04-18-90 Agenda and PacketF'U
AGENDA
CHANHASSEN PIANNING COWISSION
WXDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 1990, 7:30 P.t[.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE
CALL TO ORDER
PUBLIC HEJARINGS
1. * TTE}I DEIJTED - PERITTIT NOT NECESSARY
Wetland Alteration Pernit to a}ter a Class B wetLand onproperty zoned BH, Highuay and Business District and locatedon the southeast corner of Dakota Avenue and Hwy. 5, llcDonaldsCorporation.
2. carl Carrico, located on property zoned RR, Rural Residentialand located on Lake Lucy Road approxinately t nite west ofYosenite:
a. Land Use PIan Amendment to include 12 acres of propertyin the Uetropolitan Urban Service Area i
b. Prelininary PIat to subdivide 12 acres into 16 singtefanily lotsi and
c. wetland Alteration Pernit to alter an existing wetland.
3. tlodification No. 10 of the Redevelopnent plan and TIF plan.
OLD BUSINESS
NE'W BUSINESS
APPROVAL OF UINUTES
CITY COI'NCIL UPDATE
ONGOING ITEI.IS
ADUINI STRATIVE APPROVAIS
OPEN DISCUSSION
4. Business Fringe District, Status - Background Paper.
5. Discussion Paper Regarding connissioner Emmings New Approachto Creating a IBlendingtt ordinance.
ADJOT,RNITIENT
t Pc DATE: 4/18/90
cc DATE: 5/L4/9o
cAsE #: 88-19 SUB,
88-4 LUP, 88-12 WAP,
88-4 Rezoning
CITY OF
EH[NHISSEN
STAFF REPORT
Fz
C'
=LL
{
E
lrJb
@
Prelininary Plat to Subdivide 11.67 Acres into 13Single Fanily Iots and 2 Outlots.
IOCATION: Northlrest Corner of Lake Lucy Road and Lake Lucy Lane
APPLICANT: lilinnesota Texas property
4445 West 77th Street
Edina, MN 55435
PRESENT ZO}IING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
AU]ACENT ZONTNG AND
T,AND USE:
WATER AND SEWER:
PHYSICAL CHARACTER. :
2OOO I,AND USE PIAN:
RR, Rural Residential
11.67 acres-gross
4.a !/a - gross / 2.7 \t/ a net
N - PUD-R, Pheasant HiIlS - RR, Lake Lucy Highlands
E - RR, single fanily
W - PUD-R, Pheasant Hill
Not available to the site
The site contains a Cl.ass B wetland inthe southirest corner. The remainingsite has slopes that rise towards thenorth with sparse vegetation.
Residential Low Density
PROPOSAL:
The requested subdivision does not meet the RR District zoningordinance reguirenents nor is it consistent with the currentConprehensive PIan. The property will need to be rezoned andincluded within the I,IUSA boundary for the subdivision to beapproved. If a land use plan anendment is approved by both thecity and the council, then the city can entertain a request torezone the property to RSF lrhich allor.rs for lots less than 2l
acres .
During the initial review of the subdivision, the park andRecreation Corn:nission was interested in acquiring the property forthe location of a park to serve the area. The conprehensive plan
Recreation Chapter had designated this area with a need for a 5 to10 acre parcel for future neighborhood park. The park andRecreation Departnent negotiated with the orrners on the purchase ofthe property and appraisals by the City and property owner resultedin significant differences in vaLues. The negotiations werediscontinued when the price of the property could not be agreedupon. The Park and Recreation Comnission again reviewed theproposal on April L0, 1990, to deternine if outlot A uas suitablefor parkland and should be accepted as such. The park andRecreation Connission recornmended staff to continue to pursueacquisition of parkland beyond Outlot A. No final action wal takenon the request. The Park Connission is concerned that the outlot,nith its uetland steep slopes, does not offer sufficient suitabLepark area to satisfy the need. It is likely that park requirenentscan only be satisfied by the outright purchase of land over andabove what can be required under the subdivision ordinance.
The proposal also includes a rretland alteration pernit to al1ow aponding area to be created uithin a Class B wetland and theexisting boundaries of the existing Ctass B rretland to be reducedfor grading of the street and lots.
Since - the_ City is in the process of conpleting a najorComprehensive Plan Anendment uhich includes anending ttte UUSnboundary for inclusion of a large anount of property ii the sewerservice.area, staff is. 1ot in the position to leclorame-nd approval ofprocessing the individual amendrnent to the IiIUsA bouniiry or arezoning for the subject site. we do not believe th;t the
carrico PropertyApril 18, 1990
Page 2
PROPOSAL/ST'UMARY
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the subj ect property into13 single fanily 1ots. Access will be provided fron a roadextending south of the Pheasant Hill PUD (Duck Lane) and connectingto Lake Lucy Lane on the south. The property is zoned RR whichconforns with the Conprehensive PIan for residential areas locatedoutside the IIUSA boundary.
The applicant is providing a 50 foot right-of-way connecting Duck
Lane 1n Pheasant Hill to Lake Lucy Lane. The proposed Carrico Laneis curvilinear with an rteyebrourr in the northeasL corner to servicetwo lots. The proposed street grade Deets the City requirenents.
The connection of the Etreet to Lake Lucy Lane has been shifted tothe west, as first reconnended by the Engineering Department, toprovide additional separation froD Lake Lucy Road. The result ofshifting of Carri.co Lane to the west has resulted in a remnantpiece of property being designated as Outlot B. I\picatly, when
carrico PropertyApril 18, 1990
Page 3
l,letropolitan Council will look favorably on a request such as thissince they are also aware of the Cityrs on-going comprehensiveplanning program. Therefore, staff is reconmending continuation ofthe proposal until the Conprehensive Plan Anendnent has beenapproved by the Metropolitan Council and adopted by the city.
If the applicant does not agree to the contLnuation, ue lrould
reconmend that the request be denied to avoid problems withstatutory tine linitations for subdivision revien.
BACKGROT'ND
on April L6, !984, the city council approved the prelininary andfinal development plan for Pheasant Hill PRD (Attachnent #1). Oneof the conditions of approval was final location of the road right-of-way Iine between Lot l, Block 4 and Lot 8, Block 3, asdetermined by soil conditions (Attachnent #2). The road right-of-
way was preserved for future connection to the Carrico property.
on January 4, 1989, the planning coromission reviewed theprelirninary plat for the carrico property. The planning Cornmissionvoted 4 to 3 to table the iten until the f,fUSA boundary issue couldbe addressed. The Planning ConDission also had concerns rrith thedesign of the plat, including street location.
SUBDIVISTON
The. applicant_ is proposing to divide the property into t3 singlefanily lots with 2 outlots. Outlot A is wherC the class B wetlindis located and is proposed to provide a ponding area within thewetland. Outlot B is a rennant piece of property as a result ofthe road connection to Iake Lucy Lane. AIl of the lots contain atleast 15,000 square feet and have 125 feet of 1ot depth. Lot 2 andLot 3, Block 1, do not have 90 feet of street frontage and if theproperty is included within the UUSA line and rezoned RSF, the lotswould require a variance to the zoning regulations. Staff wouldnot support the variances since the applicant could neet a1Irequirenents by relocating lot lines.
Access
Carrico PropertyApril 18, 1990
Page 4
outlots are created as a result of road locations, the Cityrequires the outlots to be combined with adjoining property or forthe subdivision to have a honeowners association to naintain theproperty. The City does not want to be responsible for naintenanceof the piece and since it has no valid use, rre rould recornrnend thatit be deeded to the adjacent Lot labeled as an rtexceptj.onrr.
The road design provides a 90' bend which does not neet city
standard design criteria for an urban roadway. The 90' bend isproposed to discourage traffic using the street as a thoroughfareto Pheasant HiII. If the street design is approved, the applicantshall be required to post speed advisory signs.
The Hughes property to the west is landlocked and is in theprelininary stage of being proposed for platting. Staff is
reconmending that access be provided to the Hughes property by a 50foot easenent over Outlot A. A 50 foot easenent between Lots 1 and2, Block 1 may be preferred upon closer inspection of a proposed
developrnent plan for the Hughes property. The Hughes applicationshould be subrnitted in the near future. Staff will have anopportunity to review both parcels together prior to the adoptionof the Conprehensive PIan Amendment.
sanitary serrer
[unicipal sanitary sewer services can beselrer fron Wood Duck Lane. Provision
contingent upon a titUSA line expansion.
obtained by extendingof sewer service is
l,lunicipal water service can be obtained by an extension from thewatermain in Wood Duck Lane to the intersection of Lake Lucy Road
and Lake Lucy Lane. The waterDain should be }ooped into the Lake
Lucy waterrnain. The developrnent vil1 be required to participate inthe trunk charges established as part of the final assessnent rol1.To allow future sater service to the Hughes property located to therrest, a 20 foot utility easement should be preserved along the westside of Ipt 1, Block 1.
Grading and Drainage
The najority. of the site nill be graded including the renoval ofmost of ^the vegetation. -The existing trees are sniller shrub t)rpevegetation. Staff reguires. a tree rernoval plan to be proviila
t ltigl^l iho. w-s larger or pore signif icant trees. Any tree 4 r- caliperat 4r height must be shown and designate which tiees will rernain.
water Service
The applicant is proposing to create a pond within the Class Bsetland for storu rater storage. The size of the pond will
Carrico PropertyApril 18, 1990
Page 5
accommodate predevelopment runoff rates for a 100 year storn event.
The ponding area will require a rrettand alteration pernit.
There are poor soils on the site which contain a high arnount ofpeat. Sone of the poor soils are located where the street isproposed and the applicant will be required to nake soilcorrections for the street and honesites.
The Park and Recreation Conmission has revierred this site severaltirnes for potential parkland. The applicant was willing to sel1the city the property but at a cost beyond rrhat the city couldafford. The Park and Recreation Commission then looked ataccepting Outlot A as parkland. on April 10, 1990, the park andRecreation Commission reviewed the proposal and reconmended thatOutlot A by itself was not suitable for parkland and staff shouldpursue obtaining additional property from the applicant (Attachnent
#3).
COMPARISON TABLE
ordinance
Re qu i rements
Block 1Lots 1
Block 2Lots 1
16 ,32L
22,2O4
22,7L6
15,L25
16, 000
15 r 840
L6,255
Lot Depth
125 |
150 |
l99l
195 |
l52l
135 r
191r
L'17 |
85* (at 30r
setback)
85* (at
30rsetback)
228
150
Area
2
3
4
5
5
7
L5,284 150 r 327
Park and Recreation
I,ot width
90r
85* (at
30 i setback)
90 (at
30r setback)
95
Lot
15, 000
Carrico PropertyApril 18, 1990
Page 6
* Lots )., 2 &. 3,
requirement
2
3
18,999
2L,288
15,821
15, 048
76 ,522
155 |
L7 4l
L67 |
138 r
95
90 (at
3Or setback)
1oo (at
30r setback)
720
4
5
6
Block L need variances to the Lot width
IIETI,,AND ALTERATION PERMIT
There is a Class B wetland located at the southr{rest corner of thesite. The applicant is proposing to grade the far northeast cornerof the hretland and to provide a ponding area designed to Fish andWildlife standards on the south side. Originally, the applicantwas proposing to dedicate the lretland and surrounding area (OuttotA) to the City as parkLand. The park and Recreation Departrnent isstill proceeding to negotiate with the applicant and surroundingproperty owners to obtain nore usable parkland. The City is alsoin_final stages of determining the need for a storn watei pond inthis area. Both of these issues nil1 potentially inpJct theuetland area beyond nhat is shown on the p1an. Before theie issuesare resolved a final recommendation on the wetland alterationpenrit cannot be nade. The wetland issues wiII be resolved by thetine the fand use plan amendment is acted upon. Therefore, ltaffis reconmending action on the rretland alteration permit to betabled until the Land use plan amendnent, rezoning and subdivisioncan be acted upon.
I,AND USE PIAI{ A}IENDI.{ENT
The subj ect property .is _currently outside of the I{USA boundary.The property must be included in the }{USA boundary and rezoned toRSF for the proposed subdivision to be approved. The land use plananendment to include the property in the IIUSA rrust be approveh byboth the }letropolitan council and city council . ttre ueliopolitaircouncil has stated that individual land use pran anendnents ire notIooked upon favorably unless there is septic tank failure and ahazard to public heaLth. The Uetropolitan Council prefers to
148 |
111
carrico PropertyApril 18, 1,990
Page 7
revie!, a conprehensive land use ptan amendnent including allproperties rrhich should be included within the uUsA boundary. Thecity is in the process of presenting such a Comprehensive plan
Amendment to the City Council and t{etropolitan Council. staff hasestablished the faI1 of 1990 as when the Comprehensive plan
anendment should be ready to be subnitted to the t{etropolitanCouncil. The subject property is included in the CourprehensivePlan's proposal for the property to be incLuded within the !{UsA
boundary.
RE ZONING
The applicant is requesting the property to be rezoned fron P.R to
RSF to allow the proposed lots to be under 2L acres and not have to
nreet the 1 unit per 10 acre density requi.rement. Since theproperty is not located within the UUSA boundary and does not have
sewer and water servi,ces, the property cannot be rezoned until an
arnendnent to the I{USA boundary for the inclusion of this propertyhas been approved by both the l{etropolitan Council and City
Council . If the property is included in the MUSA boundary in thefuture, rezoning of the property fron RR to RSF would beappropriate. Until the Conprehensive Plan has been approved by theCity Council and Metropolitan Council , staff is not in a positionto reconmend approval of the rezoning until we are certain rrhatareas of land are within the IIUSA boundary and which areappropriate to be rezoned.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff cannot recornrnend processing this individual land use plan
anendrnent since lre are so close to presenting the complete
Conprehensive Plan anendnent to the City Council and MetropolitanCouncil. Therefore, staff reconrnends the Planning connission adopt
one of the foLlorring notions.
IThe Planning Connission reconnends denial of Land Use PIan
Amendment #88-4, Rezoning Request #88-4, Subdivision Request
#88-19 and Wetland Alteration Pernit #88-12 based on thefollowing:
a. That it is an individual property rrhich is not
experiencing septic tank failure warranting an emergency
Land use plan amendment i
The property does not have sewer and water services andis not within the Itletropolitan Urban Service Area
boundary and cannot be rezoned until a land use plan
aDendment is approved;
1
b
ATTACH}{ENTS
City Council minutes dated ApriL 15, 1984.Planning Comnission minutes dated January 4, 1989.Park and Recreation staff report.
Meno from Sr. Engineering Technician dated April 12, 1990.
Hemo frorn Building Department dated Decenb er 22, lgBB.
l[emo fron Park and Recreation Coordinator dated Decenber 8,
1988.Letter fron fish and Wildlife Service dated July 11, 1988.
Merno from Fire Inspector dated Decenber 15, 1989.L€tter fron U.S. Corps of Engineers dated October 24, L9BB.Letter from applicant dated November 16, L988.
Appl ication .L€tter fron adjacent property orrner dated Novenber 1, 1988.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
carrico PropertyApril 18, r,990
Page 8
c. The subdivision and wetland alteration pernit cannot beprocessed until the land use plan anendment request has
been approved.
2. rThe Planning Conmission recommends tabling action on the Land
Use PIan Amendment #88-4 as part of the conplete ComprehensivePlan Amendment. Also, the Planning Coumission recommendstabling action on Rezoning Request #88-4, Subdivision Request
#88-12 and Wetland Alteration PerBit Request #88-12 until theland use plan anendnent has been acted upon
a. The applicant agrees in vriting to tabling action untilthe coDprehensive Plan is amended and adopted by the city
and Metropol itan Council .rr
1
2
3
4
5
6
Counci Meeti ng
iounc i lman Horn
from
ilark
gor ng over
Koeg ler
iinrewfiT-6T-a
and Cardi naI
improved and
south I would
nori ( , 1984
- l{ould compl eti on ofon thi s street?
C
l{ood Duck Lane prevent the traffic
7
-a
{
I
tn
_\i
I think it rill to a point. I think still
conveni ence to the lots t hat are cl osest toill probably continue to use Hest 63rd. Ast becomes more feasible for more traffic to
assume it yould.
it'
l{est
Lake
sg
53
Lurat
oing to berd Streetcy i se to thegene
Counc i I nan Hornto compIEEe -E6o-'d
Planning Commi ss
Councilman
- I guess that rould be
Duck Lane dorn to L akeion recommendation.
mai n argument that I roul dy Road in Phase I rhich yras
the
Luc
have
the
time more t
roul d insta
Gevi no - If
han Iikely.ll all of t
re put them ail in
improvement pro ject
theIf
he s
City puts ln the road,this becomes a publ lctreets in one shot.
at one
f,e
Bill l'lonk - t{0. The.proposa'l ls to petltlon for lmprovements for onlyFE'I3e-Tl- staff's thinkiirg rhen re oi.iginalry igre-i riIr,-irrase I was thatthe tro Iink ups would generate traffic on l{est 63rd and of course thecounty Road but that because it was I imi ted in nature, hor many I ots areactual I y in Phas e I?
BiII [oq! - That 36 Iots xould not thror the traffic
r-?r, EnTly. If-Phases I and Il,50l60llO iots iere-ueingi,: then we would be concerned, but rith only that numbei
I,j that with the quick timing phase that,s 6eing talkedE;:: rould not be detrimental to the neighborhoodl
lilayor Hamilton moved to approve the preliminary and final development planreview for the Pheasant Hill pRD including the planning commission,s "icom-mendations:1- Additional right-of-ray and improvement plan as recommended by thecity Engineer for steller circle and the pheasant Drive connection toCounty Road 117.?. Location of tot lot facllitles.
1. Dedicated right-of-ray to the property north of Lot 25, BIock 2.4. A revised location for the right-of-ray line betreen L6t 1, Block rt andLot 8, Block 3 as determined by soll condltlons.5. Tha t sui tabl e vegetation be provi ded al ong Lake Lucy Road.and including the ci[y Englneer'i reconmendations in trli nenorandum dated
\lr"\ ??, 1984 and April 11, 1984. ttotton seconded by Counctlnan Geving.The folloring voted in favor: llayor Hanilton, Councllroman Iatson, -
Councilmen Horn and Geving. llo negatlve votes. [otlon carrled.
Counc i lman Gevi no
Phase I. but I don
lopment of Pheasan
t{ark Koegler - There is 36 all together, ei ght of. rhlch are ilr. Steller,s.
bal ance off slgnifi-put on those streetsof lots re thought
about nor that it
- I heard a mlnute ago that the petltlon r.s Just for't see that ln the petitlon. I see thl s as for the deve-t Hill PRD rhlch ls the entlre thlng.
Bill ilonk - The developer,s request has been flne tuned and he
I
lle
is
l.-lj
L:
answer questions, but it has been revlsed to phase
lncluded in the map. That question did come up.the petition revised and made more expliclt but lt
only and
probabl y
Just for
is here tothat's
shoul d have
Phase I.
[-.I _-:
l,=
fit
Counci I ileeti ng Apri I I t('984
Counci lman GevinqTffrTITluTl-Ti-t
and get a bond andadministration of
benef i tti ng proper
years and years.
12 or 13 years oldto carry these kinadministrative cos
- Hhen vle go to Chapter 429hese publ ic improvements fosell the bond. t{e do alIthe proj ec t. l{e eventual lyty owners. l{e carry this oTonight we looked at some por more and my question isds of projects over that pet that re do not recover?
C
Publ ic lmprovement project,,
r the developer. He go outthe work. tJe do all iheassess the project bac k ton our books for years androjects that I recogn i zed are, what does it cost the Cityriod of time? Is there an
-8-
DonIo5
fha t
I i te
peri
It i
acc0
counin a
AshHorth
, it goe7
's the Ad
ral ly pay
od of tims a burde
unti ng sot up- onn average
- The.City does incur costsr J€s. The charge ranges from 3ls_agalnst the development. 'lt is put into i speciai tuna.--ministrative Trust Fund that.the city airocitii-iicr, ilii'tofor the costs the City has incurred over thii t5:iO i;;; --
e. l{ithout question,.Jt.is a significant cost io if,e"Ciiy.n,i?!h-I:.f to. carry-that out. Ie are carrying out no"rii -
rt's not a matter of numerous days, a fer houis each yeirthe other side of the coin, projicIs such ai ilri i-iJuia-putof about t20,000.
Councilman F;
'I n the pastit, of courthis moving
nothi ng f,rothe tota I pof pro jects
I have ratc
and I rould
Geving -.The reason_ that I am commenting on this is that re haveapproved many of these public improvemint projects and re-dose, to have an i ncenti ve to the devel oper tb get a projeci iite. l{e Iike to see a nice project iike this pr6ceed inJ'i-ieing rith that. fhere are times though that ie have to look-iti cture and how much money ve have 96t out there on trresi-iinosald just hor{ it_impacts the Qity in terms of iti b;;;-;aIi;9.nfl":rI^0919-.1!in9,9rer the.last eisht years drop ii!niiiiintryrlke ro have you address this-
Don Ashworth - The overal I debt is approximately t20 mi.l I ion. That isiETaE-i7ilT-r'ish ror a communitv or J[l iize. -oirr-b;n;';;ii;s is Baa.Juran and riroodv stated that thit represented a teasi in ire.ag" rating fora communitv of our size. -Each trme you sert an iiiue, ttre-moie aiot iou-lncur there is a potential of a reduition in the Uoni'riiiri. The abilityof_the citv to seil rs not realll euestioneo.-'ir,e-dity-ii.'ue.n abre tosell and riil continue ro be abri t'o seri.- irre'L';.;;;"ii;; recognlzes thatthese are speciar assessment bonds. They are soil!-atiiiili rnoiriorar par_cels and rhere the bonding people trave bien veiy rivJiioii-rs rhere the cityhas a letter of credit geuai to I00t of the cosi oi [r,"-iipioyement. Thathas been received,"ll IiygIgbly by roooi;i.--i;;'";;; iIi; thrs re rouldcontinue to look to that lo0z l;tt;r oi iredit-io-nire-sr"l-u,.t the citydid not reduce it's bond rating furthir. ttoboOy-cin-griiiit.. rhere ttrill be because there is no exict sciinie tn thi uono"iiling area. Thedrop in bond ratino has reaily oeen mJii-or.-cr,aiie-rn'ciiieria used bylloody's nore so thin a percentage change that re have made. 0ur bond debtln cornparison to total varuation is abiut the sane as it ras three, fouryears .go but i{oody,s has taken a different vier.
l,
qt
I
.\
9gulgilEan cevilq - If you rooked at 15 or 2o projects that re have on theD00Ks noH, Hould you say that over the life of these projects the citv doesnot incur any costs that re do not recover?
9p+,FlH+l-: lly,:osts asssociated rith bonding, engineering, anythinsHh.r te the project is acti ve is charged di recily i6 tni projeci. T-tre 3i-tofI gqils into Administrative Trust is soreiy rir irir.e'.iiis incurieo-'ui-the city. This has provided a means by rhiih tne Ct[y-cin-supptemeni ilriGeneral Fund Budget each year.
Co.unci 1 l.leet i ng Apri 1984
(
to handle both of these issues
i tem to thi s i ss ue.
r -9-
as 0ne.
or lrhateverjssue would
does not
Counc i lnan _Geving - Are re goingTIE-TI'IIFTpTIn6 is a secoidar!
il ayo r
bondi
have
mean
Hami I ton
ng that ,eto be I ookthat we wo
- I want to be sure that shou I d be approve thiswould approve that the publ i c realiiL tnat eac tred at individually. Just because re approve oneuld approve all of them.
Counc i I xoman
ran ge and
Bill l{onk
tha
FITdril-f'aaition.
Counc i I woman l{atson
Bi I I t'lo n k About
- llhat ls the
t340,000.
- ll hen J,ou go
P ERI.I I T
uners sst A, Colothe req ue
l{atson - It says thatE-T5-Fhase I. -the atached petition is in $400,000
st
I
{
That is Phase I of the Klingelhutz proposal and all of the
Bil l tlonk They will have to petition.
RESOLUTION #8
di recti n9 staAddition, Tom
Resolution se
Itl ayo r Hami I totive votes.
su8
Do-ir-eeZ-TT6'plying approx
and Dakota o
Hennepin CouCity's conseto the prese
nty. The prev
BEACHLOT
Kl i ngel hutz propos a I as a separate issue?
on to Phase II and III rhat are you going
i ous orner, 0onReed prop lit ras recorded inrt i es, is requesting theign the tax obl igationsn t a u t ho r i z i n g Hennepi n County to reassnt owner, Conf o rm Bui ldi n9 Systems, Inc
l--ZLl. l,layor Hami I ton moved the adoption of a resol utionff to prepare a feasibility study fbr phase I, ptreaiani XlilKay.Bui)ders, and a portion of tildrip,s Second AdJiii;r.' "
conded by Councilman Horn. The folloiing voted in favorin' counci lroman riatson, counci rmen Horn ino eivrn!. -io'ne9a-
Motion carried.
9ounci I woma n l{atsonto do about that?
-2
IVISION RE QUEST 7705 r,tEsT 78TH DONREED PROPERTIES:
I es,n-T9-80 ' SPI lEIn STREET.
dT6'Td*a theirlropertye9ortion oimately 700 fe et east of the i ntersecti on of Hest 78th Streetn the north si de of Highway 5. This s p
t,
counci lman Gev i ng moved to di rect staff to send a I etter to HeoneD i n countvto split this property lq. !q,purposes as suggested in the ciii-Fiirrei;i'memorandum dated March ?2, L984. ilotion secoiied by Councilwomin t{atson.The following voted in faior: t{ayor Hamitton, Counitiiorin Iatson,councilmen Horn and Geving. ilo nlgative votei. t{otion cirrred.
The eolontro canoe
re c omme n d
lilayor Hami I tonras even made
been a transfe
ap prov i ng some
requesti ng i t
Qharles Hi rt
CONDITIOIIAL USE
TiT{,r-o-TE-lioilE6'
racks on 0utloed approval of
CAilOE RACKS, LOTUS LAKE BETTER'.IEI{T ASSfl.6EiTi i oiFsEETi g-fEr6-v aTTo co nffi tnial Grove. The Planning Conmi ssionst. Charles Hirt, President, yas present.1,:r
i{a
,O?
t -;1
| --I :'.
t-"
.- II olt{ comnent_is that I thlnk that before the requestby the Lotus Lake Betterrnent Association there should'haver. of property from Bloomberg to their assoclation. ye irithing to be built on someoni elses property that is not-eJenand I am not should even deal rith it.'
deeded
at the
over to
Planning
I ta I ked ri th Elll t{cRostie and he stated
the association about tro reeks ago. Ie
Commi ssion meetlng.
that had been
tal ked about that
.r b,t\l
L-
I
l-
I
I
I
1
-l
sl
(
rrtrtrrtlll
F
I
F
r
F
o'C{J
(leI
-A
,J
Pv
I
,Id
I
-/..,o/1
ot
iIIt
t
tI
I
1
I
I tr
N)
Po
lv
I+
o
:Q\-FY
rn -F
>/a
€o
6 (.,
oo
E
E
F
r*
I
8
F
,E
a{.rrr-uxFcr'co
t8tE8EBB8t8tBtBt8B8
E8Bs8st8B6t
-oao{'\c-aN!arrrrrrrtr
h.)
t888388t888
I
1
t-I
5'
I
5'\
t=
t
88888rtr88883
.fat
Is5
N)oo o o
6-46-6-
O.)E>
-.-{s[t
-{o
:r-
o cao{rtlr-uNv
T
BE83EUt85N
d ----1,
xl
l
L
)
I
l
I
t
I
]I
lq
a
Cha j.rman Conrad called the neeting to older at 7:4g p.m..
I{EMBERS PRESENT: Tiro Elhart, steve Emings, Annette Erlson, Ladd conrad,Brian Batzti, Jin Wildermuth and David He,dla
STAFF PRESENT: Steve Hanson, City planner; Larry Brown, Asst. CityEngineer and Hark Koegler, elannj.ig Consultant
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMHI SS I ON
REGULAR MEET I NG
JANUARY 4, L989
A SUBDIVISION OF 12 ACRES INTO 13 SINGLE FA},!ILY LOTS.
B. T9ETtAND ALTERATION
WETLAND.
PERHIT TO FILL AND DREDGE A PORTION OF A CLASS B
Publ ic Present:
Address
PUBLIC HEARING:
CARL CARRICO - PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL ANDLUCY LANE, APPROXIMATELY L/2 I.tILE vIEsT oF yosEuITE:LOCATED ON LAKE
x
Frank CardarelleCarl Car r ico
Ton Nyel{r. and }lrs. Dave HughesCaroI Droegemuel IerPat Johnson
Jim and Doris ui el kefs. Palmerllark and Tracy wi 1I iamsWarren and Arlene phi IIips
Representative for Appl i cantApplicant
1641 West 53rd Street
1789 Lake Lucy Road
I74 0 Pheasant Ci rcle
1730 Lake Lucy Lane
1645 Lake Lucy Road
1690 Lake
1655 Lake
15 7I Lake
cy Roadcy Roadcy Road
Lu
Lu
Lu
Steve Hanson presented the staff report.
Conrad:-.Steve, just a conment. Werve never, to r.y knonledge, this isalmost like spot zoning. werre spot llusA Lining a-nd se,ve itr.y" got thefeedback through staff that j.f we- need to expani the ilusA line, we shourdbe doing it not on a spot basis. Weree got lo do lt and theyive got tolgree to it, at uet council on a totar ridrawing of that rin6 and-theyhave not been wirling to do that. rn fact re are contractuarly tied into
-not doing that from ny understanding. They had speci ficarly said no.I{hen they have done that, it has be6n rand-sraps.' rn oirr"i'rords, weillput thi.s into the HUSA but we.ll put soBething out of the t{usA. Therecornmendation right now is yourre telling us that se should do somethioguerve never done in the past and thatis t5 approve a site pf"n o,subdivisioo given the fact that it.B outside the uusa and ihat.s not hooserve done it in the past. Has Don Ashsorth recorulended that ue do itthis sray or has the l-ga). advice changed or, try to help ne understand rhyeer re doing thi.s?
Hanson: Itts really so the applicant can get a reading on uhether the
Ha
Name
I{USA line can begoing to supPortexists now should
Dajo! aDendment.
amended. Obviously thethe application because
remain that way and if
one stand is to say, werre not
we believe the UUSA line irhere itre're going to do it, Let's do a
Conrad: Are rre
nerre doing?
trying to test ttetropolitan Council again? Is that what
Hanson: I guess that would be ny reaction, yes, that re are.
Conrad: Okay. Irtrl not sure how I l,ant to handle this because this islittle bit differenr. rs the appricanr here? wourd the applicant li.kenake sone conments on the staff report or things that se should knowa
a
to
Conrad: Steve, do you have
uhere the UUSA line is? Do
Han6on: - No, .I don't.
a graphic that you can put up and show usyou have an overhead?
ConEad: Why was this property not included before?
Brorrn: Haybe if r can add a comment here. obviously Het council, atleast froa ny estinate at this time. deten0ined where that HUSA llne rasestablished. Right now prior to Barb Dacy leaving, ahe nade a aubnittalto the uetEopolitan council. They uere concerned-about land suaps and
Planning Comnission Meeting
January {, 1989 - Page 2
Frank cardarelle: r'n Frank cardarelle, the surveyor representing carrCarrico who is here, who is the applicant. We are fully aware of thestaff report and we have nothing further to add. t{e have worked with thestaff and the engineering department and the uhole reason is that thishappens_to.be just a little piece out of the MUSA line north of Lake LucyRoad. obviously in order to develop it, it almost has to be hooked into-the sewer. Itrs hi.gh. It wi. 11 work. It fits into the sewer and water,the scheme of things. In order to do that, we were tolal that this isabout the only possible way that rre can do jt. Aga in, it,s kjnd of acatclt 22 rike the staff said. we t{ere under the impression that there was2.or 3. particularry pieces that had the same problems that this particular
Piece has. Granted, if the park Department dlcides they erant to purchasethe whole thing and the appli.cant and the park Departnent can get together -on price, then itis all noot. rt rron't raatter anyway but sonefhing on theParticular piece of property has to be done. ft happens to Ue jus[. thislittle tiny piece cut out of the section. why it wl! feft out, we don,tknow. It's a hardship case as to r.rha t do you do with a little tiny pieceof land that sewe! is aII around it. Sewei and tater. It's very ;meIIand it is kj.nd of a hardshi.p. That,s where werre coning from. ihj.s wasthe recommendation that we do follow in order to do som;thing with theProperty. -If you have any other guestions, rrd be glad to aiswer thern butr donrt think therer s any need to go through a presintation shen he,salready done it.
Frank cardirerle: The MUSA.rine runs just around this rjttle piece. rt,s -fron Lake Lucy Road north, just on the north boundary of this ind on theeasterly boundary and rresterly boundary of this piece of property.
making amendments to the MUSA line. what areas could in fact be served bysanitary sehrer via gravity system. Hwcc has had the philosophy that if itcan be serviced without a lift station, we will consider the arnendment.our comp Pran is being revised to try and incorporate alr possible areasthat in fact the topography informat-ion that we do have on- rirer-to-[iv-and analyze these areas and find out nhy they shourd in fact be incrudldin our comp Plan, but unfortunately thal stuay has not been finalized asof yet. So right now this is kind-of, as Steie pointed out, a catch 22systern. we know that it can be serviced by gravity system but whether MetCouncil wants to amend it, we donrt know.
Planning Comm i ss ion Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 3
Conrad: Is it logical that this area be included? Is there a goodto include this that Met Councit rrould listen to? Theyrre obviouslysaying don't move the MUSA line. We've gone to them h6w many timesitrs all land swaps. Contractually re,16 tied to not puttin; it inthere a good case to go there? Whatrs the case?
ca se
anil
so is
Browni AI1 I can tell you is that...
Conrad: The developer wants to develop it?
Bror4,n: The developer wishes to develop itgravity sanitary se$rer.
and it can be serviced by
Conrad: And it can be? And why wasnrt it included before? Okay.open it up for other public comments. What I'd like you to do. youstand $rhere you are or you can come up and talk i.nto lhe nicrophoneitrs. r.rorking. whatever youire comfortable lrith. What I would 1ike,you have comments, is to state your nane anal address for the publicand then werd sure like to hear your comments. Are there any?
Tom Nye: My name is Tom Nye. r live approximately srightly north of thisProperty- what separates this whole development from me is KringelhutzlPheasant Hilrs 4th Addition. we've had a rot of sater build up on myProPerty on 63rd because much of pheasant Hilrs and that area diains -
through _my -
proper ty. rt has recently been rectified so it.s frowing into
some additionar hording ponds and makes it way to Lake Lucy and so on. r,mconcerned I guess, if this is all filted in, Ehat the rrate; sill not beable to flowr make it's natural ray to the swamps and so on uhich r thinkthe corner between Hughes, that Lot l is pretty rret. I.n just concernedthat it might get damed up and wontt be allowed to exit mlr property.
Dorrn the road. If he makes allowance for that, I guess I rrish him aII theluck in the world but rtn coocerned that, yourve got to be concerned aboutthe people up river. The r,vay the water flows, it could move back and get
danmed up. Thatrs it.
Frank Cardarelle: Just to answer that. AII the storm water wiII go tothe south and west and througb this. rn fact the dredging operation rrhichis not addressing, l{e met with the Departnent of Natur;l iesiurces andCorps of Engineers. The only thing that ue rrould be doing ls taking thesmall area where the storm water rould go as it traverses through thisParticular project on to the storm drainage to the southirest. it,s on thegrading plan. The grading plan you have nith the packet.
Wer lI
caD
if
if
record
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, L989 - Page 4
Dave Hughes: My name is Dave Hughes. Ligg Lake Lucy Road. uy propertyis there on the 1eft. concerning that drainage, I,; the one irrit strouiabe concerned about it because rrn the row end oe tnis process aod i.ttstrue that in our 4,0a0 year storm, we took some rrater Eown irr that areabut normally that hasnrt been a problem. It seems to flow throughadequately. Ird like to address tr.ro issues. One, this MUSA lin; ingeneral. r donrt understand the process. rim not a developer. lttr. Brownhas been nost helpful in bri.nging me up to speed as to the lrocessesinvoLved here but it seems logicil to me thal you havel of lourse pheasaDtHills development on the west end of Lake Lucy-and you'have, ohat is thaidevelopment carred on the east end? wbere tbl farm was deveroped? d;;tFarms? curry Farms developed on the east end and both of then cone down-to Lake Lucy Road. Lake Lucy Road is a south end boundary of the MUSAline on both ends. Now i.t']s true that the .9 miles whieh'is distancebetween those tero deveropments, which is the rength of Lake Lucy Road, the -ord take Lucy Road. r'm sure there's specific spots along there thatgravity wise wouldn,t flow into the sani.tary sysiem but g6nerallyspeaking, all that land between those two big deveropments wourd frowprobably just fine. r'm sure that Mr. Brorrn and Mr. Hansonrs departmentare going to address that and probably are going to make a recommendationthat everything down to Lake Lucy Road or fiorn Lake Lucy Road north beincluded in any MUSA line movement. rt rdould seem 1ogi6ar. r berieve, is -it Mr. Conrad? you asked, you r.ronder why it wasnrt iicluded, thatparticular piece of property and r donrt understand the processes exceptin talking with Kringelhutz r understand that nothing thit a developerhasnrt brought in and gone through aI1 the processes and shown all iheplat plans and made aI1 the applications, t6ey just won't put anythingerse but that. rt's obvious Ehat the folks dowi on the eait end-of likeLucy, that curry Earm development, a najor development, a major contractor -with alr the rots and all the pranning lnd Kringeihutz'on the rrest end didall the.necessary things and they got i.t done. And arr of us propertyohtners inbetween, i{e're arl smar1. Mr. carrico is probabty a titltelarger than some of us but rerativery speaki ng to t[ose tw6 developments,rerre snalr property owners and werre not in i position to undertake thegrand-program to get a t'tusA rioe in rike those two develognents did. sorerd.like the City, I uould think, I certainly would and i know Ur.carrico sould and rrn sure most of the proper-ty oerners inbetteen those trrodevel.opments. Letrs just get that ttusA line right down at the same placeit is for !t_r" lig developers on both ends. r,eti just get it filted inthere so alr of us smarrer property orrners can tafte adriantale of thatdevelopment as tbe eomtnuni ty ! s ' developi ng- - .It:s.obvious tb6:qoBnunity iE.developing. The two big deveropers hlve - brought - that deveiopment to thatpoint and now we 9or caughr in Ehe middle. rr it'r on" "i-i'tini,
-it- --
sounds rike itrs a veEy difficurt process with the ttet council uul irthat's the way it has to be done because we can,t move the rine to LakeLucy Road and take care of it all at once, than itrs got to ue one ii atime. I mean, itrs just a logical progression
conrad: Just a comment. rrn not sure that thatrs how it happened, yourscenario. Big devetopers being involved and they ao obviousiy. Theie wassone logic in where the MUSA line went. There irere some people involvedmany, many years ago that deterDined hohr it went but nost-of the time it
depended upon one. The Metroporitan council terling us how much rand wecourd put in within the MUSA line, period. they said you can have sonuch. originaLly we wanted a little bit nore. -They nived it back. Thesecond criteria, we looked for rogical boundaries. The logicar boundariesare roads or hrhatever, and arso rhere you can get your sew6r service.Your gravity sewer service so there are rogicai reisons for some areasincruded and some areas not. There's a rolicar leason, oi-ttrere'srationale why this wasnr t and. thatis nhy, i aon,i itrini ifr";;.. going tolisten to us unress we know why it *.snii and then, is therE ne, dataterling us that'is sonething diiferent tban what ue saw before? Butanyway, r donrt think it uas the big guy versus the rittte luy in trriscase.
Dave Hughes: you just definedthis process is going. I thankAre you going to recommend thatAnd if not, rrhy not?
Planning Commj.ssion Heeting
January 4, 1989 - page 5
Conrad: We've got a line
Dave Hughes: So they onlyproposal. ..
Dave Hughes: AsCouncil to expandinstigates that?is it a...
my lack of understanding in that area. Howyou for that. I sort of ask you fo1ks.line to be moved south of Lake Lucy Road?
right now and it,s good through tbe yeaE 2ggg.
consj.der it if yourve got an overall
Conrad: Thatrs what lrerve got to decide.
Dave Huqhes: you folks.should be coming to us rather than us coming toyog, the way r look at it. No* r underitaod it's a momentum thing indPriorities and yourve got-a 10t of things and r understanding engineeringis doind thar. plans ao do that. r woira h"d ia-;;;iJ"u""i "o.xtogether. Do you know, is there anlmore proplrty in ctranrrassen that lretrocouncil says you can incrude or havi they- sai.d, ihat,s tr--uounaaryr
Conrad: Contractually speaking,understanding, that says we wilIyear 2900. My understand ing.
Dave Hughes: They willoverall recomtnenda t i on?need I suppose.
and r.re have s j gned a contractnot move outside of that line to myuntil the
reassess that I assume ifNot by parcel but by the
the City makes anoverall city development
conrad: Thatis the lo9ic. ?hat's what bothers De about tbis palticularthing because itrs like spot zoning. you donrt do that. you go and sayee need property. we need more rand in chanhassen to develop based on lheneeds that we're projecting and this is an isorated case and it doesnJtrearly say, naybe we shourd be looking at other areas besides Just thisone if we need more land. - But again, contractually speaking, Ihey're notgoing to change based on the feedback tlrat r get. -.ruit sorn6 comments.
a point of inquiry. The initiative to approach the Hetthe HUSA line to Deet the needs of the Ci.ty, whoIs that your group? Engineering? Is that planning or
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 6
Conrad: We may recommend it. We may recommend it and send it to Cj.tyCouncil. City Council says yes, that probably nakes sense and then it's anatter of how much staff energy they irant to spend versus the other itemson their agenda. AIl the other tbings that the City has to do, to see ifthey really rdant to go after changing the HUSA line. The MUSA line is atough one to change. Hetropolitan Council is a really strong group andbasicalJ.y we havenrt touched it unless there's a land swap. Thatrs whatwe've done in the past. The other thing lrerve done in tbe past is we'vetypically had the developer go over to Met Council and talk to them andsee ehat their openness for change is. Thatrs r{hy this is a little bitdifferent scenario for me to li.sten to. Where werre reconmending, we'relooking at a subdivision before we can even manage the MUSA line. Sayingse need to expand the MUSA line. ThatrE what we shouLal be dojng as aConmission rather than reacting to one particular property and tbe City
counci I should be telljng us, yes it's worth our energy to really ]-ook atthat MUSA line and make a major recorunendation to the Metropolitan
Counc i I .
Dave Hughes: Where is that? Is that process started jn our City or do uepretty much say, all the lots, we have all the developnent propertyavailable thatrs needed at thjs tjme to sustain grohrth?
Conrad: Mark, what are rre doing?
rlark Koegler: As part of the Comprehensive Plan update, thele is workbeing done on revising the Comprehensive Sewer policy plan which
addresses the MUSA l j.ne issue. I think Larry eluded to that before.Thatrs in the -process aDd I donrt know what t.he conpletion date is. I
assume itrs pretty much in the next couple of months.
Brol,n: As I understand it, thatis correct. If I nay add to that. Thelletropolitan Council, the contract that we si.gned to get the HWCC trunkline through the City of Chanhassen basicall.y states that we wiII not gofor an overall amendment to the I.iUSA boundary unti.l such tine as all areassithin the MUSA boundary at this time have been developed. That way
theyr re saying, these are the areas tbat we've designated. We.re puttingour pliorities there and we nill not go for an overall amendDent untilthat tioe.
Carl Carrico: Larry, do you renember the date of that contract?
Broun: No.
Dave Hugbes: As f understand it frotr talking to Mr. Klingelhutz, and Icould stand to be corrected, but I understand that his property oasoutside of that boundary under the coDtract. And he, through sheerpreserverance and applications and respondiog to aII the neiessaryrequests, got an amendment and got his j.n so obviously there is a policyby which this can be done. And I understand in talking to you too Larrtthat Metro council has said that they ronrt even consider ii unress the-Planning connission inkles that they ni11 consider this deveropoent if theline ras ooved. So they said, give us an inkle and then send thedeveloper over and netIl consider it. weII, thatrs all theyr re asking
Planning Commission Meet i ng
January 4, l9A9 - Page 7
for. He might get stonewalted over there but thatrs his problem.
Frank Cardarelle: Ird just like to add one thing. We have met eriththe Metroporitan Planning counciL and that is essentially what they havesaid. They feel that this is surrounded by develo1ment. It,s a piecethat is logically to be developed next, that they will consider ii but ithas to, like we said, the catch 22 is thus, we have to have you approve itfirst and then we can go over there subject to their approvai of in6vingthe MUSA line. If they don't move it, obviously we can,t do it.
Dave Hughes: And it,s apparently been done by Klingelhutz.
Bror n: Just a point of clarification. As werve seen in the past, rre havemade amendments to the MUSA boundary. werve been able to swap land beforewith a trade for that. I wasnrt reierring so much to a small parcel. Iwas referring to the overall anendment wbich r know the commissioners arecomplying hri th .
Dave Hughes: was there any swap done on the xlingelhutz land?
Brown: I donrt knor.r-
Dave Hughes: I don,t know of any. ?hatts sornething I spole lrithl'tr. Hansonrs department about and with Mr. Brordn. someday when r retiremaybe that's $rhat I,l1 do with my land. Try to develop ii Uutspecifically r,rhy r brought it up is you notice ny easeirent for my drivewayis along the left hand boundary of Mr. carricors property now. Itrs a 32foot easement and to develop the property r would say r tave to have a 50foot easement. The second is, rrve Leen- advised by my engineers, ...andNovak, that the access to the property has to be a littre bit easterly asthe. driveway is shown, redrawn, to make it developable in any reasonabrefashion. I only bring it up at this point in thal Ur. CarriEo hasgraciously offered to work with me to move the driveway and negotiate thatb|t i! this development should go through anat the city should ;ind up withthat. frontland as parkland, I would just like to petilion the plannii:g
Commission now to knolr that to make my piece a viable pi.ece for futur6development, if this MUSA line ever gets done and all the otherconsiderations, that I would hope the park people nou}d be sent a nessage,hey Hughes likes to, needs his driveray over. I,1l buy it from them orbuy an easement from theE or rrhatever but I have to get it overapproxinateLy lA0 feet east of shere it is. The cenierline to centerline.I realize that the Planning Conmission doesnrt tell the park Comnissionwhat they have to do and so on but I,D just trying to Ehare these eritheverybody and I oouldnrt have your guys job for anything.
Carol Droegemueller: My name is Carol Droegemueller and I live jn
Pheasant Hills. The property that was developed by fon Klingelhutz. I,velived there for 4 years. I was one of the early residents tttere and justin the most recent discussion, I just have a couple of conrments before tget to what I sas here to say. yes, this property is bordered by the MUSAl,ine on teo sides and tlro sides it is not so it.s not surrounded by theltusA rine in my understanding of it. rf itis bordered on the west and thenorth, then it is not bordered on the east and south so it,s just hatf the
Planning Comrnission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 8
ElIson: It's approved with...
borders. The first comment or what r cane here to say is that our area,Pheasant Hills is pranned to have as many as, r think it's gg homes. weare compretely park deficient in that development in terms of useable park _spage. we have some outlots that have uate! on them but in terms of a dryparkland, we have none. In my conversations rdith Lorj. Sietsema, thepossibility that this property wirr be developed iDto parkrand was rookingfairly positive if the property values came cl.ose enoulh that negotiation -was possible. Your recommendation to have this propeity approved oncertain conditions. I would rike to speak to the seiond- condition andhave that be arEost be nore of a priority that the park exists. That that -be considered for parkland almost as a piiority. I guess thatrs what Iwanted to say. Then I just have a question. If this city approves thisto go to the Metropolitan Council to change the MUSA ljne and then theMusA-line.does not get changed because of that committee, than hrhat legalramifications are there for the carricos who want to develop that? Doesthe City bear any legal responsibility for having first approved it andthen not having it approved by the...?
CaroI Droegemueller: With those conditions? Okay.
carr carrico: My name is carl carrico and itts very difficurt for a roudmouth to keep his mouth shut but basicalry therers one point that r don.t -think the Planning comnission has been made aware of and that basicarlyis, for lack of a better name, Carrico Lane, hooking back in withKlingelhutz, we will be able to give the Fire Departnent a better circular -service. Not only for our development but for Kringerhutz, development.In other rrords, there will be a loop route in there and I think th;t,svery important. when we originarly tarked about developinq this about gto 10 years ago, that !{as one of the significants points about this rand.They wanted to make sure that we hooked- into XlingElhutz, property.
Pat Johnson: My nane is pat Johnson. r rive at L730 Lake Lucy Lane which -is across Lake Lucy Lane, irNnediately to the south of th!.s pro-ject. Iagree with Carol here. We've been down here at different ureetings. Iguess she has a lot of the peopre fron pheasant Hirrs have been doun heretarking about parkland. r'm fron Lake -Lucy Highrands uhich is just across -tbe street and we've been tarking about parkland. werve got hundreds ofkids in this area, many of whom, Iike my kids, are under 6. I see acouple of problems rrith the pran, arthough r just saw it tonight. Haven't -had a chance to tark to the deveroper but the one probren I sie is that itseems to me that the entryeray to the developnent from Lake Lucy Lane, Ibelieve itrs part of Lake Lucy Road there but i.trs rtry understaiding itritwourd be Lake Lucy Lane, is fairly crose to the intersecti.on of La[e LucyLane and Lake Lucy Road rrhich is a terribre intersection to begi.n with. -A
rot of us in Lake Lucy Highlands are-upset because we have a r6quirenentof at least 2 L/2 acxe lots because we're not part of the service andLake Lucy Road, although it has a speed limit of 3g mph, appears to bemore like a freeway going through that area. Itrs a very wide road. Alot of trucks. A lot of traffic. Because we have chirdien, werre quiteconcerned with that. It appears to me from the plan here that theentryway to carrico .lane would be fairry close to that intersection which
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 9
is a blind i.ntersection and a bad intersection. That wourd be my firstobjection to it. The second thing is, Carol mentioned, as far as theservice line goes, we're not a part of it. wer re directry to the south ofthe proposed development so as r can see it, the servlce irea is movi.ng tothe innediate north and h,est of this property. Finally we have againithe parkland area is a big concern to us. This particular piece oiproperty is a fine piece of property because itrs one of the few rernaininothat can be developed into parkland in our area of the size thatI understand the park commission uants to deve).op a park and itrsconveniently located. Therefore, r think that nhatrl been proposed in ourarea anysray, would oppose the granting of the plans to go ahead with thisproject at least nithout some aort of further information being providedto the public, especially the adjoining landowner. Thanks.
Frank cardarelle: r have sone answers. The road, carrico Lane is 15gfeet, at least 159 feet west of Lake Lucy Road and the intersection ofLake Lucy Road and Lake Lucy Lane. That rras the recotnmenda ti on. t{e canmove it further. r thi.nk if yourll note on here, itrs colored so itts alittle easier to see, it is- lso feet giving 10 cars, or approximatery a 10car back-up from there to the interseition. Also, ee hav!-herd out ihe4.42 acres for park if they can get together at this time. If not, itwill be developed in the future. And igain, Like I say, it,s a moot pointif they do- get together and purchase it for park but oi'the other hani,something has to be done. The developer nanis to use the property andagain we have net with Metroporitan pranning commission. ic" i." trying tofolrow the proper procedure to go ahead anil-do thjs and thai's wtry ie'iehere.
Pat Johnson: Lethe last one thadevelopers, and
where a lot of dthe City has decbig hunk of landrrith no park.
Conrad: Lar r y,
sonething like
evaluated thi s?
tt
I
e
:
me say, werre not picking on you. you just happen to bers developable out of that area. The problem is a lot ofunderstand the actj.on of the City, the Cityrs problemvelopers had set aside thi.s land and for vaiioui reasonsded werll let you do this and this instead of giving us aAs a result, werve got a lot of people, a lot of kids
normally therers an engineering report attached tothis. A subdivision. There, s nothlng heEe. Have you
Brosn: uy report is. we did evaruate that intersection. we did a mini-anaLysis for Pheasant Hill and it does neet the required spacing so a carcan cue up to safely turn onto Lake Lucy Road sithout creati ng a problem.
Carol Droegenueller: I forgot to mention alao that aII of the propertyowners in our area had contributed to a park fund, a city park iund, anathe general fund. Not necessarily that it cones rigtrt blck to thatneighborhood inmediately but kind of gets spent as needs presentthemserves. we have contributed to that fund and yet ue have yet to evenhave a totlot area or anything out there. There. s been a lot -of parkdeveropment in chanhassen but ne havenrt seen it yet and r quess i'd liketo 90 for broke. Ird like to see the shole piece of proper[y used forPark rather than the 4.{ thatrs remaining in the retl;nd arei or the
larger area thereretreive it.simply because once itrs gone, it,s gone and you can'!
Pat Johnson: If I can add realsmall acreages set aside, which
and you can't use it for a park
we can play ball in...
quick. The probtem is, a lot of theseI guess is private parkland, are netlandfor ki.ds. what ire uant is sonething that
Jim M j.elke: I'm Jim Mielke, I live at the same address, 1545 Lake LucyRoad. Lived there for 25 years. Anyway, what I hear fron beti{een theKlingelhutz property and the Curry Earm, therers g property ownersincluding Mr. Hughes and Mr. Carrico,s property. What I hEar tonight, ifyou oake allowances for this property, Mr. Hughes is the next one in.Then the next one down the line is going to be coming in naking the samepitch to you and just like a bunch of dominoes falling in ser ies, thatwhole row is going to go down from r.rhat we have and i{hat we're faced withon the south side of the road. A very nice, suburban area with largeIots. My acre is only 2 acres. Not near as large as some of the oiherlots being developed but you're going to change the rrhole character ofthat neighborhood on the north side of the roid plus you,re going to endup rrith high density all the way along there with stiII no playgiound forthese kids. The kids are going to be running their trikes up and downthis road where the traffic is now way beyond 3g mph. I thj.;k you as aPlanning commission have a chance to hold the rine here and live with thecomprehensive pran and put the parks in the prace where you promised these -people to put then. I think this is the besi thing you louta do for thisproperty. So than ks .
Doris l'lielke: rtm Doris Hierke and we rive at 1645 Lake Lucy Road rightacross the street from that and I certainly want to go on record too.l{erve lived there 50me 27 yeats and we really do need a park in that areanow. There just are a lot of kids and if Chanhassen needs a parkanyplace, it's in that area.
Frank Cardarelle: I have one comment I guess I,d Like to tsake. This one,lry understanding Larry is that the UUSA iine is on the westerly side ofour Property and the Hughes' pEoperty. Is that corEect? It goes alongthe north boundary of their piop-rty and our property, cmes downapproxinately on our east so it does, just except this enall piece out ofit. As I understand, aII the rest of the property, aII the wiy to theCurry property is all sithin the HUSA line. ItrE just this liltle piecenorth of the road. That.s my understanding. Now if Irm wrong, I,d liketo have Larry correct it at this tiroe so re know what piece rre are tarkingabout is in tbe MUSA line.
Conrad: We. don. t have an
new that rre havenrt heard?
overlay of t.he UUSA Line right norr.somethi ng
to the
for
Dave Hughes: I listened to the dialogue about parks before whenKlingelhutz, when they rrere naking thiir proposil to you people andCity Council on that developoent. There has-always Ueen i cincernthat and there still is a concern for that. If there,s going to beaonething done, I would like to solicit the planning Coniission to get
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page l0
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 11
Dave Hughes: lverve Lived there for 15 years and Irdover any season of normal rainfal1. you,II be wadingguarters of that property. It stands in water. It';
ahold of the undeveloped. There are several excelrent pieces arong thenorth side of Lake Lucy Road. phil Mathj.owetz has a njce piece thit,shigh and would lend itsetf for balr diamonds, tennis courta and otherthings. A big plece_ of property on the north side. I would solicit youpeople to go and talk to hirn and make a proposal to him and try to bu! it.You're talking about, you would have to buy the north side of tnatpropglly because the south side is mostly lowland. If the park takes it,it wilt make a wonderful pond but it isnit going to 1end it-self forbarrfields and tennis courts and other things btcause there just isn,t anyflat, high. enough area to do it that isn,t flooded any seaso; that happen3to be raining out. Last season it Hasntt. so, r agr-e. parks are niiaedand that was recognized before. I don,t think thela eas adequate parkprovisions in xlingelhutz'i deveroptrent to begin with but thad,s a lersonaropinion- r'd rike to see our comnrission, or whoever the people ar6 in ourcity, go.to these property orners before they cone along ind' want todevelop it and then hord them Eanson for a pirk. Maybe rre should get thatdone before it gets to this stage. If that is possille in the process. rdonrt know the process but it would seem logicai.
carol Droegemueller: r'!m carot Droegemuerrer of pheasant Hirrs and inresponse to that question about rrhether this lowtand is going to besuitabre for a park. In my conversations rrith Lori sietierna, she saidthis property, from what she knows of it and they looked at it for quitesome time, is that it really lends itself very wlll for parkland. It'sthe kind of irettand that i.t's dry most of the time and would require verylittl.e changes to convert it to La1l diamonds and tennis courts, abasketball courts or erhatever. whatever they pranned to do with it andthat it would be a good park and not a wetland.
invite her to come onin rrater three-a Class A wetland.
always t et.
a need for a park.
Hrs. Palmer: Irve lived there for 4A years and itrs
Conrad: I think that rre hear the sigoal that there's
Carol Droegemueller: Is there souebody from the park tonight?
Conrad: Not tonight. We have a report fEom then and I think ueundetstaod that therers a need. r think the cityrs responsibility is todecide $here that park goes and I think you nade your point real alearly.llerve got to decide bow nuch park. What kind of park and specificallyrhere it goes. Are there other different comenta? Anything else thithasn I t been said?
Batzli moved, wilderDuth seconded to crose the public hearing. Arl votedin favor and the motion carried. The public hearing uas closed.
the rationale for uhen we consider this shen theconsidered at all for the Interceptor? I,ve never athe Baptist Church being able to tap into that line.difference betseen tbere and this? -
Headla: Larry, t9hat I sBaptist Church l,asn I tbetter rationale thanwhy should there be a
Planning Commission Meet ing
January 4, 1989 - Page 12
Ellson: I voice the same
CoEprehensive PIan is you
People aII geE up in arms
Brown: Right noe, we know that sanitary serrer exists withi.n a very closeproximity and again, I hate to beat a dead horse but this property can beserved very easily and jt's rrithin close proximity. As far as the church, _I don't have any information to terr you utrether sanitary sewer service is -in fact within this distance. To say rrhether it would b6 amended.obviously we're in a situation here where the Met council has rooked atthe property and said, okay werre going to give a little and it,s likeanything else, a lot of it may Ue iirst coma, first serve.
Headla: We open this, I think we,re opening a bunch of other things. I _personally feel I donrt h,ant to touch this thing. I'd like to see] ifwe're going to do it, if it makes sense, I think there are other peoplethat probably should be involved. If our people, our staff looks at itand after looking at that whole area you come back and say this particurar -part is reasonable, then I,d look at it but until I see that in writingfrom our staff, I don't thj.nk ue should consider it.
wildermuth: The argument for park area is very compelling but I thinkthatrs an issue that the park and Rec Board and the city councir have totake up. From a planning standpoint, I,d tike to see a MUSA line study of _Ehe area and rrd like to see $rhat other areas should be included or courdbe included rather than just look at this one srnal.l II acre parcel. Onething bothers me Larry. In reading your report, you say the proposed 50foot right-of-way maintains a design speed of approximatery rE mpn through -the 90 degree bend adajacent to Lot 5, Block r. The design critiria doetnot meet tbe city standard for an urban roadway but yet wi really haven'trai.sed the issue there. That suggests to me that the plan could beimproved and probably shourd be improved before anything is done irith it.Before we could even think about going forward with it. The other thing,the third point that I have is that the wetlands are inpacted by thatroad. Paul Burke from Fish and Wildlife seemed to be pretty coDcernedabout any fill that was going to be required. I guess nhen- I look at allof that and I put it a}l together, I don't think we're in a position tonake any kind of a recorunendation on this proposal.
Batzli: I agree with everything ,lim said except for the caveat that Idon't know t.hat i.t's not part of our function to take a look at whereparks go and uerve tarked about that before. But r rrould rike to add thatI donrt think in this case we really looked, or an additional comnentreally is, f donrt think that se,ve looked at rhy werre real.ly trying torezone this. r don't know rearly what the kind of lot densities ire-onthe.other sides. why oe're doing it. what i8 the rationare? The onryrationale r heard to rook at rezoning this sas that the appricant saidsonething rike it's the next logicar developoent. There'l-a lot of areasln the city tbat rnight be next logicar developnents but r haven.t seen anykind of factual findings or looking at why we should amend thecomprehensive plan in this particular parcer to RsF fron itis RR.and erhatimpact that may have on the adjacent landorrners. So Irm totally againstlooking at this right noi{.
concerns. Isit doen and
and personal
think
you do
about
one
air.
of the leasons se have along range plan beforeI knoH that if I eere
Planning Com,:x i ssion I'leeting
January 4, 1989 - page 13
the Hughes' r would thinking dordn the road a piece and if r uere theMielkes and Johnsons and l.tilrers, rrd want a park in my neighborhood andone of the reasons we write thi.s pran out is so that wE get'a clearpicture before ar] the personal p-rsonalities and opiniois get involvedand everything. I agree with Brian. Tbey want it iezoned iimpri "o-tt"tthey can get this many more on here. r think the zoning we piirla ror ttrecomprehensive plan should stilr be the zoDing it should be. Again, oo.-'-comprehensive pran said that we're poor in a-park in this area and r feelthat thatrs what it should be. I don,t necesiarily want to see al'lusA line study or anything erse. r think ne shouid go with what wePlanned. r donit rearry sie a good reason to rezone this based on oneperson. !{e had that in prace a long tine and we made other people forlowit.
Emnings: r guess rrve got a little different outlook on this than rtveheard so far. rrve-got. some specific questions first. The road that, asit comes down to'rard Lake Lucy Lane, oi the drawing that i have, itactualry goes over into that excepted area but r s6e on the nehr drawingsit's been moved over to the rrest. But is this property o"n.a by soneoneel se?
Hanson: yes.
Enmings: can they buitd- their road right up to that? How can they buirdtheir road right up to that boundary?
Hanson:. They can go up to the property as 10ng as they stay lrithin thej.rown. The road r ight-of-way.
Emmings: They can have thei.r road right up to the property line with nosetback requirement of any kind?
Hanson: Not for the placement of the right-of-way.
Bnmings: That seems to me to be something ire better look at. rf thatrsallowed. . .
Conrad:. The right-of-way can 9() up to the property line. Not the road,the right-of-flay could. They couldn,t put the right-of-lray on theneighboring property.
Enmings: But where are they going to buil.al it sithi.n the right-of-way?It sounds like essentially they ean build right up to the property. ifour ordinance allors that norr, I think we ought to take a tooi< at that.The road design, having that right angte in there, I guess, as Jiro pointedout, that's not too... Uy view of this is, werve got residentialdeve!.opment to the north. This area is going to b; developed. r thoughtthis was a very peculiar request. r thi;k r understand it aoneehat beiternow that itrs being exprained during this catch 22 situation but it almoatseems rike werre being asked to give an advisory opinion. llhat nourd wedo if and r don'!t like to be faced with that. i arso don.t rike the factthat the rezoning is separated frorn the aite plan and everything else. Itought to be rooked at as a package but it seettrs rike it cai.t be because
Planni ng Commission Meet ing
January 4, 1989 - Page 14
the l'let councir bas indicated that they wonit act until we do somethingfirst. I'm not really opposed to approving this plan to tet theD see ifthe Met Councii. will include it within the UUSA because I think thatrskind of an interesting test to be able to send up anyrray. I think that'sa place that erer re headeil in the future and werve got a person here lrho
owns land and has a right to attempt to develop it if they erant to. I,mconcerned with, rrbat if this comes back from Uet Council and they say yeswerll include it and we decide not to rezone the property? f don't lifebeing in that situation because Irm afraid iretIl hear from the developer,well, we relied on the fact that you approved the site plan and let us go _onto the Uetropolitan Council and now we come back for the rezoning thaiyou knei{ was coming and now you say you lron' t rezone us. I rrou}dnrt wantto hear that and Irm sure that rde might if it came to that so all aod allit's a very unusual proposal. Certainly unlike anything werve ever seenbefore. But like I said, I rrouldn,t mind approving the site plan becauseit does neet the criteria of the RSF zone which is what they'll be askingfor. It does seem to be bordered by similar type of development to thenorth and we aII know thatrs heading south because the process has beengoing on for some time. If it would be approved, and it doesn,t soundIike it will be, I would say that condition 1 ought to have, it says that _approval is intended to indicate a willingness on the part of the City toconsider an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. I think there ought tobe a second sentence in there that says approval should not be construedby the applicant as an agreetnent by the City to rezone or to amend the
Comprehensive PIan or anything else. I don't think r,re eant to be put inthat position. As far as, just the way these recommendations are written,in number 3 it says that all concerns jn the attached referral be resolved _prior to submittal of final pIans. I think jt's fine to incl.ude thereferrals as conditions or the contents of the referrals as conditions butif yourre going to do that, I think you ought to list them so everybody
knows precisely erhat i{as aEtached. Eor exampler tou sat the staffengineerrs report dated December 29, 1988. Make a list of those right inhere so that shen they come back and say what do ne have to comply with,there's absoLutely no question about what has to be complied with. Thenthe other thing I'n confused about js on our agenda it iays sonethingabout the wetland alteration permit but I donrt see anything in ourDaterial.s about that. Therers a condition down here ai the-end ttrat theyhave'!o submit a plan. wourd tbis require a retland aLteration pernit? - -
Hanson: Yes it would.
Enmings: But rhere is.thatafter they cane back?
or is that sonething that uould cone up later
Hanson: Initially it was going to be part of the request tonight andI did not put that on thele, just keepj.ng that out as a condition. Agaiothe subdivision is that the t{etro Council wants to 6ee.
Emtings: So actually the conditionof a Yretland alteration permit?
Hanson: yes.
4 down there ahould say, the obtaining
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - page 15
Emmings: A1r i ght .
uP the church. Yothe interceptor buflat no.
t
I think the thing on the church too Dave. you broughtknow we aII thought they ought to be able to tap in[.othey irent over to Met Council and Met Council iust say
Headla: I donrt see any consistency.
Einmings: But other than that, I donrt really seem to havereservations about this development that oth;r people do.obviously. a very important item to this neighboit,ooa. Itrsought to be put, sounds like on a very high-priority Uy in-and by the City CounciL but I don't think-we- can imiosi itowner whors coming here with a plan for development for hisyou want to buy his land. Thatrs it.
the st rong
Parkland is
an issue that
Park and Recon this land
Iand unless
Erhalt: Again, providing a rittle comfort on the park and Rec issue.whether or not this body should be involved in that. r donit know but i{earenrt but I might add that 4 of the 5 councirman are here tonight and Irmsure arl of the conments that were said about parks and recs were taken inso I think the effort was r.re1I worth j.t. negaiding ,t.tt,.i-r. ought tolook at this- r think again, this demonstrates the error in atteipting tocontrol the gror.rth of the Metropolitan Waste systen by drawing anarbitrary line around the metroioritan area anl iogg:.'n9 ii aroona oneperson's land versus another. r think it underlin6i trre unfairness, a
::l-t::-l-pl.nning approach to the wasre erater growth rhat it imparts onrandowners. simply because one landowner happened to be in the rightPLace one day and the next guy wasn,t, one tliras land is rrorth 4 timesthe adjacent 1and. other communities have for years useal market forces tocontror the growth of their waste treatment sysiem and r think it would bea far better system in this area to arso use -those systems. whereas avery-varuable piece of rand courd tap into the waste system and simprywould have to pay the price and compete with the next iina--'ownerrnstead of basicarly someone making arbitrary decisions. r think vestated ny position on that before. r agree with steve. r think if wey9o19-have simply proceeded with this we wourd have had this thing thioughthe Planning commission and back to staff and Mr. carrico could hive beeionto the Met councir yet tonigbt. r think we ought to proceed to discussthe-merits of the pran. Haybe when we.re all doie is tiat the citv oughito discuss with Mr. carrico, perhaps ask him to erait. rn the tirst price
-r u3r.rt to say r'.n glad to hear - Lgrry that ire are doing a study on whitherlooking to see what the possibility-of incorporating i tana siitctr coora-be served by gravity f1o, into the existi.ng lewer. I think it makestotarry good sense. The fact is that werre doing that and shat ire shourdask the deveroper here is to just uait until that's done and if we have inopportunity to take a bigger picture, take a broader vies and go to ttei -
council and find out rrhat the outcome of that is first. obviously you,renelcome to go over here. r would propose that yourre wercome to go- overthere yourself but we might get more done if we work tosether on thisthing with Larry and steve and the councir. Therer s an6th". question. rthink steve brings up a good point here too is that if t{e *ere to go aheadand evaluate the proposal tonight and submit a recotrmendation to t6eCouncil, possibly a recommendation, I think there is an issue then ifre're using this as a test balloon. Do ue rant to cone back and spoi zone
it? Irm not too sure how we handle t.hat. Steve andgive that a little thought. WiLh those conments, Iproceed rdith some questions on the development. I'mgoing to go ahead and to take a vote on j.t.
Hanson:Yes, at the
so it,s not
Ladd , you mayguess Ird Iike
assuming tha t
want to
to
werre
Conraat: If you have more guestions, go aheact.
Erhart: Yes, I have some questions specifically retated to thedevelopment. one is the elbow in the street aelign. r donrt understandthat- rt just seems extremely dangerous in that how does, if someone isproceeding southeast on the upper portion of it and another car is -oming
north, what happens at that circle? Are there trro stop signs there orwhatever? r think there are bigger issues to discuss Lut i trri.nx thatrssomething that has to be resolved anil r don,t think we shoulil try toresolve that right here. To me thatrs not acceptable unless r j-ust don'tutderstand the traffic flow. The second thing !.s, what is our, maybe youdonrt know steve but help me or answer it later, again we have a series oflots on the northwest side where the frontages are 72, i3t 77 feet. rsour policy on curves to put the rot width at the setback as opposed to thestreet now?
Erhart:
street?
setback is the way
just cu I -de-sacs ?
it goes.
Itrs on the outside curve of any
Hanson: Yes.
Erhart: What js it, just quickly,that we're doing with the wetland?there more to it than that?
not
IS
Hanson: There,s some modification to the
noH due to the road. It's been Eentionedand heis had a concern about it but bersproblem with that alteration.
taki.ng a lot of time, what isit simply putting in the road
itor is
rretland. The way that i.t existsthe eoncerns that PauI Burke hadalso said he doesn't have a rnajor -
Erhart: Okay. We're going to see that wetland alteration?
Hanson: What I have suggested is that if youeubdivision and do the aubdivision solely indhold the alteration plan until such tirne...
wantgive to
an
go ahead with theokay on that and
Erhart: Okay, thatrs specifically hrhat Iid Like to do. That.s the lastof tBy questions and r guess d rike to see us proceed with a positivereaction on this. Either the city or the developer can go to Met council.
Conrad: l,ty quick comments. I have some problems uith the design.specificalry the erbow and the street into the eetrand and r think thereare. some things tbat, this just doesn't quite feel right in terms of thedesign. rn terms of the procedure, in terms of going to lret counci.r, itseems kind of futile to me unless we had some good ritionare in goingtheEe. It,s like hold many times do you want to go back unless y5u hive a
Planning Commissj on tlee t i ng
January 4, 1989 - Page 16
good case. And to let them 90 in with one case, unless we had somerationare by saying here lre had a mistake. It rearry is an area thatcould be hooked up rear easily and areas to the east and west are alr okayand this is just a real unique situation. r don,t see the rationare riotrinow for going to Met councir. r.ry preference is, and r don,t oina-ienaiig-up test balloons but. I erant to- have a good case wben we go there. Whywaste staff time? why waste the deveroper time when maySe we don,t hive agood case and r don'|t think we do. lre'ie played with tire uuse lini;;;;g;to know, unress staff is terling _us theyr re more receptive to changingtheir response. r guess rrd prefer to lee this iten iabledt and haie itaffterr us what tttey berieve should be done to look at the t{usA rine ingeneral. No$, Mark is working on the conprehensive plan with us. r thinkwe have some other studies being done. r guess rrd just hate to take thisout of context of a bigger picture and wasiing a rot of energy. For sureif thi.s goes, werr than we have some other things that other peopre nouldwant to include and it just reatry doesn,t seem like good planning to meat all. rrm not even tempted to rorr this one to citi councir unlirsomebody terrs us that it nakes sense to do it this wiy. And r think Idrike to have staff or cit.y councir tell us it nakes seise to do it that*1ay. But right nor^r I rm not confortabl.e at all sending it f orward. Mypreference is to table it until Mark has a conprehensive plan done thitsays the uusA line should be moved and here are the places where it shouldbe moved in.. r just have no interest in going or ar-lowing sornebody to goto Het councir erith 19 acres or r] acres of property. r'a like to-go witha bigger picture than that. Thatrs my feeling.
Emmings: can r ask you a guestion. Itrs my undersEand that what could behappening bere is that the appricant wirr be going to the Met councir.The only thing he'!d be bearing from the city is tfre fact that we had givenapproval. to the prelininary plat. The City isn,t going to say, we thinkthey should be included. Werre just saying that ii...-
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - page 17
Conrad: Itrs implied that te think it should be. If we let itsmall Iots, it is implied that the UUSA line strould be changed.implied that the zoning should be changed and we totally ag;eedeveloper. Thatrs impLied. In Ey nind it is. I don,t kn6w.looked at zoning in this case. Again, we're saying this is thezoDe. we havenlt looked at the zoning yet.
hnings: No we havenr t said that.
develop in
Itrswith tbe
We haven t tright
Conrad: l{eIJ., if you allow LS,Ogg sguareinsinuated to the developer t hat you rant
ENnings: Thatts your view. I donit tbinkray.
foot lot sizes, you have
on this land.
you have to look at it that
Conrad: The
sant to send.
developer will look at it that iray. Itrs what signals you
Enunings: If he gets our approval on the prelininary plat and if hetsapproved by Uet Council, than he has to ask us to rezone and amend ourConprehensive plan, neither of rhich re might do.
Planning Comnission l,leet j ng
January 4, 1989 - Page 18
Conrad: I think thatts unfair to them.
Emmings: But that's what he's asking forshould you say it's unfair to him?
and if hers asking for that, rrhy
Conrad: I dontt want to send a signal that says I want to rezone and Irrant this particular design right now. I also need a signal coning
from Park and Rec telling me what they thing where a park should be and ifthis is parkland, I feel uncomfortable saying that we want a developmentthere when we have a feeling that there night be a need for a park.
There's a lot of loose ends that Irn not confortable with right now andtherefore, and I really want staff coming back and saying, there isrationale going on a piecemeal basis to go after the l,tet Council and seeif, use this as a test balloon. I don't believe that staff will come back
and say it to us that way and I think with Mark's input, rre may do adifferent approach. Itrs one of the biggest issues that our new mayor and -city council are going to deal with is development of Chanhassen ana howmuch. How much do rre want to deal with the llet Council and where doesthat UUSA line go. But that's my personal opinion. I just donrt h,ant todeal wj.th it this Hay. There are other ways of dealing rrith it andsending it over there. Those are ways of doing it. Theyr re not my waysof doing it. Basically, we have a lot of alternatives. lpproving it.Approving it rrith some reconmendatj.ons. Tabling it. Turning it doh,n andsending it along to City Council. Tabling it doesn't get it to CityCouncil. Turning j.t down or saying something positive about it,
recommending approval of it gets it to City Council for their conmenEs
Your choices in making a motion can consider those alternatives and IrIIaccept a motion right norr.
Headla: Let me make a motion on that but let me give some rationale onit. I donrt object to the property being developed but I think we have tohave a pJ.an. Whatr s going to be the impact with the MUSA line? Theparkrand and the adjoining properties arl arong that line. I,d recommend, -Ird nake a motion that rre table this. I,il 1ike to see the staff do astudy oo the gravity f Lord. Whatis the inpact if we do go, bring thatsithin the MUSA rine and whatts going to be the iepact ind requirenentsfor parkland? I think this one gentlemaor.and I donrt knou who it wasnow, brought up a very good point. If ee expand tbe I{USA line there,rer re going to put in a lot nore properties. A lot more kids. A lotnore people. l{hatrs going to be the inpact to that area?
Wildermuth: I -second tbe notion.
Conlad: Was that a srotion?
Headlas I started rrith the rationale and then I made the motioo. I,IIoake a notion that we table this proposar for the tine being and have thestaff do a study on the impact if we increase the t{usA line and that basedon the study Larry mentioned, the gravity flow. ffhatrs going to be theimpact on requirenents for parkland. There,s a third point. The gravitysewer and parkland.
EIIson: And density were you saying?
goes into that. I guess maybe those tuoHeadla: Well then the densitypoints brought it together.
Erhart: If we tabl,e it, what is the Eirne limj.t? Is there a tine limit ontabling a proposal or lrhatr s the procedure for that?
Conrad: Letrs ask Steve. What type of time? We're basi.cally saying,tell us more. We need some legal opinions. We need staff telling us lrhatprocedurally the right way to look at more areas. Specifically rigbt nextto this. I think what werre looking for is some staff advice. Notnecessarily on thi.s parcel but in parcels in general. in this area and aprogram as to what we're going to do. Some of thatrs going to do in thefuture for all of Chanhassen. This gets into City Council stuff so itrskind of tough but what type of timeframe would you see that coming back tous in?
Hanson: Larry has a questj.on but one thing I hrould see as, the way thatyou talked about it, it opens up in a lot of respects pandorais Box. Asfar as how far you take that evaluation of what you want to include withinthe I'IUSA line. Obviously if therers no parameters on it, erhatrs notwithin the MUSA tine right now but I think my understanding of what you'retalking about is those areas that would logically be called infield lines.Jay was kind enough to go grab a copy of the overhead of the plan with the
MUSA line on it and the property that we're talking about. The Carricoproperty is sitt ing right here. It runs from there, this is the Hughesproperty right here. I r.rould assutne that yourre talking about, forexample thj.s whole area and r.rhether you want to include other areas inthat, I donrt know.
Conrad: Okay, should we limit irhat $erre asking staff to do asspecifically to that area north?
Headla: However, erhen you look at it, they've already made the point itrseasily accessible, that particular area and I think that's got to becriteria on expanding any HUSA line. Is it easily aecessi.ble? If you,regoing to xuo L,O60 feet, I donrt think thatrs necessarily easily
accessible.
Conrad: Can you get
handle this specific
back in 2 weeks to us a recommendation as togroup of parcels north of Lake Lucy Road?
hoe to
Brown: Obviously with the contracts that r,erve been mentioning and rrith
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 19
EIIson: If yourre doing a MUSA line study, is it fair to just do it fortheir neighborhood because like he says, that Baptist Church irould rrantit? I think that ire should send it onto the Council hrith one or theother.
Conrad: A yea or nay versus a table?
Ellson: Right.
all the other constraints that go nith it, obviously Met Council has i.nthe past said, if you give us this area, we need to srrap another area.Thatrs precisery what we're rooking at through that conprehensive plan.
Trying to take in arr the constraints, and there are nany of them that nay -not have been mentioned this evening. For us to take a -look at this onealea, I think werre putting the blinders on. Werre duplicating work thatthis-study is already in the works. I guess hrhat I'm lrying to get across _is if you recommend tabling it untir yoi can get some vaiid-info;nation onthe !|USA, Irm afraid the only thing that,s really goj.ng to give you a fairansrrer is the Comprehensive Plan which isnrt due to be completed for acouple nonths
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 2g
Headla: That was my thild point. Would we be going to the Met Councilan organized manner? Look, this is our plan. This makes sense. Thisdoesn't rnake sense and trrere may be just that little nitch in there that
makes sense but at least we gave it thought. It j.sn't helter skelter.
ln
Batzli 3
Iegwork,the HUSA
re zoni ng
I guess from the standpoint of if werre ask ing staff to doI'd also like to see them look at that. If we're going toline to that area or look at it, we should also be lookingthat entire area rather than this one parcel .
some
ex tendat
Conrad: Based on what Larry is saying, we're not going to get Eo thebotlom line for a coupre of months. staff may not have a fair evaluationfor a couple of months. In that light, we literally, te inay wanE to voteit yea or nay and get it to City Council so that they could-add their twocents to the issue.
l{i lderrnuth : I.laybe the way
the Conprehensive plan.to address the HUSA ljne issue is to put it in
Erhart: Ladd, can I ask the developer what he prefers to do?
Conrads I don't know.
Erhart: He may be wi J.I iog
like ayou I ike
to wait until the study is done.
Conrad: You would
timeframe? Would
of- Donths .
reaction eouldnrt you?
us to do some studying?
I 9uess,It nay
do you
take a
have a
couple
carl carrico: r can understand your problen because rrve heaEd all of youdiscuss it. But, basicatly I think you still have ny under control. if i90 to the Met Council and see if I can do it. If itis necessarv to rraitfor the Comprehensive PIan, I gue6s it.s certainly going to delly roy plans -for development but I'm hele to cooperate. frt! not here to, f hive 4children of my o$n and I like parks too but they llke to eat too. I donrtthink itrs your purpose and Irm sure yourve consider, delaying thisdecision is-going to hurt me but I,m willing to take it on, withdraw myrequest until the Comprehensive plan is completed. I rould prefer to b6able to go to the Hetropolitan Council and see if I can get it done. I _donrt thi.nk itrs going to hurt anybody. When I come baci, you still haveto approve my plan anyway. I understand that you donrt norially do it
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - page 21
this way but m going to have to do it anyway. Itrs not the city whorsgoing to have to do it. Mr. Cardarelle and I are 9oin9 io have to goMetropolitan counci I and see if we can get it donel ri we can't qe[ itdone, then hrhether you approved it or n6t isn,t going io ."i" "nydifference.
conrad: yourd like us to react to it tonight then? Basicalry you'd likeus to react to it tonight. so you can take it up: t{e,ve got 5 0r 6 moreitems on the agenda tonight s6 r.re've got to 9e[ ttris goiig sornenow. rrtnj:=a g?.1nq to.take.your conunents-to say, rea6t to it [oniitrt. Donrr tablert. You donrt want to r{ithdraw it.
carr carrico: rf you. .,ant to table it, rim not here to nake... r.n notgoing to make the decision for you. tive rived in ctrantriisen. I'vedeveroped a lot of property in chanhassen and r like chanhaisen. probabrya long time before most of you were here so r rearly believe in this torrnand r want the best thi.ng for the torn too. Irve owned the property since1972 so j.t's not a guick suede shoe operation.
wildermuth: r could rearly get behind the idea of taki.ng it to the Metcouncil if the proposal was a good solid proposal. rf tie road i.ssue wastaken care of and if the wetland issue wai taken care of and if we took alook at a littre rarger picture as far as the rezoning. iii. i*priea-- - -
rezoning is concerned. r guess that would be irhy t w6urd want us to tabreit for the moment. gave ii come back. Rework the road. Let staff rookat the zoning issue for the generar area up there. Than r-;ourd feer alot better about supporting ghe proposar. rt,s kind of rike, r'm 9oin9 tocompromise my principle to silpport a philosophy or are you going t5compromise your philosoptry to support-a priniiitea
Conrad: Are you, in favor of tabling it for a short period of time?
Emmings: No.
Conrad: Do you feel comfortable with the design as presented?
Enrrings: No.
Conrad: you don i t?
Enmings: r have reservations about the road pran. r think that reft handturn in there is a bad thing unless sonebody ian convince Ee otherwisebut.r donit have probrens rith the rest of it. I arso donrt Like the roadconing against that other piece of pEoperty. But t donii tt i"i it-oughi--to be tabled. usually ue donrt have this nuch dis3ention here. usuiLtyue find a consensus. Ila!'s- suggests to me that this is an irnportant in6doubtfur issue and r. think-the thing to do ls to ret ttre councir gi"i u"-some direction here by sending it up to then. rf they reject it, ere, regoing to know the next time one of these comes arong,'whaf-ine aiproactr isgoing to be. otherwise,
_ as 10ng as it.s very, very clear that re nay eantto look ar sone orher things on the site pran and fhat uy giving thi3prelirninary pLat approval .se are guarante-in9 them ausor'ut6ry n6thing oragreeing to absorutely nothing in-terus of rEzoning or irenar"nts to the
Planning Comnission f,feet i ng
January 4, 1989 - page 22
Comprehensive PIan, if they understand that, than Irm wjlling to pass iton so they can go see if the Met Council rdill buy their notion.
Headla: I bet I can find the Council,s opinionCouncil. I donrt see where theyt re really goingwe're just wasting more time.
ei thoutto add
it going tovalue and I think
Emnings: frm not going to guess what theyr re going to do. I haven't evennet them.
Conrad: Dave, in terms of what yourd like to do. Given the fact that rde
tnay not vrant Eo keep this out there for months, would you be confortable,when you table it, based on satisfying Jinrs concerns in terms of theroadway, redesigning the site a little bit, the subdivision based on someconcerns. The rdetland. The road. !,laybe the staff making some
recorunendations on the whole area back to us in terms of zoning and staffmaking, let's see is there anything else? And park. ttaybe we get park
and Rec type of input in. Those four things. If those came back within alimited period of time, is that rrhat yourre tooking for or are you lookingfor sotuething broader than just this area when rre table it?
Headla: I think itrs primarily that area. I want to see it a little moreorganized than what I see right noh,. We don,t even knor,, the impact of iflre started lett j.n9 snaII Iots go in there.
Erhart: Are we voting on...
Conrad: We're voting on tabling it. We're voting on the motion to table.
Headla moved, Vfilderrouth seconded that the Planningaction on the Preliminary Plat for Carrico Addition
Wildermuth, Headla and Batzli voted in favor of theEllson and Erhart voted in opposition of the motion
tabLe carried uith a vote of 4 to 3.
Comnission tabLe
*88-19. Conrad,motion. Erutings,
and the motion to
Conrad: The item will be tabled. Steve, tining rrise, what do you think?
Hanson: I think the one thing from rrhat I feel I ooe the Cotmiss j.on is to
come back to you in tpo neeks uith nothing less tban a detail on theprogran on how.to deal with the issue if you wiII. Also, an anlysis on...nay go on for geveral nonths. If thatrs the case, Ird uant to be able toadvise you that that may be. If werre Iooking at a long tero situationthat nay totally affect the uay you want to deal rith it.
Headl.a: WiIl you give us the status on it then like beforetype of thing so it doesn't just slide and slide?
the meetings
Hanson: Ies, irhat Irm suggesting is that I nould comeregular meeting and give you a staff report on rhat itwirh it-
back at your next
uould take to deal
to discuss that.
agent ard it hasnit been signed lret but
it hasn I t been officially signed !ret.
then to table 9 ('a) ard (b) ?
".iDi
C(
d
l
r
1
Courcilr*rnan Dimler: Did r€ table the Joint powers Agresnent?
!,layor Ctmiel: !b r€ have not. I'II entertain a motioo for that.
courci rman Johnson: Does it need to be tabled or can r€ rnake tlre Joi.nt por^rers
Agresnent?
l,layor ftriel: Be tabled until the specifications authorizing tlre right in/rightout. I think it should be tabled.
Gary Warren: the(e I s some wordage in there that reflects this access so it
should be tabled.
Counci Ltran Johnson moved, Courci lrunan Dimler seconded to table action on tfleJoint Powers Agresnent with Carver @unty. AI1 voted in favor ard the mctioncarrie,l.
BAIIDIMB,E PARK AND CARRICO ACQUISITIONS, AUTHORIZE @NDBtriBTION.
Don Ashr.ror Eh: The agerda per se is iocorrect. frE report in the ;EcketcorrecEry shows autborize the appraisals for both Bandi.mere park and carrico
Proparty. Little diffelent situation in both of Ehose. In the case of Carrico,re had a lot of rEighborhood support for a park in that area. !€ did carry out
an appraisal. That appraisal c,:,ne back at 56I,A00.AT. TtE property or.,nercarried out an appraisal and it is at S33g,AOq.Og. I feel tnat given the anountof difference ard recogni zing that oncE clnlsnnation is started l,ou don't turn
back, Ehat Ird like to feel on very fir:n grounds as to Ehe anount of money that$e're logj.cally goi.Dg to have to py fcr this equisitim so the Council knowsin advance, does rDt approve an acquisiti.on fot g6g,ggq.gg at}d it turns out tob $LgS rggg.qo ard we've ircurred a lot of attorrEy expeffies, etc., etc.. In asimilar fashion, the Bandimere Park property i€tre looking to for ou! park in
southern Glanhasssr ard I think that if nothj.ng else but to insure the ci ti zenrythat r,E in fact are nraking a reasonable good and a p,rrchase tttat is in factrdhat? Conservative wi tlt Cj.ty dollars. tt segtE only Iogical that rre mightcarry out an alpraisal of that properEy as r.ell to again insure that before re
consumlate that purchase, that in fact i.t does represent a good value for ourcitizenry.
ltal,or Gmj.eL: there's one di.scussj.on I had regarding the pj.peline. If in tie
event r€ have to do a Ersnendous amount of gradirg Lrithj.n that area wtlere the
-I-
35
City Council }leetj.ng -'-y g, 1989
Bri.an Burdj.ck: It's prsnature right rrcw
B.C. Brr.dick: I even have a real estateit has been agreed on ard $rri. Eten up.
Brian Bur.dick: It's been $,ri tten q) but
C'arlr Warrs): !*e need a motion Mr. Mayo,:
l.!a)ror Ctmiel : Yes .
7L,r.'9
. ).1f14U'
City CdnEi I theEing - l.ta- -, I9g9
I
36
existi-ng pipeline is at and re have to prace sqne additionar czacks in tlpgrourd wer ard above that particular pipeline, orre of my clncern:i was a breakwitiin t}tat pipeline or tarking with the piperine and firriing out r*lat the costsmight h for relocating it. I don,t want to absor.b those additional dollarclsts either. Because of Ehe addi.ti.onar earth cunpacti.oo that 1ou Frt on tiatpipe, lDu could have sqrE stress m it that could cause scre proUtens. I,d lj.keus to oake sure tlEt t€ look at that.
OourciLman Johnson: Btt that could be haniled as part of the engineering.
!,layor Ctmiel: Right but I still want to address it.
courrci Luan Johnson: rhve r€ ever fourrl out, r kmw $r r€nt to reviei, utrat tlpeof pipe that eras alnost 2 years ago. lh\re E ever fourd out hrhat tpe of pi$that is?
Et n Ashmrth: I do rDt recarl off tle top of dlr head the technical descriptionbut I do know that ttE pipelirE that broke hd a loogetLral i al. reld ard tlis piPethatrs in t}e grourd here is not of the sarne manufacture rDr does i.t have the
sane ueld characteristic of that pitrE.
Courcilrnan Johnson: Okay. Thatrs good to know.
Don AshlDrth: !E wiII follow r{) wj.th the tbyor's sugEestion ard rrhat will be
done there is that lrark loegrer wirl be used to carry out a sketch pran of thatploperty in a similiar fashion that r€ did for the Carrico propefry Ehat reuld
strow tentative uses that could be [Irt on tie properEy. approx irnat- grades.
That also rculd be, le rrculd look in a similar fashion that i€ did witlr Carricoto other trErcels i.n that area to i.nsure that again thi.s parcel best rneets the
needs for the people dom in southern Chanhassen.
Courci Inan Johnson: ibw san 'r'e arisure neutrality on our appraiser here? G)e ofthe reasonirrys betr€en th3 tte bids, re hired tte appraiser ard gave him thegrourd rules to play !dth. Gre other guy hired the appraiser and gave a
di fferent set of grourd rules to play with. .:li.s grourd rules $ere of @uEse,
assurE tiEt the ttst Courci 1 will all.ow ttris to be seerered protrErty. Voila,
S25.OgO.Og, S35,ggO.Og. S40,gg0.gg an acre. llhatever it h.lrns out. I don.t
lsnember how many acres r€ got hera but a big price. The grourrl rules rre satfor our appraiser was.rssurE ttE t€t Oourcil nontt allow it to be charEd toser€red IEoIErty. therefore, S6g,ggg.Aq is a reasonabte grice. I thj.;k r{e
shouldn t t even rGntion hiring a rEutrar appraiser that cqles in and ret hio dothe research as to rrtlether it,s in ttE IOSA lirE, out of ttE MrSA lire ardeverlzthing el.se. say E're hi ring you Eo alpraise ttri s prolErty and ,rot Frt anykird of clnstraints st it.
Don AstnDrth: tuger is the oDe utto stlourd respord hJt my recolrection is tlEtin tte first case, tE did not give hirn any fonn of lnstructions. In fact, hesolely l@ked at thaE as an unser€red piece of pEoperty. rn the secorrdaEy case,that Roger shourd spe(d tinE to insure that tte irdivj.du.r neighs both si(ks of'the issue ard so that aEpraisal can take into account literarry both sides.
CourEi lrlan Johnson: Take in ttE possibility cr $ha Eever?
I
LE,
,,./.,.i 5City OunciL ltseting - ! B, irggg
t
I
Roger Knutson: rn this case r did not hire that appraiser for canrico. r gotinvolved a ritEle bit later but I never tell the appraiser what to dssune, noEto assune. I dontt write tte appraisal. i aon;t preju@e it. I don,t tetl!|eo rc wanr a highbatt or rowGir anyrhirry. -i
"a-ia i *irt-a, tJr.il i"o"..rm rDt going to terl thern it's insida trr"-lr,re or of.rtside the rt sA. tt nakes
Councilnan Johnson: S?l]ld: as Don,s :uggesting here tlough, since this is sucha factor_, I suggested that _to do exactly-ihai fri" i*t said, is that tE don,ti?IoT q.t of any of Ehe factors inuoiiJ U,.rt'itrere is sore, if hers asare ofau the factors, te miqht because ttre conasnnati* -oat nilr be avare of arrthe factors invorved, 6e may be rooring -ai-iiiiqn
a different Eoint of view.
Roge! Knutsm: CE thirg that.s a little bit uniqrc here fs ifrat ln this ca-it lDuld be absolutelv impossible to foo, ;ii th" f,acts unless !,Du...the City.rtey arenrt avairabre anlprace erse. you reaity -can,t
get all dre
-iicG by goirBq, to the llet courcil. nrev can just teu ].,r'r,r=i;-til-;i;tfi ir[ilun"-i".-
counci Inan Johnson: rtE thing isr what is ttE CharEEs of it gettirE ser.rer? theCity can't say tlEt because i[," i rci-coor.ii,] decision. -# 6ffi;tEtition aDc i_n this case r€ have a petition ioi suAr.
b?o. qyEgl: E(cepr there,s a process of taking land in and lettir:q land outard stuff Like that r'hici.r the city tras *o. ii."t ha,li infomation about. rf hecan get all his inforrnation frcrn ret counci r ard satisfy h il;ilJi trrr.ingto Ehe City, Ehat's firE bu. frankly I don,t ifiinf tfrat; s p.i"iUf..-.---
courcilman Johnson: so Roger rcurd be hiri.ng an appraiser for us in thi s case?
t
it
I wonrt tell thsn a thiog. I,U j.ust tell ttrgn, here, s the legalTelI me $hat it's rcrth.
counci Ltran Johnson: that wa.s my initial gut reacti.on on hou to do it so go fori!. . r move appro\ral for authorizarion ioilppilisar oi rii.-ailii.i" ILCarrico proper ties.
Roger ihutson 3
description.
Councilr.rcrnan Dimler: Secoryl.
- courci lrnan Johnson aoved , .
oourci kcrnan Dirnler secorded to alprove authorization.for.apgraisar of the Bardfuoere park ard carrico' property. Arl voted in favorard tlE rction carried.
ErcEPT COT'NIAL GROI/E TREET LIGTIT REPT}CEMEITT PROPOSAL.
c€ry warren: rhe coronial crore subdivisim, the first aditi-l of that has orhad installed originally ?"-ry.t. of-tle deveiogo-rt, ,.ood stardards to qive itnore of I guess the Coloniat look if you wi I1. or"i tt -f,"".i-il-filrat i" ,j3=an itsr rhatls been since r've cune tire, rre;"e receivJ G;;r^ifi-fo" o.r..the last 3 years for rdhat the.c.ost -is to replace these poilsl --niyii"'iottir,9.
theyrre a haz3rd out there^and- r{ t" be reptaced. tsi ir orri-riry-our*tirrgclsts, given us a clst of Sz,gl3.oo to r:eplale Ehose poles .rrl pri-ii tt=
37
CITY OF
TH[I[H[SSEtrI
PRC DATE: {-5-90''' -
C.C. DATE:
CASE NOs 88-19 SUB
lrepared bys Sietsema s k
I
SIAFF REPORT Pavlt l TZcc nL Cf"l ,
To subtlivide I1.67 acres into 13 single familylots and 2 outlots.
Fz
()
=LL
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
PRESENT ZONII{G:
ACREAGE:
ADJACENT ZONIT|G
AND LAND USB:
EXISTING PARKS:
t_
t-
t
t_
L
B
UJ
tsU'
Northnest corner of Lake Lucy Road and LakeLucy Lane
RR - Rural Residential
11.67 acres
7J,,
+-:- 7
N- PUD-R
S- RR
E- RR
tf- PUD-R
Carl Carrico
4445 West 77th Street, 1203Edina, MN 55435
There are no existing parks in this area.The Conprehensive Plan idlentifies this as apark deficient area. The Trail plan callsfor sidesalks along thru streets.
I
Carrico SubilivisionApril 5, 1990
Paqe 2
BACKGROUND
The Comprehensive Trailstreets. As the street
ment and Pheasant HiIIshould be required.
RECOMMENDAT ION
This is-a proposal to subdivide 11.67 acres into 13 singte familylots and two outlots. This proposal was submitted some time agoanil reviewed again in January. Originally, the park andRecreation Conmission expressed interest in purchasing the entirepiece and the proposal nas put on hold. A purchase piice was notagreed upon, and the Commission acted against condemnation pro-ceedings. In January, the Commission acted to table this ilem soas to get more information from the Engineering Departmentregarding the vretland area.
The applicant is proposing to dedicate 4.24 acres for park pur-poses. A Iarge portion of this area is a C1ass B wetland aiea,which means it is protected by our wetland Ordinance. Since thelast time lhat we reviewed this plan, the Engineering Departmenthas determined that a good portion of the property witt Oe neededfor storm water retention after heavy rains. The property willhave some recreational value, but certainly not to the exlentthat a dry parcel will have. The site could potentially accomo-date a totlot, volleyba1l court, half-court basketball, and someopen space. Therefore only 50t credit on park dedication fees isrecommended.
Plan calls for sidewalks along all thruin this development connects this develop-to the Lake Lucy Road trail system, such
It is the
pa rkl andfees, andwest s ide
recommendation of this office to accept the proposedfor open space in lieu of 50t of the park declicalionto require a 5 ft. wide concrete sidewalk along theof the thru street in lieu of the trail dedication fee.
Park and Recreation Commission Update ( 4-10-90
The Park and Recreation Commission concurred that this is a parkdeficient area. They also tliscussed lhe environmental val,ue ofthe property and its affects on Lake Lucy - which is currently
,
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this item with agreat deal of public input. Residents from the pheasant Hilland Lake Lucy Highlands areas expressed their continued neeil forparkland in the area and asked that the City reconsiderpurchasing the entire parcel . Ihe general sentiment rras thatthis proposal does not provide adequate space for recreationalfacilities. Although this site does not offer optimal charac-teristics for an active park, it is the last large parcel in thearea,
Park and Recreation Commiss ionApril 5, 1990
Page 3
being studieal for a Iake restoration projecL.additional development and alteration of the
have a negative impact on the lake.
It was felt that
wetland area would
For these environmental reasons, the Park and Recreation
Commission recommended that the rezoning of the property bedenied. Hoirever, the Conmission felt it was necessary to reactto the site plan in case it is approved. They indicated that theproposeil park property is drastically compromised by the wet area
and would not be acceptable for park purposes. The ParkAcquisition antl Development Fund has allocated roughly $100,000for parkland in this area. The Conmission ilirected staff tonegotiate with the applicant aod/or adjacent property owners toacquire more usable space.
Staff is in the process of contacting the neighboring landowners
anal Mr. Carrico to pursue the acguisition of additional property.
CH[[IH[ESEN
690 COULTER DRIVE. PO. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 . FAX (612) 937-s739
I{EIUORANDUI'I
,r0:
FROIT:
DATE:
SUBJ:
As you may recaII, the site was previousl
December, 1988. At that time, ABsistant
Brordn prepared a staff report. The reporhis comments and recommendations are stil
some slight modifications.
Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
Dave Hempel , Sr. Engineering fecnnircLanl(@
April 12, 1990
Preliminary Plat Update for Carrico AdditionFiIe No. 90-9 Land Use Review
yrcittw1v
eviewed kack iny Engineer Larryas quite thorough andalid overall with
As the previous report indicated, u!. David tsughes, who is the
inrmediate property owner to the northwest of the site is alsointerested in subdividing hie parcel . In the interest oflimiting curb cuts along Lake Lucy Lane, it uray be appropriatefor the applicant to work with !itr. Hugbes in designing afavorable street concept incorporating the two palcels of land byextending a street from the proposed plat.
If the Planning Cornmission is not in favor of such aconsolidation of projects, staff is recomnending that aright-of-rray be dedicated over the westerly 50 feet of Outlot Afor future road access to litr. Eugbes t parcel .
Utility service from the Carrlco Adldition to }lr. Eughear parcel
would be someirhat difficult. Water service shoulil be provided
from the Carrico plat and looped through to irlhite Dove Circle.
However, due to elevation conatraiots, sanitlry sewer servicewould have to be extended from lghite Dove Circle betseen two
homes .
Glading and Drainage
The applicant had soil borings taken over specifically thewestern part of Outlot A and approximately where the roadintersects L,ake Lucy Lane. The borings encount.ered a significant
amount of organic 6oi1s. The borings did not find the limits ofthe peat when they terminated the borings at 15 feet. The
*4
CITY OF
organic soils within the roadway and any house pad locations will
have to be removed, backfilled with good material and compacted.
The applicant is aware that there will be additional costs
involved in the soil correction effort necessary for this project
and the City's standard road section requirements.
The applicant proposes draining a portion of the Carrico site
north into Pheasant Hills 4th Addition. Staff believes that abetter alternative would be to follow the natural drainagepattern and drain directly into the retention pond/r.retland in
Outlot A. These types of design issues can be resolved during
the plan and specification review process. A wetland alterationpermit will be required to develop this retention pond.
The applicant's engineer has calculated the 100-year storm runofffor developed and undeveloped conditions. Based on their
calculations, it will be necessary to retain on site
approximately 1.4 acre feet of storage. The existing iretland
encompasses a large portion of Outlot A. Staff feels that Outlot
A is large enough to support future ponding needs as well as
accommodating a sma11 park on the outskirts of the wetland, i.e.totlot, walking trails and basketball or tennis court. As in
previous projects dealing with the conbination of parkland, storm
ponding needs and credits, it is critical to document the
developerrs role in the construction of the parkland, i.e.
design, rough and finished grading, re-seeding, sodding, etc.
Recommended Conditions
As proposed in the previous report for this subdivision, a numberof conditions were recommended for approval. hle still feel these
conditions are valid with some modifications, therefore we areproposing them as follows:
The applicant shall enter into a development contract withthe City to provide the City with the necessary financialsecurities to insure proper installation of these public
improvements antl detailing the developerrs obligations as itrelates to development of the parkland and credits if
author i zed .
The applicant sha11 proviile the City rrith written approvalfrom the ltletropolitan Council which documents the amendmentto the ITIUSA boundary prior to final plat approval by the CityCouncil. Failure to obtain such documentation and approvalwill result in denial of the plat.
If Outlot A is not dedicated to the City, a drainage andutility easement shall be dedicated over the proposed stormwater retention area.
1
2
3
Jo Ann OlsenApriI 12, 1990
Page 2
Jo Ann OlsenApril 12, 1990
Page 3
4.
5.
6
7
The plat sha1l incorporate a 20-foot wide utility easementfor the extension of watermain to the Hughes property.
It shall be the developer's sole expense for constructing the
roadway connection between wooal Duck Lane and the northerlyproperty of the subject site. This cost will not be assessedto the neighboring properties.
The applicant shaIl obtain and comply with aII conditions ofthe watershed District permit.
A revised grading plan shal1 be submitted as a parL of theplan and specif icatj.on review process. This revised plan
sha11 indicate existing ground contours in dashed lines andproposed in solid lines to delineate the two. In addition,erosion control shaIl be incorporated onto the plan.
AL1 utilities and roadways shaIl be constructed consistentwith the City's standald for urban construction providingproper soil correction as recommended by a registered soils
engineer anil approved by Che City Engineer.
8
9 The applicant shall dedicate the westerly 50as street right-of-way unless an alternativeprovided through the Carrico plat.
feet of
acces s
Outlot Ais
10. Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall submitdetailed construction plans and specifications for approvalby the City Engineer. Detailed storm drainage calculationsshall be supplied to verify storm sewer sizing for a 1o-year
storm event.
c: Gary lrlarren, City Engineer
ktm
CITY OF
THINHISSEN
MEMORANDI'M
T0: Steve Hanson
FROM: Steve Kirchman
690 COULTER DRIVE . P,O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
\CA V,
DATE: Decenber 22, 1988
SIEJ: Planning Case 88-19 SUB & 88-12 I,IAP (Cart Carrico)
The proposed subdivision may contain soils that are unsuitablefor building. The developer should retain an engineering firmto do a soils investigation to dete:mine the suitability of the
underlying soils for building. Corrections would have to be madeat unsuitable house pads before building permits could be issued.
The Building Department has the option of requiring soils.,testsat each suspect house pad before issuing a building permit.
+5
CITY OF
EHINHISSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
I'IEUORANDUM
TO: Park and Recreation Commission
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator
DATE: December 8, 1988
SUBJ: Appraisal for the Carrico property
The Park
posed on
Lake Lucy
d irected
work withsite.
and Recreation Commission reviewed the site plan pro-the Carrico property, loeated next to pheasant Hi11s andHighlands, at their last meeting. The Conrmissionstaff to have an appraisal done on the property and tothe Carricot s to agree upon a price for the entire
The procedure for this direction would be for each party to havean appraisal done and negotiate from there. This item was sche-duled to appear on the December 13, 1988 agenda anticipating thatthe appraisal prepared for the Carrico's would be available.Unfortunately, such is not the case. To review the appraisalprepared for the City would have little meaning not knowing theCarrico's position. Therefore, it is staff,s iecommendation totable action on this item untit the Carrico, s appraisal isavailable.
n+
a
United States Department of the Interior
tN REPLY REFEiTO SPFO
Attachment
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
sT. _PArrL F!Eu) OmcE (Es)
50 Parl< Squlrr Couri400 StbLr Str.ltSL Paul, lfi-;rlotr 55tot
.Iuly 11, 1988
Ms . Jo.4nn O1senAssistant City Plannercity of Chanhassen
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Ms. Olsen:
In response to your June 30, 1988 request, Mr. paul Burke ofthis office conducted our on-site review of four $retlandsites $rithin the City of Chanhassen.
I am enclosing herewith a copy of his report for your
information.
If you have any questions or require additional information,please contact us at your convenience.
Si ncere Iy,
I-r J.
Ro rt . welfordField Supervisor
H1
.rlji- i jj 1-c88
LiTY 3F CHAtihASS[N
Following my on-site revie$r, I have determined that wetlandsare present at each of the four subject sites, and each ofthe first three sites have been or will be impacted by site
development .
Subj ect :Report of Field Investigation of four wetlandsites within the City of Chanhassen, CarverCounty, Minnesota
Field Investigator: Paul Burke
Date: June 30, 1988
Site No. 1
This is a lake shore wetland behind the Colonial GroveTennis and Beach Club, 80 Cheyenne Terrace, and 100 CheyenneTerrace. The affected area appears to have been recentlyfilled to an elevation of approximately 1 foot (vertical)
above previous grade, sodded, and stabilized at the hrater's
edge by a cobble wa1l. By examining the condition of theshore line vegetation on each of the bounding property Iots,I found evidence of hydrological conditions that wouldconfirm my determination that the adjacent properties arepalustrine emergent and palustrine scrub-shrub rretlands(Circu1ar 39 1}rtr)e characteristics of 2, 3, and 5). The
evidence provided the positive identification of each ofthree parameters needed for vretland delineation. The soilswere a peaty-siLt (histosols), and a1l histosols are ahydric soil type. The vegetation canopy Lras dominated byred-ozier dogwood (Cornus stol.onifera), and ground coverconsisted primarily of reed canary g rass ( Phalaris
arundinacea ), broad-leaved cattail (purple loosestrife ( Lvthrum salicari Tvphaa).latifolia) , and
Each of the abovespecies are classified as FAcw*, or wetter designation,hydrophytes. The water leve1 at the time of the site visit
was less than one vertical foot below the median elevationof the affected hretland. In consideration of recent droughtconditions, it is reasonable to assume the hydrology of thesite ranges from saturated to pemanently flooded.
Barring any information to the contrary, r.re can assume thatprior to the recent shoreline enhancement project at thissite, most, if not all, of the recently sodded area was arretland with characteristics and values similar to thosefound on the adjacent properties. The majority of thesewetland values could be recovered if the fill were removed.,and the area allowed to revegetate.
2
Site No. 2
This j-s a wet-meadow tlPe comPlex adjacent to the Northwest
Nrrrsery Co. site in Chanhassen. with the use of a Plan view
of the earthen work proposed by the nursery company, I $ras
able to identify, in approximate terms, the areas intended
for the pLacement of fil1.
Starting at the north side of the nursery, near Highway 101,
I found the proposed re-contouring will result in the loss
of betvreen 1/2 and 3/4 of an acre of Palustrine emergent,
saturated wetland (circular 39 characteristic of $pe 2)
with reed canary grass dominating the site. With only minor
modifications, the nursery's plans can be completed
resulting in only minimum loss of wetlands at the site.
on the west end of the nursery, I found a similar wetl'and
characteristic, with evidence that the margins of the
wetlands have already been fi1Ied. I would estimate that
approximateLy L/2 of an acre of \.retland has already been
covered by fill dirt. The plan view was contoured trith
solid lines marking the existing land contours, and dashed
lines showing the proposed contours at the comPl'etion of
their project. The plan view would indicate that a
su.bstantial portion of the tree and shrub Iot at the western
most end of the nursery is situated on fiII.
It is my determination that the $retlands adjacent to the
nursery ( southvrest of the barns) have been filled and that
no additional fill can be placed at the lower end of the
site without placing fill in a wetland. If the nursery
company intends to proceed with their site Plans, they
should be advised to first contact the U.s. Army CorPs of
Engineers, st. PauI District, for compliance v'rith Section
404 of the Clean water Act. Given the evidence of recently
deposited fill , I would reconunend the land owner to contact
the corps of Engineers immediately, regardless.
site 3
This is wet-meadow just off of Lake Lucy Lane, north of
Chanhassen and near the intersection vrith Lake Lucy Road..
The site, approximately t!,ro acres in size, is a palustrine
emergent, saturated, vretland (Circular 39 characteristic
Type 2) dominated by reed canary grass, and cattails. Theentire site is a 1lpe 2 wetland, with the exception of minorundulations near the upper periphery. The area was mowed
some time just prior to our site visit, but the hydrophyticvegetation was left as thatch and easily identifiable.
Given the extent of the $retland boundary, no f il.I could beplaced adjacent to the roadway, regardless of configuration,without fill being placed in wetlands. Any site plans that
3
approach this \.retland from the upland side, opposite the
roadway, wiLl need to be carefully reviewed for possible
wetland impacts .
Site No. 4
This site is just north of City HaI1, below Kerber
Boulevard, and on the floodplain of an adj acent lake. The
lower contours of the site are dominated by hydrophytes such
as reed canary grass and cattails. Generally, the wetlands
form a smaIl (1/4 acre) basin near the recent road fill and
grading work on Kerber Boulevard, and the rretlands continue
dor.rn tovrard the lake in a narrow strip, perhaps 150 feet in
width and 800 feet in length. Ihere is one wide spot in the
wetland strip about 3/4 acre in size, and it is located
about mid-way between Kerber Boulevard and the lake.
This site has a medium-to-high potential for the enhancementof wetland values by deepening and re-contouring the site.
ALso, since upland cond.itions do exist over much of thesite, a hikinq trail, with benches at suitable observationpoints, could be constructed around the perimeter of thesite and the lake to make the site more accessible and
enj oyable to the pubJ.ic.
{
CITY OF
EHINHISSEN
690 COULTER ORIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
I{EII{ORAI{DUI{
TOs Stephen Hanson, City Planner
8R0!t: Mark Littfin, Fire Inspector
DATB: December 15, 19 88
SUBJ: Planning Case 188-19 SUB & *88-12 IiAP
I have reviewed the subdivision of land in reference to Planning
Case *88-19 SUB & *88-12 wAP. Recommendations at this time arefire hyCrants are required to be spaced at a maximum of 300 feet.
Also as utilities are berng installed, there must be 10'
clearance around frre hydrants.
If I can be of further assistance, please let me knohr.
*&
a
2
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SI, PAUL OISTHICT. coRPS OF ENGINEEBS
rT35 U,S. POST OFFICE E CUSTOM HOUSE
ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55101.I479
Cons truction- Operations
Regulatory Branch ( 89 - 128N- 12 )
l,ls . Jo Ann Olsen
Assistant Cicy Planner
590 Coulcer Drive
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, l.IN 55 317
SUBJECT: Carrlco Addition; wetland encroaclDent for roads and lots in the
NE 1/4 of section 3, T 115 N, R 23 !r, Carver County, I,lN
We have reviewed the infornation provided us about chis projecc. Thework is authorized by a nationwide Departnent of the Arny pernit, provided. theenclosed conditions and r0anageEent practices are followed,
This determination covers only the project referenced above. If thedesign, location, or purpose of lhe work is changed, the project proposer
should contact us to nake sure che work would not result in a violation ofFederal law. Our telephone mrmber is (6T2) ZLO-O3GO.
IE is their responsibility to insure that the work conpli-es with theterns of Ehis leEter and che enclosures. rr rs rHErR REspoNsrBrl-rfi To oBTATN
ALL REQUIRED STATE PERI.TITS AND APPROVALS BEFORE PROCEEDING IIITH THE PROJECT.
THIS NATIONWIDE PERI.IIT AUTHORIZATION IS CONTINGENT UPON STATE APPROVAL.
If you have any questions, please call Mr. Ttm FeIl.
Enclosure ( s )I{op
ef, Regulatory Branch
Conscruction-Operations Division
Determination: 330.5 (a) (26)
This is based on the plans signed and dated on October 7, 1988,
Cardarelle.by Mr. Frank
q OcT 2 : 1988
CITY OF CHANITASSETI
October 24, 1988
t{ r }{xEsoTA
luthorlty for tbe follovlag actlvltle! 18 81veB at ,, Codc of Fcderal
RegulatloBs (CI8):
t 4 5ro.5(a)(26) D1lchartes of dtedtcd or f11l !.tcrlal. lttto the eaters
llsted 1a D.r.ar.phs (a)(26)(1) lld (11) of thls .cct,'otl GrcePt tlose shlch
cause the loas or drbstartlal adverse Eodlflcatlou of lO acres or tnorc of
such. water! of tbe lrllteal Statca, lBcludl!8 vctl..Bds. Por dl'tcbar6c! ehlch
cause tbe locs or rub8taBtlal advcrsa !od,1f1cat1o! of oae to tetr lcres of
luch yat.rs.lDcludh€ vetleld!. Dotlflc.t1o! to thc dl..trlct c!61nccr 1!
rcqulred 1E .ccordr.Ece wltL ScctloB !!o.? of tbt! !cct1o!. (scctloa t1o4)
LEpolDd.Ecatr.
vatcrs.
(1) Xoa-t1alal rlv"r!. ltrcaEs. a[d tber.r la.Lcs .a
lacludt'la rdJ aaeEt vctl:.Ed!. thst arc locr.tcd .boYG tbc bcad
(1t) Otbcr !oD'-t1alJ, e.,trrr of thc Oa1tcd Statc!.
1Bc1ud1D6 rdJ accEt utt!.tll&. tbat ale lot D.rt of r Surfacc trttutary
ltstet! to htcrrtatr ee,tcrr or Eavl8ablc eatcr! of thc UElteil Statca (1.c.'
lsolatcd vater! ).
ReRloDaI CoBdlttoag
I_l I{aJorltt of the P rol ect nequ ,.re3 State Pcrt!1t3 ild/or ADDrsval!
l.Elr Dcrloa ltrtcldha to dr.!cb.!tc drcdard or flll D.tcrr'al lEto l{lElarota-
dc!1c!.tcat 'lrotcctcd V.,ter!' !bal1 .ubdt ra lPDllcatlotr to tLc ll'llclota
Dcp.rtlclt of frtur.l Sc.orrrcc! (l@f,B ) tefore bcglllllt rorl. lctlYt'tlc!
arc 8uthorltcd rrad* tLla lrtlolvldc Pct'rlt aflGr tla aPDllcalt obtahs
rll .DDUc.blG tllEBclota DcDartacat ot lrturrl B..outcc! (Df,a) ud/or
illllclotr PolhstloE Coltrol f6ucy (lecf) Pctdt. rsd .PProval.. YorL !.y
Droc.Gd uDott tecctDt of dl 8DD11o.!lc I'orB a[d/or I'lPCl Pcr!1t! u'd
rPprove,l! -
Other 6trte r.!d, locrl ruthorr'latloar raJr te requlrcd-
fh1! dlrch.,rge of &ed6cd or 1111 laterlal vould. caure tbc Io!! or
rubstiultlal, ld.verae lodlflcat1oa of :4t
t_] Bctvccu I and lO acreg of lratcr3 of tbe Ualted Statca
(See reverle a 1de. )
Le!! thaE oDe acre of eaters of tLc galtcd' State!
Enc l. 1
1
)
'I
D
The followLng SPECIIL ONDITIONS auat be follored in order for the nrtlo ridc perolta to be valid:
l. Itat eny diacharge of dredged or fill !.t6ria1 ui11 not occur in tho psorluity of a pub1lc oater aupply
intak6t
2. That any diacharge of dredged or fill oaterLal sl11 not occur ln ar."a of conc.ntr.t.d ehellfirh productlon
unles8 tha diachargc ia dlrectly r.lrt€d to a ehellflrh harerting .ctlvlty .uthoalr.d by prrtgreph (e)(4) of thtr
sectioni
3. ifhst the sctivlty uil1 not j eopardi.z e a thr€atened or eadangercd epeclce .r idantlflcd under the Endangcred
Speciea Act or dastroy or rdvaracly aodlfy the critical habitat of such apecloa
4. That th. actlvity rhall not slgnlfleantly dl.rupt th. oorr€DGnt of thor. rpeeicr of aquetic llfe indigenourto the rrsterbody (unlear tha prlnary purpos. of the f111 Ls to iepound rater)t
5. That any dlechargc of drcdgad or fill naterlel rhal1 consiat of suitabl. a.tari.1 free froo toric pollu-
tants in toxic aaounte;
6. That erqr .tructu!. or f111 luthorir€d aha11 ba properly o.l,nteLn6a
7, fhot the actlvlty rl11 not occur Ln a co8ponent of the NatLonrl flild and Scenlc Rlvcr Syeteu; nor 1n ariver officially dealgnetcd by Congraee et ! rstudy rlvern for pooelble lnclusion ln th. .y3t.o, rhilr the riv€s iein an officlal rtudy etatur;
8. That th€ ectlvity rbal1 not causc en unlccepteble incGrfarenca rlth nrrrlgrtl,oa,
9. Ihat. lf the actlvity oql adveraely affect hLatoric propcrtica rhich thq National Park Scnricc has llrtad
on or deterDined c1lglb1c for liating on th€ National Regleter of Hlatoric Placcr, tha pernltt€o rill notlfy theDistrict Engin€er. If tho P.rDittao encounters a hl..torlc property thlt ha3 not besn ll,gted or deterolned cligiblefor lietlng on th. Natj.on.l R.gl..ter. but vhich oay be ellglblr for 1i.rtin8 on the Nltlon.l Rcgi.rtar, he/rhc ri,11notify the Di3tsict Bngine.r.
10. Thaq tha conatructLon or oper.tion of the actlvity wt11 not iEpalr raaawed trlbal rlght.. i.ncludlng. butnot liEited to. reaenred reter rLghta and treaty flahlng and huntl,ng rlghtai
11. That in certsin statet, an lndlvldual state water quallty certificltl.on Euat ba obtal.ned or ualvedi
12. ftlat ln cartain rtataa' an lndlvldual state coaatal zonc DanageDent conai.stency concurranca [ust be
obtained or ralvcd;
13. Thet th. tctlvlty 1111 coaply rlth regional eonditions *hieh uay hsvo bcen added by the Divigloa Engin€a8i
14. thlt tha D!a!g.o.nt practlcce ahal1 bc folloned io th. llrLnun .rt€nt praetlcablc. (See rcverre cl.da)
lrtrltrtttrtttttl
VtLV,
MINNESOTA TEXAS PROPERTIES
Walerway Tower, Suite 940
433 East Las Colinas Boulevard
lrving, Texas 75039
21 4-402-9692
4445 West 77th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55435
612-831 -8109
November 16, 1988
Ms. Joanne 0l- s onCity PlannerCity of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Persuant to our recent discussion regarding the property on
Lake Lucy Lane. We are requesting that the city grant usan exlension on our application for planning and zoning.
We are asking for the exLension due Lo the realignment ofthe road that alIows access to the property from Lake LucyLane. As you are aware, we are also discussing with thePark and Recreation Department, the possible purchase ofa portion of the property.
It is our intension to appear before lhe Planning Commissionat their earllesL convenience.
Sincerely y ours
------7r7?fu,.
Thomas H. Carrico
$rD
Nov 17 1988
C|TY OF CHANhASSEN
Dear Joanne:
ADDRESS +JLi<hrt.+ -7rrr S.bv.*ADDRES} 4445 Nq+11/^ a?.,]
TELEPHONE (DAY
eElQrrFsT:
Zip CodeGI z p Codetime ) 3.41 -Gl
Zoniag Distlict Change
Zoning AppeaL
Zoning Variance
Zoning Text Anendment
Land Use Plan Amendment
Conditional Use permit
Site PIan Review
Planned lbit D&elopnent
_ sketch Plan
_ Prelininary p].an
_ Final PIan
Subdi vi s ion
L Platting
_ t,etes and Bounds
Street,/Easement Vacation
Wetlands Pernit
TELEPHONE
+
-x
A
X
PROJECT NA.[,lE
PRESENT I.AND USE PLAN DESIGNATION R I<
REQTJESTED LAND I'SE PI.AN DESIGNATION fl S tr'
PRESENT ZONING
REOUESTED ZONING PST
USES PROPOSED
SIZE OF PROPERTY lz ,
LOCATION
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST o
*tl
IJGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary)
I,AND DE\IETJOPIiBTjI APPLIC.ATION
CITT OP CEAITELSSEf,
590 Coulter Driye
cha.Ehassen, lIN 55317(512) 937-1900
APSLICAET: h,^n.*,1E-*os Qoa-lto-s, $nns.r_CA) t. 0a*; ra
Pc
EXHI,BTT A
Legal Deacrl Ptlon
paSe I of I
I
Ttat part of the Southeadt k of the Northeaat k of Sectlon3, rounantp l16, Range zt, C".r.."io;;;;;=il;":"rta, descrlbedas folroue: Begrnnrng at a pornt rn tne'souit-lrne of 861dsouttreasr !l of rhe Noitheast t, J t"i". i'li6]i"r".. (20 roda)l,rest frou tlte fioutheast corner o[ Baid Southeaot t of theNortheast l; th, nce North 445.50 f";a-(;:;;";;llne); thenceNorth 8 degrees ..0 mlnutes.Easr 259.3g'f."t iilg: chalne);thence tlesr 1037.52 feet (15..72 "t,ii""t;-ii"ile soutfr Oga.f2I:u, (tO.SZ chalne)i thence_East 990.0 feer (15.0 ehalns) to
il!,i:Iil :[ :"i:ul.?; :ff,:]":'ii;:;::'*Ii::t;::"Fi,:;",.the Norrheasr !a, dlstanr 310.0 feei i..it-iiir-ate southweatcorner of eald Southeast t^of the llortteagi-il thence northalong the lresr llne of sald soutt.rei-{-oi thi uorttrcaet t edlstarrce ot 3Bi,j2 feeti thence .""t-fle.6 i"ia ao a poLnt697.2.4 teet north of the sourh llne of aatd ioJtheaet L ofthe.Norrheaer l; thence south parellel "i;h ;;; neer llne ofsald Sourheaer t of the Northeaet t " di;;;r;;-of 384.32 feer;thence. near ro the polnt of begtnning, i"J-iiiert thar parrdescrlbed as follords: comrnencing ","irr"'i.rii"eat corner ofsrld Southeast k of the Northeasl t; tt""..1""t along thesouth ltne of eard sourheasr k ,f tti"-i;;;;i"r"i'r, a dteranceof 330.00 feet to the potnt or u.ernirisi -;;;;;.
norrh at arlght angle a dlsrance of .250.00 ;;;'-;;";;"i.et pararretrlth the south tlne of eatd Southeasi'k-;;'-;;""i,".rheagt Li dlsrance.of i6o.oo feer; thence Bour;;; ."rreha angle adletence of 260.00 feet to sald south frn"; tiii"e eaat alonggald eouth llne a dletarrce of 160.00 f";;-i"-;;. polnt ofbeglnnlng.
1*
Tax Parcel Number
25 003 33oo tl
lltlllltllllllllll
it\f
{.\
$s
\ .,.\
$$
ss
$q
Sx
s
ts i.
i i$ii\*sltlg irS
irf$t
U
-\.\
l-N.\ s \rS'. !l{ \$
s-$\r,' \\d\{ s.s)'
\,'\S\t
!J
€3
EA
Eop
o.
co
E
-Ro6i
!'E-98
t
r
c'b
\
F
*.
=t
*-:
zl,
^E&:i <r> =l,f F z,lc.r<tl (J'i aa'=l
6
*
5'tItAtE
T
t
2
s
4_
+
z
tI)q
J
;1l'-:sf
B:d#
\
-\
l\
N
N
\\\
a
\
G.
--.-N
..\
_\
co--E
Fo- 6i
_<E-3S
B
U
\
\s
r)
O
,l
CITY OF
EH[NH[SSE[I
MEMORANDIJ},!
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SU&T:
690 COULTER DR|VE. p.O. BOX 147 0 6111p1119SEN, MTNNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739
Planning Co'nnission
Todd Gerhardt, Assistant City Man ager
April 12, 1990
Modification No.
PIan
10 of the Redevelopnent plan and TIF
Attached for your consideration is lr{odification No. 10 to thecity-r s .Redevelopnent pran and rrp plan for ttre reaevliofr"rri ".""which incrudes the dorntown and chanhassen Lakes Business park.
TIr".p}1" is bei.ng anended.to permit the followirrg p.opo.EJpiojectsthat the HRA is considering:
1. west Chanhassen Shopp-ing Center (approxiuat e:-y 260,OoO sq. ft.of retail betqreen West z8th Stieet, Uarkei Boulevaid andCounty Road 17).
2. Redmond products (approxinately 37O,OOO sq. ft.office/warehouse between County noad tZ and Audubon hoad) .
3. Hardees/Amoco/car wash/Apple valley Red-E-Mix (approxinately11,350 sq. ft. of additional rLtail, auto' iirvice andrestaurant loaated at the northeast corner of xighway s andHighway 101).
Based-on_ tlese projects, under state lau the p]anning Conmissionnust find that the nodifications being proposed are coniisient vittrthe cityrs overall conprehensive pta-n. in staffrs review of theproposed. proj ects, the uses being considered and their tocitionsare consistent vith the cltyrs rind uee policies tor-"uct -"r tn"subject locations.
Reconnendation
staff reco'mends that the pranning co,nission adopt the forrowingnotion:
April 12, 1990
Page 2
rThe Planning Connission adopts Resolution No. 9O-2 findingUodification No. 10 of the Redevelopnent plan and TIF plan
consistent rrith the City of Chanhassen,s Conprehensive plan.lr
Attachnents
1
2
Plan Modification
Resolution No. 9 0-2
I{OTION BY:
RESOI.I'TION FINDI}IG lrEE XODIFIED IIIX II{CRAXEN! PINITICING
PLAT FOR TEE CEIIIEAAEEN DOXITTO'I{ NEDEVEIOP}IEXT PRGTECT
CONSIATENT TITB llEA PI.NTA 8OR DBVEIPPHEITT OF TEECIIY OF CEIIEIASEX
VIHEREAS, the Chanhassen City Council has authorizedpreparation of l,Iodification No. 1O to the City of Chanhassen
Redeveloprnent Plan and Tax Increnent Financing plan and havesubnitted the nodified PLan to the Planning Conmission for coEment i
and
DATE:
WHEREAS, the Planning Cornnission has made a thorough review ofthe nodified Plan and has conpared the plan with the plans fordevelopnent of the City as a rrhole.
City of Chanhassen
Carver and Hennepin Counties, l{innesota
Planning co'nrnission
NOW, THEREFORE, BE fT RESOLVED by the planning Conrnission ofthe City of Chanhassen, l,[innesota as follows:
1. That uodification No. 10 to the Redevelopnent plan is found tobe consistent rith the plan for developuent of the City of
Chanhassen as a whole.
2.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council thisday of , 1990.
ATTEST:
It is reconnended that the City council of the City of
Chanhassen hold a public hearing required by 1aw and adopt thenodified Plan.
Chairnan
RESoLUTION NO:--
SECOIIDED BY:--
Secretary
TAX INCBBMENT PINA}ICIXG PU\N
POB
DOWNTOWN CIIAXHASSEN REDEVBIOPXENT ABBA
CITY OF CHANHASSE}T
IODIPICATION NO. 10
ITARCH 23, 1990
Prcpucd By:
HOLUES & GRAVBN, CHABTEBBD
{70 Plllrbury Ccntcr
lllnncagollr, Uinncrota 5i{02
AND
HOISINGIION GNOUP, INC.
7!00 Mctro Boutcvard
Edlna, Mlnn*ota 55{!5
Pale
Trr lncrcmcnt Plnanclng plan
Dcflnltlons
StttutorT Authorlty
stlt.Elnt ol Objcctlvcr .
Strtcnrnt of Publlc Purpoce
Bclatlon to RcdcvclopmGnt plrn
Bounderlcs ol TIF Dlrtrlct
Dcserlgtion of Dorntorn Bcdcvclopmcnt Arca
Dcvclogmcnt ld AlacarEcnt Agrccmcntr
Hktoqr .nd Clrqlflcetlon of TIp Dlrtrlct
fodlficetlon ot TIP Plan
Urc of Ttr Incpemrnt
Exccrs Ttx Incrcmcnt
Iluratlon and Modifleation ol the TIp Dlrtrlct
Bclocatlon
Propertlcs to bc Aequlred rlthln TIF Dbtrlet
Publlc lmprovcmcnt Phru
Estlmatc of ProJ:et Coltr
Ori3lnel Tex Capaclty
E tlmltc of Ceturcd Tar Capeltyr Velue
md Tar Inercmcnt
&rba:etlon T. Ertlmatc! of lmpeet on Othcr Trring Jurbdlctloot
&rbacctlon U. Annuel Bcport Bcarr{lng TIF
&lbsrctlon tL
Subrctlon B.
&rbs.ctlon C.
Subccctlon D.
Subsectlon E
Snbocctlon P.
&rbrcctlon G.
&rbscctlon IL
&rbseetlon L
&rb.etlon J.
&rb8ectlon tr.
&rbscction L
&rbrectlon M.
&.lbsectlon N.
Snbccctlon O.
&rhcctlon P.
&tbscctlon Q.
&rbaectlon R.
Subsection &
I
2
,
,ttt!
a
a
a
6
5
5
6
s
c
1
t
8I
Teblc ol Cont.nts...-_--
TAX INCRBUENT FINANCING PLAN
L Dcflnttlons
Por thc Plrrporca of thc Tax Ine!.ment Ftnenelq pLn, th. fouorln3 tcrmsrhdl havc the mceningr spcelltcil bclor, unlcg thc contcrt othcrrbc rcguircs:
-'Ciqf Ecrls the Clty ol Chanhrr*n, I ounlcllnl corporrtioo undcr thcbx! of th. rtrtr of ttmclotri
-rCongrchenslvc Ptari acanr'thc Clty.r Comgrchcnrtvc plenr lncluditg throbjcetlvcr, gollcicq rtenduds lnd glogrtBr to pEe prblle rn<! prlvetc tlu- urc,
dcvclogmcnt, ?cdcvclo!,nent and prrrcrvrtloa for dl -hndr erd irtcr rlthio theCltyt
iCtt5r Counclli or tCounctli ocetu thc Chrntrrgcn Clsr Coumfli
iCount5r' oeans Cener CountJr, tlinncaotr;
iHRA Acti means ltinnesota StltutGr Scettoru {89.001 thlouSh 199.0{?t
tllourlng and Bedevelopmcnt Authorls or iHRA, ncen! thc Bourlng ud
Bedevelopmcnt Authollty ln and lor thc clty of chrnharscn, Hlnncrote, crirtcdguruant to M|nne3ot! Statuts Scctloru {09.00f thrcWh {69.0{?;
. - iXcdcvclopment Plani m.aru thc plen lor rcdovctopmcnt of ttc protcct,
orlginally rdoptcd by thc city on Dcccmbcr 19, l9z?. Tlrc notllfiertlon of th.
Bcdcvclopmcnt Plan to be adoptcd et th! tlmc ol thc ldoptton of thlr nod[lcrtlonto th. TIP Plan rlll bc the trnth formal modllicatlon of thc Rcitcv.lopnGnt pr.ni
. -.
iBedeveloprna{r! Projecti or iProJccti oearu thc rcdGvcloDEant DEorGctcstabllshed by the Clty on Dcccmbcr 10, !97?, ln downtorn Ctrantrurin -enO
crpanded on Decembcr 18, 19?E, to lncludc th. Chrnhu.en Laker butlnc!, Dlrk.outh ol T.H. 5, pulsulnt to 4!@!g gEllgllg! S.cttonr r8g.oot throqh aS9.Oa?t
tState' mcans thc Stlte of tlnncrotr;
rfar Incrcmcnt Bondsn oeltl! rny Scncrrt obllSrtton or lrvrnuc tarIncremcnt bondr lssucd by tbc clty to flnancc thc pblle cims rgoctrtrd *tt tic
lroiect !! sttt.d ln thc Rcdevclogmcnt ptrn rnit ln thc TIF phr} or rny oblfetlorulgued to rcfuld thc Ttr Incrcment Bondg
;fer lncremcnt Pinenclq Acti or lnF Acti ncenr Ilnnccotr EtrhrtatScctlotu l69.Ua thrcugh 469.179, lncludvc, rr rncndcq .nd
;fax Incremcnt Flnenelng Dlrtrleti acrar thc trr lncrcncnt ftnrncln3dlatriet establlshed rlthln thc dorntorn EdGvdolrnrnt .!cr rDd thc chanlrerchLekcs burlnecs perk uce;
sfrx lncrcoent Plnanclng Phni or tn? plrrrt nclu ttrc pfrn by rttclr thcHRA lntcnds to asrtgt devclop_mcnt -rtthln ttrc hoJcct, rhleh pien ri oartirriy
ld9ptcd on Dccembcr 19, le??. Tth mer.lo thc tGnth lornal nodtfletttoa -of Ut.TIP Plrn
B. SIATUIlOBY AUTHORITY
Puthrant to thc HBA Act, thc CIty on Dcceabcr 19r l9?? clelted thc
Protcct tn tbc dorntom portlon ol thc Clty mrth of Blghray 5 ad
Gltablbhcd the .tca u r trr balCncnt tlmnetng dbtrlct. On
Ilcecmbcr 18, 19?8, thc Protcct r.s Gpltdrd to lnctudc en
rddltloul al6 rcr:r routh ol Bljhrey 5 rnd thtt rrce ru dro
lncluded u palt of thc Tll Dbtilct. At thc tlDG of ttc crcetlon ol
thr Prcrcct the Bcdcvclogocnt Phn rr! ..toptrd by thc IiBA ud thc
Ctty. Ttu icdcvclqrnent Plu eontelncd dctdlr ol thc Prorcct,.rrd
lncludcd a brlel dlscuslon rcaar{!ry thc urc ol TIP. Thb coEtttutcd
th. irtatcE.nt of thc Ecthod gropo!.d tor tlnrnclnS! thc PloJcct
rcquircd at thrt tlne by thc ttBA Act. lrnc to ehrryd
clrcuDstrne.s arid Dc, dGvrlo[,Brnt ogportunltlca lt lr rcr
epprogriate lor thc BBA .!d Clty to .n.Dd tbc nP Phn.
Accordlngly, thc Clty urd EBA nor rbh to-..lopt r nodlflcd TIP
Plan rhich reeurately r.tlGctt tltc currcnt llaenclel plrn lor thc
Prorcet, rlth pertlculer copherb on thc dorntorn Chenlrerrcn
Howcvcr, .doptfion of en ugtrtcd TIP Plln doc! not coutltutc rr
Glectlon on thc A.rt ol thc Clty or IIRA to plocccd rltn thc Protcct
under the TIf Aet, Gra.gt to thc Grtrnt rcquhtd by Scctlon {89.119.
Thc HBA erd City lntcnd to contlauc to .dnlnLtcr thr Prolret ar r
TIF Dlstrlct eltat.d erd ccrtlllcd p!lo! to Awurt I, l9?9.
C. SIATBMENT OF OBJBCTIYBS
Ttc HRA rd Clty rcek to rchlovc thc lollorlrg obtcetlvcl thlouSft
thc nodlllcd nP Pbn:
t. Provlde cmgloyocnt ogportunltlo rlthln thc Ctt,;
lolrove thc trr brrc of tDc Clty rld tbc gcocr.l cconony ol
the Clty rn l Strtcl
2.
t.
a.
t.
8.
EncoulagG rrdevelopnent of dorntoro Chuhasren rhleh b rn
rre! thrt har not bGcn utlllzcd to ltr full Dotcnthlt
lnglcmcnt relcvrnt Dortloot of thc Cltyt Coolrchcndvc Plan;
Arrbt ln tic rcquldtlon of ccrtrln gropcrtlcl le thc pupoe
of cmrtnretlry acatod pnbllc lolrovcncatr end pronotta3
rrdcvclogncng rnd
Implcucnt . tmlrrn ol rpcald lrrc.snrnt rrductlonr tc
Dropcrticr rlthln thc dorotorn .tce rborc Earl(Gt raluca
hrvc lncrcercd duo to aor cotutnrctlm rhcc tbc crcrtlon ol
thlTlP Dlrtdct.
STATBXB}IT OP PUBUC PUBFOEE
In doptht thc norllfled TIP Phn md dolnhcrttE $c Pr.olcat, tbc
EnA .nd Clty hrvc nrdc thc tdforhg ttttdt4r
1. B.dryclogocnt of tDc Protrct rould Dt !.oonrblG D.
.4)Gcted to ecur rolcly th!o|3h prlvrtc lnv6tEcnt rlthln tic
D.
,
a
llalonably ?orccccable luture u4 thcrcforc, thc ure ol TIp trdccmcd necclruyi
Ttrc Bcdcvclogmcnt rtd nl pbns rill dford oaxlmum
og[,oEtunlty, eoruiltcnt rlth thc ound nccdr o! thc Clty rs e,hole, fo? dcvGlolrm.nt of tbe proJcct by lrltvrtc cntcforlre;
rnd
Tbc Scdcvclopmcnt end TIB pLnr conlorm to g:ncr.l plltrr,ot lrs rrlvclognent ol tic Clty .! r rholc.
t.
E.B }{TO NEDEVELOPME}IT PLAN
P.
G.D BIPTIO NOFDO WNTOWN BEDEVELO PMENT ABBA
H. DEVEI.oPM BNT AND AG REEIf,ENTE
l1rc. downtorn rcdcvclopncnt
- Tg-r__tr th. portlon of thc proJcct
:!-SlTltf cfrrJcd-by thc C-t! ta tg??. tt co-nrlrtr of rpprortmrilii
1?5 ol thc ProJccttr totrl ol 6!0 eercr. Thc dorntorn r*ivctopncntrrcr tr locrtcd north of Htirty S end r oejortty of It b i-ctt-oiElghrry l0l (c!..t Plalru Boutcvu{). Ihc aice &ntdru thG;trltmd oooncrcld Go!! ol thc Clty, lncludlry thc Chenhrrcco DtnnciThcatcr., {lt!993ll thc lnt!.*mcturr! rnd D[blh trciltlct trvc bccnlnprcvcd--rl3nlfle.ntly h rccGnt ycrrl thj dorotorn rcOevcfognlni.rcr b ttlll cherectcrlzcd by thc rimdcruttuzltlon of Ld.
Hlrtcledly, thc ERA h.!. oqotlrtcd lglc.ocntr tttt dcvclolnrrccklng to dGvdog hnd rltttn thc (brn:torn rcCcvctogncnt lii-Tlrr prcJcctr rhleh rrc tlG rnbrcct ol curtcnt ci upcoaifDrgotlrtlon lneludc thc lollorlq:
t
Tlr: Clty uthorlzcd thc Plorcet on llcccnbcr 19, l9??, .trat EodtftcdItr Doundlrl!. on llcccnbcr 18, 1e?9. Artdttlorrd lrnd trt tocludcd{!!tn $9 Protcct Arca rtth thc dogtion of Dodlncltloo fo f fn198?. Thlr nodlficetlon llo l0 rlll d.'clibc deyclogDcnt rctlyltlcrpltmrd or ruthorlzcd rlthln ttc proJcct rincc ilc rCogtlon oifodlficatlon llo. e h Novcmbcr, 1989. Dc apo$.Dhlc.l bdurdd;of-thc Prolcct rlll bc c4ardcd acar Audubon- Bia -ena thc goo Llnc
fqpad-tna! nrlulnt to r arodlfiaetton of thc Bcdcvclogncnt ilrnto bc .doptcd rt thc rlDG tlEc .! lr thlr nodlltcetlon io thc TIFPbn A neg of thc Ptlrcat .r.r b lnclurtert ln ptgurc t.
BOUNDABIES OF fl P DISTBTC'T
Bourdulcr of thc TIP Dlstdct rclr thown oo lfiurc I olBodlfic.tlon l{o. e. The TIp Dbtrlct lmludes plopcrt, in Utfr tfridowntorn arra! td Chenhagcn hfcr Uuriircri f,rU t S.tdcacdptloru_ol thc boundarlcr of thc TIp Dlctdct rcic lnduAod-rrcrhlbltr to Bcrolutlon Noa-??-?2 urd ?8-?!, rdoptcd by Ctty Colrnellon l)ccrmbcr 19, t0?Z rnd lloccnbcr f& t9?S; rcdcttvity. Tbibourdgry ot thc TIF Dtctdct ;ar mt chenica it I rdnrtt otnodllleetlon Nq e nor tlll lt be cDrDgcd Ir e rcarlt of tllrnoillfiett lon No 10.
d
c) Har{ees/Amoco/Cir Wrlh/Aoplc Vdlcy Bcedy Uir.Ttk
fctt Chenhlrlcn Eropplnl CGntrr. thb b e lup rhopglng
ccntcr rhich i! to bc coaltnctcd by a naJor dcvclolrcr on thc
louth lidc of Ycrt ?8th StrGGt bctrcen Xontcrtry Drlvc rnd
Cotnty Bold 1?. It lt Dtopo.cd to lnchrdc tro lrri! lctrll
ltrchor! ol 1!0,000 erd t0,000 rguarc fect plru ultlrry rctell
qncc of 80,000 .guuc fcct. Tlrc :ntlrc ccntcr rlll conrirt ol
.pprorlEatGly 1601000 rquerc ?cct ol rctell floor erar. Th:
groJcct lr rchcalulcd lor tlnt Dh.!r corutructlon h thc fall of
1990 ilth eoaptctlon tn l99l rrd rccond rnd thtrd pharc
corrtructlon h 1e9V1991 .nt 1992/t99t, rt pcsttvcly.
Ecdmold Produets Thlr protcct rlll comprbc 170,000 rquerc
fcet of eomgutcrlzcd ruchourc 4,!cc. It L ErrDoEGd to bGconrt ct.d tt thc northG.rt cornG! ol trt: I,rlvc end
Audubon Boed bcalnntn8 ln tbc ldl ol 1090.
prorect wlu cffiEu{.r!rstrurlnt urd thc rcdcvclogncnt of en crhln3 Aaoco
rtrtlon lnd cu r.dr rt thc mlthcast eoracr ol Hfhrty 5 urd
Grcat Plelu Boulcvrr{. Brr{ecr tlll hrvc elorlmrtctylri00 rquerc lcct end AEroco 1,000 tgu$. lcst plur r ?50
rguare foot drlvc throu3h c.t r.rlr. Tbc cdrtlqg crr rarh rlll
bc razed and rcphccd rlth I !1800 rguerc loot ftclllty glur
11500 aquarc fect of rtor{r. TtG plorrct atro hcludca
remodellng of thc crirtlng Henur Bulldlng.nd rcqubltton arld
dcmolltion of thc Apglc Yallcy Bcrdy Uk plrnt.
b)
I. HISIIOBY AND N OF TIP DISTNICT
J.UODIFICAI'ION OP TTP PLAN
E. USB OP TAX TNCBBHBITT
All rcvenucr dcrlvcd lron ttc TII DLtrlet drdl be utctt ln
.ecordlnec rlth tbc eurtcnt oodlflod llP PLr. lte ncvcnucr rhdl
Tlrc TIF Dirtrlct rr.r crteblbhcd by thc ERA rnd Clty h lltc l9??
rnd contelned lgprorlEatcly 175 aerrr ccntctrd on thrt b nor
howa es thc downtorn rcdcvclogncnt araa- TBr TII Dbtrlat ,rs
cpended thc follorlng ycrr ilth thc lnclurlon ol rpprrrlnrtcly l5i
rclcs lo the lrea routh ol Hfhrey 5 ]notn u thc Chenhesrcn Letcs
burlncss D.rt For ptlrpo..! ol clrrdflcetlon" thc TIF Dhtrlet b r
grc-19?9 TIP Dlctrlct ud thc HBA .td Clty lntcnd to tttrln thrt
dcslgaatlon crcegt .r rcgulrcd by flnncrote Etrtutc, Scctlon {Cg.l?g.
Ith Dodincltlon nrr{n tic t.ntt tornd aodlflc.tloo ol tbe TIp
Plrn" Ttc Tl8 Phn ary bc oodlflc<l ljiln lD thc luturc by thc HBA
.Dd Clty er cherytry eondltloru r.rrant. Any rrductlon ol
gcographic .rce ol thc TIF Dlrtrlct, tacrcerc ln enouat o? boutcd
hdcbtednlrs to bc lDcurfcq hcrcrrc la thc portlon of thc crgturcd
er.cr.!d vduc to bc rrt.lnad !t thc BRA or dcrfrution of eddltlonrl
propcrty to bc tcgulnd by thG BBA &rll bc qrgrovcd ulnn
rDprogrht. nottec .nd hc.dry by tn BBA .d Cfty.
{
bc ulcd to flaence or othcnbc ary the capltel enrt edrrlntstratlve
eo6t! of dcvclopBent actlvitlcl rlthin the projeet !! ldcotlfied in the
TIP Pl,in"
L EXCESI' TAX INCBEMENT
f. DUBATION AND IUODIPI CATIO N OF THE TIF DISTRICT
N. BB TION
o.
IMPROVE PLANS
ln rny yerr ln rhlch thr lncrrmcnt creccds thc aEount trcec3rsry topry thc cost! authodzcd by ttc IIf phn, thc EnA rhdl us. thccrcet! tDount to do rny of thc follorlng, la thc ordcr d.tcrEia.d by
thc IIBA:
1. Prcpey eny outrttnliry bord$
2. Dlrcharye thc Alcdgc ol t r lncleocnt theldotri
3. Pay lnto an .lcrrow re@unt to thr eounty udltor rho dulldlrtribute the crcrlr rnount to tbc City, thc Coungr lrld thc
rchool dlstrict ln dlrcct proportion to thclr rc pcctive trrerplclty ratcs
tn addltion, thc EBA tlrd Clty Ery clxxrrc to aodlly thc Tlp pten
aglin ln order to provldc lor public lmprovcnintr or othcr
deyelopm.nt costs ttthln thr Prorcct.
The geographlc arca of thc Tlp Dlrtriet nly bc rcduccd but lt e.nnot! gnlarged after_Augrst_1, 108t. A! r TIF Dt*rlct crtrbttrhcd prlorto August 1, 19?9, thc TIF Dlrtrlet rlll crgtrc oa Arlurt l, tOOg,
glgcpt lr thc provbiou o? Scction a69.1?6, rubdlvlrloo l(c) ol tti
TI8 Act ney rcquirc othcrrh.
Thc HBA teegpt3 u blndln3 ltr oblllrtloE undcr flnncrott gtrtut.,
Scetloru fI.i0 thror3n 1l?.56 for rclocrtlon rnd rlll rCotnlrrtcir.locrtlon rcrvlec! lor frnlllca lndlvldueb rd bu.tnrttct dtlplrecd
by prblie ectloru
PBOPERTIBS TO BE ACQUIRED TTTHIN TIIB TTF DISTIIEI
In ?{ltlon to tho!€ progcttllr ldcntlllctt lor rcgutrltloo la grcvlottnodlttcttlont, rcveral- lnreclr tlthln thc dorntbrn rrdcvciogncntrrcr tlll bc acAulred tot oorutructlo! ol publle loprovcucntr -or tor
convclranec to dcvclogcrt at I rrduecd cat. fEuta t rhorr rIIprogcltlcr rhlch havc bccn or rlll bc regulrcd rlrila th. plor.ct .t Ircrult ol .etloD! dclcltbcd e rrrtbcltGit Dy tt. Loamol
Bcdcvclogncat Ptrn .D.l TII PLn
P. PUBLIC
Substrntld publle lmpmrcmcntt brvc bccn uodcrtelcn tatg thc lrrtrcvcrd ycrrr rlthla thc PDor.cL Addltlon l lnprovcolntr rra
eontcDDlatGd at the^p!!t nt tlDG o! tn ttu acrr tuturr. fgurc frlrora thc locatioru ol tddltlonrl mtlelpetcrl pbllc tmprovcocntr
t
a.BSI'TIMATB OP PBOJECT COSTS
Teble 1 of aodlfication No. 9 rar t tunnrry ol the coct! rhleh have
bcen hcurrcd by thc EBA to EpDort drvclopEent ectlvltles rtthln
the Prolcctr laeludlng coctr lneunud rlncc tltc edoption of
modificatlon No ? in 138?. Elnee thc donttorn !€dcvcloDmcnt .tca
ls rithln ur tdtttrg TIF Dlrtrlctr IDG!.mGnt l! eu}?cntly bclng
grncrated erd rdmlnld:rud by thc EBA. lncrcocnt 3cncntcd by
ine Ttf Dktdet h!! bccn coucctcd by th: HRA tlncc drortly rttcr
the crcrtlon end crlnrulon ol the TtF Dlrtrlet ud Protcct ln thc lete
r9?0i
fun& lencrltcd thrcugh trr hcr.Dcnt have becn urcd lor r Yrrlety
of Ertpocc* lneludlng lead rcqubttlonr lclocrtlon .Da! Erbllc
lmgrovcElnts Tbc IIBA coDnit! ltlclf to cpcttd thc Aortlon of ttrc
lncr.m.nt gcncret.d by thc nP DLttlct rhleh lr nccclsery to Pty
thc outllncd eost&
ftc HBA h.s dso lnltiatcd I rpeetd .rrrrtment rcduetlon Program
lor propcrtics througtout thc Protcct. Utldc! thc plogrlor bcnclittcit
propcrtlca ue cliglblc fot rcduetlonr ln arocrcment! lt thcrt hu bccn
in lnerease in the esrcsscd vdue of the Prcg€rtier du. to ncr
corctmetiou Propcrtic3 rrcescd !t r rrtc of lcar thro t!0r000 Pcr
acre qurllfy for r rcduction cqud to tcvcn [prccnt ol thc vduc rddcd
to thc plopclty throqh ncr conrtnretlotL PtlDcltlc! aat6.cd lt e
ratc ol 1301000 tG! lcrc or norrr quallfy for. Eduetlon cgud to 12
gclcent of the addcd vdue.
It€ tmount ol the rlduction tor rhlch r Droperty orner la clftblc la
cqual to the tlr lncreocnt tron thc prccl (!! dctcralncd by the
aridltor end adiulttd tor fLcel dbprrltlcg contllbutloE) lor r thrcc
ycar perlod followtng conrtnrction rrd comorencing rlth thc y:u la
rhich thc HBA lceeiver thc ttr:t futl ycet'r lncrcEcntr or nlch othe!
thlee yelr pcrlod o auy be qrccd ugon by the EBA .t{ orner.
Howcvlr, thc maxtmum rcductlon rnay Dot creecd tttc totrl tPcciel
rssca3ments lcvlcd tna! qttlterdtry !8lin!t thc perccl lor qudtfytng
gublle lmgrovemcnt Prt GGta Orncrr rbhlry to g!filelDlt9 Dult-nter intoe rpccld essesmcnt r€ductlon a8trGmcnt rlth thc EBA.
Ttrc BBA h!! dlo 9tltlelD.tcd ln e loan prc3retn rlth ttc develolnr
of thc Ilcrltagc Park hourlng rltc tlthla thc dorntorn rcdcvcloDD.nt
erer. Under ihc progreo, .lsiltrncr ru Eadc arallablc thlougt t r
lncrencnt levenue tturftg thc cerly ycrr of th: grotccL Xbca the
Dlorcst bc8ltu to S.ncntc ddttloml lrvrouc, thc dcvclopcr rlll
icplv ttrc xne toi ttr crrllcr ullrtroco- Bcprltl hutL tlu Dc
evittOtc to thc IIBA lor othcr grotcct cctt la thc lutul"
Ccrtatn Gr1nndltulc! rlthln thc Pmrcct rcrc lbndcd through Scncrrltrr lncrcmcnt lcvGnuct ryalhblc to thc Dlrtrlet. Acqulrltloo ol
lcvcrat Drogcrttcr rcrc llnanccd ln thh nenncr rrther tlm thlottslt
dlrcrctc-bond ralcg bceaurc of tic lGl4th ol tlloG 3cncrdly ncccltrry
to eegulrc Arcp.fty rlthln tic Protcct throqlt nrSptletion or
eondcmnetlon I! toBG lnrtrncct rdnlnlrtrettve e4)eruet tclr
tncurred enlt pald by thc EBA trn comcctlott rlth etclt eoqubltlou
t
thlch could havc bccn rccountcd ?or ln e bond rlc. Admlnlstratlvc
eolts for thc yclrs 1987 thrcWh 1989 rcrc doaumcntcd bg thc HBA,
but rcrr Dot rmong thc c6t! gaid for ry bodl uthodz€d by
Doditicrtlon No. 9. Adnlnlrtntlvr coltr ln thc opcratlog budg€t of
the HBA include eoctr rhleh cork! hevc bccn rnd tJDlcdly .rc aDong
th6r pdd lor out of borill FocGGd!.
In rddltlon to grojcct cortt outllncd ln grcvlourly aodlflcrtloru, thc
follorlng uc costr rntlclprtcd lor upeooln3 Drorcctr
LAND/BUILDING ACQUISMON
Applc Ydlcy Bcedy fir
Car Wrrh
Przynur
Burdick/Jrmcc
RcdmoDa! Prlduetr
Amoco
Marlnc 9crlcc (ltontcrcy)
Pony/PrrecVPrzyraur
f uinc Scnlccr (fontcrcy)
&lbtotd
Eubtotd
eosr
I t00,000
150,000
,00,000
t,r00,000
l r l00,000
tl0,000
?00.000
t 100,000
a5.000
I las,ooo
, e00,0oo
100.000
ll,000,000
Llbrery
Court Y.td
Enginccrin3
Admlnbtrrtlon
768
5
tr
B.
'r50.000
$o[aL terltt,tlo
OBIGINAL TAX CAPACTTT.
Chenberrcnrr t r lncrcnGnt dtrtrlct br bccn h[Ny lccctdul hE.ctlng thc lp.tr .rxl obrGctlv.r ouuh.d la thb Plra. Ovrr oocntlllon rguuc frct ol lndurtrld/otflcc tlncr uurcat[r cdrtt rt$lrGr cotutnrctlon entlelgoted to !rcducc nculy tro lulon rquuclcct of conocrcld/lndudrld 4ncc. thc auncnt tot.l t.r cryicttyof thc Trr lncrcnrnt Dbtdct b f2rt2t,ere rlti r btr trr cegeclt!ol tl50r97r. Bdlntt.a rlror tuGt to bG l!n.nt.d froo Borcnouni
8ubtot.l ltrlCo,ooo
SITE ITPBOVETIE$IE
Banur/Aooco/Cu tuh/tlrrdccr/Applc Vdtcy Bcdy Ih t IO0,OO0
DBIr{OLITION
PUBLIC IMPROVEME} TS
1
rt tt23,000 p€! yGrr rrd Enpak tt 31831000. Iodllbrtlon No. 9
cootlincd litatltiond dctalb rcgar{ing thc vducl of rntlelplted
dcvllopmcDt rnd .ll elch crtlmltc! erc bcrcby helrporEted by
rctcranec to thb oodlflcrtlon No. 10.
& BSTIIIIATE OF CAPTURED TAX CAPACITY UE AND TAX
INCREMENT
Xodifleatlon No. 0 eontalncd an Grtlortc of tlrc c.gturld t.rclplclty 3cncntcd by ncr prolrctr ditcus.d ln thrt aodlllcetion
Wlth rcgld to the prcrcct! dllculrcd lo thlt Doallllcrtlon l{o 10, the
crtlEated tlx crgrelty b alr!52r000 rltcr coophtlon ol thcgrojcctr. ft. .gl;rcgrt. odSlnd trr c.Dteltlcr lor thc Dlopcrtylnvolvcd lt l!,000. Thc Gtttnrtcd c.Oturcd trr cepclty tr
11,!l9rooo.
Bered upon curcnt tu crpeclty trtcA thc aDovc captuttd tlr
caprelty rlruld produec r yclrly lncrcmcnt o, aDgrot nttclyll,35l,ll5 dt.r aonplGtton of all protcctr.
T. ESAIMA TE OF IMPAC"T ON OTHER TAXING BtsDtcfloNs
TAXING
JURISDICNON
Clty of Chenherrcn
Crrrcr County
IodcDcrtrcnt &hool Dktllct Dlo llt
Othcrr
IOTAL
PERCENT OP TAX I}{CREUENT ATTRBUTABLE
TO VANIOUS TAXING JUBISDICTIOIS
?AX
CAPACTrl
BATB
t1.ltt
t0.0??
{c.0t2
1.e26
E6"NTATED
TAXII)SS
I l8a,t?8
a05,ici
3rl,110
t9,r81
t
100. r?9 !l,!51,{15
Wtth rcgad to thc ncw groJcctr outllncd tn thb nodlflcetlon No. 10,It ls antlclpated thlt ll,t51,al5 ln lnercDcnt dll bc elptulcd
annudly. Thls tncrcncnt rnount b b..Gd on ttc vrluc ol ttrc
projects eftcr eomplctlon. lor the purposc ol cstlDrtlB lncr.Drnt,
ao lnflation hrs bcen urumcd ln thc vrluc ol thc o.; dcvclopnent.
T'h. comporlte tlx cq,rclty ?.tc for thr ncr DFopcrtt b aurtcotly
100.1?9 p€rcent. Apglying th. perc.ntrgr of thG totrl tu crgaeltylrtc tttributebl. to rtch t.ring ,udrdlction to thc annud taclrDrntof llr35lr{t5 rr!vr.I! thc rnnud iloer! o? t.r doltrr by cach
turlsdictlon lf thc aroJcctr rould btyc occur.d dthout TIP.
Although thc Clty etd HBA bclleve thc retud lmgrct oo othc! t.rlng
turisdictionr b z:ro beeeurc dcvclopocnt rould oot bvc oceurcd
rlthin thc lcrlonably forcrcctblc luturc rlthout publlc lntcwentlog
thc .lsumcd emount ol trr do[tn forcgonc by cech lubdletton lr
llrted below:
U. ANNUAL REPOR REGABDING TIT
5.
6.
The IIBA Eust trDort rnnudly by Xrleh I to thc Ulnncsot!
coEtrl$lon r ol rcvenuc ttc follorlng aDount! lor thc catlre
Eunlcipdlty:
thc totd lrinaigal rnount of oondcfcucd t.- tncrcEent
llnanclng bondl thrt rrG qttltendlng rt thc Grld of thc lrcvlourcrlcndu yctri ard
2. thc totd .murl ltDount ol prlnelprl atrd Intcrcrt Dtyncntrthrt rrc duc for thc qrr.nt cdcadrr y.rr 6 0) icncrelobllFtlon t.r lnclcEcnt flnenctn3 bout* .nt 0D othcr trrlnellaGnt llnenelng boads.
The IIRA Eult allo rnnudly report to thc cooobstoncr o? rcvcnuc
the fouoring rnount! lor thc TtP dtrtrict.
1. the lype o? dlrtrict, ,hcthcr GGonontc dcvctopncnt,
Edevelopmcnt, houring, rolls cordltloq otncd unrtc4round!p!cc, or hrzudou! rubstance dtG;
2. the d!t! on rhtch the dlrtriet lr rcqulrtd to bc rtcccrttficd;
3. th. crpt-ured n t trr crprclty of th. dlrt?tct, by Fopcrty clr!!
es rpcelficd by thc comni$ioncr ol !!vrnuc, for-teis pry$lc
ln th! aumcnt cdender ycu;
a. thc tlr incrcmcnt llycnuct for tarcr FyablG h thc GuEGatadcrdrr ycar;
t
rhcthcr thc tar lncraDent plln o! othc? 3ovcrntlg docuncntpclelt! lncrcmcnt rGvGnuG! to bc crpaldcd (0 to-pey boda,thc ptlcrcd! ol rhlch;ca! o! uey bc crpcrdcO on rcttvtttcilocrtcd ouBldc ol thc dlrtrlct, (ll) lor dcgqtt lnto r coanon
fund fron rhleh Doncy Bty bc crDcndcit -on rcttvlttcr locetcd
ontrldc ot th: dtrtrlct, or (ttl) to othcrrbc flnrncc ecttvltlcr
IocrtGd outlld. of thc tu lncr.Dctrt rtlrtrlcg ead
rrry ad.tltloaal lalornrtlon thrt thr cooahrloncr ol rcvcnucoey rrgulra
cH130-00s(2)
9
tl
\
i
\
=
Fz
UJz=llJZd
3*,9
iEEz:u2{63roorEo.
!
t
U
5
!I
I
z
UJoo
Iz
Io
Lr-c
=:J
o,d)
,-i
Eo
--t\\.
il_
I
I
L,r
tr-r-rTTl
G
t
E!-U
z
-T-'i-1:l
{r+l
:#_J
-l+g
1-
II
r I
I
UJ
IE
Fot!toEtr
Ii
li
---*-7-'
-.''t..
\
)
\
\
I
:(
lI-
rj
I
,
EE
<iEg<;
r99
tiiilr
fsfi rrHillnx I,t
y':r
'7trI]T
?
(
tl
--l
I-t'
ttt
---------
I
TAKE SUSAI{
L;
I
_l.4.81 t_
/t
'li
_l
L--,
ttrt
PROPERTY
ACOUtStTtON
Ptnlc ariovctEllr%t7vzz)ffi
CHANHASSEN
DOWNTOWN
REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN
Hdlrl8loo Crqrp lrlc.
t "^""" ''T
r
- - Pio.Ect aEA ao(,aaaY
---- r r ,€nErEtat usf cr
_L_ l
[,irL.]J
)
t
ffiH
ll
A
E
I
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m
rEHBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette EIlson, Ladd Conrad,Brian Batzli, Jim tlildermuth and Joan Ahrens
STAFF PRESENT: PauI Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, SeniorPlanner; and Dave Hempel, Senior Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIOITIAL USE PERHIT FOR A 30+ SEAT RESTAI'RANT I.JITH TAKE OT,T ot{ PROPERTY
ZONED BN, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT, IN T}E RETAIL CENTER LOCATED AT
SEVEN FORTY-ONE CROSSING ADDITION, TJAYI{E SALDEN.
PubIic Present:
Name
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called thepublic hearing to order.
Erhart noved, Batzli sccondad to closc tho public hearing- All voted infavor and the notion carricd. The public hcaring r*as cloeed.
Ahrens: It's pretty straight forward. I r€ad the staff report. I don'trealIy have any questions on the garbage cnclosure. If staff thinks,..I go along with the staff recommendaLion.
tJildermuth; I support the staff recommendation very thorough.
Batz]i: I just had two questions. On6a restaurant or a drive thru on Lhe end
was ueren't they proposing to put
of that cor ner?
discussed with staff
conditional use for
Olsen: At one point. Recently that bJas proposed.
Krauss: ttell,
and the ownerthat distr ict.
it wasn't officially proposed. IL was
was told that that's not a permitted or
OIsen: Youbefore you.
might be thinking about Harkct Square. It lras never brought
Batzli: For some reason, I don't know, I thought I h€ard that. I wasjust curious if it was 9oin9 to be right close to this or not. Since itis a conditional use, I think we might be ablc to soften this conditioneven that that would be monitorcd by staff or somsthing else if it's aproblem. I don't know why we'd require it other than if it's b6en aproblem at other restaurants but I'd be certainly willins to allow staffto monitor that and if it becomes a problem, to require it as a condition.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING CO].lI'IISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 4, 1990
tJayne Salden, AppI icant
Roger Zahn, HSZ
Planning
April 4,
commission Heet i ng
1990 - Page 2
Krauss: If I could add. It's become a problem in another restaurant thaue've had in the City, Ahn Le which is just behind CiLy HaII, and I've hada number of these crop up as problems over the years in different
communities. l.lhat t€nds to happen is first of aII they have to walk afair distance or further distance to a trash enclosure. The restaurants
tend to generate a greater than usual trash volume. They also generate
trash that has a lot more potential for vermin and odor and whatever else
You almost need to segregate it so that if we have a problem with themwith the hauler coming more frequent enough, given enough intervals, we
can specifically segregate that out from everybody else. There's
sometimes health issues that develop ov6r time and depending upon howfrequently they clean it up. It's just been our experience that it's bestto have it segregated.
Erhart: I think it looks good. I tend to think that having the separatetrash enclosure makes good sense to avoid future problems and easier todefine the contribution of trash in the future. I support staff on thatissue. Other than that, I have no more comm€nts.
Emmings: Nothing.
Ellson: I nas curious as to u,hat the hours were 9oin9 to be. I just
thought it'd be interesting to knou. I knot.l SuperAmerica's sitting there-
open 24 hours right there and it'd be pretty convenient for people to go
geL some gas and run in for some manicotti or pizza. Do you have that
decided yet?
tJayne Salden: It wi]I probably run until midnisht... I had one other
comment on the trash thing. tle already have a soparate container for
which is right behind our door. Do you stil.I want us to have another
besides that? Our garbage pick-up is risht behind our door.
our s
ODA-
Conrad: I think what staff is saying it would be your, they want acontainer just for you so if the buildins has provided one just for you,
then that's what important.
Krauss: That would satisfy us.
there but Ho just xanted to makc sure it'sOlsen: Yeah, we knew it lrastheir's.
Ellson: I agree with doing the trash thins. I think it's real easy to
say staff's going to monitor this kind of thing but I'd hate to see...
Conrad: It's a good staff report. No comments. Is there a motion?
Erhart: I move that the Planning Commission recommendConditional Use Permit S9O-2 for an Italian Restaurantcondition as listed in the staff report.
aPProval of awith the one
Wi ldermuth; Second .
PlanningApril 4,
Commission l,leeti ng
1990 - Pase 3
Erhart novod, l.lildernuth scconded that thc Planning Coamission recomncnd
approval of Conditional tlec Pcrmit f9O-2 for !n Italian Restaurant to belocated at Seven Fort)r-Onc Crossroads Ccnter as shoxn on tho plans dated
l{arch 29, 1990 and Hith th. folloring condition:
1. The applicant shall provlde its oun tragh cncloaure at the rear of thercstaurant uhich shall be cnclosed nith thc arne naterials as theexterior of th6 shopping ccnter.
All voted in favor rnd th. rotlon carri.d-
PUBLIC HEARING:
}ICDONALD'S CORPORATION, L(rcATED OT{ Lil(E DRIVE EAST AND DAKOTA AVENUE,
ZONED BH, HIGHI.IAY AND BUSINESS DISTRICT:
A. PRELI}IINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOTS 1 A'{D 2, CHAN HAVEN PLAZA FOR THE
EXPANSION OF PARKING AREA.
B. SITE PLAN REVIEI.J FOR EXPANSION OF RESTAURANT.
PubIic P resent:
Name Addr ess
Gene Bors
Ray Schlec k
Tom
6897 ChapareII Lane, Owner/Operator
Construction Engineer for McDonald's
Paul Krauss presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad caIIed the public
hearing to order.
Gene Borg: f'm Gene Borg. I live at 6897 Chaparrel Lane. I'm the oh,neroperator of McDonald's.
Ray Schleck: I'm Ray Schleck. I'm a construclion engineer. I work for
McDonaId's corporation.
Gene Borg: I guess whet we'd like to do is 9o through it one at
That seems like the easi€st way on any problcms that may developof talkins about it all. Just go through Like maybe start uith
landscaping since it's on the scr€en. Howovcr you'd Iike to do
answer any questions and stuff like that.
a time.
i nstead
that. can
Conrad: If you had something Lo talk to us about, go ahead. UsuaIIywe'1I 9o through and every one of us will have a specific question andwe'II ask you direcLly laLer on so it's up to you. If you'd like to talk
about r.,hat staff recommended or have any problems with it, you could dothat. Otherwise you could t.tait for our comm€nts later on.
Gene Borg: okay, on bretlands for example, I guess I was misinformed. Ididn't think we !{ere encroaching on that.
PlanningApril 4,
Commission Heeti n9
1990 - Page 4
Ray Schleck: That was kind of new news to us.
Krauss: tJe]l, Ray during the course of the meetings that we had with you-
ue asked on several occasions for more detailad information on where thatfeature was. Ultimately we figured it ourselves when we had the finalplan set in here and where the grading limits uere. Mr. Hempel over there-figured it out and we realized at that point that there was encroachmentinto that area.
Ray
Ge ne
Schleck: t"letl and enhancement?
Borg: Yeah, what is that?
Krauss: l^lell basically your going to be filling a portion of the Hetland-over here. t^lhat He u,ere asking is that a commensurately sized piece of
area on that side be excavated and that the uetland bottom be sculpted alittle bit and that the wetland vesetation be established there...
Gene Borg: l.lhat about if we took those parking stalls out of the cornerthere? How about if we pulled those out and changed the line?
Gene Borg: And then avoid filling here?
Ray Schleck: The other question I had was on drainage. Can we in lieu ofinstalling a catch basin to tie into the storm s6wer system, the only are=of the parking lot that is draining toward that eastern curb cut. It'snot a very large area. I'm uronderins if we can't adjust the grades Lhereto drain into the wetlands.
Hempel: Additional runoff into the wetlands, I guess there is no outletfor that wetland. As the site develops and additional runoff iscontributed to that area, it wiII increase in size I guess over it's size-right nour and there's no outlet for it to go so eventually if we do haverainy seasons someday hopefully, it could get us back up and innudate theparking lot to a point
Ray Schleck: Yeah, you can see the area that I'm talking about. It'sa very Iarge area that wiII be draining into that Hetland. I'm askingit's going to impact, if we can adjust the grades to I€ss impact thew€tlands as they are no!'r and also adjust the site plan as Gene said toeliminate some of the stalls. l.re're willins to work that out.
Hempel: tle looked at a more permanent solution t guess. tle looked atinstalling storm sewer to the property line with the Lake Drive Eastproject and letting tlcDonald's hook onto that and just install catchbasins for the drainage situation out there would be...
noL
if
Gene Borg: You said something, I forget what it was a little earlier
about . . .
Krauss: If you could avoid fillins into the wetland, sure.
P Ianni ngApril 4,
Commission Meet i ng
1990 - Page 5
Ray Schleck: It will
sewers or how far of
run from theabout? Just
catch basin to the storm
guess i ng .
beaa run
shortis it
Hempe).: I would guess 25 feet.
Ray Schleck: Is Lh€re an
show a spillway into that
pursui ng?
opportunity
lower area.
Because now, more than half thecorner of the plan that's up on
drains to a low area onscreen. That does have
thoush? RishtIs it feasible the plan
aIl? Is doesit worth
now
at
Hempel: I guess Ray, with some modifications to your parking lot grade.
Changing the drainage pattern out to the access onto Lake Drive East would
shorten your storm sewer connection.
Ray Schleck:the northeast
an outlet.
lot
the
Ray Schleck: Right. There still would be
eastern curb cut. Not much but some. I'madjust the grades that much to accommodate
Hempel: That's correct. Out into MnDot's right-of-way. So the remaininghalf of the parking lot would then drain south towards the wetland or you
modify it out onto Lake Drive.
to the
goi n9 to
Hempe}: I think it's something
us.
that could be worked out I guess betbJeen
Ray Schleck: As far as landscaping and screening, I think the site planor the landscape plan that was submitted and it's probably the third orfourth plan that we submitted to you, and each time was increased a littlebit. on the northern side of the, on the TH 5 side of the plan, thatobviously has been beefed up quite a bit from what's there now. As a
matter of fact, I think most of the shrubs that are shoun are not therenow. I urould say probably aII of them- There are a few coniferoustrees, pine trees. Those three on the corner. on the corner of Dakota
and TH 5. Those are there and those, Gene and I Here looking at thosetonight and with the salt spray from TH 5 in the linter, those ti6es, tr{oof those trees are pretty EeII stunted. They were all planted at the same
time and the one in the middle is the only one that's really doneanything. tJe're a little hesitant to plan a species of tree that may notthrive in that location.
Gene Borg: I had a landscaper out and main}y I uas talking about what we
could do r.lith those trees on the uest side but I mentionad what was wrongwith these couple that are back here and he said it was the salt sPray
from TH 5 that's sLunting them and the one doesn't do that weII. ft's beenholding on over 5 or 6 years nor., but it's still not doing that well. He
says it's the salt spray. tlhen you 90 to 4 lanes, the salt spray will be
worse and it trilL be closer so I'm not opposed to the plantings there. I
trould Iike to plant something maybe other than a bunch of evergreens thatcould be proposed to die in the future. Because salt and evergreens don'tget aIong.
some drainage outnot sure if we'rethat.
Conrad: Are you talking about the Eest side or are you talking about thenorth side?
Gene Borg: The TH 5 side.
Conrad: There's some Iogic to that.
Ray Schleck: [.re are interested in landscaping. Don't get us wrong ataII. That's not our, He are interested in Iandscaping uith plants thatare going to thrive and do well and logically putting in things that aregoing to make a difference and not', and I'm not saying that staff's
recommending things that aren't going to work either but lre're trying towork it out with Lhem.
Gene Borg: Then I've got a question. l.Je don't have much room on Dakota,but not Dakota, after they put the sidewalk in on Lake Orive and put in a-retaining waII there. There's only a feu feet Ieft. It b,as recommendedfor berming and planting of shrubs and different things up there. tte canplant some shurbs and stuff but I don't think it's hardly, it's a litt]e -tough to berm and expect anything Lo Iive there.
Krauss: The recommendation was to install berming at those points whereyou are able to do it. One of Lhose points would be in this vicinityhere. tJe had recommended that this end parking stall be taken out. ...w,
have then probably enough depth around here. Here I would agree, that's areal tough area... You've got a very tough situation. There just isn't -whole lot of flexibility on that site.
Gene Borg: I guess I'm intersted in having real nice landscaping. I _think when the HcDonald's came in here, I uasn't the owner at the time bu1it ulas probably the best landscaping this town had at that time. Sincethen, Iandscaping around town's a lot better and I want good landscaping.I'm an operator and I want good Iandscaping and we'Il have good
Iandscaping. My concern is, based on the Iast couple years of drought, i:keeping this stuff alive. That's my main concern. I have a sprinkler
system and I've been sprinklins and everything is green... There have
been drought seasons, I don't know if we're out of it now or not. Itdoesn't look Iike it. If you berm around, i!'s the first thing to dryout. If you put plantings on that berm, they're the first ones to die.
Then if we have a restricted watering schedule, and I don,t need to t.later-everyday. I don't need to Nater every other day but I want to keep italive. A couple years ago we had a total uatering ban and we wereinformed aL that time that...would go dormant and live. f.lell, I have
$5,OOO.OO that says it didn't because I replaced all that sod aL
McDonald's so it concerns me not, hre're going to spend, I don't knour, a Iotof money in landscaping. I just want to keep it alive. If we're going tq
spend the money and keep it alive, I r.,ant to keep it alive to make it Loonice. That's my concern. And bermings don't help that in a drought.
Conrad: So your concern is the berming on the southeast section?
Planning Commission l.1eetin9Apri] 4, 1990 - Pase 6
Gene Borg: tlell berming aII over really in a drought because those are
the first things to die. If you drive around toun here, a Iot of things
that are bermed are dead. If you go down on Kerber on those develoPments,
aII those trees are dead. They have no way of watering them so thev rely
solely on rain but if we have an all out ban, and I understand that Ne
need uJaler for fires and stuff like that. I understand that but berms
don't help that situation is all I'm saying. And He can Plant stuff in
that, hedges that wiII grow. Grow higher and offset a berm. Hy main
thing is to keep them alive. Or else if you can guarantee me that I'l,I be
able to uater and keep them alive and I think if you Hater every fourth
day you could keep something aIive.
Krauss: t^le discussed that item uith Mr. Schleck...and the last few vears
have been tough and when you do plant on berms, you do run more risk- I
mean there are ways to stick plant material in the berm so it catches the
water that runs off. Put a pot around it but there's no question that
stuff dries out quicker on a berm. At the same time, we don't have a lot
of room to work on this site. tle've got a site that doesn't come close to
complying with current standards and we're not asking that it comply ttith
current standards. t^lhat ure're askins is that they make some accomodations
to the restricted nature of the site and the fact that we have homes
across the slreet and that we have a major intersection adjacent to il and
do the best job ue can do, The drought that we've had in the last 3 yearsj.s the worse one we've had in the last 5o y6ars. I don't know if it's
going to continue. I'm not God, I can't teII you but if the drought
continues, we've indicated to Hr. Schleck that we would not require the
installation of the material this year. tle would have a landscaPe bond
outstanding. If we have a severe drought again this summer, it's fine
with us to install the material next year.
Gene Borg: ,..1on9 term Iandscaping because as time goes bY, it should
look better. [.le've got to plant someday and I don't want black dirt
around there. when we go and do this, I want to Plant landscaPing.
That's what I want to do. I don't want black dirt.
conrad: okay, when
reaction to berm i ng
else?
we go around the Planning Commission,
versus planting or ulhatever. oid you
we'lI get
have anythi n9
Ray Schleck: On the staff report also, )zou sketched on some islands and I
had a question on that. I think the islands that were sketched on.
You've got a larger island here and also, there is one here now but we're
proposing !o take that out. Also, finishing off this. This area right
now has parkins stalls to this point here. We've elisrinated...comPromise
to eliminate some of that area to... tlhat haPpens here is that this area
is restricted to truck traffic turning. The only way a tYuck can get out
is to come back through here. This existing island...to allow for a large
turning radius to aIlow a truck to make this turn. Having an island there
I think is going to restrict that...
Krauss: Then the car that is parked there will get crushed?
Ray Schleck: Exactly.
Planning commission Meet i ngApril 4, 1990 - Page 7
PIanni ngApril 4,
Commission Heeti n9
1990 - Page I
Gene Borg: tle get semi's in there nou, that park on that edge, He,ve neverhad an accident there and I teII you r.,hat. It's tough in there. Thosesemi driver's got to knou h,hat they're doing in there. ReaIIy know what -they're doing. But so far we haven't had an accident and I think with ou.plan, it's a lot better than it ever Has.
Ray Schleck:that.As far as green, percentage of green area, ue comply with
Krauss: You're right on the
Conrad: Is that ri.ght? See
urhat 's the lot coverage?
Ray Schleck: There's a 20 foot setback
numbers.
that doesn't even Iook close visualIy. So
Gene Borg: And therestaIIs to accommodaie
r^ri I I be more green
for wetland.
area in here that's aII green.
area when we pull out Lhose
Krauss: The allouance is for 652 and that,s what they,re going to be at.
Conrad: Boy, that's just hard to imagine. Simply because your setbacksare so minimal . In fact I really don't believe it. I think that,s mybiggest problem and again, I want to hear you taLk but there's sure a Iotof asphalt there and staff is saying greenery. There,s got Lo be becauseyou're really, there's a ]ot of asphait in that and we,re not trying tohave Chanhassen have a lot of asphalt. tte like to break it up. t^le liketo buffer and I hear you're sensitive to that but still, that does notIook like our 652 coverage.
Kraussr That would be fine. The primary purpose ofprotect the cars that are parked adjacent to it.thaL island is to
Ray Schleck: This area here...just asphalt for asphalt sake.
Conrad: Okay, anything else?
Ray Schleck r t^lhat did ue touch on Paul?
Krauss: I don't knou.
Ray Schleck: I think we're allthat. I might have missed?
set. Is there anything else in here PauI
Krauss: There's been some question about the retaining wall along Dakotabut that's a matter that's being worked out between the owner and the Cit:-Engineer. The question becomes one of design of the road improvementiseLf. The existing HcDonald's retaining ulalI is built in the city
Ray Schleck: But Lhere are a lot of additional areas out in here.,.a1onghere as weIL Every square inch of course is counted so I can understandwhere, but this area here...
PIanni ngApril 4,
Commission Meeting
1990 - Pase 9
right-of-way. The City needs almost every square inch of that to widen
Dakota and put the sidexalk back in so there's some fine tuning of the
design going on right now to see whether or not those trees thaL are thereright now can stay with the newly located middle. I don't have the
answers yet.
Ray Schleck: Yeah, I talked to the Barton-Aschmann engineers that are
designing that Dakota, uidening of Dakota and basically he said, welI theSLate's not requiring a sidewalk. The city b,ants a sidewalk and I can
understand why you need a connection over to the, whatever that greenway
is or what do you caII it? That's fine. I couldn't find any record that
we built it. I don't knotl who built it. I assume we did. I don't know
u,hat conlractor did it but how it got r.,here it is, that I don't knoweither. How it got snuck past the City or if it h,as just put in becausethe sidewalk was there and it was why not make it look beLter or whatever
at the time. So we'II have to uork something out with that. I think
that's it. can you think of anything else Gene?
Conrad: Okay, thanks. I'm sure ue'lI have questions Iater on for sure.
Any other public comments? Yes sir.
Tom Kursonas: My name is Tom Kursonas and I live in the residential arearight behind HcDonald's and I thought I'd register my objections to the
increased size of that parking lot. The amount of traffic that I and my
neighbors see right now is not something that we desired when we moved in
before McDonald's came. At nighttime the way HcDonald's is laid out rights
now with my house being in direct headLight range, I get to look at the
headlishts and during the summertime in my backyard coming out of
McDonald's. The amount of trash that gets blown into my yard and down the
styeet and down Lake orive East. If anybody would ever take a walk Lo go
down there and look. t",e h,ere told at the time it was coming in that they
would pick it up and get out and take care of that. Nobody comes around
and picks up lhe trash. I can pick up during the lummerlime trash bags in
a ureek. Haybe they pick up around their propertytbut we get the rest of
it. Now f'm Iooking at semi-trailer trucks coming in and having a hugeparking lot further on down which means increased traffic and noise in the
evening. Dinner time especially when PeoPle come in there. tle get all
kinds of automobile traffic noise now. AII and all it does not' in our
area, it does not look Like something that's beneficial to our residential
neighborhood. I Iistened to the Planner talking about what's good for
McDonald's or for the semi-trailer drivers so th6y can come in and buy
their burgers. I didn't hear one thing coRcerned about the residenLialarea. So thank you very much.
Emmings moved, tlildernuth sccondod to closc thc public heaivng- AII votedin favor and the motion carried. The public hearing rlas closGd-
EIlson: I started getting a Iitt]e confused. There's
is there?
Gene Borg: No.
no outdoor dining
Conrad: Thanks for your comments. Other comments?
Planning
April 4,
Commission Heeti ng
1990 - Page 10
Ellson: l.lhen this originally came in in'a2, I don't know how thoroughly
h,e went through the thing- I know some people when they propose somethin*to us and say you know, additional expansion someday, t^las that proposedoriginally back in '82 that there was the possibility of an expansion
someday?
Krauss: I read through the fi]e. I guess I wasn't specifically lookinsfor it but I don't recall there being a concept showing the expansion.
Ellson: I don't know that t^re can prevent them from doing that but I agre,with staff that they're on the border of even meeting a lot of the thingsand I think we should be able to ask them for the berming - t,e ask anawful lot of people for berming and f knour that everybody's intention isto have alL the plants live and things like that so I think he,s in the
same situation that we've put a loL of other people that are developing inasking for a berm and I agree that in some of those areas it miSht not be-worthuhile but I think in the corners especially, maybe that would protec.the trash from flying out if we had more barriers or something like that.I can see changing the landscaping plan to your approval . If it's not pin-trees, if il's something else that accomplishes Nhat staff would want, f'lnot opposed to allowing the landscape plan Lo be modified as Iong asstaff's in accordance with it. But nothing else.
Emmings: If they modify the parking lot in that corner by the detland,would they still need a wetland alteration permit because they're doingurork close to the wetland or not?
Krauss: It's a Class B wetland so Lhey would not.
Emmings: They wouLd not. l.lell, there's a Iot of thinss that have gotten
changed as we sat and discussed this here so it's a Little hard to knowexacLly what we're doing. I suppose the thins to do maybe is to leave theIanguage in for the uretland alteration permit and then if they change the-plan, you can drop that as a requirement. Is that the way we should do3ta
Krauss: Yes sir.
r.lould be resolved
hope that all these issuesgoing to the City Council.
should be resolved,
Emmings: l^,hen you look at page 6. At the top it talks about the proposerparking setbacks. It says tha! there's 25 feet exterior. I'm not surewhat exterior means.
I wouldprior to
Krauss: There is a separate setback standard forthis east side over here, there's another parking
believe - It goes down to 10 foot.
interior par ki n9. OnIo! on the other side I
Emmings: AIr ighL .directions it does
Then underneath where it says proposed, in aII fournot meet the ordinance. Is that right?
Kraussr ft meets it on the east side which is that reduced standard.
PIanni ngApril 4,
Commission l-leet i ng
1990 - Page 11
l^,le l l if 25 is r.rhat 's required and it 's only 22, how does that
standard?
Because it's an interior. I should have Iisted the separate
standard.
Emm i ngs :
meet the
Krauss:
i nter ior
Emmings: Okay. Anyu,ay we're not, the north and the Nest urere alreadygranted variances the Iast time around?
Krauss! No they weren't. They just happened to be there and I reallydon't know t.lhy or hour but that was the way the site plan u.as approved andth€r6 was no mention of variances. Although the standard was the same atthe time.
Emmings: Okay. There's a m6mo in here from Steve that talks about
handicap signage and curb cuts that were not shown on the pl.an. Has allof that been taken care of? It didn't make it in as a condition so I just
want to make sure it got.
Krauss: Oh, about the building code?
Emmings: There's a memo to Jo Ann that says.
Krauss: oh, yeah. They would be accommodated. If you want to add acondition to make sure, that'd be fine.
Emmings: I think it should be. I'm not sure what he's looking for therebut I didn't see it in the conditions and I think it should be there. I'mfrankly a Iittle confused about the issues abou! where the island shouldbe and all of that and I guess I'm content to leave that beLween staff andthe applicant to work something out. I think that the island between the
two driver,ray entrances or entrance and exit should be expanded the way you
said. If nothins else, I think the neighbors, I don't think it's going tohelp that much but I don't think there's a heck of a lot of we can do.This thing exists and hre're probably adding to the problem somewhat but Ithink ue ought to set aII the buffering on that edge that we possibly can.If staff thinks a berm is best to get that done. I think we should
increase the size of that island and anything 6lse you think you need toget that done. I don't have any other comments.
Krauss: The construction of Lake Drive to DeIl Road and opening up Lhatother end, over time sure. Traffic's going to be building on that street.It's designated as a collector street in the city and it will build.
Erhart: So it's reall.y thethere complained about with
sam6 issue that
changing TH 1O1
the neighbors to the west of
and the uhole th i n9?
Krauss: t^lelL it's a related issue but.
Erhart: tlell this uhole south frontage road thins is going to be a bigger
problem because noh, as we develop that industrial area to the east, as far
as the neighborhood, this HcDonald's is Just part of one component of an
increasing problem is it not?
PlanningAPril 4,
Commission Meeti n9
7990 - Pase 72
Erhart: But fundamentally it's.
Krauss: One of the things that the reaLignment of Lake Drive
though is actually shifting portions of the road further auay
homes .
Erhart:North?
Yes .
Okay, so Nhat areing the Iandscaping
Krauss:
is doi ng
from the
Er hart :
i ncreas
bre
on
doing then on landscaping? Are wethe south then to try to protect them more?
this project to upgrade the landscaping.
Lhis project but the whole Lake Drive East
Hempe I :There's
I'm not
no plans in
Erhart:project.referr i ng to
Hempel: The Lake Drive East project, no.
Erhart: How much property do ue oun from, what's our right-of-way fromthe street edge to the residential. property's edge?
Hempel: There's a 50 foot right-of-uay and I think the boulevard in
was probably, I'd have to double check but I uould estimate it aboutfeet.
t her,
r2
Erhart: That the City would own. That's not being used.
Hempel r The way it exists right now,further to the noyth approximately 1O
approximatelv 20 feet.
But with the road being pushe<-
there r.r i I I be a buf f er of
yes .feet
Erhart: Can the residents plant, or the people who live adjacent to thatcan they do plantings in that 12 foot area?
Hempel: I guess yes. tle uould entertain something Iike that as long asiL didn't cr6ate problems with snow ploeing.
Erhart: This is the kind of thins that if you have good planning you try-to avoid and obviously you can't do anything now but maybe there,s anopportunity in addition to the Iandscaping that we're requiring of thel''tcOonald's, maybe do a little bit of our ouJn or work Hith the neighbors tcadd some I andscapi ng .
Krauss: There's also another possibility that we didn't explore but I'vehad done on several site plans uhere, I mean basically you've got a drive-up facility that's not moving. I mean it's where it's been for 8 years
and it's going to continue to be there. But the net effect of it is thatany car that's in there in the evening has headlights shining right into -the neighborhood. Lle've already. no matter what we do on the Hcoonald'ssite, we're going to do as much as we can but it's going to have limited
Plannins
April 4,
Commission Meet i ng
t99O - Pase 13
effectiveness. There are a number of situations uhere property owners
developing sites have been required to put some landscaping on somebodyelse's property because that's the only effective spot for it to 90. You
may uiant to consider requiring installation of some trees on the backlines of those home sites as r.,ell. Particularly where the drive-thru
comes through.
Erhart: Let me think about that one a bit. That isn't where I uas going
but you brough it up, I don't know. tlhere's the trash coming from?
tJhere's the trash coming from? Is it people throwing stuff out? Notusing the trash bins inside?
Tom Kursonas: l.,e get a certain number of walkers in our area plus we get
people that drive out of the drive-thru and it takes them how long to get
their stuff unwrapped and it goes out the window. tlhere it comes from, it
comes out of HcDonald's. IL's their stuff. It comes out of cars or
anybody walking. There aren't that many walkers there to... but it's thedrivers. If you go down Lake Drive EasC, Iike I said, it's loaded and itgets into our yard and you get tired of pi.cking the stuff up.
Erhart: Gene, Hhat do you do now to try to control that?
Gene Borg: tle do send people out to pick up garbage, Somebody called a
couple weeks ago. t.le Here pickins up along the trees there...and we goL acall from someone who lives down further. tJe didn't 9o down far enough.
She called us and said, I seen your guy out there and he didn't come downfar enough so we went down and picked up the rest of it. I don't know if
we could do more.
Erhart: I was wonder i n9,office you've got a place
Ieave your car. tJould itthe dr ive-thru?
is there like, when you go out ofyou Put your enveloPes in and you
make sense to have a trash bin at
the post
don't have tothe exit of
Gene Borg: tle]I we could. l.,hen McDonald's was first built, they had some
sort of thing that carne up. People could throw their garbage in. At that
time it...It served it's purpose. The problem you've got is the reason
why l,,lcDonald's doesn't have them anymore, people would be not paying
attention, get too close to their cars and scrape up their cars and run
things over and things like that. So which problem is uorse, I don't
know.
Erhart: l.,lake the problem uorse huh?
conrad: tlell they were always on the right hand side and the driver's onthe left hand side so as you exit, you can't get it there. You knowyou're flippins it over your car trying to. But that is a uniquesituation here. That is an exit only so the trash container could be onthe left hand. The other side.
Ray Schleck: Host people miss those things.
P I anni ngApril 4,
Commission Heet i n9
t99O - Page 14
Gene Borg:
none r ight
Erhart: tlhat, putting Lhe signs out? ble have aUouldn't allow it probably. Do not litter sign.
adding. . .
[^le have trash containers on the parking, physical but there'sat the exit.
Erhart: t,lell I tend to think whoever, someone made the statement thatthey miss, I tend to think that there's as good a probability that you'd
contribute to the problem than solving it. I think at a minimum thoughyou could put some sibns out that. I don't knour if there's any signs now
Gene Borg: There's a $5OO.OO f j.ne for Iittering in this state.
sign
uJhat
ordinance thatI was thinking was
Gene Borg: l,Je couLd Put a sign up. f'm not opposed to that.
Erhart: I agree with the comment that I think additional landscapingprobably would help with the trash. Regarding the berm, we've committedlot to landscaping on top of the berm in the City now for a lot of years
and boy, you bring up a valid poin!. Yeah, berms tend to dry out faster -than Ievel ground but if we're going to react on this site to thatpotential problem, we have a much bigger problem to deal ulith. I guess
maybe what we ought to think about, the uhole problem on a bigger scale iLthat is a probLem, particularly if we have one more year of drought Isuppose. Let's hope that we don't so I guess I'd prefer not to respond tcthat particular problem and assume Lhat we aren'L going to have a drought.But if we do, I think it's everybody's having the same problem Gene. The-other thing is, I'm a little relunctant to switch to deciduous treesalong TH 5 r,rithout exploring a little bit the various types of evergreentree's tolerance to salt spray. Have we don't any of that? Do you know -uhat species is up there now? Probably a Norway pine.
Gene Borg: Nort,,ay? Because I uras talking about BIue Spruce andthey wouldn'! do weII. I also have a Iimit on trees there. Theon that power line to come through, I can,t plant anything that15 feet taII...
they saigl
var iance
wi 11 grow
Erhart: hlelL Norway Pines will grow
Gene Borg: l,lost pines wiII Srob, 15
a lot tal]er than 15 feet.
feet LalI.
Erhart: tlell that adds another piece of data.
uill stay around 15 fee!?Emmings: How about arborviLae? That
ElLson: f'm sure they can figure out one.
Erhart: l^le I I I was going to suggest Austrian pine but' they,ve obviouslybigger too- Anyway, my point is, I'm reluctant to switch to somethingwithout exploring some kind of evergreen that wouId...
Krauss: tle are loo because clearly, I mean you're Lalking about the mostintensive part of the site and not screening it for 5 months of the year
PIanningApril 4,
Commission l.1eet i ng
1990 - Pase 15
l"s an rssue.
wor k out with
Erhart: Another thing
Paul to remove the end
Emmi ngs :
ErharL:
Kr auss :
ErharL:
Er hart : tlel I we tor n
cuts . thank goodness.
Bu! these are
them prior to
the kinds of things we can wor k out or willgoins to the Council.
was
the
Krauss: t,,hi c h?
Erhart: You interjected the dots? To remove the north end of that
island .
is,
of
it would seem to me that,that island? Is that what
it your requestdot's there?
going to provide
Both of them so
He
oh,
This
Yeah.
Krauss: [.le wanted to restore the
trucks went through there, if you
expectation that your car's going
traffic island there for the reason, aspark there, you should have a reasonableto be there when you get out.
out on t,est 79th Street and put in real curb
we do that her€ too?
Erhart: l,lell my point is that we ought to take that Parking Iot out as
opposed to saying at your own risk. I mean they can still put their car
there even if the line's noL there at their own risk but it doesn't make a
lot of sense to encourage that activity. I've got one ]ast Point, are trre
going to rernover are we going to put in real curb cuts here as oPPosed to
these jawbreakers that you've got now? If you anst,er yes, I won't even
ask you about it.
Gene Borg: l.,hatever the City puts in there. That's a rolled curb...city
sta ndar d -
wanted it back in.
you wanted to put it back in?
thi ng?
them
Can
Hempe]: Yes. As a part of the Lakea concrete apron, typical industrial
it will be much smoother.
Drive
aPron
project He areinto the site.
Erhart: creat. How many trucks come into this Place now?
Gene Borg: I'd just be guessing. tle'Il get 3 or 4,
Sometimes more. Sometimes less. I think tle only had
course I'm not watching every minute.
thaL by putLing this in you're going to
maybe 5 a day .
2 of them today. of
Erhart:
i ncr ease
Ge nethis
You're expecting thenthat volume?
Borg: I don't know if it will increase it or not... I was doing
to pull them off Lhe road.
Planning
April 4,
Commission l.1eet i ng
1990 - Page 15
Erhart: But right now they're parking along. . .
edge .Gene Borg:
Er hart :
They're par ki ng along the
AIong Lake Drive East?
Gene Borg: l.lell no, they're parking. The guys that don't feel confident-about coming in there, park over there. The guys that feel confidentabout it, they park right on the bottom side of that semi parking therethe existing curb line is and it doesn't Ieave a Iot of room for cars to
back out. t^,e haven't had any accidents but it has potential
Batzli: Jo Ann, do you have an overhead of the preliminary plat? Can yor
show me on there what is the piece that they're adding on to the 79 feeLor the 90 feet or whatever the heck it is they're adding? tthy don't youtrace the whole piece there.
Batzli: So the current solid line on the map shows what's existing andChe dotted Iine is the addition which wilI then form Lot 1? In the staffreport it talks about the sizes and the development of those particularIots. on the plat it indicates tha! both Lot l and Lot 2 together are 7.facres. Is that right? Here's where I'm going with this. On page 6 youindicate that the remaining undeveloped lot is 7.96 but it shows on theplat map that both of them together aye 7.96 acres. My concern is thatLot 2, it looks big but if part of it is a Class B wetland, you,re notgoing to be able to deveLop that portion without significantly affectingthat Class B Hetland and it would be nice to knou what portion of Lot 2 isrearlv buildable or excluding that wetland. The second thing that r woul<-like to know is why are they only adding that portion r.lhich it seems to m(that, I'Il take your word for it that there's enough green space on thisthing but it doesn't look like it. Uhy can,t they move that line overfurther into the uJetland so at ]east they have more Ereen space there onan area which isn't developablc in any event?
Ray Schleck: PIus a ]ittle.
Erhart: Okay, that's all the points I had.
Olsen: Is this r ight?
Krauss: Yep.
Balzli: Okay, so it's the dotted Iine on the map there?
Olsen: Yes.
Kraussi The answer to your second part of your question is, they couldpush the Iine theoretically wherever they uish. Clearly they had abalance for themserves the cost of additionar property with the need tomeet city ordinances. tlcDonald's staff knew that ure had a 65? hardsurface coverage max. They pushed the line apparently exactly far enoughout to achieve that number.
Emm i ngs :
to their No. Notplans.a little bit because you hit 65 on the button according
Krauss: I Lhink you can outline it right there. It's a very small area.
Batzli: Is the plat
raLher than the 7.96
minimum but then the
Krauss: You 'dthey went witheliminate 3 orgreen coverage
correct thatin the staffquestion is,
the remaining acreagereport? Obviouslv it
hour much of that is a
is 5.7 acresstiII exceeds the
Class B wetland?
ir. rf
to
you 're
t hat
thaL
Olsen: fL's also part wetland that u,e were looking
t"lhere the new storm Hater's going. They sti]I have
at xith the tracks.alI. - -
Batzli: If you required, initially Lhere's talk of requiring the catchbasin or something and I didn't really understand what happened to that
exchange here. If they put in the catch basin, would that affect thegreen space and would they not then have 652?
Batzli: Where would you put it?
just set it in tshe parking lot. Put a grate overtheir alternative proposaL that they made tonight4 parking staIIs to avoid impacting that wetland,
would increase commensurately.
Batzli: Hy only oLher question, other than the, I think the issue of
landscaping can be handled between staff and i,tcDonalds to find somethingthat's going to grow trith salt and adequately screen the site. I do thinkseveral parking stalls should be eliminated for safety sake and I alsothink the internal traffic patt€rn, I agree is, I think I agree with thestaff report that it's very poor. Just by Iooking at it, it seems thatyou're going to geL people during busy periods uhen there are feuerparking spaces. They trill be parking in the truck only area. I don't
know how you're going to restrict them out of that area.
Gene Borg: As far as the Par k i ng./seati ng ratio that the City has,
coincides with HcOonald's users. t{e've actually. I never ever hadparking lot full as it exists today.
Batzli: Nor and I've never seen it full but I think during heavier lunch
hour periods which I think is the peak time there.
Gene Borg: It's my peak time but it's not even close !o being full.
Batzli: I think you're going to get some people in any event and ifyou've included some spots out towards uhere the Hetland is, I thinkyou're going to get people backing up into the entrance. Perhaps tryingto exit out that area and it would be interesting to know why, at least
those particular ones are there.
Planning Commission MeetingApril 4, l99O - Pase !7
Batzli: Just that portion there?
Krauss: Catch basin wouldn't have any bearing on that.
PlanningApril 4,
Commission tteet i ng
1990 - Page 18
ThaL 's uhy w
Batzlir tre]I yeah, unfortunately they're still on the map here that we'rIooking a!. But I think those things need to be Iooked at and it'sunfortunate that He're real]y not Looking at the map that probably theCity Council's going to look at. That's all I have.
Gene Borg: t,e just put them in
can just pull them out easier.
tliIdermuth: The other
wetland? That one.
there just to put them in.It's not a bis deal .
area that is labeled as a Low area, is thaL a
Olsen: tJe had. - .we did
uas lor.r area.
the Lake Drive and the wetland that they defined
Ray Schleck r That area does have an outle! to the TH 5 drainage.
tlildermuth: I'm very sympathetic to the property owner across the r^ray an-the trash problem, although I don't know what can be done about that othethan possibly to have a fence installed across the street in the city
bouLevard which might also serve to block the headlight problem at night.-I would be in favor of the applicant installing a fence across the wayboth to conlain the trash problem and to ac! as a barrier to light.
Conrad: Fence where J im?
tJildermuth: Across the street. Across Lake Drive from McDona]d,s. Itcould be something Iike a 4 foot high or 4 L/2 fooL high fence. Thatwould be in the city boulevard that h,e were talking about correct?
Krauss: Mr. tlildermuth, if you uanled to go with something like t.hat, if-that was acceptable, I *ould strongLy advocate that you ascertain if itwas possible to put it on private property so afEer it's constructed, itwould be privately owned and maintained. The Ci.ty's not in the businessof maintaining fences in the right-of-way and those things tend to needmaintenance from time to time.
tli ldermuth: ThaL 's true butrequired to put plantings on
just talking about applicants being-other than their ouln.
you hrer eproperty
Krauss: On private property, yes.
l.lildermuth: Risht. And r think the same issue appLies there. Haintenanccand so on.
Krauss: t,ell in my experience, when trees are in essence given toadjoinins property oh,ners, after they're installed lhey become the owner'sproperty responsibi l ity.
tJildermuth: Yeah, but if it's City property. If the boulevard belongs tothe City then, you're saying that the City would be responsible?
Krauss: tle would be responsible.
PlanningApril 4,
Commission l,leet i ng
1990 - Page 19
tlildermuth: Okay. Regardless of whether it's athe applicant responsibLe? No precedent huh?
fence. t,lhat about making
Krauss: 1'm sure it's possible but it's rather clunky.
tlildermuth: In a uJay I'm kind of surprised that you're willing to spendall. this money to expand your parking lot for 4 or 5 truckers in a day.
Gene Borg: WeII that's not the reason. l.le're buying the Iand because theIand is there. tle'Il maybe build on i! someday...and I just Hant to make
some use of it as Iong as I pay for it. And I see the semi's parking,
since I have enough other parking, the semi parking seems like the thingto do because it serves to take care of some of the problems that I havewith semi's and they're problems for me. If I don't have any semi's, I'mnot going to go broke over it because I don't get that many, The cost ofmaterial. . .
t^Ji Idermuth: Right.
Gene Borg:
there.
It serves to get the semi's off the streets when they park out
t^Jildermuth:
tr ash?
tlhat can you do to help your neighbor's concern about the
caII that
but I 've had
t",li Idermuth: Any ideas PauI?
EI lson: Not
ma i ntenance .
that we could enforce buL maybe you can just have a routine
Krauss: This is a common problem ulith fast food establishments.
l''lcDonald's is usually more conscientious than most as a corporation for
maintaining property.
tJildermulh: tJeII I guess it isn't practical but I still Iike the idea of
a fence. tlhen TH 1O1 is upgraded or the intersection of TH 1O1 is
upgraded, Dakota Avenue wiII remain open to TH 5, is th6t correct? I
agree with the recommendation that you made to divert parking Iot uraterrun-off inLo the storm seNer system. I don't think it's a good practice
to drain a parking lot into the h,etland. Other than that, I guess staff
can work out the details in the landscape plan and can l,ork out the islandcut det.ails. Just one more question. tlhy wouldn't u,e have one large curbcut rather than 2 curb cuts h,ith a separate entrance and a separate exit?
Krauss: If we're uorking with a clean sheet of paper?
Gene Borg: Pick
heard of . l',1aybea call that f 've
it up more, you know. I haven't had a
somebody has called and said something
heard of.
I 've
never
tli ldermuth: Yeah .
PlanningApril 4,
Commission Meet i ng
1990 - Pase 20
Krauss: Because at one point, you can have th,o exit lanes. One in.
Focus aII the turning movements at one spot. Here !e've got trdo curbin relatively close proximity to one another, AIso very close to thecorner. It's not an ideal situation.
cutL
Conrad: tlhy not?
Krauss: tJel] basically you'd have to tear down the restaurant and moveit. If Lhe drive-thru was coming through right here, uthaL you,d Lhen have-to do is come out this way and come further down which really boxes up th,internal circulaLion. I'm noL saying it couldn,t be done but it,s apretty drastic change -
Conrad: That's the logical thing to do from a planning standpoint. Troma neighborhood standpoint. Closing the u,est curb cut. Berming it orwhalever, uhich is realLy where we care about. I,m not too concernedabout the appearance on TH 5. I think traffic should see McDonald'sthere. That's what brings them in. I'm not too interested in blockingoff vi.ew there but I am interested in how we abut the neighborhoodproperty. Wilhout a doubt that would solve the problem. Ue'd ]ose someparking stalls but boy, you berm that and you immediately solve a lot ofl itlle problems.
Gene Borg: The semi's have a hard time negotiating that turn,
Conrad: You know, I'm sure they do. It's a real lousy site for semis to-begin with you know. It's like I don't even know I brant to encourage thaiand you're not. ft doesn't say semis welcome out front and they'll go
where they !,,ant to but the turning into HcDonald,s there is not an easyturn. It's more than a 90 degree turn. ft's probably 12O degree turn.That's real]y, the way it is today, it's just not a good entrance and itjust seems like at the time, with more space available, it seems like it'sa time that h,e could solve some of the problems but I don't know thatue're solving any problems.
Er hart : l.rhat problems do you
cuts?eliminate by eliminating one of the curb
tlildermuth: l.lhy don't ue close one off and open one up?
Krauss: tlell we looked at that early on in working cith tlr. Schleck. Infact we looked at a number of options but the changes are so drastic andthe internal circulation just doesn't allow you to.
t^,ildermuth: It doesn't improve.
Conrad: You're moving traffic away from Lhe intersection for one. you're
basically having another way of putting a barrier up betkeen the
ne j.ghbor hood and l,tcDonald's.
Erhart: I know but you're moving the headlights from here to here.They're still going to shine over here.
PIanni ngApri] 4,
Commission Meet i ng
1990 - Page 27
Conrad: There's going to be one focus yeah, you're right, They're stillgoing to come out.
Conrad: It's primarily the barrier. One barrier, visual barrier between.
Maybe it's a wind barrier for trash. It's a green space. The otherthing. I still have a tough time Tim uith the fact that this is 552coverage. I just can't, and I know these are deceptive, but it stilllooks ]ike we've got a real big asphalt piece of Iand here which is not,it's not real appealling.
Erhart: Add that as a condition that staff checks that.
Conrad: For sure. tle'll have to, But primarily what I don't wan! to dois restrict the parking and I'm not trying to say we should restrict theparking in there. I want it as convenient as possible. And they're not
comins in asking for a different curb cut. They're trying to keep thecosts down a little bit but you knou, it just seemed Iike routing
everybody out of the same intersection and improving the far awayintersection in the Iong run has a lot of merit. If you've driven inthere, you knote that that's not an easy turn coming in no matter what. Ifyou're driving a semi or a car, it's more than a 90 degree turn.
Erhart; You mean the entrance?
Conrad: Risht.perpendicular at
BecauseaIl.the angle is going auay from, it's noE
Krauss: Ladd, that's goi n9
entrance issue anyway. Thethe ol.d one's tailing ah,ay,
to get straighten out a
neu alignment is com i ng
IittIe bit.
through here
The
w her eas
Conrad: Okay. That wiII help won't it.
Ray Schleck: The traffic flow, ue did look extensively at trying to close
off one of the curb cuts. Not only the truck, whaL I Iike to caII truck,
Rv, boat, trailer, camper. You get cars $rith boats and trailers coming
through and they can park in Lhese stalls as weII but besides the truck
traffic, you've a got a few that come in rj.ght now, they're coming in the
east curb cut and you 're parking where the parking's directed to direct
the traffic that way and you have one curb cut, people are going to try togo ouL that way. If you try to back, those stalls then should be drawn at
90 degrees. h,e don't enough aisle width there to do that safely andyou're double loading that aisle which is primarily Lo direct traffic
around drive thru...without causing too much confusion. The more
decisions you force a driver to make, the more dangerous Lhe Parking lot
becomes. This way it keeps the traffic flow simple and they won't have
any decisions to make. The Lake Drive, the new direction of Lake Drive
drastically helps the situation with the businesses up there...
conrad: So basically you can't make a total counter clockwise flow work
uith only one entrance and exit. You can't make it work.
Erhart: Yeah.
PIanningApril 4,
Commission Heet i ng
1990 - Pase 22
Ray Schleck: You can make it work. You can't teach every driver how todo it. That's Lough.
conrad: So it's unsafe.
Ray Schleck r That's why
This plan works the best
make the lot as simply as possible.
There are other uays to do it but.
quick additiona Ithe h,etland do we?
hre try to
for that.
conrad: Is the easterly entrance still an i.n only?
Ray Schleck: Yes,
conrad: okay.
tJildermuth: fn any event, that's aLl I had.
Joan?conrad: oh, it uasn't my turn.
Ahrens: I'm abstaining on this.
Conrad: I probably took my turn. I think just somecomments. I don't think uJe want drainage going into
Hempel: No. From a water quality standpoint also.
Conrad: I just don't think that's the !^,ay we want to do it so we toyedwith that a litLle bit but it seems like lhere are other ways to drainthis that makes sense. The trees on TH 5, they do get salt burn so Iguess, you know it's an absolute. That's what does happen. t,le've got tobe able to come up with some kind of tree and if we don't, there's noreason forcing them into something that's going to die. paul, if you
could urork with them on that. I guess my intent is not to, I like thesmall berm that you proposed on the north. I don'! h,ant to hide
McDonald's at aII. I think that's not your point but if ue can hide aIiltle bit of the dark, the asphalL which realIy botherd me a whole lot inthis one. The asphalt is just not pleasing to me so if we can, if that
berm helps and if the greenery, if we can work out some kind of greenerythat works for you. It's 9oin9 to attract them as much as anything andI know that you care about that but hopefully you can work with staff onthat. I 9ues6 I still, PauI , if you'd check out the impervious surface. -ft's not to say I don't trust our friends from McDonald's but dog gonethat looks Iike, that's just visually amazing that that's 652 coverage soif you could follo.{ up for me on that Paul . Let's see. f guess that'sall my comments. Any other comments? Anything else? Is there a motion?
Erhartr I'lI give it a try. I've been uriting. probably get as close aaanybody. I'lI move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of thrsite plan request *9O-4 as shown on the plan stamped Received Harchsomething, 1990 xith the staff recommendations except that item l wiII be
changed to read, apply for, obtain and complete a wetland alterationpermit if required and as outlined in the report. Add item 7, somethingto do with handicap parking. Do you have some wording?
Planning Commission Meet i ngApri] 4, 1990 - Pase 23
Emmi ngs: l.lel I yeah.
Erhart: To include required handicapped signage and curb cuts tha! arecurrently now shown o
coverage before and dCouncil. I guess tha
Batzli: I would table it until a lotthat ure're Iooking at u,hat He're actua
conrad: And Joan you abstain?
Ahrens: Yes.
he plan and item 8 that staff will check the 55?heir own calculations before this goes fo the Cityir.
ntott's
1
2
3
Conrad: Okay, is there a second?
EI Ison : Second .
Erhart moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission reco'mend
approval of Site PIan Requesl *9O-2 stamped 'Received Harch _, 1990without variances subject to the follorline condi.tions:
Apply for, obtain and complete a xotland alteration permit, ifreguired, and as outlined in ths staff report -
Revise parking and internal circulation plans to inprove circulation
and provide increased setbacks as outlined in the staff report-
Revise drainage plans to utiliz€ catch basin and storm selrer. Utilizeconcrete curbing in the parking lot. Provide an erosion control plan-
Project approval by the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek l.latershed Districtis required -
4 Revise landscaping plans as outlined in the staff report- A financial
guarantee for site improvements is required. An additional $1O,OOO.OOguarantee for completing reguired wetland improvements Eill also be
required.
Relocate the retaining }laII onto th€ l{cDonald's site, providing a
minimum of 1 foot clearance from the right-of-xay.
Approval and filing of the plat is reguired prior to the issuance of
any building pormits .
Include required handicapped signage and curb cuts that are currently
nol. shown on the plan-
Staff will check the 65* coverage and do their oun calculations b€forethis goes to the City Council.
All voted in favor excopt for Batzli uho opposed and Ahrons abstained andthe motion carried.
5
6
7
a
of
l1
these issues can be resolved soy approving.
PIann i ng
April 4,
Commission Meet i ng
1990 - Page 24
Conrad: The motion passes on a 5that you're inLerested in reallyberms. DeaLing with curb islandsother specific issues?
1 vote, 1 abstention.
dealing wiLh wetlands.
whatever we would ca 11
tois
or
And the
Dealing
them.
l. ssueit,ith
Any
Conradr This item goes to City Council on April 23rd. Thanks for coming-in.
Conrad: Is there a motion for the plat?
Emmings: I'Ll move lhe Planning Commission recommend approval ofPreliminary PIat *90-4 urith the conditions contained in the staff report.
Erhart: Second.
Conrad: Any discussion?
Batzli: Yeah. Should we include the wetland type of thing inwell? Do u,e normally do that in the plat? Do we include thatcondition usually Steve?
this one a:_asa
Emmi.ngs: t^lell., let's do something there. Let's add as a condition 4 thatthey comply with aII conditions of the Site PIan and t^letland AlterationPermit if required. I'd amend my motion to that.
Emmings: No.
Batzli: Is it? Nothing as shown in the plans is in the motion.
Emmings: The preliminary plat that u,e're looking at is dated March 19,
L99c -
Batzli: Risht.
ConY ad : l.Jhoever seconded i t .
Erhart: okay, I'1I second Steve's amendment
Emmings mov€d, Erhart seconded that the Plannin€l Commiseion rscom,mendapproval of Prell.minary PIat *9O-4 as shoun on the plans stamped .Received
Batzli: No. I'm concerned with the 652 mostly as wel.L as there's a lot -of little issues that seem like they're resolvable and I think they shoulr
be resolved.
Krauss: Mr. Chairman, two things. l^le have the preliminary plat tackedon. AIso, we would intend to keep the schedule for the City Councilmeeting if, that's contingent on the applicant's abiLity to resolve theseissues and work with us to resolve those issues in time for that meetinq.
Otherwise it would have to be delayed.
Batzli: Oid you include the, as shown on the plans stamped Received HarchL9, 1990 to your motion?
Harch 19, 199O' without variances subject to the following conditions:
Provide the easements outlined in the staff report and described onthe attached illustration.1
2
3
Dedicatb illustrated right-of-nay to the City-
Enter into a development contract sith the City and provide necessaryfinancial guarantees prior to having th€ City sign off on the finalplat -
The applicant shall comply uith all the conditions of the Site PIan*9o-4 and tletland Alteration Permit, if reguired -
All voted in favor except Ahrens nho abstained and the motion carried-
eu-b-Iisg--e-s*e-!-L:
Name Address
4
9390 267 Street trest, Lakevi]le
18601 Panama, Prior Lake
1600 TCF Tourer, Hinneapol is
24O FIying Cloud Dr ive
25O Flying Cloud Dr ive
1O5 Pioneer Trai I
47O Flyins CIoud Dr ive
Terry Beauchane: Haybe before you start, this proposed ordinance thatyou're talking about, aII you people have up there have a copy of it but
He don't . [,Je have no idea urhal you're talkinS about.
Krauss: l.Je uould have been happy to have supplied it to anybody that r.rasinteresled. [.le have developed a special mailing list for the area around
Moon VaIIey and we've notified them of each meeting.
UiIlard Halver: I Iive in the very close vicinity.3 months. I've been getting mail in regard to these
I've been absent for
meetings. Now wh)z
Plann j. ng Commission t'teetingApriL 4, 1990 - Page 25
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AI,IENDHENT OF ARTICLE IV, CONDITIONAL USE PERHITS AND
ARTICLE XXVII, EXCAVATING, I{INING, FILLING AND GRADING ACTIVITIES.
Tom Zwei rsJerry Rypkema
Mi ke Dwyer
Terry Beauchane
Leon & Delores Hessenbr i n k
Richard Voge INiIIard Halver
PauI Krauss presented the sLaff report. Chairman Conrad called thecontinuation of the public hearing to order.
Terry Beauchane: tlell ue were notified of the meeting but we didn't knourthat there t^,as a draft proposal already drawn up. Could we possibly seeit so we knour what we're talking about?
Conrad: Are lhere any comments?
PIanni ng
ApriL 4,
Commission Heeting
1990 - Page 26
hasn't a copy of that
[.le know nothing.
ordinance been sent to us along with the meetings?
Conrad: Normally. . .
Krauss: We not only sentof the nature of this, we
numerous notices out to asent out basically say aninformation, contac! us.
notice to properties r^rithin 5OO feet. Becausegreatly expanded the mailing Iist and He've sen-variety of people and the notices that we'veordinance urill be discussed. If you want to get
l.liIIard Halver: That's r.,hat I 'm here doi ng .
other comments?
a public hear i ng?
Conrad: Are there any
thisRichard Voge1: Is
Conrad: Sure is.
Richard Voge]: I'm Richard Vogel and I ]ive at 1O5 pioneer Trail. I hav,two interests in this. I've Iived in that same house all my life and theoriginal Moon valley that r.Jas grandfathered in before the ordinance took -effect is one thing and the clay mining that ulas started on the old Fred
Zimmerman property is another thing. I think they are tr.ro separate setsof property. I don't think you should buy another piece of property and _have your original, what do you want to call it, grandfathering non-conforming use move to the oCher piece of property. The other thing ontloon Vall.ey, the uay it is, the old Moon VaIIey. Hhen you,ve Iived inthat bluff area aII your life, it's sad to see uhere it,s going now. Now -I'm no attorney and I don't knou, what non-conforming uses have or don,thave but when you come from Shakopee, you can see very weII where HoonValley is. They're up to the tree line now. It's sad to see that happen-At the last public hearing on l.farch 7th or the 4th, whatever it was, therr
u,as some talk of I'1I say terracing. After the mining was done, terracingit- I would judge that all the homes you see from Chaska Lhrough
Chanhassen to Eden Prairie are up there because of the natural settingthere is and I don't think they t^rould be there if there u,as a terracethere. I'm just saying that as a broad statement. But anyu,ay, I'm just
tlillard Halver r The blind ]eading the blind, is that uhat it is or what?_
conrad: Normally what we do is we sent notice !o those properties withinx number of feet -
trillard Halver: t^lell I'm in that .
conrad: In this particular case, this is an ordinance and pau], who did _we send notification to?
Conrad: Typically that's the r,Jay we handle it. tJe inform people thatsomelhing's occurring. If they're interested in knowing more, they cancontact City HaLI for an ordinance. For Minutes. For whatever. That'sstandard procedure,
Planning
Apri] 4,
Commission Meeti ng
l99O - Page 27
saying, I think it's too bad that they have to take those hill.s down. you
that's aIl, I'm saying that from a personal standpoint. On the claymining on the ol.d Zimmerman property, that I'm just saying, I think thisis a separate piece of property and I don't see uhy it should begrandfathered in. Thank you.
Terr), Beauchane: Hy name is Terry Beauchane. I live just across the hitlfrom the Hoon VaIIey operation. I have a number of comments I've
addressed to you people before along Hith the City Council. The statement
ulas made earlier by the City Planner thaL Lhis is supposed Lo be an aII
encompassing ordinance that you folks are considering here. I guess myfirst question that comes up, if this is an aII encompassing ordinance,
why do we need prior approval of this ordinance from the attorney from
Hoon Valley. t,lhy did iL have to be sent to him in the first place? Isthis a city matter or is this a Moon Valley matter?
Conrad: I don't think that that's bad policy. It's not Lhat ue're
looking for that attorney to u,rite our ordinance but it is going Lo
represent l.1oon VaIIey and there could alHays be litigaeion at some point
in time so hav.ing him aulare of uhat we're writing is probably pretty
smart. I guess I think that's good but it's not that he's writing our
ordinance by any means.
Terry Beauchane: tlell then I guess I would have to ask how much input wasthere from Hoon ValIey's Attorney?
Krauss: I think the premise is wrong here. The point of fact, we give
copies ouL of an ordinance to anybody uho requests it. They were here at
a meeting. They requested a copy of it. It does have a direct bearing on
them. [,le gave them one. Hr. Beauchane, if you had requested one, Ne
would have sent you one. They're property owners- They have an equal
risht to see Hha! we're doing affecting their properLy. In point of fact,
they have a lot of concerns about this ordinance that they feel it's
restrictive or punitive or whatever. The ordinance was not modified
specifically to allow them to continue what they're doing. The whole
premise of this ordinance is to get some requirements placed on them so
the City has some control over h,hat they're doing. I don't know. llle uillgive copies of this to anybody that asks.
Terry Beauchane: Okay, in terms of control . There obviously has not been
any control doun in our neck of the woods probably since the incorporation
of Chanhassen or maybe even long before that. There doesn't appear to be
any conLrol going on down there nor.r. t"lhat kind of enforcement methods arethere going to be in this ordinance if any? I don't see any in here, at
Ieast in the, I only had a few minutes to read this but the first few
pages at least I see nothing that is going to be punitive in any uay if
somebody does not live up to the ordinance standards and rules and so on.
conrad: PauI , what would be the normal?
Krauss: The ordinance does have a paragraph that requires that not only
new operations be subject to the ordinance but also that existing
operations come in and get a permit to operate under it. tle would then
PIa nn i ngApril 4,
Commission l.teeL i ng
t99O - Page 28
give them a time period in which to develop an ordinance. Bring it
through the Planning Commission, City Council for approval . If theyfail.ed to do that or if they failed to live up to the requirements of the-permit when it is granted, the City alurays has legal recourse as we dowith any other property owner in the City.
Emmings: l,JeLl we don't have an ordinance yet. He're here to pass an
ordinance.
Terry Beauchane: Tha!'s r^,hat I'm saying. You pass an ordinance but Inothing in this proposed ordinance that says if they don't meet thestipulations of the ordinance and the permits and so on, what recourse
there?
see
is
Batzli: There is a section that they have to go before the City Council -
and get a permit with certain condiLions on it. They need to meet certailcriteria which may be relaxed given existing conditions. In other words,there's a setback requirement. Hoon VaIIey's already exceeded thatsetback requirement.
Terry
so on
Beauchane: Okay,
thaL governed the
but t^,asn't there already existing ordinances and
second hole in the ground up there?
were very i nadequatr
improved ordinance so
Krauss: That's open to some serious question.
Emmings: tle're trying to fix that. Those ordinances
and our effort to pass an ordinance now is to get an
we can get a handle on these things when they happen.
Terry Beauchane: Okay, then very specifically then let me ask.are done mining the pit and they close down the operation, what
become of the land? Either at ],toon Va]ley or anyplace else ifto do this? tlhat is to become of the land?
l^l he nis to
someone
t hey
Nar
Yor
conrad: I think there is a section in the ordinance that speaks torestoralion and I think there are some things that can't b€ restored,just don't fill in the r.rhole pit and fill it up but I think there,s aseclion in here that hopefully governs a little bit of that. puts somekind of a direclion. Sets a direction for what the operator has to do.
Terry Beauchane: And then what if the operator or the oHner of the landdoes not comply with that and he's gone. The business is done.
Terry Beauchane: t^lell that brings up the issue then of the portion of thr-pit operation that's taking place north of the original. Hoon Valleyoperation. The big hole in lhe ground that I'm sure everybody is auare ofat this point that was started without city approval. t"lithout permits. -In fact without anybody's knowledge. They just Hent up there and sLarleddigging a hole in the ground. That's been going on for what,2 years?
Nobody's done anything about that, So you pass an ordinance and they
thumb their nose at it.
Planni ngApril 4,
Commission t4eet i ng
1990 - Page 29
Batzli: Here's a bonding section in the ordinance for restoration. Aletter of credit specifically which the CiLy could draw down on to restoreit themselves and enter upon the ]and to do so if the owner did notrestore according to his plan which he submitted during the permitprocess. Additionally there's a section that the City Engineer wouldannually review the permit to determine if they were in compliance and ifit should be extended. If ther6 uas a serious question, it would go infront of the CiLy Council to decide if they should r€voke lhe permit andthere's another specific section indicating that if a permit is revoked,no further excavating can be done or it's in contravention of the law. I
mean you can't do anything more than that. You have to hold a public
hearing and allor.r the person to speak his peace.
Terry Beauchane: Okay, along that line. Can I make a suggestion for aninsertion into this ordinance then Lhat misht herp this particular matterof what happens to the Nhole mess over there when al] is said and done,Included in the ordinance you might r.lant to consider what is commonly
knoun as a mineral extraction fee or tax so that you're collecting the
money as the stuff is being taken out. That to be used for therestoration of the land for h,hatever other purpose if they do not hold upto t.heir end of the bargain.
Batzli: t,ould that be in lieu of the letter of credit that u,e require?
Terry Beauchane: Could be in lieu of or in addition to. llineralextraction, taxes and fees are quite common in the mineral industry.
Everybody is calling this whole operation over there mineral exLraction.
t,lildermuth: But it
se nse .
isn't mineral extraction. It's mining in a pure
Terry Beauchane: AII
ta I kins to you people
different def i nition,
tli Idermuth: I.l i nera I extraction
They aren't doing that.
depends on definition. The times that I've been
and the City Council, everybody seems to have aincluding the City Planner, the City Attorney.
is separating meLaIs from their ores.
Terry Beauchane: ]^lel I ,think the concept migh!
it in sold minins.
tlildermuth: It's
as I say. It's a matter of interpretation butstill apply. They do it in coal mining. They
a mineral depletion
That's right. Just
I
tax just like an oil dcpletion tax.
Iike an oiI d€pletion tax,
do
Terry Beauchane:
t^,ildermuth: Very common.
Terry Beauchane: That way you might insure that at Ieast if they run out
on lhe deal, that you've got something to go back in there and make itright. Right noul from what you'vc said and hrhat I've read in here, if an
operator moves out of this particular type of business and vanishes, the
City of Chanhassen's going to be 6tuck hrith it.
P Ianni ngApril 4,
Commission Meet i ng
1990 - Page 30
Conrad: Oh no. That's not riEht. Not with the bond.
Terry Beauchane: Could be
Conrad: Not with the bond. The bond is there.
Batzli: As long as you get an adequate bond and the City Engineer has th,authority to review that from year to year to adjust it for inflation and
changing conditions and so the City Engineer would be able to increase or_
Terry Beauchane: t"lhat would the amount of bond be on an operation such
as?
Batzli: f don't know.
Krauss: ft's established specifically related to whatever...
t,ildermuth: For that permit right?
Conrad: It seems like a better route to 9o in my mind.
Batzli: You'd be getting it up front rather than as the extraction tookplace because if you took it as the extracti.on initially took place, it
wouldn't be properlv funded Lo restore it. I think it would be better toget a bulk of it up front if it's possible. I think your idea has somemerit but I don't think it's something we've realIy considered.
Terry Beauchane: I've got some other questions. Again, not having a
urhole lot of time to go through this. Your number 3 on page 2 where it
says perimeter fencing, deals with that issue. It says, wiII only requir,
fencing where it believes that there is a safety hazard. I guess that
sounds a little nebulous to me. It's not very definite as to who
considers a safety hazard or what is considered a safety hazard and so on
Now I understand a number of you people may have seen the l.,toon VaL leyoperation over there. cranled there aren't a lot of Iittle kids that liveover there but if you've seen the drop offs that have been created withthe excavation that has been going on over there, again urhat do you
consider or who considers or who determines what the hazard is?
conrad: I'd rather have a person do that than a general policy orwhatever. I think again, this is trying to be sensitive to a situationand I like being able to Iook at a site and saying this is a dangeroussituation and this is not. I don't think you can create an ordinance tha.can be specific and say we're aluays going to fence everything. you can'Ldo that. This seems to be more rationaL.
Emmings: Not only thaL but Lhere's a standard in there. It saysthey have to be fenced if they're steeper than l foot vertical tofeet horizontal unless the City determines that they don't pose aso there's a standard risht in it. It's right there.
thatL r/2
hazard
PlanningApril 4,
Commission Meeti ng
1990 - Page 31
Terry Beauchane: Okay. Concerning number 4 with thethey're saying the t,loon VaIIey is a 50 foot setback.from what? The property Iine or what?
3OO foot setback butIs thaL a setbac k
Krauss: Yes. It's from the property Iine andlot between where your home is and Moon Valleyagainst the Teich's property.
50 foot is Teich,
and that 50 foot has theis up
Terry Beauchane: l^lho has determined that it is
Krauss: That's the information wefor it.got from Mr.
Terry Beauchane: Oh you will. Okay.who's drafting this ordinance?
50 feet?
Zwier. I'II take his urord
Again, I have tci ask the question,
Ellson: t^le]l 50 feet has nothing to do with the ordinance.Valley comes through, that's when they'lI have the officialand everything Ii ke that. l.le're saying 2SO.
trhen l.1oon
measur eme nt
Terry Beauchane: You're saying you're goingVal]ey in particular for the 50 foot setbacksetback based on ulhat he's telling you.
Krauss: l.lhat we said is
where he is right now,
to set
r at her
a ura iver
than the
Moo n
f oot
for
300
we would consider one and if he's 50 feet, that's
Terry Beauchane: tlhat if it'S zero?
Krauss: If he's zero right nou, we have to dealgoing to make him do? Put back a mountain? you
the point at which the ordinance is put...
are weit is at
Terry Beauchane: I guess that's xhy h,e're here and the homeowners andstuff are geLting a little upset with this whole thing because you keepsaying we're going to deal with it. HelI, this crap has been 9oin9 on foryears over there and nobody's been dcaling Hith it. They wen! out and duga big hole and you didn't deal with that. Hor., are we dealing with
anything other than 9oin9 to them and saying what do you want? I'II give
it to you.
Leon Messenbr i nk: It's notjust uo there the other day
5o feet, I'IL guarantee you that because I h,as
Conrad: Right notrr hre're looking at an ordinance that really talks about
3OO feet or whatever the standard is. I think uhen Moon Valley gets
measured by our standard, we have to look at that particular situation soright now the 50 feet is inmaterial. f don't care if it's 4 feet or 12feet. t"le're setting a standard of 3OO feet in our ordinance. That's ourstandard. tlhen Hoon VaIley, if this ordinance passes and if Hoon VaIley
comes in to apply for the permit, ule']l have to look at that particular
slandard and how they fail in that area and r.le're going to have to figure
out hor.J to solve that probLem. But right now h,e're not writing an
with it. tlhat
know , wherever
PIanni ngApril 4,
Commission l.leet i ng
1990 - Page 32
ordinance for Moon
Period. This is a
Va]ley. This is not a l.loon Valley ordinance tonight.general ordinance for Chanhassen.
Terry Beauchane: You wouldn 'twasn't for Hoon Val ley.
even be looking at this ordinance if it
Conradr Obviously stimulated the interest.
Leon Messenbrink made a comment,
conrad: No, ure've aIl walked it.
Leon Hessenbrink: You don't even knou ue exist down in that corner.
Conrad: I will debate that.
Leon Messenbrink: I've lived there 35 years.
Conrad: You're wrong sir .
BatzLi: I don't understand your point. Just one more thing. Do you h,an
us to not do to anything? I mean uhat's your point? tle're trying to pass
an ordinance, [.le're not ta].king about Moon Valley's compliance or not. -tJould you like to see certain things in here that aren't in here? tlouldyou not like us to do anything?
Conrad: And we don't knour.
EIlson: l.Je won't know untilat' that meeting because that
EIIson: ExactLy.
Terry Beauchane: Nowstart up and the time
Conrad: They're not
Terry Beauchane: So
Conrad: trhatever has
time comes and then you should follow i-be when the decision is made.
thatwill
Terry Beauchane: Okay, the bottom Iine is, are you telling me then thatif an ordinance is passed and it's passed in the form that it is here,that Moon VaIIey is going to have to come back in for a permit?
, l.lhat happens beth,een the time the spring operationsthe ordinance actually is paesed and becomes law?
governed by any ordinance.
they're free to do whatever they want?
been permitted in the past.
Terry Beauchane: I guess my point is is how much latitude is this
ordinance or you people going to give Hoon Valley or any other operationIike them, but in particular Moon VaIIey because they are a uniquesituation because they were in business before this whole ordinance
business came up. So my concern is, when aII is said and done and you
pass an ordinance, however it turns out, what is l.loon Valley going to beable to do or not do?
P Iann i ngApril 4,
Commission Meet i ng
1990 - Page 33
Terry Beauchane:
nor t h?
Emmings: They're not working there now are they?
Krauss: The hole in the ground to the north has been the subjecL of a lotof discussion. The City Attorney originally believed that since they weredigging clay out of the top and clay was a different material, and lhegravel that r^re presumed had been coming off from the bottom and it wasphysically separated, that tre had some ability to say no you could not
urork up there- l.Je've since found out that they're mining clay from dounbelow as weII which makes that argument a little more tenuous than it was.Hr. Voge] has lalked about the fact that we've said all along and stillwould say that Moon Valley has no right to acquire new properties and thenmine on them. That the grandfathering would not cover that situation. t^,eoriginally researched the matter and concluded that the property up to thenorth along Pioneer had been acquired by Mr. Griepentrog hras thepredecessor to Mr. Zwier at a date prior to the adoption of the ordinance,i.e. then it was grandfathered in. Mr. Vogel and I have been talking onthe phone that he says that he's been down to the County and has someinformation indicating that that acquisition took place in 19a6. Lle
checked again the tax records that ure have and as near as u,e can tell, thecomputerized records started in 1940, l,lr. Griepentrog owned it in 198O. SoI want to see Mr. Vogel's information. If it's better than what we have,there possibly is an avenue to fol.Iow up. At this poinL in time though itdoesn't appear to us that we can Lreat that hole any differently Lhan lhemain pit.
Ahrens: Is that the opinion of the City Attorney?
Krauss: Yes,
h,ildermuth: I think the interesting thins though is that Mr. Zweirsdoesn't have any inLenLion of doing anymore mining up on top. t^lhat he
wants to do is recontour the top so that it solves an erosion problem thathe's got in preparation for development at some point. Is that true Mr.Zweirs? I think you're concerned about the continued clay mining up onthe top side. It's a valid real concern but...
Terry Beauchane: t4r, l.llldsrmuth, are you pcrsonally going to guarantee
what he's telling you?
l.lildermuth: How could I possibly do that?
Terry Beauchane: okay,. my polnt.
tlildermuth: But the point is that he has stoppod.
Terry Beauchane: tlelI sure, it's wintertime. It's wintertime bu! waiEuntil the roads open up.
Does that also include the hole in the ground to the
Planni ngApril 4,
Commission Meet i ng
7990 - Page 34
EIIson: The sooner this gets to Council, the sooner it passes, the sooneraII that wiII have to be deal! urith I guess.
EIIson: There is something in here about controlling and minimizing
tracking of dust and dirt by having a paved road and also it says that
hauled routes to and from the mine have to be approved by the City and
shall only use sLreets that can safely accommodate the traffic. So if
felt that it wasn't safely accommodating traffic, we would have reason
teII them no or make them change their routes or whatever so there is
little area in here that does address that.
alL
we
to
a
Terry Beauchane: tlill this ordinance then give you authority over the
traffic problems on th 769/212?
Ellson: Sometimes we limiC like hours and things Iike that. If it's
something that ue can address...
Krauss: t^le can address the turning movements out of this site. t^le
haven't dealt with it directly yet but TH 169 is a State Hishway and is
carrying a lot of thru traffic and I don't have specific numbers for you
but I've got to believe that the amount of turning movements by anybody on
that sLretch of highway in Chanhassen are a very small percentage of the -traffic that we see on that road. Yeah, b,e want to make that as safe aspossible but we're not talking about putting the bulk of Lhe traffic onthat. What's going to alter that is opening up the new TH 212 which is
soins to off Ioad it sisnificantly.
Terry Beauchane: So again it would be up to the determination of the Citythen as to whether or not it's a hazard and so on?
Batz]i: There is a requirement that trucks haul , or you prcsent theplan. . .where you haul .
Krauss: That's right . l.le want to know
where they'II be Lurning. If turn lanesthat that's fixed. You can require that
streets they'II be using and-
necessary into a site like
what
are
Terry Beauchane: Another point that I do not see addressed in here and
again r have not read through the whole thins, is traffic considerations
out there on TH 159. I guess I don't know hor.r that can be addressed but -iL is definitely a hazard the way it exists right now. I don't know if ot
how you would go about improving upon the ordinance or h,hatever to take
those types of things into consideration. Such as the large trucks that -have to pull out and pull in to that operation from a very busy highway
which we've talked about in the pas!. The no turn lanes on that highway
to make it easier and less hazardous and when h,e have had rain storms, the
mud that f lor^rs out of thaL pit rishL onto Lh€ highway. Not, I don't see..-
conrad: In this ordinance we've looked at internal traffic concerns anddust. t,e haven't, the ordinance doesn't really. correc! me if I'm wrong, -doesn't really talk about external . That wouLd be a site specificconcern.
Planning Commission Meeti ngApril 4, 1990 - Pase 35
Terry Beauchane: And
determinations for TH
Krauss: t,el I , TH 169r{ith l.lnDot on that butpossible .
not our street so He
would certainly try have to wor k cooperativelyto geC Che safest street
the
169
is
we
City then under this ordinance could make thosealso? Is that correct?
Terry Beauchane: So that could be circumvented
Chanhassen has no control over TH 169?
by saying that the City of
Conrad: That's possible. Basically it means that ure woul.d have to uorkwith HnDot and if Lhey didn't want to deal or they didn,t perccive theissue to be significant, then we r.rould have no control over that.
Terry Beauchane: t"JeII I appreciate your time. you didn't answer hardlyany of my questions and I can sense that this ordinance is going to bedrafted to accommodate Hoon Valley. IL's unfortunate. f guess we,Il haveto deal with it with the City Council. At least we know they're electedofficials. Thank you.
conrad: I beg to differ with you. I think we answered most of your
comments and I'm sorry you don't see how we've tried to reflect on theissues at hand. Maybe Ne're not communicating clearly and I know you're aneighbor down there. In our mind, this ordinance appears to be dealingr^rith the issues as best possible. You wiII have to stick with thisthrough City Council and obviously they are your elected officials andthat's why I prefaced our meeting tonight saying stay urith the issue. Butour job is to draft an ordinance ehat works city uride and this ordinanceis not site specific. It r.,iII work and it will control some of the thinssthat I think you're concerned about, I'm sorry you didn't feel that wewere looking out in your best interest at this. Other comments.
Leon l',lessenbrink: I am Leon Hessenbrink. I Iive doHn there too.
my only question is, how far down the line are u,e looking for thisordinance? Are we looking Iike 3 months? 6 months? A year?
I guess
EIIson: 2 ureeks until the City Council..
Leon l.lessenbrink: Let's be realistic. Are ue looking at 3 months?Tha!'s r{hat I'd Iike.
conrad: A couple months I pould guess wouldn't you PauI?
Krauss: trell if ue assume that the City Council approves it, uhich is 2to 3 weeks from now, we have to then publish it in the newspaper so you're
Iooking at about a 2 month span. At that point u,e have to set a deadlinefor Moon Valley to develop their plan and come in to us. An equitableperiod has to be established. I'lI ask th6 City Council to seL a deadline
and I don't know what date they'II pick.
Conrad: No, ic wiII be longer.
Planni ng
April 4,
Commission l.leeting
1990 - Page 35
Leon l.lessenbrink: That's only one thins that you bring up again nor. Di,I understand you that you'Il have to wait until Hoon Valley responds tothis?
Krauss: They urill be given a to respond .
what they're going to do. I wantLeon I'lessenbrink: No, I'm notto know the ordi nance.
Batzli: tlithin 6 months of the passags of the ordinance.
dead] i ne
talking
Leon Hessenbrink: No, I'm not
ordi nance be passed . Not r.lhat
tal ki.ng about the ordinance.
asking that. I'm asking uhen will this
they think about lhe ordinance. I'm just
Conrad: Abou! 2 months. If they . . .
Leon Messenbrink: That's all the question I
f rregardless of r^rhat u,e say or they say, the
about 2 months right? Fine. Thank you.
asked. Hor^r long.
ordinance we're looking at
l.li ke Dwyer : Mr . Chairman . I 'm Hi ke Duyer . I represent Hoon VaI ley .
tJe've had some discussions u,ith l.4r . Krauss since r^,e met here last l"larch7th I think. one of the commission members pointed out that Hoon Valley
was taking kind of a rigid stance and we've assessed that and we're here
tonight to suggest to you folks t.hat tloon VaIIey is more than willing to
sit down with the city and discuss legitimate safety problems in terms of-
fencing and the dust and noise problems and whether that needs to be atrap or 3OO feet of asphal.t. Those are things that we think ue can workout among staff and Hoon valley's personnel. But in terms of this
ordinance, we stil] have to oppose passage of the ordinance. It is too
broad in terms of it's effort to lay upon a non-conforming use some land
use regu).ations. I'm trying to make the distinction between your
Iegitimate safety concerns and then your Iand use concerns, t^le'II be
happy to talk to you about the safety concerns. It's burdensome in termsof the cost. t^le've obtained estimates that if we were to comply with thepermit application process, on the outside that would cost $35,OOO.OO. Is
ure Here to do 3OO feet of paved surface, and again with the caveat thatthat may be negotiated down, that would cost !D43,OOO.OO. Fencing is, it
depends upon what the City indicates is hazardous but ue're estimatingthat at !'15,OOO.OO and as a side issue, I should point out that the Cityis suggesting that ure use HnDot fencing. This 6 foot tall cyclone fencingthat you see along the freeways. In order for that to be installed, thecyclone fence people have to come in with some preLty heavy equipment.There would be an additional cost in preparing a trail for that equipmentto come into the bluff area and I believe it uould necessitate taking downa ]ot of your trees, or a Iot of the trees on l.loo n Valley and I don'tthink anybody oants that. So there's a definite cost to th€ actualfencing materiels but there's a collateral cost that is significant asweII. But as I said earlier, we're trillins to talk to you about thefencing. From the comments tonight, you folks appear to be pretty intent-upon having a leeter of credit. tte believe that that's inappropriate andwiII be costly. I don't know what an operation the size of Moon Valley
PlanningApril 4,
Commission Heet i n9
f99O - Page 37
r^rould command in terms of a bond or letter of credit. No one has beenable to tell us that but that would cost a Iot of money. t,tr. Batzli saysit's important to get that money up front. That would cost a good deal .tJe also have to continue to oppose this ordinance because it'sdiscriminatory in terms of mining operations in general and l.,loo n Valley inparticular in that you are dictating certain safety standards to this landuse and not other land uses that are identical to it. For instance, as Idrove through Chanhassen today and a couple limes 3 weeks ago, f noticedlots of Iakes without fences around it and I've noticed lots of bluffsthat have a greater degree of slope Lhan indicated in here Chst have nofences on it and thev have to pose the same hypothetical safety problemstha! have attracted your attention in Hoon Valley. yet I don't understandand believe that there's anv ordinances that deal with that. So we wouldrequest and reneu our request that you recommend to your city council thaLyou not adopt this ordinance and that you send Mr. Knutson back to thedrawing board, the blackboard, and rhat he draft an ordinance that wouldaddress lesitimately your safety concerns but at the same time wouldprotect the vesled property inter€sts of the citizens of the City. Thankyou .
Conrad: could you 9o back to the permit costs. !E3s,OOO.Oo. Can you...
l''t i ke Dwyer : If I might, I have some copies. This was prepared t,tr .Chairman for us some time ago and $35,OOO.OO total is responding to theinitial draft and since that time, Mr. Krauss may have touched on it, thattree survey has been sought and is now requested . . . var ious wooded areas.Here's a fencing estimate and asphalt estimate.
Conrad; Paul , have you seen any of these numbers?
Krauss: No. I've heard them mentioned from time to time and one of thethj.ngs you had asked us to look into xas getting some cost estimates oncompliance and as I thought about tha!, I guess I r€ally felt it Hasinappropriate. First of all we don't know what the plan is so t,e don,t
know exactly what they're complying to. But I'd also have to point ouLthat when I was out at the site with Mr. Zweirs, he gave me an estimatedvalue and I don't remember houl many millions of dollars it was of thematerial that's out there. There's no question that this ordinance isgoing to cost somebody something. But the real question is, is that aIegitimate cost of business and thet's what you need to decide.
l.,l i ke Dwyer : Mr . Zweirs asked me to point out one thing here on lhe letterof credit issue. The City has indicated a xillingness to accept thefunctional equivalent in terms of, at least this 3OO feet of paved road, atrap. The functional equivalent of the lettcr of credit in our opinion isthe 8O som€ acres of land here in Chanhassen that I think is selling at
$12,5OO.OO an acre. l.re think that that's a million dollars of land there
and Mr. Zweirs isn't about to walk away from a million dollars of Iand.
So I think the land, as I said earlicr, is securit)z enough to backstop Mr.Zwiers' intentions to develop that land. Mr. tlildermuth, you made a
comment earlier, I just h,ant to clear up the record. It is l.!r. Zwiers'intention, present inLention any!{ay noC to mine on that northern property
beyond leveling those knolls. Those 3 knolls of clay to grede. It is his
intention to continue to remove that hish qual.ity grade clay from therebut at that point, keep it level and develop those lots. So again, we
reconize your safety concerns and we'II work with you on those but in
terms of this ordinance, we think it's a poor one for Hoon VaIIey,
although it's not directed at ].loon Valley, and for any other mining
operation that u,ere to come into the City.
Conrad: Other comments.
Terry Beauchane: I'd ]ike to respond to those comments that were just
made. Number one, now I don't know these gentlemen from Adam but ifyou're going to allow any kind of operation such as this without any kindof bonding, what's to prevent them from just walking away when it's aII
over? Then who's going to get stuck with it? The taxpayers. Now you ma'
have the land and Lhey may think iL's worth $1 ,2OO.OO an acre, or
!612,000.00, Nhatever the number was, but f can guarantee you by the timethey're done with it, it's not going to be rdorth diddily beans. Now ifyou pass an ordinance without any kind of a bonding to go r.lith it, that
urould be the mosL foolish ordinance I've ever seen. The comments about,well let's see. I lost my train of thought. The comments about the hole-in the north not going to do any more mining on it. f guess I would takethat Nith a grain of salt also. If they Here concerned at aII, uhy didn't
they come to the City for approval lhe first tim€ around when there was nq
assured or guarantee that what they uere doing h,as not in violation of an:
existing ordinances. So we again seem to be drafting and modeling thisproposal to suit Moon Valley. I'm getting the impression from theattorney's comments that they're opposing this ordinance and as my
neighbor brought up, and the point he was trying to make is how long are
they going to be able to operate Moon VaIIey unrestricted. If no
ordinance is passed, they're going to be going fuII guns down there with -no resLrictions. No supervision from Lhe City. Nothing. They'II be ablrto do whatever they damn well please just as they have been doing. Sothis ordinance does not need to be delayed any Ionger. As ure're aII
aware, any ordinance can be modified later on if need be. Right now we
need to get something in place and we need Lo have it done before thespring thaw and those big trucks are allowed back on the road because you
know the day that they'r€ alloued, they're going to be operating. They're-goins to be operating out of the main t'loon Valley pit and they could veryurell be operating out of the hole in the north. The hole in the north andI don't know, this is rhat I've heard from certain people around CityHaII, the clay operation was predicated upon the Eden Prairie landfill an<that is still up in the air but it could still 90 from my understanding i.,the EPA were to give their approval . tf these people have a contract withthat Eden Prairie landfill operation up ther6 for the clay, that hole in -the north is going to go back into op€ration this year no matter what the)say. So we need an ordinance and r,le need it nou before the spring thawcomes. And we need iL with a bond. Thank you
Richard Vogel; Yeah, a little earlier I believe Mr. uildermuth saidwas his understanding that no more clay was going to be taken off ofIet's say the north or the up f ield. I think Lhe attorney said they
ir
the,
urer e
Planning Commission l.teet i ngApril 4, 1990 - Pase 38
Conrad: Other comments? Anything.
Planning
April 4,
Commission l.leet i ng
1990 - Page 39
soing to take 3 knolls off to grade. Is that riEht? That's Ehat I
u nder stood?
Bob Zweirs: That's our intention.
Richard vogel: tthat do€s that mean? No clay off or takins it off thegrade and how much is that? I guess I'd Iike a little idea of that. Ifwe're supposed to decide that at this thing tonisht. If we're going outof here saying there's no more clay being taken off of the, whatever you
want to call it, the upland or it's going to be level to srade. Uhat doesthat mean? That's my question. And also, is there an ordinance? Ithought there was an ordinance put in 1972. Is that right or not?
Conrad: No.
Richard Vogel: That's what you t,,ere telling me Jo Ann. That beforethe...
olsen: There is a mineral extraction ordinance but nothing of thisdetail.
Krauss: And it doesn't have a mechanism for getting at uses that startedbefore L972 .
Richard Vogel: Okay, fine.
Conrad: Other comments?
Richard Vogel: Could I just add, is their attorney willine to add to thatand u,hat is it going to be the uay Mr. Uildermuth said no clay is takenoff of the north or the upland part or is it 9oin9 to be...
conrad: t^lhy don't ule wait for a second on that and we,II close the publichearing. l^le'll still see if they want to anshrer that. I don't thinkthat's relevant to what we're talking about tonisht but they may want to
respond.
Emmings: AII he can do ls repeat himself.
Erhart moved, Elii ngg Bccondd to clocc the public hearing - All voted infavor and the Dotion carricd- Thc ptrbltc hcarlng ra3 closd.
conrad: Is there any r.sponse?
Mike Dwyer: I think I already tried to clear it. Sir, that is theintention of Moon valley to take thc 3 knolls of clay and bring them dounto the surrounding grade. . .
Conrad: Okay, which cnd did I start at last time?
Ellson: You started at my end so you can start at the other end this
time.
Planning
April 4,
Commission Heeting
1990 - Pase 40
Ahrens: WelI I r^ras going to address the ordinance...before us. I thinkthat it seems that the neu ordinance seems to incorporate aII fhe issuesthat we raised in our last meeting when xe reviewed this. I don't have mg
marked up version of the old ordinance that w€ h,ere looking at, the first
ordinance we uJere looking at so I can't tell if the revisions that you
note on page 2 PauI are inclusive or are they just some of the revisions
that r*ere made?
Krauss: They're the more significant ones. As I stated, ue made a numberof detailed revisions and I had a marked up copy and I believe I had
Commissioner Emmings' and Commissioner BatzIi's as well and tried to brin,aII those considerations into account.
Ahrens: I have just a couple of comments. Number 5 on page 2.
tree planting and screening is nou required only in areas where
determines it is necessary to screen off-site views.
Emmings: I don'L havea 5on
peop l e 's?
page 2. Are my numbers different than othe
It
the
says
City
BatzIi:
Krauss :
Ahrens:
Emm i ngs :
I don't have that either.
ft's not in the ordinance. It's in the
No, no. It's in the staff report.
oh, okay. Page 2 of the staff report.
staff report.
Okay. Sorry.
Ahr ens : l'1y poi nt is
necessar y?
that. ..determine that planting and screening is
Krauss: You would make that determination along h,ith the City council
when you revieu the plan
Batzli: t^le wouldn't see that would we? Doesn't that 90 right to City
Counc i l?
Krauss: It's a conditional use permit. It pould come through you.
Ahrens: And that's screenthe purpose?
the views of the mining or excavation? Is tha.
Krauss: l.lhere th€re are some critical off-site views, for example fromthe homes to the west of the mine, you'd cerlainly Hant to provide ehemwith bufferins, . You may also Hant to provide buffering from the Statehighuav.
Ahrens: But if it's provide buffering for
more planting and screening be required assite? Is there any kind of...
actua I
work is u,or k at theprogressi ng
the
the
mine. . .
on the -
BatzL i: Okay .
PlanningApril 4,
Commission Meet i ng
1990 - Page 41
Krauss: UeII I would assume that yes, you'd make that determination whenyou see hou that plan's being staged certainly. tlhen this operator or anyother operator comes before you, h,e are going to ask for a grading planthat indicates the completed stat6. You'II be able t.o determine uhere theactivity is going to occur.
Ahrens: 7-33(E). Page 2 of the ordinance.of more Lhan 1OO or less than 1OO?
Is that excavation or filling
Batzli: It should be Iess than.
Krauss: It should be less than.
Ahrens: I
miqht wa nt
Er hart :
irr this
Erhart: Then just for
uhen tlal Iy Gr iepentrog
1986 .
is that I cannot understand first place,
uife bousht this property from zimmerman in
don't know if that appears anywhere else in the ordinance.to check that. I don't have any more questions.You
tlildermuth: I think the redraft of the ordinance is very appropriate. Ithink Roger did a very good job redrafting. I think the new Ianguage in
many areas makes the ordinance more workable - I continue to favor of theletter of credit. I think Lhat's essential to insure the public interestis protected. f support the ordinance.
conrad: Tim . Go ahead .
You r.Joke me up. Just one thing to start out h,ith. Did anybody
room get a nolice? You did get a notice in the mail?
Resident: Of the meeting? t,e got an agenda.
Erhart: Yeah. Okay. Help me understand Jo Ann or paul. you're sayingthat the existing ordinance passed in 7972, urould it or would it not allow
them to remove the clay in the upper area?
Krauss: They don't eomply because they never had a permit. There's noplan that we're regulating under.
Erhartr So they don't comply by the fact that they don't have a permit.
Krauss: Risht.
comme nt
and his
Krauss: The current reading, I discussed this h,ith Roger yesterday. Thecurrent reading we have, and it's based on information that we've beenable to procure to date so this could be revised in the future, but besed
on the information we have, it's our opinion Lhat fhat operation up on topis probably grandfathered in as welI.
Erhart: That's not the question. That's the second question. The firstquestion is, assuming it isn't, do thcy comply xith the 1972 ordinance?
In other words, Lhe current ordinance.
PlanningApril 4,
Commission Meet i ng
1990 - Page 42
Not.l the information that we have.-.
You just stated that or somebody stated that
He 's been acclaimed.
ear I ier -
doesn't make any difference,
u,hen that t.tas purchased as aa part of the grandfathered
Krauss:
Er hart:
OIsen:
Er hart : l.,,hether
tlhat I thought I
separate parcel,
parcel.
or not anybody, it really
heard you say is the factit was automatically made
Erhart: You're sayi ng
t4as made?
that purchase was made before Lhe 7972 ordinance
ElIson: One person is saying 1985 and they're saying earlier
Erhart: Griepentrog purchased this properLy 6efoye !972?
Krauss: Risht . Nor,r l.lr . Vogel 's contacted us and said that heto Carver County and has different information which we'd Iike
because we haven't been able to confirm that.
Erhart: l^,lel I I've got e copy of this from Di
Griepentrog purchased this property from Fred
Emmings: That's a warranty deed. There maycontract. I don't know.
Krauss: Tim, I don't know the answer
and we've got the best information wethe information that he has.
ck that says that l.Jally
Zimmerman January 8, 1986.
have been an under lyi ng
to that. We've researchedhave. tle've asked Dick to
rt twlcegive us
Erhart: tlell I'm sure he UiII buL it just seemed to me tha!purchased after that, then it should comply with our current
Krauss: If it t.las purchased after the operaLive date of thedon't believe the grandfathering applies.
if it was
ordi nance.
ordinance, wr
Erhart: So we all agree with thet then. Okay. creat. So thena question of finding out r.lhen this thing was rcally purchased orOkay, so we're going to do that.
Krauss: tlell we've already done it thrice. tre want to take Dick'si nformat ion .
it 's jusr
not .
Emmings: Did you go dot,n toof any deeds or contract for
what you have to do. If you
the County Recorder's office and get copiesdeeds in the relevant time periods? That'sdidn't do that, you didn't do it. The deed
Krauss: Because that occurred as near as lre can tell before the operativedate of the ordinance, that's correct.
Krauss: Yes. That's the information we've got.
also wentto see
P I anni ng
April 4,
Commission Meet i ng
1990 - Page 43
Erhart: Okay. I think ure alL agree on that then. I guess one commentdirected at Moon VaIIey's attorney regarding all these costs. f guess myfeeling resarding that and the bonding and everythins like that is that Idon't have a Iot of empathy for whatever costs in that it's a cost ofdoing business and quite frankly, there's no question in my mind thatyou're adversely, your operation adversely affects surrounding property
values anC lhat the City, if they aren't compensated, certainly the Cityshould take every means to proLect itself from Lhe continued operation.
Conrad: Tim, iust a point of clarification. I asked them to bring in
some costs the Iast time through. I was real interested in what we
i mpose .
Erhart: Yeah, I think it's important though what costs are when we imposeordinances and ordinance changes. tlhat it costs our citizens and so Ithink that's great. It's just that in reviewing that, then my position isI guess that's just part of the program here. Let me 90 to the ordinancehere. I've got a couple guestions here. One of the big ones in my mindPauI is, right now ule're stating that anything from 1OO to I,OOO cubicyards can be uorked on or can be dealt with by staff but you have allthese reguirements in paragraph 7-35(B). There,s a Iist of 13 and Lhen itjumps back to 12. On page 4 there. tlhat is that? Is that a mistype? IsthaL next one 14 or what?
Krauss: Oh yeah.
Erhart: NelI my concern is that a 1,OOO cubic yards is a very small
amount and that could be somebody's landscaping. If somebody built onacre lot, he could easily landscape 1,OOO yards. If he hras trying toa hill or something and I'm not saying that th6 permit process is bad.It's just that to come in here and require all this for a guy doing
Iandscaping.
a5
move
Batzl i : l.louldn't that come under gradins under a buildins permit which is
excluded?
that Tim has, there's a h,arranty deed here and it's dated 1986 and itclearly the fee was transferred from Zimmerman to Griepentrog on January8, 1946. It doesn't say anything about an underlying contract or that the
deed was given to fulfill the t6rms of a contract but they don't have Lo.
Ellson: But for their specific situation, they're going to be lookinginto that so.
Erhart: Okay. The question that I have, it's not clear to me that theguy under 1,OOO yards, is he required to do all this too?
Krauss: He's required to fill out a permit. In fact we had a proposedpermit application attached to this. You're rlght, it's not particularly
clear as to uhich information we nou.ld request of a smaller operation.Clearly u,e don't need some of these things for thc smaller operator. t^le
could clarify that point.
Planning Commission Heet i ngApril. 4, 1990 - Page 44
Erhart: t^leIl that's Hhat I'm asking .
Not necessarily.Kr auss :
BatzI i:No, it wouldn't?
Krauss: 1,OOO cubic yards is a 1OO large size dump trucks. There's a -
significant impact attached to that. Particularly, if that's taking place
out in your neighborhood Tim, you know xhere you have 20 acre homesites,
that's going to be a drop in the bucket for earth moving on those sitesbut when we've got somebody on a 15,OOO square foot lot teIIinS us that
they t{ant...
Erhart: I understand.
can move 1,OOO yards.I understand. If you're bulldozing, I mean you
Erhart: ttell I'm just trying to make it easier for everybody. I'm asking
that you look at this and make it, the way I read it, it appeared to me
that the guy who hranted to move 101 cubic yards had to 9o in and provide rtree survey indicating locations and types of aII 6 inch caliper trees.
Estimated time, well that's you knoN. Processing nature. Processing and
equipment and travel rouLe to and from the site. I guess in my mind
think we're in danger here of trying to mix thro things up on this
ordinance. tle're combining mining, Iandscaping or uhatever Hith grading
t^rith mining and I just wonder if ue really ought to be doing thaL. I'm
afraid uhat it's going !o do is going to put a real burden on somebody
that's doing grading in that we've just made it complicated by combiningit in the same ordinance.
Krauss: l.,e can clarify that section of the ordinance. I've drafted these
things before and I've worked with them a number of times and you make itfairly easy for most homeowners or small property owners to do what they -need to do. Typically you 90 through a check list like that and say thisis not necessary. That's not necessary. It's just not larranted for whatyou're proposing. l.re can clarify that a little furt.her . [.le've done that -elsewhere in this ordinance with this 2 track approach.
Erhart: That might be you but the next guy that comes along, I mean hemight say r.rel] this is, so no one ever questions. If my boss everquestions that I'm not doing my job, I'm going to have you do every one o{these. At a minimum yes. I like to see it spelled out that eitheranother Iist for people under 1,OOO yards or whatever
Batzli: You could include that an administrative review. Hell, beselective basical ly .
Erhart: It sounds Iike you have some ideas,
Krauss: That's why it's done adminstratively. l^le can make those
determinations as to what's important and what's not and jus! pass it onthrough. And it's further provided that if the applicant takes exceptionto the standards that u,e've applied, they can appeal to the Ciiy CounciI. -
P lanni ngApril 4,
Commission tleet i n9
1990 - Pase 45
Krauss: Yeah, we can do something.
Erhart: I knoh, you and Jo Ann are very reasonable but you never knou whoor what situation might be where that differs so. On page 5 there I thinkthat on parasraph C, line 6, I think there it says subdivision 7-348. Ithink that lras suppose to be 7-358. I think brh6r6 it says City staff mayalso require the submi.ssion of any of the items specified in Subdivision,I think that's suppose to be 358. Again, I think you're eluding t'o whatwe're talking about here but it's not clear.
Krauss: tlell actually that does
need items in that checklist.
give us the authority to say ue don't
Erhart: Yeah, I think it gives you the authority to request them but forsoneplace previously it should have said that Ne may not need them orsomething. Anyway, look at that again PauI. I have a question here6nd I think I've probably asked this Lhe Iast time but what happens ifMoon VaIIey, when we go through all this work. t,hat happens if they just
say we're not going to come in and submit a permit application?
Krauss: They would be in violation of the
urould probably direct the City Aetorney to
ordinance and the City Councilfile IesaI action.
Erhart: Okay. That's al.l my questions.
Conrad: Steve .
Emmings: My reaclion was that the neighbors didn't seem to Iike thisordinance, at least in their early comments and Moon Valley didn't seem tolike it so it must be pretty good. So I think I'm for it. The neighborsI think, I didn't like the comments of th6 neighbors that this seemed tobe drafted to suit Moon Vall6y. It sure as hell !asn't. It h,as draftedby the City Attorney. Hoon Valley has, I am certain in my own mind, nointerest in seeing any kind of ordinance passed and I think this is agiant step i.n the right direction of getLing a handle on Moon VaIIey andoperations Iike Moon Valley. I think it's a good, hre're finally taking astep to try and do something. I think that the changes that were made tothe ordinance between the last draft and this one improved itlremendously. I think it's a much b€tter ordinance nou then it wasbefore. I want to say that I don't think, I think as a separate issue we
should take up, there's no guestion in ny mind that those bluffs shouldnot be mined period and we should have, it's too late. It's too Iate in
Ehe case of l.loo n Valley and xe all recognize that and jusE to take backthat clapping, I think he's got every right to keep going h,here he is.
You didn't Iike to hear that. But I don't think we should ever haveanother mine in those bluffs and He have got to have, h,e've got to look atputtins something in place that uiII protect the r6st of the bluffs sothat no operation of this kind ever comes in here again and that should bea high priority item on our uorklist. Some kind of, Tim suggested beforethat Eden Prairie has an overlay district along the bluffs that protects
them or imposes extra things. tlhile we'v€ got an ordinance to control now
assuming this passes, we've got an ordinance to control mining operations,it should never come up that somebody would want to mine in those bluffs.
As far as the costs to Moon Valley go or anything else with l.1oon Valley,I'm assuming that is all totally irrelevant to what we're doing heretonight so I'm not interested in those numbers tonight. The neighbors
should also know that this, any application of l.loon Valley or anybodyeLse, because it's a conditional use permit, there would altrays be apublic hearing associated with that so lhen when t^te're specificallylooking at an application by Moon Valley or anybody else, there'd benotice given to aII surrounding property o{ners and then you'd have a
chance to come in and then all re'd be talking about is Moon Valley or
whoever applied so you really get your shot at that point in the process. -I'm going to vote for this ordinance. I think it's good and I'm votingfor it on the premise that this is a general ordinance meant directed togetting a handle on any mining operations in the City of Chanhassenpresent or future. That is not directed at Moon Valley and upon theintent that I've heard of the City, the City expressed that they intend touork with l*,loon VaIIey and come up urith some kind of reasonable solution tqthe problems that are going to exist for l.loon Valley once this thing is
passed .
Conrad: Annelte?
Ellson: I like the ordinance. I think the biggest problem with the wholething is it's like our contractor yards. tle hated them all along so He
decided to finally write something to prevent them and control them andthen made everybody come in after the fact when it really should have beerr
something that has been follor.led all along but hind sight is 2O/2O so I'mglad we're doing something. Better late than never buL I guess I'm just -
disappointed that it should have been done long ago but I like it. Ithink it addresses aII the concerns that a lot of the neighbors would Iiketo see enforced. I'm not sure it's going to be able to be enforced aswell as we'd like the ordinance to on p€ople that are already existing bulI feel much better about prevention in the future. I just don't know how
many there will be but I plan to vote for it.
Conrad: Thanks. Brian?
Batz]i: I guess I thought there t+ere going to be more changes to theordinance than there were and I t.lenL through it. I took a good period oftime to do so and I have a lot of comments. A Iot of them are cleaninglhings up and some of them are substantive. I'tI just give paul the ones -that I think are just cleaning things up and comment on the substantiveones. The first one is in the definition section 7-31 , paragraph (b).
The phrase, yet the area has remained idle since th6 topsoil removal .t,lha! does t.his add !o this particular definition? r don't understand !hi:-one.
Krauss: I'm sorry commissioner. l.rhere are you?
Batzli: In the
Paragraph (b).
idle?
definition s€ction , 7-31 .llhy is there a requirement
Under Excavating or mining.that the area has remained
Krauss: I don't know.
Planning Commission l.teetingApril 4, 1990 - Pase 46
PlanningApril 4.
Commission tleet i ng
1990 - Page 47
tliIdermuth: tlhere are you reading?
Batzli: (b). Any area where the topsoil or overburden has beenfor the purpose of removing earthly deposits or minerals, yet the
remained idle since the topsoil removal.
EIIson: So lhey're callins that pa
case it doesn't look like it's gone
rt of the definition also. Justthat far yet. It
of the definition.
]^lhat's the area?
r emoved
area has
t^lildermuth: Haven't mined anything. Just taken the overburden.
Iooks 1i ke it
tlildermuth: It's a Iegitimate part
Batzli: The area has remained idle.you're going to remove?
The minerals that
tJildermuth: That means that the overburden has been taken off but nomining has ensued.
IN
bega n .
Batzli: tlhy don't we just say, what does the yet theidle since the topsoil removal add to that that isn't
area has r ema i ned
already stated?
Batzli: But in the definition
overburden has been removed.
it would say any area xhere the topsoil or
Krauss: I don't know. I'll have to ask Roger for clarification.
Eatzli: I think it's confusing. Unless you're a mining or excavatingexpert and this has definite meaning that adds something, I read it and it
sounded Iike they had stripped off the overburden and then they go at"ray
and they let weeds grou and ue're going to call that mining. I don'tknou. Jim?
tJi ldermuth: Hining or excavating.
I just didn't think that added anything and I wasBatzli: t^lelI I agree.
confused.
l.Jildermuth: Probably excavati n9 .
Batzli: I think in the permit required section, 7-32 on the next page, ue
should include a statement that the permit shall be referred to as an
earth urork permit and then refer to it as such throughout this article.Clarify and develop a name for this type of an application similar to
calling a wetland alteration permit a wetland alEeraLion permit. Give ita name. Then at the end of this section it reads, current permit holders
Emmings: They've stripped off the topsoil but haven'L yeL gotten to the
busi. ness of . . .
Emmings: I supposed somebody could say, oh probably nothing but I suppose
maybe it's there so the person just doesn't sa)r He're not mining yet.
PlanningApril 4,
Commission Meet i ng
1990 - Page 48
shall come into compliance with the terms of this chapterthe time their annual permit is renewed. Currently underold chapter, I haven't studied that one that closely. Is
renewal process in there?
no ]ater thanthe terms of theit an annual -
L^li I der mut h : Every year .
Batzli 1 Eveyy yeay? So there's a renehral date. I guess then I would
merely change it to read that no later than the renewal date of suchpermit holder's permit unless we specifically eall it an annual permit.
The next section, 7-33, paragraph E, you've already caught the less Lhan
1Oo cubic yards. I would recommend that u,e say that that is cumlativelyin a 12 month period rather than in a calendar year. Not that you're
going to catch too many peopLe on that but it does at Least catch thosepeople who would claim a calendar year started and sLopped on the first othe year and dumped a 1OO yards in November and 1OO yards in February.
t,lhatever.
Emmings: They could do the same thing...
Batzli: tlelI yeah but the cumlatively ingoins to catch those kind of things. The
should that be conditional use permits?
a 12 month period I think you'r,
interim use permit under 7-35,
Krauss:
Batzli:
Krauss:
Batzli:
Krauss:
BatzIi:
Kr auss :
No.
Do we calI it interim use permits?
Yes. Risht.
t^,lher e is that?
It's the neu ordinance that you approved
Interim use. It's not a ternporary use.
tJeLL ef f ectively that's r,lhat it is.
tlas I right rdhen I said Lhat that would
about
It's
2 months ago.
interim use .
Emm i ngs :
then?
require a public hear ing
Krauss: Yes. It's the same. It's handled the same as a CUp.
Emmings: I Nanted to make sure I didn't mistake that.
Batzli: okay. I rould add, at Ieast suggest adding the last sentence of7-35, paragraph A. Again, the less than 1,OOO cubic yards of materialcumlatively in a 12 month period. And under paragraph B(4Xd) on page 4.The small (d) there. Something just struck me as I uas reading this thatsomething at Ieast that we reguired for the Eckankar property h,as adetermination of existing weIls, abandoned, active, aII that kind ofstuff. Would that be somethin€, that should be required or would otherwisrbe required under this ordinance since they're going to be disturbing the
topsoi I and doing aII that kind of thing?
idea as you mention it. It strikes me to include itKrauss: It 'sspecifically.a good
Batzli.: Okay. I had h,ritten at least, and I don't think I said thisartfulIy. A description and location of welIs, abandoned or active,any deposits of man made chemicals and,/or lrastes. I don't knoa, I,mthat can be said better. Hy next question concerned landscape plan.tlould this deal uith, when lould this be required as far as before,during, after the excavation? At r.lhat time period does th€ landscapeimplemented? During the restoration or during...
ver y
and
sur e
Plan
Krauss: Both. You would reguire a landscape element for screening atsuch point as the operation was begun. The restoration plan also wouldprobably have a landscaping component. Certainly it would.
Batzli: So there would be several plans? Okay. Maybe we should clarifythat. f uas assuming that was a landscape plan just during the operationand that the restoration plan would cover the subseguent and maybe we'realready covered under that typ€ of a situation.
Emmings: There is a landscaping plan required under the rehab sectionso I would assume that this one must be just for during the mining.
Batzli: I don't know. I don't know if you h,ant to clarify that or not.Under 7-35 I also would suggest adding a paragraph C which states that theapplicant and the owner of the land on r.rhich the earthwork uriIl. occurshall be considered joint applicants on aII earthwork applications. Ithink we discussed doing somethins Iike that and I think we required the
names and the question is ulhether we'16 9oin9 to try and tie them bothtogether. tle kind of discussed this and I really didn't see it handled asfully as I would have liked to have seen it from our last discussion. Isit possible to make them joint applicants on the applications?
Krauss: tle do that effectively nou forputting it in there doesn't hurt.every application anyway so
Emmings: I suggested that Iast time and Roger didn't put
Nor.r he did add, he did say that the landooner has to sign
That did set changed.
it in there.the appl ication.
BatzIi: I would specifically stete that they
Emmings: I assumed he threw that out becausebring up anything I brought up last time.
are joi nt
he didn't
appl icants .
Iike it. I didn't
Batzli: I guess
Nere out , some of
since uethis is weren't privy to uhy some things were in and
kind of rehashing things,
Emminss: I think it's a good thins to do.
Planning Commission l.leet i ngApri] 4, 1990 - Page 49
I would expect that there's a condition of approval that gives a
termination date which can only then be changed by the City
Batzli: Termination of the permit, the next section 7-37. I guess Iskipped one. I'm sorry, it's in 7-38. The annual permit renewalconditions section. I read in paragraph A and I don't know if anybody hacla problem with the way it read but my problem with it was an iniLialquestion was, we may Limit some of these things to a specific time
duration and it urasn't clear to me uhether the City Engineer could extendit. So I added a paragraph C and I don't really knoN if we need this but-the paragraph C would read, an earthuork permit r^rhich is limited in timeduration, may not be extended under this paragraph 7-38 beyond the timeduration Iimitation except in accordance with paragraph 7-36(c ) which is =beLieve the, let me see why I did that. That's less than 1,OOO cubicyards, or by the City Council upon consideration of a new application in
accordance with this article. Nor.r I don't know if we need that and I -don't know if that uras ever comtemplated in the event that you were going
to ]imit someone to excavate for a certain period of time.
Emmings: You have Lo do that if it's an interim use.
Batzli: Okay. And so then the question is uhether can the City Engineer
then couldn't extend that anyway under the ordinance or could he?
Krauss l
spec i f ic
Council.
Batzli: t^,eII then I don't think that the work renewal is correct in thissection. If I think about it then, if it's an interim use, it hasspecific expiration date. llell, it either has to expire upon a given
event or be limited in time duration under thaL other ordinance we passed.
Krauss: That's true but take Hoon VaIIey for example. That given event
may be reaching the point at which the material that they said they weregoing to excavate out has been done. That could be the year 2O5O.
Erhart: Then u,hy not define that event up front?
Krauss: t^lell you're doing that when you're approving their plan.
Batzli: But Lhen you're giving th6 City Engineer the power to reneH
something under an interim use yearly. It's really not being renewed is
my point of contention. He's examining it for compliance. I think ure
need to change the section then to reflect that that's what he's doing.He's not reneuring the permit so Ehey'16 not renewable.
OIsen: AnnuaI revieu.
Batzli: Yes. So then my first sentence xould read, uhich I haven,tstated but earthrork permits shall be reviewed at one year intervals fromthe date of original issuance subject to the City Engineer's revieb, andapproval. Okay. Under 7-41 . We're stating that the CiLy, Ietter ofcredit acceptable to the City in the amount of costs complying with the
agreement which is right in the middle of that block, Z-41. I think ueshoulci clarify who's setting the costs, etc. in this particular paragraph
Planning Commission Meet i ngApril 4, 1990 - Page 50
Planning
April 4,
Commission tleet i n9
1990 - Page 51
and I would recommend that the City Council do that initia]ly. Obviously
some of my comments, nob, that r"re're talking about raLher than a renewalbut a review, might not apply here but it would read, the agreement shallbe accompanied by a letter of credit acceptable to the City in the amountof the costs of complying with the agreement as determined by the cityCouncil. A portion ulhich would be added would read, as determined by theCity Council. Then the }etter of credit shall be revieued annualLy by theCity and then I think that should read, you should add engineer as part ofthe review set forth in paragraph 7-3a so it's clear that the engineer,that uouLd be part of his function in the review process. His or her. Sothat it's not going to go back to the citv council unl.ess that's uhere itshould be going. Should the City Engineer have the power to increase theletter of credit at an annual review. I suppose if the applicant feelsthat they're being slighted they can then protest that to the City Councilin any event. I would also add at the end of that paragraph that the Citycan only draw against lhe letter of credit subsequent to a public hearingconducted by the City Council in accordance uith paragraph 7-37. Underfencing , 7-43. I've added at the end that aII determinations under thisparagranh shalI originally be made by the City Council and subsequently bythe City Engineer as changing conditions warrant, but not less thanannually as part of the review set forth in paragraph 7-38. Again, just
talking about who's making these determinations and mandating thaE they bereviewed at least annually during the review, Last but not least, wellit's probably Ieast. 7-45, paragraph H, weII it,s 8. paragraph 8 on page9. t^lhen atmospheric or other conditions make it impossible to preventdust from mitgrating off site, operations shalI cease. This one troubled
me a little bit in that why are choosing to only limit that to dust. Notthat I don't want to but Hhy are we, you knou when atmospheric conditionsIike for instance the night that Prince's party got out of hand and people8 miles away e,ere complaining about the noise. Or however many miles itwas. t^lhy don't L,e say noise? Nhy don't ure say mud? I mean we're talkinghere about dust, smoke and fumes. l,te've talked about noise in a differentsection obviously but r^rhy not smoke and fumes here? Just out ofcuriousity. Or is this just one of those sections that t'hat's...
Krauss: t,,e]I I know from personal experience, first of alI we're takingcare of the mud by the paving or the trap that ue're going to use sopresumably that won't be a problem. Dust is the thing that causes 99z. ofthe complaints from these types of things because it blows so far. Fumes
and smoke, well you know if you're 1,OOO feet away from something and theuind's gusting to 45-50 mph, it's going to be tough. tlhat's a fume?tJhat's a smoke? You catch a whiff of deisel . I don't know. It's kind oftransient. Noise we regulat€ elseuhcre.
Batzli: Yep. I agree. But I guess hcre *e say operations shall cease
and in the noise section we'rc just elving a standard that they have to
comply with so it *as just curious that there las kind of a different
standard to uhich those things uere bcing held. Thos6 are my comments.
Otherwise I agree h,,ith Steve.
conrad: I have nothing to add, The changeit more flexible. I think the changes this
incorporated are to my liking.
in the ordinance I think makes
tim€ that have been
Conrad: Yeah, we have a decision to make Uhich is where I was going
I think Brian brought up some, a lot of technical thinss in the ordinance
and the question is should, what do ue uant to do? oo we urant to bring it
back? Do lJe want to foruard it on and let staff take a crack at the
uording changes? I think philosophically Brian you didn't have too many
problems with the direction that the ordinance is going. You had a lot or
technical problems uith it.
Batzli: !.rell that's right. I mean I guess I lould expect that to the
extent practical and to the extent that the other commissioners like those
changes, r'd like to see them in there. If they can't go in there, r'm
for the most part comfortable with them if there's something tha! we
haven't considered or we're citj.ng a wrong section or something like that.
m stilI fairly comforlable passing it along. Like I said, a Iot of
these things are just clarifications and I don't think they change the
tenor of the ordinance other than perhaps making the owner of the land an,.
the person uho's actually goins to work it joint aPPlicants and things
Iike that but I think those things can be handled fairly cleanly
conrad: Let me 90 through a couple of them that you mentioned Brian that
may be a little bit up in the air. Specifically uhen you t.lent from a
calendar year to a 12 month period. Does everybody favor that or does
anybody care? Brian is, the application permiLs, he really ranted to make
that .
Batzli: Cumlatively in a 12 month period, yeah.
tlildermuth: I don't have a problem uriih that.
Emmings: If you're trying to limit it to som€thing that can be doneduring one year, Lhat's th6 only way to do it. If you say the calendaryeay. If you say I can only do 1OO in a calendar year, I'II end my
calendar year today. I'lI dump 1OO today and 1OO tomorrow and I'm in twodifferent calendar years, if I choose to be.
Conrad: So you agree ulith Brian's?
Planning Commission Meet i ngApril 4, 1990 - Page 52
f,like Dwyer: Mr. Chairman may I ask a question? I'm unclear now as to
what the ordinance wiII look Iike when it's presented !o the City Council.
Mr. Batzli has made some excellent points and the public hearing has been-
closed. I.1r. Krauss...some good points too. I think it would be unfair t,put this body here as rell as the folks who came this evening.
Batzli: That's risht. Most of them are. I mean the major thrust of the
ordinance I don't have a problem wilh. I think iL's a good framework and
the question is let's make it the best ordinance we can and as clean as i-
can be r,lhen it comes out of the chute.
Erhart: Since you've offered most the changes, are you comfortable votincl
on this tonight or would you rather see it coate back? The reason I ask i
I made one change that I've had too. If we do vote on it tonight, I'm
expecting it's going to reflected in it.
PIanni ngApril 4,
Commission Meet i n9
1990 - Pase 53
Conrad: Okay. And Paul , you h,ere going to do something on wells andchemicals for lhe permit okay. There uas a Iandscape, this landscapeplan. I am at a loss on number 9. I really don't understand what that isso that's eilher out or we define what the landscape plan is. I stilldon't knor^r what the difference is between that and the rehabilitationplan. Maybe I do a little bit but.
Emmings: Could you just say a landscape plan during the period of activeearthu,ork? I think that's what Brian was gegting at. I think that urould.Or during the period of the permit. During the period of the permit.
Conrad: Landscape pIan.
Emrni ngs: Because there's things in here to scr6en.
is ls a screening plan.
he permit has a termination date, wethe permit.
Krauss: That's basically what it
Emmings: But if you say, since tcould just say for the period of
tlildermuth: tlhy don't we just
term of the permit.say that then? Screening plan during the
conrad: I think we're all in agreement with Brian, your point on 7-38.The annual permits and the renewal. Changing it. Ue,re to review by thecity Engineer. I think that made a lot of sense to me. I don't thinkanything else seemed controversial or seemed Iike u,e may debate it. AIot of it I didn't understand Brian. You'll have to explain it to me.
Mike Dwyer: There was a due process consideration brought up in 7-41 r{ithrespect to the letter of credit.
conrad: Yeah, right. That made a lot of sense and I didn't think anybody
was going to challenge that so I didn't bring it up. Okay. So I don'tthink I see any controversy on the issues that Brian brought up,Therefore, I'm guessing that we don't hrant to see this back here.
El lson: That's r ight .
Mike Dwyer: So what goes to ths Council?
EI lson: The modificd.
Emminss: tle'IL havc to wait and hear the motion.
conrad: Is ther€ a motion?
Emmings: I'lI move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 and Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Codepertaining to excavating, mining, filling and grading as modified by the
comments that triII be reflected in the verbatim l,linutes.
Emmi ngs: Oh yeah.
Planning
April 4,
Commission Meet i ng
1990 - Pase 54
BaLzIi : Second.
Conrad: Discussion. There uere several changes made. Brian, I know you-
have more on your notes.
Batzli: 1.,eI1 they're technical things Iike do you number them or do you -letter them? Oo you put earLhwork permit rather than just permit? MosE
of them are fairly technical in nature and to the extent that people don't
feel comfortable with thac, then r.re should probably get it back. I don't_
know that PauI is 9oin9 to even do anything with aLl of them.
conrad: You don't know that the attorney would do anything.
Batzli: Yeah.
Emmings: I think if the staff thinks that they can improve the ordinance-
beLween here and City Council by changing Ietters to numbers and changing
a word here and there, I think that's fine. Perhaps they should in the
draft that the City Council sees, they should somehow indicate those
changes.
Conrad: Any other discuss ion?
Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Conmission rccommend
approval of Zoning ordinance An€ndment of Article IV, Conditional Use
Permits and Acticle XxvII, Ercevating, Ilining, Filling and Grading
Activities as modified by thc corlrnents rcflected in the verbatim ilinutes -AlL voted in favor and thc motion carriod-
conrad: Goes to City Council PauI when?
Kraussr I thought it was, I Euess I'm not sure. Did you have the date?
Conrad: I never had a date on this one. The other dates Ehat things wer,-going ras the 23rd. 23rd. I think it's appropriate, urel] I'm sure you'll
ask for lhe revisions and take a look at them. Thanks for coming in.
APPROVAL OF }IINUTES: Emmings moved, EIIson second6d to approve theI'linutes of the Planning Commission meeting dat6d March 21 , 1990 aspresented. AII voted in favor except Conrad and Batzli uho absLained and-the motion carried.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Krauss: The private driveuay ordinance was approved finally. It hrastinkered with a little bit since you saw it last but basically it waspassed largely intact. The tinkering had to do with being able to mandatr-
maintenance of snowplowing and if that's not done, being able to assessthe cost back to the property owner. The Ersbo Addition came back for thethird or fourth time. Basically whaL happ€ned is out in the field thesurveyor realized that they had made an error and unlike PioneerEngineering, they fixed it. The new plat looks pretty similar to theoriginaL one except there's no, if you recall there used to be neck al.ong-
the wetland going up to Lake Lucy Road. That tas eliminated- Thedriveway is now in a protecLive easemen! and it actually Norks a littlebetter. The ]ots are actually nicer Iots than they would have beenotherwise so I think it worked out fine. Final plat for Trapper's pass atNear Mountain was approved. They eliminated 3 of the Iots and they lookout some kinks in the road and improved r"retland setbacks so we really hadno problem with that. The Comp Plan amendment for Lake Lucy Road. The
emergency amendment uras approved with your conditions. tle talked a Iittlebit before the meeting about the joint HRA.zCity Council meeting. I thinkyou're auare that one of th6 concerns the City Council has had is thatprojects are planned and presumably enacted urithout adequate control ofthe City Council or a! Ieast there's a perception of that and thesediscussions with them have grown out of that. It's still not clearwhether or not Lhe Council wiII become the HRA or what but that's clearlya possibility.
Emmi ngs: tlloul.d thequestion I have.
HRA then become the Council? That's the only
Krauss: I'Il ask- Lle finally got a request to use RALF funds, therisht-of-way acguisition loan funds by 55 acres of fH ZL2 right-of-waynear Pioneer and Bluff Creek. The RALF fund is a revolving loan fundulherein some state money is channelled through the MeLro Council to thecommunities to actually buy right-of-way in advance of rhen HnDot wouldacquire it. So we'll be working on that in Lhe next few months. Lastthing had to do with the blending ordinance. Not a council action but,Commissioner Emmings drafled up a proposal that urould get at that blendingissue. I forwarded it to Roger for his review. His conclusion is thatit's probably legal to do it that r,ray. tlhether or not it works uell orwhat the problems that are associated with it are is somethins that weneed to discuss but I wanted to bring it back to put it on a Council
agenda for discussion purposes. Hell I'lI get into some details when wedo that but I do urant to bring it back so He can give it an airing and getthe ball rolling on that.
Conrad: You're
discussion?
not drafting an ordinance? You're bringing it back for
Krauss: Yes. The last thing too that's not on there is we keep ontalkins about eliminating the 8F district. I've begun to have some of theproperty oh,ners down there catch brind of the fact that not only is the
Planning Commission but the City Council talking about doing that.They're asking us what ar6 we going to do. l.lhat's it going to mean to us
and I basically told everybody that w6 riII be scheduling tshat in an
upcoming meeting also for discussion purposes to see what the alternativesare. tlith that I would notify everybody uho uould be affected by that.
Erhartr The property owners being the hotel and...
Krauss: Actually the folks who were in my office y€sterday were the ones
who had the composting, garbage transfer etation approved and then
disapproved a couple years ago.
Planning Comm j.ss ion H6eLingApril. 4, 1990 - Page 55
Planning Commission HeetingApril 4, l99O - Page 55
Batzli: Admiral tlaste?
Emmings: They still have interest in the property huh?
Krauss: They oun the property and they're now trying to sell it. Their
concern is that they bought it as commereial property and we're going to -make it uncommercial property. ReaIIy they have an interest in that. Itdoesn't mean you can't do it but.
EIIson: l.,e can really rip them up two times can't we? tle took aula/ y6uy-permit nou and you can't sell it as commercial either.
Krauss: But we'll try and schedule that. tle have some pretty busy
agendas coming up. Redmond Products uill be on your next one which is a
biggee.
Erhart: [.lasn't the building at the ]ast meeting Redmond?
Krauss: No, thac was the screw company,
Erhart: Oh, I thought we looked at Redmond.
Krauss: No, Redmond has about a 35O,OOO-4OO,OoO square foot facility.
Emmings: tJhere?
Krauss: Off of an extension of Lake Drive in between Audubon and,
Audubon's on the west. I'm losing m), bearings here. ft goes all the uray
through to CR 17?
Erhart: South of McGlynn?
Krauss: No. Actually no. It's southeast of Mcclynn.
ErhartI Oh, on the east side. t,lell there's houses there.
Conrad: On the south side of the tracks?
Erhart: North of the houses?
Krauss: This is tough after a 5 hour meeting. I can point to it on the
maP.
Emmings: Thet's Dave Stockdale's property.
Krauss: It's behind Oave Stockdale'E property.
Emmings: l.lhich direction? Don't aay behind.
Krauss: It's east and south. Stockdale is still
Conrad: Okay- Then re're going to look at goals
and policies. Anything else?
an exception.
again soon right? Goals
Planning Commission Meet i ngApril 4, 1990 - Page 57
Prepared by Nann Opheim
Erhart moved, t^,lildermuth seconded to adjourn the meeting. AII voted infavor and the motion carried. The meeting uas adjourned at 11:oo p_m..
Submitted by PauI Krauss
Planning Director
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739
CITY OF
cHff{H[SSEI{
.2lc
UEUONANDT'U
fo: Planning Conmission
FRoIil: paul Krauss, planning Director
DATE: April 10, 1990
su&r: Director Update
At the April 9, 1990,
were taken:
1
2
City Council meeting, the following actions
The Wetland Alteration pernlt for filling and alteration ofClass A and B wetlands on Lake Drive East for the city ofChanhassen -road inrprovement project lras approved. The -city
Council raised sorne of the sane concerns Lhat the elannin|Commission had relative to the transfer of wetland a.". as itrade-off with the Eckankar wetland. staff reiterated thatthese issues would be approached Duch nore conprehensively inthe future at such tiroe there is a stonnwater nanagenent andwetland protection plar developed for the City (see Item #3).
Site PIan and subdivision for Roberts Autonatic products.This .iten waq pul1ed fron the City Council agenda byCouncilwonan Dinl.er. She raised a number of issues-with thaproposal some of which were related to procedural nattersbetween the HRA and City Council but another had to do withthe site plan itse1f. Councilwonan DiDIer noted that theproject nas receiving financial support froto the HRA sinilarto that uhich is provided to nost if not aI1 of thedevelopnents in the industrial park. She further noted thatwhile staff indicated that the building architecture netninimal zoning ordinance guidell.nes, that she agreed with thestaff reportrs contention that it was not particularly welldesigned building from an architectural stindpoint. it washer belief that the City ehould use the XnA, funding asleverage to obtain a better than standard architecturaldesign. The City Council ultinately acted favorably on boththe subdivision and site plan but anended the Jite planapproval to state that building elevations needed to berevised and inproved to the satisfaction of staff.
4
Planning ConmissionApril 10, 1990
Page 2
3. The city Council authorized consultant selection for the
stornwater drainage utility progran. The city Engineer and
Planning Director advocated to retaining the firro of short,Elliott and Hendrickson to undertake a study and proposal
exploring the potential of setting up a ston0t ater utility
fund or other funding uechanisms. This is of interest to the
Planning Cornmission since this program uould be used to fundand support the Conprehensive Stonolrater ltlanagenent and
wetland Protection efforts we have been speaking about for
sone tine.
The prelininary plat for zinmernan Farn located near Lake
tlinnewashta was finalLy approved. The city Counci.I, at a
previous rneeting, had requested that staff reassess accessalternatives into the area. Engineering and Planning
Departments col,laborated to develop three new alternativesthat provided overalL access schenes that in the in the longtem would resolve access issues not only for the Zimmerman
Farr area but would also ultinately provide inproved accessfor Crimson Bay and the Arboretuu property if it is ever to be
developed. Staff supported Alternative B which showed to road
Ioops, one from Dogwood Road stretching back to Hwy. 41, the
other from crimson Bay across the Arboretun property. Both
road loops rnerged into a single new access point onto Hrry. 41
which is located tr nile array from Hrry. 5 consistent with
l,!nDoT's reconmendations. The issue of continuing to support
a connection betueen Crinson Bay and Doryood lras discussed andstaff indicated that we typically support as many access
alternatives as possible and do not wish to depart fron thispolicy although in this case rre beLieve that alternative B
even without this connection would ultirnately provide asatisfactory resolution for access needs. The City Council
approved Alternative B lrithout the Dogwood connection. A copyof the most recent staff report is attached to this neno.
5.wetland Alteration Pernit for filling a wetland located at 80
and 100 Sandy Hook Road for Frost and Pfankuch. After nuchdiscussion, the city Council supported the staff and Planning
Connission reconmendations that the fill should be removed upto 45 feet back fron the ordinary high uater nark. As withthe Planning Conmission recoEmendations, if the applicant isable to present verifiable inforroation that the wetland didnot encroach as far as had been indicated by staff, the
removal efforts need only take place up to whatever point is
agreed upon.
The prelininary plat to replat Lake Riley woods 2nd Additionto correct a platting error for George Nelson and Associates
was pulled by the applicant prior to the neeting. It wasindicated to staff that attorneys representing the buyer of
6
Planning ConrnissLonApril 10, 1990
Page 3
7.
.,
the new home and of the surveying conpany are in contact uithone another attenpting to work out the problen.
Zoning Ordinance Anendnent to anend subdivision and zoningordinance to require ttre posting of public infornation signlfor new developments within the City. The new draft ordinancerras given first reading with little dj.scussion.
Zoning ordinance aDendment to amend Article II, Sections 20-55to 2O-7O pertaining to procedures for the issuance ofvariances, first, reading. Staff discussed this natter withthe Board of Adjustnents prior to the City Council roeeting.The Board raised a number of concerns regarding thephilosophical approach to the ordinance. council.man J6hnsonwho also serves on the Board indicated that he would withdrawthe matter fron discussion at the neeting so that the CityCouncil and the Board of AdjustDents and Appeals could sitdorm together and discuss it in a vorksession. To date, theworksession has not been scheduled.
9 Several. weeks ago, I received a copy of a petition that hadbeen .circulating fron the Tinberwood Neighborhood. Thepetition rras obtained fron the local newspapJr who received acopy. The tto page docunent raises a nunber of issues whichare presented in a rray that is often somerrrhat misleading. Italso appears that the petition was drafted in advance of thePlanning Corornission neeting uhere John Shardlow presented theHighvay 5 Coalition plan when many of these hatters wereclarified. Staff drafted up a respbnse to the petition forinfornational purposes for the City Council . A copy of thepetition and staff response is attalhed for your re-view.
staff net with Bob ostlund of the Chaska school District,along uith the City llanager, l[ayor and Councilnan Workman todiscuss
^
the potential of locating new schools in the citythese via the Conprehensive plan process. It was indicateithat i-n the long tem, there is a potential of locating eithera grade_ school or a niddle school or both in the connunity.staff rrill continue to work uith Ir{r. ostlund and an architeitfor the district to review potential sites. Our goal in theprocess is to enable us to elther locate particulir sites onthe Couprehensive Plan or falling that to 1ocate search areaswhich would encircle probable locations. The process is alsolike1y to involve the need to explore funding nEchanisns sincethe school district has not yet allocated funding forexpansion and indicated that the potential of city acquilitionof sites be turned over to the school district would greatlyfacilitate the location of such a facllity within th;conmunity.
CITY OF 8A
D:
Ea SJ:ni:i.r lc .,.-'::':rsiorl
EHIIIH[SSE}I
690 COT LTEH DR|VE. p.O. BOX 147 0 Ql1111g15EN, MTNNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-19m. F X (612) 937-5739
lC&r, !r CtU Adlrhliatr,r
zn.,,.a)A -lii.':- '.- ----
1r,, ."; .l- S -- _fuQ
XEI,IORA}IDI'III
TO: Don lshuorth, Clty lranag.r
mot{: PauI XrauEs, Plannlng Dlrcctor
DArE: April 5, 1990
SUBT: city council Update - Brandt Subdivlsion
such
cont
neue
subd
Prov
Bay
deverhere alternatlvea for accGa! lnto thir rrea !t aoDePolnt ln thc future ycre At thrt pol.nt ln tl.rc tbe
At the uarch 12, 1990, City Councll leeting, action on the BrandtSubdivislon uas continued to allou rtrff an opportunlty to reviewaval1able and DeI, data and propose orreral l, accLls alternatives forthis property and for the 3ur;oundlng area. tn the attached DeDofroD the Clty Engineering Departrent, 3 overall acceaa alternatlvesare proposed. ftrese 3 alternatlvea are Ln adatition to the origlnal
one- that was exlrlored by the Clty Councll yould llnk Doguood - Roadsith Criuson Bay.
Since there has been so uuch uaterlal Eenerated on thi8 ietue, itnay be .worthwhile to take . DoDent to re-cxaDine uhy this ls anlssue Ln the firct place. Doguood Road/Tanadoona tEl.ve la anextraordinarily long deadend atreet thrt do€B not hava r leqltlDateturnaround flcillty. tt ic aleo trt bullt to curre-nt cltyatandards. At the prescnt tiue, tbe l,otenrlty of developncnt iirthe area ie rather lou and ulII probably rcnaLn ao untll at aoDepolnt ln the futur. vhen aanl.tary eeue-r lr provided. Hoeever,there are a fair .rount of hooes ln the area and ylth rubdivleions
,Dogvood/Crilson Bay Road Lon uat dlallgr.d due toaperceptl.on tlrat gradee tara rxccrlvely .tc.p tn thG .r.a.Alternatlves shoy lng ttre ultl.Dte looping o f Doguood brcl out toHny.41 appeared to be the roet vlablc.Consequentl Yt uhen ataffuorked slth the Brandt eubdlvlrlon lt uaa our orlglnalreconmendation that proviel.ons be radG f or a future I oop of DoguoodRoad back out to the E.y. {1 area. Staff dld not origlnally
I
t
T;F.:lr;;i'-
-:t4
-10
Brandt SubdlvlelonAprll 5, 1990
Page 2
recoEDend approval of the Crl,anon Bay Roral connectlon. Both thePlanning counl.esion antt clty councll iaked ilrat thla connectlon beerqrlored. tlith the_neu.topographlc lnfor:natlon obtained by theCity and the fact that ortenctve trce r€Dorral ya8 unAartafen U:y tfrepgugr_conpany to inrtall a pder llne. lt l,t currently our opinlonthat the crbaon Bay connection tc techntcE[y fcaalile.
There are a large varloty of lcc.ar alt.nratl.vee conccrnLng thispro-posal. tanEl,ng froD tlre do nothlng r.queat by the orrier tonodificationE that uould arltr ttrc coiatnictron ai rone pornl inthe future of an iuprorred sul-dc-gac at Dogrood on up to- variouiconnect-ions of Dogvood to Crluon B.y or loole bac* ou€ to nry. {r.Each of theae alternatlyes har a varylnE diEree of lryract on notonly the tuo lots tha!-?r? being proposod foi creatlon-today, butaIEo on the future gubdivlalon oC-tfrL rr.a and the- cltyrs airifiiito neet access needs as they occur. rt lr our opinlon tirat ihe neuaccess arternatives that. are beinE preaented tlnlght repreeent anore innovative approach to theae queltione that rlli rceo'rve tocalaccess. concetns, provide for tuture acca33 Deed3, and rhich areconelstent ulth unDor. a requl.rcucnts to cope uith rrgnlfrcantproJected trafflc incrcaaes on Hlghraye S anal {1.
Each of the three alternativea Urat are belng prolrosed in theEngineering !e-Do accorplisles thc Eoalr of tli 'cft-V.--nfinnine
Btaff favors Arternatl.v. B for the riason that tt rlniulzei fiil;iupon the ner houe Eites that uilI be craat.d aa r r.ault of-theBrandt eubdivision. Aleo the arlgnuent ot the futuri rooJuicr t"Iyy: al froD DoEUood Road ls conclitent ulth Btaffrr recoufi"ndationthat-3o -foot of rLght-o_f-ray bc_ralntained along tha norttr itae otrot 1. Alternatlve B arEo provldca rn outlct f6r crluon s.v no.arhlch we berieve uill be needed aa tralflc conllnu-e-r to'loira o"Hrry.- ?. Eowever, as vlth other altcnratlvoa, constnrctlon of tfrtsroad is con-ti-ngent upon a declelon by tbe Arboretu! ar to hou theirproperty siU be develop€d at 3orc point tn the tutur.. tf thisdeclsion ia not lade, thcn the Crtls6n Bay Rordr/Elry. ii connictfondoea.not appear to be vlable. tltornativo B'aU-ou3 tha OogrroodRoadr/Hv,J, t!1 connectlon to bc rade rlthout trpacttng lrboiotunpJgperty. fe yould alio recoocnd that provlilonr 5e tadc, asllluetrated on ttre curr.nt plat, to pr&lal toi- U; uftfl.i.conetnrction of r lcglthate sul-de-rac on uoguood tlat rc-- -rty
standardE. rt ls furth.r our r.coDGndatlon i.hat tbc cl,ty counctidlrcct statt to undtrtake offtclal Dpptng o! tli-'tiioctcaaltcrnative .o tbat a. futurc boe conitnr-ctl.on .na ptatttntoccurs, the al lg,nnent for tJesa routec can b. Drot.ct d. ic uouldantlclpate rapplng both conncctlonr otrtl inod rurdcr lltornatlve B.
Ttre -flnal qu€.tlon that rcDalnr la rhctbor or not lltrrnatlvo Drhould be nodlfled to lncorporato the origlnal oogrroodzcrrrson Eayconnection. Staff doe8 no€ havc a rtronf rccou6ndetion -on - urre.lle believe that rltcrnatlvc B rltbout-ttrlr ltnk rllr -lrovtae
Brandt SubdivisionApril 5, 1990
Page ,l
any dredging or reDoval of vegetation in the area of theshorellne.
11. Constnrctlon planB and rpeclficatlone for the tenporaryturnaround shall be aubDitted to the Clty Engineer foiapproval. lhe turnaround ahall be bullt Ln accordance to tehCity's rural road design (Z ton).
ATTACHI'IENTS
90.
90.
1
2
l,leDo froD JiD Chaffee dated April 3, 19l{eno fron Dave BeDpel dat.d April a, 19
EH[NH[SSE!I
690 COI'LTEF DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, T'INNESOTA 55317
(612) 937.1900. FAX (612) 937-5739
xEltoRAnDInl
TO: Gary farreD, City Bngineer
EROII: Dave Eeopel , Sr. EDglDceriag tcchoician ,W
DAIE: April t, 1990
SUBJ: ZinmerDan FarD - AlterDativc gtreet tltganentaFile No. 90-2 tendt Uae Revier
At the ltarch 12, 1990 City Council DGctiDg, the Couocil tabledthe prerininarv phr of ziDnerDa. FarD aaa'ariictia riiri-tifurtber study the accesa aituatioa.
rhi'.report contains aligrurenta for three altcr.rtiyce for futureIinking.of exiaring Doguood Road ,ith Trunk Eighiai fi iraZi,lrunk Bighuay 5. rhe data for deveroplng ttr-r! irig-.oEa'i.atakea fron the cityiE hatf -rcctiooa, icriai-;d a6;gr6fi"-r.p".staff atso cal1a attention to tbe aitrcbcd rcirtliiiEilliir."preparedl by vrn Doren Barrrdl stallinEr rhich la iuiitrir-actarrrevieus tbe lccels iraue. - lor purpo-cr of tbfa ;;p";a; th;alignnents chogen forlor the gaih -thet caueee tbc lGa.t Lupact onenvilonnental lraues, i.c. trie and vcartrtion-iou-eaa iEirei"eErading.
Alternative aligrucDta rcrc dcrigacd to utillrc crlrtlaq lcc.!8pollls alons trulk Eishray tl.eni rruar arsliit a-pr;;i;j;yllnDor. Further llreuirloot rtth IaDOt treiff-'rngi;;;-;.;Green revcalcd raDoa h* coacrolld rcao, uoog iruar nrglieya saad tl. Service to tbe.c ercer uould bo proyfa&-fy frooEis.roada or inrerior .t8eet. rucb , proporei oo tai iitci".tli...
lreffic couDtr trtca-ra lgtE-rcccel.a tbl-.Lr.g. ltrlly tnfflc.long_?ruak EtEhr.y ?_8.! of *tut Etgbre!, tl iir-acrififf ,OOOyehielcs_tGf_ d[ay, rhltc eloag lrrnt Btibrri ff aoitl-;--'tnratErEhray 5, tbc rvcraEc drlly trttflc nr lrouDd ir500 vchlclerper.aiay._ ProJcctcd tnfftc-couot. toa tbe ycu ZOfO Uy-tlo-Eutern Cervcr couaty trrn.portrttoa Cltrifoa ratfcliric-traf f ic volrrcr rroai truar- irg[rai-s-G tac ing. -"i-50, ooovchiclcs per +y rbtle rrual slgbrry tl ir cttbiiea o-[i-iOrOOOvehiclce per dly.
t
CITY OF
Gary WarrenApril 4, 1990
Page 2
Alternative A proposes a new street from existing Dogrood Roadeasterly along the north line of Lot l, Block I out to lrunk
Eighway 41 parallel to lanadoona Drive. Al.ternative B alsoproposes a neir Etreet einilar to ALternative A although it
connects to Irunk Bighuay aI further to the aouth. Alternative Clooks at establishing the atreet along the conmon property lineof Lots I and 2, Block I and folloes the ainilar alignment a6Alternative B.
All three alternatives provide Doguood Road uith a looped sy6tem
as well as linking Crirson Bay Road and the Arboretun property
back out to tlunk Eighway {I.
Alternative A
The alignment would follow the right-of-uay proposed over thenortherly 30 feet of Lot I, Block 1 (Exhibit 1) and continueeasterly to Trunk Highcay ll. Ihe terrain is generalJ.y rollingfarmland with street grades up to ?t near Dogrood Road to 2S to5l for the remainder of the alignnent. Ihis alignment souldrequire tree removal along the eesterly portion of Lot l, Block1. The remaining alignment is farm fields uith the exception ofa wooded area near Trunk Eighway {1.
Alternative B
?he al j.gnnent is the same as Alternative A for the portion rithinthe Zinunerman Farn plat (Exhibit 2). Outeide the plat, thealignoent will turn southeasterly to the north property line ofthe Arboretun properCy, then follous the Arboretun property lineeast to Trunk Eighway 4l .
The terrain, street grades and tree cover are similar toAlternative A. This alignment rould require renova I of abarn-like structure near frunk Eighuay lI.
Alternative C
lhe alignnent for this altcrDatlve is ceDtered on the comonproperty line of propoaed Lots I and 2, Block 1, linqcrnan Farm,then continue aoutheasterly folloring the tlnilar aligDleDt raAlternative B (Exhibit 3, out to Srunk aighray 11.
The terrain le alao rolllng rith rteep 3tr.ct gradea of IOtthrough the eesterly portion of lota I and 2, Block 2, E i.mcrnanFarm. lhe depth of cut rould b. up to 9 f.ct rith a ?l streetgrade versuE a s-foot cut rith the proposcd 10t grade (Erhibit4). Itlis alignnent vould reduce tbe tree rernoval through theplat of ZinnelEan Parm.
Gary lfarrenApril {, 1990
Page 3
Conclusion
Attachments:
the three alignnente provide . concept in looping erlsting
Qogwood Road back out to Trunk Eighray ll and e8tablishe6 a guialefor future developnent on the ailjicenE parccle. AII al.ternaEivesrould require sone tree reDoval anil adlditioaal right-of-ray. ALltblee alternatives rre technically fcasible fron in cngine-ringttandpoint.
kt:n
I
2
3
{
5
6
7
8
ExhibitExhibitBxhibit
ExhibitStaff r
Van Dor
dated
l.
2.
3.l.eport drted February 22, L990.en Basard StllliDEB feasibility atudyiluly 1?, 1987 (included in Attachnent 15).Van Doren Erzard Stallinga feasibility studydlted June, 1988 (inclided in Attlcfinent iSt.l,tarch 12, 1990 City Council rinutes.
OFFICIAL SreT{EERIIG @Pf
tolvrd-
b
ArrcdryCryErfi.ol
6.Aar.r/t!^\.1/</qo
frovrC!yOtAd
Farlrm 15.
\
ist
t.r\-/I
$r0t\
I
3
?/7.1.
t
5
rrlTz
J
m
tsIs
N
Eafr
I
$
i\
fr
SI
t\
EXHTBTT 1-+l
I
---.
I
tt
t
.-^-./,
\
I
--
$r
{\
r)/.
03
N
l
\I\
,r
iti
EXHIB|T 2
H
2
-l
{m
Ilr
fi$
,
d
ts
S
E
\
-o
a
a
l
I
t
I
i
a r
Itt
\t-aa-lI
\
I
\
$r
t\
r. )/.
lr ll
0
,r
g
-l
H
tS
s
IN
$
EXHTBIT 3
E2
{o E
{
o
f,ao
F
))
I\,t
\I
o
--
I
I
I
I
sI
t\
$
\tN
i!
il
$*t\ ::s ::
i'
t
$I
\
\
.\:
\
I
Ex:.'
,i,\\.
u.
I
t
.t
i
:::.:'\
t
EXI.IBIT 4
CITY OF 4- ?.?.
A 4 fr"-c*a
EH[!IH[SSE!I
690 COULTER ORIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739
I'IEI{ORIiIDI l{
Io: Don Ashuorth, city tlanager
mOU: Paul XrauEB, Plannlng Dlrector
DAIE: l{arch 23, 1990
SU&r: Response to Reaction fron the linberrood Neighborhood
on ConprehenBive Plan fssues
llost of the City Council ls by nov auare of the reaction generatedfroD the Tinbenrood neighborhood relative to the draft
CoDprehensive PIan. TtreBe concerns uere brought out during aspecial Planning Connlssion uork aession on the Conprehensive Planduring uhich John Shardlow, a planncr uith the flm of Dahlgren,
Shardlou and lrban, sho ie alro a ptroperty ouner along Highsay 5presented an alternate land use plan for the Plannlng conniselontsreviev. There uaE a good deal of confualon in the neighborhood asto who ur. shardlou uas, rhat his interests uere, anA uhat aort ofrelationship he had uith the City. Staff spoke to a large nunberof residents in the area, both lndividu.Uy, on the telephone andat the neeting, and ue belleve there ls nou a general understandingthat l{r. shardlou is a prLvate indlvidual uorklng ln uhat heperceives to be h1s oun beat lntereete and has no connectl,ons,either real or perceived, that influenced the Plannlng Connieel.onor Planning staff in the preparatlon of tle draft Lnd Uae plan.
In fact, re Dadc it cfear to the re3id.nt6 that the plannlng
Counlssion has rlrcnt lary7 hdlrs rolrlnE ttre draft Iand Uae PIanout of concern tiat the Thbctuood mlgrbDorbood rbould be protcctedfron uses that uere not congldered to bc conelttent rlth thc loudenslty residentlal dev.loptent tbat occur3 ln-- that !rea.l\rrthetrore, lt uas tad. cl.ar .t tbG rpeclrl icetlng that Xr.Shardlorrs plan ls aigmlfid$tly ."Afvorgc,nt fron tb5 plannlngco&iasionis plan ln aeveral lrl3at. but -rost lurortantly aroundTinbenood uherc the Planning Gotirelon draft alan ill-uatratedaurrounding that rrea ultb lor dpoaity reetdontlal urec.
Staff eill contlnue to pronlde lnforratlon urlng rtratev.r !..nspossible to are. rcsidentt- rcgatdlnE the plan and gtvlng thclrlnput.leading-up to.officlal publlc reetlngl and hear-lnge -that ueanticlpate holdinE Ln late aprlng. Eouovei, ye bscale irarc thata petition ls belng circulatod throuEhout the Tlnbenrood ar.a and
t
i:.
a
vvyra tv
l{r. Don Ashrorth
Itarch 23, 1990
Page 2
Eurroundlng nelghborhood. AlthouEh ue have not yet received thepetition officially, f bel lcve that re eventually rill. We alsobelieve that the petitlon contains a nruber of r*statcuentB thatare not repreBentativc of .vents tbat have actually taken Dlace orplans aB they currently crlat. A coptT of thle pctltlon text uas
Eiven tg !e by Dave podorsen of tha ChaDhaaaen Vlllager. I uantedto use thla ot portunlty to dltcuee ltcre that are tcntloned ln thispetition elnce they 1111 probably r.late to queetlonc ye rllleventually hcar froa lndlvldualt ala groups in thlt area. A copyof lbla p€tltion ls attachod to thtr roo. Ihe tlr.t point deaiiyith a atateDent that the Clty ba8 told lnctlvlduale thit no seserand uater or land subdlvislon uould occur for tuenty year3. I havespoken to !y- Btaff about thla to get an ldea vhat lnforaatlon Dighthave been- given out in past yeara. At thle point in tine, I ancertain that no one rould ray uith any ccrtalnty that eonlthinguould or uould not h.ppen for an eract period oi years aince resinply do not knou. It lB Dy underrtandlng that l-nfornation uasgiven out over the years indlclting that the area around Tiubemooduas outside the preBent Ut SA Line and yaa in fact outslde theanticipated Year 2ooo t[rSA Line ro that nothing ln ter s ofdevel.opDent appeared to be luinent. I a! afraid shlt re have herethgugh ls a fairly co@on suburban dileDlLa vhereby lrop1e that loveout to an uea uould llke to aeeune that everlzthlng else aroundtheir new houe will reuain ln an undeveloped- statl. fhe Citycouncil. could deterxlne that no Eore developuent should be arloweito occur, and this could be reflected ln ttre Conprehcnelve plan,but this Ls not the direction that ue have recelvld thug far.
A lot of the confuslon that neighborhood residents aeen to beoperating under appears to relate to John shardlou. gtrc petitionthat uas circulating app.ara to lurp hh in vith rytilf , tuoDeDbers of the city .Councll,^ four- relbers of th; nla'nntngconnisslon and tbe Aar.i^Btant clty llanagcr, rJ.th the iupricatloithat ue all concur ln the vlelon that sL bave for the c6munity.Tlris is eiuply not the cag€ and tbl,r raa rade clear to tndlvtduarsuho contacted staff rnd to lndlvldualr rto attendcd the leetlng.It ras uade clcar that Hr. Shar{Iou le opcratlnE on hla ora and iain fact rather upset rlth_!h. ray tho Flanninf Coufrfon,- plan
Il".P":rt dcveloped, a. y.Il a. ulth plannlng itaff,r att.Lpta tolintt hla. tnput ao .that h.- -rnd btr grroup -are placcd on- equalfootlng ulth everT othcr rcrldent ln tlo city of ihanhaeren, i.c.tbat th.y u111 be glvcn tbc rare opportrurlty for tnput ar inyoneclse.
ltrere ar. a terl.es of .tatorGnt3 l-9 tlrrt furttrar confu8e theissue. llo one uas ev.r tolat thrt thc rarl.nu rectdentlai tot rlzelE 15,OOO lqyare f-eet. - In fact, thc lnvrrre lr tnre. thc lint'luaresidentl,al lot Bize l. 1-5,OOO equaro foct. Ae tir aa rhavinglittle eyupathy for hrTte lot orneia and a dwnriEht poor attttud6touards uri, I al not rurc yhat tlrls loana. Ae I iatd carlLcr, the
l&. Don Ashuorth
llarch 23, 1990
Page 3
Planning Counission hae devoted signlficant aDounta of tiae to thefiuberood issue and have developed a plan that, frankly,coupronises the cityiB abiltty to capture lndustrial officedevelopDent in favor of protecting this nelghborhood.
Under lten 5 lt statee that ue believe that no one youl.d ever buya house that sides or backE onto a busy blghray. tttrlle thle is !fr.
Shardl,osr a opinlon as volcad ln the leetlngs, lt ls certalnly notBtaffra or the Plannlng Counieelonra. AEaln I polnt to the factthat the plan developed by the Planning CounLsslon 3€eka to bufferthe llDberirood nelghborhood rlth lor denel.ty developDent. TtrePlanning counisslon vae also very .enalt1ve to uantlng to avol.dhaving an lndustrial offlce corridor along Hlghuay 5 a3 currentlyexists in Eden Prairle.
lfe do not have an oplnion on the balance of the neighborhoodcoalitionrs data and reconnendatlons. I eiuply uirh to etress thatue have atteDpted to.Danage the conprehensive planning process Ina Danner that ls falr and equitable to all property orners andresidents of the city. In eo doing, I atrove to give the planning
Conmission and opportunlty to develop a plan that they bel ieviaerve the connunity I e best Lntereats. Ihls le not a plan that uiU
lake- al.l land epeculatorE or all exiatlnE residents happy. &at isa virtual iupossibility. Purtherilore, the Lssue -o? tax basee:rpansion, yhile it haa been discuesed by the planning Comission,is not the only Dotive that is driving the Conprehenslve plan. Farfron it. As I said above, if that yere the only uotive, theIinberrood area uould not be receiving the conEideration itcurrently is.
In suuDary, !y purpoae ln presenting thia lnfor:aatlon to you i.s eothat re Day discuss this latter and rcepond to any questionE thatyou Day have relative to lt. fn addition, aB you are auare, theCoDprehenBlve PIan is etlll at a .taEe rh6re -lt can relativelyeasily be aDended to accouodate n u lnfonation and dlrectiveiuhich. provldes additlonal ratl.onalc for rcquestlng your lnput atthis Juncture.
ffiffi:*..p, o .r..."*"*:ffij ffi,tr
_
mFatHffiffiHTJffiaH*#
( Trdriccqtlett r rf hci-"" .';;ffi]ffifi ffi f.H.Iffi cErL &E ',.h-y 6,r.."o,!.d. i,r!.,rs no6.ntrrfifcr d.frlremx:ffiHHryT.ffiim.m*,#**.,'"
_ ffi:ffi: :#trffi,#,,ffift
;:-,_-- *ffiffi* -*.
_X;}.ff_,*er!aoltlrl.ioro6irdh.
!za*tg C.ardbrvr,irg od,.rrt h Oa.fy r.i:bidd |,|d rcr. a|rtd ardqn
,
,n
,llo
*.
ta
r,
b
n.
_.rir
! ET|EOd.OOOOO |JIUDArA
lhrCu.llrttdtut!€rry lbl cy,lr gd rr.t: '15 n/tubAy-ttdtodffii*n '/n*r,rt loct "'
ar.,E,t fajsl b ,r Fogor.d b !p &rn b lirrry al. lNh !a dtr,tg, .,a.i9o4 --D Lr, rpG'.-r tn dtr klh rin llncE
atl ritr. h txir oF .. tu, bb, dty h.l b drl!. lr ta-rg c! Gllh id $ Hghyr I .rn at. ltq rrli E lr o., ,rE rin btuE,
c-.r, csltlllrdc rd or: itd[fy tqrl Arr.lndr r.d b Hdtr, al.
llr Cf, PhrriE (:girg) D.ga. 'ld n Pbrdte Co.tlrirsirr rt rE icilng lE E drrlgr lr rEalg dl Ir ryirfinhlta.rld bnd. Tli. h..
h.r gdf o.r tr rul,r3 *fron eny naifcatin D fi. prltl.llrr t didr. Or tila.h-dry. Ldr f,ordTrFtn fi, bBb rtro ol
a- ilr.sr h.. b-.r iwird ro FErd tar.bflra Lrn rD pln h . Ftt bui i Jr Cl, ld oa Ctrllr$. P5.. .L.ld lh.l m-t{.
It:r .,r Sf ltd.ltd rm aa bv. !-.t ca.-d. Or a t.at lsr dr hFfr lJtrt Dfr. lh. b&L rt J {rd ftn llr & tEt
E|t dlre. Gorn rDdt3 d rr- .r. C....rl |I!ruo.stll F lDt. ol ur ar ,r arg, t- (tq.) lha poanfd tg*rg dlrets tP.ab 6€ md
drqSoll. rtargliarlJ:r r tEEd lrrt.
h i. Fr r.d( 6. erhe erEr ll.l. blt tFfar rlr D aaxr*r llr.t h, d ar lr t- b.r:
r llrdatcUeLlrr ( A.ffidryrtqr
I Tro dy Gsftd trlltt tt .' Affiblr.ffit'
s Fo(rpbxittr c.r ttabn l' (lr.a Hc li.[ stl iod ha).
ll ol rr &E prrqlr t'.v..drad llb:
I . Prlgrtrt if go lqrrd. l(. t ot tro(
2. ZoriE dt ne.3 ril b n .b b fi. tdF..nt brd.
3. Th., wrr r AX- .i,titd lol siz. oa ts,O(I) t+ lt (Fo,ttrlr.)
a. Tq |r.lr It lyrnp.fiy l' nr brlo Ll {s rd roor dthat p-C. trd r futt iiem Do..!it^d. hld ut.
5. rlq balara $rt llo o ril.vr !r, r lDina fid daa. t!.rrrbactr$batqth[r/Lra, strd An4 lD a,.talear ral5 r.nl b
r, F nr- rlurrnt. (Evbnly tu, mual b. tfn , b ft. n lt.ir.c ttr lir b-a hrd on lighllrr.rd Lm'3 h E(bll
Prrie. E.5..rd cha.fr)
6. ]lq tr|vt b.n p.Ee'r rrd D ,irk tr ONLY 6itg oia c.n & b b rcr b bccL.. coflrudd. rF mrrE, cordo'a, ,i!h dlnlity
brn tn .6 O.H.'s), ridum -odty T.H.l. ofia and qrd T.H.'3.
7- thsy o.. n! rfur r rlod ixf/&y farrnhe tuas. (8.( n gLc E ry id Fta.rty S+ Farl 0a d ctr$ttidihn|tlhl in
Chrtt r.nH S OT rrd tS NOf aqilihrnE m. Fm, b t! tdt, dY.o.cart?. dJ.E XnA'r IF d$ic..
8. lh., s.y noll ol u5 uoets b hTp, talre utlq|od b, ,tqt!.. ot ]a!$r.a- bl3 (uilun rddE oJr ofi'tiat.) And, u. roild
ob{irlat ba barar oi $rr r 6q o( sr!,t:ril buiaaa nal 6a a lrf us t ti{r ia a Haa r3<pao.r.}
e . Ih€, mi.gt .bdy !ir* il.y ,t .biE lr. ]r.ifi! a aanb b, 'diaflrd nr r.r C a L8, tttrr q iiriry rih rr ara.m ot
ixl[ti.l a orrn€rcC bdtlr$. To lrr cmllr,y, ]d! i|drttid ur. ddy drdl, .dant.rd nrbt ]Gic..rtl FoF.L nfi
nJr r ttlhny O6, nc b ltlirion n i.ie fi...!i41h. ol lr fl
tha Cr.irrg cdmirddr p..trfs 0Eir mdn co.rfl ir t qr. bltr. tha- C-s n ac hd, yal Wb l.E rl oggo niy D FoFaa dEndls rd
r5ors t[ &tir.iB tra agei&,t ,ant.
ttr td rFq,Irb/r n.ir llDtE b r|ot chdr.$.n'3 x.lbr. Tb, rt il|rsbtt d .abr {rrt3 5i hf, ue prtr d .lrl. llIy &or h.Yr b
l h lr mGi tq cr!... &r. dl a lDt b6t Tlr .ny am.i h.. lra fd aFrolal C tdiie dr,rtf6. ni3 b rrl abdn ,at. d a.d hr n
rrr.
6irgaad!'olr|dfinb b.an nDr@ltb.oltf,qrllsr.br*loil*, tlr.Farb.c.igrrbold.l lt D.lFlrlrn.bard!. n3
nrt**n5hl(rbrtErrrr).LtDrr,ft,Jrr6oDrralrll:iqt lr. b.ral- trr ir Eire calrga at ir frr t-3 ir.-..
rd,d:rer.
L Wdr.d.y n ilolrtt!.la r Y.it lfiglr.lri alllr b f,rtn hra, tld tltrd lDrdbcarrd. Ycr lroglry dJI, r r.l a
Clrll|tirr..n'r tnn rt d tii.. Pb.r. h.v. d h.rt cn D.[cn ea. to.tr c r llb $ffi, d r:lo Pl, rt Cay Hd rd tan th paf5o.
Itrlt r oq]t h llJ. bn .
lrlrbyldrHy, fL.p.(r,L!.r lI F h b irCrral rd qr5:dd rd lEh ahtry tmhe hrrl l,.ttrrrly nir liaar. t{qlC l,.
rrtab 6rle. !I ururfrg rtr lho L r EO !t9 b.nim aa OdlI olllr taglSd{,lood ltd.lds.'ldd|dlr. t'GdrEt ffbol,
G,rllrdy. thl&g for ar Fr.Do.. C n flothlhf ra erlc.sif.hg b ephC b Lc.,ld 4tu .
ONGOING ISSUES
REVTSED APRrL 12, 1990
STAIUS
comDrehens iv Plan fssues
1. Conprehensive PIan Update Adoption 9/90
3
2. Amendnents to UUSA Boundary
3. Future Use for Areasoutside the UUSA Boundary
Zoninq Code Amendments
1. Blending Ordinance
2. Rezoning BF Dist. to A2
Sign Ordinance
(Iow priority)
Adoption 9/90
1995 Study Areas
Inactive
May l,
Ongoing - Ct Prs conpl.eted
llarch, 1990 - CC directed staffto expedite
L
4. Tree Ordinance - Uapping ofsignif icant vegetative
areas
Other ftens
Conputerize land use fi1es,pernits, conditions andexpiration dates on aparcel by parcel basis
2.Reappraisal on wetlandissues, ordinance and
napping in conjunctionwith storro water nanageraent
Definition of structures
Shoreland Ordinance
Flood Zone Ordinance
cradingr/Uinera1 Extraction
3
4
5
5
7. R-16 District Approved by CC on 3/L2/9o
5. Rezoning 2tr Acre Lots to RRDistrict
Scheduled Discussion
Scheduled Discussion
Inactive
Review schedule for
agenda pernitting
Staff processing a positionpaper to review wetlandordinance and enforcenent
Budgeted noney for update zyear timefrane
Revier Uarch, 1990
January, 1991
August, 1990
o
REVISED APRIL 12, 1990
ZOA Bank with drive-thru in Approved by CC on 3/L2/9O
BH District
9.Review legislation and
ordinance pertaining to
group hones
10.
11.
Group Homes
Variance ordinance and
procedures
12. ordinance revision dealingwith lots accessed byprivate driveways
13. Ordinance revision dealing
with requirement to post
signs of notice for
developDent
June, 1990
Approved by Pc, joint neeting
CCIBAA schedule
Approved by CC on 3/26/90
Final approval by cc 4/9o
CITY OF
EH[!IH[SEEI{
690 COULTER DRIVE . PO. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 . FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDI'}I
TO:
FROIiI:
DATE:
su&]:
Planning Conmission
Pauf Krauss, Planning Director
April 12, 1990
Discussion Paper Regarding Cornmissioner Emmings New
Approach to creating a rrBlendingrr ordinance
DI SCUSS ION
Last month Commissioner Emmings ilrafted a rrBlendingrr ordinance
approach that represents a new Deans of dealing with this issue.staff has had an opportunity to review it and discuss it with theCity Attorney and wanted to bring it back to the Planning
Commission for consideration.
It is our understanding that the purpose of the Blending ordinanceis to ensure that the size and character of existing developed lotsbe taken into consideration when a new subdivision is being
considered. In particular, it is desired that this ordinance allowthe city to require the platting of larger then standard lots, atleast on the perimeter of the new subdivision, to lessen the irnpactof neh, developnent upon existing hones.
It is no secret that staff has freguently voiced philosophical
concerns with the ordinance since ve believe it could result intreating individual landovners and developers differently, duesolely to the developnent decisions that had previously been made
by adjoining landorners. I believe that ue would be remiss if wedid not make you aware of these concerns. We also found a great
deal of practical difficulty ln draftlng an ordinance that would be
able to gualify the blending concept j.n a legitinate and defensibl-e
Danner.
Cornrnissioner Eunings has developed an ordinance that uses adifferent approach. Rather then rely upon a specific fonoula, he
has proposed revisions that uould give the city flexibility to
review each plat relative to its surroundings. The broad language
would in his words, 1et the city detenoine where blendinq is
reguired and when it is achieved by the principal of rryou know it
GlC-
Blending OrdinanceApri} 12, 1990
Page 2
when you see itrr. The City Attorney has reviewed the draft andbelieves that j.t probably could nithstand lega1 challenges. Itnust be enphasized that if such an ordinance is to be upheld itnust be applied unifornLy. It also should be recognized that theadninistration of the blending ordinance wiII result in increasedirorkload for staff since a nore intensive review of surroundingparcels uill be r€quired. It rrill becone staffts responsibility to
show what conditions exist beyond the perineter of the site ana ifsuch property can or cannot be subdivided.
Based upon the Planning Conmissionrs desire to put such anordilance in place and the City Attorneyts finding, staff isvilling to support the ordinance and will lchedute i€'for publichearing at an upcoming neeting if you so direct. In the intlrestsof fairness, we believe that an attempt should be made to notifyresidential developers of the neeting so that they can have input.
We would, however, Iike to reconmend you consider two nodificationsto Connissioner Ennings draft. As currently proposed, theordinance would not discrirninate between paicels that havesubdivision potential and those that do not. There is a basicpresumption j.n our field that assuDes that if a parcel can besubdivided, it ultinately will be. you are frequentty presentedwith.protestations fron residents who indicate that thef w-i11 neversubdivide their proqerty and therefore deserve some sorl of specialconsideration. U1tinately, due to a relocation, death, chairge innarital -status, age of ouner or rrhatever, the parcel is'ultinitelysubdivided. Once a plat is developed it is pernanent and cannot be
Igv+:eg at sone -
point in the future when a neighboring lot isdivided. It is therefore our belief that ihe r6lendingrr
requirenent should only be applied when it is dernonstrated that theadjoining parcels cannot be subdivided further. Thus, if a 15,OOOsquare foot subdivision is proposed adjacent to 5 or 10 acre lots,trBlending'r would be considered to be inappropriate. If on theotler hand a 15,000 square foot 1ot suUaivision is proposedadj acent to 29rOOO sguare foot lots that cannot be furthersubdivided due to the _zoning ordinance, developnent pattern, ortopography, then blending requirenents could be lpplie-d. We haveproposed additional language to deal with this situation.
The second uodification concerns application of the ordinance. Ascurrently drafted, Connissioner Emningrs draft would apply blendingrequirements to arl lots in the new plat rather trreri -rini€ it t5those uhich share a cot0Don 1ot line to the existing large 1ots. Weare concerned that this could require every rot in-a roo acre tractto be oversized to uinirnize inpact upon several lots on theperiphery. we have proposed language -changes to resolve this.Connissioner EDmingrs draft is lttlcnea, -followed Uy statt'snodified version and the applicable sections of the =riuairi=ion
Blending ordinanceApril 12, 1990
Page 3
ordinance.
STAFF RECOIO{ENDATION
Staff is seeking the Planning Connissionrs direction on ho!, toproceed with this natter.
TO3
SUBJECT:
FROM:
DATE :
Paul Krauss and l,add Conrad
Blending ordinance
Steven D. Emnings
March 12, 1990
I
I think there is a general consensus that this is an imPortant
topic. we have considered various aPProaches from time to time.
Most recently, we had a rather long discussion of specific
techniques requiring blending between adjoining subdivisions and
were simply unable to come up with a formula by which this could
be accomplished.
since we have not been successful in approaching this from a
highly detailed, formula tyPe of approach, I trould suggest that
we si.mply put this in the ordinance in vCry broad language
placing the burden of planning on the developer. This is one of
those situations in which, as someone once said about
pornography, "I canrt define it, but I know it when I see it."
tninf it will be true of subdivisions as wel1i if the blending
has been successfully attemPted, I think it wil,l be inmediately
apparent .
Therefore, I r^rou1d propose that r^7e get the notion of blending
into our ordinances by making the following additions to our
subdivision ordinance :
SECTI ON
r.8-39 (f) (8)
TEXT
The proposed subdivision adequately blends
lots on its periphery, r,rith resPect to lot
sj.ze and 1ot boundary lines, into existing
lots in contiguous subdivisions; and the
proposed subdivision has lot sizes which are
compatible with develoPment in the general
area in which the subdivision is located.
I
18-40 (2) (e) ...; and lot sizes and boundary lines
lots in adjoining subdivisions which
any boundary lines with the proposed
subdivision.
of all
share
I
18-40 (2)(k)
18-60 (i)
Location of any grades, vegetation, wetlands,
or natural features which may enhance or
dirninish the need for blending the lots of
the proposed subdivision with the lots in any
ad joining subalivision.
Lots on the periphery of the proposed
subdivision must blend into the lots of any
adjoing subdivision in terms of the'rr size
and the location of their boundary lines; in
addition, Iot sizes should be compatible with
development in the general area in which the
subdivision is located.
SDE : mab
2
SECTION
18-3e (f) (8)
18-40 (2)(k)
18-60 (i)
The proposed subdivision adequately blends lots onits periphery, uith respect to lot size and 1otboundary lines, and into existing lots incontiguous subdivisions; @ e eeneat+L+e r+ttr
the@
STAFF PROPOSAL
BLENDING ORDINANCE
TEXT
THE BLENDING REQUIREITENT SHALL BE II.{PLEIiIENTED oNLY
T{HEN IT IS DEIIIONSTR"ATED THAT THE I'TS IOCATED ONTHE PERIPHERY OF THE PI.AT CANNOT BE FURTHER
SUBDIVIDED AS ALIOWED BY THE ZONTNG ORDINANCE, DUE
TO LoT AREA, AND/OR DEVEITOPI,IENT PATTERN.
... i And lot sizes and boundary 1ines of aII lotsin adjoining subdivisions which share any boundarylines with the proposed subdivision.
Location of any grades, vegetation, rretlands, ornatural. features lrhich nay enhance or dininish theneed- for blending the lots of the proposedsubdivision with the lots in any aaioiningsubdivis ion .
18-40 (2) (e)
Lots on the periphery of the proposed subdivisionnust blend into the lots of any adjoiningsubdivision in terns of their size and tfre tocationof their boundary lines.
THE BLENDING REQUIREUENT SHALL BE IUPLEI,TENTED ONLY
I{HEIV IT IS DEI.{ONSTRATED THAT THE I.oTs I.oCATED oNTHE PERIPHERY OF THE PIAT CANNOT BE TURTHER
SUBDIVIDED AS ALI'WED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE, DUE
TO IOT AREA, AND,/OR DEVEI'PUENT PATTERN.
,i
SUBDTYISIONS s 18-39
Sec. l&38. Pre-application consultation.
Prior to the preparation of a preliminary plat, the applicant shall consult with the city to
discuss the proposal.
(Ord. No. 33-D, $ 4.1, 2-25-85)
Sec. l&39. heliniaary plat-Generally.
(a) Aftcr the preapplication consultation and at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the
meeting of the planning commission at which action is desired, the applicant may frle with the
city, an application for preliminary plat approval. The application shall be accompanied by
copies of the plat in such number as required by the city, an eight and one-half-by-eleven-inch
transparency reduction of each sheet, proof of ownership satisfactory t the city, and a list of
property owners within live hundred (500) feet of the property certified by an abstract
company. The applicant shall pay the application fee established by city council resolution.
All required data, documentation plans, copies and fees must be submitted before the applica-
tion will be considered complete. Rejection of the plat by the city council, or abandonment or
withdrawal ofthe proposed plat by the subdivider, ehall uot entitle the applicant to the return
of all or any part of the application fee.
O) The city may refer copies of the preliminary plat to other agencies and utility cornpa-
nies for their reyiew, comments and recommendations.
(c) The planning commission shall hold a public hearing on the preliminar5r plat after
notice of the date, time, place and purpose of the hearing has been published once in the
ofFrcial newspaper, and a proposed development notilication sign has been erected on the
subject property by the applicant, both at least t€n (10) days before the date of hearing.
Written notice shall also be mailed by the city to the applicant and all owners of record within
frve hun&ed (500) feet of the outer boundaries of the preliminary plat. Failure to post a
proposed development notificatiotr sign or to give notice or defects in the notice shall not afrect
the validity of the proceedings. If a development is proposed adjacent to a lake, or will affect
the usage of the lake, the applicant shall provide the city with a list of property owners
abutting the lake at the time of application. The city shall provide mailed notice to the lake
honeowners as in compliance with the procedures above. The applicant is responsible for
meeting with affected homeowners.
(d) The planning commisaion shall make a rccommendation on the preliminary plat to
the city council within forty-five (45) days from the dat€ of the opening of the public hearing,
udess the applicaBt consents on the record to a continuance. The planning cornhirsion msy
recommend approval, approval subject to conditions or that the preliminar5r plat be denied. If
denial is recommended, the reasons for that recommendation shall be stated itr the record.
(e) Following action by the planning comnissiotl, t'he city council shall consider the
preliminary plat. the city couneil shall make its decision within one hunilred twenty (120)
days following receipt by the city of the pmperly completed application, unless the suMivider
consents on the record to a continuaJrce. The city council may:
(1) Grant approval ofthe prelininary plat, with or without modification or conditions; orL)
1001
(2) Refer the preliminar5r plat to the planning commission or appropriate city staff,offrcers or departments for further investigation; or
(3) Disapprove the preliminar5r plat. If the plat is not approved, the city council shallstat€ the reasons for denial on the record.
(0 The frndings necessary for city councir approval of the preliminar5r prat and the finalplat shall be as follows:
The proposed subdivision is consistent with ttre zoning ord.inance;
The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regionalplans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
the physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,vegehtion, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, andstorm water ilrainage are suitable for the proposed development;
The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drain-age, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvemeDts requircd bythis chapter;
(5) The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental rte,nsgs;
(6) The proposed subdivision will not coallict with easemeats of record.
(7) lhe proposed eu*ivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of thefollowing exists:
a. Lack of adequatc storm water drainage.b- Lack of adequate roails.
c. Lack of adequate saritar5r sewer systems.d. Lack of adequate ofi-eite public improvements or support systems.(g) The city shall noti$ the applicant ofthe city council's action, stating the conditioos ofapproval or reasons for dicopproval.
(h) An applicaat may at his owa riek, apply to procees the preli,ninary and final ptatssimultaneously.
(Ord. No. 33-D, g r1.1,2-2SfE)
Sec. 1&40. Shne-Data required.
, Un]ess waived by the city because of the limited size and nature of the proposal, thefollowing shall be furnished yith a prelimiaary plat:
(L) I&ntifutbn and desrriptio,,-
a. hoposed name of suMivision, which shall not dupligat€ sp be sihitar. in pronun-ciation or spelling to the Bame of arry other plat in the county.b. Legal description-
c. Names and addresses of the record owner, subdivitler, land surveyor, engineer,designer of the plat, ard any agent haviDg control of the laad- .
$ 18-39
(1)
(2)
(4)
(3)
CHAN}IASSEN CITY CODE
1002
SUBDTVISIONS $ 1840
d. Graphic scale not less than one (l) inch to one hundred (100) feet.
e. North arow.
f. Key map including area within one (1) mile radius of plat.
g. Date of preparation.
(2) Exlsting mnditio,,--
a- Boundar5r lines of proposed subdivision.
b. Existing mning classifications for land within and abutting the subdivision.
c. Acreage and lot dimensions.
d. Location, rightof-way width, and names of existing or platt€d streets; locations
of parks, buildings and structures, railroad right-of.way, easements, section lines
and corporate boundaries within the proposed suMivision and to a distance one
hunilred frfty (150) feet beyond.
e. Boundary Iines of adjoining platted or subdivided land, within one hundred fifty
(150) feet, identified by name and ownership including all contiguous land owned
or controlled by the zubdivider.
f. Topographic data within the property to be subdivided and one hundred (100)
feet beyond the property boundary, showing contours as follows: twofoot inter-
vals where slope is seven (7) percent or less; frve-foot intervals where slope is
from seven (7) to fifteen (15) percent; ten-foot intervals where slope is great€r
than frfteen (15) percent. AII areas of the subdivision to be platted with a slope
great€r than twenty-five (25) percent must be clearly indicated- However, on
undevelopable sectiotrs or larger acre lots topographic data may be reduced to
significant physical charact€ristics, such as top and toe of slope, if in the opinion
of the city the area is viewed as unsuitable for future subdivision. Locstion and
elevations of on-site aud abutting water courses, lakes, wetlands, rivers, strea-ms,
and marshes at date of survey and their ordinary high watcr mark plus approx-
imate high rhd tow water elevations rhaU also be sho\rtr. Where the subdivision
borders a lake, river or stream, a meaDder line shsll be established at an
elevation two (2) feet above the recorded high water elevation of the lake, river or
stream. tr'lood plain ar€as, location of wooded areas, raky out6op6, power baDs
mission poles and lires and other sigdlicatrt physical features shall also b€
showL
g. Location, size and approxinate grade ofproposed public sewer and water Baina.
If public sewer aDd water ar€ aot available the developer shall provide site
evaluatioD alata required by "Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080 Inilividual Sewage
Tleatneat Systems Standards" to iletcrmine the suitability of the site for indi-
vidual sewage systems. The folloriag data ia requircd for review:
1. Location oftwo (2) rlrainfreld giteg.
2. Two (2) eoil boriagB on each drainfield gite for a toktl of four (4) eoil boringB
per lot.
3. No percolation tests are rcquired for slopes between zero and twelve (12)
percent. One (1) percolation test per &ainfield site where the land slope is
between 13 and 25 percent.
1003
-[)
\_-.,
$ 1840 CHANHASSEN CTTY CODE
Areas where the land slope exceeds twenty-five (2S) percent shall not be consid_
ered as a potential soil treatment, unit site. The depth of the percolation test
should be determined in the field by the site evaluatar.
h. An accurate soil report indicating soil conditions, permeability and slope.i. utilities on or adjacent to the property, including location, size and invert eleva-
tion of public sanitary and storm sewers, catch basins snfl rncnhsles; location and
size of water mains and hydrants; location of gas mains, high press,re lines, frre
hydrants, electric and terephone rines, ald street lighLs. The direction, distance
to, and size of such facilities shall be indicated.j. Location of any wetlands.
(3) Proposed design features
a. Layout of proposed streets showing the proposed ne,,,ss, tlrc rir5t_of_way widths,
centerline gradients and trrpical croes sections. street names shar be assigned or
approved by the city.
b. Location and width of proposed pedestriaa ways and utility easements-c. l,ot sizes, layout, numbers and prelimilsy fimensioDs of lots and blocks.d. Minimum building setback lines as required by the zoaing ord.inance.e. Areas other than streets, alleys, pedestrie,," ways and utility easements, in-
tended to be dedicated or reserved for pubric use, including the size of such areas.f. Location, size and approximate grade of proposed public sewer and watcr mains.If public sewer'and water area not available the developer shall provide site
evaluation data required by Mianesota pollution Control Agency Individual
sewage Tleatment stanttards (wpc 409) to determiue the suitability of the site
for individual sewage systems. References shan be made to .,soil survey: carver
(or Hennepin) County, Minnesota,,, U.S. Ilepartment of Agriculture, Soil Con-
servation Serrice, and any oth€r available sources. The data required shall be
detcrmined by the city.
g. If the preliminary plat is a resrargement of a recoriled plat, the Iot and block
arrangement of the original plat, its original name, and all revieed or vacated
right-of.ways and eaeements shall be shorn by dotted or rrcr[gd thg.
(4) S upplzmcttut informatiort
a.Stat€Eent of the pmpoeed use of lots stating type of buililiags with number of
proposed dwelling rrnits or t)rp€ ofbusiaees or indusky to reveal the eEect ofthe
proposed development on hafrc, fire hazarils, and density of population.
Any pmposed pmtective covenanta.
A draiaage plan for the area indicating the direction and rate of natural ator,water runoff and thos€ unaltered areas where storE water collects and pere
lates into the ground. A propoced ilrainage plau for the developed site indicating
the direction and rate of runofr and ttrose areas where storm wat€r will collect
a:rd percolate into the ground ehall also be iacluded.
A propoeed finished grading plan 8hown at contour intervals appropriat€ to the
topography or spot elevations indicating the relationship of proposed chaages to
existing topography and remaining features.
b.
c
d
1004
$ 1841
C
1005
SUBDTVISIONS
e. If any zoning changes are cont€mplat€d, the proposed zoning plan for the areas.f. Where the suMivider owns property adjacent to that proposed for the suMivi-
sion, a general development plan of the remaiuing property depicting the possi_
ble relationships between the proposed suMivision and the future suMiyision.
The plan shall address the overan land use, trafiic circulation, utility ea.sement
configurations, and general lot tayouts.g. A soil erosion and sediment contror plan. rhe plan shalr include s gi''ing sched-
ule and sequence of operation inrricating the anticipated starting and compretion
datrs of the particular development segm.ent and the egtimated time of $*rr"of each area prior to completion of efrective erosiou aDd sediment control mea-
sures. Gradients of waterways, design of velocity and erosion control measures,
and landscaping of the eroeion and sediment @ntrol system shall also be ahown_h' A vegetation pres€rvation and protection plan to provide stabilization of erosion
or sediment-producing areas.
i. Required variances.
j. Water distribution 8y8teb.
k' Propcals for strret righting, cufo and guttcrs, sidewalks and bourevard improvements.l. Such other information as may be requested by the city.
(Ord. No. 33-D, $ 59.2(7), 2-25-8b; Ord. No. ABE, $ 1, 12-18€6)
Sec. l&41, FInoI plat-Cienerally.
(a) unless othercrise provided in tle developmeDt cotrtract for phased developments,within one (1) year after the datc of the city council approvar of the preliminary pt"t, tn"
suMivider shall hle an application for approval of the fi.cr plat. In addition to the apilication
the subdiyider shall eubmit:
(1) Copies of the plat io such quantities as is required by the city;
(2) Two (2) mylar 'copiea of the plat;
(3) One (1) two hundred (200) scale copy of the plat.
If the frnal plat application ig not frled within il'i. period, the prelir,,inary plat will be
considered void unless for good cause ehown ar ertenaion ia requeeted in writing by theguMivider aad granted by the city council. The applicatiou for final plat approval shall be
frled at least fourtcen (1r1) rlaye prior to the meetiag of the city council at which action is
degired.
(b) the final plat shall oaform to the requirements of rhir chapter aDd to a]l coaditions
set forth in the appmval of the prelimirrry plat as nodified during final plat approvat.
(c) rhe city council shall rcview the final plat aad ehall approve or disappmve it within
sixty (60) &ys of receipt of the completcd application.
(d) No final plat shall be approved by the city council ultil the plat is in a form aceptable
for recording with the county, the proper filing fees have been paid to the city, a development
contract has been sigaed, appropriate security has been firrniehed, and no other payments to
the city related to the development are outstsnding.
(e) Upon approval of the final prat by the city council, the city shall notify the appricant ofthe approval and within thirty (30) days thereafter, the applicant sha, frle the frnai pt.t *ittthe county recorder and furnish the city evidence of such record.ing. Failure of the appricant tocomply shall be cause for revoking the city,s approval.
(Ord. No. 33-D, 5 4.r, 2-25-85)
Sec. f&42. Same-I)evelopment contract.
Before the city signs a finar plat and before the developer constructs any of the requiredimproveme.ts set forth in section r8-?g, the deveroper shall enter into a deveropment contractwith the city. The contract shal derineate the conditions under which approval is given,(Ord. No. 33-D, 0 r0, 2-25-88)
$ 1841
Secs. l&43-1855. Reserved.
Street Claasifitotions
Minor arterial
Collector
Leal street
(rural resideatial)
Locsl street
(urban residential)
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
nightofrdt
Wi.lihs
(fet)
100
80
60
ARTICLE III. DESIGN STANDARDS
Sec. l&56. Generally.
The proposed subdivision shall conform to the compreheusive plan, zoniag ordinance and
design handbook. The design features set forth in this article are minimum requirements. Thecity may impose additional or more Btringent requirements concerning lot size, streets and
overall design as deemed appropriate considering the property being subdivided.
(Ord. No.33.D, $$ 6.1, 6.9,2-25-88)
Sec. l&57. Streels.
(a) streets shall be dedicated on the plat to the public. The location and design of streetsshall coDsider edsting antr plrnned streets, reasonable trafrc circulation, topographic coadi-tions, runofr of storm water, public coavenience and safety and the proposed Iand use. ofproperty to be served-
G) street right-of-way widths shal be consist€nt sith the comprehensive plan aad ofii-cial rnap, and shall cotrform to @unty and state staDdards for trunt highways. If ao such plans
or atandards are applicable, rightof-way widthr ehall not be less +ha,. the followiag
Pawment
width
(feet)
36 ta 44
36
24
28 to 32
r006
50
$ 18-57
Street Classifrcatbns
Local etreet
(commerciaVindustrial)
Culde-sac, turnaround radius
(urban/residential)
Culde-eac, turnaround radius
(rural residential)
Culde-sac, turnaround radius
(commerciaUindugtrial)
42
40
Right-of-Way
Widths
(feet)
60
Pavenunt
wi.dth
(fee0
36
48
50
60
60
ri
SUBDIVISIONS
(c) Insofar as practical, streets shall inters€ct at right angles. In no case shall the angle
formed by the intersection of two (2) streets b€ less than sixty (60) degrees. Intersections
having more than four (4) corners are prohibited.
(d) A tangent of at leagt three hundred (3(X)) feet shall b€ introduced between reverse
curvea oD arterial and collector streets.
(e) \[/hen connecting street lines deflect fiom each oth.er at one (1) point by more than ten
(10) degrees they shall be connect€d by a cuwe with a radius adequat€ to ensure a sight
distaace within the right.of-way of not less than five hundred (50O) feet for arterials, three
hundred (300) feet for collectors, ard one hundred (100) feet for all ottrer str€ets.
(0 Proper design shall consider required turning radius of vehicles for access points or
enbarces to and from a highway using standards adated by the state @rhent of Eanryctation.
(g) All centerline grades shall be at least flve-tenths percent and shall not exceed five (E)
percent, for art€rials and seven (7) percent for all other streets and alleys. Whenever possible,
grades within thirty (30) feet of intersections or railroad croosings shall not exceed three (3)
perceDt.
(h) Difrerent connecting street grades shall be connected with vertical curves. Minimum
length, in feet, of the verticgl curves ehall be twenty (20) times the algebraic difrerence in the
percentage of grade of tlre two (2) adjacent alopes.
O Irccal streets shall have a centerline ofrset of not leaa than three hundred (800) feet.
Offset int€rsestioDs shall be avoialed.
() Ite alignnent shall discounge through trafric,
(l) lf,s trnrirnum length of a eEeet termiaatiag iu a culd+aac shall be deterrnined as a
function of the expected development densit5r alolg the street, neaeur€d from the centerline
of the street of origin to the end of the rigbt-of-w8y.
0) Where a pmpaed gubdivigion ic adjacent to a limited accees higbway, arterial or
collector gtreet, there shall be no dir€c't vehicular o" pedeskiaa accegg from infividual lots to
such highways or streets. To the ert€nt feasible acceee to srterial streets shatl be at intervale
of not less than onefourth mile and through existing and establighed croesroads. Access along
collector strcets will be regtrict€d and controlled on the frnal plat.
Supp. No. I
1007
s 18-57 CHANHASSEN CTIY CODE
(m) Half streets shalr be prohibited except where it will be practical to require the
dedication of the other half when the adjoining property is subdivided, in which case the
dedication of a half street may be permitted or required. The probabre length of time erapsing
before dedication ofthe remainder shall be a factor considered in making this det€rmination.
(n) Public streets ta be conskuct€d in subdivisions located inside the year 2000 metropol.
itan urban service area line, as identified in the city comprehensive plan shall be constructed
to urban gtandards as prepared by the city engineer's offrce. streets to be construct€d inguMivisiong lcated outside the year 2000 metropolitan urban eeryice area shall conform to
the rural gtandard rcquirenents as prepared by the city engineer,s office, The coDatruction of
privat€ sbe€ts are prohibited.
Private &ives which provitle accesa to more tJran four (4) lots iu the area outside of the year
20o0 metropolit n urban service area may be allowed subject to tle following conditions:
(1) Reeervation ofa ai:ty-foot easement;
(2) The private drive shall be conshucted to applicable city etandards when the drive
provides access to three (3) or four (4) lots. kivatc drivee in these eituations may
contain a gravel surface. hivate &ives to be shared by two (2) lots do aot have to
meet the above.referenced city staailar& if deemed appropriate by the city.
(3) subdivision in ercees offour (4) lots shall be required to construct a public street with
a paved surface in compliaace *ith applicable city statritards. Direst access to a
collector or arteria-l Btreet Bhall not be permitted when an internal public street is
provided.
(o) hivate reserve strips coatmlring public access to streets ahall be prohibited-
(Ord. No. 33-D, $ 6.2, 2.25€5)
Sec. l&58. Alleye.
Alleya are prohibited except for fire lanes in coEtDercial and iadustrial(N. No.33.D, ! 6.3,2-25€s)
developmeots.
Sec. tt{9. BlocLs.
The length and width of blocls shalt be arffcieut to pmvide convenient and aafe acoess,cirsulation, control and street deaign. Blochs shsu not be ronger rrran 611p thouaard eighthuadred (1'800) feet, or short€r than three hurdred (3fl)) feet e&ept where topogrsphy ofeurouafing developmelt limits ability to ohictry onply or aa apecifrcaly approced iy-thecity coutrcil to fo.ter innovative desiga congisteat rith sourd p1",.,,i,,g principil. p"ai;r."
ways Eay be required on blocts louger +hr. nine f,1sfrp{ (9m) I&t or ia oth6 lreas toprovide acceea to echools, parrs aad other desti[atiol points. Easemente for pedeetriarwayeshall be at least twerty (20) fgeg wi6. ard shdl be located f6 rninirnize intersections witistreets.
(Ord. No. 33-D, ! 6.4, 2.26€E)
9opp No. I
1m8
SUBDIVISIONS 018-62
Sec. l&60. Iats.
(a) All lots shall abut for their full required rninimum frontage on a publicly dedicatcd
street as required by the zoning ordinance or on a private drive-
G) side lines of lots shall b€ substantially at right angles to straight street lines or
substantially radial to curved street lines.
(c) Lots shall be graded to drain away from building locations.
(d) Lots shall be placed to preserve and protect natural amenities, such as vegetation,
wetlanils, steep slopes, water cowses and historic areas.
(e) Lot remnants are prohibited.
(0 Street arrangements for the proposed subdivision shall not cause undue harilship to
owners of adjoining property in suMividing their own land.
(g) Double frontage lots with frontage on two (2) parallel streets or reverse frontage shall
not be permitted except where lots back on an arterial or collector street. Such lots shall have
an additional depth of at least t€n (10) feet to accommodate vegetative screening along the
back lot line. Wherever possible, structures on double frontage lots should face the front of
existing structures across the street. If this cannot be achieved, then such lots ghall have an
additional depth often (10) feet to accommodat€ vegetation screening along the back lot line.
(h) Lot layouts should take into consideration the potential use of solar energr design
features.
(Ord. No. 33-D, $ 6.5, 2-25-85)
Sec. l&61. Tlee removal and conservation of vegetatiotr.
(a) Existing healthy trees and native vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum
ertent feasible and shall be protected by adequate means during construction.
(b) Unless already on site, at least one (1) suitable tree shall be plantrd in tle front yard
setback on every lot. The type or species of trees planted shall be approved by the city.
(c) Consistent with approved grading plans, existing trees shall be preserved within any
right-of-way when they are suitably locat€d and in good health.
(d) No dead trees or uprooted stu.mps shall remaiD after development.
(e) All disturbed areas shall b€ seedeil or sodded to prevent emsion.
(0 Detailed landicapitrg requirements shall be set forth in a development contract.
(H. No. 33-D, 0 6.6,2-25€5)
Sec, 18-62. Erosion and eedimert control,
(a) The development shall conform to the topography and soils to cr€ate the least poten-
tial for soil erosion.
SuDp. No. I
1009
1.-
$ 18-62 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(b) The smallest practical increment of land shall be exposed at any one (l) time during
development.
(c) Detailed requirements for each plat shall be set forth in the development agreement.
(Ord. No. 33-D, $ 6.7, 2-25-85)
Sec, 18-6i|. Drainage.
The natural &ainage system shall be used to the maximum extent feasible for the
storage and flow of runoff. The following requirements shall also apply:
(3) Detailed requirements for each prat shall be set forth in the deveropment contract.(Ord. No. 33-D, $ 6.8, 2-25-85)
Secs. 18-64-l&75. Reserved,
Sec. l&76. Basements.
(a) All easements sha be dedicat€d by appropriate language on the fiaal plat in accord-
ance with this section.
(b) Easements at least ten (10) feet side along all street rightof-way lines, frve (E) feet
along both eides of rear and side rot IiDeB, shall be provided for ut ities where necessarSr. Ifappropriate, ease.eDts of leeser or greater width may be required by the city. el utitity
easementa shall have continuity of alignmeut from blek to block.
(c) Easements shall be provided along each aide of the centedine of aDy wat€r @urse or&ainage channel, to a width sufiicient to provide proper wrrintenance and protection and toprovide for storm wat€r mn-ofr from a one hundred-year atorm of twenty-four (24) hours
duration- where necessar5r, &ainage easementa corresponding to lot Iines shall be provided.
Such easements for tlrainage purposes shall not be less than twenty (20) feet in width.(N. No. 3&D, $ ?,2-25€5)
Supp No. I
1010
(1) Proposed &ainage facilities shall have adequat€ capacity to accommodate potential
runoff from their entire upstream drainage area, whether within or without the
subdivision. The effect of the subdivision on existing downstream drainage areas
outside the suMivision shall be considered in evaluating the adequacy of the storm
water management plan.
(2) The drainage system shall be constructed ald operational as part of the first stage of
development and construction.
ARTICLE IV. EASEMENTS, DEDICATION OF I.AND OR CASH
COI\TTRTBUTION T\OR PUBLIC PURPOSE
AND REQIIIRED IMPROVEMEIfl S
Thomas.J. Campbell
Roger N. Knutson
Thomas Nl. Scorr
Gary C. Fuchs
James R. V/alstrn
Elliort B. Knersch
Dennis J. Unger
Attorrrys at Law
February 5, 1990
Mr. Pauf Krauss
chanhassen city Ha1]
690 Coulter Drive, Box
Chanhassen, Minnesota
147
55317
say
RE: tslending Ordinance
Dear PauI:
You asked for my comments on a proposed 'rblending" provision
in the City's zonj-ng ordinance that would require 1ot sizes
larger than otherwise required in the zoning district \rhen the
proposed nev, Iots abut farger existing 1ots. The proposal appearsto violate Minn. Stat. Sec. 462.357, Subd. (7), which provides
"the regulation I zoning] shal1 be uniform for each class or king
of building, structure, or land and for each class or kind of use
through such district, but that regulation in one distrj.ct may
differ from that in other districts. " There are no court
decisions interpreting this statutory provision.
Although a zoning ordinance cannot have a 1ot "blending"provision, a comparable provision can probably be incorporated in
a subdivision ordinance. Section 18-56 of the City's subdivision
ordinance provi-des "the City nay impose additional or more
stringent requirements concerning 1ot sizes, streets, and overall
design as deemed appropriate concerning the property being
subdivided." Based upon the identical language for a plat, the
district court in Dakota County upheld a lot size requirement
larger than that set forth in the zoning ordinance. Everson v.
City of Lakevi.Ile (1981 ). The basis for the larger lot size
requirement was that existing lots across the street were larger.
The zoning ordinance uniformity requirement was not, however,
raised as an issue.
Based upon the present state of the case 1aw, no one can
with certainty if a blending ordinance would be upheld. In my
judgment a blending provision in the subdivision ordinance
probably would be uphefd. Although the current language in the
tEB06l9g3
Yankee Square Office III . Suite 202 . 3460 \Uastrington Drive . Eagan, MN 5tlD oF cHAt'lHASSEll
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A.
(612) 456.9539
Facsimile (612) 456.9542
Mr. PauI Krauss
February 5, 1990
Page Two
subdivision ordinance is a vehicle for "blending", more specific
J-anguage would be preferable to avoid due process and equa]protection challenges.
Ve rs r
ELL,SON, SCOTT
&DA
BY:
'J,Roger Knut s on
RNK: srn
,lE,t0 RAlt DU I
T0: Planning Commission and Staff
Ft0ll: llark Koeglerll/
IIATE: Ju ly 12, 1989
SUBJ: Blending 0rdinance
0ver- the past c_oup1e of years, nembers of the planning Commission
and _C i ty Counci I have cited the need for a blending ord i na nce rhichyould be_ d_esigne_d_ to. minimize_ potentlal conflicts-betreen existing'larger 1ot nelghborhoods and nex residential developments. Th;form and content of su ch an ordinance can take a num6er of forms.Two ordinance ex-a,mples have been suggested, one by Tim Erhart andthe other by Bil l Boyt (copies attached). They -differ in theirapproach to this issue and in'l of size thresholds. For example,under the Erhart ordinance, blending lots rould need to be largerthan minimum lot size requirements but rould not have to excied25,000 sguare feet. The Boyt ordinance establishes a maximum nerr(blended) lot s ize of 37 ,670 square feet.
Prior to utiiizlng one of these approachesalternative rnethodology, a d d i t i o n a 'l ' ' i n p u t
Commission is needed. Input on the folloring
be i n g r eq u e s t ed :
or developing anfrom the Planningtypes of issues is
1
2
t{hat Is the intent o
categori es wi l1 lt ap
zone abuts (or xi l1 aacre lot sizes, rlll
f this ordi nance andply to? For exanple,but) the A-2 zone xlth
blending be requlred?
rhich zon I ng
rhere the RSFexisting 2.5
ner lots
The ErhartIs this an
3.
l{hat minlm-um existing lot slze should be recognlzed? Thetxo examples yary from 25,000 square feef to 43,S60square feet. Should the minimum ref 'lect the futurepotentlal of'l ot splits (30,000 sq. ft. lnto tro 15,000:q..It. .1 ot-g ) and if so-, rf-l I those nex lots be requiredto blend rith the prevlously blended lots?
Shou ld bl endi ng only be concerned rith
immed iately abuttlng exlstlng developaents?
ordinance recommends a d{stance of 200 feet.approprl ate number?
\furDoren
Flazard
Stallings
r,*!.8!,-El.Pr.E
!o3o xrTbor L.a. l{orlh lldg.ll.sult. t04 xlnn.r9oll.. I1{,65447-ltra ct21668-195o
F'ta
BlendingJuly 12,
Page 2
llemorandum
1989
4
The first
f ormu lat i onitlentifieddraft xi I I
Commissionreviel, and
Sl,oy]9 the.ble-n.ding ordinance address the length ofabutting Iot-l-ines? It could be argued th;t ttrearra-ngement of lots is as irnportant as tht overa'l I sizeof lots. If an existing 'l ot has a 300 foot rear lot1ine, should blending prevent the construction of threeIots immediately abutting the exlsting tot?
step in adopting a bl endi ng ordinance invo'l ves theof a consensus opinion bn the types of issuesabove. After a reviey of these topici-, an ordinance
- b_e_ prepared for furthe.r- scrutiny by- the planning
foll.oyed by appropriate public hearirigs ind City Counciiaction.
Ttl'{L.
te!-Srae-9r.dioiasE
l.le i ght ed Ar ea o f anfol I oui ng formula:
netr lots in the RSF district musfeet or exceed the rrea requiredwhichever is greater.
t be e minunuo ofby epplying the
existing lot is determined by
All proposed
tSrOOO squareblending rule,
Blending Rul e:
The Di st anc eapplying the
All new lots nust exceed an .rea which iE greater than 1OOZ ofthe average of the Distance l.reighted Area (DtrA) of eiistingplatted lets uhich lie within . 2OO feet distance of thePerioeter of the new lot being considered. Exirting pfittei fotslarger -than 2SrOOo square feet uill be considlrto "= isroOoBquare feet for the purpose of determining its Dl.tA.
!,lhere: Dl.lA
DI..lA t+ d
30o
distance urei ght ed ereaof exsi st i ng lotarea of exsisting lotdietance from lxisting lot tonew lot (closest point)
a
d
(The-Distance !,leighted Area of e lot is c.lcut.tGd bythe lotts ar.a by the ru,n ol one plus the tnorteilbetween it and the new lot dividcd by 3OO. )
The everage distance r,reighted .ret is then crlcul.t.d by su,nmingthe DtrA of all exsi'tinE loti uhrrG iome portion of tiroie fotslie uithin 2OO lt. of itre propo*d lot .nd dividing thc totel bythe number of lot3 fitting ihig deecription.
di vi di n9
di rt.nce
e
Ei
The intent of this ordinance is to ninimize thedivisions upon existing lots of record.
impact of nery sub-
Existing lots of record up to {3,560 sq. ft. shal1 be matched bythe innediately adjoining lots of the proposed subdivisionaccording to the following fornula:
- Existing lots up to 20,000 sq. ft. Bhall be natched byadjoining lots that are of equal or greater sq. ft.
- Existing lots oadjoining Iotsnula of 20,000record sq. ft.
ve
of
sg
be
r 20,000 sq. ft. sha1l be natched byegual or greater sq. ft. using the for-. ft. plus 75t of the adjoining lor oftween 20,000 and 43,560 sg. ft.
- Proposed boundary lots shall not be required to exceed37.67O sg. ft.
- Individual proposed lots may be up to l.0t below the minimumreguired in the ordinance if the immediately adjoiningboundary lots average to meet the total required Bg. it.for the newly subdivided lots involved.
B;tt b" /T
Tim A. Erh.rt
775 l,lest 96th Street
Chanhassen, l.1i nnesota 55317
Joann OI son,City of Chanhassen
Enclosed are tuo possible epproaches toordin creating a blending
matchinE method Lrasf came up uith theCY
ance. The ordinance proposal using theed by Bill Eoyt. As you would expect
mat i Eal one using averaging.
c erel y,
r |tar t
CITY OF
CH[!IH[ESEI{
6-
IIIET.IORANDT,IT{
To: Planning Conmission
FRoM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
DATE: April 11, 1990
sUBr: Business Fringe Districtstatus - Background Paper
BACKGROUND
On numerous occasions, staff has been requested to re-examine the
status of the BF District. Both the Planning Cornmission and City
Council have expressed concern over the type and quality of usesthat have been attracted to the district. This concern has been
heightened by recent issues surrounding the proposed expansion of
Sorensonrs cold storage rrarehouse, lIoon valley, the recently
condemned and renoved burned out drive-in restaurant and the planto erect a cellular telephone tower in the district that has since
been dropped in lieu of a location in Shakopee.
staff has been asked to investigate the possibility of rezoning the
area back to an agricultural designation or some other alternative
designed to relieve blighting influences.
Hi story
The BF District sas created in DeceDber, 1985. Its stated purpose
is to rracconmodate linited couuerciaf uses uitbout urban servicesr'.
There are no permitted uses in the district save for parking lots
(presumably park and ride) and signs. Conditional uses are linitedto automotive service Btations, truck/trailer rental, utility
services, outdoor display of merchandise for sale and cold storage
warehous ing.
The commercial strip along Huy. L69/212 predates nodern Chanhassen.At one point in tirne, comnercial uses along the highway appear to
have had a najor importance to the City, nearly on par with the
present cBD. Today, uses in the BF District include the following:
- Sorenson cold storage lrarehouse
- Riverside Auto used car sales lot
690 COULTER DR|VE. p.O. BOX 147 r 691611115SEN, MTNNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739
BF District Background
ApriL 1l, 1990
Page 2
- Several single fanily houes
- vacant land
- Progress Valley nini-storage
- Brookside Uotel
- superAmerica- Vacant site of a drive-in restaurant ( fornerly Tri-Y)
what is not in the BFIt is perhaps of equal inportance to noteDistrict but is in the general vicinity including:
- Staterride Auto Salvage junk yard- lIoon valLey Grave1 quarry
- Assumption Seninary
- Former Sunny Acres garden center- Radio transnission tolrer- UnDoT Park and Ride Iot- Western IiIoteI- cedney Pickle Plant (zoned IOp)
fssues
To clarify the purpose of this exercise, it is useful to outlinethe issues that confront the City with the BF District. This listis staff's and the Planning Cornnission should feel free to alterand add to it.
1 Quality of Developnent - t[ost if not all parce],s in thedistrict are perceived to have a very fow guality ofdevelopnent. The sites are generally poorly developed. -They
have setback problerns, poor quality architecturel lack oilandscaping and even lack such basic ieatures as paved parkingIots. In short, the quality is considerably below thal rrhicf,tI" -City _ requires for current comrnerCial developnentselsewhere in the conmunity.
2.
3.
Types of Uses - The t)pes of uses occurring in the districtare perceived to be less than optinal . flis is sonewhatintertwined with the quality issue- and possibly witfr tfre iacithat several of the Least desirable uses are iocated outsideof the BF District.
Environnentar protection - The wooded br.uffline and lIinnesotaRiver VaIIey are. significant environmental features ""iitV-"ispecial protective Deasures. concerns are raised when froonVal]ey proposes to renove a large area of the b1uff, rrhen Mr.sorenson clear cuts and grades in a manner that undemines thebluff and creates serio-us probtens due to subsurface geologyand hydrology and when ttrere is an auto junk yard encr6acfriiiinto the river floodplain.
BF District BackgroundApril 11, 1990
Page 3
4.Traffic - Hwy. L69/212 is an oId, generally poor guality roadthat carries high volumes of traffic. Uost of the traffic isthrough noveDents but turning movements from sites in
Chanhassen could present traffic safety problens. The trafficsituation rrill be altered significantly by the construction ofHwy. 212 which shouLd renove many of the long distance,
through trips.
ALTERNATTVES
we believe you have at least 3 alternatives to consider for dealingwith these issues. If the Planning Conmission can suggest nore
approaches we lrould be happy to research them. The alternatives
include :
Alternative 1 - Rezoning the BF District into another
category, nost ).ikeIy the A2 District. Thus the BF District wouldbe eliminated. In an attached memo, the city Attorney hasindicated that such a rezoning could be upheld. Holrever, thecritical finding is that the new designation must provide an
opportunity for the reasonable use of property or "taking'r couldresult. Arguably, not all the BF District parce).s are convertiblefor agricultural uses due to the topography, location of e/etland
and tree cover. Other perrnitted uses in the A2 District include:
- Public and private parks
- Single fanily dwellings
- Day care for L2 or fewer children
- Utility services
- Group homes for less then 6 persons
- Temporary real estate offices
- Arboretums
conditional and Interim Uses include:
- Bed and breakfast establishnents
- Temporary mobile homes- ttlineral extraction
- cenetery
- Conmercial kennels
- wholesale nurseries
- Golf driving ranges
- Churches
Staff is unsure how a court rnay decide on individual parceLs. l{any
may have no valid non-commercial use.
BF District BackgroundApril 11, 1990
Page 4
Advantaqes of A2 Conversion
Would nake existing comnercial uses in the BF District non-conforni.ng, which at sone point in the future, will lead totheir reuoval.
1
2
3
Is probably historically accurate since some portion of thedistrict was fornerly occupied by hones and farms.
Could resolve sone environnental and traffic issues indirectlyby prohibiting developnent.
Disadvantaqes
1. Possible takings issue
owners who have nadecurrent ordinance.
and eguity concerns withfinancial decisions based
property
upon the
2 It would only effect those uses currently located in the BFDistrict. Reliance on non-conf ornities to bring aboutcompliance is a long range process at best. you coutd expectstatus quo to exist into the foreseeable future with no iealprospect of any site improvenents.
3.l{ouId expandactivity.area eligible for expansion of gravel nining
. Alternative 2 - Leave the BF District intact with possiblei:nprovenents. The City could consider different devLloprnentstandards. The city may even want to consider expanding thedistrict to cover the entire corridor and add new uses €o encourageredeveropment. The city should supplement this with a bruffrineprotection ordinance of sone tlpe. i copy of Eden prairiers slopeordinance is attached but theie are othli models to choose fron.Conceivably, we could also explore dealing with the junk yard withan approach sinilar to that which is being utilized tor Moonv-a11ey, i.e.-roaking it a conditional use vith standards and givingthera a deadline to reguest and obtain a permit subj ect tt nevconditions. The ability to undertake these efforts rer-ative to thejunkyard would need to be _explored with the city attorney =irr."there is a record of city interaction on this sitL.
upon further investigation, staff berieves that this alternativehas sone nerit. rt takes Dore of a pro-active ror.e in inaucingclange in the district- The city couri conbine tighteio=Jit.rr"".with neir ones that have leen de-veroped such as thle new li[e pranreview procedure which uould 6e useful il ilpi;;"iiltimprovenents.
BF District BackgroundApril 11, 1990
Page 5
There is a factor that rrarrants sone discussion concerning the BFDistrict. W it-}^ 2o/2o hindsight, it is possibte to say that sorne ofthe cityrs land use decisions in this district have added to theblight problem. We note that the new developments, such as theroini-storage and Sorensonrs cold storage uarehouse, could have beenused to inprove developnent in the area but instead they wereessentially held to a lover standard of developnent then has beenapplied elsewhere. With the Sorenson site there were alsoadrninistrative problems in insuring coupliance with approvedconditions. We believe these have since been rectified by newprocedures and ordinances. If the City were to adopt a strongpolicy of encouraging inprovernents, in the Conprehensive PIan andin new ordinances as necessary, new developnent could be used as atool to improve the arears image.
Advantases of Retaininq the BF District and Creatins Nes, ordinances
1. Taking issue is avoided.
2.Pro-active, new developnent could be used to generatej.rnprovenents.
3.New ordinances couldexisting uses.
be used to require inprovements with
Di sadvantaqes
1. Development remains linited by lack of sewer availability.
2.Risk that past policies that encouraged substandard
devel opnent could be continued.
Alternative 3 - The last aLternative is to do nothing. The BF
ordinance would renain in place. A separate bfuff protection
ordinance could be considered.
Advantaaes of the Do Nothing Alternative
1. Avoid taking issue.
2. Keeps existing non-confomities inultinately they wiII be renoved.
Disadvantaqes
1. Does not deal conprehensively uith all
this status so that
,-ssues.
located outside the2Does not resolve problens ofdistrict.uses
BF District BackgroundApril 11, 1990
Page 6
3. l{ininizes the effectiveness of using ordinance standards toresult in inproved developnent quality.
SIJ}.I},TARY
Three alternatives for dealing with the BF District have beenpresented for your review. Staff is seeking your direction on thenost appropriate course of action.
Thomas J. Campbell
Roger N- Knutson
Thomas M. &orr
Ga4 G. Fuchs
James R. V/aisror
Ellion B. Krrtrh
Dtnnis J. Unger
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, PA.
Ancrrrys at Law
February 5, 1990
You asked me if rezoning propertyagricuLtural could constitute a compenregul.ation effects a taking when it de
"economically viable use, of the prope
RE: Rezoning to Agricultural Designation
Dear Paul:
from commercial tosable taking. A land useprives a property ot ner ofrty. Penn. Cert. Transp.of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978); No11an v.California Coastal Commission , 107 s. cr. 3141-flJ8-7). rhe DakoraCounty District Court overturned Inver Grove Heightsr decisionnot to rezone a 21 acre parcel from agricultural to industriat.The court found the property was not suitable for agriculturalpurposes, but $ras suitable for industrial use. Rich ValleyPartnership v. Cit v of lnver Grove Heights , (1980).
Co. v. City
Agr i cul tural
reasonable use ofanything, for the
RNK: srN
zoning will result in a taking if it isthe property and no one would pay much,property with that zoning designation.
Very truly yours,
L,soN, scoTT
&CH A
BY
Roge
not a
if
ii-C;t ":9
tEB 07 1993
clELficflA!*$ssEr
Yankee Square Office UI . Suite 202 . 3460 \Uashingron Dri\€ . Eagan, MN 55122
(6t2\ 456.9539
Facsimile (612) 456.9542
!lr. Paul Krauss
Chanhassen City HaII
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, llinnesota 55317
C & n Grrl.re
5 11.60
SEC. II.5O. SLOPTD GNq,tID DBYTIPPI{EIIT ATD EGUIITTONS.
50 cubic yards
procurcECnE of
Ci ty.
Subd. 1.. Findings .nd purposc. ?he City finos :har_dcvclopucnt, Grcavation, cr constiucii.on on crrtai,n slopesuirhin rtrc City lry srsuli in i::r building oC Jnit-a-ole ;;--"::
::r-._"_,_. il:r_1.11 dangcrs ot erosion rnd ticr::y lrdanie, :i:en.rutal c:t.tactc! oi i:re lrnd, and jcogardiie cne nea:^i:.:,_sairty, and uelfare of the citizcns of -ttrc City.
Subd. 2.. Drfjnitions. ?hc folloying tcrrs, as usedin this S.ction, sh.l.l :lavc thc DG.nings itaicir---
1. .StGGp Sl.op!s, - Sloper of ovlr 1:l lnd ofelcvation diffcrcncc of 30. oi aorc in i givcn parcel.
2. - 'Devclopaenr- - Any Grclv.tion in excess c[or. :gl_l or .criviry rhich fi!3t rcqui:es iiea DurJ,al j,n9 or l,tnd rlterrtion pcroij fron iie-
Subd. 3. Raviru by planning ColDission .nd Councll_of Devclopncnr on SteGp Slopds.
A. DcvclopDGnt on St..p Slopcs. No Cavclop_nenr shrll bc conducted on a rtcep stopi rildout firsr ,c"iii-_ing e pcsDir rh.rcfor frora thc .c-o'unc ii - itprovat o, iciiciion
::.:::.propos.d devcropacnr rh.lr b. oatriiio-ii1;; ;;ii;;i;;
t. tpplic.tion. prio! to eny devclopncnton.-rtrcp..lopc, en rppliirtion lor. pcrrit rttrir uc-ii-d.-iirh. citv uhich .h.11 66ntrin r aitrucE-iri. rJi-ir,I-olili.i:_lcnt yhich ratr lor th:
groporcd dlvGlopr.ar t. .itl.*Tilclrc Pcriod 6uring vhich the
on rh. rit! of trc acucrolbrlnalot 3oit tyPGt vhlch rrc found-
thr .r.. to bc dGv.lopcd.
(cl A r'P 'horing th' toPogrlPhy of
11,".,i"'f.'"? ] " 0' t h' t Jt"'" i
""P'
"1:' 1l3o :"'. ; :*;'r :'r"J. .t l -
su! r i ry - rn thc . rG. .. ..t t+r^. f,,.t : it": if.t';"r.",l..i,li r.i. I l -thc .oil, rurcrDribili!I ol !!G l;ti-iJiio.roa. dr.in.e. ofth. .oil, dirtrncc oc ric-loti-ri-i-uiiciiyrng bcdrock. ,ut-Si".'.l'#:1.i5.'*,i"'r'L',?i:'lp';"tlJii.ieiiiol-"-ii;il"-
ll:-?:?pg!!g-d!v.lop*ntl,'1..T.?j.".:l%."#...r?.f.."$.::;crorton problcas.
ro v.e*!tion .nd olhrr n.t3,lr.i i::ffilit:L."r,ili :i:".iiTl5;
ffiTI
Hr
rtx
359
(9-17-a 2 )
I
ffi
I
il
I|
frI
5 11.60
the Caveloprn.nt ?Ius thc nanner in rhich thc applic!:1r ?ro-POSeS tO protect vagatation and othc! naturaL features :ratui Il not bc disrurbcd.(h) A copy of .I1 3pecificrrions,bluepr:nrs and ot:1cr detailed p].ns for the devGlogrrcnE.(il InforDaEion rellti,vc to tie adc-guac:, :or the slcpe condi:ions and soil type of thc founia::onand Jn.ic!!i!a9 atrerial of any structure, includin-o roads.(j, InfornaBion rclative to ::e adc-gusc'j oJ -controls and protection GriEting uphill f:on r:tepsoposed dcvclopncnt uhich rse dcslgncd to gursd strucEur.s orror.is froa bcing affcctld by !ud, upsooCed trrcs or otiernat"rials.(kl Infortlrtion rrI!tiur to theadequacy of construction of any rctaining ualls in cxcess of30 fce s.(1) Such othcr inforaation ts ihePlanning CoEnission sha11 rrqucsB lsoa the .pplicant erth.rprio, or subsagucnt to thc initirl revicy of tha proposed
deveJ,opnent by thr Planning CoaDission.
2. the pl.nning CoEnission .nd the ?.rks,Recrea:ion and Natural, Rasourcas CoEEission shlll rcviae .ndaake a rcconncndation to thc Council !s !o ehather the pernttshould be i,ssued or denicd.3. ?hc Council aay thrn authorizr or dcnyissuance of thc PCrDi t.
a. ?hc rcvicy by the pt.nning CoErlission.nd thr final dccirion by thc Council ah.:,] be bi:ed on con-.iderrtion of tha folloying frctor;:
pr.tc, .ccurrt. .nd in .lil ..:E:::'.:li.;i:",','.T'1..T i'3;this Subplr.grrph A.
lbl lhethcr, .nd thc d!9rcG torhich, thc Proporcd d.valop.Gnt rill cturc .ndlos bc aflcc:edby trorion problclt.
.s -
p.' t. of thc acvcroemrl!', Jllt;*j !Ilr,i.ti."ttt".i',i1 ;'.:' H:underlying ratcr i!:,.(d) IhCthar, .nd thc dcgrce tovhjch, tbc dcv-clogacnt elll rlter e.g.trtioa, topogripny, 63other nrtural lorturcr of rh. latd.
vh. rh. r lhc propo3.d d.r.fJp.J:lv riilt :.$.t 1"? r'r*' :t' i. rt;to .ny P.rton3, Proprrty or anirrla.
5. tt thG Councll dccidct ro .uthosiz.irruucc-of r pcr.it, lt rey do ao aubrGct Co corplirnce rithr..lonablc coaditioar uhich rh.tl bG lpccifieally lct torth inth. PCrrit. such condittont .ry, arong othcs rtttcrr, liaitthc .ize,. lind or ch.r.cE.s ol thc propbrcd rorl, raguir. th.construction of ocha! rtructurct, raquira rrplec-acnt of
(9-1?-t 2 )
t60
rrrr
+
*
i
*
5 li.50-
"agQtation or other na-turrl faaturrs, artabliSh rcguirGdaoniroring prr)cGdures and raiaccninci i"ilJ..v, .r.gc i!:c .dosLov.r tin€, requirc th. .rt.ratio"-oi-tiI-ii--c ocalgn !c cnsur€suffcring, or rcquirc a per toiiinc;-bil. -'
5. - An _applicln: 3hal: bcain t::e uor<_.ulhorizcd uirhin 6o 9.ys. trii-itc-'irtlc'Tt autnorizatron of:l:_i::_r_.1_": of r,tr. pcfait unr:ii .--s-irrir.nc da!c f or rheconnrncencnt of the uosk i3 Ocrignaica- O-y :hG Counctj. Theapptic.nr sh!.r.r coEorrtc da.;;;i-;;;;r;lcd ytthin rhe iirne_1i,trir rpecifi.d in thc perni-t. irro"ii-'tjir-c uork not 5e con_ncncqd rs spccifild hcrcin, cr,. p. ii ii-.nfii sccorc void, irso_vided, hoyeecr, rh!t if -priof ii-ii.-ilt. .srrbJ.ish.d forcoancncenenr of rhc yorr, ihc appricint i;ics-;;i;;;.Gr;;l-to rhc councit lor an ericniiln-Ei-ii;; ;;conlcnc. rhe eorxs.ttins forth rhG t..:?l-1_lt ii.-illui-r.d Grr.nsion, rheCouncil Dly gr.nt auch c,tantion.
t6r
(9-17-8 2 )
7. .-No.ticc of CoEplction. An rpplicanrshrrl norifv t,hc counc-i:, .in ,i-itint-Jffi1" h.s finishld rreuork. No york th.Il be dcclcd -io.Air.-"U..n
coapl.Gtrd untj,l_:fp:^o"-.d in-.yriring by rhr Ciat E;9in:Gs foltorins suchel ttten notiticrtion.
B. Gcneral prov iaions._ 1., _ -n.rponr.ibil.l ty. Iteithcr thG issurncGor . p.rait nor corEl-ilnc!- elth ttrc.conJitionE thlrcof. noruith thc provisions '?a-ih.i. s3-iiril= rili'r' ..ri.rc rny pcrson-lro! rny relpon.ibility ortrcrrirc l-;'p";;Tiy lru lor d.D!g. roil;::l:.:' .r.'.?r..'.."r,;!91 rr1r.i. ail-i;;;;.. or_ rni pi,,iiI
oreicirs-Lr-ir jr.vll"l]:_f lii*1'r'li'j..Lr"."...!i,,""r"?.:.",:::_crty. An epprovrl "r.rn ip6ii6.iioi-illi.a pus.u.nr to_tniss.ctton rhrll not r.rrc"c.tiJ-e!-p-ii;* ;i- th. r.tpon.ibilitvii,irTl'?"' 1', ;l :l ;lf. ;::.,1-
.i[i i ; : ;:; J'..6i r i;fr ' U' i i ;: -
Source: Osdlnrncc tlo. !2_lEElfcctiec D.!G: r_l?-!2
t".",itllJ.'"oirtnll'6I through ll'51I laclurirc, rcrcrvcd forl!
Tlm A. Erhart
775 tlest 95th Street
Chanhassen, l{lnnesota 55317
(512) {7{-ul6
Subject:Conditional Use Permit and Slte Plan Revler for cold
storage unlt expansion located ln the current 8F District
on Highway 212 & 169 ln the llinnesota River Yalley.
It is with regret that I will be unable to attend llednesday's planning
Comnission meeting. It is for this reason I am rriting to yori on a nattei
which is, in my opinion, very urgent and must be consiilered- and acted uponby the PI anni ng Comission.
Those of you who have been on the Conmisslon for some time have alreadyfaced a number of proceedings involving our BF District. I believe thaimost, if not all, of us have concluded that the Clty has created aninvitation for a never ending serles of probl ems for both the City and the
developers rlho are encouraged by the ordinance to develop their-propertyin this location.
I have some empathy for ilr. Sorensen rho, like many property and bilsinessorners, has a drean for developing and profiting on his investment.
Devel opment today, unlike 25 years ago, has become a complicated and
expensive business. Thls has resul ted from the nunrber of people itaffects and by the sophistication rhich has evolved from planher!' andcitizens' experiences rlth developers and thelr efforts io avoid the
nistakes rhich have been made ln the past. Llke any business decision,no investment should ever proceed rithout a clear understrndlng of the
expenses -and a cormltment r€qulred to see r proJect throuah to a
successfu'l compl et i on.
It s_e-ems qulte clear that ilr. Sorensen rnd hls origlnal partner reretotally unprepared for the level of comitment required to brlng this
dream to a profitrble conclusion. lloreoyer, ln an attelpt to recovei from
the increased levels of lnvestnent, the developer has chosen to lgnore theClty's condltions for this devel opnent rnd exprnd the use far beyond thoseoriginally approved.
I believe the-Cfty has contrlbuted sonerhat to thls mss. Ie encouragethis kind of developrnent by creatlng r zonlng dlstrict rhtch is
lnconsistent rlth the soclal , geol oglcal and transgortation realities
TTIPERST\rX{6 02t05190t -l-
February 5, 1990
To: llr. Paul Kraus, Director of Plannlng
Chainran & l,lembers of the Plannlng Comlsslon
rhich exlst ln thls area. . Addltionally, designailng thls dlstrict ascormercial ls ln conflict rlth our own coirpreheislve ilan for thts irei.
After studying the. materlal recelved this reek from Staff, lt becomesquite apparent that there really lsn,t any good resolution'to the messwhich now exlsts. The rernarning partner] ir. sorensen isn't rii'l inq.and/or cannot .aff_ord,. to- completl 'the prdject as approved. ilot he ii
somehow going to fix lt a'll by maklng lt'blgger. The'iundamenta'l oroUlemhere is that this entire project do6sn't rn-a-ke any busrnesl stnie'uniiii'i_t is configured as sonethlng more lntenslve thin sinplv cold stoiaol.l,lr. Sorensen has now secretly converted this plan tb'a contiiitoi;iyard/office building - neither of rhich ls permidted in this Oistiiii. -
.I.-b!ll.r: that,allowing the proposed expansion is the rorst posslble thingre can do at this time and suggest the folloring:
t. llove the consideration of rezoning the gF Dlstrict to the top ofthe Planning Conmis^sion's agenda. - It is suggested that ifiis iria
lay ng! be suited for agriCulture or slnsi-ifami.lv develoomini.Actual1y, both residential and agricuitural e'xtlt -in- itiiidistrict now without.problems. Cert'ain1y, tt is noii.piUli disupporting a higher lntensity use such ai'cormercial . '
?. That we deny this application and tork rith llr. Sorensen to brinothe.current_project to a Ievel of completion coniiiten[;it[ iii;con.rtrons raid out in the conditional use permit. Additionally,nor that the soi'l is-disturbed and the vLgetation i;mo;eJ;
-i;
need to so]ve the problems rhich have ueen cieitea e.s.l-iiiiio;i,instabil itv, and the incompatibilrtv rith surroundtniidsiii.iiliareas, etc. Screening should conslst of a nlxtuie Jf-idrrivPine, Scotch pine and ipruce rtth minima.l ptiniiiiq-iizJ;f i';i:in height. of burlapped.trees. ue should ?rot lfii,il*i'ri.ri.Decause-they are a_ yery slow groring tree. The heaiinq svsiemand offices should be remo-ved. - rurthernoiel--ii""rr,.ii.i:developnent of this property should be aiioweo i'r.+l i;;-i;;construction of private homes.
I apprec.iate the staff's and the planning cornisslon's consideration of
3y.,|trg1s!!s, tn tiis matter._ r.trust ural a iiiiiri;t;ri-;;;il;riiiii.rl , De nade and an hooefur of consideration of the BF fist'iaa il;;early Planning Comi ssi6n agenda.
Best regards,
Tln Erhart
TAE:J
Ilpmsr\nlus e/05/90J -2-
Tim A. Erhart
775 l{est 96th Street
Chanhassen, ilinnesota 55317
(6r2) 474-1116
January ?2, 1990
ilr. Paul Kraus
City Pl anner
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Dri ve
Chanhassen, ltlN 55317
Dear Paul ,
s cerel y,
hart
TAE: j
cc: Ladd Conrad
i!-v;r ! _:'
Enclosed is a copy of my letter to the Planning Comission dated 5/10/89. I
believe this still reflects my feelings on this. Since the time of this memo
we've since made additional plans for intensifying use in our BF District. l{owI see that another proposal is at hand - that is the p1 anned expansion of the
cold storage facil ity.
I believe the Planning Commission has had opportunity to consider the merits of
rezoning the BF District and would welcome the opportunity to pass such a
recommendation on to the Council.
If you wou1d, I ask that this subject be added to our agenda as soon as possible.
nIT
/a
d/'*U
JAil I4$90
coorcrrA}wssrtt
lity ol Edcn Prairie
:ily Ollices
'60O Erecutive Drive o Eden Prairie, MN 55344'3677 o Telephone (612) 937'2262
June 13, 19BB
- Barb Dacy
City P I anner
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: DEVELOPI'IENT CONTROL ALONG U. S. HIGHT.,AY #169
The Comprehensive Guide
Density Residential deve
south for Public 0pen SP
acquire all property sou
They cument ly own apPro
acres.
Dear Ms. Dacy:
uith the exception of the Lion's Tap, all development along u,S. Highway f169 west
of the landfill is Low Density Residential. This is controlled by the Eden Prairie
Comprehensive Guide Plan and City Code ChaDter 11' Zoning Regulations.
Plan depicts all property north of U. S. fl69 for Low
lopment (up to 2.5 units/acre), and all property to the
ace. It is the U.S. Fish and },lildlife Service intention to
th of U.S, #169 as shown on the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
ximately 200 acres and plan on acquiring an additional 1500
The majority of the property in southwest Eden Prairie is currently zoned Rural.
The purposes of the R-Rural District are to: (l) Prevent premature urban
development of certain lands which eventually will be appropriate for urban uses,until the instaltation of drainage works, streets, utilities and connunity
facilities and the ability to objectively determine and proiect appropriate land use
patterns makes orderly development possible; (?) Permit the conduct of certain
agricultural pursuits on land in the City; (3) Ensure adequate light, a'ir, and
privacy for each dwelling unit, and to provide adequate separation between drellings
and facilities for housing animals.
Permitted uses within Rural Districts are as follows:
A. Agriculture, accessory and related uses.B. Public facilities and services.C. Single farnily detached dwellings and accessory structures without
platting on parcels of not less than 10 acres.0. Single -family detached dwellings and accessory structures without
platting on parcels of five or more acres, but less than ten acres,
as of JulY 6' 1982.E. Cormercial stab les.F. Go lf courses.
i
Etb
I
J
.J', i
[,{s i''.ij.,
H
JUH ! ,! I]E8
Barb Dacy
June 13, 19BB
Page 2
As you can see, the key to controlling development along U.S. t169 is through the
use of the Comprehensive Guide Plan, which designates the property as Low Density
Residential, and the zoning regulations.
-.If you require any additional or more detailed infortnation, please feel free to call
me.
G-^ Ce€L[t*1
Sincerely,
City of Eden Prairie
Donald R. Uram, A.l.C.P.
Assistant, P lanner
DRU: bs
(C
U.S. 169t212 (Flying Cloud Drive)
ITCATION AND LENGT[I: Frcm Chanhassen's easLern border (Eden Prairie) to the
,""t"- bor&r (Chaska). ApproxinaLely 2.7 miles'
FIJNCTIONAL C(ASSIEICATION 3 tlinor Arterial (1987 Chanhassen ccmprehenslve
Plan ).
A\IERAGE DAILY TRAFEIC: 20,000 (1984) East of T.H. 101
fS,eOO - 35,{OO (2005) Deending upon Constn'rction of
ltew T.H. 212.
s
atcl
aral
DESCRIPIICII: U.S. 169,/U.s. 212 is a cqnbined roadway traversigg the ext'reme
southern sect,ion of chanhlssen. The t'ro laner undivided higttway carries
iuUst.lnciaf iraftic since it is a segment of a route connecting western
llirnesota to the I{in Cities.
PROPOSED LAND USE! SouLhr.rn chanhassen iS not Served by sanitary se,wer.
COnsequently, nO neu ur'oan scale devel OprEnt has oCCurred in recent years. A
series of igrandfathered" businesses ixlsts east of the intersection ot U.S.
lagiiiZ inO U.S. 1696.g. lgl. Of these uses, sonte are conforming to the
business fringe (BF) zone uhile others are non-cstforfling '
The lanj use eleinent. of the 1987 Conprehensive Plan acknor ledqes the exlstence
oi-ttr" cq,forring uses, ho..rever, land use policies discourage_ their expansict.
Non-con form i ng uies ti' crdinance are protriiriced frorn enlarging or excending
Lheir opera tions.
L
Corridor Study-
I
I
;
(
Proposed larxJ uses .lorE Lhe U.S. 169 e U.S. 212 Corridor have been ldentlfled
as a sta LenEnt of long ter ciEy poltcy. In this case, long term ls deflned
as belng post 2000, possibly 2020 or beyord. The City of Chanhassen does no!
plan to expard the business fringe (BE) zone, hence, development wlll not
occur prior to the availability of sanitary seryer sewice. tong tern land
uses follou a theme of diversity ln order to ensure a future balance oE
f mct lon ard aesthetics.
f{hen urban services become available, the norLh side of the U.s. 169/212
corridcr ls expecteJ to develcp as nredium &nsl ty ard hlgh &nsity resldentlal
wlth Lhe exception of the existlng commercial area. kcperty on the southsi& of 169 /212 is within land designated as part of the l{innesota Valley
National wildlife Refuge. one small exlsttrg.rea of cfinErcial (buslness
fringe ) exists at the cha ska bor&r.
PROPOSED TRANSPORTTITIOIT I t{ PROvEl.t ENTS : Currently, there are no major
Lransportat.im improvemenes planned for existing 169/212. Topography and
floodplain areas ln eastern Chan:,assen and uestern Eden Prairie preclude
significant future expansicr. The pending improvenent, rct affecting existing
U.S. 169/212 is Lhe planneJ construction of nee T.H. 212. gltren Lhe ner, route
ls bui1t,, it r{iU subctanLially eliminaEe increased traffic alorp Lhe exisBingroule. ExisLing 169/212 is not adequaEe to hardle existing traffic flo'rs.
Improvements will be needd to reduce accident rates and enhance Public
sa fe ty.
C
:
,t
I
=l
---l
I
It-
I
I
-HD
R
R-MD P/S
Iilit
I
)|?
(il
aatr tasar
,,C T ,
-.{ _
I
$
t_
t
I
\
I
I
t
iJ
*.lE
3
I
Latc
,lLcf
i
Proposed Land Use
tarca
tral
L
t
L/,
P/S
cl t
r"- -'l'..- -l I
I
I
I
I
I
Tlr A. trhart
775 tlest 95th Street
Chanhassen, l{innesota 55317
To:
Subject:
Date:
As a member of the Plannlng connlsslon and livlng close to the t{innesotaRiver Valley area, I !rav9-com€ to appreclate tlie uniquJ resource"'unichexists in our city. unfortunately, our'iurrent approach do planntnq in thisarea_guarantees both a missed opportunity and ilie' extenuation of"ianq""orttraffic conditions by encouraging-conmercial development riinin liriJ-iiea.
The area in the valley from Flying cloud Airport to chaska north of TH zl2consists of severe terrain with -bluffs and- rash outs as you go up thevalley ra1l. Thg severe erosion and numerous streams ndrinq-aoii ttrevalley 'rall give the area both a unique appearance and environmeniat-quatiiiunique to our area. It also poses Subst,intial danger any time diveioomentoccurs due to the unavoidable erosion of the steep-terrain. The vall6y inthis area south of TH 212 lies rithin the ilinnesoti yalle, ilatio;at itiaiire
Refuge.
In add-ition heavy traffic, much of it trucks, combined rith a three miledownhill grade, makes any- stops _or tlrns ln [he area extrenety dang..orr.since no service roads eiist in TH 212 buslnesses ln this area- musi -acce
s sdirectly onto TH 212.
The City of Eden Prairie has already seen fit to preserve the valley bymaintaining much of the area north ofTH 2IZ as Aorliultural . In addition,an-_overlay conservancy District limits development t n-Toth the l{innesotiValley as rell as the Purgatory and Riley Creek'ratershed. The Eden prairie
ordinance a'llows only Ag and large lot residential uses. The only non-
conforming structure in Eden Prairie ls Lyon,s Tap.
0ver th-e years,-a fetr businesses have sprung up in the Ualley ln Chanhassen.ilany of _these have gone out of buslniss iue mstly to thi fact that thearea.rea.Ily -doesn-'t _lend itself to r buslness environment being Just acrossthe bridge from Shakopee. In _addltlon, the heavy trafflc anri [tgh speeds
discourage stops by motorists along thls route.
The remaining buslnesses on the south slde lnclude:
I
2
3
{
Hotel
Super America
Junk yard
Yacant restaurant bul I di ng
I
Planning Conmi ss i on
l{innesota River Yalley pl an
llay 18, 1988
All of these are non-conforming since this area is designated A-2 and all of
the area south of IH 212 is included in the l'li nnesota Yalley l{ational
llildlife Refuge.
lle have designated a portion of the valley in Chanhassen as BF (Business
Fringe) which is a comtercial use. Existing businesses located rithin the
8F district in the TH l0l/212 intersection area include:
l. Brookside Hotel2. Yacant gas stat i on
The hotel is legal non-confonning since hotels are not allored in the BF
district. i{o seier and rater exists or is planned for this area, therefore
conmercial use is limited to low rater usage businesses.
lle
ga
(l
di
a
have recently allowed three new business in this area: Cold storage'
rbage truck storage and cleaning, and outdoor display of merchandise
andscape business). Fortunately the garbage truck business is not located
rectly on IH ?12. The cold storage and landscape businesses however pose
definite safety hazard for all customers of these businesses.
There are a number of issues uhich cause me to urge the members of the
Planning Cormission to recormend that the zoning in this vicinity be changed
from BF to A-2 Agricultural Estate. (I am not suggesting re change the BF
area existing next to Chaska.)
1. t{e have an irmediate opportunity to provide a truly unique green
area within the metropolitan area for future generations. If we
delay, we will probably miss this opportunity altogether. lluch of
the area (south of TH 212, all of Eden Prairie, and most of
Chanhassen) is al ready restricted from development.
2- The 'landscape is delicate and surely doesn't lend itself to
deve'lopment due to severe erosion potential .
lle are encouraging business to develop along a highway where a
long downhil'l run causes traffic to travel at speeds ranging from
55-70 mph. The density of traffic ln thls area averages 20,000
vehicles per day. l{uch of this ls grain trucks rhich simply
cannot stop rhen coming dom the hlll. To encourage more dlrect
access onto TH 212 is sinply going to directly cost llves. 0n the
one hand, the city is taking the responslbility to encouraglng the
growth of a cormerci al area but re are not providing the access
roads rhich are requlred for safe lngress and egress for these
businesses. I have voted against each of the tro proposal s
because I cannot ln good consclence agree to creating such a
dangerous sl tuati on.
3
?
4 A comercial area requires sewer and water. Sewer and water is
not planned for this area for any time within the next 30 years.
Designating the area A-2 is totally appropriate in that a certain
amount of agriculture use occurs in the area today. The Valley in
Eden Prairie and most of Chanhassen is already designated
agricultural and low density residential . In addition, the area
includes two homes which rould conform nicely to the allowable
uses in the A-2 area. Lastly, the one unit on I0 acres and large'lot requ i rement of residential devel oprnent in the A-2 district
rould conyeniently limit the growth of homes preventing increased
density, further erosion and traffic problems.
Changing the zoning to A-2, Agricultural Estate allows reasonable
use of the property: Agricultural or resldential lots, tle've
seen that the area is not a viable cormerc i al area, therefore itis arguable nhether the property is uorth nore or less zoned
commercial . Zoned cormercial restricts the owners from selling
residential I ots.
6
I believe the urgency of this matter should cause imediate passing on this
recommendation to council before any additional plans are submitted for the
comnercial use of this area.
TAE:j
5.
/t
3
r
I,TEIIORANDUM
?O: Planning Commission
FROlrl: Barbara DacY, CitY
DATE: April 29, 1988
SUBJ: BF, Business Fringe
CITY OF
EIflA$IIIfr$$EI[
(
Pl anner
District Discuss ion
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BC'X 147 ' CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
This itern was tabled from the April 20, 1988, meeting' AtEached
is a letEer f rorn commissioner Erhart regarding his aguments to
rezone the current land zoned as Business Fringe District f rotn TH
101 on the west to the eastern proPerty limits of the former
Mobil station on the north side of TH 2L2. The fo}lowing analy-
zes the uses currently existing and proposed in thaE area'
The subject are was rezoned to the BF District along with Ehe
effectiie daEe of the nev, Zoning Ordinance on February 19, 1987'
Originallyl this area and the area Eo Ehe east was zoned C-3 by
the-formei L912 Zooing Ordinance (where Moo' Valley Excavation
and Rifle Range existl. Therefore, the city upon adopting. the
new Zoning Mai reduced the originally considered cornmercial area
to its cuireni size. There is only one other BF district area
farther to the west on Tll 2L2 iriunediately adjacent Lo chaska novr
occupied by Gary Brownrs mini-warehouse units. The existing uses
on tle soulh side of TH 212 are zoned A-2, Agricultural Estate
and are considered non-conforming. The I972 ordinance did not
include this area as commercial and had been zoned R-Ia,
Agricultural Residence. In the BF District area on the north
siile of IH 212 east of TH 101, there are currently eight properLy
ownerships: 1) Brookside Motel, 2) the former Lydia Teich prop-
erty now approued for Admiral rdaste uanagement contractorr s
yari, 3) Brimbitla's ProPerty now authorized for outdoor disPlay
6f landscape products, 4) the Sorenson,/Jed t ick i Property
iuthorized- for cold storage warehouse units, 5) the vernon Teich
property which is currently in srnall agricultural usage, 6) the
iorro"r Mobil Station siEe, 7) and 8) two single famiJ.y homes.
BACKGROUND
AN.qLYS IS
The City Attorney cautioned that upon rezoning from Business
Frtnge to the A-2, Agricultural Estate District, the city r{ould
I
(
Planning Cbmmi ss i on
April 29, 1988
Page 2
(
have to show Lhat rezoning would not be denying the individual
property ov?ner reasonable use of the land. If the property can-
not be used for agricultural or residential purPoses, the
property owner may have a claim for a taking.
The Brookside Motel is currently non-conforming. The contrac-
torrs yard and cold storage sites are consistenE with the current
uses permitted in the BF, Business Fringe District as well as
Brarnbilla's outdoor display of landscape products. of these
four parcels, only the contractorr s yard Property could be con-
sidered for an agricultural use because approximately I acres of
the total 13 acres could be farmed. The rear of the Brambilla
property is les:; than an acre in size. It is dubious as to
whetlrer or not a reasonable agricult.ural use exisEs on that pro-
perty. The f orrner tlobil StaEion and the Brookside Motel property
have no potential for agricultural use.
Except for the Brookside Motelr the existing and approved uses
require little demands as to septic system and well use because
of the 1ow number of employees needed to run the businesses.
Honever, in the case of the contractorr s yard, in order to build
a substar:tiaI building the property owner is faced with require-
nents for sprinklering, installation of adequaEe well reservoirs,
holding tanKs for purnping, and access improvements.
flhile it is true Lhat ron-conforming uses shou].d be disconEinued,
ir should also be ensured that the proPerty can be used for some
other tyge of use. Given that the city established commercial
zoning for the properties on the north side of fH 212 and has
authorized a minimal amount of use in that area, removing the
Business Fringe District, if pursued by the Commission or
CounciI, should be analyzed thoroughly by the Attorneyt s Office
before final action. The progerties on the south side of TH 2L2
have not had any type of cornmercial zoning placed on the. Property
and have existed as non-con formi ties . The city is in a better
position in this manner in that it is noE removing any develop-
nent right,s previously established.
As is pointed out by Commissioner Erhart, there are advantages to
removi-ng any commer-ial activiey along lhis corridor given the
safeEy issuls involved irith TH 212 and 169. It was estimated by
t{nDOT thaE in order to construct a byPass lane in front of the
suUlect area, it could cosE up to S500r000. Further, as pointed
out by Commissioner Erhart, there are visual -
imPac!s . that . do
arise'from commercial enterprises in this major corridor into the
community. Eden Prairie so far has been successful in preventing
commerciil rJevelopmenE along its. corridor except for the Lionrs
Tap which was previously established. Hoe,ever, as one enters
Chinhassen, belause of Lhe existence of these buildings and uses
for several years, a conmercial Pattern rras created.
*
,.,
\),,"2,
i:'%'
-.-....'...'.
k
t_
rl
iI
t
c
zoz
i": J.-.2: "J 't
.4S,
r ;.-:r;iiJ.':',',,-l' .':.' -!r..'
__)
('i,:i. "'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:.
.!
i'3
1.42
..?
i:I
i
\ .:.
..{.::
I'i!
t:
o
9
-
dE*nl
22
\rr.:''c-_l','
Y,
:il:.
l
I
I
1'
!
6
I
(
\.\
o1
i...-iii:lr
'1i
I
I
{
\i"..i
IAH
I
II
I
IEr
\
.t2E r?E:i Il ii
.j .|.' Ji
P: !; ?"i
B-Es
i'. -'
| ..-
\
4
a
I
t.
:
I
oiir
t
;
I
i...|:.t lrt.-.r-.:'irl.',i
!
o,
J.lls
?^
c3 \/.)
a
A2
CR
c c
V9 66'
A2
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
I
5
LAKE
ICER
I
o*
-fa a
NE
g
I
-tl
((
PlanningApril 29,
Page 3
Commission
1988
R gCOt.II.tENDAT ION
These issues should be discussed by the Planning Commission for
furthcr staff direcLion. This office firmly believes in the
intent of Mr. ErharEts coNnents and concurs with the general
principles of lirniting access onto a major arterial such as TiI
ifZ .n'a preservirtg a lleasing laudscape through this area of
chanhassen. noi,ever, tlrere are poLential legal implicaEions t'rotn
Lhis action thaL upolt Planning Cornmission direcLion should be
pursued in more detail.
ATTACIIMENTS
1.
2.
3.
LocaEion lnap.
Proposed coiridor study and proposed transPortation element
of the Cotnprehensive Plan.
Letter from Tirn Erhart dated April 26, 19U8.
I have a larger scale land use and proPerty ownership map
will be presented ac Ehe meeting.
NOTE:
which
• 4%e
—2300 --- ..
\\
f . \L
, 0 ., t.,. ....•,
tt
)o h!c., 3Nal .r
eti .. , i
c' 4t'' --.S
0 0 ,I+ ',
\I Arg \
'0 1\ . \ /- \ .,IV\
,,, ,
tL
0.
NI
9
L5i! .
•1 0 '
1\-1400 1 rg �� 11
ill 0
13
1 V4 1 f
)0 V, ,.-_; I il III0,4111
gill
)0 /�' S,01 1 11- ONii)
‘rrr'`~ r.is
oJET
)0
((/
dy > �� I
ry IBE4r•
3 IeN
,\ ,4 lirk3i, • Al witti mew. ----_ _-NN r ,,,,_ A
4/,
T-700
• -� 111 GRE,A1
_ . _
—600 * Ir •�• 4',_- a
01 ��%lir,.via " $
y S
-500 :. f
�W<>
-300 Zi r� S . ,
Io iD w
zoo \r -i
D / `-� N
100 n m rh ,CIMI \ N
fli
° I )1
it
1
Th.,mu\ J. L.anrlF<ll
R,,,:tr \. Klur' 'n
Th, ,:, ,. 1.1. :., ,t
(in t' L.i,-
Janr.. F. \t.,1.,,r',
Ellr.rrt B l-n.rtl,
Dennis J Unlrr
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A.
April 6, 1990
(6ll) 456-q51.)
Facsimrle (6ll) {56-95{l
APR 0I 1931
Gilfl.oF ctnnnpsrn
Yankee Square Office III . Suite 202 . 3460 Washington Drive . Eagan, MN 55122
Attomels at Law
Mr. PauI Krauss
Chanhassen City HaII
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: Blendinq ordinance
Dear Paul:
You asked me to review and cornment on the proPosed "blending
ordinancerr. I know of no other City that has a similar ordinance
and I atn aware of no llinnesota case law on the subject. I see no
irnpediments, however, to the ordinance being upheld.
Minn. Stat. Sec. 462.357, Subd. 1, provides that zoning
"regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of
buildings, structures, or land and for each class or kind of use
throughout the district." The uniformity reguirement could be
interfreted as prohibiting a lot blending scheme in the City's
zoning ordinance. Minn. Stat. Sec. 462.358, Subd. 2a, however,
provides that "the standards and reguirements in the
isubdivisionl regulations may address without limitation: the
size...of Iots." The provisions enables the City to regulate lot
sizes in the subdivision ordinance vrithout any reguirement that
lot size requirements for atl lots in a zoning district be the
same .
section 18-56 of the City's subdivision ordinance
Provides :
The proposed subdivision shall conform to the comprehensive
plan, zoning ordinance, and design handbook. The design
ieatures sea forth in this articte are ninimum requirements'
The city may impose additional or more stringent reguire-
ments concerning lot size, streets, and overall design as
deemed appropriate considering the property being
subdivided.
Mr. PauIApri} 6,
Page Two
Kraus s
1990
.i
Based upon identicaldenial of a plat becauselots then required by theexisting large 1ots. Theout r.rha t is required and
and enforce.
language, in another City I sustainedthe developer refused to have l-argerzoning ordinance where the lots abuttedblending ordinance would better spell
make the requirement easier to implenent
Since the blending rules are not guantified, the decisionmakers have broad discretion in applying the ordinance. This cancreate at least the appearance of arbitrariness.
I yours,
BELL,TSON, SCOTT
A.FU
N. Knutson
B
RNK: srn