Loading...
05-6-92 Agenda and Packet FILE AGENDA — CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 1992, 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER — PUBLIC HEARINGS l.a. Background Memorandum regarding Recreational Beachlot Non-conforming Use — Permits. 1.b. Non-conforming Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot for Minnewashta Creek Homeowners Association. 2. Non-conforming Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot for Trolls Glen Homeowners Association. — 3. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Chapter 20 of the City Code pertaining to mining and earth work. 4. Interim Use Permit for Grading/Excavation located at Lot 5, Vineland Addition, Fortier and Associates. 5. Interim Use Permit for Grading/Excavation located at Lot 7, Park One 3rd Addition, Fortier and Associates. 6. Wetland Alteration Permit for the Reconstruction of County Road 17 and the — mitigation of an additional 0.05 acres of wetland along Lake Drive, City of Chanhassen. — NEW BUSINESS OLD BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT /CITY 4 F tf,'„ ,,, li). t CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 i MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson Planner II DATE: May 1, 1992 SUBJ: Background for Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlots BACKGROUND On February 24, 1992, the City Council approved the Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlot Ordinance. This ordinance required all non-conforming recreational beachlots to obtain a permit, based on the level of use in 1981. The goals of the process is twofold. The first is to return these beachlots to their 1981 status which is the date which they became non-conforming. The second is to facilitate their regulation and operation in the future. The ordinance requires that these non-conforming beachlots obtain a permit within one year from the date of adoption of the ordinance or cease and desist. Under the ordinance a public hearing before the Planning Commission is required with then a recommendation be forwarded to the City Council. The City Council encouraged the use of all available data to achieve a reasonable determination. Because it will take several months to take all of the beachlots though the permit process, it seems fair that those that go through the process first have the same rights as those who go through the process last. Therefore, compliance with the ordinance will be effective February 24, 1993. Staff will be presenting the Planning Commission with documentation as to the their interpretation of the level of use in the summer of 1981. The homeowners associations have completed an application; and in some cases provided documentation as to the level of use they are requesting. es .0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission May 1, 1992 Page 2 Staff will not being making a recommendation as to the level of use that should be permitted. Instead, staff has provided the Planning Commission with the inventory of each beachlot completed in the summer of 1981. Again, this data is based on a one day observation of the beachlots. A copy of the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance is attached. Those items that are not in conformance with the ordinance need to be addressed. Staff has prepared a Permit Form so that all items approved for each beachlot can be identified. RECOMMENDATION — Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission interpret the level of use based on the information presented by staff, information submitted by the association, and information gathered at the public hearing. Details of each application are provided in the following separate reports. NON-CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT PERMIT Approval Date Association Lake Number of Homes Size Shoreline Motor Vehicle Access Off-Street Parking Boat Launch Buildings Picnic Tables Grills/Campfires Seasonal Dock Diagram Canoe Racks Boats on Land Boats at Dock Boats Moored Swimming Beach Marker Bouys Swimming Raft Miscellaneous Attachments: Planning Commission Minutes City Council CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 163 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING NON-CONFORMING BEACHLOTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS : Section 1. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-79 to read: Sec. 20-79 . Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlots. (a) Intent. The intent of this section is to prevent the expansion of non-conforming recreational beachlots by estab- lishing a baseline documenting the allowed use of each legal non-conforming recreational beachlot. (b) Within one year after the adoption of this ordinance all non-conforming recreational beachlots must receive a non- conforming use permit or the use must cease and desist. The permit shall be issued following receipt of satisfactory proof concerning the nature and extent of the legal non-conforming use as it existed on or before January 18 , 1982 . The permit shall describe the nature and extent of the allowed use. The use may not be expanded or intensified over what is described in the permit. (c) Applications for a non-conforming use permit shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator on prescribed forms. The Zoning Administrator shall set a time and place for a hearing before the Planning Commission. At the hearing the Commission shall hear such persons as wish to be heard. Notice of the hearing date shall be mailed not less than ten (10) days before the date of the hearing to all owners of property on the lake where the beachlot is located. Published notice shall also be made once at least ten (10) days before the hearing. Failure to give notice, however, shall not invalidate the proceedings. At the close of the hearing the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council . Upon consider- ation of the Planning Commission recommendation the City Council , shall then make the final decision and the non-conforming beachlot permit, establishing the nature and extent of the use shall then be issued. Section 2 . Violation. The violation of any provision of this ordinance shall be a misdemeanor punishable to the maximum r03/13/92 ( ' 82 Baseline ) ZONING § 20.263 (2) Areas where the land slope exceeds twenty-five(25)percent shall not be considered as a potential soil treatment site. . (31 The sewage treatment system must be in conformance with chapter 19, article IV. (4) School and day care uses accessory to the church use are not permitted unless approved by the city council. (Ord. No. 80. Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(7)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-260. Private stables. The following applies to private stables: (1) Stables shall comply with chapter 5, article III. (21 Stables must be located a minimum of two hundred (200)feet from wetland areas. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(8)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-261. State-licensed day care centers. The following applies to state-licensed day care centers: (11 The site shall have loading and drop off points designed to avoid interfering with traffic and pedestrian movements. (2 Outdoor play areas shall be located and designed in a manner which mitigates visual and noise impacts on adjoining residential areas. (3) Each center shall obtain all applicable state, county, and city licenses. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(9)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-262. Hospitals and health care facilities. The following applies to hospitals and health care facilities: (1) The site shall have direct access to collector or arterial streets, as defined in the comprehensive plan. (2) Emergency vehicle access shall not be adjacent to or located across a street from any _ residential use. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(10)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-263. Recreational beach lots. Intent. Based upon experience, it is recognized by the city that the use of lakeshore by multiple parties may be an intensive use of lakeshore that may present conflicts with neigh-. boring uses of lakeshore or the use of other lakeshore on the same lake or the lake itself. Further,beachiots may generate complaints if they are not maintained to the same standards as single-family lakeshore lots. Therefore, the city requires the following conditions for rec- reational beachiots, in addition to such other conditions that may be prescribed in the permit: Supp. No. 2 1179 § 20.263 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (1) Recreational beach lots shall have at least two hundred (200)feet of lake frontage. (2) No structure, portable chemical toilet. ice fishing house. camper, trailer, tent, recrea• tional vehicle or shelter shall be erected, maintained or stored upon any recreational beach lot. (3) No boat, trailer, motor vehicle, including but not limited to cars, trucks, motorcycles. motorized mini-bikes, all-terrain vehicles or snowmobiles shall be driven upon or parked upon any recreational beach lot. (4) No recreational beach lot shall be used for overnight camping. • (5) Boat launches are prohibited. (6) No recreational beachlot shall be used for purposes of overnight storage or overnight mooring of more than three (3) motorized or nonmotorized watercraft per dock. If a recreational beachlot is allowed more than one(1)dock,however,the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up to three (3) sailboat moorings shall also be allowed. Nonmotorized watercraft such as canoes, windsurfers, sailboards and small sailboats may be stored overnight on any recreational beachlot if they are stored on racks specifically designed for that purpose. No more than six (6)watercraft may be stored on a rack. The number of racks shall not exceed the amount of storage necessary to permit one(1)rack slip per lot served by the beachlot;however,in no case shall there be more than four(4) racks per beachlot. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is permissible at any time other than overnight. (7) The maximum number of docks on a recreational beachlot is three (3). No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beachlot unless the beachlot meets the following conditions: a. Shoreline of at least two hundred (200) feet per dock, and b. Area of at least thirty thousand (30,000) square feet for the first dock and addi- tional twenty thousand (20,000) square feet for each additional dock. (8) No recreational beach lot dock shall exceed six (6) feet in width, and no such dock shall exceed the greater of fifty (50) feet or the minimum straight-line distance necessary to reach a water depth of four(4)feet. The width(but not the length)of the cross-bar of any "T" or "L" shaped dock shall be included in the computation of length described in the preceding sentence. The cross-bar of any such dock shall not measure in excess of twenty-five (25)feet in length. (9) No dock shall encroach upon any dock set-back zone, provided, however, that the owner of any two (2) abutting lakeshore sites may erect one (1)common dock within the dock setback zone appurtenant to the abutting lakeshore sites, if the common dock is the only dock on the two(2)lakeshore sites and if the dock otherwise conforms with the provisions of this chapter. (10) No sail boat mooring shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot unless it has at least two hundred(200)feet of lake frontage. No more than one(1)sail boat mooring shall be allowed for every two hundred(200)feet of lake frontage. Supp. No. 2 1180 ZONING § 20.263 (11) A recreational beach lot is intended to serve as a neighborhood facility for the subdivision of which it is a part. For purposes of this paragraph, the following terms shall mean those beach lots which are located either within(urban)or outside(rural) the Year 2000 Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary as depicted in the com- prehensive plan. a. Urban recreational beach lot At least eighty (80) percent of the dwelling units, which have appurtenant rights of access to any recreational beach lot, shall be located within one thousand (1,000)feet of the recreational beach lot. b. Rural recreational beach lot A maximum of fifty (50) dwelling units (including riparian lots) shall be permitted appurtenant rights of access to the recreational beach lot. Upon extension of the Metropolitan Urban Service boundary into the rural area, the urban recreational beach lot standards will apply. _ i 12' All recreational beach lots, including any recreational beach lots established prior to February 19, 1987 may be used for swimming beach purposes, but only if swimming areas are clearly delineated with marker buoys which conform to the United States Coast Guard standards. (13) All recreational beachlots shall have a buffer sufficient to insulate other property owners from beachlot activities. This buffer may consist of topography, streets, veg- etation, distance(width or depth), or other features or combinations of features which provide a buffer. To insure appropriate buffering, the city may impose conditions to insulate beachlot activities including, but not limited to: a. Increased side or front yard setbacks for beach areas, docks, racks or other al- lowed recreational equipment or activities; b. Hours of use; c. Planting and maintenance of trees and shrubs; d. Erection of fences; e. Standards of maintenance including mowing and trimming;painting and upkeep of racks, docks and other equipment; disposal of trash and debris; f. Increased width, depth or area requirements based upon the intensity of the use proposed or the number of dwellings having rights of access. To the extent feasible, the city may impose such conditions even after approval of the beachlot if the city finds it necessary. (14) Overnight docking, mooring, and storage of watercraft, where allowed, is restricted to watercraft owned by the owner/occupant or renter/occupant of homes which have appurtenant right of access to the recreational beach lot. (15) The placement of docks, buoys, diving ramps, boat racks, and other structures shall be indicated on a site plan approved by the city council. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(11)), 12.15-86; Ord. Ni. 80-A, 11, 6-15-87; Ord. No. 87, § 1, 6-13-88; Ord. No. 121, 2-26-90) L I ( LIL � `)ii(AL :10l ii ( 5 e a Er,flti'm-e17>r Supp. No. 2 1180.1 b. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planner II DATE: April 28, 1992 SUBJ: Minnewashta Creek Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlot BACKGROUND The Minnewashta Creek Subdivision was approved in 1976. Although in 1979, a conditional use was approved for a beachlot, it is still non-conforming with the beachlot ordinance. There are 36 homes in the homeowners association. The beachlot is 10,500 square feet in area and has 60 feet of lake frontage. The beachlot does not meet the minimum requirements of 200 feet of lake frontage and the 30,000 square feet of area. The association received a conditional use permit for a portable chemical toilet in 1991 (see attached Conditional Use Permit). At that time there was a question as to whether or not the pontoon located near the beachlot belonged to the association. The association has stated on record that the boat does not belong to the association but belongs to the adjoining property owner. An inspection of this beachlot was performed by the city in 1981. At that time it was observed that there was no dock, or boats being moored. There was, however, 4 boats stored on land, 4 picnic tables and two grills. There was a swimming beach with no raft. Upon inspection in 1991, a swimming raft was observed on the beach. There is no motor vehicle access to the site nor boat launching. SUMMARY The association is requesting 1981 status quo of their beachlot with no dock or boats being moored. They are seeking approval of the swimming raft. n. t4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER NON-CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT PERMIT ASSOCIATION P.C. CITY COUNCIL — REQUEST RECOMMEND ACTION Association Minnewashta Creek Lake Minnewashta Number of Homes 36 Size, square feet 10,500 Shoreline 60' Motor Vehicle Access not requested Off-Street Parking not requested Boat Launch not requested Buildings not requested Picnic Tables 4 Grills/Campfires 2 Seasonal Dock not requested Diagram Canoe Racks not requested — Boats on Land not requested Boats at Dock not requested Boats Moored not requested Swimming Beach yes Marker Buoys not requested Swimming Raft 1 — Miscellaneous • Items requested by the Association for determination. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 NON-CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT APPLICATION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION: Me. Pt CRre, ak CONTACT PERSON: V‹,z- A Q^^•F1/4' - / n1 A a c y N l s ADDRESS: (0580 -3051-4QR (,JPt.1c.y) 414 - 305a. TELEPHONE (Day time) Sto-4 ."4(4<._) TELEPHONE (Evening) : '41 `% ' 11-No Please provide all requested data consistent with what existed in the summer of 1981. 1. Number of homes in the Homeowners Association 3 (' 2 . Length of shoreland (feet) ol 3 . Total area of Beachlot (in square feet) . Io, S o 0 4 . Number of docks 6. Length of dock(s) N/ A 96 7 . Number of boats docked 8 . Number of canoe racks C/ 9 . Number of boats stored on canoe racks 10. Number of boats moored, i.e. canoes, paddle boats, sailboats. 46 �1 11 . Number of boats on land 1 n Swimming to !` No Buoys Yes No �� . �,.�...,..�.,y teach Yes 13 . Swimming Raft Yes No X R4 11- s 41.0 tcl 15 14 . Boat Launch Yes No 15. Motor vehicle access Yes No Number of parking spaces N o... 16. Structures, including portable chemical toilets: 4 co .. o, � ,D_cat Use a. �.. t4- P10,45,0'5'k 4- A••g•+s' 9 r;„iR ) 0 1.c):." RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT INVENTORY 1981 1986 1991 Minnewashta Creek 36 Homes Lake Minnewashta 10, 500 Square Ft. 60 ' Width of Shoreline Motor Vehicle Access no no no Off-Street Parking no no no Boat Launch no no no Permanent Buildings none none none Setbacks Temporary Buildings none none none Portable Restroom no no no Picnic Tables 4 4 4 Grills/Campfires 2 2 2 Seasonal Docks none none none Approximate Length Canoe Racks none none none Boats on Land 4 none 2 Boats Moored none none 1 Boats Docked none none none Swimming Beach yes yes yes Marker Bouys no no no Swimming Raft no no yes Comments: well well maint. maint. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BEACH LOT - MINNEWASHTA CREEK ADDITION This permit and agreement, made and entered into this /4.-1.1:7 day of `/ ,w,Y ,j , 1979 , by and between Romarco Development, Inc. , and Minnewashta Creek Homeowners' Association of Chanhassen, Minnesota (hereinafter referred to collectively as the Applicant) , and the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the City) ; WITNESSETH: That the City, in exercise of its powers pur- suant to M.S . §462 . 357 , and other applicable state law, and §7. 04 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance , hereby grants to the Applicant herein a conditional use permit to maintain and operate a private neighborhood associa+-ion recreational area upon Outlot B, Minnewashta Creek First Addition, Carver County, Minnesota (hereinafter the Subject Property) , subject to the following terms and conditions, all of which shall be strictly complied with as being necessary for the protection of the public interest: Section 1 . Recitals . 1 . 01 Prior Platting of Minnewashta Creek Second Addition. Romarco Development, Inc. , as contract for deed vendees, acting in concert with one Donald B. Berkey and one Jane L. Berkey, as contract for deed ven- dors, have platted a tract of land in the City as Minnewashta Creek Second Addition (hereinafter Second Addition) , consisting of thirty-six (36) residential lots . 1 . 02 Outlot B. Romarco Development, Inc. , (hereinafter Romarco) , has purchased Outlot B, Minnewashta Creek First Addition, from said Donald B . Berkey and said Jane L. Berkey under a contract for deed. 1. 03 Homeowners ' Association. Romarco has incorporated the Minnewashta Creek Homeowners ' Association of Chanhassen, Minnesota (hereinafter the Association) for the purpose of acquiring and main- - taining certain common properties for the benefit of the owners of lots in the Second Addition. Romarco has, by various contracts with purchasers of lots in the Second Addition, become legally obligated to acquire the fee title to Outlot B, Minnewashta Creek First Addition and to convey the same to the Association as a common property. -1- 1 . 04 . Development Chronology. A. The City Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 25, 1979 to consider the issuance of the within conditional use per- mit and to consider the approval of the Applicant ' s grading and landscaping plan for the subject property. B. The City Council, by its resolution of August 6 , 1979 , approved the issuance of the within conditional use permit and approved the Applicant' s grading and landscaping plan. Section 2 . Special Conditions . 2 . 01 . Permit Not Transferable. This permit is personal to the Applicant and to the Association , and is not assignable or transferable except upon the written consent of the City. 2 . 02 . Release of Romarco. The City, upon written request, shall release Romarco from its obligations hereunder upon receipt of documen- tation which demostrates (a) the proper incorporation of the Association pursuant to Chapter 317 of Minnesota Statutes, and (b) the conveyance of title to the Subject Property in fee simple to the Association for the benefit of all owners of lots in Minnewashta Creek Second Addition. No such release shall be given until such documentation has been approved by the City Attorney as to legal sufficiency. No such release as to Romarco shall have the effect of releasing the Associa- tion from its obligations, covenants, and agreements hereunder. 2 . 03 . Rights Under This Permit Not Expandable to Other Owners. This permit is issued for the benefit of the owners of the thirty-six lots in Minnewashta Creek Second Addition. The Applicant agrees that the use and enjoyment of the Subject Property shall be limited to the owners of lots in Minnewashta Creek Second Addition. The use and enjoyment of the Subject Property may not extend to persons other than such owners . The term "owners" as utilized in this §2. 03 shall mean and refer to any natural person who is either (a) the record owner of a fee simple interest, or (b) the record owner of a contract for deed vendee 's interest, or (c) the holder of any possessory leasehold interest, in the whole of any lot or double lot in the Second Addition, including authorized guests and family members of any such persons . 2 . 04 . Description of Property Subject to This Permit. The premises subject to the within conditional use permit are described as follows : Outlot B, Minnewashta Creek First Addition, according to the map or plat thereof on file and of record in the- Office of the County Recorder, in and for Carver County, Minnesota. -2- 2 . 05 Certain Site Alterations Authorized. The Applicant is hereby authorized to execute its grading plan and landscape plan prepared by Clark Engineering Co. under certification of June 14 , 1979 (hereinafter the Applicant ' s Plan) . Except as provided in said grading plan and landscaping plan, no portion of the Subject Property may be developed, altered, or disturbed in any way. All work performed in execution of the Applicant 's Plan shall be subject to the inspection and approval of the City Engineers . In case any work shall be rejected by the City as unsuitable or defective, • then such rejected work shall be done anew to the satisfaction and approval of the City at the cost and expense of the Applicant. 2. 06 . Schedule of Work. The Applicant agrees that it shall have all work done and she improvements described in §2 . 05 above fully complete to the satisfaction and approval of the City on or before - tel , 19 ?-0 . The Applicant shall submit a written schedul '`in cating the proposed progress schedule and order of com- pletion of work covered by this contract which schedule shall be a part of this contract. Upon receipt of written notice from the Appli- cant of the existence of causes over which the Applicant has no control which will delay the completion of the work, the City, in its discre- tion, may extend the date hereinbefore specified for completion . 2 . 07 . Erosion Control . Applicant, at its expense, shall provide temporary dams , earthwork or such other devices and practices , including seeding of graded areas , as shall be needed, in the judgment Of the City Engineers , to prevent the washing, flooding, sedimentation and erosion of lands and roads within and outside the Subject Premises during all phases of construction. Applicant shall keep all public streets free of all dirt and debris resulting from construction by the Applicant, its agents or assignees upon the Subject Property. 2 . 08 . Certain Structures Prohibited . Except for the fence and sign described in the Applicant' s Plan, no structure may be constructed, erected , or maintained upon the Subject Property. No docks, piers, - boat racks, or canoe racks shall be constructed, erected, or maintained on the Subject Property or in the waters abutting the Subject Property. = 2 . 09 . Camping Prohibited . No owner, as defined hereinabove, or other person shall camp overnight on the Subject Property. 2 . 10 . Motor Vehicle Parking and Boat Storage. No watercraft shall be parked or stored overnight or on a permanent basis on the Subject Property. Except for construction equipment necessary for the execu- tion of the Applicant' s Plan and as necessary for the maintenance of the Subject Property, no motor vehicle shall be driven upon or parked upon the Subject Property. No boat trailer shall be allowed upon the Subject Property. Nothing in the preceeding three sentences shall be deemed to prohibit the launching of any watercraft from the Subject Property if accomplished without the assistance of any motor vehicle or trailer or wheeled dolly upon the Subject Property. -3- • • • Section 3 . Municipal Disclaimers . 3 . 01. No Liability to Suppliers of Labor or Material . It is • understood and agreed that the City, the City Council , and the agents and employees of the City shall not be personally liable or responsible in any manner to the Applicant, the Applicant ' s con- tractors or subcontractors , materialmen, laborers, or to any other person, firm or corporation whomsoever, for any debt, claim, demand, damages, actions or causes of action of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of the execution of this permit and agreement or the performance and completion of the work and improvements hereunder; and that the Applicant will save the City, the City Council, and the agents and employees of the City harmless from any and all claims , damages , demands , actions or causes of action arising therefrom and the costs, disbursements , and expenses of defending the same. 3 . 02 . Written Work Orders . The Applicant shall do no work nor furnish materials , whether covered or not covered by the Applicant ' s Plan, for which reimbursement is expected from the City unless a written order for such work or materials is received from the City. Any such work or materials which may be done or furnished by the Applicant without such written order first being given shall be at its own risk, cost and expense , and Applicant hereby agrees that without such written order, Applicant will make no claim for compensation for work or materials so done or furnished . Section 4 . Miscellaneous . 4 . 01 . Severability. In the event any provisions of this permit shall be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable by any court of com- petent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unen- forceable any other provision hereof, and the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. 4 . 02 . Execution of Counterparts . This permit may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts , each of which shall be an original, and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. 4 . 03 . Headings . Headings at the beginning of sections and para- graphs hereof are for convenience of reference, and shall not be con- sidered a part of the text of this contract, and shall not influence its construction. 4 . 04 . Proof of Title . Upon request, the Applicant shall furnish the City with evidence satisfactory to the City that it has acquired fee title to the Subject Property. -4- 4 . 05 . Notices . All notices , certificates and other communications hereunder shall be sufficiently given and shall be deemed given when . mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, with proper address as indicated below. The City and the Applicant, by written notice given by one to the other, may designate any address or addresses to which notices , certificates or other communications to them shall be sent when required as contemplated by this permit. Unless otherwise provided by the respective parties, all notices, certificates , and communications to each of them shall be addressed as follows: To the City: City of Chanhassen City Hall 7610 Laredo Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Attn: City Manager To Romarco: Romarco Development, Inc. 3295 Hillsboro Avenue South Minneapolis , MN 55426 To the Association: Minnewashta Creek Homeowners ' Association c/o Romarco Development, Inc . 3295 Hillsboro Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55426 4 . 06 . Owners to be Notified of This Permit. The Association shall furnish each owner, as that term is defined in §2 . 03 above, with a copy of this permit within thirty (30) days of any such owner's initial occupancy of any residential structure in the Second Addition. 4 . 07 . Term of This Permit. This permit shall expire on August 6 , 2009 . Section 5 . Enforcement Provisions . 5 .01 . Reimbursement of Costs . The Applicant shall reimburse the City for all costs , including reasonable engineering, legal , planning and administrative expenses incurred by the City in connection with all matters relating to the administration and enforcement of the within permit and the performance thereby by the Applicant. Such reimbursement shall be made within fourteen (14) days of the date of mailing of the City ' s notice of costs as provided in S4 .05 above. The Applicant' s reimbursement obligation under this section shall be a continuing obliga- tion throughout the term of this permit. -5- • 5 . 02 . Performance Bond. For the purpose of assuring and guaran- teeing to the City that the improvements to be by the Applicant con- structed, installed and furnished as set forth in §2 . 05 hereof shall be constructed, installed and furnished according to the terms of this agreement, and that the Applicant shall pay all claims for work done and materials and supplies furnished for the performance of this permit, a__d that the Applicant shall fully comply with all of the other terms and provisions of this permit, Applicant agrees to furnish to. the City either a cash deposit, a corporate surety bond approved by the City and naming the City as obligee thereunder, or an irrevocable letter of credit approved by the City in the amount of $ grin 5 . 03. Remedies Upon Default. A. Assessments . In the event the Applicant shall default in the performance of any of the covenants and agreements herein con- tained, and such default shall not have been cured within ten (10) days after receipt by the Applicant of written notice thereof, the City, if it so elect,- , may cause any of the improvements described in the Applicant ' s Plan to be constructed and installed or may take action to cure such default and may cause the entire cost thereof, including all reasonable engineering, legal and administrative ex- pense incurred by the City, to be recovered as a special assessment under M.S . Chapter 429, in which case the Applicant agrees to pay the entire amount of the assessment roll pertaining to any such im- provement within thirty (30) days after its adoption. Applicant further agrees that in the event of its failure to pay in full any such special assessment within the time prescribed herein, the City shall have a specific lien on all of Applicant 's real property within the Subject Property for any amount so unpaid, and the City shall have the right to foreclose said lien in the manner prescribed for the foreclosure of mechanic ' s liens under the laws of the State of Minnesota. In the event of an emergency, as determined by the City Engineers , the notice requirements to the Applicant shall be and hereby are waived in their entirety, and the Applicant shall reimburse _ the City for any expense incurred by the City in remedying the condi- tions creating the emergency. B. Performance Bond. In addition to the foregoing, the City may also institute legal action against the Applicant and the corporate surety on its performance bond, or utilize any cash deposit made or letter of credit delivered hereunder, to collect, pay, or reimburse the City for the cost of making any of said improvements, . or for the cost, including reasonable engineering, legal and administrative expense incurred by the City, of curing any default by the Applicant in its performance of any of the covenants and agreements contained herein. -6- • C. Legal Proceedings . In addition to the foregoing, the City may institute any proper action or proceeding at law or at equity to prevent violations of the within permit, to restrain or abate viola- tions of the within permit, or to prevent use or occupancy of the Subject Properly. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed on this /4,t-' day of „6.(A,/ , 1979 . ROMAR DEVELOP ►T, INC. MINNEWASHTA CREEK HOMEOWNERS ' ASSO _ONJO_Felsrap'PlipliN, MINNESOTA B} By d K •�j� � / .�- / Its s J . _ _ _ ��., �/ - And And Its Its CITY HANHAS EN BYN . ' Its Mayor ATTEST:/' ') (/ \ ., City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss . COUNTY OF On this /42,4- day of 72 - 1979 , before a notary public within and for said county, personally appeared and , to me personally known, who, being each by me duly sworn did say that they are respectively the -6 ;ems,, and the of Romarco Development, Inc. , and that said instrument was signed in behalf of sa corporation by authority of its Board of Directors , and said /ne-a�&ve and acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. KAREN J. E +'�ELHARDT Notary Public C1/1-€ 4.51 /O NOTARY P;jRLIC- MINNESOTA CARVE' COUNTY my Comm,ss,o E.p.,es Oct. 11,1916 -7- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss . COUNTY OF On this /4, day of - ,,,,,1-e--,/ , 1979 , befo e me, a notary public within and for said county, personally appeared AX and , to me personally known, wh , being each by me duly sworn, did say that they are respectively the and the of Minnewashta Creek Homeowners ' Associa- tion of Chanhassen, Minnesota, and that said instrument was signed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors, and said and acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. Man otary Public /� di. KA' J. ENGELHARDT STATE OF MINNESOTA ) 1► NOTARYPUBLIC-MINNESOTA CARVER COUNTY ) s s . 16 COTmli3i0❑E.?.IES Oct. 11, 11185 COUNTY OF CARVER ) On this ,�- 2 day of 1979 , before me, a notary public within and Eor said county, personally appeared Walter Hobbs and Donald W. Ashworth, to me personally known, who, being each by me duly sworn , did say that they are respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its City Council , and said Walter Hobbs and Donald W. Ashworth acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. • __s Notary Public fZKARENJE. .: HDT Lam' �� NOTARY PUSLIC-Mt�NESOTA * CARVER COUNTY MY Cormnisuon Expire Oct. 11,INS -8- 1 It CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants a conditional use permit for the following use: A portable chemical toilet on existing recreational beachlot. 2 . Property. The permit is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows : (RNK) 1st. Outlet B, Minnewashta Creek 2Addition 3 . Conditions. The permit is issued subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant applies for a license from the city on an annual basis prior to installation of the portable chemical toilet. 2 . The portable chemical toilet shall only be permitted from Memorial Day to Labor Day and shall be removed from the beachlot during the rest of the year. 3 . The beachlot shall be maintained in good condition in a manner consistent with previous approvals and current ordinance requirements. 4 . The portable chemical toilet shall be located in accordance -- with the application/plans received by the City on May 20 , 1991. 4 . Termination of Permit. The City may revoke the permit following a public hearing for violation of the terms of this permit. 5. Lapse. If within one year of the issuance of this permit the authorized construction has not been substantially completed or the use commenced, this permit shall lapse, unless an extension is granted in accordance with the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. 6. Criminal Penalty. Violation of the terms of this conditional use permit is a criminal misdemeanor. Dated: July 8, 1991 • CITY OF CHANHASSEN By: /` _0,95/--- - Donald J. • miel, Mayor By: 4(2 (:;;IL.:FPg Don Ashworth, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA) ( SS COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 17-I, day of � C , 19 / , by Donald J. Chmiel , Mayor and Don Ashworth, ! ity Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council . Notary -`glic' DRAFTED BY: 1` Campbell , Knutson, Scott �I L & Fuchs, P.A. 3460 Washington Drive, Suite 202 Eagan, Minnesota 55122 KAREN J. ENG E • LY r NOT,RY PURLS_ r• (612) 456-9539 - CAMV:1 ' RNR My co:n:n:s,:bn e> 1:-15-e1 OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY RVER Filing Fee This is to certify hat this do ent w �I • int office the day • .-../ 19 A,D.at 7 o'clock and was duly recorded as do u entno. �. .r• , iyi ;," . HANSON JR. unty Recor•- by _ _7ZG City Council Meeting - ly 8, 1991 11 2. The developer and/or contractor shall supply the City with a two-year maintenance bond guaranteeing the workmanship and materials for two years beyond the date of acceptance. 3. The developer shall supply the City with one set of mylar as-built plans along with two sets of blueline copies. 4. The developer correct any punch list items within the next 30 days. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INSTALL A PORTABLE CHEMICAL TOILET DURING THE SUMMER SEASON ON A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT, OUTLOT B, MINNEWASHTA CREEK 2ND ADDITION, MINNEWASHTA CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. Paul Krauss: I'll try to be brief on this one. There's a lot of history on this one. We've been looking at this request for almost exactly a year now. It originally came in as a variance because the ordinance prohibited the installation of chemical toilets. After a lot of consideration, the ordinance was amended to allow them given some certain standards that had to be met . An application was made and pursued. The Planning Commission reviewed this and believed that in conjunction with the staff recommendation that this request is _ consistent with the new ordinance. The request basically conforms to the use requireme-Its established by the ordinance. It will be screened. It 's behind a large tree. There will be screening attached to it . The setback standard from the lake is met and other standards are complied with as well. The Planning Commission did recommend approval of this request . They did however add a condition concerning a pontoon boat at a dock that apparently is there not in keeping with the CUP approval. They added a condition that approval of the toilet be conditioned upon the removal of the boat . We heard this evening that that has not yet been done. The boat 's still there but that is the Planning Commission recommendation and we're carrying that forward. So again the proposal is for approval with the conditions. Mayor Chmiel : Are these two separate issues though Paul? Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, they're tied to a single CUP. You can legitimately ask that they bring the rest of the CUP up to standards. They're intenstifying the use so you're on very good grounds to address that issue. These issues are typically hard for us to document . We're not out there every day. We don't know when a boat shows up or doesn't show up unless, you know we're going to be doing these on an annual basis but it 's tough for us to track down. When somebody makes a request for you to do something, you have a very good = opportunity to bring it up to standards. So in my view it 's not appropriate. Mayor Chmiel: Is that legal counsel? Roger Knutson: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Any discussion? Anyone wanting to address the issue first? Is there anyone who wishes to address that issue? Joan Skallman: I'd like to. 43 City Council Meeting - Ju. 8, 1991 Mayor Chmiel : Okay, would you like to come up to the microphone please and state your name and your address please. Joan Skallman: My name is Joan Skallman, 6590 Joshua Circle. I am currently serving as co-chair for the Presidency of Minnewashta Creek Homeowners Association. We have a conflict with the owner of the boat mainly because they sold their property in 1978. Their lakeshore property to purchase this one and had an agreement with the developer, at that time Remarco along with Bob Ritter to buoy their boat in the water. They said they went to City Council in 1978 and City Council told them that no one owns the lake. They can buoy their boat wherever they want to in the lake as long as they have access to it . They sold their property, their lakeshore property as well as their other property to purchase this one specifically because of that . They feel that they are grandfathered in because of the City ordinance that went into effect after they were there. Even though it doesn't document that they have rights, they feel — that they are grandfathered in. The Association has tried to basically just present what the problem is to the owners. However, they do feel that they have rights and they don't feel that they should be imposed upon to remove their boat from the water. It is a large pontoon so basically it would be very difficult for them to put it in and out of the water whenever they desired to use it . The Association's kind of at a standstill. We would really appreciate it if you keep it as a separate issue and have the City deal with the owners of the boat separately from, the association. There's not really much that we can do for the association but to deny us the permit to have the portable chemical toilet would be hurting all of the other 39 families. Actually 37 families that voted for — it . Mayor Chmiel : Do you know who's boats those are? Joan Skallman: Yes. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor? Just a comment on it . There's an existing pontoon boat with a lift and existing boat that's just moored. Mr. Kenny Lund is intending to buy that lot next door and both of those boats are clearly on his property. If you look out from his. front , both boats are sitting out in front of his house and he's asked that they be removed from in front of his house. He just wanted me to pass that onto the Council. He has concern that those boats are sitting on what you would call his lakefront property at this time. And if we were to enforce our dock setback ordinance or perhaps we will have to reword it to say that any dock, portion of dock or attachment therein can't be within 10 feet of the extended center line, it 's going to solve a lot of these problems I think but right now there are two boats, and I apologized to Mrs. Skallman at the Planning Commission for kind of putting her on the spot with this issue. I kind of spoke impulsively that evening on this issue without her really knowing what was occuring but there are presently two boats moored that do not , that are. Mayor Chmiel : Moored on someone else's property. Councilman Wing: Well, they're moored on someone else's property but more important they're not allowed by the conditional use permit and I just felt one way to get some attention to this issue was to hold up action on this request that they have for the chemical toilet but I believe, as you suggested, they 44 City Council Meeting - ily 8, 1991 really are two separate issues and I don't want to see Mrs. Skallman penalized for this other problem. I think they've done a good job on this ordinance and request on their beachlot . Councilman Mason: . . .commission's trying to do with that and I think that that pontoon boat should be removed but I don't think it needs to be removed on the back of this issue. I agree with Dick. Mayor Chmiel: Paul, do we have another way to address this with those two -- owners? Paul Kraussi Yes Mr . Mayor we do. If itin violation of the original CUP, that 's an enforceable agreement and we ca- approach that completely separate from this. We'd be happy to do it either way. Mayor Chmiel: Let me get some free counseling. Councilman Mason: Free? Mayor Chmiel : I mean he's here. It 's costing us . RogEr Knutson: Yes. You can go after them for an ordinance violation. . . • Apparently they make a claim that they're not in violation. That 'd have to be ironed out . Mayor Chmiel: Yes sir. Would you like to come up. Please state your name and your address please. Briar Windschitl: My name is Brian Windschitl. I happen to be one of those boat owners. I've lived out there for 11 years and we've approached the Council many times for rules for beachlots. Back in 1978 when I moved in there, 1979, they had nothing. They were trying to make up rules for it . They wouldn't let us do anything for 2 to 3 years while they were making these rules and they came up and they had no docking of boats and stuff like that and mooring was not in there and there's 2 out of 40 people that have had our boats out there. We happened tc be the first two people that moved in there and there hasn't been a problem. The lady next door who just lately passed away hasn't had a problem with it . Mr. Lund is trying to buy the property right now and the way I look at it , there isn't a problem right now. I don't think it should be holding up the portable toilet by any means and I think we need to, I don't think we need to be tagged or anything like that . I think it could be talked about and as far as mooring, I know that it came up with the ordinance like in 1983 or 1984. Both of the other guy in question, we've been out there since 1979 so I don't know how that works. I mean there's lot of boats and lots of associations out there that have been grandfathered so kind of that 's the way everybody feels right now that we've been there for 11 years and right now they come up with another rule and that changes it so we're going to get tagged for it . I mean we can accommodate Mr. Lund. I mean right now we have been, the lady that has been living there was quite elderly and didn't use the lake at all and there hasn't been a problem and no one's living there right now so I still don't see a - problem until Mr. Lund builds or whatever. Then that issue could be worked with real easily. 45 City Council Meeting - J1 8, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: Mr. Lund is a riparian owner of that property presently. And if those boats are on his area, then he has the right to ask that those be removed. My suggestion would be to have discussions with staff to determine what you might have to do. And I agree. I don't think we should hold this up because of the need of the portable toilet facility on this site. I think we'll address that as a separate issue and I would like to have a motion to that . • Councilman Wing: I will move approval of Conditional Use Permit 091-5, allow portable chemical toilet on Minnewashta Creek Homeowners Association, items 1 thru 4 exluding number 5. Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It 's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move that staff be instructed to follow up on the conditional use permit violation by the next meeting and report to the Council with a decision. Brian Windschitl: I have just one question on the setbacks. The 10 foot setbacks. I know they did set rules after I was out there that you have to have a 10 foot setback on the your dock line. The way your property goes. How does it go with mooring boats? I mean they didn't have the rules when we were there. Who does own the lake I guess is my question? Mayor Chmiel: Roger, can you address that? Roger Knutson: It 's public waters but we regulate that . We have regulations on — mooring. I believe we do. We discussed it in length with some other property and some new regulations were passed but . . . Brian Windschitl: The reason that it 's in my mind is because that was our, see we were all , when that development started we were all kind of deceived. Like by the developer told us yeah, you go and I just ran this through here. You go to the City and get a dock down there. You can do all these things. Well, you know that wasn't true so we kind of, as a matter of fact the other person and I were both in the same shape. We wanted to have a boat on the lake and stuff like that and so when they made all the rules, mooring was the way they didn't cover it and we've been there like I say 11 years. I don't know where the grandfather clause comes in on when your boat 's just floating in the water and where it might be floating. Yeah, sometimes when the wind's out of the south it might go on Mr. Lund's property but when it 's out of the east it's on our property. You know I mean it 's just got a little line that it can move around. So I say it 's an issue I need to, I'd like to get clarified on that. Mayor Chmiel: I think Paul will come up with that for you and provide you with that information. Brian Windschitl: Okay, I mean just the rumors were that Terry, he has his on a lift out there and like they're in violation anc.they're going to get tagged and- all this and I don't think we need to take it to that point . I think it can be talked about . It 's something we've been doing for 11 years. It hasn't bothered 46 City Council Mee/ ing - , 8, 1991 anybody and now evidentally it 's a problem and I think it can be worked out . Real easily. Mayor Chmiel : You can line up that discussion with staff. Briar Lir,dschitl: Okay. • - Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 191-5 to al' ow a portable chemical toilet on Minnewashta Creek Homeowners Association Recreational Beachlot (Outlot B) with the following conditions: 1 . The applicant applies for a license from the city on an annual basis prior to installation of the portable chemical toilet . 2. The portable chemical toilet shall only be permitted from Memorial Day to Labor Day and shall be removed from the beachlot during the rest of the year. 3. The beachlot shall be maintained in good condition in a manner consistent with previous approvals and current ordinance requirements. Q . The portable chemical toilet shall be located in accordance with the application/plans received by the City on May 20, 1991. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CHES MAR FARM, APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF MILE NORTH OF TH 5 OFF OF TH 41. CRAIG SWAGGERT. Pa: l Krauss: Oh you do want a report on this? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: I was at the Planning Commission so. Paul Krauss: Keep in mind I'm the second string on this one. Jo Ann's still on vacation. This is an incredibly complex request for a relatively simple action and it 's got a real confusing history which makes matters worse. This was approved originally in 1985 and it was a pre-existing situation and the PUD was used for a use that I've never heard of before and it was basically to legitimize a non-conforming situation so they could sell off individual lots. It was a real abnormality. The sewer wasn't anywhere close and it's only as of 5 or 6 weeks :go that the MUSA line was anywhere visible from this property but there -was always an existing multi-family dwelling out there and there are a number of homes when the PUD was done. It was modified in 1989 slightly. Basically what it did is we had a series of single family homes including the — quasi-elderly, pseudo historical home that 's since been removed. It was in very bad shape and it 's been cleared by the applicant in preparation of building a new home. But what it boils down to is the current proposal with all the requests, he's basically had to apply for virtually every permit we have in this application, is to increase the size of the PUD and decrease the number of units. So we view it as a big step in the right direction. It's bringing it into compliance with what 's supposed to be out there. The guide plan is to take 47 CITY 4 F CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 •• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planner II DATE: May 1, 1992 SUBJ: Trolls Glen Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlot BACKGROUND The Trolls-Glen Homeowners 1st Addition and Cedar Crest Association have been in existence since 1975. A beachlot was created with this subdivision. The beachlot has 70 feet of frontage with an area of 5,270 square feet. These dimensions do not meet the minimum requirements for a recreational beachlot which is 200 feet of shore line and 30,000 = square feet in area. An inspection of this beachlot was done by the city in the 1981 survey, but based on a legal action brought against the Association by John Merz and Terry Johnson, it was determined by deposition that in 1981 there were two boats being docked and two boat lifts (see attached deposition). The homeowners association readily admits there were only 2 boats being docked in 1981, but they always had the right to 4 boats. They have stated that the demand for docking 4 boats did not exist because all of the lots have not been developed. The city received a complaint in June of 1991, as to the number of boats at the association's dock. At that time, the city had requested compliance with the two boats documented to be existing in 1981. At subsequent meetings with the association, it was determined that since the city was in the process of adopting the Non-conforming Recreational Beachlot Ordinance, the city would hold off on taking action until we could take the association through this permit process. The association is seeking approval of 2 boats to be docked and 2 boats to be moored. Since there was no inventory taken by the city in 1981, we are unable to provide information about the length of the dock. The best information about the length of the dock is the t4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission May 1, 1992 Page 2 — survey taken in 1991, which showed a 60 foot dock. The legal deposition does not mention the length of the dock. There is not a boat launch, motor vehicle access, canoe rack or swimming raft at this — beachlot. SUMMARY The association is requesting the use of two boats to be docked and two boats to be moored. The association contends that they always had this right based on the fact that not all of the — lots were developed in 1981, and the covenants permitted this many boats. The association is also requesting a dock of 64 feet in length and one canoe rack. NON-CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT PERMIT ASSOCIATION P.C. CITY COUNCIL REQUEST RECOMMEND ACTION A ssociation Trolls Glen Lake Minnewashta Number of Homes 12 Size, square feet 5,270 Shoreline 70' 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 64 feet Diagram Canoe Racks 1 Boats on Land not requested Boats at Dock 2 Boats Moored 2 Swimming Beach yes Marker Bouys not requested Swimming Raft not requested Miscellaneous s Items requested by the Association for determination. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 NON-CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT APPLICATION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION: TROLLS-GLEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION CONTACT PERSON: Anne Cathcart or Bernie Schneider ADDRESS: 3895 Lone Cedar, Chaska, MN 55318 P. 0. Box 103, Chanhassen MN 5317 TELEPHONE (Day time) 474 88" TELEPHONE Evening ) : 474-8902 Please provide all requested data consistent with what existed in the summer of 1981. 1. Number of homes in the Homeowners Association 12 _ Of the 12 in the association 4 have homes on the lake. 2 . Length of shoreland (feet) 6c)_'1 f,.,r 3 . Total area of Beachlot (in square feet) • 5,270 square feet - 4 . Number of docks One 6. Length of dock(s) 64 feet 7 . Number of boats docked 2 boats 8 . Number of canoe racks 1 9. Number of boats stored on canoe racks 0 10. Number of boats moored, i.e. canoes, paddle boats, sailboats. 2 11. Number of boats on land None 12 . Swimaing beach Yes x No Buoys Yes No 13 . Swimming Raft Yes No x 14 . Boat Launch Yes No x 15. Motor vehicle access Yes No x Number of parking spaces 16. Structures, including portable chemical toilets: None RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT INVENTORY 1981 1986 1991 Trolls Glen 27 homes Lake Minnewashta 3 , 000 sq. ft. 60 ' of shoreline Motor Vehicle Access no no Off-Street Parking no no Boat Launch no no Permanent Buildings no no Setbacks Temporary Buildings no no Portable Restroom no no Picnic Tables no 1 Grills/Campfires 1 2 Seasonal Docks 1 Approximate Length 60 ' Canoe Racks no no Boats on Land 1 1 fishing fishing boat 2 boat canoes 1 sailboat Boats Moored no no Boats Docked 4 speed 1 power boats boat Swimming Beach yes yes Marker Bouys no no Swimming Raft no no Comments: volley City of Chanhassen — Chanhassen,MN March 30, 1992 The Troll 's Glen Homeowner's Association has been in existence since the Covenants were approved and accepted by the City of Chanhassen in 1975. Members have abided by the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions since that time and have also governed effectively by strictly following the Association By-Laws. As a corporation we have elected officers, — held annual and special meetings, kept minutes, and maintained general compliance under our declaration for over 15 years. The attached documents chronicle important rulings regarding this boat docking issue. Of particular note is the Board of Director's meeting on -6-B1 . The docking of FOUR boats has been an Association ruling since then — and was rea4firmed by a majority vote on March 24, 1992. Therefore, at this time, we request a permit for mooring FOUR boats on our non-conforming beachio . . If there is ever a demand for more boats, a request will be made at a later date and would never exceed seven. Our non-conforming beachlot may be unique in that we have had docking rights years before the city's imposed ordinance. If the city wishes to restrict the conditions of our covenants thus stripping all their merit, we would want monetary compensation in lieu of decreased property values. Also we should point out that rendering our Covenants useless may present the city with a Troll 's Glen Pandora's box . Property owners may feel justified to _ build storage sheds, park RV's, and construct cyclone fencing. We take our Covenants seriously and have accepted them for better or for — worse. In turn , we readily accept the privileges and rights attached therein . We hope that this permit application letter clarifies our position. Included with our permit approval , we request an opinion by the city attorney on the merit of our Covenants in relation to city ordinances. Th k you far your consideration , - nC__ t1e4,Lf President , Troll 's len Homeowner's Association Troll 's Glen Homeowner's Association supports a non-conforming beachlot ordinance requiring a permit for boat docking and a 1991 baseline . We feel , however , that this ordinance allows for interpretation beyond the 'physical evidence" of record. Mooring rights are tied to each property owner's abstract through covenants — sanctioned by the city of Chanhassen in 1975. This also includes the right of the association to govern the use of its 70 foot beachlot. Since 1981 there has been a stipulation in our association minutes that there be a 64 foot dock _ for mooring four boats. We fail to see the logic that "physical evidence" take precedence over our association ruling. Troll 's Glen addition has been developing steadily since 1975. In 1982, there were three vacant lots. These were homesteaded by 1991 , thus — reflecting the increased use of our- dock from the 'physical evidence" of two boats in 1982 to the "physical evidence" of four boats in 1991 . Lots were marketed and purchased with a mooring right . We are sure that the use of our beachlot probably reflects the use of other non-conforming beachlots throughout the city. The 1991 boat baseline reflects a more fair, equitable, and up-to-date use of these properties. If the goal _ of this ordinance is to decrease the number of boats on the lake, maybe a 1959 baseline should be used. In that case, an "ex post facto" ruling would warrant Troll 's Glen and probably other small beachlots useless. The 1991 baseline ruling may increase the number of boats over the 1982 "physical evidence" but we feel that small increase will not be detrimental to the ecology of the lake or the safety of its residents. Minnewashta lake is still considered by most a fairly low traffic lake. Best efforts to maintain — the beauty and safety of our lake would be to enforce the dock setback ordinance and watch for milfoil . The setback ordinance will lawfully limit the number of boats on these non-conforming beachlots. An obvious effect of a 1991 baseline with a few more boats will be an increase in property tax revenue. Mooring rights will increase market values of residences in our neighborhood at least 10-12> . One neighbor recently had his home appraised at $150,000 and $168,000 with docking rights. We would — want monetary compensation in lieu of decreased value to our property if our docking rights are not honored when applying for a permit. We are sure you are aware of the controversy in our neighborhood over the use of our beachlot. The neighbors bordering the association lot sued the association and certain individuals stating the beachlot was 'dangerous, neglected, and a nuisance° . They wanted no boats. Our defense cost over $13,000 and the judge dismissed the case as not being in the court's — jurisdiction . It is finally up to the city council to rule on and interpret a new ordinance pertaining to non-conforming beachlots. It is our hope that the — council will make a fair ruling and follow the city attorney and staff's recommendation for the 1991 baseline and permit proposal . Sincerely,Cait-Acaid President, Troll 's Glen Homeowner's — Association I (Trolls—Glen Homeowners Ass'n. 'dock with four boats in July, lc i. I 1 ..:.:.-. r%'' iY .,,;tic; '.`` ‘.1r _1.1' • A„�v L 1 __ +tri ,,k,;:::::,tis,, r :-ier tis.t• :+ ^,4 r, �Y • III I - ::i !.1 r Xi .1 .i -- lI - ' e � ..~ �I i .. i _ �/ lty y •f\' , ., 2 .••,1110 r '1711.7r...10.. i + ': •,�r••i,.... 1.'4."t.0..i..4 a .Ft. G M '-.r-'' ,....,1.-,1'..-. ''tr. •�',�.,r fE•R r� I'`r•••.••:;tatty' .¶ -J: Off ,4: 1 t.' 1 1',. John Merz dock on the north side of the Trolls-Glen dock and the Terry — Trolls-Glen property. July, 1991. • Johnson dock and pontoon on the south side of the Trolls-Glen property. July, 1991. TROLLS-GLEN HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION ;78 Ann Olson, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Ms. Olson: We acknowledge receipt of your letter of June 3, 1991, stating that we are in violation of the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance, due to your interpre- tation that only two power boats were grandfathered in at the time that th,, ordinance was adopted. Your letter states that if the power boats are not reduced to two within 10 days, the matter will be turned over to the City Attorney's Office. We have a difference of opinion on what was grandfathered in at the time the ordinance was adopted. According to the DECLARATIONS OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS of Trolls-Glen 1st Addition and Cedar Crest Lots 1/1 and X12, dated September 22 , 1975 and approved by the City of Chanhassen, it states that all property owners in this subdivision shall have boat mooring rights at Outlot B. I am enclosing a copy of the Declarations, Article X and XI . We are also enclosing a copy of the minutes of Trolls-Glen Homeowner's Assoc- iation DIRECTORS MEETING of June 6, 1981 and also of February 27, 1984, whereby the directors approved mooring of 4 boats, with annual approval for changes, if necessary;, It is called to your attention that John Merv.. , who submitted the Affidavit and complaint to your office, was a director of the Association and made the motion to allow four boats at the dock. On June 4, 1990, Trolls-Glen Homeowner's Association received a SUMMONS by John Merz and Terry Johnson praying for .an order of the court of Carver Cony as follows: 1. Ordering that the present private dock owned by Underdahl and Schneider — removed from Outlot B. 2. Ordering defendants Ferm and Cathcart to cease and desist their private i.n,( of Outlot B. 3. To permanently enjoining defendants Hudson and Mecus from constructing im- provements of any sort on or adjoining Outlot B. 4. Permanently enjoining all further use of Outlot B by individual members or the Association .unless and until said uses of or improvements to Outlot 1: are ordered :by or approved 'by the .Association after the Association has coir plied with all notice and meeting requirements set forth in the governing documents. 5. For such other and further relief as may be deemed just by the court . On February 21, 1991, we were advised that John Merz filed for an injunction preventing the Association from installing boat docks this season. On March 26, 1991, Judge Thomas R. Howe dismissed the suit in its entirety . Jo Ann Olson page //2 The legal proceedings to this date have amounted to $13,470.90. Our Association board of directors is of the opinion that this latest action by John Merz and Terry Johnson is continuing harassment, involving con- • siderable addtional costs. We request that the City of Chanhassen dismiss the Johnson-Merz complaint for the reasons stated earlier in this letter and restated here: 1. The rights to moor a boat at Outlot B are listed as a Warranty on A) the Abstracts of Title to the property owners in Trolls-Glen 1st 'rd Addition and Cedar Crest Lots //1 and //2. 2. The rights to moor a boat are part 'of the Declarations of Covenants and Conditions of the Trolls-Glen subdivision, which were approved by • the City of Chanhassen in 1975. 3. John Merz was a director of Trolls-Glen HOmeowner's Association and ' which approved the dock and mooring of four boats, (Director 's meet- __ ings of June 6, 1981 and February 27, 1984. 4. It is the opinion of the directors of our Association that the rights _ given to each property owner, boat mooring, were not denied by the City Ordinance passed in 1985. 5. The boats moored at the Association dock have not created any hazard to any person wishing to use the beach lot. All persons using the boats are responsible individuals. We do not intend to remove any of the boats from the Association dock, • as demanded in your letter of June 3, 1991. We request an early review of the Johnson-Merz actions so that the matter may be disposed of without further costs to the members of Trolls-Glen Homeowners 'Association. Very truly yours, David Tester, President Daniel Hudson, Vice President Bernie Schneider, Secretary-Treasur(• cc: Don. Chmiel, Mayor Steven Emmings, Chairman of the Planning Commission June 10, 1991 The Honorable Don Chmeil, Mayor City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mayor Chmeil: Attached is the Trolls-Glen reply to Jo Ann Olson, Senior Planner, letter to our Association dated June 3, 1991. • Her interpretation of the Recreational Beach Lot Ordinance as it applies to Trolls-Glen Outlot B, is not agreed to by the Board of Directors of the Trolls-Glen Homeowner' s Association. The Trolls Glen subdivision was approved by the City of Chanhassen in 1975. Along with the approval, the Declarations of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, warranted that each property owner in the subdivision had boat mooring rights. We do not believe that the Recreational Beach Lot Ordinance passed by the City of Chanhassen, some ten years later, applies to our subdivision. Each person purchasing a lot in our subdivision, purchased the lot with the warranty that boat mooring was available at Outlot B. This past year, two new homes were built and as a result, two additional boats were moored at the Association dock. — John Merz and Terry Johnson, the persons filing the complaint , own the property abutting the Outlot B. They apparently do not wish to have any property owners in our subdivision.. using the boating privileges . John Merz and Terry Johnson started a lawsuit in June, 1990, through the Carver County Court system.The case was dismissed by Judge Thomas Howe in March of this year. We had asked for the Plaintiffs to be responsible for legal fees incurred (13,470.90) but the judge ruled that the Plaintiffs and Defendents pay their own legal fees. We won our defense but lost in that all property owners are responsible for .over $1,100.00 .in fees. In order to stop their continued actions, we request that you give this matter your early attention. We do not wish to incur .any additional legal fees if we can avoid the retaining of an attorney. We are willing to appear before a City Council or Planning Commision hearing at .any time to state our position in this matter. Very truly yours, I/)� cc: Steven Emmings Bernie Schnei'Qayer Planning Commision Secretary-Trolls-Glen January 15, 1992 TROLLS-GLEN HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION RE: AN ORDINANCE AMMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING NON-CONFORMING BEACH LOTS TO: CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION AND CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL FROM: TROLLS-GLEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 1ST ADDITION AND CEDAR CREST LOTS 1 AND 2 The Trolls-Glen Homeowners Association is comprised of the following property owners as members of the Association: Lots 1 through 4, Block 1, First Addition 4 members Lots 1 through 4, Block 2, First Addition 4 members Lots 1 and 2„ Block 3, First Addition 2 members Cedar Crest Lots 1 and 2 2 members Of the twelve property owners belonging to the Association, five properties abut Lake Minnewashta, and therefore have no need for access to Lake Minne- washta in our Common Area, OUTLOT B. Several members have asked that they be allowed to withdraw from the Association. All of the properties have homes constructed and there will be no further additions to our Association and likewise no further demand for boat mooring at the Common Area Outlot B. All of the properties have as a part of their ABSTRACT OF TITLE, rights of ingress and egress to Outlot B of the Common Area and boat mooring rights. The following is a listing of these rights, as stated in the Declarations of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of the Trolls-Glen Homeowners Association: ARTICLE IV, Section 1, Property Rights in the Common Area. Members Easement of Enjoyment. Subject to the provisions of Section 3, every member shall have a right and easement of ingress and egress over the Common Area, and an ease- ment of enjoyment in and to the Common Area, and such easement shall be appur- tenant to and shall pass with the title to every lot. ARTICLE X Restrictions on Common Area. = No boats shall be launched from the Common Area. No recreational vehicles shall be allowed on the Common Area at anytime. Boat mooring in the Common Area shall be moored only in the area designated for mooring by the Association. Article XI Rules Established by Association. The Association shall have the authority to promulgate reasonable rules and regulations concerning the Common Area, including but not limited to providing garbage service including containers, providing weed control, providing for additional sand for the Common Area beach, establishing hours during which the Common Area may be used, providing hours during which the Common Area may be used for public gatherings, and providing regulations concerning the mooring of boats in the Common Area. PAGE 2 January 15, 1992 TROLLS-GLEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Chanhassen Planning Commission re Ordinance Amending Chapter 20, concerning Non-Conforming Beach Lots The above warranty applies to all of the property owners of our Association. The City of Chanhassen approved the Subdivision and the Declarations of Covenants, _ Conditions and Restrictions September 22, 1975. No restriction was placed on the number of boats to be allowed to moor at the Common Area dock. At the June 6, 1981 Board of Directors meeting of Trolls-Glen, the directors passed a resolution allowing the mooring of four boats at the Association dock. Not all of the properties in the Association had homes constructed on said lots, and therfore the four boat limitation was sufficent for the years 1981 to and including 1990. In 1991 four boats were moored at the Association dock. The fifth property owner had his boat lift abuting the dock, but he did not moor his boat at the dock. In the year 1992, we have requests for five boats to be moored at the dock and we request that the Chanhassen Planning Commission approve our request for five boats at this time, with the maximum permissable boats to be moored at one time be restricted to seven. Again, the right to moor a boat is part of our rights under our Warranty Deed to our property. If, in the opinion of our Board of Directors that seven boats would create a hazard, the Board of Directors will make a determination on the number to be allowed for each particular year and grant mooring rights either on a lottery system or a yearly rotation system. Our request is for the approval for seven boats to be moored at our dock, with policing to be by the Board of Directors for an orderly boat mooring arrangement. ANN CATHCART, PRESIDENT BERNIE SCHNEIDER, SECRETARY • BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 6/6/81 A meeting was held at Outlot Band attended debyeSchneider, Freeburg and Crompton and also at the meeting were members Underdahl r. ion Since legal action had been decided in favor the shehgla�nedrno furthertlegalcactionr talked with Kit Peterjohn and she indicated that in the association matter. We discussed the legal bill of $637.50 and recognized that - the treasury balance fell short of that money only haveing $633.77. Schneider and Crompton advanced $50.00 assessments to bring the bank account above the amount of the legal bill so it could be processed for payment. hn Question was raised regarding the summary was alsojudgment sed as toewhether our lawyerther or not owaswould have to pay our legal fees. Question _ entitled to his $633. 77 fee when he, in fact, failed to respond to the Peterjohn cross claim in the first place. Tax increases on Outlots A and asociatwere �oncussed shouldlberegard represe�tedthe atgthee6/8/311meeting and - decided that the Home owner' s a that Schneider would attend in Chanhassen. It was moved and seconded that we should send a notification letter to the Trolls Glen No sub-division that the beach was private property and they should refrain from using it and it was agreed that Schneider would purchase pprivate iprproperty psign n anand thaveuitic _ posted at the head of the public access way. The access way was held and it was estimated that there would be 120 ft. of walkway to be taken care of and an estimate of $1200 for concreting and $600 for blacktopping was offered by one of the members . We discussed the chains onrthe hespostmand whether er orpno wasr n to — they should be replaced or removed. Freeburg9di the walkway to Outlot B. He was determine fill ,the c�ravelcost toffblack nptoyanhylene appropr�atelay de h.as a base, 1" x G" lumber to contain the dhy Boat Dock - Schneider offered to install estimatedhis aexpense ofand $1200dforrab60e sectioncost ofodock. one who wants to make use f A motion was made by Schneider to establish dock privileges for 1981 for a maximum of i 4 boat moorings and his motion was seconded ba theFBoabdrg P�lotionefor adjournment was 19(31 tne boy !. mooring arrangement was to be determined by Freeburg and seconded by Schneider. • TROLLS GLEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING February 27, 1984 The meeting was held at the home of Bernie Schneider and was attended by Directors Schneider, Underdahl and Merz. The minutes of the January 25, 1984 meeting were read by Bernie Schneider. A motion was made and approved to accept the minutes as read. Under old business, the Board acknowledged the letter received from Joel and M. C. Anderson regarding payment of the assessments of July 9, 1983, and October 10, 1983. The Directors advised that there shall be only one dock located on Association Outlot B, and that those members who choose to moor a boat at this dock shall share in the cost of this dock. - A motion was made by Director Merz that the Board of Directors determine that there shall be only one dock located on Uutlot D of Trolls Ulen Homeowners Association. Such dock shall be governed by the Trolls Glen Homeowners Association, but the initial cost of the dock shall be shared proportionately by Association members who choose to moor a boat at the dock. The motion was seconded by Director Underdahl and was carried. Under new business, the Directors questioned the reason for no reduction in taxes on Outlots A and B. Director Schneider will pursue this matter by a _ letter to the County officials. President Schneider will contact a City official as to soil erosion concerning Outlot A caused by dirt piled on a building lot adjacent to the Underdahl home. A motion of adjournment was offered by Underdahl and seconded by Merz, • and the meeting stood adjourned. ( %62W/1 , John Merz/ e �% Secretary • ARTICLE IX • • Temporary Structures, Signs Section 1. Temporary Structures. No structure of a temporr,1 character, trailer, basement, tent, shack, garage, boat house, barn or other out-building shall be used on any Lot at any time, as a residence either temporarily or permanently. There shall be no storage of any type of recreational vehicle including, but: not limited to, camping trailers; snowmobiles, motorcycles, motor- bikes; or boats, canoes, dock parts, rafts, etc. unless the vehiel is not visible from the street. There shall be no cyclone fenc:iw] installed which is visible from the street. Section 2. Signs. No signs of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on any Lot except one professional sign if not more than one square foot, one sign if not more than five square feet advertising the property for sale or rent, or signs used by the Declarants to advertise the property during the construction . and sales period. ARTYCLE X Restrictions on Common Area No boats shall be launched from the Common Area . No r,ocre ri. vehicle shall be allowed on the Common Area at any time . Boats me,) • in the Common Area shall be moored only in the area designated fol: mooring by the Association. ARTICLE XI Rules Established by Association • The Association shall have the authority to promulgate rear.;ri t. rules and regu]atior• concerning the Common Area, including but nut: limited to 'providing steps and a dock and the maintenance thereof , providing garbage service including containers , providing weed control, providing for additional sand for the Common Area beach, establishing hours during which the Common Area may be used, prov.idi hours -during which the •Common Area may be used for public gather.itsi : and providing regulations concerning the mooring Of boats in the Common Area. • ARTICLE XII • • General Provisions • •Section 1. Duration. The covenants, restrictions and easement. of this Declaration shall run with and bind the land and shall inuro to—the benefit of and be enforceable by the Association or the Owner of any Lot 'subject to this Declaration, their respective legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns, for a term of twenty (20) years from the date this Declaration is recorded; after which time said covenants, restrictions and easements shall be automatically renewed for successive periods of ten (10) years . The covenants and restrictions of this Declaration may be amended during the first twenty (20) year period by an instrument signed -tet less than ninety percent (90%) of the Lot Owners and there- - instrument signed by not less than seventy-five percent ^--ers. Any amendment must be properly recorded. ( )5b) u- -. • • • -1 k. • • • • • c au" 6)fitc es of SCHOLLE AND BEISEL, Ltd. 430 PILLSBURY CENTER MARK SCHOLLE 200 SOUTH SIXTH STREET OF COUNSEL BRADLEY N.REISEL MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 554021413 STEPHEN G.SCHOLLE LESLIE C.SCHOLLE(1909•I988) JOHN E.CRABTREE III 0121 338-1330 1.000422-0819(MN RATS) (812)3494409 FACSIMILE May 10, 1991 City of Chanhassen Administrative Office 690 Coulter Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Attn: Jo Ann Olsen Re: Merz/Johnson v. Trolls-Glen Homeowner's Association Our File No. 5521-90 Dear Ms. Olsen: I am writing on behalf of John Merz and Terry Johnson, each of whom owns property in the Trolls-Glen First Addition subdivision of Carver County. I know you are generally familiar with that subdivision, and with the fact that Outlot B of that subdivision is a beach lot which has access to Lake Minnewashta. We are writing to formally complain of persistent and repeated violations of the applicable zoning ordinance regulating that beach lot, and to demand that the ordinance be enforced by the City of Chanhassen. I am enclosing with this letter Affidavits of John Merz, Terry Johnson and myself which outline the uses to which the beach lot has been put since it was first improved in 1981. These Affidavits are made from the personal knowledge and observation of Mr. Merz and Mr. Johnson, and from my own knowledge of the situation. My Affidavit includes copies of pertinent portions of sworn depositions given by members of the Trolls-Glen Homeowner' s Asso- ciation. As you can see from examining the enclosed material, it is undisputed that the use to which Outlot B has been placed since 1981 is as follows: 1981 - One sixty four (64) foot dock, two boat lifts, two power boats. 1982 - One sixty four (64) foot dock, two boat lifts, two power boats. 1983 - One sixty four (64) foot dock, two boat lifts, two power boats. R CEIVC.D MAY 14 1991 CITY.OF CHAM-ASSEN May 10, 1991 Ms. Jo Ann Olsen Page 2 1984 - One sixty four (64) foot dock, two boat lifts, two power boats. 1986 - One sixty four (64) foot dock and additional section of dock and three power boats. 1987 - One sixty four (64) foot dock and two power boats. 1988 - One sixty four (64) foot dock and three power boats. 1989 - One sixty four (64) foot dock and three power boats. = 1990 - One sixty four (64) foot dock and four power boats. You will also see from the enclosed materials that the Trolls-Glen Homeowner' s Association has passed a motion to allow the same sixty four (64) foot dock to be erected and a maximum of four power boats to be docked at the dock. We believe that the use of the beach lot for docking of any more than two boats at a time is a clear violation of the applicable beach lot ordinance. Through research and previous conversations with you and other city officials, I understand that the original ordinance regulating recreational beach lots was adopted by the City of Chanhassen in February of 1982 as Ordinance 47AB. It provided requirements for recreational beach lots which clearly were not met by Outlot B of Trolls-Glen First Addition. However, it also provided that uses which were being made of existing beach lots at the time the ordinance was passed were "grandfathered in" so long as they were not increased or intensified. Clearly, the use to which the beach lot was put when the ordinance was adopted was one sixty four (64) foot dock, two boat lifts and two power boats. The recent and contemplated uses certainly constitute an intensification and increase of the use of the beach lot which would be a violation of the ordinance. The present beach lot ordinance is Section 20-263 of the Chanhassen Zoning Code. May 10, 1991 Ms. Jo Ann Olsen Page 3 Mr. Merz and Mr. Johnson will report the usages to which the beach lot is being put this season. In the meantime, we would appreciate your beginning the processing of this complaint as I believe that enforcement action is clearly justified at this time. Very truly yours, OLLE S `LTD. .01 7 .1101P • :radley N. eisel BNB/jrb cc. w/enc. John Merz Terry Johnson Scott Has Roger Knutson ,AFFIDAVIT OF TERRY JOHNSON Terry Johnson, first being duly sworn on oath, states and deposes as follows: 1. I reside at 3998 Lone Cedar Circle, Chaska, Minnesota. This property is legally described as: Lot 5, Block 1, Trolls-Glen First Addition, Carver County, Minnesota. I have resided at that location since 1986. 2 . As an owner of property in Trolls-Glen First Addition, I am a member of the Trolls-Glen Homeowner' s Association. That association owns Outlot B of Trolls-Glen First Addition, which is a beach lot which has approximately 69 . 3 feet of lakeshore on Lake Minnewashta. 3 . Throughout the time I have resided at my present residence I have frequently observed the beach front area at Outlot B and I have noted the uses to which Outlot B has been put by the association. 4 . From my personal observation, I know that Outlot B has been put to the following uses during the summers of the years set forth below: 1986 - One sixty four (64) foot dock and additional section of dock and third power boat. 1987 - One sixty four (64) foot dock and two power boats. 1988 - One sixty four (64) foot dock and three power boats. 1 1989 - One sixty four (64) foot dock and three power boats. 1990 - One sixty four (64) foot dock and four power boats. 6. Also attached to this Affidavit is a true and correct copy of the minutes of a meeting of the Homeowner's Association which took place on March 8, 1991. At that Homeowner's Association meeting a resolution was adopted to allow up to four boats to be docked at the Outlot in 1991. 7 . I am making this Affidavit for the purpose of requesting that the City of Chanhassen enforce its beach lot ordinances as they apply to Outlot B of Trolls-Glen First Addition. FURTHER, YOUR AFFIANT SAYETH NOT: A k) TE' •Y JOHNSON Of STATE OF MINNESOTA) SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of AOL 1991 by Terry Johnson. .0144. I ary Publi BRUCE E. LUNDGREN 71 • NOTARY RUsuC•MINNESOTA CARVER COUNTY Mr Co nnic•lon E.-”ros AFkll 16, 1992 2 AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN MERZ John Merz , first being duly sworn on oath, states and deposes as follows: 1. I reside at 3900 Lone Cedar Circle, Chaska, Minnesota. This property is legally described as: Lot 1, Block 2 , Trolls-Glen First Addition, Carver County, Minnesota. I have resided at that location since 1977. 2 . As an owner of property in Trolls-Glen First Addition, I am a member of the Trolls-Glen Homeowner' s Association. That association owns Outlot B of Trolls-Glen First Addition, a beach lot which has approximately 69 . 3 feet of lakeshore on Lake Minnewashta. 3 . Throughout the time I have resided at my present residence I have frequently observed the beach front area at Outlot B and I have noted the uses to which Outlot B has been put by the members of the association. 4 . From my personal observation, I know that Outlot B has been put to the following uses during the summers of the years set forth below: 1981 - One sixty four (64) foot dock, two boat lifts, two power boats. 1982 - One sixty four (64) foot dock, two boat lifts, two power boats. 1 1983 - One sixty four (64) foot dock, two boat lifts, two power boats. 1984 - One sixty four (64) foot dock, two boat lifts, two power boats. 1986 - One sixty four (64) foot dock and additional section of dock and third power boat. 1987 - One sixty four (64) foot dock and two power boats. 1988 - One sixty four (64) foot dock and three power boats. 1989 - One sixty four (64) foot dock and three power boats. 1990 - One sixty four (64) foot dock and four power boats. 5 . In the summer of 1990 I took a series of photographs showing four boats being used at the Outlot. Prints of these photographs are attached to this Affidavit. 6 . Also attached to this Affidavit is a true and correct copy of the minutes of a meeting of the Homeowner's Association which took place on March 8, 1991. At that Homeowner's Association meeting a resolution was adopted to allow up to four boats to be docked at the Outlot in 1991. 7 . I am making this Affidavit for the purpose of requesting that the City of Chanhassen enforce its beach lot ordinances as they apply to Outlot B of Trolls-Glen First Addition. FURTHER, YOUR AFFIANT SAYETH NOT: 1') 1' ,rte I v V /• JOVERZ 2 STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) Subscribed and sworn to before me this .A7 day of _40LLY_____ 1991 by John Merz . Notary Public Claudia d'. cStimac EIo1ART PUBUC-NtNP OIA ANOKA COUNTY My commsss,on ex -e. 3 March 9, 1991 TROLLS-GLEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION A special meeting of the members of Trolls-Glen Homeowners Association was held at the Chanhassen American Legion Hall at 12 :15 P. M. on the above date with the following property owners represented: Ann Cathcart (Lot 4 , Block 2, lsdditior., Daniel Hudson, Lot 2, Cedar Crest, Terry Johnson Lot 5, Block 1 , 1st Addition, Jchn Merz, Lot 1, Block 2, 1st Addition, Bernard and Irene Schneider, Lot 1, Block 3, 1st Addition, David Tester, Lot 2, Block 2, 1stLot 3, Block 2, 1st Addition. The and Ivan and Mildred Underdahl, total properties represented were seven (7) . Absent were the following: Jerry and Ione Ahlman, Lot 4 , Block 1, 1st Addition, Joel and M. C. Anderson, Lot 3, Block 1, 1st Addition, Gordon and Jacqueline Freeburg, Lot 2, Block 3, 1st Addition, Gary and Janet Mecus, Lot 1, Cedarcrest , John D. and Kit Peter- john, Lot 2, Block 1, 1st Addition. Total properties not represented were five (5) . The meeting was chaired by President David Tester. Secretary Schneider advised the members that due to an emergency at Northern States Power Company, Daniel Hudson had delivered a proxy to Secretary Schneider authorizing Schneider to vote for Daniel Hudson on all matters to come before the members. The meeting opener with considerable discussion following John Merz statement that he did not agree with the minutes of the July 9, 1990 annual meeting, which stated the following:"Ann Cathcart made a motion to have the Trolls-Glen Association correct the location of a section of the sidewalk that encroaches on the Terry Johnson property, with work to be completed by John Merz by Labor Day. This motion was seconded by Terry Johnson and on vote taken, all members voted in favor." John Merz stated that he did not remember the particulars of the vote but he would now agree to take out the section of the sidewalk and put in the curbing fcr the new section, with Trolls-Glen Association to pay for the materials for the curbin , cement and labor for installing the new sidewalk. Since this improvement was previously approved approved no vote was necessary. Secretary Schneider then read the minutes of the March 4, 1991 Board of Directors meeting, at which the directors made the following motion: On motion by Bernie Schneider, seconded by Daniel Hudson, the following was proposed: "All members that are delinquent in the special assessment of July 10, 1990 in the amount of $200.00 shall not be entitled to vote at any meeting of the Association until their_ special assessment is fully paid. This action is empowered by Article V, Section. 1, (b) . of the By-Laws. On vote taken all directors voted in favor and the motion was carried. At this time Ann Cathcart informed the members that she was present at the March 4, 1991 meeting and said that she was not aware that the meeting was a directors meeting. She was of the opinion that it was a meeting of the members named in the Johnson Merz lawsuit against Trolls Glen and certain members. At this time both John Merz and Terry Johnson objected to the directors calling a meeting of the directors and notifying only certain members, not directors, of such a meetine .— Secretary Schneider advised Ann Cathcart that she was not present at the start of the March 4, 1991 meeting. Her husband, John Ferro was present and was aware that the directors were acting on the delinquent member voting status while the special assessments were delinquent. He also stated that the directors had no responsibilit.• in notifying all Association members of a particular meeting . He further stated that it is the membership' s right to call for a full meeting of the membership to vote on removal of the present directors and elect new directors and officers if they are of the opinion that the directors are acting unfairly. Trolls-Glen Homeowners Association Meeting, March 9, 1991 page 2 At this time John Merz asked that a discussion be held (off the record) regarding the pending lawsuit. All members present were asked to make a statement, if they so desired, regarding the lawsuit or any particulars regarding the problems on or about Outlot B. The discussion continued for about 45 minutes after which President Tester officially reopened the meeting. It was again noted that the original suit against the Association and certain members served June 4, 1990 stated as follows: Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for an order of this court as follows: 1. Ordering that the present private dock owned by Underdahl and Schneider be removed from Outlot B. 2. Ordering defendents Perm and Cathcart to cease and desist their private use of Outlot B. 3. To permanently enjoining :defendents Hudson and `Secusfrom constructing improvements of any sort on or adjoining Outlot B . 4. Permanently ejioining all further use of Outlot B by individual members of the Association unless and until said uses or improvements to Outlot B are ordered by or atproved by the Association after the Association has • complied with all notices and meeting requirements set forth in the govern- ing documents. 5. .For such other and further relief as may be deemed just by the court. John Merz advised the members that his attorney had made the following suggestion that Mr. Merz would be willing to resolve his claims were the Association be willing to limit the placement of docks at the Outlot to TWO BOATS. This was previously stated in the letter from Kelly Law Offices on Feburary 21, 1991 to Trolls-Glen and members named in the suit. The members present were not willing to make such a concession. At this time Ann Cathcart stated that she had to leave the meeting and had given David Tester her proxy to vote. Daniel Hudson then appeared at the meeting. Shortly there- after John Merz advised the members that he was to continue with his suit and stated that it was going to cost the Association a lot of money. He then left _ the meeting. A motion was then made by Ivan Underdahl that the Association shall allow no more than four boats to be moored at Outlot B, and that of the four boats, no more than two shall be high jowered boats. This motion was seconded by Daniel Hudson. On vote taken the following voted in Favor: Tester, Hudson, Underdahl . Against the motion was Schneider. The motion carried. =he matter of legal fees was then discuesed. The Association DECLARATIONS AND COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, Article V, Section 5 state: Annual and special assessments to be Borne Equally. Both annual and special assessments '" must be fixed at a rate which is equal for all Lots in Trolls-Glen. • TEL iiai' F Trolls-Glen Homeowners Association Meeting, March 9, 1991, page 3 The anticipated legal fees was estimated at $12,000.00. We have twelve property owners and therefore, the assessment per lot, needed to meet the legal expenses amount to $1,000.00. A motion was made by David Tester that an assessment of $1,000.00 per lot be levied at this time, with the law firm, Kelly Law Office, to bill all property owners. with the Assessment to be paid in 30 days. This motion was seconded by Daniel Hudson. On vote taken the following votes were recorded in favor: Hudson, Schneider, Tester, Underdahl and by proxy, Cathcart . — There were no negative votes. The motion carried. Schneider was advised to send the names of the property owners and addresses to Kelly Law Offices for billing. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 P. M. Bernie Schneider Secretary AFFIDAVIT OF BRADLEY N. BEISEL Bradley N. Beisel, being first duly sworn on oath, states and deposes as follows: 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the state of Minnesota and I represent John Merz and Terry Johnson relative to their request that the beach lot ordinances of the City of Chanhassen be enforced with respect to Outlot B, Trolls-Glen First Addition, Carver County, Minnesota. 2 . I have taken the sworn depositions of Bernard Schneider, Ivan Underdahl , each of whom is a member of the Trolls-Glen Homeowner' s Association. 3 . Attached hereto are copies of portions of those depositions, each of which pertains to the use to which Outlot B of the Trolls-Glen Homeowner' s Association was put during 1981 and subsequent years. FURTHER, YOUR ,AFFIANT SAYETH / 4 or BRADLEY . BEISEL STATE OF MINNESOTA) SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 1991 by Bradley N. Beisel. 111111!PIP.1 4111 r 1_ .i��. .�� . -► JIM _: ;t'ary Public ,doo 1 26 1 Q. Now, I understand that as time went on, you and 2 Mr. Schneider came to an arrangement with another party with 3 respect to selling an interest in your dock; is that true? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And that -- was that person Patrick McGurk? 6 A. Yes, it was. 7 Q. Okay. And what was that arrangement? 8 A. That he purchased a one-third interest in the 9 cost of the dock. 10 Q. From you and Mr. Schneider? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And do you know when that arrangement was made? 13 A. In the fall of 1986, I believe it was. 14 Q. And do you know or did you have an 15 understanding as to what use Mr. McGurk would be making of 16 his interest in the dock? 17 A. He would use it to get to his boat. 18 Q. Okay. So he had a boat too? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And when did he get his boat? 21 A. I presume late summer or whatever of 1986 . I 22 am -- that was his doings, but I think that's when it was. 23 Q. Okay. Up to 1986, then, as I understand it, 24 the dock was the property of you and Schneider only; is that 25 true? KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES DEPOSITION OF (612) 922-1955 IVAN UNDERDAHL 27 1 A. We were the ones that paid for it. 2 Q. And therefore you were the ones that owned it? 3 A. I guess that gives us ownership -- 4 Q. Okay. 5 A. -- if we paid for it. 6 Q. Now, up to that time, then, were you and 7 Mr. Schneider the only ones that had boat lifts on the dock? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Did -- were you and Mr. Schneider the only ones 10 to dock your boats at the dock up to that time? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. But after 1986, Mr. McGurk started docking his 13 boat there? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Did he also use a boat lift? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And was that boat lift owned by Mr. McGurk 18 solely? 19 A. As far as I know. 20 Q. Do you recall the kind of boat that he had in 21 terms of size and power? 22 A. It was a Lund. I don't know if you call it a 23 bass-fishing boat, or that sort of thing, I guess. 24 Q. With an outboard motor? 25 A. Yes. KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES DEPOSITION OF (612) 922-1955 IVAN UNDERDAHL 13 1 A. Well, the decision was to put our dock into the 2 lake -- we are talking about the 64-foot section -- and Mr. 3 Underdahl had a boat and a boat lift and I had a boat and a 4 boat lift, and these were put in. John Ferm apparently 5 decided he did not need to put his section on, so he left it 6 in his garage. 7 Q. All right. Is that to say that you feel that Mr. 8 Ferm could put that out there if he wanted to at any 9 particular time? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Now, in 1981, there was a dock and two boat lifts 12 and two boats at the association outlot, correct? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And I am showing you what was previously marked 15 Underdahl Deposition Exhibit Number 8 . It's a photocopy of a 16 photograph plus some writing on the back that Mr. Underdahl 17 testified that that's what the dock and boats looked like in 18 the fall of 1981 . Is that accurate? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Would that also have been about what it looked 21 like in the fall of 1982 and '83 and '84? 22 A. Uh-huh. 23 Q. You have to say "yes" . 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. So in '81 and '82 and '83 and '84 , two boats were KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES DEPOSITION OF (612) 922-1955 BERNARD SCHNEIDEF 14 1 used at the association dock? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Now, it's also my understanding that in 1990 Mr. 4 Hudson started docking a boat at the outlot. Is that true? 5 A. Yes, he did. 6 Q. Was it in 1990 that he started that? 7 A. I am sure it was this past year, yes. 8 Q. And do you recall how it was that he felt he was 9 entitled to dock a boat at the outlot? 10 A. I can't give you that answer. I assume that when 11 he purchased the property, that he was advised that he had 12 boat mooring rights the same as all other residents of the 13 association. He did not specifically ask me or Ivan 14 Underdahl whether he could put the boat at the dock, but he 15 assumed it was an association dock for the use by the 16 members. 17 Q. Do you know whether his docking of the boat at 18 the association lot was ever discussed at a meeting of either 19 the association or the board of directors? 20 A. I am sure it was not. 21 Q. How about when Mr. McGurk started to dock his 22 boat at the association dock, was that ever discussed at the 23 association meetings? 24 A. I question whether it was discussed. The 25 original motion made and approved by the board of directors KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES DEPOSITION OF (612) 922-1955 BERNARD SCH"EIDER 37 1 property. 2 Q. Okay. Now, we're up to 1986 when McGurk buys a 3 portion of the dock and puts his boat up there, or stores his 4 boat there, docks his boat there. Okay? 5 A. Okay. 6 Q. All right. Now, from that point forward, I 7 want you to tell me the use that the dock was put to for 8 docking boats. In other words, whose boat was docked on the 9 dock from 1986 on? 10 A. Bernard Schneider's boat was docked on his 11 lift. My dock was docked on my lift. Pat McGurk's boat was 12 docked on his lift. 13 Q. Anybody else dock a boat there? 14 A. Not during that time. Not that I am aware of . 15 Q. Well , how about after that time? 16 A. Well , after that time, Pat McGurk left. 17 Q. Okay. What happened? 18 A. And so did his boat leave. 19 Q. And how about his one-third ownership, what 20 happened to that? 21 A. That stayed in his ownership for possibly 22 almost two years, because he still owned a vacant lot -- 23 Q. Okay. 24 A. -- in the Trolls-Glen First Addition. 25 Q. Now, during that two years, McGurk -- did KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES DEPOSITION OF (612) 922-1955 IVAN UNDERDAHL 38 1 McGurk dock his boat on the dock? 2 A. It was gone. 3 Q. So the answer is no? 4 A. State the question -- restate the question. 5 Q. During those two years, that would be -- I 6 believe you said for two years he -- 7 A. Well, whatever length of time. 8 Q. At least one season? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. He did not dock his boat on the dock? 11 A. That is correct. 12 Q. All right. But now I understand that in 1988 , 13 he found a buyer for his one-third interest, and that would = 14 be Mr. Ferm and Ms. Cathcart; is that right? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Okay. And as I understand it, McGurk then sold 17 his one-third interest in the dock to Ferm and Cathcart, and 18 that was okay with you and Schneider? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And that was in the summer of 1988? 21 A. I believe it was in 1988 . I don't know the 22 exact times. 23 Q. Well, I am going to show you a document that's 24 been previously marked as Cathcart Deposition Exhibit No. 1. 25 And it appears to be a letter to Mr. Schneider from Mr. McGurk. KIRBY A. KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES (612) 922-1955 DEPOSITION OF IVAN UNDERDAHL — .- re-•• •t .*-1 • ' : fr14.t 4 tY Y1: .t,. .; . A i . Ali . - ..I. 4, .a ..“ ,• 7 eV ' . . ..- *: f '7111 i' • 1:.s. ...' ft4P n.i' .4 .. .1. :J.. .1 ,...:"I a. 1,--.e, . ... t. Ai • .. .Or-I- ?1, it • 1 fiT 1 ..„., .... 'Vkv.-• fl. , 'i 4'-'87 J. .1 _ •A; 4, - ‘ 1 i : . • P ' • i . .r. . , • i • t • •,• k 111 • 1 ! jp.. • ' - 1 V t .. , I _ 1.f ' • • . i v St I I . . .-Ait• r. .t- -. ti..;• Ii. . -.:, - ... - 1. * • - • _ ft' 4 : .11C I.' 4rimm . i . .. .. . . t l' ..:-eh • . " 4 s• I. s • ,',. .: I .! .-:I - ' .-. ' 0%r .- ' I 116111 , 4, .1 • '.. j . cNtj... i I.• cis ' - -• •... , 0 „AS. .i ''-`•-Ail '4'lliiii:. 1 ")‘• ' , 111 I _ ie : . rwt) ._, i,A•• v-lel •fl ire i . t -• .... _ , 1 06... • . . i ; • f' .fj.'; ' i.!*,.- `i: . :qP.' 'ii • . . .1,,• . i. : ork. - • :. - • I _ .., : 1.. )f-... rii 7 s•--, ...AI t. • . ..11:4 r- • • :-: ,%,, ,•1.- ,ili;i .i . I -.,;..... : ; .,„ ' i• s.•, • -'i , 1 1.11:" '..!. •--4 . , . , 1 •iii.. ..tf 0). XVI . •"- ,.5 ." V 1 p. : : ; v .- • ..'".' " !. 14 v. I 1 . • i • ' 1 •ii til . !":". , t• I f• f ' 1 • gi 4 . .• el.; .• . •• •• • -,•.-; .41 A i „Ail, • ii 4‘111, ,.." .. 1 •, i• 1 . • It•Y I. . • . Of I .1 " 4 1 ! 1:.; .,. it• IA ! 1 --tfu is4. i i sii . It i 1 , .ri. _ / , . . • kli : 1 • iti. . _ i . , , \ 1 j II if ._1 .:. :ti' . Is ' j• V, . . . 1 9 7 I • s. - 1 • r ! .:- .:-,i....i. ), __ _ ,. : i• ' . 1„f '.'• . ,4k,.ilo,I• . 1,.._ , 1 I _ ... 1 • _ ,. p!if '‘.id t,I I i • 1 r.f I I . . ' 4 I. i ' ' I pr‘ I— 4 - il . i II I. 1 ' . a i .1 -.. I t p f. i ,! c ),1 J • I . • tit 4 ... , ,.... . •l ) •: t • . . I • t i 711111 , I o f • ; me 4; —11 J i - – . . . . • k . . ..., r It ,1 .4, 11. S}I . t • ptv. !.+11. i.bk..;.,'• I «. yy !r•- "�* t� ter. - i M� ...,-.711,. • • • • hacirplir Ale • .,„.. .-s'...1. - I. /f r! t tee' . • go �'ow. ":' ..e....1_ x .41 t! ! -..... ._- i-,..tclrt't.b.... Mc ..c ... -cc. I 4 trifie . • alt' - —" - ;' _t• - ' �, Al l'..' - "'"f,,-A "'.. t _ �. 7 .. _- •-- •• ••••- -ill*, 1117� - .1 - -fit • •• �.- - ... _ . • ,. , a - , ,--, .0 .., 1 .• , Ilkomilla1011/4- ---....."--. .- • . ... ,• i I 160 I•I L l L , . I ,. . ; • 7 —4 ii '.4. -. „ v • . (4 - ': . Ahr., ' s i r ai... • , - .t — .., 4... , t •• - s • t k 1. " ..• it...•,. , : .. 44, ,,. • • , • . • • , 4 3/4 f. . .. . a 1 • 4 . 14 • I C. 1 • ''; -it,1). z; -.141461 2 fli Unik _ • - ,; -„sa qv. ir .11 P . • -----..._ , 1 . . .i . - i. . • - 1 f , ---r .. . . . 4,`-' 4 v. ' li,1., _ _ _ _-. - 3 A• .fte--.--A . 1. k • • 44 •_.. . . ....„--- . 4.1, .._ y • 1 • . 1, -44.r q „ .• . • • '• — • .- – ..... • s• - i . - - , ••-'4%•• ' ise - • %- i •:-..i... ...r-' „, .4 . .. ' .-....:;;IL i -...., -.4. ... '•. e 1 • 1 l 1 ---• li. ''r,-.. •...0 : . -...........„... , •,,,, • -- - 11 :- T 1. i , ! ts .31 ',.' . e:t - • li ' •' 1-'t 1,11 .... '"---' • . ..Xi .0 - i • - '''' . - re - - i - . v r- • . . A, sr- :.A.• ', PF ; \ , ....v.. . •f . . . i . . • . . . . i. ':' '' 1-1 • ., 2 .., ! t! ..i • ' —1."' :iiiii, , 4z , T-1.- • I ; ,• c. -3 * : •• .-. . i i ... • .,. 414 .•-?-f, - „•,,_ 4 , , , . , — - .. .... .t:" lc 4 — f v 1. 1 1:. .:441 Al. . . .. 4 . . t ' t. i 1. t '- t ' . i 1 -,tt '* 3 : i 1. 0-, 4 ., 1 • ' 1 - . A , • . i i .... i 4 - , ... 1 .. _. i •._ _ t • c * . • / s a t . ..or . • 1 ••. .1 . ...a-s: • ft- - i • 16 f- . l'• i4 . ''.- I• 1, I. . 111 . 1-. •-• . . . . • i - .. t. ; • I , . t • 1 • - '•- I , , - . , . A' IP lq 1 • • -. - • t 1 , - ..- • •:1 14 • . :g:. - 1 .it 4 I'' .•'., .. ; / ,s ... 1 1..11 ; t .tli. :!1.4 . ,14..,.:. •,. 'I!: .. 1 ':Ir--• - -:. - 1 . t re 04: ' i: ‘rt 't ' • . ....: ..,.- / . .... .. _ . . ,... „7. • .;:.•ir., 1. . . V/,, •-• -., i4-... , i ; ,vi i, ilf ' . •t,1.'1; ?.:1 :: 1.• i !ji lit . tit, !;jii it : # • . .! /,... .- J. ' VItil• • . • , . . '' " .4. • -- . . , 4 : . i -ii. !'. eis •..- i tr Nf. r • • i -4. .-- --,* ii,I. . ' • • ' 1 . ••, 1 ! • it I ' •; ' i'i'lliv; .., ..-,-A • •-, - . \ i t 'i *., •• 1 1 • - ' ' i .i .•rst. ,. i li !II .1/..,4.1.11i$1:..-_,. .,_ . . , .c,,.. ,.... . . . . . . 1 , . 1 - 1' 0 1.1 ! • i I ' ,.' ' -- • I I I II 1 . .." I . • -• -4.-• ., • • r, i ',. . •, r, .• , • ,, ., • i.,..e.- 1 ) I . ' li.t# 1:01 I I ;1;i• . ..r•• ! \ 'ill fi' f . , • i. .,, f s . ..) .-. ....• •i ,I •I - , .. • s ' P'. . . •' . • '-- i I 4, I 6 ' .i.4.IMMIBilip •; ,r.i :...4 , s. -:. : - . I- •. 3j ,,,'"•-• ;1_7 $ , ,., .4 • - • - -• .. . 5. , 7, ,s- I• If : 1 f: 1 .fr , Ii. .,•-4,.„1,, Ili , , -. •-;_-•:•‹ -...- -44-., k. .- -:-. ) . . • V: • s, ... •• - t,. • -. ... . . ; , - • 3/4.. ....-0;e•co. , , t • , •••,--. .: .... i..it- .'S-• •t•• .'::'•I.; '' • t./ ' . .4. CITY of id's • i 1 it 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 �K.._ DATE: April 29, 1992 SUBJ: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Pertaining to Modifications to the Mining, Earthwork and Zoning Codes In 1990, the city adopted an extensive revision to the ordinance dealing with all aspects of mining and grading activity. In general, these regulations have worked well and are involved in the ongoing litigation and review of the Moon Valley Gravel operation. We have also used the ordinance extensively to review three or four other major grading or mining operations. Perhaps the biggest impact to the ordinance was the additional regulatory authority and standards that were provided for the hundreds of smaller scaled grading operations that occur throughout the community. The ordinance regulates all activities that move more than 50 yards so that even significant regrading of a back yard that may for example impact area drainage patterns, is now subject to a permit. While the ordinance has proven generally to be successful, we have found that it needs correction in one area. Under current language in the ordinance, the city's ability to allow grading and regulate same in many zoning districts is in question. We have come to the realization that under current ordinance language, any time more than 50 cubic yards of earth is moved, it is technically in violation of the code unless it occurs in the agricultural districts where grading and mining activity is specifically allowed. This was not the intention of the ordinance, nor is it the way in which we have been administering it over the past two years. Rather its intent was that mining activities be restricted to the agricultural districts, but that grading is a normal occurrence in a developed or developing community and that this should be allowed. Grading and altering between 50 and 1000 cubic yards is processed administratively, for over 1000 cubic yards, an excavation permit or interim use permit is required. The City Attorney has prepared modifications to the code that correct this omission. He is also proposing to eliminate a section of the code that is redundant since the adoption of our new grading standards two years ago. s � to PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission April 29, 1992 Page 2 The proposed amendments are fairly straight forward but would have a significant benefit on supporting existing administrative procedures on processing grading permits as well as the flexibility to grade sites in an acceptable manner located anywhere in the community. In separate actions, the Planning Commission is being asked to review two grading permit requests that happen to occur in the IOP and RSF Districts. Staff believes that both requests are reasonable and meet the standards in the ordinance. However, the correction proposed by the City Attorney is required to be approved before these actions can be initiated. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve an amendment to Section 20- 1351 of the Chanhassen City Code and repeal Sections 20-1352 through 20-1384. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance Amendment. 2. Current ordinance. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE PERTAINING TO MINING AND EARTH WORK THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 20-1351 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read: Mineral extraction, if the sand, gravel, black dirt, clay, and other materials is to be sold, is only allowed in zoning districts where such use is delineated as an allowed use. All other earth work is allowed in all zoning districts subject to the requirements of Chapter 7 , Article III of the City Code. Section 2 . Sections 20-1352 through 20-1384 of the Chanhassen = City Code are hereby repealed. Section 3 . This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this day of , 1992 . ATTEST: Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel , Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1992 . ) § 7-21 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 7.21. Certificate of occupancy. No building or structure of groups R3,R4,M,A,E,i,H,B,or R,division 1 occupancy,shall be used or occupied, and no change in the existing occupancy classification of a building or structure or portion thereof shall be made until the building official has issued a certificate of occupancy thereof. (Ord. No. 118, § 1, 1.22-90) Secs. 7.22-7.29. Reserved. ARTICLE III. EXCAVATING, MINING, FILLING AND GRADING* Sec. 7.30. Purposes and intent. The purpose of this article is to promote the health, safety and welfare of the community and to establish reasonable uniform limitations, standards, safeguards and controls for exca- vating. mining, filling, and grading within the City. Excavating, mining, filling, and grading permits for more than fifty (50) cubic yards, but less than one thousand (1,000) cubic yards of material in a twelve-month period may be processed administratively. Excavating, mining, filling, and grading of one thousand (1,000)cubic yards of material or more in a twelve-month period shall be processed in the same manner as an interim use permit. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5-14-901 Sec. 7.31. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases shall have the following meanings respectively ascribed to them: Earth work or work the earth: Excavating, mining, filling or grading. Excavating or mining: (1'1 The removal of the natural surface of the earth, whether sod, dirt, soil, sand, gravel, • stone, or other matter, creating a depression. (2) Any area where the topsoil or overburden has been removed for the purpose of re- moving earthly deposits or minerals. (3) Any area that is being used for stockpiling, storage, and processing of sand, gravel, black dirt, clay, and other minerals. Filling or grading: To change the contour of the land. Overburden: Those materials,which lie between the surface of the earth and material deposit to be extracted. *Cross references—Zoning generally,Ch. 20;landscaping and tree removal,§ 20-1176 et seq.; mineral extraction, § 20-1351 et seq. Supp.No.3 388 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS § 7-34 Restoration: To renew land to self-sustaining long-term use which is compatible with continguous land uses, present and future, in accordance with the standards set forth in this article. Topsoil: That portion of the overburden which lies closest to the earth's surface and supports the growth of vegetation. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5-14-90) Sec. 7-32. Permit required. Except as otherwise provided in this article, it shall be unlawful for anyone to work the earth without having first obtained a written permit from the city authorizing the same in accordance with this article.Active earth work operations that predate this article that do not have a permit shall cease operations or obtain an earth work permit within six(6)months after the adoption of this article. Current permit holders shall come into compliance with the terms of this article no later than the renewal date of such permit holder's Earth Work permit. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5-14-90) Sec. 7.33. Exemptions from permit requirements. The following activities do not require an Earth Work permit: (1) Excavation for a foundation,cellar, or basement of a building if a building permit has been issued. (2) Grading a lot in conjunction with building if a building permit has been issued. (3) Excavation by the federal, state, county, city, or other government agencies in con- _ nection with construction or maintenance of roads, highways, or utilities. • (4) Curb cuts, utility hookups, or street openings for which another permit has been issued by the City. (5) Excavation or filling of less than fifty (50) cubic yards in a calendar year. (6) Plowing and tilling for agricultural purposes. (7) Earth work in accordance with a development contract approved under the city's _ subdivision ordinance. If the development contract requires that a letter of credit or other security be posted, the letter of credit or other security must be posted before any excavation takes place. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5-14-90) Sec. 7-34. Exempt earth work. Earth work that is exempt from obtaining a permit pursuant to section 7-33 shall: (1) Comply with the city's erosion control standards. (2) Maintain natural or existing drainage patterns. (3) Comply with the city's other ordinance requirements including tree preservation and wetland protection. (0th. No. 128, § 1, 5-14-90) Supp.No.3 389 7-35 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 7.35. Applications for earth work permits. An application for an earth work permit shall be processed in accordance with the same procedures specified in the city Code relating to interim use permits except that earth work of more than fifty (50) cubic yards of material but less than one thousand (1,000) cubic yards of material in a twelve-month period may be approved administratively. An application for a permit shall contain: (1) The name and address of the operator and owner of the land, together with proof of ownership. If the operator and owner are different, both must sign the application. (2) The correct legal description of the property where the activity is proposed to occur. (3) A certified abstract listing the names of all landowners owning property within five hundred (500) feet of the boundary of the property described above. (41 Specifications of the following, using appropriate maps, photographs and surveys: a. Proposed grading plan. b. Proposed stockpile sites. c. The physical relationship of the proposed designated site to the community and existing development. d. Site topography and natural features including location of watercourses and water bodies. e. The description and quantity of material to be excavated. f. The depth of water tables throughout the area. g. The location and depth of wells and buried garbage, water, and fill. (5) The purpose of the operation. (6) The estimated time required to complete the operation. (7) Hours and months of operation. (8) A tree survey indicating the location and type of all trees over six(6)inches in caliper. _ In a heavily wooded area only the boundaries of the tree areas must be indicated on the survey. (9An end use landscape plan and interim screening plan for the operation period. (10) The plan of operation, including processing, nature of the processing and equipment, location of the plant source of water, disposal of water and reuse of water. (11) Travel routes to and from the site and the number and type of trucks that will be used. (12) Plans for drainage, erosion control, sedimentation and dust control. (13) A restoration plan providing for the orderly and continuing restoration of all dis- turbed land to a condition equal to or better than that which existed prior to the earth work. Such plan shall illustrate, using photographs, maps and surveys where appro- priate, the following: Supp.No.3 390 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS § 7-36 a. The contour of the land prior to excavation and proposed contours after comple- tion of excavation and after completion of restoration. b. Those areas of the site to be used for storage of topsoil and overburden. c. A schedule setting forth the timetable for excavation of land lying within the = extraction facility. d. The grade of all slopes after restoration, based upon proposed land uses, and description of the type and quantity of plantings where revegetation is to be conducted. e. The criteria and standards to be used to achieve final restoration as well as intermittent stabilization. (14! A statement identifying the applicant's program to insure compliance with the permit conditions, method of response to complaints and resolving conflicts that may arise as a result of complaints. (15) Unless exempt under Minnesota Rules, an environmental assessment worksheet, if required by the city. (16; A wetland alteration permit, if required by the city Code, which shall be processed concurrently with the excavation permit application. (17) Other information required by the city. (c) Applicants for earth work permits involving less than one thousand(1,000)cubic yards of material must only furnish the information specified in subsections(b)(1), (2),(4a),(5),(6),(7), (8), (12), (13), (16) and (17). (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5-14-90) Sec. 7.36. Processing of earth work permit applications. (a) Except as otherwise provided herein, the city council shall review the earth work permit application and shall approve the permit if it is in compliance with this article, the city's zoning ordinance, and other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations. ib) A permit may be approved subject to conditions necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements and purpose of this article.When such conditions are established, they shall be set forth specifically in the permit. Conditions may, among other matters, limit the size, kind or character of the proposed operation, require the construction of structures,require the staging of extraction over a time period and require the alteration of the site design to ensure compliance with the standards in this article. (c) Earth work of more than fifty (50) but less than one thousand (1,000) cubic yards of material in a twelve-month period may be approved by the city staff. The applicant shall submit the fee required by section 7-39 of the city Code. Upon receipt of a completed applica- tion, the city staff shall review the application within ten (10) working days and shall notify the applicant of the decision by mail. The city staff may impose such conditions as may be necessary to protect the public interest. Bonding may be required in an amount sufficient to ensure site restoration should the applicant default. Any applicant aggrieved by a decision may appeal the determination to the city council. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5-14-90) Supp.No.3 391 § 7-37 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 7.37. Termination of permit. (a) An earth work permit may be terminated for violation of this article or any condition of such permit. No earth work permit may be terminated until the city council has held a public hearing to determine whether such permit shall be terminated, at which time the operator shall be afforded an opportunity to contest the termination. The city council may establish certain conditions, which if not complied with, will result in immediate suspension of operations until the public hearing to consider termination of the permit can be held. (b) It shall be unlawful to conduct earth work after a permit has been terminated. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5-14-90) Sec. 7.38. Annual permits. (a) Earth work permits shall be renewed annually.The purpose of the annual permit is to monitor compliance with the conditions of approval. The city engineer,after consultation with appropriate city staff, may issue renewal permits upon satisfactory proof of compliance with the issued permit and this article. If the city engineer denies a renewal permit, the applicant may appeal the decision to the city council by filing a notice of appeal with the city clerk within ten (10) days after the city engineer denies the permit. (b, Request for renewal of an earth work permit shall be made sixty (60)days prior to the expiration date. If application or renewal is not made within the required time, all operations shall be terminated, and reinstatement of the permit may be granted only upon compliance with the procedures set forth in this article for an original permit. (c) An earth work permit which is limited in duration cannot be extended by the city engineer. Extensions must be approved by the city council. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5-14-90) — Sec. 7-39. Issuance of permit imposes no liability on city, relieves permittee of no responsibilities. — Neither the issuance of a permit under this article, nor compliance with the conditions thereof with the provisions of this article shall relieve any person from any responsibility otherwise imposed by law for damage to persons or property; nor shall the issuance of any permit under this article serve to impose any liability on the city, its officers or employees for any injury or damage to persons or property.A permit issued pursuant to this article does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility of securing and complying with any other permit which may be required by any other law, ordinance or regulation. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5-1490) Sec. 7-40. Fees. A schedule of fees shall be determined by resolution of the city council, which may, from time to time, change such schedule. Prior to the issuance or renewal of any permit, such fees shall be paid to the city and deposited in the general fund. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5-14-90) Supp.No.3 392 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS § 7-44 Sec. 7.41. Agreement; irrevocable letter of credit. Prior to the issuance of an earth work permit, there shall be executed by the operator and landowner and submitted to the city an agreement to construct such required improvements and to comply with such conditions of approval as may have been established by the city council. The agreement shall run with the land and be recorded against the title to the property. The agreement shall be accompanied by a letter of credit acceptable to the city in the amount of the costs of complying with the agreement as determined by the city council. The adequacy of the letter of credit shall be reviewed annually by the city. The city engineer may direct the amount of the letter of credit be increased to reflect inflation or changed conditions. The city may draw against the letter of credit for noncompliance with the agreement and shall use the proceeds to cure any default. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5-14-90) Sec. 7.42. Setbacks. Mining for the purpose of selling sand, gravel, black dirt, clay, and other minerals shall not be conducted within: (1) One hundred (100) feet of an existing street or highway. (2) Thirty (30) feet of an easement for an existing public utility. (3) Three hundred (300) feet of the boundary of an adjoining property not in mining use except that aggregate processing that creates objectionable noise and dust,including, but not limited to, crushing, must be set back one thousand five hundred (1,500) feet = from the boundary of adjoining property not in mining use. (Ord. No. 128, § 1,5-14-90) Sec. 7-43. Fencing. During operations permitted under this article, any area where excavation slopes are steeper than one(1)foot vertical to one and one-half(1i/2)feet horizontal shall be fenced,unless the city determines that they do not pose a safety hazard. Water storage basins shall also be fenced if the city determines the basins pose a potential safety hazard. Unless otherwise approved by the city, required fencing shall be a minimum six-foot-high chain link fence meeting Minnesota Department of Transportation standards for right-of-way fencing. An ini- tial fencing plan must be approved by the city council. The city engineer may subsequently authorize changes in the plan to accommodate changing conditions. (Ord.No. 128, § 1, 5-14-90) Sec. 7-44. Appearance and screening. _ The following standards are required at the site of any operation permitted under this article: (1) Machinery shall be kept in good repair.Abandoned machinery,inoperable equipment and rubbish shall be removed from the site. (2) All buildings and equipment that have not been used for a period of one (1)year shall be removed from the site. Supp.No.3 393 § 7-44 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (3) All equipment and temporary structures shall be removed and dismantled not later than ninety (90) days after termination of the extraction operation and expiration of the permit. (4) Where practical, stockpiles of overburden and materials shall be used as a part of the screening for the site. (5) Where the city determines it is appropriate to screen off-site views, the perimeter of the site shall be planted with coniferous trees, bermed, or otherwise screened. Trees shall be at least six (6) feet in height at the time of planting. (6) Existing trees and ground cover shall be preserved to the extent feasible, maintained and supplemented by selective cutting, transplanting of trees, shrubs, and other ground cover along all setback areas. (7) Noxious weeds shall be eradicated. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5-14-90) Sec. 7-45. Operations; noise; hours; explosives, dust, water pollution; topsoil preser- vation. The following operating standards shall be observed at the site of any operation permitted under this article: (1) The maximum noise level at the perimeter of the site shall be within the limits set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Federal Environmental Protection — Agency. (2) Earth work shall be performed during only those times established by the city council as part of the permit unless otherwise provided in the permit. Such activity may only take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Such activity is also prohibited on the following holidays: New Year's Day,Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, Christmas Eve Day, and Christmas Day. (3) Operators shall use all practical means to eliminate vibration on adjacent property from equipment operation.• — (4) Operators shall comply with all applicable city, county, state and federal regulations for the protection of water quality,including the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Federal Environmental Protection Agency regulations for the protection of water quality.No waste products or process residue shall be deposited in any lake stream or natural drainage system.All waste water shall pass through a sediment basin before drainage into a stream. (5) Operators shall comply with all city, county, state and federal regulations for the protection of wetlands. (6; Operators shall comply with all requirements of the watershed where the property is located. (7) All topsoil shall be retained at the site until complete restoration of the state has been taken place according to the restoration plan. Supp.No.3 394 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS § 7-46 (8; Operators shall use all practical means to reduce the amount of dust, smoke, and fumes caused by the operations. When atmospheric or other conditions make it im- possible to prevent dust from migrating off-site, operations shall cease. (9, To control dust and minimize tracking sand, gravel, and dirt onto public streets, internal private roads from a mine to any public roadway shall be paved with asphalt or concrete for a distance of at least three hundred (300) feet to the intersection with a public roadway. All internal roads shall be swept and treated to minimize dust — according to a schedule established by the city. The city may approve alternatives to paved internal streets that accomplish the same purpose. (10 All haul routes to and from the mine shall be approved by the city and shall only use streets that can safely accommodate the traffic. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5-14-90) Sec. 7.46. Restoration standards. The following restoration standards shall apply to the site of any operation permitted under this article: (1 The plan must be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. (2, Restoration shall be a continuing operation occurring as quickly as possible after the extraction operation has moved sufficiently into another part of the extraction site. (3; All banks and slopes shall be left in accordance with the restoration plan submitted with the permit application. (4' Slopes, graded areas and backfill areas shall be surfaced with adequate topsoil to secure and hold ground cover. Such ground cover shall be tended as necessary until it is self-sustaining. (5' All water areas resulting from excavation shall be eliminated upon restoration of the site. In unique instances where the city council has reviewed proposals for water bodies at the time of approval of the overall plan and has determined that such would be appropriate as an open space or recreational amenity in subsequent reuse of the site, water bodies may be permitted. (6) No part of the restoration area which is planned for uses other than open space or agriculture shall be at an elevation lower than the minimum required for connection to a sanitary or storm sewer.The city may waive this requirement if the site could not reasonably be served by gravity sewer notwithstanding the proposed operation. Fin- - ished grades shall also be consistent with the established plan for the property res- toration. (7) Provide a landscaping plan illustrating reforestation, ground cover, wetlAnd restora- tion, and other features. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5-14-90) Supp.No.3 395 § 7-47 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 7-47. Waiver. The city council may allow deviation from the standards set forth herein: (1) For operations that existed prior to the enactment of this article when it is not feasible _ to comply because of pre-existing conditions. (2) When because of topographic or other conditions it is not possible to comply. (3) When alternates that accomplish the purpose and intent of the standard set forth in this article are agreed upon by the city and the operator. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5-14.90) [The next page is 437] Supp.No.3 396 ZONING § 20.1355 ARTICLE XXVII. MINERAL EXTRACTION DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 20-1351. Mining as allowed use; compliance generally. Mining is only allowed in the zoning district where such use is delineated as an allowed use. In addition to complying with the requirements of the zoning ordinance[this chapter], all such uses shall comply with the Chanhassen excavation and mining ordinance, Chapter 7, Article III, of the Chanhassen City Code. (Ord. No. 128, § 2, 5.14.90) Sec. 20-1352. Waivers. The council, at the time of issuance of the extraction permit, may waive or modify any of the provisions in this article or impose additional requirements if it finds that the plan of operation or other materials submitted with the application or other factors make appropriate more suitable measures for standards consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. (Ord. No. 80, Art. X, § 10-1-6(5), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-1353. Residential lots. All excavation or grading on residential lots in conjunction with a building permit must comply with all provisions of this article other than article II and must receive approval of the = city engineer. (Ord. No. 80, Art. X, § 1(10-1-2(8)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-1354. Location generally. Extraction operations shall be conducted within the confines of the excavation site de- f scribed in the extraction permit application. (Ord. No. 80, Art. X, § 1(10-1-6(1)), 12-15-86) • Sec. 20-1355. Prohibited areas. Extraction operations shall not be conducted within: (1) Five (5)feet of the right-of-way of an existing public utility. (2) Thirty (30) feet of the boundary of an adjoining property which is not being used for extraction operations. (3) Twenty-five (25)feet of the right-of-way of a public street or highway. (Ord. No. 80, Art. X, § 10(10-1-6(2)), 12-15-86) Supp.No.3 1271 § 20-1356 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 20-1356. Fencing. During excavation operations, access to any area where collections of water are one and one-half(11) feet in depth or more or where excavation slopes are steeper than one (1) foot vertical to one and one-half(11)feet horizontal and any other areas where obvious danger to the public exists shall be controlled by a fence erected and maintained around the entire site or portions thereof. The fence shall be a type specified by the council. (Ord. No. 80, Art. X, § 1(10.1-6(3)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-1357. Appearance and screening. (a) All machinery shall be kept operational. (b) Abandoned machinery and rubbish shall be promptly removed from the excavation site. (c) Within three(3)months after the termination of excavation operations or within three (3) months after the expiration of the extraction permit provided by this article, the applicant or owner shall dismantle buildings and structures incident to excavation operations and shall grade the excavation site as well as complete all rehabilitation on the site as provided by the rehabilitation plan. (d) When required, the perimeter of the excavation site shall be planted or otherwise screened. (e) Existing tree and ground cover shall be perserved to the maximum extent feasible, maintained or supplemented by selective cutting, transplanting and replanting of trees, shrubs and other ground cover along all setback areas. (Ord. No. 80, Art. X, § 1(10.1-6(4)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-1358. Noise. Maximum noise level at the perimeter of the excavation site shall comply with the limits or standards established by the state pollution control agency and the United States Envi- ronmental Protection Agency. (Ord. No. 80, Art. X, § 1(10-1-6(5)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-1359. Hours. All excavation operations shall be conducted between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday only. The council may restrict excavation, processing or related operations on legal holidays if such activities cause noise or other disturbances offensive to adjacent property owners. (Ord. No. 80, Art. X, § 1(10-1-6(5)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-1360. Explosives. The use and handling of explosives at the excavation site shall be coordinated with the police department. Blasting shall occur only at hours specified in the extraction permit. (Ord. No. 80, Art. X, § 1(10-1-6(5)), 12-15-86) Supp.No.3 1272 ZONING § 20-1361 Sec. 20-1361. Fugitive dust. Excavation operators shall use all practical means to reduce the amount of fugitive dust generated by excavation operations. In any event, the amount of dust or other particulate matter generated by the excavation shall not exceed air pollution standards established by the state pollution control agency. (Ord. No. 80, Art. X, § 1(10-1-6(5)), 12-15-86) • Supp.No.3 1272.1 ZONING § 20-1366 Sec. 20-1362.,Water pollution. Excavation operators shall comply with all applicable state pollution control agency and department of natural resources regulations and all applicable United States Environmental Protection Agency regulations for the protection of water quality. No waste products or processed residue including untreated wash water shall be deposited in any public waters of the state nor in or near wetlands. (Ord. No. 80, Art. X, § 1(10-1-6(5)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-1363. Topsoil preservation. All topsoil shall be retained at the excavation site until the completion of rehabilitation work in accordance with rehabilitation plan. (Ord. No. 80, Art. X, § 1(10-1-6(5)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-1364. Slopes during excavation operations. During the entire period of operations, all excavations other than the working face, shall be sloped on sides to a maximum ratio of one(1)foot horizontal to one(1)foot vertical,unless a steeper slope is approved by the city. Where excavations are adjacent to a public roadway or other right-of-way, the excavation shall have a maximum slope of four (4) feet horizontal to one(1)foot vertical. Slopes adjacent to waterways shall not exceed six (6)feet horizontal to one (1)foot vertical. (Ord. No. 80, Art. X, § 1(10-1-6(5)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-1365. Equipment. All equipment and machinery shall be operated and maintained in such a manner as to minimize dust, noise, and vibration. Power drives or power-producing machine shall not be housed or operated less than one thousand (1,000) feet from a residential use. Access roads shall be maintained in dust-free condition by surfacing or other treatment as may be specified by the city engineer. (Ord. No. 80, Art. X, § 1(10-1-6(5)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-1366. Processing. Crushing, washing, and refining, or other similar processing may be authorized by the council as an accessory use, provided, however, that such accessory processing shall not be in conflict with the use regulations of the district in which the operation is located. Processing shall not be permitted in R Districts. (Ord. No. 80, Art. X, § 1(10-1-6(5)), 12-15-86) Supp. No. 2 1273 § 20-1367 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 20-1367. Rehabilitation standards. (a) Timing. Rehabilitation shall be a continuing process occurring as quickly as possible after the excavation operation has moved into another part of the excavation site. (b) Slopes. All banks and slopes shall be rehabilitated in accordance with the rehabilita- tion plan submitted with the extraction permit application. No rehabilitation slope shall be steeper than four(4)feet horizontal to one (1) foot vertical, except that steeper slopes may be permitted in accordance with the rehabilitation plan when the slopes are planned for slope- related uses including, but not limited to, ski hills and sliding hills. (c) Surface rehabilitation. All excavation shall be made either to a water producing depth, such depth to be not less than five (5) feet below the low water mark, or shall be graded or backfilled with nonnoxious, noninflammable and noncombustible solids, to secure that the excavated area shall not collect and permit to remain therein stagnant water; or that the surface of such area which is not permanently submerged is graded or backfilled as necessary so as to reduce the peaks and depressions thereof so as to product a gently running surface that will minimize erosion due to rainfall and which will be in substantial conformity to the adjoining land area and four (4) inches of black topsoil shall be placed on all areas, except beaches, that will remain above water level, and planted with ground cover sufficient to contain the soil. (d) Slopes to water bodies. No slope descending to a water body shall exceed one (1)foot vertical to six (6)feet horizontal. (e) Water bodies. All water areas resulting from excavation shall be rehabilitated as follows: All standing water bodies shall either be filled with acceptable fill materials at the • end of each excavation construction season or preserved in the discretion of the city, consis- tent with the public health, safety and welfare. (Ord. No. 80, Art. X, § 1(10-1-6(6)), 12-15-86) Secs. 20-1368-20-1375. Reserved. • DIVISION 2. PERMIT Sec. 20-1376. Required. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to remove, store or excavate rock, sand, gravel, clay, silt or other like material in the city, or to fill or raise the existing surface grades, without receiving an extraction permit for mineral extraction. Such permits may only be issued in the zoning district when mineral extraction is listed as an interim use. (b) An extraction permit shall not be required for any of the following: (1) Excavation for a foundation,cellar or basement of a building if a building permit has been issued. (2) Grading a lot in conjunction with building if building permit has been issued. Supp. No. 2 1274 ZONING § 20-1377 (3) Excavation by state, county, or city authorities in connection with construction or maintenance of roads, highways or utilities. (4) Curb cuts, utility hookups or street openings for which another permit has been issued by the city. (5) Excavations less than one hundred(100)cubic feet. (6) Excavation or grading for agricultural purposes. (7) Excavation or grading in accordance with a development contract approved under the city's subdivision ordinance. (8) Excavation or grading on residential lots not in conjunction with a building permit. (Ord. No. 80, Art. X, § 1(10-1-1, 10-1-2), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 120, § 5, 2-12-90) Sec. 20-1377. Application. Application for an extraction permit shall be made in writing in the form specified by the city. The application shall contain the following information: (1) The correct legal description of the land upon which excavation is proposed. (2) The name and address of the applicant, the owner of the land, and the person or corporation conducting the actual removal operation. (3) The names and addresses of all adjacent land owners within five hundred (500)feet. (4) The purpose of the proposed excavation. (5) The estimated time required to complete the proposed excavation and rehabilitation. (6) The names of the highways, streets or other public roadways within the city upon which the material shall be transported. (7) Specifications for the following using appropriate maps, photographs and surveys: a. The physical relationship of the proposed excavation site to the community and existing community development. Supp. No. 2 1274.1 ZONING § 20-1379 b. Site analysis information such as trees, depth of topsoil, adjacent and on-site buildings and land uses, flood levels, watercourses, and elevation and percent = slope within one hundred(100)feet beyond the perimeter of the site. c. The estimated quantity of materials to be excavated. d. The depth of water tables throughout the proposed excavation site. e. The average thickness of overburden on the proposed excavation site. (8) The plan of operation, including processing, if any,the type of resources or materials to be removed,the nature of the processing and equipment, location of the processing plant, sources of water, disposal of water, reuse of water, and the use of explosives. - (9) Plans for drainage, wind and water erosion control, sedimentation and dust control, maintenance of security on the proposed excavation site, control of access to open excavation and control of weeds and unsightly vegetation. (10) A comprehensive rehabilitation plan showing suitable provisions for reclamation and rehabilitation of the excavated area to a usable condition compatible with the adja- cent land such that it will not become a health or safety hazard or a nuisance. Such plan shall, as a minimum, include anticipated final elevations, slopes and plans for the return of subsoil and topsoil. Where the council deems practical and necessary, such plan shall also include adjoining related areas where excavations have pre- viously been made which remain under the control of the applicant or the owner of the land on which the excavation is proposed. (Ord. No. 80, Art. X, § 1(10-1-3), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-1378. Public hearing. Upon receipt of such application, the council shall set the matter for a public hearing following the notice provisions required for a conditional use permit. (Ord. No. 80, Art. X, § 1(10-1-7), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-1379. Issuance. (a) The council shall evaluate the application for the permit required by this article in accordance with the standards and requirements set forth in this chapter. (b) The council shall issue an extraction permit only upon a finding that the proposed excavation activities will not be dangerous or otherwise detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity thereof, or to the public health, safety, or welfare, and will not impair the use, enjoyment, or value of any neighboring property. (c) The council may attach conditions to protect the public health, safety and welfare, to avoid traffic congestion or hazard or to promote conformity of a proposed use with the character of adjoining property and uses. (Ord. No. 80, Art. X, § 1(10-1-5), 12-15-86) 1275 § 20.1380 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 20-1380. Special requirements. The council, as a prerequisite to the issuance of an extraction permit, or after an extrac- tion permit has been granted, may require the applicant or owner of the premises to: (1) Reimburse the city for the most of periodic inspections for the purpose of determining that the provisions of the extraction permit and this article are being followed. (2) Submit to the council a detailed map of the streets on which the material removed shall be transported (haul roads). The city shall inspect the haul roads proposed to be used by the applicant or owner and shall recommend to the council necessary upgrad- ing or repairing of the haul roads prior to their use by the applicant or owner. The council shall designate the haul roads and shall incorporate the recommendations of the responsible city officials in the extraction permit issued to the applicant. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant or owner to maintain the haul roads in accord- ance with the provisions set forth in the permit. The city shall periodically inspect haul roads to ensure compliance with the permit. During the period of or upon completion of the excavation operations, the applicant or owner shall make any necessary repairs to the haul roads as recommended by the city. All costs of inspec- tion provided for in this paragraph shall be borne by the applicant or owner. The use of the haul roads shall be further subject to any road and weight restrictions imposed by the city. (3) Submit annually in K-riting to the council the estimated quantity of minerals to be excavated. If the quantity of minerals to be excavated is for any reason likely to exceed the orginal estimate herein required, the applicant or owner shall notify the council of the change in estimated quantity. (4) Comply with such other requirements as the council shall from time to time deem proper and necessary for the protection of its citizens and the general welfare. (Ord. No. 80, Art. X, § 1(10-1-7), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-1381. Inspections. The city may inspect all excavation sites where an extraction permit has been issued. The operator or owner of any excavation operation found in violation of the requirements of this article or its extraction permit shall remedy such violations within the time specified by written notice from the city. (Ord. No. 80, Art. X, § 1(10-1-8), 12.15-86) Sec. 20-1382. Term. The excavation license shall run from January 1 through December 31 of the same year or for a lesser period of time as the council may specify at the time of issuance of the extraction permit. If the extraction permit is to run for less than a full year, the fee shall be prorated as determined by the council. (Ord. No. 80, Art. X, § 1(10-1-9), 12.15-86) 1276 ZONING § 20-1384 Sec. 20-1383. Fee. (a) The applicant or owner of the premises on which the excavation operation is located shall annually submit to the council written estimates of: (1) The total area of the mineral extraction operation (expressed in acres) to be actively mined during the forthcoming year; and (2) The total area for which an extraction permit permitting mineral extraction opera- tions has been granted (expressed in acres) which will not be actively mined in the forthcoming year. (b) The council shall,by resolution, establish an annual per acre permit fee. (Ord. No. 80, Art. X, § 1(10-1-10), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-1384. Surety bond. The council shall require the applicant or owner of the premises on which the excavation operation is located to post a surety bond with a surety acceptable to the city, cash escrow or letter of credit ("security") in an amount determined by the city council, running to the city, conditioned to pay the city the extraordinary cost and expense of repairing any streets where such repair work is made necessary by the special burden resulting from hauling and travel, _. and removing material from any pit or excavation, and conducting required rehabilitation and conditioned further to comply with all the requirements of this article and the particular extraction permit, and to pay any expense the city may incur by reason of doing anything required to be done by any applicant to whom a permit is issued. The security shall remain in full force and effect for a minimum period of one (1) year after expiration of the extraction permit to guarantee the required rehabilitation as well as the other requirements provided in this article. (Ord. No. 80, Art. X, § 1(10-1-11), 12-15-86) [The next page is 1977] 1277 C 1 TY OF PC DATE: 5/6/92 \\I C H A N H A S S E N CC DATE: 6/8/92 CASE #: 92-3 IUP STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Interim Use Permit/Earthwork permit of 18,000 cubic yards of — material LOCATION: Lot 5, Vineland Addition, Located at the Southeast corner of Pleasant Q View Road and Peaceful Lane. — V J APPLICANT: Fortier & Assoc Owner: Frank Beddor, Jr. — 0. 408 Turnpike Road 7951 Powers Blvd. Golden Valley, MN 55416 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Q — PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: N/A DENSITY: N/A ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF; Single Family & Pleasant View Road Q S - RSF; Carver Beach Estates E - RSF; Troendle Addition W - RSF; Single Family & Peaceful Lane — W WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. Cr)11-1 PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site contains a pond, vegetation, and rolling terrain. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential IUP for Vineland Addition May 6, 1992 _ Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting an interim use earthwork permit to excavate, correct soils and _ fill a total of 18,000 cubic yards of material to prepare the site for future development. The site is located at the southeast corner of Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road. The purpose of the operation is to create two building pads on the northwest quarter of the site. _ Also intended in this proposal is the expansion of the existing retention pond located to the northeast of the site and on Troendle Subdivision. There has been some discussion in the past regarding the status of the pond on Lot 5, Vineland Addition. This pond has the _ characteristics of a poor wetland and is shown on the Fish and Wild Life Map,however, this pond is man made and was created by the owner. When the city installed sewer and water lines along Peaceful Lane this work apparently caused the drain tile from Lot 5, Vineland _ Addition to be crushed. The city did restore the system shortly after. The northeast portion of the site started retaining water and eventually the pond started taking on wetland characteristics (see Attachment #2). Several discussions have taken place between staff, — City Council, and the owner of the property over a period of years. It has been determined that the pond is not a wetland. This proposal will allow Lot 5, Vineland Addition to become compatible with it's intended residential use. The operation is proposed to take 45 to 50 working days with construction starting June 15, and ending August 15, 1992, weather permitting. The applicant is — proposing hours of operation from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. The proposed area for correcting soils and filling will primarily take place along the northwestern portions of the site which has minimal vegetation. The applicant is proposing to relocate — any trees that might be affected by this operation. The area containing mature trees is located along the southern portion of the site. Grading of the site will have no impact on those trees. It should also be noted that one of the primary reasons for proceeding with the work at this time is due to the availability of fill material from Highway 5 construction. Thus, approval of this request will serve to facilitate the timely completion of the project this summer. During the platting process of Vineland Forest, a concept street plan was adopted to service _ Vineland Forest and the adjoining future subdivisions. This plan has been upheld with the platting of Vineland Forest and Troendle Addition. The plan calls for connecting Nez Perce Drive with Pleasant View Road, via Peaceful Lane. On April 13, 1992, the City Council _ authorized preparation of a feasibility study for the extension of Nez Perce Drive through Lot 5, Vineland Addition. Work on the study is proposed to begin the week of May 3, 1992. Staff recommends the applicant coordinate work efforts with Engelhardt & Associates, as — they are the firm that will be conducting the feasibility study. Any modifications in the site grading on storm sewer improvements as a result of the feasibility study, should be included IUP for Vineland Addition May 6, 1992 Page 3 in this proposal. The proposed earthwork does not appear to have any negative impact upon the future completion of the street. The plan proposes erosion control along all areas proposed for grading. Street cleaning and dust control is also proposed, which will minimize any impact of the excavation to the adjacent streets and properties. Part of the feasibility study will be addressing the realignment and reconstruction of Peaceful Lane. This realignment will take place concurrently with the extension of Nez Perce Drive, which will bring Peaceful Lane to city standards and repair any damage that might have taken place during the earth work operation. Staff will also inspect the condition of Pleasant View Road before and after the earthwork operation and will hold guarantees in the form of a letter of credit to insure restoration. Therefore, staff is comfortable that the excavation will not negatively impact existing uses of the surrounding properties and streets. The truck haul route will enter the site at the west corner onto Peaceful Lane to Pleasant View Toad to County Road 17, to Highway 5, to West 78th, onto Quattro Drive, to Lot 7, Block 1, Park One 3rd Addition, where some of the fill is being imported from. The trucks will return via the same route (see Attachment #1). The request for grading Lot 7, Block 1, Park One 3rd Addition, and the filling of Lot 5, Vineland Addition is being reviewed concurrently. The drainage and erosion will be controlled with silt fences shown on the plan and as required by the Engineering Department. Any dust problems will be controlled with water trucks and street sweepers. All disturbed area will have topsoil respread and seeded once the earthwork has been completed. There are no wetland areas being disturbed. The site will be left in a condition that will facilitate its future development for residential single family uses consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and existing zoning. The proposed interim use permit application is fairly straight forward. Staff is proposing a zoning ordinance amendment to allow earthwork in all districts as an interim use. If this amendment is approved, the application will be in compliance with the Excavating, Mining, Filling and Grading Ordinance. With the conditions added by staff to ensure proper restoration and minimize any traffic conflicts, staff is recommending approval of the interim use permit. COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXCAVATING. MINING. FILLING AND GRADING ORDINANCE Section 7 of the ordinance provides a series of standards which an interim use permit must be in compliance with. IUP for Vineland Addition May 6, 1992 Page 4 Section 7-40 - Fees The ordinance allows the City to determine the fee schedule for each permit and that each permit must be annually reviewed by the City Engineer. Section 7-41 provides for an irrevocable letter of credit that will be required to ensure compliance with conditions of approval. Finding Staff is proposing that a $7,000 letter of credit be required to ensure compliance with conditions outlined below (see Senior Engineering Technician Memo). The letter of credit will cover site restoration, preparing an as-built grading plan upon completion to verify work in compliance with plans, maintenance of adjoining roads including repair of damage directly as a result of the hauling and for maintenance of erosion control and dust control measures and landscaping. In addition, a permit fee from the Uniform Building Code will be applied requiring a permit fee of _ $238.50 to be paid. In addition the applicant shall reimburse the city for staff all city and city attorney time used to monitor and inspect the operation shall be paid at a rate of$30.00 per hour. Staff will document the time on a monthly basis and bill the applicant. Section 7-42 - Setbacks The ordinance requires that a setback of 100 feet from existing street rights-of-way and 300 feet from adjoining property lines be required for mining activities. Finding This condition does not apply. It is intended for mining activities only. Section 7-43 - Fencing The ordinance requires fencing for areas which will be converted to steep grades or where on site ponding exists if the Council determines that a safety hazard exists. Finding The excavation and filling will actually create two building pads for future homes as well as remove some bad soils. Through some discussions with the applicant, it was stated that the intent is to berm and landscape the northerly edge of the site, along — IUP for Vineland Addition May 6, 1992 Page 5 pleasant View Road, with mature trees. Resulting grades will not be adversely affected. Therefore,safety hazards should not exist and fencing is not recommended. Section 7-44 - Appearance and Screening — The ordinance requires that the visual impact of grading and mining operations be minimized and that where necessary, screening be provided. — Finding This is a temporary excavation process which will be leveling the area for future — home sites and will immediately be restored with seeding. Therefore, the visual impact of the grading will be minimal and screening will not be necessary. — Section 7-45 - Operations, Noise, Hours, Explosives, Dust, Water, Pollution, Top Soil Preservation A. Maximum Noise Levels as measured at the perimeter of the site shall be within limits set by the MPCA and by the Federal EPA. Fin in Staff does not feel that the earthwork on the site will be excessive beyond the _ activities being experienced in the area with improvements to Nez Perce Drive through Troendle Addition and development of residential sites in the area. To _ ensure that the noise levels do not become excessive, a condition is being provided that noise levels not exceed MPCA and EPA limits. If noise testing is required by the city, the cost shall be paid by the applicant. B. Earth work is permitted only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday and prohibited on national holidays. Finding — The applicant has stated that hauling will take place between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. This is in compliance with the hours as stated in the ordinance. Staff is concerned with the truck traffic during rush hour — and feels that condition should be imposed that would minimize the impact. We are particularly concerned due to Highway 5 construction activities that have already complicated traffic patterns. The haul route is on Highway 5 and is in fact part of — the Highway 5 improvement project as some of the fill material for Lot 5, Vineland Addition will be imported for Highway 5 fill. If the Planning Commission and IUP for Vineland Addition May 6, 1992 Page 6 Council wish to restrict hauling during peak hours, they may condition approval upon no hauling during rush hour periods. Usually rush hour periods on Hwy. 5 is from 7:00-8:00 a.m. and 3:45-5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The City Engineer shall make that determination. ' C. Operators are required to use all practical means to eliminate vibration on adjacent property from equipment operation. Finding Staff does not feel there will be a problem with vibration on adjacent property since it is separated by public right-of-way. This condition was provided for mining activities. In this case, the operation is small and on temporary bases and would not cause vibration. D. Operators shall comply with all applicable regulations for the protection of water quality. Finding The applicant is providing erosion control surrounding the expanded pond to prevent erosion into the pond. There are no wetlands in the near vicinity of the area and therefore, staff feels that there will be no water quality problems as a result of this activity. E. Operators shall comply with all regulations for the protection of wetlands. Finding There are no wetlands in the near vicinity of the activity which will be impacted by the excavation. F. Operators shall comply with all requirements of the Watershed District where the property is located. Finding The applicant is providing erosion control around the pond to meet requirements of the Watershed District. Watershed District approval is required. G. All top soil shall be retained at the site until complete restoration of the site has taken place according to the restoration plan. IUP for Vineland Addition May 6, 1992 Page 7 Finding A stockpile will provided for the topsoil which will be respread on the site as soon as the excavation is completed. H. Operators shall use all practical means to reduce the amount of dust, smoke and fumes caused by the operations. When atmospheric or other conditions make it impossible to prevent dust from migrating off site, mining operations shall cease. Finding Staff does not anticipate a problem with these impacts with the site's location and precautions that the applicant is providing for the excavation. The applicant will be providing water trucks for dust control and street sweepers. I. To control dust and minimize tracking of sand, gravel and dirt onto public streets, internal private roads to any public roadway shall be paved with asphalt or concrete for a distance of 300 feet to the intersection of the public roadway. Alternate means of controlling this problem may be accepted by the city. Finding The streets that will be used for the hauling are paved with curb and gutter or substandard in width. The applicant is providing street clean-up on a daily basis or as needed. The proposed trucks are leaving the site via Peaceful Lane located west of the site then entering Pleasant View Road. Grading will be taking place next to Peaceful Lane. There will not be enough distance for the debris to fall of the trucks, therefore, an improvement such as a sediment trap is necessary. i J. All haul routes to and from the mine shall be approved by the City and shall only use streets that can safely accommodate the traffic. Finding The trucks will be entering and exiting the site from the west via Peaceful Lane, then going west on Pleasant View Road, south on County Road 17, east on Highway 5, east on West 78th Street, onto Quattro Drive. (see Attachment #1). The trucks will then be going in the opposite direction, back to the site. Staff is concerned with the truck traffic during rush hour and feels that conditions should be imposed that would minimize the impact. We are particularly concerned due to Highway 5 construction activities that have already complicated traffic patterns. The haul route is on Hwy. 5 and is in fact part of the Hwy. 5 improvement project as some of the fill material IUP for Vineland Addition May 6, 1992 Page 8 for Lot 5, Vineland Addition will be imported from Highway 5 fill. Staff is recommending that if the City Engineer determines that traffic conflicts result due to rush hour traffic flows, the hours of operation be appropriately restricted. Section 7-46 - Restoration Standards — The ordinance provides a series of standards outlining site restoration. These are reviewed below. — A. The plan must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. — Finding The Comprehensive Plan illustrates this area as residential and the applicant's proposal to level the site is in conformance with the intended use of it being a residential site. Therefore, staff believes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. B. Restoration shall be a continuing operation occurring as quickly as possible after extraction operation has moved. Finding Restoration will be completed immediately after the excavated material has been — removed. Staff will be maintaining a letter of credit to cover the restoration costs in the case that the applicant does not or is unable to restore the site in a timely manner. — C. All banks and slopes shall be left in accordance with the restoration plans submitted with the permit application. — Finding Staff is recommending that an as-built grading plan be provided at the completion of the project so that staff can confirm the volume of material that has been imported and that the site is constructed as proposed. — D. Slopes, graded areas and backfill areas shall be surfaced with adequate top soil to secure and hold ground cover. Such ground cover shall be tended as necessary until it is self sustaining. IUP for Vineland Addition May 6, 1992 Page 9 Finding The topsoil is being preserved on the site and will be respread after excavation of the clay material. The topsoil will then be seeded to ensure ground cover for stabilization of the area. E. All water areas resulting from excavation shall be eliminated upon restoration of the site. Finding There will be no water areas, excluding the existing pond, which will be expanded, resulting from the excavation of the site, therefore, this condition is not applicable. F. No part of the restoration area which is planned for uses other than open space or agricultural shall be at an elevation lower than the minimum required for connection sanitary or storm sewer. Findin The finished grade of the site is at an elevation that will allow for the connection of municipal water, sanitary and storm sewer. G. Provide a landscaping plan illustrating reforestation, ground cover, wetland restoration or other features. Finding The letter from the applicant states that the excavated areas will be restored with the topsoil and seeded immediately after excavation. No trees or other forms of vegetation need to be replaced on the site. INTERIM USE PERMIT STANDARDS Mining operations will be allowed in the RSF District as an interim use permit if the requested zoning ordinance amendment is approved. The ordinance provides that interim use permits are reviewed under the general issuance standards established for conditional use permits, Section 20-232, of the ordinance. The following constitutes a compilation of the general issuance standards and staffs findings for each. IUP for Vineland Addition May 6, 1992 Page 10 1. Will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health,safety,comfort,convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. * The proposed earthwork is a temporary operation which will be completed on August 15, 1992. The importing of 18,000 cubic yards of fill will provide topography on the site which will be compatible with proposed residential uses and therefore it will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare of the city. — 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's Comprehensive Plan and this chapter. * The earthwork will be maintaining the site in a form suitable for residential use which is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and this chapter. — 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not — change the essential character of that area. * The proposed earthwork and filling will be maintaining the site, compatible — appearance with existing or intended character of the general vicinity. The slope will be leveled and the retention pond will be enlarged. This activity will not be changing the essential character of the area. The land will be — restored to a natural state once excavation is completed and will remain as such until development of the site. The applicant has suggested through discussions with staff that the intent is to berm and landscape the northerly — edge of the site along Pleasant View Road with mature trees. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. — * With the precautions being taken by the applicant and with the conditions of approval, the activity will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or — planned neighboring uses, provided the applicant address the debris control. 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services,including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services _ provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. * The use is temporary which does not need to be served by public facilities and services. The finished elevation will allow the site to be served by sanitary sewer and water once it is developed in the future. — IUP for Vineland Addition May 6, 1992 Page 11 6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. * The activity will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare _ because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes,glare,odors,rodents, or trash. * The proposed excavation could result in excessive traffic, noise and fumes. The conditions of the approval will provide standards by which the activities should be minimized. 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. * The excavation operation does have the potential to conflict with traffic on Hwy. 5 especially during the rush hour periods. Staff is recommending that if it is felt that traffic during rush hour is potentially a hazardous situation, the city could limit the hours of hauling on weekdays to non-rush hour periods. With the this condition, staff feels the potential traffic conflicts will be minimized and will not be a potential hazard. 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. * The proposal will not result in any significant impact to natural or historic features. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. * The area proposed for excavation, once completed, will still be aesthetically _ compatible with the surrounding residential sites. The applicant intends to berm and landscape the north portion of the site along Pleasant View Road with mature trees and shrubs. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. * The proposed use will not have a long term impact on surrounding property values. IUP for Vineland Addition May 6, 1992 Page 12 — 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. s The proposed excavation application is meeting the standards prescribed for the RSF District. Staff feels that the application is complete and will minimize potential impacts. With the conditions proposed, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission and City Council approve the project. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim Use Permit #92-3 with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide the City with a letter of credit in the amount of $7,000 to cover any road damage, maintenance of erosion control measures and site restoration. 2. The applicant shall submit $238.50 grading permit fee as required by the Uniform Building Code. The applicant shall also be responsible for reimbursing the city for all inspection and attorney fees associated with processing and enforcing the permit. The inspection fee shall be computed at a rate of $30 per hour. 3. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permit requirements of the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District. 4. The applicant shall provide storm runoff calculations for the ordinary high water level, 100-year flood elevation and pipe hydraulics prepared and signed by a professional engineer. 5. The applicant shall supply the City with a mylar as-built survey prepared by a professional engineer upon completion of excavation to verify the grading plan has — been performed in compliance with the proposed plan. 6. A stockpile must be provided for the topsoil which will be respread on the site as — soon as the excavation is completed. Topsoiling and disk mulch seeding shall be implemented immediately following the completion of excavated areas. IUP for Vineland Addition May 6, 1992 Page 13 7. Noise levels stemming from the operation are not to exceed MnPCA and EPA regulations. If the city determines that there is a problem warranting such tests shall be paid for by the applicant. 8. Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday and prohibited on national holidays. If the City Engineer determines that traffic conflicts result due to rush hour traffic flows, the hours of operation will be appropriately restricted. 9. The city will work with the County Sheriff to coordinate speed and weight checks. If trucks are violating traffic laws, staff will require that the operation be shut down _ and will ask the City Council to revoke the permit. 10. An emergency overflow swale should be constructed over the southwesterly portion of the site to drain across Peaceful Lane. The swale should be the approximate location of where the existing drain tile is located. 11. The applicant shall incorporate any modifications to the site grading and/or storm sewer improvements as a result of the approved feasibility study. 12. The applicant shall be responsible for adjustment of all sanitary sewer and water service stubs along Pleasant View Road and Peaceful Lane. 13. The applicant shall convey to the city a drainage easement over the proposed pond. The easement limits shall be confined to the 100 year flood elevation. 14. The applicant shall be responsible for any and all road damage sustained from the truck hauling and construction activities. 15. The applicant shall construct and maintain a gravel construction access to the site. Access to the site shall be restricted to this access point only. 16. The applicant shall convey to the City, a drainage easement over the proposed pond. The easement limits shall be confined to the 100-year flood elevation. 17. The landscaping shall be discussed with staff. The applicant shall submit landscaping plans for staff review and approval." ATTACHMENTS 1. Map showing the subject site and the truck route. 2. Letter from Art Owens dated December 13, 1989. IUP for Vineland Addition May 6, 1992 Page 14 — 3. Memo from Paul Krauss dated April 7, 1992 4. Senior Engineering Technician dated April 29, 1992. — 5. Letter from the applicant dated April 3, 1992. 6. Section from the Uniform Building Code on Grading Permit Fees. 7. Site plan for excavation dated April 6, 1992. - i_ot 5, Vrn Not n. • ifIf ifg § ? • § i ? § A A 8 ? • CHP/SHWAS / _ NENNENNI CO.IITT c'•'- °"" • `�`.. ■■T�-k. �:i - _ a ♦ Ii nl .r 5200 "71_ LAKE �' 4 1. ( 'a: -=1211-1!=:- I, 67 �._\ — �_ , .■w�'v a, •.''-% :c;;�:lW 5600 7 allt,1=:11_111,a di . .4..11A,-,.•....• iir-4,941 Apvlikt, 4 i.,:t.'eiott.iti,17•,---44,14ifiE —7.. ... "ice b.�. t.► •■■� ■ A��vp"i v-r, U-•q 1, 6400 E �K•.= !. *�/I/ �� ,'7.t*p . 1R• V, 4500 .. gt -s•111W !� � �"4 :.-% / 1 5600 0. C.1�1 vQ7 I`• i' I�','�r�l�f t�oe 0—. ilikase_i_wIrg di.���. BEACH �..�.�, 1. 1►� \� •Ari I . PARK � w-r^•'i• ipti: VKkET 1 ,,- 5_ -6,00 _ R04° __ ._ vlw:iip ...7-4,1% ..:$e74E,..,._1, ... ...,c.,. il- ::: _____“,, _' n a "■ x'41--.... ', .... corms 5600 _ LAKE Lf/CY ...at. ,.. _. tIA a It!t ■ . E,-.,�„� a�l Nil w • ��� 1r � 7000 11 ` vii.CIMUStill To . RE E a' �l ili��• 6�a Ili y�`�' '' r � riL. -,oo F _ eV. F ARKS =6 `�,I;IIU��4 a,�� a 7200 — M£ADOIV = �i- -I_• �•�p11 :- %.0",/ �• CAKE ...... Ole, /{///./���,q��I- LAxE ANN GREEN PARK i••. %Iv'. • �� ♦.- ' -+40 4411.1_,_i 1 '� • /? /-t �,�" �' •moi t)Id11 �B.�iner.� � noo • MOSdo. ♦ �/ n•B �• i• ,•� ( • 7400 •�. / J ' rte` !'r g _- in ; ' • j,, I ji I AKE _ ��\,, ' wk, -y e, : ,• e 7600 �1 -_ •AN PAPP • !� __,. •, 1�� •1."10.44P4.1• r � ��+ y 1 M. M .•. ! 1 PrA ` MOM I ' t yh -X 4..12.- .. A 1 L •i -i;-.;�$1. •, ..a lgi. . 11151 MMSM • i "" lig __7700 .• ' i I161./1. 0'7 3 1 2 1 hP1t VA Re 1 NMONI•' ' 1 1 . ma 700 1117--. Il 014,7-,:.- wJ Y— - J —,600 i_l es . ' r soglifl Wf -----*-� ��- '� - '.a �...mint...r.sktb:14,:liii, �- E1 0140 —5000 0)2,. --..t.A t i.... -I- AA,4... . 110W in.. ..-1 • ..44* 9,00 IOM• ,_`_ W F igii!•4•�N,: iA . _. ...:_ ���� � pp u6��� d/� I •4 v■ij::4 , g 1 4200 - _V � , - •I s. ,rR,C•E •z % / 1110#0,4 Ii4. ll�f''. - -_ I \j C�.�tlh;' ,IURsw:p r / 5i LIKE .00)../4 �.�...� I.1�1/�.I� r PARK . - ez:,,, 4AAI► 4L 4,11 I� LAKE SUSAN 11 r _ • /u �r.�j�• ��ag '>.�� ,. i% ~ R/CE N RSH LAKE .- 11111:41 1 ? - '� 11 022.2-� '=ar--.S�1 frufr ` {(/ Illk _ ��.Ia' ii ,.)-0 - - • - -.. Ink ��_ , nom _ ♦ ' i'• ��Tf1 Ird. _- _ � n00 I 't i _ ate' .../174. . , 'f ' OA ! •••n:,. �I +•—••_ =01. '• ' 5700 ... 1 i 41 0 ��,-,... �V' �'I' _ . gi —5600. A W Owens 6535 Peaceful Lane Chanhassen,MN 55317 December 13, 1989 Jo Ann Olsen,Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive PO Box 147 Chanhassen,if 55317 — Greetings to Jo Ann: In response to your request in our phone conversation last week the following is a brief history dealing with the so called "wetlands"on the north end of our property. We moved out here in 1962. At the time we moved, Carver 17(Powers Blvd) ran right past — our place(from what is now Lake Lucy Road north on what is now Peaceful Lane and then west on what is now Pleasant View Road).During the discussion on widening Carver 17 it was finally decided to reroute it cutting out what is now Peaceful Lane and the west end of Pleasant View Road,bringing in tons of fill because of that area being very low from the desired grade. During that rerouting we had a pond dug in the north end of our property which added a lot as far as beautification was concerned. We kept this mowed and fenced for the 13 horses we had at one time. Subsequently, in time, the city contracted for sewer and water. Without our knowledge the drain tile draining our field was crushed under the road causing the field to become swampy. We finally had to remove the horses and we then removed the fence. In talking this over with our neighbor after we had lost over$100 trying to clean out the tile he said we should have the city repair it because it was crushed during the laying of the sewer and water pipe. The city agreed once it was explained that our neighbor had witnessed the crushing. _ Unfortunately the back-hoe used for digging did not have a long enough reach so the tile replaced under the road was left too high. Although it helped some it still left the field wet for about half the summer. We were now at least able to again cut up to the pond. When we started to talk about the city taking the southwest corner of our property for the water tower Bill Monk came out and we again discussed the mess left by the city due to the crushing of the drain tile and the inadequate attempt at repair. He assured me this would be done to our satisfaction and passed this agreement on to Gary Warren. When Gary Warren and I met he told me the city would not only fix the drainage problem by _ laying a tube from the road but they would bring in dirt from some surplus they had to cover the tube and even possibly plant some small trees on the west side. He was challenged on the ability of the tube to drain to pond because of the pitch, but he felt that would be no problem. It turns out it was roblem because to bring the tube to water height they had to — bring it back down from its proper drain pitch starting about 30 feet from the edge of the pond. Now for the water to flow out of the pond to maintain the previous acceptable level it • i — has to flow uphill. When this was brought to Gary's attention he agreed to have a back-hoe brought in and pull dirt out from within the pond and raise the edge enough so it would be higher and keep the integrity of the kidney shape of the pond. What apparently was not known by Gary or the back-hoe operator is unless we can go down at least 4 feet at the edge of the water cattails and other water loving growth will proliferate. The back-hoe left'a shallow shelf all around the pond and consequently we now have what is called a"wetlands" with all the restrictions that are placed on the property owner to maintain it. Before realizing the ramifications of the result of the wetlands classification I had asked Gary to correct the problem. He said the city was through. They were not going to do any more. About this same time we were working on developing the property and we asked the land planner what we could do. They suggested we bring in fill if our neighbor agrees and raise the base on the whole north end of our two properties and then bring in a back-hoe with enough reach or a dragline to reshape the pond. Since this sounded reasonable we let it be known we could use some fill. We now have about all the fill we think is needed but now we need somebody to grade and then we get your Certified Mail letter laying additional burdens on us to try to correct an injustice done by the city many years ago. It seems to me in all fairness the city is the one that should have completely restored the area to our original landscape before the sewer and water was installed. We have been advised we would have a good chance of winning a law suit if we were litigate prone,but we are not. We hope this was evident when the city condemned the property for the water tower. As you recall in our phone conversation you told me this would have to go before the council to get a waiver. When asked if this could be accomplished before we left town you felt not and suggested this letter. As a result we are also sending a copy to the council members and hope the combined wisdom will favor us. Sincerely, — A W Owens CITY OF -- CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739Mon V! CRY Adninletretor } adored ✓ • t MEMORANDUM liodiPler► �etcu TO: Charles Folch, City Engineer Dub 51,flm}tkd to commiSsiM FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Directo19(-- yidt SobnItneoSubmitted to coin DATE: April 7, 1992 - 4 �'"'� SUBJ: Authorization of Preparation of Feasibility Study for Extension of Nez Perce Drive through the Owens' Property to Pleasant View Road — Over the past two to three years, the subject of providing a street connection from Nez Perce to Pleasant View Road has been repeatedly dealt with by the Planning Commission and City Council. During the review of the Vineland Forest plat in 1989, the City Council adopted a concept that would provide a long term connection through adjoining properties to serve this need. The road was constructed up to the west property line of Vineland Forest, but ultimately must go across the adjacent Troendle property and Art Owens' parcel to make the connection. Last year during the review of the proposed subdivision of the — Troendle property, this road connection proposal was again reviewed and upheld, and appropriate right-of-way taken. During this review, area residents asked the Council to make the connection to avoid local traffic impacts; however, this proved to not be possible at that point in time since the adjoining Owens' parcel was in bankruptcy and was not proposed for subdivision at that time. Consequently, the developer of the Troendle Addition was required to place $10,000 on deposit with the city, which is the Troendle Addition's share of completing the street across the Owens' parcel. This money is being held by the city to be used towards the ultimate connection. When the Troendle Addition was approved, the City Council asked that this item be brought back up within 18 months and while this time period has not fully lapsed, recent events have caused us to reconsider this condition. We have held discussions with a representative of Frank Beddor, who is seeking to purchase a portion of the Owens' parcel. It is our understanding that the Owens' parcel would be coming out of the bankruptcy protection. — What is not clear at this point is when the city would be in a position to take the right-of- way through the subdivision process, in fact at the present time, it looks more and more like we may have to go in and condemn the final piece of right-of-way. Based upon this, I think it would be useful for the city to take a portion of the $10,000 fund and undertake a feasibility study for the roadway extension. This would be highly useful in defining a "-� t 4IP PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Charles Folch April 7, 1992 Page 2 centerline, which has never been done for this route, as well as engineering and construction requirements, and costs. At the very least, this would allow us to officially map the route to protect it from development even if we do not proceed with construction immediately. Secondly, the cost of the study would not be wasted since it is necessary to do one before we could build the road however the right-of-way is acquired. I would urge the Engineering Department and the City Council to undertake this action as soon as possible so that we may be in a position to assure that the final link of this road is constructed in a timely manner. CITY ENGINEER'S COMMENT As Paul has expressed in his memo, it would be of great benefit for the City to define and officially map the alignment for this last segment of Nez Perce Drive through the Owens property connecting with Peaceful Lane and ultimately Pleasant View Road, particularly = since there seems to be at least one party interested in purchasing this land. It would be appropriate to use the $10,000 dedicated from the Troendle Addition to perform this study. I will be meeting with Bill Engelhardt later in the week to discuss a number of issues. It is my intention to also provide him with the necessary information to prepare a cost proposal for the sutdy which I can present to the City Council on Monday night. It is therefore recommended that authorization be given to prepare a feasibility study for the extension of Nez Perce Drive through the Owens property to Pleasant View Road at a cost not to exceed $10,000 and that Engelhardt & Associates be assigned the project engineer. yjimAt aok¢d 7( R,t dr F>voo da aN 41.o4. pA'Cr ktm 5 -1e V D /Ix,/ , a4 ra�. -u✓ /11‘"; `s e/9d7 , 5.4 Ifrif 143/i9 /77.‘"f- '7Z fit' N Ph�Gs �w6b�r ,l/,0//,�oan� vr�� �oQa'h� ziem ANY/Pat a ,ed bofC' \\C Ti0•iae/oda/ 7or1 . ' ,7� p(k 1a.s E, irradPs� /ecee7,idi."'"I '1' AL' pis ed ,ack of taut, L ��C%��//. -r-ora _ A) r >ir r� �nP.��s fiX/zU-dst� raj /Y5/ (Lv1�5 .'1 .0 <.. RC r-.c,' d µaa �,n5 p/�t Cancc/�astd 64ha. o A77,5 h-fiLe.1),dk94 7/,./2‘44:17/u":44 �,,yy �� rO �l�/G+ OSS G�i(0�'p�/i`I�{O 4 / 1 /t1.yc� /p�'�1vy7 5 P° 6..f.) so/off nd- 0t�. jst corrr� , rk f v ..k#- .e..1�/a Pa,f�os, '""'J r/ — -"MC? cvrrlis R•44.vn 1(--X€ /P a). s /;G )44' !'/7 , Z/S more, o '7 94!, �e�Shad V�u af��nrtt ' a*,d eo.4s.c. rvrs!. sfs v/u A £144.4j. / ',k"A..a d4ca..4 J .6svgs v.- /°r e/ 417>" °4tiLc , ✓ ,dam . 1-g/4/Z' loris . fy poi u 54�kJ /a rmw.<'tia,, a /4/ ' ' '7 ' c. '�. /,//,ydemi <o,'d'zio sc ce44ed 377-1W11 ;all V Lr APR 13 199" CITY o L-, April 10, 1992 Randy L. Bauernfeind 6361 Fox Path Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen City Council Chanhassen Municipal Building 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Connection of Nez Pierce Street to Pleasant View Road Dear Chanhassen City Council Members : I noticed that one of items on the April 13th Chanhassen City Council agenda is a discussion concerning a feasibility study to connect Nez Pierce to Pleasant View Road. As a resident of Chanhassen, I am writing this letter to express my concern with connecting Nez Pierce to Pleasant View Road. Connecting Nez Pierce to Pleasant View Road would significantly increase the amount of traffic on Pleasant View Road which is already extremely over traveled. Pleasant View Road has become a "shortcut" for getting from one side to the other side of Lotus Lake/Christmas Lake. This "shortcut" mentality has caused many commuters to travel at speeds in excess of the posted speed limit and at speeds which are clearly unsafe for this road. As you are aware, Pleasant View Road is the only passageway from County Road 17 to Highway 101 between Highway 5 and Highway 7 . The road was never designed to carry the amount of traffic that it is currently handling. The road is very narrow with numerous blind curves , steep drop-offs to Lotus Lake, and has no shoulder or walkway. In addition to the limitations of this road, the road surface has deteriorated a great deal over past couple of years due to the amount of excess usage. A tremendous amount of residential development has taken place on both the east and west ends of Pleasant View Road over the past couple of years. As a result of increased traffic generated by new development, Pleasant View Road has become a very unsafe road to travel by vehicle let alone trying to walk or bicycle on. In my opinion a four-lane freeway would be a safer place to walk or ride a bicycle. Development which is planned for the future will only generate more traffic on this road if a plan is not developed which will reduce the usage of this road. Page 2 A plan for Pleasant View Road should be developed which would reduce the amount of usage and which would give people who jog, walk and bicycle an opportunity to enjoy this scenic drive and an opportunity for Chanhassen to retain its small town atmosphere. The commuters that currently use Pleasant View Road as a shortcut should be re-routed to Highway 5 and Highway 7 that are designed to handle commuting traffic at commuting speeds . I would appreciate if the Chanhassen City Council would take my concerns and suggestions under consideration before allowing additional access to Pleasant View Road and for future planning discussions . Sincerely, Randy Bauernfeind C CITYOF CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I — FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician DATE: May 1, 1992 SUBJ: Interim Use Permit/Earthwork Permit, Lot 5, Vineland Addition, — SE Corner of Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road Grading Permit No. 92-2 Upon review of the plans prepared by Fortier & Associates dated April 2, 1992, I offer the following comments and recommendations. — The proposed work consists of soil corrections, filling, storm sewer construction and reshaping the existing pond on the site. Troendle Addition, which lies immediately east of the proposed site, has a retention pond which is also impacted by this work. The applicant is proposing to combine these two ponds and fill around the pond to create two building pads on the west side of the pond adjacent to Peaceful Lane. The existing pond elevation on the site is controlled by an existing 8-inch PVC drain tile located in the southwest corner of the site. The drain tile crosses Peaceful Lane and outlets immediately into a ditch and continues via overland flowage to the west towards Powers Boulevard. The applicant is proposing to extend and modify the outlet pipe by constructing two manholes/catch basins and extending the pipe to the new pond location. The existing pond outlet pipe is proposed to be removed. The applicant is also the developer of Troendle Addition. City Ordinance required the developer to construct a retention pond to retain storm runoff from a 100-year storm event. This retention pond is proposed to be connected to the new pond on Lot 5. Staff — recommends the applicant provide the City with storm runoff calculations for pond storage and pipe hydraulics. The calculations as well as the construction plans for the storm sewer will need to be prepared by a professional engineer. Based on field inspections, it appears — the drain tile is actually 8" PVC, not 6" PVC as indicated on the plans. The proposed storm sewer system is designated to be constructed partially in Peaceful Lane right-of-way which ot PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER _ Sharmin Al-Jaff May 1, 1992 Page 2 typically would deem maintenance responsibilities onto the City. Staff also envisions when this parcel subdivides the remaining section of storm sewer would also be dedicated by easement to the City for ownership. Staff considers the proposed storm sewer improvements as an interim or temporary system until the feasibility report and/or site plan approval is achieved. At that time, a more permanent drainage system will be designed in accordance to City design standards. Construction of the permanent storm sewer system would be included with Nez Perce street extension. The City is currently in the process of preparing a feasibility report to extend Nez Perce Drive from Troendle Addition to Peaceful Lane. It appears the proposed grading will not adversely affect the future street extension. However, depending on the results of the feasibility study currently undertaken by the City, the extension of Nez Perce Road to Peaceful Lane and ultimately Pleasant View Road may require modifications to the _ applicant's site grading and storm sewer alignment. The applicant shall be responsible for any modifications to the site grading and storm sewer system as a result of the approved feasibility study. The erosion control detail proposes installing silt fence around the perimeter of the pond. All disturbed areas are proposed to be restored with topsoil & seed. Staff also recommends placement of mulch due to the slopes adjacent the pond. Staff finds the overall intent of this project acceptable subject to the conditions listed below. 1. The applicant shall provide storm runoff calculations for the ordinary high water level, 100-year flood elevation and pipe hydraulics prepared by a professional engineer. 2. An emergency overflow swale should be constructed over the southwesterly portion of the site to drain across Peaceful Lane. The swale should be the approximate location of where the existing drain tile is located. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for incorporating any modifications to the site grading and storm sewer improvements as a result of the approved feasibility report. 4. The applicant shall provide the City with a letter of credit in the amount of $5,000 to guarantee compliance with the terms of the Interim Use/Earthwork Permit. 5. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permit requirements of the Watershed District. Sharmin Al-Jaff May 1, 1992 Page 3 — 6. The applicant shall be responsible for adjustment, if necessary, of all sanitary sewer and water service stubs along Pleasant View Road and Peaceful Lane. 7. Upon completion, the applicant shall provide the City with as-built plans of the — grading as well as the storm sewer system. The as-builts should be in a mylar reproducible format. 8. The applicant shall be responsible for reimbursing the City all inspection and attorney's fees involved in processing the permit and inspecting the project. 9. The applicant shall be responsible for any and all road damage sustained from the truck hauling and construction activities. 10. The applicant shall construct and maintain a gravel construction access to the site. Access to the site shall be restricted to this access point only. 11. The applicant shall convey to the City, a drainage easement over the proposed pond. The easement limits shall be confined to the 100-year flood elevation. 12. The applicant shall provide a traffic control plan for staffs' approval and provide the necessary traffic control signs, i.e. trucks hauling. jms Attachments: 1. Gravel Construction Entrance Detail. 2. Sample Grading Permit. c: Charles Folch, City Engineer I lipSlik.p. -..57:11P.. .:.-.::....T gyp .. `i jr �� s , �. .... .-:#1.6.0;!- -;- •sem - . x.. _-i= .1,41A-A eft 0.• Jiwie .4.,j.t. • _ 6.7 TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS A temporary rock construction entrance is a stone It is always preferable to prevent mud from being pad located at points where vehicles leave a deposited upon a road rather than cleaning the road construction site. The purpose of the stone pad is to off later. Mud on a road can create a safety hazard provide an area where mud can be removed from as well as a sediment pollution problem. vehicle tires before the vehicle leaves the site. The stone pad consists of clean rock designed in such a In some cases, the action of tires moving over a way that vehicle tires will sink in slightly. This gravel pad may not provide adequate cleaning of helps remove mud from the tires as the vehicle vehicle tires. In those cases, the tires may need to be passes over the pad. If a wash rack is used, it washed off with water before leaving the site. When provides an area where vehicle tires can be washed water is used to wash tires, a wash rack will keep the with water when needed. driving surface mud-free. EFFECTIVENESS DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS The effectiveness of temporary rock construction 1. The rock used for gravel pads should be 1- to entrances for trapping sediment depends largely 2-inch size such as MNDOT CA-1 or CA-2 upon the length, depth of rock, maintenance and type coarse aggregate. The aggregate should be of structure used. A newly installed rock placed in a layer at least 6 inches thick. construction entrance meeting the recommendations included here will be relatively effective for 2. The rock entrance should be at least 50 feet removing mud from construction vehicle tires before long; however, longer entrances may be they leave the site. However, once the rock voids required to achieve adequate cleaning. _-. become clogged with mud, the practice will not serve its intended purpose until the rock is replaced. 3. A filter fabric may be needed under the rock Washing vehicle tires with pressurized water over a to prevent migration of mud from the — wash rack is very effective for removing mud from underlying soil into the stone. tires. 10/89 ATTACHMENT " 1 " 6.7-1 4. If tires are washed off with water, the wash MAINTENANCE water should be directed to a suitable settling area. A wash rack installed on the rock pad The rock pad needs occasional maintenance to may make washing more convenient and prevent tracking of mud onto paved roads. This may effective. The wash rack would consist of a require periodic top dressing with additional rock or heavy grating over a lowered area in the removal and reinstallation of the pad. construction entrance. The grating may be a prefabricated rack such as a cattle guard, or it may be Hard surface constructed on- public road site of structural steel. In any ,f--#.z...-00•••4••••=•••• 50'minimum case, the wash 4�J1S.� �•t�i.�i�*ii GRADING PERMIT NO. 92-2 PERMIT dated , 1992 , issued by the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") , to Frank Beddor , ("Applicant") . 1. Request for Grading Permit. The Applicant has asked the City to approve a grading permit for the property at the southeast corner of Pleasant View Road and Peaceful Lane (referred to in this permit as the "property") . The land is legally described as: Lot 5, Vineland Addition P. I .N. 25-8700060 2 . Conditions of Approval. The City hereby approves the permit on condition that the Applicant abide by its terms and furnish the security required by it. 3 . Plans. The property shall be graded in accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this permit. If the plans vary from the written terms of this permit, the written terms shall control . The plans are: Plan A--Soil Erosion Control Plan and Grading Plan 4 . Time of Performance. The Applicant shall complete the grading and erosion control by October 15 , 1992 . The Applicant may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Applicant to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date. 5. Erosion Control. Plan A shall be implemented by the Applicant and inspected and approved by the City. The City may impose additional erosion control requirements if they would be beneficial. All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. Except as otherwise provided in the erosion control plan, seed shall be rye grass or other fast-growing seed suitable to the existing soil to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas shall be mulched and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. If the Applicant does not comply with the erosion control plan and schedule or supplementary instruction received from the City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion. The City will endeavor to notify the Applicant in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Applicant' s and City' s rights or obligations hereunder. If the Applicant does not reimburse the City for any cost the City incurred for such work within thirty (30) days, the City may draw down the letter of credit to pay any costs. ATTACHMENT "2 " 6. Clean up. The Applicant shall daily clean dirt and debris from streets that has resulted from construction work by the Applicant, its agents or assigns. 7 . Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this permit, the Applicant shall furnish the City with a cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit from a bank ("security") for $ 5. 000 . 00 . The bank and form of the letter of credit shall be subject to the approval of the City Administrator. The letter of credit shall be for a term ending June 1 , 1993 . 8 . Responsibility for Costs. A. Except as otherwise specified herein, the Applicant shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with the grading and erosion control, including but not limited to inspection expenses incurred in connection with approval and acceptance of the permit. B. The Applicant shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from permit approval and work done in conjunction with it. The Applicant shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorney' s fees. C. The Applicant shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this permit, including engineering and attorney's fees. D. The Applicant shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this permit within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all work and construction. 9 . Applicant' s Default. In the event of default by the Applicant as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Applicant shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Applicant is first given notice of the work in default, not less than four (4) days in advance. This permit is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part. 10. Notice. The Applicant must notify the City Engineer in writing a minimum of 48 hours prior to construction. 11 . Watershed District Permit. The Applicant shall comply with the conditions of the attached Watershed District permit, especially as it relates to seeding and restoration of vegetative cover. 12 . Specific Conditions to be added from Interim Use Approval Permit process. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor (SEAL) BY: Don Ashworth, City Manager APPLICANT BY: STATE OF MINNESOTA } ( ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1992 , by Donald J. Chmiel , Mayor, and by Don Ashworth, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA } ( ss. COUNTY OF } The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1992 , by NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 April 3 , 1992 iFORTIER & ASSOCIATES, INC. Mr . David Hempel ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN - City of Chanhassen Engineering Department 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minn. 55317 RE: OWENS - TROENDLE SITE GRADING - COMM: 91-04 _ Dear Mr. Hempel: At the request of Mr . Frank Beddor Jr . , we are herein submitting an application for a Grading permit for improvements on the Owens - Troendle sites . Mr. Beddor currently owns the Troendle property and has an accepted - purchase agreement for Lot 5, Vineland from Mr . Owens. As the purchase agreement for Lot 5 cannot be executed prior to Mr . Owens filing his homestead exemption, this work has been reviewed and found desireable by Mr . Owens. Frank ' s attorney will forward a letter approving this work by Mr . Owens. Common ownership or interests in this property enable ponding and grading improvements which will greatly enhance this property as well as the surrounding area and city in general. The raising of grades in the low lying area will promote and support high quality - residential development. The integration of the ponds will improve filtration of pollutants and land use, and correct the outflow problems which currently exist. Only two significant trees will be affected by this work . . .and they will both be relocated on site. While that satisfies the ordinance, please be advised that additional landscaping is being proposed and - will be forwarded shortly for your information. We have reviewed this design with the watershed engineers on a - preliminary basis and have followed their recommendations. Copies of our application to the watershed shall also be forwarded . We expect approval in May. Soils information has not been undertaken for the Owens portion of the site. We expect the soils to be similar to those at the Troendle site, attached. G.M.E. will be employed as soils consultants to observe construction and test for compaction results. Should you have any question, please do not hesitate to call. Y. Tru Daryl For ier 408 Turnpike Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55416 (612) 593-1255 I.. APPENDIX 1988 EDITION TABLE NO.70-A--GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEES' • No fee 50 cubic yards or less N fee 51 to 100 cubic yards 5.50 101 to 1000 cubic yards 2 20.50 1001 to 10.000 cubic yards 10,001 to 100.000 cubic yards-530.00 for the first 10.000 cubic yards,plus$15.00 for each additional 10,000 yards or fraction thereof. 100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards—S165.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards,plus$9.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. — 200.001 cubic yards or more—S255.00 for the first 200,000 cubic yards,plus 54.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. Other Fees: • Additional plan review required by changes,additions $30.00 per hour` — or revisions to approved plans (minimum charge—one-half hour) `Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction,whichever is the greatest.This cost shall include supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved. TABLE NO.70-B--GRADING PERMIT FEES' S15.00 vZst ae;a,�f�x cf;is>`ofoe;iso�tst,> is:�=t t ctu; 50 cubic yards or less 25.50 51 to 100 cubic yards 10110 1000 cubic yards-522.50 for the first 100 cubic yards plus$10.50 for each additional 100 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 1001 to 10,000 cubic yards-5117.00 for the first 1,000 cubic yards.plus S9.00 for each additional 1.000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 10.00110 100,000 cubic yards-5198.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards,plus$40.50 for each additional 10.000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 100.001 cubic yards or more—S562.50 for the first 100,000 cubic yards.plus S22.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. Other Inspections and Fees: $30 pp per hour= I. Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum charge—two hours) — 2. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of $30pp per hour= Section 305(g) 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated S30 00 per hour: (minimum charge—one-half hour) The fee for a grading permit authorizing additional work to that under a .altd permit shall be the difference between the fee paid for the original permit and the fee shown for the entire project 20r the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction,whichever is the greatest.This cost shall include supervision, overhead,equipment,hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved. 875 • C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 5/6/92 • G . CII A N H A S S E N CC DATE: 6/8/92 CASE #: 92-2 IUP : • - - . STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Interim Use Permit/Earthwork permit of 4,400 cubic yards of mate>iia I. LOCATION: Lot 7, Block 1, Park One 3rd Addition, Located at the Northwest corner of Quattro Drive and Dell Road. APPLICANT: Fortier & Associates OWNER: Frank Beddor, Jr. V 408 Turnpike Road 7951 Powers Blvd. Golden Valley, MN 55416 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Q PRESENT ZONING: IOP, Industrial Office Park ACREAGE: 83,939 Square Feet DENSITY: N/A ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF; Eden Prairie & Rail Road s _ IOP; Ver-Sa-Til E - RSF; Eden Prairie W - IOP; Dexter Magnetics W WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. (]) PHYSICAL CHARRAC:IER.: The site is heavily vegetated along the south, east and north. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Industrial IUP for Park One May 6, 1992 Page 2 — PROPOSAL/SUMMARY — The applicant is requesting an interim use permit to excavate 4,400 cubic yards of material to prepare the site for future development. The site is located at the intersection of Dell Road and Quattro Drive. The purpose of the operation is to make Lot 7, Block 1, Park One 3rd Addition, compatible with its intended industrial use and to provide clay material for lot 5, Vineland Addition, south of Pleasant View Road and west of Peaceful Lane (see Attachment #1). This request is being reviewed concurrently with the earthwork permit for Lot 5, Vineland Addition. The operation is proposed to take 45 to 50 working days,with construction starting June 15, and ending August 15, 1992, weather permitting. The applicant is proposing hours of operation from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. The proposed area for removing the clay material in the center of the parcel has no vegetation. The area containing trees on this site is located along the north, south and east portions of the site. — Grading for a driveway will impact some of those trees, however, the applicant is preserving the majority of the trees on the site. The clay material haul route will exit the site at the southeast corner onto Quattro Drive and the trucks would then haul west on West 78th Street, to Highway 5 to County Road 17, to Pleasant View Road, to Peaceful Lane where the clay material will be used to grade Lot — 5, Vineland Addition. The trucks will return via the same route (See Attachment #1). The drainage and erosion will be controlled with silt fences shown on the plan as required by the Engineering Department. Dust will be controlled with water trucks and street sweepers daily or as needed. The disturbed area will have on-site topsoil respread and seeded once the clay has been removed from the site. The site is adjacent to Quattro Drive, an urban city street with storm sewers on the south and a gravel road on the east side (future Dell Road). There are no wetland areas being disturbed. There is a 20 foot wide conservation easement along the north edge of the site. Proposed grades must be shifted to the south to avoid disturbing the conservation easement (Attachment #4). The proposed site for the excavation is surrounded on the south by Quattro Drive, which is a paved street and Dell Road to the east, which is a gravel public street. Dell Road is proposed to be improved this year by the City of Eden Prairie. As a part of the Dell Road construction proposed by Eden Prairie, Quattro Drive will be modified somewhat. Quattro Drive will be lowered and a storm sewer line will be extended from Dell Road to the westerly line of this lot. It is recommended the applicant contact Eden Prairie to make provisions for a storm sewer leading to the site to convey the storm water runoff when the parcel develops. IUP for Park One May 6, 1992 Page 3 The site is proposing erosion control along all areas proposed for grading. Street cleaning and dust control is also proposed, which will minimize any impact of the excavation to the adjacent streets and properties. Plans propose extending a temporary driveway into the site from Quattro Drive. The driveway grade is approximately 6.67%. The street grade combined with the gravel surface will be a potential erosion problem. It is recommended that a gravel construction access be constructed and maintained during the grading process and paved with a bituminous surface upon completion to minimize erosion. The site will be left in a condition that will facilitate its future development for office/industrial uses consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and existing zoning. The proposed interim use permit application is fairly straight forward. Staff is proposing a zoning ordinance amendment to allow earthwork in excess of 1,000 cubic yards in all districts as an interim use. If this amendment is approved, the application will be in compliance with the Excavating, Mining, Filling and Grading Ordinance. With the conditions added by staff to ensure proper restoration and minimize any traffic conflicts, staff is recommending approval of the interim use permit. In general, staff does not normally advocate site grading in advance of a development proposal. We believe a more sensitive design can result if tree cutting, for example, is — limited to developed site areas and this can not be determined until a plan is offered. However, in this case there are few, if any, development options beyond the one being proposed. Coupled with the applicant's design to maximize tree preservation, we believe this is an acceptable proposal. COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXCAVATING, MINING, FILLING AND GRADING ORDINANCE Section 7 of the ordinance provides a series of standards which an interim use permit must be in compliance with. Section 7-40 - Fees The ordinance allows the City to determine the fee schedule for each permit and that each permit must be annually reviewed by the City Engineer. Section 7-41 provides for an irrevocable letter of credit that will be required to ensure compliance with conditions of approval. Findin Staff is proposing that a $2,500 letter of credit be required to ensure compliance with conditions outlined below (see Senior Engineering Technician Memo). The letter IUP for Park One May 6, 1992 Page 4 of credit will cover site restoration, preparing an as-built grading plan upon completion to verify work in compliance with plans, construction of driveway, maintenance of adjoining roads, including repair of damage directly as a result of the hauling, and for maintenance of erosion control and dust control measures and replacement of trees designated for preservation that are lost due to construction. — In addition, a permit fee from the Uniform Building Code will be applied requiring a permit fee of $153.00 to be paid and that all city staff and city attorney time used to monitor and inspect the operation shall be paid at a rate of$30.00 per hour. Staff will document the time on a monthly basis and bill the applicant. Section 7-42 - Setbacks — The ordinance requires that a setback of 100 feet from existing street rights-of-way and 300 feet from adjoining property lines be required for mining activities. Finding This condition does not apply. It was intended for mining operations only. Section 7-43 - Fencing The ordinance requires fencing for areas which will be converted to steep grades or where _ on site ponding exists if the Council determines that a safety hazard exists. Finding The excavation will actually be reducing the slope on the site and leveling it out. Therefore, safety hazards will not exist and fencing should not be required. — Section 7-44 - Appearance and Screening The ordinance requires that the visual impact of grading and mining operations be minimized and that where necessary, screening be provided. Finding This is a temporary excavation process which will be leveling the area for a future industrial site and will immediately be restored with topsoil and seed. Therefore, the visual impact of the grading and mining will be minimal and screening will not be necessary. IUP for Park One May 6, 1992 Page 5 Section 7-45 - Operations, Noise, Hours, Explosives, Dust, Water, Pollution, Top Soil Preservation A. Maximum Noise Levels as measured at the perimeter of the site shall be within limits set by the MPCA and by the Federal EPA. Finding Staff does not feel that the excavation on the site will be excessive beyond the activities being experienced in the area with improvements to Dell Road and development of industrial sites in the area. To ensure that the noise levels do not become excessive, a condition is being provided that noise levels not exceed MPCA and EPA limits. If noise testing is required by the city, the cost shall be paid by the applicant. B. Earth work is permitted only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday and prohibited on national holidays. Findin The applicant has stated that hauling will take place between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. This is in compliance with the hours as stated in the ordinance. C. Operators are required to use all practical means to eliminate vibration on adjacent property from equipment operation. Finding Staff does not feel there will be a problem with vibration on adjacent property. The operation is at a small scale. The site is located in an industrial park with construction activity taking place at Dell Road to the east and a train that causes vibration to the north of the site, there should not be more noise out of the ordinary vibration. D. Operators shall comply with all applicable regulations for the protection of water quality. Findin The applicant is providing erosion control surrounding the site to retain any runoff IUP for Park One May 6, 1992 Page 6 — from the site. There are no wetlands in the near vicinity of the area and therefore, staff feels that there will be no water quality problems as a result of this activity. — E. Operators shall comply with all regulations for the protection of wetlands. Finding There are no wetlands in the near vicinity of the activity which will be impacted by — the excavation. F. Operators shall comply with all requirements of the Watershed District where the property is located. Finding — The site is providing proper erosion control to meet requirements of the Watershed _ District. Watershed District approval is required. G. All top soil shall be retained at the site until complete restoration of the site has _ taken place according to the restoration plan. Finding _ A stockpile must be provided for the topsoil which will be respread on the site as soon as the excavation is completed. The temporary topsoil stockpile area shall be — protected from erosion by a silt fence on the site. H. Operators shall use all practical means to reduce the amount of dust, smoke and — fumes caused by the operations. When atmospheric or other conditions make it impossible to prevent dust from migrating off site, mining operations shall cease. Finding Staff does not anticipate a problem with these impacts with the site's location and — precautions that the applicant is providing for the excavation. The applicant will be providing water trucks for dust control and street sweepers. L To control dust and minimize tracking of sand, gravel and dirt onto public streets, internal private roads to any public roadway shall be paved with asphalt or concrete _ fora distance of 300 feet to the intersection of the public roadway. Alternate means of controlling this problem may be accepted by the city. IUP for Park One May 6, 1992 Page 7 — findifig The streets that will be used for the hauling are either paved with curb and gutter or gravel. The applicant is providing street clean-up on a daily basis or as needed. The proposed trucks are leaving the site from the gravel road located southeast of the site with a distance of over 180 feet prior to the trucks entering Dell Road. Staff feels there is an adequate distance where any debris will fall from the truck prior to the truck entering Dell Road. Therefore, an improvement such as a sediment trap is not necessary. However, temporary rock construction entrance should be — constructed to limit tracking out onto the streets (see Attachment #5 in Senior Engineering Technician Memo). J. All haul mutes to and from the site shall be approved by the City and shall only use streets that can safely accommodate the traffic. Finding The trucks will be leaving the site from the gravel road onto Quattro Drive and then going west to West 78th Street, north on to Hwy. 5, north on County Road 17, east to Pleasant View Road, and south to Peaceful Lane. (see Attachment #1). The trucks will then be going in the opposite direction, back to the site. Staff is concerned with the truck traffic during rush hour and feels that conditions should be imposed that would minimize the impact. We are particularly concerned due to _ Highway 5 construction activities that have already complicated traffic patterns. The haul route is on Hwy. 5 and is in fact part of the Hwy. 5 improvement project as some of the fill material for Lot 5, Vineland Addition will be imported from Highway 5 fill, staff is requesting if traffic conflicts result due to rush hour traffic flows, the hours of operation be appropriately restricted. Section 7-46 - Restoration Standards The ordinance provides a series of standards outlining site restoration. These are reviewed below. A. The plan must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Finding The Comprehensive Plan illustrates this area as industrial and the applicant's proposal to level the site is in conformance with the intended use of it being an industrial site. Therefore, staff believes that the proposal is consistent with the IUP for Park One May 6, 1992 Page 8 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. B. Restoration shall be a continuing operation occurring as quickly as possible after extraction operation has moved. Finding Restoration will be completed immediately after the excavated material has been removed. Staff will be maintaining a letter of credit to cover the restoration costs in the case that the applicant does not or is unable to restore the site in a timely manner. C. All banks and slopes shall be left in accordance with the restoration plans submitted with the permit application. Finding Staff is recommending that an as-built grading plan be provided at the completion of the project so that staff can confirm the volume of material that has been removed and that the site is restored as proposed. D. Slopes, graded areas and backfill areas shall be surfaced with adequate top soil to secure and hold ground cover. Such ground cover shall be tended as necessary until it is self sustaining. Finding The topsoil is being preserved on the site and will be respread after excavation of the clay material. The topsoil will then be seeded to ensure ground cover for stabilization of the area. Erosion control blanket will be required on all slopes 3:1 or steeper. E. All water areas resulting from excavation shall be eliminated upon restoration of the site. Findin There will be no water areas resulting from the excavation of the site, therefore, this condition is not applicable. F. No part of the restoration area which is planned for uses other than open space or agricultural shall be at an elevation lower than the minimum required for connection sanitary or storm sewer. IUP for Park One — May 6, 1992 Page 9 Finding The finished grade of the site is at an elevation that will allow for the connection of — municipal water, sanitary and storm sewer. G. Provide a landscaping plan illustrating reforestation, ground cover, wetland — restoration or other features. Finding The letter from the applicant states that the excavated areas will be spread with the topsoil and seeded immediately after excavation. No trees or other forms of vegetation need to be replaced on the site. _ INTERIM USE PERMIT STANDARDS Mining operations will be allowed in the IOP District as an interim use permit if the — requested zoning ordinance amendment is approved. The ordinance provides that interim use permits are reviewed under the general issuance standards established for conditional use permits, Section 20-232, of the ordinance. The following constitutes a compilation of — the general issuance standards and staffs findings for each. - 1. Will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health,safety,comfort,convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. — The proposed excavation is a temporary operation which will be completed on August 15, 1992. The removal of 4,400 cubic yards will provide topography on the site which will be compatible with proposed industrial uses and — therefore it will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare of the city. — 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's Comprehensive Plan and this chapter. * The excavation will be maintaining the site in a form suitable for industrial use which is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and this chapter. 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not — change the essential character of that area. IUP for Park One May 6, 1992 Page 10 * The proposed excavation will be maintaining the site, compatible appearance with existing or intended character of the general vicinity. The slope will be _ leveled but will not be changing the essential character of the area. The land will be restored to a natural state once excavation is completed and will remain as such until development of the site. _ 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. * With the precautions being taken by the applicant and with the conditions of approval, the activity will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. — 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services,including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. — * The use is temporary which does not need to be served by public facilities and services. The finished elevation will allow the site to be served by sanitary sewer and water once it is developed in the future. 6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. * The activity will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise,smoke, fumes,glare,odors,rodents, — or trash. • The proposed excavation could result in excessive traffic, noise and fumes. _ The conditions of the approval will provide standards by which the activities should be minimized. 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. * The excavation operation does have the potential to conflict with traffic on Hwy. 5 especially during the rush hour periods. Staff is recommending that IUP for Park One May 6, 1992 Page 11 a Traffic Control Plan be provided for city approval and if it is felt that even with these, that the traffic during the rush hour will still be potentially a hazardous situation, the city could limit the hours of hauling on weekdays to non-rush hour periods. With the traffic control plan, staff feels the potential traffic conflicts will be minimized. 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. * The proposal will not result in any significant impact to natural or historic features. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. * The area proposed for excavation, once completed, will still be aesthetically compatible with the surrounding industrial sites. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. * The proposed use will not have a long term impact on surrounding property values. 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. * The proposed excavation application is meeting the standards prescribed for the IOP District. Staff feels that the application is complete and will minimize potential impacts. With the conditions proposed, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission and City Council approve the project. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim Use Permit #92-2 with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide the city with a letter of credit in the amount of $2,500 to cover any road damage, maintenance of erosion control measures, site restoration and driveway construction. IUP for Park One May 6, 1992 Page 12 — 2. The applicant shall submit $153.00 grading permit fee as required by the Uniform Building Code and pay for all city staff and attorney time used to monitor and — inspect the operation. The inspection fee shall be computed at a rate of $30 per hour. 3. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permit requirements of the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District. 4. The applicant shall revise the proposed grading plan to ensure the northerly 20 feet of the site remain undisturbed as outlined in the Preservation Easement Agreement. 5. The applicant shall supply the city with a mylar as-built survey prepared by a professional engineer upon completion of excavation to verify the grading plan has been performed in compliance with the proposed plan. — 6. A stockpile must be provided for the topsoil which will be respread on the site as _ soon as the excavation is completed. Topsoiling and disk mulch seeding shall be implemented immediately following the completion of excavated areas. 7. Noise levels stemming from the operation are not to exceed MnPCA and EPA regulations. If the city determines that there is a problem,warranting such tests shall be paid for by the applicant. _ 8. Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday and prohibited on national holidays. If the City Engineer determines that traffic conflicts result due to rush hour traffic flows, the hours of operation will be appropriately restricted. 9. The city will work with the County Sheriff to coordinate speed and weight checks. If trucks are violating traffic laws, staff will require that the operation be shut down and will ask the City Council to revoke the permit. — 10. Prior to starting grading activities, all trees designated for preservation shall be protected by a snow fence for staffs review and approval. 11. All slopes 3:1 or greater shall be stabilized with erosion control blanket specifically adjacent to the driveway entrance. — 12. The applicant shall construct and maintain a gravel construction access during the _ grading operation and paved with temporary bituminous surface upon completion of site grading until the site develops. 1 IUP for Park One May 6, 1992 Page 13 13. The applicant shall demonstrate and employ measures to control erosion from the proposed driveway. 14. The applicant shall enter into a grading permit and provide the necessary security to guarantee compliance of the condition of approval. All work shall be completed by October 15, 1992." ATTACHMENTS 1. Map showing the subject site and the rout trucks will use. 2. Memo from the Senior Engineering Technician dated April 29, 1992. — 3. Letter from applicant dated April 6, 1992. 4. Section from the Uniform Building Code on Grading Permit Fees. 5. Conservation easement Agreement. 6. Site plan for excavation dated April 6, 1992. L_ot 5' V,ne\ par , $ R ES o F g o •: n•.1 ca Lint CM9/S_nYNS _ I NENNEPINI COUNTY c�':w"` �`n` T K J PRR�►' LAKE —� iR1��\QA fN/� 6200 : • n71I am� fi..., 1��.:� ' / w :gyp„v.....I .... .... ,... • •,` •��. (11�ITk'me �� r�. frook,I�s ' ,stop•♦��h,,�� %'6PI1_�..c coal 6100 i411.-Viii;4. ... —_allit� `• ' i' , ! �� 411411.11P-II w •40 %-21k'--.4�''�I' `'fsy:16 �',,-'I) :.rte.o. %,ZerAra.. 'AVM #624, 'AV,..1% I'At-...-. --s;At vh*OLLN.,at.- -6.21.611= s 11 F d . p�i.e� 1110$2,04,9177.-i-k.`1 .�jpy � i, �1 '•` .'I.`-, it.9• '.a. ,_ 6500 r. ANiiiiiiN . �►'seAc� ,,,,deN�� -��:;Set]et s600 IP�, �qq���Xr i~. � F PARK 406 t)• • e:-Tv' -t a _ .tN �' VWLET `�` 3_ -6700 ' w. - f2,Z. na•0 1 ' �ypRTN' _ _ �� c- a t�, LOTUS k12 . \ /..• I \'' '. � � �� �• �► ` `E' ' 1100 ; �� �.� fi� r _ • -6900 LAKE LUCY E]! �+If�•. „..7%`7rI•v •,,fid •l LOTUS I _� rir - litiOlL ' wC �'�y = 44110:�� d.ak trii � 7000 .ts� RE i • "' .., �AI1�� / `. "LiA,-,-......,M1 � 700 • `k SAAA� lIN1�1 �'��,,11111/i.,_�.�._f��►`-� I - qMr �� }/ i J~IN---' t �R�•?- .���7_a —�_- .-'- 7200 / MEADOW !s'Oft' �A�i'�� 1�N%rQ-� �� LAKE ,. I i Ta,1K 0 1:51 2 Q?• 1 LAKE ANN JGREENPARKo ,,.�� SI "446`,1 •AI► •OA ; „!e /.L `otat gni Hutt 7100 S...7 IC,...- �,0��! \ `: 11 •� .,� '•..' ,•r i 7400 O--, I - 1fi I III p 11001,............., - !=„ -•a_ "��SSf- , .All. _ --7600 4JT`Jn ,,k „.22...•"'-..g 1•.L ' Q•/ W 111< r ct !. wit. �. -- I I ' ft NM - I . all101.71.11 tlMgl # �I = 1—T=0u` V ®®o' I 1 I .1 . ��� 7100 0•0 •\• ir , I- �� ________-______ -_-y► _ —7900 y --gNANNASS �� •-�' `.�,,,.ESTATES�� OP__-___-------------- . '� -:-..c. M/N PARK E 1107016%1 lir • e1���j'`�y 111. oo 0 • �\�- ,3 41 =!AD 1. .• .o ,-- _.-#.. ', li-111 / 'l� j�l i�,-,..47,,i;4:4 w—6,00 o A �py� •...^_% fes` cq-, 0. // �/ '4 11l1� I d :►wu 41 410 t•BRACE .z 1200 �:� C_/ _J S �'11111 `p-` ` \_`. C41,40 h�' • MARSH c / O•..� ' Li emu*/ - `�•c. LAKE w I,J•/ V 4t�"W IAtf • t',.4i, .t • -, PARK '1� ' OA,�4.cr. 'A ..... r. LAKE SUSAN I 4. -:.ISL m �V m 1�p�� 5i. — �•r , R/CE M ISSNLAKE -4111 • 1 �� i 1 �1�1 - — ..r-• / \ �`• �� dm:- I � y _ ^r` : yX111/ /•`� .-J- rt" tea. b0, �: ��ii. % pg... eroo ��y :..) OJT ���``�! a ” / .�> �'�.A r d CITY QF 11:: „ ,0CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I — FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician DATE: April 29, 1992 SUBJ: Interim Use/Earthwork Permit, NW Corner of Quattro Drive and Dell Road, Lot 7, Block 1 Park One 3rd Addition Grading Permit No. 92-3 Upon review of the grading plans prepared by Fortier & Associates dated April 4, 1992, I - offer the following comments and recommendations. Based on conversations with the applicant's architect, Mr. Daryl Fortier, the applicant is interested in rough grading the site in an effort to give perspective buyers a better understanding of the layout of the developable area of the lot. The plans propose excavating approximately 4,400 cubic yards of material from the site. The material will be hauled to the other grading site on the SE corner of Pleasant View Road and Peaceful Lane (Owens/Beddor parcel). The grading plan proposes grading 4:1 slopes along the northerly boundary of the site. According to the development approval process for Park One 3rd Addition, a Conservation Easement was to run along the northerly 20 feet of the site to protect the existing trees. Therefore, the grading limits should be reduced or limited to outside of the Conservation Easement. Plans also propose extending a temporary driveway and parking area into the site from Quattro Drive. The driveway grade is approximately 6.67%. The street grade combined with the gravel surface will be a potential erosion problem. It is recommended that a gravel construction access be constructed and maintained during the grading process and paved with a bituminous surface upon completion to minimize erosion. As a part of the Dell Road construction, proposed by Eden Prairie, Quattro Drive will be - modified somewhat. Quattro Drive will be lowered and a storm sewer line will be extended from Dell Road to the westerly line of this lot. It is recommended the applicant contact Eden Prairie to make provisions for a storm sewer lead to the site to convey the storm water runoff when the parcel develops. t4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Z Sharmin Al-Jaff April 29, 1992 Page 2 Recommended Conditions of Approval 1. All slopes 3:1 or greater should be stabilized with erosion control blanket specifically adjacent to the driveway entrance. 2. The applicant shall construct and maintain a gravel construction access during the grading operation and paved with a temporary bituminous surface upon completion of site grading until the site develops. 3. The applicant shall demonstrate and employ measures to control erosion from the proposed driveway. 4. The applicant shall amend the grading limits to be located outside of the Conservation Easement over the northerly portion of the site. 5. The applicant shall enter into a grading permit and provide the necessary security to guarantee compliance of the conditions of approval. All work shall be completed by October 15, 1992. 6. The applicant shall reimburse the City for any attorney and/or inspection fees incurred by the City for enforcement and monitoring of the interim use/grading permit. jms Attachments: 1. Gravel Construction Entrance Detail 2. Sample Grading Permit c: Charles Folch, City Engineer — ., ..i;.� . . .,j r .� • , 332 _ JogOec - .r . _ ..�� "•:!�i�'•�j:ia ". 4.1-..:cif �;w-S✓• .0:-•��5�� � ,t= '"ski• �r. •�'_ Ter . Y..t ,4�r le.r • f t LY .. Wil! ��V^!tj,: .• -�. • 6.7 TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS A temporary rock construction entrance is a stone It is always preferable to prevent mud from being pad located at points where vehicles leave a deposited upon a road rather than cleaning the road construction site. The purpose of the stone pad is to off later. Mud on a road can create a safety hazard provide an area where mud can be removed from as well as a sediment pollution problem. vehicle tires before the vehicle leaves the site. The stone pad consists of clean rock designed in such a In some cases, the action of tires moving over a way that vehicle tires will sink in slightly. This gravel pad may not provide adequate cleaning of helps remove mud from the tires as the vehicle vehicle tires. In those cases, the tires may need to be passes over the pad. If a wash rack is used, it washed off with water before leaving the site. When provides an area where vehicle tires can be washed water is used to wash tires, a wash rack will keep the with water when needed. driving surface mud-free. EFFECTIVENESS DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS The effectiveness of temporary rock construction 1. The rock used for gravel pads should be 1- to entrances for trapping sediment depends largely 2-inch size such as MNDOT CA-1 or CA-2 upon the length, depth of rock,maintenance and type coarse aggregate. The aggregate should be of structure used. A newly installed rock placed in a layer at least 6 inches thick. construction entrance meeting the recommendations included here will be relatively effective for 2. The rock entrance should be at least 50 feet removing mud from construction vehicle tires before long; however,longer entrances may be they leave the site. However,once the rock voids required to achieve adequate cleaning. become clogged with mud,the practice will not serve its intended purpose until the rock is replaced. 3. A filter fabric may be needed under the rock Washing vehicle tires with pressurized water over a to prevent migration of mud from the wash rack is very effective for removing mud from underlying soil into the stone. tires. 10/89 ATTACHMENT " 1 " 6.7-1 r 4. If tires are washed off with water, the wash MAINTENANCE water should be directed to a suitable settling area. A wash rack installed on the rock pad The rock pad needs occasional maintenance to may make washing more convenient and prevent tracking of mud onto paved roads. This may effective. The wash rack would consist of a require periodic top dressing with additional rock or heavy grating over a lowered area in the removal and reinstallation of the pad. _ construction entrance. The grating may be a prefabricated rack such as a _ cattle guard, or it / 11 i ''� may be Hard surface :0�"'�.{ constructed on- public road -.ilia"-, — site of structural / ..;ev:rvoss ;.. steel. In an -... -•se•f..?..,%. y / •- -..•.•�. .•..�••-.�:.. 50' minimum — case, the wash t,tJ ����%�:��i:�•i•N ��iis�:. rack must be aQ,� i. ...Ys, se•�4. aPj sal•). *i t. strong enough to tlill gebarigdes�Nholtat ir•- support the Or 6- minimum te:,+-•:�l.--Pes:• ip�. vehicles that will ..'•_ lstgal•,.:•- cross it. Figure 1"-2"washed rock tPP ��..?Me:t:'%► %% . 6.7-2 shows a -._.,. ;.e.•; . typical wash •: .P•!'•• — rack installation. Figure 6.7-1: Rock construction entrance /. Ditch to carry 77. ``''_i':: wash water to sediment basin -,,:i.:,,,.:;,,,= or trap Wash rack ;? . . �r; c. — 1 al=-7::- 1 ..... ..*a.: 11,1..... .., . 11..,. ,• {i__ I•' --„_=,,,,-,,:... ...:-........ . . :-. ...7:.-- ,!. .. -.:•• • . "-: --'• :' --..-..- —i it !:L..'ti `0......4• afasN.• .••. Reinforced concrete Drain space Detail of wash rack Wash rack material may also be aluminum or other metal. Figure 6.7-2: Construction entrance with wash rack 6.7-2 10/89 GRADING PERMIT NO. 92-3 PERMIT dated , 1992 , issued by the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") , to Frank Beddor ("Applicant") . 1. Request for Plat Approval. The Applicant has asked the City to approve a grading permit for property located at the northwest corner or Dell Road and Quattro Drive (referred to in this permit as the "property") . The land is legally described as: Lot 7 , Block 1 Park One 3rd Addition 2 . Conditions of Approval. The City hereby approves the permit on condition that the Applicant abide by its terms and furnish the security required by it. 3 . Plans. The property shall be graded in accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this permit. If the plans vary from the written terms of this permit, the written terms shall control . The plans are: Plan A--Soil Erosion Control Plan and Grading Plan 4 . Time of Performance. The Applicant shall complete the grading and erosion control by October 15, 1992 . The Applicant may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Applicant to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date. 5. Erosion Control. Plan A shall be implemented by the Applicant and inspected and approved by the City. The City may impose additional erosion control requirements if they would be beneficial. All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. Except as otherwise provided in the erosion control plan, seed shall be rye grass or other fast-growing seed suitable to the existing soil to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas shall be mulched and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. If the Applicant does not comply with the erosion control plan and schedule or supplementary instruction received from the City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion. The City will endeavor to notify the Applicant in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Applicant' s and City' s rights or obligations hereunder. If the Applicant does not reimburse the City for any cost the City incurred for such work within thirty (30) days, the City may draw down the letter of credit to pay any costs. ATTACHMENT "2 " 6. Clean up. The Applicant shall daily clean dirt and debris from streets that has resulted from construction work by the Applicant, its agents or assigns. 7 . Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this permit, the Applicant shall furnish the City with a cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit from a bank ("security") for $1. 000 . 00. The bank and form of the letter of credit shall be subject to the approval of the City Manager. The letter of credit shall be for a term ending June 1, 1993 . 8 . Responsibility for Costs. A. Except as otherwise specified herein, the Applicant shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with the grading and erosion control , including but not limited to inspection expenses incurred in connection with approval and acceptance of the permit. B. The Applicant shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from permit approval and work done in conjunction with it. The Applicant shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorney's fees. C. The Applicant shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this permit, including engineering and attorney' s fees. D. The Applicant shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this permit within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all work and construction. 9 . Applicant' s Default. In the event of default by the Applicant as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Applicant shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Applicant is first given notice of the work in default, not less than four (4) days in advance. This permit is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part. 10 . Notice. The Applicant must notify the City Engineer in writing a minimum of 48 hours prior to construction. 11 . Watershed District Permit. The Applicant shall comply with the conditions of the attached Watershed District permit, especially as it relates to seeding and restoration of vegetative cover. 12 . Specific conditions could be added from the Interim Use approval process. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Donald J. Chmiel , Mayor (SEAL) BY: Don Ashworth, City Manager APPLICANT BY: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1992 , by Donald J. Chmiel , Mayor, and by Don Ashworth, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council . NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1992 , by NOTARY PUBLIC • DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 April 6 , 1992 FORTIER &ASSOCIATES, INC. ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN Mr. David Hempel City of Chanhassen Engineering Dept. 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Mn. 55317 RE: LOT 7 , PARK ONE COMM: 91-05 Dear Mr. Hempel : At the request of Mr . Frank Beddor, Jr. ,owner, we are herein submitting an application fo a grading permit on the Lot 7 , Park One site. We believe the proposed grading will significantly improve this site in that it will address the proposed Dell Road work and bring the elevation down to an acceptable level for development with an appropriate driveway for access . As you know, there will be no access allowed to Dell Road; thus access must be off Quattro Drive. We believe the location selected does the best job of retaining mature trees and reducing slope of driveway. The current site is open and has been previously graded. While we will be lowering the elevations, we will not be changing the storm water runoff patterns or qualities, and our tenative future building will be well within allowable limits for Park One. G.M.E. will be engaged to monitor soil work during construction. Watershed has been contacted and we will submit for a permit, with a copy to you. Because of the limited area and distance to water, we may not need a watershed permit. There is significant trees lost and we are proposing to plant a large stand of new trees to offset the loss. However, future building and Dell Road construction preclude additional plantings. We expect the future building will add yet more landscaping as part of it' s construction. . .the same with Dell Road. This will remain one of the most wooded Lots in Chanhassen. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call . -- Yo I ruly, if • '� / �! Daryl P. For ier # 3 408 Turnpike Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55416 (612) 593-1255 APPENDIX 1988 EDITION _ TABLE NO.70-A--GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEES' No fee 50 cubic yards or less N fee 51 to 100 cubic yards 0 5.5 101 to 1000 cubic yards 2 22.50 1001 to 10,000 cubic yards • 10,001 to 100.000 cubic yards-530.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards,plus 515.00 for each additional 10,000 yards or fraction thereof. 100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards—S 165.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards,plus$9.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 200,001 cubic yards or more-5255.00 for the first 200,000 cubic yards,plus S4.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. Other Fees: Additional plan review required by changes,additions 530.00 per hour` or revisions to approved plans (minimum charge—one-half hour) `Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction,whichever is the greatest.This cost shall include supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved. TABLE NO.70-B—GRADING PERMIT FEES' 51�. 0 Alisoook-wItast:oek>E ooc e :.464xyob&;, i<„o:h:s;.e;i:i:i_ 50 cubic yards or less 15 00 51 to 100 cubic yards 101 to 1000 cubic yards-522.50 for the first 100 cubic yards plus S10.50 for each additional 100 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 1001 to 10.000 cubic yards—S117.00 for the first 1,000 cubic yards,plus 59.00 for each additional 1.000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards-5198.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards,plus 540.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 100.001 cubic yards or more-5562.50 for the first 100,000 cubic yards,plus S22.50 for each additional 10.000 cubic yards or fraction thereof Other Inspections and Fees: 530 00 per hour: 1. Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum charge—two hours) 2- Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of 530.00 per hour: — Section 305(g) 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated $30.00 per hour: (minimum charge— one-half hour) iThe fee for a grading permit authorizing additional work to that under a valid permit shall be the difference between the fee paid for the onginat permit and the fee shown for the entire protect =Or the total hourly cosit the jurisdiction, itio ,which vbenefitsishe grf eateste This coses involved, shall include supervision. overhead,equipment. Y isdBeand 875 CONSERVATION EASEMENT THIS INSTRUMENT, Made this day of July , 1988 , by and between FRANK BEDDOR, JR. and MARILYN A. BEDDOR, husband and wife , County of Carver , State of Minnesota , Grantors , and the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State. of Minnesota , County of Carver , State of Minnesota , Grantee: WITNESSETH: That Grantors , in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ( $1 . 00 ) and other good and valuable consideration to them in hand paid by Grantee , the receipt in sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged , do hereby grant , bargain , sell , and convey to Grantee , its successors and assigns , a perpetual easement for conservation purposes and environmental protection over, on and across the following described premises located in the County of Carver , State of Minnesota , viz : The rear 20 feet of Lots 2 through 7 , inclusive , Block 1 , PARK ONE THIRD ADDITION, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder, Carver County , Minnesota . The following activities shall be prohibited within the conservation easement area described above. a . The placement and erection of buildings , structures , and private docks . b . The alteration of vegetation in any manner or form except for removal of dead or diseased vegetation . c . The excavation or filling of the easement area . d. The application of fertilizers , whether natural or chemical. e. The application of chemicals for the destruction or retardation of vegetation . f . The deposit of waste or debris. g. Construction of paths , trails , walkways , and service roads , except as constructed by the City. h. The application of herbicides , pesticides and insecticides . 5 Aft i . The storage of watercraft , boat trailers , ice fishing houses , snowmobiles , and any type of motorized and non- motorized vehicles . Continuous screening shall be maintained within the easement area by the Grantors , their heirs , successors and assigns should dead or diseased vegetation need to be removed. Grantors covenant that they are the owners and are in the possession of the above described premises and have the lawful right and authority to convey and grant the conservation easement described herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Grantors have caused this easement to be executed as of the day and year first above written. Frank Beddor, Jr. Marilyn A. Beddor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1988 , by FRANK BEDDOR, JR. and MARILYN A. BEDDOR, husband and wife. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Julius C. Smith 252 Southdale Office Centre 6750 France Avenue South Edina , MN 55435 ( 612 ) 920-1521 CITY O F PC DATE: 5/6/92 CIIANIIASEI CC DATE: 5/18/92 CASE #: 92-5 WAP B : Aanenson:v - STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Wetland Alteration Permit to Construct a Road Within the Upland Fringe of a Class A Wetland z — Q LOCATION: County Road 17 at Lake Drive U - J (L APPLICANT: City of Chanhassen a. — PRESENT ZONING: IOP Industrial Office Park ACREAGE County Road 17 Reconstruction 0.1 acres of wetland fringe DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - IOP Industrial Office Park S- IOP Industrial Office Park QE - IOP Industrial Office Park W - IOP Industrial Office Park WATER AND SEWER: Available to the sites W PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: Class A Wetland Fringe - Reed Canary Grass 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Parks and Open Space County Road 17 WAP May 6, 1992 Page 2 -- BACKGROUND As a part of road improvements for County Road 17, Powers Boulevard. The upland fringe of an existing Class A wetland will be impacted. This wetland was developed as part of the mitigation for the Lake Drive project completed in 1989. The original wetland mitigation for the Lake Drive project was required to be 4.5 acres but was developed with 4.9 acres of wetland. This road project will result in removal of .01 acre of wetland fringe. ANALYSIS The city is proposing to upgrade County Road 17, Powers Boulevard. This project includes the reconstruction and widening of County Road 17 from Highway 5 to a point approximately 400 feet south. The proposed roadway reconstruction and widening is necessary to serve current and future traffic levels along Co. Rd. 17, Powers Boulevard. The widening is necessary to serve current and future traffic levels along this road. Approximately 440 cubic yards of clean granular fill will be placed within the .01 acre area of the wetland. The wetland boundary had been identified at approximately the 888 foot contour. The city will replace the .01 acre of wetland as the surcharge area of Lake Drive is being removed and the side slope is regraded. The size of the wetland will remain 4.9 acres,with the 0.1 acres being mitigated from the west side, to the north side of the wetland (see attached map). Permits are being sought from the DNR for the extension of the Riley Creek culvert under County Road 17 and the Army Corps of Engineers (nationwide) for the minor impact to this — mitigation pond. Type III erosion control should be installed between the existing wetland and all disturbed — areas. The erosion control fence shall be removed once the pond has been re-established with vegetation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #92-5 as shown on the plans dated April 6, 1992, with the following conditions: 1. The wetland mitigation area shall be 0.1 acres. 2. Type III erosion control shall be installed between the existing wetland area and all disturbed areas and shall be removed once the vegetation has been re-established. County Road 17 WAP '- May 6, 1992 Page 3 3. All disturbed areas shall be spread with topsoil/muck from the project to revegetate the area with native vegetation." ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Beth A. Kunkel, DRW dated April 6, 1992 2. Plans dated April 9, 1992. • ®® ; April 6, 1992 I3 R �✓ Ms . JoAnn Olson City of Chanhassen • 690 Coulter Drive PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 - - BR WINO. Re : Wetland Alteration Permit for County Road 17 Reconstruction - City Project No. 90-04 . Dear JoAnn: Attached is the wetland alteration permit application that is required for the City' s County Road 17 reconstruction project . The wetland being impacted was created in 1989 as mitigation for Lake Drive wetland impacts . The as-built mitigation pond for Lake Drive is slightly Planning larger than it was ..required to be . The mitigation Transportation requirement was 4 .5 acres and the existing is 4 . 9 acres . Engineering Therefore, the area impacted by County Road 17 Urban Design improvements will not reduce or affect the previous mitigation agreements . Additionally, on the north edge of — the existing mitigation pond, an area of Lake Drive Thresher Square surcharge will be removed and result in the creation of an 700 Third Street So. additional +0 . 05 acres of wetland. Minneapolis, — — MN55415 Permits are also being sought from the DNR for the 612/370-0700 extension of the Riley Creek culvert under County Road 17 Fax612/370-1378 and the Army Corps of Engineers (nationwide) for the minor impact to this mitigation pond. We will keep you informed Minneapolis on the status of these permits . Phoenix _ Denver Please, include the review of this application on your May Orlando 6, 1992 Planning Commission agenda and the May 18, 1992 San Diego City Council agenda . Seattle Sincerely, Donald W.Ringrose BRW, Inc .s Richard P.Wolsfeld Peter E.Jarvis Be A. Kun el Thomas Carroll Wildlife Biologist/ Craig A.Amundsen Wetland Specialist Donald E.Hunt John B.McNamara Enclosure Richard D. Pilgrim — Dale N. Beckmann cc: Charles Folch, Chanhassen Jeffrey L.Benson Gary Ehret, BRW Ralph C.Blum Jon Horn, BRW Gary) Erickson File # 1377 .A28 • John C.Lynch Paul N.Bay CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612 ) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION - APPLICANT: BRW, Inc. OWNER: City of Chanhassen ADDRESS: 700 Third Street South ADDRESS• 690 Coulter Drive Minneapolis , MN 55415 Chanhassen, MN 55317 TELEPHONE (Day time) TELEPHONE: 612/937-1900 REQUEST • Conditional Use Permit - $150 • Subdivision: interim Use Permit - $150 Preliminary Plat: - ♦ Land Use Plan Amendment - $100 - Sketch Plan - $200 ♦ Planned Unit Development: - Create less than 3 lots - $100 - Sketch Plan - $200 - Create more than 3 lots - $100 + $15 acre + $5 per lot - Preliminary Development Plan lot created $300 + $15 acre - Final Plat - $100 - Final Development Plan - $200 - Metes and Bounds - $100 - Amendment to Final Development Plan - $300 + $15 acre - Consolidate Lots - $100 TOTAL PUD TOTAL SUBDIVISION ♦ Site Plan Review - $150 ♦ Wetland Alteration Permit: ♦ Administrative Site Plan - Individual Single Family Review - $150 Lots - $25 ♦ Vacation of Utility or All Others - $150 XX Street Easement - $100 - • Variance - $75 ♦ Rezoning - $250 • Zoning Appeal - $75 ♦ Zoning Ordinance Amendment - No Charge A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. * N')TE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME County Road 17 Ujrade , City Project 9.p-d LOCATION County Road 17 South of Highway 5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION NE ; and SE as Section 14,_ Township 116, Range 23 PRESENT ZONING N/A REQUESTED ZONING N/A PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION N/A REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION NJA REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Wetland altPratinn including the extension of a culvgrt along the existing Riley Creek Channel and the placement of fill material in an existing wetland to allow the reconstruction and widening of County Road 17 This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions . Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement) , or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. Signature of Applicant Date Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. This application will be considered by the Planning Commission/Board of Adjustments and Appeals on WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT EVALUATION WORKSHEET To Be Completed By Applicant and Submitted with Application (Attach additional sheets if necessary) 1 . WETLAND DESCRIPTION: Size: 4. 9 Acres Class : A Type: 5 or PUB4HX Location: Lakeside Streamside Upland Watershed District: Riley - Purgatory Creek Area of Open Water: Approximately 4.7 Acres Drainage Flows To: Rice Marsh Lake Vegetation Types : Reed Canary Grass Soil Types : 2 . DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ALTERATION: The extension of a culvert along the existing Riley Creek Channel and the placement of fill material in an existing wetland pond to allow the reconstruction and widening of County Road 17. 3 . PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ALTERATION: Construction of City of Chanhassen County Road 17 Upgrade Project. CP 90-4. The project include_s the reconstruction and widening of County Road 17 from Highway 5 to a ooin anoroxima 14, 400 fret cputh 4 . APPLICABLE WETLAND ORDINANCE SECTION: 20-437 Filling. 5 . A. DISCUSS THE IMPACTS ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IF NO ALTERATION IS MADE: The proposed roadway reconstruction and widening is not possible without the alterations identified above. The widening is necessary to serve current and future traffic levels along County Road 17. 5 . B. IDENTIFY AND DISCUSS OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO WETLAND ALTERATION: ' None other than to not construct the project. The alteration is necessary to construct the project as proposed. C . IDENTIFY THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE PROPOSED ALTERATION: Advantages - The alteration enables the needed • reconstruction and widening of County Road 17. Disadvantages - Riley Creek and the pond/wetland will experience some impacts (turbidity increases, loss of vegetation, etc. ) during project construction. 6 . USING THE WETLAND ORDINANCE STANDARDS AS A GUIDE, DETERMINE WHETHER THERE ARE ANY INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE ORDINANCE AND PROPOSED ALTERATION: None —2— • -5 OR ‘ '-----—-77-. .,- —".7.---.4:::::-/ .•••"...-........*-..*......... • • ! 10 ; ''/llll;;lkllJi' - -'�i. —rr-T J` f — IIT11 —....E1144 I .. '<.1 ....a\•.. I 7St ,.1 .THI I I . \ 4) 71:119 ..11 \ : __ G \A '��JBB) ` ,\;: Z.a, e • ' \ _ II II i � epi \\ Ifllii • \ a m s • CD 111 ill • \ to m m� \ I I -'Nei, i \ )-i/ 9' Nay i AV I N • \ \ pfd \ »�' • ./ af", fp \ \ fc ,m— p \ \ ‘ 1)\ ii:Al 1 \ r gra . p ' 8: Ia\ i `�► CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 15, 1992 Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7:35 p .m . . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart , Ladd Conrad , Matt Ledvina , Steve Emmings and Jeff Farmakes MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli and Joan Ahrens STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Planning Director ; Jo Ann Olsen , Senior Planner ; and Sharmin Al-Jaff , Planner I PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CREATE A WALKER NURP POND IN A CLASS B WETLAND LOCATED ADJACENT TO SILVER LAKE AS PART OF THE PROCESS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF SUMMIT AT NEAR MOUNTAIN , LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION. Public Present: Name Address Mike Pflaum Lundgren Bros . Construction Rick Sathre Sathre-Bergquist Inc . Emmings: It seems pretty straight forward . Is there anything you want to add to the report that 's here? Okay . Are there any comments from the applicant? Mike Pflaum: My name is Mike Pflaum . I 'm with Lundgren Bros . Construction and with me is Rick Sathre of Sathre-Bergquist . The project 's consulting engineers . I have no further comments but we would certainly look forward to the opportunity to answer any questions that you might have . Emmings: And you 've seen the conditions in the report as have been written up by the staff and don 't have any problems with the conditions? Okay . Thank you . This is a public hearing . Are there any members of the public here who would like to comment on this? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Erhart moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart: Can someone explain how this berm works to promote water quality by discharging water , I read it twice and I don 't quite understand it . Does anybody know? Rick Sathre: The water 's going to come north down through the hills it 's piped and this is the ponding . . . The basic idea is to have a barrier along this end of the pond that wouldn't allow the water to overflow the wetland until it ran down through the pond a ways . So you 'd get more - retention time for the water within the pond so . . . Erhart: What you 're terming as the berm actually is that . . . Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 2 Rick Sathre: Edge of the pond and then it would just be a foot or so higher than the wetland . Erhart : Okay . I guess I was wondering if that was something else . Then it 's clear . And the reason we don 't deal with further south is because . . . Rick Sathre: . . .the mature trees and the mature wetland. Erhart: That 's my only question on that . Conrad: That 's my question too . The trade off between where we put it and why not a . . . Jo Ann Olsen's statement was not picked up by the microphone . Conrad: But it is an A wetland? It is an A right? And typically we don ' t _ really allow too much dredging in an A . Olsen: The actual area . . . Erhart: On the map , where does the actual open water start? Rick Sathre: This is Silver Lake over here . This is Lotus Lake . This is the big mountain or the hill . This is the wet area itself . The Chanhassen border is about there so this is where that pond is purported to go . That white area is open of trees but this is trees upland down here and this is a willow orchard , shurb kind of marshy growth to the north . But you know , throughout that whole basin in 1987 there wasn 't really any standing water . Erhart: That whole swamp filters the water as it goes towards what is that , Silver Lake? Rick Sathre : It drains right out through here . Conrad: Rick , show me again where the basin is? Rick Sathre : This is the wetland edge about like this . Then it comes up this way into Shorewood . So this white area here is more of an open wetland and this area is a willow . . .and I don 't know why that has wetland characters except this might have been hayed at one point in time many years ago . That 's in Shorewood . Jo Ann Olsen 's comment was not picked up on the microphone . Conrad : No other alternatives? You 're comfortable with it Jo Ann? Olsen: Right . . .I 'm comfortable with it . Conrad: My only question is , it 's better than what had been planned but still our standard is to try to improve things over the way they were to begin with which means today . The standard says zero . When you tamper with an A wetland , you 're not saying well , when we approved the plat or plan before and this is am improvement and it is an improvement but the standard really is , as we allow dredging in wetlands , is that it 's going to Planning Commission Meeting - April 15 , 1992 - Page 3 improve the quality or maintain that or try to maintain whatever quality we currently have . Erhart : But do you think this improves it or degrades it? Conrad: My guess is it degrades it . - Erhart: Okay . Is this going to be permanent water in here? Rick Sathre: That would be a 6 foot deep to the middle , permanent water . It would probably develop cattails around the edge of this . . .380 feet wide and . . . It might make a better diversity in the wetland . I hope . Conrad: It might? Emmings: I thought the need for this is that all of the runoff , what is all that runoff going to do to the wetland if we don 't have this? Conrad: That 's the other alternative . Well , you 're right . Improvement over another situation . Emmings: Yeah . So that doesn 't exist yet . Erhart : I 'd almost look at it you 're taking , what we still consider flat , taking about one acre from a Class B and turning it into a Class A wetland . So in that effect it could be an improvement . Conrad: Particularly if it was a Class B . Olsen: It had the qualities of a Class B . . . - Conrad: Okay , no more questions . Ledvina: In the comments in the staff report , there 's a discussion - regarding the peat and muck and the potential need to lessen or decrease the slope . I 'm wondering if you have those type of soil materials or are you going to really do a lot of , or disturb this area severely with equipment and such? And would it be even possible to get equipment down in there given the occurence of the peat and muck? Rick Sathre : Well , anytime you try to get down a slope that steep to that site , sure . It 's a probable difficulty . You wouldn 't want to have to go down there very much . But the slope isn 't a drop off . It isn 't that bad so sure , it will be hard to do it but if it 's something we agree is good - for the environment . . . It will probably have to be dug out with a backhoe , or most of it . . . _ Ledvina: But any other areas that are disturbed as a result of this construction , that 's outside of this specific area that you show here will be restored? - Olsen : Right . . .along an easement . . . Ledvina : That will be a disturbed area already? Okay . Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 4 Rick Sathre : I would think we would stay within the boundary of where the pond would be and take it from either side . We would be working from outside the limits of that . Ledvina : Okay . So you 'd be working from the inside and then just throwing it up there on the side that you create the bank? Okay . Rick Sathre: I would start at the far end and work back towards our hill . Start at the west end and then . . . Ledvina: No further comments . Emmings : Does this pond , to be effective for this purpose , have to be maintained in the future? How do they get access to it in the future? Olsen : We do have that 20 foot easement . Emmings: Easement in the same area as the pipe runs? Olsen: Correct . Emmings: Alright . I don 't have anything else . Jeff? Farmakes : I have no further comments . Erhart : Is it to be reseeded? The berm is seeded , is that what it is? Rick Sathre : Yes . Erhart : And what kind of vegetative cover are you putting on that? Olsen: You can dictate exactly what kind that needs . Erhart: Some of the things that we 're talking about in our storm water committee is mitigation where given some thought , there 's seeds available that are more diverse in terms of wildlife . Olsen : Than just a MnDot mix , yeah . Erhart: Right . Maybe you could just provide the developer with a list of -- those . Olsen: That list that we have? Erhart : Yeah . Olsen: Okay . Emmings: Anymore , have you got anything or is there a motion? Erhart: I ' ll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #92-4 as shown on the plans dated April 9 , 1992 with the four conditions listed in the staff report . Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 5 Farmakes: I 'll second that . Emmings: It 's been moved and seconded . Is there any further discussion? Erhart moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit *92-4 as shown on the plans dated April 9, 1992, with the following conditions: 1 . Due to the anticipated poor soils in this area , the pond slopes of 4 : 1 may not be obtainable . Staff recommends that during the construction process , if the proposed side slopes ( 4: 1 ) are not obtainable , the slopes should be flattened out and the depth of the pond be increased to approximately 8 feet to compensate for the reduced pond volume with the flatter slopes . 2 . The applicant shall be responsible for removal of the erosion control fence once the pond has been re-established . 3 . Staff shall be notified 48 hours prior to initiating construction of the NURP pond and 48 hours after the NURP pond is completed . 4 . The applicant will be required to provide as-built plans of the NURP pond . All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONCEPT PLAN AND REZONING FOR A CONFERENCE/SPA CENTER ON 19+ ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2 , AND LOCATED AT 1350 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE (FORMER ASSUMPTION SEMINARY PROPERTY). LELAND GOHLIKE . Public Present: Name Address Leland Gohlike Applicant Jennifer Luhrs Representative for Applicant Everette Olson 1675 Flying Cloud Drive Joe Huber 1458 Goodrich , St . Paul Mike Huber 1746 Presidential Lane , Shakopee Debra T . Olufson 761 Sierra Trail - Anne Karels-Delaney 1161 Bluff Creek Drive Lee K . Anderson 10441 Bluff Circle - Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item . Emmings: Let 's see . This isn 't really a public hearing . Are people here in the audience who have come because of this proposal? Okay . The applicant is here too with a presentation I think and Paul , did you preceive that this would be open up to the people who are here for comments? Krauss: I think so Mr . Chairman . That would be useful so the point of a Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 6 concept hearing is to get as much on the table as we can so they can refine the plan . Emmings : And I should say too . I think that staff did a really good and thorough job in putting this report together . They covered all the bases . Would you like to introduce yourself and make a presentation? I guess what _ we 'd like you to do is make your presentation and show us your slides and whatever you feel you 'd like to present and then I think we 'll open it up for some comments and if there 's some things then you 'd like to respond to , that 'd be alright . Jennifer Luhrs: Okay . Is this on? Yeah , okay . My name is Jennifer Luhrs and I 'm working with Lee Gohlike of Stillwater on the development of this project . Lee is sitting here in the green shirt . I 'm sure you 're all familiar with the Assumption Seminary site as it looks today . You 're probably aware of a lot of the' problems with the place but you may not be as aware of some of the rich history and some of the environmental aspects on this property . The property has been close to the wrecking ball on a number of occasions . One building was burned down for a fire department training project . When Lee first came across the project there was a man in a pick-up truck sizing it up for demolition . He purchased the property and has been working ever since to develop the proposal that would allow us to restore and preserve this important property . I don 't know how many of you had a chance to read through the report . I 'll go through the history very briefly . The property was originally founded as the MudCura Sanitarium by Dr . Henry Fisher in 1908-1909 . And he discovered the sulphur _ springs and theorized that they must have miraculous and positive curative powers . There was really no scientific basis for this at the time but medicine was not as scientific and so people did work to sort of prove their theories . And he opened the MudCura Sanitarium in 1909 with just the first two stories in the front and then in 1912 added the back portion of the building , the two wings and also a third floor . And by this time the sanitarium was quite well known . People came from all over the world and _ it had a capacity of 100 patients . Here 's a little bit later shot of it with the landscaping . A little bit better shape . And here 's an overview that , the doctor 's house was added in 1911 and that 's to the right of the building . And then to the right of that is a dormitory that was built in 1913 and that housed the nurses . Then there 's a shed and another small caretakers house on the property . This is a full colored postcard , colorized picture of the MudCura Sanitarium . Speaking of postcards , here 's - one that tells what MudCura did . The MudCura treatments consist of hot sulphur mud baths . Hot and cold shower baths . Hot and cold sulphur water bath . Massage and electric treatments . Purported to help cure rheumatism , gout , neuralgia , kidney , bladder and nervous diseases . And this picture is a rendering . This is not an actual photograph . We think that 's what the original concept was for the building . It has eaves and dormers . The roofline is much different in actuality . Now if you 're wondering what it 's - like to be wrapped in mud , this is an actual photograph and I have to thank Joe Huber who 's sitting in the audience who has collected a lot of these photos and postcards on MudCura over the years . And he has allowed us to have those and use them and it 's really helping us to know exactly what the history of the place is like . What it should look like . These women have been wrapped in mud . The mud , for your information , is warm . It 's heated . It 's not cold mud . The mud from this site has a lot of sulphur in it and _ Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 7 - other minerals . They wrap you in the mud and you sweat and then they bathe you and put you in a room to cool down . And you know , it 's becoming very popular again , if only maybe because it 's good to sweat once in a while . We don 't really know if the mud actually does that much but . Emmings: Will Blue Cross pay for this? - Jennifer Luhrs: If you were in Europe , it would . In Europe , if you said you needed a few weeks at a spa , you 'd have an automatic prescription and it 'd all be paid for . But I don 't think Blue Cross would cover this . No , - these are the ladies being wrapped in mud . And it 's very neat and clean but here 's a couple of guys wrapped in mud . I don 't know if they eventually got wrapped up in blankets or not or if they just weren 't as fussy with the men but . So they really do wrap you in mud . That 's one of the things that we hope to bring back to MudCura but we 'll also offer some of the more modern spa treatments such as the aroma therapy which is very popular right now . Massage . Sulphur and mineral baths . Steam baths . The - typical spa treatments that you 'd find in a European spa these days . This is the dining room and we won 't be decorating it quite this sparsely . I think they wanted to make it look like a hospital but I don 't think this - would be a very popular look today . The outside , when we restore it , we will be going for historical site status so we will do the outside absolutely as it was . On the inside we 'll make some changes to make it a little more accommodating for people today . These are the , it was called the pagoda . They 're spring boxes and each of those have a sulphur spring . People walked out to them . They 're out further back in the fen . I think one may have been for drinking and one people may actually have sat in . - Some of those , there are remnents of those . Mainly the concrete base and the water of course is still springing up . And we will be restoring those exactly as they are there . This is the dormitory that was burned down for a fire practice training and we do hope to restore that , or rebuild it actually . It was used as a dormitory for the nurses . Sharmin , that 's not in the proposal but after we found this picture we thought maybe , now that we know what it looks like , we should consider that . And this is the dam . - There 's a pond behind it and then this dam apparently provided hydro- electric power . We won 't be doing that with it but we will replace the bridge . This is what it looks like today . This is taken the day we went out with the DNR to look at the property and there is no bridge there . The dam is still there . It 's barely a trickle in the fall . We would like to keep the dam but we 've got a lot of work to do fixing that up . And this is looking down past the dam . This is what the creek looks like . There 's a lot of debris and a lot of things that have been just thrown in there and dumped in there over the years . We 're going out with a crew in the next few days to clean that up . This is the inside and I don 't know how many of you have been in there . A lot of our demolition work was done for us by the area teenagers . They 're very good at taking out glass block and just generally tearing things up . We are also at this time demoing some of the property . Some of the inside of that building and cleaning it up a little bit . This is something we had in the process . That 's just to show some of the windows that have been broken . This shows how we 're cleaning it up . Floors are all swept . That picture 's too dark to see anything . Oh , s there 's some structural things that we have to take care of . Get to right away . The porch is starting to sag so we 're working on some of those things to make sure it doesn 't deteriorate any further until we actually Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 8 get the approval to go ahead with the project . And this picture is too dark but the point I wanted to make here is that we did find a lot of the original hardwood floors in place . Since so little is left of the inside - of the building , it 's always nice when you find something original . This used to be a big pile of old trees and brush and we were cleaning that up . It 's a big project but we are getting a lot of stuff cleaned up out of there . Now if you 're wondering what kind of person would want to take on a project like this , I can tell you that Lee 's first inn project out in Stillwater is called the Outing Lodge at Pine Point and it has some similarities to the Chanhassen project . It was a historically significant - project . It 's on a beautiful piece of property . It 's structurally sound but it was a mess when he bought it . Just to give you an idea what can be done with a property that looks like it would be a white elephant and nobody would want to take it on . This is the basement at Pine Point . Another basement shot and then after rennovation , this is the basement . And this is a very popular meeting room . You don 't even feel like you 're in a basement . But this is the type of thing we hope to do with the Chanhassen project . Lee uses a lot of recycled timbers that are , we actually cut into boards ourselves . Flooring . In the upstairs of Pine Point is 100 year old fir boards that are about 20 inches wide . They have a lot of character because they are so old . A lot of wood paneling . Lee does a lot of the paneling himself . And we just try to add as much warmth and character and charm to the place and in this case , we actually added more warmth and charm than Pine Point originally had . It started out as a poor farm and it was one of the first poor farms in the State of Minnesota . It was founded in 1858 . So when you come to Pine Point , you 're technically visiting the poor farm but it doesn 't feel like it . One of our businesses at Pine Point is as a bed and breakfast on weekends . It 's a nice weekend getaway . It 's located in a 350 acre park and these are some of the rooms . We look for antiques whenever we can . This is one of the bathrooms with a - jacuzzi and it 's all marble floors and walls . Again looking for antique beds . Every room is different . We don 't believe in going through and just doing standard rooms . Try to have different character for every room . This is another bathroom . That 's a dark green marble . Another bedroom . And the staff . We have a very friendly staff and I think one of the reasons that the Outing Lodge is so popular is because the staff does bend over backwards to be very helpful and warm to people . We 'll certainly be attempting to do the same thing out in Chanhassen . We have a full time chef . We aren 't open as a restaurant to the public on a regular basis , partly because of our location and this is a tough business to be in . But we keep our chef busy full time because he does weddings on the weekends . He does cooking for the conference groups and then he does special dinners . We do theme dinners throughout the year and they are very popular . We also do special parties for people . And he 's a superb chef . This is before we landscaped Pine Point . To give you an idea of some of the things that we 've had to do to make it a little more friendly and pleasant and landscaping will be an important part of the Chanhassen project . This is - before we landscaped again . Sort of bare . A lot of flowers . And that 's important for weddings . We find we have a lot of outdoor weddings in the garden area so we will be having gardens like that . We have one area at the seminary site that will be set aside just for big weddings . And winter weddings are nice too . I have to brag a little bit here . Do you recognize the man on the right? That 's Bill Moyers and he was out for his son's wedding and we were all pretty tickled about that . What 's nice about the Planning Commission Meeting - April 15 , 1992 - Page 9 - Outing Lodge for weddings and we hope to also repeat that at Chanhassen , is that the families stay on the site so they have less driving around . A lot of people choose to get married there too . They have the ceremony and the reception there and it just makes for a lot less driving and the people - having the wedding get to spend the whole weekend with their guests . They get up the next morning and open gifts so it 's a real nice concept for a wedding . And of course we do a lot of Christmas parties and that is our main interest in getting open this fall is to be able to start booking some Christmas parties and Christmas weddings . This is Pine Point in winter . And we do have cross country skiing because we are in a 350 acre park . Now the other aspect of our business is very important besides bed and breakfast and besides weddings on the weekends . During the week we keep very , very full with business conferences . We have a lot of conferences for 3M , because they are located so close to us . We also have done a lot of conferences for Cray Research and then just about every big company you can name in the Twin Cities . Dayton Hudson has been out a lot . Honeywell , IBM . It 's a great place to have business meetings because it 's such a change of environment . And the other thing that people really like is that they are given complete privacy . They take over the whole building for their business meeting . They don 't have to worry about anybody else hearing their confidential business . They move around to different rooms in the building and the staff is completely at their disposal . And it 's nice because it 's not so far from the cities . If some people have to go home at night , it 's not a problem . Some people stay overnight . That 's - going to be a very important part of the business at the seminary site and we feel this is an excellent location to serve some of the companies in the western suburbs that wouldn 't necessarily want to come all the way out to Stillwater . Now another property that Lee also owns . It 's not just historically significant , it 's also environmentally significant , is called Seven Pines Lodge . It 's in Lewis , Wisconsin and it was a fly fishing lodge . It was first developed as a fly fishing lodge at the turn of the century by Charles Lewis who was a Minneapolis grain broker . And he had fallen in love with this site . Not only does it have a wonderful trout stream , it also has 300 year old virgin white pines . It was one of the - last remaining tracts of white pine forest . Originally Wisconsin was covered with this but lumbering interests left very little of the virgin white pine . So on this location we have the trout stream , the white pine , and then also the building is on the National Register of Historic Places . This is a photo of the property that was taken in 1913 . And this is it today and that 's Lee . This is the interior in 1913 . And this is it today . So you can see we 're genuinely interested in preserving the building the way it was . Not modernizing . This is another building in 1913 and this is it today . And then this is the stream house that 's right on the trout stream . And this is how it looks today . Lee just worked with the Wisconsin DNR to upgrade this stream . As I mentioned before , we have visited the site with the DNR and we consider it critical that we work with the DNR to manage the Assumption Creek in a very sensitive way too . The DNR report came back that not only are there native brook trout in this stream but it 's the last one in the 7 county metropolitan area and probably the last one feeding the Minnesota River . And it 's a very precarious population . It 's a one day of heavy fishing could seriously impair the - stream , the population . The other environmental feature that we 're very happy to have and we 're going to be very careful with is the calcarious fen . And that 's sort of a swampy area with peat and in this case the peat Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 10 has a high calcium content . The DNR pointed out that the calcarious fen is probably one of the rarest wetlands plant communities in North America . So we are very intent on protecting both the stream and the fen . And that 's - not just to be good guys . It 's an asset to the property and it really defines the character of the development that we 're doing . So those are , I don 't know if I 've covered everything . I 've probably left things out but does anybody have any questions on these slides? Emmings : Well , I 'd rather not take questions and answers right now . If people have comments later . Jennifer Luhrs : Okay , thank you . Emmings: If there are people who have shown up tonight because they 're interested in this and they have comments or questions , as long as we have the developer here , if you want to just come up and tell us who you are , and ask your questions or make your comments , that 'd be alright . Everette Olson: I 'm Everette Olson and I 'm their closest neighbor . Emmings : Can you come up here so we can , okay . Everette Olson: Well I 'm Everette Olson . I live at 1675 Flying Cloud Drive and I 'm their closest neighbor . And boy anything they can do is a blessing . It would be a blessing . Debbie Olufson : I 'm Debbie Olufson and I live in Chanhassen . I 'm just interested because my grandfather died at MudCura in 1931 and we were researching the family tree and we found out about this so that 's why I just wanted to hear this . He got the cure but it didn 't work . Lee Anderson: Hi . I 'm Lee Anderson . I live on Bluff Creek Drive . I too am in support of this concept . I really like what 's going on . My one concern or caution and I wanted to ask the question or make an observation . We look down on this property and one of the neat things about when we moved to the country so to speak was the fact that at night it was dark so I hope that the lighting for the parking lots and around the building , preserve security . We need that . But also isn 't that it spends most of it 's time going up into the sky as much as down to the ground . I think with all the other things they 've thought about , that they probably have that covered but if not , my wife asked me and I 'm bringing that over also to say that I hope that can be toned down and we don't need the lights of the city as much as to preserve kind of the quietness of the country winter when the sun goes down . Emmings: Yeah , that 's a good point . Have you thought about that? The nature of the lighting will be for parking lots and so forth? Lee Gohlike : I 'm Lee Gohlike and we 've run into it out at Pine Point also and it 's just an issue of the angle of the reflectors and you can make the - lights more or less stay down at a 30 degree angle or whatever so that no light really reflects up other than some refractional light but the ability to see the light bulb for example or any direct light , you really don 't see that so I doubt that it 'd be very little effect I think . Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 11 Emmings: But would you be wanting to preserve that character too? Lee Gohlike : Sure . Obviously with just the nature of the rest of the development , we 're sensitive to all those sorts of things . Emmings : Okay . Any other comments or questions? Anne Karels-Delaney: I 'm Anne Karels-Delaney and I own the Bluff Creek Inn Bed and Breakfast . And we 're real happy to see that something 's going to be done to that property since it 's such an eyesore but I 'm a little curious , where 's the parking lot going to be? Lee Gohlike : It will be located directly west of the building . Anne Karels-Delaney : So as you 're driving along 212 and there 's kind of an opening in there , was that where the new driveway will be then? - Lee Gohlike : Yes . It would be to the west of the building , just west of the building . Anne Karels-Delaney: Okay , thanks . Emmings: Anybody else who would like to ask any questions or make any comments? Yes sir? Lee Anderson: I 'm sorry , I have one other question . Does this have any implications on the development of the land to the north of it? Would this - development , which again I 'm in favor of , would it open the development? Because I 'm a little concerned about the wetlands that are directly between there and the railroad tracks themselves . I think that 's kind of precious also and I just was wondering if this would open the door . Krauss: Originally the entire site was held in one ownership . When Lee started talking with us a year and a half , 2 years ago , Lee entered into - negotiations with the partnership that owned the property . It 's Chan Partners or whatever , and Lee purchased some 25 acres I think Lee wasn 't it? Up to and a little beyond the creek . The rest of it 's still owned by - the partnership . Now I would assume it 's their intent at some point to do something with it but exactly what really isn 't clear . The seminary 's a real unusual case with us . We would not normally allow or look at allowing something like that to be on on-site sewer because we have no utilities in that area . Because this is a historic use and because we really want to see this building preserved and it 's reasonable to do , we want to take that shot and we think it can all work out . The long and the short of it is , I - don 't know what 's going to happen in that open cornfield area . When they do plat it , their share of the fen will be protected by easement but there are no plans to run utilities down there in the near future . Lee Anderson: I 'm thinking more of the swamp directly north or the wetlands , or whatever . Not the cornfield . Krauss: Well a good portion of that fen is on Lee 's property and will be protected . There 's a portion of it that goes beyond it and we 'll protect it when they come in . Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 12 Lee Gohlike: I think the DNR is very concerned about any development . You 'd have a very difficult time building a building back there . Emmings: Well , we just don 't allow that in Chanhassen anyway . There 's no development on any wetland area . To the extent that it 's wetland , it 's going to stay that way . Are there any comments from up here or questions? _ Farmakes: I have a few questions . And a few comments . I 've spent some time at Seven Pines . It 's a very fine place . The plan that I have here shows some trails up in this fen area . Can you comment a little bit on what your intentions are with that? Lee Gohlike : Perhaps Jennifer knows more about it right now than I do . Jennifer Luhrs: When we submitted the concept plan , that set the ball in motion . We did go out with the DNR . They recommended against having trails in the fen . We don 't have our heart set on it . We were not thinking of a trail or paved or . . .hard surface . We were just thinking walking paths . Foot path maybe with a little marker that might show species of plants or something . Basically if there 's a problem with having - trails in the fen , I don 't think they add that much because the grass is so high in the summertime to walk out there and you can 't see the water . . .so those are not so intent upon . We did get approval from the DNR to replace - the trails that go out to those pagoda 's and those have little bridges . And you can still see where the trail was . That is still there and just basically what we ' ll do is just pull up the shurbs and trees that have grown . . .but we 'll be very sensitive and we 'll just change it minimally . We will rebuild the bridges and . . . Farmakes : What is the structurally integrity of the dam area? Has that been assessed? Jennifer Luhrs: The dam is fine . It 's holding . It 's concrete . There 's just no bridge there right now . Farmakes: But it 's fairly old? Is that originally? Krauss : Well , it 's original . The concrete does look sound . I mean where there 's wooden boards in the dam , they 're in poor shape . It doesn 't have to , it 's nothing terribly dangerous . I mean this holds up an empoundment right there but even in the worst case , if it lets go it really doesn 't hurt a whole lot . When we were originally going out to this property a couple years ago , frankly I was under the impression that that was the trout stream that had been dammed up but it turns out it 's anything but . It 's basically a little backwater off the main creek system which is further to. the north . Farmakes: The comments that the DNR makes on the letter from Harsted . Number 6 . He 's making a comment that it should be a couple of management courses are open or strategies to manage the creek as a brook trout fishery . Is that referring to this or is that referring to the Assumption Creek area? Planning Commission Meeting - April 15 , 1992 - Page 13 - Krauss: That 's to the creek where the trout actually are which is beyond that . Farmakes: Are you going to expand upon the fishery at all? Is that your , do you have any intentions with that? Lee Gohlike : I think that it 's best just left for people to look at the - fish . The number of fly fisherman that would come out there to fish is fairly small . Even at Seven Pines where we 're really into fly fishing at Seven Pines as a main occupation . There can be a week go by without a single fly fisherman show up . They maybe come up there and have business meetings or to have dinner but I think realistically I think that there would never be that much traffic so from reading the DNR 's report , I tend to agree with we would like to have certain areas where people can just walk out to the edge of the brook and look at the fish. Anyone who would like to go fly ishing . . .just allow that to happen . I don 't see any . . . As long as it was catch and release . And we have the same thing at . . .That 's so common with fly fishing brooks tfday that almost all sophisticated fly fisherman don 't want to keep the fish . It 's just good fish management . . . Farmakes : I 'm assuming under that then that this would not be open to the public fishing? Lee Gohlike: Well , that 's a good question and that 's brought up in the - ONR . It should either be open to the public and the DNR would improve the brook and they would maintain paths into it but I think a more realistic approach , given the small number of fish in the brook . It 's totally - natural . It 's never been stocked with any fishery grown fish. There may be some 7 or 8 inch trout in there but that 'd be about the maximum . On our trip a couple weeks ago we saw maybe 25-30 fish in one school which means _ there are a fair number of fish in there but it 's not an area with the other trout fishing areas around , I doubt that that many people would be interested in it enough to make it worth while for the ONR to even develop it . So . . . it would be best to , if someone from the public wants to go - fishing there , I think we ' ll let them go fishing there . . . Farmakes : I 'm not even sure that many local people know it 's there . I - have no further questions . Emmings: Okay . Matt? - Ledvina: I wanted to make sure , Knapp Creek and Assumption Creek , are they one and the same? - Lee Gohlike: Knapp Creek is our Seven Pines creek . Jennifer Luhrs: Yeah , that got into the report by mistake . I don 't know if I did it or if . . . Ledvina: Okay . So this is Assumption Creek? Okay . Just wanted to make sure . No , I 've been to Pine Point and I really enjoyed it very much and I - think I definitely agree with the concept . I think it 's a great idea for this property . Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 14 Conrad: Amazing . You 're never going to find a group like this . You 've been to Seven Pines . You 've been to Pine Point and I 've gone to Seven Pines so 3 out of 5 . Where have you been? Erhart : I 've been to 3M . Conrad: Lee , when did you get Seven Pines? Lee Gohlike : A year ago October . When were you there? Conrad : Many years ago . And the guy who owned it then was from 3M . And I talked to him and had friends that go up there for wedding parties . Nice . Nice place . We do a lot of trout fishing north of you . I don 't have anything to offer . I think the comments that have been brought up are good . I would hope , it just is a real neat plan . And some things that we 'd be sensitive to and it appears that you 're sensitive to them already . _ The lighting out there is an interesting point but some of the drainage issues , so we preserve the stream . Preserve the fen and whatever . That 's where my main concerns are going to be . And then I think as staff has recommended , the traffic issue . And have to know a little bit more about - that but at this point in time , I 'm real positive about what I see . Erhart : Again , we should be so fortunate to have somebody take advantage of this thing and actually give it something , it sounds like a great utility . I 'm a proponent of , I like trails . I 'm a proponent of trails . My only concern , and again I know this is not detailed so I 'm not going to get into details tonight but my concern is that we don't get too rigid on some of these requirements for the pure sake or fear of humanizing it . Because while pure environment is nice , the fact is this is a developed area and I think we have to use some judgment on when we start restricting - trails and I see the Park and Rec saying do not clear the stream . Does that mean not clear any of the garbage out? Some of it I think we have to do this with reason and it is going to be a utilitized area . And some times you 've got to take a little bit of reasonable risk so we get a product that 's useable . Not only by young people such as myself that can tramp over woods and things but people who aren 't quite as able , disabled and so forth to enjoy the amenities that we have . Emmings: Are you referring to anybody up here? Erhart : No , not today . Looks great . Emmings: I don 't have anything to add . I think it looks like an outstanding plan . We need , if there aren 't any other comments or questions , we need a motion . Conrad: Just a quick note and I don't know if it 's ever going to show up on another staff report but under utilities , there 's a typo . The word , municipal water and sanitary sewer services are available to the site . Because it probably will try to use some of this later on . Emmings: And before anybody makes a motion, just so the people who are interested in coming here tonight and are interested in this project , this _ is the most preliminary kind of plan we look at . And we 're giving, I Planning Commission Meeting - April 15 , 1992 - Page 15 - assume from all the comments it 's going to be approved and they 'll be coming in with a very detailed plan later on and there will be a public hearing on that detailed plan . Is that right Paul? Krauss : Yes , exactly . Emmings: And local landowners will be notified again so you 'll get to see - it in a lot more detail at that time and have another change to make comments and so forth . - Conrad: I 'll make a motion that staff prepare a PUD submittal responding to the issues raised in this report . Staff recommends that the PUD concept plan for the conference/spa center be approved subject to the following _ conditions and that 's where we prepare a formal PUD submittal in response to the issues raised in the report . While working with staff on the final development and point number 2 in the staff report , respond to issues raised in the conceptual review which are not too many . Emmings : I ' ll second it . Are there any discussions? Conrad moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the PUD Concept Plan for the Spa/Conference Center be approved subject to the following conditions: - 1 . Prepare a formal PUD submittal responding to issues raised in this report , while working with staff on the plan development . - 2 . Respond to issues raised by the conceptual review . All voted in favor and the motion carried. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN THE RURAL SERVICE AREA . Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item . Krauss: Oh by the way , I should add that you might actually see one of these developments occur . I was talking to Don Halla and Don has approval for 35 lots I believe it is under that old 2 1/2 acre zoning . He 's been asking me if he would qualify to basically replat his project under this new guideline . I spoke to the City Attorney and we both agreed that sure , it seems to be in everybody 's best interest to do that . We would still restrict him to that 35 lots that he was allocated under that pre '87 subdivision that he had because he 's got a density problem . Emmings : But if he replats , wouldn 't he have to , why wouldn 't he have to be 1 in 10? Krauss: Well , that 's where he becomes grandfathered in . He 's entitled to right now , until 1994 , to plat out his 35 , 2 1/2 acre lots . Since that is construed to be in nobody 's interest , why not let him get this 35 lots in a smaller corner of his property . Now that 's under his grandfathering . Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 16 Emmings: Yeah . So you leave him the same number of lots but you let him develop it under these new ordinances . Okay . Erhart: How many acres does he have total? Krauss: I honestly don 't remember . I mean it 's something like 70 or 80 acres . Emmings: Well yeah , if it was 35 lots , they were all about 2 1/2 each weren 't they? Erhart: Oh yeah , and that was the worst scenario . I was wondering if there was some way to negotiate that down a little . Middle kind of thing . Krauss: Well I 'm sure , well I don 't know . With Don I don 't know if I 'd use that word . We indicated some receptivity with working with him on it . - Erhart : I was just trying to think your elimination of 7 . What happens if somebody decides he wants to come in and do a development for 5? How with _ the 1 in 10 , he may not be so rushed to take out 7 . Say he wanted to do 5 acre lots . Would those restrictions still have some relevance? Krauss: It 's really something we deal with in the subdivision process . Neither we nor the State or the County would allow somebody to have 6 entrance permits within 100 feet of each other . You know we would make the person put in a cul-de-sac or a street or whatever else . Erhart : You 're comfortable with that? Krauss: Yeah . Emmings: That same provision appears on page 2 under number 1 for the A-2 . Krauss : Yes , but that 's the existing 5 acre ones or 2 1/2 acre ones . Emmings: But that you want . Okay . Erhart: Misspelled word on page 4 . Under Article 23 it left out the NIM in leased . Conrad: Are we comfortable that the language is clear on page 2 at the bottom? The last . . .the following setbacks shall apply and the first one which is talking about the minimum lot size is 15 ,000 . Krauss: It should probably read the following standards shall apply . Conrad: Yeah . Standards in one but my main point is , when you say or sufficient . Can that mean less than 15 ,000? Or do we say the larger of either 15 ,000 or sufficient to accommodate two septics? Krauss: Well , that doesn 't get at your question either the way you just worded it . Conrad: The larger of either? Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 17 Emmings: Just say comma , whichever is larger . Minimum is whichever of those two are larger _ - Erhart: I think Ladd 's got a good point . Emmings: Yeah . I think just change the period to a comma and say whichever is larger , you 've got it . Erhart: Also , put square feet in after 15 ,000 . - Emmings: And site should be sites . There should be an s after it . You 're talking about two . And all those same comments would apply to what 's at the bottom of page 3 . Change setbacks to standards . Krauss: Right . Emmings: 15 ,000 square feet , sites and whichever is larger . Erhart: In fact the whole line 1 would probably read better if you just said two potential septic system sites . I think that 's what we 're really trying to say . Farmakes: Where is that? Erhart: The first line in all those standards . Just say two potential septic system sites . Krauss: Well one 's not potential . Erhart: Yeah once you build the house then it 's not potential anymore . Emmings: Anybody else? This is a free for all . Since there 's nobody else here so does anybody else got any comments? Anybody want to make a motion? Matt like to make a motion? Ladd says Matt wants to make a motion . Ledvina : I recommend that the Planning Commission amend the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance to eliminate the minimum lot size in the rural area as noted in the report subject to our discussion here . Is that good enough? Emmings: I 'll second that . Any discussion? Ledvina moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance to eliminate the minimum lot size in the rural area as noted in the staff report . All voted in favor and the motion carried. - Erhart : Is that clear that that includes the discussion over on the second section? - Krauss : Yes . Erhart : SO we don 't have to vote on two things? Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 18 Krauss: Right . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Emmings noted the Minutes of the Planning • Commission meeting dated April 1 , 1992 as presented . CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Emmings: Do you have a City Council update? Krauss: No , unfortunately . Emmings: Yes? Yes? Krauss: I don't have a good excuse . I was busy . Emmings : You not only don 't have a good excuse , you don 't seem to have any - excuse at all . Krauss: I actually stayed home the last half . . . They did approve the Bluff Creek Interceptor program . The sewer program that 's needed to serve Ryan and Hans Hagen Homes . So that should be under construction sometime this summer . Emmings: That 's a big change . A big addition . Erhart: Was there anything new in that John Klingelhutz sewer system? Krauss : Well , no . They approved the , did I ever explain that to you? It 's kind of complicated . Erhart : I know it was real complicated . I thought the staff 's recommendation was a lot better and the City Council went against that . Krauss: Well no , we gave the City Council two alternatives . But they went with the cheaper one . Farmakes: If you get into the Minutes of that meeting , you will find that there was some heated discussion in regards to minimum lot size . You may want to go over that because that 's really , I got up and said what we 're talking about here is a miscommunication because the subject matter that they were discussing . They were discussing minimum lot size in a single family zone and I said what we are discussing is PUD issues . And they thought we were sort of flim flaming with this issue and they were grouping them both together . That was my interpretation and maybe . Krauss: As I understand , I was talking to Don Ashworth about it . There were a couple things we need to address coming out of that meeting . The first was that lot size was raised out of context and I believe it was Councilman Wing and the Mayor indicating some desire to just raise lot sizes unilaterally . I was asked to prepare a memorandum . I 've got to prepare one for you anyway about the implications of raising the lot sizes . I was asked to prepare a memo to the City Council to really get into the meat of the issue . What happens when you raise lot sizes? Well , and as I see it the discussion means that we already have one of the larger lot Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 19 - sizes in the Twin Cities . You go out on a limb . That has implication for the price of housing . You just raised the price of a lot by 25% . You 've raised the cost of providing services to those lots . You 've thrown into - question all the assessment programs . All the projects that we 've approved which are based on the presumption that somebody 's going to get x number of units out of their land . Well you 've just knocked it down by 25% so then , we 've already made them pay for the right to use it but then we 're saying they can 't use it . That sounds like there 's a problem involved there . Anyway I was going to bring tHat back to them and I can only give you my suspicion . I think when it gets aired out in that kind of a context , it will probably be dropped or at the very worst referred back to the Planning Commission . Farmakes: I did have that discussion with him after the meeting . A few of the , actually it turned out to be 3 so there is a sort of consensus among them that we should air that problem out because I get the feeling that they think that we 're sort of stone walling this thing here . On our end , which isn 't the case . And I brought that up to them I think clearly . Erhart : What do you think they want? Did you say 3 of them want - something . Farmakes: They 're discussing another issue . The issue was single family minimum lot size came up as a result of dealing with the PUD . Erhart: Well I think the two are connected . I think we had discussions . . . tonight . Farmakes: That 's correct but the issue that we were discussing was PUD issue of minimum lot size . That was not on the agenda . The single family zone issue that I saw . That was not on our agenda . They see it as a dual issue in discussing this and what the general information that I got is bump it up to 20 and offer 15 as the minimum lot size in the PUD . Then the other issues that Paul just described have come up . You do a lot of - different things that sort of domino effect . What happens? We had a short discussion about minimum lot sizes . I think Ladd was talking about it during our conversations but again I got the impression that they thought - we were sitting on it and I don 't think we have . So I don 't know if we can get that cleared up . Krauss: Well like I say , I 've got to report back to them on that and if they still want something . I mean we 've never had a sense of what the Council really wants and I know I 've talked to Councilman Wing and the Mayor about the PUD issue and they 've expressed to you that they 're very - concerned . In fact frankly adamant about not decreasing lot sizes . Whatever information I can supply apparently isn 't going to change that and I tried to tell you that because it has some bearing on your discussion . - While that 's come across loud and clear , anything else concerning lot sizes has been basically one councilman , usually at a given time raising an issue but there hasn 't been a sense that all 5 of them voted to tell us to do something . Farmakes : Correct . Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 20 Krauss: So again , I ' ll be brining it back up before them . Farmakes: I wasn 't even aware that that was a formal issue at this point . Up until yesterday . Krauss: I wasn 't either . Farmakes: That we reconsider the minimum lot size for single family zone . From there , that was the direction . Krauss : And I could be wrong . I wasn 't there but I also heard that this came up somewhat later in the evening . Farmakes: I think perhaps it started out with the initial PUD in the Lundgren development out there on the Foster property up there . That was where this started out with and somehow this sort of snowballed into a situation where they 're looking at it as a separate issue . Minimum lot size . It does relate to the PUD and then again it doesn 't . Two different issues . Krauss: Well , I 'll keep you posted on that . Emmings : Does somebody want to talk about that some more or should we get on with the agenda? Conrad: I sure know how it relates to our PUD discussion . But I guess I don 't understand . We talked about it just as a residential zoning issue . But I don 't know what we ended up doing after our short discussion on just , I think we 're saying should we rediscuss it or review it . Emmings : You 're talking about the subdivision ordinance? Conrad : No . Just plain . Emmings: PUD? Conrad: Yeah . Just , I 'm sorry . Just in terms of the subdivision ordinance . I thought we had just indicated to Paul that we weren 't looking at that . I thought that 's where we ended that discussion . Emmings: I think some people were interested in . Farmakes: We were asking for a direction on that . I think we got it yesterday . Conrad: Oh okay . Then that clarifies our role . Krauss : I 'd like them to think about it in context and if that 's what they want us to do , we 'll do it but . Emmings: It 's peculiar though because what 's the motivation to review the subdivision ordinance , lot size just because we happen to be talking about the PUD 's? That 's confusing to me . Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 21 Erhart : Well we talked about it because it was a , I had proposed it as a mechanism . If you 're not willing to go to 10 ,000 square foot , it was a mechanism to give incentive to PUD 's . Emmings: Right . Erhart: After I listened to Paul , I was surprised to find out that 15 ,000 was already large relative to other communities , I mentally abandoned the proposal and frankly was only Brian at that point that was , of all of us here that night , that was still interested in pursuing a larger lot size . - I had secondary motives because I thought 15 ,000 was perhaps small compared to other communities . Paul cleared that up . - Farmakes: I think that some of this from some of the comments that I heard are of an interest that as the city goes west , that there is more open . That they connotate that as open space . More open spaces and there 's a lot _ of printed information that says that that would be a very I guess limiting thing to do by raising again the average cost of a house in Chanhassen . Erhart : It does and this city has got more parkland and open land , even in - the area that we do have a MUSA . At least again what I 've heard in any comparable city around . When you start adding in some of the areas that are dedicated to that purpose . Is that true or untrue? Krauss: Well it was one of the cases that I made to the Metro Council . That we have a regional park . We have a national wildlife refuge . We have 125 acre church . We 've got an extremely well developed city park system . You add these things up plus our parks are continuing to grow , which they should and we also develop it , frankly even though our lot size is fairly large compared to metro area communities , we tend to develop at a much - lower density than they do and it 's because we 've always saved all the wetlands . Now that 's going to tend to be equalized because now everybody 's being forced by law to do what we 've been doing for 8 years . But I had to _ convince the Metro Council that , they say well , across the board . Everybody develops at 2 1/2 units an acre and we don 't . Here 's the proof . Conrad: Well , I don 't know where we go with lot size . If it bumps back here , then at that time we can deal with it . Farmakes : It 's a politically hot issue I think because of . Conrad: I don 't understand why . Farmakes: Well , take Timberwood for instance . As you get , other homes that come in around them with a higher density , they come here and make a case , well we moved to the country . And of course now that we have moved here , we 'd like to shut the door and keep everyone else out . Emmings: They should have bought the whole country if they wanted to move to the country . Farmakes : Yeah , they don 't want to see 5 units in their backyard and you know who they call up . Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 22 Emmings: Well I have no patience for it . I mean I understand it . It 's just that it 's so self centered that I don 't have patience for it either . Now , I 'm looking at somebody else 's land and saying I want it kept open . I mean it 's absurd. Conrad: We went through that same psycho 5 to 10 years ago when we reviewed all the zoning stuff because that 's when the northern part , or that 's when all this area was being developed and that 's what everybody was saying . I don 't , everybody was on 1 acre parcels and they didn 't want to see 15 ,000 square foot lots moving in . And we just beat that to death . And in the final analysis , it was people were generally comfortable with the 15 and nobody was not purporting anything bigger . And it really , but then over the time , and I was one of the proponents of big lots . Build your own character . Who cares how everybody else develops . Develop our area with the character that we want and that 's big lots . Changed dramatically on that . I don 't care what size people live on , but develop - the stuff , the park systems and those other things that are really quality oriented . So if we want to go up and if somebody thinks we don 't have enough open spaces . Instead of adding 3 ,000 square feet to an average lot , take that 3 ,000 feet and add it to a park . So I 'd much rather see , if we bump up , if we want to have more open space , instead of going up to 20 ,000 square foot lots . Let 's take that 5 ,000 extra feet and put it in a park some place and then we ' ll gain . Then everybody gains . Emmings: Raise the park dedication . Conrad : Absolutely . That 's how we solve , we build character . It 's not through making larger lots because you still carve up the land . And it doesn 't matter if you put an extra couple thousand feet here or there . You _ carve it up . Farmakes: If we could come up with a workable buffer situation , that might eliminate a lot of the political that 's created by some of these developments being next to older developments . Emmings : We know that Tom and Ursula are not running for Council this year . Is that right? Krauss : Correct . Emmings: Is anybody else , any other encumbant not , is anybody else up for election? Krauss: The Mayor and I understood that he 's already announcing he 's running again . Emmings: Okay . And nobody else 's term is up right now? So there 's 2 spots open . Okay , let 's get on with our agenda . Krauss: I threw in two things under sort of administrative items . First one was Moon Valley . Emmings: Wait a minute now . Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 23 Krauss: I didn 't have that as a separate thing . It would be attached to my memo to you if there is one . Emmings: Hey we 're not down to that in my packet . We ' ll get to you . The next thing we 've got is discussion of group home regulations and you need a motion on that . OPEN DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION OF GROUP HOMES. Krauss: Yes . This is a continuation of the discussion we had about a month ago . This has kind of been , it 's not been festering but it 's something that we 've had on the work program for a year , year and a half that we have a big hole in our ordinance dealing with group homes . I mean the State mandates that we have no say if you have 6 or fewer people in a - single family district . You can have a conditional use permit for 7 to 16 adults in a multi-family district . That 's State law . And we 're comfortable with that but where we say we have a conditional use permit for _ 7 to 16 adults , we have no standards . And frankly , I think it 's good public policy to look at the thing when we 're not being pressured by a use to allow more of these things in more situations with reasonable standards . If we 're allowing more than the State mandates , we can pretty well do what - we want within reason . Now when we brought this to you the last time , I think Jeff raised the question that all this stuff looks fine and dandy but how do we differentiate between a group home for retarded kids and a - halfway house for sexual offenders? And I wasn 't certain that we could do that but we did clarify with Roger that since we are going in excess of what the State requires , we can in fact do that . Emmings: We can in fact do what? Krauss : We can in fact , where we are allowing more than the State - mandates , we can set criteria that would allow only those types of group residences that we 're comfortable with in our community . Emmings: And how do we do that? Krauss : Well , we took a crack at it . I 'm not sure we 're totally . - Emmings: I saw the standards in here . Krauss: When you look at the definition for licensed residential care - facility , it says this may include public foster homes , maternity and women shelters . Residential programs and there 's a comma in there . It should not be there . It says residential programs and supportive living residence _ for functionally impaired adults or schools for handicapped children . If you don't meet this criteria , you 're not going to be allowed under these standards . - Emmings: Are you restricting it to these? Krauss: Yes . Now I think we need to . Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 24 Emmings : Why wouldn 't it say this use may only include? Krauss: Yeah , we can define . Emmings : Make sure you 're not just giving examples rather than a definitive list . Krauss: You know you have two options with this . We could either describe it on an exclusionary basis , and this specifically does not cover da , da , da , da , da . Or we could try to describe the universal things we do allow . And we made that attempt . Farmakes: Did you , how familiar are you with the situation that was in the paper not too long ago about , Shakopee I believe . There was a group home . Like something of 6 or under moving into a single family zone . It was a troubled kid situation and the neighborhood was up in arms . It was an upper I think $250 again was the price on the house . To handle that many kids , it would have to be 6 bedrooms . 7 bedrooms . Anyway , I 'm not sure how that resolved itself . Krauss: I don't know . But if it 's a State protected group home with 6 or fewer , there 's not a dang thing we can do about it . Farmakes: I understand that . I was just wondering how the situation resolved itself . Whether it did or not . Krauss: I don 't know but I really thought that the State really showed some wisdom when they did that because any one of these things , any time it comes along is a horrendous hot potato . Typically . And the experiences - we had in Minnetonka , I thought they thought of some fairly creative ways of helping to diffuse that and some of that 's in here like if you 're going to be in our community you 're going to appoint some community leaders to be _ on your board . You 're going to work with us on that kind of a basis . But fundamentally , and the State licensing , the State protected group home does not include halfway houses for criminals or whatever . We 're talking about relatively innocuous things . People 's fears aside , we 're talking about relatively innocuous groupings of people that are functioning as a single household unit and under State law they 're going to be determined to be basically a family and nobody can say anything about it . We 're taking a little bit , we 're going further than we need to . I think you need to be clear on that . My personal opinion is that we function in a society where we have an obligation to take care of each other and to me that means that we don 't dump our problems down on Chicago Avenue . That where if we have problems in our own families or neighbors do , where their kids need some structure . Where they have some medical problems or whatever , that there should be provisions for those people to live in your community . It 's harder than hell to come up and say that stuff when you 've got one of these things on the table and 100 angry residents about it . Emmings: Right . Everyone thinks they 're necessary . They just don 't want them next door . Krauss : And I think too , these criteria are well designed enough that you - put them in a place that 's appropriate . I know that we had a situation in - Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 25 Minnetonka where there was a group home for battered women that we really did support as a staff but the property that they had purchased was not ideal for it . It was way at the end of a long dead end street and there - wasn 't quite enough open space and we learned from that . So anyway we throw this on the table for you to kick around and tell us what you 'd like to do . Emmings: What you 're looking for here . We 're not passing anything onto the City Council here . You 're asking us to give you direction whether to have a public hearing? Krauss : Right . - Emmings: Okay . Does anybody here have any specific comments on the conditions or criteria or think that it shouldn 't be published for a public hearing? Does anyone have anything to say about either one of those? Ledvina: As a basis , when you use the City of Minnetonka case? Krauss: Well that 's the one I 'm most familiar with . It turned out that - Kate Aanenson who 's working on this had similar standards developed completely in a different , I mean without any relationship in a place she worked outside of Salt Lake City . The Minnetonka stuff was developed by the Planning Director over there who served on a Hennepin County Task Force to deal with group home issues and they met for about a year and a half . And so the regulations came with probably more wisdom than I can offer . It came with that input plus the experiences that we had in the city at that time . Ledvina : So in other words , it 's a hybrid done? Krauss : Yes . Ledvina: Okay . Conrad: Where did you get the vehicle trips per day Paul? The standard here . You had 23 vehicle trips . Krauss: You know I honestly don 't recall . A single family home is 10 . I can find out . I ' ll check . I don 't know if the intent was that it 'd be roughly comparable to not too much out of the ordinary for single family . The idea is that these things function as a home situation and not a dormitory where people are being shuttled in and out . The only exceptions that I 'm aware of . Well , we had a home for kids that were suffering , it was a form of retardation . It was called Prader Willie Syndrome . There 's only one home like it in the United States . I think now there 's two . It 's a very , the manifestation of the retardation is that these people can 't - control their eating and they literally eat themselves to death . If they don 't live in a very regulated environment and in that case there was some buses in and out during the day because they went to a sheltered workshop kind of a thing . It was very more trip generation because it was all structured housing situation . Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 26 Conrad: Yeah this is really tough to get in and analyze . It looks good to me . It looks good but boy I 'm just such a . Ledvina : So many foreign things . Conrad : Well yeah . I can 't disect . When you look at different issues . I just don 't know how to be perceptive enough to know if this is right or not . It looks okay to me but boy that 's coming from a real ignorant position . I guess the only comment I made when I read it before is that the standard is to fit into the neighborhood . They didn 't want this to change the neighborhood character in any way or significantly . And you put that in terms of the building . Then we talked about other things . Traffic . Parking . Anything else that might happen that might affect the character of the neighborhood? Emmings: I think so . I think just by the nature , if you put up to 16 people into a residential neighborhood and they 're 16 unrelated people living in this house , that 's more than a normal household. By a long shot . 4 times probably . But the baseline here I think is that these things at least up to 6 are permitted . There 's nothing you can do to stop them . So and what I understood we 're trying to do is at least have something in place so when one comes along , we 're comfortable that at least physically how big the building is and how many vehicles there will be and what kind _ of parking there will be , that we 've already got something established for criteria . And on that basis , this thing makes a lot of sense to me . But will it change the character of the neighborhood? If that 's your intent , -- you 'd never get one in because it will change it just by virtue of the attitudes of the people who live around it . Conrad: And that 's beyond what we can deal with . Like they have 10 cars . Well , then they 'd each be allocated 2 vehicle trips . Krauss : No . You have to take these things on a case by case basis and if the nature of the program is such that people are commuting in and out every , at multiple times of the day , they 're not going to be able to meet that criteria . Steve just mentioned , what if it 's a home for 16 kids . I don 't know , just picked a number . If it was a home for 16 kids in one of our single family neighborhoods , it would have to be on a 48 ,000 square foot lot which is over an acre in a 4 ,800 square foot home which is a mansion . Well not a mansion . Big house . But it 's not something , you 're not just going to go down Frontier Trail and see the next ranch house over with 16 kids in it . Emmings : No . Farmakes: Well not even with 6 . It 'd have to be a pretty substantial house even with 6 . You 're not talking entry level home there . Krauss: Now I don 't know what else I can , you have been confronted with these things . I don 't know what else I can give you now . We do have one - group home in town . Chuck Gabrielson . I have not run this past him . I don 't know if he 'd be for or against it frankly but I 'd be happy , I mean I 'm not in any rush to do this . If you wanted, I could give Chuck a call - and let him have a copy of this and let him come and talk to you and give Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 27 you his feedback on it . He runs a program that , I don 't know if his comments would be good , bad or indifferent . Erhart : Well I think it 'd be entertaining . He 's a funny guy . Krauss : He 's an interesting guy . Ledvina: How many individuals does he have in his group home? Krauss : I don 't know . I think about 20 . Farmakes: I 've been through this in . . .property went through some of the commotion at City Hall in another city and most of the people aren 't worry - about their safety or even about the interaction of the kids . A lot of them are just worried about the bottom line . How it affects their property investment . That 's where the majority of the arguments really lie . And a lot of that has to do with fear of the unknown . People move into a single family zone , they think that they 're somehow protected and we 've had a lot of unique factors in this town that have changed some of that . We have a church with like you said , 120 some acres . In a single family zone , we - have on the board here a density that even in a medium size development you could technically get several homes within that development as a group home situation . And if you 're familiar with Minneapolis or if you go down to a - ball game down in the Twin Cities there 's kind of a concentration there . Heavy concentration of group homes . This is the type of thing , it sounds well and good on paper until it comes next door to your house and then of course you see people down here pounding on the floor . The response is going to be , take it up with your State Representative because as you said when this was litigated up and down . - Krauss: It is but again , you 've got to recognize that the way we 've proposed this , you 're doing more than you have to . You would be allowing in more than is mandated . You 'd be controlling better what is mandated in the multi-family districts but it would allow more than you had to do . Farmakes: I think as long as these people are from our community , that 's a good response . At least a start when they come in to argue about it . At least it is for me . Conrad: Paul , where are we allowing more than what is mandated? Krauss: Okay , at the top of page 2 . In the single family district , the 0 to 6 persons permitted . That 's State law in a single family district . You 've got nothing to say about that . In the multi-family districts , State law says that Chanhassen , you as a city have to allow by conditional use permit licensed , residential care facilities for 7 to 16 people . The law doesn 't say we can't develop standards for allowing those in our - communities and we don 't have any right now so we 've got kind of a problem waiting to occur . That 's under State mandate . Now the way this is written , you would be allowing a 16 person group home in a single family - neighborhood by conditional use permit . Subject to criteria . You don't have to do that . Erhart: I thought it was just in a multi-family . Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 28 Conrad : That 's what I thought too . Krauss : No . Erhart: Is that what it says? That when 16 people are in the multi-family , it only requires that the City allow them in the multiple family area . Did - you read that there Steve? Emmings : Sure . Erhart : I read it . I can 't find it now . Emmings: Right at the top of the page . Erhart : Yeah , R-8 , R-12 and R-16 . Farmakes : Right , there it is . Krauss: I need to clarify the language with Kate on that but the way this , _ the way I interpret this and the way we clean it up to work , unless you tell us not to , is that this would accomplish two things . It would give you criteria for the multi-family district , which we don 't have . But it also allows in or would allow in larger than 0 to 6 in a single family neighborhood . Erhart : We have to decide if we want that . - Emmings: Yeah . Well , yeah . We 'd be subject to this criteria so it 'd be real limiting on the criteria . Why would we want to do that? Why would we even want to consider it? What do we get back? Krauss: Well this is where I , this is kind of a crusade . Emmings : Okay . That 's what I thought . Krauss : When you have a group residence , whether it 's for the retarded or - seniors or kids with problems , whatever , battered women , do we relegate that stuff to an industrial zone? Or to a combat zone like Chicago Avenue is . I mean where they want to be is in residential settings . I mean the _ whole purpose of these kinds of places is to have it as close to a residential situation as possible . And what they seek to do typically , the ones we 're looking at , is buy a home . Large home and establish a residential atmosphere and let their kids or their seniors or whomever become part of the community . Now , that can be a real frightening prospect but that 's . Emmings: But Paul , if what they 're seeking is a more normal living environment , having 16 people isn 't , is that giving it to them? Krauss: Well the only way they 're having 16 people is if they 're having nearly a 5 ,000 square foot house on an acre lot . Emmings: Right . But even then . If you 're . interested in accommodating these people , would you rather see those 16 people in 3 homes or in 1 big Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 29 one? I don 't know . Krauss: I don't know . That 's where the performance standard comes in . - But arguably , if these things are managed in this kind of a format , is it any different? I mean I think we stand a lot more risk of having 5 unassociated teenagers renting a house and being disruptive to a - neighborhood . Or someone who for whatever reason , religious or otherwise , has 12 kids living in a little 3 ,000 square foot rambler . I mean these kinds of things happen all the time . We don't regulate that . I really wouldn 't want to but what we 're saying here is that if somebody wanted a group living situation , we would throw all these standards at them and make them live in a much larger' house on a much larger lot at a much lower level of impact . We 're applying a much tougher standard. Conrad: I just keep playing over the 7 to 16 people in a residential area . Thinking how that changes it . Wanting to be responsible . I totally believe in what you 're talking about Paul but I 'm also concerned with how the residents of that neighborhood could change by a big , you 're not talking about a family , which is typically there . You 're talking about a different unit which has different character and when you magnify it , the 0 thru 6 , I 'm comfortable with but when you magnify it by twice that much or more than twice , then all of a sudden I don 't know what I have anymore . Don 't know what the risks and I don 't know that I would feel real - comfortable with it . Ledvina: I worked at a group home with 6 residents who were _ developmentally disabled . I worked weekends so I actually spend the night there and 6 individuals in a house , and it was a big house . I think it was over 3 ,000 square feet and that place was like a beehive . I think that it was , it seemed to be almost taxing to the neighborhood . Not that these weren 't good people . Not that the neighbors weren 't receptive but the individuals liked to be outside and just a lot of thingt happening with those people . I think that if you get more than 6 people in a group home - setting , it almost becomes like an institution type of thing and I think you 're , certainly with 16 people you 're really , it would be very difficult to have like a family type of situation . That 's my feeling . Erhart : Another point of view would be to really be optimistic and assume that somebody on the State level , private citizen , the next person involved , people came in and developed this standards as one that 's adopted - statewide I would assume . Krauss: The 0 to 6 and the 7 to 16 , multi-family State law . Erhart: . . .assume that they 've put a lot of thought behind that . Probably more thought than we as 5 people could develop here at least in one session . I think it 's just one more reason why I would tend to want to follow just that recommendation . That somebody set a standard there probably more expert in it than we are . And say we ' ll do our share in it . . . Emmings: 7 to 16 in residential seems too big to me . . . .family is fine but in a single family neighborhood , I don't think . Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 30 Krauss: Well okay . If that 's the sense , you 're sense is coming across clearly . Why don 't you let me come back with this then dealing with it from the context that these are the standards that would apply or these we would apply . In reviewing those conditional use permitted ones for 7 to 16 in the multi-family . Emmings : And get comments from . Krauss: Yeah , and talk to Chuck . Okay . DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENT REGARDING SALES OF SEXUALLY ORIENTED MATERIAL . Emmings: Next item , do you think we ought to turn the TV off for this? I 'm not sure that anybody should actually be reading a report like this . The next item in our packet here is discussion of an amendment regarding sexually oriented , regulating sexually oriented businesses . Krauss: We were asked to get something on the books by the City Council . The Mayor in particular when we set our annual goals . And when we looked at this the first time , I think we mutually had a lot of questions as to how do you do this without trampling on the Consititution and is it possible to do and how do you define it? Well , I found that attorney 's can _ define almost anything . And apparently have . Roger 's telling me that this is really becoming the boiler plate ordinance and I think it achieves the best you can achieve and still be legally defensible . Now this gets away from the combat zone approach which I really wouldn 't advocate and goes for - defining what these businesses are and requiring them to be a distance from certain protected categories of land use . At the moment I can 't find what the distance was . Emmings: 500 feet . Krauss : 500 feet? Emmings: Yeah . Farmakes: So this would be similar like a liquor store . Krauss : Well liquor store really doesn 't say that . Liquor store , people make that up as they go along but yes , it is somewhere in that people don 't want a liquor store around a school yard or something like that . Conrad: Do we have this is our fast food? Do we have a fast food ordinance? Krauss: We have a convenience store ordinance . Conrad : Convenience , yeah . Farmakes: Can you define principle business purpose? What criteria do you use to define principle business purpose? Emmings: And beyond that , it didn 't say just principle business . Didn't it say one of their principle business purposes? Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 31 Farmakes: Yes . Emmings: So it wasn 't even their principle business . It said one of their - principle business . Farmakes: What is that 10% of revenue? 20% of revenue? Emmings : That may be even harder to define . There 's lots of stuff to quibble with here . Krauss: Well , this seems to be the one . Roger 's claiming that this is basically the one that Minneapolis has adopted and Bloomington just adopted and Ramsey adopted after their situation . It 's rather detailed and lengthy - and if you marked up something with some questions , I guess if you could give that to me , I can go to Roger and say these are the things that were raised . I don 't know what else to do with it . Emmings: It 's overwhelming . It 's like we don 't have any here and we 're adopting a 10 page ordinance . It 's just like , it seems like you 're hitting a fly with a tank . That 's what it felt like to me . All this , I don 't - know . If people don 't like this stuff , they don 't have to go there , you know what I mean , and then they go out of business . That 's the way I 'd regulate it . Otherwise if you want to regulate them , this looks good to - me . If this is how you do it through an ordinance I think . I thought it was very reasonable . It 's just , I just can 't get interested in it myself . Krauss: Well , and like I say , the Council asked that we take a crack at it . We 've talked about this Steve and I guess I share some of the same concerns about that kind of ordinance . On the other hand , the situation , I 'm pretty sure it was Ramsey , that they went through . One of these places - opened up next to a daycare center . It was one of those things where everybody agrees is pretty abominable and this at least gets to those travesties and as well , yeah you can have it town but you just don 't do it there . Emmings: The other thing then is , if that 's one of your goals and I think that 's a really , why say 500 feet . Why not say 1 ,000 feet? Krauss: Because you can 't do that . - Emmings: Why? Krauss: There has to be legitimate sites . Erhart: We 're a big city . Why not just say South Chanhassen . Krauss : I remember when Minneapolis and St . Paul , maybe it was St . Paul , tried this thing . No , it was Minneapolis . And who 's Ferris Alexander 's constant attorney? - Emmings: Yeah , I know who you mean . Krauss: Randall Teich . Yeah , he showed up again with the handguns and all these great issues . He did an overlay map because the first crack Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 32 Minneapolis had where they said you can 't be , what was it , 1 ,000? I think Minneapolis did have 1 ,000 feet from residential districts . Well you go along Lake Street and there 's always a single family house within 1 ,000 feet of Lake Street . Emmings: Yeah but this is 1 ,000 feet from churches , child care centers , what else? Other stores . Are you restricting it to those? Krauss : Which already restricts it quite a lot . I mean we still have a church in the Frontier building downtown . Ledvina: Could you draw on a map and identify all those and do circles and see if there 's anything? Krauss: I 'd rather leave it up to Randall Teich to make the map actually . Conrad: I don 't think you 'd find many places other than out in Timberwood . I think close to Timberwood . Emmings: You 're going to get Mary Harrington in here with comments like that . Erhart : I think it 's good . If Council wants to . One of the things is I think while we want to do our share in a lot of things , when it comes to situations where it 's pretty universally deemed as less than desireable , I think you 've got every right to try to discourage it from coming into Chanhassen altogether . The second thing is , if all the other cities are doing this , all of a sudden we 're going to be the last one and they 're going to look to us as the place to go . Conrad: I don 't mind it . I agreed with you Steve . I thought geez , this is a big , terrific , all encompassing ordinance . I thought whoa , we don 't even have a problem yet but . Krauss: One of the unfortunate things is , if you adopt this , you 'll never have to see it again because it 's not in the Zoning Ordinance . It becomes a licensing issue . Public safety . In fact you won 't even have to hold the public hearing . Erhart : Where 's the recommendation . Emmings: What do you want us to do tonight? Krauss: I 'd like you to recommend . Make a recommendation on the ordinance and then what I was going to do is submit it to Public Safety and let Scott take it through their Commission for a comparable recommendation. Then let the Council hold a public hearing . Erhart : I so move . Emmings: Second . Is there any more discussion? - Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 33 Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Regarding the Sales of Sexually Oriented Material . All voted in favor and the motion carried. DISCUSSION OF HIGHWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT . Emmings: Paul , what do you want us to do here? _ Krauss: Well , this is kind of a tough one to get a handle on . I think you all know what we 've done to date . You 've seen the newsletter that Bill Morrish published . I think you 're aware of the fact , or you should be aware of the fact that we 're talking to a couple of firms to give us - proposals to undertake the corridor study . We 're actually trying to implement these kinds of recommendations now as we go along working with MnDot . As development is being proposed , we 're working with the developers to get this kind of stuff done . One of the problems that we have is that we have a set of concepts down in a very nice format that make people feel good but there 's no beef . The plan isn 't developed . The standards aren 't developed . The ordinance isn 't developed yet things are happening all around us all the time . And this overlay district was an attempt to get our foot in the door and say hey , our expectations are different . You 're in a different area . We don 't know exactly what we want yet but we know - some of these things and that we can put down in an ordinance . The ordinance also would reference and does reference the newsletter that Bill did , because that 's the only documentation that exists right now . I would _ also adopt by reference whatever we do in the future as a formal corridor plan and revise the ordinance . The context that we 're viewing this in is kind of tough because while you 've been through the process with the HRA and the City Council and Tom Lapic has written a couple of articles about - it , by and large nobody out there in the city knows what we 've done and I 've still got developers walking in the door and property owners all the time thinking it 's business as usual . And when I say no , we have different - expectations here , you get funny looks and then you 've got to kind of work through the process . There 's been no public input on what we 've done to date and that scares me to death . If you want to move forward with an ordinance like this , we have homework to do because we need to have meetings to educate the property owners and the developers and the folks out there as to the wisdom of pursuing something like this . You could wait . You could wait until we finish the ordinance and the plan and we 'll - try and slog through best we can . I 'm not sure if this is going to work . I mean this is more touchy feely than you like an ordinance to be . I bounced it off of Roger and his initial reaction was , don't do that . Emmings: Don 't use so many adjectives . Use nouns . Krauss: Exactly . Emmings: I like that . - Krauss: I 'd use the nouns if I had them but I think Roger and I discussed it enough that if we tinkered with this he thinks it 's probably a defensible ordinance . But again there 's a big sell job to do and you 'd be a part of that in the hearing process . Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 34 Emmings: Now are you talking about , so if we start getting public input by having public hearings on this overlay ordinance? Is that the idea? Krauss: Yeah . It 's a cart before the horse situation that scares me . Erhart: The $40 ,000 .00 that we were talking about to do the corridor plan . - Krauss: 40 to 60 . Erhart: Actually we 're going to lay out the actual streets , the side streets? Krauss: Oh yeah . Erhart : So what happens then if we did that and all of a sudden a developer comes in and says I don 't want to do it that way? I have a better plan . Did we waste that money? Krauss : Well you can make the same argument about the entire comprehensive _ plan . I mean we made the best attempt we could to gather information and predict the future in 1990 . If somebody comes along with a helluva good idea in 1995 that we didn 't think of , I think we 've all acknowledged that we ' ll sure give it due consideration . But you still have a framework for everything to be hung on and to evaluate everything against . If we do this plan and the plan defines center lines for the parallel collector streets and defines land uses , I mean that 's the gauge that you 're going to hold everything else and every amendment up against . Emmings: It 's a starting point . Erhart : The problem is you 've got all these little parcels of land and even if you do a complete plan , there 's nothing that says that that guy has to actually follow that plan . Krauss: Well , that 's where the ordinance comes in . This isn 't , I mean in Canada they can kind of demand that people build a certain kind of - building . We don 't do that here and clearly an individual property owner would have a range of acceptable uses but within those acceptable uses we 're going to have defined rights-of-way that we want for parallel streets . We 're going to define that your building has to be oriented in such and such a way and your parking lot has to be away from TH 5 . And that the kind of landscaping we 're looking for is this . We may define that we have a greater open space requirement in the corridor . There 's lots of things that you can add on that would pretty well direct development and hopefully get you what you want . Erhart : Do you envision any other corridors besides the one we 're discussing today? Krauss: No , not at this point in time . If you want to project down close - to 1995 and you look at opening up additional MUSA area along 212 , you may want to have that . Erhart : You mean existing 212? - Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 35 Krauss: New 212 . New 212 though , Highway 5 is a linear corridor because of the kind of highway it is . It has a lot of intersections . If you did a corridor plan along new 212 that would more rightfully be called an = interchange development plan . Erhart: How about TH 41? TH 41 , the way we have it zoned , it 's all - residential up there . We 're really talking about this corridor , we 're talking about no purpose in future use . I guess the thought was and I 'm just thinking out loud like , Ladd taught me this . Maybe if we took this to _ a consultant for $10 ,000 .00 , you could actually lay this into a corridor area . A corridor overlay ordinance . Get the nouns . Replace the verbs with nouns . Maybe we 'd get more out of it than we would by actually trying to go in and do a specific design and let the developers pay for this . Emmings: But don 't we need to have , we 're not designing individual parcels . What we 're doing is setting up just the network of frontage roads - and what 's feeding into them and things like that . But that 's all we 're dictating to a developer . We 're not trying to lay out his streets . Farmakes: There 's criteria landscaping . Erhart : You 're talking about the $40 ,000 .00 to $60 ,000 .00 plan . Emmings: Well , who knows what it costs . To me you know , we 've got the plan . I don 't know why we can 't take what . _ Krauss: Let the describe the elements that we 're trying to get in this package . We want to have somebody on board who can work with MnDot and help us structure and redesign the Highway 5 construction program so that it meets our goals . And qualifies for this new funding source under the new highway bills . So we 're hoping that this $60 ,000 .00 investment or whatever it turns out to be , yields us $18 million in highway improvements . That 's the play on it . But you know we 're looking at tinkering with the - design in terms of adding bridges instead of culverts . Adding curb instead of ditches . Adding retaining walls to save trees . Those kinds of things . Then we need to define the center lines and probably officially map where those parallel collectors are going to go because in large part that 's going to , if you read Morrish's plan , that 's going to define the land uses that occur off of it . So we really need to have hard and fast information on where that should be . We 're going to need to define what public spaces - should be on this corridor . How does the HRA get involved in the future? Do we need additional treatments at intersections and corners? Do we need to buy up something as development occurs to make sure that we save stands - of trees that we wouldn 't otherwise save . What stands of trees , what features are going to make the developer save so that ahead of time we can tell a developer you 've got this area . Or Fleet Farm . Like the way Fleet Farm 's supposed to fit on that corner . That we actually have a plan and we say , well whether it 's Fleet Farm , K-Mart or lord knows what , this is the way you 're going to fit in a big building . And how you orient the building is up to you . How you develop your site plan and what it looks like , all - those things can be decided in the future but we want to save this wetland and we want to save those trees . They 're real important relative to the corridor . The corridor plan is then going to define enforcement techniques . It involves getting a capital improvement program together Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 36 because we 're going to need to take an active role in this , the same way the HRA 's taking an active role in this stretch of TH 5 . It 's going to define an ordinance that 's going to get us where we want to be . It 's probably going to expand on Bill Morrish 's design concept . This is kind of late breaking stuff in planning , the last 5 , 6 years in terms of design ordinances and the ones that seem to be most effective are not those that say like Eden Prairie , you have to have brick buildings . But rather say what kind of elements you need . You know we 'd like you to incorporate these kinds of elements in a plan and then sketch up how those things might work and then you give it to their architects and you say these are our ideas . Build upon them . Some latitude to do that . You roll all that into a package and that 's what we 're asking people to give us proposals for . And again , one of the direct goals of this program is to yield many millions of dollars of additional funding out of the federal bill . Emmings: Now to get to the specific topic at hand here . The draft highway corridor overlay district . What 's the function of this? To get something on the books to say that there 's activity in this area and to start the process of educating the community at large about where we 're going? Krauss: Yeah . And again , I 'm not 100% convinced that this is the best way to go because it is a cart and horse situation . You 're telling people we want to have an ordinance but we can 't tell you exactly what it 's going to define . On the other hand , I 'm in meeting after meeting with people developing properties or talking about developing properties along the corridor and I go well , gee you know . The Planning Commission really would feel pretty good if you put this this way and the City Council has told me don 't put any green buildings up and we do like trees so take all this into account when you develop the site and the guy comes back and says , screw it . This is the Rapid Oil I put up in Burnsville . I 'm going to do the same thing here . And yes , we go back and forth and we 're usually able to get a whole lot better , I hope we 're able to get a whole lot better program than they had come in with . Erhart: I guess I see it doing more than that Steve . I would say if you have an overlay ordinance , even though it 's not all that definitive , the fact is that you can , when a developer comes in , you lay this ordinance on them and see our goals and so forth and don 't most developers want to come in with a plan that responds to what they perceive that the Planning Commission , Council , staff want or am I naive? Krauss: You 're right . If you can define exactly what you 're looking for and they know it , even if they disagree . . .they ' ll feel a whole lot more comfortable because they know what they 're dealing with . What 's probably going to scare them about this is that it raises more questions than it answers . Which means to them that they 're going to spend a whole lot more money and time trying to figure out what we really mean . Now in point of fact that 's true without the ordinance . Farmakes: Isn 't the object here to buy us some time? Krauss: I think so because . - Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 37 Emmings: And give some legitimacy to the things that he has to talk to them about . So I think it 's good to do something rather than nothing I guess . Farmakes: I don't think we should wait one minute . - Ledvina : At the last meeting I asked the question about the potential for a moratorium and I see you discuss that briefly here and again you cite the situation in Woodbury but I think , and I 've spoken to attorneys involved in that case and it 's my impression that for something like a corridor study , that is a very legitimate use of a moratorium and would be legally upheld if you had some challengers by developers . So maybe there 's some misconception regarding that Woodbury case . Just because they lost and - they used the moratorium inappropriately , I don 't think that should , if that 's really a tool that we can use , I don 't think we should throw it out . I mean if we really need to bide time . I don 't disagree with an overlay district but I don 't know that that should be tossed out . Krauss: Well frankly , I mean I think I mentioned last time that the Council has talked about moratorium and wasn 't terribly supportive of it . I fully agree with you Matt . I mean Woodbury messed up and invited a suit . And I asked Roger about it and we both agreed that with a defined time limit , you are legitimately able to do these things . Now if the - alternative to a developer or property owners in the corridor is either we trip a moratorium or we trip an overlay district that allows you to move forward with as much guidance as we can give you , then I think I know what _ their answer is going to be . I would just hate to see us have missed opportunities that we get to a point on a . . .project where there 's just a great deal of discomfort and concern and a moratorium comes out of that kind of a reaction rather than . Ledvina : It 's kind of a definitive thing . It 's not an if . It 's not a negotiation . Farmakes: Can the moratorium be placed at a later date? Krauss: Oh I don 't see why not . Farmakes: Did they do that with another development here in town? - Erhart: Convenience stores . Farmakes: Convenience stores? Was it temporary? Not quite the same - thing . Ledvina: A moratorium as I understand it is really exactly set up for this type of purpose where you 've got an area that you know you need some detailed planning and you want to incorporate it into your comprehensive plan . You need the time to do that , this is appropriate . - Erhart: It might be but at the same time , if you have to put a moratorium on and you have to commit to doing the plan which nobody wants to do . Nobody wants to pay the money , it 's going to be pretty ridiculous . Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 38 Krauss: I want this to go to the Council because I don 't even think they should do this overlay district unless they 're willing to commit to finishing the process . Ledvina: I agree . There 's got to be a concerted effort here and the time line has to be adhered to . Absolutely . Krauss: You know the TH 5 corridor , I was playing around with doing some maps in trying to define what I thought the TH 5 corridor is based upon all - our discussions . And it includes the property in front of DataServ . It includes the property by The Press . It includes the HRA property on 79th Street and the Ward parcel . It 's not just west of CR 17 . Conrad : I guess I would consider a moratorium if I thought there were funds ready to be put into the project . But I really don 't know so I don 't even want to consider that tonight . Ledvina : Maybe not tonight but it seems to be thrown out and based on the situation in Woodbury and if that 's a misconception , I 'd like to disspell - that . Conrad: Yeah . Erhart : Was it clear to the Planning Commission that our recommendation was to go ahead with the design? Krauss: The design? Erhart : That we ought to be . . . Emmings : Oh yeah . Erhart : I guess at this point maybe we ought to go back and re-emphasize - it again . That we 've reviewed the subject . We unanimously recommend that we go ahead with the design . Short of that , we believe that we ought to do this overlay . Or even simultaneously . Just go back and re-emphasize that - we think that it 's urgent that we support staff or whatever and get the money committed . Emmings: Are you getting bids to do that work? Krauss : I 'm getting one . Conrad: Why just one? Krauss: I guess , I mean I can tell you off the record about a couple of things but there 's not , I ' ll tell you off the record . Conrad: But tell me , well I think we should be going ahead with the overlay district unless there 's a moratorium . So all these things are kind of . Ledvina : It 's either one or the other . Or maybe the moratorium at a later - date too . If we feel this doesn 't work and we 're pressured . Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 39 Conrad: Well what do you know that 's happening that 's going to affect something? What 's happening down TH 5 that 's going to come in the next 6 months that you don 't have control over? Krauss : This should be off the record too . We 've been talking to a number of individuals about some fairly significant developments , both in downtown - and outside . The timing may work out well to our advantage and even if the recession 's ending right now , nobody 's beating down the doors to build major industrial projects or commercial projects . But we do have one commercial project that you 're probably going to see in the very near future in downtown . And we 've seen the site plan for it and we think we can do a whole lot better . Okay? Now downtown gives us a fortunate amount of leverage because most everything that happens in the downtown , the HRA - subsidizes . So we can attach strings . But we had a meeting on this project . We being , staff , Bill Morrish , Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch , and Barry Warner to develop what we think is a better site plan for the same kind of - uses but does what we think needs to be done relative to this site 's prominence along TH 5 . We think , because of the HRA we may have enough leverage to pull it off but there 's a lot of other things involved here and it would sure be nice if we had something on the books that said thou shall instead of won't you please . I mean things are happening incredibly fast around here . We know that there 's a 350 ,000 square foot industrial user that 's been talking about building for a year and a half but is actually - got it down to 3 sites , all of which are in Chanhassen . One of which could be the 35 acre McGlynn property . That 's a big one . I mean that 's a very prominent site . I mean all I know right now is I don 't want another 50 foot high tip up panel building right there on the corner . But 350 ,000 square feet is going to have some of that involved with it and where do you put it? How should it work? So it 's hard to know that . Things are changing weekly . Emmings: Are people generally , are you going to take this proposal up to the City Council with our reaction? Krauss: I thought I would . Emmings : And then . . .public hearings on it and so forth? Krauss: Yeah , see the biggest problem I have with this whole TH 5 process to date is getting concurrence on exactly what we should be doing . I want to takeit to you and get your feedback and then up to the Council . Emmings : Okay , does everybody support this overlay district at this time - so we get started with something? Along with like Tim says , to reiterate to them that we think this is one of the most important things we 've got to do and to get going on . Is that the kind of message you want to send up? Conrad : Yeah , I think so . Emmings: Okay . Farmakes: Is there anything being done , the other part of this that you were talking about was communication . Getting the word out to the people out there . Is there anythink being done on that end? Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 40 Krauss: No , and that would be a very big part of this plan proposal . I 've already stressed that to them that . Farmakes: The paper actually says very little of this . They 've written two small articles . Krauss: And your letter . Farmakes : I think my letter was maybe twice as long as their articles . Forgive me for that . Emmings: That 's fine . Ledvina : Do we need a motion? Emmings: No , we don 't need a motion. He 's just going to , do we? Krauss : I can carry the sense . Emmings: Let 's do Moon Valley litigation . Anything you want to say? I cut you off before on that . Anything you 've got on that and then you can wrap it up . Krauss : Oh . We won . Conrad: Really? Krauss: I think so . Roger thinks so . I 'm real pleased . Emmings : Did everybody think so? Krauss: Well , I talked to the Moon Valley , the guy that Moon Valley hired to design their plan and he 's saying that Moon Valley is comfortable with the decision , which disturbs me because if I 'm happy they shouldn 't be . But look at it on the face of it . Moon Valley maintained that we had no authority to require them to get a permit because they 're a non-conforming — use . The Judge said that 's garbage . Moon Valley maintained that we had no right to stop them from mining on the north parcel off of Pioneer Trail . The Judge said we have every right to stop them . They have no inherent right to mine up there at all . Moon Valley submitted two alternative grading plans to us , one of which was bad . The other which was ludicrous . The Judge said the ludicrous one is ludicrous . The bad plan has a kernel of truth to it and served as the basis of developing a better document . He gave them 30 days to submit an application for permit . What else the Judge said is that Moon Valley has an inherent right to mine everything they want to within reason , health , safety , welfare , on the main pit site . Emmings : We had conceded that right? Krauss: Basically . Well , we conceded the fact that they have do rights to mine . Now I guess you draw lines in the sand as to exactly what health , safety and public welfare is and I 'm not sure how much leverage we have . I mean saving a portion of the bluff line , requiring a reforestation plan , all that kind of stuff . Roger and I believe that we have ample right to Planning Commission Meeting April 15 , 1992 - Page 41 do . I 'm going to have my first meeting post ruling with their planner tomorrow afternoon . It took a long time though but I think we achieved most of the points we wanted so I 'm pretty comfortable with it . Conrad : Did he put significant financial resource into this litigation? Moon Valley . Krauss: They hired the law firm of Siegel , Brill and a guy who 's name I find , I can 't remember because I don 't like him . I have a tendency to forget it . And they 've spent a huge amount of time on this . They had their planner do a series of plans and hold negotiations with us and then come to court to testify . So I assume they spent a whole lot of money spinning their wheels . Now , I mean I spent a lot of time . Conrad: $100 ,000 .00? Krauss: I don 't think it 's anything like that . Well , I don 't know . I don 't know what the attorney 's billables are . But we have , I mean our law firm is under retainer . You pay me whether I sit in court or not so I think it cost them a lot more than it cost us . Now I don 't know if all the gravel pit operators get together to defend each other . I sort of suspect that they do because they all use one law firm . - Emmings: Is there anything else anybody wants to talk about? Is there a motion to adjourn the meeting? Erhart moved, Farmakes seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 10: 10 p .m. . Submitted by Paul Krauss - Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim REVISED APRIL 30, 1992 ONGOING ISSUES STATUS Comprehensive Plan Issues 1.* 1995 Study Area (North) City Council approved study launch on and Hwy. 5 Corridor Study April 29. Work to begin with concurrent set up of advisory committee. 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. 3.* Tree Protection Ordinance Inventory in progress. Over view of Mapping of significant existing tree protection regulations vegetative areas requested by Commisser Erhart. 4. Wetland Ordinance/Surface Main group establishing public Water Management Program information and erosion control program Task Force established. along with 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. 7.* Rural Lot Area Policies PC approved in March, 1992. Sent to CC for approval. 8. PUD Ordinance Future meetings required. 9. PC input in Downtown Ongoing — Planning and Traffic Study 10. Review of Architectural 1992 Standards to Promote High Quality Design 11. 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. — 12. Ordinance amendment to Non- PC approved. City Attorney to redraft. — conforming use section to clarify ordinance. 13. Temporary uses, sales - Guidelines memo reviewed by PC new ordinance. and scheduled for CC. Ordinance revisions to follow. 14. Truck and trailer rental standards. Request by PC. — 15. Sexually oriented businesses PC reviewed on 3/4/92. Sent to Public Safety Commission. 16.` Lot sizes - what is involved in PC review on 5/6/92. — reassessing lot sizes 17. Review of Alternate Target site Joint meeting held on 4/29/92. — plans * Change in status since last report 71"1-11. C I TY OF , 1C1 11 1411 C HANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director DATE: April 20, 1992 SUBJ: Discussion Paper on RSF, Single Family District Lot Size BACKGROUND On April 13, 1992, the City Council raised some questions regarding the city's single family district lot size requirements. The city has historically enforced a 15,000 square foot — minimum lo? size. Several members of the City Council apparently have some concerns regarding this lot size having stated that they prefer to increase it. There were also some statements to the effect that there was a belief that the Planning Commission is reviewing lot sizes. The Planning Commission is indeed reviewing lot size requirements; however, not in the context which was raised by the City Council. In a series of meetings that was started last summer, there have been frequent discussions about the use of planned unit development districts for single family plats. The primary topic of discussion is that one of the benefits of PUDs is that they promote cluster developer, i.e. concentrating development in a smaller area, leaving a larger area as protected open space. PUDs are generally viewed as win-win situations for both the city and the developer. Normally, the developer gets a somewhat reduced lot size and commensurately lower land and utility costs, while the city gets higher quality development. Thus, it is in this context that reductions in lot size within PUDs only have been considered since it is believed that a lot area reduction is a requiring inducement to get developers to utilize the PUD. At no time has the Planning Commission given significant consideration to proposing reductions in lot area standards in normal RSF Distnct development. Much of our focus in the PUD discussions is centered around existing residential PUDs located in Chanhassen. Often times these were sold to the city as a means of reducing development costs, but it is questionable whether they ever achieved this goal. They also _ Is to PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Don Ashworth April 20, 1992 Page 2 resulted in a host of problems for the city as evidenced by the numerous variance requests we receive for decks and other setback violations. Staff is of the opinion that these - problems are more of a result of poor control being exercised over these PUDs than problems with the PUD concept itself. In light of this background and of the City Council's request for further information, this paper is being prepared to analyze some of the broader issues pertaining to lot sizes. CHANHASSEN VERSUS METRO AREA LOT AREA STANDARDS With a standard requirement of a minimum of 15,000 square feet, Chanhassen already - maintains one of the largest minimum lot areas in the suburban Twin Cities area. The table below provides information on lot area standards of communities in this area or similar to Chanhassen. RSF LOT SIZE SURVEY CITY LOT SIZE Eden Prairie 13,500 square feet _ Bloomington Corner lot 15,000 s.f. Interior lot 11,000 s.f. _ Eagan 12,000 s.f. Burnsville 15,000 s.f. Maple Grove 10,000 s.f. - Maplewood 10,000 s.f. Brooklyn Park 10,800 s.f. Chaska 9,000 s.f. Shorewood 20,000 s.f. Excelsior 10,000 s.f. Victoria 12,500 s.f. Minnetonka 22,000 s.f. _ Don Ashworth April 20, 1992 Page 3 — We should also point out that the density at which Chanhassen develops is generally much lower than comparable communities elsewhere in the Twin Cities. The Metropolitan Council uses a standard rule of thumb of 2.5 single family homes per acre in suburban development when undertaking computations for regional planning programs. In Chanhassen, the effective gross density is considerably lower, being between 1.7 and 2 units an acre. This is partially a factor of our high minimum lot size but is also indicative of the stringent controls we have put in place to the protect the environment. Until the new state wetland protection law was adopted in January, Chanhassen was one of the few communities that protected all the wetland within its borders, thus, significantly lowering the amount of land available for development. We also make significant efforts to protect stands of trees, which again serves to decrease density. Lastly, we have a very active recreation department which has set aside significant portions of many subdivisions to provide for recreational needs. A last factor not directly related to density within a given project, but rather density within the entire city pertains to the huge amount of public and semi-public open space that exists within our community. This category would cover not only our own park system, but the Minnewashta Regional Park, Minnesota River Valley National Wildlife Refuge, Bluff Creek Golf Course, and lake surface areas. ENVIRONMENTAL AND URBAN DESIGN COSTS OF SPRAWL Since World War II, "suburban sprawl" has been a derogatory term used to define unregulated, disruptive, and land intensive development. It is often typified by leap frog development wherein parcels are not fully developed to their maximum potential because there is often cheaper land just a little further out. One of the primary goals of the establishment of the Metropolitan Council is to reduce the potential for unregulated sprawl in the Twin Cities area. The costs of sprawl occur not only in regional terms but also in local terms. Sprawl type development is extremely disruptive to the environment. Large amounts of valuable farm land are forever converted to non-productive use,wetlands and water courses are damaged, tree cover is lost, and aquifer recharge areas are paved over. At the same time, there is a real public cost of sprawl. The miles of roads, sewers, and watermain, required to serve a relative small number of units, becomes excessive. Additional school bus routes must be created, time to drive to work and shopping grows significantly, and public dollars expended to maintain all of these facilities is also a major concern. Chanhassen has done a remarkably good job of effectively controlling development while _ still being able to provide a highly desirable community in which to reside and work. Yet, even here, we have examples of the down side of sprawl development. Without meaning to condemn the lifestyle that it offers those who reside there, Timberwood Estates is a good example of this type of development. In it a huge amount of land is forever tied up with very few housing units. The Council and Planning Commission are aware first hand of the Don Ashworth April 20, 1992 Page 4 difficulty of incorporating this type of development into the community as it grows outward. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The creation of larger lot sizes is often seen as a panacea for addressing environmental impact of residential development. On the face of it, what could be wrong with larger lots and more lawn area? However, it is an unfortunate fact that what is often true on the surface, in fact, conceals a completely different reality. Larger lot sizes impose considerably _ greater impact on the environment. First of all, if you assume the same number of units are going to ultimately try to get into our community, land will be gobbled up at a much faster rate with larger lot sizes. Secondly, I would argue that the suburban lawn is hardly the ideal — mechanism for preserving trees and wetlands. In virtually every case, we get significant grading to accommodate roads and building pads, as well as tree clearance to create yard areas. The flexibility to design sensitively to protect natural features is significantly diminished when uniformly larger lot sizes are imposed. This is one of the primary reasons staff advocates the use of PUDs for residential districts. Even if the city had an ordinance maintaining an average minimum PUD lot area of 15,000 square feet, I believe that we — could do a much better job of concentrating higher densities in open field areas and utilizing significantly larger lots in areas where tree cover and other natural features can be preserved. Uniformly imposing an across the board 20,000 square foot lot for example does not achieve any of these goals. Don Ashworth April 20, 1992 Page 5 COSTS AND OTHER IMPACTS OF LARGER LOTS Raising the lot area from 15,000 to 20,000 square feet would have a number of adverse impacts. First of all there is a direct cost associated with land as well as with the amount of dollars that must be spent to provide services. Raising the lot size from 15,000 to 20,000 square feet would probably increase the cost to the consumer by at least 25%, if not more. Factors involved include not only the cost of land, but the cost of providing services. While the larger lot sizes may reduce the number of homes in a subdivision, the cost to provide streets, sewer, and water on a linear foot basis is still the same. Thus, these costs are spread over fewer lots. In areas where lots commonly cost $40,000 to $50,000, we would have just = added over $10,000 to $12,500 to the price of a lot. Fifteen thousand square foot lots are the historic lot size in Chanhassen, and have been used for the basis of all our assessments for public improvements. When utilities are put through in an area, there is a presumption that "x" number of units can be developed on a parcel of land and it is billed accordingly. "X" in this case are 15,000 square foot lots. Unilaterally raising the standard to 20,000 square feet at this point in time, would certainly raise questions of equity and may in fact result in legal challenges since the property owners have been paying their assessments in the expectation that the city's RSF development densities can be achieved. SUMMARY In summary, staff does not support raising the single family lot areas in Chanhassen. We do not believe that there is any net environmental improve that results from increased lot sizes, in fact, would argue that the reverse is true. There would certainly be a significant increase in cost to the consumer, who after all is a future resident of our community. In Chanhassen, we have come to pride ourselves on having a well planned and developed community that has progressive attitudes towards growth and community protection. Significantly raising the lot size would tend to force many of the developers who work in our community as well as future home buyers to look elsewhere where land costs are more reasonable. Even though my opinion on this issue is quite clear and has been for some time, I still believe there are issues relative to lot size which should be investigated. The Planning Staff continues to support some moderation in lot size to encourage the use of PUD development. We believe that it does not have to be a significant decrease and would anticipate building in sufficient safeguards to prevent the abuses which occurred in past years. Don Ashworth April 20, 1992 Page 6 We also believe that in many cases, lot area is often a misleading standard. Usable or buildable lot area is often a much more significant standard and I believe it should be incorporated into our ordinances. Simply having a 15,000 square foot area does not guarantee that a reasonable residential environment would be created, or even if the home can be accommodated at all. The parcel's utility is often diminished by the presence of wetlands, easements, steep slopes, frontage on major streets and highways, and other measures which detract from its utility. Staff is already working with the Planning Commission to attempt to define what the minimum buildable area should be on a 15,000 square foot lot. Staff will be present to discuss this matter with you further and we are seeking your direction. 1 CITY OF too, 011''. 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: April 30, 1992 SUBJ: Report from Director At the City Council meeting of Monday, April 27, 1992, and continued to April 29, 1992, the following actions were taken: 1. Wetland alteration permit to create a Walker/NURP pond in a Class A wetland _ near Silver Lake for the Summit at Near Mountain, Lundgren Bros. Construction was approved on the consent agenda. .- 2. Final plat approval for Oakwood Estates located on Lyman Boulevard for Eugene Quinn was approved on the consent agenda. s 3. Zoning ordinance amendment to require that boats moored in front of lake front parcels be owned by and registered in the name of lake front property owner. The Planning Commission will recall recent amendments to city ordinance that — mandated that all boats, moorings and docks be located 10 feet back from the extended property line of lake shore parcels. The Planning Commission supported the creation of this code. The Council also supported it but at the last moment added another change that allowed lake front homeowners to allow anyone use their allocated dockage as long as written permission was obtained. This represented a departure from the existing code which limited dockage to blood relatives of the homeowner. The ordinance was approved with this change and has been recorded. After the ordinance was in place, concerns were raised that changing the code to allow non-owner boat moorings could result in greatly increased use of lakes by watercraft. Several individuals raised this concern with the Council and asked that this part of the ordinance be reconsidered. At Councilman Wing's request, - rib, t4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission April 30, 1992 Page 2 -- the ordinance was reconsidered and the original language limiting boat dockage — to owners or blood relatives of lake shore homeowners is in the process of being reinstituted. The Council approved first reading of the ordinance amendment. 4. Preliminary plat request for 17 single family lots on 9 acres and a wetland alteration permit for alteration, relocation, and mitigation of a Class B wetland, southwest corner of the intersection of Lilac and Teton Lane, Ithilien Addition, — Hilloway Corporation. The City Council approved these requests in a manner consistent with the recommendations of the Planning Commission. There was virtually no discussion on the plat itself, but as may be expected, the issue of — Teton Lane and the barricade did come up. Planning Commission's and staffs strong recommendations that the barricade needs to be removed in light of this development were carried forward. The City Council will not be acting on the barricade issue until the feasibility study for public improvements is brought back to them in the month of May. _ 5. Appeal Decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for an 11 Foot Rear Yard Variance Request, 1840 Pheasant Drive, David Schissel. The applicant _ constructed a large deck without obtaining a building permit. He was notified that a permit was required. This deck was in violation in the summer of 1991. It took repeated attempts by staff to get Mr. Schissel to apply for a variance, _ culminating in his request before the Board of Adjustment in March. The Board reviewed this 'after the fact' request and concluded that it was without merit and recommended its denial. It was believed that there may have been other alternatives that could have been considered had proper procedures been followed. It was also pointed out that on a similar variance request in this neighborhood two years ago, the variance was denied and a homeowner was in — the position of needing to acquire property from an adjoining parcel to bring this site into compliance. The Council expressed a lot of frustration with these types of requests since it puts them in a difficult position. However, they ultimately did approve the 'after the fact' request with the penalty being that the applicant pay a double permit fee — for his building permit. 6. Rezoning request from A2 to RSF and preliminary plat request for a 141 single — family lots, wetland alteration permit and 8.2 acres of park area located north of Lyman and east of Galpin Boulevard south of Timberwood Estates, Stone Creek _ for Hans Hagen Homes. A lot of issues were raised regarding this project but all discussion basically focused on the desirability of connecting Timberwood Drive into this area as was ultimately envisioned when this street was platted. Staff re- _ Planning Commission April 30, 1992 Page 3 emphasized to the Council that we thought it was necessary that two accesses be provided and there really does not appear to be any viable alternative to the Timberwood connection. After protracted discussions, taking place over two separate evenings, the Council ultimately decided to approve the plat without the Timberwood connection. Staff was asked to work with the County Engineer to see if there was in fact any opportunity for a second curb cut but if this does not prove to be possible, a single curb cut will have to suffice. 7. Review proposal for Hwy. 5 Corridor Study and Comment on Hwy. 5 Overlay District. Staff presented a consultant proposal to under the Hwy. 5 Corridor Study to the City Council. After brief discussion, the Council approved the _ proposal along with the idea of establishing a technical advisory committee to work with staff and the consultant on preparation of the plan. It is envisioned that this committee would operate in a manner similar to the Surface Water Management Task Force. Accordingly, there will be membership from the Planning Commission, HRA, City Council, Park Commission, as well as residents and business people at large. I would ask that the Planning Commission nominate two members to serve on this committee since we expect to have the first meeting within the next 30 to 45 days. In a related matter, the option of establishing a Hwy. 5 Overlay District was discussed. There seemed to be support in undertaking such a task, but at the Planning Director's suggestion, this matter will be brought up to the Technical Advisory Committee and to residents at large during the issues determination stage of the Hwy. 5 Corridor Study. 8. Target Site Plan. As many of you are aware, Target appears to be quite interested in locating in Chanhassen in the immediate future. Several options for Target have been discussed by various developers, but recently primary focus is on property owned by Burdick and/or Charlie James, west of the CBD on West 78th Street. In a rather unusual step, staff took the plans that had been prepared by a potential developer and attempted to work with them to develop a plan that met not only Target's goals, but also the goals that have been established for urban design in Chanhassen. City staff worked together with Bill Morrish, Barry Warner of Barton Aschman, and Denny Eiler from Strgar Roscoe Fausch, the city's traffic consultant to develop a concept that met these goals. In so doing, we determined ahead of time that we would not be constrained by underlying property ownership or other factors believing that the goal of this process was to develop an optimal site plan so that the possibilities could be explored. This process was completed and presented on short notice to an impromptu group consisting of representatives of the developers, HRA, Public Safety Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council. The discussion seemed to support the location of Target on the Burdick property in a coordinated manner outlined on Planning Commission April 30, 1992 Page 4 two of the development options that had been prepared. I expect to have reduced copies of these boards available in short order and would like to be in a _ position to discuss them with the Planning Commission at the next meeting if we can obtain them in time. CITY OF ClIANBASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 ♦ MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director DATE: April 22, 1992 SUBJ: Highway 5 Corridor Study Proposal/Discussion of Potential Hwy. 5 Overlay District Highway 5 Corridor Study Since last summer's tour of the Hwy. 5 corridor, the city has moved closer to undertaking a formal corridor study and planning effort for the Hwy. 5 corridor. Excellent ground work has been laid through the use of Bill Morrish and his staff working with the Chanhassen Task Force comprised of representatives of the Planning Commission, HRA, City Council and city staff. This work culminated in the publication "Building Community Across the Corridor" newsletter. Based upon discussions with the Council, we believe it is now time to move into the second and more definitive phase of the project. At the Council's request, we have developed a formal proposal to undertake the required work. Rather than go through a lengthy and time consuming interview process, staff elected to get a proposal from Barton Aschman and Associates since we have had a good working relationship with them on Hwy. 5 issues to date. You are all familiar with the work that Barry Warner has done with the HRA on urban design pertaining to the major downtown entrances and to the Hwy. 5 corridor in the current construction phase. Barton Aschman is also uniquely positioned to work with MnDOT since they are also undertaking the MnDOT design contract for both the current and future phases of Hwy. 5. Joining Barton _ Aschman and providing the planning support for the program is the firm of Camiros. Camiros is relatively new to the Twin Cities area, having had a local office for about a year. Their larger office is based in Chicago and they will be able to draw on a wealth of urban design planning efforts for their work in Chanhassen. We have also designed the proposal to keep Bill Morrish and the University actively participating. rs t4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Don Ashworth April 22, 1992 Page 2 Work tasks in this program include the following: 1. Refinement of mainline Hwy. 5 design to incorporate features outlined in the "Building Across the Corridor" document as well as other environmentally and community sensitive improvements that are developed through this study. 2. Work to secure funding under the new Highway Transportation Bill for non- traditional aspects of the plan. 3. Define the rights-of-way for parallel collectors described in the "Building Across the Corridor" document. 4. Refine land use plan recommendations for the existing MUSA area and for the 1995 Study Area. 5. Accurately define environmentally sensitive areas for protection. 6. Develop a corridor design plan and handbook that can be appended to the City Comprehensive Plan. 7. Develop zoning ordinance amendments designed to help facilitate the establishment of the city's vision. 8. Design streetscape improvements along the highway corridor similar to that which has already been completed in the first phase of Hwy. 5 construction. The planning process envisions working with a technical advisory committee in a manner similar to which the Surface Water Management Plan Task Force is working under. Any plan or ordinance changes would have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, and ultimately approved by the City Council and potentially the HRA. We find that it is useful to establish a broad spectrum of people to work with consultant and city staff to develop this plan. We would recommend that the Council consider establishing this technical advisory committee in the following format: Two members of the Planning Commission One member of the HRA Two members of the City Council Four members representing corridor area residents at large Two members of the business community Don Ashworth April 22, 1992 Page 3 If you agree with this concept, you could either simply appoint those persons who you feel would be interested in participating or we could publish a notice in the newspaper and see what kind of response we have. We would also provide a forum for the developers operating in the corridor to have input. In addition, there would be numerous public meetings held to solicit input from residents at large. We realize that cost continues to be a concern of the Council and this is fully understandable. However, at this point, we are recommending that the Council authorize undertaking the study on an hourly basis to get us through the organizational steps, issues, opportunities and constraints analysis, first public meeting, and drafting of a summary memorandum. At that point, we would suggest refinement of the work program and negotiate consultant level of effort. Thus, the Council would have a second opportunity to review the program and authorize expenditures related to it. Attached you will find a copy of the proposal from Barton Aschman and Camiros. Staff is requesting that the City Council authorize staff to proceed on the first phases of the study in the manner outlined above. Highway 5 Overlay District Staff has held several discussions with the Council about the need to expedite Hwy. 5 planning efforts. Obviously, the city is experiencing a great deal of pressure in offering development in this corridor and our ability to control and direct it needs to catch up. The idea of a moratorium was discussed by the Council and was dismissed. Given Minnesota's short construction season and developers' needs to position projects at optimal times in an economic cycle, we would not recommend that a moratorium be pursued. We feel that much of the city's goals can be accomplished through alternative means. It is along these lines that staff has developed a proposal to adopt a Highway 5 Overlay District. At this point in time, until the above mentioned planning effort is completed, the overlay district is necessarily long on intent and short on substance. However, it is hoped that as presently structured, the overlay district, if adopted, would be sufficient for the city to get its foot in the door by making developers and property owners aware that the city's expectations for this area are different than other areas of the community. Additionally, when formal ordinances and plans are developed they could be adopted by reference to the overlay district. When the Planning Commission reviewed this proposal, they were supportive of it. Based upon their reaction, staff requesting that the Council review and provide your comments. Don Ashworth April 22, 1992 Page 4 Adopting an ordinance at this time engenders some risk. We are essentially put into a position of putting the cart before the horse since the formal plan has not been developed. However, we believe that the "Building Community Across the Corridor" document gives some credibility to the overlay district concept. An additional problem is, that while the work on the corridor plan to date has received the strong support of the Planning Commission, HRA, and City Council, there has been no public information program. If an overlay district is to be considered, it would have to be done with the knowledge that it must run hand in hand with this public information program. Possibly it is something that could be considered at the first public meeting described in the Barton Aschman proposal. Staff is looking for the City Council's guidance in this matter. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 111 Third Avenue South, Suite 350 Phone:(612)332-0421 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Fax: (612) 332-6180 USA April 22, 1992 RECEIVE APR 2 3 1992 Mr. Paul Krauss r,; 'r ur Ler;,.04;;,ASSFn, City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: TH 5 Corridor Land Use and Urban Design Study Dear Mr. Krauss: We have attached for your review and consideration information pertaining to the Trunk Highway 5 (TH 5) Corridor Land Use and Urban Design Study. The principal objective of this exercise is to assist the city in identifying and putting in place land use designations, private parcel design guidelines, and public sector corridor urban design elements. This work carries on that vision established previously by the University of Minnesota's Design Center for the American Landscape. Our submittal includes a suggested scope of consultant services, project organization, task flow diagram, and project schedule. We have also enclosed resumes of those principal staff that would be involved in the project. We are excited by the opportunity that has presented itself in creating an enhanced corridor for the city. This opportunity can become a reality with the cooperation and participation of the city's residents and land owners, the council, its commissions, staff, and the city's consultants. We look forward to assisting Chanhassen in bringing this project to fruition. On behalf of Barton-Aschman and Camiros, thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal. Sincerely yours, BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. Barry arner, ASLA, AICP Principa Associate BJW:dmv Attachments BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. BARRY J. WARNER Principal Associate Education Bachelor of Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota Wright-Ingraham Institute, Colorado Springs, Colorado — Registration/Certification Landscape Architect in Minnesota American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Professional Associations American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) - Chapter Trustee National Association of Industrial and Office Parks (NAIOP) American Planning Association (APA) — Civic Participation City Council Member Experience Mr. Warner manages landscape architecture, urban design, and planning activities in the Upper Midwest Office. His responsibilities have included site and environmental analysis, master planning, conceptual/schematic design, construction plan and document preparation, cost estimating, and — construction supervision. In addition, he has experience in real estate economics and public financing, public participation, and environmental documentation, These skills have been applied in public and private — projects of varied type and size, including: streetscape and urban plaza design, commercial and residential land development, urban renewal, park and recreation, and resource preservation. _ Prior to joining Barton-Aschman in 1979, he was a landscape architect with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. In this capacity, he administered out-state segments of the Great River Road environmental — analysis, and other transportation-related projects. Representative Projects Urban Design • MCDA Industrial Neighborhood, Minneapolis, Minnesota • Trunk Highway 5 Urban Design, Chanhassen, Minnesota _ • Oxboro Streetscape, Bloomington, Minnesota • Central Avenue Streetscape, Minneapolis, Minnesota • Washington Street Transit Mall, Indianapolis, Indiana — • Hennepin Avenue-Lake Street Improvements, Minneapolis, Minnesota • University Avenue Urban Design Plan, Fridley, Minnesota • Towne Centre Plaza, Wahpeton, North Dakota • Skyway Master Plans for Minneapolis, Minnesota; Rochester, New York; Des Moines, Iowa; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Rochester, Minnesota — BARRY J. WARNER (cont'd) Representative Projects Real Estate Analysis/Public Finance (conttl) • Regional Retail Center Feasibility Study, Woodbury, Minnesota • Tax Increment Feasibility Study, Des Moines, Iowa • Junior High School Reuse Study, Robbinsdale, Minnesota • Blick Estate PUD Analysis, Burnsville, Minnesota • Hennepin Electrical Coop Facility Study, Maple Lake, Minnesota • Office Space Planning for MnDOT and Washington County Central Business District Revitalization/Community Development • Urban Design and Redevelopment Plan, St. Louis Park, Minnesota • Downtown and Suburban Development Plans for Bloomington, Coon Rapids, Hopkins and Farmington, Minnesota; and Wahpeton, North Dakota. Plans have included physical analysis, market analysis, and development studies. • Oak Grove Township, Minnesota, Comprehensive Plan Update • Trunk Highway 10 Corridor Economic Development Plan, Ramsey, Minnesota Site Development and Planning • Burnsville Marketplace Retail Mall, Burnsville, Minnesota • City Hall Park Complex, Chanhassen, Minnesota • University of Minnesota Landscape Arboretum, Chanhassen, Minnesota • Homart One Minnesota Center Office Complex, Bloomington, Minnesota • Bethel College and Seminary, Arden Hills, Minnesota - South Campus Planning • MTC Bus Garages, Richfield and Brooklyn Park, Minnesota - Planting Design • IDS Technology Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota Park and Recreation ▪ Regional Park and Trail Improvements, Ramsey County, Minnesota • Jefferson Park, Richfield, Minnesota • Parade Stadium Redesign, Minneapolis Park Board ▪ Statewide Comprehensive Trails Plan, Iowa • Comprehensive Park and Open Space Plan, Eden Prairie, Minnesota • Community Park System Plan, Lakeville, Minnesota • Big Marine Regional Park Reserve Master Plan, Washington County, Minnesota • Neighborhood Park Planning and Design, Plymouth, Minnesota BARRY J. WARNER (cont'd) — Representative Projects Park and Recreation (cont'd) (cont d) • Community Park and Athletic Facility Planning and Design, Mendota Heights, Minnesota • Park System Plan, Excelsior, Minnesota P• ark Bond Issue Facilities, Burnsville, Minnesota - Detail Design • Otsego County Park, Wright County, Minnesota - Detail Design • Sochacki Community Park, Robbinsdale, Minnesota - Master Plan — • Casperson Community Park, Lakeville, Minnesota • Turtle River State Park, North Dakota - Master Plan • Comprehensive Trails Plan, Grand Rapids, Minnesota • Eau Galle Reservoir, Wisconsin; US Corps of Engineers • Great River Road Development Guides for portions of Minnesota Roadway Environmental Analysis/Land Use Impacts, Aesthetics and Urban Design • TH 14 EIS - Visual Quality • TH 100 EIS - Visual Quality and Land Use — • I-35E EIS, St. Paul, Minnesota - Aesthetics and Visual Quality • County Road 18 EIS, Hennepin-Scott Counties, Minnesota - Aesthetics Study — • Forest Highway 27 EIS, Itasca County, Minnesota - Aesthetics Study • Forest Highway 11 EIS, St. Louis and Lake Couties, Minnesota ▪ Tower Mountain Ski Area EIS, Michigan; US Forest Service - Visual Quality • Interstate 94 Design Guide, Minneapolis, Minnesota — • Northwest Connector, Omaha, Nebraska - Aesthetics and Visual Quality Study Golf Course Design and Development • Baker Golf Course Improvement - Hennepin Regional Parks — • Public Golf Course Feasibility Study, Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota • Public Golf Course Schematic Design, Eden Prairie, Minnesota • Private Golf Course Project Analysis, Dayton, Minnesota 2/92 BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. WM. SCOTT M I DNESS Senior Associate Education University of Wisconsin - Stout Bachelor of Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota Registration Landscape Architect, State of Minnesota Professional Associations American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) Civic Participation Member, Governor's Residence Council Experience Mr. Midness is a landscape architect in the Landscape Architecture and Urban Design Studio of the Upper Midwest Office. His responsibilities have included conceptual/schematic design, contract document preparation, and construction supervision. These skills have been applied in private projects including commercial, multi-family development and site planning, and public projects including streetscape and urban plaza design, parks and recreation and environmental planning. Representative Projects Urban Design • Uptown Streetscape and Urban Design Master Plan, Minneapolis, Minnesota • St. Louis Park Urban Design, St. Louis Park, Minnesota • TH 5 Urban Design Improvements, Chanhassen, Minnesota • Fargo Depot Plaza, Fargo, North Dakota • Spruce Place Greenway Extension, Minneapolis, Minnesota • Minnegasco Plaza, Minneapolis, Minnesota Site Development and Planning • 3M/Eastern Heights State Bank, Maplewood, Minnesota • Chanhassen City Hall/Central Park, Chanhassen, Minnesota • Maplewood Mall Expansion, Maplewood, Minnesota • Temple of Eck, Chanhassen, Minnesota • Community Park Building, Falcon Heights, Minnesota • Marketplace, Burnsville, Minnesota • Metro Machine and Engineering, Eden Prairie, Minnesota • Court International, St. Paul, Minnesota • University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, Minnesota • Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, University of Minnesota - St. Paul WM. SCOTT MIDNESS (cont'd) Representative Projects Site Development and Planning (cont'd) (cont d) • International Plaza, Bloomington, Minnesota • IDS Learning Center, Chaska, Minnesota • Star Tribune Printing Facility, Minneapolis, Minnesota • Northwest Airlines Corporate Headquarters, Eagan, Minnesota • Blake School Highcroft Campus, Wayzata, Minnesota Park and Recreation • Curtiss Field, Falcon Heights, Minnesota — • Mendakota Park, Mendota Heights, Minnesota • Rich Valley Park, Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota • Seidels Lake Master Plan, Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota • Falcon Heights Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan, Falcon Heights, Minnesota • Casperson Park, Lakeville, Minnesota • Nokomis Tot Lot, Minneapolis, Minnesota • Veterans Park, New Brighton, Minnesota • Giants Ridge Ski Area Master Plan, Biwabik, Minnesota • East Grand Forks Reevaluation Study, East Grand Forks, Minnesota ▪ New Ulm Master Park Plan, New Ulm, Minnesota Multifamily Housing • Devonshire Gates, Bloomington, Minnesota • Carlson Gates, Minnetonka, Minnesota • Lake Square, White Bear Lake, Minnesota • Mount Curve Place, Minneapolis, Minnesota • Woodstone, St. Paul, Minnesota _ Comprehensive Planning • University of Minnesota Landscape Arboretum, Chanhassen, Minnesota • YMCA Camp Manitou, Monticello, Minnesota ▪ North Memorial Medical Center, Robbinsdale, Minnesota • Bandana Square Master Plan Update, St. Paul, Minnesota • Isanti County Criminal Justice Facility, Cambridge, Minnesota • Medtronic Master Plan Update, Fridley, Minnesota WM. SCOTT MIDNESS (cont'd) Representative Projects Environmental Analysis/Land-Use Impacts (cont d) • St. Thomas Minneapolis Campus Site Accessibility Study, Minneapolis, Minnesota • Metro Engineering Industrial Development Impact Analysis, Eden Prairie, Minnesota • Camp Ripley EMAP, Little Falls, Minnesota ▪ IXI Campus EAW, Chaska, Minnesota • Hazardous Waste Facility Siting Study, State of Minnesota 2'Q' JOYCE N. LEVINE, AICP Senior Associate EDUCATION Master of Urban & Regional Planning, University of Pittsburgh, 1978. AIP (AICP) Student of the Year. Bachelor of Science in Architecture, University of Michigan, 1975. Dean's List. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Planning Association -American Institute of Certified Planners The Nature Conservancy EXPERIENCE Senior Associate, Camiros Principal, Levine Training Associates Instructor, Minneapolis Community College Instructor, The Management Center, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul City Planner, City of St. Paul, Minnesota Planning Director, Village of Glenview, Illinois RANGE OF PLANNING EXPERIENCE Land Planning and Development. Preparing site analyses, site designs and site evaluations; reviewing and amending zoning and subdivision regulations; and assisting in gaining zoning and plat approval for development projects and approval of changes in zoning and subdivision regulations, including participation in public hearings. Technical Studies: Developing environmental assessments and worksheets; evaluating tight rail transit and bus service, including alignments, land use and development impacts, feeder service and capital, operating and subsidy costs; analyzing central business district circulation, including parking, skyways, deliveries, transit and pedestrian movements and their interactions; and projecting population, environmental impacts and resource consumption. Fund Development/Grant Writing: Preparing grant proposals to raise money from foundations, including capital grants and write-downs for a variety of non-profits, including Pillsbury United Neighborhood Services, Minneapolis; Westminster (formerly Community Development) Corporation, St. Paul; and The Omaha Symphony. Preparing fund prospectuses and marketing plans for start-up companies and ongoing ventures in both service and consumer fields. Comprehensive and Economic Development Planning: Researching and preparing major planning documents, including the Sioux City Vision 2020 Strategic Plan, and significant portions of the St. Paul Comprehensive Plan (land use, transit, neighborhoods, implementation). Developing and assisting in execution of business plans to launch start-up companies such as Kaposia Works, Inc., St. Paul. camiros Joyce N. Levine, AICP (continued) Management Consulting: Consulting with organizations in government and business in such topics as business writing(reports,proposals,memos,etc.),effective communication,creativity,team building, and group dynamics. Conducting seminars and lasses in a variety of settings(classroom,conference, one-on-one)for indrviduals and groups in government, engineering,accounting,and non-profit organizations. Clients include the cities of Minneapolis,St. Paul,and Cottage Grove,MN;Minneapois Community Development Agency,The Management Institute,Minneapolis;Caterpillar,Inc.;the American Public Works Association;the American Planning Association;The University of St Thomas;Dahlgren, Shardlow&Uban;Pannell Kerr Forster,Minneapois Community College;and(MN)Capitol Area Architectural&Planning Board. Editing& Critiques: Reviewing and critiquing public information packets,planning commission/city counal packets,major reports and plans,etc. Writing,editing,critiquing and laying out newsletters,press releases,promotional materials,resumes, and other informational documents. Clients include the City of Apple Valley, MN; Dahlgren,Shardlow&Uban,Minneapolis;and Kaposia, Inc.,St. Paul. Publication: "Creative Communication&Team-Building", Planning,May 1990. RECENT PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATIONS "Creative Communication&Team-Buiking",National Conference of the American Planning Association, 1990 and 1991. "Writing in the Corporate World,"Caterpillar,Inc., 1990. "How to Look Good in Writing"("Effective Business Writing"),Minneapois Community Colege,ongoing. "Using Writing as a Management Tool",The Management Center,College of St Thomas,St.Paul, 1989. 'Writing Effective Reports and Proposals,"Professional Workshop sponsored by the American Planning Association, 1988 and 1989. camiros JACQUES A. GOURGUECHON Principal Consultant • EDUCATION Master of Science in City and Regional Planning, Illinois Institute of Technology, 1971 Bachelor of Arts in Economics, Michigan State University, 1968 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Planning Association - American Institute of Certified Planners - Member Executive Board Illinois Chapter CIVIC AFFILIATIONS Open Lands Project - Board of Directors Henry Homer Boys Club- Board of Directors Evanston Historic Preservation Commission- Past Chairman Main Street Neighborhood Association - Board of Directors Lake Michigan Federation National Trust for Historic Preservation EXPERIENCE ' Principal, Camiros, Ltd. 1975 - Senior Associate - Barton Aschman Associates 1969-1975 Teaching Experience - Department of City and Regional Planning, IIT, Ecological Basis of Planning 1972-1973 Lecturer - Northwestern University Traffic Institute RANGE OF PLANNING EXPERIENCE Community Planning and Planning Studies: Work involving comprehensive planning, land use analysis and evaluation, transportation analysis, and growth management has been performed for over 40 governmental units. Work included the development of objectives, planning background studies, analysis of highest and best use, and development of alternate plans and concepts. Governmental units represented have included Lake Forest, Barrington area, Bartlett, Franklin Park, Batavia, Half Day and Lincolnshire, Illinois; and Muncie and Indianapolis, Indiana; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Urbandale, Iowa. camiros Jacques A. Gourguechon (continued) Policy Analysis and Issue Oriented Problem-Solving for Governmental Units: Work has involved attention to citizen participation and conflict resolution concerning controversial issues affecting cities, villages, and private clients. Our rigorous techniques when used with the application of planning analysis techniques have proven highly effective in finding solutions to specific land-use and zoning problems. Work of this type has been completed for Naperville, Lincolnshire, Palatine, Franklin Park, the State of Minnesota and for large scale developers. Land-Use Controls, Zoning Consultation and Defense of Existing Zoning: Work in this area includes the preparation and refinement of zoning codes and other development regulations and analysis of development trends It is often connected to the preparation of plans or is a follow up to problem-solving assignments. Most recently, Mr. Gourguechon has had primary responsibility for the analysis and comprehensive revision of zoning ordinances in Norfolk, Virginia, Peoria and Evanston, Illinois and Phoenix, Arizona. Work assignments have also involved specialized land-use and environmental controls to augment traditional zoning. Of particular interest are corridor control codes and overlay zones for historic preservation and environmental conservation. Mr. Gourguechon has also been called upon to evaluate zoning and other planning related codes as an expert witness before several courts, zoning boards of appeals, and planning commissions. Economic Development, Feasibility Analysis and Commercial Market Research. Work in this area of Mr. Gourguechon's practice has involved research and strategic planning for economic growth and development for cities and neighborhoods as well as project level planning involving physical, economic, and financial feasibility analysis. Clients include public clients such as: Chicago's Economic Development Commission;the cities of Urbandale and Newton, Iowa;the — cities of Evanston, Lockport, and Rockford, Illinois; and neighborhood associations in Oak Park, Chicago, and Schaumburg, Illinois. Mr. Gourguechon has undertaken market research and surveys for numerous projects to assist clients establish development programs and to provide evaluative data to public clients as a foundation for plan preparation and project approval actions. Commercial market studies have been completed for private clients such as: Greenberg Associates, Chicago; Hyde Park Development Corporation, Chicago; Dalham Corporation, Louisville; Dayton-Hudson Properties, Inc., Minneapolis; and Greenfield Associates, Phoenix. Market studies in support of planning and public sector economic development activities have been completed for communities such as: Chicago, Evanston, Kankakee, Lockport and Schaumburg, Illinois. Technical Studies, Impact Analysis, Urban Design, Housing, and Demographic Analysis: Work of this type includes housing studies for Kane County, Batavia, and Barrington, Illinois, ecological analysis for the DuKane Valley Council and the Barrington Area Council of Governments, rehabilitation analysis for North Chicago and private rehabilitation corporations, beautification study for Half Day and Franklin Park, Illinois, site analysis and design for numerous private and public clients. Regional and Area Wide Planning and Work Programming: Regional plans and studies have been prepared for the State of Minnesota, the Steubenville, Ohio-Wheirton, West Virginia SMSA, the Barrington Area Council of Governments, the Southeastern McHenry County lntercommunity Planning Council and Cuba, Ela and Vernon Townships in Lake County, Illinois. Land Planning and Development Services: This involves site analysis, development programming, site design and assistance in gaining zoning and plat approval for development projects. The work includes analysis and development of site plans, use impact analyses, and camiros Jacques A. Gourguechon (continued) guidance and representation of developers through public hearing procedures required in the plan approval process. Clients have included private developers working in a number of Chicago suburban communities, cities outside Chicago of the Chicago Metropolitan area and within the City _ of Chicago as well. Developers who have been represented include Metropolitan Structures, Urban Investment Development Corporation, and the Dayton-Hudson Corporation. PUBLICATIONS "Frameworks for State and Regional Land-use and Environmental Planning" (coauthored) "Delphi Weekend; A Unique Experience in Deriving Community Objectives", prepared for ASPO National Planning Conference, Chicago, Illinois, May, 1974. AWARDS The 1973 citation for Citizen Action awarded by the Environmental Monthly in its Fourth Annual Honor Awards Program, "for making environmental excellence a basic condition in pursuit of corporate goals" as reflected in the planning program for the Barrington, Illinois area. 1975 National Association of Regional Councils Omicron Delta Epsilon, Honorary Economics Fraternity camiros WILLIAM R. JAMES Principal Consultant EDUCATION Bachelor of Landscape Architecture, Louisiana State University PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Planning Association - American Institute of Certified Planners American Society of Landscape Architects EXPERIENCE Principal, Camiros, Ltd. Associate, Environmental Planning & Research Inc., Crete, Illinois RANGE OF PLANNING EXPERIENCE Comprehensive Planning: Directed comprehensive planning assignments in Lombard, Grayslake, Libertyville and Indian Creek, Illinois and contributed to the preparation of studies in LaGrange, Lockport, and Oswego, Illinois. The assignments involved resolving a full range of planning issues in both high growth and built-out communities. Zoning Ordinance Amendments: Served as principal author in preparing comprehensive zoning ordinance amendments in Burr Ridge, Western Springs, Oswego, Lombard and Elgin, Illinois. Experience also includes serving as an expert witness in rezoning petitions. ' Neighborhood Planning: Experience includes preparation of neighborhood conservation and revitalization plans for neighborhoods in Chicago and Addison, Illinois and Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Projects included inventory of neighborhood conditions, detailed land use plans and improvement recommendations. Also prepared C.D.B.G applications, grantee performance reports and housing rehabilitation performance reports. Downtown and Commercial Area Planning: Broad experience in this area includes assignments in established downtown districts and new commercial areas. Major projects include a downtown redevelopment plan for Cedar Rapids, Iowa using tax -increment financing. Also prepared plans for a 100 acre town center development in Bourbonnais, Illinois which included identifying the desired pattern of land use, planning for the sequential development of the project, defining aesthetic/appearance criteria, and illustrating the desired physical character of the town center area. Information Surveys and Market Research: Prepared a community-wide attitude survey and conducted a Delphi focus group workshop for the Village of Lombard, Illinois; prepared market research studies for a Chicago shopping center proposed by the Wienke Company and for a proposed retail "town center"development in Bourbonnais, Illinois; prepared a market study for a residential townhouse project in Lombard, Illinois; prepared a needs assessment study for the Woodland Landfill in South Elgin, Illinois and assisted in the preparation of the needs assessments for the Settler's Hill Landfill, in Geneva, Illinois, and the Balefill facility near Bartlett, Illinois. camiros William R. James (continued) RANGE OF DESIGN EXPERIENCE Site Planning and Development Approval: Project experience covers a full range of residential, commercial and office development projects as well as plans for mixed use - developments. Residential work includes single-family subdivisions, townhouse, and apartment projects. Experience includes coordination of development planning from initial site feasibility investigations to presentations to municipalities for development approval. Currently acting as a retained consultant to a number of municipalities to review development proposals and site plans. Development Feasibility Analysis. Prepared feasibility studies for a variety of proposed residential and mixed use developments. Work involved evaluating development feasibility in terms of physical and regulatory constraints and formulating development strategies in concert with market research specialists. Major assignments include an 1100 acre golf course residential community outside Huntley, Illinois; a 450 acre residential development behind the Lake Michigan dunes in Michigan City, Indiana; and a 900 acre mixed use project near Northrook, Illinois. Park Planning and Design: Prepared master plans for a variety of active and passive park and recreation projects. Work includes master plans for two Kane County Illinois forest preserve properties, a nature park in Bourbonnais, Illinois, two playgrounds, one of which included custom designed play structures, and a study of recreational/development potential along the Kankakee River in Kankakee, Illinois, _ Detail Landscape and Planting Design: Broad experience in detail landscape and planting design assignments includes two commercial area streetscape design projects, several single -family residential projects, playground design and numerous residential, commercial and office development projects. Currently acting as retained landscape architecture consultant to the Village of Burr Ridge, Illinois to review landscape plans submitted as part of development approval process. Sanitary Landfill Design: Prepared plans for the design of four sanitary landfill projects. The projects involved determining the topographic form of the landfills to accommodate a specific program of end use upon completion of landfill activity. Work included in-depth site analysis, visual impact analysis, end use programming, preparation of a master grading plan, and preparation of an overall master plan showing the end state of the landfill site. Environmental Planning: Prepared the Near Loop Area-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for an area surrounding Chicago's CBD which included a compilation of existing conditions data, cumulative environmental impact analysis, and proposed mitigation measures; prepared Environmental Assessment for a proposed marina at Navy Pier, Chicago, Illinois. HONORS AND AWARDS Phi Gamma Epsilon, Honor Society in Architecture and Allied Arts, Louisiana State University Phi Sigma Iota, Foreign Language Honor Society, Louisiana State University camiros .( Barton —Aschman Frontage Road Design Barton—Aschman TH5 Mainline Barton —Aschman Planning/Design MnDOT MetCouncil --) ISTEA Camiros Technical Committee —� Design Center for the American Landscape ( Staff Involvement AC DO V M ( Public Involvement IM SI OT HRA R T Planning Commission YE - E Park Commission Public Involvement City Council v �r Implementation CHANHASSEN Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. PROJECT ORGA NIZA TION T T Q..!) W j - C T D Q U U Q V) ti 2 " C O o "X V Q O N Q cl 2 Jo v owzL c Z H 0 .c > 2 " c a w 0 a ?o 0C .- > w ov FA 'E E E Z 0 CC x 0_ 0 N. 012 0 c E n • • • 0 p n C-)` d c a o Q V V in Q N E # p > Y E 00 O O O O C) Z z E E co a v cc v U 'O t 7 O O E W 2 Q C — • O V _ I CT , d o p z z 0..• > m a O C I • i VL .� G `) c.I ? ? V .�+ a p ✓ W C E c O �, 7 0 C Vc . • L . L C D 0V _ • UW o P-.. a m 0 v) v) T 2 ..E0>' O O yvj j y E " o ° W W cn / V / Q C 0_• E y to ? ? Q " O d Q 0 W `2 2 T • • • V Y C O >n D L-- C a o Y LJ V_ P d W W ai C V • C N c ci o m i U C V m n V Co• O O O I m jU V) O N co V `O Q V o C N CO a Y 3 r- c,.. W ti ►, E O.o v z z cc u n U a> c O + w Iii.)t m H 2 21 2 N L ce, . 5 ai ct c < > 0 V• 0 C < U t C E - 0 V H G oe F D 2 < QVo hT... 0 c ,r > > 0 'd33 r, w co o cm a n E o OCE ° -s E1' A o0 � , W QU Q_ C Zw Z • w j V) Z CD o • , • Z • Z o • W Q C Z • o • • • Lu • C.) • Q • • 2 • • •• Q • 9-CT)rncN . . CO V m _ C = 0 C > m 3 N 0 (,•, t c C a `0 o _ - 3 a a U °' a o a c Q 0 _ c) N a m o c a) C 0 > - o c ` � m a) o a) o _ c v _ Cr) o C m E m m N W 3om 0v oQ' a E E a r ID c0 yN am d '5 (..) ( E E E 0) E 0O o _ Q o '� i C m CO L L 0 T o U w > O - _ C 0 0 ) 0 CO c. o) (_) Q) 0 U U C D U •- C L m L C - U ,_ v jv ..0 0) _a Co ow >, o M a o D «O m 0 ` v c O CO 0 .0 a 0 L U 0- C 0 `- o c o c a 0 v) a) v ` o .c 0 < 'c 0 m v c v 0 w J wo wD � � > L — L Q c > O N ) -o- tri cc; < H d I d C) -Y CHANHASSEN TH 5 CORRIDOR LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN STUDY - SCOPE OF SERVICES TASK 1 — Collect and Purpose: Organize Information — To obtain and review all existing information that has previously been prepared regarding the TH 5 corridor's land use and design elements. Discussion: A wide variety of information exists and has been previously prepared regarding various facets of the TH 5 corridor. This exercise is intended to collect and review that information thereby minimizing any potential duplication with prior studies. This information will serve as a base from which the urban design and land use study will commence. — Specific information that will be reviewed include: 1. Existing community comprehensive land use plan. 2. Community park and recreation system plan. — 3. Information prepared by the University of Minnesota Design Center for the American Landscape. 4. Highway 101/5 Preliminary Alignment and Land Use — Corridor Study (Hoisington Group, Inc.). 5. Information pertaining to approved or pending developments within the TH 5 corridor. — 6. Transportation studies including the Eastern Carver County Traffic Analysis. 7. Aerial photography. — The consultant team will meet with city staff to initiate the project and collect materials listed above. A study basemap will be prepared and data organized in a manner to facilitate further work. 1 Project scheduling, and roles and responsibility between the consultant and staff will be discussed in detail. Any revisions to the project time frame will be made at this time. Special committees will be formed as a component of this task to provide input and guidance during the project. An "Advisory Committee" (AC) will be formed at the direction of the Mayor comprised of members of the City Council, Planning Commission, the HRA, adjacent residences, and parcel owners. Input from this AC will be requested on a regular base to provide study guidance and a response to planning priorities. A second committee, the "Technical Committee" (TC), will be formed and comprised of city staff, MnDOT, the University's Design Center for the American Urban Landscape, and the various consultants. The TC's charge is to provide engineering, design, and agency input into a common forum for discussion and negotiation. This task will also identify specific contacts at the Metropolitan Council and MnDOT to advance ISTEA funding information and data gathering. A strategy for submitting information to appropriate contacts will he established between the consultant team and staff. Product: 1. Collection of existing materials needed for the job. 2. Preparation of study basemap. Meetings: Project initiation meeting with city staff and project Advisory Committee. • Client Involvement: Assistance in collecting baseline information, mapping, and aerial photography. 2 TASK 2 - Establish Objective: Corridor Issues, — Opportunities, and To identify specific issues, opportunities, and constraints that Constraints should he capitalized upon or resolved during the study. Discussion: Prior studies pertaining to the 11-1 5 corridor have identified a wide variety of factors that should be considered and issues left unresolved. The task will synthesize this material together into a common memorandum. Additional issues — may be identified for resolution. Issues, opportunities, and constraints will be the primary — focus of a public meeting held to solicit perceptions and concerns abutting residences, land owners, and businesses may have for corridor changes. Of specific concern will be potential changes in land use, visual quality, frontage road alignment, and urban design considerations. The public — meeting is intended to employ interactive techniques such as small group discussion, working charettes, or similar rather than traditional presentation techniques. This approach will — stimulate authorship on the part of the attending public rather than to establish a defensive posture. A summary memorandum will be produced that clearly enumerates issues, opportunities, and constraints pertaining to the project. — Product: Summary memorandum. Meeting: — • Public meeting. 3 Client Involvement: — Coordination and scheduling for public meeting and review and comment of summary memorandum. — Upon completion of Task 2, the consultant team will work with staff to revise the work program for Tasks 3 through 6 and the appropriate level of consultant effort. This — negotiation will be completed prior to initiation of Task 3. — 4 TASK 3 - Land Use Purpose: Amendments To evaluate alternative land uses for the TH 5 corridor prior to amendment of the comprehensive land-use plan. Discussion: Chanhassen recently revised its comprehensive land-use plan. — However, TH 5 improvements including the frontage roads and other urban design considerations were not evident during that process. It is appropriate that the comprehensive — plan is revisited specifically those elements pertaining to abutting land uses, development controls, and special considerations. — This task will evaluate potential alternative land uses and their configurations for those parcels within the TH 5 — corridor and future land use designations for the 1995 study area. Work completed by the University of Minnesota Design Center for the American Landscape provided a vision that outlined varying land use types, their locations, and their configurations. This effort provided a target from which — further analysis should be conducted prior to specific land use verification. Additional controls are likely to be applied as a means of guiding the corridor's development. — This task should be coordinated with participants from the Design Center for the American Landscape, MnDOT, those completing the TH 5 frontage road alignment, and city staff. A forum such as a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) will be established with regular meetings and input from these — groups will be solicited. Product: — Recommended land-use plan for adoption as a part of the comprehensive land-use plan with conclusions described by a — summary memorandum. 5 Meetings: Advisory and Technical Committee meetings as needed during the task. Client Involvement: Coordination of TAC meetings, review, and comment on summary memorandum. 6 TASK 4 - Establish Objective: _ Development and Parcel Design To establish design guidelines for private development Guidelines parcels that conform to the corridor's future vision. Discussion: Private sector parcels and their development will play an important role in determining how the TH 5 corridor ultimately develops. The city intends to provide guidance for — developers and parcel owners as to specific design and planning requirements that will be expected of the private sector. Specific tools that might be considered for — implementation include: 1. An overlay district that establishes basic guidelines and expectations for both developers and parcel owners. 2. Ordinance recommendations, revisions and/or formulations based upon a review of existing ordinances, and measures that could be included as well as potential new ordinances to provide further guidance. 3. Design standards potentially in a handbook format that establishes a specific set of design guidelines with illustrations to graphically portray relationships such as landscaping, setbacks, buffering, lighting, and signing. Input will be requested on a regular basis from the Design Center for the American Urban Landscape to provide consistency with their initial planning study. — Product: Summary memorandum that quantifies, qualifies, and illustrates planning guidelines and standards that should be enforced within the corridor's private parcels. 7 Meetings: Input from Advisory and Technical Committees. Client Involvement: Review and comment on summary memorandum. 8 TASK 5 - Highway Objective: Corridor Urban Design Guidelines To establish urban design guidelines for the highway corridor that compliment the highway design, provide guidance for landscape components within the highway right-of-way, and establish compatibility with adjacent private-sector site planning and design. Discussion: This task will provide design guidelines for urban and landscape elements within the highway corridor. Specific components such as gateways, landscape plantings, walls and bridges, trail alignment, corridor lighting, and similar elements will be provided. These guidelines will be established through written, illustrative, and quantitative _ means. Sketches will be provided that provide examples of the intended design concepts and their relationship to both the proposed highway design and the adjacent private-sector _ parcels. Regular input and coordination will be sought from University staff, MnDOT, and its design engineer. This input will come in the form of a TAC as a means of resolving technical and coordination issues. Product: Illustrative summary memorandum that conveys the intended urban and landscaped design concepts. Meetings: Advisory and Technical Committee meetings will be held during the task as needed. At the conclusion of the task a • public meeting will be held at which time material completed as a part of Tasks 3 through 5 will be presented for public input and comment. Client Involvement: Review and comment of summary memorandum, _ coordination of committee, and public meetings. 9 TASK 6 - Corridor Objective: Implementation Strategy To establish a framework for project implementation based upon funding requirements, financing measures, and agency roles and responsibilities. Discussion: An implementation strategy is integral to providing a realistic end product. This task will examine the cost implications of the improvements described for the corridor. Preliminary cost estimates will be balanced against available funding measures to determine the most appropriate and efficient means of obtaining project financing. Specific roles and responsibilities of public-sector agencies and private-sector parties will be outlined. Tentative time frames for _ implementation measures will he described. Information will be formatted for submission to MnDOT and — the Metropolitan Council as a means of obtaining potential ISTEA funds. Assistance in making appropriate contacts will occur. Product: — Summary memorandum. Meetings: Continued coordination with Advisory and Technical Committees. Client Involvement: Review and comment of summary memorandum, coordination of related meetings. 10 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission _ FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director DATE: April 7, 1992 SUBJ: Discussion of Draft Highway Corridor Overlay District _ As the Planning Commission is aware, city initiatives concerning the Highway 5 Corridor are moving forward. To date, we have collaborated with the University of Minnesota staff on this program, which has resulted in the development of a great deal of support for corridor initiatives by the City Council, Planning Commission, and Housing and — Redevelopment Authority. It is culminated in the publication of the Building Community Across the Corridor newsletter which was distributed to you last month. Secondly, we are moving forward on discussions with MnDOT with the goal of developing modifications to — highway improvement plans, creation of public spaces, and construction of parallel collector roads in a manner consistent with that which is outlined in the newsletter and in the Comprehensive Plan. Finally, we are tentatively working with a project team comprised of Barton-Aschman and Associates and Camiros, Inc., to prepare a proposal to undertake a formal, comprehensive corridor planning project for the city. One of the major problems we face in adequately planning for the Highway 5 Corridor is that is has become somewhat of a moving target. The speed at which development is being proposed and the highway is being designed is accelerating significantly due to — outside events. These include the introduction of significant additional funds for highway transportation projects; MnDOT's goal, consistent with the Southwest Transportation Coalition (of which Chanhassen is a member) of accelerating highway construction; consideration of new development proposals along the corridor, and the fact that the school district's planning project designed to anticipate future growth needs is currently _ coming to a conclusion. Unfortunately, what we don't have now is time. We have been working towards the undertaking of a corridor planning effort since last summer. Although we are moving forward as rapidly as possible at this point, even if the Council _ gives us the go ahead on this project next month, we will need at least the balance of the year to complete it. The possibility of a moratorium has been discussed by the City Council and was not generally supported by either staff or Council members. Although — To, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER - Planning Commission April 7, 1992 Page 2 • we could probably enact a moratorium from a legal standpoint, recent court actions on a _ moratorium imposed by the City of Woodbury point out some significant questions regarding this. Woodbury was sued by a landowner based upon a takings concern that they believed was a result of a city moratorium on the highway corridor planning project. The court found in the developer's favor. It is against this background that I have worked up a draft of a highway corridor overlay district. The purpose of the district is essentially to get our foot in the door and give us additional leverage in dealing with projects that may occur between now and the completion of the formal corridor planning program. The overlay district itself is long on purpose and intent, and intentionally short on specific standards for the simple fact that these standards have yet to be developed. What is does attempt to do is outline and legitimize what we know to date as well as provide a means for adopting additional studies by reference in the future. I ask you to review this proposal and give me your feedback as to whether we should proceed further with it. I have had the City Attorney review a copy of the overlay district. His comments are attached in a memo for your review. Essentially, Roger believes that with some minor changes, this can be legally defensible. One of the major problems that we are going to face with the corridor overlay district, and indeed with Highway 5 planning in general, is that there has been little or no public review or input of any of the work completed to date. Our work with the University started out on a conceptual basis, and in fact, their plan is not a plan as such, but is more of a concept document. When you look at some of the University proposals in detail, we find that there is much lacking, and while the concepts are good ones, their document cannot be relied on as the foundation of future corridor planning. Additionally, the task force that was established to work with the University on this project was initially thought of as a task force whose purpose was to define the formal corridor study and not complete the study themselves. Consequently, no public hearings were held, nor was any significant attempt made to contact residents or property owners directly. A public information program will be one of the major thrusts of the formal Highway 5 Corridor project. However, I would anticipate the need to have an educational process start concurrently with consideration of the Highway 5 Corridor overlay district should we proceed with this ordinance. HIGHWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT Section 1. Purpose and Intent The City of Chanhassen has determined that the Highway 5 corridor and development along _ it is one of the major factors influencing the visual and environmental quality of the community. Due to the intensity of land uses that currently exist or are expected to be developed in the future along the corridor, it is also the heart of our community. It is — destined to contain the central business district, other significant retail nodes, major employment concentrations of regional importance, residential land use and major public institutions and recreational facilities. It also contains significant natural resources worthy of preservation including wetlands, major stands of trees and creek corridors. Recognizing the importance of the Highway 5 corridor, the city has undertaken a series of studies and plans that as designed will culminate in a Highway 5 corridor plan. To implement these — planning efforts, the city has established the Highway 5 Corridor Overlay District. The district is designed to promote orderly development of the corridor in a manner consistent with these planning efforts. As a result, development will be sensitive to supporting concepts developed under the Highway 5 corridor planning efforts. The Highway 5 Corridor Overlay District is designed to promote the following: — 1. Protection of creek corridors,wetlands and significant stands of mature trees through use of careful site design, establishing protective easements, sensitive alignment and — design of roads and utilities, incorporation of natural features into public/private recreational amenities and by landscaping/reforestation efforts designed to enhances existing natural features. 2. Promote the use of high quality architectural and site design consistent with maintaining improved development standards within the corridor. Through the use of careful site planning, appropriate placement of building massing and similar techniques, development along the corridor shall be designed to avoid the visual and environmental impacts of urban corridor development found elsewhere in the Twin Cities. Techniques to be utilized should include, but not be limited to, the following: • orientation of structures towards detached frontage roads rather than Highway 5. Highway 5 exposure should, however, have architectural prominence. For example, office components of industrial buildings should be oriented towards the highway. Similarly, less attractive site aspects such as loading areas should be concealed from the highway. • orientation of structures to locate large building masses away from Highway 5 to allow for maintenance of green and open space. Portions of the building oriented towards the highway should be of consistently high quality containing, — for example, office components of multi-use structures. • location of primary parking facilities away from Highway 5 exposures gaining access to parallel frontage roads. • roofscapes should offer clear views from the highway, to be achieved through combination of compatible screening, relocation of equipment, and/or use of pitched roof systems. • incorporation of landscaping and reforestation designed to supplement and preserve existing natural features. 3. Establish a coordinated collector and arterial route road network designed to be environmentally sensitive and supportive of Highway 5 initiatives. Detached frontage roads should be designed as parkways leaving sufficient land mass between them and Highway 5 to allow for reasonable development potential consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Promote the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan and Corridor Planning Initiatives, including the Building Community Across the Corridor plan. 5. Promote the implementation of Chanhassen's Surface Water Protection Program. Section 2. Allowed Uses Specific uses allowed in the Highway 5 corridor shall be those which are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and corridor planning initiatives. Section 3, District Location The Highway 5 corridor shall include all designated parcels illustrated on the official Chanhassen Zoning Map. Generally, corridor boundaries include parcels directly fronting in the vicinity of Highway 5 taking into account existing land use pattern and natural features. Section 4, Coordination with other Zoning Regulations 1. All parcels within the corridor presently zoned RR and A2 must be rezoned to PUD concurrently with the processing of a development proposal. All land in other categories may be developed using applicable district standards so long as the uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and corridor planning initiatives. 2. All PUD plans and site plans shall be consistent with uses and guidelines established by the Comprehensive Plan and Highway 5 corridor planning initiatives. 2 3. The establishment of the Highway 5 Corridor Overlay District in and of itself has no bearing on the location of the MUSA line. MUSA line relocation requests will be considered by the city in a manner consistent with normal updating of the _ Comprehensive Plan and with applicable state law. 4. Subdivision review under Chapter 18, when necessary, shall be carried out simultaneously with the review of a PUD. The plans required under this chapter shall be submitted in a form which will satisfy the requirements of Chapter 18 for the preliminary and final plat. 5. Site plan review under Article II, Division 6 of this code shall be carried out for each non-single family or duplex principal structure, that is proposed. — 6. PUD plans shall be coordinated with and in compliance with provisions of Article V, Flood Plain Overlay District; Article VI, Wetland Protection, and Article VII, — Shoreland Overlay District. 7. PUD plans shall be prepared utilizing standards and procedures provided in Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District. 3 _ CAMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P .A Apr 10 ,92 10 :43 No .002 P .02 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCI IS, PA. Alttartcys at Law ':411114,4:11 \11 (GI.)452•SC h.wrt N F... (hl?)45?•555:1 • 1.S t i Guy (;.I'm h. bilk--R.' '.,1.t,,n April 9, 1992 Mol,ILI r\ 1's,.,f,.iA It.n.0 I).Sivim 1 Mr. Paul Krauss Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Highway 5 Corridor Overlay District Dear Paul: You asked me to comment on the draft Highway 5 Corridor Overlay District ordinance: I. overview. May central concern is the extensive use of adjectives, rather than nouns. The more specific the ordinance, the more enforceable it will be. If a proposal is rejected, we must be able to cite the specific ordinance provision that is not satisfied. The case study, "Building Community Across the Corridor", is a good vision, but it must be reduced to standards to be enforceable. 2. Overlay District. I suggest that, consistent with the overlay concept, there be an underlying zoning district with allowed uses. This gives us some protection from taking claims based upon the theory that the overlay district is so subjective in its approval process that there are no uses allows as of right. This also eliminates the problem of making most or all existing uses non- conforming. 3. PUD. The notion of having to rezone property that is in the overly district to use it consistent with the requirements of the overlay zoning district is troublesome. Once it is rezoned PUD, would it be out of the overlay zoning district? The better approach may be to require a conditional use permit Very truly yours, CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. By~� p.LJ , J -2�iLtl Rog N. Knu son :t971'?/‘ RNK:srn — -„-• r' l.t_ r'�alr_.. i`..... ._ ll an!'•....•,......... (`... ... ('•....... _ T.....:... 1,1).1 SG1 )1