The URL can be used to link to this page

01-17-96 Agenda and Packet AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSIF FILE WEDNESDAY,JANUARY 17, 1996,7:00 1 CHANHASSEN CITY HALL,690 COULTER DRIVE ALL TO ORDER UBLIC HEARINGS ,LD BUSINESS Consider an amendment to the City Code to allow commercial raising of fur-bearing animals, operation of riding academies, commercial stables and kennels in the BF, Fringe Business District, Nancy Lee. John Knoblauch for preliminary plat approval of 8.35 acres into 12 lots, one outlot and associated right-of-way on property zoned RSF, Single Family Residential; a variance for street grade of 10%; and a variance to wetland setback of 20 feet for Lots II and 12; property is located on the east side of Yosemite at the Chanhassen-Shorewood city limits.The project is known as Knob Hill. EW BUSINESS Applebee's International request a site plan review for a 5,500 square foot Applebee's restaurant; a sign variance request for two wall signs;and a variance to site coverage of 5%to permit 70%site coverage located on property zoned BH,Highway Business District, Lot 4, Block 1,Crossroads Plaza Third Addition. *Item Deleted. Consider an amendment to the City Code concerning Bluff Protection and side slope setbacks. Consider an amendment to the City Code concerning landscaping and tree removal for transitional buffering between uses. PPROVAL OF MINUTES [TY COUNCIL UPDATE NGOING ITEMS PEN DISCUSSION Consider Amending IOP, Industrial Office Park to include Auto Sales. Planning Commission Goals. DJOURNMENT )TE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m.as outlined in official by-laws. We 11 make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If,however,this does not appear to possible,the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from nsideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. tem Deleted Consider site plan review approval of a retail building of 8,321 sq.ft.and a parking lot setback variance on property zoned PUD,and located on Lots 2 and 3,Block 1,Market Square,Market Square 3 Partners, Inc., Amcon Corporation. /, CITY OF CHANHASSEN% \ - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II DATE: January 17, 1996 SUBJ: City Code Amendment to the BF, Fringe Business District to allow commercial raising of fur-bearing animals, operation of riding academies, commercial stables and kennels,Nancy Lee and Patrick Blood BACKGROUND On November 15, 1995,the Planning Commission reviewed an application requesting an amendment to the zoning ordinance in the BF- Fringe Business District, to allow the construction of a multi-faceted facility that could provide services for the care of domestic animals including kennels and stables, "humane society"services, and city/police drop off availability. The applicant is proposing this change take place by amending the definition of agriculture to read as follows: Agriculture means the commercial use of land for raising of livestock and poultry, growing and producing of fruits, vegetables, field crops and nursery stock, including tree farms and choose-and-cut Christmas tree sales. The term does net include the commercial raising of fur-bearing animals,Fief the operation of riding academies, commercial stables er and kennels. Agriculture is a permitted use in the BF, A2 and RR districts. Changing the definition of agriculture as requested by the applicant will impact all these districts. Staff recommended the Planning Commission table action on this request and direct us to develop standards to allow commercial raising of fur-bearing animals, operation of riding academies, ,mercial stables and kennels as a conditional use permit in the BF District. We also mend these standards be incorporated into Chapter 5,Animals and Fowl. Planning Commission January 17, 1996 Page 2 ANALYSIS Staff has developed standards to allow Commercial Kennels and Stables. Since the applicant requested a humane society establishment, staff did not develop standards for Riding Academies or Fur Bearing Animals. These types of uses are not typically associated with humane societies. We need to point out that since kennels include animal runs,care must be taken in locating them away from residential areas and providing noise buffers or barriers. The proposed amendments provide standards to minimize negative impacts on neighboring properties. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS The following reflects the proposed changes. All amendments will be shown in bold letters: ARTICLE XX. "BF" FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT Sec. 20-773 Conditional Uses The following are conditional uses in a BF District: 1. Motor fuel stations without car washes. 2. Truck/trailer/auto/sporting goods and boat sales/rental 3. Utility services 4. Cold storage and warehousing 5. Miniature Golf Course(Pursuant to Sec. 20-265). 6. Commercial Kennels 7. Commercial Stables Section 20-1 Definition: Commercial Kennel means any place where a person accepts dogs and cats, mere-than one(1)year old, from the general public and where such animals are kept for the purpose of selling, boarding, breeding, training, treating or grooming. Commercial Stables means any place where a person accepts horses, colts, ponies, mules, burros, or llamas, from the general public and where such animals are U for the purpose of selling, boarding, breeding, training, treating or grooming Planning Commission January 17, 1996 Page 3 ARTICLE IV. CONDITIONAL USES DIVISION 4.. STANDARDS FOR BUSINESS, OFFICE, INSTITUTIONAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS Sec. 20-295. Commercial Kennels and Stables. The following applies to commercial kennels and stables: (1) No more than one principal structure and 2 accessory structures shall be permitted. The accessory structures may not exceed 1,000 square feet each. (2) The structure must be in compliance with Chapter 5, Articles II and III. (3) The site must be located on a collector street. (4) The structure must be a minimum of two hundred (200) feet from wetland area, 25 feet from public or private road right-of-way, and 200 feet from an adjacent single family residence or a minimum of fifty feet from a side or rear lot line,whichever is greater. (5) No person shall maintain or operate any commercial kennel or stable without a permit issued by the city as regulated by the City Code. (6) A minimum lot size of one (1) acre is required to be licensed for operation of a commercial kennel or stable. (7) Every commercial kennel or stable shall be enclosed or fenced in such manner as to prevent the running at large or escape of animals confined therein. (8) Both commercial kennels and stables shall be open for inspection by the City authorities at any time. (9) It shall be unlawful for any person to own or keep three (3) or more dogs and/or cats over six (6) months of age on his/her premises in the City without obtaining a kennel permit pursuant to this section and the City Code. (10) Light sources shall be shielded. (11) No outdoor speaker systems shall be allowed. (12) Compliance with all State and County Regulations. Chapter 5 of the City Code dealing with Animals and Fowl is amended as follows: Commercial Kennel means any place where a person accepts dogs and cats, from the general public and where such animals are kept for the purpose of selling, boarding, breeding, training, treating or grooming. Planning Commission January 17, 1996 Page 4 Commercial Stables means any place where a person accepts horses, colts, ponies, mules, burros or llamas, from the general public and where such animals are kept for the purpose of selling, boarding, breeding, training, treating or grooming. Sec. 5-22. Issuance. After a Conditional Use Permit has been approved by the City Council, a Commercial Kennel permit shall be issued by the city clerk if the following conditions are met: (1) Housing enclosures for dogs and cats shall be at least two hundred (200) feet from any neighboring residential structure used for human habitation. (2) Land upon which dogs are to be sheltered must be surrounded by a sturdy fence which will keep dogs confined. (3) No Commercial Kennel Permit shall be issued for a lot of less than one (1) acre. (4) Housing and shelter must be provided which will keep animals comfortable and protected from the elements, and housing or shelter shall be so located as not to create a nuisance. (5) Accumulations of feces shall be located at least two hundred (200) feet from any well. (6) All accumulations of feces shall be removed at such periods as will ensure that no leaching or objectionable odors exist, and the premises shall not be allowed to become unsightly. (7) All dogs and cats shall be housed indoors overnight(from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.). (8) All dogs and cats shall be housed indoors when the commercial kennel operator(s) is not present at the subject property. (9) Dogs are not allowed to habitually bark in a manner considered a nuisance as defined by the City Code or Nuisance Ordinance. (10) Outdoor exercise (dog runs) confinement areas shall be screened and buffered. Such screening and buffering may be accomplished by using berms, fencing, a green belt planting strip (evergreens), or natural topography. (11) The following conditions must be upheld in regard to the site's animal quarters: a. Indoor housing facilities must be structurally sound with ample heat, light, and ventilation. b. Animals kept outside must have access to shelter to protect them from sun, rain, and snow. c. If animals are confined by chains, such chains must be attached so not to become entangled with chains of other dogs. Planning Commission January 17, 1996 Page 5 d. Individual animal enclosures must be of a size to allow each dog to turn around fully, stand, sit, and lie in a comfortable condition. e. The temperature of indoor housing facilities shall not be less than 50 degrees Fahrenheit for dogs not accustomed to lower temperatures. f. Disposal facilities are provided to minimize virus infestation, odors, and disease hazards. g. Adequate storage and refrigeration is provided to protect food supplies against contamination and deterioration. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amendments as follows: ARTICLE XX. "BF" FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT Add the following Sec. 20-773 Conditional Uses The following are conditional uses in a BF District: 6. Commercial Kennels 7. Commercial Stables Amend Section 20-1 Definition: Commercial Kennel means any place where a person accepts dogs and cats, mere-than one(1) year old, from the general public and where such animals are kept for the purpose of selling, boarding, breeding, training, treating or grooming. Commercial Stables means any place where a person accepts horses, colts, ponies, mules, burros, or llamas, from the general public and where such animals are kept for the purpose of selling, boarding, breeding, training, treating or grooming. Planning Commission January 17, 1996 Page 6 Adopt standards for Commercial Kennels and Stables as follows: ARTICLE IV. CONDITIONAL USES DIVISION 4. STANDARDS FOR BUSINESS, OFFICE, INSTITUTIONAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS Sec. 20-295. Commercial Kennels and Stables. The following applies to commercial kennels and stables: (1) No more than one principal structure and 2 accessory structures shall be permitted. The accessory structures may not exceed 1,000 square feet each. (2) The structure must be in compliance with Chapter 5, Articles II and III. (3) The site must be located on a collector street. (4) The structure must be a minimum of two hundred (200) feet from wetland area, 25 feet from public or private road right-of-way, and 200 feet from an adjacent single family residence or a minimum of fifty feet from a side or rear lot line,whichever is greater. (5) No person shall maintain or operate any commercial kennel or stable without a permit issued by the city as regulated by the City Code. (6) A minimum lot size of one (1) acre is required to be licensed for operation of a commercial kennel or stable. (7) Every commercial kennel or stable shall be enclosed or fenced in such manner as to prevent the running at large or escape of animals confined therein. (8) Both commercial kennels and stables shall be open for inspection by the City authorities at any time. (9) It shall be unlawful for any person to own or keep three (3) or more dogs and/or cats over six (6) months of age on his/her premises in the City without obtaining a kennel permit pursuant to this section and the City Code. (10) Light sources shall be shielded. (11) No outdoor speaker systems shall be allowed. (12) Compliance with all State and County Regulations. Chapter 5 of the City Code dealing with Animals and Fowl is amended as follows: Commercial Kennel means any place where a person accepts dogs and cats, from the general public and where such animals are kept for the purpose of selling, boarding, breeding, training, treating or grooming. Planning Commission January 17, 1996 Page 8 b. Animals kept outside must have access to shelter to protect them from sun, rain, and snow. c. If animals are confined by chains, such chains must be attached so not to become entangled with chains of other dogs. d. Individual animal enclosures must be of a size to allow each dog to turn around fully, stand, sit and lie in a comfortable condition. e. The temperature of indoor housing facilities shall not be less than 50 degrees Fahrenheit for dogs not accustomed to lower temperatures. f. Disposal facilities are provided to minimize virus infestation, odors and disease hazards. g. Adequate storage and refrigeration is provided to protect food supplies against contamination and deterioration. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff report dated November 7, 1995 2. Conditional Use Ordinance 3. Animals and Fowl Ordinance Planning Commission January 17, 1996 Page 7 Commercial Stables means any place where a person accepts horses, colts, ponies, mules, burros or llamas, from the general public and where such animals are kept for the purpose of selling, boarding, breeding, training, treating or grooming. Section 5 is also proposed to be amended by created standards for issuing a Commercial Kennel permit, as follows: Sec. 5-22. Issuance. After a Conditional Use Permit has been approved by the City Council, a Commercial Kennel permit shall be issued by the city clerk if the following conditions are met: (1) Housing enclosures for dogs and cats shall be at least two hundred (200) feet from any neighboring residential structure used for human habitation. (2) Land upon which dogs are to be sheltered must be surrounded by a sturdy fence which will keep dogs confined. (3) No Commercial Kennel Permit shall be issued for a lot of less than one (1) acre. (4) Housing and shelter must be provided which will keep animals comfortable and protected from the elements, and housing or shelter shall be so located as not to create a nuisance. (5) Accumulations of feces shall be located at least two hundred (200) feet from any well. (6) All accumulations of feces shall be removed at such periods as will ensure that no leaching or objectionable odors exist, and the premises shall not be allowed to become unsightly. (7) All dogs and cats shall be housed indoors overnight (from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.). (8) All dogs and cats shall be housed indoors when the commercial kennel operator(s) is not present at the subject property. (9) Dogs are not allowed to habitually bark in a manner considered a nuisance as defined by the City Code or Nuisance Ordinance. (10) Outdoor exercise (dog runs) confinement areas shall be screened and buffered. Such screening and buffering may be accomplished by using berms, fencing, a green belt planting strip (evergreens), or natural topography. (11) The following conditions must be upheld in regard to the site's animal quarters: a. Indoor housing facilities must be structurally sound with ample heat, light, and ventilation. CITY OF • ClIANHASSEN \ - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II DATE: November 7, 1995 SUBJ: City Code Amendment to the BF,Fringe Business District to allow commercial raising of fur-bearing animals, operation of riding academies,commercial stables and kennels, Nancy Lee and Patrick Blood The applicants are requesting an amendment to the zoning ordinance in the BF - Fringe Business District, to allow the construction of a multi-faceted facility that could provide services for the care of domestic animals including kennels and stable, "humane society" services, and city/police drop off availability. The applicant is proposing this change take place by amending the definition of agriculture. The current definition of "agriculture"in the zoning ordinance is as follows: Agriculture means the commercial use of land for raising of livestock and poultry, growing and producing of fruits,vegetables, field crops and nursery stock, including tree farms and choose-and-cut Christmas tree sales. The term does not include the commercial raising of fur-bearing animals, nor the operation of riding academies, commercial stables or kennels. Agriculture is a permitted use in the A2 - Agricultural Estate District; RR- Rural Residential District; and BF -Fringe Business District. The applicants are requesting the definition be amended to read as follows: Agriculture means the commercial use of land for raising of livestock and poultry, growing and producing of fruits,vegetables, field crops and nursery stock, including tree farms and choose-and-cut Christmas tree sales. The term does net include the commercial raising of fur-bearing animals,ne the operation of riding academies, commercial stables er and kennels. Planning Commission November 15, 1995 Page 2 As mentioned earlier,agriculture is a permitted use not only in the BF district,but in the A2 and RR districts as well. Attachment#1 reflects current BF, RR, and A2 zoned property. Changing the definition of agriculture as requested by the applicant will not only impact the BF district,but will also impact all of those areas highlighted on the map. To fully understand the effect of this potential amendment,we must examine the meaning of the proposed uses. The zoning ordinance Section 20-1 provides the following definition: Commercial Kennel means an establishment in which dogs, cats, or other domesticated animals more than one (1) year old are housed, groomed, bred,boarded, trained, or sold for gain. Chapter 5 of the City Code dealing with Animals and Fowl offers the following definition: Commercial Kennel means any place where a person accepts dogs or cats from the general public and where such animals are kept for the purpose of selling, boarding, breeding, training, treating or grooming. The city code does not contain definitions of commercial raising of fur-bearing animals, operation of riding academies, or commercial stables. These uses are permitted in some districts as follows: ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION A-1 A-2 RR RSF BF Agriculture P P P P Commercial Kennels IUP IUP Commercial Stables IUP IUP IUP Riding Academies IUP IUP = Interim Use Permit P= Permitted Staff believes that changing the definition of agriculture as requested by the applicant will create some incompatible uses in some districts, and will make it difficult for the city to regulate the use. A better approach would be to regulate these uses as a Conditional Use Permit in the BF District only. The Planning Commission could direct staff to develop a set of standards for these uses that would address issues such as noise, disposal of feces, and shelter for the animals. Planning Commission November 15, 1995 Page 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission table action on this request and direct staff to develop standards to allow commercial raising of fur-bearing animals, operation of riding academies, commercial stables and kennels as a conditional use permit in the BF District. We also recommend these standards be incorporated into Chapter 5,Animals and Fowl. ATTACHMENT 1. Map showing the areas impacted by the definition of agriculture. 2. Map showing BF District. 3. Application and legal description. 4. Public hearing notice and property owners notified. ! A I ! B >� I I I C L . l 1- 1 E I ! l i f F f f _ k+ ,i;.a`Na1�1M�i4'►^�"aY. 1�-(1.-..e7.-2-=-14,--_-.T.:-Fri y'' ,,.:,,!1,4..i.,.. .,::__._`� , .. =.,. `�Lihimmili, �r-11�'"'timmi`r .�m',,c,,, . F �� . •"L.cam . �%Al ;r ` ♦ ,�y� / "' lib®i/,' 3; 7:,-;- s.V': i �L — ii �t" f �. '�% r: .„ *10ii Air M,✓w` . . a.AV �jt ' E � A,oeee/A r4r.7P.. AY .A •74.. ,-..... • .-.401101,',..7.'..- 7 AP*" . .AC /AN% C. B.,,,,,tviiir,. ---..46„.!,„,...7.... . 46,.,06,2_,.. rd," A • N':'-.- -st- Arne."-u...,::A.-7:47:4' Air .1 _. qty, � �///� '„� n►i� r s� :.,. c z2 ,...:LH.' Vi .f,AZAll'" g Ay 4I". . _.... ......,,,..,•:a.."....4..... Ai ____, virie7 _ AIN- ._,.. -; :,...- -- ilk "1 sra, . .A''.; ?1 4 .-." , ...- r,410 .., ,1-0,4„.„...„!I ea..7:1,17. '---- -_-- kt tibi , '.' I iii ' , � II € � -�f�/ i` --- - -__ - _ . �i `• .. 1, °.\ '''-- ' .! 0.41041 d- ot,i1, _..A.?' '' , .. 4,41 aTY OF rr— �� it eri�ii =-_ • 42 '\I ',4':k.''.• 1 CHANHASSM 1/./ZA I i/4 0 so 01 i __.... CURRENT BF �j'PlAbtAter �% RR, A-2 ZONED.. � � ,1117#4— ' : ' •APT? 5 PROPS _ �,_ . . _ , 7 .,,ice ! . _ __ _. _ • -----. 7_,.:2 ,I.,...„:",77-1WAff" i 1 "--440/V ,,, --- _ — 1 t.-- AV LT, iv � q .0 _� • t '.=, 'r 7 I 4 ! 1 I > 1 ; 1 T 1 1 A .m.-- B....7.-=VON ma., C D E F I 1 1 i 1 1 i i Iitil- iy / 11112- 1... T 1 , - ,, 4.';'•..-... :M-_.:4 ...:1-:. --.- 7:4110. -4 l'-00111101M1 - imo,d-;.:--j!.-4'-u. •Jr---ir 44,p &JP AI! 7'_- '.%,„It Eil .s.' - tw_m_. .'-' ...- -•Ima-s, 11:41000%'"-'- Vill 'T 1-z-t,.. - .. ili -.,- '44.. 1111A .. 1112:7r.•4' \L.' - .." A,,irit--, -,, ,'_--til e• ...Fr- _:,•-t-.....,, ,u,‘,-74-4,. - v4.,. - fq11. - ,.., .., fair ---r„.N7.-7.3%; . •- 1... Tws.o. - _ • ttet% -.:,..- fr,:,rla "" I roe X. / _., LAW.,...,:„ i I'1•••• -1.1ti— , , - -...T.A.r--,•••das, ,.•f ..7,,,ei 4 . -.........-. , 1 ....• "eV 1 - --- '''' • . L'..sk. -OC.'"10i. 41 '-';' ,.., '‘.. mos vw..w - • wo. 1 1.1 uts ,--- -. • ....-.-:• 4.errs —.4.44. 1E I „IA • ----- N.P.---.11 4', i 417- 410 ...1"- • p0 t•i -- •tAs -- •L - .--m• ,r,ti-,t ._ . _ ,___ i N.,'_ . .--- -,-___;----,--•-• -- . . •-s-..-- - • .i. • A .: , ..... . .... ••• •:, -....- ---.---,L ,....•„„ ...4... -,,,,i0,-., l• ..-.7„ a.k., ••" — --_ --. •:c .... ,...._ •wr,.• tit.( L..... a 115:44444. -.a ,.".....) Lt 1 _ __ ._____ .. ..... illo._k_....._._ I li 1 4..! .1)..._. [. 14 __ •__,RA._„,......u....- 5. r.7-__...4.1)"-- 2 I: "" - .-=.r.. ---.•._„-3-mr- BIB...... _ Jam_ • -...„.., ,...."1 • r mil -.:2:3'... ' •-'; -i__ ____.• ---..-, or, _.-----• .0,46„,-,-, ,,.- __II ,_---.---.., it c,-, .4iiiiit. --- - - • • . . .00.41:.--• , o - ..• _. — -. , .1-7 -.- , 4:4* 1 ••• k-. ip:.-:-;,.:a i. .,......:--- --4,...., •cr- - - ....,--vA ,.* 183 ...:". r• .....--_ - --I ,_...-1 -r-4- . .• :J.; 1,e-,- _ . _ -, 1 -• .." pr SZ-',. I.e. “rre MS.. ,.. .1*•— •\,... ..4.1 I .... • [Ara ir V-- ..... N.. ars L _ . ...- ....../'IP---'''Ik.--• 's • - ,•• ,...., ,,7-,---7-:-N154- •—- ____ .--., - 22-= '''''..''•'''' ' -n•r,' •--,J,. i '- .- .0. '11.•-• --- - I I I I '" • , • - -,•--:• ..,..L. & 7..-14- - ' ,..-%• . • ; I• .-',:: --•-. -.'. ----' - - „. ''.•-'t'..ig = 'I..- IA • i,2 )7 try? . ... _........„,-. • am r... -., ••,„____7 ;--•i .." ., ...-. i ,.) r_.7. 1 .."., I , '4 • a 1 • - •\ A _.... _. 1 .±#.2: %*-11+444 I P:''' 1;---" •.4f.' ' T''' 4 . -• CITY OF . ( . .7,..0.;•:0.7 1 efr :,......). .-1:4-,. ., CHANHASSai - BASE MAP . 1•'‘...) i :1 • . I —1 .----". __- , 7: BF DISTRICT _. c---- , _-___:--1----!-1 _-/-- ,_._./...., . - - - - .1.,,, • . ,• - - L____I .,.....0_,...0. ,... —, • 1--10 .-__L__ :,_ ..... ,z- Wu, _• , - ----- --- -1 — 5 ... • • i ...„-/..i. -,-.,• ---- 57., % __ i ,....-- • i --,Ns-2 --1 - - PREPARED BY. [-.1 - _ _ ,, • CHAWASSEN ENGINEERING DEPT. . . • ::\i' \,1* - ,, . . . `',‘.. . _ • ------"-- --17: • --• -*NOW, 'iitAir;!......_ , ••.,,... '• ' ,. ..... ....14‘ ,,,,,f••er: 6 . ._. • • LAMM . • , -NN, 0 . 0 ,,,,,sz/ . ..Z"K-:-/ . /.-* 7-.. ....va " - - , ..„ , ,;•• ..- ..,.....r_.1_, • • -":•"'' -.Z6--. ...•-• ; ..” • 1 ; '''`.4.- ' 1 i 9 9 I 9 9 t 7 I I I I! I I I T I 1 I I CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Nancy Lee & Patrick Blood OWNER: Sane ADDRESS: P.O. Box 94 ADDRESS: Shakopee , MN. 55379 TELEPHONE (Day time) (612)445-0503 TELEPHONE: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. X Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review Notification Signs 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SPRNAC/VAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) 10. Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 81/2" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME LOCATION 10500 Great Plains Blvd. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Sec . 36 , TWP 116N, Range 23W See attached description PRESENT ZONING BF - Fringe Business District REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Please see attached . REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Please see attached. 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 Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 10/13/95 Signature of Applic Date Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. Nancy Lee and Patrick Blood RE: Zoning Ordinance Amendment REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION AND REASON FOR THIS REQUEST: "Agriculture" is a permitted use in the Business Fringe District. The last sentence of the City definition of Agriculture states: "The term does not include the commercial raising of fur-bearing animals, nor the operation of riding academies, commercial stables or kennels." We are requesting that this exclusion be changed to an inclusion of the Agriculture definition. We would like to build a multi-faceted facility that could provide services for the care of domestic animals including kennels and stables, "humane society" services, and City/police drop off availability. Chanhassen and the surrounding area does not have anything like this available to them. That part of Government Lot 4 , Section 36 , Township 116 , North Fenti- 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian , Carver County , Minnesota which lies southerly of the southerly right-of-way line of the Chicago and North Western Railway Company ( formerly Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway Company) and northerly of the northerly line of State Highway No . 169 and No. 212 , EXCEPTING therefrom that part contained in the following: That part of Government Lots 3 and 4 , Section 36 , Township 116 , Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at the West Quarter corner of said section ; thence South along an extension of the west line of said Government Lot 4 , a distance of 14 . 65 feet ; thence northeasterly deflecting to the left 106°21 ' 30" , a distance of 1327 .05 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be described ; thence continuing northeasterly along last described course 170. 35 feet; thence northwesterly deflecting to the left 89° 15' , a distance of 50 feet to a point marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence continuing northwesterly along last described course , a distance of 473. 2 feet to a point marked by Judicial Landmark ; thence Northwesterly deflecting to the left 63°38' , a distance of 40 feet to a point marked by a Judicial Landmark ; thence southwesterly deflecting to the left 25°30' , a distance of 146 feet to a point marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence southeasterly 545 . 52 feet to the actual point of beginning , a point being marked on the last described course by a Judicial Landmark; distant 50 feet northwesterly of actual point of beginning. And except that part of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 116, Range 23, described as follows : Starting at a point on the North right of way line of Trunk Highway No. 169 which point is 50 feet North of the center line of the pavement at a point 1487.4 feet Northeasterly from the West line of said Section 36 as measured along the center line of said pavement and running thence North 13°32 ' West or at en angle of 89°15 ' with said pavement a distance of 473. 2 feet; thence North 77°10 ' West , 40 feet ; thence South 77°20 ' Wear, 146 feet : thence Southeasterly 501 feet to tht North right of way line of said Trunk Highway and thence Northeasterly along said right of way line 171 feet to place of beginning. And EXCEPT that part of said Government Lot 4 lying easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the West. Quarter corner of said : section ; : thence. South along an extension of the west line of said Government Lot: 4; : a distance of 14 .65 feet; thence northeasterly deflecting- to theTleft 106'21 '30", a distance of 1487. 40 feet to the actual point ' of beginning of the line to be described ; thence northwesterly deflecting to the left 89°15' to the south line of said Chicago end North Western Railway Company and said line there terminating. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, November 15, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to consider an amendment to the City Code to allow commercial raising of fur-bearing animals, operation of riding academies, commercial stables and kennels in the BF,Fringe Business District,Nancy Lee. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner H Phone: 937-1900, ext. 120 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on November 2, 1995) 144 ‘a c}(1-C) J. Michael Sorenson Allen Rothe Roger&Betty O'Shaughnessy Rt. 2, Box 187K 750 Vogelsberg Trail 1000 Hesse Farm Road Belle Plaine, MN 56011 Chaska, MN 55318 /'`1.....1... 11 AAT C G Z 1 Q Debra Wendorf Norman & Karoline Monroe Ms. Ruth Sobnosky 740 Vogelsberg Trail 565 Lakota Lane Dept. of Transportation Chaska, MN 55318 P. O. Box 115 1500 Co. Rd. B2 West Chaska, MN 55318 Roseville, MN 55113 Skip Cook John Malzahn Control Credit, Inc. 15506 Village Woods Dr. 10551 Great Plains Blvd. 7841 Wayzata Blvd., #200 Eden Prairie, MN 55433 Chaska, MN 55318 Minneapolis, MN 55426 Mr. Paul Burke SuperAmerica Group, Inc. Maynard C. Happe U. S. Fish& Wildlife P. O. Box 14000 495 Lakota Lane 4101 E. 80th Street Lexington, KY 40512 Chaska, MN 55318 Minneapolis, MN 55425-1665 Verne & Susan Severson Bert& B. Notermann Robert Drury 575 Lakota Lane 812 Co. Rd. 78 E. 575 Flying Cloud Dr. .haska, MN 55318 Shakopee, MN 55379 P. O. Box 193 Shakopee, MN 55379 ack Brambilla Chester& Betty Teich ;50 Valley Park Dr. 825 Flying Cloud Drive ;hakopee, MN 55379 Chaska, MN 55318 § 20-201 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE "HC-2" Highway 5 corridor district. (Ord. No. 80, Art. IV, § 1, 12-15-86; Ord. No. 123, § 1, 3-12-90; Ord. No. 212, § 2, 7-11-94) Sec. 20.202. Zoning map. The boundaries of the districts established by this chapter are delineated on the zoning map; the map and all notations, references and data shown thereon are hereby adopted and made part of this chapter and will be on permanent file for public inspection at the city hall. (Ord. No. 80, Art. IV, § 2, 12-15-86) Cross reference—Official maps, § 15-20 et seq. Sec. 20-203. District boundaries. Except where referenced on the zoning map,a street or alley line or other designated line by dimensions shown on the map, the district boundary lines of all districts except the flood fringe and floodway district,shoreland management district and wetland overlay district shall follow lot lines or the centerlines of streets or alleys.Where interpretation is needed as to the exact location of the boundaries of any district, the board of adjustments and appeals shall make the necessary interpretation. (Ord. No. 80, Art. IV, § 3, 12-15-86) Sec. 20.204. Schedule of uses permitted by district. Uses of land,buildings, and structures not permitted below as either principal, accessory or conditional are prohibited. All district regulations shall also be subject to the provisions of all other applicable provisions of the chapter. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 1, 12-15-86) Secs. 20-205-20-220. Reserved. ARTICLE IV. CONDITIONAL USES* DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 20-221. Nature; burden of proof. Conditional uses include those uses which are not usually allowed within the zoning district, but which may under some circumstances be suitable. The applicant shall have the burden of proof that the use is suitable and tl-at the standards set forth in division 2 of this article have been met. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 2(3-2-1), 12-15-86) Secs. 20-222-20-230. Reserved. *State law reference—Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. Supp. No. 7 1174.2 ZONING § 20-232 DIVISION 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Sec. 20-231. Application, public hearing, notice and procedure. The application,public hearing,public notice and procedure requirements for conditional use permits shall be the same as those for amendments as provided in article II, division 2, except that the permit shall be issued on the affirmative vote of a majority of the entire council. Although specific submissions required to complete an application for a conditional use permit may vary with the specific use and the district in which it is located, all applica- tions for such permits must include at minimum a site plan that clearly illustrates the fol- lowing: proposed land use building mapping and functions, circulation and parking areas, planting areas and treatment, sign locations and type, basic lighting concerns, the relation- ship of the proposed project to neighboring uses, environmental impacts and demand for municipal services. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 2(3-2-2), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-232. General issuance standards. The planning commission shall recommend a conditional use permit and the council shall issue such conditional use permits only if it finds that such use at the proposed location: (1) Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,safety,comfort,convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. (2) Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. (3) Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in ap- pearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. (4) Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. Supp. No. 7 1174.3 ZONING § 20-233 (5) Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage sbvctures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. (6) Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. (7) Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. (8) Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. (9) Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. (10) Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. (11) Will not depreciate surrounding property values. (12) Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. (Ord. No. 80. Art. III, § 2(3.2-3), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-233. Conditions imposable on permits. (a) In reviewing applications for conditional use permits, the planning commission and the council may attach reasonable conditions to mitigate anticipated adverse impacts associ- ated with these uses, to protect the value of other property within the district, and to achieve the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to,the following: (1) Controlling the number, area,bulk, height and location of such uses. (2) Regulating ingress and egress to the property and the proposed structures thereon with particular reference to vehicle and pedestrian safety and convenience. traffic flow and control and access in case of fire or other catastrophe. (3) Regulating off-street parking and loading areas where required. (4) Utilities with reference to location mailability and compatability. (5) Berming,fencing, screening, landscaping or other facilities to protect nearby property. (6) Compatability of appearance. Supp. No. 2 1175 § 20.233 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (b) In determining conditions, special considerations shall be given to protecting immedi- ately adjacent properties from objectionable views,noise,traffic and other negative character- istics associated with such uses. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 2(3-2-4), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-234. Denial for noncompliance. If the council denies a conditional use permit, it shall state findings as to the ways in which the proposed use does not comply with the standards required by this chapter. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 2(3-2-5), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-235. Permits not personal. A conditional use permit shall be issued for a particular use and not for a particular person. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 2(3-2-6), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-236. Expiration. If substantial construction has not taken place within one (1)year of the date on which the conditional use permit was granted, the permit is void except that, on application, the council, after receiving recommendation from the planning commission, may extend the permit for such additional period as it deems appropriate. If the conditional use is discon- tinued for six (6) months, the conditional use permit shall become void. This section shall apply to conditional use permits issued prior to February 19, 1987, but the six-month period shall not be deemed to commence until February 19, 1987. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 2(3-2-8), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-237. Revocation and inspection. (a) Failure to comply with any condition set forth in a conditional use permit shall be a misdemeanor and shall also constitute sufficient cause for the revocation of the conditional use permit by the city council following a public hearing. The property owner shall be notified in advance of the city council's review of the permit. (b) Inspections will be conducted at least annually to determine compliance with the terms of a conditional use permit. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 2(3-2-7), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 106, § 1, 8-14-89) Secs. 20-238-20-250. Reserved. DIVISION 3. STANDARDS FOR AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Sec. 20-251. Scope. In addition to all other standards required by section 20-232, the standards in this division shall apply to conditional uses if they are to be located in agricultural or residential districts. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1), 12-15-86) Supp. No. 2 1176 r Chapter 5 ANIMALS ANL•FO WL' Art. I. In General, §§ 5-1—,5-15 Art. II. Dogs and Cats, §f 5-16-5-85 • Div. 1. Generally, §§ 5-16-5-35 Div. 2. Rabies Control, §§ 5-36-5-50 Div. 3. License, §§ 5-51-5-70 Div. 4. Impoundment, §§ 5-71-5-75 Div. 5. Dangerous Animals, §§ 5-76-5-85 Art. III. Horses, 5-86-5-106 Div. 1. Generally, §§ 5-86-5-100 . Div. 2. Stable Permits, §§ 5-101-5-106 ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL Secs. 5-1-5-15. Reserved. ARTICLE II. DOGS AND CATS DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 5-16. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the mean- ings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: At large means off the premises of the owner and not under restraint. Commercial kennel means any place where a person accepts dogs or cats from the general public and where such animals are kept for the purpose of selling, boarding, breeding, training, treating or grooming. Impoundment means the status of being in the physical custody of the police or any animal control officer of the city, including, without limitation,confinement in the city pound or in the animal control officer's vehicle. Owner means any person who owns,harbor.,or keeps or has custody of a dog or cat,or the parents or guardians of a person under eighteen(18)years of age who owns,harbors, keeps or / has custody of a dog or cat. r • 'Cross reference—Animals in parks, § 14-65. State law reference—Authority of city to regulate animals, M.S. § 412.221, subd. 21. Supp. No. 1 267 § 5-16 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE • Private kennel means any place where more than two(2)dogs or cats over six(6)months of age are kept or harbored, provided such anirr'ls are owned by the owner or lessee of the premises on which they are kept or harbored. - Sterilized means neutered in the case of male dogs or cats,or spayed in the case of female dogs or cats. Under restraint means under control by means of a leash not exceeding six (6) feet in ' length, or within the property of the owner's premises. (Ord. No. 24-C, §§ 1, 19, 7-12-76; Ord. No. 24-D, § 1, 8-2-82) • Sec. 5-17. Interference with enforcement. It shall be unlawful for any person to break open the pound or to attempt to do so, or to take or let out any dog or cat therefrom, or to take or attempt to take from any officer any dog or cat taken up by him in compliance with this article, or in any manner to interfere with or hinder such officer in the discharge of his duties under this article. (Ord. No. 24-C, § 14, 7-12-76) Sec. 5-18. Kennel license. (a) No person shall maintain a private or commercial kennel in the city without securing a license therefor from the city council. The fee for the license shall be as established by resolution. No license shall be required for a private kennel consisting of cats, if the kennel is located on a tract or parcel of land being used for agriculture as that term is defined in the zoning ordinance, and if the cats are kept for rodent control purposes incident to the agricul- tural use of the tract or parcel of land. (b1 Kennel licenses shall expire on the April 30 next following their issuance. Upon application for renewal of a kennel license, an authorized city employee shall inspect the kennel of the applicant. The employee shall submit to the city clerk either an affirmative certification that the kennel is maintained in a neat,orderly,and safe condition,or a negative certification that said kennel is not so maintained. The city clerk may issue a renewal kennel license provided that: (1) The certificate is affirmative; and (2) No complaints have been received by the city. In all other cases, the kennel license shall be renewed only upon city council approval. (Ord. No. 24-C, §§ 20.01, 20.02, 7-12-76) Cross reference—Licenses, permits and miscellaneous business regulations, Ch. 10. Sec. 5-19. Running at large. No dog or cat shall be allowed by its owner to run at large. The police or animal control officers of the city shall take up and impound any dog or cat found at large in violation of this section. (Ord. No. 24-C, § 12, 7-12-76) Supp. No. 1 268 ANIMALS AND FOWL § 5.36 Sec. 5-20. Abandonment. No person shall abandon any dog or cat witl.'n the city. (Ord. No. 24-C, § 21, 7-12-76) Sec. 5-21. Destruction. (a) A court of proper jurisdiction may issue a summons directed to the owner or custodian of a dog or cat commanding him to appear before the court to show cause why the animal should not be seized and destroyed by any police or animal control officer, or otherwise disposed of in the manner authorized in this article upon sworn complaint being made to the court that any one (1)of the following facts exist: (1) The animal at any time has destroyed property or habitually trespasses in a damag- ing manner on property of persons other than the owner; (2) The animal has attacked or bitten a person outside the owner's or custodian's premises; (3) The animal is vicious or shows vicious habits or molests pedestrians or interferes with vehicles on the public rights-of-way or highways; • (4) The animal is a nuisance as defined; or (5) The animal is running at large in violation of this article. (b) The summons shall be returnable not less than two(2) or more than six(6)days from the date of service thereof and shall be served at least two (2) days before the time of the appearance mentioned therein. Upon hearing and finding the facts true as complained of, the court may either order the animal destroyed or order the owner or custodian to remove it from the city, or may order the owner or custodian to keep it confined to a designated place. If the owner or custodian violates such order any police or animal control officer may impound or destroy any animal described in such order. (c) Costs of the proceedings authorized by this section shall be assessed against the owner or custodian of the animal if the facts in the complaint are found to be true, or to the complainant if the facts are found to be untrue. (Ord. No. 24-C, § 22, 7.12-76) Secs. 5-22-5-35. Reserved. DIVISION 2. RABIES CONTROL Sec. 5-36. Entry powers to enforce. Any police or animal control officer of the city may enter upon the private property of any person in pursuit of any animal under probable cause to believe that such animal has bitten a person or animal, or that such animal is rabid. (Ord. No. 24-C, § 24, 7-12-76) 269 § 5.3' CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 5-37. Vaccination. (a) No license shall be granted for any dog )r cat which does not have a valid vaccination against rabies for the calendar year in which t'.e license is to be issued. A valid vaccination shall be deemed to be one(1)year for cats and one(1)year for dogs vaccinated with a modified live vaccine; the period of immunity may be extended to no more than thirty-six(36) months for dogs vaccinated with a modified live vaccine upon written certification by a licensed veterinarian in the state stating that the immunity is in excess of the periods herein stated. The veterinarian shall state on the certificate of vaccination the type of vaccine used. If not stated, it shall be assumed that the vaccine is a killed viral vaccine. (b) Vaccinations shall be performed only by a doctor qualified to practice veterinary medicine in the state in which the animal is vaccinated. A veterinarian who vaccinates an animal to be licensed in the city shall complete a certificate of vaccination in triplicate. One (1)copy shall be issued to the animal owner for affixing to the license application, and one(1) copy shall be retained in the veterinarian's file. (Ord. No. 24-C, § 18, 7.12-76) Sec. 5-38. Bites—Generally. Except as expressly authorized by statute, it shall be unlawful for any person other than an officer or agent of the city acting pursuant to this article to destroy any dog or cat which has bitten any person or animal unless such dog or cat has been determined to be or is rabid. (Ord. No. 24-C. § 26, 7.12.76) Sec. 5.39. Same—Humans bitten. jai Notwithstanding section 5-3S, whenever any person owning, possessing or harboring any dog or cat within the city shall learn that such animal has bitten any human being, such person shall immediately impound such animal for a period of ten (10) days separate and apart from other animals under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian until it is deter- mined whether the animal had or has rabies. If the animal is found to be rabid, it shall be destroyed. (b) The owner shall notify the city police and animal control officer of such impoundment. (c) If the owner cannot be advised of the animal bite within the two (2) hours following the occurrence,or if the owner fails to impound the animal as required by this section,the city police or animal control officers shall cause such animal to be so impounded. If the animal is found to be rabid, it shall be destroyed. If it is found not to be rabid, it shall be returned to the owner provided the owner shall first pay for the cost of keeping said animal. If the owner does not pay such cost within five(5)days after he has been notified to claim or retrieve his animal, the animal may be disposed of as provided it this article. (Ord. No. 24-C, § 27.01, 7-12-76) Sec. 5-40. Same—Other animals bitten. Any dog or cat known to have been bitten or exposed to rabies shall be impoundea and destroyed; provided, however, that such animal may be immediately destroyed, if with rea- 270 ANIMALS AND FOWL § 5-55 sonable effort it cannot first be taken up and im ounded. If such an animal is impounded, it shall not be destroyed if the owner makes provision\for suitable quarantine for a period of not less than six(6)months,or proof of immunization is furnished and booster injections are given by a licensed veterinarian at the expense of the owner. (Ord. No. 24-C, § 27.02, 7-12.76) Secs. 5-41-5-50. Reserved. DIVISION 3. LICENSE Sec. 5-51. Required. No owner shall keep a dog or cat within the city without a license issued by the city. (Ord. No. 24-C, § 2, 7-12-76) Sec. 5-52. Application. Application for a dog or cat license shall be made to the city upon a form furnished by the city. The applicant shall furnish the information required by the form. (Ord. No. 24-C, § 2, 7-12-76) Sec. 5-53. Fee. (a) The annual fee for a dog or cat license shall be as established by resolution. It shall be the duty of each owner of a dog or cat to pay the license fee to the city on or before the first day of May in each year, or upon acquiring ownership or possession of any unlicensed animal or upon establishing residence in the city.The city shall cause a notice of the necessity of paying such license fee to be printed in the official city newspaper on one(1)occasion before the first day of May in each year. Owners of dogs or cats that are not licensed in accordance with this division shall pay a late fee in the amount established by resolution except if the animal has been impounded and not licensed, in which case section 5-54 shall govern. (b) No refund shall be made of any license fee because of death of the animal, or because of leaving the city by the owner prior to expiration of the license. (Ord. No. 24-C, §§ 2, 3, 16, 7-12-76) Sec. 5-54. Term. Dog or cat licenses shall expire on April 30 next following their issuance. (Ord. No. 24-C, § 2, 7-12-76) Sec. 5-55. Receipts and tags. (a) Upon the payment of the license fee, the owner of a licensed dog or cat shall be furnished a receipt, together with a suitable tag. The owner shall cause the tag to be affixed by a permanent fastening to the collar of the dog or cat so licensed in such a manner that the tag may easily be seen by the officers of the city.The owner shall see that the tag is constantly worn by the dog or cat. Supp. No. 5 271 § 5-55 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (b) Tags are not transferable from one(1) anit.al to another. pi (c) In case any animal tag is lost,a duplicate may be issued by the city upon presentation of a receipt showing the payment of the license fee for the current year. A charge in the amount established by resolution shall be made for each duplicate tag. (d) It shall be unlawful to counterfeit or attempt to counterfeit tags provided for in this section or take from any animal a tag legally placed upon it by its owner, or to place such tag upon another animal. (Ord. No. 24-C, §§ 4, 9, 15, 16, 7-12-76) Sec. 5-56. Inspections. To enforce this division, police and animal control officers of the city are authorized to enter upon any private premises where they have reasonable cause to believe there is an unlicensed dog or cat. (Ord. No. 24-C, § 5, 7-12-76) Secs. 5-57-5-70. Reserved. DIVISION 4. IMPOUNDMENT Sec. 5-71. Generally. The police and animal control officers of the city are authorized to take up and impound any dog or cat found at large in the city. (Ord. No. 24-C, § 5, 7-12-76) Sec. 5-72. Establishment of city pound; records. The city may construct and maintain an animal pound, or the city council may designate as the animal pound a suitable kennel. The animal control officer shall keep accounts of all animals impounded at the city pound and their disposition, and shall turn over such accounts to the city clerk upon request. (Ord. No. 24-C, § 11, 7-12-76) Sec. 5-73. Notice. (a) Posting or giving. Upon taking up and 'mpounding any dog or cat, the animal control officer may within twenty-four(24) hours thereafter post in one(1) or more conspicuous places in the city, a notice of impounding. If the owner of the dog or cat is known, written notice of impounding, in lieu of posted notice, shall be given the owner either by mail or personal service. The date of sale or other disposition of the animal shall be five (5' days after th posting or giving of the notice. Supp.No. 5 272 ANIMALS AND FOWL § 5-73 (b) Euthanizing animals. Notwithstanding axjother provision herein, an animal control officer may immediately kill any dog, cat, or other Minimal under the following circumstances: (1) The animal is reasonably believed to be diseased, vicious or dangerous and cannot be impounded without substantial risk to the safety of the officer; or (2) The animal is reasonably believed to be mortally injured or diseased. (Ord. No. 24-C, § 6, 7-12-76; Ord. No. 183, § 1, 3-22-93) 3;, Supp.No. 5 272.1 ANIMALS AND FOWL § 5-77 Sec. 5-74. Redemption. (a) Any dog or cat may be redeemed from impoundment by the owner, within the time stated in the notice of impounding, upon paymei, ,of the license fee, a late fee for the license in the amount established by resolution if unpaid, the impounding fees, and all other costs and charges incurred by the city for impounding and maintenance of said animal.The impounding fees shall be as established by resolution. �b► Upon the presentation of a correct license tag and a receipt for an animal license fee for the current year and for the required fees, the animal control officer shall release to any owner the animal claimed by him. (Ord. No. 24-C, §§ 7, 8, 7-12-76; Ord. No. 24-D, § 2, 8-2-82; Ord. No. 24-E, § 1, 2.10-86) . Sec. 5-75. Disposition of unclaimed animals. Any dog or cat which is not claimed as provided in section 5-74. within five(5)days after impounding. may be sold for not less than the amount provided in section 5-54 to anyone desiring to purchase the animal. Any animal which is not claimed by the owner or sold shall be painlessly disposed of and buried by the animal control officer. Whenever any licensed educational or scientific institution shall request, pursuant to state law, any impounded animal for research purposes, any such impounded animal remaining unclaimed for five t5► days after impounding shall be surrendered to such institution. (Ord. No. 24-C, § 10, 7-12-76) DIVISION 5. DANGEROUS ANIMALS Sec. 5-76. Definitions. As used in this section, "dangerous animal" means: (1) Any animal with a known propensity or disposition to unprovoked attacks, to cause injury to or to otherwise endanger the safety of humans or other domestic animals. (2) Any animal that has attacked or bitten any person, except a person that has tor- mented or abused it. (Ord. No. 81, § 1, 10-5-87) Sec. 5-77. Regulation of dangerous animals. Ownership of dangerous animals within the city, with the exception of ownership by a public law enforcement agency, is subject to the following regulations: (1) Leash and muzzle. No person shall permit a dangerous animal to go outside its kennel or pen unless such animal is securely leashed with a leash no longer than four (4) feet in length, if possible, or ot'lerwise physically restrained. No person shall permit a dangerous animal to be kep: on a chain, rope or other type of leash outside its kennel or pen unless a person is in physical control of the leash.Such animals may not be leashed to inanimate objects such as trees, posts, buildings, and the like. In addition, all dangerous animals on a leash outside the animal's kennel or pen must Supp. No. I 273 § 5-77 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE be muzzled, if possible, by a muzzling device sufficient to prevent such animal from biting persons or other animals. • (2) Confinement. All dangerous animals shall be securely confined indoors or in a se- curely enclosed and locked pen or keno'1, except when leashed and muzzled as above provided. Such pen, kennel or structure must have secure sides and a secure top attached to the sides. All structures used to confine dangerous animals must be locked with a key or combination lock when such animals are within the structure. Such structure must have a secure bottom or floor attached to the sides of the pen or the sides of the pen must be embedded.in the ground no less than two (2) feet. All structures erected to house dangerous animals must comply with all zoning and building regulations of the city. All such structures must be adequately lighted and ventilated and kept in a clean and sanitary condition. (3) Confinement indoors. No dangerous animals may be kept in any part of a house or structure such as a porch or patio that would allow the animal to exit such building on its own volition. In addition, no such animal may be kept in a house or structure when the windows are open or when screen windows or screen doors are the only obstacle preventing the animal from exiting the structure. (4) Signs. All owners of dangerous animals within the city shall, within thirty(30)days of the effective date of this division display in a prominent place on their premises a sign easily readable by the public using the words "Beware of Dangerous Animal"or similar words. In addition,a similar sign is required to be posted on the kennel or pen of such animal. (Ord. No. 81, § 1, 10-5-87) Sec. 5-78. Registration. All dangerous animals must be registered with the city public safety department within sixty (60) days after the effective date of this division. (Ord. No. 81, § 1, 10-5-87) Sec. 5-79. Penalty. It shall be a misdemeanor for the owner of a dangerous animal to fail to comply with the requirements and conditions set forth in this division. Any animal found to be the subject of a violation of this division shall be subject to immediate seizure and impoundment. In addition, failure to comply will result in the revocation of the license of such animal requiring the immediate removal of the animal from the city. (Ord. No. 81, § 1, 10-5-87) Secs. 5-80-5-85. Reserved. • Supp. N a. . 274 ANIMALS AND FOWL § 5-101 ARTICLE III. HORSES DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 5-86. Definitions. In this article, "horse" includes horses, colts, ponies, mules, burros, or llamas. (Ord. No. 56, § 2, 2-17.75) Sec. 5-87. Running at large. (a) No horse shall be permitted to run outside the confines of the stable area or enclosed real property of the person who maintains and stables the horse. Any person who maintains and stables horses within the city and who allows and permits a horse to escape from a confined area shall be liable for the charges to the city to recover the animal which shall be at least twenty-five dollars ($25.00). (b) The escape of a horse necessitating recovery by agents or employees of the city shall automatically suspend the permit to keep horses within the city of the person who maintains and stables the horse until the Stable Inspector has reinspected the premises for the keeping of horses and the owner has made payment for the inspection. Sec. 5-88. Existing stables. (a) Persons maintaining or stabling horses as of April 24, 1975, shall comply with all provisions of this article except the requirements of sections 5-104, paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(4). The previous sentence notwithstanding, it shall be unlawful for such persons or their heirs and assigns to : (1) Enlarge, alter or increase the area of any horse housing enclosure not meeting the standards set forth in section 5-104, paragraph (a)(4), or (2) Increase the number of horses beyond the number of horses stabled on the subject premises as of April 25, 1975. Maintenance, necessary nonstructural repairs and incidental alterations of such housing enclosure shall nonetheless be permitted provided that such maintenance, repairs, or alterations do not extend, enlarge, or intensify the housing enclosure. (b) Any exemption under this section from the provisions of section 5-104, paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(4) is void: (1) Upon the subdivision, platting or replatting of the subject parcel of land for which a stable permit is required; or (2) In the event that the use of the parcel of land for the maintaining and stabling of horses is discontinued for continuous period of more than one (1) year. 275 Sec. 5-89. Cruel and Inhumane Treatment of Horses. (a) Cruel and inhumane treatment of horses shall exist where a person fails to provide adequate care to horses. Adequate care includes, but is not limited to the following: (I) Horses must be provided with food o_ sufficient quantity and quality to allow for normal growth or the maintenance of body weight. Feed standards shall be those recommended by the National Research Council. (2) Horses must be provided with clean, potable water in sufficient quantity to satisfy the animal's needs or supplied by free choice. Snow or ice is not an adequate water source. (3) Horses must be provided a minimum of free choice protection or constructed shelter from direct rays of the sun when temperatures exceed 95 degrees Fahrenheit, from wind, and from freezing precipitation. Natural or constructed shelters must be of sufficient size to provide the necessary protection. constructed shelters must be structurally sound, free of injurious matter, maintained in good repair, and ventilated. (4) Constructed shelters except for tie stalls must provide space for the animal to roll with a minimum danger of being cast. Stalls must be cleaned and kept dry to the extent the animal is not required to lie or stand in fluids. Bedding must be provided in all stalls, kept reasonably clean, and periodically changed. The nature of the bedding must not pose a health hazard to the animal. (5) Horses must be provided opportunity for periodic exercise, either through free choice or through a forced work program, unless exercise is restricted by a licensed veterinarian. (6) All horses must have their hooves properly trimmed periodically to prevent lameness. (7) A vehicle used to transport a horse roust have a floor capable of supporting the animal's weight safely. Floors must be of nonskid construction or of nonskid material sufficient to provide the animal with traction while in transport. A minimum of 12 inches must be allowed between the whithers of the largest horse and the structure above the animal while it is in a natural standing position. Sturdy partitions must be provided at a minimum of approximately every ten feet inside the vehicle. Interior compartments of transporting vehicles must be of smooth construction with no protruding of sharp objects and must provide ventilation. Food and water must be provided in sufficient quantities to minimize stress and maintain hydration. (b) No person shall treat a horse in a cruel or inhumane manner. oec. a-1u1. Kequired. No person shall maintain or stable horses in the city without a permit issued by the city. (Ord. No. 56, § 2, 2.17.75) Sec. 5-102. Application. Application for the permit required by this division shall be made to the city upon a form furnished by the city.A nonrefundable application fee in the amount established by resolution shall be paid to the city when the application ,:.filed. (Ord. No. 56, §§ 2, 3, 2-17.75) Sec. 5-103. Horse committee. The Stable Inspector shall inspect the premises of those seeking a stable permit and shall approve an application that is in compliance with this chapter or disapprove applications that are not in compliance with this chapter for permits under this division. (Ord. No. 56, § 4, 2-17-75) Cross reference—Boards and commissions generally, § 2-46 et seq. Sec. 5-104. Issuance. • (a) A stable permit shall be issued by the city clerk upon approval by the Stable Inspector if the following conditions are met: (1) Minimum acreage for two (2) horses shall be one and one-half (1 1/2) acres and for three (3) horses shall be two (2) acres, and an additional one-third acre shall be required for each additional horse. (2) No stable permit shall be issued for a lot of less than one (1) acre. (3) Such area shall be enclosed by a sturdy wood, metal, or electrical fence which will keep the animal or animals confined within. (4) A shelter or stabling facility which will keep the animal or animals comfortable and protected from t}'e elements and which shelter or stabling facility shall be no closer than one hundred feet (100') from any structure other than the applicant's, which is used for residential purposes. (5) The shelter or stabling facility shall be so located so as not to create a public nuisance. (6) The shelter or stabling facility shall be clean and sanitary such that it will not be a harborage for rodents, flies and insects. (7) Keeping, storing, stabling, or mainte lance of horses shall not directly contribute to the pollution of any pu'ilic body of water. (8) Accumulations of manure shall be located at least one hundred feet (100') from any well; (9) All accumulations of manure shall be removed at such periods as will ensure that no leaching or objectionable odors exist, and the premises shall not be allowed to become unsightly. (b) The city council may approve applications for stable permits which do not meet all the requirements of this article where such exception would not be inconsistent with the intent of the article. ANIMALS AND FOWL § 5406 Sec. 5-105. Annual registration. (a) The holder of a stable permit shall register annually with the city by completing and submitting an application form as provided in section 5-102, based on the current status of the stable under permit, by June 1 of each year. Upon filing the application form, the holder shall pay to the city a nonrefundable inspection fee in the amount established by resolution. (b) Failure annually register with the city as required will result in automatic cancellation of the stable permit. The holder of a canceled stable permit shall be required to make application for a new stable permit; the subject premises shall be inspected as provided by section 5-103; and in no event shall the city issue a new stable permit to the holder except upon approval by the Stable Inspector. Sec. 5406. Revocation. A permit issued pursuant to his division may be revoked by the Stable Inspector if it is determined, after investigation by the Stable Inspector or a designated employee and after holding a hearing thereon, preceded by notice of the hearing to be given to the holder o f the permit mailed to the address shown on the application or most recent annual registration statement at least ten (10) days prior the hearing that: (1) The permit holder has not maintained the standards set forth in section 5-104; (2) The winter accumulation of manure is not removed from the stabling area prior to May 1 of each year or as soon as is practicable thereafter; (3) The permit holder failed to make a reasonable effort to keep the horse, or horses, under control and contained within the applicant's stabling area; (4) The permit holder has treated a horse cruelly or inhumanely or has not furnished adequate care to a horse as set forth in section 5-89. (5) The horses are kept, stabled, boarded; or harbored in such a manner as to constitute a public nuisance; or (6) The accumulation of manure presents a hazard to public health. Sec. 5-107. Violators. Any person in violation of any part of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and each day a violation exists shall be considered a separately prosecutable offense. [The next page is 327] Supp. N: 277 C I TY O F PC DATE: 12/06/95 1/3/96 1CHA1HAEN CC DATE: 2/12/96 CASE #: 95-20 SUB STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for preliminary plat approval of 8.35 acres into 12 lots, one outlot and 1'— associated right-of-way; variance for street grade of 10%; and a variance to wetland setback of 20 feet for Lots 11 and 12. The project is known as Knob Hill. Q U nLOCATION: 6215 Yosemite,on the east side of Yosemite at the Chanhassen-Shorewood city C limits APPLICANT: John Knoblauch 16921 Weston Bay Road Eden Prairie, MN 55347 (A.1 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential. RSF ACREAGE: 8.35 acres DENSITY: gross: 1.44 units per acre net: 1.82 units per acre ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- Shorewood, single-family s_ RSF E- RSF Q . W- RSF WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site has rolling topography with a low point at elevation 1003 in the (J) wetland located in the southwest portion of the project and a high point of 1036 elevation in the northeast corner of the property adjacent to the existing house. The site is approximately 45 percent forested with northern hardwood type trees with significant stands of trees in the northeast, south, and northwest corners of the property. 2000 LAND USEYLAIV: ReSruenrra1 - LOR venshy ('Nct 1%2 _________ • ) E 8 p0 0 - O O p O ' - LOCATION — > 1 p = N � I ( I I � iI — li ep4 • I LIILAC LANE ` CHRISTMAS_ • ,'�"�:�— TV 11. 1 _ril L 1.IA V.a ' , LAKE , .-, sN�� xr r � rr` 01. _ _____A • - *Karla air, , NE miiik kir 4., ____,_____, * . �a viol P HE• • IT eglikr53 a ON CIRCLE t114r • '� \, � *en! . 1t :,, a ®_ glirikal Alit FARMS r ,�, S WHIfET' r: 1��'1 � PARK �� 1.046,4. 4it,• 1'?= PHEASAN �� RK �� l a,, �� .JL ,1gI ©0, ,' �n(;E C•UR it:44. v H/LL �. �R�' -• � �>1 e� t•k ` `. ��~�1•t=•. PARK � _ `'� �. •\ ,. Cje ke • I MOVIND calitiotc.i:I �?�� P1 as arit4302/ t V E Id M jt .' -. '1; illtillarell 4,4411 CA" RBE !.(.M.ProttriArii? ■PLA. GROUN, .. .iy , - ■ 3y �� may,• um . 11 A * HiI iEDO. _j ,rarmsts . 1\-ate IIN" ,), J57 ' , 1m r El ip-mv4c . • -- 41111111Pwr in I. 4. 10- k\- - -4 IrTIO _ °P. 'NAM - 51- , .„, 417 : pa: • ,) .7. 31 Wm raw itra 1110 ■ �, Ir •4*. wi A ' P N 14 L,I LAKE LUCY a!a,-____-______ ,.. Elkmmo at W.V.rut � `;7 +17R�� -= - t = � r.,. = 111IIIIIIII11�� $• 4 me RE in El ii a- ttil t si \,*.evct• • milim ivr.„ 11•130.0 a•-a 004*anise a �'gif ES . inat IN fi \ bREFNWO/ , � ■ . e" i ► i, m o \ \�• i , . I _ \\ %117. i :.T'--- -LP, 1-J Knob Hill January 17, 1996 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The Planning Commission held two public hearings for this development. On December 6, 1995, the public hearing was continued due to lack of time at the Chanhassen Recreation Center. At the January 3, 1996 public hearing,the preliminary plat was tabled to permit the applicant the opportunity to address providing access to the Donovan property to the east. The Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the street grade variance. Staff has scheduled this item for the January 17th meeting date because the city must provide a final decision on this preliminary plat by March 2, 1996 in order to meet statutory requirements for acting on requests within 120 days(a completed application was submitted on November 3, 1995), unless the applicant consents to an extension of the review period. The applicant has revised the plat providing the connection to the Donovan parcel. However,the applicant, as well as the surrounding property owners, want assurances from the city that Lilac Lane will not be connected to this roadway. Staff is unable to make that commitment, nor does staff feel it is necessary or prudent to limit the design options for the future development of the Donovan parcel at this time. There are four potential options for the Donovan property to be accessed: 1) the Knob Hill road extension into the parcel may be a cul-de-sac, with or without a private street to Lilac Lane, 2)the Knob Hill road extension could connect at a"T"' intersection into a roadway off Lilac Lane, 3)the Knob Hill road extension could be constructed as a continuous street to Lilac Lane, or 4)there could be no access to Knob Hill and all access to the Donovan property would be limited to Lilac Lane. Until the Donovan property comes in for development,there is no way of knowing which option would be used. The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval of 8.35 acres into 12 lots, one outlot and associated right-of-way (1.1 acres); and a variance to the wetland setback of 20 feet for Lots 11 and 12. The project is known as Knob Hill. A 0.66 acre wetland is located in the western portion of the site. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan for low density residential land uses. Staff is recommending that the subdivision be approved subject to the recommendations of the staff report. Staff is recommending that a 10 foot variance be granted for the wetland setback and a ten foot front setback variance be granted for Lots 5 and 6, Block 2. This compromise maintains a minimum 40 foot setback(10 foot buffer strip and 30 foot setback from the buffer edge) from the wetland. Knob Hill January 17. 1996 Page 3 BACKGROUND An existing home and storage structure are located in the northeast corner of the site which is currently accessed via a shared driveway with the property in Shorewood. LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION Existing tree cover of the site is approximately 45%and consists mainly of oak, maple, basswood, boxelder, elm,hickory and cherry. There are also a few cedar and pines located near the existing homestead. Very large, mature oaks, basswood and maple are located near the house and along the driveway. On the property,there are a total of ten trees that are over 30 inches in diameter. Grading and house pads will require the removal of half of those trees. The remaining half are located on the southern half Lot 5, Block 1. Staff proposes that a conservation easement be placed over the eastern and southern sections of Lot 5, Block 1. The other lots with significant tree cover are Lots 3 and 4, Block 2. Lots 3 and 4 should have 15 foot tree removal limits placed around the proposed building pads. Of the existing 3.52 acres of canopy coverage, approximately 1.60 acres will be removed. The required canopy coverage for the site is 35%, or 2.69 acres. The applicant will have only 1.92 acres of canopy coverage after grading and construction. The difference between the required coverage and the proposed is .77 acres. Since the applicant is removing required canopy coverage,the difference is multiplied by 1.2 and becomes .924 acres. Therefore, the applicant is required to plant 37 trees on site. COMPLIANCE TABLE Lot Frontage Depth Wetland Front Side Rear Max Area(sq (ft) (ft) Setback Setback Setback Setback Bldg Ht ft) (ft) (ft) Code 15,000 90 125 Avg 10' 30 10 30 40 buffer+ 40' Lot 1 15,338 120 135 none 30 10 30 Blk 1 Lot 2 15,829 97 149 none 30 10 30 Blk 1 Lot 3 18,321 77.5* 183 none 30 10 30 Blk 1 Lot 4 22,911 90 236 none 30 10 30 Knob Hill January 17, 1996 Page 4 Blk 1 Lot 5 87,912 145 273 none 30 10 30 Blk 1 Lot 1 15,517 117 183 none 30 10 30 Blk 2 Lot 2 16,603 122 183 10' + 30 10 30 Blk 2 40' Lot 3 17,572 74* 135 10' + 30 10 30 Blk 2 40' Lot 4 35,052 229 162 10' + 30 10 30 Blk 2 40' Lot 5 23,041 117 183 10' + 20# 10 30 Blk 2 30' @ Lot 6 17,296 122 183 10' + 30 10 30 Blk 2 30' @ Lot 7 16.146 120 162 10' + 30 10 30 Blk 2 40' * Meets code requirements at the building setback # Based on the granting of a front yard setback variance @Based on the granting of a wetland setback variance Staff believes that it would be better to grant a 10 foot front setback to Lots 5 and 6, Block 2, and require the applicant to maintain a minimum 40 foot setback from the wetland(10 foot buffer and 30 foot setback). WETLANDS There are two jurisdictional wetlands on-site. Wetland 1 is an ag/urban wetland located between Lots 3,4, 5, and 6, Block 2,and is approximately 0.66 acre. This wetland will not be directly impacted as a result of development; however, the private street will direct some untreated runoff into it. A buffer strip of 0 to 20 feet wide with an average width of 10 feet is required around this wetland. Wetland 2 is a 370 square foot ag/urban wetland located between Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. This wetland will be filled as a result of the development,but since it is less than 400 square feet, it is exempt from the Wetland Conservation Act. Type III erosion control is required along the entire length of the wetland adjacent to construction activities until vegetation is re-established. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) Knob Hill January 17, 1996 Page 5 The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan(SWMP)that serves as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective,the stormwater quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general,the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker. Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore,different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. The development will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's SWMP requirements. The drainage from the impervious surface will need to be treated to retain 35 to 50% of the phosphorus before it is discharged into the wetland on-site. It is important that the wetland receive the runoff to maintain some hydrology to the wetland. The sediment pond can be designed within the buffer zone to tie the basin in with the wetland on Lot 5, Block 2. A wet meadow seed mix should be used to encourage native plants in and around the wetland. A drainage and utility easement will be required around the sediment pond to allow for maintenance. Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of$2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. The proposed SWMP water quality charge of$800/acre for single family resident developments. Fees are based on a total developable land area of 8.35 acres minus the existing wetland of 0.66 acres. Therefore,the applicant is required to pay $6,152 in water quality fees. Credits will be reviewed and applied for providing the ponding required at the time of final plat consideration. Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single family residential developments have a connection charge of$1,980 per developable acre. The total Knob Hill January 17. 1996 Page 6 net area of the property is 7.69 acres as discussed above. Therefore,the proposed development would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of$15,226. Any oversizing for a regional pond and storm drainage infrastructure will be credited to the applicant at the time of final plat after review of the final construction plans. This fee will be due payable to the City at time of final plat recording. GRADING The site is generally rolling with an elevation change of nearly thirty(30) feet from east to west. Staff believes the proposed site grading is excessive and believes the grading limits can be reduced. Staff would like the opportunity to work with the developer's engineer in revising the grading plan. Staff has reviewed the site as well as the adjacent parcel to the east(Donovan) for continuity. The Donovan parcel will be provided with sanitary sewer service and street access from this site for future subdivision potential. The applicant's plan, as proposed, requires variances for street right-of-way(50 feet is proposed- 60 feet is required by ordinance), street grades of 10%, and building setbacks. Staff's proposed revision will require variances on building setbacks to the wetlands and the street on Lots 11 and 12. Staff has also considered another option for providing access to Lots 2 and 3, Block 2. There is an existing private driveway(gravel) along the south side of Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 2 which serves two existing houses. If the applicant could negotiate a driveway easement from these two properties, it would eliminate the need for the private street along Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. This would reduce the grading, tree removal, hard surface, and provide a buffer for the Donovan property. It appears Lots 2, 3 and 4, Block 2 will be custom graded at time of building permit issuance. Staff recommends that individual,detailed grading, drainage,tree preservation, and erosion control plans be submitted for review and approval by the City in conjunction with building permit application for these lots. Staff also believes that retaining walls should be incorporated in the rear yards of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1,to reduce grading and to preserve the significant stand of trees. DRAINAGE The site drains to the west and then crosses underneath Yosemite. Eventually the runoff discharges into the Minnehaha Creek watershed. The applicant will need to submit to the City detailed storm drainage calculations for the storm sewers as well as ponding calculations for a 2-, Knob Hill January 17. 1996 Page 7 10-, and 100-year storm event, 24-hour duration for both pre-and post-development conditions for staff review and approval. The plans propose a storm drainage system to convey runoff from the street and front yard areas to a proposed sediment pond for pretreatment prior to discharging into the wetland. The sediment pond is located partially within the street right-of-way for Yosemite. The pond needs to be relocated outside of the street right-of-way given potential for future widening and upgrading of Yosemite. The ponding area should be relocated adjacent to the wetland on Lot 5, Block 2 outside any right-of-way. There appears to be sufficient room to accomplish this without eliminating Lot 5, Block 2. Additional storm drainage improvements may be required after review of the drainage calculations. It appears that another sedimentation pond is proposed between Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. Staff believes that this area could be filtered through the existing vegetation. Therefore,the pond could be deleted. UTILITIES Utility service for this development will be extended from Yosemite. The City also has a watermain which runs from Lilac Lane along the east and south property line of this site to Yosemite. The plans propose extending sewer and water service from Yosemite and dead-ending at the end of the street. The applicant has revised the plans to provide sanitary sewer service to the Donovan parcel as recommended by staff. Utility service to Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 2, will be served from the existing sewer and water lines which extend along the south line of the plat. Fire hydrant placement will be determined by the City's Fire Marshal in conjunction with the construction plan review process. Since the utilities will be owned and maintained by the City upon completion,the improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Since there are public improvements involved with this development, the developer will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of final plat approval. The final plat shall dedicate drainage and utility easements of all utility lines which fall outside the street right-of-way. These easements shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. The existing home on Lot 6 is proposed to be razed. The well and septic system shall be abandoned per City and State health codes. Given the fairly high ground elevation,the applicant should be aware they may encounter low water pressure on some of the higher elevated lots. Typically, individual booster pumps are required in the homes to meet water demands. Knob Hill January 17. 1996 Page 8 STREETS The plans propose on extending a public street from Yosemite to service the development. A private street is also proposed to service Lots 2 and 3,Block 2. As mentioned,the applicant has redesigned a new plat which relocates the private driveway to the easterly plat line to service Lots 2 and 3, Block 2. The relocation of the private driveway will minimize impacts to the wetlands. The revised plans eliminate the variance for the street grade of 10% and also provide street access for the Donovan parcel. In addition, the plans were redrawn with a 60-foot wide street right-of-way in accordance with City ordinance. Staff is recommending a variance on the building setbacks along the street on Lots 5 and 6, Block 2, to minimize impacts to the wetland. Upon review of the revised plans, staff and the applicant discovered that the private street could be eliminated by using the existing private driveway which borders the south side of Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 2. However, the applicant will need to acquire the necessary easements and upgrade the driveway to meet the city's private street ordinance. This alternative is being pursued by the applicant and will be addressed at the Planning Commission meeting. Staff supports either alternative and does not feel it necessary to table this item until this issue is resolved. The private street shall be constructed in accordance with the City's private driveway ordinance which requires a 20-foot wide bituminous surface capable of supporting 7-ton per axle weight. Parking will also be prohibited on the private streets. The applicant will need to dedicate cross- access easements and prepare maintenance agreements for the private streets. In addition, a turnaround may have to be constructed in accordance with the City Fire Marshal's requirements. Given the limited frontage the Donovan parcel has on Lilac Lane(approximately 18 to 20 feet), staff recommends the easterly 30 feet of the northerly 160 feet of Lot 5 be dedicated as street right-of-way to leave as an alternative future access to the parcel. The public streets shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required for staff review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. PRIVATE STREET FINDINGS In order to permit private streets. the city must find that the following conditions exist: Knob Hill January 17, 1996 Page 9 (1) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination,the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. (2) After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area,improve access,or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. (3) The use of the private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources including wetlands and forested areas. Finding: The proposed private street to serve Lots 7, 8, and 9, Block 1,is not necessary to provide access to adjacent properties. Were a public street provided to access these lots,additional trees would need to be removed. The proposed private street will follow a watermain alignment along the eastern edge of the property. EROSION CONTROL Erosion measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook(BMPH). The final grading plan shall incorporate type I erosion control around the perimeter of the grading limits and type III erosion control along the perimeter of the wetland. Rock construction entrance shall be employed and maintained at all access points until the driveways and streets have been paved with a bituminous surface. PARKS& RECREATION The Parks& Recreation Commission met on November 28, 1995 to review the proposed plat. The commission is recommending that full park and trail fees be required in lieu of land dedication. FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District. Lot 6 must be reconfigured to meet the minimum lot depth. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city,county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Knob Hill January 17. 1996 Page 10 Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding,and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets,erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. Staff is recommending that the roadway be extended to the eastern property line in order to facilitate future access to the east should the adjacent property develop. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions if approved. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure. VARIANCE Knob Hill January 17, 1996 Page 11 As part of this plat approval, a variance to allow a 20 foot wetland setback is requested. The City Council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in the subdivision chapter as part of a plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: 1. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. 2. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land. 3. The condition of conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. 4. The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter,the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Finding: The setback hardship is caused by the location of the wetland on the site. The required setbacks could not be met given the need for a public street to access the property. Granting a variance will maintain the integrity and natural characteristics of the site. Rather than severely reducing the wetland setback area, staff is recommending that a 10 foot variance be granted for the wetland setback and a ten foot front setback variance be granted for Lots 11 and 12, Block 1. This compromise maintains a minimum 40 foot setback(10 foot buffer strip and 30 foot setback from the buffer edge) from the wetland. The variance requirement for a 10 percent street grade is based on the design alternative proposed by the applicant. Staff has prepared a roadway alternative that eliminates the need for a variance and therefore cannot make the finding for hardship or special conditions. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE At the January 3, 1996 Planning Commission meeting,the Planning Commission adopted the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends denial for the 10 percent street grade variance request." RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision#95-20 for 12 lots, one outlot and associated right-of-way,plans dated Jan. 1996,prepared by William R. Knob Hill January 17, 1996 Page 12 Engelhardt Associates, Inc.; and a front yard setback variance of 10 feet and a variance to the wetland setback of 10 feet for Lots 5 and 6, Block 2, subject to the following conditions: 1. Full park and trail fees shall be paid per city ordinance in lieu of land dedication. 2. A minimum 40 foot building setback(10 foot buffer and 30 foot setback from buffer line) shall be maintained from the wetland on Lots 5 and 6, Block 2. 3. A Tree Conservation Easement shall be designated on the southern and eastern wooded areas on Lot 5, Block 1. The applicant shall prepare a legal description and survey for this easement for city approval. 4. Fifteen foot tree removal limits shall be required around the building pads on Lots 3 and 4, Block 2. This tree removal limit shall be shown on the building permit application for each lot. All lots shall show existing trees on building permit application surveys. 5. The applicant is required to plant 37 trees as replacement and reforestation plantings. Trees must be selected from the City's Approved Tree List. 6. Any proposed entrance monument must comply with city code. A separate sign permit must be submitted to the city. 7. Submit street names and turning radius dimensions to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. 8. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using standard designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 9. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. 10. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. Type I erosion control fence shall be installed around the downstream side of the construction limits and Type III erosion control along the perimeter of the wetlands. Rock construction entrances shall be employed and maintained at all access points until the street has been paved with a bituminous surface. Knob Hill January 17, 1996 Page 13 11. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 12. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with the City's SWMP for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins,created basins, and or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. The sediment pond shall be designed adjacent to the wetland on Lot 11 outside the street right-of-way. A wet meadow seed mix should be used to encourage native plants in and around the wetland. 13. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 14. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. 15. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the fmal plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 16. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant$20 per sign. 17. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level. 18. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in accordance to City and Minnesota Department of Health codes/regulations. Knob Hill January 17. 1996 Page 14 19. The proposed single family residential development of 7.69 developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of$6,152 and a water quantity fee of$15,226. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. Credits will be given to these fees based on the applicant providing for the City's SWMP requirements and will be deducted from the totals after final plat review. 20. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 21. Retaining walls shall be employed in the rear yards of Lots 2 and 3 and street grades modified to be more conducive with existing grades. 22. Individual grading, drainage, tree preservation, and erosion control plans will be required for Lots 1, 2, and 5, Block 1, and Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 2, at the time of building permit application for the City to review and approve. 23. The public street and utility system shall be constructed in accordance with the City's street and utility standards. The private streets shall be constructed in accordance with current city ordinances. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. The plans shall be designed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's standard specifications and detail plates. Final plat approval is contingent upon approval of the construction plans by the Chanhassen City Council. 24. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat street right-of-way along the easterly 30 feet of the northerly 160 feet of Lot 5,Block 1. 25. Fire hydrants shall be installed with 300 feet maximum spacing. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. 26. Delete Outlot A and combine with the adjacent Lots and dedicate a 30 foot private street easement over Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, for ingress and egress. 27. The applicant's engineer shall work with city staff in revising the construction plans to minimize grading on the site." Knob Hill January 17. 1996 Page 15 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Development Review Application 2. Project Summary 3. Wetland Exemption Request 4. Memo From Steve Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 11/27/95 5. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 6. Letter from Bradley J.Nielson to Bob Generous dated 12/6/95 7. Letter from Robert Generous to Bradley J. Nielson dated 12/18/95 8. Planning Commission Minutes of 12/6/95 9. Planning Commission Minutes of 1/3/96 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: -5 o�; c(z.+ AV.0 * OWNER: ADDRESS: - ADDRESS: `' n `' TELEPHONE (Day time) — -- TELEPHONE: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. ✓ Variance 3. Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review / Notification Signs ? iC0 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SPRNAC/VAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) 10. Ni Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ 2 - - A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 81/2" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. * NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME k r: r.. \1, L. LOCATION )'A;T'-' -2 r.A1 P= ?: 1'• , LEGAL DESCRIPTION A T A c H e b PRESENT ZONING E. F, REQUESTED ZONING Fr, PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION ems,rk REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION . REASON FOR THIS REQUEST t` �` ' ' ''f 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 Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. "7/ C, . -1-1-2 mac. /C 3/9 S— ature of Applicant D C. _ /�>`3 c,9 ature of Fee Owner / Date Application Received on (t) 7/Cf LM Fee Paid I Z Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. Land Surveyors Planners • Valley Surveying Co., P. A. I Of 0101=111.1 (612) 447-2670 Suite 120C October 26, 1995 16670 Franklin Trail S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 RECORD DESCRIPTION FOR KNOB HILL: Certificate of Title No. 7870 That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of the center line of Apple Road and the north line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, which said point is the northeast corner of the tract of land originally Registered July 5, 1952, and is described in Carver County Certificate of Title #3205; thence East along the north line of said Quarter - Quarter 809.7 feet to a point marked by a Judicial Land Mark (hereinafter referred to as a JLM) ; thence South 16 degrees 42 minutes West a distance of 122.31 feet to a point marked by a JLM; thence South 45 degrees 42 minutes West a distance of 186.78 feet to a point marked by a JLM; thence South 63 degrees 42 minutes West a distance of 81.08 feet to a point marked by a JLM; thence South 70 degrees 22 minutes West a distance of 84.36 feet to a point marked by a JLM; thence South 49 degrees 12 minutes West a distance of 48.51 feet to a point marked by a JLM; thence South 36 degrees 22 minutes West a distance of 54.09 feet to a point marked by a JLM; thence South 28 degrees 17 minutes West a distance of 98.85 feet to a point marked by a JLM; thence North 21 degrees 43 minutes West a distance of 6.53 feet to a point marked by a JLM; thence South 28 degrees 17 minutes West a distance of 66.2 feet; thence South 52 degrees 57 minutes West a distance of 100.3 feet; thence South 89 degrees 32 minutes West along a line parallel with and 608.0 feet north of the south line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 385 feet more or less to the center line of said Apple Road; thence northeasterly along said center line 603.4 feet more or less to the point of beginning. That the boundary lines of the above described premises as marked by Judicial Landmarks, the locations of which are shown on the plat of said survey of F. C. Jackson on file herein, are hereby fixed and established as the boundary lines of the above described premises. Pr-.. ed by-, . Ronal. A. Swanson, Land Surveyor Minnesota License Number 10183 file no. 8221 PROJECT SUMMARY OF KNOB HILL CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA PROJECT LOCATION: The site is approximately 8 . 3 acres in size and is located in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2 , Township 116, Range 23 , City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota. The site is on the North boundary of Carver County bordered on the West by Yosemite Street and surrounded by various small acreage tracts. The site consists of rolling hills with a small (0 . 66 acre) wetland along Yosemite Street extending East into the property with mature stands of trees around the perimeter, and extending into the property on the North, South, and East borders. SITE DEVELOPMENT: Existing trees and topography were taken into account to design a development that would not severely impact the natural characteristics of the site and still allow for the development of 12 single family lots. To best preserve areas of mature woods, the site will be accessed by a short (470 feet) cul-de-sac running East from existing Yosemite Street, with additional lots accessed by a private driveway running South from the proposed cul-de sac. In using this method of access, it will be possible to preserve large areas of trees that would be destroyed by an East to West through street such as the extension of Lilac Lane. The existing topography in the northeast corner of the site, at the end of existing Lilac Lane, is prohibitive to street construction due to the existing steep slopes (15% - 25%) , and the number of large trees (14" - 36" Oaks, Hickory, Basswood, and Elm) that would be removed for the extension of Lilac Lane. To best preserve the existing topography and to limit the area disturbed by site grading, a variance for street grade will be required. The variance to use a ten percent (10%) grade will allow for the preservation of several 12" - 24" Pine and Cedar trees which are located at the end of the proposed cul-de-sac. The ten percent (10%) grade, while steep, will not be noticed due to a long reverse vertical curve; there will be no section of street that will actually be built at ten percent (10%) vertical grade. The street, as proposed, is at a grade of approximately eight percent (8%) . This grade will maintain the natural topography as much as possible while eliminating the need for extensive grading and tree removal in the area. Lot 10 will be accessed from existing Yosemite Street to preserve trees and avoid impact to the existing wetland. SITE UTILITIES: Lots 1, 10 and 11 will be served by the existing services as constructed in 1972 under City Project 71-1D. The balance of the site will be served by a gravity sanitary sewer system which will connect to the existing sanitary sewer in Yosemite Street by the construction of a manhole over the existing sanitary sewer line. Watermain will be constructed from the existing watermain in Yosemite Street, looped through the site and connected to the existing watermain in the Southeast corner of the site. Storm water drainage will be routed through a small stilling basin and enter the existing wetland at the Northwest corner of the wetland. WETLANDS : A Type 1 Agricultural/Urban Wetland exists on the property. This wetland is dominated by Reed Canary Grass. The low plant diversity and marginal wetland hydrology make the functions and values of this wetland low. Lots 11 and 12 require a wetland setback variance to allow for an appropriate structure. The proposed wetland setback variance for Lots 11 and 12 is 30 feet (10 foot buffer strip and 20 foot setback from buffer strip) . The 10 foot buffer strip will be monumented and maintained around the entire wetland. All other lots will have a 50 foot set back (10 foot buffer strip and 40 foot setback from buffer strip) . The alternative to the variance is to mitigate the area inside the setback requirements on Lot 12 . This mitigation would impact and disturb the wetland more than the proposed variance. Exemption #25 of the Wetland Conservation Act will be used to fill a 370 square foot "pot hole" Type 1 Agricultural/Urban Wetland located on Lots 7 and 8 . See exemption request for additional information. WETLAND EXEMPTION REQUEST PROJECT: Knob Hill Development Knoblauch Property It is requested that the City of Chanhassen issue a Wetland Fill Exemption Certificate. Using Exemption #25 of the Wetland Conservation Act, the Knoblauchs plan to fill a 370 square foot Type 1 "pothole" Agricultural/Urban wetland. Existing Characteristics: Size: < 370 square feet Type: 1 - Monotypic Vegetation: Dominant Species - Reed Canary Grass Individual Species - Green Bulrush Topography: This wetland exists in a swale "pothole" where water is trapped prior to draining to a larger Type 1 wetland. The wetland is dominated by Reed Canary Grass and only contains one additional wetland species. Wetland hydrology is very marginal (no hydrology indicators in the top 12 inches and only weak indicators from 12-18 inches) . CITY OF CHANIIASSEN t„, \ _ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 T (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous,Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman,Building Official O. DATE: November 27, 1995 SUBJECT: 95-20 SUB(Knob Hill,John Knoblauch) Background: I was asked to review the plans stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, NOV 03 1995, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT." for the above referenced project. Below are an analysis and recommendations from the Inspections Division for the proposed project. Analysis: Street Names. In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names, public and private, must be reviewed by the Public Safety Department. Proposed street names are not included with the submitted documents. The proposed street name may have a maximum length of three words Building Pads. Locations of proposed dwelling pads and the type of dwelling is necessary to enable the Inspections Division and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review of the structure at the time of building permit issuance. For the same reason,proposed lowest level floor elevations as well as garage floor elevations and entry level elevations are required to be indicated on the proposed pad location. Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) must be shown for proposed dwelling types. These standard designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan review process. The memo explaining these designations is enclosed. Demolition Permits. Existing structures on the property which will be demolished will require demolition permits. Proof of well abandonment, if applicable, must be furnished to the City and a permit for septic system abandonment, if applicable, must be obtained and the septic system abandoned prior to issuance of a demolition permit. Recommendations: The following conditions should be added to the conditions of approval. Bob Generous November 27, 1995 Page 2 1. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. 2. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using standard designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 3. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. enclosure: January 29, 1993 memorandum ..„. CITY OF __„.. •A 4 -,. . 4W l_.._ 1 . ...ti',.., .'...k4.1: .1- ... .. .7 C IIANIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 N-'-'\7. (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 v� MEMORAN P UM TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official k. DATE: January 29, 1993 SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps it might he helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning behind the requirements. Fin or RLO Designates Front Lookout or Rear Lookout. This includes dwellings with tate basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4' above the basement floor level. R Designates Rambler. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings. SE Designates Split Entry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. SEWO Designates Split Entry Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level. TU Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the dwelling. WO Designates Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling. sE R SEWO wo F/ �-o\ li 1 i -- , - - — — -- °` RLO Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared to proposed building plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews. IV teliv PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER LOCATION NOTICE OF PUBLIC AA. LILAC LANE HEARING •, trin• • ;;(419:• • I mos PLANNING COMMISSION av a _ - ` F1611 MEETING i- z ar- �� .10 Wednesday, DECEMBER 6, 1995 ti•'aiE UNE oa,MEai r at 7.00 p.m. CIRCLE ® O • AMIV,A1 SRR 1j1. 1(i Chanhassen Recreation Center °��., FARMS 2310 Coulter Boulevard �� PARK PHE/ASAN �� 1��1, H/LL me -17 • � Project: Knob Hill C-.fF PARKAt �� =� 111 �. Qom► Developer: John Knoblauch [(Mr% CA- R BEACH S ; Location: East side of Yosemite at the 'LAGROW, IIP 41111. ,P Chanhassen-Shorewood city limits ��{ ("/P ��rli Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing preliminary plat approval of 8.35 acres into 12 lots, one outlot and associated right-of-way on property zoned RSF, Single Family Residential; a variance for street grade of 10%; and a variance to wetland setback of 20 feet for Lots 11 and 12; property is located on the east side of Yosemite at the Chanhassen-Shorewood city limits. The project is known as Knob Hill. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting,please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project,please contact Bob at 937-1900 ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on November 23, 1995. I( �/�L5 William&Ginni Nordvik Steven Olson Timothy& Kristen Rosenfield :375 Lilac Lane 1530 Creek Run Trail 1540 Creek Run Trail ?xcelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Cobert&Louri Underkofler Don&Jeanne Becker Gregory& Marissa .550 Creek Run Trail 1560 Creek Run Trail Frankenfield Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 1570 Creek Run Trial Excelsior, MN 55331 .ohn Colburn&Laura Duncan Kevin& Jacqueline Bidgood Edmund& Marsah Fadel 571 Creek Run Trail 1561 Creek Run Trail 1551 Creek Run Trail ?xcelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 )avid& Susan Arthur Susan Hume James &Norma Donovan 541 Creek Run Trail 1531 Creek Run Trail 1375 Lilac Lane ;xcelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Cobert Sutfin & Diane McGuire Micahel &Denise Reid Scott & Joanne Dake 320 Ithilien 1328 Ithilien 1336 Ithilien ;xcelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 obert& Sandra Hanson Mike& Ann Preble Timothy& Cohen Browne 344 Ithilien 1352 Ithilien 1360 Ithilien :xcelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 effrey Smith & Lori Johnson Darwin &Mary Boutiette James & Barbara Quiring 368 Ithilien 1376 Ithilien 1384 Ithilien ;xcelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 ohn& Deborah Marceau Kenneth&Tamra Boehm Philip & Carol Hamlin 392 Ithilien 1391 Ithilien 1385 Ithilien xcelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 landall& Diane Schwanz Edward& Rhonda Perkins David& Diann Jones 377 Ithilien 1351 Ithilien 1329 Ithilien xcelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 'roy Anderson Barry Conda& Gordon Koehnen Charles & Tracy Horan Cool 600 Koehnen Cir. E. 6285 Audubon Cir 1601 Koehnen Cir :xcelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Stewart& Karen Reamer Stephen& Cynthia Doms Melvin Schmid 1331 Ashton Ct. 6398 Teton Lane 1620 W. 63rd Street Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Robert& Brenda Poston Kenneth L. Larson Roy Rockvam 6295 Audubon Cir 1610 W. 63rd Street 6340 Yosemite Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Kathryn T. Stoddart Shirley A. Hopf Bruce&Nanette Twaddle 1611 W. 63rd St. 6420 Yosemite 6430 Yosemite Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Carolyn J. Wise Charles B. Hebert James, Sr. & Mary Emmer PO Box 2413 6411 Yosemite 6321 Yosemite Palm Springs, CA 92263-2413 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Todd D. Bogema Mark&Kathryn Basktiansen Troy Stottler& Terry Scheurict 6371 Yosemite 6301 Yosemite 6320 Yosemite Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 City of Shorewood Attn: Planning Dept. William& Carol Wilson Mike & Lisa Kroonblawd 5755 Country Club Road 23060 Stratford Place 22020 Stratford Place Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Joyce Unruh Kathia Jo Anderson Lisa Jetland 23080 Stratford Place 22040 Stratford Place 24000 Stratford Place Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Ronald&Lori Zenk Richard&Deborah Osgood Lee Paris & Penny Rogers 22060 Stratford Place 22035 Stratford Place 23000 Stratford Place Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Carl& Marcia Walker Alan& Virginia Whitaker David&Janet Finken 22015 Stratford Place 23020 Stratford Place 22055 Stratford Place Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Roger& Ellen Bushell A. Chris & Carol Pehle Walter& Martha Cleveland 23040 Stratford Place 22075 Stratford Place 6185 Apple Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 airy& Linda Stokes Elden Beckman Thomas & Jeanne Flavin '.1710 Lilac Lane 6125 Apple Road 6080 Mill Street ihorewood, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 glen&Jeanette Ames John& Jane Danser . Laurie Pearson&Bradley Heppner i145 Apple Road 21640 Lilac Lane 21780 Lilac Lane :xce1sior, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood,MN 55331 Ehomas & Jennifer Wilder Joseph Garaghty :1740 Lilac Lane 6075 Apple Road ;horewood, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Oa. MAYOR Robert Bean COUNCIL Kristi Stover Bruce Benson Jennifer McCarty III CITY OF Doug Malam Ir ,01r7,77 SHOREWOOD - 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (612)474-3236 6 December 1995 Mr. Bob Generous City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Knob Hill -Preliminary Plat Dear Mr. Generous: Our office received a copy of the above-referenced plat and found it to have little or no impact on adjoining property in Shorewood. We have since been advised that the City is considering a possible through connection to Lilac Lane. This is to advise you that the City of Shorewood has serious concerns about any such connection to Lilac Lane. Lilac Lane is a very substandard, narrow street serving only six homes in Shorewood. Given the low density and large lot character of this neighborhood, Shorewood has no plans for extending the street. It does not appear that such a connection would benefit Shorewood residents. We understand the desire to provide for the development of the Donovan property,and would be interested in seeing any plans you may have developed in this regard. However, at this time the City of Shorewood does not favor making Lilac Lane a through street. It is our understanding that your planning commission wiii consider this matter at their meeting tonight. Please pass our concerns along to them. If you wish to discuss this project with Shorewood staff,please do not hesitate to contact me at 474-3236. Sincerely, . CITY OF SHOREWOOD Bradley J. Nielsen Planning Director cc: John Knoblach Larry Brown RECEIVED DEC 6 t 1995 CITY OF CHANHASSEN A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 s. _ (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 December 18, 1995 Mr. Bradley J. Nielson, Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331-8927 Re: Knob Hill - Preliminary Plat Consideration Dear Mr. Nielson: I am in receipt of your letter dated December 6, 1995 regarding the above referenced plat. As part of the review of the plat, city staff was concerned about the future accessibility of the Donovan property located immediately east of the Knoblauch property. Due to severe topography and significant wooded area at the end of Lilac Lane, staff did not recommend a continuation of Lilac Lane. Rather, we recommended that the roadway in Knob Hill be extended to the easterly property line at a point south of the wooded area and the steep slopes (see attached staff's concept dated 11/29/95). This roadway has the potential of being connected to Lilac Lane, "T" into another roadway off Lilac Lane, or terminating in a cul-de-sac on the Donovan property. Should the roadways ever be connected, public safety access for the residents of Lilac Lane will be enhanced. The City of Chanhassen is very aware of the substandard nature of Lilac Lane. However, if staff's recommendation to provide access through Knob Hill is not incorporated as part of this plat, the only access to the Donovan property will be via Lilac Lane. As you may recall in conjunction with the subdivision of Ithilien Addition in the southwest corner of Teton and Lilac Lanes, the cities of Chanhassen and Shorewood considered entering into a cost sharing agreement for the upgrade of Lilac Lane east of Teton Lane. Due to financial restraints, an agreement was reached between the cities whereby the cost of upgrading Lilac Lane was incurred by the City of Chanhassen and the maintenance responsibility of Lilac Lane was assumed by the City of Shorewood. When the Donovan parcel develops, the cities of Chanhassen and Shorewood may be faced with the same issues. However, the City of Chanhassen may not having funding available to participate in the upgrade when warranted. With the implementation of staff's concept on Knob Hill, the need to upgrade Lilac Lane is reduced significantly. Mr. Bradley J. Nielson December 18, 1995 Page 2 Based on current zoning ordinances, the Donovan property has the potential for subdividing into 12 - 15 single-family lots. We believe that we would be remiss if we did not address providing alternate access to the Donovan property at this time. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at 937-1900 extension 141. Sincerely, Robert Generous, AICP Planner II Enclosure c: David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer N f - . 0 0 0 ° 0 / I ' LILAC LN 1 ' I N ,c,D._ 0 NO,. DO NOVAN PARCEL f s I k AIi STAFF • y S CONCEPT 7/29/95 ATTACH. Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: ...we certainly will at the next Planning Commission meeting and I know that that doesn't help you because you want to go ahead with your plan. Another comment was made from the audience at this point. Mancino: And you may also work with the staff on a variance for a certain lot also having to do with Lot 1...we would certainly entertain that. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: JOHN KNOBLAUCH FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF 8.35 ACRES INTO 12 LOTS, ONE OUTLOT AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT-OF-WAY ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; A VARIANCE FOR STREET GRADE OF 10% AND A VARIANCE TO WETLAND SETBACK OF 20 FEET FOR LOTS 11 AND 12; PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YOSEMITE AT THE CHANHASSEN-SHOREWOOD CITY LIMITS. THE PROJECT IS KNOWN AS KNOB HILL. Public Present: Name Address Marc Simcox 21600 Lilac Lane, Shorewood Diane & Randall Schwanz 1377 Ithilien Joanne Dake 1336 Ithilien Bob Hansen 1344 Ithilien Michael Reid 1328 Ithilien Jim Donovan Chanhassen Jim Emmer Chanhassen Tom Wilder Shorewood Mike Prebble 1352 Ithilien Bob Generous presented the staff !rpomt on this item. Mancino: I have a couple very quickly. The accepted grading is due to dwelling type? Is due to what? Hempel: Well the street is proposed right up through the hill there to preserve the topography as well as 10% street grade and...There's not going to be as much grading probably...staffs 28 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 alternative. It fits the terrain though much better. You're not significantly lowering the knob or filling in for the house pads. Mancino: So the difference between that concept and what the applicant has brought is that you're going south...southern turn and this will eliminate even greater the 10% grade? Hempel: We believe we're working with the existing grades better than the proposed plan before you this evening. Mancino: Another question is, and none of us are...to the east. They have access to Lilac Lane so they do have an access point... Hempel: We have a limited access point to Lilac Lane. Approximately 18 to 20 foot wide. The street is a substandard city street. It actually borders right between the city of Shorewood. It's also here in Chanhassen. I believe the city of Shorewood has maintained that street. At this point tonight we're not looking at a thru street connection. We're just trying to provide full street access and utility service to the Donovan parcel. Mancino: And as you said, Lilac Lane is owned by Shorewood? • Hempel: I believe it's maintained by the city of Shorewood. Mancino: Thank you. Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? John Knoblauch: I'm John Knoblauch. I'm the developer of the proposed parcel called Knob Hill. Craig from Engelhardt has two drawings here. One showing the proposed cul-de-sac that's been submitted. Also on the top would be a likely scenario if staffs recommendations are followed. Just to quickly mention on David's comments on looking at the, only the service of the Donovan parcel. I believe in the staff report on page 5, the bottom. When abutting property develops, staff met early on with the applicant's engineer and requested that they look at extending the street to the east to service Donovan's and potentially when the abutting property develops out to Lilac Lane. So that's really the issues that we're going to talk about here. This is going to sound like a broken record because what you just went through before. I'm in the same boat here. This property's been in my family 85 years. It's been my wife and myselfs dream to eventually build on the homestead site of my great grandfather's home. I build homes for a living. My goal's not to be a developer but developing this piece myself was the only thing I could do to make sure that the homestead site be preserved and the site be carefully planned the way my family would want it. I've probably more questions than answers for you but I think all the issues at hand need to be 29 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 addressed further than this meeting with city staff, my engineers and myself. But I appreciate the commission hearing our concerns on hopefully the successful development of this parcel. Other than the details that are addressed in the staff's report, the plan in my mind boils down to two basic road layouts which I think is why everybody is here tonight. My plan number one, my plan of a cul-de-sac to service the parcel and staff's recommended plan for a continuation of a road through my parcel and eventually continuing through the Donovan parcel to the east when it is developed and hook up to Lilac Lane. A cul-de-sac plan, not necessarily my proposed cul-de-sac that you see on the bottom plan over there, but a cul-de- sac meeting staff's wishes and the grade and the right-of-way areas is preferred by myself and the surrounding neighbors. A continuation of this road, which I call the top cop's road to the east, in my estimation would be confronted with the following. Two hills near the connecting collectors, neither of which meet Shorewood or Chanhassen's specs for safety. Lilac Lane and Powers Boulevard intersection. This intersection is a 28 foot wide roadway that was improved 2 years ago up to Teton Road. The city prefers a 31 foot wide roadway. Grading on this improvement was an 8.26 grade. The city prefers a 7% maximum grade. But we're a 7% grade as close as 50 feet to Powers Boulevard. The city prefers a 2% max grade within 50 feet of this intersection. Or of any intersection. I understand that may be a State recommendation, I'm not sure. A transitional speed zone at the intersection of 45 mph and 30 mph and poor sight lines for the drivers east bound and south bound. This roadway is 85% in the city of Shorewood and 15% in the city of Chanhassen. Also another issue that I'd like to bring to the commissioner's attention is the hill at Apple Road at the county line which is actually on the northwest corner. Yosemite Street turns into Apple Road at the county line, which is the northwest corner. The average grade for the first 450 feet into Hennepin County is 9.08. At the hill crest this grade's within 150 feet to the center of my proposed road coming into Yosemite. In regards to the Donovan parcel, which is actually shown to the southeast of the top drawing, it's almost a 90 degree turn on the Donovan parcel. The sight lines for the Donovan property are poor with mature trees blocking vision on the entire west side. There's a dangerous ravine at the end of Lilac Lane which would definitely be a hazard. Not to mention there's about 20 significant trees that would be lost on the substandard part of Lilac Lane. Another issue of concern is the servicing of just the Donovan parcel. It's come to my attention recently that Mr. Donovan does have a 50 foot easement for road purposes for future development. Therefore when future development would take place, it could access onto Lilac Lane. So there's no need to take road right-of-way from my parcel to service his land. ...The first page is just a map showing how close Apple Road and Powers connect just to the north of this parcel. And Lake Lucy Road would be the other collector to the south. And the next three are the existing Lilac Lane improvement that was done from Powers to Teton Lane, which is probably about half of Lilac Lane. Maybe a little less. A third to a half and that shows the 28% width. The 8.26 grade coming into Powers Boulevard with basically no landing. And the last page just shows how much was in Shorewood and Chanhassen. The next page does show the grade. This is from the city of Shorewood on the 30 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 grade of the hill just to the north of where Yosemite turns into Apple Road. The average is 9.08 in that first section. The next half section map shows Ithilien, which is a lot of the neighbors that are here tonight in that subdivision. It does show highlighted Lot 5, which is the issue with the Donovan easement. The next page, with the easement over Lot 5 does confirm from Valley Surveying and also Del Cutter at Carver County Abstract, that this is a valid easement. It's a 50 foot wide easement. 28.51 onto Lot 5 and 21.5 that is on the existing Donovan parcel. And the next legal document is that easement dated 27th of April, 1973. On the next three pages is a petition, obviously concerned residents. 52 adults from the surrounding area. And last but not least, a letter from the City of Shorewood that I received today and it reads as follows: Our office received a copy of the above referenced plat and found it to have little or no impact on the adjoining property in Shorewood. We have since been advised that the city's considering a possible thru connection to Lilac Lane. This is to advise you that the City of Shorewood has serious concerns about such a connection to Lilac Lane. Lilac Lane is very substandard, narrow street serving only 6 homes in Shorewood. Given the low density and large lot character of this neighborhood, Shorewood has no plans for extending the street. It does not appear that such a connection would benefit Shorewood residents. We understand the desire to provide for the development of the Donovan property and would be interested in seeing any other plans that you may have developed in this regard. However at this time the City of Shorewood does not favor making the Lilac Lane a thru street. It is our understanding that your Planning Commission will consider this matter at the meeting tonight. Please pass our concerns along to them. If you wish to discuss this project with Shorewood's staff, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Bradley J. Nielsen, Planning Director. I understand that at least cul-de-sacs have been granted within the past years within a half mile. Shadow Ridge, Ithilien and the Mason " property. And also to clarify the staff and the commission why we propose a 10% grade variance on our plan for the cul-de-sac was for one purpose and one purpose only. That was to save trees which is really my high priority on this parcel. And I was told by Engelhardt that in order to save more trees we had to raise the road grade, in order to especially save, there's quite a few cedars up where I'm going to live on the big parcel on Lot 5. That is going to be left as one lot. Besides all the safety issues I've raised for a continued street, it seems very clear to me that a continuation of the Knob Hill Road was not meant to be. It should have been planned through the Ithilien property, not a band-aid thru street. This is why a cul-de-sac makes sense for my neighborhood. It's safe for my kids and the Knob Hill traffic can go to Powers Boulevard, via Apple Road to the north and Lake Lucy Road to the south. Both level intersections that would be safer for all. I'm sure with staffs help we can come up with a cul-de-sac plan that meets the grade staff prefers and preserves the best liability of the trees and the surroundings of my family property. We're moving onto this land to make friends, not enemies and to contribute to the community and hopefully we can find common ground. So I'd ask the Planning Commission to make a motion to staff not to pursue the connection of the roadway through the Knob Hill Addition to service Donovan's 31 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 property but to allow for sewer service only and to pursue a cul-de-sac plan that will enhance the area. Mancino: Thank you. I did have a question for you. Just state for me very clearly, forget Lilac Lane and what will happen if it goes through the Donovan parcel. You seem to want the cul-de-sac and what are the reasons for you wanting to continue or to just have a cul-de- sac on Knob Hill. Just 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. John Knoblauch: Actually to be honest with you, I'm not really opposed to servicing Donovan's property. If it was Donovan's property alone and I could be assured of that, I would not be against dead-ending my road at his property line. And that I've made clear to staff. As far as the cul-de-sac, obviously it makes my lots more valuable. I have two growing boys and one on the way, and they're pretty active. I guess that's really the gist of it and I think that's the way my family would have wanted it, so. Since the issue of the easement came up with Donovan's, and he's really got his own entrance off of Lilac, I guess I'd prefer a cul-de-sac because if he didn't have that, I probably would work something out with him. Mancino: Thank you. Can we have a motion to open this for a public hearing? Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded to open the public healing. The public healing was opened. Mancino: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission. I'm going to stop for just one moment. It's 9:25. Kate, we have to be out of here by 10:00? Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: If we are not done by 10:00, because I see that we have quite a few people who are going to be addressing us. We may have to table this and come back and resume the public hearing because we must be out of here by 10:00. Anyone else who is on the agenda, I don't think we're going to get to you tonight. Do you have any recommendations or any other suggestions? So I just through I'd tell you that no one else will go on tonight. It won't be until January 3rd. We'll come back and we'll continue the public hearing at 10:00. We'll see you again on January 3rd. I hope this doesn't hold up anything for the applicant, etc, and I hope that everyone who did come tonight can join us again after Christmas. With that the public hearing is open and I'd like your name and address. Mike Prebble: Thank you. My name is Mike Prebble and I live at 1352 Ithilien, which is Lot 5 on the Ithilien Addition and I stand to be the one most affected or not affected, 32 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 depending on which plan that the city and Mr. Knoblauch go forward with. This is my lot right here and for a thru street... I believe Mr. Knoblauch should be able to develop his Knob Hill Addition as a cul-de-sac. He has shown me a plan that shows a very subtle use of land with home sites nestled in amongst the existing trees with the least impact on changing the neighborhood with an increased density of people. He has 12 home sites. It's been my experience that, at least where I live it's 2 car families and pretty much both work and so that's two cars leaving, two cars coming home and maybe a kid to pick up and maybe go shopping and so if you count all of those car passages from one house, I came up with 8 minimum and if you multiply that times 9 homes, that's 96 cars minimum going, plus you talk of things like mail delivery and garbage pick-up and etc and I forgot something so I go again. My lot being the corner of Lot 5 on the Ithilien Addition, apparently the planning and zoning commission, when they put my house on this lot. It was built in 1991, into '92 is when we moved in. We didn't know or didn't realize Mr. Donovan's easement onto it but I believe, according to the map and the measurements that I've done, if this street is put in as a thru street according to the existing easements, the corner of my attached screened porch would be 17 feet from the curb and I heard from the previous thing that it's 30 feet is the minimum so apparently my home was placed in a position that, according to what was Mr. Donovan's right-of-way, and I don't know if the city. Maybe the city didn't know of his easement or not. My house could have been moved. It didn't have to put right there because it's a new home and I wish that would have been addressed when we were in the stage of getting approval for where to place the homesite where our home is built. A thru street there, that's 12 homes. If Mr. Donovan or someone who buys his property and develops that, I talked with Mr. Hempel and I suggested 10 or 12 homes may go there. Mr. Hempel thought maybe 15 was more appropriate so that's another 15 homes. I'm going to guess 2 car families. I'm going to guess 8 trips minimum in and out. We're looking at around 300 cars a day could be potentially going past my house. Stop. Turn the corner. Go. Come back. Stop. Turn back. Some of those cars may be not so well tuned up. Some of those being trucks. The hill right there, my home. Northwest general air movement. I'm really concerned about air pollution right into my porch. I'm concerned about noise pollution. I'm concerned about how busy that street could become. I have three children. A freshman in high school, a 9 year old at Excelsior Elementary and a 3 year old. I believe that Mr. Knoblauch should be able to develop some fashion of a cul-de-sac. Your question of why do you want a cul-de-sac is why I bought that house on a cul-de-sac. It's homey. It's neighbors. The only people really who drive on our street are the people who live there. Occasion person who may be lost or looking for something but I look around, when I see people, it's the people we live with. A thru street is not homey. Is not neighbors. We met with the safety people last winter at one of our neighbor's homes talking about neighborhood safety watch and how nice it is that everyone knows and can see and can come and go so if you see something suspicious, meaning something you haven't seen for a while, you can easily think. Maybe I should call. Maybe not. A thru street does not allow that familiarity. My 33 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 recommendation to your group is some fashion of a cul-de-sac and Mr. Knoblauch mentioned something about, he could service Donovan's property. I love that idea. If some fashion of cul-de-sac ends with some fashion of a dead end here on Donovan's property, a nice road about here, that's another... If Mr. Donovan's easement is taken off my property, the Ithilien easement is taken off my property, I stand to lose approximately 20% of the land that I've got there. So thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission. Jim Donovan: Yes, my name is Jim Donovan. I'm the famous Donovan resident there with the property. As far as the easement is concerned, I know I can say whatever I want here in front of the Council because it doesn't mean anything as far as saying it about development. I have no intentions of ever developing that piece of property. I have no intentions of ever selling it. I'm going to die there when I'm 100 so. I'm 61 now so I've got a long time to go. And Mike and his wife can feel free that there will be no, nothing done with that corner. I know that that has no legal standing or anything else like that but that's my feelings. As far as allowing Mr. Knoblauch to have a circle in there, that would be my choice. As I look out my house, when I come out of my garage, that's to the north of my property there looking at his piece of property. It would look down. I'm up on the hill there. You can see the pond and I am just to the south of that pond there on a hill. I look down, my driveway goes down and winds around the trees. The beautiful trees there and I was thrilled when John and his wife came over to my house and said that they had no intentions of destroying those trees. I know that all the neighbors were very, very concerned about a developer coming in and potentially ripping out 20 to 30 of those beautiful trees that are in there that have been there for ages and ages. This is Apple Road territory and apple tree territory. The trees may not be the greatest because they haven't been kept up but it is a very old and very lovely area there. As far as I'm concerned, and the people that I've talked to, we would like to see, and me especially, I would like to see a circle on the property as John has proposed. I would not like to see a road abutted to my lot line because basically what the town is telling me is that, hey. Eventually we're going to come through your piece of property and we're going to link up with Lilac Lane. Well, you know I don't like that. I don't want to have my property... lighting that goes all the way down the driveway. I've got a security system that's underground that goes down the driveway. I've got over 1,000 foot long driveway. I've got two stone pillars at the end of Lilac there that have a bar, or a radio prism that goes it through. When a person or a vehicle comes onto the property, it sounds at my house. All of these wires and electrical has been laid underground and led to my house there. So I have no intentions of ever developing that. Ripping up that piece of property. I would hope that the town would not, or the city would have no push to put a road through there eventually. And the idea of having John make a road that would abut to my property there and then running basically a service road along my property line there, my northern property line there, does 34 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 not make sense really. John's idea of a circle with a road there servicing these homes here makes much more sense. It lends to the landscape. It does not degrade the property. It does not scrape it away. I mean there's beautiful homes. There is beautiful trees there. There's a cedar tree there. There's the slope of the land lends itself to what John has proposed and has done a hard job of trying to make the property look at least developed, if we could put it that way, as possible. This is an old area and it's a beautiful area and it's an area where people come to rest, relax, get away from city life. It's not an area where, as Mike said, you want to have 90 cars screeching around the corner. You want to have horns honking. Things like this. I think that everybody who lives in Chanhassen wants a nice, quiet life. I mean we're developing this city at a very, very rapid pace, as shown by what's happened downtown. The area that we happen to be in is the most northern part of Chanhassen, adjoining Shorewood there. We are sort of the last frontier as far as the northern part of Chanhassen is concerned and it's an area that has got it's own charm and it's own mystique. It's an area that John has proposed developing with the idea that, let's keep it the way it is right now. Let's not make it into a fast lane. Let's keep it so that when people drive in here, they're driving into their home. They're not driving into a big wide open, busy area here. And John has done, what we think and I think, a very admirable job of developing the property, of proposing to develop the property as far as the roads are concerned. As far as I am concerned, being the prime piece of property on the south side of this development here, and as far as the city is concerned, I would have potentially, any access that I would ever need, and as I prefaced my beginning remarks to the Council here. I have no intentions of ever doing anything. And the way I would like to have it, I would like to have it as John has proposed. I feel that that is the best plan for the entire area. Thank you. Mancino: May I respond to a couple things you said. First of all, I want to make perfectly clear you understand that the staffs proposal to stop it at your property line would not at this point, or at any point until you decide to develop, would it go through your property. Jim Donovan: Right, I understand that. Mancino: There wouldn't be a service road. There would be nothing. It would just stop. Jim Donovan: I understand that. But you're bringing up a road to butt up against my property. Mancino: Yes. That is true. Jim Donovan: Which is an ugly, ugly. Mancino: To the property line. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 • Jim Donovan: Yes, it's an ugly type of situation. Whereas now it's a beautiful type of thing. Mancino: And it would be a turn around and there would have to be some sort of turn around so it would look very much like a cul-de-sac. Jim Donovan: But right up against my property. Mancino: It would be up against your property line. Jim Donovan: Yeah, which is very bad. Mancino: And secondly it is, I mean we have to look ahead, after 100 years. Between 61 and when you're 100 and to your next life and say, then what's going to happen. I understand that you're going to be there and at this point do not see ever developing it. But we, as a planning commission, must look even further ahead than that. That's what we need to do for the city and I don't know what we're going to decide but I'm just also giving you our perspective on what we need to be looking at too. Jim Donovan: Well what you're telling me then is that, if you were to bring up, if you were to disregard John's proposal, put forth your proposal to abut onto my piece of property there, it would not be done during my tenure. But that some time a large swath of my property would become public road property. Mancino: If whoever, your heir, whoever you sell it to wants to develop. If that one person. Jim Donovan: But what you're proposing would basically degrade my property. It would decrease the value of my property. Mancino: As it stands now, someone would come in. If you wanted to sell it someone or give it to an heir who wants to develop it, and that would be up to you. Jim Donovan: No, what I'm saying is that what you're proposing or what you're saying is that if you were to put a road with a circular end to it, up against my northern boundary, it would decrease the value of my property. There's no doubt about that. Hempel: Madam Chair, if I could make a couple comments. The first thing, the handout you have before you tonight with the easement, the 50 foot easement across Lot 5. First of all that is a private roadway easement. That cannot be dedicated for public use. It's a sole easement for Mr. Donovan to use. Okay, so that can never be upgraded to a city street. Now 36 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 acquisition of property from Lot 5, which we have no desire to do. Your subdivision, well maybe I'm getting ahead of myself. Your property... (Dave Hempel stepped over to the overhead projector and his comments were not picked up by the microphone.) Jim Donovan: That's fine with me. I understand that. Mr. Knoblauch might be willing, if that 28 feet, if you're saying that mine's a private one, right? That's only to be used by me. So Mr. Prebble has no worry because it will never be used because I've built what I'm going to build there. What if Mr. Knoblauch was to grant 21 or 28 feet, or whatever was necessary there? Hempel: That's one of our recommendations that he dedicate a 30 foot swath,.. Jim Donovan: Okay, but I'm saying on Lilac. From Lilac, that would Lilac west. Dave Hempel's comments were not picked up by the microphone. Jim Donovan: Right. So if he dedicated 28 feet, that would solve that easement, or that would solve that entrance. Hempel: That would get him...driveway. Jim Donovan: Okay. Alright. Then there would be no reason then to abut a road onto my northern part of my property. Hempel: The thing that we have to look at is the overall picture... Jim Donovan: As far as water and sewer is concerned, there is water and sewer on the property already. It comes in from Apple Road. City water and sewer comes into the property from Apple Road right now. Hempel: There's water...sewer line here. Jim Donovan: No, sewer runs to the east. My sewer runs from the east. It comes right in. ...I have city water and sewer. Hempel: You have city sewer and water? Jim Donovan: Yes. It comes in this direction... 37 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: Any other comments? Jim Donovan; Okay, thank you. John Knoblauch: I just had one. If it's a private easement... Generous: If we can make the findings for the private street...There's environmental protection. Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? Jim Emmer: My name is Jim Emmer. I live in the property immediately south of the second round square from Yosemite. And as you can see from this, the driveway coming from the abutted road would come along the property line and those headlights would be right in our living room. Do you see that in that area? And on this plan...this would be the driveway... We like the plan at this time. I'd like to know why the road is needed. Can somebody answer that please? Mancino: Excuse me, why what road is needed? Jim Emmer: Why, in a future time Mr. Donovan's property needs to be served from Yosemite rather than from Lilac Lane. Generous: When we look at development, Lilac Lane was a substandard street. This would be a, meet city code and the street that Mr. Knoblauch... Additionally, whenever we're looking at developments we try, where possible to provide two means of access to that for emergency purposes. Jim Emmer: Well no cul-de-sacs have two means of access. Generous: That's right and we, at a staff level we try not to keep getting cul-de-sac's in there. Jim Emmer: Can I take a poll of how many people here live on cul-de-sacs? Mancino: Excuse me, can you wait and come on up. Thank you. Jim Emmer: That's really all I have to say. I have a hard time understanding why we have to have a thru road potentially and I agree with you that when Mr. Donovan passes on, that's going to be developed but why it can't be developed from Lilac Lane, because you're not adding, what are you adding potentially? 12 lots there at the most. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: 12 to 15. Jim Emmer: On Mr. Donovan's property? Mancino: That is what has been stated earlier. It has the potential. Whether it does or doesn't, we don't know what's going to happen but it has the potential to add 15 more lots. Tom Wilder: Hi. I'm Tom Wilder. I'm from Shorewood so maybe you don't have to listen to me but he's talking about his living room. I'm talking about my bedroom. I live right at the L of Lilac. My house was built a year ago and it happens to be, what you can't see from the drawing here is this, the house is about 20 feet down from the grade of the street so every, you know we're talking about a year, a couple years...stop sign being right here, you know the headlights would be shining right in my bedroom and I wouldn't like that. It just seems to me, I hate to keep talking about if Jim's alive but you know, maybe he'll sell his one parcel. You know maybe it never will be developed. Maybe he'll sell his beautiful estate as it is right now. So that should be considered. It's my understanding the reason why it was put on the books in Chanhassen as well as...protecting the current virgin row of trees and a lot of big trees, including 4 very large ones on my property would have to come out if you upgraded to what is a very pretty Lilac Lane into a quote, perfectly plowable city street. When Chan developed, or when Chan improved Lilac Lane a couple years ago you know they took the lilacs down. There are no more lilacs except for on my property and if you improved it, you'd get them all. I have some wetland concerns. There's, you know it's a dead end. A lot of children there. I would think that would be a concern to the Planning Commission. And to upgrade Lilac Lane would, you'd have to take out what's about, it's 2/3 of Shorewood's street so you'd probably have a fight there as well but 17 feet is what I consider a wildlife corridor. Beautiful sumac. Very large oaks. I mean you know, you've destroyed it. And it seems to me, and somebody has already pointed this out, that people move out to Chanhassen, Shorewood area and some of the other surrounding suburbs to live on cul-de-sacs, to live on dead ends and I think it's you know, the proof is in the putting. I did a little, I'm kind of a numbers guy. I went through the Planning Commission, you know the members and I went through the City Council and 86% of you who are thinking about extending our street, live on dead ends, non-thru streets or cul-de-sacs. Only two, Nancy you don't. But you have a nice driveway. Mancino: Thank you. Tom Wilder: And Mike Mason, I'm not sure where he lives. I can't find Woodhill Road. But the rest of you live on dead-ends or cul-de-sacs so. Farmakes: I live on Utica which is a thru street. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Tom Wilder: Utica, Utica is not exactly a dead end but it's kind of just goes around in circles. You know it's not a thru. Farmakes: It is a thru street. It comes down from the highway, it goes down along the lake and goes back up to the highway. If you enter it on one end, you come out on the other. Tom Wilder: Okay well, maybe I'm wrong there so let's make it 83%. Skubic: I live on a thru street also. Tom Wilder: Yeah I know you do. I didn't say you all did. I said 87% of you don't and so you should maybe have a basic understanding of what we're talking about here. That's all I've got to say. Mancino: Okay. I'm going to discontinue the public hearing until January 3rd. Jim Donovan: ...make a comment. Mr. Hempel made a comment here before about my easement being a private easement. What would it take on my part to make it a, if I dedicated that easement to the city of Chanhassen in return for the Knoblauch project being a circle rather than an abutted street into my property? Would that help? Mancino: I think that you can certainly negotiate with the staff at a private time. Call up Bob Generous and ask to get an appointment with him and talk about that. Jim Donovan: I mean is that a concern of the city, since there's, I mean I don't see how you say that this is a private easement. How did you come to that determination? Hempel: Grantor to grantee. It's not to the city of Chanhassen. Jim Donovan: Oh I see. Okay. I'm not legally, but if I did, am I able to dedicate it to the city of Chanhassen? Hempel: With the underlying property owner's consent I suppose. You could ask him. Mancino: I don't think we're going to decide that tonight. But there is a willingness to talk to you about that. Jim Donovan: Thank you. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: Okay, so we will close the public hearing. Not close but continue it on January 3rd at 7:00. Can they be first Bob or do you have an agenda already? Generous: DeLancy was tabled too. Aanenson: And we've got 4 other subdivisions on that night. I'm not sure how... We'll have to check. Mancino: We will check. We can't promise you that right now but we will check and let you know. Thank you. Thank you for coming. NEW BUSINESS: Aanenson: Under new business, I apologize for the timeliness of this but this was a direction given from the City Attorney regarding a park dedication that's on for the City Council on Monday night. Betty O'Shaughnessy, as part of the Autumn Ridge plat and that large outlot, you should have received a copy of this. When we looked at the Gateway West property and the Autumn Ridge property, when we talked about the city requiring 4 lots. This map it's shown as Outlot, or Lot C and D. Approximately 60 acres. The city, Mrs. O'Shaughnessy will be dedicating that property to the city. It has a value of approximately a little over a half million dollars and the cost to the city would be the assessed levied amount which is about $40,000.00. The City Attorney's position is that the Planning Commission should formally act on recommending acceptance of the dedication of the park property so you need to make a motion. Mancino: And it doesn't have to go through a public hearing or anything? Aanenson: No. Mancino: Any discussion from commissioners on this? Commissioner Peterson. Peterson: Go for it. Mancino: Commissioner Farmakes. Farmakes: I think she should get a monument sign. Aanenson: I think she will get some recognition. Mancino: Commissioner Skubic. 41 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 3, 1996 Vice Chairman Farmakes called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Ladd Conrad, Bob Skubic, Jeff Farmakes and Don Mehl MEMBERS ABSENT: Nancy Mancino and Mike Meyer STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner II; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II; John Rask, Planner I, Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and Jill Sinclair, Forestry Intern OLD BUSINESS: JOHN KNOBLAUCH FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF 8.35 ACRES INTO 12 LOTS, ONE OUTLOT AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT-OF-WAY ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; A VARIANCE FOR STREET GRADE OF 10% AND A VARIANCE TO WETLAND SETBACK OF 20 FEET FOR LOTS 11 AND 12; PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YOSEMITE AT THE CHANHASSEN SHOREWOOD CITY LIMITS. THE PROJECT IS KNOWN AS KNOB HILL. Public Present: Name Address Jim Emmer 6321 Yosemite Avenue Charles Pickard 1215 Lilac Lane Marc & Linda Simcox 21600 Lilac Lane Randy & Diane Schwanz 1377 Ithilien Mike Preble 1352 Ithilien John C. Knoblauch 16921 Weston Bay Road, Eden Prairie Joe Knoblauch 13017 Maywood Lane, Minnetonka Bob Hanson 1344 Ithilien Joey Johnson 1275 Lilac Lane Jane & Eric Danser 21640 Lilac Lane Tom & Jennifer Wilder 21740 Lilac Lane Martha & Walter T. Cleveland 6185 Apple Road Jim Donovan 1375 Lilac Lane Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Farmakes: Do the commissioners have any questions? Is the applicant here? Would you like to come forward? Would you like to come forward and make any comments? John Knoblauch: I didn't have any comments... Farmakes: Okay. Does anyone want to make a motion? Conrad: To open the hearing? Is it a public hearing? Aanenson: It was a public hearing last time. It was continued based on the fact that we were at the Rec Center and we had to be out of the building. So if you so choose to take comments, certainly that's an option. Farmakes: Does anybody wish to make any comments that's here? Eric Danser: My name is Eric Danser and I live on Lilac Lane. My wife Jane is also here and we both feel the same way about this project. We've lived in our house about 18 years now and the reason we moved into this house is because Lilac Lane is a dead end street. We have two young children and we're concerned that if this road is tapped into the Donovan property to service it, there's no doubt in our mind that at some point it's going to be connected to Lilac Lane and then Lilac Lane will be a thru street and it will pretty much nullify every reason we moved into the neighborhood in the first place. And I know I speak for quite a few neighbors along Lilac Lane and in the Ithilien development as well. I think we're all going to be affected and none of us really wants to see this road go in to make it possible to connect it. Even though, I don't know his name but the gentleman that was speaking earlier said that it could be a cul-de-sac in the Donovan property if it should ever be subdivided. I have a gut feeling that there will be no such thing as a turn around in there or a cul-de-sac...connected to Lilac Lane and I, for one, do not want to see this happen and I would appreciate it is you'd consider this project through the eyes of the neighbors...so you can see what situation we're dealing with and not see it as...definitely subdivided at some future point. Right now Mr. Donovan has a beautiful home and pond on his property. It's all, it's basically an estate and we can't figure out how you can even consider that it would ever be developed into 15 homes. I don't know how many of you have seen his property and the way it's laid out but it's pretty impossible to turn that property into a track home development as you suggest it might be. So all I'm asking is that you see it from our point of view and for what it's worth, that's our, my opinion. My wife's opinion and also I spoke with my neighbor next door tonight, and she's not able to attend the meeting and she feels the same way we do so, do you need to know her name for the record? Farmakes: Sure. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Eric Danser: Her name is Stokes, S-t-o-k-e-s. And her name is Linda and her husband's name is Larry. Thank you very much. Farmakes: Thank you. Any further comments? State your name and address please. Jim Donovan: My name is Jim Donovan. I live at 1375 Lilac Lane and would you put up that. Since the meeting in December, my property is the property that is being discussed here for a possible, potential future road. Since the meeting in December...I have taken it upon myself to have two very reputable real estate companies appraise my property on the present basis and on the basis of what the Planning Commission is wanting versus what the developer has planned. I also had a certified appraisal firm come and do an appraisal of my property on the basis of what it was now and what it would potentially be. They all, the consensus of everything was that the loss in value of my property really, would you please put up that other one like I asked. So the road abutting into my property there, and a potential service road running from east to west along the northern boundary of my property and the southern boundary of the now proposed Knob Hill development there, the loss to my property in value would be inbetween 15% to 18% on a present day basis. ...it would substantially reduce any potential sale of my property inasmuch as lessening the number of people and the price that people that might be interested in buying my property in the future, except for developers who would in turn know that they were the only group that would potentially be able to do something with this property versus an individual like myself who has lived there and built it into what it is now. Another person buying my property would not want to buy it with a potential for an abutting road to the property plus a potential road going through part of the property over my existing driveway right now and connecting up to Lilac Lane. Across the service road runs right next to my property so it would substantially reduce the value of my property. I have talked to two legal opinions...and they said that I would have a good case, they thought that there would be substantial evidence available that I would have a good case to press my feelings on it. The idea that the city would bring a road up to the property and potentially at a future time when I passed away or something happens to the property, run a road through it would destroy the beauty of that piece of property. There is a lake, a pond right where that word is right there. There's a driveway that comes right up along the lot line there leading up to my house. The driveway is approximately 1,000 feet long. There is an underground sprinkler system. Underground electronic detection system in the ground there. All for the privacy of that property. In addition, on...I do have a 50 foot permanent road easement. This easement, the Planning Commission said was a private easement. I've had two legal opinions that it is not a private easement whatsoever. That could legally be used in the future. If and when it was needed. The easement extends right from the dead end of Lilac Lane from the eastern part of the line. 50 foot...In conclusion I'd like to say that none of the neighbors, nobody in our area would like to have any kind of a road coming up to the property...land that the developer developed with a cul-de-sac in the middle of the property. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 With the access road running in front of the houses that would border on my north border and his southern border. This is what the neighborhood would want and we would hope that you would see to our wishes, thank you. Farmakes: Thank you. Before we proceed, would you like to respond to the issue of public or private easement, Dave? Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairperson. As I mentioned at the last Planning Commission meeting, the easement documents supplied to the city was an exclusive private road easement from Donovan's to another individual, or vica versa for their sole use. It's not for general public use. Solely for those two individuals. That right could be passed onto a future property owner if they sell the property but not the general public interest. Farmakes: Thank you. I'm sorry. Would you like to come forward and state your name and address please. Joey Johnson: Joey Johnson. I live at 1275 Lilac Lane... I'm here also because I am... My property was heavily impacted by the...Ithilien... It appears that should Lilac Lane become a thru street...expansion of the road on the Chanhassen side will heavily impact these residents of Ithilien Way and myself. May I also ask why...It seems to me that Apple Road, which is a thru street, provides more than adequate access to Route 17, Powers Boulevard, Lake Lucy Road...provides adequate ingress and egress to future residents... The suggestion and speculation that Mr. Donovan's property someday may develop is not an issue at this time and I was a realtor...and I know Mr. Donovan's property as well a neighbor and friend and the way it is set up, it's truly a private estate. A developer would have to... I employ you not to force Mr. Donovan to put in this connector road to further serve Lilac Lane which will impact the quality of life plus the safety... Farmakes: Thank you. Does anybody else wish to make a comment? Please come forward. Mike Preble: Can you turn the overhead back on? Hi. My name's Mike Preble. I live at 1352 Ithilien. I live right there. The northern part of my property borders on...western part of my property borders on Donovan's property and I calculated approximately 40-45% of my property would be taken if Lilac were improved to a standard city street as Mr. Hempel suggested for an appropriate width and then the turn there to go up to the Donovan property. My house sits fairly close to the Donovan side and the thru street that apparently the part of the Planning Commission is wishing to propose would put a corner of my...approximately 17 to 20 feet away from this street and with that being a, I would guess it being a stop...turn for the properties going down... I'm concerned about traffic...air pollution. Air movement basically through the northwest and across my property. I am very much in favor of Mr. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Knoblauch...property as he has proposed with a cul-de-sac coming onto his property from Yosemite. I'm also in favor of Mr. Donovan being able to keep his property as it is without trying to make him look at developing it because of what the streets...change his property character. So I would appreciate the Planning Commission approves Knoblauch's plan. Thank you. Farmakes: Thank you. Any other comments? Does anyone want to make a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Peterson seconded to close the public healing. The public healing was closed. Farmakes: Comments. Ladd. Conrad: Boy, I think the staff recommendation to us is probably what we always do in Chanhassen in terms of development. Give future possibilities to access to sites that right now claim they don't want to develop but usually in Chanhassen they do. And what we find is when we don't have the foresight and we say well that person's never going to develop, there are very few that, and I've been here for quite a few years. Most land in Chanhassen does develop. The money is there. The potential for subdivision is there and when somebody says I won't, in a few years they do. And that's kind of too bad because my preference would not be to have it develop. My preference would be to keep things as pristine and as they were. But practicality is, that just doesn't happen in Chanhassen. So I respect what the neighbors are saying. If I were them, I'd be here asking the same thing. And Jeff, to be real honest I wasn't sure, I think staffs recommendation is appropriate to give the flexibility for that street expansion. That's what we do and I just can't recall any cases where we go against that, unless it's really harmful to the environment. Unless there's a really significant problem so, but I did hear some comments from property owners, owner, that said maybe were this road would go in is not in the right place in terms of how it would impact his property. So that concerns me a little bit. My opinion would be therefore, I think staff has given us probably the right direction. I'm not real wild about the plat that I've seen before us from the developer. It's sort of clunky. It's got a lot of variances and we typically try not to allow variances in Chanhassen. There are rules and sometimes when you go beyond those rules and you say there's extenuating circumstances, I don't see that here. I just don't see the extenuating circumstances for the variances. It's a lot of land. It can be developed properly. But I guess I'm not sure that I have Jeff the direction to go in tonight because I did hear a few concerns about where that alignment would be. The road alignment if we did it. So bottom line for me would be, I'd like to give the potential for a cul-de-sac that would probably give the land to the east access, if that person decided to subdivide at 5 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 some point in time. I don't want to force that. That's his decision but I think we'd probably remiss in not allowing for that alternative in the future if he decides to sell his property. Farmakes: The issue of access, you're talking about cul-de-sac situations? The issue of variance, I think we got a 10% street grade variance request. You don't think that there's a case for that. Craig? Peterson: Couple questions of staff first. Have we ever done anything in the past with the situation with the Donovan property as far as having covenants between the city and the landowner not developing or sell or how do you...sale of potential properties...Is that possible? Aanenson: I don't believe so. You're saying on an adjacent property that they couldn't develop? No. No. Peterson: Could it be granted to the city in some form or fashion? Aanenson: No. That's the $64,000.00 question. That's the hard job that we're struggling with is to predict the future and we talked about as much options. We're concerned with the gentleman that lives on the corner of Ithilien and the right-of-way. Mr. Donovan says that there's a road access there. We'd be concerned about the impact to that neighborhood. If they believe that that's the access to serve that property, that would concern us. That's why we've taken the position that we're trying to provide the most flexibility. We're certainly not advocating that you develop at this time. We try to provide the most flexibility in the future that there are options instead of saying this is the only option. That may not be the one that they want, that's their first choice either. So nobody's trying to force development. We're just providing options. Try to look at the future and that sort of thing and no, we cannot say he can't develop. Who's to say what's going to happen in the future financially or whatever. Conrad: It's illegal? Aanenson: Yes. Peterson: As far as easements_..land to the city. Aanenson: You're just talking strictly now about the easement? No. As Dave had indicated, you have to have a public street if you're serving more than two properties and we believe that that is just for one driveway. Beyond that you'd have to have a public street and that's what we're saying. Actually that easement goes over the corner of that property there on Ithilien. That lot and we would be concerned that it be that close to that's gentleman's home. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 We certainly wouldn't want a public street right there. So that's why we're looking at some other options of how that would be serviced. Peterson: Well, with that in mind, my thoughts clearly parallel Ladd's in that, I certainly wouldn't want to force development on anyone but I think we do have to...and I would...favor of what the staff is recommending along with denial of the street variance. Farmakes: Bob. Skubic: I also have a couple questions of staff. Could you point out the easterly 30 feet of the northerly 160 feet that you are proposing for the street right-of-way. Generous: That would be to provide 30 feet along the corner of...property. Skubic: Okay, but under 60 feet wouldn't get you anywhere near the proposed road coming off the Knoblauch property, is that correct? Generous: Correct. Skubic: Would the access, the road to the Knoblauch property, would that need to be developed? Could we just have an easement or it could be used for future development? Hempel: Maybe I can address that one a little bit. It's not that uncommon that the road would fall short of the property line, say 10-15-20 feet. To give some buffer to that adjacent property owner so there would leaving some vegetation. Something like that... When the road is extended in the future, that property owner that develops is responsible for the cost of extending the road which could add up...$150.00 a linear foot. Plus utilities. But that would be the developer of the Donovan property as far as... Skubic: So it is possible where they're having the road run close to the Donovan property, to have an easement say between Lots 5 and 6? Aanenson: Right, they wouldn't have to... Hempel: The road right-of-way would be dedicated with the plat. The road be help back say 15-20 feet from the edge of the property. Temporary cul-de-sac. Skubic: I also share the comments on Ladd and Craig regarding the variance for the grading. I know staff has recommended some alternatives and I would like to see something some with 7 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 that and I would be in favor of tabling this until that can be worked or denying their request as it's written. Farmakes: Okay, thank you. Don. Mehl: I just have a couple of notes here...substantial property value...Some discussion regarding traffic...versus the cul-de-sac. I guess I can speak for my own experience. I live on a cul-de-sac and I've lived on a thru street as well. We get an awful lot of traffic down our street, even though ifs a cul-de-sac. A lot more than just the residents who live down there. I don't know what they're doing down there. They're either just curious or they're quackers or they're looking for trouble or something. They come down there of course and then they have to turn around and go back so the people who live up 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 houses, get to see that car go by twice so...cul-de-sac forces people to turn around and cars go back...versus a thru way where they can continue on. I'm in favor of voting for denial of...I would agree with... Farmakes: Thank you. My comments on this are, I would like to see something worked out to the access and egress of these properties. It disturbs me when we get into this situation where there isn't really a solution. The city to run efficiently has to have an infrastructure. It can't be a city of dead end streets. But we have people that move here and they want dead end streets. They want cul-de-sacs because, a couple of reasons. One is the perception of why they move out to the, what they perceive as the country. And builders of course like to build cul-de-sacs because they can charge more for it. On the other hand you have services that are provided by the city and for other infrastructure services, delivering mail, emergency services, picking up kids and dropping them off, school buses and so on. Obviously if you have a city of dead end streets, it makes it difficult to efficiently egress areas of the city. And Ladd was talking about what we've done in the past. We've tried to maintain a direction here in looking at these issues. The problem that I have with this, that often we have old Chanhassen bumping up against new Chanhassen where we're looking at development. And you have a situation where we have the criteria for a warehouse type of development and it butts up against what I would define as more of a large lot type of situation. The problem also that we have as planners is that often we see in front of us situations that occurred 30-40 years ago where you're seeing old Chanhassen butting up against new Chanhassen but the problem of course is now with this development that was 30-40 years ago, it doesn't fit now. We can't access a particular piece of property or we can't make the new development fit with the old development. So I'm, there isn't a real ready solution for this kind of thing and I would like to see something worked out. Normally how we attack this sometimes is having some leniency in cul-de-sac situation where we try to avoid long cul-de-sacs but the issue about a cul-de-sac in the future, egress into the other property, it's not my intent nor do I think is it the intent of the city to try and penalize property owners or people who have been 8 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 here. I'm pretty familiar with that particular part of Chanhassen and as it stands right now, it's a beautiful piece of property. I'm familiar with the streets that are there now and a very low type of travel. But we also have to look at the future here so I'm, I'd entertain a motion here, the issue of trying to work out some of these things. Does somebody want to make a motion? Conrad: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the 10% street grade variance request. Farmakes: Is there a second? Mehl: Second. Conrad moved, Mehl seconded that the Planning Commission incommend denial for the 10 percent street grade valiance request. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Farmakes: Does somebody want to make a motion in regards to the remaining of the staff recommendation? Conrad: Yeah staff has, for those of you who are here. Staff really gives us a lot of information and you're probably not looking at what we have but basically, and for sure you're not looking at what we're looking at. And this is, because there's so many points on, and I think what we want to do is table this and see what the developer can do. Kate, there are 25 points here. 29 points, and I guess that's not necessarily how I want to table it. Those are things the developer should look at but to be very honest and candid, I haven't assessed each one of those 29 points. It's real important to me that we not force the property to the east to develop. It's real clear. I don't want to do that. But it's real clear that if they do, that we have the road structure capable of servicing it. That's real clear in my mind. There's just no doubt. That may concern some of you here but that's what you've got to do if you run a city the size of, if you run a city. But anyway, my point to tabling would be, for the developer to come back and solve some of these problems. That's specifically the 10% street grade but Kate, is there a reason the 29 points are in the tabling motion? Usually when we table we say, hey we table it. Come back and fix this. But these are not necessarily, is this your report Bob? Generous: Yes it is. We put it in in case you wanted to approve it and then you could take out. The real condition was realigning the roadway and changing the grading plan so that you would see an accurate depiction of that alteration. If you didn't go along with that issue and you went with their plan, then you could just drop that one. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Conrad: Okay, I hear you. Okay. So if I made a motion, excuse me for chit chatting here but if I made a motion just to table, what kind of direction, without the points, which I don't want to have in there, do we have enough direction based on what we said? Aanenson: In summary, the two points are street grades and future access. Trying to resolve that and I think that's the direction you give us, or the applicant. Conrad: Okay, then I'd recommend, I'd make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend tabling the preliminary plat for Subdivision #95-20 for the 12 lots and whatever so that staff and the developer can come back and resolve the street grade issue as well as the future access issue to the property to the east. Farmakes: Motion's been made. Is there a second? Peterson: Second. Conrad moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission table the preliminary plat for Subdivision #95-20 so that staff and the applicant can resolve the street grade and future access to the property to the east issues. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR OAK PONDS/OAK HILL SITE PLAN/DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT LOCATED BETWEEN POWERS AND KERBER BOULEVARD, JUST NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET. Public Present: Name Address Drew Clausen 7717 Nicholas Way Dean Johnson 8984 Zachary Lane .fill Sinclair presented a slide presentation and the staff report on this item. Farmakes: Did we ever get an answer in regards to the public safety issue? Sinclair: Yeah. I talked to Bob Zydowsky, the public safety officer, and additionally to Steve Kirchman in the building, and there are no rules or regulations pertaining to safety treatments of walls. It doesn't matter how high the wall is. 10 3 C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 1/17/96 UANHAEI CC DATE: 2!12/96 CASE#: 95-20 SP By: Generous:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Site plan approval for a 5,500 square foot restaurant; a variance of five percent from the 65 percent site coverage to permit 70 percent site coverage; and a variance request to permit signage on two sides of the building, Applebee's Restaurant V LOCATION: Lot 4, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza 3rd Addition; 550 West 79th Street eL APPLICANT: Applebee's International Gary Fisher 4551 West 107th Street, #100 Overland, KS 66027 (913) 967-4005 PRESENT ZONING: BH, Highway Business District ACREAGE: 1.24 • ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - CBD, Frontier Center S - BH, vacant and Highway 5 E- BH, West 79th Street Center W - BH, Americana Bank 0 WATER AND SEWER: Available to site I.L.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site is relatively flat with no significant environmental features. • 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial SVA, . ". - WI lii 17 L... 1 VI rig 1 \ 'Ng riromi unnitirst: :II ,wow .\ As% 4smi rem" ,, ��._..�R*%�e�� W'1 ♦�Ayr -ifs. •. L A /r E '�� TWINMAPLEANE 'VIII tv0Aril ri ii `Win ia#&iik ', 1 A.... ,,. i) r'',;1111M I , t, d ,.i1 ,-,3„ - -rummy:m.smor&IIIIM III �.I� .. IF .11" �� ■tea .. ,�I�1 iii, n.- .,:. 4,0. `'i1. R. ii."�� -• 0 NB II L"�r�iltr ; i 7400 • �0 dal Pia Fid ri nlIMrYrr -'��. I'. APO . FM 1111141 rip �� ,off" tityir ie i;-C+, A s) W M.rag. "v tat fi.;01:41P0 4.1 lit. );) 0 AO. ; ,.' .#;1' ri ilk 14,4104441711011161 ImIltikP o o illy /IN. - 7.,140.1-;.1d IpAii. . dm* MiW 1.1.7.,,, ." t'i ,. ligrlikleall . �� ?�� Woo En Ni© o INN tom . . Ayr�� ,4�' PRS ggTffilg ill • �,3 .•- • :u , �ID. — . :© MI �., � .oci% a If cc W �{ • 'TM • !LI L E� 1 n111 III I11 it t / glitrat-4,,_ i,ics (,;,)• • . e _/ _--1.---4.0, 1,,,- °I"`TE1 DR-7— ! i �N "i --I I Illi•• ,i 1 1[1 _ 0:., id w 78TH S PI �� -di'll- 4111Alc LA,„ • a AT 14 �HANHAA R�• ..... --g A- � • i �r` . . YENNEESTATE S 14}1,r' or Na • -- v�� % M/N/ P • .. DRIVE 11111 qT� HIGH J `�� ; x i* — 0 •Q-1-Aivrr 1–''':fi''-' : . -..' `" x at va• 0::4•• Aer 5 . 8100 SUS 1 r , mi�tti A IFP MI" fp • I�t�1 PARK % dtt t �'�� ■ .n 8200 _ MARSH ., o III ....,, Vpreigi, LAKE W !' ,_..,____.- --,\-\ '�%'~� SINNEN ~`� �� . „ J \\ a , , ; CIRCLE PARK ��, � � \ W law. cc per ; i LAKE SUSAN , �I _ _ _ _4ur . �- _X Uon /"�,��a ' \� R/C� M RSH L ,� . :6 TH <,_ '* O O I V, V r---- ;.. (1, ti_ u_ ktl, ir _ E 1 140 .. , _ _/�-22 • • • . '�! ...tott, _ .\') PR i-OSED � rTr i r-'1 /"� >-I>- Applebee's Restaurant January 17, 1996 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing a 5,500 square foot restaurant for Applebee's on Lot 4, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza 3rd Addition. The development of the site complies with the HC-1 standard. The building is oriented to West 79th Street. This orientation maintains the visual concept which the city would like for the entire site. The development of the entire Crossroads Plaza 3rd Addition will locate structures to the periphery of the site with the majority of parking located in the center. Access to the site will be via a private street that will serve all four lots within the development. Cross access easements and joint parking agreements will be incorporated into the development. Pedestrian access will be encouraged via a sidewalk system from West 79th Street and internal sidewalks within the subdivision as well as from the Americana Bank site to the west. The materials and details of the buildings are consistent with the Hwy. 5 standards. The project incorporates brick exterior with the primary color of"Monticello Blend" (red) with accents of "Wirecut Light Gray" (tannish-gray) and a well designed landscaping plan. Building materials are of a high quality. The applicant has provided the pitched roof element through the extension of a sloped roof over the protruding seating areas as well as through the use of window canopies. Canopy coloring consists of green, sand, and rust. Staff is recommending that an additional pitched roof element be incorporated over the cooler area on the east side of the building. The applicant is proposing the provision of 89 parking spaces. In order to meet the landscaping requirements for the site, at a 70 percent coverage, the applicant will lose one of the parking spaces in the southeast corner of the site for a total of 88 parking spaces on site. City code requires a minimum of 110 parking spaces for this use (1 space per 50 square feet). The additional parking will be provided via cross access and cross parking arrangements within this development and between this development and the Americana Bank building to the west. City code section 20-1117 permits this type of parking arrangement if peak hours of operation for the various uses are complementary and the joint parking facilities are protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city. The applicant is proposing site coverage of 70 percent after the incorporation of staff's recommendation to add landscape area. City code permits a maximum site coverage of 65 percent in the BH district. Originally, the applicant was proposing site coverage of 72.39 percent. Staff has worked with the applicant to revise the plans to reduce this deficiency. Staff believes that the revised plans and the approval of the variance for site coverage of 70 percent is acceptable. The comprehensive plan assumes site coverage of 70 percent for commercial development and the ponding area for this drainage district assumed 70 percent site coverage. In approving the subdivision of Crossroads 3rd Addition, the city required that the development as a whole comply with the 65 percent site coverage requirement which would require a minimum Applebee's Restaurant January 17, 1996 Page 3 landscape area for the entire plat of 57,666 square feet. However, staffs assumption that this could be met was based on an erroneous calculation for the concept plan on the property. The cumulative deficiency in landscaping area, after the development of Lots 1 and 4 would be approximately 3,000 square feet, which staff believes is an unacceptable burden for Lots 2 and 3. The applicant is requesting a sign variance to permit wall signage on two building elevations. Neither the size, shape,nor topography of the lot prevent the placement of a sign which meets ordinance requirements. Staff finds that the applicant has a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise the business name and service with one wall sign. Staff is recommending denial of the sign variance request. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan and site coverage variance for this project subject to the conditions contained in the staff report. BACKGROUND On November 13, 1995, City Council granted preliminary and final plat approval to replat Lot 2, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza 2nd Addition into 4 lots and site plan review approval for a 7,742 square foot Tires Plus facility on Lot 1, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza 3rd Addition. On March 9, 1992, the Chanhassen City Council approved Crossroads Plaza 2nd Addition which replatted Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza Addition, into two lots. Council also granted site plan approval for an 11,468 square foot bank and office building for Americana Community Bank. On October 23, 1989, the Chanhassen City Council approved a site plan for a 14,000 square foot bank and office building. However, the development was never undertaken and the applicant withdrew the site plan. On February 12, 1989,the Chanhassen City Council approved preliminary and final plat for Crossroads Plaza Addition. The plat consisted of two lots and four outlots. Two of the outlots were utilized for Highway 5 right-of-way. The other two outlots were used for drainage and stormwater retention ponds. GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The proposed development is consistent with the conceptual site development plan established as part of the Crossroads Plaza Third Addition subdivision. The intent of the concept plan was to promote pedestrian access, to locate site parking in an interior, shared arrangement, and to push the building to the front of the site. Applebee's Restaurant January 17, 1996 Page 4 The proposed development is within the Highway 5 corridor and must comply with the design standards established therein. The standards of the overlay district include: 1. Parking and building orientation: • The site meets this standard. The parking setback in the HC-1 district are those established by the underlying zoning. The site parking meets this requirement. The building is oriented to West 79th Street. This orientation maintains the visual concept which the city would like for the entire site. The development of the entire Crossroads Plaza 3rd Addition will locate structures to the periphery of the site with the majority of parking located in the center. 2. The architectural design standards. • The materials and details of the buildings are consistent with the Hwy. 5 standards. The project incorporates brick exterior with a well designed landscaping plan. Building materials are of a high quality. The applicant has provided the pitched roof element through the extension of a sloped roof over the protruding seating areas as well as through the use of window canopies. • The overall design and architectural theme for the development consists of brick exterior walls, recessed areas, and varied building facades. • Building height is limited to three stories or 40 feet. The proposed structure is one story of approximately 18 feet. The district regulations limit building height to 2 stories. • The proposed development incorporates the use of high quality materials in both building and landscaping elements. • The site design is such as to avoid the accumulation of trash, leaves and dirt. • The building components are proportional and relate well to one another. • Building colors are harmonious and create a pleasant aesthetic experience. 3. Landscape Design and Site Furnishings Applebee's Restaurant January 17, 1996 Page 5 • The applicant's landscaping plan is well designed and incorporates the use of native tree species as well as extensive buffering materials. The plan reforests a site devoid of vegetation. PARKING The applicant is proposing the provision of 89 parking spaces. In order to meet the landscaping requirements for the site, at a 70 percent coverage, the applicant will lose one of the parking spaces in the southeast corner of the site for a total of 88 parking spaces on site. City code requires a minimum of 110 parking spaces for this use (1 space per 50 square feet). The additional parking will be provided via cross access and cross parking arrangements within this development and between this development and the Americana Bank building to the west. City code section 20-1117 permits this type of parking arrangement if peak hours of operation for the various uses are complementary and the joint parking facilities are protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city. LANDSCAPING The landscaping plan for Applebee's Restaurant has been submitted and shows a satisfactory mix of species to be planted including four different overstory species and two ornamental varieties. The minimum required number of landscaping trees for its parking lot area is 10. The applicant has proposed 16 trees for the parking lot area and 30 trees total in the overall landscaping plans. The applicant has proposed pin oaks for the parking lot islands and peninsulas. These trees are tolerant of dry soils, but not of salt and can become chloratic (turn yellowish and lose color) if the soil pH is high. Northern red oaks on the other hand, are tolerant of salt, less prone to chlorosis, and fairly tolerant of a wide variety of soil and site conditions. Due to these facts, red oaks may be a more appropriate choice for the parking lot. The pin oaks are to be planted in all the parking lot islands, however, since two of the islands are only 8 1/2 feet wide they will require aeration tubes to be installed. Parking lot islands less than 10 feet wide are required to provide aeration for tree roots. To meet minimum landscape area requirements, additional green area will be created from proposed hard surface areas. One of those locations will be directly along the northern side of the building. Sod will be extended over the two-square sidewalk currently proposed. In this area, additional ornamental trees should be provided to screen diner's view of the parking lot. Another area to increase green area is through the elimination of one of the parking stalls in the southwest corner of the site. Finally, the four paving squares under the benches can be removed. These revisions increase the pervious surface in excess of 16,200 square feet which would provide 30 percent pervious surface. Applebee's Restaurant January 17, 1996 Page 6 On the south side of the building, the eastern half is a blank wall without windows and adorned only with lights. Planted along the wall are junipers and shrub roses. The Buffalo junipers proposed grow to a height of only 12-15 inches and the roses to 3 feet. Since this is the side exposed to 79th Street and Highway 5,there should be additional trees planted to break up the brick wall. Whether the trees are placed directly along the wall in addition to the shrubs or grouped farther out in the sodded area, they will provide the additional landscaping needed to interrupt the exposed brick wall and enhance the project from the southern perspective. The landscaping plan does not propose the planting of any trees on the west side of the parking lots area. Staff believes that the planting of trees in this area will help soften the parking lot and aid in shading of the hard surface. Staff is recommending that three overstory trees be provided in this area. LIGHTING/SIGNAGE The applicant is proposing the use of 20 bronze poles with shielded, shoe-box lighting fixtures for parking lot and entry drive lighting. Total height of the lighting shall be approximately 22 feet. Except along the access drives, the city requires that light levels as measured at the property line shall not exceed one-half foot candle. The applicant is proposing an eight foot high monument sign in the southeast corner of the site. This sign appears to meet ordinance requirements. The applicant is proposing wall signs on two building elevations. City Code permits wall signage on street frontage only, in this case, the south elevation. The applicant has requested as part of their application a variance for the second wall sign. The applicant has provided signage on the building elevation for the site plan. This signage appears to comply with the sign ordinance; however, insufficient detail is submitted to completely evaluate the signage. In addition, the sign may not project above the roof line (parapet) of the building. Approval of the site plan does not grant final approval for the signage as submitted in the site plan package. The applicant shall apply for a separate sign permit for all signage on the site. Signage shall comply with City Code requirements. UTILITIES In conjunction with the site improvements for Tires Plus/Crossroads Plaza 3rd Addition, municipal sanitary sewer and water and storm sewer improvements will be extended from West 79th Street to service this site as well as the other three lots in Crossroads Plaza 3rd Addition. Since these improvements will be put in by the Tires Plus applicant, no additional public improvements will be necessary to develop the Applebee's site. In accordance with the development contract for Crossroads Plaza 3rd Addition, the applicant will be responsible for reimbursing the Tires Plus applicant for their fair share of the site development costs. The Applebee's Restaurant January 17, 1996 Page 7 applicant should inspect the City's storm sewer system prior to constructing on the site to avoid conflicts in the future as to responsibilities for cleaning the existing storm sewer lines. GRADING Only minor site grading is involved to grade the parking lot. The site grading will involve adjusting existing storm sewer manholes along West 79th Street. The applicant should be aware that they and/or their contractor will be responsible for any adjustments to the manholes and cleaning of the City's storm sewer lines as a result of construction. PARKING LOT CIRCULATION The site is being developed in general conformance with the overall master site plan previously submitted and approved with the Tires Plus/Crossroads Plaza 3rd Addition development. Applebee's will be constructing the parking lot and drive aisles over their portion of the lot. They will also be modifying the entrance or cross-through connection to Americana Bank's parking lot. The radiuses of the islands adjacent to the main drive aisles need to be increased from 10 feet to 20 feet to accommodate turning movements of fire trucks and delivery vehicles. SITE PLAN FINDINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; (2) Consistency with this division; (3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas; (4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: Applebee's Restaurant January 17, 1996 Page 8 a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; c. Materials,textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: The proposed development does comply with the Zoning Ordinance and the Highway 5 overlay standards. The applicant is proposing site coverage of 70 percent after the incorporation of staffs recommendation to add landscape area. City code permits a maximum site coverage of 65 percent. Originally, the applicant was proposing site coverage of 72.39 percent. Staff has worked with the applicant to revise the plans to reduce this deficiency. Staff believes that the revised plans and the approval of the variance for site coverage of 70 percent is acceptable. The comprehensive plan assumes site coverage of 70 percent for commercial development and the ponding area for this drainage district assumed 70 percent site coverage. In approving the subdivision of Crossroads 3rd Addition,the city required that the development as a whole comply with the 65 percent site coverage requirement which would require a minimum landscape area for the entire plat of 57,666 square feet. However, staff's assumption that this could be met was based on an erroneous calculation for the concept plan on the property. The cumulative deficiency in landscaping area, after the development of Lots 1 and 4 would be approximately 3,000 square feet, which staff believes is an unacceptable burden for Lots 2 and 3. Applebee's Restaurant January 17, 1996 Page 9 VARIANCE FINDING SIGN The city council, upon the recommendation of the planning commission, may grant a variance from the requirements of this article where it is shown that by reason of topography or other conditions, strict compliance with the requirements of this article would cause a hardship; provided that a variance may be granted only if the variance does not adversely affect the spirit or intent of this article (Section 20-1253). Finding: Neither the size, shape,nor topography of the lot prevent the placement of a sign which meets ordinance requirements. Staff fords that the applicant has a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise the business name and service with one wall sign. SITE COVERAGE The City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Finding: The comprehensive plan assumes site coverage of 70 percent for commercial development and the ponding area for this drainage district assumed 70 percent site coverage. In approving the subdivision of Crossroads 3rd Addition, the city required that the development as a whole comply with the 65 percent site coverage requirement which would require a minimum landscape area for the entire plat of 57,666 square feet. However, staff's assumption that this could be met was based on an erroneous calculation for the concept plan on the property. The cumulative deficiency in landscaping area, after the development of Lots 1 and 4 would be approximately 3,000 square feet, which staff believes is an unacceptable burden for Lots 2 and 3. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this petition for a variance are applicable generally to other properties within the same zoning classification. However, in this instance, the Applebee's Restaurant January 17, 1996 Page 10 city is attempting to create a unified development on four separate lots with a common driveway area, which increases impervious coverage on this lot, and shared parking and open space. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The purpose of the site coverage variance will permit the owner to build their prototype structure, with modifications requested by the city, on a city created lot that incorporates cross access and cross parking agreements. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The hardship is related to the size, physical surroundings, and shape of the site and the desire, on the part of the city, to create a unified development for the four lots in this subdivision. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of the variance to the site coverage will not be detrimental or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. The sizing of the stormwater ponding for this area was based on commercial development at 70 percent impervious coverage, consistent with the comprehensive plan. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increases the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motions: "The Planning Commission recommends denial of the sign variance request to permit wall signage on two building elevations based on the findings contained in the staff report." Applebee's Restaurant January 17, 1996 Page 11 "The Planning Commission recommends approval of site plan#95-20 for a 5,500 square foot restaurant building on Lot 4, Block 1, Crossroads Plans 3rd Addition, based on the site plan dated 12/4/95 and revised 12/13/95, and a five percent variance to the lot area coverage to permit site coverage of 70 percent subject to the following conditions: 1. Install aeration tubes in the two 8 1/2 foot center islands. 2. Replace the pin oaks with red oaks on the proposed landscaping plan. 3. Provide ornamental plantings in the sodded area in front of the north side of the building. 4. Incorporate trees in the landscaping on the south side of the building. 5. Install three trees adjacent to the western property line west of the parking lot. These trees shall be selected from the approved tree list and must be overstory trees suitable for parking lots. 6 . Install "No Parking Fire Lane" signs and paint the curbing yellow. Contact the Fire Marshal for the exact location. 7. Full park and trail fees shall be paid per city ordinance. 8. The applicant shall enter into a site development agreement for the property and provide the necessary security to meet the conditions of approval. 9. The applicant shall incorporate a pitched roof element over the cooler units on the east side of the building. 10. Eliminate one of the parking spaces in the southwest corner of the site, eliminate the paving squares under the two Applebee's benches adjacent to the entrance to the building, and eliminate the sidewalk area north of the building to expand the landscaping area. 11. The applicant shall apply for a separate sign permit for all signage on the site. Signage shall comply with City Code requirements. 12. The joint parking facilities shall be protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city. 13. Staff recommends that the radiuses on the parking lot islands adjacent to the main drive aisles be increased from 10 feet to 20 feet. Applebee's Restaurant January 17, 1996 Page 12 14. The applicant and/or contractor shall be responsible for adjusting any existing storm sewer manholes and cleaning the City's storm sewer system as needed in conjunction with this site development. 15 .Rock construction entrances should be included with the site plan drawings. All catch basins shall be protected with silt fence and/or hay bales until the parking lot is paved." ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Review Application 2. Reduced Preliminary Site Plan 3. Preferred Concept Plan, West 79th Street Parcel 4. Memo from Steve Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 12/21/95 5. Memo from Mark Littfin to Robert Generous dated 12/11/95 6. Notice of Public Hearing and Mailing List CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: APPLEBEE' S INTERNATIONAL OWNER: SAME GARY FISCHER ADDRESS: 4551 WEST 107TH STREET, #k100ADDRESS: OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS 66207 (913) 967-4005 TELEPHONE (Day time) TELEPHONE: FAX (913) 341-1695 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. XX Variance $75 . 00 Sign on 2 Elev 3. interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review - XX Notification Signs $50 . 00 9 XX Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** $300. 00 ($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) 10. Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must included with the application. $100 . 00 Deposit . Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 81/2" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. ' NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAMEAPPLEBEE 'S RESTAURANT LOCATION CROSSROADS PLAZA THIRD ADDITION LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 4, BLK 1 CROSSROADS PLAZA THIRD ADDITION PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST 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 Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are tn.Je and correct to the best of my knowledge. e ///;r/q Signature App icant Rpiate, ' SLI at LTP, PiriZ NMIJP OM /1/ '- e,9, — Sig ature of F e Owner ' •JoL- 491)YJ�i1L1 at Lam, pg 7Ai pop S5,N Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. if not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. --.-: 1 1.* ; t1 ,---- ii.'• ----2. ' . , R. . ---?: it' i .._ li.,___.--- F ; ___ ' ••..... • i • 7----- Al.,•c; w .• • •`.: T,.• .-'' .•'.1-t.. :Al il 4-: •' , ----1- d ih ., ti ,, , f;•_,-..; __:. ,),•i ___ • . • \ \ lb. Um----- __-- ---,------- • 0 . - • __-...:7--- 21i ..---- - ..1:,t, ..: , .....,-;.90 • 7,-, „-- - .,k'.... -teco- Ilk ‘ • if ____----- - ----• -i - — 0 • -.4 ,....,.1 0 „, . , , ... .....„..„,4 \, , , ,‘ , „, , ....-- \ , , • > .. .4, • .•4.' es , _ /001* . •:;i1 1 1 ' ' ,: - .... 0 4 - — , • -; 0110 400006 IW ' liff //' gle. '.•-ir, t: __,...... w Sizi • ;3' • w-1- :.. ... .. 0- _ :i 10. w 4 II' --. 01110 t 7i. , A 7..•-, ..1___ ,t • 4% • \ ” ..• -. • i . 2 ,= •• t. .., '..E..r. , ----- ---I- "'I..--.4._,„,,,,,,,,_.I 1•1 1)..•.i..i a..—-. ! ----- --------- ' 1 4 • „,.. vif , iillo _ • --- — • \ ... go 1 •'•. ; \ !. : a ;. _,, ....., . .,,,..,. ,,,_ , 5 ' A' 4 ,r---- . .4.4 ,::.W$W __-------- . 0191 • kf- - 55 V -- OO : !,:j1 1 ,-.....---"" • __'..--- ., I N, - >g ....---- to i -- ; _ ,----- •--- • t ___------ 1 _---,...----- __ , --- '..-----",----- 1 .101 • • • -.. 71 . -. ' 11 ; - 1004 • • 1..10001.111. ' - - - , - 1 ...._- .. ---- ----- •. . . .-. .-------- 'T I.%.,j tr ....................... .....___ .„..... ............_ ,L.....:.; . ____.-L------- ° .....----- .-----'.- ---t .. _---,---- ,..--- . ,-,.a. _------------ --,---t--- :„...._-- ,. _.-----14-.---: — , -, _--- ----t---- " •.--- ..- _ .....„__-,.....,-----..F.--:,,_ '•-...,._—_---:-------- ------ . ..-- _--- ------ _--- .------ _--- . . __----- -------\ ,--- '. '----- _--- ... ------ .-- • , • • ----7.----- . • , 1,--- ------ • . . - l'••---- — ' ----1 ..- 1 1i r,- s g 1 3 0 rill Hi i : •! 14! is iI! liA NI i U c' P i 11: ., i: I i • . . r EDcbill 4 1:- 10111 Er(1 I 1 ?! 01 1 ' • i NillillPqiiiIiiRilili 1 :'_., li : :iNii iir i 3 : E V i El a•II /1 x it g• :.i El 4 .1. , e----• ( IJ1 wi . f1n't 3 k,ilii I li 1 '''!. :=:' i 1 - • - - -o ,.. . mi ?..4 C a i) ----, /E2 11 Vs; ___,U)'V "A 'TN!I I 1 3r/111 lir c 1 IN 0 1 - " %A 1 1 1 1 •fq !if .. .: --ir .. IA i I! 1 gip mil t n 1. .o 1 le i= 2. :•6 m f_. ,, ,x.rn 1 ii I r MIIIIIi. '• PI A A 9 In f.......r. c m , il: . d ' ;i154 lqi 114,1; IA i '--.'.. if El 0 --11111 - i 0:1 E 7 i m - I r 13 A;i II! qi•.,i1 i i,i 1 tA• ,...-, 1 - •I Ca 1; t !ii 7sig:,.• g>m I il Ili q hilt 1. ° 1 i 11!4 N!:.", :Z .. 1 e, ; 'le d I L i N if ..) s„-- ..) I.fi:;.; F;--1 CA di .., 9 \.., . 01-.95 13:07 FAX 612 332 6180 BARTO -ASCHMAN fj002 003 0, = N t\IP 7////j � � ri C7 n \ 146.... C+1 N n / o ' ,.A LA S _ I o �,:, 1 r g _ r n \ i t u �� Z O t w r/�1,7) -!a a A (n � > N t 1611 G rnmA� ' 1min';c: mtoAW rO LA ALA // ir!ø- -is ts 1 / 0t `e y t . al '_ 40 t et . � � r y-:.•,,:•••••r ill • • —� % Sist 1111 . - tO 4 gOwe 00. • p •o s a • 0,,..0.0,- _lio Q rn \ A" • M E i Q Cr, d m g .rn & >rri V Z (-) © m r CITY QF A CHANHASSEN \ _ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 'tea♦ MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous,Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman,Building Official DATE: December 21, 1995 SUBJECT: 95-20 SPR(Applebee's International) I was asked to review the site plan proposal stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, DEC 04 1995, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project. I have no comments or recommendations concerning this application at this time. I would like to request that you relay to the developers and designers my desire to meet with them as early as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements. g::safetykak'nemos\plan\applebel.doc CITY QF CHANHASSEN \\ f;if 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 \ p (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 To: Robert Generous,AICP Planner II From: Mark Littfin,Fire Marshal Date: December 11, 1995 Subject: Site Plan Review Applebee's,Lot 4,Block 1 Planning Case: 95-20 Site Plan I have reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division,I have the following fire code on City Ordinances/policy requirements. The site plan review is based on the available information submitted at this time. As additional plans or changes are submitted the appropriate code or policy item will be addressed. 1. Install"No Parking Fire Lane"signs and paint the curbing yellow. Contact the Fire Marshal for the exact location. g"safetyvnl'applebee tr• v - yam Ik • �` Ali It"oltIt .airy '. �� ,u : .. M© DC7 MG Wo INC Mra -n IN� 1.4 NOTICE OF PUBLIC I' --(u� kik) .rgum- ..0IMI3 .�IWO .© �� _� -M -c.t MEI, II gip E� :� [l ti HEARING WAN HAM ,F wd io - PLANNING COMMISSION 6N � MEETING WEST ;e .H sr. "`I / J \� Wednesday, JANUARY 17, 1996 w ATIO at 7:00 p.m. ' : �i City Hall Council Chambers /LI: `'' :� ,�� _ 690 Coulter Drive :, -'-- -P4-M4' .4 �� Project: Applebee's Restaurant STgTE — Y ,•v DRIVE HIGKWA o LAK Developer: Applebee's International '' ;;;s4A:1; rLocation: West 79th Street,just east of �'�y r!�Market Boulevard i -�•4� liar -o a: I ' ^ Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant, Applebee's International, is requesting site plan approval of a 5,500 square foot Applebee's restaurant; a sign variance request for two wall signs; and a variance to site coverage of 5% to permit 70% site coverage located on property zoned BH, Highway Business District, Lot 4, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza Third Addition. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900, ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on January 11, 1996. 40)) I 5114 Robert Dittrich John H. Dorek et al Bloomberg Companies 1827 Crestview Drive 581 West 78th Street P. 0. Box 730 New Ulm, MN 56073 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Estate of Martin Ward Waterfront Associates Ralph Molnau c/o Jerome Raidt Pers Rep 440 Union Place Ronald Dubbe 930 Baker Bldg. Excelsior, MN 55331 356 3 Street West 730 2nd Ave. S. Waconia, MN 55387 Minneapolis, MN 55402-2475 Thaddeus Korzenowski Chanhassen Inn B. C. Burdick 20645 Radison Road 531 79th Street W. 684 Excelsior Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331-9181 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 Donald McCarville 3349 Warner Lane Mound, MN 55364 5. CITY of CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Bob Generous, Senior Planner DATE: January 10, 1996 SUBJ: Bluff Protection BACKGROUND On October 14, 1991, City Council adopted the original Bluff Protection ordinance to protect the bluff line near the Minnesota River. On August 22, 1994, the ordinance was amended to protect "bluffs"throughout the city. In reviewing the Lotus Glen subdivision proposal, staff discovered a deficiency in the bluff protection ordinance. While the top and toe of a bluff are protected, there is no protection for the side of a bluff. ANALYSIS Section 20-1401 (a) requires a 30 foot setback for structures from the top and toe of a bluff. However, based on the definition of a bluff as having a 25 foot or greater elevation change and a 30 percent or greater slope, there are instances in which a"bluff' ends yet the sloped area continues. Staff believes that the intent of the ordinance was to protect the entire perimeter of the bluff, not just the top and the toe. There may be significant environmental impacts if the city permits development to encroach up to the side of a "bluff' area. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a motion recommending approval of the amendment to the Bluff Protection ordinance shown as Attachment#1. ATTACHMENT 1. Bluff Protection Ordinance Amendment. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING BLUFF PROTECTION INTENT It is the policy of the city to protect significant natural features that enhance the beauty, character, and natural environment through the adoption of standards for the preservation of these features. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL, Section 20-1, Definitions is amended to add: Bluff side of means a point at which both conditions for a"bluff'no longer exist. The side of the bluff is delineated by a line connecting the top and toe of a bluff at a location in which the slope of the bluff is less than 30 percent or the change in elevation becomes smaller than 25 feet. Section 2. ARTICLE XXVIII. BLUFF PROTECTION, Section 20-1400, Statement of intent is amended to read: Development, excavation, clearcutting and other activities within the bluff impact zone may result in increased dangers of erosion, increased visibility to surrounding properties and thereby endanger the natural character of the land and jeopardize the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the city. To preserve the character of the bluff impact zone within the city, alteration to land or vegetation within the bluff area will not be permitted except as regulated by this article and by the regulations of the underlying zoning district where the property is located. Section 3. ARTICLE XXVIII. BLUFF PROTECTION, Section 20-1401 (a), Structure setbacks is amended to read: (a) Structures, including,but not limited to, principal buildings, decks and accessory buildings, except stairways and landings, are prohibited on the bluff and must be set back from the top of the bluff, the toe of the bluff, and the side of a bluff at least thirty (30) feet. Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1996, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Don Ashworth, City Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on_ ) . I, :--„. /. e. ” .• -...--!--- ••. ' 7 -- - -,-....-.-._- ----..-..--- ..... ..... -__.------ -- Sontg e frail , ! V .- -_ ,•__- -__- Fiiiiei -..... --., . --- - i .. i - fp. --_, • - ,T-- r-- -.. • -:-_z_--T--a•-..;..1,-..-5- . s e.:11._ .......,:-.4f-p_.--. _....-_iir---:. . \... /.,..%:......" c . • ...._. -_ MI - 1-- -"I.1 P CI' .(v.- /t; ,- ,. _._ ---... •••.,z----._____.---_.....„›.0.- --:- .111,li ,.-- ...• -? 1." ;c•--:ifi;•,..z- T-- s -.. ---.._,—.-r-_I. _________/ _ztt ga i ' ' ,.--'--; , ,-..." .: z 2, A 6 ____,,,_-,..___, ....._,...._ -- _--- !,,/ _„• ,... if i ,,- .--- • 4.,-•4-1'1 - - •?"----- ___.- • .11 ge 1..- ' : , ,_. z 'AI _ 4E, ----_,-- •,:t iz t„...9, , / ;'ti„... ti .. . Tr. 11,,z '-..I • ------;.; a Ell 0 7r1.4Fos . • ....V. ..",/ / 1 t::1,1 NY ,!; ' .-1... 5i „„.,--''" ..1,,.- --. ty a :.. . _ .;,... •: ,,,, , / ....._.....- .__ ._ . t •.3 ii .. .. .... . ....• •-• ..; - ,,..iy- - -;-----i'Ati-p3-.." .ct,;J15.-- , , • ,,J./- - e... f.•- -„. .4- :,,,,,,0 ,q1,-- fi. , ....., .. , „ „; •!--„.r........ft,-f;, f.',.,-_t. ..-1! ---s7 L'4 --"",. .,.411•-- /... .." Ii ...,....-- -- 7.-44',-Y; : 4 ,f. ,...„ ... ; .1.2 . r%),"'0.-- .1. ' • - -_-_---r-li, c; I _.:701:r. :#4:.:5,- , , / ' -------*•. . • '1. ..s% I/: I': -1:' , rriVeji ' --- - ti-2 - ----.."-",ilial ..1::;x.47 \ .1\ f:"-I'''.' • _,.. r:- 'ç --- -- - • , ,.,.....O. - . ...- .• .... 7 .‘_.f..4._ .‘,1 • ,,- "/"/' . (D, .• .--__ ---A3 0,..f.• ‘ t . . .„ /.....);:a er-:-----51P-irt-- 1:84 Ili .72"..:::.--6" A.,,...-2--t'r'---.----..41 --'.*:itit\ i, i, - ./....y. ( IN.) ; -It tz ,..--""zr" .••;..--"‘" I'li di ...,44.4-6, Ivo .... r--7.-.-....--__-.-7p 7 ..-.... _.-..;:::,.\--..,A\..,.. 1.1.‘.i 1 ,:-„......",f,. ---:\-- • 0 y 0- - .year-s=0,Jujosor-Hior,-.4i. .4. .,,r.,_ .......\ -,..--1,___ •....,... Fc I.. .-,--_--.-- .7., , , •‘,.6 '. •i -' ITI --i .• 0._....."'"---. f:___ ..,....--,/ ." 7V-7.7.10;61.261'....w,-.0/101rjaaW,_..f..,,,011111k_.-77;:ir-., ....ta: ,•••` i ,--) ' . I 4 • • ' ' ---.'. It .--'•- ..1‘1.0,0111W,,rirW1, -.----- --.% '--a. 1L.,,t;.! -,..1 •-•.--." -/. 1 r . ' ..,.., : „if)' ./ .. ...- ....No\ 0 i CO .0 iic..11:1011411Z4.114.t.dgrig; „T.,'...I,-. -.3,/ t 1.: 1/4 ..•-.„.4,,,-01. a ., ..-, (.. i ---_....-...._-- • „0„.i ......,..,": litvi.NN•••,gA Av.' - s _\--- *Iv iv 1 r, 1 -' 1,- ,.- .1:- , CI O T. , ,,, 1 4 • .., . ; i 1( _._CO/ f r i f i , r. ... . ...) ,.. i --------7-.=r---..;.." ....-111% 70"m.r; 1 \i , ', .'•, •••''::-.0 - ( • , , '- \ 1 f 1 ..i. 1 I i 73 . .,. .. -...-..-71.3%,.....e .\..-.i. .., ,:.,.. .. .. .. .. . • , • • \ is i.• -elf. --.• -", 4,f‘ • `. • re' , 110.0 , Ilk / 4.17 - iki":: Of..‘11411= ._r.. .•, ....i . .•.. .• \ ... t:j4''.."........." 4.41111\NI . -. / ..., .#,:.. :f - ,.Z...P'--' . I ....- . . ' ' . : IN.-- .-•.-- ''\1‘ ' \ \ ..... ... - i - .....-..1- .400 • - ,,- ;i!... , 4.. -- ,.E'••,, .:--.. .•_:--- .N7i,t,11::-ii,4 \ - • , ' I . .- ,-. 1,.4,i-- ---;••..... 7,. !_s . ..,\, .....\ \ ,...., ,..,\ ...._.... .,..... . ......._ ., __ ...._i_..„ ‘.,„ ...,., . „........, • . . ,€0.;,. _.il , --- . -- - , (31 cs ,..- / .- •--' ' ..,-.4"" .- • / .- •4, •-"11* -'‘,N';--- \ 7.!‘• \, \ ••V*k.:\\4'•,\:-,-NZ,t4 6.1'• ' ._._ . - ---- • (:). o 4. ..0--, ss. . : • 7 .. -‘73 ,• / g : . • , 41 , \ • •V‘:\A A . • . 0 ,.. \ ,1 k . .. •,. .... , _..f:_• ____L--• ___ •..._....: / \ ', •.4it. \, .4141/4.6111St* (..A ' ‘ 1--- •-..i I-r- . L i : .... - 1 1 - ' , . . , . ) i, . , , . ,\ i ...... \ , rn,_..1 . Mi-I / 1 i ..., 0 , I / R ,- .. i , (s) 1 1 6 9, . , . - ..._. .... .. . - i 1 1 . ••. o " i ' s b (J) ,' , , .. o-u, (7) 1 / ' -ec • . T--- '----— - I- 1-- -, i ,, : • . ,-- -Erie Avenue f -- 1 - \----- ---_. -- -- -- I '‘. .. , g E2 (S) a I I i 4.2 ! tri ii ! a i 7:I g• 1i 4 c-; .--q9i _ ,_ i ,. .r'."'„ Storm Arairpq Ted & Kathy deltricey W 7— - LOTUS GLEN I f-•••;.••••;:z....,-.,:z.7.-.....-.... I .--_ .... W estwood I"--- 1,,If ...; ' :.7. . . t CITY Q F CHANHASSEN \� p / 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 �f (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Bob Generous, Senior Planner DATE: January 4, 1996 SUBJ: Buffer Yard Ordinance BACKGROUND In June of 1995, the proposed buffer yard ordinance was reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. In July, 1995, the City Council reviewed the ordinance and tabled the item to permit staff and the local development community to address concerns expressed regarding the ordinance. In the interim, staff has met several times with representatives from the Twin Cities Builders Association to revise the ordinance to address specific areas of contention. The major areas of change between the revised ordinance and the ordinance originally reviewed by the Planning Commission are the potential for providing some of the buffer yard landscaping within city right-of-ways on sites with limited area(section (f) (1)); elimination of the four highest buffering categories (E - H) which included excessive plantings and berms and solid wall combinations (table); and the addition of exemptions for and consideration of maintaining significant natural features to meet the buffer yard requirements(section(f) (3)). Due to the significant chances in the ordinance, staff believes that the Planning Commission should review the ordinance. ANALYSIS In developing the ordinance, staffs objective was to create an ordinance that conformed to the following goals: 1. Buffer yard standards should be calculated to ensure that they do, in fact, function to buffer. Planning Commission January 4, 1996 Page 2 2. The buffer yard standards should provide aesthetic as well as functional planting requirements for sites and buildings. These plantings should not only provide screening or transition between adjacent uses, but they should also be designed to add color, natural growth, a sense of identity, as well as an enhancement to the natural environment. 3. Standards should be understandable, reasonable, and easily implemental. 4. Buffer yard standards should compliment preservation/forestation and parking lot screening requirements. Emphasis shall be given to the protection and enhancement of natural features, rather than replacement. 5. Buffering should be provided between different intensities and densities of uses. 6. Standards should be comprehensive covering all sorts of development. 7. The ordinance shall provide minimum standards to assure that a baseline level of quality is achieved. 8. The ordinance should not unduly limit design flexibility and should allow a good designer to reflect the demands of the site and the setting in which it is placed. CURRENT ORDINANCE Section 18-61 (a) (5) Landscaped buffers around the exterior of the subdivision shall be required by the city when the plat is contiguous with collector or arterial streets as defined by the comprehensive plan and where the plat is adjacent to more intensive land uses. Required buffering shall consist of berms and landscape material consisting of a mix of trees and shrubs and/or tree preservation areas. Where appropriate, the city may require additional lot depth and area on lots containing the buffer so that it can be adequately accommodated and the home protected from impacts. Lot depths and areas may be increased by twenty-five (25) percent over zoning district standards. The landscape plan must be developed with the preliminary and final plat submittals for city approval. Appropriate financial guarantees acceptable to the city shall be required. Section 20-1176 (f) Buffering shall be provided between high intensity and low intensity uses and between a site and major streets and highways and in areas where buffering is required by the comprehensive plan. COMMENT: The city's current language requires buffering between different intensities of uses and a buffer requirement is part of the comprehensive plan. However, there is no defined Planning Commission January 4, 1996 Page 3 standards for either staff or developers to determine what constitutes appropriate and adequate buffering. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a motion recommending approval of the revised buffer yard ordinance shown as Attachment#1. ATTACHMENT 1. Buff Yard Ordinance Amendment. Revised 4/27/95 Revised 10/10/95 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE,THE ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL FOR TRANSITIONAL BUFFERING BETWEEN USES PURPOSE AND INTENT It is the policy of the city to provide buffering between different intensities and densities of land uses and between developments and public collector and arterial right-of-ways in order to provide screening from light, noise, and air pollution, to enhance public safety, and to improve the aesthetics and compatibility of uses. The intent of this ordinance is to provide minimum standards that are understandable, reasonable, and implementable. The standards must address a comprehensive range of development opportunities. Standards shall not unduly restrict design flexibility and they should permit a good designer to reflect the demands of the site in which it is placed. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. ARTICLE III. DESIGN STANDARDS, Section 18-61 (a) (5). Landscaping and tree preservation requirements is amended to read: (5) Landscaped buffers around the exterior of the subdivision and adjacent to collector and arterial streets shall be required by the city as specified in section 20-1176 (f). Section 2. ARTICLE XXV. LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL, DIVISION 1. GENERALLY, Section 20-1176. Intent, scope and compliance, subsection (b) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read: (b) Except for buffer yard requirements specified in section 20-1176 (f) below, this article does not apply to single-family detached re idence developments in Al, A2, RR, RSF, and R4 zoning districts which are regulated by landscaping requirements contained in the subdivision ordinance (chapter 18). Section 3. ARTICLE XXV. LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL, DIVISION 1. GENERALLY, Section 20-1176. Intent, scope and compliance, subsection (f) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read: (f) Buffering shall be provided between high intensity and low intensity uses,and between a site and major streets and highways, and in areas where buffering is required by the comprehensive plan. Such buffering shall be located within a required buffer yard. The buffer yard is a unit of yard together with the planting required thereon. The amount of land and the type and amount of planting specified for each buffer yard required by this ordinance are designed to ameliorate nuisances between adjacent land uses or between a land use and a public road. The planting units required of buffer yards have been calculated to ensure that they do, in fact, function to "buffer." (1) Buffer yards shall be located on the outer perimeter of a lot or parcel extending to the lot or parcel boundary line, except where easements, covenants or natural features may require the buffer yard to be set back from the property line. Subject to review and approval by the City Engineering Department,buffer yards that are compatible with the typical city boulevard planting requirements shall net may be located within any portion of an existing municpal public erate street or collector or arterial right-of-way. (2) To determine the buffer yard required between two adjacent parcels or between a parcel and a street, the following procedure shall be followed: a. Identify the proposed land use of the parcel and the land use of the adjacent parcel or functional classification of abutting right-of-way based on the City of Chanhassen Future Land Use Plan. b. Determine the buffer yard required on each boundary, or segment thereof, of the subject property by referring to the following Table of Buffer yard Requirements and illustrations which specify the buffer yard required between adjacent uses or streets. c. Buffer yard requirements are stated in terms of the width of the buffer yard and the number of plant units required per 100 linear feet of buffer yard. Each illustration depicts the minimum buffer yard required between two uses or adjacent to a collector or arterial right-of-way. The plant unit multiplier is a factor by which the basic number of plant materials required for a given buffer yard is determined in accordance with the selected width of the yard. d. Whenever a wall, fence, or berm is required within a buffer yard, these are shown as "structure required" in the buffer yard illustrations. The erection and maintenance of all required structures shall be the responsibility of the higher else buffer yard provider. 2 e. All buffer yards shall be maintained free from all forms of development or storage of equipment or materials. A ground cover of vegetative or organic material shall be provided. Buffer yards shall be maintained free from junk and debris. Dead or diseased vegetation shall be removed and replaced with healthy vegetation. The responsibility to maintain, remove or replace plant materials shall be that of the landowner on whose property the plant material needing maintenance or replacement is located. TABLE OF BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS r PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT LAND LU MD HD OFF MIX COM PUB ACT PASS OFF/ USE LD IND LL/LD non- B C C C D B B A D e MD non A B B C D B B A D e HD non A A B C D B B A D e OFF non B B A B B B B B B e MIX non C C B B B C C C B e COM non C D B B A C C C B e PUB non A A B C C A A A C e ACT non A B B B C A A A C e PASS non A A B B C A A A C e OFF/IND non C C B B B C B B B e ROAD B B B B B B B B B C - - •-: _ -- - • • - •: - - •- - - • --• . . The land use abbreviations are as follows: LL/LD- large lot and low density residential; MD - medium density residential; HD - high density residential; OFF - office; Mix -mixed use; 1 Corn - commercial; Pub -public/semi-public; Act - active park/open space; Pass -passive park/open space; Off/Ind- office/industrial; Road- collector and arterial road. (3) Plant material existing on a parcel which meets the buffer yard planting requirements of location, size and species may be counted toward the total buffer yard plant material requirement. Existing natural features such as slopes, woodlands or wetlands, or man-made features such as stormwater ponds which provide physical separation between developments or between a development and a collector and arterial road may satisfy the buffering function of the required buffer yard. The plant unit multiplier for the required plantings shall be reduced proportionally to the increase in the buffer yard width incorporating said features. (4) Buffer yards may be used for passive recreation and they may contain a trail provided that no plant material is eliminated, the total width of the buffer yard is maintained, and all other regulations of this ordinance are met. Utility easements may be included within buffer yards provided that the utility requirements and buffer yard requirements are compatible and canopy trees are not planted within said easement. (5) Where front, side and rear yards are required by this ordinance, buffer yards may be established within such required yards. (6) Canopy trees are defined as those trees specified as primary or secondary deciduous trees in the city's subdivision ordinance. (7) Understory trees are defined as those trees specified as ornamental or conifer trees in the city's subdivision ordinance. (8) In instances in which the city deems it necessary to provide year round screening, the city may designate that all planting be of conifers. Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1996, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. Don Ashworth, City Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on 4 BUFFERYARD A REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/I00' • • I Canopy Trees mit 2 Understory Trees 0 3 Shrubs d Evergreen Trees/ g Conifers • Plot Unit • 100 Multiplier .4 25.1 0 .6 20 0„?.. .8 151 I 1 .0 101 d r • • BUFFERYARD B REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/I00' 2 Canopy Trees .E 4 Understory Trees 0 6 Shrubs a Evergreen Trees/ a Conifers Plant Unit 100' Multiplier 1 •4 30' -�- d cz:D • .6 25' VV. f � .8 . 20'I A f, IX de40 • a,? 1 .0 = 15bt=b0� .-may9D6 kip BUFFERYRD C REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/100' 3 Ccnopy Trees � 6 Understory Trees 0 9 ShrL s d Evergreen Trees/ Ci) Conifers P1cnt Unit Multiplier 100' S rn;ctLre Rezzed . 6 30' n d0 . 4 0 0 0 = alr • • .8 25' !`d �°� • 0 I•O ..,p70 ad' OrPlq. ate _: i Lower ImensIty Use 4 rte—r�r�� NI, 1 H194er Irnens:ty Use • • • BUFFERYARD D REQUIRED PLANT UNITS/I00' 5 Ccnopy Treesfit- 10 Understory Trees • , 15 Shrubs Evergreen Trees/ a Conifers Plat Unit 100' Strvctire Multiplier Requred .6 30' Vit. '1)0650 gig Cr—b d ) = 0 .8 � . �4,►,, • a 25' J-�►? %t'. 1.0 20' ariziff % =�- i+W i tr• '��. Akft I � IS 111 ^��oR, „ita .9 'tez..41. F2 A Lower Intensity Use .8 T -#..... A W AY y HIgner Intensity Use • • FENCES TYPICAL MINIMUM SYMBOL HEIGHT MATERIAL OPACITY • F1 . 44', - - 25% r• •Wood Roil I A nnn A nn ,\^nnnn nnnnn • • Wood Picket • F3 6' 95% F4 8' , 1, Wood Stockade 5N -61 1111111111•111111111=11111111111E11 • 95%L./.. 1111111111111®1MIEN1®11111 F �6 . 8 IM�iIM��1• • MosQt�cy:WoH(Required. ,,, (Poured C crrE^Cement Block. Brick, etc.) • CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 3, 1996 Vice Chairman Farmakes called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Ladd Conrad, Bob Skubic, Jeff Farmakes and Don Mehl MEMBERS ABSENT: Nancy Mancino and Mike Meyer STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner II; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II; John Rask, Planner I, Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and Jill Sinclair, Forestry Intern OLD BUSINESS: JOHN KNOBLAUCH FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF 8.35 ACRES INTO 12 LOTS, ONE OUTLOT AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT-OF-WAY ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; A VARIANCE FOR STREET GRADE OF 10% AND A VARIANCE TO WETLAND SETBACK OF 20 FEET FOR LOTS 11 AND 12; PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YOSEMITE AT THE CHANHASSEN SHOREWOOD CITY LIMITS. THE PROJECT IS KNOWN AS KNOB HILL. Public Present: Name Address Jim Emmer 6321 Yosemite Avenue Charles Pickard 1215 Lilac Lane Marc & Linda Simcox 21600 Lilac Lane Randy & Diane Schwanz 1377 Ithilien Mike Preble 1352 Ithilien John C. Knoblauch 16921 Weston Bay Road, Eden Prairie Joe Knoblauch 13017 Maywood Lane, Minnetonka Bob Hanson 1344 Ithilien Joey Johnson 1275 Lilac Lane Jane & Eric Danser 21640 Lilac Lane Tom & Jennifer Wilder 21740 Lilac Lane Martha & Walter T. Cleveland 6185 Apple Road Jim Donovan 1375 Lilac Lane Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Farmakes: Do the commissioners have any questions? Is the applicant here? Would you like to come forward? Would you like to come forward and make any comments? John Knoblauch: I didn't have any comments... Farmakes: Okay. Does anyone want to make a motion? Conrad: To open the hearing? Is it a public hearing? Aanenson: It was a public hearing last time. It was continued based on the fact that we were at the Rec Center and we had to be out of the building. So if you so choose to take comments, certainly that's an option. Farmakes: Does anybody wish to make any comments that's here? Eric Danser: My name is Eric Danser and I live on Lilac Lane. My wife Jane is also here and we both feel the same way about this project. We've lived in our house about 18 years now and the reason we moved into this house is because Lilac Lane is a dead end street. We have two young children and we're concerned that if this road is tapped into the Donovan property to service it, there's no doubt in our mind that at some point it's going to be connected to Lilac Lane and then Lilac Lane will be a thru street and it will pretty much nullify every reason we moved into the neighborhood in the first place. And I know I speak for quite a few neighbors along Lilac Lane and in the Ithilien development as well. I think we're all going to be affected and none of us really wants to see this road go in to make it possible to connect it. Even though, I don't know his name but the gentleman that was speaking earlier said that it could be a cul-de-sac in the Donovan property if it should ever be subdivided. I have a gut feeling that there will be no such thing as a turn around in there or a cul-de-sac...connected to Lilac Lane and I, for one, do not want to see this happen and I would appreciate it is you'd consider this project through the eyes of the neighbors...so you can see what situation we're dealing with and not see it as...definitely subdivided at some future point. Right now Mr. Donovan has a beautiful home and pond on his property. It's all, it's basically an estate and we can't figure out how you can even consider that it would ever be developed into 15 homes. I don't know how many of you have seen his property and the way it's laid out but it's pretty impossible to turn that property into a track home development as you suggest it might be. So all I'm asking is that you see it from our point of view and for what it's worth, that's our, my opinion. My wife's opinion and also I spoke with my neighbor next door tonight, and she's not able to attend the meeting and she feels the same way we do so, do you need to know her name for the record? Farmakes: Sure. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Eric Danser: Her name is Stokes, S-t-o-k-e-s. And her name is Linda and her husband's name is Larry. Thank you very much. Farmakes: Thank you. Any further comments? State your name and address please. Jim Donovan: My name is Jim Donovan. I live at 1375 Lilac Lane and would you put up that. Since the meeting in December, my property is the property that is being discussed here for a possible, potential future road. Since the meeting in December...I have taken it upon myself to have two very reputable real estate companies appraise my property on the present basis and on the basis of what the Planning Commission is wanting versus what the developer has planned. I also had a certified appraisal firm come and do an appraisal of my property on the basis of what it was now and what it would potentially be. They all, the consensus of everything was that the loss in value of my property really, would you please put up that other one like I asked. So the road abutting into my property there, and a potential service road running from east to west along the northern boundary of my property and the southern boundary of the now proposed Knob Hill development there, the loss to my property in value would be inbetween 15% to 18% on a present day basis. ...it would substantially reduce any potential sale of my property inasmuch as lessening the number of people and the price that people that might be interested in buying my property in the future, except for developers who would in turn know that they were the only group that would potentially be able to do something with this property versus an individual like myself who has lived there and built it into what it is now. Another person buying my property would not want to buy it with a potential for an abutting road to the property plus a potential road going through part of the property over my existing driveway right now and connecting up to Lilac Lane. Across the service road runs right next to my property so it would substantially reduce the value of my property. I have talked to two legal opinions...and they said that I would have a good case, they thought that there would be substantial evidence available that I would have a good case to press my feelings on it. The idea that the city would bring a road up to the property and potentially at a future time when I passed away or something happens to the property, run a road through it would destroy the beauty of that piece of property. There is a lake, a pond right where that word is right there. There's a driveway that comes right up along the lot line there leading up to my house. The driveway is approximately 1,000 feet long. There is an underground sprinkler system. Underground electronic detection system in the ground there. All for the privacy of that property. In addition, on...I do have a 50 foot permanent road easement. This easement, the Planning Commission said was a private easement. I've had two legal opinions that it is not a private easement whatsoever. That could legally be used in the future. If and when it was needed. The easement extends right from the dead end of Lilac Lane from the eastern part of the line. 50 foot...In conclusion I'd like to say that none of the neighbors, nobody in our area would like to have any kind of a road coming up to the property...land that the developer developed with a cul-de-sac in the middle of the property. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 With the access road running in front of the houses that would border on my north border and his southern border. This is what the neighborhood would want and we would hope that you would see to our wishes, thank you. Farmakes: Thank you. Before we proceed, would you like to respond to the issue of public or private easement, Dave? Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairperson. As I mentioned at the last Planning Commission meeting, the easement documents supplied to the city was an exclusive private road easement from Donovan's to another individual, or vica versa for their sole use. It's not for general public use. Solely for those two individuals. That right could be passed onto a future property owner if they sell the property but not the general public interest. Farmakes: Thank you. I'm sorry. Would you like to come forward and state your name and address please. Joey Johnson: Joey Johnson. I live at 1275 Lilac Lane... I'm here also because I am... My property was heavily impacted by the...Ithilien... It appears that should Lilac Lane become a thru street...expansion of the road on the Chanhassen side will heavily impact these residents of Ithilien Way and myself. May I also ask why...It seems to me that Apple Road, which is a thru street, provides more than adequate access to Route 17, Powers Boulevard, Lake Lucy Road...provides adequate ingress and egress to future residents... The suggestion and speculation that Mr. Donovan's property someday may develop is not an issue at this time and I was a realtor...and I know Mr. Donovan's property as well a neighbor and friend and the way it is set up, it's truly a private estate. A developer would have to... I employ you not to force Mr. Donovan to put in this connector road to further serve Lilac Lane which will impact the quality of life plus the safety... Farmakes: Thank you. Does anybody else wish to make a comment? Please come forward. Mike Preble: Can you turn the overhead back on? Hi. My name's Mike Preble. I live at 1352 Ithilien. I live right there. The northern part of my property borders on...western part of my property borders on Donovan's property and I calculated approximately 40-45% of my property would be taken if Lilac were improved to a standard city street as Mr. Hempel suggested for an appropriate width and then the turn there to go up to the Donovan property. My house sits fairly close to the Donovan side and the thru street that apparently the part of the Planning Commission is wishing to propose would put a corner of my...approximately 17 to 20 feet away from this street and with that being a, I would guess it being a stop...turn for the properties going down... I'm concerned about traffic...air pollution. Air movement basically through the northwest and across my property. I am very much in favor of Mr. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Knoblauch...property as he has proposed with a cul-de-sac coming onto his property from Yosemite. I'm also in favor of Mr. Donovan being able to keep his property as it is without trying to make him look at developing it because of what the streets...change his property character. So I would appreciate the Planning Commission approves Knoblauch's plan. Thank you. Farmakes: Thank you. Any other comments? Does anyone want to make a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Peterson seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Farmakes: Comments. Ladd. Conrad: Boy, I think the staff recommendation to us is probably what we always do in Chanhassen in terms of development. Give future possibilities to access to sites that right now claim they don't want to develop but usually in Chanhassen they do. And what we find is when we don't have the foresight and we say well that person's never going to develop, there are very few that, and I've been here for quite a few years. Most land in Chanhassen does develop. The money is there. The potential for subdivision is there and when somebody says I won't, in a few years they do. And that's kind of too bad because my preference would not be to have it develop. My preference would be to keep things as pristine and as they were. But practicality is, that just doesn't happen in Chanhassen. So I respect what the neighbors are saying. If I were them, I'd be here asking the same thing. And Jeff, to be real honest I wasn't sure, I think staffs recommendation is appropriate to give the flexibility for that street expansion. That's what we do and I just can't recall any cases where we go against that, unless it's really harmful to the environment. Unless there's a really significant problem so, but I did hear some comments from property owners, owner, that said maybe were this road would go in is not in the right place in terms of how it would impact his property. So that concerns me a little bit. My opinion would be therefore, I think staff has given us probably the right direction. I'm not real wild about the plat that I've seen before us from the developer. It's sort of clunky. It's got a lot of variances and we typically try not to allow variances in Chanhassen. There are rules and sometimes when you go beyond those rules and you say there's extenuating circumstances, I don't see that here. I just don't see the extenuating circumstances for the variances. It's a lot of land. It can be developed properly. But I guess I'm not sure that I have Jeff the direction to go in tonight because I did hear a few concerns about where that alignment would be. The road alignment if we did it. So bottom line for me would be, I'd like to give the potential for a cul-de-sac that would probably give the land to the east access, if that person decided to subdivide at 5 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 some point in time. I don't want to force that. That's his decision but I think we'd probably remiss in not allowing for that alternative in the future if he decides to sell his property. Farmakes: The issue of access, you're talking about cul-de-sac situations? The issue of variance, I think we got a 10% street grade variance request. You don't think that there's a case for that. Craig? Peterson: Couple questions of staff first. Have we ever done anything in the past with the situation with the Donovan property as far as having covenants between the city and the landowner not developing or sell or how do you...sale of potential properties...Is that possible? Aanenson: I don't believe so. You're saying on an adjacent property that they couldn't develop? No. No. Peterson: Could it be granted to the city in some form or fashion? Aanenson: No. That's the $64,000.00 question. That's the hard job that we're struggling with is to predict the future and we talked about as much options. We're concerned with the gentleman that lives on the corner of Ithilien and the right-of-way. Mr. Donovan says that there's a road access there. We'd be concerned about the impact to that neighborhood. If they believe that that's the access to serve that property, that would concern us. That's why we've taken the position that we're trying to provide the most flexibility. We're certainly not advocating that you develop at this time. We try to provide the most flexibility in the future that there are options instead of saying this is the only option. That may not be the one that they want, that's their first choice either. So nobody's trying to force development. We're just providing options. Try to look at the future and that sort of thing and no, we cannot say he can't develop. Who's to say what's going to happen in the future financially or whatever. Conrad: It's illegal? Aanenson: Yes. Peterson: As far as easements...land to the city. Aanenson: You're just talking strictly now about the easement? No. As Dave had indicated, you have to have a public street if you're serving more than two properties and we believe that that is just for one driveway. Beyond that you'd have to have a public street and that's what we're saying. Actually that easement goes over the corner of that property there on Ithilien. That lot and we would be concerned that it be that close to that's gentleman's home. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 We certainly wouldn't want a public street right there. So that's why we're looking at some other options of how that would be serviced. Peterson: Well, with that in mind, my thoughts clearly parallel Ladd's in that, I certainly wouldn't want to force development on anyone but I think we do have to...and I would...favor of what the staff is recommending along with denial of the street variance. Farmakes: Bob. Skubic: I also have a couple questions of staff. Could you point out the easterly 30 feet of the northerly 160 feet that you are proposing for the street right-of-way. Generous: That would be to provide 30 feet along the corner of...property. Skubic: Okay, but under 60 feet wouldn't get you anywhere near the proposed road coming off the Knoblauch property, is that correct? Generous: Correct. Skubic: Would the access, the road to the Knoblauch property, would that need to be developed? Could we just have an easement or it could be used for future development? Hempel: Maybe I can address that one a little bit. It's not that uncommon that the road would fall short of the property line, say 10-15-20 feet. To give some buffer to that adjacent property owner so there would leaving some vegetation. Something like that... When the road is extended in the future, that property owner that develops is responsible for the cost of extending the road which could add up...$150.00 a linear foot. Plus utilities. But that would be the developer of the Donovan property as far as... Skubic: So it is possible where they're having the road run close to the Donovan property, to have an easement say between Lots 5 and 6? Aanenson: Right, they wouldn't have to... Hempel: The road right-of-way would be dedicated with the plat. The road be help back say 15-20 feet from the edge of the property. Temporary cul-de-sac. Skubic: I also share the comments on Ladd and Craig regarding the variance for the grading. I know staff has recommended some alternatives and I would like to see something some with 7 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 that and I would be in favor of tabling this until that can be worked or denying their request as it's written. Farmakes: Okay, thank you. Don. Mehl: I just have a couple of notes here...substantial property value...Some discussion regarding traffic...versus the cul-de-sac. I guess I can speak for my own experience. I live on a cul-de-sac and I've lived on a thru street as well. We get an awful lot of traffic down our street, even though it's a cul-de-sac. A lot more than just the residents who live down there. I don't know what they're doing down there. They're either just curious or they're quackers or they're looking for trouble or something. They come down there of course and then they have to turn around and go back so the people who live up 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 houses, get to see that car go by twice so...cul-de-sac forces people to turn around and cars go back...versus a thru way where they can continue on. I'm in favor of voting for denial of...I would agree with... Farmakes: Thank you. My comments on this are, I would like to see something worked out to the access and egress of these properties. It disturbs me when we get into this situation where there isn't really a solution. The city to run efficiently has to have an infrastructure. It can't be a city of dead end streets. But we have people that move here and they want dead end streets. They want cul-de-sacs because, a couple of reasons. One is the perception of why they move out to the, what they perceive as the country. And builders of course like to build cul-de-sacs because they can charge more for it. On the other hand you have services that are provided by the city and for other infrastructure services, delivering mail, emergency services, picking up kids and dropping them off, school buses and so on. Obviously if you have a city of dead end streets, it makes it difficult to efficiently egress areas of the city. And Ladd was talking about what we've done in the past. We've tried to maintain a direction here in looking at these issues. The problem that I have with this, that often we have old Chanhassen bumping up against new Chanhassen where we're looking at development. And you have a situation where we have the criteria for a warehouse type of development and it butts up against what I would define as more of a large lot type of situation. The problem also that we have as planners is that often we see in front of us situations that occurred 30-40 years ago where you're seeing old Chanhassen butting up against new Chanhassen but the problem of course is now with this development that was 30-40 years ago, it doesn't fit now. We can't access a particular piece of property or we can't make the new development fit with the old development. So I'm, there isn't a real ready solution for this kind of thing and I would like to see something worked out. Normally how we attack this sometimes is having some leniency in cul-de-sac situation where we try to avoid long cul-de-sacs but the issue about a cul-de-sac in the future, egress into the other property, it's not my intent nor do I think is it the intent of the city to try and penalize property owners or people who have been 8 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 here. I'm pretty familiar with that particular part of Chanhassen and as it stands right now, it's a beautiful piece of property. I'm familiar with the streets that are there now and a very low type of travel. But we also have to look at the future here so I'm, I'd entertain a motion here, the issue of trying to work out some of these things. Does somebody want to make a motion? Conrad: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the 10% street grade variance request. Farmakes: Is there a second? Mehl: Second. Conrad moved, Mehl seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial for the 10 percent street grade variance request. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Farmakes: Does somebody want to make a motion in regards to the remaining of the staff recommendation? Conrad: Yeah staff has, for those of you who are here. Staff really gives us a lot of information and you're probably not looking at what we have but basically, and for sure you're not looking at what we're looking at. And this is, because there's so many points on, and I think what we want to do is table this and see what the developer can do. Kate, there are 25 points here. 29 points, and I guess that's not necessarily how I want to table it. Those are things the developer should look at but to be very honest and candid, I haven't assessed each one of those 29 points. It's real important to me that we not force the property to the east to develop. It's real clear. I don't want to do that. But it's real clear that if they do, that we have the road structure capable of servicing it. That's real clear in my mind. There's just no doubt. That may concern some of you here but that's what you've got to do if you run a city the size of, if you run a city. But anyway, my point to tabling would be, for the developer to come back and solve some of these problems. That's specifically the 10% street grade but Kate, is there a reason the 29 points are in the tabling motion? Usually when we table we say, hey we table it. Come back and fix this. But these are not necessarily, is this your report Bob? Generous: Yes it is. We put it in in case you wanted to approve it and then you could take out. The real condition was realigning the roadway and changing the grading plan so that you would see an accurate depiction of that alteration. If you didn't go along with that issue and you went with their plan, then you could just drop that one. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Conrad: Okay, I hear you. Okay. So if I made a motion, excuse me for chit chatting here but if I made a motion just to table, what kind of direction, without the points, which I don't want to have in there, do we have enough direction based on what we said? Aanenson: In summary, the two points are street grades and future access. Trying to resolve that and I think that's the direction you give us, or the applicant. Conrad: Okay, then I'd recommend, I'd make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend tabling the preliminary plat for Subdivision #95-20 for the 12 lots and whatever so that staff and the developer can come back and resolve the street grade issue as well as the future access issue to the property to the east. Farmakes: Motion's been made. Is there a second? Peterson: Second. Conrad moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission table the preliminary plat for Subdivision #95-20 so that staff and the applicant can resolve the street grade and future access to the property to the east issues. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR OAK PONDS/OAK HILL SITE PLAN/DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT LOCATED BETWEEN POWERS AND KERBER BOULEVARD, JUST NORTH OF WEST 78Th STREET. Public Present: Name Address Drew Clausen 7717 Nicholas Way Dean Johnson 8984 Zachary Lane Jill Sinclair presented a slide presentation and the staff report on this item. Farmakes: Did we ever get an answer in regards to the public safety issue? Sinclair: Yeah. I talked to Bob Zydowsky, the public safety officer, and additionally to Steve Kirchman in the building, and there are no rules or regulations pertaining to safety treatments of walls. It doesn't matter how high the wall is. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Farmakes: But do we take a position of common sense. Obviously if we create a 30 or 40 foot wall with no barrier to it in a residential area, common sense would tell us that that might be a danger. Sinclair: Sure, although their point was if it's on private property, it is their responsibility and it would be the applicant's responsibility to use common sense to put a wall on his property. Farmakes: So as in the report, it's a fielder's choice situation? Sinclair: Basically. Farmakes: That might be grounds for something future for us to look at. It's a little concerning. This is a continuation of a public hearing. If the applicant wants to make a statement, please feel free. It's a continuation and we've already done it once so if you could keep it as brief as you can so we can continue on to the other items. Dean Johnson: My name is Dean Johnson. I'm the builder and developer of the Oak Ponds project. I talked before you approximately 2-3 weeks ago... At that time they asked us to, the commissioners asked us to do a couple renderings to give you an idea of what the wall would look like and possibly change... There is a bit of difference between what you saw on the slide and what's being done on the drawing there. The drawing is a little bit incorrect. I don't think that really impacts as much out on the front. The nose of the wall here, the curve is actually out in front of where the wall would be 4 to 5 feet. But as you go along Nicholas Way here, the wall, in order to not or to take the minimum amount of...would have to be tight to the curb so one difference that I noticed in the photos that were up, were in fact all of these walls were set back from the trees...change grade going up from it. There'd be plantings in front which you're going to be able to take away some of the impact of this tall wall, like... Here we end up with this situation of not trying to take...end up building this wall just flat up against the curb. It's going to be straight and then we're going to be going straight up...so in a Keystone wall here...10 foot high wall which I think we'd pretty much agree that that's the height that is needed. You would have...layers of Keystone. The alternative is to take and round the hill down. I showed layouts to the artist...artist that actually lives in Chanhassen and this is kind of what he came up with. He didn't place the trees per anything. He just knew that we had to do at least caliper inch replacement so provided that it was 29 inches, he drew in what he felt was 4 to 6 inch trees on top of this... So that's the difference between this wall here and the trees. Also too the wall is done...Maybe not quite coming up Santa Vera where Jill's picture showed where...sidewalk along the south side of Santa Vera... I guess I do want to comment as the landowner on it, I do want to comment that even if I'm the landowner on this site...I really want to make sure that whatever I do on this site, that I... I think that's all I have to say. Any questions? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Farmakes: Any questions? Okay, thank you. Since this is a continuation of a public hearing, are there any other people wishing to make comments in regards to this issue? Come forward and state your name and address. Drew Clausen: Good evening. Drew Clausen, 7717 Nicholas Way. It is a continuation. I will be brief. I'm President of the Oak Hills Townhouse Association. As a matter of fact, I don't know how easily it would be to take that last slide back up there. There you go. That's practically the view out from my deck so not only am I president, I'm also affected by the view. There was another photo that showed the tree in total, and I just want to speak to a couple of key points. There you go, even though it's fuzzy you can see the right hand side, the lower main branch going out to the east. Last year that main branch had no leaves on it. One of the reasons why I noticed it is that I have a 10 year old son. Who here has ever been 10 years old? I think all of us. Dangling from that branch playing Tarzan. The reason that Dean is here today is basically because of the people, the residents. I think he was prepared to build whatever kind of wall was mandated here about a year ago and we asked him not to because we took a vote as an association, and by a vote of 2/3, of roughly 3 to 1, we decided we didn't want a wall. A lot of people have children. Most of us moved in this past summer and that whole island there was filled with children. It's a great place to play but we also have to make it safe. Jeff, you spoke the most brilliant thing I've heard all night. Even though there are no city ordinances, no safety regulations, no state laws, let's talk about common sense. Again, how many people have been 10 years old? This is an open invitation to climb and everything else and somebody's going to get hurt. There isn't any cushion below There's no, there would be practically no slope. Somebody here also mentioned on a previous issue we had to look 30-40 years out. I don't know how much an extra 5 foot cut would cause that tree to suffer but somebody 20 or 30 years from now is going to look around and have to take that tree down and say you know, who did this? And I think it would be just as beautiful, just as ecologically sound, environmentally sound if we took down the tree, sloped the hill down, replaced it with the appropriate trees that 20 or 30 years from now will be just as beautiful, if not more beautiful than the existing tree. So I think it's a safety issue. The residents there are really would like the issue resolved and I think that Dean is working cooperatively with the city and we'll hope for a resolution to the issue. Thank you. Farmakes: Thank you. Any other comments? Seeing none, I'd entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Peterson moved, Conrad seconded to close the public healing. The public healing was closed. Farmakes: Comments. Don? 12 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Mehl: Yeah, I've got some comments. We've got a tree here that's probably older than the Gettysburg Address. Been around a long time. If it's been, some things bother me too. This tree has been an important feature in the community in that it's, number one it's old. And number two, it's on probably one of the highest points in the county. But for whatever reason it's suddenly not, the tree is located where it was supposed to have been and the elevation heights are different than what the elevations were supposed to have been. So suddenly we're faced with you know, what are we going to do with this thing. I went out there and I sat there and stared at it today and tried to envision that wall and I question whether this drawing is proportionally correct. My recollection of what it looks like is that wall would actually appear a lot higher than what's depicted on the drawing here. I believe at the last meeting somebody already mentioned that instead of fence up there we could put some shrubbery and on the surface I think sounds good but unless you make that stuff thick enough and prickly enough, you know kids are going to get into it. And that wall I know is going to be vertically 11 feet tall and sloped is probably about 13 or 14 feet of surface on it. And I agree that there's an unseen sign here that says, climb me. I've raised two kids and my son, he's busted two collar bones and broke a thumb and gotten two concussions because he's done things that he shouldn't have been doing you know. And I can see somebody climbing from the bottom up on this thing and it's a long ways down when you're skidding down on your face. And I've got a problem from a safety standpoint. On the other hand, I look at this drawing and I've got a problem with that too. That surface area I don't think is big enough to support all those trees that are shown. What happens when those trees fully mature, you know. They can't be that close together. So I've got a suggestion I'd like to run by you. First of all I think from a safety standpoint, I think we have to remove the tree. I really do. What I would suggest is that we would build a Keystone wall 3 or 4 feet high, at it's highest point, which would be in the southwest corner here because I think the Keystone wall looks kind of neat. And if we were to continue that around it would of course gradually decrease in height because the, around to the north and east you've got an increasing street grade elevation. And then shave off the top of that hill with some low creeping junipers around the upper edge. Back those up with some 3 to 4 feet tall ornamental shrubs and then junipers and perhaps in the center of it with 2 or 3 ornamental trees like an elm or an maple or something like that who would get nice fall colors and...foliage and fast growing. In doing all this you still have the wall, which I think kind of looks neat but if it were scaled way down like this, we're not going to have the safety problems and I agree, I don't know how much longer that tree would survive up there. Those are my thoughts. Farmakes: Alright. Bob. Skubic: I have a question of staff. Are we convinced that there is not sufficient room between the curb and the beginning of the cut to do any terracing to say break it at 5 feet at one elevation? 13 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Sinclair: Do you remember what the distance is between the curb and bank? Was it 8 feet? Hempel: That's correct. Skubic: Excuse me, did you say 8 feet? Sinclair: 8 feet, yeah. Skubic: And whatever wall we put up will require most of that for a pitch. Hempel: The Keystone wall design, for like a 10 foot high wall, would require 3 to 4 geogrids tied back into the earth 5 to 6 feet, at 3 to 4 different levels in the wall. So if you build it at the face of the curb you have 8 feet back to the existing bank so essentially you're not taking any more roots of the tree. If you do start back say 3 feet behind the curb, then you're right at that 5 foot zone. You may even have to encroach another foot into the existing bank. So maybe there may be some flexibility to leave a foot or two behind the curb before the wall starts. This street is a private street. The city doesn't maintain it. The homeowners association does. So from that standpoint I guess, we don't have to...snow storage standpoint... Skubic: My thoughts are to start it at the curb and build it up to 5 feet and then put a terrace on to say 3 feet back so you have two 5 foot sections there. Make it, improve the safety of the wall and perhaps it terraces also. Hempel: That may be a possibility. I'd have to consult a designer of a Keystone wall to see if that was feasible. Skubic: Thank you. It's unfortunate it didn't turn out as planned that the cut is so close to the curb and that the cut is 10 feet high. It doesn't appear to be any obvious, there doesn't seem to be a good way of fixing it at this point without creating a hazard or further endangering the tree. And I appreciate the photographs you brought in Jill. That helps considerably to visualize this better. The photographs show some, I think some real good looking walls. However those walls are in most cases several hundred feel long and quite a bit, not as tall as this one. I think the aspect ratio of this one is going to make for a seemingly very tall wall so I don't think appearances are going to be very sightly either. So unless this can be terraced to decrease a safety hazard, I guess I would vote for removing the tree and I think Don had an excellent idea there. How to set... Farmakes: Thank you. Craig. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Peterson: One more question for Jill. If we were to put a Keystone wall in as depicted here, if you had to make an educated guess as to how much that would lower the probability of a tree lasting or...can you tell me that percentage point? Sinclair: If you started the Keystone wall at the curb and went up, what kind of step were you looking at from bottom to top? Hempel: Well it's an 8 foot set back from the curb 10 foot so it's, 1 to 1 approximately. Sinclair: It would affect it very low percentage because you wouldn't end up cutting back any further than it is and you know, the foot or two that we may have to go in, it's already been exposed to dry soil and stuff so. Peterson: It could enhance it because we build around it and keep the water back. Sinclair: Yeah, if you started at the curb... Peterson: Well, I struggled with this one too. I went out there and stared it at for a while myself. And I'm not comfortable with the wall being as it is from a safety perspective, and I think from an aesthetic perspective it just doesn't do it for me either. So I was hoping Jill would say that it wouldn't lower the probability of the tree...she didn't do that so it makes my decision harder but I think it still would offer the opinion that we would remove the tree and do some type of replanting... Farmakes: Okay, thank you. Ladd. Conrad: I'm not going to vote on this Mr. Chairman but I'd just ask the Planning Commissioners, you know my perspective on this, it's too bad we've got the situation but the solution is not very attractive. In fact it's a strange solution. Plus it creates some other problems so I guess I'd just request that you spend your time thinking about the right fix in terms of how it looks. In terms of the size trees, and I'm not sure this, you can do that but I don't think the developer has presented exactly what I'd like to see there. I think it's good for comparisons but it's not what I'd like to see so I think this is a prominent feature of the plat, or the project. It's not going to be there so I think you should take the opportunity to make it a real cornerstone of the project. Farmakes: So you feel that the option that city staff was suggesting is not adequate? Conrad: The retaining wall in any form, and I like what Jill did but it looks ridiculous. It's way out of, it's a monument to a tree that's just real strange, you know. It's too bad it's been 15 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 there for a year and a half. When you drive through the property, it's real bad looking. Let's fix it but putting a wall there Jeff, I don't care if it's boulders or something we all like, it's not going to fix the visual. It's just not going to do it. Farmakes: I was referring to the, under the recommendation or the alternative if we remove the tree. Conrad: Yeah, I think it was on a caliper basis but again, I'd look for some, I don't know. I guess I'd look for some green, something green there year round. I'm just not sure how it should be but I'm not real sure that in the staff report that's what I wanted. I guess I'd like to see at least 8 big trees there. Farmakes: Putting in larger trees to replace it? Conrad: Yeah, but I guess again I'm not sure what I'm talking about and again, I'm not going to vote on this one so you know, but I guess I'd prefer to spend some time, or direct staff to make sure that what we get is something that's really attractive. Farmakes: The reason I'm trying to pin you down is that, we all seem to have a different opinion here so far. Are you done? I'll make my comments on this. I have no argument with what was just said. It seems the alternative would be, it almost looks like a monument to a tree. If there were other trees or the area was larger, then I think the solution would be maybe more obvious. Apparently tonight we're not going to have any obvious solutions to anything. I'm concerned about the safety issue. I'll bring up the reason why. Normally we don't deal with safety issues or talk about that. We try to stay clear of that because nobody up here, at least that I know of, is a safety expert but I do know that the city, it's on private property. They comment they were saying, well it's on private property. The city makes safety requirements all the time on private property. If I build a deck out the back of my house, it's 30 inches off the ground, the city requires me to put a very specific type of railing on it. But the idea that if you inhabit this particular area, you might fall off or somebody that comes into your house might fall off that 30 inches. In some of these cases we're looking at areas... in a landscape area but they're in an added area and it, they're part of an engineering situation. It's not a natural event. And certainly if there are children playing up there and looking at boy, I'd be scared to death if my kid was hanging off one of those branches above that area. My daughter, when I got out of a parking lot over by the Vikings office, there was a Keystone wall, and it goes up about maybe 15 feet. She was just making about 12 when I turned around and noticed her stepping up on top to get up to the top and I have real concerns about what I see here. This maybe is pointing out something to us in regards to these walls that we should be a little bit more concerned about, in some cases, in the area what type of slopeage we're looking at or how we terrace them. I know on some issues we 16 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 have looked at that where we've terraced them but I thought maybe we'd have more to define that requirement on that and I see that we don't. I'm not sure what to proceed here. I guess my thoughts on here is that, I'm not sure that there's any solutions to save this tree. Or a logical solution. One of the commissioners feels that if you were to reconfigure, or look at reconfiguring. A few others feel that maybe there isn't a way to save this tree but anyway, we'll put that out I guess for a vote. Does somebody want to make a motion here? Peterson: I guess I would make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends the approval or request to remove a 29 inch oak from Oak Ponds subject to the conditions 1 through 5 with, how do we amend that? Subject to the condition that staff work with the applicant in providing a more aesthetic and safety minded resolution to what is currently being presented. Is that too vague for staff? Sinclair: Kind of. Farmakes: I don't know if it's appropriate for me to make a comment while you're making a motion but it seems to me we're looking at two things. Either we remove the tree or we don't remove the tree, and then one or the other, how do we deal with the issue of the landscaping. And I know that one was a part of your other motion and I'm not sure if the staff has a recommendation, if we want to modify that, then we should modify that recommendation. Peterson: I'll just leave the motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of removal of a 29 inch oak from Oak Ponds without conditions. And then add under the motion, as far as specifying, staff can work with the applicant to develop a new replacement plan for the tree. Essentially that may even be tabling it and bringing it back with another option but... Farmakes: I'm not sure without conditions that we're giving them any direction on what to do once the tree has been removed. We still have the abutment and, we could table it. That's another issue so I'm not sure if we'd be voting, cutting the tree down is only part of the issue. Peterson: I think the only concern I have with this is, outside the motion now, is the necessity of the conditions or that staff is recommending that the replacements be a specific type and 14.5 inches, and a 1.5 inch caliper minimum. I guess I would simply like to see a better alternative than what is being presented and whether that is, as one of the previous engineers mentioned, a lower retaining wall with more of an evergreen style on top so that it is, it does have a feel, it does have a presence within the area. Farmakes: So you'd like to see them review 2? Of the recommendation. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Peterson: Yes. That probably is the closest we can get tonight. Farmakes: 1, 3, 4 and 5 then as is? Peterson: Yes. With that I would approve the motion with the exception of number 2. Farmakes: And then that would be that the staff review that issue to look at alternatives for evergreens working with that, is that correct? Peterson: Yes. Farmakes: Okay. Motion's been made. Is there a second? Mehl: I'll second it. Peterson moved, Mehl seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to remove the 29 inch oak from Oak Ponds with the following conditions: 1. The applicant is to replace the required twenty-nine inches of plantings with species native to this area. A replacement planting plan must be submitted for approval. 2. Staff work with the applicant to get a mix of conifer and deciduous trees for the replacement plantings. 3. Spacing of all deciduous or evergreen plantings shall be a minimum of 25 feet. 4. Grading limits shall not encroach upon the drip lines of the surrounding trees. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the grading limits. Erosion control fence, Type I, shall be installed on the downstream side of the grading limits and maintained until the site is fully re-vegetated. 5. All disturbed areas shall be sodded. All voted in favor, except Skubic who opposed and Conrad who abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1 and 1 abstention. Farmakes: Would you like to make any comments? 18 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Skubic: Yeah, I just would feel that terracing it should be explored a little bit under the remote chance that we could come up with a plan here that preserves the tree and also provides for a safer environment. Farmakes: Alright, thank you. Drew Clausen: I know maybe I'm not supposed to say anything but what was just approved? Farmakes: What was just approved was that we made a recommendation to the City Council, based on the staff report. We have 3 to 1, with 1 abstention voted on the second issue of the recommendation that the Planning Commission recommend the approval for the request to remove the 29 inch oak. We modified 2 to, you'll have to check the exact Minutes. Off the top of my head explaining to you that the mix of plantings be modified than what is recommended here and that staff work that out to basically mix some evergreen situation with the deciduous trees. This issue will go before the City Council then with our recommendation and then they have the final decision. If you want to check with that, check with staff as to when that's going to City Council, we'll let you know. TED DELANCEY FOR A REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF 8.9 ACRES INTO 9 LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED AT 7505 FRONTIER TRAIL, LOTUS GLEN. Public Present: Name Address Andrew Hiscox 7500 Erie Avenue Ted & Kathy deLancey 7505 Frontier Trail Charles R. Stinson Minnetonka Dwight Jelle Eden Prairie Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Farmakes: Does anyone have any questions of staff? Peterson: How substantially would the houses have to be moved away from the bluff...? Generous: It was just a quarter of that one on Lot 4, is it? This lot right here, that was in the setback area so they couldn't...And otherwise, all the other building pads were outside of that side area. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Farmakes: Anyone have any further questions of staff? Alright, this is a continuation of a public hearing. Comments have already been made but we'll hear further comments if anyone wishes to make any. From the applicant. Ted deLancey: I'm Ted deLancey and we'd like to make some brief comments here if we may. In trying to prepare for tonight's presentation, we were here the first week in December and there are two members on the Planning Commission who were not here at that time so they were not able to hear what we had to say at that time. So I thought well this is no problem. They'll just review the notes. The Minutes and I have done that and all of the comments that were made by our team are not there because there was a mechanical failure so if you'll excuse me, the three that are here, I won't belabor it but I want to make a few quick comments if I may. First of all, what I want you to know is that we are not commercial developers. We are landowners just like yourselves. We want to stay here. We've been here. My parents bought this piece of property in 1939. I bought it from them. As I pointed out in the original meeting, my father was a great tree lover and he originally set the first dimensions of the property by I'll take that tree and that tree so we drew incorrect lines to get it. So our interest in the trees and our interest in the property goes back a long time. We, Kathy and myself, who is here, it is our intention to stay on this piece of property. Now Ladd Conrad said earlier, it seems that it all comes around sometime. People with land develop their property and there's a stimulus to do that. And our stimulus is that we have to do something in repair work for the property that we have and it could be substantial so I said, if we can trade the land for a new home with a, in a perfect world, zero increase in expenditures, that's what we would like to do. So that's what we're trying to do and I wanted you to know that we are going to stay here whether we get approval or not, we'll just leave it the way it is. Now I would like to, we've got part of the reason this piece of property is unique is the topography and the trees that are on it. It has been my feeling for a number of years, this is a piece of property that requires somebody who has a deep appreciation for the aesthetics of the property rather than just coming in and developing a piece of, a flat farm field. So what we have done is, we've looked around for years and we liked this particular architect but we're not choosing him to be involved with the land because of the homes we like so much as the fact that we were very impressed a few years ago when we saw a piece of property that he did and how he nestled and gently built the property right into the topography of the land. And right adjacent to it, at the same time where they came in and just clear cutted and brought a bulldozer and put up a very, very nice home, but certainly not the appreciation for the land. When we saw that we said, we've got to get in touch with this man and have him try and develop our property. So with that as a brief introduction, I'd like to turn the meeting over at this time to Chuck Stinson, who is the architect and have him carry the ball. And then also Dwight Jelle, who is a principle in Westwood, will follow up on technical questions and if I may, after they are through, I would like the opportunity to address you again for just a moment. Is that possible? 20 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Farmakes: That's fine. Ted deLancey: Thank you. Charles Stinson: Hello. My name is Charles Stinson. I'm an architect and...as a land planner. My office is in Deephaven. Just to kind of go back. As Ted had mentioned, we started working together, and some of you know that. I think it was 3 or 4 years ago, in working with the city along the way and we've had several meetings. Some very preliminary meetings some time ago. The unique thing about the project I get involved in a number of different projects in Minnesota and some occasionally out of state. And it is rare to have a project that it isn't, what do you do to get maximum density out of the project, and the only time I don't do that is when someone's, or when I have a chance not to do that, I'm not forced to it, it's when someone has a real identity to the project, that's going to stay there, which in this case the deLancey's do, if we can make it work out. But financially to do that, the plans that he had before that, with the density where I think they are trying to put 23 lots on there and Ted and Kathy didn't like that because of what it did to the property and the respect they had. So we took, we really took our time here and I don't know how many hikes going out there and coffee and donuts you know at the house and with realtors and with builders because it really, it has to work from a lot of different ways. It has to work financially because the other way was a no brainer. Getting the lots in... Doing it this way, it had to be a consistency of architecture. A clientele that's a small client base that kind of follows the work that I do with Streeter and Associates, but there had to be a continuity and they had to know that there's going to be control of all the neighborhood and that there's going to be a real consistency and respect for the nature and for the site. So after hiking it for a long, long time, and being that we had the meeting Frontier Trail at the bottom. Access at the top. And the topography, this being, if I stand away can everybody hear me? Is this being kind of a natural low area here. This being quite a bit higher on the top and as, you know we had roads going through here. For a long time we tried to get a road going through here and it was just so devastating because...created a catch area here for the retention area...and along the site can actually slope so as studying this, I started thinking of it not just from the engineering and how do you get the lots, etc, but from the point of view of the architecture so I created architectural small houses actually of different variations that I've done before just because I knew how they would work. Where the public areas were. Private areas in relationship to the garage. Living areas, kitchen and light and the views. Trying to create a, like every house was the complete house even whether there are any neighbors or not. When it was completely built and everybody showed a privacy. So entering the site was a sense of kind of a, not a monument but a change in the pattern of the pavement going across a couple small fins and stone to have a, to work with the architecture. It seemed, this is the site that Ted and Kathy live on now and they're connected to it so that's where their house would be. Then breaking off the higher lots, all houses going across here. This one sliding in the, kind 21 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 of the inbetween but having private areas. Looking out here and across the property and these being a high ground, there's existing fill that's been here for years. In coming up here allowed this house to look towards the pond, up into all the trees we're saving here. This one is a well series of drives, coming in and hooking here and to the back undeveloped area. And we looked at very seriously, from our last commission meeting, what it would be like coming in through the bottom. It could be the amount of trees we left and the fact that these homes then would be looking onto another driveway and reflection of the cars coming and going, and we looked seriously at the extra cost of doing a pre-cast garage so we could raise up the grade and we wouldn't have to manipulate the ground very much. We came back and feel ever stronger that this is what we like. I think it's great that we have a flexibility in case someone may feel different about it in the future but I think this is the most sensitive to the piece of property. Again, you know given the zone that we have with a bluff line here, which we do, we are respecting that and with everything said and done, the houses will just slide in...undisturbed. Up at the top piece of the property, we'd like to do some landscaping here. Leaving a natural buffer for the homes here and then into the last one, the sensitive one. When we did the studies and as we were involved in the earlier meetings with the city, each of our plans actually had the house in this location which to me was actually another 30 feet down the hill, which probably would be, excuse me. This is a little hard to see but this is a drawing that shows the, if I can get the orientation the same way. This is that same lot showing the property...back in here. There is a neighbor here with a house that's very close to that property line and there's a lot that's been approved that actually is probably about 15 feet farther down the bluff line than where we're proposing to do it here. Maybe off a little bit but that idea. The concern we have about moving it off, as part of it is the value of the property, it's a fine line to try to make this all fall off and these are the most valuable. The other thing is by moving the house, because of the shape back to that point, and if it would just go to the bluff line and not exceeding it but just using the setback area, we keep more of a distance away from this piece of property. We do it within architecture sites that I do all the time. And we've never had any erosion problem and actually instead of having the house sitting out kind of jammed in this triangle, closer to this, we're doing a house that's kind of sitting out in the middle of this area looking towards the woods instead of trying to do natural architecture where the architecture and the woods really integrate together. So it actually it will disappear from the neighbors and be a much more desirable piece of property. And I guess that's about it. If you have any questions about any of the land planning or locations. Conrad: I like what you said Charles but based on what you said, does that put you at odds with any of the recommendations in the staff report? Charles Stinson: The recommendation to turn down the variance. Where we see what's been determined as the bluff, we've moved it back to respect the actual bluff line. What we'd like to do is build that point of the architecture into the bluff setback area. That gets us beyond 22 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 the neighbor's houses, the lot lines, etc. And there's a ton of trees there and what we'd be adding in front of it and around it, at least there would be a transition of heights...new ones. Big ones... Peterson: If you moved it back to what the staff is recommending, do you have any sense of how far you'd be from that current house? Charles Stinson: Well, the amount that we have left over, and you can see it from this one, is a relatively small triangle. It would be forced to put it very close to that property line. I think our setback, we're only required 10 feet or something. And that house, I believe the neighbor's here, but do you know how far your house is from that property line? Andrew Hiscox: It depends on which part. Part of it's 20 feet, part of it's about, it comes in at an angle so it's hard to tell. Charles Stinson: The closest point it looks like about 7 to 10 feet. Andrew Hiscox: Yeah. Charles Stinson: So it's very close. And I think from both, it's a win/win for both parties to get the living spaces away from each other. In this case, you know to back in. And again we will still be farther up the hill than the house, than the lot that's just been approved this, I think this last year. Ted deLancey: If I may. Andrew has a piece of property right adjacent to the home which cleared Planning and Council in February of '94 and had an extension. The last extension was in August of '95 and at that time there was no bluff consideration. My understanding, if I may, there was a bluff ordinance but what I was told was, that the staff and city was not enforcing the bluff ordinance north of Highway 5 at that time. They are now enforcing the ordinance north of Highway 5. What we're asking for is simply to be able to place that house in exactly the same location that Andrew has his building pad that has not gone ahead as far as building the final plat is supposedly... Farmakes: Ted, if you have comments we need to have you come to the podium so that we can, we're recording these issues and it makes it much easier for us to make the Minutes if we follow that criteria. Ted deLancey: I'm sorry. Okay. I apologize. Farmakes: Continue if you have a comment. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Charles Stinson: No. Any more questions? Farmakes: Any comments from the commissioners? Peterson: One more question. One of the items we brought up last time was the buffering on the northerly edge there. Between the houses. The current houses and the new ones off the road. Has any discussions been made relative to that point? Charles Stinson: No. I think it was, the comment was brought up by staff and the Council last time that it's going to be obvious that whoever builds here is going to want to do something. I think it's a very difficult thing to try to say, do this type of...when they may want to do something else. I think...landscaping is a large project that doesn't get thrown out at the end. I think we can clearly say that something will be done and it will be substantial and that's all. Farmakes: Thank you. Charles Stinson: Thank you. Farmakes: Does the applicant have anything further to present? Ted deLancey: Yes. As I said I want to, and actually I apologize for making it so long but that was one of the comments that I wanted to make but the fact that we are asking to locate the home on that Lot 9 at the same level as the home which is 80 feet to the east of this which was approved, as I said, Andrews property was approved in August of last year. The property on the other side of us, which is right, where am I? Yeah, right here. The old Forcier property. If you will recall that property. That also was approved for final plat in August of '95 and there was no bluff situation taken into consideration there and the topography would indicate there's a bluff. I would also like to say, just for your information, in the many revisions we've had on this, between Lot 4 and 5, which is in question because of the bluff as Bob pointed out to you. We dropped a home in this area because of that consideration and of course as you know, those get to be a costly project. The home that Andrew has at 958, the instructions from the city, you people, was not to build below 958 and that's what we're asking for so we can move away from his. If I may, I'd like to just say one thing while I have the opportunity and I know this is going to sound like I'm trying to sell too hard. I'm asking Ladd Conrad to back me up. The only time I was ever, that I recall, in front of the Planning Commission, and I know Ladd's been on it as long as I've been here almost...quite a length of time. It's when I was representing the city when Kate was handling the lake access thing and I made the statement then, as I do now, and that is that I really want to express my appreciation and our appreciation, as well as I think the other 24 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 people's appreciation, for the time that you people spend which is not compensated and I really think that those of us who are member of the community owe you a big debt. Now I will say that even if you don't grant us the variance but that's what I...meeting some years ago. Okay, thank you. Farmakes: Thank you. Are there any members from the public who wish to come forward and make any comments on this? Andrew Hiscox: Sure. My name's Andrew Hiscox. I've been referenced here a couple times this evening as the sort of approved lot that's 80 feet away from where one of the houses is. As I said last time at the school building, I think this is a great plan. I think they've done an excellent job. They've obviously spent a lot of time trying to make it aesthetically pleasing... I applaud their efforts, as they could have done something quite a bit different and probably gotten it approved. That may not... I do however have an issue and that is the same one I referenced last time and that is, if you look at these houses, they all look really nice. They all fit in very well with the topography except for one and that's the one next to my house. If you look at all the other setbacks and where they are compared to the lot lines, they're all pretty far away. Look nice. There's lots of room except for right here and this corner, my house is literally right there. I mean we're 20 feet away. Or I should ask, how far do you think the house...? Charles Stinson: This corner probably would be 20 feet from the property line plus whatever distance your's is. That's just the corner. And the other way, the whole house would be 10 feet away. Andrew Hiscox: ...variance. Charles Stinson: But the other thing just, again this is Charles Stinson talking again. This is, originally we wanted the house, over the last few years to be down the hill another 30 feet. This is the biggest parcel that we have on the property with the tightest restrictions. So it is the largest piece of property. Andrew Hiscox: Okay, thanks. Can I get maybe staffs comments on this? How do you feel about it, and I guess I'm talking about...where you think that house should go because, and I have a personal interest here. I'm trying to figure out, can we make this happen so that I don't have to look at this house where I didn't have to look at it before and they don't have to look at me. And if it means giving them the variance they're asking for, I guess I'd say let's do that. I've got a vested interest, right? 25 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Aanenson: I'll try to separate my opinion from fact but when you build a house in this community it's pretty rare that you can build a house without looking at somebody else. I mean that's just the way it is. I think they've gone extra measures to try to prevent that but if the two property is zoned compatibility, technically they can be 10 feet along, as Mr. Stinson indicated, be 10 feet parallel. So we'd have 20 foot separation. That's standard throughout the city if you go through normal subdivisions. I think they've gone through, gone the extra effort to try to minimize the impact to you and to themselves too by angling the house. The concern that we would have, obviously is what that does to the slope setback. As Dave indicated, they're not in the slope itself but they're into the setback. Is it better to have the homes closer together? Again this is the largest lot. Or is it better to try to push it away from one property owner and into the slope protection area. That's a hard one to gauge. Obviously our preference was to try to keep it away. And certainly they want to minimize the impact because there's price and value associated with trying to minimize the impact to you and to everybody else. Just to clarify one thing. I know Bob wanted to clarify too what Mr. deLancey said. When we extend a plat, preliminary plat such as the Forcier, and your's included, any new conditions that, or any new ordinances that are passed, they are bound to. So even though those two plats were approved, when they were extended, there's a condition that says any new ordinance, that they would have to be in compliance with. So they do have the same conditions that this plat would have as far as the setback. That's something that the staff is bringing to the Planning Commission for consideration. What do you think is more important? Protection of the slope or the impact and maybe, you know again we're back to that square peg in a round hole. Maybe that style house doesn't necessarily work and as a representation, who's to say that someone buying that is going to do that exact house. And again unless you put a condition on there that says the setbacks are 10 feet. Okay, unless there's an agreement mutually acceptable that says we agree that we're going to put it 20 feet, if some homeowner comes in and that lot's approved and they want to put it 10 foot from the property line, there's nothing we can do to prevent it as long as they're not in the setback requirement. You would have to have mutually acceptable covenants or something that said we, under a covenant agreement, are agreeing to go beyond that If they come in for a building permit and they meet the underlying standards, we approve it. And that's when the problem comes in and you with expectations that this is what the house is going to look like. There's no guarantee that that's, whoever buys that lot is going to build that home. So I think you have to be aware of that. Andrew Hiscox: That's kind of interesting. You brought something up that I guess I'd like to clarify. It's a little bit off the subject. I'm approved...What I just heard you say was, I haven't gotten the final yet. I'm supposed to do it in February, and we might actually have to ask for another extension based on some legal issues. Am I understanding that I can't build it on...? 26 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Generous: Well we'd have to review it to determine that you meet the bluff ordinance, which is now in effect city wide. Andrew Hiscox: Where, if the bluff ordinance, I didn't meet it or whatever. If it went the wrong way for me let's say, what would happen? Generous: You may be required to have a bigger setback from that 952. It might be, you might not meet the, the technical definition is that 30% slope and at 25 foot of grade or elevation change. You have to have both of those conditions in place before our bluff protection ordinance kicks in. At the time that your plat originally came in, that ordinance didn't apply to your property. Now it does. Aanenson: Right. That's the problem if you don't, you've got one year where the rules apply. After one year, you know that's kind of your grace period you need to record it by. Back to this issue, does everybody understand what I was saying on that as far as, unless there's mutual acceptability, unless there's restrictive covenants, they go with the underlying zoning. The underlying zoning on the RSF on the side yard setback is 10 feet. So unless there's some other mechanism to insure that that's the representation on the bluff, you would give the bluff setback so I just wanted to make sure that that's clear. Andrew Hiscox: How would you propose then that you protect the intention? If their intent is, it's a plan like this that is not... Aanenson: Sure, there's two tools. One is if they wanted to do some covenants or secondly, if they're mutually acceptable that say we agree on this lot as a minimum, as long as it's mutually acceptable, we can put it in the conditions of approval. Andrew Hiscox: Mutually acceptable to which parties? Aanenson: To the Planning Commission and the applicant. Farmakes: Are you finished? Alright, thank you. The applicant's architect would like to make an additional comment? Charles Stinson: Yeah, Charles Stinson again. Well if we could get the approved variance on the top one, we'd be willing to put it that we would keep the, with that variance, that our house would be at least 20 feet away from that neighboring setback. Farmakes: Okay. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Aanenson: Did you want to make that a condition of the variance? Farmakes: Is that an acceptable situation to the city? Aanenson: Yes. Farmakes: Is there anyone else that wishes to make comments at this time? Seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Peterson moved, Conrad seconded to close the public healing. The public hearing was closed. Farmakes: Comments. Bob. Skubic: I'm not going to start with the bluff area because I'm not, I haven't digested that and haven't formed my feelings on that yet. Farmakes: Before you start Bob. We're actually voting on two issues I believe here. One is the preliminary plat and private street, is that correct? Generous: For a private street, correct. Farmakes: And there's a bluff setback variance also. So if you can comment on both. If you have any comments. I won't make you. Skubic: I favor the private drive, the second private off Frontier Trail. I think it fits the topography nice and I think it works out well. It's a good plan there. And I think that versus having a private drive run across the lowland there. And also I wish I had more assurance that there will be buffering between a private drive on the eastern property line and the adjacent development there. Aanenson: I think you can probably make it a condition. Generous: You may add conditions that a landscape buffer be provided along the eastern property line. Skubic: That's all I have. Farmakes: Okay, Don. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Mehl: I wasn't here in attendance at the last meeting and I'm still trying to figure this out. I'd like to pass. Farmakes: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: Well I think it's a real good plat. I like it. I like what staff has done. The issues that we've been talking about. And boy, that's a tough one. To tell you the truth, 10 to 20 feet is, there's still going to be a house real close and I suppose 10-15 feet additional would help but boy, it's still close so we could probably do that before it set in but, what I'm struggling with because I haven't really dealt with the bluff ordinance, is criteria to move that house, keep that house away and I don't know what I'm giving up when I allow a variance to that bluff ordinance. I really have a tough time on that one and I don't know if Kate or Bob, if you can help me on that one. Generous: The bluff ordinance basically is protection for erosion control is the biggest issue. When you build right up to that line, there's a potential, we find out that generally 15 feet beyond the edge of the house, you're doing construction so you're digging that area and taking vegetation up. He's probably right. There probably are techniques that they can do to control that and special construction technique. Conrad: So potentially, given the purpose of the bluff ordinance, we could put some real tough constraints in on developing Lot 9? Aanenson: Sure. If you are leaning towards the variance, then that certainly would be something you should consider. Conrad: Yeah. Do you think that these lots, again I, for some reason have a good sense as to how they're trying to work this as a sensitive developer, architect, what have you, planner, and that sort of counts with me. But could you see any lot lines changing to solve any problems? Generous: You can change the house style. That's the round peg in the square hole. What happens if that house gets smaller? You get the separation from the adjacent property. It moves out of the bluff setback line. But if that second house in moves to the end and that house moves to that spot. There are alternatives that comply with code. Aanenson: I guess that's what we're trying to say. Be careful not to be too caught up into the individual house plans because there is a building envelope and each homeowner as they buy those lots is going to try to slide within that envelope to maximize their individual needs. Now if they've done their best to represent what they think what home works best to site and 29 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 views and that sort of thing but again, when you get individual homeowners, they're going to have specific needs and they're going to push to the envelope that they can. That's why we would be concerned to make sure, if you are leaning towards the variance, that there is specific criteria to mitigate any impact that would be, even though we're not in the slope or in that setback area. Conrad: Yeah. If we don't grant the variance, it will pull the house pad back, of course and so what do we gain? We gain, we didn't grant the variance. We put the houses closer together. Aanenson: Correct. Generous: Potentially. Conrad: Potentially, yeah. Aanenson: Even if you didn't do it at this point, I mean certainly if a homeowner comes in at a future date and has a specific plan and then you're looking at a specific plan, that's always a potential in the future too. I mean they're going forward with it now. Conrad: I won't take any more time Mr. Chairman. Tough one for me. I think the plan, the plat overall is really neat. It's really integrated. I think staff and the applicant have done a good job. The issue is Lot number 9 and you know, I'm not sure how to handle that. They certainly can build on that lot and build it within the ordinance. It's just whether the trade off for allowing a variance is worth it. Farmakes: Thank you. Craig. Peterson: I, as it relates to the preliminary plat... I agree with the staff recommendations. As it relates to the setback, I'm more biased towards I guess keeping the homes farther apart. I think granting the variances would, as we've discussed earlier, would put restrictions on the building of the home as it relates to potential erosion problems that might occur and putting those into the motion. Farmakes: Alright, thank you. My comments are, I like this development. I think we're looking at I think conceptual homes than we are looking at real homes at this point. I think that's fine. That's what this is. I think some of the problems that occur here, we're arguing these concepts, or conceptual homes. In talking about 10 foot variances and setbacks and so on, it disturbs me a little bit that we would create some sort of precedent for that. Ladd had an idea perhaps for a solution to this. This is a, some of that could be dealt with at the time 30 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 that these homes are looked at or they come in for an actual...in looking at the criteria for some of these variances, usually we look at those when there is no solution or no common sense solution. So I don't see that in this case, although I like this development a lot. I'm still concerned about the rationale that we're using for a second entry area off of Frontier Trail. I'm still not certain as to, we kind of glossed over the explanation of why we don't need that or why that one would be preferable and it was pretty much, which view comes out of the house and I'm, Dave do you want to make a comment on that at all before I continue on here with my comments? Hempel: Well the applicant's engineer has supplied us with some more information and looked at the location of the driveway. It is, we feel a safe location for a driveway and the access onto Frontier Trail. And from this point as you to continue to the north, the slope on Frontier does increase. So I was comfortable with having a shared or common driveway access point at this particular location to minimize the access points and due to the slope of Frontier Trail, this was a much preferred location. I was comfortable with this design. Farmakes: Alright. On the issue of the bluff, the variance itself. The same comments that I made pertains to that as well. That being said, does anybody have a motion as a wonderful solution to this? Conrad: Oh sure. Farmakes: Excuse me. Don, did you want to make any further comments on this? Did you want me to come back to you? Mehl: Well the only comment is that I went out there and I stopped on Frontier and I spent some time looking over the area. There's some tremendous contours and changes...going to be a beautiful area. Really nice development. I guess I also have to agree hearing the points and so on, I would recommend denial of the variance to the bluff setback. Farmakes: Okay. Does anyone want to make a motion? Conrad: I will. Let's see where this goes. I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Lotus Glen, Case #95-22 SUB of 8.9 acres into 9 lots, two outlots, a private street and a variance to permit 5 lots to be accessed via one private street subject to the conditions in the staff report, 1 through 28 with the addition of two other conditions. Number 29. That the applicant submit a plan for the eastern part of the property line to protect the neighbor to the east. Boy, that's real open but that's the way it's going to be. Number 30. Staff to develop strict criteria that would allow for building a home 31 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 on Lot 9 that would negate the impact of building on the bluff due to our granting a variance to the bluff setback requirement. Farmakes: Motion's been made. Do I hear a second? Skubic: Second. Farmakes: Second being made. We'll vote. Conrad moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of preliminary plat for Lotus Glen (#95-22 SUB) of 8.9 acres into 9 lots and two outlots for Ovate streets and a variance to permit five lots to be accessed via one private street subject to the following conditions: 1. Submit street names to Fire Marshal for approval. 2. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. 3. Approved turn arounds must be provided for fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet. Re-submit plan and dimensions pursuant to 1991 U.F.C. Sec. 10.204(d). 4. Additional fire hydrant will be required by Lot 6 and at the entrance off Frontier Trail. 5. Entrance signage must comply with City Code requirements. A separate sign permit must be submitted for any signage. 6. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. 7. Dwellings on slopes exceeding 25% and dwellings with 102" or more of unequal fill will be required to be designed by a structure engineer. 8. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the city for review and formal approval. 9. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice 32 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Handbook. The applicant shall contact the Natural Resource Conservation Service for a seed mixture that will be effective in wooded areas. 10. The applicant shall field verify and document the bluff areas on site. The applicant shall relocate the buildings pads on Lot 9 up away from the bluff to meet setback requirements. 11. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with the City's SWMP for the City to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations for the 2, 10, and 100 year storm shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. The city will be contracting review of this work to Bonestroo. 12. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 14. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the utilities and ponding areas. 15. The applicant shall have a wetland delineation report prepared for the site. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the city's wetland ordinance. The city will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign. 16. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100 year high water level. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 17. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in accordance to city and Minnesota Department of Health codes/regulations. 18. The proposed single family residential development of 8.7 developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $6,960.00 and a water quantity fee of $17,226.00. These fees are payable to the city prior to the city filing the final plat. Credits will be given to these fees based on the applicant providing for the city's SWMP requirements and will be deducted from the totals after final plat review. 19. The applicant shall report to the city engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 20. The public utility system shall be constructed in accordance with the city utility standards. The private streets shall be constructed in accordance with current city ordinances. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. The plans shall be designed in accordance with the latest edition of the city's standard specifications and detail plates. Final plat approval is contingent upon approval of the construction plans by the Chanhassen City Council. 21. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat the necessary right-of-way to achieve a 30 foot wide strip of land lying east of the existing centerline of Frontier Trail. 22. The applicant shall enter into a cost sharing agreement with the City for reimbursement of the ponding improvements. 23. Individual grading, drainage, tree preservation, and erosion control plans will be required for each lot at the time of building permit application for the city to review and approve. 24. A fifteen foot tree removal limit shall be established around all building pads. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to excavation and grading. Tree removal limits shall be shown on all building permit surveys. 25. Applicant must use a trench box for the installation of the water line in order to minimize impact on canopy coverage. 26. Applicant must submit revised canopy coverage and removal calculations as well as a revised survey showing the appropriate coverage and removal area. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 27. Park and trail fees are required per city ordinance in lieu of parkland dedication. 28. The bluff area shall be shown on all building permit applications for this subdivision. 29. That the applicant submit a plan for the eastern part of the property line to protect the neighbor to the east. 30. Staff to develop strict criteria that would allow for building a home on Lot 9 that would negate the impact of building on the bluff due to our granting a variance to the bluff setback requirement. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Farmakes: We'll now vote on the bluff setback variance. Do we have to do this as two issues or just group it as one? Conrad: I incorporated something that would negate to vote on it. Generous: Well I had it as a separate motion but he added. Just to clarify you might want to take. To clarify it you might want to address the second motion or the variance for the bluff setback separately. Farmakes: Alright. Would you like to make a motion separately for the bluff setback variance itself? Conrad: Could your friendly amendment be attached to that? Farmakes: Sure. Conrad: Okay. I would make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance to the bluff setback requirement on this particular case. Skubic: And I would like to make an amendment to that. That the whole setback on the eastern side of Lot 9 be 20 feet. Conrad: Minimum of 20 feet. Skubic: Minimum of 20 feet. Farmakes: Is that acceptable? 35 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Conrad: Yeah, that is. Farmakes: Okay. Motion's been made. Is there a second? Peterson: Second. Conrad: Discussion? Can we have discussion? Farmakes: Sure. Conrad: And probably this is discussion that reflects back on the first motion too. Aanenson: We'll integrate them. Conrad: What? Aanenson: We'll integrate the two. Conrad: Okay. Just so the staff understands. It's sort of a, I'm looking for no impact. Aanenson: Right. And I think we wanted that criteria before it goes to Council. Make it stricken from the motion. Conrad: Okay. Hey, they can build without the variance and they're not penalized. I'm looking for your wisdom and if it's not there, you know, then they shouldn't be allowed to do it so that's sort of the underlining thought that I've got. Farmakes: Alright. Motion's been made with an amendment. We'll vote on it now. Conrad moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the valiance to the bluff setback requirement based on the valiance findings contained in the staff iepoit relative to the bluff setback valiance request, and subject to the following condition: 1. The setback on the whole eastern side of Lot 9 be a minimum of 20 feet. All voted in favor and the motion canied unanimously. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE FOR LANDSCAPE NURSERIES AND GARDEN CENTERS IN THE A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT. Public Present: Name Address Don Halla 6601 Mohawk Trail Mark & Kay Halla 770 Creekwood John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Farmakes: Any questions? Mehl: I've got a couple of questions. Or maybe it's just is one. Confirmation...to verify some things in my own mind. Interim use would allow them to expand their business or increase their sales with merchandise that is permitted under wholesale retail nurseries, is that right? Rask: Yeah. They'd have to come back through the interim use permit process and apply for that. Mehl: Okay. And would it then, I assume that interim use would also allow them to construct either a temporary or maybe even a permanent greenhouse type structure... Rask: Correct. Again, we'd go through the process. We'd look at the standards and the conditions that would go along with it and if they met the conditions, and the timeframe we would. Mehl: ...retail activities out of that. Rask: Correct. Mehl: The determination here for, on the interim use, who determines what that time frame is, if it is a time frame? It may be an event such as moving the MUSA line, that sort of thing. Who determines what that is? Is it something that's discussed with the applicant? Is it something that is negotiated with them and mutually agreed to by both parties, or is it a forced issue or what? 37 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Rask: It ultimately will be set by the City Council upon recommendation from the staff and Planning Commission. And comments from the applicant. I don't know if we would come to agreeance on a date but it certainly would be something we'd try to work with the applicant on to find a suitable timeframe in which to terminate the use. Mehl: Okay, thanks. Farmakes: Is that it? Mehl: That's all. Farmakes: Alright, thank you. Does the applicant wish to make any comments? Come up to the podium. State your name and address. Mark Halla: Hi. I'm Mark Halla. I live at 770 Creekwood, Chanhassen. In reading the staffs memorandum dated November 29, 1995 I have the following comments. Staff has plainly stated that Halla Nursery is a non-conforming use. They also have stated...non- conforming uses, Section 20-...states that, and I quote...elimination of non-conforming uses, lots and structures or a use that impacts on adjacent properties. Halla Nursery is not interested in eliminating or having eliminated our business. We come before you in hopes of legalizing our business...staff made Halla Nursery a non-conforming use when they adopted their new code in approximately 1990. In changing their code, thus making us illegal without so much informing us, much less inviting our input. We think they made a mistaken when they adopted that code and we're simply trying to correct a mistake. Staff has recommended Halla Nursery be allowed to legally exist only under an interim use permit. They say that all interim use permits must have termination dates. It's frustrating for me to hear this from staff. We're operating a third generation, 53 year old business. Does anybody really believe it's fair for the city to put an end date to that business? I have no interest in becoming an interim use. Halla Nursery is and will remain a permanent business for the city of Chanhassen until such time as it's shareholders decide otherwise. We're not interested in becoming an interim use. During our previous discussions Halla Nursery has proposed correcting staffs mistake on...A2, Agricultural Estate district allowable uses to include...what I think the amendment should be. All retail nurseries and garden centers currently operating within the city of Chanhassen as a part of the A2 zoning from whatever date prior to 1990. We believe this change is the best way to help the city and Halla Nursery to resolve the zoning issue. In fact, the amendment would make Halla Nursery an acceptable legal use rather than a non- conforming use. Another suggestion we have is simply rezone...BH, the business highway, rather than the A2. This also would make Halla Nursery an accepted legal use and actually bring the city a higher tax base. Just as we wish the city to have more flexibility in resolving these issues, we realize we too much be flexible. We're willing to accept any...legal accepted 38 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 • use... In addition, I have some rhetorical questions for you which I think may help you realize the...and that by allowing those uses to continue but preventing us from doing the same is inconsistent enforcement. The Arboretum sells retail gifts to the public. Is it consistent to allow them to do so but try to prevent us...Arboretum has and continues to construct additional greenhouses. Is it consistent to allow them to do so and not allow us? Holasek sells both retail and wholesale. Is it consistent to allow them to do so and not to allow us? Holasek continues to construction additional greenhouses. Is it consistent to allow them but not to allow us? Wilson's Northwest Nursery and Wholesale sells retail and wholesale, and even offers...design and installation services from a supposedly wholesale only establishment. Is it consistent to allow them to continue doing business that way? Yet try and force us to stop. Prairie Market expanded their retail area. Constructed additional greenhouses, enlarged their parking, remodeled and added to their retail building and has over half a dozen additional signs. Is it consistent to allow them to do so and not allow us? Is the city prepared to force all of the above business to become interim uses? Set an end to their businesses. My point is simple...businesses in any way, shape or form are not absolutely consistent with...but simply legalizing the existing retail businesses that were in operation at the time that you changed the code. Any questions? Farmakes: Any questions for the applicant? Mark Halla: Thank you. Farmakes: Thank you. Any further comments? Kay Halla: Good evening. I'm Kay Halla and I live at 770 Creekwood in Chanhassen and I just wanted to put...my feelings. I would like to see you consider recommending...and the A2 zoning again to be consistent...I'd like to see those be permitted, allow as permitted uses and when I looked over the list which the staff prepared of nurseries that were, nurseries and garden centers that were...business highway such as Lotus and...but the two that if you changed the zoning to allow the retail in existence prior to the zoning change, that would really involve two...involve Halla Nursery and possibly Holasek... I understand they definitely have...and I know they've been around for a long time so I'm assuming that they probably sold retail before the zoning change also. And I think since it only involves two of these properties, for instance if you add the interim use and retail to the existing zoning, that won't involve a lot of properties and then you'll also have the option for nurseries that have just in wholesale, to add retail space and you'd be encouraging more retail that way. And I think by just amending it the way Mark and I have suggested...and as far as the future, I would be, if a structure is being built today, and I know that's a concern...I know Don planned his development and there's only so many things you can do after you develop. And another concern the city, or the staff had mentioned is that if the nursery, if were to sell down the 39 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 road and let's say we were a permitted use and we were to sell down the road, I believe we would still have to sell to somebody who was going to have a use that was a permitted use in A2 zoning. So we couldn't sell to somebody who wasn't permitted in A2. I believe you have to sell to somebody who could operate legally in A2 as opposed to someone who might want to run a car wash or something like that. So I think if that's the way that is, that he or she... because if we decided to sell 100 years down the road or whatever, I think it would have to be somebody... Any questions? Farmakes: Any questions? Thank you. Don Halla: Good evening gentlemen of the Planning Commission. This is a dilemma for us as much as for you. I don't relish being in your shoes and I don't relish being in the shoes that I'm in. It's a problem. We're here because I've requested a zoning change out of desperation because I was being told that I couldn't put up a greenhouse so it would...code to permit it. The Planning department says no because it's...and that's not really true. We have 9 acres of retail area that has been retail use since the early 1970's. We sold...take people in the area and they buy trees... We're actually...developing, we thought we had an agreement with the city that we would reduce our size and not have the conflicts and problems... By doing subdivision that allows the retail space to actually be reduced from approximately 100 acres down to 12 acres. We have called the city on several occasions and asked whether we needed a building permits to build the buildings and we were told by the building department, no. That it was not necessary. We followed those rules. In each occasion of building or adding a building...and in fact the rules and regulations that we tried to follow. Now you're down to probably the most unpermanent structure that we're talking about, the greenhouses. Greenhouses are not permanent structures. Other areas in the city, other people in A2, have been permitted and allowed to because they're not current. They're not required. They just go put them up. We again tried to follow the rules and we wanted to say ahead of time this was our intention. We wanted to be able to do something. And we were told no, even though you don't need a permit and so forth. That's intensifying the use. Certainly there's a different definition on our point as to whether we feel we're protecting our crops...our total area from 100 acres down to... I do have a son and daughter-in-law involved in the business. Third generation and a son they hope will go into that business also. We don't want to be shut down at any given date or time...You heard from Mark basically about the other people that have built greenhouses and so forth...that's all we want to do, is put up greenhouses. I don't think that we're getting complaints from our neighbors around us. In fact, in doing our subdivision we have a couple of major builders who find that they feel that the nursery in the center of the development is very much of a big plus to them, to the community. Those people being Charles Cudd Developers. Also Jyland is interested in our property. They wanted the whole thing for development, except the retail area. They liked the area of our nursery in the center. They felt it was a plus. So these people who build half million dollar 40 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 plus homes think that it's possible, and yet we're here discussing it. Trying to come up with a solution that works for everybody. Maybe one simple solution to our dilemma would be for... or direction from you gentlemen to direct staff to say, let them build their greenhouses...that is not creating any problem. I don't have a crystal ball...solution perfectly for everybody. All I know is that we're looking to...looking at half a dozen greenhouses right away so that we didn't have trouble in the future. Well that's not what we want to do. We don't want to do that. We'd be forced to do that because it says in the future that we have to stay 300 feet back from our property line if there's houses. So if we sell the lots and they build houses, we have a restriction and problem back there. So it is a dilemma. I don't know what is the best solution. I hope everybody's crystal ball works and... thank you. Farmakes: Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else that wishes to make a comment? Not seeing any, I'll entertain a motion to end the public hearing. Skubic moved, Peterson seconded to close the public healing. The public hearing was closed. Farmakes: Comments from commissioners. Don. Mehl: I was just looking through the conditions. You had talked about...I really think the interim use is the way to go. Sooner or later that area is going to become residential... Farmakes: Okay, thank you. Bob. Skubic: I appreciate the staffs position that we need to regulate and yet accommodate the businesses. The nursery here and interim use seems to be the most legitimate way of accomplishing that. However, if I was in business I would not like to have a termination date set that tells me that I cannot continue business. I think it's not a very good burden to carry around. It's my impression that that's the major point of, major issue here. And I think we talked about the alternative conditional use and the concern there was, that there is no termination date. However, are there not controls, conditions that can be set up that would permit the use for nursery purposes and still enable the city to control it so that it's...for whatever future developments there are. There's probably a difficult task to do. I don't know how you would construct that. You probably can't make it water tight. Aanenson: The difference between the interim use and the conditions use is that you cannot deny conditional use. The only thing you can do is attach conditions to mitigate that. So the reason we had a concern with that is, you may get it in an area where it may not be an appropriate place to put it. With the interim use you can say, it's not appropriate. That area's in transition. But what you're doing is again you have to go back up and because we're talking specifically about this site, you can't just say only this property can, or this applicant 41 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 has the right to that. It opens up for all A2. So in making it a conditional use, anybody has the right for that use. All you can do is attach conditions to mitigate it. You can't say they can't have it... On the interim use you may say it may be appropriate here, it may not. Or you can say, well a shorter life here because this area seems to be turning over faster or those sort of things. So you've kind of locked in to perpetuity in that in all A2, that they can have... That was the concern of the staff. Skubic: And staff is concerned that the conditions wouldn't be sufficient to find for future development, future evolution? Aanenson: Well you can architecturally attach conditions you just you know, those sort of things. You can't say you can't go there. For the interim use permit you can say, one year and that may be enough for someone to say, well I'm not going to invest that kind of improvements in the property if I only have it for one year. And it may be in an area it may be appropriate for 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, 30 years. But under conditional use, it's there forever. So that person's going to put more investment and again you're looking at uses that are probably not going to be there for the... See we can't isolate this. It has to affect all A2. That's the dilemma. It affects all A2 property, which is a significant amount in the city. You can't just make it for one person. That's, herein lies the problem. It's all A2. Skubic: Thank you. I hope that some of my fellow commissioners have some wisdom on this. Farmakes: Thank you. Ladd. Conrad: Well I think the good news tonight is that we should get this out of here and you can take it to the City Council. I think what staff has presented to me is probably appropriate for Chanhassen. The interim use permit I think for A2 district is the logical thing to do. I think the ordinance has been soften a little bit. My perspective is that it is a penalty. Obviously it's going to be. It's going to restrict the Halla's operation but to a degree but on the other hand I think it gives them some flexibility. The key is in the permitting process. The conditional use. And that's what will be specifically for them of interest. And in regards to that, what is the process for the interim use permit. Does that come through us? Aanenson: Sure. They would have to make an application. There'd be a public hearing and that's again, that's where the...and we've raised that before and the opinion of the city attorney if we expand. I mean to say there's a cloud over it, because it's an interim use, there's a cloud now because it's non-conforming. They've admitted it's retail. It's non-conforming so there's still a cloud over it. And we want to acknowledge the fact that there's retail and try to legitimize it inasmuch as we can and allow them, and whatever time frame they put on and 42 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 they come back and everybody thinks it's been wonderful and we extend it some more, certainly. I mean nobody wants to say that, but we do want that control that if down the road there's problems, then it's not there for perpetuity. Conrad: How do I know, how does somebody who reads the ordinance Kate, know what the process is? They come to you? Aanenson: Yes. There is an interim use in the ordinance and I believe we've given that to you to explain that they get an application. Go to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and City Council for the ultimate approval. Conrad: Where do I find that? Aanenson: It's in the City Code. Conrad: Oh, it's in the code. Okay. So any interim use has a standard form and there's a process associated with it. Are the guidelines set? Aanenson: Yes. Rask: Yes. We've proposed additional guidelines here. Aanenson: In the staff report. Rask: That would apply specifically to wholesale and retail nurseries. In addition to the other standards that you would have. Aanenson: Right, and they've raised legitimate concerns. What we've brought up before. Some of the setbacks...and I think that's where we need to apply some flexibility in this specific case. Conrad: Okay these are not, what I see, that's not what I meant by guidelines. Guidelines would be in the permit itself. So this is the overall rule but now the guidelines come in. Now we have the interim use permit itself and what are the guidelines to do stuff? Aanenson: We've imposed some, as John has indicated on page 5. We tried to, and that's why the Halla's are saying there is a couple of problems that don't fit. And we agree. Again, because they're existing and the setbacks on some of those, they may not work. We talked about the hours of operation. Again, there was some concern about Saturday, Sundays. Obviously on holidays a lot of people do go out and do their landscaping. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Conrad: Let me, again. My point would be, guidelines for length of interim use. Things that I don't see on this page but are there guidelines that are necessary? Or do we just approach it one at a time? Aanenson: I believe on that one we felt that that's something we'll just have to look at, depending on where it's location is. Conrad: Anything else in that process that's not covered. You know that's not covered on this page. And again I'm using the word guidelines. Standards might be a word. Aanenson: Sure. This is a criteria specifically for the nursery. There is also criteria for an interim use permit. So this would be directly, what we put in this report is specifically geared for the nursery, retail/wholesale nursery criteria. So then there's also the criteria for interim use permit which talks about the length of time that it'd be permitted. Compatibility. Those sorts of things... Conrad: Okay. Those are real important because I think if I were the Halla's, I wouldn't want willy nilly, and you know you'd like to have some kind of support up front that directs us in terms of how to put in some numbers. So when you fill in the blanks, how do you do it rather than grab something from mid-air. Okay. That's all my comments. Farmakes: Thank you. Craig. Peterson: I'd love to be able to send this back to staff and have them come back with a creative idea but I think we've done that about half a dozen times now so I'll refrain from making that recommendation. I, along with everybody else, is frustrated and I have been frustrated we can't find a real happy medium between the two parties. I think as the other commissioners have stated, this is probably the best recommendation we can do. It doesn't totally negatively affect the applicant and certainly...negatively affect the city in other A2 areas. I think one point that the applicant I think needs to at least be somewhat aware of, that the interim use isn't, that at the end of the interim use, that the intent of the city is that we have to dismantle the operation. We clearly, speaking on behalf of the city I guess, the intent is to certainly not do that and continue the interim use as long as it's feasible for both parties. I think that's what Ladd, you're trying to get a date out of, in many ways a date or the length of time. At one of the last meetings we talked about the fact that it's a renewable thing. If we set it 5 years or 10 years and we come back Kate I believe and ask for an extension, that go on in perpetuity. So I think the risk of having a business go out, going under because of lack of renewal is probably very low risk so with that, I'll concur with the staff recommendation. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Farmakes: Okay. Conrad: Can I make a quick point Mr. Chairman? Farmakes: Sure. Conrad: My point Craig was, what you like to do is put down criteria that makes it less willy nilly when this permit comes through. So it's like the guideline would say, renewal is acceptable under these conditions. So right now in what we have here, you don't see any of that. You don't know. I don't know when renewal is acceptable and if I were somebody coming in, you'd kind of want to know what that is, and that was my point before. Aanenson: Right. And what we're doing at this level right now is deciding whether or not we want to make retail an interim use component in the A2. Then they may never come through. But we are providing that opportunity as a mechanism for them, if they do choose to do that. And then we would develop the permitting process, again based on that criteria. Conrad: Thanks. Farmakes: My comments on this issue are, I think staffs done a good job in outlining this. I like the intent statement. A couple of the issues specifically, the time. Some of the definitions concern me a little bit. However, within those recommendations there are correction capabilities within there. So if they are a problem, the City Council could act on that. And I'm comfortable with that. The whole basis of when we were discussing this issue is, it begins with grandfathering and then it becomes the interpretation of whether or not it's an intensified use. We're really not set up here to legal definitions. The City Council has the lawyer at the meeting. Certainly if they were to get into arguing definitions and intent of ordinance and federal, state, county, municipal and so on, that's kind of out of our review. What we kind of look at here is that, as the city grows, what kind of legal precedence are we setting for these older businesses and what type of capabilities are we allowing them to compete while they're there. It seems to me that this use that's proposed by the city staff is a good one. I agree with Ladd that perhaps that needs to be defined better for the applicants since they are running the business and are concerned whether or not it's going to be closed down if a neighbor happens to move next door and makes it a point or so on. But I think that the city has, as I said, has put self correction mechanisms within here and allows some latitude for the business and allows latitude for the city to act if that becomes a problem. That's the end of my comments. If somebody wishes to make a motion. Peterson: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to amend Sections 20-576(7), 20-1, and 20-257 to permit both wholesale and retail nurseries 45 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 in the A2 district as an interim use as outlined in the staff report dated November 27, 1995 with the amendments read as submitted in the staff report. Subject to the conditions 1 through 9. Farmakes: Is there a second? Mehl: Second. Peterson moved, Mehl seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend Sections 20-576(7), 20-1, and 20-257 to permit both wholesale and retail nurseries in the A-2 Dishict as an Interim Use, as outlined in the staff report dated November 27, 1995, with the following conditions to apply to the wholesale and retail nurseries: 1. The site must be on a collector or minor arterial as identified in the comprehensive plan. 2. The minimum lot size is five acres. 3. All storage and yard areas as well as buildings must be setback fifty (50) feet from public or private road right-of-ways, and three hundred (300) feet from an adjacent single family residence or a minimum of fifty (50) feet from a side lot line, whichever is greater. 4. All outdoor storage areas must be buffered from adjacent properties. Buffering may be accomplished using berms, fencing, landscaping, natural topography, or increased setbacks. The City Council may require storage areas to be completely screened by one hundred (100) percent opaque fencing or berming. 5. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The City Council may further restrict hours of operation if the use is located adjacent to property guided residential as identified in the comprehensive plan. 6. Light sources shall be shielded. 7. No outside speaker systems shall be allowed. 8. A termination date shall be established for the interim use permit. The use shall be permitted until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no longer permit it. Prior to the permit expiring, the applicant may request an extension to the interim use permit by submitting a new application. The 46 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 renewal application will be subject to all city ordinances including any new ordinances enacted after the original approval. 9. One wall sign not to exceed ninety (90) square feet, and one monument sign not exceeding twenty-four (24) square feet in size or eight (8) feet in height shall be permitted on the premises. The Council may further restrict the size and location of signs if the use is located adjacent to property guided residential as identified in the comprehensive plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: A SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 20-267, REQUIRING INDIVIDUAL DIMENSIONAL LETTERS AND TO ALLOW A SECOND WALL MOUNTED SIGN LOCATED AT 7901 GREAT PLAINS BLVD., GARY BROWN. Farmakes: I have a conflict on this issue so I'm going to turn this over to Ladd to act as Chairman. John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Conrad: Are there any questions of staff? Public hearing. Let the applicant come forward or a representative. I don't see Gary here. He's a chicken huh. Where's Gary? Any other public comments on this issue? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Peterson moved, Skubic seconded to close the public hewing. The public healing was closed. Conrad: Comments from the commission. I'm not going to go around. Any comments in general on the staff report. Mehl: I assume the reason the applicant put the, I went out there and I kind of looked at both ends of the building and if there were, I know if there were a sign just on the north end of the building, the only way you're going to see it is if you're southbound on Great Plains Boulevard. If you're in the area of Highway 5 or northbound off of TH 5 onto Great Plains, you wouldn't know that that's a car wash building unless the door opened and a dripping car was coming out. But on the other hand it's going to be, it's probably just going to be local people that are going to use it...whole lot of traffic off of Highway 5. I guess I don't see a problem with the... Conrad: But hearing northbound, which is permitted if it's done properly. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Mehl: Exactly. Conrad: Even though it says entrance? Rask: We allowed that display message. I guess what we were proposing is as long as he's got reduced signs to pull off the entrance. He could do, put it small and say entrance or exit or whatever it is. Conrad: This is what he should do. Rask: Yeah, so we're suggesting he pulls it out and do some more appropriate directional signage. Conrad: Yeah. What's the sign. Aanenson: Yeah, at eye level. Conrad: Bob, anything? Craig? Anything? I sure think the staff report's appropriate right now. I think Gary should come in and talk to us if he has a difference of opinion but is there a motion? Peterson: I recommend the Planning Commission deny the request for the sign variance #95- 12 based upon the findings in the staff report... Conrad: Is there a second? Skubic: Second. Conrad: Any discussion? Peterson moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the request for sign variance 495-12 based on the findings presented in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance. 2. The applicant has a reasonable opportunity to advertise their name and service with a wall sign. 48 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 3. The variance request is inconsistent with the purpose and findings of the sign ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: A SIGN PLAN REVIEW TO REMODEL THE EXISTING CHANHASSEN BOWUFILLY'S AND A PORTION OF THE FRONTIER BUILDING INTO AN ENTERTAINMENT CENTER A VARIANCE TO ALLOW WALL PROJECTING SIGNS IN AN AREA ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINESS AND CBD, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, LOCATED NORTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS, EAST OF MARKET BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF WEST 78TH STREET, CHANHASSEN ENTERTAINMENT CENTER, LOTUS REALTY. Public Present: Name Address Brad Johnson 7425 Frontier Trail Vernelle Clayton 422 Santa Fe Circle Karen & Robert R. Copeland 14 Cooper Avenue, Edina Truman Howell 18202 Minnetonka Blvd. Sharmin Al-Jaff and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. Farmakes: Anybody have any questions of staff? Okay, ones from the applicant. Vernelle Clayton: Good evening. My name is Vernelle Clayton. I live at 422 Santa Fe Circle here in Chanhassen. I'm very happy to be here to talk with you about this proposal... I think that from the reaction we've been getting from folks that have seen this proposed plan in our office...As many of you know, although some of you are new, we did sort of a show and tell on a preliminary basis in...August perhaps. Although perhaps a little bit earlier. The Planning Commission...to show you what we had in mind to do with this property...we then went back to the drawing board and more importantly went to the HRA with a similar plan, with the same plan and because there are three...approval and we have spent some time now working with builders and...set a plans that are somewhat the same but...and easier to understand. Just briefly for those of you that are new and haven't seen that plan, it was... number of years of planning by a number of folks, including the city, for a number of proposals to use that property. And when it became apparent that the city was not going to develop it as either a rec center or community center or conference center, we got together 49 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 with the folks that owned the...Pauly has it's own set of needs to move. He's planning to be and have a new Champs style restaurant...9,000 square foot large restaurant in the area which is now Filly's...We like to keep 60 year old businesses in town if we can and the other is, to... We appreciate your commitment to public service and taking all the time. I know it... We have with us a couple of future owners, the Copeland's...and they will be one of the owners. Bob will be participating in the development and the construction next year. He'll be one of the owners of the cinema. We have with us too, Truman Howell. He was the architect...as well as earlier we met with all the other owners...you may have seen Dan Dahlin, who owns the bowling alley. And the rest of that building was here in this building for a while but he decided he couldn't make...as well and we met with a couple...and update them on the status of things. One of the things that they all want...is there is a certain amount of urgency now that we have the plans to meet the time frame, time schedule that both Pauly's and the...very doldrums of summer...So they would like, if possible, the best time for opening a movie theater would be in May and we're going to do what we can to meet that time frame. It's going to be really tough. Site plan approval is what we're here for. In our experience and your...Chanhassen is a fairly new and growing town...site plan applications like our's. Mostly we're talking about how we would locate a building on a site and how we work around all of that. In this case we've got the buildings and we're dealing primarily with the site and how it works and so forth. Typically one might say why is that. Why do you need site plan approval? As you know...change in use, there are permit requirements for site plan approval and so we...essentially now changing the use...but rather we're changing the use and going with the current ordinance...However we felt it was important to the overall look of the project...and we have therefore come up with a plan that...the facade, boardwalk and the parking lot and the landscaping that goes along with it. The facade is changed since the last time we have shown it to you. As I mentioned earlier, it's much simpler and easier to understand. The materials are primarily brick and the...drivit which was the material used on the Americana Bank building. The boardwalk is much the same as when we first showed it to you. It's been intended all along that that be the element that adds the most to the pedestrian friendliness and character of the project, and... And some of the other problems... The challenge was to fit everything in with the existing architecture of Chanhassen...different look to this project. We chose the old style, the downtown look...the extent of public sentiment for this type of...and developers who have...to reach back and get that for all of us. The sense of stability and a sense of community that we all feel is a part of that look and apparently we are all missing in society today and we're...new urbanism and that's a term that Truman Howell often uses and...so with that I'd like to introduce Truman Howell. Truman Howell: Thanks Vernelle. Good evening. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen of the Planning Commission. I'm Truman Howell. An architect. My office is in Wayzata, Minnesota so I get down here quite frequently and in the recent past few years have worked on several of the projects that have either come before you or to your predecessors so I'm...back again and 50 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 would like to give you a quick review of the project and what we feel is an exciting solution to a problem. A visual problem, if nothing else. We're also revitalizing a part of the... This is a drawing that is done by a civil engineer showing the existing site, which you probably are all relatively familiar with but just in review. Basically this is the Filly's bar area. The facade along here has the entry to the bowling alley and then the warehouse in this area. And the Frontier building over here. This is the bus park and ride area and Pauly Drive along there. What we attempted to do was create an image for the area that would deal with the problems of...in terms of a, hopefully create an exciting facade...and we think that we've, one of the, using the problems of the site, we think we've developed something that will do that. The first element was the development of the raised streetscape. I know it's been referred to as a boardwalk and in some cases there may be some boards there but primarily it will be a raised portion around the faces of the new townscape that will allow pedestrian access through. Through stairways. Through handicap ramps. To the various locations along the facade. This being the Frontier building here. Will be connected with a walkway over to a ramp coming up the 4 feet. As you know this alley has quite a...grade as you come down the hill and that's what develops then the difference in the floor elevation between here and the existing parking lot. We bring people up onto this approximately 4 foot high in most all of the areas here. So it would be a raised platform. As you sit in your car here, you'd be looking up at the buildings. Obviously handrails along the entire area. We would have planters and on the streetscape itself also with large boxes that we'd be planting trees, shrubs, that kind of thing, and some along the faces of the building as well. We would install classic glass, so that the entire area is lit at night. We would put lights on the building itself. Shining up on the building and also then of course in the parking lots we would have more conventional lighting that would be the shielded type so that we could have pedestrians walking in the parking lot safely at night. It's a great place for small gatherings of people in the summer playing cards at tables. Outdoor dining near the restaurant area. We have even some bike stands that are up there so we can hopefully control that activity as well. This is basically the format that we chose to...to the new facade. The new activity. The bowling alley access is in this area. The retail area is here. The theater is between 5 and 8 individual theaters. And the initial here would be a retail area. Actually probably professional offices along that eastern side of the building. Down here of course would be the restaurant, as was indicated earlier. As a part of the development of the streetscape we would use, as I mentioned before, the handrails similar to this. The base of the raised streetscape would be with a keystone and concrete topping. We would have then the more classic light fixtures and this is just an indication of what a building behind there might look like. The drawings that I will show you now are basically, well first let me show you the actual construction of how we're going to do this. As you know on the faces of the building now we have a pre- cast, approximately 8 inch deep fins on a pre-cast wall and those extend up to 25 feet of the total height of the building. We're building this streetscape up 4 feet on that building to match the existing interior floor. The green that you see here is a pre-existing panel. We'll 51 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 be cutting openings in for windows and doors would be handled in a similar fashion. We would then extend above the existing panel to cap off the top and we'd develop a facia or a face along here on the front of that existing building. It would be either a brick or effice, which is the generic term for such products as drivit, which we do have a sample for here. And that would give us the opportunity to do various types of patterns and undulations in the face of the building. We then will use a reinforced fiberglass material to form cornices along the tops of some of the buildings and also in some cases some of the columns that you will see on the building. That will be attached to then a back-up material that will provide the level facing from which to build the brick and the stucco or the drivit material on the face. So that basically gives you an idea of what...This then would be the appearance that you would see of the buildings above the 4 foot elevated streetscape. On the end would be the restaurant area that would literally go from this location over here. If you recall, the existing facility now, we have an existing roofline roughly in this area and it pops up and goes across fairly consistently across the face of the building at that point. This was the place to then break the building into 5 different pieces and develop character for each one of the buildings on an individual basis, much like what would have happened in the 1930's, 20's, 40's as downtowns developed. This building here is brick. This building is brick. This building is brick and this is a effice material, as well as is this. As the primary material. Those two basic types of material is what we're planning to use on the buildings themselves. This would be the entry into the bowling alley and into the video game area. These four locations here are the entrances for the retail store...clock tower element here that can be seen from Highway 5 so that everyone needs a landmark as they go by and I think that this will become one as people drive back and forth along TH 5 and they'll see what time it is in the morning or evening. This is the theater going from this location down to the corner. This would be the marquee. These would be backlit elements up higher. Now behind most of these things, as you probably have guessed, there is no second floor in this area. These are fake windows. However we can do that as such that they will appear as though they are in fact windows. The same with the elements on this project in this building right here. Other images...as we go around the building. Because the theater is actually, has an angle entry to it, you're actually seeing here the front at an angle. As you look straight on to here, this would be what you'd see. Reminiscent of the grand old theaters of, well maybe you folks, some of you aren't old enough to know but I certainly remember going to the theaters such as the Orpheum and those kinds in downtown and I guess they're revitalizing... Then we were interested in looking at, what do we do with the alley. As we turn the corner and go back up this incline. Well we decided that probably the best use of an alley is to make it an alley, only a nicer alley and so what we did there was to turn the corner with the theater so again now you're looking at an oblique angle in the front. This would be the side of the theater and then we turned it into basically, obviously clean it up and repair any of the problems with the face, if there are some now, if you've noticed, and this then would be the entrance for either the professional use or some small retail along the side. A look then back on the west. If we go 52 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 back to the restaurant area. The west side of that. It will be a continuation with not only the streetscape, the picnic tables and that kind of outdoor activity there as well. And also we have the delivery area and the refuse area, which are behind the wall and enclosed. And then the Frontier building, which would be in brick with the reinforced plastic cornices at the top. Now I'll show you briefly the material. Obviously for presentation purposes these colors seem a little bright and intended to be so such that each building would stand out, probably stronger than they will in reality because of materials unless we use glazed brick...quite that yellow so I'll show you the materials we're looking for. This is the effice material, which is basically on a backer board as we have here. Then the styrofoam reinforcement. A scratch coat, a brown coat and then a finish coat. A variety of textures and probably close to 1,000 different colors that we can use. And in the bank building, I mean sorry. In the theater building, as you can see the stones in there could be insized into this material so in fact it did look like large stones on the building itself. The brick. This would be the center building. The clock tower building. This would be the second building in with the prairie looking building. And this would be what we've the term, we call the bank building and the one with the entry to the bowling alley. So these are the materials for the facings. Farmakes: You're showing contrasting colors. Those colors you just showed us are for the larger mass of the building and then the detailing would be. The colors that you just showed us are for the master part of the building and then the detailing would be in a contrasting color...? Truman Howell: Right. Farmakes: Okay. Truman Howell: Then the...this is reinforced fiberglass and there are an incredible number of various designs of cornices that would go on to the face at the tops of several of the buildings here. This one would be brick right up to the top and then we would put over a metal siding. But these are the kinds of materials that we would use to accomplish that. This then material here is the keystone material which would be used on the actual streetscape. It would basically be a retaining wall... So those are the basic elements of the project. How we're going to put together and an idea of what materials we'll be using. If there are some questions, I can show the variety of colors that are available. I think they're, what we're shooting for is basically the colors that you're seeing in the materials here. We do have, for example, a variety of options. We have more than one...but we're not confined I should say to any specific tone. It's pretty broad. And the same is for the cornices as well...have been used on other buildings. These are just some examples...and they too have a variety of colors that one can use. 53 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Farmakes: I have a question on the expanses that we see on the left or right of the drawing. The back lit glass area in front of the entrance to the marquee area and to the theater and the opposite end of the stream on the far left side. On my left. It sort of looks like a TV set with a ball inside of it. Can you describe. Truman Howell: That would not be the...logo I'm sure. Farmakes: That is the restaurant logo? Truman Howell: Yes. But no, it is not. I'm saying it's what I put on there. I don't know what their logo will be. It might be...for the restaurant. He's not indicated what that is to me, other than what I'm proposing here is a large backlit sign. Farmakes: So it's more like a pylon situation than a, incorporated into the wall as opposed to... Truman Howell: Yes. This actually sits out away from the building. The structure is away from the building. A two sided, or three sided, well it's literally four sided but the short side is going back. Comes out. Wraps around the building and goes back into the building. It is backlit, yes. Farmakes: ...or is the entire square backlit? Truman Howell: This portion on two sides is backlit. Farmakes: Alright. So the area that's yellow right now is. Truman Howell: All lit. Is the backlit portion. Farmakes: Alright. So it's a marquee type. Truman Howell: And the same down here. These up here are not signs as such. They are lit, backlit with a soft color. Farmakes: An adjustable plastic letters go in on that? Truman Howell: No, no. No, no. Down here, yes. But not up here. 54 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Farmakes: Alright, okay. Is there any lighting on this situation that, other than the street lighting, that we're unaware of? Is there lighting or neon or lights up at the top or anything that we're not seeing in the drawing? Truman Howell: Only the options that were allowed through your ordinance, in terms of backlit lighting. We've indicated I think the locations of the lights. As a matter of fact, there's a sign which are indicated here... Now those are not all backlit signs. We're talking about sandblasting wood signs. We talked about some neon. What we tried to locate here is basically where those things can take place. Farmakes: Okay. So what is being proposed is that come Christmas time, running lights may not necessarily be running along the top of the roofline and then left up there? Truman Howell: Oh, no. Not necessarily... Skubic: I have some materials questions. What is the effice made from? Truman Howell: Well it's a plastic material. It's a stucco really. The only difference is that when, in years gone by we used to use lath and this is just a way of doing a plaster. Not using lath and what it does is, the advantage of that is, that will allow you to change the shape of this so you can get some variations and shape. Considerable variations. And I can show you an example of that. I don't have any particular one selected but as you can see here, there's a variety of things you can do with the materials...and columns and all kinds of shapes. As a matter of fact, one of the most interesting...is the Universal Studios. They literally built a town out of this material that looks like stone, like brick, like any number of different materials. It's really a very plastic material so you can do virtually anything to big projection and gargoyles. Whatever you can carve in this, you can virtually do with that. Vernelle Clayton: ...that we aren't going to do gargoyles but what you might have seen recently around town...American Bank and what they call the 79th Street Place does a thing like that. ...I think that Perkins has it and probably... Truman Howell: All of the Perkins that look like Taco Bell's in the front, that's all...and a lot of them are remodeling their's to re-do that. I've done several of those remodeling. One in Jackson... Skubic: Thank you. Farmakes: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to open the public hearing. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Vernelle Clayton: Excuse me, I wanted to come back. Farmakes: Okay, you wanted to come back. Vernelle, go ahead. Vernelle Clayton: I had talked with Sharmin and she suggested that we get some additional... and I will pass them out. It relates to a couple of comments that she made with respect to the, first of all the restaurant building, with the little arches that they have and the canopies that were built over the windows and how that picked up and relates to the hotel behind it. The larger picture above is the arches that they have in that building. We also...but it's also picked up in the old City Hall building, which is...and then the elements added at the top here, the pitched elements are found on...with respect to the clock tower, we have other clock towers in town and some pictures of that we can take a look at. The thought here was a feeling of the same sort of thing. It's the same period. It's not the same style of architecture but it's...and while it's different elements here, it's the same idea. Same concept... Another comparative element here is the...and we have one other building in town that still reminds me of it. Kind of a take off on the prairie style... Then we, Sharmin had met and the building which is the Applebee's has the element of the...block and we have the same thing actually going on down at the stores that are a part of the Byerly's complex. So the reason for having the Americana Bank building...is not the style of architecture but rather than materials in the exterior. And then...and what we're trying to do is show that there are some similarities around town... to get an idea visually of what you'll be seeing. This is coming north on Market Boulevard. By the time you leave Highway 5 and the moving on... This is a lesser important view in that it's coming from the east and every place where you can see... it's right through here and it's...Applebee's and Tires Plus and so forth so whereas you can see the whole view all the time now...when that project was completed. This will be continuing as a view. This is what I...I'll tell you, you can't slow down on Highway 5 anymore. I understand there's some 30,000 cars to 35,000 cars that go by every day. I saw quite a few when I was doing this but anyway, this is as you leave the, coming out from behind Festival. You're coming from the west and just past Festival and...and as you can see, it's fairly small. It gets a little bit bigger as you move along. Still a little bit bigger and the next one, a little bit bigger yet but still... scale drawing of the elevation that you have on the front copy...same size that this is. Give you an idea of what you'll see as you move along. And then as you move closer to the corner, now you're in the left turn lane. The American Bank building is back here at the corner...at the crosswalk. Except you see it on the other side of the Frontier building. So that's kind of what... I'm going to take out and show you something that we haven't talked about yet but one of the conditions and that's what I wanted to talk to you about briefly and that is that, Sharmin in her report suggests that we...and do something with this...Our architect's recommendation is that we paint this, but that we use a bland color. We want this to kind of recede and not be...because our message we want to be on here. This has never been a part of our overall proposal. It was...presented to the HRA or earlier we 56 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 recognized the need to do...painting, repairs that might be...only remaining area for the hotel space then. So that was kind of...I think that's all I have in here and appreciate your time. I'd like to just run through the...proposed conditions. If I may. As Dave mentioned, item number 1 and 2 will probably not be applicable unless we deal with the vacation of Pauly Drive and the fact that we will be, not be with...will not find it necessary to move...and therefore number 1 we won't be moving...if we're taking out Pauly Drive, there won't be a sidewalk... As for number 3, we have no problem with the views of the rooftop. I guess I won't, in deference to your time, I'll just talk about those that we have questions...We don't have a problem with number 4. With respect to the window signage... Most of you have seen me talk about this issue many times before and that we also spent an awful lot of time talking about the sign ordinance... Frankly we would agree to, we would not agree to this. We don't think that this project should be...wintertime. In fact there are some reasons where...window signs and the few merchants that will be...will be open, they would the ones that would like to take advantage of the fact that there will be traffic late at night as the movies end and... probably be open later than most folks around town are_..so we would agree to, or we would respectfully request that that be changed to where window signage shall comply with city code. With respect to the sign criteria. We don't have a problem with that paragraph as amended by Sharmin earlier. ...and maintenance agreements. Yes. We have always done... The building official conditions. Yes, we plan to replat. Definitely and we will be, that will probably be the next thing that you'll be seeing from us...and certainly they can relocate the... I talked, with respect to item (d). I talked with Steve last week and confirmed again with him this morning that it would be alright for me to say that...covered walkway and that was not intended. So we have a problem with those... We talked this morning about the Fire Marshal conditions and that's not a problem. The northwest elevation shall be remodeled. I have a little concern about the word remodel because I'm not quite sure what it means...but we'll be happy to include...with respect to number 12, we have no problems with that. Number 13, we have no problem. 14, 15, 16, likewise...so if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Farmakes: Do the commissioners have any questions? Conrad: Vernelle, just one. The west elevation, the part that staff said you should do something and you're saying paint it gray. Vernelle Clayton: Well I didn't... Conrad: There is a major entrance there. Vernelle Clayton: It's the bowling alley. 57 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Conrad: Right. So what are you planning to do with that? Vernelle Clayton: We're not proposing to change that and that's...double doors but I think they're fairly sturdy and... Conrad: They have an awning over that and that doesn't fit. Vernelle Clayton: I'm not sure that the awning would not fit. I think what will... Conrad: Well, I'm just curious. You talked about...that seems to be a major entrance to the building and whether it's, and you're leaving the current, that design element out and introducing a whole new thing here so it just didn't seem like it was part of the same project. Vernelle Clayton: So what you're saying is... Conrad: I think you should look at it. Vernelle Clayton: We probably should. Any other questions? We had a fairly low key presentation for you tonight based on the hour. We are more excited about this than how... We're very excited about getting...about time you got something done down there, so. Farmakes: Is the applicant finished? Can I have a motion to open the public hearing? Conrad moved, Skubic seconded to open the public hearing. The public healing was opened. Farmakes: Does anybody wish to come forward and make any comments on this proposal? Let the record show nobody's coming forward. Do I have a motion that we close the public hearing. Peterson moved, Conrad seconded to close the public heating. The public healing was closed. Farmakes: Comments. Ladd. Conrad: I don't have much. I think I asked my only two questions. I think it's great in general. To cover up the word bowling. It's worth it. There's a long history on that but. Farmakes: I think that's a bowling ball there. 58 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Conrad: But I'm not going to make any other comments. I think a lot of things have been covered. I probably agree with Vernelle's comments on the signage. I'm not sure I'd change it for this place. I think they should do something on that major entrance. It makes sense that it gets tied in and...as a citizen, not as a Planning Commissioner...I like it. Farmakes: Okay, Craig. Peterson: I commend the presentation. In the months that I've been on, I think it's one of the most thorough presentations I've seen...very few questions...but with the exposure on the westerly side, there is going to be a lot of traffic. It's very visible. It's going to have very distinct facing south...It just doesn't seem logical to put all the effort and all the creativity on one side and all of a sudden you go around the corner and go, it's just blank. It's an abrupt change. Brad Johnson: We could answer that. One of the things that you probably haven't seen is there's a continuation behind the hotel that runs right down to Filly's on the outside...so I think we can address this. We've heard the issue and we can correct it probably fairly inexpensively. It's $1,000.00 a foot that we're...to the front but I think... Farmakes: I don't mean to interrupt you but I'd like to go through the comments and then I can put it back out on the floor if you wanted to discuss any other issue. Brad Johnson: Okay, thanks. Farmakes: Do you have anything else? Peterson: Those are my comments. Farmakes: Okay, Bob. Skubic: I agree with Ladd and Craig. I think it's a fine plan and I really look forward to seeing that bowling alley remodeled. And I appreciate the photographs to give us a perspective of what this is really going to look like with the adjacent dwellings. I have a question for staff. What is the rationale for prohibiting signage in windows? Al-Jaffa It was supposed to prevent clutter. Overall clutter. But the ordinance does permit window signage. Aanenson: Again, we did give variances because of the sign permit...we were allowing additional signage for visual clutter so I tried to minimize that. Certainly open 24 hours...but 59 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 we were just concerned about, we are allowing a little bit different signs...but we also wanted to make sure it didn't get really garish and too loud. I think they understand that and that's what we're striving for. I think there's some flexibility. Skubic: Thank you. That's all I have. Farmakes: Don. Mehl: Yeah, I think it looks great. The detail in it of elevations...downtown area... Farmakes: Is that it? Thank you. My comments on this development, it's a large improvement. I know some of the members here may have not seen the earlier version of this. It was kind of a French, Champs D'Allysses walk down or whatever. Anyway, as I recall the comments that I made at the time... when you do architecture, sometimes you get carried away and you have so many possibilities for doing things and I think it was a solution that was attempted and some of the things that were talked about on Highway 5. Trying to incorporate more detailing and retail structures that were basically shelves and...marketing effort taking place inside the store. Trying to...market product and basically the rest of the outside of the building is kind of forgotten about. In some cases it was going to be a back door itself, as part of the marketing concept to have a bare bones building on the outside. That was part of the connection with the low price type market. It's hard when we look at the types of buildings that we would look at and say, you know can't you improve that. Can't you bring us more detailing and that type of thing...solution to that. I think it's believable with the architecture, based on our old history here and that reinforces that to this solution. I think it's tolerable to sensibilities here and the features they'll be using on the outside...don't know what's underneath it unless you knock on it. There's a couple of things to make comments on. One is the large expanse of backlit. I'm not sure on the left sign on the right. I think due to massiveness of the building, the facade on the right, obviously that's not a lot of signage for that mass of a building. There is, it's brown on the lower part down there. I assume most of that would be window space. And then also you would have posters...type of thing. I agree that the retail situation probably should have some ability to advertise in windows. We should moderate that as to what. There isn't a lot of window space on...and I think some latitude. I don't think however fake windows up above should be incorporated into that percentage and whatever that window space is, I agree that's how we'd do it... So we probably should modify that or...in the recommendations as to what you work out with that to go forward to the City Council. The issue doesn't put a limit I think on the amount of posters for a theater. But whatever that moderation is, I think it's safe for them to be outside and if they're like other movie theaters, they tape stuff up in the window. And on the other side, I think your limitation listed at 15% of the size of the logo in relationship to the sign. 60 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Al-Jaff: Correct. Farmakes: And that looks like it's about 50% shown in the sample. I'm not sure, as they come back with a signage application, that that sign have a specific sign or how you're going to treat that. Aanenson: Which one are you talking about? The theaters have been specifically addressed. Farmakes: Right. I'm talking about the one on the far, it'd be on my left. Al-Jaff: As part of the logo, the percentage of the logo on that sign. The applicant has not shown us yet what the logo is going to look like so we don't have any of the details. They are not asking for any area variances. If there were any proposed, we will bring them back before you. So they will have to meet ordinance requirements as far as area of logos as well as signage on the building. They will have to meet that 15%. Farmakes: Alright. The last issue, I hope, when we do these things where we talk about how to market, sometimes when you come up with something nice like this, it's the other ways that you market, particularly the chain type buildings. Often there seems to be a basic need to fill it up with bright striped awnings and in moderation that's fine but sometimes it goes the other way and you wind up with kind of clown building. And hopefully, this is of interest I think to people who were interested in looking for something different than what's out there. It doesn't take long to hop into a car and go very far and see the backlit awning and the classic building, or a franchise building. So hopefully we're offering something different here and I like the solution that you came up with. I think it follows what we were hoping to find. So those are all the comments I have on that. I'd entertain a motion here. I don't want to challenge this one but there is several, to remind whoever makes that motion, there are several additions, both Sharmin, Dave added to the packet. Skubic: I'll take a stab at this. I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan for the Entertainment Complex #95-21 SPR as shown on the site plan dated December 12, 1995 with the following conditions. 1 thru 20 with the additional changes and additions. Item number 6(e) shall be amended to have the addition of not to exceed 6 signs which are not to exceed 12 square feet. That's on page 13. 12 square feet each. And on page 14, condition number 12. I'll let Dave recite that. Hempel: Condition number 12 should be amended to read as follows, the applicant shall sleeve the portion of the city's sanitary sewer and water line which are impacted by encroachment of any building structure within the city's utility easements. In addition, the applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the city for construction. The 61 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 building structure, walkway within the city's utility easement. All utility construction shall be in accordance with the latest edition. The remaining part of that condition would remain as stipulated in the report. Skubic: Thank you. On page 15, I'd like to add to condition number 17, item (g). That the applicant and staff shall work together to vacate the eastern end of Pauly Drive for parking lot expansion in that area. And on page 16, I'd like to and condition 21 regarding the FMPC and I'll read that as recommended here from the FMPC that prior to final City Council approval of the site plan for the property, the developer agrees to wholly replace and/or reconstruct a traffic facility on the property, and further agrees to obtain approval for such replacement or reconstruction from the Southwest Metro Transit Commission. Farmakes: ...talked about. With their modification to (b) on 17. Hempel: Actually 17, condition 17(c) could be replaced with Commissioner Skubic's. Farmakes: The drive aisle comment? Hempel: That should remain. Condition 17(b) should remain. Farmakes: Would you take a friendly amendment on 5? On the window signage. The City staff review that and see how that incorporates with current sign ordinance and configure... what defines a real window space in this proposal. Okay, any other additions? Okay, a motion's been made. Is there a second? Mehl: Second. Farmakes: With a second, we'll vote. Skubic moved, Mehl seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan for the Entertainment Complex (#95-21 SPR) as shown on the site plan dated December 12, 1995, with the following conditions: 1. The existing four trees located east of the existing bus shelter shall be relocated within the bus shelter area. Species shall be specified on the landscaping plan. 2. The applicant shall incorporate a sidewalk along Pauly Drive with the landscaping. Landscaping other than the city's boulevard trees shall be prohibited within the city's right-of-way or trail easement area. Any/all damaged sidewalk as a result of construction activities on the site shall be replaced in kind by the applicant. 62 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 3. All existing and proposed rooftop equipment shall be screened from views, specifically from Highway 5. 4. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. 5. Window signage will comply with city ordinance and the staff and applicant shall work together to define what constitutes real window space to be used in the calculations. 6. The following sign criteria is adopted as part of the site plan which includes variances: Signage Plan and Restrictions: Neon Illuminated a. The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands as indicated on Exhibit A. The letters and logos shall be restricted to 30 inches in height and must be back lit if illuminated. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall have a minimum depth of five inches and shall be constructed with a translucent facing over neon tube illumination. (Elevation drawing to be attached upon approval.) b. All individual dimensional letters and logos comprising each sign shall be back lit with neon tube illumination. Letter styles shall reflect the period style of the facades and/or corporate logos. At the cinema marquee and restaurant sign bands, lettering on a "Plexiglass" face shall be permitted and at the cinema marquee temporary individual letters and numbers may be used to display current and/or coming attractions, ratings and show times and dates. c. Tenant neon illuminated signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area. Sandblasted Wood, Tenant Identification a. The letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands as indicated on Exhibit A. Projecting signs may not exceed 4 feet in height and 3 feet in width. 63 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 b. All wooden signs shall be sandblasted and letters shall be an integral part of the building's architecture. c. Signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered and such minimal messages such as date of establishment of business. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band or within the projecting sign and do not occupy more than fifteen (15) percent of the sign display area. d. Projecting signs shall be stationary, may be lighted by spotlight and must use one of the three frame designs set forth on Exhibit A. e. Project signs shall be limited to one per tenant, not to exceed 6 signs total, and may not exceed 12 square feet each sign. Menu Signs a. Shall be located at eye level adjacent to tenant entries as indicated on Exhibit A and shall not exceed 4 feet in height. b. Shall be used only to convey daily specials, menus and offerings and shall be wood framed chalkboard and/or electronic board with temporary handwritten lettering. No paper construction or messages will be permitted. c. Menu signs shall be limited to one per tenant and may not exceed 8 square feet. Posters a. The cinema shall be permitted framed poster displays for current and/or coming attractions at the south elevation only. Building Directory a. One building directory shall be permitted at the sign band indicated on Exhibit A at the "Bank Building" location. The directory sign shall not exceed 12 square feet. 7. Cross access easements and maintenance agreements need to be provided over the parking lot and driveways. 64 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 8. Building Official conditions: a. Amend site plan review application to include replatting with the object of removing critical property lines, or redraw plans to comply with code requirements for opening protection. b. Have a qualified engineer perform a structure evaluation of the subject building. This should be done prior to building permit issuance. c. Revise plans to relocate disabled parking spaces closer to other building entrances. This should be done prior to building permit issuance. d. Clarify extent of proposed alterations to the frontier building. This should be done prior to site plan approval. e. Clarify the nature of the crosshatched area between the proposed entertainment complex and the frontier building. This should be done prior to site plan approval. 9. Fire Marshal conditions: a. "No Parking Fire Lane" will be established by the Fire Marshal. Contact Fire Marshal for exact details and comply with Policy #06-1991. Copy enclosed. b. A remote fire department sprinkler connection must be relocated to the south side of the building. Contact Fire Marshal for exact location. c. Maintain a ten foot clear space around new or existing fire hydrants. d. Submit radius turn dimensions to City Engineering and Fire Marshal for approval. 10. The northwest elevation shall be remodeled as part of this proposal. 11. The applicant's engineer shall submit to the city for review and approval a storm drainage management plan. The plan shall also include detailed stormwater calculations and area drainage maps for a 10 year storm event. 12. The applicant shall sleeve the portion of the city's sanitary sewer and water line which are impacted by encroachment of any building structure within the city's utility easements. In addition, the applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the city for construction. The building structure, walkway within the city's utility 65 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 easement. All utility construction shall be in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Since most of these improvements will be considered private, separate building permits will be required through the City's Public Safety Department for all storm sewer and utility lines. 13. The applicant and/or contractor will be responsible for adjustment of all existing gate valves, manholes, and catch basins on the site. The City's Utility Department will require inspection of these adjustments. 14. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new development. The plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. Type I erosion control fence and rock construction entrances shall be employed and maintained at all access points until streets have been paved with a bituminous surface. Catch basins shall be protected with silt fence and/or hay bales until the parking lot has been paved with bituminous surface. 15. All disturbed areas as a result of construction shall be restored with sod and/or landscaping materials within two weeks of completion of the parking lot. 16. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval and to guarantee restoration of city boulevards and adjustments to the city's infrastructures. 17. The applicant shall redesign the site plan parking lot configuration to include the following items: a. Show the city's 50 foot right-of-way along Pauly Drive. b. Incorporate a drive aisle access to the east out to the Dinner Theater/Great Plains Boulevard. c. That the applicant and staff shall work together to vacate the eastern end of Pauly Drive for parking lot expansion in that area. d. Provide a turn around for city snowplow equipment at the end of Pauly Drive or enter into an agreement with the City allowing city snowplows to utilize the parking lot facility. 66 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 e. Widen main drive aisles to 28 feet wide and incorporate larger radiuses to accommodate emergency vehicles, and increase drive aisle widths to a minimum of 26 feet wide per city ordinance. f. The applicant shall prepare a traffic control plan for city staff to review and approve prior to issuance of a building permit. 18. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tile found during construction and abandon or reconnect all tiles as directed by the City Engineer. 19. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all the necessary permits of the regulatory agencies such as health dept., watershed district and MPCA. 20. In conjunction with the subdivision process, the city reserves the right to require the necessary drainage and utility easements or street right-of-way based on the subdivision proposal. 21. Prior to final City Council approval of the site plan for the property the developer agrees to wholly replace and/or reconstruct a traffic facility on the property, and further agrees to obtain approval for such replacement or reconstruction from the Southwest Metro Transit Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Conrad moved, Mehl seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 6, 1995 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ONGOING ITEMS: Aanenson: I just have one to share with you. I hope you received a copy of the Highway 5 corridor study and the little letter that says we've officially been approved. Technically it will be placed on the Met Council agenda for the 22nd, but the letter we got from the staff said that it is, we can immediately put it into effect. So that copy that you received does have the integrated ordinance in that so we will be making changes to the comprehensive plan map like in areas that we've done in the 1995 study area. Now again, we haven't brought it into the MUSA but we have guided that so just so you're aware of that. And then also, if any of you are interested in serving on the Carver County Task Force. Another Wednesday meeting. They're going to be updating the comprehensive plan so if anybody's interested. You get a per diem. $30.00. 67 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Farmakes: All those interested per diem can meet after the meeting. Aanenson: And just to let you know next week there is, I mean in two weeks, your next meeting there will also be a pretty lengthy agenda. There's quite a few things. Applebee's was bumped from this meeting. They wanted to resolve some issues with their site plan but we do have quite a few items on the next meeting. The first meeting in February, which is the 7th, we set that up for a work session. Tentatively we've got...pud is just a discussion. Talking about the...and what things we need to do. Maybe just kind of broad brush, talk about PUD and I hope...to go look at a couple of sites that we've done recently. We won't have anything on the agenda. We'll just plan on doing some.._and again, that's the 7th. Farmakes: Open discussion? Good. Meeting's adjourned? Conrad moved, Peterson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion caned. The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 68 CITY OF t(:), CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director, AICP DATE: January 11, 1996 SUBJ: Proposed Auto Sales in the IOP District Bernie Wagnild has been meeting with city staff regarding the consideration of rezoning property along State Highway 5. This property is zoned IOP. Auto sales is not a permitted use in this district. Staff has stated that they would not support amending the district. If the IOP district was amended, auto sales would be permitted in any area guided IOP. In addition, staff is concerned with the introduction of commercial uses along Highway 5. Staff believes this is in conflict with the Highway 5 corridor study. Please see attached letter dated August 23, 1995 to Mr. Wagnild. Staff has suggested that Mr. Wagnild appear before the Planning Commission under open discussion portion of the agenda. Mr. Waginald and staff will be providing additional information at the meeting. /17:: C OLDS•PONTIAC•GMC ID 7500 West 145th Street • Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 • (612) 432-9500 January 1996 To: Members of the Planning Commission City of Chanhassen From: Bernie Wagnild President Valley Sales of Waconia Re: Locating our Pontiac-GMC Truck dealership in Chanhassen It is our desire to relocate our Pontiac-GMC Truck dealership to a 5 to 6 acre plot in McGlynn Park, outlot A, in the city of Chanhassen. I will be attending the planning commission meeting on the evening of January 17 to outline our project, answer questions you may have and look for direction on moving forward with the project. Following is an outline of the principals and the project to give you some basic understanding of our proposal. The principals. Bernie Wagnild is president of Valley Sales of Waconia. I am entering my fortieth year in the automobile dealership business. 1 have been a dealer for over twenty years. I am the president of Valley Sales, Inc., an Oldsmobile, Pontiac, GMC Truck located in Apple Valley as well as president of Valley Sales of Hastings, in Hastings. Jim Paul is vice-president of both corporations. Jim has over 26 years experience and has lived most of his life in the Chanhassen, Minnetonka area. Jim is also vice-president of our other two dealerships and executive manager of Valley Sales, Inc. Paul Brown has over twenty years experience in the automobile business, is secretary-treasurer and executive manager of Valley Sales of Waconia. Paul has operated the dealership for over eight years and would be our operator in Chanhassen. Paul is also a area resident. The reason for the location. General Motors is in the process of the greatest realignment of franchises in their history. They are cutting the number of franchises substantially, requiring dealerships that fit what the public and communities are looking for prior to the year 2000. An example are the new Saturn dealerships. After extensive research, both Pontiac and GMC Truck have settled on this area for our relocation. It also fits State of Minnesota franchise laws. Our reasons for the particular location are numerous. Visibility, accessibility, availability of utilities and price are among the factors. We neither want or need to be in a high traffic retail area. Automobile retailing, both sales and service, is destination retailing and as a result, the McGlynn property is a very desirable site. i . OLDS•PONTIAC•GMC 7500 West 145th Street • Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 • (612) 432-9500 The facility. Our project would meet or exceed the standards of your highway corridor plan and be one of the most attractive buildings in the area. We are not proposing a sea of cars like the Target or Byerlys parking lot. Instead we would propose a buffered area with the building being the star. The initial facility would be approximately 25,000 square feet. Benefits to Chanhassen. We are a solid, stable organization and a good corporate citizen that would bring skilled, high paying jobs to the city. Demographics show the business potential is similar to our Apple Valley operation. In 1994 Apple Valley did in excess of$42,500,000 in volume, employing almost 90 people and had a payroll of over $3,000,000. We would continue our reputation of being very involved in the community and supporting local youth and charitable organizations. We would be a substantial tax payer. Supporting local business is also important to us. We are happy with the positive reception we have received from members of the community who are aware of our plans. We ask you to join us in making this project a successful reality. A project everyone would be proud of. One that would be a feather in the cap of the community and would show that Chanhassen remaions a progressive community. A CITY OF HANflAEN - , 690 ,i , 0.,,,, CHANHASSEN ,r0,,,,, .. .„ _.., ..,,,.., ...\_„ ,_ ,. „:„ COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ~'"ly" (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 August 23, 1995 Mr. Bernie Wagnild Valley Olds Pontiac GMC 7500 West 135th Street Apple Valley, MN 55124 Dear Bernie, This letter is a follow up to our meeting on August 2, 1995. At that meeting, I told you I would discuss with the City Attorney the concern I have about amending the IOP district to allow for auto sales. I have also discussed auto sales on the Highway 5 corridor with the consultant who developed the Highway 5 Corridor Study. As you are aware, I have been opposed to amending the Industrial Office District to allow for auto sales because it flies in the face of what the city has spent the last 3 years to prohibit, more auto related uses along the highway. One of the objectives of the Highway 5 Study as stated in the document is "buildings will be oriented to reduce massing and scale where appropriate in proximity and to screen undesirable elements from view. Undesirable elements include parking lots, loading docks, etc. Generally, buildings should have office and design amenities located closer to the highway. The undesirable elements should be located behind the building when viewed from the highway." While you have stated that you believe you can present a design that can meet our concerns, there is a broader issue and that is conflict with the Highway 5. In speaking with the city's consultant on the Highway 5 Study, once a car dealership goes in, there is enormous pressure for auto related uses to follow. I personally observed several other locations to see what uses would go next to auto sales. My first observation was that car dealerships locate next to each other. I didn't see a single dealership in an area, at minimum was two. Auto repair and maintenance related, and service stations are also located in adjacent areas. It is the opinion of the City Attorney that if auto sales were permitted, this definition would also allow for boat, truck, recreational vehicles and motorcycles, etc. I find it highly unlikely if this zone were amended to allow for auto sales that there would not be requests for these types of uses. Mr. Bernie Wagnild August 24, 1995 Page 2 They city has spent 3 years developing the Highway 5 Corridor Study. The view of our community is offered by the trips along this highway. It is the primary exposure to our community. I believe the adoption of the Corridor Study and its recommendations are well founded and are supported by the community. After speaking with the city attorney and our consultant on the Highway 5, study I am not willing to recommend changing the IOP district to allow for auto sales. I hope you continue to look at existing commercial districts that are available in the city. Sincerely, [UV. /*-1\12/k/y21/\. Kathryn R. Aanenson, AICP Planning Director c: Don Ashworth, City Manager Todd Gerhardt, Assistant City Manager 8'. CITY OF CUANBASSEN \ _ _ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 ..'•ftea4♦ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planning Director DATE: January 10, 1996 SUBJ: 1996 Planning Commission Goals Attached are the goals we discussed and recommended for the commission this year. I will be presenting the goals to the City Council on January 24, 1996. Please let me know if you want to make any changes or additions prior to my presentation to the City Council. 7,.. CITY OF fi � ii CHANHASSEN7 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planning Director DATE: August 30, 1995 SUBJ: 1996 Planning Commission Goals Attached are the ongoing issues as of August, 1995. These are the goals that the Commission . recommended for their work task for 1995. We are now into the 1996 budget year and staff is requesting consideration of upcoming goals for 1996. Following is a list of potential tasks: 1. Possible consideration of MUSA expansion. This would depend on timing of services and what can be served already in the community. I believe this additional land in the MUSA may help keep land prices on an equal basis. The area to be considered would be the area most recently gave zoning destination to which would be the northern portion of Hwy. 5 at the intersection of Hwy. 41. 2. Update the Comprehensive Plan and Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). The CIP was a five year plan which has now expired. In addition, many of the elements that were recognized in the Comp Plan have been met. As a part of that update, staff would be preparing an evaluation of the comp plan, reviewing areas where we have met the goals and revise them as mandates or issues change. 3. Affordable housing is being mandated by the legislature, under Livable Communities Act (LCA). It appears that we may have to participate in the Livable Communities Act in order to be able to request further MUSA expansions. This will be discussed with the City Council also. 4. I would like to consider some training for the Planning Commission through outside and in-house resources. 5. Continuing with work issues that were scheduled for 1995, we had proposed to do the 1995 Study Area south of Lyman Boulevard. Staff is waiting for the Park and Recreation Commission to complete their work task. They are trying to put out Planning Commission August 30, 1995 Page 2 options on property in this area and feel it would be prudent to wait until they resolve what areas they want to consider purchasing before the Planning Commission starts speculating on the land uses and timing of bringing land into the MUSA or possible future development. We hope to work on the BF District yet this year. 6. Staff will continue working on the Bluff Creek Studies spearheaded by Diane Desotelle. Staff would like the Commission to give direction on any other items they would like to see as a part of the 1996 work goals. ON-GOING ISSUES August 1995 ISSUE STATUS 1. Highway 5 Corridor Study and City Council has selected the southern Land Use Recommendation alignment. In June the council adopted the remaining portion of the Corridor Study. The document is in revised form and will be printed for final dispersement. 2. Southern 1995 Study Area: BF Staff is proposing to study the remaining District and remaining city land land outside of the MUSA. We will be uses outside of the MUSA Line. studying property in conjunction with the Park and Recreation Commission open space study. We will also be recommending land use by the end of 1995. In early 1996, we will begin evaluating the timing for the Planning Commission hearing process and determine how much, if any, area should be brought into the city's MUSA area. 3. Slope Protection Ordinance. The Planning Commission has held one work session on the proposed ordinance. Staff is making changes. 4. Revise PUD Ordinance. The standards of the PUD ordinance do not necessarily merit the increase in the flexibility it allows. Staff believes the PUD should be a process. Proposed changes are included in a Code glitch update. The Planning Commission has requested that the staff review the PUD separate from the "glitch " amendment. 5. Bluff Creek Study The next meetings scheduled for August 7, 1995. 6. Joint Meeting with Park and The joint meeting was held on 1/24/95. Recreation Commission 7. Affordable Housing Staff is exploring the affordable housing issue. We are examining what affordable housing is in the metro area and how Chanhassen fits into this issue. We are also monitoring the Metropolitan Council's new blue print as well as the 1995 Legislature for any housing mandates. 8. Train Depot The Planning Commission requested staff explore the possibility of moving the old train depot to the City Center, especially in light of the train that is providing the rides 9. Transition Zone The Planning commission requested that staff develop an ordinance for transition zones between different densities and intensities of use. The ordinance was reviewed at a work session. The city Council reviewed the proposed ordinance on July 24, 1995. The council tabled the item and staff will rewriting the ordinance. 2