The URL can be used to link to this page

01-20-93 Agenda and Packet FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, 1993, 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Ordinance Amendment regarding requirements of cul-de-sac lengths. 2. Interim use permit for a sales trailer for the Oak Ponds/Oak Hill project, located north of West 78th Street, between Kerber and Powers Boulevard, Lotus Realty. OLD BUSINESS 3. Preliminary plat to subdivide approximately 60 acres into 4 lots on property zoned IOP, Industrial Office Park, located south of Hwy. 5 and east of Dell Road, Sunlink Addition, Sunlink Corporation. NEW BUSINESS 4. Organizational Items. APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS OPEN DISCUSSION 5. Discussion of a Septic Ordinance. 6. Discussion of 1993 Goals. ADJOURNMENT 1 .11.1 r 1 1 r ) , CITY OF CHANI1ASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner DATE: January 12, 1993 SUBJ: City Code Amendment to the Subdivision and PUD Ordinance Regarding Cul-de-sac Lengths Background Currently, the Subdivision Ordinance (Article III, Section 18-57 [k]) states that "the maximum length of a street terminating in a cul-de-sac shall be determined as a function of the expected development density along the street, measured from the centerline of the street of origin to the end of the right-of-way." This design standard is vague at best, has been very difficult to interpret, and has been difficult to enforce to require connection of cul-de-sacs where staff felt appropriate. There have been proposals in the past where an applicant provided cul-de-sacs instead of through streets. In many of these cases, the cul-de-sacs could easily be connected to provide a through street, which are preferred by the Planning, Engineering and Public Safety Staff. Staff does not deny the attractiveness of cul-de-sacs for a homeowner. Unlike several other communities, we are not proposing to ban them or place some sort of cap on the number within a plat. Rather we are proposing to place limits on their connection when appropriate for public safety and reasonable access. The Planning Commission directed Planning Staff to review the standards for cul-de-sacs and to provide a maximum distance permitted for a cul-de-sac. On November 18, 1992, the Planning Commission discussed standards for cul-de-sacs and recommended that a maximum length of 600 feet be enforced unless there were some unusual circumstances which warranted a longer cul-de- sac (such as topography, wetlands, etc.). Staff is recommending that the attached ordinance be adopted. These standards are taken from the Minnetonka code and provides what the Planning Commission requested (a maximum length and exceptions). ��• PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission January 12, 1993 Page 2 — RECOMMENDATION — Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the attached ordinance amending Section 18-57(k) concerning lengths of cul-de-sacs. — ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance Amendment. 2. Planning Commission minutes dated November 18, 1992. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES. MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING CUL-DE-SAC LENGTHS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Article III, Design Standards, Section 18-57(k) of the Chanhassen City Code is hereby amended to read: 18-57(k) Cul-de-sac streets shall be measured along the center line of the street from the intersection of origin to the end of the cul-de-sac right-of-way. For cul-de-sacs that terminate in loop streets as opposed to cul-de-sac bubbles, the length shall be measured from the intersection of origin to the point on the loop located farthest from the point of origin. The design standard for cul-de-sac streets are as follows: 1. Each cul-de-sac shall have a terminus in the form of a street loop or of a bubble of nearly circular shape unless modified by the City with a minimum right-of-way diameter of 120 feet and a minimum pavement diameter of 91 feet to the back of curb for an urban residential street; 96 feet to the back of curb for commercial/industrial streets; and for a rural cul-de-sac, 120 diameter right-of-way, an 85 foot diameter pavement section with a 6 foot wide gravel shoulder 2. The property line at the intersection of the bubble and the straight portion of the street shall be rounded at a radius of not less than 30 feet. _ 3. Center islands within cul-de-sac bubbles shall be prohibited unless the design is approved by the City Engineering and Fire Departments and privately maintained. Responsibility for maintenance would be clearly established in the chain-of-title. 4. Cul-de-sac streets may not be longer than 600' unless a majority of the City Council permits a longer length based upon the following conditions: a) Severe topography: The resulting street grade would be more than 7% or the connecting segment or substantial grading is required so that the physical character of the property or adjacent properties is severely impacted. b) Significant vegetation: The cul-de-sac would preserve mature trees on the property that will not otherwise be removed due to development, whereas an extension of through street would cause their destruction. c) Existing development: The pattern of existing development requires that the only practical public access is a long cul-de-sac. — d) Temporary cul-de-sac: The cul-de-sac is temporary and designed to be extended to provide access to an adjacent property that has not undergone development. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this day of _ 1993. ATTEST: Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor 2 CITY OF i ‘ 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: October 14, 1992 SUBJ: Cul-de-sac Lengths Chairman Batzli has asked that we schedule a discussion on the question of cul-de-sacs and street connections. He has pointed out that the Planning Commission's recent reversal of its position on the proposed Lundgren subdivision indicates a lack of direction and agreement on how these issues should be handled. Furthermore, there is some question as to the City Council's positions on items such as the Kurvers Point Subdivision which was designed for a street loop and approved as such by the Planning Commission and which the City Council allowed to be built as a long cul-de-sac. There is no question that cul-de-sacs are highly valued by developers and homeowners alike. They provide a sense of seclusion, a sense of security, particularly for younger children who play in the area, and there is a belief that they are somehow safer since there is no through traffic. Typically, lots on cul-de-sacs are sold at a premium. Staff's position on cul-de-sacs is one of acceptance since they are a fundamental part of the suburban landscape. However, we typically raise concerns when cul-de-sacs are unusually long and will typically recommend that street connections be made, where possible, to minimize potential problems. The litany of staff's concerns relative to cul-de-sacs is becoming somewhat repetitious. After stating them so many times at Commission and Council meetings, only to find ourselves typically overruled with the final decision, the issue is becoming rather tedious. However, in our professional judgement there are significant problems with these over-length cul-de-sacs. These include the following: 1. The access pattern that results with extensive use of cul-de-sacs and inadequate provision of street connections is an inefficient one. Distances traveled are lengthened and this holds true not only for autos but also for pedestrians and bicyclists as well since the sidewalk or trail system tends to follow the streets. Thus, in many respects Is �� $ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission October 14, 1992 Page 2 _ we tend to become a community isolated into tiny little pockets along cul-de-sacs rather than one of true neighborhoods in the traditional sense. — 2. The provision of emergency services is made more difficult In instances where time is generally of the essence, tragedies can result. We are often called fear mongers by residents and others when we raise this issue, but the fact remains that it is a concern. The lack of through street connections, with its poor circulation patterns, means that trips from fire stations and wherever a police car happens to be are necessarily longer than they would otherwise be. There is a significant problem of traveling down the wrong cul-de-sac only to have to turn around and go back. Perhaps this problem is somewhat minimized by the 911 system these days, but the fact of the matter is, it is a — concern to our Fire Marshal and Fire Chief. We had two instances this past summer where there were emergency calls up in the Teton Lane area. The fire engine found itself on the wrong side of the barricade that had been erected there to prevent through — movements. In these events no harm was done but it certainly could have. I, myself, have witnessed an instance where an ambulance traveled down the wrong cul-de-sac, had to come back out and go back down another. Lastly, on this issue, is personal — experience. I was the chief for a fire department run by my college in Vermont. There is often a significant amount of confusion in terms of gaining accurate directions to respond to a fire or emergency call. This confusion is made worse when you find yourself stuck on a dead end street only to see that the emergency is one street over. Yes, these problems can be minimized through improved knowledge the city street system and the 911 system in maintaining accurate maps in each vehicle, but why take the risk. 3. Over length cul-de-sacs have a much higher probability of creating a loss of access due to emergencies such as water main breaks and storm damage. It is true that this does not happen all the time or with great frequency, but it is a fact that it does _ happen. When it does happen, access into an area can be completely blocked or significantly hindered for a critical period of time. 4. Increased street length and travel distance creates problems for the provision of services. Miles traveled by school buses are increased which is a cost that the public, although not directly the city, must bear. It should also be noted that typically, school buses cannot turn around in cul-de-sacs and will not enter dead end streets. Therefore, children must walk to the neck of the cul-de-sac which in some cases in Chanhassen may be 1/4 mile away. While the idea of kids having to walk a little bit is not of — concern, there is a security matter particularly for younger children having to wait far from the parents direct view. Planning Commission October 14, 1992 Page 3 5. In a related matter, the cost of providing snow plow service is increased. It is really not possible to say how much it is increased, but it is appreciably increased when you have a community that has hundreds and hundreds of these situations repeated throughout the community. Any snow plow that travels down a cul-de-sac must travel back up it. The cul-de-sac turn around area itself takes some additional time to clean. When you are trying to get out the door the morning of a new snow fall, time is of the essence. Ultimately, the city' will be pressured into adding equipment and personnel to allow us to respond to snow falls in a rapid manner. Chanhassen's ordinance formerly had a 500 foot limitation on the length of cul-de-sacs. Traditionally, this has been a fairly common restriction throughout the Twin Cities. Staff is _ currently in the process of calling other communities to find out what their most recent standards are and we should have this information available at the Planning Commission meeting. Chanhassen's ordinance used to contain a similar standard but this was eliminated with much fuzzier language replacing it a number of years ago. Section 18-57(k) reads as follows, "The maximum length of a street termininating in a cul-de-sac shall be determined as a function of the expected development density along the street, measured from the centerline of the street of origin to the end of the right-of-way." In essence, we have no limits on the length of cul-de-sacs now. As to what constitutes a reasonable limitation on the length of a cul-de-sac, staff has an opinion but this will take further discussion. Maximum cul-de-sac length should be in the range of 500 to 1000 feet. This would allow between 13 and 26 homes on a dead end street, based upon a 90 foot lot width. The ordinance should be designed to allow longer cul-de- sacs when, due to environmental and topographic constraints there are no other feasible means of accessing an area. Thus, a cul-de-sac length.limitation should not unduly limit access to a development in a particular area, nor should it require environmental damage to mandate an inappropriate loop street. Planning Commission Meeting November 18 , 1992 - Page 45 — r Emmings: Let me give you an example of what maybe runs contrary a little bit . You know I bought a lot that was next door to another house and th< guy , I don 't know who planted the trees but most the people that live on the lake , they put their trees lined up kind of the outsides of the lot so they have a view down the center toward the lake . Well , the lot I bought was next door to this guy 's house and it was just chalk full of trees . I took down as few as I had to to build my house but from my house , when you 're on the lake you can 't see my house from the lake and - from my house you can , anytime you want to see anything on the lake you 're doing this and it finally got to me after 10 years so I went out and now I 've taken down 3 trees that have really . One of them was threatening my house . One of them the top fell off of it and the other - one was just plain in my way . But I 've planted , I don 't know maybe 100 bushes and this year 4 trees . Four evergreens on my property and I think I ought to be able to do that . You know , I don 't think I 'm doing - anything that 's hurting the character of Chanhassen , although I might have neighbors , I don 't know who say , what 's that **fool doing cutting down those big beautiful trees . But they 're not in their yards . _ Conrad: I agree with your right to do what you did . I don 't want to live next to you but . Emmings: I don 't want to live next to you either for a lot of reasons . Batzli : Okay , well let 's take a look at what Paul comes back with on - that . Do people want to talk about cul-de-sacs tonight or philosophy of meetings and reports? Conrad: You 've got 5 minutes . Emmings: What about the roofline preservation easement? Batzli : Why don 't we , can we have 10 minutes on each one of these? Erhart : Let 's do it . CUL-DE-SAC LENGTHS. Batzli : Paul , Cul-de-sac 's . We know your arguments . Okay . Krauss : Yeah , you know the issues and I gave you the other communities . Emmings: I agree . 500 feet . Erhart : Hang on a second . I agree too but . Given the last 6-7 years , _ we 've seen , we 've allowed a lot of what? 1 ,000 foot cul-de-sacs and 800 or what 's the character been of the last 6-7 years of the cul-de-sacs that we 've allowed? Krauss: It 's been all across the board . Farmakes: When was the ordinance dropped for 500? Planning Commission Meeting November 18 , 1992 - Page 46 Krauss: It was before my time here . I 've got to believe it was 6 or 7 years ago . • Ledvina : Do you know why it was dropped? Krauss : I think a developer objected to it . Batzli : Well I think it 's an issue of character of a community in part . And I think a lot of people within this community want cul-de-sacs . They feel that they can, it 's more difficult for people to cruise a neighborhood looking for burglary sites , whatever . They feel there 's less traffic . Every time we do a development the big concern is kids are going to play in the street and they 're all going to get run over and there will be blood everywhere and clearly in a more upscale , if you will , area you 're going to find more cul-de-sacs . More windy roads . _ More a lot of this stuff and I think it 's a community issue of perception and the developers are telling us , typically we try to listen to them . What it is that 's selling and what it is people want and I think we should at least pay some attention to that. I 've found for example in my neighborhood that the cul-de-sacs are very popular . I don 't know if I could go in and say that they were selling for more money but we actually have a big loop but yet it 's sort of an isolated exit through the North Lotus Lake Park . And the loop is nice because everybody walks around it and you get a good sense of neighborhood , which is one of Paul 's points . I don 't necessarily want to restrict us this discussion to safety . What I 'd like to do is talk a little bit about planning and neighborhoods and things like that because I think that 's what some of the issues we should raise because everytime we talk about this , you know planning staff gets up on their chair and salutes the flag and says , you know fire trucks and snow plows . Well I don't care about that so much because we hear that everytime and it 's a valid concern but let 's talk about some of the other things . Emming: Well nobody 's saying we shouldn 't them right? Batzli : No but you know , what 's wrong with the longer one? If a 500 foot one is good , is a 1 ,000 foot one better? Why is it that we 're getting them? Is it because of access is limited to the area? Is it because it 's tough? Farmakes : It 's easier to lay out a longer cul-de-sac . Batzli : You can get more lots in there with cul-de-sacs because you 've got less roads? Is that the deal? Is that why developer 's like them? Farmakes : Well if you 're selling to a bunker mentality , which is the - majority of people who move out here , that 's what you 're offering . You 're offering them a private road . Batzli : Okay . But if we go with the theme that we let people cut down whatever trees they want . If it 's , let 's cater to what the people want . Why don 't we give them long cul-de-sacs? Why do we care? Planning Commission Meeting November 18 , 1992 - Page 47 - Farmakes: Well I think you can still offer cul-de-sacs for the consumer and still design it , for the most part , that it 's a reasonable length . I. other words , we set up a parking lot where we say , this is a reasonable distance that a consumer will get out of their car and walk to Festival Foods . And if they limit that to 400 feet , that 's a reasonable distance - And a person who 's planning that , that 's the criteria that they use to design that . If you get beyond 500 feet or so , I don 't think you 're going to get little Jimmy walking down the street to get on a bus . He 's going to have his parents drop him off in a car or it 's going to create distance problem where you 're probably not going to walk to access that pick-up point on the thru street . So what you wind up with is a lot more functional design if you deal with 500-600 , somewhere in there . Batzli : Let me ask a question . When other people read this list of cities , and maybe this will point me out as the snob that I am . When read this list of cities , do any one of you read this and say , but we 're not Eagan . We 're not Burnsville . We don 't care what they do . We 're something else . Or do you look at this . Something else from the standpoint of , different area . Different type of community . There is a different type of person who is moving to those areas and do we care wha Eagan , Burnsville , Plymouth , Brooklyn Park , Bloomington . Those things to me are , those areas in the development have , well Bloomington maybe . Wes - Bloomington 's a little bit different but I look at these and I say , I don 't give a rip what those communities are doing . I want to know , maybe some different lifestyles . Different kinds of people are being attracted to those areas . I don 't know . That 's my feeling when I look at this list . Farmakes: Well is your argument though , cul-de-sacs or not cul-de-sacs or are you talking about the length? Is that what your argument is? Batzli : I 'm talking about why are we limiting the length . If it 's only- because , if we 're not looking at the type of neighborhoods that these promote or land use or anything else . If we 're just going to do it for safety , let 's just say we 're just going to do it for safety and be done with I guess is kind of my sentiment . Emmings: That 's why I 'd do it . I know that , I 'll tell you why I come down on this . When I was first on the Planning Commission I didn 't want - any cul-de-sacs . I didn 't like them . I 've become convinced over time that people like to live on them . I wouldn 't want to and we have a lot of developers that told us that people want cul-de-sacs . So fine . I cat accept that . So then my next position is , they ought to be kept short . We had a lot of discussions here about long ones and the difficulties it presents for city vehicles . Emergency vehicles . Better to have two accesses than one . I buy that . I think it 's real and so I think they ought to be kept short . The Lundgren one was a good example where , real clear to me that ought to be tied together . I even thought , and Lundgren , the option should have been left open to tie that development - to development that would come to the east of that . There were some problems with that . But I think things ought to be tied together because I think if you 're going to have cul-de-sacs they ought to be kept reasonably short . 500-600 feet , I don 't have any trouble with that . Planning Commission Meeting November 18 , 1992 - Page 48 Batzli : How many lots under our current ordinance can go in on 600 feet? How many are you talking about down and back? About 6? 100 foot . Krauss : Well you 're talking , you 're probably going to get about 15 on both sides of the street and around the bubble . Lundgren 's proposal wound up with 44 homes . Now there 's some fallacies about cul-de-sacs too . I mean cul-de-sacs are supposed to offer a nice environment . I live on a cul-de-sac . I understand why. I mean my kids play in it and all that but when you 've got 43 other homes coming out in front of your home , which is nominally on a cul-de-sac and you 're on the corner , I 'd rather be a on a loop street with 20 homes you know . You 're getting a lot less impact . Erhart: I think that 's a strong argument to sitting here trying to figure out balance between what people want and arguing cul-de-sacs versus the safety issues . And I think the real swing argument here for limiting it to the 600 feet or whatever , is that if a developer wants to sell cul-de-sacs , he can make more cul-de-sacs . He just makes them 600 feet because you can go in and set up your street pattern to make lots of 600 foot , if that 's what he really wants to sell , he can do that and meet both criteria . Batzli : I 've got no burning desire for long cul-de-sacs . I just wanted to see if I could get an argument . So if we 're all in agreement . Erhart: We 're onto you . Batzli : Okay , 600 foot cul-de-sacs . Let 's do it . Let 's talk about islands in the middle , because we 've got to get out of here . Conrad: Before you talk , I like long cul-de-sacs . Batzli : Oh you like them? And you didn 't speak up . Conrad: I don 't know where to take that though . I wasn 't here for the Lundgren deal . I thought you guys made a major mistake when you tied that together . Batzli : I didn 't . I voted against it . I was the only one . Conrad: You use cul-de-sacs when you can preserve stuff . To tie a thing together for artificial reasons doesn 't make sense . Batzli : No , I think it gives a better sense of community and neighborhoods . Conrad: Cul-de-sacs are so community oriented . Emmings: I think tying the town together and not making isolated neighborhoods is communited oriented so I don 't agree with you . Conrad: So the cars can go speeding through . Emmings: Do you go speeding through? Planning Commission Meeting November 18 , 1992 - Page 49 Conrad: Sure . Emmings: Well I don 't , and I don't think you do either . Conrad: I like the little neighborhoods that they create . I think you lose a sense of community when you have all these grid streets . Emmings: Well what are you defining as a community? Our community is - made up with 759 communities which are cul-de-sacs? I mean that can 't happen . Conrad: But my point is , I think you 've got to balance the emergency needs and I think there 's some validity except . Batzli : Dick , on a good day how far can you back up the fire truck? Richard Wing: You know what kind of troubles we here as a Fire Chief , I have trouble finding those **cul-de-sacs . I don 't have any trouble finding a long street . I get up into near Timberwood up there where there 's 15 ,000 little side streets , you can 't find . . . Emmings : That 's enough for me . Batzli : Well but that could be a lot of short cul-de-sacs . Emmings : Then let 's get rid of them . Conrad: I don 't even need to talk about this when I think we 've got an ordinance that keeps cul-de-sacs to the 600 feet or 500 or whatever . Batzli : That 's what we 're trying to do . Erhart: We don 't . We don 't have any ordinance . Krauss: Well it doesn 't have any constriction at all now . Conrad: I thought . Krauss: No , it 's wide open . Emmings: City Council was where it happened . Erhart: Like they always do . Krauss: Brian when you 're talking about other communities , I note that - Plymouth has the most expensive average house value in the Twin Cities . And Minnetonka , if I remember right , Minnetonka was 600 feet or 700 feet . You could go longer if environmentally it was the only reasonable way to serve an area . Farmakes: Timberwood 's kind of a bad example. That 's 2 1/2 acres . That 's not a typical development . C I T Y 0 F PC DATE: 1/20/93 \ 'tik CHANHASSEN CC DATE: 2/8/93 CASE #: 93-1 IUP — By: Aanenson:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Interim Use Permit to Allow a Temporary Sales Trailer at the Oaks Ponds Development zLOCATION: North of West 78th Street between Kerber and Powers Boulevard Z a VAPPLICANT: Lotus Realty Services Dean R. Johnson Construction P.O. Box 235 7984 Zachary Lane — 0. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Maple Grove, MN 55369 0 Q PRESENT ZONING: R-12, Residential Multifamily District ACREAGE: 14 acres DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF; Saddlebrook S - BG; General Business _ E - R12; Multifamily and RSF; Residential Family W - R12; Multifamily 0 WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. W PHYSICAL CHARACTER. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: High Density Residential Oaks IUP January 20, 1993 Page 2 —. BACKGROUND _ Brad Johnson, representing the Oaks Development, is requesting an Interim Use Permit to allow for a temporary sales trailer. Temporary sales trailers are an interim use in the R-12 zone. The — Oaks Development received Preliminary PUD and Plat approval from the City Council on December 14, 1992. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicants are requesting an interim use permit to allow for a sales trailer and grading at the — western entrance of the Oaks Development. There will be grading in conjunction with the location of the trailer but it will not exceed 1000 cubic yards so a separate interim use permit for this activity is not necessary. The grading permit will be handled administratively. — The applicants have stated that current bank financing requires that the pre-sale of at least one 8-unit building prior to the funding of the construction loan for the "For Sale" townhouse units. The sales trailer will be used as point of sale until the first building is completed. The applicants have stated that the trailer will then be removed and the sales operation will be moved to a completed townhouse unit. They are requesting approval for the trailer for one year from the — date of approval. The sales trailer will come from Hilltop Sales, it will be skirted on the bottom and build stairs and a deck to enhance the entrance. The graded parking area will be covered with rock and fenced with a decorative rope fence. — The location of the trailer will be in the parking area for the most westerly (adjacent to Powers Boulevard) "For Sale" Townhouse. The access will be from the proposed road, Santa Vera — Drive. Carver County has granted a temporary access permit for access to the trailer off of Powers Boulevard. INTERIM USE PERMIT According to the Zoning Ordinance, the purpose of and Interim Use Permit is: 1. To allow a use for a brief period of time until a permanent location is obtained or while the permanent location is under construction, and — 2. To allow a use that is presently acceptable but that with anticipated development will not be acceptable in the future. -' Oaks IUP January 20, 1993 Page 3 The application meets the first criteria in that the trailer will be temporary until the first townhouse unit will be built. The following is the general issuance standards for an interim use permit: 1. Meets the standards of a conditional use permit set forth in Section 20-232 of the City Code. a. Will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. * Access to the site has been given approval by the County and the grading is consistent with the city ordinance. b. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. * The "Oaks" multi-family development has received preliminary approval from the city. A temporary sales trailer is listed as an interim use for this zone. c. 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 trailer will be skirted and will have a deck to enhance the appearance. d. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. * The location of the trailer is a significant distance from any single family residences. e. 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 trailer is temporary and any required utility hook-ups will be the responsibility of the applicant. This includes electric and sanitary facilities. Oaks IUP January 20, 1993 Page 4 — f. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. * Not Applicable. — g. 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. * Not applicable to the use of the sales trailer. h. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic — congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. * Carver County has issued a temporary access permit. — i. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic _ or historic features of major significance. * The proposed location of the trailer is in the parking area of an 8-unit townhouse building. j. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. _ * This site is currently vacant. k. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. * The site is vacant and the trailer will be allowed for a one year period. — 1. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. * They must comply with the conditions of approval. 2. Conforms to the zoning regulations. — * The trailer meets setback requirements and any signage would require a separate permit. 3. The use is allowed as an interim use in the zoning district. Oaks IUP January 20, 1993 Page 5 * The R-12 zone does allow for a sales office as a interim use. — 4. The date of the event will terminate the use can be identified with certainty. * The sales trailer will be allowed for one year from the date of issuance or until the first 8-unit townhouse is built which ever comes first. 5. The use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to — take the property in the future; and * Staff is requesting for financial surety of $1,000.00 for removal of the trailer and — restoration of the site. _ 6. The user agrees to any conditions that the City Council deems appropriate for permission of the use. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim Use Permit#93-1 for a temporary sales trailer at the Oak Development with the following conditions: 1. Any proposed signs will require a separate permit. 2. Surety of $1,000.00 for removal of the trailer and restoration of the site. 3. Compliance with the grading permit and Carver County Temporary Access Permit and -- the city grading permit. 4. The trailer will be skirted. 5. The sales trailer will be allowed for one year from the date of issuance or until the first 8 unit townhouse is built which ever comes first. ATTACHMENTS 1. Application. _ 2. Site Plan. 2. Grading permit dated December 2, 1992. LOTUS REALTY SERVICES - • January 4 , 1993 Planning Department City of Chanhassen _ 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Attention : Kate - Re: Oaks Community Development Dear Kate : We are applying for an interim Use Permit for grading and for a temporary sales trailer to be located at the western entrance of the Oaks Development . Current bank financing requires the presale of at least one - 8-unit building prior to the funding of the construction loan for the "For Sale" townhouse units . The sales trailer will be used as a point of sale until the first building is _ completed . The trailer will then be removed and the sales operation will be moved to a completed townhouse unit . We will rent a sales trailer from Hilltop Sales , skirt the - bottom and build stairs and a deck to enhance the entrance . Further , the graded parking area will be covered with rock and fenced with a decorative rope fence . Since the _ purpose of the trailer is for sales , we believe the trailer should present a pleasant visual picture. We would like to have the trailer in place by February and it will be removed no later than February, 1994 . Attached is a copy of the trailer site plan and grading plan. Thanks for your consideration of this request . Sincerely, _ g„,g/ ' Bradl•-y ' . Johnson 545 WEST 78TH STREET ■ P.O. BOX 235 ■ CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ■ (612)934-4538 ■ FAX(612)934-1505 i �, i •i ' ' I i • I ( ' \ ` ' _ - 1 If / / ` ; / j I I . . I � . ', / � - j 1 , / 1 111 41 (IL) , / 1/ /� i� /;� � / / ' 1 r I 1 1 0 I ! /• / � / ; , / � / I r1 I .L / . / , / i ,ii' .// ,, ,/ / I { ; l 1 / ! f f . I I I i 1 1I Il1i / , / / / , // 1 \ ut III 1 N I I T 1 . 7•' ' • , // / 1 / 11 1 . ( I --y � �, V; x _.11 -:. 1 Al r ..... - - - / ' / , -:// / , /, if 1, • / - + -2----- / , / ' , i 1` , _-, 7,..-47/,,..,,---_ ti /,I , ` / / i .- r - _. , %, 1 l _ ( . -,7)- A , - (.../...?. / 41111.1111 illaSIN .\ i - l 1• I { I.im.r 1 t k, t �_ { . I I - I I I II 1 ` \ 1;17 • 962 1 \ — r ( I !s � ,^ + r I ` I 984 1 . ( ( I , 1 I l I , , l . 1� Cl) — I 1 ( { rn Ig d II ti ` � \ r I I • 1 If IJ I �' � 1 \ \ $b CA -I r 1 t I I 1 1 \ \ � { I 1' 11 / 1 / -r 1 I If \ II .. _ `' I I r I �t i� �111 977 ` : 984 . Z7 I I 1 , —I ` t , g 11 1 \ ( : = - Ii I • A I 0 . 2I ) II _ 1 I h l ! ! 1 I ( i /;'I i / Z ii:GOEZE t ZT9 : Wd£0:T F6-S -T : 0 TOG b3I d003131 x0?J3x:,gyp GRADING PERMIT NO. 92-18 \Z \ PERMIT dated December 2 , 1992 , issued by the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") , to DEAN R. JOHNSON , ("Applicant") . 1. Request for Plat Approval. The Applicant has asked the City to approve a grading permit in conjunction with the proposed plat for OAK HILL/OAK POND (referred to in this permit as the "plat") . The land is legally described as: Outlot B, West Village Heights 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 plat 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: Exhibit A--Soil Erosion Control Plan and Schedule 4 . Time of Performance. The Applicant shall complete the grading and erosion control by June 15 , 1993. 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. Exhibit 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. 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 $ 250. 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 N/A , 1992. 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. (NOT APPLICABLE - IF DISTURBED SITE IS UNDER 1 ACRE IN SIZE) 12 . Site Specific Conditions. A. The applicant shall comply with Carver County Public Works ' Access Permit. B. The property shall be graded in accordance with the plan submitted November 1, 1992 (Exhibit A) . Upon completion, the parking lot areas shall be graveled with a minimum depth of 6 inches of Class 5. The remaining areas shall be mulched to minimize erosion. C. No sales trailer may be placed on the site until final plat approval for The Oaks has been granted by the City Council and the applicant has entered into a development contract with the City and provided the necessary financial security. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor (SEAL) ' BY: Don Ashworth, City Manager APPLICANTBY: ►.,.)Qo..` 7-- cz4N1S 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 17CL- ) 6 The foreg 'ng instrument was acknowledged efore me this day of , 1992, by 14--,1-e t-ier-t .‘L-LR&L,(,-.1c-i-e. NOTARY PUBLIC .- '•- VICTORIA E CHURCHILL . - _ NOTARY PUBLIC . MINNESOTA CARVER COUNTY DRAFTED BY: oomRon � e City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 FROM D.R. JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION 11 . 30. 1992 10:41 F. 2 CARVER OOUNI z PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Highway No._--- APPLICATION FOR ACCESS DRZVES''WY CR ENTRANCE PERMIT Mile No. Print or type o plication. Fill out 2 copies, sign and mail to Carver County Public Works Department, Courthouse, Chaska, Minnesota 55318. SKETCH PROPERTY, PRESENT ANJ PROPOSED DRIVENWS AND RELATION TO HIGHWAY ON BACK OF ALL COPIES, - OR ;MACH SKI?I ii TO tlIE APPLI I(li'1 O. IF NO SKEDg0 IS rNCWDFD, THIS APPLICATION WILL f Name of 4 �• Te1. D ,4-' U Applicant [�, SS.'r,_ �. .� e�,v�.tv,� .�ti �Address �'t 54 ff30 Name of Property Owner: ' R- ,K. Address Tel., l)I Ce IACATION: County Woad No. . 1 1 pc,* .4 of 1 w 5 (Ci le One) Spec c d or 3a,ndr ark) Legal Descri pt.on of Property 16 . 14 _ + • ,"4 S Purpose of Driveway x, _ Residence Carr ercial (specify type) �1�� S �o a ti T✓4. ��✓ Is a Building to What be Constructed_ No Yes Kind` Will the Sii 1 Lng be, X Temporary or Permanent Is the Property in _( Platted or Unplatted Area Distance from center of highway to front of building, or pump island is too .C4- feet. Is land higher? 3 ' Ler? or level? with highway. Ft. & In. t. & In. Number of Present Driveways to Property Distance from Nearest Driveway tt? r\-ti. bate Proposed Th iv tay Will Be Needed 4 . „ . 1 %17 } A I, We, the un Tsigned, herewith rake application for permission to construct, at our expense, the access driveway at the above location, said driveway to be constructed to conform with the standards of tne Carver County Public Works Department and to any special provisions included in the permit. It is agreed that all work will be done to the satisfaction of the Carver County PublicTWbrks Department. 3t is further agreed that no work in connection with this application will be started until the application is approved and the permit issued. Date-112J 7/(17, Signature of Applicant 'pea-- .3t,kvt�u -. DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE ACCESS DRIVEWAY OR ENTRANCE PERMIT Not Valid unless P t r Sig:.ei and leered Mnefrit/+fir.n of the Arivcwav as described in the above r I I / I ; I ; iii if ' l I , ,1 J I I• r 1 � 111r � r111 T . I I I I \ r ' ' I I i I 1 // II / ,/ / / / // / / / / �/ /// / / / i / / / / / / 7 I 1 / / // // / // • 1 I 1 I II ' I 1` I / / , / / / / // // ///�� / / / I I I4, , / / / / � i I ) i1 11 l \ `-I / / � // / / /l / / r l r l 1/ // I 1 1 • I 1 1 / / r I I 1 I 1 1 1 � / // / 1 r � r , I - / ) 1 I VIII i1 / , � , ,/ / / / / I/1 ) I I 1) 11 I \ Chi 1 1 �'•\ , 1 � � �/� •. � �� / , // '/ /� / / / / 1-1 -.4 ) D r�� Immo ,� � �� ./ / j / � � / . I � -� i -7/ / / I ,i ifir / i / k 1 -1 i * 1 ., , ; -tik',--.'.---, - --,-"J / , .// i , / if �1 I � 1 \ � , // 4,-.�1 _ , � / /� / / / / / 1 - -< 1 / . 0 t*, 1 p \�' / / i t / � , / /. , " • . , )......4\/- , •/ //7 -- --- .— , _ ,.. .-- , 7 - 0 t I •b _ r � / / _ -- ' ,� 1 N. �� ' \ ./� -..., 1 I 1 15 r' 1 '- , 1 \ t { '4iii. I - Z \ . i , I I I . I 11111111.7 �, I \ �l r I I I 1 I h l 977 1 982 984 o t I 1 2 / Ia \ i • ) 11 III I I ` x� Cr) I F I � z \ D I ! Si. 5 11 ► ; \ nri I 1 S I I \ 99*. 0 - I I < I I 1 ' G I- o � '.0 AI I\h'=-7-2 1 ' . ,, D I I I o 1 ITR ,LER(SALES) - - - rT' H 1 -t 'ri I • 977' i 982 --- .� _ , •1 r� --- _ 984 I- I r \� _- - _ _ I- I ` 4 1 r \ ( _ _ — — - 1 1 \ 1_ 1 ® -- r 1 1 I ) I 1 1 Ir / / / l I I- i it] o 1 1 I / / / 1 1 I , 1 / Date /1-,z. 92- • Permit HO. 9,2--/7 • APPLICATION FOR EXCAVATING PERMIT Fee : c - . s Owners Name _ 1 �a Fax 'µ `{53-G.31 7? Tele hone Address ;. Z .• • • Excavator -� Tele hone Address • Lot nal-ttp-r B Block • Subdivision (),)&ST iu €11rs Site Address7701+_' (C0.4) t) �d2-S �w p Description of work to be done: • • Indicate the use or occupancy :or which the proposed work is intended : 5 �� • . Estimated quantity of excavation /,mss z=.6, 40 — cubic yards Plot plan showing present elevations. • • Elevations after excavation is completed: • Elevations of neighboring property within 15 feet of excavation: • Location of any buildings or structures on the property where the • work is to be performed and the location of any buildings or structures on land of adjacent owners which are within 15 feet of the property which may be affected by the proposed operations : 4/ 4- P grading • • PQLICANTS SIGVATUP.E • J1 Permission i'; hereby granted for construction of the driveway , described in the above - .application, said driveway to be constructed in acaordanoe with the correct Carver County Driveway Aces Policy and the Carver County Highway Design Plate,copies of which are attached, and subject to the following provisions: QA e �v. - V .s r.y�,.��P ass '' 060—'0.4,(e," e'"'""'""P) II Cv P.irmr f it /a-- TT M�rr ��f, f.r/of.rf f77,r dor.1 /s frrj4. . p Ar,j,.. feir{ • 1 O� I.r�ylrylis , l �.0 c", I/{ C�sr.� {•ffv7. It is exprese:y urxlerstocd that this permit is conditioned upon replacement or restoration of the highway to its original or better condition. Carver County Public Works Department Date ///4/5,2%,_- % , . . �..k - er�/J�••• ty D rector o • • c Wor pc{e V V -/gre-40gef-!•t. ***END*** • • ami ••• ams• ••• ••• moo • CITY O F P.C. DATE: 1/6/93 3 . _ CITY CIIANHAE C.C. DATE: 1/25/93 — CASE: 92-14 SUB 92-8 Vacation B : Al-Jaff STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 1) Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 63.560 Acres into 4 Industrial lots 2) Vacation of Utility Easement and Previous Alignment of Lake z Drive East — Q LOCATION: South of Hwy. 5, east of Dell Road - a APPLICANT : Mr. Randy Cadenhead Sunlink Corporation — Q 1100 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309-4599 PRESENT ZONING: IOP, Industrial Office Park ACREAGE: 63.560 acres ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - Hwy. 5 and IOP S - Eden Prairie and RSF E - Eden Prairie/Dell Road/RSF W - BH and RSF SEWER AND WATER: Services are available to the site. d — 1.1 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The site has been extensively altered with the construction W of Lake Drive East and the widening of Hwy. 5. Portions of the site are covered with natural vegetation. The -- MIND" Datasery building occupies the southwest portion of the site (f� and a concrete pad occupies the northwestern portion of the site. The concrete pad is the remains of a farm house. The — southeast corner of the site is occupied by 2 baseball fields. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Industrial Sunlink Subdivision January 6, 1993 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide a 63.560 acre site into 4 industrial lots. The —' site is located south of Highway 5 and east of Dell Road. Access to the subdivision will be provided by the existing Lake Drive East. Lot 1, Block 1 is proposed to be the future site for a park and ride lot to be constructed by Southwest Metro Transit. Lot 2, Block 1 contains the concrete pad from the farm house that used to occupy the northerly portion of the site and will be reserved for future development. Lot 1, Block 2 contains an existing one story building (Dataserv) and Lot 2, Block 2 will be reserved for future development. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The majority of the site has been farmed or altered through construction of Lake Drive East and widening of Hwy. 5 and is covered with natural vegetation. There is an existing retention pond located to the southwest corner of Lot 2, Block 2. Staff believes this plat request is a reasonable — one and is generally consistent with the guidelines established by the city's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Staff finds it to be well designed and is recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the report. — PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 63.560 acre site into 4 industrial lots. All of the lots meet or exceed the minimum of 1 acre in area. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. — UTILITIES The parcel was recently divided with the extension of Lake Drive East from Dakota Avenue to Dell Road. In conjunction with the street construction, municipal utilities were also extended. Each proposed parcel has the ability to connect to municipal sanitary sewer and water lines. The — property also contains existing sanitary sewer and storm sewer easements which were previously dedicated. It is recommended that these easements be dedicated on the final plat as drainage and utility easements. The easements shall be 20 feet wide over each individual utility line to provide — adequate room for maintenance. In conjunction with the City's Lake Drive East improvement project, utility lines were relocated from the previous roadway alignment. These easements and right-of-way shall be vacated in conjunction with final platting. — GRADING AND DRAINAGE The parcel conveys storm water runoff overland through a couple of the proposed lots (Lot 2, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 2). Both drainage areas may involve alteration when the individual Sunlink Subdivision January 6, 1993 Page 3 lot is developed. On Lot 2, Block 1, the northwesterly corner of the parcel receives storm water runoff from Trunk Highway 5. The drainage follows the old roadway alignment thus, when the roadway right-of-way is vacated, a drainage easement should be reserved. If in the future this parcel is developed, alternative drainage modifications may be employed. At that time, the appropriate drainage utility easements may be conveyed and the existing ones vacated. On Lot 2, Block 2 an existing drainage ditch conveys storm water runoff from Lake Drive East to the wetland/retention pond on the east side of Dell Road (City of Eden Prairie). In an effort to improve water quality from this development consistent with the City of Chanhassen's standards, the applicant shall design and construct a storm retention pond on Lot 2, Block 2 to intercept the storm drainage prior to discharging into Eden Prairie. The storm pond shall be _ designed to NURP standards. According to the City of Eden Prairie, the treated runoff can be discharged into the Dell Road storm sewer system at a peak rate of 38.4 cfs for a 100-year storm event. The applicant shall be required to build the NURP pond at this time to accommodate the future predicted runoff conditions based on land use. Drainage calculations shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The final plat should dedicate the appropriate drainage and utility easement over the proposed ponding areas including access routes for maintenance. STREETS The site is serviced by Lake Drive East and Dell Road. Dell Road south of Lake Drive East, however, is only partially constructed. The City of Eden Prairie has constructed their half of the street this past year. As with other typical developments, the applicant is responsible for constructing the public improvements associated with the overall plat development. Besides the storm drainage retention pond, the applicant should be required to improve the westerly half of Dell Road lying south of Lake Drive East. Another option for the construction of Dell Road would be for the applicant to petition the City of Chanhassen to construct the street improvements associated with the project. The project would be assessed back to the applicant. The City would require the applicant to enter into an agreement waiving their rights to an assessment hearing and the appeal process. In conjunction with the platting of this development, we recommend that the applicant dedicate the necessary right-of-way and temporary easements for the construction of Dell Road south of Lake Drive East. According to street construction plans prepared by the City of Eden Prairie, the applicant should dedicate the easterly 60 feet of Lot 2, Block 2 for right-of-way. This would also facilitate construction of a sidewalk/trail element along the west side of Dell Road to connect with the existing sidewalk along Dell Road north of Lake Drive East. Since this development will require public improvements (storm water pond and street construction), it is recommended that a development contract be prepared in conjunction with this development and the applicant provide the City with the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval. Sunlink Subdivision January 6, 1993 Page 4 PARK AND RECREATION The Park and Recreation Commission will be reviewing this application on January 26, 1993. The Park and Recreation Coordinator has forwarded his comments in regard to this application request, and they are as follows: Parks: This site is on the fringe of the park service areas for South Lotus Lake Park and Rice Marsh Lake Park. Although much of the site is park deficient, the desirability of pursuing acquisition of a park as a part of this subdivision is not great. It should be noted, however, that the city maintained and scheduled two ballfields on the DataSery property, now Lot 2, Block 2, for a period of years. If during the development of Lot 2 this use could be retained, it would be of benefit to the city's park and recreation system. If the preservation of one or both of these ballfields was realized, an appropriate reduction in park fees would be credited. If not, Lot 2, Block 2 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, would be subject to full park fees at the rate in force upon — building permit application. Currently the park fee for commercial/industrial development is $2,500 per acre. Trails: Concrete sidewalks currently exist along the north side of Lake Drive East and on the west side of the north half of the segment of Dell Road located in Chanhassen south of Highway 5. An easement for trail purposes shall be obtained along the easterly border of Lot 2, Block 2 of sufficient width to allow continuation of this pedestrian route to the south, allowing for connection to the Eden Prairie trail system. This trail segment would most likely be completed with the construction of the Chanhassen segment of Dell Road and represents an important inter- — community connection. It will also provide direct access from the large residential area being developed south of this site to the proposed park and ride facility at the corner of TH 5 and Dell Road. All vacant lots in the SunLink Addition will be subject to trail fees at the rate in force upon building permit application. Currently the trail fee for commercial/industrial development is $833.00 per acre. Compliance Table Lot Area Lot Width Lot Depth Setback Ordinance 1 acre 150' 200' N-30' S-50' E-50' W-10' Block 1 Lot 1 4.1 acres 395' 470' Lot 2 15.788 acres 2,000' 470' S unlink Subdivision January 6, 1993 Page 5 Lot Area Lot Width Lot Depth Setback N-110' Block 2 21.279 acres 1,200' 850' S-350' Lot 1 E-450' W-360' Lot 2 18.789 acres 1,300' 620' VACATION OF OLD UTILITY EASEMENT AND PREVIOUS ALIGNMENT OF LAKE DRIVE EAST The Planning Commission does not have to vote on the vacation, however, we are including it as an informational item. The applicant is requesting the vacation of the old utility easements and previous alignment of Lake Drive East. The old alignment is reflected on proposed Lot 2, Block 1. On Lot 2, Block 1, the northwesterly corner of the parcel receives storm water runoff from Hwy. 5. The drainage follows the old roadway alignment. Thus, a drainage easement should be reserved. If in the future this parcel is developed, alternative drainage modifications may be employed. At that time, the appropriate drainage utility easements may be conveyed and the existing ones vacated. In conjunction with the city's Lake Drive East improvement project, utility lines were relocated from the previous roadway alignment. These easements and right-of-way will be vacated in conjunction with the final plat, with the exception of the drainage easement located within the old 40 foot wide roadway alignment. PRELIMINARY PLAT RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Preliminary Plat#92-14 creating 4 industrial lots, Sunlink Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. Drainage and utility easements should be shown on the final plat over all utility lines and ponding areas outside the road right-of-way. The minimum width of the utility easements shall be 20 feet wide. 2. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat the easterly 60 feet of Lot 2, Block 2 for Dell Road right-of-way and grant the City at no cost temporary construction easements as necessary for the construction of Dell Road south of Lake Drive East. Sunlink Subdivision — January 6, 1993 Page 6 — 3. The applicant has petitioned the City to vacate the previous frontage road through Lot 2, Block 1, a drainage easement shall be reserved over the existing 40-foot wide right-of- — way to maintain drainage rights from Trunk Highway 5 to Lake Drive East. 4. The applicant shall enter a development contract and provide the City with the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval. 5. The applicant shall construct a storm retention pond on Lot 2, Block 2 to intercept the — storm runoff from the development prior to discharging into Eden Prairie. The storm retention pond shall be constructed to NURP standards. Discharge into the Dell Road storm sewer system shall be limited to 38.4 cfs for a 100-year storm event. Detailed _ storm drainage calculations shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. A storm retention pond on Lot 2, Block 2 shall be constructed to accommodate the development at "built out" conditions. 6. The applicant shall construct the westerly half of Dell Road lying south of Lake Drive East. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City of — Chanhassen for review and approval." ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Dave Hempel dated December 21, 1992. 2. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated December 22, 1992. — 3. Letter from MnDOT dated December 30, 1992. 4. Memo from City of Eden Prairie dated December 22, 1992. 5. Hearing notice. CITY OF ‘ ‘ CHANHASSEN 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 .0/ V.—' DATE: December 21, 1992 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for Sunlink Addition LUR File No. 93-2 UTILITIES The parcel was recently intersected with the extension of Lake Drive East from Dakota Avenue to Dell Road. In conjunction with the street construction, municipal utilities were also extended. Each proposed parcel has the ability to connect to municipal sanitary sewer and water lines. The property also contains existing sanitary sewer and storm sewer easements which were previously dedicated. It is recommended that these easements be dedicated on the final plat as drainage and utility easements. The easements shall be 20 feet wide over each individual utility line to provide adequate room for maintenance. In conjunction with the City's Lake Drive East improvement project, utility lines were relocated from the previous roadway alignment. These easements and right-of-way should be vacated in conjunction with final platting. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The parcel conveys storm water runoff overland through a couple of the proposed lots (Lot 2, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 2). Both drainage areas may involve alteration when the individual lot is developed. On Lot 2, Block 1, the northwesterly corner of the parcel receives storm water runoff from Trunk Highway 5. The drainage follows the old roadway alignment thus, if the roadway right-of-way is vacated, a drainage easement should be reserved. If in the future this parcel is developed, alternative drainage modifications may be employed. At that time, the appropriate drainage utility easements may be conveyed and the existing ones vacated. t«: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Sharmin Al-Jaff December 21, 1992 Page 2 - On Lot 2, Block 2 an existing drainage ditch conveys storm water runoff from Lake Drive - East to the wetland/retention pond on the east side of Dell Road (City of Eden Prairie). In an effort to improve water quality from this development consistent with the City of Chanhassen's standards, the applicant shall design and construct a storm retention pond on - Lot 2, Block 2 to intercept the storm drainage prior to discharging into Eden Prairie. The storm pond shall be designed to NURP standards. According to the City of Eden Prairie, the treated runoff can be discharged into the Dell Road storm sewer system at a peak rate - of 38.4 cfs for a 100-year storm event. The applicant shall be required to build the NURP pond at this time to accommodate the future predicted runoff conditions based on land use. Drainage calculations shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The final plat - should dedicate the appropriate drainage and utility easement over the proposed ponding areas including access routes for maintenance. STREETS The site is serviced by Lake Drive East and Dell Road. Dell Road south of Lake Drive East, however, is only partially constructed. The City of Eden Prairie has constructed their half of the street this past year. As with other typical developments, the applicant is _ responsible for constructing the public improvements associated with the overall plat development. Besides the storm drainage retention pond, the applicant should be required to improve the westerly half of Dell Road lying south of Lake Drive East. Another option for the construction of Dell Road would be for the applicant to petition the City of Chanhassen to construct the street improvements associated with the project. The project would be assessed back to the applicant. The City would require the applicant to enter into _ an agreement waiving their rights to an assessment hearing and the appeal process. In conjunction with the platting of this development, we recommend that the applicant - dedicate the necessary right-of-way and temporary easements for the construction of Dell Road south of Lake Drive East. According to street construction plans prepared by the City of Eden Prairie, the applicant should dedicate the easterly 60 feet of Lot 2, Block 2 for - right-of-way. This would also facilitate construction of a sidewalk/trail element along the west side of Dell Road to connect with the existing sidewalk along Dell Road north of Lake Drive East. Since this development will require public improvements (storm water pond and street construction), it is recommended that a development contract be prepared in conjunction with this development and the applicant provide the City with the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval. Sharmin Al-Jaff December 21, 1992 Page 3 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Drainage and utility easements should be shown on the final plat over all utility lines and ponding areas outside the road right-of-way. The minimum width of the utility easements shall be 20 feet wide. 2. The Applicant shall dedicate on the final plat the easterly 60 feet of Lot 2, Block 2 for Dell Road right-of-way and grant the City at no cost temporary construction easements as necessary for the construction Dell Road south of Lake Drive East. 3. The applicant shall petition the City to vacate the previous frontage road through Lot 2, Block 1, a drainage easement shall be reserved over the existing 40-foot wide right- of-way to maintain drainage rights from Trunk Highway 5 to Lake Drive East. 4. The applicant shall enter a development contract and provide the City with the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval. 5. The applicant shall construct a storm retention pond on Lot 2, Block 2 to intercept the storm runoff from the development prior to discharging into Eden Prairie. The storm retention pond shall be constructed to NURP standards. Discharge into the Dell Road storm sewer system shall be limited to 38.4 cfs for a 100-year storm event. Detailed storm drainage calculations shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. A storm retention pond on Lot 2, Block 2 shall be constructed to accommodate the development at "built out" conditions. 6. The applicant shall construct the westerly half of Dell Road lying south of Lake Drive East. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City of Chanhassen for review and approval. jms/ktm c: Charles Folch, City Engineer .I CITY OF ‘ ‘ ClIANBASSEN 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: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: December 22, 1992 SUBJ: Sun Link Addition The preliminary plat to subdivide approximately 60 acres into the Sun Link Addition will be _ reviewed by the Park and Recreation Commission on January 26, 1993. However, to accommodate your review schedule, I am forwarding the following comments in regard to parks, trails, and recreation. — Parks: This site is on the fringe of the park service areas for South Lotus Lake Park and Rice Marsh Lake Park. Although much of the site is park deficient, the desirability of pursuing acquisition of a park as a part of this subdivision is not great. It should be noted, however, that the city maintained and scheduled two ballfields on the DataSery property, now Lot 2, Block 2, for a period of years. If during the development of Lot 2 this use could be retained, it would be of benefit to the city's park and recreation system. If the preservation of one or both of these ballfields was realized, an appropriate reduction in park fees would be credited. If not, Lot 2, Block 2 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, would be subject to full park fees at the rate in force upon — building permit application. Currently the park fee for commercial/industrial development is $2,500 per acre. Trails: Concrete sidewalks currently exist along the north side of Lake Drive East and on the west side of the north half of the segment of Dell Road located in Chanhassen south of Highway 5. An easement for trail purposes shall be obtained along the easterly border of Lot 2, Block 2 — of sufficient width to allow continuation of this pedestrian route to the south, allowing for connection to the Eden Prairie trail system. This trail segment would most likely be completed with the construction of the Chanhassen segment of Dell Road and represents an important inter- — community connection. It will also provide direct access from the large residential area being developed south of this site to the proposed park and ride facility at the corner of TH 5 and Dell Road. All vacant lots in the SunLink Addition will be subject to trail fees at the rate in force upon building permit application. Currently the trail fee for commercial/industrial development is $833.00 per acre. is Or ui PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER - ONES0 Minnesota Department of Transportation ,(O 2 Metropolitan Division Transportation Building �� 4° St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 of mP� Oakdale Office, 3485 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota 55128 Golden Valley Office,2055 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 Reply to Telephone No. 593-8533 December 30, 1992 _ Jo Ann Olsen Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 _ In Reply refer to: TH 5 C.S. 2701 Sunlink Addition Lake Dr./Dell Rd. Chanhassen . Dear Ms. Olsen: We are in receipt of the above referenced plat for our review in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03 Plats and Surveys. We find this plat acceptable for development with consideration of the following comments: • No direct access to TH 5 will be allowed. TH 5 has been upgraded in this area and Mn/DOT has no plans for further improvements to accomodate additional direct access at this time. • Current drainage patterns and rates of runoff should be maintained. If you have any other questions please feel free to call me at 593-8533. Sincerely, _ wast William A. Sirois Senior Transportation Planner cc: Dotty Rietow, Metropolitan Council RECEIVED Roger Gustafson, Carver Co. Engineer John Freemyer, Carver Co. Surveyor DEC 31 1992 CITY OF CHANHASSEN An Equal Opportunity Employer Chanhassen Holding Company McDonald's Corp (22-146) Systems Control, Inc. 14201 Excelsior Blvd. AMF O'Hare 755 Mary Avenue No. — Minnetonka, MN 55343 P. O. Box 66207 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Chicago, IL 60666 Walter & Kathleen Schollman Ramond & Mary Ann Jezierski . Eugene & N. L. Gagner 8011 Dakota Avenue 8013 Dakota Circle 8025 Dakota Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — Richard & Mary Dorfner Michael W. Farrell Robert & Barbara Armbrust 8026 Cheyenne Avenue 8024 Cheyenne Avenue 8022 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 _ Douglas & Kathleen Bagley George & A. Jennings N. Einar & Valborg Swedberg _ 8020 Cheyenne Avenue 8018 Cheyenne Avenue Co-Trustees Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 8016 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 — Daniel & Linda Robinson Mitchell T. Lebens Richard & B. Frasch 8014 Cheyenne Avenue 8012 Cheyenne Avenue 8010 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Michael & Cynthia Koenig Gerard & Lindsay Amadeo Alex & Marilyn Krengel 8005 Cheyenne Avenue 8007 Cheyenne Avenue 8009 Cheyenne Avenue _ Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Alice L. Sieren Stephen & Joann MacDonald Russell & V. Hamilton 8011 Cheyenne Avenue 8017 Cheyenne Spur 8019 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — Glenn & Bonnie Hageman Thomas & Joy Eastman Craig & Kathryn Humason — 8021 Cheyenne Spur 8023 Cheyenne Spur 8025 Cheyenne Spur Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Alois & M. Stumpfl George & Theresa Thomas Robert Seward _ 8027 Cheyenne Avenue 8029 Cheyenne Avenue 8031 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Conrad & L. Fiskness Mary Ann Wallin Michael & Marie Kraus 8033 Cheyenne Avenue 8035 Cheyenne Avenue 8037 Cheyenne Avenue — Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (18210 W. 78th Street Lotus Lake Garden Center, Inc. Frank Beddor, Jr.) 78 West 78th StreetEden Prairie Assembly God Church 55317 Chanhassen, MN 16591 Duck Lake Trail Eden Prairie, MN 55346-1298 Terry & Margaret Lewis 8013 Cheyenne Avenue (18556 Wynnfield Rd.) Chanhassen, MN 55317 Lundgren Bros. Construction 935 East Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata, MN 55391 Vernon & Barbara Husemoen 8015 Cheyenne Avenue Thomas & Patricia Redmond Chanhassen, MN 55317 Wcst 78thoond t Inc. 18930 ee Chanhassen, MN 55317 Lyman Lumber P 0 Box 40 Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen Center Partners c/o Builders Development Randal & Cynthia Bottelson P 0 Box 637 8084 Crescent Court Wayzata, MN 55391 Eden Prairie, MN 55347 T & P. Redmond Tandem Properties c/o Pat Webber 2765 Casco Point Road 17429 Valley Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Windfield Ltd. Partnership c/o Pemtom Land Co. 8200 Humboldt Avenue S. Bloomington, MN 55431 The Press, Inc. 18780 West 78th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 1.4 CITY OF ‘ ‘ CHANHASSEN J _ 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: January 13, 1993 SUBJ: Organizational Items a. Election of Chair and Vice Chair — The Planning Commission should make nominations and select a Chair and Vice Chair for 1993. b. Adoption of Planning Commission By-laws The By-laws should be reviewed and adopted every year by the Planning Commission. The Commission should discuss any comments or changes they feel necessary at this time. c. Liaison Attendance at City Council Meetings In the past, a schedule has been formulated where all the Planning Commissioners would rotate attending the City Council meetings. The Commission should discuss whether or not to elect one person to attend or to schedule all commissioners on a rotating basis during the year. d. Liaison Attendance at Housing and Redevelopment Authority Meetings The Planning Commission has not had a person attending the HRA meetings since the resignation of Jim Wildermuth. The Commission should discuss whether they wish to have a person attend these meetings. « PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER BYLAWS PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CHANHASSEN The following bylaws are adopted by the City Planning Commission to facilitate the performance of its duties and the exercising of its functions as a commission established by the City Council pursuant to the provision of Subdivision 1 , Section 462 .354 Minnesota State Statutes anotated . SECTION 1 - Duties and Responsibilities - Planning Commission: 1 .1 The Planning Commission shall serve as an advisory body to the City Council through carrying out reviews of planning matters . All final decisions are to be made by the City Council. 1 . 2 The Planning Commission shall prepare a Comprehensive Plan for the future development of the City and recommend on amendments to the plan as they arise. 1 . 3 The Planning Commission shall initiate, direct, and review the provisions and standards of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations and report its recommendations to the City Council. 1 . 4 The Planning Commission shall review applications and proposals for zoning ordinance amendments , subdivisions , street vacations, conditional use permits and site plan reviews and make their recommendations to the City Council in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. 1 . 5 The Planning Commission shall hold public hearings on development proposals as prescribed by the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances . 1 . 6 - Establishment of Subcommittees The Planning Commission may, as they deem appropriate, establish special subcommittees comprised solely of their own members . SECTION 2 - Meetings: 2 . 1 - Time Regular meetings of the Commission shall be held on the first and third weeks of each month at 7 : 30 p.m. at the City Council Chambers , 690 Coulter Drive , unless otherwise directed by the Chairman, in which case at leb.st 24 hours notice will be given to all members . Regular meetings shall have a curfew of 11 : 00 p.m. which may be waived at the discretion of the Chairman . All unfinished business will be carried over to the next regular Planning Commission meeting . When the regular meeting day falls on a legal holiday, there shall be no Planning Commission meeting. 2 . 2 - Special Meetings Special meetings shall be held upon call by the Chairman , or in his absence, by the Vice-Chairman or any other member with the concurrence of four other members of the commission, and with at least 48 hours of notice to all members . Notice of all special meetings shall also be posted on the official City Bulletin Board. 2 . 3 - Attendance Planning Commission members shall attend not less than seventy- five ( 75% ) percent of all regular and special meetings held during a given ( calendar) year, and shall not be absent from three ( 3 ) consecutive meetings without prior approval of the Chairman. Failure to meet this minimum attendance requirement shall be cause for removal from the Commission by action of the City Council . SECTION 3 - Commission Composition, Terms and Vacancies: 3 . 1 - Composition The Commission shall consist of 7 voting members. Seven members shall be appointed by the Council and may be removed by the Council . 3 . 2 - Terms and Vacancies The Council shall appoint seven members to the Commission for terms of three years. Vacancies during the term shall be filled by the Council for the unexpired portion of the term. Every appointed member shall before entering upon the charge of his duties take an oath that he will faithfully discharge the duties of his office. All members shall serve without compensation. 3 . 3 - Quorum Four Planning Commission members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business . Whenever a quorum is not present, no final or official action shall be taken at such meeting. -2- SECTION 4 - Organization: - 4 . 1 - Election of Officers At the first meeting in January of each year , the Planning Commission shall hold an organization meeting. At this meeting, the Comission shall elect from its membership a Chairman and Vice-Chairman. This shall be done by secret ballot . Each member shall cast its ballot for the member he wishes to be chosed for Chairman. If no one receives a majority, balloting shall con- tinue until one member receives the majority support. Vice-Chairman shall be elected from the remaining numbers of the same proceeding. If the Chairman retires from the Planning Commission before the next regular organizational meeting , the Vice-Chairman shall be Chairman . If both Chairman and Vice-Chairman retire, new offi- cers shall be elected at the next regular meeting. If both Chairman and Vice-Chairman are absent from a meeting, the Commission shall elect a temporary Chairman by voice vote . 4 . 2 - Duties of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman The Chairman or in his absence, the Vice-Chairman, shall preside at meetings , appoint committees from its own membership, and per- form other such duties as ordered by the Commission. The Chairman shall conduct the meeting so as to keep it moving - rapidly and efficiently as possible and shall remind members, witnesses and petitioners to preserve order and decorum and to keep comments to the subject at hand. The Chairman shall not move for action but may second motions. SECTION 5 - Procedure: 5 .1 - Parlimentary Procedure Parlimentary Procedure governed by Roberts Rules of Order Revised shall be followed at all regular meetings. At special work session meetings, and when appropriate, the Commission may hold group discussions not following any set parlimentary procedures except when motions are before the Commission. SECTION 6 - Public Hearings: 6 . 1 - Purpose of Hearings The purpose of a hearing is to collect information and facts in order for the Commission to develop a rational planning recommen- dation for the City Council. 6 . 2 - Hearing Procedure At hearings the following procedure shall be followed in each case: • -3- a . The Chairman shall state the case to be heard. b . The Chairman shall call upon the staff to present the staff report. Required reports from each City Department shall be submitted to the Planning Commission before each case is heard. c. The Chairman shall ask the applicant to present his case. d . Interested persons may address the Commission, giving infor- mation regarding the particular proposal . e . Petitioners and the public are to address the Chairman only, not staff or other commissioners . f . There shall be no dialogue among the Commissioners , giving information regarding the particular proposal. ( The Planning Commission members may ask questions of persons addressing the Commission in order to clarify a fact, but any statement by a member for any other purpose than to question may be ruled out of order. ) g . After all new facts and information have been brought forth , the hearing shall be closed and interested persons shall not be heard again . Upon completion of the hearing on each case, the Planning Commission shall discuss the item at hand and render a decision . The Planning Commission if it so desires , may leave the public record open for written comments for a specified period of time. h . The Chairman shall have the responsibility to inform all the parties of their rights of appeal on any decision or recom- mendation of the Planning Commission. 6 . 3 - Schedule At meetings where more than one hearing is scheduled, every effort shall be made to begin each case at the time set in the agenda, but in no case may an item be called for hearing prior to the advertised time listed on the agenda. SECTION 7 - Miscellaneous: 7 .1 - Planning Commission Discussion Matters for discussion which do not appear on the agenda may be considered and discussed by the Commission only when initiated and presented by the staff and shall be placed at the end of the agenda. 7 .2 - Suspension of Rules The Commission may suspend any of these rules by a unanimous vote of the members present. -4- 7 . 3 - Amendments Amendment of these bylaws may be made at any regular or special meeting of the Planning Commission but only if scheduled on the meeting agenda in advance of the meeting. 7 . 4 - Review At the first meeting in January of each year, these bylaws shall be read and adopted by the Planning Commission. Adopted : Date : Chairman • -5- CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 3 , 1993 The Planning Commission interviewed applicants prior to the regular meeting . Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:55 p .m . MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad , Matt Ledvina , Steve Emmings , Brian Batzli , Jeff Farmakes and Joan Ahrens STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Planning Director ; and Sharmin Al-Jaff , Planner I PUBLIC HEARING: LAKEVIEW HILLS NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAKE RILEY . Public Present: Name Address Donna Bohn 9201 40 1/2 Ave No , New Hope Craig Mertz Suite 1100 , 120 So 6th Street , Mpls 55402 Bob Peterson 9101 Lake Riley Blvd . Delbert Smith 9051 lake Riley Blvd . Don Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Blvd . Ray Lewis 9071 Lake Riley Blvd . Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item . Batzli : We didn 't get the nifty little summary sheet that we normally get of what they 're asking for . Did you guys get it? Krauss : No . You mean where we had the '81 survey . What they 're asking for . No . I gather Kate didn 't do it that way this time . It 's pretty much limited to what you see in the conditions . Batzli : Let me ask one question because after I read the attorney 's letter , the sheet that has the three columns . Emmings : Oh right . Batzli : It appears to me that the applicant is , well the attorney is submitting an application on behalf of the applicant . they then go onto say that they 're really not , they 're not subject to this ordinance . Are we comfortable , by the time we get done approving this and the City Council approves it , are they then subject to this ordinance or are we just approving them promelgating certain rules which will take care of the noise and nuisance that 's been going on there? Krauss : Well , we will ask the City Attorney to clarify that when it gets up to the City Council . I believe Kate was in contact with him and he didn 't seem to think it presented much of a problem . That they would be Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 2 - obligated . They 've accepted the conditions and they would be obligated to operate under them . Batzli : Okay . So this , okay . Is the applicant here tonight? Craig Mertz: You bet . I 'm Craig Mertz and Donna Bohn is here from the management company also . I 'm here representing the Lakeview Hills Investment Group , which is the owner of the project . Some of your past - paperwork refers to a Lakeview Hills Apartments Homeowners Association . There is no such thing . Never has been such a thing and if you thought there was an association , you were misled . This is strictly an apartment complex . There 's approximately 170 units in this . The position of the owners is that they have the status of a valid non-conforming use and they are entitled to continue to do what they were doing when your ordinance was adopted but in the spirit of cooperation , we have advised - staff that what we want to do and plan on doing is continue to use the property just as we had in the past and without any waiver of those rights , we 're willing to promelgate the 4 conditions that I outlined in _ my letter . The first was the gate and the second was the change in the overnight boat storage situation . The third was that those people who did want to store boats overnight would move them up to the parking lot of the apartment complex itself at night . Fourth , we 'd limit the dock - length to the 50 feet . Another way of saying it is we plan to continue to use the boat launch . We plan to continue to make the property available for resident picnics , barbeques , portable barbeque grills , - daytime boat storage , docking at the beach , swimming , etc . but we will impose , or agree to impose those 4 conditions that I mentioned in the letter . We 've given you some historical material . You 've seen the 1977 picture before . It isn 't in today 's packet apparently but that depicts dock . We 've given you copies of the advertising copy relative to the past dock on the property and we 've given you two affidavits covering the historical situation on the property . So with that I guess I 'm open to - questions , if that 's what you want to do . Batzli : I guess I have one question and that is , is it your position - then that you 're waiving the rights or you 're not waiving rights and so you could take back your promelgated rules and allow these 4 things to occur . Are those the rights that you 're? Craig Mertz : Our position is that we ' ll agree to do these things and carry these things out but it 's our decision and not your 's . That you do not have the authority to impose this on a valid non-conforming use . Batzli : These additional things which weren 't occurring on , in other words . What this originally , what we were attempting to do was to get a _ handle on what level of activity and intensity of use was occurring on the various beachlots back in '81 . I understand your position that you feel that you 're not subject to this for a technical reason that there was no homeowners association apparently . So are you submitting an - application here today? Are you not , do you somehow feel that even though you 're going through the application process and we 're trying to bring you into the fold as a conforming use under our new ordinance , that- you 're not subject to our new ordinance? Is that your position? Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 3 Craig Mertz : Our position is notwithstanding this procedure , we have valid rights as a non-conforming use but nonetheless , in the spirit of cooperation , will go through this process and register the historical level of useage , if you will . Batzli : Does anyone else have any other questions before I , okay . This is a public hearing . If there 's anyone else from the public that would like to comment on this particular issue . Feel free to step forward to the microphone and give us your name and address please for the record . Raymond Lewis: My name is Raymond Lewis . I live at 9071 Lake Riley Blvd . I 've been here and participated in the last two hearings on this subject . I have a couple , several recommendations I 'd like to make . The first recommendation is that it was my understanding that the proposed gate was supposed to be locked only at night . I think the gate is an excellent idea but it 's been my observation that there 's uncontrolled use of the launch ramp during peak hours where the public access is being used . And so I think that the gate should be locked at all times , whenever the residents are not using the launch ramp . The second thing is , and this is a point that I brought up at the last hearing . The launch ramp is undeveloped . It 's unpaved . It 's basically soil with some gravel on it and if you look at it , it has deep gullies and ravines and it 's very evident that there 's been erosion . Erosion that 's silting in the lake are a source of nutrients and reduce the water clarity and I think that the Lakeview Hills should submit a permanent erosion plan and enact it to make sure that future erosion doesn 't degrade the lake . And — the last thing is that in the last 2 years , Lake Riley has been innudated by Eurasian Milfoil . It 's a big problem . It 's a particular problem in the north bay where the water adjoins this beachlot property . And I think it 's reasonable for the Lakeview Hills to participate in water quality programs and lake weed programs that are initiated by the Lake Riley Homeowners Association or Lake Improvement Association and by local government . And I 'd like to see the Lakeview Hills participate as members of the community . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Is there anyone else who would like to address the Commission? Don Sitter : My name is Don Sitter . I live at 9249 Lake Riley Blvd . _ Also a homeowner . I guess I have to ask some questions . Excuse my ignorance . Do I understand that there is an ordinance for the beachlot control and they do not feel that they are bound by this ordinance? Is that what I 'm hearing? Batzli : There was a first beachlot ordinance passed in the 80 's that in essence excluded existing beachlots . Right Paul? At the time they were an existing beachlot and for a technical reason , apparently there was some language in there which included homeowners associations owning the beachlot . They do not have a homeowners association and so they feel _ that they would not even come under the purview of the current ordinance , which this is all part of the process of getting these non-conforming beachlots to a certain level of activity so that we can regulate them . They can 't increase that activity . I don 't think they 're saying that they can expand over what their level of intensity was , but that due to Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 4 _ some language in the ordinance , they don 't fall under the prerequisite for this ordinance . I 'm paraphrasing I think what their position is . Don Sitter : Okay . And I 'm trying to understand if they 're trying to fall under the ordinance or if they 're saying they are doing this just — out of the goodness of their heart and we basically have absolutely no control over this beachlot and I 'm still , I 'm sorry , I 'm a little confused . _ Batzli : Well , the level of control that we have on beachlots under this process is we 're trying to freeze the level of intense use at any of these beachlots as to where it was in 1981 . We did not survey this beachlot back in '81 so the City has very little evidence of what was taking place on the beachlot back in '81 . I think that they 're saying , they will go through the process and they will implement certain rules tc- try and develop a level of activity that was occurring back then but if they want to change those rules , they can . That 's their position . I think the City 's position is , they do fall under this ordinance process _ and they are subject to it . Don Sitter : So if we approve them to fall into this ordinance , we 're trying to I guess gain the control that we think we 're gaining under thin ordinance . Is that right? Batzli : Yeah . - Don Sitter : Okay . I guess I 'd like to second , raise concerns of I think the gate is a wonderful idea and I think control is a big part of keeping this . Working with the community . My question is of enforcement . Who will enforce these rules? Who will make sure the gate stays locked? Is this something you 'd call the police on or is it something you 'd call the apartment? Who enforces something like that? Krauss: Well you know , we need a clarification again from the City Attorney when this gets up to the Council . What we have here is lawyers doing lawyer things and reading innuendo and meaning things that may or may not be there . The opinion we have thus far from our City Attorney is that our ordinances are enforceable . Craig on behalf of the beachlot owners dispute that but that 's something that you know , if we have to decide that in court , then we ' ll do that . If we have to change one word in the ordinance , then we would do that too . The fact of the matter is though , is that they 're being cooperative in proposing it . However they - get there . We believe that in the future henceforth , if there is a problem , that it 's the kind , they deviate from the conditions , that it 's something that would be enforced through the City . Don Sitter : Through the city , okay . And I guess I 'd like to compliment you on putting the gate or the sign that you did put up there . I thought that was really helpful . I also agree with Ray with the erosion control — and I guess we 're basically asking you to put something in to help with the erosion control . And is there anything in the ordinance on toilet facilities being required at something like this? — Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 5 Krauss: No . Toilet facilities can be installed at the applicant 's request and it 's a conditional use permit . We do allow it but we don 't mandate it . Batzli : It goes through a process like this . A public hearing . Don Sitter : Okay . Well then I guess I 'd like to turn to you and ask you . Craig Mertz : We 're not asking for toilets . Don Sitter : Okay . We 'd sure recommend some kind of toilet facilities . _ If that 's at all possible , I guess we 're asking you to do whatever you can . We 'd like to ask you to install a Satellite or something on the property . Craig Mertz: . . .didn 't want a Satellite . Don Sitter : A Satellite or something like that would be much better than having people going in the woods uncontrolled . And we 've all seen the size of the parties that end up there on Friday nights and it would be nice to have some place for them to use . So and thank you for your time . Batzli : Thank you very much . Is there anyone else who would like to address the Commission? — Craig Mertz: May I respond to a couple? Batzli : Sure . Craig Mertz: We have no intention of expanding the non-conforming use on the property . Certainly the city , if it felt that expansion is taking place . . .enforce the ordinance against the owners of Lakeview Hills . Regarding the access to the lake , the owners have no intention that this would be a public access for anyone to use . To come on the property . It 's an access point for our residents and their invited guests . We 're attempting to control the access and keep strangers off of the property . The toilet facilities , I don 't think that 's part of this particular process . That 's something we can look into . Batzli : Thank you . Is there any other public comment? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed. Batzli : Joan , do you have any? Ahrens: Just to clarify something for the neighbors here . These items that are listed as voluntary , I don 't even know what to call them . Batzli : Promelgated rules . Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 6 _ Ahrens : Voluntary promelgated rules . That these aren 't going to be conditioned on any permit because Roger says we can 't put conditions on a— permit right? Krauss : There 's no question that the one dealing with boat dockage — should be and is a condition . That was the intent of this whole ordinance . Ahrens: Let 's talk about the gate issue . That 's not a condition we can put on any permit . Krauss : The gate probably gets into the area of voluntary compliance . Ahrens : Right . So there 's really no enforcement of that . You can 't call the City . You can 't call the police . You can 't call anyone to _. enforce that kind of thing . Krauss: That 's , unless Roger tells me differently , that 's probably true . Ahrens : Okay . Is that clearer? Don Sitter : That 's what I was trying to ask . . . In other words , they 're — doing this voluntarily? But if they decided to change their mind or take away the lock or just don 't lock it at all , there 's nothing we can do about it? Is that right? Ahrens : That 's right . Okay . A question on the application itself . I 'n. kind of confused about , this is a statement of first of all of what existed on the beachlot in 1981 . Number 7 says the number of boats docked overnight was 0 in 1981 , as I understand it . And then number 9 said , so there were no boats docked but stored on land it says there were 8 to 10 in canoe racks . Or they were on land or in canoe racks . And — then number 11 says that , the number of boats on land overnight were as many as 15 . What was the actual number of boats on land in 1981? Do you understand that? Or am I looking at something wrong? Craig Mertz : It should have been 10 that were overnight . . . Ahrens: 8 to 10 or 10? — Craig Mertz : 8 to 10 . Ahrens: So you 're asking for 8 to 10 boats on land . . . Oh , you 're sayinc that that 's what existed in 1981 . Okay . I understand the concern of the neighbors . I 'm not sure , the purpose of our hearing tonight is the establishment of what the use was in 1981 . I 'm not sure that 's accomplished by the affidavits that are attached to this . With this application it 's evident by the pamphlet that there was some use in 1981 . What it was I don 't think can be established . The affidavit of Sandra — Durand just says there was use . . .so we 're back to this guessing game . Really all we have is the application that states what the use was . We don 't have any kind of documentation as to what the use was . I feel kind of , I don 't know where to go with this again . If anybody else has any ideas , I ' ll listen but . Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 7 Batzli : Okay . So your position is? Ahrens : I don 't know yet . I mean if someone else has some clear idea of what the use was . It doesn 't make much sense to me to just look at an application and say this is what they say it is when there 's really no other documentation that states what the exact use was . Sure there was a use but what was it? Nothing in here states what the use was . The numbers of boats docked . The numbers of boats on land . What was , how was that beachlot being used? We don 't have any documentation that specifically states what the use was . Conrad: Are you comfortable with their requested use? Emmings : And let 's just stop here and make sure we all understand what this requested use is . I see this as 5 fishing boats or sailboats and 10 canoes . Is that what you 're thinking? Because that 's what 's on the application on the number 7 . Conrad : Well the application states '81 useage . I 'm reading it real literally in terms of what they want to use and that 's one canoe rack , 8 to 10 boats . Daytime useage . So no overnight storage? Emmings: Right . Well , but in number 11 it says overnight as many as 10 . Conrad : But in my mind this kind of supersedes what they had in '81 . Emmings : Oh okay . Conrad: And I don 't , I guess I don 't have a problem with this document that they 're submitting . In terms of their current useage . Emmings : Okay . Conrad: I don 't know , Joan 's comment might be right . If we agree to that level of useage , does that also mean that we 've agreed to the useage that they had back in '81? Krauss : I think that 's an important point . You may want to add a condition . You 're right Commissioner Ahrens . You 're being asked to accept something at face value that 's somewhat difficult to dispute . Clearly there was something there . But you may want to add a condition , if you 're comfortable with it , that says that for the sake of interpretation of this ordinance , that you have defined that the level of _. use for the purposes of this ordinance in 1981 was 8 to 10 boats . Irregardless of what 's on this application . If you define it in that way , it gives you some way of enforcing that into the future . Ahrens: Can we do that? Krauss : There is nothing , I mean the hardest part of your job was to figure out exactly what was there in '81 . It seems to be an impossible task . On the one hand you 're being asked to take the ballpark , well it 's 10 to 15 boats . On the other , you 're saying that consistent with existing uses , it 's more like 8 to 10 boats . There doesn 't seem to be Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 8 _ any clear guidance . Where there 's no clear guidance , I 'd take a shot at it . - Craig Mertz : The question from our standpoint is which day in 1981? Every day is different . - Emmings: We let you pick it . Craig Mertz : Well we 'd pick the 4th of July I guess . Batzli : Well , are you guys currently comfortable with 8 to 10 boats? Craig Mertz: Yes . Ahrens : Okay . I guess I don 't have any choice but to go along with it . - We have no other alternative . Craig Mertz : I think the situation is , this gate thing is for our benefit also . We don 't want strangers coming down there using the facility . This is supposed to be for our residents and their invitees . And we don 't want third parties down there making trouble . . .and the overnight restriction is for our benefit also . That 's going to - keep the useage turning over so they 're not the same residents that are using that lake access day after day and hogging it , if you will . We 're rotating useage through our residents by having this park it up at the _ building . Ahrens: Do you have any objection to locking it during the day , like these people asked? - Craig Mertz : No . Ahrens: Do you change the locks once a year because of the rental building? Craig Mertz : We can gate it in the daytime . It 's not a big problem on - our end . Batzli : Jeff , do you have any comments? Farmakes : I think this whole thing needs a big dose of pragmatism . I like Mr . Lewis ' 3 issues . It seems that the applicant is not adverse to _ doing that . And it discussed the milfoil issue but if they 're a property owner on the lake , I 'm sure they 're interested . Clearly that particular lake is quite subjected to that type of damage being that it 's quite shallow . I still get confused when we talk about this , not being an — attorney . It was my understanding that this whole thing that we have been discussing so many times . . .such a long period , is the issue of expansion of use and what we get thrown in along with this is citizens - coming in that are adjacent to the property complaining about current use . They don 't like so many people parking here . They leave garbage cans . Or beer cans or they build fires and things like this nature . And it 's my understanding that just to focus this that if we are to evaluate this is the use you had in '81 and this is what you 've got now . This is Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 9 the difference . You have to make an adjustment to that . It 's not very clear as to what the existing use was there . I agree with Joan . I think the City should come to an agreement or an arrangement as to what they 're comfortable with . And as to the legal interpretations on it , obviously I support the City on whatever direction they take with that but it seems to me that the client is willing to take care of the issue of irresponsibility in using that access , in that case . To get the problem solved there and at the same time it would seem to me to come to a pragmatic agreement as to how many boats they can have there . I 'd _ support that . For 170 units , it doesn 't seem to me to be out of line . Although what I 'm doing is undermining the issue that we 've been dealing with with the other associations , and I realize you 're claiming you 're not an association but non-conforming use beachlots is that the issue of use in '81 versus use now . I don 't know how else to get around that since we can 't define use in '81 . Batzli : Would you support 8 to 10 boats? Or don 't you know? Farmakes: Well I have nothing to base that in . I think unless we can _ come up with some evidence to the contrary and an agreement needs to be cut between our staff and the applicant as to what is acceptable . Within the realms of safety and . . . Batzli : Okay , thank you . Steve . Emmings : I basically agree with what Jeff just said and I think that approving them for 8 to 10 boats stored and the rest of the conditions that are set out in this request and perhaps adding to it . Do you have a swimming beach there? Craig Mertz : People do swim there but it 's not a particularly attractive place . Emmings: Alright . And that 's an activity that 's gone on I supposed so that maybe should be approved . Is there a raft? Craig Mertz : Not at the moment but in the past I understand that there was . . .and I think there was one in 1981 . We have no plans to put in a raft . Emmings: Well okay , alright . So we can leave that out . Alright . So we 're going to do nothing . There 's no way to do anything but go round and round on this and so I think we just have to set it and to me what 's being requested here seems reasonable . Batzli : Okay , Matt? Ledvina : I had a question . Maybe Paul can respond to this . Does the DNR have specific requirements for maintaining access ramps to lakes , in terms of preventing a situation such as this with erosion? Krauss : I 'm actually not certain on that but we could sure find out before it gets to Council . Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 10 Ledvina : Okay . Because maybe there 's something that we can make the applicant aware of that , some standards that they can use to help improve— our situation there . If that 's possible . Let 's see , otherwise I think it appears reasonable in terms of 8 to 10 boats . There 's just the boats , these will be canoes and then they ' ll be fishing boats . Will there be _ boats on trailers and that type of thing as well? Do you anticipate that use? Craig Mertz : . . .lead them down to the water on trailers . — Ledvina : Okay . So you 'll have boats on trailers stored right on the beachlot then? — Craig Mertz: No , no . We ' ll have people coming down in the daytime and who will put their boat in the water and they may bring the trailer back _ up to the apartment parking lot or they may leave their trailer on the lot . But overnight , they have to get their boat and their trailer up to the apartment parking lot . I should mention here , when we 're throwing out this 8 to 10 , what that means to us is that there might be 8 to 10 — parked there either hooked up to the dock or beached or up on the beach itself at a given point in time but we might have 15 boats using the water . There might be 5 out in the lake and 10 on the beachlot . — Ledvina : Okay . That helps to clarify that . No further comments . Conrad : I think the applicant 's done a good job of taking care of most — of our concerns . If we can have daytime , if we can lock the gate during the daytime , I think that 's the only addition that I would impose . I think the neighbors , the two other points , I just don 't think they 're — part of this process . They 're important but I don 't think they 're something that we can deal with in our realm right now . I do have a problem approving the beachlot application that stated what the use was _ in '81 for line item 9 and 11 . Now I 'm trying to understand , does everybody else feel that that was a documented? Well I now you don 't . Some of you don 't but are we saying that that useage , on number 9 and 11 , is acceptable? Craig Mertz : Can I clarify that since . . .? Part of the trouble here was understanding the form that you have . On number 9 what we 're asserting is that in canoes there were between 8 or 10 of them overnight . Some of the people might have put them in the racks . Some of the people might have had them laying on the ground . When you get down to number 11 . _ That we are asserting that as many as 15 of the boats , or watercraft if you will , the all inclusive term , were up there overnight . So I explained it wrong . Batzli : So you had as many as 15 on the property . Watercraft . Craig Mertz : We believe in 1981 we had as many as 15 watercraft up there_ overnight . Batzli : And that would include the 8 to 10 canoes? Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 11 Craig Mertz : That would include those canoes . I think the canoe rack had a different configuration . Conrad: Okay . Then I can accept number 9 , that Craig talked about . Basically I don 't care . I think that canoes are not a major issue . Now _ my only concern is number 11 . Obviously they 've said in their statement to us that that 's not going to happen . They have a different anticipated use but I guess , the 15 boats stored , I don 't want to say that I agree with that right now . I don 't want to debate it . I just want to make sure that if they go back on what their recommended use is , that I 'm not locked into point number 11 , saying that I agree with that . Batzli : If we find 8 to 10 boats , and we 're going to grant 8 to 10 canoes , no overnight parking of boats , then that solves it . As far as if we , at least if we determine in our devine wisdom that that 's the level of . Conrad: It solves it based on our agreement . But it doesn 't solve it legally . Because if they decide that they don 't come under this ordinance , if they decide they don 't come under this ordinance I guess this is just folly anyway . Emmings: As a suggestion Ladd , maybe we could ignore the application and just say what we 're approving for them under the non-conforming beachlot in terms of what they 're written . Ahrens : It 's not really an application . Emmings: So that we don 't have to take a position on this thing . Because I feel the same way you do . Conrad: I like what you 're doing . I guess I don 't want to say we 've done a good job of backgrounding . Batzli : Well , as part of the whole original ordinance process , and people coming in here , the burden was intentionally placed on the applicant . To the extent that the applicant is unable to prove that they had 15 , we can find that we think there was only 8 to 10 . And if you want to find that you can . Emmings : Not without a rational basis you can 't . You have no basis for that whatsoever . And I don 't think . . . Batzli : Well , then your other choice is not to approve anything . Conrad: No . I think we can approve what their request is . I think we can acknowledge their beachlot application except for point number 11 . Therefore we 're acknowledging that everything on their application we may believe is true , except for point number 11 . So if they withdraw their _ recommendation use and then they go back to default some other use . We can say , well we never really said that you had 15 boats . Batzli : Okay . My comments are , I 'll buy into your proposed plan there Ladd . I don 't think they 've necessarily given us data to make a final Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 12 determination and I guess I support the City 's interpretation so I 'm going through this exercise as if they are becoming subject to our ordinance . Is there a motion? Is there any other discussion first before someone makes a motion? — Conrad: I ' ll make the motion but I don 't know what I 'm going to make the motion . They have not , are we making a motion for a non-conforming beachlot application? Is that what it is? Okay . I make a motion that we approve the non-conforming recreational beachlot application of Lakeview Hills Investment Group with the recommendations that are found on the staff report dated December 28 , 1992 . That a change in number 1 , — which would have the gate being closed or keyed also during the daytime . And then maybe a sixth point . A sixth point would state that the Planning Commission has not ruled pro or con as to number 11 on the — application itself . But all other historic information has been agreed to . Batzli : Is there a second? Emmings: I 'll second it . Batzli : Discussion . No discussion . Conrad moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Lakeview Hills Apartment Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlot with the following recommendations: 1 . Installation and maintenance of a gate which would be locked day and night ( but the residents of the complex would have lake access by keys furnished by the management ); 2 . Prohibit overnight boat dockage , prohiit overnight boat morning , and prohibit overnight storage of boats on the beach itself , except for storage of canoe in canoe racks ( application requests one canoe rack with 8 to 10 boats stored ); 3 . All other overnight boat storage would be limited to designated portions of the existing parking lots ( north of Lake Riley Blvd ) and — other designated portions of the property lying north of the apartment building; 4 . The dock length would be limited to 50 feet ; 5 . Continued use of the boat launch; 6 . Planning Commission has not ruled pro or con as to number 11 on the application itself but all other historic information has been agreed to . All voted in favor and the motion carried_ Batzli : When does this go to the City Council? Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 13 Krauss : I believe the 25th . Batzli : Thank you very' much for coming in everyone . Craig Mertz : Paul , is that February 25th? Krauss: I 'm sorry , January 25th . Mr . Chairman , before we proceed . I 'm sorry but in the hubbub of the interviews I neglected to tell you . We had Sunlink call us yesterday afternoon . Their attorneys called us to pull from them from the agenda . It 's item number 4 . Batzli : So that one 's gone , okay . PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT 2 LOTS INTO 2 LOTS AND 1 OUTLOT ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF , RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED SOUTH OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, JUST NORTH OF NEZ PERCE DRIVE , VINEWOOD ADDITION, STUART HOARN . Public Present: Name Address Julius C . Smith 7600 France Avenue So , Mpls 55435 _ Dan Rogers 6500 Nez Perce Drive David Lundahl 6501 Nez Perce Drive W . Pat Cunningham 865 Pleasant View Road Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order . Julius Smith : My name is Julius Smith . I 'm here representing the landowner to the immediate west of that property . Emmings : Who is that? Julius Smith: Frank Beddor Jr . Now I can put it in the negative or the positive . I ' ll take it in the positive . We don 't object to this , provided that it doesn 't negatively impact the lots to the west , which my client owns . He has engaged in substantial landscaping and we would hope that the City would require the same requirements on this developer who _ is being benefitted of course , because he 's getting two lots out of one , that they do of everyone else and that trees on that lot would be replaced 1 for 1 and inch for inch like they require of other developers . And we feel that he should replace all the trees that are going to be done or we should establish or the City should establish a 20 foot conservation easement certainly along our side . We 've spent a considerable amount of money landscaping the land to the west and there of course is many precedence for establishing a 20 foot conservation district where they can 't remove the trees . They 've done it with my client on several parcels . The other question , the other thing we 're concerned about is the use of Outlot A for access to Pleasant View Road . Under the initial platting , Lot 2 , the original Lot 2 was required to go to Nez Perce Road , and we don 't have any problem if both lots go to Nez Perce Road but we don 't want , we would object to any authorization allowing them to use access to Pleasant View Road along Outlot A . Since Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 14 that was prohibited before , we would like to see that prohibition remain . And make that a condition of approval . So essentially we don 't have a — problem with it provided they don 't tear all the trees out next to our lots . Our lots to the west and we would hope the City would apply the same requirements that they applied to everybody else with regard to _ trees and replacement thereof . Or if it 's not possible , because you 're going to put two houses in there , that there at least be a 20 foot conservation easement along the side , on the west . Batzli : Paul , could you respond to the tree replacement and the access on Outlot A and the buffer . Proposed buffer . Or he would like to see a buffer . - Krauss: Let me take the easy one first . There is no access being proposed to Pleasant View Road . A condition backing that up is certainly fine with staff . I believe the old driveway to Pleasant View Road , there was no anticipation of using it . It 's a remnant outlot that was left over from the subdivision . We preferred at that point that it get incorporated into adjoining lots and there was some presentations by the property owner , the developer at that point that he was going to offer that for sale to adjoining properties and apparently it 's never been done . We 're still requesting that that be done . So again , I think you can put that to bed by just adding a condition that neither of these lots should access to Pleasant View Road . As to the tree preservation issue , Mr . Smith is correct . As far as subdivisions go , we do have a tree replacement policy . We do do that . However , on single family lots , which these generally are right now . I mean we 're taking one lot and splitting them into two , typically what we do is establish tree preservation , a no cut area , around the homes to minimize cutting . That - has been done . There is a condition to that effect . It states that landscaping , tree preservation , home placement plans , shall be submitted at the time of building permit application for staff review and approval ._ As to the question of buffering single family homes in the Troendle Addition , that 's somewhat more problematic . First of all the location of the driveways that are being illustrated on the plat would preclude that . I suppose it 's possible to kick those driveways over somewhat to save additional trees . Honestly , it 's been a while since I 've been up there . Unfortunately , Kate could be here tonight . She was ill . But if there are trees on the property line , we can certainly work to incorporate some- of those to some extent into there by kicking the driveway over . But the fundamental issue of buffering between one single family home and another is not something that we 've gotten into in the past , and I really wouldn 't advocate that you launch into that for the future . These are not , I mean the homes that are built in Vineland Forest area are not insubstantial . I think the neighborhood has developed quite attractively and people typically do significant landscaping . So if there is some desire , I think Mr . Smith is right . I think there were some trees along the old Troendle driveway , and I 'm not sure who 's side of the property they 're on . _ Julius Smith: Troendle is again another bunch of lots over further west . Krauss : No , it 's this one . Oh I 'm sorry , you 're right . It 's after one more . It 's the homesite . If there are trees within 10 feet of the Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 15 property , I think we can do something like that . But it 's kind of hard to see on that drawing . But if you look at the larger sized print , the _ driveway that 's being illustrated virtually butts up against that western property line . Batzli : But there 's two driveways illustrated on this . Wouldn 't that shrink once we go with the single driveway? Krauss: Yes . Well , the condition though that 's been applied by the engineering department is only that they have a single curb cut . It gets split out into two driveways . We can , and probably ought to because it 's in our subdivision code , require that they share a common driveway beyond House number . Batzli : When it says the applicant shall utilize a single driveway access in condition 5 , that means one curb cut? That doesn 't mean one driveway? Krauss : Yeah . Ahrens : That doesn 't even make sense actually . Batzli : And then you require a cross access or driveway easement . Why would you require those things if they have two separate driveways? Krauss: Because at one point they will Y down and run together . Batzli : This is the property line there . He doesn 't come over it . Emmings : Oh , you 're right . Krauss : What you will do is you 'll have a single driveway that will branch off at some point , so there is a common section . Ahrens : That 's not how it shows on the plan . Batzli : The plan shows two and it shows . Krauss: That 's correct . The plan is wrong . This is a condition to remedy the plan . But an alternative in this is to require that you , we 're spinning our wheels with a lot of concrete here . . . If there 's a common driveway that runs something like that , then you do have more clearance . Batzli : Is the condition the way it 's worded now require the red line? Krauss : No . The green line . Ahrens: Why not require the red line? Krauss : I honestly don 't have a problem with that . Batzli : Now explain to me one more time why you would require for your green lines , why there has to be a cross easement? Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 16 _ Krauss: You 've got this common point of intersection where they 're both using the same piece of blacktop which may be on one or the other properties . Batzli : Have you looked at the way this is drawn on the map? Krauss: Yeah . Batzli : I mean this second driveway from Lot 1 never touches Lot 2 . Krauss : It doesn 't the way it 's drawn . The way it 's drawn is not the way the engineering department is asking for it to be drawn . Batzli : Okay . Krauss : I mean essentially what you do . If you see that little diagonal , this corner of the lot? Batzli : Yep . Krauss : That would be almost the center line of the common driveway . So you 'd line up 10 feet on one side of it you know . . .5 feet on the other . Batzli : I feel like I 'm not communicating well here so we ' ll go on . Conrad: You 're right . Batzli : Where were we? Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? Dan Rogers: My name is Dan Rogers . I live at 6500 Nez Perce Drive , which is basically on the inside of the corner that you can just see of — Nez Perce there . A number of the residents there are concerned , myself included , about the type of homes I guess . We would also like to see that those homes conform to the covenants that we have conformed to , due to the proximity of this lot to our development . I 'm wondering if , has there been any type of plan as far as the size and style of homes submitted yet? Batzli : Let me ask something . Are you to the south of this or right to the west in Vineland? Or are you across the street? Can you point there? — Dan Rogers : I 'm there . Batzli : Oh , you 're across the Nez Perce . Okay . There 's been nothing it regard to style or cost . Emmings: We can 't impose covenants from one development onto somebody elses land . Don Rogers : Right , I understand . From listening earlier that this portion was originally a part of Vineland Forest . Did I hear that correctly? Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 17 Krauss : As I recall , it was one of the lots that was split off from Vineland Forest but I think Frank had an interest in it . Julius Smith: No , that isn 't correct . This property , if you don 't mind . . . The property line for Vineland Forest was here . It stopped . This was all one piece and when Van Eckhout did then with Vineland Forest , he bought this chunk from this guy to get access from Vineland Forest out to Pleasant View . And he had three lots here plus a long road coming through . During his hearings , that road was eliminated and Mr . Beddor objected to that road and so Mr . Van Eckhout had three lots here and Frank bought those lots from him . This used to be all one piece so this never was part of the Vineland Forest property . It was a totally different ownership . Then this parcel split in two with the back half going here . This was required as a part of the Vineland Forest plat . Krauss : That was done in the Vineland Forest plat . Julius Smith: So that there would be an access , you know however that might develop . So that this lot would come south and not go up to Pleasant View . Dan Rogers : I 'm not terribly familiar with how everything works at the City . Is it the Planning office then that approves housing plans? Krauss : Well , yeah . The Building Department does review housing plans . We review them as well . We review them against Code minimums . That doesn 't get at what your issue is . Typically covenants , and I 'm not sure what the Vineland Forest covenants are , is that the house value should be $180 ,000 .00 or whatever . Dan Rogers : Or square footage . Krauss: A certain size and have so many garages . That 's not something that 's enforceable by the City . Nor is it frankly legal for us to demand that there be a certain value . The market dictates that it generally happens but we can 't assure you of that fact . Dan Rogers: Okay , thank you . Batzli : Let me see if there 's anyone else that has a comment first okay? Yes , please . Dave Lundahl : My name is Dave Lundahl . I live at 6501 Nez Perce . I am the lot exactly south of there . The first thing I would say is that I would , I guess I would like to see the red line driveway . I would much prefer that to the separate driveways . All of the trees and stuff that are where that driveway goes right now , happen to be some quite large oaks so I 'm disappointed to see those go . I understand that probably can 't be changed . But I would also ask if there is something that can be done to preserve some of the trees along the lot line on my side of this piece of property . I 'm also concerned of course about what type of home is going to go in there and will it conform to the rest of the neighborhood since there are only going to be 2 homes alongside of a Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 18 — development that 's already there . It doesn 't seem unreasonable to me that we ask the developer to conform to similar type convenants . Batzli : Well you certainly should talk to the developer and see if you can , it 's something that we can 't necessarily do but often times neighbors do have a large impact on a developer 's plans so . Dave Lundahl : Is there any information about the number of vehicles per _ household that we could expect that would help us to insure that there 's only one single driveway there? Emmings : The number of vehicles per house are the number of spaces in the garage plus 1 . If it 's anything like my neighborhood . If you have z. 1 car garage , there 's 2 cars . If you have a 2 car garage , there 's 3 cars . Conrad: I don 't think there 's anything you can hang your hat on to help in that issue . The issues you can deal with are what we 're talking about right here . You 're kind of don 't have control . Dave Lundahl : Well , I would reiterate my desire to see the red line type driveway recommended . Batzli : Thank you very much . Yes sir . Julius Smith: Just as a point of clarification . It 's my understanding there 's no access to Pleasant View authorized by this and also that tree replacement . . .ordinances don 't apply to single family plats . Did I read _ that right? Paul , is that what it says? Krauss: Jules , they have not been applied to single family lots . Once you 're looking to site a home , once the plat , the lots are created , we - require that roads be moved to save trees . We require that lots be reconfigured to save trees . Where a developer has asked to cut them down , we require replacement . But when individual homes have been built _ it 's one of those things where something has to give someplace and what 's been done in the past is that the home is allowed to go in . They establish a no cut zone around the home and make sure that the equipment doesn 't go outside of that area but you have to make a lot buildable . Julius Smith: Well , except they 're going to cut down all the trees along the west line . Krauss : Well I think that can be addressed . Batzli : Well can we make it a condition that the driveway that we approve minimizes disturbance of the trees at the entry point onto Nez Perce and on the western line? Krauss : I think that you can do better than that . Frankly , I don 't offer this as an excuse but this was , there was something that I caught reading this tonight . I mean we have an ordinance that says when you have flag lots and you share common driveways , that you use a single driveway . That it be paved 20 feet wide to a 7 ton design I believe . In Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 19 this case , I mean it doesn 't , they checked with the Fire Marshal . The Fire Marshal was willing to accept this because both homes are within 150 feet of the street which is the distance they can lay a hose . But yes , I think in the interest of tree preservation , you can insist that they share a common driveway over Lot 2 . Going down to a single driveway on _ Lot 1 and that that driveway be designed to avoid impact to the trees as much as possible . Batzli : Okay . Is there any other public comment? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Ledvina moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli : Discussion , Ladd . Conrad : Are we obligated to allow that lot split? Krauss : It has no variances . It conforms to your ordinances . Conrad: Just reading through here . The driveway that gets to Lot 1 , is that an easement? Krauss: No . They 've actually platted it as a neck . Conrad : And we can allow that? I guess my biggest problem with this is that access that is forced into the tree line . And so if we can solve that problem , I guess I am comfortable with it . But I 'm not sure what we 're solving here . You know I 'm saying those words and I haven 't given an absolute , I want to save this . I guess we 're coming up loose to staff . Ledvina : We don 't really know where the trees are . You know if we moved it one way or the other , that 's impossible . Krauss: Well however though , when you go from having two 10 or 15 foot wide driveways to having a single common 20 and you lose the dead space inbetween , you 've got a lot more flexibility . Batzli : Okay , Matt . Ledvina : A couple of technical things here . The subdivision number , is that 92-13 or are we using 93 numbers now? Or is this a holdover from last year? Krauss: It was submitted last year . Ledvina: Okay . And then condition number 3 . There 's some verbage missing . On the first line it should read , the applicant shall dedicate to the City by final plat an additional 7 feet of road right-of-way . That was in Dave 's report but didn 't get in here . Krauss : Well actually no . If I remember right , Pleasant View Road runs on the bias through there and the condition that we 've been using is Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 20 — actually accurate . That they will dedicate over Outlot A whatever it — takes to make 40 foot on centerline . Ledvina : Okay . So you 're . . .7 feet , you just want . Krauss: That 's the approximate amount but it varies from one side to the other . Ledvina : Okay , that 's fine then . Batzli : Then just take out the word "of" . _ Ledvina: Yeah . Additional road right-of-way , okay . Because it looked like something was missing and I thought that could have been the problem . I guess I would generally support the discussions regarding the-- access or preventing access to Pleasant View and then the driveway situation . Batzli : That 's it? Okay , thank you . Steve . Emmings: I have nothing additional and I agree with the comments that _ have been made so far . Batzli : Jeff . Farmakes: I have no further comments . Batzli : Joan . _ Ahrens: No comments . Batzli : Brian . Okay . Thank you . Can we force this condition number 4 to happen? Krauss: I don 't believe so . We had the same problem in the past . I 'd — like to double check that with the City Attorney . Batzli : But we wouldn 't necessarily have to approve this if we didn 't _ like the fact that this had an Outlot A in it , correct? Or because everything else meets our ordinance , we would have to approve it? Even though we 've got this funny little Outlot A sticking here . Could we require that that be part of something? — Krauss: You can certainly try and I wouldn 't be opposed to it . I tried to get that done 3 years ago . It 's certainly , if it 's legally upholdable— and we ' ll let the City Attorney discuss that . Batzli : I just don 't like to let them split this and leave this problem _ here . Krauss: Well it has no purpose . We had a condition , in fact I think you might have approved the condition , with Van Eckhout originally when this — went through 3 years ago . At that time Van Eckhout made representations that he had every intention of selling Outlot A to the property owner Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 21 either to the east or the west but if we obligated him to sell it , then it wasn 't worth very much . Well apparently that 's never been resolved . Ahrens: It 's not going to be worth anything . . . Krauss: Of course not . I 'd support you trying it and if it 's not justifiable , our attorney will tell us to pull it out . Batzli : Well , I would like to make it stronger than what you have it worded I guess . Not should be deeded but it shall be deeded prior to giving them building permits or something . Emmings: Or final plat approval? Batzli : Yeah . Something where , this is kind of wishy washy and we don 't solve the problem that we have hanging here . Krauss : Or it shall be deeded and combined . Ahrens : Why do , if we 're not going to give them the access , what do we care what they do with it? Krauss: What do we care what? Ahrens: What happens to Outlot A . Batzli : I guess we don 't want little fingers all over the city . Krauss: When you have remnant parcels , they 're not maintained . Certainly nobody 's going to mow that thing . It 's the old driveway . It 's no man 's land . Ahrens : But there 's no incentive for him to take half of it either . Krauss: No , and then what happens when is it goes tax forfeit after 7 years . Emmings: And one of the neighbors buys it . Ahrens : Yeah , one of the neighbors buys it anyway . Batzli : So then we live with it for 7 years? I guess I 'd rather clean it up when we have the opportunity . Ahrens : If you can force them to sell his land? I doubt that you can do that . Julius Smith: Hasn 't Oultot A in fact been sold to the owner of Lots 1 and 2? I believe it has . Krauss: That 's the issue . Julius Smith: I think it has been I mean . Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 22 — Krauss : It 's part of those lots . _ Julius Smith: Mr . Van Eckhout has sold this to this guy . Krauss : So what you 've done is you 've eliminated the problem over Lots 1 and 2 but you still have the problem over the remainder . Julius Smith: Right . So when you say combining , you mean Outlot A with — Lot , what is this 1? Is that what you 're talking about? Krauss : Either that one or the one that 's labeled as Cunningham to the . Julius Smith: Well of course Cunningham doesn 't own it but the guy who owns this owns Outlot A . Krauss: That 's not clear . Ahrens: What if they don 't want to buy it? What if the neighbors don 't want to buy it? You can 't force them to sell something that somebody , then you 're forcing somebody to buy it . Emmings : Well how about making it part of Lot 1 , to give Lot 1 responsibility for what happens to it . Taxes and everything else . He may have more incentive to try and get a deal with one of the neighbors if he doesn 't want it . - Krauss: Sure . Batzli : See , I just don 't like creating an outlot here that 's you know . Ahrens : I think Steve 's solution is the best one . I don 't think we can force him to sell it and force somebody else to buy it . I guess we just - have to hook it onto another lot and make him maintain it . Emmings: Then he ' ll have to pay taxes on it and everything else until he_ does something else with it . Ahrens: Right . Emmings: Except the only trouble with that is , it would make him go through another proceeding to split it off . Well , they 'd have to wouldn 't they? Ahrens: Is this registered land? Emmings: Well , wouldn 't they have to go through another platting to makE it a separate parcel to sell it? Ahrens : No . I don 't think so . Emmings : Do it by metes and bounds? Krauss : Sure . Metes and bounds . . .you 're not creating a new lot . Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 23 Emmings: I wonder what the applicant will think of this . Too bad he didn 't show . Conrad: That will show him . Emmings : Let 's turn the lots too while we 're at it . Batzli : Okay . Otherwise I support the language to have the common driveway and preserve as many trees as we can to the west and to the south and where the driveway . . . That 's all I have . Is there a motion? Or you want to discuss first? Emmings: Yeah . What do you want to do with Outlot A? And then do you really . Batzli : I don 't want to allow the preservation of an Outlot that they 're just screwing around with and they 're not going to finish this piece up . I don 't feel like this is good planning to let them create a new outlot . Emmings : But do we gain anything by making it a part of Lot 1? Batzli : Well I think you force the issue that the applicant is going to go to the Council and say , I can 't sell this with Lot 1 . Or at least it 's going to , it will force them to do something with it . I think . Emmings: Well , who 's going to own Outlot A? That 's what , I 'm not clear on that . Pat Cunningham: That 's why I 'm here . I 'd like to . Emmings : Who are you? Pat Cunningham : I 'm Pat Cunningham . Emmings : And you live? Pat Cunningham: I 'm directly to the east . Emmings : Oh okay . Have you talked to him? Pat Cunningham: Yes . I 've talked to him . I 've tried to buy it for the last couple of years and I got a call about 2 months ago from Mr . Van Eckhout , I think you pronounce it . He said , I 'm not going to sell it you because I can make more money selling it to somebody else . Ahrens: Who does he figure he 's going to sell it to? Batzli : He sold it to the person that 's splitting these lots . Pat Cunningham: He sold it to the first , the larger of the two I 'm guessing , and that man owns , as I understand it . . . Julius Smith: Is it my understanding that the guy who owns Lot 2 is not the same person who owns Lot 1 anymore? Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 24 Krauss : No . Julius Smith: Then perhaps the owner of Lot 2 also owns this . Krauss : Actually my understanding is the individual that 's buying Lot 1 is also buying Lot 2 to build a home for his mother . Emmings : He couldn 't own Lot 2 now because there is no Lot 2 now . Krauss: It 's in one ownership . It 's one parcel . Julius Smith : This whole parcel has got , there are two lots . Krauss: Right . Julius Smith: I 'm talking about the old plat . The original one . This has been divided into two lots . Now they want to divide Lot 2 of the original one into Lots 1 and 2 and making the new plat . Krauss : Right , exactly . Julius Smith: My question is , Outlot A , the fellow who owned Lot 2 before this plat . I mean the guy who 's platting it , Lot 2 of the old plat . Owns Outlot A as well . You can 't very well , if you put these two lots together , he 's going to have access and I don 't know how . Krauss: That 's not clear to me Jules . I think that this outlot is stiles merged with this underlying lot . Julius Smith: That 's right . And that 's why you almost have to leave it an outlot because if you say we don 't want an outlot . It 's got to be put with this lot . Krauss: Well , but what the Planning Commission seems to be saying is , why let it be an outlot at all . Why not make somebody take responsibility for it? Julius Smith: I don 't know that you could force somebody to sell it though . Krauss: No , but you don 't have to allow it to be replatted and maintaining it 's outlot status . - Julius Smith: You could just leave it as nothing . Krauss : You can make it part of Lot 1 . Emmings: But what do we gain by that? It was my suggestion and I 'm not so sure we really gained anything by it . Because it still is going to bE- owned . Someone 's still going to have to pay taxes on it . I was thinkinc we could . Batzli : But that person 's right there . Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 25 Emmings: What do you mean? Batzli : Well if you hook it up with Lot 1 , whoever 's in that house is going to own it . Krauss : They don 't have the ability to just sever it and forget about paying taxes on it . It 's part of their lot . Batzli : It 's part of their house . They 're going to pay taxes on it . Emmings: Maybe we 'd be doing Mr . Cunningham a favor if we do it that way . Ahrens: This underlying lot , this Lot 1 right here . Batzli : The original Lot 1 . Ahrens : The original Lot 1 . Who owns that? Batzli : Do we know? Julius Smith: A fellow by the name of Edwards used to own it . I don 't know if he still does . He was the platter , he was the one who did the original split into two lots . Batzli : Well from a sound planning practices viewpoint Paul , should we hook it up with Lot 1 or not? Krauss: I 'd prefer that you get rid of it one way or the other . Either we force their hand into merging it with an adjoining lot , if that 's legally justifiable . I think probably that 's questionable . Or you eliminate the outlot status and combine it with Lot 1 and put the onous on that property owner to resolve it by selling it or maintaining it . Ahrens: That 's what you have to do . Batzli : I guess I 'd , oh okay . Yes . Julius Smith: I have only one concern with that . If you split , if you put that Outlot A into Lot , whatever his new one is , Lot 1 of the new plat , that outlot , that Lot 1 is going to be an L shaped lot and I don 't believe the city has bought the access onto Pleasant View Road and I 'm not so sure that if his lot abutts Pleasant View Road you can stop him from using it . If it 's a separate lot , you can prohibit him from doing that . Emmings : But if we make it a condition of the plat , can 't we do that? Tell him he 's got to have his access on Nez Perce . Krauss : Yes , for sure . That 's true . I mean you 've already resolved that . Ahrens: We 're already doing that . Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 26 - Emmings: That 's a condition of the plat . He 's asking for a plat and - we 're making that a condition . Do you think that 's alright? Julius Smith: Well yeah , if he agrees . He in a sense is giving up his right to the access to Pleasant View . . . - Emmings: Well but that 's even what he 's drawn on his own plat . So that 's what he wants . We 're not making him do anything he hasn 't . Batzli : I guess what I would recommend is that we say , the remaining portion of Outlot A should be deeded or combined with one of the adjacent parcels , or be combined into Lot 1 prior to final plat approval . Emmings : I like that . Batzli : Is there any other discussion? Is there a motion? Emmings : I ' ll make the motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision 092-13 with conditions in the staff report 1 , 2 and 3 as they exist , and striking the word "of" in number 3 , as discusses in Matt 's discussion . And number 4 will read that Outlot A , striking the words "remaining portion" , that Outlot A should be deeded or combined to - one of the adjacent parcels or be combined with Lot 1 prior to final plat approval . And then conditions 5 thru 8 will stay as they are in the staff report . There will be a new number 9 that will say that neither - Lot 1 nor Lot 2 shall have direct access to Pleasant View Road . And a number 10 that says that the Lots 1 and 2 shall share a single driveway and the location of that driveway shall be submitted for approval to city staff with the intention being that the trees along the west lot line of the two lots shall be preserved to the extent possible . Ahrens : Second . - Batzli : Any discussion? Ledvina : I think this is one item , I think you used the word should in your . Emmings: Shall . Change should to shall . Ledvina : Okay . For item number 4 . Batzli : Would you like to , I think that our neighbor to the south indicated there were some trees there . Would you like to extend your motion on the driveway access to try and be considered to the trees on _ that side as well , or are you just concerned about this west side? Emmings : I 'm concerned about the west side only because we 've got an opportunity by the location of the driveway and I don 't know what . They - do have to submit a tree removal plan right? Krauss : Yes . - Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 27 Emmings : So you 're going to have some input and you can look out for the neighbor to the south maybe to some extent there? Krauss : We can try , yes . But we should be aware of the fact that these lots are big enough to accommodate a 60 foot wide home and the increased sideyard setback on a neck lot , which goes from 10 feet to 20 feet . So you 've got to assume that it 's probably going to be down to the minimums . You 'll have a home 20 feet back from the property line . Batzli : But they 're going to have 20 feet of buffering from the property line . Krauss: Yeah , and what we try to do is to make sure that as much of that 20 feet as possible gets preserved because you don 't just cut it off their foundation line . There 's usually abutment that runs around it . Batzli : Any other discussion on the motion? Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #92-13 with the following conditions: 1 . The proposed house location meets the flag lot requirements . 2 . A landscaping , tree preservation , and home placement plans shall be submitted at the time of the building permit application for staff review and approval . 3 . The applicant shall dedicate to the City by final plat additional road right-of-way on Outlot A along Pleasant View Road to arrive at one-half the total right-of-way of 40 feet contiguous from the north line of Lot 2 , Block 1 , Edwards/Vogel Addition . 4 . Outlot A shall be deeded or combined to one of the adjacent parcels or be combined with Lot 1 prior to final plat approval . 5 . The applicant shall utilize a single driveway access onto Nez Perce Drive . A cross-access or driveway easement shall be prepared guaranteeing access and maintenance responsibilities for the two parcels . 6 . The City will provide and install individual sanitary sewer and water services to the property line at the time a building permit is issued for Lots 1 and 2 , Vinewood Addition . At the time of building permit issuance for Lots 1 and 2 , a connection charge in the amount of $7 ,907 .44 ( 1993 balance ) shall be collected . 7 . The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with modifying any manholes or catch basins as a result of the driveway access onto Nez Perce Drive . 8 . The applicant shall contribute $1 ,800 . to the City for future extension of Nez Perce Drive to Pleasant View Road . Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 28 9 . Neither Lot 1 nor Lot 2 shall have direct access to Pleasant View Road . 10 . Lots 1 and 2 shall share a single driveway and the location of that driveway shall be submitted for approval by city staff with the intention being that the trees along the west lot line of the two lots shall be preserved to the extent possible . All voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli : When does this go to City Council? Krauss : January 25th . Batzli : Thank you very much for coming in . PUBLIC HEARING: SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST TO LOCATE A MONUMENT SIGN WITHIN THE REQUIRED SETBACK LOCATED AT 600 WEST 79TH STREET , ON PROPERTY ZONED BH , HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT , AMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK . Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report . Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order . Kim Jacobsen: I 'm Kim Jacobsen . I 'm representing the Americana Bank . Randy Schultz , the President of the bank gives his condolensces . He couldn 't be here . He 's got a bad back tonight and he 's in bed and maybe going under surgery but needless to say , we did request that the sign be approved as I guess we 're presenting it now . We did go through the City Council and we went through with the Planning Commission . We never tried to do anything that allowed us to be 2 feet from the property line . We - came from Market Square . It 's a PUD . If you can recall , we were here once before with a development . During that time we had a monument sign . It was located within a few feet of the property line there . When we came down to Market Blvd , we again represented a monument sign . Never tried to deceived anyone but we ended up with a monument sign and built base as part of the general construction package where the contractor built the masonary base , which happens during the construction . Came at - that point to apply for a sign permit . To put the signage on top of the base assuming we had no problems . Everything had gone through . Construction plans had been reviewed . Had been approved by staff . We looked at the situation and I guess what we 've got to say is that we don 't feel we 're presenting a problem and not making a precedence out of this case . I brought along some photographs . One is the photograph of our base , which is sitting here . But I think the important thing to notice about it is that we are about 20 feet from the street . We 're a good 12 feet from the sidewalk and I guess if you look real hard in the background of this photograph , you can see the Market Square sign . The - one I 've got a photograph of is the one that is on Market Blvd . It sits within a couple feel of the sidewalk . Within 10 feet of the street . It just seems like , to the average person , a precedence has been set . I mean_ they look at that sign and then they look at what the Americana is proposing and the situation we have been brought into , I don 't see that Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 29 anyone is going to interpret that you 're breaking any precedence or setting any precedence and I think that from where we 're at , we all got into it innocently . So what I 'd like to do is pass along a couple of photographs . Way in the background you can see the Market Blvd sign . This is a photograph of the sign . Emmings : Can I just ask . Is Miles Lord one of the people that are going to be on the sign? Kim Jacobsen : Yes . Emmings : I have to disqualify myself . I ' ll get out of here because I work with him on a daily basis and there 's no way I can take part . Batzli : Okay . Kim Jacobsen: And this just shows a picture of the bank . The sign that we proposed was 9 feet in height . I did some drawings real quickly . The sign company did a drawing that has what was proposed . . . We add about 3 feet in height to get to this cap and I guess I don 't feel it does anything for the signage itself . What we tried to do , after looking at this proposal , and I 'll be very honest with you . This was the first drawing that was done and presented to the owners . We looked at it and decided that heightwise it was very obstructive . We took 3 feet off and lowered the top down . The building also is housing a lot of professional people . Right now we 've got 2 law firms that have taken tendency . Of the two signs I feel overall this sign is less intrusive for the city . It fits the building well and so that 's why we 're still asking that we get this signage approved and allow the variance to leave the base where it 's at and put the sign on it . When you drive along there are no . . .to the automobile . At least that would be the one thing that if we thought there was something that would cause us some problems , we would definitely say we should move it . Ledvina : If you were required to move the sign , could you meet the conditions of the sign ordinance with that 10 foot requirement? Kim Jacobsen: Yeah . To move that sign , what has happened has been that we ended up putting more mechanical equipment . They upgraded their = mechanical equipment and to do that we swaled the sidewalk around . To move it back , we 're going to lose that sidewalk on that side of the building which , that would be the worst case . We can move it back , yes but we 're going to lose our pedestrian walk from that side of the = building in . Ledvina : And that parking lot . Kim Jacobsen: From that parking lot coming back on through . Ledvina : But you would still locate it in that relative position? Kim Jacobsen : That would be my guess is yes . I think they would opt to locate it , just moving it back that extra 8 feet or whatever the actual measurement happens to be . Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 30 _ Batzli : Any other questions of the applicant right now? Farmakes: I have a question . What was the thinking behind adding height to the base . . .top? You 're saying that the trade-off happened between the two drawings that you 're showing . - Kim Jacobsen : We 're still kept within the 9 foot height whether we put the roof on it or not . Farmakes : . . .the lettering or? Kim Jacobsen: No . Farmakes: You woke up one morning and decide to . Kim Jacobsen: Well let 's back it up . When a preliminary set of drawings was done for the city , the signage was not a developed part . It was developed to the point that we knew there was going to be signage . We wanted a monument sign but if you look at the quality of the sketch that was presented and everything else , it was a concept . After the building was fully developed we came back and said , we feel the sign is going to look better with a base to match the building on it . During constructior- drawings it was represented that way . Like I said , it did appear on all the construction documents that were approved through the city and that 's why when all of a sudden out of the blue we came to , as soon as we were _ going to put the signage on the top is when we came to apply for the sigr permit and that 's when we were notified that we were at , you know too close to the property line . Farmakes: This is a while ago and I tried to read the information to bring me up to date but as I recall we had a discussion about that at the time . One of the representatives of the bank was asked , what additional signage would be going on there , and they thought a couple of major tenants . And I see that there 's a lot more major tenants in the building . Kim Jacobsen: I think it 's always been represented that there would be approximately 6 tenants . Farmakes : Right . But I guess the difference wasn 't how many tenants but I believe in the discussion as I recall it , that it was the major tenant that would be built rather than a monument sign . - Kim Jacobsen: I 've got to be honest with you , I don 't remember that Jeff . Just to be totally honest . Farmakes : I see that in addition to the tenants , the 6 tenants , that 's why I 'm assuming the 6 tenants . . .copy is referring to the total of 6 rectangles underneath the Americana Bank . There 's also an instant cash - card . Again , I 'm going to ask , was the base added to raise the type . Dic whoever was advising you suggest that you raise the height of the sign? Kim Jacobsen: No . Not honestly . The base was put on from an architectural standpoint . Not from a sign standpoint . We felt more thar, Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 31 anything was we wanted it , the sign as I see the sketch originally , did not tie itself to the building other than the green roof on the top . And we felt overall that the sign improved itself a lot by putting a base on it and that was what I guess the thinking process was through it . We architecturally wanted to tie it to the ground a little bit harder , like the building has been . Batzli : Let me ask you something that 's not intended to be argumentative but it may sound that way . You 've just gone through telling us that all this was preliminary and conceptual and everything else and yet you want us to believe that the location was dead set in concrete , if you 'll forgine the pun , even though everything else about the sign is conceptual . Kim Jacobsen: I think the size , we 're real close to that so conceptually yeah . I mean we were conceptually very close to that placement . And that 's as best as we can say . Is that we laid it there . We looked at it and overall I think that , it was not an issue to be very honest with you as we went through it . No one at staff noticed it . We didn 't even pick it up as we looked through the plans . Batzli : Okay . Well we ' ll probably have more questions for you once we close the public hearing . Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission at this time? The record will show that there 's only planning staff and the applicant in the room . Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Batzli : Joan , do you have comments , questions? Ahrens : You know I don 't know which sign would look better , to tell you the truth . I mean I know the issue is . Batzli : Well let me ask a question . Are we even , you know the sign process . Permit process . We 're not a part of that right now . The only issue that we 're really looking at is the variance? Al-Jaff : The variance . Batzli : Okay . Do you want us to look at what kind of sign they put up? Al-Jaff : It would be helpful . What we will approve is what you approved originally . Batzli : Okay , unless we tell you differently? Al-Jaff : Correct . Batzli : Okay . Ahrens: So the variance is just on the location of the sign? Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 32 - Al-Jaff : Correct . And the height not to exceed 8 feet . I just heard the applicant mention that it 's 9 feet? Kim Jacobsen: No . Right now it 's only at . . .6 feet . It was if we added the top on it . . .3 feet if you added the top . - Ahrens : I realize it 's a self-imposed hardship by the applicant but I 'm not sure it 's a real big deal , considering the location of the Market - Square sign . Batzli : From the standpoint of setting a precedent you mean? Would you _ want others to be able to do this? At least in a PUD we can rationalize it 's in a PUD , can we not? Ahrens: Ordinarily I would agree with you but they are , they have the base and they have all the mechanicals in place . Batzli : So to play devil 's advocate . In order to get a variance you - just have to put in part of the project and then apply for the permit? Ahrens: No . No . Batzli : How do we distinguish this? Ahrens : What I think that they 've done , I think they 've done a nice job with the building itself . I think that , I don 't see this as an intentional attempt to . Batzli : I don 't either . I 'm just trying to play devil 's advocate and figure out , how do we justify giving them this other than we think it looks pretty or it doesn 't hurt . I 'd like to come up with some sort of rational if we decide to approve this that would allow us to say , we 're - allowing this because of some rational reason that we can come up with . Ahrens: Because I think it does not have a negative impact on the . . . - building or the project . Or on any other project that 's going to be developed along here . And the location , as I understand this is similar , the location of this signage is similar to the location of the Market Square sign which is across the street , is that correct? Batzli : And so you may be going on the condition of granting a variance that allows , made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet? Ahrens: Yeah , that 's it . Batzli : Jeff . Well let me back up . Did you have a preference as to requiring them to put the original pitched element on there? Ahrens : I think we should keep the original pitched element on . Batzli : Then they may require a variance for the height . Ahrens: Variance for the height . Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 33 Kim Jacobsen: We could probably lower the pitch . Ahrens: They only have the base on . I don 't know why they can 't lower it . Kim Jacobsen: . . .somewhere within this we can live . . . Batzli : Does that still tie it into the building? Does the pitch look silly then compared to the building if you lower the pitch? Kim Jacobsen: . . . I 'm speaking off the top of my head . . . Batzli : Okay . Jeff . Farmakes: This started out where I thought that they were adjusting pretty good to our original comments on the building . I particularly liked the plaza that they were putting in there because I thought it was an important spot in town aesthetically . As the actual building went into fruition , the plaza became less and less . I 'm not sure if they were all modifications but in essence it became a little less , by the time it got to Council it became less of a plaza . I 'm looking at the architecture for the sign and I guess I can say the same thing . The sign has been downplayed as far as architecturally . It now becomes more of a utilitarian sign . It 's reminiscent of when you go up to the cabin up north and you see the listing . They 're just sort of chalked full of little items and I 'm assuming that if a potential client or professional service there , just driving by and that person tells them I 'm in the Americana Community Bank building , as many of them do . You 're looking for some identification there that Miles Lord practices here or you 're looking for Advantage Travel . I guess what disturbs me , going back to the generic implication of this is that we often see these types of signs where oh yeah , it 's a couple of tenants . We 're going to have a couple major tenants in here . And you look at that and you 're saying , well there 's 3 names there . That 's pretty conservative . You don 't see much of an impact from that . But when it actually comes down to it , in an effort to sell many of these leases , you see a motivation on the part of the leasing agent of the building to offer signage . To offer advertising . I question whether or not the professional services that every professional in the building has to have a shingle outside . It becomes more of an advertising issue than a location issue . Particularly if it 's a predominant building . They do it downtown all the time . I mean you don 't see a big list of shingles outside the Northwest Bank building and there are hundreds of professionals in that building . Ahrens : Actually there 's one . . .Minnetonka City Bank . . .brand new building in Glen Lake and they have , there are seven attorneys in there and other professionals . . .and there is no signage whatsoever out in front . It just says Minnetonka City Bank on the front of the bank building . It 's a beautiful building too and they don 't have any identification of anybody who 's in that building . Farmakes : Well certainly , if a client 's trying to find you , it often says I 'm in the so and so Medical Arts building . Or so and so bank building . So I think as a matter of practicality for the argument of Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 34 identification , the City isn 't that big and the issue of identification - and location seems to me , if you 're identifying the bank building , you 've done 99% of the job that 's required . I 'm a little worried that it looks like everything but the kitchen sink is tacked on to this sign . As to the mathematics of raising the base , getting rid of the top , if you put the top back on and keep the base where it is , whether it was intentional or an oversight , that you ignored the signage plan , and I recall the discussion . That was an item to be taken care of at a later date specifically of what that signage was going to be . So I guess I don 't have , I 'm not uncomfortable with the staff 's position on that . It is a significant difference , and again I think it 's unfortunate that it _ becomes a much more utilitarian sign that as a part of the architecture . As I recall the original concept of that building , that 's what the problem with the building was . It was a very utilitarian building . Very massive and very , what I 'd describe to be as an unfriendly structure . And I 'm glad that you re-looked at that issue and changed the building . I think that I 've heard comments of people going through town that they like the building . They like the look that it 's projecting , and I 'd like- to see that in signage . I realize what we 're discussing here is , or what I understand the issue to be is that somebody went ahead and built this thing up according to your plan on a misunderstanding and that 's where its was in the plan , and basically somebody came back from the City and said , hey . This is not conforming with our ordinance . So you 're trying to get it to be used . Being that it 's sitting there right now as we speak . I guess I would , as a pragmatic situation , since this is , as I understand it . Paul , has this been approved? With the 6 clients . Is that part of what was worked out on the City Council level? Al-Jaff : No . Krauss: There was no deviation from what you saw . Farmakes : So as I recall the discussion , and again we were going to deal with this at a later date once they applied for the signs , it was being brought forth that , as I recall the conversation , a couple of major tenants in the building were going to have signs . Krauss: Well you have the illustration . Is that in their packet? Al-Jaff : Yes . Batzli : But we don 't have the Minutes . Al-Jaff: This is what you approved . Batzli : From what we discussed . Farmakes: Well that drawing conforms to my recollection of our discussion . Krauss : Right . But there was no intent to bring it back again . That was going to be the approved sign . Al-Jaff: Two tenants only . Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 35 Farmakes : But again , what I understood it to be is that we we 're going to have a couple of names there , and not 6 which is a considerably percentage increase . In addition to that , there• is an additional advertising item on the sign . Is that also consistent with what we 're doing with monument signs? Krauss : You mean the instant cash logo? Farmakes: Yeah . Krauss: That 's arguable . I mean we 've allowed people to have . . . Farmakes: Is that a business logo or service logo in addition to? Krauss: It 's probably a service logo . It 's probably like Target sticking Pharmacy up in the right hand corner of the building . It 's an advertisement for one of their services . Ahrens: At least it 's not an ear . Farmakes: I 'm going to stop taking up the time here so we can get going but I really am concerned about these monument signs . That when we actually leave the general concept with you and then they actually come and are built , they are different . And the reason that they 're different is pretty obvious . There 's a motivation factor on the part of the leasing agent to give as much as possible to get the lease . What you get is everything and the kitchen sink tacked onto these signs . I think we should be much more specific up front as to what 's going to happen . Krauss: I think you were . I mean I think you approved that sign . Those were the reader boards that you approved on that sign . We were quite specific . I mean this was an attractive looking building . The sign was part of the package . That was the sign . Now the sign got shifted , and argueably there 's some question as to where the base actually might wind up but it shouldn 't change what it looks like . Nobody ever gave anybody any authorization to do that . Farmakes: I ' ll leave it with that . I think I 've made my point . Batzli : Matt . Thanks Jeff . Ledvina : I agree with Jeff 's comments as it relates to the signage . I would support the original design of the sign but I think the key to the variance is where is the sign located . I have a question for Sharmin . Is the Market Square sign , is that non-conforming or is that? Al-Jaff : Part of the PUD . So the setbacks were different than . Ledvina : But the setbacks would not meet the requirements that would be imposed on Americana Bank? Krauss: In a standard zoning district , no . Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 36 Ledvina : Okay . So there have been , you know just from a general perspective , there are other signs in the area that are variant of the _. ordinance? Krauss : Relative to location . — Ledvina : Right . Krauss: But you shouldn 't forget the fact that Market Square was required to come in with sign covenants . There 's only one pylon sign on the entire property and I think there was a limitation , we weren 't going to allow . _. Al-Jaff : Outlot A was going to have one . Krauss : One , but there 's two or three lots , outlots that were going to have nothing . So there was a give and take on that one . Ledvina : Okay . And then in terms of the specific location of the sign , are there any utilities that are directly below it or how close are the nearest utilities for that? Al-Jaff : There aren 't any utilities underneath it . But we 're still requiring that should you approve this , that the applicant enter into an encroachment agreement . Ledvina : But how close are the nearest utilities? Do we know that , in terms of the water or the sewers or anything there electrical? Al-Jaff : There aren 't any utilities . Ledvina : Okay . Alright . I think that this does qualify for a variance .— I would support that . I guess looking at , you know some of the findings that the staff is contending that really don 't apply . I think that you can stretch the criteria and make these , you know make the variance allowable here for items a and also item c . That 's my opinion . So I guess specifically then I would support the variance with the two conditions that the staff has recommended here . Batzli : So you would limit it to the Americana Bank and then the two tenants? Ledvina : Right . Yeah , I think that we should go back to what we originally approved in terms of what we thought was going to be on that sign . And then also the actual , the design in terms of the pitched roof ._ Where the pitched element of that sign . Batzli : Joan , I don 't even know if I asked you . Did I ask you whether you wanted 2 or allow more names on there? Ahrens : I think we should approve the sign as it was approved originally with just the location . — Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 37 Krauss: I think you understand there 's also a significant difference in size . The sign . • Batzli : It 's 5 feet bigger? Krauss : Well it grew by 10 square feet but the base of the sign is approximately 4 feet wider or longer than it was before . Ahrens : We 'll have to change the base . Farmakes: They basically turned it upside down from the roof now is the brown . Krauss: Below the ground . Batzli : But we approved a 70 square foot and they 're asking for 75 . Ledvina : Is the base part of the footage of the sign? Krauss : We typically don 't calculate the base . Batzli : Ladd , make sense of all this for us . Conrad: I don 't see any harm in allowing the variance . There 's nothing to be improved by making them move the sign , from anybody 's standpoint . Batzli : What about the changes? Conrad: Now we get into some philosophy of stuff here you know , and I think what I 'm hearing Jeff say is real true . If there was a signage that said Americana Community Bank and everybody knew who was there , that becomes a landmark , and we don 't need details . But you also take a look at every other building in town and every tenant wants name recognition . They want their name outside , and we 've allowed it . Again we 're being real naive , and we don 't see all the facts when things come in for site plan review . But it 's just a fact of life that people want their name out there . And I don 't know that it 's a bate and switch . To a degree I think sometimes developers come in and say here 's something and they get their foot in the door and they come back and they ask for a little bit more . Obviously that 's a trick they play with outlots and stuff like that . They can do that with this also but also you don 't get definition to who you 're tenants are going to be . You 're proposing long before you have a tenant mix . So there are reasons for changing things . I don 't think what 's been proposed is necessarily attractive but I also don 't think it 's necessarily worst than other things I 've seen in town . We 're reviewing things on a real arbitrary basis . We really are . You know it 's sort of a willy nilly type of deal and I 'm just not , from a standpoint of profile , one would think that what was presented right now is better . A lower profile . Less obtrusive . I don 't think it works for the tenants . Even at 30 mph driving by that sign , I think it 's tough to read . Letters , I can 't tell how big the letters are . Batzli : They 're a foot . Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 38 Conrad: The letters on the top for Americana , you know if I take a look at the block is 12 inches so the letter size is 6 inches . And therefore the ones below it might be a little bit less . So 6 inches , in the business , if you create a letter under 10 inches , you can 't read it at 40 mph . Well I don 't know what at 30 . So I don 't think it 's real useful but the tenants are asking for this stuff . I 'm babbling here . I don 't think it 's attractive but I don 't have a problem with it in terms of taking down a profile . I don 't like a 9 foot profile sign . I think that 's more obtrusive than what we 're seeing here . This is not necessarily pretty but it 's in my mind less obtrusive than the other one . Think of what you can do . If we put 2 tenants on the other one , big . I _ don 't know . We 're going to , when we see the sign that , or we may not seE the sign but it 's not going to be attractive necessarily . But we 're saying that 6 small type faces are worst than 2 big type faces . I think that 's kind of arbitrary and I think we have this conversation every time-- a sign comes in and maybe we should try to figure out what we want to do with this type of stuff , recognizing . You know I 'd like to make it consistent throughout Chanhassen . I feel Market Square , everybody get 's — their , they 're listed aren 't they . On the monument sign . Isn 't everybody listed out there? Krauss: Festival is listed but I don 't know if anybody else is . Ahrens: They don 't need it . Conrad: Because they have visibility with their signs on the face of the building , yeah . Farmakes: Are we differentiating retail? Conrad: Again , I 'm not sure that service versus retail , service versus product is any different . A sign brings people in . A sign to pick up — charcoal is the same as a sign to go to a dentist . Not quite . I would have a tough time defending that a whole lot but it 's close . Anyway , it 's not worth me talking anymore . So again , the variance is aceptable — to me . I think there 's just absolutely nothing to be gained by switchinc the thing . I would vote for the , I guess what I 'd like to do is to see the sign , the applicant bring in a better version of the sign so I could _ make a realistic , a better decision . I guess I 'm not real fond . I guess I 'd like to see something better brought in before I make a decision on how it looks . Batzli : Well you didn 't make sense of it for me Ladd . Conrad : Let me just say one thing . Long term , we should get a grip on - visibility for businesses that move into Chanhassen . Ahrens: We said that 2 years ago . Conrad: I know , and we 're still talking about it and every time somebod> comes in , we argue . We make decisions and I 'm not sure how we 're making them . — Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 39 Farmakes : It is an issue that 's being dealt with with the sign ordinance . . . .that , it 's grouped with a lot of other . . . Krauss : The part about who gets signage and how many tenants should have are something that the sign ordinance should look at . What districts have signs and what not . The part that bothers me is that this is one of the first buildings where design of the building and the site plan and it 's relationship to downtown was a fundamental element at it 's approval . And the building works real well but all of a sudden , because this is a sign . It 's a structure but because it 's a sign we 're saying well , you know . A square box is the same thing as a pitched roof and we 're losing the design continuity between the site and it 's relationship to other sites doesn 't matter anymore . The variance for the 2 foot setback or whatever is really nominal . I mean I 'd rather it not be there but that really is fairly inconsequential . But it does seem as something of a setback for us to be moving in the direction of having a design review ordinance where these kinds of things grow in importance and we have the first case where we actually did make the attempt to consider all those things and it just goes by the boards because they decided to change their mind . See I don 't know what names should be on the sign but I think I know what it should look like . Farmakes : I believe we have the tendency here to spend far more athetic time talking about trees and bushes and the amount of square footage that they take up and totally ignoring the amount of square footage that we 're adding to this city in the areas of backlit plexiglass and attractives that are serving the purpose of advertising and not serving the purpose of it 's implication . If we 're going to use the basis of what we used last year or 10 years ago or 20 years ago , I don 't think we 're going to improve as we go along and as we become more sophisticated in our development and as more and more large corporations come in here , they 're not only going to incorporate these issues in monument signage but even bringing signage into our architectural building itself . Through in essence make a building that is in itself a sign , and that 's what you 're seeing more and more in the directions of franchising . We 've got to readdress this issue , because it is an important one for the overall community in what we see here . It 's our perception of where we live and it 's too easy to forget about that . Batzli : Let me ask the applicant . I assume that the old sign doesn 't fit on the base that you 've constructed . Kim Jacobsen: I guess conceptually it could just as long as it fits on the ground like it is there . We have 9 1/2 feet of height on that sign as it 's drawn in that conceptual sketch . Batzli : My sentiment is this , and then I 'll let somebody make a motion . I think we 're in agreement that we 're probably , we would allow them to build on the base they 've constructed . I think the consensus seems to be that other than Ladd , we would like to see the pitched element . I don 't know that we 're concerned about the overall height but if it 's within reason , and it sounds like there 's a consensus that we 're limiting it to the Americana Community Bank advertisement for itself and then 2 main tenants . I guess I would , I don 't know . Going to a lot of different Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 40 companies and a lot of different professionals , from my own personal standpoint , I kind of like to see the names out there so I know who I 'm visiting and that I 'm at the right location . But I guess I don 't quite view this as being as structurally significant as someone telling me they 're in the IDS or the Medical Arts Building . When I 'm going to a small community and I 'm not familiar with it , I guess it is more convenient for me personally to see a name on a sign so I know where I 'm at but . I 'd also like to see on condition 1 , if we do approve it , that we 're not held liable for damages done to the sign while accessing traveling over or otherwise performing maintenance within the utility and drainage easement . In other words , if we have to go over the easement — and there 's damage done , even though we 're not actually performing maintenance at the time , we should still be held liable . So does someone have a motion? — Ledvina : I ' ll move that the Planning Commission approve a variance to Sign Permit #92-11 subject to the two conditions in the staff report with_ the first condition being modified to include any other activities that the city performs within the drainage easement that 's associated with the sign . And 2 as designated within the staff report . Batzli : Is there a second? Ahrens: Second . — Batzli : Discussion . Conrad: Was there a second? Batzli : Joan seconded it . Conrad: Discussion . So , point number 2 says , incorporate the pitched element in the sign . Batzli : I don 't believe that it says limited to the 2 tenants . Ledvina : Well , the original design shows 2 tenants so again , specifically doing that . Farmakes: Address that separately? Batzli : I don 't know . We have a new proposed sign design . Ledvina : We 're not approving that sign design . Batzli : Well , but it seems like we 're talking about it when we say we 're incorporating things into that sign design . This to me is the request for the variance . This sign . So I feel like I 'm approving this sign with these conditions . Is that fair reading? Ledvina : Okay . Can I make an amendment then? — Batzli : Well you can move to make an amendment . Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 41 Conrad: Can we make these two separate things? Can we talk about the variance and then can we talk about a sign? How come we 're talking about a variance? Is the changing of the design of the sign a variance? Krauss : No . It 's deviation from the site plan approval . Batzli : So we should separate the two? Okay . Would you like to withdraw your motion to make a new one or do you want us to vote on your motion? Ledvina : No , I withdraw the motion . Batzli : Do you withdraw your second? Ahrens: Yeah . Batzli : Okay . Ledvina : Okay , so we want to just , with this variance , just have condition 1 . And then did you want another motion then? Batzli : I think then we have to talk about what the sign looks like after we approve the variance . Ledvina : Okay . Well I would move that the Planning Commission approve a variance to Sign Permit #92-11 subject to the applicant entering into an encroachment agreement with the city agreeing that the city will not be held liable for any damages done to the sign while conducting any activities within the easement which may also include maintenance . Conrad: I ' ll second that . Batzli : Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance to the Sign Permit #92-11 subject to the following condition: 1 . The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the city agreeing that the city will not be held liable for any damages done to the sign while conducting any activities within the easement , which may also include maintenance . All voted in favor and the motion carried . Batzli : Now Paul , as far as what we would then move or recommend approval of is a change to the site plan? Krauss : That 's the way I would see it . You approved that sign as a part of the site plan . Batzli : But we don 't know the site plan number . Al-Jaff: Yeah we can get that . Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 42 Krauss: Leave it blank . Oh , we 've got it here . Batzli : Okay . Does anyone have a motion regarding? Conrad: Actually I 'd like to table it but I don 't know if that serves . _ Kim , do you want us to table it and come back or do you want us to act or it now? Or what 's your recommendation . Kim Jacobsen: I guess I 'm in a real great quandry . I guess I 'd just as - soon have you act on it and go from here to Council because I think we 're getting very arbitrary as far as , it 's hard for me to look at something as being a sign and say , within your ordinance I don 't think you _. stipulate the number of people that are on a sign . You stipulate the square footage that you can put on a sign , and I guess if you 're going tc restrict me by square footage , I 'd say fine . But we 're rewriting the laws as we go forward because in . . .concept again we said , tenant 1 , — tenant 2 . There 's no reason there 's 2 tenants on there . There 's more words on there . It could have said Joe Schmoe , Sam and Larry . We had nothing to do with . . .to be very honest with you . — Conrad: So you want us to react right now? You 'd rather not . Kim Jacobsen : I would rather go forward from here and . . .at City Council because I really think they 're rather arbitrary points that right now within your ordinances I 'm not exactly sure what we 're restricting . You 're writing a new ordinance as we 're sitting here is my impression . Krauss : I think that Kim is possibly right relative to who gets signage space on a sign . There is nothing in the ordinance that dictates that and argueably one word is no different than the other in what you 've approved . What I do think you did approve as part of the site plan is the size , location and the shape . _ Batzli : But we just changed the location . Krauss: Changed the location by variance . — Batzli : You think he would have been happy for crying out loud but he wants more now . Okay . With that understanding and the understanding that he wants to move forward to Council , is there a motion? Ahrens: Why do we need a motion? Al-Jaff : You need a site plan amendment . Batzli : If we wanted to amend it , we could . If we wanted to approve his— change . His request to change . To not have the pitched element . To change the square footage of the sign from 70 to 75 . Ahrens : Ladd is the only one who wants to do that . If he wants to make a motion . Conrad: No , I 'm not sold on it . Yet . I 'm not sold on it yet . I think — I could be , very easily . Again , my point is , anytime you take down a Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 43 profile sign , you 're improving aesthetics and you can junk up a sign so easily that we 're playing arbitrary games here . 2 tenants versus 6 . A good logo versus a bad logo makes a whole heck of a lot of difference so we 're in never never land here on this . But at this point in time , I guess I can 't say to change this . I can 't say to change the specs of the sign . Batzli : I 'd be perfectly willing to entertain a motion to deny his request to change this signage , as approved in the site plan . Or we can give the Council absolutely no guidance and let them deal with it . Ledvina : Isn 't this actually part of the sign permit then? Batzli : Yes . Ledvina : And so they can deal with it with the sign permit . We don 't give sign permits here or approve sign permits . Batzli : I don 't think the Council does , unless . Al-Jaff : No , that would be done at staff level . Ledvina: Right . So you have everything you need , based on what we approved previously to take it forward right? Al-Jaff : Correct . Ledvina : Okay , it 's just the variance that we need to deal with . Batzli : If the applicant has requested a change to the site plan , as they have , have they done that properly? Do we have to act on that tonight? I mean they requested a variance for the location . Do we have to act on their request to change the site plan? Krauss : Do you want to make your feelings known to the City Council? Do you have to do it , no . I mean that 's not technically . Well , I don 't know how you could avoid it . I mean he is asking for a different sign and the location is different but it 's a different sign . Batzli : But is that the process as part of the sign permit process? That he went to you . You guys said this is different , so do you come to us? Krauss: I guess theoretically we could ask him to come back in with a separate request for a site plan amendment . It would be the first time we did that but that 's technically what we 're doing right now anyway . I 'll leave that up to you . I guess if it 's going to go to the City Council , the likelihood the Council , I mean it 's not an earth shattering issue when taken in context and the Council 's likely to want to move on it and get it out of the way . Batzli : Okay . What I 'd propose we do then is , if we don 't have a motion , I would like at least for us to give guidance to the Council how we feel about it and I 'll just ask everybody how they feel and you can let the Council know that that was our thoughts and they can yea or nay Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 44 it . So if there 's no motion . Joan , what I 'm looking for is increase the square footage , pitched element . Those are the two changes . Do you want` to see that? Those things on there . Ahrens : I don 't think the square footage should be increased . I like — the pitched element in there . I don 't think there should be any change to the original site plan approval . Batzli : Other than the 8 foot variance? Ahrens: Other than the variance which we just made a motion on . Farmakes : I 'd agree with that . I 'd also question the issue , if you 're going to change the signage itself and you 're going to do a far more technically proficient drawing on the signage you have changed compared _ to the sign that was originally on the site plan , which has no , only a scale referring to the issue , and I believe that the surrounding elements are out of proportion to that size . I think that if we 're going to get into a site plan , and I was here at the time and I recall we discussed this . We 're going about this the wrong way and to approve something likE that would be to make a farce of that process . I wouldn 't do that . Ledvina : I agree with Joan and Jeff . Batzli : Okay , Ladd . Conrad : I think the footage should be the same as we approved . I think the applicant should submit a better rendition or illustration of the proposed sign . I think a lower profile sign is preferable and I think more tenants is acceptable . Batzli : My sentiment is , I would , until I had better reasons , I would say go with the old sign . I 'm not adverse to allowing more tenants on there but I would prefer to see the roof element incorporated , unless we did have better reasoning as to why it 's not on there and a little bit _ better renditions of what all this will look like , because it is a changE to the site plan and the perspective as to what it 's going to look like on the site plan , the new one , I don 't think we 've been given enough information so , I guess that 's what you can take to the Council . Conrad: I just want to echo a footnote . Developers don 't know what the mix of tenants are going to be . They don 't know that when they build it _ They 're hoping . Somebody comes in and says , I ' ll take 5 .square feet and somebody says I ' ll take 12 . They don 't know it until they build it so . Batzli : I 'm not adverse to that but I think the applicant should at least present to the Council that information that we would have liked tc have seen , at a minimum . Okay . Thank you very much for coming in . And this variance will go to the Council when? — Krauss: 25th . Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 45 PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-1023 . HEIGHT OF FENCES AND SECTION 20-1019 , LOCATION OF FENCES . Ahrens : For the record , I agree with Brian 's comments on this . Batzli : Which ones? Ahrens: The ones that are in the Minutes . Batzli : Oh . I was on a roll . Are you leaving us? Are you going to be here next time? Ahrens : I hope not . I 'm not supposed to be . . . Batzli : When will the Council approve our replacements? Krauss : I 'm going to try and get on their Monday meeting . Emmings: I 'm going too . Batzli : Okay . So we 're losing our two departing persons , never to be seen again . I feel like we should say something . . .Well come visit us for crying out loud and I move that the Planning Commission recommends good things to these departing personnel . Conrad: Well , good things to Joan . I think Steve deserves what he gets . Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Batzli : Did you look at the fence across from me in Fox Hollow? Al-Jaff : Yes I did . Batzli : And would that conform to your new ordinance? Al-Jaff : Yes it would . Batzli : Because it doesn 't encroach the 60 foot? Al-Jaff : Correct . And when I read the Minutes , I understood that that was the only issue . Batzli : Well I didn 't like it . That was just my one that I could think of immediately . I 'm trying to think of another while we sit here . Is that it Sharmin? Thank you . Is there any other public comment? Seeing that the room is bare . Ledvina moved , Batzli seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Batzli : Ladd , lead off . Conrad: No , I 'd rather wait to hear your comments . I 'm okay with it . Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 46 Batzli : Okay , Matt . Ledvina : I would defer to the staff on this . I don 't have a lot of experience in this and if they think it 's a safety issue , I think that they 're probably in a good position to make that call . I did have a — question regarding the wetlands . Staff is proposing to add the followinc regulations to regulate fences near wetlands . Doesn 't our wetland ordinance , the new ordinances that we just passed , don 't they have no cut zones and like 50 feet or something and requirements prohibiting fences and all that? Or am I wrong in that? Krauss: I honestly don 't remember Matt . We should double check but I think if that 's the case , then we have two parts of the ordinance that are at odds somewhat with one another . Ledvina: Yeah . I don 't know what the specific requirements are but I do seem to remember discussion of fences . Krauss: I don 't remember . We may have . I know we 've had issues in the past with people building fences . . . Ledvina: Right . Does anybody else recall that? -• Batzli : I 'm not clear what clause you 're talking about in the wetlands ordinance . Which one? Ledvina: Well a clause that would prohibit the construction of fences at the ordinary high water mark , or whatever . I think there was some kind of setback that we had from that level or . —' Batzli : Well there 's a buffer and we said you can 't do a lot of things in there but I don't know if that included a fence . We said you can't — cut . You can 't mow . You can 't dump . You can 't spill . I don 't think WE ever said you can't build a fence . Ledvina: I may be wrong in that but . Krauss: We can double check and if it 's redundant , we 'll drop it . Ledvina: It 's a good consideration certainly. Batzli : Do we have any wetlands inside of pasture areas left in the city? Krauss: Sure . Batzli : Any that border a pasture? Krauss: I don 't know . I haven 't walked all the farm areas of the city . — We don 't have that much open pasture left . Batzli : I just , you need an L shaped fence going into a water thing to turn back a cow . I mean you have to have a fence up to the ordinary higt Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 47 water mark and you have to go in there because cows can swim and they go around the fence . • Krauss: I could be wrong but I believe we only have 1 or 2 operations left that have cows . Ledvina : No further comments . Batzli : Sorry , I was just . Ledvina : In the interest of brevity . Batzli : Okay . Jeff . Farmakes: I have no additional comments to make on this , other than the wetlands issue that was brought up . Batzli : So you like this? Well okay , my pasture one didn 't work . What 's , in your definition of front yards , or in paragraph 2 . Fences in required front yards . Should that word required be in there? Krauss: It should just say front yard . Eliminate the required . Batzli : Now do we allow , we still allow under this ordinance that it be built within the setback area right? Al-Jaff : Correct . Batzli : Now what do we do with existing fences that don 't conform to this or hedges or whatever we do? I mean whatever . What happens to? Al-Jaff: They 're grandfathered in . Krauss : Until they fall down . Batzli : Well you can repair , right . But if they fall down and they 're gone for a year and then you try to rebuild , that 's when you get in trouble . So we would enforce this at the permit leve" but most people don 't come in to get permits to plant hedges I would imagine . Krauss : When you become aware of . . . Batzli : If I could delay this until next summer , I could put in a couple more bushes . Conrad: You 're going to beat this one to death . Batzli : Yeah , okay . Well , I think that this is okay as long as a fence like by neighbor has is legal under this ordinance because I think he does , and those types of lots do need the ability to put up larger opaque fences . So if a fence like his is legal , where he can use his backyard , then . Conrad: And it is . Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 48 Batzli : Yeah , it is . Then I guess this , it 's intrusive but there is a valid safety issue with the sight lines at intersections and I think that 's what we 're taking care of . Ladd , do you want to make any other comments? Conrad: No . Batzli : Okay . But I still believe it is intrusive and I wouldn 't want to do it other than if there were real safety concerns . I think this is — kind of , we 're making it for ourselves . There 's other bigger issues that we could tackle . Al-Jaff: We 're really not changing that much from what is in the ordinance right now , other than the sight triangles . Batzli : Well , we 've allowed fences , higher fences up through the sight triangles before , as I understand it . Krauss : There have been no regulations prohibiting . - Batzli : Right . But we 're adding that and I 'm just in , in a small PUD situation is where I 'm more concerned about it than anything else . If - somebody 's got a big yard , it doesn 't matter too much . But in a smaller lot setting , you can 't use a lot of your yard potentially . You put in a dinky lot like that guy 's got across the street , and it sold right away though . He put it on the market , a week later . So some people like them . I don 't know . Anyway , is there a motion? Ledvina : I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City -- Council approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-1023 , Height of Fences , and Section 20-1019 , Location of Fences , as noted above with modification to item number 2 of the first line . Delete the word "required" . Batzli : Is there a second? Farmakes: Second . Batzli : Okay , any discussion? Just to go on record , and you guys are _ going to look at how this pertains to the wetlands stuff that 's already in there? Krauss: Yes . Ledvina moved , Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-1023 , Height of Fences and Section 20-1019 , Location of Fences , amended in item number 2 . Front Yards , first line , deleting the word "required" . All voted in favor and the motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1993 - Page 49 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission dated December 2 , 1992 as presented . Conrad moved , Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 10 : 30 p .m . . Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim z l 5-i 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: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner DATE: January 6, 1993 SUBJ: Collector Systems for On-site Sewage Treatment The Planning Commission recently amended the City Code to allow smaller lot sizes in the rural area as long as a one unit/ten acre density was maintained. The lot size was reduced from 2.5 acres to 15,000 square feet. During this process, it was discussed whether collector sites should be permitted to allow for the smaller lots and increased clustering of development. Collector systems were discussed because a 15,000 square foot lot is not large enough to contain a building site, a well and two septic sites. Before staff made a recommendation on this issue, we met with the Building Department and with Roger Machmeier and Jim Anderson. Roger Machmeier and Jim Anderson are very knowledgeable on on-site sewage treatment systems and have been used for their expertise in the past by the city. The conclusion of these discussions is that collector systems would not function effectively in our type of soils and because of the size of the mound system that would have to be used. We thoroughly discussed the pros and cons of allowing collector systems and determined that the potential hazards outweigh any benefits. Roger Machmeier and Jim Anderson provided a letter which goes into detail the reasoning behind recommending not to allow community septic systems. Staff is now reviewing the possibility of allowing individual septic sites to be located on adjacent property so that a 15,000 sq. ft. lot may be possible. Staff is determining what conditions will be required to allow off-site septic sites, such as permanent appurtenant easements, distance limits, approval of Building Official, etc. is t 4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER R RESOURCE ENGINEERING Roger E. Machmeicr. P.E. James L. Anderson. C.P.S.S. 29665 Neal Avenue 3541 Ensign Avenue. North Lindstrom. MN 55045 New Hope. MN 55427 — (612) 257-2019 (612) 593-5338 December 29, 1992 Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen - P .O . Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Collector Systems for Dense Housing Developments Dear Jo Ann: We are responding to the request of the City of Chanhassen staff in regard to comments on the use of collector sewage systems for the onsite treatment of sewage. In some situations where existing housing was already dense, such as along lakeshores, the effluent from septic tanks was collected at a central location to which it could flow by gravity and then was pumped to a location where suitable soil and adequate area were available for the installation of a subsurface soil treatment system. The success of such systems has depended upon a number of factors , including soil suitability, adequate area for the soil absorption unit , operation and maintenance agreements and adequate home owners ' association rules. While collector systems have been necessary in some existing situations , experience has shown that the most satisfactory solution is individual onsite sewage treatment systems on individual lots. It is our understanding that the City of Chanhassen has had a request from a land owner who would like to subdivide property into relatively small lots , collect the sewage and treat it at a single location. The idea is that in the future when the MUSA line is extended , these lots can be connected to the municipal sewage system. While this approach may sound like a possible solution for the land owner to maximize the number of lots in an area , the solution for sewage treatment is not so simple. Individual septic tanks could be installed on each lot and a collector system designed which would meet the standards for municipal sewage treatment . A major problem will arise when the soil absorption unit is to be designed to treat a large sewage flow on the soils typically found in the City of Chanhassen. Chanhassen soils for the most part are suitable for the installation of single family onsite sewage treatment systems . At the meeting which we had with Chanhassen staff on December 10 , 1992, it was stated that 90 to 95 percent of RECEIVED DEC 3 _' 199 SPECIALISTS IN ONSITE SEWAGE TREATMENT CITY OF CHPNliAZSEf~ Collector Sewage Treatment Systems Page 2 the onsite soil absorption units presently installed are mound systems. One might easily predict this situation from a review of the Soil Survey of Carver County,, which shows the majority of the soils in Chanhassen to have fine texture and seasonal saturation at depths of two to three feet . - While a single family mound will function well on such soils , larger size mounds based on the same design criteria will likely fail hydraulically . The reason is that the liquid from a home-size mound can disperse laterally over an absorption area and slowly percolate downward through the fine textured soil . If septic tank effluent is collected from a number of residences and applied to an extensive area , adequate lateral dispersion will not take place. This results in an increase in the liquid elevation within the sand and rock layers of the mound . As more and more septic tank effluent is pumped into the large mound , the liquid level rises in the mound to the point where sewage surfaces from the sides of the mound . This problem has already been experienced in areas of Carver County where collector systems delivered septic tank effluent to a series of large mounds. Those mounds were constructed side by side on a fine-textured soil . Construction procedures around the sides of one mound damaged the soil for the adjacent mound . In any event , that large mound system experienced a dramatic failure. The unfortunate part of the story is that adequate area was available on each lot for an individual mound ( lots were each one acre plus ) , but to receive public funds the engineers ill-advisedly designed a collector system and large mounds . A typical mound for a home has a rock layer which is no wider than 10 feet by as many feet long as are necessary to treat the estimated daily sewage flow. Where soil conditions are very poor , the width of the rock layer should be decreased and the length increased . The reason is so that the effluent pumped into the mound can flow sideways from under the rock layer of the mound , spread out over a wider area called the absorption area and slowly infiltrate downward through the fine-textured soil . On fine soils, the absorption area should be five times wider than the width of the rock layer. This is not a design problem for a rock layer that is 10-feet wide. It becomes a great problem for wider rock layers. In order for liquid to move laterally from the center of a mound , the elevation of the liquid surface inside the mound must increase . If the physical height of the mound is not adequate, then the sewage level inside the mound will Collector Sewage Treatment Systems Page 3 rise to a height where it will spill out the sides of the dikes of the mound . The absorption width under a single family mound may be 50 feet for a rock layer 10 feet wide. Construction equipment can construct such a mound without traveling over the original soil surface . The equipment will , however, need to travel along the sides of the mound under construction. That travel will likely compact the soil around the periphery of the constructed mound making it unsuitable for the construction of another mound . While this is usually no problem on a single family lot , it is a great problem when trying to install a series of larger mounds required for the soil absorption unit of a collector system . Also , construction equipment is typically not available to construct wide mounds so as to not disturb or compact the soil absorption area under the mound . Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080 " Individual Sewage Treatment Systems Standards, " does not have provisions for the design and installation of large-size mounds . The only provision is that "a maximum of two ten-foot wide beds may be installed side by side in a single mound if the original soil percolation rate is between five and 60 minutes per inch to a depth of at least 24 inches below the sand layer. The beds must be separated by four feet of clean sand . " Another provision of Chapter 7080 that should be noted is that mounds must be constructed on "original soils so that there is at least 36 inches of separation between the bottom of the drainfield rock layer and limiting soil characteristics . . . " Original soil is defined as "naturally occurring inorganic soil that has not been moved , smeared , compacted , nor manipulated with construction equipment . " The soil around the periphery of an installed mound where construction equipment has operated to install that mound would not meet those criteria . Also, the soil in an area that has had considerable soil movement or excavation and filling would not meet those criteria . Side by side mounds could be installed if the soil were suitable under the definition of "original soil . " But to physically construct such mounds next to one another, there would need to be an adequate separation distance to allow for construction activities so that the absorption areas of all mounds were located on original soil . Also, it should be noted that mounds should not be constructed on soils which have been subjected to previous activities which have disturbed or changed the original soils. Collector Sewage Treatment Systems Page 4 Other than the severe hydraulic problems and the construction problems, there are other factors complicating the operation of a collector system. Septic tanks will need to have the accumulated solids removed . The frequency of removal will vary between households and life styles . The permitting authority should be intimately involved in developing an agreement for the home owners in regard to regular and adequate septic tank cleaning , water use rates of individual homes , operation and maintenance of the system, etc . The permitting authority should have adequate staff to monitor the operation of the collector system and have the authority to immediately take action if operation and maintenance procedures are not followed . The costs of the monitoring together with the cost of necessary actions authorized by the permitting authority should be charged to the property owners of the collector system. Another consideration is the water supply system. If the lots , streets and collector sewer system are to be laid out and constructed so as to allow connection to city sewer when that becomes available, then the municipal water supply piping system should be similarly designed and installed . Design of the municipal water system will have to consider where main and lateral pipes are to be ultimately located , so as to minimize any future street removal and replacement . Also, pipe sizing for the ultimate water supply system will need to be part of the design procedure. Since municipal water will likely not be available until municipal sewage is , individual wells will be need to be installed . On relatively small lots with rolling topography it may be very difficult to locate individual water supply wells an adequate separation distance from all septic tanks on abutting lots and still have the wells accessible for service. In conclusion, there are no specific provisions in Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080 for the soil absorption unit of a collector sewage system. Chanhassen soils generally will require that mounds be used for the installation of the soil absorption unit . Large-size mounds require extensive analysis of the flow hydraulics, which are not accurately defined by available experience or theory. Construction equipment will likely not be able to install large-sized mounds following the requirement that the absorption area must be located on "original soil . " Experience has shown that there have been many problems with large-size soil absorption units. Westboro, Wisconsin had a large seepage bed installed on a permeable soil . When the bed failed to accept sewage at the design rate, a study Collector Sewage Treatment Systems Page 5 showed that adequate oxygen could not reach the bottom of the wide rock layer . Anaerobic conditions existed over much of the bottom of the wide rock layer and caused a partial sealing and a drastic decrease in the infiltration rate. In some soils which have a slowly permeable layer at four or five feet , shallow trenches can be installed and will function well for single family residences. The same soil situation would not be suitable for a collector system unless the trenches were spread over a wide enough area to allow the collected septic tank effluent to adequately spread out and be able to percolate downward through the slowly permeable soil beneath the system. There are no provisions for the design of such systems in Chapter 7080. These are some of the considerations which we believe the City of Chanhassen must evaluate in any decision considering the use of collector systems for onsite sewage treatment on a proposed development . Sincerely, a £- )1 ac lum/tIU Roger E. Machmeier , P .E . James L . Anderson, C.P .S.S. CITY QF 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: January 13, 1993 SUBJ: Report from Director - Department Goals for 1993 Introduction of New Planning Commissioners Staff is pleased to announce that at the Monday, January 11, 1993, meeting, the City Council appointed Diane Harberts, Nancy Mancino and Joe Scott to fill the vacancies on the Planning Commission. We had an excellent crop of candidates this year and are particularly pleased with the three appointments, believing that they bring a wealth of knowledge and desire to serve the community. The Planning Commission should also act to appoint new representatives to the Highway 5 Corridor Task Force, as well as the Surface Water Management Program Task Force, since departing commissioners filled spots on both of these groups. Goals It has become normal practice that early in each new year we assess our goals for the Commission and the Planning Department. We derive input from several sources. We have the _ attached list of ongoing issues which is revised for each meeting. As work is completed, it typically drops off the list. The Planning Commission should note that at the last City Council meeting, staff received some direction that a new work task should be established to upgrade landscaping standards to meet criteria established during the Target site plan review. There is a belief that Target represents a minimum that we should accept anywhere in the community and that the ordinance should be revised accordingly. The second source of input is from the City Council. The City Council holds a goal setting session in January and one is scheduled for an upcoming Saturday morning. This will be held on Saturday, January 6th. Normally, the Planning Commission Chairman attends. As part of our annual budget process, I prepared a memorandum on what I perceive to be goals for the department for the coming year for discussion purposes with the City Council. I am attaching a copy of this memorandum for your review. The last and final source of input for our goal n lir• PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission January 13, 1993 Page 2 setting process comes from you, the Planning Commissioners. We are asking that you review this material and help staff to establish our work tasks. — I feel obligated to indicate that the department's ability to take on major new projects in 1993 is fairly limited due to constraints on staff time. In addition to a growing volume and complexity — of new developments, we have already committed to finishing the SWMP Program and Highway 5 Corridor Study in 1993. City Council Action On Monday, January 11, 1993, the following actions were taken: — 1. The amendment to the City Code regarding exemptions from platting requirements was pulled from the consent agenda by the City Council. Several members of the Council — echoed the City Manager's concerns regarding a belief that metes and bounds divisions posed problems for a community and were a less than adequate method of in transferring property ownership. Staff disagrees with this opinion believing that metes and bounds — divisions, as long as they are simple enough, create no more than 4 lots, and require no public streets, are a cost effective alternative for property owners. We note that this will not effect large scale developers who must plat but often effects home owners who are — subdividing an individual lot. In these instances, there is a significant cost disadvantage when one is required to go through a platting procedure. The City Council continued the matter to allow staff time to gather additional information. 2. Final plat approval for Bluff Creek Estates 2nd Addition was approved on the consent agenda. 3. Goodyear Tire Facility, located south of Hwy. 5, north of Lake Drive East and east of the Chanhassen Emission Control Station for replat, conditional use permit and site plan review requests. As the Planning Commission is aware, this continues to be a controversial application. Since the Planning Commission meeting, staff met with the developer to try and work out issues pertaining to this project. In essence, what has occurred is the dormers that were requested have been added to the Goodyear building. We were unable to reach an agreement as to what the Abra building should look like and it was determined that the developer would start over again with a new design on a clean sheet of paper. Thus, the Abra building was deleted from the request and only the Goodyear building was under consideration. — The City Council raised many of the same concerns that were heard by the Planning Commission. There were also comments to the effect that there are more significant — issues at stake here than just simply allowing an auto service operation. It was acknowledged that the site plan was generally of high quality when viewed against normal Planning Commission January 13, 1993 Page 3 standards but since this was in the Hwy. 5 corridor, something better should be expected. There was also some concern about the building materials being proposed to be used for the Goodyear building and several of the Council members indicated that a building of similar configuration but constructed of brick would be appropriate. The Council's discussion developed into a realization that it is difficult for a developer to meet the city's expectations when those expectations have yet to be articulated. The discussion focused on the possibility of adopting a moratorium in the Hwy. 5 corridor to allow for completion of ongoing corridor studies and ordinances. Councilman Senn also raised some questions regarding the use of the site indicating a belief that auto oriented uses here were inappropriate. Staff indicated that while a moratorium is legally defensible, it does raise a number of problems. For a moratorium to have a legal standing, it should have three elements. The first is that it must set out a definitive sunset date; the second is that there must be a commitment to complete the planning studies; and the third is that there probably needs to be some sort of "out" that allows some use of property while this is going on. In the case of Minnetonka's use of a moratorium on I- 394, properties that were brought in as PUDs were allowed to proceed through the process. Staff indicated that in all likelihood, it will take a minimum of 6 to 8 months to get an ordinance on the books. Relative to the land use questions raised by Councilman Senn, we indicated that a longer period of time was likely to be required if significant land use changes are to be requested. These changes are likely to be contested case hearings generating considerable controversy since the property owners are likely to object. The City Council continued action on the Goodyear request and directed staff to come back to them within 30 days with a moratorium ordinance for their consideration. 4. Concept plan approval for Gateway West, Opus Corporation. This item also remained controversial at the City Council as it was at the Planning Commission. Staff met with the developers on several occasions since this was last before the Planning Commission. We have been unable to elicit significant changes from the developer. We expressed the opinion to the City Council that we believed that this was a quality developer who was certainly able to provide the city with a project along the lines that have been discussed. We frankly do not understand their continued reluctance to do so. We recommended the City Council be quite explicit in telling the developer exactly what the city is looking for during the concept review. We also said that it should be clearly stated that if a developer is unwilling to provide such a project, then it would be fruitless for them to proceed. It really is not necessary to go through the issues that were raised since they are identical to those you raised yourselves. The Council again discussed applying a moratorium to this project. Staff indicated that we did not feel that it was necessary in this case. Unlike the Abra and Goodyear proposal, the Opus Gateway project is one that will take at least a year to plan, in addition to the year it has taken to get this far. A rezoning of the property is required and the PUD zoning offers considerable latitude for Planning Commission January 13, 1993 Page 4 the city to obtain a project that we believe to be appropriate. The city also has the additional layer of control provided by tax increment financing which is the carrot of the _ carrot and stick approach. Staff is confident that if the city's expectations are clearly outlined, they can be achieved. We further noted that moratorium ordinances typically have some kind of provision for development to proceed and that the Opus proposal is probably consistent with whatever staff and the City Attorney are likely to recommend. Kate Aanenson indicated that this project is not likely to be back before us prior to the completion of Hwy. 5 corridor planning work. The City Council ultimately approved the concept plan with the conditions as outlined by staff. The developer was instructed in particular to comply with the recommendations of the Park Commission relative to park acreage, provide adequate buffering for the Arboretum and definitively remove any - indication of large scale commercial development from the proposal. It was further indicated that formal requests for this project should not be brought back before the City Council until the recommends of the Hwy. 5 corridor study can be incorporated. -- CITY QF CHANHASSEN 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: October 12, 1992 SUBJ: 1993 Planning Department Goals and Budget Request In formulating the Planning Department's budget for 1993, I believe it is first necessary to examine departmental goals that have been set. I have put these goals out for discussion purposes, fully expecting that they will be modified, but with gained from both the Planning Commission and the City Council. In establishing these goals, I believe it would be useful to re-examine the 1991 goals to see if we have made progress. The following constitutes this review. These goals were presented in a report to the City Council last year. 1. Organize and complete the Highway 5 Corridor Study and related project in developing a land use plan for the south study area. While we have made significant progress in this area, the Highway 5 Corridor Study remains a work in progress. However, much has been accomplished to date. During 1992, the city worked with Bill Morrish and his staff to complete the visioning study for the corridor. While this work is no official standing, it has certainly proven to be a point of common ground between the HRA, City Council and the Planning Commission and points the way towards the goals of the expanded Highway 5 Corridor Program. The city has been receiving extremely good reviews for having completed this work and it has already paid significant dividends. Staff has been working extensively with MnDOT engineers to refine plans for the next phase of Hwy. 5 construction. We have also had an opportunity to meet with representatives of the Metropolitan Council, who will be responsible for dispersing ISTEA funds early next year. Both organizations have been impressed by this study and we have been able to _ use it to leverage improvements to the highway design and of increased availability of funding to accomplish these improvements. MnDOT is already making substantial financial commitments to improve the highway/frontage road concept. We have also been able to use the process which has been started to gain improved development proposals in the corridor with the Target project being the prime example. Lastly, the to of PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Don Ashworth October 12, 1992 Page 2 Highway 5 study effort is on track. The task force has been established and has already met several times. We are currently in the process of working up Phase II _ contractual agreements and will be embarking on the fast track study immediately. 2. Surface Water Management Program. The 1992 goals included developing a revised wetlands ordinance and official map, as well as developing a strong public relations and information effort regarding the program. It was recognized that this program would not be completed in 1992 but that significant positive results should begin to be generated. We believe we have exceeded these goals. The wetlands ordinance and map have been developed and are being forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for adoption at the present time. In addition, a City of Chanhassen Best Management Practices Handbook has been developed and is also in the process of being approved. This handbook establishes new and very detailed requirements for all grading and erosion control operations conducted in the city. The handbook is designed to ensure that water quality standards are met. Over the year we have been able to incorporate water quality and wetland improvement standards into a number of development projects using newly developed expertise. In many cases these improvements were done at little or no cost to the city. Examples include the Lundgren Willowridge project and the newly developed Target site plan. The city has also embarked upon a strong educational effort regarding the program and sensitive land management practices to protect water quality. 3. The Senior Commission/Senior Center goal for 1992 was to complete design and construction of the Senior Center and develop its operation and programs in a manner that provides the highest level of service for our residents at the least possible cost. This goal was achieved ahead of schedule and under budget. We have gone from having no facilities for seniors to having an operating Senior Center that is beginning to offer a variety of programs and opportunities. Staffing needs have been rethought and reallocated to carry us forward into the future. Management responsibilities for day to day operations of the Senior Center are in the process of being passed over to the Park and Recreation Department, which was another part of this goal. 4. Computerize Departmental Functions. The city continues to make progress towards creating and utilizing a GIS data base. We are working towards having materials prepared in digitized format and all the materials provided to the city from Bonestroo Engineering will be digitized. While Don Ashworth October 12, 1992 Page 3 we cannot state that we have the GIS or permit tracking systems up and running yet, we believe the infrastructure is in place and these goals can be accomplished in the near future. 5. Continue Recycling Efforts. The goal was to expand a range of materials that can be collected as well as improve coordination with Carver County. The city has managed a compost site on Bandimere Park as well as a compost demonstration site near City Hall. We have also entered into a cooperative agreement to distribute composters to residents below cost. 6. Continue to Respond to Needs to Upgrade, Revise, and Improve the Zoning Ordinance. This is an ongoing goal with the city and we believe that much has been achieved in this area. With the exception of the residential component, the PUD ordinance has been adopted and work is proceeding on that portion of the code. We are also in the process of greatly improving our wetland and water quality standards. 7. Continue to refine and improve city procedures relative to development. Strive to maintain and improve Chanhassen's image as a progress community that sets high standards for development. Maintain good working relationships with developers and brokers and to ensure that the residents concerns are heard in our review process. This again is an ongoing goal that we need to reaffirm annually. We believe the city has made great strides in furthering its image as a progressive community. Our environmental protection efforts have received a good deal of coverage in the region. Our working relationship with the Metropolitan Council has never been better. 1993 DEPARTMENTAL GOALS The following constitutes preliminary departmental goals for 1993. These goals will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for further discussion and refinement. You should also be aware that we have the ongoing work items list that is updated by the Planning Commission on a monthly basis. This indicates work in progress or which is desired by the Planning Commission and City Council. A copy of this document has been attached for your review. 1. Complete the Highway 5 Corridor Study. The Highway 5 Corridor Study is growing in its ultimate importance to the city and its future. The program as envisioned will result in improved development standards, input into MnDOT highway designs for future Highway 5 expansions to increase design sensitivity, designation of Don Ashworth October 12, 1992 Page 4 — environmental sensitive areas for preservation, refinements of land use, and development of a capital improvements plan. This project needs to be maintained on a fast track if we are to position ourselves in front of developments that are going to be proposed. The benefits of being able to have a proactive stance on development should be evident to all those who were involved with the Target site plan. Funding for the program is to be provided by the HRA. 2. Complete the Surface Water Management Program Planning and Establish the Program on a Permanent Footing. Work on developing the Surface Water Management Plan, Water Quality Protection Plan and Wetland Protection Effort will be completed during the first half of 1993. We have undertaken and achieved a lot to — date. The program is beginning to show its worth as evidenced by our educational efforts, input into developments, city programs such as the early street sweeping designed to protect water quality, etc. The completion of the plan is in Winston Churchill's words, "not the beginning of the end, but rather the end of the beginning." We need to move forward into a proactive position that allows us to continue to monitor our lakes. We need to be able to institute the capital improvements projects needed to reverse the decline of water quality in our lakes and wetlands and put it on an upwards path. We also need to continue our educational efforts and coordination with other governmental agencies, both in terms of staffing and financial assistance. 3. Senior Commission/Senior Center. Now that the Senior Center is up and running, the Planning Department's direct role in this operation is being intentionally diminished. We are passing the baton over to the Park and Recreation Department where day to day operations can be more effectively conducted. The Senior Commission is moving on to its next goal which is to complete a feasibility study for senior housing options in Chanhassen. If the housing proves to be feasible, we would then need to launch a follow up program to see how we may cause it to be constructed. The contract for the housing feasibility study has been issued and is being paid for out of Community Development Block Grant Funds. 4. Community Development Block Grant Program/Maintaining Eligibility. As the Council is aware, we have used our CDBG funds to greatly enhance our ability to provide programs and facilities for our seniors and handicapped residents. Due to the loss of population in the Hennepin County portion of Chanhassen, our continued ability to remain in the CDBG program has been threatened. Staff is working diligently in conjunction with the Mayor to have HUD rules revised or re-interpreted - so that we may continue to be involved in the program. We are working intensively with the staff of Congressman Ramstad and Senator Wellstone's Offices to this end. Resolution of this matter may well take into next year. Don Ashworth October 12, 1992 Page 5 5. Computerize Departmental Functions. 1993 represents the year in which we may actually achieve the goal of significantly increasing our use of technology. Planning Department staff already composes significant portions of staff reports on our individual computers but its potential in terms of an information store house and its ability to track permit requests through the city has yet gone untapped. We believe that we may be able to complete this program in 1993. However, we should also be aware that we do not want to push the cutting edge of technology too far with adverse cost impacts, so care must be exercised. 6. Continue to Enhance Recycling Efforts. Last year the city made some progress in improving our recycling services to our residents. We want to continue this trend in 1993. The city should continue to work with Carver County to cooperatively offer compost site facilities to our residents. We are also seeking to enhance the range of materials which are eligible for our recycling program. Plastics and waste paper are two primary candidates. Cooperative efforts with Hennepin County, that have made available reduced cost composters to our residents, should be further explored and offered. Lastly, our educational efforts need to continue. 7. Continue to Respond to Needs to Upgrade, Revise and Improve the Zoning Ordinance. As we have noted in past years, this is a continuing effort and if we are doing our jobs, it will never be completed. Staff continues to work to refine the ordinance to deal with new situations as they arise as well as to incorporate state of the art techniques. For example, in 1993, we will probably be adopting an overlay district in the Highway 5 corridor as well as improving our design oriented performance standards for development throughout the community. 8. Strive to maintain and improve Chanhassen's image as a progressive community that sets high standards for development. Maintain good working relationships with developers, residents and outside agencies to ensure that the city goals and policies can be achieved. Increased reliance on computerization will facilitate our ability to be responsive to both residents and developers. We must continuously work to maintain a positive attitude and provide high levels of public service and responsiveness. Relative to improving Chanhassen's stature with other agencies, I believe we have made great strides in this area. As you are aware, the city has developed an excellent reputation for being in the forefront of environmental protection issues. Staff has been asked to serve on special committees and task forces designed to develop rules for the new State Wetlands Law and to protect the Minnesota River. Our relationship with the Metropolitan Council has never been better and we are frequently asked to assist them on projects of regional significance. We must also continue to work with our local Metropolitan Council representative, both individually and through the Southwest Communities Coalition. In all probability, we will be losing Bonnie Featherstone as our Metropolitan Council Don Ashworth October 12, 1992 Page 6 representative due to reappointment and need to work with whoever is selected to replace her to be sure that our concerns are adequately conveyed. These efforts will _ need to be continued in the coming years. 1992 BUDGET REQUESTS Fund 101-152/Planning and Administration Planning Department salaries are distributed over a number of funding areas including HRA/Recycling/Surface Water Utility and related programs. Thus, the total salary benefit package for Planning Department staff is not found in Fund 152. Planning staff has stabilized at two full time and two four day per week positions. We have a very large variety of programs and responsibilities and our staff is pretty well pushed to the limit in terms of availability of time. Yet we believe that we have been able to decrease any potential roles of outside consultants through our continued participation in projects and in-house expertise. No significant increases outside of inflation are being requested for this fund. We would like to give consideration to increasing Kate Aanenson's time from 4 to 5 days per week. Departmental work loads are significant and Kate has proven to be a highly responsible and valued employee. Before requesting the increase in hours, however, we would like to see how the 1993 development review work load shapes up. If the volume of development proposals continues to increase, we would like to be in a position to increase Kate's work week by early spring. We note that under the revised fee schedule, permit review fees should cover a larger — part of departmental operations. The other minor change is a request to increase our travel and training budget by $1,000. With four professionals, our allocated funding level is below the need if we are to maintain our competency and ability to provide Chanhassen with progressive planning. Our 1992 and 1993 budget requests are outlined below. Personnel Services 1992 Budget 1993 Budget 101152-4010, Salaries & 87,600.00 No new staff (see text) Wages Increase for inflation only 101152-4030, Contributions, 10,600.00 Increase for inflation only Retirement 101152-4040, Contributions, 9,600.00 Increase for inflation only Insurance Don Ashworth October 12, 1992 Page 7 Personnel Services 1992 Budget 1993 Budget 101152-4041, Contributions, -0- Flex. 101152-4050 Workmens 300.00 Increase for inflation only Comp Materials & Supplies 101152-4110, Supplies, 1,200.00 1,300.00 Office 101152-4120, Supplies, 100.00 100.00 Equipment 101152-4130, Supplies, 100.00 100.00 Program 101152-4210, Books & 200.00 300.00 Periodicals Contractual Services 101152-4300, Fees, Service 2,000.00 2,000.00 101152-4310, Telephone 200.00 300.00 101152-4340, Printing & 3,600.00 3,600.00 Publishing 101152-4360, Subscriptions 2,000.00 2,000.00 & Memberships 101152-4370, Travel & 4,000.00 5,000.00 Training 101152-4380, Mileage 200.00 200.00 Capital Outlay 101152-4703, Office 2,000.00 2,000.00 Equipment — Don Ashworth October 12, 1992 Page 8 Fund 101-151, Planning Commission — This fund is a relatively small budgetary allocation used to support activities of the Planning Commission. Activities include staff time for preparation of minutes, educational materials — for the Commission, printing, publication and mailing of various hearing notices, etc. Staff is not requesting any significant increases in this area. We are however, requesting that $500 be set aside for travel and training for Planning Commissioners. In 1992, no funds were — budgeted for this area. We believe it would be useful to allow the Commissioners to attend one of many local programs and conferences should they wish to do so to increase their knowledge and abilities in dealing with developmental issues. — Personnel Services 1992 Budget 1993 Budget 101151-4010, Salaries & 3,750.00 Wages No new staff Increase for inflation only — 101151-4030, Contributions, 460.00 Increase for inflation only Retirement 101151-4040, Contributions, 700.00 Increase for inflation only Insurance 101151-4041, Contributions, -0- Flex. 101151-4050 Workmens 20.00 Increase for inflation only Comp Materials & Supplies 101151-4110, Supplies, 100.00 100.00 Office — 101151-4120, Books & 100.00 100.00 Periodicals Contractual Services 101151-4300, Fees, Service 100.00 200.00 — Don Ashworth October 12, 1992 Page 9 Personnel Services 1992 Budget 1993 Budget 101151-4340, Printing & 2,000.00 2,000.00 Publishing 101151-4360, Subscriptions 300.00 400.00 & Memberships 101151-4370, Travel & -0- 500.00 Training Fund 101-153, Senior Facility Commission This fund was a new one that was established by the City Council last year. It had two purposes. The first was support of senior activities that would ultimately occur through the Senior Center which did not exist at the beginning of the 1992 budgetary period. The second was support of Senior Commission activities. These activities included not only direct support of the Senior Commission but also educational mailings, brochure preparation, use of a consultant to assist in survey work and related activities. In 1993, direct management responsibilities for the Senior Center are being passed over to the Park and Recreation Department. Therefore, I am proposing that only inflationary increases be applied and that $4,000 of the original $8,000 allocation be transferred to the Park and Recreation Department to be used towards senior activities and Dawn Lemme's salary. Additional support for Dawn Lemme's salary is forthcoming through reallocation of block grant funds (refer to attached memo from Todd Hoffman). Personnel Services 1992 Budget 1993 Budget Materials & Supplies 101153-4110, Supplies, 200.00 300.00 Office 101153-4210, Books & 100.00 100.00 Periodicals Contractual Services 101153-4300, Fees, Service 300.00 1,000.00 Don Ashworth October 12, 1992 Page 10 Personnel Services 1992 Budget 1993 Budget 101153-4310, Telephone -0- -0- 101153-4330, Postage 100.00 600.00 101153-4340, Printing & 1,000.00 500.00 Publishing 101153-4360, Subscriptions 500.00 500.00 & Memberships 101153-4370, Travel & -0- 500.00 Training 101153-4375, Promotional 1,000.00 500.00 Expense Fund 211-231, Recycling No increases in staff time are being requested for this fund save for normal inflationary increases. Overall funds are being reallocated to support proposed programs and enhance recycling and educational efforts. However, funding allocated for total contractual services is being proposed for a reduction from the 1992 level of $25,000 down to a proposed level of $17,700. With the ending of city sponsored curbside recycling several years ago, our funding commitments have exceeded program demands and it is no longer necessary to fund the — program at these levels. However, we would like to add $5,000 towards program supplies to facilitate cost share programs such as composter purchases. The total request offers an $1,800 savings over last year. Personnel Services 1992 Budget 1993 Budget 211231-4010, Salaries & 21,000.00 No new staff Wages Increase for inflation only 211231-4030, Contributions, 2,000.00 Increase for inflation only Retirement 211231-4040, Contributions, 1,800.00 Increase for inflation only Insurance Don Ashworth October 12, 1992 Page 11 Personnel Services 1992 Budget 1993 Budget 211231-4041, Contributions, -0- Flex. 211231-4050 Workmens 200.00 Increase for inflation only — Comp Materials & Supplies 211231-4110, Supplies, -0- -0- Office 211231-4120, Supplies, -0- 500.00 Equipment 211231-4130, Supplies, -0- 5000.00 Program Contractual Services 211231-4300, Fees, Service 16,500.00 12,000.00 211231-4330, Postage 2,000.00 2,000.00 211231-4340, Printing & 2,500.00 2,500.00 Publishing 211231-4350, Cleaning & -0- -0- Waste Removal 211231-4360, Subscriptions -0- 200.00 & Memberships 211231-4370, Travel & 1,000.00 1,000.00 Training 211231-4375, Promotional 3,000.00 1,000.00 Expense Don Ashworth October 12, 1992 Page 12 Fund 720, Surface Water Management _. As the Council is aware, this project is funded out of a special utility fee that is assessed to all properties in Chanhassen. The program is a 3 phased one designed to offer improved wetland protection, develop and implement a surface water quality improvement program, and to develop a comprehensive storm water management plan. When the program was initially established, funding was proposed at a level that would have yielded $1.7 million over a 5 year period. The City Council authorized funding at a 60% level which would have resulted in a 5 year collection of slightly more than $1 million. Due to an error in projecting program funding by Short Elliot Hendrickson, we are in fact only collecting 60% of what was authorized by the Council. The only positive note is that we have earned $20,000 in additional interest income which was not anticipated. In an attached memo from Tom Chaffee, you will see that the program is generating $170,000 per year ($130,000 on the fees, the balance from interest income). An additional $80,000 in funds were provided by the City Council in 1991 in the Redmond land acquisition. For several reasons, we cannot expect this good fortune to continue. The Redmond contribution was a one time boost. The high amount of interest income is based upon a large cash reserve in 1992 which will not exist in the future. There was also an unusually good return on investments, which is not likely to occur in the future due to smaller cash balances that will be available. Thus, actual 5 year earnings could be substantially below what would occur if 1992 interest earnings are simply projected out. In summary, gross 5 year program earnings are likely to be substantially below levels authorized by the City Council and will be unable to sustain the program in the future without rate changes. When the program was originally approved, staff agreed with the Council that we would take the funding level in stride and begin work. It was agreed that the program should be required to demonstrate some level of success and community support at which time an increase in — funding levels could be considered. I believe that we have made excellent progress in achieving this goal. The program has numerous successes. These include a number of items that are outlined in the front part of this report. We are now entering the phase where serious money will have to be spent to achieve water quality goals. By this we mean it is time to undertake projects that have demonstrable and significant positive effect on our area lakes. The Surface Water Management Program Task Force has been working with our consultants to develop an initial list of projects. Three have been selected. In one area that the program is showing its real worth, we have designed a water quality improvement project for the north end of Lake Riley. Using approximately $5,000 of city money to design the project, we were — then able to leverage it by having a developer install approximately $50,000 worth of improvements. He will be able to incorporate this into his construction program for a single family subdivision. The two other projects being studied at this point are on Lotus Lake and are estimated to cost approximately $125,000 to complete. These projects are the first of Don Ashworth October 12, 1992 Page 13 many that will be identified in the capital improvements plan being developed by Bonestroo. The completed document will be available by mid-1993. Staff took a proposed spending package to the SWMP Committee at our last meeting. It was based upon a number of factors as follows: 1. The hiring of a water resources engineer. This position was outlined in the original SWMP plan and will prove to be invaluable in helping the city to manage its water resources. Tasks include working to review and refine development proposals to ensure that they meet our goals, undertake water quality and wetland protection studies, and to develop improvement projects as required. It is believed that this position will enable the city to reduce a large percentage of the consultant bills we are encountering in this area by allowing us to do much of the work in-house. At least 60% of this individual's time would be on water resource issues. The balance of the time would be as a general purpose member of the engineering staff to assist in a department that is significantly short staffed at the present. We have proposed that $20,000 of this individual's salary come out of the storm water program. 2. Special studies, development of plans and specifications. It is likely that we will be encountering the need to do special studies either in conjunction with the watershed district or other agencies or by ourselves. In a some cases, these may be beyond the scope of our ability to do in-house. $20,000 was proposed to be allocated towards this account. 3. City Engineer Emergency Response Account. This is an emergency fund that would allow the City Engineer to rapidly respond to storm water and water quality issues of a small scale. Periodic storms cause damage to public facilities whose repair is unbudgeted. Failure to respond quickly could result in further damage to public and private property and impact to water quality. $25,000 has been proposed with program outlines to be developed by the City Engineer for City Council approval. 4. Accelerated Street Sweeping. $10,000 is being proposed to be budgeted for this purpose on an annual basis. Due to the need to sweep streets on a strict time schedule to maximize water quality benefits, it may be necessary for us to regularly hire part time staff and/or rent equipment to achieve the goals. 5. Water Quality Testing. The SWMP Program calls for regular water testing and $5,000 has been proposed for this effort. 6. Educational Efforts. Ongoing educational efforts are an important part of the SWMP program and $1,000 has been proposed for this budget. Don Ashworth October 12, 1992 Page 14 7. Accelerated Pond Inspection/Maintenance. For the water quality protection system to function properly, it is important that we put regular maintenance of ponds and basins — on a footing equal to that which we now use for street maintenance. $10,000 has been proposed for this category. 8. Undertaking a minimum of two construction projects. Staff proposed undertaking at least two water quality improvement projects in 1993. Based upon completed feasibility studies, $125,000 in funding is required. Staff reviewed these concerns with the SWMP committee and obtained their reaction (see attached memo). They were highly supportive of the water resources engineering position believing it will put the city in a much more advantageous position of being able to be proactive in this area. The committee members questioned the $25,000 allocation for the City Engineer's Emergency Response account indicating that more information would be necessary, including the establishment of guidelines as to how these funds may be expended. The committee also believed that the $1,000 allocated for education efforts was far too low. In terms of the balance of these expenditures, there was wide spread support amongst task force members. Staff was directed to carry this program forward to the City Council for budgetary review. Based upon the committee's recommendations, we have revised the 1993 program. Additional salary requested for the engineering position is being increased from $10,000 to _ $20,000. Educational efforts are being increased from $1,000 to $5,000. The Engineer's Emergency Fund remains at $25,000 but program guidelines will need to be developed by the City Engineer. When our existing budgetary commitments (fees owed to Bonestroo Engineering and related work) have been satisfied, we will have a remaining balance in our Surface Water Fund of — approximately $128,500 (unspent funds and interest earnings). At this time, it does not appear likely that we will be expending this money on construction projects yet this year so we will be in a position to carry it forward to next year. To this you could add the $141,200 of revenue we expect to obtain in 1993 (refer to attached memo from Tom Chaffee), for a total of $269,700. Proposed expenditures for 1993 equal approximately $269,000. Thus, we essentially break even but this is a one time use of the fund and there will be no way to carry on beyond 1993 without a substantial increase in funding. Staff proposed that the SWMP committee consider recommending raising the utility fee from $3.22 per quarter per single family home back up to the $5.36 quarterly fee that had originally been requested to allow us to put the program on a reasonable financial footing. The general consensus of task force members was that raising the fee at this time would probably not be widely accepted and it may be useful for the program to go another 6 months to a year so that it can become more visible and prove its worth to our residents. They did Don Ashworth October 12, 1992 Page 15 however indicate that the funding levels that had been proposed, with the possible exception of the Engineer's Emergency Account, should in their opinion be approved by the City Council. They suggested that this be done through general fund or other revenues used to make up the shortfall. Suggestions ranged from finding the funds to put the accelerated pond inspection and accelerated street sweeping program, as well as the Engineer's Discretionary Account if approved, into normal maintenance funds allocated through the Engineering Department. They also ask the Council to explore other funding sources as needed. 1992 Budget 1993 Budget Personnel Services $ 39,950 $ 58,000 Materials & Supplies $ 1,300 $ 1,300 Contractual Services $244,500 $207,500 SWMP FUND CONTRACTUAL SERVICES BREAKDOWN Contractual Services Audit $ 1,500 Postage $ 1,500 Printing $ 1,200 Travel Training $ 800 Fees/Services: • City Engineer/Discretionary Acct $25,000 • Special Studies/Development of Plans and Specs $20,000 • Project Construction/includes land acquisition $125,000 • Accelerated Street Sweeping $10,000 • Water Quality Testing $ 5,000 •Educational Efforts $ 5,000 •Accelerated Pond Inspection/ $10,000 Maintenance 'Data Processing fees $ 2,500 Total $207,500 JOB DESCRIPTION CITY OF CHANHASSEN POSITION: Project Engineer/Storm Water Management Engineer DEPARTMENT: Public Works DATE: January, 1992 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE Assists the City Engineer in the operation of the Engineering Division through the development and execution of capital improvement programs with an emphasis in the storm water management program. RELATIONSHIPS Reports to: City Engineer and Assistant City Engineer Supervises: Limited supervisory responsibilities on a project basis. SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES *This position is anticipated to devote time in specific areas as follows: 60% Surface Water Management Program, 25% General Engineering, 15% Utilities. 1. Assist in the implementation of the Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan consistent with program policies and recommendations; periodically provide input and recommend updates to the program. 2 . Respond to citizen complaints and requests for assistance with storm drainage water quality problems and other engineering related inquiries. Assist in administrating water quality monitoring programs, including short-term lake sampling, inter-agency monitoring programs, documentation and assessment of public complaints. Maintain up-to-date computerized inventory of all lakes, ponds and corresponding drainage systems. 3 . Manage, calibrate, and utilize runoff/phosphorus loading models (NURP) for the purpose of predicting land use zoning and future development on water quality. Perform field verification of wet pond volumes to improve water quality model accuracy. 4 . Assist with the research and implementation of City-sponsored programs designed to reduce the introduction of nutrient and chemical pollutants into water bodies, including street sweeping, emergency spill response, hazardous waste collection and regulation of commercial lawn care companies. -1- 5. Assist with review of land use proposals and preliminary plats to determine impact to water resources; recommend appropriate measures for mitigation of nutrient impact in accordance with City policies and modeling techniques. 6. Periodically train and inform developers, City staff and consultants, on water quality management efforts, including the design and use of nutrient ponds, dedication policies for nutrient pond development, and the use of water quality assessment models. 7 . Review all City improvement project plans and recommend adequate measures to protect water quality, including the minimization of contributing nutrients or other pollutants to lakes, wetlands or adjacent to other environmentally sensitive areas. 8. Assist with the effective administration of program elements on an "inter-agency" level, both in-house and with other appropriate outside agencies, including but not limited to the Soil and Water Conservation District, Watershed District, Department of Natural Resources, Corps of Engineers and Pollution Control Agency. 9 . Assist in preparing long and short-range capital improvement programs designed to improve the quality of Chanhassen's lakes, ponds and wetlands. Capital improvements may include storm water bypass, creation of upstream nutrient ponds, water level manipulation, construction of phosphorus precipitators or in-basin sedimentation ponds. 10. Assist in preparing annual operating budgets related to water quality planning; analyze and recommend appropriate sources of funding to ensure the effective implementation of: education programs, monitoring, capital improvements, and lakes managements. Assist with administration of operating budgets and revenue sources. 11. Assist with identifying appropriate sources of outside funding; assist with writing and administration of grant applications - seek sources of technical assistance, manage associated projects, and prepare follow-up documentation. 12 . Assist with identifying, pursuing, and coordinating public- private partnerships for water quality enhancement, including: Lake association initiatives, corporate/private initiatives, civic organization projects, donations and charitable contributions. 13 . Maintain up-to-date knowledge of developments in the Water Quality and Storm Water Management field so that City programs can operate in a state-of-the-art fashion. Provide ideas for innovations and follow-through to implementation. -2- 14 . Reviews project plans and specifications for conformance with City standards for construction and prepares reports as assigned. 15. Assists in the design and recommendation of new programs which will improve the operations and the services of the Engineering Division. 16. Is responsible for assisting in specific City programs as delegated by the City Engineer such as infiltration/inflow removal . 17 . Attend bid openings and/or preconstruction meetings as directed by the City Engineer. 18 . Become intimately familiar with construction documents (plans and specifications) to the extent that you can oversee the various construction projects in the field, to provide critique of the construction and/or consultant's activities. 19. Anticipate construction/citizen problems for the residents in proximity of the construction and take appropriate action to pre-empt citizen complaints and construction deficiencies, especially as it relates to erosion control measures. 20. Review and prepare grading permits. 21. Responds to all citizen inquiries and takes action as appropriate. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS 1. Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineer, with an emphasis in Water Resources or a closely related field and a thorough knowledge of the principals and practices of municipal engineering. 2 . Four years of progressively responsible experience in a position directly related to water resources and design of storm drainage systems and ponds. 3 . A registered Enqineer-In-Traininq (E. I.T. ) with a desire to become a Registered Professional Engineer. 4 . Proven excellent communication skills, both written and oral and ability to establish and maintain effective relationships with staff, advisory bodies, other government agencies and deal properly with the public. 5. Familiarity with computerized water quality programs and storm modeling techniques. 6. A demonstrated ability to work independently and successfully complete projects with little or no supervision. -3- 7 . Ability to perform physical labor commonly encountered in water resource field studies and project management. DESIRED QUALIFICATIONS 1. Master's degree in Water Resources or a closely related field. 2 . Project management experience. 3 . Local government experience. 4 . Working knowledge of applied lakes management techniques. 5. Knowledge of and/or experience with phosphorous reduction programs, water quality monitoring programs and land use regulations pertaining to soil/water conservation. 6. Strong communication and writing skills. -4- REVISED OCTOBER 1, 1992 ONGOING ISSUES STATUS Comprehensive Plan Issues 1. 1995 Study Area (North) Public Information meeting on Issues and and Hwy. 5 Corridor Study Opportunities held on September 10. 2. 1995 Study Area (South) Assigned to Planning Commission staff. Work to be initiated as time commitments allow. OTHER ITEMS 1. Rezoning BF Dist. to A2 Staff preparing updated information for Planning Commission direction. 2. Sign Ordinance Work is continuing to progress with task force. Program expected to be completed shortly. 3.* Tree Protection Ordinance Inventory is completed. Over view of Mapping of significant existing tree protection regulations requested vegetative areas by Commisser Erhart. Advisory Tree Board established by City Council. PC representative required. 4.* Wetland Ordinance/Surface Main group establishing public information Water Management Program and erosion control program along with Task Force established. other work. Special wetlands subcommittee completed. SWMP to review in full — committee on September 30. Ordinance to PC by October. 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.* PUD Ordinance PC approved on 7/1/92. Item has been continued or deleted from City Council agendas since July due to lack of time for considerations. 8.* PC input in Downtown Ongoing - Review ongoing projects Planning and Traffic Study discussed at September 2, 1992 meeting. 9. Review of Architectural 1992/may be combined in part with Hwy. 5 Standards to Promote High work. Quality Design 10. Bluff Creek Corridor With adoption of Bluff Line Preservation Greenway ordinance, CC referred item to Park and Recreation Commission. Staff working with Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District to develop joint Bluff Creek corridor program. Meeting held on conceptual Bluff Creek park design prepared by Lance Neckar of U of M. 11. Ordinance amendment to Non- PC approved. City Attorney to redraft. conforming use section to clarify ordinance. 12. Temporary uses, sales - Guidelines memo reviewed by PC new ordinance. and scheduled for CC. Ordinance revisions to follow. Public Safety Director proposing changes to ordinance. 13. Truck and trailer rental standards. Requested by PC. 14. Sexually oriented businesses PC reviewed on 3/4/92. Sent to Public Safety Commission. Reviewed on July 8, 1992. To be forwarded to CC. 15.* Tree conservation easements. To be reviewed by PC in October. 16.* Fence Requirements. To be reviewed by PC in October. 17. Open Space Zoning. Requested by PC. * Change in status since last report CITY OF CHANNASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Surface Water Management Program Task Force FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director DATE: September 22, 1992 SUBJ: SWMP Financing Fall is typically the time when city budgets are developed for the coming year. The process normally takes a period of months, during which time staff makes presentations to the City Council, discusses projected program goals and needs, and works together with the Council to develop a financing plan. As the Task Force is aware, SWMP funding has remained unchanged since its inception nearly two years ago. You may recall earlier discussions where staff indicated that we had proposed a five year program that was projected to produce $1.7 million during this period. This revenue projection was based upon work prepared by the firm of Short, Elliot and Hendrickson (SEH) and was predicated upon a $5.36 quarterly fee per single family residence. Although the Council approved the program, they initially established program funding at a level some 60% of what had been requested by staff. The Council was concerned that a completed work program outlining specific tasks did not exist and that the program should be kept under fiscally tight controls until it proves itself. Thus, the program was set up with a fee based on $3.22 per quarter per home. Unfortunately, when revenues started coming in it was concluded that SEH had over estimated revenues and that we would only receive approximately 60% of what had been approved by the City Council. Thus, instead of generating approximately $1.7 million over five years, the program would produce $800,000 to accomplish the work. Staff was gratified to get the program up and running and indicated to the Council that we believed it would prove its worth to the community over the next few years, at which time there would, in all probability, be a need to improve revenues to meet program goals. We are now reaching the point in the program's existence where revenue demands will in all likelihood rapidly out pace what is being generated by the program. The costs that are involved in undertaking relatively small scale projects that are being researched by Bonestroo Engineering are indicative of the kinds of finances that will be required. Additionally, the program will be asked to finance a significant percentage of the cost of the engineering is «: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER SWMP Task Force September 23, 1992 Page 2 position that is being established to improve the city's capabilities in dealing with surface water issues. I wish that we would have had the completed Surface Water Management Plan and Capital Improvement Program in place going into this budget session but unfortunately, this is not likely to be available until sometime in late winter of next year. At this point, staff will likely request that the City Council consider increasing the quarterly charge back up to the $5.36 that was originally requested so that program financing does not become a major stumbling block. This is an increase in approximately 2¢ per day. Other mechanisms are available for program financing. It is possible to special assess water quality improvement projects, although the city's experience on special assessments for other types of improvement projects indicates that this will be a strenuous and dissention filled process at best. It is also difficult to directly establish benefit, which is a requirement of special assessment law. Therefore, at this juncture, we believe that the utility which has already been established by the Council represents the best means of funding the program into the future. Staff wishes to emphasize that we do not make a recommendation to increase program revenues lightly. We have worked diligently with the Task Force to demonstrate the worth of the program to the community. Tangible results of the program include: • City's Best Management Practices Handbook. • Draft City Wetland Ordinance, which is the most innovative in the state. • Educational efforts aimed at getting residents to improve land management practices including newsletters, mailings, articles in the city newsletter, lake side demonstrations and other ongoing programs. • Development of Official Wetlands Maps to improve wetland protection. • Ability to use the Surface Water Management Plan to modify projects to improve city water quality at little or no cost to the tax payer. Examples include improvements to the Minnewashta Parkway project and Lake Riley Hills, which will be installed by the developer at no cost to the city. • Revised City management practices such as the street sweeping program. I have asked the city finance department to prepare a cash flow projection statement for the SWMP program. It is not available at the time of writing, but I hope to have it to distribute to the members at the meeting. I am asking the members to discuss this memo at the SWMP Task Force September 23, 1992 Page 3 meeting and hopefully, give staff some direction to carry forward to the City Council during budgetary sessions. We look forward to getting your input on the financing issue. • -nn • aa�• .o- . •.ea . . a � � • '. •'' .. '• `.= . •' .i .4 ... =- — ms =— T= -+ 4' A . ... . . . •. 4' 1' t' 3 •-1 . . . . .. . . T1 O ...1 > 0 w www w w 0 0 NO-.1•. > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m C i -. P m H m V T w 0 0 2 -'I .O w 4-. -4 U' 4' ` W N r r 70 Z > > .0 A > 0000 ••0 •4 0 000T > 04.-.000r4D44 0 C - r -. r 70 r 70 r O C-' > > .4 2 C n 0 r n :z -m 'T m n 3 3 to to > m 7C n r n N C V I> .4 N > $ 0 4-. 70700mm -4 > .. 0 Cr T 000 O >G > r N -4 m 20 2 r >r N T m C - VT 'V S N 7C 70 .4 2 2 r n i r 0 •-• TC -4 rt+ G2•4 to UT m nmm UT X-4--1 y >A > N. H m4 m > Ty > . . r A • rr • 0 3x70 7070-. 70T H > r > 0 r .-.0 m 0-1,-; 2 m.-.1-; •.1,-,.... .. x C r » n m Zm .-7 to to > 3m TC. > 2CC mm3TL -< n < •4 PGS r• mm r -tununC r v1CC CNT v1.. T O O C 270 70 H r. . v -.ti •4 •• A > r C C D -I> ', cc N X t o n r..-. ..P P T n .p -. .^ r 702 Z .10.1 • • v Or m 0000 X to m .D r to A. O Ann m-n- X 32Z 2 =?T £ N - > .-. N .-. .- m.m Nf P O T T C v N N N >C. > _ t - T 2M > to C 101•,4,1 ..- 111 . .. 4. 0c0 > - 7C ,4.C r 'V to 7C A A m r rr .4 O G .20 - 12 C > m m 'ii.- xto> to m Z ., I )r > r v 3 to r 2 m.. 70 . 7D n .-i C .. -o in to -• n m, to o • in r x C ..1 70 2 O N I 2 1 N r • 70 70 m m C. to •.. -y m i I> m 2 0 3 ,- 2 to .2 • y N C- kn • rt I .. K j 1 ^' I N i 1 I i v�1'1 m T i • v T • • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 1 ♦ ♦ • •. ♦ CCS a !traotro i W 1 Ow I N w+ 04' r ..m n I 0 100000 ` o I o0 o t o 000 0 c� 2 . • . • :• • • • . . . • • 1 . • • • • • • 0 } 0 01000000 0l 000 010000000 mo > 0 0 601000000. 0 000 010000000 N N i m I I 1,-. F' _ t', w W I N $' ..x to v r .+ W I N 41-• N a m • .O Vi • W W I W i-+ WN P O 32 0 0 L.) P 1 i Na- • • • • • • 1 • • • • • • • • • Z rr1 f 0 0 N I O C O O O N N I N 0 0 a I O O O N 0 0 Cr -40 m -I .. A 1 K a I N H I O 0 N N le x C � 1 P ` `. 0 + N 'ww - in: O -gym m I-4 r Co rP.1 N O .0 0 aN444d.0N4' 02 -4 J' .t` w .0w1' to N .0 N 0 NOP4'.1we 10 N N 4' .D co 3' N N P to d 0 0.O .I UI r N 0 Al • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • >0 T 0 0 t71 .004. 000 0 N '.1 F+ .00J' t7 ONa -4 T - 0 0 W W U!-4000 UI 00 .1 W Ut00•O ON .0 m C 70 i . i I i MI 1 m I I = I m I • 77 a- !' I ' I I 1 I ( A A f I I I T m I I I • (4 tel I . I -4v •.. I ►+ I I �. Orn 1 N.O 1 • .1 i Cr .N •.1W N 04 co to 10 11' I-N 4' On P I 0 P O N • $ • • • . • • • >• in • U1 P I .O d tT 4. Co -$2 P I I .0 ,r P 0 NI O 0 I O ,m .p r O m4 C► M w w r-v m t 1 >T X I N N t?m N NNN M I P .Id tNt71tT tT VI A I C OOm P a a •am .O I r�-a- -4aa .O 1A Z I •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • m I W 000 Co Ut tot71to P ONNttK NNN 2 -r I w 000 - P mmm 01 $4400 -4000 70-4 I 0 4s C I C 40 •' I , i I I m >N I I O 2 70 i I P : % 1 • I . *• rC m I .. r .0 1.* 11., 0W -.I N 40N WI NwN>N .0 > 3 X J' 4. N P O w4O0 t -.I '00 -.1 r NOw V1N W tT 20 v N N tr 1 .O m tn00 r - P Ot N 000 NU1r .1 Am .. I • • • • • • • _ • I • • • ( • • • • • • • MX 7D I 0 0 4' I .0 047100 .O 4 NON O 1 0Ot711' ONr m mr 1 n A .I I w nw00 N to 0Ow -d 1 % ON >•ONr O 0 .0 A n !� o 7D 70 7C 70 70 7O 70 .70 N I i i ; . . .... . 6. -, f f / • t 1 N at etI CP... v u 1 PO 0 a 14 0% ./W W O 1 O .O W at W • • • .e Wu .1 IH N L mZ .• 1 ."1 0 — x = t $ t W = J u< as ✓ at Z ea 1 4, < W 1 .- 0 W Z 1 V 2. 3 — 3 t W C rat t— Z>` P W • • W La r N I./ at to I m — at W 1 W L J 1 a. I a r W N .o =/— O • W t • - 4 q.ch:; W p .. d6 f. • VD V! 1 W W at V 3 F < N 4: O O , W L x = W e:+ 1 — 1— 1 at C W f 4014 A a .: t . I • • 1 aL O .4 .1 ti —• r =0 O0 W W r ♦ co a. 1 N 3 W < I .. m W P. J H t H W GI 01 , 111 in 0 — W Z • • • Z= N N + W P. L H X h Y1 — u r •Z I 0 I I = W 3 O1 -H = 1 I 0 = LU 0 0 1; • i �u COwI I G 9 X I N , W . f. i .4 0 , • • I — N er . = W Z • c9 N CD Z i H Z . = r — cc fJ Z at W at W W 3 = r • II L W at N N Z P Je Z O O W - O' t.7 W CO 41 .• < = x en 41 W W f n0 LL at N H O at H 0 H • N eD W eJ 0 _ N J H 0 N N O H Z p. 0 • ..1 J 9 0 VI 41 Et 1 Z N e•1 r r 9 .- O' 0 0 - L 2 r r e.. N « CITY OF CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Jean Meuwissen, Treasurer FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator 7' DATE: September 25, 1992 SUBJ: 1993 Budget Attached are the 1992 estimates and 1993 requests for existing Functions 145 and 146, and 1993 requests for new Functions 144 and 147. My apologies for the tardiness in submitting these budgets. The new Functions, 144 Senior Center Operation and 147 Lake Ann Park Operation, were established following discussions with the Finance Department in this regard. These new functions allow the department to group the operations, expenditures and revenues for each of these areas in an orderly fashion, the result of which will be improved accounting for the city and our department. In addition to these changes, you are aware that I am requesting a Program Specialist position in the Park and Recreation Department effective 1993. Ms. Dawn Lemme currently occupies this position and would be retained as a full time employee pending approval of this position. In preparing the 1993 salary and benefit costs for the Park and Recreation Department, this position is to be funded under two separate Functions, 144 and 145. Todd Gerhardt identified this proposed position as a Salary Grade III position, with a starting salary of $25,000. Approximately $14,736 of which will be available (pending City Council action on 9-28-92) as CDBG funds and should be aligned under Function 144. The remaining salary and benefit costs are to be included in Function 145. Please acknowledge such in preparation of these budgets. The Park and Recreation Department is excited about these changes occurring in the department. Please contact me if you have any questions in these areas. pc: Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Supervisor Dawn Lemme, Program Specialist Don Ashworth, City Manager Paul Krauss, Planning Director is t0, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF ‘ ‘ CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 TO : Paul Krauss , Planning Director FROM: Tom Chaffee , Data Processing Coordinator DATE : September 30 , 1992 SUBJECT : Surface Water Management Utility Revenue/Analysis Approaching the Budget preparation process , I have done an analysis of our revenues from the utility billing system (copy attached ) . Now that most of the dust has settled on our surface water management utility implementation problems and we have adjusted most of the billings that needed adjustment , we have established a fairly constant billing of approximately $34 , 000 per quarter ( $136 , 000/year ) . Although this is slightly better than the projection of $130 , 000 in our 1992 Budget , it is definitely not adequate to fund additional personnel or programs without compromising some of the initial programs/plans . The bright spot in our final 1992 revenue picture will be our interest earnings . As of August 31 , 1992 we have realized net interest earnings of $27 , 300 with an estimated additional $10 , 000 for the balance of the year , giving us an excess of over $20 , 000 beyond the $15 , 000 estimated . The reason for this is two-fold ; 1 ) The overall earnings for the City have been up because of more aggressive investment strategies . 2 ) The average monthly cash balance in the "swamp" fund ( basis for allocation of interest earnings ) has remained up mainly due to the delay of some of the large budgeted contractual service items . te, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 0/29i92 1992 CITY OF CHANHASSEN UTILITY REVENUE ANALYSIS ma *** SWAMP *** t t t t SEWER 1 t t t t t t t t WATER * Mt OTR DIST ACCTS AMOUNT ACCTS AMOUNT AVERASE ACCTS AMOUNT AVERAGE USEASE AVG.USE 1 1 1 1277 4222.86 1185 54112.80 45.66 1085 22853.60 21.06 20426 19 1 1 2 3 9.66 3 72.00 24.00 0.00 0 1 1 3 15 983.03 30 16188.00 539.60 29 5107.90 176.13 4019 139 1 1 4 74 7245.31 46 15666.75 340.58 44 8257.70 187.68 6472 147 1 1 5 10 4566.30 456.63 9 7557.90 839.77 5843 649 1 1 6 6 561.60 93.60 6 288.20 48.03 226 38 - DIST: 1 101. 1369 12460.86 1280 91167.45 250.01 1173 44065.30 212.11 36986 165 1 2 1 1616 5203.52 1474 66561.60 45.16 1470 30732.90 20.91 26311 18 - 1 2 3 1 29.33 9 835.20 92.80 9 406.60 45.18 347 39 1 2 4 2 448.80 224.40 2 233.10 116.55 187 94 1 2 5 40 7386.06 20 20829.60 1041.48 21 11764.00 560.19 9124 434 - 1 2 6 2 223.20 111.60 2 110.90 55.45 93 47 DIST: 2 TOT. 1657 12618.91 1507 88898.40 303.09 1504 43247.50 159.66 36062 126 1 3 1 1781 7106.81 863 36136.80 41.87 863 16773.30 19.44 14953 17 1 3 3 0 0.00 2 72.00 36.00 2 33.00 16.50 30 15 1 3 4 19 1238.51 3 948.00 316.00 3 502.10 167.37 395 132 1 3 6 3 2028.00 676.00 2 676.50 338.25 523 262 DIST: 3 101. 1800 8345.32 871 39184.80 267.47 870 17984.90 135.39 15901 107 - BTR: 1 TOTAL 4826 33425.09 3658 219250.65 272.36 3547 105297.70 174.17 88949 137 2 1 1 1278 4226.08 1201 54597.60 45.46 1101 37549.30 34.10 32442 29 2 1 2 3 9.66 3 72.00 24.00 0.00 0 2 1 3 15 983.03 30 16243.20 541.44 29 5259.50 181.36 4147 143 - 2 1 4 74 7245.31 46 14445.15 314.02 44 9266.50 210.60 7261 165 2 1 5 10 4782.30 478.23 10 7384.40 738.44 5714 571 2 1 6 6 782.40 130.40 6 404.00 67.33 326 54 DIST: 1 TOT. 1370 12464.08 1296 90922.65 255.59 1190 59863.70 205.30 49890 160 2 2 1 1619 5213.18 1482 65047.20 43.89 1475 27308.50 18.51 24348 17 2 2 3 1 29.33 9 835.20 92.80 9 343.50 38.17 295 33 2 2 4 38 7379.62 2 487.20 243.60 2 251.30 125.65 201 101 2 2 5 22 20030.40 910.47 22 10269.50 466.80 7979 363 - 2 2 6 2 244.80 122.40 2 122.60 61.30 102 51 DIST: 2 TOT. 1658 12622.13 1517 86644.80 282.63 1510 38295.40 142.09 32925 113 2 3 1 1773 7098.40 887 36403.20 41.04 886 21813.30 24.62 19189 22 2 3 3 2 72.00 36.00 2 34.10 17.05 31 16 2 3 4 20 1339.72 3 948.00 316.00 3 585.50 195.17 459 153 - 2 3 6 3 1872.00 624.00 2 592.00 296.00 458 229 DIST: 3 TOT. 1793 8438.12 895 39295.20 254.26 893 23024.90 133.21 20137 105 9129192 1992 CITY OF CHANHASSEN UTILITY REVENUE ANALYSIS tttSWAMPitt it tt SEWER ttit hitt WATER tittt OTR DIST ACCTS AMOUNT ACCTS AMOUNT AVERAGE ACCTS AMOUNT AVERAGE USEAGE AV6.USE - OTR: 2 TOTAL 4821 33524.33 3708 216862.65 264.25 3593 121184.00 165.01' 102952 130 3 1 1 1306 4316.24 1215 0.00 1116 34341.80 30.77 29811 27 - 3 1 2 3 9.66 3 0,00 0.00 0 3 1 3 15 983.03 30 0.00 29 5238.30 180.63 4131 142 3 1 4 75 7613.79 46 0.00 46 12175.40 264.68 9509 207 _ 3 1 5 10 0.00 12 9935.00 827.92 7684 640 3 1 6 6 0.00 6 258.60 43.10 215 36 DIST: 1 TOT. 1399 12922.72 1310 0.00 1209 61949,10 224.52 51350 175 3 2 1 1645 5296.90 1489 65013.60 43.66 1559 51668.20 33.14 44368 28 3 2 3 1 29.33 9 835.20 92.80 9 398.50 44.28 342 38 3 2 4 39 7382.84 2 1675.20 837.60 3 1885.60 628.53 1462 487 3 2 5 22 21628.80 983.13 32 24473.00 764.78 18946 592 3 2 6 2 1056.00 528.00 6 562.00 93.67 440 73 - DIST: 2 TOT. 1685 12709.07 1524 90208.80 497.04 1609 78987.30 312.88 65558 244 3 3 1 1770 7088.74 928 38052.00 41.00 927 33516.30 36.16 28648 31 - 3 3 3 2 72.00 36.00 2 29.70 14.85 27 14 3 3 4 20 1339.72 3 948.00 316.00 3 693.60 231.20 541 180 3 3 6 3 1519.20 506.40 2 400.90 200.45 309 155 DIST: 3 TOT. 1790 8428,46 936 40591.20 224.85 934 34640.50 120.66 29525 95 ATR: 3 TOTAL 4874 34060.25 3770 130800.00 225.64 3752 175576.90 226.28 146433 177 84 14521 101009.67 11136 566913.3 254.08 10892 402058.6 188,48 338334 148 i l � l 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 i I I I 1 I 1 1 1 ,i r RN er Reach News from the Minnesota River Restoration Project Fall 1992 'There is no end to what we can accomplish as long as we don't worry about who gets credit for it.' —Hubert H. Humphrey Governor Carlson tours Minnesota River Valley to focus attention on river's plight Governor Carlson provided a boost to Minnesota River improvement efforts by devoting a day to raising public awareness about the river's condition. On September 22, Carlson toured the river basin, making stops in Bloomington,Mankato and Montevideo. The Governor pledged that within 10 years the river would be clean enough for families to swim in and recreate around again. The Governor emphasized that polluted runoff is the major reason that the lower reaches of the Minnesota River do not meet water quality standards. He stressed that while agriculture contributes a significant share of pollutants, cities must also be held accountable for their share of the pollution stream entering the river. The commissioners of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,Department of Natural Resources and Department of Agriculture accompanied Carlson to show support for his initiative and to pledge to coordinate their efforts to improve water quality in the river. All three agencies have agreed to work with local governments and residents along the river to curb soil erosion and to clean up problem feedlots and illegal dumps. A combination of incentives and regulation will be used to ensure that progress is made, with incentives and cooperation selected as first steps in working with landowners in the river basin. Cleaning up the Minnesota River is possible, the commissioners said. They cited successful cleanup efforts in the Mississippi River and St. Louis River as solid evidence that the state can battle tough environmental problems. They acknowledged,however,that the Minnesota River offers unique challenges since much of its pollution comes from thousands of farms and homes dispersed over a large and complex basin. These sources are not as easy to address as the industrial and municipal treatment plants agencies have traditionally regulated throughout the river basin. The Governor's tour included a luncheon meeting with members of the Minnesota River Citizens' Advisory Committee which is working to develop recommendations for improving water quality in the river. Governor Carlson applauded the committee for their efforts and underscored the importance of their process. In the future, the strength of our economy and of our country will be dependent upon the quality of its environment, Carlson said. 0 River Reach 2 _ Minnesota River convention attracts concerned citizens to New Ulm The Sportsman's Coalition for a Clean Minnesota River held its second annual Minnesota River Convention in New Ulm September 12 and 13. Set on the banks of the Minnesota River, the festival's theme was"All That the Minnesota River Has to Offer." Several hundred people participated in a series of activities including a canoe race, raffle, fishing contest,boat tours,essay and photo contests and musical entertainment. The convention also included educational seminars on water quality and resource management,with guest speakers from federal, state and local agencies. The conference, attended by a diverse group of people,was organized to acknowledge the abuses that have been imposed on this river system over the past century and to raise hopes for its future. Scott Sparlin, the convention's coordinator,believes this year's river festival was a great success because of the growing public interest in improving the river. "Attendance at this year's conference is over twice what it was last year,"Sparlin said. He expects that public interest will continue to increase exponentially. Once the public recognizes the value of this resource and its plight,real reclamation efforts can begin, said Sparlin. What causes foam on our rivers and lakes? by Muriel Runholt,pollution control specialist with the MPCA a Marshall Regional Office At one time or another, most of us have noticed a pile of foam moving along the edge of a river or piling up on the shore of a lake. Often times, citizens become concerned about this foam and report it to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for investigation. While there are cases where the foam is related to a chemical spill of some kind, most often it is not. Here is an explanation of why foam forms and why it is usually not a cause for concern. To understand how foam is generated,one needs to know something about surface tension and surfactants. One of the physical properties of water is surface tension. It is surface tension which causes the water surface to curve upward on the inside of a glass. Surface tension also makes the surface of water bulge upward, but not spill out when a glass is completely fall. A surfactant is a substance which,when added to water,will reduce its surface tension. Detergents contain surfactants. It is the surfactant in a detergent which reduces the surface tension so that water can carry the cleaners in detergent into clothes fibers to remove dirt. The whitish foam and bubbles that are periodically seen on the shoreline of lakes and rivers are usually produced by naturally occurring events. A surfactant in the water, which is dissolved organic carbon from the normal decaying process of organic matter,reduces the surface tension of water. The wind causes the surface layer of the water to be aerated. Tiny bubbles are formed. Because the surfactant, organic carbon, has reduced the surface tension, there is not enough tension in the water to collapse the bubbles,therefore, foam is formed. When the wind blows across the water,the bubbles are pushed together on the downwind shore, often forming a large mass. Foam can leave a brown residue when it dissipates. This residue is dirt from air and water that the bubbles pick up. River Reach 3 When should you be concerned about foam on the water? In some cases, foam can be a warning that something has been spilled or illegally dumped into our waterways. If an odor of oil, grease or chemicals is present along with the foam,it is a good idea to report this to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Spills Program. Trained staff can ask you questions and decide whether an onsite investigation is needed. We strongly encourage citizens to help us by observing and then notifying officials of anything that looks strange or unusual with respect to our rivers and lakes. If you should observe a spill or anything else that looks out-of-the-ordinary,please contact the MPCA's 24-hour Spills Hotline at 612-296-8100. If you have a question on water quality you would like answered, write to us: Editor, River Reach,Water Quality Division, MPCA, 520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155. O C.U.R.E. organizes major cleanup in Montevideo area In August, dedicated citizens from a Montevideo-based organization, Clean Up the River Environment (C.U.R.E.), coordinated a large cleanup along the banks of the Minnesota River between Montevideo and Wegdahl. With the aid of the Minnesota National Guard, four sites along the river were cleared of old cars, appliances and other scrap metal. The National Guard provided most of the manpower, while C.U.R.E. members did a significant amount of early legwork to make sure the cleanup would go smoothly. C.U.R.E. members served as local ambassadors for the cleanup by contacting landowners on whose property debris would be gathered and getting permission for entry to their properties. In addition, C.U.R.E. volunteers made arrangements with the local salvage yard,which took most of the scrap collected, and lined up additional vehicles and flatbed trailers for hauling the trash. A total of 15 flatbed loads of garbage and old cars were removed during the cleanup. While the clean up of large items like cars and appliances is important, C.U.R.E. wants to focus upcoming efforts on the kinds of pollution that are less visible and obvious. A recent goal is to work with local property owners whose land drains to the Minnesota River. C.U.R.E. will contact these landowners and provide them with information about how agricultural practices can be changed to improve water quality in the river. C.U.R.E. will be having its first annual meeting on February 4, 1993 in Montevideo. The meeting will serve as a celebration of the successes of the organization's first year, as well as to take care of important business such as electing Board members and planning for the next year of activity. Those interested in attending should contact Patrick Moore at 612-269-2105. o Minnesota River play completed Every resource manager understands the importance of public awareness and involvement in addressing environmental problems. Traditional methods for raising awareness have included public service announcements,brochures, posters, and public meetings. While all of these outreach tools have value, some members of the public may respond better to other approaches. River Reach 4 - In an effort to create and test new ways to get the word out,the MPCA recently commissioned development of a stage play about the Minnesota River. The play, written by professional theatre artists Marysue Moses and Alfred Harrison,explores how and why the Minnesota River is in its current condition and the ways in which we can all become involved in its restoration. The play attempts to prompt thinking and discussion among members of the audience. Moses and Harrison developed the play using information gathered through personal interviews with environmental experts, as well as through a series of three workshops in communities along the river. The two-day workshops,held in Shakopee,New Ulm and Montevideo,involved collaborating with community residents on the development of skit ideas that could be incorporated into the final play. Using theatre exercises and improvisations, the artists attempted to understand the values,experiences and ideas from residents who had grown up near the river and who had something to share with others about why they valued the resource. This approach was designed to ensure that the final script reflected the concerns of those most intimately connected with the river. The play was written for use in high schools,colleges, community theatre groups and any other organization interested in presenting the play to the public. The play requires a cast of 14 characters and would take approximately one hour to perform. For a free copy of the play, contact Lynne Kolze at 612-297-3825. CI Renville County organizes cleanup on the Minnesota River Renville County citizens worked shoulder to shoulder with the National Guard's Battery D in an effort to reclaim the Minnesota River on Saturday, October 3. They cleaned up trash, debris and waste from the banks of the river at four locations in the county. Three of the cleanup sites were near county parks and boat landings along the river. The cleanup, organized by the Renville County Soil and Water Conservation District,involved students from local schools as well as members from Lions Club Chapters from throughout the county. Approximately 80 members of the National Guard offered their services as well. The National Guard also provided free lunches to all who participated in the effort. About 120 individuals participated in the event The cleanup yielded discarded washing machines, several 55 gallon drums, tires, and many other types of trash and debris. All of the debris collected was taken to the Renville County Landfill for proper disposal. Richard Hagen,the cleanup coordinator, said that everyone who participated in the effort felt very positive about their involvement and that it was a good hands-on experience. Hagen acknowledged that although the clean up of large items and debris is a good first step, it is only a small part of the overall problems facing the river. What the experience did provide,however,was a chance for everyone to get intimately involved with the resource and for people to think more about its value to the community, Hagen said. He hopes that another cleanup can be organized next spring. Meanwhile, sponsors of the event are writing periodic news features for local papers that can help to increase awareness in the county about the river's condition and the need for a collective public River Reach 5 effort to restore it. For more information on Renville County's restoration efforts, contact Richard Hagen, Renville County Soil and Water Conservation District, at 507-523-1331. ❑ Citizens'Advisory Committee explores problems in Minnesota River The Minnesota River Citizens'Advisory Committee was formed early in 1992 to develop recommendations for the legislature, the public and local units of government on ways that water quality can be improved in the Minnesota River. The committee has met four times, with additional meetings planned through the early part of 1994. Early meetings focused on providing information to the group about the most recent findings on the quality of water and the environment in the Minnesota River basin. An additional meeting allowed committee participants to have an early discussion of issues that they felt could be successfully addressed by the group. For the next eight to nine months,the committee will hear presentations made by experts and citizens from throughout the river basin. Each meeting will focus on one or several issues of concern to the Citizens'Advisory Committee. The next two meetings will examine the issues of drainage and land uses within the basin, for example. The Citizens'Advisory Committee will have opportunities to debate and discuss these issues with the speakers and will also receive ideas and input from technical experts which will participate in the meetings. It is hoped that by drawing upon ideas and experience from within the river basin, the final set of recommendations will better reflect the issues, needs and concerns of those that have a stake in the river's future. Next summer, the committee will begin to develop recommendations on some of the key issues that were raised during earlier meetings. During the fall and winter of 1993, a report will be produced which will outline the recommendations of the committee. This report will be presented to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Citizens Board and will then go out for public comment. For minutes of these meetings,contact Lynne Kolze at 612-297-3825. 0 Glaciers shape Minnesota River Valley landscape by Terri Shopa,student intern with the MPCA a Water Quality Division Imagine sitting in a canoe,lazily floating down the Minnesota River. As you drift along you notice a variety of landscapes and rock formations. Looking around at the valley,you wonder how it could possibly be so wide or large. This is a quiet river, slowly meandering through southern Minnesota, a silver thread woven through a patchwork quilt of farms and towns. How could this peaceful river have carved a valley that is as much as five miles wide and lies up to 250 feet below the surrounding prairie? Actually, the valley surrounding the river is the result of geologic events that took place 9,000- 12,000 years ago. During the last ice age, a melting glacier created the ancient Lake Agassiz, an inland sea much larger than all of the Great Lakes combined. This sea covered 110,000 square miles in Minnesota, North and South Dakota and Manitoba. The eastern edge of the lake was west and north of the present headwaters of the Mississippi. The depth of Lake Agassiz varied from 100- 700 feet;its River Reach 6 outlets to the north were blocked by ice, leaving the only outlet on the southern end of the lake, = where the Dakotas meet the Minnesota boundary. This outlet was known as the Glacial River Warren. The River Warren, a tumultuous deluge of freezing water,ice and boulders, rushed southeastward for more than 200 miles. Huge deposits of earth and rock,left by glaciers, diverted the river north a short distance where it joined the river we now call the Mississippi. The ancient River Warren, 330 miles long, one to five miles in width and 75 -200 feet deep, carved a channel that is today one of the agriculturally richest and scenically beautiful valleys in Minnesota. As the ice age lapsed, the wall of ice on Lake Agassiz'northern shore broke, opening a conduit toward Hudson Bay. The level of the lake slowly dropped and retreated northward. Left as remnants of the inland sea were Lake Winnipeg and Winnipegosis in Canada, the fertile Red River Valley, Upper and Lower Red Lakes, Lake Traverse and Big Stone Lake. Today,the Minnesota River flows out of Big Stone Lake,a serpentine reminder of the River Warren. There are many beautiful views along the Minnesota River,including several which are legacies to both the glaciers and the River Warren. Between Ortonville and Franklin(a distance of about 100 miles), the Minnesota moves past fields studded with massive granite outcroppings. Deposited by the glaciers, these huge boulders have been worn smooth and rounded by the river and time. Another visible reminder of the River Warren's tremendous force rests on the edge of the valley near New Ulm,where the river begins to change course. Once an island in an ocean older than Agassiz, Old Redstone rises 175 feet above the river. Made of quartzite,harder than granite, this prominence has not eroded like the surrounding rocks. Today,it stands as a monument to geologic forces. The Minnesota River has a rich geologic history. Limestone and sandstone bluffs, granite terraces, western prairies and potholes far above the present valley floor are just a few of the signs of an ancient river much higher and wider than today's. Next time you're in that canoe,take a look around. ❑ Setting water quality goals and objectives by Greg Johnson, senior hydrologist with the MPCA In the previous River Reach newsletter,I talked about the importance of designing effective water quality monitoring plans before you begin taking samples and gathering data about your stream or lake. The following are important parts of any water quality monitoring plan: setting information goals and objectives, developing a monitoring and modeling strategy and communication water quality information. All of these components should be completed before beginning a monitoring and/or modeling program. This issue will describe how to develop more effective water quality information goals and objectives. . River Reach 7 First, let's consider the question,"How do you set water quality information goals and objectives?" Water quality information goals and objectives are developed by defining what water quality is, who the players are, and what their specific roles and responsibilities are with respect to the water of concern. The term, water quality,means something different to everyone. It can also be defined in different ways in different situations. For these reasons,it is important to begin by specifically defining what is meant by water quality in your particular situation. There are three general categories in which water quality can be defined. Each is important and each should be used with the others to develop a complete description of the quality of the water of concern. The first category involves an aesthetic judgement or perception of the quality of the water. For example, do people consider the water to be pure, pristine;polluted, muddy;dear, cool;brown, green, stinking; safe; or dangerous. Even though these perceptions are subjective and user dependent, they are critically important in defining and understanding the concerns of those who use the water. The second category involves a more scientific description of a water's quality. The tools within this category include physical,biological, and chemical parameters that can more specifically describe water quality. These parameters are only useful if their meaning and importance are dearly communicated to key decision-makers. Physical parameters include temperature, color, turbidity, sediment,volume, and Secchi disk transparency. Biological parameters include number of organisms, species diversity, productivity,biochemical oxygen demand, and habitat condition. Chemical parameters include nutrients, cations, anions, organics,pH, and dissolved oxygen. Many other parameters are also available within each grouping. The third category involves a social and political description of the water. This category provides the descriptions of the people, organizations and agencies that use,protect, and regulate the waters of concern. Water users may include municipalities,industries,individual domestic users, recreational users, farmers, and fisheries and wildlife. Water protectors may include individuals, environmental organizations, and public agencies. The regulators will include local, state, and federal government agencies. The degree to which each user, protector,and regulator has a stake in the quality of a resource will affect how and what goals and objectives are formed. It is important to take the time to deal with these issues, rather than developing goals and objectives that may not accurately address the human element in the water quality issues being evaluated. Questions to answer include: What are the roles and interests of each group? What constitutes adequate social and political support? Is there a means of measuring the social and political support present? Does support have to be generated to attain the necessary involvement of the different players? What are the socially acceptable and unacceptable land uses in the area? Are there cultural and/or institutional perceptions that must be overcome to implement change? All of the above information can be used to develop a specific definition of water quality as it relates to your project. Note that it probably will not be an easy task. River Reach 8 - ' The next step, defining the players and their specific roles and responsibilities in setting water quality information goals and objectives, will be presented in the ngt.'issue of River Reach. A summary of this information is available from Greg Johnson,MPCA-NSS, 520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155. The summary,Information Protocols for Water Quality(Monitoring/ Modeling Strategies),"was prepared by Joe Magner and Greg Johnson, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and Scott Alexander and Calvin Alexander,Unikersity of Minnesota,in 1992. 0 - River,Reach is published quarterly by the Minnesota — Pollution Control Agency's ..: The Minnesota River Restoration Project is a Water Quality Division multi-year effort devoted to improving and . protectingwater quality,biological diversityLynne Editor: Kolze '"::' ` — and recreation in the Minnesota River basin : .. ' MPGA' 520� fayette Road St.Paul,MN 55155 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency4 - 520 Lafayette Road �,,4"�,,.,. `:i i ,...7,. ....22::::::::-...?.._ �' St- Paul,Minnesota 55155 t 1 ��„`.`-" ��'.S.P2iTVE;: • DEC-3'42 /'% �i I: -,'" -".7.,-..t 1! '-:' z Q • I. L ': 753024 %MOS Paul Krauss Director of Pleaaias City •f Claate's's 690 Coulter Drive Cltslassea, Miaaeseta 55317 RECEIVED DEC a 4 1992 CITY OF CHAT HASSE -,d/ ) Lsgb'.2