Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
07-15-92 Agenda and Packet
FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 1992, 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Non-conforming Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot for Sunny Slope Homeowners Association. 2. Concept Review of a Planned Unit Development for 3 (16 units each-rental) buildings 9 (8 unit-owner occupied) buildings and a clubhouse/office on 25.29 acres and Rezoning of property zoned R-12, High Density Residential to PUD and located north of West 78th Street, between Kerber and Powers Boulevard, Oak Ponds/Oak Hill, Lotus Realty/Oaks Community Development. NEW BUSINESS OLD BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS OPEN DISCUSSION 3. Tree Conservation Easements. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF CIIAN' HASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 .,R, MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner DATE: July 7, 1992 SUBJ: Sunny Slope Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlot BACKGROUND The Association property is located outside of the Sunny Slope Subdivision. The Association owns Lot 37 of Shores Acres. The lot is 5,000 square foot in area and has 50 feet of frontage, well under the area and frontage required for a beachlot. This property has a lengthy history. The following is a brief outline of that history. • 1977 - Sunny Slope Subdivision was approved • 1978 - Allen Gray, Developer for Sunny Slope, applied for a beachlot permit on Lot 37, Shore Acres Subdivision, it was withdrawn after neighborhood objection • 1981- Sunny Slope Homeowners Association take possession of Lot 37, Shore Acres • 1986 - The Planning Commission and Board of Adjustments recommend denial of the request for a variance and conditional use permit for a beachlot. The applicant asked that the application be withdrawn before the City Council took any action. • 4/25/88 - a request for a variance and a conditional use for a beachlot was denied by the City Council. n t0, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER — Sunny Slope Recreational Beachlot July 7, 1992 Page 2 _ • 5/29/90 - District Court Finding upholding the denial of the conditional use permit and variance request. — According to the staff survey taken in 1981, the site was not developed. Specifically, there was not a dock, no boats or swimming beach. Sunny Slope Association is requesting approval of 1 _ dock, 40 feet in length, and 3 boats. The association is stating that their intent was always to have a beachlot with boats at the docks. The Finding of Fact of the District Court stated that the "property may be used for recreational activities like swimming, picnicking, and other outdoor activities and sports." The Recreational Beachlot Ordinance states that all recreational beachlots, including beachlots established prior to — February 19, 1987, to be used for swimming but only if swimming areas are clearly delineated with marker buoys that conform to the United States Coast Guard standards. SUMMARY The Planning Commission and the City Council have previously denied a request for a — recreational beachlot at the subject site. The District Court has upheld their decision. The intent of the Non-conforming Beachlot Ordinance is to establish to a level of use in the summer of 1981. The association would like to have a dock (40 feet in length) with 3 boats, and a canoe — rack. The ordinance would permit the association to have a swimming beach. Staff has documented that there was no activity at this beachlot in the summer of 1981, therefore, there is no grandfathering status. The beachlot ordinance and the court finding have stated that a — swimming beach is permitted. NON-CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT PERMIT ASSOCIATION P.C. CITY COUNCIL REQUEST RECOMMEND ACTION Association Sunny Slope Lake Riley Number of Homes 12 Size, square feet 5,000 Shoreline 50' Motor Vehicle Access not requested Off-Street Parking not requested Boat Launch not requested -- Buildings not requested Picnic Tables not requested Grills/Campfires not requested Seasonal Dock 1 Diagram 40 feet Canoe Racks 1 Boats on Land not requested Boats at Dock 3 Boats Moored not requested Swimming Beach yes Marker Buoys Swimming Raft not requested Miscellaneous * Items requested by the Association for determination. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 NON-CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT APPLICATION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION: SC,Lnr . 1 Stop(' CONTACT PERSON: T E f\n p 4 t D k e r ADDRESS: ?)(-0 C a.,SS Alk.) 5�3 TELEPHONE (Day time) Lig 1 V337 TELEPHONE (Evening) : 9I3 ? Please provide all requested data consistent with what existed in the summer of 1981. 1. Number of homes in the Homeowners Association ' !bU% t4+1JLO-6 2 . Length of shoreland (feet) 'S 0 ' 3 . Total area of Beachlot (in square feet) . 5000 4 . Number of docks j 6. Length of dock(s) D prterux,r, 7 . Number of boats docked 0 8 . Number of canoe racks 0 9 . Number of boats stored on canoe racks d 10. Number of boats moored, i.e. canoes, paddle boats, sailboats. C? 11. Number of boats on land C nO4 to f (�fY 12 . Swimming beach Yes X No Buoys Yes No X 13 . Swimming Raft Yes No '}C 14 . Boat Launch Yes No h 15. Motor vehicle access Yes No Number of parking spaces 16. Structures, including portable chemical toilets: RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT INVENTORY 1981 1986 1991 Sunny Slope 12 homes Lake Riley 5, 000 sq. ft. 50 ' of shoreline Motor Vehicle Access no no no Off-Street Parking no no no Boat Launch no no no Permanent Buildings no no no Setbacks Temporary Buildings no no no Portable Restroom no no no Picnic Tables no no no Grills/Campfires no no no Seasonal Docks no 1 not 1 not in in water water Approximate Length 40" 40 ' Canoe Racks no no no Boats on Land no 2 no canoes Boats Moored no no no Boats Docked no no no Swimming Beach no no no Marker Bouys no no no Swimming Raft no no no Comments: not devel. Steve and Kathy Burke 9591 Meadow Lark Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 445-1772 April 7 , 1992 — This letter serves as my affidavit of history of Sunny Slope Association, the Beachlot and dock issue. It is — written to the best of my knowledge and I give Sunny Slope Association the right to use it in conjunction with other information as deemed necessary. We bought the house at 340 Deerfoot Trail , Sunny Slope Association, in June 1981 . Our decision was based on our liking the area and the benefits offered by the association as outlined in the attached brochure. We were especially enthusiastic about the lakeshore and _ the dock that was on the property. It was not installed at that time , but I was assured that it could be installed anytime for our use. We were the only family in the association for the next 2 1 /2 years . I never installed the dock since I didn ' t have a boat over this period of time. In 1983 and 1984 other families built in SunnySlope and plans for installing a dock were made based on the Association belief that we could have a dock and boats as part of the benefits of ownership of a lakeshore lot . Chanhassen never notified Sunny Slope to the contrary at any time . A new dock was purchased in 1984 , the one currently on the property. The old one was given to Paul Olson, property owner at 9239 Lake Riley Blvd. Mr Olson owns the property next to the Association lakeshore property. He has used the _ dock over the past years . After installing the dock, the Association was requested by the city to remove the dock because they didn' t — acknowledge the fact that there was a dock and that we were in violation of city regulations . Again, the Association never received any previous notice stating that we could not have a dock and associated docking rights . In recap, when we purchased our house in the Association _ there was a dock on the property and all representations for Sunny Slope Association included full lakeshore recreation privileges . I hope this letter eliminates any confusion in terms of the dock issue. I have since sold the house in Sunny Slope and have no gain from submission of the statement . Since ely Steve Burke Sunny Slope Association Intended Beachlot Usage Plans Sunny Slope Association is a 12 home association in Chanhassen . The association shares ownership of two commons areas comprising of a center area of approximately 1 acre plus a lakeshore lot on Lake Riley. The benefits of the association are tennis , playground , basketball and swimming . Boating and dock usage were to be part of the benefits of association membership also . The lake shore lot was part of the development plan from the start of Sunny Slope . See the attached Sales brochure and the referencing of access to the lake for Boating , fishing and swimming. The plans also included the use of a dock and associated dock rights that was on the property at the time of purchase . The Association has no desire to overburden the area with usage , especially with the size of the lot . Our plans were to have one dock and overnight dockage for 3 boats . This is the same benefit as any other residential property which we compared to in size in the area . We also wanted a storage rack for canoes . These are the only additional needs that we need to enjoy the benefits of our small Association. We currently have the rights to swim, fish and have other recreational activities on the property . Additional shrubs and bushes would be _ planted to help the lot maintain a finished look blending with the neighborhood. To ensure the 3 boat overnight limit , the association planned to add control procedures for a 3 week rotational of boats owned by association members . These procedures would be incorporated into our Association Covenants and Bylaws . These procedures were not put into the covenants due to the ongoing dock issue over the past years with the City . In recap : 1 . The association had a dock in 1981 as per the affidavit from Steve Burke . 2 . The Association was sold to the homeowners with the understanding that they had full lake access through the lake lot . 3 . The Association ' s intention was to use this dock and provide the ability for overnight storage of 3 boats at a time on a rotational basis of member owned boats . 4 . A canoe storage rack would be available for member ' s canoes . 5 . Procedures and controls would be established and added to the Associations covenants and bylaws . It is not Sunny Slope ' s intention to create unecessary burdens but to cooperate in the open spirit to resolve an issue that should never had been an issue to start . Being a small association, it will be very easy for us to monitor and ensure compliance of the covenants of Sunny Slope in this matter . We invite the City Planning Commission and Council to visit our association in this process . Any questions can be directed to: _ Ken Wolter Current Association President 341 Deerfoot Tr . Chanhassen, MN 55317 612-496-1337 — • - -.---j.17-,-4. t;;; ' t'-v- %JOY:: 3z- ... :-....r--.. • 1,4'4' - •-.:'.:geiplor..-8•-%-r-, -..t-;••_ -- ,--,.-:--•-: ..•fi3 rb.r .-:.. - .St...,,-.1.. -.4....., .4.-41,/,-1.1-,,rt,,,et;-.--....Nr••-• - -- ;:-..-!;'1.-:-*1.. ,•.::.!...4,k-r,......r....fl.....t-..,.....me; . I.4:"..-- :JO.,g";-.4.4“:-.141‘'."k"i" ;-7."'Irli'' • '.;:a.f.- -,-4,- -:i.-274"2-1: :e.744,1F -.5-1?"4.--.`r.Z.;1 T1:-'7'-...:-•:. r-'-:-.*IP 7/,--44f..f:::* ,-; '' 7 -v-• ,r --'- ' t'17::t_ '-. -.7';.-;'' )..i:1 c... 1111!%-- Z- - .:. - -.-?7'z--7'-it.3 t. 7--,..: `..•:' :-.--;""er- :".''-''-2,4:.::- 1%."' .----tr't-tg-f-';',Vr';-'--1.e..*.y:4- . . . .7. ;;t1t_T..rt--,_' ,::•,71:.:2;.::'.":•: ?-- '- .,7- *-:-. .- -. 2:_,-..:- ._ •-i.-. . 4 ....-. - - -- +7 ...y ::, .I. :-...FV; ' •,.5.... 7 -1....----;'1.7'.:.1.1.e.!Ifi.$737-.3- - - " .:' -,:' ' ••. I.- - -.... - . ' '' - ' -.... ••• ,, --,..z.:::..-:- ,.,..-... ,, _ . , re A.g - 2_ z -t t v) Ca 2 •R 1 = -1"--.- ' - ' •...., . . ... ....71., -nr-`.....i.. -;,_,-:, - 1r'= ....i r 7., 51, 1 t i a 5 5: = si 2.,-..c,„ .,, A t, 0 = -- -•a:* ,- '..;.,:, .*-.• r.1%4 2-- u,,,,:ig.es-7 g.',., Z. F....5 .c .z. — tli•- -— ,., §.E 7 K E ; 0 • • :-,. • --,-t: - ,•,.. • A. g.ri - . , . .. E •••• •"2 7- 3' 5- a; — •'-:,':- " fv (ID cis - . mini 6_ ....1 = ! _ -::: 1., .. „nto 4.•,,, ,c: x_ci ...,z ,T,......LT, 2: ":. _I,„, IL'is =0 =.r) ft i cr 9 I . . 1 _ ig c 11•11111 _ - = F•2.. , 0, 0,t) .... _ _ i g- 6 r-,i-"2, 0 n , — -t. et • eo Fr- ol V " 0 it, =,00 ‘,„ - E r, P. FL 1 r..?r) a. ...• x - , z ..= r, Ge fl ? liZe •3 4. i 2 L p.. fE ei § ' › 10 0.1 El.. a- - (0 ..,rm n c — ,T, 5 = g _ 15, „., etg — — C — 2.0 . K -• c 3 c .-, r x, :.•s......... -, 0 _ z rt —a; Le ,.--_ = "S 57= — -g I r; 5 „r•-.' , ,-. r,-.1 "t tt. • ,z)- I» I r.- - -- -- - CD (1) 1......4,.., z _• ez ,... :,.. = ..... ,„, n et .. Zs. Cu 4r) c `- ='• 2) : .,c) < „, © —• ro 9 0 .. p-h- = ..... co = .... ...• 'cr. co Cr ft —• = = = ""• ",, CI tc . • -. , et C vow Lt: (j: 1...• .../S ••::: 0 t )U, r■t- tC e. I... Cl/ (or bad = (n cr, . = cn - 0 : _— - -' • _ - • A .' Zil .1.1•41 li 11011111111 .1 1 ••• - 4 -- 0 ilirint° 0 = DI _ - cr :.-,- . it - - . . ,-,-• _ - "' E F 0• th ,...;, co lisr : e, 5-.. 3 — -. :.:-.,: ;,:i...,!;t-:-: ., . .. : – (n 04 . . _ • 1.:-3 -' . ' •`.- C .9: "-1 S. -..----..7-i..:: :::er-s. -7 f ••-: ---7--- ' -=,-:; _ --. - ' - - • -7- - - ..-. 4.,..-''' -- - . ' ,.. =1-,,„, _ 74* _4 -Pr t.V. -_X-:1-....‘f.-• ..:;,:r.--. :,"j?' ' :- 4-.:: '- -.7.*C.12..- -;.,_.--?T.' : .-..-• : -r - •-....v ,.;•:.: „ et____, ., 7 7 .....,,,, .. ....... 0'•12,.!-•:-.Z.Z?"..::: ---`...%ient.:....".--4:'7'7' • '-',1-.'-.:=••• ...W....7:1-- II, ' - ' '.•="- -' •-'".1:'.-:.- .' -14.:ltak-1,74 *6-: ,* ;',-:-2- ' - .- . ,". -'. Ct. ."..,..;:--- ...1.!;,::!:Fk.-.1, ",71.t--..!..-'1;:y•eF1--:-..- ." -!-:: '.'-':•..-‘.:-...-'7"'- -.:- ' _ '- . -: : - - _ ,'':'• _'..41 ,__. , .. = . .,--- _ --„ ....-_-_- CI.- ''. :--• , .....4,7,.•,:r;,,,-...R4: - -• - _ , • . . • , „ • ._„ • 4 . . _ . . • : , 1-_ , . _ • . - . • . • . • - . , •• __ , • . , ,. . •..• " , .,- - • - - - - - •- - . . : . ••• . . . . , . • - • . 4-,.-- - -- - - • - ' . .. le- - ka::-..,-- .,. .?--..x. .. ..-•-_,.- -. art• . -.- - . . ct,..:. • . to • •- ..„ .--. •-•,. . to • . ... t7-..5::-..._ ..-•>-:::•.• -= -ca tu.4,-:,.2 On .--. gb-.•..- . - 5i.. ' -... 431 ..%i 0•Lir. ''.;-•a E . - _E - -- -a E . . - - .....,,......„... • .--.•.._. • Z L o•§ ---• co . ri a ela..' C 0 . .,.;-., .....ff 1,F-C_tz 2 4 x. .. x.-II, t• m..z 01 5.;-tv ‘• • I_ co . - 4, • 32 I...•. = 0 c 1-. =. 0 '•-•-. f , - • 3 - i-• , ,_ ,4) c ., 01 ._,_.- ,. ,„ c *4•.• r.- - - .3euttica, = 44 = C 4) {S),..1. .71 a c..mi 4)..c -.,,, ez Ci)...• E - •- ic. 3" Zi a u • - V)•••. i• 0 eel XI 'til. % g 8 0 ria a .13 . 2 , E u, ,:-4 .2 .a •-• (A c CI) 3., U 0 L. 1 cu ••••• u u2-SI (1) 2 cw 2'f..1- ir "-§ .__* z• 'c .-1- "X...., • C ..r. c ; 1.'- 3. c 2..' cv 7:4 1,.. . MI (I) . . a; -0.i.e. > cm= C 0 X ...1 us Di us Cl "C E 3 I.- .... (03 • ..... = > to c et 03 2 6. - 4" 0 w g i- 2..2 T.; - E .2-ci...1-- -3 -2 -,., (1) -6 co 10 o i.e3 -d 0 ...., $c- -0 h. C T. -° "" S. 6.4 -C 0 *2 g 13 R-a a 03 ••• c --, 3. eg • w „-- E 4 al•S .7o'-, a; cliug. ° m •-,•`° ° Qwww_ • "-- cg.1E '30 -15 c..- - .0E -- t: u v rn W '' 0. '"' aj L.C min -. ire 10. 0 It •-• -5 .3-3 ,,-00- = 0 - - - m - elint: 4"b -a5 id ... . u - tccol .-. C1303-° 0 C2.12'.'-V 8 w .- z E u r o ° c ‘ o-a-, .c cn o .-E c-1:, f, 2 g-.°- • a c a lc 41 ,C 1 A e f,,j.... .4 0 I, 0 c .a•. kt., w, ,.....1.- t.)4/ 0 .'''' ....4.7 1'• . r,n 3.,3 •1:: ,, i.. •• •- ‘3 C 0 W a = ii • r•-ig 63 03 CI* 0Za 04A Q 0 = R = ?,,, cii Olt 03 ..411 03> 0 W••-- 3= c -.. u w3,3 S 03 t... cy CJ M C 03 :LI ••• to,. 44 ."7 C 0 CtcroCC ,....- E ›, r50 .- = tj e., 0 3) a. go -1131 gm 4:1) ,"". t 0 •-- 't -- to tri 1-. a' c1:1 t-' cnt:oCUC .....v .g 'a 41 5 0 3 41 ,-.5 -F. 1 u 1 •• ..- Z 5 C C 03 (33 Cu-, ...., z ers 4 fc= - raScr, cno = .4.1a . ,,g .cr cc 0 ‘r .= 4-. ....., .= ..,.- c.., .c. c .1c c..c w - Q., ... - _ - -...., -m u .--c - _ [... E -§ gEt) .(0 -- -6 ,0 = wcgo - di • • • • • • • .••• • i'C'''''!Ni Tilliql: 101ii'lliliiTliiiIIIIIiIirTliff If[Iiii I Sir;'F.': 7-47 ., ;. • ', ii 1 i!11111111411;1111!!!Ill 11:1:1 li l t . 1 5; • 4.,:" .. -. / ...- ,.. $ i ... " )! V11:illi!illti„.1q111101iil ! ° ANN=.0".;(71 ai ill:. / i - r.,;.-7.-• - i E-7-1:4 11 I . i• i ,, , , ,1,,..,:i,i,;;N„?, .,i, ••=ii .1, .• . . i -vol!iii, ,, r,,I;11:qpim,;,;:ltpl ei i 1; S - , ,/, s ...&",(ti,Iftli,m,i,;;Itin; ?,,t -es. • - ..... i / , -,,! ),i,,„„ llii,1 ouly11,1 71441, 1 ,_.- : i -15 1:4:E• - _ - .. f / 1 11 •, . , 1 ; I ,1„.. 444 aye7 'S / I/ AfIltii.11:1,11qt1 tisml NI t ca'..CLU / : '. ___. r .; I 4.1:2 - ;I t.titttUntil it i'l" ' ar Cr 0 u - i ,m11;Iniil ill:, 42) i!illl .e.4.,. ,... , / , , , ililiii iii , .. ,.:.., . '°;•,44". " ''' i li cu a - • -,=•,,,, "ILII /, I - •-.....A.-..e's ....'•;",_. :,.: ' . re. le --.--.. .f. . .,- - •-4.eic.- 'r.., .71': Ie._ _ - - ,--.- - e - - I.° .- mili1111,111:1 4, It,, .... . - i . ., . , .., , ---;;,,,..-_tat 7.......;.0-,, --C" =-"`•‘. . .. --•• ,-.•.,. e -'.7-.- . .-- 0 .1‘...... 000 „ , ...- _ • • .. •:,,,-„.A...., -'-',--41-,..:". "t .;.-_,,...._if ._ 1 -.::: :.: 461 .-,9k-,...-:;:ert,..,....--,::_-_.1!,..1);v;-,,,.:-.:..--0.:. -1i. ., 41111111 ;;i1„i1111111 rt, 11? 41:-----.-'- 7::% . 004.1. itliliill it r,.."71L.- - ''•r--"4,9,-;-1-, ....... -'.'-•-• - 2 I 1 ei) '...........,.-.:/r-,-L...:.', •-..•..--,.-,l,o-.t.--ipoo„J,zr ' `•._-.•7-.--.•-:.•-,-•=r-•,k,,:._,---.;.*.4-4...-0..•.-....".-,- 2 •.. -. i,dIl,1 Iy.,n .,ll t.1 0 = DIIii) - ... , . bi _ ;411r-2-Z.=',- -_ ••••• --.....‘ .. y :_-•,..f., Ze:,-;.dt en---.--.• .:e..-1 -1 .=.2.i:' 77 •..:::-,f.,•-•_^:„.:._ - . . 4•0 4 -,--s,--_ , ._ ,. . _ -..-,...,''r-v,,,...„•-•'-:,;:t.i4 :7 - - z-.7" :-." ::;"---.-1------753'.'-- 7144jr. 416.141.11NDN4B.•• ) I113 K i) . . , ,,, ,,•.,.•,, ...1.j.. ....., „ , _ . ......,24.. s,.1,161,,,,,,,,,1 illIl ht...s..t , -7-l!....V41, .;.-. •:"....- , oft. ''...,'-- 1. t.' - ,,,..•-_....4• 1•••..t.'_-! 1 "'.2: s- •oet'•'-'0 .. •„.:„...1„!„),,,,, 77:,7.-• ..-:- . --.41. ,_ 1 ' - • ,,....,iift., ( t illki\ -e.:-.,--.• ,.,-, - *-47... -- --: ,....:,..:,-..- t.„ 4.,.., .„ _ . . ... ..:. .r.,,,....... ,,,„. .- 411: "illii`''',. i --..7...;:;;-:- ' - - , - "'C.:W.4i •••••• ..... iiiiillttinin, it '. -rz .... . . , . 7/....----.....nr ,..,.. 4 . ;,;;,1. 1 1 * • -1- 1 • e• ! ,.. .,..A.• , -,..,,,.6 _-_- a - *•.. niiiiii:W ir 1 i : -c-. •-_-, - 1--- • --7:'e,, 1: '---41"•i *; Z tni; I=----. _. ..,_ . . . 111t;;:.ti= \ 7;--- i - -...- - -•.. c- el' ..... : 141,,"::11". :„.,. '.:, $-:- :-...7,,,-...::::‘,„.7. - ..• ':7: • a' .lir i ti?.?11%.i 4NO •••• I - e - : I . ii'. ' .-- - .-.., . ,_,., . .. . _ ...O.- -;;;;;;:•,T.:m-1,, _.. .„ ; __.- • ..i. ',•„ , i •1110 i - I • ;..'. --e--11*. ',fa- . ,.. -••'" (1,ibbItaq • 1 cm )t I C • e -41-_,,-._ : s • ili,:81:,,;;I:tql,:;:i!,,,, '-...:7-!_,:'!-?•:',71,..:„--. - - ..c ,. . ;,-• .. - • 0 - initinuinietiiiiiiiiiia . ,'• .: . . - • . - - -.•-_ • - . . .._. , • SUNNY SLOPE ADDITION on Lake Riley in CHANHASSEN For Jeannette Harrington . Requested by the Veteran' s Administrat From Ernest Bundgaard, developer of Sunny Slope Addition WHAT YOU GET: Sunny Slope is a developement of 12 building sites, Outlot "A" which is composed of a park-like commons with a tennis court and off the street parking, Outlot "B" which is the private street servicing the 12 homesites and is called Deerfoot Trail, and Outlot "C" which is in fact Lot 37 of Shorewood Acres of Chan- hassen . Outlot "C" is the "beach lot" for the Sunny Slope addition. Since Sunny Slope homeowners will form an association called The Sunny Slope Homeowners Association and since the association is restricted to the owners of the 12 lots of Sunny Slope Addition then each homeowner is part owner (1/12th) of Outlots "A" , "B" and "C" , in addition to the property on which his home rests. MANAGEMENT OF OUTLOTS: Each eligible member of the Association will be charged a maintenance fee (1/12th of the whole) for each lot owned in Sunny Slope Addition such fee and/or fees to be used to defray the costs of such expenses as are occurred by the membership of the Association in the maintainence of Outlots "A" , "B" and "C". Ordinary costs are expected to be lawn mowing, leaf, debris and snow removal , the maintainence of such trees and shrubs as are common to the property and the maintainence of such dock as may be established by the membership. The membership is also jointly responsible (1/12th for each lot owned) to pay the taxes and assessments due on Outlots "A" and "C" . An initial meeting of the members of the Association may be called at any time by any member. At that meeting it will be determined what expenses are to be incurred by the Association apart from the expenses which have been agreed to by the developers i .e. street surfacing, seeding and landscaping. At such meeting it will also be determined who shall become the officers in authority of the Sunny Slope Homeowners Association. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA IN RE: Application of Sunny Slope Homeowner's Association for a Conditional Use Permit and variances for purposes of establishing a recreational beachlot on Lot 37, Shore Acres Addition On April 25, 1988, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of the Sunny Slope Homeowner's Association for a variance and a Conditional Use Permit to establish a recreational beachlot on Lot 37, Shore Acres Addition (9241 Lake Riley Boulevard) , in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota. The Applicant was present and the City Council heard testimony from all interested parties wishing to speak at the meeting and now makes the following Findings of Fact and Decision: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is located in the R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. 2 . A recreational beachlot requires a Conditional Use Permit, and the Applicant has the burden of proving that the standards for a Conditional Use Permit are met. 3 . Section 20-263 of the City Code places additional minimum standards on all recreational beachlots. 4 . The Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a recreational beachlot with the following improvements: (a) The installation of one dock adjacent to the lot of such size and shape as to conform to the requirements of the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance. (b) Allow the overnight storage of up to three watercraft. (c) Construct two (2) canoe racks capable of storing six canoes on each rack. (d) Install front and side lot fencing on the property to provide security and privacy. (e) Landscape the north side of the property to bring the contour of the lot in line with that of any neighbors to minimize soil erosion onto the lake. 5. The subject property has twelve (12) residential dwelling units which would have appurtential rights of access to the lot. 6. The City Code requires a lot to have a minimum of 200 feet of lake frontage to receive a Conditional Use Permit for a recreational beachlot. The City Code requires a minimum of 200 feet of lakeshore, 30, 000 square feet and 100 feet of lot depth for a recreational beachlot to have a dock. The proposed recreational beachlot has 50 feet of lake frontage, 110 feet of lot depth, and 5, 500 square feet of lot area. 7 . Approval of the application requires four (4) variances: (a) Conditional Use Permit for a recreational beachlot without the required 200 feet of lake frontage. (b) Permit a dock on a recreational beachlot without the required 200 feet of frontage and 30, 000 square feet of lot area. (c) Permit a canoe rack on a recreational beachlot without a dock. (d) Permit one additional canoe rack over the permitted one canoe rack per dock. 8 . A recreational beachlot is too intense a use of the small piece of property. -2- 9 . The beachlot would have an adverse effect upon adjacent single family homes. It would disrupt the quietude of the area by interjecting too many people into any area not designed to accommodate them. 10. The City's professional planner, in a report dated April 6, 1988 , and incorporated herein by this reference, recommended denial of the application. 11. Approving the application would generate additional boat traffic and congestion on the lake. 12 . The proposed recreational beachlot would depreciate adjacent property value. 13 . The Applicant has failed to show that the standards for granting a variance have been met. 14 . Strict enforcement of the provision of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance does not result in a hardship unique to the individual property. 15. There are no special circumstances or conditions concerning the land or its use which would necessitate a variance. 16. The lot can be put to reasonable use without the grant of the variances. DECISION 1. Based upon the foregoing considerations, Applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit for a recreational beachlot is denied. 2 . Based upon the foregoing considerations, Applicant's request for the four variances is hereby denied. -3- - - • . - .. Adopted this _"3/ day of 111-st-. , 1988. _ v CITY C HASSEN BY: / .//k3.7" LY ..r Thoi'as L. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST:z0 Don Ashworth, Mana'e'r/Clerk -4- S T!.TE OF MINNESOTA _ Alonzo B. Seran Attorney at Law COUNTY OF CARVER 730 Second Ave. S #315 Minneapolis, Mn 55402 Clerk' s Notice of Fil,.-i Entry or Docketing Elliot B. Knetsch Attorney at Law Yankee Square Office III Suite 202 3460 Washington Drive Eagan, MN 55122 — In Re: Anderson vs. City of Chanhassen, et al File No. . 87-22730 For the above entitled matter, you are notified that on May 29, 1990 x Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order for Judgment and Judgment Order Judgment Other was duly — x Filed MAY 29 1990 x Entered =. ,. .iNIS;fOR Docketed in the amount — Dated: May 29, 1990 Copies attached • Joyce A. VanEyll Court Administrator By: N�1 tt� L1 li— Deputy Court Administration — Carver County Courtho• 3f 600 East 4th Street Chaska, MN 55318 — Direct Dialing (612) 448-1201 Civil Divi si i 443-1202 Traffic Divi is • 448-1203 Vital Statis61( STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF CARVER FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE TYPE 10 : OTHER CIVIL Court File No. 87-22730 Steven T. and Nancy L. Anderson, et al Plaintiffs, vs. — INDINGS OF FACT, _F ' �- r ' C NCLUSION8 OF LAW, r _ O ER FOR JUDGMENT City of Chanhassen, et al JUDGMENT MAY 2 9 1990 Defendants. ti J:.1:h15 ngTOR The above entitled action was regularly placed on the court calendar and came on for hearing before the undersigned Judge of the above court on January 5, 1990, and April 18 , 1990. Alonzo B. Seran, Esq. appeared for and on behalf of plaintiffs; and Elliott B. Knetsch, Esq. appeared for and on behalf of defendants. Based upon the proceedings, files, records, and memoranda of counsel , THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Plaintiffs applied for a conditional use permit and four (4 ) variances to operate a recreational beachlot on property they own in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota. 2 . Public hearings were held before the City Planning Commission on April 6, 1988 , and April 20, 1988. 3 . Plaintiffs were given notice of the hearings and representatives of plaintiffs attended the hearings. 4 . Proper notices of the hearings were mailed and published according to law. 5. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons and recommended denial of the conditional use permit and variances. An accurate verbatim transcript of the public hearings was made. 6. The Chanhassen City Council considered plaintiffs' application on April 25, 1988 . The City Council heard testimony from all interested persons. An accurate verbatim transcript of the meeting was made. 7 . Plaintiffs received notice of the meeting and represent- atives of plaintiffs attended. 8 . On May 23 , 1988, the City Council adopted written findings of fact and denied plaintiffs' application. 9 . The City Council found, and the record supports, that: Lot 37 failed to meet minimum standards set forth in the ordinance for granting a conditional use permit; the proposed beachlot would have an adverse effect on adjacent single family homes; the use would disrupt the quietude of the area by interjecting too many people into too small an area; the use would generate additional boat traffic and congestion on the lake; the use would depreciate adjacent property value; the ordinance does not cause plaintiffs undue hardship; Lot 37 can be put to a reasonable use without the variances. 10. The City Council's findings are supported by facts in the record. The parties have stipulated that plaintiffs only -2- submitted one development plan for its property and that plaintiffs have not sought a variance for a single family home on Lot 37 . 11. Plaintiffs' property may be used for recreational activities like swimming, picnicking, and other outdoor activities and sports. 12 . Plaintiffs have reasonable use of their property under the City's ordinances. 13 . The record contains no evidence that the City treated plaintiffs' application differently than similar applications. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 . The City Council's findings are supported by facts in the record. 2 . The City Council's findings are legally sufficient. 3 . The City Council's decision denying the variances and conditional use permit has a rational basis, and is not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. 4 . Plaintiffs have a reasonable use of their property under City ordinances ; thus the City has not taken the property without just compensation in violation of law. 5. Plaintiffs' application was not treated differently than similar applications, thus the City's actions do not constitute a denial of equal protection of the laws. 6. The City's recreational beachlot ordinance is consti- tutional, as applied here. -3- ORDER 1. The City Council's denial of plaintiffs' application for a conditional use permit and variances is affirmed. 2 . The plaintiffs' Complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice. JUDGMENT Let judgement be entered accordingly. Dated this c95 day of / 1 + , 1990. BY THE COURT: V PHIL ' T. KAN 'ING Jud. - • the istrict Co4 t JUDGMENT I hereby certify that the foregoing Order constitutes the Judgment in _ this matter. Dated this 29th day of May, 1990. BY THE COURT: Joyce A. VanEyll Court Administrator By: Deputy j j F L,ituky 2 193 ' - -..,,:-. .- •••••••;••••••••••'......... -4- M Ic r• 120° 1• S16°40'W- IL• iI1 / .: L , – - —333- - - 1.- 156°40'W7) J li 1 /6 5 I ihir 0r VENCIL G. FREW1TT : 23'6 BK 132, F.188 L • r i ` 1 oil . . / Q / I � l M. 6 ) o ./ - ROBERT G ROGERS ctr I r W2 I Q CTF 18026 - r / 0 � I — - -- t 1 • 4 • Bead <<of , I 6 la/ � _ 8 m -8� M Os' N 9 O to ,, IOQ II I."1 '2 /� •...1141 4 41` - /...../ O i ••b Iia - 16 - 4.� 1 17 o 40 I N 1,90/le4 ; 3 1 2 ' t8` • I so is I 24 LmoL,00_--ioo *oc I >� i19 I e �,� n 6 .a v0p} T }8 `20 T I I OL'T�OT 3� w Q a .� 0 4 12 21 • 2 ' r �a / 'Q� 22' • V.°r I J.r• Y�m ~ •fir w � Y• _ • lj i W 1 inn B 023 m` Z Wani _ , °� I - r II ` >.,;‘,_ ; E t'. a i 10 a m I W ` tmIS o 42 •41 ' CAKe • - 25 - i - T •m o . 40�'39 , f 26 - / s • 27 1{ -z - 36 \ ` 28 • /' ` - : ._ / 35 34,33 31 30 29, ) 1 , . • y_ A. . a B DULL s‘Y • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING T RD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Puo Wednesday, July 15, 1992 - 7:30 P.M. -. City Hall Council ChambersHE/GN/MS PE 690 Coulter Drive P _ Project: Non-Conforming Use Permit LAKE `- Applicant: Sunny Slope HomeownersR/L E Y Association - S Location: Lake Riley Notice: You axe invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. Sunny Slope Homeowners Association is applying for a non-conforming use permit for their recreational beachlot. 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 Planning 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 Kate Aanenson at 937-1900. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning 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 July 2, 1992. — ** PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS A MEETING TAKING PLACE PRIOR TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FROM 5:30 P.M. TO 7:30 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS WHICH MAY STILL BE IN PROGRESS ** — RAYMOND & J. LEWIS BRENDA M. SCHAEFFER ALBERT & C. TRAPANESE 9071 LAKE RILEY BLVD. 8591 TIGUA CIRCLE 8571 TIGUA LANE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 _ KEVIN & S. SALLSTROM DAVID & C. NAGEL RICHARD & J. LARSON 1140 WILLOW CREEK 8550 TIGUA CIRCLE C/O MGM CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8590 TIGUA CIRCLE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DALE & R. BOYER JOSEPH & G. HAUTMAN BENJAMIN & P. SWENSON - 9005 LAKE RILEY BLVD. 8551 TIGUA CIRCLE 9015 LAKE RILEY BLVD. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 P.O. BOX 129 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 VENCIL & C. PREWITT LESLIE O'HALLORAN RICHARD J. CHADWICK 421 LYMAN BLVD. P.O. BOX 683 420 LYMAN BLVD. - CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LELAND & L. WYMAN AL H. KLINGELHUTZ JAMES & P. DOLEJSI 400 LYMAN BLVD. 8600 GREAT PLAINS BLVD. 9260 KIOWA TRAIL _ CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 - T. J. HIRSCH MGMT. CO. KEITH & C. BARTZ NORMAN, JR. & K. GRANT SUITE 30 226 EASTIN ROAD 9021 LAKE RILEY BLVD. 45 SOUTH 7TH STREET LEXINGTON, KY 40505 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 - MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 MATTHEW & C THILL ARTHUR & J. MULLIGAN DAVID S. NICKOLAY 9610 MEADOWLARK LANE - 8501 TIGUA CIRCLE 8500 TIGUA CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 - STEVEN & K BURKE WM & S PREDOVICH STEVE & CHAR. ZUMBUSCH 9591 MEADOWLARK LANE 9611 MEADOWLARK LANE 9794 CRESTWOOD TERRACE _ CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 -MICHAEL & M. WISTRAND DAVID AND LYNNE HIGH MICHAEL AND LISA REILLY 219 LOGAN AVENUE NORTH 4330 OAKVIEW LANE 2305 INDIAN RIDGE DRIVE MINNEAPOLIS MN 55405 PLYMOUTH MN 55442 GLENVIEW IL 60025 _NEIL A. KLINGELHUTZ MARK & STARLA DANIELSON 1380 OAKSIDE CIRCLE 11150 SUMPTER CIRCLE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BLOOMINGTON MN 55438 ROBERT & D ROGERS THOMAS & M ROGERS NORBERT & C LICKTEIG 4917 DIANE DR 14700 EXCELSIOR BLVD 9111 LAKE RILEY BLVD MINNETONKA MN 55345 MINNETONKA MN 55345 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 - J & J HUNGELMANN JOHN JR & M GOULETT RICHARD & F OLIN - 9117 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9119 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9125 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JIM & JAN HENDRICKSON TIM & PATTY BESSER CURTIS /CRIER _ 9131 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9209 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9211 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GREG & KELLY HASTINGS DENNIS & A BAKER EUNICE KOTTKE 9217 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9219 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9221 LAKE RILEY BLVD - CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ALAN & K DIRKS GEORGE & M DEWITT RONALD YTZEN 9203 LAKE RILEY BLVD 3127 4TH ST SE 9227 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55414 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 - FREDRICK & J POTTHOFF JOHN W ARDOYNO PAUL K OLSON 9231 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9235 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9239 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SUNNYSLOPE HOMEOWNERS JOY TANNER LUCILLE REMUS - LESLIE TIDSTROM 9243 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9245 LAKE RILEY BLVD 340 DEERFOOT TR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 - CRAIG & K HALVERSON SIDNEY MOSMAN GARY EASTBURN 9283 KIOWA TR 7311 IZAAK WALTON RD 9355 KIOWA TR - CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55438 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD BLUMENSTEIN JOHN W & B BELL HAROLD & J KING 9361 KIOWA TRAIL 9371 KIOWA TRAIL 9391 KIOWA TR _ CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DONALD & K SITTER PETER PEMRICK JR BARRY & H BERSHAW 9249 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9251 KIOWA TRAIL 9271 KIOWA TR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 - JIM & MARY E JESSUP 9247 LAKE RILEY BLVD DEL & N SMITH BOB & S PETERSON CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9051 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9101 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 - RAY & J LEWIS RAYMOND & C BRANDT ARTHUR & M HALL 9071 LAKE RILEY BLVD PO BOX 722 9376 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WILLIAM BERNHJELM ROBERT & M EICKHOLT RICHARD A MOSMAN ET AL - 9380 KIOWA TRAIL 9390 KIOWA TRAIL 541 FAIRFIELD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ST PAUL MN 55112 PETER & G LILLIE MARK & P MOKSNES RANDALL DUSOSKI 9355 KIOWA TRAIL 9381 KIOWA TRAIL 9270 KIOWA TRAIL - CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMIE & S HEILICHER FREDERICK & J AMRHEIN PAUL & M ZAKARIASEN 9280 KIOWA TRAIL 9350 KIOWA TRAIL 600 94TH ST W _ CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 - ELDON BERKLAND 9261 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 • NU. GNI Z661 C I TY 0 F PC DATE: July 15, 1992 C H A N H A S S E CC DATE: August 10, 1992 CASE#: 92-3 PUD,92-4 REZ B : Aanenson:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 1) Conceptual Site Plan Approval for 240 Unit Owner Occupied and Rental Multifamily Development 2) Rezoning of Property from R-12, Residential Multifamily to PUD, Planned Unit z Development — a V LOCATION: Outlot B of Saddlebrook Subdivision and Lot 5, Block 1 of West Village Heights Subdivision - Q APPLICANT: Brad Johnson — Q Lotus Realty P.O. Box 235 Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: R-12, Residential Multifamily ACREAGE: 25.29 acres (gross) 20.77 acres (net) DENSITY: 15 u/a (gross) 12 u/a (net) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF; Saddlebrook S - BG; General Business - Q E - R12; Multifamily and RSF; Residential Single Family I"-, W - R12; Multifamily WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. w PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site has steep slopes on the north and west side of the (f) property. It contains a Class B wetland and has heavily vegetated areas, with a significant stand or oak trees. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: High Density Residential Oak Ponds/Oak Hill July 15, 1992 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY — The applicant is requesting PUD concept plan approval to construct a 240 unit multifamily housing project. One hundred sixty-eight units will be available for rent, while the remaining — 72 units will be owner occupied and offered for sale. The housing style and density generally falls somewhere between townhome development and apartment type buildings. The 25 acre site is located between Powers Boulevard and Kerber Boulevard. Access will be provided by a — public street running between the two boulevards with an internal network of private drives. The site is currently zoned R12, Multifamily Residential and utilities are available for the area. — Development on this site has a fair amount of history, although to date, not a single shovel of dirt has yet been turned. In 1989, several alternative plans were proposed by Cenvesco on this _ site. Originally, the plan started out 112 condominium units and a 70 unit apartment building on what was then a 19 acre parcel. The final version of that plan called for 110 condominium units and a 90 unit apartment building. This project never gained approval by the city. _ Numerous concerns were raised including the use of mass grading to level the site resulting with extensive loss of trees, poor architectural design of the buildings, and poor quality of site planning overall. Related concerns included high ratio of impervious surfaces, poorly designed _ emergency access and visitor parking and inadequate landscaping. Staff has worked extensively with the proposed developer of the Oak Ponds and Oak Hill project. — We were pleased to see that a entirely new proposal has been offered that avoids virtually all of the concerns raised 3 years ago. The current site plan was designed from the basis that grading on the site must be minimized and existing mature oaks on the site must be preserved. The — concept plan also recognizes that a high quality design must be offered since this is a prominent site having visibility over large areas of the community, including from the Highway 5 corridor in Chanhassen's CBD. Building styles were carefully chosen so that grading would be held to — a bare minimum. As a result, there is only one mature oak tree on the site that will be lost and all wetland, low areas, steep slopes are virtually untouched. The proposal offers high quality architectural design with interesting building facades and relatively small building footprints. The building footprints allow for a great deal of flexibility in terms of grading and building orientation. Conceptual plans appear to be reasonably well laid out from an access and utility standpoint. Additional information will of course be necessary, particularly in the areas of drainage/water _ quality protection/wetland protection, internal roadway design, and traffic safety improvements that may ultimately be required on Powers Boulevard due to proximity of the proposed entrance with the 78th Street curb cut and anticipated high traffic volumes. These kinds of details, along _ with other site plan detailing, are commonly worked out with preliminary plat and PUD design and staff does not anticipate any unusual problems in these areas. Apart from greatly enhanced and sensitive design, this proposal deviates from the earlier Cenvesco project in two significant areas. The first deals with proposed road alignments. The Powers Boulevard curb cut is identical to the earlier proposal and there really is no reasonable — alternative access point given local topography and location of wetlands. However,the alignment of the road as it runs to the east is significantly different. Original plans called for exiting the _ Oak Ponds/Oak Hill July 15, 1992 Page 3 area through West Village Heights Apartments. In theory,this development was designed around the potential of extending a public street through to the current Oak Pond/Oak Hill site. _ However, staff is not entirely comfortable with this proposal since the site plan for these townhomes seems to have inadequately considered the need to accommodate a public right-of- way. There are potential concerns raised with children and pedestrians crossing through this area — and the apparent lack of available parking in this development causing people to park on the right-of-way. The current plan proposes an alternate of realigning the street to the north entering Kerber Boulevard on site. Staff desires to maintain continuity of this road between Powers and — Kerber, but we are comfortable with this revised alignment since we do not anticipate significant levels of off-site traffic utilizing the street. However, if this new entrance is to be allowed onto Kerber Boulevard, it must be realigned to enter into a 4-way intersection with Santa Vera Drive — to maintain traffic safety. The second major deviation comes in the area of park dedication. The original Cenvesco — proposal did not incorporate public park dedication. However, during the course of review, the Park and Recreation Commission ultimately determined that park dedication would be appropriate and additional land was acquired for the purpose. This land covers approximately 3 acres located — in the northern edge of the Oak Ponds/Oak Hill project area. However, since this project never proceeded, dedication never occurred. As noted above, the current applicant started with a clean sheet of paper in designing this project. They have come to staff proposing that cash dedication be provided in lieu of land dedication for parks. The final determination will be up to the Park and Recreation Commission and City Council and they have not yet had an opportunity to review _ the proposal. However, staff does support the concept of receiving cash in lieu of land. We give several reasons for supporting this. The first is that this site is in very close proximity to both City Center Park and Lake Ann Park. Both sites are, or will be accessible, by pedestrian paths. _ The second factor is that the Oak Ponds/Oak Hill project incorporates significant private recreational opportunities. Plans call for provision of a tot lot, outdoor swimming pool and a clubhouse facility that will be made available to all residents of the project. Thus, on-site _ recreational demands should be reasonably well accommodated. The third factor is that the city stands to reap a significant cash dedication to support our park acquisition and development activities elsewhere. This project has the potential for generating over $140,000 that could be _ put to good use. Lastly, spreading the homes over a larger area serves to decrease the visible density of the project. — In summary, staff finds this project to be quite well designed with particular emphasis placed on avoiding the problems that were presented by an earlier development proposal. Plans need to be refined and details added but this is fully consistent with the conceptual approval being requested. — The project is consistent with the underlying zoning, as well as with the Comprehensive Plan. Utilization of the PUD zoning offers two benefits to the city. The first is improved quality of design. The second is that it will give the city more control over what is to be built on this site, — particularly if for some reason, the Oak Ponds/Oak Hill project is not completed as proposed. Oak Ponds/Oak Hill July 15, 1992 Page 4 — Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission and City Council grant PUD concept approval for the project. — SITE PLAN APPROVAL General Site Plan/Architecture The site is 25.29 acres, with a gross density of 15 units per acre. The net density, excluding the — wetland, two storm water ponds, and the public street, is 20.77 acres, with a net density of 12 units per acre. There is also an existing stand of mature oak trees which the applicant has taken care to protect. The applicant is proposing to develop this site with 240 units including, rental and owner occupied units. The rental units will vary from 1 bedroom, plus a den, to up to 3 bedroom units. The buildings will include six 8-unit buildings, six 12-unit buildings, and three 16-unit buildings. The rental units will be three stories in height, with walkout dwelling units and garages at grade level. The exterior will be maintenance free vinyl lapped siding. They are attractively designed and will have gabled roofs and asphalt shingles. The height of these rental units will be approximately 30 feet. The development proposes 72 "for sale" units, including 36 two-bedroom and 36 three-bedroom units. These would be comprised of nine 8-unit buildings. These owner occupied buildings — would be located on the southern portion of the site. Each 8-unit building would be split, so that 4 units would be at one elevation and 4 units would be at a different elevation. This creates a nice look of staggered roof lines. The developer has tried to match each building with the — topography of the site, thereby, reducing the amount of grading that would be required. Staff feels that this design makes use of the existing topography in the area. The owner occupied units will also be a maintenance free material with shingled roof, vinyl lapped siding, and brick accent — walls at the front of the entries. These units will have double car garages for each unit, plus, staff is recommending that additional visitor parking be provided. The proposal calls for an 8 foot wide bituminous trail going behind the wetland on the site. This would tie in at the approximate location of Powers Boulevard, and the proposed public street, following between the wetland to the north of the oak trees tying over onto Kerber Boulevard. The proposal also calls for a playground, clubhouse and pool facility to be located on the site. Staff has some concern about the parking. The ordinance requires that for each unit there be one garage (enclosed) parking space, plus one additional (outdoor) parking space. In addition, one — parking space for every 4 units is required for visitor parking. Each rental unit will have one enclosed garage stall while each for sale unit has a two car garage. Staff has informed the applicant that there is insufficient visitor and surface parking and before the preliminary design is submitted, that shall be corrected. Oak Ponds/Oak Hill July 15, 1992 Page 5 Staff has received several calls from area residents. One of the concerns that have been addressed from neighbors is the massing of the buildings, especially the view from the rental units as they face those existing homes in the Saddlebrook subdivision. Staff has worked with the applicant and he has suggested maybe putting a smaller unit where the 16 unit building is tucked into the oaks on the most northerly rental unit up against the trees. With this change, few, if any, of the units will directly face the single family homes. The area is also separated by at least 300 feet across a wetland, a 40 foot change in elevation, existing mature trees that will be saved and new landscaping that will be required. State code requires that for every 8 units there must be one handicapped unit. This would also require that one parking stall be identified as handicapped parking. Staff would recommend that these stalls be marked belonging to a certain unit. Therefore, if a non-handicapped person rented the unit, they could use that parking stall. The parking stall size would have to meet the required size by code. The PUD zoning allows a maximum of 50% impervious surface for high density development. The proposed site plan has an impervious surface of 38%. The structure setback in the PUD district is 25 feet, all of the buildings meet this standard. The PUD district does not have a minimum setback for parking on interior public streets and private streets. Staff approves of the parking as proposed in the development. Streets/Access This site is being accessed off of Powers Boulevard (County Road 17) to Kerber Boulevard on the east. Access onto Powers Boulevard would require a permit from Carver County Public Works. Staff would also recommend that the alignment onto Kerber Boulevard be "T" to meet Santa Vera Drive or that a connection be made with the West Village Heights Apartments. It was the original understanding that when future development on this property was to occur, that _ this alignment would be tied with the West Village access. Staff would support that either the "T" occur at Santa Vera Drive or that the public street be extended through the West Villages Heights segment. The proposed public street is shown as a 50 foot cross section. Staff is recommending that this be changed to a 60 foot right-of-way with a 36 foot face to face urban street to meet the anticipated traffic demands. Staff is also recommending that based on the traffic patterns that there be a 6 foot sidewalk located on both sides of this public street. The remaining portion of this property will be served by private drives. These drives should be built and maintained as private roadways and appropriate no parking restrictions posted. The Carver County Traffic Engineer is recommending that Powers Boulevard be developed with a minimum of 100 feet of right-of-way but 120 feet is desired. appropriate right-of-way will be taken when the site is platted. Oak Ponds/Oak Hill July 15, 1992 Page 6 Landscaping and Tree Preservation — The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscaping plan. Staff would like to make some minor modifications to this plan. The applicant has proposed saving the majority of the existing oak stand. Only one tree is to be lost. Staff has a concern about the buildings adjacent to this oak stand and their view from the residence during the winter months. Staff would recommend that more conifers be placed between the oak stand and the proposed rental buildings to provide better buffering as the oaks will lose their leaves during the winter months. The northern portion of the site which includes the storm water ponds and the wetland should be left in its natural state. Staff feels that at the conceptual stage, the landscaping plan is adequate, but is concerned with some of the areas that have steeper slopes, most significantly along the southern portion of the site. This area will be hard to maintain as two of the steep slopes have currently proposed sumac which may turn out to be a good, low maintenance shrub. There are some other areas in the site that have steep slopes and a good ground, low maintenance — cover would also be suggested in those areas. The recently amended landscaping ordinance calls for streetscape along major collectors. Staff _ would recommend that landscaping/streetscape be placed along Powers Boulevard and Kerber Boulevard. Grading, Drainage and Utilities Staff feels that this site plan was well conceived, taking the existing topography into — consideration, although there will have to be some grading done on the site. The majority of the grading will take place in order to develop the proposed roadway and building pads. The major issue is with the storm water management plan. It appears that the existing ponds, as part of the Saddlebrook development, may not be capable of handling all of the runoff. The runoff flows in two directions. About 40% would run towards the existing two ponds and the remaining 60% would run in the direction of the existing Class B wetland. Therefore, any additional runoff as — proposed by this project will require increasing the size of the two ponds. It may be possible to increase the surface area of the ponds by excavating along the south edges but the pond elevation cannot be raised without impacting the adjacent single family homes. The other option of running it towards the Class B wetland would require a pretreatment pond or retention pond to maintain the predeveloped runoff rate before entering the wetland. Because this site is hilly, the only place for a sediment pond would be just at the southern end, adjacent to Powers Boulevard, in the existing wetland. If this turns out to be the location of the pretreatment pond, a wetland alteration permit would be required. Municipal sewer is available from Powers Boulevard on the west and from West Village Heights Apartments on the east. The existing sewer mains are adequately sized to handle the anticipated Oak Ponds/Oak Hill July 15, 1992 Page 7 development. The preliminary sewer and water plans propose extending the existing sewer from West Village Heights to service a small portion of the development and the remainder of the site being served from the existing sanitary sewer line in Powers Boulevard. The sanitary sewer and water service to the individual building units,which fall outside of the city's right-of-way, would be maintained privately by the developer or by a homeowners association. All sewer and water lines shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the city's specifications. Upon submittal of the plans and specifications, the applicant will need to verify document sizing of the water main to provide adequate fire flow during peak demands. Since this development involves both public and private utilities in the street, the applicant shall enter into a development contract and provide the necessary financial securities to guarantee construction of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval of the development. Park and Recreation The Park and Recreation Commission will be meeting on July 28, 1992, to review this proposal. The Commission's specific recommendations will be carried forward at the time of preliminary plat. At this time, staff knows that a trail will be recommended along the east side of Powers Boulevard as identified in the city's comprehensive trail plan. There is a steep slope along Powers Boulevard and a filling operation will be necessary to accomplish this. The applicant is proposing a recreation area, including a clubhouse, pool, and playground on the site. While consideration will be given for a slight decrease in park fees for this, it does not meet the needs of park dedication. The applicant would still be required to pay the bulk of applicable park fees. The costs of constructing the trail segment identified on the plan and the segment along Powers Boulevard will be credited against trail fees. The current level of park and trail fees for multi family dwellings are $440.00 and$177.00 per unit respectively. The city park fund could receive up to $148,000 from the project. REZONING Justification for Rezoning to PUD The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 25.29 acres from R12, High Density Residential to PUD-12, Planned Unit Development High Density Residential. The following review constitutes our evaluation of the PUD request. The review criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance. Section 20-501. Intent — Planned unit development developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other, Oak Ponds/Oak Hill July 15, 1992 Page 8 more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to realized as evaluated against the following criteria: Planned unit developments are to encourage the following: 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitiv environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. Finding. In this proposed development, the applicant intends to save the existing stand of mature oak trees along the northern portion of the site. Through careful site planning and some use of th flexibility provided by the PUD, only one oak tree will be lost due to construction. This represent., a tremendous improvement over earlier proposals to develop the site. There is also a Class B wetland located in the northwestern portion of the site. The wetland and all property located nort of it will not be altered. The project also offers enhanced architectural design. These elements arc extremely important given the high visibility this site has over a large area. 2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of lana uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. _ Finding. The subject property will be developed working with the existing topography of the site. The rental units, which are three story walkouts, are located on the northern portion of the site- where the land has a greater slope. The buildings have been set against the existing stand of matur oak trees preserving all but a few of them. The development of a single, comprehensive drainage system will maximize the effectiveness of nutrient removal efforts while reducing the city's long- term maintenance costs. 3. High quality design and design compatibility with surrounding land uses, including both existin- and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher qualit; design than is found elsewhere in the community. Finding. The applicant is proposing to develop high quality, low maintenance buildings. Th exterior of the rental buildings will be maintenance-free vinyl lapped siding and gabled, asphalt shingle roofs. The owner occupied units are also maintenance-free with shingled roofs,vinyl lappe siding and brick accent walls at the front entries. 4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significar, corridors within the city will be encouraged. Finding. This site is bounded on the east by Kerber Boulevard (minor collector) and on the wee by Powers Boulevard (a major collector). The apartment buildings located on the northern portion of the site are at least 200 feet from the nearest lot line of the single family homes to the north and... Oak Ponds/Oak Hill July 15, 1992 Page 9 the nearest home is 300 feet away. Concept plans call for establishing an acceptable landscape buffer in the appropriate areas. All but one of the buildings have been oriented so that they do not directly face the homes to the north. Staff has held discussions with the applicant and we believe event his building has a potential to be reoriented. 5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Findin . The Comprehensive Land Use Map identifies the subject area as the potential land use of High Density Residential. The property is currently zoned R12, High Density Residential. The proposal is fully consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Higher quality housing in this location is also fully consistent with the underlying R12 zoning and with a desire to cluster density around —' the Chanhassen CBD. 6. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail plan. _ Finding. The site plan proposes an 8' bituminous trail across the northern portion of the site, just north of the stand of oak trees. The trail will connect Powers Boulevard with Kerber Boulevard. A trail is also being proposed along Powers Boulevard as a segment of the city's trail plan. The plan _ proposes a community common area including a clubhouse, swimming pool and playground. A final review by the Park and Recreation Commission is required. At this time, city staff believes that there is no need for land dedication given the site's proximity to City Center Park and Lake Ann Park. The cash park dedication could be put to good use elsewhere. 7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Finding. The project has a mix of owner occupied and rental units. As currently proposed, there will be 168 rental units including a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments. The applicant is proposing 72 owner occupied units including a mix of 2 and 3 bedrooms. 8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the — clustering of buildings and land uses. Finding. The dwellings are all being situated to make use of the existing topography, reducing the grading on the site. The rental units are tucked into slopes allowing for a walkout level. The owner occupied units will be split so that there is a break in the roof line. The units will be slab on grade and are taking advantage of the existing topography. 9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. Oak Ponds/Oak Hill July 15, 1992 Page 10 Findin Access to the site is off of Powers Boulevard which is designated as a major collector street by the City Comprehensive Plan. The site also has access to Kerber Boulevard. There will- be one public street connecting the streets. The majority of the site will be served by privatf driveways. A traffic study to ensure safety on Powers Boulevard will be conducted prior to requesting preliminary approval. Summary of Rezoning to PUD Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility but allows the city to reques_ additional improvements and the site's unique features can be better protected. The reduced standards allow the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique features of the site. In return for reducing till— standards, histandards, the city is receiving: • Improved pretreatment of storm water • Increased landscaping • Protection of vegetation (oak trees) • Improved architectural standards • Sensitivity to maintaining existing topography RECOMMENDATIONS REZONING _ Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Rezoning #91-2, property zoned R12 to PUD-R with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain preliminary and final PUD approval and plat approval from the city and enter into a Planned Unit Development Agreement containing all of the conditions of approval for this project and shall submit all required financial guarantees. The PUD Agreement shall be recorded against the property. 2. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the PUD #92-3." CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends conceptual approval of Site Plan Review #92-3 as shown on the plans dated June 15, 1992, and subject to the following conditions: — Oak Ponds/Oak Hill July 15, 1992 Page 11 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial securities to guarantee proper installation of the public — improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval. 2. The applicant shall obtain and comply with the appropriate permitting agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MPCA, Health Department, Carver County Public Works. 3. The developer shall dedicate and construct the utilities and streets within the public right- - of-ways or easements to City standards and dedicate upon completion and acceptance to the City for permanent ownership. The remaining building utilities outside of the easements or right-of-way shall be privately owned and maintained. 4. Detailed construction plans and specifications including sizing for the utility improvements shall be submitted for approval by the City. As-built mylar plans will also — be required upon completion of the construction. 5. Appropriate No Parking restrictions shall be placed on the private service drives —' accordingly. 6. The final plat shall dedicate 60 feet of right-of-way for the proposed east/west connector street. A 36-foot wide urban street shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's standards. 7. It is recommended that concrete sidewalks be placed on both sides of the proposed main east/west collector street. The sidewalks should be 6 feet in width. 8. A detailed erosion control plan shall be incorporated into the grading plan and submitted for approval with the construction plans and specifications. 9. The applicant shall reimburse the City for all fees incurred with the previous and current review and development of this project. A cash escrow account of $7,000 should be _. provided by the applicant to insure payment. 10. Apply for a wetland alteration permit the location of the trails and possible location of — sedimentation pond before preliminary plat approval. 11. Implement the Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation for parks and trail. 12. Construction plans for the storm sewers will be required with the construction plans and specifications submittal prior to preliminary approval. 13. Parking spaces must meet the parking standards as required by the zoning ordinance. Oak Ponds/Oak Hill July 15, 1992 Page 12 — 14. The landscaping plan shall be modified to include streetscape along Powers and Kerber Boulevards. In addition, conifers shall be placed south of the Oak trees to provide — additional buffering. 15. The 16 unit rental building, which is oriented to the most northerly portion of the site, — should be moved and an 8 unit building put in its place, to minimize the impact to the single family homes to the north. 16. Fencing shall be placed around the oak trees to minimize impact during construction." ATTACHMENTS 1. Application. — 2. Memo from Dave Hempel dated July 9, 1992. 3. Letter from Roger Gustafson dated June 30, 1992. _ 4. Letter From Riley Purgatory Watershed dated July 6, 1992. 5. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated July 8, 1992. 6. Letter from Ismael Martinez dated July 8, 1992. _ 7. Staff report on the site dated 1989. 8. Site Plans dated June 15, 1992. THE OAKS DEVELOPMENT Oak Ponds/Oak Hill Oak Ponds and Oak Hill are residential developments designed to provide affordable housing while maintaining the natural features of this unique site. To this end the development has been designed using the existing hills and valleys as much as possible and preserving the stands of large oaks. In fact, only one surveyed oak tree has been lost to create this community of 240 homes. Oak Ponds is a rental community of 168 homes located in 8 , 12 , and 16 unit buildings. Each of the 1, 2 and 3 bedroom dwellings has a single garage within each of the 2 and 3 story buildings. The units will range from 750 to 1100 square feet. The exteriors of the buildings will be maintenance-free with vinyl lap siding and gabled, asphalt shingle roofs. Oak Hill is a "For Sale" development of 72 homes located in 8- plex buildings . Each 1400+ square foot dwelling has a 2 car attached garage, 2 or 3 bedrooms, and private deck. These buildings are also maintenance-free with shingled roofs, vinyl lap siding and brick accent walls at the front entries. The buildings step up the site following the natural terrain to a high point where the community "clubhouse" is located adjacent to the existing oak grove. A pool and playground are planned as part of this community commons. The development is planned around a central , city-dedicated street, but with the majority of dwellings being located on smaller, private streets and drives. The shape of the streets and adjacent building sites all derive from preservation of hills and trees. Development Timetable. Oak Hill - Final City approval is anticipated by September 1, 1992 . The developer will grade the site in the fall ; install public improvements, including Oak Drive, and construct the first building starting in December 1992 . Sales efforts will start in January, 1993 , with completion of the project scheduled for Summer, 1994 . Oaks Community Recreation Center/Offices - Construction start is anticipated in the spring of 1993 , with completion in the summer of 1993 . -2- Oak Ponds - Final city approval is anticipated in the fall of 1992 ; public improvements to be constructed simultaneously with the Oak Hill development. - Development will consist of 168 units built in 3 phases. The starting date of construction will depend upon financing approval and existing _ market conditions. Phase I Construction Start: Fall , 1992 ; completion: Spring, 1993 (60 units) Phase II Construction start: Spring, 1994 ; completion: summer, 1994 (48 units) Phase III Construction start: Fall, 1995 ; completion: Spring, 1996 (60 units) The Community Recreation Center will be available to the Oak Ponds residents. TIF Assistance - The developer plans to request TIF assistance in payment of public improvements, soil correction and land write down from the HRA for the Oak Pond Development. CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM • TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician difj "--- DATE: July 9, 1992 SUBJ: Concept Review of PUD Development _ Oak Hill and Oak Ponds File No. 92-13 Land Use Review Upon review of the concept plans prepared by Arvid Elness Architects, Inc. dated June 15, 1992, I offer the following comments: STREETS Street grades in the development range from 2% to 8% in grade which exceeds the City's ordinance of 7% maximum street grade. Due to the site characteristics, it may be difficult to comply with the ordinance and a variance should be considered. The applicant has — proposed a 50-foot right-of-way for the east/west street. The proposed street right-of-way extends from County Road 17 (Powers Boulevard) to Kerber Boulevard on the east just north of Santa Vera Drive. Access onto County Road 17 will require an access permit from Carver County Public Works. The Kerber Boulevard access should be realigned to offset across from Santa Vera Drive or connect to the existing private street within the West Village Townhouse complex. It was the understanding of the past City Council that with the future development of this parcel the alignment of the street would connect to the West Village Townhouse segment and that segment should be brought up to full urban standards. Staff is in support of either option although both options have some obstacles to overcome. The main east/west street shall be built and dedicated as a City street. The street section should be constructed within the public platted right-of-way with a 36-foot wide face-to-face _ urban street to meet the anticipated traffic demands for this type of development. The plans propose the City's standard residential 31-foot wide street within a 50-foot right-of- way. es, t4.1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Kate Aanenson July 9, 1992 Page 2 PRIVATE DRIVES The applicant is proposing for a number of 20 to 24-foot wide private service drives to facilitate access to the individual units. These service drives should be built and maintained as private roadways and the appropriate No Parking restrictions posted accordingly to provide adequate fire lanes. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The majority of the site will experience grading to create the roadway and building pads. The building pads have been situated to be "benched" to fit the existing terrain to minimize erosion and drainage problems. Detailed storm drainage calculations for individual storm sewer segments will be required as well as ponding calculations for sedimentation/retention ponds. The site is rather hilly terrain and limits the options for on-site ponding. The existing two ponds on the north side of the development adjacent to Saddlebrook are _ currently at or exceed the capacity limits of the Saddlebrook development. Therefore, any additional discharge of runoff from this proposed development will require increasing the size of the two ponds. The other alternative for storm water retention is to utilize a portion of the Class B wetland located in the northwest corner of the site. Retention ponds shall be designed to maintain the predeveloped runoff rate and provide adequate storage for a 100-year storm event in a 24-hour duration. Detailed construction plans for the storm _ sewers will be required with the construction plans and specifications submittal prior to final platting. As this is a concept plan, erosion control measures were apparently omitted. A detailed erosion control plan should also be incorporated into the grading plan and submitted for review and approval. _ UTILITIES Municipal sanitary sewer service is available to the site from Powers Boulevard on the west and from the West Village Townhouse complex on the east side. The existing sewer mains are adequately sized to handle the anticipated development. The preliminary sewer and water plans proposed extension of the existing sewer from West Village Heights apartments to service the easterly portion of the development with the remainder of the site being serviced from the existing sanitary sewer line in Powers Boulevard. The individual sanitary sewer and water service to the building units which fall outside of the City's right-of-way would be maintained privately by the developer or homeowners association. All sewer and _ water lines shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's specifications. The applicant will need to verify and document sizing of the watermain to provide adequate fire flow during peak demands. Detailed calculations should be submitted Kate Aanenson July 9, 1992 Page 3 to the City Engineer for review and approval. Since this development involves both public utilities and street improvements, the applicant should enter into a development contract and provide the necessary financial securities to guarantee construction of the public improvements and compliance of the conditions of approval of the development. MISCELLANEOUS This site was previously reviewed by the City under a similar proposal. A review fee of $3,171.76 was generated and billed to the property owner (developer) for remittance; however, to date no payment ever has been received. It is strongly recommended by staff to require payment of the outstanding fees prior to reviewing this proposal any further. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial securities to guarantee proper installation of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval. 2. The applicant shall obtain and comply with the appropriate permitting agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MPCA, Health Department, Carver County Public Works. 3. The developer shall dedicate and construct the utilities and streets within the public right-of-ways or easements to City standards and dedicate upon completion and acceptance to the City for permanent ownership. The remaining building utilities outside of the easements or right-of-way shall be privately owned and maintained. 4. Detailed construction plans and specifications including sizing for the utility improvements shall be submitted for approval by the City. As-built mylar plans will also be required upon completion of the construction. 5. Appropriate No Parking restrictions shall be placed on the private service drives accordingly. 6. The final plat shall dedicate 60 feet of right-of-way for the proposed east/west connector street. A 36-foot wide urban street shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's standards. 7. It is recommended that concrete sidewalks be placed on both sides of the proposed main east/west collector street. The sidewalks should be 6 feet in width. Kate Aanenson July 9, 1992 Page 4 8. A detailed erosion control plan shall be incorporated into the grading plan and _ submitted for approval with the construction plans and specifications. 9. The applicant shall reimburse the City for all fees incurred with the previous review _ and development of this project. A cash escrow account of $5,000 should be provided by the applicant to insure payment. ktm c: Charles Folch, City Engineer — R f0)// ± ti 1_ �/4 •. CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE J` 600 EAST 4TH STREET PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT / CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318 (61214481213 NN ESO COUNTY of CAQVE June 30, 1992 To: Kathryn Aanenson, Chanhassen Senior Planner From: Roger Gustafson, County Engineer Subject: Concept Plan Oak Ponds and Oak Hill Comments regarding the concept plan for the Oak Ponds and Oak Hill development dated June 15, 1992, and transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated June 23, 1992, are: 1. Right-of-way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways functionally classified as Minor Arterial (Class II) are: Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 2-lane Roadway 2-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100' 110' 120' 150' Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 4-lane Roadway 4-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100' 120' 140' 170' County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 17 is functionally classified as a Minor Arterial (Class II) roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. Preservation of an adequate corridor for the future upgrading of CSAH 17 is an important consideration. The Year 2010 projected average daily traffic volume for CSAH 17 is approximately 17,000 vehicles adjacent to the proposed development site as documented in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. This volume of traffic does not represent full development within the general service area of this county highway. Ultimate traffic volumes on CSAH 17 very probably will be in excess of the Year 2010 projections. Therefore, I recommend no less than the minimum width of 100 feet be preserved for CSAH 17 to accommodate the construction of either a 2-lane or 4-lane urban undivided highway. The city may wish to consider an even wider highway corridor along the proposed subdivision if a separate trailway is to be constructed along the county highway. Additional width may also be needed to accommodate public utilities and landscaping. RECEIVED JUL 0 I 1992 Affirmative Actin/Equal Oppmtunih Emp/.ler Printed on ReOrled Paper CITY O* t+t-m riiSSE. Page 2 Oak Ponds and Oak Hill Concept Plan June 30, 1992 2. Desirable access control along CSAH 17 is to have "Collector" intersection spacing of 1/4 to 1/2 mile with no "Local" intersections. Has the proposed "new dedicated street" been functionally classified by the city? Also, the spacing between the proposed "new dedicated street" and proposed "new 78th Street" intersections with CSAH 17 is less than _ 500 feet (1/10 mile). Discussion with the city and the developer about the proposed "new dedicated street" intersection is requested. 3. Construction of the proposed street intersection with CSAH 17 is subject to the access permit requirements of Carver County. The county highway department will not consider approving the location of the proposed intersection until a detailed traffic analysis of its impact on the CSAH 17 corridor south to TH 5 has been prepared by the developer's traffic engineer and submitted to the county for review. The city is advised that the county highway department is of the initial opinion that the city's project to reconstruct a portion of CSAH 17 north of TH 5 will have to be revised to accommodate the proposed intersection. Project revisions appear needed to safely and adequately accommodate traffic on CSAH 17 in the area of the intersection. These revisions may require the developer and/or the city to invest additional dollars in the CSAH 17 project. If the new street is proposed to be constructed prior to the reconstruction of CSAH 17 by the city, a detailed sight distance analyses will have to be prepared by the developer's traffic engineer and submitted to the county for review. The engineer is directed to Section 5.2 of the Minnesota Department of Transportation Road Design Manual. Interim improvements to CSAH 17 may be required. These improvements may include a right turn lane, reconstructing a portion of CSAH 17 to improve sight distances, and adding a south bound bypass lane. 4. It is not known if any public utility lines are to be installed within the CSAH 17 right-of-way. Any such installations are subject to the utility permit requirements of Carver County. 5. Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within the right-of-way of _ CSAH 17 is subject to review and approval of the county highway department. 6. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right- of-way (including turn removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need to be completed in a manner that leaves the right-of-way in "as good or better condition" than what existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for the final condition of the county highway right-of-way. A clear understanding of this responsibility will, in my opinion, result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the city. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the concept plan for the proposed development. - Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District ° � Engineering Advisor: Barr Engineering Co. 8300 Norman Center Drive Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55437 '-� 832-2600 Legal Advisor: Popham. Haik, Schnobrich&Kaufman 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower 222 South Ninth Street Minneapolis,MN 55402 333-4800 July 6, 1992 Mrs. Joanne Olson Senior City Planner _ City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Mrs . Olson: The engineering advisors to the Board of Managers of the Riley-Purgatory- Bluff Creek Watershed District have reviewed the preliminary plans as submitted to the District for the Oak Ponds/Oak Hill development in Chanhassen. The following policies and criteria of the District are applicable for this project: 1 . In accordance with Section E (2) of the District's revised Rules and Regulations, a grading and land alteration permit will be required from the District for this project. Accompanying the permit application, a grading plan showing both existing and proposed contours must be submitted to the District for review. Because of the size of the development, the District encourages that the grading operations be staged to minimize the area disturbed at any given time. 2 . A detailed erosion control plan must be submitted to the District for review and approval. 3. A storm water management plan must be submitted to the District for review and approval. The management plan must include provisions for the treatment of stormwater runoff, from the development site, prior to reaching Protected Waters. The water quality facilities must be designed at a minimum to meet the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. RECHVE1 JUL 1992 CI! S idC Vi!: ntii „-,jam, Mrs . Joanne Olson July 6, 1992 Page 2 Structures to be constructed adjacent to the wetland/stormwater detention basins must have basement floor elevations constructed a minimum of two feet above the calculated 100 year frequency flood _ elevation of these facilities. 4 . The wetland areas on the north side of the site may meet the criteria for regulations of the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act. Filling below the wetland elevation of each wetland area on the site must be replaced or mitigated in accordance with the requirements of the Wetland Act. — Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing this project at an early date. If you have any questions regarding the District's comments, please call us at 832-2600. Sincerely, ' )/‘i/C ',(//'-)ndi '') Robert C. Obermeyer Barr Engineering Company Engineers for the District c: Mr. Ray Haik Mr. Fritz Rahr _. CITY CF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 -MEMORANDUM P0: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner F- ROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official 40fi// DATE: 07/07/92 SUBJECT: 92-3 PUD (Oak Pond/Oak Hill) I have reviewed the plans dated June 15, 1992 and have the following comments. 1 . State Building Code (SBC 1340. 9100) requires one handicap equipped unit in each building in Oak Ponds. City Code (CCC 20-1124) requires 2 stalls per unit, one of which may be exterior. The plans should be revised to show one 12 ' wide exterior parking stall as near as possible to each handicap equipped unit. These stalls should meet all handicap requirements except for signage; reserve each 12 ' stall for the individual apartments rather than signing for handicapped parking. 2 . An additional four handicapped spaces must be provided for visitors in Oak Ponds . These should be signed per SBC 1340. Revise plans accordingly. 3 . Oak Hill must be provided with handicapped stalls at a ratio of one handicap stall per fifty parking spaces. Revise plans to show these stalls. These spaces should be equally distributed throughout Oak Hill. 4 . The designer is responsible for meeting all requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the buildings and on the grounds. 5. Street names are subject to review by the Public Safety Department. Revise plans to include streets names. 6. All buildings in Oak Ponds must be fire sprinklered. is t«: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER GCc G ieeewea PE. Keen A OO n.PE. James R.Mara^a PE Ft.,*C Curvet.AIA C.Meek B o n e s t ro0 �"I..Sorvaa.PE e Jerry A iouroee.PE. Mart R A5Vs PE W kite.PE Kennel P.Anderson.►E � Pv i .PE P Retire E l%mer.PE WA Hanson.PE Trrornas E A7r;q PE Cen'v QMer PE. Rosene In Ger R.Cook PE Q Lvskata.P.E. Oa14'J.EOperteet PP. Gary W Mourn.PE. — Anderllk Varies E.Neyes PE Roar C Russet AJA. Marc A s. PJ: Karen L WC�r.PE Robert G.Sm,nert.PE Howaec A SfM)eC PF Pnklp 1 Caswec.PE Karn R npA PE. Susan M Ebenr.C PA Donald C.Ikxga PE. tsmaei Mareees,PE. Michael P Rau.PE. Associates ,td K Not.►E MBA O.Waw,PE Clunes A Enckson ME?W T Ray,rrann.15. Tngmas A Anortson.A.A. Laro M Pawt+sky Engineers & Architects Room R Mel!eek,P.E Gary F Ryl nOer,PE. Manan M Once+ 9Thomas W pewit"PE. Mfrs R Jenlee:►E Mae C.4,T+c1,PE. L.PhL'i GT.I+Ik.PE. MEMORANDUM TO: Kathryn Aanenson, City of Chanhassen FAX NO.: 937-5739 FROM: Ismael Martinez DATE: July 8, 1992 RE: Oaks Community Concept Review FILE NO.: 393Gen Hi Kate! BACKGROUND We have performed a stormwater and water quality review of the proposed development, Oaks Community Development. Our review was based on the proposed development characteristics shown in the Concept Plan, dated June 15, 1992. The proposed development is located East of Powers Blvd. and North of Arboretum Blvd. in the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 11, T 116 N, R 23 W, in the City of Chanhassen. The proposed development drains naturally to two existing man-made ponds and a natural B wetland. For the purpose of this review, the two ponds will be called East and West accordingly. The wetland is classified as a Palustrine, with Emergent Vegetation and Seasonally Flooded waterbody in the National Wetland Inventory. The drainage system shown in sheet 7 follows the natural topography and has been divided into 8 drainage areas, A to I. While drainage areas A and B are shown to drain directly to the wetland, areas C through I are shown draining to the existing ponds. OBSERVATIONS The two existing ponds were originally designed to control runoff from the development in the North, Saddlebrook. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612.6364600 — e'd '2S5" 'S O2�JISSNC5 TIE' 9£9 ET9 95:TT E66T-60—LO July 8, 1992 Page 3 As previously discussed over the phone it appears that alternative 1 would not be welcomed by the neighborhoods in the Saddlebrook development. Therefore it appears that alternatives 2 or 3 are the most feasible. Alternatives 2 and 3 are the same with the exception of the wetland impact. If alternative 2 is chosen the wetland will be impacted initially (construction of the facility) but the long term effects will be minimized or easier to control. Alternative 3 will impact the wetland in the long run from pollutants and nutrients associated with the type of development proposed. However, under the proposed conditions drainage area B consists of 7.6 Ac that would discharge directly into the wetland. This area would have a small impact when considering the modifications to the overall natural drainage patterns. If alternative 3 is chosen the following parameters will apply to the system: East Pond: Normal Water Level NWL 953,9 High Water Level HWL 956.0 Discharge 50.0 cfs Storage Volume 1.2 AF Outlet elevation 954.5 10' crest weir West Pond: Normal Water Level NWL 948.1 High Water Level HWL 951.3 Discharge 80.0 cfs Storage Volume 1.8 AF Outlet elevation 949.5 10' crest weir RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENT S The City might consider a cash contribution from the developer to enhance the wetland and other downstream wetlands. The wetland will require some outlet control structure that we assume will be set at elevation 940.0. This elevation would minimize the effect of alternative 3, but may be considered only after a decision is reached by the City as to the best alternative. 20'd 'OSS'd '2 OOa1SSNO9 TT£T 929 2T9 LS:TT 266T-60-L0 July 8, 1992 Page 4 Most of the impact to the wetland can be expected during the construction phase due to soil erosion. We recommend to provide a temporary sedimentation pond for area B. When final decisions are made we can the determine the final parameters for the system as well as the impact and mitigation for the wetland. If you have any questions or comments, please let me know at ext. 253. Have a nice day! b0'd '399V 2 002:I1S2N09 TT£T 929 2T9 9S:TT 266T-60-L0 July 8, 1992 Page 2 The development site has a very well defined natural topography and steep slopes near the drainage basins. Drainage areas to stormwater ponds: The drainage area to the stormwater ponds consists of approximately 12.7 Ac (areas C through I). Area E consists of 4.9 Ac of land with steep slopes surrounding the ponds. Approximately 20% of it is impervious surface. Areas C,D,F,G,H and I make a total of 7.8 Ac, of which 52% is impervious. These areas discharge to the East pond. Drainage areas to wetland: Drainage area A consists of 7.2 Ac shown to remain mostly natural (1% impervious). Drainage area B consists of 7.6 Ac developed with 67% impervious surfaces. RESULTS We reviewed the capacities of the existing ponds without the proposed development and discovered that for a 24 hour storm event the two ponds will overtop their berms to discharge to the downstream waterbody. It appears that the ponds were designed to serve only the Saddlebrook development. The topographic characteristics of the proposed development make impractical the construction of ponding within the development. The utilization of the existing facilities to serve the Oaks Community is the most practical solution. We have identified the following alternatives: 1. Raise the berms of both ponds approximately two feet and replace the outlet structures for both ponds. Build a nutrient/sedimentation facility in the wetland. 2. Keep the existing ponds as they are and provide the required capacity with a broad crested weir in the berms. Build a sedimentation facility in the wetland. 3. Keep the existing ponds as they are and provide the required capacity with a broad crested weir in the berms. Do not build anything in the wetland. Z0'c 'OSS' 2 00J1SSN09 TT£T 9£9 ET9 9S:TT E66T-60-LO iV'�� a C. DATE: 6c�. 14, 1989 C I TY O F � C.C. DATE: Nov. l , 1989 \\I 1v CflAA S S E N CASE NO: 88-24 SUB, 88-14 W...o 88-15 Site Plan Review Prepared by: Olsen/Krauss/ STAFF REPORT LPROPOSAL: Subdivision of 27 . 1 acres into 11 R-12 lots and a 5 acre park (Outlot A) I-- Site plan for 110 Condominium Units on property L Z zoned R-12 . Q Wetland alteration permit to Locate a Holding Pond V into a Class B wetland. — LOCATION: Between Kerber and Powers Boulevard, Approximately Cl } Mile North of West 78th Street — Q APPLICANT: Cenvesco Hedlund Engineering 3650 Annapolis Lane 9201 E. Bloomington Frwy. Plymouth, MN 55441 Bloomington , MN 55420 I PRESENT ZONING : R-12 ACREAGE: 27 .1 acres DENSITY: 9 . 6 units/acre (net ) townhomelots . n - . .d S-' ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- RSF; Saddlebrook S- BG; vacant 117/41/t7 _ QE- R-12 ; townhomes /el/s e !/%i "44.....„ W- R-12; vacant W WATER AND SEWER: Water and sewer is available to site. E-. PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site has steep slopes on the north and west side of the property. It contains a Class B Wetland and has heavily vegetated areas . 2000 LAND USE PLAN: High Density Residential ilkiisimi v: :: ►• 0°° m., . m" titM•DOWMERE i r T� r ,„„„,,,70, Name " - 63 11101115131"- H \y pW � �j%\ LAKE -7) - --1.--'mw .imainis Ingqvab \Qc - M .�. I-1 0 C 4 El - V D •• i -�►� 1e{ ��/�i tire: ; ,`ie ---z.,1 RS as . A4...41ut ae : a1iVii...■. Xr � 4\, Waal II , R4 lin "..ija. _;w01,... . 1!;,-.4 :4 a; ei;40 ail . - 111110. kti fit... 1� ,. ! �• t A4 I •c'n...11l - ity Cor-i itN O .n um: sir: fir. ��I f �� , �=' ' il• I Mr ter. �� ��- MU ���� 3• �`• / WWI 1111474 El QO ". ri;;;=nil . -= 12' 4Ct • 1 ,J W _ . =, •., ' ■tum I ''`14 11,11 T- i ., �-•i ll 3 G ■i tic •ii/' "% :] _ CZ , L.�►= lip-e �,J� ��i /a 011: . - . ikir . err,. 2802 __ --IT ..e....____!...... ... .7------. ---- _ I. ._ ----a-44kiir;t2E:iia Ilkiiww ..411 , ,,,,,.. at ..,, - p......t... ...I..:_- mill, mow _ las:•_; -.. cit‘ .1 --- r- 94 •• qiii. . 1 01 V ij - - ) L-3, S 'moi a 4 k, ›A'- °I;iOn 6 t ` -\. `!, N:LP:: f' ;tl� • 4.:� -----_.., .iZtotio iii •�,''At • ��� ' RSF X01.._ 0 filliVir. s. 2 p N --/ y �� , ' a , - ; LAKE SUSAN 4 4. j RD ,- . H/CE M PUD—R _111,111) U R , ,____ _, � � f _ •t TN ST. ����1 a .rte — - ' , Cenvesco/Hedlund October 18 , 1989 Page 2 BACKGROUND - On August 16 , 1989 , the Planning Commission reviewed the Oak View Heights condominium proposal after it had gone through many revi- _ sions . The August, 1989, plan proposed 11 R-12 lots on 18 . 9 acres with a total of 112 condominium units . A concept plan was submitted that illustrated an addition of 70 apartment units located in two buildings . No approvals for these buildings was being sought nor was staff giving any indication that the plan was acceptable. At the August 16 , 1989 , Planning Commission meeting, the applicant requested that the item be tabled so that _ he could continue negotiations with Saddlebrook properties , located directly north of the subject site, to purchase addi- tional property which could be used as park land ( Attachment #1) . The most recent submittal ( September 22, 1989 ) is similar to the August, 1989 , plat with 6 high density condominium lots located on the south side of Jenny Lane and 4 condominium lots located on a cul-de-sac located north of Jenny Lane. The future apartment buildings are still proposed on the north side of Jenny Lane bet- ween the wetland and the cul-de-sac. The major change between the two plans is that a 5 acre park has been illustrated, located north of the condominium lots and adjacent to Kerber Boulevard. The park area is located on land that the applicant has recently acquired. The number of condominium units have been reduced by 2 ( 110 ) and the number of the proposed future apartments have been increased by 20 ( 90 ) . The following is a list of the major concerns of the Planning Commission and City Council with the proposed development. Density Impervious surface Parkland Access points onto Jenny Lane Emergency access visitor parking Landscaping Concept plan for the apartment buildings - PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide 27. 1 gross acres into 10 high density lots with condominium units and one lot for future apartments and an outlot for park dedication. All of the ten condominium lots meet the lot area, lot width, and lot depth - requirements of the R-12 District. SITE PLAN REVIEW Density and Impervious Surface Since the last review by the Planning Commission, the zoning ordinance has been officially amended to clarify that the density Cenvesco/Hedlund October 18 , 1989 Page 3 for the R-12 District is net density (Attachment #2 ) . Net den- sity is defined as "the quotient of the total number of dwelling - units divided by the developable acreage of the site. Developable acreage excludes wetlands, lakes , roadways, and other areas not suitable for building purposes" . The site is proposed to be subdivided into 11 R-12 lots and one outlot. Ten of the R-12 lots will contain condominium units (Lots 1-6 , Block 2 and Lots 2-5, Block 1 ) . The remaining R-12 - lot , Lot 1 , Block 1 , is proposed for future development as apart- ments. Outlot A contains 5 . 01 acres and is proposed for park dedication. The following list contains the net densities for _ the ten condominium lots : Lot 2 , Block 1 9 . 8 units per acre Lot 3 , Block 1 9 . 9 u/a Lot 4 , Block 1 9 . 4 u/a Lot 5 , Block 1 9 . 9 u/a Lot 1 , Block 2 9 . 5 u/a - Lot 2 , Block 2 9 . 5 u/a Lot 3 , Block 2 11 . 3 u/a Lot 4 , Block 2 8 . 6 u/a Lot 5 , Block 2 9 . 6 u/a Lot 6 , Block 2 9 . 0 u/a A maximum density of 12 units per acre is allowed in this - district. The ten condominium lots meet the net density cri- teria . - Concept Plan for Apartment Buildings Lot 1 , Block 1 , ( future apartment buildings ) contains 8 . 85 acres and is proposed to contain two buildings containing 90 apart- ments . A large percentage of the 8 . 85 acres is wetland and steep forested slopes . Staff is recommending that a conservation ease- ment be granted over the majority of the steep slope and tree - areas to preserve the site on Lot 1 , Block 1 ( 980 contour ) . In addition , there is a Class B wetland with a 75 foot setback and wooded area cannot be used towards the net density calculation. The concept plan for the apartments is very poorly designed and staff finds it to be unacceptable. As illustrated a tremendous amount of grading is required and it is not clear how access and parking issues can be resolved. Therefore, we are recommending that a condition of approval of the current proposal should be that the apartment buildings are not included in the approval of - the condominium units and that the 90 apartment units will not be accepted by the City unless all conditions of the Zoning Ordinance and site plan review are met ( net density, preservation of wetland setbacks, and conservation easement) . We strongly suspect that the site will satisfactorily accommodate sign- ficantly fewer apartments then are illustrated. Cenvesco/Hedlund - October 18 , 1989 Page 4 Impervious Surfaces The ordinance establishes a maximum impervious surface coverage of 35% . Each of the proposed condominium lots meet this standard - as presently illustrated as follows : Block 1 Block 2 Lot 1 9 . 2% Lot 1 35% Lot 2 34 . 7% Lot 2 35% _ Lot 3 32 . 8% Lot 3 34 . 9% Lot 4 34 . 7% Lot 4 34 . 7% Lot 5 33 . 2% Lot 5 34 . 9% Lot 6 34 . 8% Data provided for Lot 1 , Block 1 is misleading since it is based upon the unacceptable concept plan for the apartment buildings . In addition it does not appear to be based upon net density as currently defined. It is clear from the data provided above that the plan is pushing the maximum limits of density allowed by the ordinance. This is due both to the number of units being proposed and the design of the buildings and their resulting footprints . The plan also con- tains several inaccuracies that result in staff ' s questioning the accuracy of hard surface coverage calculations illustrated on the plan. For example , the developer indicated that driveways were designed to be 24 feet wide while they are drawn as only 20 feet on the plan and many parking stalls are far too small to accom- modate a car . Later in this report there are concerns raised regarding the lack of visitor parking, convoluted and under-width drive aisles and lack of turnaround areas required to meet standards established by Fire Code. Satisfying these standards will result in a com- mensurate increase in hard surface coverage that will , due to the project design, result in the need for variances for hard surface coverage. Staff does not support the variances noting that there is no hardship and that they are self-created by nature of the design of the plan. Since the project otherwise is in compliance with ordinance requirements, staff is recommending that it be approved conditioned on revising the plans to meet Fire Code standards and to accomplish this without requiring hard surface coverage variances . These revisions could result in a substan- dard redesign of the plan . Setbacks The setbacks of the R-12 district ( 25 feet front and rear , 10 feet side) are being maintained except for areas where the parking areas adjacent to the road right-of-way are not meeting the 25-foot setback (Lot 6 , Block 2 and Lot 5 , Block 1 ) . Section Cenvesco/Hedlund October 18 , 1989 Page 5 20-119 of the Zoning Ordinance states that on-site parking and loading facilities shall not be permitted in required front, side or rear yard areas . The plans should be revised to provide the 25 foot front yard setbacks . If the plans are not revised, the applicant will have to apply for a variance to the setback requirement. Staff would not be in support of a variance since a hardship does not exist. Parkland The current proposal dedicates 5. 01 acres for park dedication but is also adding additional dwelling units to the proposal. The Park and Rec Commission reviewed the proposal on October 10, 1989 . The Park and Rec staff recommended that 5 to 7 acres of land would now be required to be dedicated due to the increased number of units . The area dedicated for parkland contains wetlands protected by a 75 foot setback and steep slopes including a ravine. The total area usable for active parkland is approximately 3 acres . In order for the parkland to meet the requirements of the Park and Rec Commission, the ravine would have to be filled in and a massive amount of grading would have to be required. The Park and Rec Commission visited the proposed park site to determine whether the area would be suitable for park purposes . Mark Koegler also attended the site visit and was directed to prepare alternative park designs (Attachment #3 ) . The Park and Rec Commission approved Concept Plan B which improved the level areas of the site and preserved the ravine and sloped areas as open space. The Park and Rec Commission felt that the proposed dedicated area of 5. 01 acres would be well suited for park area and that the ravine should not be filled. The Park and Rec Commission recommended the following: 1 . The developer shall dedicate the proposed 5. 01 acres of parkland to the City. 2. The developer shall do the rough and fine grading on the park site in accordance with a grading plan prepared by the City. 3 . The developer shall seed the park site with park grade all purpose grass seed. 4 . The developer shall provide a 20 foot trail easement along the sloped area above the wetlands from the park site to Powers Boulevard. 5 . The developer shall construct an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along the east side of Powers Boulevard, the entire length of the proposed development and that such be constructed at the time the street improvements are made. Cenvesco/Hedlund October 18 , 1989 - Page 6 6 . The developer shall construct a 5 foot wide construct concrete sidewalk on the north side of Jenny Lane and that such be constructed at the time street improvements are made . Access Points Onto Jenny Lane, Streets and Sidewalk - Staff has been concerned, as has been the Planning Commission and City Council with the number of access points onto Jenny Lane . The original plan would have resulted in 19 curb cuts on Jenny Lane. This was unacceptable to the City since it is hazardous from a traffic safety standpoint, makes it difficult to plow snow _ since it restricts storage area and is visually unappealing. Staff would use the authority provided by the site plan review procedure to recommend denial of such a poorly designed plan. With the current plan , the applicant has reduced the number of access points from the lots south of Jenny Lane to 10 and the number of access points on the north side of Jenny Lane to 3 ( 11 exist on Jenny Circle) . The number of access points onto Jenny Lane can be further reduced by combining individual driveways into one . The applicant is also proposing individual access drives onto Jenny Circle. Even though Jenny Circle is a cul-de- sac, there will be access from Jenny Circle to the dedicated park and staff recommends that the individual driveways be com- bined into one on Lot 2 , Block 1 and Lot 4 , Block 1 . The indivi- dual driveways on Lot 3 , Block 1 can remain since combining them would result in the building being pushed back and further alteration to the slope and vegetative area. Thus the resulting number of curb cuts on Jenny Lane will be 6 and on Jenny Circle will be 7 . The westerly driveway onto Jenny Lane from Lot 1 , Block 2 needs to be relocated 150 feet or as far to the east as possible to allow for proper stacking of vehicles at the intersection of Jenny Lane and Powers Boulevard (Co. Rd. 17 ) . Staff has concerns with the landscaped island proposed in Jenny Circle. The maintenance of such cul-de-sacs with islands is dif- ficult and have not been supported by staff in the past . The applicant is also showing the island containing one of the oak trees to be preserved . Staff is doubtful that the oak tree will survive with the amount of alteration ( installation of street and utilities ) around the oak tree . Therefore staff is recommending that the island be removed from Jenny Circle cul-de-sac. If the Planning Commission and City Council approve the island cul-de- sac it should be conditioned that the homeowners association be responsible for maintenance of the island. A six foot wide concrete sidewalk is proposed along the south side of Jenny Lane on the Street Plan ( Sheet 3 ) and on the north side of Jenny Lane on the Landscape Plan ( Sheet 5 ) . The sidewalk should be constructed on the north side of Jenny Lane to avoid Cenvesco/Hedlund October 18 , 1989 Page 7 possible pedestrian/vehicle conflicts . In addition, the sidewalks should be reduced to 5 feet in width to allow for addi- - tional boulevard green area. As indicated in previous staff reports , a feasibility study will need to be initiated to extend the Jenny Lane road section from Oak View Heights easterly through the West Village Heights Townhouse site to Kerber Boulevard. Emergency Access , Visitor Parking and Internal Circulation The issues surrounding emergency access , visitor parking and internal circulation are inter-related. The current proposal utilizes a series of long dead-end, often curving private driveways to access many of the condominium units . The drives _ are 20 feet wide, have sharp turns and contain a series of addi- tional curb cuts. Parking is provided by a single car garage serving each condominium with an additional exterior stall located on a pad outside of the garage door. Staff has pre- - viously raised concerns with the lack of visitor parking thus the current plan has been modified by the theoretical addition of 42 visitor stalls . Staff has a number of signficant concerns with the plan . These are discussed below. 1 . The use of a 20 foot wide drive aisles is unacceptable and is inconsistent with the zoning ordinance. Section 20-1101 states that driveways should be a minimum of 24 feet and that the City can require up to 30 feet wide driveways to accom- modate two-way traffic. Fire Code allows the Fire Marshal to require additional width if it is needed to accommodate fire apparatus . In an attached memo the Fire Marshal has indi- cated a need for a minimum 24 foot wide drive aisle unencum- bered by parked vehicles is required to operate equipment they would normally want to use if a fire occurred in this project. The purpose of these codes is relatively straight forward . It is to provide for adequate levels of access for residents and emergency vehicles . As we noted above the drives contain a series of 90° turns. As designed these corners provide an insuffficent turn radius to accommodate City fire equipment. A turn radius of at least 20 feet is required. 2 . Fire Code and reasonable design practices require that all private driveways over 150 feet in length be provided with an acceptable turn around area at the end. Details of accep- - table designs are provided in an attached memo from the Fire Marshal . Current plans provide no means for turning vehicles . 3 . As we noted , current plans illustrate 42 visitor parking stalls . The ordinances does not provide a specific standard for visitor parking. It specifically requires that each Cenvesco/Hedlund October 18 , 1989 Page 8 multi-family unit be provided with two stalls , one of which - must be enclosed . Proposed plans comply with this section. However, the ordinance also states that on-site parking areas of sufficient size to provide parking for patrons , customers, suppliers , visitors and employees shall be provided. It further states that the parking standards provided in the ordinance are minimum. Thus it is our belief that the ordi- _ nance gives the City discretion to require additional parking if needed to satisfy projected demand. Section 18-56 of the Subdivision Ordinance also states that standards created in teh ordinance are minimums and that the City may impose more stringent standards as deemed appropriate. We also note that parking problems are further exacerbated by the fact that the Engineering Department is requesting that the City - Council post Jenny Lane to prohibit on-street parking due to concerns with maintenance and access . Based upon our experience, we believe it is valid to require 0 . 4 stalls per dwelling unit to satisfy visitor parking . Based upon a total of 110 condominium units, a visitor parking requirement of 44 stalls results . If the developer has information indicating that a smaller visitor requirement is valid, staff would con- sider that data and possibly modify the requirement. Current plans show 42 visitor parking stalls . However, all but 15 of the spaces are inappropriately located at the end of dead-end driveways . This is unacceptable for 3 reasons. These areas are needed for Fire Department turnarounds and must be posted to prohibit parking , the areas are also needed so cars backing out of end driveways can use them to turn and we also note that the plan is so poorly designed that some of the illustrated stalls are only 6 feet deep, they cannot be used without blocking entry to the driveway of the nearest condominium unit. Plans should be revised as required to: 1 ) provide a 20 foot deep parking area in front of each garage door; 2 ) provide 44 visitor parking stalls 8} feet wide and 18 feet deep, all stalls must be located outside of the 24 foot wide driveway; and 3 ) post all drives and tur- naround areas to prohibit parking . Landscaping/Tree Protection As has been stated in previous reports , the applicant is removing a large number of mature oak trees . Sheet 3 of the plans shows that three of the oak trees are proposed to be preserved and remain as part of the site. Two of the trees are located in the Cenvesco/Hedlund October 19 , 1989 Page 9 southeast corner of Lot 2 , Block 1 and the third is located in the proposed cul-de-sac island in Jenny Circle. Staff does not feel that the tree located in the cul-de-sac island in Jenny Circle will survive. Extra precautions will have to be taken for the two oak trees located on Lot 2 , Block 1 for trees to survive the proposed construction. The landscaping plan replaces the caliper inches of trees being removed but we believe that new landscaping does not replace the trees being lost . It is likely that with a different development concept and well designed plan that many of the trees could have been preserved. Additional opportunities for tree preservation are found on Lot 3 , Block 1 . The plan indicates the grading of a large area con- - taining a mix of mature and scrub trees with a 3 :1 slope. The use of a retaining wall in place of the 3 : 1 slope will avoid the need to disturb such a large area and is being recommended by staff . This should be illustrated on final grading plans . Retaining walls over 5 feet in height require building permits . _ Prior to the start of work, the developer should be required to walk the site with staff to mark out areas for tree preservation. Trees lost in these areas during construction should be replaced by suitably sized materials approved by staff . Certain areas of the landscaping plan do not correspond to the proposed site plan, specifically Lot 4 , Block 1 where the rest of the plans show one individual driveway onto the cul-de-sac separated from the shared driveways. The landscaping plan should be revised to reflect the current site plan and the landscaping plan shall be revised to provide two-foot berming between any vehicular area and right-of-way with hedging and at least one tree per 40 feet on the berm between the vehicular area and road right-of-way. Wetland Alteration Permit As part of the site plan review and the development of the site, the applicant must provide retention for the stormwater runoff from the site. Initially, it was proposed to have the stormwater directed through a disapation chamber and then into the Class B wetland in the northwest section of the property. Staff pre- ferred to have a ponding area provided to allow for the sedimen- tation of the stormwater prior to it entering the Class B wetland . This option was preferred over the chamber in that it would better preserve the quality of the wetland. Therefore, the applicant must receive a wetland alteration permit to provide for the holding pond at the southerly edge of the Class B wetland. Staff has visited the site twice with the Fish and Wildlife Service and it has been determined that the Class B wetland would not be detrimentally impacted by the holding pond and by directing the stormwater into the Class B wetland. The proposed Cenvesco/Hedlund October 19 , 1989 Page 10 holding pond would prevent erosion of the wetland and would allow the sediment of silt, etc. prior to it entering the wetland. The Engineering Department and the Watershed District has confirmed that the size of the holding pond is adequate to contain all of the runoff prior to it entering the wetland. The proposed holding pond will be altering the most southerly tip of the Class B wetland and the remaining portion of the wetland will remain in its natural state. Since the holding pond is not totally within the Class B wetland and needs to be designed to a certain contour to enable it to contain the stormwater prior to it entering the wetland, staff is not recommending that the holding pond be designed to the six Fish and Wildlife recommen- dations . Staff is recommending that the vegetation around the holding pond be returned to its natural state and not be sod or seeded with grass . The size of the holding pond depends upon the amount of water it - must retain as a result of the development. The holding pond proposed within the Class B wetland may have to be larger to meet the requirements of the City Engineer and Watershed District. Since the alteration may be changed, staff is recommending tabling action until it is verified what size the pond must be . Summary - The project has had a long and involved review record since it was first submitted. Throughout the process , the plans have been modified to respond to the various issues that have been raised . In the end staff continues to have reservations regarding the quality of the plan. It appears to have been designed to provide the maximum number of dwellings while attempting to meet the most minimum possible standards . The plan the applicant chose to use is relatively inflexible as to site design requirements . We also believe that the plan itself is not well executed and contains a number of flaws and oversights . Having said that, we believe that a property owner has the right to develop the property if it can be demonstrated to be in comformance with the City' s stan- dards . Staff has drafted conditions that will bring the plans into conformance with the zoning and subdivision ordinance. Therefore, we are recommending that it be approved subject to appropriate conditions . Those conditions include the requirement - that driveways be widened to 24 feet, provided with turnarounds acceptable to the Fire Marshal and that a reasonable amount of visitor parking be provided. Satisfaction of these conditions and other relative conditions to maintaining proper setbacks will likely increase hard surface coverage beyond the permitted 35%. A variance would therefore be required to the impervious surface standards . Staff sees no reason to support the variance since a hardship does not exist and that the need for a variance is a result of the developer' s design of the project . Therefore, we feel that the number of condominium units will need to be reduced to comply with the conditions of approval . Cenvesco/Hedlund October 19 , 1989 Page 11 RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion : "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision #88-24 as shown on the plan dated September 22 , 1989 , for 11 R-12 lots and a 5 acre park with the following conditions : 1 . Lot 1 , Block 1 , shall be designated as an outlot. 2 . A drainage and conservation easement shall be provided over the 980 foot contour and vegetative area on Lot 1 , Block 1 (Outlot B ) . No alteration to the topography or vegetation below the 980 foot contour will be permitted . This includes any future development of Lot 1 , Block 1 . 3 . A conservation and drainage easement shall be provided over Outlot A ( park area) as determined by the Planning and Engineering staff to preserve slopes and vegetated areas not affected by the park development. 4 . Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City for park purposes . Grading of Outlot A for the park will be the responsibility of the developer . 5 . Cross access and utility easements be provided over each lot running in favor of adjacent lots as required. 6 . Conditions of Site Plan #88-15 and Wetland Alteration Permit #89-8 . The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #88-15 as shown on the plat dated September 22 , 1989 , and subject to the following conditions : 1. The applicant shall remove individual driveways and provide shared driveways as outlined in the staff report to reduce the number of access drives onto Jenny Lane and Jenny Circle. 2 . The westerly driveway onto Jenny Lane from Lot 1 , Block 2 shall be relocated 150 feet or as far to the east as possible to allow for proper stacking of vehicles at the intersection of Jenny Lane and Powers Boulevard (Co. Rd. 17 ) . _ 3 . The cul-de-sac island in Jenny Circle shall be removed . If the Council allows the cul-de-sac island in Jenny Circle, it shall be maintained by the homeowners association. 4 . Revise internal circulation and parking provisions as follows : - all driveways shall be widened to 24 feet and provided with 20 foot radius curves Cenvesco/Hedlund October 19 , 1989 Page 12 - provide turnaround areas acceptable to the Fire Marshal on dead-end drive aisles - post all internal drives and fire lanes to prohibit parking - provide 44 visitor parking stalls on-site . They shall comply with setback requirements each stall shall be 8i feet wide and 18 feet deep. - verify that an 8} ' x 20 ' pad is provided in front of each — garage door 5 . The applicant shall provide a 5 foot wide sidewalk along the north side of Jenny Lane. 6 . A feasibility study shall be initiated by the City Council to extend Jenny Lane from Oak View Heights easterly to the West Village Heights Townhouse site to Kerber Boulevard. 7. The landscaping plan shall be revised to be consistent with the site plan and to provide two foot berming between any vehicular area and right-of-way with hedging and at least one tree per 40 feet on the berm between the vehicular areas and _ road right-of-way. 8 . Prior to grading the site, the developer shall walk the site with staff to designate and mark trees to be preserved. Designated trees lost due to construction will be replaced by suitably sized materials acceptable to staff. 9 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of the improve- _ ments . 10 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Access/Watermain Crossing Permits issued by Carver County. 11 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit . 12 . Provide final grading and draiange for approval by the City. Modify the grading plan to remove the 3 :1 graded slope area located on Lot 3 , Block 1 and replace it with a retaining wall designed to maximize tree preservation. 13 . The developer shall dedicate the utilities within the right- of-way to the City for permanent ownership. The remaining building utilities will be privately owned and maintained. - Cenvesco/Hedlund October 19 , 1989 Page 13 14 . Detailed construction plans and specifications including calculations for sizing utility improvements shall be sub- mitted for approval by the City Engineer . As-built mylar plans will also be required upon completion of the construc- tion . 15 . Appropriate utility easements shall be provided over all public facilities . 16 . A wet tap connection will be required to the 12-inch water- main under County Road 17. 17. The City Council will post signs to restrict parking on Jenny Lane. 18 . All conditions of Preliminary Plat #88-24 and Wetland Alteration Permit #88-14 . 19 . No approval or indication of support for the concept plan for the apartment buildings is being established. If an applica- tion for the buildings is made, they will be reviewed on their own merits and subject to all applicable standards . WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT RECOMMENDATION — Staff is recommending tabling of the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-15 until it is verified what size of pond will be required. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Planning Commission minutes dated August 16 , 1989. 2 . Net density zoning ordinance amendment. — 3 . Memo from Lori Sietsema dated October 20 , 1989 . 4 . Memo from Mark Littfin dated October 26 , 1989 . 5 . Memo from Dave Hempel dated October 11 , 1989 . L - 0 • 000.-•m l.n-• .I• iw.m en 1 ' - ---- IsGI ...... ,____ wr.� ,, ,......... illI 0, ...,:,..._ _ , — IlL !„ r ..,, iii' , , ..., ' r., - I _...,..____„4. , • ‘• „ • .--, \ / if i .. .., . \ il,, \ ' I n 5 -4 , 1 i ippi / 1_4 0 Tittit1I1... „----,z ( O i> ,;:, I z , , 'II 000 •Ilk ' "I'* N _ • . � `�—ter , ), - •• . �,. • ` Illi i MN / / I / /• / • / • z_Nl,� C rn - • V ?T - Mt:1'0°000oo°1000001 if. !E i \ ! r' EYE;t Rhe =. D>r4 P P . • _ / 1 - - ' ! ?'42.07 -R a j a ;Ao orr4!00 FN.r• e s 1 -•7. - T ec'Ei 'r- - C g co ' a •Z . e w `w :K00.4�y Q='�oii ;is, o yas m Q7 TY.' W- � : m P-P rr. . o v.44'-a V. e ^x - T. X o=irat,tet= !."'r..: . .E F 2. N � w 8 E488 t R . .. •.. g .. - • .o of, GAN. R 1 • R' P . P • ,P.►PNM 74r.:01 p111 yPAI • w i 'iNN fg1N ' - 1 • • • tr::NI rm. ij g i, ! !8a §$ gegsi: 11 - I i I% _ lilt-[ 79 m= S 9, c) e i ii !i 11T ,--io 2 §: ` 2 =i ►V; z c +X ..1 m A El*O ivy. mz c 6 (n o s- R.F.. 1:-H. 1.„ loo z z .i, >. (nz in r) I 0 s I 'E vZ nz - j - <C) ow m •1 z 0 • t ,_ it I A COUNTY STATE A10 HWY. NO. 17 (POWERS — --- ---- _ _I__--_------ `-_-_- \-___V_ _ '_ ; -- �---- . -__ ,.,_' ..4. __-- - --IF__ --��` --- -- .- =--- I1 ,:::7: 41._-_-_---:=.7:177;•;.....," ri) :\L..-----L:..=---"'i:.4 A70,....-iltil,..r.-17,12.,--r.:_16_. -_---_-.F:.-24---2-L=2_,-a-7.-;:i'‘0,,',( ', 1 s .1.1:',),1:.. •:01/011.4' . !Elf, !,11 . st\.„. ;7, \.N." • .. t .N\`--_-1-•----.-‘:,40,1'‘ ...,,-Vil. III 11 ril - ..,, , ,, ...weft., ,, .,(, ‘,,,,,. .,-_,, , _ .,..._ ,,N .„,,- 1 , -,", iiiii . . \,.,, •, . , ., . it 1!:1,:-,-- • ....., 1,,k..,,,,‘„,...--„...._.,,.....„--_-:-...„.„.--- --__._-- _ ...41.'N.- .."::s.: .%. .N....%‘" AISIS I _ , \ 1 \ i I.' I; I , t .7^ 1 111!` .- \�-i --- \\' \\\\\\\\\ \ �� __ • * II' It.,, ,,.;•111.4_/ ' ,��� " It'`° '��`, - \\,`�, 111\\ �,♦, \__}.., `/ � .. !� ' - •\:. .\.,4,1, 1111``\\\. --L "-♦ — , ( III '11"i4 ( a 1 . �'' \ \\�\\\`I I\\ \\� I'�\ \III t_ ' \♦`\ a\N\\\\11 \\\\\��I ♦ \1;:'Ii, _-\),.,%♦ .,\11,\x \ \♦ ,\�\ R _ -1,'•.` ♦ s� 1111\",v .`\\\\ I y I:. , .(iiir rr,/ " , I ``t \,,�.,. s\\\\'I\11 \ -I..„ \\:\s /,;., . u I I ' lei - ' lyy�a,,.\ o,f Z*, , a; 1 '',_,-,, ,v ' -'-'.... 'ts,\IA.,.„........:--- .. -...: ........ . I. I .... . .'. illiri111.41 ‘ ' ) ' ' ,.....,-/-ril ----_____----,,----,--1A .1.....a."'' . ‘s ' 1 5 I; ___/ 11 I ,H, --ip--7.11111"71011: 1411 • •:--`••• ) '"---g---,---,-.1 4,r:-‘)10,1 tl II r (� ' i t !11 �. si‘ M-- -......4/A1 1 ' 1 1 1,111 1111 1111 L-/ • I,1. ren. .'� 7 •, • . . ,Il 00 ,1 1 011 II -, ( Iftlefulift . � v*,,_ .� \ ' ,,,yr .! !'!' NW �/ ../...,,,,, ,-..s0,44 :,-- fc,-- , r. Q 11 : 1 01))0, ' , 1 •{ 1`, ' ' • I ! � ) 1'„ 14 I _ .. \... 1 Vii, ,r !i A. 1 1 . 6 . *ilk N 's x• . •••, •••.....:"...;:::,-., • -oz. st.O.'\ lit'1•1\1\ ‘‘t, '-'1 / s* ‘ . \ . c:c_ :,,.. 0. Iiii t 1 / ' - ------- r. i .rZ X 70 I 12 00 /�, IA 1 1 IA - - cook z tIlU ' ` j P i ! i !Ii men— i • GIs :-g- 1 I r„„,6,,,,,,o- li Z'Jn0 • j „ i. Z . II 1'11 t=� -s tl1 Z n i »4 Pm I m .< Zen - Z e 0 A a,12) Ir i"0: 0 01 • COUNTY STATE AID HWY. N0. 17--_-_-_ IPOMEAS BLVD ] • III 11 il 1 1 11 9l, 11 11 I • 1 � Ca rorr IN m w qq q r ■ i€€ r 2! e! G3 a 1l ; ii 9 - -' ' • ,- wr••� fr. n i 1 I ____ v pont, n F • III bit:' aF Qcgr a?i3 f3i. 47114 ° _ WI 11 a Vii ,*� .� ��,g fi ;q11 �� 191 =��, 11110-: t^-? 'tir ! A 416 I \J 1 r; /1 ; e v I Pi ! O*. \ ', t !fi *,ird1irdial l o r;� w a a t g i1*W 00194164-1 . ` / R \�� il • di r0;11! ..5 514 -g �Eix d112 iva i Ilg455 1 i ,t \ ee e; : .. .nISI: ... --- � � vii `�\ ” i�iii if. !tit ifi�i !HinFiF o ` otk eery ;.: :;;t: ..7.:$ oopv c...;;4 2 alliarillt ' ‘• . , 1,4 \ § , nT-ta we. ,. 0 ,, 0., \ ,„, i ..- \ i,! l � i • I ' v. . . rte - › F. .::::-- 4. imimig . i • p,.: Il L Fugal ! 4,,, - 1 0 < . 4 '-' 1 A 0 IliiiIN v ' )i i = apt p _ iir i ct. 1;:i it, • ,R1, mai . if a bq . *SS '. . "L %'( i (140.143 - C ,,,,,C1 qs ii .0 , .:.� J v\ 1111111-9A.. .-AS4- : ,-`" I 0 NT-1----ina ion \, 4:6040* akg *ea. 4,11,...1,. .., . _.„,,,...00. 1111/All I V)\ ,1161 ,.. k.\:' . Vr.._( do. • 41 oliff41( _ 1 !,/ 't Mr- 'Mk IP s 6.c.** ..r. ,: = `,,N „ tilf ot * IN w I s.....1•;. . %%ILO*,_ jzi. \t‘\., 0 i, II to crci los 11111111111RI II IS-I - get ITIS o v - r- f _ : .- Z17,5FA A i = : ' c-)1:3iAl i.v it EU s ri -.. :i Al dilalkilia 4itt . til: ::::i Eq, 7:,.0 Si,7 P % ' t Ile '.. . iii- i6 en MI t i i:: cTi Z r �o_ - • rri 2 :.i vEZ 1 # R 1:' C C i: ct m r E 2 0- • F 8p J rE° OA Z - i ..•,...n._..„ _ _.,;.tee,,__: Ini; 4Ih.T: �'- ate- > :L i, r./../ �l/•'�'� '(�':' :: �`►'1; �\\ fes: '-1•;(::%:,,,"• l 1 {`\\\...�.:-'- ;4; ' P'•�.`�k :-* �/ • T. ill :- /"Iiit (I t: 'i•/7/•*---t'.-44".*.•" "' ; .' • '1 11'1/4 �' , . A -( ' ii.•, ; ; ;1 \;: '�••`•�1} it \ \�. .:s•.�;:•_ �'• :����- .�:1.;,,.....-1...---1-- ...- � \1. it I/_!/i'1! t "--- �. `= v r -7 ii'l is 1` .,— j' \ � •� ' . /. - j .�� i i— //Pii.. i 0 • < /: %' rn.... .= •it ... OM `=' //. C O rn • -- 1 , Z �1 3 -I i II '1j I. > t. . . .-- ,i i flIli !i; c 1 s„1 • # i C ' �', t--- i . is, • . • „ 1 I \ \ ••• yC` S fit{ I i / III 4.- eve 1 i ♦♦♦♦ / — even..e • y •• ! ; ♦ )< r I ♦♦ // .i z� I I — 11 •/ / P/, / to 0 f tici� C90 a = e ,..• . •nu'+ Z C g vs RI / / / O > o M H e / / > i Iif •,--,{{t: z. 0> 1'11> s i r-1 ; EE - > i` m� Z > > -( z Q C.) O I. • ` COUNTY STATE AID HWY. NO. 17 (POWERS BLVD. ) I arm IN m.14 ' .C*I's.' '.fT, Ir _5 e 6 -- ii...e • •'M I.CJtI'LfMI�'—< -J 4 slT_ 1611, • I.it ' t r 1 %..... 1 r" , , 1 II t% \ / r •0 - Rn..t 1 I .,.2.! 1 !1 � \ \t • 1 al€;5! i i 1ZZ ' �-. • \\ ,\ ' T•t:! : L -I 1 \ \ ' 11 I C '• r -w 1 \\ L \\\ ,,•:11" FA 1. A .--- • i r dila 1 \\ '+s \� ., C:__ �"' T. s•I I �� \ - 111 i - r • 1 / / 11 1 I / / / 1 > . / • r 1 OcD k I C / ff 1 MK 'J ' \ '/ .T, . 1 O --------- -----, I'�, 1 t I MR 1 is t • L t . VIS , e , , . pvl - , L 11A-_ _ I 11;i I 1 ,fes -1.A.11r4.� '� C --:- 1 1 1 z==1 _ .., 1 • ami 1 ii! I I 1- en III IA �� ► ,.' I !i+^ •I 4.�;/ • to •\ 1 ,,, eons • S'% at 1 ' >E�:. 1 `�s., a '� 1 �, i .:.` 4Q4`. 1 `` + • t I tI!ii N t7 job II. •# t- • mz o = tI o i Beata; RR'al 1. . .1 i pit 4 ci ; ..r -.R my w .s n w lii::iii OEN ! .� i Z t' RS11i f_1 a� •• Sl; O P Imolai /sits • IF .. > t: o> alt is 1O:$ S — i LsTiT:TT s=:s i/ 0 i =t >� C? n F FFRRRSF6 FFFFF M i mnI )I - s -C N .. n w 1 •11 • — — —° II -—COUNTY-STA - AIDiHWY. NO 17 i'i (POWERS BLVD. ) i IR•rI.111v n tCRRfLCA::T• ji a —--— t . t_ FT' 1 • kg I i w4 44 I 4444, I I riii . t . - 4%. ..... . 1 ,, , , `, . ... 1 • , ireirom • inxills.„1, 1 \ 1 1 1 �\ \ ` I 0I. \ \ .` 1 1 \ rO \ :: i ill ' MI • \\ . \f t: I �1 ti's 1\: 1 _< 1 • 1 I rimmmi Imo \ , 1 1 0 w 6 I 116.1.1,-;--- . ‘IIFAV, 1 I wirdi , .41,*„....._..,,_41,1 , ; tIPZ400----N 1-I grerilliir ..coks, 1 \ • r . __, , , adigib , , „...,„,„, „, „i% :\* .1‘, __. • , ,,,. ...0,, . 1 • N 1 • _ /:21.ilicl% h . \.. 0 s's , C mr I `. iy's4*,,,OA‘\.. 1+1 .4, . • NN O N `4,`�`'' 1 1 `�` 1 „Ic w 1%7\ a •• „ sm�a - y t v` . I �`• 1 I J i I ` awn E • , I 1I "� C ' 0 • n t kik 1, ro TT, 7v m i 'C t ° t't ceo z it yI + is I t tt� :€� Iz ° _ 6 t,ii mn o .X.•I'trt IN u P tQ _ :ia �fl m P:o t7 * a < RI tt �p i # i •1 i! !!. Ezi —� EV C a 1 B ; t ; 0 �� z r- Ic�' _ = 4, }}' c'z g' z ! {tis E. tnz r) A i f ( ,F XIz i r z m t — -c IT Y Vf z 0 • CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 1 , 1992 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:30 p .m . . MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Ledvina , Brian Batzli , Jeff Farmakes , Ladd Conrad and Steve Emmings . Tim Erhart arrived during discussion of item 3 . MEMBERS ABSENT: Joan Ahrens STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Planning Director ; Kate Aanenson , Planner II ; and Tom Scott , City Attorney PUBLIC HEARING: NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT FOR MINNEWASHTA HEIGHTS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION . Public Present: Name Address Mary Jo Moore 3231 Dartmouth Drive Tom & Ann Merz 3201 Dartmouth Drive Michael G . Plehal 6210 Elm Tree Avenue Tom Huntington 6300 Dogwood Avenue Mary Onken 6221 Greenbriar Avenue Mick Saul/Sharon Carlson 6321 Dogwood Avenue Richard Nelson 6241 Elm Tree Avenue William Finlayson 6320 Fir Tree Avenue Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order . Batzli : Is the dock encroaching in the dock setback area? Aanenson: No it 's not . It 's at the minimum , 10 feet . Yes . Batzli : Boats then are on the opposite side away from the setback area? Okay . We 're going to open it up to public comment now . Again , if you 'd step up to the microphone and give us your name and address , if you 'd like to address the Planning Commission . Mary Jo Moore: Mary Jo Moore , 3231 Dartmouth Drive . I 've been here a number of times and I guess quite honestly I don 't want to be here . I don 't want to be fighting neighbors . The Heights I realize is one of the oldest established neighborhoods with a recreational beach and even though there 's a setback , the docks are set like T 's with lifts and to me , from the lake , it looks like they are encroaching on the property owners . The adjacent property owners . It also , to me appears that they 've expanded substantially in the last . Whoops , I lost it . They 've expanded substantially plus they 've added a raft that 's right out from these docks and these boats and to me it 's unsafe . I personally keep quite a distance from it but I don 't know if other people coming in would keep a distance . At any rate , I think any expansion is out of the question . This is a very small lakeshore lot and I recommend or I request , my opinion is that it Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 2 should not be expanded beyond '82 and I realize it 's been there for a number of years . One of the first . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Now you aren 't at one of the adjacent properties but you do live on the lake? Is that correct? Mary Jo Moore : Yes . I 'm a lakeshore owner . I do have an association on each side of me however . Bill Finlayson: What is her address? Batzli : I 'm sorry , could you give your address again . Mary Jo Moore : 3231 Dartmouth Drive . I 'm in the Shores . Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Bill Finlayson: I 'm Bill Finlayson . I 'm the Beach Chairman for the Minnewashta Heights Beach Association . I live in Minnewashta Heights . 6320 Fir Tree . I have a number of , well maybe I do . These are documentation of our . Emmings: We have it in our packet . - Aanenson: I made copies of it . They have it in their packet . Bill Finlayson: Oh good . Okay , fine . These are documentation of the past years of people who owned boats and people who had boats . . . Minnewashta Heights is an association of approximately 73 homes . The centerpiece of that association is Lot 9 . A well maintained lakefront property where our members can swim and boat and enjoy Lake Minnewashta . We have good relationships with our neighbors and take any concerns that they may have seriously . Over the years we have made boat slips available to our members- and we 've always regulated the number of boats that can be put at the dock . We 've always in the past been able to accommodate those members who would like to have boat slips but as of last year all slips have been used and we are currently running a waiting list of one person . In 1981 the Heights had 17 people signed up for boat slips . Today we use the number 14 as our number for what we use . We haven 't grown over the years . We 've always been , worked with that number or approximately thereof . And we 've always tried to keep those numbers constant . I don 't understand what Minnewashta Shores is feeling that they are being encroached on their property . Mary Jo Moore: I 'm speaking on my own behalf . Bill Finlayson: I understand . She mentioned a swimming raft . The swimming raft has been there for , I don 't know . Probably more than 10 years . It 's always been there as far as I know . It 's the same as any swimming raft on Lake Minnewashta . It 's in it 's proper spot anchored to the bottom and it has reflectors all the way around the raft . That 's the - same as any swimming raft you ' ll find out there . I don 't understand how that ever even came up . I believe that 's all I have right now . Is there any questions that I can answer from you people that you have? Planning Commission Meeting - July 1 , 1992 - Page 3 - Batzli : Are you requesting room for 14 boats or 17? Bill Finlayson: We are requesting room for 14 boats . In 1981 we had 17 boats signed up . I believe the count was 6 and room for 14 . We 've always used the number 14 pretty much as our number that we work with . Batzli : Did you move in in 1987? Bill Finlayson: I moved in in , let 's see . Approximately 6 years ago . What would that be? Batzli : That was just the first time your name showed up on the list of boats . That 's why I asked . So you weren 't around in '81 but you have been there since '87? Bill Finlayson: Yes . - Batzli : Okay . So you 're relying on these documents to tell you how many boats there were back then right? Bill Finlayson: Yes . Which is fairly good documentation . Batzli : Okay . - Bill Finlayson: Some of those names on the list don 't live there anymore . Are gone now . - Batzli : Okay . I 'm sure if we have more questions , we ' ll speak up . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? _ Tom Merz : My name is Tom Merz and I live at 3201 Dartmouth Drive . The purpose of my coming here again is , if everybody truly understands what we did for '81 and how we arrived at that baseline . And as I sat here last week and we talked about Pleasant Acres and we talked about the baseline means the amount of boats in the water . And baseline in 1981 and the purpose of that , to go back . I don 't know if anybody wants to go back but there was a lot of reasons why we arrived at the 1981 baseline . If somebody would like me to review that , I can go on . If that 's a moot issue , then we don 't need to . Is anyone not familiar with how we arrived at those figures and how it was a compromise with Carver County Parks . It was a compromise with what they called a riparian/non-riparian homeowners . - It was a compromise with the outlot owners . I mean are all of you people kind of aware of how that arrived? And even you people are sitting here asking for? Emmings: Maybe we don 't . My understanding of why we 're using '81 is that 's the year that we first had a beachlot ordinance so that any beachlot that was established after that date had to be under the ordinance and any other beachlot was grandfathered in at that point . That 's what 's been explained to us by staff . - Tom Merz : Okay . The reason for this whole thing , and because I 've been involved in . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 4 Emmings: Now when you say the reason for the whole thing . Tom Merz : The reason for the '81 baseline , okay . The reason for the '81 baseline was , at some point we had to arrive at what we called a riparian and non-riparian use of the lake . Riparian being for every 20 acres of lake there is an access for a boat , there 's a non-riparian . And riparian on the homeowners , non-riparian is the non-lakeshore owners . And if you go with DNR rules and regulations , they say that the non-riparian use for a lake such as Minnewashta is 1 boat per 20 acres . Surface acres of lake . There 's 700 acres of lake . There 's 35 boats should be the non-riparian use of that lake . I mean this is part of a DNR document and that 's how they establish access . With that then , all of the people in Minnewashta , so we had Minnewashta Heights and all of the different organizations came up with- an agreement . Is let 's try to maintain this use . We had number one was Carver County Parks came in . Carver County Parks came in and they wanted a total of about , they were asking for , let 's say they could have gone up to _ 60-70 boats . We maintained and agreed that to , if Carver County would restrict themselves to their 15 and 25 , 40 boats , that then we would go back to all of the existing , what we called outlots and we would freeze them at the 1981 baseline . We would then , by that control there was no more access to Lake Minnewashta . So that established it . We had a DNR regulation of somewheres around 40 boats . By the time we had , the park came in at 45 boats and by the time we had the 3 or 4 different acres , we were up to almost 90 boats . So we were 2 times let 's say the DNR regulation for a , what they call a non-riparian use of the lake . And the purpose of this was for all of us , we saw Carver County Park as something that would be our biggest ally or our biggest enemy and how would we control that . Well they agreed to those type of guidelines so long as we would maintain the rest of the lake through no more access to it . Through maintaining what outlots that we had with what we called a grandfather clause . So that 's how we arrived at the 1981 baseline and that was the purpose of this thing . So when we talk about expansions , you wonder why . I mean I have no reason to come here but to say that when we allow last time , _ we went from the Pleasant Acres . They went from 6 to 10 boats so I say well we go up 40% . Excuse me . My mouth is a little dry . We go up 40% so what happens then is theoretically in my mind we come back to Carver County that all of a sudden is our biggest ally and they 're going to say , well you 're increasing all of these outlots . All of this other access to the lake . Therefore we want to take our access and bring it up 40-50% . So we can have another 30-40 boats on there . Well I think that defeats what all of us are here for and that 's my primary purpose is to maintain the quality of the lake we 've got and we 've done that through this 1981 baseline . And as you allow increases to this , you 're opening up something that we 're all going to . I mean we who have kind of agreed to maintain that lake will find something that in the future we 're going to overuse that lake so . That 's my purpose . The second reason , if you ask my opinion on that lot , to drive down that lake and to look at one , what is it , 50 foot? I think it 's 50 foot and you see 14 or 15 boats or 17 , whatever 's on that and you see all of the adjoining homes that have 2 boats , I mean that 's not right . Why should people have to drive on that lake and look at that type of a congestion on an outlot? They have access for maintaining their 1981 baseline through coming the park just like anybody else . I think . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 5 Emmings: How does this help us know what they had in 81? That 's our problem you understand . If we know what they had in 1981 , we ' ll leave it there . The problem is documentation of that . Tom Merz: Yeah . So the burden that we agreed last time , the burden of proof . We had documentation that says , I don 't know whether there 's 14 . If there are 14 boats and they 're not asking for an increase , I have no problem with that . If there 's 13 boats and they 're asking , and we have the documentation that says there 's 14 boats , I mean it 's up to other people to prove . The burden of proof is on them to prove that they have 17 or 18 boats . Whatever they 're asking for . So all I 'm asking you is to maintain that '81 baseline for those specific reasons . It 's an overall plan of controlling the lake . Anything else? Batzli : Let me ask you one question . Is this baseline agreement with the Park , is it in writing somewhere? Is it , I mean who came up with this? - Tom Merz : There 's a guy by the name of Mike Litticoat and through his other people from the Park . I mean I served on when Naegele sold the park to Carver County and then Carver County had , what they tried to do was develop this park . So we had a park development committee for the next 6 , 7 , 8 years . And finally in about 1981 , the agreement was just with , they started out with 15 boats and that little mini and then they asked for an increase . When Naegele sold the property to them , the condition on the property sale was that they would only have 15 boats of 15 horsepower or less access to that lake . Minnewashta , the Park came back . This was about '65 . Maybe in about '75 they said that they wanted to increase this useage and so at that point it was stalled until about 1981 and then it seemed to be an agreement that we would all live by . Well , if you talk to Carver County , that 's an agreement they 're willing to abide by and I think that for the rest of us , once we break those guidelines rules , on what basis can we hold them to their agreement? So the man you would contact is Mike Litticoat . You talk about Carver County Parks , we don 't have any more than an agreement with . We have a conditional use permit with the City of - Chanhassen . Carver County and City of Chanhassen have a conditional use permit and in that conditional use permit there 's a total of 35 . 15 and 25 , 40 boats . That 's all they 're allowed to use and they control that - through the trailer accesses that they have in the park . Batzli : Who is this Litticome person? Tom Merz : Litticoat is the head of Park and Recreation for this District . I mean for the Carver County . He is the head man for Carver County Parks . Emmings: As part of that effort , were there any surveys done on the lake to see what the , you know how many boats were at what places on the lake and particularly in the beachlots? Tom Merz : I think only it was Chanhassen 's , when you , somebody went out and made a count of the boats at that time . I don 't think there was _ anything more sophisticated than that . And it was boats in the water and last time you went with , the way I interpretted what you did last time was you took the 12 boats in the water and you took the 5 boats , or 5 and 5 is 10 . So you gave them a total of 10 boats . Well , in essence those boats Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 6 that weren 't in the water were not part of that '81 baseline . And I don 't know what Minnewashta Heights has here . But that 's what I know . That 's what we fought so hard for and that 's the purpose of this whole thing is - to , there 's a purpose of it . There 's a plan and if you check with Carver County and if you check with the City of Chanhassen , they have a conditional use permit or a permit . Whatever it 's called , with Carver - County Parks and that spells out the amount of boat access . That spells out that we have closed all other private access . Private or public access to Lake Minnewashta and all of the access comes through the park . Does that make sense? Batzli : No . It 's interesting information that I haven 't heaTd before . Emmings : Are you aware of these agreements or documents? Krauss: I 've had occasion to work with Mike on a number of , well a number _ of instances . In fact he 's been down here before you on occasion for park expansion projects . And Mike did explain to me that there is a CUP between the Park Board and the City . It does limit their , there 's 2 boat landings ._ They 're limited in size and I think they 're also limited to the size of the motors that can be put in on each one . And it was under those guidelines that the City authorized the Park to go forward . I 'm not aware of any recipient agreement that binds the City to anything . It 's a CUP and there may have been some understandings but as Mike explained it to me , it was a CUP for the Park to build their facility . Batzli : Okay . Thank you . Tom Huntington: Hi . I 'm Tom Huntington . The President of the Minnewashta Beach Area . Actually the Association . Just one comment to bring us back - on focus that we 're talking Minnewashta Heights here . We 're not talking expansion . We 're talking 14 . Not the 17 that we had documented in 1981 of actual people that were on the lake and had their boats in our area . And - I just wanted to be clear and reiterate the fact that it is based on the ruling that the way I understand it , from what I 've read , is that we are to go back on the 1981 number of boat counts that were on the area at that _ time . And we have documentation to back that up if need be or actually people that we can contact if that has to be done . Any questions? Conrad: Yeah . Our inventory pretty much tracks those docked when we did it and that 's a point in time . 6 in '81 . 6 in '86 . 7 in '91 . Tom Huntington: Is there something where you? Conrad: . . .saying there were 14 boats . Tom Huntington: Well actually 17 as of 1981 . Conrad : Those were assignments . Were there boats on the water? Tom Huntington: Actually I am newer to the neighborhood . I 've been in the neighborhood for 5 years . I couldn 't actually say myself but what I understand . Planning Commissi Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 7 Conrad: You see that 's real important for us . We 're trying to be as fair as we can but boats on the water is a really key issue . Bill Finlayson: Yes but your counts are . . .don 't know how many boats were out , at the dock at the time or . Basically what your count . Tom Huntington: If somebody went down today . Bill Finlayson : If you asked the same question , were there actually boats there? Then we 'd have to give you the same answer . We don 't know without . . . Conrad: The only thing I 'm raising is , it 's real consistent , our records . If they weren 't consistent , then I 'd sort of . . . Emmings: I can tell you this . I can see this from my house . This beachlot and there 's no question in my mind that 7 boats for '91 is wrong . That is dead wrong . It 's way short . There were at least twice that many boats there . Tom Huntington: Yeah , so that visual count there was not accurate and I 've been on the lake for 5 years and I know last year . . . Emmings: It 's also very clear . Bill Finlayson : Also , the record keeping gets much better since I took over in 1991 . We had 14 boats . They 're maybe not in all the time . . . Batzli : Is there anybody here tonight who is in the homeowners association - or was around back in '81? Tom Merz : I 've been in that area . . . I 've lived there from '70- '75 . In 1981 there were 14 boats there , what does our record say? How many were in the water then? Conrad: 6 boats . Tom Merz : . . .prove , the burden . That 's what we said all . . . The burden of proof has got to be on somebody else . They 've got to come up with the . . . - Well prove it . Not us . Conrad: Well Tom , just so you know the Association has given us a listing of individuals who were assigned slip positions throughout for the last 15 years or whatever . Tom Merz: Kind of like the ordinance we had before that said we had access because they were part of the covenants . . . Everybody had access to the beachlot . That was part of the covenants . That was the argument before and we 're giving everybody . . .on this '81 baseline and all we 're doing is - destroying it for ourselves . You look at me . I 'm really not the bad guy here and I hope you don 't come out , I don 't care . I really don 't care but I think the long range plan . . . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 8 Bill Finlayson: It 's important to note that the '81 count that said 6 also- mentioned lso-mentioned the number 14 . Tom Merz : I 'm asking who mentioned 14? The City? Batzli : Yeah , the City . Tom Merz : The City . . . Batzli : Okay , would anyone else like to address the Commission? Mike Plehal : My name is Mike Plehal and I live in Minnewashta Heights . My address is 6210 Elm Tree Avenue . My wife and I have lived there for about 3 1/2 years . Looked in there . We wanted to be on a lake but are unable to afford it . It 's our first home but the access and the boat slip availability was very appealing to us . So I just want to make sure that before any decisions are made , a number of us came into this area keeping that in mind and we looked at the home and decided on the home and bid on the home knowing that there were really plenty of boat slips down there . And if there was a year or two waiting period , that that really wouldn 't be a problem . But that 's a very , very appealing thing to us . Particularly that particular area I think is just straight middle class and you go down to the lake and the value is twice probably or more compared to the rest of the houses right within the neighborhood . Emmings: Let me ask you a question Mike . I walked down there tonight on the dock and where I see your assignment is for '92 . Do you know what this map looks like? You 're assigned number 4 . - Mike Plehal : Yes . Emmings : Your slip is right next to the main dock on the inside . Mike Plehal : Yes . Emmings : And now there was a boat lift there and no boat when I was there . Mike Plehal : Right . The storm that came through here about 2 weeks ago , we happened to be up north at the time . Broke the boat free from the lift and . Emmings: The lift looked like it was bent out of shape . Mike Plehal : Yeah . It totaled both the lift and the boat . Emmings: And so where 's your boat? Mike Plehal : The boat is totaled . Emmings: Okay , and it 's gone off the lake? Mike Plehal : Yeah . We pulled it off . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 9 Emmings : If the City went down and counted today , they 'd see no boat . They 'd see a spot . There 's a lift . There 's kind of a lift that looks like it 's seen better days sitting in that spot but there wouldn 't be a boat but there 'd be a space . Conrad: I don 't have a problem . I think that 's real clear . You see a lift . Emmings: I don 't know if it 's always so clear . And if it was clear in - '81 . Conrad: Did they have boat lifts? Emmings : I think so . Mike Plehal : That 's all I have . Emmings : Alright , thank you . - Batzli : Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Rich Nelson : Yes , my name is Rich Nelson . I live at 6241 Elm Tree Avenue - with my wife Nannette and we like Mike just moved in recently . Much more recently than he did . March of 1992 . And again , I guess our big decision in moving into the area was the access to the lake and when you see on the _ map that you have there , the boat lift . Or I guess the spot that I 'm assigned , my boat is not down there today . I have a boat . It 's in my garage and I 'm in the process of looking for a boat lift to keep the boat down there safely and securely . I 've been out on the lake here probably 3 - or 4 times this season and it 's very enjoyable out there . It 's not crowded . I mean from what I 've seen . Being out there Saturday and Sunday , prime time use . There is absolutely no problems with congestion or excess traffic out there . So I just wanted to point that out as well . Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Mary Onken: Hi . I 'm Mary Onken . I live at 6221 Greenbriar . We moved up here about 7 years ago and I also was very attracted by the lake lot . I have some secretary notes from a long time ago , starting about 1974 and they talk about , about 10 years before your ordinance that talked about how this space was filling up even then . So I think the 14 boats has been a long standing thing for us . We haven 't expanded . I agree with your need to regulate the lake . In the little time that we 've been here , about the last 7 years , I 've seen changes . There 's quite a bit of building around the lake and I can see where these homeowners associations can put an awful lot of access to the lake . I think the park is a very fair way to regulate the - number of people coming in . I think we pretty well all agree in the Minnewashta Heights group that we just want to maintain our status quo . What we have . We 're not looking for expansion . We want to be good neighbors . We want to see the lake regulated in a way that will keep it in very good shape . Shifting to another subject a little bit . I know it isn 't the object of tonight 's deal but I 've seen a difference in the water quality . My nephew also did some studies when he went to college to look into the different ways to save lakes . I wonder if the commission would Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 10 also , or whether your Planning Commission would look into ways that the sewer water and the waste water or storm sewer water could be cleaned up before it comes into the lake . Right now I think it just pretty much goes right in . Batzli : We are actually in the process of , we have a task force , the Surface Water Quality Task Force . Right now I think they 're devoting a substantial amount of time to plotting the lakes that we have and the quality and trying to put some projects togethers . If you do want to follow up on that , I encourage you to talk to Paul in our Planning Department . It 's been a very active group and we 're moving ahead and I think we 're actually leading a lot of the communities in the State as far as putting something like this together and getting going on it . Mary Onken: I think that 's great . So I think we support your , what you 're trying to do and we don 't want to expand . We want to stay where we are . Thank you . Conrad: What do you have in your book on 1981? Anything that we should know that we don 't know? Mary Onken: Oh I don 't know . I was reading this and I had to guess what years you would be focusing on initially . So I think even back , I think it was in '74 they talked about 14 boat slips . Space for 14 boats . Conrad : Anything that you could show in there that says that can give us more information on actual use? Emmings : In '81 . Conrad: Be real persuasive . Mary Onken : I 'm sorry , but I don 't have that . I think looking at the number of boats that are in the slips is kind of akin to looking at my garage and my driveway and trying to figure out how many cars I have . On - any given day maybe 4 of us will be done and there won 't be any cars at home . And on another day , the whole works might be there so counting the number of boats at a particular time I think is kind of a strange way to arrive at how many boats were there . Farmakes: Do you pay for your assignment? Mary Onken : Sorry . Farmakes: Do you pay the Association for your assignment? Mary Onken: For my boat slip? Yes , we started voluntarily additional assessments for the boat slips and we have a dues for the association of which most of that association dues goes for insurance . Farmakes: Do you keep records of those payments? Bill Finlayson: Yes . For 3 years now we 've collected for boat slips . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 11 Farmakes: Okay , but not for '81? - Bill Finlayson: No . But we have a Treasurer who would keep track of that . Batzli : Thank you for your comments . Anyone else like to address the Commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Emmings moved , Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli : Ladd , why don 't we start at your end . — Conrad: Are the neighbors to this beachlot , are they part of the Association? Bill Finlayson: All lakeshore people are part of it . Conrad: They are? Anybody here? Bill Finlayson: Do you have a map on this? Those homes are . Conrad : Anybody here that lives next door? We haven 't heard any problems with the swimming beach? The issue goes back . I think everything that I see is fine except for the number of boats and I guess I still haven 't been persuaded . I ' ll wait for maybe some other input from the Planning Commissioners . It 's a mighty small lot and it 's just a mighty small lot . I think it is a little bit at risk in terms of safety but if we haven 't heard any problems . The neighbors aren't complaining , then I 'm fine with that at this point . I think the staff has recommended marker buoys and I think that has to be done . The only other issue other than , in terms of what the association is requesting , is boats . And I guess I 'm still not , I haven 't been moved from the 6 in the inventory but maybe somebody on the commissioner can sell me . I think the other ones , what we 're trying to do is be real fair in terms of the beachlots that are coming in . Trying to somehow make some sense out of what we 're doing and the last thing we want to do is really take away some rights that you 've got . We hate that . We 're not comfortable . Yet on the other hand , as you 've heard Tom Merz talk about the other thing we 're trying to do is merge the needs of the lake . Not necessarily the riparian owners but the needs of the lake and - the safety issues and there are a number of boats that can be on the lake without making it a hazard . And that 's really true . It is 20 acres per boat . Minnewashta probably has more boats allocated to it than are safe _ conditions . Part of that is the problem of the park . But it 's also a problem of beachlots too . . .and also a problem with homeowners . But anyway , that 's right now , I think everything 's okay other than the number of boats . I guess somebody has to , I haven't seen anything to move me . I think if the homeowners showed me a picture or somebody showed me something in 1981 , I think I could . Obviously the dock can take 14 boats . It 's built to fit but I haven 't seen the use yet that can sway me . Batzli : So you would recommend 6? Conrad: Right now that 's what I 'm thinking until I hear the rest of you . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 12 Batzli : Matt? Ledvina : I understand the arguments as it relates to boats being out of the water and boats being out on the lake and the intention for the _ homeowners association for the number of boats . That seems to be , they 've done a good job of laying that out . And I think if that , if they can indeed prove that they intended to have 14 boats , and those boats in use on that lot , I think that would be a reasonable number to allow . I 'm a little- bit concerned about the documentation that 's been submitted to us . You know they appear to be older diagrams and such but there 's really no authors identified and I think this is the documentation that 's provided really swaps me in terms of going with the 14 boats but , and it seems to be certainly legitimate but I would like to see the names of the individuals that were involved in preparing the lists . Bill Finlayson: If you 'd like to see originals . Ledvina : Well , would you happen to know the individual that for example , determined the 1981 assignments and wrote the list? I mean is that readily available? Bill Finlayson: There were various Beach Chairmans . You 'll notice documentation . . .there 's diagrams so people took various amounts of effort depending on who those individuals were over the years . Some just . . . notes and some did more than that . But they 're all authentic and I have the originals and the names that appear on , many of those names don 't live in the neighborhood . Conrad: Do you have By-Laws? Bill Finlayson: Yes . Conrad: Anything that relates to the dock assignments in the By-Laws? Bill Finlayson: Actually it hasn 't been a very big problem in the past , so- it hasn 't been a very big priority . But recently in recent years now , at our last meeting we had asked for a committee to draw up just what you 're asking for . More stringent rules because it hasn 't been a problem before so it just hasn 't gotten done . Now it has to be done . . . We don't have rules per se . We will probably next year . Ledvina: Well it 's a difficult issue and the other items of the inventory and the requests , I don 't have any problem with . Again the real issue is the number of boats that are requested here and I am leaning toward allowing the 14 that you have currently documented here but I am open to other discussion . That 's it for me . Batzli : Okay . Steve . Emmings : Like I say , I 'm a little bit , I personally experience this beachlot every day so I think I 'm being objective about it but I want everybody to know that I do . My house is tipped at such an angle that I actually look a little bit to the east so I look straight out the end of my house . I can see this a few lots over . Frankly , it bothers me less Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 13 than I might have thought it does . It 's a very small piece of land . I think they do a very good job of keeping up the shore area . It 's way too - small for the number of boats that are on it . There 's , anybody who 'd say anything else is , well . It 's ridiculous . But nevertheless , that 's not what we 're here to decide . Now you get , you have to have 200 feet of lakeshore and 30 ,000 square feet to get one dock with 3 boats you know so you can see that proportionately you 're way over . I 've always thought that it crowded the neighbors a lot and I think that 's very unfair to the direct neighbors but you know , the neighbors on each side aren 't here tonight . - When they 've got a chance to say their piece , they aren 't here and that 's , . . . if you don 't speak up , sometimes you can 't get heard . I think they 've adjusted this year somewhat and I think it 's less of a problem this year - than it has been in past years but to me it does not appear that they 're back inside the setback but it may just be deceiving when you try to eyeball it . It 's congested over there . The thing that bothers me the most about it is the light they have out there all night long . If they 've got one of these big , bright lights out there and that 's probably important maybe for safety and the use of it but that impacts me and I don 't like it but , I don 't even see that on here as an issue . I don 't know if that was - there in '81 . As far as the swimming raft goes , I know that 's been there as long as , I 've been out there since '82 and I know that swimming raft has been there at least as long as I have been . So we come right down to the nitty gritty here which is the number of boats . If I had to bet , I 'd say that there are more boats now than when I was first out there in '82 . It just looks like it but I never counted them back then so I don 't know either . So when I look at the documentary evidence that we have , which I think is all we 've really got to go by , I see the list of 1981 assignments and that 's 17 . And then when you look back in the history , in 1979 it shows 12 and '78 it shows , I 'm not sure what it shows . It shows 11 I think with spaces for 15 . In '77 it shows 12 boats . But as you look back here , and back in '76 there 's a total of 14 and the dock is always basically in the same configuration . So if I decide on it based on this information that we have in front of us , I don 't know any other way to go but with the 14 . Even our own surveys , when they say 6 with room for 14 , that suggests to me that same dock configuration was there . How could they count the , how could you count a space without , you know what I mean? You 're not - making up those spaces . Those docks are out there with the main dock with the arms coming off it . Even that suggests to me that it's a 14 boat dock . Conrad: Is intent good enough for you? Emmings : No , but I know when I look down here at 7 in '91 , there is no , absolutely no question in my mind . There are the same number of boats there this year as there were last year . I really looked at it last year because I knew this was coming so I looked at it more closely . I didn 't count the boats but I looked at it more closely . And I 'd say if anything , - right now when I was out there today , there were fewer boats than there were last year . At the peak . And you know that boats aren 't there all the time . So that makes me suspect that the numbers . So I don't know . I 'd like to see it restricted to 3 boats . If I had my way , I 'd say they can , you have 3 boats and that 's it but we clearly don 't have that power . We 've got to try and get at the number that was there and we 've got to try and make sure that we 've got a fair number and we 've got to make sure that it - doesn 't ever expand any more . And based on all of the stuff that they 've Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 14 shown us out of their records , I 'd go along with the 14 boats . I don 't - like it but I 'd go along with it . Batzli : Anything about marker buoys? Emmings: Um , well sure . I don't really have any way to judge whether it makes it safer or not to have the buoys . If our staff thinks that it 's important for safety purposes , I certainly wouldn 't contest that . Batzli : Jeff . Farmakes: I would go along with staff recommendations on this . Back up the buoys . It seems to me that for anyone who has , went through the expense of putting out dockage , it 's quite expensive . And if the City documented that there are 14 spaces there for dockage , the fact that there only happened to be 6 boats there at the time . I guess , maybe they were out on the lake or maybe they were in the shop or something . I 'm willing to believe them . That that 's what they had there and it made the intent of- the '81 ordinance . Or '82 , if it was enacted in January of '82 . But that 's in line with that and I don 't think we have anything to say one way or the other that that 's now what was there that 's conclusive . So that being the case , I 'm willing to take their word for it . Batzli : Okay . Well , I remember being at this beachlot back in '78 thru , well '76 thru about '80 . I had a good friend in the neighborhood and I remember going down there . There were a lot of boats back then . I never counted them . I remember swimming to the raft . I mean all this stuff was there . Whether the boats were physically in the water at the time this thing was counted , I guess I kind of take Jeff 's approach that , I can 't imagine that peopled in 't have . You know people that had slips maybe pulled their boats in and out occasionally. I guess I 'm not going to guess that . I believe that there were probably more than 6 boats from my recollection on those docks so I 'm going to go with the 14 that they 're requesting . I think it 's reasonable . The only thing I would like , I would like staff to double check this angle on the park . Make sure there 's nothing in writing regarding this or some other survey . Aanenson: The conditional use permit? Batzli : Yeah . And I 'd like to see the marker buoys out . Anybody have a motion? I 'd love to hear it . Conrad: You were there in '78? Emmings: '76 . Batzli : Well yeah , throughout school with friends . College . Conrad: And do you feel the staff inventory was not? Batzli : I seem to remember more boats than 6 but I couldn 't say for sure how many that were there . Conrad: If there are 14 boats , where does the swimming beach go? Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 15 Bill Finlayson: The boats stay on the west side of the dock . The swimming beach is on the east side of the dock so they don 't infringe on each other . _ They don 't take away , the boat people do not take away any rights of the swimming beach . The majority of the lot . . . Conrad: 50 feet . Okay , so you 've separated boats from swimmers . Bill Finlayson : 60 feet . Emmings: The dock runs down the middle and the boats are all on the west and the swimming is on the east from my observations . _ Conrad: But basically the boat access is over . . .neighboring property owners . You really couldn 't have boats on your own 50 feet but as long as the swimming beach is separate . Okay . The homeowners aren 't here complaining . Emmings: I 'm going to move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Minnewashta Heights Non-Conforming recreational beachiot with — basically everything that our report says that the Minnewashta Heights Association has requested with the addition of or with these following changes . That the boats at the dock would be 14 and that if marker buoys _ will enhance the safety of the swimming beach , that they be installed . Who 's made that determination? Aanenson: Well the concern was the raft is way out beyond the length of the dock . Quite a ways out there . Actually the length of the swimming beach is probably only 8 to 10 feet at the most so it 'd be a linear swimming beach on the way out to the raft . Just when you get out to the - raft there 's not a conflict with the boats coming in . So I think it 's appropriate to say that we will check to make sure if it will enhance it or not . Emmings: Okay . Conrad: So the buoys would have to surround the raft? How would the - markers? Aanenson: That 's what we 'd have to look at . Bill Finlayson: Marker buoys , will staff , if marker buoys are required , will you diagram for us . . .? Batzli : Is there a second to Steve 's motion? Ledvina: Second . Batzli : Is there any discussion? Emmings moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlot Permit for Minnewashta Heights with one seasonal dock , 150 feet in length, 2 canoe racks , 14 boats docked , swimming beach and a swimming raft , which staff will look at to see Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 16 if marker buoys will enhance the safety of the swimming raft. All voted in favor except Ladd Conrad who didn 't vote and the motion carried . Batzli : And when will it go to the City Council? Krauss: The 27th . Batzli : July 27th this issue will go before the City Council and I encourage you to follow the issue up . As I indicated , we recommend . They make the final decision . Thank you all for coming in . PUBLIC HEARING: INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR EARTHWORK/MINING OF A GRAVEL PIT, LOCATED NORTH OF HWY . 212 AND EAST OF THE CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY , MOON VALLEY AGGREGATE . ( Tim Ehart arrived to the meeting during discussion of this item and Steve Emmings left the meeting during discussion of this item . ) Public Present: Name Address Dave Johnson 821 Creekwood ( Left written comment ) Richard Vogel 105 Pioneer Trail Dennis & Catherine Barthoiow 9841 Deerbrook Lane Emily Pischleder 185 Pioneer Trail Tom Dalyonrod 8280 West Lake Court Jeffrey Michell 9961 Deerbrook Drive Gerald Bertsch 8556 Irwin Road, Bloomington Rick Sathre Sathre-Berquist , Consultant Engineers Tom Zwiers Moon Valley Aggregate David Johnson had to leave the meeting early and left this written statement to be included into the record . TO: Chanhassen City Council FROM: David Johnson 821 Creekwood Re : Moon Valley Gravel Site . Ladies/Gentlemen: Due to time constraints I am unable to be present to present concerns over the further mining of the Moon Valley site . As an occupation I am a realtor . I am keenly interested in how one area of a development can affect other areas of development . Unless extreme caution is used in upfront agreements , the end result can be and most often is unacceptable . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 17 It is in this spirit that I express my concern as a resident but also as a person employed in the real estate industry , that an end use plan be proposed that is acceptable to the city , specifically the adjacent homeowners . Once an acceptable plan is accepted , there must be a financial instrument in place ( i .e . payment bond , letter of credit , etc . ) to insure that the plan accepted is carried out . A cost of restoration of $50 ,000 . was proposed at a previous meeting . I believe this to be severely inadequate to accomplish even the most minimal restoration and believe that realistic costs must be addressed now- up front ! It is my concern that the operator 's past conduct to residents and city concerns may be indicative of how future agreements or concerns are handled by this operator . Frankly , I do not see that this operator has earned anyone 's trust and I am concerned that this may be a pattern . Please be careful . David S . Johnson Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item . Batzli : Does anyone on the Commission have a question they want to ask Paul before I open it up to further public comment? Farmakes : I have a couple of questions . Is that bond listed in here? Krauss: The letter of credit? Farmakes: No . It says $40 ,000 . in here . Krauss: I believe there 's another condition that . Farmakes : Yeah but it doesn 't have a financial amount . Krauss : No . What we intend to do , and I was speaking for the City Attorney . By the way , we have Tom Scott from the City Attorney 's office here tonight . One of the things that we would like to do is we have a working relationship with the DNR forester . We 'd like to get his input as to what he thinks the cash value or what it would actually take to do that job and we would insert that , if it gets through the Planning Commission tonight , we would insert that into the conditions for the City Council approval . Farmakes: I 'm curious where the $40 ,000 . or where that amount came from? Do you feel real comfortable with that? Krauss: Frankly , whether I feel comfortable with it or not isn 't the question . The City Engineer 's office does . They have a rule of thumb that they use for , an acre of disturbed area costs x number of dollars to finish grade , reseed and maintain erosion control and it 's a formula they 've used pretty standard for a number of years on development projects . And that 's Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 18 where that number was generated from . So they 're comfortable with it and I 'm . Farmakes : Is that formula the same on a piece of farmland as it is on a bluff area? Krauss: I honestly don 't know the answer to that . I suspect it probably is . There 's a little room for fudging in it I suppose to recognize difficulty but this area , the area that they 're mining up on top is in fact farmland . It is relatively flat . The grades that will result from this are relatively flat . That 's not the work on the bluff line . The only work that they would have to be doing on the bluff line is the reforestation on - that lower ponding area . Batzli : Anything else Jeff? Farmakes: No . Batzli : I see the applicant 's here . Would you like to respond to the conditions and otherwise , address us . Rick Sathre : Mr . Chairman , I 'm Rick Sathre from Sathre-Berquist . I 'm the - engineer for Mr . Zwiers on this portion of his operation . Tom Zwiers is here with me tonight . Well staff 's done a very thorough job as usual and you 've got a lot of information before you . I think what I 'd like to do is _ share a little bit of information and then I 'd make myself available for questions . I made a few transparencies as well and I ' ll try to help to educate a little bit you , and perhaps the neighbors . I think there 's some people here that are very interested and maybe I can help them too . This is a blown up map that 's on the grading plan drawing that shows the north 45 acre parcel that Mr . Zwiers owns with the relationships to the railroad corridor on the west side , the large lot single family neighborhood the opposite side of the railroad corridor and the large tracts to the right side of the site are in Eden Paririe and directly below the word site , the next parcel south of that is the Moon Valley gravel pit area . Down running _ along the bottom side of the drawing you can see 169 and then the lake . Rice Lake across the highway . So I guess the urbanized neighbors are to the northwest , across the railroad corridor . This might be clear as mud from this distance but this is what 's called a USGS or United States Geological Survey map which shows 10 foot contours since 1958 . It was updated in 1972 . The site was , the contours shown on here weren 't altered in 1972 by USGS when they updated their mapping . South of this line on the bottom side here , this the pit area . What you see there is the bluff before it was mined . When it was a ski area . I remember driving by there many times as a kid with my parents in the 50 's and seeing those big grassy slopes when it was , when they had the ski rope or the rope tow going up the hill . The north triangle is what we 're talking about really tonight . The 45 acre area that 's not been mined . I moved that same map up a little bit . In that '58 mapping , this 10 foot contour mapping , the trees on the site at that time were , it 's real hard to read here . I brought the original of this map if anybody wants to look at it . There was a significant treed area to the west and on the very southwest corner of the 45 acres we 're talking about tonight . This is still forested . This is then . Then the easterly portion of the 45 acre tract was and is still forested as well . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 19 But even in 1958 the mined area down low was basically a hole in a ground . I think you can see the structure now . It 's a house or something down - there at the base of the slope . This is the 45 acre piece . Again , down at the bottom . Down at the south end is the , beyond that horizontal line is the mined area . The area that 's still being mined . North of that line is this 45 acre tract . Again , the southwest part down here has mature trees . This is south facing , southwest facing bluff . The area , most of the area north of this red line is open land . As Mr . Krauss indicated , there 's been agriculturally used and so it 's only treed around the edges in the steeper sloped areas . The ravine system , there 's a deep erosion scar that leads up into Eden Prairie to the east and another scar that leads down into the railroad cut . When that railroad was built , ever so long ago , that was a major earth moving operation . There were deep cuts made to the north and big fills to the south . Well , that slope probably wasn 't handled very well so that has eroded . The blue arrows on this drawing show the direction of water flow now . So there 's a bluff line here , the water that falls on the - south and west and south and east sides of that line actually go toward the river directly . Whereas the water that 's north of this line towards the top side of the drawing actually drain down through the ravine . It 's one - or the other of the ravines . The big goal of this clay mining operation , as Mr . Krauss indicated , there are several . One is to generate the clay to cap the landfill . The second by product or goal that we have is to stabilize the erosion situation . This map shows the red lines on this map are the , would be the drainage boundaries after the grading is done . Here 's that ravine system on the east side . The way the contours are drawn here on this grading plan , there would be a ridge line created along here . - The water that falls , the rainfall that falls westerly of that line would now drain into this upland pond . Again up in the north point of the land , there 's another what we 're creating is a seepage pond or a sump . Where we would direct the water to the well . This is about 5 acres up here . This is about 15 . The water would all be directed inward . So I don 't know if this helps anything or not . Basically what we can do is we can capture much of the water that 's now , runs over the edge and down the ravine . Capture it and take it inward and allow the water to seep into the soil and work through the ground instead of work over the edge of the bluff . This is a map that shows that southwest corner of the north 45 acres . The major - stand of trees that exist there . The major bluff line that Mr . Krauss was talking about . The intent is to save all these trees on the major slopes . Save this major bluff line but to remove the secondary bluff that 's right along the property boundary . So the end result would be to create that pond basically down at the bottom of that big slope and expose that tree area to the full view . I ' ll take a minute and go through some of the staff recommendation items . The first item on the recommended conditions was the staff would like a copy of the easement or the rights that Mr . Zwiers has over the property in Eden Prairie that he 'd used for access out to Pioneer Trail . He actually purchased the land in Eden Prairie that he needs for that access several years ago . We 've brought copies of the documents tonight and we 'd introduce them into the record for future review . So he not only has easement rights , but he actually owns the land that the road goes out over . I think that the conditions relative to protecting the roadways , cleaning up mud and such are logical and prudent and practical . I really don 't have any problem with any of the conditions except as we get toward the end . In number 7 , the staff has recommended that $40 ,000 . letter of credit be posted to cover site restoration . What I 've talked to Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 20 Mr . Zwiers about is trying to work out some sort of a dual obligy bond . He 's providing the site and providing the material but he isn 't actually picking it up and moving it . It 's a contractor . It 's the contractor for the landfill that 's actually doing the work . Well what we would propose to try to work out is to have that contractor post a bond that names Mr . Zwiers and protects him . Makes them liable or responsible for restoration but also it protects the City of Chanhassen . So if we can work that out , it would be to his benefit and to the City 's to have both protected by one instrument . Batzli : I know that in our ordinance we talked about this situation . Where the applicant would normally be the person removing and we required that the owner be co-listed on the permit . I guess we never envisioned that the owner would be on there , not the person doing the work . Krauss : Well , I guess we 'd want to make them co-liable I guess . I don't have that much difficulty with that but I have a question about the bonding arrangement that Rick is suggesting . First of all we 've always been counseled by the City Attorney 's office to deal with letters of credit . They 're much more effective instruments for the city to use if need be . But maybe I could refer this to Tom Scott and answer as to whether or not that bond would be acceptable . Tom Scott : My initial reaction would be that it wouldn't work . That we 'd want a letter of credit from the applicant , Mr . Zwiers as the owner of the - property . Whatever arrangements he might make with his contractor to protect himself would really be between him and his contractor . Would be my initial reaction . And that we would have a letter of credit from Mr . Zwiers and Mr . Zwiers is the applicant and the owner of the property would be securing the restoration of the property . Rick Sathre : I don 't think we want to reivent the wheel or try to invent - something new . So I guess I throw it out as an opportunity to explore a potential more than anything . I feel an obligation to protect my client from that contractor just like I feel an obligation to provide , try to figure out how to protect the City too . We want this to be done right and the property is worth a lot of money now and it will be worth a lot of money in the future . The last thing that we want to do is end up with it being damaged somehow . So I guess we want to work to try to make that the simplest and most straight forward for everybody that we can . Down on condition number 13 on page 15 . Mr . Zwiers and I have talked about the reforestation plan for mine bluff phase . A lot of the land , faces of the slopes in there have been left alone for a long time . Maybe have never been mined . At this point I don 't think that we have any problem coming up with some sort of a plan that shows how those newly mined areas . The areas that aren 't vegetated now would get replanted . I think that 's appropriate . I think that 's a good trade off to . . .financial guarantee that the City wishes to obtain to guarantee the implementation of the plan is a bit of a hardship because of the time table . Normally when the City requires a bond - or letter of credit or some sort of financial guarantee , it runs for a period of 1 to 2 to 3 years while an activity is started and finished and it goes through the guarantee period perhaps of a building of a street or something . Here where this is a mining operation , a lot of the pace of the mining is a function of building in the area . Road building in the area . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 21 Just general development of public facilities . Mr . Zwiers sells gravel to contractors or cities or entities that are building something somewhere . If things don 't happen fast , then he doesn 't sell much . If they do happen fast , then he sells more . What I 'm really saying is he really can 't even predict what the life of that mining operation is . Whether it 's 2 or 3 years or 22 or 23 years . So to post a financial guarantee , a letter of _ credit now for so much per tree or so much per acre for the revegetating that pit area , can be a real burden after whatever , 4 or 5 , 10 years . And so , well it 's a hardship and I 'm not sure how to deal with that . I don 't think that the City has any interest in punishing him in any way . We understand the goal is to protect or to insure compliance . I would hope that there would be some other way to , like conditions withholding further approvals or building permits or some other way to limit his future use other than posting a $20 ,000 .00 letter of credit that would be still there after 10 years or something . We 'd like to explore that and I would hope that we could find some way to guarantee something that wouldn 't be too onerous . Lastly the condition 14 relating to the damage , the ravines and how to repair them . I think what I would propose is probably what the engineers and the planners have in mind anyway and that 's really to go out onto the site and the ravines and look and see which slopes are still barren and try to figure out what would be best to try to get something to grow on those faces . The grading operation that we 're proposing would direct water back away from the ravines so there wouldn 't be all this flood of water coming down there . So there wouldn 't be as much erosive force anymore . Trying to get something to grow again on almost a vertical face is hard . Nature does it over the period of many years and man isn 't so good at , mankind isn 't so good at tampering in a productive way . What I wouldn 't want to see happen is for us to go into the ravines with a dozer or Caterpiller or something and make a bigger mess than we solve a problem . And I know the staff doesn 't want to create a problem either . So somehow we have to carefully deal with the issue and probably some sort of seeding operation of those barren clays and sands would be the most productive . We would propose to work on that in the next couple weeks . Try to come up with a solution . We 'd like to answer questions that you have and would be available for the neighbors too if they have something that they 're worried about or wish answered . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . This is a public hearing so if you 'd like to address the Commission at this time , please step forward and give your name and address for the record . Dennis Bartholow: I 'm Dennis Bartholow , 9841 Deerbrook Drive . I 've got a couple of concerns regarding this whole operation . First of all the , this operation here , they 're going to dig down to an elevation of 800 feet to get to the sand so that they can send the water down to the ground water level . The elevation of my property which is located , well over here in this direction . The elevation is 920 feet . When we put our well in , we went down 160 feet and found water . Put the well at 230 feet . If they go down to 800 feet here , that would mean they would have 40 feet before they hit the ground water which I don 't think is adequate for filtration . And then to get to my level would be another 100 feet about . So I 'm real concerned about polluting the ground water in that area . The idea of a seepage pond rather than a holding pond is that they 're going to flush that water right into the ground water . All of the homes in that area , Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 22 Deerbrook as well as Lake Riley Woods and any future , all use well water . We do not have city water out there . All of that water potentially could become contaminated . So I have a real strong concern about having these seepage ponds that close to the ground water elevation . Also , there was a traffic concern . If you drive down Pioneer Trail from CR 4 , you 'll find that it 's a 50 mph road . There 's a dip that prior to the exit from this area of the 40 acres or so that they want to strip the top off of . Prior to that exit there 's a dip that drops down and comes back up over the hill - and immediately on your left is the exit . Now I 've had the experience of having a car stop there and come up over that hill and have to hit the brakes real hard to avoid hitting it . If we have 20 to 30 trucks in this operation running 6 days a week , from 7:00 in the morning to 6:00 in the afternoon , I think there 's a serious potential for an accident there . Because those trucks have to come to a stop before they can turn to cross the road into that entrance . You might want to take a look at that because- when ecause-when you come up over that hill at 50 mph , you don 't have , you have very little time to stop prior to hitting those trucks . So it 's a safety issue as well . As far as the views are concerned , if we were to strip away this_ peninsula , all the homes are located up here . Up high . The reason that we bought the property was because of the view of the valley . If we strip away this peninsula located here as indicated , then we 're going to be looking at a mining operation and that 's a real scarey idea for us . Our property values are going to drop dramatically if when you look out your back window you see a mining operation , and that 's what 's going to happen there . Maybe it 's going to help the people over at Shakopee a little bit - who are up on 5th Avenue or whatever so they don 't have to look at this stripped portion of land but for everybody along this area up here , we 're going to be looking at a mining operation and that 's not really the reason that we bought into that property in the first place . Also if we go back to this location here . My lot is located right there . Directly across from here . I do see that area most of the year , especially in winter . I 'm going to have to listen to all of that activity as well as my neighbors who are just starting to move in now . I 'll have to listen to all that activity and deal with the dust while the whole operation is going on . And again , that 's 6 days a week from 7:00 to 6:00 at night . That 's not a real pleasant idea . Also , around the turn of the century , this was a large hill right here . The railroad came through and dug their way straight through here . There are very sheer bluffs on both sides that are not vegetated and they haven 't been since the turn of the century . Erosion has not been a problem for 90 some odd years . I don 't know why there's a problem now . I would strongly suggest that you take a hike down this railroad tracks , which is supposedly going to become a bike trail . Walk down the railroad - tracks and take a look at the views for yourself . It 's very beautiful and you 'll also see the sheer cliffs here that are not vegetated and the erosion is not a problem . This cliff over here is not nearly as sheer as the cliffs over in this area here . So it was basically just dug out . Nothing was done to handle the erosion problem and it hasn 't been a problem up until apparently now . Also , if you continue walking down this trail , you ' ll look down in this valley and it 's a very beautiful valley . You 'll probably see a lot of deer and that type of thing . There is a creek that comes through here . There 's two creeks on the other side over here . If they come in here and start tearing all this out , now you get to view a mining operation rather than the natural beauty that is there and I would strongly suggest before you make a decision , that you do actually hike down - Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 23 - that trail from TH 101 up to CR 4 , and take a look at the entire operation that you 're discussing . You 'll see it 's really a very beautiful area and it would be I think a very poor . . .and I am again very concerned about the ground water . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you very much . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Jeff Michell : I 'm Jeff Michell from 9961 Deerbrook Drive . I have a question to the city staff first . Is there a timeframe or limit attached to your recommendation for this project? Krauss: For the activity to be completed? Jeff Michell : Yeah . _ Krauss: They 're request to us outlines this being completed either this summer or early next spring . We have not set a deadline . . .accepted what they 've told us . But it may be appropriate to put a condition in . It certainly could be added . Jeff Michell : Yeah , I 'd like to make that request . And I 'd also like to reiterate some of the concerns that staff and the city attorney have raised - with regard to making sure that suitable performance guarantees or letters of credit or whatever they are , are in place to make sure that the development comes off as predicted . My neighbor has illustrated I think pretty nicely that there 's trade-offs in this . It 's not , it may be a , seem like a win situation in some aspects of this property but there 's some things that are being given up in a really beautiful and natural place . We don 't have any lakes down there but we 've got a really nice woods that 's - going to be different when this is all over . And if it 's going to be different , it 'd better be nice and different . If it 's half completed and not very nice , I think that would be a tragedy . That 's all . Batzli : Thank you . Emily Pischleder : Emily Pischleder , 185 Pioneer Trail . I was just wondering if you 're going to be mining out in the area that was mined out in '87? Are you going to be taking any more dirt out of there that you did then and you will be trucking it out on the road that you used at that - time? Would it run through Dornkempers? Is that the way you 're going to truck it out? Rick Sathre: Yes . Emily Pischleder : Then I 'm wondering if you 're going to be taking more out of the area that was mined out in '87 . Which is directly behind my house . - Right by the radio tower . Rick Sathre : The proposal is to mine or remove clay from that area and - just to the north of it but also the majority of the material would be removed from the area farther south from where it was mined before . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 24 Emily Pischleder : Okay , but you will be taking some more out of that area - again? Rick Sathre : Yes . Emily Pischleder : Okay . Rick Sathre : The northerly seepage pond that we show is just northwest of - that old mined area . As long as I 'm up here , could I speak to the ground water issue? Batzli : Sure . Emily Pischleder : Well that area hasn 't had anything done to it . . .radio tower that they approved at that time also . And we did the same thing when we bought our house . When we built our house it was because of the view so we don 't have anything to look at now . Dennis Bartholow: Yeah that area has been stripped and nothing was done to take care of it . Batzli : The northern part? Dennis Bartholow: The norther part . The confidence level that after this project that it will be repaired is really quite minimal based on past history of what we 've seen happened there . Batzli : Okay , thank you . Do you want to address the ground water issue? - Rick Sathre: Yes , thank you . Ground water movement is , as you might expect , toward the river . The ground water levels are higher as you move away from the valley or move into the bluffs . The river , the Minnesota River is at about 700 . Elevation 700 and I think the testimony you heard was that the ground water where their well is , the water that they 're drawing must be at about 750 or 740 . Something like that . You well 's 160 - feet deep? Dennis Bartholow: No . We hit water at 160 and the well is around 200 feet . Rick Sathre : Okay . So they 're down , they 're probably down at about 700 . The same elevation that the river is . As was mentioned , the bottom of that seepage pond that 's on the board there now is at about elevation 800 which would be oh about 50 feet above the top of the ground water table and about 100 feet above where their drawing their water from . Now movement of the - ground water that , movement of water that seeps into the ground at this location would , the water would follow that general gradient the same as all the rest of the water that 's moving through the soil there which is towards the river . Water that seeps into the ground here should not move toward those neighbors on the other side to the north . It actually should be moving towards the river . I don 't have anything with me tonight to prove that but . Dennis Bartholow: Why would the water move towards the river? Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 25 Rick Sathre : Because it 's a downhill gradient . It just naturally flows downhill through the soil . Dennis Bartholow: Right , so if it flows downhill in this direction . . .wants to flow into the river . The river isn 't . . .ground water . Rick Sathre : Partially it is . Dennis Bartholow: Partially but not a whole lot . That water can still flow in both directions . Furthermore we have a seepage pond to the northern portion as well as the southerly portion . Actually we 've got 3 seepage ponds . One of them is directly across the railroad tracks from my property . It 's maybe at the most 400 , maybe 500 feet away from my well as the crow flies . Batzli : Do you have any evidence or understanding of what would be required for filtration of water to make it safe down to an existing well? Rick Sathre: I 'm not prepared to speak to it now . From my engineering background , I 've read studies of how far septic system , waste water had to move through soil to cleanse itself . When we 're designing sewage , septic tank systems . Drainfield systems . We 're always careful to site the well 75 or 100 feet away from the drainfields so there 's adequate horizontal separation . It would be certainly the water that you 're discharging out of your , into your drainfield would be more polluted or have more , well it 's waste water . It 's your household waste water . That water would be much more polluted , if you want to call it that than the general surface runoff from the farmland . Certainly the agricultural land or any land , grass has pollutants in it . But they 're filtered out through movement through the soil . Batzli : Okay , thank you . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Jerry Bertsch: I 'm Jerry Bertsch , 8556 Irwin Road in Bloomington . I 'm the proud owner of Lot 8 , Block 1 , Deerbrook . I have the largest lot in Deerbrook . I just got in from out of town . I don 't know much about the project . I was quite impressed with your presentation and I 'm not here to strifle entrepreneurism . If you have clay , you should be entitled to take it off the property . However , I do have concerns about my property which all of it borders the railroad track on the other side that you 're intending to do . I don 't have a problem with this as long as this commission understands that this thing can 't go on for a period of years . I agree with their concerns . If it 's a short term project , let it be done but I expect the commission , representing me and the rest of the property owners to make sure that there is a plan for restoration of the property . That the topsoil is replaced as they had discussed . That there 's no effect on my side of the railroad tracks , especially the creek and that was something I hadn 't thought about earlier because that seeping pond could effect that creek and that 's one of the reasons I bought that property is the creek down there . It 's absolutely gorgeous . And if that disappears , it 's really going to be a problem . There is , as long as there is guarantees . Bonds or letters or credit , I 'm sure you folks can work everything out in terms of making sure there is guaranteed restoration . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 26 The mature trees on that southeastern , or yes . Southwestern corner , as long_ as they will stay there , that 's important . And of course no effect on the ground water . So you have quite a job ahead of you to make sure that these things are going to be kept for the rest of us and I wish you the best of luck . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Would someone else like to address the Commission at this time? Richard Vogel : I 'm Richard Vogel and I live at 105 Pioneer Trail . One concern that just came up tonight , when the new mining ordinance was put into effect a year ago or whenever it was , there as a lot of effort I was told made into that ordinance regarding setbacks from adjoining property owners . Now I 'm hearing tonight that , in this case , to my knowledge this is one of the first times that will be tested . All of a sudden that - doesn 't apply . And I don 't think a 300 foot setback from an adjoining property owner is unreasonable . At that time that was what was arrived at . The other thing is , I guess for my own selfish reasons I have some property_ in Hennepin County that borders this project . For 4 years now there 's been nothing done to that hole that 's up there and from what I 've heard at other meetings on the south property , I don 't know if we 're getting any closer to getting any resolutions on that either . I think it 's in court right now . One of the things Mr . Sathre said about the bond , and I hope I 'm using these terms right . One of his objections to it was , they didn 't know when the mining operation , whether it was going to be a 1 year , 2 year , a 10 year or 20 year operation and that 's what really worries me up here . The mining operations I 've seen , they all keep going . Maybe there will be termination next spring or whenever this is done and maybe a year later they ' ll be in for another permit to do something else . Batzli : On that particular issue , I think that the applicant said that the tree reforestation on the north/south boundary is the one that they couldn 't , they wouldn 't want to implement because of that timing problem . The restoration of the main area which would be mined , the problem wasn 't the timing . It was a question of they weren 't actually going to perform the work so they wanted the contractor on the hook . Richard Vogel : Okay . But all I 'm saying is what I heard was he didn 't know when the operation was going to be for 1 , 2 or 20 years or whatever . I guess I 'm disappointed in , you say the planner for promoting this I guess mostly because the setbacks from adjoining property owners on the new ordinance that was put into effect that was supposed to be okay , are going to be dropped . And I think the bond , letter of credit or whatever it is , I 'm not sure . I did not get the report here what they 're asking for but I think if $40 ,000 .00 is the figure , you can't do very much for $40 ,000 .00 . And if this property is left set , who is going to reforest it or who is going to take care of it then if it 's dropped? Also I 'm told on the south , the old Moon Valley , that they are saying that they can mine directly up to the property line of the north property because they own the property on both sides . I would hate to see that happen . Now I don't know if this is so or not but that 's what I have heard . Eventually those steep slopes are going to give way . Maybe not this year , next year but eventually they are . - They don 't loosen all at once . You get heavy rains and a little bit slips . Some more heavy rains and eventually something does go . But basically I - Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 27 would like , if anything is done here , there should be a timeframe . I think it could be more detailed what is really going to go on there and I think the setbacks for the new ordinance should be strictly adhered to . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Cathy Bartholow: I 'm Cathy Bartholow . My husband , Dennis already spoke . We 're at 9841 Deerbrook and I guess the only thing I would add is that personally I 'm not , I wish you well in business . This has , you know it 's kind of hard . We watched the one before this . We 're measuring back and forth what , personally we bought our property and built our dream home on that land and you who are in business . I think it comes down to - accountability and what I learned from reading your planning report , as to the history and the track record and not knowing you all , I have that report really to base my concerns on , is that somebody will be accountable - for this and that everything that everybody has said so far , there are trade offs and somebody will make sure that it is a safe operation and that it is reforested with , not seedlings this big but reforested when you 're _ talking reforestation . What does all these things mean? When you 're saying reseeding it , well I know from seeding my own lawn , you can't just throw grass on there and have it grow . It takes work and it takes making sure that that does happen and we want to make sure somebody 's accountable - to making sure that does happen and we 're not seeing anything documented for us to protect us from that standpoint . And that 's all I guess I would ask . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Okay . Rick Sathre : I 'm a small businessman too , just like Mr . Zwiers and maybe many of you . I see , well mining operators are kind of lumped with used car salesmen and maybe attorneys and bad engineers . Batzli : Geez , that hurt . Rick Sathre : Wasn 't that terrible? Batzli : I 'm an engineer and an attorney . Rick Sathre: Dog gone it . Well , I put myself in there too . I know Tom Zwiers to be a hard working , honest man . He wants to do what 's right and he doesn 't like being bureaucratically nickeled and dimed to death just like everybody else doesn 't want that . He wants to do what needs to be done and he 's approaching this new permit in a very straight forward manner and I know he ' ll live up to the terms of the permit if it 's issued . The old mining operation is a second , you know it 's a different thing . It reminds me a little of a farm . The farmers came in ever so long ago and stripped the land of all it 's vegetation and every year they do the same thing and they put in a crop and take it in the fall and use it to survive . That 's a little like what he 's doing and I hope he , when he 's done with it puts it back so everybody can enjoy it . I guess that 's your goal . Mr . Vogel mentioned the fact that it would be prudent to have a 300 foot setback for the edge of the grading or the edge of the mined area . On that Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 28 - north 45 acres , I guess technically we probably are proposing to mine it but it 's more like a grading operation for a subdivision . We 're grading slopes that are no steeper than 3: 1 and most of them are more like 7% and 10% which are fairly flat slopes . So imposing the 300 foot standard here where technically it is mining but it doesn 't look like mining . I don 't know if it passes the smell test or not . But we think we 're , by going within 300 feet of the property boundary , it allows us to better cut off the water that 's going over the edge of the ravines . We 're getting out - near the property boundaries so we can slope the ground back into the center of the property and get the water to run to those seepage ponds . If we don 't go out , if we stay more than 300 feet away from the boundaries , that just means we can 't do that job the way we 're proposing to . And again Mr . Vogel was concerned about restoration and the when of it . Staff report says restore the land in phases , and that 's what our proposal is . As each area is excavated , topsoil would be respread in the street areas as it 's done . The mining operation on this north 45 acres , the clay , the intent is to try to get it out , all of it out this year . If that doesn 't happen , then it would be next spring . With some luck and if the approvals don't drag on too long , if they are forthcoming , then we try to beat the weather . The contractor at the landfill definitely wants to get the clay over there this year and if it doesn 't come from this site , for whatever reason , there 's another site that already has a permit issued so he could get it from another place too . But the material on this site is very tight . It 's a very tight clay . It 's better for the closure of the landfill than most clays that you find and so that 's why they 've sought to take it from this - site . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Conrad moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli : Jeff , do you want to lead us off? Farmakes: I 'm not an expert in water issues . I 'm assuming the city has people there . I think it 's an understandable concern for property owners . I 'm looking back , we 've heard words like accountability and responsibility and so on . I 'm disturbed by the packets that I 've read in the past and my involvement here on the issue of good faith will we enter into these things . Particularly with this operation . I think that there 's some accountability or the attitude in dealing with the city in the past and I would certainly recommend that the Council would , the city be very careful - in how they bond, this performance bond goes through or letter of credit or however the city takes it . I question how they 're arriving at $40 ,000 .00 . If that 's a rule of thumb that they use or general thing they pull out of a _ hat or is that involved in litigation that 's involved afterwards? And then the issue of the trees , there 's no dollar figure on that . And the issue of timing , as to when that would take place and when they would have to , is that also a performance type bonding situation? Or would they have to ask for another permit in stages and so on? The issue that was brought up on the safety , I think that 's a legitimate issue as well . Those roads back in there are not very safe . In fact I couldn 't think of probably some more dangerous roads than you can find in the State than back in there along that bluff . I 'm really not a water engineer as I said before I started out - Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 29 so I really can 't address the issue of the water quality but I certainly think you 're entitled to find out how that would effect your , and what cost _ if it did , effect it . That you 'd be looking at or the city would be looking at . What headaches that would provide . Batzli : I have a question before we move on here Paul . And that is , there isn 't much in the conditions as far as conditions to insure that the existing wooded areas are saved , if you will . There 's nothing about staying a certain distance away or erecting snow fences or illustrated on - the plans that these are , do not disturb areas . How are we intending to look at those issues? Krauss: Chairman Batzli , I think you 're raising a real good point . We do have a canned set of conditions that we apply to subdivisions . It would be wholly appropriate to insert those here . Frankly , you know we 've put a lot of work into these reports and conditions but we simply are unable to - conceive of all the situations that may occur which is one of the reasons for bringing it in front of people like you . I think that 's a good condition to add . We certainly have required that on another development . Batzli : But are you comfortable that there 's a plan somewhere or something in the conditions that illustrates exactly where they 're going to remove this clay and which areas are do not disturb areas on the site? Krauss: Yeah . The plan that we have is quite explicit on that account . It 's comparable to plans that we receive for residential subdivisions and - I 'm comfortable in that regard . However , we normally do add conditions that would be appropriate here as to establishing snow fenced areas outside the drop line of trees and if they do damage trees that are not supposed to be taken , that there is compensation for that that makes it pretty onerous . That is again a condition that we placed on other subdivisions . Emmings : Just a couple of things . Basically I 'm going to go along with - what the staff has proposed because I think there 's obviously been a tremendous amount of thought and care given to this , all the issues in here . I thought there should be , I thought whenever we had an interim use permit that we always had a termination . Either an event or a date . I assume that the event here is the mining of 250,000 cubic yards of clay but I think maybe what we should do is add a condition that says , the termination will be when 250 ,000 cubic yards of clay have been mined or by July 1 , 1993 , whichever comes first . Tom Zwiers: . . has a time limit on that when he has to beat it and then he has a penalty clause . If he hasn 't got it completed , and I can find out when that date is Steve but it isn 't very long I know and then he gets penalized . Emmings : Is it this year? Tom Zwiers : I believe it 's in the spring of next year . Emmings: Okay , so if we made it July though , that wouldn 't . That 's a year . That 's a whole year from now . That shouldn't get . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 30 Tom Zwiers: We 'd better have it hauled by then or we 'll be . . . Emmings: I just think there ought to be a date in addition to the event that we can look to . And I would imagine if they 're not done , they can come _ back and say we need more time . But I think that date needs to be in there . The only other condition . I guess , I think that the potential effect on ground water for people with wells is serious enough so that the city engineer ought to look at that before it gets to the City Council and - we ought to be well satisfied that this is not going to have an effect on ground water . I agree with Jeff on the road thing as potentially a very serious traffic or safety problem . I don 't know what can be done there but - again the city engineer should know. What can be done to make that as safe as possible for people who use that road . Otherwise I 'd go along with what 's in the staff report . Krauss: If I may , as to the road . We 've asked , technically where the road exists out onto Pioneer is not in Chanhassen which is why we put a condition in here that the Eden Prairie City Engineer be brought into this . - Because we want to make sure that whatever needs to be done to protect safety is done . Pioneer Trail is a road designed for very heavy use . It was rebuilt in the not too distant past . It is fully able to handle that kind of traffic . Now, you may not want it to do it constantly and we could certainly understand that but it is designed for that kind of use . Emmings: I don 't know the road right at that spot but what I heard somebody here say is that you 've got a situation with a dip and you come over a hill and there could be a truck stopped waiting to turn . You 're just asking for it . Krauss: And there is a condition regarding posting of trucks hauling signs but that is why we did ask that this be coordinated through the city of Eden Prairie . Emmings : That 's it for me . Batzli : Okay , Matt . Ledvina : I think Paul did an excellent job of putting this together . There 's a lot of issues that are involved in this type of project . I think the waiver of the 300 foot setback is a very reasonable proposal . It allows the applicant to work within the open area and allows also the trees to be saved on the property and to fix the wrongs that have been created in the past . If we actually did use that 300 foot setback , then the area that was disturbed previously in the northern corner wouldn 't be fixed . So I think that 's very important that we have the opportunity to regrade that and fix that . I have some concerns about the dollar value for the letter of credit . I can see that when you disturb 22 acres , you can burn up $40 ,000 .00 very quickly and I can envision that that number for restoration actually doubling so I would like to see some hard numbers discussed in terms of what it would take there . I think you can have a rule of thumb but if you would have to go out and hire contractors to do the work , the dollars per acre that the city might be looking at may be something that they can do internally and don 't have overheads added to it or something but I think that , given the scope of the project , the $40 ,000 .00 would be - Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 31 definitely on the low end of value of the restoration . So I 'd like that number be evaluated . Two of the residents talked about the potential or a stream bed or creek bed . I hadn 't heard anything or hadn 't seen anything in the staff report on that . Is that involved in the project at all or is that just? Rick Sathre : Let 's use one of the overheads and we 'll work it out on that . Maybe the neighbors can help here too because I 'm not sure where , exactly where it runs but I see a major ravine over here on the west side and it leads to this point . I know that it goes down through here and it drains out into the river valley there . It must cross under the , I think I see the path right here . The ponding site that we 're talking about for the southwesterly seepage pond would actually be right over in here . I 'm not sure how that would effect the creek . I don 't think it would effect it in any way . Ledvina : So the grading would not effect the appearance or the topography of the creek? Rick Sathre : No , because the creek is several hundred feet away from these - properties . Ledvina : Okay , thank you . I also support identifying a duration for the - project and think July 1st would be a good time line . I think that 's all I have at this point . Batzli : Okay , Ladd . Conrad : I think the applicant . . .concerned with point number 7 on the guarantee of $40 ,000 .00 and who should do it and I guess I would like , our attorney suggested that the applicant . . . I 'd like to make some connections between 6 and 7 . I don 't know where the $40 ,000 .00 came from and I 'd sure like to make sure that we tie things together . A plan versus the money and again I don 't know if $40 ,000 .00 is right . It may not be and I think the key to what we 're doing here is that we tie a plan that 's approved to cost that 's realistic . I think that 's essential and maybe the $40 ,000 .00 was right but I would not , I 'd really rather not see this go to Council until there 's a connection between a plan and the cost . It 's sort of make believe in my mind at this point in time and that 's okay as it passes through us but I think somebody 's got to react to something that 's real and - not guesswork . And if it 's less than that , the applicant benefits . But on the other hand , if it 's more , I think we 've got to guarantee that this site is taken care of . I know we have to guarantee that the site 's taken care _ of and I think staff 's aimed in that direction and I know the applicant has full intention of performing . I think the other concern that the applicant had on 13 , I believe it was and again , I guess the guarantees that Rick was talking about . How we would restore something on the bluff and whatever and you 're talking about something we don 't know anything about . So here we are . We 're talking about something the applicant doesn 't know anything about and we 're using general words and again I guess there 's got to be a plan and I think staff is asking for that . There just has to be something in front of us . I don't know how much money the applicant stands to make on this but I think there 's some downstream benefits obviously in terms of property available for development . There 's certainly going to be some Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 32 money sometime to repay and to make this property subdividable for residential development . But I think on point number 13 , I think there needs to be some financial guarantees and I too agree , until somebody shows me how this works , I don 't have a clue but that 's for staff and the applicant to work out . The seepage versus the holding and the ground water , absolutely essentially . Somebody 's got to guarantee it . It doesn 't take place until there 's a guarantee . And I guess in the real world there are no guarantees but I just wouldn 't feel comfortable at all if we had any_ possible , any possibility of contaminating the ground water that people are using for their well . Not at all . And I don 't know the difference between seepage and holding . I think I have a clue about what it is but I just _ need some experts talking to us about this and informing the City Council . They should not do a thing until that expert advice is given. Shouldn 't . The time of excavation , absolutely . There has to be an end . Batzli : Do you like July 1? Conrad: July l 's okay . I think that 's generous but it 's there and it 's probably going to be done before that but there has to be a time . I 'd like to see our engineer review traffic safety . Maybe that 's not our road to be doing it but whoever is right , that they be looking at that for safety considerations . That has to happen. Paul , there 's an inspection fee of $900 .00 . How are inspection fees handled? That 's $900 .00 for a one time shot or do we do this over? Krauss: No . It 's taken out of the Uniform Building Code and it applies in this case and it 's actually , I honestly don 't know how they come up with it but it 's to cover our cost of going out and monitoring the site . Conrad: Throughout the one year of excavation? Krauss: Yeah , so we would have an engineering technician going out there - periodically and making sure that the grades that are being set are those which are on the plan and that there 's erosion controls being maintained and generally that the site 's being operated in an acceptable manner . Conrad: And how often would you , what makes you think that would be done? Krauss : It really depends on , you know after the first few visits , if things are going well . You can probably go it on 5 or 6 visits over the course of the operation and then responding to complaints , if we receive any , on an as needed basis . Additionally , one of the things that 's required in here is that the applicant has to give us an as built survey of finished grades . So we 're not trying to prove that he did what he was supposed to do . He 's got to prove it to us through a survey . Conrad: What would you charge a City Engineer out at on an hourly basis? What do you charge the swamp committee for your time? No , I don 't really mean that but , what 's an engineer charged out at? Krauss : We do not have a rate schedule that 's set up . I mean I can tell you what the City Engineer . Conrad: . . .how much might we charge an engineer 's time on it? Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 33 Krauss: Actually Ladd , my time is not charged to any . I mean my salary 's drawn off of projects but we don 't charge the project . If you hire a consulting firm , if the consulting engineer makes $30 .00 an hour , they may charge you $90 .00 an hour to retain him . Batzli : Paul , you 've done a great job of avoiding the question . Where are you going with this? Conrad: I 'm just trying to figure out if we did inspections , I don 't know what it takes because this is a big project . Batzli : Yeah , it 's huge . So do you think it 's low? Do you think it 's high? Conrad: What we have are basically 10 hours packed into inspection over the . Krauss : You 're assuming that ( a ) , the city engineer 's going to go out there all the time which is probably not the case . It 's probably going to be one of the technicians , which is considerably less expensive . And that (b ) , the City is making a profit on inspections by paying the engineer 's or technician 's salary and then we have a billable that we charge as well . We don 't operate that way . We are still a public entity and we cover our expenses . Batzli : Do you think it 's low Ladd? Conrad: I guess the issue is not the money . The issue is making sure we have the inspections . I don 't have a standard to put forth but I 'm a little bit nervous about , you know when I see $900 .00 for inspecting , and I hear what Paul 's saying . We don 't relate hours to money for fees yet on the other hand I do . It's like , I just think we should be there and I think that relates a little bit to the history we 've had with this project . I 'm just not convinced yet . We 've had too many things that have been in court . Too many problems . Just flat out . Until I 'm comfortable , I would , we 've just got to be real careful . Not holding things up . The safety , you talk about inspection . The 300 foot setback . We waived it . We waived it and I had a tough time . We waived it on all sides . Where did we waive the 300 foot setback? Krauss: Basically , this is very rough . You can 't scale off of this drawing but if you wanted to look at the 300 foot line , it 's someplace back like that . The lines overlap as you get up towards the north end . Maybe in fact , it 's probably even a little more significant than that . It probably comes to a point like in here . Conrad: So we waive it on all sides because of the benefit we 're going to get through some future , through excavation or through grading? Krauss : For the reasons that I mentioned in that handout . Now the points of where this busts the 300 foot setback are along the railroad tracks here and along this part of the Eden Prairie line and down in this corner . This part of the operation is consistent with that . And you know honestly , I don 't like to go back to intent of the draftees of the ordinance but I Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 34 wrote the ordinance . I wrote it with the City Engineer and we were quite explicitedly trying to deal with , that provision dealt with major mining operations and we only have one of those in town . But the ordinance was designed to deal in other respects with all types of grading in the city . If you want to move , as a homeowner , if you want to move 50 yards of dirt , you need a permit under that ordinance and there is no setback requirement or when you grade for a subdivision , there is no setback requirement . We 've also approved , I think at least 4 major excavation operations where that setback was frankly waived . One of them was on the McGlynn site . Now they 've been approved but they haven 't been operated on . They haven 't been conducted . One was on the McGlynn site , which would have frankly lowered the site and prepared it for development as well as getting material for TH 5 . We had one on , the fellow 's name escapes me but , Jeurissen . Bruce Jeurissen . Further down Pioneer Trail . And Halla had similar requests . Conrad: The purpose of the setback , primarily because you drafted it , the 300 feet is to primarily protect neighbors right? Krauss: Well exactly . So when we think that , the important point is we think that largely that goal has been attained through the existing topography . Through the preservation of the trees . Through the limitations on the hours of operation . Through the ability to shut them down if dust becomes a problem . The ability to shut them down Saturdays if that 's a problem . You also have very significant terrain that separates this site . I mean the homes located west of this property have some remarkable views of the Minnesota River Valley and they 're in a lot of different directions , depending on the way the houses are placed . This line appearing here though is a little bit misleading . The houses are quite a ways back from there . This railway corridor is 100-150 feet wide and the homes , I don 't have the exact information but the home is someplace back up in here . There 's a very deep valley there before it goes back up again . So there 's significant topographic buffering , I suppose inbetween there . And this , again this is a limited duration request . It is a use that 's a permitted use in this district under the interim use guidelines . We hope we take great care with the fact . We understand that this is an area that 's in transition and we certainly don 't want to , I mean there 's a balancing act here and we don 't want to step on the toes of our residents . At the same time we want to be reasonable if we can with the request as long as it 's consistent with our ordinances and goals . Batzli : Let me just ask for one clarification . You said there 's a buffer there . What you really mean , it 's a linear distance buffer but it 's not a - line of sight buffer , correct? Krauss: Well , I think it 's actually both but for me to , I can 't stand here Commissioner and tell you that from every bedroom window of every home , that you 'll never see this because we haven 't made that attempt to figure that out . But I know that when you 're on this site and looking back towards those homes , the few homes that you can see are fairly obscure angles and the fact is , is those homes that can see this site , or at least the upper portion of the site , are looking at a field with a remnant mining operation in it now . When this is all said and done , they 're going to be looking at a field . So it 's not really , you know it 's going to be 10 feet lower but when you 're 300 feet away , it 's not going to be perceptible . - Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 35 Erhart : Well I think it looks like a good project . We 're solving a number of things here . We 've got a hole there now . This is going to finish it off . It 's going to help cap a landfill in Eden Prairie once and for all - with some clay that 's not too far away . If we don 't allow this one , they 're probably going to be hauling it through the city like we had what , a year ago? Krauss: There were hauling out of Chaska along Pioneer Trail . Erhart : And we had an accident up here and somebody got killed or whatever it was . What was it? Krauss: I don 't know . Erhart: Anyway , I drive TH 101 and those trucks came down TH 101 which is curved , I 'd just as soon leave them in Eden Prairie and get the job done . - I agree , that 's one of the points I had , we should set a time limit on here . I was going to suggest one year from approval . July is certainly okay . In either case it solves a problem and if it 's acceptable to the applicant . I think we do need to check that ground water issue . Some expert who can give us a qualified answer on that . Paul , you 're going to have to justify to the Council this 40 grand , otherwise you 're going to spend another hour at the Council meeting discussing that and I know - nobody , you or the Council doesn 't want to do that . One big thing here and that is , I think what I 'm being sold , Rick sold , is selling us on that we 're going in and what we 're doing is landscaping this piece of property - and that 's why we need the variance . And that 's fine . I heard everybody say we want , not only set a time table but .we want to make this final . I understand , the way I 'm being sold on this variance , this is the final . This is final , final , final . Therefore it is simple in my mind that we ought to tie with this variance that the owner and future owner gives up the right to further mine this property and make it final . Tie the variance to that . Krauss: Tim , if I can clarify a point . You came in part way through the conversation . We reviewed this matter further , after the report went out _ with the City Attorney and realized that the approach with the variance was the wrong methodology here . That the ordinance does provide for a waiver of conditions . But your concern as to a prohibition against further mining requests , I guess I don 't see any reason why that couldn't be part of a condition . Erhart : That 's what I would say . If it 's a waiver , then tie the waiver to - relinquish any future mining rights to this property . And if we 're going to finish it off , let 's finish it off . This really is adjacent to a residential development at this time and it 's inappropriate to continue to mine . It 's probably not big enough . So we really restricted it to the 300 foot setback . So I 'm sensing that the developer , or the applicant is . . . impossible so , that 's the only thing I 've got . - Ledvina : I 'd like to make a motion . Batzli : I 'd like to talk first . I need to say something . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 36 Ledvina : I 'm sorry . Erhart : I move we let Brian talk . Batzli : Okay . But I appreciate you jumping in there . We need to catch up . I like the timeframe . I think we need something in there , before you make the motion . I hope you have something in there about the trees . As far as setting something up . I think the applicant raised at least 3 concerns . One was the access easement . I assume that we 'll look at that and amend that condition after we 've had a chance to look at that . The other one was this $40 ,000 .00 . I think we 've kind of beat that . I also thought $900 .00 was low but if staff is comfortable with that . I don 't think it matters what the money is . I would rather see , I just want to make sure that we 're going to be out there checking to make sure that everything 's going according to how we think it should go . And what that means is , we need some good plans from the applicant regarding erosion control . The staging . The restoration and things like that and then we follow up on those items because I think that if we don 't follow up , then _ who do we have to blame later on if it doesn 't go . And these people who actually oversee it , I 'd appreciate it if you 'd call our staff if you see something that doesn 't look quite right . The timing problem of the reforesting the mine bluff face , I 'd like to ask our attorney if this somehow provides an improper linkage between this property and the southern piece . That we shouldn 't be doing this . Tom Scott : No . Batzli : Okay . Tom Scott : We 've reviewed that and we didn 't think there was any problem . Batzli : Okay . If the applicant doesn 't have a problem with doing this , and it 's merely a question of timing regarding providing the financial guarantee , I guess I 'd like to see something worked out . Interestingly enough , if we get financial guarantees today for a certain dollar amount , _ by the time they 're done in 20 years , that 's not going to buy one tree unless you require it to be increased over time . So actually the applicant , he 's putting away money today and he 's not going to be able to do it for that amount of money in the future . So I don 't know exactly what you 're really looking for here . I don 't know what could be enforceable . I don 't think you really want a situation where he has to add to the guarantee over a period of years because the cost of trees keeps going up . - So I don 't know what you really have in mind here and I don 't know that we can cover it . Krauss: Well , if I could for just a sec . Mr . Zwiers is a businessman and he understands contractual obligations and we try to operate in as professional and businesslike manner as possible . I think you 're aware that for many years we 've required developers to enter into development contracts and post financial guarantees . Now it would still be my recommendation that we get some sort of a financial guarantee but how we can structure that is open to some discussion . If possible I suppose that something could be written to the chain of title to obligate all future property owners or something like that . But it may well be that if there 's — Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 37 a dollar amount figure set for this , that there be an annual contribution made to an account . An interest bearing account that would just be set aside to accrue for this operation so that at some point in the future , — whenever Mr . Zwiers is ready to do it , he just withdraws the funds from that to do it . We need to talk about that but we 're willing , I guess to plant something . Batzli : See my point is , if he 's going to be done by July 1st of next year on this piece of property , for him to default on this condition down the road , what are you going to do? Krauss: Well and that 's why we need to sit down . I need to sit down with Mr . Scott and Mr . Zwiers and figure out the appropriate way to approach that but I think if we 're creative enough . Tom Scott : The simplest way would be to require them to keep the letter of credit in effect . Batzli : But that basically ties up money for . Tom Scott : That ties up a certain amount of assets that have to be behind that letter of credit . There may be some other ways . Maybe there 's a bonding mechanism or some other way we can do that . I guess that 's what Paul 's saying . I mean we could just point blank say , letter of credit has to remain in effect . Maybe that 's what we ' ll have to do but there 's hopefully some other mechanism we could use too . Batzli : I think the waiver of the setback is appropriate here in that , given what they 're trying to do here . However , if we get into another situation where someone 's going to go fairly close to their lot line to do something similar , how are we going to distinguish that over this type of an operation? Is it the creation of some sort of a steep slope? Is it the fact that there wouldn 't necessarily be a buffer with a railroad track running through there? What is it that we point to and say , this is different? Krauss : First of all there 's a waiver . You 're not subject to the same findings that you might be with , precedent setting issues that may be attended with a variance . I think that 's what your concerned about . Very clearly under the waiver provisions , it allows you and the City Council to - evaluate conditions on a site specific basis and make your determinations as such and not be bound I guess , I would say by the precedent and the hardship and the other things that come with a variance . What makes this property or this request reasonable under the waiver I think is very site specific . There 's really no way to work this site in an effective manner and achieve what we want to achieve and achieve what the owner would like to achieve without that . To fix the problems that are out there , you 've got to work in that area . I think Commissioner Ledvina pointed out quite aptly that you can 't put the ponding in where you need to put it unless you work within that area . Undoubtedly you ' ll be confronted by these sorts of things in the future . We 've already processed 3 or 4 of them . We 'll probably get some more but I think you 've got to take them on a case by case basis . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 38 Batzli : I guess I 'd like maybe a more clear statement of your reasons for why we should waive them . I didn 't have much time to look at this and I know we actually spoke earlier on that issue but I just think you should at least set it out very clearly to the Council why you think this justifies a_ waiver and I don 't know in my own mind whether it 's because it 's how we want it to turn out is a good reason . That could justify anything . Krauss: Yeah . The addendum that I handed out tonight tries to get at the rationale behind the waiver . We can certainly write that into a set of findings much the same as we would for a variance and lay that out explicitedly . Batzli : Well I don 't know . It just kind of caught me as far as being set out clearly as to what makes this site at least unique enough to waive it and I get away from the discussion of the variance kind of language but , because we ' ll see more of these and the question is , should we be recommending to waive it? Shouldn 't we? Is there something in the conditions that talks about the waiver? Adopting a finding of facts to go with it or rationale? Krauss : No there is not and what needs to be looked at is in the conditions where the recommendation takes place . You substitute the waiver language for where the variance language was . There are findings that are contained in this addendum . Batzli : So you 'd like it with a 300 foot setback waived in accordance with your discussion in this addendum? Krauss: Yeah , and then we can certainly clarify those points . Batzli : Okay . And I think the water 's critical . Safety 's critical . Trees , we had talked about . The creek . Make sure that that 's not being adversely effected or if it is being effected , we at least know how and why and what the effect is . And last but perhaps least , these ponds that we 're creating . Just for the record here . Will these ponds eventually if they - start growing kind of Class B wetlands kind of things around them or in them or if they even somehow hold water , when cattails start growing and purple loosestrife and everything else , do these become wetlands and will they then become untouchable and become part of our mapped wetlands in the city? Krauss: Let me give you a two part answer to that . Under local ordinances , we 're in the process of developing an updated wetlands protection program . Under the draft as it now exists , we 've got 4 categories of wetlands ranging from pristine to utilized . Utilizied are functionally not defined as wetlands any longer or won 't be I supposed if this ordinance gets adopted the way it 's drafted . What utilized means is that it was specifically designed for a water quality protection or storm water protection function and not as a wetland or wetland remediation . The second part of that answer comes in because there 's not only , for the last 8 years Chanhassen has been operating in a vaccum . You know we 've been protecting wetlands but the rest of the State hasn 't . There is a new State law that does protect wetlands and most of you are aware that I sit on the committee that 's drafting the rules for the new State law . And I had Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 39 explicit language written into that , to the rules so that ponding areas that are created for non-wetland function purposes are not going to be defined as wetlands under the State law . Again that 's contingent on the rules being approved as they currently are drafted but I think that that 's the case . So the answer to your question is no , they won 't be wetlands . Batzli : So these grades that we 're talking about that Tim wants to say , this is it . No more mining at least , these ponds when this land is developed , will more than likely be wiped out and the water will be redirected once more . Krauss : That 's not clear . Erhart : Excuse me . What was that? Batzli : Well eventually this property will be developed and they ' ll look at this seepage pond in the middle that 's kind of mucky , kind of something and the issue is , they 're going to try and do something else to this property in order to develop it . Now they don 't have to save it as a wetland , Paul just told us . It doesn 't hold water . It 's going to be kind of mucky parts of the year . Who 's going to want that in their backyard? Krauss : Well a couple of points though . We are recommending that an easement be provided over these water bodies so that the City would be involved in any decisions to alter it . It may well be that when the land is developed , it may be more appropriate to put the water someplace else or to modify these and in that regard that 's no different than most of the development proposals we see that have some kind of an alteration . Batzli : My point is this . We 're doing it now you know . Granted we don 't have a site plan in front of us or that we know where the house pads are going to go but it wouldn't take a whole lot to sit there and say , this is kind of where you 're going to put it . Does it make sense to be directing all the water to the center of this? Is there any access in to the road to access this piece? You have to go right through the middle of the muck you 're creating . I don 't know . I 'm looking at it kind of looking down the road saying why are we doing this if it doesn 't make sense because you know that eventually this is going to be a very , you know once the mining on the south stops , this will be a very attractive parcel to build homes on . Krauss : The honest answer is we don 't know how the development 's going to take place up there . There has been , well under the original Moon Valley request , the end use plan was developed before the ponding area was developed for that site and clearly the road 's not in the right place on this one for that pond area to be where it 's going to be . There 's plenty of room to move it up there . This assumes that these are large lot residential , developed without sewer and water . If sewer and water is available at some point in the future , well it may be through Eden Prairie . Eden Prairie has stuff not too far away . Then of course it will be substantially different . But the fact is , every development in Chanhassen has an obligation to manage storm water and maintain water quality . Whoever develops it , whenever they do it is going to have to meet those goals . If those ponds serve the purpose , great . If they don 't , they 'll have to revise them so that they do . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 40 Batzli : I 'll leave it up to your professional judgment . My point is that _ if this makes sense that we have to do it this way , if there 's no development right there , let 's do it this way . But if there 's a way that fits into the grand scheme of things so that we don 't end up regrading everything 2 or 3 times to develop this in 5 years , I don 't know why we 're - doing this to create an area which will develop wildlife and do certain things and then suddenly we 're going to grade it up again in 5 years because the south part has either been mined or else the property generally becomes too valuable to mine so they sell it and develop it . Something that I don 't think really was looked at , and if in fact they 're submitting plans like this for the southern piece for the eventual completion or what have you , for purposes of a lawsuit or for whatever purpose , and it doesn 't make any sense at all to what they 're doing on the north side , I don 't get it . Krauss: I gave some thought and it you may think it 's reasonable to do it , to asking them to modify this based upon the ponding plan so we had a plan of record and it may not hurt to do that . My reason for not asking them was , what happens on that site , how residential development occurs is open to so much conjecture at this point that , am I asking them to spin their wheels by generating another map? It never hurts to have on in the file but you know , a lot of things can happen up there to change it . I am confident though that the grades that will result from this petition are consistent with residential development . They 're not touching the homesites in the trees which is where the homes want to be . They 're not leaving grades that can 't support homes and roads and driveways out in the field area and I was comfortable that this can support that use . Batzli : You 're comfortable , I 'm comfortable . Okay . Matt , I 'd love a motion . Ledvina : Okay . I 'm going to try . I would like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend that Interim Use Permit #92-5 for Earth Work be approved with the waiver of the 300 foot setback subject to the staff conditions and following modifications and additions . I would like that conditions number 6 , 7 and 13 be re-evaluated by staff with input from the applicant . I would like to add several conditions starting with number 15 . That all soil removal according to the grading plan be completed by July 1 , 1993 . Condition 16 . A plan is developed to protect trees as indicated on the plan and to maintain erosion control during construction . Condition 17 . Ground water contamination issues be evaluated to insure protection of water wells in the vicinity of the site . Condition 18 . Develop - considerations for traffic safety on access points to the roadways involved . And condition 19 . That the applicant relinquishes future rights to future gravel mining activities or potential mining activities at the site . Is there anything else? Batzli : Do we have plans that you want to include into the motion? Krauss: The dated plans? Batzli : Yes . Krauss: It 's 6/5/92 . - Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 41 Batzli : So , do you want to make your motion in accordance also with those plans 6/5/92? - Ledvina : And also that the activities and conditions of the permit relate to the plans dated June 5 , 1992 . - Conrad: Point 7 , 13 and 14 be reviewed . Ledvina : 6 , 7 and 13 . Conrad: 6 , 7 and 13 be reviewed . Ledvina : Be re-evaluated . Batzli : Is there a second? Erhart : Yeah , I ' ll second it . Batzli : Okay . Discussion Ladd . - Ledvina : We had some concerns about the . Conrad: I don 't . . .staff . That 's my biggest concern . To be re-evaluated . - I don 't know what that means . Erhart : But I think when you go back in the Minutes , I think it 's clear what we 're asking for . Clarify some things . To look at some numbers . Justify the numbers . Be able to justify the numbers in our recommendation to Council . Additional recommendations . - Farmakes: Are we expecting to see this again? Batzli : No . We 're asking that Paul 's prepared when the Council asks him - those questions I guess . Conrad: So 6 , 7 and 13 Paul , talking about being more accurate where they _ tie in money to plans . Does that mean that the plans will be submitted? What 's the timeframe for these plans? Are they expected to be there for City Council review or are those things that happen after? - Krauss: Speaking for myself , I think clearly we 'd want to resolve all these issues prior to going to City Council . Those are of a magnitude that they 're not administrative . Conrad: Your point Matt on ground water . In his motion Paul , who 's responsibility will that be? Krauss : Frankly we 're going to ask the applicant to clarify that . We 'll review the information . - Conrad: It is his responsibility? Krauss: Well , we 're not in the position of preparing submittal materials for applicants . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 42 Conrad: And that 's your intent? Ledvina : Right . Just so the issue gets resolved and evaluated . Krauss: Of course we ' ll concurrently , I mean we 'v sent a copy of this to the Soil Conservation Service and Carver County Soil Survey and we will get information as we can get it but I think specifically the applicant 's probably going to have to contract with somebody with some expertise to _ prepare an evaluation of that . Conrad: So let 's go back to point number 9 Paul , in terms of the clay liner . Who 's job is it to presuade us , it 's the applicant I assume , to persuade us that the pond is designed properly . Krauss : Oh , that 's something . This came from my city engineering department . The applicant hasn 't indicated that they have any problem with that condition . That 's a pretty simple design detail that we 'll take care of in-house . I mean they 'll give us the revised design and the engineering staff will say if it needs to be modified . Conrad : There was a comment from one of the agencies that was concerned with that particular aspect of the pond . - Krauss: I think it came from our engineering office . Conrad: The District , Carver Soil and Water Conservation District . The clayed area . They were concerned of the clayed area . So who 's job? Erhart : Who would review stuff like that Paul? Krauss: We do in-house . That 's normal . Conrad: So the applicant designs it . I don 't know . It just seems like a real big issue . The whole issue of what we 're doing to ground water and we got one concern from a recommending body or review body and we 've got an issue here that 's really big in my mind and I don 't know . I guess I 'm a little uncomfortable with how it 's solved . Who 's got the responsibility? Batzli : How would you like to see it resolved? Conrad: I don 't know . I just want to make sure somebody 's got responsibility and we 're making changes to the motion here , I want to make - sure that we 're guiding staff to make sure somebody 's got the onous to prove it . And ground water is such a key deal . We can't take any chances on this one . It 's not just a passing deal . It 's really quite significant . Erhart : Rick , where 'd you come up with idea? Have you done something like this before? We 've never seen anything like this before . Rick Sathre : I think you haven 't seen it much in Chanhassen because you have so many clay soils . In the sandier communities of Minnesota , I 'm thinking about Anoka County , North . Andover , Anoka , Coon Rapids . Most of _ the pond sites are seepage ponds . You also see them a lot in Eden Prairie in the sand soils over in southeastern Eden Prairie mostly . There 's many , - Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 43 many , many depressions that have no outlets and all the drainage has been just seeping into the ground . So the concern is always , is this going to seal up over time? Is it going to fail to function just like a drainfield - might? But that 's very common . Very common thing . We 're very concerned about protecting wetlands so that we can promote ground water recharge . Just a question of are we doing it appropriately here . The soil people , - they raisee that issue too , like you noticed Ladd . Is the water going in too fast? Should we slow it down so that it 's better filtered? That 's a valid issue . Conrad: So do you prepare Rick , the engineering reports to pacify? How does this happen? - Rick Sathre : Well , I think that we would seek another consultant as well who specializes in ground water issues . - Batzli : Does this then require borings out there to get the right filtration? Rick Sathre : I would think it would be by checking the rate of seepage through that sand . I think . . .measuring the rate . It would be an engineering process . Probably involve a testing lab . - Conrad: And does this change over time? Does it get better? Or does it get worst? Seepage . As long as we prepare it and this thing is filtered better later on after the original? Rick Sathre : I think that over time seepage tends to slow down . The filtration would be better . We don 't want to allow the seepage pond to stop seeping because then you don 't solve your basic problem which is - trying to discharge the water back to the ground water . It 's a cycle . Batzli : Assuming then that you need a certain size outlet for this pond - and the outlet constricts over time , the original calculations for the pond were done by yourself? Okay . _ Rick Sathre : In a 100 year storm event right now , that big central pond would , there 'd be about 6 feet of water in the bottom of it and that would seep out . We 're not sure of the seepage rate because we haven 't tried to measure it . I would expect in those sands that water would drain away at _ at least 1 inch per hour . So there would be 6 feet of water depth in that pond , bang . Right after the storm . Batzli : Is it an expensive process to go to a hydrologist or whoever it is to take the boring and do that calculation and do it? What are we asking for to present that kind of evidence to our engineering department for review? Do you know? Rick Sathre : All I can do is take a wild guess . I would think that it 'd be more than $1 ,000 .00 and less than $5 ,000 .00 . It is significant . Very significant . Conrad: We need our engineering department to tell us or tell the applicant what is expected in this regard . I think the fundamental thing Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 44 is we have to protect it . Not even close to taking a chance . Paul and staff can figure that out . Batzli : Well , do you want to propose a friendly amendment to that condition? I don 't even remember what . Conrad: I don 't have a clue how I 'd word it to tell you the truth . Paul 's heard it . Batzli : But I think when we 've done things like this in the past where we basically said that , applicant shall provide information to city engineering for their approval regarding seepage . Whatever we 're going to _ say but we 've done this in the past . I mean it 's up to them to provide information for us . Satisfactory to us that this isn 't going to be a problem . Conrad: Matt , do you want to change something? Ledvina : Not necessarily but . I 've suggested in , condition 17 I stated that the ground water contamination issue be evaluated to insure protection of the water wells in the vicinity of the site . If we can also add that this issue shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the staff prior to the _ City Council hearing this application . I don 't know , does that help? Conrad: Sure . Erhart : I seconded the motion . Batzli : Do you accept that amendment? Erhart : Fine . If you 're happy , I 'm happy Ladd . Batzli : You had another one Ladd . Ground water was one . What was your other one? Conrad: I think we 've taken care of it . . .went back a couple time . I couldn 't find it . Batzli : The 6 , 7 and 13 issue . Re-evaluating . Conrad: Well Matt has , and I think staff has heard the issue . I don 't think we need to belabor the point but it is really tying the plan to the cost and the applicant needs that but we need the plan first so we can see - the cost and that 's in restoration . We 've got to be convinced we know what we 're going to get and the applicant 's got to know before this gets to City Council what 's expected of them and not after . It can 't wait . . .staff to work with the applicant . Batzli : Okay . Is there any other discussion? Ledvina moved , Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Interim Use Permit #92-5 for earth work , as shown on the plans dated June 5 , 1992 , with the waiver of the 300 foot setback, that staff Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 45 be directed to re-evaluate conditions 6 , 7 and 13 with input from the applicant prior to City Council , and subject to the following conditions: 1 . Provide staff with a copy of the access easement over the off-site haul road . 2 . Prior to the start of operations , a truck entrance designed to minimize tracking of mud and debris into the right-of-way shall be constructed . Plans should be submitted for approval by the City _ Engineer . The operator is responsible for cleaning the public right-of-way as often as requested by the City Engineer . "Trucks Hauling" signs shall be posted . - 3 . The City of Eden Prairie 's Engineer shall be contacted by the operator prior to start of operations to ensure that concerns they may raise can be adequately dealt with . 4 . Use of explosives to support this operation are prohibited . Hours of operation are limited to 7 :00 a .m . to 6:00 p .m . , Monday thru Saturday , excluding national holidays . If the city receives complaints _ regarding Saturday operations , the City Engineer may require that these be halted . - 5 . Dust control shall be the operator 's responsibility . If conditions persist which make dust control ineffective , the City Engineer may require temporary halting of operations . 6 . The applicant is required to phase site restoration in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer . He should provide staff with a written phasing plan for approval . 7 . The applicant shall pay an inspection fee of $900 .00 and provide the city with an acceptable financial security ( letter of credit or cash ) in the amount of $40 ,000 . to cover the costs of site restoration . 8 . Drainage plans to be reviewed by 8onestroo Engineering prior to City Council review. Fees for this shall be paid by the applicant . 9 . Provide permanent drainage easements in favor of the city over the retention basins . Drainage calculations are to be provided to - demonstrate that the ponds are properly sized . Place notice in chain-of-title that current and future owners are responsible for keeping the basins functional . When development occurs , the city would normally accept responsibility for the ponds . The applicant must demonstrate that all ponds have bottoms located in the sand layer or structured outlets will be required . A clay liner is required on _ the west edge of the north pond to protect the adjacent side slope . The applicant shall provide the city with an as-built grading plan of the ponds to ensure that they comply with approved specifications . - 10 . Provide and maintain an erosion control plan acceptable to the City Engineer . Designate black dirt stockpile areas for approval by the City Engineer . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 46 11 . Project approval by the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District is required . 12 . Modify plans for the southern pond to minimize tree loss on the north side of the pond . The applicant 's engineer shall demonstrate , to the r satisfaction of the City Engineer , that this ponding area does not disturb local drainage patterns . 13 . Provide staff with an acceptable reforestation plan for the mined bluff face on the Moon Valley gravel mine site . Adequate financial guarantees to ensure that the plan is implemented upon the completion of mining shall be provided . 14 . The applicant 's engineer shall prepare a plan to repair erosion damage found at the two locations on the north site described in the report . - This plan is to be undertaken as a condition of approval . 15 . That all soil removal according to the grading plan be completed by July 1 , 1993. 16. A plan is developed to protect trees as indicated on the plan and to maintain erosion control during construction . 17. Ground water contamination issues be evaluated to insure protection of water wells in the vicinity of the site and that this issue be resolved to the satisfaction of city staff prior to going to City Council . 18. Develop considerations for traffic safety on access points to the roadways involved . 19. That the applicant relinquishes future rights to future gravel mining activities or potential mining activities at the site. All voted in favor except Commissioner Farmakes who opposed and the motion _ carried with a vote of 4 to 1 . Batzli : Your reasons . Farmakes: I just think it 's premature . There 's too many major unanswered questions here that if I voted for this , I guess I would be saying that it didn 't make any difference what the answers to those questions would be and - I think that 's true . Batzli : Okay . Fair enough . The motion carries . When will this be at the City Council? Do we know? Krauss: It 's scheduled for July 27th . That 's subject to all the ducks being in order before it goes there and I think what we ' ll do is we ' ll assure everybody that got a notice that we 'll re-notify them of the meeting date . So if it 's on the 27th , we 'll notify you . If it 's at a later date . . . Batzli : Okay . Thank you all for coming in . - Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 47 Erhart: Can we stop for a second here Brian? I want to clarify something . For the purpose of shortening these meetings , I really question . This may be an opportune time to spend 5 minutes discussing what the function of the Planning Commission is regarding these kinds of things . Somehow I feel that maybe some of us think that we are actually writing the actual development contracts here . I don 't think that 's what we 're doing . I think we 're a recommending body . I think we 're a body that 's supposed to kind of kick these things around before they get to Council . Kind of help them get some of the issues out on the table . Paul , could you be involved with this? I 'm looking for , tell me if I 'm wrong or right . But kick these things around . Give staff kind of a trial balloon to get in here and throw these things at and see what sticks . What doesn 't . What the concerns are so that when it goes to Council , it 's something that 's . . .rough edges and filed off and so forth . I question whether we 're trying to get , trying to be too perfect by the time it leaves here because in fact we 're just simply making recommendations and raising issues . If I 'm wrong , then please correct me . I think we 're all asking these questions . My goodness , it 's quarter to 11 :00 and we 've only gone through 2 things . Well you started before I got here but we 're spending an enormous amount of time on this thing and so I don 't know . What is the purpose of us? Are we trying to get everything nailed down here when it leaves? Don 't our Minutes count for something? I always assumed they did . I throw the question out . - Conrad: I would really debate whether the Council thoroughly digests the Minutes that we have . The motion , the stuff that Paul , the motion that we make and the revisions to it in my mind count far more than any dialogue that we 've had . We flush out the issues . Our control is to reject . We don 't have much in control but we can reject . We can delay . We can turn down . We can postpone . That 's our control . If we don 't think that people have done their job prior to getting here , then our job is to get more information . Erhart : Any bad plan we should reject it and put all kinds of hurdles . Farmakes : I think in that particular case with that particular applicant , all the more reason that those questions should be answered so we can do our job and make those recommendations . For the most part I agree with what you 're saying . Batzli : But see I didn 't think with this particular applicant , even if we - had the answers to those questions , our decision , you know what the money costs . What the dollar figure was . What these other issues were . That wouldn 't have mattered . The only thing that truly would have mattered to - us probably would have been the water quality issue but the City Council can look at those findings as easily as we can . I don 't know what more we could have added to that particular one you know . Conrad: The same dog gone things that we do . The same ones . Batzli : Oh yeah , and they 'll talk about them as if we didn 't cover them . Conrad : Absolutely and so , if we can get staff working on some of these issues , we might as well spare the applicant a little bit . Not that we needed to in this particular case . Yet on the other hand , if the City Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 48 Council 's going to cover it , we don 't need to do it a second time . If we 're real uncomfortable that we 're giving the City Council unclear = information , then we should table . We should keep it down here . If we don 't think staff can get the information that they need . Batzli : But I don 't know . I sensed Tim was kind of asking a more global question than just this last one . I think in instances of the two things we 've had tonight , typically you know we don 't have a lot of people here . When we do end up having people here , I am very loathe to cut them off . So I let everybody ramble and talk tonight that wanted to talk . Erhart: Yeah , but up here or out there? Batzli : Up here . Erhart: Oh . Batzli : And that 's really what made the meeting long . The beachlots have always been , we 've always gotten a lot of people and they all get up and say the same thing but I don 't want to be the one to shut them off because they all came here . They think what they have to say is important and I don 't necessarily disagree . But if I came to this meeting and the Planning- Commissioners sat up here and said , does anybody have anything new . Well no , you 're going to say the same thing . Go away . I don 't think we can cut that out . Erhart: I wasn 't getting at that . I was trying to understand , and maybe just to review , the balance between how specific this motion has to be versus what our comments are in the Minutes as it relates to what staff does when we leave this meeting and how Council reacts to what we do . That 's the point I , that was the question that I had . I want to clarify in my mind and maybe for all of us . Farmakes: Well that 's assuming too that the Council members don 't inquire and ask us about particular things even when we 're not here . If you 're going to have an informed answer when you respond to them , if you have questions about something , I think you should bring those up if they 're not there . On these types of situations , like the restoration plan on this particular one , it 's an open ended question . What it will be . There is no -- plan at the end . Erhart: Yeah , I agree . Farmakes: . . .based , at least I was on this particular applicant because it seems litigation follows this person like a fly on whatever . And what I 'm saying is , the attitude that I had , at least looking at this is one of mistrust . Erhart : No , I understand . What I guess I 'm trying to get at is , I think - it 's great that we each get out what we consider the issues . It gets in the Minutes . The question is , how much time should we spend on trying to structure a motion that deals with every one of the issues that each one of us has . I 'm not too sure that that 's necessary to really struggle with this motion issue because I always believed that , Jeff if you 've got an _ Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 49 issue about one thing and it 's probably backed by one or two others , even if it doesn 't get in the motion , staff takes a look at it . Particularly if they agree that it 's a reasonable concern whether it 's in the motion or not I guess . Also that the Council will . Batzli : I would disagree . I would say staff ignores it . No offense . Staff ignores it and maybe one Council member catches it and they raise it . They say , well what about this? And staff says , well only one person thought of it and they didn 't even put it in the motion . Then I 've been at the meetings and they say , well Brian . What did they think and I 'll say , well 3 of us raised it but it didn 't get in the motion . They say , well fine then , forget it . If I get something into the motion , I have a 90% chance it 's going to be approved by the City Council . If you don't get it - into the motion , you have a 10% chance that it 's going to be up to City Council . It 's that clear . You change that motion . Whatever you get into that motion is going to be acted on and they act on most of what we say . So if it 's not there , you don 't have any chance . Batzli : And even if it 's half crazed , at least then staff has to argue against it . Conrad: You 've got to fix it because he 's not going to move something up that doesn 't make sense . He just won 't . Erhart : How much would you expect the Council to discuss this particular one? Krauss : Well it 's really going to be contingent upon how many of the neighbors show up at the Council meeting . Erhart : Say nobody shows up . Krauss: If nobody shows up and we 're able to , I think we do a good job of responding to what 's raised , particularly in motions . Provide the answers should they be raised , I think it stands every chance of getting fairly rapidly approved . In speaking for staff I think , you know you really need to ask the Council what they think and you may have the chance . I think we 're going to try to schedule them to come in here at your next meeting just to talk . They want to talk for 30 minutes or something . Batzli : They don 't want to admit that they don 't read the Minutes . Krauss: I don 't read the Minutes . Batzli : Yeah I know . Krauss: Whenever we get sued we read the Minutes . Erhart : You don 't think they read the Minutes? Batzli : I can 't , I mean you see the stack . It 's this deep and they can 't be reading it all for content and digesting it . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 50 Krauss: But the issues that we deal with are pretty complex . I don 't know , sometimes I get accused of making things more complex than they need _ to be but I find that if I 'm not , it comes back to haunt us later on . When you do that , you risk not seeing the forest through the trees or however that analogy is supposed to go , and it 's useful for me to hear , you know you missed this . You 've got to beef this up . Citizens raise these concerns . Some are legitimate . Some have to be responded to whether they 're legitimate or not . And these are the answers that you 've got to bring forward to tie up all the loose ends . Then we know exactly what we - need to do . Batzli : And here 's a test . City Council members , if you 're reading these Minutes , give me a phone call . Erhart: You 've got $100 .00 for every one that calls you . Batzli : Okay , so we ' ll see . Now don 't you tip them off . Conrad: Plus , have you ever tried to read Minutes and get a consensus? Batzli : It 's very difficult to read through these verbatim Minutes . Conrad: You can 't get an idea what . You know you say some off the wall things about Communism . They don 't . . . Batzli : I yearn for those days . Conrad: I know . Those were the good days . It 's just hard for them to get a feel . I 've always wanted to condense . Erhart : Maybe we shouldn 't have verbatim Minutes anymore . When I started we didn 't have them . If nobody reads them . If nobody reads them , why do we do verbatim Minutes? Batzli : Because we use them for the record later on . Erhart : If nobody reads them , who needs them? Batzli : Well we do read them later on . I mean later on , when this project _ blows up . We pull out the Minutes . We say , well what did this guy . Farmakes : 10 years from now they know who to blame for the problem . Batzli : Your 5 minutes are up . But I agree . To the extent that we can shorten and/or otherwise reduce our time before the mics , we 'll do that . PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE, CHAPTER 20. CONCERNING ALLOWED USES IN THE BH . , HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS DISTRICT . Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Batzli wanted the record to show there was no one present for this public hearing . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 51 Erhart moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli : Is there any discussion on this issue? Erhart: The only discussion is , where 's the motion? Batzli : The red tie to Communism are lapping at our shore Tim . Is he still in jail? That was his line . Would someone like to make a motion? Erhart: I move that we amend the Zoning Ordinance in accordance with the recommendation of the staff report dated June 25 , 1992 . Batzli : I second . Is there any discussion on the motion? Erhart : Is the motion clear Paul? Okay . Erhart moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the City Code , Chapter 20 , Section 20-712 eliminating auto service centers as a permitted use in the BH , Business Highway District . All voted in favor and the motion carried . ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARTICLE VIII OF THE CITY CODE CONCERNING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS . Batzli : I don 't know that we need a staff report . Krauss : Yeah , we didn 't have a category for really old business . Batzli : Really , really old business . This isn 't a public hearing or anything right? Krauss: Well actually , you 've always continued the public hearings . Batzli : Okay . Well , is there , there 's no one here to address us . The record should reflect that . Is there a motion to close the continued public hearing? Ledvina moved, Erhart seconded to close the continued public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed . Batzli : Discussion . Does anybody want to say anything other than me? Erhart : About this thing here? Batzli : Yeah . I just want to say one thing . That 's why I had it carried over . Okay , go ahead . Erhart : I don 't understand it . Never have . Batzli : Never will? Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 52 Erhart: Maybe not . I don 't understand why we have sections ( f ) , ( g ) . Essentially those issues in both the cluster home and the single family homes . I don 't understand why we want to deal with boulevard plantings . I mean the whole idea of PUD 's , it opens it up to flexibility and now all of a sudden we 're jumping in here in section ( f ) . ( e ), I 'm fine . That 's one of the goals . Broad goal is to preserve natural features . Tree stands , wetlands , ponds , scenic views and all that stuff . And then all of a sudden ( f ) , we jump into specifics and by golly , by the time we get to ( f )( 3 ) , we 're down in the foundation plantings . Why do we want to sit here and define exactly what someone has to provide with the PUD? I don 't understand this . Batzli : Okay , so you 're talking about ( f ) or didn't you like ( g )? Erhart : Both ( f ) and ( g ) . Batzli : Now why didn 't you like ( g )? Let 's talk about ( g ) . Erhart : What do we got to get in here and talk about free standing garages for? We don 't on any other ordinance . It has nothing to do with anything . We don 't regulate garages in the city . Batzli : Where 's that in ( g )? I 'm sorry . Krauss : Actually you do . Erhart: Why does it have to be addressed in a PUD? The PUD says , I thought the introduction paragraph is excellent . I commend you on that . Batzli : The intent? Erhart : Pardon? Batzli : The intent section? Erhart: Yeah . I think it 's just great and I 'll tell you what , you could cut this whole thing off at , you talk about minimum sizes and that 's been the issue we 've always discussed and every time in the past I say why do we include all this other stuff and . . .why do we get into that? Batzli : Let me defend ( g ) and then let 's talk about ( f ) . ( g ) , you want certain architectural treatment agreement with the City . I mean that 's part of the PUD development plan right? You 're not telling them what it is but they have to at least tell you what they 're going to do and follow it through . I mean these are tight , typically tighter clustered groups of houses and if you really cluster them , like you should be doing , although nobody ever does in this particular ordinance , I think you want an overall theme or what have you that you know what 's going in there . Maybe you want a tudor mansion against a you know , Mexican kind of villa sitting next to each other . I don 't know . But I think you want an idea of what 's going in there . Garages , it says we may regulate it and guidelines relating to placement of air conditioners , dog kennels , etc . . When you 're on these smaller lots , and you 're right next door to everybody else , I think that 's reasonable . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 53 Erhart : Let me give you an example . Paul came in here with this Stone Ridge . Stone Creek . Stone Creek and said , we 'd really like to make this a - PUD because what we really want to get in return is one thing and that is we want larger lots in the wooded areas so we can preserve trees . I never heard anything that they wanted architectural standards . I never heard anything that he wanted foundation plantings . Or guidelines recommending air conditioners . We wanted to preserve trees . And so now all of a sudden we 're jumping into regulations concerning air conditioners , dog kennels , storage buildings , foundation plantings and why do we want to get that - specific? Batzli : This is nothing more than what you 'd find in a regulated development that had covenants . Except basically the PUD , the developer 's coming in here and doing some of these things in advance . Erhart : If we look at this parcel of land and we sit down with a developer , and our big concern is dog kennels , then we can make dog kennels the issue in exchange for giving him smaller lots . I don't understand why it has to be in this ordinance . If the issue is tree preservation , then - the issue is tree preservation . Why do we need to delineate it here? Because we 're requiring every guy that comes in here with a PUD now to talk about dog kennels . That 's what you 've got here . Am I wrong? If I 'm wrong I 'll shut up . Krauss : Tim , a couple things . Some of the conditions that you mentioned are conditions that apply to all other single family development . If it - comes in under a PUD and we don 't specifically mention it , it may not be applied to the PUD . Yeah , you do have the ability to tailor conditions in the PUD but will you remember to do it every time and will you be consistent? Secondly , the City 's gotten burned before on PUD 's because developers have sold the City a bill of goods . Let me have reduced lot sizes . I ' ll reduce home costs and make a nice environment . Erhart : Why do we even ask for this? Krauss: Well , what you can control is you can make sure that , first of all , you 've got to explore that the sole reason for doing a PUD . If you 're going to represent that it 's going to save environmental features , then demonstrate it . If you 're going to represent that it 's going to lower housing cost , and if that 's a valid thing for the city to consider , then demonstrate it and commit to it . The problem we had in the past was that none of those commitments were ever made . - Erhart : Then we didn 't design the agreement good enough . Krauss: I think that 's real evident . Separate the two issues for a moment too . Clustered housing and single family housing . Clustered housing is a medium density type of housing concept . You would require a site plan review for it if it came in in the R-12 district . I don 't see why you _ shouldn 't have the same kind of guidelines established if it comes in under a PUD . When we look at , the tree issue , I must admit having re-read ( f )( 4 ) . ( f )( 4 ) , you can tell this is a year old because this is the language that was looked at , remember when we were looking at the tree Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 54 ordinances? That was the current language that was never adopted with everything else . Batzli : Yeah , but I kind of wanted to approve it and kind of sneak it through there and see what they did . Krauss: I don 't have a personal problem with it . The PUD 's a two way street . I mean the developer may be getting much more attractive lots . He may be getting a lot more economic flexibility . He may be saving costs for services . And the question is always , what does the City get? Erhart: But , don 't you see that on that development , Stone Creek . With this ordinance , this guy would be required to put 2 trees in every back yard and he would look at you and say , no way . What you want is a tree preservation up on that hill but your ordinance requires that you 've got to put 2 trees in every yard . Why do we want to encumber ourself with that? Krauss: No . In Stone Creek , all those lots up in the trees , the executive - home lots that Hagen was referring to , wouldn 't require anything . Erhart : I 'm talking about , this ordinance would require all the other lots out in the alfalfa field for the developer to put 2 overstory trees in the back yard . He has to put foundation plantings in . He 'd have to put exterior landscaping , well that 's general anyway . But I don 't understand it . Why we want to get ourselves fixed into this rigidity . Batzli : Why don 't you want to make Chanhassen a nice place to live for the people who move in? Why are you trying to make it a good deal for the developer? Erhart : It 's not a good deal . We don 't have to give him the PUD . Up until the last minute we just say no . If we have done something wrong in the past , it 's because we didn't negotiate correctly . Batzli : Well , we 're still not going to negotiate . You and I are going to - see it after it 's been negotiated and do you want to give staff a tool to use? I mean if one of these is , well let 's ask . Let me ask this question . If you go and start negotiating with the developer under this ordinance , can you say well , okay we 'll give up the two trees but you 've got to give me another couple acres for the park? Currently the way this is written . Erhart : You 're talking a variance now . Batzli : Well but let 's change the language so that you can do it . I want to give you something to negotiate with because right now you don 't have anything under this thing . Krauss: The negotiation process , I mean we 're pretty good at doing it . We can get a lot out of it and I would prefer , I like having a certain amount of guidance frankly . I mean if I go into a room saying I can cut a deal on any part of this project because it 's a PUD and try to second guess how the Planning Commission or City Council might react to that deal once it 's cut , - I 'm not terribly comfortable with that . I mean I like to think I can read your goals into a project and anticipate the Council 's but that 's a pretty Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 55 hit and miss thing to , and then I have to represent the fact to a developer that if you cut this deal with me , I will work with you on this project and we 'll try and get it approved . Erhart : . . .PUD 's have a preliminary meeting with the Planning Commission to sit down and outline what our goals are . We each contribute and then - you start working on a plan . Krauss: Well it takes a fair amount , even though at concept stage sounds _ innocuous and inexpensive , it turns out it 's not . I mean there 's a fair amount of work required to get it to that point . Erhart : Particularly if you haven 't talked to the Planning Commission and - you don 't know what they want , it gets real expensive . You can spend a lot of time in hoping to get what we want . - Krauss: Yeah , and I 'm not sure how you 'd , I mean I sort of scenario in what you 're saying . To come to the Planning Commission without a plan . Just say I 've got this parcel and I want to do it as a PUD . Erhart : Yeah , you 've gone out there and here 's some neat things and I 'm concerned . We 've got these trees and wetlands and park area . It 's park deficient or something . And we go out and look at it and we say yeah . These are our concerns . Then go to the developer and say look it . We 'd like you to do this PUD and here 's what , in exchange for some smaller lots , here 's the things we 'd like to get out of this . Then he goes away and comes up with this plan . Krauss: But then again , you would be substituting yourselves for my staff and you would be trying to cut a deal in anticipating that the Council - would go along with it and that you were negotiating in good faith. Also if you 're concerned about the length of your meetings , wait until you try to design a project . . . Erhart : Oh , we 're not going go design a project . Give broad , essentially . You 're going to come to us and say , these are my concerns and we 're going to either agree or disagree . And then you 're going to go and submit a plan . We 're not going to do that . We 're going to support you or qualify it . I don 't want to be the guy dominating this discussion . Batzli : Does anyone else have Tim 's concerns that ( f ) and ( g ) are overly restrictive in a PUD? Ladd , do you? Conrad: No . Yet I was the one that would have gone for PUD that was written in about 5 sentences . But the Commissioners elected not to go that route . Batzli : Well I think part of why we , keeping this in historical perspective , I think the reason we didn 't was because we were told by the Council that we shouldn 't do that . Erhart: I can 't remember anymore the whole sequence . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 56 Batzli : They didn 't want something that said , you can do anything you want . Here 's the density . Don 't go below that and we 'll take a look at it , which would have been your ordinance . Which would have been , I think it would have been an interesting way to do it but you know , Council didn 't want to see that . Erhart: Is that right Paul? . . .they didn 't appreciate that point of view . Krauss: You know , I honestly don 't remember either except the direction that I , I mean the Council 's kind of gone different directions on this too but I heard them saying that they want guarantees that they 're not going to be left holding the bag . That if they are to consider lot area adjustments , which some of them are reluctant to do , that it has to be in a format that guarantees that these are going to be liveable , developable lots . Batzli : So I thought we did an okay job with that as our guiding beacon . I mean I still don 't like it . I 've beat my concerns to a pulp and I got one or two people on the Council on a band wagon and then I think they dropped off somehow so I 've given up the ship . Do you have concerns? Ledvina : I can see Tim 's side of the issue . I can see Paul 's side of the issue and this pre-dates me by quite a bit so I really , I 'm not really going to provide any more comment on it . Farmakes : I 'm going to go forward as it is . I don 't think there 's anything wrong with even if a developer having some knowledge of what the expectations are , particularly when you 're talking medium density . I can _ understand what Tim 's saying but actually if I was to go and design something , I 'd like at least some understanding of what the expectations were . I think I 'm hearing you right , that you believe that this will give them what your expectations are . So I support it . Batzli : I only have one question and that is , in your intent section , which I also think you did a very nice job on . I do have one question and -- that 's , this is whether this is intended to be something that we throw out to the Met Council . That yes , we do this and we 're wonderful and that is the statement that lot sizes should be mixed to offer a range of housing pricing options . Within most development that I 've seen , PUD 's go through , there 's not a real wide range . Just by way of example , something like Lundgren Bros . where they 're going to put you know , $250 ,000 .00 to $350 ,000 .00 houses . Is that what you 're intending that , they 're not all one price or are you really seriously saying you should have small lots here that are $90 ,000 .00 and a $450 ,000 .00 house over there? Krauss: And you 're right . That used to be a Metro Council approach . Your concern 's a valid one . It wasn't my intention to be dogmatic and require that . It applied in the situation again like Hans Hagen wanted to put the more modest priced homes in the field on smaller lots and maximize it but that was almost a secondary . If you 'd care to eliminate that or put in an and/or type of modifier . Something along those lines , that would be fine . Batzli : Well before Steve left he told me that he liked that language and that he 's a proponent of that . I mean is anybody else gung ho for this Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 57 type of language in our ordinances? Conrad: I want it out . Batzli : Tim? Erhart : I 'm opposed to the whole thing . Batzli : Matt? Ledvina : No comment . Batzli : Jeff , any comment? Farmakes: I 'm taking a different meaning from you , since you 're a lawyer . Batzli : Well what 's your meaning? Just that there 's a narrow range? That there 's a narrow range and that 's good enough as long as they 're not all one price that there has been a range? But see it says lot sizes should be mixed to reflect that and to offer a range . And what I don 't want to see is , I don 't want to see preservation of the tree stands with 50 ,000 foot lots that these guys are going to build T 'aj Mahals on and then the 8 ,000 square foot lots or 10 ,000 minimum , down in the cornfield and I don 't , I personally find that repulsive that they 're , you know that somehow these people are getting the tree stands and it 's not preserved . My idea of a PUD is to have a cluster of homes , small lots , and commonly owned wooded areas and that 's not what the people are going to do . They 're going to include it into private lots and the people down at the bottom get the shaft and the question is , are we looking at our ordinances from a , is it the common good of the people moving into this particular development? I 've beat it and I think that this almost encourages people to say , yes . You 've told me you want the range so I 'm going to put the $450 ,000 .00 house up on the hill . Take all the trees . Take all the nice views . Then I 'm going to put these shlocky little things down in the cornfield. These people have no , they don 't get the benefit of the trees , other than I supposed they can look at them but yet they 're moving into the smaller sized lots and my issue has always been , I ' ll get off my soapbox in a minute . That if we have a minimum sized lot , somehow or another , why are we allowing these people to have a smaller sized lot? Then we should have the smaller sized lots throughout the city if there 's not a good reason to have the bigger sized lot . And these people haven 't gotten anything for , you know we 're supposed to be looking out for general welfare , safety , whatever but yet we 're saying , go ahead . Put these guys on a smaller lot . Let them look at the trees because we told them to offer a range of prices . So I found that kind of disturbing . But I guess it depends on how you interpret it . Farmakes : And that also reflects I think what the market is . Obviously you 're going to have a bigger house , more land , less density , higher price tag . Most people aren 't going to be purchasing that . I guess it will depend on each individual developer who comes in here and shows what he 's . Batzli : But my only point was that it said , lot sizes should be mixed to reflect and to offer , and the issue was whether we wanted to state that it , Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 58 - I think it should be mixed to reflect the size and environmental limitations but I think it may be mixed to offer a range of housing pricing options . I don 't know that I want to say the guy has to do that or to positively encourage that . Farmakes: Take the Lundgren development . They had the two corner , they had about 3 or 4 left over lots once they got done laying out everything else . They had a couple of little leftover pieces and they stuck those houses on it and those . . .swamp . There were reduced sized lots that happened to be next to houses that fit in better to the overall plan and I think I know what you 're saying but I don 't know if it 's marketed that way though . The PUD would be marketed that way . If they 're put down in a gully and we 're up in nirvana up on the hill with the trees , I don 't think it 'd be marketed that way . Batzli : Well I know it won 't be marketed that way . Krauss: There 's another aspect though that that gets to . On the less attractive land , I many times have developers come in and say , you mean you don 't have a 10 ,000 square foot lot . I can 't make , I 'll just go PUD and make every lot 10 ,000 square feet because then they 're all cheap and I can sell every house for $116 ,000 .00 because that 's what I do in Chaska . Excuse me Chaska . And you know , you 'd like to have some basis for saying , not here you won 't . I mean you 've got to rationalize your PUD . You may be entitled to some smaller lot sizes but you 're going to have to earn it . You 're going to have to demonstrate why this density 's supportable based on environmental constraints and no , the City does not support a goal of your allowing uniformity of cheap housing . The goal is to get a mix in there . Batzli : So you 're looking at it from , well . You 're telling me you 're looking at it from the alternate end of , they come in , they ask for all cheap things and you can use this as a leverage to say , we need more expensive things too . Krauss : Right . That is a fact of what they do . Batzli : Okay . Well I would be happy then to at least say and/or . So you may have a plug but yet it 's softened . Anybody else go along with that? I know what Tim 's not going to say. Conrad: And/or what? Where are you? Batzli : And/or to offer a range of housing pricing options . It 's in the intent section . Lot sizes should be mixed to reflect the site 's environmental limitations and opportunities and/or to offer a range of housing pricing options . Conrad: I 'd like to take , I would rather , boy I just can 't agree . Farmakes : Typically Paul , I 'm not that familiar only seeing a few PUO 's around here but they seem like they 're marketed , there isn 't that large of a disparity of upper end pricing and the lower end pricing . I mean it 's not huge . We 're not talking 4 or 5 times difference . We 're talking a 50% maybe or somewhere in there? Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 59 Krauss: Yeah . I mean this is ballpark numbers pulled out of a hat but the Lundgren development probably goes from $165 ,000 .00-$70 ,000 .00 to $280 ,000 .00-3 . Farmakes: Yeah , I 've just never seen where the pricing shifts as far as some of what we 're discussing here or we 're worried about . Krauss: But in terms of a monthly mortgage , that 's a real substantial difference in income levels and ability to pay . I don't know . If you want _ to get rid of it , I can always argue the point . It 's not hard to do. I mean this is , there is a class of developers that always throws it out on the table . This is what I can do someplace else and you always tell them , that 's not what you can do here . I mean if everybody 's more comfortable - eliminating it , I can live with it . Conrad: And you 're talking about the range of housing prices? Krauss : Yeah . See Brian 's concern is a valid one because the Metro Council used to mandate that you put in language that we will provide housing for the full range of humanity . Conrad: We had that in the comprehensive plan . - Krauss: Right . Conrad: We were going to do that . Why bundle it into a PUD? Krauss : Well again , I took the more pragmatic approach . I was trying to ensure that we didn 't get the bottom end of it but I think you 've got every , you know in the context of what else is in here , you 've got the rational basis for not allowing that kind of stuff to happen . If somebody comes in here and says my sole purpose to do this is to get lowered priced lots and they look crummy and , tell them to go away . Conrad: I don 't mind the statement , lot sizes should reflect the sit 'e environmental limitations and opportunities . I don 't need the word mixed in there but I 'd like the lot sizes should reflect in there . If we took mixed out , then I 'm fine with that . I don 't know why , I came in here tonight thinking I was going to not oppose this . - Erhart : You know , just a point . I don 't want to take a lot of time but just listening to the discussion . It 's convincing that we should be outlining some broad goals and potential desires for a specific site . But - there is no way that you can forecast in a rigid document what we would like to get out of any specific site at any time in the economic situation . It 's ridiculous that we 're laying out specifics here . Batzli : Well , we haven 't had an ordinance now for , how long? A year? Krauss : A year . Year and a half . Batzli : Has any PUD guys come in and said , .well since you don 't have an ordinance I can do whatever I want and let 's talk about it? Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 60 Krauss: No . Batzli : Have we had any PUD guys come in and ask except for that one that you laid out? Krauss: Yeah , lots . Batzli : And they were discouraged because we didn 't have an ordinance? Krauss: Well you know , the lack of certainty is the developer 's worst nightmare . Batzli : So if we have an ordinance that says we want you to come in with a PUD proposal and we ' ll take a look at it , are people going to go that way or not? Krauss: I doubt it , and this is my gut reaction . We could always ask developers but the thing that they detest most is coming , they hate coming _ before public bodies where people come up with things saying , it 's a good project but it 'd be a whole lot better if you knocked off 10 lots . Why? Well that 10 lots was the profit and those kinds of things scare them to death . And to just throw it open to a public review where the die is cast - before there 's been an opportunity to refine a plan that they 're comfortable with , I think most of them will be very relunctant to do it . Erhart: But they do have something in concrete . They have a subdivision ordinance . They can come in with a standard subdivision . That 's lock solid . If they don't want to come before us and do a little batering , they don 't have to . On the other hand , if there 's a site and they 're sensitive - to some of the things and want to come in and talk about it we have . . . ordinnace allowing them to do that and encouraging them to do that and it maybe lay some broad things that we would think would be appropriate to — discuss such like a mixture of housing and preservation of environment . Increased park sizes . Batzli : I think the fundamental difference probably between us is you 're probably comfortable with our subdivision ordinance and I 'm not . Erhart: No . I think we need a PUD . I think we need flexibility . Let 's not write an ordinance that , it give us flexibility but what it really does is it really actually is more restrictive than our subdivision ordinance . It gets into more detail about what the guy 's going to provide than our subdivision ordinance . Conrad: You can look at it Tim from the standpoint there are guidelines . Erhart: No , they 're not . They 're absolutes . Conrad: Well yeah . Batzli : But we can change two words and make them guidelines . Erhart : Then I 'm comfortable . These are things that we may want . These are things that we ought to discuss . _ Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 61 Conrad: But the developer would like to know what those guidelines are . Erhart : Then he should do a subdivision . You can 't , by the whole character of what a PUD is . Batzli : We haven 't gotten any that are that creative . I don 't know why , I mean I want to see these creative ones but we don 't see any . We see PUD 's that are disguised subdivisions and they 've gone that way in order to relax cretain setbacks or to crowd certain homes . The only reason they 've used our PUD since I 've been here , now maybe we 're going to get a flood of them in here after we pass this thing but I wouldn 't mortgage the farm on it . Or bet the farm . Erhart : I think maybe our goals weren't clear enough at the time Brian . Maybe our staff wasn 't comfortable with negotiating . Maybe a whole bunch of things . I don 't know . It seems to me if we want something and they can get something so that they can make a profit at it . Batzli : Well I never thought I 'd be arguing for this thing so you know . Conrad: Come on , where is everybody? I was sure you were opposed . Batzli : I am opposed . Conrad : Where are you on this? Farmakes: I 've already said where I am on this . I 'm listening to what Paul 's saying . If negotiations have taken place on their end , at their level and he 's asking for these things , it seems to me these are good negotiation tools to position where the city , where these expectations are _ and this whole thing is a variance so I mean if I 'm going to be a designer and I 'm going to go and try and come up with something that I have a reasonable expectation that if I spend a lot of money doing these drawings and coming in here and trying to sell this to you , I have a pretty good expectation by the time I bring it before here , with Paul 's recommendation , that I 'm going to have a pretty good idea that it 's going to fly . Or otherwise I 'm not going to do it . Conrad: So you 're generally comfortable and Brian has swung over . Batzli : I haven 't swung over . I 've just been beaten down . I just want to move it so that we have an ordinance so that people actually might use it . I mean unless we can agree to put something in effect , as Paul said , they 've had a lot of inquiries . Nobody's going to do it . We 're only going to learn . I mean this is either going to be right or it 's going to be wrong . But in the past it 's been wrong so we're no worse off . The only issue is , can we actually get some PUD 's going that we get some architecturally neat things . Some clustering . I don 't think we 'll get it but at least we ' ll get some ideas flowing through here and we 'll see what we 're going to get . And if we haven 't gotten it yet , we have another opportunity to come back and fix it . But until we get it in place , we don 't even know what we 've done wrong . Conrad: And this may be your last shot . You know if you kill the sucker . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 62 Erhart: I can 't kill it by myself . Don 't look at me like some kind of . . . Conrad: It is interesting though because the City Council didn 't want what we wanted . You never jumped on the band wagon when I brought that up . You were off in the weeds somewhere . Erhart: Well we were off on this 10 ,000 thing and this always was , at the end I 'd always throw in , I don't understand this stuff . If you look back in the Minutes , that 's what you 'll see . Batzli : You were confused? Erhart: No . We spend 90% of our discussion talking about 10 ,000 foot lots and densities and that stuff and then , I was always confused and I never understood why we have it this way . Batzli : I was talking about the Communist hordes , not the 10 ,000 square feet but . Erhart : Let 's vote . Batzli : Yeah , let 's have a motion. Conrad: Well Matt you know the least , so why don 't you make the motion . Batzli : He knows the most but he said the least . Farmakes: Time marches on . Conrad: Seriously , one quick thought . In minimum lot size , we 're excluding wetland . Oo we also exclude steep slope? Krauss: No . Conrad: We don 't? So steep slope , even though it 's unbuildable , just like a wetland is , counts? Krauss: Right . Batzli : But it would be subject to all sorts of setbacks from our steep slope ordinance . Krauss: If it 's on the bluff line , the bluff line applies . Batzli : In the designated bluff line areas . Krauss: Yeah . 8atzli : Otherwise just level the sucker . Krauss: We went through this kind of discussion , in fact you were involved with that . We originally thought of . Batzli : Do you have a lot of steep slopes on his farm? Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 63 Krauss: I don 't know . But you know, in fact we had Rick Sathre in here telling us that if we just used percentage of slopes you eliminate , you can do it but the way , the way we were thinking about doing it would have eliminated walkout lots . I mean it got a little bizarre . Batzli : Do we have a motion? Conrad: No . Batzli : Then is there a motion to table? Erhart : Table for what purpose? Someone 's got to make a motion . - Conrad: I recommend that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the revised PUD ordinance according to the staff report or staff , according to the draft printed on May 26th with striking , under the intent section , - in the sixth line down , striking the words , "be mixed to" . That 's my motion . Batzli : Okay so you 're , just before someone seconds it , just to clarify it . So you 're leaving in the words in the seventh line , and to offer a range of housing pricing options? - Conrad: Yeah . Batzli : Okay . Is there a second? Farmakes: I ' ll second it . Batzli : Discussion . You seemingly changed your mind . You didn 't like that language at first . Is there any reasoning or rationale that you want to share with us? You just don't want me to vote for it either? - Erhart : Now that 's brilliant strategy . Batzli : It was excellent Ladd . Quick thinking . Conrad : Yeah , quick thinking . No , I thought it through and I 'm okay with those words . Batzli : I mean it doesn 't even make sense now. And to offer doesn 't go with , should reflect . Lot sizes to offer a range of housing . I don 't care . If you want to do it that way. Is there any more discussions? Conrad moved , Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 20 for Residential Planned Unit Developments with the following changes in the Intent Section . Line 6 should read as follows: Lot sizes should reflect the site's environmental limitations and opportunities and to offer a range of housing pricing options . Conrad and Farmakes voted in favor . Batzli and Erhart voted in opposition. Ledvina abstained . The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 2 , 1 abstention . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 64 Erhart : So it 's defeated . The reason for voting nay is that I think , the way it 's written , we have an intention to create an ordinance that gives us_ greater flexibility than our subdivision ordinance but in fact , the way it 's written , the fact is that it actually provides less flexibility and it is specifies certain things even beyond the subdivision ordinance . And _ what I recommend we do is to re-write the ordinance . Deal with the minimum lot sizes or deal with density . I think that 's fine . I think the intent statement is great but I think we should be outlining some general things that we want and perhaps to find a process for completing a PUD and - concentrate more on the process than trying to make specific things . Batzli : I 'd vote for it then . The only reason I didn 't vote for it was because this thing doesn 't , that sentence doesn 't make sense anymore and I don 't . Farmakes: Run it through . I don 't think it 's a big issue really . Conrad: That 's not a big issue Brian . To vote against it because . Batzli : I 'm voting against it for that reason right now . Erhart : Well why doesn't someone just make another motion? Batzli : I 'd like to see a motion that , if anyone else has another motion . We can pass it up to the Council . We recommend that they don 't approve it as written as far as I 'm concerned at this point . Conrad: The motion failed but another motion can , make another motion right now . We 're not going to pass it up . Something 's got to happen . Batzli : Yeah I know , so is there another motion? Farmakes: I ' ll make the motion to alter the line as you have it there . Batzli : So that it reads , lot sizes should reflect the site 's environmental limitations and opportunities . Is there a second? I second it . Is there discussion? If it's still 2 to 2 I 'm really going to crack up . Conrad: What did you want? Lot sizes . Batzli : Lot sizes should reflect the site 's environmental limitations and opportunities period . So the words , and to offer a range of housing pricing options is struck . Is there any discussion? Farmakes moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 20 for Residential Planned Unit Developments with the following changes in the Intent Section. Line 6 should read as follows: Lot sizes should reflect the site 's environmental limitations and opportunities. All voted in favor except Erhart who opposed and Ledvina abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1 with 1 abstention . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 65 Ledvina: If I understood the criteria by which this proposal was being evaluated , I would try to make some determination but I 'm so confused as to what we 're looking at . Farmakes: We were too . Conrad: But we voted . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 3 , 1992 as presented . OPEN DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT FORM . Krauss: That one I think we ought to maybe lay over because there 's some questions . Erhart: Also I think , I haven 't talked to Steve about this but I know in the history . . .he has strong feelings about people 's rights to do things in their own yards and if somebody wanted to hold this over , I think it 'd be just fine . Farmakes: I 'd be curious as to how this fit in with this thing on Monday where they talk about the city compensating landowner 's for trees on their property . Krauss : Oh , you mean the Lucas Decision? Farmakes : The Supreme Court . Krauss: I don't think anybody really knows yet what the implications are but I had a conversation with Roger about that decision this morning and I used to get all worked up about these Supreme Court decisions thinking the sky is falling and generally you find it 's because somebody screwed up or did something . . . I 'm not sure they 're nearly as pervasive as you might think at first blush . Batzli : Where 's that thing about this article? One Planner 's Reflection of the Edge City . You write that? Krauss: Yeah . Batzli : And it 's going in which issue? Krauss: It should be this coming on . Batzli : Congratulations . You downplayed your work . I liked it . Should we table this easement? Okay. If nobody 's opposed , we 'll table that over to the next meeting . Erhart: The next meeting is what , the 15th? Krauss : The 15th , yes . - Erhart : Why does Council want to meet? Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 66 Krauss: The Council , I 've got to double check if that timing works but the Council wants , on an annual basis they sit down with all the Commissions and keep the communications open . Ask what your issues are but hopefully they ' ll tell you what their issues are . I 'm not sure if we 'll have frankly enough time to do it on the 15th . Erhart : Is this an annual meeting? Krauss : I think we 've gotten them once or twice before . Farmakes: Can I ask you a question since we spent so much time on this PUD and we just sort of skipped over the City Council update . Do they really - believe you when you tell them that that 's just sort of a variance guideline , the PUD situation? What 's your opinion on that? Krauss: What do you mean a variance? Farmakes : The Councilmen that I 've talked to on this PUD thing , it seems to be mistrust that what they 're doing is making an ordinance people can build on and that the City 's committed to . But the way it 's been explained to me over and over again is that it 's really a variance . That the City can refuse if they don 't feel that it 's appropriate to approve it . So why - then do I continue to hear this almost a reluctance that we 're approving this type of thing? Is there a trust factor there? Krauss : I don 't think it 's a matter of trust because staff 's relationship with the Council is a pretty good one . But I think , I don 't want to characterize it unfairly either but you 've got the Council , the people I 'm most familiar with on the Council are people who have moved to this community 15-20 years ago and they did it for some very explicit reasons in terms of what kind of liftstyle was offered . I don 't know , maybe there 's something of a mind set that that 's exactly what everybody wants as the standard mode of living . There 's also , I mean they 're very comfortable with the lifestyle they have . They have good lives here and they think that that is something worthy to pass on . I guess I don't dispute that but I think there 's other ways of getting at it and I 'm not all clear if the Council 's going to go through with it or not . Farmakes : When they come in here , should there be more discussion with us - in regards to those issues? Those issues and the second coming of American city . A lot of stuff that we 're doing is the exact opposite of what they 're . Krauss: See that 's the thing . I mean you talk to people like Councilman Wing and he 's got very strong feelings of support for the neo-traditionalist movement and the kind of stuff we hear from Bill Morrish . This PUD is fully consistent with achieving those goals , yet they 've got a lot of trouble digesting that . I don 't know how to rationalize that , except to maybe ask Bill to talk to him about it because - they have some type of . . . Farmakes : Well a lot of traditional suburban planning , which we 've been into here for , since after World War II , or at least the past 25 years , is not really based on diversity . It 's highly suspicious of it and I get a Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 67 lot of feedback from that and I 'm sure maybe you do too . That that 's why the 10 ,000 square foot and so on . A buzzer goes off whether it 's relevant or not . There seems to be a lot of walls that we smack into there when we start to discuss some of this stuff even in the HRA and the downtown development . We continue to build these large parking lots facing access streets and we place the building farther back when a lot of current design information has been coming out the past 10 years saying no , that 's not the right thing to do . It used to be the right thing to do back in the 70 's but now we 've discovered that we should be doing it differently . We continue on . And basically the developer is framing that down into reality . We say yeah . It 's sort of a philosophical thing . I 'm not sure if we caught up with that and I 'm not sure , they're sort of accountable to their voters . What kind of information they 're getting there and whether or not they really believe it . From a professional level . Krauss: There 's a real philosophical change I suppose that needs to come but you know , it 's one thing to see and read all this stuff and be interested and want to try some of this stuff but on the other side , there 's a reason that all of us , myself included , moved to the suburbs . And there 's a million and a half people in the Twin Cities did it . It clearly offered them something they were seeking so I 'm not as willing as the neo-traditionalist are to throw it all on the , and say everybody 's wrong . All the decisions you made were erroneous and you 're foul people and you messed up the world and let 's remake it . On the other hand , I think Chanhassen 's in a really unique position to do some very nifty , innovative stuff that will make this a community that 's different than most _ of the suburban communities . And I think we 're well on the way to achieving that and it 's stuff that I 'm pretty convinced , maybe conceitedly that most people , once it 's here , most people are going to be real proud of it . And real comfortable with the changes it has . With the ability to have a real downtown . With the ability to walk to places or bike to places . With the ability not to go on a highway to go everyplace you have to go . Those are things that we can offer here that most people can 't . Most towns can 't . Batzli : So , do we talk to the City Council about these things? Krauss : I think it 'd be an interesting discussion . Frankly it 's probably a whole lot more interesting than , what do you want us to do next year . Don 't rock the boat . Batzli : One question before I want to adjourn and that is these provisional population estimates by the Met Council . Are these meaningful to us? Krauss : Very . Batzli : Why? That 's what I didn't get . Krauss : Did I give those to you? Batzli : Yeah . They 're on the back of your .article . Administrative section . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 68 Krauss: Oh . When you go to the Metro Council with a comp plan amendment , or to justify , rationalize building a road or to rationalize getting funding for a county park or a trail system , or build a sewage treatment plant like in Chaska . The first thing they do . They make projections okay and you think projections are innocuous . If it doesn 't turn out to be correct , we ' ll change the projections . They don't . They change reality to fit the projections . You 're way ahead of the game to have projections that are real and reasonable . For the first time I , I think it was the first time I 've ever heard of it . The Metro Council 's population projections are actually larger than we projected when we did the comp plan . Now that doesn 't necessarily mean that people are going to come and knock on the door at Chanhassen tomorrow and say the Metro Council told me to move here so I 'm going to come . But it 's indicative of the fact that the Metro Council agrees with us that this city is in a real , it 's in the driver 's seat . Batzli : And everything else is moving along? Target 's moving? Task force 's are moving? Krauss: First task force meeting for the corridor study is on the 15th before the Planning Commission meeting . Batzli : When does the City Council talk to us? Krauss: It should be on the same evening . Batzli : Okay , so everybody will be here for that . Krauss : We 're starting to get a lot on that agenda . I 'm a little bit leery of it . Erhart: The 15th? Conrad: I won 't be here . Batzli : I don 't know if I ' ll be here or not . Okay , as far as HRA , have you been getting the HRA packet now? Krauss: No . We talked about that this morning . Batzli : Here we 've got a guy who actually is going to go to HRA meetings for us . We 've got to start getting him the packet . Because they 're going a lot of stuff right now . They're doing the bowling alley thing . Krauss: That 's why I included , in fact Ashworth asked me to make sure that you got all those reports because we thought you 'd find it interesting . Batzli : On the Target and the bowling alley and all that stuff? Yeah . Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m. . Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director DATE: July 10, 1992 SUBJ: Report from Director 1. Discussion of Goals with the City Council. The City Council attempts to visit with each of the city's commissions once a year. The purpose of these meetings is to promote a dialogue on issues of mutual concern and to outline goals for the future. Relative to work in process and short range goals, I would ask you to refer to the attached ongoing issues sheet. For the past year and into the foreseeable future, the Planning Commission and planning staff are heavily involved in a number of ongoing projects of major significance. These include the Surface Water Management Program, the Highway 5 Corridor Task Force, and the Chanhassen Sign Ordinance Committee. In addition to this work in process, the past year has seen increasing levels of development requests. Although the city may have processed larger numbers of development requests in previous years, I do not believe they were reviewed at anywhere near the level of detail that is undertaken currently. We believe that this is fully reasonable and consistent with achieving the goals and policies of the City Council and Planning Commission. Yet, it must be recognized that this also poses a significantly increased work load on city staff, as well as the Planning Commission which must wade through increasingly complex proposals. Based upon this work in process, it is hard to foresee tackling any major new projects over the next 12 months unless something appears to be unusually pressing. 2. City Council actions. There have been no City Council meetings since the last Planning Commission meeting. _ Is ,41, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER REVISED JUNE 25, 1992 ONGOING ISSUES STATUS Comprehensive Plan Issues 1.* 1995 Study Area (North) Task Force selected. First meeting and Hwy. 5 Corridor Study scheduled for July 15, 1992. _ 2. 1995 Study Area (South) Assigned to Planning Commission staff. Work to be initiated as time commitments _ allow. OTHER ITEMS 1. Rezoning BF Dist. to A2 Staff preparing updated information for Planning Commission direction. 2. Sign Ordinance Work is continuing to progress with task force. Program expected to be completed — shortly. 3. Tree Protection Ordinance Inventory in progress. Over view of existing — Mapping of significant tree protection regulations requested by vegetative areas Commisser Erhart. 4. Wetland Ordinance/Surface Main group establishing public information Water Management Program and erosion control program along with Task Force established. other work. Special wetlands subcommittee — working to fast track development of new ordinance. 5. Shoreland Ordinance Staff is currently working on a draft of the — ordinance. Initial comments delivered to MnDNR. Will place on upcoming PC agenda. _ 6. Group home ordinance PC reviewed on 3/4/92. Currently preparing draft ordinance. Schedule for 6/17/92 _ meeting. 7.* PUD Ordinance PC approved on 7/1/92. Scheduled for CC review on 8/1/92. 8. PC input in Downtown Ongoing Planning and Traffic Study 9. Review of Architectural 1992/may be combined in part with Hwy. 5 Standards to Promote High work. Quality Design 10. Bluff Creek Corridor With adoption of Bluff Line Preservation Greenway ordinance, CC referred item to Park and Recreation Commission. Staff working with Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District to develop joint Bluff Creek corridor program. Meeting held on conceptual Bluff Creek park design prepared by Lance Neckar of U of M. 11. Ordinance amendment to Non- PC approved. City Attorney to redraft. conforming use section to clarify ordinance. 12. Temporary uses, sales - Guidelines memo reviewed by PC new ordinance. and scheduled for CC. Ordinance revisions to follow. 13. Truck and trailer rental standards. Request by PC. 14.* Sexually oriented businesses PC reviewed on 3/4/92. Sent to Public Safety Commission. Reviewed on July 8, 1992. 15.* Review of Alternate Target site plans Joint meeting held on 4/29/92. HRA authorized purchase agreement with Target. Plans currently being developed by applicant. 16.* Tree conservation easements. To be reviewed by PC on July 15, 1992. * Change in status since last report 3, - CITYOF i - CHANIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning director DATE: June 25, 1992 SUBJ: Tree Conservation Easements At past meetings, staff has been asked to elaborate on tree conservation easements which have been utilized on several recent plats. The City Attorney has developed the easement format that is attached to this memo. What it essentially does is permanently identify an area that is to be protected for tree conservation purposes and bind all present and future property owners to maintain the forested area in its natural state. The only activities allowed in this area are removing diseased or storm damaged trees. Some of the commissioners have expressed potential concerns over permanently binding a home owner from doing anything relative to trees. I would point out that these tree conservation easements are used sparingly. They are used only when a specific concentration of trees worthy of preservation can be identified. Staff has taken pains to ensure that they do not hinder normal use of a lot to either build a home or accommodate normal household — functions. I would also point out that these tree conservation easements are developed as a fundamental tool for addressing the impact of development. That is the preservation of these trees may often be the key to gaining approval of the plat and designing a development that is — acceptable to the city and neighbors. Therefore, we believe it is reasonable to provide permanent protection for these areas. Arguably, some of the City Attorney's language is rather strict and some modifications may be appropriate. For example, while we would not want any permanent structures built in a tree conservation area, the construction of walkways, placement of playground equipment, or some other normal activities associated with single family lots may be appropriate. Staff looks forward to getting your guidance on this matter. A t4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CHMFBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , Pill May 15 ,92 10 :25 No .007 P .02 CONSERVATION EASEMENT INSTRUMENT made this day of , 19 , by and between ("Grantors") , and the CITY OF , a Minnesota municipal - corporation ("City") . The Grantors, in consideration of good and valuable consider- ation paid by the City, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, grant the City a permanent conservation easement as that term is defined in this instrument over, under, and across the premises - described in the attached Exhibit "A" ("subject property") . 1 . Grantors for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, agree that the following are prohibited in perpetuity on the subject property: A. Constructing, installing, or maintaining anything made by man, including but not limited to buildings, structures, walkways, clothes line poles, and playground equipment. B. Cutting, removing, or altering trees or other vegeta- tion, except those diseased or storm damaged. C. Excavation or filling. D. Application of fertilizers, whether natural or chemical. E. Application of chemicals for the destruction or retard- ation of vegetation. F. The deposit of waste or debris. G. The application of herbicides, pesticides, and insecti- cides. H. Outside storage of any kind. CHAN:FORM —an, /4 r Inn CHAN:FORM rC5/15/92 CAMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT 8& FUCHS, P.A May 15 ,92 10 :26 No .007 P .03 I. Activity detrimental to the preservation of the scenic beauty, vegetation, and wildlife. — 2. Grantors for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, further grant the City the affirmative right, but not the obli- gation, to enter upon the subject property at any time to enforce compliance with the terms of this instrument. GRANTORS: — GRANTEE: CITY OF BY: — Its Mayor BY: Its Clerk/Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( Ss. COUNTY OF ) — The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19 , by • NOTARY PUBLIC -2- CAMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P .A May 15 ,92 10 :26 No .007 P .04 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19 , by NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19 , by , Mayor, and by , Clerk/Manager, of the City of , a Minnesota municipal corporation, in behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority of its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: Campbell, Knutson, Scott & Fuchs, P.A. 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 (612) 452-5000 -3- Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 65 Ledvina : If I understood the criteria by which this proposal was being evaluated , I would try to make some determination but I 'm so confused as to what we 're looking at . Farmakes : We were too . Conrad: But we voted . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 3 , 1992 as presented . OPEN DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT FORM . Krauss: That one I think we ought to maybe lay over because there 's some questions . Erhart : Also I think , I haven 't talked to Steve about this but I know in the history . . .he has strong feelings about people 's rights to do things in their own yards and if somebody wanted to hold this over , I think it 'd be just fine . Farmakes: I 'd be curious as to how this fit in with this thing on Monday where they talk about the city compensating landowner 's for trees on their property . Krauss: Oh , you mean the Lucas Decision? Farmakes : The Supreme Court . Krauss: I don 't think anybody really knows yet what the implications are but I had a conversation with Roger about that decision this morning and I used to get all worked up about these Supreme Court decisions thinking the sky is falling and generally you find it 's because somebody screwed up or -- did something . . . I 'm not sure they 're nearly as pervasive as you might think at first blush . _ Batzli : Where 's that thing about this article? One Planner 's Reflection of the Edge City . You write that? Krauss: Yeah . Batzli : And it 's going in which issue? Krauss: It should be this coming on . Batzli : Congratulations . You downplayed your work . I liked it . Should we table this easement? Okay . If nobody 's opposed , we 'll table that over to the next meeting . Erhart : The next meeting is what , the 15th? Krauss : The 15th , yes . Erhart: Why does Council want to meet? Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 66 Krauss: The Council , I 've got to double check if that timing works but the Council wants , on an annual basis they sit down with all the Commissions and keep the communications open . Ask what your issues are but hopefully they ' ll tell you what their issues are . I 'm not sure if we 'll have frankly enough time to do it on the 15th . Erhart: Is this an annual meeting? Krauss: I think we 've gotten them once or twice before . Farmakes: Can I ask you a question since we spent so much time on this PUD and we just sort of skipped over the City Council update . Do they really - believe you when you tell them that that 's just sort of a variance guideline , the PUD situation? What 's your opinion on that? Krauss : What do you mean a variance? Farmakes: The Councilmen that I 've talked to on this PUD thing , it seems to be mistrust that what they 're doing is making an ordinance people can build on and that the City 's committed to . But the way it 's been explained to me over and over again is that it 's really a variance . That the City can refuse if they don't feel that it 's appropriate to approve it . So why then do I continue to hear this almost a reluctance that we 're approving this type of thing? Is there a trust factor there? Krauss : I don 't think it 's a matter of trust because staff 's relationship with the Council is a pretty good one . But I think , I don 't want to characterize it unfairly either but you 've got the Council , the people I 'm most familiar with on the Council are people who have moved to this community 15-20 years ago and they did it for some very explicit reasons in terms of what kind of liftstyle was offered . I don 't know , maybe there 's something of a mind set that that 's exactly what everybody wants as the standard mode of living . There 's also , I mean they 're very comfortable with the lifestyle they have . They have good lives here and they think that that is something worthy to pass on . I guess I don 't dispute that but I think there 's other ways of getting at it and I 'm not all clear if the Council 's going to go through with it or not . Farmakes : When they come in here , should there be more discussion with us in regards to those issues? Those issues and the second coming of American city . A lot of stuff that we 're doing is the exact opposite of what they 're . Krauss: See that 's the thing . I mean you talk to people like Councilman Wing and he 's got very strong feelings of support for the neo-traditionalist movement and the kind of stuff we hear from Bill Morrish . This PUD is fully consistent with achieving those goals , yet they 've got a lot of trouble digesting that . I don 't know how to rationalize that , except to maybe ask Bill to talk to him about it because they have some type of . . . Farmakes : Well a lot of traditional suburban planning , which we 've been into here for , since after World War II , or at least the past 25 years , is not really based on diversity . It 's highly suspicious of it and I get a Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 67 lot of feedback from that and I 'm sure maybe you do too . That that 's why the 10 ,000 square foot and so on . A buzzer goes off whether it 's relevant or not . There seems to be a lot of walls that we smack into there when we start to discuss some of this stuff even in the HRA and the downtown development . We continue to build these large parking lots facing access streets and we place the building farther back when a lot of current design information has been coming out the past 10 years saying no , that 's not the right thing to do . It used to be the right thing to do back in the 70 's but now we 've discovered that we should be doing it differently . We continue on . And basically the developer is framing that down into reality . We say yeah. It 's sort of a philosophical thing . I 'm not sure if we caught up with that and I 'm not sure , they 're sort of accountable to their voters . What kind of information they 're getting there and whether - or not they really believe it . From a professional level . Krauss: There 's a real philosophical change I suppose that needs to come but you know , it 's one thing to see and read all this stuff and be interested and want to try some of this stuff but on the other side , there 's a reason that all of us , myself included , moved to the suburbs . And there 's a million and a half people in the Twin Cities did it . It clearly offered them something they were seeking so I 'm not as willing as the neo-traditionalist are to throw it all on the , and say everybody 's wrong . All the decisions you made were erroneous and you 're foul people - and you messed up the world and let 's remake it . On the other hand , I think Chanhassen 's in a really unique position to do some very nifty , innovative stuff that will make this a community that 's different than most of the suburban communities . And I think we 're well on the way to achieving that and it 's stuff that I 'm pretty convinced , maybe conceitedly that most people , once it 's here , most people are going to be real proud of it . And real comfortable with the changes it has . With the ability to - have a real downtown . With the ability to walk to places or bike to places . With the ability not to go on a highway to go everyplace you have to go . Those are things that we can offer here that most people can 't . - Most towns can 't . Batzli : So , do we talk to the City Council about these things? Krauss: I think it 'd be an interesting discussion . Frankly it 's probably a whole lot more interesting than , what do you want us to do next year . Don 't rock the boat . Batzli : One question before I want to adjourn and that is these provisional population estimates by the Met Council . Are these meaningful to us? Krauss : Very . Batzli : Why? That 's what I didn 't get . Krauss : Did I give those to you? Batzli : Yeah . They 're on the back of your article . Administrative section . Planning Commission Meeting July 1 , 1992 - Page 68 Krauss: Oh . When you go to the Metro Council with a comp plan amendment , or to justify , rationalize building a road or to rationalize getting funding for a county park or a trail system , or build a sewage treatment plant like in Chaska . The first thing they do . They make projections okay and you think projections are innocuous . If it doesn 't turn out to be - correct , we ' ll change the projections . They don't . They change reality to fit the projections . You 're way ahead of the game to have projections that are real and reasonable . For the first time I , I think it was the first time I 've ever heard of it . The Metro Council 's population projections are actually larger than we projected when we did the comp plan . Now that doesn 't necessarily mean that people are going to come and knock on the door at Chanhassen tomorrow and say the Metro Council told me to move here - so I 'm going to come . But it 's indicative of the fact that the Metro Council agrees with us that this city is in a real , it 's in the driver 's seat . Batzli : And everything else is moving along? Target 's moving? Task force 's are moving? Krauss: First task force meeting for the corridor study is on the 15th before the Planning Commission meeting . Batzli : When does the City Council talk to us? Krauss: It should be on the same evening . Batzli : Okay , so everybody will be here for that . Krauss : We 're starting to get a lot on that agenda . I 'm a little bit leery of it . Erhart : The 15th? Conrad: I won 't be here . Batzli : I don 't know if I ' ll be here or not . Okay , as far as HRA , have you been getting the HRA packet now? Krauss: No . We talked about that this morning . Batzli : Here we 've got a guy who actually is going to go to HRA meetings for us . We 've got to start getting him the packet . Because they 're going a lot of stuff right now . They 're doing the bowling alley thing . Krauss: That 's why I included , in fact Ashworth asked me to make sure that you got all those reports because we thought you 'd find it interesting . Batzli : On the Target and the bowling alley and all that stuff? Yeah . Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m. . Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY OF i ‘ CHANHASSEN _ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 �-f (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Building Permit File - Todd Novaczyk, 6371 Pleasant View Cove FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director DATE: July 6, 1992 SUBJ: Location of Three Season Porch A question has arisen as to the compliance of this permit for a 3 season porch relative to the 75 foot lake shore setback standard from Christmas Lake. The 3 season porch is to built on a platform that was constructed at this location last year. The platform was allowed to be constructed under a permit signed by myself in 1991. The edge of the deck is located approximately 68 feet from the current elevation of Christmas Lake. It is staff's recollection that when the permit for the original platform was signed last year, it was done so after the site had been inspected by city staff. The applicant also recalls that city staff directed them as to the location of the deck at minimum 75 feet back from the OHWM as required by ordinance. I directed Planning Department staff to recheck the site on June 30, 1992. It was concluded that although the edge of the deck is located 68 feet from the edge of the water, that the current elevation of Christmas Lake is at least / foot higher than the normal OHWM. Given the surrounding grade of the shoreline, it is reasonable to conclude that when the water level is actually at the OHWM, the 75 foot setback standard is complied with. Therefore, I have signed off on this building permit request. pc: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I Planning Commission Board of Adjustments and Appeals es- t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER F CHANHASSEN CITY o 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sign Variance File #92-7 FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director DATE: July 6, 1992 SUBJ: Variance for Sign Area for Holy Cross Lutheran Church The Planning Commission was scheduled to review this item on July 1. It was pulled from the agenda at staff's request. Staff reviewed a requested application for a 32 square foot sign for the church. This sign would replace two existing signs, each having a face of 28 square feet. The ordinance allows a sign area of 24 square feet. Upon further review, we noted that the proposed sign panel was not in fact rectangular, but had architectural cut outs, that totaled approximately 4 square feet.. Thus, the requested sign area is being dropped from the previously recorded 32 square feet to 28 square feet. We then noted that the sign ordinance allows an administrative approval of a bonus of 10% of sign area based upon quality design of the sign. Therefore, an additional 2.4 feet would be allowable up to 26.4 feet. It was my opinion, that the difference between 28 and 26.4 feet was negligible. We found that the church had unfortunately already ordered the sign and it was not possible to revise it. A new sign would have to be made to conform to the allowed square footage. Staff agreed that we could allow it to occur under two conditions: 1. That the sign would be placed back a minimum of 20 feet from the right-of-way rather than the 10 feet applied by the ordinance. 2. The base of the monument sign would include landscaping. Therefore, based upon this decision, we are closing this file and an appropriate letter will be mailed to the church outlining the terms of agreement. pc: Planning Commission Sharmin Al-Jaff n t 4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 �-r (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 July 6, 1992 Mr. Bob Davis Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East 5th Street St. Paul, MX 55101-1634 Dear Bob: I have had an opportunity to review the Metropolitan Council's population, household, employment projections for the City of Chanhassen. These comments constitute our response as outlined under the 60 day review period the Metropolitan Council has provided. Relative to the population and household projections, we find that your numbers are very comparable to those which are contained within the 1991 Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan that was approved by the Metropolitan Council last year. Our plan was based upon reasonable rates of growth that are consistent with past trends and that we believe can be acceptably managed in a responsible way by our community. It is gratifying to see that the Metropolitan Council staff concurred with the city's expectations in this area since these represent a significant departure from earlier projections. I do have one concern, however, in _ this area. The first is that the average household size is projected to decrease from the 2.9 persons per household in the 1990 census down to 2.5 persons per household by the year 2020. 1 am not certain that we agree with this decrease. Chanhassen is predominantly a community made up of single family homes and this is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. The 1970s and 1980s saw significant decreases in household size down to its present levels. I am not aware of projections that would take this even lower since this would be indicative of a fairly significant societal change. The only rational basis that I can see for a decrease in household size 30 years hence is that household size may decrease to the aging of the population within the community. In any event, I would like to have some explanation — for this decrease. We do, however, have some significant reservations with the employment forecasts. Having recently been through an employment forecasting process, we realize that this is extraordinarily difficult to project accurately. We are also cognizant of the fact that job If �4 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Mr. Bob Davis — July 6, 1992 Page 2 growth in the coming decades is likely to fall significantly. However, we also believe that Chanhassen is in an excellent position to receive a significant percentage of the job growth that does occur. We base this assumption on several factors. The first is that Chanhassen has an extraordinarily large job base at the present time. With the 1990 population of approximately 12,000, we had over 6,000 jobs in our community. Chanhassen is also unusually well located on the east/west I-494/Hwy. 5 axis extending from the airport west to '— Chaska, in which all communities along this route have received significant employment growth. Access to our community is being significantly improved with the completion of Highway 5 and the pending construction of Highway 212. Lastly, we are one of the few — communities within this area to have significant undeveloped industrial parcels remaining. Last fall the city approved a 90 acre industrial park for Ryan Construction on Audubon Road, between Highway 5 and Lyman Boulevard. The first tenant of this park is to be the U. S. Weather Service, which is relocating its facilities from the International Airport into Chanhassen. We are also working with Ryan on a second 100 acre industrial park slightly to — the north along Highway 5, between Galpin Boulevard and Audubon Road. We are also working with Opus Corporation on a 190 acre industrial office park at the intersection of Highways 5 and 41. We understand that simply having land available for lot creation does — not mean it will occur. Yet we have a proven track record in this area and these projects are indicative of substantial investment by some of the larger developers. Apart from these major projects, there are several vacant areas remaining from our original pre-1991 MUSA area and — the pending construction of Highway 212 through our community could potentially offer additional growth areas late in the decade. Based upon these factors, it would seem that an anticipated employment growth of less than 1,500 jobs in the 1990s is unreasonably low. You have also forecasted virtually no increase beyond this point. We would ask that the Metro Council staff respond to this concern and — consider revising the employment forecasts. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review and respond to these projections. I would be happy to meet with your staff to discuss our concerns at your convenience. Sincerely, — Paul Krauss, AICP Planning Director PK:v pc: City Council Planning Commission Bonnie Featherstone JUN 2 4jMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mars Park Centre. 230 Fast Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-1634 612 291-6359 FAX 612 291-6550 Ti)'612 291-0904 — June 16, 1992 & - All Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Local Government Key Contacts Dear Key Contact Person: Enclosed are the municipal forecast allocations for your community covering the period from 1990 to 2020. The forecasts cover population, households and employment. Other materials included in this mailing are: • A summary of the forecast methodology used by the Council to develop regional forecasts and then to allocate these forecasts to subregions and municipalities. • The 1990 Census data for your community, which is the base for the Council's forecast process. • We are also enclosing a traffic analysis zone (TAZ) map for your community. The final step in the forecast process will be to ask your assistance in allocating local municipal forecasts to TAZs within your community. This process will not occur until third quarter 1992, however, we want you to have sufficient time to review the TAZ boundaries in your community. In the letter describing the Council's forecast process that I sent you early last fall, I explained that the allocation of the forecasts to local municipalities marks the third step in the regional forecast process. On November 14, 1991, the Council staff held a planners' forum to discuss the regional forecast totals for population, households and employment. On January 30, 1992, a second forum was held to discuss the subregional allocation of these forecasts to rings, sectors and planning areas. Many of you attended these sessions and participated in the discussions. As you are aware from these forums and from the materials contained in this package, forecasts for the seven-county Metropolitan Area are trend based. The base data for the forecasting are the 1990 Census results and employment data from the Minnesota Department of Jobs and Training. The forecasts take into account the relationship of the Twin Cities Area to growth trends in the United States, other major metropolitan areas, the multi-state region and the state _ of Minnesota The regional forecasts are next stepped down to major subregional areas, namely policy areas and quadrants. These areas are used because they have much more stable trends than individual municipalities. Local municipalities within the seven-county region share allocations of these subregional forecasts. In allocating local forecast shares, the Council has taken into account local supply of developable land, availability of public services and the relationship of the community to existing urban development. Other aspects of the local allocation process are contained in the attached methodology paper. The Council has reserved a 60-day period for local review and comment on the municipal forecast allocations. The process will operate in the following manner. 1. Forecast package mailed (June 16, 1992). Key Contact Person June 16, 1992 Page 2 2. Within three weeks Council staff will send communities a reminder that the review period for the local forecast allocations ends on August 14, 1992. 3. Communities with questions should contact the proper Council staff, as indicated in the forecast materials, or call Bob Davis of our staff at 291-6317. 4. On August 14, 1992, the local review and comment period will end and the Council will mail to each community the 1990 census-based population, household and employment data for each Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) within the community. Each community will be sent the final municipal forecast allocation totals (1990-2020) resulting from this local review process. Each city will be requested to allocate the forecasts to the proper TAZs within their corporate boundary. Council staff will provide assistance and will review the zonal allocations for consistency with forecast totals. During the local allocation review period, we would like to hear from any community that has information about development projects that might significantly alter our forecasts. Often plans for development projects change (or even disappear) before actual construction occurs; these plans cannot simply be inserted into the forecasts until they are firm. In particular, we are interested in any new projects where construction funds (public or private) have actually been committed. Also, any new growth must be considered by the Council within the context of growth in the region. Staff will be looking for unanticipated shifts of employers, other land use factors, such as a committed housing development, or a change in sewer capacity or highway access. We are all aware that over time conditions and forecasts will change. However, local community growth trends are much more volatile than region-wide changes primarily due to their smaller size. As such, cities and townships should be wary about using short-term growth trends to make long- range forecasts. Such trends will not be used by the Council to modify forecasts, but will be monitored and subsequently considered in actual decisions that are made in formal plan review's, or regional service investment proposals as part of our ongoing review process. The Council has established an Interim Forecast Process to deal with growth changes. Following our current forecasting work, this interim process will be updated for use in reviewing all local plan changes or projects relating to metropolitan system investments. If you desire a copy of the current Interim Forecast Process, please contact Bob Davis. Thank you for your participation in the forecast process to date. Our staff looks forward to working with you. S' cerely, /a4,/ e a/14644411i Mary EC/Anderson, Chair Enclosures cc: Metropolitan Council Members PRELIMINARY METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Forecasts for CHANHASSEN (CARVER CO) 1980* 1990* 2000 2010 2020 Population 6,351 11,732 19,900 26,000 32,000 Households 2,073 4,016 7,000 9,800 12,800 Employment ** 4,605 5,700 6,400 6,700 *Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census; Minnesota Department of Jobs and Training **1980 employment data is not comparable in all cases. NOTE: The employment data we are now using as a basis for forecasts and future monitoring comes from the Minnesota Department of Jobs and Training, and is usually referred to as "covered employment," or "ES202" data. It is derived from administrative files used for the unemployment insurance program. It does not include a small percentage of jobs that are not covered; for example, self-employed people. Cities that would like further explanation or data should contact the Council's research staff, below. Contacts: Overall coordination—Bob Davis (291-6317) Population, household base data—Kathy Johnson (291-6332) Employment base data—Regan Carlson (2914407) Population, household forecasts—Michael Munson (291-6331) Employment forecasts—Tim Fleetham (291-6374) PRELIMINARY METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Forecasts for CHANHASSEN (HENNEPIN CO) 1980• 1990• 2000 2010 2020 Population 8 0 0 0 0 Households 2 0 0 0 0 Employment •• 1,500 1,750 1,900 1,900 'Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census; Minnesota Department of Jobs and Training "1980 employment data is not comparable in all cases. NOTE: The employment data we are now using as a basis for forecasts and future – monitoring comes from the Minnesota Department of Jobs and Training, and is usually referred to as "covered employment," or "ES202" data. It is derived from administrative files used for the unemployment insurance program. It does not include a small percentage of jobs that are not covered; for example, self-employed people. Cities that would like further explanation or data should contact the Council's research staff, below. Contacts: Overall coordination—Bob Davis (291-6317) Population, household base data—Kathy Johnson (291-6332) Employment base data—Regan Carlson (291-6407) Population, household forecasts—Michael Munson (291-6331) Employment forecasts—Tim Fleetham (291-6374) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 o O 0 O Cu N .t co 0 O P O N P N O N O i0 O 'CV. O N— O P .O — O M .- ti yr N .O V 0 V N P.- P M N •O N Cu A •- N 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Nby o.O sr C.P r. NNPN � IA v un 0 un P. O r .O — N .O 2 r N W ICC O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Qp 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C. O P /+1 n 0 0 .t N co O v 1n n .O .O ti Ill P O .O Q O n O — S O N ti V .- .t V N .- rf..o. m N W CO N O Cu M N O ti N N In n A P. P OD O I. .t.' NI 00 M d0 .O V 0 O p` CO P O n P . co Hs N NP. .t .f V'I N Y1 ..t 0 P.1. P N wl P N .O Oa .- — CO V .D P — .O .O N .- KI. _ O oiw i 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N .- un sr ONO VsNN nAON .O 1. inn V\ H ON .OH V rip M n M CO N NIP.N — PP- N— .O n OO N un co V+ •O n V N O a- N r n 4. M O CD CD CD CD CD CD 0 0 n N 0 O IO. sr co O P1 .O it�y C In n N CD 0 o ca CD CD CD VI VI P O P O CO .0 O nn n O — N .t N — nI.N .O pc) sr C. .t 0H P. N C..- — — .— P.- CO .N V7 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O U O C. .- P O O P. n .s O Co v .0 P V'. CO O N O V+ C. h n 0 v O N Co P1 N 0 7. CO V rid .- P1 .0.- .- V1 N I. .t P.f N n .t = N V1 — — N W N — N S O .O I,- N O .O J O h ..Qp OO V1 .t d C P. O P N V1 p. 1. O 'C —— .OP. O• f0 — No .0 n — v OO ..77 n NO 0 O P N N N O N N n .- n .O — 1n N A V V O.t .t N .O J .t .- .O O O /. O H .O P N .-PI O .t — N O N d 1. Go O O N .r .t 4..O .O V. r ti O V. O H t. 0 . N .t n .. P N O V+ - - .. P N PJ N O O N n— — in V1— . .t . .t P V .O .t .3 N O — N n N 0 0p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 — N V P - O O #- N 0 A NO O O O O .0 V1 O O V1 O 0 O .O O 0 OD OPOP .- 4D .t In n O PI C. n PP V1 N N O N P w. w. N — .f IP. —n.—.— n CO n O O O O. V._ •— O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _O 0 0 0 0 0 0_ I O O O C O O r. O V1 .f ti V. O I. P N V. N O O IA n •-• O coP 0 O .O •- .O PI in n O PI un n V1 PP .O nr nl. P O 4.N N .ON p. P- 04 r P1 .f n— — /rr1 -- P N . U \ d — OD 2 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O II 0 0 02 N N O O 7. P un N O V1 1n d 1. V1 .p 0 O In O 1n V1 N CO .-' O O P O P P N n N n O N in P1 .t OO n O n 170 n IA P N t N C..3 . �N .' P1 .t.'N.. N W CO 11 _ .T O .t N Pd M .O P4 sr O N NI - NI .I OJ P CO Ch.T•O _N pp P P7 nA .O P P .O .O n PS V10. V1POO sr in `L` P OPCP.. n . V1N.rPON'. PI 1P) . n .J N V nnP P G — ft � N — NP144,- N•-- N —4 .4 01 2 ID v L V O POOV — .OVIVIN O .rONPONDN _IC. . N .O V L CO n P .T O .! N/. P C CV J — In N n O N n V1 v C P P O .0 In n n C V1 N V n .1. n n N .O.t •O V O.t N CP, O L - VD GO — .- N — �N.-.-r.- A S — NI I. O - G .. O r > OC F_ a . a o o Or t Y O 2 v 1.. N I- U N 1,- W W 0 1t O < .4 t < S < z V CC 2 2 IX d « Z IY CC V33 W C aa O. P. W O W W DM It Id U I.7 O O > r Cr 1.7 I. 0 2 2 C C C. V J — J .0 > .- 0 > 2 GI 0 O O U l W W r O O W W 2 2 < W 7 ¢ 2 2C ¢ C C C S = 2 .J I.[ I► 7C K S U U U .- r Cc N < W « 2 S S O « Q O t or W0 4 « .0 ZS CP O Cc. v U CO LI U U U U U 0 2 2 2 . S 2 2 V: > _ = 3 2 Y 1,- 4- In • , N - NQNm -- OmNNNONNNC�NcDO - 1, w- NI - W M00- WCDCDtD MNU WOW W 00003< ONu,tamNCDQ - W N - NN - - C) -- - WNWQC) N- oe J O0O - -m 4 U) J U ONO U) U)- w ✓ L a �c N U. U - = > Z W 0 O 2 0 4r. m W-mMWOmmv DNNWNoNmwoWmv0000 0(CIDo V 4 r mC' 0 QQN N Q0NNN mNNmNmU) QU))nCDNW N- )n )nm)nN-Qm- Z 0 0 N O — > Z 0 - NN- -C) - - - CDN WU)C) N- - m O 4 CO • F co rU. X C QL � 4+ Z wa I o o 4 C. 0 a > •• O V •• N m W V) N mU) ONNMwmNW OlvWvNW W-- Ovve7QNWNp Nmo N >w S OC J C7 U)N -C7N- 0OU) Q my 00- mQw)nc')W W WWOU)OONmm W W C eE Z W 4 N NUU)NNWC) CO C)NUN0WQC7--N- I 10 U OWN coc00 U•>• F. --- OZ a ONO 0 - 0 CZ NO - U)r Om W O Z - a.. wr - NNmmvv00WWWNNw Oa v o w 0 ,-0 J C N Q co O U) m N mm \ 4 W I I ) ) ) ) ) C ) ) ) ) ) ) ) i Y U N () - W FO )- I I c7 o z ONQun �DNmmO. Nin000UOUONUOUOU - W L G Z Z - -- - a 4 F O-M Uf CD N N N N N C9 C)Q Q In N lD LD CO N N CD m o-. J 4 W \ _N O 000 000 000 00 0 )+) CO S �OWNN�.- �? NO 800 000 000 00 0 000 C. OWN C)NN 080) 00000 W a- O FO ►- >N G ONO) O- O - F .' WOO OWO 000 00 0L C • C 4 F 4 4W N V W< C)mN O IO^ Z N0 N N N N co Ia. • .. - Z NCO CO COON C• CD Di CC L a 2c, IC . 0 0 N ' N C7 m N a ) w 0..W - - 0 Z N Ny 4 U F0 -1 J ^ O w W ••• W U) CY Z V) 4 Z N C 4 J OOMO- 4CN '1 Z N C Z .. co) m 0 02 C „ . 0 N 02 L 00c 0.. . J Z 0 Z 4/J .... • -1tMUM - 2 0 C N 0 F N N «U+ 0 N 0 cg N J O OF O w C O C OF C F2 0 rW.NC FF ZO C0 .N0 C7 W WW O NO N OO CCW WO Q ZCY U Fa Fr 4 rrF wy Owl- Wr.N Z W -• ae 4 > Qww- .Jr a - - Z Z C N OM N = r a w N r U I ON W W > 044 C.) OW Q (. 4 4 4 - a ZJW U NF v) I4S C0NN L .. 0 U 02 Z 4 _0N MIX - Va) ON 0 W 0 rZ 0 NU-F F4 4 40 •+ Caw C 00 C r C C Z O S a. V) 0 -0 O>NZZO 4C w C•.• 0 0 ZW r Z S mw CO rr •.4 WZ CN > UV) 00 -14 OS •G 4004 4 > S_040 > > FO FJr WCWCZW WZ UFZoC 0- Z UOZJrr a W C� 4 WJJ a MU 0 UI NZ W 2•••44 W C2 - Z W- <aZC F W F- owmam L O - wY-- ZC O 04X WmI 0= 0CUFUW W CCJr.CI4wO a ) 0 \ JNUaY4w S.. J . WOO, v J U CCZ0>S W4J.. W0V)SC .. m 0 4 - 4uw v)-S 41- UI000 • 4 a 0 W SOF SO0-II-NW W - W O \ N I J l w V)F • F O- a C W U Z I -20 Q O U I w > 0 0 w a C a 0304 4 0 m 022 N Vf.Z U a F 01.1. 4',. ,e 44L ZOWO 000000 O F ' CN FOCDN C)CDOON -C)- NQN- ON-- 0000 0000N U a 4 1 w c0 0 0 0 0 0 v O U . 8 m Wao 8 aS�� a8N0 0000- 00000000000 0000 00000 r) O 0 N 0 0 0 0 N N m Nmm mmOOU) -Oe•-NeowOON- x000 -000N L N N N N NON ()aN WC) m -C7 NU)N NN N W NV - C ••CDB • • > - - - Z ..J - Z 4 0L O,• V) O MO 04 \Z 4W .. ZO WC N U) 40 F C w 4 4 0 0 _ 2 L 0 O 0. O W C C J 4 - VI .. WN W .. 4 C W4 > •• NF a a F 2 N N W 21 OW NZ 4W. r W m W S Z 4 •• .. NJQQ • Z Z W 2 F I Z W 4C 0 N y 42 U 4 Z Z •• 0 0 -1 4 z4 • > 2 0 W .. z 0> j= rW. W W roc a O oz .- Naz o- 4-4 _ W.>. 204 C W QWE V)r I4 4 -1r4 aWZ 1000 4 N W O W O U r ` IF Z CN••2z W Z V)V)V Z N a v 4 Z 0zarm 4 U W r 4 4 C 0 Z w Z 4 v2 Uo•• IF 02waz242oc7r IW W ,-3X22OI W Z C �N a W O J 4O W YrIC ••••=242-144 W Fo� 2Fr W W >3IOSC4S4 • - W W - JZFJN 0vJW 4 0:vJF VOCrW Y W Orr JarOC WZ0O4SrJ44OF VONJVC Ca NN Q 442Z04 4JI 4 4rawlelowrNSr4NOrQ 2FC,)OSv)FOr00w4w \ 4 4 \ N 0 .. O C N • F 4 w J F I N 4 W 4 U 4 U W 7 4]L> U.J F 0 4 a I I a= CO Ni- ..- OC = o U) OI W N 03034 W .4 a O V) a N NNO CZ a F a N \ o • L 1- • . .-- N FO F MOVM OwO N VS vv 0 a0 N N- Mw =a 000)0 N - O 00 0 I oMr000000O0 0000000 O N O- I S 0000000 J - Z I > •• 0 N 0 U ••^ CU)- Nw - V N- w MM 0 a Z 1- W wU) N - c0 w C)1nN -- W _ O > N - O- 4 4 - COW InMN F I- O Z w W N V V w J a U < J � N 0 - N W IX C) 0 C)1) < - Z 0 Z v M = 0 0 I- CO 0 Lu Z � 0. a Zm0000- ON 0000NO( J W 4N • W • O O I.O- 0000NON o o wZ W =1- 01- ••NC C I- 0) 0. 0 a 0 N ••w Z J 2 o m o C7 m O 0 - >,- 0 m • >o W O w mu.' 1- - C CO I-C O IJJNINV) WaZ 2 •••• 1- > W W a < - 0 W W W W I- - - I- W UJ C a It. 0 a () WZ I C VIa > a • . 0 I -J wt- 0 C') 00 W- J N\ 4 WaOa- N < 2 • I Z 10 > 0 0 •• 0C OWN 0 1-w DOV) I - 0 Z 00. 0 •L�) 0. O u) I W J W ••W O W= •< > 0.. a u) In•• O N N 0+ 0 00 O- aO W NJ.+ H W C O - OM IJ Ja W I•••W W I- aO0 W X -- Z 0w WO -a2 3-12 = 4 01- 1- MOM0000-ON 0000NOM 4 0 > NI 241- w < J O.- = a 0a- .- . I•+ Mw UI0J0I0Mw a1- w4 Ow 0000P- ON Cl) 2 woo <Z W Zwa 0012 a/- 0) a Q CO -- N O) • 0< 4202 ZZZI U. 22 21- 0 C7= .4- Q NI O 0 v N N N v O O Z I 0 0 2 - 2 0 •-• Y W W M - U > J • a 1-. P.. -Q W 0 4 ,Zr - M J J U)I •.. CO U. \ e` N 0 v) 001 M 00 0 N 4� CO Z 0001 N 00 0 > WVMFMc) L7r) V OMM0 nln - 4F N 3. 004.- N .....01 I-N a a - 1- 0 cna -- - W 3t < - - m- - ..- > a 01- 0 L') .- 00NI J aw U • • N NNFmN m . . .mNNU)NMOO 0 W 44- '• a 0 F.- NCO Z U)N 0 W N M ON.- SS CCI Q• ^ - w 0 N N O• QQ P)- - - Z - 0a « < a I- 2 040. 2 w 4^ 1 0•)•..•m > WO 0 w Cl- Z U) - NF W c') 0. W J 1 > .t 0> OU M .-1M N v mw m Ci .-vaDNaoi0e 0NCM W O W ZJ V) < ..4v N 0 - m* 00 •• .. II HU) - - • . • . 4-4- ma F - ZZ N N W a W 0. W 1 < Non 0 Q O N - 0I071- 0Om - CO < 0 o 0 - 2w Z 0 (/) 1 J N- L') 24C = 1- N J Jet 00 0 • O OOw 0 W C I- W C 0 N Qp W J J J ••N a y J= I A < 0. w 2 W 20W < OW < OM (' Or 1- > 0. W > w...02 2 MW 2 - O2U N F- 0 •• 0000 (7 W00MW0Z ZUX 2 < .. 0= 1- W 0 I J Z V)J Z W N ~ 4- - < J Ow 00w 4 >0 W 4 ..0 < .- > = • 00 o < JN 020 ...1F20 >0 >-<Z - w ZJ • 1- 0 Oa J J wI- 20..2 (7 .. 1-2ON 1- Vt 00 w .-. w 2w 0 >0 0 <I0ZJ Zw40.. m0 40N00)VU)V O) - W0U) W NNU) •- I U a 1- w > I JIw J42 -• w.. J > W a JJN- 0MPmv - - - - - > w 4 < 4 CO••. W .- W N0 W w >4.-J >1- W aOa W W.•-M W QN.- Nr'Q NCCNmQ.- 4N J I 0 a MZ OZ OCw0Zw' O < •- 000 )- I- MX . N- (') - JO 0. w 4 07 04002ZOJJ2IJ2z0 •-aa tom - --- 0O ,- - ma I- owomt- oz4 W Oa1-W 4 I am m Cww JS I00Z I W 20027 1 2 O a •• 00 4 Z 2 21- 0 1 3 O 1 0 x 40. W 0 L') 1- 2 - ►- 2 -0 IC - M w I a 1-1- O W N OF - W Mw0 V) < 0. 4w U 0. 1- o- w< 0 • < wI U < 00 0 it v J Z U V I- > 31X0. 0 > J V P)O N N N N W W O I n W (7 N V 0•- 0 - O W 0ww ... ... T00m.- ')OOv- - - - NW 4\ a 1- ZZ 030 OWN (O -_ 0 W WInNNM .-V NV WNW V- 12awmCU UOm "- W 00 0 NM •-• •-• M UO. < i O. 0mm O -. O Cl) 0. = m m 0 N LOCNPM < - m F J M FFMMSN 2 NW (') P)N -U)-U)LOC)N (POWLO 0 2 - 0 0 N NO . 0N • N M- ONW NV VM N-h-- ^•• N 2 - CO-M O- - - OMN V - ..- PMOPNMNO NO)U)WC.-N > 00 w - - a J W C -M O O U)C • • • • ' • . - W<w W O N N M- V N M W N W V - Z I• WI J Qs- • N- M .- 0 =0 J ON ••W W w 2 1- - U CU. 0 J • 24 0O ZZ v) F- 000 Na OZZ <Z w N -J 00 40 0 aJ J J Z= 00 N < MO 0 2W > N J 0 Q« 0 0 Z N = N N 1•- W Z I w- J W a 0 0 .. ••N a <0. 000 V)a a 0 a< W MV)J 0. W 4 N W>I OMO W N N11== = 4 4 V) •• 000•- I >a w \ W 0.' 0 0.W as Nut Na x044 4W W w4 4 CJ0Iv< 4- 0 2 > 0JZ W0Z - as =4 4 W W W > > II NN 0024 W W •• 0 a .-.00 W1- .+ Z Z II U-I-. OW IA0C W 0 I- ICCWC • NW Will W> >0» > MN _ r- - .• \ 0 W a JM -J002w CO 04> W W >4Z • 20 » > M V OFFMF i P N Z 0 W 2 Wa J O 1 JJ.• .00•• ON 00. CU)r-a a - 4 ••Z .. 20. .-20.a Q1w >J J .- 4-.0.0 1-..w C Q - -0 a.-W 0 Qp 4 O W O W I \ w I 4 W > .. J0 4 2=44004 1-Wm 4- > a - 4 0W2 WO1- >t- I U) a N v)NW N v). w - L . IW a U JJaOaw 4"" W 000 < OW OQ4S •-• Z ZZ Z MZ OZWOMMOMwZWWWMF I- -JZ > 1- J04 2 .. M 4 04004 V) I - Oa00.- ppa 41- < 2ZZMMZM1-w< 0.-0• 0.Z< > ON V U1S0MU)w ) -. WW \ 1- m>maF- a `r JI oal2Na4- 000p0020 w2m0w- 4 -Nve4eaeacseak:t m r .- N 0 w0ww0 W • 4 22100 COOZZIIZ 21- 0 • O O \ 44 . 1- 0.F-aal-a N 1- 21-I .. Z •.0 N0 S N I- 00. 0. I- 0. \ CO 0 . • 0) • N at at at r a r in Q O 0 L > to 0 0 tr>O 8O t0 O N t� c� r o) 0 0 mO 0 - - 8 CC 0 a NO 0 Nt a tn.m. ... Nt7 O IL.. J ^ W w F U hQ C•) c0 LO 0) � O 0 '0 CO NCOhh 0007 CO O > w 0 0 4.0 0Z 0L O) 4) O C) N.-N CO U 4 a 4 w 4-4 a WLu CC N H ZD Z 0 w U w Z U Z W 4 0 M0 00 I 4-4 �o L J W 0 2 h O. 0 r N N to' 0 W t7 m0 0 0.- O O ham<n N� 0 a U . 0 m0 0 00 8 m . 0 m0 0 0- 0 -cvno��n(N p r > W 0 0 0. OO 8 a mN. 'Z..' W WCL 0 L Z 2 O w w m zO CO CO NN N W 4 CO W w° 0 ON W Qt0- 0) 0h ' CO t')0).- Oahh N MW C7 Q 0^ N M0. OC 0•-0M.'' Q W r • 4 V) 4-4 W a 20. N LL. co al- I ZO -- N 3 3 L 0 , > Z m 00 0 0 0 Y C C.7 W 0 C a C.) C') CO N 0 04-. -LO O �0 N N N�, _� � �, 0 L •J-OWt m 0- 0 m0 0 00 8 22 a 0 • • .. = \ J N a 0) C V) a �(I C)..- O W W CO = .•+ WI U 0 V1 W H ai- wZ N 00 0 JZ on HO 0 F N- et CO CD I .••. 00 >2 MZ 2 00 OZZ Of ' 0 W0 N Wt7 O Nh .- e 0 0) 0) tD C U OZ W � P)N tD P) � 0L � V^ O> > 2 Q OU aOCm7 � �.O 0 = r �� ZO N w m 0 I pj M Q LU S0� CI 0t 0 0 r 4, < w 0 0 V) tnyv2 0 00 0 L m 40 0 C N ) C \ C W I OM 2 C0.- 0.- W0 W W C H 4.1W O~ W O > a -~ 0 _0 > Z t- 0 as 2004 m Z0.-. - O V)V)V)V)V)to 4 Wet V Z2 4LLU. > U CCCCCC 0C A t- W U .<•. _,•w. 40 J«. mu 44 < 444 Mat M CC II )0 20 OIC 2 < 4 0 Z404 WO > > > > > > + L 0 Ca W .. Caw Ca W pC .. O F U 4- 0 2 C W 4 W W0 2 0 C W 4 W MU 0 = W Q Q Q Q Q Q a' Z2 w < 000C U • 4 4000p0 0 wC tai Nt7aln tphLU O 0) > W Y U 2 Z < C 4 C 01 Z 4 H W t t t ) ) ) > Z .- 2 I- UCY < J W WY►•«• Z4C C > 02 U Z 4 W V).- CnI J \> -. UCY4Jw -(NC) Iflcnln 4 2JZwV)••. > J _ I Om 4 W tn..N2 J NZ C7Qtntph I- .> < I- 3004 4 0 4 I JZw .,0 4 0 4Cn J 3m44 4 O 4 I...... OF J= a MO MM I- 0 14 L a 0 000000 pO tnrap tnc� tntn rOtn tn200t00ir— toa) N r wow0 0000000 0 a0 Cf 000 (1 tn (.-0 000 ^ 0O • W< O 0 F OOCrrre9tnQrtO t0 N V)JZ CO UH 2 C W < a t=n w 4 > Z v)a) M Ca t0 c7 0) in P) CO 0 0 4 to CO Q 12 In)n C9 r GO Q 0 C7 20W0 pCO HQ NCO M0) t0N N N > 1N00)- NOrtn uwCCU 0) 000Om ZC9 ZN 0ato N WO 0W C. CI)CIC' QQ� • 6.)041 a a 0 N N 4 Z 0 v Q C.) Cr Z O6.a)CO to 6.v 0 _m a Q WN t7 i < NNN 0 =C0 .Z. WO N W I 0 ~w F- H 0 LOU ),-0. O >- . Z I . J mU .W.J 2 t4 ZOU 0.4 O 0 tn4 02 0 0 00 0 N to 0 J ~ > 04-4 0 ' U 00 F <W ••. ON CN — Z 0 4 O O F 4 J22 G4 0 =Z 4 0W WN LZ HW 0 Z O 2 W0 W 4 OM C r 4Y 0 W W W to •• 02 tuN H ?a O W 0C 40 C2 0 •CO0 4.4• 4 C .. N.- >J •23 C9•-. W.W.. >OJ -J3 21 V) 2 C g0 ..• a J0 JO I-_Z 0040 0t0•0 002024 Z a I MCC 0w U to t Z •• M 0 W t•0 0 0 0. 0440 00 Z \W 0 0 Z J O 4 U 0 > tO Z 0 O N W O<N C > 4N 0) O WO '•. MO WCL CV)WNet O Zee \N COC WQOWZw 01 > — ZN C C WCW CVfI- LU _ Ow O..in L \W 0. 22 ZOtCZCOOtI �W 0. 22ZOtCZeOoci W W > JZNt- JO N > J 03 W 400W0 Of- _> Jm34444OOW OCO,- 0) 1- 4-- ~ • Z < 42OCt- 4 000 UwUCL W0 \« 4U0CU W LL.CLOw0 \ < 4 0 I- 4- a 0 O C 0p 0 0 0 4 Q 2 1-‘) 3 00 I- .0 CZ I� r- _` 00 3 . m0 • — 1. • 0) 0 0-- 0 NN n -a 4.-NON m C W m0 ONO N4 co �mrn MUMrnO C 1- w (. W Q) 0 000 01 .- 0 000 ZaC) 44m44 4 ZoomO QO - - • • w wove MMM MM M W meet J CJ0).- NON C) lc) Q 0 - 4C WC CC.) CICI �•` J 0 w < Cr U1 _O<^ < If) a ^ J - I V M 1.014.1, •• I > > - N v) < C) V O 0 <I- 1- U w 4 MM MMM NO M I- >O)NOD CU 0 ZZ > 0^ M.- - Z^ W< 4 0 2 00 7 MM (7F 4N 1- V 4 St- .... 2 2 Z 0 u- 2 22 O 7 0 U 4 (D 00 0O 00 p0 ^ J W ? Z W •O U) U) • 8 1L1 O 0 2.. O< aD O r 03 .- m O O 0 .-. I- QU) NNU) �r 0) 2 < v) HMN C0)m ••'� N 2 a 0 •• v) < W NU) U)U) N NC) 0 w W MD Zmlc) MOM Cao I O W W — 0 0 - MD 00 .- N N O N NW m 0 J J 00 W w • • M • - . - - J J C N 00 1.61-1 • • M -M - W -N .. ..I N C N C).- V N 0) V w w I. > W I C < c - C) NN 0) .. I- I- 2 4 WO ON WO (D Z r r W W C U 0 > 00 M N M 0 0. C C 0 C7 H N N N .. C C Z J 0 0 et et et 0 4 4 OW W044 M M N 4 4 ZO 2w 4 M M M U 0 0 Z•• Ca 0 0 0 MZ a .- U 0 0 40. C7 C 0 0 0 N--• as 0D 0 W O W wt..) <2 W O W U C O J O U0 0 0 O J O 10w J Q J 4 0 0 W J 4 J O Z < >< m , < > 4 Z C 0 >2 > >W 0 > Z > < w C < C 0)1- U C4C -v) Y 2 0 w.-,w Z V LU ... W 1- 0 W 3 L01.0 r et N 1.0N C) W 3 O 0 1- w N Q N O 0 VN - 0 2 0 a W 0 u0 0 N r 0) .. O W a Z C 0M et U) I O W a J2 J 4 0- - w JZO W HU) (c) N C JZO •• = m cc H .. CO •-- Lu w \ Lu .•. C) C) cn U W 2 1- W Z m 0) (LM 0. U Li. 0 w r 0 0 W Z 21 40 wu 0 MU _ U1 - W 0 i 2 0 0 J 0. w 2 a .. w • > 2 < u) Y 0 N ON Y 0 C > 0 J N. C U N J .•- N1... U. - < OW rte.. C w •• W N C 2 - — I • z w - 0 > O W .. 0 w U UJ 0u ., < 4C 2 • U_ 2_ 2 40 Z • U2_ Ca V)t--CC 0 > .. .1 w 2 0 1. 0> 4 I. .. O N I N \ r .. 0 0 4 .. 4 (7 4 CI- — z z < aC w •• 2 0 4 am aw Z w W < O? 5- a U -UJ O J ZD a w 00 1- 0 rr WC ZOOc < 20 4 =v 2004 2V Ow U) U 10 > • <w0 - > • 4W OC •• V > M < L W U J W Z r U J LL Z OMC N •• WY •• 4ZC •- 04 (5C ••W1C..4ZC ••04 Z 2 < t0 \ J1- UC 4w J a J • -.W J1- UC < W J 0. J •= I C N < .- < U .-. I <5- 11) a U WO 4 4 w m o.2 4 ,-0 4 U te•- 000 N 1- 2 JI0U1- 1- O •. 1- (7 C)J 1- 2JZ000- P- Q.•. 1- N — Z 0304 < 0 022 0 N 0 03034 4 0 021 0 m a • (D 1- 1- 1- \ In 2 1- 1- 1- J N CO (7 W 2411 •• \ C) ,...0 CO 0 .-. W 0 N VM (y N- Z U 4 �I 4 JZ 0. N N (7 N a w I I 2 2 O 0. 1 0 U. N W 0 0 W < O N J Z U ..1'414 14 MN U P- OO- OO-� �N (DC0)m (DN(') mCON 0 O UaNNN(DNW.-MOM .-OVNC 0 0 0 ZCCww0 O a000000000(fCNm U) ( 0DNN. (' O O w a0000— , (, O— NmN(o—a— r (s O Ua4Z .. ..- a NN •• m 0 m U 0 rn V 0 0 0 O .- 0M. �NvefomNvinaDrN ..-a-� m I N..NcmwlnarW(DNraDerO N N m NN N C Orm0)(DNCCC)N m W -� -(Drlf)-- N.- U) .- ID w... r 6.6 In 1n - > 2 v) (7 2 U) 2 0 •• C•• 02 2 O 00 OD U W W u. Z W 2 1,•.w 4V v) 0)0) 0)0) 0)0) 0)0) VU) /- M- W 0 0)0) 0)0) m 0) 0)0) W 0 a 0 0) 0) 0) 0)0)0) 0)0) 0) m 0)0) m 0) m 0) m 0) In.0 w 0 •• 0X 0 0) 0) 0) 0) 0)0) 0) 0) 0) 0) • • • • • • - - FC NS W < 0 0) 0) m 0) 0)m m m m m v m Q m m m m m W 2 — Zf . . . . . . . . •N4NM4WW9C W .. Z W •m Q m Q m Q m m Q m.- � - - N NC)Q O mow 0 cX V) In - NNC) c7C U)rm4MMMMMMMZ N 1-8 W 4 I C -M M M M M M M M M M .m 2- 0)m m 0)m m m m m m m m 0) m C V t- •• 2 mu M 00000000 UW WMvm< mermam< m< m< m0 2 WZ > 0000000000 0 4 > C --NN (o(oetcU)U)(DWrmI 2 W I w ^ Z 8 pQ pQ pQ pQ pQ Qp QQ QQ pq QQ Qp pQ QQ pQ QQ QQ QQ QQ C.. Z M M M M M M M M M M M M M M H C — -ww >v ZN -ID ~ pOVOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO J ZO U2000O00000000000 3 4 J m 1- 0- tn . • ppu� Ou)p Oppp 4 H Op000000OpOpO 4 V 4 ID < a • (n0000M0000U) ONlo - 000pp 1- 2000000000000 000 r r (D 5- 5- C) W - NNc7C)000WN .- - - .- NNC)QU) O N. • 1- 11J.-.-NNC)(7000U) WWNNv- 0 0 0 N 00 N ..J4444444444#4444#44#444444444444444* 5- 0) .....1############### 1- Z f � . m I 3 0 • • Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 111 Third Avenue South, Suite 350 Phone:(612)332-0421 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Fax: (612) 332-6180 USA May 27, 1992 Mr. Paul Krauss, City Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 _ Re: TH 5 Corridor Land Use Study Dear Mr. Krauss: Barton-Aschman, with assistance from Camiros, has initiated study on the TH 5 corridor. This work, consistent with our prior proposal submitted on April 22, 1992, will emphasize land use designation and urban design principles. Based upon the City Council's approval, the initial tasks will be completed on a time and expenses basis as directed by city staff. The consultants will bill the city directly for staff time and expenses incurred during Task 1, Collect and Organize Information, and Task 2, Issues, Opportunities, and Constraints. The consultant team will update the city on a regular basis as to progress being made and any specific issues encountered. The first phase of this project should be completed by mid-July. Prior to completing the remainder of this study, a formal proposal will be submitted to the city for review and acceptance. Please contact me directly if the contents of this letter are inconsistent with our prior discussions of the Council's direction. We look forward to working with you and other _ city staff in completing this important assignment. Sincerely yours, Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Barry . arner, ASLA, AICP — Princip Associate BJW:dmv — cc: Joyce Levine, Camiros ''— -� ,j r-n,J ' Jnrn r,