08-3-94 Agenda and Packet FILE
AGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION _
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 3, 1994, 7:30 P.M.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE
5:30-7:15 p.m. - Work Session to discuss Sign Ordinance.
CALL TO ORDER - 7:30 p.m.
•
OLD BUSINESS
1. An interim use permit to allow screened outdoor storage in the BF, Fringe Business District and located at 10500
Great Plains Boulevard, Admiral Waste Management.
NEW BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. Item Deleted.*
I3. Preliminary plat to subdivide 46.5 acres into 36 rural single family lots and one outlot, Halla's Great Plains Golf
Estates, located south of County Road 14 (Pioneer Trail), and west and east of Highway 101 (Great Plains
Blvd.), Don Halla.
4. Amendment to the zoning ordinance, City Code Section 20-1181(b)(4) regarding interior landscaping for
vehicular use areas.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
ONGOING ITEMS
OPEN DISCUSSION
5. Discuss Concept of Entertainment Complex.
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. Rezone 37.92 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family, preliminary plat
to subdivide 37.92 acres into 52 single family lots and a wetland alteration permit located at the intersection of
Galpin Boulevard and proposed Lake Lucy Road extension, 6730 Galpin Boulevard, Ed and Mary Ryan.
Shamrock Ridge.
.I
CITY OF
.00 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, AICP, Planning Director
DATE: July 27, 1994
SUBJ: Sign Ordinance Work Session
At the July 20, 1994 meeting, the commission recommended holding a work session to
review the sign ordinance in conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce comments. Please
find attached the proposed ordinance as well as the Chamber's comments. Members of the
Chamber will be at the work session for an informal discussion. A light dinner will be
available.
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. uncontrolled 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 with 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 and consistent with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 211B.045.
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. Shall comply with the fair campaign practices act contained in the State
of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 211B.045.
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 (including site _
lines or confusion of adjoining ingress or egress) 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.
d. Bench signs are prohibited.
(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 or convenience store selling fuel, 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.
5
(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
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 promoting any non-residential project, or any residential project of ten (10) or
more dwelling units, located in the City of Chanhassen, shall be permitted 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 the project site.
c. Such sign shall be set back not less than twenty-five (25) feet from any
property 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 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.
6
1. One (1) non-illuminated sign is permitted per street frontage.
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 line.
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. Off-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.
7
2. Only one (1) sign per corner of an intersection per development
shall be permitted. There shall not be more than 4 signs per
intersection. Signs shall not be located in any 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 twenty-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.
9. Signs for the "Parade of Homes" shall be limited to 4 square feet
and shall be permitted only for the duration of the "Parade of
Homes".
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.
8
b. messages must relate to on-premise product or services, or any non-
commercial message; and
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 exceed seven (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:
9
(1) 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.
c Bus bench signs are prohibited.
Billboards are prohibited.
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 shall not be moved,
altered (including face changes/the copy of the sign) 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. The area of a window sign shall be interpreted as the
total window area for that face of the building. In no case shall the total window
sign area exceed the permitted wall sign area defined in this ordinance for said
district.
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 shall 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 constructed 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 signs are permitted,
subject to the same size regulations applicable to such signs.
12
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,
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.
2_ /►'lex. CA etCJe
(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 l/z foot candle in brightness as measured at the
property line.
13
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.
(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. 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. Wall business signs. (1) Wall business signs shall be permitted 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:
14
Maximum Percentage Wall Area in Square Feet Maximum Square
of Wall Footage of Sign
15% 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
3. 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.
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
Less than 15 64 8 64
50,000 sq. ft.
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
15
footage of the sign shall be based on the square footage of the principal 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. Wall business signs shall be permitted on 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
15% 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
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. Wall business signs shall be permitted 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
11% 1,201-1,800 198
99 1,801-2,400 216
7% 2,401-3,200 224
5% 3,201-4,500 230
3% 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 we co+v\e
against the face of the supporting building. Q
Awning may extend in any required yard :i
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 t ]1::=
identifies the names of specific businesses L 1
located in a shopping center, medical center NNS
and professional office and which is located on
the premises of the shopping center so identified. VfignallItIlilll""
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
18
provide a shelter or cover over the approach to
any entrance of a store, building or place of assembly. )119111111
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 LASJ 10► �.
Sign, Directional means a sign erected on Main prance•
private property for the purpose of .
directing pedestrian or vehicular traffic WOeN"g -
onto or about the property upon which such "E ST 1°`
Employee Pastry'
sign is located, including signs marking
entrances and exits, circulation direction, ..,,,,,
parking areas, and pickup and delivery areas.
Sign, Display Area means the area within a single
continuous perimeter enclosing the extreme limits r sH 6
or the actual sign message surface, including any C�
structural elements outside the limits of each sign e 1
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 ,K
banner constructed of cloth, canvas or
light fabric, that is hung from a light •-_ - •
pole. The flag/banner shall contain no ''
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
19
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.
e.
Sign, Ground low profile business means a 1 Tf1f MkL
business sign affixed directly to the ground, •
with the sign display area standing not C
greater than two (2) feet above the ground. 41111111111111111111111
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
erected or constructed as an integral or
essentially integral part of a normal roof •
structure of any design, such that no part
of the sign extends vertically above the
highest portion of the roof and such that L
L' .. L'L t. • i 11-01 ^
20
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.
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.
Sign, Roof means a sign that is mounted on
the roof of a building or which is wholly
21
,4
,III`I
dependent upon a building for support and 11 I!' '
which projects above the roof line of a
:.1
building with a flat roof, the eave line I i'!!:
of a building with a gambrel, gable or hip • :
:
roof or the deck line of a building with a I'
mansard roof.
Sign, Temporary means a sign designed or
intended to be displayed for a short period
AI
of time. This includes items such as banners,
pennants, flags, beacons, sandwich, or
balloons or other air or gas filled figures.
Sign, Wall means a sign attached to or
erected against the wall of a building or
structure with the exposed face of the sz ��, •v
sign in a plane approximately parallel q�� � ,�
to the face of the wall, and which f
does not project more than twelve (12) y
inches from such building or structure.
Wall signs shall not include product0
ICA-
advertising. Wall signs shall includeI _
m.
tenant identification, tenant logo, center L.. I ---�1-1-1
name, or any combination of the three.
Sign, Window means sign, pictures, symbols,
or combination thereof, designed to t
communicate information about an activity, —
business, commodity, event, sale or service, -5_,�
that is placed inside a window or upon the
window panes or glass and is visible from I
the exterior of the window.
Site Distance Triangle means 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. _
/24/94n.o
Ian'ka\sigrd
5/10/94
7/13/94
22
July 12, 1994
_ TO: Members of the City of Chanhassen
Planning Commission, Council and Staff
FROM: Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce
CONTENTS: Submission in response to proposed City of
Chanhassen Sign Ordinance, containing the
—
following:
Overview
—
Specific Comments and Recommended
Changes, section by section
Copies of two letters received by
the Chamber
Overview:
Having completed its review of the proposed sign ordinance,
the committee, on reflection, wishes to offer the following —
observations .
1 . The comments made section by section are responsive in
nature and although we attempted to obtain input from a wide
cross section of businesses and interested parties , there
may be points which could be improved upon by additional
comment from those with specific experience. We welcome
those with additional comments to appear with us at the
meetings with the Planning Commission and Council.
2 . Primarily, we wish to make the following three
observations, all of which would require starting over.
We recognize that this recommendation will be met with a good
deal of frustration because of the time that has elapsed
since the study of the currently proposed ordinance began.
We believe the additional time would be well worth the effort
and would put Chanhassen in the vanguard , away from the copy
cat ordinances that have been enacted elsewhere--a situation
which has the potential of adding ever more restrictions.
Our reasons for this recommendation are as follows :
A. People are tired of more and more government-imposed
restrictions in the way they live their lives and run their _
businesses. We believe we cannot critique state and federal
levels of government on this point without looking at our own
local governments.
Built-up Cities are experiencing problems in attracting
businesses for redevelopment and as employment sources in part
due to burdensome regulations and requirements and are —
beginning work toward relaxing many requirements previously
held to be important .
While Chanhassen, as we discuss elsewhere, is experiencing a
boom right now, this period does not last long and soon we,
too, will be working again to attract successful businesses.
Fewer restrictions will thus be a benefit in the future as
well as the present.
-1- _
B. The sign ordinance needs to be done as clearly and as
simply as possible . Those seeking to install signs should
not be burdened with a complicated set of criteria to try to
understand . More importantly , we do not believe it is in the
best interests of the taxpayers to have City staff spending
large segments of its time dealing with inquiries and
lengthy processing of applications caused by an overly complex
ordinance. Paralleling that thought , whatever the ordinance
adopted , there are numerous areas where flexibility needs to
be provided for to allow for creativity, changing technology
and changing needs .
C . Lastly, we recommend that the City approach the adoption
of amendments to its sign ordinance from the reference point
of "Khat can we do to help our businesses , what changes could
and should be made to help them be more competitive .
It is the observation of our committee that the City of
Chanhassen in adopting a new sign ordinance should step back
from its deliberations , which because of the nature of the
ordinance tend to be come ' restrictive ' in tone, and
consider the following :
1 . How do the restrictions effect the success of our City.
2 . Is there anything in our ordinance that places our
residential developers or our merchants and employers at an
unfair advantage with those of other communities ,
particularly those of nearby communities such as Excelsior,
Eden Prairie and Chaska , with whom Chanhassen must compete
for its success .
3 . Do we have a full understanding of the purpose for signage
and importance of signage to the success of the ventures
being promoted . Has any research by professional marketing
groups been reviewed which compares the effectiveness of
promoting by signs compared with other methods .
4 . Have we looked at the broader picture to the end that we
have considered whether or not adjacent owners ' landscaping
and/or City installed landscaping obscures the necessary
signage of the businesses of our community.
5 . Are we being a watch dog for our businesses and
employers .
6 . Will we be frustrating the residents/consumers of our
community with inadequate direction . Can they easily see
the signs of the businesses they want to find . Can they
easily see that a specific event is upcoming , etc. If not ,
they will go somewhere else either out of frustration or
ignorance .
-2-
7 . Because of the recent rush to develop in Chanhassen ,
have we come to believe that the market already exists which
will somehow support the new businesses? It is our
observation that most of our businesses must draw from a
much larger area than the boundaries of Chanhassen in order
to survive, particularly during the next few years .
Adequate signage during that period of time is critical .
8 . Do any of the proposed portions of the sign ordinance
reflect individual ideals rather than the good of the
business and consumer community.
•
—3—
Comments and Recommendations
Relating to
Proposed City of Chanhassen Sign Ordinance
Comments and Recommendations
1 . At Section 20. 1253 , Variance: Delete the words "by
reason . . . if the variance does" and insert "a variance would" —
•
Comment: Showing a hardship is difficult. The intent is
that people live by the spirit of the ordinance.
2 . At Section 20 . 1255, (9) , change the introductory
paragraph to read : "Temporary development project
advertising sings erected for the purpose of selling or
promoting any non-residential or residential project located
in the City of Chanhassen, shall be permitted, subject to
the following regulations :
Change a . to read : Not more than one ( 1 ) such sign shall be
allowed per street frontage.
Delete b. entirely.
Add a new b. as follows: Not more than one sign per project
lender, contractor and developer.
Change c. to read : Such sign shall be set back not less
than ten ( 10) feet from any property line, and shall be —
firmly anchored to the ground.
Change d . to read . . .closer than one hundred 100 feet from an _
existing residential dwelling unit, church or school which
is not a part of the project being so advertised, without a
variance.
Comment: Much of Chanhassen ' s future development will be
smaller infill development. This is particularly true
within the commercial areas. There currently are few, if
any, downtown parcels, for example, that are 200 feet wide.
Smaller residential developments deserve and need signage
and developments for multi-family residential often are on
parcels which have other residential developments adjacent —
to them. This proposal would mean each new project would
have to have a 400 foot frontage.
Delete e. Comment : The project signs are already limited
in number. This would pit one development against another
and would create an unfair ' first-come, first-served ' atmosphere. _
At the end of f . , add the sentence : Lender, contractor and
developer signs shall not exceed 32 square feet and the
height shall not exceed 10 feet .
At g : Change the proposed section to read as follows : All
lender and contractor signs shall be removed when
construction of the project being advertised is 100%
completed . All project signs shall be removed when the
project being advertised is 100% sold , rented or leased .
Delete the remaining proposed language .
Comment re deleting the 3 year requirement :
Removal of the signs when the project is sold or leased
should be a satisfactory requirement . If the project is not
sold after three years, it would still need and deserve to
have signage since it is in the best interest of the
community to have a project sold cut and or leased up.
At Section 20 . 1255 ( 10) , a . , 2 . Change the section to read :
Sign display area shall not exceed thirty-two square feet per sign .
( lines 2 , 3 and 4 should be deleted . )
= Comment : The size of the parcel has nothing to do with the
sign size. As proposed this language discriminates against
smaller landowners, which may very likely because of the
topography of the land , distance from the street or highway,
etc . , have just as much need for visibility of signage .
( 10) , b. , 3 : Change 200 to 100 feet . Comment: For the same
reasons as stated above.
b. , 5 . Delete the words "or within twelve months from the
date a permit is issued , whichever comes first . "
Comment : There is no permit required for this signage .
( 10 ) , c . , 2 . Change to two signs per development .
Comment : Many of our residential developments are accessed
_ by more than one primary route .
c. , 3 . Change from 24 to 32 square feet .
c . , 4 . Change from 25 to 10 feet
c. , 5 . Change to read : "Written permission must be obtained
from the property owner upon whose land the proposed sign is
to be located . "
c . , 6 . Change to read . Such signs shall be non-illuminated .
-2-
Comment: These signs are typically painted plywood , which is
not considered to be maintenance-free material . —
c. , 7. Change to read : Such signs shall be removed by the
developer after the project is 100% sold, rented or leased .
Comment : Not only is 6 months too short for larger
projects , it does not seem appropriate to limit the time to
anything less than the time it takes to sell or lease the —
project for the same reasons as stated above.
c. , 8 . Delete entirely: Comment: It does not seem appropriate
to dictate the copy for developers.
c. , 9 . Add a new section as follows: Temporary off-premise
directional signs for residential open house events, —
including model homes and rental units, may be installed by
any person as follows :
a. Sign Size: Each sign shall not exceed twenty-eight
( 28 ) inches by twenty-eight ( 28) inches in size.
b. Sign Content : Each sign shall include either the -'
words "open house" or "model home" , and the name
and telephone number of the person responsible for
the sign.
c. Sign Placement: The signs shall be directional in
nature and shall be placed solely to facilitate the
direction of traffic to open house events .
Placement of the signs shall be as follows :
i . The signs shall not be located more than one —
( 1 ) mile from the site of the open house
event .
ii . The signs shall not be placed closer than
five ( 5) feet to any curb.
iii . The signs shall not be placed on a sidewalk,
trail or roadway median.
iv. The signs shall not interfere with traffic —
visibility.
v. The signs shall not be placed on private —
property without the written consent of the
property owner.
d. Sign Quantity: To maintain the directional nature
of the signs, they shall be limited to a maximum of
twelve ( 12) signs peer open house site, with a
maximum of two ( 2) signs per intersection. --
-3-
e . Sign Duration :
i . The signs may be in place from one ( 1 ) hour
before to one ( 1 ) hour after a weekday open
house event .
ii . The signs may be in place from 10 : 00 p.m. on
Fridays through 6 : 00 a .m. on Mondays for a
weekend open house event .
iii . Signs for annual Metro-Area special real
estate events , such as the Parade of Homes , may
be in place for the duration of the event,
provided that a representative of the event first
obtains from the City a Special Event Sign Permit .
Comment : The above proposed language has been taken from
the existing Burnsville ordinance . It has proven to be
workable and acceptable by those affected .
General Comment : It should be noted that at several
subsections within the above section , we recommended
changing the sign size to 32 square feet and changing the
maximum height to 10 feet . We should also note that some
sections already provided for that size and height . We did
not make these changes arbitrarily or for consistency,
rather they are recommended for two practical reasons :
1 . These signs are constructed from plywood that comes in 4 X 8
sizes , thus , 32 square feet . The 10 foot maximum height
allows them to be placed either horizontally or vertically,
as the site and the copy dictates .
2 . We understand that the City of Plymouth recently abandoned
its effort to require smaller than 32 square foot signs due
the their inability to change the long-standing choice of the 32
square foot sign used in the industry.
At several other subsections we also are recommending
changes from a 25 foot set back to a 10 foot set back.
This , too, is a practical recommendation and relates to the
typical siting of this type of sign .
3 . Section 20. 1256 :
Comment : It is our recommendation that this section be
reconsidered from a different perspective. In doing so, we
recommend that temporary signs and banners be removed from
this section and placed in the section which does not
require a permit .
-4-
The purpose of temporary signage and banners is to promote
some event or happening , including special sales and promotions,
for a very short time. They are something different added to the
landscape to grab the attention of those passing by.
These temporary signs and/or banners are meant to create an
impact. Size and location are therefore very important. In
some situations, a 100 square foot sign would create an impact -
--if, say, it were used in a location where there is a lot of
foot traffic and/or the building were located very close to a
street with slowly moving traffic. Most of our businesses are —
located in large buildings which are set back from the street.
We therefore recommend that some formula which takes into
consideration the distance from the traffic, the speed of
the traffic and the size of the building be used. We
recommend that the size be overly generous , if limited at all .
These events and happenings are what make our community exciting .
We want them to be successful .
Because impact is the desired result of the use of these —
temporary signs and banners, the length of their use in most
cases can be limited . Thirty days in most cases would wear
out the impact. Exceptions might be "Now Hiring" signs for
new businesses .
The proposed language of section a . seems to contain a
conflict in its recommendation that a business may display a —
banner on 3 occasions per year but then goes on to say that
businesses within a shopping center shall be limited to one
display per center. The intent as to businesses within
shopping centers is not clear. It is our recommendation
with respect to shopping centers that no business should be
discriminated against because it is located within a
shopping center. We believe it is appropriate for the -"
shopping center owners to regulate the use of temporary
signage and banners. We also believe that three times per
year per business is too restrictive and, again, suggest
that a shorter duration for each usage would be appropriate.
We recommend also that the limitation on inflatable devices _
to two occasions per site is too restrictive and recommend
instead that the ordinance should not deal with the number
of occasions, but rather with a number of total days, say 16
days per site or center per year. —
As to the new 2.c. , we believe it should be deleted. The
maximum height of the inflatable is already addressed. The —
idea is that it float above the buildings to be seen.
-5-
3 . Stringers and pennants are not described and we
therefore are not sure what is prohibited . We do, however,
recommend that the banners such as are currently used along
with temporary signage and such as are included in the
balloon illustration on page 22 continue to be allowed as
temporary signage .
As a postscript to the above comments , it has been pointed
out to our committee that the City of Chanhassen is perhaps
the major user in Chanhassen of banners , temporary in-ground
signs , portable signs and window posters . All of these
types of signs are used in varying degrees for every
community event . Obviously the City recognizes the
effectiveness of this method of promotion .
- We think these signs and banners add interest to the
community. We don ' t feel they should be further regulated
or prohibited . Nor do we feel private enterprise should be
allowed any lesser signage .
Section 20 . 1258 . Delete subsection 2 . •
Comment : We emphatically recommend that this section be
deleted . This provision was met with some of the strongest
response from our committee . We have not done research to
determine whether any other Cities ' Ordinances c�:stain similar
language; nor will we . We feel strongly that our Chanhassen
government should not send this message to its businesses. We
hope for an atmosphere of cooperation and working together
toward a successful business community. Subsection 1 is
adequate . We do not want the City staff involved in prosecuting
our business people nor do we relish the thought of the negative
publicity that would follow.
Section 20 . 1259 , Subsection ( 2 ) : Add language which
grandfathers the Chanhassen Bank sign .
Comment : It may be the intent that this section would apply
only to future proposed motion signs ; however, we do not
feel that the intent is clear and could be interpreted
otherwise in the future. It is our observation that the
motion sign at the Chanhassen Bank has become a community
institution. The benefits of the sign are enjoyed by many
volunteer organizations, the City for its community events
and by anyone wanting to know the time or how miserably cold
or hot they really are.
-6-
Subsection ( 5) . Comment : We believe this section needs
clarification, particularly to the point that graphics and —
design treatment depicting corporate logos and symbols may
be permitted when located within a building sign band or
otherwise qualify as building signage. _
Subsection (6) . Comment : Consistent with our prior
recommendation that some temporary signs and banners should
be permitted without a permit , the section should reference —
the appropriate sections .
Section 20. 1260. Comment : By adding the last two paragraph
to this section, without adding subtitles, the intent becomes
confusing. If the intent is to deal with nonconforming signs
within conforming land use areas , then we have the following
comments and questions .
It is our observation that there are numerous signs which
have been installed which do not comply with the existing
ordinance. There would be even more which would not comply
with the ordinance as it has been proposed . Because of the ._
vast number, and because, in most cases, they are not, offensive
in nature, we recommend that a complete inventory be undertaken
prior to drafting the language for this section.
Notwithstanding the above comments, if language is to be
included at this time, we offer the following additional
comments : —
At the second paragraph: the words "including face
changes" should be deleted. This requirement is too —
restrictive and ambiguous and precludes a change in
the corporate logo, corporate colors, change in corporate
name, etc.
At the third paragraph: Much needs to be clarified here.
There are many changes in businesses in multi-tenant
buildings. The change of one business should not trigger a —
change in the entire sign. There is no definition of what
constitutes an abandoned sign, etc.
Any language considered for adoption here should take into
consideration the enormous cost of signage to businesses.
Section 20. 1265, Subsection (a) , third line: delete "any
drainage or utility easement"
Comment: This is impractical and is uniformly violated.
The vast majority of the signs used do not comply.
Subsection (b) . Add at the end the words "whenever
feasible. "
-7- —
Subsection ( g ) At the end of the sentence, delete the words
" in which they are located" and change to "allocated to the
business . " Add language which will provide some equity to
those business which have a large building front, but very
small window area, while a competitive business may have
windows which reach virtually from the floor to the ceiling .
Having made the above recommendations , we offer the following
additional comment by way of emphasizing that we feel the
section should be changed to read "Window signs are
permitted . " :
Comment : It is our studied opinion that restriction by any
governmental unit upon the individual business/merchants to
promote their product by way of window signage , either
temporary or permanent is an imposition of their freedom to
market their products and services which should not be
sought or permitted . It is the American way to promote
wares and services , witness the many Norman Rockwell posters
and paintings depicting old-time ads and flyers in the
windows behind the puppies and kids . It tells our merchants
that the governmental unit has more concern for the few who
feel that clutter is to be avoided than it has for the
success of the business . It tells our shoppers that we care
more about what the governmental unit perceives to be a good
appearance than the convenience for the shopper in being
= able to tell that prices have been reduced , that a sale is
going on, that there is a new shipment in , that the store
will be closed for the 4th of July , that the hours will be
extended during holiday seasons, that they have added a new
product or service--even that they are open ! The individual
merchants and shopping center merchants should be able to
regulate their own appearance based on the type of store,
type of building , etc . Liquor stores can ' t advertise prices
in the newspaper and thus have a different need than an
upscale uift shop, which, in order to promote its upscale
image may choose not to have anything at all in the window.
Hardware stores in America are defined by window signs
telling about paint , keys and other tantalizing widgets .
Customers are very mobile and have little allegiance these
days . Many never read an ad in the newspaper, nor do they
open direct mailings . Competition is immense and most of
our merchants are still in the startup stages .
Section 20 . 1267 . The last sentence, which has been added
since the first draft was prepared, causes us some
concern regarding the requirement for individual channeled
letters. Our first comment is that the word channelled could
be eliminated in that it is redundant; however , our primary
concern is that it is too restrictive for all applications .
-8-
Most recent commercial building sign plans have included the
words " individual letters or logos" and we recommend that at
minimum the words "or logos" be added . However we also
recommend that there be language added which will allow staff
sufficient flexibility to respond to creativity, changes in
technology, etc. We would hope we can afford the boredom
that comes with too much conformity.
Section 20 . 1268 , Subsection ( a ) : Change the angle from 20
degrees to 45 degrees .
Comment : At a distance 20 degrees appears too much like a
flat sign to accomplish the intent . The purpose of angled
signs is to provide visibility from corners and other awkward
locations . The reason for limiting the angle is to prevent
such a wide expanse that it is effectively a double sign.
45 degrees meets the need without providing an opportunity
for exploitation and is used in other city ordinances .
Section 20 . 1301 , Subsection 1 . (And in succeeding sections ) :
Change the maximum square footage from 24 to 32 and change
the maximum height to 10 feet .
Comments : Same as set forth above for prior sections .
Sections 20 . 1302-1304 . Comment : We find these sections to
be somewhat complex and thus confusing and time-consuming to
sort through. We compared them with similar sections from
the ordinances for Minnetonka , Plymouth and Eden Prairie and
found those to be much more direct and clear .
Specific comments are :
Section 20 . 1302 , 1 . Comment : In keeping with
recommendations made above and for the same reasons , change
24 to 32 and 5 to 10 .
Section 20 . 1303 . Change the sign height for a principal
structure of less than 50, 000 square feet to 16 feet .
Comment : An 8 foot sign would exceed 15 feet in height when
placed on an 8 foot pole, as required under a previous
section .
Subsection 1 . Delete the first sentence.
Comment : This sentence has been added to the proposed sign
ordinance changes since the first draft which we reviewed and
we are frankly mystified as to its origin .
-9-
This restriction is in obvious conflict with the needs of the
CBD for signage and is in conflict with already existing
permitted pylon signs . To add this restriction would be
unfair and inequitable treatment for those businesses coming
in the future and would be unfair to those already using
pylon signs should they be required to remove them as
described under proposed nonconforming sign language.
This proposal does not consider potential needs along Highway
7 or along the future 212 or the ' existing 212 in the Chaska
area . Neither does it consider the needs of businesses
located in industrial parks of which only parts may actually
abut Highway 5 .
Subsection 3 . Comment : This proposal seems to be
in conflict with the vision for the downtown area .
_ That vision calls for buildings to be close to the street so
that parking is at the rear . In those cases , there needs to
be signage at the parking lot side as well .
Subsection 4 . Menu Boards are used primarily by chains which
have an established size for their menu boards , most of which
are massed produced . The trend is for these fast food
businesses to be offering more and more selections , thus
necessitating larger menu boards . Thirty-two square feet is
among the smallest of boards currently used . These boards are
a service to the public and should not be viewed as a sign which
must be overly regulated as to size . This section needs to
include some administrative flexibility to accommodate need
and to take into consideration whether the sign is visible
from residential areas , etc.
Section 20 . 1304 , Subsection 1 : Delete the first sentence.
Comment : Much of the comment above relating to pylon
signage in the CBD relates to this section . It may be even
more important in expansive business parks for there to be
an identifying pylon sign at businesses not abutting Hwy. 5 .
Subsection 2 . Change the maximum height from 5 to 8 feet .
Comment : This is impractically short for a 64 foot square
sign .
Definitions : We should note that we did not carefully review
this section; however, because of the intensity of interest
in window signage, we did look carefully at the definition of
that type of sign . See page 22 of proposed ordinance. We
believe the intent would be more clear if the last three
lines were changed to read as follows : "that is placed upon
-10-
the inside of the window panes or glass. " We don ' t believe
it is the intent, nor certainly should it be, that any
interior signs, even such as signs on the back wall, which
might be seen through the window are to be regulated. This
change in wording gets at the intent of the ordinance without
creating potential ridiculous interpretations .
Proposed new section: We recommend an additional section
clarifying the method for interpretation of issues not included
in the ordinance. That section should clearly state that _
any issues not dealt with will be handled administratively
with the option for Council review of the determination. It
should also clearly state that in no event will an item not
specifically permitted be considered to be prohibited unless
there is Council action to that end.
-11-
IMMININE
gmaLg
ONE HOUR CLEANERS, INC. • 426 LAKE STREET • EXCELSIOR, MINN. 55331 • (612)474-5243
"Go fret cries fn .. ere tc_• . . _ ,l__! t e S:_
May 9, 1994
Ms. Pat Pappenfus
Executive Secretary
Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce
80 West 78th Street
Chanhassen, MN. 55317
Dear Pat,
We have received the memo dated May 3, 1994 regarding the proposed Chanhassen Sign
Ordinance.
I am not familiar with all of the specific details of the currently proposed sign ordinance.
However, I feel that the important concern is that a successful business must have good signage
in order to promote and identify their business.
Page No. 11 of the sign ordinance, Item No. (g) states that "Window signs are prohibited". Does
this mean any type of window signage? I think that it would be ridiculous to eliminate window
signage for businesses. Obviously, many, many businesses have window signage for their hours,
open or closed, door entrance signage, and so forth. In addition, many businesses use window
signs for various promotions and/or announcing sales. Obviously, businesses must be allowed to
have these types of signs in their windows.
I also note one other comment on page 11, Item No. (d), of the proposed ordinance. Item (d)
_ states in part "signs shall not create a haiard to the safe, efficient movement of vehicular or
pedestrian traffic." Businesses in the city should be able to have a large enough signage area in
order to maintain a safe environment. That is, if the sign ordinance is too restrictive with the size
of the signage , this would actually be more dangerous and create a hazard. Customers would
not be able to easily identify the particular business they are looking for. This could actually be
very dangerous if the sign ordinance is so restrictive that businesses are only allowed such small
signs that customers cannot EASILY identify the business.
Thank you for your consideration with these comments. I am hopeful that this proposed sign
ordinance will be a positive move for businesses in Chanhassen. It is absolutely critical that a
successful business be able to have sufficient signage in order to easily identify their business to
the public. I might add that man}' sign criteria items are regulated by the building and/or _
property owner. Building owners usually have specific sign criteria for their building in order to
maintain a pleasant and nice atmosphere for both the building and the city.
Cordially yours,
ONE HOUR CLEANERS, INC.
BRI H. BURDICK
GENERAL MANAGER
BHBIclm
ONE HOUR CLEANERS. INC. • 426 LAKE STREET • EXCELSIOR. MINN. 55331 • (612)474.5243
Awn
- 11V1 I PMT Corp,• 1500 PARK ROAD. BOX 610.CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 USA•1-800-MANKIND
May 11 , 1994
•
•
Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce
80 W 78th St.
Chanhassen MN 55317
FAX 934-3561
RE: Proposed Sign Ordinance •
Dear Sirs :
The PMT Corporation strongly objects to the Sign Ordinance as it
is now written.
•
While we do understand that a community needs rules and guide-
lines to ensure a well run community, the City Council needs to
recognize that we own our property which gives us freedom here in
the United States of America:
Business owners in Chanhassen realize that safety ( size and
location of signs) as well as designs create either a positive or
negative image of the Company and Community. Why would we, as
business owners, do anything to tarnish this image?
The necessary steps needed to obtain a permit would put many
small businesses under a hardship to complete. Once complete
the permit would only be good for 10 days. This is not efficient
or a good use of business resources in today' s strained economy.
As a small business ourselves, .we wonder about the equality of
this ordinance when looking at the resources of larger business
verses businesses of our size.
•
The City Council, instead of looking at signs as a hindrance to
the community, should be viewing them as a help ! The more busi-
ness brought to the City of Chanhassen and the more people em-
ployed in the City of Chanhassen, the stronger the Community:
Isn' t this the goal we should be striving for?
Sincerely;
i (•"(--'2:"'-',4 •
Sue Krienke
Office Manager
PMT Corporation •
•
Medical • Surgical • Laboratory - Research/Equipment and Supplies
q£:ST '5. TT AdW TO/Ted 072 NOI1dd3d6OD it-id S98002-7EI9+
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
.110°°11 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
= FROM: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner L
DATE: July 28, 1994
SUBJ: Interim Use Permit to provide Outdoor Storage for Commercial Dumpsters
located North and adjacent to Highway 212 and east and adjacent to Hwy. 101,
10500 Great Plains Boulevard, Admiral Waste Management, Inc., Mr. Patrick
Blood and Ms. Nancy Lee
On July 20, 1994, the Planning Commission tabled action on the Interim Use Permit
application (IUP #94-1) for the second time, due to lack of detailed landscaping screening
plans. At the time of preparing this update, the applicants had not submitted revised plans.
Staff and the City Attorney will be meeting with the applicants and their attorney on the
subject site to discuss screening of the dumpsters on Friday, July 29, 1994.
We are recommending approval of this application with conditions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Interim Use Permit 94-1
for the outdoor storage of dumpsters as shown on plans received July 7, 1994, with the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall demonstrate that the submitted landscaping screening plans will
provide adequate screening year round. All final plans shall be approved by staff.
Approved plans shall be implemented no later than September 15, 1994.
2. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday,
and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday (work on Sundays and holidays not
permitted).
Admiral Waste Management
July 28, 1994
Page 2
3. There shall be no outdoor speaker system.
4. The applicant shall . --- - -- - . - = . .. ` _. .. . _ . —
comply with all conditions of the Minnesota Department of
Transportation.
5. All compost materials, shall be removed from the site
and disposed of properly. Removal of the materials shall be completed no later than
July 15, 1994. (The tires, appliances, and furniture have been removed from the site.)
6. The number of dumpsters shall be limited to a number that can be adequately
screened, not to exceed 140 dumpsters. Only empty dumpsters may be stored on the
site.
7. There shall be a yearly review of this site to ensure compliance.
8. The length of the term shall not exceed 10 years. The use shall be terminated within
one year of inclusion of the site within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area or if
conditions of approval have been violated, whichever comes first. The applicant may
request an extension for the Interim Use Permit prior to its expiration.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from William C. Griffith, Jr. dated July 26, 1994.
2. Planning Commission minutes dated July 20, 1994. —
3. Staff report dated July 11, 1994.
JAMES P.LARKIN LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY& LINDGREN, LTD. DANIEL L.BOWLES
—
ROBERT L.HOFFMAN TIMOTHY J.MKMANUS
JACK F.DALY ATTORNEYS AT LAW TIMOTHY J.KEAIE
D.KENNETH UNOGREN ALAN M.ANDERSON
GERALD H.FRIEDELL DONNA L.ROBACK
ALLAN E.MUWGAI _ MICHAEL W.SCHLEY
JAMES C.ERICKSON - USA A.GRAY
EDWARD J.DRISCOLL 1500 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER GARY CHRISTOPHERA.RENEKHARRISTNAL
- GENE N.FULLER
JOHN D.FULLMER 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH MICHAEL A.ROBERTSON
ROBERT E.BOYLE BRUCE J.DOUGLAS
FRANK I.HARVEY BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431-1194 ���i•-. WIWAM C.GRIFFITH,JR.
CHARLES S.MODELL JOHN J.STEFFENHAGEN
CHRISTOPHER J.DIETZEN TELEPHONE 1612) 835-3800 DANIEL W.VOSS
JOHN R.BEATTE - .- ._.�! , JOHNR.HILL
- LINDA H.FISHER FAX (612) 896-3333 PETER J.cOYLE
THOMAS P.STOLTMAN MICHAEL J.SMITH
MICHAEL C.JACKMAN VNLS R.RIDE
JOHN E.DIEHL DWIGHT N.HOLMBO
JON S.SWIERZEWSKI ANDREW F.PERRIN
THOMAS J.FLYNN ANN M.MEYER
JAMES P.QUINN FREDERICK K.HAUSER III
- TODD I.FREEMAN MARY E.VOS
PETER K.BECK LARRY D.MARTIN
JEROME H.KAHNKE JANE E.BREMER
GERALD L.SECK RENEE L.TOENGES
JOHN B.LUNDOUIST MARCY R.KREISMAN
DAYLE NOLAN• MARIEL E.PIILOLA
THOMAS B.HUMPHREY,JR. DAMON E.SCHRAMM
- JOHN A.COTTER• STEPHEN J.KAMINSKI
BEATRICE A.ROTHWEILER
PAUL B.PLUNKETT OF COUNSEL
ALAN L.KILDOW WENDELL R.ANDERSON
KATHLEEN M.NEWMAN JOSEPH GITIS
MICHAEL B.LEBARON MARK A.RURIK
GREGORY E.KORSTAD
- GARY A.VAN CLEVE• ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN
July 26, 1994
Elliott B. Knetsch, Esq.
Campbell, Knutson, Scott & Fuchs, P.A.
317 Eagandale Office Center
1380 Corporate Center Curve
Eagan, MN 55121
RE: Interim Use Permit for Outdoor Storage
10500 Great Plains Blvd. , Admiral Waste Management;
Our File No. 18, 737 -02
Dear Elliott :
This letter is a follow-up to our conversation of July 25 , 1994,
regarding the above-referenced application.
As you know, our client, Nancy Lee, was disappointed that she was not
given the opportunity to address the Planning Commission as she had
requested both by her letter, dated July 5, 1994 and my letter, dated
- IT111y__19 , 1994 . We understood that the Planning Commission meeting was
a continuance of the public hearing on Admiral Waste ' s application
opened in this matter on June 15, 1994 . Therefore, the action of the
__ Planning Commission chair in tabling this matter without allowing my
client an opportunity to speak violated her right to due process and
contributed to unnecessary delay and additional costs to the
applicant .
I will attend the Planning Commission at its meeting of Wednesday,
August 3 , 1994 to make a presentation on behalf of my client . In
addition, we request that the Planning Commission make a final
recommendation to the City Council at its next meeting so that we have
a timely decision with regard to my client ' s application.
To resolve the matters regarding the required level of landscaping
and/or screening, we have scheduled a site visit with you and I, and
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY& LINDGREN, LTD.
Elliott B. Knetsch, Esq.
July 26, 1994
Page 2
the applicant and City Planner, for Friday, July 29 , 1994, at
3 :00 p.m. We will provide additional detail regarding plans for
landscaping to screen the dumpsters on the property and will review
the cleared location of compost .
We appreciate your time in meeting on site. It should resolve the _
remaining issues with regard to required landscaping.
Sincerely,
Wimkdin C. Griffith,~ . , for
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
WCG:PW7s
cc: Nancy Lee, Admiral Waste
Sharmin Al-Jaff
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
they've done some good massing on that west side so I feel real comfortable. That's all my
questions.
Scott: Good, any other discussion? If there's no more discussion, I'd like to have a vote on
the question.
Harberts moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission approve the
architectural detailing incorporated in the detached commercial/office building being
developed as part of the West Village Center. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW SCREENED OUTDOOR STORAGE IN
THE BF, FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 10500 GREAT PLAINS
BOULEVARD, ADMIRAL WASTE MANAGEMENT.
Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Any questions or comments for staff? Okay, any discussion?
Conrad: Well yeah. We went from a request of 40 some dumpsters up to 100. We went
from 58 dumpsters up to whatever.
Mancino: 140.
Conrad: And staff agrees. Because why?
Al-Jaff: Originally it wasn't specified how many they wanted on the site so basically what
we did was we went out and we counted how many dumpsters were there and we said... A
letter came from the applicant requesting 140 so staff discussed this issue and we made the
recommendation that as long as there is screening of those. As long as the screening works,
then it would be.
Conrad: Okay. Shielding 58 is different than shielding 140 or whatever that number is so.
Well, I still haven't seen a plan that shows me how it's done so I guess I'm, I think we could
pass it along. But on the other hand our duty is to see it first and then pass our
recommendations of the plan to the City Council and I still don't see a plan that's acceptable.
So I guess I would have to recommend that we table this item until we see a plan that works.
Mancino: What do you want to see in the plan Ladd?
3
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Conrad: I don't know, just something that staff feels comfortable with. It'd be really easy
for us to pass it along and just say hey, yeah it looks like a good plan but I think we just owe
it, or we're owed a good plan that staff makes a positive recommendation on.
Mancino: Yeah, I'd actually like to see in the plan where the 140 are. You know layout
where they would be on the plan.
Conrad: Yeah. It's not that this is a bad use. You know if it's screened, this could be a
good use for the parcel. I don't have a problem with the use as long as there's some wording
in the recommendation that I think has to be changed a little bit to make sure that we really
don't have storage in the dumpsters. The applicant said there's no refuse or whatever but I
really would want to make sure that that was specified in our language. But again, it's
probably an acceptable, as long as the traffic and noise is handled, it's probably an acceptable
use for that. But again, we need a plan that we can see that staff has shown us works.
Scott: Okay, any other questions or comments? Okay. Can I have a motion please?
Conrad: I would move that we table this particular item, the interim use permit to provide
outdoor storage for commercial dumpsters per the staff report. I would have it tabled until
the applicant and staff can present a screening plan that meets staff's requirements.
Scott: Okay. Is there a second?
Mancino: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table the item. Is there any discussion?
Ledvina: Yes. I also think that we should know specifically where the dumpsters are going
to be stored on site. It's a rather large site so we, I need to know what space 150 dumpsters
occupies and then that those dumpsters are going to be screened. So I think just to, I think
you said that but just to also know where those dumpsters are being stored.
Mancino: Yeah. I have a question on that. We're asking for screening right now and I
mean one of the only ways we'll get it is to get either a perspective drawing or something
perspectively that we're on TH 212 and either they're going to berm or not and then how, if
we're going to see 42 trees there, how tall are the trees. And if the trees are 6 feet tall, the
span of a 6 foot tall spruce is going to be 4 feet. So if you only have 42 trees, I mean how
much screening is that going to be if it's 6 feet tall? So we need to know the height and if
we're talking about screening all year, or complete screening, we're going to have to know
how tall the trees are and what the span is.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Scott: And then bearing in mind that there's a 20 foot change in elevation over the area
where they could be potentially stored so.
Ledvina: The criteria though for screening is from the highway 212. That's what we're
talking about. Okay.
Scott: Yeah.
Mancino: And there may even need to be a little bit of berming to help in that height
because the trees will start out at 6 feet and it really won't do it. And it takes them about a
couple years to really start growing. So and then they'll start after 2 years growing about a
foot a year. But the most screening you'll get from a coniferous tree is about 15 feet wide. I
mean it grows 15 to 20 is the widest and that's after 25 years. So I mean there needs to be
some calculations and looking at it.
Scott: Any other comments or questions?
Al-Jaff: Mr. Chairman?
Scott: Yes.
Al-Jaff: Do you have any comments regarding...
Ledvina: The time line. The term of the permit. Are we talking about 15 years? Or MUSA
line extension, whichever comes later. What?
Al-Jaff: We're recommending that it be 10 years or until the MUSA.
Ledvina: Whichever comes first.
Al-Jaff: Correct. The applicant is requesting that that be changed to whichever comes later.
We're also recommending that the applicant be permitted to request an extension for interim
use permit prior to it's expiration.
Conrad: Are there a lot of costs in developing this property to the point where it can take the
dumpsters? Are we imposing a lot of financial hardship? Are we imposing a lot of financial
tasks that appear unreasonable? Have we asked for paving?
Al-Jaff: Paving of the property?
5
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Conrad: Again, when you do a 10 year permit, that's a long time. I would do that if I
thought we were imposing some real financial hardships. I think that it's important to get
some security. But I don't know right now that we are. I think we're asking for screening.
Anything else?
Mancino: Well one time the building was.
Scott: Well that was the original.
Conrad: You know you put a building there, you need the return. You need time to get a
return on that building. Really they need a time period to get a return, right now, on the
screening, which are trees. Which could be 42 trees. Probably more. And I'm not sure that
the 10 years is, if I were them I'd want the 10 years. I'd want to know that there was a
chance for re-issuing the permit and I think we can probably, if they run a good operation,
which I'm sure they would, I think we would renew that. But I'm not sure that the 10 years
is necessary right now. It could be 5.
Ledvina: Yeah, I think we talked about 5 last time.
Conrad: But again, it's all based on finances. If they have to put a lot of money in, then I'd
say 10. I don't see it so I think 5 looks pretty good. I think the other thing the applicant will
probably care about is the hours of operation. You know 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 was struck and
now it's 9:00 to 5:00 and 9:00 to 5:00 is not really a commercial type operation so. I would
think that they'd be very nervous about that. Those hours.
Scott: Any other comments?
Mancino: On recommendation number 6. The second sentence. I would just add, only
empty dumpsters may be stored on the site. And I agree with Ladd on the 5 years and hours
of operation. I didn't know that they worked on holidays. Picked up waste on holidays. It's
interesting.
Al-Jaff: I believe this was an item of discussion at the last meeting. It's on page 38 of the
Minutes. And the request was to, page 39. I'm sorry. Top of the page. That the hours be
changed Saturday to.
Conrad: See those are Saturday hours. That may be but not Monday thru Friday. Monday
thru Friday, that's just not reasonable. I think we should leave them with the typical 7:00 to
6:00.
6
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Al-Jaff: On weekdays and then.
Mancino: 9:00 to 5:00 on Saturdays.
Conrad: 9:00 to 5:00 on Saturday I think is right.
Al-Jaff: Alright. •
Scott: Anything else?
Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to table interim use permit to allow screened outdoor
storage in the BF for Admiral Waste Management. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE TO THE BF, FRINGE BUSINESS TO AMEND
BY ADDING ADDITIONAL PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES.
Public Present:
Name Address
Verne Severson 675 Lakota Lane
Tim Wise 425 Lakota Lane
Leon & Delores Mesenbrink 250 Flying Cloud Drive
Nancy Lee Admiral Waste Management
Patrick Blood Admiral Waste Management
Jim Sulerud 730 Vogelsberg Trail
Richard Vogel 105 Pioneer Trail
Willard Halver 470 Flying Cloud Drive
Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Any questions or comments? I just have one. When you're talking about some of
that property being zoned or rezoned to a higher use level, is that something that would come
about due to, first of all the MUSA line being available? And then, we would basically see
what sort of development plans would come in and if it happens to be a PUD, it would be a
PUD. If it happens to be, is it depending upon.
7
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: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II
DATE: July 11, 1994
SUBJ: Interim Use Permit to provide Outdoor Storage for Commercial Dumpsters
located North and adjacent to Highway 212 and east and adjacent to Hwy. 101,
10500 Great Plains Boulevard, Admiral Waste Management, Inc., Mr. Patrick
Blood and Ms. Nancy Lee
On June 15, 1994, the Planning Commission tabled action on Interim Use Permit application
(IUP #94-1) due to lack of detailed landscaping screening plans. The applicants have
submitted revised plans, however, they show minimum detail and do not demonstrate that the
dumpsters will be screened from views from Highway 212. Highway 212 is at an elevation
of 728. The applicant is proposing to locate the dumpsters at an elevation of 752 to 756.
There is over 20 feet difference between the two elevations. The applicant is proposing to
install a 100 foot long chain link fence if needed and several Norway Spruce trees (the
submitted plans show a total of six trees). Existing trees on the site lose their leaves during
the fall and winter months, leaving the dumpsters exposed for at least half the year. It is the
applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that these dumpsters will be screened year round.
In an attached letter dated July 5, 1994, the applicant is requesting up to 140 dumpsters be
permitted on the site. Staff recommends that the number of dumpsters be limited to a number
that can be adequately screened, not to exceed 140 dumpsters. Again, it is the applicant's
responsibility to demonstrate that all dumpsters on site are fully screened year round.
A second request from the applicant is a 15 year term length, or at the time the property is
included in the MUSA, whichever is later. We believe that this is a lengthy term and
recommend it be limited to a maximum of 10 years. We are also recommending the use be
terminated after one year of inclusion of the site within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area
or if conditions of approval have been violated, whichever comes first.
Admiral Waste Management
July 11, 1994
Page 2
The applicant is questioning when the subject property be included within the MUSA. Staff
does not foresee this happening within the near future. We cannot focus on an exact number
either.
We are recommending approval of this application with conditions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Interim Use Permit 94-1
for the outdoor storage of dumpsters as shown on plans received July 7, 1994, with the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall demonstrate that the submitted landscaping screening plans will
provide adequate screening year round. All final plans shall be approved by staff.
Approved plans shall be implemented no later than September 15, 1994.
2. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m,
Monday through Saturday only (work on Sundays and holidays not permitted).
3. There shall be no outdoor speaker system.
4. The applicant shall .... - .. . _- .- - . . - . - - -- ... - .. --- - .
Transportation and shall comply with all conditions of the Minnesota Department of
Transportation.
5. All compost materials, shall be removed from the site
and disposed of properly. Removal of the materials shall be completed no later than
July 15, 1994. (The tires, appliances, and furniture have been removed from the site).
6. The number of dumpsters shall be limited to a number that can be adequately
screened, not to exceed 140 dumpsters. Only dumpsters may be stored on the site.
7. There shall be a yearly review of this site to ensure compliance.
8. The length of the term shall not exceed 10 years. The use shall be terminated within
one year of inclusion of the site within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area or if
conditions of approval have been violated, whichever comes first. The applicant may
request an extension for the Interim Use Permit prior to its expiration.
Admiral Waste Management —
July 11, 1994
Page 3
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff report and Planning Commission minutes dated June 15, 1994.
2. Letter from the applicant and revised plans dated July 5, 1994.
^ ITY OF
P...: DATE: 6- 5- 4
CIIAUAE C.C. DATE: 7-11- 4
, r CASE: 94-1 IUP
�-- BY: Al-Jaff
tiiiiismimmamssismaffimmaimmistimimmmmisinffnmmiminiffmmffsarmitimmoi
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Interim Use Permit to provide Outdoor Storage for Commercial
Dumpsters
Z LOCATION: North and adjacent to Highway 212 and east and adjacent to Highway
Q 101. Address: 10500 Great Plains Boulevard
U
JAPPLICANT : Admiral Waste Management, Inc.
Mr. Patrick Blood and Ms. Nancy Lee
714 West 3rd Avenue
Shakopee, MN, MN 55379
PRESENT ZONING: BF, Fringe Business District
ACREAGE: 13.27 acres
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N - A-2; large lot single family residential and
abandoned Railroad Right-of-Way
S - A-2; Minnesota River Valley
E - BF; Vacant commercial (previously sold used cars)
W - BF; existing Brooks Motel
- SEWER AND WATER: Services are not available to the site.
c
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
w The site is undeveloped and contains the footings of a demolished farm house. Vegetation is
F. concentrated along the parameters of the site. The center of the site is void of vegetation.
There is a Natural Wetland located along the south edge of the site. There is an intermittent
stream located to the southeast of the site which drains into the Minnesota River Valley
(Wildlife Refuge).
2000 LAND USE: Commercial
Admiral Waste Management
June 15, 1994
Page 2
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting an Interim Use Permit to store commercial dumpsters on property _
zoned BF; Fringe Business District. The site is located north and adjacent to Highway 212
and east and adjacent to Highway 101. Access to the site is gained off of Hwy 101.
There are no proposed structures on the site with the exception of an opaque fence proposed
along the south edge of the site to provide screening for the dumpsters. Detailed plans for
the fence have not been submitted. City ordinances also require that landscaping be used in —
conjunction with fencing. There is existing vegetation on the site; however, it does an
inadequate job of screening the site from views off of Hwy 212.
There are some existing violations on the site that staff discovered while visiting the site to
prepare this staff report. There is a large number of tires, some furniture and appliances
dumped in a drainage swale located southeast of the site. The area is shaded by trees, —
providing ideal mosquito breading grounds. The water flowing through this swale feeds into
the Minnesota River Wildlife Refuge located south of the site and Hwy 212.
Compost materials have also been dumped on the site. Commercial composting is not a
permitted use in the city. The applicant shall discontinue bringing compost material to the
site and clean up the existing materials dumped on the site.
Staff is recommending approval of this application with conditions outlined in the staff report.
BACKGROUND
On February 8, 1988, the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for a Contractors
Yard on this site. Conditional Use Permits expire within one year unless substantial
work/construction has taken place on the site. The applicants had delayed their construction
of the improvements due to anticipated changes in their operation specifically for recycling.
On February 27, 1989, the same application appeared before the City Council for an
extension. The City Council moved to deny the extension.
On November 30, 1993, staff responded to a complaint regarding outdoor storage of —
dumpsters on the applicant's property. Staff counted approximately 50 dumpsters and noticed
compost material hauled onto the site. Staff sent the applicant a letter informing them that
the outdoor storage taking place on their property located at 10500 Great Plains Boulevard is —
illegal. We also stated that all fifty dumpsters must be removed from the site by December
17, 1993. We advised the applicants that no further dumping of compost materials be
permitted, and any such materials currently located on the site must be removed. —
Admiral Waste Management
June 15, 1994
Page 3
Staff, the applicant's attorney, and the city attorney began meeting to resolve this issue in
December of 1993. An agreement was finally reached as shown in attachment #3. As a
result of this agreement and to fulfill its conditions, the applicant is making this application.
On May 5, 1994, staff visited the site again. We noticed 58 dumpsters, which we viewed as
an increase to the original count. The applicant sent a letter stating that they have not added
any new dumpsters.
On May 19, 1994, staff visited the site and documented the serial numbers of all dumpsters
on site. There was a total of 58 dumpsters. On that same day, we discovered a large number
of tires. We were unable to count them. They were dumped in a drainage swale in a pile.
We also discovered the furniture and appliances dumped in the same location.
INTERIM USE PERMIT
The applicant is requesting an Interim Use permit for the outdoor storage of commercial
dumpsters. The purpose and intent of an IUP, as defined in Sec. 20-381 of the zoning
ordinance, is to allow a use for a brief period of time until a permanent location is obtained
or while the permanent location is under construction, and to allow a use that is presently
acceptable but that with anticipated development will not be acceptable in the future.
Sec. 20-383. of the Zoning Ordinance lists the following criteria for issuance standards:
A. Meets the standards of a conditional use permit as outlined in section 20-232 of the
City Code. The following constitutes our review of this proposal against conditional
use permit standards.
GENERAL ISSUANCE STANDARDS
1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort,
convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or city.
FINDING - The site is zoned BF. The proposed use will not create any significant
or unexpected impacts from this use if screened properly; no dumping
of compost or miscellaneous material will occur. All dumping shall
occur in the approved dumpsters only.
2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this
chapter.
Admiral Waste Management
June 15, 1994
Page 4
FINDING - The proposed use would be consistent with the City Zoning Ordinance.
We will be making recommendations to address the screening of
dumpsters to ensure they are not visible from Hwy 212.
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.
FINDING - The site is located adjacent to a major highway and a collector road. It
is in the Fringe Business district. The site does not have access to
sewer and water, thus there are limited types of commercial uses
permitted within this zone. An outdoor storage facility is fully
consistent with this site as long as it is appropriately screened.
4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses.
FINDING - There will be no measurable impacts to the existing or planned
neighboring uses. This use will be screened from the surrounding area
with the exception of the property located to the north of the site and on
top of a bluff. It is impossible to screen the dumpsters from the
northerly view, short of constructing a storage building and storing the
dumpsters inside it.
5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including
streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and
sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and
services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of
the proposed use.
FINDING - The site will not require sewer and water. Access to the site is gained
via Hwy 101. It is capable of handling the access needs of this
proposal. The applicant should obtain an access permit from MnDOT
and comply with their conditions.
6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will
not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
FINDING - There are no projected needs for public facilities and services that staff
is aware of.
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
Admiral Waste Management
June 15, 1994
Page 5
because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors,
rodents, or trash.
FINDING - This site will not create adverse impacts to persons, property or the
general welfare of the area as long as there is compliance with the
conditions of approval. Hours of operation and orientation of the
storage area will be regulated under the conditions of approval. We are
recommending that the tires, appliances, furniture, and compost material
be removed from the site.
8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic
congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
FINDING - The site is visible from a major highway and is accessible from Hwy
101. The number of trips to the site will depend on demand for
dumpsters. There will be no direct traffic impacts to any area
residential neighborhood. The applicant must obtain an access permit
from MnDOT and comply with their conditions.
9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic
or historic features of major significance.
FINDING - The development of this site will not result in the loss of any features
once screening of the site is implemented properly and removal of the
tires, compost materials, and appliances has taken place.
10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
FINDING - The applicant must provide adequate landscaping and buffering from
adjoining properties to make the site compatible.
11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values.
FINDING- Berming and additional landscaping of the site will be required as a
condition of approval. This added element will improve the appearance
of the area. It will not depreciate surrounding property values.
12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article.
FINDING - The following is our review of conditions of approval and appropriate
findings:
Admiral Waste Management
June 15, 1994
Page 6
a. All outdoor storage must be completely screened with one-hundred percent
opaque fence or landscaped screen.
FINDING - As a condition of approval, the applicant must submit a landscaping/
screening plan.
B. Conforms to the zoning regulations, is the second issuance standard for an IUP.
Outdoor storage is permitted under the BF district as an Interim Use Permit. This
allows the Planning Commission and City Council to attach conditions to the proposal.
Sec. 20-1180 of the Zoning Ordinance addresses screening for visual impacts.
Outdoor storage is required to be screened from all public views by a combination of —'
fences, walls, earth berms, hedges or other landscaping materials. The applicant must
submit a detailed screening plan for review and approval.
C. The use is allowed as an interim use in the zoning district.
The use is listed as an interim use in the BF district.
D. The date of event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty. _
Staff is proposing that the use be terminated after one year of inclusion of the site
within the Municipal Urban Service Area or if conditions of approval have been _
violated, whichever comes first.
E. The use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public _
to take the property in the future.
The proposed use will not impose any additional costs on the public.
F. The user agrees to any conditions that the city council deems appropriate for
permission of the use.
The City Council can attach any conditions they deem appropriate.
Based upon the foregoing findings, staff is recommending that the interim use permit be
approved with appropriate conditions.
Admiral Waste Management
June 15, 1994
— Page 7
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. Submit a detailed landscaping screening plan with grades showing the location of the
dumpsters in relation to the proposed and existing screening materials for approval.
Approved plans shall be implemented no later than September 15, 1994.
2. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday
—
only (work on Sundays and holidays not permitted).
3. There shall be no outdoor speaker system.
4. The applicant shall obtain an access permit from the Minnesota Department of
Transportation and shall comply with all conditions of the permit.
5. All compost materials, tires, appliances, and furniture shall be removed from the site
and disposed of properly. Removal of the materials shall be completed no later than
July 15, 1994.
— 6. There shall be no more than 58 dumpsters stored on the site. Only dumpsters may be
stored on the site. All material stored on the site shall only be located in the
dumpsters.
7. There shall be a yearly review of this site to ensure compliance.
— 8. The use shall be terminated after one year of inclusion of the site within the Municipal
Urban Service Area or if conditions of approval have been violated, whichever comes
first.
ATTACHMENTS
— 1. Letter from Sharmin Al-Jaff dated November 30, 1993.
2. Letter from William Griffith, applicant's attorney, dated January 11, 1994.
3. Agreement to suspend prosecution.
— 4. Letter from William Griffith, applicant's attorney, dated May 12, 1994.
5. Letter from Nancy Lee dated May 12, 1994.
_ 6. Application submitted April 28, 1994.
7. Staff report and City Council minutes dated February 27, 1989.
..s
NANCY LEE
PATRICK BLOOD
,'iDMIRAL WASTE MANAGEMENT , INC .
P .O . BOX 377
�•HAF.OP E , MN . 55379
496-3053
1:
5 , 1'4134
• _%� itive
MN . 55317
it
information to you '_;y July 8 , 1994 so
_ .. �;; i ;. i _ K,•. 'r_ -;t_ _d on the July 20 , 1994 Planni nC,, Commission
with Ell ' Warden of MnDOT . He said that we d:_
nee - o rmit at this time . He also said that he
c in9le complaint about us/our usage of the
I
. p on Nuri:>er of Containers :
ar) yi +,_t for the IUP to store our dumpsters as needed .
fie w1I1 co r ' y ;with the screening requirements. Based upon the
: :err-a'.in,,? pl opcsed and the elevation of the property , 140
dumrster can -:e stored on the property without creating a
e.r m
I hac previously requested information on MUSA and the time
frame ful extension of the MUSA to include our property . Please ~'
provide- this information .
w,2 tee it of 15 years , o'" at the time the property is
r �t _ . '_ ,E U whichever is later . —
RECEIVE
JUL 07 1994
Cr?y ( r HAW
•
' r, - Screening/Landscaping:
Enclosed is a detailed plan showing the land as it appears on
the surveys . Also listed on this plan are:
1. 1 . erode bevels .
. 100 '
3 _ Area where containers will be placed .
1
L Th,e seeen(4. plan shows a side view with grades and location of
cempeters
The third plan is a copy of the first plan detailing the
loc: Lion; of trees to be planted , with the circle showing what
their mature size will be . We plan to plant them every 15 feet .
LTht arce to be screener; is on the south side of the property .
the fronta.ee being Highway 212 . The only containers that can be
L. seen from our property on Hwy . 2:2 are the containers that were
fle t her up the hill . The containers that were placed
lower were never visible because of the elevation of the
prc):)e -ty This frontage is full of assorted trees , bushes , and
L p_erte The t• ees are mature with approximately 25 foot or
Thi-Y-e is one area of 100 ' that is not fully
sc :.•:eeJ ,ey mature trees , however it is fully screened with
,,cplants several feet tall . _t. is this area that we
Pr-r,
=;)�, ` 'nn a 100 ' chain link fence if necessary .
a r edy bushes and plants as coverage there , but we
plant several Norway Spruce in this area as well .
L - -ow fast , are hardy to --40 degrees F . , and grow to
qtr: h_ l,,-4ht of 35 ' and width of 20 ' . We already have
ee, - C. w_ i_re waiting to plant these 1 1/2 ' and 2 '
the completion of this City process .
• to the hack of the property on the North side
there ere t.we r:tore sets of tree lines before you reach the
L. 7 popeT ty . The West side of the property is completely
er eeee .: hy tThf tree line . The East side of the property is
eee lei = y screened by rolling hills .
- e, , Ihee we p1itc e our containers is already very well
„ . „dt way , t is right" now , this will be shown by a vic;c o
r. c h property at the Planning Commission hearing .
L p; Ovide equipn,ent So that, we may review this video with
the Piann:. e ; Commission .
Since-ely ..
Nancy Le-
Vice PT esident.
cc : �; ; : Griffith
cc :1 : iott Knetsch , City Attorney
L
L
• •' ' • •' -'' : ef.' ' '.-..- •:•-• •-•-•7., 1, "•,' .44 4. --•'-- .
-.'-i'4';••••?.-:-,rl:,":7''.,:i"..4-•Z.I'k,4,444..„,;f11:*•‘4,:"Nt..., • •• •••rA..-)4,-;:•_;'-'' • ' •_.,..,r- • .t.
• - --t ..: ••-i 11-.•'41-- - --i'•4'; --L• ; •• -te r''-'---'''' -
.4.4c- ,•' :(1,;.*„..- r Al A-,111:17- --,--,!"-VIrrii-,".:::...;.*.i.•.,; ..,..„.•',?4,k _-. ••: .
. :. •• .._ .•:ill f • '; - --•,,;„.• -(. .. ....7-:A,. .E'r. - r
_
w :,"110r;.''Ir .r...41k7.14.4e -.3.- -,..- -.)....,...... ,-.•.• • -..... '-.... ..,t. iz ,.,
i _
- '..-4 s..Ai •-I- -,..-.- - • - -'.. '.--, -- ., .. , ..., •lk,.17.,-.1,yrIto-44. .-, .,- • -.-ft.,..: . !......v....,4,-- ,Lr-... :
‘,. - .4•••• - .,t- '•--",/ • --.1.-e- - ----'.;•-14:-7'L' '.;• i,_--",-..i4 i-. •; .-11'_t•••••t• - - --4roi., ....:,*:'• '.`,
S
1.,„111- -,-- ,_.,;,•-_..- : --,,...>. 4„-, si ' .-:?.-.0.., .-,- „a;..,-,-• , .,- -.f.'_ -..--.U.:4,' --• r.4.-
hiatt.
, It. ' - --1-"ribrk‹-41 15 • --s-c„----- -.4.,„-.1-..-..--.-‘ ....-. :.,i.;-.•-- :-...! .::-• . --i• ''''''14 1-_-r-oll . . - . • .. ';• :.
, f..::? • . ,_,-t.,--Aterjz,r ii s .1; ...4:.. ....,-704.....t,.........-?. „..:-.4to.l.....,,y..,-...r.‘• _ 0._..4.,,..=-1--:_ ..-,--.-t.. p- ,• .• ,.4..„s., 4.1 -•.-. .
•.•• "..• • ,44'.-"Pr .T '. -.1:-*`! .I.Mgr--4*tie;. . •.44,*„. .., '- , t,• 4* - . - A.-.- -^. '.. _.._, ..,. .. . .
..,..... ,- ,i. , if_:, .
-.--.., • ..1'7:"..1.-'2-i?t- .,iir '-' -2.....t. '. ___ik• ,..,11 • --,..,i. ,.., '•-----, • - 4----.:-1- 4. -:: :. .,;:t::,..IL __ , .. 1___.
ag
4' •.1' .,, .• .1 ', '-.:' -'''.•''' -1,.. ,c, •In%• ..•. . :- :-*-7. -7*t4fftizt4WR3 ' .:(
• ,•6••. , 4..' : . • (P ;,
i'•• '‘- •' -.• ..,x 2. .-.. 15,-,,c. •,_ ' !S,I.st .., ' •__._ _..., -, ... --" - - •-:- ' • Ai,• ie4f644----;i-i•-:':-- : - ,• •
-,,,f-' -•- "%It&,••;"'-•• ,• - -1' • ,.', --etitar.401*,,t,..-'•:-..t:"." z • .i - '- --'•1•4.e..., Z.....•-.4,44 44,9•4ini'i• .... 't, •:-,-; ,-i4,!..;-•0.i • , , • -
- c".1g,L2' -• -.1',41;i,- • •41.,it..Z..-4'%;.TiMigy-~4-'14-:ii ;;,. ' . -.2.1e.;.;,.'n'• • 4-,o'gra-1: - ,.. --•: . :. ___
., .-. . = - -. ..' ti:-- Iffliaiiilk "-•.- - - . !
. - -, 4 '.a - 1 • - , -a 1.
4'''' • --- lot ' " •-• ^,t-,-- ' it +-4 ., 040-,..-- 1-- -..--:-- , t•
.1 ' ---+.-:--,:air •-•` .-t'JIIi` "'...r-lk+,.:.- .. , • ••'•i' '- '. ' , .- -., , .3.1::::•,,•,, ;-;: - .,.. •• .
"•• - • '•,- t•-•• - .' i '•• • i.: • 7_
(i C44,c„, -- ''' $ -- •l•4,-.`kill':-..r„: . • • 4,-. 4,-.. - to -..,_. , .4.1.41.1t, ,-, : - 1 • +1-- +
. ..".4 • • .•1_-4- •,*. -,A,. -1,i ----.:.••s•:.• •• il---- •' .1 .- • ' ' •
•
• 1- I% - -':..- . '' ;• : •,•••‘ ' '•- •
k 1
- -. , - ....... ., ........, ---e. •• • I:
--.- ' ' .'L. ''''.--- '- -- -'..- ."..!'''S .--'-'••-' ' •:' • 1.3.7 G. . % . .1''''''- -, •-•;7'.:7k1,1 !••• •- - : ,
..' ' •' •:-. • , ' • •-• •• -"•'":*lt.t.':. i ; '''li :--''• - . - :-..I -_. 4 ',•,' ...4',I.,-- • :. i
' •• -- ,---••• 40 '':`._ -- • -itet.•!: r. 11..- - ----- DV ';'`4- i d"; .',
- -
4.4. •-_-.,_...._4:4.-_,-..-_,..-._.p",#---c....• .- -,- • --4,• `. •• ..w....• ''' ; --pi.. 1 • "• "ra L-"--- ••-- . 4 - ; • . - ;
• -r.
!:- . u" Air-f,4% ._ ..-..:'.4k.4....- fi,.-.1:....;"...___ ... .
' I:5; ,---;':.--i-.i - i , - -'-• .-: - '... " ... :1,..:.4A.711".-.q::...: al i : '• 7; :.-.; ', . ::. • , , . ,
.„..., _fi__;... ,::- .._ . .. ...,:...±........., . :. . • -_ ,---1-- . - -- -- , :- _: -... . •
;"..,
z-.1. ( ..-4:::it''' .*''• 4-; - . . • • .• ` - . . ,
, . . ,.1.:, ' -a3ria,4e:41i:-6,70,...•.I....-.e'.',:''4-.Z!-,..........-...--........-;i;e-.:-•••••-•..--....-.-.-:..-•••••--...1--"..-.-.--..-• •_S'..,-•%'"..'r• .-•_,: ... .‘ 1-.,. .
,.7. ••,••,-- -...-3 14:.--......i.e ..i...i.....,-.:
.....-.. -% •. .",
• ''
•-.• ' 1 i ; ' • * •
.. .:. - , ., ,•.-- . _ ,__•. _____,,...,„.„-__________-___- -• 4 _••._4P17* .:•.. ,.,-1,.'.'2.,. •.,
. ••=et
-_,...t----t-'7-'--------!----::-----7 -''- •- ',
. ... ,_ • .
-:..- . • ...•'. ':' ;•`, -.; -_.e17,-t•'• .--- : ' '''•• ' • 44':, ,' r,-r• • : if• , •
. .
_j, f,...,„- -;:, -_-`1:11-• . -,‘•._, ,,- 4f-"? ' -s4.4,,,VIM;r.1, j ,-- ,,-.:ii.4-:,.;f . i • '..;Ji-. e ., •
`• -- •!.' 1-;A.• -4i--7...-- .--,,- 114/ .k..1-'n•.--.4.-11..-:-;.-4 - ........4_,.:„:„._-_ .,.._..!... ,
-t f"• ' d.. ' • •
• •-•_
• ' I • '-.-‘ : -;,, 24:,.,•-• no* -.!-:..1--•. .,•_--..-4;;i-,...,..,. ,4,44-,..:-,..-t • 1 . .-1
.. . ,
. : ' !•:-.4.:. :. . --.4 44‘1,..„.E.tx,,-.,...,. _.: , .....-.... .-. _ , . .
-,
' • ...--4'I. .. •,,,:,.-•------', ' .-:-- ' -1 -. T• • ' : • ' - 1.'1'0• At:•-.in- , • .••• ..:-, •:2-. '. • i '•
` •--.- '': ''•:(441.-,22'.. ' ' F 4",
..t.:,-,.... J14 --.4,i74,..-c-. .. .-7 ;-.77-..i. ...,.- --- 4--, - - - : •-•.: : • . "..c't--;---.--.---,-•---... ..-•-•-•!--- -! • -- • --- :• - • -- •
-:-- '''. i ' , -• 4
_: ., . a_ .....i4„ aili.._,_ „.4..,•,.a.4..L•_. .__i_...,. " . ' '• I.-k.: fr. . i . • -.;
''- - -- 4i--..:.--; '
I
, --:. :-..-.;...i,....2. _ -. '14•..!..-,!-....,.,z- '-!' ' .;.1:. ..--: , i • -
-
r .
- ;.-S' N14.-1:."- .ii..t.---: ' ,. ' - • -. •-• - -,n-''., r- -
-.- - - -
-' . .0-4-0-z4 r,.....;..--z_Ls._ ... _.__.--._..--.- - _-t,:..----.= •.- • . -s-T..,;•.-: .• J,..--. --4.-- ; .--- 1- -i - ' , -; •; - :
--.
.7..4 . .,
j..4
._.. .
_
.
. ...... _. .
, .-,-. '
it. •-s.. -- . C-r• '--- : - ' - . • . -:,,..,.- ,.i , _ . , _ , ,
-s • ..--1-si--',-*--; 1 !.'• .•;,-----=.17--e' ,.t...• ..itattiVii,-'4 ,,k,'I: e -• e
4-* .... . 1.' *..7.: 7: -: 11. YlitW-;14- ? /411 .46,4,.y. ri: , ..
. •
i N'-, - _ .•-g*L 7.,y1--: -:-. --.4-,!' .'-,*- -,.i :,....f.ZIK=1- ...... .
' .---
_., _ el , t..1.-__4; u.,,e.:._ .,,,,,,•4',:: -4-17:Tr'-'2i.;;;1;..i'17::,i,va,..,...4kEi:-:-.7. ,:!-,.:ribliteir.V.t ..•.14...);Agy, i.4...7.4'•-•.;._•-t,Y;;;5..1,--;:."..3:.2:1'.3i..Ili:1;,i..:_•,-;:-:_iwr_li• ....iiii.. ____ ::1__ ...7. . _.
- • - : -.0i'.'-:': •••• ".rkl-•••••,P" '.'s----.`..,:"4--- .••• .
.:'''' :•-•-••_.•‘- ; ,,,, , , •!,• .::'-:._ •.- 1`..,,: •:-7,'''' - ' -7 :• • •
I
. . ,.. „ , . „.............,..„....„0„__,..:.. .,...-„,„,..,:„.„.„ .. . - ,,,.: ....f...._.,,,„ ...,..,..., ,.•.7 • . ! .
• ;:, . z- .", •_;-. „6,.-4.1.; . •.• ..1,••• - ', ,-. . . "•`.• .:• 2" ''.44Vt. . ...--2-_-____-_.--..,--....
. 4 Vit,171M.,. ;kr-.1-.1• rE ":VZ;72'-.'4,• ....it'..*je.;;;.:L"'-•, ' ? "'7 ,..1. .1I' '•:41r-AXPAllir ,- -. - .•'''"--, 4.'. •?r, • -. 7
. • 1W...--,4/"*.. Mitlwi'VR-mc•,: lil'ece•'• ••--z,_ '''': . .-.•-er"..! 2. •-e•-•''' . --...„,-,Irtr173..Tati•i'a.i,. . _ ___••••4'. ._ ,_ _ -, P---t-•.4'.., ...• ...-. _ • ...1
ANi-V7":1 -'- ,*;• ''; :Wt. '. .-IP-94g-.1IVII-Ank• ,ThAVT• fit'-4:-:.•
,'. , LPI-..• i_fft.... *--... . .,1•._•_.3,.. .,,,, 1. -----.,-.'s.,_. :._ 4.- . ..:0,v,,,w,-,. ....4,--c...-%4„4.•:,•ww-„,,..„4. . . .ia•T., 4r.:.,:-.7,•:-:4.tr,..ii .-... ._.. .___- ______- ___,..- _ _
.. . 3h•---6,,, ..r.-.„,s . . SLIM' - ie.; 2:tilift ,, .-1 . 4,44%,1104-- '
lIfii'','-'. ..:-:-',T,-,' .. . *-4••• **.t,:-',;. -'•`.. .. ''' -...I- ''. . '4,14-W."- .toots."-4.4r1-4-•-= i...:-, 4', ..A- .;__,_ .• _. _ .___. • . a
1
[
-.. .,•, ......„... .....-...,,..--.....„,,*-2,-...,k, .-...s -,..• .
..,.., . optz.1-:,VW.,," , V4V11,3LI`q1 . ,,, :k, -,.'i.'lit. •4-I: , , c: : • .1_ . •'•-• t
....•
- ..i,go ,.•,,W,-Ar-it .:‘,,Vi4-1,1rAT..-44F311111,14g:2. _,;.,.., ..,,,,.- *.,- .._..*':,.-_,,.,,,,•-.,7'. :• -i' '': ''• 1141-:.•-"1--: , •••_ -4,,..- ''..-y_ - ••••• "At2:,'•.,••••‘ - ' -- •
"I. . . -.41.4.,--- ._.
4
' LE4 '-:*ivgrourre-4.--7w-- .::' '-',.-7r..4 psi • „ .. .. .
. -74.f-.. a.it? .."*M.-_, -1 •-C.14. tv.v.. --s._.,- - . . • . r -
.. 1 ..,:„. 7 ,..,re.,,:71. ..,.. , .'„, -..,., ,:.,3,- , -,-..-;--, .1 ,Wirs.,n,.-21-,-......-„ii.-:2.,_,....._-...774,,-.-%-i-i!..r... ..-,••,.. ‘.10,;, tit:.,-:,.., t. i.. ,. i;..,, ._ . , -.
El
li, ., .. 1.,..• _ ..f !.., . .___.,.,....4 .......5,... .... •....„....„.. . ....„....,...t. • :.,it.4", -' - . -,:lit..._. • :-..." - ",-.: =,, .• : tf." .-, • • • • ii.Q.......... -....„......-.. -
.. s ft*"1'',VA4-11,WIL:r_;','1%2:4';•111411 ..'"-:4' .11-1-':::::-. ; 4'''.. ' -:''.:4..Itt''•.:1..z*c.,....-,4*.--,•!`-..igi i. - .; f'44,,I.--.'I- 1_. '.._._. .'. .'' . ', .
....---.., . . _,-.A.:.7:2 .4,4.:,-.04•161TP:.- .:•.:1: 44"'--; '..= .. ar.... 4..'';-',.."'":*f''''A'-..-tr '. 1-- 4.1!';.:1, .. ': . .. ;. •
-f• - ‘.4:.--.4&.' -=-,.00-.. -'.'•' '"-- ...-..:41, :I. ..". - wiz.- -- -41 --- .:,:. -I ' -.‘.14 -'' . :• 4:. .''•• '7 -
-",„,. -,„•,.,,_ , , . ,„,4: ,-!..•:••• -"..,,k;•. ..,..•-....):01-z,'._;41:'.:7,",,F.;„; , TM „! •!§14V,-.. itv,i_k,_:. ...t.., 1 Vji -•`'.1 ".,• 1 ., •
--t.....-.. ., .,' .,--, .0: '1,r,-4'... ,:.... ..-. .t: -7-..,' ' :1=---: , •• ',,i I.. -?, .< : :. . .. 2 :, • -,,
.1
.....• .
•''.. -F. `' g•• ''''' ' • "1, •-.•:,-_-tz-'7 .4:- '--.1.-- -... . r....4 •
4
-,...
_...-....... ..
, i- --- -. - •. -i'.--- ,--- ' si-°-14:"-:"---••,;‘,,,-,e,.,. .lift.f.'---*- -' ..,.i,4 ',e0....,'i.:-`, "•I'e.,,t.:••••• ,-; .41 •-•734:- *
, -1 !.-,•.+' -i_..,-,,'•,„AY:M.'S". ...... *-4.--1,..-- ',..•4; • •7 ., ..‘ • •'' r''' - ;•-•'-':•• : ' 4. '''' h • . -
-• -- • •. • '%4, ' - •‘• .
.. _ _ . .. . .
4"P::' r. .' - .I - -,„:.-', •'•.•3-41fty ,,,..'7'1..75:.r.'1Y 4._.42. '';fr, i•-i_...4.4%-;.:• rAritaliri'4:1 ":,'-:...:.VP 4•:,..-,i A•,_,,, - i , , •t. .: ,
" -4,k...• 4 ----4 -7--4.. '• 1, - i.•-44• . -------' -•t-•". •,r " '-.. , "r''''.•_....,4-• .:--e--4.-! :'''''''-g-'•• . ''''. t=.-*4-ii.7,--, i- t- .! • • i -,
- .: .-, _ t.:-. 14.-..4.:21:z*JF.14%f I;ils ls t, _,.. ! , i
• 1 f:.,,,,....1' 1--::•_ _':,.."...:4--. • .:.•.-.- f i :•:7-‘. ,LLuz .1 -ij,,..,
). -'..1 ;11i '.•4:t..-4_.?1-.,,,?.1:,.1,t" ::"44i..s.:•:'.4.. . I 4.-t!-.4e:ii-4,4-tir,- .',,,a ,- --;;.;-,..-elo- .._ •;#•-., --,:!'! - • - I ' I-
'''.-C •.,..• i'1.1:.7 •• . • 1 ,••'..,' . --
.41 •- .-i -* •'. : :"1.. ';'-'4•. _ :- - - . ; 1'1 ..ir„..: ,..-1 .1:?). •::;. .,...:\";.1-', II: 1-.1. . P ,6 11 .: , :
,.t/:::.: .i...-4•;.-4,.. r....-,--!.,11.i.." . .tik.i., -(....x,,:44.; „..1.4t: .,. .s.,1,ot,.;.,.., , :,..,•J.,-.••:..,.,t.e.„,,...., : . ,:it .., ,• I - : ,,- • z
goot
' '' ' i • •;.i i.:-.4& ' :- AV . • 7
41
.
....... ,e1.;4.`. li.;- Li'liT:.401: ' : -fr '.4 ..i- i' ' ''' ''' •t..1 A .0 . .• - i'''..; 1,.1, . .-? ' ',".- '
•, -..,
-;,-. *.',. - l'.- - - -..-1," * • ,-.1. 4,...-1. .• .,•:,:-":- .1 '• g :x•!:.' t!' $ '( •• ' '' tO 1 ' ,
1 ,..,,,,,r 4*,., • . . • ,. :_ • ‘,. .1/41,.. 4. , ,, ,,. 1 )V .. • .c.,... ''.. • **1: ?. % 1 I 1 .
• 4 ' ..... .r. .. •*''• . ''• ' .. 7 ... - 4... . ,..;/.... .4.:..til . ......:-. . ...:. t • .
"-' , , ";• 4" : 2;' T,-;ye ;": . 1 , f . ' - _.'-.2‘.1.: 1-Z4 •Il.; , 11.;.! ' :• , ,,
sgAimkt .4-1....a.• . - .iu. .., - 7 i. 1-.• !, -, • I. - 1 .
4 .. ... '1•4ir:"" •IT " •i '1 ‘j•.. ; .: .• • I . , . I i• -• i -• ,
1, .'• • •- ..--1... . .. : ,...; .. :. . '.._Lui...• :.:4 - -:. _ , . ,, ., .;..
I`41P" ''. IA-, .,.,..,, .. ..,... . i i .h. .•" ' " •
-r 4.f • . lif 1 . i. • 1
\
''. '.:.:1,- %-.. . iv. , 7 ; .i j ., i I_ t --1- '' • i,:. ' `. . ' .
f
4....... ,...z.a- - .... ..,..a...4...1.A,. ,.414.1....4,44. •. .•..i...-1. 4 i Z. .'I; 0.r.1. .
. -..1:• ..,‘. :..4t1-44,L6
----j
'tt, -, t;-•...t:i. _ tt .. , • •-,. ,i-.• .:,•/...,;. i ! i .- i 1. .:i:1 ..20..V, il".,+. ,. 0 .
.... .;.i.:•4•4, ,,,..,.--14-. • .- 2.i..1 iii:.....'.t.131,4.44-... ...i,.1•-:,t- +I-41 /111-f -At I
1
(1\
. •k ....:-.1 k. .. . • . , • il 4
.,•-•4, 'In-72ft `':........3.-if..1-itz -4' • f -I4-i.:;t ....,1::••1..;74;!:.!.1:- ''! :
....00' 4 i• ..' ii . 1,. .. , ..-.• 1 : 1 , : i II . • I i
mi.i .Wkt•-ri...r...-...iii...-4.10.... aL: .. ,......i..ii...3..1 *.L. 1.. .I '. •.. i- 1.
;
I • I I • . .1.. 1 . I 1 •
.t.t.e.4 !4*. '":;t1 ? 1•• .4.0...73 .-i 1.14".• :
• 1
'• .
... 1 ..:1, .4. .04, - .7..4- 1 44-,-.41G-.1 1,,T.-.= ..4- 4.-. i -.-1 ... • /..- 'i
.7--
,I .
1,
.'hit I. :. 1..-it-.•. ,41.1 . 111 ' i i; 1. ,,' :4 i 1 . . : I '.1 :' • • ;
. 4. .4...-LI ,44......:.;, i .1.4........- . 1.. :I... zitt i.4....s. ..;.....:t
:•„I.- •'' • .0t., ,pt. i ---. i.:. : ..i. -. ..,.., ii . I. ....... , .......
i,.e aai * .'"" ;..:, , . " : ."... ! a 1 . i . . 1.4.1 • ! '..a.1 .i - .. ; .
..)I:. 4! ' '-'.., ; ! i i . • ' . . : . - ' *S'z • : '
.: i •
•i\
.... , • -"..,..!_-;46 - • ...i__....i. ÷•...„,...._,.-..0,-,,, '. .1.-... .. , . -,4.,...4.....:... ,__. . . t • .. I.
:17.1.1, ps..w.Ns,. i :.-1 • . .•-• , rit-f,4 - -- • --- . -,,.• • t.. ,4 1* , . , • • -
0 -\
... - ..1.,4.3,:f.;, - ;...- '... „!...'f-k!...,,j.., ....i .1,...14...,..i, ... , , ..-.4._--, .4...:11. •;-. ; _. . i..1. .
`-x. :K„. .4.-• ,!•; ...,;- ; i‘'''•-• - ,-0..,:• . t. ,•.'. t 14. : .
c -1.
-.1k.,44.4..., -- •• -3:1..t,...44-:. _ -vt.p....4...u.:..,.: , . i•- I .2..E ' LuNiTr......-.1.• .1 -'.- . . •I i '
. ' \
• "i P ' : • I 1. i. !. 1 . ''' 1 : f, .0 1
•'!.i ./....,.1-fie.; '00'12' . 1 . .. .• '
,, 'Tilr 14444).,,, 114- ÷.1-4 • ... ..,....1,:‘..41-..., . 1 . • ' : I . it. :: . i .
(N
, . • ..-4-5..-.., '1., ;' J. ' I - . :•.'. •. . I :, . ,.1. • ,i..,
.... 7 :Jej,,..,• .?.1_ :. , ....11.. ' -4.1
4.....1.:*.-' 4,-.S..... ; . 1 .14 ZZ-.... .1...4144;.. : ;• .4 ..!. -.. 41.... :...••I ;.: . •
i•*.k! -,.4-. , , , 1, , • . • t i' ; ' I . •
,.., c..
pt t:;-. --,t'n,`Tit . : -:. - . : 1 •. 41. --- • ; ,
(
c., A '.
- 1'..- '1..-1'• .. . • . • : • , . • .‘ t • 1 - - 1 • • ;' '
3 •
.4.1iIiii • i.3 Li•.: -'1'. ..:....:-- .. .r. 14 .
•' Pir# , Ait .f . .... •. t : ' •'
4%1 --- - -*-4A, -4 . !..4;t4-,.. . i
1 4 • 1 . ,, r .
..;441.+.:..... . - 'tr.-4. .: :..4...?. ..... . ., :
471 eto . ' # ; • • ! .;%6 * ';-: ..jiri 1
1 . -..."'-. -1.77 r7r. ' ';' •I 4'''.f I • '.,-', ! ' -`.:. :.
1 '..t1 t ... 4.:i ;-• . i.kiL': 14-..... 1 i.....4.. .:-. .- ' • -L.:1z11.4..,:ii,:,
4.1.
k... i
) ^ , •:_ ..",:;‘,,iii...uk.1 . 4.- I
• •. li. : .. -. . . . i.j.i.,.. . : -T..- T - .4t:.t•i i •r;I, :1:-...7
1 .
.„ ' i1 cr4,,I.;i:.,-*-1::,,..• ... ;:!:ri,-t::7.4:,,,...'. 1:J1.1,11: Ail.•....lit.. ..1,71:i.4-...-,::. , .'; ' ..'. . :t. .z i
1 40/
(I)
1
-.:. il 7 ..4: 4,.4' . -,4" im-1.-.:...''• :-'4±1. ...;:' ': -': aril''::: c'-'.5;i't‘:::: 7....4.1, '14):.•.:1!?.....-; .:. ..I; . : , .,': ..... ... ;i;'..,.. 4. -,
.,-..juni!,:ii. :it., ,..r. F.Itu ,,;.-,:_migr.:::i, , ,,i.r._,111.k!sr..„_,, .:.•,-.•,, .,,:„:".:..-At,,. . ,, . ,. .• ....... ,,. ,, .!. •
)
...
-,,,,...._- ii...._ ,,k k- •,'' je.,..4.;...i.441, -44,19--*Ailli. '.• • .-4'• 101b- !',-.:a.•.....1401-' A ir .4114" • N4. cg .Z.' • ' :1 . i . I-;.. ;....... :.1
.4... Al ; PiTill
i
• t,....-.4 ..2 • .4 • ,..- ' 11 1 :s.'! JAI ,1 4.1--:.;,,,. .F01„, '..-ti,.:,;..) ;..e Jr ., -
: ,tr, -1.11.. ' t . .t...Cf: P P7.!..1::''. SW' -rt.6-f.:11141.1C:t • .1..--:."..'' • . ,,,..- 4 .-s' ,..i... pi4.'.2::.
- '‘ ,--- i ILA-111-310;,..1 er r,iirt.w....,. . ._ ,• -.7.1lf.1.14erp:.:-g1,3-,,....,-7-ti, utt::.,.• • 1. •-. ' • •-• • t -„ I , !i st-.... . -
yrwtiis.-... 1 wifill . -f, 0A...1% •; :
. k;14- i'lqFlit.::'''it:':.'4. ititiNtit3r :ithiVIP-t -'''' .1('' t ?.."*, • ' • -.. .
.... .. : ..*.1;. . '•,..,1 r '...'...-...rr.:•....0!-,. .•* •. ..11..,#. . . Aji.L.j ; . .4;.1 i. :4•1 '
I. 7 i'r i..;:i.7 f. ._..4 k !`.., ; ; i .. , •
1 I
RA.; . 4,.. : ... ...., . .. •i.,,..; ..p • , • ,.• .,..:..r., •,,,...,-,7: ,::: -,.,.,:...,,; „..,,.1414,,r,t..t,...;;;1..::4,..4::;..:. .. .
..-• - .. gi ,,, ,.. 1.. . , ...i, .iitl.r- .- ‘44111 • -.% ,4,?; . • . : •.els:,1;. :, .; ' ' i 1. i , ':
Tlit, s...2 e - ft- '44 ,.-- 'hil ••,.i. '4 ' .. ..'..., , -. '-'1".! '• . ... i 7 71-i 4.* . • r .: i ' '
•t. ••!. i. 4',. '; `;:-..., ... • . ..--,' . IL 0_1',,-*i.. ;4.:..- ....- -4 , '1;d •-• 4 ..4 4.
•., .41,- • 4 ,.,, r; j 1 .g 1: '. - . 4."'.;..4-. . i- 0".4', - ;.; iv•• I 1 ,
, •-••
I :: - . •."4 • • •••• .. •4.3444 1'4.' •'• ' ' 7.1
,•., •• , • ,. _,. ..... ,, . . ,. . ...1 , . ., ?• ...-A ..i!7.:, ; • ! • 2
16 _ ..i., - .... : • ;:'.- ''. ''iL... .-.* i. • .hgti.%'S_3.,{ . .;. .-.. ''•• • 1 i• .1 1 f •.4.: i
• eEvpliviz",..S s : .1. V . r: :0 5 4 * .. •.; , .• - s,I.,. . 74% 1 ..;i. i , . .
.... .. 110-, .,,,./-47.t.,,irer rk,.._ t, linillir,"AO,,;..:,. • ,. le, -,t . : ...i...11,4-,I.L...f.,-. --Ai.••,
,. .1-i.-,:4ri.70: •f. ? , .; ., •11-.'''.,;N .'.. '.,,i : ' 4. .•.1_ ..; - 41- r• _ ...4 ..• • .•0. ..v: 4; •
''. •wv.r-41r,..;,. 3 ,'..r . A :. ,le,'"•' 1444 4 ta. Akir - i. .' -J,- . ,-.-..e....eilkoog, , • ,-1....1.....: I -
'.-- .-r . 19114.14C4-,'.4 3 I: [it 4!•: . ;) ti.: i L. .''::` -L'-',,:-.t. .1. If 1.: 10.1111..4:114'1.:''. .!;le * -
• . ,
.. 1„.- ...„,•,-. , , ,,•. ,.,•,,.,:.. Ir. , ..,.4k, IT.t„-7 ..,..:!.....!• 1 ".. - r! .
.."i ' A .-'4.-,414-. -!'•- -l•'',--.. ''. ..'44.'
.b.-4,14,-; , • . .1 •ii,i.14 ; ' • l'
.177...--1' 4.! *-.1..,-- --d. : -4j.-1.4.-''••%.vii ---. lc'•• --' J
0
A .... ..: ...„1-.. ......._. .4. :;.:3 utti illiftir,:, ...41.1.•-50:1....4.-.4..vy'it '.t PI '. 1 .
I 11.''''' Fi*.41 • ink'4•01;• .' . ! 11
.. ...:1, :.S:10.-:ille "2.: - •-. - IM.gr.1":%_ --1 - ': 1. . '' '. t.i-71 1.)ir ...3'.: '* l$'A •.. _ , .
41• its::-22,,..10 ,41,. *.liw ,., i- _....,;-..,.!.:. ,.....“- E ...14.Y4 .'IS*1..,...., .0....i., C
rill;
' .11:,.; . / ••-• .1 ..---'
.;• ...z.tipt m. _, ,.., ..1 ..4,„leiro,..14.,!1:44,,.,,%IV.. ,A. .. .4,
(.1
• -ti--. - ..._ - - -.1 .• :i4k.:e,. 771m, . r., _ _, .-4,,, ,:ro 4.,_441-...v. ,4.y..e. . ..A . .....- :-...-
zm - -0. - . ;,..:. - -- • v , t., - t'- :4,41.,.. .
11
-i..‘ :I _A" - ' Vir..„...,_;...MItt:,..-ci‘ePke,',- ,e --i'- L..2_ • .:. -.450M4Crtai•--- •, • - 4 . I,.:.4 - , . .
g#0,11
-1 71r. ,r..t '• t-- "-4:1,- • .,..•., - . ..:-.*,'-•-._ ,..!...,4- ''--,7•7:1-1> ts.:11 fi.,1 ''''. II:-,. •-•___L... Li ja -., ., .
C'
:*;-:iii --...•-• :-- .•* ' .1-':' * tr"•-v.,, . - . • ,
''' 1.---.e,X.,I -P••,-7'..1..,‘.7a,r1l,-rc.'..:e_.alt..t..r?,.?-:r::1-P.,4.:,44""0 1-•..I..:.'....,o.1.X.;-.4'i4-,=rii•..!1 ';-',4,1,'4,i,iti4,-,i.,i.'o,•!';"-... :-4i;:...1:,,-•.;c.1.•.-
.-';.Ir.-fi. •!
4Pt4 . k ''e I,•..:4 T•.:i.1i'-'-i'•'‘t,It''.IV:-.-111',0ii'•f.'1.'.:?i"I•:'r",:.•'-
6.1f.7T..1i7.-?ei;. t.,:.7•'.":- 4-..
iT;1 lcV1l
1 + a /' Z / Is i1 e
O ,1 1`. ,� 1 [ �1 t1iif 'is,- ++x{T , FTh
�11}1i1':�ti\ +1{I �1i 1 I 4J•
• �k.: ` {err I �• �e'1 � ? * � �'•' 5 , .., i ..1. 1 i 1►1 �►1 1
dl Ail,-
A ai;i r � t• ;�lsi? +_,■ + C @�• ••• �( �• !},1� 1 ,11\ `II
I,I,II II' 1
11•7),. . . �y'6M1 t � .�! • Y `* i'`�It '. 't Tt‘'
7I:- t l{ 11 i� 11 N'1 l\l‘11`1
P S 1 ! {] �i i iI, 11
4 r jaC .� : :•..Esq.l. •:4 •:T`;. •-1► `: 'Y.` ;1' • \.,1 "V
XI /1:f.4. �'��,.�'1 ��! . :�' -{ t{ .A it. .v.i :•`'t « i. ' 4 i - l�.►})`,, 1, .�� • i
t ill 711r1 'I
%It
.1„. i r,
.(k)'‘; „ 0 . ,t,.:!/_..;:t1. i . 1ii ,. 1 r) ii .1t.•• '''.!.=:-..-.4"- -t'• - 1 • • Ir •v, • '-e11:114-, ..- 1 ''' 'N ' - _
rrLost:4: . .' :- . p „, ,;-,i.. I ... . : 4tb,littV.-.44 -''',.. , I." 11, -. .!?0, ' ' .p.,.1/1,.0 - . .• -. . .
I1 , .1.i. . "}. _ ( hY 11 'gip. �.�.t. �.I t-+'. •� s,:, --
•
' i - • 1 -• - • i -; —4 L.• t. - .-- ' Pfia..,_• .4,1,,k. ' . Htl . , -il -ii n . 1— -
• 1 .. 1 1., _ i. . A , f : _ , .1v., ,-;,-4, \ ., t'Ati le - /0; )1 M • ,
i, / : - ,..- . _ t . • L. : ii. 4, ,." 2.'..., -_,.,. - -4•3:, \ 1 1 14 - a itftf . )f 0 if. '' 1 '
! 1I .,_
II ,i, , •t • 1 `. ti ,rr •#:• - F.a'4 1 1i, Iq 1 j,, ,, , i e • ; i1f
c :, . ., • i `` f r J r
., .
„, ,, { . \
•
II ,l i ' ;'•,-� .t• r••l - k I I. 1 \• q1 t1- -,t T °' jl ` � rt �'�� ,,
1 „,„,,,,e - f • •. t. I t( • i f 1 i
i , 1 i�;, 4, 1 .' a'1 .j.'{(j r '.;'w 1 q 1. 11tt\ \ j k.:,•.1,--,,: 1-=
itki
11: "4-4- i. : I •-•'./
! 1,. 1” k 4!,' ` , ..11 , i 1 71 1 k.� ti" _ ? 1 1 5 I�. i`1T1 1'►t q.4.4:: .. -... • 11 V•Nia\liti, Il li 4,ti\ - 1 .
\•
iti, . --, . - *.,. . \,. . , , ,4 , ,,„,t I , • .•I
1 t ! { r I_i 1 - 1 � % �, 1•,;1,11) ; ,; ( , ►
11 • . 1 1,1
3,,, ,..1• I , . ,i1 / i`I. ; - {_ r ti ► / I, `. 1 ,• -.T. I 1 � : 111 1 1 1. 11 �F . I. ( I 1 i •� %‘,11.,11' II
1 I . 111• —
f� .'r/� . , , I I I • 1 f ► f 1 •'11'1'11 ' ' s I 11$1
'' I, \` Si '•• /, 1 I ; I 1 / I I+ 1 ' III
' 1I ' Z�11j11 . 11 1 j 1.14
1 , •+ • • 11 I I , 11 H_ ts
,•1111 ,i. —
i • 1 1 1 I f I • ! ' '`' I '
•+ •, ' i j ! q��piff, 1 4� IJI 11 , 1 i i r ifs., �1
.14; ;, f. K
ilit ',.., s piiR 1 1 �VV i f�`4�JJI J ► 1 11 : ,
'l a 1 1 l t,
o �
— ---,;.
•
sk
k n.
vk T
NI ..... 1
tu \I i. g
•
I\ - ,.
•iiI•is • . 3 ... . i Iiciltis•••.111411 i�li' 'O ' .
mss ,
0_ij
1 ,:.. !..e.'t.,-5,-:,,,:,..4.:-.. ..,,,r, :.r3.3... 1.,- --..:- ... .-...::,..,.,..,....-....y,-,...*,. .1 . :1,,,. ... ,•.,-L• 7',,.4.i. .,44_......i:.: " • . .:,,?.•. ; .,. .
la.
• Y :..a• yap t ,.,-,..1.4.•-.•~,a._ e }- • 1 . , ,
1• -. ..4.. -a:a._ 4.4r.w-4ls-- .w.,. r AA ...V., ai'�' Y}. Al" i' r
{ «, ..�. ....... .L.:.+i•.w-..�-: ... - -X� .J {_ .�'_,:._rte .�-• _ _ tr .. .. _ -\
y(y
• -`-�- I _ pY�!.:!i- 7 _ • fir' f -'-ii
� ' - .... -♦ • • { /
••( 1
S+ "e • ._i - +� - '-y :," r +43 :-4.4.----t!..,....!.....,- :r . . .
..at.i �5:- ..! - --.2i.....4-1.. ,. ._.r .__ .t...-:..........' _. . . - . '.4
tom
•
-
•
_, ;...1.-.';:..- i 3 - _� _ _ .-_ -.- ? •••••, _.�......_�-._ _ - ,- -
•
4.
r 1
I. •_ __. _ .�._-i — '1-.�.YJ--•.ice-. _i.. _
Z'. :'*,;:•47.-;
\-.1.
- ? D'• - ( f:- '.t."'"
-..' _ _ es- . . .. - . -4 _ . . ... �..
1 A..it . •.. l
` -i•!** e' t'. ''gam �_T^ •_(fi. �- '. • 4 ~'� - . -
•
'`i..-;44.•L� j 9^A ' �"'��•wr1'�k _?' _"'.'r meq'... -�,. ---• r ; �J�...
•
. 'fit _ -- 1
Ir. t44.
4/ t_ _..-•--t _
....4._.: 4
••.+ j' g •S- J:-•
.�Si ul _ .•-�W •�_s.y r �Y 4. ?.-
.. .. 1
•
:r4a_ � •
. . T ' ' 4 �^ j'.
to'1'. } i t
:Eit. " �4 - "1 Cir• -� f. _, .4 "f
.- 3y �lj N, S
•
::.•,.,..,-,- 51 tri. - •} ..-
, .")..11,s', l-rte 1 ` -, _
J L i �,
� 1 tC _ -1
� !i vizi.- -!,,•,•••••
-,,,,,....-•,, -- ,.....;,2.::: -maiti ,.�,.. < ��,S -
� 1 •. � b Y. �'L
gi.
• " • `ih•• � y----
, i'- Jce ' I•5•• ` . . . . -
'44NJSlS1 i .x •
`r� . { �. IJ Yr... -y � ^ : _.? IMF
'T `0S-4g1. 1.7P ,sr. i .ilr.- AW r� _4,..# _
r'€ i, .. f . a ,'tet '
. , •
i ce, 4; --.:::-?:r - S. 1 'A'I - ,4,4%;•"'{.14-4 `. :4-f• '!-:.i.-w.'". _ 1 , -
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 FRINGE 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. All 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 RIDGE,
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
CITY OF
PC DATE: 8/3/94
ClIANIIIISSEN CC DATE: 8/22/94
CASE #: 86-31 SUB
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 102.73 Acres into 36 rural single family lots and
two outlots, Great Plains Golf Estates
zLOCATION: South of County Road 14 (Pioneer Trail), and west and east of Highway 101
Z
(Great Plains Blvd.).
— APPLICANT: Don Halla Roger Anderson & Assoc
10000 Great Plains Blvd. Suite 107
Chanhassen, MN 55317 7415 Wayzata Blvd.
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
Q
PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estate District
ACREAGE: 102.73 acres
DENSITY: One unit per 2.85 acre gross
ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - A2, Agricultural Estate District, & Co. Rd. 14, Pioneer Trail
S - A2, Agricultural Estate District
E - A2, Agricultural Estate District
r-,.
W - A2, Agricultural Estate District
WATER AND SEWER: Unavailable to the site.
w PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site is currently being operated as a nursery. A large number
of different sized trees cover the site. The northern, and
northwestern portion of the site is heavily vegetated with mature
t/) trees. The site generally slopes to the south and east. Some steep
slopes are located along the east.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Large Lot
Q0' •
1 Qa` / BAND/MERE 1.
1 , ,`
\ .
1 PARK , MI o� i '
)( I►,
-- ---, lit\
/ N 1 I 111,igit -----c
N) I k� F [ -q1 ' �;'
171P
Pcwose0 MK\,....•-:-____--_-:--
4
, .
iI,
1 II ,
igp di
, ,
Plirell ill OU-
, _I w� oolit aimi.... kill 0,, � .iiii.
.� ,0 A' •
mcip,...a.
rdui 1„ ,
elfIll
C-(9 -
_ �`— ' AIL iltI r Jim •
✓ K j..,,,,,,,// I y r
r„/ ^SiK�r
r/,/,/,/„/„ „r,,,,,,,,,,r/,,,,,,
r,,,,/,,,,/„ ,r,,,,,,,/,r,,,„,,,,, 0
r/„/,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,„,//,,,,,,/,/,,,
SUBJECT PROPERTY ////////// �:.0•
,/„//,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, E
,,,,, , ,,, ,',,',,,,,/,
✓,,,/•y r,,,,,
�,,,, 1I
//,,,, ,,,,,,
✓„/,/,-` ,, /IN
✓/,/„// a
/„/,/,,,// // /
y/,,,,///,,,
<G,,� BLUFF . 1
-�.
CREEK
,,,,,,,,,,,,,
PARK ,f:”" 111-t!'=” _ -
piNir: EEN:::: °
��..,
,
mor04'40
PO i '� fh4)4
le........„....--•411--011111”" `�ANG 'L
'NE5 ` LOCATION MAP
/•'-',i-s., 4771. ( /t. . i / ,-.I
:._,
r riliPP- .
I /
1
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 102.7 acres into 36 single family lots. The property is
zoned A2, Agricultural Estate District. This plat was originally filed in December, 1986. The
density at that time was 1 unit per 2.5 acres. Since that time, city ordinances have changed to
permit 1 unit per 10 acres, although the minimum lot size may be as small as 15,000 square feet
as long as septic and wells are accommodated on the lot. This subdivision is being reviewed
under the 1 unit per 2.5 acres based on extensions of the preliminary plat by the City Council.
The average lot size is 94,320 square feet with a resulting gross density of 1 unit per 2.8 acres.
The site is located north of Creekwood Drive, east and west of Highway 101, and south of
County Road 14 (Pioneer Trail). Access to the subdivision will be provided via Highway 101,
Creekwood Drive, and Pioneer Trail.
All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. The two outlots shown on the plat contain an existing business and a residence.
These outlots must be shown as lots. Allowing the outlots to remain will create a nonconforming
situation.
The site has a dense concentration of mature trees on the north and northwest corner of the site.
The plans indicate that the majority of those trees will be saved. There are trees scattered
throughout the site. The majority of these trees are nursery stock trees, hence, staff did not
require the applicant to show these trees on the plans. Only natural growth was required to be
shown and saved. A preservation easement over the area where tree concentrations exist will
be required. This easement will prevent any construction from taking place and subsequently
preserving the trees.
In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision will require revisions. We are
recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report.
BACKGROUND
On December 8, 1986: The applicant filed an application to subdivide 105 acres into 37
single family lots. This application was filed under the 1 unit per
2.5 acre density rule which was still in effect.
On July 6, 1987: The City Council approved the preliminary plat for Great Plains
Golf Estates.
On March 28, 1988: The City Council approved a one year extension for final plat
approval for Great Plains Golf Estates subdivision. The deadline
was extended to July 10, 1989.
On June 12, 1989: The City Council gave preliminary plat approval for the Great
Plains Golf Estates. The preliminary plat was given a five year
time frame to be final platted. The expiration day was on June 12,
1994.
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 3
On July 10, 1989: The City Council gave final plat approval for Great Plains Golf
Estates. The final plat approval was for 3 lots located on the east
side of Highway 101 and north of Creekwood Drive. The
remaining portion of Great Plains Golf Estates was shown as
outlots. These outlots were required to be platted within 5 years
from July 10, 1989.
On March 17, 1994: City staff met with the applicant to provide final guide lines. Over
the past year and a half, the applicant submitted a number of plats.
Staff continuously sent comments explaining changes that needed
to be made to the submittal. The submittal before last showed 36
lots clustered on the west side of Highway 101, with an area of
approximately one acre per lot. The remainder of the site was
platted as an outlot. The over all density of the site was one unit
per 2.5 acres. Staff had concerns over the septic systems. Staff
agreed to set up an escrow fund using a $1,000 received from the
applicant to hire Resource Engineering. The firm was authorized
by the City on March 29, 1994, to begin a preliminary
investigation of the individual sewage treatment system sites, ISTS
sites using the escrow fund. The results of the investigation
indicated that the septic sites were unsuitable.
On April 20, 1994: Staff requested that revised plans be resubmitted no later than July
5, 1994 to the Planning Department. This date allowed Resource
Engineering enough time to complete their soil test and analysis,
and for the applicant's engineering firm to respond to the requested
revisions.
This site has been used as a nursery for over 30 years. There is a variety and large number of
trees. The plat proposes leaving the nursery on an 11.45 acre lot.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 102.73 acre site into 36 single family lots. The
density of the proposed subdivision is 0.35 units per acre gross, and 0.46 units per acre net after
removing the roads. There are no wetlands found on the site. All the lots meet or exceed the
minimum 15,000 square feet of area, with an average lot size of 94,320 square feet.
All of the proposed lots meet the minimum requirement of the Zoning Ordinance with the
exception of the two outlots. These outlots contain a business and a single family home. The
zoning ordinance does not allow any structures to be located on an outlot. Staff is recommending
the plans be revised to show a change from outlot to lot.
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 4
GRADING & DRAINAGE
The applicant has submitted a detailed site grading, drainage and erosion control plan for the
overall development. However, according to city ordinance, the grading plan should show
existing and proposed 2-foot contours for street construction, drainage swales, berms and house
pads in order to determine the full impact of the development. The applicant has supplied a
detailed development plan indicating the house floor elevations; however, it does not propose site
grading around the homes. One example is on Lot 4, Block 5, where the home pad is situated
within an existing drainage swale. No provision are made to reroute the drainageway. This type
of adjustment must be taken into consideration with the final grading plan.
It appears that the site will be broken up into six drainage areas. Storm runoff from the site is
proposed to meet predeveloped runoff rates and most ponding areas are designed to the National
Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. There are a few areas that still will need to provide
temporary pretreatment areas such as the area north of Maple Court. Staff believes we can work
this out with the applicant's engineer. In the development on the west side of Trunk Highway
101, approximately one-half of the site drains west to the existing pond in the west-central
portion the site (behind the nursery building). The existing pond appears to receive storm runoff
from the west (golf course) in addition to runoff from the site. The storm drainage calculations
also need to incorporate the existing drainage from outside the development such as the golf
course. The City's Surface Water Management Plan proposed the central and southern portions
of the development to drain to a future stormwater/sediment pond BC-P7.1 (Attachment No. 1)
located east of the existing nursery building adjacent to Trunk Highway 101. This pond has a
tributary drainage area of approximately 40 acres. The storage volume is estimated at 2.1 acre
feet with a normal water elevation of 919.0 and a high water level of 924.5. The existing pond
behind the nursery may be combined with Pond B. At minimum, the outlet from the existing
pond should be rerouted and directed through Pond B to reduce the number of discharge points
to the east underneath Trunk Highway 101.
Approximately a quarter of the westerly site drains north with street drainage carried to the
northeast corner of the site. According to Carver County Highway Department, there is a culvert
underneath County Road 14 (Pioneer Trail) that has previously experienced some capacity
problems. Location of the culvert should be shown on the grading plan. The SWMP shows the
northern portion of the site drains to an existing wetland (BC-P5.13) located north of County
Road 14. The basin is an existing ag/urban wetland and therefore runoff needs to be pretreated
prior to discharging into the wetland. Since the City has not obtained or acquired the necessary
ponding easements over the wetland, this development may be considered premature in
conjunction with the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Plan. The applicant will be required then
to maintain the predeveloped runoff rate and water quality treatment to NURP standards with
temporary on-site ponding. The applicant still will be required to pay a cash contribution to the
City Surface Water Management Fund for construction of future downstream water quality and
quantity facilities.
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 5
The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality systems. 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 market
values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of
the pond. If the applicant is proposing to construct water quality basins, these fees will be
waived.
The SWMP has established an assessment rate for different land uses based on average city-wide
rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP
culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for temporary runoff storage. Based on
the land use, this development will have an assessment rate of $1,980 per acre. Staff is working
with the applicant on storm drainage plans at which time fees will be reduced in accordance with
the SWMP requirements. The City will apply credits to the applicant's surface water quantity
fees for construction of improvements in accordance with SWMP which include such items as
outlet control devices, trunk storm sewer pipes, ponding, etc.
Approximately one-quarter of the site drains to the southwest corner of the development. Storm
runoff to the southwest corner on the site is also proposed to be ponded (Pond "A")and the runoff
controlled at predeveloped rates. The stormwater discharge from pond flows along the north side
of Creekwood Drive west of this development to an existing drainage culvert underneath
Creekwood Drive. The drainage then is conveyed over land through a steep ravine to Bluff
Creek. In the past, this area has been prone to erosion and has been used as a dumping and
filling ground for different parties. The development of this property will only increase the
volume of runoff draining through the ravine. The applicant currently owns property which was
platted previously as Oudot D, Great Plains Golf Estates. Staff recommends that the developer
convey to the City appropriate drainage and utility easements for future construction of storm
drainage infrastructures to control erosion and convey storm runoff to Bluff Creek.
Ponding facilities on the east side of Trunk Highway 101 will be considered after the plat has
been revised to accommodate staff' changes in the plat's street and lot configuration. The
developer's engineer should also provide the City Engineer with revised detailed storm sewer
drainage calculations and discharge rates for the storm drainage system on the east side of Trunk
Highway 101 as a result of revising the plat. The revisions are further explored in the
appropriate sections under "Streets/Access."
Trunk Highway 101 is a temporary state highway with no plans for upgrading. As a result of
the initial platting of Great Plains Golf Estates, additional right-of-way was dedicated for the
future realignment of Trunk Highway 101. However, actual construction of Trunk Highway 101
is not scheduled and therefore interim safety improvements are recommended along existing
Trunk Highway 101 in the following areas:
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 6
1. The steep banks along the west side of Trunk Highway 101 lying south of the nursery
entrance create visibility problems for northbound traffic. The applicant is also proposing
to construct berms as required along Trunk Highway 101. Staff recommends that the
existing banks along Trunk Highway 101 be pulled back to improve sight lines and
berming be restricted to a minimum of 4 feet in height.
2. The hill on Trunk Highway 101 just north of the intersection of Creekwood Drive shall
be lowered to improve sight distances. The current situation does not meet MnDOT
standards for sight distance at the posted speeds.
3. Roadway alignments for Halla Nursery Vista and Trunk Highway 101 may impose sight
distance problems as well. This should be investigated and documented by the applicant's
= engineer that the intersection meets MnDOT's standards for the posted speeds.
East of Trunk Highway 101 the grading plan proposes utilizing an existing drainage basin located
on Lot 3, Block 6 (Pond D). This basin qualifies as a wetland according to the Army Corps of
Engineers and will need a permit to excavate. This basin is also proposed as a stormwater
sediment trap in the SWMP with a normal water elevation of 892.5 and high water elevation of
897.1. The applicant's storm calculation is somewhat lower. This is anticipated due to the fact
that the amount of contributing area is less than proposed in the SWMP. The existing basin has
a makeshift outlet control structure to maintain water levels in the pond. Staff is familiar with
this drainage basin from past dealings with the applicant in securing a grading permit to fill in
a portion of the downstream ravine. It appears the applicant has been filling this ravine without
an appropriate permit and with unacceptable materials such as landscaping debris and other
materials that will settle over time and create erosion and shear failures on the bluff. Staff
recommends that the applicant be required to re-excavate all unacceptable materials and backfill
with engineered fill as well as replace the existing storm drainage pipe (24-inch CMP) to
maintain the structural integrity of the storm drainage lines since the City will no doubt be taking
over the maintenance responsibilities of the storm sewer system after the project is completed.
A couple of significant trees exists around this same ponding basin. There are also a couple of
dead trees. The grading proposes expanding this ponding basin which would result in the
removal of all trees immediately adjacent to the existing pond. The applicant's engineer should
redesign the storm water basin (Pond "D") to accommodate the existing significant trees that are
alive yet.
UTILITIES
The previous preliminary plat submitted clustered the lots on the west side of Trunk Highway
101 with the intent of leaving the remaining site undeveloped. Staff at that time indicated that
the applicant should be required to meet urban standards since the lot sizes and densities
accounted for these standards being warranted. This means that the City would require that dry
sanitary sewer and water lines be installed for future hookup and the streets constructed to urban
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 7
standards. Staff indicated at that time if the lot sizes were increased to one acre in size —
(average), staff would reconsider the requirement for an urban street section and dry utility lines.
As proposed, the lots are well over the one-acre size average and therefore staff will not require
that urban street sections or dry utility lines be installed. Staff recommends that the streets be
constructed to meet the City's typical rural street standards (see Attachment No. 2).
Currently the site is outside the MUSA boundary and there is no sanitary sewer or water service
to the site; therefore, the individual lots will be dependent upon on-site septic and well systems.
The City's building department will be performing a review of the plans and preparing the
appropriate memo regarding well and septic availability.
STREET/ACCES S
Streets within the development are anticipated to meet the City's rural street standards. However,
the typical street section as proposed does not currently meet the City's rural roadway section.
The applicant's engineer should revise the standard detail to meet the City's standard rural street
section (see Attachment No. 3). The applicant is providing the necessary 60-foot wide right-of-
way and 60-foot radiuses in the turnarounds. Street grades range from 0.50% to 4.00% which
meets City standards.
On the west side of Trunk Highway 101, the applicant has significantly redesigned the street
layout from the previous preliminary plat submittal. The applicant is proposing two streets,
Golfview Circle and Halla Nursery Vista. Golfview Circle is proposed to access from
Creekwood Drive which is shown as Town Road on the plans. Golfview Circle will be a
deadend cul-de-sac approximately 1,000 feet long with no secondary access. Halla Nursery Vista
accesses from Trunk Highway 101 and branches off into two separate cul-de-sacs (Golfview
Court and Vista Court North). Neither one of the street alignments proposed provide for future
extension through the nursery site and potential looping of the two street systems. Although the
traffic volumes may be low due to the land use, staffs' policy is to look for a secondary access
whenever feasible. At some point, the nursery may no longer be located on Outlot A which
opens the door for additional residential development. Since no further access will be allowed
off of Trunk Highway 101, provisions for looping the two street systems through Outlot A from
Golfview Circle or Golfview Court should be explored by the applicant.
East of Trunk Highway 101, Halla Nursery Vista is proposed to loop back out to County Road
14. Staff is aware of an existing private road which lies adjacent to the southerly boundary of
this development. The existing road is constructed within a 30-foot wide easement which serves
the existing home on Outlot C, Great Plains Golf Estates (David Halla) and two other homes.
In addition, two other home sites are potentially available in the Bursch Development which lies
immediately west of Outlot C. Staff believes that the Halla Nursery Vista road should be
realigned to follow this private roadway easement and eliminate the need of the private road.
Upon review of the file staff has found previous concept or preliminary plats showing this
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 8
roadway alignment which we believe is more feasible from an engineering and transportation
standpoint. We recommend that the applicant go back and revisit the situation and redesign the
plat incorporating the existing roadway.
When the subdivision immediately to the east of this development (Deerbrook Addition) was
developed, a stub street was to be provided to access this site (Great Plains Estates development).
Upon review of the final plat of Deerbrook, there is only a 60-foot wide drainage and utility
easement that was dedicated to the City for the extension of a roadway. Unfortunately, this
easement does not adequately allow the City to construct a roadway to connect the two
subdivisions. In addition, a very large earth berm has been constructed over the City's 60-foot
wide drainage and utility easement. Therefore, at this time it appears unfeasible to consider
connecting Deerbrook with this proposed subdivision. This is unfortunate because it would have
allowed another access to an extremely long dead-end cul-de-sac on Deerbrook Drive.
County Road 14 and Trunk Highway 101 are functionally classified as minor arterial (Class 2)
roadways in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. During the previous platting of
Great Plains Golfview Estates, the City has acquired the necessary right-of-way for Trunk
Highway 101. It is unclear from the previous plat if adequate right-of-way was dedicated for
County Road 14. The applicant should provide documentation to the City and Carver County
that appropriate right-of-way has been dedicated with the final plat to achieve one-half of the
minimum 100-foot wide corridor for County Road 14. In addition, the County requests
consideration for an additional trail easement if a trailway is to be constructed along the County
highway. Standard trail easement is 20 feet wide. Access to the individual lots should be limited
to the interior streets and not from County Road 14 or Trunk Highway 101.
The applicant is proposing a north/south street named Birch Drive which intersects County Road
14. Upon review of the City's half-section map it appears that Birch Drive is offset
approximately 50 feet from the existing Foxford Road which lies north of County Road 14.
From a continuity standpoint, staff believes that these two streets should be aligned across from
one another. Staff recommends that the applicant revise the plat to align Birch Drive to be
continuous with Foxford Road at the intersection of County Road 14. Access permits will be
required from both MnDOT and Carver County Highway Departments.
EROSION CONTROL
A revised erosion control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer
prior to final platting. Staff recommends the applicant use the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook for erosion control measures. All disturbed areas are the result of construction shall
be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to prevent erosion and
sedimentation. If at all possible, construction of the site in stages is preferred to help reduce
erosion problems.
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 9
MISCELLANEOUS
Since development will involve public improvements, the applicant will be required to enter into
a development contract with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee installation
of the public improvements and final plat conditions of approval. The appropriate drainage and
utility easements shall be shown on the final plat overall drainageways and ponding areas.
The final plat should show the new dedicated Trunk Highway 101 right-of-way.
The preliminary plat proposes Outlot A which currently has an existing structure. Outlot A is
currently used as the Nursery business and should be platted into a lot and block. The final plat
should also rename Town Road to Creekwood Drive and show Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block
2 as a replat of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Great Plains Golfview Estates.
Park Dedication
The Park and Recreation Commission will be meeting on August 9, 1994 to discuss the potential
of a future open space referendum. There is a desire to locate a park on this site but this is
premised on the city's ability to acquire the property. Right-of-way on Hwy. 101 and Pioneer
Trail for future trail purposes will also be discussed by the Park Commission.
Easements
Individual Sewage Treatment Sites
The current proposal is changed from that of July 1987. These proposed changes from the 1987
plat, for the purposes of on-site sewage treatment sites, necessitate complete, new evaluations of
the currently proposed sites. Sites must be evaluated for depth to mottling, soils, orientation,
area and location relative to buildings, property lines, wells, etc. Additionally, ISTS evaluations
must comply with other code requirements designed to assure the integrity and suitability of the
sites and future ISTS. Individual sewage treatment systems (ISIS) are regulated by Minnesota
Rules, Chapter 7080, Individual Sewage Treatment Standards as amended by the City in
Chanhassen City Code, Article IV.
The following are concerns and/or comments concerning the proposed ISIS sites.
Depth to mottling. Mottles, if present, are indicated on required boring logs. Mottles
are splotches of red, yellow, or gray colors in the soil indicating zones of seasonal soil
saturation. The bottom of an ISTS must be located three feet above this zone in order
to achieve required treatment. The code requires that at least one foot of suitable
(unmottled) soil be present at an ISTS site. Mottles are difficult to detect in topsoil
without the use of a color chart, therefore all sites indicated as having mottles at one foot
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 10
and with a foot or more of topsoil are subject to close scrutiny prior to being accepted
as viable ISIS sites. No boring logs have been received for the currently proposed
sites!
Soils. In addition to requirements for separation from mottles, on-site soils must be
evaluated for texture, structure and permeability. These evaluations determine the level
of ability of the soil to accept and treat waste. Acceptance of a site for an ISTS is based,
in part, on the measurement and evaluation of these soil characteristics, and is predicated
on the assumption that the soils on a site are undisturbed. Activities such as tree removal
and field roads create disturbed areas which may alter the treatment ability of the soil.
The 1986 evaluation report from Resource Engineering indicates that the report is based
"...solely on data submitted to the City of Chanhassen." There were no field observations
conducted by Resource Engineering, and it is doubtful that they were aware of the use
of the property. 7080 requires that mounds be constructed on original soils. Page nine
of the enclosed May 1994 report from Resource Engineering, although reporting on a
different lot configuration, is for the same general area and casts doubt on the
acceptability of many of the currently proposed sites. It cannot be determined from
existing documentation that the proposed sites contain all original soil.
Orientation. It appears that proposed sites are correctly oriented, but field evaluation by
the City consultant, Resource Engineering is required to confirm this.
Area (lot & site). It appears that adequate area has been provided for ISTS sites, but field
evaluation by the City consultant is required to confirm this.
Other requirements. ISTS site evaluation is a complicated process involving specialized
knowledge. Site Evaluators are required to be licensed by Carver County. The site
evaluator is not licensed in Carver County, nor identified as being certified by the
State.
Because proposed property lines are subject to change as the plat proceeds through the
approval process, borings submitted in relation to property lines cannot be accepted.
Borings and perc tests must be identified with unique numbers not related to lots or
blocks. Staff visited the site on 7/26/94 and was unable to determine property lines, ISTS
sites or boring locations. Accuracy of this information is vital to the correct evaluation
of the project. Proposed property lines, ISTS sites, perc tests and borings should
be identified in the field by labelled stakes.
Due to the commercial tree removal activity that has occurred at the site, staff is unable to
approve sites without additional consultation with ISTS and soil experts. Resource Engineering
is the City consultant for ISIS and must be consulted prior to ISTS site approvals. Their
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 11
evaluation consists of a preliminary evaluation based on information provided by the developer
and a site evaluation. The preliminary evaluation cannot take place until:
• Two boring and perc test (if percs are required)locations for each site, each with a unique
identification, are shown on the grading and drainage plan.
• Boring logs and perc test logs identified as the percs and borings done at the locations
shown on the grading and drainage plan are submitted.
• Confirmation that all ISTS work was done by individuals licensed to do such work.
Preliminary evaluation can be in conjunction with, or followed by, a site evaluation which must
also be conducted by Resource Engineering.
Dwelling Type
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. I have enclosed my January 29, 1993
memo explaining these standard designations.
Attempts to evaluate the proposed plat thoroughly have been made, but the applicant's failure
to work with the City ISTS evaluator makes a thorough evaluation impossible at this time.
Results of these site evaluations can affect all other aspects of this proposed plat.
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT
Lot Lot Lot Home
Area Width Depth Setback —
Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/rear
10' sides —
BLOCK 1
Lot 1 70,076 236.1' 290'
Lot 2 64,636 340.7' 330'
Lot 3 68,474 217' 300'
Lot 4 69,143 64.8' on curve 275'
90' front setback
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
— Page 12
Lot 5 56,055 167' 285'
BLOCK 2
— Lot 1 85,639 229.8' 320'
Lot 2 68,065 189.9' 254.25'•
Lot 3 79,742 212.6' 244.35'
BLOCK 3
Lot 1 72,946 450' 177'
Lot 2 66,758 105.7 257'
Lot 3 65,093 192.9' 257'
Lot 4 88,924 104.8' 243'
Lot 5 83,322 110.6' 261.9'
—
Lot 6 74,591 273.4' 300'
Lot 7 108,909 155' 245'
—
Lot 8 184,264 206.2' 310'
Lot 9 69,247 155' 245'
— BLOCK 4
Lot 1 132,164 102.4' 262.9'
— Lot 2 77,126 277' 260'
Lot 3 79,201 302.6' 260'
Lot 4 70,594 279' 260'
Lot 5 93,922 237' 260'
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 13
BLOCK 5
Lot 1 88,035 274.7' 260'
Lot 2 68,308 264.1' 260'
Lot 3 73,143 281.7' 260.0'
Lot 4 93,770 340' 320'
Lot 5 97,299 314.1' 325.6'
Lot 6 103,713 301.6' 325.6'
Lot 7 126,568 86.1 300'
Lot 8 103,142 193.3' 294.4'
Lot 9 95,359 294.3' 297'
Lot 10 82,933 311.7' 296'
BLOCK 6
Lot 1 138,242 449.4' 320'
Lot 2 102,818 220' 330'
Lot 3 188,769 300' 405'
Tree Preservation
The grading plan shows the vegetated areas and the amount of tree removal. The site contains
significant concentrations of mature trees along the north and northwest areas of the site that
should be preserved as best possible. The forested areas contain large, mature hardwoods. The
forested areas are on the steeper elevations of the site. Some of the vegetation is in locations
where extensive grading is required to develop the site. The grading of the site for septic system
preparation is resulting in the loss of a number of trees.
Custom grading on Lots 4, 5, 7, and 8 is required to allow the site to be prepared for the
individual house rather than mass grading the site at the beginning of the project. A tree
preservation plan will be required.
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 14
All of the vegetated areas that are being saved shall be preserved by a conservation easement.
Staff is also requesting a landscaping plan. This plan should show the type and size of trees
proposed to be planted as well as the location of berms along Highway 101. The applicant should
also show the type and size of trees being removed (nursery stock trees are not included). A
reforestation plan will attempt to replace all those trees being lost due to grading and placement
of septic sites. The city can require caliper replacement of trees. Staff is recommending that the
applicant work with staff to develop a reforestation plan to replace the tree removal.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #86-31
for Great Plains Golf Estates as shown on the plans dated June 6, 1994, subject to the following
conditions:
1. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-
mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the
city's (BMPH) 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.
2. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping reforestation plan on
the site. This plan shall include a list of all trees proposed to be removed and their size.
The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by
a conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of
dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height
shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location
of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description.
3. Lot 4, 5, 7, and 8 Block 3, shall be custom graded and shall provide a tree preservation
plan for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff shall have the right to
require a change in house pad and location if it will result in saving significant vegetation.
A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of the tree preservation easement prior to
grading.
4. The turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be designed; shown on site plan;
and, approved by the Chanhassen Engineering and Fire Department,
5. Dead end access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with Chanhassen
Engineering and Fire Department approved provisions for the turning around of fire
apparatus.
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 15
6. Fire apparatus access road shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads
of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving
capabilities. The road shall be in place prior to construction of new dwellings. This
applies to homes which are in excess of 150 feet of State Hwy 101.
7. Street names:
a. Maple Court is not acceptable. The City already has 5 streets with "Maple" in the
name.
b. The street between Hwy. 101 and County Road 14 is named both Birch Drive and
Halla Nursery Vista. The street must have only one name. Eliminate Halla Vista
Drive.
c. Rename "Golf View Circle." Submit alternative name.
8. Building Department conditions:
a. Use Carver County licensed septic site evaluator.
b. Submit boring logs of borings done on each proposed ISIS site with a unique
identification for each to Inspections Division.
c. Stake and identify proposed property lines, proposed ISTS sites and perc and
boring locations.
d. Provide a preliminary evaluation report on the ISTS sites from Resource
Engineering.
e. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show standard dwelling type designations
for proposed house pads.
9. The applicant will need to provide revised detailed storm calculations for 10 and 100-year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water quality and quantity ponds
in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
review and approve. The applicant shall retain on site the predeveloped runoff rate as well
as provided interim water quality and quantity ponds. The applicant shall provide detailed
pre-developed and post-developed storm water calculations for existing and proposed storm
water basins. In addition, water quality pond design calculations shall be based on
Walker's pondnet model.
10. The streets shall be constructed to the City's rural street section. Detailed construction
plans and specifications shall be submitted for review and formal approval by the City
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 16
Council in conjunction with final plat approval. The construction plans shall be designed
in accordance to the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates.
11. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance
with final plat conditions of approval.
12. The applicant shall meet wetland fill and wetland mitigation conditions as stated in the
Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to
or concurrent with wetland fill activity or excavation in future phases of the project.
13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies,
i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of
Engineers, Carver County Highway Department and MnDOT and comply with their
conditions of approval.
14. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for all
storm water drainageways and ponding areas lying outside the street right-of-ways. The
minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for
access for maintenance of the storm water ponding areas. Outlot A shall be platted as a
lot and block.
15. The applicant's engineer shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The plan shall be submitted to the
City for review and formal approval.
16. The grading plan shall be revised to relocate all berming outside street or trunk highway
right-of-ways. The berm shall be limited to 4 feet high with 3:1 slopes along Trunk
Highway 101 right-of-ways. In addition, the grading plan shall show all proposed grading
as a result of drainage improvements, street and house construction. The applicant's
engineer shall work with staff in developing a revised storm drainage plan to accommodate
plat revisions.
17. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands shall
be a minimum of three feet above the 100-year high water level. All storm water ponds
shall have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more
than 3:1 slopes thereafter or 4:1 slopes throughout for safety purposes.
18. The outlet from the existing pond behind the nursery shall be re-routed and directed
through Pond "B."
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 17
19. Existing wells and septic systems on the site which are not to be utilized shall be properly
abandoned in accordance with City or State codes.
20. The applicant shall be responsible for the appropriate storm water quality and quantity fees
based in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan. The requirement for
cash fees in lieu of land or permanent pond construction shall be based upon the schedule
in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning.
21. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during
construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
22. The developer shall convey to the City appropriate drainage and utility easements for
future construction of storm drainage infrastructures over Outlot D, Great Plains Golf
Estates.
23. Ponding facilities on the east side of Trunk Highway 101 will be considered after the plat
has been revised to accommodate staff' changes in the plat's street and lot configuration.
The developer's engineer should also provide the City Engineer with revised detailed storm
sewer drainage calculations and discharge rates for the storm drainage system on the east
side of Trunk Highway 101 as a result of revising the plat.
24. The applicant shall modify the plans and incorporate the following safety improvements:
a. The steep banks along the west side of Trunk Highway 101 lying south of the
nursery entrance create visibility problems for northbound traffic. The applicant
is also proposing to construct berms as required along Trunk Highway 101. Staff
recommends that the existing banks along Trunk Highway 101 be pulled back to
improve sight lines and berming be restricted to a minimum of 4 feet in height.
b. The hill on Trunk Highway 101 just north of the intersection of Creekwood Drive
shall be lowered to improve sight distances. The current situation does not meet
MnDOT standards for sight distance at the posted speeds.
c. Roadway alignments for Halla Nursery Vista and Trunk Highway 101 may impose
sight distance problems as well. This should be investigated and documented by
the applicant's engineer that the intersection meets MnDOT's standards for the
posted speeds.
25. The applicant shall be required to re-excavate all unacceptable materials in the ravine on
Lot 3, Block 6 and backfill with engineered fill as well as replace the existing storm
drainage pipe (24-inch CMP) with concrete pipe.
Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
August 3, 1994
Page 18
26. The applicant's engineer should redesign the storm water basin (Pond "D") to
accommodate the existing significant trees that are alive yet.
27. The applicant shall provide for the future looping of the two street systems through Outlot
A from Golfview Circle or Golfview Court.
28. Halla Nursery Vista road east of Trunk Highway 101 should be realigned to follow the
private roadway easement and eliminate the need of the private road.
29. The applicant should provide documentation to the City and Carver County that
appropriate right-of-way has been dedicated with the final plat to achieve one-half of the
minimum 100-foot wide corridor for County Road 14.
30. Access to the individual lots shall be limited to the interior streets and not from County
Road 14 or Trunk Highway 101.
31. The applicant shall revise the plat to align Birch Drive to be continuous with Foxford
Road at the intersection of County Road 14.
32. The final plat should show the new dedicated Trunk Highway 101 right-of-way.
33. Outlot A is currently used as the nursery business and should be platted into a lot and
block. The final plat should also rename Town Road to Creekwood Drive and show Lot
1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 as a replat of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Great Plains Golfview
Estates.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Reduced preliminary plat approved July 6, 1987.
2. Reduced final plat approved July 10, 1989.
3. Memo from Dave Hempel dated July 28, 1994.
4. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated July 27, 1994.
5. Memo from Mark Littfin dated July 22, 1994.
6. Preliminary plat dated June 6, 1994.
CO.,. •
•
t. ••• _ _ice s...4 .off y •": .. •-. • ........ .v. ,w �.
rr
�..•
_ 1 5 . •
• :4 • 1 I I. '�_J
•
•
I2 II . j 10 1 . ' .
•
• q ftp • . . O �N• n. t.� 9 • :, t ..
•
• `may ' /JY•17/_11�\ `tri- i= •� 6 i_
•
i.
•I - •
•
•
• •
•
••ter. I ,•...- .r „ �� , .�-... —.._... •. .. .. .. ..
14
15 16
•
I.7. Li] •t~,'_
�.' •.......r•••••• ;r�- a PROPOSED GREAT PLAINS
; 7 . GOLF ESTATES
9g*7TA / b
•
GREAT P .AINS GOLF ESTATES '.,�:
THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23, HAS
AN ASSUMED BEARING OF S.89°30'39"W.
. DENOTES 1/2—INCH X 14—INCH SET IRON PIPE MARKED BY LICENSE NO. 17253
SCALE IN FEET: -� 1Z I f-•_
0 200 400 600 800 1000 2cJ _ ,`•;'�i: i L''V I i t`:,••,• .e
�t^.. • .- t ICc
Yp1. .rI 4'•r 1 'i'i 1.••j -\ L . .
([J..e•E...., .4..a.a.1) O I: - r:-:~ �5• [�_
•
5- ,. •,Sec 15 '� .. =1.-
i-
fae.fi.lw.e of 11.0 s.wit.1"Se', .•N r1 .�-._ zf0i-'s
,� .N.a!'.! •[ewtcr r:.,, •! i^I`" .L_ -sers0'»-K -`3I -
•211.01 E ... 4 _~ rt r:._- rglS.D y . L
C we/Real •. , •' ,a 1_ail_
(r JO 1—,—.777, j ..e-----7:7--, �\ .*;G F4 WA Y NO. 14
CCJ4-r STATE7.50 AID A .. It ofs.ss
•v./kr,.I.°•L M'.-_-• •1.A w(.. :-.%:.,2,
J
: t '''''r-ie.
4‘47. ., t
Jr
0.
I
c
` 4°.
O.',E. i
{f s _ 4+
_ o y E' 'casi 'E s,11so
N.• a••`r.
•
" c • 1
¢� ? .
r.
t i: H
0
i . •
/•-=f -!4'.!'•e°.
L ' I J..O.T.E 0
11 j
I t!.:- t 114 •
L_ 01\ "' ^ 88 - -.__��_ 1555.00
_° • _ s s ••S.89'0e•Or1.
I a V 'A'% \. . ..5.S3'S0'00"E- `30 rt. Read EaJe..e.t
_ e s. .%.60
• i
I :+ ._._ ; L .f X �pjf
1 r` ` `OO.,O '.
i J
2 1 4.f A :.
` it 4•` • fi.l _
im. _;: R o
C. Q c .f •` 1a -- ..
C- c $n •r_N •
a•
A
imm
I arrr,..
• ..
-r1.•.l YE-L. aJ�• :• �: •.K
f !J.J'
�. f•1 is ..f.if /111.1/ .'-w-1s�
B L 0 C K 1 :.
2 .re!
4., ..•.,t 1.•w.°
��%••.. ` ^ :..CREEKWOOD � DRIVE; tia��-y ; ;•�;Ee•N.K.
►Fif-:.Gam.. .J...•..'.°•r. .•n mJ. • . .J.s.t.
sm. ——1— �•-a1.`+'... J,tsa _... ---�...
• .
-� �-.s} •--- Gee .i rl.e
1te� 1025.13---
‘11.4'...
�1 I- / S.M�fl .!!.a_is
0�`egy°r: IOUTLOT 0 -6.x/'02•=rw. _
p yt 1I. i 5EE DCTt'L 9 1 i:.: . ... `' `•r 1_
I �h� 1 1 . . .• . - ,.e --_-- -'-- --
)-,- nctl Gk",k- c-ov . \ ��
r /
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
)11.
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II
FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator
DATE: July 27, 1994
SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for Halla's Great Plains Addition
LUR File No. 94-15/LUR File No. 89-14
Upon review of the site grading, drainage and erosion control plan dated July 1, 1994, prepared
by Roger Anderson & Associates along with the preliminary plat prepared by Egan, Field &
Nowak, Inc., we offer the following comments and recommendations:
GRADLNG & DRALNAGE
The applicant has submitted a detailed site grading, drainage and erosion control plan for the
overall development. However, according to city ordinance, the grading plan should show
existing and proposed 2-foot contours for street construction, drainage swales, berms and house
pads in order to determine the full impact of the development. The applicant has supplied a
detailed development plan indicating the house floor elevations; however, it does not propose site
grading around the homes. One example is on Lot 4, Block 5, where the home pad is situated
within an existing drainage swale. No provision are made to reroute the drainageway. This type
of adjustment must be taken into consideration with the final grading plan.
It appears that the site will be broken up into six drainage areas. Storm runoff from the site is
proposed to meet predeveloped runoff rates and most ponding areas are designed to the National
Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. There are a few areas that still will need to provide
temporary pretreatment areas such as the area north of Maple Court. Staff believes we can work
this out with the applicant's engineer. In the development on the west side of Trunk Highway
101, approximately one-half of the site drains west to the existing pond in the west-central
portion the site (behind the nursery building). The existing pond appears to receive storm runoff
from the west (golf course) in addition to runoff from the site. The storm drainage calculations
also need to incorporate the existing drainage from outside the development such as the golf
course. The City's Surface Water Management Plan proposed the central and southern portions
of the development to drain to a future stormwater/sediment pond BC-P7.1 (Attachment No. 1)
Sharmin Al-Jaff
July 27, 1994
Page 2
located east of the existing nursery building adjacent to Trunk Highway 101. This pond has a
tributary drainage area of approximately 40 acres. The storage volume is estimated at 2.1 acre
feet with a normal water elevation of 919.0 and a high water level of 924.5. The existing pond
behind the nursery may be combined with Pond B. At minimum, the outlet from the existing
pond should be rerouted and directed through Pond B to reduce the number of discharge points
to the east underneath Trunk Highway 101.
Approximately a quarter of the westerly site drains north with street drainage carried to the
northeast corner of the site. According to Carver County Highway Department, there is a culvert
underneath County Road 14 (Pioneer Trail) that has previously experienced some capacity
problems. Location of the culvert should be shown on the grading plan. The SWMP shows the
northern portion of the site drains to an existing wetland (BC-P5.13) located north of County
Road 14. The basin is an existing ag/urban wetland and therefore runoff needs to be pretreated
prior to discharging into the wetland. Since the City has not obtained or acquired the necessary
ponding easements over the wetland, this development may be considered premature in
conjunction with the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Plan. The applicant will be required then
to maintain the predeveloped runoff rate and water quality treatment to NURP standards with
temporary on-site ponding. The applicant still will be required to pay a cash contribution to the
City Surface Water Management Fund for construction of future downstream water quality and
quantity facilities.
The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality systems. 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 market
values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of$2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of
the pond. If the applicant is proposing to construct water quality basins, these fees will be
waived.
The SWMP has established an assessment rate for different land uses based on average city-wide
rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP
culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for temporary runoff storage. Based on
the land use, this development will have an assessment rate of$1,980 per acre. Staff is working
with the applicant on storm drainage plans at which time fees will be reduced in accordance with
the SWMP requirements. The City will apply credits to the applicant's surface water quantity
fees for construction of improvements in accordance with SWMP which include such items as
outlet control devices, trunk storm sewer pipes, ponding, etc.
Approximately one-quarter of the site drains to the southwest corner of the development. Storm
runoff to the southwest corner on the site is also proposed to be ponded (Pond "A")and the runoff
controlled at predeveloped rates. The stormwater discharge from pond flows along the north side
of Creekwood Drive west of this development to an existing drainage culvert underneath
Creekwood Drive. The drainage then is conveyed over land through a steep ravine to Bluff
Creek. In the past, this area has been prone to erosion and has been used as a dumping and
Sharmin Al-Jaff
July 27, 1994
Page 3
filling ground for different parties. The development of this property will only increase the
volume of runoff draining through the ravine. The applicant currently owns property which was
platted previously as Outlot D, Great Plains Golf Estates. Staff recommends that the developer
convey to the City appropriate drainage and utility easements for future construction of storm
drainage infrastructures to control erosion and convey storm runoff to Bluff Creek.
Ponding facilities on the east side of Trunk Highway 101 will be considered after the plat has
been revised to accommodate staff changes in the plat's street and lot configuration. The
developer's engineer should also provide the City Engineer with revised detailed storm sewer
drainage calculations and discharge rates for the storm drainage system on the east side of Trunk
Highway 101 as a result of revising the plat. The revisions are further explored in the
appropriate sections under "Streets/Access".
Trunk Highway 101 is a temporary state highway with no plans for upgrading. As a result of
the initial platting of Great Plains Golf Estates, additional right-of-way was dedicated for the
future realignment of Trunk Highway 101. However, actual construction of Trunk Highway 101
is not scheduled and therefore interim safety improvements are recommended along existing _
Trunk Highway 101 in the following areas:
1. The steep banks along the west side of Trunk Highway 101 lying south of the nursery _
entrance create visibility problems for northbound traffic. The applicant is also proposing
to construct berms as required along Trunk Highway 101. Staff recommends that the
existing banks along Trunk Highway 101 be pulled back to improve sight lines and
berming be restricted to a minimum of 4 feet in height.
2. The hill on Trunk Highway 101 just north of the intersection of Creekwood Drive shall
be lowered to improve sight distances. The current situation does not meet MnDOT
standards for sight distance at the posted speeds.
3. Roadway alignments for Halla Nursery Vista and Trunk Highway 101 may impose sight
distance problems as well. This should be investigated and documented by the applicant's
engineer that the intersection meets MnDOT's standards for the posted speeds.
East of Trunk Highway 101 the grading plan proposes utilizing an existing drainage basin located
on Lot 3, Block 6 (Pond D). This basin qualifies as a wetland according to the Army Corps of
Engineers and will need a permit to excavate. This basin is also proposed as a stormwater
sediment trap in the SWMP with a normal water elevation of 892.5 and high water elevation of
897.1. The applicant's storm calculation is somewhat lower. This is anticipated due to the fact
that the amount of contributing area is less than proposed in the SWMP. The existing basin has
a makeshift outlet control structure to maintain water levels in the pond. Staff is familiar with
this drainage basin from past dealings with the applicant in securing a grading permit to fill in
a portion of the downstream ravine. It appears the applicant has been filling this ravine without
an appropriate permit and with unacceptable materials such as landscaping debris and other
materials that will settle over time and create erosion and shear failures on the bluff. Staff
Sharmin Al-Jaff
July 27, 1994
Page 4
recommends that the applicant be required to re-excavate all unacceptable materials and backfill
with engineered fill as well as replace the existing storm drainage pipe (24-inch CMP) to
maintain the structural integrity of the storm drainage lines since the City will no doubt be taking
over the maintenance responsibilities of the storm sewer system after the project is completed.
A couple of significant trees exists around this same ponding basin. There are also a couple of
dead trees. The grading proposes expanding this ponding basin which would result in the
removal of all trees immediately adjacent to the existing pond. The applicant's engineer should
redesign the storm water basin (Pond "D") to accommodate the existing significant trees that are
alive yet.
UTILiT1ES
The previous preliminary plat submitted clustered the lots on the west side of Trunk Highway
101 with the intent of leaving the remaining site undeveloped. Staff at that time indicated that
the applicant should be required to meet urban standards since the lot sizes and densities
accounted for these standards being warranted. This means that the City would require that dry
sanitary sewer and water lines be installed for future hookup and the streets constructed to urban
standards. Staff indicated at that time if the lot sizes were increased to one acre in size (average),
staff would reconsider the requirement for an urban street section and dry utility lines. As
proposed, the lots are well over the one-acre size average and therefore staff will not require that
urban street sections or dry utility lines be installed. Staff recommends that the streets be
constructed to meet the City's typical rural street standards (see Attachment No. 2).
Currently the site is outside the MUSA boundary and there is no sanitary sewer or water service
to the site; therefore, the individual lots will be dependent upon on-site septic and well systems.
The City's building department will be performing a review of the plans and preparing the
appropriate memo regarding well and septic availability.
STREET/A CCES S
Streets within the development are anticipated to meet the City's rural street standards. However,
the typical street section as proposed does not currently meet the City's rural roadway section.
The applicant's engineer should revise the standard detail to meet the City's standard rural street
section (see Attachment No. 3). The applicant is providing the necessary 60-foot wide right-of-
way and 60-foot radiuses in the turnarounds. Street grades range from 0.50% to 4.00% which
meets City standards.
On the west side of Trunk Highway 101, the applicant has significantly redesigned the street
layout from the previous preliminary plat submittal. The applicant is proposing two streets,
Golfview Circle and Halla Nursery Vista. Golfview Circle is proposed to access from
Creekwood Drive which is shown as Town Road on the plans. Golfview Circle will be a
deadend cul-de-sac approximately 1,000 feet long with no secondary access. Halla Nursery Vista
accesses from Trunk Highway 101 and branches off into two separate cul-de-sacs (Golfview
Court and Vista Court North). Neither one of the street alignments proposed provide for future
Sharmin Al-Jaff
July 27, 1994
Page 5
extension through the nursery site and potential looping of the two street systems. Although the
traffic volumes may be low due to the land use, staffs' policy is to look for a secondary access
whenever feasible. At some point, the nursery may no longer be located on Outlot A which
opens the door for additional residential development. Since no further access will be allowed
off of Trunk Highway 101, provisions for looping the two street systems through Outlot A from
Golfview Circle or Golfview Court should be explored by the applicant.
East of Trunk Highway 101, Halla Nursery Vista is proposed to loop back out to County Road
14. Staff is aware of an existing private road which lies adjacent to the southerly boundary of
this development. The existing road is constructed within a 30-foot wide easement which serves
the existing home on Outlot C, Great Plains Golf Estates (David Halla) and two other homes.
In addition, two other home sites are potentially available in the Bursch Development which lies
immediately west of Outlot C. Staff believes that the Halla Nursery Vista road should be
realigned to follow this private roadway easement and eliminate the need of the private road.
Upon review of the file staff has found previous concept or preliminary plats showing this
roadway alignment which we believe is more feasible from an engineering and transportation
standpoint. We recommend that the applicant go back and revisit the situation and redesign the
plat incorporating the existing roadway.
When the subdivision immediately to the east of this development (Deerbrook Addition) was
developed, a stub street was to be provided to access this site (Great Plains Estates development).
Upon review of the final plat of Deerbrook, there is only a 60-foot wide drainage and utility
easement that was dedicated to the City for the extension of a roadway. Unfortunately, this
easement does not adequately allow the City to construct a roadway to connect the two
subdivisions. In addition, a very large earth berm has been constructed over the City's 60-foot
wide drainage and utility easement. Therefore, at this time it appears unfeasible to consider
connecting Deerbrook with this proposed subdivision. This is unfortunate because it would have
allowed another access to an extremely long dead-end cul-de-sac on Deerbrook Drive.
County Road 14 and Trunk Highway 101 are functionally classified as minor arterial (Class 2)
roadways in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. During the previous platting of
Great Plains Golfview Estates, the City has acquired the necessary right-of-way for Trunk
Highway 101. It is unclear from the previous plat if adequate right-of-way was dedicated for
County Road 14. The applicant should provide documentation to the City and Carver County
that appropriate right-of-way has been dedicated with the final plat to achieve one-half of the
minimum 100-foot wide corridor for County Road 14. In addition, the County requests
consideration for an additional trail easement if a trailway is to be constructed along the County
highway. Standard trail easement is 20 feet wide. Access to the individual lots should be limited
to the interior streets and not from County Road 14 or Trunk Highway 101.
The applicant is proposing a north/south street named Birch Drive which intersects County Road
14. Upon review of the City's half-section map it appears that Birch Drive is offset
approximately 50 feet from the existing Foxford Road which lies north of County Road 14.
From a continuity standpoint, staff believes that these two streets should be aligned across from
Sharmin Al-Jaff
July 27, 1994
Page 6
one another. Staff recommends that the applicant revise the plat to align Birch Drive to be
continuous with Foxford Road at the intersection of County Road 14. Access permits will be
required from both MnDOT and Carver County Highway Departments.
EROSION CONTROL
A revised erosion control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer
prior to final platting. Staff recommends the applicant use the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook for erosion control measures. All disturbed areas are the result of construction shall
be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to prevent erosion and sedimentation.
If at all possible, construction of the site in stages is preferred to help reduce erosion problems.
MISCELLANEOUS
Since development will involve public improvements, the applicant will be required to enter into
a development contract with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee installation
of the public improvements and final plat conditions of approval. The appropriate drainage and
utility easements shall be shown on the final plat overall drainageways and ponding areas.
The final plat should show the new dedicated Trunk Highway 101 right-of-way.
The preliminary plat proposes Outlot A which currently has an existing structure. Outlot A is
currently used as the Nursery business and should be platted into a lot and block. The final plat
should also rename Town Road to Creekwood Drive and show Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block
2 as a replat of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Great Plains Golfview Estates.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The applicant will need to provide revised detailed storm calculations for 10 and 100-year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water quality and quantity ponds
in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
review and approve. The applicant shall retain on site the predeveloped runoff rate as
well as provided interim water quality and quantity ponds. The applicant shall provide
detailed pre-developed and post-developed storm water calculations for existing and
proposed storm water basins. In addition, water quality pond design calculations shall be
based on Walker's pondnet model.
2. The streets shall be constructed to the City's rural street section. Detailed construction
plans and specifications shall be submitted for review and formal approval by the City
Council in conjunction with final plat approval. The construction plans shall be designed
in accordance to the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates.
Sharmin Al-Jaff
July 27, 1994
Page 7
3. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance
with final plat conditions of approval.
4. The applicant shall meet wetland fill and wetland mitigation conditions as stated in the
Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to
or concurrent with wetland fill activity or excavation in future phases of the project.
5. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies,
i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of
Engineers, Carver County Highway Department and MnDOT and comply with their
conditions of approval.
6. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for all
storm water drainageways and ponding areas lying outside the street right-of-ways. The
minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for
access for maintenance of the storm water ponding areas. Outlot A shall be platted as a
lot and block.
7. The applicant's engineer shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The plan shall be submitted to the
City for review and formal approval.
8. The grading plan shall be revised to relocate all berming outside street or trunk highway
right-of-ways. The berm shall be limited to 4 feet high with 3:1 slopes along Trunk
Highway 101 right-of-ways. In addition, the grading plan shall show all proposed grading
as a result of drainage improvements, street and house construction. The applicant's
engineer shall work with staff in developing a revised storm drainage plan to
accommodate plat revisions.
9. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands shall
be a minimum of three feet above the 100-year high water level. All storm water ponds
shall have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more
than 3:1 slopes thereafter or 4:1 slopes throughout for safety purposes.
10. The outlet from the existing pond behind the nursery shall be re-routed and directed
through Pond "B".
11. Existing wells and septic systems on the site which are not to be utilized shall be properly
abandoned in accordance with City or State codes.
12. The applicant shall be responsible for the appropriate storm water quality and quantity
fees based in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan. The requirement
Sharmin Al-Jaff
July 27, 1994
Page 8
— for cash fees in lieu of land or permanent pond construction shall be based upon the
schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning.
13. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during
construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
14. The developer shall convey to the City appropriate drainage and utility easements for
future construction of storm drainage infrastructures over Outlot D, Great Plains Golf
Estates.
15. Ponding facilities on the east side of Trunk Highway 101 will be considered after the plat
has been revised to accommodate staff changes in the plat's street and lot configuration.
The developer's engineer should also provide the City Engineer with revised detailed
storm sewer drainage calculations and discharge rates for the storm drainage system on
the east side of Trunk Highway 101 as a result of revising the plat.
16. The applicant shall modify the plans and incorporate the following safety improvements:
A. The steep banks along the west side of Trunk Highway 101 lying south of the
nursery entrance create visibility problems for northbound traffic. The applicant
is also proposing to construct berms as required along Trunk Highway 101. Staff
recommends that the existing banks along Trunk Highway 101 be pulled back to
improve sight lines and berming be restricted to a minimum of 4 feet in height.
B. The hill on Trunk Highway 101 just north of the intersection of Creekwood Drive
shall be lowered to improve sight distances. The current situation does not meet
MnDOT standards for sight distance at the posted speeds.
C. Roadway alignments for Halla Nursery Vista and Trunk Highway 101 may impose
sight distance problems as well. This should be investigated and documented by
the applicant's engineer that the intersection meets MnDOT's standards for the
posted speeds.
17. The applicant shall be required to re-excavate all unacceptable materials in the ravine on
Lot 3, Block 6 and backfill with engineered fill as well as replace the existing storm
drainage pipe (24-inch CMP) with concrete pipe.
18. The applicant's engineer should redesign the storm water basin (Pond "D") to
accommodate the existing significant trees that are alive yet.
19. The applicant shall provide for the future looping of the two street systems through Outlot
A from Golfview Circle or Golfview Court.
Sharmin Al-Jaff
July 27, 1994
Page 9
20. Halla Nursery Vista road east of Trunk Highway 101 should be realigned to follow the
private roadway easement and eliminate the need of the private road.
21. The applicant should provide documentation to the City and Carver County that
appropriate right-of-way has been dedicated with the final plat to achieve one-half of the
minimum 100-foot wide corridor for County Road 14.
22. Access to the individual lots shall be limited to the interior streets and not from County
Road 14 or Trunk Highway 101.
23. The applicant shall revise the plat to align Birch Drive to be continuous with Foxford
Road at the intersection of County Road 14.
24. The final plat should show the new dedicated Trunk Highway 101 right-of-way.
25. Outlot A is currently used as the Nursery business and should be platted into a lot and
block. The final plat should also rename Town Road to Creekwood Drive and show Lot
1, Block 1 and Lot I, Block 2 as a replat of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Great Plains Golfview
Estates.
jms'ktm
Attachments: I. Surface Water Management Plan.
2. Typical rural street detail.
c: Charles Folch, City Engineer
g'eng\dav e\projecu`,halla\ppr
it
:•4? ' 6M3E11-11:1110111fr 1 Lb: r fte °if
LR2. , 1 i im' • ' LAKE
` uf_io, , ,. . .RI LEY •. •
.
ik,
, , ' CLR3.4'
2j. 3
24 - r L14-10.1 kLR2 it
I .- r•.5 890-s 1?� tt.':" N. 4+� •. `'-P!<.e • • ' '
- LR3.3 t�' Lt-A1.• 2 LR-pt 1
•_ BCS -P3.2 877.0/879.6 LR2.7 2 -
05.S -Ps.ro
C Pb C9 /24. + yLL�� 814.4/ale `
24"
f ` ` -•LR3.2 , 1LR2.' '1,
i 1• :, p4s:
4" LR-P3.1 LR3.5 24 LR-P3.e -Pt.f ` •� ��
LR 3.1 a e,s ase.3 1R2.: •
16 ‘ ne `� ft�� ...... atiOMMr LR-A4 %. 3_24"
tit-
I3fLRR
02.0/850.11 BC-P15.13
u PY.t LR4. up
BrP�f 14 978.0 978.5 41;r d00.o/902.12.. 42' / "` /17
• B�`�
$69-IT.149 fo218 .• , -4.3 t____ `
JU !7 6C Pts.tf 805.31 „x: 46224.1 "4„,
`1 x,4,4,, 8635 807,2
I 958.0 982.1 BC5.3�14. 4" 1 �_ LR4.2 LR- .6 c /
• LR-AI7
BCS. BCS. 3 24. N... !24"
_ ''_- -• 4184.1 t.4-f+r.•go,- ��''J
BC5.36" L� %� • 418., :,.
Ne_pssn 2 BC5.29
1
•058-37F-01.0 05.35 873377F-64.8 BC5.3 r1592.0/894.5_ -Pv.4.5.
1 �/ J BC7.1
BC--P5.16 / 67.10 `>
-- L 937.5 935.5 0 4 27'�� _ 2 24'1 1
vl k ..... BC7.9
• BC7. Bic- s f BC7.17. k _
,11
- `� BC P7.4 892.5 7.1
3 ;.21 J 4- .--07671-t-24.5 24' BC7.18 BC7.1
t 1 BC-te.1� :07.2 7.11 367 ,��1
BC6.2711-- 25.0/931.0 ` 2t 1 ^.
24-Thi-
` .\i 4307.6 12 1 G'24A
ac'--85.15 r. % 3 007.5 •. 7" I
� � 1
BC6.25 �� ._,' _
AG3 t 24' BC6.28 ,
••ii BC-AtJB # ± � I 770/79-3%yr; 6�O) 2)` BC7.7 /
V
1.2"-... BC6.29° ' - �'�/30' BC6.30# !t - _.`_,_._..___ 7.19, _
. 856 61689.3 BC6.31r _z 1/ vv l� �C
t ' _ ; A
-_��� fr BC8.2�3�'.BC7. 17.20 1_ s 24,x > 4I72 Bc-Ps.s
7329 11P-
781.7
p.--
14A 619.730r�! 7r2 120
OA!12Q 24" LOu 24 at't j L0611.24� 2r !ElC725 �� ,
� } ' " - 6,32- BCr 23 2T 4" >
• 1.' 30 798;0_e04.4 ,•Xt, �' 1 tt0A 718.7 --- 6 . •
•
727 i
if-P1-84.0 •�9 `124 6• 24' 2 �#
43 .r�
N.
'Cls+ • 4.0 731.6 277,6--•___..-----#0.-e--' BC7- BRPl./I. , �/ /
� ? " ,\8‘,\C ` • .3 _ �- � RIF• E
-'..7-I.4,-_•..,P)`;.-.,./-,e,..•...,„„-0(li,4"o6..4,1'%e,
4.
,;kap •
x . ,777,-7-7-t-- -sem '990-2/999
% /W. ):::-.,-14-0.4-jeral. . - ' -:::::-..,"...4.,,,,,.,.,, \r:!%1".•• ", ...,-. - ' -....-',.,'‘',-.7:--'''N.--0",,....,,i-"- '0.. 1.1.7.4eiiiivr.
- :,,,i-rf4i, -..--,..-4r1.;:*?...7.AiFf,rY..4„.•.
414.k.
Wa'�R P. • •.°?:7144' x -;;0....::.-
* l 3^Sf ., F ye°, ' ,� T:_ .: 41..
1 � 4 _ -baa..... ,R :_ I,.` s.. '�( 1. .yr.,„. r.
I
I
i'
I af 1 . g
e, 11
I I ..,
1.•'
r.: 1 I I 0 a
i i ! ! I , i)
,
..,,,.... i 11 1 li i ! II 1 II
.,.. I t ! ilt i. 11
1
4 11 :'.:C F i ; ' • 11
,,, ___ ___. .,,-. I I
1
1:7 ..a 1 4
.1- , 4
r7-74
...2.4
11;
i'...1
, ,•.
a 4-.• Z cl) I
...'..:71
.. H
\ C 1 g
C.)
2, >.
, La gn
, , 0 0
(I `` _im lb
E g II
•
it g o
1
CITY OF
TYPICAL STREET
4- CHANHASSEN RURAL
REVISED 2-23 I DATE
2-91 PLATE NO.
5202
///ieseY7-;-
--
CITY QF
:11r
CHANHASSEN
s 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official Ci�J
DATE : July 27, 1994
SUBJECT: #86-31 SUB (Don Halla ' s Great Plains Golf Estates)
I have been asked to comment on the above referenced application,
stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, JUL 06 1994, CHANHASSEN
PLANNING DEPT" . Many of the concerns expressed in my previous memos
(December 13 , 1993 & February 7 , 1994) have not been addressed.
Specifically, requirements for the ISTS sites included in my memos
and reiterated to Mr. Halla in your April 20, 1994 letter have not
been met . Additionally, house pad designations and elevation
requirements have not been met. The latest proposed plat has also
created additional problems with street names .
BACKGROUND:
Proposed treatment sites were evaluated by Resource Engineering in
1986 when the application was originally submitted. The original
lot configuration and proposed treatment areas are shown on the
proposed plat stamped "OFFICIAL COPY" and dated as approved by
Council on July 6, 1987 .
ANALYSIS:
Individual Sewage Treatment Sites
The current proposal is, once again completely changed from that
of July 1987 . These proposed changes from the 1987 plat, for the
purposes of onsite sewage treatment sites, necessitate complete,
new evaluations of the currently proposed sites . Sites must be
evaluated for depth to mottling, soils, orientation, area and
location relative to buildings , property lines, wells, etc .
Additionally, ISTS evaluations must comply with other code
requirements designed to assure the integrity and suitability of
the sites and future ISTS . Individual sewage treatment systems
(ISTS) are regulated by Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7080 , Individual
Sharmin Al-Jaff
July 27 , 1994
Page 2
Sewage Treatment Standards as amended by the City in Chanhassen
City Code, Article IV.
The following are concerns and/or comments concerning the proposed
ISTS sites .
Depth to mottling. Mottles, if present, are indicated on
required boring logs . Mottles are splotches of red, yellow,
or gray colors in the soil indicating zones of seasonal soil
saturation. The bottom of an ISTS must be located three feet
above this zone in order to achieve required treatment . The
code requires that at least one foot of suitable tunmottled)
soil be present at an ISTS site. Mottles are difficult to
detect in topsoil without the use of a color chart, therefore
all sites indicated as having mottles at one foot and with a
foot or more of topsoil are subject to close scrutiny prior to
being accepted as viable ISTS sites . No boring logs have been
received for the currently proposed sites !
Soils . In addition to requirements for separation from
mottles, onsite soils must be evaluated for texture, structure
and permeability . These evaluations determine the level of
ability of the soil to accept and treat waste. Acceptance of
a site for an ISTS is based, in part, on the measurement and
evaluation of these soil characteristics , and is predicated on
the assumption that the soils on a site are undisturbed.
Activities such as tree removal and field roads create
disturbed areas which may alter the treatment ability of the
soil . The 1986 evaluation report from Resource Engineering
indicates that the report is based " . . . solely on data
submitted to the City of Chanhassen" . There were no field
observations conducted by Resource Engineering, and it is
doubtful that they were aware of the use of the property.
7080 requires that mounds be constructed on original soils .
Page nine of the enclosed May 1994 report from Resource
Engineering, although reporting on a different lot
configuration, is for the same general area and casts doubt on
the acceptability of many of the currently proposed sites .
It cannot be determined from existing documentation that the
proposed sites contain all original soil.
Orientation. It appears that proposed sites are correctly
oriented, but field evaluation by the City consultant ,
Resource Engineering is required to confirm this .
Area (lot & site) . It appears that adequate area has been
provided for ISTS sites, but field evaluation by the City
consultant is required to confirm this .
Sharmin Al-Jaff
July 27 , 1994
Page 3
required to be licensed by Carver County. The site evaluator
is not licensed in Carver County, nor identified as being
certified by the State.
Because proposed property lines are subject to change as the
plat proceeds through the approval process, borings submitted
in relation to property lines cannot be accepted. Borings and
perc tests must be identified with unique numbers not related
to lots or blocks . Staff visited the site on 7/26/94 and was
unable to determine property lines, ISTS sites or boring
locations . Accuracy of this information is vital to the
correct evaluation of the project . Proposed property lines,
ISTS sites, perc tests and borings should be identified in the
field by labelled stakes .
Due to the commercial tree removal activity that has occurred at
the site, staff is unable to approve sites without additional
consultation with ISTS and soil experts . Resource Engineering is
the City consultant for ISTS and must be consulted prior to ISTS
site approvals . Their evaluation consists of a preliminary
evaluation based on information provided by the developer and a
site evaluation. The preliminary evaluation cannot take place
until :
• Two boring and perc test (if percs are required) locations for
each site, each with a unique identification, are shown on the
grading and drainage plan.
• Boring logs and perc test logs identified as the percs and
borings done at the locations shown on the grading and
drainage plan are submitted.
• Confirmation that all ISTS work was done by individuals
licensed to do such work.
Preliminary evaluation can be in conjunction with, or followed by,
a site evaluation which must also be conducted by Resource
Engineering.
Street Names
Concerns with street names have been addressed in Mark Littfin' s
memo to you.
Dwelling Type
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,
Sharmin Al-Jaff
July 27, 1994
Page 4
SEWO, TU, WO) must be shown for proposed dwelling types . These
standard designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan
review process . I have enclosed my January 29, 1993 memo explaining
these standard designations.
I have attempted to evaluate the proposed plat thoroughly, but the
applicants ' failure to work with the City ISTS evaluator makes a
thorough evaluation impossible at this time. Results of these site
evaluations can affect all other aspects of this proposed plat .
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with the
following conditions :
1 . Use Carver County licensed site evaluator.
2 . Submit boring logs of borings done on each proposed ISTS site
with a unique identification for each to Inspections Division.
3 . Stake and identify proposed property lines, proposed ISTS
sites and perc and boring locations. --
4 . Provide a preliminary evaluation report on the ISTS sites from
Resource Engineering.
5 . Revise the preliminary grading plan to show standard dwelling _
type designations for proposed house pads .
enclosures : Dwelling type designation memo dated January 29,
1993
Resource Engineering report dated May 1994
cg:\safety\sak\memos\plan\hle-glf.ea4
CITY QF
011:
1,011„,
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
M EM O RA'*, P U M
TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official
Q'' -
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.
FrLO o:RLO 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.
SL'WO Designates Split Entry 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.
TU 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.
— ill sEwo woF��
i_ _, , - - - - -- a'RLO
.......
-„....
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.
t4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
R RESOURCE ENGINEERING
Roger E. Machincier. F' James L. Anderson. C.P.S S.
29665 Neal A‘enuc 3541 Ensign Avenue. North
- Lindstrom. MN 55045 Ncw Hope. MN 55427
(612) 257-2019 (612) 593-5338
REVIEW DF PLANNING CASE NO. B6-31
PROPOSED GREAT PLAINS GOLF ESTATES SUBDIVISION
SUITABILITY OF SOILS FOR ONSITE SEWAGE SYSTEMS
for the
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
by
JAMES L . ANDERSON , C .P .S.S.
ROGER E. MACHMEIER, P .E .
May, 1994
SPECIALISTS IN ONSITE SEWAGE TREATMENT
REVIEW OF PLANNING CASE NO. 86-31
1 . Introduction
A review and assessment of a portion of the proposed
plat under consideration was made in December, 1986 and
January, 1987 . In 1987 , there was a deadline for the
submission of subdivisions . Therefore , we were asked to
review the proposed Great Plains Golf Estates subdivision
based on the soil boring logs and other data submitted to
the City of Chanhassen to determine if each of the proposed
lots appeared to be adequate for the installation of two
onsite sewage treatment systems on each lot . We did not
conduct a lot by lot field review of the sites submitted by
the developer because it was in the winter . Based on the
submitted soil boring data and lot plats , we did prepare and
submit a table with our report indicating the type of soil
absorption unit needed .
It is possible that some of the proposed sites for soil
absorption systems in the original plat may not have been
suitable . At the time of the 1987 review, we were not
advised of the extent of the nursery field operations
conducted at the site . Adverse effects that the nursery
cultural practices may have had on the soils , such as
removing and replacing part of the soil profile , compaction
in field roads , compaction by tree moving equipment , root
pruning techniques , etc , were not considered . Before any
current subdivision plan is approved , these effects must be
taken into account . We did address the possibility of tile
drainage on the property and the effect on the development
of the lots . It is important to note that considerations
other than just total lot area are needed in order to
evaluate if the lots in a proposed subdivision are suitable
for onsite sewage treatment systems .
Review of Planning Case No. 86-31 Page 2 of 13
This report will discuss important criteria to consider
for the development of a lot with individual sewage
treatment systems , such as orientation of soil absorption
units , area necessary for construction of mounds and houses ,
location of mounds with respect to low areas and
drainageways , location of water supply well , accessibility
of onsite sewage treatment system for future maintenance ,
future accessibility of proposed secondary site for soil
absorption unit , and effect of nursery operation on the
suitability of soils for onsite sewage treatment .
Steve Kirchman, City of Chanhassen Building Official ,
made a lot by lot analysis of the present proposed
subdivision . He evaluated orientation of soil absorption
units with respect to land slope and drainageways , location
of improvements , total area required , etc . In addition,
water supply wells need to be located so that they are
adequately separated from all soil absorption sites , both
primary and secondary , and those sites that exist or may be
needed on abutting lots . After a careful review of the lot
by lot comments made by Steve Kirchman, we concur with his
analysis that based on the submitted information there is
inadequate area for individual onsite sewage treatment
systems as presented on the proposed plat . There are other
factors which are equally important , leading to the
conclusion that none of the lots as presented in the
proposed plat are suitable . This report will discuss some
of the important issues which must be resolved before each
lot , and subsequently a subdivision, can be approved .
2 . Size of area needed for sewage treatment system
Each lot must have an adequate and suitable area
available for two soil absorption units of the onsite sewage
treatment system. Two areas are required for the onsite
soil absorption unit for a number of reasons . If the
location of the lot is such that onsite sewage treatment
Review of Planning Case No . 86-31 Page 3 of 13
will continue to be used , then there is a need to have two
areas available for the soil treatment unit . Occasionally
the primary site is destroyed in the process of developing a
lot . Unless a secondary site is available , there is little
recourse but to haul the generated sewage off the lot , at
great expense . In today ' s housing market , large houses are
being constructed which will likely generate daily sewage
flows greater than the amounts upon which the historic water
use data and design factors are based . When the actual
daily sewage flow is greater than the design flow, there
will be hydraulic overloading of the soil absorption unit .
The alternate area allows for expansion of the soil
absorption unit in order to treat the extra flow of sewage.
Today ' s water-using devices are quite different in many
respects from the basic water-using appliances upon which
the design flows were determined . Hot tubs and Jacuzzis
discharge large quantities of water in short periods of
time . Such rapid discharges into a septic tank can result
in solids being flushed out of the tank into the soil
treatment system. Until the plumbing code reflects the
large water-using devices and the rapid discharges of waste
water which require two or more septic tanks in series , it
is desirable to have an alternate soil absorption area
available in the event of absorption unit failure.
By the size of the homes specified on the proposed
plat , it is assumed that the homes will be at the minimum a
Type I , 4-bedroom which according to Minnesota Rules Chapter
7080 , will generate an estimated average sewage flow of 600
gallons per day . Mottled soils at shallow depths
predominate in the area as shown in the Carver County Soil
Survey and as confirmed by submitted soil boring data . A
review of the soils information from the Carver County Soil
Survey was made in our report of January , 1987 , presented to
the City of Chanhassen. Because of the mottled soils
Review of Planning Case No . 86-31 Page 4 of 13
indicated by the soil boring logs submitted with the
subdivision proposal , each lot must be carefully evaluated
to determine if two suitable sites with adequate separation
are available for the installation of sewage treatment
mounds .
The rock layer in a mound designed to treat 600 gallons
of sewage per day should be 10 feet wide and 50 feet long .
In soils which are seasonally saturated to a depth of one
foot , mound construction must begin with a minimum of two
feet of clean sand at the upslope edge of the rock layer.
The absorption area under the mound required to treat the
liquid flow should be 50 feet wide , 10 feet of which is
under the rock layer . Thus , the downslope dike must be 40
feet wide . The upslope dike should have a slope of 4 to 1
or shallower for maintenance purposes . The height of the
mound at the upslope edge of the rock layer will be four
feet . Thus , the upslope dike will be 13 feet wide before it
contacts the original soil on a 5 percent land slope . The
end slopes of the mound dikes should also be on 4 to 1
slopes and will extend out at least 16 feet at the upslope
edge of the rock layer and 20 feet at the downslope edge of
the rock layer .
The total width of the constructed mound from toe of
upslope dike to toe of downslope dike will be 50 plus 13 or
63 feet on a 5 percent land slope. The total constructed
length of the mound will be 50 plus 20 plus 20 or 90 feet .
In the 1987 review of the proposed subdivision, which
had 2. 5-acre lots , the proposed sites for the soil
absorption units were separated and were not abutting . It
is necessary to have at least a 20-foot separation distance
between the two proposed sites since the construction of one
mound will require construction traffic that would tend to
compact the adjacent soil . Also, if the mound on the
Review of Planning Case No . 86-31 Page 5 of 13
upslope site is constructed first and the secondary site is
used later , it will be virtually impossible to construct the
secondary site because of the proximity of the first mound .
Adding 40 feet to the 63-foot width and to the 90-foot
length dimensions results in a total area of 103 by 130 feet
which should be reserved for each mound and its
construction. This is a total area of 13,390 square feet
for one mound , which is more than one-half the area of the
proposed lots . •
An important provision of Minnesota Rules Chapter 70B0
that should be noted is that mounds must be constructed on
"original soils so that there is at least 36 inches of
separation between the bottom of the drainfield rock layer
and limiting soil characteristics . . . " Original soil is
defined as "naturally occurring inorganic soil that has not
been moved , smeared , compacted , nor manipulated with
construction equipment . " The soil around the periphery of
an installed mound where construction equipment has operated
to install that mound would not meet those criteria .
Many of the two proposed sites for the sewage treatment
systems are located side-by-side along the long axis of the
sites . While this arrangement apparently has been presented
to meet the alternate site requirement , it will be
impossible to construct a mound on the primary site without
adversely affecting the soils on the secondary site . Thus ,
two abutting areas do not provide an adequate secondary site
for the onsite sewage treatment system. Also, the proposed
sites are not large enough for the size mounds that will
likely be constructed .
3 . Orientation and location of mound sites
The long dimension (axis ) of the mound must be located
approximately parallel to the existing ground contour lines .
The purpose is to spread the effluent along the slope . The
Review of Planning Case No. 86-31 Page 6 of 13
effluent percolates downward into the soil and down the
E,lnpe of the original sail . Pressure distribution of
effluent in the rock layer assures that the length of the
rock layer will be uniformly loaded . With the long axis
parallel to the original ground slope, the percolating
liquid will not accumulate in greater volume than the
loading rate . Conversely , mounds constructed with their
long axis perpendicular to the original ground slope will
allow accumulation of percolating liquid along the length of
the mound resulting in mound failure.
The mound must be located on natural soils and on
slopes not exceeding 12 percent . Absolutely no grading to
modify the natural slope can be done prior to mound
construction . A mound can be located on a soil having as
little as 1 foot cf unsaturated soil . Such soil requires a
2-foot depth of clean sand prior to placement of the
drainfield rock layer .
Mounds must rot be located in low areas subject to
flooding or in natural swales or drainageways . It is
important that the site for the sewage treatment system not
be located in areas where runoff water collects since excess
surface water will interfere with the hydraulic performance .
Therefore , sewage systems cannot be located in drainageways ,
depressions or in other low areas of the landscape that
collect or concentrate water . The natural collection of
water flowing to the center of a drainageway will cause the
mound to fail hydraulically .
4 . Accessibility of sewage system for service
Septic tanks must be accessible for cleaning and
possibly other service. The pump tank must also be
accessible for maintenance and service. If a septic tank or
pump tank need to 5e replaced , a backhoe would be needed for
Review of Planning Case No. 86-31 Page 7 of 13
excavation and a large truck would be needed to transport
the new tank to the location.
No other improvements on the lot such as the house, the
sewage treatment mound , or other buildings can be
constructed and located so as to block access to the septic
tanks and the pump tank .
Both the primary and secondary sites must , of course ,
be accessible for construction of sewage treatment mounds . •
This accessibility must be maintained in the future for the
second site against encroachment by any other lot
improvements .
A lot is likely to need a yard living area for family
activities and green space . The area reserved for the
secondary site for the soil absorption unit can be utilized
as lawn area but must be reserved for replacement of the
soil absorption unit . This alternate area must have
suitable soil , must be adequately separated from the water
supply well , and must not be used as the location for any
other improvements or structures on the lot .
5 . Water supply well location
The water supply well must be located at least 50 feet
from any part of the sewage treatment system such as the
septic tanks , pump tank and absorption area of the mound .
The same 50-foot separation distance must be maintained for
sewage treatment systems on adjacent lots . There will need
to be careful coordination of water supply well locations on
adjacent lots , so that the water well location on one lot
does not eliminate a potential sewage treatment site on an
adjacent lot .
Minnesota Rules Chapter 4725 , Rules Relating to Wells
and Borings states that the water supply well shall be
located at a point of the lot higher than potential sources
Review of Planning Case No . 86-31 Page 8 of 13
of pollution . Wells should not be located in low areas,
swales or drainageways .
The well location must be suitable for the well
drilling rig to operate . The location must remain
accessible in the future for equipment to travel to the well
for maintenance .
6 . Soil and site evaluation
Soil boring data must be collected from the actual
sites which are proposed for the location of the primary and
secondary mounds . The sites must be accurately located on a
scale map of the :.ot and the soil borings taken within the
areas of the spec :. fied sites . Soil boring data taken at
other locations on a lot are not suitable to evaluate the
suitability of sites . The number of soil borings needed for
each site proposed for the soil absorption unit will vary
depending on the soil and the prior activities on that site .
Sufficient borings must be taken to assure that the soil
over the entire absorption area of the mound has original
characteristics and has sufficient permeability to allow
liquid to percolate downward .
Mound design and construction specifications are based
on original , undisturbed soil . Original soil is defined in
Chapter 7080 .0020 , Subp . 24c as "naturally occurring
inorganic soil that has not been moved , smeared , compacted ,
nor manipulated with construction equipment . " Any soil
which has been smeared or compacted by any type of
construction activity likely will not be suitable for the
location of a sewage treatment mound .
If borings indicate soil compaction, percolation tests
must be performed at a depth of 12 inches to determine if
the percolation rate at that depth is faster than 60 minutes
per inch .
Review of Planning Case No. 86-31 Page 9 of 13
7 . Nursery operation activities and effect on soils
All sizing criteria for soil absorption units are based
on the assumption that the soils are in their natural state
when septic tank effluent is applied . To the extent that
nursery activities have disturbed the soils will determine
whether an area remains suitable for the installation of the
soil absorption unit .
The operation of a nursery may have much more
concentrated equipment and machinery travel than a farm
field where crops such as corn, soybeans , hay, etc . , are
grown and harvested . If the soil profile to a depth of one
to two feet has been graded , windrowed , or removed , that
location likely is not suitable for the installation of a
sewage treatment mound .
Areas where original soil has been removed and replaced
by tree transplanting activities likely will not be suitable
for the installation of a sewage treatment mound .
Transplanting sizable trees requires that a considerable
ball of soil be removed with the root system . The weight of
the soil and the tree will be on the wheels of the
equipment . This weight will cause soil compaction,
particularly if the soil is fine textured such as a clay
loam and if the soil is relatively wet .
Sandy soils have very little structure and poor
construction practices often do not have major effects on
that soil ' s ability to absorb liquid . The same is not true
of loam and clay loam soils . For example , construction and
equipment traffic can cause severe compaction of a loam or
clay loam soil . To illustrate the effect of vehicle
traffic , a study was recently made by the Minnesota Onsite
Sewage Treatment Contractors ' Association on a loam soil
with a percolation rate of 6. 3 minutes per inch in the upper
12 inches of soil . After four passes with a single axle
Review of Planning Case No . 86-31 Page 10 of 13
truck loaded with 5 cubic yards of sand , the same soil
showed a percolat :.on rate of 53 minutes per inch at the
12-inch depth . I .' a clay loam soil with an original
percolation rate in the 46 to 60 minutes per inch range were
subjected to similar traffic , the result would likely be a
soil unsuitable for the installation of a soil absorption
unit . Also , most construction traffic is considerably
heavier than the loads used in this study . If there is only
one site available for the soil absorption unit and this is
ruined by improper construction activities , a serious
economic burden will be placed upon the lot owner . An
alternate site being available is a necessary insurance
policy .
Areas which have been used for the storage and
stockpiling of nursery materials such as soil , rock ,
landscaping timbers , etc . , may also have compacted soil .
The vehicular traffic to bring the materials to the site
would have compacted the soil . The vehicular traffic to
remove amounts of the stored materials would also cause soil
compaction .
If there has been heavy vehicular traffic as in field
roads or around existing buildings , these areas likely will
not be suitable fcr the installation of soil absorption
units . The field roads of the nursery and other areas with
heavy traffic will likely have severely compacted soils .
Such locations can not be used as proposed sites for the
sewage treatment mounds because the compacted soils have a
severely reduced soil permeability . Severity and depth of
compaction depend upon the soil texture and the moisture
content at the time of compaction. If the traffic was more
or less continuous , then it is almost certain that the
moisture content of the soil was such that maximum
compaction occurred at some time during the traffic
activity . Soil borings should be made to determine the
Review of Planning Case No . 86-31 Page 11 of 13
amount of compaction as well as soil texture and color . A
detailed site investigation must be made of each proposed
site , both primary and secondary, to determine if the soil
is original and is suitable for the installation of a sewage
treatment mound .
Construction of shallow drainageways needed for the
operation of the nursery will also impact the suitability of
specific sites . Drainageways that direct or concentrate
water in certain areas of the proposed subdivision may
render those areas unsuitable due to the presence of excess
water . In those areas where the actual drainageways were
cgnetructed , the original soil structure may have been
destroyed by compaction and smearing eA that the pail w414
n+Rt ,dirept tarIP effluent as required by the State
Standards .
It has been reported that one nursery operation is to
draw a device through the soil at a 3-foot depth to prune
the roots of trees . This operation could also provide
channels for the movement of soil water . Should such a
channel lead from an upslope area into a mound , the downhill
movement of soil water through this channel would likely
cause the mound to fail at an early date. The locations of
the use of the root pruning device should be delineated on
the proposed plat of the subdivision.
8 . Area required for house construction
House sizes have been shown on the maps of the proposed
subdivision. Some are 60 by 60 feet , 50 by 70 feet , etc .
Of concern is the amount of construction area needed to
build houses of this size . This question was posed to a
building official and to a contractor. Both responded that
at least an additional 30 feet is needed on all sides of the
house under construction for the soil spoil bank , temporary
lumber storage , access roads for the cement trucks , parking
Review of Planning Case No . 86-31 Page 12 of 13
for construction workers , etc . And none of the area used
for construction activities on the house can be used for the
soil absorption unit of the onsite sewage system. The area
for the 60 by 60 house becomes 120 feet by 120 feet or
14 ,400 square feet . This is about half of the total area of
many of the proposed lots .
9 . Additional considerations
After the preliminary plat is approved , there will be
considerable earth moving involved with the construction of
streets and the surface drainage system. Design criteria
for construction of onsite sewage treatment systems are
based on the use of the natural undisturbed soil profile.
If a site is graded , compacted or smeared , it is not
suitable for the installation of the soil absorption unit of
the onsite treatment system . Therefore , it is important
that the sites established are in areas that will remain
undisturbed during any other construction activities . They
should be clearly marked and protected . _
When an area is to be subdivided into lots, soil
borings should be made in selected locations prior to any
lot lines being drawn. Soil borings should be used to
complement existing soil survey information. Also, a field
inspection of the area should note any severely compacted
sites , low areas , drainageways , excavations , etc . Only
after the soil texture and all of the physical features are
noted and evaluated , should the proposed lot lines be drawn
and then in such a manner that each lot has two separate
areas of original soil suitable for the installation of
either a trench system or a mound system for the soil
absorption unit . This procedure is particularly critical
when dealing with a proposed plat which has had many
activities which could have changed or damaged the original
soil characteristics . Drawing lot lines without benefit of
Review of Planning Case No . 86-31 Page 13 of 13
this information often raises unrealistic expectations for
the number of lots that will be suitable.
Some of the sites on a lot which may be judged to be
suitable for the installation of an onsite soil treatment
unit might conflict with the desires of a potential
purchaser as the prime building site. This situation will
need to be reconciled at the time of lot purchase and
certainly no later than the issuance of a building permit .
A point to note here is that no permits should be issued for
any construction on any lot until a scale map of the lot has
been submitted showing the two suitable sites for the sewage
treatment system, the proposed site for the house and other
improvements , and the site for the water supply well .
1 � i
CITYOF -
iCHANHASSEN
r 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal —
DATE: July 22, 1994
SUBJ: Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates - Planning Case 86-31 S.U.B.
I have reviewed the submitted preliminary plot for Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates and made
the following comments: —
1. The turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be designed; shown on site plan;
and, approved by the Chanhassen Engineering and Fire Department. —
2. Dead end access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with Chanhassen
Engineering and Fire Department approved provisions for the turning around of fire
apparatus.
3. Fire apparatus access road shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads
of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving
capabilities. The road shall be in place prior to construction of new dwellings. This _
applies to homes which are in excess of 150 feet of State Hwy 101.
4. Street names:
a. Maple Court is not acceptable. The City already has 5 streets with "Maple" in the
name.
b. The street between Hwy 101 and County Road 14 is named both Birch Drive and
Halla Nursery Vista. The street must have only one name. Eliminate Halla Vista
Drive. —
c. Rename "Golf View Circle". Submit alternative name.
g:'safetyknf halagolf.p1r
,---/
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ t ei qX
./aei
_,, eu-t-rt.-.crijA41.44.4.44;,..___ RECEIVED
JUL 2 5 1994
- __. . C,t'4.1-1 y _.C.-6._ „.4.44411,-/-442.4.,
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
)161-44-0'Nce-(r+.:1
__17.:24- 44.1 , • • - - _Ge-ee
€ r .., / ----- J i
_
,...e___..4f...a.,..e.....47- _,_s _‘ .4_. , .,-. .7.4., Aet.A/4_
...0--e141_,e Val-tie{ C.e.41 Ci - - ' 7:"._ ' - --
..C-itni e-4114-1(4-' cc--- c- -
_ ____ % 2- al Gt.e+,4._eJy. . 4v,i)i9 6--ci..1-7...gv•--e t/ea.4'4e
tr-r- , _.4., ,.o ri Als...4.4ae ,...4„.„4,-
C 4_>j- AL A 424 4.(4 ‹ - q' t--t-4( e-A4 '4(--'e4 1 7j—C'd 1
/ 7-4,:::, /610.,4)
., , r...sr .4_4,47:_eze,,,iO4.4.4.4-
• 4„,( 4_e...i.-- v ec.,,:,a....tc-ceilite):_, '_)17 / c.le.,--7..--14-&-tp,k 70
4 es.--44.7 . D),I__
/ 4
_ _ _ / ,, e( , _, "77_de ie.,-Y-9-f4-4,e-te.1:,
__
7..Z.,
r1 —‘44,44.(A.4
— _ NI. . (‘_,5 -e
GC) (4-44-- CeliC-e--/".._114. 41--e-orLe‘st--a-/ ____eto4_,44 ,13.4•Pea_—.11*--te`
z....._ _ __
_ __ __ ) 6c-c-i...ez,f, i- __4;4_ - -_- -____ ___ ,___14_44 -e-e.,
....Wi, ec-e .
,er___tx
C(‘-k-x2 e.tio70-_e(.44)_s/-e - _ Ierr i4r_7_0^4- .4.2_4- __77.74-4-s--%
_ _
_ I —
---fr- .1,1_f ''J-,074 -._.../ 4-c. 5.__ u:i el../.....ef- ,,,,, i-4-t 0-, -
"L_,f-- . z., ,;J
/ 14,- ,e,,,,,,e2t.„...,..,.."-- ...4_ a
ceeea
o ` :e 74t VI oma-1(4..1.44h /LI-t-
441-"<.'1"-c( b ri-ti-i/-:) .a-v., cc/9.a...c,c;‘,,a- 114;./J 4.-e-c-e,
a D . 244 4 / r/ t.7 -t
D
IA724-c-z_. ca,,Az,e,17 "_-{Aipze u.._. e6,..tizie_wo.4j r
t.A,-,41._e_e:4.1
74)...(- 74z...._.e 1)_--cle-uhkii A-Cet-4-6-t-a- _
6W' ‘f/e'l&r /r
.4,40_0
-i--b.44-4-4 —r,--:7 -4 7104-04_
3 . �: r o-�- 4-� •:74.) ai €<_
S. /,C'/4-ss; c e-cke_g-4,...7 - i.c.,,,/r.- - ... - Xs&-u.. 0>-/ 4, /0,
L - C -f6 ‹.r..� ,tee .:„ 7
ewe v -c 4- - 6.41,4,'‘,41.4-- de_v- 11 .c.i- C, /- /-e 4-e---,.t
o--L-q X-a--c f 1, a-c7 .e_.�C-c •
7- C° Cc • O -# -di a.„4. L& if-LQ c( - -�
/iu C-n_.c-e--4-c c.:-L- /.t-,t• .e.. Lk) v•-•c.44-- cc�.&e 5
C-2._) • -- e''a t cn-, ,L-4-- /
1-
I, -
)^..-e c..�-� ,`mac 7 -0C 1— n--e ,1-0 14 c
1' , Tr /4 ; - -51.4..ii-.ev.-c ii-la At4-t--1,`
trt' 4-A f-. .,• Cer' .1f .A2-ez-54:7 4-'14,We--ge_ __ io - / __ ,4-24, -175i-c--(
"4- --v;,÷4- .2.—ed.4,7 6-&-iti --itt-az-f-- ---4 4,---4
(e.c2-ei a d-e v-c.< ,c-e-iia r-4i -c-•-r-* 4_3.e _--74-4--1- 4_a-�-e.._
1,L-64---,( , j 1--C :e-rxe &-r--, 2 72- tcG/`.-( ct-. 4-e,Q
114-c4.4a--- itAt4i-0 2._ -:-.4-4/)74`c i-e--ecr 0•,%--?.. cg ex-iL:1-.
_.2.
c't 6--cc cam-- —er c.c-1 GA-i-e2-r-I e z(--6.....
U
_ 3 _
6 (4,24- etz-(J-eL-46, `0)^1-V-t.
- ...�-moi - 1/`.,� �1'..Q .._�?T .44)49/.4
4
_ _ __die ./414/44.ceea'
- `amu cz#,.o - -'' a __
f -
04/--0/
-- -- -- ----- -
I� . J- ge..c �' - -� -{ /_-ct / `f
a, - 2 a-g-ck
r_p �vt ��t-i I ►�—�-� [Cayt lk�.t t�
/ Z . L.�/_� -��Y�•►^--c. - —Y� 'd
7Z .
- - - - - - - - LcNelc' _.. _
........._ 0-6--- 44 :_ --:-...j e.4...,...,.,..4(--_€.
,*e_e__ -_ _
7
_ _ . e.,_tv . ,..i_ z4,,, _,-/--,,,-,....,. _—_,-7-4_, __4,4„,-.0: „iv, 7-p-
,,,-
:ike"_ _,12.,;_d _,,,...(_,<.--e_ .-,-;,,
__ ` ) 17 o __L-�.�._ ci_ .1_ e,_s -
4,- .. Lei % 2 / i'. a-,-v±- ,.. AL.. a.t-z.4_.Q-,^.,_
L ) 4 . (.G-e� c� _4 - �-v_ �sr� _
'.. %2i9-- _A-%-oc- -4.7 _,---d 1-4:f1— i---c...0--(:e Li,x, __ _ a-ry
_ , . f cf---Gg \:,‘ .Acz_te._,.g-e 4F / --? 4
n,, - t '
- 7 j a-4� .Gee c..",/ � ,-- _. ._. ._ ' '
‘.., 6.,44.,6.e,....,,,
e__Ata -
ge_ee.e( ..--#2-7a-/-7 c_ cs--t. co-e-1-, -e--"0 .
— 1-1-- ---1(-`- .- 4.__ .4"/`kr, _...& X -4-7 .4-0-g-4,17 _ A___,./t.a. ,tie_,_.a)A _ crt_.c.7
_ ��t-c-w S,..t-•4-ie 9--7-----e..4__! - - c --4/a/`-,O eO lei/
- lc i Gc.1,—r-' ei,J 7 .6 4.-r-c mar Ger
.<--i 02.2-1 2 /0 / r -
-
_Xle-r-_c_.8,4--el- a.4.- 724..e ..e-- A--fie moi"-?st-- 1) ' //_ ''
-- \I ��-Q v..0 . - ..Q--!`_'�.- '> 74- [__.
—_-- -- - - - - w
_ _ _ tL CL- e i4 kA0 744-# 'IC44'414;1 C.efrK.44 41 .>04 _ cet v
Air
- 4- 1- a,�.�_1 , 4 ,____\j �-GQ-d__
___ 4;4 el_. -/-1_C f 1__-ez.A.__ _Ci9L-e4ei_g.e _1 I_____I-4!_ --4-61-e.(
_____ _ t---e,
c ; _ ,_- - -'1,-. _ ---
_ _i-,,__E____e _ /( .K_ _,f,:(__ _ .si-ri _ _az-i.45,--.- ____Mter2- --/LO2.-...av,
___ _ t-a ,1-e-c--1t-4.1--e .,..c-,4-v v,._ _ag-ic ___Ape-e.),,.,__ itt..9.4,--_._11. -----e-a-ev
__ _____ er) A ; 4
Aar A , iltc-i€A
a r / Cc-t,c.c? list £.La (A`/ itY4
/44. N:zAQ 24 �-cJ6 SSS• �.
eje;164-4-11 eA.e.t.4
f -
(- )
- .; w `7� off,. r�' ,�i4 ,
3
CITY 0 F
CHANHASSEN
10.40141- 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
_ TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Bob Generous, Planner II
DATE: July 25, 1995
SUBJ: Ordinance Revision, Section 20-1181, Vehicular Areas, Interior Landscaping
BACKGROUND
In November, 1994, the City amended the parking lot ordinance to require the dispersion of
trees within the interior of a parking lot, the so called "Target" standard. In reviewing the
West Village Center (Byerly's) project, the City tried to develop an objective way to
distribute trees within the interior of the parking lot. Staff has prepared a revision to the
ordinance which, we believe, more clearly articulates the desire of the city, yet simplifies the
ordinance.
Included is a sketch of one way for the ordinance to be addressed. Additionally, landscape
islands or peninsulas could be located at the intersection of a 6,000 square foot areas. While
providing objective review standards, the ordinance still permits flexibility in site design.
Additionally, we have reviewed this ordinance based on the "Byerly's" landscaping plan and
have determined that the ordinance language was met in their plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the ordinance revision
for section 20-1181 (b) (4) specifying the dispersion of interior parking lot landscaping
islands, peninsulas, and boulevards."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Revised Ordinance
2. Chanhassen City Code Section 20-1181
3. Byerly's Landscaping Plan
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE,
CONCERNING VEHICLE AREA LANDSCAPING STANDARDS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 20-1181 (b) (4) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to
read:
Sec. 20-1181. Vehicular areas.
(b) Interior landscaping for vehicular use areas:
(4) In order to encourage the required landscape area to be properly dispersed,
a minimum of one (1) peninsular, island, or boulevard type landscaped area
shall be located within each six thousand (6,000) square feet of vehicular use
area.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately following its passage and
publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1994, by the City
Council of the City of Chanhassen.
A'1-1LST:
Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
g.,fun'bgvkg 111
6.000 6.000 ; 6.000
el, I
4110
• r—
Sip 6.000 6.000 6.000
ie
igg
6.000 6.000 6.000
IIJ 11tI4D' l it 11111 :
§ 20-1180 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(b) The following uses shall be screened in accordance with the requirements of this
subdivision:
(1) Principal buildings and structures and any building or structure accessory thereto
located in any business, industrial or planned unit development district containing
nonresidential uses shall be buffered from lots used for any residential purpose.
(2) Principal buildings and structures and any building or structure accessory thereto
located in any R4, R8, R12, R16 district or planned unit development district con-
taining residential development at densities exceeding four(4) units per acre shall be
screened from lots located in any Al, A2, RR or RSF district.
13: Additional buffer yard requirements are established by the city comprehensive plan
and listed in individual district standards.
(41 Outside storage in any district subject to these provisions and allowed by other pro-
visions of this ordinance, shall be screened from all public views.
(Ord. No. 153, § 1, 11-4-91; Ord. No. 195, § 1, 11-11-93)
Sec. 20.1181. Vehicular areas.
a When parking lot perimeters where vehicular areas, including driveways and drive
aisles. are not entirely screened visually by an intervening building or structure or land mass
from any abutting right-of-way, there shall be provided landscaping designed to buffer direct
views of cars and hard surface areas. The landscaping must break up expanses of hard surface
areas, help to visually define boulevards and soften direct views of parking areas and provide
for reforestation with overstory tree from the approved tree species list identified for parking
or other species as approved by city staff. All new planting areas must have an irrigation
system installed. Publicly owned and operated parking lots used for long duration parking
may be exempt from this requirement when there is a demonstrated concern regarding secu-
rity safety.
, Y I ! I
EI
1916 • � � rT li"I
(b) Interior landscaping for vehicular use areas:
(lj Any open vehicular use areas containing more than six thousand (6,000) square feet
of area, or twenty (20) or more vehicular parking spaces, shall provide interior land-
scaping in accordance with this division in addition to "perimeter" landscaping.
Interior landscaping may be peninsular or island types. Landscaped area shall in-
No
n-No 6 1256
ZONING § 20-1182
elude all parking lot and drive islands and perimeter green spaces. Required setback
areas shall be excluded.
2 For each one hundred (100) square feet, or fraction thereof, of vehicular use area,
eight (8) square feet of landscaped area shall be provided.
(3) The minimum landscape area permitted shall be two hundred (200) square feet, with
a six-foot minimum dimension to all trees from edge of pavement where vehicles
overhang and a four-foot minimum dimension to all trees where vehicles do not
overhang.
(4) In order to encourage the required landscape areas to be properly dispersed, no re-
quired landscape area shall be larger than seven hundred twenty (720) square feet in
vehicular use areas under thirty thousand (30,000) square feet, unless there is a tree
preservation area. In both cases, the least dimension of any required area shall be
four-foot minimum dimension to all trees from edge of pavement where vehicles
overhang. Landscape areas larger than above are permitted as long as the additional
areas are in excess of the required minimum.
(5) A minimum of one (1) tree shall be required for each two hundred fifty (250) square
feet or fraction thereof, of required landscape area. Trees shall have a clear trunk of
at least five (5) feet above the ground, and the remaining area shall be landscaped
with shrubs, or ground cover(not to include rocks or gravel except as a mulch around
shrubs and ground cover), not to exceed two (2) feet in height.
(6) Reserved.
(7) All landscaped areas shall be protected by concrete curbing.
(8) All landscaping area shall have the proper soil preparation to ensure the viability of
the vegetation to survive. The landscaping plan shall provide specifications for proper
soil preparation.
(Ord. No. 153, § 1, 114-91; Ord. No. 195, § 2, 11-11-93) —
Sec. 20.1182. Foundation and aesthetic plantings.
(a) Landscaping plans shall provide for an appropriate mix of plantings around the exte-
rior footprint of all buildings. The intent of this section is to improve the appearance of the
structures and, where necessary, break up large unadorned building elevations. These plant-
ings are not intended to obscure views of the building or accessory signage.
rb; All undeveloped areas of the site, excluding protected wetlands and tree preservation
areas, shall be seeded or sodded. In addition, an appropriate mix of trees and other plant
material shall be provided to create an aesthetically pleasing site.
(c) Where undeveloped or open areas of a site are located adjacent to public right-of-way,
the plan shall provide for over-story boulevard trees.A minimum of one(1)tree for every thirty
(30 feet of frontage is required. The city may approve alternatives if it meets the intent of the
ordinance.
(Ord. No. 153, § 1, 11-4-91)
Supp. No. 6 1257
II1III 1IIIIILi "o
li t o° n d:. 1 1111.11 . s
(
a'r�
o
f "4.
N
iiiiiWN+ .. v
0 N -11) .
��������dIEFr _ • L A 1
..
•:cam \
T o o . JJ�I�I' `jj
• CD ..f., •
. c...4.10_,) ..... .... .... „ .. it, .. I deb' ii!
i-c.„) ; ( -`]Q j_`�\, ' •ill I.
...
c..
, .
jj`� I fff ! O `E 4.o /r
1 44111. 11
' _—...— —4—...—.— ..4_ .4s,
Ilivz� • . I D
0I
_ ..
g �oe� .
R oc,
p iv law e .
• gas
1o,..
.t.,..,
, •
0o
•
iti
` s o u fill I..
I
':'•44
07:-..: ; — orr
44:
m a. 0 0 •
I40 v aseo
'� e•4t `
-mien — .!!.6 ��, r — 44.00. , •
+® r� Z Lt o
rn IT o.
Ill
1...)
3
4 r • n i•
_i. _
_ .
, ,.,
, _
I 11) F , x
rn
II ;Zot: c? 0 ' I
1
• yI 0 4--
,,,.:
tip 0
0aP ® • rym 1 7.13 6e� W; ; .V. I •i LI SII I I fs..s..0...,
v o 1 z
Co 01 I, m
*oil,
- i
—I x m=I� o � I. • ),
cr) "frderw I. eakes".710
. ...,..- - .....m....... .E.:
. m L, de ,
,,, 74 45.1 1
g 0,
ilip 1
Qvl• • •. • •
1 fp 7.--
so a4! ' ;a
P +A
r::) -,
- 46
3
Ifit)
_ � .
e_...__...g
,...,
‘..../r- SI
'+ 10
I •-rcec+e . • 2CL
-- �e. '11111111111111 .
S
1
ar�
. _ 2$*IGH S00DED BERM p l MUM= 3 MGN -.DDED
'pi � oO '
4; m�:. t x . k*.21=ilowo
OOv \mrs 24 3 <
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 20, 1994
Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino, Jeff Farmakes, Matt Ledvina, Diane
Harberts, Ron Nutting and Ladd Conrad
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II; Elliott
— Knetsch; City Attorney; and Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator
— ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR DETACHED STRUCTURE ON LOT 4, BLOCK 1t
WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS 2ND ADDITION.
— Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Good. Are there any questions or comments for staff on this particular item? Hearing
— none, could I have a motion please.
Mancino: I move that we open the public hearing.
Scott: There's no public hearing. I should have been more specific. I could make a
suggestion. If there are no questions or comments for staff, if someone would like to take
—
staff's recommendation and turn it into a motion, I would appreciate it. Would you like to
try it again.
Harberts: I'll move that the Planning Commission adopt a motion approving the architectural
detailing incorporated in the detached commercial/office building being developed as part of
the West Village Center.
Conrad: I second that.
Scott: Good. It's moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
_ Mancino: Yes. The only question that I have for staff is, one of the things we have talked
about having to do with the sign ordinance is we need, when I see windows architecturally
like this, and I believe that they have an architectural significance to this building, I want to
— ask the applicant if they are going to be windows. That means that you can look in and out
of them. And that no structures, as in furniture, any kind of structure will be placed on the
inside of the windows to obstruct looking in and out.
Scott: Mr. James.
1
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Charlie James: I'm not sure I understand.
Mancino: Do you understand the question?
Charlie James: Are you talking, are you saying is there going to be vandalized?
Mancino: Well is it going to be clear glass looking in and out. What I think of some
buildings that have windows that I have seen lately on the inside of the structure blocking the
window like the back of a shelf that takes up the entire window so it's not really a window —
anymore. It's just a piece of glass you don't see in and out of. You know people may have
displays, the back of a display obstructing the, what one thinks of as a window and why it is
there architecturally. —
Charlie James: Well, the best I can recollect the floor plan that was submitted to us from
California, all the room partitions would meet on podiums so that there's an interior town or I —
mean an interior wall. That wall would abut these areas where there is a pilaster coming
down so. And there is a, we come in so many feet and there's a counter in the center. I'm
not aware of anything that's in front of the windows. This area up here is going to be a —
radius window. It's not detailed in on the drawing that was provided to you but it's one of
those ones with the, it looks like a setting sun up here. That is spanoglass because that's
above the ceiling. In other words, if you look at this drawing, that can't be glass because if —
you're looking into the guts of the building, of the bar joist and so above the door entry here,
this will be what they call spanoglass which is a glass that is fit to put as close as possible
like west in the windows only it has a coating on the back of it so when you see these mirror
buildings around town that are all glass, like Northland Glass on France and 20th, that's a
combination of vision glass and what they call spanoglass. There would have been, you
know I think the concern that you are expressing, I think would have been a problem had
there been more glass all the way around the building but we've tried to pick up that same
motif with the same size recess and it doesn't come off very good on that drawing but you —
can, if you want to pass these around. This is what we just basically picked up that same.
Scott: Oh, it's just real similar to the brick work on the Byerly's store for the insets on the _
east and west elevations.
Mancino: Okay. That's all, thank you. That kind of answers my question on the windows _
and how they're treated architecturally. When the occupants move in, that those windows
will stay intact looking in and out as windows are to. Your landscape plan on the west side,
I was concerned a little bit about your west elevation because of the, there's some detailing --
there but it looks like the landscape plan looks like it will help that wall. I wanted to have a
look staff at what it would look like from Powers Boulevard looking east and I can see that
2
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
they've done some good massing on that west side so I feel real comfortable. That's all my
questions.
Scott: Good, any other discussion? If there's no more discussion, I'd like to have a vote on
the question.
Harberts moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission approve the
architectural detailing incorporated in the detached commercial/office building being
developed as part of the West Village Center. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW SCREENED OUTDOOR STORAGE IN
THE BF, FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 10500 GREAT PLAINS
BOULEVARD, ADMIRAL WASTE MANAGEMENT.
Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Any questions or comments for staff? Okay, any discussion?
Conrad: Well yeah. We went from a request of 40 some dumpsters up to 100. We went
from 58 dumpsters up to whatever.
Mancino: 140.
Conrad: And staff agrees. Because why?
Al-Jaff: Originally it wasn't specified how many they wanted on the site so basically what
we did was we went out and we counted how many dumpsters were there and we said... A
letter came from the applicant requesting 140 so staff discussed this issue and we made the
recommendation that as long as there is screening of those. As long as the screening works,
then it would be.
Conrad: Okay. Shielding 58 is different than shielding 140 or whatever that number is so.
Well, I still haven't seen a plan that shows me how it's done so I guess I'm, I think we could
pass it along. But on the other hand our duty is to see it first and then pass our
recommendations of the plan to the City Council and I still don't see a plan that's acceptable.
So I guess I would have to recommend that we table this item until we see a plan that works.
Mancino: What do you want to see in the plan Ladd?
3
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Conrad: I don't know, just something that staff feels comfortable with. It'd be really easy
for us to pass it along and just say hey, yeah it looks like a good plan but I think we just owe
it, or we're owed a good plan that staff makes a positive recommendation on.
Mancino: Yeah, I'd actually like to see in the plan where the 140 are. You know layout
where they would be on the plan.
Conrad: Yeah. It's not that this is a bad use. You know if it's screened, this could be a
good use for the parcel. I don't have a problem with the use as long as there's some wording
in the recommendation that I think has to be changed a little bit to make sure that we really
don't have storage in the dumpsters. The applicant said there's no refuse or whatever but I
really would want to make sure that that was specified in our language. But again, it's —
probably an acceptable, as long as the traffic and noise is handled, it's probably an acceptable
use for that. But again, we need a plan that we can see that staff has shown us works.
Scott: Okay, any other questions or comments? Okay. Can I have a motion please?
Conrad: I would move that we table this particular item, the interim use permit to provide
outdoor storage for commercial dumpsters per the staff report. I would have it tabled until
the applicant and staff can present a screening plan that meets staff's requirements.
Scott: Okay. Is there a second?
Mancino: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table the item. Is there any discussion?
Ledvina: Yes. I also think that we should know specifically where the dumpsters are going
to be stored on site. It's a rather large site so we, I need to know what space 150 dumpsters
occupies and then that those dumpsters are going to be screened. So I think just to, I think
you said that but just to also know where those dumpsters are being stored.
Mancino: Yeah. I have a question on that. We're asking for screening right now and I
mean one of the only ways we'll get it is to get either a perspective drawing or something
perspectively that we're on TH 212 and either they're going to berm or not and then how, if
we're going to see 42 trees there, how tall are the trees. And if the trees are 6 feet tall, the
span of a 6 foot tall spruce is going to be 4 feet. So if you only have 42 trees, I mean how
much screening is that going to be if it's 6 feet tall? So we need to know the height and if
we're talking about screening all year, or complete screening, we're going to have to know
how tall the trees are and what the span is.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Scott: And then bearing in mind that there's a 20 foot change in elevation over the area
where they could be potentially stored so.
Ledvina: The criteria though for screening is from the highway 212. That's what we're
talking about. Okay.
Scott: Yeah.
Mancino: And there may even need to be a little bit of berming to help in that height
because the trees will start out at 6 feet and it really won't do it. And it takes them about a
couple years to really start growing. So and then they'll start after 2 years growing about a
foot a year. But the most screening you'll get from a coniferous tree is about 15 feet wide. I
mean it grows 15 to 20 is the widest and that's after 25 years. So I mean there needs to be
some calculations and looking at it.
Scott: Any other comments or questions?
Al-Jaff: Mr. Chairman?
Scott: Yes.
Al-Jaff: Do you have any comments regarding...
Ledvina: The time line. The term of the permit. Are we talking about 15 years? Or MUSA
line extension, whichever comes later. What?
Al-Jaff: We're recommending that it be 10 years or until the MUSA.
Ledvina: Whichever comes first.
Al-Jaff: Correct. The applicant is requesting that that be changed to whichever comes later.
We're also recommending that the applicant be permitted to request an extension for interim
use permit prior to it's expiration.
Conrad: Are there a lot of costs in developing this property to the point where it can take the
_ dumpsters? Are we imposing a lot of financial hardship? Are we imposing a lot of financial
tasks that appear unreasonable? Have we asked for paving?
Al-Jaff: Paving of the property?
5
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Conrad: Again, when you do a 10 year permit, that's a long time. I would do that if I
thought we were imposing some real financial hardships. I think that it's important to get
some security. But I don't know right now that we are. I think we're asking for screening.
Anything else?
Mancino: Well one time the building was. —
Scott: Well that was the original.
Conrad: You know you put a building there, you need the return. You need time to get a
return on that building. Really they need a time period to get a return, right now, on the
screening, which are trees. Which could be 42 trees. Probably more. And I'm not sure that
the 10 years is, if I were them I'd want the 10 years. I'd want to know that there was a
chance for re-issuing the permit and I think we can probably, if they run a good operation,
which I'm sure they would, I think we would renew that. But I'm not sure that the 10 years
is necessary right now. It could be 5.
Ledvina: Yeah, I think we talked about 5 last time. —
Conrad: But again, it's all based on finances. If they have to put a lot of money in, then I'd
say 10. I don't see it so I think 5 looks pretty good. I think the other thing the applicant will —
probably care about is the hours of operation. You know 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 was struck and
now it's 9:00 to 5:00 and 9:00 to 5:00 is not really a commercial type operation so. I would
think that they'd be very nervous about that. Those hours.
Scott: Any other comments?
Mancino: On recommendation number 6. The second sentence. I would just add, only
empty dumpsters may be stored on the site. And I agree with Ladd on the 5 years and hours
of operation. I didn't know that they worked on holidays. Picked up waste on holidays. It's
interesting.
Al-Jaff: I believe this was an item of discussion at the last meeting. It's on page 38 of the
Minutes. And the request was to, page 39. I'm sorry. Top of the page. That the hours be
changed Saturday to.
Conrad: See those are Saturday hours. That may be but not Monday thru Friday. Monday
thru Friday, that's just not reasonable. I think we should leave them with the typical 7:00 to —
6:00.
6
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Al-Jaff: On weekdays and then.
Mancino: 9:00 to 5:00 on Saturdays.
Conrad: 9:00 to 5:00 on Saturday I think is right.
Al-Jaff: Alright. •
Scott: Anything else?
Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to table interim use permit to allow screened outdoor
storage in the BF for Admiral Waste Management. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
_ PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE TO THE BF, FRINGE BUSINESS TO AMEND
BY ADDING ADDITIONAL PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES.
Public Present:
— Name Address
— Verne Severson 675 Lakota Lane
Tim Wise 425 Lakota Lane
Leon & Delores Mesenbrink 250 Flying Cloud Drive
Nancy Lee Admiral Waste Management
Patrick Blood Admiral Waste Management
Jim Sulerud 730 Vogelsberg Trail
Richard Vogel 105 Pioneer Trail
Willard Halver 470 Flying Cloud Drive
Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
_ Scott: Any questions or comments? I just have one. When you're talking about some of
that property being zoned or rezoned to a higher use level, is that something that would come
about due to, first of all the MUSA line being available? And then, we would basically see
what sort of development plans would come in and if it happens to be a PUD, it would be a
PUD. If it happens to be, is it depending upon.
— 7
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 _
Aanenson: Well when urban services become available we would certainly look at a comp
plan amendment and revisit that whole area.
Scott: So the BF could conceivably be a study area if we figured the MUSA line would be,
okay.
Aanenson: ...with urban services available and there were existing uses down there, we'd try
to accommodate them...So certainly we would revisit that whole area.
Scott: So this would be something, for example like what happens to an A2 when services
are available, it becomes a PUD or RSF or something like that? Okay.
Mancino: Or it could be zoned for an existing use, or whatever. I have a question about
permitted uses and mini golf course. Mini golf course is different than a miniature golf
course? —
Scott: Well get your code book out.
Mancino: I was thinking wouldn't a golf course be nice there and then I say, oh but it does
say mini golf course.
Aanenson: That's the definition we have. It's the same thing, yeah.
Mancino: So it's a miniature golf course.
Aanenson: Yes.
Mancino: But what if somebody did want to come in and put a mini 9 hole golf course in?
Could they do that? _
Aanenson: I'm not sure there's enough land in that BF district to do that.
Harberts: Is that park and ride lot inside Chanhassen?
Aanenson: Yes. —
Harberts: What's it zoned then?
Al-Jaff: No, I'm sorry it's zoned A2. Agricultural Estates.
8
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Scott: Any other questions or comments? This is an item with a public hearing and may I
have a motion to open the public hearing please?
Conrad moved, Harberts seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was open.
Scott: If anyone would like to step forward and make comments or ask questions regarding
this particular item, please do so. State your name and your address and have at it. Is there
anyone here, sir please.
Willard Halver: I'm Willard Halver. I live at 470 Flying Cloud Drive. In other words,
Highway 169/212. I've been living there for 35 years and it seems as though we're in a
situation in that area, and that area is important...to preserve and we've got a situation now
where if you want to use that as a conditional uses to the city ordinance and this conditional
uses, in addition to the ordinance, city ordinance would open up a can of worms that I don't
think we're getting into and who would be responsible or control these conditional uses?
There could be a million different things, in fact we got a number of things right in this, in
the area that I am in next door to me that are conditional uses that have been going on for 3-
_ 4 years. And also what is kind of a thing that came to my attention, you use this initials BF.
Is that a connection with Browning Ferris in regard to his Admiral Waste Management?
Scott: No. BF just signifies Business Fringe zoning. So it doesn't have anything to do with
any commercial enterprise.
Willard Halver: I do know that there is an individual that's just waiting for this conditional
use thing to go into effect and he is within oh 2-3 block area that has been controlled by the
City Council and done a good job by keeping under control. But he's just waiting to explode
and come...further sand mining and that would come under this conditional use addition to the
ordinance. I thank you.
Scott: I don't have an answer or comment. Perhaps you might. Sir are you stating that the
people who are operating Moon Valley are planning on purchasing other property to expand
their mining operation? Is that what you're saying?
Willard Halver: Yes. I know it indirectly and almost directly speaking. And this has been
an eyesore in the area for quite a while and it's also a traffic hazard with those big belly
dumps going in and out of there every morning because I'm retired and I sit there and watch
the traffic tied up when they're trying to go in and out of that pit. But the owner I know
from a matter of fact, I got in a round about way, wants to buy all additional property that's
available and some of it is right in my front door. And that's why I am taking the stand I'm
9
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 _
taking because we like it where we live and we've lived there for 35 years and I don't think
somebody can come in and again, they're conditional uses.
Scott: Well let's maybe have our staff talk about that.
Aanenson: First of all Moon Valley is not located in this business fringe. And if they were _
looking at buying property within the district, this wouldn't be a...use. And you are aware of
the fact that we have been in litigation with Moon Valley.
Scott: Yes, for quite some time.
Aanenson: If you look on the map, maybe Sharmin can show you where Moon Valley is and —
where the district is that we're talking about. They're over there quite a ways from the
district. We're just talking about that little narrow piece on 169.
Willard Halver: Yeah, I know. It's about a third of a block from where I live. There's been
15 to 50 dumpsters up until now. And also, what type of screening, is that going to be tree
screening or what type of screening is that going to be? I can see it from where I live and I —
know, this thing has been going on for 2-3 years. This haphazardly.
Aanenson: I think we're talking about the Admiral Waste. —
Scott: Yeah, we're talking about two things.
Aanenson: Yeah, the Planning Commission tabled that earlier for further information.
Willard Halver: ...it's been tabled but it's still a thorn in my side.
Scott: Yeah, the reason it's been tabled is that we don't feel that the screening as proposed is _
adequate for the location and amount of dumpsters that are proposed to be on that spot and
that will be coming back probably what, first meeting in August.
Al-Jaff: When they submit a revised plan.
Scott: Okay. And then on the Admiral Waste, the notice area would include this gentleman _
for that particular item?
Aanenson: If he wants to be noticed. —
Scott: If you would like that, we could send you a notice when the Admiral Waste item
10
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
comes up again.
Willard Halver: I'd appreciate it. I may be out of town, I mean I don't know. If I am,
that's my hard luck.
Scott: Well you can work that out with our staff and they'll make sure that you get notice so
you can know when that's coming on the agenda.
Willard Halver: The other thing I'm concerned about is, part of my property fronts on this
property that this miner wants to buy and there are some other people in the audience that are
closer than I am to that mining pit and I know that it's temporarily stopped but that doesn't,
this conditional use thing.
Aanenson: But this is separate from that.
Scott: Yeah this is.
Willard Halver: It's a can of worms.
Scott: Good, thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak about the item at
hand, which is additional conditional uses for and permitted uses for business fringe?
Leon Mesenbrink: My name is Leon Mesenbrink. I live at 250 Flying Cloud Drive which is
right across from the development area. And what really amazes me is you people up here
sitting in Chanhassen, beautiful town. You want it all like Edina and everything else but us
people at the very end of Chanhassen, it's almost like we're in a different ballgame. Entirely
different from you people. You let people, this Moon Valley do what they want to do.
Basically. I mean you can't stop it. They run trucks in and out. I bought there in 1959.
How many of you people have been here since 1959? Any of you people?
Harberts: I haven't been alive that long.
Leon Mesenbrink: Okay, well that's fine. I bought out there when it wasn't even a gravel
pit. It was a ski tow. I bought out there and paid a lot of money, which we thought at that
time, we'd be out in the woods. All of a sudden now we're into a commercial nightmare.
And now you want to go by 169 or 212 and put another Shakopee and look at a bunch of
garbage containers. Do you want them sitting around? Do you have a home in Chanhassen
here? I come home every day from work up that road. I should look out at 50 or 100
garbage dumpsters? Would you want to do it? Any of you people? Think about some of
these things. I'm just saying you people here, we're at the far fringe of Chanhassen but
11
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
we've been here a long time too and think about us. Thank you.
Scott: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak about the business fringe conditional
uses and permitted uses? Yes sir.
Jim Sulerud: I'm Jim Sulerud and I live at 730 Vogelsberg Trail. I'm not immediately
adjacent to business fringe but in the same neighborhood. What my experience has been in
the almost 20 years that I've lived there, is that within the city here, is that the city's very
cautious about the taking of property rights of people so they, the city has by lawsuit in some
cases, to give into property owners for exercising their property rights for development or
what they want to. I think the present experience in that particular portion of the business
fringe that's at the, near the Y, is that if you have multiple failing businesses. Businesses that _
tried something. Didn't work out in that setting and it's my view that the city is not under
obligation to further enhance their property values or enhance their ability to do additional
things in order to make that suitable for something they were unable to make suitable in the
past. So to expand the uses for people, property owners to try something else because what
they thought might work in the past doesn't work, seems to be going against all the
discussion that I've heard in the Planning Commission and City Council about the wonderful —
natural area and how it will be nice to preserve that and perpetuate the natural nature of that
area. Now when there's opportunity, I think you can recognize that when places have failed,
maybe that's going in the right direction and not seek ways of enhancing further commercial —
development. I think it would be, it would have been great if this were left A2 or whatever.
The places where we do see some things growing a little bit, and Admiral is an example, or
the Moon Valley, is where people have gone beyond the permitted uses. And now they're —
trying to say, well we'll grandfather them in or we'll provide conditional use permits to
accommodate that and I think you can take advantage of the economics right now that have
turned that area down and the uses are probably at a low point. If you approve additional —
uses, you're going to have new proposals before you that do new and wonderful things that I
think are contrary to what this body is looking for and the City Council is looking for.
Thanks. —
Scott: Good, thank you. Any other comments? Hearing none, can I have a motion to close
the public hearing please?
Mancino moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and _
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Comments. Matt.
Ledvina: Well I don't know what the driving force was to initiate this effort in terms of
12
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
rezoning this area. As I understand this currently is A2, is that right?
Aanenson: No. It's currently business fringe.
Ledvina: It is currently business fringe? Okay. So essentially the lines on the map are
essentially the same, they're exactly the same. We're not changing the lines. Okay. But
what we are doing then is adding permitted uses? Okay. That's the only thing we're adding.
Mancino: Well conditions.
Ledvina: And, go ahead.
Al-Jaff: The only thing we're adding under conditional is the sporting goods. But there
could be 5 conditional uses or 5 permitted uses.
Ledvina: Okay. Has there been any specific request for any of these items? I mean what
drives the mini golf course for example? I mean I can see.
Aanenson: What we looked at in this zoning, we tried to look at some reasonable use of the
property where maybe it could be a turnover when you go back and look at the study...look at
the MUSA line expansion. Maybe there's a better use for the property or higher use...at one
time, before it was a part of the city, you know served as a collector and there were services
down there. There's some grandfathered uses as the people that spoke tonight indicated.
There are some non-conforming uses down there that have grandfathered rights. What we're
talking about are other uses that people that have properties there, for people that have
property down there to make use of their property until such time services do become
available.
Ledvina: Okay, well I look at the permitted uses and I see 1 thru 4 wholesale nursery,
greenhouse, that seems to make sense. There's not retail activity. Private/public park, great.
Single family dwelling, 1 per acre. Agricultural. All those things are reasonable land uses
but then I see mini golf course and now you've got parking. You've got retail. You've got
traffic.
Aanenson: Yeah. We've addressed that in Section 20-265 which is in the conditional use.
We referenced that standard and...show that there are conditional use standards so that's why
we've shown that reference. And that does say, if you are going to use this use, you have to
develop using this criteria. There are criteria...you get the hours of operation and some other
criteria that was to go in this area you'd have to maintain the use of standards. But we tried
to give some...meet those standards.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 _
Ledvina: I'm just thinking about you know, land uses that are somewhat similar and
compatible and I see numbers 1 thru 4 as being low intensive and reasonable but I don't
know about number 5 for permitted uses. And then, so I don't know exactly where that's _
going to go but those are my thoughts on the addition of the permitted uses. And then a
question on the conditional uses. Truck trailer and then we've added sporting goods, boat
sales and rental. Again, why would we go ahead and do that? I mean is there something _
that's driving that or?
Al-Jaff: No, but we've always had the auto sale or rental. There is a U-Haul rental place. —
Ledvina: But that was only grandfathered, right?
Al-Jaff: No. It's a conditional use.
Aanenson: They had to go through the screening, which they've done so we felt that's been
an appropriate use and if someone came under that same criteria, and screened it
appropriately and landscaped it and fencing.
Ledvina: So that's a conditional use. Why isn't that identified on page 3 on the top?
You're saying auto.
Aanenson: ...conditions in the BF district.
Ledvina: Motor fuel stations. —
Al-Jaff: What you see in bold is just what we're adding.
Ledvina: Right, I understand that. But the, previously there was a used car sales.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Ledvina: Okay. And you're saying used car sales are allowed within the business fringe —
district?
Al-Jaff: Correct. —
Ledvina: They are, okay.
Al-Jaff: They don't require the use of urban services.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Ledvina: Oh I see, current uses. That's the extent of my comments at this time.
Scott: Okay, Ladd.
Conrad: Why are we doing this right now given we're going to study the area?
Aanenson: The area that's outside the MUSA doesn't go quite as far south as we... When we
talked about the...and looking at this on a cursory level, again we've had requests from people
to use their property... Again, Matt had a question about the golf course and we'll just give
you two of the things and...you can't be within 500 feet from single family residence. They
have to provide adequate parking. They also have to provide...Again, that's the reason we
felt we could make it compatible with the residential.
Conrad: Okay. Just real quickly, I think all the permitted uses are better uses than what we
currently will allow under conditional uses so if you follow that logic, I think I'd buy what
staff is saying. It is, they're more environmental. They're more natural, which is, the theory
is really they're going to be developed for commercial or it should be put into a natural
setting and so no governmental body is buying it up for a natural setting. I think we do have
to give the land owners an adequate use for their property here and I feel comfortable in the
permitted uses. I think that's certainly acceptable to me. I would like to make some changes
in the intent statement however in terms of, because it is, a lot of it is natural and a lot of it
is sensitive, I would like to get some wording in that talks about development without
impacting the natural conditions or the sensitive to the environment and the river valley that's
there. I just think in the past we've tried to minimize, we tried to give land owners an
acceptable use, a low level acceptable use of their property in that area without major impact
and I'm not sure if we've been successful in that or not. But I continue to think that we want
to really preserve the natural part of that until we have urban services there or until we have a
plan to turn it into a more natural setting.
Mancino: I have a question on your's, to piggy back on that. If it is a permitted use and the
MUSA line comes down and includes this area at that time, much like Swings on Galpin and
Highway 5, and now we're looking at that study area and saying, you know it may be single
family or multi family. Does the permitted use that is there now, once the MUSA line
changes and encompasses that land, can that, let's say it's a mini golf course, stay there even
though we have rezoned it forever? Until, okay.
Aanenson: Yeah. That's why we were comfortable with these uses even if it were to
change. We felt like that...these would be compatible. It has to be done, these are the other
conditional uses that we'd be looking at...
15
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 —
Mancino: And you feel that way with the wholesale nursery. I mean they have trucks, big —
trucking operations because they have to get things out and deliveries in the spring and they
have big greenhouses, etc and you still feel that. —
Conrad: We have that at Lake Ann. Down on TH 101.
Mancino: Well I know...too so I just wanted to bring that up.
Scott: Ladd, are you finished with your comments? —
Conrad: Finished.
Scott: Nancy, do you want to continue, if you have others? Since you're on a roll. Diane.
Harberts: I don't really have a lot of extras to add. I guess when you take into consideration
that we try to bring a balance to growth and development to the needs of the residents and
the needs of the business community, I think we do that by, when you take into perspective
all of our codes or guidelines that we put out there. I mean the architectural integrity. We —
ask for building and landscaping. I think we've seen that with our first one. The first, on the
interim use permit for screening. I think we're here to bring that balance but I think because
of standards we've kind of set, it's probably our best we can do to protect the interest of each —
resident in their own way. So I guess I support what's here. It certainly isn't an easy job.
Not everyone's going to be happy but when you look at everything that's in place, I think it's
good for the community and we just have to remind ourselves. As things come in that we —
keep that integrity there with each project.
Scott: Ron.
Nutting: I guess I don't have any big problem with the permitted uses. From some of this
discussion and the exchange Kate with regard to future and the MUSA line. Was there
discussion about making the mini golf course a conditional as opposed to a permitted?
Aanenson: Again, I think based on the standards that's in the code, I think we feel
comfortable as far as that being under permitted use...
Nutting: Okay. I don't have a lot to add. I think that there's not a significant change here
and so it looks good for a motion.
Scott: Okay, Jeff.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Farmakes: I'll follow up a little bit on Ladd's comment. What worries me about this, the
long term and what the plan is going to be in that area. We're kind of blanketly saying that
when the MUSA gets there we'll worry about it but it seems that most of these uses will
revolve around things like dumpsters and trucks and mining and I question in the
comprehensive plan, long term, if those are the uses that we see in Chanhassen. Is that the
intent of the community. Many of these uses have been sort of acquired through default.
Businesses that went under. They were able under past ordinances to use this and nobody
seemed to care. It was under county at the time before the township expanded. What I
would like to see is a study for us to look at long term use. What our intent is for that
property area all along the bluff area because I see a convergence of opposing interests and it
seems that all those uses, or all those uses that are unpalatable, seem to be concentrated along
that bluff area over there. And it kind of makes you wonder what we're going to wind up
with in 20 years. But I understand in the interim that property owners want to continue their
use as permitted uses for the businesses. But long term I don't see those there. I'm not
going to be on the commission then but certainly.
Mancino: But they could be there long term because once it's a permitted use.
Farmakes: That's what I'm saying. That gets to my next point. You're familiar with how
we deal with some of these large scale developments, say Timberwood for instance. They
become the nucleus for development around them because people will come in and they will
complain that they don't want industrial or they don't want business use or whatever next to
their development. So what happens is you get a sort of a nucleus for development going on
there that may not be the best interest for the city. Just because dumpsters happen to...been
put there, does that mean that that use should be expanded and therefore...developer may not
want to put a housing project there. And that's what I'm getting at. I'd like to see us look at
the long term development of that bluff area just because in general scope like we do the
comprehensive plan. We've seen to have left that area down below there as work to be done
later. It seems that we get an awful lot of that stuff here, in that particular area. It seems to
be coming back here a lot.
Scott: What would you think about, instead of allowing these additional permitted uses,
allow them as conditional uses?
Farmakes: I would, if we put a time limit on them...
Scott: I was thinking for the interim point in time, let those continue but yet to be able to
have some sort of a sunset on there that the trigger is the MUSA line.
Farmakes: A sunset that makes sense, yeah. It allows the city staff to long term look at what
17
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
would be in the best interest for Chanhassen for development of that property. Because I
look at these uses and they're quite haphazard, as you look at them. They're even as
grouping of businesses there. It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. That's it. —
Conrad: Okay, just for discussion.
Scott: We're doing that.
Conrad: You've got two choices down there. It's on a major highway. —
Harberts: Soon to be ex major highway.
Conrad: It's still serving 15,000.
Mancino: Soon to be?
Scott: 10 to 20 years.
Farmakes: A lot of closed businesses on that highway.
Conrad: 15,000 cars a day. —
Scott: How many Super America's go out of business? That was a surprise. But anyway,
continue. —
Conrad: Why would they do that, I don't understand. But you've got a major highway and
what's the difference between a major highway there and a major highway on Highway 5?
You know what are you going to put? On the other hand you have a very natural area. But
somebody's got to come up with money to buy it, meaning a government body, and I haven't
seen that in our plans at all.
Farmakes: There's a major highway that goes along the St. Croix. I don't see development —
there either but there happens to be a major highway.
Conrad: But it's park property right. —
Farmakes: No. Not all of it's park property.
Mancino: Well you could do some architectural guidelines and everything else that's been
done to Highway 5 in that area also.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Conrad: But are there other alternatives?
Mancino: As to what can go?
Conrad: Let's talk, you've got a highway business community. You've got a natural
community. Natural environmental area.
Mancino: You're talking about a city referendum. A land referendum like Eden Prairie does
to buy the land.
Farmakes: But are you saying the business that are along that highway have any, make any
sense as a grouping or are they here by default?
Conrad: They're there because the land.
Farmakes: What does mining have to do with dumpster storage? Or park and ride.
Conrad: I'm just saying, this study that we're looking for. You know you can say well
we're not going to do anything until a study happens but the reality of what a study might
show us, I think we can be wise enough to know what a couple uses are down there and I'm
not sure that we're going to say ah ha. Well there's a good use for that. And I question
whether it's going to be public money is going to be put into the area so even so, let's say
that's 10-15 years down the line something might happen. You still have to give the property
owners a fair use of their property. So right now they can use it for motor fuel stations,
trucks. They can use it for a lot of these things and yeah.
Farmakes: You supply intent. I think what I was looking for was a time period for renewal
to allow a reasonable amount of time in the interim to look at what the city's going to do
with that property. What I'm looking for is to try to take away some of these haphazard
businesses driving the development that goes around it. I'd like to see some planning
involved there.
Conrad: Yeah, I hear what you're saying Jeff. I just don't see any commitment on. There's
no urban service. When's urban service going to get there? A long, long time and until that
happens, nothing really is going to happen down there.
Farmakes: Again, if they have unlimited usage of those uses, they're going to be what drives
them. They're going to be what drives that.
Conrad: Jeff, I hear you, so we have some uses there. They're kind of grandfathered in or
19
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
they're there. They're conditional and we haven't found better ones other than maybe what
staff is saying, these might be better. So what you're doing is encouraging. So here's your
choice. And you can, and I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying in terms of
having some time lines and what have you. But on the other hand, what staff's proposed
here is to encourage certain things that probably are more in setting, more in nature of the
property. So you could do something today and encourage it. _
Farmakes: Well, I would make the statement for the public hearing, for the people who have
property have adjacent to this area who have a difference of opinion of that. _
Conrad: Well I'm sure. If I were a residential owner, I wouldn't want any of this stuff,
absolutely. Yeah. I agree. —
Farmakes: So and what the government is doing with that area, it just seems like it's in
conflict or will be in conflict. Maybe not now. 10 years from now.
Ledvina: Does it make sense to make the permitted uses conditional uses?
Scott: Also the sunset because that's what.
Aanenson: ...right now. We're trying to get away from the amount of conditional uses. —
Scott: I mean I can see where you might be coming from here to say, well if you're willing
to, landowner if you're willing to invest in items number 1 thru 5, you'll get a permitted use —
and you can continue that use on into the future as far as you care to carry that. So I mean I
kind of took a look at that and said, that's what it is. I mean there's conditional uses that
perhaps we're not interested in seeing, i.e. motor fuel stations, etc, etc. If someone who —
happens to own that property wants to single family dwellings, etc, etc, they're in essence
guaranteed the use of that land for that purpose for an extended period of time. But then
again, one of the points that Jeff raised is do we want that stuff down there forever. So what —
I'm hearing.
Mancino: Not only that but it will drive the surrounding.
Scott: Right, exactly because if this is going to be here forever, then you're going to see _
something else. So perhaps what we need to do, I mean we already had one item this
evening about business fringe with a sunset on it. Perhaps where we want to go with this is
not add permitted uses to business fringe district but perhaps add some conditional uses and _
sunset them. Would that be acceptable?
20
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Aanenson: We can't put a sunset on conditional uses.
Scott: Or perhaps make these uses conditional but not permitted.
Nutting: Kate, are they already conditional uses, number 1 thru 5?
Aanenson: No.
Nutting: Okay.
Conrad: But what Jeff wants to do is do some planning and nothing we've said right here
really does do that.
Farmakes: I would like to leave the opportunity for planning to have some effect with those
uses.
Conrad: So you want to, your preference would be to table this thing and have staff come
back and tell you when they can get to the planning issue.
Farmakes: No, not necessarily.
Aanenson: But even if we did that, we said we see this being x, okay. And when urban
services come in, what if it's 20 years. And we said, well this is what it's going to be. Then
we still have 20 years of relative use of.
Conrad: But what Jeff's saying hey, do the plan in the next 6 months so we know.
Farmakes: No, that's not what I'm saying.
Conrad: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay.
Farmakes: I said leave the door open to review the use rather than grant it forever. That's
what I'm saying. Leave it open for the opportunity when the time comes to do the planning.
The city has the option of what it wants to do rather than to have those businesses drive that
development.
Mancino: But the landowner, if I'm going to build a house on 10 acres and then all of a
sudden there's this sunset that the city wants to review whether that's appropriate in 10 years.
Farmakes: Those uses happen quite often. Say for instance you have a permitted use, let's
say you're storing something on a piece of property...in 5 years it's renewed. You may get
21
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 _
that again. It may develop. Houses come in and you get enough people to come in and they
object to that use. It's incompatible with their use and you have to move. We've had several
businesses in here that have done this... —
Nutting: So what I hear Jeff, are you in agreement with what Joe is saying? You're saying
make the permitted uses conditional uses?
Scott: And then set some sort of review time frame.
Farmakes: I think that would work and give them a reasonable, about 10 years or whatever
you think is.
Nutting: But your comment, or what I was thinking is, who's going to do a single family —
dwelling under a conditional use?
Scott: In this area? In the BF? —
Aanenson: ...you can't put conditions for time limits on conditional use. You can only do it
on interim use. So you have to change that to interim use, and then you could put time —
limits.
Scott: So that's really the only vehicle that would us the planning opportunity. —
Conrad: Kate, why isn't this part of the 1995 study area? I always thought it was.
Scott: Is it too far out? As far as the MUSA access.
Aanenson: Well we indicated that we would look at this as part of that. Really we may start
working on that plan late this fall. ...big project and it's not going to be done in 6 months.
No way. _
Scott: Your thoughts for development pressure being along Highway 5 and not on 212 in this
BF area. _
Aanenson: ...fine there as far as time frame. When they did the comp plan it said 1995. But
you know, we said we would look at this and include this in the area of the project. But _
again if people come up with, you know what we're trying to do here is in the short run
allow what we feel is a compatible use of properties that are down there...just as Ladd has
indicated. To allow use of the property... —
Scott: So are we talking about interim uses now? Would that do what we want?
22
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Mancino: ...come back and ask for an interim use until the MUSA line.
Scott: That's probably the vehicle that will allow for planning yet, and interim use permits
we can set time tables.
Harberts: What ordinance...is there some reason?
Aanenson: Well we felt that in this district there should be some uses that are permitted.
Right now the district...
Scott: Does somebody want to take a stab at a motion?
Nutting: But you know, even with interim use versus conditional use for some, 1 thru 5, who
—
is going to pursue those under an interim use?
Scott: Well I think if the time table's long enough, they will.
—
Nutting: But there's uncertainty with an interim use for the time table so anytime you throw
that uncertainty in there.
Harberts: Well in fact similar to the sign ordinance. If the desire is to go with an interim
_ permit use with a time line, what's the time line?
Scott: Well I would think you know, if I were sitting on a piece of property that used to be a
— drive in, a failed drive in and I saw the opportunity to turn it into a mini golf course that I
could operate subject to certain criteria for a period of 5 years, I'd get my calculator out and
figure out if it would work.
Harberts: But how do you know 5 years or 2 years or 1 year?
— Scott: I think that would be something that we'd need to put in with the interim, if we're
going to be. For example, if you're going to say that the permitted uses would become
interim uses, which would be x years. 5 years. That would allow someone to say, well
here's the criteria. Here's the time horizon and then that would allow a business person to
make a determination if they want to invest any money in it. I think that'd be pretty straight
forward. Because then there's concrete rules for interim uses and there's a concrete length of
time and a business decision could be made based upon that.
Harberts: Well I don't know if this group is ready to move it forward.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 —
Scott: Okay. Is there a motion? I guess I think we need to give staff some direction on this
one. Does it appear that interim use would allow us the opportunity to plan yet act as a
carrot to have some of the property put to a better use? I don't know if there's another —
option for us that would give us the flexibility.
Nutting: Are you talking about changing the conditional uses that already exist to interim _
uses also? Or are you just going to leave those as conditional? I just sense we're really
mucking this thing up here. It's really getting cloudy.
Conrad: Yeah. Unless you know where you're going, we don't know.
Nutting: You're trying to micro manage something before we even know what we're —
managing. I agree with the issue of with what Jeff is saying.
Mancino: ...big picture plan. —
Nutting: Big picture and long term but what, do we have a reasonable vehicle to do that?
And what I sense is happening, and staff is saying, we don't know but we're going to set it —
up so that these permitted uses seem to be driving it in a direction which makes more sense
long term. But we're not going to know for sure. You know the question is.
Mancino: Well and secondly, some of these conditional uses, I would hate to see new
conditional uses of motor fuel stations and cold storage and warehousing, etc, expanding in
this area. And right now they are a conditional use. —
Nutting: So would you like then to delete some of the conditional uses? Is that what you're?
Mancino: I would not like to see the ones that are here expand more. If I were looking at
this area as a whole, planning it from the very beginning, I would not have those uses in
there.
Nutting: Okay. But right now, today they're there so we have to do something with them if —
we don't want to have them expand.
Mancino: Plus there could be more coming in according to this. Because there are —
conditional uses right now in the BF district.
Harberts: It seems that, what I'm reading here, it seems that, is that so much what the
expansion items are. It's just the duration because it's kind of an unclear area of what should
happen down in that area. What we'd like to see...in that area long term. That's what it is. I
24
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
don't know if we're having real problems with the items right now here in time but it's
because it's a longer duration possible and does it tie our hands.
Scott: Well permanent uses would tie our hands relative to planning for that area. There's
no question about that. And so will conditional uses.
Farmakes: Look at the Red-E-Mix that was on TH 5. Just an incompatible use with TH 5.
It wasn't that many years ago that it probably didn't seem that bad of a use at the time. If it
is a major highway Ladd, and if it's outside the study area, shouldn't we have the opportunity
to plan for it when the time comes without having that planning already done with the
expansion of these uses?
Conrad: I never disagree with planning. Yet motor fuel stations can be done down there
right now. Truck trailer can be done. Cold storage can be done. And as I see it, rather than
allowing those to come in, I'd like to encourage some things that I think are more in sync
with the area now. So I'll make a motion. The Planning Commission recommends approval
of Article XX, BF Fringe Business District to read per the staff report except for moving the
mini golf course under a permitted use into a conditional use and to have staff reword the
intent statement to emphasize the impact on the natural conditions of the area.
Scott: Is there a second?
Nutting: I second that.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we recommend to City Council the motion as
stated by Commissioner Conrad. Is there any discussion?
Mancino: Yeah, my discussion is, can we ask that it be included in the 1995 study area?
Aanenson: We've already indicated that we'll do that.
Mancino: Oh, okay.
Scott: Okay. So that should be in the intent statement then. Okay, is there any other
discussion?
Conrad: No, I don't want it in the intent statement.
Scott: Well I know it's in the background section here.
25
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Conrad: I would like to make it of record that this area will be part of the 1995 study area +
but Kate when you said that, what is telling me that it is? What guides you to include this?
Just us? Okay, I believe you. We'll make sure that is. We'll make sure it is. I guess I _
don't need that as part. I think it's part of the record but I guess I don't really need to.
Scott: And we're also talking about the BF district. That includes the Progress Valley Mini _
Storage as well?
Aanenson: Okay. _
Scott: Any other discussion?
Mancino: I just have one question. Okay, it gets into the 1995 study. That means we can
look at the whole area. Rezone it. Take out the conditional uses.
Aanenson: We don't know. We've got to go back and do a whole study of the whole 212
corridor. Where should commercial be. Where should residential be. It's the same process
we went through with the comp plan...it's a lot of work. —
Conrad: You're just stuck with what's there. You can change the future but you're stuck
with what's there. —
Farmakes: But we're expanding what's there.
Conrad: My motion is to change what's there. To guide it a little bit differently.
Scott: By having the uses that you consider to be more compatible with the area become —
permitted uses and then the mini golf course, which is more of a commercial use per se,
become conditional.
Conrad: Yeah.
Scott: Which makes, that's a surgical way of kind of doing I think what we want.
Mancino: And you want to add sporting goods and boat sales/rental? _
Conrad: I'm comfortable with that. I'd rather have a boat there than a car because there's a
river across the, I don't know. I'm comfortable with that. _
Conrad moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval
26
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
of Article XX, BF Fringe Business District to read per the staff report except for moving
the mini golf course from under permitted use into a conditional use and to have staff
reword the intent statement to emphasize the impact on the natural conditions of the
area. All voted in favor, except Commissioner Farmakes who opposed, and the motion
carried with a vote of 6 to 1.
Scott: And your reasons?
Farmakes: I think we're putting the cart before the horse.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE TO ADOPT THE DEFINITION OF "BLUFF"
TO INCLUDE CITY WIDE.
Public Present:
Name Address
Frank Fox 22990 Smithtown Road, Shorewood
Willard Halver 470 Flying Cloud Drive
Ann Miller 6561 Fox Path
Kate Aanenson and Diane Desotelle presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Questions or comments?
Mancino: Yeah, I've got a question. The building foundation has to be from a bluff 25 feet
set back.
Desotelle: 30.
Mancino: 30? Now, I put my foundation here and I cantilever out a deck so there is no, I
mean I do it so there is no footing. Like falling water. Frank Lloyd Wright that's over the
stream. He cantilevered the deck. Can you do that?
Aanenson: No. The way the ordinance is now, you cannot do that but there's still, as part of
the subdivision regulations, they can always apply for a variance if there's something unique
that you wanted to do and if you felt...watershed approval and you could control erosion
based on the fact that you're going to have accelerated water runoff, that there maybe a way
27
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
to mitigate that. That was something we could look at. One other thing I failed to mention, —
there was a concern about the application of lots that are already approved. This would just
apply to lots that would be subdivided in the future... There's still a variance appeal
procedure if you felt like that was something that you wanted to...
Mancino: Yeah but you'd have to show that that was a hardship.
Farmakes: ...granite. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to do it on a Minnesota River bluff.
Mancino: That kind of a design house I just wondered about. If it could extend into that
area. If it was cantilevered and did not have any footings or whatever.
Desotelle: I think this would just give, it doesn't apply. You know they would not be able
to get it without applying for a variance. It gives us the opportunity to work with that design.
Scott: You know a couple of the issues that we run into a lot in developments, are mass
grading of the significant features. And also from a tree preservation standpoint, it appears
anyway that the areas of the city that are still forested were areas that were impossible to
farm because of bluffs and steep slopes and so forth. So I see this as, I remember a couple
months ago we were talking about dueling ordinances where you have an ordinance that has a
bunch of calculations in it that makes it impossible to develop someplace. I see this as an
opportunity to actually make, not only preserve some of these natural features but make it
easier on city staff and Planning Commission and also on developers because it'd be,
everybody has to do a topographic maps and that's a sure sign of significant slopes so.
That's kind of the extent of my comments but I was quite pleased to see this and it seems to
be very easy to, you know when we're going to be talking about sign police later on tonight.
Well I think the bluff police will have a very workable document to be able to determine —
what is and what isn't so I appreciate you guys doing the work on that. Made it easy for me
to understand.
Farmakes: ...people who currently build on bluffs on structures...A lot of our bluff here is
filled with sumac and they're not a lot of trees...
Scott: No, they're sumac. Yeah.
Aanenson: The intent is that they're going to...we've had a lot of requests from people who
try to put, maintain the 30 foot but then they want to cut the slopes so they can have a
walkout.
Farmakes: I'll give you an example of what's not within the bluff area. Down on Utica,
28
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Utica is a lake road that's low and then there's a bluff coming down. And it's fairly forested.
The property comes over and down the bluff to the road. And a homeowner of one of the
lake lots that were bought on that development put up a house and virtually whacked
everything vegetation wise over the bluff. I don't know if that's high enough to qualify for
this ordinance.
Desotelle: You have to remember it has to be, go up 25 feet with a slope of 30%.
Farmakes: I think that's 25 feet. Pretty close.
Desotelle: Is the slope 30% then?
Farmakes: Yes. Maybe even more.
Mancino: There's one on Galpin like that too.
Aanenson: What this ordinance does say is that fill or excavation material shall not be placed
in the bluff.
Farmakes: I've seen a lot of that go on outside of the bluff area.
Aanenson: That's exactly what we're saying. You know somebody making a cursory look at
this back...felt it shouldn't be applied citywide and as these developments are coming in,
we're saying we don't have the tools in place and we feel like, if you don't want to ask for a
variance and you feel it meets it as part of the subdivision, then it should be granted.
Otherwise we feel like that should...
Farmakes: But does this then also enforce for non new developments?
Aanenson: If it's a lot of record, no.
Farmakes: Okay.
Scott: Any other comments or questions for staff?
Harberts: ...respond to the issues that were raised in these letters with regard to the resulting
of overall lower density.
Aanenson: Well in some circumstances it may...sometimes that's what required in order to
preserve natural features...
29
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 _
Harberts: So it's one of those values that the community really endorses because it saves the
natural features. As I recall from our work session that we've had, I think that was to be put
in our intent statement. That one of the high priorities in development for this community is
really saving and preserving the natural features. So this is, so this bluff line ordinance is
really in support of the overall city's...
Aanenson: And again that really came out Bill Morrish's study. The rolling topography is
really want makes Chanhassen unique and we certainly, we felt that it'd be short sighted just
to keep...other areas in the city.
Scott: And also reading through, especially Mr. Forbord's letter. Typically they tend to
invest in very interesting plots and they address that market and what I've found is that when
we have ordinances like this in place, it really forces already creative developers to become
even more creative. They tend to almost always be PUD's and then in that sort of venue we
can say, okay. Well here's the bluff. Well listen, we'll let you build 10 feet closer to the
street. Make your street smaller. I mean the same sort of preservation work that we do with
trees and so forth. So I know where Terry's coming from and.
Aanenson: Again, I think that's right...
Scott: I think we can work with PUD's.
Mancino: I like us putting the values like that real clear up front and work around it.
Scott: Could I have a motion to open the public hearing?
Harberts moved, Mancino seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: Is there anyone here who would like to speak at the public hearing regarding the city
wide definition of bluffs? Yes sir. Please state your name and your address.
Frank Fox: My name is Frank Fox. I have a farm southwest... and on that farm I got about
60 acres of rolling woods which I think lends itself to beautiful building sites. And I've got
some experience too in building homes myself and one lot I built I built right in a ravine and
the guy could water around it. You can do a lot with timbers. You can do a lot with rock
and to block your water way in. And I agree with Mr. Erhart in respect that if you are going
to restrict where you have to build back 30 feet from the edge of the bluff. If you want to
have a deck out there that's 15 feet, that's 45 feet you have to be back. You buy a lot to
build on. You want to take the best part of it and that's the view. That's what you're after.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
And use of the trees. You passed a tree ordinance not too long ago and that also restricts my
property and along with this it will be more restrictive. It will be, you're limited the amount
of building sites you can have on a piece of property and I think that you should take a good
look at this. There are a lot of areas here in Chanhassen that already violate this ordinance.
And if you take and go down 78th Street, look off to the right, and there's big townhouses
going up there, and I don't know how they're going to hold that hill. And I'm also been out
in southern California where they have a lot of erosion problems. They have to put plastic
down on the side of the hill to keep the hill from eroding away. But there are a lot of ways
of doing these things and I think it should be up to a developer and if you have a city
engineer that approves the plans that applies to control the water, then that's the way to go.
That's all I had to say. Thank you.
Scott: Good, thank you sir. Would anyone else like to speak about the bluff?
Ann Miller: I would. My name is Ann Miller. I live in the Fox Chase area. I'm assuming
that to identify what a bluff is, it obviously has something to do with surface water
management. I mean is that why you are saying 25 feet back?
Desotelle: The bluff definition is strictly based on the slope. The slope. You have to be 25,
30% of grade and it has to rise at least 25 feet before it can be considered a bluff.
Ann Miller: Okay. And is that because of foundation problems or why would you still have
to be back that far?
Desotelle: Mostly just erosion control and to preserve the slope from eroding further.
Ann Miller: Okay, are the soils such in here that that is mostly likely to occur if you're
closer than 25 feet?
Desotelle: There are problems along the Bluff Creek corridor down in the lower part of the
city where you've got a lot of erosion and so there's a lot of problems as far as that is
concerned here. In the northern part, I think it's mostly just to help preserve just the look of
the city. To maintain the topography.
Ann Miller: Okay. What advisory committee have you asked for help on identifying what a
bluff is?
Aanenson: This comes strictly out of the DNR standards. Department of Natural Resources
standards. When the staff looked at this in '91, we looked at applying it city wide. There
was a huge study that was done and the Planning Commission was involved at that time and
31
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
they decided just to apply it to the southern half after discussing it numerous times. Now
we're saying, now that we've seen a lot of subdivisions come in, we feel like it should have
been applied city wide and we're recommending. _
Ann Miller: How will documentation be handled for policing this?
Aanenson: Well it's handled when you come in for a building permit. Or if you come in for
a deck permit, that's how we would review it.
Ann Miller: Thank you.
Scott: Good. Any other public comment? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the _
public hearing please?
Harberts moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Ron. —
Nutting: I guess Diane you said looking at the aerials, that the actual number of areas that
are impacted by this, have we actually identified all them or is it just kind of a top level —
overview and we're saying there's not that many areas that are affected?
Desotelle: We did not identify...so I can't tell you at all how many but we started to look at —
just a couple of ones that have been coming in and try to get a better idea of how much
we're talking about and...there aren't very many areas that have slopes this steep.
Nutting: Are those areas undeveloped or developed?
Desotelle: We were looking at undeveloped areas.
Nutting: I guess I don't have a problem with putting the tool in place to force staff to look at
these things. And also we do have the ability to look at each development as they come in.
If it's in a PUD or whatever that we have the ability to look at issues that the developer
presents a case worthy of variance or otherwise. That we can take them on a case by case _
basis but I think it lays a good foundation. It puts the structure in that we seem to be lacking
in a lot of areas. I guess I would support staff's recommendation.
Scott: Good, Jeff.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Farmakes: I support staff's recommendation.
Scott: Nancy.
Mancino: So do I. I think it brings it top of mind to developers, their landscape architects,
etc to deal with the site and look at it more comprehensively than maybe is going on now.
And I think it also sets a good value statement for our city in saying, you know really we're
interested in seeing and what we want to preserve. So I do support it.
Scott: Okay, Diane.
Harberts: I think I said it. Basically I don't have anything else to add. I support staff's
recommendation.
Scott: Okay, Ladd.
Conrad: I have a great deal of respect for Tim Erhart and he was very involved in this and I
guess I'm a little uncomfortable in terms of the impact on certain developments in certain
areas. I don't know how much area we're talking about. I don't know what the, bluffs to me
were the major ones in the city. I was real concerned with Bluff Creek. Real concerned with
Minnesota River valley but now it seems different to me. It seems that when all the work
went into this, there was good reason for not allowing it. Not applying it and I think right
now we're just sort of taking a real quick casual glance at it and saying, well it seems
reasonable and I think there's some things that I would support but I don't know enough right
now to make it a global statement that it should be applied city wide. I think there are
reasons you preserve bluffs in some locations and I think there's some restrictions that we
impose on developers and that maybe I'm not comfortable with so again, I think there was a
lot of effort put forth in '91. And there was some good rationale for doing what we did and I
guess I'm not comfortable with just brushing it aside that quickly.
Scott: What, you know off the top of your head. What were some of the major points that
caused the ordinance to be applied just to the river valley?
Conrad: It was probably more public vistas than anything else. Make sure that when the
public had a chance for a good vista, when it was a public oriented natural asset, it should be
preserved. When it gets into a private natural asset, then you get into some gray areas. I
think it's, since we're only talking about 1 or 2 areas in town, I feel comfortable. If I saw
them, and I have a tendency to want to preserve those areas. Yet on the other hand I don't
know what I'm doing here. I honestly don't know what this impacts. It's real quick. Real
easy to put through. Haven't heard that much public comment on it. And as I say, I respect
33
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Tim Erhart's opinion. He's done a great deal for the city and when he was very involved in
this, he wanted it. He absolutely demanded some of these things. When I hear, see the letter
tonight that says he's concerned, I have to be too. -
Scott: Okay, thanks. Matt.
Ledvina: Well I read both letters and one thing that I noted was missing was, and with all
respect to Tim Erhart, former commissioner, the one thing that was missing was the
discussion of you know what do you do to mitigate the situation with erosion problems. You
know you can say yeah, you're reducing usage of property but what's the other side of the
coin here? Another thing that, when we have bluffs and we have erosion problems, that
means that sediment is moving off site and sediment is moving into water resources,
wetlands, whatever and in those instances where we may be compromising with all these
natural resources, or water resources. And those may not necessarily be owned by the
specific property owner so I think that's another element in this discussion as well. So I
would support the staff's recommendation in this. I'm a little bit confused about this
September 19, 1991 memo. Could you give us a summary of that Kate?
Aanenson: Yeah, I just put that in for background because Tim had indicated in his letter to
you that there was a recommendation that it only apply to certain areas. So what I did, I
thought this background might be helpful...he was the one concerned about the application
city wide. I just wanted to, it gives a little bit better history of the background. As Ladd
indicated, there was a lot of work that went into this ordinance development so I just put that
in so you'd get an idea of the background of the work that was done and what they were
looking at. But really, originally, as I indicated at the beginning, the DNR when we were
looking at the shoreland regs had a definition of bluff so we looked at...applying it city wide.
Staff looked at applying it city wide. Mr. Erhart raised a concern about what would be the
implications of...so they asked Paul Krauss, the Planning Director and Mr. Sathre, of Sathre-
Berquist to review what would be the implication of... Again, it was kind of a cursory kind
of...regulations maybe go beyond too far. But again, you know we've seen a lot of changes
since this was...and again I'm going back to the Morrish study and we're looking at
specifically protecting the integrity of our topography which is...so we're saying that the -
cursory look that they did back then really didn't go far enough as to where we are now in
trying to preserve these natural features. So certainly I understand where Mr. Erhart's coming
from and...erosion and protection of the natural features and maybe it warrants a larger lot
and maybe under the PUD it...just to have the tools...
Harberts: Question. I certainly understand what you're saying about public versus private.
You know if we're looking at a subdivision that basically falls under that private perspective.
You know Diane talked about erosion or just to preserve the look of the topography. Within
34
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
a subdivision like that, does not the applicant have the opportunity to ask for a variance?
Aanenson: In this background too I've done that. There were specific, I mean the question
came up about what does this do about...and what about...they felt that the ordinance was
workable and they supported it. So yeah, there are individual homeowners already along that
bluff in the southern area that are meeting...have people that want to put swimming pools
right adjacent to the edge and we just thought it was too big of a risk. And we...so the
existing homeowners that were there could clear a view, certainly. Just like...you allow some
clearing for a view but not to clear cut and I think they support that...
Harberts: I think what it does for me, you know with the presentation from Diane and Kate
with regard to you know it has to have a certain percentage slope. Then you start looking at
the erosion or if it's just to preserve natural features. With as much work and value that the
community puts into the natural preservation, I think it's good to have that type of priority
but you have that opportunity to ask for a reconsideration. So overall it's telling folks as they
develop what's important. It helps staff. Then tell them why they can do this or can't do
this. If you want to do this and you have to ask for reconsideration of that. And I don't
have any problems endorsing an ordinance or what is this. Is this an ordinance amendment?
That really supports, really supports what our values, what our priorities are all about. But I
think like Ladd, I certainly respect what you're saying and I know you're just trying to make
sure that it's fair. It's equitable and that we're not imposing some unfair restriction on
people, either property owners or the developer. And I certainly support that but I think this
is a great opportunity where we're able to really, to endorse what we feel is important for the
community.
Conrad: Just a quick response on that. I'm not going to talk too much on this one but what
I do respect are the folks that put the time in to review some of these things and sometimes
they don't always make the right decision. But on the other hand, they've devoted a lot more
energy than we have in reviewing the situation. So it's not that I am pro or con on the issue.
I just know that there was a lot of energy put in and to get this in because it was very
important in Chanhassen. Tonight we're talking about very easily moving it to city wide. I
don't know if it's right or wrong. I just, I haven't looked at the implications. On the surface
it makes a lot of sense, which I would never debate. In terms of preserving. You know that
that would be a high priority for me. But on the other hand, I don't know what the negatives
are right now. I do know that I've got some input from several people and they're concerned
with it. I've got some input from Tim Erhart who was very involved in bringing it to
Chanhassen. And therefore I'm not always real thrilled with just to process something
because it's convenient.
Mancino: And that was what, 3 years ago? That the task force worked on it.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Scott: Can I have a motion please?
Mancino: Let's see. I move that we adopt the amendment to ordinance, I need a little bit of —
help here folks. I move that we adopt the amendment to ordinance number 20?
Conrad: No, that was the last one. —
Aanenson: To Chapter 20.
Mancino: To Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. The Zoning Ordinance.
Scott: Is there a second?
Ledvina: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we adopt the amendment to the City Code book.
Is there any discussion?
Ledvina: Just to clarify that. Article XXVIII, Section 20-1402.
Aanenson: It's all located within Section 20 so.
Ledvina: Okay. I just want to make sure that we're being specific enough, okay.
Scott: Is there any discussion?
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission adopt the amendment
to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, Zoning Ordinance as presented in
Attachment #1. All voted in favor, except Commissioner Conrad who opposed, and the —
motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1.
Scott: And you stated your reasons. Motion carries. —
36
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADOPT
THE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) FOR THE CITY.
Public Present:
Name Address
Ann Miller 6561 Fox Path
Diane Desotelle presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Questions or comments from commissioners? Hearing none, this is a public hearing.
May I have a motion to open the public hearing please?
Conrad moved, Harberts seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: This is a public hearing. If any members of the public wish to speak about the
_ surface water management plan, please step forward. As a matter of record, are there any
people here who would like to speak about the surface water management program? Seeing
none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Ann Miller: I would like to speak.
Scott: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see you when I was looking around. Please identify yourself.
Ann Miller: My name is Ann Miller. I live here in Chanhassen As I understand it, this is
an amendment to the City Code and Comprehensive Plan to adopt the Surface Water
Management Plan. Does the surface water management plan include past development?
What's already been developed? Was already illegal. I guess I want to know.
Desotelle: What it has done is we've taken the whole city and modeled it for surface water
quantity and quality to help us with future planning and existing, to see where you know, to
not only slow the runoff rate and try to control...within the whole storm water system.
Maintain the natural resources that we have in the city. The...wetlands. To develop a long
term management program on our lakes and water resources to try to maintain what we have
here in the city.
37
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 _
Ann Miller: Okay. Can you define surface water for me?
Desotelle: Well surface water is that water which runs off the ground that you see. It's _
different from ground water. Ground water is underneath.
Ann Miller: Would it include holding ponds and lakes?
Desotelle: Yes it would.
Ann Miller: Okay. So any water that we can see on the surface of the ground... Is there any
liability right now for holding ponds as far as a lot of the holding ponds by the developers,
that the city has the developers make, who's responsible as far as liability goes and the depth
of those ponds? If a child would drown or something like that.
Desotelle: I think that those would probably be decided on a case by case basis depending on
what has happened.
Scott: I know that some of the practices in the surface water management plan specify slopes
that are quite gradual at the perimeters of holding ponds. Obviously parental diligence is a
priority here but you know from a liability standpoint, case by case by basis. But in this plan
there are, there's a second that describes how these particular ponds should be made. The
responsibility for the maintenance of these are usually, there are always easements through
the development to get to those ponds so city crews can clean them out, etc, etc. But this
particular plan is available at City Hall and what most people will do, if there's a particular
section perhaps that applies to maybe some issues that you have. Obviously Diane's here to
answer your questions as part of the public hearing. But this is a document that's available to
everyone and it's very explicit about a number of things you might find interesting.
Ann Miller: Okay. Does it also address hydrologic connections between ground water and
surface water?
Desotelle: No.
Ann Miller: But it does apply to developed areas already...?
Desotelle: Yes. The runoff rates on developed areas. The runoff rates were based on
undeveloped areas were based on what that future use will be. So we have kind of a worse
case scenario...and those certain areas are developed, what sort of flows are we dealing with
and what sort of water quality issues are we dealing with.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Ann Miller: What kind of issues directly would developers have to deal with regarding
surface water management?
Desotelle: They will have to give their input, basically what the system sets up is instead of
each development creating ponding areas within individual developments so we have ponds
all over the place, we're trying to set up more of a regional system so maybe somebody
downstream would have a pond built and they would contribute, everybody would contribute
to the whole system so that we could have all...connecting than have everybody just dealing
with the water on their site. We're looking at the whole watershed and the runoff within the
watershed.
Scott: Good, thank you. Any other comments on the surface water management plan?
Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Harberts moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Ladd.
Conrad: I said this at the last meeting. It's a terrific piece of work. It is really what the city
needs and I'm real thrilled that we have it in place. Or it's coming close to being in place.
A couple questions that we had on the committee, and it's called the management of the plan
and I'm not sure where that was. My understanding is that the committee who really watched
over this has been dissolved and that I've also understand that some of the projects that have
been identified have not really been implemented and I also know, I don't believe I've seen
some of the educational things that the committee cared about. They haven't happened. So
my issue is not with the plan. I guess my issue here is to just tell you, it's so much
paperwork to understand this. It's hard to do but in terms of my attempts.
Aanenson: Can we bring you up to date on some of that stuff? I think we haven't
communicated as far as the educational...but we did provide money to the theater group.
They provided...at all the elementary schools not only that service the Chanhassen students.
Some of them were in Chaska and some of them were in Excelsior Elementary, Clear
Springs. We provided the play Totally Turtle. That was done this spring. We got a great
response from the school. It was all about what happens to water runoff and we got a great
response from the schools on that. Maybe you want to...
Desotelle: ...program throughout the city. I've been meeting with residents of Lake
Minnewashta on a regular basis for the last couple months on Eurasian Milfoil. Our long
term goal is to get a lake management plan for each of the lakes and present them to the
39
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
residents and to get feedback from them. I plan on doing a survey on the lakes as far as how
people use their lawns. Lawn care. Water quality care. Things like that that we can get an
idea of what's going on there. What areas people really do need more information on. After
we get the draft, Lake Management plan out there, we're going to get feedback from the
residents and then we hope to have a final plan in place by next summer and I hope to get a
lot of citizens involved with helping with the monitoring.
Aanenson: I think one of the things that has come out of this plan...monitor whether or not
our plan is actually improving the water quality and that's the intent of the monitoring so we —
can evaluate and say yes, we are doing a good job as far as the ordinance and things that we
have in place. So monitoring is a...as Diane indicated, we're working, she's working with
one group right now...
Desotelle: ...same idea too to get some baseline data and implement some of these problems
that we talked about...
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Conrad: ...some of the money. There are projects that get approved. You have some money
that gets raised and how does that get managed. And the last thing is, not that I really want _
to create another commission. I really want to put the bulk of this in staff's lap because
that's what this manual's about. For guiding them. But on the other hand, there's some
things that are beyond what staff might want to do and that is project priority and the
environmental committee, may be that bundling of things. And if that's not there, then I
don't know how it's being managed from a public standpoint, which means who makes sure
these things are happening. Now when we can say staff is but on the other hand, I think we _
have to make sure, I'm real concerned that DNR is not letting us do some of the projects.
Real concerned. If I had known that, we would have been doing some things. Nobody's told
me. I haven't asked however. I don't find that acceptable in terms of, you know I'll find
ways to make sure those things get going. But at this point in time there wasn't a mechanism
to get me back involved. So again, I raise those issues and I would really hope that staff,
when you take this forward to the City Council, that those issues are at least brought up and
that the management of this and the funding of it, if we don't have the staff to do it, that the
funding has to be there. Otherwise this doesn't work.
Mancino: Just a question about the environmental board, a concept and that is, there's a lot
of material here. I mean to pull people who haven't worked on this and to get them up to
speed with the background information is going to take some time. —
Conrad: Yeah. A lot of our committees in Chanhassen, they sort of come in for a while and
40
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
then they leave and it's probably not real rewarding, to tell you the truth.
Aanenson: But really a lot of the...
Harberts: I think it's really understanding the role of an advisory committee versus that of
technical staff. We look at staff to do the day to day. Understand what the details are and
that your advisory point, that oversight. ...not really an oversight but just to help establish the
values, the priorities and which direction to send staff.
Mancino: But I've never seen a good advisory committee who hasn't go in depth and
understand and work and advise. I mean I don't think you could just sit out here and not
know some of that detailed stuff. I think you need that behind it to make those good
judgments.
Harberts: But I think that's, you know look at the planning and it's the same with the
Planning Commission. Understanding the ordinance. The intent. You know priorities but we
all bring our own kind of spins because of what we feel is important as individuals but yet
keeping it as a community overall perspective. I would think that that environmental
committee would try to serve that same function. I guess my only comment, question. From
= my understanding that the, we had a call from our...that this is also consistent with state and
federal requirements or guidelines or whatever it's called?
Desotelle: Right, we have to still follow the Wetland Conservation Act and federal
guidelines. Those are some of the issues I'm dealing with and some of the work we want to
do in wetlands.
Harberts: And didn't we as a...community exceed those and am I mixing this up with
something else?
Desotelle: Well our ordinance basically allows us to go into some of these "lower
functioning wetlands" but how the city defines them. However, the state and the federal
system do not allow you to do that. If our ordinance was more conservative, it wouldn't be a
problem. But we aren't as conservative so we still have to follow their guidelines and
that's... I'm dealing with. Some of the issues that the state and federal government is dealing
with and they're going to be dealing with extensively in the next couple years. There's other
cities bringing plans forward and growing urban communities. This idea of functioning
wetland and what is considered a high or a low quality and when can you use a wetland for
water quality purposes so that you can maintain the higher functioning wetland for habitat and
other types of natural resources that are important.
41
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 —.
Harberts: That's probably the extent of my comments. The only thing I find is when we
talk about these NURP ponds and everything. How they're supposed to catch all the
sediment and runoff and this is all the stuff that's supposed to be settling at the bottom. You —
know, what if in 20 to 40 years...stuff at the bottom.
Aanenson: That's why we didn't want a lot of little ponds. We wanted to... —
Harberts: But couldn't that be considered hazardous waste?
Desotelle: ...and so far from what I've learned is the tests that have been done on this, say
it's not. They don't have the heavy metals and things... Maybe some of the areas where
you're real close by an existing highway or... —
Harberts: So it is the city's responsibility for clean up?
Scott: Well yeah.
Desotelle: Part of the plan is for us to maintain the storm water.
Harberts: That's it.
Scott: Good, Matt.
Ledvina: I would echo Ladd's comments in terms of the document itself. It's a tremendous —
effort. 2 to 3 year effort by the SWMP committee and many, many hours and the
implementation part of it is extremely important and we have to make sure that we find ways
of making the types of improvements we want to with the wetland areas and getting those —
projects going. That's certainly important.
Scott: Nancy.
Mancino: No new comments. I'm just very impressed by the work that's been done. —
Scott: Okay, Ron.
Nutting: I'll echo those comments. I'd support the recommendation.
Scott: Jeff. —
Farrnakes: I support the staff recommendations.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Scott: Good, motion please.
Conrad: Yeah, I make the motion the Planning Commission recommends City Council
approve the Surface Water Management Plan.
Harberts: Second.
— Scott: It's been moved and seconded that the motion be voted on as so stated. Is there any
discussion?
Mancino: I third it.
Conrad moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of the Surface Water Management Plan as presented. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE, ARTICLE XXVI, REGARDING THE SIGN
ORDINANCE.
Public Present:
Name Address
Al & Shirley Seeley 586 West 78th Street
Clem Springer 1550 E 79th Street, Bloomington
Roxanne Gregory 7091 Redman Lane
Wanda Biteler 910 Penamint Court
Randy H. Herman 2792 Piper Ridge Lane
Paul Karlson 7888 Market Blvd.
Herb Bloomberg 7008 Dakota Avenue
Tom Lukes 400 West 78th Street
Bernie Hanson 7890 Market Blvd.
Dave Colehour 7886 Market Blvd.
Debbie Stacionis 7880 Market Blvd.
Robert M. Murray 7900 Market Blvd.
Dan Herbst 7640 Crimson Bay
Kevin P. McShane 180 South Shore Court
Vemelle Clayton 422 Santa Fe Circle
43
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Maybe what we can do is field some comments and then have a public hearing and
then I'll make a few comments prior to the public hearing, so.
Nutting: Kate, what's your, the first on page one of the Chamber's comments and
recommendations. Actually it's page one. The first recommendation where they propose
revising the variance, Section 20-1253. What is staff's?
Aanenson: That's in place right now in the ordinance. You have a right to appeal for a
variance. What page are you on?
Nutting: It's comment number one. It's 5 pages back from the start. Where they're
referring to the hardship terminology. Is that standard terminology?
Aanenson: That's in the code right now. It's standard legal language. Again, I'm not sure...
Nutting: That's consistent with all?
Aanenson: Exactly.
Scott: Kate probably, and I'd like to have the other commissioners give us some feedback on
this but I'm thinking, perhaps what might be important for all of us here is that if there are
sections in the comments and recommendations that are already contained or there are already
vehicles for example, this is a good example. The first one. That there already is a variance
vehicle to take care of this so we can limit the discussion at the public hearing to items that _
are not currently covered. And I think there also might be some misconceptions as to
whether window signs are permitted or not. Because I read Mr. Burdick's letter reacting to
window signs being prohibited and that's true with the existing ordinance but it is not true
with the ordinance as proposed. So what we'll try to do for all of you is try to identify
things that may have been misconstrued so that if you're here for that particular part of the
issue, if you have a second issue that you want to talk about, great. But we want to hear all
your comments but I think if we can maybe knock a few of them off before the public
hearing, we'll try to do that.
Harberts: Joe, because staff didn't have an opportunity to really review this and I don't know
if it's fair to put Kate on the spot like this. Wouldn't it be advantageous to first let staff have
an opportunity to maybe dissect it a little bit and maybe do some of that analysis. Maybe see
where some of those points of contention are. Those points that are similar. Otherwise I'm
afraid, you know what are we trying to do with this when staff hasn't really looked at it to
44
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
maybe compare it what's already out there or whatever.
Scott: Well we have a public hearing.
Harberts: Right, but this is, I just don't want to see Kate put on the spot. I think the
comments are good but I'm just wondering if we might want to be careful so we don't try
and put staff into a corner here because they haven't really had an opportunity to look at it. I
think the comments are good to take but I just don't want to put Kate on the spot here in
terms of how is this interpreted given what we already have or, that's just my comments.
Scott: Yeah, I think I'd just leave it up to you. If you can respond to certain things.
Aanenson: ...there are a lot of issues in here and maybe decide what the philosophy and
some of the broader issues are. I'll go through the things that are just as an overview. ...to
start over. Well first I think the ordinance we have in place is pretty darn good and if we
want to leave that one in place, that's fine. I think we were talking about getting some, again
the Highway 5 issue. Architectural compatibility which...I frankly would recommend starting
over...we put some flexibility in here. One of the other big issues was no regulation of
temporary signs and I think philosophically staff opposed to that... We do support the fact
that there is appropriate locations and use of window signs and...we do support that. One of
the other issues is location of signs for real estate...as far as setback and number and intent.
You know having additional signs for other, people that finance the project. People that
design the project and we've always felt like that should all be on one sign and given enough
square footage to... And another issue that was raised...completed leased and/or completely
sold out and sometimes that takes years and years and years. Meanwhile the sign...Again, our
current ordinance does address that. We didn't change that at all really and I think the
existing ordinance...and that decision will be allowed when we build that...Again, there's a
recommendation...commercial for turn about on Highway 7. Should they allow a pylon sign.
Only the commercial can have...are not allowed a monument sign anyway. I guess some
other issues as far as legal non-conforming signs, that's currently addressed in the code. If
we have any legal non-conforming signs, you can change the copy but you can't change the
sign itself as far as the structural changes. If you're going to change the copy, that's
acceptable. That's already existing in the code... The next question about allowing...we don't
allow anything like that in that currently. I mentioned the request for a temporary signs. We
don't support that. Again, there was a concern about the formula that staff has. This is one
of the bigger changes is the relationship between heights of building, percentage of wall sign
and scale of the sign. What we did to change in this ordinance to try to make the size of the
sign have a proportional relationship to the size of the building, which is not...now and that is
a standard change and there is some concern that that would be too restrictive. Staff supports
what we have in here in this document as far as recommendations. There are a couple of
45
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994 —
points that were raised. There are some... They asked that signs closer than 200 feet, that
maybe 100 feet.
Farmakes: Where are you looking Kate?
Aanenson: On page 1. The first page. Under change (d) to read closer than 100 feet from —
residential and... That may be acceptable. Another one, as I said, you can't have a sign
facing a residential area. That's...completely facing residential...some areas you can see
Byerly's from the townhouses behind. That may be too restrictive in certain areas. We can
look at this...I'm sorry, I have a lot of notes in here but those are just some of the...so just
some overview thoughts.
Scott: Comments, questions from commissioners. Can I have a motion to open the public
hearing please?
Conrad moved, Harberts seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: Please step forward. Identify yourself, name and address and if you could, if you feel
similarly to someone who has spoken before you, please state that if you like. No one's
allowed to use the word reiterate but please stick to specific issues. And as best you can, try —
to keep track of what's already been discussed because this is a very important session for all
of us and we want to make sure we get your comments. My sense is, and please correct me.
We expect a tremendous amount of input. We may need to continue this to another meeting
to have staff time to react to your specific comments, which the way I, speaking on behalf of
the Planning Commission, appreciate what you've done. Typically in public hearings on
occasion, we have members of the public who are not as well prepared and it's very difficult
for us to try to juggle all the information so thank you in advance for that. Who'd like to go
first?
Kevin McShane: Good evening. My name is Kevin McShane. I reside at 180 South Shore
Court in Chanhassen. I'm also involved in businesses in town with the State Bank of
Chanhassen. And I'm also currently the President of the Chamber of Commerce for this year.
Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Thank you for the opportunity to visit about this
tonight. We did, as a chamber, spend a lot of time and effort with a variety of people putting —
together these comments. To go back to Kate's comments, I was one of the chamber
members involved in the original subcommittee that reviewed this. The two people who were
involved were retailers, myself and Gene Borg with McDonald's in town. This obviously
encompasses a lot of other businesses, developers, commercial people, industrial park type
folks and certainly we're going to hear some comments from some of those tonight. My
46
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
comments are more general from the standpoint that I do believe that there needs to be some
additional work on this and possibly a way to approach this is to get a subcommittee of sorts
of the commission and business people to really work through a lot of these issues. There
has been a variety of drafts done on this. I've been looking at it for 2 1/2 years. There was
a period of time where not a lot happened on it and other people looked at it so the original
group was somewhat resurrected about March of this year and between the time, the last draft
we saw as Chamber members and so about March of this year, other groups had seen it and
there had been changes. And each time there's a change, people need to be able to react to it
and hopefully we're to the point now that we can narrow in on it and talk about the specific
issues. There are some comments in here that relate to the existing ordinance. I think as we
went through, at least my version of it is not only look at the existing ordinance in terms of
some of the specific changes but if there are other things in there that people wanted to
comment on, that was the way it was approached. The people that were involved, Chamber
and non-Chamber members but basically business people in town, did take the approach that
they wanted to do this in concert with everyone. You know we don't necessarily want to
stand at a public hearing and hash through every issue and so therefore I think it may make
sense to get some rooms together and do some more work on it. There are a number of
people here tonight who have spent time on it. Would like to comment on specific things
and we'd like them to have the opportunity to do that. I think the key is, as a business
person, signing is a form of advertising and a form of marketing and those are some of the
most key things in your business that you do. You can do a lot of background things. But
really to let the public know who you are, where you are and get an identity, is what
marketing and advertising is all about. Signing, with the amount of money spent. I know our
sign, I tried to find the exact numbers. I think it was in the neighborhood of $25,000.00 for a
moving sign. It gets to be a significant investment on the part of a business. And you spend
a lot of time and effort maintaining that. I think we're all aware of bad signage and good
signage and certainly we can all come up with examples of that. I think the intent of the
current business committee is to, as they've upgraded businesses, we've seen a lot of
redevelopment. People have not used their old signs. They've spent money on new ones. I
mean that was important to their business and I think the spirit of the business community is
evident in what we see on main street today. And in the industrial parks, etc. So I would
encourage this group to set aside some time and really go through each one of these issues
because they're important to all kinds of people in this room. With that I'd like to turn it
over to some of the other folks that have specific comments about specific areas in the
proposal.
Scott: Good, thank you.
Kevin McShane: Thanks.
47
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Dan Herbst: Good evening. Chairman, members of Planning Commission. My name is Dan
Herbst. I live at 7640 Crimson Bay in Chanhassen and I'm coming to you from three
perspectives tonight. I served as a member of the Planning Commission and Chairman back
when one of the first sign ordinances were proposed and I know what it's like to be screamed
at in a room like this that I was anti business and I know what it's like to be screamed at
other places worse things but I know what you're going through. It can be a contentious —
issue. I also have been in the land development, housing business. I have a company called
Pemtom which has been in the housing land development business since 1963 and I'd like to
just touch on the perspective of some specific information we have given to staff and
included in your information. Thirdly, I also own Cheers Wine and Spirits in town and I
want to just briefly talk about the impact of this sign ordinance on that business. From a
historical perspective, I think you know, I mentioned on previous occasions to some of you
that we were the commission who drafted the land use plan and ordinances when nothing was
going on out here. We were actually encouraging businesses and you're looking at a whole
wave of activity. I think you find it very threatening but I think the important thing is to
look at what other cities have experienced. Right now we're meeting as a core city task force
with the Mayor of Minneapolis, Mayor of St.Paul to look at how do to remove barriers for
businesses and housing. So I think it's important that you don't turn the screws too tight not
only in the sign ordinances but other ordinances as you're proceeding through this process.
Even cities such as Edina have problems with 50th and France. They had to look at all their
ordinances. Bloomington out at 98th and Lyndale. Brooklyn Center. Brooklyn Park. So
many times you're flooded with an onset of development activity and signage is one of them
and you tend to make ordinances tighter and tighter and tighter and all of a sudden businesses
are failing and going other places and you've got to go back and relook at it. So it's a very
costly process. And you've got to go through TIF and things like that to bring businesses
back or relook at your ordinance so I think if you err on anything, you ought to err on the _
side of being more liberal instead of being conservative and tightening the ordinance up.
From the land development perspective and the housing. I guess I'd ask you to think about
when you first purchased your own home out probably in Chanhassen. Signage is extremely
important. Study after study that we've done, you think people come to you because you're
Pemtom or you're Lundgren or whatever the case may be but basically people get in their
cars and they drive on a Saturday and Sunday and they start looking for housing in the area
that they think they may want to live. And directional signs, model home signs, are very,
very important. Parade of Home signs are very important. Weekend signs. You don't see
builders, realtors climbing out in 20 below weather sticking out signs on the corner because
they want to do it. It's not a fun activity but if you sat in a model home and didn't have
signage up, you would realize how important it is. So we have given some language that's
been adopted recently by Eden Prairie and by Burnsville and it's incorporated in our
comments that Kate has and if we could have that same perspective on the weekend signs
going up at the set time when we put in our comments. The Parade of Home signs. That
48
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
would be extremely helpful because it's not only helpful to the business person. It's
extremely important to the consumer. Thirdly, and I don't know the pylon sign. I would not
have leased the space I have without the pylon sign. It's very, very important. The window
signage, you know no one probably dislikes it more than I do. I don't even like to pull up in
front of my business but it's a business where from the Liquor Control Commission, you are
not allowed to advertise price in the newspaper. You cannot put anything in these valpacks.
And your ability to advertise wines and liquors are extremely, extremely limited. That's why
you see so much going on in windows and that's the only way consumers are going to be
able to compare. I think one of the key elements we brought to town when we opened up
Cheers was that we added a strong element of competitiveness to retail part of wines and
spirits. But signage is very, very important to us and it's the only way we could basically
advertise what's going on inside that store. So I know the existing ordinance or one of the
drafts had no window signs. Now it's 33%. As far as this particular store that I have now,
the whole store is windows so it's not going to impact us. There's probably a number of
people here that 33% is not going to be enough to help them communicate their business so I
again, I'd like to also repeat what Kevin said. If a couple of our committee, a couple of the
Planning Commission and also someone from staff could get together and fine tune this thing
and bring it back, I think it would be much more beneficial than not. There's a lot of people
very upset going all the way up to Council and having the process work very contentious and
then having a system where you have a lot of signs that are not in keeping with the ordinance
and it's really impossible to go out there and picking up and taking down signs and sending
people letters and all that kind of stuff so I think again, it's better I think if you err on the
side of leaving the sign ordinance as little as possible. Let the people who advertise their
business for...Thank you very much.
Scott: Thanks Dan.
Vernelle Clayton: My name is Vernelle Clayton and I know I can't say reiterate but...
Scott: Also. And I agree with. Just don't say reiterate.
Vernelle Clayton: I participated in a number of the meetings that were held by the group
comprised of the Chamber committee that it was sort of a revolving door. We had some
people at some meetings and others at others and there were some...Therefore we had a
variety of input but there were some things that...rang through all of them. One of the ones
that hasn't been discussed here, one of the points that hasn't been discussed by the various
speakers is one that I'll touch on first and then I'll just be very brief after that... And that is
the language relating to a violation becoming a misdemeanor. I think while you have heard
that most people...window signs and certainly they are, I think that this sends a very negative
image and...formulate a response that goes kind of like with this. We have a cooperate spirit.
49
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
They would like a cooperate spirit and they don't need to be presumed to be a person that
would directly or a person affected by signs but a lot of people... These are our neighbors,
our friends, the people that we shop with and work with and to think that the city needs to —
create a situation where every day they have something out that strong, it's a misdemeanor is
kind of the message I don't think you want to send.
Aanenson: Can I just clarify that? Any violation of the city code, anything in the city code,
anybody notified, violation...
Vemelle Clayton: This was new language that was added.
Aanenson: Well anything, if you're cited for a violation of the code is a Class B —
misdemeanor.
Mancino: So that's just clarifying.
Aanenson: It's just, we pulled it into that section of the code but any violation. If we send
somebody...get a permit, then we send a notice they didn't comply and we would have the
right to, normally our procedure is we send them a letter then we send a follow up letter
saying you've got x number of days and then if we don't get compliance, we turn it over to
the City Attorney. And yes, ultimately that could be...Class B misdemeanor but that is any
ordinance.
Vernelle Clayton: Is each day added for this, per this ordinance...
Aanenson: Yes. It's applied city wide. If you're in violation...that that could happen.
Vernelle Clayton: So that's even. Well let me say that. If it's possible that...misdemeanor
could be deleted from this section of the ordinance if we'd like that. If it's possible. If not,
the for each day, we certainly would like that.
Aanenson: Well we could take it out of that section of the code but it's still in the city
ordinance. I think we put it in there so everybody's on notice. It's in the code. At the
beginning of almost all the city ordinances in the city code book.
Vernelle Clayton: You know the attitude that I just expressed the attitude that the group
expressed and so you can.
Aanenson: I don't think...normally the procedure is to send a letter and we usually get
cooperation...
50
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Vernelle Clayton: And that's the point. The point is that our solution was that the ordinance
should be the type of ordinance that represents a cooperative, friendly and helpful attitude for
the businesses. I think unless it is so restrictive, there is probably not much change that you
can continue with that type of measures to enforce it. And that was our point. I would like
to address perhaps the way the planning...a bit because most of the folks that I work with on
a daily basis are merchants who are affected by the window signage. And I would also like
to say I think if we can, I can parallel my experience perhaps with your's in that we work in
bringing plans of building to completion. We have beautiful plans in multi color, chalk and
photo and so forth and we've conjured up a mental image of what this project is going to
look like when it's done. So do you. You approve a building that has x number of square
feet and the windows are here and...and so forth and...beautiful building. And then it's built
and people move in. At that point it's no longer mine. It's no longer your's. Now we've
turned it over to other folks who have another idea. Another use. And they put it to use, in
this case, ...for it's intended use which is retail. The windows are used to display
merchandise. In some cases they put up signs that are very important to them. I might not
like it. There are several signs around town personally that I don't like. But it's none of my
business. It's a little bit of my business since I have something to do with managing Market
Square but only to the extent that something that any individual tenant might do that would
be detrimental to the overall impact or image of the entire shopping center and not harmful to
some of the other tenants and their reputation. These folks, this is their livelihood...but as
taxpayers in Chanhassen, we certainly depend on them to make sure that each of our
_ individual taxes on our individual homes are not as high as they would if we didn't have
retail and industrial community. And we're I guess, I'm speaking about messages. I'm
speaking about letting go. I'm speaking about letting the merchants make some of their own
decisions on what kind of image that they want. It might not be my image. It's their image.
If they feel it's tacky, they'll go out of business. That's...run through several times in our
meetings. That maybe these guys should be making their own decisions. If they have a
tacky shop, they'll probably be out of business. So to summarize, I'd encourage you to keep
it simple and practical. Keep a proper attitude and yet we did address sections of the
ordinance that have not been as a body of the report. So it was intentional. There weren't
any reference to making some changes in the area that we thought needed to be changed. Or
had been in...
Scott: Thank you. Would anybody else? You don't need an invitation. You can just come
up. Would anybody else like to speak?
Clem Springer: Mr. Chairman, commission members. My name is Clem Springer. I manage
the Town Square. My address is 1550 East 79th Street in Bloomington. I support in general
the comments and recommendations that have been made by the Chamber. I had an
opportunity to read those just recently. I was planning on making some specific comments
51
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
about the ordinance but to start that I don't have the current one. The one I was sent was
dated back in May and I've not been receiving anything later since that time. Again, I'm
most concerned about the interior sign controls. I think this goes beyond the public safety
and welfare that's usually the reason for a city being involved in sign ordinances. And I
think there's been an over reaction in part to some existing problems in this city. I've
managed property here for 6 years and I've felt, as one of the new people in town, that I'm
being restricted in ways that existing people are not being restricted in terms of the kind of
signage that they have. I was told for example when I came to town that I could not put a
sign on my shopping center for rent if I didn't have at least 20% vacancy. I see signs other
places in the community that have been up for 6 years saying they're for rent and that kind of
bothers me that uneven enforcement I think of some of the ordinances today and I think that
if some way was found to bring up the code enforcement on the ones that are there today,
that you'd probably be less concerned about what's going to be done in the future. That
you'd probably find that you rid yourself of a number of problems. I see pylon signs for
example on TH 5 that advertise off site premises. I see signs that welcome us to Chanhassen
as we come. And I think those kind of signs have to be taken into consideration in your
ordinance and make sure that what applies to the public also applies to some of the things
that the city is involved with. I thing the main thing that's being stressed is that the —
ordinance needs to be reviewed in the context of what's economically reasonable for the
business people as well as what gives you the kind of impact an aesthetics that you want in
your city but I think you have to have advertising, marketing of the businesses to be able to
have them successful and pay some pretty high taxes. The center that I have here in
Chanhassen has the higher tax rate of all the centers that I've managed. More than 50%
more than the other centers and that imposes quite a burden on the retailers. Thank you for —
your time.
Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing?
Brad Johnson: Brad Johnson, 7425 Frontier Trail. I'm with Lotus Realty. I guess my only
real concern about this, and other things that have been going on within the city is that we've
brought 40 businesses to the community and along with Clem and others, are concerned about
their survival. And I have been in business a long time and normally when you change an
ordinance you first of all state your mission and I don't really care how you personally feel
but I think for your own comments, if you're going to comment, so I want to know if you're
pro business or anti business. Because I perceive the documents that I've seen so far on this _
are anti business. And that's why you have these people here. That's why they've probably
spent 100 hours on this particular thing and I really don't care. If you feel that you're anti
business, you're not concerned about the people in the community that pay 5 times the taxes
you pay as a homeowner. The people that really are here putting out their life, that's fine. I
want to hear that because I think that's the key issue here. The issue is, if you look at Guys
52
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
and Dolls, how do you like their sign? It looks pretty good right now. Herb has put a lot of
money into that facility without your asking to change the look of that particular building.
Over the last, and the signs are being changed. All our buildings that we have built have
gone along with what the city has.
Aanenson: I'm sorry but I have to comment on that Brad. That took a lot of work, since
I've been with the city, to get some regeneration of those signs that are up there. We got in a
big dispute with...where we were very offended with their coming to the city and we wouldn't
let them have the sign they wanted so.
Brad Johnson: I'm not disagreeing with you but I think.
Aanenson: I'm not disagreeing with your comments you know but I just want to make sure
that it's clear that we worked very hard to try to get those signs changed.
Brad Johnson: I'm not, I'm just saying that the signage in the community since I was here
for the last 7 or 8 years has changed dramatically. Each new building that we have come, we
have met your requirements. We've agreed on signs and I think we're getting there but I
think the bottom line is that you have to decide if you're pro business. Are we encouraging
businesses. We compete with Eden Prairie and Minnetonka and other communities. And
these people have to survive. That's all my feelings are and I'd like to hear, as you comment
on this, the first step I want to hear from each of you is are you pro business or anti business.
Thank you.
Scott: Any other comments?
Debbie Stacionis: Hi. I'm Debbie Stacionis and I guess I apologize for not, I haven't seen
the latest proposal. I just have a question and some clarification on the signage. What, as far
as how much of windows can be covered or has that been...?
Harberts: I think the question is, has it been proposed.
Aanenson: What we're recommending, it's 33% but then also there was a cap put on there
based on the fact that we capped your wall signs so what we decided is that you went to 33%
the area of a window sign. So you have interpreted it as a total window area for that space
of the building and...total window sign area exceeded the wall sign area...so there's a formula
for that and...
Debbie Stacionis: So 33%...
53
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Aanenson: There's a caveat with it total wall sign...
Debbie Stacionis: Well okay, I guess my question is. —
Aanenson: I have to know the size of the front of your building. I guess I can't answer that
completely.
Debbie Stacionis: My question is, are you looking at the total sign? I'm thinking of my sign
in particular which are very large however if you're going to consider only the neon and —
consider the area of the neon, it would not be so I guess I'm trying to figure out where I
stand. You know what I'm saying. It's not a solid sign. So how is that going to be
interpreted? —
Aanenson: The way it's interpreted is we take the outside area and that would be the square
footage. —
Debbie Stacionis: Even though the square is empty.
Aanenson: So maybe that needs to be an area that might need some clarification. Neon
versus.
Debbie Stacionis: And how did...that certain percentage? How did the 33%?
Aanenson: Surveying other communities and through the work that the Planning Commission
discussed it and that was their recommendation.
Debbie Stacionis: Thank you. —
Scott: Good. Any other comments? Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? —
Harberts moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Just a question. Do you have, I'm trying to think if whether it would be appropriate
to continue this particular issue to the next meeting to give, do you feel that staff needs time —
to digest some of these comments?
Aanenson: Well I guess I'd like to hear some of your comments...give me some direction. —
Scott: Okay.
54
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Harberts: I'll start.
Scott: Oh, okay.
Harberts: I would recommend that Kevin's comment earlier about the partnership and
addressing this issue, with the importance that it has on the community's vitality, both in
terms of the look as well as the survival of businesses...I would certainly encourage that they
continue with a round table discussion made up of staff, commission members, chamber
members, the business community. And just come to, try and come to an understanding or
agreement or compromise or whatever that everyone feels is a win/win situation. That's my
comments. I do not feel comfortable with moving this on and I think it's very important that
we take into consideration the comments from the people that this is most affecting. Given
the amount of work and interest that they have portrayed here.
Scott: Good, Ladd.
Conrad: I would echo Diane's comments. One I think, I'm real impressed with the
Chamber. I told some members this already. I really appreciate the involvement. I think it's
significant. It's obviously not in line with what the proposal was but I think that's good just
to have their involvement in a real organized way. But my recommendation, there are so
many. I have my own issues and I see some issues that I think need some time to take a
look at and sync it up with our ordinance or kick it out but I think that's sort of, that's a
work session. And I've been trying to think of the formulation for that work session. How
does that work? Is that a little committee? Is that a Planning Commission work session?
And I'm not totally sure but yet I might, I would propose that we get two chamber members,
two Planning Commission members, staff and maybe somebody at large. Maybe somebody
from the public community that we could bring in that might be a little bit non-biased. Might
reflect some community thoughts. And see what that work session could turn out. I don't
know that there's going to be agreement in that. But on the other hand, I think we could
probably get rid of some of the issues in that work session and come back with, to staff or
come back to the Planning Commission with something that's closer.
Harberts: I would just also comment that I think the ordinance that staff has drafted or
framed is also good. So it's just in a sense finding that balance between what the city's
trying to be guided as and what the business community needs to meet their concerns. So I
think, you know I'd have to also endorse the efforts by staff.
Conrad: I think it's interesting to see reality. What you're seeing is an ordinance that might
be drafted in nice philosophy but now we're seeing it tested in real situations and maybe we
can learn some things. So again, I do believe we need, there's no way we're going to be fair
55
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
if we try to go through this point by point tonight. I think it does need some more work.
Scott: Good. Matt.
Ledvina: I would agree with Ladd and Diane. But as far as a work committee, I think that's
a good idea. I don't know the exact formula for that but I would be receptive to seeing the
whole Planning Commission involved since it's really at our, it's our responsibility as a —
whole group. You know to take it from this point and bring it to the Council. Or forward it
to the Council with the changes. The necessary changes so I don't know.
Conrad: That'd be alright. I think.
Nutting: A Planning Commission work session and in support of that in that small group
maybe more, put all the commissioners into that, either way.
Farmakes: All of the work sessions were attended by Chamber representatives. All the work
sessions that I've attended had a Chamber representative sitting in observation anyways.
Scott: Ron.
Nutting: I guess I support the comments made already. I guess I'll leave my other
comments to later.
Scott: Okay, Jeff. —
Farmakes: I think this needs more work. There are several areas that could be discussed in a
work session. I think it's good to get it out in front of the group that's concerned about it. —
Find out where interests are and where reality is, as Ladd has said. However, I do want to
make a comment. I don't think the issue is pro business or anti business. I think the issue is
pro community. And that's why I'm here. Why I'm volunteering my time. These issues of —
signage are really can be quite overt and they can be very subtle. They create the flavor of a
community and it's not always based on the dollar. Some of you who go to Wisconsin Dells,
where it's essentially wide open competition. Every signage basically can be put up and you —
get a prolifery of tacky signage. It's left up to the individual, the store manager. The process
that we have here is not to leave government up to the store manager. It's a process of
comment. Process of community involvement. And it's a process of the professional staff
and advice. And I think it works best when we work together to sell this property.
Scott: Good, thank you. Can I have a motion please?
56
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Harberts: I would move that the Planning Commission table the sign ordinance and that staff
work to develop this type of task force or sign commission work session, whatever is
appropriate. I think the Chamber's certainly been a real key player so I would support the
comments made by Ladd with regard to make up.
Scott: What is our schedule look like as far as work sessions coming up? Because I think it
would be advantageous if we could schedule that while these folks are here.
Audience: Are you inviting our comments at that work session?
Scott: Yeah.
Audience: I mean are you asking that we be vocally involved?
Scott: That's correct. Just like I know you and Kevin came to one of the work sessions and
_ that's basically what it is. It's not necessarily a published public hearing but it's more of an
informal, and this is very formal and I think for something like this, there'd be more
interplay. Anybody who wants to come is able to come.
Audience: I think we were just under the impression that we've been allowed to sit in on a
work session but we weren't allowed to make comments.
Aanenson: That's not true. We've asked for your comments and been waiting and waiting
and waiting.
Scott: But perhaps that wasn't obvious and that's, as the Chairperson, that's partially my
fault but.
Audience: So we can join in at a work session?
— Scott: Absolutely.
Audience: Oh, I wasn't aware of that.
Scott: Yeah, okay.
Aanenson: That's why we invited you up to the table...
Audience: Oh, see I was really under the impression, and I think we all were, that it was
kind of a you could be seen but not heard. That this was a work meeting for you guys
57
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
where, with a lot of community involvement it was really going to just become a public —
hearing without notice. So we were under the impression that we weren't allowed to make
comments or put input in until this stage and I think that's the impetus to asking for real
direct dialogue between, so instead of just having something on paper, we can say this is why —
we're looking at it from this angle. So I guess there's been.
Harberts: I don't know and I don't know if a work session is the right environment or if it's —
just a task force in terms of the interested.
Scott: I don't really care what it's called. Let's schedule it.
Harberts: No, I don't either.
Aanenson: When you start breaking it down, to have some people that don't understand the
rationale as to how we got to where we are and I agree with, I think Matt's right on. If you _
don't take everybody on board to understand the rationale, why we have the ordinance we do,
we're back trying to educate the rest of you as to why we're...so I appreciate Matt's
comments. I think we all need to be there to be brought along. And the same with the _
Chamber. Now you have to recognize that there's competing interests out there and if you
take the narrow focus of your spokespeople, you've got to make sure those people who have
different interests than the people that are leading it, that they're attracting...too.
Scott: Well if I can suggest. I mean it was the way it was handled today, I think worked
really well. I mean the President of the Chamber of Commerce, who is also a business. We —
had retail. We had developers. We had mall managers so I think amongst yourselves you
can probably identify, get the broad brush and maybe we're talking half a dozen people. I'm
not going to tell you want to do but I think you can figure it out. But how does the schedule —
look and I would think like a 5:30, couple hours before one. Next time? Is that okay,
August 3rd? You're all invited. So it will be 5:30, Wednesday. August 3rd and then what
we'll do is we'll give it 2 hours and if we're not where we want to be, we'll be doing that on —
the 17th. And probably figure within this kind of focused effort, 4 hours we should probably
be able to at least get it to the point where we can bring it back to another public hearing and
possibly resolve it so. Great. And there's a motion that has not been seconded. So can I —
have a second please.
Ledvina: I'll second that.
Harberts moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the
Amendment to the City Code, Article XXVI regarding the sign ordinance for further _
study. All voted in favor, except Commissioner Mancino who had left the meeting, and
58
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded to approve the Minutes of
the Planning Commission meeting dated July 6, 1994 as presented.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Aanenson: We've got a lot of things to talk about. They approved the second reading of the
Highway 5 overlay zone so it's just a matter of publishing. We have a Highway 5...overlay
_ district itself. The approval of the Marcus Corporation, the Kindercare request was approved
subject to a letter from Councilman Senn indicating that he has no financial interest in the
project.
Scott: Can I ask you a question about that? I talked with Roger a little bit about it and that
document was going to be put together, or maybe has been put together by staff. Because I
was reading.
Aanenson: I believe Roger was preparing that.
Scott: Yeah, see I read in the paper that Roger was going to do it. And then so I gave him a
call and he said, what? And then I wasn't trying to, you know I thought that was, I mean I
read the thing and I went wow, this is kind of interesting. So he went, oh wait a minute.
And I said well geez, you know I didn't mean to throw a monkey wrench into the thing but I
said if you're going to talk to staff shortly, you might want to, because that needs to get
done. That needs to get resolved.
Aanenson: It will be on the... Mission Hills, Tandem Properties was given preliminary plat
approval. I told you that they did modify the park area. The issue that the Planning
Commission raised. I give Todd Hoffman a lot of credit because he really went to bat on
that project and took a lot of heat and I think we're going to have a lot better quality project
based on areas what you talked about and...did a great job there. The Oaks at Minnewashta
was given preliminary plat approval. That's the one on Kings Road with the park. Just for
your information, the residents south of Kings Road have asked that an EAW be done.
They're concerned with the wetlands. Mitigation...
Nutting: What happens to that request?
Aanenson: It goes right to the EQB. They have a number of days to decide who the
_ RGU...back to us and then when it goes to the City Council, we can go through the issues
that they bring and whether or not we support. Whether or not it should have an EAW.
59
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Autumn Ridge, Good Value Homes. The applicant wasn't there. He indicated that he didn't
get a copy of the packet in time...so that will be on City Council on Monday. The City
Council did amend the CBD zone to allow for the schools. They did the first and second _
reading based on the fact that they're not going to have more than 3 people at the meeting.
For a code amendment they need 4 people so they did that. The telephone switching was
given approval and the first reading for the accessory structure was also given approval. The
next agenda will be light on the Council because they will only have 3 people there.
anything that needs a code amendment, which is the shoreland regs, we couldn't put on. We
need 4/5 on that. The next Planning Commission meetings, we have a couple of subdivisions
on there. We just came in with the rest of the, or two of the outlots on the Target so you'll
be seeing that on your August 18th meeting. The Perkins and the Taco Bell. And going to
HRA tomorrow night is conceptual design...entry monuments if you're interested in that... —
Scott: Okay, good.
Aanenson: Oh, and I just wanted to say. We did hire somebody. A Planner I. He'll be
starting on August 1st and we're real excited. His main primary responsibility will be code
enforcement and.
Scott: That's a first, isn't it?
Aanenson: Well when I was asked, part of being Planning Director, that was one area that...
Scott: Yeah, if we're going to make them up. Good. We don't really have any ongoing
items do we?
Aanenson: I need to put something in the packet. We have a list of ongoing items but I can —
knock a lot of those off so I'll put that in next time. I've just been so busy that I haven't
been able to do that but we've got the Highway 5 stuff done. We're...the shoreland got done,
so we're really... Oh some other good news. We've been approved for the underpass. On
Highway we put in on some ISTEA money that we got...Bluff Creek and we just found we
did get approval for that so when we build that segment of road next year, we'll have the _
underpass.
Scott: That's great, and that's Bluff Creek?
Aanenson: Yeah, the south frontage road...
Scott: Okay, I guess the next item is open discussion but I hear briefcases so hopefully we
won't.
60
Planning Commission Meeting - July 20, 1994
Conrad moved, Harberts seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
61
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planning Director
DATE: July 28, 1994
SUBJ: Proposed Redevelopment of the Bowling Alley Building
Lotus Realty is proposing a redevelopment of the Bowling Alley Building. This proposal was
presented to the HRA in June. This proposal does not require formal action but rather is a
discussion item. This proposal will be required to go through site plan review with a
recommendation from the Planning Commission and approval from the City Council. Staff
has not reviewed this proposal except the proposed uses; restaurant, bowling alley, theaters
and retail, which are permitted in the CBD zone.
This item is before the commission for an informal conceptual review. The applicant is
seeking guidance from the commission for the proposed redevelopment of the bowling alley
property and the architectural style of the project.