07-6-94 Agenda and Packet AGENDA FILE
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSIOr
WEDNESDAY, JULY 6, 1994, 7:30 P.M.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DI
7:00-8:30 p.m. Work session - Surface Water Management Plan and Sign Ordinance
CALL TO ORDER
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8:30 P. M.
1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend the CBD, Central Business District to allow schools as a permitted use.
2. *Item Deleted.
3. Coffman Development Company to rezone 17.6 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF,
Residential Single Family and preliminary plat to subdivide 17.6 acres of property into 23 single family lots with
wetland setback variances and side yard setback variances on the flag lots, located at 1420 and 1430 Lake Lucy
Road, Shadow Ridge (Harvey/O'Brien).
4. Interim Use Permit request to grade 46.56 acres. The property is located east of Hwy. 101 at 86th Street,
Mission Hills, Tandem Properties.
5. Amendment to the City Code to adopt the Shoreland Overlay District regulations.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
ONGOING l l LMS
OPEN DISCUSSION
ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 11:00 p.m. as outlined in official by-laws. We will
make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be
possible, the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration
will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting.
Item Deleted
2. Roman Roos for a preliminary plat to replat Outlot C into Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2nd
Addition and one outlot, and a site plan review of a 17,824 square foot building for office/manufacture/
warehouse on property zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development and located on Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen
Business Center 2nd Addition, Custom Laminations Unlimited.
., CITY OF
0,0_,
,04,1 CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
ok
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator
Kate Aanenson, Planning Director
DATE: June 30, 1994
SUBJ: Surface Water Management Plan and Sign Ordinance Work Session
Please bring your copy of the SWMP plan and any questions you may have to the meeting.
Attached is the most recent draft of the Sign Ordinance for your review.
ARTICLE XXVI. SIGNS
DIVISION 1. GENERALLY
Sec. 20-1251. PURPOSE AND FINDINGS.
A. Purpose
The purpose of this sign ordinance is intended to establish an effective means of
communication in the city, maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment and the city's
ability to attract sources of economic development and growth, to improve pedestrian and
traffic safety, to minimize the possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and
private property, and to enable the fair and consistent enforcement of these sign
regulations. It is the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety, general welfare,
aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to
communicate to the public, and to use signs which meet the city's goals:
(1) establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity
to advertise;
(2) preserve and promote civic beauty, and prohibit signs which detract from this
objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering or
illumination;
(3) ensure that signs do not create safety hazards.
(4) ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner
that does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract motorists;
(5) preserve and protect property values;
(6) ensure signs that are in proportion to the scale of, and are architecturally
compatible with the principal structures;
(7) limit temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an
opportunity for grand opening and occasional sales events while restricting signs
which create continuous visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way
intersections.
B. Findings
The City of Chanhassen finds it is necessary for the promotion and preservation of the
public health, safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community that the construction,
location, size and maintenance of signs be controlled. Further the city finds:
1. permanent and temporary signs have a direct impact on, and a relationship, to the
image of the community;
2. the manner of installation, location and maintenance of signs affects the public
health, safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community;
3. an opportunity for a viable identification of community business and institutions
must be established;
4. the safety of motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and other users of public streets and
property is affected by the number, size, location and appearance of signs that
unduly divert the attention of drivers;
5. installation of signs suspended from, projecting over, or placed on the tops of
buildings, walks or other structures may constitute a hazard during periods of high
winds and an obstacle to effective fire fighting and other emergency service;
6. uncontrolled and unlimited signs adversely impact the image and aesthetic
attractiveness of the community and, thereby, undermine economic value and
growth;
7. uncontroLed and unlimited signs, particularly temporary signs, which are
commonly located within or adjacent to public right-of-way, or are located at
driveway/street intersections, result in roadside clutter and obstruction of views of
oncoming traffic. This creates a hazard to drivers and pedestrians and also
adversely impacts a logical flow of information.
Sec. 20-1252. Permit and variance fees.
Fees for reviewing and processing sign permit applications and variance requests shall be
imposed in accordance with the fee schedule established by City Council resolution.
2
Sec. 20-1253. Variances.
The City Council, upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, may grant a
variance from the requirements of this article where it is shown that by reason of topography or
other conditions, strict compliance with the requirements of this article would cause a hardship;
provided that a variance may be granted only if the variance does not adversely affect the spirit
or intent of this article. Written application for a variance shall be filed 4, ' h the Planning
Department and shall be supplemented with reproducible copies of the proposed sign. The
application shall be processed in conformance with the public hearing requirements dictated for
variances in Section 20-29. No variance shall be granted by the City Council unless it has
received the affirmative vote of at least simple majority of the full City Council.
Sec. 20-1254. Permit generally.
(a) Except as provided in Section 20-1255, no sign or sign structure shall be erected,
constructed, altered, rebuilt or relocated until a permit has first been issued by the
City.
(b) The following information for a sign permit shall be supplied by an applicant if
requested by the city:
(1) Name, address and telephone number of person making application.
(2) A site plan to scale showing the location of lot lines, building structures,
parking areas, existing and proposed signs and any other physical features.
(3) Plans, location, specifications, materials, method of construction and
attachment to the buildings or placement method in the ground.
(4) Copy of stress sheets and calculations.
(5) Written consent of the owner or lessee of any site on which the sign is to
be erected.
(6) Any electrical permit required and issued for the sign.
(7) Such other information as the city shall require to show full compliance
with this chapter and all other laws and ordinances of the city.
Information may include such items as color and material samples.
(8) Receipt of sign permit fee.
3
(9) The Planning Director, upon the filing of any application for a permit,
shall examine such plans, specifications, and other data. If the proposed
sign complies with this article and other applicable ordinances, the city
shall issue a sign permit unless City Council approval is required. If City
Council approval is required, the matter shall be promptly referred to the
council for action.
Sec. 20-1255. Signs allowed without permit.
The following signs are allowed without a permit:
(1) Political Campaign signs: Temporary political campaign signs are permitted
according to the following:
a. The size and height allowed shall be consistent with the underlying zoning
district.
b. The sign must contain the name of the person responsible for such sign,
and that person shall be responsible for its removal.
c. Such signs shall remain for no longer than ninety (90) days in any
calendar year.
d. Signs are not permitted in the public right-of-way.
e. SL.all comply with the fair campaign practices act contained in the State
of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 211B.
f. The city shall have the right to remove and destroy signs not conforming
to this paragraph.
(2) Directional signs.
a. On-premises signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The
maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground.
The placement of directional signs on the property shall be so located such
that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties or the general
appearance of the site from public rights-of-way. The number of signs
shall not exceed four (4) unless approved by the City Council.
b. Off-premises signs shall be allowed only in situations where access is
confusing and traffic safety could be jeopardized or traffic could be
4
inappropriately routed through residential streets. The size of the sign
shall be approved by the City Council.
c. On-premises signs for industrially zoned land in excess of forty (40) acres
shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet. The maximum height of the sign
shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground. The placement of
directional signs on the property shall be so located such that the sign does
not adversely affect adjacent properties or the general appearance of the
site from public right-of-way. The number of signs shall not exceed four
(4) unless approved by the City Council.
(3) Community Signs or displays which contain or depict a message pertaining to a
religious, national, state or local holiday or event and no other matter, and which
are displayed for a period not to exceed forty (40) days in any calendar year.
(4) Motor fuel price signs are permitted on the premises of any automobile service
station only if such signs are affixed to the fuel pumps or are made an integral
part of a ground low profile or pylon business sign otherwise permitted in that
zoning district. Motor fuel price signs affixed to a fuel pump shall not exceed
four (4) square feet in sign display area. When such signs are made an integral
part of a freestanding business sign, the sign display area devoted to the price
component shall not exceed thirty (30) percent of the total sign display area of the
sign.
(5) Nameplate or integral signs not exceeding two (2) square feet per building and
does not include multi-tenant names.
(6) Non-illuminated construction signs confined to the site of the construction,
alteration or repair. Such a sign must be removed within one (1) year from the
date of issuance of the first building permit on the site, and may be extended until
the project is completed. One (1) sign shall be permitted for each street the
project abuts. Commercial and industrial signs may not exceed fifty (50) square
feet in sign area, and residential construction signs may not exceed twenty-four
(24) square feet in sign area.
(7) Signs of a public, non-commercial nature, informational signs erected by a
governmental entity or agency, including safety signs (O.S.H.A.), directional signs
to public facilities, trespassing signs, traffic signs, signs indicating scenic or
historical points of interest, memorial plaques and the like. Signs shall not exceed
sixteen (16) square feet.
(8) Rummage (garage) sale signs. Rummage sale signs shall be removed within two
(2) days after the end of the sale and shall not exceed four (4) square feet.
Rummage sale signs shall not be located in any public rights-of-way. The city
5
shall have the right to remove and destroy signs not conforming to this paragraph.
The city may assess a fee in the amount established by resolution for each sign
removed by the city.
(9) Temporary development project advertising signs erected for the purpose of selling
or promot.ng any non-residential project, or any residential project of ten (10) or
more dwelling units, located in the City of Chanhassen, shall be *--rmitted subject
to the following regulations:
a. Not more than two (2) such signs shall be allowed per project.
b. Such signs shall only be located along streets that provide primary access
to he project site.
c. Such sign shall be set back not less than twenty-five (25) feet from any
prcperty line, and shall be firmly anchored to the ground.
d. No such sign shall be located closer than two hundred (200) feet from an
existing residential dwelling unit, church, or school which is not a part of
the project being so advertised.
e. Such signs shall not be located closer than a one hundred 100) feet
from any other such sign located on the same side of the street.
f. Sign display area shall not exceed sixty-four (64) square feet, and the
height of such signs shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet.
g. Such signs shall be removed when the project being advertised is one
hundred (100) percent completed. In no case shall such signs be permitted
to exceed three (3) years. For the purpose of this paragraph, the
percentage of project completion shall be determined by dividing the
number of dwelling units sold in the residential project by the total number
of units allowed in the approved development plan; and by dividing the
number of buildings constructed in non-residential projects by the total
number of building sites in the approved development plan.
(10) Temporary real estate signs which advertise the sale, rental or lease of real estate
subject to the following conditions:
a. On-premises real estate signs advertising the sale, rental or lease of the
premises upon which the sign is located.
1. One (1) non-illuminated sign is permitted per street frontage.
6
2. Sign display area shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet per sign
on property containing less than ten (10) acres in area, and thirty-
two (32) square feet per sign on property containing ten (10) or
more acres.
3. No such sign shall exceed ten (10) feet in overall height, nor be
located less than ten (10) feet from any property 1 ne.
4. All temporary real estate signs shall be removed within seven (7)
days following sale, lease, or rental of the property.
b. Off-premises real estate signs advertising the sale, rental or lease of
business and industrial buildings:
1. One (1) non-illuminated sign is permitted per building.
2. Such signs shall only be permitted in business and industrial
districts, and on property located within the same subdivision or
development as the building being advertised.
3. Such signs shall not be located closer than two hundred (200) feet
from any other such sign located on the same side of the street.
4. Sign display area shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet, and
the height of such signs shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet.
5. Such signs shall be removed within seven (7) days following the
lease or sale of the building floor space which it is advertising, or
within twelve (12) months from the date a permit is issued,
whichever comes first.
6. Provide written permission of property owner.
c. Of premises directional signs which show direction to new residential
developments in accordance with the following. The intent of this
subparagraph is to allow short term signage, for residential development,
to familiarize the public with the new development.
1. Such sign shall only be permitted along major arterials and
collectors as identified in the comprehensive plan.
2. Only one (1) sign per intersection and one (1) sign per
development shall be permitted. Signs shall not be located in any
7
site distance triangle, measured thirty (30) feet from the point of
intersection of the property line.
3. Sign display area shall not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet and
the height of such signs shall not exceed ten (10) feet.
4. Such sign shall not be located closer than twertv-five (25) feet
from any street right-of-way line, and shall be firmly anchored to
the ground.
5. Provide written permission of property owner to locate directional
sign on their property.
6. Such sign shall only be constructed out of maintenance free
materials and be non-illuminated.
7. Such sign shall be removed six (6) months after the sign has been
erected and developer may not apply for a second off-premises
directional sign permit.
8. Sign copy shall include the name of the subdivision and a direction
arrow only.
Sec. 20-1256. Permit for temporary sign, searchlights, banners, etc.
Temporary signs are permitted as follows:
1. Banners shall not exceed 100 square feet and portable signs shall not exceed 32
square feet and shall meet the following standards:
a. a thirty (30) day display period to coincide with the grand opening of a
business or a new development (business park or shopping center), or a
business may display a banner on three occasions per calendar year with
a maximum 10-day display period for each occasion. Businesses within
a shopping center shall be limited one display per center and not one
display per business.
b. messages must relate to on-premise product or services, or any non-
commercial message; and
8
c. banners must be affixed to a principal structure which is owned or leased
by the business which the sign is advertising. Non-profit and
governmental event banners are excluded from this provision.
d. portable signs shall not be located in the public right-of- way.
e. sign permit issued by city.
2. Inflatable advertising devices are permitted according to the following:
a. for each site or center, two occasions per calendar year, with each occasion
not to cxcced scven (7) days;
b. written authorization from the property owner or their designee must be
submitted with the sign permit application.
c. sign permit issued by city.
d. maximum height of the inflatable shall be 25 feet.
e. if located on the roof of a structure, the height of the inflatable and the
building shall not exceed the building height permitted in the zoning
district.
3. Flashing or blinking portable signs, stringers, and pennants are not permitted.
4. The use of searchlights shall be limited to two days per permit period. The use
of searchlights shall be controlled in such a way so as not to become a nuisance.
Sec. 20-1258. Legal Action.
If the City Planning Director or an administrative officer finds that any sign regulated by
this division is prohibited as to size, location, content, type, number, height or method of
construction: or erected without a permit first being granted to the installer of the sign to the
owner of the property upon which the sign has been erected or is improperly maintained, or is
in violation of any other provision of this chapter, he shall give written notice of such violation
to the owner or permittee thereof. If the permittee or owner fails to remove or alter the sign so
as to comply with the provisions set forth in this chapter within (10) calendar days following
receipt of said notice:
(1) Such signs shall be deemed to be nuisance and may be abated by the city in
proceeding taken under Minnesota Statues, Chapter 429, and the cost of
9
abatement, including administration expenses, may be levied as a special
assessment against the property upon which the sign is located;or
(2) Such permittee or owner may be prosecuted for violating this chapter and if
convicted shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day a violation exists shall
constitute a separate offense.
Sec. 20-1259. Prohibited signs.
The following signs are prohibited:
(1) Advertising or business signs on or attached to equipment, such as semi-truck
trailers, where signing is a principal use of the equipment on either a temporary
or permanent basis.
(2) Motion signs and flashing signs, except time and temperature signs and barber
poles which may be permitted by conditional use permits (see sections 20-231
through 20-237).
(3) Projecting signs, not including awning or canopies as defined in this ordinance.
(4) Roof signs, except that a business sign may be placed on the roof, facia or
marquee of a building provided it does not extend above the highest elevation of
the building, excluding chimneys, and provided:
a. Roof signs shall be thoroughly secured and anchored to the frames of the
building over which they are constructed and erected.
b. No portion of roof signs shall extend beyond the periphery of the roof.
(5) Wall graphics and design treatments depicting corporate logos and company
symbols.
(6) Temporary signs or banners except as permitted in Section 20-1256.
(7) Signs which are placed or tacked on trees, fences, utility poles or in the public
right-of-way.
10
Sec. 20-1260. Nonconforming Signs.
When the principal use of land is legally non-conforming under this chapter, all existing
or proposed signs in conjunction with that land, shall be considered conforming if they are in
compliance with the sign provisions for the most restrictive zoning district in which the principal
use is allowed.
Excluding normal maintenance and repair, a non-conforming sign :idl not be moved,
altered (including face changes) or enlarged unless it is brought into compliance with the sign
regulations.
Within 45 calendar days after vacation of an existing business, any on-site nonconforming
signs must be removed or brought into compliance by the property owner. An abandoned sign
may not regain any legal nonconforming status later, even if the original business reoccupies the
property.
Sec. 20-1265. General location restrictions.
(a) No sign or sign structure shall be closer to any lot line than a distance equal to
one-half (1/2) the minimum required yard setback. No sign shall be placed within
any drainage or utility easement. Sign shall not block site distance triangle from
any private drive or access. Signs shall not be located in any site distance triangle
thirty (30) feet from the point of intersection of the property line.
(b) Signs on adjacent non-residential property shall be positioned so that the copy is
not visible from residential uses or districts along adjoining side and rear yard
property lines.
(c) No sign, other than governmental signs, shall be erected or placed upon any public
street, right-of-way or public easement, or project over public property.
(d) Signs shall not create a hazard to the safe, efficient movement of vehicular or
pedestrian traffic. No private sign shall contain words which might be construed
as traffic controls, such as "Stop," "Caution," "Warning," unless the sign is
intended to direct traffic on the premises.
(e) No signs, guys, stays or attachments shall be erected, placed or maintained on
rocks, fences or trees nor, interfere with any electric light, power, telephone or
telegraph wires or the supports thereof.
(f) No sign or sign structure shall be erected or maintained that prevents free ingress
or egress from any door, window or fire escape. No sign or sign structure shall
be attached to a standpipe or fire escape.
11
(g) Window signs shall not cover more than 33 percent of the total
window area in which they are located.
Sec. 20-1266. Maintenance and repair.
Signs and sign structures shall be properly maintained and kept in a safe condition. Sign
or sign structures which are rotted, unsafe, deteriorated or defaced shah be repainted, repaired
or replaced by the licensee, owner or agent of the building upon which the sign stands
immediately upon notification by the city.
Sec. 20-1267. Uniformity of construction, design, etc.
All permanent signs shall be designed and const-__ _:ed in a uniform manner and, to the
extent possible, as an integral part of the building's architecture. Multi-tenant commercial and
industrial buildings shall have uniform signage. When buildings or developments are presented
for site plan review, proposed signs for the development should be presented concurrently for
staff review. All planned centers and multi-tenant buildings all submit a comprehensive sign plan
for approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. Signage shall use individual,
channelized letters, be back lit if a wall sign is illuminated, and be architecturally compatible
with the building and other signage if in a multi-tenant building.
Sec. 20-1268. Noncommercial speech.
Signs containing noncommercial speech are permitted anywhere that business signs are
permitted, subject to the same regulations applicable to such signs.
Sec. 20-1275. Construction Standards.
(a) A free standing sign or sign structure shall be constructed so that if the faces are
not back to back, then they shall not have an angle separating the faces exceeding
twenty (20) degrees unless the total area of both sides added together does not
exceed the maximum allowable sign area for that district.
(b) All on-premise freestanding signs must have structural supports covered or
concealed with pole covers. The actual structural supports should not be exposed,
and the covers should be architecturally and aesthetically designed to match the
building. Pole covers shall be a minimum height of 8 feet. The exposed uprights,
12
superstructure and/or backside of all signs shall be painted a neutral color such as
light blue gray, brown, or white, unless it can be illustrated that such part of the
sign designed or painted in another manner is integral to the overall design of the
sign. _ .
51(176211 GgL,
(1,2aPPFM
ane
(c) The installation of electrical signs shall be subject to the National Electrical Code
as adopted and amended by the city. Electrical service to such sign shall be
underground.
(d) No sign shall be attached or be allowed to hang from any building until all
necessary wall and roof attachments have been approved by the building official.
Any canopy or awning sign shall have a minimum of an eight (8) foot clearance.
(e) Illuminated signs shall be shielded to prevent lights from being directed at
oncoming traffic in such brilliance that it impairs the vision of the driver. No
such signs shall interfere with or obscure an official traffic sign or signal; this
includes indoor signs which are visible from public streets. Illumination for a sign
or groups of signs shall not exceed '/i foot candle in brightness as measured at the
property line.
Sec. 20-1277. Cemetery signage.
Signage for a cemetery shall be processed as a conditional use permit in all districts.
DIVISION 2. SIGNS ALLOWED IN SPECIFIC DISTRICTS BY PERMIT
Sec. 20-1301. Agricultural and Residential Districts.
The following signs are allowed by permit in the A-2, RR, RSF, R-4, R-8, R-12 and
residential PUD districts:
(1) Public and Institutional Signs. One (1) ground low profile or wall sign, not
exceeding twenty-four (24) square feet of sign display area, shall be permitted on
the premises of any public or institutional property giving the name of the facility
and nature of the use and occupancy. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10)
feet from any property line, and shall not exceed five (5) feet in height.
13
(2) Area Identification/Entrance signs. Only one (1) monument sign may be erected
on a lot, which shall not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet nor be more than
five feet high. Any such sign or monument shall be designed so that it is
maintenance free. The adjacent property owner or a Homeowners Association
shall be responsible for maintenance of the identification\entrance sign. Such sign
shall be located so as not to conflict with traffic visibility or street maintenance
operations, and shall be securely anchored to the ground.
Sec. 20-1302. Neighborhood Business and Office & Institutional Districts.
The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any OI or BN Districts:
1. Multi Tenant Building
1. (a) Ground low profile business signs. One (1) ground low profile business
or institutional sign not exceeding twenty-four (24) square feet of sign
display area shall be permitted. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10)
feet from any property line and shall not exceed five (5) feet in height.
2. (b) -Wall business signs. One (1} Wall business signs shall be permitted le
on the street frontage for each business occupant within a building only,.
Wall business signs shall not be mounted upon the wall of any building
which faces any adjoining residential district without an intervening public
street. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas for each business
shall not exceed the square footage established in the following table:
Maximum Percentage Wall Area in Square Feet Maximum Square
of Wall Footage of Sign
15% 0-600 90
13% 601-1,200 156
119c 1,201-1,800 198
9% 1,801-2,400 216
7% 2,401-3,200 224
5% 3,201-4,500 230
3% 4,500 + 240
14
bes.s-tilan 15 36 8 24
10,000
1. Pylon business sign. Pylon Signs are permitted on parcels that abut the Highway
5 corridor only. One (1) pylon identification sign shall be permitted. This sign
may identify the name of the center of the major tenants. The height and square
footage of the sign shall be based on the square footage cf tl:c piuicipal structure
as shown in the table. Such signs shall be located at least ten (10) feet from any
property line, and shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height.
2. Ground low profile business signs. One (1) ground low profile business sign shall
be permitted per each outlot or separate building pad that has street frontage. The
height and square footage of the sign shall be based on the table above. Such
signs shall be located at least 300 feet from any other pylon or ground sign and
at least ten (10) feet from any property line.
3. Wall business signs. One (1)Wall business signs shall be permitted peon street
frontage for each business occupant within a building only. The total of all wall
mounted sign display areas for each business shall not exceed the square footage
established in the following table:
4. Menu Board. One menu board sign per restaurant use is permitted with a drive-
through facility. Such sign shall not exceed 32 square feet in size nor greater than
8 feet in height. Such sign is.permitted in addition to any other sign permitted in
the Zoning District.
Maximum Percentage Wall Area in Square Feet Maximum Square
of Wall Footage of Sign
159c 0-600 90
13% 601-1,200 156
11% 1,201-1,800 198
9% 1,801-2,400 216
7% 2,401-3,200 224
5% 3,201-4,500 230
3% 4,500 + 240
16
3. (c) Wall signs shall not include product advertising. Wall signs shall include
tenant identification, tenant logo or registered trademark, center name, or
any combination of the three.
2. Freestanding Tenant
.. - .. -
_ . .
feet from any pfepcFvy line and shall a-eieeed five (5) feet in height.
(b) Wall business sign. Ogre-(1} well-business sign shall be permitted per
intervening public street.
Sec. 20-1303. Highway, General Business Districts and Central Business District.
The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any BH, BG, CBD or BF District:
The following table lists the standards for freestanding and monument signs in the BH,
BG, CBD, or BF zone.
PYLON MONUMENT
Principal Height Sign size Height Sign Size
Structure (feet) (sq. ft.) (feet) (sq. ft.)
50,000 sq. ft. 20 80 10 80
or Greater
than -08,000
Less than 4.8-15 64 -W 8 64
50,000 sq. ft.
-1-00-,000
10,000 ---14 61 --8 —36
50, 00
15
Sec. 20-1304. Industrial Office Park Signs.
The following signs shall be allowed by permit in any IOP District:
1. Pylon or ground low profile business signs. Pylon signs are permitted on parcels
that abut the Highway 5 corridor only. One (1) pylon or one (1) ground low
profile Industrial Office Park identification sign shall be permitted. A Pylon sign
shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in sign area and shall not exceed twenty
(20) feet in height. A ground low profile may not exceed eighty (80) square feet
and eight (8) feet in height. Such sign shall be located at least ten (10) feet from
any property line.
2. Ground low profile business signs. One (1) ground low profile business sign shall
be permitted for each individual tenant. Such sign shall not exceed sixty-four (64)
square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five (5) feet in height. Such
sign shall be located at least ten (10) feet from any property line.
3. Wall business signs. One (1)Wall business signs shall be permitted pef on street
frontage for each business occupant within a building only. The total of all wall
mounted sign display areas shall not exceed the square footage established in the
following table:
Maximum Percentage Wall Area in Square Feet Maximum Square
of Wall Footage of Sign
15% 0-600 90
13% 601-1,200 156
119c 1,201-1,800 198
99c 1,801-2,400 216
79c 2,401-3,200 224
59c 3,201-4,500 230
39c 4,500 + 240
17
Secs. 20-1306-20-1350. Reserved.
Sec. 20-1 DEFINITIONS
Sign means any object, device, display, or structure, or part thereof situated outdoors, or visible
through a window or door, which is used to advertise, announce, identify, display, direct or
attract attention to an object, person, institution, organization, business, commodity, product,
service, event or location, by means, including words, letters, figures, design, symbols, fixtures,
pictures, illumination or projected images.
Sign, Advertising means any sign which directs attention to a business, commodity, service,
activity or entertainment not conducted, sold or offered upon the premises where such a sign is
located.
Sign, Awning means a temporary hood or cover
that projects from the wall of a building,
and which can be retracted, folded or collapsed
against the face of the supporting building.
Awning may extend in any required yard
setback a maximum of five (5) feet.
(2.6 feet in the supplementary regulations)
Sign, Banner means a sign which is made out of a paper, cloth or plastic-like consistency,
affixed to a building, vehicle, poles, or other supporting structures by all four (4) corners.
Sign, Business means a sign which directs attention to a business or profession conducted, or to
a commodity or service sold, offered or manufactured, or to an entertainment offered on the
premises where the sign is located.
Sign, Business Directory means a sign which 1r
identifies the names of specific businesses L 11 I
located in a shopping center, medical center 1 j
and professional office and which is located on l I�
the premises of the shopping center so identified.
PP g PURR,ii1L'iltillt''r
18
Sign, Campaign means a temporary sign announcing, promoting, or supporting political
candidates or issues in connection with any national, state, or local election.
Sign, Canopy - Any sign that is affixed to a
projection or extension of a building or structure
of a building, erected in such as manner as to
provide a shelter or cover over the approach toany entrance of a store, building or place of assembly. 1.111171
plastic, or structural protective cover over a
door, entrance, window, or outdoor service area.
Sign, Changeable Copy, - a sign or portion thereof with characters, letters, or illustrations that
can be changed or rearranged without altering the face or the surface of the sign.
Sign, Construction means a temporary sign erected on the premises on which construction is
taking place, during the period of such construction, indicating the names of the architects,
engineers, landscape architects, contractors or similar artisans, and the owners, financial
supporters, sponsors, and similar individuals or firms having a role or interest with respect to the
situation or project.
Sign, Development Identification means a permanent ground low profile sign which identifies
a specific residential, industrial, commercial or office development and which is located on the
premises of the development which it identifies.
't' EAST for r-!
Sign, Directional means a sign erected on IMEMEMIE
private property for the purpose of
Receiving.
directing pedestrian or vehicular traffic ,,,EST 1131
onto or about the property upon which such -Employee park
sign is located, including signs marking
entrances and exits, circulation direction, mr --
parking areas, and pickup and delivery areas.
Sign, Display Area means the area within a single
continuous perimeter enclosing the extreme limits Sfigg6
or the actual sign message surface, including any
structural elements outside the limits of each sign
forming an integral part of the sign. The stipulated
maximum sign display area for a sign refers to a ';,.,�.;
single facing. ;
Sign, Festive Flag/Banner - a flag or •
--- P
banner constructed of cloth, canvas or :r
light fabric, that is hung from a light t`=
pole. The flag/banner shall contain no
19
advertising except for cultural events,
special holidays/seasons, etc.
Sign, Flag - any fabric banner used as a symbol of a government political subdivision or other
identity. Corporation flags shall not exceed 12 square feet and may be flown in tandem with the
state or national flag. Large flags flown in high winds may cause a noise nuisance and are
subject to removal upon complaint.
Sign, Flashing means any directly or indirectly illuminated sign which exhibits changing natural
or artificial light or color effects by any means what so ever.
Sign,Freestanding/Pole/Pylon,means any non-movable sign not affixed to a building but erected
upon a pole, post or other similar support so that the bottom edge of the sign display area is eight
(8) feet or more above the ground elevation.
Sign, Governmental means a sign erected and maintained pursuant to and in discharge of any
governmental functions, or required by law, ordinance or other governmental regulation.
•
Sign, Ground low profile business means a 1 Tff,1'll1LL
business sign affixed directly to the ground,
with the sign display area standing not
greater than two (2) feet above the ground.
Sign, Holiday decoration means a temporary sign in the nature of decorations, clearly incidental
to and customarily and commonly associated with any national, local or religious holiday.
Sign, Home occupation means a sign containing only the name and occupation of a permitted
home occupation not to exceed 2 square feet. This is also a nameplate sign.
Sign, Illuminated means a sign lighted by or exposed to artificial lighting either by lights on or
in the sign or directed towards the sign.
Sign,Informational means a sign containing descriptions of major points of interest, government
institutions or other public services such as hospitals, sports facilities, etc.
Sign, Institutional means a sign which identifies the name and other characteristics of a public
or private institution of the site where the sign is located.
Sign, Integral means a sign constructed as
to be an integral portion of the building -
of which it forms a part.
Sign, Integral Roof, means any sign
20
erected or constructed as an integral or
essentially integral part of a normal roof tirri
structure of any design, such that no part - -
of the sign extends vertically above the -
,sr:: --=
highest portion of the roof and such that • �-
no part of the sign is separated from the
rest of the roof by a space of more than
six (6) inches.
Sign, Marquee means a sign which is mounted, painted on, or attached to any projection or
extension of a building that is designated in such a manner as to provide shelter or cover over
the approach to any entrance of the building.
Sign, Menu Board means a sign that is used to advertise the product available at a fast food
restaurant.
Sign, Motion means any sign or part of a sign which changes physical position by any movement
or rotation of which gives the visual impression of such movement or rotation.
Sign, Nameplate means a sign, located on the premises, which bears the name and/or address of
the occupant of the building or premises.
Sign, Non-Conforming, a sign that does not conform to the requirements of this ordinance.
Sign, Off-Premise. an advertising sign which directs attention to a use, product, commodity or
services not related to the premises on which it is located.
Sign, On-Premise, a sign which directs attention to a business, commodity, product, use, service
or other activity which is sold, offered or conducted on the premises upon which the sign is
located.
Sign, Portable, means a sign designed so as to be movable from one (1) location to another, and
that is not permanently affixed to a building, structure, or the ground. Including but not limited
to, signs designed to be transported by means of wheels, sign converted to A-Frames, menu and
sandwich board signs, and signs attached to or painted on vehicles parked and visible from the
public right-of-way unless said vehicle is used in the normal day-to-day operations.
Sign,Private Sale or Event means a temporary sign advertising private sales or personal property
such as a house sale, garage sale and the like or private nonprofit events such as picnic, carnival,
bazaar, game night, art fair, or craft show.
Sign, Projecting means a sign that is wholly or partly dependent upon a building for support and
which projects more than twelve (12) inches from such building.
21
Sign, Real Estate means a sign pertaining to the sale or lease of the premises, or a portion of the
premises, on which the sign is located.
.IM
Sign, Roof means a sign that is mounted on
the roof of a building or which is wholly ,iili4
dependent upon a building for support and 1 II-•
which projects above the roof line of a 1
building with a flat roof, the eave lute •
_.1; i
of a building with a gambrel, gable or hip I :i-t F
roof or the deck line of a building with a !;1, I
mansard roof. ' 0:
Sign, Temporary means a sign designed or A
`
intended to be displayed for a short period
of time. This includes items such as banners,
pennants, flags, beacons, sandwich, or
balloons or other air or gas filled figures. E
Sign, Wall means a sign attached to or
erected against the wall of a building or _
structure with the exposed face of the
sign in a plane approximately parallel iso 49ffr Ata x asdriealmilirtalr
to the face of the wall, and which ,
� r..,
does not project more than twelve (12) lg
=IL_
inches from such building or structure.
Wall signs shall not include product io
advertising. Wall signs shall includeo ,6,414
tenant identification, tenant logo, center -N 1 ,a II am= r;i
name, or any combination of the three.
Sign, Window means sign, pictures, symbols,
or combination thereof, designed to
communicate information about an activity, _ ,.- I
business, commodity, event, sale or service, 5.,, A
4E'
that is placed inside a window or upon the -
a —
window panes or glass and is visible from
the exterior of the window.
24/►.n\b\si94gn.ora
5/10/94
22
1.
A CITY OF
i
t .01 CIIANBASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director
DATE: June 28, 1994
SUBJ: Amending CBD, Central Business District to Allow Schools as a Permitted Use
BACKGROUND
The CBD district has the largest variety of permitted uses than any other district in the city
(see attached). Within this district are two uses which relate to schools: cultural facilities
and convention and conference facilities. Currently, uses within the CBD district include a
driver's training school and a music and dance school. The previous Planning Director had
reviewed a request from the Chaska School District #112 and St. Hubert's to locate a school
in the vacated Kenny's Building. Mr. Krauss, the previous director, had recommended
approval of the request based on this interpretation that a school would fall into the definition
of cultural facilities or the convention and conference facilities. When staff was asked to sign
off on the building permit application for this use, a narrower interpretation was given and it
was felt that the school did not fall into either one of these definitions . It was reviewed with
Roger Knutson, the city attorney. He confirmed that neither of the definitions were suitable
in defining the school use and recommended that we amend the CBD district to allow for
schools within the district.
ANALYSIS
The CBD district has 31 different permitted uses. The proposed school building's use was
most recently a specialty retail or supermarket use (Kenny's Market). The school district is
looking for a temporary location for five classrooms. St. Hubert's School is looking for a
temporary location for 3 classrooms. Both schools have moved forward with requests to
locate in the building. They have signed a lease with the building owner. Staff feels
comfortable with the school use at this location and believes that it is consistent with other
uses within the district. Staff supports the school as a permitted use. There will be no
exterior remodeling done to the building. A site plan review would not be required because
Planning Commission
June 28, 1994
Page 2
there will only be interior remodeling as noted under section 20-108(3). After three years
when the lease expires, St. Hubert's has the option to purchase the building or they may
vacate and no longer use the building. At that time, the building may be used as one of the
other permitted uses within the district.
Staff is recommending approval of the amendment to the CBD District to allow for schools as
a permitted use within the district.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission amend the CBD District as shown on the
attached amendment.
ATTACHMENTS
1. CBD District uses.
2. City Code Amendment.
ZONING § 20-732
Sec. 20-716. Interim uses.
The following are interim uses in the "BH" District:
•
(1) Churches.
(2) Temporary outdoor display of merchandise for sale.
(3) Farmers markets. •
(Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90)
Secs. 20-717-20-730. Reserved.
ARTICLE XVIII. "CBD" CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
Sec. 20-731. Intent.
The intent of the "CBD" District is to provide for downtown business development
supporting a strong central business district while enhancing the overall character of the
community in conformance with downtown redevelopment plan, goals and objectives.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 12(5-12-1), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20.732. Permitted uses.
The following uses are permitted in a "CBD" District:
(1) Bowling center.
(2) Retail shops.
(3i Offices.
(4) Standard restaurants.
(5) Liquor stores.
(6) Entertainment.
(7) Convention and conference facilities.
(8) Financial institutions.
(9) Health care facilities. .
(10) Hotels.
(11) Specialty retail (including but not limited to jewelry,book, stationery,bible,camera,
pets, arts and crafts, sporting goods).
(12) Supermarkets.
(13) State-licensed day care center as part of shopping center.
(14) Personal service establishments.
Supp.No.3
1224.1
§ 20.732 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(15, Shopping center.
(16) Health and recreation clubs. -
(17 1 Fast food restaurants as part of shopping center. •
(18) Utility service.
(19' Personal services.
(20) Apparel sales.
(21) Bars and taverns.
(22) Clubs and lodges.
(23) Convenience stores without gas pumps.
(24 1 Cultural facilities.
(251 Department stores.
(26) Home furnishings.
(27' Newspaper offices.
(261 Multiple family dwellings, including senior citizen housing.
(29, Print shops.
Supp.No.3
1224.2
•
ZONING § 20.736
(30, Community center.
(31 Hardware goods.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 12(5-12-2), 12.15-86) .
Sec. 20-733. Permitted accessory uses.
The following are permitted accessory uses in a "CBD-' District
'1• Parking lots and ramps.
(2. Signs. .
d. No SO. AT; V. 12(5.12.3), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-734. Conditional uses.
The following are conditional uses in a "CBD" District:
(1) Reserved.
(2 1 Freestanding fast food restaurants.
(31 Reserved.
(4 Convenience store with gas pumps.
(Ord No. 80. Art. V. § 12(5-12-4), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 120. § 4(9), 2-12-90)
State law reference—Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595.
Sec. 20-735. Lo: requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in a "CBD" District subject to
additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter:
.1. The minimum lot area is ten thousand (10,000)square feet.
'2 The minimum lot frontage is one hundred (100) feet, except lots fronting on a
cul-de-sac shall have a minimum frontage of sixty(60)feet in all districts.
(3, The minimum lot depth is one hundred(100)feet.
(4) There is no maximum lot coverage.
(5' There are no minimum setback requirements for front, rear or side yard.
(61 There are no maximum height requirements for principal or accessory structures.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 12(5-12-5), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-736. Interim uses.
The following are interim uses in the "CBD" District:
(1) Churches.
Supp. No. 2
1225
§ 20.736 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(2) Temporary outdoor display of merchandise for sale.
(3) Farmers markets.
(Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90)
Secs. 20.737 3-750. Reserved.
ARTICLE XIX. "BG" GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
Sec. 20-751. Intent.
The intent of the "BG" District is to provide for downtown fringe commercial develop-
ment identified as the least restricted business district.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 13(5-13.1), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-752. Permitted uses.
The following uses are permitted in a "BG" District:
Bowling center.
(_, Day care center.
(3 1 Convenience stores without gas pumps.
4 Standard restaurants.
Entertainment.
Apparel sales.
1-, Personal services.
•„) Health and recreation clubs.
'9) Specialty retail (including but not limited to jewelry,book, stationery,bible, camera,
pets, arts and crafts, sporting goods).
(10) Small appliance and similar repair shops.
(11) Funeral homes.
(12) Financial institutions, including drive-in service.
(13( Newspaper and small printing offices.
(14) Private clubs and lodges.
(15) Miniature golf.
(16) Veterinary clinic.
(17) Animal hospital.
Supp. No. 2
1226
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
ARTICLE XVIII, CBD, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
Section 1. Section 20-732, Permitted Uses in the CBD District is hereby amended by
adding the following:
(30) schools.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this day of ,
1994.
ATTEST:
Don Ashworth, City Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on .)
C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 7/6/94
\ I• HA 17 H A! !
E CC DATE: 7/25/94
CASE #: 94-4 SUB 94-2 REZ
�. . - -•
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Preliminary plat approval to subdivide 15.99 acres of land into 22 single-family
lots; Variance from lot setbacks; and Rezoning from RR, Rural Residential to
I... RSF, Single Family Residential
LOCATION: 1420 and 1430 Lake Lucy Road - A portion of the Southwest Quarter of the
Q
V Northwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 116 North, Range 23 West
APPLICANT: Coffman Development Company
0. William D. Coffman, Jr., President
Q, 117 Sentinel Building, 5151 Edina Industrial Boulevard
Q Edina, MN 55439
PRESENT ZONING: Rural Residential, RR
ACREAGE: 15.99 acres
DENSITY: gross: 1.37 net: 1.84 (excludes wetlands and right-of-way)
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N - RSF, single-family homes
S - RR, vacant across Lake Lucy Road
E - RSF, single-family homes within Curry Farms subdivision
r„,„ W - RR, single family homes across Yosemite
QWATER AND SEWER: Available to the site
w PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site is densely wooded in parts and open in the central portion.
It contains some steep slopes which separate the eastern and western halves of the development as
well as all or part of three wetland areas.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4.0 Units/Ac.)
�, __ f I I ?
I / - . % I j I i j- L
t
,yin% y(,c.Np .l.c i N lj i =I 1, _.•.• af[IJ •..e ` CMo/5*wS I
.,� \ _ �• ' Iinu LAA'
Baa Imo' f
t •_ F t, � .. � _ pc
ff _ illir •+ �`:[�si►�a,rrr. _ s. M' '' r Qp Lis.
fir. [_
cillia r NI'7-4 ___. .
w /PARK
•
CAAses
.. ` +�. moi, • ...es., __ PARA• , lag-
•7..17.1 -
[`F��.� � _ ,--.,,,..\V
r.
'�� tib. I ' '- .1,...: �I� 1��,
44r ,. 9 ell •i:. fitaz) HIP,, . -
L4 Tgiar
tifit(ri
- . //� + 1- .., 4``77)s ,. PARR
•,) . 1.6:: teo" ....1., t ... -, \;,-,L
_.7...... ,,,k...____ _:.
__7.___.,„?
,-,__.,;,,,,..,_..----,.. %..,
.,i------. a.11.fir
0
1. LI A'E LUCY H F '"� .�� 1.27.•-"•-::::
.
•
-7-iv'
�� t� �ill
.NIA:44.0^Firir4,1"-j.'-:::74,1c• ,. �,s�.�O.�F. �tet'
SH
cV
{/ K �r
+ Civ 0 _ IC1 LAKE ANN / 6.491111/f174; ms.• '_ . J
r • sn L.� h i
�.; - . . T;v� Imo.-._
`� �` I AXEANN i i t y 3i�_`
PARK j
:~D•? V F
j I -.. -: , :i a. '
—- / r, tt .1
I . e . a
MiNalliWIlL" IF: ' 1-17 7-7---•
- -- .-- _....;Z: 111111141A.11- -".r -t C, 1. j
i i
I - 6112\--1;" ab_
111 i
_ ,a fl '.GaGF:;; T
MIG/Al�
L,
J - P _ _ •GID ;
,l---- a Ccs• s� lb
I \ 1.4,,,c'e
�.. ' PARA
1 li,..
4,
-aMQ1:•• /f/IAr li
�--_— r
..,
. : / —�% ..1-,T -� " 'S 3 LAKE' Sl/SAM ifs,/
./ ? .. ,,. .7 ./ J C••4. • li.• L., ..._..) . \+
ei,„/"....... • 1 :0.0.1." i • .... i \..... •=de l' . ,i'„,,-,1.0^.22-.:• .--;
" 1 ' r-7--- •
ti — .s<
Coffman Development Company
Shadow Ridge
July 6, 1994
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing the rezoning of a 15.99 acre parcel of land from RR, Rural
Residential to RSF, Single Family Residential consistent with the land use plan designation of
residential - low density, preliminary subdivision approval, and a side yard setback variance
of 10 feet to permit a 10 foot side setback on flag lots (Lots 5, 9 and 10). The proposed
subdivision would create 22 single-family lots at a net density of 1.8 units per acre (excludes
right-of-way and wetlands) with an average net lot area of approximately 23,000 square feet.
The applicant is dedicating approximately 2.15 acres for right-of-way including additional
right-of-way for Yosemite and Lake Lucy Road. The site is densely wooded in parts and
open in the east-central portion. It contains some steep slopes as well as all or part of three
wetland areas. Severe slopes separate the eastern and western parts of the development, are
in the northeast corner of the development, and are also located around the eastern wetland
area. Significant stands of trees are located along the central slope that need to be protected.
To this end, staff is recommending that a 20 foot front setback be permitted on Block 1,
excluding Lots 1 and 17. Staff is also concerned about the severe slopes around the eastern
wetlands and encourages the developer to incorporate bluff protection guidelines in the
development.
Staff is concerned with the suitability and desirability of providing building pads between the
roads and the wetlands. On Block 2, staff does not believe there is sufficient developable
area to support five lots. The southerly wetland is classified as a natural wetland and as such
all efforts should be made to protect and enhance it. The applicant is proposing that the city
accept a zero (0) foot buffer and 40 foot building setback in this area. Code requires a
minimum 10 foot buffer strip and a 40 foot building setback from the wetland. Staff believes
that a 20 or 30 foot buffer strip is more appropriate between the roadway and the wetland and
that the 40 foot building setback should be maintained. Buffer strips are by their very nature
not to be altered and should remain in their natural state. Staff is concerned that there is not
sufficient developable area in Block 2 to support five (5) lots. We believe that there is only
sufficient area to provide acceptable building pads for 3 or perhaps 4 homes. Furthermore,
water and sewer service is not currently available along Yosemite Avenue.
Staff is recommending preliminary plat approval of Shadow Ridge subject to the revisions
and conditions contained in this staff report.
BACKGROUND
On April 9, 1990, this property was brought into the MUSA by a resolution of the
Chanhassen City Council after a petition by the property owners. The Metropolitan Council
approved an amendment to the MUSA line on June 14, 1990. This 2000 Land Use Plan
Coffman Development Company
Shadow Ridge
July 6, 1994
Page 3
amendment permitted these properties to be served by sewer services that were available
adjacent to the property.
WETLANDS
Three wetlands have been identified on-site and they are described as follows:
Basin 1 is located in the southeastern corner of the site. The wetland extends off-site to the
east; approximately 0.7 acre of wetland is on site. The wetland is classified as a natural
wetland under the City's Wetland Ordinance. The basin is best described as a combination of
an inland deep and shallow fresh meadow with a diversity of species and marginal impacts
due to agricultural and urban development.
Basin 2 is located just east of Yosemite Avenue along the southern edge of the property. The
wetland is approximately 0.8 acre in size according to the wetland delineation performed by
Svoboda and Associates. The delineation on the west side of the basin is appears to go
beyond the trail edge. Since the wetland delineation was performed last March, staff
recommends that this edge be re-evaluated now that the wetland parameters (vegetation, soils,
and hydrology) are more apparent. An 18-inch pipe discharges into this wetland from the
wetland on the west side of Yosemite. The wetland was classified as an ag/urban wetland
during the City inventory, however, this wetland is best classified as a natural wetland under
the City's Wetland Ordinance. The basin is described as an inland shallow fresh meadow.
The disturbance to this wetland has been due to the construction and existence of Yosemite
Road and the horse trail use nearby, however, there does not appear to be excessive soil
erosion. sedimentation, or water quality degradation.
Basin 3 is located in the northeastern corner of the site. The wetland is approximately 0.4
acre in size. The wetland is classified as an ag/urban wetland under the City's Wetland
Ordinance. The basin is described as combination of a seasonally flooded basin and wooded
swamp. Land use disturbance to this wetland is similar to Basin 2, however, this wetland is
smaller and the degradation appears to be more substantial.
Buffer Strip
The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average
width of 20 feet. The principal structure setback is 40 feet measured from the outside edge
of the buffer strip.
The buffer strip width required for an ag/urban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum
average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback is 40 feet measured from the
outside edge of the buffer strip.
Coffman Development Company
Shadow Ridge
July 6, 1994
Page 4
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP)
The City has prepared a SWMP that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP
will serve as a tool to protect, preserve, and enhance its water resources. The plan identifies
the stormwater quantity and quality improvements from a regional perspective necessary to
allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies.
In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for
ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality
portion of the plan uses William Walker Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus
concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at
each drainage area based on projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of
improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus
reduction in priority water bodies.
In conjunction with final platting and the construction plan review process, staff will require
the applicant to supply drainage plans providing the pre-developed and post developed
drainage areas along with runoff calculations for pre-developed and post-developed
conditions. Storm water runoff from the site shall maintain the pre-developed conditions for
a 100-year, 24-hour storm duration. Water quality ponds shall be designed and constructed in
accordance with the Walker Pondnet model which essentially uses a 2.5-inch rainfall. In
addition, detailed drainage plans and calculations indicating drainage to individual catch
basins will also be required. The grading plan shall also reflect the normal and high water
elevations in the wetlands and storm water ponds for both pre-developed and post-developed
conditions.
Water Quality
The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality systems. The cash dedication
will be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus
load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be
based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are
calculated using the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50
per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since the applicant is proposing to construct the
water quality basin, these fees will be waived.
Water Quantity
The SWMP has established an assessment rate for different land uses based on an average,
city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed
SWMP trunk systems, culverts, and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for
temporary runoff storage. Single-family residential developments will have an assessment rate
Coffman Development Company
Shadow Ridge
July 6, 1994
Page 5
of $1,980 per acre. The proposed development would then be responsible for a water
quantity assessment fee of $27,720 assuming 14 acres of developable land. The City will
apply credits to the applicant's surface water quantity fees for construction of improvements
in accordance with the SWMP which include such items as outlet control devices, trunk storm
sewer pipes, ponding, etc.
DRAINAGE
The development is located within the Christmas Lake Watershed. The area is divided into
three natural drainage districts described as follows:
The first drainage district includes the majority of runoff for Block 1. This runoff is
proposed to be pre-treated to Walker Pondnet standards before it drains into the natural
wetland located in the easterly part of the site. The storm water quality basin is proposed to
be constructed along the western edge of the natural wetland. A natural buffer strip width
around the entire wetland on-site should range from 10 to 30 feet with an average width of 20
feet. The natural buffer strip between the storm water quality pond and the wetland be a
minimum of 20 feet since this area will be the heaviest area of impact to the wetland during
construction. This will move the storm water quality pond west approximately 15 feet, and
therefore, staff recommends constructing the pond on lots 10 and 11 in order to reduce the
impacts to the existing slopes. The pond should be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the
natural wetland. Side slopes can be designed as either 4:1 or 10:1 for the first 10 feet below
the normal water level and 3:1 thereafter for safety purposes. The storm sewer design
proposes two separate storm sewer lines to convey runoff to the storm water quality pond
before discharging to the natural wetland. The storm drainage system should be revised to
consolidate the storm discharge points to one point. This will require rerouting the storm
sewer from between Lots 15 and 16, Block 1 to tie into the storm sewer proposed in the cul-
de-sac. The inlet should be located at the north end of the pond and the outlet at the south
end of the pond. Storm water calculations should be submitted to the City to verify that the
treatment pond meets the Walker Pondnet standards.
The second drainage district includes a minor amount of runoff from lot 16 and the proposed
street from lot 16 to Lake Lucy Road. The storm runoff drains toward Lake Lucy Road. The
applicant will have to show that the runoff from this portion of the site can be accommodated
by the existing storm sewer system on Lake Lucy Road. Staff does not believe drainage from
this area will be excessive; however, it should be verified by the applicant's engineer.
The third drainage district includes the runoff from Block 2. This runoff drains into wetlands
along Yosemite and into a large wetland known as Clasen Lake north of the site. The runoff
from this area will be filtered through lawn areas and the buffer strip when development
occurs. At this time no pretreatment will be necessary. When Yosemite is upgraded this area
Coffman Development Company
Shadow Ridge
July 6, 1994
Page 6
may be considered for a pretreatment basin. The City's SWMP calls for a future 12-inch
storm sewer to convey the runoff from the northerly wetland to Clasen Lake. The drainage
between the wetlands along Yosemite may need modifications such as a storm sewer
connection as part of the development. If no development occurs in this area the
improvements still could be made and a credit given against the storm water quantity fees.
As a minimum, the applicant shall dedicate a drainage and utility easement over all wetlands
and drainageways.
GRADING
The existing site contains large wooded areas and is bordered by two large wetlands to the
west and east. Site elevations range from 1040 to the north to 994 at the wetlands. The site
does provide quite the challenge for development. The applicant is proposing a 60-foot wide
right-of-way and requesting 20-foot building setbacks which results in saving trees or
minimizing grading to retain the natural topographic features. The revised plan concurs with
staff revisions for the street alignment which resulted in the house pads being pulled back up
on top of the hill to minimize grading and impact to the areas containing trees. However,
significant grading is still proposed on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 to provide for lookout-type
dwellings. These lots are not conducive to lookouts and should be redesigned for rambler-
type dwellings and backyard drainage maintained in a sheet flow down the ridge versus the
proposed channelization between Lots 2 and 3, Block 1.
The applicant is also proposing one lot immediately adjacent to Lake Lucy Road (Lot 17)
which is located on a very steep slope with some scattered trees. This lot is immediately
adjacent to the natural wetland as well. Staff does not believe that this lot is feasibly able to
be built on without mass regrading as well as tree loss. Staff is also concerned about
driveway access onto Lake Lucy Road. The applicant is proposing numerous retaining walls
in an attempt to limit grading and tree loss throughout the development.
The plans also proposes a storm water quality treatment pond adjacent to the natural wetland
on Lots 11, 12, 14 and 15. It is recommended that the pond be moved to Lots 10 and 11 to
fit better with the existing terrain.
There are a few areas on-site that meet the City's definition of a bluff. These areas are where
the slope rises at least 25 feet above the toe of the bluff and where the grade of the slope
from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet above the toe of the bluff averages 30 percent or
greater. The areas where the average slope is less than 18 percent over a distance of 50 feet
or more shall not be considered part of the bluff. Although this site is not included in the
bluff impact zones within the City, staff encourages the applicant to follow the grading and
structure setback guidelines designated for bluff impact zones.
Coffman Development Company
Shadow Ridge
July 6, 1994
Page 7
EROSION CONTROL
The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). The plan shall be submitted to the
City for review and formal approval. The City has adopted a Best Management Practice
Handbook which the applicant can purchase from the City at a cost of $25 to assist with the
design process.
UTILITIES
Municipal sanitary sewer and water is available from Lake Lucy Road. The applicant has
proposed to extend sanitary sewer from the existing line through the rear portion of Lot 16
and extending it between Lots 15 and 16 to the proposed road. This will result in significant
grading on a very steep slope along with some additional tree removal. Staff has reviewed
the utility layout and believes the sanitary sewer can be extended from the proposed
intersection of Lake Lucy Road and the new road. This will require relaying a small portion
of the sanitary sewer line in the boulevard of Lake Lucy Road but this will eliminate the need
to go through the rear yards of Lots 15 and 16, Block 1. Staff believes, from a maintenance
and site impact standpoint, this alignment is much more feasible. The applicant is also
proposing to extend storm sewer in the same location of the sanitary sewer between Lots 15
and 16, Block 1. Staff has previously indicated in the staff report these two storm sewer lines
should be consolidated into one discharge point. This would also eliminate the need to go
down between the houses on Lots 15 and 16 and disrupt a very steep slope as well as remove
two additional very large trees, if not more. There is, however, an additional cost to
consolidate the storm sewer lines of approximately $8,000 to $10,000. We still believe that
this is a feasible alternative to minimize impact to the property owners in the future from a
maintenance standpoint as well as preserve additional trees and maintain the integrity of the
steep slopes adjacent to the natural wetland. Watermain is proposed to be extended from the
existing watermain in Lake Lucy Road.
Staff typically reviews access and utility service to parcels adjacent to development. To the
north of this development lies a large tract of land which does not currently have City sewer
and water available to it. As a part of this development, it is recommended the applicant
extend sewer and water service along the common property line of one of the lots (5, 6, 7, 8
or 9) to provide future sewer and water service to the parcel to the north. We believe future
street access to this development would be from Yosemite Avenue. The parcel currently
gains access through a private driveway from Yosemite Avenue. We also believe the
applicant should dedicate a 30-foot wide strip of land across the northerly 30 feet of Lot 1,
Block 2 for future road right-of-way to access the site to the north of this development.
Coffman Development Company
Shadow Ridge
July 6, 1994
Page 8
The applicant is also proposing to develop 5 lots adjacent to Yosemite Avenue (Lots 1
through 5, Block 2). Currently, no City services exist along Yosemite Avenue adjacent to
these lots. City sewer and water ends just north of Lot 1, Block 2 in Yosemite. However,
the sanitary sewer is approximately 6 to 8 feet deep in that location and therefore cannot be
extended to service these lots without the use of ejector pumps in the homes. Staff believes
that eventually sanitary sewer service will be brought up to the intersection of Lake Lucy
Road and Yosemite from the south at which time the sewer could be extended north on
Yosemite to service these parcels and parcels to the west of Yosemite. Therefore, at this time
we feel that development of these lots should be considered premature and should be platted
as an outlot until City sewer and water service becomes available and at which time Yosemite
Avenue will be required to be upgraded to urban standards.
According to the utility billing department, the existing home at 1420 Yosemite is connected
to City water only. It appears this home is to be razed as a part of the development
construction. The existing home at 1430 which is located on Lot 1, Block 1, is currently
connected to City sewer but not water. According to City ordinance, the property owner may
retain his well until such time as it fails, at which time the property owner is required to
connect to City water. The existing septic system and well at 1420 Lake Lucy Road will
have to be properly abandoned per City/State codes in conjunction with site grading.
Since the development will include the installation of public utility and street improvements,
the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide
the necessary financial security and administration fees to guarantee compliance with the
conditions of approval. The applicant shall submit to the City for review and formal City
Council approval detailed construction plans of the street and utility improvements. All street
and utility improvements should be designed and constructed in accordance to the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
STREETS
The site is proposed to take access from Lake Lucy Road. According to the City's
comprehensive guide plan, Lake Lucy Road is considered a collector street and therefore
limits driveway access points whenever other feasible options are available. Unfortunately,
on Lot 17, Block 1 due to topographic constraints the only option would be to provide access
from Lake Lucy Road. Staff is comfortable with allowing a driveway access to this lot as
long as the sight distance along Lake Lucy Road meets or exceeds MnDOT standards for the
posted design speed. The proposed intersection of Lake Lucy Road and the new street is
located at the crest of the hill on Lake Lucy Road. Commission members may be somewhat
familiar with the sight distance problem that currently exists at the intersection of Yosemite
and Lake Lucy Road. There may be a similar concern for this proposed intersection. The
applicant's engineer should verify that adequate sight lines are provided in accordance with
Coffman Development Company
Shadow Ridge
July 6, 1994
Page 9
MnDOT's sight distance requirements for the posted speeds. This may or may not require
adjusting the proposed intersection one way or the other along Lake Lucy Road.
Staff has worked with the applicant in realigning the north/south street easterly by
approximately 20 feet in an effort to minimize grading and tree loss on Lots 2 through 5,
Block 1. Staff also recommended adjusting the private driveway at the end of the cul-de-sac
which required losing one of the lots. However, the applicant has not followed staff's
recommendation and instead has shifted the building pad of Lot 9, Block 1 further up the hill
to minimize grading and tree loss. However, we still believe that this portion of the property
is very steep and wooded and should be evaluated further and quite possible eliminate one of
the lots in accordance with staff's previous recommendations.
LANDSCAPINGrTREE PRESERVATION
The applicant has prepared tree preservation calculations for the development. Existing
canopy coverage is 6.72 acres. Based on a net developable acreage of 13.06 acres, this
represents a base line canopy coverage of 51 percent. Using the canopy coverage matrix, this
development will be required to provide 35 percent canopy coverage or 4.57 acres of canopy
coverage. The applicant has prepared a worst case canopy coverage estimates for the
development which estimates a canopy coverage retention of 4.23 acres. Based on the review
of the site, the tree preservation area, and the applicant's statement that individual lots will be
custom graded, staff believes that the applicant will be able to meet the canopy coverage
requirements.
The applicant is proposing an extensive wetland and tree preservation areas (attached) within
the development encompassing approximately 6.4 acres. This area consists of approximately
1.89 acres of wetlands and 4.5 acres of tree preservation area. The tree preservation area
represents approximately 98 percent of the required canopy coverage area. As part of the
final plat, the tree preservation areas would need to be delineated as part of the final grading
plan. In addition, the applicant, through the Woodland Management Plan, should designate
lots that would be custom graded and incorporate any tree relocation proposed on site, and
other methods to be used to ensure tree survivability and health.
Staff has two concerns with the proposed tree preservation areas. First, there is extensive
grading proposed within the tree preservation area of Lot 2, Block 1. Secondly, the
proposed tree preservation area in the rear of Lots 11, 12, 14, and 15, Block 1 enclose
approximately one-half of the proposed storm water ponding area. Unless specifically
addressed in a woodland management plan or as part of a reforestation program, no grading
or alterations are permitted in these areas. Staff recommends that these tree preservation
areas be re-evaluated and either be revised or realigned to avoid the grading areas or have the
Coffman Development Company
Shadow Ridge
July 6, 1994
Page 10
grading plan revised to stay out of the tree preservation areas or have the woodland
management plan address the replanting of these areas.
Prior to the final plat approval, a Woodland Management Plan and Tree Preservation Plan
must be developed by a landscape professional pursuant to section 18-61(d) of the City Code.
This plan must be submitted to the city and be approved by staff.
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
The Park and Recreation Commission held their public hearing on this development on June
28, 1994. Their recommendation is to require the payment of park and trail fees as specified
by City Ordinance in lieu of land dedication and trail development..
REZONING
The rezoning of the property from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Single Family Residential is
consistent with the 2000 Land Use Plan designation of the property as Residential - Low
Density which permits net densities of 1.2 to 4.0 units per acre. The proposed net density of
1.8 units per acre is well within the permitted density range.
COMPLIANCE TABLE
LOT, BLOCK WIDTH (ft) DEPTH (ft) AREA (sq ft) WETLAND
SETBACK, ft
from buffer,
and the buffer
Code 90 125 15,000 Natural:40, plus
20 average,
range 10 - 30;
Ag/Urban: 40,
plus 10 avg
1, 1 240 146 34,600 NA
1, 2 100 181.5 18,300 NA
1, 3 100 212.5 22,800 NA
1, 4 75* 210 24,000 NA
1, 5 135 221 34,450 NA
Coffman Development Company
Shadow Ridge
July 6, 1994
Page 11
1, 6 85* 134 15,450 NA
1, 7 115 129.5 15,225 NA
1, 8 46* 141 15,550 NA
1, 9 202 170 22,545 NA
1, 10 202 297 31,950 40, plus 20 avg
1, 11 50* 282 27,680 40, plus 20 avg
1, 12 84* 149 15,170 40, plus 20 avg
1, 13 105 130 15,900 NA
1, 14 100 152.5 15,380 40, plus 20 avg
1, 15 100 170 17,030 40, plus 20 avg
1, 16 123 140 17,220 40, plus 20 avg
1, 17 254 230 55,005 40, plus 20 avg
2, 1 138 338 47,250 40, plus 10 avg
2, 2 90 331 29,550 40, plus 10 avg
2, 3 90 317 28,300 40, plus 10 avg
2, 4 90 301 34,350 40, plus 10 avg
2, 5 240 292.5 70,450 40, plus 10 avg
Notes: *Meets minimum width at building setback; # does not meet minimum lot area; NA -
not applicable
FINDINGS
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single
Family District. Staff supports the granting of variances for side and front yards in
Block 1 in an effort to preserve trees, steep slopes, and wetlands.
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional
plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Coffman Development Company
Shadow Ridge
July 6, 1994
Page 11
1, 6 85* 134 15,450 NA
1, 7 115 129.5 15,225 NA
1, 8 46* 141 15,550 NA
1, 9 202 170 22,545 NA
1, 10 202 297 31,950 40, plus 20 avg
1, 11 50* 282 27,680 40, plus 20 avg
1, 12 84* 149 15,170 40, plus 20 avg
1. 13 105 130 15,900 NA
1. 14 100 152.5 15,380 40, plus 20 avg
1, 15 100 170 17,030 40, plus 20 avg
1, 16 123 140 17,220 40, plus 20 avg
1, 17 254 230 55,005 40, plus 20 avg
2, 1 138 338 47,250 40, plus 10 avg
2, 2 90 331 29,550 40, plus 10 avg
2, 3 90 317 28,300 40, plus 10 avg
2. 4 90 301 34,350 40, plus 10 avg
2, 5 240 292.5 70,450 40, plus 10 avg
Notes: *Meets minimum width at building setback; # does not meet minimum lot area; NA -
not applicable
FINDINGS
Variance Section 18-22
1. The Hardship is not a mere inconvenience.
Finding: City staff has recommended that the applicant pursue these variances in
order to fullfill policies for preservation of trees, wetlands, and severe slopes.
Coffman Development Company
Shadow Ridge
July 6, 1994
Page 12
2. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surrounding, shape, or topographical
conditions of the land.
Finding: The property contains part or all of three wetlands, is densely wooded and
contains areas of steep slopes. The granting of the requested variances will allow the
development to minimize environmental impacts on the site.
3. The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not
generally applicable to other property.
Finding: The property contains part or all of three wetlands, is densely wooded and
contains areas of steep slopes. Under any circumstances, this site would be difficult to
develop. The confluence of these conditions make the development of this site
unique.
4. The granting of the variance will not be substantially determental to the public health,
is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and
comprehensive plan.
Finding: The granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the public health in
the these varainces will assist in preservation of trees, wetlands and steep slopes. City
policy requires that development preserve to the maximum extent feasible uniques
environmental features and, therefore, the granting of these variances is consitent with
this chapter, the zoning ordinance, and the comprehensive plan.
Preliminary Plat Section 18-39
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single
Family District. Staff supports the granting of variances for side and front yards in
Block 1 in an effort to preserve trees, steep slopes, and wetlands.
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional
plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable plans.
3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm
water drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Coffman Development Company
Shadow Ridge
July 6, 1994
Page 13
Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions and
revisions specified in this report. Of special concern are the steep slopes around the
easterly wetland and separating the east and west portions of this development. The
applicant shall attempt to minimize the grading in these areas and to move house pads
away from the top of the slope. Type IlI erosion control will be required adjacent to
all wetland areas and on steep slopes.
4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this
chapter;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. Block
2 shall be platted as an outlot until such time as sewer and water is extended from the
intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Yosemite Avenue. The number of lots that can
be developed in Block 2 will have to be evaluated at a future date. Of special concern
are the steep slopes around the easterly wetland and separating the east and west
portions of this development. The applicant shall attempt to minimize the grading in
these areas and to move house pads away from the top of the slope.
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage:
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage provided the
recommended conditions of approval are met.
6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but
rather will expand and provide all necessary easements.
7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
b. Lack of adequate roads.
c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban
infrastructure. Staff recommends that Block 2 be platted as a outlot until such
Coffman Development Company
Shadow Ridge
July 6, 1994
Page 14
time as sewer and water service can be provided from the intersection of Lake
Lucy Road and Yosemite.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Subdivision #94-4 and
Rezoning 94-2 rezoning the property from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Single Family
Residential, consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, preliminary plat approval creating
17 lots and one outlot on 15.99 acres of land, approve a 10 foot side setback variance from
the 20 foot side setback requirement for flag lots for Lots 5, 9, and 10, Block 1, and grant a
variance of 10 feet from the 30 foot front setback requirement for Lots 2 through 16, Block 1
to permit a twenty foot front setback subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in
accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-
developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events. Normal water level and
high water level calculations in existing basins and individual storm sewer calculations
between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch
basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall
be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
2. The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of
$27,700 assuming 14 acres of developable land. Water quality assessments will be
waived if the applicant constructs an on-site Walker pretreatment basin. These fees
will be negotiated based on the developers contribution to the City's SWMP for the
site. SWMP fees for water quantity and quality are pending formal approval of the
SWMP by City Council. If there are any modifications to the fees, they will be
changed prior to final plat.
3. Stormwater runoff from Lot 16 and the access road is shown to discharge to Lake
Lucy Road. The applicant shall demonstrate that the runoff from this portion of land
can be handled by the existing drainage system on Lake Lucy Road. Detailed storm
calculations shall be provided to the City Engineer.
4. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of all drain tiles found
during construction. Drain tile shall be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City
Engineer.
Coffman Development Company
Shadow Ridge
July 6, 1994
Page 15
5. The applicant's engineer shall prepare documentation that the sight distance at the
proposed intersection of Lake Lucy Road and the new street and the driveway access
for Lot 17, Block 1 is in accordance to MnDOT's sight line requirements for the
posted speed limit. If either access point does not meet MnDOT requirements, the
applicant shall adjust the points accordingly. Should the access point not be able to be
adjusted, access shall be denied.
6. The existing home on Lot 1, Block 1 will be required to connect to City water once
the well on the property fails.
7. The applicant shall work with staff in determining the most feasible location to extend
sanitary sewer and water services to the north (Stewart parcel).
8. The grading plan shall be revised to limit the house types on Lots 2, 3, 6 and 7, Block
1 to rambler style homes and Lots 4, 5, 8 and 13, Block 1 to side/corner walkout type
dwelling. The lot grading on Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 shall be revised to maintain the
existing "sheet flow" to the west. Concentrated or funnelled runoff shall be
prohibited.
9. The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be
abandoned in accordance with City and/or State codes.
10. The stormwater retention pond shall be relocated further to the northeast on Lots 10
and 11. The storm sewer system between Lots 15 and 16, Block 1 shall be redirected
within the proposed street and combined into one discharge point on Lot 11, Block 1.
11. Lots 1 through 5, Block 2 should be platted as an outlot due to the lack of adequate
utilities and street. This outlot would not be subdividable or buildable until Yosemite
Road is upgraded to the City's urban standard,.municipal sanitary sewer and water is
extended adjacent to the parcel, and wetland setback and buffer area issues are
resolved.
12. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated for all utility lines outside the plat.
The minimum easement width should be 20 feet.
13. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements
and compliance of the conditions of approval.
14. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and
Coffman Development Company
Shadow Ridge
July 6, 1994
Page 16
utility construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to staff for review and
formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat consideration.
15. The applicant shall apply for and obtain the necessary permits from the Watershed
District, DNR, Department of Health, MPCA and other appropriate regulatory agencies
and comply with their conditions of approval.
16. Upon completion of site grading, all disturbed areas shall be restored with seed and
disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks of completing the site grading
unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate
otherwise. All erosion control measures shall be in accordance to the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook.
17. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street
improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for
permanent ownership.
18. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's
wetland ordinance. The city will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction
begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign.
19. Prior to the final plat approval, a Woodland Management Plan and Tree preservation
Plan must be developed by a landscape professional pursuant to section 18-61(d) of
the City Code. This plan must be submitted to the city for staff approval.
20. The 20 foot front setback is granted on Lots 2 trough 16, Block 1 to move the
building pads away from the top of the slope and to preserve trees. The applicant
shall incorporate retaining walls and custom grading to assure that slopes and trees are
minimally impacted. Staff encourages the developer to incorporate bluff protection
guidelines in the development.
21. Pay park and trail fees as specified by city ordinance.
22. Submit revised utility plans for approval of locations of fire hydrants. Fire hydrant
spacing is 300 foot maximum.
23. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around all fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps,
trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated.
Coffman Development Company
Shadow Ridge
July 6, 1994
Page 17
24. Submit turning radius and cul-de-sac dimensions to the City Engineer and Fire
Marshal for approval.
25. Advise Fire Marshal of the status of water main and fire hydrant placement and
spacing on Yosemite Avenue, west of Lots 1 - 5, Block 2.
26. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of house pads, using standard
designations, and lowest level floor and garage elevations prior to final plat approval.
27. The tree preservation areas shall be delineated on the final grading plan as part of the
final plat approval. The tree preservation areas in Lots 2, 3, 11, 12, 14, and 15 shall
be re-evaluated and either be revised or realigned to avoid the grading areas, or have
the grading plan revised to stay out of the tree preservation areas, or have the
woodland management plan address the replanting of these areas.
Attachments
1. Development Review Application
2. Development Narrative by William D. Coffman, Jr.
3. Preliminary Plat
4. Preliminary Utility Plan
5. Preliminary Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan
6. Canopy Coverage Calculations
7. Wetland and Tree Preservation Areas
8. Letter from Schoell & Madson to Coffman Development dated 6/22/94 (Sight
Distance)
9. Memo from Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal dated 6/2/94
10. Memo from Steve Kirchman, Building Official dated 6/6/94
11. Letter from Joe Richter dated 6/1/94
12. Notice of Public Hearing and Mailing List
13. Preliminary plat dated June 22, 1994
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: (off/47,4"/ -Lv, /°/`7et 7 j/s',4^-j 1 OWNER: 7- 72-4,vcc /
ADDRESS: 5/5/ 5D/twit /i" "573274C fjL v2). ADDRESS: / i Z o /A/ct Lvc y , 091..
l(7 c /n/A A/A/ s-s 39 �XC'eSGsir/1 / !iv 5533/
/ / /
TELEPHONE (Day time) 2 35 - /2-2c.) TELEPHONE:
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment
11. Vacation of ROW/Easements
2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance
3. Grading'Excavation Permit
13. Wetland Alteration Permit
4. Interim Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal
5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment
6. Rezoning
7. Sign Permits
8. Sign Plan Review X. Notification Signs
9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"
$100 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP
$400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds
10. X Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ 15a�
•
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must
included with the application.
Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted.
81/2' X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet.
• NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
• Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
PROJECT NAME 5//4- >i W 'Z 6
LOCATION /Y20 t / 13 0 Lvc y /7
LEGAL DESCRIPTION .. j/79c/7.
PRESENT ZONING
REQUESTED ZONING
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION ?sin./-r — Loki 2)&1 5/77
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Es — Loi✓ /7-y
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST /a 5—AN6e /`'-/ y /M6•:-5 7E5
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying
with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party
whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of
ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the
authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded
against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
Office and the ori.i al document returned to City Hall Records.
4411111001K
Signa o '
•
•
8i-0-nature of Fee Owner Dat
Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No.
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the
meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
UHIBIT "A"
Commencing at the Westerly k corner of Section 2, Township 116 , Range 23, Carver
County, Minnesota; thence Easterly along
the E-W Center Section line 330. 1 feet ;
thence deflect left 90 degrees 06 minutes
along
gftthe
tcenterlright ine
ealfelpplehRoad
331 .8 feet to the point of beginning,
te
said center section line 402.00 feet; thence deflect left 90 degrees h00ceiu tes
405.00 feet; thence deflect left 90 degrees 00 minutes 85 .76 feet;
right 90 degrees 00 minuteSofesaidodrivewaycenterline
its intersectEon withthe
deflect left along said centerline
centerline of said Apple Road; thence Southerly along the centerline of said
Apple Road to the point of beginning.
AND
Commencing at the Southeast
orthe RangeSouthwest
W'estrtthenceof tNorthralo:�gt
Townshi116 Nor
Quarter of Section 2 , p thence West 600 feet; thence
the one half quarter line 589 feet to a point;
South parallel withntEastiontsaedtlined600line
fee98. 7 feet to placeto ofabeginning,quarter
containing,
Section line; thence
8. 18 acres of land.
Also commencing at a pcint 589 feet Northt ftion 2the Southeastwnship6cornerRaneof2thehSouthwest
ce
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of
North 137 feet; thence West 600 feet;
thence
ning .SSouth
2 r137esoffelet;
thence Bast 600
feet to the place of beginning,
Coffman Dcvelopmcnt 11 Sentinel �� _
�1�1 Edina Industria] Bouir\ard
Company Edina, NIinne:,ota 55430
612 5;5-1270
May 18, 1994
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
To whom it may concern:
Coffman Development Company respectfully requests Preliminary Plat approval
of Shadow Ridge, a 23 lot subdivision on approximately fifteen acres of land
located at 1420 and 1430 Lake Lucy Road.
Phase one shall consist of 18 homesites with the existing home at 1430 Lake
Lucy Road remaining on Lot 1 , Block 1 . The home at 1420 Lake Lucy Road will be
razed. The remaining 17 homesites will be sold to one or more custom home
builders for homes in the $300,000 and up price range. Grading operations for
phase one will hopefully begin August 10, 1994 with completion of all utilities
by October 15, 1994.
Phase two shall consist of 5 homesites all being served from Yosemite Avenue.
The grading plan for this phase has not been completed due to the fact there are
several engineering issues yet to be resolved. Therefore the timing of phase two
construction has not yet been determined.
Two variances are being requested at this time. First, we request the 20 foot
side yard setback for flag lots be reduced to 10 feet. This only affects Lots 5, 9
and 10, Block 1 . This will aid in tree preservation and natural topography
preservation. Secondly, we request the 40 foot setback required from a wetland
Distinctive Neighborhoods since 1950
buffer strip be reduced to 25 feet to the deck only, on Lot 18, Block 1 . This will
allow a deck to be built on this home in the normal fashion.
It is our sincere intention to develop Shadow Ridge into a highly desirable
upscale neighborhood. We believe this will be accomplished by preserving the
three wetlands on the site, by preserving most of the natural topographic
features of the site with the use of relatively deep lots as well as flag lots, and
by maintaining the wooded nature of the site by building boulder retaining walls
to preserve wooded slopes and also placing tree preservation easements across
much of the site.
Respectfully submitted,
William D. onffp.:n, Jr.
President
X1111=
IUII:J
Ili
I
I
i.i..1(11 .-"---- i;j22 -'5:1r---...* :.-17- a
_*.i.,1 „
J ; '•
�, `• .:f . \ ,. .it ;
'4:
II , �1 Ili! �_< . �.; _+ .�\ ; tip• 04, ,., - ,
- IF `' '��`� -. f yam. w .. ,.---
-...X."
Y
.11 ow
° ' / " ' /r '- '--' ; --,..-ift_ .---;07.- 7-''''—') --' . --tJ (..;-.7.-:,' --
1
/ i _"MEI — 5.
/ - ,� / � / I j �* �.� S o-• 1 �.'Y�_ r J tire.
• �! ,,i 888 , •t -1 1 ;`-,--_,;,-_,-7,'
•
o I _ $rL- ;, r 9 -' _' ,
d f - -••• .;.j �I- y:
S
�. :_
. i-
g IV I--- -•0,•. .7. _ - -Tom-- —
dlI
�1 -u,cr 8o0s �o
•
,"1 00
'.
i P _I.
3
00PT
E 1 ■ a45)
(HfIiIi11IIit!iii1i1tJI1i1iiIIi! Jji t EIIIJ_111W I •[ � �f.It,i, f (ee,tie 8ss; il�r!'} fl ii ii��Qe1�ite IE i -I�is7i �e�[t I � ��ii��Eea,�j•1(1 � j�tr i��efiE�� (f(m P7
; ' fiiil yatf� � �ra,•ts�, a ■��� ti �� tS7 Irjjjjj�!]i�t�(�� i a �_IY . IH
ti`rjf e-8�+ 29 �• tr �`°�� al [ r1i� �•I ,j� I I Illi: Ij
t 1
� g� �J �� ii�f�II���� Flsf tip:�{ j��s �el i€ eN { ,{, ..J/L—,1
�1yf1 lite sirrrr,l;��iiri1rO. � f ( IiinliutUit
1 5 Sa R 9 Q a1 J_ DA >F
J
1IIIII
iiIII -.
1111 •
il f -- . 1 , \ -
i • %._ r =-=
...‘ --..,.. .i.r, .„,
-�` `r."'�-�k-- .41i / A . , rte, .i , ,_;, ' 1
-P i 'i \�_' i t ,.
�• 1, t. i \' .�
4 air:2
. - . ,.. , z,,,,,,
0•• ,... .„...„ , .
,1 I 0,,,,, 1 L._____,/ s'i \ • .\ :,
1- '. iiill: V.01014 --- ....„„ it-1k. •:-....S...c.
fj.
�/ r: ;, ,` ,v. 3
,47
1 ','
r i_
O .1/ �1i t�
' F - , III ' //
z / I
P5 if"r ..‘ ii / •
/ -; / / !
- ---~
42. ,
tomo Loa mow
\ J
/ \
i
r
f I_
I
N i
IIIa U
II! � i S
TV b
O. d77G i
u imEi
.
11936EiG
3�
1:
r
IF
PF,
45
I
1 /
�
I ��:
I ' rf---e---,. .
lei i:j t '
to, ...
___, t,,,,,„." 4., - z--:-, 1
,,,
- --,, ,,..„_;,..,. __\ -,, .
\//)i/' \ I '', i
-0 i
__Jo.
'0111:111,1(
rr�~ 1 1 kVI
, \ \\ \ t
M116n11 12_ I? N
5 1. i12, '3."��
itt,1 S. A ..../..,,.. _A
-, novo -„ir—i., AgEs.o...4vAi„....,_..... _eiri,
iliii! - - —7 , , ea ipir 4,4,2" -•••-1, 11.21,4:a.v4-,„, =— s �_. InL.,,,„
! ,,,,,4
.,._,,,,,.,„...—,t,,,,_....,.
/ a, Ill 3 .,1ff '1 ., l'.._ n k , /7 4 .,F i i 'A: ....g boaki` wrier,.'0 LiNt ' ! '140-..v. - .fir
3.
, , irp),/,44
A i'VliAttv'f'F'Y '
,tvil,‘ .7,1 „..41 _..
i Jaithis„,..._ i. A CB Wet,, : .
Ill 6
�, iii i.v4'.....10
�,IL _� . ���:fle - 41A
1 ' .
1.0 r 1...,,,,,,,mott,r ►,
tv
tn
tgl
IL 4' ti``
11
IC
Ned
ryi
-- "r = kms.• .• t '`._
, 1 I _.
, 1s'O' .;, ;
l i• � to
i fflTM11iiiflhi
aFA 1 ;` l' filV'� � 4; til_. UI \a I 6 . H
tir
A
5 � 'IF. 'If, I
31 - ' V
g 41,_,. 0 .
,- IE q w I t c
8 C
s
3E
P.
ill 1,1
ilE
hU'
i
COffMan Development117 Sentinel Building
5151 Edina Industrial Boulek and
Company Edina, Minnesota 55439
612 S35-1270
June 23, 1994
TO: Bob Generous
FROM: Bill Coffman
RE: Shadow Ridge Tree Calculations (Revised Design)
Total Gross Area 15.99 Acres
Lake Lucy R.O.W. - .55 Acres
Yosemite R.O.W. - .49 Acres
Wetlands - 1.89 Acres
Site Size for Tree Calculations 13.06 Acres
Baseline Tree Canopy 6.72 Acres
= 51% Baseline Canopy Coverage
Site Size (Trees) 13.06 Aores
51% Baseline Canopy relates to 35% Canopy retention required
(post development).
Site Size for Tree Calculations 13.06 Acres
Canopy Retention required X 35%
Post Development 4.57 Acres
Canopy required
Baseline Tree Canopy 6.72 Acres
Tree Removal (worst case) - 2.49 Acres
Remaining Tree Canopy 4.23 Acres
Post Development (worst case)
Distinctive Neighborhoods since 1950
Required Canopy Post
Development 4.57 Acres
Remaining Canopy (worst case) -4.23 Acres
Additional Canopy Required .34 Acres
Canopy Acres Short (worst case) .34 Acres
Surface Area Multiplier X 1.2
Reforested Area (worst case) .41 Acres
Acres to Reforest .41 Acres
Trees/Acre X 40
Additional Trees 16.4
(worst case)
Due to the fact that any desirable trees on site that can be moved with a tree spade will be
saved, that the site will be custom graded, saving numerous other trees, and that approxi-
mately 20 additional evergreens will be moved onto the site, I do not foresee any problems
exceeding all city tree requirements.
Ofl -O _. '1.:..`:.',( --p
yo • In - !
Wi•'ar t - " �.
r
ice: ' I- ii ��_ f +� ` `� Q: r` -,
•
•
7:1. ILj"Pb1. 1401.
s ) \
•
O .., , ,,:,..ets...., .
..r i7� R6 Ilie\NS., i �d1 ••• �
W ..• .,„... .. -
< ....„ ,
.. .. .-- -we, L.'31, N. / if 114 (2.:...)-." •
CC -..../1 .0,‘ I ,,,.. .
16 .. `d►,��. n ,
W l v.,�. \` Vii,
int\_ • /.•
..,
la
. 1 ; ) v‘\ \ .1.1 .i i: i , ," . •-- ":40A"'"-
W j •'•' I/ ," - t' ' `fit'`- �-� r,--� -
I.
.•-)' 1 , . i i .C.> </,, ...4 /"Y Cr.a(... ,;. 7.FT
1:3
- \ =
Z ' . ' / 1 - ..' Q/7'...- i
. ,, /:' '-k -- _� ..:,- .-:.fQ i l / /� I %.-„ ren . -- Z i'1 I
�•. ' I• Q
J
s'` ��++���� `Z\ ate:=--�'- L 1
• •
• A�
i (/• st. Il P
t 1 ` t ` 1 •;l 1 tet► WcT1g4
''i I \N. ` 1 t,,.. • •• ' /r" vi-- V
,„ 1 C. • ,.• 7--
^ \ . •.. .
l •\
4
N...:::y\\) \ ,\
•
i •. •N.
i: 0 i\,;, x\ --\\...___,. ,.: -_ - ---,.---_,_._. _ .
„i! 0 \\A
r` — `.0S MI £
z
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS
SOIL TESTING • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1
10580 WAYZATA BOULEVARD • SUITE 1 • MINNETONKA, MN 55305-1525
(612) 546-7601 • FAX (612) 546.9065
June 22, 1994
Coffman Development, Inc.
117 Sentinel Bldg.
5151 Edina Ind. Blvd.
Edina , MN 55439
Attention: Mr. Bill Coffman
Subject: Shadow Ridge
Dear Bill ,
We have reviewed the sight distance of Lake Lucy Road at your
proposed SHADOW LANE and find it conforms with MnDOT's design criteria
for stopping sight distance for a 35 mph road.
Enclosed is a drawing showing site lines on Lake Lucy Road
to assist you if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
Gerald L. Backman
GLB/cl
C!TY OF CHANHASSEN
j tj 2
Ck \:;ASSEN PLANNING DEP-
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION • EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ALFRED HARVEY TERRANCE
BK 81 F 53 BK I^<. F
hi
J
•
Z
in
\ DRAINTILE
/ _ ` 4.„, . _ _
Z. — \\
- - i 1 - - I k
T...i.wrw _ - -- - -- --
-
ce
Q DRIVEWAY (1�YPICAL) CONSTRUCT'_
L IMiTS
1
BRIAN TICHY
DOC 64877 - F-7E.
4i
2
4(
J
3
0
LAKE i . LUCY
20
f...c4.iA` 6r-E L,w,E w,
K G% KT eF CVC ,T
=sna-r•C - - .
'4-0 C�uoEr.aU Cbo - - - - _ .5
I ,i 10 G4.,-_
f •
CITY OF
0411HCHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bob Generous, Planner H
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE: June 2, 1994
SUBJ: Lake Lucy, Yosemite Road
Shadow Ridge
Planning Case #94-4 SUB and #94-2 REZ
I have reviewed the submitted plans and have the following requirements:
1. Submit revised utility plans for approval of locations of fire hydrants. Fire hydrant spacing is
300 foot maximum.
2. Submit street names to Fire Marshal for approval. This is to avoid duplication of existing street
names to minimize confusion in emergency situations.
3. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs,
bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be
quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1.
4. Submit turning radius and cul-de-sac dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval.
Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.204 (d) and 10.203.
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bob Generous, Planner II
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official .4
DATE: June 6. 1994
SUBJ: 94-4 SUBand 94-2 REZ (Shadow Ridge)
Background:
I have reviewed your request for comments on the above referenced planning case, and have some items
that should be added as conditions of approval.
Analysis:
In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names,public and private,must be reviewed by the Public
Safety Department. Proposed street names are not included with the submitted documents.
Locations of proposed house pads and the type of dwelling is necessary to enable the Inspections Division
and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review of the structure at the time of building
permit issuance. For the same reason, proposed lowest level floor elevations as well as garage floor
elevations are required to be indicated on the proposed pad location. Standard designations(FLO or RLO,
R. SE, SEWO,TU, WO)must be shown for proposed dwelling types. These standard designations lessen
the chance for errors during the plan review process. The memo explaining these designations is enclosed.
Recommendations:
The following conditions should be added to the conditions of approval.
1. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department.,Inspections Division for review prior to final
plat approval.
2. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed house pads, using standard
designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior
to final plat approval.
enclosure: January 29, 1993 memorandum
g:\safety\saNmemos.pla[Pshdw rdge.bg l
CITY OF
CI1ANIIASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORAN P UM
TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official
DATE: January 29, 1993
SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation
We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of
dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps
it might he helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning
behind the requirements.
F.O or PLO Designates Front Lookout or Rear Lookout. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level
approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4'
above the basement floor level.
R Designates Rambler. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings.
SE Designates Split Entry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level.
SEWO Designates Split Fatty Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' '
below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level.
TV Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below
grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the
dwelling.
WO Designates Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade
at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling.
SEWO WO RVIC
•
or
Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the
engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared to proposed building
plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all
documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews.
twill PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
STATE OF
BOO 11'Q
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
PHONE No. METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106
772-7910 FILE No
June 1, 1994
Mr. Robert Generous, Planner II
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: SHADOW RIDGE, COFFMAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, CITY OF
CHANHASSEN (94-4 SUB) , CARVER COUNTY
Dear Mr . Generous:
We have reviewed the site plans (received May 24 , 1994) for the
above-referenced project (Section 2 , T116N-R23W) and have the
following comments to offer:
1 . The project site does not contain any Public Waters or Public
Waters Wetlands; therefore, no DNR permit is required.
However, it appears there are wetlands on the site that are
not under DNR Public Waters Permit jurisdiction. You should
be aware that your project may be subject to federal and local
wetland regulations. The Department may provide additional
comments on your project through our review of applications
submitted under these other regulatory programs.
2 . The site does not appear to be within a shoreland or
floodplain district.
3 . It appears that the stormwater is treated in the wetland. In
general, we are opposed to the primary treatment of stormwater
in wetlands. Sedimentation/treatment facilities should be
used to protect the wetland from sedimentation and water level
bounces which are detrimental to the basins wildlife values
and water quality. The determination of what is best at this
particular site should be addressed by the city and other
agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands subject to the
Wetland Conservation Act.
4 . There should be some type of easement, covenant or deed
restriction for the properties adjacent to the wetland areas.
This would help to ensure that property owners are aware that
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Chanhassen
have jurisdiction over the areas and that the wetlands cannot
be altered without appropriate permits.
C!rY
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Mr. Generous
June 1, 1994
Page 2
5 . The following comments are general and apply to all proposed
developments:
a. 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.
b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10, 000
gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, the
contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriations
permit. You are advised that it typically takes
approximately 60 days to process the permit application.
c. If construction activities disturb more than five acres
of land, the contractor must apply for a stormwater
permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Scott
Thompson @ 296-7203) .
d. The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of
Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These
comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack
thereof for a particular project.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at
772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments.
Sincerely,
4j1 1"1.4-371K-
Joe
'"= K-Joe Richter
Hydrologist
c: Riley-Purgatory Bluff Creek WSD, Bob Obermeyer
U. S. Army Corps of Engineer, Gary Elftmann
# C �. g g g__ D8 4 4 E
N N N N N M § $ 8 ? = V g
AI N-- �1
��� LK (Ml
1irrc srnus MEI
4j4 '
_ Is. .-=�s: - �.t.__• I � Z: : it 1�
��Isr •
,INE r�`�e`•'L.■•i�nrcu _....Mil INN '.+ 1�al��� 1�1; "i'scP. -.:
PARR'
4N F/ELD i 1 - ', •. •moi,.: ;VAC L 111111—.71��
i Til! = , A : . •' ,� 4K' 9111.2 SA...-rev^-
' iiri
- I, . , I„ k:4a� las.■ . . . 7T
• skin/t . REIM /�op
rdiammriliktARK
/// •
— r - .ter -aim "' isms ,Virc.,_____, , i_e_es4,401, ,
•
.' i` :27
V
, ,./.,, c H %
_____.
�••••`°- LIKE WCr :it . C7 , . "� • .
. -
1: 1 y �f� r /fir ...:g.:.
.•. :17� _
! -— ARABS
'‘ y�11 .rti I .? •j I
1.
'--17.74- ..‘,..22:.....;
r ,1►i -i� C �'�
! MEADOW
f3 LAKE ANN •
6REDV KIRK �, ��
_ gg 0
• 7.07 _
•
' 112:-,dps .q-.L6'-'-le jj....)
ift Aviv F
k.........4 1.-- LIKE ��� v`---� r �
! pAtur
O.! _ 1 • Er• 1 -• VAC ''.•; JI_i• .•••-v
V allri I I it .7-:_p_i iziiii-
, \
mime .
o 1• , ` 'may®+-�-�•
v / I OM' ��r 1 1 I
CL-
m.
;i •` LsH10441/111 MIGMMIt
sily._.__
i..„ ..., ,_ _______ :. 7- 4,21._ w..:.,--,. ... Os k.. ,,
..,, ......„.7
, • . .44, — -.-
~.1�1 -���� I U ';*,
�� ‘Still wear
air ..„...--
.3-- i .r •��'•3'
M I - ���tllll��r" _
_ ,,. , ;„.•. - min.. =ifs/*`
1 _ = ! )r' \ �� •��. aft ,► ao� = LAKE SI/SAN l
1:177;•”--.7:13 ::.:ii ff.,.
Ar 1
a.
..__ _.... •_
f. _ .
•.. .. .
.,
_ P.. _ 1 .. x•1,1- -.4 ., �_ 2
•
1
1 �' I.117
DR E
!_ II
/ d.K I. , 1 I 'CHIMP
7.11.;..7z,;-: ,..74....rzioA_Bwff'etitirrl17.
zrjr Con
NOTICE OF PUBLIC 1� moms �zit�-
HEARINGin
,
PLANNING COMMISSION � �� :wia .4"j_..,... mmi lik rIR,K: .f • - , rat
MEETING r :,_. '�-1
Wednesday, JUNE 15, 1994 • ii
_, Il' ? p i . .
City Hall Council Chambers �' -AL._ i 11 -k11
690 Coulter Drive -V
'-� . : ,� �•Z
��
Project: Shadow Ridge . " ' ' �-0
fa . �w�[ Lucr H i4
Developer: Coffman Development -•,, ' ��
��1/ 'Eflvw • ,..,:-4-47.7.,
l Sr,O. S
4R i
Location: 1420 and 1430 Lake Lucy 'MI'
MEADOW
Road LAKE ANN 6RLLR PARK
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant is requesting to rezone 17.6 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential
to RSF, Residential Single Family and preliminary plat to subdivide 17.6 acres of property into
23 single family lots with wetland setback variances and side yard setback variances on the flag
lots, located at 1420 and 1430 Lake Lucy Road, Shadow Ridge (Harvey/C. .- ien) Coffman
Development Company.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you
about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project.
During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following
steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission
will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop
by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish
to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900, ext. 141. If you choose
to submit vTitten comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the
meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on June 2, 1994.
The Park and Recreation Commission will
hear this item on June 28 at 7 :30 p. m .
Lundgren Bros. Const. Wayne R. & Debra Patterson David & Lindsay Anderson
935 East Wazyata Blvd. 6637 Mulberry Circle 6655 Mulberry Circle
Wayzata, MN 55391 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Lester & Stephanie Morrow Eric & Lisa Kleven Lehrer Andrew & Anne Eckert
6673 Mulberry Circle 6601 Mulberry Circle 6619 Mulberry Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Kathryn Stoddart Shirley Hopf Bruce & Nannette Twaddle
1611 West 63rd Street 6420 Yosemite 6430 Yosemite
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Dale Hiebert & Susan Jorgenson Harry & Joeann Desasntis Laura Warner Lundquist
6510 Yosemite 6440 Yosemite 6460 Yosemite
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Michael Schmidt Michael O'Neill & Richard Saffrin
6470 Yosemite Diane Utzman-O'Neill 1661 Wood Duck Lane
Excelsior, MN 55331 1671 Pintail Circle Excelsior, MN 55331
Excelsior, MN 55331 ,
Michael & Mary Koester Emma St. John Thomas & Ann Nye
1641 Wood Duck Lane 1621 West 63rd Street 1641 West 63rd Street
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Leonard Sr. & Luvilla Koehnen Glenn & Teresa VanderGalien James & Rhonda Downie
1631 West 63rd Street 6371 Teton Lane 6361 Teton Lane
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
John & Donette Leduc Randy & Sheree Karl Frank & Mary Uggla
6401 Teton Lane 6391 Teton Lane 6381 Teton Lane
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Jon & Julie Thomberg James & Mary Benson Mark & Kathy Paulsen
1320 Stratton Court 1310 Stratton Court 1321 Stratton Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
S. John & Lisa Hagenstein Craig & Leslie Carlson William & Lori Delay
1331 Stratton Court 1341 Stratton Court 1350 Stratton Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
3ruce & Annette Kotzian Robert & Margaret Thompson Neil & Susan Bergquist
340 Stratton Court 1330 Stratton Court 1311 Stratton Court
than Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
3regory & Julie Carter Eric & Jean Lopez Douglas & Joan Ahrens
1600 Charing Bend 6606 Charing Bend 6601 Charing Bend
2hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Codd Posusta & Robin Bury Almond Krueger Myrna Johnson
3480 Yosemite 1600 Lake Lucy Road 1630 Lake Lucy Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Zobert & Sandra Kendall Robert & E. Christensen Theodore Coey
3734 Elmo Road 1511 Lake Lucy Road 1381 Lake Lucy Road
Minnetonka, MN 55305 Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317
3rian & Nancy Tichy Joseph & D. Gayle Morin Kristi J. Willis
1471 Lake Lucy Road 1441 Lake Lucy Road 6890 Utica Terrace
Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Charles Herbert James Sr. & Mary Emmer Todd Bogema
5411 Yosemite 6321 Yosemite 6371 Yosemite
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Mark & Katheryn Bastiansen Donald & Carol Oelke Thomas & Elizabeth Steward
5301 Yosemite 6431 Yosemite 6471 Yosemite
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Elxabeth Glaccum Carolyn Wise William & Ginni Nordvik
1510 Lake Lucy Road 6401 Yosemite 1375 Lilac Lane
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
David Peterson
5451 Yosemite
Excelsior, MN 55331
C I T Y 0 PC DATE: 7/6/94
'i , G 1 TF CC DATE: 7/25/94
r cHANHAssEN
' " CASE #: 94-2 IUP
By: Al-Jaff/Hempel
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Interim Use Permit / Earthwork permit of 130,000 cubic yards of
material for the grading of Mission Hills Planned Unit
Development site
12 LOCATION: East of Highway 101, and north and south of West 86th Street.
Z
Q APPLICANT: Tandem Properties
7808 Creek Ridge Circle, Suite 310
Bloomington, MN 55439
a..
Q
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
ACREAGE: Approximately 61.62 acres(gross) 37.78 acres (net)
DENSITY: Single-Family 2.24 u/a Multi-Family 7.13 u/a (net)
ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - RSF, Residential Single Family/Horse Farm
S - Hwy 212 ROW/RSF, Residential Single Family
E - RSF, Residential Single Family/Rice Lake Manor
r" Subdivision
QW- Hwy. 101/RSF, Residential Single Family
W WATER AND SEWER: Sewer and water will have to be extended to the site.
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site can be characterized by its rolling hills. It is
Cl) currently being farmed. It contains two wetland areas.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Mixed Use (Commercial-High Density Residential),
Medium Density Residential, and Low Density
Residential
Mission Hills IUP
July 6, 1994
Page 2
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
On June 27, 1993, the City Council tabled the preliminary plat for Mission Hills Subdivision.
The plat will result in the creation of approximately 16 single-family residential lots and 192
medium or high-density residential units. These will access by an internal street connecting
to Trunk Highway 101 (86th Street). Gaining final plat approval on this project has been a
long process due to the complex issues that are being dealt with in the feasibility study for
extending utilities to the site as well as storm drainage issues. The applicant has hoped to
have the lots available for construction this year but at this point in time, this may or may not
occur. Another public hearing before the city council has been scheduled for the end of July
to consider proceeding with the trunk utility improvements to service this site. One of the
conditions of approval is contingent upon the city authorizing a public improvement to extend
trunk utility to the site.
The preliminary plat for the Mission Hills Subdivision is expected to be brought back before
the City Council for consideration on July 11, 1994 after the Park and Recreation
Commission has had a chance to review the subdivision. It is most likely that construction of
the utilities to the site will not commence until fall of 1994 at the earliest. The applicant
desires to be in a position to develop the property as soon as possible, possibly late this fall
and/or next spring and therefore is requesting that the City authorize a grading permit to
commence site grading at this time. Staff has reviewed the proposed grading limits and
believe that they still need modifications. The grading plan proposes numerous stormwater
ponds as the grading plan indicated for the preliminary plat. Staff has indicated that there are
too many ponds proposed with this subdivision and that they should be consolidated to a
regional approach connected with a series of storm sewers. The applicant has been working
with City staff to amend the plan to reach a comprehensive storm drainage plan. However,
we still have not resolved this issue and therefore the grading permit should be subject to the
applicant resolving the stormwater ponding issue for the development first prior to initiating
site grading.
The proposed grading will involve realigning or modifying existing West 86th Street east of
Trunk Highway 101. West 86th Street currently exists today as a 20'-24' wide gravel street
which eventually turns into Tigua Lane which is upgraded to urban standards or blacktop and
concrete curb and gutter. The City does not have dedicated right-of-way or easements over
86th Street. However, the City has been maintaining the gravel road portion for over six
years, therefore, the City has established the right to use the street for public travel. The
grading activities will interfere with ingress and egress to Tigua Lane. The plans will have to
make provisions to maintain ingress and egress to Tigua Lane for both the general public and
emergency service vehicles at all times.
Based on the applicant's narrative, approximately 130,000 cubic yards of earth is proposed to
be moved as a result of the overall site grading. The applicant has indicated that all
Mission Hills IUP
July 6, 1994
Page 3
earthwork will remain on site and therefore off-site trucking will not be an issue. The site is
devoid of trees and is currently in agricultural use and therefore trees will not be an issue on
this site. The grading plan does provide for erosion control measures, however, additional
erosion control measures should be installed along the north perimeter of the site. In
addition, the site does contain two large wetlands lying south of 86th Street which should be
protected with Type III erosion control fence. According to City ordinance, these wetlands
(Ag/Urban) shall be further protected by providing a minimum of a 10-foot buffer of the
natural vegetation. Therefore, grading limits should be held back to a minimum of 10 feet
around the wetlands.
As previously indicated, the applicant is waiting for the City to approve of the trunk utility
project to extend utilities to service this site. A public hearing for the public improvement
project is scheduled for July 25, 1994. It is recommended that this grading permit approval
be conditioned upon the City authorizing a public improvement project to extend trunk utility
service to the site. Without the trunk utility improvements, development of the site is
premature due to the lack of City water service to the site.
All site restoration and erosion control measures shall be in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook. The applicant's engineer is encouraged to pursue
acquisition of this handbook and to employ these said practices.
Since the stormwater management plan for the subdivision has not been approved, therefore
the applicant's engineer shall provide an interim storm drainage and erosion control plan
including but not limited to construction of temporary sediment basins in accordance with the
City Best Management Practice Handbook in an effort to minimize erosion off the site.
Staff is recommending approval of this application with conditions outlined in the staff report.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXCAVATING, MINING, FILLING AND GRADING
ORDLNANCE
Section 7 of the City Code provides a series of standards which an interim use permit must
be in compliance with.
Section 7-40 - Fees
The ordinance allows the City to determine the fee schedule for each permit and that
each permit must be annually reviewed by the City Engineer. Section 7-41 provides for
an irrevocable letter of credit that will be required to ensure compliance with conditions
of approval.
Mission Hills ILP
July 6, 1994
Page 4
Finding
Staff is proposing that a $92,025.00 letter of credit be required to ensure compliance
with conditions outlined below (see Assistant City Engineer Memo). The letter of
credit will cover any road damage, maintenance of erosion control measures, site
restoration and driveway maintenance to Tigua Lane. In addition, a permit fee from
the Uniform Building Code will be applied requiring a permit fee of $630.00 to be
paid and that all city staff and city attorney time used to monitor and inspect the
operation shall be paid by the applicant. Staff time shall be paid at a rate of $30.00
per hour. Staff will document the time on a monthly basis and bill the applicant
accordingly.
Section 7-42 - Setbacks
The ordinance requires that a setback of 100 feet from existing street rights-of-way and
300 feet from adjoining property lines be required for mining activities.
Finding
This condition does not apply. It was intended for mining operations only.
Section 7-43 - Fencing
The ordinance requires fencing for areas which will be converted to steep grades or
where on site ponding exists if the Council determines that a safety hazard exists.
Finding
This condition is not applicable since slopes are 3:1 or flatter.
Section 7-44 - Appearance and Screening
The ordinance requires that the visual impact of grading and mining operations be
minimized and that where necessary, screening be provided.
Finding
This is a temporary excavation process which will be creating building areas for a
future multi family building and will immediately be restored with topsoil and seed.
Therefore, the visual impact of the grading will be minimal and screening will not be
necessary.
Mission Hills IUP
July 6, 1994
Page 5
Section 7-45 - Operations, Noise, Hours, Explosives, Dust, Water, Pollution, Top Soil
Preservation
A. Maximum Noise Levels as measured at the perimeter of the site shall be within
limits set by the MPCA and by the Federal EPA.
Finding
Staff does not feel that the excavation on the site will be excessive beyond the
activities being experienced in the area with development of residential sites in
Chanhassen Hill Subdivision area. To ensure that the noise levels do not become
excessive, a condition is being provided that noise levels not exceed MPCA and EPA
limits. If noise testing is required by the city, the cost shall be paid by the applicant.
B. Earth work is permitted only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday
through Saturday and prohibited on national holidays.
Finding
The hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through
Saturdays and no work on national holidays or Sundays as stated in the ordinance.
C. Operators are required to use all practical means to eliminate vibration on
adjacent property from equipment operation.
Finding
Staff does not feel there will be a problem with vibration on adjacent property. This
condition was intended for mining operations.
D. Operators shall comply with all applicable regulations for the protection of water
quality.
Finding
The applicant is providing erosion control surrounding the site to retain any runoff
from the site. There are two wetlands on the site. Grading shall be prohibited within
10 feet of all wetlands. Erosion control fence shall be installed outside the 10-foot
buffer as well. Interim sediment basins are also being required.
Mission Hills ILP
July 6, 1994
Page 6
E. Operators shall comply with all regulations for the protection of wetlands.
Findin
Grading shall be prohibited within 10 feet of all wetlands. Erosion control fence shall
be installed outside the 10-foot buffer as well.
F. Operators shall comply with all requirements of the Watershed District where the
property is located.
Finding
The site is proposing erosion control measures to meet requirements of the Watershed
District. Watershed District approval is required.
G. All top soil shall be retained at the site until complete restoration of the site has
taken place according to the restoration plan.
Finding
A stockpile must be provided for the topsoil which will be respread on the site as soon
as the excavation is completed. The temporary topsoil stockpile area shall be designed
on the grading plan.
H. Operators shall use all practical means to reduce the amount of dust, smoke and
fumes caused by the operations. When atmospheric or other conditions make it
impossible to prevent dust from migrating off site, mining operations shall cease.
Finding
Staff does not anticipate a problem with these impacts with the site's location and
precautions that the applicant is providing for the excavation. The applicant should be
providing water trucks for dust control and street sweepers.
I. To control dust and minimize tracking of sand, gravel and dirt onto public
streets, internal private roads to any public roadway shall be paved with asphalt
or concrete for a distance of 300 feet to the intersection of the public roadway.
Alternate means of controlling this problem may be accepted by the city.
Mission Hills IUP
July 6, 1994
Page 7
Finding
All materials will remain on site. The applicant is required to construct and maintain
gravel construction entrances during the grading operation. The applicant is also
required to provide street clean-up on a daily basis or as needed.
J. All haul routes to and from the site shall be approved by the City and shall only
use streets that can safely accommodate the traffic.
Finding
The materials moved will remain on site.
Section 7-46 - Restoration Standards
The ordinance provides a series of standards outlining site restoration. These are
reviewed below.
A. The plan must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Ordinance.
Finding
The Comprehensive Plan illustrates this area as residential mixed density and
neighborhood commercial and the applicant's proposal to grade the site is in
conformance with the intended use of it being a residential site. Therefore, staff
believes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Ordinance.
B. Restoration shall be a continuing operation occurring as quickly as possible after
extraction operation has moved.
Finding
Restoration will be completed immediately after the excavated material has been
removed. Staff will be maintaining a letter of credit to cover the restoration costs in
the case that the applicant does not or is unable to restore the site in a timely manner.
C. All banks and slopes shall be left in accordance with the restoration plans
submitted with the permit application.
Mission Hills IUP
July 6, 1994
Page 8
Finding
Staff is recommending that an as-built grading plan be provided at the completion of
the project so that staff can confirm the volume of material that has been removed and
that the site is restored as proposed.
D. Slopes, graded areas and backfill areas shall be surfaced with adequate top soil to
secure and hold ground cover. Such ground cover shall be tended as necessary
until it is self sustaining.
Finding
The topsoil is being preserved on the site and will be respread after excavation of the
clay material. The topsoil will then be seeded to ensure ground cover for stabilization
of the area. Erosion control blanket will be required on all slopes 3:1 or steeper.
E. All water areas resulting from excavation shall be eliminated upon restoration of
the site.
Finding
Other than sediment ponds shown on the plans, there will be no water areas resulting
from the excavation of the site, therefore, this condition is not applicable.
F. No part of the restoration area which is planned for uses other than open space
or agricultural shall be at an elevation lower than the minimum required for
connection sanitary or storm sewer.
Finding
The finished grade of the site is at an elevation that will allow for the connection of
municipal water, sanitary and storm sewer.
G. Provide a landscaping plan illustrating reforestation, ground cover, wetland
restoration or other features.
Finding
The Planned Unit Development application reflect the excavated areas will be spread
with the topsoil and seeded immediately after excavation. The site will also be
landscaped with trees and hedges.
Mission Hills IUP
July 6, 1994
Page 9
INTERIM USE PERMIT STANDARDS
Mining operations will be allowed as an interim use permit. The ordinance provides that
interim use permits are reviewed under the general issuance standards established for
conditional use permits, Section 20-232, of the ordinance. The following constitutes a
compilation of the general issuance standards and staff's findings for each.
1. Will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health, safety, comfort,
convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city.
* The proposed excavation is a temporary operation. The grading of 130,000
cubic yards will provide topography on the site which will be compatible with
proposed residential uses and therefore it will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, comfort, or general welfare of the city.
2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's Comprehensive Plan and this
chapter.
* The excavation will be maintaining the site in a form suitable for multifamily
residential use which is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and this
chapter.
3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in
appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will
not change the essential character of that area.
* The proposed excavation will be maintaining the site, compatible appearance
with existing or intended character of the general vicinity. The slope will be
leveled but will not be changing the essential character of the area. The land
will be restored to a natural state once excavation is completed and will remain
as such until development of the site.
4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses.
* With the conditions of approval, the activity will not be hazardous or disturbing
to existing or planned neighboring uses.
5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including
streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and
sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and
Mission Hills IUP
July 6, 1994
Page 10
services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of
the proposed use.
• The use is temporary which does not need to be served by public facilities and
services. The finished elevation will allow the site to be served by sanitary
sewer and water once it is developed in the future.
6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will
not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
* The activity will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and will
not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of
operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare
because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors,
rodents, or trash.
* The proposed excavation could result in additional traffic, noise and fumes.
The conditions of the approval will provide standards by which the activities
should be minimized/controlled.
8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic
congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
x The applicant must obtain an access permit from Minnesota Department of
Transportation. This will provide for traffic control for vehicle entering and
leaving the site. Staff has also added a condition making the applicant
responsible for maintaining ingress and egress to the existing residents on
Tigua Lane as well as emergency vehicles at all times.
9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic
or historic features of major significance.
* The proposal will not result in any significant impact to natural or historic
features.
10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
• The area proposed for excavation, once completed, will still be aesthetically
compatible with the surrounding residential/neighborhood commercial sites.
Mission Hills IUP
July 6, 1994
Page 11
11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values.
* The proposed use will not have a long term impact on surrounding property
values.
12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article.
* The proposed excavation application is meeting the standards prescribed for the
District.
Staff feels that the application is complete and will minimize potential impacts. With the
conditions proposed, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission and City Council
approve the project with appropriate conditions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. The applicant shall provide the City with a letter of credit in the amount of $92,025.00
to cover any road damage, maintenance of erosion control measures, site restoration
and driveway maintenance to Tigua Lane.
2. The applicant shall pay the City $630.00 in grading permit fees as required by the
Uniform Building Code and pay for all City staff and attorney time used to monitor
and inspect the grading operation. The inspection fees shall be computed at a rate of
S30 per hour per person.
3. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permit requirements of the watershed
district, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, and MnDOT.
4. The applicant shall work with City staff in revising the proposed grading plan to an
acceptable stormwater management plan in accordance with the City's Surface Water
Management Plan. This may result in consolidating ponding areas and loss of units.
Since the stormwater management plan for the subdivision has not been fully
approved, the applicant's engineer shall provide an interim storm drainage and erosion
control plan including but not limited to construction of temporary sediment basins in
accordance with the City Best Management Practice Handbook in an effort to
minimize erosion off the site.
5. Upon completion of the site grading, the applicant shall supply the City with a mylar
as-built survey of the grading prepared by a professional surveyor registered in the
state of Minnesota upon completion of the excavation to verify the grading plan has
been performed in compliance with the proposed plan.
Mission Hills ItiP
July 6, 1994
Page 12
6. All site restoration and erosion control measures shall be in accordance with the City's
Best Management Practice Handbook. The applicant's engineer is encouraged to
pursue acquisition of this handbook and to employ these said practices. A stockpile
must be provided for the topsoil which will be respread on the site as soon as the
excavation and site grading is completed. Topsoil and discmulched seeding shall be
implemented immediately following the completion of the graded areas unless the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook dictates otherwise.
7. Noise levels stemming from the operation are not to exceed Minnesota PCA or EPA
regulations. If the City determined that there is a problem warranting, such tests shall
be paid for by the applicant.
8. Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturdays
and no work on national holidays or Sundays.
9. The applicant shall construct and maintain gravel construction entrances during the
grading operation. In addition, the applicant shall be responsible for maintaining
ingress and egress to the existing residents on Tigua Lane as well as emergency
vehicles at all times.
10. The applicant shall enter into an earthwork permit with the City and provide the
necessary security to guarantee compliance with the Conditions of Approval. All
grading work shall be completed by November 15, 1994.
11. All erosion control measures shall be installed prior to commencement of grading
operations and be maintained until all disturbed areas have been fully restored. The
applicant shall also be responsible for removal of all erosion control measures upon
completion of site grading. The city engineer will determine the appropriate time and
authorize the applicant to remove the erosion control measures.
12. The applicant shall notify the city engineer of all drainage tiles encountered during site
grading. The city engineer shall determine the appropriate abandonment or rerouting
of all existing draintile systems.
13. Additional Type I erosion control fence shall be used along the north perimeter of the
site. Erosion control fence surrounding the wetlands shall be the City's Type III
version.
14. Grading shall be prohibited within 10 feet of all wetlands. Erosion control fence shall
be installed outside the 10-foot buffer as well.
IUP for Mission Hills
July 6, 1994
Page 13
15. This grading permit approval be conditioned upon the City authorizing a public
improvement project to extend trunk utility service to the site.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Memo From Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer dated June 29, 1994.
2. Breakdown of security for site grading in Mission Hills.
3. Plans received June 9, 1994.
Breakdown of Security and Grading Permit Fees
Mission Hills
Grading Permit File No. 94-2
Interim Use Permit File No. 94-2
I. Site Restoration
Silt Fence Erosion Control
3,610 L.F. at $2.00/L.F. $ 7,220.00
1,875 L.F. - Type III at $5.00/L.F. $ 9,375.00
Total $16,595.00
Reseed and Mulch
46.5 acres at $1,500/acre $69,750.00
Estimated Total Restoration Cost $86,345.00
II. Inspection/Administration Time
Project Inspection
Approximately 12 weeks, 4 days/week, 1 hour/day 48 hours
48 hours at $30.00/hour $1,440.00
Engineering/Planning Staff
8 hours at $30.00/hour $ 240.00
Estimated Cost for Inspection/Administration $1,680.00
III. Road Maintenance and Traffic Control
Rock Construction Entrance & Street Sweeping $1,000.00
Traffic Control $ 500.00
Estimated Total Cost for Road Maintenance/Traffic Control $1,500.00
IV. Engineering Fees for Preparation of As-Built Plans
Engineering Fee for Surveying and Drafting $2,500.00
Summary Sheet for Security Escrow
I. Site Restoration (Phase II) $86,345.00
II. Inspection/Administration Fees $ 1,680.00
III. Road Maintenance and Traffic Control $ 1,500.00
IV. Engineering Fees $ 2,500.00
Total $92,025.00
Grading Permit Fees Based on Table No. 70-B
The Uniform Building Code
130,000 cubic yards estimated
- $562.50 for first 100,000 cubic yards + $22.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards (3)
Grading Permit Total $630.00
g'eng'dare ntssion fee
•
1988 EDfT1ON APPENDIX
TABLE NO.70-A--GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEES'
SO cubic yards or less No fee
51 to 100 cubic yards $15.00
•
101 to 1000 cubic yards 22.50
1001 to 10,000 cubic yards 30.00
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards—S30.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards,plus 515.00 for
each additional 10,000 yards or fraction thereof.
100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards—S165.00 for the fust 100,000 cubic yards,plus 59.00 for
each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
200,001 cubic yards or more-5255.00 for the first 200,000 cubic yards,plus 54.50 for each
additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
Other Fees:
Additional plan review required by changes,additions
or revisions to approved plans S30.00 per hour'
(minimum charge—one-half hour)
*Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction.whichever is the greatest.This cost shall include
supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees
involved.
•
TABLE NO.70-B—GRADING PERMIT FEES'
50 cubic yards or less 515.00
51 to 100 cubic yards 2.2.50
101 to 1000 cubic yards-522.50 for the fust 100 cubic yards plus S10.50 for each additional
100 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
1001 to 10,000 cubic yards—S117.00 for the first 1,000 cubic yards,plus 59.00 for each
additional 1,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards-5198.03 for the first 10,000 cubic yards,plus$40.50 for
each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
•
100,001 cubic yards or more 5562.50 for the first 100,000 cubic yards,plus$22.50 for
each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
Other Inspections and Fees:
1. Inspections outside of normal business hours $30.00 per hour:
(minimum charge two haus)
2. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of
Section 305(g) $30.00 per hour
3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated $30.00 per hour:
(minimum charge—one-half hour)
r7be foe for a grading permit authorizing additiceal wort to that ander a valid permit shall be the
difference between the fee paid for the original permit and the fee shove for the entire project.
20r the tar]hearty cat so the jurisdiction,whichever is the greatest.This oast shall irrch+de aueervision.
overhead,equipment,hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved.
875
<•
.4.
•
GRADING PERMIT NO.
PERMIT dated , 1994, issued by the CITY OF
CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation ( "City" ) , to
( "Applicant" ) .
1 . Request for Approval. The Applicant has asked the City
to approve a grading permit for
(referred to in this permit as the "property" ) . The land is
legally described as :
2 . Conditions of Approval. The City hereby approves the
permit on condition that the Applicant abide by its terms and
furnish the security required by it .
3 . Plans. The property shall be graded in accordance with
the following plans . The plans shall not be attached to this
permit . If the plans vary from the written terms of this permit,
the written terms shall control . The plans are :
Plan A--Soil Erosion Control Plan and Schedule
Plan B--Grading Plan
4 . Time of Performance. The Applicant shall complete the
grading and erosion control by , 1995 . The
Applicant may, however, request an extension of time from the City.
If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating
the security posted by the Applicant to reflect cost increases and
the extended completion date .
5 . Erosion Control. Plan A shall be implemented by the
Applicant and inspected and approved by the City. The City may
impose additional erosion control requirements if they would be
beneficial . All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfilling
operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of the
work in that area . Except as otherwise provided in the erosion
control plan, seed shall be rye grass or other fast-growing seed
suitable to the existing soil to provide a temporary ground cover
as rapidly as possible . All seeded areas shall be mulched and disc
anchored as necessary for seed retention.
The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling
erosion . If the Applicant does not comply with the erosion control
plan and schedule or supplementary instruction received from the
City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to
control erosion. The City will endeavor to notify the Applicant in
advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so
will not affect the Applicant ' s and City ' s rights or obligations
hereunder . If the Applicant does not reimburse the City for any
cost the City incurred for such work within thirty (30) days, the
City may draw down the letter of credit to pay any costs .
-1-
6 . Clean up. The Applicant shall daily clean dirt and
debris from streets that has resulted from construction work by the
Applicant, its agents or assigns .
7 . Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this
permit, the Applicant shall furnish the City with a cash escrow or
irrevocable letter of credit from a bank ( "security" ) for
$ . The bank and form of the letter of credit shall
be subject to the approval of the City Administrator . The letter
of credit shall be for a term ending , 1995 .
8 . Responsibility for Costs.
A. Except as otherwise specified herein, the Applicant
shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with
the grading and erosion control , including but not limited to
inspection expenses incurred in connection with approval and
acceptance of the permit .
B. The Applicant shall hold the City and its officers
and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third parties
for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from permit
approval and work done in conjunction with it . The Applicant shall
indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs,
damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence
of such claims, including attorney ' s fees .
C . The Applicant shall reimburse the City for costs
incurred in the enforcement of this permit, including engineering
and attorney ' s fees .
D. The Applicant shall pay in full all bills submitted
to it by the City for obligations incurred under this permit within
thirty (30 ) days after receipt . If the bills are not paid on time,
the City may halt all work and construction.
9 . Applicant ' s Default . In the event of default by the
Applicant as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder,
the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Applicant
shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the
City, provided the Applicant is first given notice of the work in
default, not less than four (4) days in advance . This permit is a
license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the
City to seek a court order for permission to enter the land. When
the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other
remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part .
10 . Notice. The Applicant must notify the City Engineer in
writing a minimum of 48 hours prior to construction.
11 . Watershed District Permit. The Applicant shall comply
with the conditions of the attached Watershed District permit,
especially as it relates to seeding and restoration of vegetative
cover .
-2-
12 . Site Specific Conditions.
-3-
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
(SEAL)
BY:
Don Ashworth, City Manager
APPLICANT
BY:
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
{ ss .
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1994, by Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor, and
by Don Ashworth, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a
Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and
pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council .
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
{ ss .
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1994, by
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612 ) 937-1900
-4-
11ission Hills
Application For Earth Work Permit
Per Ordinance 128
7-35 A. Interim use permit application attached
B. Application for permit shall contain:
1. Name of developer and owners are specified on the Interim use permit
2 Legal description is attached
3. Abstract of adjacent land owners was submitted previously with the P.U.D. application
4. Proposed grading plans are attached. Site plans showing adjacent land use is on file at the City and
have been approved by the Planning Commission. Site topography with natural features/wetland is
shown on the grading plans submitted. Soils are generally sandy - silty clay-loam with water table well
below the limits of excavation. Cut/fill quantities are approximately 130,000 C.Y.
5 The purpose is site grading for the approved P.U.D.
6. Construction period for grading is approximately 12 weeks
7 Construction period will be the months of July. August and September with hours per the City
Ordinance
8 There are no trees on site requiring a tree survey
9 End use landscape plan has been submitted and approved with the P.U.D.
10. ':\ .A
11. Equipment will access the site from MN State Highway 101 and 86th Street. All work will be
contained within the site with no off-site trucking anticipated
12. Erosion control is shown on the plans and will also be subject to MPCA and Watershed permits. Dust
will be controlled with water trucks as needed
13. The restoration plan is per the landscape plan submitted with the P.U.D. Interim ground cover will be
seeded after initial grading to control erosion as required by the MPCA and Watershed permits.
Topsoil will generally be stock piled in the berm areas and erosion from stock piles will be controlled.
The slopes are shown on the grading plan and to not exceed 3:1
Mission Hills
Application For Earth Work Permit
Per Ordinance 128
Page 2
14. Compliance with permits will be reviewed by the project engineer and/or the site representative as well
as representatives of the other permitting agencies. Any complaints should be directed to the site
engineer.
15. N/A •
16. N/A -No wetland alteration
17. Other information -none
,
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator
DATE: June 28, 1994
SUBJ: Shoreland Ordinance
Please find enclosed a draft of the shoreland ordinance for your review.
In January 1991, the City was notified by DNR that they had two years to adopt a new
shoreland management ordinance consistent with statewide standards. A draft of the
ordinance was first submitted to the DNR in May, 1993. In general, the ordinance is
comprised of the exact wording from the state statute. A couple of minor modifications were
made to conform to the City's existing standards. DNR extended the due date until June 2,
1994 due to a series of time delays including City staff turnover and DNR review time. The
DNR has since granted temporary ordinance approval until comments are received from
neighboring communities through the DNR notification process and the City completes the
formal hearing process.
The following modifications have been made to the draft of the Shoreland Ordinance since
the work session.
• "Sensitive Resource Management" was not used in the ordinance, and therefore, the
definition was deleted.
• Nonconforming Sewer System is covered in Section 20-1 under the definition
nonconforming use. A nonconforming sewer system is any system that is no longer in
compliance with current statute, but was in compliance at the time the use was
established.
• The intent or purpose of the ordinance is stated under Section 20-476. The discussion
under the intent statement was taken verbatim from the state statute. Therefore, it is
not advisable to modify at this time unless the City thought that it created a significant
difference in compliance.
Planning Commission
June 28, 1994
Page 2
• The second sentence in Section 20-477 part (a) was modified for clarification. The
state shoreland statute does not apply to lakes, ponds, or flowage less than 10 acres in
size in urban areas. The wording again was taken verbatim from the state statute.
The City's other ordinances (wetland, grading and filling, etc.) are in place to protect
the smaller water bodies in addition to the state protected waters and wetland
conservation act.
• All of the minimum single lot widths were modified to 90 feet. The DNR minimum
lot width is 75 feet.
• The single family nonriparian lots on natural environment lakes was kept at 15,000
square feet and the medium and high density residential subdivisions have an
impervious surface coverage up to 35% as is currently permitted by the City. The
justification for this flexibility is that the city requires all runoff to enter a storm sewer
system and water quality treatment ponds prior to it entering any bodies of water such
as wetlands and lakes. Also, the difference in size and width of lots are minimal and
will not result in a significant increase in density of the development or visual impact
to the lake. The City's environmental protection ordinances are also in-place to
perserve and enhance areas as they are platted.
• Section 20-481 part (a) defines the minimum structure setbacks for the various classes
of public waters. A statement was added after the table for minimum structure
setbacks stating the following: "When a structure exists on a lot on either side, the
setback of a proposed structure shall be the greater of the distance setforth in the
above table or the setback of the existing structure."
Section 20-481 part (e) (3) b. Planned unit development was removed from the list for
allowable landings larger than 32 square feet. This would limit all single residential lot
landings to be within 32 square feet.
g:'eag'diane'shoreld\shorordl.fp
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING THE INTERIM
SHORELAND CONTROL ORDINANCE AND ADOPTING
NEW SHORELAND MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS:
Section 1. Chanhassen City Code Sections 20-476 , 20-477 and
20-478 are hereby repealed in their entirety.
Section 2 . Chanhassen City Code Sections 20-1 is amended by
adding the following definitions:
"Boathouse" means a structure designed and used solely for
the storage of boats or boating equipment.
"Building line" means a line parallel to a lot line or the
ordinary high water level at the required setback beyond
which a structure may not extend.
"Commissioner" means the commissioner of the Department of
Natural Resources.
"Deck" means a horizontal, unenclosed platform with or
without attached railings, seats, trellises, or other
features, attached or functionally related to a principal
use or site.
"Hardship" means the same as that term is defined in
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462 .
"Intensive vegetation clearing" means the complete removal
of trees or shrubs in a contiguous patch, strip, row, or
block.
"Semipublic use" means the use of land by a private,
nonprofit organization to provide a public service that is
ordinarily open to some persons outside the regular
constituency of the organization.
'Ecnoitivc resource management" mcano the preservation and
management of areas unsuitable for development in their
natural state due to constraints such as shallow Soils over
groundwater or bedrock, highly erosive or expansive soils,
flora or fauna in need of special protection.
15330:05/31/94
RNK:RL06/28/94
"Sewage treatment system" means a septic tank and soil
absorption system or other individual or cluster type sewage
treatment system as described and regulated in Chapter 19,
Article IV of the city code.
"Sewer system" means pipelines or conduits, pumping
stations, and force main, and all other construction,
devices, appliances, or appurtenances used for conducting
sewage or industrial waste or other wastes to a point of
ultimate disposal.
"Shore impact zone" means land located between the ordinary
high water level of a public water and a line parallel to it
at a setback of 50 percent of the structure setback.
"Shoreland" means land located within the following
distances from public waters: 1, 000 feet from the ordinary
high water level of a lake, pond, or flowage; and 300 feet
from a river or stream, or the landward extent of a
floodplain designated by ordinance on a river or stream,
whichever is greater. The limits of shorelands may be
reduced whenever the waters involved are bounded by
topographic divides which extend landward from the waters
for lesser distances and when approved by the commissioner.
"Significant historic site" means any archaeological site,
standing structure, or other property that meets the
criteria for eligibility to the National Register of
Historic Places or is listed in the State Register of
Historic Sites, or is determined to be an unplatted cemetery
that falls under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
section 307 . 08 . A historic site meets these criteria if it
is presently listed on either register or if it is
determined to meet the qualifications for listing after
review by the Minnesota state archaeologist or the director
of the Minnesota Historical Society. All unplatted
cemeteries are automatically considered to be significant
historic sites.
"Steep slope" means land where agricultural activity or
development is either not recommended or described as poorly
suited due to slope steepness and the site's soil
characteristics, as mapped and described in available county
soil surveys or other technical reports, unless appropriate
design and construction techniques and farming practices are
used in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance.
Where specific information is not available, steep slopes
are lands having average slopes over 12 percent, as measured
over horizontal distances of 50 feet or more, that are not
bluffs.
"Water-oriented accessory structure or facility" means a
small, above ground building or other improvement, except
stairways, fences, docks, and retaining walls, which,
15330:05/31/94
RNK:1406/28/94 -2-
because of the relationship of its use to := surface .rater
feature, reasonably needs to be located ci:.ser to public
waters than the normal structure setback. Examples of such
structures and facilities include boathouses, gazebos,
screen houses, fish houses, pump houses, and detached decks.
Section 3. Chanhassen City Code § 20-1 is amended by
redefining the following terms as set forth below:
"Building height" means the vertical distance between the
highest adjoining ground level at the building or ten feet
above the lowest ground level, whichever is lower, and the
highest point of a flat roof or average height of the
highest of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof.
"Lot width" means the shortest distance between lot lines
measured at the midpoint of the building line.
"Ordinary high water mark or level" means the boundary of
public waters and wetlands, and shall be an elevation
delineating the highest water level which has been
maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence
upon the landscape, commonly that point where the natural
vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to
predominantly terrestrial. For watercourses, the ordinary
high water level is the elevation of the top of the bank of
the channel. for reservoirs and flowages, the ordinary high
water le-, ,!1 is the operating elevation of the normal summer
pool .
Section 4 . Chanhassen City Code Chapter 20 is amended by
adding the following sections which shall be captioned "Article
VII -- Shoreland Management District" :
SECTION 20-476 - STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION AND POLICY
(a) Statutory Authorization. This article is adopted
pursuant to the authorization and policies contained in Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 105, Minnesota Regulations, Parts 6120. 2500 -
6120. 3900, and the planning and zoning enabling legislation in
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462 .
(b) Policy. The uncontrolled use of shorelands of
Chanhassen affects the public health, safety and general welfare
not only by contributing to pollution of public waters, but also
by impairing the local tax base. Therefore, it is in the best
interests of the public health, safety and welfare to provide for
the wise subdivision, use and development of shorelands of public
waters. The Legislature of Minnesota has delegated
responsibility to local governments of the state to regulate the
subdivision, use and development of the shorelands of public
waters and thus preserve and enhance the quality of surface
waters, conserve the economic and natural environmental values of
15330:05/31/94
RNK:RL06/28/94 -3-
shorelands, and provide for the wise use of waters and related
land resources. This responsibility is hereby recognized by
Chanhassen.
SECTION 20-477 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
(a) Jurisdiction. The provisions of this article shall
apply to the shorelands of the public waters as classified in
Section 20-478 of this article. Pursuant to Minnesota
Regulations, parts 6120. 2500 - 6120 . 3900, slakes, ponds, or
flowage less than 10 acres in size isre exempt from this
ordinance. A body of water created by a private user where there
was no previous shoreland is exempt from this article.
(b) Compliance. The use of any shoreland of public waters;
the size and shape of lots; the use, size, type and location of
structures on lots; the installation and maintenance of water
supply and waste treatment systems, the grading and filling of
any shoreland area; the cutting of shoreland vegetation; and the
subdivision of land shall be in full compliance with the terms of
this article and other applicable regulations.
(c) Enforcement. The Planning Director is responsible for
the administration and enforcement of this article. Any
violation of the provisions of this article or failure to comply
with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions
and safeguards established in connection with grants of variances
or conditional uses) shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be
punishable as defined by law.
(d) Interpretation. In their interpretation and
application,the provisions of this article shall be held to be
minimum requirements and shall be liberally construed in favor of
the City and shall not be deemed a limitation or repeal of any
other powers granted by State Statutes.
(e) Severability. If any section, clause, provision, or
portion of this article is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid
by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this
article shall not be affected thereby.
(f) Abrogation and Greater Restrictions. It is not
intended by this article to repeal, abrogate, or impair any
existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However,
where this article imposes greater restrictions, the provisions
of this article shall prevail. All other articles inconsistent
with this article are hereby repealed to the extent of the
inconsistency only.
SECTION 20-478 - ADMINISTRATION
(a) Permits. A permit authorizing an addition to an
existing structure shall stipulate that an identified
15330:05/31/94
RNK:RL06/28/94 -4-
nonconforming sewage treatment system shall be reconstructed or
replaced in accordance with the provisions of this article.
(b) Variances. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals or
City Counsel shall hear and decide requests for variances in
accordance with the rules that it has adopted for the conduct of
business. When a variance is approved after the Department of
Natural Resources has formally recommended denial in the hearing
record, the notification of the approved variance required in
Subsection (c) herein shall also include the summary of the
public record/testimony and the findings of facts and conclusions
which supported the issuance of the variance. For existing
developments, the application for variance shall clearly
demonstrate whether a conforming sewage treatment system is
present for the intended use of the property. The variance, if
issued, shall require reconstruction of a nonconforming sewage
treatment system.
(c) Notifications to the Department of Natural Resources.
Copies of all notices of any public hearings to consider
variances, amendments, or conditional uses under local shoreland
management controls shall be sent to the commissioner's
designated representative and postmarked at least ten days before
the hearings. Notices of hearings to consider proposed
subdivisions/plats shall include copies of the subdivision/plat.
A copy of approved amendments and subdivisions/plats, and final
decisions granting variances or conditional uses under local
shoreland management controls shall be sent to the commissioner's
designated representative and postmarked within ten days of final
action.
SECTION 20-479 - SHORELAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AND LAND
USE DISTRICTS
(a) Shoreland Classification System. The public waters of
Chanhassen have been classified below consistent with the
criteria found in Minnesota Regulations, Part 6120 . 3300, and the
Protected Waters Inventory Map for Carver/Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
(b) The shoreland area for the waterbodies listed below
shall be as defined in Section 20-1 and as shown on the Official
Zoning Map.
(c) Lakes .
(1) Natural Environmental Lakes Inventory I .D. #
Harrison 10-8W
Rice Lake 27-132P
Rice Marsh Lake 10-1P
St. Joe 10-11P
Silver 27-136P
15330:05/31/94
RNK:RL06/28/94 -5-
(2) Recreational Development Lakes Inventory Z.D.#
Ann 10-12P
Christmas 27-137P
Hazeltine 10-14P
Lotus 10-6P
Lucy 10-7P
Minnewashta 10-9P
Riley 10-2P
Susan 10-13P
Virginia 10-15P
(d) Rivers and Streams.
(1) Agricultural :
Minnesota River - from West City Boundary
to East City Boundary
(2) Tributary Streams:
Bluff Creek - from Basin 10-209W to Basin 27-132P
(Rice Lake)
Lake Ann (10-12P) to Lake Susan (10-13P)
Lake Susan (10-13P) to Rice Marsh Lake (10-1P)
Lake Minnewashta (10-9P) to Lake Virginia (10-15P)
Purgatory Creek - from Lotus Lake (10-6P) to
East City Boundary
All protected watercourses in Chanhassen shown on the
Protected Waters Inventory Map for Carver County, a
copy of which is hereby adopted by reference, not given
a classification herein shall be considered
"Tributary" .
SECTION 20-480 - ZONING AND WATER SUPPLY/SANITARY PROVISIONS
(a) Lot Area and Width Standards. The lot area (in square
feet) and lot width standards (in feet) for single, duplex,
triplex and quad residential lots created after the date of
enactment of this ordinance for the lake and river/stream
classification are as follows:
(1) Sewered Lakes - Natural Environment:
Riparian Lots Nonriparian Lots
Area Width Area Width
Single 40, 000 125 15, 000 90
Duplex 70, 000 225 35, 000 180
Triplex 100, 000 325 52 , 000 270
Quad 130, 000 425 65, 000 360
15330:05/31/94
RNK:RL06/28/94 -6-
(2) Sewered Lakes - Recreational Development:
Riparian Lots Nonriparian Lots
Area Width Area Width
Single 20, 000 400 15, 000 4-590
Duplex 35, 000 135:,,...,... 26, 000 135
Triplex 50, 000 195 38 , 000 190
Quad 65, 000 255 49, 000 245
(3) River/Stream Lot Width Standards.
There is no minimum lot size requirements for
rivers and streams. The lot width standards for
single, duplex, triplex and quad residential
developments for the six river/stream
classifications are as follows:
Tributary
No
Agricultural Sewer Sewer
Single 150 100 4§90
Duplex 225 150 115
Triplex 300 200 150
Quad 375 250 190
(4) Additional Special Provisions.
Residential subdivisions with dwelling unit
densities exceeding those in the tables in
subsections (1) , (2) and (3) can only be allowed
if designed and approved as residential planned
unit developments. Only land above the ordinary
high water level of public waters shall be used to
meet lot area standards, and lot width standards
shall be met at both the ordinary high water level
and at the building line. The sewer lot area
dimensions in subsections (1) , (2) and (3) can
only be used if publicly owned sewer system
service is available to the property.
SECTION 20-481 - PLACEMENT, DESIGN, AND HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE
(a) Placement of Structures on Lots. When more than one
setback applies to a site, structures and facilities shall be
located to meet all setbacks. Where structures exist on the
adjoining lots on both sides of a proposed building site,
structure setbacks may be altered without a variance to conform
to the adjoining setbacks from the ordinary high water level,
provided the proposed building site is not located in a shore
impact zone or in a bluff impact zone. Structures and on-site
sewage treatment systems shall be setback (in feet) from the
ordinary high water level as follows:
15330:05/31/94
RNK:RL06/28/94 -7-
Sewage
Structures Treatment
PubliccWaters
Classesa_ Unsewered Sewered System
Lakes
Natural Environment
150 150 150
Recreational Development 100
75 75
Rivers
Agricultural & Tributary 100
50 75
When a structure exists on a lot on either side, the setback of a
proposed structure shall be the greater of the distance setforth
in the above table or the setback of the existing structure .
One water-oriented accessory structure designed in accordance
with Section 20-482 (e) (2) (b} of this article may be setback a
minini.m distance of ten (10) feet from the ordinary high water
level .
(b) Additional Structure Setbacregardlesshe following
additional structure setbacks apply,
the
classification of the waterbody.
Setback From: Setback (in feet)
(1) top of bluff ; 30
(2) unplatted cemetery; 50
(3) right-of-way line of 50
federal , state, or
county highway; and
(4) right-of-way line of 20
town road, public street,
or other roads or streets
not classified.
(c) Bluff Impact Zones. Structures and accessory
facilities, except stairways and landings, shall not be placed
within bluff impact zones .
(d) Non-residential Uses Without Water-oriented Needs .
Uses without water-oriented needs shall be located on lots or
parcels without public waters frontage, or, if located on lots or
parcels with public waters frontage, shall either be set back
double the normal ordinary high water level setback or be
substantially screened from view from the water by vegetation or
topography, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions .
15330:05/31/94 -8-
o....nc,=niOL
(e F64.1 5tr.aEtazi
(1) High Water Elevations. Structures shall be placed
in accordance with any floodplain regulations
applicable to the site. Where these controls do
not exist, the elevation to which the lowest
floor, including basement, is placed or flood-
proofed shall be determined as follows:
a. for lakes, by placing the lowest floor at a
level at least three feet above the highest
known water level, or three feet above the
ordinary high water level, whichever is
higher;
b. for rivers and streams, by placing the lowest
floor at least three feet above the flood of
record, if data are available. If data are
not available, by placing the lowest floor at
least three feet above the ordinary high
water level, or by conducting a technical
evaluation to determine effects of proposed
construction upon flood stages and flood
flaws and to establish a flood protection
elevation. Under all three approaches,
technical evaluations shall be done by a
qualified engineer or hydrologist consistent
with parts 6120. 5000 to 6120 . 6200 governing
the management of flood plain areas. If more
than one approach is used, the highest flood
protection elevation determined shall be used
for placing structures and other facilities;
and
c. water-oriented accessory structures may have
the lowest floor placed lower than the
elevation determined in this item if the
structure is construed of flood-resistant
materials to the elevation, electrical and
mechanical equipment is placed above the
elevation and, if long duration flooding is
anticipated, the structure is built to
withstand ice action and wind-driven waves
and debris.
(2) Water-oriented Accessory Structures. Each lot may
have one water-oriented accessory structure not
meeting the normal structure setback in Section
20-481 (a) if this water-oriented accessory
structure complies with the following provisions:
a. the structure or facility shall not exceed
ten feet in height, exclusive of safety
rails, and cannot occupy an area greater than
15330:05/31/94
RNK:RL06/28/94 -9-
250 square feet. Detached decks shall not
exceed eight feet above grade at any point.
b. the setback of the structure or facility from
the ordinary high water level shall be at
least ten feet;
c. the structure or facility shall be treated to
reduce visibility as viewed from public
waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation,
topography, increased setbacks or color,
assuming summer, leaf-on conditions;
d. the roof may be used as a deck with safety
rails, but shall not be enclosed or used as a
storage area;
e. the structure or facility shall not be
designed or used for human habitation and
shall not contain water supply or sewage
treatment facilities; and
f. as an alternative for general development and
recreational development waterbodies, water-
oriented accessory structures used solely for
watercraft storage, and including storage of
related boating and water-oriented sporting
equipment, may occupy an area of up to 400
square feet provided the maximum width of the
structure is 20 feet as measured parallel to
the configuration of the shoreline.
(3) Stairway, Lifts and Landings. Stairways and lifts
are the preferred alternative to major topographic
alterations for achieving access up and down
bluffs and steep slopes to shore areas. Stairways
and lifts shall meet the following design
requirements:
a. stairways and lifts shall not exceed four
feet in width on residential lots. Wider
stairways may be used for commercial
properties, public open-space recreational
properties, and planned unit developments;
b. landings for stairways and lifts on
residential lots shall not exceed 32 square
feet in area. Landings larger than 32 square
feet may be used for commercial properties,
public open-spacer' d recreational
properties, and planned unit developments;
c. canopies or roofs are not allowed on
stairways, lifts, or landings;
15330:05/31/94
RNK:RL06/28/94 -10-
d. stairways, lifts, and landings may be either
constructed above the ground on posts or
pilings, or placed into the ground, provided
they are designed and build in a manner that
ensures control of soil erosion;
e. stairways, lifts, and landings shall be
located in the most visually inconspicuous
portions of lots, as viewed from the surface
of the public water assuming summer, leaf-on
conditions, whenever practical; and
f. facilities such as ramps, lifts, or mobility
paths for physically handicapped persons are
also allowed for achieving access to shore
areas, provided that the dimensional and
performance standards of subitems (a) to (e)
are complied with in addition to the
requirements of Minnesota Regulations,
Chapter 1340.
(4) Significant Historic Sites. No structure shall be
placed on a significant historic site in a manner
that affects the values of the site unless
adequate information about the site has been
removed and documented in a public repository.
(5) Steep Slopes. The Planning Director shall
evaluate possible soil erosion impacts and
development visibility from public waters before
issuing a permit for construction of sewage
treatment systems, roads, driveways, structures,
or other improvements on steep slopes . When
determined necessary, conditions shall be attached
to issued permits to prevent erosion and to
preserve existing vegetation screening of
structures, vehicles, and other facilities as
viewed from the surface of public waters, assuming
summer, leaf-on vegetation.
(f) Height of Structures. All structures in residential
districts, except churches and nonresidential agricultural
structures, shall not exceed 35 feet in height.
SECTION 20-482 - SHORELAND ALTERATIONS
(a) Generally. Alterations of vegetation and topography
shall be regulated to prevent erosion into public waters, fix
nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic
values, prevent bank slumping, and protect fish and wildlife
habitat.
15330:05/31/94
RNK:RL06/28/94 -11-
(b) Vegetation Alterations.
(1) Vegetation alteration necessary for the
construction of structures and sewage treatment
systems and the construction of roads and parking
areas regulated by Section 20-484 of this article
are exempt from the following vegetation
alteration standards.
(2) Removal or alteration of vegetation is allowed
subject to the following standards:
a. Intensive vegetation clearing within the
shore and bluff impact zones and on steep
slopes is not allowed. Intensive vegetation
clearing for forest land conversion to
another use outside of these areas is
allowable if permitted as part of a
development approved by the city council as a
conditional use if an erosion control and
sedimentation plan is developed and approved
by the soil and water conservation district
in which the property is located.
b. In shore and bluff impact zones and on steep
slopes, limited clearing of trees and shrubs
and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees
is allowed to provide a view of the water
from the principal dwelling site and to
accommodate the placement of stairways and
landings, picnic areas, access paths,
livestock watering areas, beach and
watercraft access areas, and permitted water-
oriented accessory structures or facilities,
provided that:
i. the screening of structures, vehicles,
or other facilities as viewed from the
water, assuming summer, leaf-on
conditions, is not substantially
reduced;
ii. along rivers, existing shading of water
surfaces is preserved; and
iii. the above provisions are not applicable
to the removal of trees, limbs, or
branches that are dead, diseased, or
pose safety hazards.
SECTION 20-483 - TOPOGRAPHIC ALTERATIONS/GRADING AND FILLING
Connections to Public Waters. Excavations where the
intended purpose is connection to a public water, such as boat
15330:05/31/94
RNK:RL06/28/94 -12-
slips, canals, lagoons, and harbors, shall be controlled by this
Article and Section 7 , Article III. Permission for excavations
may be given only after the commissioner has approved the
proposed connection to public waters.
SECTION 20-484 - PLACEMENT AND DESIGN OF ROADS, DRIVEWAYS,
AND PARKING AREAS
(a) Public and private roads and parking areas shall be
designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography
to achieve maximum screening from view from public waters.
documentation shall be provided by a qualified individual that
all roads and parking areas are designed and constructed to
minimize and control erosion to public waters consistent with the
field office technical guides of the local soil and water
conservation district, or other applicable technical materials.
(b) Roads, driveways, and parking areas shall meet
structure setbacks and shall not be placed within bluff and shore
impact zones, when other reasonable and feasible placement
alternatives exist. If no alternatives exist, they may be placed
within these areas, and shall be designed to minimize adverse
impacts.
(c) Public and watercraft access ramps, approach roads, and
access-related parking areas may be placed within shore impact
zones provided the vegetative screening and erosion control
conditions of this subpart are met.
SECTION 20-485 - STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Impervious surface coverage of lots shall not exceed 25
percent of the lot area, except as follows:
(a) Thirty-five percent (35%) for medium/high density
residential zones; and
(b) Seventy percent (70%) in industrial zones within the
Lake Susan shoreland district.
SECTION 20-486 - SEWAGE TREATMENT
Any premises used for human occupancy shall be provided with
an adequate method of sewage treatment, as follows:
(a) On-site sewage treatment systems shall be set back from
the ordinary high water level in accordance with the setbacks
contained in Section 20-481 (a) of this article.
(b) A nonconforming sewage treatment system shall be
upgraded, at a minimum, at any time a permit or variance of any
type is required for any improvement on, or use of, the property.
For the purposes of this provision, a sewage treatment system
shall not be considered nonconforming if the only deficiency is
15330:05/31/94
RNK:Rl06/28/94 -13-
the sewage treatment system's improper setback from the ordinary
high water level.
(c) The Chanhassen City Council has by formal resolution
notified the commissioner of its program to identify
nonconforming sewage treatment systems. Chanhassen will require
upgrading or replacement of any nonconforming system identified
by this program within a reasonable period of time which will not
exceed two years. Sewage systems installed according to all
applicable local shoreland management standards adopted under
Minnesota Statutes, section 105.485, in effect at the time of
installation may be considered as conforming unless they are
determined to be failing, except that systems using cesspools,
leaching pits, seepage pits, or other deep disposal methods, or
systems with less soil treatment area separation above ground
water than required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's
Chapter 7080 for design of on-site sewage treatment systems,
shall be considered nonconforming.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this day of ,
1994 , by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen.
ATTEST:
Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1994) .
15330:05/31/94
RNK:RL06/28/94 -14-
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 15, 1994
Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Jeff Farmakes, and Nancy
Mancino. Diane Harberts was present for part of the meeting.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ron Nutting
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II; Bob
Generous, Planner II; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and Elliott Knetsch, City Attorney
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE SECTION 20-904(C) REGARDING A TIME LIMIT
FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED AFTER THE PRIMARY
STRUCTURE HAS BEEN REMOVED OR DESTROYED.
Public Present:
Name Address
Verne Severson 675 Lakota Lane
M. Happy 495 Lakota Lane
Don Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Blvd.
Laverne Wheeler 445 Lakota Lane
Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Any questions or comments for staff.
Harberts: I have one. Is there a current issue pending?
Aanenson: Yes.
Harberts: Is the owner aware of this?
Al-Jaff: ...if we go through the city there would be numerous.
Harberts: But there is one currently that's at our door knocking? Or we're knocking on their
door.
1
Al-Jaff: It's more of, there are numerous docks on the lakes or boat houses and...and those
are accessory structures where the house was remodeled.
Harberts: And they're still standing.
Al-Jaff: ...and the lots are just being used for picnic areas.
Harberts: Are these accessory structures, are they being maintained? Or is the majority of
them not being maintained well?
Al-Jaff: Well if it's a dock, then it's a seasonal structure that is...and removed at the end of
the summer. If it's a boat house, then it's there year round. Boat lifts.
Harberts: But this doesn't apply to like a boat house or a.
Al-Jaff: That would be considered an accessory structure.
Harberts: It would be?
Mancino: So you couldn't just own some property and have your boat there and have a boat
house and not even live there? Let's say I just bought 2 acres to come and maybe put a tent
on on the weekends.
Aanenson: No, that's what the ordinance is for.
Harberts: And why is that so bad? Well I'm just trying to understand.
Aanenson: In some of the neighborhoods, they bought a lot and was going to build on it in 5
years. In the meantime they wanted to let their church group use it every weekend. That
may be a problem. Then we have a different set of...conditional use. We've had that in the
past where people have bought large lots and used them as recreational...and if you look at
the integrity of the neighborhood, that was not the intent...That's why you have conditional
use permits...
Mancino: I was going to say, they may build an accessory structure before they build the
main one and live on it for many years and never get around to building the main structure.
Aanenson: Yeah, that happens too so...
Harberts: And this only applies to like shoreline or lake lots or something? This is city
wide?
Mancino: Less than 3 acres.
2
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Al-Jaff: Oh yes. Less than 3 acres.
Mancino: Less than 3 acres so if it's.
Harberts: So if it's farmland.
Mancino: There's a barn there.
Scott: Any other?
Harberts: It could be a historical site too.
Scott: Good. Any other questions or comments for staff? This is a public hearing so if I
could have a motion to open the public hearing please.
Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the public hearing was opened.
Scott: If anyone would like to speak, please step up to the podium. Identify yourselves with
your name and your address and let us hear what you have to say. Is there anyone here for
this item? For this public hearing. Yes sir.
Don Sitter: My name is Don Sitter, 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. I live next to one of these cases
and I'm going to keep this real brief. I think the intent of your ordinance is that you don't
have a lot and then use it for a lot of other things. And those ordinances are already in place.
You can't just buy a lot or develop it or dock or boat houses. Camp on it every weekend,
etc. In this situation is where a house has been removed. There's no deadline to bring it
under the same ordinances that are across the rest of the city. I think the amendment to the
ordinance is just to bring these lots in line with the rest of the ordinances and have a
deadline. So when they remove a house, there is some sort of deadline that will end the
stuff. We happen to live next to one that the house was removed 6 years ago. And it starts
out with a dock and then it's a boat and then pretty soon they've got a picnic grounds and
they've got all their friends coming for every weekend and it finally ended up where they
were camping on the property. No toilet facilities or whatever and it's caused a lot of
problems. So I'm in favor of the amendment to the ordinance. Thank you.
Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak?
Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
3
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Scott: Ms. Harberts.
Harberts: Come on. Give me a break. Go ahead Matt.
Ledvina: I don't have any comments.
Scott: Ladd? Nancy? Jeff?
Farmakes: No.
Harberts: Well I have a little problem with it but.
Scott: And that is?
Harberts: Well I understand what the gentleman has said and I certainly support what the
intent here is. I guess it just adds to some of my concern with regard to controls. The
amount of controls that the city chooses to place on it's residents and I'll just leave it at that.
Mancino: Do you think it's too restrictive?
Harberts: I think it is too restrictive. But I understand what they're trying to do and it's
probably perhaps a few bad apples that ruins it for everyone yeah because I don't, I
personally don't see anything wrong with if a person owns a piece of property, a building is
there and they want to come out there on the weekends to do their boating and they use their
house, or that storage building to store boats or whatever. But when it come abusive, I can
understand that because then it starts, infringes on the neighbors. When Kate talked about the
integrity of the area and things like that. And it's just too bad that a few make it abusive for
everyone. You know that's why some of my questions earlier about, is there an issue right
now that prompted this amendment? And I can understand with a community that's growing
like this, we certainly want to be responsive to the residents that are here, to protect those.
So it's really too bad that it becomes abusive and the city has to control it.
Mancino: Now can someone come in and ask for a variance?
Al-Jaff: Yes.
Mancino: And say I'm going to buy this property. I bought it and yet we're living out of
town. We want to keep our boat docked or I don't know what but we never know ever
single person who would come with a different request. But they can ask for a variance. Or
they would have to prove a hardship.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Scott: Can I have a motion please?
Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of zoning
ordinance amendment to Section 20-904(c) as shown in Amendment #1.
Scott: Is there a second?
Mancino: Second.
Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-904(c) as shown in Attachment #1. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW MULTIPLE BUILDINGS ON THE
SAME LOT (SECTION 20-902) IN A PUD DISTRICT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
FOR A 280 SQUARE FOOT TELEPHONE SWITCHING BUILDING LOCATED ON
LOT 1, BLOCK 2, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER, SPRINT/UNITED
TELEPHONE OF MINNESOTA.
Public Present:
Name Address
Philip Briggs 1000 W. Franklin #305, Mpls.
Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Any questions or comments for staff?
Harberts: How many employees?
Al-Jaff: None.
Harberts: Come on. They're not just going to build a building and have it empty.
Al-Jaff: For maintenance possibly they will come in.
5
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Harberts: There won't be any staff there during the day at all? It's just a matter for storage?
Scott: Well it's a telephone. I think it's a telephone switch, data switch for the NWS station.
Any other comments or questions?
Harberts: I'll believe you.
Scott: Would the applicant like to, or their representative like to make a presentation at this
time? A brief presentation.
Philip Briggs: My name's Philip Briggs. I represent...and this building is quite simply being
built in order to facilitate the National Weather facility that's being built there. And as
shown on the drawings, it's a very small building. It exists just off of what would be the
entrance drive to the facility. As Sharmin stated, it's our intention to use matching material,
matching color bricks and whatever kind of metal detailing... And at the request of the city
in discussions with Ms. Al-Jaff, we agreed to enhance the landscaping in order to match the
parking spaces of those buildings so.
Scott: Do you know specifically what type of equipment is going to be in that?
Philip Briggs: It's a telephone switch facility basically.
Scott: Okay. And is the, do you happen to know what the number of lines? The reason
why I'm asking this question is that I was just kind of interested as to why this was not the
equipment that is in that particular building, why that wasn't proposed as being included in
the original structure. And also, if this switch is specifically for the use of that weather
station, handling data switching or if it is something that would also be used to serve other
United Telephone, Sprint customers in that area. So this is kind of a multi-purpose.
Philip Briggs: It's intended only for the National Weather Service facility, right. The reason
it's not part of the building is that, this is going to be owned and operated by Sprint and
United Telephone. And we're receiving a conditional use permit because we are getting an
easement by the owners of the property to build a structure on the site.
Harberts: How many lines will there be then?
Philip Briggs: Pardon me?
Harberts: How many lines will there be out of this building over to the Weather Station?
6
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Philip Briggs: I'm not certain of the exact number. It's all going to be underground as far as
I have been made aware.
Harberts: It's interesting that they're putting up a different building like that for the
communications rather than what Joe said, incorporating it into the facility.
Scott: Well, I think it's probably a lot like what U.S. West does. Is that they put their
switches.
Harberts: Yeah, but for one client like that? Wait a minute, it's government isn't it?
Scott: Any other questions?
Mancino: I have a question for you. I see that on the west elevation, the HVAC units are on
the outside. Why couldn't those be placed on the top of the building so that the parapet walls
screen them so we don't need to have landscaping do it?
Philip Briggs: That's a good question. The building being used is a building by Sprint, UTS.
It's a...exterior material. We assume that, and Sprint and UTS assumes that the use of
landscaping and berms would be...
Mancino: I'd really like to recommend that they be placed on the roof of the building and
have the parapet wall screen it completely. Because I think one of the pitfalls that happens is
when you put a little utility building like this all your city, I mean they show up that way.
It's a box. It has nothing architecturally. It's usually not landscaped...so I would like to see
those units placed on the top. Sharmin, how compatible is this landscaping, from what I can
see, with the landscaping at the center? I mean I felt that there was a lot more landscaping
done at the weather center. Around the building itself. Around the parking, interior, etc. It
doesn't seem to reflect that feel.
Al-Jaff: Well, with the recommendation that staff is making with additional landscaping, it
would be compatible.
Mancino: Okay. Are you recommending boulevard trees or lining of trees into the driveway
area or anything like that?
Al-Jaff: This is their site.
Mancino: And that's kind of the entrance to the National Weather Service, right?
7
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Al-Jaff: Correct. Well this would be the entrance into the National Weather Service. So
we're asking for additional trees around this...That they have to have, and this will be green.
We're also asking for a meandering...along the north elevation as well as additional
landscaping. Additional trees. What we recommended was, and when we spoke to the
applicant, we suggested a mix of evergreens as well as overstory and he would be able to
pick out the species from the approved city landscaping trees.
Mancino: What are your thoughts on moving the HVAC up on top, on the roof versus on the
side of the building?
Aanenson: That's sitting so low right now, the Weather Service is, you're not going to see it
from any direction. Even coming off of Lake Drive, it's sitting high. The Weather Service is
sitting low.
Mancino: But you have lots of people that work in the Weather Service too coming down
the road and I just wondered, if it's an easy, doable thing, why not.
Al-Jaff: Are the units removed? I mean do they have to have them separate?
Philip Briggs: That's basically the design of the facility. It would require that we redesign
the facility...if we were to do that. I've been told that would be...but I'm not certain.
Mancino: Maybe we can check that.
Scott: Any other questions or comments for the applicant? No? Thank you. This is a
public hearing and may I have a motion to open the public hearing please.
Harberts moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: If anyone would like to address the Planning Commission on this particular issue,
please step forward. Is there anyone here who would like to speak at this public hearing?
Seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Harberts moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Jeff.
Farmakes: I only have...one comment. In issues where we cannot see the building...overhead
8
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
view. When you're referring to the flashing and the metal flashing and parapet and the brick
and so on are going to match, I'm assuming that the effort is to match the existing structure
of the other service building. I cannot remember the roofline or the parapet or the metal
flashing of that building. But this is a very small structure. It's...24 or something like that. I
think all of the work that's been done...Even the drive in area where it's being landscaped is
pretty insignificant. We should make sure that the materials and the roof...are an
enhancement rather than just a utility building, especially since it's out in front by the
entrance. That's it.
Scott: Nancy?
Mancino: I have nothing new to add.
Scott: Okay, Matt.
Ledvina: I don't know. I understand what you're saying about the air conditioning units but
at the same time I'm reluctant to suggest that the applicant redesign the entire building for
that purpose. I guess I'm wondering, maybe I don't have a clear understanding as to where
the air conditioning units are. Are they on the ground or are they on the side of the building
or?
Al-Jaff: They are on the side of the building. The western wall. And these are the units
right here.
Ledvina: Okay. And which direction does that face? I mean relative to the site plan here?
So towards the street essentially, right?
Al-Jaff: Correct. And with the berm right here that we are recommending, is an additional
screen. It should be screened completely from here.
Mancino: But my only question is, it's probably goes like 8 feet tall and it depends if you
have deciduous trees. If you have coniferous trees around it and I think that that will
probably work. I'm just asking that staff and the applicant go back and see if it can be done
without a lot of.
Ledvina: Okay, okay. I would support that. Yeah maybe perhaps on the other side of the
building you know because if you're looking at Lake Drive West and there is a potential for
viewing that as you're driving by and I know those things can be unsightly if it's not done
right. I would agree with you 100% there but I don't know that I'd be.
9
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Mancino: Well you have this great looking, the weather building which is very good looking
and you're coming in and then you, you know you kind of have this box with HVAC on the
outside of it as you drive by.
Ledvina: What would you think if it was on the other side of the building?
Mancino: Much better.
Ledvina: Okay. Is that doable? To do a mirror image of that building?
Philip Briggs: Possibly. You might have to change the wiring.
Ledvina: Okay. Well I don't know. But if we can leave it a little bit, I don't want to, I'm
nervous about if you have a condition like that, doing it in an absolute term because I know
that it appears that the applicant has been willing to look at the options with landscaping and
I think that will be fine. That's it, thank you.
Scott: Ladd.
Conrad: Nothing more.
Scott: Diane.
Harberts: Nothing.
Scott: Thank you. Can I have a motion please?
Mancino: I move that the Planning Commission approve Site Plan Review #94-3 as shown
on the site plan received May 5th subject to the following conditions. Number 1, number 2,
number 3, and number 4 is that the applicant work with staff to either flip flop the building
and move the HVAC units on top or make sure that they get year round screening. And that
starts at year one. Not year 10. For year round screening. We don't want to wait for years.
Anybody want to second that?
Ledvina: I'll second that motion.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission approve Site Plan
Review #94-3 as shown on the site plan received May 5, 1994 subject to the following
10
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide a meandering berm with landscaping to screen the HVAC and
cross connect box. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of
landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees
must be posted prior to building permit issuance.
2. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the city and provide
the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping.
3. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall
be submitted.
4. The applicant will work with staff to either flip flop the building and move the
HVAC units on top or make sure that they get year round screening immediately.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mancino: I recommend that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit #94-3
subject to the following condition. Number 1. Compliance with the conditions of site plan
and plat approval.
Scott: Is there a second?
Conrad: Sure.
Mancino moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of Conditional lise Permit #94-3 subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 35.83 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 38
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES TO THE SHORELAND
REGULATIONS FOR MINIMUM LOT SIZES, LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED
RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED NORTH OF KINGS ROAD
AND WEST OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, THE OAKS AT MINNEWASHTA,
HARSTAD COMPANIES.
Public Present:
Name Address
Keith Bedford 3961 Stratford Ridge
Paul Harstad 2191 Silver Lake Road, New Brighton
Steve Johnston Loucks and Assoc, 7200 Hemlock Lane,
Maple Grove
Sue Morgan 4031 Kings Road
Lynda Scott 4031 Kings Road
Karen DeMun 6930 Minnewashta Parkway
Margie Borris 4071 Kings Road
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Any questions or comments from commissioners for staff?
Mancino: Kate, just one question. Is Kings Road a collector street? It says here in the staff
report, page 4, at this time Kings Road is proposed to be extended to intersect with Country
Oaks Road to act as a local collector street for the subdivision.
Aanenson: ...at some future date with the more properties subdividing in that area. When
sewer becomes available, that may be an issue.
Mancino: I thought we didn't want any more curb cuts on collector streets? And we weren't
allowing.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Aanenson: Well we're getting direct access onto, they're all getting access off Country Oaks.
The 4 lots in Block 1 are being platted as, excuse me. The 3 lots. The first lot..access off
Country Oaks. Those other lots will be platted as an outlot until such time as Country Oaks,
excuse me, Kings Road is developed to city standards. So those 3 lots. This lot will get
access off of Country Oaks. These lots will be platted in an outlot until such time as Kings
Road is developed to city standards.
Mancino: When Kings Road is developed to city standards, it will be a collector?
Aanenson: A minor collector.
Scott: So it's not like Kerber Blvd.
Aanenson: Not like Minnewashta Parkway is a collector. It's a feeder street. It will...out of
Minnewashta Parkway.
Mancino: Okay. Like Lake Lucy Road?
Aanenson: No. Not to that...of traffic.
Mancino: So that when Kings Road is developed westward, you can access individual
properties off Kings Road? I thought we kind of stopped that.
Scott: But because it's a minor.
Mancino: Is that because it's a minor collector?
Aanenson: There are existing conditions...
Mancino: But they're already existing. They're already there. They're grandfathered,
grandmothered in.
Aanenson: Yeah, and we're not allowing it with the subdivision. Is that your question?
Those lots will have access, those two. Oh excuse me, at a future date, correct. Those 4 lots.
Mancino: But we are saying those lots can have individual access, curb cuts on the minor
collector. I thought that in previous subdivisions we could not, you've been against it.
Hempel: One clarification Commission Mancino. This street is going to act like, similar to
Lake Susan Hills Drive where you have all the other neighborhoods feeding onto this
13
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
neighborhood collector if you will. There is driveways up and down that street that access
this type of street... Ideally it's, if you can get them off...but all those parcels to the south, or
I should say a majority of them, will have access directly off of Kings Road. There's not
enough right-of-way or not enough land to subdivide and put a cul-de-sac street in and so
forth. These are very large lots...
Mancino: I just wondered if we were being inconsistent at all.
Hempel: No, we don't believe so.
Scott: Would the applicant and/or their representative like to make a brief presentation?
Steve Johnston: Good evening...also with me tonight is Paul Harstad with Harstad
Companies. Paul will be available to answer any questions you might have...The plat that
you see before you is the results of staff's comments and the original proposal. We had a
meeting with the owners adjacent to the project...As Kate mentioned, specifically we tried to
addressed staff's concerns with the private drive...the extension to the east...rather than
continuing to Stratford...The other modification that you'll see is that we have shifted Country
Oaks Road to the east so it aligns up with the eastern property line with the Borris property.
That was a request of the committee meeting in trying to avoid...so we have been trying to be
as responsive to the...I'm happy to say that we have come up with the street profile for Kings
Road that will save all of the trees on the south side of the road. All of the trees that are on
other people's property. The unfortunate thing is, by virtue of widening the road, all the
homes and all the trees on the north side of the building will be lost. That's because of
the...fairly close to the existing road surface and it was requested to widened that road out...
That will take filling along our south property line...north line of the existing Kings Road...
There was some discussion at the previous meeting...north line or south line. Our surveyors
staked it and we went over that with them. There was some, they felt...the line to be staked
was correct and a correct south property line which would be the new south line, south right-
of-way for Kings Road... As you mentioned, that's one of the biggest concerns at the previous
meeting had to do with the...sewer installation on Kings Road and that may require work
outside of the 50 foot right-of-way. The proposal that we had made was...the sanitary sewer
through a portion of the park property allowing us to avoid putting...As a result of that though
and in looking at a lift station at the western most extension of Kings Road, that lift station
will be sized to handle flow from this project and other properties in Chanhassen...That lift
station is being installed as part of the first phase of the project... There is one item in the
staff report that we just want to comment on for the record. And that is that they are
concerned with the...distribution being proposed in the staff report...
Ledvina: What condition is that?
14
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Mancino: Number 7.
Aanenson: That was regarding the park. The city will be taking, or purchasing the park
property. Who's responsible for those improvements in front of the park. ...the city will be
responsible for...
Scott: Any questions or comments for the applicant?
Mancino: Is there any streetscaping on Kings Road at this point?
Aanenson: That's what we're recommending as part of the woodland management plan.
That those trees they'll be taking out, that they come back and look at...That was one of our
recommendations...come back with streetscape plan now for Kings Road. But also...
Mancino: Okay, so that's to make sure that the tree preservation and the woodland
management plan is that the percentage does not include all the streetscaping...
Scott: Any other questions or comments? Alright, thank you very much.
Steve Johnston: I guess I would like to request the ability to respond to any of the questions
that are...
Scott: Yeah, I think if there's during the public hearing, certainly if there's a question that
staff can't answer.
Steve Johnston: Okay, thank you.
Scott: Good. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please?
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: If you'd like to speak on this particular issue, please step up to the microphone and
give us your name and your address.
Margie Borris: I'm Margie Borris. I live at 4071 Kings Road. I want to thank you for
moving that road. There are, on that first spot I believe... Number one where there were 12
cedar trees on the ridge there... According to the University of Minnesota Arboretum, some of
those trees can be moved. So they do not have to be destroyed. Red cedar trees are very
rare in Minnesota but I'd like to...that the neighbors around us do want to keep as many of
15
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
those as we can. The next question is, I couldn't read with our eyes because the writing is so
small. The questions on the, since the sewer's now going to go down the center of the
property, how, with the new grading, and the roads putting in, are we going to keep from
getting water washed into Kings Road, specifically my property. Because it sounded like we
would be lowering, we were changing the grades...like it could drain into our property. But if
there's a sewer there, that wouldn't be a problem but now there's no sewer there.
Scott: Dave.
Hempel: Mr Chairman. Kings Road is proposed to be fully upgraded to the intersection of
Country Oaks Drive. From that point west and it will...street. Some portion of the street, the
upgrade will have curb and gutter and storm sewer in place to collect drainage.
Margie Borris: Okay. Another thing that was brought up...is that we have underground
electricity which is hooked up right at the corner of our lot across Kings Road to our
property. If that's going to be disrupted or not, what are we going to do for electricity?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, those kind of conflicts are dealt with in every construction project.
Modifications are made in the field to provide temporary service to each individual home
site... Those are all factors taken into consideration during construction.
Margie Borris: Did you come up with a plan while this under construction so that persons
living on Kings Road that have no other way or entering and exiting their home, they can get
to and from work?
Hempel: That would be addressed as well. Emergency services to deal with each home as
well.
Margie Borris: Okay. Well we went through the Minnewashta Parkway debacle for a couple
years and we're real concerned. I was wondering too if there could be a stop sign placed at
the, I can't read the name of that. Something Oaks Drive and...for the people exiting that
development, would this be...
Scott: That's pretty much standard procedure, isn't it Dave?
Margie Borris: Okay, well it wasn't on here so I didn't know.
Scott: Good question though. Okay thank you ma'am. Anyone else please. Yes ma'am.
Sue Morgan: My name is Sue Morgan. I live at 4031 Kings Road and I have several issues
16
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
that I'd like to address. Several which I've already addressed to the commission and Kate
through letters and I haven't really received a response so I'd like to talk about them for a
little. One is that, I know we talked here about taking the cedar trees on the south side of
Kings Road and...This kind of gives you some idea the cedar trees we're talking about.
They're these trees right here. As I said, this is Kings Road right here and my house is on
the other side of the street up in here. It's been said that the trees will be spared. We know
that accidents happen in construction and we know that there aren't any guarantees...in
construction so we'd like to have something in writing that kind of acknowledges to us that
these will be saved. Is that possible?
Scott: I know standard procedure is to put snow fence. There's an area, and I believe it
coincides with the drip area. The outside of the canopy of the tree and that is denoted as a
no tread zone if you will. That's a typical situation. Now when we're talking about a road
Dave, we would use that same sort of a scenario to keep construction equipment off of that
drip zone?
Hempel: That is one method, sure. During construction you do have numerous
subcontractors and so forth that do prelim the site... Occasionally accidents will happen...but
these trees are all within your property and so if there is damage done to them, the contractor
does have insurance and is available to file claims against. That's one thing...certainly could
put up construction fencing around each tree...
Mancino: Dave, don't they have to, prior to them getting any sort of roadway improvements,
doesn't someone go out from the city. Maybe our intern, our tree intern and inspects the site
to make sure that there is that protected fence up before anybody is allowed to start doing the
work?
Hempel: Yes, that's correct. We do go out and inspect those areas. Sometimes some of the
tree removal is done though actually before some of that stuff is put in because vegetation is
so dense but in this situation, it's more sparse where it's easy to be put up prior to
construction.
Mancino: So we can actually write that down as part of the recommendation. That snow
fencing must be put up and approved by city staff before any of the road construction begins.
Hempel: We certainly can. 1 guess we'll know more of the impacts of these trees I guess
know the final design of the street grades. I'm not on a comfort level yet with the applicant's
construction plans to see the full impact of the street grades and that...upgrade of Kings Road
will be a cooperative project between the city and the applicant. Most likely will be a 429
project or an assessable project...During the design we'll see the full impacts on the trees as
17
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
we've done in other areas, we've...we can to preserve them.
Sue Morgan: So basically you're saying that there's still...basically you just said you haven't
really seen the final grading. Whereas prior to this time you said, you mentioned that final
grading had been done on the street...Kate said the same thing. What you're saying is now is
you still don't know.
Hempel: I have not seen a final set of construction drawings which you don't develop until
you're getting close to the final plat stage. But the preliminary grading, the contour lines will
indicate the construction limits. I have not seen those newly revised street grades. I've seen
the street profile but not a cross section.
Sue Morgan: So basically the problem is that we really don't know who's responsible for
what. It hasn't been decided if the city is...so right now nobody's taking responsibility for it
is basically what you're saying because you haven't seen the grading. He doesn't know what
you're doing so it goes back and forth, back and forth. We're still in the same situation we
were before is that no one will give us an answer and I want someone to say the answer.
When...
Hempel: We will have an answer when a feasibility study is done as part of the city project
to upgrade this road.
Sue Morgan: When is that, a month? Two months?
Hempel: That would be once the applicant petitions the city to see...this type of project.
Sue Morgan: Is that after the City Council has approved this? Is that before the City
Council approves it?
Hempel: This preliminary plat approval is contingent upon the applicant petitioning the city
to upgrade Kings Road. So this will not happen unless, this develop will not happen without
Kings Road being upgraded.
Sue Morgan: Okay, so right now he's just getting his development approved. He's not
getting the upgrading of Kings Road approved, is that what you're saying?
Hempel: It's kind of a package deal where his development is contingent upon him working
with the city. The city developing Kings Road so.
Sue Morgan: So basically right now...
18
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Hempel: I'm relying on the engineer for this development has done some preliminary
identification but...impact of the trees but I don't know if he'd like to address it further.
Sue Morgan: Okay. Something else that kind of impacts that is that in contacting our
attorney and also we started some proceedings with our title company, Kings Road, there's
always been some question as to who owns Kings Road. About right-of-way. About
easement and that still hasn't been resolved. There's nothing in our abstract, in our surveys
that shows that the City of Chanhassen owns Kings Road. It has rights to it. I don't know if
you or the City Attorney can give me the specific statute or I don't know what you'd call it.
If your book of procedures that says what the standard is for obtaining an easement or right-
of-way for this property for a road but that is still not clear to us and I don't know if it's
going to be...proceeding on Kings Road or what. We're in the process of...and maybe that
would help clarify or help you guys decide whether...right to that easement then...
Aanenson: Can I address that? We looked at that several months ago and the opinion from
the attorney's office is that we have a right based on the fact the city's been maintaining that
road for 7 to 10 years so that we have a right of use. Based on that, where we've been
plowing, that's why this plat went back. We had to go back and determine where exactly the
southerly property is. Where we've been maintaining that road. That's why it's so far to the
north. And they had to give up additional property. Push the road further to the north...the
southerly property line for Kings Road now is the most southerly portion that the city has
been maintaining and plowing. That's our interpretation based on the City Attorney's opinion
of our use.
Sue Morgan: Right. That's your city...
Aanenson: That's why this plat is moving forward.
Sue Morgan: ...there is not a statute or anything on the books that says Chanhassen, what
procedure goes through to obtain an easement other than the fact that you plow that road,
therefore you own that road. Lowell Carlson's been plowing that road more than the City of
Chanhassen so as far as I'm concerned, he owns that road. So what I'm saying is, that we're
going through an investigation...That is the city of Chanhassen's interpretation. But we want
to make sure. Maybe that is the way it is. Maybe that is the way it is. But we need for our
peace of mind to find out that that is the way. But moving on.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, if I could just address that one point. Maybe for clarification. The
new road will actually be north of that. We're not even going to be using the existing Kings
Road.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Sue Morgan: Right, but have you seen the stakes? We went out with the engineer to see the
stakes. We know where the stakes are going and the finished road, you're right. Is going to
be north of where the gravel stops now. So it will be a little north of our property. Maybe
about 2-2 1/2 feet. What we're concerned with is the actual construction of that road because
usually, if you notice the construction around here, you have to go wider than the finished
product in order to get the finished product. So that's what we're concerned with because
you're saying that you've got right-of-way. You've got easements which means, if you've
got as much right-of-way easement as you say you do, you're coming right into our driveway.
Right into our front door practically. So what we're trying to do is to find out what the
parameters are. We're not saying that you're wrong but what we want is to make sure you're
right. Okay. Make sure you're right so you're not just blowing smoke...
Scott: So you basically would like to have some sort of a line so it's kind of like this is
your's and this is our's and you're not going to be over here.
Sue Morgan: And that's fine. You can do what you want with it and we'll do our thing
and...so we keep going back and forth and nothing is resolved... Also, the next item is the
drainage...
Mancino: Excuse me Sue. Are those trees in the easement? The way it is right now.
Sue Morgan: Yes.
Mancino: They are in the easement.
Margie Borris: Those 12 trees that I was talking about are actually on the north side of
Kings Road and it's always been interpreted to be as our property because the fence line had
been the property line for, since anybody could remember and that's a disputed area and on
that right of use that you were talking about, if you maintain that area. So if you went over
there and you mowed the lawn, we pick the weeds...then we have maintained the north side
of Kings Road as well.
Sue Morgan: So I guess the thing is, we just need to get it resolved you know. And this
seems like the opportune time because development is coming in. You guys are going to be
working on it so... But the next item I wanted to discuss is the drainage on Kings Road...
There is this one holding pond that is going to be off the park there and kind of down...and
I'm not, I don't really understand how that works.
Scott: I think there's another overhead that shows that outlot that's south of Kings Road. Is
that what you're talking about?
20
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Sue Morgan: Well it's kind of a combination of the two because the, if there's going to be a
holding pond that's here, then there's got to be some way to get the drainage from there into
Lake St. Joe which is, I'm assuming is here. Right now this field drains right across our
property into Lake St. Joe and what we requested is the city has no easement on the property.
To make sure that this pass thru is closed off before construction begins because we really
don't want any of the runoff from this construction to...property. Also we have some
concerns because the elevation here. If you look at some of the schematics they've drawn, it
goes uphill and then it goes downhill so if they're going to put a pond here, how are they
going to get the water to naturally drain from this pond, underneath the road and through here
to Lake St. Joe.
Scott: Dave.
Hempel: This latest proposal shows the storm water pond located in this area here, which
will take the development's storm water and treat it in here. Then a storm sewer pipe is
proposed to discharge in this area here. Continue across underneath Kings Road. As a part
of the park development and the upgrade of Kings Road, we're going to need another small
ponding area down in this area here due to the elevation change as mentioned. We'll
probably have some storm sewer in Kings Road which outlets into this pond area. It's our
thought to bring the storm sewer down to this area here and have an outlet into the same
storm sewer system and have it then discharge across the street through the outlots within the
development. Sharmin, do you have a little...
Scott: So you're talking, the water's going to be draining over the surface of the street and
not underneath it?
Hempel: No. We're going to pipe it from the proposed pond here down to, it'd be almost
like a trunk storm sewer in a way. I'll give you a relation here. This is the proposed pond
here on the new development. Pipe it down to a location where we have another pond. Take
the storm runoff from Kings Road. Than pipe it across into this outlot which.
Scott: This would go under the road?
Hempel: Underneath the road.
Scott: Okay. You're saying across and I didn't.
Hempel: Underneath the road. So the water will be pre-treated prior to be discharging to
Lake St. Joe.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Sue Morgan: But you still mentioned that there would be some runoff underneath Lake St.
Joe when it comes from that.
Scott: Well isn't that road going to effectively stop any runoff that's going through the north,
with the new urban street section that you're going to be.
Hempel: This is the high point. This is draining in each direction. All this water that comes
down here will be collected by storm sewers, put into the storm, proposed storm pond and
then routed into the storm sewer that comes from this pond and taken underneath the street
through a storm sewer pipe and discharged to Lake St. Joe after it's all been pre-treated.
Scott: So basically that.
Hempel: That will eliminate your current drainage situation that you have right through your
property.
Sue Morgan: Okay. So will that be closed off prior to construction?
Hempel: In conjunction with construction, yes.
Scott: My guess would be that there'd be a construction fence placed in that 4 x 4 feet of
black plastic. I don't know what you can call it. That entire development is going to have to
be ringed by the construction fence which is to keep runoff and so forth from washing onto
adjacent parcels. Good. Thanks Dave.
Sue Morgan: Again, then I have one other issue that came up at the last meeting and that
was on water impacted. I'm not clear as to what's happening with the utilities along Kings
Road. If the utilities for the development are going to move any further north...along Kings
Road. Is the city going to be putting in a city owned sewer on that land then along Kings
Road?
Hempel: For the upgrade of Kings Road, it only makes sense that we extend sanitary sewer
and water under the new street section so we don't have to go back and tear it up 5 or 6
years down the road when these property owners subdivide or want to hook up to city sewer
so as a part of the upgrading we will provide sewer and water extension of Kings Road to
service these properties to the south whenever they desire to connect up to it. But again, the
issue comes up about hooking up to the sewer line and so forth. The current ordinance
requires the properties that...sewer line hook up to within 12 months after it becomes
operational. As mentioned in the staff report, the City Council is the body that has the power
to grant variances to that ordinance.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Sue Morgan: Who is the body that decides...?
Hempel: That will be addressed with the feasibility study. The upgrade of Kings Road.
Scott: So that's calculated by the city engineering staff and any consultants that might be
involved with it.
Sue Morgan: Okay...to make a decision as to whether to request a variance, if I had...and so
you kind of put us a little dilemma here because we're... We need to know before we request
a variance how much it's going to cost. Maybe it's within our budget to do it... But until you
tell us how much it costs, we don't know that. We need to...
Scott: Yeah, when do you think those numbers are going to be available?
Hempel: With the project for the upgrade of Kings Road, there will be informational
meetings held on that once we get the information and have it to pass along to the
homeowners what the costs will be at that time.
Sue Morgan: Also, is the city, the utilities going off of Kings Road can we request that they
go on the north side of the road and not down the center line?
Scott: Is that where they're slated to go anyway? On the north.
Hempel: The utility lines do follow what they call a 10 feet standard where they have to
have certain separation of like the sanitary sewer and the watermain. If the sanitary sewer
runs down the center of the street, the watermain is on the north side of the road and the
storm sewer is on the south side of the road at 10 foot intervals.
Sue Morgan: ...that falls into the situation with the street...
Hempel: Those are going to be actually under the surface of the road.
Sue Morgan: We were told that they have to make the road wider in order to put the utilities
in and they normally go underneath the roadway if possible...
Hempel: For the installation of utilities, when they dig out their trench, it is a little bit wider
trench... With storm sewer generally they can be pretty shallow...less than 10 feet. The
watermain has to be at least 7 1/2 feet deep...
23
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Sue Morgan: Within the 60 foot right-of-way...
Hempel: That I can't answer at this point.
Sue Morgan: So we're still talking about...You said the trees will be saved but you really
don't know. Why...
Hempel: I did not say the trees will be saved. That's the engineer. The applicant's engineer
indicated that. I have not seen the full documentation of that yet.
Margie Borris: If, I guess just while we're on the trees. I forgot the gentleman's name in the
striped shirt. Steve, okay. He talked, if we're getting variances, why can't we get variances
on the street alignment. Basically Country Lane. Keep it pretty much like it is instead of
changing it into this super modern, meets the city codes and all this kind of stuff and keep a
little peace and quiet in Chanhassen.
Scott: Yeah, that would be nice. Unfortunately.
Harberts: I think we'd have about 3,000 other families.
Scott: Yeah, that's not, I don't think that's, you know it's nice but it's something that's not
feasible.
Margie Borris: Why?
Scott: The reason being is that based upon the type of development that's slated to go in and
the city standards for roads that are needed to handle that kind of proposed traffic, also with
the utilities needed to support the development, it's not possible to leave things the way they
are. That particular road was constructed, it's almost like, well from my experience from
being down there.
Margie Borris: It was never constructed. It was just a cow path that they widened out.
Scott: Right, right. But that's not an issue. That's not anything that's going to be changed.
There is a road going to go in there and it's going to have a certain urban standard.
Margie Borris: ...I think we've pretty much all accepted the fact that they're going to change
the road. What we would like to do is keep it as much the feel of it as possible. Keep...why
did we buy our property to move out there. A nice tree lined street. Okay. Now they're
24
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
talking about widening out the north side...
Scott: You know what I think we should do here. Excuse me ma'am. If we could maybe
finish.
Sue Morgan: I just have one more item. Also I'd like to suggest that for, I know we talked
about assessments for the road and who's paying what percentage of it, but for the 50% or
whatever percent the city will be taking care of or absorbing the construction of the road, that
perhaps the assessment order can be distributed like the Minnewashta Parkway project.
Whereas everyone that accesses that road, or has access to it, pays for it. This road will be
fronting a park. A neighborhood park and I would like to suggest that all the neighborhoods,
the other neighbors in that neighborhood pay for the road. So if you take into consideration
that there's going to be like 44 households that they're putting in. There's going to be the 4
of us. 4 households there. It'd be nice to kind of distribute that assessment a little further to
those people who are going to be driving up and down...
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe just to add onto that. At this point we're not looking at
assessing the properties to the south of Kings Road. At some future time when they hook up
to the sewer and water, then they would pay their fair share of connection hook-up charges at
that time. But we're not proposing any street or storm drainage assessments to those
individuals on the south side of Kings Road.
Scott: Okay. What we like to tell everybody too is that we make recommendations and the
City Council, you know. You've heard that story but it's important that you follow the issue
because that's where the decisions get made.
Sue Morgan: I very much appreciate your time and your attention to this and I guess the
bottom line is that we've been there for a while and the road and the new development is
coming in. Maybe if we could get the road to go a little further north, that would be
helpful...
Scott: Well thank you. Those are good questions. Would anyone else like to speak at the
public hearing? Seeing none, could I have a motion to close the public hearing please?
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Ladd.
Conrad: I think the neighbors brought up some real good questions. They'd be the same
25
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
questions that I'd ask. But at this point in time I think, from what I've seen the developer do
and staff do, I think they've worked out something that I'm pretty comfortable with. It's the,
some of the guarantees that the neighbors are asking for, you know you're out of the system
basically and what's happened once we say something and once the City Council does it,
you're sort of hoping that staff monitors the developers properly. And I think, that's just
tough to bring them back into the loop once it goes through this. I really appreciate what
they're saying. I think Dave, there are several questions or concerns. I don't know that we
can solve them. The big concern still remains with the trees in terms of have we engineered
to save the south trees. What would you recommend the, what's the process? I guess right
now I would have to go along with the case in front of us in terms of the recommendations
but let us say that you found out that the trees could not be saved. Or all of them. Or Kate,
what's the process to review that? Because by the time this gets to City Council, you're not
going to know any more than you do tonight.
Aanenson: Well not the preliminary plans. What Dave is indicating, before we get the final
plat they have to do some...
Conrad: And let's say that they find.
Aanenson: As the...has indicated, the possibility of maybe transplanting these trees on the
north. That's certainly...
Conrad: I like that.
Aanenson: ...but we have a woodland management plan. The applicants are going to
respond...and slightly to the north. I mean that solves his problem with the tree preservation.
Conrad: But I really want to tackle, the residents are saying hey, you know it looks kind of
good.
Aanenson: We understand the condition and...was certainly our goal to preserve the integrity
of that area.
Conrad: Okay Kate then let's say that Dave takes a look at the final plans and says that half
of those trees are going to die because we do have to put utilities that close to that. So what
happens at that point?
Mancino: Can't we make a recommendation that they be saved? That they would be moved.
Conrad: Well I don't know the process. You know I think the process would be, Kate
26
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
would say well they're going to die so we're going to, she's going to administratively deal
with it in terms of the replacing trees and I don't think that the neighbors say that's fine but
we'd rather save them in the first place.
Aanenson: We've dealt with this in other utility improvement projects in the city where we
had to go in and...upgrade the sewer and we had to take out trees. The Council's dealt with
this issue before and if this is a 429 project, there's a possibility of that being...we certainly
understand the concern and the Council does too. The city looked at other utility projects...
Scott: What we have I think is the applicant saying the trees would be saved, and I think
from a condition standpoint, I think we can put something in where a licensed arborist or
someone, independent party can, based upon a final survey of where the road's going to go.
When you get that information, then I think at that point in time someone who is a registered,
I don't know what you'd call it. I'll say arborist. Can then take a look at, look at the species
of trees and say fine. No, they're going to die and then we have another issue. I think what
you want to do is, since it's so iffy right now, we don't want to make a decision to send it
ahead and then have the neighbors thinking one thing and then all of a sudden they get the
other and you're just trying to figure out how to protect them.
Conrad: Well yeah, it's a frustration from anybody that has something impacting them. Then
a city coming in and kind of saying, well that kind of looks okay. And in 2 weeks from now
the City Council's going to say, well that kind of looks okay. And then the real engineering
reports might come in later on when you see the elevations or whatever, and then it doesn't
look so hot but everybody's out of the loop at that point. And there's not, I think we're
probably stuck with, in terms of how we deal with this, a best effort scenario but the only
thing that bothers me is really the applicant saying well we think we have a solution and
Dave's not able to say it's pretty good. And that's really what I want to hear from Dave is
saying, I think it's a pretty good shot and until I hear him say that, I'm uncomfortable.
Mancino: I don't think it should go out of the loop. I think it should come back in if, it's
to City Council. If he finds out when he does his real evaluation. The real thing. If he feels
comfortable saying yeah or nay. That at that point, if it's yeah, everybody goes great. The
people who live near it. If it says nay, then it comes back to City Council to review it and
what do we do then?
Conrad: I think that's appropriate because I think of all the issues, and there are a lot of
issues that the neighbors have brought in and unfortunately this is progress and that's what's
happening and the best we can do is minimize the impact. I know your lifestyle's going to
change a tad and it's changed for most of us who have lived here for 20 years. And there
27
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
aren't any guarantees but I guess the only thing I'd like is to have our staff being able to say,
it's a good shot and again, there aren't any guarantees. You're probably not going to get
anything in writing to say that the city of Chanhassen guarantees 100% of the trees on the
south side are going to be saved. I don't think we'd do that because it's just too many. We
just wouldn't do that. But I think again, what I do want to hear is feedback from our
engineering staff saying that the design is, meets his specifications so I think we do want that
loop. The only other thing I like is the idea of transplanting trees. If that works. I think
that's sort of a neat deal and maybe, if these trees, I don't see that as, given the reforestation
or whatever we need under the tree management plan, I think moving some of these trees
might be a good solution. Everything else, I'm in agreement with in the staff report.
Scott: So your overall opinion on the staff recommendation is positive?
Conrad: Right.
Scott: Okay, Matt.
Ledvina: I'd like to give Dave a chance to comment on this.
Hempel: If I could just comment a little...Kings Road. City Council still has another
opportunity. They have to approve the construction plans for the upgrade of Kings Road so
the issue about the trees I'm sure is going to be relayed to the City Council. They're going
to follow that item. They're going to want to see that in the construction plans of the
upgrade. That these trees are being addressed. Are they being saved? Are there retaining
walls out there saving these trees or can't we save these trees? That's the time that the City
Council's going to say yeah or nay on the construction plans of Kings Road. So there is
more opportunity to hold back this development, if you will because of the tree issue. I just
wanted to point that out.
Scott: Okay, good.
Conrad: Joe, one more question. The variance that we grant in terms of the 20,000 square
foot lot sizes, Kate. That doesn't set a precedent for any lots built closer?
Aanenson: These are the lots on the most northern lots of the plat. Again, they all averaged
over the 20,000 square foot minimum and the same for the lot width and the DNR supports
the variance based on the location and the overall lot being over 20,000 square feet.
Conrad: So when the neighbors that will build to the east, this variance will not set any kind
of, it's a totally independent issue, right?
28
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Aanenson: I think so.
Mancino: Only that, I don't think that we allowed Lundgren, on the other side of Lake St.
Joe.
Aanenson: We gave them variances on the front yard lot line.
Mancino: But now on the 20,000 square foot.
Scott: It wasn't averaged.
Mancino: It wasn't an average. It was per lot.
Conrad: I'm pretty comfortable with how close.
Mancino: Are you pretty comfortable with the average?
Conrad: Yeah.
Aanenson: Some of the lots are dissected. Some of the lots have less than, just a portion of
the lot falls within that shoreland district. When this plat originally came back through, there
were 57 lots. We looked at giving some variances and whether, not the entire lot fell within
the...
Conrad: If I thought there was some real drainage issues between there and the lake, that
would be a trigger and I think to solve the, I just don't want the developer to the east saying
well, we've had the variance here. So now I can do that and we'll average and I don't think
it's a precedent. I think it's still, I don't think it is. I think it's simply a straight variance
and we figure in this case that it makes sense. So that was my comment Kate...she agreed.
Ledvina: Well I would agree with the staff report. I think there has been some good
changes. I know we've worked, and the developer has worked to show as little destruction
with the installation of Kings Road as possible. I guess I would support an additional
condition to make the construction plans for Kings Road contingent upon the tree
preservation. I think that should be part of it.
Scott: You'll have an opportunity to add that condition when you make the motion.
Ledvina: I'll give it a shot.
29
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Mancino: And add to that something about moving the trees because the trees are red cedars.
I know that just 3 years ago we had, we moved 3 big, well 25 foot tall spruce onto our
property and they're alive and they're doing well. They need to be babied and watered and
all that good stuff when they are moved but I think we got Big Joe, the big shovel, the earth
mover or tree mover and it's great. It works and I think we can do that.
Conrad: How much did you pay for that?
Mancino: How much did I pay? Two bucks. Two bucks a tree. It was great.
Scott: Any other comments germane to this issue?
Mancino: Ah no. I have none. I think that they've been reviewed very well and I'm glad
that...participating to this degree and care about what's going on around them.
Scott: Jeff.
Farmakes: Actually in this case I think the system has been working pretty well. I really
didn't like this development when I first saw it. In fact I put it in the top 5 of the last 4
years, I thought it'd be a real detriment the way it was laid out. I like what staff has done.
They did a good job in revising the whole concept of how it lays out. I have no arguments
of the city's concerns in regards to who's going to pay for what...affect their property. Every
time you get this type of development, adjacent to large lots, we have this problem. The
problem is of course that when they put in road and figure out how they're going to do this,
we think in terms of 50 years. It's been said that nobody owns property. You just rent it for
a while. You have to figure that someday these large lots are going to be developed and we
have to develop accordingly. I know that's not what you want to hear but nonetheless as
Chanhassen grows, that's what's happening. I would support the adjacent property owners...
on the trees. I have no argument with that and I have no further comments.
Scott: Good. Can I have a motion please?
Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary
Plat #93-11 to subdivide 35.83 acres into 44 single family lots as shown on the plans dated
May 31, 1994 and subject to the staff conditions listed in their report and 2 additional
conditions. Number 27 to read, the developer shall attempt to relocate existing trees as a part
of the woodland management plan. Number 28. Approval of the construction plans for
Kings Road shall be contingent upon tree preservation on the south side of the road.
Scott: Is there a second?
30
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Mancino: Second.
Scott: Motion on the floor has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
Conrad: I saw Dave grimace. What did you think was wrong with that motion?
Hempel: If there's to be one tree removed and the rest are saved, I guess there's. If you
could say if feasible.
Conrad: I don't know and I can't speak for Matt. I think we're looking for a feeling that
you feel that this is the best possible plan to protect as many trees as you can. I don't think
there's expectations here that gee, that everyone will live.
Aanenson: ...tree preservation.
Ledvina: Ah yes. Well how about significant tree preservation? Meaning, I guess that's not
a very good word either. Let's say, to the maximum extent feasible.
Mancino: Just let us know what it is. How wide is the road? 32?
Hempel: 31 back to back. That's curb to curb.
Ledvina: And again, what I'm thinking about is the use of additional engineering techniques
like retaining walls or locating other utilities in other areas that are feasible but will result in
the tree preservation. Those types of things. Maybe taking an extra step to make that tree
preservation occur.
Mancino: Making sure that staff is there and...
Scott: Is there any more discussion?
(Diane Harberts had left the meeting prior to voting on this item.)
Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of Preliminary Plat #93-11 to subdivide 35.83 acres into 44 single family lots as shown
on the plans dated May 31, 1994 and subject to the following conditions:
1. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utilities and street within all
public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Maintenance access routes shall be provided to all storm water ponding. The routes are
subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
2. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc
mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completing site grading unless
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. All
areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood
fiber blanket.
3. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detailed Plates. Detailed street and
utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council
approval.
4. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, DNR) and comply with their
conditions of approval.
5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development
contract.
6. No building permits shall be issued for Lots 1, 2, 3 and-3 4, Block 1 (phase II) until
the full 60-foot wide right-of-way on Kings Road e- is dedicated to the
City and the street is constructed to urban standards. This area shall be platted as an
outlot until the full street is dedicated and built.
7. The applicant shall escrow with the City their fair share of the cost to extend Kings Road
west of Country Oaks Road or a conveyance placed on the deed that these lots will be
responsible for 50% of the cost to upgrade Kings Road west of Country Oaks Road.
8. The applicant shall provide revised detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm
event and provide ponding calculations in accordance with the City's ordinance for the
city engineer to review and approval based on the approved final set of grading and
drainage plans. The grading plan shall be revised to incorporate storm water retention
ponds in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
9. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the City Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire
hydrants shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
10. The applicant shall have soil borings performed on the site and submit a soils report to
the City for review.
11. All lots shall be prohibited to take direct access from Kings Road except for Phase II.
12. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat
for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement shall
be a minimum of 20 feet wide.
13. • - . - - . - - . - - - ... - . . : • : _. .
- . . . : _. . - . A temporary cul-de-sac should be constructed at the
end of White Oak Lane east of Country Oaks Road. The applicant shall dedicate
to the city a temporary turnaround easement for construction of the turnaround
outside the right-of-way.
14. A portion of the utility connection fees the City collects from the property owners
south of Kings Road tel- may be refunded to the applicant. The exact fefumEl
reimbursement will be determined based on actual construction costs for the
installation of the utilities. "- - . .. - • - -- -. - -• .
connection charge to the City.
15. The applicant/builder shall provide, at the time of building permit applicant, a tree
removal plan and grading plan for all wooded lots, specifically Lots 22 through 27 29
through 24, Block 1.
16. The street grades shall be adjusted in an effort to minimize disruption to the adjacent
parcels or employ other means to reduce grading limits, i.e. retaining walls. The City
has allowed up to 10% street grades in an effort to minimize grading and tree
removal. •. - . . . .. . . _ •. . .. . - • . .
-- - - - . - . .. -•• . . . . . . A 5 foot wide concrete
sidewalk shall be constructed along the east side of Country Oaks Lane and the
north side of Kings Road in conjunction with the overall site improvements.
17. -- - . .- ' • • - - - -- •• - - .:. _.. : _. . - : . . . •
The private driveway at the end of White Oak Lane shall
be designed and constructed in accordance to the city's private driveway
ordinance (20 ft. wide, 7 ton design and 30 foot wide easement).
33
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
18. The Borris and Scott/Morgan homes will be require: : - -- - - . ... - -
19. The applicant may qualify for a credit towards the applicant's storm water talak—
quantity fees. These trunk quantity fees should be applied to this development as
outlined in the SWMP and/or modified accordingly pending adoption by the City
Council. The applicant shall escrow with the city the applicable SWMP fees until
such time as the City Council adopts the Surface Water Management Plan.
20. The City will be requiring the inclusion of a drain tile system with the street and
utility construction.
21. Additional erosion control measures will be required during the new home
construction process.
22. A woodland management plan be prepared as per city ordinance Section 18.61(d).
23. The storm water pond shall be placed in an outlot. The intersection of Country
Oaks Road shall be shifted westerly to improve sight distance in accordance to
MnDOT's design criteria.
24. The acreage of park shall be determined by the Park and Recreation Commission.
25. Compliance with the conditions of the Building Official noted in memo dated January
21, 1994.
26. Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to Kings Road being built between
Minnewashta Parkway and Country Oaks Road to the city's urban standards
whether done by the applicant or city improvement project.
27. The developer shall attempt to relocate existing trees as a part of the woodland
management plan.
28. Approval of the construction plans for Kings Road shall be contingent upon tree
preservation to the maximum extent possible on the south side of the road.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Conrad: And it goes to City Council?
34
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Aanenson: It goes to City Council on July 11th.
Conrad: It's real important that you stay there.
Scott: Don't be on vacation. Good.
Conrad: Go to the City Council meeting.
Scott: Yeah, July 11th. And check the agenda to make sure it's actually on too. Good.
Thank you all for coming.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW SCREENED OUTDOOR STORAGE IN
THE BF, BUSINESS FRLNGE DISTRICT LOCATED AT 10500 GREAT PLAINS
BOULEVARD, ADMIRAL WASTE MANAGEMENT.
Public Present:
Name Address
Laverne Wheeler 445 Lakota Lane
Nancy Lee Admiral Waste
Patrick Blood Admiral Waste
Verne Severson 675 Lakota Lane
M. Happy 495 Lakota Lane
L.M. Campbell 415 Lakota Lane
Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: In your opinion, how responsive has the applicant been to, I mean I read the staff
report and it seems like there's, the city of Chanhassen is kind of chasing these people and
spending a lot of time trying to get them to conform existing agreements. Have they been
somewhat uncooperative? Very uncooperative? I'm trying to get a sense for what the
relationship is because, the reason why I'm asking the question is I recall last year we had a
contractor's yard situation where it was pretty much a mess and there was a lot of legal time
spent on both sides. The intent that I perceived on behalf of the applicant was that they had
no intention of conforming to anything and I'm trying to separate these two issues. Hoping
that we're not running into the same thing again.
Al-Jaff: Yes. We spent some time working on this. I think that the applicants had some
35
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
personal, I think a member of their family was taken ill and they had to leave town for a
while so a lot of the meetings were postponed that were scheduled and some of the reasons
were legitimate. It took us a while to reach an agreement but we did reach an agreement.
Scott: Okay, enough said. Questions. Comments from commissioners for staff? None?
Okay. Would the applicant or their representative like to speak? Is there anyone here?
Nancy Lee: My name is Nancy Lee. I'm the applicant. I don't know where to start and I
don't want to get long winded. We are, and always have been in the past, 100% cooperative.
I think for anybody...I don't know if any of you received the letter that I had sent as a back-
up to...If you looked at the...We did not build anything on the property...It was brought to our
attention...and if you notice the dates...We want to be as cooperative as we can. We thought
we were alright in having our containers on the property. In the letters...We want to do a lot
more with the land. We did have conditions...was denied, even though at the...wrote a nasty
letter and told we had to get them off right away. We contacted the city to see what could be
done. We are, we worked with the city right away. The first meeting was with their
attorney...Those pictures, I'm not aware what you're looking at. I know I had taken pictures
earlier...
Conrad: Is there ever any refuse in the containers when they're on site?
Nancy Lee: No. They're construction containers that we take to the sites but we don't fill
them with garbage.
Conrad: And is the 58 number that staff has proposed acceptable?
Nancy Lee: No it's not...
Conrad: I guess I'm not sure why, when did you start storing these there and under what?
Nancy Lee: They've been there since we had the conditional use permit.
Conrad: And the conditional use allowed this?
Nancy Lee: Yes it did. We have a letter from.
Conrad: Allowed dumpsters? It said that we allow dumpsters?
Nancy Lee: I have a letter from Barb Dacy, the previous city planner, and she had a limit on
what...
36
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Conrad: You're aware of what our, this business district is all about? Do you know what
we're trying to do down there and what we're not trying to do? Have you talked to staff
about the intent of the.
Nancy Lee: ...I know we haven't had a lot of direct answers.
Conrad: Well it's in print. It's in print so you can always go and ask staff to say, what are
they trying to do in that fringe business district. You should do that just so you know how
we react when we look at an application. Thank you for your comments.
Nancy Lee: Well actually on that, I don't know if you'll remember or not, we have been
trying to find out from you...
Conrad: You know and I'll fill in and maybe because you may not get to the report but that
area is a pretty area. And the intent typically has been down there that we don't want to
intensify. Yet there were businesses there and we didn't want to harm their right because
they had that business. And so under that, we have a very natural looking area. We have an
area that's not serviced with Chanhassen services. In terms of water, sewer. We're trying to
maintain that area in terms of it's natural appearance but give business an opportunity to
survive. But really not to grow because it's not serviced and we have these other conflicts.
So I think if you had looked at the intent, and the intent has been there for quite a while.
Since I've been around, for that particular district, I think that would tell you what you can
and can't do and maybe might tell you why staff might react to some of the things you do the
way they do. But again, thanks for your comments.
Mancino: I have a question for Ladd I guess. In Barbara Dacy's conditional use permit that
was given, there was a limit of 50 dumpsters when the conditional use permit was granted. Is
that correct?
Al-Jaff: With that conditional use permit, they were going to have a building actually. There
was supposed to be a garage and an office.
Mancino: Oh, and the dumpsters were supposed to be in the building.
Al-Jaff: They were going to have vehicles stored in that area and it was...I mean it was
indoor, enclosed storage and.
Mancino: It was just never done?
Al-Jaff: Nancy, do you want to elaborate?
37
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Nancy Lee: Yeah. It was going to be...It was a garage...and outdoor storage. It was...That's
not true...We would like to build on it. A building would be wonderful but there...
Scott: Are there any services to that site? Electricity, water, sewer.
Al-Jaff: Definitely not sewer and water. No. It's outside the MUSA area.
Scott: But electricity though. They could get electricity.
Nancy Lee made a statement that was not picked up on the tape.
Scott: Okay. So this was originally a conditional use permit. It was a lot like the
contractors yard where 12 months you have to have substantial construction, etc, etc. Okay.
Nancy Lee: We were originally told that garbage companies don't fit anywhere...we were
told that we would be under a contractors yard and we also applied for...so we did that and
that's how they granted... Then when we had that change so that we would fit in that
category, according to what they wanted us to do, then...So we don't fit anywhere in an area
with contractors yards and everything else.
Mancino: Sharmin, tell me about the operation hours and days. I see 7:00 in the morning
until 6:00 at night.
Al-Jaff: On weekdays. Assuming that...or to take a dumpster.
Mancino: But I see that's Monday thru Saturday. Aren't there homes in that area?
Al-Jaff: There is one part of the site. There are two...
Mancino: Do we usually in the business fringe allow the Saturday, the 7:00 in the morning
until 6:00 p.m.? And is there a need?
Nancy Lee: There's quite a distance...property but I think people would have to come to the
very edge of their property to even see on our land. We're down by 212. And they're up
over the railroad tracks and they have to go...There's not a lot of activity...
Mancino: Would you support keeping those hours as the area gets developed? Around it.
And is there a way to change those if you get more development around?
Aanenson: Sharmin has indicated that there are, the neighbor...has complained but the
38
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
recommendation...
Mancino: Well I would certainly, I don't care whether it's one house or 10 houses. Saturday
at 7:00 in the morning would not, I would change those hours on Saturday to 9:00 to 5:00 as
reasonable for people living in that area. No other questions at this time.
Scott: Any other questions or comments for the applicant? No? Do you have any other
comments you'd like to make?
Nancy Lee: No.
Scott: Okay, thanks. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir. Please
identify yourself and give us your address.
Verne Severson: I'm Verne Severson and I'm the property owner who's directly north of the
lot in question. So I have a few thoughts that I guess I'd like you to think about and then I
have a list of problems... First, I guess living in the south end, and having to pay what we
feel are very high property taxes and we don't get the same benefit or advantages that other
residents of Chanhassen have, we don't have the, like in city parks, we don't get playgrounds.
We're forced to use a Chaska address and we're living in Chanhassen. And it's always been
a safety issue. We don't have sewer and water. We have difficulty getting our local street
paved or properly maintained and we get no help in our request for, to make Highway 101
safer for walking and biking and jogging. And then our desire to work on taking advantage
of the abandoned rail corridor, which was met with great disinterest by the city. So overall
we feel that we're somewhat ignored by the city and so when something like this comes up, it
peaks our interest. The problems we have, these are I think quite simple. One is we have
high expectations of our quality of life in Chanhassen. It's a prestigious city and we want to
be part of that but we feel that the noise and smells and the views of dumpsters aren't really
consistent with that. I don't know, I guess it's been commented that the site is presentable
but I tend to disagree with that. I think it is quite ugly really. We can't see it from our
house but people who walk on the trail along there can see it...And number two I think, and
those are selfish reasons of course. Number two, I think Chanhassen should be concerned...
This is the southern entrance to Chanhassen. State Highway 101, people come up there. I
know that that area's been called ugly town and it has been quite ugly and is still quite ugly
but I think that you as city planners should be trying to be considering that. Trying to at
least improve that...and do it quickly and rapidly but maybe you should just be concerned
with Chanhassen and start working on that... Like I mentioned, it is the southern entrance to
Chanhassen and also there's the biking and hiking trail to be developed along there so you'll
have more people to have a view of that area. It's a very pretty area and I guess I'd like to
see it kept for... And third, we're being asked to make some sacrifices. Especially the
39
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
concern of the preservation of the bluff area. There's some restrictions being put on us
because of that. And I guess I feel our neighbors should also help preserve the area and keep
it looking nice. The report, the staff report says they didn't feel the property value would be
decreased by that. Well, I guess I'd dispute that. A dumpster is a dumpster and a dumpster
really is a garbage, it's associated with garbage and that's not good for your property value.
And I guess my last point is that, approving this area for storage of dumpsters is one thing
and maybe something can be worked out where that can be allowed but what happens is that
leads to something else. And we're afraid that if that's allowed, that something else is going
to be...and uglier and it will be difficult to stop so it comes back to my first point I guess. I
guess I feel that you should be paying a little more attention to the area at the south end of
Chanhassen and try to pay as much attention to us I guess as you do to the Kings Road area.
Thanks.
Scott: Good, thank you sir. Anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir.
Laverne Wheeler: My name's Laverne Wheeler. I live at 445 Lakota Lane. Just down the
block to the east. I just second what Verne had said and I just had a couple questions that
people might answer for me. A commercial dumpster. I have an image of what it is but, and
what it might contain but maybe if I was informed a little more on the type of materials that
these things contain and if there are any refuse left in them at the point when they're stored at
all.
Conrad: They said no.
Laverne Wheeler: They're...and cleaned out.
Scott: Has the applicant seen those pictures? I don't think she has.
Laverne Wheeler: I would just, in talking about making that area more presentable, I think
this abandoned railway and improvements that are happening there is just an outstanding
thing to improve that area for both the residents of Chanhassen and people who might enter
and leave through that gateway. And if the storage site can be screened from those people
adequately, with something that's attractive. The dumpsters are clean and neat dumpsters. I
mean something that we...other things, I don't object to dumpsters. I've got one in my
driveway right now because I've been improving but I think if we can find a way to either
collect them in an area where they could be screened entirely from view of the people who
are around there. If they don't provide an odor or don't support animals or anything like that,
I wouldn't have a problem. But I would encourage some dramatic screening so that the items
themselves can't be viewed.
40
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? Seeing none, I'd like to have a
motion to close the public hearing please.
Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. MI voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Farmakes: I'd agree with the residents. For Chan's future, I think that those type of uses
along that area have got to go. For some reason along that road just seems to be a magnet to
that type of use. I guess I wasn't back here in the 50's and 40's and.
Conrad: No, I haven't been on here that long.
Farmakes: I think it's pretty obvious. I don't know if waiting until the MUSA expands there
is necessarily criteria that we should use for that.
Mancino: Well then what would be it based on?
Farmakes: Well for instance, we have some developments, large lot developments that
squeezed into those areas before we get MUSA and it increases the population. I think the
criteria being that there's going to be enough people to object to that type of usage. Kind of
does the trees fall until you hear it. We're talking about an area that not only us but the
federal government are looking at trying to enhance and I'm not against approving this permit
but I'm wondering if we should entertain a time limit for review or if we're just going to
leave it open ended criteria for it. I'm not sure how you do that with an existing use that is
incompatible, or you think is incompatible long term with the goals of the area. How is the
position that we take to nudge that out and allow the person a reasonable amount of time to
make arrangements elsewhere.
Conrad: See we don't have a master plan for this area. If Tim Erhart was here, he'd love
this conversation because he's always been real concerned with that corridor. And we don't
have a plan and the only thing that's going to force the plan is city services down there and
then you can start doing something but nobody's really said let's turn it into a preserve
because you'd have to buy it. There's no money to do a natural thing down there so
therefore we've always taken the easy. Well I don't know if it's the easy way out but
nobody's had a vision Jeff to really do something that might be quite different. So therefore
status quo has been.
Farmakes: And I'm not talking about initiating this now. I'm just talking about in the future.
Whether that 10 years from now. It seems to me that a master plan will be done for that area
41
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
prior to sewer and water going there. And I'm just, they're talking about fringe businesses
and some of the other ones that we see along that road. Either mining operations or the type
of thing that you would not expect out here. The reason that they haven't been objectionable
is it is an isolated area. But long term, and in particular. Not just...federal government is
becoming more involved in that area. We may be thinking about what we should do long
term planning with that area and again allow some reasonable time for the business owners of
that area to.
Conrad: You're thinking right but we don't know so it's hard to tell. We shouldn't really
make up something out of the clear blue.
Aanenson: Can I just make a comment? When we went through the goals with the City
Council, we promised them that we'd start working on the, we had the 1995 study area south
of Lyman and as you know we put together what we're doing in the agenda...but we've
committed to the Council that we were going to try to wrap in the BF district in the 1995
study area and start working on that this fall. So in short...we also have to start looking at
the BF district...so we have committed to the Council that we'll do the 1995 study area...It is
a priority.
Mancino: So are you saying you would feel comfortable with a recommendation that not
only, you whichever is less then, the use shall be terminated after one year of inclusion of the
site within the Municipal Service or conditions of the permit have been violated, whichever
comes first. Or the Highway 1995 study is concluded and passed or?
Aanenson: That might be a good way to wrap it into. To do an evaluation of that as we
review the study area...
Conrad: Can't we put terms on conditional uses though? Can't we put.
Aanenson: You can bring it back every year if you want.
Conrad: But your trade off is, the applicant is only willing to put in so much money into the
site given the fact they may lose.
Mancino: Every year they may lose it.
Conrad: Right. So you've got to say, what do you want them to do right now and to prorate
that over a life of, if it's only one year. If we give them one year, they don't want to do it
and that's one way to defeat their proposal. But there's a lot of stuff I think coming in down
t here. I guess you just have to weigh.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Aanenson: That's why we're going to be looking at these issues...and we'll also be looking
at a Bluff Creek study area which we talked about earlier tonight working with the watershed
district and...that was part of this charette we had recently. Trying to get some additional
funding for Bluff Creek and is...enhance Bluff Creek and the surrounding watershed area. So
there are a couple things happening with that study that will...
Mancino: I guess I want to ask Ladd. Do you have a vision for that area?
Conrad: Long term, that whole area? It's a tough one. It should be natural. Absolutely. It
should be, but the fact of the matter is, nobody's going to. There's not going to be a
government body that comes forth with a lot of money to buy it. But it is, it's beautiful
territory. Should be connected to Eden Prairie is I think a preserve or I don't know what it's
called to the northeast of it so we should be connected there. It's pretty stuff. But remember
we've got a dump down there and auto graveyard and it's, there's a lot of poor uses that are
ecologically just horrendous. Just horrendous so, a vision for the area, I don't know what it's
going to be. It's also on a highway. It's a great highway. If I were a business person in the
highway business area, I'd just love to have a gas station down there if it has the right road
access and what have you. It's just, it's 15,000 cars or big numbers. Big enough to really
develop a commercial deal but the right use is natural park or passive. In terms of tonight,
and I'm going to ask staff but I really think we should be tabling this tonight because the real
issue. Well, the real issue, I guess there are other deeper issues but the only way you can
look at this is if it's screened. That's the only way. They're coming in for a conditional use
and they've got something that's less intensive than what they were planning before with
building something and fencing something and putting trucks in there and so really I don't
mind the use if you can handle it. If you can screen. So screening is the major issue and if
you can't screen it, I don't want to take a look at it.
Mancino: So you want to see the landscape plan and see what they can do.
Conrad: Absolutely. Point number one, we'd recommend that it's approved, that the. Well
if the applicant can't furnish us a landscape plan that we think is acceptable to us, then in my
mind this doesn't fly at all. So I think it should be tabled. If staff feels that's the right thing
to do. Because I think there's been some communications back and forth and I don't know,
some of the, all the background to why this is here tonight.
Farmakes: You're making my comments shorter.
Mancino: I'd support tabling it.
Ledvina: Likewise.
43
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Scott: Can I have a motion please?
Conrad: I move that we, hold on. I move that we table Planning Case #94-1, IUP.
Scott: Is there a second?
Mancino: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table case #94-1 IUP. Is there any discussion?
Conrad moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the
Interim Use Permit #94-1 for Admiral Waste Management. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
A CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO
REZONE 89.59 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO
PUD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT TO CREATE 34 BLOCKS AND 3 OUTLOTS FOR
A 166 UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF 34 BUILDINGS OF
EITHER 2, 3, 4, 6 OR 8 UNITS IN EACH. THE UNITS ARE TWO STORY, SLAB
ON GRADE CONSTRUCTION WITH ATTACHED ONE OR TWO CAR GARAGES.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF.THE
INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, AUTUMN RIDGEt
GOOD VALUE HOMES, INC. (BETTY O'SHAUGHNESSY PROPERTY).
Public Present:
Name Address
Jim & Sue Avis 8190 Galpin Blvd.
Chuck Gabrielson 2600 Arboretum Blvd.
Howard Dahlgren 1786 Irving Avenue So, Mpls.
Derrick Passe 9445 E. River Road, Mpls. Suite 201
John Peterson 9445 E. River Road, Mpls. Suite 201
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Bob, can you please show me where the 4 or 5 single family homes are. I've
never seen them on any of their drawings. On Galpin east of the development? And how
many are there? Can you draw that in?
44
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Resident: There's 3 there.
Mancino: There's more than that, isn't there?
Resident: Where it says retaining wall is where I live. Yeah, one right there.
Scott: We just had that development in here last.
Resident: One on the other side of the easement. Yeah, right there. That's the 3 right there.
Mancino: There's only 3?
Resident: Yeah.
Generous: And then the existing farm is up there.
Mancino: And where does Trotters Ridge begin?
Aanenson: They're south of the wetland.
Generous: They're down on this end.
Mancino: So between Trotters and then it's wetland. Okay, thanks.
Generous: And this trail system will actually connect into that.
Mancino: But there is land between Galpin and the wetland on that west side between.
Aanenson: There's some upland area that will.
Resident: Yeah, that's real wetland. There's a...creek that runs through there.
Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Resident: And it's about 40 feet...
Scott: Bob, since we're talking conceptually here, the reason for having a PUD is to gain,
have some gain, preservation, enhancement, environmental enhancement for the city of
Chanhassen. It wasn't real obvious to me what the city of Chanhassen is getting out of this
development as it sits right now. I mean I see a trail going around the western edge of the
45
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
development. But what are we getting out of this? Is it strictly "affordable housing" or what
am I missing here? I'm looking for something significant which would say to me, this
warrants a PUD.
Generous: I believe it's probably most likely going to be the preservation of these areas
west, on the western edge.
Scott: But didn't a previous applicant drop this property because they couldn't build there?
What I'm trying to get to is that if they can't build there, we can't hold that up and say
they're preserving it if it's unbuildable. Or if it's too expensive to build on.
Aanenson: I think what you're saying is correct. I mean there's certain things that they have
to do based on the fact that there's a wetland but the reason the staff would support a PUD is
we allowed on other PUD's to help with the design framework which we wouldn't if this was
a straight site plan review. So what we're looking at here is the architectural standards and
some of those issues.
Scott: But aren't the architectural standards covered by the Highway 5? They'd have to have
that anyway.
Aanenson: Yeah, but they're not officially adopted yet. We're trying to do those. With a
PUD we definitely can put that in a development contract and hold them to that.
Scott: So the major advantage then is to stop using the PUD as a design stop gap because
the Highway 5 ordinance hasn't passed yet.
Aanenson: Yeah...
Scott: What are the other major benefits?
Generous: Efficiency on the site. Use of the site and development of the site. They're
clustering their development in the eastern pocket of this wetland complex that they're
looking to preserve.
Scott: But aren't they just, but once again, is that the only, that's the only area that they can
build on. I mean what it sounds like is if you can't build on it, you're.
Generous: This is developable down here.
46
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Scott: Is it? Can they get a street to it or something?
Generous: They could have gotten to it. They could come from the west. They looked at
coming from the south. While it might be more expensive, it's possible to develop that area.
I don't believe they're interested in doing that and one of the things that we can tie them to
is, the Comp Plan actually says that south of the road is single family. They meet the density
by averaging it out over all the upland area south of that road.
Mancino: But it's not single family.
Aanenson: If you spread those units across the entire...
Generous: Yeah, they clustered it. They transferred the density.
Aanenson: So you take the entire package, that's how many units they can have. They
pushed it into one area.
Generous: When I made my calculations to determine the density south of the road, I didn't
even look at the upland area here because I wasn't exactly sure right now what that acreage
was. I was able to calculate back and they were under about 3 units per acre.
Scott: Okay. You've been grilled enough. Anybody else?
Conrad: But just real quickly, we've transferred densities from north of the road to south of
the road?
Generous: No. On the south side of the road you clustered all your densities up in the
northeast corner. That gives the possibility of development on this site...they technically meet
for this area, they're a medium density development. If you look at the developable upland
area south of the road, they meet the densities that could be done in single family. But by
putting them all up in this area.
Scott: Any other comments or questions for staff?
Mancino: Do you get that? Am I seeing that right?
Conrad: Do I understand what I was just told?
Mancino: Yeah.
47
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Conrad: I'm going to think about it, and let you know.
Farmakes: Can you clarify again the reasoning that you used...follow the Comp Plan?
Generous: Okay. The Comp Plan says that on the north side of the collector, the future
collector road it's medium density residential. It's 4 to 8 units. On the south side of this
road, all the developable land could have single family residential. Up to 4 units per acre.
Instead of putting in single family homes over here and trying to develop these even though
they might be tougher single family, they transferred all the density up here to meet with the
low density.
Farmakes: Are you saying that all the property you're showing there is unbuildable?
Ledvina: Oudot C?
Farmakes: Where you're drawing arrows.
Aanenson: No, it's buildable.
Generous: This area up here is developable. This is the wetland complex in the middle.
Mancino: So they couldn't develop. How could they use that to get density?
Generous: But this area is upland. It's possible they could develop this. Put units there.
This is upland. It's possible they could develop that. But instead of doing all the...to get
their access there, all the density is concentrated in this area where we can provide the
services. Where the sewer line can be brought in. Where the access can be provided.
Scott: So basically what you're saying is that we've got 166 units and for density
calculations purposes, we have "buildable", two areas of buildable land that there won't be
any building on and that because that space is available.
Mancino: It's calculated in the density.
Scott: Yeah. You're using the net buildable land for density calculations, even though it is
pretty tight in there.
Generous: Right. They've clustered it all.
Mancino: Is that compatible with what's south? South is Trotters Ridge, which is single
48
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
family and west is Timberwood, which is large lot. East, excuse me.
Scott: And the elementary school site.
Generous: Well the school...
Mancino: No, the school site is just north of the collector. Timberwood is directly east of
that south park. There's not, the school site. According to what's shown here.
Generous: This does connect further to the east on that site.
Mancino: So it is surrounded by single family on the south and on the east and then you've
got on the west, it's surrounded by wetlands.
Generous: Yes, and to the south. Timberwood is down here. The wetland complex is this,
basically the whole middle of this proposal.
Scott: Did you have any discussions with the applicant regarding some community type open
space, because this looks like it's pretty dense? Kind of like we were talking about Mission
Hills. Touot or something like that. Or is it because of the wetland.
Aanenson: Well there is some upland area that's adjacent to Trotters Ridge. As you know
when we looked at the Opus property, we were preserving all that upland area that's nicely
wooded and there's trails going through that...Access through Trotters Ridge and Opus
development.
Mancino: But there's nothing right in sight here. If somebody wants to have, I think Ladd
you brought it up with Mission Hills a couple weeks ago. What if I had some people over
and I want to go outside and bar-be-que or have a group of people, where do I go in this
dense of an area? There's nothing...
Conrad: Yeah, I get real frustrated. I really like, every time we see something dense we
always react to it. We want, you know we've zoned it for density but then once we see it,
those questions come up. Or let me give you another one. How do these people move
around? And it's not that it's bad it's just that because we don't have it in Chanhassen, I'm
not familiar with it being here. We just don't have high density areas. It seems to me, in
high density areas, we should have sidewalks everyplace. Although you'll ask a developer,
they'll say people don't want sidewalks.
Mancino: Because people don't want to keep them up.
49
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Conrad: Well it's maintenance. Yeah, it's all that plus there's a privacy type deal too.
People who exist in suburbs don't want sidewalks but when I see more density than we
normally have, I think well. Now we've crammed more people, twice as many people.
Maybe 3 times as many people in the same space and I say well, we don't know, I don't
know what things should be. I don't know what the park requirements should be for, you
know how close should they be. Is there a park within 3 blocks, 4 blocks of here that
somebody can walk over to? And what we're doing here is we do have a sidewalk going
through on the main street but that's the only one and I think geez, they've got a lot of
density there and saying boy, how do people move around in higher density areas? The
statement is I'm very naive as we get into some of these. It's appropriate for the site. It's
been zoned or it's been planned this way. I just get uncomfortable thinking we're applying
our same single family, low density residential standards to a site like that.
Mancino: It may be the other point of view is, multi-family is just fine but shouldn't we
have some common area for those people in that? It's more important than even in a single
family where you have large lots. It's more important that they some space and it doesn't
have to be huge but some area within it.
Conrad: Maybe. And maybe that's sort of a joke. You know maybe, how many units do we
have here, 160?
Generous: 166.
Conrad: So you know if we have a totlot that's the size of this room, is that a joke in
relationship to 166 units? Does that count?
Mancino: Well a lot of these multi, and I don't know why they're not coming in this way
but when I go around town and I see some of these multi-family units, they have them as part
of the development. There is this place, whether it's a tennis court. Whether it's whatever it
is, a little park area. You hardly see them without it so it surprises me that we're getting
them in without any of that.
Aanenson: I think it might be appropriate to have the applicant talk about who their market
age is, just so they can give you some comparisons. Eden Prairie Rottlund one's...When we
looked at this, it's got the school across the street. They're looking at passive park, nature
trails going into Opus...and then just south of this is the park in Stone Creek and has access
to the Minger subdivision which is across the street. That also has a passive area and an
active area. So we feel there is...
Scott: Any other questions or comments for staff? Would the applicant or their
50
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
representative like to speak? Please give us your name and your address.
John Peterson: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is John
Peterson. I'm President of Good Value Homes and our address is 9445 East River Road,
Minneapolis, 55433. Good evening. As you probably know...experience in the city of
Chanhassen. We're a 25 year old development company. We've built over 6,000 homes in
the metropolitan area. We currently have a development involved in various kinds of...in
cities throughout the metropolitan area. This is a rather complex staff report and situation
development and there are an awful lot of issues as you know. I brought the staff report with
me on a weekend trip and there's a lot there and I don't know how many of those issues we
can actually address tonight. I don't know exactly how much time or how much you want to
hear from me but let me give it a start and if it gets too long, in too much detail, Mr.
Chairman if you would just advise me and I'll sit down and listen. One of the early issues
on this plat was the possible construction of what has been called in your staff report as a
frontage road and as a collector in the east/west street south of Highway 5. We would like to
call it a parkway. We think that frontage, neither of those two terms do justice to the kind of
neighborhood that we'd like to put in. But in any case, what the major issue was, who's
going to pay and how it's going to be built and I think while this is not a...planning issue.
It's maybe something that the City Council may get more involved in, and I think it's
important to know that this parcel cannot support the, and pay for the construction of that
parkway through it's, the entire length of the property. That is down to the wetlands to the
west part of our parcel. That just is not feasible. We have a difference with staff on several
issues. One of which is we're not 100% sure that it's going to be real easy to get a DNR
permit to cross that beautiful wetland. We deal with wetlands all around the area and our
policy as a company has become to, whenever we possibly can to stay away from them but
this is the kind of thing that a private developer would never dare try to do. And while I
understand there's some larger public issues here, where we get caught in the conflicts
involved in trying to preserve wetlands and they come quite often but a condition that's in the
staff report that's somewhat troublesome is that all of the permits for that crossing have to be
obtained before we can do our development. And you know and we know that that means
that this project is frankly out there a ways and that's a burden I think that we would not like
to be involved with. We would prefer to not build that. Not only not pay for that road but
also not have that road built across that wetland. We think it's possible to serve this site with
a much less road that would be designed to carried must less traffic and just hook up to the
north and have a right-in/right-out intersection on TH 5. I don't know how that would be
resolved but I think that's one overall planning issue. On the question of density that you've
been discussing, I think it's important to note that north of the parkway we're proposing that
the density that is significantly less than the maximum density allowed, or planned in your
comprehensive plan. You're talking between 4 and 8 and we're at 5.86 units per acre. The
landscape plan frankly, in our 25 year experience, is the most generous landscape plan we've
51
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
ever put together but we turned it over to our landscape architect and I said go to it. I said
here's your proposed ordinance. There were about 3 ordinances that we're working under
that are not adopted by your city but have been proposed that we're trying to comply with.
One of which is the tree ordinance. The tree preservation plan. Maybe that has been
adopted. Okay, it had not been when we started the process but we asked our landscape
architect to prepare a plan that met your ordinance and we'll be happy to hear...that he did,
and it does and it's very, very generous by any standard in our standard of experience. It's
troublesome that we are, I don't mind shifting the trees around on that site. Frankly I
certainly didn't realize that we had more trees on one side of the parkway than on the other
side but we can shift those trees. To be asked to add a significant screening along Highway 5
I think is troublesome. That is a problem for us. On the existing screen on Highway 5, and
I'm...but there is a nice row of evergreens along Highway 5 now and there's also a significant
berm, natural berm and we'd like to leave that there and have that serve. Now I understand
the MnDot plans, we have had access to MnDot plans for Highway 5 and we understand that
it's, that those trees are within the right-of-way. And here again, MnDot has no trouble. I
would think that it might be possible to encourage MnDot to leave those trees there. I don't
know if we can get a commitment at this point from them but I think that would be a
reasonable request to ask them to do with...trees that do form a nice, natural berm or
screening there. I'm wondering if you could, would it be possible, well before we do that. I
have a few renderings and I'll go just a little bit into the kind of units that we're proposing.
North of the parkway, and south of TH 5, we're proposing to build units in 4, 6 and 8 unit
buildings. I'm wondering would this work for everybody or no? It doesn't work for you,
does it? Oh great.
Scott: You can put it facing over here and then the camera will pick it up for anybody who
wants to see it on the monitor.
John Peterson: Okay, great. These are, this is a rendering of the 8 unit version of this
building. One correction in the staff report, it talks about that we have in the opening
paragraph that we have 1 or 2 single or double garages in these units. One of the differences
between this proposal and some of the proposals, or any proposals that you've seen on this
site in the past, is that all of our garages are double garages. We do not have any single car
garages proposed on this site. Where you see an 8 unit building on your plan, this is what
you would see. This would be a 4 unit version of that same, the ones that are north of the
parkway. The units are 1,400 square feet plus. They have a bath and a half. Two bedrooms,
fireplace is standard. Air conditioning is standard. It's really hard for me to tell you price
ranges and we developers hate to get pinned down to price ranges because we obviously
don't know all the costs and we won't know exactly where they're going to end up. It would
be my best guess today, on June 15th, that the pricing would be between, I'm going to make
it a fairly wide range here. Between $85,000.00 and $105,000.00. Maintenance free siding.
Double garage. The units have on the lower level a living room, dining area. I have the
52
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
sketches but I won't show you all that right now...We have an upstairs. There are 2
bedrooms plus a loft area. The targeted market surprises us a little bit. We have this product
approved in the cities of St. Louis Park, in Roseville and Champlin. This would be the fourth
site on which we would like to put this project. St. Louis Park we have not begun
construction. Roseville we have our model nearly built. And in Champlin also we have the
model underway. We are in those two, the two locations that we're really actively marketing
right now we're finding it becoming to more over 50 and above people than we thought we
would. We thought this would be for the young people, possibly coming out of apartments
but we're not talking to those people so we don't know where the market's going to settle in
but I think it would be young professionals, empty nesters. The empty nesters like that single
level. That's a disadvantage of this. They really want to be on one level but they're still
talking to us about this project. We think those are the two markets that we would
experience. Now south of the parkway, we're proposing in twos, threes and four
configurations of 2, 3 and 4. The rendering that I have here is a 3 unit building. It's a more
expensive product. These will be between $120,000.00 and $150,000.00 and they are all
double garages. They're up to 1,800 feet. They're between about 1,600 and 1,800 square
feet. And this is going to be, we think, predominantly people 50's and above who have lived
in this area and would now want to be...and they want a nice townhome. The entire
landscaping plan will be irrigated, of course. Underground sprinkling. And in the south of
the parkway, of the 52 units, I think it's 18 will be, would back up to the open space, the
wetland and we expect this to be just a really highly desirable, beautiful. I guess that's
relative and...developer on it but really a nice townhome development. It would be a real
positive addition to your city. We have the capability in our company to do 3 dimensional
renderings and I didn't get every 3 dimensional rendering that you want. We guessed at what
angle we should do it and we did it at that angle. It turns out that the staff report is asking
for one from Highway 5. I don't have that but I do have this. That's going to be kind of
small. Maybe you can see it okay... We have here a 3 dimensional rendering. The aerial
view of what we expect the neighborhood to look like if it were developed and completed...
I'll address a couple issues. I talked about the landscape plan. I talked about, or no. I didn't
talk about tree protection. We think that the staff had a good idea. Maybe more than one
good idea. Several good ideas but one of the ideas that they had that we think we could
work into the scheme is moving the retaining wall that is adjacent to the single family homes
somewhat closer to the single family homes and we can save a few more trees. However, it
is really difficult for us to save trees, very many trees, a significant number of trees, in the
parcel that would be right behind the people that are here in their single family homes and
south of the parkway. I think we're replacing with our generous landscape plan, according to
your ordinance, those trees and we think we can do a little better, not a lot. The truth of the
matter is, that that site which slopes down towards the wetland, takes some grading and it
takes some, a little bit of... takes the planting back in of some trees to replace what we take
out. I have with me tonight Derrick Passe, who's a principle of Passe Engineering and he's
53
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
our engineer for many years and he's prepared to address issues, specific issues that you may
have on the grading plan and we'll talk about that at this time. I guess there are several other
things but maybe I should just leave it at that and see what other concerns you may have and
I would be happy to be available to answer any questions.
Ledvina: Mr. Chair?
Scott: Yes.
Ledvina: I had a question for the applicant. What are your specific thoughts as it relates to
open space that people are looking for in these types of developments and what provisions
have you here for that type of situation?
John Peterson: Okay, that's a good question. I did have it on my notes based on the
comments that had been made. Your Parks Director I believe it is, has assured, has
commented to me that the land that we will be giving to the city as part of this wetland
which is substantial, 43 acres. And the trail system around the site and some additional land
that will probably be taken as part of the Opus development to the west, that that whole
system is probably, will probably be the largest public open space area than anywhere in the
city of Chanhassen, and you know that better than I. I think I'm quoting him accurately. My
comment would be that this site, even though the density is normal for us. It appears to be
high, is immediately adjacent to a tremendous resource that is open space. There is a lot of
open space. The question of totlots for these people, there are at least two problems. Well,
I'll start this way. In two of the developments that we did many years ago where we used to
put totlots in, the homeowners associations, when the Board of Directors was formed and the
people started paying the insurance, the developments with the totlot, which is tremendous.
The insurance costs are very, very high and the association has a very high level of liability
with totlots. And the lack of use, two Board of Directors said, of course those are the ones
that I'm aware of have acted, in our developments, have taken the totlots out and they've
been able to do that. I mean they voted and gone to the city and taken them back out. We
have not done one development in the last several years where we have built a private totlot
amenity.
Scott: But you're talking about like a playground with playground equipment, right?
John Peterson: That's what I'm talking about.
Scott: Not just more of a passive, open area.
John Peterson: Okay. Now in terms of this particular site. One of the comments that your
54
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
staff made is along Galpin Avenue, the 4 and 8 unit buildings that we have there, are
somewhat lined up. I'd like to explain why we did that. We left a rather large space, I'm
going to step over here. Here's Galpin right over here. And we discussed this at length with
your staff. The entire site, the farm buildings that are there and the out buildings and the
large trees that are a part of that will all be left. I mean the buildings won't be left but that is
a significant open area that we, that will be available to the residents and that would be
potentially, put park benches in there. But I would not want to put a swing set in there, and
that's not the right location anyway. But the combination of this plus the large open space.
And that reminds me of one other issue that I need to just mention. We've been in contact
with your staff of course and also with the property owners to the west, the Opus parcel I
believe it's called. And there is some question on the alignment. I'm wondering if you could
put up on the screen for me the layout. This, how this road would cross the wetland, the
exact location of that road is undetermined right now but it's the view of the property owners
to the west, and I think the staff is concurring with this. That this probably has to be tilted
slightly to the north. And we've agreed to do that but we didn't redo all of our drawings
because we don't know exactly where that should go. They've identified where they would
like it. Oh yeah, okay. Good. This is not exactly accurate. The people, the Opus people to
the west would like it slightly north of this but it would take a rather minor. I just want for
the record say, that we're willing to do that and we feel it can be accommodated and I think
staff agrees that that is not a major problem. Are there any other questions?
Scott: Are there any other questions for the applicant? Do you have any questions for the
applicant?
Farmakes: I have no questions for the applicant, if you're asking me directly.
Mancino: And I have no questions.
Scott: Thank you. Thanks very much sir. This is a public hearing and may I have a motion
to open the public hearing please?
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: Anybody who wishes to speak, please step up to the microphone and identify yourself
and give us your address. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing
please? Excuse me, sir. Please do.
Howard Dahlgren: I wanted to give the others a chance to speak first but my name is
Howard Dahlgren. I live at 1786 Irving Avenue South. I'm one of the partners in the Opus
55
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
land to the west. We've been working with the city, as you folks know, for almost 3 years
now developing plans...and trying to do it carefully and...the development of this property
with Good Value Homes of course is the vehicle for getting utilities to the Opus property. So
we support the development in the sense that we must have utilities in order to develop the
land. And this development provides the vehicle to get utilities to the site. That's been
planned with your engineering folks, with your staff and with the consultants. We've met
with all those folks again and again trying to work all this out so it will work well for
everyone. Mr. Peterson mentioned our problem with respect to the...that east/west road. If it
lines up with where we have it planned on our preliminary plan that you have given concept
approval to about a year and a half ago, it will save the site south of that road. If you draw it
where they have it, it will run right through the highland and we lose a site so that's one of
our problems. We went over that directly with the staff and I think we all concluded in the
meeting we had here recently that if we bend the road slightly to the north, it will line up
where we have...all along and will give us the site to the south and there will be a wetland to
the north. So in summary, we support the development. We feel it fits with the
comprehensive plan. The land that we have of course, as you noticed, is planned for
industrial. We want to do a very nice industrial park there. That's our objective. We
support it. We do need the utilities and we would like adjustment on that roadway so that it
can meet what we had proposed and save us...We appreciate the opportunity to...
Scott: Thank you sir. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? May I have a
motion to close the public hearing please?
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Nancy.
Mancino: Okay, I'm going to bring up some topics and I'd like everybody to respond. First
of all Kate or Bob, can you respond to the applicant's concern about the parkway and
whether it can end at the wetland and go north and have a right-in/right-out on Highway 5.
Aanenson: Staff has always supported this and it's on the comprehensive plan as a southern
frontage road...parkway. We feel it needs to go through. There's going to be people living
here. The purpose of those frontage roads is to keep people off of Highway 5. The...to get
people over to the school. People working at the Opus project without going onto Highway
5. Not only that but the utilities will be going across this section anyways. We certainly
believe that based on, as Mr. Dahlgren indicated, we've got a touch down point on the Opus
site that we feel is the most sensitive to get it across there on their property. We certainly
feel like this is a wetland that we want to work to enhance with no development on the
56
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
western portion of that. We feel like we can do a lot. There is a wetland north on the Opus
site and then another upland area where we're going to preserve the integrity by keeping it
park and natural area so we feel like even though the road's going across, that's going to be
very nominal as far as the overall impact so we'd certainly support the decision made a while
ago about the integrity of having that road go across. We feel like it can be minimized
through the wetland. As far as the...when we first met with Mr. Peterson that the city would
support the application process as far as the permitting process. There are also...as far as how
that road gets paid for with this development...if the road stops at this end of the
development, how that road gets paid for. So there's several options that can happen there.
But as far as the road going through, we would certainly support the road to go through and
we would not recommend that it be stopped at the end of this development. That would just
force more traffic onto Highway 5.
Mancino: Okay. Conceptually land use, and I'm looking at, I feel very comfortable with the
north side of the frontage road being multi-family and medium density as it is. I would like
to suggest not a line up of the units as they are. I'd like to see them more creatively placed.
I mean those are pretty good sized units. Each unit building is what, 11,200 feet. That's a
fairly good sized footprint. So I would like to see them adjusted so they're all not lined up.
I would also like to see, Jeff brought this up last time on Mission Hills, some variation in the
architectural detail upon them and the color of them. Whether that's paint. Whether that's
aluminum siding. But I would not like to see them all being exactly the same. South of the
frontage road, land use. I still support, in a little different fashion, the comprehensive plan
guided use for single family, low density south. And the reason why I say that is because of
the, where it is adjacent to a wetland. A wonderful, gorgeous place for single family. It
could be low income housing. Whatever. It has single family to the south. It has single
family to the west. Or to the east. And also the other feeling that I get is that these places
where we have designated for multi-family, that the footprint of that multi-family doesn't get
too big so it's a sea of roofs as far as you can see. And I'm a little concerned about that.
The view from Highway 5 south into seeing a sea of roof tops. Since I don't have a
perspective from that, I can't tell you exactly what that will look like but that's my concern.
That talks about my land use issues. On the Highway 5 where it buffers Highway 5, I would
definitely want to see more screening, more buffering from the roadway. I'm not sure if the
existing pines can be saved but I would like to see more actually south of the pines. Some of
them are in good condition. Some of them are not. I live on Galpin so I see them quite a bit.
Bob, you talked a little bit about the massive grading and what were your concerns and what
are some of your solutions for that?
Generous: Both Dave and I went back and forth on this one. It just seemed that there was
excessive grading on this site. You couldn't really tell based on the plans we have but it
looks like there were things they could do such as moving an 8 unit and replacing those with
57
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
smaller units that might not need as much grading. There's a, we realized from the elevations
that there's a knoll on the eastern edge and it sort of goes down from that so we're going to
have to bring the development down a little bit.
Mancino: Oh, right where that cul-de-sac is?
Generous: Just northwest of the first intersection of the private road and the collector street
in there and there's a Y. That's one of the high points on the site. And they're right. It
does slope down to the wetland area. There's a big question, when you get to the far western
edge of the development, it looks like they have those at a 14 foot elevation change and the
small little...at the ends, how are they handling that? Is that all fill? Could they step this
development more? And those are some of the issues we wanted the applicants engineer to
bring out. We also had a tough, like I said, with the scale of the grading plans, it was really
hard for us to decipher all the changes that were being proposed so one of the
recommendations is to come in with a larger scale so we can evaluate in more detail.
Mancino: I know one of the things we discussed on Highway 5 guidelines was having a
much more natural topography as much as we possibly can so I'd like to see that worked on
in this concept. And in the Opus too. We talked about that. The rollingness. Not the steep
retaining walls all the time. To keep some of the rolling hills still there. Not to level them
off and have nothing and have just cut off retaining walls. I love the parkway with the, I
think the...effect is good. Could be beautiful there. The boulevard trees. I don't know what
they are. Do you know what they are?
Generous: Lindens.
Mancino: And that's on both sides?
Generous: Yes.
Mancino: Up and down. That's great. Those are my comments for right now.
Scott: Okay, Jeff.
Farmakes: I heard a comment about the, or excuse me. The comment's already been made
about the density. I guess in looking at the overall path, it's kind of clustering, although they
won't be able to build on it, it's still philosophically what they're doing is in a way clustering
to move it up. It is creating barriers between other usages. Significant barriers so we don't
get into the situation where we're building a fourplex and then a duplex and then a single
family home. So I guess I'm, with this particular development I'm comfortable with how
58
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
that's laid out. The grading may reduce some of that. I would also back up the grading
issue. I think we should follow that on everything, particularly these higher medium density
developments where, and including the industrial development next to it where it's simply
easier to get more on when you level it out. I really would like to see more massing of trees.
I realize that there's a limited amount of space for your right-of-way but maybe the city can
get involved in what's sitting up on Highway 5 there because some of those trees are not in
great condition. The clustering that you have on the northeast corner there, where you see
that clump of trees up in the corner. I'd like to see more of that, which is more of Morrish
had on his drawings. Where you get more of a natural...clustering look rather than rows of
trees all in a row. And even on the west side also where the ponding is, the trees sort of stop
there and don't go into that corner. Where you would get a view on that angle from TH 5.
Are we going to see actual materials that are being used when this comes back?
Aanenson: That's why we're just recommending concept at this point...
Farmakes: Okay. But we will sometimes we get a brick and sometimes we get actual
materials or we get a concept of what is going up. In particular, the reason I ask is with
these no maintenance materials, and we were discussing issues of where you see a large
grouping of homes where they're all the same color. The idea being is that we maybe should
look into this on a recommendation of how we deal with that on our PUD. You don't want
to create a company town or look where you get all these neutral taupes where you get 500
buildings all in the same color. And one of the builders that I think did a good job with it is
Centex over in Eden Prairie. They used neutral coloring but they have subtle changes in
color of these no maintenance materials. And it makes it look more like a, more random like
people's homes rather than a big company look to it. I just talked about Highway 5.
Mancino: ...concerned about some of these details...
Farmakes: The issue of distance on this plan, as I look at it, it's really not that bad as I'm
measuring it out. Maybe it's the same as it was before but I...on the previous plan.
Aanenson: 75.
Mancino: It is 75? And that's minimum. 75 is the minimum and 150 is the maximum.
Farmakes: Let me just jump back into, before we start talking feet here. The intent with this
particular development, and you add it to the other developments as talk about it. I might as
well use this as an example. When we get that medium or high density corridor, which is
what it's going to wind up being, up and down TH 5 between Lake Ann and TH 41, with the
exception of a couple of business developments.
59
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Aanenson: You keep telling us that but we're not going to see it. We already know what's
happening on either side of that.
Farmakes: Okay but I disagree with that. I disagree with that it isn't going to happen but it
is. That's what we're seeing up and down the highway.
Aanenson: This is the only one on the south side.
Farmakes: On the south side, that's correct.
Mancino: East of the school.
Farmakes: You have the school and then you have the previous development that we saw
from the blond fellow, what's his name?
Scott: Heritage.
Aanenson: And we're not sure...
Mancino: Well we talked about zero lot lines.
Farmakes: ...north side of the highway. I'm talking about conceptual here when we're
talking about up and down the highway. Both north and south side. When we're talking
about this type of development. What we're doing is we're grouping all the density homes,
and it's in our plan. It's in our comp plan. It's not a surprise to anybody. But when we're
talking about, when we're talking about alternate siting, and we were talking about this type
of grouping of density, what we're doing is we're going to create, we're shoving all these
buildings right up against TH 5. This type of housing and I'm wondering if somewhere,
either in the north side or in the south side they're not connected. She's right. They are
broken up by industrial use and they're broken up by the school. But we might want to
consider somewhere along TH 5 the breaking up of this group. Now they went with the
alternate site where, if they go with one and it runs all the way down to the highway.
There's going to be a significant corridor of housing similar to this. And I'm just wondering
if bring it up, you may want to consider that maybe even altering the comp plan to break up
some of that or to at least be cognizant of the fact that we may wind up with a corridor of
that visual. Not necessarily all connected but visually as you drive down. You get the type
of density that you see on 169 and some of the areas in Minnetonka. Some of the ones
farther north up on 494 and 100 where literally you can drive for 10 minutes and see nothing
but high density. But this is small. It's on a small scale. Actually this is, for this type of
housing, this is what I like to see. I like to see a smaller scale and it does utilize the
60
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
clustering well with the existing property. On the setback on TH 5, if we can get more trees
in there, with this particular slice, I'd be fine with that. If we can get more trees along that
Highway 5 corridor area. I'll leave it at that.
Scott: Okay, Matt.
Ledvina: Well I would support the other comments that the other commissioners have made.
As far as the land use south of the parkway, I don't know. I think Nancy you're thinking
that that should be single family residential?
Mancino: I can see single family. Actually almost mixed use. I can see single family along
the wetlands area going north and then maybe the two unit areas in the middle there and
doing a nice kind of a mixed use south of it. Because I think that they are nice amenities for
single family and I do also think that we need some moderate priced homes in the area.
Single family. Not just multi-family. I mean whenever we talk about affordable housing or
moderate priced homes, it's always got to do with multi-family. I would like to see some
single family too.
Farmakes: Now that's not going to run up. This isn't affordable housing. This is not...
affordable.
Ledvina: Well I can understand your desire to mix the housing and, but I don't know about
specifying that to that level for the developer, you know I think we can say maybe the density
should be decreased down there or maybe try some 2 units or something in there or I don't
know. I don't know that.
Aanenson: We looked at that...the way we looked at it is, you can have 4 to 8 on the north
side. He's indicated he's got 5. He's at the low end. So if he comes back with a different
product, as you indicated Matt, and you come in with single family here, then we come back
with something completely different on the north end. ...see that the north end is kind of
palatable the way it's laid out. The...orientation of the buildings...but when you start messing
with the bottom end, and then what does that do to the upper, to the northern...
Ledvina: Yeah, and I'm sensitive to that. So I guess I don't know. That's a real tough
issue. But I don't know.
Aanenson: ...mix them up more. Like you said, maybe do the duplexes throughout and that's
what Bob is saying with the grading plan it maybe is appropriate where you mix them...
Ledvina: Right. Where you can use the larger, or I'm sorry, the smaller building footprint in
61
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
a sensitive area to reduce the grading. That you know, that seems to be a good idea.
Mancino: Well and there are all sorts of trees in that area.
Ledvina: Right, exactly.
Mancino: That's where a lot of.
Ledvina: So maybe some variation can be done in that specific area without you know
messing too much with their density that they're looking for. In terms of units per acre. I
don't know. I'm interested in what Ladd may have to say on that. I think some of the other
things, that open area where the abandoned house is, I think that's a nice opportunity for the
developer. I think he had a good idea that I hadn't seen in here before as it relates to the
passive use of that area as park or open space or whatever. I guess maybe if that could be a
little bit more inviting and I don't know how that's done. With maybe just a small trail
segment into that, I don't know but something on that nature. I had a question for staff on
the trail along the edge of the wetland. I presume that we're going to be maintaining our
setbacks and does the trail, as it's drawn, do that? I suppose we don't have to specifically
worry about that now but.
Generous: Well I believe the way Todd is proposing this whole thing, that we would
maintain that buffer strip outside of the trail...the trail wider than it actually is.
Ledvina: So you're saying that the trail will not be built within the.
Generous: Within the buffer.
Ledvina: Within the buffer strip, okay.
Generous: Yeah, it would be within the 50 foot setback or 40 foot actually...
Aanenson: It is classified as an ag urban wetland...
Ledvina: Okay. Within the setback or outside of the buffer, okay. Alright. That's the
extent of my comments.
Scott: Thank you. Ladd.
Conrad: Bob the, do you like the density transfer? Has there been something that you think
is neat over there and what you're giving up is, you know the reason this was single family
62
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
was because it was next to our favorite Timberwood, right? So you're comfortable that
Timberwood's protected in terms of transition? Kate you too? You're comfortable with
their.
Aanenson: Well we have a concern with the, as indicated the grading and the tree loss...
Conrad: The issue's not density down there per se. The issue is buffer.
Aanenson: It's a transition. If you look at how much open space is left on the other side, I
mean it's just pushed in this corner. But again, I think if we looked at a different product, as
I indicated, and you put more on this, I'm not sure that would make it, more on the north
side, I'm not sure that would make it a better product either. But I think we're on a good
start. We need to look in a little bit more detail...
Conrad: I just need, you know you guys are planners and you have to assure us that we're
doing the right thing for Timberwood. I love density transfer. It's a good use. It's neat to do.
It looks like we can do it here. But I also have to be, I need your best guess that it's doing
what we want it to do, or I want your best guess that we're buffering Timberwood too. I just
want to reinforce some quick thoughts. What Jeff said, the building designs. We need a
little variety in here and I think what Jeff's comments were real valid. I just don't want the
same color, same thing, every building over there. There has to be some architectural or
some color modifications. I would like Kate or Bob, if you could bring back, when this
comes back in a preliminary mode, I'd just like your recommendations in internal sidewalks
for high density areas. I'd just like you to think about it and tell me what you think. Okay.
And then at the same time when this comes back in a preliminary stage I need, and you could
probably do it now. I don't want to do it. I need to know the impact of the parkway on the
wetland that it's going through. I just have to feel comfortable again that the impact on the
wetland as the road goes over it, is not just killing the wetland. I don't think it is but I need
to know that before I can approve this. And the grading. All the things that have been said
about grading I really believe in. That just has to happen. So again, I really like what staff
said. I like what Bob said when he kicked this off and the things that he wanted to look at.
Overall I think it's fairly decent. But I would hope that the developer could start reducing
some of these points. I pretty much agree with what the staff has there and I guess I'd like
to see fewer items coming back next time and not just leave them 3-4 pages long. I'd like to
see some movement on that because I don't think we're that far off. That's all.
Scott: Okay, thanks.
Ledvina: Mr. Chair, I'd like to follow up. On the situation with the permits for the wetland
alteration. The developer has stated that they want to disconnect the approval with those
63
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
requirements. What are your thoughts on that and I guess my initial thought is that, we want
to have this thing together as one project and I don't think we can separate those things but.
Aanenson: Plus as a part of this, we're transferring some of that density. We're looking at
the whole property and putting it on one side. I mean yes, the development's heavy on one
side but we're looking at the whole gross acreage. We can't just wash our hands of the road
because the development stops there. The utilities are going through that segment. This is a
wetland. We've certainly identified that we want to locate...and we will work to secure the...
Ledvina: Well one thing that the applicant mentioned that this would slow them down
potentially. Do you see that? I mean is this going to be a long, drawn out process?
Aanenson: Well that...one condition in the staff report by engineering that the condition 20.
Subdivision approval is contingent upon the necessary permits.
Ledvina: Right, I saw that.
Aanenson: I guess part of that too is we want to locate, we want to tie down the alignment
of the road. They're kind of tied together. We know the touchdown, we have an
approximate idea of the touchdown on the Opus site but where it crosses the wetland, it's my
understanding the DNR... Maybe that can be modified as we move along to the next...
Ledvina: Okay.
Scott: Good. I don't have anything to add.
Mancino: I have one question. Bob, you've got on 31 that the grading has to stop within 10
feet of the natural wetland. 10 feet? They can get within 10 feet?
Generous: Well that's the minimum buffer strip.
Mancino: What's the maximum? I mean isn't there a max and a min?
Generous: Well actually it's 0 to 20 with a 10 foot average.
Mancino: Okay. I just, I was surprised that the natural wetland, that you can get machinery
within 10 feet.
Aanenson: It's not a natural wetland. It's an ag urban.
64
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Hempel: Diane has classified certain portions of the wetland south could be considered
natural.
Aanenson: But generally it is classified as an ag urban.
Mancino: But you can get within 10 feet of a wetland?
Aanenson: This land up here is all ag urban. What she's saying and this comes out of
Diane's report, the southern end where they're not doing anything, where we've got a passive
area. There's a...that are pretty high quality. Portions of this whole wetland. That's the part
we would look at...that natural. That's why we're saying, our intent for this development is
to upgrade that wetland. We think it can be made into something very nice.
Ledvina: We'll maybe even want to have staff take another look at that specific element and
potentially increasing that to protect those southern areas of that wetland, if it is in a more
natural state. Whatever. I guess we, in the preliminary, we'll see that again and maybe we
can revisit that.
Mancino: Thank you.
Scott: Can I have a motion please?
Ledvina: Well I would recommend the Planning Commission recommend to City Council
conceptual approval of PUD #93-5 to rezone 89.59 acres from Agricultural Estates, A2 to
Planned Unit Development and preliminary plat. Whoops. No. Excuse me. That's it.
Subject to the conditions in the staff report. And I don't have any changes.
Mancino: Can I make a friendly amendment?
Ledvina: Do you want to second it?
Mancino: Second.
Scott: Is there any discussion?
Mancino: I'd like to make a friendly amendment and that has to do with, let's see. I think
the 3 of us talked about and that is we'd like it to come back to the preliminary plat to see
some variations and architectural details and colors so they're not all the same. That there is
some diversity in that look. And Bob, a question for you. I would specifically like to look at
reducing the grading and the tree loss in that southeast corner. Is that specific in here?
65
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Generous: Not specifically. I want them to come with a tree protection plan.
Mancino: Okay. And I will say that 37 has to do with, well is that okay Matt?
Ledvina: Sure, that's fine.
Mancino: Adding the architectural and color as an amendment and the 38 would be, for staff
and the applicant to look at reducing the grading and the tree loss in the southeast corner of
the development south of the parkway. And 39, and I think you may have this in here.
Talking about increasing the landscaping parallel to Highway 5.
Generous: Yes, number 5. Under 12 I mean...
Mancino: Okay. And I would also, you know as you look at that, if we need to add more to
the setback on Highway 5, I would be in favor of that to give more screening.
Ledvina: That's acceptable.
Scott: Is there any other discussion?
Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to the
City Council conceptual approval of PUD #93-5 to rezone 89.59 acres from Agricultural
Estates, A2 to Planned Unit Development, PUD, subject to the following conditions:
1. The proposed fire hydrant locations are unacceptable. Developer must contact the City
Engineer and Fire Marshal for additional placement of hydrants.
2. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants; i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, NSP, N.W. Bell, cable T.V. transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire
hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated, pursuant to Chanhassen City
Ordinance Sec. 9-1.
3. Submit street names to the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for approval.
4. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet.
Minnesota Uniform Code Sec 10.204 (a).
5. The marking of fire lanes on private and public property shall be designated and approved
by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal pursuant to Minnesota Uniform Code Sec 10.207 (c), and
Chanhassen Fire Department - Fire Prevention Policy #06-1991 (copy enclosed).
66
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
6. Chanhassen Fire Department policy on Premise Identification must be followed.
Additional Fire Marshal approved monument signs for address locations will be required.
Developer should contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for requirement and details,
pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department - Fire Prevention Policy # 29-1992 (copy
enclosed).
7. Submit turning radius to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval, pursuant to 1991
Minnesota Fire Code Sec 10.204 (c).
8. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review
prior to final plat approval.
9. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using
standard designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should
be done prior to final plat approval.
9. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property.
10. Adjust property lines to permit openings and projections in exterior walls or confirm
that no openings or projections are planned. This should be done before preliminary
plat approval.
11. The applicant shall work with Southwest Metro Transit in the provision of bus
stops/shelters within the development.
12. Prior to final platting, the applicant shall revise the landscaping to provide a more
equitable distribution of trees throughout the site. Additional groupings of evergreens
shall be planted along the northern project boundary to provide additional screening
and to prepare for the possible future removal of the evergreens in the right-of-way
with the widening of Highway 5.
13. The applicant shall submit additional information and more detail on issues such as
tree preservation calculations and a Woodland Management Plan, perspectives from
Highway 5 toward the development, impervious surface, revised grading plans at a
larger scale, investigate whether the arrangement of unit sizes can be altered to
minimize grading (e.g., exchange Block 5 for Blocks 6 and 10), provide a explanation
that to the maximum extent feasible the amount of site grading is minimized, etc.
14. Staff recommends that the applicant alternate building orientations along the eastern
and western perimeter of the northern portion of the site. Additionally, the applicant
67
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
should exchange one or two six unit structures along Galpin Boulevard (e.g., exchange
Block 1 for Block 12 and Block 3 for Block 17.
15. Pay park and trail fees as specified by City Code. Credit may be given for the
construction of the trail segment within the development and or the dedication of park
land.
16. If feasible, two water retention ponds should be combined to one large water retention
pond located in the west central portion of the site. Side slopes may be designed as
either 4:1 slopes overall or 10:1 for the first 10 feet and 3:1 slopes thereafter for safety
purposes. Detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event along with
ponding calculations based on Walker's PONDNET methodology shall be submitted to
City staff for review and approval prior to final plat consideration.
17. The applicant will be responsible for the appropriate water quantity fees based on the
City's Surface Water Management Plan. Staff has estimated the proposed
development would be responsible for an estimated water quantity assessment fee of
$130,305 assuming 43.8 acres of developable land. The applicant may be credited
against these fees for portions of the trunk storm system they install as a part of the
overall development. Staff will review the final construction documents and determine
the applicable credits, if any. The SWMP fees are pending formal approval of the
SWMP by the City Council. Any modification to the fees as a result of the approval
process will be adjusted accordingly.
18. The applicant's grading plan shall be revised to be compatible with future street grades
along Galpin Boulevard.
19. The applicant shall construct the frontage road within the development from Galpin
Boulevard to the wetlands in conjunction with the overall site improvements. The
street shall be constructed in accordance to State-Aid standards. Plans and
specifications will be subject to review and approval by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation, State-Aid office.
20. Subdivision approval is contingent upon the City receiving the necessary permits and
approval from the governmental agencies such as DNR, Army Corps of Engineers for
extending the frontage road across the wetlands to the Opus parcel.
21. The applicant will be required to enter into a PUD/development contract with the City
and provide the necessary financial security and administration fees to guarantee
compliance with the conditions of approval.
68
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
22. The applicant shall design and construct the public street improvements and private
utility improvements in accordance to the City's latest edition of Standard
Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the
public improvements shall be submitted to City staff for review and formal approval
by the City Council in conjunction with final platting.
23. The applicant shall be responsible for the proper abandonment of the septic system,
well and outbuildings in accordance to City and/or State codes within 30 days after the
final plat is approved.
24. The applicant shall provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by the
City.
25. The applicant shall provide "as-built" locations and dimensions of all corrected house
pads or other documentation acceptable to the Building Official.
26. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all necessary permits from the regulatory
agencies such as the MPCA, Health Department, Watershed District, DNR, Army
Corps of Engineers, MnDOT and Carver County Highway Department.
27. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction. The applicant will comply with the City Engineer's direction as
far as abandonment or relocation of the drain tile.
28. Erosion control measures shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen Best
Management Practice Handbook.
29. Drainage and conservation easements shall be dedicated over all wetland areas within
the subdivision including outlots. Wetland mitigation measures shall be developed and
subject to approval by the City. The mitigation measures shall be completed in
conjunction with the site grading and restoration.
30. The final plat shall be contingent upon MnDOT's State-Aid office approving the street
alignment for the east/west frontage road. Construction plans shall be revised
accordingly as a result of the State-Aid review process.
31. A native vegetative buffer strip 10 feet in width shall be maintained around all natural
wetlands. This will limit grading to within 10 feet of the natural wetlands. The
applicant's grading plan shall be revised to reflect this requirement.
69
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
32. The applicant shall provide a full-time, on-site construction inspector for the
construction of the frontage road. The inspector will need to be State-certified.
33. A driveway or cross-access easements including maintenance agreements will be
needed for the private drives throughout the development.
34. Wetland delineation along the western portion of Basin A should be re-evaluated.
35. The applicant must meet City, State and Federal permitting requirements for wetland
alterations. Staff recommends that the wetland permit applicant combine the proposed
project and the frontage road as one project.
36. The City requires detailed storm water quantity and quality calculations from the
applicant prior to final plat (stormwater system should meet the City's SWMP
requirements)."
37. The applicant shall incorporate architectural and color variations to the housing
styles.
38. Staff and the applicant shall look at reducing the grading and the tree loss in the
southeast corner of the development south of the parkway.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to approve the Minutes of
the Planning Commission meeting dated June 1, 1994 as presented. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Aanenson: We didn't put one in the packet because City Council met Monday night...
Kindercare was given conceptual approval. The list that the staff had put in with all the
conditions...it was either table it or give it conceptual.
Mancino: 26 but.
Aanenson: Well there was more than that. There was a conditional use. There were
conditions under the site plan so all those had to be incorporated into a new site plan and
brought back.
70
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Conrad: To who?
Aanenson: The City Council. There's some things you can't do. I mean obtain a permit
from MnDot, that's not. Anything architectural or that we need to see additional...
Farmakes: I thought that the applicant said that they weren't going to change anything, ever.
Aanenson: Well, if they don't want to, then I guess...
Scott: Tell them that it will come back here. I bet it will flip flop the parking lot if you say
it's going to come back here. Thank you very much. Do we have any ongoing items?
ONGOING ITEMS:
Aanenson: ...shoreland regs and the storm water. See how you would like to handle next
week. Since you tabled two items tonight. The Coffman plat...recommended eliminating 5
lots and.
Generous: Potentially.
Aanenson: That we felt the integrity wasn't there so they're going to wait and come in
with...so that will be back on.
Ledvina: Are they receptive to doing that?
Generous: Not all 5.
Aanenson: I think they're receptive to the issues that were raised though.
Generous: They're going to show how they're going to address it.
Aanenson: And Admiral Waste is going to be back on. We tabled that and then Roman
Roos will be back on. That means we have 3 items right there. Plus we have quite a few
other items that we need back on.
Scott: This is our July 6th?
Aanenson: Yeah, Triple C. That's the big one that has single family, apartments...
Mancino: Where is this?
71
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Aanenson: This is for the 6th.
Generous: That's if they get their packets in tomorrow.
Aanenson: Plus we have Heritage, the single family...I want to talk about that again after I
get done with the agenda. Anyway, we wanted to open the public hearings. We've got the
work sessions going to finish up the sign ordinance. We've got the work session that we
didn't quite get over to do the shoreland regs and the SWMP.
Farmakes: Could I just interject, as long as you're on the sign ordinance and I saw that
Perkins was going to be an applicant... Do we review limitation on height of a flag pole?
Aanenson: I've already indicated to them that it's a PUD and it wouldn't be allowed...
Farmakes: I was just wondering if legally we could not keep that size reasonable.
Aanenson: ...so what would you like. Would you like to discuss the shoreland, the regs? I
apologize for rushing...
Ledvina: Well I'm okay if I can just give you a call, well I can call you and we can talk
about it.
Aanenson: ...I'd appreciate that.
Ledvina: Yeah, I don't know that there's changes that I'm going to want or whatever.
Maybe it's real simple.
Aanenson: Clarifications.
Ledvina: Yeah, I just want to try to understand what some of that criteria are as it relates to
the water levels and such and how those are going to be enforced. I see a few problems with
enforceability in some of that stuff and I'm almost to the point where if you can't enforce it,
leave it out and put it in the intent statement. But don't make it an ordinance requirement
then. So there's one or two spots that I'd like to just talk to you about.
Aanenson: Okay. How about the, do you want to discuss the storm water...
Ledvina: It's huge.
Scott: Can I ask just a quick question? Who all's going to be here on the 6th of July?
72
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Ledvina: I will be here.
Conrad: I hadn't thought about it. I assume I will be.
Scott: Jeff, you going to be here on the 6th?
Farmakes: I've not planned that far in advance.
Scott: Oh yeah, I'm not going to be there and Nancy, you're not going to be here?
Mancino: I don't know.
Scott: So we're going to have to have somebody take that meeting.
Mancino: Okay, if I'm not, I'll call. Who would like to? Otherwise I'll take it.
Scott: Yeah, I won't be reachable.
Ledvina: Good for you.
Aanenson: We're going to have a workshop on the...SWMP plan so what I'm saying is the
6th is full and it gets hard...
Ledvina: Well, what do we need to do with this SWMP plan administratively?
Aanenson: What you need to do is recommend adoption to the City Council to hold a public
hearing. It's really a mini comprehensive plan amendment so the procedure to go through is
you hold a public hearing and take comments. Recommend to the City Council. After the
City Council adopts it, then we send it up to Met Council for their approval. It's a
comprehensive plan. It's really a sewer and water...
Mancino: I don't know enough to do that at this point.
Scott: And you've got to read it.
Conrad: Yeah, it took a long time developing it. It's sort of like Tim Erhart should come in.
Did he come in tonight?
Aanenson: ...Diane was here and we kind of went...
73
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Mancino: We could do 2 hours on Saturday morning or something like that.
Conrad: It's sort of like when you presented the tree ordinance. It's like oh geez, if I try to
understand that, I've got to do as much work as you did to develop it.
Ledvina: That's what I'm thinking too. I don't like to shove off the work but in doing it,
but in reviewing it in detail and going through it page by page but that's going to be a
tremendous task.
Aanenson: No, I think you have to have an understanding of how it works and what the...and
we'll certainly have the people here to answer the questions for the public...
Scott: Basically what you really need to do is that we need to be spoon fed on these huge
things like that and then we also have, I think we were probably more trusting of the
commissions and task forces. More so than the City Council is but I think there's a certain
level, I mean I take a look at this. It's a pretty impressive document and I mean I went
through and looked at the first couple of pages and you know, I'm sure everybody else did
more than that but in my mind I go, you know. We've had x number of people spending x
number of years doing this thing. They obviously know what they're doing so what am I
going to add to the process. The executive summary is good because we're going to have to
have rudimentary knowledge of the document to be able to comment on developments and so
forth but personally I don't really see a need to spend a tremendous amount of time. Maybe
spoon feed us. Get our reactions and maybe, we may come up with something significant
like aw man, we didn't think of it. The chance of that is probably pretty low. Not taking
anything away from how intelligent we all are but I think you know what I'm saying.
Ledvina: Oh yeah. Well would you recommend one more work session and then a hearing?
Aanenson: Yeah.
Ledvina: A public hearing. Okay.
Aanenson: We did start getting into the slides and then we want to get back to the document
where we...
Ledvina: Well if we could start on time, we'd be in good shape. I don't know if people can
give an hour and a half or whatever before the meeting.
Conrad: It's tough. When you're here from 5:30 until 1:00.
74
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Aanenson: How about if we could start at 7:00. If we start at 7:00 and not put any of the
development issues on until maybe 8:00. Give yourself an hour from 7:00 to 8:00.
Mancino: That's a good idea.
Ledvina: This is like to discuss the document.
Aanenson: Right. And maybe try to just make a work session or...
Ledvina: Why don't we start at 7:00 every time? I wish we would.
Aanenson: We'll see what we get. Some of these things may not come in...they may fall
off...
Scott: Okay.
Farmakes: Is it still your intent to give visuals to that?
Aanenson: We showed the slides for the sign ordinance. That's all the further we got the
last time.
Farmakes: To integrate it into pamphlets of some sort for those people who were applying...
Aanenson: ...all the definitions in the back. Yeah, I think that's important that we should
have to work...
Mancino: ...cul-de-sac length. Are we going to revisit that?
Scott: That was like our big watershed ordinance, the first meeting we were here. I was all
excited. Of course I was all excited about Highway 5 and where the heck is that?
Farmakes: I'm kind of partial to the non-conforming recreational beachlots myself.
Scott: I do have a fondness for contractors yards too. Anyway. This is open discussion
now.
Mancino: We talked about that as 600 and we never did anything about it so.
Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:08 p.m.
75
Planning Commission Meeting - June 15, 1994
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
76
0)1,
• CITY TF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director
DATE: June 28, 1994
SUBJ: Report from Director
On June 27, 1994, the City Council took the following actions:
1. Approval of the first phase of The Woods at Longacres which includes 30 lots (Song
property).
2. Approval of first reading of the Highway 5 overlay district.
3. Approval of preliminary plat, conditional use permit and site plan review for the
Press/Kinder Care Expansion.
4. The Council tabled the Mission Hills PUD request. They felt that it was important to
receive the input regarding acreage from the Park and Recreation Commission which
met on June 28, 1994. This item was been rescheduled for the July 11, 1994 City
Council meeting.