Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
10-19-88 Agenda and Packet
EL)Le AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1988 , 7: 30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER OLD BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 . Conditional use permit for a 174,000 sq. ft. building for auto repair and boat maintenance on property zoned BH, Highway Business District and located at the northeast corner of Hwy. 5 and 101, Chanhassen Auto and Sports Center, Lotus Realty Services. 2 . Subdivision of 22.8 acres into 2 lots of 1 .9 and 20 .9 acres on property zoned RR, Rural Residential and located on Ches Mar Drive approximately 1 mile north of Hwy. 5 , Ginger Gross, Ches Mar Farms Realty. 3 . Lakeshore Equipment, property zoned IOP, Industrial Office Park, located on Park Drive approximately mile south of Hwy. 5 : a. Conditional Use Permit for outdoor storage on 4 .19 acres NEW BUSINESS 3 . b. Site Plan Review for an office/warehouse facility, — property zoned IOP, Industrial Office Park, located on Park Drive approximately f mile south of Hwy. 5 , Lakeshore Equipment. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OPEN DISCUSSION 4 . Comprehensive Plan - Population Projections , Mark Koegler. 5 . Zoning Ordinance Amendment Discussion, Mark Koegler. 6 . Discussion of Wetland Ordinance. ADJOURNMENT C I T Y OF P.C. DATE: Oct. 19, 1988 \ : CHANHASSEN C.0. : :88: : C: TEo . 1988 Y CASE Prepared by: Olsen/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit for Marine Fiberglass Boat Repair and Maintenance a LOCATION: Hanus site located directly east of the Amoco site --� on the northeast corner of Hwys. 5 and 101 — APPLICANT: Lotus Realty Services Q P.O. Box 100 Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: BH, Highway and Business District ACREAGE: Approximately 4 acres DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING /0%y��;S,_ AND LAND USE: N- BH; railroad S- Highway 5 E- BH; Apple Valley Red-E-Mix - Q W- BH; vacant, car wash W WATER AND SEWER: Water and sewer is available to the site. PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site is currently developed and used as the Hanus facility. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial ._ sP , • ' - %, -ROK •• rAI - 4a1h'• l.':& _ • -- ;� 'kI1 :III ; ' r. no ��ntO UDR �` �o� ' _ Ain i, if aha'�•�••. �� � %N•••••.IR '_.Noon ` • ,I�. �"",I"'� '---':-•=y 1 ,. , 4, .0%,..1110 <o RSF ójr.e rt. - R A ' _mail It;'a An titili! :---'4, ' 7 Aft 1111 WI 41111111" -11-•-24 pilli A . I: furg asA0 .0%, sol'in I. i • \\ - . , .'1 P.11110 467,4‘'A r ... „A_-,,,,ofilrii up.1 ; Nlik;:LAP- '%4•0'...., -- ar ?MI6 ii ,. all Fl iNw IP. .120.met . a 4'. . 7 -,..,........41:apper or r 1 ' il'�1 I W R 1 2. Aigg .� �M _� :: W " IMF' it' �i.._..1111►,11 !•'.i.,•1.1•111 . - • , . ` Lc: �T(„� cp .IN' 111111 ��� �fiC*--t/D'., �5C ;= 1 7 j Illi • . - _ 1/ - �T • t - wS; `'moi ,`^., I •$ -e • * r , • or.I:J ff� > Am___ I f� 1 t, 7 ,y ' OP _, . 'Ft. . .. B G i zlill" AO ,, ........""1" 13:137;1„5" -.:. III a _L ellik-- . 1 ., • i CSP 01 ' ;S4.41,141.. !.. , / I.e.,. 0%; !d. . ( 4„ i : . N _________- -\ • mop.. itt&s 1 ., 441; _ . \ •._ i I ipiwas.thissetaw__ I � _:___ ____ _ , - 1 i_, , z . 1 -I 4. 1.2-- , -. ,_.. _,--- pPli"PAKO AN 1 /� MARSH itiraF..1. ■ 2 - f - CIRCLE - -�.- -�.,.� R S h L .�KE SUSAN )21/1 &I- RD A . - s. ' e I t. , Marine Fiberglass October 19, 1988 Page 2 1 REFERRAL AGENCIES Fire Inspector Attachment #1 Building Department Attachment #2 BACKGROUND As part of the redevelopment of the downtown area, the city has purchased certain properties and required certain businesses to relocate. Two businesses that have to relocate are Scott' s Automotive Repair and Marine Fiberglass (Attachment #3) . The Hanus facility was proposed for the relocation of Scott' s Automotive and Marine Fiberglass. The Hanus facility received a conditional use permit on May 3 , 1982 (Attachment #4) . The conditional use permit allowed an automotive/truck body shop repair facility and also allowed the service repair of motor vehicles, including boats and mobile power driven recreational equipment, business offices and storage of commercial vehicles . The Hanus truck facility builds , repairs both mechanical and body and stores large dump trucks. It also repairs and stores school and coach buses. The Hanus facility has repaired vehicles both inside and outside of the building with as many as 150 vehicles stored on site. The Hanus facility contains approximately 18 ,000 square feet of building area. -- Since approval of the conditional use permit there has peen mechancial repair of motor driven vehicles . Since automotive repair has been continuous on the site, staff approved the relo- cation of Scott' s Automotive Repair to the Hanus facility. There has never been any boat repair or service on the Hanus site as approved by the conditional use permit in 1982 . The fact that boat repair and maintenance had never taken place on the site, it — was determined by staff that the applicant must receive an amend- ment to the conditional use permit to allow Marine Fiberglass to relocate to the Hanus site. ANALYSIS _ The applicant is proposing an amendment to an existing con- ditional use permit to allow boat repair and maintenance to be located in the Hanus facility. The actual application is an amendment to the original conditional use permit to reinstate boat repair and maintenance as a permitted use as part of the original conditional use permit. The proposed tenant is Marine Fiberglass. Marine Fiberglass refinishes and repairs boats . All refinishing and repair will be inside of the building with no exterior work. The refinishing and repair of boats will include hulls, decks, masts, etc. The existing Hanus building contains Marine Fiberglass — October 19, 1988 Page 3 18, 000 square feet and Marine Fiberglass will rent 2 ,600 square feet of the building and will also have a 2 ,600 square foot area — in the outdoor storage portion of the site for staging space for 10 boats . The outdoor storage area will not be used as a per- manent storage area but will be used on a daily basis for staging — (dropping and picking up) of boats. The applicant owns the Hanus facility and has been working with the current tenant (Hanus) to clean up the site . The lease for — Hanus expires in April of 1989 and it has not been determined if Hanus will remain on the site or will move to a new location. The area of the Hanus business has been reduced to permit the — renting of additional space to other tenants ( Scott' s Automotive Repair and Marine Fiberglass) . In addition, the outside storage used by Hanus is being organized and reduced to allow areas for the new tenants. Leasing of the building allows equal space in the building and equal spacing for outdoor storage. Therefore, Marine Fiberglass is renting 2 ,600 square feet of building space and is also given 2,600 square feet of the outdoor storage. The outdoor storage is currently screened with a fence and no altera- tions to the site are being proposed. The City Fire Inspector has stated that all fire codes must be met prior to issuance of an occupancy permit (Attachment #1) . The applicant must also meet the requirements of the Building Department (Attachment #2) . RECOMMENDATION The proposed use was permitted with the initial conditional use permit. By requiring an amendment to the conditional use permit the city has the ability to establish conditions for the proposed use (Marine Fiberglass) . Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: — "The Planning Commission recommends approval of an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for the Hanus Facility to permit — Marine Fiberglass to be located at the subject site with the following conditions: 1 . Marine Fiberglass must meet all other conditions of the ori- ginal conditional use permit. 2 . Marine Fiberglass shall be limited to exterior staging of — ten boats. 3 . Any increase in use of the site by Marine Fiberglass shall — require a conditional use permit. Marine Fiberglass October 19, 1988 Page 4 r 4 . The applicant must meet all Fire Code requirements prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 5 . The applicant shall meet the requirements of the Building Department. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Memo from Fire Inspector dated October 6 , 1988 . 2 . Memo from Building Department dated October 4, 1988 . 3 . Memo from Todd Gerhardt dated October 14, 1988. 4 . Original conditional use permit for Hanus facility dated May 3 , 1982 . 7:1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Inspector — DATE: October 14 , 1988 SUBJ: Planning Case 88-16 - Lotus Realty Services The recommendation at this time would be: — 1 . Fire apparatus access roads through the outdoor storage area shall be provided and maintained in accordance with Section — 10 .207 of the Uniform Fire Code. 2 . The proper number and location of existing fire hydrants _ appears adequate. - CITYOF ; 1 :tii 0 /- CHANHASSEN <4' _ . .. . 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.Q. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM — TO: JoAnn Olsen, Assistant City Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Inspector ,C � , DATE: October 4 , 1988 v SUBJ: Planning Case 88-16 CUP (Lotus Realty Services) — — Building must be sprinklered if occupancy classification is changed from former classification. Parking lot and building must meet all current applicable hand- - icap code requirements . A building permit will be required and a certificate of occupancy — must be obtained before opening for business. CITY OF LCHANHASSEN' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 — MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner FROM: Todd Gerhardt, Administrative Assistant DATE: October 14, 1988 SUBJ: Background on the Tenants of old Hanus Truck Facility On January 15 , 1988 , the Chanhassen Housing and Redevelopment Authority acquired the old Hanus Truck Facility from a Mr. LaBallo. Through this acquisition, the HRA had both Scott' s — Automotive Repair and Marine Fiberglass enter into a new lease agreement that would run until August 1 , 1988. Notification of vacating the property was given on May 1, 1988 that stated each tenant would have to vacate the property by August 1 , 1988 . Staff has held off in taking legal action in evicting each of the tenants in anticipation of their relocation to the new Hanus Facility. Notice has been sent to Scott Neske, owner of Scott' s — Automotive Repair, that the City of Chanhassen will proceed with legal action on October 14 , 1988 in evicting Mr. Neske from his present site. The same notification will be sent to Stan Nowak, — owner of Marine Fiberglass, Inc. Both individuals did qualify for relocation benefits due to the displacement of the City' s acquisition of the LaBallo property. If you should need any additional information regarding this item, I can be available to attend the Planning Commission meeting. — Rev. 2/12/82 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RESTATED CONDITONAL USE PERMIT '/ DONALD AND DARLENE HANUS This restateg conditional use permit and agreement entered into this ,3 day of Mz , 19 e2 , by and between Donald Hanus and Dailene Hanus (hereinafter the Applicants ) and the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, (hereinafter the "City") ; WITNESSETH: That the City, in exercise of its powers pursuant to M.S . §462. 357, and other applicable state law, and the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, hereby grants to the Applicants a restated conditional use permit to maintain and _ operate an automobile/truck body shop and repair facility and retail sale facility upon the tract of land which is more particulary described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof (hereinafter the "Subject Property") , subject to the following terms and conditions, all of which shall be strictly complied with as being necessary for the protection of the public interest. Section 1 . RECITALS . 1 .01 . Prior Issuance of Conditional Use Permit. Pursuant to action of the City ' s Council on August 16, 1976, the City issued a conditional use permit dated May 2, 1976 and signed by the Applicants on June 10, 1977 . On November 21, 1977 the City ' s Council approved an amendment of said conditional use permit. Said amendment, entitled "First Amendment Conditional Use Permit Hanus Auto and Truck Body Shop" , was executed by the Applicants and the City on December 8 , 1977 . 1 .02 . Request for Amendment of Permit. The Applicants have petitioned the City that certain provisions of said conditional permit, as amended heretofore, be further amended. 1 .03 . City Council Approval of Further Amendment. The City' s Council, by its motion of /exit'r 3 , , approved issuance of a revised conditional use permit to the Applicants . 1. 04 . Restated Permit. The above described May 2 , 1976 Conditional Use Permit and First Amendment thereto dated December 8, 1977 are hereby amended and restated as set forth hereinafter and this restated permit shall supercede and take the place of said May 2, 1976 permit and all amendments thereto . ::ov. 2/12/82 • Section 2 . SPECIAL CONDITIONS . 2 .01 . Permit Not Assignable . This permit is personal to the Applicants and shall not be assigned without written < < consent of the City. 2 .02 . Description of Property . The premises subject to the within conditional use permit shall be the Subject Property as described on Exhibit A attached hereto. 2 . 03 . No Outside Work. No work shall be performed on any vehicle which is standing outside of any building located on — the Subject Property. 2 .04 . Open Sales . Applicants ' inventory of vehicles — available for sale and stored upon the Subject Property shall not exceed ten (10) vehicles at any one time. For purposes of this §2 . 04 the term "vehicle" shall be deemed to include both motor vehicles and trailers . 2 .05 . Open Storage . No vehicle or trailer shall be parked or stored upon the following portions of the Subject Property: — a. roperty: —a. Outside of the fence, which is depicted on the "Recommended Screening Plan, Chanhassen Community Development Dept - 11/19/81, " a 0- copy of which is on file in the office of the LL\ City Community Development Director; provided, -however, that vch c c3 and trailers, which arc which is identif icd as "Diaplay Arca" on Said - - - - - - - ' and b . Any portion of the Subject Property which is — within the above described fence and located within forty (40) feet of said fence, provided, however, that vehicles or trailers which do not exceed 96 inches in height may be parked or stored within said forty (40) foot wide area. 2 .06 . Storage of Non-Owned Vehicles . No vehicle or trailer shall be stored or parked upon the Subject Property except for vehicles or trailers which are a) owned by the Applicants, or by persons employed upon the Subject Property, or b) are in the process of being repaired or renovated, or c) are owned or operated by the Applicants ' business tenants . 2 . 07 . Alterations of The Subject Property . Any altera ion of the improvements located on the Subject Property _ requiring the issuance of a building permit under the Chanhassen Building Code, shall be performed only after the Applicants have obtained from the City an amendment of this conditional use permit approving such alteration. - -2- Rev. 2/12/82 2 .08 . Allowable Uses of The Subject Property. The Subject Property shall not be used for any purposes except the (' following: a . The service, and repair of motor vehicles (as defined by the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance) boats and mobile power driven recreational equipment, and b . Subject to the limitation set forth in §2 . 04 hereinabove, the sale of used motor vehicles (as defined by the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance) , which have been repaired or refurbished on the Subject Property, and c. Business offices, and d. Storage of commercial vehicles owned or operated by businesses maintaining business offices on the Subject Property, and e . Storage of raw materials and inventory used in connection with permitted repair services conducted upon the Subject Property, provided that such storage shall be allowed only so long as (a) the applicants are in full compliance with §2 .10 herein- below, and (b) such materials and inventory are stored within the buildings on the Subject Property. The previous sentence notwithstanding, no asphalt plant or asphalt mixing operation may be operated or maintained upon the Subject Property. The applicants agree to advise the City of any proposed changes in the identity of tenants occupying the Subject Property in advance of any such occupancy . 2 .09 . Electrical Service . Electrical service to the Subject Property shall be provided by underground power lines . 2 .10 . Screening. The northerly, westerly and southerly sides of the fenced area depicted on the above described "Recommended Screening Plan" shall be screened in the manner set forth on Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof, to block said fenced area from the view of neighboring property owners and from the view of persons traveling upon any public right-of-way . The applicants shall maintain the fences described on Exhibit B in a workmanlike manner at all times . 2 .11 . Public Welfare. No use, which is detrimental to or which endangers the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare, shall be established or maintained upon the Subject Property . 2 . 12 . Nuisance . No activity shall be conducted upon the Subject Property which emits noxious odors or causes noise in excess of that permitted by the applicable noise control ordinances of the City or by the applicable noise control regulations of the State of Minnesota. -3- Rev. 2/12/82 2 . 13 . Other Regulations. The Applicants shall comply with all City ordinances, state laws, and regulations of state N agencies and departments . 2.14 . No Changes in Use Permitted. The use of the Subject Property shall be limited to those uses set forth in Section 2 .08 of this permit; and no changes in the use shall — occur except as may be permitted by an amended conditional use permit or by a rezoning of the Subject Property, as approved by the City Council . — 2. 15 . Proof of Title. The Applicants shall, from time to time, upon the written request of the City, furnish the City with reasonable evidence that the Applicants hold or continue to hold fee title to the Subject Property. — 2. 16 . Grading Plan. No permit for grading shall be issued and the Applicants shall perform no grading of the Subject — Property until the Applicants ' grading plan has been reviewed by City staff for purposes of verifying that said grading plan is in complete conformity with all of the provisions of the — within permit. Said grading plan shall include such reasonable information as may be requested by the City Engineer, including, but not limited to the following, if deemed reasonably necessary by the City Engineer: existing contours, proposed grading — elevations, drainage configurations, storm sewer catch basin and invfert elevations, spot elevations and proposed road profiles . f\\7.4 2 . 17 . Additional Landscaping. Subject to approval of — Applicants ' grading plan as provide in Section 2 .16 of Itis permit, Applicants, no later than ✓c.,v 30 , 9 82 — 114shall grade and sod that portion of the Subject Property which . lies southerly and within thirty feet of the fenced area 911 depicted on the above described "Recommended Screening Plan" . Z The Applicants shall maintain said area in a workmanlike manner, including mowing, watering, and fertilizing as necessary to maintain a well groomed appearance . L Section 3 . MISCELLANEOUS . 3 . 01 . Severability. In the event any provisions of this L permit shall be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not L invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision hereof, and the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. I 3. 02 . Execution of Counterparts . This permit may be L simultaneously executed in several counterparts , each of which shall be an original , and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. L 14 rtu-a 3 . 03 . Headings . Headings at the beginning of sections and paragraphs hereof are for convenience of reference, and shall 1 not be considered a part of the test of this permit, and shall / not influence its construction. )1Sg 6e.ETREquiREttEur Fog MA s-0-0471-14vrs-0-0471-14of FEluGF LYi�d ZA) NiG,Ncv.�r s 1 0i6147 of evi+y r,) ACCOROA✓c E wirN Ci7Y cov.ucic AC,7 'o1 o F 7O(Y I II •//A'1 _ .. ... a...as ..,i 3 . 04 . Notices . All notices, certificates and other communications hereunder shall be sufficiently given and shall be deemed given when mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, with proper address as indicated below. The City and the Applicants by written notice given by i, one to the other, may designate any address or addresses, to which notices, certificates or other communications to them shall be sent when required as contemplated by this permit. Unless otherwise provided by the respective parties , all notices, certificates, and communications to each of them shall be addressed as follows: To the City : City of Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 Attn: City Manager To the Applicants : 225 West 79th Street Chanhassen MN 55317 Section 4 . ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS. 4 . 01 . Reimbursement of Costs . The Applicants shall reimburse the City for all costs, including reasonable engineering, legal , planning and administrative expenses incurred by the City in connection with all matters relating to the administration and enforcement of the within permit and the performance thereby by the Applicants . Such reimbursement shall be made within fourteen (14) days of the date of mailing of the City ' s notice of costs as provided in Section 3 . 04 above . The reimbursement obligation of the Applicants under this section shall be a continuing obligation throughout the term of this permit. 4 . 02 . Remedies Upon Default. a . Assessments . In the event that the Applicants shall default in the performance of any of the covenants and agreements herein contained, and such default shall not have been cured within ten (10) days after receipt by the Applicants of written notice thereof, the City, if it so elects, may take action to cure such default and may cause the entire cost thereof, including all reasonable engineering, legal and administrative expense incurred by the City, to be recovered as a special assessment under M.S . Chapter 429 , in which case the Applicants agree to pay the entire amount of the assessment roll pertaining to any such costs within thirty ( 30) days after its adoption. The Applicants further agree that in the event of their failure to pay in full any such special assessment within the time prescribed herein, the City shall have a specific lien on the Subject Property for any amount so unpaid, and the City shall have the right, in its absolute discretion, to either a) foreclose said lien, or b) to certify the amount of said lien to the -5- County Auditor for collection in one lump sum with the real estate taxes on the Subject Property. In the event of an emergency, as determined by the City Engineers, the notice requirements to the Applicants shall be and hereby are waived in their entirety, and the Applicants shall reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City in remedying the conditions creating the emergency. — b. Legal Proceedings. In addition to the foregoing, the City may institute any proper action or proceeding at law — or at equity to prevent violations of the within permit, to restrain or abate violations of the within permit, or to prevent use or occupancy of the Subject Property. c . Revocation of This Permit. The City reserves the right to review the within conditional use permit at any time to determine compliance with all conditions of the permit; and — if the City determines that the Applicants have not strictly complied with the terms of the permit, the permit may be terminated at the option of the City. All City expenses incurred — in the enforcement of the within permit shall be the obligation of the Applicants and may be recovered by the City as set forth in this Section 4 . 02 . d. No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon the City herein is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies, but each and every such remedy — shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given under this permit or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity, or by statutes . No delay or omission to exercise any rightor power accruing upon any default shall impair any such right or power or shall be construed to be a waiver thereof but any such right and power may be exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient. e. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver. In the event any agreement or obligation of the Applicants -- contained in this permit should be breached by the Applicants and thereafter waived by the City, such waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and shall not be deemed to waive any other concurrent, previous or subsequent breach of this permit. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed on this 10„,a/day of "v.., , 1982 . CITY OF CHANHASSEN — 1 By — onald Hanus its Mayor ku0.911d �" u, 1��� , Attest arlene Hanus I ' City Clerk/Manager - -6- STATE OF MINNESOTA) 11 ) ss . COUNTY OF CARVER ) On this - 7 Al day of A,/'/2 /L 1947-2 before me, a notary public within and for said county, personally appeared — Donald Hanus and Darlene Hanus, to me known to be the persons described in, and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that they executed the same as their free act and deed. AAwAL,��}} LAjN . J. ROESER ["�, jl•IC-1 Y ?t:EL:C•!lINNESOTAs , — i F.-, C:d;2VER COUNTY s &-G�'LQ ���'�lL �� ��` i' NotaryP �1} mi C�n:m�ssisn Expires hep.1,1989 PubAc xnyvwrw.t yin* County: My Commission expires: STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss . COUNTY OF CARVER ) — On this day of 19 before me, a notary public, within and for said county, personally appeared Thomas Hamilton and Donald W. Ashworth, to me personally known, who, _ being each by me duly sworn, did say that they are respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the municipal corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that said instrument was signed and sealed — in behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its City Council, and said Thomas Hamilton and Donald W. Ashworth acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipal corporation. — Notary Public County: My Commission expires : • -7- • • 1 .11 i • • EiIBIT A• } . l , - ` ` r - •, � 1 . 1 1 } 1 1 1 • I1 1 . door 9/3 T 11. ,,, ,--- - 23i• . 9 • • I _ • :HL. I K1 �+T —+IVII`1 —NO.—T-- —- -- -- -T60 , • 33, 6; -71 - r, J 1 STAT-E----- 64d- — — . — i 60 60 66 GERALD SCLENK '� _ rr00 p — — • 9K119, P•165 p "� ,p Q Q CAM TIN SCHLENK 2.37 0 ,W .:�p-1 A •--.------. CHURCH OF ST HUBERT '1 ,476.. P 51e . 01: O 211." =.52 Q ,te , 1 1 -i wVsc r EI.L. 1 / /� 10 i.. Of CHAN18K83, P.141 mai �d i1a,a114 -- 5GO � - ><tl oR H.A. KERBER • NPS G� ,, /',' i ! r- L :� ..pc.A.PAUIYf N 6K 112,P 490 I'� -�i5 vp,\.'�11,9\�� ���� ''� 4126•414 Z. - ,• _x,04' 64. • i a AO( OLD R.R R/w • E. Mp! �" OA' •• Of OA1Gp6AHp4NE0%J tONTIER• DEVELOPMENT CORP �• '�="�_ ,��! • N _ �j� / / 18Ki18,P41B1 _• J� �(1_LN j4�N 330 Mi •` • !1 'r` - r 1 .0a,Pli�113.P. 1.1aV5 I• • / • �p1I 1`"Av SVSpN Kl4HGK�p012 ,v o�NgK• ��3�P i m Q - 144.6).....N F. J. KURVERS ��. i� - BK 67,P lee - `70?,0 2 I $ '11 • • s jS0 �,z' _`�� v :ci 396 3 `.. 20 //� ..../. ♦_ AMERICAN OIL CO �9c I I 65, - i • • , I 1 DQ `\A` _ tg • Poo � / _ $ 0 I r00j1 / u A R O j m P� i I CHANHASSEN POST NO. 580 The Subject Prope Z i 1 AMER. LEGION HOUSING CORP • DK 44,P Z60 /l .. I!. .: Io 056 • _ • '�-- , R� 6K•44,P 279 R . - 7 �1 = _-�. L. i --�� ( BR 104, P 439 - EXHIBIT B (Section 2 .10) The screening fence, the location of which is depicted on the "Recommended Screening Plan" shall consist of a wooden fence, which is not less than eight (8) feet in height, and which shall either be solid or so constructed as to be fully opaque with no gaps or spaces between slats, which would allow the interior of the fenced area to be observed by persons outside of the fenced area. Said screening fence shall be completed no later than May 31 , 1982 . - LOTUS REALTY SERVICES 545 WEST 78th STREET, P.O. BOX 100 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 934-4538 October 14, 1988 _ TO: Members of the Planning Commission SUBJECT: Hanus Truck Facility You have before you a request for a conditional use permit to allow the repair of fiberglass boats at the Hanus Truck Facility. I would like to urge you to approve the permit for the following reasons: 1. Lotus Realty services as a partner in CHADDA recognized 3 years ago the need to relocate a number of businesses from 78th street, where for various reasons they no longer fit, to a location where the use is permitted. Toward that end, we have worked to assemble the Hanus-Kurver site to — provide just such a location either as a permanent site or as a transition location until a final location can be found. Marine Fiberglass, Scotties Automotive, Chanhassen Lawn & Sport and Automotive Unlimited all are — examples of the businesses we have encouraged to relocate to the Hanus building allowing for a smooth transition from 78th for businesses affected by downtown redevelopment. — 2. Two of the above businesses are interested in relocating to the Hanus Building for at least three years. They are Scotties Automotive and Marine Fiberglass. Under a conditional use permit issued in 1982 motorized vehicle repair is allowed and boat repair was allowed. No boats have been repaired at the facility since the permit was issued, and therefore, repair is no longer a permitted use. As part of an orderly transition we request the boat repair permit be issued because it does fit in with current uses and the building fits this use physically. 3. The long range plan for the building is to convert the building and site to highway oriented retail or other types of retail which fit the site, facility and the best interests of Chanhassen. You are aware there are not many locations on the East side of the City where automobile repair and — services are allowed without gas. Lotus is currently promoting the site for this use and attempting to tie our plan with Amaco's new plan for its facility. The current zoning is BH which may be to restrictive given the — current use and the Hanus Facility. We will in the future present a complete plan for the site and request a re-zoning to BG. Retail demand and economics do not allow a rapid change at this time but we hope to complete the transition over the next three years. — Sincerely, Bradley C. Johnson BCJ:pp LOTUS REALTY SERVICES 545 WEST 78th STREET, P.O. BOX 100 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I (612) 934-4538 September 23, 1988 Ms. JoAnn Olsen Assistant City Planner City of Chanhassen Chanhassen, MN. 55317 RE: Existing Hanus Truck Facility Dear Ms. Olsen: Per your request regarding the above referenced project, the following summarizes the past, present and proposed future uses/tenants for this building. Past and Present Uses: The Hanus Truck facility builds, repairs, both mechanical and body, and stores large dump trucks. It also repairs and stores school and coach buses. The building and repair of these vehicles has taken place both inside and outside of the building. At times there are as many as 150 vehicles stored on site. The building contains approximately 18,000 square feet. This then equates to 1 vehicle per 120 square feet of building area. Scotts Automotive Repair: (proposed tenant) _ Scotts Automotive Repair is in the business of mechanical repair of motor driven vehicles. The repair of these vehicles will be inside with no exterior repair. The repair could include but not be limited to tuneups, oil changes, brakes, mufflers, transmissions, air conditioning, flat tires, etc. This tenant will use approximately 2,100 square feet of the 18,000 square foot building with 10 parking spaces for staging customer vehicles. It is anticipated, based upon daily work schedules, that these spaces will be used on a daily basis with the customer dropping off or picking up their vehicle in accordance with the work to be performed. This equates to 1 vehicle per 210 square feet of building space. Ms. JoAnn Olsen Page 2 September 23, 1988 Marine Fiberglass: (Proposed tenant) Marine Fiberglass is in the business of refinishing boats. The refinishing of these boats will be inside with no exterior repair. The repair could include but not be limited to their hulls, decks, masts, etc. This business will use 2,600 square feet of the 18,000 square foot building with exterior staging space for 10 boats. It is anticipated based upon daily work schedule that this space will be used on a daily basis with the customer dropping off or picking up their boat in accordance with the work to be performed. This equates to 1 boat per 260 square feet of building space. In summary, Scott's Automotive Repair and Marine Fiberglass's use of the building is not greater nor is it even equal to the present use, it is much — less. I therefore, respectfully request that you issue us a letter authorizing these businesses to relocate to this building. Sincerely, (.;b 1."‹. pat,— Harold Ness HS:pp LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: Z ��/k�'1! JC�nVd C5 Clev��S OWNER: �df1-�S th�'7'-/ CLS ADDRESS PO . Pox 10 0 ADDRESS P o. Pc X /00 C4.4-4-0-s5r C4A,..)NA-55r2,0 5c3 t U Zip Code Zip Code TELEPHONE (Daytime ) 13Lf-(P; r2 TELEPHONE (33(1-Y53 ? REQUEST: Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan Preliminary Plan Zoning Variance Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision Land Use Plan Amendment Platting Conditional Use Permit Metes and Bounds Street/Easement Vacation Site Plan Review Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME ClAN04,A-155-7;-...) ,_rt.1-71,, F,opTS PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION ts{5',N05S 161-11^1A1 REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION (NND1Tla14fi2 (.(5E- F 1tT tz'� -- 1'n.cr c: r=.q1 .4"0 - • c� PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING USES PROPOSED APr ?R /4v)D QAT- lWr7I NAA-CE SIZE OF PROPERTY 7`-i- 000 t LOCATION Jo rr • oF Cil S 54-/0 REASONS FOR A r.), - Sr' REQUEST i Loc0 nr- � - F -c.� l `17 • Z( TO T?€ � ,:Jvo _�'c S r .r-�,L/AicVv;n'G l LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary ) City of Chanhassen Land Development Application -` Page 2 1 FILING INSTRUCTIONS : This application. must be completed in full and be typewritten clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information andor -' plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions . Before filing this application , you should confer with the City Planner to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application . FILING CERTIFICATION: The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of allifies applicable City Ordinances . Signed By (1"/ 7/lcd' 7 ee.;=(f___ Date Z 6 Applicam./ _ • The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been authorized to make this application for the property herein described . 1J 7 Signed By / tL VA( ee O ner Date Date Application Received 4.Application Fee Paid` City Receipt No. * This Application will be considered b h the Planning Commission/ Board of Adjustments and Appeals PPeals at their 6kF.I►f rwkul+f. eaciuLevMp \ • '—— is I ii 1 ' li 1 .\ luusmief \'t\ N, % \ Z 1 O \ . \ 1 3 • \ -* 7 C 146 is' ' 4I CW_ 7.p 7.-•Qye ? / O ~ K3 U e + 4,. I Igi IV/ ; az s \ .6 f Z *\ Iii. la j f1` ENi ..1;\ C3 CO s r.- OR we 1,10,16 v� Z ti� �` \To \ \..._ A r :et\ Ct DNVb i t,Ar+F e \ -t. \ \ . ,,,,, \ 4-k\ \ \ 3. n \ '\ DR1JE 1,4.1E 5. I c 0 en F1H — 424.15t-o v z z i i &- b ..1 m z 1 O 1 a C 2 , CITY O F P.C. DATE: Oct . 19, 1988 I • CUANZA: S: 11i C.C. DATE: Nov. 14 , 1988 CASE NO: 88-27 SUB Prepared by: Olsen/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 22 . 8 Acres of Property LL Into Two Lots of 1 . 9 and 20 . 9 Acres Z LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Ches Mar Drive and Hwy. 41 Approximately 1 Mile North of Hwy. 5 0 APPLICANT: Ches Mar Realty Tim Keane 4300 Baker Road, Suite 4 Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Minnetonka, MN 55343 Lindgren Q 1500 NW Financial Ctr . Mr . & Mrs . Charles Gross 7900 Xerxes Avenue So. 7110 Hwy. 41 Bloomington , MN 55431 Excelsior, MIT 55331 PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential ACREAGE: --' /ice 22 . 8 Acres DENSITY: /o_/i _ ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- RR; Minnewashta Regional Park/Ches Mar Faros S- RR; single family QE- RR; single family W- PUD; Ches Mar Farms -- 0 WATER AND SEWER: No sewer and water available to site . W PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site currently contains a single family residence and the remaining parcel is open space with steep topography and lakeshore on Lake Minnewashta . 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Medium Density ►tits �e = Ches Mar Realty October 19, 1988 Page 2 1 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The Zoning Ordinance requires rural lots to maintain a minimum lot size of 2i acres and a density of one unit per ten acres . The lots must have 200 feet of street frontage and a lot depth of 200 feet. REFERRAL AGENCIES Engineering Department Attachment #2 Park and Recreation "The Park and Recreation Commission will be reviewing the subdivision on October 18 , 1988 and may be requiring trail easements along Hwy. 41. " ANALYSIS The applicant, Ches Mar Realty, is requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide 1. 93 acres from a 28 .2 acre parcel . Parcel A, which contains the 1 . 93 acres , contains a single family resi- dence that has been rented by Charles and Virginia Gross . In 1983 , the Gross ' s had the option to purchase the property. Parcel A was a separately described lot. The owner of Parcel A purchased Parcel B and under the regulations of the subdivision ordinance Parcel A and B are considered one parcel since they are adjoining properties under single ownership. The applicant is proposing to subdivide Parcel A from Parcel B in order to permit the transfer of the property to the Gross ' s. The applicant is proposing to maintain the 1. 93 acres which is the original description of the separate lot of Parcel A. The appli- cant understands that the city requires a minimum of 2i acres and that a denisty of one unit per ten acres must be maintained. If the subdivision is approved, Parcel A would be transferred to Charles and Virginia Gross and Parcel B would be transferred to Lotus Realty which is pursuing a subdivision of Ches Mar Farms. Parcel A meets all the requirements for a rural single family lot except that it does not contain 2 .5 acres. Parcel B contains the required acreage and also meets the required lot frontage and depth requirements . Staff is recommending that the area of Parcel A be increased to provide the 2 .5 acres as required by the ordinance. There is an existing septic system on Parcel A therefore, soil borings were not required. The applicant has not provided soil borings for Parcel B because this property will be joined with the Ches Mar Farm property and subdivided as part of that sub- division application. There is no guarantee that Parcel B will Ches Mar Realty October 19 , 1988 Page 3 not remain as a separate legal lot of record. Staff typically requires that soil borings be provided and approved by the city' s consultants prior to plat approval . Therefore, staff is recom- mending that soil borings be performed and two septic sites be approved prior to final plat approval. Parcel B would also have to receive an access permit from MnDOT to be serviced from Hwy. 41 if it remains as a separate parcel . MnDOT and staff feel that — any separate access for Parcel B would not be preferred and Parcel B should be serviced by Ches Mar Drive. Staff is recom- mending that an easement be provided across Parcel A for driveway — access from Ches Mar Drive to Parcel B ( see Asst. City Engineer' s memo) . The Zoning Ordinance requires rural lots without sewer and water to maintain a one unit per ten acre density. The subject pro- perty contains 22 . 8 acres and is therefore permitted two dwelling units . Since the applicant is subdividing off one parcel that — already contains a single family residence, the remaining parcel, even though it contains 20 . 9 acres , is only permitted one dwelling unit. Staff is therefore requiring the applicant to enter into a — development contract with the city which would state that Parcel B is limited to one dwelling unit to maintain the one unit per ten acre density of the existing parcel . If Parcel B is combined with additional land it will only provide eligibility for one dwelling unit and not two dwelling units. The applicant is required to plat any parcels that can no longer be subdivided. Both Parcel A and Parcel B would not be able to be further subdivided because of the minimum acreage requirement and the one unit per ten acre density requirement. Therefore, both lots must be platted and should be shown on the plat as Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the "Ches Mar" subdivision. In the attached memo, the Assistant City Engineer addresses the requirements for a roadway easement to be provided on the northern portion of Parcel A. Since the property is located out- side of the urban service area, a 60 foot right-of-way is — required for a public street. There is an existing 25 foot ease- ment as part of the Ches Mar Farm property located north of Parcel A. To provide the 60 foot right-of-way. Staff is recom- _ mending that Parcel A provide a 35 foot roadway easement on the northerly portion of the property. RECOMMENDATION — Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: — "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision #88-27 as shown on the plat stamped "Received October 10, 1988" _ and subject to the following conditions: Ches Mar Realty October 19 , 1988 Page 4 1 1 . The lots must be platted and cannot remain as metes and bounds descriptions . 2 . Parcel A must maintain a minimum of 2# acres . 3 . A 35 foot roadway easement shall be dedicated to the City along the northerly property boundary of Parcel A of the sub- ject plat. 4 . The applicant must enter into a development contract with the city designating that Parcel B has only one building eligibi- - lity. The development contract must be recorded as part of the recording of the final plat. 5 . Parcel B must have two approved septic sites prior to final plat approval. 6 . The applicant shall provide any trail easements and/or fees as required by the ParK and Recreation Commission. 7 . A 15 foot driveway easement for Parcel B shall be provided along the westerly property boundary of Parcel A. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Excerpts from Zoning Ordinance. 2 . Memo from Larry Brown dated October 12, 1988 . 3 . Application. 4 . Preliminary plat. § 20-575 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE I I b. For rear yards, fifty(50)feet. —' c. For side yards, ten(10)feet. (6) The maximum height is as follows: _ a. For the principal structure,three(3)stories/forty(40)feet. b. For accessory structures, three(3)stories/forty(40)feet. (7) The minimum driveway separation is as follows: a. If the driveway is on a collector street: four hundred(400)feet. b. If the driveway is on an arterial street: one thousand two hundred fifty (1,250) feet. (Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 3(5-3-5), 12-15-86) Secs. 20-576-20-590. Reserved. ARTICLE XI. "RR" RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 20-591. Intent. • The intent of the "RR" District is to provide for single-family residential subdivisions intended for large lot developments. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 4(54-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-592. Permitted uses. — The following uses are permitted in an"RR" District: (1) Single-family dwellings. — (2) Public and private parks and open space. (3) State-licensed day care center for twelve(12)or fewer children. — (4) State-licensed group home serving six(6)or fewer persons. (5) Utility services. (6) Temporary real estate office and model home. (7) Agriculture. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 4(5-4-2), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-593. Permitted accessory uses. — The following are permitted accessory uses in an "RR" District: (1) Garage. - — (2) Storage building. (3) Swimming pool. 1206 • ZONING § 20-595 (4) Tennis court. (5) Signs. 11 (6) Home occupation. (7) One(1)dock. (8) Roadside stand. (9) Private kennel. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 4(5-4-3), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-594. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in an "RR" District: t— (1) Churches. (2) Private stables. (3) Public buildings. (4) Recreational beach lots. (5) Commercial kennels, stables and riding academies. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 4(5-4-4), 12-15-86) State law reference—Conditional uses,M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-595. Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RR" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum lot area is two and one-half(21/2)acres, subject to section 20-906. (2) The minimum lot frontage is two hundred (200) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall be two hundred(200)feet in width at the building setback line. (3) The minimum lot depth is two hundred(200)feet. (4) The maximum lot coverage is twenty(20)percent. OM. (5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards,fifty(50)feet. b. For rear yards,fifty(50)feet. c. For side yards, ten(10)feet. (6) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure,three(3)stories/forty.(40)feet. b. For accessory structures,three(3)stories/forty(40)feet. (7) The minimum driveway separation is as follows: a. If the driveway is on a collector street, four hundred(400)feet. 1207 >..__. - - ^moi. § 20-905 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE I I _ Sec. 20-905. Single-family dwellings. All single-family detached homes shall: (1) Be constructed upon a continuous perimeter foundation that meets the requirements of the state building code. (2) Conform to the following standards for living areas: a. If a one-story rambler design, have an area of nine hundred sixty (960) square feet. _ b. If a split level design, have an area of one thousand fifty(1,050)square feet. c. If a split foyer and two-story design,have an area of six hundred(600)square feet on the first floor plus a two-car garage must be attached to the single-family — structure. (3) Have an earth covered, composition, shingled or tiled roof or other materials ap- proved by the Uniform Building Code as adopted and amended by the city. (4) Receive a building permit. The application for a building permit in addition to other information required shall indicate the height,size,design and the appearance of all elevations of the proposed building and a description of the construction materials proposed to be used. (5) Meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code as adopted and amended by the ( — city or the applicable manufactured housing code. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 6, 12-15-86) — Cross reference—Technical codes, § 7-16 et seq. Sec. 20-906. Rural lot building eligibilities. — (a) All lots located outside of the Metropolitan Council's Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary shall be created in conformance to the requirements of article X or XI of this chapter. (b) A new single-family building may be established or a lot containing an existing single-family dwelling may be subdivided only if the following provisions are met: — (1) A one-unit per ten-acre density is maintained using the following guidelines: 0-19.99 acres equals one(1)single-family unit. — 20-29.99 acres equals two(2)single-family units. 30-39.99 acres equals three(3)single-family units, etc. — (2) Existing parcels of record established prior to February 19, 1987, shall be deemed as buildable lots.This provision also applies to those lots affected by paragraph(10). — (3) All lots shall have the minimum frontage on a public road as regulated in sections 20-575 and 20-595. To reduce the number of driveways on collectors and arterials,up to two(2)parcels will be allowed to be accessed by a private easement. 1230 ZONING § 20-907 (4) All lots must have soil and water conditions which permit a well. (5) All lots must have conditions which will permit two (2) on-site sewer systems in- stalled in conformance with chapter 19, article IV. (6) The one (1) unit per ten-acre density applies to contiguous property under single ownership. Acreage under single ownership, which is not contiguous, cannot be combined for increased density/building eligibility on one(1)of the parcels.Transfer of development rights from one(1)parcel of land to another is not allowed,except as permitted in paragraph(9)below. (7) Once a building eligibility has been used for a property,a development contract must be recorded with the county establishing the number of building eligibilities remain. ing or documenting that no building eligibility remains. Transfer of development rights from one(1)parcel of land to another is not allowed. (8) Each site must have at least one (1) acre of area which can support two (2) septic f system sites, a building pad and well with a slope of twenty-five(25)percent or less. (9) Parcels which do not have public street frontage and are landlocked may transfer building eligibilities to an adjacent parcel which does have public street frontage and meets other provisions of this section. (10) Applications for subdivisions in the rural service area as identified in the compre- hensive plan to contain a development density of one (1) unit per two and one-half (2%) acres will be accepted until 4:30 p.m. on January 15, 1987, if the following information is submitted to the planning department: a. Completion of the application for subdivision. b. Submission of the public hearing list of surrounding property owners. c. Submission of a boundary survey with the proposed lot pattern. d. Submission of required application fees. Further,these applications must also be accompanied by additional data required for preliminary plat approval in a manner which will achieve preliminary plat approval by July 1, 1987 unless the city council deems to table final action on the application / until after July 1, 1987. ! (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 7, 12-15-86) Sec. 20-907. Height regulations. (a) Where the average slope of a lot is greater than one(1)foot rise or fall in seven(7)feet of horizontal distance from the established street-elevation at the property line, one(1)story in addition to the number permitted in the district in which the lot is situated shall be permitted on the downhill side of any building. (b) The height limitations stipulated elsewhere in this chapter shall not apply to the following: — (1) Barns, silos, or other farm buildings or structures on farms; church spires, belfries, cupolas and domes, monuments, water towers, fire and hose towers, observation 1231 CITYOF \1 k CHANHASSEN —\ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission 11 , FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer d — DATE: October 12 , 1988 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for the Naegele Property Planning File No. 88-27 SUB, Gross This site is located on the west side of State Highway 41 approximately one mile north of State Highway 5 . The property involved has one existing residence at this time. Mature vegeta- tion is scattered throughout the site. Sanitary Sewer — This site is outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) ; therefore, municipal sanitary sewer service is not available to the site at this time. — The plans do not address the location of two septic system sites for Parcel B. Approved sites should be located prior to final — review. Watermain Municipal water is not available to the site. On-site sources will have to be developed by the applicant if additional construction is pursued. Access This parcel receives access from State Highway 41. A 25-foot roadway easement exists along the southerly boundary of the pro- perty located immediately north of Parcel A. To insure that access could be gained to the "Ches Mar Farm" located on the — northwest corner of the property , an additional 35-foot roadway easement is requested along the northerly property boundary of the proposed Parcel A. This would yield a total right-of-way width of 60 feet which would conform to the City ' s standards for rural construction. Planning Commission October 12 , 1988 1 Page 2 State Highway 41 is classified as an arterial street by the City' s Zoning Ordinance. It is recommended that Parcel B would receive access by the existing driveway onto State Highway 41 such that accesses to Highway 41 may be kept to a minimum. It is recommended that a 15-foot driveway easement be granted between Parcels A and B located along the westerly property boundary of Parcel A. Grading and Drainage The site does not propose any changes to the grading and drainage. ' — Recommended Conditions 1. A 35-foot roadway easement shall be dedicated to the City along the northerly property boundary of Parcel A of the sub- ject plat. 2. The plans shall be revised to show the location of two approved septic system sites for Parcel B prior to final plat approval. 3 . A 15-foot driveway easement shall be provided along the westerly property boundary of Parcel A. • JAMES P.LARKIN LAIuuN, HOFFMAN, D ALY & LINDGREN, LTD. FRAID PEAT ROBERT L HOFFMAN FRANCIS E.GIBER SON JACK F. QALY mma MICHAEL T. D.KENNETH LINDG REN CHARLES R.WEAVER ANDREW W.DANIELSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW HERMAN L.TALLE WENOELL R.ANDERSON WILLIAM S.BRANDT GERALD H.FRIEDELL VINCENT 0.ELLA ROBERT B.WHITLOCK -RACY R.EICHHORN•HICKS ALLAN T.MULLIGAN ROBERT J.NENNESSEY 1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 2000 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER ANDREW J MITCHELL R JAMES C.ERICKSON JOHN A.COTTER• EDWARD J.DRISCOLL 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET BEATOPAUL i WEILER PL UNKETT JAMES MILER BLOOMINGTON,MINNESOTA 55431 MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402 AMY DARR GRADY GENE N..FULLER ALAN L.KILOOW DAVID C.SELLERGREN KATHLEEN M.PICOTTE NEwMAN RICHARD J.KEENAN TELEPHONE 16121 835-3800 TELEPHONE 16121 338-6610 CATHERINE BARNETT WILSON. JOHN O.FULLMER JEFFREY C.ANDERSON ROBERT E.BOYLE TELECOPIER 1612)835-5102 TELECOPIER 16121 338-1002 DANIEL L.BOWLES FRANK I.HARVEYTODD CH M_ RICHARD A.FORSCHLER TIMOTHY J.J.MCMA MCMANUS CHARLES S.MODELL JILL I.FRIEDERS J.DIET2EN NORTH SUBURBAN OFFICE GREGORY E..KOR KOA STAD JOHN R.BEATTIE CRAIG A,PETERSON LINDA H,FISHER 8990 SPRINGBROOK DRIVE,SUITE 250 LISA A.GRAY THOMAS P.STOLTMAN GARY A.RENNEKE STEVEN G.LEVIN COON RAPIDS,MINNESOTA 55433 THOMAS H.WEAVER FORREST D.HOWLIN SHANNON K.MCCAMBRIDGE MICHAEL C.JACKMAN TELEPHONE 16121 786-7117 MICHAEL S.COHEN JOHN E.DIEHL DENISE M.NORTON JON S.SWIERZEWSKI TELECOPIER 16121 786-6711 GARY A.VAN CLEVE THOMAS J.FLYNN MICHAEL B.BRAMAN JAMES P.OUINN JOSEPH W.DICKER TODD I.FREEMAN JACQUELINE F.OIETZ STEPHEN B.SOLOMON Reply to Bloomington GAYLEN L.KNACK PETER K.BECK ROONEY D.IVES JEROME H.KAHNKE JULIE A.WRASE SHERRILL OMAN KURETICH CHRISTOPHER J.HARRISTHAL GERALD L.SECK RONALD M.STARK.JR. JOHN B.LUNDQUIST SHARON L.BRENNA • DAYLE NOLAN MARIKAY CANAGA LITZAU THOMAS B.HUMPHREY,JR. OF COUNSEL September 26, 1988 A.GITIS JOSE JOSEPH GIT MCHUGH S RICHARD A.NORDBYE &LSO ADMITTED IN Ms . JoAnne Olsen WISCONSIN City Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: Ches Mar Farms Subdivision Application Dear JoAnne: As discussed today, please find enclosed the application and — application fee for the subdivision request for the subdivision of the homestead known as the "Gross Property" . Background As noted previously, the purpose of this application is to permit the conveyance of the Gross homestead from Ches Mar Farms Realty Company to Charles and Virginia Gross . Charles and Virginia Gross entered into an option to purchase this property in 1983 . The homestead site had previously been a separate lot of record and the lot lines were — reflected by a legal description and on county half-section maps (See Exhibits A & B attached) . This legal description and separate lot description formed the basis for the property optioned by the Grosses under the option agreement. Although previously a separate lot of — record, the City Subdivision regulations do not recognize this as a separate lot when it and the adjoining lots are under common ownership as in the present case. The lot size of the gross parcel to be .- subdivided is approximately 1 . 85 acres. The minimum lot size in the RR district is 2 . 5 acres . The approval of the subdivision will require the granting of a variance from the minimum lot size _ regulations contained in Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. The Chanhassen subdivision regulations Section 11 provides for variances with a finding that the following conditions exist: LARKI\, HOFFMAN, DALY &'c LINDGREN, LTD. Ms . JoAnne Olsen September 26, 1988 Page 2 1. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience; The hardship in the present case is the fact that the parties to the agreement previously contracted to purchase what was in 1983 an individual parcel. The optionor contracted to sell and the optionee contracted to buy the parcel as historically described and shown on section maps and surveys . The inability of the optionor to convey title to this separate parcel creates significant practical and legal problems. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience and is not a creation of the actions of either the optionor or optionee. 2 . The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land; The parcel property lines generally follow existing field conditions delineating the state Highway 41 on the west, an access road to the north, a slope to the west and south. It -- appears that these boundary lines generally follow the topographical contours of the land. 3. The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property; This is a very unique set of circumstances applicable to this property. Specifically, the creation of this lot under an option agreement based on a previous lot that came under subsequent ownership. 4 . The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of the Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. The variance request is nominal . The minimum lot size under the code is 2 .5 acres and the existing lot size is approximately 1 . 85 acres . There is substantial open space around the residential structure and the proposed lot and setting is very much in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The approval of this subdivision will not result in any new development to the gross property but only allow the optionor to fulfill its obligations to the optionee. LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY 8c LINDGREN, LTD. Ms . JoAnne Olsen September 26 , 1988 Page 3 We respectfully request the approval of this subdivision and variance . If you have any questions , please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, i 1 'a Timothy ' . Keane, for LARKIN, OFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. TJK:AWOs Enclosures LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: Ches-Mar Farms Realty, OWNER: Co. ADDRESS 4300 Baker Road, Suite 4 ADDRESS Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 Zip Code Zip Code TELEPHONE (Daytime ) 932-9885 TELEPHONE REQUEST: Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan Preliminary Plan Zoning Variance Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment X Subdivision Land Use Plan Amendment Platting Metes and Bounds Conditional Use Permit Street/Easement Vacation Site Plan Review Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME Ches-Mar Farms PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION RR REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Same PRESENT ZONING RR REQUESTED ZONING NA USES PROPOSED Residential SIZE OF PROPERTY 1. 85 A LOCATION REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST Convey existing homestead LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) City of Chanhassen Land Development Application Page 2 II FILING INSTRUCTIONS : This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions . Before filing this application, you should confer with the City Planner to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. FILING CERTIFICATION: The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all applicable City Ordinances . Cies- r11ur Fr'vs s le2t_II Signed By rs r � � � . N�.G}G Ic September 26, 1988 y i _ Tr. t� Date p Applicant _ The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been authorized to make this application for the property herein described . September 26 , 1988 Signed By Date — Fee Owner Date Application Received Application Fee Paid City Receipt No. * This Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/ Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their meeting . s� 9t i X7 ° "1 208. 71... 1-‘• 3.41 . --365.6- - ii i'1 JOAN wi ER °' IJ 33 '''' r _____ BK 146, P,014 '� r I.- — • Q0 i O W N ' I N 87•25'w XN to W Y / ! V m 1 — 1 I o WILLIAM s~ ' BK 118, P. 275 R JOHNSON ;o i:` BK 101,P590 s`4 50 !OS 1 - lir • — _ 'so y/ , • r �s .I \ h W --200.71" , : •l I BK 128, fj .4 VI I ,9�0.., P 297 imBK60.9.97 '4 I. Liz., 90_. • 1 t, ! 90 S X0• s, k' O f 20• 40, 39' ; 65.9/ se. MARLYN M. PELTIER BK 143, P 502 3 3690 •p 20 F 33 ao Q 4� nore•l / / v Vn I O ,0 • BK 98, P 529 I S•-" 8 J•. 1047 68 .1 / 4'660 / ow J •.. BK 116, P 545 /" T Gn BKJANEII9. 565ILBERT +o In / . S.W. CARLSON . -- ' � — / BK 60, P 429 I / 13.38 -- - - _ zoo- -f / 23914-- 0 16.3<= `+ 88.38 26{.44- 41 — • c WALTER WHITEHILL 90 96.62 X14 t 1 BK 119, P 125 90• I D.O. ROY n o W.K SCHMIDT "''/ • BK 62,P. 438 N BK 134, P 512 p N N 1. \ O` 1 9 O. s 200 / ALICE TOWLE -'-'7 / •LTJ BK 136, P.501 8 503 ' • I `1S N .� 7T° ; ALICE TOWLE 90° N BK 120,P.64 .... I /S8 BK 110, P 416 •i‘ 3i BK 136, P505 410 'tip/ 00os h 4.4 900 e•0 J4 A 00 ... ...464.44• r= , /' b. • / /2s•34 . b‘'it . 1 _. EXHIBIT A o w' 44 69 C�4 239 .3,0,11.1? 1983 1/2 Section Map B, eK/43.4 �� 7` 9�/ • P) 4,,,,,,e,,,f►C v b, luuNSON ;��.I ,/1 VK IUI,P590 a+i, I i SO /OS I ,} a • • - ri y.• ' qac_ n -20e.7I- j• o :,, W r t s • a KLOCe. T� r'! O law • ..1- z 2Iep407 ,r l : • I.:`'S • 'Oj ; • oo • v1s , 203 3g . 63.9! . 5 '. N 14.52'E • , • • • I. • BK 98, rP1529 ` 1 ~ o • CHES- BK 1 6,P REALTY CO, + ' z . ! * +- J } -0.'A.SIMPSONL'. . l• - / DOC. NO.64705 . °1'- •- , 'c • ,/ DOCI NO T5245. r / r3.3e' is t ;> • iQ _ - 200 WALTER WHITEHILL 16.3-. .eK119, P125 •�9C 103.36 • • - • J •14- • 264.44- .. D.O. ROY 9 0 • T.,�1.'.tft P( q i�J�ir�'Y} / . - ,} 4 III* 9 It• a ` Y'>. KF' ' + IN DAVID'R. WEATHERS — � • •••` 4•fl! iste • DOC'.NO, 63235 ' •' ,•," iI, ; '/jam 411% _ - - - 0 - — • •,. ; t t•.��` • - wft • 6.6'' • 6 • 90 tt • 9 . .•30. 6, } 1 � i B q, • '6R •VTy t`• 1 ' • �. . .,,-,•. DUANE.--, . • 7 y r n • / ,° 'N , - .. s i _ 1 S- .PR. ♦'-f'‘; J IA'�•. `# • �s `.. I a •mow i7 K• . 0 / :t 4- 1 f, ` .r .;, ' ,' '�' 4: t _ x•$4444t—' r /4 f ' '� f arta i 1.ok •, : . io �'. :.f 'sky i 1 f"F ' tto 4'. ,•••4 f f y�i 1 e' f ? ' •;•.1i e4 q�.,� .•• --7h. . , .. fllti ,F-, '•- r -tt ' •'+ t5 F ),'Irp.• 3 - - • S''{ 'I~, • c .,�'�` L`�f .! • I1` •'r({ ;1-,y� * 7.i �}C.' Sr1t- 'illy+!. C5•. r x. - 'i '• . .S `' -4 r • ..-I i . 1..1" t7'+` ', j.. j.- #iY :L..t�''ia..,a _t.'.;7 • >� +t+•ti , •�• ;; i,, y'Iti. •:? 4.,,,fT�► •s:,-;,,,;.;:c.,.. .,.�•; ' ` t EXHIBIT B '' > �• VA.,,,,,;,,!..,k. r'-'.1.1''''`, '� • *f'+ _. .I, I. s. ;;... -, 1988 1/2 Section "iap s w ,s.• ::: `'.f `+. •P 51tr`,..,•t •i' 5, >r L►.y, s� 4 i- ,>+Ff}.•1 '- lic.f.V.fA&T-Lt,4,41.:,;(''.;T-, t LOTUS REALTY SERVICES 545 WEST 78th STREET, P.O. BOX 100 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I (612) 934-4538 October 14, 1988 TO: Members of the Planning Commission SUBJECT: Chesmar Realty Lot Division Lotus Realty represents Gary Kirt, the owner of Chesmar Farm who is also purchasing approximately 21 acres from Chesmar Realty under a Option Agreement. Previously we presented a P.U.D. request to you combining the Chesmar Realty Property and the Kirt property. We have since created a new proposal for the site but in the process discovered the Gross property has never been separated from the property Kirt is purchasing. As soon as the Gross property subdivided from the land Kirt is purchasing we will submit our proposal. One problem our proposal has been faced with is access. The land Kirt purchased only allowed a 25' roadway into the western portion of the property. The balance of the road is owned by Chesmar Realty. We would like to request the city to require Chesmar Realty to dedicate at least 25 feet at the notherly part of the approximately 1.9 parcel to the city for a future public roadway to be combined with the current 25' access. Our client is willing to work with Chesmar Realty to increase the size of the approximately 1.9 acre parcel once we are assured of a future public access to the balance of the property. S' cerely, Bradley C. Johnson BCJ:js C I TY O F P.C. DATE: Oct. 19 , 1988 N ' G C.C. DATE: Oct. 24 , 1988 : SU r CASE NO: 88-16 Site Plan 88-17 CUP Prepared by: Olsen/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for an Office Warehouse Building an Conditional Use Permit for Screened Outdoor Storage F- z LOCATION: Lot 2 , Block 3 , Chanhassen Lakes Business Park LL. APPLICANT: Mr . Steve Willet QLakeshore Equipment 7904 Monterey Drive Chanhassen , MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: IOP, Industrial Office Park ACREAGE: 4 . 19 acres DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- IOP; future office warehouse facility S- IOP; office warehouse facility Q1:77E- IOP; Victory Envelope QW- IOP; IIC W WATER AND SEWER: Water and sewer is available PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site contains steep slopes to the south/southeast. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Industrial .:7 11 i LV1/VE LUCY •an y i , : ,. I A \\ ftb Rd �= •� �� :��NAiI+' .. . :t'` f� 1 � 1, _-- ��J � a.L , s s►..4•: A_ LA IMO .. , ,. ....... , ,. itri* • J k; : j L AANN - ri RSF RD 1 R R4 R • r R) 1 R1 • 2 _ IIII SO OULEVARD r E , Pak - - � BG W ,P1 i.___ V ,f ?T1 g ) .il - he- (.4._;-- &I ,i . 1,7214 ,."....:,.......\ / !r RO 0 Loc.aTtG4-4 c- 5 i;E{�lbu a j 1.-41 i�l�lctF✓ JE.:-,0--t V. A.L. ,,. !� .:,.... C . ti______\_ ------ . .., .,._. . 10PP D 1 /1 Q '""1J� (- ) Cin �� // 11111211,41641 • . ti? . - ' .‘ " --..,,,, ,��� R 12 � 6"4"."' ' . . • • ' > � RS caK� RD_ Lakeshore Equipment October 19, 1988 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-812 permits warehouse and office as a permitted use in the IOP District. Screened outdoor storage is a conditional use in the IOP District. Retail sales of merchandise stored or manufactured on site is a permitted accessory use if it does not exceed 20% of floor area. Section 20-815 allows a maximum lot coverage of 70%, a front yard setback of 30 feet, a rear yard setback of 10 feet and a side yard setback of 10 feet. This section also allows a maximum height of 50 feet for the prinicipal structure. Section 20-1191 requires a 10 foot strip of land between abutting right-of-way and vehicular use areas including one tree per 40 feet and a hedge wall or berm of at least 2 feet. Section 20-1192 requires interior property lines to be landscaped with one tree per 40 feet. Section 20-1211 requires interior landscaping for vehicular use areas. Section 20-1125 requires for warehouse one parking space for each 1 ,000 square feet of gross floor area up to 10 , 000 and one addi- tional space for each additional 2 ,000 square feet, plus one space for each company vehicle for office it requires 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet. (Attachment #1) REFERRAL AGENCIES Asst. City Engineer Attachment #2 Building Department Attachment #3 Fire Inspector Attachment #4 Watershed District Attachment #5 ANALYSIS The applicant' s business is currently located on Monterey Drive near downtown Chanhassen. The applicant' s current facility con- tains an office warehouse facility and a screened outdoor storage area. The applicant is expanding his business and is proposing to relocate . to the industrial office park. Lakeshore Equipment October 19 , 1988 — Page 3 I _ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for screened outdoor storage. The applicant is proposing the outdoor storage to be located behind the proposed building and parking area. The outdoor storage is approximately 24, 000 square feet in size and will have a gravel surface. The outdoor storage area will be — accessed from the parking area and will be surrounded by an 8 foot high wood fence. The types of equipment to be stored in the storage area will be docks and boat lifts and there will be no — equipment stored above the 8 foot high fence. There are no specific conditions for outdoor screened storage and the proposal meets the 12 general conditions of the conditional — use permit. Since all of the storage in the area will be totally screened by the fence and it is located to the rear of parking and proposed building, there should be no impacts to the surrounding — sites . RECOMMENDATION - Conditional Use Permit Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #88-17 as shown on the site plan dated September 26 , 1988 with the following conditions: — 1 . All items stored in the outdoor storage area must be totally screened. 2 . The conditional use permit must meet any conditions of the site plan approval for Site Plan #88-16 . SITE PLAN REVIEW The applicant is proposing an office warehouse facility with a small portion of the facility being used for retail sales . The — proposed building is 7 ,332 square feet and is located in the northwest corner of the site adjacent to the outdoor storage and parking area. The proposed site plan is meeting all of the — required setbacks for the IOP District and is also maintaining an impervious surface of less than 70% . The applicant is providing adequate parking. The proposed landscaping plan is shown on the first page of the site plan. There is a copy of the site plan underneath the letter attached to the site plan which designates what types of landscaping is — Lakeshore Equipment October 19 , 1988 Page 4 being provided. The applicant is providing evergreens around the outdoor storage area and is providing maples around the parking and building area. Staff is recommending that additional landscaping be provided just south of the proposed sign and adja- - cent to Park Drive, which should include evergreens to provide winter opacity and to meet the requirements of one tree per 40 feet. The applicant is providing the required berming which will additionally screen the parking area from Park Drive. The City Fire Inspector has recommended that the trash receptacle be located away from the building. The IOP District allows retail sales of products stored or manu- factured on the site provided that no more than 20% of the floor space is used for retail sales. The applicant is proposing to have a showroom area which would involve retail sales of the pro- ducts stored and manufactured on site. The approximate area is shown on page 3 and is approximately 20% of the building floor area. The major use of the facility remains as manufacturing and storage of docks and boat lifts . Grading, Drainage and Utilities In Attachment #2 , the Assistant Engineer reviews grading, drainage and utilities for the site plan. The site is located adjacent to Riley Creek which is protected by the Watershed District and the DNR. Development adjacent to the creek must maintain 100 feet of open space from the centerline of the creek for a total area of 200 feet of open space around the creek. In — 1985 the city approved a site plan for the office/warehouse faci- lity south of the subject site (Attachment #6) . The parking area was located only 70 feet from the centerline of the creek. The site received Watershed District approval on the condition that the 200 foot green space be maintained with the development of the site to the north ( subject site) ( see letter from Bob Obermeyer) . Both lots were owned by Opus and Opus agreed to this requirement. Therefore, the development of the subject site must maintain a 200 foot green space setback along Riley creek. It is not clear where the creek is located in relation to the proposed site and developed site to the south to determine whether or not the required separation is being maintained. Staff is recom- mending that an amended site plan be submitted showing the loca- tion of the creek centerline and site to the south to determine if the required 200 green space is being maintained. It appears that the outdoor storage area may be infringing on the setback from Riley Creek. The applicant is proposing to drain a portion of the site directly from the outdoor storage area overland into the creek and ponding area located southeast of the property. The Watershed District has stated that a stormwater management plan is required to show how the runoff is directed from the site. Should the applicant provide storm sewer directly to the creek a Lakeshore Equipment October 19 , 1988 Page 5 DNR permit would be required. The Assistant City Engineer' s memo provides further detail on the drainage issue. RECOMMENDATION - Site Plan Review Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approvals of Site Plan Review #88-16 as shown on the plan dated September 26 , 1988 and subject to the following conditions: 1 . The applicant provide additional landscaping in the form of evergreens along Park Drive in front of the proposed building. 2 . The retail sales proposed for the site shall not exceed 20% of the floor area of the building. 3 . The trash receptacle shall be moved away from the building and must be totally screened. 4 . All rooftop equipment shall be screened. 5 . The applicant must meet the requirements of the Building Department. 6 . The plans shall be revised to indicate the exact location of Riley Creek and the normal water line (NWL) for the sedimentation/retention pond located on the northeast corner — of the parcel. 7 . The plans shall be revised such that a 200-foot green space along Riley Creek is maintained. 8 . The plans shall be revised to provide a storm sewer system which directs the site runoff to Riley Creek or the existing — sedimentation basin located on the property prior to final review. 9 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Department of Natural Resources permit. 10 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 11 . The applicant shall submit a revised grading plan which pro- perly addresses erosion control . 12 . The applicant shall notify the City 48 hours in advance of any construction which has a potential to impact Park Drive. Lakeshore Equipment October 19, 1988 Page 6 13 . The site plan must meet the conditions of the conditional use permit for the outdoor storage area. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Excerpts from City Code. 2 . Memo from Assistant City Engineer dated October 12, 1988 . 3 . Memo from Building Department dated October 5 , 1988 . 4 . Memo from Fire Inspector dated October 5 , 1988. 5 . Letter from Watershed District dated October 12 , 1988 and December 4 , 1985 . 6 . Site plan for Chan Lakes Business Center II. ZONING § 20-814 I! ARTICLE XXII. "IOP" INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT Sec. 20-811. Intent. The intent of the "IOP" District is to provide an area identified for large scale light industrial and commercial planned development. (Ord.No. 80, Art.V, § 16(5-16-1), 12-15-86) -- Sec. 20-812. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an"IOP" District: (1) Offices. (2) Warehouses. (3) Light manufacturing. (4) Trade shops. (5) Health services. (6) Printers. (7) Indoor health and recreation clubs. (8) Body shops. (9) Utility services. (10) Recording studios. (11) Off-premises parking lots. (12) Conference/convention centers. r (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 16(5-16-2), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-813. Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in an"IOP" District: (1) Parking lots and ramps. (2) Signs. (3) Retail sales of products stored or manufactured on the site provided no more than twenty(20)percent of the floor space is used for retail sales. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 16(5-16-3), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-814. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in an"IOP" District: (1) Concrete mixing plants. (2) Communication transmission towers. _ 1227 § 20-814 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Pi (3) Public buildings. - (4) Motor freight terminals. (5) Outdoor health and recreation clubs. (6) Screened outdoor storage. (7) Research laboratories. (8) Contracting yards. (9) Lumber yards. (10) Home improvement trades. (11) Hotels and motels. (12) Food processing. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 16(5-16-4), 12-15-86) State law reference—Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-815. Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "IOP" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum lot area is one(1) acre. (2) The minimum lot frontage is one hundred fifty(150)feet.except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall have a minimum frontage of sixty(60)feet. (3) The minimum lot depth is two hundred(200)feet. (4) The maximum lot coverage is seventy (70)percent. (5) Off-street parking areas shall comply with all yard requirements of this section, except that no rear yard parking setback shall be required for lots directly abutting railroad trackage; and, no side yard shall be required when adjoining commercial uses establish joint off-street parking facilities, as provided in section 20-1122,except that no parking areas shall be permitted in any required side street side yard. The minimum rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet for lots directly abutting any residential district. Side street side yards shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet in all districts. Other setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, thirty(30)feet. b. For rear yards, ten(10)feet. c. For side yards, ten(10)feet. (6) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, four(4)storiesififty(50)feet. b. For accessory structures, one(1)story. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 16(5-16-5), 12-15-86) 1228 f 416.4 CITY OF { ' G .\II .--‘ cBANBAssEN \---LL I 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 — MEMORANDUM — TO: Planning Commission FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer O " DATE: October 12 , 1988 SUBJ: Preliminary Site Plan Review for Lot 2, Block 3 Chanhassen Lakes Business Park Planning File No. 88-16 , Lakeshore Equipment — This site is located on the east side of Park Drive approximately 500 feet south of State Highway 5 . This site is comprised of an — open field which drains to the east to the existing sedimentation pond located on the northeast corner of the subject parcel. This sedimentation basin was constructed as part of the Chanhassen — Lakes Business Park project . Sanitary Sewer _ Municipal sanitary sewer is available to the site be the existing 10-inch diameter sanitary sewer main which has been extended along Park Drive. A sanitary sewer service has been provided for this parcel at the property boundary . Watermain — Municipal water service is also available to the site by the existing 10-inch ductile iron pipe (DIP) which has been extended along Park Drive. A water service has also been extended to the property boundary to service this parcel. Access — The plans propose a 30-foot wide driveway which is to access Park Drive. The City ' s standard concrete driveway apron shall be — installed at this driveway (refer to Attachment No. 1 ) . The bituminous wear course has been place on Park Drive. The installation of the concrete cross gutter shall be done without — disturbing the driving surface of Park Drive. The applicant shall notify the City 48 hours in advance prior to the installa- tion of the cross gutters. — Planning Commission October 12 , 1988 Page 2 Grading and Drainage At present , the entire site drains to the southeast and into Riley Creek and ultimately to the sedimentation/retention pond located on the northeast corner of the site. The plans indicate that the proposed grading for the site will encroach beyond the 130-foot setback required by the Department of Natural Resources and the Watershed District for Riley Creek. The plans should be revised to reflect the exact location of Riley Creek and the existing sedimentation ponds. The drainage pattern for the site proposes to outlet the drainage through the granular surface located immediately to the east of the building , down the proposed slope and ultimately to Riley Creek. In discussing this application with the Watershed District , the District Engineer, Robert Obermeyer, has indicated that a storm sewer system in all probability would be necessary to direct drainage to Riley Creek or the sedimentation basin. The discharge of the storm water runoff to Riley Creek will require a Department of Natural Resources permit . These calcula- tions should be provided prior to final site plan approval. The plans would suggest that there will be a ponding problem within the most southeasterly corner of the parking lot. With the proposed curbing the bituminous parking lot has no outlet . The plans should be revised to accommodate this drainage in a manner that will not create an erosion problem. Erosion Control The plans do not address erosion control. Revised plans which show the location and type of erosion control shall be submitted prior to final site plan review. The plans should reflect to show the City' s standard for Type II erosion control ( staked hay bales and snow fence) . Recommended Conditions 1. The plans shall be revised to indicate the exact location of Riley Creek and the normal water line (NWL) for the sedimentation/retention pond located on the northeast corner of the parcel. 2. The plans shall be revised such that the 130-foot setback from Riley Creek is maintained. 3 . The plans shall be revised to provide a storm sewer system which directs the site runoff to Riley Creek or the existing sedimentation basin located on the property prior to final review. Planning Commission October 12 , 1988 Page 3 _ 4. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Department of Natural Resources permit. — 5 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. — 6 . The applicant shall submit a revised grading plan which pro- perly addresses erosion control. 7 . The applicant shall notify the City 48 hours in advance of any construction which has a potential to impact Park Drive. CITY ® F .1 CHANHASSEN , 1/4 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: JoAnn Olsen, Assistant City Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Inspector DATE: October 5 , 1988 SUBJ: Planning Case 88-17 CUP & 88-16 Site Plan (Lakeshore Equipment) The building must be sprinklered. The building must comply with all the requirements of the hand- icap code. CITY O - A CBANHASSEN�\ � 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Inspector DATE: October 5 , 1988 SUBJ: Site Plan Review, Lakeshore Equipment, Planning Case 88-15 Site Plan — I have reviewed the site plan for the proposed office/warehouse — building for Lake Shore Equipment and feel that consideration should be given to the dumpster area. Possibly it should be moved away from the building in th- event of a fire started in the dumpster and then spread tp the building. — _ I _ ,.." , , Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District I \ :4.1..„,— Engineering Advisor: Barr Engineering Co. 7803 Gienroy Road Minneapolis, MN 55435 � ;'' `- c,,,,,.; ` 830-0555 ~' + fLegal Advisor: Popham. Haik• Schnobrich& Kaufman ~ ; �" 3300 Piper Jaffrey Towcr — Minneapolis,MN 55402 333-4800 October 12, 1988 Mrs. JoAnne Olson City Planner — City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: Lakeshore Equipment: Chanhassen Dear Mrs. Olson: The engineering advisors to the Board of Managers of the Riley- 'urgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District has reviewed the preliminary plans as submitted to the District for the Lakeshore Equipment Development in tha Chanhassen Lakes Business Park in Chanhassen. The District, in — December 1985, reviewed and approved a grading and land alteration permit for the Chanhassen Lakes Business Center II. This project is located directly south of the Lakeshore Equipment site, Both parcels of property were under joint ownership and for development to proceed on the Chanhassen Lakes Business Center site, restrictions regarding floodplain encroachment and setback from Riley Creek were placed on this property; Lot 2, Block 3, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. A copy of the District's correspondence —' summarizing these requirements is attached for your reference. Development on Lot 2, Block 3, Lakeshore Equipment site, must conform with the requirements as outlined in this correspondence. Therefore, the following policies and criteria of the Watershed District are applicable to this project. 1. In accordance with Section E (2) of the District's revised Rules and Regulations, a grading and land alteration permit must be obtained from the District for this project. Accompanying the -- permit application, a detailed grading plan showing both existing and proposed contours must be submitted to the District for review. _ Mrs. JoAnne Olson October 12, 1988 Page 2 It 2. A detailed erosion control plan outlining how sediment is to be controlled both during and after construction must be submitted to the District for review and approval. 3. The requirements and restriction as summarized in the District's _ December 4, 1985 correspondence regarding development on this site are applicable and must be complied with. 4. A detailed stormwater management plan showing how surface water — runoff from the site is to be handled must be submitted to the District for review and approval. It is unclear at this time as • to whether or not surface runoff from the site is to be conveyed in a "sheet-flow" condition or if storm sewer is to be installed. The grading plan indicates that runoff is to be directed towards the southeast corner of the site. The District is concerned with the potential of an erosion problem occurring at this location and impacts on Riley Creek located immediately south. The information submitted as part of the on-site stormwater management plan must address this issue. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project at an early date. If you have any questions regarding the District's comments, please — call us at 830-0555. Sincerely, Robert C. Obermeyer — BARR ENGINEERING CO. Engineers for the District RCO/lsf c: Mr. Frederick Richards Mr. Frederick Rehr JOLTR/330,0 — CITYOF \ CHANHASSEN „, ,L\ , % ~� `._ '�� . 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 December 9 , 1985 Mr. Bob Worthington — Opus Corporation P.O. Box 150 Minneapolis, MN 55440 Dear Mr. Worthington : This is to confirm that on December 2 , 1985 , the City Council — approved your site plan for the Chanhassen Lakes Business Center Two , dated October 31 , 1985 , with the following conditions: 1. That additional landscaping be planted between the Austrian Pine and Summit Ash on the center island adjacent to Park Road . 2. The applicant must receive the required permits/variances from the Watershed District and DNR. — 3 . Concrete aprons including gutters be constructed at each access to maintain the flow of runoff in the streets. 4. The most easterly section of the storm sewers must be RCP (in place of plastic) with a flared end section and rip-rap. 5 . Restabilization of all disturbed areas outside the construc- - tion limits as soon as possible following initial grading. 6. All bituminous areas be lined with concrete curb. 7. Silt fence shall be installed along the north and south property lines to protect creek and pond from erosion during construction. • Should you have any questions , please call me . — Sincerely , Jo Ann Olsen Assistant City Planner — JO:v 4 4111 0 -'-0 0 Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District A Is.. — ,.•_•••.- o 4 Engineering Advisor: Barr Engineering Co. = 6800 France Ave. ft•• �••-•••-� Edina, MN 55435 ~ J - 920-0655 Legal Advisor. Popham, Haik, Schnobrich, Kaufman& Doty 4344 IDS Center Minneapolis,MN 55402 333-4800 December 4, 1985 — Mr. Robert Worthington — Opus Corporation 9900 Bren Road East P.O. Box 150 — Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 Re: Chanhassen Lakes Business Center II: Chanhassen Dear Mr. Worthington: The Board of Managers of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed Dis- trict has reviewed the plans and grading and land alteration permit applica- tion as submitted to the District for site grading and utility installation for the Chanhassen Lakes Business Center II project in the Chanhassen Lakes _ Business Center in Chanhassen. The District notes that parking for this project is to be located within 100 feet of the centerline of Riley Creek. Construction for the future — building on Lot 2, Block 3, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park (the property to the north of this site) , however, is to be located so that a 200 foot green- belt is being provided paralleling the creek. The provision of this greenbelt — (200 foot) is consistent with the Watershed District criteria. The District also notes that an encroachment into the 100-year frequency _ floodplain of Riley Creek is proposed. Our calculations indicated that this encroachment is in accordance with the District's floodplain encroachment criteria, however, no further fill or encroachment on this site and on Lot 2, Block 3, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park for that shown on the plans dated October 22, 1985, revised November 22, 1985, will be permitted for future development. With this noted, the Managers approve the grading and land alteration permit subject to the following conditions: 1. All erosion control measures shown on the plans must be installed prior to commencement of grading operations and be maintained until all areas altered on the site have been restored. 2. All areas altered must be restored with seed and disced mulch, sod wood fiber blanket , or be hard surfaced within 2 weeks after comple- tion of construction or no later than September 15, 1986. — r. Robert Worthingtr. page 2 `� December 4, 1985 3. Prior to commencement of construction, an appropriate convenant / I/ must be executed and placed on record in the appropriate Carver County Records Office indicating that no further fill or encroach- ment will be allowed on this site and on Lot 2, Block 3, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park from that shown on the plans dated October 22, 1985 and revised November 22, 1985 for future development. This covenant must be submitted to the District's legal advisor for review and approval. 4. The District will require that as development to the north of the site proceeds, Lot 2, Block 3, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, all structures and parking on this area must be set back a sufficient distance as shown on the plans dated October 22 and revised November 22, 1985, to provide a 200-foot green strip along Riley Creek. 5. At the outlets of the storm sewer systems discharging into the stormwater detention/sedimentation basin located on the east side of the site, riprap and sand filter, in accordance with MnDOT criteria, must be installed to dissipate energy. This will mini- mize the potential of an erosion problem from occurring. 6. The District must be notified in writing a minimum of 48 hours prior to commencement of construction. — If you have any questions regarding the conditions of the District's permit, please call us at 830-0555 \ ~ Sincerely, / 1 C //::/)4 Robert, C. Obermeyeq BARR ENGINEERING CO. Engineers for the District Approved by the Board of Managers RILEY-PURGATORY-BLUFF CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT RCO/111 c: Mr. Frederick Richards President Mr. Frederick Rahr Date: Mr. Bill Monk .K.. . _ i.- r 4 a 4�, I All HIGHWAY NLNIIEER ,_ I il ,,,, ., 5 RIFT' ,;,,.,.•+� 1 Ei� i � ;� Eat AC= N , 'I A,SSCIC. — - �et:al' 9Za 2 - 03.1NN. RARE( COURT 4.26 ACRES _ LaI: 4i" i '1,/,'/Ai'l >it C1.4C iiik . - ---- 41 I, _ moi. T• 2 N. . \-, a4pa At...Hi:a Lccagi-au. ¢ a • -- tfrriU zsg (,_,Z„ GAY-Ca 11 • COniusiLsE �,t 3.34 ACRES COMPANY 3 2.08 ACRES a UNITED MAILING • s:-....'1.- -Iv 4\ • ACRES 2 A • o ,� VS)P� G 2.51 ACRES - —. 3 ` w 11 r Q4-15 �� f FXL`�� 2.31 ACRES t BN"�. CHANHASSEN m 1�IC LAKES BUSINESS ,SS PAG CENTER ENERGY 09 - \ t) CONTROLS. V MURPHY INC. s1 . MACHINES ARE v�E� OUTLOT F �. 16.94 ACRES LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive I Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: L4KE5rfOr'E �= �;�„.c,�t Cc, .OWNER: .,T vE LLA i) /41)aav44._ Pc� s�o P'`s' °`,Je. ;,�.� ADDRESS ---� 79c 1 Fy7e,a .,�i (�& ) £DRESS (c6t O t. 6.k04 ,}-£ (.44t! \t. + sFti' Nt . 553/7 ehlit-c-RA-s.S ,s74. '7;S-317 Zip Code ' Zip Code TELEPHONE (Daytime) 93/-0-51,53- TELEPHONE J/70-©fid/ REQUEST: Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan Preliminary Plan Zoning Variance Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision Land Use Plan Amendment Platting Metes and Bounds ) Conditional Use Permit Street/Easement Vacation ( < Site Plan Review Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME ,LAxESHci-c ��;«� rx61r, PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION PRESENT ZONING re, I REQUESTED ZONING USES PROPOSED E�{(,tE/L4/- - !`e L Lt. MP:6, os,rS�vy STv2�t j.ie SIZE OF PROPERTY 15 .4 LOCATION ?,A-2k -0;L;,; REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST (3.4.3242.--) LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) 1 City of Chanhassen Land Development Application Page 2 FILING INSTRUCTIONS : This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly -- printed and must be accompanied by all information and_ plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the City Planner to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application . FILING CERTIFICATION: The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies that he is familiar •e procedural requirements of all applicable City Or' , 40011111 f S igned By N���i�I '� Date •p n The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been authorized to make this application for the property herein described. Signed By Date Fee Owner • Date Application Received Application Fee Paid City Receipt No. * This Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/ Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their meeting . .. .. •. ..__..►-� ....Y.3'i�r'1�j?r�•�Ss -.- may —7't CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 1 OCTOBER 5, 1988 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 35 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Ladd Conrad and Brian Batzli MEMBERS ABSENT: Annette Ellson , James Wildermuth and David Headla STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner and Larry Brown, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE CREATION OF A POND IN A CLASS B WETLAND, 1200 LYMAN BOULEVARD, BRENT MILLER. Public Present : Mr . and Mrs. Brent Miller 1200 Lyman Boulevard Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Brent Miller : My name is Brent Miller . I am the property owner at Lyman Blvd. . I had a couple questions. What determines a wetland area? How does the City determine a wetland area? Olsen: The vegetation, the type of soils . Brent Miller : So do they make an on-site inspection of the area prior to? I guess what I 'm trying to say, I assume there was a wetland plan that was adopted in 1984? My question is , how do you determine what a wetland area is without going on the site prior to my applying for this permit? Olsen: What they did was they used a lot of the DNR' s maps or they had an aerial of some vegetation and standing waters and soils. Your wetland had been designated . . . Brent Miller : By the DNR? Olsen : By the map adopted by the City which consolidated DNR information. Brent Miller: Prior to my digging this, and before I contacted you, I went to the DNR and also to the Carver County Soil and Water Conservation. Both of them, both places showed no wetland, Class A or B on my property. I guess also when I did purchase the property back in 1984 , the developer did not inform me that the land was a wetland area. Is he supposed to inform me by the plot sheet or by someway notifying me that it is wetland area. The City approved it right? The development? Olsen: Your subdivision was approved prior to the wetland ordinance. What happens now is that the wetland will be designated as part of a subdivision procedure. The area will be designated as wetland area and protected and it will have to show up on future site plans. But it is a Planning Commission Meeting _ October 5, 1988 - Page 2 1 protected wetland by the City and it had been confirmed twice by Fish and Wildlife. Brent Miller : This is after the fact that I inquired it right , you determined it was a wetland area . You determined it before that without informing me it was a wetland area? — Olsen: No, I told you it was . . . Brent Miller : You said the developer had approval of that property before — the wetland came into effect . I bought the property in 1984. The plot sheet that I got did not show a wetland area on that . So it was approved before 1984 and that' s the reason why. . . _ Olsen: In the fall of 1984 . Conrad : But I don' t think that' s relevant . Is it relevent at all? If it ' s a designated wetland, regardless of when the plat was approved or when you bought it, it is a designated wetland period . The DNR gave us a map of where the wetlands were. We adopted their map for Chanhassen. — Regardless of whether it ' s on their map or not , if you have a wetland , based on vegetation and based on soil, you can ' t dig in it without a permit . So timing in this case , Jo Ann correct me if I 'm wrong , but timing is not a factor . It' s simply a case where you have a wetland and you wanted to do something to it and we have a regulation, as does the DNR but we have a regulation that says you can' t without a permit. Brent Miller : But the DNR did show that it was a wetland there on their map? Olsen: The DNR may have told you that it ' s not protected . We have a lot of wetlands that we protect that are not protected by the DNR. Brent Miller : The City doesn ' t have to contact the private owners? — Olsen: We did go through a whole public hearing process during the wetland alteration ordinance . We did not contact every single owner . That ' s why when you come in, we look at it then. Brent Miller : That' s all I ' ve got.b Conrad : Jo Ann, in the case where somebody has a wetland on their property and they decide they want to do something to it , and they' re not putting in a building , they want to do something to that wetland, what is — to catch that? Would an owner expect to, what ' s going to trigger any kind of staff review of what they' re doing? If there' s not a building, we' re not talking about a building permit here . What ' s going to get staff involved? Olsen: When they contact us , that' s when we' re notified . A lot of times they will contact the DNR or other official agencies who then contact us. But we really have no idea of what ' s going on in every back yard . Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 3 Brent Miller : How is a person' s taxes affected by the wetland area? Conrad: Normally they' re much lower. Brent Miller : How is it that the County Assessor had no knowledge of my property being a wetland? Conrad : Then I think you should inform him and I think it' s typically a case, and we've looked into this in the past that wetlands are, wetlands is non-buildable property, period . Typically it ' s taxes that way. More than likely you could ask them how it ' s assessed and you can make some adjustments for future years . You don' t have any recourse for the past to my knowledge, and I 'm getting out of my league when I start talking about taxing but I understand from past . . . Brent Miller : . . . the fact that the City did not contact me telling it was a wetland . . .where I 've been paying taxes for the last 4 years and all of a sudden it ' s. . . Prior to buying that , I had no knowledge. . . I was told it was a buildable lot. Conrad : A building lot you can put one house on it . That ' s a buildable lot. Anywhere that's permitted. Any other comments? Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli : Does this happen on a regular basis? We approve this after the fact? Olsen: It has happened a couple other times . One of the most recent ones was a dock that was installed through a wetland in Lotus Lake. Batzli : Are these the normal conditions that we put in? Olsen: . . . in a conditional use. Batzli : I guess one other question I had . You indicated there was an attachment dated January 25th. Did we not get that or wasn' t there a second letter? Olsen : The second letter is just referring to the letter to Brent Miller stating that the Corps of Engineers, he had contacted the Corps of Engineers. . . to see whether or not it was in violation of the Corps . They have stated that. . . Batzli : As I understand it though, the second person from the DNR that went out there, Paul Burke, he said that it appeared to him that the pond was constructed according to the normal 6 conditions that we would have imposed if the applicant had come in before hand? Olsen : He said to alter it would have harmed the wetland more. Planning Commission Meeting — October 5 , 1988 - Page 4 1 Batzli : But as far as slope and that kind of stuff , that was all . . . Olsen: It was pretty close. He did provide a uneven bottom. The wetland — vegetation has grown back around the pond to provide the protection for wildlife. He was satisfied. Batzli : What' s our rationale for passing this after the fact? Olsen: Again, to go in and fill it would be more of an impact to the wetland and actually would cause. . .to the wetland. — Batzli : Speaking hypothetically, what would it take before we'd prosecute somebody who did this? — Olsen : If we would have found that he had, what he had done had harmed the wetland, we would not recommend approval . We would recommend that it be returned to it ' s original state . Where that dock is on Lotus Lake , we did make a change so that the conditional use would have less impact to the wetland . Batzli : Okay, I don ' t have any more questions . Emmings: I guess I don' t have anything different than Brian. It ' s irritating that people will find out there are regulations they' re supposed to follow and then refuse to follow them but I guess if there' s , it' s a no harm, no foul situation so I 'd vote for it on that basis but I 'm just wondering though if it wouldn' t be appropriate, since we know about this situation, to take some pictures out there of the situation as it exists presently and put them in a file so if there' s any further alterations later on, we have some evidence of what it was . Just as a suggestion. A good basis for prosecution. Erhart: Let me ask Jo Ann , if Mr . Miller had come in, which he did and — I 'm sure it was explained that this land was wet, what would have been the requirements for him to do what he had requested? What would we have required from him? Olsen: For a wetland alteration permit he would have to provide a plan. . . Erhart: So it would require a surveyor. Would it require contours? Olsen : Yes . Erhart : And how far away from the pond? How big an area would have to be surveyed? Olsen : Typically the whole wetland area . But our major interest is . . . Erhart: So you had requested . . . Olsen : He would have been shown where the boundaries are. Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 5 Erhart : Can I ask what it cost to have the pond dug? What do you think a survey would have cost? $200.00 to $300. 00? Does it include all contours? When you did that before the pond was dug . . . My point is, I think it' s great. My view of the wetland is that it' s not wet. He' s got about 30 acres of closed wetlands without any open water and for someone to invest and improve the wetland and bring some open water , I think is good . Obviously I would have liked to have seen you follow the City's procedures. My concern is that the City encourage, I should say, we have a lot of wetlands in the Chanhassen area that are closed and grown over. I 'd like to make sure that we don ' t discourage people who want them, that we don ' t discourage them making their investment in such a way that we work together to try and improve the wetlands. I 'm not suggesting that you did but discourage them in terms of what kind of hoops they have to jump through and the expense of the drawings and surveys and so forth. I guess I only put that in as a comment in general . Obviously I would have liked to see you follow the procedure. I drive by everyday. I think it' s a nice little pond . I see ducks and geese in it. There ' s no ducks and geese in anyplace around there so I support it. Conrad : I guess I 'm disturbed about two things. One, there' s really no way to, we haven' t found a way to inform people what our wetland ordinance is speaking to and we kind of hope that somebody comes to the City to stumble into us. The second is that this particular thing happened after the fact. Mr . Miller , the staff report tells me that they told you a year ago that it was a wetland and that you couldn' t dig in there without a wetland alteration permit. I 'm curious why you went ahead anyway. Brent Miller: After I found out what it would cost. . .the neighbor right adjacent to me has the same. . .put up a pole barn. . . Olsen: The survey didn' t show a wetland on his land. Brent Miller : If I would have applied for a building permit, I wouldn' t have had to go through this . . . Conrad : Jo Ann , the other case that he' s mentioned , what happened there? Olsen: We get surveys that show the building site and where the buildings are and the setbacks and if the wetlands don ' t show up on it, then we' re not aware that there is that wetland out there, we just sign off on it . Conrad : They' re signed off because we' re not visiting the site? Olsen: If they put it on the plan, we don' t . . . Conrad : And how come we don' t do that? Olsen: Because I get about 20 a day on my desk and we don' t have the manpower . Conrad : So it ' s a manpower issue? Olsen: Yes . Planning Commission Meeting — October 5, 1988 - Page 6 • Batzli : Or is it an issue of trying to match up the building sites with our overall map? The wetlands? — Olsen : We' ve got a pretty good awareness of where wetlands are. We check those pretty closely. . . Conrad : Is it unrealistic to have sites checked out? What do other communities do? Olsen: Every site? Conrad : Yes , every site . Maybe that ' s wrong . Maybe I 'm misspeaking . _ Maybe it' s so obvious that we don' t need to check out some things like when we' re in town and we' re putting on a deck or putting on a porch. I don' t know but are we different than other communities? Olsen: I don' t believe so . I don' t know off hand if they do a site by site inspection. The building inspectors are out there too. . .on other regulations and they do see a wetland or something , they will contact us . — Conrad: So if it' s a staffing problem, who' s staffing problem is it? Is it a building inspection function? Is it a planning function? Olsen: It would be under planning. Everyone signs off buildings. The planning looks at the setbacks. . . Batzli : If a wetlands is partially defined by soils, isn' t the building department the one that has to sign off on that aspect of it? Olsen: If you have wetlands, you need to determine if there is a wetland . If you look at vegetation or soils . . . Again, most of the lots out there, they don' t have soil borings performed on. . . _ Batzli : When do we normally require soil borings? Only if we think. . . Brown: Only in areas such as Woodcrest where it' s fairly obvious that we'd expect to see poor soils. Erhart : I think there' s a real problem here. We' ve had two garages built in wetlands down by me and I ' ve contacted Jo Ann and Barb about both of them to try and figure out how these things, this is before I even understood the whole process but within the last 3 years . It ' s incredulous to me that these things got as far as they did before anybody. — They had discovered them about the same time I did. Conrad : It' s real irritating . The gentleman , Mr . Miller is doing it — because he saw somebody else do it and they did it on a much grander scale so therefore no big deal . Erhart : It ' s a big difference in putting a building down there. Are we prosecuting that guy now? Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 7 1 Olsen : The City signed off on it. Erhart: Is Ron now pretty aware or is the building department . . . Olsen : Yes . In fact I had one the building inspectors out measuring with that fellow yesterday but again, if it ' s not on a site plan or it' s not an area that we know is a wet area . Erhart : I think we have made a lot of changes in the building inspection department. Very positive changes . Conrad : Is this a case , it bothers me, this is a case where we want Jo Ann or staff to come back with a recommendation on the situation? If we' ve got it happening , it ' s a case where we' re just trusting the land owner. There' s nothing triggering anything here. Do we want staff to look into it a little bit or should we just say there' s nothing we can do and we' re comfortable with the way it is? Should we have staff report back? Batzli : I 'd like to hear their recommendations for what can be done to have something be put in the specs somehow or would it take another -- person? Conrad : Could you do that Jo Ann? Make recommendations to us , what it would take and the costs of implementing such a thing without a big consultant oriented research project. Emmings: It isn' t as simple as looking at an overlay because that will only catch the ones that are obvious and well known. Erhart: You alomst have to go back and try to put the wetlands on all plats. Conrad : You go back and that ' s what we stayed away from. We adopted the DNR map and just trusted that it was as accurate and that we couldn' t spend the time to do it ourselves . To go back through the entire City of Chanhassen to develop our own map. I suppose that ' s one alternative. Erhart : One of the things you could do is hand out with any building permit application, a small map that shows all the wetland area in the City. One of the questions in the building permit application , I believe, is there a wetlands? Isn ' t that one of the questions? Well , the idea is that with the application is a stapled map that shows all the wetlands and the question, does this application involve any of the areas shown on the attached map? If the guy says no, then he ' s blatantly misstated the facts. Conrad : Okay. Put that down on the things to do list Jo Ann. Anything else on this issue? Is there a motion? Erhart moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to approve the Wetland Alteration Permit #87-15 with the following conditions : Planning Commission Meeting — October 5, 1988 - Page 8 1. No additional alteration to the pond shall be permitted and no additional fill material is permitted within the wetland area . -- 2. The wetland area surrounding the pond shall remain in it ' s natural state. All voted in favor and the motion carried . Batzli : Steve, did you want to include that as a condition? You just wanted to make a note for the staff? Emmings : Yes , it ' s just a suggestion. I don ' t want it to be a condition. PUBLIC HEARING: ROME DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LOCATED ON LOT 3, BLOCK 2, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK (1450 PARK COURT) : A. SUBDIVISION OF LOT 3, BLOCK 2 INTO TWO PARCELS OF 2. 25 ACRES AND 1. 36 ACRES. — B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 6 , 700 SQUARE FOOT STATE LICENSED DAY CARE CENTER. Public Present : Roman Roos - Applicant — Jerome and Linda Carlson Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Roman Roos: Roman Roos from the Rome Corporation. A couple weeks ago we came before the Planning Commission with a zoning text amendment to allow a free standing day care within the IOP. As of last week we had the first reading and approval on that so this evening we ' re here to continue that process. It is actually a two part process. One will be the replat to allow a site for the proposed day care center and the second would be the site plan approval . This evening we have Jerome Carlson and Linda Carlson — here. The day care center is going to be used by the employees of Instant Webb, United Mailings and Victory Envelope and Linda Carlson has been working with the architect to prepare the overall structure and the use of — that structure for the employees of those companies. I think this evening I ' ve got behind me a map showing the Lot 1, 2 and 3 of the original business park. What we ' re doing in essence, we have Lot 2 in the orange. — Lot 1 and Lot 3. Back in 1984 , I built this building down here . At that point in time it was my intent and probably noted to Council that we would eventually put in something in the better portion of this lot . When I put Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 9 together this project , we needed approximately the 4 acres to do that . We knew this would . . .the plan so this evening what I 'm trying to do is to put these two parcels together and make them one new lot with this configuration. That' s about 2.25 acres densely wooded. . .and we think an ideal site for the type of use. . . To address a couple of the issues on this replat, at the present time I 've got 3.8 acres on this parcel . As a matter of fact, . . .creating this new parcel . We' re about 72% building structure, impervious surface on this site so about 2% off. According to City Ordinances , it has to meet a certain percent . We would have to make some adjustments there. Possibly a line shift or possibly I 'm going to address the Council that we have to the property line the 70%. We also have a fence along the green way to the property line and a main road along with TH 5. So whether that' s a real critical thing or not , I think it ' s easy to address. If we have to shift the line we' ll do it. I 'd prefer not to do that so we can maintain. . . The other issue I think is our replat. The size of the parcels and the frontage of the cul-de-sac and frontage to TH 5, I think we' re meeting all those requirements . If this replat is recommended for approval of Council , then we' ll want to come back to you with and show you the site plan . I ' ll kind of walk through that and then I 'd like to maybe. . . Erhart moved , Emmings seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart : Is the applicant agreeing to add the 40 feet of additional right-of-way to TH 5 if it' s required? Were you willing to add the additional 40 feet of right-of-way, if that ' s required , to show it on. . . Roman Roos: When we get into the site plan review I can show you where that exactly is . That' s right now. . . I don ' t know if I should be addressing the site plan concurrent with this or not. If you want to just address this issue now and go through the site plan. . . Erhart: We ' re talking about the site plan now. Emmings: No . We' re looking at the replat . Erhart: I 'm sorry, the replat. I was just wondering , why wouldn ' t we add that as one of the conditions? Olsen : MnDot hasn' t formally requested it yet. When I spoke with them last week on Friday, the person I was talking to was going to talk to the upper echelon of MnDot to determine whether or not they did want to acquire right-of-way at this time. They didn' t have the amount of footage of additional right-of-way that was necessary determined yet . Erhart: That never stops us for asking for additional right-of-way along Pioneer Trail or TH 101 or anyplace else? • Olsen: I asked them and explained to them that this was a plat and if they could request additional right-of-way. . . That ' s where we left the issue kind of open. . .to get it onto the final plat. Planning Commission Meeting _ October 5 , 1988 - Page 10 1 Erhart : If you take 40 feet off there Roman , what does that do to your lot size? If you take 40 feet off the northern line that was included in — the lot size. Roman Roos : Tim, we' ve allowed for that . We' ve put in the extra footage. . . The only thing it might infringe upon, and that' s not known at this point in time but we' re back 50 some foot from our property line. . .a portion of the road extend into that area , that is not a problem but if MnDot does require that , we can shift that portion. . . I guess an easy way — to show you right now, coming from our property line to this point here, we come into the building 50 foot so we know, we feel very sure that we' re clear of what MnDot wants to require in terms of excess land . This — portion right here is the playground and it does extend past the 50 foot mark into that zone somewhat but until we know from MnDot what is required , we' ll have to adjust our playground accordingly if it is a problem. We feel a few years down the stream, . . . to shift that playground , we feel is a very, very minor problem. . . Erhart : I guess this TH 5 improvement is a pretty certain thing. — Roman Roos : I 'm sure it is. Erhart : I wouldn' t want to see us have to go back and undo something . Roman Roos : Tim, I think I 'm probably going to lose the first row of the mini- storage when that happens but yes , I 'm quite cognizant of that and I — don' t, as far as this project, we've allowed for that and I don ' t see any problems whatsoever . Much like a project that you looked at prior , across from the mini-storage on the opposite side is a 25,000 square foot — building . That also was covered with the same type. . . Erhart: That' s my question. — Emmings: I don' t have anything . I think it' s a reasonable thing to do . Batzli : I had a question, the cross easements. Why would we be doing it — on the replatting rather than the conditional use? For parking? Olsen: Why wouldn' t we? Batzli : Yes . Why don' t we have that on, the plat rather than on a conditional use permit? Olsen: As far as the site plan for the conditional use permit , we can put it on both. Batzli : But if this gets built and later the conditional use goes away, aren ' t we going to have a problem? Olsen : It will always be recorded . It will be part of the conditional use permit. Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 11 Batzli : So it won ' t be recorded contingent upon the conditional use? Olsen: If he wants it to have parkingon a separateparcel , he has to provide that easement . Batzli : Okay. That was my only question. Conrad : I don' t have a question . Only thing , Roman I want the 70% impervious surface. You' ve got to get that somehow. Roman Roos : I think Ladd we can work that quite easily. I don' t want to go for a variance. That process is open to me but I think we can. . . The reason I say. . . Ladd is that 20 foot easement, which Larry' s aware of, we' re going to have to somehow over here significantly. . . That ' s 10 foot on this property line and 10 foot on that property line. So we ' ll have to shift 10 foot to gain the extra 2% and I don' t think we' ll have a problem because. . . Whether it ' s serviced on this side or that side, it' s kind of a blending issue because of the green space from the western part of this building in that direction. So it' s a technicality and I don' t think it' s hard to address and get an answer to. Batzli : But if you have to do that , aren ' t you squeezing your building further down? Roman Roos : I don' t think so on the setback. We' ve got 10 foot on this side line and 10 foot on this side. The average shift is 10 foot. I guess the bottom line, if I have to go back to the City and say I 'd like to have a zero lot line side yard setback for this particular project and only this project , it does make sense. I 'd rather stay away from the variance process. If I can logically persuade Council along with Planning Commission to go this direction knowing that we have this additional 10, 15, 40 foot of greenway already tied to that, it' s skirting the fine lines if you go back in terms of what was the intent of that ordinance. The intent in terms of green space. In terms of zoning ordinances, no we'd be _ shorter than 2% . I think there' s a reasonable solution. I guess I 'm looking towards the Planning Commission for their recommendation. I would really like to hold this line as it is for the two reasons that I 've already stated. I don' t really want to shift the lot lines 10 foot or 6 or 8 , whatever requires to get to that extra 2% . With the amount of land , I guess one of the things that I hurried by is that on this particular site, we be granted a variance. We'd like to stay with the variance procedure and since it's . . . I 'm really open. Worse case scenario, I 'd shift . . . 2% is about, on that site is roughly 2, 000 square foot . . . Conrad: Roman says he' s open . I think we can make our motion. Emmings: If he' s open, have it in there as a condition if he can find a way to work that out with staff between now and the Council . Conrad: I guess we' re not going to tell you how to do it. I think we want you to do it . How it works . . . Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 12 1 Emmings moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #88-22 as shown on the preliminary plat stamped "Received September 29 , 1983" and subject to the following — conditions: 1. An amended preliminary plat shall be submitted for City Council approval which maintains a maximum of 70o impervious surface on Parcel A. 2. The plat shall be revised to show a 20 foot wide utility easement — centered on the existing 10 inch diameter watermain which traverses Lot 2, Block 1. This easement shall be extended between Park Court and State Highway 5. — 3. The plat shall be revised to show the appropriate side lot and front and rear utility easements prior to final approval . 4 . The final plat shall be revised to reflect the additional roadway easements for the widening of State Highway 5 if MnDot forwards to the City written confirmation that additional easements are required . — All voted in favor and the motion carried . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 6, 700 SQUARE FOOT STATE LICENSED DAY CARE CENTER. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Conrad: Before we open this up for public hearing, does anybody have any significant concerns with this particular permit? I 'm just trying to , Roman probably wants to talk to us for 20 minutes here. If we' ve got some _ concerns , I want* to make sure that we give him time. Otherwise, I 'm going to provide him with some direction to do this fast, if we can. Anything? Okay, we' ll open it up for public hearing . Roman why don' t you take us through kind of quickly. I 'm sorry to do that to you and I 'm not — trying to play this down but I think, I 'm also saying that we probably like what we' re seeing. Roman Roos : It' s just a 6, 600 square foot building for the employees of . . . The building itself, we feel we' ve addressed the parking issue. We' ve got expansion capability here and possibility here . . . The entry is quite. . . if you' re coming in. . . identify the project, if you will . The — traffic flow which was narrowly addressed . . . , will be minimal because it' s traffic coning in, dropping the children off and back up and drive out to the Park Court area . The playground, the issue of not . . .MnDot , we think — we' ve addressed that issue i.n excess of what MnDot' s going to require. It will be about 65 from the center line of the road . We' re at 50 foot from the property which is way in excess of that so I think we won' t have a — problem. Jo Ann will have that answer very shortly when she gets back to MnDot. The playground, if we encroach upon that area , we can shift that area at that point i.n time. . . .short of that, the landscaping , we' re Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 13 trying to save the majority of the trees on the site and it ' s something . . . Conrad : How much do you have to take down? How many trees? Roman Roos : It' s a very densely wooded area . We' re going to lose a lot of the scrub timber but we are retaining these evergreens located here, here and there' s two more in this general . . . The landscaping plan that you have is a more exact plan. . . I think we' ve lived with the elevation changes, it' s not that great. . . Short of that in a very short summary, that 's it. Emmings : Does that entry archway, has access for fire trucks and stuff been taken into account in the planning? Roman Roos : That' s one of the things our architect is addressing right now. We would like to put the entry in because it' s a visual . . .visual theme. We' re cognizant of the cost . Right now that entry does not have to go but if we can do it economically and meet the City standards, we will probably do it. But at this point in time the concept is . . .but it would have to meet all of those. Emmings: Do we have ordinances that cover something like that in terms of access and emergency vehicles? Olsen : When the building permits come in, they will have the details on it. Emmings : I like the idea . I just don' t want blocking important traffic . Conrad: This is a public hearing. We' ll open it up for other comments . Mr . Carlson, do you have anything? Jerome Carlson : I sent you my letter . It indicates that. . . It also indicates in the letter that although we base the size on surveys that we' ve taken , those surveys have now become a year old . We think there will be a significant change in the needs of our employees. However , because we don ' t want to have a shortage of space, there is a possibility that we have undercalculated or overcalculated, whichever the case may be, and we may have a time frame in which we are actually garnering some business, child care business from some other facilities until we fill the facility. But in the other way, there is an additional 1, 300 to 1, 600 square feet that we had negotiated with Roman to have in that building for our future expansion . . . In the meantime that will be leased out , if we are successful in leasing out some. . . Those are things that I said in my letter . Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart: I think it ' s nice . I wish you' d build it big enough so my employees could use it. I 'm just curious overall , why would you put the play area on the north adjacent to TH 5 as opposed to putting it on the Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 14 west side up against the trees? What was the reason for that? It would seem to me to put them between the building and the trees would have been quieter . — Roman Roos : Tim, I don ' t have an answer . All I know is that in laying this thing out to make it fit right on the site plan and spacing , they wanted to use the trees and what have you for the children . If you put a playground in there, you' ll cut out more trees . We didn' t want to do that. I think by the time, when you look at the landscaping , we' re going to have very heavy screening in that area . I don' t they' re even going to — see the playground and they want to be able to take the kids into the woods . I don' t know if that' s the correct answer but I think it sounds good . — Erhart : On the fence , do the kids get to go outside of the fenced area? Roman Roos: Only under supervision . Linda Carlson : It' s required to have a fenced area and they be supervised by State Regulations. — Erhart : But it is common to take them out of the fenced area and walk them through the woods or something during the day or is that not common? — Linda Carlson : Most places don' t have that . Erhart: Don ' t have the fence? — Linda Carlson : No , they all have fenced areas . Most places don' t have woods. Sometimes they will go on field trips to parks. —. Erhart : But is there a rear door or something that allows them to go out there . Linda Carlson : Yes . Erhart : And what you ' re saying is if TH 5 takes an additional 40 feet, — that' s going to bring the boundary line very close to the fence area? Roman Roos : You' ve got to remember that 40 foot , as I understand it , the 65 that was originally set up by MnDot was from the center line of the new aligned road . As I Jo Ann was saying , either staff nor myself know exactly where that' s at and we wanted to make doubly sure so we said, from our property line another 50 foot so that boundary is going to fall within — that area someplace . Erhart : Someplace and then you' re going to have to adjust the — landscaping? Roman Roos : Right and like I said , by the same token , as far as the State — is going to take on that, it' s only built on the width of a normal road and highway. The rest is green space too so it may not impact what we' re in. If it is , we' ll have to shift. . . Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 15 Erhart : The proposed future building , is that for the same purpose? Roman Roos : The proposed building site is much like 1984. We wanted to address the issue that the site is big enough to put another building on. As I told Jo Ann, if that were to happen, we don't know when. We'd have to come back in for a replat, the same process we' re going through today so we feel there is adquate land there, we can service a small building . Erhart: For a daycare? Roman Roos : Good question. I wish I knew the answer Tim. I don ' t . We know there is . . .that they' ll address in terms of, probably the watershed talking about setbacks . Those are all questions that we can address at that point in time. . . Emmings: I think it' s a good plan and I like it. Batzli : What did we ever decide on, we are going to save a lot of trees as far as trying to rope off so they don' t drive over the root systems and things like that. Do we have any kind of. . . Conrad : Highlight those out with a snow fence, as I recall . Olsen: What we can do is have them stake out the potential grading and then visit the site with the DNR forester . He can make a judgment then as to whether or not additional trees will actually be damaged or should be included in that site also . Roman Roos : This is very mature woods. If you go down there, there ' s no question. . . There is a very mature in the northwest and we' re trying to limit the elevation of the building so when you come down the road there isn' t a big structure. It is our total conviction that we want to save as many trees as we can . That' s why we' re actually marking the trees on that landscaping plan. I don' t, sometime in the construction process you can not save what you what to save in trees but we' re trying to save a major , about 23-18 inch diameter size of trees . We will save those one way or another . As a matter of fact , this entrance, these are huge 50 foot pines and we' re making a point of we' re actually putting a retaining wall down. . . You start getting the DNR involved in this thing . . . Jerome Carlson: The building is really in a very tight spot. There isn' t apparently much leeway. . . .certainly have to take certain trees . We are trying , we' re hoping to save as many as possible. It' s fair to say that I feel strongly about that . I don ' t know what this verification with the DNR is but we' re going to save whatever can be saved and there are limitations on where you can put our building pad. Conrad: I don' t think there' s a question on that. I think you' re sensitive to the woods that are there. Brian' s comment was , and we ' ve seen it throughout Chanhassen where we look at what ' s there, say preserve what you can . They try to preserve what they can but the guys with the bulldozers are running bulldozers and they' re moving earth. The root Planning Commission Meeting October 5 , 1988 - Page 16 systems get damaged of your oak trees and whatever . I 'm not sure if we' re talking about oak here or whatever but anyway, we were talking about putting up a snow fence so at least those guys with the bulldozers have some kind of idea that when they get closer to a tree than where this fence is , they' re going to damage it . That was the base of Brian' s comment. We' re just losing all sorts of trees because really the people running the equipment are, they' re right there. The tree' s still standing but it dies within a year and that' s the basis of Brian' s comment . Roman Roos : Brian , I don' t have any problem at all . If you not on that fencing plan, where we. . . , there' s been a lot of mention to that building line. We' ll try to save those three oaks that are in that general location so as Jerome says, it' s very tight building the pad is tight . . . We will address that issue . . . Batzli : My only thing in condition 1, the applicant should not only provide the city with a cross easement but it should be recorded as was earlier stated if that ' s what is going to happen to it anyway. Conrad: Anything else? Do we have a motion? — Batzli : I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-14 as shown on the site plan dated "September 16, _ 1988" with the following conditions . Conditions 1 through 8 provided in the staff report and insert at the end of condition 1 the words, for recording against the deeds of the subject property. Something like that I guess . — Emmings : Why don ' t you just say, you will provide the City with a recorded cross easement? Batzli : Okay. With a recorded cross easement . Just insert the word "recorded" . Emmings : Second . Batzli moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-14 as shown on the site plan dated "September 16, 1988" with the following conditions : 1. The applicant provide the City with a recorded cross easement to allow proposed parking for the Rome Development building on the subject site. 2. The applicant submit an amended landscaping plan which provides additional landscaping between the day care facility and the mini- —. storage warehouse facility including evergreens . 3. The site plan must meet any additional conditions as part of the _ zoning ordinance amendment for day care facilities in the IOP District as conditional uses . Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 17 4. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit . 5. The proposed driveway shall maintain a 12 foot separation from the existing driveway located to the south on Park Court. 6. The applicant shall supply the City Engineer with details (storm profile sheet) for the installation of the storm sewer which shall include details for the rip rap, flared and sections and energy dissipators prior to City Council ' s approval . 7. The erosion control as delineated on the plan shall be revised to reflect the City's standard for Type II erosion control (staked hay bales and snow fence) . The erosion control plan shall be revised on the plan set to reflect the City's standard for Type II erosion control . 8 . The driveways (proposed and existing) shall be signed appropriately to designate one-way traffic for each driveway (refer to Attachment #1) . A signing and striping plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to final plat approval . All voted in favor and the motion carried . SUBDIVISION OF 87. 3 ACRES INTO 5 INDUSTRIAL OFFICE LOTS AND TWO OUTLOTS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT OUTLOT A AND LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 3RD ADDITION, JUST NORTH OF LAKE SUSAN AND WEST OF HIGHWAY 101, — PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, ROSEMOUNT, INC. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Bob Worthington: Mr. Chairman, given the fact that you' re in a hurry and given the significant nature of the project , in a way it' s going to be very difficult for me to give a very short presentation this evening because we are very pleased to be able to present the beginnings of what for us is the Rosemount, Inc . manufacturing facility which all of you know is relocating and constructing a major facility here in Chanhassen . The process that we' re talking about which is now being interpretted through this plat started several months ago. As you know Chanhassen was in competition with another community. Was able to persuade the Rosemount people that this would be a good community for their facility and Rosemount indeed committed to the community. It was just two days ago that Opus was selected as the contractor for the project and now we are in the process of evolving the site plan which we' re going to be coming back to you for your approval on next month for this facility. We' ve kind of been running for a while. We' re very pleased that we' re able to start the process this evening . We think we' ll have an EAW which is a mandatory requirement and Alan Schaft is ready to submit that to the State for their comment and . . .multiple comments back and hopefully finding no major Planning Commission Meeting — October 5, 1988 - Page 13 adverse impact . . .environmental issues that have been identified as new research on the site. The major focus of course is the larger 57. 57 acres upon which the development will take place . I can say this , even though — we' re not here this evening to talk about a site plan, that it will be on the southeastern corner of the site . The building will be located and access will be provided off of Lake Drive which will be extended in a slightly different configuration than was proposed when you approved previously the Detroit Deisel project on this site. There' s going to be a conference center on this site which. . . in terms of the building . They' re going to come in with a much needed and very important facility for our park as well as the community. We think we' re going to have an exciting plan to show you in about a month and we hope you agree with that. We reviewed the staff report and have no objections to any of the stipulations that have been recommended as conditions of approval for the ' plat. We do want to comment on the fact that , as was indicated by staff , that the lot that they want to make into an outlot is going to be a difficult one to develop. However , we disagree with the language that it' s an undevelopable site. We think it is a developable site. It will require perhaps some variances in order for it to be fully developed . We think that should 10 be shown as a variance, perhaps . . .could contribute to — the overall image and prosperity of the park. So with those comments , I ' ll step back and I ' ll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. I think the staff report pretty much covers basically what it is — we' re looking for this evening. Hope that you agree with it' s recommendation that she spoke to . Erhart moved , Emmings seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Batzli : I think I only had one real question. That was , the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this indicating that 2 acres of parkland along the eastern boundary be dedicated. Is that something we' re trying _ to be addressing• in this preliminary plat? Olsen: There essentially already is a deal established between Opus and the City and the Park and Rec Commission , they agreed that to receive that — outlot of 2 acres for parkland to be combined with the Lake Susan Park. Batzli : Which outlot are we looking at? Olsen: Outlot B. Batzli : Is that condition , is it to be deeded to the City? What ' s the — deal? Olsen : It can be made a condition of the subdivision. Essentially it ' s — kind of an internal deal . Batzli. : It normally would not be made a condition? Brown: I think what' s going on here is that this may have been covered in the purchase agreement which at this time I 'm not privy to but I believe Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 19 that was incorporated into that purchase agreement and for us to make it a condition may enforce something else than what was stated in that agreement . I only say that as a caution. I 'm not sure what the content was. Batzli : I guess I will leave it up to staff' s consideration to determine whether it needs to be a condition before Council approval because I 'm obviously not privy to the purchase contract that you have. Bob Worthington: I might be able to shed a little bit of light on that. As you know, with all subdivisions, the city has the discretion of imposing the park dedication fee which can be paid in the form of land or cash. In this instance, because the City an interest in expanding Lake Susan Park, we negotiated land as a part of the dedication requirement with a cash balance and that is why it is a special purchase agreement stipulation between Rosemount and Opus and the City. So that' s basically why that is a requirement. Batzli : So that' s already been inserted in a purchase agreement? Bob Worthington: That 's right . Batzli : I guess I 'd just like staff to verify that before it gets to City Council . That' s all I have. Emmings : I don' t have anything. Erhart : Market Blvd . is shown on here as a through street going south. -" Is that the plan or is that depending on 2 or 2A? Olsen : 2 or 2A. Erhart : If it ' s 2, which TH 101 goes the existing route , than Market Blvd. would end at Lake Drive East? Olsen: It would not be realigned as it ' s shown. Erhart : So it would basically T into Lake Drive East . Olsen: There has been discussion to make a full intersection. Erhart: Okay, but we would, this plat it reserves, we' re safe no matter which way we want to go? Obviously I like developing Rosemount in our City. I ' ll be waiting to look at the site plan. Conrad : I had no questions other than the second point on the recommended motion. I guess staff is saying it's probably an unbuildable lot. I don' t know that we want, I personally don' t want to communicate that I feel it is buildable. I feel real strongly, I think the words you mentioned , you didn' t like the terminology. I think it' s fairly weak terminology allowing you an alternative but I personally would never set you up to think that we would be in a position to grant a variance or variances. I get uncomfortable that we' re setting up parcels that need Planning Commission Meeting — October 5, 1988 - Page 20 variances to build and therefore, I feel comfortable with this motion. I think it' s still pretty soft, granting an opportunity to Opus to look at it . Yet on the other hand , I wouldn' t be telling you the truth if I — thought, I would really feel strongly about sticking to Chanhassen' s ordinances especially when we' re dealing with such a large parcel . Erhart: Jo Ann, is the potential for 40 foot additional right-of-way required off of that Lot 1 there as well? Olsen: For TH 5? — Erhart : Yes . Olsen : TH 5 is going to be improved to the north of that site . Erhart: It' s not going to adversely affecting it? Emmings moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #88-25 as shown on the preliminary plat — stamped "Received September 20, 1988" subject to the following conditions : 1. Approval of the proposed vacation of Lake Drive East. 2. Lot 1, Block 3 shall be designated as an Outlot and deemed unbuildable until it has been shown that development of the site can occur while maintaining the required setbacks from the roads and wetland . 3 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to — guarantee the installation of the public improvements . 4. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the _ Watershed District permit and DNR permit . 5. The Rosemount site shall address all on-site ponding required to maintain the necessary water quality standards which are to be — determined by the environmental assessment worksheet. 6. The applicant shall provide the necessary construction and utility easements as deemed necessary by the feasibility study for Lake Drive East . . All voted in favor and the motion carried . ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-421 (11) OF THE WETLAND — ORDINANCE TO CLARIFY THAT THE CITY HAS CONTROL OVER DREDGING OF WETLANDS IN PUBLIC WATERS WHICH ARE LOCATED IN LAKES WHOLLY WITHIN THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Conrad : Jo Ann , anything other than the obvious here? Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 21 Olsen: No. Conrad : I guess what you can clarify for me is why the words that you used are going to do that. They don' t seem to say anything to me so we' re clarifying something that doesn ' t say anything . — Olsen: We' re stating that dredging within the wetland within public waters . Conrad : But it didn' t say. My concern was , we didn' t have control over anything below the ordinary high water mark, right? Olsen : This allows us that control . Conrad: Because it says . . . Erhart : Including public waters . Olsen : Technically our Attorney didn' t feel that we needed anything but we wanted something that would point it out. Erhart : If we didn' t need to do anything , then why couldn' t we have some control over Rivkin? Olsen : It was felt that there had just been a recent court case in Mound that settled that. That determined that the City did not have control but that case was not entirely in Mound . It was shared , I think with Minnetonka. Erhart : Our position was that we felt it was basically. . . Olsen: Right, where actually we do have. Batzli : The City Attorney basically went to the Attorney General to ask for an opinion on a case such as that. The opinion came back that if it was within a city or if there was a joint powers agreement between cities , and the lake was within those cities , they would have some sort of jurisdiction in those instances as well . So if we have wetlands lying along boundaries with other cities , what we should actually do is enter into joint power agreements with those cities so we have control of those as well . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Conrad: Brian, any other comments or do you think we should be following through on what you just said? Do you want to give staff some direction? Batzli : Well , I didn' t think this was a problem personally, in reviewing it. I thought it perhaps is, I guess I don ' t understand what the Planning Commission Meeting _ October 5, 1988 - Page 22 definition of public waters is and maybe it ' s defined in our ordinances somewhere but if public waters is defined as somewhat narrowly, then the question is , I hate to say it , it begs to question , what is a private water , is the problem in my mind. I didn' t find public water but I didn' t look real hard I have to admit so I didn' t know what it meant . Because public land is defined but public water isn' t. That was my concern that I , not knowing and unfortunately not taking the time to call up the City Attorney to ask him why he used those words. It may be that he took them out of the Attorney General ' s opinion because I think the Attorney General used those words, public water . It may be that they come out of the — Statute that grants cities with the authority so I may have looked in the wrong place. It' s probably not in our code, it' s probably in the State Statutes but I guess the bottom line for me is , if the Attorney feels comfortable with this and public waters is somewhere defined, I say go for it . I think we have to make sure that public waters is defined broad enough to include private waters, if you will . It also, I think, should be amended shortly, once we determine if we have wetlands bordering bordering cities, what would it take to enter into a joint powers agreement as to those areas? Those were my comments . Emmings: I just don ' t know if digging and dredging and filling is all the things you can do in a wetland that we want to prohibit . I guess I wonder if we coulde say, digging, dredging , filling or in any other way altering . _ We want to give people the idea that they can ' t do anything in there unless they come in. I don ' t know if it' s necessary but I 'd like to see that in there . The only other thing I had is on the very last sheet we got a copy of the ordinance that the Mayor 's supposed to sign and it has an "s" on it and it shouldn' t. That ought to be fixed . Erhart: I like the idea of having no altering. Leave enough room, I think that' s a good idea because people are always trying to find someway to get around words. I think that one is a good one. I think of it as including public waters , if it gives us a little more strength , which _ seems to be somewhat of a vague issue, then I 'm all for it . Conrad : Brian, could you make the motion on this one? Batzli : I think Steve had the only change. Conrad : But you really wanted staff to look into , I guess what I 'd like you to do is make the motion but also to ask staff to follow up certain questions such as public water . What' s the difference between public and private? Getting rid of the "s" . Batzli : Okay, I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment #88-13 to amend Section 20-421 (11) as follows . To read digging , dredging , filling , what word did you use? Emmings: Or in any way altering . Batzli : Or in any way altering a Class A or Class B wetland , including public waters lying wholly within the City of Chanhassen. I 'd also like to recommend that the staff look into those points that I raised . One Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 23 being , do we need a definition of public waters? Two, what wetlands or public waters lying jointly within Chanhassen and neighboring cities , which we might look into entering a joint powers agreement as to those area. Erhart : I ' ll second it . Batzli moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment #88-13 to amend Section 20-421 ( 11) as follows : "Digging , dredging , filling or in any way altering a Class A or Class B wetland , including public waters lying wholly within the City of Chanhassen ." All voted in favor and the motion carried . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 21, 1988 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Erhart moved , Batzli seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9: 00 p.m. . Submitted by Jo Ann Olsen Asst. City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY QF CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 imnistrtor MEMORANDUM �`�� �------- ---- TO: Planning Commission dais Submitted .a FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner (1)0 Date t°'`''-'-' =' DATE: October 14, 1988 SUBJ: Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Comprehensive Plan Attached are two memos from Mark Koegler addressing items that he has been working on for the city. The first is the population projections for the Comprehensive Plan. Mark would like to review this item with the Planning Commission. The second memo refers to zoning ordinance amendments Mark is working on with staff. Mark would like to briefly speak with the Commission to get their input on the items prior to continuing with the zoning ordinance amendments. -4.. _,_.#_..,,:.. _ . �. _... .,:: . ... ..;#:,:.„!„,,c, '' . ,..., ,..,71,e _ : -.,,-:„"1.,.. d?1 t. . :1,,,:f:. ,,i: . :, : _ r V Hazard '' Stalls - 5-,. AmbsagewEngssroso 3330 Harbor Lane North Bldg.II,Suite 104 MEMORANDUM Minneapolis.MN 55447-2175 612/553-1950 TO : Jo Ann Olson �1� — FROM: Mark Koegler Pk-- DATE : October 11 , 1988 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan - Population Projections As a part of the Comprehensive Plan update and in response to receipt of the population estimate for April 1 , 1988 by the — Metropolitan Council , Chanhassen ' s population projections have been re-evaluated . The previous projections were based on a set of assumptions which have remained largely unchanged . Key assumptions — included an annual net increase in households of 4 . 75% from now until 2000 and an annual net increase in households of 5 . 5% after 2000 . — Chanhassen ' s previous projections were based on the following household occupancy rates : 1985 - 2 .86 — 1990 - 2 . 83 2000 - 2 . 75 According the Metropolitan Council ' s 1988 estimate , the City _ presently has' 2 . 7 persons per household . As a result of this figure , the projections are based on a 1990 occupancy rate of 2 . 7 and a 2000 rate of 2 . 65 . — Utilizing the above methodology and preparing future projections incorporating the Metropolitan Council ' s 1988 household estimate of 3398 units , the following estimates are obtained : — 1990 - 10 ,065 2000 - 15 , 700 These figures compare to the old City projections which identified _ a 1990 population of 9 ,480 and a 2000 population of 14 ,750 . The "official " Metropolitan Council projections are 9 ,000 in 1990 and 10 ,000 in 2000 . 4 Pending a review by the Planning Commission , I am planning to incorporate the revised City population projections in the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan . Additionally , the new estimates — are being used in the update of the Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan . r 142. _ - VarDOrEr» Hazard} r Stalling :030 Harbor Lane North Bldg.II,S.iite 104 "ii ineapolis.MN 55447-2175 6121553-1950 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olson FROM: Mark Koegler W� DATE : October 11 , 1988 SUBJECT: Ordinance Modifications I have received information on three ordinance modifications which will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council over the next couple of months . The modifications generally include the following : 1 . Revision of the A-2 zone to remove contractors yards and mineral extraction as conditional uses . Additionally , the zone will be reviewed to consider the possible inclusion of temporary retail nurseries , golf courses and public buildings . 2 . Establishment of a "blending " ordinance to control lot sizes in new developments aajacent to existing developments . 3 . Establishment of a tree removal /replacement ordinance . The information that I have on each of these topics consists primarily of previous staff reports and minutes . Prior to assembling draft material for the Planning Commission to review, it would be helpful to have d general discussion with the Commission at an upcoming meeting . I would like to have the opportunity to hear , first hand , the comments of the commissioners and the overall intent in effectuating each of the three changes . OCT 1 ,; 1988 CITY OF CHANhASSEN - CITY OF CHANHASSEN . . • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission and City Council 'Y FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner P.. DATE: October 14, 1988 �0/�7��✓-�_ - SUBJ: Wetland Ordinance --- ----------- - The attached packet was the handout from a wetland seminar which I recently attended. I felt the seminar was very informative and that the Planning Commission and City Council would also be "- interested in the information provided. Chanhassen was mentioned as one of the few cities to have a specific ordinance protecting wetlands. A major issue of the seminar was the number of regula- - tory agencies and how to know what requires a permit and where the permit must come from (federal, state or municipality) . The difficulties we experience with our wetland ordinance (education _ and enforcement) is the same for the Corps of Engineers and DNR. I have also attached a DNR newsletter which reviews a task force that is trying to promote education and the protection of wetlands . Paul Burke, Fish and Wildlife Service, is part of this task force and has stated that they may request input from Chanhassen on our experience with our wetland ordinance. The Planning Commission at the October 5th meeting requested staff to review how the wetland ordinance can be better enforced — and how we can prevent illegal alterations of protected wetlands . The amount of work and number of city staff does not permit staff to visit every site requesting a building permit (from decks to residences) to determine if a wetland exists . The Building Department has worked closely with Planning on identifying wetlands and wetland alterations that they see upon site visits . Other than hiring an employee specifically for wetland verifica- _ tion, I do not see how this can be improved. The existing wetland map should be updated. Most of the wetlands on development sites are discovered after staff visits the site and finds a wetland which was not on the wetland map. I will be contacting the DNR and Corps of Engineers to determine how a more complete wetland map can be developed. A private consultant may be required. Once the map has been updated, then the education of the public should take place. Most people do not understand Planning Commission and City Council October 14, 1988 Page 2 that their property may contain a protected wetland. The above — mentioned task force will be addressing the issue of public edu- cation and the city may be able to become involved with this and establish information and the means to provide it to the public. — Other than updating the wetland map and pursuing public educa- tion, I do not know of a way to better enforce the ordinance. The public needs to know to contact the city prior to taking — action. Please comment on how you see enforcement of the wetland ordinance can be improved. 7 Z Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Metro Region !► 11V, '' Metro News ,, - J Volume 2, Number 4 July-August 1988 DNR Forms Partnership To Save Metro Wetlands RtCE1VED SEP 22 1988 In a new initiative to preserve h••, ±e Cl IV OF CHANHA . .N — wetlands in the metro region, the '..4---=,4... 41. DNR, BRW Corporation and U.S. y}� {f}pt,..: . to.,, Fish & Wildlife Service have i.' , rE l� .1 .. , '" ' ,. 'tip *� . ;,,.ter. , ''— organized a task force that will help ,„ 4 : . r.3` ]J'` ( `*4., 1 _ ,i` - '' �* '.V . * -4$ developers and government .. . .• agencies better address the impact ,� .�. ,, :-1‘ `' of urban growth on wetland areas. y -_'... - 1, The task force, to be known as 4'` ` "The Wetlands Group," will be 7i4:7;,;:,,:4;...". �, �' l ' — comprised of developers, ,'►�, A - - '. 's.. ....,''t"1 ; engineering firms and public t� K, p . '� ' 11 �j yj tea' i :.‘t.' ' A _ `l.. .'.`i agencies involved in wetland t 't + /, ,m*�,4 14 4 conservation. The group will work .&;,I :' — to avoid the loss of valuable r "a - wetlands and to facilitate wetland J't ." -Y -; - .. , A mitigation, which is the creation of ; "'3 l t #_ new wetlands to offset losses where ;i i ?�� `"`' r �. _. `'' development impact is unavoidable. _mom ` r. x r II .4 <) The need for better coordination ,t f �- Amp j, f , among interested parties was -- among t, highlighted at last year's Urban i• 4- or` w ,, � s _{ Natural Resources conference co- e. :,, .. _ e'' • sponsored bythe DNR in St. Paul. Ss. l— `"' �` T ' Paul Burke, Biologist for the U.S. , • �'' ._• - - .'� • Fish & Wildlife Service, said the group's main objective will be to envision an executive body use criteria such as wildlife habitat — provide timely wetland information comprised of land developers, value, ground water recharge value, to business groups and city planners conservation groups and agencies food chain support value and that can be used to promote both such as the DNR, Met Council and others); should the construction of economic growth and environmental U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. storm water retention ponds qualify health in metropolitan communities. "We intend to serve municipal as wetland mitigation? Should He said the Fish & Wildlife Service planners, watershed management mitigation occur on-site, or should it is in the process of inventorying agencies or any individual in need of be allowed some distance from the — metropolitan wetlands and help in wetland mitigation." construction project? If so, how far? calculating the rate of loss for this The Wetlands Group will concern The Wetlands Group hopes to purpose. itself with balancing the relative heighten the awareness of local — Burke said The Wetlands Group will values of wetlands and officials as to the value of wetlands, not be a bureaucracy or regulatory development. Questions they will and to streamline the permitting body but rather an advisory group look at include how to avoid wetland process for developers who seek to and a clearinghouse for information impact in the first place; how best work in wetland areas. Anyone on the location and status of to quantify the values of wetlands needing more information should wetlands. "We're still getting (agencies with regulatory authority call Paul Burke at the U.S. Fish & organized," he said, "but we over wetland resources currently Wildlife Service, 290-3131. I Page 2 July/August Reflections Developers Seek Flexibility In Wetland Until recent times, the fragile and complex ecosystems known as wetlands Mitigation — were regarded by many with disdain, or, at best, indifference. The word "swamp,"a synonym for wetland, held a vaguely negative connotation, 1 calling to mind an unattractive or disease-infested place that was better A current construction project in drained and put to agricultural or other use. Today, all that has changed, Anoka County demonstrates some — as Minnesotans better understand the many benefits of preserving of the unavoidable impacts of wetlands, or creating new ones to replace those lost to agriculture or development upon wetlands. development. Negotiations to mitigate these — It is believed that more than half of the original wetlands in the metro impacts involved three parties and area—those intermediary zones between land and water that support numerous challenges to DNR rules unique vegetation and abundant wildlife—have been lost to housing and interpretations before an agreement other development. Minnesota law now requires that certain types of was reached. .. .1 wetlands be protected from development. Under very limited It started with the City of Andover circumstances, impacts on wetlands may be permitted if land of equal proposing to improve and realign natural resource value is created to replace what is lost. County Road 18 in a way that would — This "wetland mitigation"process has often been confusing to developers bisect a forty acre wetland and fill and has so far been applied on a limited basis in the metro area. A more about two acres of the site. The coordinated, metro-wide approach is needed, involving public agencies. DNR stated at the outset that the — local governments and private developers working together. road should avoi j the wetland, but after lengthy review it was Just such a partnership is now underway, with BRW Corporation, DNR, determined that no practical U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Army Corps of Engineers and other parties alternative existed. — forming a task force known as "The Wetlands Group"that will provide accurate and timely information on the status of wetlands that might be Minnesota rules provide for filling affected by development. to create road crossings through We expect this group will play a pivotal role in preserving our valuable protected wetlands only when the "liquid assets"in the metro region. project is sponsored by a unit of government and there are no ,(� � , 6.16.14e4„__ practical or feasiole alternatives. — Kathleen A. Wallace Since the project would negatively Regional Administrator impact the wetland, mitigation was needed. The City sought to acquire adjacent land the DNR felt was suitable as one of the several mitigation alternatives. The owners of this — adjacentP roperty, developers Norm P it. 6,„-:All'-'14' .. .F -, Holm and Art Raudio of Anoka, had { p� •, planned a housing development for — '�-- "" _ the site and asked the City to ' •;•11.W4114.1.-t � Y` , r_` consider an off-site alternative. The I, ftCity raised the possibility of • i - ,Ef• 4� - .< ' .. condemnation, the developers raised • - < —....7..N7"....7.7.4. the possibility of legal :.;1 -i:_- _ 4counteraction, and negotiations `it..,:-.•/... .- _ �, ., ,- , a ensued. The matter was settled with — tt = 1` ` Holm and Raudio donating about t0- lit r i five acres to the Pity for an ;�• e. impoundment, to be followed by the — f City constructing a dike and water �`2tur;s ;«s - 1rl, l �; control structure to create a 14".4::-� --w -` :''.)`44t+t... ' `At 'il %. "•E: 4v:I wetland. — w�i' In exchange, the developers received from the City a credit in the amount of dedicated park fees Earth mover MIN wetland in Andover for road con'.truction. Project required wetland — mitigation. (continued on page three) — July/August Page 3 _ .. Heritage Highlight 1, Wetlands' Special Role Appreciated Natural resource managers and slowly back into streams or the development projects in the — developers seem to agree that a ground. They serve as "nature's metropolitan area with the "wetland ethic" on the part of the kidneys," cleansing water of Minnesota Waterfowl Association. public has emerged in the past pollutants such as phosphorus Overall, the MWA has created or — decade, possibly as a result of the runoff from fertilizers. They often enhanced more than 4300 acres of environmental movement of the serve as spawning areas for fish, wetlands in the metro area. Another 1970s. Minnesotans now seem well and support a vast array of wildlife organization, Ducks Unlimited, has aware of the wide range of values such as ducks, geese, herons, mink, also been active in wetland creation, held by wetlands. muskrats, deer, fox and pheasants, recently completing a 400 acre "Wetland" is, generally speaking, to name just a few species. waterfowl habitat site at the Carlos _ another name for a bog or Wetlands also have esthetic value as Avery Wildlife Management Area marsh—that is, a flooded or 'open space, educational value, and near Forest Lake. temporarily flooded basin with archeological value since they were A newly formed "Wetlands Group," water-tolerant vegetation and used as hunting and food producing comprised of a broad spectrum of — habitat for waterfowl and other areas by early peoples. public agencies and private species not usually seen on higher Federal and state Water Bank development firms, will begin this ground. Wetlands classified as types programs provide compensation to year to serve as a clearinghouse for 3, 4 and 5 (typically marshes and agricultural landowners for not information regarding wetlands in ponds) and 2.5 acres or larger in draining wetlands. the metro area, serving planners, municipalities or 10 acres or larger The federal "Swampbuster" law developers and public policy makers. in unincorporated areas, are provides penalties specifically for Better coordination of development protected by law in Minnesota. farmers who drain for the with meaningful wetland In the seven-county metro region, production of surplus crops. preservation should result. The there are more than 93,000 acres of Additionally, the Reinvest In group will work toward saving - these wetlands, with their prime Minnesota Program provides wetlands in the metro region, those wildlife value. Wetlands hold a incentives to farmers for wetland places of quiet solitude that form a special place in the environmental restoration. unique link in the complex chain of — scheme of things. They collect and In recent years, the DNR has cost- Vie. ,, = retain floodwater, releasing it shared twenty-seven wetland _ Wetland Mitigation they would owe on their property results primarily in private case." development, and permission to profits rather than public benefits. Jennifer Engh, Legislative Analyst — proceed with building. "The term 'public purpose' pertains for the law firm of Opperman & Holm and Raudio had proposed an to projects for which the public need Paquin, advised Holm and Raudio alternative they felt had merit. They is so great that the project during the negotiations, and she — would donate a 5.6 acre mitigation outweighs the no build alternative," believes the rules were intended to site sought by the City if they be he said. "Also, mitigation is be interpreted more broadly than allowed to fill one half-acre of permitted only when wetland impact they were in this case. "The _ previously,altered wetland for a is unavoidable. We felt there were principles of mitigation are to avoid nearby com'-nercial project. DNR other upland sites that could have wetland impact if possible; if not, permission was required, with rules been used for this commercial then minimize it, and mitigate only stating they would need to project." as a last resort," she said. "It — demonstrate a "public purpose" for Developer Norm Holm saw the seems to me we went from avoiding the project. The developers felt the situation differently. "We felt a to mitigating, then back to avoiding, increased commercial property trade-off of one half-acre of wetland skipping minimizing." — taxes the project would give the for 5.6 acres of new wetland was a Stine took a different view of the City of Andover was a valid public good proposal, but the DNR doesn't meaning of "minimizing," stating purpose, but the DNR did not mitigate based on acreage," he said. that since avoiding damage to the concur. "I think the state rules on wetland was possible, the process John Stine, DNR Metro Area mitigation do provide for flexibility stopped there. "State rules separate Hydrologist, said state rules hold the way they are written, but projects into 'permissable' and 'non- that filling to create commercial flexibility was not used in this (continued on page four) _ Page 4 Julyliluquat Mitigation permissable' categories," he said, agencies are to avoid costly, support to local units of government "and filling to create upland for protracted negotiations. "I would for implementing this concept." (/ commercial development falls into like to see establishment of DNR's Stine said the issues raised the non-permissable category. mitigation 'banks' in the metro area by Holm, Raudio and Engh will be Mitigation is inappropriate when a wherein wetlands would be the types of concerns addressed by use is prohibited by the rules." purchased ahead of time to offset The Wetlands Group, a new public/ Holm's partner Art Raudio believes future losses," he said. "I think private task force that will deal with a fresh look is needed at the way developers would lend financial wetland issues in the metro region. theeapplies mitigation, and Coming Events - betterer communication is needed early-on if developers and public ❑ Minnesota State Fair, Falcon Heights, August 25-September 5 DNR Metro News is published bi-monthly ❑ `Monarchs: The Milkweed Butterfly"naturalist program, Ft. -- by the Minnesota Department of Natural Snelling State Park, August 27-28 Resources,Region VI Headquarters. Editor David English ❑Farmland game roadside census, metro region, August Public Affairs _ 296-3572 ❑Lake surveys and fish population assessments, area lakes, August For more information on DNR Metro pro- grains and activities,call: ❑ "The Shell Game: Clam Fishing and the Button Making Industry" _ Regional Administrator Kathleen A.Wallace display, Ft. Snelling State Park, August 296-3572 Fisheries Duane Shodeen ❑American Indian Movement 20th Anniversary, Ft. Snelling State 2962959 Park, September 1-6 -- Wildlife Roger Johnson 296-5200 ❑Special metro goose hunt, September 1-10 Nongame Wildlife Joan Galli 297.2277 ❑ "Leave it to Beaver"naturalist program, William O'Brien State Park, Parks&Rec`ea°O1. John Winter September 3 2962553 Trails Waterways Del ger CI Small game opener, September 17 296-3572 Forestry Tom Polasik ❑Nonmigratory bird opener, September 17 296-3572 Waters Kent Lokkesmoe ❑Project Wild environmental education workshop, Ft. Snelling State — 296-7523 Park, September 25 Enforcement Capt.Paul Rice 296-8609 Cl Birds of Prey naturalist program and release, Ft. Snelling State Park, September 25 First Class wnwou Department.o Natural Resources U.S. Postage Metro Region PAID 1200 Warner Road Permit No. 171 sMTeI1 a St. Paul, MN 55106 St. Paul. MN AMR mimeo ` CITY OF CHANHASSEN •.`�.�•,. JO ANN OLSE N \ . ,,4L• 690 COU:,TER DRIVE ,s v CHANHASSEN, MN. 55317 _Se. DNR Metro News