The URL can be used to link to this page

12-6-95 Agenda and Packet AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSI FILE WEDNESDAY,DECEMBER 6, 1995, 7:00 CHANHASSEN RECREATION CENTER 2310 COULTER BOULEVARD CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Consider an amendment to the development contract for Oak Ponds/Oak Hill site plan/development contract located between Powers and Kerber Boulevard, just north of West 78th Street. 2. Request to rezone 222,580 sq. ft. of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to RSF, Residential Single Family and preliminary plat approval into 7 lots and a 20 ft. front yard setback variance. The property is located on the east side of Galpin Blvd. just south of Lukewood Drive, Dempsey Addition, Timothy Dempsey. 3. Ted deLancey for a request for preliminary plat approval of 8.9 acres into 9 lots on property zoned RSF, Single Family Residential, and located at 7505 Frontier Trail, Lotus Glen. 4. John Knoblauch for preliminary plat approval of 8.35 acres into 12 lots, one outlot and associated right-of-way on property zoned RSF, Single Family Residential; a variance for street grade of 10%; and a variance to wetland setback of 20 feet for Lots 11 and 12; property is located on the east side of Yosemite at the Chanhassen-Shorewood city limits. The project is known as Knob Hill. OLD BUSINESS 5. An amendment to the City Code for landscape nurseries and garden centers in the A2, Agricultural Estate District. NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 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. 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: November 30, 1995 SUBJ: Director's Report On November 27, 1995,the City Council took the following action: 1. Terminated the condemnation action of 2.35 acres of residential land in the Creekside Addition(Heritage Development). 2. Approved the site plan amendment for an addition to an office/warehouse facility, Microvision. 3. CSM was given preliminary plat approval for their two buildings located at Dell Road and Hwy. 5. Attached is an article on different layouts of a subdivision of APA"Planning"magazine. 18 Planning November 1995 \` P L A N N I N G P R A C T I C E When You Can't Go by the Book Coping with unconventional site plans and building proposals. By Joseph McElroy n school and on the job, - - planners are taught to follow the rules when P reviewing proposals for -4-- ,--4::.; / ti , •new projects. After all, 1 .• ,_ , . going by the book is the fair I •-c-_- Oak.: s"� way—and the way to avoid • `' � .♦� 'cam-�or� -:char es of favoritism. — $:— � g y r - -- Yet the development codes 5 �•'F – t; that city and county planners n >F"o'' ._- __- i . must rely on may not have ' \ f t - -- ; A I =--='i ie � been updated in years, and It Y- a . t -t- �4. 1 . 3 _ _ they may be out of step with : _ r_- - A.f. ,¢., r r_.w-F..... .� recent trends—narrower streets ? \ s { �- _ - - _ in residential subdivisions,for —s tj=s _______. _ 1 instance.Asa result,a builder - �� — may bring in a site plan that -J � " � . �--+� �- � `y 4. .: � diverges from local require- \.• .• •1 • ,__ " ments yet is considered a poli ``" ;•• tive development in many ways. elected officials, institutions, If planners stick to the regu- or citizen groups. And most r fwvATE PARK lations, they risk the loss of a sensible planners—especially (� creative development that in areas with high unemploy- non could benefit the community. ment and an eroding tax base— M. 1). ...... .,..-_,A=, —� .=_- . . _ But if they bend the rules to will usually accommodate eco- rim�a � � � .Rr*,. ■emui\� foster innovation, they could nomic development,while still = rill 1 be held responsible if an ap- enforcing reasonable planning ��P ��' � t.,.proved project turns out to be and design standards. �— _ a disappointment.As one public • - r1 r 1111= U i works director put it: "If ev- Blank slateimmiummiii- , � �� l�!!1'!lefi ey erything turns out great,some- Deviating from the rules would meal,.,..•.J1jimii".: body else will get the credit. seem to be easiest when a de- it I, — � �r_' 15- - 7liki I r 1 But if it's a disaster,the elected velopment is intended for a item _-" ii officials and the public will greenfield site. But that didn'tII_.. � Iti. i: come back and ask who the shorten the review process for - - heck did the review.' an unconventional site plan = - V 3..r.- - sw So what's a planner to do? proposal in Oswego,Illinois,a R - mar vier IV The answer depends on a com- village of about 5,000 located -• = _ 4 plex web of technical, admin- 45 miles southwest of Chicago. '" P�-,j• - `�� _ pp.- _ istrative, political, and eco- Although the older parts of =� '! ��, nomic issues. Most planners Oswego are built on a classic {'"� r'"' _ are trained to deal with the Midwestern rid the village's = — g ges ' • .. F �. • i0 technical questions and usu- zoning ordinance encourages _ ' ally pick up administration suburban-style development. J i fairly quickly.But politics and Lots in the R-1 single-family I the market are trickier. residential zoning category `r•, Many planning directors must be at least 15,000 square admit privately that requests feet—almost twice as big as _ '• ! "-' •..'_f ;-:47.- �� _ Sty for rezonings and variances most of the lots in the older - = �,--— :r l- •' I �' -- � •- are more readily accepted when sections.The requirement en- :51a `'- - glow• i• - = they are backed by powerful courages typical, low-density 19 P L A N N I N G P R A C T I C E just an excuse to increase den- get people and porches back sity.But James Constantine of into their front yards—with „• ' . .-y. , Community Planning & Re- garages in back—to provide i. .04 • • _ f� search in Princeton, New Jer- some sort of neighborliness." ; sey,a neotraditional advocate The village board finally ap- % ~ - and consultant to the devel- proved the preliminary plan . •- , f '.,i ; oper, says Oswego Village by a four-to-two vote. _ Crossing is the real deal. "It One reason for the approval ' has the element of mixed use; was Inland's agreement to dedi- . '. sex .E . 2'-= - there is a village center—not a cate an 80-foot right-of-way _„ "`'4 '� = strip center—for people to walk and 10 foot easement to allow - j to," he says. "Also, there is an for the widening of Washing- ---;i---- mo —i •. 0... interconnected, modified grid ton Street, adjacent to its •:L. street system." project.An Inland official says i The greatest deviation al- they hope to break ground early lowed for the new subdivi- next year. > + :3 -- sion is in lot size.Three differ- � :� =_=a . �=r ent single-family house types How Charleston did it will be built on lots ranging Traditionally, planners have _ .I _+` -------r= �, ._' --�—:_� from an average of 10,800 been taught to refer first to . - I __ square feet down to 5,800- their comprehensive plans, s m p® i ° 1 , . ` r square-foot zero-lot-line lots. zoning,and subdivision codes IgNt '— .9 . ._-rte. �( 3�°°G1_01+�-1 =� Lot width will be 50 to 65 feet, when reviewing site plans.But as opposed to the 100-foot width these documents alone can't required by code in R-1 areas, anticipate every situation that it took time, but eventually suburban development. according to Jeffrey Humm, will arise.Moreover,the wide- this unconventional site plan In September,however,the Oswego's public works direc- spread use of planned unit de- /above left/was approved for village planning commission tor. velopment classifications for Oswego Village Square, an recommended approval of a Front yard setbacks will large new projects and condi- 85-acre development near mixed-use development to be range from 10 to 20 feet, a tional use permits in built-up Chicago. built on 85 acres of recently variance from the 30 feet re- areas means that the planning Alleys—a neotraditional annexed farmland.The devel- quired by code. Single-family staff is often making what element—are featured on the oper of Oswego Village Square, lot coverage will range from amounts to a conditional rec- top part of the site,shown the Inland Partnership Asset 45 to 60 percent; Oswego's ommendation for approval. both on the left and in black Sales Corporation of Oak Brook, zoning code requires 30 per- Rather than a simple yes or no, on the plan above. Illinois,bills the project as the cent lot coverage,says Humm. the answer is often,"yes,under region's first true traditional In addition, some residen- the following conditions. . ." Above are five of the project's neighborhood development. tial streets will be just 24 feet In Charleston, South Caro- house models. The one at top The site plan,by Nuszer Kopatz wide,although most will meet lina, however, the planning left has the garage attached Urban Design Associates of the village's 31-foot standard. department recommends PUD at the front.At top right, Denver,shows straight streets, Some of the new streets will zoning only for parcels of more garage access is on the side. alleys, 16 acres of adjacent have a 40-foot right-of-way,as than five acres. So the city The three models at the bottom have their garages at commercial development,and opposed to the typical 66-foot took a different approach when the rear, with access from the a village green with a band right-of-way specified in the a national nonprofit organiza- alley. shell. code. tion,the Volunteers of America, The developer's proposal Anthony Casaccio,president came in with a proposal to calls for 199 single-family of Inland's development arm, build a 50-unit apartment com- houses at a gross density of says the proposal faced initial plex on half an acre in a his- 4.26 units per acre and 104 resistance because of the den- toric district at the edge of the town homes at 12 units an sity. "But once the village got downtown. The site was part acre—a higher density than involved with the entire con- of a general business zoning most development in Oswego. cept," he says, "they began to district.The tiny efficiency apart- The village staff,which does look at it differently." ments—only 216 square feet— not include a planner, had to Humm concurs."Our people were intended as transitional determine whether the devel- saw what this is—going back housing for the homeless.They opment would be a real to traditional neighborhood val- rent for 5250 a month. neotraditional community or ues," he says. "The idea is to The city granted several vari- 20 Planning November 1995 P L A N N I N G P R A C T I C E ances: for parking (75 spaces First things required in the zoning ordi- first nance, 12 allowed); density The first step in (2,250 square feet of lot area any site plan re- .- per unit required, 458 square view is to de- . --• ,- -7"---1---\\V .'s , feet requested);and lot cover- cide whether {y, `y age (35 percent required, 72 the proposed "� ; --/*\ ------- percent requested). The side land use is ap- is "' .a and rear yard residential set- propriate for21P - back requirements—three feet the location. If \_ each in this area—also were the answer is s I t t i . 1 �F .•.• waived,allowing the structure yes,then the re- r, t to be built to its property lines view can move -k..,' , it,, , f i I t . _ on three sides. onto the details - -. _ 1=". ! € E 1'' I:T _ ... -'� -- '� is ■ The Cannon Street Apart- of site design. ifai' ` I '. ments opened last year and "The zoning de- x _ - are "an asset to the commu- cision comes nity," according to Lee Batch- first," explains v ' elder, AICP, Charleston's zon- Eleanor Love, t; - _ ing administrator-He says the planning man- Charleston's Cannon Street Apartments have less parking and far development has encouraged ager of Lansing, additional investment in a strug- Michigan."The less space per unit than other new developments. gling neighborhood while pro- major decision viding much-needed affordable is whether to do it; then the the state capitol. The hospital nance. "Most of the city was housing in a community still question becomes how to do had already acquired some of developed prior to adoption reeling from the effects of Hur- it." the old commercial buildings of the landscape ordinance, ricane Hugo in 1989. It's at that first stage, the re- on the south side of the street. so it doesn't contain specific The project's density caused zoning, where land-use issues Similar expansions elsewhere details like 'one tree per 40 "some misgivings among the are resolved.That was the case have often evoked neighbor- feet,'" says zoning administra- staff," Batchelder says. "We recently when Lansing's Spar- hood protests,particularly over tor James Ruff, who is trained worried about so many units row Hospital,a major medical the loss of parking_ But Spar- as a landscape architect. on such a small parcel." The center serving all of south-cen- row established a large em- In the end, the hospital re- staff finally decided that the tral Michigan,sought a rezon- ployee parking lot in an indus- ceived positive publicity lo- project was worth the vari- ing in order to expand its cen- trial area half a mile away. cally, in part because of its ance, he says. tral-city medical campus.The Most of the hospital's 3,500 willingness to help arrange The project's density also hospital wanted to build a new employees will park there and low-interest mortgage loans brought objections from neigh- six-story building for doctors' commute to the hospital on a for employees who buy hous- boring property owners and offices and ancillary services, free shuttle bus. ing in the neighborhood. Fur- from the Preservation Society and a parking deck. The con- Love says such efforts have ther,inspired by the hospital's of Charleston. The preserva- struction required a change gone a long way to improve expansion,Lansing's planning tionists were somewhat molli- from commercial and duplex relations with the East Side department adopted a small fied when two dilapidated residential zoning to DM-4, a Neighborhood Organization,a area plan,called the East Michi- houses were rehabbed and in- more intensive residential cat- citizen group that has been at gan Avenue Study, that in- corporated into the develop- egory that includes hospitals odds with the hospital in the eludes goals and guidelines ment. In the end, city staff rec- and ancillary facilities as per- past. "The hospital has gone for future redevelopment. ommended to the zoning board mitted uses.The existing 502- out of its way to accommo- of adjustment that the project bed hospital is already zoned date the neighborhood when- Waivers best be approved,and it was. DM-4 under the city's 1983 ever possible,"she says. Updating codes to meet chang- "I think the location made it zoning ordinance. Once the rezoning was ap- ing circumstances,as Lansing appropriate for approval be- The planning department proved, approval of the did, is a sensible alternative cause that part of downtown recommended approval of the addition's site plan, by Albert to granting zoning variances. has had problems with run- zoning change largely because Kahn Associates of Detroit, "If you use variances too of- down structures and being a of the land uses adjacent to soon followed. The city did, ten to accommodate flexibil- hang-out for undesirables," the hospital, which is on the however, ask for some addi- ity, you will undermine the Batchelder says. The apart- north side of Michigan Av- tional landscaping, beyond integrity of the zoning ordi- ments"certainly improved this enue,a major thoroughfare near what was required in the city's nance and expose your corn- piece of property,"he adds. both downtown Lansing and decade-old landscape ordi- munity to unnecessary legal 21 P L A N N I N G P R A C T I C E ,soh; >, Crawford for- In their 1993 book,The New imerly was plan- Illustrated Book of Development �.,�.=, __--__15770T__- _ _ _ _ _ _ ning director for Definitions,Harvey Moskowitz, j- � - a Commerce Char- AICP,and Carl Lindbloom,AICP, � (' ter Township suggest that zoning ordinances Lr__-__.(1.1-_ •. p ti; 1 -I near Detroit. He should include a provision for c - --^ recalls one case a "planning variance.' They 'r.,.. , 1 ,'� !! in which he re- define it "a variance for bulk -. rca=ro'ter- I' ( 1 f i o viewed a request relief that would result in an 1i 1 I I, I I I tr..o:--` byhomeowners opportunity for improved lan- ui PP h' P P I I 1 i 1 I 1 _L ti • •: CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 1995 Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Bob Skubic, Mike Meyer, Nancy Mancino, Don Mehl, Ladd Conrad and Jeff Farmakes STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; John Rask, Planner I; Bob Generous, Planner II; and Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE FOR LANDSCAPE NURSERIES AND GARDEN CENTERS IN THE A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT. Public Present: Name Address Verne Severson 675 Lakota Lane Mark & Kay Halla 770 Creekwood Don Halla 6601 Mohawk Trail John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Do the commissioners have any questions of staff at this point? John I have one. If it is a conditional use let's say, and we decide on that tonight, and the conditions are met. If along the way, after 3 or 4 years and there is more single family development in the area and we would like to change the conditions, is that allowable? Rask: No. Not unless the applicant wanted to expand the use and would come back for an amendment to that conditional use. Then you'd have an opportunity to re-evaluate that. But no, you couldn't. Mancino: So you'd have to be very clear and think ahead at this point, unless the applicant wanted to expand the use on that conditional use. Rask: Correct. Farmakes: I have one question. What is the precedence for the other tier suburbs? I mean typically outlying areas around the metropolitan area you see a lot of nursery, tree farming. That type of thing. And then the transition that takes place from that, leaves agriculture and enters into the ag urban development. Eden Prairie. Eagan. Some of these other areas. How are they treating this transition issue? 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Rask: Yeah, I don't know how they handle it. Have been. We didn't survey any of them but I would imagine they're probably operating under similar circumstances that we are. They're either non-conforming and the area's grown up around it and they're allowed to stay as long as they don't expand. Or they've done it, a similar process where they would allow it as an interim or a conditional use and deal with it on more a site specific basis and not permit it outright in the district. Farmakes: Okay so, the reason I ask this question is, it's more directed towards the issue of retail sales of manufactured or value enhanced goods versus a crop situation. And the question is, more or less how they, not only broke the transition or how they dealt with the transition between dealing with the retail business or however you want to define that. Making the transition or commitment equally for permitting that use within an area that may be directed for other types of development farther down the line and how that interferes or dictates that type of usage. And it seems to me like we're kind of trying to reinvent the wheel here to come up with our own plan versus looking at how other transitions have taken place. It would be interesting to see that since it seems to be a rather typical of our type of tier suburb to have that type of usage go on. In other words, if it's a necessity of commerce for them to survive in that element or that type of usage, then the decision is, is that appropriate for that area long term rather than interim use and I'm not sure if interim use kind of seems a solution to, put a patch on the problem but I'm not sure what the long term planning issue is solved by that. Mancino: Any other questions at this point? Conrad: Ah yes Madam Chairman. John what's, who do you think the impact of this ordinance amendment change is on the Halla operation? Rask: I think it allows them to expand within reason. It gives them that opportunity. Currently they're operating under a non-conformance situation so they're pretty much stuck with what they have and if that's okay with them, they could continue to do that for eternity for the most part. When it comes to add an additional building, the interim use permit would allow them to do that. It gives something back in return by giving a termination date but it does allow them to do more with that site at this point. Conrad: A 500 foot setback, is that a restriction? Rask: Yeah, that's currently in the ordinance now. That is one of the standards listed for wholesale nurseries. What we did is just pulled those over. Certainly we could look at providing some other setbacks here. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Mancino: So you're saying in effect with the setbacks that are outlined in the staff report, they could not expand? Rask: The setback 500 is from an existing residence. I don't know if there's any existing residence out there that close now but with the subdivision coming in, it would probably pretty much eliminate any additional building once houses are built out there. Mancino: I'm sorry for interrupting Commissioner Conrad. Has that plat gone through final platting? Rask: Yes it has. It has not been recorded yet though. It got final plat approval through the Council. Conrad: The distinction in the motion that you gave us, I really had some difficulty dealing with the garden center and a retail nursery. Final recommendation really talked about a retail nursery, not a garden center. So basically that's restrictive in terms of the product. Rask: Correct. Conrad: So there is some impact. Rask: Yeah. I think they have, if you look at the definition of nursery that's being proposed here by staff, Halla may have to eliminate some of the items he sells based on that definition. The definition's intended to keep it more for those products that are directly related to wholesale and retail nursery. Not I guess what we would classify as a garden center. Something that branches out to other areas when you sale hardware, paint, stain, things like that. Fencing. Storage sheds. You name it so we're trying to narrow it down to that specific use, which would be retail and wholesale nursery. And limit it to those products directly related to that. Mancino: I can say and I certainly haven't been to every nursery in the area but almost every. Some of those that are in that I have visited, that are in a neighborhood area, in developing areas. There's Kelly and Kelly in Long Lake and there's Tonkadale, etc. They do not carry the other manufactured goods. I mean pet supplies, etc and equipment and still seem to be growing and doing very well. Their's is mostly, well it's all on products that have to do with gardening. So I have seen that, as I said, in other neighborhood areas. Any other questions? Farmakes: I'll save my comments. P1l save my questions for maybe a later date. Too much too soon. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Mancino: Okay. Does the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission? Kay Halla: Good evening. I'm Kay Halla and I live at 770 Creekwood in the city of Chanhassen. Good evening Madam Chairman and commissioners. I would just like to address some of the impacts. We sent a letter out to the commissioners and I'd like to kind of respond to some of the impacts that the staff felt would occur with a permitted use and I think we're focusing on permitted use because since we've been here since 1962 we can't foresee being terminated. Anyway. One of the first concerns on page 2 of the...the staff gave listed that...not all A2 zoned property would be appropriate for retail nurseries and an example is lack of public facilities. I think if the public facilities are concerned, the city does impose, as far as we understand, requires that new buildings used for retail on agricultural land must meet B2 standards. And those B2 standards do include the handicapped accessible facilities so as far as I think if a retail building is there, that issue of keeping...facility probably wouldn't be an issue. And I guess I feel that certainly not all A2 property is going to be perfect for every A2 use. But generally I think it would be kind of looked at an impact that...hard to deal with. I think generally nurseries are definitely agricultural and I think they are very adequate for agricultural land, zoned land. And number two, in response to the second impact I felt that retail nurseries and garden centers are inconsistent with other permitted uses in the A2 district. I took a look at that and I looked at all the different permitted uses...agricultural I thought we were consistent with that. There are some uses that, yeah I don't think nurseries are consistent with. Daycares and some other things so that's hard to show sensitivity there but I do believe that we can...agricultural and agricultural land and I contacted the nursery licensing through the Department of Agriculture just to get more detail on that and they do not differentiate when they give licenses to nurseries, whether they're - retail or garden centers. I asked specifically if it's a growing nursery, obviously we are a growing nursery and we get our license through the Department of Agriculture. What if we're just, let's say a garden center and we're selling stuff and they said, you still get your license through the Ag Department. One way you can differentiate the nurseries is that they have different classifications and Halla Nursery, we're classified as a nursery stock grower which means that over 50% of the products that we sell are grown on site in our nursery. And we, for instance we grew 19,700 perennials or more just from little...and we grow over 10,000 trees and shrubs so we are definitely a grower and I think a lot of emphasis, at least in the last meeting was put on the retail and I do understand the public safety reasons. That concern but I think what's being over looked is the fact that we are not just retail and the majority of our business is growing. We are farmers of nursery stock so that's a big part of our company and that's what differentiates us from nurseries such as Frank's or Bachman's that are strictly, they have their retail outlets and they have a big supplier somewhere else. And that kind of leads me to the third impact statement that the concern that other businesses like Bachman's, Frank's, and other nursery and craft stores may be in conflict with surrounding residential or agricultural property. And I think that's where, as far a I can tell, the nurseries that are in the 4 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 city of Chanhassen that are in agricultural land basically are a lot different than Frank's and Bachman's. The plants are grown on site and why don't I, in fact maybe, I don't know if this is the right language but I thought maybe the concerns could be addressed in the zoning that, in the regulations saying that nurseries and garden centers which were in existence prior to the zoning change of 1990 would be allowed as a permitted use in A2 zoning. And I don't know exactly how that would go but I thought that would be one way, so you wouldn't have that concern of somebody just deciding to come out and build a big...right in the middle of an agricultural district. And also I think that stores such as that that are geared more towards the selling and they don't do their own growing, they'd probably prefer to buy a chunk of land right down in the business district where there's a lot of traffic anyway. And that's the way, when I see those stores, that seems to be, they look very retail and very... And then as far as the fourth impact, that permanent buildings may be constructed which may...if the nursery is vacated. For example auto repair, contractors storage yards, miscellaneous retail, etc. Yeah, I guess those could be permanent but I see that with farms and they are permitted in A2. The Arboretum has a permanent, very permanent, beautiful building that could be used for other uses and they're not cheap buildings either. So I think, I don't know if that impacts, it's certainly an impact that I don't know if it's fair...affects there are other agricultural businesses that are permitted...you could then build permanent buildings. And I don't know if these buildings, there must be something in the zoning that if you sell a chunk of property that has a permanent building, the concern is that maybe an auto repair shop or contractors storage area could be moved in there and I'm not, from what I read in the zoning it didn't, if it's not listed as a permitted use in agricultural, A2 land, I don't understand how somebody could sell their property and have it be an auto repair shop if it wasn't permitted anyway. So I think, I didn't think that was a very valid impact. And I guess as far as...we would like to be here forever and we would like to blend in nicely with the development and screen where necessary. We want to work with the builders and Don and his wife Sandy are working right now with a builder, Charles Cudd to make sure that the nursery becomes a nice focal point for the development. And...to impact, the use would be allowed in perpetuity. We'd definitely like to see that and I think if we had just been here for a few years and we didn't have all the things that are out there now it might not be as big of an issue because we'd know when we started that gee, we're not a permanent use but we've been there since 1962. We've got an underground sprinkler system. Very expensive well. There's a lot of things not even in buildings that have been there for a long time and as far as selling retail, and I started working there in 1984 and they were selling retail and sold dry goods out of one of the buildings that was moved a little bit and one of the buildings was torn down. So anyway I think that we'd like to definitely see a permanent situation out there. And with number 6. The impact that says, retail nurseries and garden centers and...would be in conflict with the comprehensive plan and there was a reference to the corner of Highway 5 and TH 41 which is currently zoned A2. I understand there's some conflicts between industrial and the need for retail. I'm not real sure about that. But I guess when I look at the comprehensive plan, I 5 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 worked as a park planner in Maryland so I understand it's a very big county out there. I understand why you need a comprehensive plan. I think they're very good. I also feel that there's got to be some flexibility there with existing companies and there's got to be a way to blend things together. And when I look at nurseries and think of new homes going in, they seem to go hand and hand. I was driving around and I looked at some of the farms and though, you know that'd be hard for these farmers to try to get their tractors and with all this housing going up but a nursery, with housing coming, housing being around it, it's great. We can provide services that homeowners need. We can help new homes meet the city codes for how many trees they have and that kind of thing. And I think as far as visually, we can fit in really well. So I think that even though on the comprehensive plan there's something that shows all homeowners or all...residential, I think that with some flexibility that we could blend in nicely with that. And finally, I read in the City Code that the intent of the A2 district is the preservation of rural character while respecting development patterns by allowing single family residential development. And again I think that, if I were a homeowner I'd prefer to live next to a golf course or a nursery other than a utility services or some of the other uses that are permitted in the A2 zoning. I think that a nursery fits in really well. It helps preserve some of that rural character but it does respect development. In fact I think it basically thrives on development so I don't think that a nursery's going to prevent development or anything like that. And I guess I'd just like to let the commissioners know that as a landscape architect I can understand...coming out there. The importance of getting homeowners privacy and that kind of thing and I think that nurseries, and I'm sure other nurseries...you want to look nice. You want to be a good part of the neighborhood and I think that since we're in the business of selling products and growing trees and shrubs, that we're going to want to use them on our property. I think that's about it. Thanks. Does anyone have any questions? Mancino: Yeah, I have one. Are you open all year long? Kay Halla: We are open all year long for our employees. As far as how much business we have, it's been real dead the last month I'd say and basically as far as customers coming in, we don't have much until May first and maybe the end of September. Those are the times when we have more traffic...but as far as the winter, it's just the employees out there. And sometimes around Christmas... Mancino: So your peak seasons are spring through summer or September, which is almost fall. You keep employees all year long doing what? Kay Halla: In the winter, just these last few weeks we've been taking out the material that had not sold and getting it bedded down for the winter. We take all of the...shrubs and bury them in straw and hay and all that. Then we prepare to...so we do a lot of things on the 6 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 computer and order a lot of plugs and plants and bare root stock and we do divisions of a lot of plants. That's done more in October when the ground's still soft but dividing up and such things like that. And then in the early part of, end of February, early. Probably the end of February this year we fire up the greenhouses and keep them really warm so that we can start growing all of our perennials and then as, we have just thousands and thousands of bare root trees and shrubs and you get those planted up early and give them a chance to root. Mancino: Okay. So you're working inside in the winter time? Kay Halla: Yes. We take vacations too. Mancino: And how many greenhouses do you have? Kay Halla: Currently we have two greenhouses. They're side by side and they're 30 feet wide by 90 feet long. And they were, we had them stocked to the hilt and even growing, we had to use the floors a lot to be able to grow...floor which is real bad. To grow them on the ground. You get a lot more aphids and things. Mancino: And during the winter, is your retail building open for retail sales of houseplants and other material? Kay Halla: We don't sell houseplants. The retail store is open. The hours are definitely less. For instance weekends, we're not open on weekends except around Christmas tree selling time. But in January and February. Mancino: But you're still open 5 days a week? Kay Halla: Yeah. Mancino: Okay. Farmakes: You mentioned, can you elaborate on, you mentioned the 60/40 mix. Can you elaborate on that? Or did I hear you correctly? Kay Halla: I mentioned something about if you grow over 50% of your nursery stock on your site, then you get the Department of Agriculture doesn't just give us a nursery license. We have a nursery growers license. And they do that to differentiate between nurseries and nursery growers and to get the nursery grower, you must grow over 50% of your stock on your site. And then also, under the Federal law, you have to meet, as far as paying overtime 7 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 and that kind of thing, we are under agricultural laws that allows for overtime because we are a grower. Farmakes: Okay, so when you said 60/40, you're referring to your business or it's a hypothetical qualification? Kay Halla: I'm not... Farmakes: Maybe I misunderstood when you were saying the percentages. I thought you said 60/40. 60%, 40%. I thought you were referring to 60% being manufactured, or being grown on site and 40%. I assume you're talking about total sales. Kay Halla: No. As far as what we grow on site, I would say 90% of our plant material...is grown on site. The only things we really get in that are not started from plugs or bare root stock would be our evergreens. They just take, it would take us forever to grow those and like juniper for instance. So we get evergreen stock... Farmakes: How would you define percentage of gross sales between manufactured goods that are being sold and organic material that you're growing on site? Kay Halla: I could have Don Halla come up and answer that because I'm not sure. Mancino: Just one second. Any other questions at this point? Thank you. Kay Halla: Thank you. Don Halla: Good evening. I'm Don Halla. I would be happy to answer that questions as far as the percentage of, I'll call them dry goods is our definition of them versus live, green plant material. ...between 80% and 90% of all our gross sales comes from green goods, as we call them, which is live living plants in one form or another. Very small percentage is manufactured items. Defining manufactured items, we've had discussions with the city and they define manufactured items as cattle manure, which we sell in 50 pound bags. And 40 pound bags. So I guess our definition might be slightly different than the city's definition of what is manufactured and what is agriculture and not agriculture. But basically all of the products that we carry are related to agricultural uses. Mancino: Any other questions? Thank you. Mark Halla: Hi. I'm Mark Halla. I reside at 770 Creekwood in Chanhassen. I just wanted to add a couple things. First off the city has again mentioned interim use and that's not 8 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 something that we'd like to consider. We have, this whole thing's kind of focused on our nursery and... In our case we want to, we don't want to be a use that's a non-conforming use that isn't allowed. We're simply coming before the Planning Commission to try to become acceptable so that there aren't issues. So if we want to put up a greenhouse, we don't have to worry that even though we think that it's okay for us to do that after the fact someone's going to say hey, you shouldn't have done that. So that's the whole purpose that we're here is to try and make ourselves permitted. We aren't championing the cause for the other nurseries and garden centers. We want to be allowed ourselves. I don't want...interested in discussing that and not...short term. We've got the grandfathered rights that allow us to continue with everything that we've been doing at this point. We simply want to become accepted so that we don't have to keep going back...this is what we've done. This is what we aren't doing. We have some non-related but related issue...comprehensive plan of the structures that we intend to put up. The maximum amount of structures that would be used on our land, with the other greenhouses and what not, we've given them a list of all the products that we carry to date. Basically what we've asked for is to say, hey. You say you're grandfathered in. We don't think that you really are. We don't even, we didn't even know that you're selling retail. Show us. Tell us what you're selling and when you've been doing this and they went back and gave a list of everything we've been selling. ...mentioned a couple times. We've been selling pet food since back in the 60's starting with fish food. So that's something that we've continued on. Maybe it's not agricultural. We're not trying to say that pet food has to be permitted in agricultural use. We are saying in our instance we've been selling it for many, many years and it's not something that we would stop selling because it wasn't a permitted use. It's not a great...market and maybe we can discuss that but the people coming in our place that have animals. They have farm animals. They have dogs and cats. We provide that service. I think that's really all I wanted to add. Thank you. Mancino: Thank you. I'd like to open this to a public hearing. Do I hear a motion and a second to open this to a public hearing? Farmakes moved, Peterson seconded to open the public hearing. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission at this time on this issue, may come forward. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second please? Fanmakes moved, Mehl seconded to close the public heating. Mancino: Questions and comments from commissioners. Commissioner Conrad. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Conrad: Yeah, I'm going to ask more questions. Kate, is it basically, well we've got an ordinance in front of us tonight. Basically it's a general ordinance. Obviously it will pertain to the Halla's but it's really for everybody in the A2 district. So that's what we're reacting to. Then later on the Halla's, if that went through, they'd have to do their permitting and make their application for whatever they'd want. The question to me, and the length of operation in terms of, it's hard to talk about this one because we do have, it's a two part deal. We have an ordinance that applies to everybody but we're focusing it right on them. And those are different things. My concerns, basically I think the ordinance in general is appropriate. The community's filling up and sooner or later it will be all houses. But in terms of how it affects the Halla's is a bigger, it's an issue that I'm wrestling with. Is it basically our assumption that a nursery could never fit in long term with houses in Chanhassen? Is that a foregone conclusion? Aanenson: No. As John pointed out, the comprehensive plan has guided this long term for something else. Okay. Mancino: For single family housing. Aanenson: Correct. So in the meantime there's another use on the property that's got grandfathered rights. If it continues to operate that way that's, they have those rights. They want to add to it and we're saying we cannot, as a planning department approve an expansion of a non-conforming use. This is a mechanism to allow them to expand. They don't want to have an interim use. They want to have no final deadline. We're saying that in a planning perspective that's in conflict with our comprehensive plan. Does that mean it won't be a good neighbor? We hope it's there a long time and it's a good neighbor, but we feel we need to have that control if 30 years down the road it's not a good neighbor and times have changed and they want to move out, we don't want some other businesses to go in there. So we're looking at, from the planning perspective of the comprehensive plan and ultimately if this property was to become something else. We're not trying to push them out but we're saying we have to look at long term what the plan says and how it affects other wholesale or retail. Conrad: But right now we could design it so that they will fit. Aanenson: I'm not sure what you're saying. Mancino: As an interim use. Conrad: Well we can design it so that let's say if houses go, yeah. Long term. Now somebody probably would find it might be more beneficial to be healthy...but let's say for 20 10 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 years when houses go up around the Halla property, we would have, we can make them fit in as a good neighbor, can we not? Aanenson: Well there's certain ordinances that are in place right now but they have grandfather rights. Conrad: So they can do what they're doing right now. Aanenson: Right, but they want to expand. That's part, they would like some additional greenhouses. And what we're saying is there's kind of cloud over that because it's non- conforming so this allows them to, if they're following the conditions or whatever, you can decide what that framework should be. Conrad: When they come in, let's say we adopt this ordinance. They would have to come in with an application and basically tell us what they want to look like. Is that not true? Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: And at this point they don't need to. Or if it's A2, permitted use in A2, they can pretty much build what they want to build. Conrad: So when they come in, that's our opportunity to say this is how you fit in the neighborhood that's going to be built up around you. Aanenson: Right. Conrad: That's my only question. Peterson: What's the interim use, the term of it going to be recommended to be? Do we have that thought through yet? Rask: No, that would be, if the ordinance is approved and the applicant wishes to come forward with an application, that would be something we could discuss at that time but there's a number of different ways you could go. You could say when it's brought into the MUSA. It would terminate at that point. When sewer and water becomes available to the site. You know that would be an end date. Or you could pick a specific year. Say 50 years from now. 20 years from now. Mancino: Would you have to have, would it have to say terminate or could you say be reviewed again by city? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Rask: Yeah, I think you could always leave that option. You'd have to pick a date though. Some sort of, whether that's an exact date or an event. Like they did on Admiral Waste. They said the applicant may request an extension. You don't need to put that in there. I mean that's always a given that they could come back and ask the Council in 10 years to reconsider that. Mancino: It certainly puts a cloud on a business for business planning, etc. Conrad: Can I jump back in? This is cloudy to me. Aanenson: But it's cloudy right now because it's illegal right now. They can't expand. That's the cloud over it. We're hoping with the interim use, if you put an appropriate time frame, we were hoping that would take that cloud away because right now it is illegal. To expand. It's grandfathered so it doesn't have the right to go any more than what it has. Conrad: I go back. Maybe this is a foggy assumption on my part. Can it be an asset to a neighborhood? Or is it an automatic detriment to the neighborhood simply because there are tractors going through and you've got, you know so what are we. Aanenson: Well that's the reason for the interim use is to put conditions on there so we have some control. What are the hours of operation? How much traffic is going in there? Is it open 24 hours? What's Saturday, Sunday? We don't know. That's why you try to have some control so you can, if the neighbors are complaining or there is issues that we have a mechanism to resolve it. If it's permitted and people are complaining, there is no mechanism to resolve those issues. Mancino: Because you basically have three businesses. I mean you have your growers. You know the bidding that I don't think affect single family around it at all but you also have landscape contracting, which are crews getting ready and bobcats and everything going out to work at different sites. Clients. And then your third is retail which again affects their neighbors. So you really have, and there may be more than that but those are the activities that I kind of parroted out from the nursery and this particular one. And two of those could have an affect as this area develops into single family. Conrad: So you don't think it's an asset to the neighborhood? Mancino: I think it is. But I think that it needs to have some controls around that as far as, I think it's very much an asset. But I think that there do need to be some controls around that. I mean look at the traffic in the area and hours of operation, etc. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Conrad: Excuse me for interrupting Craig...but the issue to me, the ordinance seems reasonable. But when you put a termination date on somebody it's like not making that company...concern. It's just real negative. And what I'm trying to envision is...and that's my struggle. I don't want to cast that over, and I said I like the ordinance. It's okay but not trying to say to the Halla's, well you've got 10 years and we think that the neighbors that are moving out have priority. I'm struggling with it sitting down here. Making it so it's not, it's a harmonious relationship, which means control. There's just no doubt. There are controls. That's part about what we're doing is you can't do whatever you want anymore in Chanhassen. There's too many people. So that's my struggle. Sorry for interrupting. Mancino: Commissioner Peterson, any other? Peterson: None. Mancino: Commissioner Skubic. Skubic: How many other landscape nurseries are in business in Chanhassen? Aanenson: At least probably three others. Four. Mancino: Wilson, Lotus, Ben Gowan. Aanenson: Erhart's. Mancino: Erhart's tree farm, yeah. Only to wholesalers. Probably five. Skubic: The issue here seems to be opening the door and making a permitted use and putting a constraint by putting a date on the interim use. Isn't there a way of structuring the constraints on a conditional use or even with a permitted use. I think it was brought up that for permitted or nurseries have been in existence since 1990 date. Could that be used to satisfy the needs of the comprehensive planning and at the same time preserving the Halla business? Rask: I think the issue is you've got to treat people fairly. It's tough to say well if you exist to this point, you can continue to do what you like. Anybody else who comes in has to play by a different set of rules. Skubic: In a way isn't that what we're doing in the agricultural district? 13 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Rask: Well they're allowed to continue as a non-conforming use. And the whole basis behind non-conforming uses is that you assume they'll eventually be eliminated. I mean our ordinance now limits what you can do with a non-conforming use. You can't expand it. There's some of those types of issues that come into play with those non-conforming situations. And if it's a conditional use, then you're back to well it's permitted. For the most part you have the ability to add conditions. Review a site plan but there's nothing to ever say that use is going to disappear. If it does become a problem in the future, or permanent buildings are constructed, the nursery decides well it's not feasible for us anymore. Well now you have several million dollars worth of retail buildings. How do you deal with that? Aanenson: It goes back to Ladd's point. We struggled with this same issue as a staff when we were going through this analysis and the same idea is being, if you do say there's no cloud on the issue because it's a conditional use and you get a mortgage for several buildings and now the business goes out, you've got mortgages on the building. Well certainly there's pressure then to say well we've got to have something else. You can't now disappear because now you've invested capital in there. And that's the whole reason why you look at these things as more temporary in nature. And again this is a little bit different because we're focusing on this one and not looking at them in a holistic sort of thing and maybe that's something we need to go back and kind of look at this in a broader perspective and not keep focusing on this one because this one is a little bit different. Some of the other types of businesses, treating nursery type businesses... Mancino: Commissioner Farmakes. Farmakes: I guess the reason I asked, I thought it was an open discussion. I'm interested I guess in asking a couple of questions of the commission here. I don't know if that's, is that permissible? Mancino: Sure. Farmakes: I don't mean to get an open discussion running along or eat up time but I have a couple of, I'm not sure when we discuss nurseries and retail nurseries, after reading this and after reading Halla's letter. There's obviously a difference of opinion as to what is retail. By approving this or voting to approve this or not to approve this, and then the issue of interim use, the way that it reads now says, the wholesale sale of plants grown on the site, imported to the site as well as accessory items directly related to their care and maintenance. Then it goes on to say that power equipment and da, da, da should be provided. Now certainly power equipment can be construed as being for the care and maintenance of trees or bushes or shrubbery. I'm not sure in my mind that I've defined. On one hand when you talk about a nursery situation, organic matter is for sale. It's grown. When you're talking about an 14 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 enhanced product or manufactured product where they refer to them as dry goods or the applicant refers to them a dry goods. And you get beyond the scope of grandfathering, whatever that use happened to be, at the time it was established when the usage changed or that the operation was in conflict with ordinances. How do you continue on that line by saying that it's alright to expand that use without getting into conflict with all kinds of things. In other words, getting into conflicts when you tell another applicant who comes in who has bought a piece of property or whatever and decides that this would be good for a kennel or fur bearing animals or a big box retail or when you define and when you start getting into the nuance of retail beyond what is grown on the property, where do we start picking a line? Do we start looking at where the bag of food came from or the power equipment or the, it seems to me that. Mancino: Well and that's what we're trying to do here. Farmakes: Very swampy bit of goods. If in this particular operation 10% of these goods is this problem, and we're defining an ordinance for these goods for sale of these goods to find a way to allow some expansion, I'm not sure that that's not in conflict of good planning or what we're talking about with planning. You're talking, I think another comment was made about, that we have a business that's been in the community a long time and you get this transitionary thing where it's making it difficult for a business to operate unless they remain competitive and obviously retail or wholesale of organic goods and agricultural use changes over the years, as the mix of development changes here in Chanhassen. Obviously any business wants to be able to change to whatever the market is. We've seen this problem over and over again. Either in fringe district where we see dumpster storage and so on or we get into a situation on TH 5 and TH 41 where the future investment of property and the thinking that this location would make a good use for this particular type of usage. Do we have development that is driven by that? Either by, this is going to get a little obtuse now but thinking in terms of Timberwood where you have an example, although usage is not the same. You have development that is driven by allowing a particular development or use at the time that seems to be a good idea but then there is a surrounding effect that is created. I'm trying to think of Bachman's say for instance in the middle of a single residential neighborhood in Minneapolis where the original Bachman's was. That used to be a farm. When you're saying that a nursery is a good thing or a good neighbor, is it the open space and the trees or is it the retail sales that would be of benefit to the neighborhood, or of dry goods. I'm not sure in my own mind that I've defined that because I'm trying to think of it as the use is now where you'd be talking interim permit, or down the line as you're talking about Ladd, once that's surrounded by homes. What is the benefit to the neighborhood? Because I see other types of tree operations, say for instance the one across from Paisley Park that was there. There wasn't any, that I know of, retail sales occurring there. It was an open field with trees and so on and I don't think you get objections from the neighbors in that situation. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 But it seems to me a broader issue is that where do retail sales go in this town and when they expand outside of the normal business district, and you're looking at people who buy property with the idea, or have owned property with the idea of expanding that use beyond what their grandfathering is. Are we creating really a bad problem here where we're being inconsistent as to how we deal with it? It seems like we've been getting a lot of, I think there's a second item on the dock here for such a thing. It's not in retail area but it's expanding or asking to clarify usage of other types of businesses. Say for instance a kennel. And these are things that it seems to me that would be things that would come up in transition type property between agriculture and urban area. And as I go back on how we've dealt with some of these issues before in the fringe district for instance or we deal with dumpster areas where primarily you have a rural area and the storage of dumpsters there. There's not enough people surrounding the area to create the type of objection that you may have in a more developed area in the permitted, the use is allowed for an interim time. But from what I've heard the applicant's not interested in that and even if we were to approve that, are we setting a good precedent in doing that. I haven't heard anything of a legal opinion from our lawyer but when we go to deny that from other applicants, it seems to me that our argument is, well we have a defined area for retail of manufactured goods. That's how I see it. And we allow other usages of wholesale use or interim use outside of that area and we've pretty much followed that pretty closely. So it's worrisome to me that more or less the precedent that we'd be setting with even approving what's sitting here because I don't think it's defined. That part that's retail is not, is ill defined here. And certainly...it lists a few things that is not, that is prohibited but I'm wondering if that is geared more towards the current use of the applicant and eliminating those uses or sales versus. Mancino: Than looking at the big picture. Farmakes: The big picture between the sale of grown matter and manufactured goods. Goods manufactured off site and brought in or value enhanced goods, whatever you want to call them but they're the usual definition of retail. Mancino: Kate, would you like to respond to that? Aanenson: I think John would. Rask: Yeah, I think we tried to create a definition that would apply to all. If you look at the one being proposed here, I don't think Mr. Halla, he doesn't sell farm implements or power equipment. I think what we were trying to do there was further define what's not included. If you look at the definition it says accessory items directly sold. Like most definitions that's opened up to interpretation somewhat. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Farmakes: What I'm thinking of, I didn't mean to cut you off but what came to my mind is I thought of other retail operations for nurseries so I'm thinking of Frank's for instance. In that line of accessories and items related to the care and maintenance is their entire in-house building. And that's retail. That's retail sales and no different than a grocery store or a hardware store. Again, that's a separate part of their business but that's not outdoor stock. So that's where the problem that I'm really uncomfortable with is that hand. Mancino: Is allowing the retail to stay there? Farmakes: To expand. Mancino: To expand as an interim use in the A2 area. Farmakes: Even as an interim use, yeah. Mancino: Even as an interim use. Farmakes: Yeah. Mancino: So your thinking is to keep the retail where it is right now. In this particular case. And not have it expand. Aanenson: Well first of all, we haven't defined that yet under this. I mean when they come in for an application, first of all we're setting forward the framework. I mean unless they come in and ask for an interim use permit, they just stay the way they are. There's two separate processes. This overall standards are what you evaluate any that would come in... Farmakes: But isn't your contention also, or did I misunderstand it, that retail use has expanded. Aanenson: Right, and that's a separate legal thing and it's my understanding they're not going to expand anymore. What they're trying to do is get additional greenhouses but that's still an expansion of that non-conforming use. So I don't see that as, that's something you can address. If it did come forward for a permit to say, you know one of the conditions of... plans to expand, you could handle that separately under that permitting process. What we're doing under this process is try to look at again the broader, all. Mancino: A2. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Aanenson: Correct. And what should be the appropriate standards as John's laid out in the report. Farmakes: Right, but what I'm saying is, does the line that says amended Section 20-1. Does that cover that or are you going to improvise that at a later date? I mean like I said, I don't see that as being any different than Frank's. Is that a good neighbor for a residential area? Rask: Sure, you can address that with conditions on a site specific basis if somebody came in and maybe you wanted to see it just limited to the growing or selling of plants, either wholesale or retail. You could put certain conditions that would prohibit the sale of certain items. Aanenson: I think you have to look at some factors such as the size of the parcel. Where it's located. Some of these sort of things. You've got to take all those factors and like John said, you try to leave it somewhat broad so you can develop it as need be but again, these are the framework for all nurseries. Farmakes: So you don't feel that by establishing this or approving this we're in the interim use allowing it to expand. That we're creating a precedence outside of the scope of how we normally handle this issue when we're dealing with retail sales outside of the scope of. Aanenson: Well I guess our concern is even though a lot of these places may say wholesale, we believe that they're probably conducting retail and we'd like to have some conditions on there that we do know what the hours of operation are. We do know that there is adequate parking and that's really what the purpose of this is. We believe that some of the other ones may have the same. May be doing retail. We're not aware of it at this point but if it's brought to our attention, we certainly wanted to make sure that those same issues are addressed. Farmakes: Okay. I have no further questions. Mancino: Commissioner Mehl. Mehl: Yeah, I came here with a whole page of notes tonight and about half of them have been asked already or talked about. The other half have been shot down but all I know is we've got an applicant here who's been at that facility for 35 years. I'd like to somehow see if there isn't some way to compromise or some special situation to make sure that we can permit both the wholesale and retail operation as they have and allow them to stay there with the right conditions. To me there are worse things to have as a neighbor than a nursery, you know assuming there are conditions on them. I don't know how to solve the problem. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Mancino: So would you like to see that as an interim use? Mehl: Well an interim use, the only problem I see with that is there's a time factor involved and I know that if I were in business like that I wouldn't want to deal with the fact that next week I might not be here or next year or 5 years or whatever. Whatever the date is, nobody seems to know. I'd like to know that I'm going to be there for another 35 years. Maybe the answer is interim use with some kind of an automatically renewable timeframe. A business like that, it isn't easy to move. You know you just can't pull up the tent stakes and move out. It's difficult. You've got a lot of land involved. A lot of inventory. Maybe it's a conditional use, I don't know. Mancino: Okay, thank you. I do agree with the staff report that it should be an interim use for the A2 district with a nursery center. I do feel that I also have problems with the termination date and how to allow business owners to plan ahead into the future and how they're going to keep operating. I would like staff to give us some more information on that. How we can do an interim use and the sunset date that allows for renewal. I don't know if that is possible. I would also like to see the condition number 5, hours of operation a little better thought out meaning that if you're in the nursery business you do need to be open on Saturday and Sunday during your peak seasons or you won't make it. I don't think. And that on those weekends maybe there would be a different time for landscape contractors and when they could start up in that A2 district, especially with single family around it. I guess I have no other comments. I'd like to entertain a motion. Conrad: But can I ask a question Madam Chair? Mancino: Yes. Conrad: Kate or John, do you see, you can see where we're struggling with this issue obviously. It's not too difficult. Do you see a scenario, you know I'm struggling myself because I think the ordinance is valid that you proposed. I think you've done a good job. I also don't want to force the Halla's out of operation. I want them to determine when they, I want them to fit. I don't have a problem with retail. The ordinance will take care of retail and they'll take care of retail... But I want them to fit into the neighborhood. They're there first and that's one thing you've always got to remember here. They are there first. People who buy in know that they're there. The interim use will let people know, or whatever, will let them know what they can do. So the new residents are protected. We're going to have that mapped out. So it forces the Halla's to sort of plan. It takes away from their flexibility but it makes some sense to me. But my real key is, the key for me is, I don't want to force them out of business. I don't, I can term them an asset to the community. I may not term retail as an asset but I can term the nursery an asset. It could be a park. I don't need to force 19 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 the comprehensive plan... When they choose, it can do go residential. But I don't have to force a 10 year. I'm really nervous about saying in 10 years it will be renewed unless there's 27 complaints from the neighbors. That's what we'll end up doing so my big concern is, how not to force them out of operation. How to make them fit in, which means we take a look at their application. Make sure that in the long run, 5-10 years we say well geez. If you've got neighbors around that are 500 feet away, do they really kind of fit. Are they an asset and if that's the case, I think everybody wins but that's sort of a, you know I may be dreaming and whether we can do that but that's where I want to be, which really tells us that the real deal in the permitting, the application process, when they would come in and if I were them, I wouldn't trust us, you know. Mancino: Speak for yourself please. Conrad: ...but, so my question was. Mancino: How do we do that? Conrad: How do we do that? It's not tonight when we're not even, we don't even care about the Halla's tonight. Yeah we do but we don't care about them. We're putting in an ordinance that goes to A2 everyplace_ So tonight is not their night. But when they come back and say you want to survive for 30 years or when we decide we want to subdivide or change, how do we make them. Mancino: Anybody who comes in and wants that. Conrad: Anybody, you're right. No, no. Them. The Halla's because they're going to come back later with this application or a permit and that's what I want to be able to forecast in my mind that I can kind of meet their needs...got 5 years. I don't really want to be in that situation and I'm trying to justify them fitting in as a good neighbor with residential, as treating them as a park. As an asset. As a farm. Rask: I guess if you treat them as a permitted or a conditional use, they're there. You can't come back in 20 years and decide well, we made a mistake. How do we correct it? You treat it as an interim use, again you can always extend it and if the need arises. Conrad: Take us past the ordinance. Aanenson: Okay, then they could sell it. Let's say they want to get out of the business and go somewhere else. Somebody else comes in and runs it differently or whatever. Again you can't just look at this particular property. That's why John gave you a map last time that 20 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 showed it city wide. If we could do it, if we felt comfortable doing it as a conditional use, leaving it there for perpetuity, we certainly would give you that as a recommendation. We're not trying to chase the Halla's. I understand the clouding issue but we think there's just as many damaging on the conditional use that could be negative as there are saying clouding it the other way. We struggle with the same issues. Nobody wants them to be gone tomorrow. But as John indicated, what if in 20 years we go back and look at it, maybe it's 30 years. We haven't decided what that timeframe is. I think that's going to be the struggle. First of all they have to decide if they want to come in for the interim use permit. They say that they didn't want to. But if they do, then that's the struggle. What is the appropriate timeframe? And at least there's somewhere we can go back and evaluate that down the road and we may not be here but there's some criteria to go back and say, is it still working. Does it still make sense? And if it is, great. We continue and give them another x number of years. Maybe this area's never brought into the MUSA. Maybe it continues to be this way forever and that's great but we're just saying that we think there should be an opportunity to revisit it. If you make it conditional or permitted, we don't have that opportunity of revisiting it. And have we thought far enough ahead? I'm not sure. Normally we don't put retail in an agricultural zone and we're saying we're opening that up for a lot of other places if that happened and there may be a lot of instances that we haven't thought ahead. If you want to give us some time, we can... Mancino: Think about that. Think about the one that Jeff had. I mean because we are opening retail up in A2 districts. Aanenson: Right. So the existing ones, but maybe the ones that haven't thought of...thought this was an opportunity to do some sort of a modified landscaping kind of quasi business or. Mancino: Commissioner Mehl. Mehl: Are we discussing details of conditions at all or is that, should it be done later? Mancino: No, we are. Mehl: Okay. I've got a couple comments here. On number 4. All outside storage areas. Maybe we should define you know what is a storage area or what's stored there or which ones maybe need to be screened. And then must be completely screened. To me completely screened implies 100% screened from all possible vantage points. Now is that practical or even possible to do now? Do you want to not be able to see it from your car on the road or what about if you're standing on a hill across a quarter mile away. I think it needs to be determined. Maybe buffered is a better term. I'm not sure. And one comment about number 5. The hours of operation. It talks about hours of operation Monday thru Saturday only and 21 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 work on Sundays and Holidays is prohibited. I think we need to define work. Does that include them coming in and watering their plants? What about you've got a holiday on a Monday. We've had 95 degree temperatures and you can't work on Sunday and you can't work on a holiday, this thing is going to be in bad shape Tuesday. So I think maybe the word work needs to be defined. Work is actively selling or is it work in bringing in equipment, inventory or sprinklering or is it maybe work involving management and planning and inventory taking and watering and this sort of thing. That's all. I wanted to bring those up. They need to be defined a little bit. Mancino: Well it doesn't seem, do I have a motion. Entertain a motion at this point. And that may be asking staff to come back and bring us more information that we need. Looking at it. How we can change in interim use for the retail and wholesale without a, as I said, without a cloud or sunset. How we can be more creative with that sunset date. Allowing businesses to plan. What are the other inferences of having retail in the A2? Farmakes: I'll make a motion to table this issue. I think that I'll put forward these items as the reasoning which you just mentioned. I also would feel uncomfortable unless the amended Section 20-1 is either, the issue as well as accessory items...are dropped. In other words, that ending of that sentence. Or that staff come up with a more targeted direction on that issue as far as what accessory issues are offered at retail. The issue of 5 probably should be defined in more reality and the issue of the market. I'm not sure that 5 does reflect that. The point that was made. Some of the other issues we really didn't discuss on there but I think that the ordinance probably covers them. Signage and so on. The termination issue. Although it allows the business for planning, I think that the real issue of an interim use obviously is to allow the community for planning as well. And I'm not sure what creative thought can be put into that. But there is also a reason for an interim use and there should be an objective there, although I have nothing against a business that has been here in these transition areas with transition type businesses to allow them to have the opportunity to decide when they cease operations. The problem always occurs however, at some point in time if it's opened ended, there is no reason to cease. You can adjust to whatever needs to be done and I get back to the point, there usually is an end result or a direction, other use in our comprehensive plan and I'm not sure if the staff is going to be able to resolve that. I hope they do. Mancino: Is there a second? Skubic: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? 22 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Conrad: Ah sure. So you want to table it for clarification of the motions. Definition of nursery, Jeff? Was that. Farmakes: Definition of nursery was the one that refers to Section 20-1. I'm uncomfortable with how that reads. Conrad: Okay. Did you agree with Don's comment on 4, that it's foggy? Farmakes: For the storage? Conrad: Yeah. Farmakes: I guess, I didn't make that a part of the motion but it seems to me that there are broader issues other than getting into the specifics of setbacks and so on. To me but we, we can add 4 if you add that to the motion since this is a tabled motion. I mean it's not a, although we're voting on it, these are issues of exploration that I would suggest. The real crux of the issue here that I see in this motion that is made, is that what is the definition of the use and if we're going to define it, how does that relate to practicality of operating a business and what is the end result that we're going to see from this as far as comprehensive plan? What happens when we're filled up? And then how does that use, what is allowed under the ordinance for that use to be expanded. Conrad: And did you have any concerns with number 8 on the staff report? Again, I heard you're tabling it. You know 8 doesn't allow for renewal. So everybody knows that. It says it's terminated and I think if we do consider this, you know there has to be a renewal option and I think the ordinance doesn't allow that. Farmakes: I think that the renewal option could be looked at for the issue of making it easier for business planning. I think I said that already. Farmakes moved, Skubic seconded to table an amendment to the City Code for landscape nurseries and garden centers in the A2 for further clarification. All voted in favor, except Meyer who abstained, and the motion carried. Mancino: We will table it and staff has direction and the Halla's will come before us again another time to present. Thank you. Don Halla: Can I just speak for one moment? Mancino: For one minute you may. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Don Halla: We already have a semi negotiated agreement with the city. The city hasn't signed onto it and we haven't signed onto it. We're very close to an agreement which really happens is exactly what you want. We're looking for basically a ruling to maintain our agricultural status of a grower of plant material. The building department says we do not need a permit to do so. Go ahead and build it. The planning department says you can't. That's...maybe some direction of a simple thing under State and Federal laws we're allowed to build. Under the city's building code we are allowed to build greenhouses. Planning says we can't. That's all we're looking for. The rest of the things we're working out with the city and I think we're coming very close to it. Maybe it was agreed upon today. I don't know but that's the point... Mancino: Thank you. CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A MIXED LAND USE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, SINGLE AND MULTI-FAMILY ON APPROXIMATELY 66 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, BETWEEN GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD AND MARKET BOULEVARD, VILLAGES ON THE PONDS, LOTUS REALTY SERVICES. Public Present: Name Address Brad Johnson 7425 Frontier Trail Jill and Randy Meyer 330 Sinnen Circle Angie Bealczyk 310 Sinnen Circle Eric Johnson 320 Sinnen Circle Bob Savard 8080 Marsh Drive Steve Lundeen 8160 Marsh Drive Rita Klauda 8130 Marsh Drive Dave Kooumen 8153 Marsh Drive Gary Disch 8170 Marsh Drive Rick Hladky 8173 Marsh Drive Debbie & Brian Semke 331 Hidden Lane Barry & Lisa Thompson 8000 Hidden Circle Mark Honnold 8051 Hidden Circle Pat Hamblin 340 Sinnen Circle Greg Larson 8151 Grandview Road Ryan Johnson 8143 Marsh Drive 24 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 W.J. Ward 4510 Bruce, Minneapolis Al Simmon 8150 Grandview Road Walt Chapman 8140 Marsh Drive Mary Koonmen 8153 Marsh Drive Bob Generous presented the staff repot on this item. Mancino: Thank you. Are there any questions for staff? Bob I just have one. In your condition number 19, when you say the applicant shall make a commitment to provide for rental housing in the development. Do you mean high density rental housing or, is that what you're talking about? Generous: High density, yes. Within this. However it could be, if they decided to disperse it, maybe it's medium density. That would work. Mancino: So you just want rental housing. That's the purpose of. Generous: Right. We're looking at that primary goal. Mancino: And it could be either medium or high? Generous: Yes. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Mehl: Yeah Bob, assuming that the Planning Commission adopts this motion and approves it here tonight, what's the next step in the whole process? What do we get to see next? Or have we committed ourselves to anything at that point? How much flexibility is there from now on? Generous: Well the immediate next step would be that Council would also have to review it and agree that the direction we're providing as part of the conditions of approval are appropriate. From there then they would come back and actually do a preliminary plan for the project where we would develop more specific design parameters for the various sites on it. Get into more detail on the materials and building heights, setback, all of the more detailed information. Right now we're basically looking at the land use components. Are they appropriate? Is this what we'd like to see at the edge of the downtown area? Or for a continuation of the downtown. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Aanenson: Let me just continue with one other thing that you were asking about and that is what is your commitment level. Let's say that the project comes back and the next levels articulated something that you just can't agree with. Too much tree loss. Something you thought was appropriate. There's too much grading. At that point then you certainly say that we thought this might be appropriate for this land use but we see it just doesn't work...this is not binding. The conceptual approval and you certainly have the right to change based on what you see on the next level. Again they haven't gone through and filed the wetland surveys and all that. When that level comes back, it may change your direction a little bit. What they're trying to get is just some idea of what's... Mehl: So it just gives us, gives you the go ahead to create something, a little something more that we can take another look at. Aanenson: Correct. Mehl: Okay. Meyer: What about the land use as it's laid out here? Are we saying retail's going to go where retail is on...? Aanenson: No. Again, if it comes back at the next level as they've articulated is not happy with the design that they're coming forward with, any of those kind of components. With any of the land uses. If you're not happy with the, if you can't resolve those issues, then you certainly have a right to change the land uses. Meyer: Okay. Mancino: But if you know right now that there's a land use that you don't believe is correct for that site, speak now. Please. Generous: We would provide that direction. Aanenson: It would be helpful. Mancino: It would be helpful for the developer. Thank you. Does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? Brad Johnson: Madam Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Brad Johnson. I live at 7425 Frontier Trail. We represent the Ward family who owns this property and we would like to address a couple of the issues because, I think we missed the last 26 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 meeting, the first half. We didn't get a chance to actually present our proposal so I'm going to ask, and to keep this brief because most people have seen it a couple times. But we would like to go through a couple of things and then, so I'm going to ask Jack Lynch from BRW just to quickly remind you of what we're trying to accomplish. Feel free to ask any questions. You'll note that because we've had some meetings with the neighbors, and I guess what I'm sort...I'm the mediator in this particular thing a little bit. Our job is to try to bring a project that's good for the city and good for the landowners...in this particular case meets some of the neighbors requirements. So we have, as part of our current proposal and this is in answer to your question. This is kind of an ongoing thing. All of these comments that we get and the things that you put in the final recommendation that moves up, we'll listen to. We have to and the Council's going to have their own ideas and then we're going to start all over again. And we're just trying, you know we're designing this sort of by committee. Initially. We've got an idea. The ideas changed based upon what you feel and also how the neighbors feel about the whole thing. And it's kind of a long process. It's really, at least 4 very valuable public hearings. These two and then the next two. After that we're probably come in real life sometime in November. Or not November, I'm sorry. March, April, May of next year. So that's kind of where we're at. So I want to ask Jack to do that. _I'm going to set it up. The one thing that he'll point out is that we have suggested, and this is more because I think it works for us, that we would go to an R8 designation in this area from a high density area and I'll get back to how we handle the rental situation in a minute but that would allow us to put in single family attached. For sale. Affordable housing underneath the $115,000.00 category which meets sort of one of this livable communities criteria. It doesn't necessarily meet the rental side of the criteria. We'll try to address that after Jack's gone through the whole package. Mancino: Thank you. Jack Lynch: I think to begin this is a parcel of about 65 acres. It's difficult from two standpoints. One you had studies on this for a number of years. You had at least 3 different studies that all recommend something a little bit different from your guide plan. The other difficult part about this site is, it's a sensitive site. It has a number of wetlands. It has a number of steep terrain. Sloped areas. And it has a number of pockets of good sized hardwoods. Typically the hardwood vegetation that occurs on steeply sloped terrain so we're trying to deal with that. The proposal is an extension of a downtown in a retail component of about 24 acres built in a style that's fairly typical with one and two story developments with peaked roofs. More as a residential feel than a commercial feel. The buildings would be highly articulated architecturally. And we're trying to develop a new concept in retailing. One where the retail stores would be up close to the streets and you could actually park on the streets and walk into the retail stores. Instead of parking in huge parking lots. So it's a back to the old days of retailing where you could pull up in front of the store on a public 27 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 street and park. So there's about 24 acres of retail on the northern portion. There's about 20 acres. 20 acres? 14 acres, I'm sorry, of office components. They occur typically on a more heavily terrained areas and more heavily vegetated parcels. The idea there is that we're going to have to go to a 2 and 3 story building. Small compact building sites. Typically cascading down the side of a slope. A portion of parking would be underground in small lots associated with the parcels. So it's a small building component. As Brad has already mentioned, we talked about another 11 or 12 acres of residential on the component along the eastern side and at this point down in the southern region of the property. There is about 25% of the property that will remain as open space for designated wetlands. I think as an overview, that's really it. I think the basic concept here that we're asking for is simply an inkle. That if we come back to you at the next level of approvals, and have generally followed these land use designations, and have accommodated the development in a sensitive manner and not destroying the intrinsic value of this site, that we are on the right track and that we will continue on through the approval process and ultimate development. So with that I think. Brad Johnson: Does anybody have any questions for Jack? Mancino: I'll decide that. Thank you Brad. Brad Johnson: I'd like to just show some slides and sort of a vernacular of what we're trying to accomplish here, which I did not get here early enough last time to do it. Some of these you'll recognize. This is downtown Excelsior. Basically the concept of the Villages is the look. Now obviously we're not going to have old buildings and things like that but the idea is that, that's...accomplish certain traffic, handle certain traffic...turns out that the retail in the communities I'm going to be showing you have provided...to the street. One of the things that we're trying to do, I noticed with the latest plan for one of the city's projects, they're trying to pull things towards the street so we just don't have all parking lots. The problem is the consumer likes to park...and not too many of us like to walk too far. And that affects the process of retail so I'm just going to go through some slides and narrate them but this is the idea that we're under and we look at these because they're recognized to be successful. These are all successful retail areas. Many have had to go through redevelopment to be successful. Again a lot of two story type of buildings that we've been talking about. A lot of different kinds of architecture. In generally all have parking on the street. And it seems to be consistent throughout. Again this is Excelsior...cinema, you know. They've got parking behind and this is the typical parking lot that I didn't know, and I've lived here for a long time. This is the back of downtown Excelsior, which means that you've got to have large parking lots even when you have the street. Now we wouldn't design it this way but in most of these communities, they've ended up having parking someplace other than just on the street so we're saying put them on the internal section of it and for those that want to run in and out, like I used to have to do when I was downtown, you would use that. This is downtown 28 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Wayzata. Very popular place and again, they've been able to attract some clothing stores. Quite a few clothing stores. The day I was there it was a nice, sunny day. I tried to make sure, very heavy traffic. This is a little indent where they've had to build a building with parking off street but it has a nice feeling to it. All of these are sort of viable. That happens to be an office building that's built there. We don't know what's across the street but it's called Lake Minnetonka so it has a good view. The average rents in there are $24.00 a square foot on the second and third floor. It's a very popular kind of thing and the first floor happens to be retail. More of Wayzata. There's a restaurant. Again, I didn't put the lake in here because we don't have the lake, you know but it's there. This possibly is more of Wayzata. I'm not sure. This is Como Avenue. I went in the earlier part of town because a lot of people say can these streets handle the traffic. The last two streets you've seen are State highways with traffic loads probably in the 10,000-15,000 cars per day category which makes these streets equal to or greater traffic than we currently have on 78th Street and almost as much as we have on Highway 12. Yet they've been able to maintain the look, as you can see. Now this type of architecture probably which is more, what we'd decide it was, Bavarian? Is not the kind of thing you'd probably use today but the concept is the same. It's interesting as you see all these photos you'll see that they're all sort of two story Bavarian kind of things and they're in two or three different segments. This is a popular place over there. Again you've got parking out in front. This is a little indent corner which is very popular over there which is more pedestrian friendly. More of that. Again we have green space out in front of the building... Most of these places have parking in the back but nowhere to the degree that would make them really successful. Same thing, but this is Como Avenue. You guys can go over and look at it. These are just local things. Last couple of weeks, my son goes to Northwestern. It's known as a football school. And I was down there the last couple weeks and this is...Glencoe. These are those streets. Again this is Green Bay Avenue. Traffic, Highway 5 caliber. Goes slow. If you'll note, very slow because I got caught on it but there's a lot of traffic. This is Saturday morning. This is not a day, on the way to the football game type of day. They've done a really nice job in downtown...coffee shop. One of the brand name ones that has moved back into the community. You'll notice that most of these have two story elements. Bob, some of these actually are rental apartments and they seem to be successful. Again, it may be more difficult to do that but they have been able to incorporate historically that type of housing there. This is back on Como Avenue on a nice day. This is more of Como I think. This is a little bit of Wayzata. The church there. That's a church, that little building. Another church on Como Avenue. No special parking you notice because the parking is there on Sundays. There's just parking in the area. This is a little townhouse project that's in Deerfield. I used to live a block away so I knew it was there so I went over and took some photographs. This is probably the type of townhouse project we're thinking of for sale. I'm not sure, these are probably $300,000.00 today but they're not much bigger than what we're building here in good old Minnesota for $115,000.00 but that's kind of an infill townhouse project that is appealing. I ran...I'd say 50% of them are 29 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 families with children and 50% aren't. You can usually tell if they've got a pumpkin. It's a very nice project. A place that's the type of thing that we might be able to incorporate into our thing and that's generally the idea that we're doing. The main thing I wanted to get across is that since I started this project, which started at Freeport, Maine. We got photographs there. The tendency is, in all of these projects, the key to that look and the key for the success of the real retail portion of that is the pedestrian friendliness and traffic on the streets. And if we were not allowed to have parking on the streets, then we'd have to re-visit the idea. And that's a very critical portion of this particular project. As I said, we've met with the neighbors. Now I'm going to hand out something because in general I don't think they have a lot of...with what we're dealing with. There is some traffic concerns about this corner up here and Bob has some concerns about this layout. Those are the kinds of things we can work out over the next period of time because they're concerned about the traffic on the street. I told them we want all the traffic right here. That's where the business is. There's a concern here of more transition that if we started here with single family large lots and went to higher density, we would go in and build a high rise apartment or some large monster apartment building that would not be part of their area so we said well, economically we come out better if we don't do rental. I mean we're much better off doing for sale. So we said in this area we don't have a problem of doing what you just saw. Some kind of an infill for sale kind of thing that'd be lower scale. It does affect the sizes we told you before. And then the balance of the site they are concerned that we'd be building massive buildings, which is not our goal. At the present time at least. I mean that would be, if you're...we'll come back and have to live up to what we say here and then, so by doing this as a PUD, we really make a commitment as to what this project will be. We make a commitment to go through this for a year with you guys, as I perceive it. I mean it's just very much of a commitment. Relative to the staff report, I gave a couple there but this is my comments on the staff report generally so they're in writing and I don't forget what we said. And again we're not disagreeing or agreeing in those cases with the staff. I gave away mine. Generally speaking, here they are. Thanks. Generally speaking there are just a few items in here that we prefer to say we've heard your recommendations. Some of these things we simply have to work out and we're not in that mode as of yet. One of them is the preservation of the ridge line that's here. We're not quite sure we can build on it. Build around it. Through it or whatever and whether the road has to go through here. We don't know if it's a viable alternative either way so we said we'd work with the staff. The realignment of this road here actually related to the ridge road so we said in item number 2 that we'll try to work that out and come back with something that's probably acceptable. We proposed, it was a requirement that we provide affordable housing in the site. Affordable housing is designated by the Metro Council as having less than $115,000.00 for sale and we've checked with some of our friendly builders and we can provide that in somewhat...form on that area so we could meet that we project, probably 42 units max in that area of that type of thing. Economically we're better off doing that than rentals. Okay. Economically. Relative to the traffic, the streets, the type of streets, 30 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 whether we have parking on the streets. Whether they're public or private. What the configuration of this is. What the turn off of this is. Item number 13 said, we need a traffic study. We agree. And then after the traffic study, which is the current and then what somebody would project this type of thing would generate, we think that's the time to talk about the streets. You know, why don't we get the information in hand and then come back and design it. The reason that's important, as I said, is if in fact we meet the village concept. In other words we're trying to make parking in the middle here and pull things up. We need parking on the streets. It's very specific in the staff minutes that we can't do that. If you recall Fred last time said, keep your mind open on that issue. I think that's much of that is engineering. Much of it's the State. You know, we don't know. We'd just like to argue that case that we may die at this point. We may end up back with regular retail there because we just don't have any parking. So that's how we'd like to approach that. And then finally, as far as the affordable, the rental housing. We're not sure it's either feasible financially or physically to put it there. Or anyplace in Chanhassen. That's our feeling so if you go to the next page, what I've done is done an analysis in starting, I believe on Monday at 5:30 the community starts discussing how do we meet the livable communities standards that the Met Council has set for us. As I told many of you, the problem there is that that's going to be a real strategic planning problem because it isn't easy. There are very good reasons we don't have a lot of rental property in Chanhassen. It can't be built. It's too expensive. And so we have to deal with that. So the bottom line here is I took an average rent of $500.00 per month. I capitalized the cost of development, which is what we do, and if we were going to build $500.00 a month apartments in Chanhassen, the annual subsidy is $5,604.00. And the developer would make no money and the buildings would break even. And this is real life because this is what we do for a living. If you have to subsidize it $467.00 per month. Now that's all possible. Okay, I mean they're doing it in Minnetonka. Just approved a 66 acre site like this and they're doing it. Okay. But I think what should be dealt with is in fairness to the staff and probably in fairness to you folks, is that there is probably a need for it. We could probably figure out how to put it in here and spread it out and strategically say, it's a good deal for everybody. Everybody wins. I don't think we can do it at this meeting. That's my feeling. Because I think my feeling is that the staff needs some strategic plan that they're working on and you guys have to understand what that is. It's very much of a financially driven thing. And so I don't know how else to handle it. I plan at being at every one of those meetings because I think it's important to me as a developer in the community to add my input because this is what we do. You know it's not...but all over the state of Minnesota. But this is real numbers on rental housing today and so my recommendation on that issue, and I don't know how you do that is that trust us. I mean you've got to trust the staff. You've got to trust the Planning Commission and that's tough to do but we're going to have to come back here, you know and we can probably incorporate some type of solution to this rental issue here. I don't know what that is. I don't know how big a subsidy the city will provide...I don't know. Because it will not be built if it's not financial. But this is not just 31 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Chanhassen's problem. It's the problem...through all of the United States and the last time we had a wave of rental development was 10 years ago when we had tax credits to do it, for those of you who were in it. We haven't had any and it's a problem in every community. And I don't know, my feeling is the Met Council has said to the staff, you've got to do it. I don't think any tools have been provided to us to figure out how to do it. Now as far as the retail mix and stuff...as you know I was elected to the School Board. Thank you for your congratulations but one of my missions was to figure out how do we increase the tax base so these folks can pay less taxes. This particular project will pay in taxes about $24 million when completed. And the last school referendum I calculated this morning, that would have paid $50,000.00 of the referendum. I don't know... they would have paid for 10% of the cost of the referendum under the normal formula. The school district deeply feels that we should start to try to balance, and this is from the school district now, balance. It doesn't have to be on this site but someplace in Chanhassen we have to raise the total amount of taxes that are passed onto the commercial people so the people living in the houses won't be taxed too much. And I think that's really the answer. In most of the communities where I go to, they love to have commercial/industrial. It's either for jobs or to lower the tax base. Or you know, balance the taxes and that's a very important thing. This particular community voted 2 to 1 against a referendum for the kids that we're sending through the schools. And we all have to come to grips with that. I think along with the livable cities thing that the staff is dealing with, the Council, not you guys, have to come to grips with what are we trying to do. Are you going to be taxed out of the world? What's going to happen and all those are kind of issues I don't think we can deal with tonight. Thank you. Mancino: Thank you...presenting for you? Brad Johnson: No. Questions. Mancino: Were there any questions from commissioners at this point? I'd like to open this to a public hearing. May I have a motion to do so and a second. Peterson moved, Conrad seconded to open the public healing. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: Since this is a public hearing, anyone wishing to make comments, please do so now. Come up to the podium. State your name and address. Resident: One of the things that's been mentioned here tonight, along...was concerns for neighbors and also... One of the things that should be pointed out. People that moved into this neighborhood did, as this was being built, this area was zoned on the east side of the property...was for single family... The current plan holds it that way. There's also a proposal 32 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 into the Met Council as Bob had mentioned. It says right now to make this medium density. What the request is currently in your plan, this is one that's high density. That's not what we bought knowing. It is a change and I think there should be some concern for what the neighbors feel. Mancino: Thank you. Gary Disch: Gary Disch, 8170 Marsh Drive. I'd just like to reiterate that. I've been here for 8 years. I checked when I bought the house that this was single family below me and medium density in the middle. I checked 4 years ago. It was still the same thing. I checked last year. It was still the same thing. All of a sudden now we're getting high density rammed down our throat. I did not buy my property there to go in next to high density. Mancino: Thank you. Brian Johnson: Thank you. My name's Brian Johnson. I live at 8143 Marsh Drive. I'd like to echo the comments of my neighbors who just spoke up. I think when this City Council and staff gave single family residential zoning...neighborhood, you take on with that a responsibility to think of the concerns of the people who are going to live in that neighborhood. Again, most of us bought in that neighborhood expecting that we were going to have single family and at the most medium density residential next to us. Also the state statute on rezoning, if you look at that, requires that the rezoning has to be reasonable. I don't think it's a reasonable expectation to take single family residential land and move it all the way up to high density for rent kind of uses right next to existing single family homes. I don't feel that staff has really gone through and justified the position of why high density residential needs to be placed in these locations right next to existing single family homes. A compromise that we have talked with the developer is putting in medium density townhomes, which will help make you meet the criteria of the livable cities act. The current request by staff that you put for rent housing may or may not meet the livable cities criteria. As Mr. Johnson just went through the numbers on what the cost of rental housing are, and the cost to put that together, either requires some large subsidies from the city, the state government, the federal government in order to make that cash flow. So you end up with rental housing that does not even help you meet the livable cities goals. It's trying to get below $650.00 a month. The numbers just don't justify that. Couple other concerns. I would like staff and the Council to look at whatever precautions to limit speed on Lake Drive East. Currently Lake Drive East, a number of cars are already going 35-40-50 mph along the church coming up to Total Mart. It's the request of the neighborhood that the stop sign that's currently at the corner of Great Plains Boulevard and Lake Drive East remain there and that you look at the traffic at that corner so it does not become a high speed zone from TH 101 all the way down to the intersection behind McDonald's. Again, there's a number of small children in this 33 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 neighborhood. We've got some very, I'm concerned about how much traffic is going to be on Lake Drive East, and especially at what speed that traffic is going to be. I guess in summary, from the neighborhood meetings, Brookview residents oppose high density rental, especially in the area immediately adjoining the single family residential homes. Medium townhomes or medium density townhomes, we have discussed with the developer. It helps meet the livable cities goals. I think that's acceptable to the neighbors. I think staff has failed to show why high density rental is necessary and that the zoning change is reasonable. Staff also in it's comments has said that there are a number of other medium density zoned parcels within the city of Chanhassen that are currently vacant. Why doesn't it make more sense to take something that's zoned single family and move it all the way up to high density than taking other existing medium density parcels and moving them up to high density. Again, what I would ask you to do if you do move this along tonight, I would like you to remove condition 19 requiring rental housing and support the developer's current recommendation of medium density for sale townhouses in the area immediately adjoining the Brookview single family homes. Thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Rita Klauda: Good evening. I'm Rita Klauda. I live at 8130 Marsh Drive. I want to support ...neighbors and I also am concerned about the traffic on Lake Drive East. At the last meeting I stated that concern and it was brought up that we just have to realize the traffic will increase on Lake Drive. The folks in our neighborhood aren't naive. We know that the traffic is going to be there on that road but we feel that with a traffic study and with proper use of that road, that traffic and speed can be controlled so we as a neighborhood can safely • exit our neighborhood, whether it's on a bicycle. Whether we walk. Whether we're in a vehicle. I think the people in that neighborhood are owed that. That we can get in and out of our neighborhood without the fear of being hit by a speeding vehicle. I think that a traffic study that's done on the corners and help people to enter and exit the entire development, extend all the way down East Lake Drive. That that piece isn't forgotten because I think that's a big concern from our neighbors and for me, thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Bob Savard: Good evening. My name is Bob Savard and I live at 8080 Marsh Drive. My house happens to be the one directly across the street from Total Mart. There are two corners immediately adjacent to my property and it is Lake Street. I am very concerned about the traffic on that street. I've had significant property damage as a result of traffic on that road. And I do have two small children. I'd also like to add that I support all of the comments of my neighbors and I am very concerned about the transition between my direct property line 34 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 and this development and how it will affect property values of my home. Thank you very much. Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? Steve Lundeen: Good evening. My name is Steve Lundeen. I live at 8160 Marsh Drive. I hope you won't find me rambling tonight. In listening to the discussion with the folks from Halla and that concern, there seems to be a decent amount of concern on you guy's part that they were there first and they deserve some consideration with development that's made around their property and I believe that the same should be true for us. That we, that there is some consideration...on our neighborhood. Just like all the other folks have said, they are concerned with the transition and I reiterate everything they said. I called several realtors, one that I bought my house through and another one, and asked them what they thought of this transition and both of them said, no matter what kind of apartments are put there, your property value will not go up as well as it has been in the past. And you can maybe even expect a decrease. And at the current tax rate I don't know how I can justify even staying in the neighborhood with that being the case. You guys have all heard the little commercial by a local copier company...business decision. A lot of the scenarios that they play out are because the decisions were made in a hurry and they weren't thought through and they weren't planned well enough and I feel that because the Met Council is enacting you know this livable housing and the city has agreed to follow through, and I believe in the idea, but are we in too much of a hurry. You know that the money's not there to support it and it seems like well, here's an opportunity. Let's just slap it there and we'll be over our responsibilities and everything will be hunky dory. Another concern is the failing of the school referendum. I have four small children who I'd love to see have quality education in District #112 and if you noticed in the paper that Chanhassen was the major obstacle in passing that referendum. It's because the city taxes are much too high. I have friends in Chaska that live in the same value of property as I do. They're paying way less taxes. And another, co-workers that live in Bloomington, Plymouth and Eagan, they all have the same range of house I have and their taxes are even lower than mine. Some study that was in the paper showed the difference between taxes in various school districts and stuff and they said our school district was on a lower eschalon and I'm concerned about that. And if we provide more TIF financing, $5,000.00 a unit, the taxes seem unlimited. That's all I had to say. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission tonight? Randy Meyer: Hi. I'm Randy Meyer. I live at 330 Sinnen Circle. There's a couple issues that I believe were raised by Council at the last meeting that were requested that staff look into. One was to prove whether or not, or at least put some documentation whether or not we need more retail and commercial and I do not believe that that has been addressed. Right 35 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 now we all know there's a lot of businesses downtown that their doors are closed. You know there's nothing in there. Just empty space and I don't know that it's been shown to anybody that we need more commercial and retail and I think that's one thing that was specifically asked of staff to do. I think another thing was asked to address the issue of the buffering zone, and I think specifically was asked to identify what would be, what it would look like. What things would fit in there. I haven't seen anything to address that issue. And I don't know if staff might have asked this or if Council asked but the people have all asked to see how this would affect our property taxes and our property values and I think that's very important to the people in the room, especially to all the neighbors and I don't think that issue has been addressed. Thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second please. Meyer moved, Peterson seconded to close the public healing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Comments from commissioners on, well on several things. One of the biggest changes have been that the applicant has come in and asked to changed the R-12 zoning on the east side of the area to R-8, which would mean medium density and have so met with the neighborhood on that. Other changes that are significant. It's talking a little bit about East Lake Drive and the traffic that will be generated on that from this development. And if you could please address any other concerns that you heard tonight, that would be appreciated. Commissioner Mehl. Mehl: Well, we definitely have to have some traffic study done to see what the impact is going to be and what controls we'd have. I guess I personally support the concept of putting the medium density for sale units next to the existing residential. I think that's a good move. If I were there I would have the same concerns they have. I support that. I don't know where the rental units are going to go, if at all. Again, those are some of the things that have to be presented with the next phase of the project. I assume they're going to come in with those options... Mancino: And the mix of retail, that was another concern that we as a commission had. Mehl: Yeah, do I understand it correctly? That the...that staff is recommending additional retail. Mancino: Bob, would you like to reply to that? You are recommending that what the applicant is suggesting is. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Generous: We are recommending approval of the addition of commercial space. Whether now the mix of retail, we can provide direction at that time. We think they primarily should address meeting niches in the community that aren't met but we'd really hate to limit it to only though because of the potential viability of the entire project. What if they can't get all specialty retail and a video store comes in? Are we really going to be opposed to that? Mehl: Okay. Mancino: Commissioner Farmakes. Farmakes: If I was to vote to approve this concept, that's what it is. It's a conceptual issue. I'd have to say that I understand the reasoning to add more retail. I'm not against adding more retail. If we go back and we look at the two packets that were provided to us as to why we would put in more retail, the primary culprit for adding more percentage has been the required parking, and our city's a pretty good example. You look outside and you see these large pocket developments here. You see that they are, they have a pretty hefty amount of parking in adjacent to their building. They hold a lot of customers. They're not like the typical town that you saw up here where you see a small retail area. They're very large retail areas. Some of them 60 some thousand square feet. They require a lot of parking. I'm not sure that a convincing case has been made here, it seems to be washed over, that we need at least, I think it was mentioned 4 or 5 acres I believe in the report. Let me quote it directly here. That should be a targeted goal except I'm not sure why that should be a targeted goal but it might be. Mancino: 4% to 5%. Farmakes: 4% to 5%. Maybe we can use the criteria that we used in the 3 trees. That 3 trees is twice as much as we have now so that's a good target. I would feel more comfortable if we knew at that ratio that that's going to service our community and we define it that it's, either we're regional or we're not regional. That we define that. We say it's this many acres and I realize that we have yet to have a highway built to the south. That will probably have some commercial development but that we should have a goal for that and a plan for that similar to how we have our central business district here. That we had an end goal and we shot for that goal and I consider that to be good planning. And that we have criteria established for that, or expansion of that. I'm not convinced that I've seen that. However, I would forward this with that motion involved, or added onto this, asking that to be specified to the Council. That they look at that issue or ask us to define that very clearly as to where we would want to be there. It seems to me that it's still pretty wishy washy as to where we're picking that percentage from. In particular if a large amount of that percentage of acreage is parking. Now I'm going back to the important factor here tonight that we've noticed that is 37 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 different from the meeting that we had before, and I think the recommendation of the city engineer is that we're, this development's contingent on having parking on the street. And it's interesting to note how full circle we get in a decade when we looked at the other developments here where you just couldn't get anyone to discuss street parking because hey, we can't get a building financed that way. We've got to have this many feet to the front door or we don't get our dollar. It's a great idea and I'm certainly not against that, as long as it's safe but that's outside my realm of expertise so I'm not going to, but I see that as a factor that in the studies that I looked at in here, the parking is a lot of that space. So if we're to look at that, it seems to me the parking issue could be, and I agree with Brad that that's a pretty basic issue in regards to this development or the reasoning that we used to expand that acreage or percentage of available land. Mancino: Do you have comments on the changing of density on the eastern. Farmakes: The issue of density goes beyond the issue of this development. It goes to the issue of affordable housing which is, if not there, where. And if not...who and it seems to me that that is, I'm not opposed to the solution that the developer's proposing. The issue of for sale versus rental. Rental is a real problem as far as the affordability or to be able to build it without the tax incentives. And I'm not sure what we're looking at, is this $5,000.00 really annually but we're looking every 10 years, $50,000.00 annually plus inflation so I don't know that if it's a rental situation, you know if our populous is going to buy into this. We may tell the, shrug our shoulders and say we don't have a choice but it's interesting to see these numbers and I'm not sure that they're accurate but it's interesting. These are the first numbers I've actually seen without adjectives of, pleasant adjectives in front of them. And these are really the issue in front of us. So irregardless whether they're factual numbers or not, I'm really going to discount those but really what we're looking at here is the basic problem is, we're looking at another thing that's being added onto this development. I think because of it's location on the highway and so on, that that's probably using as a criteria with other developments or other communities that that's probably an established precedent for placing that type of housing there. The mixed use on top and so on, that would be going back to the type of development that you see in the inner city or older type development. I have nothing again against doing that if it's a feasible issue. When we go outside of the realm of paying for itself, or heavy subsidization, we're leaving sort of the realm of planning and entering into the realms of politics. I think that's really for our elected officials to deal with. So I don't have a problem with moving this forward with some of those conditions and asking to see their response in this regard. Mancino: Thank you. Commissioner Meyer. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Meyer: My concerns parallel I think Jeffs quite a bit. Concerned about having, requiring rental housing in the development. I do like what the developer has proposed in the R-12 area. Down zoning that to R-8. Mancino: The two parcels? Meyer: Yeah. The apartment concerns I think are something, I don't know if we can address it and...but that's a concern also. I guess the really big ones for me and if we could address those would be comfortable moving it forward. Mancino: Okay. Commissioner Skubic. Skubic: I've always liked the general plan. I think this is a large goal extension of downtown retail area and is also going to be our gateway to the city from the south when Highway 212 comes in and gives us a good plan in general for that. As the commissioners have pointed out, there are a number of things that need to be worked out yet but I would vote in favor that the commission would approve this so the conceptual plan could go ahead to City Council and the preliminary plan could start working out some of those details. I've always been concerned about the buffer area to the east to the neighborhood and I'm happy, I agree with changing the density. I also agree with staff and would like to put some, we'd like to make up that somewhere in this development. Perhaps without the central office site. A lot of the slides that were shown had two story buildings with rental above that. Perhaps something like that could be worked out. I'd like to see rental try to fit in here somehow, somewhere. The highway study is certainly going to be, it is necessary. Traffic flow in here and pedestrian passage is going to be a big concern. Market Boulevard is a pretty busy area. It will be more busy when 212 comes in and there's offices, proposed offices to the west that will require access to the village so I'm certainly going to require...for pedestrians. Mancino: Thank you. Commissioner Peterson. Peterson: The majority of the comments have already been made. Again on a conceptual basis I like the project. The only thing that I'm still uncomfortable with is where the placement of the potential rental units would be adjacent, directly adjacent to the single family homes. And I'm not trying to personally place them somewhere else. I'm uncomfortable in doing so nor do I think they to obviously, but I look at it and my first view is there really isn't, from a financial standpoint. Pushing it towards the lake probably isn't logical. Where it is probably the most logical. I'm just uncomfortable with it there as far a the transition so. You know R-8 all the way through that would be I think more tolerable from my perspective, and certainly to the residents of the area but other than that, I'm very comfortable moving it up to the Council. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Mancino: Thank you. Commissioner Conrad. Conrad: I have very little to add. Maybe there's some neighbors that they probably should just take a look at the staff report because it may sound like we might not have looked at some of the issues but I think if you looked at the staff report, maybe it's a little bit of clarification in terms of retail. Mix and I think...not totally solved but staff has done a fair amount of work on that so again, taking a look at the staff report. I think the other issue is the transition to the east. I don't think you go from single family to high density. We've never done it. That's just not what we do and I think... Aanenson: Except for the senior housing project. Conrad: Yeah, well that wasn't my idea. Aanenson: Well we've got a couple other places in town that we didn't show you a slide. It has been done and I understand the issues completely. We're just saying somewhere on this site we'd like to see it. I understand the issue. Conrad: This site is just a great opportunity. Mancino: Good. I have a final, I guess I get to make final comments and I have a few and they mostly have to do with the conditions in here. I just want to make sure when one of the residents came up and asked about the traffic study. That it does go east on Lake Drive East, Lake Drive and we take in those comments that I think that she articulately expressed. Aanenson: I think we'd want to even include Rosemount. Mancino: That whole area. And this is kind of past, this is over and beyond this. Looking at East Lake Drive in that area and seeing what boulevard trees and making it feel more like a neighborhood area, it certainly as a car driver, when I feel I'm going through a neighborhood area, I slow down. I mean I don't really need a sign to tell me that but I'm sure we will look at posting speed limits and reducing them. But one of the other things in my mind, as I drive that I slow down is, if there are trees around. It feels neighborhoody, etc. And I notice that there's a fence, just a fence on East Lake Drive there and I think that we could do some plantings. That would help. I also agree with the rest of the commissioners on the transition from single family to the east to medium density townhomes. I also would like to pass onto the City Council a recommendation for rental housing and have them figure out where it goes. I don't think that it necessarily has to be east of TH 101. I do feel that it could be west of TH 101. There could be an underpass. There could be a pedestrian walkway so that those who live in rental property on the western side could get over to the 40 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 retail on the east. I think that that would be, would work out well. And they can look at the economics that go with that because that's something that we won't be. I would, on another point and that is public streets. Parking on public streets. I would like to offer the suggestion that we change condition number 12 so that the applicant and staff shall investigate the use of parking on public streets. Making sure that it doesn't interfere with traffic congestion and public safety. But I would like that option to remain open instead of just closing it. I would also like to add a condition 22 so that if this conceptual plan goes through and we get to preliminary plans, that the applicant shall develop comprehensive signage and lighting standards which are consistent with the traditional architecture of the project as outlined in the staff report. So that we see it at the appropriate time and that is at the preliminary time. I think that signage and a mix use area and lighting is a major concern. I would also like to amend condition number 4 having to do with architecture. The applicant shall better define the vernacular to be used within the project. And that second sentence, and I'll give the rationale afterwards. Specific architecture development standards shall be developed and these standards shall be used in all land uses within the project. And what I mean there is that, I think one of the ideas that we all as a commission buy into and are excited about is a village concept. And not only do I see this for the retail commercial but also for the townhomes and that again the whole development has a neighborhood. Has a look and it's all very compatible. And that is, and many of the townhomes that we're seeing before us, the first thing you see or the only thing that you see are garages. And that is certainly not the concept or what I'm assuming that we will see in townhomes in this development. That it will be more of the neo traditional, new urbanism concept. Whether that means an alley way, whatever. That we look creatively at that. So that there is a good compatibility here. And I think those are all my comments. I'd entertain a motion. And I think that if one person entertains a motion, others of us would add friendly amendments. Peterson: I would make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend conceptual approval of PUD #92-1 with the conditions 1 through 21. Mancino: Is there a second? Skubic: Second. Farmakes: I'd like to add a friendly amendment. I'd like to instruct staff to define specifically what advantages and criteria expanding the retail area outside the central business district to the City Council and not to be referring to other reports but specify specifically the advantages to the community of doing so. Mancino: Is that friendly amendment accepted? 41 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Peterson: Accepted. Mancino: Any other friendly amendments? I would like to add a couple friendly amendments. And that is to condition number 4. That the first sentence stays as is. The second sentence changes to specific architectural development standards shall be developed and these standards shall be used in all land uses within the project. Is that friendly amendment accepted? Peterson: Accepted. Mancino: The next friendly amendment is on number 12. That the applicant and staff shall investigate the use of parking on public streets that does not interfere with traffic congestion and public safety. Peterson: Accepted. Mancino: Thank you. Number 22. The applicant shall develop comprehensive signage and lighting standards which are consistent with the traditional architectural of the project as outlined in the staff report. Peterson: Accepted. Mancino: Thank you. Any discussion? Oh! I guess I have a question. Does this mean that the new, question for Bob. That what we are approving here is the new revised R-8 zoning for those two eastern parcels. Aanenson: No, you approved what we had with number 19 in there. Mancino: Oh, okay. Generous: No, it would be the proposal. You would have to make that specific. That the applicant provide medium density adjacent to. Aanenson: Or transition or however you want to word that. Mancino: Okay. I just wasn't aware that that is not part of the motion at this time. It would remain R-12. Generous: Well what they're proposing. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Mancino: What they are proposing in front of us. Generous: Yes. Mancino: Okay. Which is R-12 and R-12. Generous: Yes. Mancino: Okay. Peterson: I think we need another friendly amendment. Point of discussion first. I think, my sense was that we all agreed that there was a transition problem between the high density and the single family. At least I heard a few of us say that. So I think in turn, how we should integrate that into this. Meyer: How would you word that? Generous: Well as a motion maker you could add another condition that the transition, residential be no greater than medium density and your second could approve that. Peterson: To that end I would make an additional condition that the density be, between the residential, current residential and the new residential, that it be medium density rather than high density. Aanenson: I have a question. Can we get a number on that just so that we have the same understanding that what we say medium is 4 to 8 units an acre. Is that understood? Peterson: Yes. Aanenson: Okay. Mancino: 4 to 8 units per acre. Okay. Peterson: Was I succinct enough on that? Aanenson: Yes. I just want to make sure that everybody understood that that's what we classify as medium. Mancino: Any discussion? My next question is, are you meaning also to keep in 19 which would also have the developer looking at rental housing in another area of the development? 43 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Peterson: Yes. Mancino: Okay. I just wanted to make clear that that was it. Do I have a second on that entire motion? Mehl: I'll second it. Peterson moved, Mehl seconded that the Planning Commission recommend conceptual approval of PUD #92-1 with the following conditions: 1. The applicant has expressed the potential for preserving the ridge line that runs east-west across the northern portion of the site. This option should be further investigated as the project moves forward in the review process. In addition, the area south of the trail system on the south end of the parcel should be maintained in it's entirety. As an alternative, the density that is proposed for these areas could be transferred elsewhere on the PUD. 2. A mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet must be completed for this project. 3. The applicant shall develop individualized development standards for each parcel including setbacks, building heights and bulk, and uses. 4. The applicant shall better define the "vernacular" to be used within the project. Specific architectural development standards shall be developed. Specific architectural development standards shall be developed and these standards shall be used in all land uses within the project. 5. The applicant shall investigate realigning the Lake Drive East extension to follow the Great Plains Boulevard alignment until it is south of the east/west ridge on the northern portion of the project. 6. The applicant, in conjunction with the city, shall develop a strategy for the provision of affordable housing within the project. 7. The applicant shall work with the city and Southwest Metro Transit for the provision of mass transit opportunities within the development. 8. The applicant shall develop a tree preservation plan for the project. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 9. The applicant shall develop specific methodology for the preservation of trees, slopes, and wetlands. 10. Lake Drive East shall be constructed in accordance with State Aid standards. The remaining public street shall be built in accordance to the City's industrial standards. Lake Drive East will require an 80 foot right-of-way and the southerly loop street a 60 foot wide right-of-way. 11. All access points onto Trunk Highway 101 will be subject to City and MnDot review and approval. 12. That the applicant and staff shall investigate the use of parking on public sheets that does not interfere with traffic congestion and public safety. 13. The applicant should prepare a traffic study to provide data justifying access points and to determine necessary roadway improvements required by this type of land use. 14. Trunk Highway 101 will require upgrading in order to meet the traffic demands of this development. 15. All public improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates for construction. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of approval. 16. The applicant shall implement the City's Surface Water Management Plan with regards to accommodating water quality and quantity measures with regards to surface water runoff from the site. 17. The City administers the State Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Staff requires the following information for wetlands: a wetland delineation report by a qualified wetland delineator, wetlands delineated on the grading and drainage plan, wetland alteration and mitigation areas shown on the grading and drainage plan, the applicable permit application for wetland alteration. 18. In addition to the requirements of the WCA, the City also requires a buffer strip and buffer strip monumentation around the wetlands. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20 feet and the buffer strip width required for an ag/urban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum 45 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback for these wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. 19. The applicant shall make a commitment to provide for rental housing in the development. 20. The applicant shall incorporate additional internal pedestrian facilities within the development. 21. The applicant shall develop design parameters to buffer the existing residential neighborhoods to the east from this development. 22. Instruct staff to define specifically what advantages and criteria expanding the retail area outside the central business district to the City Council and not to be referring to other reports but specify specifically the advantages to the community of doing so. 23. The applicant shall develop comprehensive signage and lighting standards which are consistent with the traditional architectural of the project as outlined in the staff report 24. The density between the existing residential and the proposed residential shall be medium density (4 to 8 units per acre) and not high density. All voted in favor, except Conrad who abstained, and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR A 9,400 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN OFFICE WAREHOUSE FACILITY ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT 7600 QUATTRO DRIVE, MICROVISION CORPORATION. Public Present: Name Address Patrick Giordana Minneapolis Paula Jackels 8531 Merganser Court Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Mancino: Any questions for staff? I have a quick one. Can you keep that up please for a second Sharmin. They've already graded the parking lot. Okay. When, and is that part of what we were approving? The parking lot. The expansion of a parking lot. Al-Jaff: What we have done in the past is allowed grading to take place. Mancino: Now do you allow grading to take place? I mean what if there are trees there? I mean are there, do they have to put up fencing. Protection fencing. Would you allow grading prior to the Planning Commission okaying the site? Aanenson: It's still permitted through the engineering department. They would review the plans and make sure they're consistent with drainage and everything else. And there's only a certain level that they're allowed to permit administratively. Otherwise you have to go through this process. Mancino: So the engineering staff looks at the environmental effects as trees that are up and everything and how. Aanenson: No, they communicate with us to do that. Mancino: Okay. Aanenson: They approve it administratively but it's communications between the different departments but they are ultimately the ones that would administrate it. But they would confer with the Planning staff to say do you have any issues...Sharmin went out and looked at it. Mancino: Okay. Before they started grading you went out and looked at it? Al-Jaff: Yes. Mancino: Okay. Great. Thank you. Does the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission at this time. Pat Giordana: Good evening. I'm Pat Giordana. I'm the architect on the project and I'm representing Microvision. I think Sharmin did a good job of really walking through what we're proposing. On our revised elevations we've already added the windows to the east and the west as requested by the Planning Commission. And I'm really here just to answer questions. We feel, if you've been by that property right now, the blue striping, the new 47 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 company who is moving in or who owns the building right now, their company color is more of a earth tone burgundy and we feel that actually is an improvement to the... Mancino: Okay. Any questions at this point from commissioners to the architect? Skubic: I have one. Will you be adding any additional rooftop heating or ventilating, air conditioning? Pat Giordana: Yeah there will be three additional rooftop units and they'll be pushed to the back. I think as you drive by this site that the...quite a ways below the building. You'll be hard pressed to even see the addition on the back side. The building's actually getting buried about halfway back in the hillside... Skubic: You currently have some mechanicals up there? Pat Giordana: Yes. Right now the current mechanical system are all roof top units and we're going to take them to a new roof top units on the back side. Skubic: Staff, do these need to be covered? Al-Jaff: If you wish we can add a condition that reads all roof top equipment shall be screened. You won't be able to see them. Skubic: Okay. The current equipment is not screened. Al-Jaff: You can't see them. Skubic: Okay. Pat Giordana: From the angle from the road, the building really blocks out. Again you're sitting about 15-20 feet below the roof top. Even when you're in the parking lot, you can't see it. Skubic: Okay, thank you. Mancino: Just a side bar to that. On the northern side, is that residential? Al-Jaff: Yes. Mancino: And will they be able to see at all? 48 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Pat Giordana: There's also a...line there. Aanenson: Railroad tracks. Mancino: So when we get light rail transit and we come by all the time, are we going to see rooftop? That we're going to get next year, light rail transit. Okay, so there's no possibility of the residential seeing. Al-Jaff: Here's the railroad tracks. Here's a berm right here. Then you'd have woods separating the site from the residential neighborhood. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other questions at this time? Conrad: Where is the retaining wall? Pat Giordana: The retaining wall we had along the west and north of the parking lot. The civil engineer has actually revised some of the grading to deal to omit the... The property owner was able to get an agreement with his neighboring property to the west, which allowed him to make that transition more gradual and actually do about 15 feet of grading on his property to make a more easy transition. Mancino: Thank you very much. I think that's it. Thank you. May I have a motion to open this to a public hearing and a second please? Meyer moved, Peterson seconded to open the public hearing. The public hewing was opened. Mancino: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission on this item, please come forward. Paula Jackels: Good evening. I'm Paula Jackels. My address is 8531 Merganser Court. I am an employee of Microvision. I'm the longest standing employee other than the 2 owners and I've got to tell you from personal experience, it's a fabulous place to work. As a result of the company moving to the Chanhassen area I built a new residence out in this area... Our company has grown tremendously since we moved to this site. I think if anyone has seen our parking situation right now you would realize that. I don't know how much I should tell you but I know that we moved there with about 30 employees in February of this year. We now are over 85. This has brought tremendous growth to this area. I know there's a lot of employees that are looking at purchasing homes, as well as relocating to this area and I think that's one thing that the Council should take a look at because it is giving a lot back to Chanhassen as a city and I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of what this 49 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 company is allowing Chanhassen to grow with the company or whatever...because a lot of people are making a large commitment because previously we were renting our site and with the foresight to purchase, that was where my personal belief was yes. I do want to be a part of this company. I know what they've done. I know where they're going and I do want to move with this company and that's why we chose to relocate to this area. And I think by approving this site expansion you will see an increased growth in the company. They have done quite a bit and it will just roll over into an additional amount of employees and such that will relocate to this area. It's something that I felt very strongly... Mancino: Great, thank you. Conrad: What does your company do? Paula Jackels: We manufacture machine vision systems for the truck industry. Basically inspecting... Mancino: Say that again. Machine visions? Paula Jackels: Machine vision systems. Basically what they are are computer systems, table sized equipment that takes a look at...Basically inspecting those components. Mancino: Making sure that they work before. Paula Jackels: They're basically just taking a look at the inspection capabilities. There's no function. There aren't...It's a clean operation. There's no hazardous materials or anything. It's a quiet operation. I think the residents in the area will find that... We were actually looking at a home on the opposite side of the rail for ourselves when we relocated along Twilight Boulevard. Twilight Trail and I just didn't want to be within walking distance. But it is a good company and I think that you're really going to want to make sure that it does stay in this area because of the potential growth. I know there has been discussions of relocating to other areas, because I've moved I'd prefer that they would stay in this area but it is a really great company and I think they can do a lot... Mancino: Are you their PR officer? Paula Jackels: ...started in '87 and I've been through almost every change... Farmakes: Could we interest you in any land on TH 41 and TH 5? Paula Jackels: I hope a lot for the company, like I say... 50 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Mancino: Great, thank you. Appreciated your comments. Do I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing? Meyer moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public healing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Commissioner Conrad. Conrad: Nothing. It looks fine. Mancino: Commissioner Peterson. Peterson: Looks great. Mancino: Commissioner Skubic. Skubic: It looks goods. Mancino: Commissioner Meyer. Meyer: Ditto. Mancino: Great. Commissioner Farmakes. Farmakes: Vote to approve. Mancino: Commissioner Mehl. Mehl: I'll add something. I drove by this site on Monday. Took a look at it and the applicant is very right in that, when he says that the addition probably won't be seen or very slightly seen from the road. It's going to be, it's really buried back there. You just won't see it, unless you're in a parking lot. And as far as rooftop equipment, you would never be able to see it. Looks good. Mancino: Okay, thank you. I have no additional comments. May I entertain a motion. Meyer: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion. City Council approve site plan review #90-6 as shown on the site plan dated October 13, 1995 subject to the following conditions, 1 through 6 with the recommended change on number 2. That the applicant shall landscape the northeast and the 51 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 northwest corners of the new parking lot. Landscape materials shall be selected from the city's approved parking lot tree list. The existing trees on the west and northwest sides of the property are to be protected by tree fencing. Mancino: Is there a second? Peterson: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? Meyer moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #90-6 as shown on the site plan dated October 13, 1995, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall add windows along the east and west elevation of the proposed addition. 2. That the applicant shall landscape the northeast and the northwest corners of the new parking lot. Landscape materials shall be selected from the city's approved parking lot tree list. The existing trees on the west and northwest sides of the property are to be protected by tree fencing. 3. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 4. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 5. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 6. Meet with the Building Official as requested in his attached memo to discuss commercial building permit requirements. All voted in favor and the motion canied unanimously. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING: AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL RAISING OF FUR BEARING ANIMALS, OPERATION OF RIDING ACADEMIES, COMMERCIAL STABLES AND KENNELS IN THE BF, FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT, NANCY LEE. Public Present: Name Address Nancy Lee Applicant Patrick Blood Applicant Verne Severson 675 Lakota Lane Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any other questions from commissioners to staff before the applicant presents? Okay. Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? Nancy Lee: Thank you. My name is Nancy Lee. I would say my first request...included use but after Sharmin told me how much is indeed agricultural, it does not make sense to put it in there. ...so there isn't much more I can say until she's had a chance to look into that... Conrad: What's your intent? Mancino: Yeah, that was my question. Nancy Lee: ...kennels. I have found that Carver County and Scott County don't have a humane society. That was one important aspect of it. Right now I was looking to see if it was something that would be allowed before I invest too much time and money into the issue... Mancino: Any other questions for the applicant? I think that's it at this time. Thank you. This is a public hearing. May I have a motion to open for a public hearing and a second please. Meyer moved, Conrad seconded to open the public heating. Mancino: Anyone wishing to speak on this item please come in front of the Planning Commission if you'd like at this time. 53 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Verne Severson: I'm Verne Severson. I live at 675 Lakota Lane. We're the property just north of this site. Mancino: Excuse me Verne, could you show exactly where you are? Verne Severson: Yeah, right north of the railroad... And I don't have much of any comment... conditional use versus something... I think it is a problem finding a good use for this property and the only comment I have to make is I like the idea of something high class...The thought of fur bearing animals, I can't quite handle that so I guess I'd like you to consider that. I'd like the staff to...but other than that I think... Mancino: Okay, thank you. Sharmin, would you like to take just a minute and explain what conditional use is to Mr. Severson? Al-Jaff: Sure. Mancino: And what that would mean. Al-Jaff: Conditional use permit would allow us to allow the use that they are requesting. However it would have conditions attached to this application...that they would have to abide by. With conditional use permits we will look at them on a yearly basis to make sure that they are in compliance with all of the conditions of approval. Verne Severson: Depending upon how much agricultural land there is. Mancino: Could you come back up. I'm sorry, I should have. Verne Severson: I was just concerned if you find out that so much of Chanhassen has agricultural land and what were you trying to say when you said this wouldn't work in the other area. Al-Jaff: Okay. What the applicant requested was that we amend the term agriculture. Currently agriculture is a permitted use in the Agricultural Estate District, in the Rural Residential District and in the Fringe Business District. Those are three different types of zones. I highlighted those uses on this map and this is what I came up with. Verne Severson: Okay, that's agricultural. But our area down there is business fringe? Al-Jaff: Correct. What the applicant is requesting to amend is the definition of agriculture, which is a permitted use within all of those districts. 54 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Verne Severson: And it currently doesn't include riding stables and kennels... Al-Jaff: That's correct. It excludes them specifically. Verne Severson: So what you're proposing is something different than that so it only affects the business fringe district? Al-Jaff: Correct. Aanenson: We said that ag was too broad so we wanted to narrow the scope and just change it to business fringe so we're tabling that... Verne Severson: Well then I would be...suggest you table the motion and study it some more because...work something out. Mancino: Thank you. Thank you for your thoughts. Public hearing is closed. Let's move on to commissioner's comments. Commissioner Mehl. Mehl: What's the area down there? It looks from the map it looked kind of small. Are we talking about putting riding stables and, or academies and all of this into that small area? Al-Jaff: We don't have a specific plan submitted. What the applicant requested was just a general change in the zone so they would know whether they could make an application. Mehl: For that BF district? Al-Jaffa Correct. So at this point we're just looking at the type of use and how do we permit it in that area. They also didn't want to invest a large amount of money preparing a site plan for something that is not permitted in a district. They wanted to see how the city would address this zoning amendment first because without the amendment they really can't proceed. Aanenson: So what we're saying is we'll come back with some standards. Now they have 15 acres and that be the appropriate size but what we're saying is Sharmin wants some additional time to say, if it was a riding academy, how many acres would it have? If it is a humane society, how many acres is appropriate. What other conditions should we put in place to mitigate any impacts? Mehl: So it's conceivable that the BF district isn't, maybe wouldn't be big enough to handle. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Aanenson: No, we would base it on a parcel size. Maybe we're saying if it's a riding academy it needs to be so many acres. But it could be less if it was a humane society. That's what we don't know. That's what we're saying Sharmin says I need some additional time to go through that and decide what impacts I need to consider to mitigate noise, and whatever else. We don't know the criteria yet. That's what she's going to need to develop. Mehl: Okay. You're going to have to take a look at some things. You know noise from animals. Trucks and trailers. If you're talking about horses, you've got to get them in and out. What the roads and traffic and you know. Aanenson: And we may decide horses are inappropriate. Maybe we decide it's got to be more something on a smaller scale. Mancino: Commissioner Mehl are you done? Mehl: I had just a couple other things here. You know you're talking barns and pens and riding areas and there's just a whole pile of things that's going to have to be taken a look at. Odor control. Disposal of feces. How you collect them. Aanenson: Some of those things are already addressed in city ordinances. We do have stabling permitting requirements and there are other ordinances in the city code regarding animals. So a lot of those standards are in place so it's just a matter of incorporating it into this. Say those other ordinances would also be followed. There are stabling permits already in...the city. Mehl: Okay. That's all I have. Mancino: Commissioner Farmakes. Farmakes: I have no general objections to looking at this. I think also however we should consider that for every positive issue, like a humane society, there are negative ones. ...puppy mill, which would come under the same criteria of use. It's intent of use would be different. Those are less palatable for aesthetics reasons. Also I think the raising of fur bearing animals for slaughter would be totally incompatible with an urban area. I'm not sure how that interplays with the issue. I know that I have some experience of just walking through a mink ranching area. There's a considerable odor involved. I'm not sure how that interplays either with certain types of animals that may be have more of an odor issue. Little harder to define than...but may affect neighbors. The noise issue as well for large concentrations of animals. Anyway I just want to bring up that point that there is also good and bad uses for the same type of operations so that's it. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Mancino: Commissioner Meyer. Meyer: Nothing. Mancino: Commissioner Skubic. Skubic: I have nothing to add. Mancino: Commissioner Peterson. Peterson: Nothing to add. Mancino: Commissioner Conrad. Conrad: Were we going to study the BF area? Aanenson: Yeah. Conrad: Well what are we going to do down there and how does this relate to it? Al-Jaff: We did bring a zoning ordinance amendment before you approximately 5 or 6 months ago. Aanenson: Right but what he's talking about is the...follow-up. Al-Jaff: Correct. Aanenson: We're working on it. We are. Conrad: Does it fit? Aanenson: We talked about it and we think it may. It may be a very good fit. Because we really see this area as trying to get away from more of the true retail type of a nitch if it's done appropriately. Mancino: So you're going to come back to us with a whole BF ordinance and what's permitted and what's conditional. 57 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Aanenson: I'd like to do that. I won't be able to do that. We'll come back with some specifics, a recommendation on this and how we think it could fit in the direction we're going with that district. Mancino: So instead of looking at the whole, we're going to look at a piece? Al-Jaff: A district. Aanenson: Yes. Mancino: Okay. Aanenson: We've got quite a bit of information on what's happening down in that area. The direction, the way we think we're going and how this relates to it. If it's going with us or against. We'll be able to tell you that. Mancino: Okay, great. Conrad: But it is a good point when staff comes back to give us a status for that area and say we're thinking of moving it. Mancino: Okay, that would be great. Do I have a motion? May I entertain a motion? Peterson: The motion to table this request. Is there a specific? Mancino: And you're requesting the tabling because you want what done? Peterson: Tabling of it to let the staff further develop standards to allow the commercial raising of fur bearing animals, operating of riding academies, commercial stables and kennels as a conditional use permit in the BF district. Mancino: Is there a second? Meyer: I'll second that. Mancino: Any discussion? Peterson moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the City Code amendment to further develop standards to allow the commercial raising of fur bearing 58 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 animals, operating of riding academies, commercial stables and kennels as a conditional use permit in the BF district. MI voted in favor and the motion carried. Mancino: The motion is tabled for staff to do some work on coming back to us with how we should handle this in the business fringe area. And I'm sure that you will be in contact with the applicant to let her know when this will come back in front of the Planning Commission and will also get the input from the applicant. Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: Mancino: Do we have any new business? Aanenson: Actually the Council met between meetings. By the time the packet went out, we didn't have a chance to put something in. Mancino: They did pass the Tires Plus. Aanenson: Correct. The Southern Oaks was tabled. That was back on the agenda. That was the property south of...that was withdrawn from the agenda. Then prior to that, the meeting before, I believe we've given you those so it's just been on the 13th. The other ones you had already gotten from October 23rd. Then just an update on the Pillsbury, which is meeting the deadlines that we had requested and seems to be resolving some of the traffic. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meyer moved, Mehl seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 1, 1995 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS: LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT. Kate Aanenson updated the Commission on the livable Communities Act. Mancino: So how are we going to, I mean the question that was put in front of us tonight and it's a very logical one. How do we do high density rental? Aanenson: Well I think, first of all that number was used 500 and certainly you can balance that out. We've seen that with projects, just similar like we did on the senior housing project. There's prices that are well in excess of that. There's 65 units in that senior housing project. Of those 37 are under 600 a unit so what you do is you take that whole range and it runs the gamut and that is at market rate. Those units but because you average, some have 2 bedrooms and more amenities versus some that are the smaller so not all of the units have to be affordable. What we're saying is we need to try to look at a portion of those and certainly 59 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 with this project, no one's saying that all of those had to be. They're trying to get a portion of those and that's what we're trying to say. Another way to make it happen is, you had pointed out, maybe there's an opportunity to put some of the rental on top of the retail. There's different ways of scattering those out. Nobody wants to just put all the units in one area of town and impose them on anybody and I think a successful project, that people aren't even realizing, we're subsidizing the downtown and the Heritage building right now. And it doesn't seem to be a problem so I think that's the best way to do it. Then it's not imposing on any one neighborhood. Kate Aanenson continued with her update on the Livable Communities Act. Mancino: So we're going to be keep analysis, data on this? As we approve things, we're going to be saying and asking pricing of product? And what does that do about the market? Aanenson: Whether it's above 115, it's not an issue. What the issue is, it's those that are getting close to that margin and how do we accomplish that. Conrad: That seems like a really big contradiction. Mancino: Yeah. Conrad: And to the development patterns. That one's tough. Aanenson: It is a tough one. Conrad: It's a real contradiction. I think the other ones can do. I think. Aanenson: Oh, I agree with you. Conrad: But this one seems, like I don't know that I want to make that happen. It just seems real contrary to what all the resident moved out here for and the ratio of one out of two being affordable. Mancino: I have another issue. What's going to make different cities or different suburbs, whatever you want to call it, different from each other if we all have this strict guideline of what we can be? I mean we have to have so much here. So much there. Who cares where you live anymore? I've just got to take the opposite, stick some holes. Aanenson: Yeah. We can all be $300,000.00 and just say nobody else can come here. That's a second option. 60 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Mancino: I wasn't quite... Aanenson: I know but there's a lot of people who think that way and we're willing to pay the taxes, sure. I'm not going to, I'm just fulfilling the message and that's to say what's realistic and obviously the legislature decides this but you're right. The Council's struggling with that 50% too. What is the appropriate, is that but that's way below even the recommended benchmark. So it's a tough one. You've got to have some number that's realistic. Now are we going to be able to achieve all these goals? What the Council's looking at is some good faith effort to move in that direction. As they've stated, you can't turn the whole course of the ship but they'd like to see you moving in a direction. Now the Council has adopted a resolution that says they're willing to participate. The next step is for them to agree on the goals. And the next step kind of comes back to you too because there's going to be implementation. How do we achieve those goals? This goes back to, do we leave it as a PUD and try to be more creative in that approach? How are we going to do this? When we look at all these projects and to come back to your question Nancy, do we start asking what the numbers are going to be? Yeah, we're going to have to if we want to achieve these, there's going to have to be ways to do that. Farmakes: Who's going to pay for it? Aanenson: I don't know that we always have to pay for it... Mancino: Kate, what if we don't meet some of these? Does that mean, the Met Council says you can't extend the MUSA line? I won't give you dollars to upgrade Highway 5 from Powers to TH 41? I mean what's at stake? Aanenson: That's what the Council's struggling with now. We've gotten a letter from the Met Council staff and again the legislature's going to review this that says, if you're showing good faith but the market isn't there, then that's through no fault of your own. If you reviewed projects and have been creative in trying to review them, great. One project which we've done is the senior housing project which we're already getting credit for because we participated. There's other projects that we're working on that we will be getting credit for. If apartments aren't financable and we can't make it happen, are we going to be penalized? They're saying no. Farmakes: How do you define market for subsidy though? Aanenson: That's a whole other. 61 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Farmakes: Well it's an important issue. I mean this whole, once you throw away the life cycle, how do you deal with the entitlement of making up the difference of cost'? ...but just cost. How do you make up the difference? Aanenson: There's certain things. Land prices. There's certain things and they certainly understand that. There are certain things that we can't control but there are things that we can control. As Ladd's indicated, keeping densities towards the upper end. There are certain things we can be doing. So that's what they're saying. Are you doing things to encourage or are you being punitive? Farmakes: But certainly the, well you can argue this ad infinitum. Aanenson: But anybody that's interested, then I'll report back to you what the Council looked at as far as, because the goals have to be in by the middle of December. Mancino: And if you get really interested, go to the work session. Conrad: So the Council is doing what? Setting goals or reacting to your? Aanenson: Reacting to it. They're concerned. They want to go through it more specifically. Is this a good number... I certainly don't want to be held accountable for goals that are unapproachable but I think that again we've got the zoning in place. It's using the right tools that we have and... Mancino: I think the zoning's in place but not affordability of homes. Conrad: I think the Opus site could solve every problem. Seriously. We bring in Rottlund, they can put in every, they can solve every one of these. Aanenson: They'll have to build a new school. Farmakes: Have you thought of that Ladd? We could rent our statistics. That's possible. We could have a surplus and send it to Robbinsdale. Aanenson: We can cluster with other communities. There's a lot of things we can do. I just wanted to mention too, I did put two zoning news ones in here. The lighting issue has always been an issue of the Council as far as how that affects... Mancino: I thought that was very apropos especially looking at mixed use. 62 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Aanenson: And then I thought the sign thing too was kind of a discussion that we've been talking about too. So when I think there's one that interests you, I always try to put them... Mancino: I would like to suggest that we look at a lighting ordinance, especially as we, in some of these areas where we're doing mixed use and we have to be concerned about lighting for retail. Lighting for residential and how they're compatible. So I think that would be something good to start looking at. I'd also like to look at business neighborhood. I don't know if anybody's had a chance to really look, drive through Mission Hills but that's kind of got quite a bit of multi-family. Is that medium density? And some high density. We have both there. Aanenson: Well it's pretty much, I think we squashed that one down. I've got it in the report. Let's see, I'll give you a real density. Mission Hills came out at. Mancino: Medium? Aanenson: Yeah. 7 units an acre. And actually if you take the gross, taking out the wetlands, it's 4.4 so again we squashed that one down. I mean the only one we've approved over 6 units an acre is the senior housing project and that was at 30. Mancino: It's the only one over 6? Aanenson: Yes. Mancino: Net? Aanenson: Gross. Net? The highest one, we've got two at 7. That would be Mission Hills and Oak Ponds. But those are the only two that are gross. Otherwise there aren't any other ones. Mancino: So we have nothing that approaches R-12, let along R-16. Aanenson: Not in the recent past. We have done Heritage. The one downtown but that was prior to what we did the last 5 years. To try to give you development trends. Mancino: Well my other suggestion is to look up the business commercial area down near Mission Hills that will be coming in and setting some standards for that because I think we'll have more of that. 63 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Conrad: But you know the interesting thing is, the zone was there for high density. Nobody chose to use it. My point has always been, okay eat it up... We still have some opportunities. Aanenson: It's a check and balance. Absolutely, I agree with you. Conrad: But why hasn't it happened? Mancino: I mean it's not because people come in and say they don't want it. Conrad: Developer's aren't making any money on it. Farmakes: Well if the market's not there, subsidize it. You know that. Conrad: There you go. Yeah. Raise the taxes. Yeah. Mancino: Can we have a motion for adjournment? Mehl moved, Meyer 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 64 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: John Rask, Planner I DATE: November 29, 1995 SUBJECT: Proposed Text Amendment to the A-2, Agricultural Estate District to -� allow Retail Nurseries and Garden Centers SUMMARY Mr. Don Halla, Halla Nursery, is requesting a text amendment to allow landscape nurseries as a permitted use in the A-2 District. The Commission tabled action on this item on November 1, 1995 to receive further information from staff concerning the different options of allowing retail nurseries in the A-2 district. On November 15, 1995, the Commission again reviewed the proposed changes. The Commission tabled action and directed staff to revise several of the proposed conditions and definitions, and add an intent statement to the ordinance amendment. BACKGROUND The broad issue associated with this amendment is whether or not retail sales should be permitted in the A-2 Zoning District. Staff indicated that retail sales in the A-2 district are inconsistent and in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and other uses in the district. However, staff recognizes that pre-existing conditions exist which may require special consideration. The zoning ordinance currently prohibits retail uses in the A-2 district, including retail nurseries and garden centers. Wholesale nurseries are currently allowed as an Interim Use in the district. Existing retail nurseries are operating as non-conforming uses or have expanded illegally. Recognizing these pre-existing situations, staff recommended an ordinance revision which would allow these retail nurseries to exist and expand provided that the operation complies with established standards set forth in an Interim Use permit. Staff is of the opinion that permitting retail nurseries as an interim use would allow the option of converting the property to a use consistent with the comprehensive plan. Allowing retail nurseries or garden centers as a Planning Commission Text Amendment in A2 District November 29, 1995 Page 2 permitted or conditional use would give permanency to the use. Permitting additional retail structures in the A-2 district would make it difficult to prevent other retail uses from occupying the buildings if the nursery vacated the premises. These problems can occur in any situation where permanent buildings are constructed. An example of this would be the Sorenson Cold Storage building located on Highway 212. This building was constructed in 1988 and was to be used for cold storage only. Today, three businesses illegally occupy the structure. Code enforcement actions have been taken in the past and will continue until the violations are corrected. (Please see staff reports dated November 8, 1995 and October 25, 1995). One alternative staff considered involved allowing existing legal non-conforming uses to retain their current status, and only require that any new buildings, storage areas, or other improvements be subject to the interim use requirement. This would allow the existing business to remain as it exists today without any termination date. Staff is not recommending this alternative. This alternative would also be in conflict with the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. The intent of the zoning ordinance is to eliminate nonconforming uses. By allowing nonconforming uses to expand through an interim use permit would discourage the future elimination of the use. City Code, Division 4. Nonconforming Uses, Section 20-71, states that, "The purpose of this division is: 1. To recognize the existence of uses, lots, and structures which were lawful when established, but which no longer meet all ordinance requirements; 2. To prevent the enlargement, expansion, intensification, or extension of any nonconforming use,building, or structure; 3. To encourage the elimination of nonconforming uses, lots, and structures or reduce their impact on adjacent properties." The following is a list of properties located in the City of Chanhassen where nursery stock is sold either retail or wholesale (see attached map): 1. University of Minnesota Arboretum-zoned A-2; an arboretum is a permitted use in this zone; 2. Lotus Lawn and Garden- zoned BH,Business Highway; has a conditional use permit; 3. Wilson Northwest Nursery and Wilson Prairie Market-zoned A-2; have two locations in the city: One where trees are grown and one market area located at Great Plains Blvd. and US Highway 212. The market area is a non-conforming use; Planning Commission Text Amendment in A2 District November 29, 1995 Page 3 4. Gorra Tree Farm - zoned A-2; wholesale only, no other buildings are associated with the use except a single family residence; 5. Erhart Tree Farm- zoned A-2; wholesale only,no other buildings associated with the use except a single family residence; 6. Ben Gowen-zoned RSF; this is a legal nonconforming use that has been in existence for years and they have not intensified the use; 7. Holasek Greenhouse Inc. -zoned A-2; green houses are associated with the use, wholesale only, legal non-conforming. 8. Halla Nursery Inc. - zoned A-2, wholesale and retail sales Staff maintains that the only appropriate method for allowing retail nurseries or garden centers in the A-2 District is through the Interim Use process. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the zoning ordinance amendment as submitted by the applicant. The applicant's proposal requested that landscape nurseries be a permitted use or"legal use" in the A-2 District. Staff developed a proposal which would allow the applicant to operate a retail nursery. Currently,retail nurseries are prohibited in the A-2 District. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend Sections 20-576(7), 20-1, and 20-257 to permit both wholesale and retail nurseries in the A-2 District as an Interim Use, as outlined in the staff report dated November 27, 1995." More specifically,the amendments shall read as follows: Amend Section 20-1 to read: Nursery is defined as, "An enterprise which conducts the retail and wholesale sale of plants grown on the site or imported to the site, as well as accessory items directly related to their care and maintenance. Accessory items may include fertilizer, potting soil garden tools, seed, pesticides,potting soil,pots, and other gardening supplies. The retail sale of hardware,paint, pet supplies,power equipment,and farm implements shall be prohibited. Nursery may include greenhouses." Planning Commission Text Amendment in A2 District November 29, 1995 Page 4 Retail Sales is defined as, "Establishments engaged in selling goods or merchandise to the general public for personal or household consumption and rendering services incidental to the sale of such goods." Amend Section 20-257 to read: Intent Statement. It is the intent of this amendment to recognize that pre-existing retail nurseries and garden centers are located within the City and may be in conflict with the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. These establishments pre-date current ordinance standards. To allow for planned and orderly development, the City finds it necessary to regulate the expansion or intensification of these uses and to provide standards for any future retail nursery or garden centers. It is the intent of this section to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating the creation and the expansion of existing retail nurseries and garden centers. The creation or expansion of these uses will be allowed only by Interim Use permit approved by the City Council. The following conditions will apply to wholesale and retail nurseries: 1. The site must be on a collector or minor arterial as identified in the comprehensive plan. 2. The minimum lot size is five acres. 3. All storage and yard areas as wells as buildings must be setback one dred 00) fifty(50) feet from public or private road right-of-ways, and three hundred (300) five hundred (500) feet from an adjacent single family residence or a minimum of fifty feet from a side lot line,which ever is greater. 4. All outdoor storage areas must be -: : _ _ - feneing-e ng buffered from adjacent properties. Buffering may be accomplished using berming, fencing,landscaping, natural topography, or increased setbacks. The City Council may require the storage areas to be completely screened by one hundred (100) percent opaque fencing or berming. 5. - - .. . ._ . , . .. :1! :!! ... .. . -. -.. :: . . • - - - -.• = . .. - - Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.. The City Council may further restrict hours of operation if the use is located adjacent to property guided residential as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Text Amendment in A2 District November 29, 1995 Page 5 6. Light sources shall be shielded. 7. No outside speaker systems shall be allowed. 8. A termination date shall be established for the interim use permit. The use shall be permitted until a particular date,until the occurrence of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no longer permit it. Prior to the permit expiring,the applicant may request an extension to the interim use permit. A new application shall be submitted. The renewal application will be subject to all city ordinances including any new ordinances enacted after the original approval. 9. One wall sign not to exceed ninety (90) square feet, and one monument sign not exceeding twenty-four square (24) square feet shall be permitted on the premises. ATTACHMENTS 1. Map of existing wholesale or retail nursery sales 2. Planning Commission minutes dated November 15, 1995 3. Exhibit A- Halla Nursery Garden Center Inventory 4. Exhibit B -Halla Nursery Advertisement 5. Memorandum to Planning Commission dated November 8, 1995 6. Memorandum to Planning Commission dated October 25, 1995 'i:Iri;-.4"..._ I 'M fir._/ss_. ci e♦y��l�_� `�= .�ii�"'n'� �r I/l -. � ��t4 !f�e�.#11h �II`pM 40 �[ ..WM _ - ..3. — A7-ins..i_- RPRP ..'I:r:C�'•, 4,a-9 *wf%s:•4101 • ...e.. -.... 7;•••',4ilig. -41. —1_,, ,, S., IF--.4141..MRI ill. a t� ,5--,•::71/ 2 . 0* ii0- 1 . "'. • .--rp9 / -- .4 x411 1 T.ti .•�'w / '-- .a... '- �' =�W` r_ u•r uc. , FI .-r`s^ -iorr. `rII if �— • ._ n ie .f-.--- CSLS �� , I `, c a.,.,,, 1 if?a'- .'+_. yn;. i`: =iir.,r II " ________. _'''''.-w „,. 4=5" .'-l—ill -4 S • IP ` __ AE ---J 4 A Mill -,' 111."..:'AI_,,.. .- --.'- -.4t4id _ e, , ,..,,_. - -.... .9 4,e_.__75 „. 4 17.i:,-7.:,..i. .-4..f. -- ."'''-1--------=---_______.-:, I PTY • - 4 CHAM-b4SSEN .�--- - 1 AMR .-� -- ' '-' '. / ` .J `... _ ` ,. ~ � ,� '-_ 5 PREPARED RP: cwsrxassEx Erocac DEPT. � %- —.. RL•1KD JAR..'990 - --_J _ -•. `moi'' --: ',r� K N - r / a _41 PROPJ - = ! ITHER , 1 WROLSALE - = . --- 0IL 111= SERYALE CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 1995 Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Bob Skubic, Mike Meyer, Nancy Mancino, Don Mehl, Ladd Conrad and Jeff Farmakes STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; John Rask, Planner I; Bob Generous, Planner II; and Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE FOR LANDSCAPE NURSERIES AND GARDEN CENTERS IN THE A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT. Public Present: Name Address Verne Severson 675 Lakota Lane Mark & Kay Halla 770 Creekwood Don Halla 6601 Mohawk Trail John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Do the commissioners have any questions of staff at this point? John I have one. If it is a conditional use let's say, and we decide on that tonight, and the conditions are met. If along the way, after 3 or 4 years and there is more single family development in the area and we would like to change the conditions, is that allowable? Rask: No. Not unless the applicant wanted to expand the use and would come back for an amendment to that conditional use. Then you'd have an opportunity to re-evaluate that. But no, you couldn't. Mancino: So you'd have to be very clear and think ahead at this point, unless the applicant wanted to expand the use on that conditional use. Rask: Correct. Farmakes: I have one question. What is the precedence for the other tier suburbs? I mean typically outlying areas around the metropolitan area you see a lot of nursery, tree farming. That type of thing. And then the transition that takes place from that, leaves agriculture and . enters into the ag urban development. Eden Prairie. Eagan. Some of these other areas. How are they treating this transition issue? 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 • Rask: Yeah, I don't know how they handle it. Have been. We didn't survey any of them but I would imagine they're probably operating under similar circumstances that we are. They're either non-conforming and the area's grown up around it and they're allowed to stay as long as they don't expand. Or they've done it, a similar process where they would allow it as an interim or a conditional use and deal with it on more a site specific basis and not permit it outright in the district. Farmakes: Okay so, the reason I ask this question is, it's more directed towards the issue of retail sales of manufactured or value enhanced goods versus a crop situation. And the question is, more or less how they, not only broke the transition or how they dealt with the transition between dealing with the retail business or however you want to define that. Making the transition or commitment equally for permitting that use within an area that may be directed for other types of development farther down the line and how that interferes or dictates that type of usage. And it seems to me like we're kind of trying to reinvent the wheel here to come up with our own plan versus looking at how other transitions have taken place. It would be interesting to see that since it seems to be a rather typical of our type of tier suburb to have that type of usage go on. In other words, if it's a necessity of commerce for them to survive in that element or that type of usage, then the decision is, is that appropriate for that area long term rather than interim use and I'm not sure if interim use kind of seems a solution to, put a patch on the problem but I'm not sure what the long term planning issue is solved by that. Mancino: Any other questions at this point? Conrad: Ah yes Madam Chairman. John what's, who do you think the impact of this ordinance amendment change is on the Halla operation? Rask: I think it allows them to expand within reason. It gives them that opportunity. Currently they're operating under a non-conformance situation so they're pretty much stuck with what they have and if that's okay with them, they could continue to do that for eternity for the most part. When it comes to add an additional building, the interim use permit would allow them to do that. It gives something back in return by giving a termination date but it does allow them to do more with that site at this point. Conrad: A 500 foot setback, is that a restriction? Rask: Yeah, that's currently in the ordinance now. That is one of the standards listed for wholesale nurseries. What we did is just pulled those over. Certainly we could look at providing some other setbacks here. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Mancino: So you're saying in effect with the setbacks that are outlined in the staff report, they could not expand? Rask: The setback 500 is from an existing residence. I don't know if there's any existing residence out there that close now but with the subdivision coming in, it would probably pretty much eliminate any additional building once houses are built out there. Mancino: I'm sorry for interrupting Commissioner Conrad. Has that plat gone through final platting? Rask: Yes it has. It has not been recorded yet though. It got final plat approval through the Council. Conrad: The distinction in the motion that you gave us, I really had some difficulty dealing with the garden center and a retail nursery. Final recommendation really talked about a retail nursery, not a garden center. So basically that's restrictive in terms of the product. Rask: Correct. Conrad: So there is some impact. Rask: Yeah. I think they have, if you look at the definition of nursery that's being proposed here by staff, Halla may have to eliminate some of the items he sells based on that definition. The definition's intended to keep it more for those products that are directly related to wholesale and retail nursery. Not I guess what we would classify as a garden center. Something that branches out to other areas when you sale hardware, paint, stain, things like that. Fencing. Storage sheds. You name it so we're trying to narrow it down to that specific use, which would be retail and wholesale nursery. And limit it to those products directly related to that. Mancino: I can say and I certainly haven't been to every nursery in the area but almost every. Some of those that are in that I have visited, that are in a neighborhood area, in developing areas. There's Kelly and Kelly in Long Lake and there's Tonkadale, etc. They do not carry the other manufactured goods. I mean pet supplies, etc and equipment and still seem to be growing and doing very well. Their's is mostly, well it's all on products that have to do with gardening. So I have seen that, as I said, in other neighborhood areas. Any other questions? Farmakes: I'll save my comments. I'll save my questions for maybe a later date. Too much too soon. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Mancino: Okay. Does the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission? Kay Halla: Good evening. I'm Kay Halla and I live at 770 Creekwood in the city of Chanhassen. Good evening Madam Chairman and commissioners. I would just like to address some of the impacts. We sent a letter out to the commissioners and I'd like to kind of respond to some of the impacts that the staff felt would occur with a permitted use and I think we're focusing on permitted use because since we've been here since 1962 we can't foresee being terminated. Anyway. One of the first concerns on page 2 of the...the staff gave listed that...not all A2 zoned property would be appropriate for retail nurseries and an example is lack of public facilities. I think if the public facilities are concerned, the city does impose, as far as we understand, requires that new buildings used for retail on agricultural land must meet B2 standards. And those B2 standards do include the handicapped accessible facilities so as far as I think if a retail building is there, that issue of keeping...facility probably wouldn't be an issue. And I guess I feel that certainly not all A2 property is going to be perfect for every A2 use. But generally I think it would be kind of looked at an impact that...hard to deal with. I think generally nurseries are definitely agricultural and I think they are very adequate for agricultural land, zoned land. And number two, in response to the second impact I felt that retail nurseries and garden centers are inconsistent with other permitted uses in the A2 district. I took a look at that and I looked at all the different permitted uses...agricultural I thought we were consistent with that. There are some uses that, yeah I don't think nurseries are consistent with. Daycares and some other things so that's hard to show sensitivity there but I do believe that we can...agricultural and agricultural land and I contacted the nursery licensing through the Department of Agriculture just to get more detail on that and they do not differentiate when they give licenses to nurseries, whether they're retail or garden centers. I asked specifically if it's a growing nursery, obviously we are a growing nursery and we get our license through the Department of Agriculture. What if we're just, let's say a garden center and we're selling stuff and they said, you still get your license through the Ag Department. One way you can differentiate the nurseries is that they have different classifications and Halla Nursery, we're classified as a nursery stock grower which means that over 50% of the products that we sell are grown on site in our nursery. And we, for instance we grew 19,700 perennials or more just from little...and we grow over 10,000 trees and shrubs so we are definitely a grower and I think a lot of emphasis, at least in the last meeting was put on the retail and I do understand the public safety reasons. That concern but I think what's being over looked is the fact that we are not just retail and the majority of our business is growing. We are farmers of nursery stock so that's a big part of our company and that's what differentiates us from nurseries such as Frank's or Bachman's that are strictly, they have their retail outlets and they have a big supplier somewhere else. And that kind of leads me to the third impact statement that the concern that other businesses like Bachman's, Frank's, and other nursery and craft stores may be in conflict with surrounding residential or agricultural property. And I think that's where, as far a I can tell, the nurseries that are in the 4 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 city of Chanhassen that are in agricultural land basically are a lot different than Frank's and Bachman's. The plants are grown on site and why don't I, in fact maybe, I don't know if this is the right language but I thought maybe the concerns could be addressed in the zoning that, in the regulations saying that nurseries and garden centers which were in existence prior to the zoning change of 1990 would be allowed as a permitted use in A2 zoning. And I don't know exactly how that would go but I thought that would be one way, so you wouldn't have that concern of somebody just deciding to come out and build a big...right in the middle of an agricultural district. And also I think that stores such as that that are geared more towards the selling and they don't do their own growing, they'd probably prefer to buy a chunk of land right down in the business district where there's a lot of traffic anyway. And that's the way, when I see those stores, that seems to be, they look very retail and very... And then as far as the fourth impact, that permanent buildings may be constructed which may...if the nursery is vacated. For example auto repair, contractors storage yards, miscellaneous retail, etc. Yeah, I guess those could be permanent but I see that with farms and they are permitted in A2. The Arboretum has a permanent, very permanent, beautiful building that could be used for other uses and they're not cheap buildings either. So I think, I don't know if that impacts, it's certainly an impact that I don't know if it's fair...affects there are other agricultural businesses that are permitted...you could then build permanent buildings. And I don't know if these buildings, there must be something in the zoning that if you sell a chunk of property that has a permanent building, the concern is that maybe an auto repair shop or contractors storage area could be moved in there and I'm not, from what I read in the zoning it didn't, if it's not listed as a permitted use in agricultural, A2 land, I don't understand how somebody could sell their property and have it be an auto repair shop if it wasn't permitted anyway. So I think, I didn't think that was a very valid impact. And I guess as far as...we would like to be here forever and we would like to blend in nicely with the development and screen where necessary. We want to work with the builders and Don and his wife Sandy are working right now with a builder, Charles Cudd to make sure that the nursery becomes a nice focal point for the development. And.._to impact, the use would be allowed in perpetuity. We'd definitely like to see that and I think if we had just been here for a few years and we didn't have all the things that are out there now it might not be as big of an issue because we'd know when we started that gee, we're not a permanent use but we've been there since 1962. We've got an underground sprinkler system. Very expensive well. There's a lot of things not even in buildings that have been there for a long time and as far as selling retail, and I started working there in 1984 and they were selling retail and sold dry goods out of one of the buildings that was moved a little bit and one of the buildings was torn down. So anyway I think that we'd like to definitely see a permanent situation out there. And with number 6. The impact that says, retail nurseries and garden centers and...would be in conflict with the comprehensive plan and there was a reference to the corner of Highway 5 and TH 41 which is currently zoned A2. I understand there's some conflicts between industrial and the need for retail. I'm not real sure about that. But I guess when I look at the comprehensive plan, I 5 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 worked as a park planner in Maryland so I understand it's a very big county out there. I understand why you need a comprehensive plan. I think they're very good. I also feel that there's got to be some flexibility there with existing companies and there's got to be a way to blend things together. And when I look at nurseries and think of new homes going in, they seem to go hand and hand. I was driving around and I looked at some of the farms and though, you know that'd be hard for these farmers to try to get their tractors and with all this housing going up but a nursery, with housing coming, housing being around it, it's great. We can provide services that homeowners need. We can help new homes meet the city codes for how many trees they have and that kind of thing. And I think as far as visually, we can fit in really well. So I think that even though on the comprehensive plan there's something that shows all homeowners or all...residential, I think that with some flexibility that we could blend in nicely with that. And finally, I read in the City Code that the intent of the A2 district is the preservation of rural character while respecting development patterns by allowing single family residential development. And again I think that, if I were a homeowner I'd prefer to live next to a golf course or a nursery other than a utility services or some of the other uses that are permitted in the A2 zoning. I think that a nursery fits in really well. It helps preserve some of that rural character but it does respect development. In fact I think it basically thrives on development so I don't think that a nursery's going to prevent development or anything like that. And I guess I'd just like to let the commissioners know that as a landscape architect I can understand...coming out there. The importance of getting homeowners privacy and that kind of thing and I think that nurseries, and I'm sure other nurseries...you want to look nice. You want to be a good part of the neighborhood and I think that since we're in the business of selling products and growing trees and shrubs, that we're going to want to use them on our property. I think that's about it. Thanks. Does anyone have any questions? Mancino: Yeah, I have one. Are you open all year long? Kay Halla: We are open all year long for our employees. As far as how much business we have, it's been real dead the last month I'd say and basically as far as customers coming in, we don't have much until May first and maybe the end of September. Those are the times when we have more traffic...but as far as the winter, it's just the employees out there. And sometimes around Christmas... Mancino: So your peak seasons are spring through summer or September, which is almost fall. You keep employees all year long doing what? Kay Halla: In the winter, just these last few weeks we've been taking out the material that had not sold and getting it bedded down for the winter. We take all of the...shrubs and bury them in straw and hay and all that. Then we prepare to...so we do a lot of things on the 6 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 computer and order a lot of plugs and plants and bare root stock and we do divisions of a lot of plants. That's done more in October when the ground's still soft but dividing up and such things like that. And then in the early part of, end of February, early. Probably the end of February this year we fire up the greenhouses and keep them really warm so that we can start growing all of our perennials and then as, we have just thousands and thousands of bare root trees and shrubs and you get those planted up early and give them a chance to root. Mancino: Okay. So you're working inside in the winter time? Kay Halla: Yes. We take vacations too. Mancino: And how many greenhouses do you have? Kay Halla: Currently we have two greenhouses. They're side by side and they're 30 feet wide by 90 feet long. And they were, we had them stocked to the hilt and even growing, we had to use the floors a lot to be able to grow...floor which is real bad. To grow them on the ground. You get a lot more aphids and things. Mancino: And during the winter, is your retail building open for retail sales of houseplants and other material? Kay Halla: We don't sell houseplants. The retail store is open. The hours are definitely less. For instance weekends, we're not open on weekends except around Christmas tree selling time. But in January and February. Mancino: But you're still open 5 days a week? Kay Halla: Yeah. Mancino: Okay. Farmakes: You mentioned, can you elaborate on, you mentioned the 60/40 mix. Can you elaborate on that? Or did I hear you correctly? Kay Halla: I mentioned something about if you grow over 50% of your nursery stock on your site, then you get the Department of Agriculture doesn't just give us a nursery license. We have a nursery growers license. And they do that to differentiate between nurseries and nursery growers and to get the nursery grower, you must grow over 50% of your stock on your site. And then also, under the Federal law, you have to meet, as far as paying overtime 7 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 and that kind of thing, we are under agricultural laws that allows for overtime because we are a grower. Farmakes: Okay, so when you said 60/40, you're referring to your business or it's a hypothetical qualification? Kay Halla: I'm not... Farmakes: Maybe I misunderstood when you were saying the percentages. I thought you said 60/40. 60%, 40%. I thought you were referring to 60% being manufactured, or being grown on site and 40%. I assume you're talking about total sales. Kay Halla: No. As far as what we grow on site, I would say 90% of our plant material...is grown on site. The only things we really get in that are not started from plugs or bare root stock would be our evergreens. They just take, it would take us forever to grow those and like juniper for instance. So we get evergreen stock... Farmakes: How would you define percentage of gross sales between manufactured goods that are being sold and organic material that you're growing on site? Kay Halla: I could have Don Halla come up and answer that because I'm not sure. Mancino: Just one second. Any other questions at this point? Thank you. Kay Halla: Thank you. Don Halla: Good evening. I'm Don Halla. I would be happy to answer that questions as far as the percentage of, I'll call them dry goods is our definition of them versus live, green plant material. ...between 80% and 90% of all our gross sales comes from green goods, as we call them, which is live living plants in one form or another. Very small percentage is manufactured items. Defining manufactured items, we've had discussions with the city and they define manufactured items as cattle manure, which we sell in 50 pound bags. And 40 pound bags. So I guess our definition might be slightly different than the city's definition of what is manufactured and what is agriculture and not agriculture. But basically all of the products that we carry are related to agricultural uses. Mancino: Any other questions? Thank you. Mark Halla: Hi. I'm Mark Halla. I reside at 770 Creekwood in Chanhassen. I just wanted to add a couple things. First off the city has again mentioned interim use and that's not 8 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 something that we'd like to consider. We have, this whole thing's kind of focused on our nursery and... In our case we want to, we don't want to be a use that's a non-conforming use that isn't allowed. We're simply coming before the Planning Commission to try to become acceptable so that there aren't issues. So if we want to put up a greenhouse, we don't have to worry that even though we think that it's okay for us to do that after the fact someone's going to say hey, you shouldn't have done that. So that's the whole purpose that we're here is to try and make ourselves permitted. We aren't championing the cause for the other nurseries and garden centers. We want to be allowed ourselves. I don't want...interested in discussing that and not...short term. We've got the grandfathered rights that allow us to continue with everything that we've been doing at this point. We simply want to become accepted so that we don't have to keep going back...this is what we've done. This is what we aren't doing. We have some non-related but related issue...comprehensive plan of the structures that we intend to put up. The maximum amount of structures that would be used on our land, with the other greenhouses and what not, we've given them a list of all the products that we carry to date. Basically what we've asked for is to say, hey. You say you're grandfathered in. We don't think that you really are. We don't even, we didn't even know that you're selling retail. Show us. Tell us what you're selling and when you've been doing this and they went back and gave a list of everything we've been selling. ...mentioned a couple times. We've been selling pet food since back in the 60's starting with fish food. So that's something that we've continued on. Maybe it's not agricultural. We're not trying to say that pet food has to be permitted in agricultural use. We are saying in our instance we've been selling it for many, many years and it's not something that we would stop selling because it wasn't a permitted use. It's not a great...market and maybe we can discuss that but the people coming in our place that have animals. They have farm animals. They have dogs and cats. We provide that service. I think that's really all I wanted to add. Thank you. Mancino: Thank you. I'd like to open this to a public hearing. Do I hear a motion and a second to open this to a public hearing? Faimakes moved, Peterson seconded to open the public hearing. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission at this time on this issue, may come forward. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second please? Fatmakes moved, Mehl seconded to close the public healing. Mancino: Questions and comments from commissioners. Commissioner Conrad. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Conrad: Yeah, I'm going to ask more questions. Kate, is it basically, well we've got an ordinance in front of us tonight. Basically it's a general ordinance. Obviously it will pertain to the Halla's but it's really for everybody in the A2 district. So that's what we're reacting to. Then later on the Halla's, if that went through, they'd have to do their permitting and make their application for whatever they'd want. The question to me, and the length of operation in terms of, it's hard to talk about this one because we do have, it's a two part deal. We have an ordinance that applies to everybody but we're focusing it right on them. And those are different things. My concerns, basically I think the ordinance in general is appropriate. The community's filling up and sooner or later it will be all houses. But in terms of how it affects the Halla's is a bigger, it's an issue that I'm wrestling with. Is it basically our assumption that a nursery could never fit in long term with houses in Chanhassen? Is that a foregone conclusion? Aanenson: No. As John pointed out, the comprehensive plan has guided this long term for something else. Okay. Mancino: For single family housing. Aanenson: Correct. So in the meantime there's another use on the property that's got grandfathered rights. If it continues to operate that way that's, they have those rights. They want to add to it and we're saying we cannot, as a planning department approve an expansion of a non-conforming use. This is a mechanism to allow them to expand. They don't want to have an interim use. They want to have no final deadline. We're saying that in a planning perspective that's in conflict with our comprehensive plan. Does that mean it won't be a good neighbor? We hope it's there a long time and it's a good neighbor, but we feel we need to have that control if 30 years down the road it's not a good neighbor and times have changed and they want to move out, we don't want some other businesses to go in there. So we're looking at, from the planning perspective of the comprehensive plan and ultimately if this property was to become something else. We're not trying to push them out but we're saying we have to look at long term what the plan says and how it affects other wholesale or retail. Conrad: But right now we could design it so that they will fit. Aanenson: I'm not sure what you're saying. Mancino: As an interim use. Conrad: Well we can design it so that let's say if houses go, yeah. Long term. Now somebody probably would find it might be more beneficial to be healthy...but let's say for 20 10 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 years when houses go up around the Halla property, we would have, we can make them fit in as a good neighbor, can we not? Aanenson: Well there's certain ordinances that are in place right now but they have grandfather rights. Conrad: So they can do what they're doing right now. Aanenson: Right, but they want to expand. That's part, they would like some additional greenhouses. And what we're saying is there's kind of cloud over that because it's non- conforming so this allows them to, if they're following the conditions or whatever, you can decide what that framework should be. Conrad: When they come in, let's say we adopt this ordinance. They would have to come in with an application and basically tell us what they want to look like. Is that not true? Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: And at this point they don't need to. Or if it's A2, permitted use in A2, they can pretty much build what they want to build. Conrad: So when they come in, that's our opportunity to say this is how you fit in the neighborhood that's going to be built up around you. Aanenson: Right. Conrad: That's my only question. Peterson: What's the interim use, the term of it going to be recommended to be? Do we have that thought through yet? Rask: No, that would be, if the ordinance is approved and the applicant wishes to come forward with an application, that would be something we could discuss at that time but there's a number of different ways you could go. You could say when it's brought into the MUSA. It would terminate at that point. When sewer and water becomes available to the site. You know that would be an end date. Or you could pick a specific year. Say 50 years from now. 20 years from now. Mancino: Would you have to have, would it have to say terminate or could you say be reviewed again by city? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Rask: Yeah, I think you could always leave that option. You'd have to pick a date though. Some sort of, whether that's an exact date or an event. Like they did on Admiral Waste. They said the applicant may request an extension. You don't need to put that in there. I mean that's always a given that they could come back and ask the Council in 10 years to reconsider that. Mancino: It certainly puts a cloud on a business for business planning, etc. Conrad: Can I jump back in? This is cloudy to me. Aanenson: But it's cloudy right now because it's illegal right now. They can't expand. That's the cloud over it. We're hoping with the interim use, if you put an appropriate time frame, we were hoping that would take that cloud away because right now it is illegal. To expand. It's grandfathered so it doesn't have the right to go any more than what it has. Conrad: I go back. Maybe this is a foggy assumption on my part. Can it be an asset to a neighborhood? Or is it an automatic detriment to the neighborhood simply because there are tractors going through and you've got, you know so what are we. Aanenson: Well that's the reason for the interim use is to put conditions on there so we have some control. What are the hours of operation? How much traffic is going in there? Is it open 24 hours? What's Saturday, Sunday? We don't know. That's why you try to have some control so you can, if the neighbors are complaining or there is issues that we have a mechanism to resolve it. If it's permitted and people are complaining, there is no mechanism to resolve those issues. Mancino: Because you basically have three businesses. I mean you have your growers. You know the bidding that I don't think affect single family around it at all but you also have landscape contracting, which are crews getting ready and bobcats and everything going out to work at different sites. Clients. And then your third is retail which again affects their neighbors. So you really have, and there may be more than that but those are the activities that I kind of parroted out from the nursery and this particular one. And two of those could have an affect as this area develops into single family. Conrad: So you don't think it's an asset to the neighborhood? Mancino: I think it is. But I think that it needs to have some controls around that as far as, I think it's very much an asset. But I think that there do need to be some controls around that. I mean look at the traffic in the area and hours of operation, etc. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Conrad: Excuse me for interrupting Craig...but the issue to me, the ordinance seems reasonable. But when you put a termination date on somebody it's like not making that company...concern. It's just real negative. And what I'm trying to envision is...and that's my struggle. I don't want to cast that over, and I said I like the ordinance. It's okay but not trying to say to the Halla's, well you've got 10 years and we think that the neighbors that are moving out have priority. I'm struggling with it sitting down here. Making it so it's not, it's a harmonious relationship, which means control. There's just no doubt. There are controls. That's part about what we're doing is you can't do whatever you want anymore in Chanhassen. There's too many people. So that's my struggle. Sorry for interrupting. Mancino: Commissioner Peterson, any other? Peterson: None. Mancino: Commissioner Skubic. Skubic: How many other landscape nurseries are in business in Chanhassen? Aanenson: At least probably three others. Four. Mancino: Wilson, Lotus, Ben Gowan. Aanenson: Erhart's. Mancino: Erhart's tree farm, yeah. Only to wholesalers. Probably five. Skubic: The issue here seems to be opening the door and making a permitted use and putting a constraint by putting a date on the interim use. Isn't there a way of structuring the constraints on a conditional use or even with a permitted use. I think it was brought up that for permitted or nurseries have been in existence since 1990 date. Could that be used to satisfy the needs of the comprehensive planning and at the same time preserving the Halla business? Rask: I think the issue is you've got to treat people fairly. It's tough to say well if you exist to this point, you can continue to do what you like. Anybody else who comes in has to play by a different set of rules. Skubic: In a way isn't that what we're doing in the agricultural district? 13 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Rask: Well they're allowed to continue as a non-conforming use. And the whole basis behind non-conforming uses is that you assume they'll eventually be eliminated. I mean our ordinance now limits what you can do with a non-conforming use. You can't expand it. There's some of those types of issues that come into play with those non-conforming situations. And if it's a conditional use, then you're back to well it's permitted. For the most part you have the ability to add conditions. Review a site plan but there's nothing to ever say that use is going to disappear. If it does become a problem in the future, or permanent buildings are constructed, the nursery decides well it's not feasible for us anymore. Well now you have several million dollars worth of retail buildings. How do you deal with that? Aanenson: It goes back to Ladd's point. We struggled with this same issue as a staff when we were going through this analysis and the same idea is being, if you do say there's no cloud on the issue because it's a conditional use and you get a mortgage for several buildings and now the business goes out, you've got mortgages on the building. Well certainly there's pressure then to say well we've got to have something else. You can't now disappear because now you've invested capital in there. And that's the whole reason why you look at these things as more temporary in nature. And again this is a little bit different because we're focusing on this one and not looking at them in a holistic sort of thing and maybe that's something we need to go back and kind of look at this in a broader perspective and not keep focusing on this one because this one is a little bit different. Some of the other types of businesses, treating nursery type businesses... Mancino: Commissioner Farmakes. Farmakes: I guess the reason I asked, I thought it was an open discussion. I'm interested I guess in asking a couple of questions of the commission here. I don't know if that's, is that permissible? Mancino: Sure. Farmakes: I don't mean to get an open discussion running along or eat up time but I have a couple of, I'm not sure when we discuss nurseries and retail nurseries, after reading this and after reading Halla's letter. There's obviously a difference of opinion as to what is retail. By approving this or voting to approve this or not to approve this, and then the issue of interim use, the way that it reads now says, the wholesale sale of plants grown on the site, imported to the site as well as accessory items directly related to their care and maintenance. Then it goes on to say that power equipment and da, da, da should be provided. Now certainly power equipment can be construed as being for the care and maintenance of trees or bushes or shrubbery. I'm not sure in my mind that I've defined. On one hand when you talk about a nursery situation, organic matter is for sale. It's grown. When you're talking about an 14 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 enhanced product or manufactured product where they refer to them as dry goods or the applicant refers to them a dry goods. And you get beyond the scope of grandfathering, whatever that use happened to be, at the time it was established when the usage changed or that the operation was in conflict with ordinances. How do you continue on that line by saying that it's alright to expand that use without getting into conflict with all kinds of things. In other words, getting into conflicts when you tell another applicant who comes in who has bought a piece of property or whatever and decides that this would be good for a kennel or fur bearing animals or a big box retail or when you define and when you start getting into the nuance of retail beyond what is grown on the property, where do we start picking a line? Do we start looking at where the bag of food came from or the power equipment or the, it seems to me that. Mancino: Well and that's what we're trying to do here. Farmakes: Very swampy bit of goods. If in this particular operation 10% of these goods is this problem, and we're defining an ordinance for these goods for sale of these goods to find a way to allow some expansion, I'm not sure that that's not in conflict of good planning or what we're talking about with planning. You're talking, I think another comment was made about, that we have a business that's been in the community a long time and you get this transitionary thing where it's making it difficult for a business to operate unless they remain competitive and obviously retail or wholesale of organic goods and agricultural use changes over the years, as the mix of development changes here in Chanhassen. Obviously any business wants to be able to change to whatever the market is. We've seen this problem over and over again. Either in fringe district where we see dumpster storage and so on or we get into a situation on TH 5 and TH 41 where the future investment of property and the thinking that this location would make a good use for this particular type of usage. Do we have development that is driven by that? Either by, this is going to get a little obtuse now but thinking in terms of Timberwood where you have an example, although usage is not the same. You have development that is driven by allowing a particular development or use at the time that seems to be a good idea but then there is a surrounding effect that is created. I'm trying to think of Bachman's say for instance in the middle of a single residential neighborhood in Minneapolis where the original Bachman's was. That used to be a farm. When you're saying that a nursery is a good thing or a good neighbor, is it the open space and the trees or is it the retail sales that would be of benefit to the neighborhood, or of dry goods. I'm not sure in my own mind that I've defined that because I'm trying to think of it as the use is now where you'd be talking interim permit, or down the line as you're talking about Ladd, once that's surrounded by homes. What is the benefit to the neighborhood? Because I see other types of tree operations, say for instance the one across from Paisley Park that was there. There wasn't any, that I know of, retail sales occurring there. It was an open field with trees and so on and I don't think you get objections from the neighbors in that situation. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 But it seems to me a broader issue is that where do retail sales go in this town and when they expand outside of the normal business district, and you're looking at people who buy property with the idea, or have owned property with the idea of expanding that use beyond what their grandfathering is. Are we creating really a bad problem here where we're being inconsistent as to how we deal with it? It seems like we've been getting a lot of, I think there's a second item on the dock here for such a thing. It's not in retail area but it's expanding or asking to clarify usage of other types of businesses. Say for instance a kennel. And these are things that it seems to me that would be things that would come up in transition type property between agriculture and urban area. And as I go back on how we've dealt with some of these issues before in the fringe district for instance or we deal with dumpster areas where primarily you have a rural area and the storage of dumpsters there. There's not enough people surrounding the area to create the type of objection that you may have in a more developed area in the permitted, the use is allowed for an interim time. But from what I've heard the applicant's not interested in that and even if we were to approve that, are we setting a good precedent in doing that. I haven't heard anything of a legal opinion from our lawyer but when we go to deny that from other applicants, it seems to me that our argument is, well we have a defined area for retail of manufactured goods. That's how I see it. And we allow other usages of wholesale use or interim use outside of that area and we've pretty much followed that pretty closely. So it's worrisome to me that more or less the precedent that we'd be setting with even approving what's sitting here because I don't think it's defined. That part that's retail is not, is ill defined here. And certainly...it lists a few things that is not, that is prohibited but I'm wondering if that is geared more towards the current use of the applicant and eliminating those uses or sales versus. Mancino: Than looking at the big picture. Farmakes: The big picture between the sale of grown matter and manufactured goods. Goods manufactured off site and brought in or value enhanced goods, whatever you want to call them but they're the usual definition of retail. Mancino: Kate, would you like to respond to that? Aanenson: I think John would. Rask: Yeah, I think we tried to create a definition that would apply to all. If you look at the one being proposed here, I don't think Mr. Halla, he doesn't sell farm implements or power equipment. I think what we were trying to do there was further define what's not included. If you look at the definition it says accessory items directly sold. Like most definitions that's opened up to interpretation somewhat. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Farmakes: What I'm thinking of, I didn't mean to cut you off but what came to my mind is I thought of other retail operations for nurseries so I'm thinking of Frank's for instance. In that line of accessories and items related to the care and maintenance is their entire in-house building. And that's retail. That's retail sales and no different than a grocery store or a hardware store. Again, that's a separate part of their business but that's not outdoor stock. So that's where the problem that I'm really uncomfortable with is that hand. Mancino: Is allowing the retail to stay there? Farmakes: To expand. Mancino: To expand as an interim use in the A2 area. Farmakes: Even as an interim use, yeah. Mancino: Even as an interim use. Farmakes: Yeah. Mancino: So your thinking is to keep the retail where it is right now. In this particular case. And not have it expand. Aanenson: Well first of all, we haven't defined that yet under this. I mean when they come in for an application, first of all we're setting forward the framework. I mean unless they come in and ask for an interim use permit, they just stay the way they are. There's two separate processes. This overall standards are what you evaluate any that would come in... Farmakes: But isn't your contention also, or did I misunderstand it, that retail use has expanded_ Aanenson: Right, and that's a separate legal thing and it's my understanding they're not going to expand anymore. What they're trying to do is get additional greenhouses but that's still an expansion of that non-conforming use. So I don't see that as, that's something you can address. If it did come forward for a permit to say, you know one of the conditions of... plans to expand, you could handle that separately under that permitting process. What we're doing under this process is try to look at again the broader, all. Mancino: A2. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Aanenson: Correct. And what should be the appropriate standards as John's laid out in the report. Farmakes: Right, but what I'm saying is, does the line that says amended Section 20-1. Does that cover that or are you going to improvise that at a later date? I mean like I said, I don't see that as being any different than Frank's. Is that a good neighbor for a residential area? Rask: Sure, you can address that with conditions on a site specific basis if somebody came in and maybe you wanted to see it just limited to the growing or selling of plants, either wholesale or retail. You could put certain conditions that would prohibit the sale of certain items. Aanenson: I think you have to look at some factors such as the size of the parcel. Where it's located. Some of these sort of things. You've got to take all those factors and like John said, you try to leave it somewhat broad so you can develop it as need be but again, these are the framework for all nurseries. Farmakes: So you don't feel that by establishing this or approving this we're in the interim use allowing it to expand. That we're creating a precedence outside of the scope of how we normally handle this issue when we're dealing with retail sales outside of the scope of. Aanenson: Well I guess our concern is even though a lot of these places may say wholesale, we believe that they're probably conducting retail and we'd like to have some conditions on there that we do know what the hours of operation are. We do know that there is adequate parking and that's really what the purpose of this is. We believe that some of the other ones may have the same. May be doing retail. We're not aware of it at this point but if it's brought to our attention, we certainly wanted to make sure that those same issues are addressed. Farmakes: Okay. I have no further questions. Mancino: Commissioner Mehl. Mehl: Yeah, I came here with a whole page of notes tonight and about half of them have been asked already or talked about. The other half have been shot down but all I know is we've got an applicant here who's been at that facility for 35 years. I'd like to somehow see if there isn't some way to compromise or some special situation to make sure that we can permit both the wholesale and retail operation as they have and allow them to stay there with the right conditions. To me there are worse things to have as a neighbor than a nursery, you know assuming there are conditions on them. I don't know how to solve the problem. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Mancino: So would you like to see that as an interim use? Mehl: Well an interim use, the only problem I see with that is there's a time factor involved and I know that if I were in business like that I wouldn't want to deal with the fact that next week I might not be here or next year or 5 years or whatever. Whatever the date is, nobody seems to know. I'd like to know that I'm going to be there for another 35 years. Maybe the answer is interim use with some kind of an automatically renewable timeframe. A business like that, it isn't easy to move. You know you just can't pull up the tent stakes and move out. It's difficult. You've got a lot of land involved. A lot of inventory. Maybe it's a conditional use, I don't know. Mancino: Okay, thank you. I do agree with the staff report that it should be an interim use for the A2 district with a nursery center. I do feel that I also have problems with the termination date and how to allow business owners to plan ahead into the future and how they're going to keep operating. I would like staff to give us some more information on that. How we can do an interim use and the sunset date that allows for renewal. I don't know if that is possible. I would also like to see the condition number 5, hours of operation a little better thought out meaning that if you're in the nursery business you do need to be open on Saturday and Sunday during your peak seasons or you won't make it. I don't think. And that on those weekends maybe there would be a different time for landscape contractors and when they could start up in that A2 district, especially with single family around it. I guess I have no other comments. I'd like to entertain a motion. Conrad: But can I ask a question Madam Chair? Mancino: Yes. Conrad: Kate or John, do you see, you can see where we're struggling with this issue obviously. It's not too difficult. Do you see a scenario, you know I'm struggling myself because I think the ordinance is valid that you proposed. I think you've done a good job. I also don't want to force the Halla's out of operation. I want them to determine when they, I want them to fit. I don't have a problem with retail. The ordinance will take care of retail and they'll take care of retail... But I want them to fit into the neighborhood. They're there first and that's one thing you've always got to remember here. They are there first. People who buy in know that they're there. The interim use will let people know, or whatever, will let them know what they can do. So the new residents are protected. We're going to have that mapped out. So it forces the Halla's to sort of plan. It takes away from their flexibility but it makes some sense to me. But my real key is, the key for me is, I don't want to force them out of business. I don't, I can term them an asset to the community. I may not term retail as an asset but I can term the nursery an asset. It could be a park. I don't need to force 19 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 • the comprehensive plan... When they choose, it can do go residential. But I don't have to force a 10 year. I'm really nervous about saying in 10 years it will be renewed unless there's 27 complaints from the neighbors. That's what we'll end up doing so my big concern is, how not to force them out of operation. How to make them fit in, which means we take a look at their application. Make sure that in the long run, 5-10 years we say well geez. If you've got neighbors around that are 500 feet away, do they really kind of fit. Are they an asset and if that's the case, I think everybody wins but that's sort of a, you know I may be dreaming and whether we can do that but that's where I want to be, which really tells us that the real deal in the permitting, the application process, when they would come in and if I were them, I wouldn't trust us, you know. Mancino: Speak for yourself please. Conrad: ...but, so my question was. Mancino: How do we do that? Conrad: How do we do that? It's not tonight when we're not even, we don't even care about the Halla's tonight. Yeah we do but we don't care about them. We're putting in an ordinance that goes to A2 everyplace. So tonight is not their night. But when they come back and say you want to survive for 30 years or when we decide we want to subdivide or change, how do we make them. Mancino: Anybody who comes in and wants that. Conrad: Anybody, you're right. No, no. Them. The Halla's because they're going to come back later with this application or a permit and that's what I want to be able to forecast in my mind that I can kind of meet their needs...got 5 years. I don't really want to be in that situation and I'm trying to justify them fitting in as a good neighbor with residential, as treating them as a park. As an asset. As a farm. Rask: I guess if you treat them as a permitted or a conditional use, they're there. You can't come back in 20 years and decide well, we made a mistake. How do we correct it? You treat it as an interim use, again you can always extend it and if the need arises. Conrad: Take us past the ordinance. Aanenson: Okay, then they could sell it. Let's say they want to get out of the business and go somewhere else. Somebody else comes in and runs it differently or whatever. Again you can't just look at this particular property. That's why John gave you a map last time that 20 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 showed it city wide. If we could do it, if we felt comfortable doing it as a conditional use, leaving it there for perpetuity, we certainly would give you that as a recommendation. We're not trying to chase the Halla's. I understand the clouding issue but we think there's just as many damaging on the conditional use that could be negative as there are saying clouding it the other way. We struggle with the same issues. Nobody wants them to be gone tomorrow. But as John indicated, what if in 20 years we go back and look at it, maybe it's 30 years. We haven't decided what that timeframe is. I think that's going to be the struggle. First of all they have to decide if they want to come in for the interim use permit. They say that they didn't want to. But if they do, then that's the struggle. What is the appropriate timeframe? And at least there's somewhere we can go back and evaluate that down the road and we may not be here but there's some criteria to go back and say, is it still working. Does it still make sense? And if it is, great. We continue and give them another x number of years. Maybe this area's never brought into the MUSA. Maybe it continues to be this way forever and that's great but we're just saying that we think there should be an opportunity to revisit it. If you make it conditional or permitted, we don't have that opportunity of revisiting it. And have we thought far enough ahead? I'm not sure. Normally we don't put retail in an agricultural zone and we're saying we're opening that up for a lot of other places if that happened and there may be a lot of instances that we haven't thought ahead. If you want to give us some time, we can... Mancino: Think about that. Think about the one that Jeff had. I mean because we are opening retail up in A2 districts. Aanenson: Right. So the existing ones, but maybe the ones that haven't thought of...thought this was an opportunity to do some sort of a modified landscaping kind of quasi business or. Mancino: Commissioner Mehl. Mehl: Are we discussing details of conditions at all or is that, should it be done later? Mancino: No, we are. Mehl: Okay. I've got a couple comments here. On number 4. All outside storage areas. Maybe we should define you know what is a storage area or what's stored there or which ones maybe need to be screened. And then must be completely screened. To me completely screened implies 100% screened from all possible vantage points. Now is that practical or even possible to do now? Do you want to not be able to see it from your car on the road or what about if you're standing on a hill across a quarter mile away. I think it needs to be determined. Maybe buffered is a better term. I'm not sure. And one comment about number 5_ The hours of operation. It talks about hours of operation Monday thru Saturday only and 21 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 work on Sundays and Holidays is prohibited. I think we need to define work. Does that include them coming in and watering their plants? What about you've got a holiday on a Monday. We've had 95 degree temperatures and you can't work on Sunday and you can't work on a holiday, this thing is going to be in bad shape Tuesday. So I think maybe the word work needs to be defined. Work is actively selling or is it work in bringing in equipment, inventory or sprinklering or is it maybe work involving management and planning and inventory taking and watering and this sort of thing. That's all. I wanted to bring those up. They need to be defined a little bit. Mancino: Well it doesn't seem, do I have a motion. Entertain a motion at this point. And that may be asking staff to come back and bring us more information that we need. Looking at it. How we can change in interim use for the retail and wholesale without a, as I said, without a cloud or sunset. How we can be more creative with that sunset date. Allowing businesses to plan. What are the other inferences of having retail in the A2? Farmakes: I'll make a motion to table this issue. I think that I'll put forward these items as the reasoning which you just mentioned. I also would feel uncomfortable unless the amended Section 20-1 is either, the issue as well as accessory items...are dropped. In other words, that ending of that sentence. Or that staff come up with a more targeted direction on that issue as far as what accessory issues are offered at retail. The issue of 5 probably should be defined in more reality and the issue of the market. I'm not sure that 5 does reflect that. The point that was made. Some of the other issues we really didn't discuss on there but I think that the ordinance probably covers them. Signage and so on. The termination issue. Although it allows the business for planning, I think that the real issue of an interim use obviously is to allow the community for planning as well. And I'm not sure what creative thought can be put into that. But there is also a reason for an interim use and there should be an objective there, although I have nothing against a business that has been here in these transition areas with transition type businesses to allow them to have the opportunity to decide when they cease operations. The problem always occurs however, at some point in time if it's opened ended, there is no reason to cease. You can adjust to whatever needs to be done and I get back to the point, there usually is an end result or a direction, other use in our comprehensive plan and I'm not sure if the staff is going to be able to resolve that. I hope they do. Mancino: Is there a second? Skubic: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? 22 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Conrad: Ah sure. So you want to table it for clarification of the motions. Definition of nursery, Jeff? Was that. Farmakes: Definition of nursery was the one that refers to Section 20-1. I'm uncomfortable with how that reads. Conrad: Okay. Did you agree with Don's comment on 4, that it's foggy? Farmakes: For the storage? Conrad: Yeah. Farmakes: I guess, I didn't make that a part of the motion but it seems to me that there are broader issues other than getting into the specifics of setbacks and so on. To me but we, we can add 4 if you add that to the motion since this is a tabled motion. I mean it's not a, although we're voting on it, these are issues of exploration that I would suggest. The real crux of the issue here that I see in this motion that is made, is that what is the definition of the use and if we're going to define it, how does that relate to practicality of operating a business and what is the end result that we're going to see from this as far as comprehensive plan? What happens when we're filled up? And then how does that use, what is allowed under the ordinance for that use to be expanded. Conrad: And did you have any concerns with number 8 on the staff report? Again, I heard you're tabling it. You know 8 doesn't allow for renewal. So everybody knows that. It says it's terminated and I think if we do consider this, you know there has to be a renewal option and I think the ordinance doesn't allow that. Farmakes: I think that the renewal option could be looked at for the issue of making it easier for business planning. I think I said that already. Farmakes moved, Skubic seconded to table an amendment to the City Code for landscape nurseries and garden centers in the A2 for further clarification. All voted in favor, except Meyer who abstained, and the motion carried. Mancino: We will table it and staff has direction and the Halla's will come before us again another time to present. Thank you. Don Halla: Can I just speak for one moment? Mancino: For one minute you may. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - November 15, 1995 Don Halla: We already have a semi negotiated agreement with the city. The city hasn't signed onto it and we haven't signed onto it. We're very close to an agreement which really happens is exactly what you want. We're looking for basically a ruling to maintain our agricultural status of a grower of plant material. The building department says we do not need a permit to do so. Go ahead and build it. The planning department says you can't. That's...maybe some direction of a simple thing under State and Federal laws we're allowed to build. Under the city's building code we are allowed to build greenhouses. Planning says we can't. That's all we're looking for. The rest of the things we're working out with the city and I think we're coming very close to it. Maybe it was agreed upon today. I don't know but that's the point... Mancino: Thank you. CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A MIXED LAND USE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, SINGLE AND MULTI-FAMILY ON APPROXIMATELY 66 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, BETWEEN GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD AND MARKET BOULEVARD, VILLAGES ON THE PONDS, LOTUS REALTY SERVICES. Public Present: Name Address Brad Johnson 7425 Frontier Trail Jill and Randy Meyer 330 Sinnen Circle Angie Bealczyk 310 Sinnen Circle Eric Johnson 320 Sinnen Circle Bob Savard 8080 Marsh Drive Steve Lundeen 8160 Marsh Drive Rita Klauda 8130 Marsh Drive Dave Kooumen 8153 Marsh Drive Gary Disch 8170 Marsh Drive Rick Hladky 8173 Marsh Drive Debbie & Brian Semke 331 Hidden Lane Barry & Lisa Thompson 8000 Hidden Circle Mark Honnold 8051 Hidden Circle Pat Hamblin 340 Sinnen Circle Greg Larson 8151 Grandview Road Ryan Johnson 8143 Marsh Drive 24 EXHIBIT A HALLA NURSERY GARDEN CENTER INVENTORY (07-20-94) Landscape fabric Root feeder Bird feeders Augur Trellises Weed killer and preventer Bird house stands Accent lights Books Insect killers Garden netting Deer/rabbit repellent Garden staking Knee pads Hummingbird/oriole feeder Plant supports Green sweep weed/feed Vegetable seeds Lawn trash bags Plant seeds Seed spreaders Feeder wand Lawn seed Plant stands String Planter boxes Bird feed Live plants (A) Tree stakes Live shrubs (A) Sprinklers Garden tools Garden hose Hose Hose nozzles Hedge shears Gloves Lopping shears Watering cans Pruners Ceramic bulb planters Weed eater Steel bulb planters Power snow shovel Electronic water timer Hand tools Thermostat Gas-powered weed eater Thermometer Snow thrower/trimmer Planter boxes Rakes Pots Killer kane Potting soil Garden trellis and lattice Moisture meter Wind chimes Burlap Wood mushrooms Transplant booster Bird baths Plant starter Wood bench Round Up Wood cactus Plant food Clay pots Compost maker Top soil Fertilizer stakes Peat moss Drop spreader Sheep manure 4 16791. EXHIBIT 11 A l On the Grow , at Halla Nurser: ! T Everything is on the grow at Halla there's a high loss rate in transplantingt Nursery. Sounds of spring whisper as because they have to develop a new root • • . :. ,.. Itj. : ' landscape and design staff,growers and system. A clay medium is better for the Vic- - • . -, '- movers and maintenance people,managers toria and Chanhassen homeowner because of 1,,; _ f L( • �r and other friendly employees at Halla tend to soils in that area." He also said that plants in { ;R . t r business. the field at Halla art root pruned every three .' ..y{? - ' T- -• t Located three miles south of Chanhassen years to give them new and stronger roots. e{ _ ", -,fit. r ' on Hwy 101,Halla Nursery welcomes the The large new retail building,that houses ' %• r` .,- community and invites you to visit their ex- "everything not green and growing,"opened �! t•e�` 1 VI panded garden center this spring as you shop on May 1st this spring. There you'll find • j . 1 ; • for plant material for your home or business. fertilizers,tools,rocks,soil,spray,peat r'., I .*.-• �- •�•i•••ii , Looking for annuals or perennials? Halla moss,manure,wildflower c+Yvis,and other + ` •, j l �-4:•`•`•. bas'em! Looking for trees or shrubs? Halla garden supplies. "We also anticipate a high � �' � • `�f;,•�;=.�•" has'em. Looking for mulches or fertilizers? quality bird house and bird feeder display," {=� saris 1 �;- :':-.i. Halla has'em! You'll encounter a wide said Don. "It's another way to serve our • 1 . i. `t - a- 1 5-•-.--;-...• selection of plant material at Halla Nursery, customer better." •.•_•.,�.�-- •* .. • as well as a brand new 5,000 sq.ft retail Halla Nursery hires certified nursery and _ •Ni, . :''�F , " •',T �t; .. garden center,and a large staff to assist you. landscape professionals. The education and - - OWgir , ' 'r'_ -''r'- . Halla has 100 acres of trees,shrubs,ever- training needed to become certified assures `•/ greens,perennials,and annuals from which Halla that their customers will be assisted i to choose. with the greatest of care and talent t ' Don Halla president of Halla Nursery The designers at Halla can draw you an I• - and second generation in the business,takes on-site rough sketch of landscape and plant- •Don Hada,president of Halo Nursery and second pride in the wide selection and quality of ing possibilities,with an accompanying Geon In fie tw>tress. plant materials at the nurs`rv. "We have ten esti."-nate,free of charge. Or,for a rebatable acres dedicated to the garden center,"he said, deposit,he or she can develop a comprehen- .---- •:'...••. ` "and that includes two acres of ported shrubs, sive plan which can be implemented as your t ... e.'.- - Ml1+ two acres of balled and burlapped shade budget allows. This plan is the product of a - 'I I trees,one-half acre of pored shade trees, cooperative process that takes into considera- , , < , . green houses,hanging baskets,and a 15,000 tion the personal taste and desires of the --' •' - 4j x'11 ..a sq.ft shade area for perennials. Our plant customer. - - material is in more mature sizes rather than Don also takes pride in Praror•k Palace, " " - - small seedling type plants." an area of the nursery where he raises pea- e-•,+ '•4. r l "We have trees up to 18"in diameter," cocks,rare varieties of pheasants and ducks. ' `k�j said Don,"and we have the world's largest "We invite parents to bring their kids,"he .1....:t �i tree mover to move them." said,as the nursery has installed new play- 1-.t . - . , . "We have over 250 varieties of peren- ground equipment and gazebo for kids to �' T` c 4 r nials,100 different varieties of flowering enjoy while parents check out the nursery �'e., _ ° �1 j r shrubs,75 different varieties of shade vets storkiy }: and flowering crabs,and access to the Yes,the growing season is.upon us. . -1.-..,�. balance of 100 acres. We have large shade "Soil temperatures have come up quite well, "•1'`�- • •3 F . trees of 6"diameter at 50°x6 off now. We and there is no frost in the ground anymore," �:`�'f ' .- - ., ��.- have a wide selection of wild ferns,mulches, stated Don. "May 15th is about the right time :s •4 `-, shredded hardwood bark,and rock mulch to plant." •-it-.1. - products." Everything is on the grow at Halla •'t •' V Don explained that the plants at Halla Nursery. Come and enjoy.the sights and -+ �,0.`• •� 'a Nursery are grown in clay soil. "Plants grow sounds of spring! You'll be pleasantly `� -4 faster and easier in sand,"he said,"but then surprised. --S.O. Lyrbn bac,office rnanoget at Hdla Nursery,for eight yews. ori• . _� _ _ :-S - Y -- ,�. �1• .. s %,...5..- * --a' 7.1-514;fr 17 1• ,,r,, ';-,..--ywSe !,. `; - E NR ANT �� / I. ' ; t l � i; .514 r I IMEZEDMISIII ` ___ * , `A " t �J .te _ mss=- 1:4*•-_left'•-.c,J; _ ,,,Irts-z �• . Sheryl Kotout,assistant garden center manager. Mak Hotta,vice president and general manager at Hallo Nursery,and wife Kay Ha)a, licensed landscape architect. SINCE 1942 14nnill nn m •gm EXHIBIT INC " LANDSCAPE DESIGNERS,CONTRACTORS, GROWERS, B TREE MOVERS AND GARDEN CENTER 3 Miles South of Chanhassen on Hwy 101. i • CITY 4F i i CHANHASSEN ,„... ,, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: John Rask, Planner I DATE: November 8, 1995 SUBJECT: Proposed Text Amendment to the A-2, Agricultural Estate District. SUMMARY On November 1, 1995,the Planning Commission reviewed proposed changes to the A-2, Agricultural Estate zoning district. Mr. Don Halla, Halla Nursery,requested a text amendment to allow landscape nurseries as a permitted use in the A-2 District. The Commission tabled action on this item to receive further information from staff. More specifically, the Commission wanted to see a side by side comparison of the different options of allowing retail nurseries as a permitted use, conditional use, and as an interim use. The following definitions are being provided for discussion purposes: Permitted Use is defined as, any use allowed in a zoning district and subject to the restriction applicable to that zoning district. Conditional Use is defined as, a use permitted in a particular zoning district upon showing that such use in a specified location will comply with all the conditions and standards for the location or operation of the use as specified in the zoning ordinance and approved by the City Council. Interim Use is defined in Section 20-1 as, a temporary use of property until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular event,or until zoning regulations no longer permit it. By way of example, the use could terminate when the site is brought into the MUSA, when sewer or water is provided to the site, a date could be set for the use to end, or if the zoning district changes to a residential zoning. Planning Commission November 8, 1995 Page 2 Staff assembled the following table to illustrate the differences between permitted uses, conditional uses, and interim uses: IMPACTS OF ALLOWING RETAIL NURSERIES AND GARDEN CENTERS IN THE A-2 ZONING DISTRICT PERMITTED USES CONDITIONAL USES INTERIM USES Not all A-2 zoned property would By classifying a use a conditional Use is eventually terminated be appropriate for retail nurseries, use,special conditions may be allowing the property to be i.e. lack of adequate public imposed to mitigate the adverse converted to a use which is facilities impacts consistent with the Comp.Plan Retail nurseries and garden Conditional use must be approved if Would discourage the use of centers are inconsistent with other applicant meets all conditions set permanent buildings permitted uses in the A-2 District forth in local ordinances and other conditions imposed by the City Council May allow businesses such as, Not all A-2 properties are Not all A-2 properties are Bachmans,Franks,or other appropriate for retail nurseries or appropriate for retail nurseries nursery and craft stores which garden centers or garden centers may be in conflict with surrounding residential or agricultural properties. Permanent buildings may be Permanent buildings may lead to Encourage the use of constructed which may lead to other uses if the nursery is vacated, temporary structures or other uses if the nursery is e.g.,auto repair,contractors structures designed for a vacated,i.e.,auto repair, storage/yard,misc.retail,etc. specific use which would contractors storage/yard,misc. discourage conversion to an retail,etc. inappropriate use Use would be allowed in Use would be allowed in perpetuity Use would have a termination perpetuity date Retail nurseries or garden centers Retail nurseries or garden centers in By classifying a use a in most cases would be in conflict most cases would be in conflict with conditional use,special with the comprehensive plan,i.e., the comprehensive plan,i.e.,corner conditions may be imposed to corner of Hwy.5 and 41,which is of Hwy.5 and 41,which is currently mitigate the adverse impacts currently zoned A-2 zoned A-2 Planning Commission November 8, 1995 Page 3 The City Council recently approved a temporary sales ordinance. This ordinance applies to the business zoned districts only,i.e., BG, CBD, BF,and BH. Temporary sales are allowed as an accessory use to a permitted or conditional use, and are limited to 60 days per calendar year. Staff examined the possibility of allowing retail sales as a temporary use in the A-2 district. This would allow a"wholesale"nursery to temporarily sell retail products. The impacts of this approach are that not all A-2 properties are appropriate for retail use, the use may be inconsistent with surrounding properties,the use must be permitted if conditions are met, and would be very difficult to enforce. Staff is of the opinion that retail nurseries and garden centers are inconsistent with other uses in the A-2 district and the comprehensive plan. Allowing garden centers or retail nurseries as a permitted use would encourage permanent buildings and use, and discourage the conversion of the property to a more appropriate use consistent with the comprehensive plan. To mitigate these negative impacts, staff is recommending an alternative that would allow retail nurseries as an interim use (see memo to Planning Commission dated October 25, 1995). ATTACHMENTS 1. Memorandum to Planning Commission dated October 25, 1995 2. Map of Chanhassen showing current A-2 zoned properties. a i CITY OF N V CHANHASSEN - , 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 �T (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: John Rask, Planner I DATE: October 25, 1995 SUBJECT: Proposed Text Amendment to the A-2,Agricultural Estate District SUMMARY Mr. Don Halla, Halla Nursery Inc., is requesting a zoning ordinance text amendment to allow landscape nurseries as a permitted use in the A-2, Agricultural Estate Zoning District. Mr. Halla indicates in his application that nurseries are currently prohibited and that landscape nurseries are an agricultural use and should be permitted. Further, Mr. Halla indicates that he has occupied this property since 1962 and his business is no longer a permitted use. BACKGROUND The intent of the A-2 District is, "preservation of rural character while respecting development patterns by allowing single-family residential development." The following uses are permitted in an"A-2"District" 1. Agriculture 2. Public and private parks and open space 3. Single family dwellings 4. State-licensed day care center for twelve or fewer children 5. Utility services 6. State-licensed day care center for six or fewer persons 7. Temporary real estate office and model home 8. Arboretums Planning Commission October 25, 1995 Page 2 The following are permitted accessory uses in an A-2 District: 1. Accessory agricultural buildings 2. Garage 3. Private stables 4. Swimming pool 5. Tennis court 6. Signs 7. Home occupations 8. One Dock 9. Roadside stand 10. Private kennel The following are conditional uses in an A-2 District: 1. Commercial communication transmission tower 2. Electrical substation 3. Churches 4. Recreational beachlots 5. Group homes for seven to sixteen persons The following are interim uses in the A-2 District: 1. Churches 2. Mineral extraction 3. Mobile homes 4. Bed and breakfast establishments 5. Commercial kennels, stables and riding academies 6. Wholesale nurseries 7. Golf driving ranges with or without miniature golf courses Currently, wholesale nurseries are allowed as an interim use in the A-2 District. Wholesale nursery is defined in Section 20-1 of the City Code as follows,"Wholesale nursery means an enterprise which conducts the wholesale of plants grown on site as well as accessory items directly related to their care and maintenance(but not including power equipment such as gas or electric lawnmowers and farm implements)". The ordinance provisions of the A-2 District do not meet Mr. Halla's current needs because retail sales are not permitted. The retail sales portion of Mr. Halla's Nursery has been expanded illegally and is in violation of City Ordinances. Discussions have occurred between Mr. Halla and city staff over the years concerning the retail segment of Halla Nursery. Mr. Halla has shown a desire to expand his business to provide for Planning Commission October 25, 1995 Page 3 additional retail space. In his request for a code amendment,Mr. Halla indicated that he would like to continue to operate his business as a"legal use"or permitted use. This would allow him to expand or intensify his operation at the current location. It is staffs opinion,that Halla Nursery would best be classified, for zoning purposes, as a retail nursery or garden center. A garden center is defined as follows, "Garden center means a place of business where retail and wholesale products and produce are sold to the retail consumer. These centers, which may include a nursery and/or greenhouses, import most of its items sold. These items may include paints, handicrafts, nursery products and stock, fertilizers, potting soil, hardware, lawn and garden power equipment and machinery, hoes,rakes, shovels and other garden and farm tools and utensils." This definition appears to better describe the current operation of Halla Nursery. Section 20-1 of the ordinance defines nursery as follows, "Nursery means an enterprise which conducts the retail and wholesale sale of plants grown on the site, as well as accessory items directly related to their care and maintenance (but not including power equipment such as gas or electric lawnmowers and farm implements). Halla Nursery currently has retail sales which do not meet this definition. By way of example,pet food is offered for sale on the premises. ANALYSIS When considering zoning ordinance text amendments, one must consider the comprehensive impacts on all properties affected by the amendment. Any amendments to the A-2 District will not only affect Mr. Halla's property, but all property zoned A-2, and those properties located near an A-2 District. The current permitted uses in the A-2 district are either residential in nature or are uses which require a large land area, such as: agriculture,arboretums,parks, etc. These uses do not generate a significant amount of traffic or require a large investment in buildings or other improvements. The A-2 District may be better described as a"holding zone"or"open zone"because the majority of property in this district is guided for further development. The City of Chanhassen 2000 Land Use Plan shows this property guided for Large Lot Residential. Permitting garden centers or retail nurseries may ultimately lead to a"spot" zone of this property. The property surrounding the existing Halla Nursery buildings, which is part of the current nursery, has received final plat approval for a residential subdivision. Other A-2 zoned districts are adjacent to existing and future residential or industrial developments. A"retail"oriented nursery or garden center may not be compatible with the existing permitted uses in the A-2 zoning district. However, there may be certain A-2 zoned areas which are suitable for garden centers or nurseries. Planning Commission October 25, 1995 Page 4 Property currently used for nurseries or similar uses may be suitable for use as a garden center or retail nursery. If allowed in the A-2 district, retail nurseries or garden centers would be more compatible with the current interim uses in the A-2 District. Structures such as greenhouses, outdoor displays, and nursery areas are for the most part temporary structures or uses. Allowing additional permanent structures would only increase the likely hood that the property would remain in retail use. By permitting retail nurseries as an interim use, conditions can be placed on the permit to ensure that the property will someday comply with the comprehensive plan. Constructing permanent retail buildings makes it difficult to redevelop the property into other appropriate uses. Staff is also concerned that if permanent buildings are constructed for retail nursery purposes,these buildings may be converted to another retail use if the property is vacated by the nursery. The City Comprehensive Plan discusses both present and future agricultural uses in the City. The Plan states, "While several farms remain in the community, for the most part this use has either been eliminated by development or is often conducted on a lease hold basis with the land held by persons intending to market the property for development. The city has no desire to see these operations prematurely eliminated and will cooperate with the owners to allow them to continue as long as it is feasible to do so. However,there is no proposed on-going goal of permanently providing for agricultural land preservation in the community." Interim uses include those uses which are allowed within a zoning district for a limited amount of time. The temporary use is permitted until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no longer permit it. Interim uses are reviewed and conditions added to soften any negative impacts on adjacent properties, such as: increased traffic, noise, drainage, and requirements for public facilities and services. As mentioned above, A-2 Districts are often located near existing or future residential or industrial properties. These properties serve as a"holding"or"open"zone until such time as the property is further developed. If garden centers or retail nurseries are to be permitted in the A-2 District, it would make sense to permit them as an interim use. Staff recommends that the ordinance be amended to allow for retail and wholesale nurseries as an interim use in the A-2 District. Amending the ordinance to allow retail and wholesale nurseries as a permitted use would be inconsistent with the A-2 District. Staff is concerned with the impacts that a retail nursery or garden center would have on surrounding properties and the spirit and intent of the A-2 District. Garden centers would permit the retail sales of a wide range of products, including: hardware, lawn and garden equipment,paints, tools, etc. The current permitted, conditional, and interim uses in the A-2 district are either residential in nature or are uses which require a large land area. A garden center is inconstant with other uses in the A-2 District. However, staff is of the opinion that adding retail nursery sales may be appropriate in certain locations, if the necessary conditions are attached. Staff developed nine conditions which would apply to retail or wholesale nurseries. The conditions are as follows: Planning Commission October 25, 1995 Page 5 1. The site must be on a collector street or minor arterial as identified in the comprehensive plan. 2. The minimum lot size is five (5)acres. 3. All storage and yard areas as well as building must be setback one hundred(100) feet from public or private road right-of-ways and five hundred(500) feet from an adjacent single family residence. 4. All outdoor store areas must be completely screened by one hundred (100)percent opaque fencing or berming. 5. Hours of operations shall be set by the City Council. 6. Light sources shall be shielded. 7. No outside speaker systems are allowed. 8. A termination date shall be established for the interim use permit. The use shall be permitted until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no longer permit it. 9. One ground low profile or wall sign, not exceeding twenty-four(24) square feet of sign display area, shall be permitted on the premises. (Note: The 500 foot setback would not allow Mr. Halla to add additional buildings after homes are constructed in his subdivision. Staff is of the opinion that 500 feet is an appropriate setback for nursery buildings from single family residences. Again, consideration must be given to all properties within the A-2 Zoning District.) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the zoning ordinance amendment as submitted by the applicant. The applicant's proposal requested that landscape nurseries be a permitted use or"legal use"in the A- 2 District. Staff has provided a proposal which would allow the applicant to operate a retail nursery. Currently, retail nurseries are prohibited in the A-2 District. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: Planning Commission October 25, 1995 Page 6 "The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend Sections 20-576(7), 20-1, and 20-257 to permit both wholesale and retail nurseries in the A-2 District as an Interim Use, as outlined in the staff report dated October 25, 1995." More Specifically,the amendments shall read as follows: Amend Section 20-1 to read: "Nursery means an enterprise which conducts the retail and wholesale sale of plants grown on the site or imported to the site, as well as accessory items directly related to their care and maintenance. The retail sale of hardware,paint,pet supplies,power equipment, and farm implements shall be prohibited. Nursery may include greenhouses." Amend Section 20-257 to read: "The following conditions will apply to all wholesale and retail nurseries: 1. The site must be on a collector street or minor arterial as identified in the comprehensive plan. 2. The minimum lot size is five (5) acres 3. All storage and yard areas as well as building must be setback one hundred (100) feet from public or private road right-of-ways and five hundred (500) feet from an adjacent single family residence. 4. All outdoor storage areas must be completely screened by one hundred (100)percent opaque fencing or berming. 5. Hours of operations shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday only, work on Sundays and holidays is prohibited. 6. Light sources shall be shielded 7. No outside speaker systems are allowed. 8. A termination date shall be established for the interim use permit. The use shall be permitted until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no longer permit it. Planning Commission October 25, 1995 Page 7 9. One ground low profile or wall sign,not exceeding twenty-four(24) square feet of sign display area, shall be permitted on the premises. Amend Section 20-576(7) to read: "Wholesale and retail nurseries." ATTACHMENTS 1. Application for zoning ordinance amendment submitted by Don Halla dated October 4, 1995. 2. Letter to Don Halla dated October 6, 1995. CITY OF HANHASSEN CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE OCT 0 6 1995 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 CITY Of CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION OCT 5 1995nn APPLICANT: i41,4i41,4j- L-A // t S � y //V6 OWNER: „?7o it/ G B1J4$ J1JAR1MilT T \i-n r t r g1.LiD ADDRESS: /0 000 Gt?EAT PI-A /NS ADDRESS: 6 o / /10 ,( TRA fM/11 . S�3/� Ev/A'•4 ///iv 55/Y39 -/a27 TELEPHONE (Day time) `x,5- S3 TELEPHONE: 9#'? QZ 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4, Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review Notification Signs 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SPRNAC/VARJWAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) 10. Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 81" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. * NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract I 'd EI ; EI ' , '€+I sN9I=3J f1Nr',M19 i r' :]NH W'. d LOCATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION A —2— azo 2 2G � REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION A r2- %.g."12 REASON FOR THIS REQUEST A — �iy �, �, , -1 /96 Z t"4141f././- , 4 ,<;e This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed an must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This Is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my .nowledge. l /44. Sign re of Applicant ate Signature of Fee Owner D e Application Received on Fee Paid y� Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. I 'd 6b:61 S66I4b '9I SN9IS37 tWNAUM3 A'7N3S. blU J g CITY OF rii v - 1 4/ CHANHASSEN 4 ,,-,-,., k Sts - 1 -F-5 = "'. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 ,, October 6, 1995 Mr. Don Halla Halla Nursery 10000 Great Plains Blvd. Chaska, MN 55318 Dear Mr. Halla: I have received your application from Steve Kirchman today. It is my understanding that you are requesting an amendment to the City Code permitting landscape nursery's in the A-2 district. . The procedure for a code amendment is a public hearing before the Planning Commission and then review and either approval or denial by the City Council. I have scheduled this hearing for the November 1, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, 414,-,2. AD/N.406/Y; Kate Aanenson Planning Director A B.r,- D E I a ! ! , is I aI II QC �_ i € ! ti I. i It F i_i---- .! . ..--!---1--, i— '�'l. . • k ,�•++ a_._ � • �IL�P!tYrrr//•/^may.�YL r �� '� r� ryya� �;. al�� ; ill��.. :; —_ ,... - •� . ,. /a�LallnintitilW • ry ME -11:n.:.i_—:,s^�.G'?.: - 1M 1� �~ 12 iiplo•••'�- !7;''--1 .r.- awnwe 1•AL 1011. I - I IN100.. !pai . MI �/ ' ,� ... war .,,,,,,•_.._ ...,..„.: I Orel .,_ __ 116 Arlik ` - !v ' : fit :; „„%,=; folg- .« -He.- .fib' I L: ' �' - _Jti. vaw`4. �'4'Nnr, � ' • ! Imo. tl r a ... r � .d.a`M.�w�. !, „s _ le". ni1/J . .. r 'moi'='.. r-..,,,...,-g,, 1 s 4 .g ,: ,.... -1 : ,... ___.., , ....,,,,.._:,,, • _la, A ..., 4. �� /i ,rWr/A ! I — : .1 ----- vi .% '44.1-1`1_ — . ;' / ,ORP, 'lie tiaisr'ri'• ''':-.... 1 233 S+'' +g � II __ Awss-ti,) zs-. . ,,,, . _—_ 47, arc• tl :,,, # . 1 ! I -7---- --."-- '--- r,„„ , ..dier, IL, , 11 , , 1 I—,011,7 . • ______.. ,. u•Aiwww--, - — in l A . , CITY of `� - — 4 �� CHAM-IASSEN ,..„,- " zi ----7 _ BASE MAP wr -' fa•- LAN( CURRENT 40t 'jiaritrA , 5, �A.2 ZQNED - -; � __ MN PRQ � /= ..._,, . : -.,,-/:_,', ._:„. � d . , :54)1.7-:.:1' . \:„,;-:. '. -"1,4111r.-----=1117111r'llVir:alliii.dieFe:411:190/2:.:::.:'!----1;1 6 ! -- r;*f/Vi ‘/ Z - ..,-• IP- I; , .. "'"'ff•J . ,e(01.00---4 -4( di, 7 e r € I e t _ i 1 i C I TY O F PC DATE: 12/06/95 \ CHANHACEN CC DATE: 1/08\96 t �-' CASE #: 95-20 SUB By: Generous:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for preliminary plat approval of 8.35 acres into 12 lots, one outlot and associated right-of-way; variance for street grade of 10%; and a variance to wetland setback of 20 feet for Lots 11 and 12. The project is known as Knob Hill LOCATION: 6215 Yosemite, on the east side of Yosemite at the Chanhassen-Shorewood city Vlimits -J Q, APPLICANT: John Knoblauch Q_, 16921 Weston Bay Road Eden Prairie,MN 55347 (612)440-5662 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential, RSF ACREAGE: 8.35 acres DENSITY: gross: 1.44 units per acre net: 1.82 units per acre ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- Shorewood, single-family S - RSF E - RSF Q W- RSF WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site has rolling topography with a low point at elevation 1003 in the wetland located in the southwest portion of the project and a high point of 1036 elevation in the northeast • corner of the property adjacent to the existing house. The site is approximately 45 percent forested with northern hardwood type trees with significant stands of trees in the northeast, south, and northwest corners of the property. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density(Net Density 1.2 -4.0 units per acre) ............ ) E ) S p 0 .. p p p Op -I , u LOCATION N — LIILOC LANE I I ( I I .SII . .,�411 '!I: CHR/S_EAS is 12 Ati1. .1 11 iv — w.5w---mmorLAK£ • - liptalla6V gm;*ittz. — MN, . ,1- � CIRCLE ® t•0„ �;� • "�0..•RI IRK glalligro 4orsopi,46 Ivo�.c ��• �� FARMS' Aill..6.4.147er4 "41 If"rra imr -A-RR '' 191 b -4. 4•, roga„, ,tE T �� r:c1��'1 • �i.. ��IPARK.� I PHEASAN �' MIRMINIM rE C•URir &gem H/LL isa �1�Z� • a. . i �•Wf I _ . ,�, i,FPAR' T3 h, F ispir4,46 iei��'i �Il� ;k4r _ P I I ■k Qa t o�l►�ny�y . .iii n7� r , 41 el nom Me 1.414. MEV%-.1 FirOOMICI SIVlifill C4.4-. A' R BEACH �.�AWN Blas I :1 2PLA GRROUNi 1 { y • ' ?z,♦ 3 oU'4 I�'�1J1_I C ROLE D° 1■_1VERO�? Q. I i 1 .,., , tear"III 4.7411141 MiC , yr Pjfik 3 i 7 , •4477,1,ffb.-1 = , - /no wee 11 �, vtt+ ter.' .- 7) Ilk . kLAKE LUCY A,... pEa0ry,.sOak_...AlTl"4 _____ .am. r0-.m14 w-- 4,0 r•' '14 la"o ..0 . .. ,„ (do�� M - , F:� � '' =►�IIII= .hi -- aril .....z. filo UII111� �Dirf OEteDm �Ir; 3 s •• 11111�•,a : J .0 . _itig ea r AGREFNWO/•/ d a.....0*. ''il► �l Knob Hill December 6, 1996 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing preliminary plat approval of 8.35 acres into 12 lots,one outlot and associated right-of-way(1.1 acres); variance for street grade of 10%; and a variance to the wetland setback of 20 feet for Lots 11 and 12. The project is known as Knob Hill. A 0.66 acre wetland is located in the western portion of the site. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan for low density residential land uses Staff is recommending that the subdivision be tabled to permit the applicant to revise the plans subject to the conditions of the staff report. Specifically, staff is recommending that the road alignment be changed to provide access to the Donovan property to the east and that the grading plan be revised to reduce impacts to the site. Staff is recommending denial of the street grade variance due to the fact that staff's recommended realignment negates the request. Staff is recommending that a 10 foot variance be granted for the wetland setback and a ten foot front setback variance be granted for Lots 11 and 12,Block 1. This compromise maintains a minimum 40 foot setback(10 foot buffer strip and 30 foot setback from the buffer edge)from the wetland. BACKGROUND An existing home and storage structure are located in the northeast corner of the site which is currently accessed via a shared driveway with the property in Shorewood. LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION Existing tree cover of the site is approximately 45%and consists mainly of oak, maple, basswood, boxelder, elm,hickory and cherry. There are also a few cedar and pines located near the existing homestead. Very large,mature oaks,basswood and maple are located near the house and along the driveway. On the property,there are a total of ten trees that are considered `special' because of their size. Grading and house pads will require the removal half of those trees. The remaining half are located on the southern and eastern areas of Lot 5. Staff proposes that a conservation easement be placed over the eastern and southern sections of Lot 5. Lots 8, 9, and 10 should have 15 foot tree removal limits placed around the proposed building pads. Of the existing 3.52 acres of canopy coverage, 1.60 acres will be removed. The required canopy coverage for the site is 35%, or 2.69 acres. The applicant will have only 1.92 acres of canopy coverage after grading and construction. The difference between the required coverage and the proposed is .77 acres. Since the applicant is removing required canopy coverage, the difference Knob Hill December 6, 1996 Page 3 is multiplied by 1.2 and becomes .924 acres. Therefore, the applicant is required to plant 37 trees on site. Staff is recommending that instead of the road ending in a cul-de-sac, it be extended to the southeast. If the decision is made to do so,the resulting difference in canopy coverage appears to be minimal. Additional removal because of the extension and relocation of the private drive will be less than one acre. The removal,however, could be offset by the possible preservation of canopy in the rear yard of Lots 6,7, 8, and 9 as well as the rear yard of Lot 4 if the house is pulled closer to the road. More canopy may possibly be saved with the new alignment proposed by staff. COMPLIANCE TABLE Lot Frontage Depth Wetland Front Side Rear Max Area(sq (ft) (ft) Setback Setback Setback Setback Bldg Ht ft) (ft) (ft) Code 15,000 90 125 Avg 10' 30 10 30 40 buffer+ 40' Lot 1 15,378 118 150 none 30 10 30 Lot 2 15,277 102 150 none 30 10 30 Lot 3 15,277 102 150 none 30 10 30 Lot 4 15,293 110 144 none 30 10 30 Lot 5 83,539 80* 133 none 30 10 30 Lot 6 18,134 167 113# none 30 10 30 Lot 7 19,532 93 151 none 30 10 30 Lot 8 16,049 74* 135 none 30 10 30 Lot 9 25,993 115 178 10' + wetland 10 30 40' Lot 10 31,055 210 152 10' + 30 wetland 30 40' Lot 11 25,078 114 183 10' + 30 10 wetland 40' @ Lot 12 26,862 131 192 10' + 30 10 wetland 40' @ * Meets code requirements at the building setback #Does not comply with code requirements @ Applicant is requesting a variance of 20 feet Knob Hill December 6, 1996 Page 4 Staff believes that it would be better to grant a 10 foot front setback to Lots 11 and 12 and require the applicant to maintain a minimum 40 foot setback from the wetland(10 foot buffer and 30 foot setback). WETLANDS There are two jurisdictional wetlands on-site. Wetland 1 is an ag/urban wetland located between Lots 9, 10, 11,and 12 and is approximately 0.66 acre. This wetland will not be directly impacted as a result of development; however,the private street will direct some untreated runoff into it. A buffer strip of 0 to 20 feet wide with an average width of 10 feet is required around this wetland. Wetland 2 is a 370 square foot ag/urban wetland located between Lots 7 and 8. This wetland will be filled as a result of the development,but since it is less than 400 square feet,it is exempt from the Wetland Conservation Act. Type III erosion control is required along the entire length of the wetland adjacent to construction activities until vegetation is re-established. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN(SWMP) - The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan(SWMP)that serves as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective,the stormwater quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general,the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use,and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. The development will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's SWMP requirements. The drainage from the impervious surface will need to be treated to retain 35 to 50%of the phosphorus before it is discharged into the wetland on-site. It is important that the wetland receive the runoff to maintain some hydrology to the wetland. The sediment pond can be designed within the buffer zone to tie the basin in with the wetland on Lot 11. A wet meadow seed mix should be used to encourage native plants in and around the wetland. A drainage and utility easement will be required around the sediment pond to allow for maintenance. Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the Knob Hill December 6, 1996 Page 5 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. The proposed SWMP water quality charge of$800/acre for single family resident developments. Fees are based on a total developable land area of 8.35 acres minus the existing wetland of 0.66 acres. Therefore,the applicant is required to pay$6,152 in water quality fees. Credits will be given for providing the ponding required. Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts,open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single family residential developments have a connection charge of$1,980 per developable acre. The total net area of the property is 7.69 acres as discussed above. Therefore,the proposed development would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of$15,226. Any oversizing for a regional pond and storm drainage infrastructure will be credited to the applicant at the time of final plat after review of the final construction plans. This fee will be due payable to the City at time of final plat recording. GRADING The site is generally rolling with an elevation change of nearly thirty(30) feet from east to west. Staff believes the proposed street grading is excessive and does not follow the existing contour of the land very well. Staff has reviewed the site as well as the adjacent parcel to the east (Donovan) for continuity. The Donovan parcel will require sanitary sewer service and street access from this site for future subdivision potential. However, the plans propose a cul-de-sac with no means of providing access to the Donovan parcel. Staff has developed a new concept which allows for street and utility access to the Donovan parcel, improves street grades to eliminate the variance for the 10%street grade and right-of-way width, improves site grades on Lots 1, 2, and 3 which should preserve additional trees,minimizes impacts to the wetlands by relocating the private street and also adds another lot overall. The applicant's plan,as proposed,requires variances for street right-of-way (50 feet is proposed- 60 feet is required by ordinance), street grades of 10%, and building setbacks. Staffs proposed revision will require variances on building setbacks to the wetlands and the street on Lots 11 and 12. Staff met early on with the applicant's engineer and requested that they look at extending a street to the east to service Donovan's; and potentially, when the abutting property develops, out to Knob Hill December 6, 1996 Page 6 Lilac Lane to provide continuity between neighborhoods. Staff strongly believes that this submittal should be tabled or denied and the applicant be required to go back and redesign the plan incorporating staffs new concept or a version thereof. Staff did meet with the applicant before writing this report to discuss these changes. The applicant has requested that they still be on the agenda to hear further comments from the neighborhood and Planning Commission. Approval of this subdivision, as proposed, would limit or may prohibit the future subdivision of the Donovan parcel. It appears Lots 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 will be custom graded at time of building permit issuance. Staff recommends that individual, detailed grading, drainage, tree preservation, and erosion control plans be submitted for review and approval by the City in conjunction with building permit application for these lots. Staff also believes that retaining walls could be incorporated in the rear yards of Lots 1, 2, and 3 to reduce grading and to preserve the significant stand of trees. DRAINAGE The site drains to the west and then crosses underneath Yosemite. Eventually the runoff discharges into the Minnehaha Creek watershed. The applicant will need to submit to the City detailed storm drainage calculations for the storm sewers as well as ponding calculations for a 2-, 10-, and 100-year storm event, 24-hour duration for both pre- and post-development conditions for staff review and approval. The plans propose a storm drainage system to convey runoff from the street and front yard areas to a proposed sediment pond for pretreatment prior to discharging into the wetland. The sediment pond is located partially within the street right-of-way for Yosemite. The pond needs to be relocated outside of the street right-of-way given potential for future widening and upgrading of Yosemite. The ponding area should be relocated adjacent to the wetland on Lot 11 outside any right-of-way. There appears to be sufficient room to accomplish this without eliminating Lot 11. Additional storm drainage improvements may be required after review of the drainage calculations. UTILITIES Utility service for this development will be extended from Yosemite. The City also has a watermain which runs from Lilac Lane along the east and south property line of this site to Yosemite. The plans propose extending sewer and water service from Yosemite and dead- ending it into the cul-de-sac. There is a sanitary sewer line in Lilac Lane; however, it is owned and maintained by the City of Excelsior. The Donovan piece should be serviced from the sewer system from Yosemite through this site. The applicant will be required to extend sewer service to the Donovan piece in any case. Fire hydrant placement will be determined by the City's Fire Marshal in conjunction with the construction plan review process. Knob Hill December 6, 1996 Page 7 Since the utilities will be owned and maintained by the City upon completion, the improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Since there are public improvements involved with this development, the developer will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of final plat approval. The final plat shall dedicate drainage and utility easements of all utility lines which fall outside the street right-of-way. These easements shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. The existing home on Lot 6 is proposed to be razed. The well and septic system shall be abandoned per City and State health codes. Given the fairly high ground elevation, the applicant should be aware they may encounter low water pressure on some of the higher elevated lots. Typically, individual booster pumps are required in the homes to meet water demands. STREETS The plans propose on extending a public street from Yosemite to service the development. A private street is also proposed to service Lots 7, 8, and 9. As mentioned, staff has designed a new plat concept which relocates the private driveway to the easterly plat line to service Lots 8 and 9. The relocation of the private driveway will minimize impacts to the wetlands. Staff's concept also will eliminate the variance for the street grade of 10%and also provide street access for the Donovan parcel. In addition, the plans were drawn with a 50-foot wide street right-of-way. City ordinance requires a 60-foot wide right-of-way. Staff believes this can be easily incorporated into the plan. Staff is recommending a variance on the building setbacks along the street on Lots 11 and 12 to minimize impacts to the wetland. The private street shall be constructed in accordance with the City's private driveway ordinance which requires a 20-foot wide bituminous surface capable of supporting 7-ton per axle weight. Parking will also be prohibited on the private streets. The applicant will need to dedicate cross- access easements and prepare maintenance agreements for the private streets. In addition, a turnaround may have to be constructed in accordance with the City Fire Marshal's requirements. Given the limited frontage the Donovan parcel has on Lilac Lane(approximately 18 to 20 feet), staff recommends the easterly 30 feet of the northerly 160 feet of Lot 5 be dedicated as street right-of-way. The public streets shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required for staff review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. Knob Hill December 6, 1996 Page 8 PRIVATE STREET FINDINGS In order to permit private streets, the city must find that the following conditions exist: (1) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination,the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes,local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. (2) After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access,or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. (3) The use of the private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources including wetlands and forested areas. Finding: The proposed private street to serve Lots 7, 8,and 9,Block 1, is not necessary to provide access to adjacent properties. Were a public street be provided to access these lots, additional trees would need to be removed. The proposed private street will follow a watermain alignment along the eastern edge of the property. EROSION CONTROL Erosion measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook(BMPH). The final grading plan shall incorporate type I erosion control around the perimeter of the grading limits and type III erosion control along the perimeter of the wetland. Rock construction entrance shall be employed and maintained at all access points until the driveways and streets have been paved with a bituminous surface. PARKS& RECREATION The Parks &Recreation Commission met on November 28, 1995 to review the proposed plat. The commission is recommending that full park and trail fees be required in lieu of land dedication. FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF,Residential Single Family District. Lot 6 must be reconfigured to meet the minimum lot depth. Knob Hill December 6, 1996 Page 9 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city,county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding,and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets,erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. Staff is recommending that the roadway be extended to the eastern property line in order to facilitate future access to the east should the adjacent property develop. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions if approved. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements,but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure. Knob Hill December 6, 1996 Page 10 VARIANCE As part of this plat approval,a variance to allow a 20 foot wetland setback is requested. The City Council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in the subdivision chapter as part of a plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: 1. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. 2. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land. 3. The condition of conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. 4. The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter,the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Finding: The setback hardship is caused by the location of the wetland on the site. The required setbacks could not be met given the need for a public street to access the property. Granting a variance will maintain the integrity and natural characteristics of the site. Rather than severely reducing the wetland setback area, staff is recommending that a 10 foot variance be granted for the wetland setback and a ten foot front setback variance be granted for Lots 11 and 12, Block 1. This compromise maintains a minimum 40 foot setback(10 foot buffer strip and 30 foot setback from the buffer edge) from the wetland. The variance requirement for a 10 percent street grade is based on the design alternative proposed by the applicant. Staff has prepared a roadway alternative that eliminates the need for a variance and therefore cannot make the finding for hardship or special conditions. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motions: "The Planning Commission recommends denial for the 10 percent street grade variance request." "The Planning Commission recommends tabling the preliminary plat for Subdivision#95-20 for 12 lots,one outlot and associated right-of-way, a front yard setback variance of 10 feet and a variance to the wetland setback of 10 feet for Lots 11 and 12 to permit the applicant to revise the plat based on staff recommendations. Future approval of the subdivision will be subject to the following conditions: Knob Hill December 6, 1996 Page 11 1. Full park and trail fees shall be paid per city ordinance in lieu of land dedication. 2. A minimum 40 foot building setback(10 foot buffer and 30 foot setback from buffer line)shall be maintained from the wetland on Lots 11 and 12,Block 1. 3. A Tree Conservation Easement shall be designated on the southern and eastern wooded areas on Lot 5. The applicant shall prepare a legal description and survey for this easement for city approval. 4. Fifteen foot tree removal limits shall be required around the building pads on Lots 8, 9, and 10. This tree removal limit shall be shown on the building permit application for each lot. 5. The applicant is required to plant 37 trees as replacement and reforestation plantings. Trees must be selected from the City's Approved Tree List. 6. Any proposed entrance monument must comply with city code. A separate sign permit must be submitted to the city. 7. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. 8. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using standard designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 9. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. 10. Lot 6 must be reconfigured to meet the minimum lot depth. 11. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. Type I erosion control fence shall be installed around the downstream side of the construction limits and Type III erosion control along the perimeter of the wetlands. Rock construction entrances shall be employed and maintained at all access points until the street has been paved with a bituminous surface. 12. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Knob Hill December 6, 1996 Page 12 13. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with the City's SWMP for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins,created basins, and or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition,water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. The sediment pond shall be designed adjacent to the wetland on Lot 11 outside the street right-of-way. A wet meadow seed mix should be used to encourage native plants in and around the wetland. 14. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 15. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. 16. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 17. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant$20 per sign. 18. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level. 19. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in accordance to City and Minnesota Department of Health codes/regulations. 20. The proposed single family residential development of 7.69 developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of$6,152 and a water quantity fee of$15,226. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. Credits will be given to these fees based on the applicant providing for the City's SWMP requirements and will be deducted from the totals after final plat review. Knob Hill December 6, 1996 Page 13 21. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 22. The plans shall be redesigned to provide public street and utility service to the parcel to the east (Donovan). Street grades shall not exceed 7% per ordinance. The private street shall be relocated along the east property line of Lots 7 and 8. Retaining walls shall be employed in the rear yards of Lots 1, 2 and 3 and street grades modified to be more conducive with existing grades. 23. Individual grading, drainage, tree preservation, and erosion control plans will be required for each lot at the time of building permit application for the City to review and approve. 24. The public street and utility system shall be constructed in accordance with the City's street and utility standards. The private streets shall be constructed in accordance with current city ordinances. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. The plans shall be designed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's standard specifications and detail plates. Final plat approval is contingent upon approval of the construction plans by the Chanhassen City Council. 25. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat street right-of-way along the easterly 30 feet of the northerly 160 feet of Lot 5. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Development Review Application 2. Project Summary 3. Wetland Exemption Request 4. Memo From Steve Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 11/27/95 5. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: -- 1.1) L- A1-* OWNER: ADDRESS: ! -g7.1 ADDRESS: ' '`' -t-- i .• _ rte TELEPHONE (Day time) VI C.~ c TELEPHONE: 1 r 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review 1 Notification Signs $70 E•OI • • 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" ($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) 10. Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ 1:7 &U , A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 81/2" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. • NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. • Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME f.r-D R \AL.L LOCATION ��- � r, r �.� �:f ►_ , LEGAL DESCRIPTION `_e (17T,c\ - e PRESENT ZONING F, REQUESTED ZONING F, PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION ! v e,vs r'_ REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION r: r 'T REASON FOR THIS REQUEST r , :i� r ` 2cC i F' . t ;: C • : Y t . ICQ- L 4-; P A^ a (. This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. /'a/3 j f j S— ature of Applicant D e J ature of Fee Owner' J Date Application Received on I t ) 71 ei�� Fee Paid 1Z FAC) Receipt No. `---) 1�1 The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. Land Surveyors Planners • Valley Surveying Co., P. A. i L Suite 120C (612) 44Oc ober 26, 1995 16670 Franklin Trail S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 RECORD DESCRIPTION FOR KNOB HILL: Certificate of Title No. 7870 That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of the center line of Apple Road and the north line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, which said point is the northeast corner of the tract of land originally Registered July 5, 1952, and is described in Carver County Certificate of Title #3205; thence East along the north line of said Quarter - Quarter 809.7 feet to a point marked by a Judicial Land Mark (hereinafter referred to as a JLM) ; thence South 16 degrees 42 minutes West a distance of 122.31 feet to a point marked by a JLM; thence South 45 degrees 42 minutes West a distance of 186.78 feet to a point marked by a JLM; thence South 63 degrees 42 minutes West a distance of 81.08 feet to a point marked by a JLM; thence South 70 degrees 22 minutes West a distance of 84.36 feet to a point marked by a JLM; thence South 49 degrees 12 minutes West a distance of 48.51 feet to a point marked by a JLM; thence South 36 degrees 22 minutes West a distance of 54.09 feet to a point marked by a JLM; thence South 28 degrees 17 minutes West a distance of 98.85 feet to a point marked by a JLM; thence North 21 degrees 43 minutes West a distance of 6.53 feet to a point marked by a JLM; thence South 28 degrees 17 minutes West a distance of 66.2 feet; thence South 52 degrees 57 minutes West a distance of 100.3 feet; thence South 89 degrees 32 minutes West along a line parallel with and 608.0 feet north of the south line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 385 feet more or less to the center line of said Apple Road; thence northeasterly along said center line 603.4 feet more or less to the point of beginning. That the boundary lines of the above described premises as marked by Judicial Landmarks, the locations of which are shown on the plat of said survey of F. C. Jackson on file herein, are hereby fixed and established as the boundary lines of the above described premises. Pr-.. ed by' Ronal. A. Swanson, Land Surveyor Minnesota License Number 10183 file no. 8221 PROJECT SUMMARY OF KNOB HILL CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA PROJECT LOCATION: The site is approximately 8 . 3 acres in size and is located in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2 , Township 116, Range 23 , City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota. The site is on the North boundary of Carver County bordered on the West by Yosemite Street and surrounded by various small acreage tracts. The site consists of rolling hills with a small (0 . 66 acre) wetland along Yosemite Street extending East into the property with mature stands of trees around the perimeter, and extending into the property on the North, South, and East borders. SITE DEVELOPMENT: Existing trees and topography were taken into account to design a development that would not severely impact the natural characteristics of the site and still allow for the development of 12 single family lots. To best preserve areas of mature woods, the site will be accessed by a short (470 feet) cul-de-sac running East from existing Yosemite Street, with additional lots accessed by a private driveway running South from the proposed cul-de sac. In using this method of access, it will be possible to preserve large areas of trees that would be destroyed by an East to West through street such as the extension of Lilac Lane. The existing topography in the northeast corner of the site, at the end of existing Lilac Lane, is prohibitive to street construction due to the existing steep slopes (15% - 25%) , and the number of large trees (14" - 36" Oaks, Hickory, Basswood, and Elm) that would be removed for the extension of Lilac Lane. To best preserve the existing topography and to limit the area disturbed by site grading, a variance for street grade will be required. The variance to use a ten percent (10%) grade will allow for the preservation of several 12" - 24" Pine and Cedar trees which are located at the end of the proposed cul-de-sac. The ten percent (10%) grade, while steep, will not be noticed due to a long reverse vertical curve; there will be no section of street that will actually be built at ten percent (10%) vertical grade. The street, as proposed, is at a grade of approximately eight percent (8%) . This grade will maintain the natural topography as much as possible while eliminating the need for extensive grading and tree removal in the area. Lot 10 will be accessed from existing Yosemite Street to preserve trees and avoid impact to the existing wetland. SITE UTILITIES: Lots 1, 10 and 11 will be served by the existing services as constructed in 1972 under City Project 71-1D. The balance of the site will be served by a gravity sanitary sewer system which will connect to the existing sanitary sewer in Yosemite Street by the construction of a manhole over the existing sanitary sewer line. Watermain will be constructed from the existing watermain in Yosemite Street, looped through the site and connected to the existing watermain in the Southeast corner of the site. Storm water drainage will be routed through a small stilling basin and enter the existing wetland at the Northwest corner of the wetland. WETLANDS: A Type 1 Agricultural/Urban Wetland exists on the property. This wetland is dominated by Reed Canary Grass. The low plant diversity and marginal wetland hydrology make the functions and values of this wetland low. Lots 11 and 12 require a wetland setback variance to allow for an appropriate structure. The proposed wetland setback variance for Lots 11 and 12 is 30 feet (10 foot buffer strip and 20 foot setback from buffer strip) . The 10 foot buffer strip will be monumented and maintained around the entire wetland. All other lots will have a 50 foot set back (10 foot buffer strip and 40 foot setback from buffer strip) . The alternative to the variance is to mitigate the area inside the setback requirements on Lot 12 . This mitigation would impact and disturb the wetland more than the proposed variance. Exemption #25 of the Wetland Conservation Act will be used to fill a 370 square foot "pot hole" Type 1 Agricultural/Urban Wetland located on Lots 7 and 8 . See exemption request for additional information. WETLAND EXEMPTION REQUEST PROJECT: Knob Hill Development Knoblauch Property It is requested that the City of Chanhassen issue a Wetland Fill Exemption Certificate. Using Exemption #25 of the Wetland Conservation Act, the Knoblauchs plan to fill a 370 square foot Type 1 "pothole" Agricultural/Urban wetland. Existing Characteristics: Size: < 370 square feet Type: 1 - Monotypic Vegetation: Dominant Species - Reed Canary Grass Individual Species - Green Bulrush Topography: This wetland exists in a swale "pothole" where water is trapped prior to draining to a larger Type 1 wetland. The wetland is dominated by Reed Canary Grass and only contains one additional wetland species. Wetland hydrology is very marginal (no hydrology indicators in the top 12 inches and only weak indicators from 12-18 inches) . CITY 4F CIIII. NEASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous,Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman,Building Official 4r_CA.1 , DATE: November 27, 1995 SUBJECT: 95-20 SUB(Knob Hill,John Knoblauch) Background: I was asked to review the plans stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, NOV 03 1995, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT." for the above referenced project. Below are an analysis and recommendations from the Inspections Division for the proposed project. Analysis: • Street Names. In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names, public and private, must be reviewed by the Public Safety Department. Proposed street names are not included with the submitted documents.The proposed street name may have a maximum length of three words Building Pads. Locations of proposed dwelling pads and the type of dwelling is necessary to enable the Inspections Division and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review of the structure at the time of building permit issuance. For the same reason,proposed lowest level floor elevations as well as garage floor elevations and entry level elevations are required to be indicated on the proposed pad location. Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) must be shown for proposed dwelling types. These standard designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan review process. The memo explaining these designations is enclosed. Demolition Permits. Existing structures on the property which will be demolished will require demolition permits. Proof of well abandonment, if applicable, must be furnished to the City and a permit for septic system abandonment, if applicable, must be obtained and the septic system abandoned prior to issuance of a demolition permit. Recommendations: The following conditions should be added to the conditions of approval. Bob Generous November 27, 1995 Page 2 1. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department,Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. 2. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using standard designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 3. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. enclosure: January 29, 1993 memorandum paMyaav,eespla`.trNt II ii I CITY OF V CHANHASSEN \...: ...: .r.,.,„ .. tom. `.� `' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P:O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORAN n UM TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official )t 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 be helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning behind the requirements. FLO or 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. SEWO 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. R SEWO WO FLrS;''''- n 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. t0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ? LOCATION NOTICE OF PUBLIC I ;;,d t!ILAC LANE HEARING ■ erm.1. _ : . PLANNING COMMISSION �,;'1■ �an '=`' ''`' MEETING i - ter. -�mow ww*-dir m Wednesday, DECEMBER 6, 1995 • air!. UN= NMI Mow Ai PI mush .0N at 7:00 p.m. PHE• ,• CIR?LE ,..17114121 2 ; E •�� .�?t + SRR ipid.- Chanhassen Recreation Center A��'A`Viet El FARMS' 2310 Coulter Boulevard �'�� AN 'ARK PHEASAN H/LL si �`��Z� •z ��.; PARK ��f i� kil v, Project: Knob Hill F fre ■) �. • ■� Qltr neS o i.A. Developer: John Knoblauch o r(rr4: CA- R BEACH • v-:, • Location: East side of Yosemite at the -LA GROW, , `a�.: Chanhassen-Shorewood city limits §3` °0R I Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing preliminary plat approval of 8.35 acres into 12 lots, one outlot and associated right-of-way on property zoned RSF, Single Family Residential; a variance for street grade of 10%; and a variance to wetland setback of 20 feet for Lots 11 and 12; property is located on the east side of Yosemite at the Chanhassen-Shorewood city limits. The project is known as Knob Hill. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments:If you want to see the plans before the meeting,please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project,please contact Bob at 937-1900 ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on November 23,I 1995. _ II /IL-5 William&Ginni Nordvik Steven Olson Timothy&Kristen Rosenfield 1375 Lilac Lane 1530 Creek Run Trail 1540 Creek Run Trail Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Robert&Louri Underkofler Don& Jeanne Becker Gregory &Marissa 1550 Creek Run Trail 1560 Creek Run Trail Frankenfield Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 1570 Creek Run Trial Excelsior, MN 55331 John Colburn&Laura Duncan Kevin& Jacqueline Bidgood Edmund & Marsah Fadel 1571 Creek Run Trail 1561 Creek Run Trail 1551 Creek Run Trail Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 David & Susan Arthur Susan Hume James &Norma Donovan 1541 Creek Run Trail 1531 Creek Run Trail 1375 Lilac Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Robert Sutfm& Diane McGuire Micahel &Denise Reid Scott& Joanne Dake 1320 Ithilien 1328 Ithilien 1336 Ithilien Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Robert& Sandra Hanson Mike&Ann Preble Timothy& Collen Browne 1344 Ithilien 1352 Ithilien 1360 Ithilien Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 ieffrey Smith& Lori Johnson Darwin&Mary Boutiette James & Barbara Quiring [368 Ithilien 1376 Ithilien 1384 Ithilien 3xcelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 -ohn& Deborah Marceau Kenneth&Tamra Boehm Philip & Carol Hamlin 392 Ithilien 1391 Ithilien 1385 Ithilien 3.xcelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Zandall &Diane Schwanz Edward& Rhonda Perkins David& Diann Jones 377 Ithilien 1351 Ithilien 1329 Ithilien ?xcelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 'roy Anderson Barry Conda& Gordon Koehnen Charles & Tracy Horan Cool 600 Koehnen Cir. E. 6285 Audubon Cir 1601 Koehnen Cir xcelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Stewart&Karen Reamer Stephen& Cynthia Doms Melvin Schmid 1331 Ashton Ct. 6398 Teton Lane 1620 W. 63rd Street Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Robert&Brenda Poston Kenneth L. Larson Roy Rockvam 6295 Audubon Cir 1610 W. 63rd Street 6340 Yosemite Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Kathryn T. Stoddart Shirley A. Hopf Bruce&Nanette Twaddle 1611 W. 63rd St. 6420 Yosemite 6430 Yosemite Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Carolyn J. Wise Charles B. Hebert James, Sr. &Mary Emmer PO Box 2413 6411 Yosemite 6321 Yosemite Palm Springs, CA 92263-2413 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Todd D. Bogema Mark&Kathryn Basktiansen Troy Stonier& Terry Scheurich 6371 Yosemite 6301 Yosemite 6320 Yosemite Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 City of Shorewood Attn: Planning Dept. William& Carol Wilson Mike&Lisa Kroonblawd 5755 Country Club Road 23060 Stratford Place 22020 Stratford Place Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Joyce Unruh Kathia Jo Anderson Lisa Jetland 23080 Stratford Place 22040 Stratford Place 24000 Stratford Place Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Ronald&Lori Zenk Richard& Deborah Osgood Lee Paris & Penny Rogers 22060 Stratford Place 22035 Stratford Place 23000 Stratford Place Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Carl& Marcia Walker Alan& Virginia Whitaker David & Janet Finken 22015 Stratford Place 23020 Stratford Place 22055 Stratford Place Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Roger&Ellen Bushell A. Chris & Carol Pehle Walter& Martha Cleveland 23040 Stratford Place 22075 Stratford Place 6185 Apple Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Larry&Linda Stokes Elden Beckman Thomas & Jeanne Flavin 21710 Lilac Lane 6125 Apple Road 6080 Mill Street Shorewood, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Glen&Jeanette Ames John& Jane Danser Laurie Pearson&Bradley Heppner 6145 Apple Road 21640 Lilac Lane 21780 Lilac Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood,MN 55331 Thomas &Jennifer Wilder Joseph Garaghty 21740 Lilac Lane 6075 Apple Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 12/06/95 - �� 1 • C H A N N A C CC DATE: 1/8/96 1 EN �' CASE #: 95-22 SUB By: Generous/Hempel/ STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for preliminary plat approval of 9 lots and two outiots to be used for private streets for a project known as Lotus Glen I- Z a LOCATION: 7505 Frontier Trail U APPLICANT: Ted deLancey ....1 7505 Frontier Trail CL Chanhassen, MN 55317 Q. (612) 934-7214 Q PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: 8.9 acres DENSITY: gross/net: 1.0 units per acre ADJACENT ZONING , AND LAND USE: N- RSF,beach lot S - RSF, single-family homes E- RSF, single-family homes W- RSF, Frontier Trail and proposed Lotus Woods subdivision QWATER AND SEWER: Available to the site aPHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site has a significant elevation change that splits the eastern and western portions of the site. Elevations change from 974 feet in the east to 912 feet in the west. b.J The rolling topography has approximately 85 percent tree canopy coverage consisting of ash, F.. balsam,basswood, birch,black willow, cherry, maple, oak, and pines. A wetland runs south to -- north in the western portion of the property. V 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density(Net Density Range 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre) 1- 111. HI::14,14. TN Vellititik‘IrtpE plA..1.71(?..): I: 111111111"' N711111111111111.7111 T. .MEADOW . 101144©� �'t o .. . • ,��\ A /Y E • GREEN PARK �� /07 �, �►,, t&41 � # 11il\t �� 1 - ) 7orptikorwrio ' .________,,,,-0 .,' . !._ Bra rianiurd....4 7.' )• -\, i ) t 4 • g 4giogk ,I.,. _--:;2--alaiikilll% i - mayAs r 1-11 ron r zA3 L0 ATI ■■ �o �� p N�� Oaroir,„" C 0 N cren W NAI P O'_. • ItrEf1' 11�j d P (PVT) tF ! 'il • �/t�,► , . el �7 nNicHoLAsie 1 %%%%%%..._ ..- \,_I,k it la ii4 Er MEI 0 relpF;II _______________,it W 1 11111 l I I 1 11 un .. Y mm1 sui am _`' mil &FHA* OL'S N• oR �y: � ? [I l 1111111 - �i�`�1 ® ,� �N "i =- I 1 111 ' %°. 4000 1 i NI III AA". ' 1-7. itill Y Ro•0 II ili.c,„ `Wr �•r a° rig Ef IV WEERN STAT101 " AA 1 DRIVE f HIGHWAY > MOPE !0 NO • jit•s.' •r •, ' �U w / 0_2O.1 ii 0/14 41 r7Jit'1 •ow EMI � w ? 1 _ • Ee. s s• ��:� .��44.�►meq � , ri _ i t_4.r. ,� PARK I �t{` ' „ ,AM .. �/° mN As o d� ' •^',gyp siva l,1 o t. R/CE �5Iimit4 41201744, , MARS w„T .17Im Alt �� I LAKE IIFfOIK �:- �� ' ' a 1 ;I CIRCLE PARK %+�'. `el� � ��' 0- .,_� �1 J,, LAKE SUSAN 'hall _ ' m L .. I ' I&( '/ . 'R /' `... z R�C vOz LIIIN Air• '''r------ -–== —ti p :1);<> 412 31 :- LitE ctioninn0 -.Pr ,_ . , lit) . 0,;F; • Ea 11, g ir ' I ' SV4r ill % 3iis;,k.Tri. fir (.(. __ er. _ .0 lzeo,z,..--.. mill MISSION -....- - � -oiV4i!I1iip' 1 HILLS/��TRAILANIFI M WAYS fgi .„i_i WAY -- '� ..7 in a WEST :` nt FAST IAA' ' PC ,r ,.�r � j ,i 1 T COURT OG FR11T O� �� Lotus Glen December 6, 1995 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing a nine lot subdivision on approximately 8.9 acres of land. The subdivision will be served by two private drives with no internal public streets. The site has significant environmental features including bluff areas(slopes in excess of 30 percent with elevation changes of 25 feet or more), extensive canopy coverage(staff estimates in excess of 85 percent),and a wetland system. The use of large lots with an average area of 38,560 square feet preserves much of the site in its natural state. The proposed development lies within the shoreland management district. For nonriparian lots,the minimum lot area is 15,000 square feet which the development exceeds. The proposed development will be screened from the lake through the preservation of extensive wooded areas. Staff believes that the applicant has underestimated in their calculations of the canopy coverage of the site and the bluff areas within the project. Bluff The attached figure delineates the bluff areas and setbacks from both bluffs and wetlands according to the City's ordinance. Staff recommends that the building pads on Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 be pulled up and away from the bluffs. Based on this figure, Lot 5 is not developable. The applicant shall field verify that there is a buildable area without variances. Lot 4 can be built on, however, the building pad location will have to be moved north out of the bluff setback. Lots 1 and 2 are buildable,however,a variance is necessary for the steep driveway to access the lots. It will be very difficult to exit the lots onto Frontier Trail with the steep grades and poor site lines. Staff recommends Lot 1 be served via the proposed private street. This would require a driveway culvert and some filling of the wetland/creek to access the site. On Lot 2,the driveway should be shifted to the north approximately 180 feet to run parallel with the grade of the site. Staff met with the applicant's engineer on Wednesday,November 29, 1995,to discuss the bluff protection ordinance and staff initial findings. At the meeting, staff agreed on what will be considered the top and toe of the bluff(City Code defines these points as"the point where there is, as visually observed, a clearly identifiable break in the slope, . . . If no break in the slope is apparent, the toe and top shall be determined to be the lower and upper ends of a 50 foot segment, measured on the ground,with an average slope exceeding 18 percent"). The applicant's engineer will prepare the analysis based on this consensus and present their findings and calculations for review by the Planning Commission. Lotus Glen December 6, 1995 Page 3 Trees Staff estimates that the baseline canopy coverage is over 85%as opposed to the applicant's estimate of 76%, making the minimum canopy coverage required at 55%. Tree removal due to house pads, roads, and pond appears to be underestimated. Grading that appears on the grading plan is not shown to affect tree removal on the tree preservation plan. Also, removal shown around building pads range from 0 to 15 feet while in reality removal will be approximately 15 feet around the entire building pad. Staff has submitted a tree removal plan that more closely represents the minimum amount of removal to be expected. Staff requests new calculations and surveys be submitted. Staff believes that the proposed subdivision is an environmentally sensitive way to develop the site and is recommending approval of the subdivision subject to the conditions of the staff report. BACKGROUND The deLancey home is located in the north central portion of the site. An existing sanitary sewer line runs from Erie Avenue,along the southern portion of the property,and then follows the wetland to the northwest up to Frontier Trail. WETLANDS There is a jurisdictional wetland on site that is classified as a combination of an intermittent stream and a palustrine forested wetland. Staff requires a wetland delineation report for this site. The wetland follows the stream bed at widths of 10 to 20 feet wide covering an area of approximately 0.2 acre. Considering the forested regime with sparse understory and low impact from urban or agricultural practices,this wetland should be classified as natural. This will allow for maximum buffer protection through the City's wetland ordinance. A buffer strip of 10 to 30 feet with an average of 20 feet should be maintained along the wetland. Type III erosion control is required to be installed where construction will take place adjacent the wetlands until re-vegetation is established. City staff recommends the applicant contact the Natural Resource Conservation Service(NRCS) for a seeding plan that will be most effective in the wooded areas. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN(SWMP) The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan(SWMP)that serves as a tool to protect, preserve, and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective,the stormwater quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general,the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker,Jr.'s Pondnet Lotus Glen December 6, 1995 Page 4 model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use,and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. The development will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's SWMP. The City has an opportunity with this development to improve water quality to Lotus Lake. The City's SWMP calls for a 4-cell sediment and nutrient trap which totals about 2 acres of surface area and 8 acre-feet of volume. According to the SWMP, this system was situated along the creek bed to treat approximately 56 acres that drains through this area. It is clear that ponding throughout the creekbed is not acceptable, however, staff needs to evaluate the maximum ponding area on this site in conjunction with the analysis that has already been completed on the proposed Lotus Lake Woods development on the west side of Frontier Trail. The ponding area designed for the Lotus Lake Wood development was to trap only sediment for an additional 63 acres that drains through that property. Therefore, some additional treatment on the deLancey parcel is necessary to provide nutrient retention. Staff may have to do some compromising on water quality treatment in order to protect slopes and wooded areas. Staff recommends that Cecilio Olivier with Bonestroo, Rosene &Anderlik Associates complete a thorough water quality and quantity analysis on the deLancey parcel since he is also familiar with the study on the Lotus Lake Woods parcel. As with the Lotus Lake Woods development,the City will be drafting a cost sharing agreement to enter into with the applicant for reimbursement of the ponding improvements. The City will also work with the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association to acquire any necessary easements outside the plat. Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall 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. The proposed SWMP water quality charge of$800/acre for single family resident developments. Fees are based on a total developable land area of 8.9 acres minus the existing wetland of 0.2 acres. Therefore,the applicant is required to pay$6,960 in water quality fees. Credits will be given for providing the storm drainage/ponding system required. Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts,open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single Lotus Glen December 6, 1995 Page 5 family residential developments have a connection charge of$1,980 per developable acre. The total gross area of the property is 8.7 acres as discussed above. Therefore,the proposed development would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of$17,226. The oversizing of the regional pond and infrastructure will be credited to the applicant at the time of final plat. This fee will be due payable to the City at time of final plat recording. GRADING& DRAINAGE The site is very difficult to develop due to the bluffs and forested area. Each lot will be custom graded to minimize tree removal. Individual grading, drainage, erosion control, and tree preservation plans will be required for review and approval by the City at time of building permit application. The attached figure delineates the bluff areas and setbacks from both bluffs and wetlands according to the City's ordinance(a bluff is defined as having a slope of 30 percent or greater and having an elevation change of 25 feet or more). The proposed building locations were sketched on the figure as a reference. Staff recommends that the building pads on Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 be pulled up and away from the bluffs. Based on this figure, Lot 5 is not developable. The applicant shall field verify that there is a buildable area without variances. Lot 4 can be built on, however, the building pad location will have to be moved north out of the bluff setback. Lots 1 and 2 are buildable, however as proposed, a variance is necessary for the steep driveway to access the lots. It will be very difficult to exit the lots onto Frontier Trail with the steep grades and poor site lines. Staff recommends Lot 1 be served via the proposed private street. This would require a driveway culvert and some filling of the wetland/creek to access the site. On Lot 2,the driveway should be shifted to the north approximately 180 feet to run parallel with the grade of the site. The site drains northwesterly via a creek that drains directly into Lotus Lake. Water quality treatment is a high priority in this area due to the large area that drains through here. The applicant will need to submit to the City detailed storm drainage calculations for the storm sewers as well as ponding calculations for a 2-, 10-,and 100-year storm event,24-hour duration for both pre- and post-development conditions for staff review and approval. Additional storm drainage improvement may be required to convey storm runoff from the proposed east private driveway to the creek. Staff will review this after receipt of the storm drainage calculations. EROSION CONTROL Erosion measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook(BMPH). The final grading plan shall incorporate type I erosion control around the perimeter of the construction limits and type III erosion control along the Lotus Glen December 6, 1995 Page 6 perimeter of the wetland. Rock construction entrance shall be employed and maintained at all access points until the driveways have been paved with a bituminous surface. UTILITIES Utility service for this development is fairly straightforward. The City has an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer line which runs through the parcel from Frontier Trail along the creek to Erie Avenue. The plans propose on extending an 8-inch sewer line from the existing sewer line along the easterly private street to service Lots 6 through 9. Water service is proposed by extending an 8- inch water line from Erie Avenue along the existing sanitary sewer alignment to Frontier Trail. A 6-inch line will also be extended to service Lots 6 through 9 along the easterly private street. Individual services will be extended from these lines to service each lot. Some tree canopy loss should be anticipated with the installation of these utilities. Typically, a strip of 30 to 35-foot wide of vegetation will be lost. Fire hydrant placement will be determined by the City's fire marshal in conjunction with the construction plan review process. Since these utilities will be owned and maintained by the City upon completion,the improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. Since there are public improvements involved with this development,the developer will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of final plat approval. The final plat shall dedicate drainage and utility easements over the public utility lines a minimum of 20-feet wide. STREETS Given the topographic features of the site, staff and the applicant have worked to preserve trees and reduce grading by the use of private streets versus public streets. There is no further need to provide access to the adjacent parcels as well. The private streets shall be constructed in accordance with the City's private driveway ordinance which requires a 20-foot wide bituminous surface capable of supporting 7-ton per axle weight. Parking will also be prohibited on the private streets. The applicant will need to dedicate cross-access easements and prepare maintenance agreements for the private streets. In addition,turnarounds will have to be constructed to meet the City Fire Marshal's requirements. The driveway access to Lots 1 and 2 should be relocated. Lot 1 should gain access via the private street. A culvert will be required to cross the creek as well as some minor filling of the wetlands to achieve this. Lot 2 should be accessed further to the north where the grades would be more manageable. Lotus Glen December 6, 1995 Page 7 PRIVATE STREET FINDINGS In order to permit private streets, the city must find that the following conditions exist: (1) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination, the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. (2) After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area,improve access,or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. (3) The use of the private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources including wetlands and forested areas. Finding: Due to the typography within the area and the extensive trees on the site,the use of public streets within the project would negatively impact the environment. In addition,there is no need to provide a street connection to adjacent properties which are currently being accessed from existing streets. MISCELLANEOUS Frontier Trail will be upgraded sometime in the future. The street right-of-way of Frontier Trail is unidentified with this submittal. Staff recommends that the applicant dedicate on the final plat the necessary street right-of-way to achieve a 30-foot wide strip of land lying east of the existing centerline of Frontier Trail. This may slightly impact the building setback on Lot 1 but there appears to be sufficient room to move the building pad to accommodate this requirement. LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION The Lotus Glen development is a heavily wooded site with rolling topography. The primary species found on site are red oaks and sugar maples, followed by green ash,basswood, and a mix of lowland hardwoods. Health and productivity of the woods is good represented by a number of mature, older trees,numerous medium sized trees, and many seedlings. Construction will have the greatest impact on the large,mature trees and specifically the red oaks, sugar maples, and basswood. Each of these tend to react quickly and negatively to construction damage making this site very sensitive to development. Baseline canopy coverage is over 85%, making the minimum canopy coverage required 55%. Tree removal due to house pads, roads, and pond appears to be underestimated. Grading that appears on the grading plan is not shown to affect tree removal on the tree preservation plan. Lotus Glen December 6, 1995 Page 8 Also, removal shown around building pads range from 0 to 15 feet while in reality removal will be approximately 15 feet around the entire building pad. Staff has submitted a tree removal plan that more closely represents the minimum amount of removal to be expected. Staff requests new calculations and surveys be submitted. Due to the notable quality and beauty of the site's wooded area, staff recommends that a fifteen foot tree removal limit be placed around all building pads. Builders would not be allowed to clear more than fifteen extra feet outside the pad. An additional recommendation for retaining canopy cover and mature trees is to pull the four homes that will be accessed from Erie Avenue closer to the private drive and away from the slope and reduce the total number of lots. Staff requests that the applicant clarify the means by which they will install the water line and potential sewer line. Approximately, a forty to forty-five foot swath would need to be cleared in order to install the line from the top down. The path would clear-cut approximately three- quarters of an acre of trees in addition to the removals for the pond, drives, and homes. This removal area has not been included in the applicant's calculations and will have a significant impact on the appearance of the site. Staff recommends that applicant use a trench box to install the water line in order to avoid any additional tree removal and protect the aesthetic worth of the site. COMPLIANCE TABLE AREA(SQ FT) FRONTAGE(FT) DEPTH(FT) WETLAND SETBACK CODE 15,000 100 125 20' +40' Lot 1 32,238 147 204 20' +40' Lot 2 42,100 295 223 20' +40' Lot 3 64,435 153 287 NA Lot 4 23,266 268 130 NA Lot 5 27,683 170 177 20' +40' Lot 6 30,758 121 200 NA Lot 7 27,174 115 216 NA Lot 8 38,612 119 262 NA Lot 9 60,780 373 291 NA Outlot A 13,939 Outlot B 24,394 Total 385,942 Minimum building setbacks: Front-30 feet,side- 10 feet,rear-30 feet,bluff- 30 feet,and wetlands -20 foot buffer strip plus 40 foot from the edge of the buffer strip. Maximum building height within the shoreland district is 35 feet. Lotus Glen December 6, 1995 Page 9 Maximum lot coverage: 25 percent. PARK AND RECREATION The Park and Recreation Commission met on November 28, 1995 and recommended that full park and trail fees be required in lieu of park land dedication. FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF,Residential Single Family District. There is a question as to whether or not Lot 5 complies with the requirements of the bluff protection ordinance. Staff is requesting that the applicant verify that a building pad on this lot does comply with the ordinance. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city,county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions if approved. Due to the severe slopes, extensive forestation, and wetlands on site,the applicant is proposing lots that exceed the minimum code requirements,which improve the environmental protection of the property. Lotus Glen December 6, 1995 Page 10 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Findin : The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements,but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of preliminary plat for Lotus Glen(#95-22 SUB)of 8.9 acres into 9 lots and two outlots for private streets subject to the following conditions: 1. Submit street names to Fire Marshal for approval. 2. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants,pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. 3. Approved tum-arounds must be provided for fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet. Re-submit plan and dimensions pursuant to 1991 U.F.C. Sec. 10.204 (d). 4. Additional fire hydrant will be required by Lot 6 and at the entrance off Frontier Trail. 5. Entrance signage must comply with City Code requirements. A separate sign permit must be submitted for any signage. 6. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. 7. Dwellings on slopes exceeding 25% and dwellings with 102" or more of unequal fill will be required to be designed by a structural engineer. Lotus Glen December 6, 1995 Page 11 8. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. 9. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The applicant shall contact the Natural Resource Conservation Service for a seed mixture that will be effective in wooded areas. 10. The applicant shall field verify and document the bluff areas on site. The applicant shall relocate the building pads on Lots 6 through 9 up away from the bluff to meet setback requirements and field verify that there is a buildable area without variances on Lot 5. The driveway access to Lot 1 shall be relocated from Frontier Trail to the private driveway and shift the driveway access to Lot 2 approximately 180 feet north to run parallel with the grade. 11. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with the City's SWMP for the City to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins,created basins,and or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition,water quality ponding design calculations for the 2-, 10-,and 100-year storm shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. The City will be contracting review of this work to Bonestroo. 12. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County,Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission,Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 14. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the utilities and ponding areas. Lotus Glen December 6, 1995 Page 12 15. The applicant shall have a wetland delineation report prepared for the site. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign. 16. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level. 17. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in accordance to City and Minnesota Department of Health codes/regulations. 18. The proposed single family residential development of 8.7 developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of$6,960 and a water quantity fee of$17,226. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. Credits will be given to these fees based on the applicant providing for the City's SWMP requirements and will be deducted from the totals after final plat review. 19. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 20. The public utility system shall be constructed in accordance with the City utility standards. The private streets shall be constructed in accordance with current city ordinances. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. The plans shall be designed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's standard specifications and detail plates. Final plat approval is contingent upon approval of the construction plans by the Chanhassen City Council. 21. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat the necessary right-of-way to achieve a 30-foot wide strip of land lying east of the existing centerline of Frontier Trail. 22. The applicant shall enter into a cost sharing agreement with the City for reimbursement of the ponding improvements. 23. Individual grading,drainage,tree preservation,and erosion control plans will be required for each lot at the time of building permit applicant for the City to review and approve. 24. A fifteen foot tree removal limit shall be established around all building pads. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to excavation and grading. Tree removal limits shall be shown on all building permit surveys. Lotus Glen December 6, 1995 Page 13 25. Applicant must use a trench box for the installation of the water line in order to minimize impact on canopy coverage. 26. Applicant must submit revised canopy coverage and removal calculations as well as a revised survey showing the appropriate coverage and removal area. 27. Park and trail fees are required per city ordinance in lieu of park land dedication." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Development Review Application 2. Project Summary and Narrative,Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 3. Letter from Joe Richter to Robert Generous dated 11/22/95 4. Preliminary Plat(reduction) 5. Letter from Ted&Kathy deLancey to neighbors dated 10/22/95 6. Memo from Steve Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 11/27/95 7. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 8. Lotus Glen Proposed Development Bluff and Wetland Setbacks 9. Tree Removal -Lotus Glen CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Ted H. de Lancey OWNER: (SAME) ADDRESS: 7505 Frontier Trail ADDRESS: Chanhassen, MN 55317 TELEPHONE (Day time) (612) 934-7214 TELEPHONE: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review k. Notification Signs /•:•-;,:) 9. X Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SPRNAC/VAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) 10. X Subdivision / r; TOTAL FEE $ �Ok� A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 81/2" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. * NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME LOTUS GLEN LOCATION 7505 FRONTIER TRAIL LEGAL DESCRIPTION (SEE SURVEY/PRELIMINARY PLAT AND NARRATIVE) PRESENT ZONING RSF - SINGLE FAMILY RES. REQUESTED ZONING (SAME) PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION LOW DENSITY RES. REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION (SAME) REASON FOR THIS REQUEST SUBDIVISION TO 9 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS UNDER THE RSF ZONING DISTRICT. This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. .�� / IJC319 Signature of Applicant Date Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. 57W00 The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 14180 Trunk Hwy.5 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 612-9375150 November 6, 1995 FAX 612-937-5822 LOTUS GLEN Chanhassen, MN PROJECT SUMMARY AND NARRATIVE Ref. No. 95297 PROJECT SUMMARY PROJECT NAME Lotus Glen(Plat Name) LOCATION East of Frontier Trail at Santa Fe Trail (see Location Map attached) APPLICANT/OWNER Ted deLancey PO Box 24 Chanhassen, MN 55317 phone; 612-934-7214 PLANNER/ENGINEER/SURVEYOR Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 14180 Trunk Hwy. 5 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 contact: Ed Hasek phone: 612- 937-5150 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Generally-Lot 13 and part of Lots 14 and 16 lying west of a line drawn from a point on the south line of Lot 16 189.4 feet west of the Southeast corner to a point on the Northerly line of Lot 14 112.5 feet Westerly from the Northwest corner of Lot 14, Auditor's Subdivision#2, Carver County, Minnesota(see sheet 1 of 5 for complete Legal Description). EXISTING LAND USE The property is currently developed as single large lot single family residents. Structures include the residence and two small out buildings Westwood orolessanal Seances.Inc.s an east oaoortuner enatorer The property is currently accessed from full frontage along Frontier Trail to the west,and a 33 foot access on Erie Avenue to the east. Surrounding land uses include single family residence to the west, south and east, and beyond a common outlot to the north. DEVELOPMENT DATA Existing Zoning: RSF, Single Family Residential Proposed Zoning: RSF, Single Family Residential Existing Guide Plan: Low Density Residential, 1.2-4.0 un/ac Proposed Land Use: Low Density Residential EXISTING CONDITIONS The site consists of rolling topography covered approximately 76%by mixed overstory canopy. The site elevations range from a low of 912 feet in the northwest corner to a high of 974 feet along the east central property boundary. Overstory vegetation varies significantly and includes areas of willow, boxelder, oak, and maple species. Also, dispersed throughout the property are several cherry,fir, spruce, and cottonwoods. Site soils consist of the Hayden Series as described in the Soils Survey for Carver County. The low depressional area in the northwest corner of the property consists of Glenco Series soils. Slopes in excess of 30%exist along the north edge of the property adjacent to a drainage way flowing into Lotus Lake to the east, and in the south central area of the site(see Existing Conditions, sheet 2 of 4). The property was viewed by a wetlands specialist, and wetlands were staked and surveyed along a drainage swale running south to north through the west central part of the site. A significant portion of the wetland as delineated was previously disturbed by the installation of a sanitary line and a driveway crossing. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/REQUESTED ACTION This proposal is for the Subdivision of a single large lot consisting of approximately 8.9 acres into 9 single family lots under the RSF zoning ordinance. Lots will be accessed via common drives, or private drives off Frontier Trail and Erie Ave. It is our understanding that the project will require no variances. We are seeking Preliminary Nat approval at this time. Final Plat application will follow directly. Site Data Total Site Area -8.9 ac. Total Lots - 9 Single Family Net Density -1.1 un./ac. Gross Density -1.0 un./ac. Minimum Lot Area -23,265 t s.f. Average Lot Area -38,560±s.f. PROJECT SUMMARY AND NARRATIVE LOTUS GLEN Page 2 Phasing With approval of this project it is anticipated that construction could begin in the spring of 1996. Project completion will be dependent on marketing success and is anticipated to be finalized by the end of 1998. TREE INVENTORY All trees 12 inch DBH were surveyed and tagged in May, 1995. Diseased and severely damaged trees were subsequently noted in the field. A list of all trees surveyed is attached as Exhibit A. ENGINEERING Grading The site ranges in elevation from a low of 912 at the proposed storm pond,to a high of 974 at the east central edge of the site. Initial grading will be limited to that necessary to construct the utilities and private road extension. Each lot will be custom graded to suit the home to the lot. It is the intent and desire of the applicant to protect and preserve the greatest number of the overstory trees possible. Road alignments and tentative home sites have been located to minimize impacts on slopes,trees, and wetlands as much as possible. Water An 8 inch water line will be looped through the site along an existing sanitary sewer line from Frontier trail east to Erie Ave. A 6 inch line will be extended north to the end of the private drive to serve lots in the eastern half of the project. Individual services will be extended to serve each lot. Storm Water Storm water will flow along proposed streets in drainage ditches and be directed to the storm pond via the existing drainage way on site. The proposed storm pond is being designed to handle drainage from beyond the project boundaries in conjunction with the City's Storm Water Management Plan. Sanitary Sewer Sanitary sewer will be designed to gravity flow to the existing 8 inch line which flows from east to west across the property. All residential services will also gravity flow either to the existing line, or to proposed extensions. deLancey Residence The plat has been designed to accommodate the existing deLancey residence within the setbacks of Lot#3. A redeveloped building pad has been suggested on the Preliminary Plans, but the disposition of reconstruction of the existing structure is unclear at this time PROJECT SUMMARY AND NARRATIVE LOTUS GLEN Page 3 CONCLUSION As with many properties in this area of Chanhassen,this is a difficult site to develop. Given the canopy coverage,topographic relief, and the limited opportunities for access to the site,we believe the project, as proposed, is well suited to the property, and provides the City of Chanhassen with a large lot residential development it will be proud of. Lotus Glen is consistent with the comprehensive plan and conforms to the City's zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations. We respectfully request your favorable review and approval of our proposed development. PROJECT SUMMARY AND NARRATIVE LOTUS GLEN Page 4 • I(' • .,-,;? • : ty N-4. .\:',... :.•, ,--",:, 1, • ,., _ 4- 14%ILA>.- ''.'.;44...•1,4- 1: I • . .`:-. ''7..'4. ...•••. Si, ' • 1. . • ic.. .41o, .. . N1/4.- te4.4„,4t„,. fN.s, a -IP' e•r• .• -- , •..,v . .,..- . • .:- •.• • 7.4t+% 2- .7 ". ' . •'''.'.'"--"'... , -..''' -. *4 • • ' . .1-, 1 44.- .,4t, -4k. • - t-31..'.lir •.s..i. 'Ortr..V • •.aZ.:4,-Z4'.•• ••••,14.1 .1 ..!:AL-V .1.': etis .74, •• 4'" .11*...," 477 it: "• . 10 •1'74%. • lel'•-• vifft.00.e. - . .. e;,.,, -,.. '..:'.. -ittr-115• 7 s, ' ‘43-: '4 '• • . • .,I:: -.' I ' >:' I i ' 4.4`;'• .rot9 ..;...,........4:, • . . . ...._. .. 44k _ ss;,!...:.;.. --c.:-....y.;•: •..,./r'.: ..,....4. T .---77;t:74.t:':.! %Vt... ,.;.,: ..',•, 4 : ,..v. lor 114,1•••• • '„,1,11eSk., -74.81M...*.* ,,,, , ,,,. +. , .7".411:47114."'(441.,,aa.4 ••••••'' • .....41:k..... , ..... 7 "If we.a.- ":--t-... •••, *- , ",- .' vi••".,.. '...,..-,ZI,,3 ist._;;Ni..„, ;IN; . •. •-' ., ...• t, l'. '•7,_ ---- 4 . • ` • 7f#.049. 006640.."*Ibli .4 81 !10110LI41.4,,N.V:. '°:,..' MI' Vlb: ,, -..1 '_ _ ,..'.' . ,...:• .i.;;". .. ..' ,Z.'"..-..-311,t:^e!.n.i k cIPAI. . e-b7, .' i 4 'e ‘4) A . --t. 4i.,,;. P-• ' -N -' - - -- ..:'- - itt., r -. 'I I:. . -_-%! -- -1-*XL.-,• t. ''.4.lkti.v. "4- -Ili" - ..,.4.1a/ .1. 1,..dri 4,- ,_...„..toy-s4....?,_-_.:. _... „,_mr-..,,,•..,,-..- .-.-.. , -,-„,,,‘ .7., • •• t- •• -3, ,:,104!.. I •111.44v):1).., :A ),..,.. ... c.10;-),.. - "N. N.NW . ...:•01rp. . la. .e....- 7 .-407.cori,....:- ----1.:.1-7,..;.,,,..!.,r.. . ':-..;,,.;-,-....4 '•- .4,4),41 'PAN,. J. .44 ,.• -' - -...- ' •-.."-kl•-.• -- 14.17-et , ... , . • ..-,,. .1., . ____.- ..- . .,. -- ...'1"•• ,,,,,e... :*"." te. ;el I.4r 4,42.00;...10 .,.:4",......1i4.7'7 t.• • ................k.,%\... • ,,., , W.. --....l. . • . ,,•••„000......00/21to,,,,, ...„, ...4.; 400•;74 NO, liwf . •-.1.1.114.., .- 1,110...*:. *...",..., -.7_ • , : _ ,•:,,...,_ • .. .. ...„.„._....- :•., ......,,,..,...,„ . 4 4,,,..1.,.4 ..„. _r.....,.... -- --.........-.A.-,7_, z•-,_„,--,,z.. ..• • , • ., : _ .t• - -1,, 44 ... ...„-....„. •• ill__,... 41 4000: -...• -..•••••• A - .........N. •"""•••••.-,t.... • "."'''...••='••' - ' ... .•••1;:doe .-"iiaa,..4%. 4404.4 `.::4-:: .....: ..‘i.%4.47.7.t.:1111 . - ...k . ... 4 . ..t_.,...1 ' ...• 0 . .,'"111"•••- ,.. ..,.......eraiorii,"" • 'P.-* •N.. .1-'"'" ".;07 4:1'*.'..".!. . N.'.., 6 :;, ,"--e," ...--"..-. .":1- --,-'..-•**AR:. '''----_.---'0.:..!-- -.---:,,=--:14P1,",Ad` .. 4:- •.• ,... , „---N ... _ ..,,, , ./A .k2"'. -. ,. C.• •••§1••;:./ 'ne4 .ttlY1004.!..I.„:.:. .•.'folit;% . '/"..L ;,.........::...-.1 • /...,..irt :.1 ... . gr. .1 .P';•.., / 'V -sr..... . ;lk ,rapktra .- ...:.. 44,1,0j, 4.://. - ., ; . . -._t__..-.-"'":::.:--'48 ' - •T . ' ........" . _ 2/1k..W..„:,,,e,,...;:„./011-- .1., _..„.11( ------ ••.•*: '''\.4. . ;, ....,•!.!, ..„..-~mal. p..',„ .i. 4 )0. . •'.• -. t lie k? . i 1,...siFi7e. .3sii--„,-: oN,....kr•-, „ :.:-..-L.--_-,.-.,!, „;;....z..e. . ': ,,,, .if .r..,Y‘;_„....c4:-;•.,b-zes=7;e-.4- --;* •*--..,....'. ...;:,....,.- ,r`•114, •.14.,i,' •,,, -. ;-• : 1 ..- ..V. ' '."‘,47‘.',',.. •' o•'4••AX- ' '414).•, -.....-::;-_-_,......4-• ,,,„, *At: . A.... i *':' :•• '- "', e-' t. .s•r-- "- • -1!,Or'11. 1!,Reff• • s• -.. • ''' • - 1 2.1 ac. v .1.:7*.- - • , 4F..„,, .5,...3.v. ..:. . • ..,......t.--:-..,-.. 1411.: ••• -AIN ,, ..•,:.,- . ..t'..ft .7 4,.'- ' ::. ' , -. if ), '4.. f:.",`..7/ 4 . .--:-..--1,-- _ .,.: • ...1.. .....1, 1 .....- i • . . • fr.',' 1910., i • .... ; . 4.t. ) -•'• ' 4 --IV Av.••" "T % . ' . 'i .-:' 'r• '''71‘.# k-. -.-'11,---"r- if • '. ''.. - pf ' ,. .. / ,...- , t.i•T ,..-. . . x....„.. .t ,. , . . ..,! ,,,. .• .- I -' J., ... , . . ,....-ip .. ... ,•-•'7,A 7. ' • '". :: .-:!7•.4-07:: ... • AA. ' -; : t < "', •..-• :t§ei• ''- -L. ....7y.'• .7.f. \''`.•., .t..."``•-•,-.. , ‘• : '' .1 r .;,.. _. ....,.. --- •., . -- . --. -..- :_-_. IP -kieit - ''''. ''ci •• •".'5t-; , "3 ,i6-5 4 • ,..-. . t ' • • \ Nts, .. . •........ ........,. t • ..-1,....:1.... ..)(....1 -...7' 7 • : .17.;#:414.it.1 Pi..:1 e 4.1 I••:/" ,0:•-t[s.".7...:'r.:a 4.IN4..-.7;1 151:41;4:::: ‘7;:il::.:1-',.„rik•.:4"A":.:-07;"7.1::.,,,,0114:•-•'...i:'....:-.711:..-'..1:1:01:.;:I.A:7.I. -1 5t k. •• '‘ • 'N' "'••s.. ".s_,,..s, ! t 'C' '\4•.: •,:.•‘• ' ..\rb?•. la iii.. Stil• . itk -••„ , 0• .15. Ni. , Am' 7 , 4 A 1: ...1. - , - •Z;.•••••,... - r. '''s••,„L74„,. .',•r. te, )00:,... NI •••A ,;.• i ...,,..•N,,.. . .1{t,i-7-'".2-. •allb . •;7(.. •:,-•14._:. :.: 7 ta-47...,4".'":-..,'-"*•. •• . : N.7.* .• .. ..'.... . ....' k'..„-.• . . .,;.• , • ••••.1...,-;AO'fp'•• . , ..., • k r ' - : I iiilki. •.. ' -Ifk ..4.. . I . .-....,v, ..,_ . - _. 11, t. . •_ -:.'t•-•*.4,. kt, kt 4.;,.•... .. vf. • -,,---k; .-: -,„... • -Iv. : • , ...... ..• ..„ , •a ". SUBJECT PROPERTY.• . . ..z.::..-- . .,,..-,..- • .. p.-- 4.- ,,5 .-....,.:bki.1 . 1 ,., ..,,,•;3.- ‘`) , rie7A:&......k.re.:"....,,.-:---...-41:'.,,‘• .; ..,--r ' --i-,-..L. ...-e-4 , t, t 4 - is• .'''. .!•••rs-,1,.,- iii v i.' , ,'`,•011-t. N. .4:... ‘ ' ..S.- I .•• • " .., :.A', 't•• •- 4*•=--e-.- **- r• r I../ ‘. t.,/ ,',..,..L • ' - I.. T --I .14...._..../ 6-, . 7:14154'. i , , -- .....-- 31 .., 6 8 .: - •-• ,'- •• ttts.-- ' • .--. 901/11 k-•;N4. 41V.•-Is..:24i/. ....,•-•:c; •-•\.\\. z.-'• .4., -...7ex f . . • •,--• :Ng • .7:...e;!.':'.:l: .N1, .. . 4 '- . C.- -• :,•,- ' . : •.' '4\1 .•.. ...... aii,„7------ ..,... , .• ,I.,\ :-..•F 7 -•A .. ...,... _ \,:•:: .,r.fe4.rite..„ 1 •-•--1.-• - '------.: . - 1.34;f• 9. . E • .1 - ,' . FS. • .it; .' '7'.s. r--4-. .-4.,. .., - • ilia ,.....c.........‘ . ----. .,- ----1;1:4 .. • '• • • &4` .X,. •• '-z•. -- --.- 1.-' '-•1111°. ' ):, , ; .;f c .4.2. . .- -.X, ' -:45%-q.' 1 1%- .. .'+.'1'. '4Z..,. 2 :; .• ' --'-...1- . , ... ,,.., . \ •‘,..'. .,.. ! . , •. ....I.:. -4,..., .. : .. •...Ik `•,I, "...,;14,-Akitocii........., ... •.:... , . ..;.ewe k % ..i.;,:. -- 44 rok .4..'''. . 4 . "ci,..., .. 4 .t • ,.7:4 ., Jr .. lik-,... • . -.... ' ..-7 f••'11.. . c.7.- v -• e/1 .•4.---' ...." '' • ''''‘• •'%,:. 'Y' '''' ., c.4,1",,'4-, •'sb• 4 -: 'Is: - . -ftk :•.-1,' • 7" rf,---:".--:t•--' ": 7.4\ • '' *-----1 -4 '.• _.:tlirft.- •",-- . .' II , ;,,'• ty,-?, .%, .,. ..„. * 6, • . . 4 .. •-. .. \ • i . *• •.;. LA,. • ..... ••.:., ?•-•-*/' • . : -..i.,;.i. , . .v. . •-:-.•% ttt"-„_ :: .',6.0.7_-7_4-..._.,, •,.% . , . --'4•••‘*: • •--41'..' :.'04.,•:•. -!.1. .t..!' '''• :' j- V14:74kj. - IP,-, %I . . - '• .'"'"- ..,..i:-Nrr. 11:1 -..;7,-.,14.=:.Z.2: ..s..--'... 1.111 1 I. V ..: ,• -.. .... .. _ '' a_7A-s4- __''". ' - ,'' 'I ; N, It N: ' •,j I...c..1.1. ..'. . , ' pVIL•11,,..:•.: : rA , • r i! . 'A, .‘I th,, , 1 '':t-,---;7, ...c • •-14 ,-..-... ;,-......---,,-. ,, it,. ,.: -,- .* ....• ... • , ... -. ....., , 11;"7,... . '''' ' `. ileete,:iutrea T-...-/ 7 S• 345 tV iv.:101.. .4.'" •' '' .-4.--Ilati • '.4{:V-" iiikatS,?. -4, N • 1 - --1-• - -.- '-'. -...-• ' •' !4••41 .:-..:' tit -‘,'" .1* ".'' X-s‘.."'s-',.. •••• '.:t ' --- 4 ..: k 1'7 .1 , L•...t .:". •'' "..1Ci:/- .....11`P"------_..,±215.7.," •••,•••-",:" 1 .....2 '' . _ _10. - . .... ....a.... 'it- . AlkokcsmemslatailLWIEWSZ 4.&."1a.'44A1142:1131ka,`"Lrit7i.1/4.-_ . rflal... ,•-.-.:. . Amp- City of Chanhassen Air Photo, 1989 Total site area 8.9 ac. Total canopy cover 6.8 ac. = 76% Min. canopy cover requ'd 46o/ ,o BASELINE CANOPY COVERAGE LOTUS GLEN Scale ; 17=100' STATE OF NICEJ C� OO `{f DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES TRO WATERS, 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106-6793 PHONE NO. 772-7910 FILE ti'G November 22, 1995 Mr. Robert Generous, AICP, Planner II Planning Department City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Lotus Glen Development, Ted DeLancey, Lotus Lake, City of Chanhassen, Carver County, (City #95-22 SUB) Dear Mr. Generous: We have reviewed the site plans (received November 8, 1995) for the above-referenced project (Section 12, T 116N, R23 W) and have the following comments to offer: 1. The project site does not contain any Public Waters or Public Waters Wetlands; therefore, no DNR permit is required. However, there are wetlands on the site that are not under DNR Public Waters Permit jurisdiction. The project may be subject to federal and local wetland regulations. The Department may provide additional comments on the project through our review of applications submitted under these other regulatory programs. 2. The site does not appear to be within a FEMA designated floodplain district. 3. It appears that the wetland is being converted into a primary stormwater treatment pond. In general, we are opposed to the primary treatment of stormwater in wetlands because the sediments and pollutants in the stormwater will destroy the wetland. We recommend that the stormwater be treated before it is routed to the wetland, or that the wetland be replaced. However, the determination of what is best at this particular site should be addressed by the city and other agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands subject to the Wetland Conservation Act. 4. There should be some type of easement, covenant or deed restriction for the properties adjacent to the wetland areas. This would help to ensure that property owners are aware that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Chanhassen have jurisdiction over the areas and that the wetlands cannot be altered without appropriate permits. RECEIVED NOV r % 1995 QTY OF CHAlvM Srav AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mr. Robert Generous, MCP, Planner II November 22, 1995 Page 2 5. The property is located within the 1000-foot shoreland district of Lotus Lake (10-6P), which has a shoreland classification of recreational development. The shoreland district extends 1000 feet from the OHW. The development must be consistent with city shoreland management regulations. In particular: a. The development contains bluffs and steep slopes, Topographic alterations should be minimized in the areas with steep slopes. No work should occur within the setback from the top of the bluff b. The structures in the development should be screened from view from Lotus Lake using topography, existing vegetation, color, landscaping, and other means approved by the city. 6. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments: a. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The measures described in "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas - Best Management Practices for Minnesota," MPCA, October 1989, or their equivalent, should be followed. b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, the contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriations permit. It typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. c. If construction activities disturb more than five acres of land, the contractor must apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Dan Sullivan @ 296-7203). d. The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, Joe Richter Hydrologist c: Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Bob Obermeyer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gary Elftmann Chanhassen Shoreland File I z 1 I 0 -I 1 k . -n 0 xi i , - 1 0 . . . li . I 0 i • t • f i : \ .. • , , ,, . , Hi , I , . t . ' -...., _I 1 tl , I - --__ . i -----% z N 00.V r - _ . 411111111107004 Fuomrx_...m....IIIIIIII••IMmmnmnnms,:;" - . , :., ii," .--.1003,,.I...7-•/- <-_-<>:.. :▪ '''' ', ,,• /' 1,...--:-.- ... • , • .z,- :1 11. • , ; t . j•0 1 1 1 1•i JP; 0 2.,,,,, '''si 00 011.0.1=Tri. 1 -..... : 4112... ..,6 11101r11 gk t0 • a, . r i, I ‘. (11 " -40.°)•••‘....0" :I ., . , ,,..; _•,,, ,,,,,,,, .....„,.....‘wi,,,,, . • 1 <..• a u I ,;\ .- •;,i _ —, . , I . . ' s'sl -.::'''' '' • A r ... , , , A , 01111‘ .ri'•:itif_ ..M.ItiP N u•--,-, . .... r...,,,_ •M110 1 : ti • A'., 1.---,., - • . , •• iiiim' , Pl. AI II ciil.r A.-1- 0- 1--- 5 uTht. ••,'"•C .,•4...E .43.:, -.....— _./ • .• . ...ii-!,,- c) 1 r- ."---- ii. t %2.- > cl z it -.-3.- ONA. .,... lil 2 3 i ran.. T K ; Trail • > iii7i ;;1.- :;:!iii: 1 ) , . ' ' ttli ita,d ili— im Illi:i▪ 1301c iti..iiilf z > C.:411.1ti i;i:Ifil .. .._, '* 1, .. 1 • a s "I - -if 0 a _0 .....1 V, „ r — — — . l a i > 1 I s4. I •••• 211::71.i : l'ill PO I ;i1. I 4 • .1- . 1.... 1.1 zi v 4, . ‘- ..., 040 u.,-; u4z4:, u ZVi.11; Zai ..! 0,,; R . 1 iv; • ''-*! $gl :412.i 1 I . Y f 0 :1111041 !iiiH.i • istl > I IF il I 1 mvmss . .... 151. Sumety/Probleury PWt To4 & t-fit•hy c14!-ArrY Westwood .._. ..... ....._ - Lone GUEN .0. all 1,0111•01114R Woman October 22, 199 RECEIVED OCT X 6 1995 • Dear Neighbor, `-J iv lIf ��r-�� -�� As a property owner within 500 feet of our property,you will be notified by the city of our plans to develop our property prior to the planning commission meeting. At that meeting, expected to be in December or January,you will be invited to give your suggestions and comments. We want to give you an opportunity to view our plans and give us your thinking prior to that meeting. We will then be able to take these comments into consideration before meeting with the city. We would like you to come to an open house at our home on Thursday October 26 - 5:00 - 7:00 P.M. or Saturday October 28 - 1:00-4:00 P.M. Our address is 7505 Frontier Trail which is a yellow house on top of the hill. If you are unable to make these dates and wish to see our plans please call us at 934-7214 and we will set up a convenient time. Sincerely, Ted & Kathy de Lance) �; � - YJ1T CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 \ - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous,Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman,Building Official 4..d.k DATE: November 27, 1995 SUBJECT: 95-22 SUB(Lotus Glen,Ted deLancey) Background: I was asked to review the plans stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, NOV 06 1995, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT." for the above referenced project. Below are an analysis and recommendations from the Inspections Division for the proposed project. Analysis: Building Pads. Due to the steep slopes on many of the proposed lots, staff will note to the developer that many of the foundations will need to be designed by a structural engineer at the time of building permit application. Demolition Permits. Existing structures on the property which will be demolished will require demolition permits. Proof of well abandonment must be furnished to the City and a permit for septic system abandonment must be obtained and the septic system abandoned prior to issuance of a demolition permit. Recommendations: The following condition should be added to the conditions of approval. 1. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. 2. Dwellings on slopes exceeding 25% and dwellings with 102" or more of unequal fill will be required to be designed by a structural engineer. G:mak,'.$nnolfi..W;MI • C1C..i pkCI'-) �i4ii i = tc. n c /)\ W., j � /►� J�C\ . yah■ ■u..O� ..:�. \� AIM iii. --.-:-:-,\� NOTICE OF PUBLIC : ��Il i,•-* � HEARING 0 :�/�� LOCATION PLANNING COMMISSION �� r■■■■ . MEETING AT DECEMBER 6, t�� i1� •• :- 4.11 \ i)) Wednesday, 1995 . 4' 10i at 7:00 p.m. .1ik•i .i . i,�� `/ "E$ 1761 : �T. . iW �: 'Veto /44 � o "' Chanhassen Recreation Center s_,' r . ,gt Arc 4 2310 Coulter Boulevard :ufli. �� 4 •-'A 1 at:' --� z MAI , !►Amon P BP --r a 1 11111 1111 1111111 t `=Y Project: Lotus Glen mi �� wo 1 dHiAn IMMII # �,, ��, Li ,lJl(11111111 wE�I R_V �N "1 —IIII111 ',%moo Developer: Ted deLancey 111W1.-17.1/".e0 p Location: 7505 Frontier Trail —r-a -`11111...: 7," illem 1 Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing preliminary plat approval of 8.9 acres into 9 lots on property zoned RSF, Single Family Residential, and located at 7505 Frontier Trail,Lotus Glen. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting,please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project,please contact Bob at 937-1900 ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on November 23, 1995. Nathan&NancyAnn Castens Bernard&Kathy Raidt Christopher Buck II& 7605 Erie Ave. 7603 Erie Ave. Emma Carlin Cha nhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 7601 Erie Ave. Chanhassen,MN 55317 Scott&R.Elleras Robert&Deann Hubert James&Roseanne Boyum 7591 Erie Ave. 7561 Erie Ave. 7531 Erie Ave. Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Kelly&Melissa Lynk Andrew Hiscox Jeffrey&Joan Thune 7501 Erie Ave. 7500 Erie Ave. 7672 South Shore Dr. Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Stanislaus&Jayne Hamerski Joseph Pfankuch&Margery Morgan Jeffrey&Lena Tan Otolsi 7668 South Shore Dr. 7664 South Shore Dr. 7660 South Shore Dr. Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Robert Crees&Janice Almli Chris&Nicole Neuharth Perry Ryan 7656 South Shore Dr. 7652 South Shore Dr. 1000 Devonshire Lane,#208A Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Bloomington,MN 55431 Roland&Cynthia Potter Thomas&Pamela Devine Josephy&Menaka Warrior 7644 South Shore Dr. PO Box 714 7423 Frontier Trail Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Bradley&Mary Johnson Susan C.Hoff William&Ivy Kirkvold 7425 Frontier Trail 221 Frontier Court 201 Frontier Court Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Gregory&Debalee Cray Kennethy&Deborah Ellsworth Colony Point Homeowners Assoc. 200 Frontier Court Rt 1,Box 68D do William Kirkvold Chanhassen,MN 55317 Couderay,WI 54828 201 Frontier Trail Chanhassen,MN 55317 Frederick&Sandra Coulter Michael&Charlene Bogden Stephen Blaha 7616 Frontier Trail 7617 Frontier Trail 7606 Erie Ave. Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Thomas Pauly&Lynn Kor Kevin&Beth Cragg James&Arlene Zimmerman 7604 Erie Ave. 222 77th Street W. 7602 Frontier Trail Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 , Yw _,i_' t :: Donald&Mary Goetze Linda L.Keeler Richard&Rose Mingo 7610 Frontier Trail 304 West 77th Street 7601 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 William P.Hanson Clark D. Horn - Robert&Wendy Pollock 7607 Great Plains Blvd. 7608 Erie Ave. • 7603 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Paul&Rita Rojina Douglas&Wendy Suedbeck Klingelhutz Development 220 W.77th Street 7605 Great Plains Blvd. PO Box 89 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chaska,MN 55318 Glenn&June Mattson Anthony&Mary Doppler Paul, Sr.&Mary Jane Kausch 7406 Frontier Trail 7508 Erie Ave. 7554 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Dorothy M.Bongard Thomas&Nancy Manarin Earl&M McAllister 7551 Great Plains Blvd. 7552 Great Plains Blvd. 7510 Erie Ave. 2hanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Fames Hall Steven M.Rogers Vernon R. Sullivan 7561 Great Plains Blvd. 7520 Frontier Trail 7522 Frontier Trail 2hanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 larvey Kruse&H. Forcier Thomas Harold Rober&Lillian Somers _. O.Box 67 7411 Frontier Trail 7409 Frontier Trail :hanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 'rontier Trail Assoc. William&P. Dahl&K.Wagner Walter&Pamela Czerminski /o William Kirkvold 220 Frontier Court 7417 Frontier Trail 01 Frontier Trail Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 'hanhassen,MN 55317 ichard Gillespie Roger&Marjorie Karjalahti Donald&Judith Schmieg 415 Frontier Trail 7413 Frontier Trail P. O.Box 397 'hanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 atrick M.Fitzimons Curtis&Nancy Robinson Robert C.Blad )4 W. 77th Street 202 W. 77th Street 7602 Erie Ave. hanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Richard Corwine &Roxann Keyes Wick&Lorali Linder Corwine 7550 Great Plains Blvd. 7600 Erie Ave. Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 \ \--- \ ( / / LOTUS GLEN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT a / \i, o - .,_____,\ RSF Z v / i o / 9 \\�� / /., i ice/:,4i.�,-!7/��%//l 0 Cb '� V.911 \ M % I�� ,.-#4•1•16.6„... i �' '�. "RJ9Ap 73 •91].17 v /// �.,`\ , ' : .- I /,� ��%�jj/f 4t. / /.1 Vii• ��a/ »6 �+ m � r Avera SHAD,s Average 30.2% �/�/ 0�� ,i��,:. tl7 gt6jam .,/% / � ;i�r�� X15 „ ,,:7,_.:.. \ Js - ;-�..� %f. •BwRtly„ ��f.•n>`, SYA9 73 4,, ..0,007- /fes i' ./I/�''4..4300000, ��i' 154 s,„a I .9/6 2.tie 041.6 It GB ,t/I49C)rI' ► .4(' /� "."► f ,•,..”.0. fr1}S} ` E Il �. Ippjp - �1. 1 ' Pew),T1 31\20 a• ��:•or 1'."/ PYA¢ 09 C3 2S• — S'?a.•% . .A0? 01.4P- i400.01,... ,Ild..1'°ffio.••109fr- � iia, I 915 r l • I T!+ 7, Su - p I .y„49' ��.111494 4116.•c4 /}. �0 - y.Mtr � i ,41 I I • I r .2I• I 79 DAR // 6. f.1 'A . 14 ' 1 91{6. i 7 S7 SYAP •1 i 1 k' 6 ' n ,'�• / 4 tO,F!911 ASN J�:1 - ,\rt, ;:� i]099 9J7 Y1•dYM 2s.1 24 a0 ` at. '''• '//�� •• b, 1 , � ' .,,,o,„ �. II 9 \ 1,`l 1 1 ,t 2� ... g�� 47: � S` ",I, _ MAPLE 1 I �-, il\ \ 0.14 o'' •:,,,-. ,e , r3 �� If"I 7, . zs.,.. —we, 91 IsAi .17011123 1 1 i ' -yr (4 -'-za IP. a°' 0"vi,,,,- , I y 1;ri{`( I •4t�,6'. I - / �s7.4.:` f - L�, `b;5f 1 1 C Cover 4, agli# CrYp. T M , 164 It 9,7, 2 1"K". 1 \1 �rtx � S `%{77 ROAR 2 T121\ 1 Y29.�9.'t, 1 I • ".,e9 Spe195 .'�•, '73 . .1.-. S S f 97* 1I e n \ l + { I rn°/ 134411 11 A 1 i'5/p -9, 38'/722'=29.5% R. / RE 0 953.. 964 Y�70 •A , 1� jj'' eE 1 /' S 'f` 9e 110 1' Ill i tiff F III ' S..AP DAM yh� • ikp 422 _ 36111 31%41'I�,"'t; 0.1. j.Ij% `<I 11� la- u •F •p)V` I. A9t,1 X916{9 1 \ '•J9',�Ij/6'Ijj11//I�/116�1 ••c "- I• �,1 - 11 ,A9,iJ a 916(12 Ygfo ,3 � g.,000 100 Poi ., QI[RRv %�I 4% � . 166s ? �I' Average 30• li , 2-'2. •91e.7 `11` 1131131 \ 1� 1 ‘%1‘C rASH q \r, \if,:15, u I 919 33 4\16t3 3Z 94. lie: fqr .� 1r • •1 \ 0A91 i6 •v A97�ti"�- 3U•f 9,r ..'1 O \ r •zl/ Iq Rai. t� �� ,�.-' _ I "C:41116\ 28'��°°" f„ ' ti;. Setback from-, •9 r� •BO 16 1,19-41;1906 .. -.AS I sv :�>M4 \\\\\• \ ,I,\ .' \4:.,$.4,07,„ Bluff or Wetland 3 cAs1❑ '�'1 IS ' 21.23 2 134 49H 1 16 1961 355 \,01 14 . t I •20 •541x16 -> 6e 1 A90R' 1 •70 \ \,,\\\ \ • dk.. \\\\\ Bluff Area -✓ �b ' " 0 - - T / I • .....1,_:.:7.,,. I aro 6111721--- - --------.— .66066. - = .-_-...-..-.• ,_,..-.......-.I ,„4„,„irawrA Is poi 1<— 1 flit Li. 4, R l * i A. E il il g;III! -\,, •,...-1 i. ' t , ,-- I /.://I -.• --',' -— _1_1___—,.4------\_---I) \-: - •''') ..• ; / i FA, •.. ; ) . , • f • • 1 i 1.-....-1- , ,..„ ( J : ' . i 4'I t -- -- :.-L'-0--I „I gmwlegialrfi 1 I J , ^ , i , - 6 6 7 e 1: .: • : , , :,‘,,,. • „ .., .s. .. r , -., i It, !.....„, , „..,.....• .. . ,.., .4,. \ .1" ''ea • IP i. / Z 4 . 1., _ , . \. • ; . '_•.!C.: ,__ __. t ,' 1_•!?14 .Lii______,...4.jsri;.r' 1-7.:.''--1-. \\,..-7 -°I.'.11; ,,. ,. ., .•ki... .---,..,__:.•i.,... ...,.... ,: a.: ---!'----.....--11 : %N....N, :": J.:•:,<-7:-......44.'s..-',',....._.„ 1 , f c----. • i...•"I. T .....---':„...•- '- --- i r 1 - N ,6. Ob. ,, 4i-j T°If k \ )A 1 ---- -1 --- ••',' . .0:'•-43•,..•_.--#''• 4 . • I ;'i-______-......; ' .> • i'. t .4 ''4 .0%-fr-44 • , i ,... ....... . . ..„ ,, S Pi ,a ...---•-0 ,, ....... f. , • - . .4" ..1&'.it.•.. I _ \-- • / - . lok.:e....L-------- id 7 -,..:...." ; an , 1 I .,.------ ,..--- - --.::.'--- -L_ -,------ ___---1„..-•---- ------,,}7-7----..,.........., ,, ' I, -- ---1---/-''.-- . , ,' T -------- .-- - i -1r / ,..4„:4_1_, ---------,.- ....-\\. I , ! I C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 12/6/95 \ 1 CHANHASSEN • CC DATE: 1/8/96 CASE #: 95-21 SUB 95- REZ imiirmommummimimummm STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 1. Rezoning of 5.1 acres of property zoned A-2, Agricultural Estate District to RSF, Residential Single Family }•... 2. Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 5.1 Acres into 7 single family lots, Dempsey Addition 3. A front yard setback variance of ten (10) feet to permit a front yard setback of 20 feet ---� LOCATION: East of Galpin Boulevard and south of Lukewood Drive. 0_ APPLICANT: Tim Dempsey 2301 Lukewood Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 937-4069 PRESENT ZONING: A-2,Agricultural Estate District ACREAGE: 5.1 acres DENSITY: 1.38 Units per Acre-Gross 1.7 Units per Acre-Net ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N-RR, Timberwood Estates and Cemetery S - A-2; Agricultural Estate District and RSF, park site E - RSF ; Minger Addition Q W- Galpin Boulevard, and PUD, Trotters Ridge WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The majority of the site is wooded. A wetland is located along the 1.1.1 west side of the site. An existing house, shed and barn occupy the F- property. The site generally slopes to the west. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Low Density ' ---1, .-,•••-..-4_____. .- , 1 . • ),. I • • .1 - .,-- ,-, . = , ima No D R I V E ;;:f ---'•-. I i r4 :3 i 10 Illiv' 1.. zl, , - L.. .,•••••;- ......)i-,,, , , • : C., i NNWanumi.ilium • : .: 4---- ---- /ftE312311" _../ . -, .i. i• z BraP417;bk N-J 1----* linlif Wirkligilladi 1 \ is !manias% ' ) 1 •104r 1 ONO AY -.% a , • A _ 1111All .- ir3i \ 4-- A2 it'4111116,,,.. ,.... • ITER atm) _414 16 • • (0 A.... I plaWAra 1 . 111,11PP:11k4 1111117‘:.>-e710'. .. 1(1 1/7. PON 0 C....._.. \..) cy 101, 11. 1 .1 ii471;711 3:al RIDG, i-id .4...:- ••••44. Mir.. ,iiir 0 Illw a .3). 'is e g 11111701' Ill i'Al; .4114 Pill IN " V : hut„lig g •_.lip viipp.., oi a &41 k Ail rill .." Tfil b/IM I . Mill ttebil • _ 47, F- ,110_,... .,Thitattrisiois _z swi . . N.k .:-• la amanatorparctgli_garal 1 - ) 511V1 OWN . ril 8.1•11%A".'' O. ! ,9 I V4 LYMAN BLVD. ' (CR. 18 ) 0•iiiiikitoso % Pol/RK keijk OF . V ill, I g Cli, 01 0 0,4, Nr-plise ti S 7 tlik 1 PARK 44P liallh' ‘1111141' _._digorooN 40, VIP' k 0 o 01 Pei VIII' N 8800 Dempsey Addition December 6, 1995 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to subdivide 5.1 acres into 7 single family lots. The property is zoned A-2,Agricultural Estate District and the proposal calls for rezoning to RSF, Residential Single Family. The property is west of the recently subdivided Minger property. The average lot size is 31,537 square feet with a resulting gross density of 1.38 units per acre. The site is located east of Galpin Boulevard and south of Lukewood Drive and Timberwood Estates. The project will be accessed from Galpin Boulevard which is also known as County Road 19. This roadway is designated as a collector road by the City's Land Use Map. The City Council approved the use of fifty foot right-of-ways with the development of Minger Addition on August 8, 1994. Lukewood Drive and Benwood Circle serves the Dempsey development as well. The 50 foot right-of-way was approved to minimize tree loss. Benwood Circle was built as a private street. As part of this subdivision, the applicant will be required to improve it to public street standards. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. There is an existing single family home on proposed Lot 4 that will remain. The site has a dense concentration of mature trees along the northeast and easterly portion of the parcel. The applicant is requesting a 10 foot front yard variance to allow a 20 foot front yard setback. Granting this variance will result in saving a large number of trees. In summary, staff believes that the proposed rezoning and subdivision is well designed. We are recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report. BACKGROUND This parcel currently contains the home of Timothy Dempsey which is located in the northeast corner of the site. The property is bounded on the north and east by Timberwood Estates, a large lot subdivision. To the south,parkland has been dedicated to the city as part of the Stone Creek Second Addition. The city cemetery is located just to the north of this plat. To the east is the Minger Addition which was approved on August 8, 1994. The street layout for the Minger Addition was proposed to service the Dempsey Addition which required the Dempsey Addition to be ghost platted as part of the Minger Addition proposal. The ghost plat showed the layout of the Dempsey Addition lots (Attachment#1). Dempsey Addition December 6, 1995 Page 3 REZONING The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from A-2,Agricultural Estate District,to RSF, Residential Single Family. The area to the north is zoned Rural Residential. The area to the south is zoned A-2,Agricultural Estate District and is guided for Residential Low Density. The area to the east and west of the site is zoned Residential Single Family. The 2000 Land Use Plan shows this area designated for development as Low Density Residential, 1.2 -4.0 units per acre. The applicant's proposal has a gross density of 1.38 units per acre and 1.7 units per acre net after the streets and wetlands are taken out. This area is in the MUSA area. Staff is recommending that this area be rezoned to RSF and the rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 5.1 acre site into 7 single family lots. The density of the proposed subdivision is 1.38 units per acre gross, and 1.7 units per acre net after removing the roads and wetlands. All the lots exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area, with an average lot size of 31,537 square feet. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum lot width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Outlots B and C are remnant lots from the Minger Addition. They are being incorporated into the Dempsey Addition. The existing home will remain on Lot 4, however, the barn on Lot 1 will be removed. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. WETLANDS There is a jurisdictional wetland on-site that is classified as agricultural/urban. This wetland is adjacent to the creek that drains from Trotter's Ridge east to Bluff Creek. The wetland will not be impacted as a result of development; however, staff still requires a wetland delineation report. A buffer strip of 0 to 20 feet with an average width of 10 feet must be maintained along the wetland. During home construction erosion control is required along the entire length of the wetland and the creek until re-vegetation is established. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN(SWMP) The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the stormwater quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place Dempsey Addition December 6, 1995 Page 4 and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. The development will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's SWMP. A regional pond was constructed on this site in conjunction with the Minger development. The ponding with the Minger development included area for this piece of property as well. Therefore, the applicant will only be required to connect to the system and pay for the SWMP fees as discussed below. Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall 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. The proposed SWMP water quality charge of$800/acre for single family resident developments. Fees are based on a total developable land area of 5.1 acres minus the existing wetland of 0.9 acres. Therefore,the applicant is required to pay$3,360 in water quality fees. Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single family residential developments have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre. The total area of the property is 4.2 acres as discussed above. Therefore, the proposed development would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of$8,316. These fees will be due payable to the City at time of final plat recording. GRADING &DRAINAGE The site drains to the west/southwest (toward Galpin Boulevard)where it enters a wetland and/or creek that drains directly into Bluff Creek. The applicant will need to submit to the City detailed storm drainage calculations for the storm sewers for the 10-, and 100-year, 24-hour duration storm event for staff review and approval. Dempsey Addition December 6, 1995 Page 5 A temporary street (Benwood Circle) was installed in conjunction with the Minger Addition. The understanding was that the four lots in Minger Addition were permitted to use this interim street until the Dempsey parcel subdivided. At that time the developer of the Dempsey parcel would be responsible for upgrading Benwood Circle to a full City street including storm drainage improvements. Detailed construction plans and specifications for storm sewer and street improvements will need to be submitted to the City for review and formal approval by the City with final plat consideration. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract and supply the City with a letter of credit to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of final plat approval. The individual lots will be custom-graded at time of building. Individual grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans will be required at the time of building permit application for the City to review and approve. Only minor site grading will be required to complete the street construction. Catch basins will need to be protected with hay bales and/or silt fence until the street is paved. Access will have to be maintained to the existing parcels adjacent to Benwood Circle during construction. Building Pads. Locations of proposed dwelling pads and the type of dwelling is necessary to enable the Inspections Division and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review of the structure at the time of building permit issuance. For the same reason,proposed lowest level floor elevation, entry floor elevation (not top of block) and garage floor elevation is required to be indicated on the proposed pad location. Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) must be shown for proposed dwelling types. These standard designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan review process. The memo explaining these designations is enclosed. Demolition Permits. Existing structures on the property which will be demolished will require demolition permits. Proof of well abandonment must be furnished to the City and a permit for septic system abandonment must be obtained and the septic system abandoned prior to issuance of a demolition permit. EROSION CONTROL Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). The final grading plan shall incorporate Type I erosion control around the perimeter of the grading limits. UTILITIES In conjunction with the Minger subdivision, public improvements (sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer) were installed to service this parcel as well. Mr. Minger installed the street and utilities at Dempsey Addition December 6, 1995 Page 6 his own cost with the understanding that they would be reimbursed for a portion of the utility construction when the Dempsey's property subdivided. Based on Mr. Minger's construction costs, staff has determined a sanitary sewer and water connection charge of between $6,000 and $7,000 per lot which will be collected at the time of building permit issuance. The City will then refund this money back to the Mingers. The existing house is currently on a septic and well system. The existing house was required by City ordinance to connect to City sewer within one year after the sewer line became operational. The sewer line became operational around mid-October of 1994. The applicant has indicated that the existing house will be connected to the City's sewer shortly. The existing well on the property may remain until the well system fails at which time the well must be property abandoned and the residence connected to City water. Staff recommends a condition that the existing house must be connected to the City sewer system and the septic system properly abandoned prior to the final plat being recorded at the County. STREETS Proposed Lots 4 through 7 are adjacent to Lukewood Drive which is constructed to City urban street standards and therefore could be built upon as soon as the final plat is recorded. The remaining lots are adjacent to Benwood Circle which was constructed with only a temporary private street section. Most of the street right-of-way was dedicated with Minger Addition. Only a small portion of the cul-de-sac needs to be dedicated with this plat to arrive at the necessary cul-de-sac right-of-way. The applicant will be responsible for upgrading Benwood Circle to meet City standards before building permits are issued on proposed Lots 1 through 3. The applicant will need to supply the City with detailed construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of standards specifications. The driveway access for Lot 1 will encroach upon the existing 8-foot wide bituminous trail. Staff has recommended to the applicant that the north property line of Lot 1 be shifted northerly to allow for a driveway that would avoid the City's trail. This may require removing the 14-inch double oaks as shown to be saved. However, in conjunction with utility service to the proposed lot, most likely these oak trees would be lost anyway. PARK AND TRAILS Park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of land as required by the City Ordinance. Dempsey Addition December 6, 1995 Page 7 COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE -RSF DISTRICT Lot Lot Lot Home Wetland Area Width Depth Setback Setback Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/rear 50'** 10'sides BLOCK 1 Lot 1 29,670 160' 312' 20'*/30' 10' Lot 2 27,430 127' 308' 20'/30' 10' Lot 3 33,490 93' 365' 20'/50' 50' 10' Lot 4 34,940 146' 390' 20'/50' 50' 10' Lot 5 27,740 108' 386' 20'/50' 50' 10' Lot 6 27,100 115' 342' 20'/50' 50' 10' Lot 7 40,390 274' 312' 20'/50' 50' 10' Right-of-Way 0.04 Wetland 0.95 * Staff is recommending a 10 foot variance to allow a 20 foot front yard setback for tree preservation purposes. ** The 50 foot wetland setback contain an average buffer width of 10 feet. TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING The applicant has prepared canopy coverage calculations and tree preservation plans. Existing canopy coverage is 82%of the site. Proposed development will remove approximately 1.18 acre Dempsey Addition December 6, 1995 Page 8 or 28%. The minimum allowable post-development canopy coverage is 55%; the applicant will have a remaining canopy coverage of 54%. The applicant has designated a handful of trees to be saved in the front yards. These trees are all oaks ranging in size from 14 to 26 inches in diameter. In theory,trees preserved in the front yards hold great value for the lot and make it more attractive. In practice, trees located in the front of homes are difficult to effectively protect during construction and tend to deteriorate quickly due to poor care. In addition to preservation techniques, age and species also play a role in a tree's survival. In general, the younger the tree, the greater its capability to deal with change. As for species, red, white and northern pin oaks are more sensitive to construction damage than bur oaks. Although the applicant has not specified the type of oaks on the site, staff believes it to be prudent in recommending that the two oaks proposed to be saved on Lot 7 be removed instead. That lot will be receiving a large amount of grading and fill and it would be extremely difficult to protect the trees from damage. In addition,the trees are older, large oaks that have already been impacted by the construction of Lukewood Drive. Trees proposed to be saved in the front yards of Lots 5, 3, and 1 have greater chances of survival due to age of some and location of others. Staff recommends these trees be fenced properly before excavation. A variance has been requested by the applicant for a 20 front yard setback. In light of any tree- related issues, this variance is appropriate. By pulling the houses forward, a number of valuable oaks will be kept out of the construction limits and their survival will, therefore,be guaranteed. VARIANCE As part of this plat approval,a variance to allow a 20 foot front yard setback is requested. The City Council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in the subdivision chapter as part of a plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: 1. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. 2. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land. 3. The condition of conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. 4. The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Finding: The hardship is caused by the topography of the site. The required setbacks could be met, however, the impact on the trees will be significant. Granting the variance Dempsey Addition December 6, 1995 Page 9 will maintain the integrity and natural characteristics of the site. Staff is recommending approval of the variance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: REZONING "The Planning Commission recommends approval of rezoning(#95- REZ) 5.1 acres of property zoned A-2 to RSF for Dempsey Addition as shown on the plans received November 6, 1995 and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract containing all of the conditions of approval for this project and shall submit all required financial guarantees. The development contract shall be recorded against the property. 2. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision#95-21." PRELIMINARY PLAT "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for(Subdivision#95- 21) Dempsey Addition for 7 single family lots with a 10 foot variance to allow a 20 foot front yard setback as shown in plans received November 6, 1995 with the following conditions: 1. Tree preservation Conditions: a. All tree fencing as drawn on plans shall be installed prior to any grading or excavation. b. Fencing shall be extended to property lines between lots 3 and 4 as well as across the rear yard of lot 6. c. All significant trees must be shown on the building permit surveys. d. All trees in front yards of lots 1, 3, and 5 block 1 shall be protected by tree fencing. The fencing shall be placed, at a minimum, at least 15 feet from the trunk. e. The two 26 inch oaks in the northeastern corner of lot 7 are not recommended for preservation. f. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement. The applicant shall provide the city with a legal description of these easements. Dempsey Addition December 6, 1995 Page 10 2. Building Department conditions: a. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using standard designations and indicate the lowest level floor, entry level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. b. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. 3. Park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of land as required by city ordinances. 4. The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned in accordance with City and/or State codes. 5. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval prior to final plat approval. 6. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 7. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events in accordance with the City's SWMP for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. 8. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 9. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. 10. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant$20 per sign. Dempsey Addition December 6, 1995 Page 11 11. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level. 12. The northerly lot line of Lot 1 shall be adjusted to provide a driveway access to Lot 1 that will avoid encroachment onto the City's trail. 13. The proposed single family residential development of 4.2 developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of$3,360 and a water quantity fee of$8,316. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 14. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 15. The existing residence on Lot 4 shall be connected to City sewer and the septic system properly abandoned prior to final plat approval. 16. The streets and storm drainage system shall be constructed in accordance to the City's rural street and utility standards. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. The plans shall be designed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's standard specifications and detail plates. Final plat approval is contingent upon approval of the construction plans by the Chanhassen City Council. 17. Individual grading,drainage,tree preservation and erosion control plans will be required for each lot at the time of building permit application for the City to review and approve. 18. Neighborhood identification monument signs require a separate permit." ATTACHMENTS 1. Area map showing Minger Addition and the ghost plat of Dempsey Addition. 2. Memo from Diane Desotelle and Dave Hempel dated November 27, 1995. 3. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated November 27, 1995. 4. Notice of Public Hearing mailed November 21, 1995. 5. Application. 6. Memo from Mark Littfin dated November 8, 1995. 7. Jill Sinclair dated November 21, 1995. 8. Preliminary plat received November 6, 1995. gyp. 0 nsc-.�.u.f) •Ta.' .- •.•'i" NOI110av tl'3`JMrNtl'3sJMI I = ssvutrora .��—' K,Ca 100[,1,'/1 M� • o"^"°'�0 �"�1al ,I -TETE - L' ISSIZO O .Ou 'SarTOOSSY I . ter^ noo Tg aa2an i uoj 11 1 I y . ,1,..,,,,,w;,_ a """i s z s1,_s t..... . I 1 I } / 1 e 111133333333333333333�� 1 s !! ♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦ `♦♦ ♦ ♦ / ilfij 1 I/ i t'St9 .`♦M�.` ; •.i;QlI ----- - - ` : T I Ilii iiiitiii 1 % \ 1 --.1 ' ----W'"` \-�.. -- ♦ill 11` . ! \ _,_ -_---1en1 � / = K��ar �� _ ♦ 1111 \\•`;• —♦ . - - 1 to ♦ - ' , _` •__ J 3 - _ ..• I_I - \\��lI Ilt,♦ I St E I •A..'f ' ` _ i r ,iii \\` -i: 1:,t1j 1•'s '4'" 1 ..... 2•_11,1 - �' _ - _ )1': •- i,��'/ //!/ f E �i t,tJslez,-1, _ \ \ i 0:1i �•' _ r r r I \ J 1yi i \\ 11 't '� - -111 ice'' 1 ♦ ♦\ V.3i11=i%]s141;1 \ '' I.z I: ' I i �j i----*!1''.{ �' ....1.--,.. .....-L-17_--- ;3''',.._::.\\‘\,,..... g Iiii ii,iil, iji = ;; / .• L': f' r i a2Z - - -- ♦` ♦ i j�il;t1, siT°. / - 'T{0f•• _ •.. --- . '. `� ♦ ♦ n 1,11 I1 1li:,a5 s • \ s 1� & s _242" _- [ 1.4 ♦ 1,o♦ \ \\ t._ 1-==.._.v 1 I 1� : :L: ' �• )♦ \ \\ \\ 1 11 i1 ! I 11 I / 1 I // 1 i ♦\ S g14286.DQw aw ...06 I I t I /// 1 ' II .3111,5111111".":19.1 435. ......• L= 4'. z A .._ :7,2',ar• •.1 / / / /./;:::".....' . /' /1,•;:s. " ‘ ____...- .....\.......... . :' ff / ,.• )‹.,./ ,././, ,../) „/ \ ' • ' ' /\ / r ¢ \ / /// / \, ; �- / I / ////' \ / / ' d I / // -/, / / ,tr \ \ I 7 -, ; • ,,Ire ) S4 11 I 1 / i IrI ' I, r .. ....77/7 oo II owe /i „00'009. it/ 1. 1 r in: .b. s- .. - . -t. _ { CITY OF 64. CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Diane Desotelle,Water Resources Coordinator David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer DATE: November 27, 1995 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plan for Dempsey Addition -File No. 95-39 LUR Upon review of the preliminary plat drawings prepared by Terra Engineering, Inc. dated November 6 1995, we offer the following comments and recommendations: WETLANDS There is a jurisdictional wetland on-site that is classified as agricultural/urban. This wetland is adjacent to the creek that drains from Trotter's Ridge east to Bluff Creek. The wetland will not be impacted as a result of development; however, staff still requires a wetland delineation report. A buffer strip of 0 to 20 feet with an average width of 10 feet must be maintained along the wetland. During home construction erosion control is required along the entire length of the wetland and the creek until re-vegetation is established. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the stormwater quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the Sharmin Al-Jaff November 27, 1995 Page 2 optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. The development will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's SWMP. A regional pond was constructed on this site in conjunction with the Minger Development. The ponding with the Minger Development included area for this piece of property as well. Therefore, the applicant will only be required to connect to the system and pay for the SWMP . . fees as discussed below. Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall 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. The proposed SWMP water quality charge of$800/acre for single family resident developments. Fees are based on a total developable land area of 5.1 acres minus the existing wetland of 0.9 acres. Therefore, the applicant is required to pay $3,360 in water quality fees. Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single family residential developments have a connection charge of$1,980 per developable acre. The total area of the property is 4.2 acres as discussed above. Therefore, the proposed development would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $8,316. These fees will be due payable to the City at time of final plat recording. GRADING & DRAINAGE The site drains to the west/southwest (toward Galpin Boulevard) where it enters a wetland and or creek that drains directly into Bluff Creek. The applicant will need to submit to the City detailed storm drainage calculations for the storm sewers for the 10-, and 100-year, 24-hour duration storm event for staff review and approval. A temporary street (Benwood Circle) was installed in conjunction with the Minger Addition. The understanding was that the four lots in Minger Addition were permitted to use this interim street until the Dempsey parcel subdivided. At that time the developer of the Dempsey parcel would be responsible for upgrading Benwood Circle to a full City street including storm drainage improvements. Detailed construction plans and specifications for storm sewer and street Sharmin Al-Jaff November 27, 1995 Page 3 improvements will need to be submitted to the City for review and formal approval by the City with final plat consideration. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract and supply the City with a letter of credit to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of final plat approval. The individual lots will be custom-graded at time of building. Individual grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans will be required at the time of building permit application for the City to review and approve. Only minor site grading will be required to complete the street construction. Catch basins will need to be protected with hay bales and/or silt fence until the street is paved. Access will have to be maintained to the existing parcels adjacent to Benwood Circle during construction. EROSION CONTROL Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). The final grading plan shall incorporate Type I erosion control around the perimeter of the grading limits. UTILITIES In conjunction with the Minger subdivision, public improvements (sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer) were installed to service this parcel as well. Mr. Minger installed the street and utilities at his own cost with the understanding that they would be reimbursed for a portion of the utility construction when the Dempsey's property subdivided. Based on Mr. Minger's construction costs, staff has determined a sanitary sewer and water connection charge of between $6,000 and $7,000 per lot which will be collected at the time of building permit issuance. The City will then refund this money back to the Mingers. The existing house is currently on a septic and well system. The existing house was required by City ordinance to connect to City sewer within one year after the sewer line became operational. The sewer line became operational around mid-October of 1994. The applicant has indicated that the existing house will be connected to the City's sewer shortly. The existing well on the property may remain until the well system fails at which time the well must be property abandoned and the residence connected to City water. Staff recommends a condition that the existing house must be connected to the City sewer system and the septic system properly abandoned prior to the final plat being recorded at the County. Sharmin Al-Jaff November 27, 1995 Page 4 STREETS Proposed Lots 4 through 7 are adjacent to Lukewood Drive which is constructed to City urban street standards and therefore could be built upon as soon as the final plat is recorded. The remaining lots are adjacent to Benwood Circle which was constructed with only a temporary private street section. Most of the street right-of-way was dedicated with Minger Addition. Only a small portion of the cul-de-sac needs to be dedicated with this plat to arrive at the necessary cul-de-sac right-of-way. The applicant will be responsible for upgrading Benwood Circle to meet City standards before building permits are issued on proposed Lots 1 through 3. The applicant will need to supply the City with detailed construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of standards specifications. The driveway access for Lot 1 will encroach upon the existing 8-foot wide bituminous trail. Staff has recommended to the applicant that the north property line of Lot I be shifted northerly to allow for a driveway that would avoid the City's trail. This may require removing the 14-inch double oaks as shown to be saved. However, in conjunction with utility service to the proposed lot, most likely these oak trees would be lost anyway. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT 1. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval prior to final plat approval. 2. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 4. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events in accordance with the City's SWMP for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. Sharmin Al-Jaff November 27, 1995 Page 5 6. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. 7. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant$20 per sign. 8. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level. 9. The northerly lot line of Lot 1 shall be adjusted to provide a driveway access to Lot 1 that will avoid encroachment onto the City's trail. 10. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in accordance to City and Minnesota Department of Health codes/regulations. • 11. The proposed single family residential development of 4.2 developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of$3,360 and a water quantity fee of$8,316. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 12. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 13. The existing residence on Lot 4 shall be connected to City sewer and the septic system properly abandoned prior to final plat approval. 14. The streets and storm drainage system shall be constructed in accordance to the City's rural street and utility standards. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. The plans shall be designed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's standard specifications and detail plates. Final plat approval is contingent upon approval of the construction plans by the Chanhassen City Council. 15. Individual grading, drainage, tree preservation and erosion control plans will be required for each lot at the time of building permit application for the City to review and approve. c: Charles D. Folch, Director of Public Works/City Engineer g:leng\dianelplanning\dempsey.ppr CITY OF , CHANIIASSEN \ _ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 • • (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous,Planner II FROM: Steve A.Kirchman,Building Official 4coi DATE: November 27, 1995 SUBJECT: 95-21 SUB(Dempsey Addition) Background: I was asked to review the plans stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, NOV 06 1995, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT." for the above referenced project. Below are an analysis and recommendations from the Inspections Division for the proposed project. Analysis: Building Pads. Locations of proposed dwelling pads and the type of dwelling is necessary to enable the Inspections Division and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review of the structure at the time of building permit issuance. For the same reason, proposed lowest level floor elevation, entry floor elevation (not top of block) and garage floor elevation is required to be indicated on the proposed pad location. Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) must be shown for proposed dwelling types. These standard designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan review process. The memo explaining these designations is enclosed. Demolition Permits. Existing structures on the property which will be demolished will require demolition permits. Proof of well abandonment must be furnished to the City and a permit for septic system abandonment must be obtained and the septic system abandoned prior to issuance of a demolition permit. Bob Generous November 27, 1995 Page 2 Recommendations: The following conditions should be added to the conditions of approval. 1. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads,using standard designations and indicate the lowest level floor, entry level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 2. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. enclosure: January 29, 1993 memorandum OWkryWNarmcef nWevpyl f CITY QF ,.. ,:.: , --Ii„ ! -. ,,, : \ .. ,:4: ,_:- . 1 , . _... , .. „.„• , CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 -%^"T tN' (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 Ivl EMORAi UM TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official 4._ Cf: 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. PLO or PLO Designates Front Lookout or Rear Lookout This includes dwellings with tite basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to appro:dmately 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 Patry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. SEWO 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. SE S EWO WO F/ LO\ t. 1 dill - -1 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. If SII* PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 11 ,40 NOTICE OF PUBLIC cGLYRN ' HEARING TIM:ERWOD PLANNING COMMISSION ' - • MEETING l -c6°. F , ..�,+►' Wednesday, DECEMBER 6, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. RIMIld- • 4fik Chanhassen Recreation Center r� ,��! ��lliani re ite 1 • 2310 Coulter Boulevard 31111 D .• or IP Project: Dempsey Addition �•,�� ,111111 Developer: Timothy Dempsey a . r$S1' `Location: East side of Galin Blvd., •"4:1just south of Lukewood Drive1 r,�� (C.R. 18) WHIA`v. ,,��,, 411 Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing to rezone 222,580 sq. ft. of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to RSF, Residential Single Family and preliminary plat approval into 7 lots and a 20 ft. front yard setback variance. The property is located on the east side of Galpin Blvd.just south of Lukewood Drive, Dempsey Addition. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments:If you want to see the plans before the meeting,please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project,please contact Sharmin at 937-1900 ext. 120. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on November 23, 1995. /1-//q-5 Roger&Gayleen Schmidt Gerald&Lois Gustafson Betty O'Shaughnessy 3301 Galpin Blvd. 8341 Galpin Blvd. 1000 Hesse Farm Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chaska, MN 55318 [ohn R.Fisher Brian Klingelhutz Dream Homes, Inc. 1820 Ridge Ave. S. Geis &Klingelhutz 10420 49th Ave. N. Watertown, MN 55388 2218 Lukewood Dr. Plymouth, MN 55442 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Daniel&L. Schleck Michael & P. Robinson Patrick&Karen Minger 225 Lukewood Dr. 2224 Lukewood Dr. 2218 Lukewood Dr. '.hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 .ula O'Laughlin William& Marjorie Strudthoff Dale& Olice A. Minger 29 Cook Street 19785 0 Ave. Box 44 Vest Union, IA 52175 Hawkeye, MN 52147-8311 Wadena, IA 52169 ;rian&Neil Klingelhutz Mark&J. Ringdahl Moberg Homes, Inc. Steven Geis 8032 Erie Ave. P 0 Box 57 14 Main Street W. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jaconia, MN 55387 imothy&Vicki Dempsey Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. Andrew & Susan Richardson 241 Galpin Blvd. 941 Hillwind Road NE 8120 Rinewood Circle hanhassen, MN 55317 Minneapolis, MN 55432 Chanhassen, MN 55317 [ark&Nancy Bielski Richard & Elizabeth Nye Larson Gregory&Beverly Vandervorste 140 Pinewood Circle 8141 Pinewood Circle 8141 Maplewood Terrace hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 urtis &Jean Beuning Curt& Hope Enerson Mark& Chirstine Fischer 381 Timberwood Dr. 2403 Bridle Creek Trail 2407 Bridle Creek Trail hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Ddney&Janice Melton Michale& Mary Minear Trotters Ridge of Chanhassen [13 Bridle Creek Trail 2421 Bridle Creek Trail 2765 Casco Point Road ianhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Wayzata, MN 55391 •et&Beckey Bailey Moberg Homes, Inc. Steven& Deborah Watts 39 Bridle Creek Trail 780 Ashley Dr. 2563 Bridle Creek Trail ianhassen, MN 55317 Chaska, MN 55318 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dennis & Carol Medo Edwin F. Susi Todd&Ann Mack 2420 Bridle Creek Trail 2430 Bridle Creek Trail 2542 Bridle Creek Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 James &Kathryn Liddell 2550 Bridle Creek Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION 1 APPLICANT: ! r' ' L 1(747' ,OWNER: '�; /h / /') - r- C / f- /l s, c.7i ADDRESS: `J C' J i�DDRESS: L TELEPHONE (Day time) g3 2 J `f(;) 5, TELEPHONE:- «ef/ S 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. n Rezoning �. 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review Notification Signs 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SPRNAC/VAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) 10. /.;/ Subdivision 5 TOTAL FEE $ 5� A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 81/2" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. * Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract DEVELOPMENT FEE SCHEDULE 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment a. $500 b. $100 Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers 2. Conditional Use Permit (Does not include site plan review) a. Single family residence (individual lot) - $75 b. All others - $400 3. Grading Permits a. Under 50 cubic yards $0 b. 50-1000 cubic yards $50 c. Over 1000 cubic yards - processed as IUP-use UBC 4. Interim Use Permit a. Single family residence (individual lot) $75 b. All Others - $400 5. Notification Signs $50 rental $100 damage deposit 6. Planned Unit Development/Rezoning a. $750 b. Amendments Minor Amendment - $100 Major Amendment - Same As PUD 7. Rezoning - $500 8. Sign Permit a. Temporary - $35 b. Permanent - $50 9. Sign Plan Review $150 (if separate from site plan) 10. Site Plan Review a. $250 + $10 per 1000 sq.ft. of building area for commercial and industrial districts + $5 per dwelling unit in residential districts PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL ' 1995 MEETING DATES AND APPLICATION DEADLINES DEADLINE DECEMBER 5 PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 4, 1995 CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 23, 1995 DEADLINE DECEMBER 19, 1994 PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 18 CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 13 DEADLINE JANUARY 3 PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1 CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 27 DEADLINE JANUARY 16 ,PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15 CITY COUNCIL MARCH 13 DEADLINE JANUARY 30 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1 CITY COUNCIL MARCH 27 DEADLINE FEBRUARY 13 PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15 CITY COUNCIL APRIL 10 1 • DEADLINE JUNE 19 PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 19 CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 14 DEADLINE JULY 3 PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 2 CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 28 DEADLINE JULY 17 PLANNING COM1vIISSION AUGUST 16 CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 11 DEADLINE AUGUST 7 PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6 CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 25 DEADLINE AUGUST 21 PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20 CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 9 DEADLINE SEPTEMBER 5 PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4 CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 23 DEADLINE SEPTEMBER 18 PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18 CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 13 3 IM lIl 1 ) i I) • -- Dej Lo o v 11 • fY `' D • • Dom .. 1.: .--3 . . . .E. 1 . 01' • • 7 . 0 1 11111111111111 -------•04 W ,._ Q 1111111111111111 0 . ,a Icr,„:„. d Z . 111111111111 \:::\ 0 • Z..... Q_m ti W W N JU - Z Q OLi _ 1111111 I 11111 II D2 i G Ja --- o L/ E.-111 \ %.,- __-,i.. LL O Q O L1 w z vct , .._ ci:: La -4...)_ _ ...-7-.; i -1-' 2-_ • 4: -', -) • • .1. ..� .� • C ..1it • • w ;� Liv t_ CITY OF 4t;), CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 �r `^ (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Robert Generous,AICP,Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin,Fire Marshal SUBJECT: Dempsey Addition -7 Lot Subdivision Planning Case: 95-21 SUB DATE: November 8, 1995 I have reviewed the plans submitted at this time,and have no comments or concerns. MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff,Planner II FROM: Jill Sinclair,Forestry Intern DATE: November 21, 1995 SUBJ: Tree Preservation Plan, Dempsey Addition Applicant has prepared canopy coverage calculations and tree preservation plans. Existing canopy coverage is 82%of the site. Proposed development will remove approximately 1.18 acre or 28%. The minimum allowable post-development canopy coverage is 55%; the applicant will have a remaining canopy coverage of 54%. If the council The applicant has designated a handful of trees to be saved in the front yards. These trees are all oaks ranging in size from 14 to 26 inches in diameter. In theory, trees preserved in the front yards hold great value for the lot and make it more attractive. In practice, trees located in the front of homes are difficult to effectively protect during construction and tend to deteriorate quickly due to poor care. In addition to preservation techniques, age and species also play a role in a tree's survival. In general, the younger the tree, the greater its capability to deal with change. Similarly with people,the young are much more resilient to injury than the old. As for species, red, white and northern pin oaks are more sensitive to construction damage than bur oaks. Although the applicant has not specified the type of oaks on the site, staff believes it to be prudent in recommending that the two oaks proposed to be saved on lot 7 be removed instead. That lot will be receiving a large amount of grading and fill and it would be extremely difficult to protect the trees from damage. In addition, the trees are older, large oaks that have already been impacted by the construction of Lukewood Drive. Trees proposed to be saved in the front yards of lots 5, 3,and 1 have greater chances of survival due to age of some and location of others. Staff recommends these trees be fenced properly before excavation. A variance has been requested by the applicant for a 20 front yard setback. In light of any tree-related issues, this variance is appropriate. By pulling the houses forward, a number of valuable oaks will be kept out of the construction limits and their survival will, therefore,be guaranteed. Staff recommendations: 1. All tree fencing as drawn on plans be installed prior to any grading or excavation. Fencing to be extended to property line between lots 3 and 4 as well as across the rear yard of lot 6. 2. All significant trees must be shown on building permit surveys. 3. All trees in front yards of lots 1, 3,and 5 block 1 shall be protected by tree fencing. The fencing shall be placed, at a minimum, at least 15 feet from the trunk. 4. The two 26 inch oaks in the northeastern corner of lot 7 are not recommended for preservation. , .1 CITY OF 4 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM: TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jill Sinclair, Forestry Intern DATE: November 29, 1995 SUBJ: Tree Removal Request, Oak Ponds Development BACKGROUND Oak Ponds is a medium-density development that began grading and construction in 1992. Existing on site was a significant stand of oak trees, all of which had visual and historical significance in the community. One of the critical issues in the review of this development was the preservation of the oak trees. Currently, at issue is the presence of a large oak that sits approximately 6-12 feet above grade and is a prominent feature at the west entrance. According to the development contract, the applicant was required to save the tree or replace it inch for inch if removed. The applicant chooses to remove one of the oak trees and due to its prominence in the planning and construction processes of the development, staff feels that such a request should be brought before the Planning Commission. ANALYSIS In spite of the large exposed cut that occurred during the grading process in 1992, the roots of the oak have not dried out and the tree is in good condition. The 29-inch white oak does have some dead wood in the crown which should have been pruned out, but overall the tree is healthy and structurally sound. Estimates as to the age of the tree would run about 125 - 175 years old. White oaks have a life expectancy of 300+ years, so by no means is the tree near the end of its life. A retaining wall that was to be installed nearly two years ago would have improved the appearance of the site as well as protect the roots and retain moisture. The applicant began constructing a keystone wall in 1994 which, since it was over 4 feet in height, must be engineered and approved by the city. A keystone type of retaining wall requires tie backs as far back into the bank as the wall is high. Therefore, due to the additional root damage that would Oak Ponds Development November 29, 1995 Page 2 have occurred the wall construction was stopped. Since that time, estimates for boulder retaining walls have been taken. A boulder wall would not have to be engineered nor would it be necessary to cut further into the hill to install. However, there are no guarantees that the wall would be structurally sound. The price per foot was also comparable to a keystone wall. However, a twelve foot high wall of any type of material is unusual and could be a safety hazard without precautionary amendments, such as a fence. Presently, the tree sits atop a pedestal which is 12 feet high on the south side and can be easily seen from Highway 5. By removing that oak, the community will lose a symbol of its past and the development reduces its namesake oaks by one. An alternative to removing the tree is to install a poured concrete wall with rock facing. This type of wall would be structurally sound and cause only minimal damage to the roots. A fence on the south side where the height difference is the greatest would prevent safety hazards. Vines, rock facing, and other landscaping materials would break up the west facing wall and make it more attractive and less imposing from the Powers Boulevard entrance. The applicant has submitted a grading and landscape replacement plan. The required rate of replacement for trees removed at Oak Ponds is 1:1 and the applicant has met that by designing a landscape that includes 29 inches of white pines and hawthorns. Staff does not feel these species adequately replace the loss of a native white oak. The variety of hawthorn chosen is not native to this area nor is it appropriate considering the oak theme of the development. Staff recommends that if the applicant's request for removal is granted, all replacement inches be from native species and that at least half the inches be represented by oaks. Spacing of the plantings is also of concern. As drawn, the white pines are to be planted approximately 12 feet apart. These trees can be expected to grow 80 to 100 feet high and have a crown spread of 50 to 80 wide. Twelve foot spacing is not adequate for these trees. RECOMMENDATION Staff's initial choice is to recommend Planning Commission deny the applicant's request and require a concrete wall to be constructed around the oak. If the Planning Commission supports the applicant's request, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the request to remove a 29 inch oak from Oak Ponds with the following conditions: 1. The applicant is to replace the required twenty-nine inches of plantings with species native to this area, Oak Ponds Development November 29, 1995 Page 3 2. Half of the replacement plantings, 14.5 inches, are to be oaks each of which must have a minimum of 1.5 inches caliper. 3. Spacing of all deciduous or evergreen plantings shall be between 20 and 30 feet. 4. Grading limits shall not encroach upon the driplines of surrounding trees. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the grading limits. Erosion control fence, Type I, shall be installed on the downstream side of the grading limits and maintained until the site is fully re-vegetated. 5. All disturbed areas shall be sodded. ATTACHMENTS 1. Survey elevation 2. Letter from applicant ' c<---:2) / �' , �� q9p I �` 1 1 i 1 / ,. , ,.�" __ _..w___ _ / / / / ` 1 W 1 \ rui I —mg ...:u u. Io I I liii,, I I q r II 1 --,..,.,,,= . ,. -4 _ __ _ .2- � '°o J /C i ltIti 1 I / j i l ift\ , If , 7- - - j - ', ' ‘44k . S . 401 1 , 0, 1 / ::o� • ..._ „ 1 , - ikiii 1,•,,N,,,,,, _, \ A , A littliA<- , i —1 I ii I 44 \\(‘ / / .:::•:f:.r..i o . .....{:::•"::,?::r.1 .. / \ / 1. \: \ 1us ow1I I l o \ IiiIr / / 11 I It I 1 // / 1 I rl J / / / JI / / J 1 I / \ 1 w I J; fJ 1.010 .;I ix I 1 ` I I I / 1%. 1 kod ,y ; /‘i- --41141 r ' I II I o` Ifiglik I o I I II -1\-4N, „ 140-8.' I dA„.....41 f ,00_, _ ,, , ! .0 T p,..4„ .,:: :::::„/::::::::::".:.:'-'7...: \I . \ Cl/ Of 0 ) k / Nis _ 966 1 AIN II I • C0NI le / / ---•-.._ g 1 1 I I-i i ii 1;1 / / cn /-atialf --- _ 44: - - _ I .ig ' x i \4 /jjh � ..II ,... / '. ./ / tltIMB", heinbe \ -\ -I --