A running tally of what werre working on.
Olsen: Did you have any other items that you can think of? Is there
something that Iim missing that you can think of?
Conrad: A lot of the issues have been taken care of.
Olsen: werve been really trying to do that.
Conrad: I canrt come up with, after I'lark came in tonight with those
couple items.
Erhart: The one Irm thinking of is the Minnesota River Valley.
Olsen: we're still working on that one.
Conrad: I think it's a real good idea to do. I don't know that therei s
much to the list but I think we should be doing it. we used to do it
because there used to be a ton of stuff outstanding but we havenr t
maintained a list in the J.ast year.
Olsen: Do you irant that on the agenda?
Conrad: I donrt know that it needs to be on the agenda but I think there
needs to be on a report and maybe we call it a monthly report andquarterly report oE something.
olsen: we can just make out a list and attach it.
Erhart: Just call it a status review.
Erhart: That's it. It was a great idea and I think vre ought to do it.That is, that we have old business on our agenda that includes aII theitems that we are currently working on. We can't check them off.
Planning Commission Meeti ng
October 19, 1988 - page 56
Erhart moved, Batzli seconded to adjourn the meeting.
and the motion carried. The meeting vras adjourned at
AI1 voted in favor
11: g0 p.m..
Submitted by Jo Ann OlsenAsst. City Planner
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CITY OF
CHINHISSEN
690 COULTER ORIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEII{ORANDUII{
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jo Ann OLsen, Asst. City planner
DATE: October 20, 1988
SUBJ: Building Code Review
iDD
Scott Harr proviiled an update on what occurred. $rith t.he groupreviewing building and fire codes ( including Bill Boyt and HowardNoziska). They met several times to discuss if the State UniformBuilding Code and State Fire Code could be made more restrictive.It was determined that the UBC could not be made more restrictivewithout pursuing a lengthy process to amenal the code for
Chanhassen and that certain parts of the Fire Code could be mademore restrictive. After further review it was determined t.hatboth codes are very complete and rhat. any problems the city wasexperiencing was not due to poor codes but rather vrith the lackof manpower to enforce the codes. The city has since hired afire inspector and the Public Safery Department would like tohire adtlitional personneL for building and fire inspections andcode enforcement. The group confirmed rhat the existing codesare adequate and have stopped meeting.