The URL can be used to link to this page

05-5-93 Agenda and Packet FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 1993, 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Request to rezone 13 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to RSF, Residential Single Family and to subdivide 13 acres into 23 single family lots located north of Hwy. 5 and east of Galpin Boulevard, Royal Oak Estates, Brett Davidson. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT C 1 T Y 0 F PC DATE: 5/5/93 CH M N II A S S E N CC DATE: 5/19/93 \�I Y CASE#: 93-8 SUB & 93-2 REZONE By: Olsen:Hempel:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Rezoning of 13 acres property zoned A2, Agricultural Estates to RSF, Residential Single Family and Preliminary Plat to be subdivided 13 acres into 23 single family lots, Royal Oak Estates Z VLOCATION: East of Galpin Boulevard and north of Hwy. 5 APPLICANT: Brett Davidson Charles Plowe a. 7291 Galpin Boulevard 9180 Lexington Ave. N. E. Excelsior, MN 55331 Circle Pines, MN 55014 PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estates ACREAGE: 23 acres gross 10.8 acre net DENSITY: 1.8 units/acre gross 2.4 units/acre net ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RR; Single family Q S - A2; vacant (recently proposed as Windmill Run) E - RR; vacant 0 W -A2; single family WATER AND SEWER: Sewer and water are currently being extended to the subject site. W �— PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The property contains an existing single family residence. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density VAL ( i . . ., . _ - -- — --- I. 4,Ki- PARK c cr — _ - I . X ___________ ..,.. --- • - . Sr' Tr - ‘ . •,.CV--$--; 1 r 4, ...., ..., 0 CO - / 2 IMMIVIlio ' .- gni, • • I cc Ian ! • r--.'-----"--='•..--.,. _ — POND In •-___ 1 1 - . _ , 01D , iii, . , z 0 \----17-6-,..-7„,,,, ---__:,-4-0--5-- - r (..., A2 ..... _ -- - ____ __ _ _ _ . . . A. • // cii , ... %.\ . --r--- '''' - • Iv er' fill eg: ; ,11, p0„, / I p • • pr II • IIII .., ,-; ,t„ • ...II el .m. •Nms. avn. ...1—._ -_J.. r...._ \\,....., mil , - 1 ,c04 \ 44" *----L-----------1 z vt`' 5... Royal Oak Estates May 5, 1993 Page 2 SUMMARY/BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing to rezone property from A2, Agricultural Estate to RSF, Residential Single Family and to subdivide the site into 23 single family lots. The property is within the MUSA line and can be subdivided into 15,000 square foot lots. The proposal is a straight subdivision. As with the Windmill Run proposal, the only issues with the proposal come mainly from engineering criteria, such a drainage and utilities. Staff is recommending approval with proposed conditions. REZONING The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from A2, Agricultural Estates to RSF, Residential Single Family. The property was recently brought into the MUSA line with the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. For the property to be developed as 15,000 square lots, the site must be rezoned to RSF and utilities must be brought to the site. The city is in the process of extending utilities to the site. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Residential Low Density with a net density of 1.2-4.0 units per acre. The rezoning would be consistent with the designated land use. Staff is recommending approval of the rezoning. PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide 13 acres (gross) into 23 single family lots. The site is divided into 2 blocks and is serviced by one access off of CR 117 (Galpin Blvd). The lots front on one public internal street. The street is providing a future connection to the property to the south. All of the lots meet the 15,000 square foot minimum and the lot width and depth requirements. The net area of the site (lot areas only) is 10.8 acres. The net density of the site is 2.4 units per acre, which meets the land use plan criteria of 1.2 - 4.0 units/acre. The average lot area is 20,454 square feet. The lots range in size from 15,381 square feet to 36,674 square feet (where home exists). LOT. BLOCK LOT AREA 15,000 LOT WIDTH 90 ' LOT DEPTH 125' SQUARE FEET LOT 1, BLK 1 36,674 SQ.FT 191' 198' LOT 2, BLK 1 21,274 SQ.FT. 105' 200' LOT 3 BLK 1 19643 SQ. FT. 110' 186' LOT 4, BLK 1 18,149 SQ.FT. 105' 173' Royal Oak Estates May 5, 1993 Page 3 LOT 5, BLK 1 18,293 SQ. FT. 105' 178' LOT 6, BLK 1 18,608 SQ. FT. 100' 185' LOT 7, BLK 1 18,608 SQ. FT. 100' 182' LOT 8, BLK 1 17,561 SQ. FT. 105' 169' LOT 9, BLK 1 21,284 SQ.FT. 100' 183' LOT 10, BLK 1 37,214 SQ. FT. 110' 219' LOT 11, BLK 1 23,906 SQ.FT. 105' 191' LOT 12, BLK 1 17,497 SQ. FT. 106' 141' LOT 1 BLK 2 21,867 SQ. FT. 122' 178' LOT 2, BLK2 15,381 SQ. FT. 90' 172' LOT 3, BLK2 16,043 SQ. FT. 90' 172' LOT 4, BLK 2 16,021 SQ. FT. 91' 185' LOT 5, BLK 2 17,871 SQ. FT. 90' 199' LOT 6. BLK 2 17,986 SQ.FT. 90' 141' LOT 7, BLK 2 17,029 SQ. FT. 90' 190' LOT 8, BLK 2 17,957 SQ. FT. 90' 189' LOT 9, BLK 2 17,837 SQ. FT. 90' 197' LOT 10, BLK 2 19,143 SQ. FT. 90' 206' LOT 11, BLK 2 22,745 SQ. FT. 242' 167' Grading and Drainage The site consists of generally rolling terrain devoid of tree cover except in the northeast - corner of the parcel. The preliminary grading plan proposes to grade a majority of the site for house pads, street construction and a storm water treatment pond. As proposed, construction of the storm water treatment pond will result in the removal of some trees in the - rear of Lot 10, Block 1. Depending on final ponding calculations, it may be possible for the applicant's engineer to reconfigure the pond and save these trees. The grading and drainage plan proposes catch basins to catch storm water runoff from lawns and the street. Proposed storm sewers will convey the untreated site runoff from two Royal Oak Estates May 5, 1993 Page 4 drainage systems. One system conveys the storm runoff to the proposed retention pond on Lot 10, Block 1 which then flows into the adjacent wetlands. The other drainage system conveys runoff from the westerly portion of the development and will connect into a storm sewer system proposed by the development to the south. The City has previously approved a preliminary plat for the parcel directly to the south (Rottlund Companies - Windmill Run) which may or may not be constructed prior to this development. This subdivision request, as with the previously approved subdivision of Windmill Run, are prime examples where the applicant is unable to provide adequate on-site ponding facilities; therefore, they should be required to pay a storm water trunk fee. The trunk fee would be used to offset future costs of oversizing on the next downstream segment of pipe. Trunk fees would be calculated based on the contributing drainage areas flowing to the south parcel. As previously mentioned, the parcel to the south of this development has previously received preliminary plat approval by the City. Staff's review of the storm water runoff in Windmill Run resulted in recommending diverting storm runoff from three drainage areas into two temporary retention ponding areas. One of these areas was to convey drainage from the _ southeast corner of this development through the Windmill Run project. However, since this site (Royal Oak) is now being considered for development it would be prudent to maintain the "predeveloped" drainage pattern and convey runoff from the easterly portions of Windmill Run north into proposed Royal Oak development where the proposed storm sewers located at the end of the street will intercept the drainage. This additional runoff from the south parcel will require additional pond storage in Royal Oak development (Lot 10, Block 1) to accommodate pretreatment. This same drainage scenario is happening on the westerly portion of the project. Storm runoff from Royal Oak Estates is proposed to be conveyed via storm sewer south between Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 into the Windmill Run subdivision. This storm — runoff is proposed to be treated in a temporary retention pond constructed within the Windmill Run development. The contributing areas from each development into one another appears to be equal. Therefore, costs for oversizing of the storm sewer lines and/or ponding areas in both developments would be a wash. Storm water treatment in both developments are not fulfilling the City's water quality standards; as with Windmill Run, the applicant of Royal Oak Estates should also be required to contribute into the City's Surface Water Management Program for development of a downstream regional ponding facility. The City has not established a trunk storm sewer fee as of yet; however, the City is nearing completion of a city-wide comprehensive storm sewer plan. Bonestroo & Associates, the City's storm water consultant, will be able to estimate a figure based on contributing drainage areas. It is recommended that this development be required to pay its fair share of those trunk fees to enable the City to contribute to future storm sewer projects on adjacent parcels to convey runoff from this development to a proposed regional pond. In addition to the trunk storm sewer fee, the applicant will also be Royal Oak Estates May 5, 1993 Page 5 required to pay into the City's Storm Water Management Program to provide water quality improvements downstream. According to a preliminary geotechnical evaluation report prepared by Braun Engineering dated April 26, 1993, soil conditions throughout the development contain a very high moisture content. Ground water was observed at a relatively shallow depth in several borings. Ground water will also likely be encountered in other low areas of this site. Therefore, staff recommends construction of drain tile systems behind the proposed curbs to intercept household sump pump discharge which is typically extended to discharge into the street. The City in the past has experienced discharge of sump pumps in the street creating hazardous conditions, icy conditions in the winter as well as the slippery slime buildup in the summer. Prior to final platting the applicant shall provide the City's Engineering Department with storm sewer and ponding calculations. All storm sewers shall be designed for a 10-year storm event. The ponding requirements shall meet water quality standards set forth by Bonestroo. The discharge rate for predeveloped runoff conditions shall be maintained except where the storm sewer will be extended into a network of trunk storm sewer lines. Utilities The City Council has ordered the preparation of plans and specifications for trunk sanitary sewer and water improvements to service this area as well as Lundgren Bros. project on the Johnson/Dolejsi property located to the west of the development. Plans and specifications for the project are nearing completion and are subject to approval and authorization for bid by the City Council. Without these trunk improvements, the project is not feasible from an engineering standpoint. A change order with the Upper Bluff Creek trunk sewer and water improvement project was approved to extend the sanitary sewer from the existing Lake Ann trunk sanitary sewer line to the easterly lot lines of Lots 10 and 11, Block 1. The City's proposed trunk sewer and water improvements propose on extending the 12-inch trunk sewer line westerly between Lots 10 and 11, Block 1 to the proposed street and thence continue westerly to Galpin Boulevard. Since it is a relatively short distance to the south line of the plat, the City would include extension of an 8-inch sanitary sewer line south of the future Windmill Run development. A 12-inch trunk watermain is also proposed to be extended down Galpin Boulevard to the intersection of this development. A 12-inch water line would then be extended easterly along the roadway alignment to the south plat line. Depending on timing, the City may also extend the 12-inch watermain south through the Rottlund development. A 15-foot wide drainage and utility easement should be dedicated with the final plat along the east line of Lots 10 and 11 along with a 20-foot wide easement centered on the common property line between Lots 11 and 12, Block 1. The applicant will be responsible for the extension of the sanitary sewer and water service to the individual lots from the trunk main as well as fire hydrant leads. All utility and street construction shall be in accordance with the City's latest standard specifications and detail plates. Detailed construction plans for utility and street improvements will be required as a part of the final Royal Oak Estates May 5, 1993 Page 6 plat approval process and are subject to City Council approval. The applicant shall also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval for the overall development. According to City ordinance, the existing house on Lot 1, Block 1 (Davidson's) will be required to connect to the new sanitary sewer line within 12 months after such connection becomes available. Once the City formally authorizes the trunk sanitary sewer and watermain improvements (Project No. 92-5), assessments will be pending on the property. The assessment will be based on the number of net assessable acreage for each parcel based on the number of residential equivalent units (REU's) for the planned land use. Net assessable acreage is gross acreage less wetlands and major right-of-way. The feasibility report for this project proposed a net assessable acreage of 12 acres with 24 REU's for the parcel. The plat proposes 23 lots even though potentially 24 lots could be platted. Staff proposes to spread the future assessments for the trunk and lateral improvements over the proposed 23 lots equally. Streets The plans propose a single access off of Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). Galpin Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of the Carver County Highway Department of which they have sent a memo addressing their concerns. Staff has also met with Mr. Roger Gustafson, County Engineer and Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer, regarding access points in relation to these two newly proposed subdivision (Windmill Run and Royal Oak Estates). It is both the Carver County Highway Department's and staffs position that if these developments came in as one submittal (project), the northerly access which is proposed with Royal Oak Estates would be denied due to the close proximity to each other. But since the City has already granted preliminary plat approval for Windmill Run we are unable to change the plat layout at this time. In the meantime we are somewhat obligated to grant street access from County Road 117 to Royal Oak Estates. According to the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study, County Road 117 is classified as a collector (Class I). Eventually it will be a 100-foot wide road right-of-way corridor with a four-lane highway. The existing house on Lot 1, Block 1 currently accesses the property from County Road 117. It is recommended that the driveway access be relocated to access from the proposed interior (new) street. The plans propose 60-foot wide road right-of-way and construction of a 31-foot wide back-to- back urban street section which is in accordance with the City's standards. Street grades range from 0.7% grade to 4.7% which is also within the City's guidelines. All street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition (1993) of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street construction plans and Royal Oak Estates May 5, 1993 Page 7 specifications will be required for review prior to final plat approval. The construction plans and specifications for street and utility improvements will also require City Council approval in conjunction with final platting. Erosion Control The drainage plan proposes erosion control fence along the easterly edge of the development and the southwesterly corner of the development. Staff will recommend that erosion control fence be extended along the easterly lot line to the north corner and then west around the pond perimeter. In addition, depending on timing, the City may also require erosion control silt fence installed approximately 10 feet behind the curb throughout the subdivision in an effort to minimize erosion during new home construction. This also alleviates the builder having to install individual erosion control measures on each lot in the future. Landscaping The applicant is providing landscaping along CR 117 (Galpin Blvd.). The Subdivision Ordinance requires a landscaped buffer on the exterior of the subdivision if adjacent to a collector street. The buffering shall consist of berms and landscape material consisting of a mix of trees and shrubs. The Subdivision Ordinance provides a list of preferred plantings. The list contains primary specimen deciduous trees, secondary specimen deciduous trees, ornamental and conifers (see attachment). The Subdivision Ordinance also requires each lot to be provided with a minimum of one (1) tree to be placed in the front yard. The proposed boulevard landscaping consists of 5 River Birch. Staff is recommending that the landscaping be improved with berming and additional landscaping. The five River Birch are fine but should be support landscaping to higher quality boulevard trees such as recommended by the city under the primary category (see list). Staff is also recommending that the boulevard landscaping be expanded along Lot 1, Block 1. Although this is an existing home, the lot is part of the subdivision and does not currently provide landscaping along CR 117. The landscaping plan shall also contain details on the one tree/lot. Staff is recommending that at least half of the lots contain primary specimen plants (12 lots). The landscaping plan shall be amended to reflect staff's recommendations. There is a stand of trees along the northerly boundary. Only the ponding area may impact these trees. Staff is recommending the landscaping plan show the boundary of the trees and that a conservation easement protect the stand of trees. Park and Recreation The proposal lies within a park deficient area, but due to its size, most likely will not be considered as a candidate for land acquisition. The city's parkland dedication ordinance would allow the taking of .92 of the 13 acres being platted for parkland. This acreage is Royal Oak Estates May 5, 1993 Page 8 insufficient for a neighborhood park, and in my opinion, does not represent a "nest egg" to build upon. Staff's recommendation to the Park and Recreation Commission will be to accept full park fees to be paid at the time of building permit application in lieu of parkland dedication. The Comprehensive Plan identifies Galpin Boulevard (CR 117) as a trail alignment. A current analysis to determine which side of the road this trail will be constructed identifies the east as the better candidate. To accommodate this construction, a 20-ft. wide trail easement will be required of the applicant. This easement shall be granted on the westerly property line (Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2). The alignment shall be included in the overall grading plan for the project with a suitable trail bed being prepared. This bed may meander within the easement alignment at the discretion of the applicant, but the eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail construction and is subject to approval as part of the grading plan review. Planting of trees shall be restricted to areas east of the trail bench. Full trail fees shall be collected at the time of building permit application to assist in the financing of the future trail connection. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of request #93-2 to rezone 13 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to RSF, Residential Single Family and subdivision #93-8 for Royal Oaks Estates to create 23 single family lots as shown on the plans dated April 7, 1993, subject to the following conditions: 1. The city shall accept full park fees to be paid at the time of building permit application at the rate then in force in lieu of parkland dedication. 2. A 20-ft. wide trail easement shall be granted to the city along the applicant's westerly property line (Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2. Furthermore, that this easement shall be included in the Grading Plan for the project with a suitable trail bed being prepared. This trail bed may meander within the easement alignment at the discretion of the applicant, but the eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail construction and is subject to approval as part of the grading plan review. Planting of trees shall be restricted to areas east of the trail bench. Full trail fees shall be collected at the time of building permit application at the rate then in force to assist in the financing of the future trail connection. 3. The applicant shall pay an appropriate storm water trunk fee to be determined by the City's storm water management consultant to contribute towards the future extension of trunk storm sewer facilities. Royal Oak Estates May 5, 1993 Page 9 4. All street and utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The street construction shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to accommodate household sump pump discharge. Detailed construction plans and specifications for utility and street improvements shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to final platting. Final construction plans and specifications are subject to City Council approval. 5. The applicant shall submit detailed storm drainage and ponding calculations verifying the pipe sizing and pond volumes. The storm sewer shall be designed and constructed to a 10-year storm event. The retention pond will be reviewed by the City's storm water management consultant and constructed pursuant to guides implemented by the City's consultant (Bonestroo). 6. Erosion control plans and methods shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Best Management Practice Handbook. 7. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all necessary permits from the regulatory agencies such as the MPCA, Health Department, Watershed District and Carver County Highway Department. 8. Prior to the City's signing the final plat, the applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee — construction of the public improvements and compliance of the conditions of approval. The development contract will be subject to City Council approval. 9. The applicant shall provide, at a minimum, a right-turn lane (deceleration lane) along County Road 117 and any other roadway improvements as required by the Carver County Highway Department. 10. Should the end of the roadway not be connected with the parcel to the south, a temporary cul-de-sac shall be constructed to meet City standards with a barricade and signage stating that it is a temporary cul-de-sac and this road will be extended in the future. The applicant shall dedicate to the City the necessary temporary roadway easement for portions of the cul-de-sac lying outside the right-of-way. 11. Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the City Council ordering and awarding the bid for Public Improvement No. 92-5 for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and watermain improvements through the development. 12. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat the typical 5 and 10-foot wide drainage and utility easements along all side, front and rear lot lines. In addition, drainage and Royal Oak Estates May 5, 1993 Page 10 utility' easements shall be conveyed for all pond retention areas. 20-foot wide drainage and utility easements shall also be dedicated with the final plat on the following areas: a) between Lots 11 and 12, Block 1 and Lots 10 and 11, Block 1. e) between Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. 13. Should the parcel to the south (Rottlund - Windmill Run) not develop, this development will be required to provide temporary on-site retention pond until the parcel to the south develops and the storm sewer line is extended to Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. 14. Erosion control measures and turf establishment shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 15. The final grading plan shall denote the type of house and elevation of garage and lowest floor for each lot. 16. The existing house on Lot 1, Block 1 (Davidson's) shall connect to the municipal sanitary sewer system proposed with the site improvements within 12 months after the connection becomes available. 17. The existing house on Lot 1, Block 1 shall relocate their driveway to access the new street within 12 months after the new street is constructed. 18. The City will spread the proposed trunk and lateral sewer and water assessments equally over the proposed 23 lots. 19. The landscaping plan shall be amended to provide boulevard landscaping in the form of berms and plant materials. The boulevard landscaping shall contain landscaping from the primary specimen list and shall include Lot 1, Block 1. The landscaping plan shall reflect existing trees which will be protected by a conservation easement. The required 1 tree/lot shall contain trees from the primary specimen lists for at least 14 lots. 20. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Street names must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal, particularly since it will be connecting to the subdivision to the south. Street names must be approved so as to avoid duplication, and house numbers match the city's grid map. b. Relocate fire hydrants as shown on preliminary utility plan. Royal Oak Estates May 5, 1993 Page 11 c. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. d. Fire hydrant caps must be painted per City of Chanhassen Engineer Spec. e. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. The roads shall be in place before construction on new dwelling starts which is greater than 150' from County Road 117. f. If the road does not connect to the south to form a looped road, a temporary Fire Department approved turnaround shall be provided. See preliminary utility plan." ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Dave Hempel dated April 27, 1993. 2. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated April 28, 1993. 3. Memo from Mark Littfin dated April 22, 1993. 4. Letter from Assistant County Engineer dated April 22, 1993. 5. Letter from DNR dated April 27, 1993. 6. Primary specimen list. 7. Reduced plans. CITY OF i ‘• CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer , W DATE: April 27, 1993 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for Royal Oak Estates, Brett Davidson Project File No. 93-12 Upon review of the preliminary plat and site plans prepared by Ernie Rud Surveyors and Charles Plowe Engineering dated April 6, 1993, I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING AND DRAINAGE The site consists of generally rolling terrain devoid of tree cover except in the northeast corner of the parcel. The preliminary grading plan proposes on grading a majority of the site for house pads, street construction and a storm water treatment pond. As proposed, construction of the storm water treatment pond will result in the removal of some trees in the rear of Lot 10, Block 1. Depending on final ponding calculations, it may be possible for the applicant's engineer to reconfigure the pond and save these trees. The grading and drainage plan proposes catch basins to catch storm water runoff from lawns and the street. Proposed storm sewers will convey the untreated site runoff from two drainage systems. One system conveys the storm runoff to the proposed retention pond on Lot 10, Block 1 which then flows into the adjacent wetlands. The other drainage system conveys runoff from the westerly portion of the development and will connect into a storm sewer system proposed by the development to the south. The City has previously approved a preliminary plat for the parcel directly to the south (Rottlund Companies - Windmill Run) which may or may not be constructed prior to this development. This subdivision request, as with the previously approved subdivision of Windmill Run, are prime examples where the applicant is unable to provide adequate on-site ponding facilities; therefore, they should be required to pay a storm water trunk fee. The trunk fee would be n t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Jo Ann Olsen April 27, 1993 Page 2 used to offset future costs of oversizing on the next downstream segment of pipe. Trunk fees would be calculated based on the contributing drainage areas flowing to the south parcel. As previously mentioned,the parcel to the south of this development has previously received preliminary plat approval by the City. Staffs review of the storm water runoff in Windmill Run resulted in recommending diverting storm runoff from three drainage areas into two temporary retention ponding areas. One of these areas was to convey drainage from the southeast corner of this development through the Windmill Run project. However, since this site (Royal Oak) is now being considered for development it would be prudent to maintain the "predeveloped" drainage pattern and convey runoff from the easterly portions of Windmill Run north into proposed Royal Oak development where the proposed storm sewers located at the end of the street will intercept the drainage. This additional runoff from the south parcel will require additional pond storage in Royal Oak development (Lot 10, Block 1) to accommodate pretreatment. This same drainage scenario is happening on the westerly portion of the project. Storm runoff from Royal Oak Estates is proposed to be conveyed via storm sewer south between Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 into the Windmill Run subdivision. This storm runoff is proposed to be treated in a temporary retention pond constructed within the Windmill Run development. The contributing areas from each development into one another appears to be equal. Therefore, costs for oversizing of the storm sewer lines and/or ponding areas in both developments would be a wash. Storm water treatment in both developments are not fulfilling the City's water quality standards; as with Windmill Run, the applicant of Royal Oak Estates should also be required to contribute into the City's Surface Water Management Program for development of a downstream regional ponding facility. The City has not established a trunk storm sewer fee as of yet; however, the City is nearing completion of a city-wide comprehensive storm sewer plan. Bonestroo & Associates, the City's storm water consultant, will be able to estimate a figure based on contributing drainage areas. It is recommended that this development be required to pay its fair share of those trunk fees to enable the City to contribute to future storm sewer projects on adjacent parcels to convey runoff from this development to a proposed regional pond. In addition to the trunk storm sewer fee, the applicant will also be required to pay into the City's Storm Water Management Program to provide water quality improvements downstream. According to a preliminary geotechnical evaluation report prepared by Braun Engineering dated April 26, 1993, soil conditions throughout the development contain a very high moisture content. Ground water was observed at a relatively shallow depth in several borings. Ground water will also likely be encountered in other low areas of this site. Therefore, staff recommends construction of drain tile systems behind the proposed curbs to intercept household sump pump discharge which is typically extended to discharge into Jo Ann Olsen April 27, 1993 Page 3 the street. The City in the past has experienced discharge of sump pumps in the street creating hazardous conditions, icy conditions in the winter as well as the slippery slime buildup in the summer. Prior to final platting the applicant shall provide the City's Engineering Department with storm sewer and ponding calculations. All storm sewers shall be designed for a 10-year storm event. The ponding requirements shall meet water quality standards set forth by Bonestroo. The discharge rate for predeveloped runoff conditions shall be maintained except where the storm sewer will be extended into a network of trunk storm sewer lines. UTILITIES The City Council has ordered the preparation of plans and specifications for trunk sanitary sewer and water improvements to service this area as well as Lundgren Bros. project on the _ Johnson/Dolejsi property located to the west of the development. Plans and specifications for the project are nearing completion and are subject to approval and authorization for bid by the City Council. Without these trunk improvements, the project is not feasible from an engineering standpoint. A change order with the Upper Bluff Creek trunk sewer and water improvement project was approved to extend the sanitary sewer from the existing Lake Ann trunk sanitary sewer line to the easterly lot lines of Lots 10 and 11, Block 1. The City's proposed trunk sewer and water improvements propose on extending the 12-inch trunk sewer line westerly between Lots 10 and 11, Block 1 to the proposed street and thence continue westerly to Galpin Boulevard. Since it is a relatively short distance to the south line of the plat, the City would include extension of an 8-inch sanitary sewer line south of the future Windmill Run development. A 12-inch trunk watermain is also proposed to be extended down Galpin Boulevard to the intersection of this development. A 12-inch water line would then be extended easterly along the roadway alignment to the south plat line. Depending on timing, the City may also extend the 12-inch watermain south through the Rottlund development. A 15-foot wide drainage and utility easement should be dedicated with the final plat along the east line of Lots 10 and 11 along with a 20-foot wide easement centered on the common property line between Lots 11 and 12, Block 1. The applicant will be responsible for the extension of the sanitary sewer and water service to the individual lots from the trunk main as well as fire hydrant leads. All utility and street construction shall be in accordance with the City's latest standard specifications and detail plates. Detailed construction plans for utility and street improvements will be required as a part of the final plat approval process and are subject to City Council approval. The applicant shall also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval for the overall development. Jo Ann Olsen April 27, 1993 Page 4 According to City ordinance, the existing house on Lot 1, Block 1 (Davidson's) will be required to connect to the new sanitary sewer line within 12 months after such connection becomes available. Once the City formally authorizes the trunk sanitary sewer and watermain improvements (Project No. 92-5), assessments will be pending on the property. The assessment will be based on the number of net assessable acreage for each parcel based on the number of residential equivalent units (REU's) for the planned land use. Net assessable acreage is gross acreage less wetlands and major right-of-way. The feasibility report for this project proposed a net assessable acreage of 12 acres with 24 REU's for the parcel. The plat proposes 23 lots even though potentially 24 lots could be platted. Staff proposes to spread the future assessments for the trunk and lateral improvements over the proposed 23 lots equally. STREETS The plans propose a single access off of Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). Galpin Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of the Carver County Highway Department of which they have sent a memo addressing their concerns. Staff has also met with Mr. Roger Gustafson, County Engineer and Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer, regarding access points in relation to these two newly proposed subdivision (Windmill Run and Royal Oak Estates). It is both the Carver County Highway Department's and staffs position that if these developments came in as one submittal (project), the northerly access which is proposed with Royal Oak Estates would be denied due to the close proximity to each other. But since the City has already granted preliminary plat approval for Windmill Run we are unable to change the plat layout at this time. In the meantime we are somewhat obligated to grant street access from County Road 117 to Royal Oak Estates. According to the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study, County Road 117 is classified as a collector (Class I). Eventually it will be a 100-foot wide road right-of-way corridor with a four-lane highway. The existing house on Lot 1, Block 1 currently accesses the property from County Road 117. It is recommended that the driveway access be relocated to access from the proposed interior (new) street. The plans propose 60-foot wide road right-of-way and construction of a 31-foot wide back- to-back urban street section which is in accordance with the City's standards. Street grades range from 0.7% grade to 4.7% which is also within the City's guidelines. All street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition (1993) of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street construction plans and specifications will be required for review prior to final plat approval. The construction plans Jo Ann Olsen April 27, 1993 Page 5 and specifications for street and utility improvements will also require City Council approval in conjunction with final platting. EROSION CONTROL The drainage plan proposes erosion control fence along the easterly edge of the development and the southwesterly corner of the development. Staff will recommend that erosion control fence be extended along the easterly lot line to the north corner and then west around the pond perimeter. In addition, depending on timing, the City may also require erosion control silt fence installed approximately 10 feet behind the curb throughout the subdivision in an effort to minimize erosion during new home construction. This also alleviates the builder having to install individual erosion control measures on each lot in the future. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall pay an appropriate storm water trunk fee to be determined by the City's storm water management consultant to contribute towards the future extension of trunk storm sewer facilities. 2. All street and utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The street construction shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to accommodate household sump pump discharge. Detailed construction plans and specifications for utility and street improvements shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to final platting. Final construction plans and specifications are subject to City Council approval. 3. The applicant shall submit detailed storm drainage and ponding calculations verifying the pipe sizing and pond volumes. The storm sewer shall be designed and constructed to a 10-year storm event. The retention pond will be reviewed by the City's storm water management consultant and constructed pursuant to guides implemented by the City's consultant (Bonestroo). 4. Erosion control plans and methods shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Best Management Practice Handbook. 5. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all necessary permits from the regulatory agencies such as the MPCA, Health Department, Watershed District and Carver _ County Highway Department. Jo Ann Olsen April 27, 1993 Page 6 6. Prior to the City's signing the final plat, the applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee construction of the public improvements and compliance of the conditions of approval. The development contract will be subject to City Council approval. 7. The applicant shall provide, at a minimum, a right-turn lane (deceleration lane) along County Road 117 and any other roadway improvements as required by the Carver County Highway Department. 8. Should the end of the roadway not be connected with the parcel to the south, a temporary cul-de-sac shall be constructed to meet City standards with a barricade and signage stating that it is a temporary cul-de-sac and this road will be extended in the future. The applicant shall dedicate to the City the necessary temporary roadway easement for portions of the cul-de-sac lying outside the right-of-way. 9. Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the City Council ordering and awarding the bid for Public Improvement No. 92-5 for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and watermain improvements through the development. 10. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat the typical 5 and 10-foot wide drainage and utility easements along all side, front and rear lot lines. In addition, drainage and utility easements shall be conveyed for all pond retention areas. 20-foot wide drainage and utility easements shall also be dedicated with the final plat on the following areas: a) between Lots 11 and 12, Block 1 and Lots 10 and 11, Block 1. e) between Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. 11. Should the parcel to the south (Rottlund - Windmill Run) not develop, this development will be required to provide temporary on-site retention pond until the parcel to the south develops and the storm sewer line is extended to Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. 12. Erosion control measures and turf establishment shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 13. The final grading plan shall denote the type of house and elevation of garage and lowest floor for each lot. Jo Ann Olsen April 27, 1993 Page 7 14. The existing house on Lot 1, Block 1 (Davidson's) shall connect to the municipal sanitary sewer system proposed with the site improvements within 12 months after the connection becomes available. 15. The existing house on Lot 1, Block 1 shall relocate their driveway to access the new street within 12 months after the new street is constructed. 16. The City will spread the proposed trunk and lateral sewer and water assessments equally over the proposed 23 lots. ktm c: Charles Folch, City Engineer CITY OF i ‘ CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director —4 DATE: April 28, 1993 SUBJ: Royal Oak Estates Attached please find a copy of the staff report presented to the Park and Recreation Commission, and the written response from Mr. Bret Davidson, the applicant, in regard to the aforementioned preliminary plat. Mr. Davidson was in attendance at the April 27, 1993, Park and Recreation Commission meeting. The commission listened to Mr. Davidson's concerns over the requiring of a trail easement on Lot 1, Block 1 (the lot on which Mr. Davidson maintains his residence), but upheld the requirement for such an easement. Upon conclusion of the commission's discussion that evening, Commissioner Koubsky moved and Commissioner Roeser seconded to recommend the City Council require the following conditions of approval pertaining to parks and trails for Royal Oak Estates: 1. The city shall accept full park fees to be paid at the time of building permit application at the rate then in force in lieu of park and land dedication; and _ 2. A 20-ft. wide trail easement shall be granted to the city along the applicant's westerly property line (Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2). Furthermore, that the easement on Lot 1, Block 2 shall be included in the grading plan for this project with a suitable trail bed being prepared. This trail bed may meander within the easement alignment at the discretion of the applicant, but the eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail construction, and is subject to approval as a part of the grading plan review. Planting of trees shall be restricted to the areas east of the trail bench. Full trail fees shall be collected at the time of building permit application at the rate then in force to assist in the financing of future trail construction. is t4• PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER April 24 . 1993 Bret A . Davidson 7291 Galpin Blvd Excelsior , MN 55331 (612 ) 470-9087 Mr . Todd Hoffman Park and Recreation City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen , MN 55317 Dear Mr . Hoffman, I am writing this letter because circumstances beyond my control prevent me from being at the Park and Recreation Commission meeting Tuesday night by 7 :30. I will be out of tc'An and arriving back in town at about 7 :45 . I plan on coming to the meeting right away but will probably not arrive before about 8 :30 . In case I don ' t arrive before my e: !:. item. the following addresses my concerns . Fru t'.,c- staff report on Royal Oak Estates , a 20 foot trail ea_ I; cl.t is recommended on the east side of Galpin Blvd alo r,_ the west side of Lot 1 Block 1 and Lot 1 L cck 2 . L 1 i• ic•cl. 2 Ha:: sized in e;:pectation of this rcquiremcnt and ?:',: ic : ? io;: of th trail easement has been planned . My specific concern is with Lot 1 Block 1 . Lot 1 Block 1 is being platted at the same time as the plat : o!' Rr'. al nal; Estates because this was required the Chanl,a ,sen planning dep&rtment but this lot is net stye• fic:;: ' ! y a part of the Royal Oak development . This lot currently has a home on it that was built in 198;. . Al the time it was built , all required setbacks from existing easements were complied with. Subsequently, paved driveway and landscaping were installed. As you may be aware , the county is now suggesting the easement along Galpin Blvd be increased from a 33 foot easement to a 50 foot easement . An additional 20 foot trail easement will significantly impact the present homesite. This easement could require removal of 2 large trees , and a significant portion of the driveway, impacting access to the garage. In addition, a layman ' s visual inspection would appear to indicate that the future trail might be better suited along ', ,.c west side of Galpin Blvd . The property ii,uuediately north of Lot t Block 1 is owned by Prince . To continue the trail along the east side of Galpin would require an easement through the property which will more than likely stay undeveloped for many years to come . In addition, there - appears to be a small wetlands that would have to be traversed and an eight foot high chain link fence that would have to be removed and reinstalled further east . It would seem considerable time and expense will be required to place the trail on the east side of Galpin Blvd. In contrast , the west side of Galpin Blvd appears to be extremely well suited for the trail placement . The land on the west side is currently farm land and a major development company has an option to purchase this property. It appears this land will be developed in the next couple of years . There are no fences , wetlands , etc. to traverse and the land could be dedicated as development occurs . As the developer of Royal Oak Estates , I will more than gladly dedicate the trail easement along Lot 1 Block 2 , but as the homeowner of Lot 1 Block 1 , I am requesting that no easement be required of this private homesite at this time. As future development occurs and as the trail is being planned the issue can be readdressed and resolved . - n$ ilie City of Chanhassen expands we arc all aware that current residents will sometimes be inconvenienced or sometimes worse for the sake of progress and overall good of the community. However . I would also hope the city :could he sensitive lc current homeowners and that solutions would b: derived that are in the best interest of all involved . - I hope to sec you at the Commission meeting April 27th and will hr mere than willing to answer any questions you mibht _ hnv: _ l t1- t time . Thank you . 5incerel . - �,�'�r Bret A . Davidson CITY OF 04114 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: April 22, 1993 SUBJ: Royal Oaks Estates Planning Case 93-2 Rezoning & 93-8 Subdivision I have reviewed the site plan and have the following requirements: 1) Street names must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal, particularly since it will be connecting to the subdivision to the south. Street names must be approved so as to avoid duplication, and house numbers match the city's grid map. 2) Relocate fire hydrants as shown on preliminary utility plan. 3) A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. 4) Fire hydrant caps must be painted per City of Chanhassen Engineer Spec. 5) Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. The roads shall be in place before construction on new dwelling starts which is greater than 150' from County Road 117. 6) If the road does not connect to the south to form a looped road, a temporary Fire Department approved turnaround shall be provided. See preliminary utility plan. es PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE � !/ 600 EAST 4TH STREET PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 4. / CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 1612)4481213 -1iE SO�r COUNTY OF CAL VEQ April 22, 1993 TO: JoAnn Olsen, Chanhassen Senior Planner JA1 FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer � J SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Royal Oak Estates (93-2 Rezoning and 93-8 Subdivision) Following are comments regarding the preliminary plat for the Royal Oak Estates subdivision transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated April 8, 1993. 1. Right-of-way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways functionally classified as Collector (Class I) are: Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 2-lane Roadway 2-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 80' 100' 110' 120' Urban Undivided Rural Divided 4-lane Roadway 4-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100' 110' 190' 200' County Road 117 (Galpin Blvd.) is functionally classified as a Collector (Class I) roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. The 50 foot from centerline corridor shown would provide for a potential 100 foot corridor. This corridor would meet the needs for an urban roadway. The city may wish to consider an even wider highway corridor along the proposed subdivision if a separate trailway is to be constructed along the county highway. Additional width may also be needed to accommodate public utilities and landscaping. 2. Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CR 117 right-of-way are subject to the utility permit requirements of Carver County. 3. Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within the right-of-way of CR 117 is subject to review and approval of the county highway department. 4. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right- of-way (including turn removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits)-need} AJimtatiie Admen/Ftfual Opp iwlit1 Empliler Panted Jnr Renc d Papa to be completed in a manner that leaves the right-of-way in "as good or better condition" than what existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for the final condition of the county highway right-of-way. A clear understanding of this responsibility will result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the city. 7. Any trees or landscaping completed within the right-of-way must be approved by the County. When locating shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining an acceptable sight distance at the proposed intersection. Any trees or shrubs overhanging into the right of way could be subject to trimming for safety or overhead utility consideration. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subdivision and site plan for the proposed development. STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCE METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106r N Jhi9Q PHONE NO. 772-7910 Jo Ann Olsen April 27, 1993 Planning Department — City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 — RE: ROYAL OAK ESTATES, BRET DAVIDSON, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CITY OF CHANHASSEN, HENNEPIN COUNTY Dear Ms. Olsen: We have reviewed the site plans dated 4/6/93 (received April 9, 1993) for the above-referenced project (N1/2, SW 1/4 , S. 10, T. 116N, R. 23W) and have the following comments to offer: 1 . The project site does not contain or appear to involve any public waters or public waters wetlands; therefore, no DNR public waters permit is required. 2 . No DNR shoreland management or floodplain concerns were noted. 3 . There appear to be wetlands near the east or northeast portion of the site. The city will need to ensure the project is consistent with the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 . We do note that the stormwater goes through a treatment pond before being outlet in the direction of the wetland, which is good. 4 . Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. 5 . If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10, 000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, a DNR appropriations permit is required. You are advised that it typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. - Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist cc: Bob Obermeyer, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek WSD Wayne Barstad AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Primary Specimen Deciduous Trees Boulevard Planting Common Name Celtis occidentalis Hackberry Tilia Americana American Linden Acer Platanoides "Schwedler" Maple, Norway Acer Platanoides "Superform" Maple, Superform Norway Acer Platanoides "Variegatum" Maple, variegated Norway Gleditsia tricanthos inermis Honeylocust Robinia pseudoacacia Black Locust Aesculus hippocastanum European Horsechestnut Gymnocladus dioica Kentucky Coffee Tree Quercus macrocarpa Burr Oak Quercus alba White Oak • _ Quercus rubra Red Oak Quercus palustris Pin Oak Jugians nigra Black Walnut Interior Planting Acer Saccharum Sugar Maple Primary Specimen Conifers Boulevard Trees Common Name Abies balsamea Balsam Fir Abies concolor Concolor Fir Picea abies Norway Spruce Picea glauca White Spruce Picea glauca densata Black Hills Spruce 1 Ca P.-az g CMT-! -._ DisWJ C W ---•- • -- �� a yy i c N ! L- Zt . g 13 „ c I E' V o� 7a O ies el T. Y I 1 V m z 0 X'0' �:«rm u ' 1 it P. 0 iI •-0:.. �0 d r 5w`�r wW '11 t (1) it 0 /r '0 ' a }, x ?� -- C -..3 C / CI h fe.7A ; $ C3 ! ,., ,,, . 0 0 = s ^ ,y= .i.•E ,.R10. 6 ,la :: 1:11 - IC] — i . , U� jK ; iciF ee. -1, a a H W `t-°e},'d-' € a a ' ;' -— • I-seC 0 60 • = z ci„4 ,. o: S r _ \II\ v*1.1z I332l1S VI o F 'f ilii' - g �p ! $ sl: �� — I i \ \ R _ ; W fl.C&It 1: I S 1 j� x i : ;'a S''t �3 c1 .1 1 /4 ; 'Lt•11:i,--11-1 La i LI .f iltii 1 ! Q ��; `1`yc.t V .�c� i 0 Y "L 1 vJ t!lii,iwil�+rr 1 _ ° �331[S a .04 ..,„:,,q0• e 8 kill I civ 'i F 343 r.yiB ' Z =2}j'a C. ..Rtls �� m1� 0 1,01.0.0.• a F�a:ii:a: g el t T a 8 "---” - i;}t – .-RIe.O.'1 13.1 -.11, [ I 0 08 - .- j _ A rtd04•0 :< ;If; tmeoft 4 .-1 I a _ '-'z'mos � Y�h Y _ *.:-:=7;:i:::.):". =--rte 1 — ; . 1 0`.�` eV...a o 7 Q� - _� +- _ Y: \ sSIS - QO� i :-, 2 r Q7 _r V r.l " `: 0�7� : ivte7d9 — — — 1a � �zn� .� 'I t t cyoa oo : I!f7.i x CeJ�"' . a �.w.�v�if / c':u, I z.63:f. V z�n J9 j t .' I ' 6-;;-..,...,___\' 1 /-----.!...____‘------- - i Amm. . l i �1 ViD Jam''- '-',, ••;• ' 1 .` / i' i .+i7 0 0 = =— __ ;�— � --- ice' • Mr iu r / 1 ... \ '• �1 - I (; J • N i• D \ \ \ ..\\::::". ill 0) !- .` �t 1 4 ._ a 1`11.`. \. --_ �I. `� 't - W ' I .,\ r---1 •, \ )-- I \'' \\.' ' .._ 1 'i ;'i-""'.1---.. s \ I Ce . N F �.\1 - -lam '� ,' z - 3 C� i i• y Y is..'. ti -} W - f a • t7 • J 1- ti Q _ 1� • =.. J J r O a:7 `�1 /• - --- W t D J .�. _ - — a I- v C Q - ttt Z - t� } W �/ t 'I —' ' l O 0- :"' , I t. i i „, 5... .--Fi ‘. J-1. i . ...-------...-------- ----- - _ It / • ,11 M1, , _ r \' \.� _ I �/ \ L=11 ;1 I •,- \I�'- \--, f1 f I i _' \ &\ \ I , -. . 7/. ,/ \._j �'/.• . 'I i • i ;ilii IP, • 1 --- _ 1f1sii, ti 11'4 . — - - --—• i • s ---• , ..... .. _-•.-..„...,... , - .• .. l• ; "O'''.1 ill 'I'll . , . s'''•-.........•-4........_%..—..,,,,, . ,• • %> -,-::::-;`•-) f \,.- .s-•-• - ...) , i .1 l'•,•7 ,4. , 7..//...........:: .."-::• '.. \ ..A. !...v.r....7r,i 1<'NtAl i -. 11. 11) 13 ,.../ ...1.<--.AI\.0.7 L i , •.-4•• i .1 (1_ 143— 4_7- ;.._‘.\m‘.N.2 01,7tyl i '• :.'‘ ......../1...•.,-..1..... .7.:..7?.: ,-..,?...„-.--, ,..-7, %„,.;:.-v, • LJ :. 0 C >011 _ / 3i efil ••44..1.41 U'r til .•' : ..1 — (-) 41),"' / .7 z •-,--,;.„:„.„ \ 7 1 . .1.4e.ez,r..._ A.:J.:4, . . . . dh___ s..14 .,et... Q) •- in 7. ..-- — --7.---- , .. _ ... -:.Y °.' . Ai > ,E - •,, f 4 —41111MIN ". ....7- -- 1:1- - •.. ...- to -----".. _... ••• _ t_ ....O..- Aiir,r' I 1 1 11 ! I I 19 0 0- ?It PI .." . , ...- . •-_i 7 ,..,,,. .- ..• 1.. X - -' ' htnrif, 1.2// •-.• : , ••• "7,-, 2 - 7-4.••-• •-• ....- . ...-- t ,, !n: h f :i ::I ; . s ol _ f / , , • . ''• 10- 77* 4' % ..- , •. Is ;,...,:p is ,c, ,. .- ••.1 ;!:, Ltt J-I ... i,:-.:•:1 \c,\„_,,........_ \ -4 ;?*:;i11,:liii• OA; Iti •i i _--------,,, ---‘ ...: Jo II WI: . ! I; : ' •:I 1•0 I I . 1 i ., • ,...--.. .. it % s It: Il• i:: *..r. ; " . :- :I I 0 \ .1 .. .• " I'tl '•• .' . i_4of • Lt: .11' I ... e 1,,....! ili i / 1 1- .•.._j i \_ ? ' \I. . i..--% • ;1, ..j- _ . N ' - ' —•----- --.... ...._.-- ,... • ' %..f. til 1 , . i. 24- -- . .• 1, . I ' i, . 1 _1 1.,1 I I . . DO ' • -• . - LL W , ..., '4.-...__: ..... ... 1 7.1 I i::-: 6) , - . -1-1 F•'- i - 11) t• I - • .i. • ‘. .) . .I I -- ' . I \ \ lir •- I.----- . ! i•••• •1 „ C/) < , . ..____, , i -5 ____ ---- % I I! e :- ' • . . W Z 1 ' • . .. / :.I,-.. I • • • \ t . _ ...._' __ I 1) 1••0 --I ' CC ' . • — i• 0 Cl. V '1 'I- 54 . : — co - . . \ . .j‘ _ ! i'! . 1- Z—i-----7-' • C 1 I et) •,.. stb:.;'1; .. ...0 x , 5 's ... Z 2 \ \ . •,-.' . ' .--1 - . I I .e. • ..‘ 8 !..- :i. • -:: , kl,..._, ..-?:. • - z t,t...1,.. 8- 0- -• .. .. i -..,•i? .... . 1 , ; _ 1 t •- it :: < a z 'f:------ ------- I i ; I Y. r- i El f ..• . .. .• 1 . 0 cr 0 t,. i , ! • , -• 1. ; I, ,...,„,...,,. -..;:-...;,-...E. .... .. _ , . 1.—i • i` • i J- - .....;1 1 , f • ; . i , •••-•i "-----s I i .- -• t t >'' Z - , .4, i i ! a .!.. ! cc... .... _ 1 : • < cc 0 I 6., ! iiri i,,, I - ... -.. -- ., .i • :••• • _ cn 0 . ___ i 1 ; . • • - .... CO .,,,......\\ r---..II's, .1., ,1 --/ .."-------- • . 'S 77 -.....g, ....: 1 : ....: . Cr 2 cc ,,.., • • ' :i, •-. -1 -,!.. '-1• -• I- ..- --.1. i3 .:.1 i Lai. i• --a..: -•.•X-..1 ! —.. CC 4 '---- 1 1 i . 1 ;71 .' , Ift ::(ILI--. ; 4 t ?. •....„'.1.t - . _ --. -4 4.1 1 I.t- 41••••;-1:1 • 4 ' ' A 1 \ ___ if ...: .. .; iz; . 144 .- • r .i: , • 1..3 -.....3.I 1 .• t el ;••••,:-.7,..1- '\ .I, \ t--- ) St t.....!... ::,It•-•'.., . I 1 k ; - ..6 • . !,.-- 4.*..,,.. 1 • • • . -.. 1 1 °I; ' "I 40 :. .. ....". •1 '......__• \t. ''C II I ..:'' .. .:7-4 e i „,, ---- ' e•-. , 4 ..r. ay.....V. 'Ji. .. ai C N IC , :I; ...'. .,•:. 4 T.T • l LE , . .: - ..,,, -....•▪ .. •••• 1..! • • \ j 72'' 1'', 4'7 ...: . 7.,t ,,, .. ' C•4. \ V , • V •: cr. .1 / ---• '' \ [ :. .?• \LL1' )6. i vII:.I \ N 1 1\ - s%......c........7....\_______,......_- .9. -•- st:,-:-.. !.. ! 3 '; ..' ::.•'t :Ii.:' I i• .. s• II: I ; ...-f -- *-: r,,,-f i--! •:::L:;' — 1-rz ; •• i 1 .1 10 .".7....\\........_ 1 ; it .1. ” . ---- --- . zrj ;. 4!•5II1 r fl ..-. • .; g f / ,.....: , I .-I'' 1 • - -- - _. ie5,, ;::... ?a 1:.!..) de .. .9-...--'--...: r 1 y • .•....1‘A.....rmy ".. ....... / _. / ' \.• ii z 1 1 / ./ _ .41 . i - - / ,...1 § 9..2.1 .7 : :, ,/ :17:11 1 • s. (--- • , . ,:,• --,, •, „.....• / , ...,11•11,.._.,.4.4.;„,.. ---=---=-----_-- . .-yg- .-,,L_ ' • ' I - ; ,-,..._ . _,, /\,,,. .6.i.---r-----7--,_...- _ - -- - _ t;12. ,,, , 0 ...4.,. . is trt4 * --:•-•,.------- • . - -:..;";"- - • Y1" ----7- --- 1;1 _.. . 1. t 2.,.:, ,_.. .-_-:-_,,,..L.._••:-... .:1.•------- .. a!if.1 0 11'l' ------ --, - ye-.• , ........Wan ; • ) ... • V•..j. .. ••• •.•--..--- .- ..2.---- i . . . ...... / "....."-- • .- . • -.,/ .•... N ....... \ ' ! V C ............... ...... . . .m... CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 21 , 1993 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:35 p .m . MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts , Ladd Conrad , Matt Ledvina , Joe Scott , Brian Batzli , and Jeff Farmakes MEMBERS ABSENT: Nancy Mancino STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Planning Director ; Jo Ann Olsen , Senior Planner ; Dave Hempel , Asst . City Engineer ; Sharmin Al-Jaff , Planner I ; and Elliott Knetsch , City Attorney PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR 93 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 76 .47 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD, AND LOCATED EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD AND SOUTHWEST OF LAKE SUSAN, LAKE SUSAN HILLS 9TH ADDITION, ARGUS DEVELOPMENT . Public Present: Name Address Jerry Lindholm 8421 West Lake Drive Chris Miller 8401 West Lake Drive Kirby & Sandy Paulson 8410 West Lake Drive Robert F . Kopp Argus Development , Inc . Wayne Tauer Pioneer Engineering Phil Jungbluth Argus Development , Inc . John & Karen Engelhardt 8645 Chanhassen Hills Dr . N . Don Wisdorf 8639 Chanhassen Hills Dr . N . Jon & Mary Jo Hansen 8631 Chanhassen Hills Dr . N . Jane Judd 8635 Chanhassen Hills Dr . N . Peder Olson 8635 Chanhassen Hills Dr . N . Robert Long 8629 Chanhassen Hills Dr . N . Robert Smithburg 8657 Chanhassen Hills Dr . N . Thomas Burns 1551 Lake Susan Hills Drive Tom Nilsson 1060 Lake Susan Hills Drive Andrew K . Olson 8290 West Lake Court Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item . Batzli : Jo Ann would you address one , and maybe you said something on this and I apologize if you did . On condition 15( b ) , the woodland management plan . Have we ever done that before? What is a woodland mangement plan? Olsen: No . Woodland management plan , and that was something , an idea we came up with when we were out on the site with Alan Olson , the DNR Forester . Because one of the things that we 've seen is that we do take a lot of steps to preserve trees during the development process but once the homeowner comes in , a lot of times they don 't understand what is there or whether or not it was really protected . Also we 're finding that there 's like a second forest growing on the site . It 's either large , the large trees and then it 's the undergrowth that 's growing and that 's like the Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 2 second forest that 's coming that will replace this one . And we want to be able to educate the people that that 's an important aspect and not just tc clear all that out also . So what it is is really just a plan to describe what 's on the site . Why it 's been preserved . What type of tree it is . Is it sensitive to , is it a red oak and that you shouldn 't be doing any kind of alteration around it and it 's just really a plan that they can hold in their hand and it 's to educate them with what 's there and to hopefully help preserve the trees better . It 's done , if you called up Alan Olson and you wanted him to come out to your lot , he would do that and work on your site if you were wanting to plant trees or find out what 's on your site . So it 's something that 's commonly done and that can be done by a licensed forester pretty easily . So it 's just more for education and hopefully preserve beyond the development . Batzli : Why for example don 't we look at placing a conservation easement around parts of these that we 've done on other sites? Olsen: I am still proposing that . Where it 's simple to do . But if you see on a lot of these we 've got individual trees and you have to have a legal description to do a conservation easement and that 's almost impossible to do for all the little individual trees that we 're saving . Batzli : Okay so what you 've done is just on lots , on those particular lots is where you 're doing this woodland management plan then? Olsen : Right . Those lots that were listed as the custom graded lots would have that . The other lots that still do have forested areas that are being preserved , like along Lake Susan would have a conservation easement but there you can have a simple lot . You can have a simple description . We would take an elevation along here . Batzli : Right . But that 's the only one you 've listed as having a conservation easement is that Lots 1-6 , Block 2 . Is that right? Is that the only place that you 've done that? Olsen : Right . The other ones will have , the other ones are under pretty much the custom grading . Farmakes: How serious was the discrepancy between what was listed and what you found on this? Olsen: Well one of the problems we had was that there was round tags and - square tags . So at first we were thinking they were totally off because , and then we found that we were looking at the round tags when it was actually square tags . There was , it wasn 't all completely wrong . I mean a lot of them were correct but there was enough where it was a large tree and a good tree and it was shown as a smaller ash or something like that . Farmakes : For the future , just for my own education , do we have a criteria of when we bring the DNR to look at that and review that? Do we have , to insure that there isn 't a discrepancy? Because I assume when this stuff comes in that it 's accurate . Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 3 Olsen: Yeah , so did we . Well I think what we 're going to do is from now on require them to be performed by a licensed forester . Require them like we do with a registered surveyor or something so that we know that they are done by somebody who really knows what they 're doing . Also the DNR has a list of foresters that have been licensed and so we can use that list . So I think that 's one way to do it . Batzli : Dave , I was wondering if you could address something . The ejector pumps , the condition that 's going to be placed in the development contract . Who , is this going to be placed on the developer or on the ultimate homeowners or what are we talking about there? Hempel : That specific condition Mr . Chairman will be contained in the development contract which is recorded against the property of the overall subdivision on each property . It will go with each property owner . It stays with the land . Batzli : Have we ever done that before? Hempel : The development contracts are always recorded with these certain conditions of approval of a plat . There hasn 't been . . .one containing ejector pumps however at this time . Batzli : What kind of condition is placed on that? That they have to have it inspected annually? Hempel : Mainly our reason for putting it in there , a lot of times the homeowners will call the city if they have a problem with the sewer lines or water lines or whatever and our maintenance and ownership responsibilities end at the property line . 9 out of 10 times the problems are on the private property . So we just want to make it clear up front of the ownership 's responsibility . Batzli : Okay , so this isn 't going to be an annual type , it 's just going to clarify to the homeowner , it 's going to be part of their lot description or something that it 's their responsibility out to the curb and then the city takes over from there , or something like that . Okay . Would the applicant like to address the Commission now and respond to any of the conditions that are in the staff report? Wayne Tauer : My name is Wayne Tauer from Pioneer Engineering representing Joe Miller Homes . I guess all that we have to say tonight is the fact that we have worked with the city staff , Jo Ann and Dave and the forester _ and have tried to work the best we could to work out the problems . I think we did a pretty good job doing so . As far as the conditions of approval , as outlined in the staff report , we have no major problems with any of those conditions . We 're willing to accept them all and go from here . We have put together an exhibit just simply showing trees lost , trees saved and the two that you see here is obviously the brown are dead trees and the green are hopefully live trees . I don 't know if everybody can see that or not but as you can see , especially . . .up here that there 's a massive amount of trees which are being saved and a lot of the trees that probably didn 't show up on Jo Ann 's drawing that shows up on mine are the trees that are actually in the right-of-way . There 's not much we can Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 4 do between the 60 feet of right-of-way that we have to obviously put pavement on and maintain . But beyond that , in the lots themselves , I think we 've done a very good job in avoiding trees . Moving lot lines around . Limiting the building pads . Moving them back . Lowering them below the street and requiring the ejector pumps . And they asked for a graphic and we 're presenting this tonight . Like I say , other than that I think we 've done a good job in working with the staff and except for questions I guess that 's all we have to say . Batzli : Does anyone have a question right now? Go ahead . Harberts: Jo Ann , how do we insure that there won 't be additional trees - taken or maybe impacted due to stress? Olsen: The major thing that we 're doing as far as the conditions that will be part of the development contract is listing the trees that can be removed . So when the building permit comes in , that 's what we 'll be cross referencing to make sure that they 're doing that . Essentially what we 've done is we 've decided exactly where the house is going . What the size of the house and style is right at this time . Again that 's also what that management plan is going to do to also try to save what 's there . We should have a pretty good feel . Harberts: So when the actual contractor or contractors come in to build a house , there 's going to be some oversight by the city to insure? Olsen: Right . As far as when the building permit comes through , we confirm on the building site what 's done . Then also during the inspections we make sure that the snow fencing is up and all that . Scott : Jo Ann , what happens if a tree is accidentally damaged? Olsen: That was not supposed to be? Scott : What 's the financial implications to the builder? Olsen: There 's no financial . We 've been asked that too . If we can hit them in the wallet and you can 't . We have the replacement of 1 inch per caliper whatever 's lost . We can require that and then we can also , there 's the 90 days in jail and if you want to pursue that , which we neves have . Harberts: Per tree . Batzli : Per tree? Olsen: Yeah , per tree . Yeah , I 've already told Wayne that he 'll be the first one in jail . Wayne Tauer : I need a vacation . Olsen: So that 's really all we have . I mean if it happens , we 'll try our best not to have it happen but if it does , we don 't get that tree back . mean we ' ll get the smaller trees replaced or the fine and that but we Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 5 can 't say it 's $1 ,000 .00 per caliper inch or anything like that . Scott: Sure . But is that , that 's an ordinance? Is it something that it 's at the discretion of the city staff to? Olsen: To require the . Scott: Replacement . Olsen: Yeah . Scott: Is that something that is normally put into a development agreement? Olsen: I don 't know if that 's typically in there . It 's in the ordinance . I don 't know that we ever really had to have it in the development contract . Scott: So it 's in the ordinance and whether it 's enforced or not is really the issue . Olsen: Right . Batzli : I thought from time to time we made it one of our conditions . Olsen : That? Batzli : That damaged or lost trees would be required to be replaced on a caliper basis . Olsen: We can do that . There 's no reason not to . Krauss : It doesn 't hurt anything . Olsen: And you want to do per caliper inch? Batzli : Well I don 't want to put them in jail . I 'd rather have a tree . Olsen: We could do both . Wayne Tauer : Thanks Jo Ann . Our friend over here . Harberts: I have another question just to staff . Batzli : Go ahead . Harberts: Jo Ann , could you just address the street naming issues . As it dealt with just Lake Susan Hills Drive . And maybe , I don 't know the comments from , highlighting again the comments from Public Safety . Olsen: They wanted , it 's getting confusing because it 's on both sides so originally they wanted to change Lake Susan Hills on this side because there 's only like 6 or 7 homes already on it . But they notified the affected parties and there was so , no way . You know we don 't want to do Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 6 this so they dropped that . I don 't know what the , I think they 're still working on it . I think they 're going to do , well what I heard last was that they 're going to have large signs on Powers saying East Lake Drive Hills 1 thru 30 or something so that 's how they were going to resolve it so emergency vehicles could see it that way . Harberts : So the City was comfortable with , Public Safety was comfortable with that? Olsen: Yeah . You know they didn 't want to take on the battle of changin<_ the streets since people were objecting to that . They felt that this would work also . It 's one of those that we should have caught earlier . Batzli : Does anyone have a question for the applicant? Otherwise I 'd like to open it up for public comment . Phil Jungbluth: I 'd like to say just prior to that . You know we 've talked before about custom grading lots and so forth and I just want to make sure that people understand what we really mean by that . And that means exactly what it says . We will work with the site to build the hous< to fit that site and around those trees . I mean that 's exactly the intention . There isn 't any grading on the site , so . Batzli : Thank you very much . This is a public hearing . Would anyone like to address the Commission at this time? Robert Smithburg: Mr . Chairman , my name is Robert Smithburg . I live at 8657 Chanhassen Hills Drive North and I 'd like to pass this out before I start . I took an interest in this project in January . I 'm concerned about the loss of old growth trees , a valuable resource to Chanhassen . Chanhassen has adopted a tree preservation code . It states , it is the policy of the city to preserve natural woodland areas throughout the city - and with respect to specific site development , to retain as far as practical substantial tree stands which can be incorporated into the overall landscape plan . This is the current policy and can be applied to this site development . It is good reason that this code was adopted and if you 'd look at this overall aerial view of Chanhassen I 've given you . This is a 1968 map and what I 've done , I 've deleted . In orange are the areas that were forested . Woodland areas that are gone or proposed to be __ eliminated . Number 1 is Timberwood Stone Creek . Number 2 , Chanhassen public works . Number 4 , this is proposed Highway 212 roadway , which is coming . And Number 5 , Highway 212/101 interchange . Number 3 is Chanhassen Hills development which is adjacent to Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition proposal . In Chanhassen Hills development , in this wooded area they punched a cul-de-sac in . What remains is there 's a rim of trees on the back side of the homes down to a wetland . You have 7 homes in . One new pad going in now . And in the process they took out 3 full semi truckfulls of red oak . If you zero in then on the area that is highlighted , this is what 's left of the forested wooded areas in — Chanhassen . Basically we have Lake Ann Park and the proposed development which we are talking about now . I spent many hours reviewing the Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition development design maps and have made an attempt _ to estimate how many trees would be lost . I would imagine we 're going to Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 7 differ on this but what I have done is I used the latest map and only did roadway and , housepads and roadways . Batzli : Those actually appear to be pretty close I think . Robert Smithburg: As I said , street and housepad loss is only shown . _ Damage due to construction , digging , grading , etc cannot be shown . These trees are from 12 to 48 inches in diameter , 80 to 150 years old . Allowable loss is approximately 20% or 195 trees . Loss percentages can significantly increase . We have to ask, what is acceptable tree loss in regards to old growth wooded areas . Chanhassen does not have any more significant old growth tree stands left to be eliminated . As has been shown , city staff , you , the Planning Commission and public input can have an effect making positive changes . The redesign and site changes by the developer are commendable and are headed in the right direction but is this minimal change . Chanhassen has to make sure we go beyond minimum standards . I believe there are still design modifications and changes that can be done to save old growth trees such as increased lot size in heavily wooded areas insuring more flexibility for housepads , more custom grading and better compliance with the City 's official amendments or controls or requirements . The City does have discretionary leeway . Refer to Attorney 's letter dated April 1st to the City concerning the PUD , last page of your agenda . I ask the Planning Commission to take the tree preservation section of the city code to heart and not approve this development until a greater number of these precious old growth trees can be saved . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the commission? Don Wisdorf : My name 's Don Wisdorf . I live on 8639 Chanhassen Hills . I just have one concern about , or major concern about what has been proposed . I understand as part of the development contract we can specify which trees are allowed to be removed and have that part of the development contract . My concern is that we possibly have within the contract what trees can 't be removed . My concern there is that we 're leaving it up to the developer to be able to mark with snow fences around it the trees that cannot be removed . That 's up to his discretion and it 's also up to his discretion in regards to which ones he can cut down . I would urge us to kind of put that in a little bit stronger contract so we can control and not only be assured by willful or by unintentional means that the developer doesn 't cut down trees that have been deemed to be important to save . Also the other point is , it doesn 't take long to cut down trees and then we find out , it 's too late . It takes many more years to grow these back . If there 's some way for an audit to be done , the city staff to be able to check and inspect upon the property periodically rather than before all the damage to be done , I think that 'd be a good consideration to make . So that the plans as have been put together here can be carried out to the fullest . Thank you . Batzli : Jo Ann , do you want to respond to that? Olsen: Well the whole list itself will be , the whole list of trees will be part of the development contract and I guess we can make it clear that the numbers that weren 't specified out that could be removed will be Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 8 saved . I think we 're still doing the same thing . I 'm not exactly sure if I ' ll follow what the difference was . And then . Batzli : Okay but , the survey has been done . Olsen: The survey has been done . Batzli : In our current conditions we list those trees which are permitted to be removed . And the inspection process out on the site , as far as putting snow fence around the trees that are to be saved, that is not at the developer 's discretion , correct? Olsen: Correct . Batzli : Okay . That is part of the development contract where he has to go out and put up those trees and so the inspectors basically will be out there and they will see those things already as a part of the process . Olsen: Right . They 'll see the snow fencing up and then they 'll also have this list that they can confirm that the numbers , the trees that aren 't fenced are the correct ones and not be fenced . Batzli : Okay . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Yes sir . Don Wisdorf : Are those snow fences put up before tree removal can begin then? Olsen: Right . Before any activity on the site . Don Wisdorf : Okay , thank you . Batzli : Would anyone else like to address the Commission? There appears to be a large number of people in the crowd . Are most people here for this issue? Can I see hands . And is trees your number one priority here? Okay . Is there anyone else who would like to address the Commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli : Diane , do you want to start at your end here? - Harberts: Sure . From my perspective with the activity that has gone on by both staff , bringing in the DNR and the extensive survey . I think it 's_ very commendable . One of the dilemmas we certainly have here , we have a developer who wants to develop a plan . We have residents . We have environmental issues and I think when it gets to the Commission level here , as well as to the City , I see that it 's our task to bring the balance between all of these issues . I certainly have to agree that we need to try and be careful in terms of losing some of our natural resources such as trees , but at the same time the developer certainly has his right . His or her right to develop the piece of property . I think with what has happened since the last time we 've seen this , I find it as a Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 9 very good compromise taking into consideration the environmental issue , issues by the residents as well as the interest and rights of the developer . And if I , there isn 't any other significant comments , I 'm planning on supporting this compromise . The only thing I would raise issue to is the street name . In my previous residence I went through an address change because the Post Office told us . Not because they asked . And when you look at a public safety issue , if there 's any delays simply because of a potential misreading of an address , I think it 's in the best interest to suffer a little bit upfront in terms of having to go through an address change . So I would really certainly recommend that . I know in the past the city has requested different names and I would support that the city continues with that practice of different names because the bottom line here , it really is in the best interest of all residents . That the names are clearly identifiable , especially in the area of public safety . Batzli : Anything else? Harberts: No . Batzli : Ladd . Conrad: I thought the only solution was to create bigger lots and I 'm impressed that staff and the developer have done some things to save what I perceive to be a significant amount of trees on the property . It 's hard for me to get a handle on the trees that are going down but on the other hand , as I challange what I see here , it 's probably as good a plan in terms of if you 're going to develop it . I couldn 't change it . If I challenged each lot up there and said well , if I made the lots 50% bigger I don 't know that I 'd save many more trees . That 's what I tried to do . I think as I look at what I see , it 's very reasonable . That 's all I have to say . Batzli : Let me play devil 's advocate then . Let 's assume you cluster the houses so that you didn 't have to run the road through there , which is where you lose most of the trees . Conrad : You could do that . Batzli : But then you 're talking about a completely different style and type of development . Conrad: Yeah , you cluster all your houses out where there aren 't any trees and I don 't think that 's reasonable . If we clustered them in where the trees are , that 's not reasonable . From anybody 's standpoint . I think if somebody had some wisdom a while back when this was originally proposed , we might have thought of this as some park property or something along that line but it 's not right now and the developer is way down the road on this one and we really haven 't said that this is a park parcel . Yeah Brian , I think you could , if somebody could tell me a better use , I would listen to it but in terms of the map that we 're looking at on the top that 's , if somebody 's going to put houses in , that 's a fairly minimal amount of tree loss . Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 10 Batzli : Okay . Given that it 's fairly minimal , would you then require . Conrad : Let me say , before you say that , take a look at Lundgren Brothers , who we typically hold up as a fairly sophisticated developer and putting in some higher priced home . They took down far more trees than - what we 're looking at here . Batzli : For the Ersbo one? Conrad: Up on . Batzli : Summit? Conrad: Yeah . If you take a look at what they took down and we say they 're doing a good job . They took down a whole lot more trees . Batzli : Would you , in view of the fact that we 're doing such a nice job of saving them during the development process , are we going to be unhappy several years later when people move in and cut them down out of their yards? Would it be better to apply more conservation easements rather than giving them a management plan and leaving it up to their whim? Conrad: Tim Erhart should be here for that . . . I don 't think we should be I 'm not on that line of thinking , no . Batzli : I don 't think he would be either . Conrad: We know he would not be . There 's a fair number of trees on the bottom plat that we 're looking at . Fair number that are going down . But - I have a real tough time saying change this and do it a different way and Brian , if you want to cluster them , it just is a whole different concept . Single family , this was always thought of as a single family area and I just don 't know how I 'd do it differently . Batzli : Fair enough . Anything else Ladd? Matt? Ledvina : Well I think the developer has done a good job . And getting back to what was originally was proposed and the alignments of the streets that were approved in the conceptual stage and the things they 've done to - change the alignment and the design have really enhanced the tree preservation . I 'm fairly comfortable with what they 've got here . I had other questions on some of the staff recommendations here . On the first condition , you talked about the front yard setback being reduced to 25 feet where it will preserve natural features . I know we used this reduces setback for Lundgren and did we not identify the lots that were actually involved? Olsen: I had identified the lots and you recommended that it be just general . That it generally applied . This condition really , we 've already- set the housepad up if it needed to be and so it 's really not even necessary because those lots that it would have been used to preserved the natural features already , we have established where the housepad is . — Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 11 Ledvina : So for the areas for example in the northern part of the development where there 's no concerns . Olsen: There shouldn 't . Ledvina: Okay . So we 're not worried about those , the builder coming in with the 25 foot setback and us being required to approve that? Olsen: Right . I think it 's pretty , we could say that it 's not preserving natural features . Or we could take it out . Complete . . .the condition probably . Unless we need to specify which lots we 've done it . Batzli : Last time I think actually what it read was the frontyard setback can be reduced to 25 feet period . Olsen: And then we added where it will preserve . Batzli : Right . But I think , we would be more comfortable if this wasn 't at the discretion of the developer . If the city staff . Olsen: Pointed out which ones . Batzli : Right . I think we were comfortable as long as it 's being — submitted to you for approval if they 're moving them around . Olsen: So add , if approved by city staff? Batzli : Yeah . Ledvina: I know the City Council was concerned about that specific provision on the Lundgren subdivision so I 'm a little bit sensitive to that . Olsen: Yeah . That 's the one I was saying that we had specified the lots and it was asked to change to be general so . But I 'll just add , if approved by city staff . Ledvina: Okay . And I just had a general question regarding the flag lots . Is that a common driveway on those two flags? So there 's two driveways side by side? Olsen: Yeah . We hadn 't provided for a common driveway . I don 't know if it shows that well on that map but the lot , the trees that you can that are going to be removed would most likely have been removed with 2 driveways versus 1 so we just went ahead and blocked those out with the driveways . The trees that we 're losing in those parts . Ledvina : Right . Well , if you 've got one driveway for those two flags , they can split and you 've got whatever , a 15 foot . I mean it 's much less pavement . Olsen: Oh yeah , no question about that . Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 12 _ Ledvina : Can we require that that be , that there be one lot servicing those adjacent flag lots? Or one driveway servicing those adjacent flag lots . Olsen: I don 't see why we couldn 't . We 'd have to , does it have to be a 20 foot? Is it a shared driveway then? And then you get into a 20 foot width . Has to be 7 ton design where you have 2 lots on a driveway . I mean we can make any condition we want . That 's a general . The general condition for the city is if you have a shared driveway , two homes on a private drive , it has to be 20 foot wide , 7 ton design . Batzli : Didn 't we just do , I thought we did an amendment to our flag lot driveway ordinance and we didn 't require that . Olsen: For shared driveways? Krauss: No , that 's the way it was written 2 or 3 years ago . That hasn 't changed . Batzli : Boy , time flies . Really? Oh , okay . Olsen: But we can look at that . We can look again but I think when Dave - and I worked on this , I don 't think we saw that shared driveways was goin< to be saving any trees . We either placed the driveways where there were no trees going to be removed or else where the trees were going to be removed with 1 or 2 . Ledvina : Is that your understanding Dave? That a shared driveway won 't really help the situation? Hempel : That and the combination of the sewer and water service extensions to each home . Ledvina: Okay . I just thought there might be an opportunity there but . Batzli : So we ' ll require rain barrels and an outdoor . . . Olsen: Right . Well actually we want a cart path and when we were walking through the site we were going , can 't they just be accessed by a golf cart- and a cart path . Ledvina : Let 's see . He talked about a variance being required for the - street grade and I may have missed it in here but I didn 't find it in the conditions . Olsen: I took it out because it 's a PUD so technically it doesn 't have t< get a variance . Ledvina : Okay . We don 't have to worry about that? Alright . Dave , is - that going to present any problems at all? It 's near the outlet , south outlet by Powers Boulevard . Is that 10% grade a concern for the city? Hempel : We 're still going to require that there 's a landing at the top sc^ there is a gentle gradient onto Powers Boulevard providing for adequate Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 13 stopping and acceleration onto Powers Boulevard . I would imagine there 'd be approximately 100 to 150 foot landing on top required . Ledvina : But other than that , a 3% increase is not real significant? Hempel : Not in this stretch we didn 't feel it would be . Ledvina: Okay . It 's a pretty short stretch . What is it , 100 feet or so? Hempel : It 's actually a little longer than that . . .250 . Ledvina : Okay . Well I think if you don 't go above 10% , you 're generally okay for any type of vehicle . And then Jo Ann , on the agenda it identified a wetland alteration permit . That 's not part of this? Olsen: No , that shouldn 't be on there . I never even looked at that . Ledvina: I didn 't think so but I just . Olsen : . . .no , that 's correct . They 're not touching a wetland . Ledvina: Okay , that 's all I have for my comments . - Batzli : Okay , thank you . You know I really thought you were going to ask about the stockpiled material in condition 19 . I don 't know why . Ledvina : I thought I 'd forego it this time . Batzli : Okay . Joe . Scott : Jo Ann , on the corrected tree survey , how many trees are identified? Olsen: How many , you mean out of the whole list? Scott: No . I mean out of the , on the list . When you went through it . Olsen: How many do we identify? Scott: Yeah , how many did you identify? Olsen: We went through the whole , pretty much all the list . Scott : Like 1 ,500 or? Olsen: Oh no , no . There 's , well the number 's about 900 or so and we didn 't do all 900 but we went in the area . Scott: I was thinking as far as the count , because I 'm trying to get in my mind is some sort of a numeric difference between , so out of the 900 the initial proposal as we saw about a month ago had a tree loss of . Olsen : Oh , I don 't have those numbers . Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 14 Scott : I mean this helps a lot from a visual standpoint . Olsen: I 'd say at least they 're saving 50% of what was being lost the first time . Scott: And where the creativity come from to , because obviously there 's some ideas that came out of this process to reduce tree loss . Where did those ideas come from? Did they come primarily from city staff? Primarily from the developer? Olsen: Well , the staff is where we 're , we saw that it was sanitary sewer that was causing a lot of the tree removal and that 's where I said to Dave , are there other options . Then so yes and then the developer also agreed that yes , there are other things that they could do . I mean they , what this is is additional cost to them in changes and they agreed yes , we could do it . It was either a lift station or this ejector pump so that 's where that one came from . But their Crane Circle , Crane , I forget what that was . That was just saying we want to preserve that stand and so do whatever you can to preserve that . And actually we had proposed flag log- in there and they 're the ones who came back with the whole , taking it out completely . Scott : Is there a bituminous trail that 's still proposed to go from Lake Susan Hills Drive out to Lake Susan? Is that what that? Olsen: Yeah . Up on the northern one , on that area from Mallard? Scott: It 's looking on , at least what I have here . I don 't know if it 's , yeah . It would be from Mallard . - Olsen: Yeah , there 's still going to be a trail . Scott : Okay . What 's the tree loss associated with putting that? Olsen: Well we , I think we 're also putting sewer down there or something . Isn 't it going where the line is going? The trail going down to Lake Susan Dave? Hempel : Below the lake? — Scott : No . It connects Lake Susan Hills Drive to the bituminous trail that goes around Lake Susan . Is that going to be laid over storm sewer or_ something like that? Hempel : That 's where the sanitary sewer is being extended up from along the lake . Olsen: Yeah , originally it was going to be removing trees and that 's where we said let 's move that . - Scott: Okay . And then I 'd like to see too , condition 21 . That damage for lost trees would follow the ordinance and that 's Section 20-1178 and _ especially C( 3 ) and C( 7 ) . It talks specifically about caliper inch per caliper inch replacement and then also the trees that are designated for Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 15 preservation that are lost will be replaced by compatible trees approved by the city and the city will require the developer to replace these trees with the largest comparable trees that are commercial available for transportation so , but I 'd like to see that tree preservation ordinance as part of the development agreement . No further comments . = Batzli : Joe , are you suggesting that the , and maybe I missed something . That the applicant is going to replace all the trees that are being taken out? Scott : Oh no . No . Trees that are designated for preservation that are lost due to construction . Not everything . Batzli : But C( 3 ) of that section discusses replacing trees approved for removal . Scott : I 'm mostly concerned with the trees that are designated for preservation . If some of those are damaged . Olsen: So C( 7 ) . Scott : So that would be C( 7 ) instead of ( 3 ) . Thanks . Batzli : Okay , thank you . Farmakes : I had several things I already talked about so I 'm not going to cover those . I too agree that this is a good compromise to this problem . Fortunately we 're working with the long term solution here and I know that . . .but certainly for the aesthetic value that they provide us , we do have such little tree cover left in Chanhassen , I think it 's worth it to try and save these resources to let them live out their natural lives and pass on . They also provide us with wildlife , food for wildlife , particularly the nut trees and so on . So I 'd like to see us continue to be aggressive in trying to save these trees . On the other hand , we have People with millions of dollars of property who have invested , who are selling these parcels of property who are moving out here . These people , and of course in time move in , they plant trees and over the years an urban forest begins to develop . I think the DNR said approximately 95% of Chanhassen denuded of forest cover . That this has been a farm area for over 100 years . Trees and farming don 't mix particularly well . So consequently the areas that are left are for wood , for game purposes or simply weren 't farmable land . Minimal farmable land . And I think that this is a reasonable compromise to this . Maybe Dick Wing will disagree and ask for 3 more but I don 't know how else this problem can be solved short of , as Ladd said , that 20 years ago they made a forest out of this thing and turned it into a park . That wasn 't done and time has marched on now and as I said before , I think there 's a pragmatic solution . I would like to back up just a little bit and touch before I forget on the PUD part that is not covered by the trees . I still feel that 1 , 2 and 8 are pretty cramped . Particularly 8 and 1 in comparison to the surrounding properties and although I 'm not going to not vote on this because of that , I would like to pass on that comment to the City Council and have them review that . Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 16 Batzli : Those are all in Block 1? Farmakes: Correct . Batzli : The ones up in the northern most part of the development? Farmakes: Correct . I think 8 in particular because of the angle of the house is at a different angle than the property . It 's sort of a pie . They seem to be areas within the PUD that are sort of left over land trying to work in a housepad . I 'm concerned about the properties next to them . The discrepancy difference between their size of lots and so on and the available area there . I also agree with you and the idea of having a - conservation easement following the property . It will be a mistake , all this work could be undone with a happy chainsaw so I 'd like to see that put in . Olsen: Okay . With the individual trees and all of them saved? Farmakes : Yeah . That 's possible per lot . Olsen: Yeah , we have to have a legal description around each one of those trees . is that correct Elliott? - Knetsch: Yes . Olsen : Do you see another way of preserving these after they 're , the ownership of the lot owner other than by having a legal description? Knetsch: Well , whether you have the conservation easement or the - management plan , it 's just a piece of paper filed at the courthouse . If someone gets their chainsaw out , the trees are going to go whether it 's a conservation easement or a management plan . - Farmakes: Well we have the setback from the lake edge and the same type of reasoning applies . If you have an area of property that 's overviewing _ the lake people often , when they build their house want to see the lake sc they go down and start cutting trees out . If that 's allowed to happen , it seems to me it 's a moot issue what we 're doing here . But if there 's a way to solve that problem , I 'd like to see that follow . Whether or not somebody 's going to break the law , I suppose we don 't have any guarantee of that but we can always enforce it at a later date . I don 't know else to deal with that . That 's the end of my comments other than , with this _ type of tree cover , I 'd like to see us come up with or establish a criteria of what we need , when we need to see this type of thing . And with this type of overview . What bothered me the last time is that we didn 't see this up front and it really was the basis of what we 're making - a decision here . And certainly if there 's that stand of trees or whatever criteria you were going to use , that there 's a significant stand that we should know specifically what we 're losing or we 're gaining . - Olsen: Agreed , yeah . Batzli : Okay , thank you . In the past from time to time Jo Ann we 've narrowed the roadway in a PUD in order to , at least in one instance I Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 17 think we have , narrowed the roadway . Did we take a look at doing that at all in here? Olsen: We 've done that . Batzli : Well , by how much did we do that though? Olsen: Well down to 50 . I mean we 've never gone below 50 right-of-way . Batzli : But that 's the right-of-way . I mean have we ever gone lower in the actual curb to curb? Olsen: We 've talked about doing that but that should be , Dave can address that but there 's other implications . Hempel : Right . Mr . Chairman . The major disruption out there again is not the street pavement . It 's the initial utility installation . Sanitary sewer . The watermain . The storm sewer . Each one of those are placed approximately 10 feet apart . The State health codes for the watermain and sanitary sewer to be 10 feet apart in separation so that has the most impact on the site . Not the final street pavement out there . It 's the initial utility installation . Batzli : Okay . I guess like Matt I 'd like to see condition 1 changed so that if there is going to be a pulling back , it will be approved by city staff . I would like to see us look into a few more of these lots having a conservation easement on them . I don 't want to do it for the onesies , twoies trees I guess but it seems to me Block , I think it 's 3 where a lot of the homes have trees in the back . Significant numbers and I don 't know that from your condition I don 't know that , it looks like those , on that block , those lots will not have a conservation easement on them . Olsen: That 's where we were just going with the management plan and listing what was there . Yeah , we will definitely go back and where there 's a stand of trees we ' ll come up with a legal description and work out some way where we have the little one and two , how to . I mean ideally we would love to have them all in conservation easements with just is not feasible when you have individual ones . So yeah , we will do that . We 'll add to that . Batzli : I 'd like to see a new condition 21 and as Joe stated , for replacement of , for those trees which are damaged in construction . I really appreciate the presentation by Mr . Smithburg . That was nice . Thank you . I won 't reiterate too many of the comments by my fellow commissioners but I think we 're doing a pretty decent job here given this type of development and trying to accommodate a lot of different needs here . From the looks of it I think we 're doing one of the best jobs we 've done on preserving trees and looking at it , it appears to me that Dave is , he 's right . We 're losing them on the roadway and probably installation of the utilities and I don 't see a way around that other than completely saying , so . If someone has a motion , I 'd be happy to listen to it . Conrad : I don 't have a motion but I 'd make a comment and then , I appreciate the residents being here and following the issue . It 's an Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 18 issue that we care about . It doesn 't look like it sometimes but we really do care about it . We probably had something to do with the tree preservation ordinance that 's in here . But if you see , we 're kind of globally looking at things and maybe not always challenging a lot line here or there so I think later on , in fact as it goes to City Council , if - you see some specifics that we 've missed on here , it 's probably not a bad idea to challenge the specifics . If there 's a stand of trees that a lot line could have saved or a bigger parcel could have preserved , but again I thank everybody for showing up . It 's best that you 're following this issue . Batzli : Nicely said . I think we all appreciate it . Would someone like to take a crack at a motion? Harberts: Well I guess I 'll take a crack at it . I ' ll make a motion to approve Case No . 87-3 , Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition and approve the recommendations presented by staff with the following changes , and I woulu welcome assistance from the group . Number 1 , that the staff will outline which lots can be reduced to 25 feet . Number 12 I would like to see addec that Lake Susan Hills Drive be renamed as supported by the Public Safety Deparment . That we add 21 . Basically what you 'd lose in the developer 's agreement in the ordinance as specified by Commissioner Scott . I guess - that does it . Batzli : Is there a second? Conrad: Second . Batzli : Is there discussion? Farmakes: Did that include your amendment? Scott : Yeah . It included my amendment and also you wanted to make greater use of conservation easements? Batzli : Did you want to include language for staff to look at incorporating additional conservation easements in your motion? Harberts: Yes . Batzli : Do you accept thatas a friendly amendment? Conrad: Certainly . Batzli : Regarding your condition 12 , was that eleminating the current language or was that adding? Harberts: Adding . Batzli : Okay . And your motion was for the Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition as shown on the plans dated April 12 , 1993? Harberts : Yes , thank you . Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 19 Harberts moved , Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat for Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition as shown on the plans dated April 12, 1993, with the following conditions: 1 . The front yard setback can be reduced to 25 ' where it will preserve natural features if approved by city staff_ 2 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval . 3 . The applicant shall supply detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 year storm event and ponding calculations for the rentention ponds ( NURP standards ) for the City Engineer to review and approve . 4 . The applicant shall supply detailed construction plans for utility and street improvements for the City to review and formally approve . All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City 's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates . 5 . The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits such as MWCC , Health Department , Watershed District , PCA and Carver County Highway Department . 7 . All retention ponds shall include an outlet control structure to control discharge rate pursuant to NURP standards . 8 . The applicant shall provide maintenance access routes to the retention pond areas and dedicate the appropriate easements on the final plat . In addition , all utility lines outside the street right-of-way shall be dedicated with a minimum of a 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement . 9 . Erosion control and turf restoration shall be in accordance with the City 's Best Management Practice Handbook . 10 . If feasible , the applicant shall work with the City and County in oversizing the storm drainage improvements to include the future runoff from the upgrade of Powers Boulevard . The applicant would be compensated for the associated oversizing costs . 11 . The location of all fire hydrants shall be approved by the City 's Fire Marshal . 12 . Mallard Court should be renamed to either Drake Court or some other acceptable street name . Lake Susan Hills Drive shall also be renamed as supported by the Public Safety Department_ 13 . Five foot concrete sidewalks should also be extended from Lake Susan Hills Drive west to Dove Court . 14 . The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement . The conservation easement Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 20 _ shall permit pruning , removal of dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush . All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4 ' height shall not - be permitted to be removed . Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description . Generally the conservation easement shall be - on the following lots: Lots 1-6 , Block 2 . 15 . Lots 6-16 , Block 3 , Lots 1-10 , Block 4 , and Lots 20-28 , Block 5 shall _ be custom graded lots and the following conditions shall apply : a . Each of these lots shall conform to the approved custom graded plans . Deviation from these plans which will result in more - removal of vegetation , will not be permitted . b . Each of these lots shall have a woodland management plan developed.. by the developer prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy . The woodland management plan shall be developed by a licensed forester approved by the city . A copy of the woodland management plan shall be kept in the building permit file and a copy will - also be given to the homeowner . c . Each of these lots shall only be permitted to have the following - trees remove ( these numbers correspond to the tree survey numbers as shown on Sheets 8 and 9 of Plans dated April 12 , 1993 ): Block 3: Lot 6 - 64 Lot 7 - 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 90 , 91 - Lot 8 - 100 , 502 , 503 , 504 , 507 , 510 , 511 , 512 Lot 9 - 567 , 575 Lot 10 - 582 , 602 Lot 11 - 592 , 593 , 594 , 559 Lot 12 - 598 , 626 , 633 , 634 , 635 , 647 , 648 , 649 Lot 13 - 605 , 624 , 625 , 652 , 715 Lot 14 - 615 Lot 15 - 606 *Lot line must be adjusted to save stand of trees . Lot 16 - 573 Block 4: Lot 1 - 870 , 871 , 872 , 875 *House pad cannot exceed 50 x S0 , must _ save 863 Lot 2 - 817 , 857 , 861 Lot 3 - 828 , 829 , 840 , 841 , 519 Lot 4 - 985 Lot S - 532 , 533 , 535 , 536 , 537 , 550 , 990 , 991 , 994 Lot 6 - 587 Lot 7 - 563 - Lot 8 - 528 , 568 , 569 Lot 9 - 616 , 626 , 627 , 630 , 637 Lot 10 - 619 , 620 , 621 Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 21 Block 5: Lot 20 - none Lot 21 - none Lot 22 - none Lot 23 - 911 , 914 , 917 Lot 24 - 880 , 881 , 882 , 883 , 884 , 878 , 879 Lot 25 - 996 , 997 Lot 26 - 570, 571 , 573 , 578 , 579 , 580 , 581 Lot 27 - 604 *House pad cannot exceed 50 x 50 Lot 28 - 612 16 . The landscaping plan shall be amended to provide the following: a . Increased landscaping along Powers Boulevard ( CR 17 ) and internal boulevard and entrance landscaping . b . Improved landscaping materials , with at least 50% of the hardwoods from the primary species list . c . A plan providing $750 .00 worth of landscaping/single family unit . 17 . Park and Recreation Commission conditions: a . Dedication of Outlot E to the city; b . Construction of the following trails: 1 . an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along the west side of Lake Susan as indicated on Attachment B , Segments D and E ; 2 . an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along the east side of Powers Boulevard ( CR 17 ) as indicated on Attachment B , Segment B; 3 . Trail segments A , C and F ; 4 . Park fees are assessed at one-half the rate in force upon building permit application . All trail fees have been waived as a part of the development of Lake Susan Hills West . 5 . The two trail easements identified allowing access to the shoreland trail be consolidated into one 40 foot easement at the location of the northerly easement . 18 . Building Official conditions: a . Indicate lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevations for each house pad on the grading plan . b . Submit details on corrected pads including compaction tests , limits the pads and elevations of excavations to the Inspections Division . A general soils report for the development should also be submitted to the Inspections Division . Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 22 - c . Oversized street signs shall be placed at each of the four outlets of Lake Susan Hills Drive on Powers Boulevard . The signs shall indicate the range of addresses on the street . 19 . The applicant 's engineer shall provide a final grading plan with detailed house types , elevation and grading limits on all lots . The final grading plan shall also take into consideration existing stockpiled material along County Road 17 . 20 . A condition shall be placed in the development contract regarding maintenance responsibilities for homes with ejector pumps . 21 . Any trees damaged during construction shall be replaced on a caliper inch basis per the ordinance , Section 20-1178(c )(7). All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 68.53 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 2 .25 ACRES AND 64 .98 ACRES LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL , JUST WEST OF PIONEER HILLS SUBDIVISION, LAURENT ADDITION, PAUL LAURENT . Public Present: - Name Address Paul Laurent 16085 Delarma Drive Gil Laurent 1370 Pioneer Trail , Chaska Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Batzli - called the public hearing to order . Batzli : Would the applicant like to address the Commission at this time? _ No? You 're happy with all of the conditions that are in the staff report' There 's no problems? Paul Laurent : Yeah , I guess other than the driveway . . . - Olsen: It 's usually a condition that Carver County will have to give yo'.1 an access permit and it 's usually not a major issue . - Batzli : Okay . This is a public hearing . Is there anyone else who would like to address the Commission on this matter? Ledvina moved , Scott seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed. Batzli : Jeff , do you want to lead off? Parmakes: I have no comments on this issue . - Batzli : Okay , Joe? Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 23 Scott: No comment . Batzli : Matt . Ledvina : No comment . Conrad: Ditto . Harberts : Just clarification . As I understand , this is being subdivided or whatever for a family? Olsen: Right . His father owns the property and this is the son . Harberts: That 's it . No problems . Batzli : I only have one question . That is , we 're taking an easement , drainage and utility easements . Whoops , wrong one . Where is it , Bluff Creek . Yeah , drainage and utility easements over all ponding and wetland areas including Bluff Creek . Now I don 't think that 's shown on the map wnere we 're doing this , is it? Olsen: Yeah , I believe it is . Batzli : Is that just that little drainage and utility easement on the back of Lot 1? Olsen : I don 't think they were showing . I thought I brought it down . The easements that we were talking about aren 't shown on here yet . Batzli : Right . Olsen: Okay , what were you saying? Batzli : I was saying , where are we doing it? I mean are we going to show it someday? Olsen: Yeah . Batzli : Who is going to determine this and when is it going to happen? Krauss : The plat will be modified to reflect this . Batzli : Okay . Do we need that as part of our conditions that the map has to be modified to show those? Olsen: We 're saying on the final plat it will show up , but yeah . And then Paul has pointed out that if the creek is going through there , that we should also double check to see if a trail easement should be taken along that too . Batzli : Well that was my biggest concern was that if we eventually are going to do something along Bluff Creek , it needs to be more than just a drainage and utility easement . Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 24 Olsen: Right . Although it 's , yeah I don 't know how you 're going to get . Batzli : I don 't know either but we 'll kick ourselves later . Olsen: We have been working on trail crossings . - Krauss: And Highway 212 is being designed with a bridge over Bluff Creek . It was one of the things we insisted on with the EIS 2 years ago . Scott: Is that going to be like what we ' ll be doing on Highway 5? Krauss: I think the Highway 212 is really a bridge . It doesn 't just loo p like a bridge . Batzli : Okay . So how can we , we can modify that condition 5 to , the easement will be reflected on the final plat and that trail , I don 't know Olsen: Or maybe , could just to number 4 we could add Bluff Creek to the trail easement along Pioneer Trail and Bluff Creek . I ' ll confirm . I 'm assuming it will be like a 20 foot trail easement . Batzli : Okay . I don 't have anything else . If no one else does , I 'd entertain a motion . Scott : I move that the Planning Commission approve the Laurent Addition _ Preliminary Plat #93-7 to create two single family lots as shown on the plans dated March 22 , 1993 and subject to the conditions as stated by staff with item number 4 modified to include an easement of some size to be determined later along Bluff Creek as well as Pioneer Trail . Batzli : Is there a second? Farmakes: Second . Batzli : Did you want to include submission of a final plat showing these easements on condition 5 for example? Scott : Certainly . Batzli : And typically Jo Ann , do we not typically talk about the plans that we 've received rather than whatever the heck the applicant dates them? So that really we 're talking about shown on the plans dated _ Received March 25th? Olsen: Right . It should be 25th , that 's correct . And then I don 't know . on condition 5 it already says that it shall dedicate on final plat . Are — you saying the preliminary plat . You want it to be shown on the? Batzli : I don 't know . It just seemed silly that we were , I thought that - what we would require is a final plat showing all these things from the applicant . Is what I thought . Olsen: Yeah . Okay . Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 25 Batzli : Are those changes acceptable to you? Farmakes: That 's fine . Batzli : Any other discussion? Scott moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Laurent Addition Preliminary Plat #93-7 to create two single family lots as shown on the plans stamped , Received March 25 , 1993, and subject to the following conditions: 1 . The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat a 50 foot wide corridor for County Road 14 (Pioneer Trail ) . 2 . Proposed locations for the on-site sewage treatment sites should be submitted to the Inspections Division for review and approval prior to final plat approval . 3 . The applicant shall receive access approval from Carver County for a driveway to Lot 1 , Block 1 . 4 . Park and trail fees will be required at the time the building permit is issued . An 8 foot wide trail easement along Pioneer Trail shall be dedicated and a trail easement , the size to be determined at a later point , along Bluff Creek . E . The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat drainage and utility easements over all ponding and wetland areas , including Bluff Creek . t . The proposed MnDot highway taking should be dedicated or , at a minimum , platted into an outlot . The appropriate side , front and rear drainage and utility easements should also be dedicated with the final plat . All voted in favor and the motion carried . Batzli : And when does this go? Olsen: May 10th . Batzli : May 10th it goes to City Council . Thank you for coming in . Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 26 PUBLIC HEARING; CONSIDER REVOCATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTRACTOR'S YARD FOR MR . HARRY LINDBERY LOCATED AT 1700 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE . Public Present: Name Address Harry Lindbery 1700 Flying Cloud Drive Jeff Carson Attorney for Mr . Lindbery Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Batzli -- called the public hearing to order . Jeff Carson: Members of the Planning Commission , my name is Jeff Carson . _ I represent Harry Lindbery , the landowner . At the previous hearing just referenced , where there was an attempt to void or reach a determination that the conditional use permit was voided , apparently enough issue was raised about the use of the property by us over the years to redirect the thinking and bring it back to this body . It 's pretty clear , if you all have a copy of the staff report which includes the Minutes from that meeting and the discussion that took place , I think I used at that meetinr- the phrase pretext hearing . Meaning this hearing . It 's pretty clear that it wasn 't designed to be a hearing to determine whether or not there was something that could be worked out based on the staff 's position but merely a hearing to make a determination that the permit should be revoked . That 's their position . We explained at the last hearing that the applicant had run into a roadblock in the process of constructing his building . Questions were asked and answered about the timing of it all . - There appears to have been a long period of time transpired between the issuance of the original permit and today and I guess I can agree that a long period of time has elapsed . I think that a lot of it is accounted - for however and I would ask this body to remember or consider that the city was dealing with this property for a period of time long after , for over a year after the original year that the conditional use permit _ preports to require complete action . And I also explained that Mr . Lindbery was physically unable to do anything for a year 's period . So there 's big blocks of time that have elapsed and we don 't deny that . Then you also have to consider that there 's only a relatively short period of - time after 3/4 of each year that you can actually construct . All that by way of explanation , Mr . Lindbery wants very much to proceed with this project . We raise issues about the rezoning and the grandfathering nature_ of it and the fact that he has actually operated a contractor 's yard in one form or another since the inception of this permit . He has not however built his building and if you look at the long list of items required of that permit , we claim that some of them were waived de facto - ay the city staff during this process . And the reality is that most of the requirements will come due after the building is placed on the property . He 's willing to conform to whatever requirements you make but - he can 't do those things prior to putting the building on . Mr . Lindbery , total up the purchase of the property and the items that he 's purchased in anticipation of operating his yard there , including a $34 ,000 .00 building _ that is presently stored elsewhere . $8 ,000 .00 worth of heating coils , which was a tremendously big issue unfortunately with the Building Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 27 Department here . He has in excess of $250 ,000 .00 into this property . This project . If you accept the rezoning and the fact that the conditional use permit is revoked or if you do that process , it 's his estimate that the value of the property is approximately 25% that figure . He simply can 't afford to have that happen . Not many people could . And so he asks you to consider all these things recognizing that his story isn 't perfect and I can 't fill in every gap to satisfy every concern that 's been raised by staff . But he is willing to work with the city in any way that he can . If you want to put a timeframe on the process , he 's willing to do that . He 's willing to put conditions on . He understands now that when somebody says time is of the essence , that 's what they mean . We can 't change the History of this but we would ask you to consider going forward with a working relationship . Contrary to the indication I guess of the recommendation of staff . That 's really about all I intend to say or all I have planned to say . It 's a pretty serious problem economically to him if this permit gets revoked and he 's left with an agricultural piece of property in that location . It essentially becomes useless . I 'd attempt to answer any questions if I can , or if I can 't I 'm sure Mr . Lindbery himself can . That you might have . Batzli : What I think we will probably do is close the public hearing , assuming there 's no other public comment and we will probably have questions for you once we start trying to look through this , if that 's acceptable . Jerf Carson: Do you want me to sit down? Batzli : Yeah . This is a public hearing . Is there any other public comment? I 'd like the record to show there 's no one else in the crowd except the applicant , his attorney , city staff , City Attorney , and the Planning Commission . Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved , Harberts seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed . Batzli : Diane . arberts : I 'll pass right now . Batzli : You ' ll pass? Harberts: I will . Batzli : Okay . Ladd . Any thoughts? Any comments? Conrad: You didn 't ask staff for their position . Are you doing this differently? Batzli : Well , we got the staff report up front . Conrad: I guess we did . I guess I 'd ask the applicant one question . You know contractors yards are not one of our favorite things in Chanhassen . It 's our attempt to control a function on some property that probably has some history in terms of doing a business on that yard , but a while back Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 28 there was something being done on your parcel that was not permitted which gives an indication to me of character and intent . How you would operate - it had you operated a real contractors yard . And I guess I 'm real curious _ So that tells me I 'm not sure you could operate a contractors yard per our permit . So maybe you can tell me why that was not , why you _ did something that wasn 't permitted and why you decided to continue doing that . Jeff Carson: One of us will try to answer either one of your questions . - Harry Lindbery: We have ship containers . They 're 8 foot wide , 8 foot high and 20 feet long that we rent out to plumbers and electricians and - different contractors for storing their supplies and their tools on jobs . Weil we did store some right by some trees . It was in the fall of the year and there was leaves on the trees and they weren 't visible . Then the leaves come off and we got a letter from the city and I asked the city , should I move them down behind the creek? There was no possible way . The only thing they told me is get them off the property . There 's no if 's or and 's or anything . And well , I disagreed with that and then I contacted - Mr . Carson and he talked with them and then later I sold I think 7 of ther or something for about half their value just to try to satisfy whichever man was complaining and there 's just one there now that we have . It 's similar to like a yard shed you have in your backyard and they 've got a garden tractor and a lawnmower and it isn 't really unsightly . Conrad : But again , the contractors yard we kind of try to understand what 's going to take place there and we put it on a piece of paper so we know , so you know and we know what 's going to occur and we don 't want it escalated . Period . Period . The end of sentence . End of it . We don 't - want it escalated . Now did you not anticipate that use? Were those to be stored behind an opaque fence? I don 't understand why you 're doing something that you said you weren 't going to do . Whether it was screened - or whether it was , why did you do that? I guess that 's still an open question with me . Jeff Carson: I may be able to respond in part . I can 't tell you what he - was thinking but I think the use of those units is , in his mind , part of the contractors yard . I 'd point to the first requirement in the permit itself . That something must be completely screened by berming or - landscaping and that 's why he , we looked on his property and if you look at the lay of the land , when he put these , and he did do this . Put these units down behind the trees , they were effectively screened . _ Conrad: Until the leaves fell off . Jeff Carson: No , no . No . This was after that and after it was called tc- his attention . He took them down and around by the creek and literally they were out of sight . I suggested that that part of the requirement in the permit or of the permit was indeed satisfied . By that time unfortunately criminal charges had already been issued and they 're still pending as a matter of fact . But I believe that he actually met the terr- . He was in a place up higher , closer to the road when they were drawn to _ the city 's attention . When he says to you that he asked them about movin< them down and around and they said get them off , I think that was in error Planning Commission Meeting April 21 . 1993 - Page 29 actually on the city 's part . That isn 't required . It is part of a contractors operation . He was willing to move them and so that 's what happened . Conrad: I don 't know that we 've ever let another contractors yard do that . Typically we have them screened with a fence . Typically we don 't teil somebody to take it down the gully so it 's a little bit different . Jeff Carson: Have you seen the lay of this land? You 'd have to drive it to really , because it sounds kind of crazy but if you go down and around , it literally is , there 's a woods there and kind of indentation and it is out of sight . Be glad to have you see it there . Conrad: So it was always his intent to bring these containers onto the site? Jeff Carson: I don 't know . I don 't know that that ultimately . I don 't know in 1988 if that was even contemplated . Harry Lindbery: There will be a need as long as we have needs because every contractor will tell you that he has a problem with supplies and tools on a job that he needs to lock up . Batzli : Paul do we have , we were not provided with the original Minutes of the Planning Commission during the application process for the conditional use . Is it of record as to what the applicant said was going to take place on the site? r,rauss: That was the approved plan . Batzli : That 's the plan but was there a discussion over what actual type of activities would take place on the contractors yard? Al-Jiff : The applicant was supposed to submit a survey showing how many trucks will be on the site . As well as a screening plan , landscaping plan . Actually the contractors yard , conditional use permit is really not valid unless all of those conditions have been met . I mean they never actually started operating the place . The City never issued a permit for a contractors yard . We have issued a footings permit for the building but that 's about it . And I don 't know if that answers your question . 3atzli : Okay . Well I may be asking it fairly innocually here . Let me try one more time . When Mr . Lindbery came in for the conditional use permit originally to the Planning Commission and probably the Council , there was a discussion over what type of activity would take place on , in the contractors yard . It 's been stated in the staff report in several places that putting these containers and the cement pipes was illegal . I 'm wondering , I don 't remember what this contractors yard was supposed to be for . Ai-Jaff : There wasn 't supposed to be any outdoor storage . They were supposed to have a building . Batzli : So you don 't remember or you didn 't look at . Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 30 Al-Jaff: I didn 't see anything that allows storage outdoors . Batzli : The first condition says that all outdoor storage will be screened which seems to me to say there 's going to be some outdoor storage isn 't it? — Elliott Knetsch : Mr . Chair? Batzli : Yeah . Elliott Knetsch: Maybe I can take a shot at that . I haven 't seen those Minutes of the original approval either . What I 'd like to say is that this permit does permit any contractor yard activities as they were defined in the Code at that time . And the Code allowed several things . It specifically set those forth . So I believe the permit , I don 't know if_ Mr . Lindbery stated what exact activities he was going to use but the Cit) •yid approve all uses under the definition of contractors yard . The reasor. that a land/sea containers and the pipe is deemed to be a violation is not that those don 't constitute contractor yard activities . The reason they 're deemed to be a violation is that he was not supposed to start any contractor activity until he went through this 20 item checklist and completed all those things . It was only with these conditions in place - that the City felt that it would be okay for him to initiate operation of the contractor yard . Batzli : So the illegal nature of the storage of the containers and the pipe was the fact that he had not completed the 20 conditions and so he nao not yet really received his validated conditional use permit from the City? Elliott Knetsch: That 's correct . And also that they weren 't screened properly . You know assuming somehow it did have permission to start , they_ would have violated condition number 1 for not being properly screened . ] think the applicant 's point on that issue is , it does permit landscaping as screening so that area back on the property down by the creek where all the trees are and not visible from public roads , that may , we may have — approved that along with all these other conditions as a landscape screening plan but he never came in and submitted that as his plan . Harberts : And as I understand that the Zoning Code has now been changed? Elliott Knetsch: Yes it has . Harberts : And it doesn 't allow for this? Al-Jaff : No . Harberts: What was the consideration given to when the zoning code was ganged as to that particular parcel? I mean did we change it without . — Farmakes: Was the zoning changed or is it just a conditional use permit for that application? Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 31 Al-Jaff : Our ordinance does not allow contractors yards in the city anymore . In any of the zones . Farmakes: No , I mean even currently . It 's still agricultural with a conditional use permit , is it not? Al-Jaff : Correct . Well , if this permit is valud , it 's a non-conforming use . tatzli : Is that your question? Whether this would be a non-conforming use? Jeff Carson: I think I can answer that . Batzli : I need to clarify this . Farmakes: How is the property currently zoned? Al-Jaff : It 's an agricultural estate district . Farmakes: Alright . And what we 're arguing about here is a conditional use for that zone right? Al-Jaff : Correct . Farmakes : Okay . That 's just how I want to qualify . I thought that was tne question you were asking . Harberts: Yeah . Farmakes: Okay . EJatzli : I 'm sorry , did you want to? Jeft Carson: Well I think there might be a misunderstanding . At the time of tne rezoning , now you cannot seek a contractors yard in this zone . So _ I sensed that was what you were asking . We can no longer ask for a contractors yard in that zone following rezoning . Farmakes : As I understand it , the zoning remains the same but the — conditional use no longer allows . Jeff Carson : That 's it . That 's the change . And at the time that they did that , and we included in our papers some of the comments from the Planning and Zoning , the concern was what about people who are already in and the assurances were , they 're grandfathered . Harberts: Do you have some documentation? Jeff Carson: Of that? Harberts: Yeah . Planning Commission Meeting April 21 . 1993 - Page 32 Jeff Carson: Well , the Planning Commission Minutes which are excerpts _ from that which are part of our original submission , should be part of your . If all of that was included in your packet , they should be there . Batzli : It 's Exhibit 11 or something . About halfway through . — Jeff Carson: It was clear that the Planning Commissioners at the time were concerned about that because nobody showed up at the rezoning hearing_ or the hearing to , yeah the rezoning hearing . And the idea of notice . the concept that if we publish it , it 's enough but no contractors were specifically notified . I beleive the understanding was that because they 're non-conforming and therefore legal non-conforming uses , we 're not — affecting them . Batzli : I don 't know whether revocation or us coming to the conclusion — that we should work with your client is going to hinge on whether they 're currently allowed or not so much as whether the applicant has gone forward in a timely manner and worked towards complying with the conditional use _ permit that was granted 4 years ago , or 5 years ago . You know I don 't know . I guess personally , and I don 't mean to speak for the other commissioners . I guess my decision on whether to move to revoke or to work with them will matter a hill of beans on whether it 's changed in the — meantime . Jeff Carson : I see . — Batzli : I don 't see that as my particular issue in this matter , and you know the other commissioners can disagree with me but in any event . Did you have other comments Ladd? Conrad: No . Batzli : Okay . Matt . Ledvina : Well this thing has really taken on a life of it 's own . There 's been a lot of different discussion as to why the permit isn 't valid . If the permit is valid , we should revoke the permit . There 's a lot 7,f different twists to know . If I understand our City Attorney , he says the permit didn 't exist because the conditions weren 't met . Is that right? — Elliott Knetsch: Well , I guess no . There is a permit . Ledvina : Okay , we know that . Elliott Knetsch: I mean staff 's original position was there is no permit ,_ You don 't have to revoke it because it doesn 't exist . The Board of Adjustments and Appeals agreed with that but the Council didn 't . The Council said , well let 's not talk about this lapse in 1 year , no construction and all that . He 's got the permit . Let 's look at whether i'— should be revoked for non-compliance with it 's terms . So there is a valic Permit . _edvina: Okay , so that 's where we 're at? — Planning Commission Meeting 21 , 1993 - Page 33 Elliott Knetsch: Right . I think my statement that you were referring to is simply that he didn 't have permission to start operating until you completed these things and he did in fact start operating by storing the — containers out there . _edvina: Okay . Just to get staff 's response to a couple of things that were said . The applicants or the CP 's holders representative indicated that certain requirements were waived by staff . Is that true? Was there any aspects? Al-Jaff : We 're not aware of any . Ledvina : Okay . Nothing was documented? Do you have anything that was documented as far as waiving conditions of the conditional use permit? Jeff Carson: You mean in writing? Ledvina: Right . Jeff Carson: No . Verbal conversations between Mr . Lindbery and staff . _edvina: And as to the value of the property being reduced to 250 of it 's current use . Is there any comment on that or are you able to make any — response? I don 't know that it 's necessarily germane but . Krauss: We haven 't tried to come up with a value . Ledvina : Okay . I read through the City Council Minutes and one of the •cirections that they were I think trying to take this thing was to allow Mr . Lindbery to gain compliance with the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit . And it doesn 't appear that we 've done that . First of all I 'd like to ask the applicant , has any progress been made in gaining compliance with the conditions of the permit? Harry Lindbery: Your Building Inspector told me that he wouldn 't give me a permit to put the heating in the floor and pour the concrete to erect the building . Ledvina : Well , okay aside from the building . The other conditions that are in here . Jeff Carson: Everything has , well there 's been , we did in some ways respond to those conditions in the original submission but since the criminal charges were brought last summer , essentially everything has awaited that outcome . Nothing has gone forward . Shortly after that we got into the issue of void permit versus active permit and so we 've been iiterally . almost for a year now , been under that inquiry . So no . _edvina : Okay , so nothing has happened at the site . Jeff Carson: No . _edvina : Since the City Council date or anything like that? Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 34 _ Jeff Carson: No . No . Ledvina: Okay . Has the staff inspected the site recently? Al-Jaff: As of a week ago a Building Official was out there and there was- one container on the site . _eovina: Okay . So essentially from that inspection you would conclude _ that the conditions of the permit are not being met? Okay . This is really a sticky wicket . It 's taken a number of different directions here . No further questions . Batzli : Okay , thank you . Joe . Scott : After going through this , it started getting involved in , it looks_ like dialogues between two attorneys so if you wouldn 't mind simplifying oecause it seems like we have a chicken and egg . It seems like a permit . and stop me at any time . Elliott Knetsch: Sure . Scott : I mean have two words out of my mouth and may get stopped here . - Basically . it initially was determined that there was no permit because substantial activities were not begun within a certain window of time . Tne yard was operated as such without "a permit" but the City Council _ determined that there was a permit? Elliott Knetsch: Yes . That 's the short answer . I mean there 's , he says he was operating the yard by having those containers on there . That was - really the only , you know and I 'm sure Mr . Carson will correct me if I 'm :;rcnq . I think that 's the only activity out there that would even remotely constitute use as a contractors yard . - Scott: Well is the , and this might be a basic civics question but does the City Council have the legal ability to make that determination? To say that in fact is a permit? _liiott Knetsch: Yes . Scott : Okay . So it doesn 't matter what has happened up to that point in time , there is a permit legally? Elliott Knetsch: Yes . Scott: Okay . And now the question is , is based upon the operation . Okay . And that seems to be pretty clear . I don 't think that there 's a - dispute as to what 's been going on on the property . Eiiiott Knetsch : I agree with that . I Scott: Alright . No further comments . Harberts: Sounded like questions to me . Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 Page 35 Farmakes : On the history of the property , a couple questions for staff . Prior to this in 1988 , this was ag property and the zone was ag? -=i-Jaff : Yes . Farmakes: That hadn 't changed . Was the access road existing or was that an improvement? Al-Jaff : Existing . Farmakes: Do you agree with the assessment of the applicant to the valuation of the improvements on the property? Krauss: We really don 't have a position on that Commissioner Farmakes _ The building 's not up . We hear that it 's stored elsewhere . We don 't knovi if the building was purchased and what the value of that was? And we naven 't tried to do any kind of an appraisal as to ghat the value was or is or wiil be . armakes: Okay . I 'm looking at the layout of , this is from 1988 . Layout of the schematic here with the building pad and so on_ What , if any of these improvements have taken place? Any? Ai-Jaff : No . none . Farmakes : None . So this was purchased as ag land at that time? There wasn 't an existing contractors yard here? Krauss: Well , there is a footing was put in . If you go out there you can see the concrete and it 's been covered up . Our Building Official . . .has told me that that thing is now valueless because it 's basically sat in the ground and heaved over the last 4 or 5 years . Farmakes: Okay . If we 're talking about the loss of this permit . conditional use permit and how that would effect the applicant 's investment in that property , I guess I would like to know on the issue of nardship whether or not those numbers are correct . From what I 'm hearing on one side , there really hasn 't been much of an investment versus what tne property was originally purchased for . As ag property . If the applicant had to sell it again , it would seem to me he 'd be selling it at — tne same use that he bought prior to any improvements . This building apparently is stored elsewhere . It 's somewhere else? Jeff Carson : Correct . ^armakes: Is there anything about that building that makes it only useable for this property? Jeff Carson: No . No , not at all but you would not be selling the property for the same price because the only reason it was purchased was so that , for a contractors yard . -armaKes : Okay , but that 's his conditional use permit . But the zoning of Planning Commission Meeting A-ril 21 . 1993 - Page 36 tne property if he sold it to someone else would still remain as ag , correct? - Al-Jaff : Correct . Farmakes : That would not be transferred . That use would not be transferred with that sale . Jeff Carson: Well yes . A conditional use permit , if it 's still on the property would transfer . Farmakes: If it was found to be valid . Jeff Carson: Sure . Farmakes: So what he 's hanging on here is that this particular piece of property is more valuable because he has a conditional use permit? Jeff Carson: Absolutely . And it 's significantly more valuable because . Farmakes: Well is this the only improvement that he has that , or would YOU . the other things that you listed as his investment in the property , - co you agree that there 's been minimal improvement in the property? Or d; YOU disagree with that? Jeff Carson: I would say , you mean in improvements to the property? Farmakes: Correct . Jeff Carson: I guess I would agree they 're minimal . The footings are in He has improved an access road down to the place of construction and has crossed the creek and put culverts under the creek to get to the property - So there 's been some road improvement . The footings . He 's purchased other things that are not on site for the project . Including $8 ,000 .00 . Farmakes : Are these properties that cannot be used elsewhere? Jeff Carson: No . :armakes: Or are these just for that site? Okay , so then it was site specific to this particular piece of property? Jeri- Carson: Correct . Farmakes: You know it seems to be the month for old commitments going oack several years and I guess my position on that is , it seems to me thai- what we 're arguing here is the value of that conditional use permit if he `ad to resale the property . Correct me if I 'm wrong . Batzli : Well , I don 't even see that as an issue in my mind . Farmakes: I was talking about a hardship issue . If something is . _ Manning Commission Meeting April 21 . 1993 - Page 37 3atzii : If we would decide that he had not fulfilled any of the conditions and so it was appropriate to revoke , I don 't even know if it 's appropriate for us to consider his financial hardship as some sort of variance to our decision . Farmakes: He didn 't purchase the property with that conditional use in mind . In other words , he didn 't pay a premium for that property because . Harry Lindbery: Yes I did . Farmakes: You did? Jeff Carson: He would not have purchased it had he not thought he could — have , had he not had the right to apply for an receive a contractors yard by conditional use permit . Farmaxes : Okay , but the person that he purchased the property from , did that person charge you additional dollars than they would otherwise for that property use? For that conditional use? — Jeff Carson: Well , it was worth more because you could obtain a contractors yard by conditional use permit on it . Farmakes: At that time , couldn 't you obtain a conditional use on any piece of ag property? _ Jeff Carson: Sure . Well I don 't know . I can 't say sure . I think so . 3ut it had a significantly higher value because of that . In other words . we don 't have an appraisal . The person with the best opinion about , I =ninx , about the value , if you are willing to consider the loss of the economic situation , is the owner . And he believes that it 's worth about 250 of the original purchase price without the ability to use it as a •=.ontractors yard . Pure farmland in other words . Krauss : There 's a lot of focus on the value . . .of this thing and frankly it didn 't occur to us to provide you any information on it because we saw it didn 't matter . Farmakes : I can understand that argument . <.rauss : The only place any kind of a hardship is spoken to in the ordinance has to do with variances and not whether or not a CUP is still vaiid . In that case it says financial hardship is not to be considered . So it really wasn 't something that we threw into the mix . It 's just whether or not it complied . What 's there today . How 's the property been managed . And we made our recommendation based on that . Farmakes : Okay . No more questions . Batzli : Okay . There 's an inspection report , which is attached . Is one of tne items by Mr . Lindbery 's attorney I believe . And the corrections indicated that a floorplan , plumbing plan , HVAC plans , sprinkler plan , had to be complied with and to set up a meeting with Planning and Building Departments back in 1990 . Was it at this time that it 's your recollection Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 38 _ that the Building Inspector told you that you couldn 't put up the building oecause of this infloor heating system? Harry Lindbery: Well I told him that I wanted to put radiant heat in the floor and then put drainlines for floor drains and he and that way where _ the pilasters where the beams carry , we would rerod it into the concrete floor . That 's the reason the engineer on the building recommended that way and your staff , they just said put unit heaters in it . You don 't need floor heating , radiant heating . And then they said definitely they — wouldn 't give me a permit for radiant heat . And then on the floor drains . the state requires to have a flammable waste in the building in case there 's an accident and you spill something . It goes into this large tanl-- before it goes out into a drainfield . Well , we put it in . Then I had Prairie Plumbing going to connect the pipes . We asked them for that and he says , oh no . You can 't have that in the building . You have to put it outside . So I took and sent a backhoe out there . We removed it from inside the building . We put it on the outside . We got a concrete saw to saw through the solid concrete wall and then after we installed it on the outside we says well , can we connect the pipes now? He says , no . Now you 've got to go to the State and get the okay from them . We went down tc the State . The State man he looked at it and he said , whoever that Building Inspector , he isn 't familiar with our winters . He says you have — to put that inside the building . So I put it inside the building , back again where I had it to start with . And then they wouldn 't let me hock the pipes up , put my rerod in to pour the concrete . Jeff Carson: What period of time was this Harry? Harry Lindbery : I think this was , I think it was in '91 . — Jeff Carson: I think that was the original . . . 8atzli : Yeah . So did you ever submit a written plan for your HVAC or plumbing or sprinkler or? Harry Lindbery: Oh yes . Sure . You people have it . You have the sprinkling system . The whole thing . 3atzli : And we had , as far as this stuff that goes in the floor , the — raaiant heat from the floor that was , as part of your plan and was that ever officially denied or is there some? Harry Lindoery: Well , your man was out there to look at our flammable waste . Are you familiar with the flammable waste? Batzli : No . Harry Lindbery: Well any garage or anything where you 'd have either :gasoline or deisel fuel . We don 't have any gasoline vehicles . It 's .lust _ aeisels . But say if one had bumped the other and he had ruptured a tank and it spill on the floor , it would go into this flammable waste and there 's a vent out in the air . That way in this tank will hold 500 _ gallons and any vehicle wouldn 't hold much over about 100-150 so it 's Planning Commission Meeting April 21 . 1993 - Page 39 sufficiently large enough . And the State requires you to have it inside the building . Batzli : Okay . But other than that , I mean this is all , maybe I didn 't read that part . I didn 't even see that in your attorney 's stuff , or maybe I glossed over it . The radiant heat issue , when you put it on the Man , normally you get something back from the city that 's stamped . It says , you know it 's approved or approved except you 've got to do this . this , this and this . And the City never gave something like that back to you? Harry Lindbery: No . The man was just on the job and he says , radiant heat is no good . Put unit heaters in the end of the buildings . And if YOU were working a on cold concrete floor , if you had nice warm water running through there , it 's much more comfortable than if you 've got a unit heater . Batzli : But again I guess , you don 't have any of this in writing . It 's all your recollection that this is kind of how . Harry Lindbery: We gave him a copy of the diagram . How it would go back and forth and everything and the spacing . And Roberts-Hamilton is the Distributor for a Weirsbo Company . That 's the one that made the tubing — ana tneir engineer laid it all out . Batzli : Between when you were working with the , going back and forth between the city and our staff allegedly , I ' ll throw it in there for wnatever it 's worth . Did anything happen to the building during that timetrame? — Harry Lindbery: I have it in Hopkins waiting so I can put the heat in the floor , pour the concrete and erect it . -atzli : But what did you do for the next 2 years after apparently cur , or supposedly our Building Inspector said either you want radiant heat or you can 't put it in . :-tarry Lindbery: I rented a building in Hopkins . =atzli : Okay , but you didn 't do anything to this site? Harry Lindbery : Well we put the access road in . We put the culvert so we can , that 's how we can cross the creek to get the cement trucks into put — the foundation in and we done a little bit of grading down there . Batzli : But didn 't you do that before the Inspector was out telling YOU . . . Harry Lindbery: Oh yeah , yeah . That was done before but that was it . <atzii : So between October of 1990 when this inspection report is dated ana the criminal complaint was filed last summer , did anything go on on tnis site? I mean that was nearly 2 years time . Did you do anything on the site during that time period? Planning Commission Meeting 21 , 1993 - Page 40 — :-carry Lindbery: Well , we cleaned up behind . When we had a little spare time we cleaned up behind because that farmer left it in a terrible mess — and we hauled out several truckloads of trash . Batzli : Did you work with the City at all during that time period? — Harry Lindbery: The man just said we couldn 't put it up and well . I wasn 't too much of a fighter . I just kind of let time ride some . And he _ tells me I should have come down and pounded on the desk and say , why and go to somebody else that didn 't mind radiant heat . I know when we were nere before your Mayor said that he had it in his house and he liked it . .:ierf Carson: There was a year 's period when he was actually physically unable to do anything . One of those years is accounted for in that way . . . He crushed his leg . Harry Lindbery: Yeah , I did have an accident and I was laid up for about 12-13 months . 3atzli : So you personally couldn 't do anything . Harry Lindbery: No . But if they would have gave us the okay I would have- nao a crew out there putting it up . 3atzli : But you had a crew that could have been working while you were _ laid UP potentially I guess . harry Lindbery: Oh yeah . No , we 've got boom trucks and so forth . 3atzli : Okay . Paul . Krauss: This is all quite interesting but it doesn 't jive with any of the- . =Wings that we 've been hearing from the Inspection Department . They did nave a meeting with them in 1990 . The Inspections Department as a matter cr routine issues an inspection report anytime they go out on a site and tells people what they have to change . I mean it 's just routine for thesf :Nuys. They 're all licensed inspectors . We only have one of those report: around here and it 's dated October 22 , 1990 and it says you 've got to submit plans . 3atzli : Well he 's just told us that he submitted plans and we have them . You 're telling me we have nothing in his file? — Al-Jaffa No . I went through the file . :-carry Lindbery: Prairie Plumbing is the one that . Krauss: We 're not going to argue the point . We haven 't seen them and we 've asked the Building Inspectors about them and they don 't have them . �na there is nothing currently , there is nothing current that 's happened . This was in 1990 . 3atzli : Okay . As far as revocation . If we were to go with revocation, what is our standard that we 're looking at and what should we base it on? Planning Commission Meeting April 21 . 1993 - Page 41 liiott Knetsch: It would be based on whether or not he 's in violation of the terms of the permit . And you have those 20 items in the permit . — -edvina : I look at the ordinance and it says , any condition of the permit . 3atzli : Shall be . shall constitute sufficient cause for revocation of the conditional use permit by the City Council following a public hearing . And I assume we 're acting as the public hearing? Elliott Knetsch: The City Council will also hold a public hearing . <atzli : Okay . Well , I guess it 's very difficult to envision how this has _ragged on and I appreciate the fact that he didn 't want to fight it . Obviously he 's fighting it now . Without some evidence , you know and what this could be is obviously if he can go to the heating and plumbing people that prepared the plans for him and demonstrate that they sent them to the city , to show that the city 's file is in error , then I guess I 'd be , I 'd iCOK at some of this stuff . But what I hear is a lot of remembrances and ::e have absolutely no documentation to substantiate a lot of this and so i reel uncomfortable doing anything personally other than saying he has not complied with the conditions and I don 't believe that the financial -:ardship is appropriate to look at to determine compliance with the conditional use permit because for heavens sake , everytime we looked at revoking one , it would always be a financial hardship and in many instances it would be a much bigger hardship because they may have invested `uildings , pavements . They would have done all , complied with 19 or these things . And I don 't see compliance with , if you squint , more tnan a couple . So I would like to , if the applicant , if he has some evidence, if he can go to the plumbing and heating people . If he can get — the person at the State to say yeah , he called me . I said , Kirchman didn 't know what he was talking about . You know , but we don 't have any of triose things and I guess what I would do is I 'd put the burden back on the a piicant and his attorney to come up with some evidence that shows that the City 's files are in error . err Carson: Mr . Chairman? atzliYes . Jeff Carson: I do appreciate what you 're saying and I would appreciate an opportunity to do just that . As I stand here right now I don 't have what you 're seeking and if you would hold this open perhaps , I don 't mean today or tomorrow , but to another hearing or continue it to another , continue the public hearing to another date , I think it 's only fair that if we can produce that information, that you would receive it and frankly it 's quite reasonable of you to demand it . Mr . Lindbery tells me that he ought to be able to recreate this and I think that 's a reasonable request . .(atzli : That would at least be helpful to me to see that some of these things occurred and that perhaps it was more than just his diligence . non - ciiigence . That the city somehow was giving him some either misinformation .:)r that some of these things occurred . That would be helpful to my cecisicn . I don 't know if it would be helpful to the other . Planning Commission Meeting April 21 . 1993 - Page 42 parry Lindbery: We did have two copies of that . The plumber had one and :;e gave your staff one of how the lines would run and how the drains and - the neat went . 3atzli : Having gone through the permit process here at the city - personally . I know what you get back . Harry Lindbery: We gave them to the plumber . - 3atzli : I understand that but then you should be able to go to the . iumaer and you should be able to have some of this documentation . Right now I , you tell me this and I hear someone else telling me something - different and they go and they look in the file and there 's nothinn there anc so I weigh this . I 'd like to entertain a motion now and if other commissioners feel that this would be helpful in making a decision . I think we should table it . Allow him to gather up some additional evidence . If it wouldn 't be helpful , then maybe you should move with the staff recommendation . Allow him to gather the information before the City Council meeting where apparently there will be a further public hearing . Farmakes : I have just a question in regards to that . Would that negate . let 's say he came forward with heating plans for the floor . Would that - tnen negate the other non-compliances with the conditional use permit? 3atzli : I don 't know . I don 't know . I hope he comes with more than .must a letter from the plumbing people saying , you know a letter addressed to the city saying here 's a plan . But I 'm saying that if there is additions_ evidence that he wants to submit , he should do it . You know because right now we don 't have a lot . It 's just kind of yes he did , no he didn 't and - tnere 's nothing in our file which would show that he did and I 'm supgesting , if he really did it and you had these other people involved in the process , for crying out loud you should have some letters or - correspondence or plans or copies or something and I don 't see any of tnat . So I guess I 'm just saying , I 'm trying to give them one more shot because my feeling right now is that , if this isn 't going to make a difference . or if you just want to let him gather it up and present it to :ne Council . then we should probably move it along . But if presenting some of that evidence may have an impact on the way you vote tonight . then I think we should table it , so . _=ott : I 'm looking at a letter dated October 2 , 1992 from Campbell-- :�nutson with a carbon copy to Jeffrey A . Carson and it basically spells out tnat there is a problem with the permit and I mean that 's a heck c.f a lot of time and in order to answer the claims made by the City of Chanhassen . I mean that 's , in my mind I think that was ample time to come UP with the plumbing plans and any other documentation that the City of Chanhassen either had never received or got it and lost . I personally nave enough information on this particular item to go along with the staff 's report , recommendation of revocation and then have this item - mresented to the City Council . Now inbetween those two dates if any documentation can be brought forward on behalf of your client, I would suggest that it be brought forward . - .fanning Commission Meeting April 21 . 1993 - Page 43 Jeff Carson: I appreciate that Mr . Scott . My druthers would be , if we can produce the documentation that is being referenced , to bring it back here simply because of the function of the public hearing process followed cY a recommendation followed by action at the City Council level . Al_ too •erten I 'm afraid if the recommendation is , from this body up to the City Council for revocation , the argument could be made we lose the opportunity to present new information . Or they won 't be interested in it and sometimes , if they are interested in it , they ' ll shoot it back to Planning- and Zoning if they 're not sure . So it would be my suggestion , and I apologize for my voice . It 's not normal whatever it is I 've got . Batzli : You mean tonight or always? -- Jeff Carson: Good point . I opened that door . My druthers would be to bring whatever information we can bring back to this body . If you would permit .t . And I suggest that there 's a slight inconvenience but given the length of time that we 've dealt with , or have not dealt with the issue , a 30 day delay or approximately , whenever you 'd have your next public hearing , I think we 're procedurally and logistically , on behalf of the appiicant we 're better off coming back to this body . If it doesn 't persuade this body , we 're in more trouble at the Council to be sure . But I guess I 'd like my first opportunity here . E,atzii : Paul , is there a disadvantage from the standpoint of , is there something being done on the site that needs immediate attention? :asically they 've said nothing has happened out there since last summer so from our perspective , does 30 days hurt us? Krauss: From that perspective , 30 days does not hurt us . There 's nothing =mminent or pressing that we 're aware of that needs to be stopped . On the — other hand , this is the third public hearing this thing has had . There are nuances among nuances among nuances here . It 's going to be your choice . I guess I fail to see what bearing something that may or may not nave happened 3 years ago has on what 's been happening out there in the last few years . I don 't know if there 's an implication that these aocuments were delivered to the Building Inspectors and they ditched them intentionally? Or by accident . In any case , you can always pick up the -hone and see where they are . If there was a true need to more forward . I assume the issue would have been pressed . There 's no knowledge of it ocIng pressed . It would be a month delay in all likelihood . If you want — to hole it over , Sharmin will be out of town at the next Planning Commission meeting . Possibly Elliott and we could have Steve Kirchman here and if that's satisfactory , maybe they can handle it . I leave it up _ to you but it 's not uncommon for the Planning Commission to recommend something to the City Council along with some assumptions that additional materials be presented if they in fact exist . 3atzli : Okay . Ladd , did you have? Conrad: Yeah , and I 'm going to ask the applicant . I think if there 's one item . I 'd be real tempted to play this one out but I play this scenario through things that weren 't done yet the site being used . That bothers me . It 's not that sprinklers weren 't put in to a building that wasn 't =onstructec . That doesn 't bother me at all . But what bothers me is where Planning Ccn- fission Meeting April 21 . 1993 - Page 44 we asked for screening and the site was used and there was no screening . it bothers me that we asked for a bituminous driveway . We didn 't get one -- tut the site was used . It bothers me that we asked for erosion control bian and we didn 't get one . It bothers me that we asked for a vehicle list and we didn 't get one . They 're all things that we should have before- the site is used . So I 'm not sure that what we 're saying , if you brought it back and said here are the plans , I 'm not sure that in itself is going to outweigh all these other things that go hand in hand with use of the _ -•roperty . It 's pretty , in my mind it 's pretty solid evidence that it wasn 't used according to how it was designed to be used . And therefore . wain we . the contractors yard , we put specific parameters on that because it 's an exemption . And in this case I don 't think many things were — followed properly and my druthers would be to revoke it immediately and i it was still permitted . You know I would really want to take a look at what 's used . What the plans were for this property . I would never , bas_eo on the information that I have right now , I don 't know what 's going on here . And that kind of bothers me . I would never allow a use to occur without understanding more than we do right now . So I could never allow this permit to go through , period . Because I don 't know enough . Whether -- it be documentation that we 've been given . For •whatever reason , I 'd be regi uncomfortable . So again Mr . Chairman , right now I think we could follow a process and let the applicant go back and present some more — informtion to us . Yet the list that I just read , those things were not gene so what you 'd be bringing back would only be a small part of what I tnink is a bigger picture and it 's a bigger picture of not following what _ vas hat — v=s stated was going to happen . And that 's what 's really important in contractors yards . It really is . You 've got to do what we say in those tn:ngs because that 's what we 're trying to put those things under control . And it 's out of control . — Jeff Carson: I understand your concerns . I don 't have a great disagreement with much of what you said . I think that the applicant did — not understand it correctly . I think he was using the yard . Nobody told nim that he couldn 't . Possibly nobody knew what he was doing and nobody corrected him . There 's a lot of misinformation on the part of the applicant . Misunderstanding on the part of the applicant . I submit that most of the items that are not checked off yet on the permit can and will ce done . He has said , we have said that the installation of the building comes first or before most of these things . And we discussed with the — Council at the last meeting timing and performance and all of those things . It 's very clear that Mr . Lindbery understands the concerns c•f the at. this moment . I submit that he didn 't fully understand it and tnere 's no sense in trying to prove or disprove that . I think it 's .gust what happened . I also think that the City laxed a little bit until they started looking directly at these storage containers . Otherwise we might not know . there might not be any activity yet one way or the other and so — tnere 's a little bit of blame on both sides I suspect . If you 're willing to permit him to conduct the yard , strict and specific . . .there 's no guesticn how that is to work now . But I don 't disagree with much of what — you 're saying . _eo i r.aI 'd like to make a motion . Catzii Okay . Planning Commission Meeting April 21 . 1993 - Page 45 eavirra: I move that the Planning Commission recommend revocation of Conditional Use Permit #88-11 based on non-compliance of the conditions . and I don't know if I should go through these but I 'll just briefly mention a condition 1 , 6 , 7 , 15 , 16 , and 18 . Jeft Carson: Would you list those again please. _edvina: 1 . 6 , 7, 15 , 16 and 18 . Jeff Carson: Thank you . 8atzli : Is there a second? Scott: Second. Datzli : Is there any discussion? Jeff Carson: Can I have a question? Scott: Can I ask a question? =3atzli : Yes you may . Scott: When will Sharmin or when this will come up at the City Council? i-Jaff : It would be 2 weeks . it would be the end of this month . End of next month . I 'm sorry . Jeff Carson: March 10th . Scott : May? Krauss: March 10th . Ah May . Scott: May 10th. Okay. 8atzli : Mr . Carson , did you have a question? Jeff Carson: Well I understand the motion. I 'm wondering if there is still an opportunity to present information? 3atzli : There will be , I understand a public hearing for this at City Council at which time you would be allowed to present additional information . Jeff Carson: Alright , thank you . — . nrad: They 're very open about any information that they haven 't received . Scott: And I think that 's the reason why I support the revocation in that it 's something finite and then the City Council will be making the final cecision but that gives you a couple of weeks to come up with any necessary documentation that perhaps you should have been working on ir: Planning Commission Meeting April 21 . 1993 - Page 46 October of '92 . But be that as it may , a couple more weeks . _left Carson: Understood. All I would ask is that whatever gets forwarded to the City Council , that there be some acknowledgement of that fact . Scott: All they're going to get from us is that we voted perhaps on revocation and it 's up to them to make a decision . It can be a completely new thing but . • 1.3atzli : I would like to, I don 't know whether we would need to formalize it but I think what our understanding is that at least we're forwarding this recommendation of revocation to the City Council with the — understanding that the applicant will be allowed to present any additional evidence . Leovina: Right . Scott: And that 's true with any recommendation we make . Jeff Carson: That 's what I 'm asking . I just want , I don't want the City Council to look at me like I 'm talking Greek when I say, we have some additional information that was discussed at the Planning and Zoning . — Scott: The current Council has already , all the current Council members have already seen this action once before so they 're familiar with it . Jeff Carson: Yeah , but it was in a difference context then though . E'atzli : Well I think the record clearly shows that all of our — unoerstandin4 is that you would be allowed to present and they would get a verbatim transcript . Jerr Carson: I appreciate that . Ai-Jaffa Would we be able to review this before the meeting? :.rauss : Well we need to have these materials submitted to us by April• 28th if we 're going to review them and get them into that packet . Batzli : April 28th? Scott: That 's a week . _ Jeff Carson: That 's why I suggested that we come back to this body . I mean that 's maybe possible , maybe it isn't . I don 't know . 3atz.Li : Can this be put on the Council meeting after the 10th? Krauss : Sure . Second meeting in May . That would be possible . — Batzli : That would at least give the applicant a little bit more time . Ai-Jaff : 24th of May . — =fanning Commission Meeting A ri1 21 . 1993 - Page 47 Jeff Carson : Is that a Wednesday? =i-Jaff : Monday . Jerf Carson: Fourth Monday? ::l-Jaff : The fourth Monday of the month . Krauss : For that we need the material submitted to us by no later than May 14th . Jeff Carson: Alright . 3atzli : I guess I personally would like to see it come back here but it sounds like other people want to see it moved along . So is there any other discussion? H_rberts: I ' ll just throw a comment in while you 're thinking about it Conrad: Please . Fill in the gap . Harberts : My earlier reasons for passing basically it 's , I find it of interest that there 's no middle ground . In reading the Minutes from the Council it seems that 's what their desire is . I don 't know all of the information . I don 't feel I know all the information . I don 't know if I want to know all the information . I guess I just find it surprising that =here 's not a middle ground here and there 's probably reasons why you can ' t find a middle ground . I don 't know . So I guess if there 's any opportunity for working things out . 3atzli : A middle ground might be something on the order of comply with c=onditions 1 , 5 , 6 , 14 , 15 , 18 by May 28th . And you know get a set of ;-.fans in here that shows exactly where the heating , whatever so our people can look at it because they say they 've never seen one . And do these things by a given date and if you don 't do that , then we ' ll revoke it . Ana it you do it and you move forward on it and you do what you said YOU were going to do 5 years ago within a very quick timeframe , I mean that 's the micdle ground it seems to me . harber`_s: But are we creating some expectations on the part of the appii:ant though that may not be right? — Conrad: Boy . Mr . Chairman I would be real uncomfortable if the City Council passed , approved of this permit without us finding out more what 's taking place and what 's expected to take place . I still don 't knowwhat the applicant has in mind on this parcel . So before when I was humming . — =hat 's kind of the idea I would feel , whatever they do . If they revoke it , then I guess it puts an end temporarily unless it goes to Court but if tney have a notion to find a middle ground , we 're not there . We don 't nave a contractors yard permit in front of me that I would feel real comfortable with know other , we 've got a design but I tell you , in recent years , in recent years we find out what 's taking place , why it 's taking pace . - ianning Commission Meeting April 21 . 1993 - Page 48 _ Jeff Carson: And when . Conrad: We don 't have any idea what 's , I don 't have any idea . Jeff Carson: That 's why I would prefer it to come back to you . If you — :ere to say to this applicant , you bring all your bells and all your whistles and all your plans and everything back to this body in 30 days . and I mean everything , then you 'd have something to look at . Conrad : And I 'm going to say , I 'd rather have City Council tell me to to that . It they say , let 's take a look at it , we will . And I ' ll just be real frank . and I think I was in the very beginning . When somebody doesn 't live up to something , I have a real tough time going along with a Permitting process and in my mind right now . the applicant has maybe some reason for not performing but in general when you use something and you d':._ something outside of what was really originally intended . I take that as 4 Personal affront to the city of the Chanhassen residents and I have a tough time being liberal and forgiving because the permit was the permit . <icirt now the applicant would really have to persuade me that he would be a good neighbor and he hasn 't at this point in time . And that 's what we were loc•King; for from contractors yards . We 're looking for , they 're an exception and we want that exception to fit in so that it doesn 't bother — the neighbors . Where it 's an industrial use in a different area and we want that to fit in and so far nothing has persuaded me that the applicant 7:as tried to make it fit in . End of speech . But my point was , I would . — _t the City Council has any thoughts of maintaining this permit , we real!' need a better understanding of what 's going on in this parcel . _edvina : Well they can send it back to us with what they want . — onraa: That 's why I made the point 3 times . . . armakes : Nobody 's disagreed with you so far . 3atzli : Okay . Is there any other discussion? _edvina moved . Scott seconded that the Planning Commission recommend revocation of Conditional Use Permit #88-11 based on non-compliance of the conditions , and specifically conditions 1 , 6, 7 , 15 , 16, and 18 _ All voted in favor except Batzli who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1 . Batzli : My negative vote is not necessarily that I disagree with the recommendation to revoke but rather that I would rather give the applicant an opportunity to bring it back here and present additional evidence -erore taxing it to City Council . The motion carries 5 to 1 there and it will oe on the City Council meeting for the 24th . Thank you very much fc•i coming in . Deft Carson: Thank you . Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 49 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 7 , 1993 as presented . CITY COUNCIL UPDATE/REPORT FROM DIRECTOR: Krauss: The big news , and I think you 've all heard and some of you experienced it , is that the Council approved the purchase of the elementary school site which we 've always viewed as a real key parcel from a land use standpoint for the Highway 5 corridor and how the rest of the city ultimately develops . We 're going to be working with the School now on developing that . I think it bodes well for the future in the corridor . That was the really big news . There are a couple of things I put in your packet for you to review that I wanted to touch on . First thing . I have a letter to Randy Anthorn . It says here , Rental Anthorn but his name is Randy . Boy , even his letter says Rental . He 's not going to like me . Scott : He can 't be bought . Krauss: That 's what happens when you make planners use word processers I guess . It is a word so spellcheck didn 't find it . I should make you aware that I 've got some very significant reservations with work coming out of the Riley-Purgatory Watershed District . We don 't have any direct representation on the District . It 's not a joint powers district . We haven 't been getting much cooperation from them on projects . I feel very strongly that we 've got a much better wetland protection , water quality program than they have . They have ongoing problems with the Metro Council and with the Board of Soil and Water Resources in terms of rejecting their plans . Matt 's probably real familiar with a lot of these kinds of things . Philosophically we 've got some real different approaches . I mean their attorney is arguing vacipherously that the State has no right to protect wetlands under the new State wetlands law . That it is a taking of land . We disagree and we 've always done it . There 's just an on and on list of things . They have permanent authority for development in this city , but they don 't do anything . I mean nobody ever goes out to check permits . We do all that and we 've got a much more sophisticated program . Recently there was an article in the Villager that basically said everything is just hunky dorey with all the lakes in Chanhassen . I was flabbergasted by it . First of all I was offended they never did us the courtesy of telling us that they were doing this assessment on our lakes . Secondly , they just publicized it . And thirdly , it 's blatantly wrong . I mean everybody who lives on lakes in Chanhassen knows that they are not what they once were . I 've been contacted by Metro Council staff that said look at this stuff because it really looks funny and I 've had our engineering firm look at the materials . They 've raised very significant concerns . I mean some of the data that 's presented in there said Lotus Lake should look like a lake in the Boundary Waters if you believe in the phospherous loadings that they 're saying that are in there . Which are obviously ridiculous . It says that , in fact Ismael Martinez was telling me that if you believe the phospherous loading that they 're telling you , you should be able to see 12 feet down in Lotus Lake . I don 't know how long it 's been since somebody 's seen 12 feet down . Conrad: Never . Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 50 Krauss: Anyway , I 've got some very significant reservations with it . I 'r going to be bringing those back to the Watershed District . I think it really gets to some of the issues we 're trying to bring across in our planning efforts . Hopefully we 'll work those out with the district but I 'll keep you posted . Conrad: Watershed District is who? Who 's the person? Krauss: Well Conrad Fiskness from Chanhassen is the Chairman . And Conrac has attended some of our meetings . We 've always invited them to our SWMP meetings . We were hoping that they would regularly have their district - engineer come , Bob Obermeyer . Their Board voted not to . Conrad comes on occasion . We 've been told that they have access to funds and we can jointly do projects . We spent about $3 ,000 .00 putting together a contract_ proposal . We sent it in in accordance with Conrad 's wishes . Never heard back . I called him up about 3-4 months ago and they said , well we talked about it but it didn 't fit with our 5 year plan so in a couple years when we rewrite the 5 year plan we 'll think about it . It just goes on and on . I mean they had a citizens advisory group that they established and Charles Folch , the City Engineer wrote to them saying we 'd like some representation on this . It would be nice if we were involved . Never heard back . We heard later that they appointed Mike Klingelhutz , and Mike 's a fairly good choice . I mean he serves on our SWMP committee but he just resigned from their citizens committee over some disagreements with where they 're going and I don 't know the details . Conrad: Resigned what? Krauss: From the Watershed District 's . And when I raise that point to Bob Obermeyer , they 're saying that we don 't have any representation . He said , well that 's not true . Charles is on the professional advice committee we have . And I said , well that 's nice but Charlie 's never hear< that and Bob said well that 's because they 've never met . So I mean things just aren 't , things don 't feel real good right now . You know watershed districts are established by state law . Personally I think in a lot of respects they 're redundant these days in some areas but again , for those of you who have been involved in the water resources things we 've been doing , we do have some concerns . We think their information that was published in the paper is dead wrong and we 're going to try and work that out . Conrad: Are you going to bring that to the SWMP committee meeting Paul? Krauss: Yeah . Well we 're not going to have another one until probably the end of May or June which is the wrap up type thing , but yes . In fact I should put together stuff , I was going to send a letter to them . I ' ll mail it to all the members of the SWMP committee . Farmakes: I think Watershed votes , they 're always on the ballot or always the mystery vote . You never know who these people are or what they 're doing . Krauss: There 's no direct representation at all . I think Carver County gets to appoint 1 person . I 'm not sure how large their Board is . We Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 51 never get to do anything . I mean they were an entity of government that was set up by the State . They have taxing power . And they 've done some large projects but I know , frankly I 've had disagreements with their attorney in public meetings when he says that , you know under the new State wetlands law Bloomington never could have happened and my retort was , maybe it never should have you know . Farmakes: Didn 't it become a player when the Pollution Control thing was coming around for the Riley lakes? Krauss: Well that 's kind of interesting . They proposed a chain of lakes project which never , that was before my time but I mean there was a lot of reasons why it never went forward . It was very expensive . Farmakes: I followed that . Krauss: Sure . That was the public access over by you . That issue was involving , the State wanted that for funding . Well but that report which was issued by Barr Engineering not more than 4 years ago said the lakes were in terrible shape and need to be treated with chemicals . How come they got real good all of a sudden? Farmakes: Plus that report had major holes in it which they admitted to . Upon questioning . Krauss: Well , there 's things that just aren 't jiving and we don 't understand them . Again , we 're going to try and find out . The more positive stuff I wanted to tell you about is that a project that we 've been working to put together . I think you 're aware that Southwest Metro Transit was originally looking at a park and ride facility out of DataServe and may still be looking there at some point in the future , but the original arrangements fell through . I guess this all started when I had breakfast with Jim Lasher , who on a consulting basis works for Southwest Metro . Batzli : I feel kind of bad . I 've never had breakfast with Paul . Has anyone here had breakfast with Paul? Krauss: I 've invited you many times . Batzli : I 'm sorry . Just trying to bring a little bit of levity to the meeting there . Go ahead . Krauss : Jim was looking for alternative sites and one of the potential sites was this parcel that 's owned by Mortenson over here which is between the Legion and the gas station on Highway 5 . And I had known at that point that some hotels/motels had expressed interest in the corner . I knew that the Legion was looking to relocate or rebuild . I knew that we had a very difficult site there to build anyone on because it 's neighborhood business and it 's a neighborhood that would be very difficult to deal with and had some legitimate concerns . Well , we kind of took out the napkins and started sketching and we 're throwing all these things into the pot . Jim sketched up a couple of ideas and out of that kernel of an idea I 've met several times with the Legion and they did express that they Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 52 do want to have an improved facility . They probably want to get rid of - the restaurant and have a rental hall with a service bar type thing . We 're trying to button up the interest in the hotel . But also at the same time we have the Highway 5 Task Force moving forward . And what we had done is we segmented out the area between Dakota and Great Plains and asked Bill Morrish and his staff . You know we 're generating all these land use scenarios and most of them are coming out of Barton-Aschmann and my staff . We wanted to use Bill and his staff to take a chunk of the cit;- that was kind of quirky , because nobody 's ever been real sure about what to do with Apple Valley Red-E-Mix and the new TH 101 area and what do we do with that . So we asked them to take a look at that . Throwing another thing into the mix was the fact that for the last 10 years on and off people have thought about putting a pedestrian overpass from AVR over to the Mortenson site , and next time you drive through , you ' ll see it 's quite high . And you 're actually able to put in a pedestrian overpass without ramps or stairs or anything . Plus it provides really wonderful linkage . We 've got two neighborhoods down there , quite large neighborhoods that are separated from the rest of the city and all the great stuffthat 's being - built on this side of the road , you know the libraries , the public spaces the gazeboes for the music and one of the scary things for me is driving into work . I come in at 7:30 in the morning and I see young kids in St . Hubert 's uniforms running across the intersection to go to school because it 's the only way to get there . Alright , so you put all this in a pot and you stir and what comes out? Well , what starts to come out is a project that the University did a model of that really went over quite big . It was received very well at the Highway 5 Task Force . . .Highway 5 here . St . Hubert 's over here . This little wiggly thing is the old St . Hubert 's Church . Pauly/Pony/Pryzmus block . Amoco . The Legion sits right-- over ightover here . McDonald 's . Batzli : That 's the new Legion there? That big honking thing . Krauss: No . . .This is real schematic at this point . I don 't know if you , were any of you on the bus tour with Morrish way back? Okay , one of the things that he said when we sat over here , it was a site that lends itsel- - to a large significant building . It was a wide open corner and you waste( to bring something out and give it some presence that architecturally has to be done very well . But this is a project that the City may participates in as a TIF program but the days of the City being able to just go in and spend lots of money to make something happen and forget about a return are kind of past . Scott : That 's part of a TIF district? Krauss: Yeah , it is . So we needed , not only have we had some interest i. it and made it fit the design bill , but we need an entity that 's going to pay real . . .but was willing to make it fly from a financial standpoint . Another nice part of the mix here is that if the Legion were to relocate on this site , if Southwest Metro were to find that this was an appropriat( place for them to go , and if the hotel went , you 've basically got one parking lot serving three uses at different times . . . .talked about doing _ things , and this again is idea generation where Southwest Metro does very nice bus waiting areas and this is going to be , if it happens ideas would circulate . . .picking up the art deco theme and doing some metal shed Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 53 roofing for example over some of the . . .stalls so we can hold those farmers markets on the weekend . Batzli : Cool . I like that . Is there a sidewalk along Lake Drive East? Krauss: Ah yeah . Batzli : Which side is it on? Krauss: Well I know we 're showing it on this side but I think that 's where it is . Scott: Yeah , I think it 's concrete and I think it goes all the way along here to the daycare . _ Krauss: Which is down here . Now let me say this . I mean this is not a project that anybody has bought into . Nobody 's signed on here . Everybody 's going to have a list of things that they 're going to need to make this real and we 've got to see if it fits their organization . Batzli : So when 's Wal-Mart moving in? Krauss: Well you know , that 's the thing that kind of galvanized this . I mean it galvanized the need when Target wanted to go there and we would have had a 40 foot blank wall right through here and the truck loading docks would have been right here . Well , clearly you want to avoid something like that happening . We 've done two things to move this thing forward . We 've put together a grant application , the ISTEA funding grant for the pedestrian overpass only . We only did that . Batzli : ISTEA funding? Krauss : Intermotal Service Transportation Efficiency . . . Batzli : It 's not like Ice Tea the rapper kind of guy . Scott : Same deal . The applicant has to rhyme . Krauss: The grant program is real narrow and not terribly well done . Since we didn 't have the full project . . .the city hasn 't bought into a Southwest Metro , the residents here are key . I felt very uncomfortable coming with the whole proposal . And I don 't want to spend a whole lot of time and money putting the thing together due to the fact that ISTEA is new . So we came up with the proposal for that bridge . There 's a sketch in your packet that Barry Warner did that I think shows the kind of neat stuff we can do it 's roof . You know I think we can introduce another element on top of that to get , if we wanted to go for like a dormer type of effect . I think we can introduce something that tells you that you 're in Chanhassen , whether it be a leaf or something graphic . I mean all those things can be worked out . I thought it was important to also figure that we 're going to glass in the west side to cut the wind through here because that 's a real windy spot and the roof will make . . . So we 've submitted our ISTEA grant application . The next thing we 're doing is , I 've got a proposal going to the HRA tomorrow night that we hire Fred Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 54 Hoisington to sort of serve as a , you know project manager almost puts toc— much weight on the project but project co-lessor . You know somebody who can go around with all the actors , including MnDot and throw that in the mix . Get a list of what it needs . What they need to make it fit . Try _ to juggle this thing to make it work . Start holding meetings with everybody . Start meeting with the neighborhood . And then we can see in 6 months , 8 months , however long it takes , if you really have a project . I 'm hopeful that the HRA will agree with that . We ' ll know tomorrow . Anyway , that 's about the size of that . Batzli : HRA is meeting tomorrow? Krauss: Yeah . Batzli : And there 's going to be an update on the community center/hotel/ conference center/whatever? Krauss: Yeah there is . I don 't think , I mean I haven 't been involved in - it much lately . I don 't think there 's too much to update you on . Batzli : Well , didn 't the Council have another work session where it was - discussed? Scott: Yeah . Krauss: The Council had a work session where it discussed . Batzli : What happened there? Krauss: Thankfully I was on a beach in Florida . As I heard it , I mean there 's still not clear direction . It 's becoming real problematic . . . Scott: When is that kind of thing come through this place? I mean the first time I think most of us heard of it was when we were supposed to be talking about parks with the Park and Rec and then all of a sudden M .A . Mortenson . . .they probably showed up in the wrong room or something . Krauss: No , that was correct . I mean we had every intention of bringing - it before you . Scott : Well I think we 'd like to know about these things . Batzli : My response to that issue , I kind of like doing something like this and I 'd support moving ahead to see if we can do something like that . And I like the pedestrian bridge . I think we need more of them . I don 't care if it just costs a little bit of money in order to get over these roads , we need them . We need more than one . I really don 't like the fact they 're not going to build a bridge over Bluff Creek on the north access - road . They 're going to just level the land down to the creek and raise it back up and put the creek through a culvert . Krauss: No , we haven 't . _ Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 55 Batzli : They 're going to do it . You can see it coming . You can see it coming now . Krauss: The alternatives that are being looked at are what 's called a . . . culvert . It 's a massive culvert that 's kind of oval shaped with a flat bottom and it 's about 20 feet high in the middle . Batzli : And you 're talking about underneath Highway 5? Krauss: It 's under Highway 5 and we figured we 'd be using the same thing on the boulevard . Batzli : Anyway . Krauss: But I am trying to avoid crossing the creek . There 's alternatives that swing around the north end of Bluff Creek and I find them preferable . Farmakes: Me too . It makes a lot more sense than putting a hook up to that trail . . . Batzli : . . .going to have a meeting with the park people . Kind of more on a , you know our whole meeting was dominated by this community center dealy bob and we really weren 't able to discuss open space versus planned activity areas versus park kind of , and it seems to me that we get these recommendations from these guys and I 'd like to kind of have a dialogue with them on what the heck are you looking at and why do you do these things because we 're looking at these 150 year old stands of trees and you 're taking some level cornfield land . I mean I 'd like to know , maybe we 're that deficient that we 've got to do that but occasionally I think they 've got to , pardon the pun , see the forest and not the trees here . Krauss: Yeah , we can get the Park Board in here . Of course they 're right in the middle of their Comp Plan update . . . Some interesting things are happening . The Park Board . . . Batzli : And you know , there 's always been intention since I 've been on the Commission that what the Park Board says goes but yet from a land use and all these other things that we 're looking at , sometimes what they do to me , I just cringe and I say , what did you do that for . Scott : Well when we get staff reports , it 's always in the past tense . This has been deeded and 50% of this fee has been taken and it 's like it 's . Krauss: Well that 's true but . . .we frankly , we as staff differed , I mean you don 't want to make a big deal out of it publically but we differed at staff level about this park . . .and the Park Board said no . We want an acre and half of flat ground . . .Jim Andrews had an interesting comment to me that he kind of values being on the Highway 5 Task Force because it broadens his horizons necessarily but it 's opened his eyes to a lot of other issues that . . . Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1993 - Page 56 Farmakes: I think typically recreation . . .park acquisition is first . Those are the people who get involved . . . Batzli : It seems to me that something that could be driving that development in town though , that community center , is not necessarily not a community center but a recreational facility which does not have to be owned and operated by the city . For example , Northwest Racquet and Swim Club kind of thing . If you can give them the land in essence and give them money for their building , I can 't imagine that there 's not at least one health club somewhere that would locate in this area given our expanding population . And to be focused so much on it , it 's got to be a community thing right there , I don 't see it . Especially in view of the fact that we 're going ahead with the purchase and we 'll probably end up putting a community center out at the elementary school . So I think the focus has been on , you know too narrow minded on that piece in downtown aE well . Farmakes: I like your idea though of . . . Batzli : Yeah , that 's good . Farmers market . Farmakes: Being where our location is . Being that we 're sort of on the tier of urban life coming to the east here . Batzli : It will be a passing of an era though when the Legion gives up it 's restaurant . . .hey you go in there though and it 's where the slice of Chanhassen is at . Anyway . Anything else? No? Good to have you back . We haven 't seen you for about 8 weeks there . Krauss: Well , you 're probably not going to see me a lot over the summer . Batzli : Is that a promise or a threat? Krauss: Well both . My wife and I are adopting a little girl from Peru and we 're going to fly down there . . . Batzli : Is there a motion to adjourn here? Conrad moved , Scott seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY OF CHANHASSEN *41‘ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director DATE: April 28, 1993 SUBJ: Report from Director At the April 26, City Council meeting, the following actions were taken: 1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Defining Dock Setback Zones, final reading. We think we finally have this issue resolved. The City Council approved the amendment which defines how the dock setback area will be determined (by a line drawn perpendicular to _ the shoreline at the point of intersection of the lot line). The final draft does not change what is allowed in the setback area. Boats and boat lifts are prohibited. 2. Preliminary plat, PUD and Site Plan Review for Prairie Creek Townhomes. The City Council approved the plans with little discussion. I believe everyone was satisfied with the proposal and the changes to improve it that were made before the item was approved by the Planning Commission. I's t4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ONGOING ISSUES REVISED MAY 5, 1993 ISSUES STATUS 1.* 1995 Study Area (North) and Hwy. 5 On-going work with Task Force. Grant Corridor Study request to fund $300,000 pedestrian bridge over Hwy. 5 near CBD has been submitted to MnDOT ISTEA grant process. Request made to HRA to fund Project Manager for Park and Ride/Legion/AVR proposal. 2. 1995 Study Area (South) Assigned to Planning Commission staff. Work to be initiated as time commitments allow OTHER ITEMS 1. Sign Ordinance Draft ordinance has been completed and will _ be reviewed by the Hwy. 5 Task Force in April. Staff expects to get it to the PC during May. CC asked that the committee look at limiting the number of sign boards on building exteriors for office buildings. 2.* Tree Protection Ordinance, Mapping Advisory Tree Board established by City of significant vegetative areas Council. Currently working on issue. Forestry intern hired. New ordinance being drafted. 3. Shoreland Ordinance Staff is currently working on draft of the ordinance. Initial comments delivered to MnDNR. Will place on upcoming PC agenda. 4. PC input in Downtown Planning and Ongoing. Traffic Study 5. Review of Architectural Standards to Hwy. 5 Task Force is working on this issue. Promote High Quality Design Will likely influence what is done in balance of city. 1 6. Bluff Creek Corridor Greenway Park and Recreation Commission is _ undertaking update of the recreational element of the Comprehensive Plan. Bluff Creek issues to be dealt with in this format. _ Working with MnDOT to install bridges over creek for Hwy. 5 7. Temporary uses, sales - new Staff to bring back to Planning Commission ordinance at a future meeting. 8.* Sexually oriented businesses Waiting for return of Public Safety Director from medical leave. 9. Open Space Zoning Requested by PC. 10. Upgrade landscaping ordinance To PC in April or May. Staff attending — standards to meet criteria established Parking Lot Design Conference in March. during Target Review. 11.* Joint meeting with Park and Requested by PC. Recreation Commission on natural — area preservation and Park Comprehensive Plan. * Change in status since last report. 2 — P✓ s CITY OF :., ._ iii- . 111 - CHANIIASSEN %lt ,� 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 eo: (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 April 22, 1993 I 1Ms. Lynda Voge ` — Referral Coordinator Metropolitan Council i Mears Park Centre I — 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101 RE: Chanhassen's Response to the Proposed Minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the City of Chaska's 2000 Comprehensive Plan Dear Ms. Voge: On behalf of the City of Chanhassen I have reviewed the document mentioned above. The requested MUSA Line amendment is located adjacent to Chanhassen's City line in the southwest corner of our community. Chanhassen has no objections to Chaska's proposal believing it to be consistent with the orderly development of that City. It is adjacent to an area of Chanhassen that remains outside the MUSA line but which is likely to be brought into the system by the end of the decade. The Chaska proposal does not represent any direct impact to our community that we are aware of. We do however request that proper precautions be taken to ensure that the rate of storm water runoff and quality of the storm water flow be appropriately managed before being discharged over the Minnesota River bluff line. We would also like to see significant vegetation preserved along the bluff line in a manner similar to that which is currently undertaken in Chanhassen. A copy of this letter is being forwarded directly to Chaska and I feel confident that they will positively respond to these concerns. f In the recent past our City Council has voiced concerns over a proposed realignment of Hwy. 41 east of the subject property in the vicinity of the Chanhassen City line. These concerns were sent to Metropolitan Council staff. The proposed MUSA line amendment does not directly raise this issue, although portions of the future ROW are being protected by the underlying plat. We have already made our position known on this issue and see no need to belabor the point. A tii: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Ms. Lynda Voge April 22, 1993 Page 2 Based upon the foregoing, I am recommending that our City Council adopt a position in support of Chaska's request. Please feel free to contact me directly if additional comments are required. Sincerely, ii Paul Krauss, AICP Director of Planning c: City Council Planning Commission City of Chaska e -014N PAM" - Chaska April 14, 1993 T T Ms . Lynda Voge Referral Coordinator Metropolitan Council T Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St . Paul, MN 55101 T RE: MINOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF CHASKA' S 2000 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -r Dear Ms . Voge : Enclosed for your consideration is seven copies of an Information Submission for a Minor Comprehensive Plan amendment to the City of Chaska' s 2000 Comprehensive Plan. This amendment requests an expansion of the MUSA line for a:i additional 32 .5 acres which would accommodate the Sixth Addition of Hazeltine Bluff residential development . The total number of dwelling units proposed for the expansion is 46 units for an overall density of 1 .4 units per acre. Please contact me if you have any questions or require further information . T Sincerely, kJm J1 ✓ TKermit V. Crouch Director of Planning and Development KBC: jai Enclosure C: Paul Krauss, Director of Planning, City of Chanhassen ✓ RECEIVED APR 15 1993 Chaska OF CHANHASSEN City Of Chaska Minnesota One City Hall Piaza 55318-1962 Phone 612'448-2851 6, INFORMATION SUBMISSION FOR — MINOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS This summary worksheet must be filled out and submitted to the Metropolitan Council with a _ copy of each proposed minor comprehensive plan amendment. Minor amendments include, but are not limited to: 1. Changes to the future land use plan where the affected area is small or where the proposed future land use will result in minor changes in metropolitan service demand. ?. Changes (land trades or additions) in the urban service area involving less than 40 acres. 3. Minor changes to plan goals and policies that do not change the overall thrust of the comprehensive plan. Please be as specific as possible; attach additional explanatory materials if necessary. If a staff report was prepared for the Planning Commission or City Council, please attach it as well. Communities submitting regular plan amendments may wish to enter this form or a reasonable facsimile into their word processing menu for ease in preparation of the form. _ Send plan amendments to: Lynda Voge, Referrals Coordinator - _ Metropolitan Council, Mears Park Centre 230 E. Fifth St. , St. Paul, 1.2i 55101-1634 -. I . GENERAL INFORMATION _ ..&• _ Sponsoring governmental unit City of Chaska Name of local contact person contact peso^ Kermit Crouch bne City Hall Plaza, Chaska, MN 55318-1962 _ Address 446-Z851 Telephone Name of Preparer (if different from 4/13/93contact person same = Date of Preparation B. Name of Amendment MUSA Expansion - Hazeltine Bluff Description/Summary - see aztached- • C. Please attach the following: 1. Five copies of the proposed amendment. 2. A city-wide map showing the location of the proposed change. 3. The current plan map(s), indicating area(s) affected by amendment. _ 4. Tne proposed plan map(s), indicating area(s) affected by amendment. i D. What is the official local status of the proposed amendment? (Check one or more as appropriate.) X Acted upon by planning commission (if applicable) on March 23, 1993 L Approved by governing body, contingent upon Metropolitan Council review, March 29. 1993 _ Considered, but not approved by governing body on Other E. Indicate what adjacent local governmental units and other jurisdictions (school districts, watershed districts, etc.) affected by the change have been sent copies of the plan amendment, if any, and the date(s) copies were sent to them. City of Chanhassen II. LAND USE Describe the following, as appropriate: 7.1 1. Size of affected area in acres 32.5 acres _. E� sting land use(s) agricultural , woodland 3. Proposed land uses) low density residential Number and typ' of residential dwelling units involved 46 units _. Proposed density 1.4 unit/acre 6. Proposed square footage of commercial, industrial or public buildings none III. ME I ROPOLITAN DEVELOPOMENT GUIDE A. Population, Household and Employment Forecasts Will the proposed amendment affect the city's population, household or employment forecasts for 2000, or any additibnal local staging contained in the original plcn? X No/Not Applicable Yes. Describe effect. L : -� B. Changes to Urban Service Area Boundary - Will the proposed amendment require a change to the boundary of the community's urban service area? - _ No/Not applicable. Yes. Under I. C., a map should be attached to show the proposed change. _ C. Changes to Timing and Staging of Urban Service Area Will the proposed amendment require a change to the timing and staging of development within the urban service area? X No/Not Applicable. _ Yes. Under I. C., a map should be attached to show the proposed change. D. Wastewater Treatment 1. Will the proposed amendment result in a change in the projected sewer flows for the community? . No/Not Applicable. _ Yes. Indicate the expected change. Total Year 2000,2010 flow for community based on existing plan million gallons/day Total 2000'2010 flow for community based on plan amendment million gallons/day If your community discharges to more than one metropolitan interceptor, indicate which interceptor will be affected by the amendment. Chaska Wastewater Plant 3. Will flows be diverted from one interceptor service area to another? No/Not applicable. _ Yes. Indicate the change and volumes (mgd.) involved. E. Transportation 1. Will the proposed amendment result in an increase in trip generation for the affected arca? X No/Not applicable. Yes. Describe effect. 2. Does the proposed amendment contain any changes to the functional classification of roadways? _x_ No. Yes. Describe which roadways F. Aviation Will the proposed amendment affect the function of a metropolitan airport or the compatibility of land uses with aircraft noise? _ No/Not applicable. Yes. Describe effect. — 0. Recreation Open Space -14 Will the proposed amendment have an impact on existing or future federal, state or retsgional recreational facilities? X Noi of Applicable. _Yes. Describe effect. H. Housing _ Will the proposed amendment affect the community's ability or intent to achieve the long-term goals for low- and moderate-income and modest-cost housing opportunities contained in the existing plan? X No/Not Applicable. Yes. Describe effect_ N Water Rcsourccs 1. Does the plan amendment affect a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers protected wetland? If yes, • describe type of wetland affected and show location on a map. Yes. X No. 2. Will the wetland be protected? NA _Yes. Describe how. _ No. Describe why not. 3. Will the plan amendment result in runoff which affects the quality of any surface water body? If yes, identify which ones. Yes. X No. 4. Will the water body be protected? _ Yes. Describe how. NA No. Explain why not. 1Y. IMPLEME.:TATION PROGR.'�M ?. Official Controls 1. Will the proposed amendment require a change to zoning, subdivision, on- site sewer ordinances or other official controls? X No/Not Applicable: Yes. Describe effect. V ADDENDUM TO INFORMATION SUBMISSION I .B. Description Hazeltine Bluff Planned Residential Development was approved in March 1990 and included 229 single family lots and a multiple family housing area. Its phased development has proceeded on schedule with four of six additions completed or under development . Currently only 11 of 151 platted lots remain unsold. Building permits have been issued for 121 lots. The developer, Builders Development, Inc. (BDI) , now wishes to plat the remaining 57 lots in the 5th and 6th additions for development and sale in 1993; however, 25 of the 57 lots are outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) line. EDI has requested the City to make application to Metropolitan Council for expansion of the MUSA to include the 25 single family lots. The expansion would also logically involve a 3.5 acre tract which is concept approved for single family attached housing at 6.0 units per acre for a total of 21 multiple units. As shown on Chaska' s Comprehensive Plan map, a 100 acre area at the southeast edge of the City is within the Rural Service Area. The subject application would bring 32.5 of the 100 acres within the MUSA line to accommodate the final phases of an ongoing development project . The balance of the area is either undevelopable Minnesota River valley bottomland/wetland, is a steep wooded ravine, or is within the corridor of the future T.H. 41 river crossing. City staff supports the proposed MUSA expansion. Such expansion was included "in Chaska's 2000 Comprehensive Plan update but was denied by Metro Council because of the capacity problem at the Chaska Wastewater Treatment Plant. That problem will be eliminated by the construction of the Chaska/Chanhassen sewer force main scheduled for completion by September 1, 1993. In the meantime, a condition is being placed on all new plat approvals prohibiting issuance of Certificates of Occupancy until completion of the Chaska/Chanhassen Interceptor. While there is generally enough land within Chaska' s MUSA line to accommodate housing development at the present time, the subject property is the only land owned by and available for development by BDI. Approval of the Concept Plan/Rezoning in 1990 assumed a phased development which would require expanding the MUSA for the 6th Addition. To disallow logical completion of this planned development would not be in keeping with sound planning and development principles. The City of Chaska is aware that Metro Council prefers to consider MUSA boundary change requests in the form of land trades rather than expansion, unless a five year land supply does not exist. We have explored the land trade approach but have found that option to be unavailable due to land ownership situations. In effect, all of the undeveloped land with residential potential is either owned by other developers or by active farmers, neither of which want to give up land within the MUSA. As Metro Council is aware, the pace of single family housing development, and the demand for undeveloped land by developers, has increased substantially in Chaska in the 1990's. For perspective purposes, building permits issued for single family houses in Chaska since 1980 are shown below. Year No. of S.F. Permits 1980 22 1981 11 1982 27 1983 59 1984 28 1985 40 1986 109 1987 130 1988 100 1989 123 1990 116 1991 171 1992 320 1993 80 (as of 4/15/93) There are three small farms still operating within the MUSA (about 175 acres total) and none of the owners are interested in selling for development at this time. All the remaining land with residential potential is owned by five developers. • r o — II my ( T.7 _Ii_- ______.-. --I ---.--=-7---__ ._ - - 1•1 „.„____i - III 4 _. __.,,,__ __ ,,,_ ,,_ , . -g L4 ra. l i 0------...--k---, � ;;2 Ma ...... . \\. ..7- - 4 � + service. ; Lf-, - c 7 \\.. ... .. .... f ...;_ , 1 dm. C }�I� r r . . 71\i_\:.„ 4 ,k .--- r:,---N, ire d I _ • moi! _ .t. ,/,_ � i �� _- �f j- 1 �' — � v ------ "-----::.., .....////........ -:.4..7...........:4.. : ....4-_ _...vp ., ...-1,-:..;-:I. Al. to( 51/47.__._-,,,----_ ____/___—::::—T*- " --//- _,', ._---- ,__.- _ ,. -,55,71zi...,T • ‘. -z•-•I ''Z..*... 'AI.-.....'tki.•.; ;•. , ...IV i _ '•5 `:•\''''... 1.7'.i. >r----- :-•Ail gr ie..5. .:„.......-t4A`ii-a.:::::::7"nr,.....ir; h , �.o • - I � rt 7.'•'s r .24 9►' ri AIL C _i_ y 1 r�rf s - —... \ *. . i, • tom. , E4-e ... ..:\\IN Ei TO _... Nt pp • � m , • .m . . ._I __ .. _ _ 0 ,,_. . 'i • illi . CHASKA I / . \ 1 ...., I • - I • (\.1 - — f 1■1.1.1.1.1.1 1.1.1.I■I.t■ C Cr 'RI N Q il_ IK In ..-.. 1."--Faii-Inismituumnibipar .. ." Noror / :1 _• _ I sanbdl - ri I 1? • ( O \ I w I i.fA d- U. . ^ I sm. n ^ I WE n w ` / i l� IN � - / \ T ' I .///' /I(i . I \,I\ \\\?C'e I \- : - /.._ 1 e . ••••---1---- 1 V . 1 _........--- . 2: ...o - � ... . s ... •• 2 goordr., _ _ .... ..,.. . 2 e. _ o — • i\V. -- .-.. 4.,-"Z ...........„4 • 7 0. : • i1. NM, .... _\ .... �..wis t. 111, 44 :art i arsti6 . '\ ...40,41„ .44 f i . Amr- ii. lIs , : . .i:, _ _ w ,' 4 .4_ e , $ Xi F w 1 w � � * it. bo \ 'k Ain N •:(1-4( wt.: .VE. III. • . .._ • 4. 1 • , _ •� �"4 I - 1 i _� pr C \ e eL. if l Imo f••i iVT S)l •-V l O 6 H IIHIHX3 •.`s: 1 I ,...& ,/- ,.--4!"?„1,/".:3 ( '... , (--- .....,7_40.-.7:7-:•-•.- --- \ ••• ••.....••••-. .........‹,. ....../ .....-% ••r..=.'----.._'- : 11111 -- 1 • L.-- ,f ..."......„.„,...., , _. ......_ _ • ..."...._ ..._. __ rv.--.„.,7.---- . 1:7\,, -.........‘\.• f Tra.....,,......rowa.-- , , . --r.... --.. ...„. -. _, . _ 4•••- ,_ ,:.„ ..:, . ' •Ait'lltb......",... 1 . . - ---- • ;-....-..-I ---- .. - \ - ,.....__:...... - iik.---- 0,........ ‘..._...._ ,-- 1 f.....• tt, \\,,iiir ..._......,....„,,,,,,„1. . .... .. . t , \ -.- -..,:-7.-_ • • • :.,:--.., % ... 1(. I-..... - -.-....- ----- „ - „ --.. -,_-.. ,...: \ 1 _ I L 1 , I • ' : 14.: -:;- - ' %. 1(''," '''.-- \, -, '''. --- -•--- --- - 1‘: I - • -.7.-- ---..z......... .. .....„: -2 , .-P-.W /.-----'‘41' --I _...1 -L... / .'. • . . ; ‘...)) /11 ,. .: . ' '.4.:'\ r .. :si , __5•-y .., _ ...... 1— Lir i...in?:ef.( , fc.q. '. Tilmisammir'.. ‘. '`.?-7...•-• etV...... 1 s • . ••., \ • ,.•\‘-`-.- ,.. .. -3 I- --- --IL • .t..-..- -; ‘'- .' : \ • f7.-- -- \..v....Ac....... . 41,-, •ji .. 1. ...It,. 1...b•-•? i „.5.0.7 (.. ":c 'I.__ 1 ----4 • . ./ _ . . . . '/' 1 '%)( % \4( -..112.*\4*.&-44,1111 '166N-.. ' ..'11/4—*...1. 14.'1 ''''' • . • . t . ._// )/ ,-.43:11_,"en.-4 - 141* .- '\ . ' -- _ -.. "•elek, .-. .iw,.:-. --!_-_---_,-;,a; 13 g 4 —7-- -4 . ..ttt::„...,,,,,,Nor...„,„ .tirs.,,--. !.:„. I •ii ,... ,I 1 • . • / , , __,-.--. _ .:.• . ,,,,. A r\.J/0",.. •‘.:, I. ( 1 I 15 . 15717. /L1:11".-:%/1• .•..eti4:"1\4*11/411--r;'.:1:./1.:.•:, 1 /7( . .NEI) filit ye.- . ,.-iiit.. .,.. .._ r ,R. -itig'i• :: •41,, 7'‘,`;'::..\`\--•-• -1 1 i 1 i--1 1 _ .-fiE,1/ illabl4C ` •••"7-..-.47./.: ili'.. 1 1-..4:.-•)/. /. 1 i 1 . k.`lit • --..-4/..T.0 ... , „r .." ( -\ '_ jnecwilitft' erwr L-2. s.,-;.--;:: •-"':,;1',:•.' •.,'.1 ..\t, : 0 I -- 1-.- .. . Jaw ,g,.-. . j 1..... I i'\11 Rik -,11'N7,„i-,:, '.'. ::. ••••%....% %...‘ -.. •\• . _ I • Is '' -;-L I • -• i ' , '-'1UIP60.11,14":'-- .:...‘.,. '‘..''..,.* -!...,',.. . i. '1:LI:114‘ -,1 e4AV. - '',\:•::: ,..4! i -T--1 1:1 • 1 1 s, cz....>t , , 1.. I 1 Sli ,:r. 5..•.,1?;,.,.1 I.14.../. . ,1 '' . 3Filirril '.ak ' P't1.1'. .::'0%.'::::-:-. '•..:s. MA ' 1\1I.. _ a tl 1 5 • 31.., .i o a. 1▪ • • -\ 7 1 ii 9, A:: / Priii,. .. ..ri*: i:11.V.1%.':::.• t-v-11 1%.".. - „,,,' lb ' 1 WA‘41.1.-... ....." :-/A' ' :1111tIt Itenri.';'S.!.::.. V ‘' .:. Z. .;;I i i li Oh — 1 kg i : MI • I I - I -.1... RP s.ri V-4,IN :' ..r:it.t', • \•••• :i ,,,:,-„ •:,:s1 k , f 4V,s. :::::,,..0',,,:•;;4j. '. '. .*•:-... .-. c. ..s., 1k -- i.-t;i• Ar.' ItA, V ,. , ',',11 V•.,..,t'..-Ar;N„‘'.' ''.• it'. 7 Z..: •'.,;** thttir..-'W.. .'"..,•,t.'•••%:'•'„•%.*i...1,_'',..'s\. ':.. ‘.....•-•‘ t lie - ; ''. ---40.::-;4-4.461),'"-!•\''.--r-1.-• %- '' • • -i7 .0::.: :=1.;:.':::"::::.7::---116:.:7:i:1-. :::::::::.)P'.\\\ ,..:.,• .42' - •.. '•.:-- —- ---:7-1."-----: -::::::..7-:::.;IY; ...:.: s• . .:.:. . ' . NAit •". :-7.-----,.. '.:.- •:::......::::-.:.::::.: ii,.''•, • : ..• — ...... . -'` '• .... • . ..,- •• • - ...-.•• . - • 1 ..... .... -1. .,. . . ,... ..,,„ .._ .. s,,,, . • ;:•.• •,s.1 - - )./.1 - . -, __.------ ,•••- . . if,• I. -.7 .--:____.,:— ..,.-::._"./.. /, ,,- -----.......... T. - ...------.... ....-...-.... ..,,, „... . / /------<-"* / --- — - .._ I 1 I # .rte-..r-1 — __ �� • .�— ._ 1—J----1 — .aasR�„ "...Ts °1F�" of --.. .i.------:-._ _ • 1 l 1 I ' ,s .-V il I 1 ; j � . 411/11.07 0 1 _Z___\!---\--- ,<...<//i 1 1 � 0. ♦4♦ ........-..--) Y ‘;......„„, .. ll 111 I Y1� ).•%- •,,,, :. 1 , 1- --;..!_ j..• S — _412 )----If ;" )1i_it. ',`\.,\4.sulall • al I 2 _i : , . -,, . j t ....:1 "1 r` st. y i n _J 1....ILI: ..1111:1.....:...‘1,"L..... .-— ,.� i+j 11 as Z e �Q IRB I:,,_- _ �� JS I ) ) 6:i i I JvI I �' _ ..� Q IVOR 617rcx 30 IMT 5 war 61M-66 ft \ / 1 I • \ 4♦..r 17.1 ME WV-� y � i , : nX11 , o �I3 �...,10I lila/arr ra n. ,\\ >I 1 1 ��✓ r- - O 10.01011 03 d ues« l ' I u fra Lliaa�MIA «•aa I - ae EI C 1 I �' !'4A 016! ASI q R. ` I '�.1 1 1 ` �_ Fit wNR{Of Yea nw p1T. 1 S r <I 60.71 US WS PIP w _�1411'i : �'' „ in 4. 1 --- iJbo/ R, ~, 4000 RvaDaeR.IC 1 Mr/r/Cr 46000 1 i MI Or 600306 Guo I - .a'74 as,WV I GC_ / cyL _ JAMES P LARKIN LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY& LINDGREN, Lm.L. PAUL B.PLUNKETT ROBERTL.HOFFMAN A JF ACK F DALY ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALLEEN MONEWMAN 0 KENNETH LINDGREN MICHAEL B LEBARON GERALD H.FRIECELL GREGORY E.KORSTAD ALLAN E.MULLIGAN GARY A.VAN CLEVE• _ JAMES C ERICKSON DANIEL L.BOWLES 1500 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER TODD M.VLATKOVICH EDWARD DRISCOLL TIMOTHY J MANUS GENE N FULLER JOHN D FULLMER 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH TIMOTHYJ KEANE ROBERT E.BOYLE ALAN M ANDERSON FRANK I.HARVEY BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431-1194 DONNA L BOBACR CHARLES S.MODELL MICHAEL W SCHLEP CHRISTOPHER J DIET2EN TELEPHONE (612) 635-3600 MICHAEL A ROBERTSON - JOHN R BEATTIE FAX 16121 696-3333 USA A GRAY LINDA H FISHERGARY A RENNEKE THOMAS P.STOLTMAN SHANNON K MFCAMBRIDGE MICHAEL C JACRMAN CHRISTOPHER J HARRISTHAL JOHN E DIEHL WILLIAM C GRIFF,TH.JR JON S SWIER2EWSK1 JOHN J STEFFENHAGEN THOMAS J.FLYNN DANIEL W.VOSS - JAMES P.QUINN MARK A RURIK TODD K. EEMAN -- 4 JOHN R.HILL PETER BECK • E$L/r Ey JAMESHNR.MARTIN JEROME H.KAHNKE ! Fr`fi!/E; THOMAS J.SEYMOUR GERALD L.SECK MICHAEL J.SMITH JOHN B LUNCOUIST FREDERICK K.HAUSER w DAYLL NOLAN CIU THOMAS HUMPHREY,JR BERTO• A PR 0 71993 LANE RRYE 06 MA THOMAS B. JOHN A COTTER• ER BEATRICE A BOTHWEILER MARCY R KREISMAN C!TY OF CHANHASCF;., OMARIF OLSEILO A. L WENDELL R ANDERSON JOSEPH GITIS • •ALSO ADMITTED N WISCONSIN MEMORANDUM - TO: Urban Wetland Coalitionp FROM: Mike Robertson ��F DATE: April 6 , 1993 RE: Update on Recent Legislative Activity The debate continues at the Capitol on the issue of amendments to the -- Wetland Conservation Act . I would like to summarize action in the House and Senate Agriculture Committees and the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee . The House Agriculture Committee has passed a bill authored by Representative Jeff Bertram to extend the interim program and the effective date of the new Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) - Rules until March 1994 . This bill has been re-referred to the House Environment and Natural Resources Committee, chaired by Representative Munger. Last week I met with Representative Munger and Ron Harnack, Director of BWSR, to discuss the legislative situation and the potential for action in the 1993 session. Representative Munger indicated that he - did not agree to the March extension as proposed by Representative Bertram. Harnack said that he would support an extension of the interim program until January 1994 in order to provide time for - training and planning to implement the new rules . Harnack is concerned that if the rules are not adopted, the mitigation banking program does not go into effect as well as provisions allowing compensation and tax credits . We also discussed an effort on the part of northeastern Minnesota legislators to further amend the Act to eliminate the 2 to 1 replacement ratio for counties in northeastern Minnesota. This new replacement ratio would apply in counties that have at least 80% of their pre-settlement wetland acreage. Munger said that he agrees with this change, but does not want to entertain LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Memorandum April 6 , 1993 Page 2 further amendments to the act . A bill introduced by Senator Stumpf and Representative Iry Anderson (S . F. 1363) includes several amendments to the Act . Representative Munger is worried that other amendments which he would oppose would be added to the bill . Harnack indicated that the governor would probably veto any bill that made _ significant changes to the law. On Friday, April 2 , 1993 , the Senate Environment Committee considered Senator Stumpf ' s S . F. 1363 which had previously been amended in the Senate Agriculture Committee. An amendment by Senator Dille in the Agriculture Committee further complicated the situation by amending --- the the law to make the program only optional in counties that have at least 8096 of pre-settlement wetland acreage. Before motions could be offered to delete Senator Dille ' s amendments from the bill, Senator Merriam moved to send the bill to the Environment Subcommittee for further discussion. Committee members were concerned that this action would kill the bill for the 1993 session because Friday, April 2 was the deadline for the passage of bills from policy committees . Senator Merriam argued that this was an important issue that needed further discussion and that exceptions could be made to the rules to allow a bill to move forward. Senator Merriam' s motion passed and the bill was referred to Senator Chandler' s Environment Subcommittee. _ Senator Chandler has tentatively scheduled a hearing on the wetlands bill for Wednesday evening at the Capitol (time uncertain as of this writing) . We are organizing an effort to provide a panel led by Linda Fisher to express the views of the Urban Wetland Coalition at this hearing. It is clear that Representative Munger is the key to action this year. If too many amendments are proposed, Munger will kill the bill and the rules will go into effect on July 1 . Our strategy is to simply argue _ for extension of the interim program in order to give time to thoroughly review the ramifications of implementation of the new rules . If you have questions or would like further information, please give me a call at 896-3388 . MAR:BB5s