Loading...
1984 11 14 e PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 1984 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Members Present Jim Thompson, Tom Merz, Susan Albee, Ladd Conrad, Bill Ryan, Howard Noziska and Mike Thompson. Members Absent None Staff Present Barbara Dacy, City planner, Bill Monk, City Engineer and JoAnn Olsen, Asst. City Planner. Public Hearing: Piper Ridge Subdivision, Randy Herman, Applicant, Wetland Alteration Permit Request, Subdivision Request #84-8 Preliminary Plat Approval and Rezoning Request #84-5 Rezoning Property from R-la, Agricultural Residence to R-l, Single Family Residence Public Present e Howard and Ruth Schmidt Ralph and Kay Hegman Randy Herman Tom Fisher Richard Rumple T.L. Cook Pete Throdahl Tom Erdmann 2810 Sandpiper Trail 6361 Minnewashta Woods Drive 6035 Cathcart Drive 6349 Minnewashta Woods Drive 5217 Phelps, Mound 6351 Minnewashta Woods Drive 6345 Minnewashta Woods Drive 2750 Sandpiper Trail Dacy explained that during the negotiations of the Herman Field donation in 1978, an easement agreement was negotiated to provide access to the 7 acre parcel that was retained by the Herman's for eventual building sites. She stated that the 1990 Land Use Plan incorrectly identified the 7 acre tract as parks/Open Space and excluded it from the Urban Service Area. She stated that the site can be serviced by municipal water and sewer service and the proposed land use, zoning and development density is compatible in scale, density and character with the adjacent properties. She stated that the subdivision design meets the lot area and lot width requirements of the Shoreland Management Regulations and the City Subdivision Ordinance. She stated that the alteration of the wetland will not adversely affect the ecology and hydrology of the wetland based on the proposed drainage plan which allows for the restoration of the wetland vegetation and adequately accommodating stormwater runoff. e Monk stated that the alteration of a wetland is generally a dif- ficult proposal and in this case is only economically feasible e - e Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1984 page 2 due to the shallow depth of the existing peat area within the wetland. He stated that this shallow depth will allow for the lowering of the wetlands using a grading operation where the peat is removed for excavation of the clay and then replaced in the newly formed basin. He stated that the existing drainage pat- terns throughout the neighborhood will be maintained, including the runoff from the subdivision and existing homes and streets. He stated that this runoff is directed initially to the rede- signed wetland area and then outlets through a double pipe weir structure to the large wetland along the southern border of the property. Jim Parker: I am with Advanced Surveying. I prepared the plan. I would like to say that we tried to site homes on the property and yet be sensitive to the topography and the vegetation that is there trying to minimize the amount of grading and fit the land the best we could. I think that what we have is something that will turn out to be a good looking subdivision in terms of not skimming the property and grades that match the existing ground. If there are any specific questions about the drainage or other aspects, I would be happy to answer them. Tom Erdmann: I live approximately across the street from the subdivision. I really am concerned about the drainage. I would like to know what plans they have. I would like to know how and where you are, where the water comes from that drains across that land down to Minnnewashta. There is alot of water that goes through there at various times of the year. (Note: The following discussion of this case included reference to a display of the plat which highlighted the wetland area.) Jim Parker: Essentially the plan is this and no matter if the pipe that comes in there drains or trickles. It is a 24 inch pipe and therefore the amount of water that it can bring into the area is limited by the fact that the 24 inch pipe can carry just so much water. We have a 24 inch pipe going out of the area. That pipe dumps out here across the low area and there is not alot of depth to any water that stands there. Tom Erdman: Are you talking about the concrete spillway that runs down Sandpiper Trail. Jim Parker: Exactly. What ever water comes there now runs through that area and then down into the marsh. That is still what is going to do except that we provided some storage area so that during a bad storm, there will be less water after the pro- ject is developed going down into the marsh. Tom Erdman: Where are you thinking the water is coming from? Can you explain that? Jim Parker: There is a certain area that is a tributary to this. What I am saying is that it is going to keep doing what it is doing except that we are providing some storage area and the Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1984 Page 3 e storage area was calculated so that any increased runoff from building houses, streets, etc. will take place here. Any increased runoff as a result of development is going to be stored during a hundred year storm, the worst storm that is likely to come along. Right after the project is developed, less water will run down to the marsh during that storm than it would now. No matter what runs down there now, less is going to run down after the project is complete because storage has been provided. Ralph Hegman: Does that mean then, when you rework that marsh, what does that mean entirely? Are you going to destroy the marsh that is there? Jim Parker: You would have to do that to enlarge it. Ralph Hegman: The idea is, the existing marsh will not be there, in other words, it will just be like a little lake. There won't be any cattails as there are now. Jim Parker: The plan is to provide tom level of the marsh so that over drain just like it does now. There in the marsh except like it is now. We are lowering it. a low level pipe at the bot- a period of time it will won't be any standing water We are not proposing a pond. - Ralph Hegman: In other words the road is going to go right over that marsh. Jim Parker: That's right. Ralph Hegmen: Well I think that's wrong. Mrs. Fisher: We are the last house that the subdivision will come to behind us. Everything behind us is high and if it is not done right it is going wash along the woods down into my family room and through my large door. I do not have a back yard, it goes straight up. (Mrs. Fisher showed Mr. Parker the location of her house in relation to the plat. Mr. Parker advised here that the drainage from the plat will not affect her property.) Pete Throdahl: The average size of the lots is 21,000 feet, what is the range of the lots? Jim Parker: They range from 15,000 to 27,000. Pete Throdahl: What do you anticipate selling the lots for? Randy Herman: We haven't put a set price on at this time. Anywhere from $25,000 on up. e Pete Throdahl: Are you going to be building in there or are other people? Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1984 Page 4 e Randy Herman: We will be doing some building. Some of the building will be done by the people who choose to have their own builder. Pete Throdahl: What price range of house do you anticipate in being in there? Randy Herman: Again, there is no set range but would estimate between $125,000 on up. I think there is potential on some of the southern lots for somebody to justify a house that my sell for mid $200,000. Pete Throdahl: Are you proposing any minimum square footage in terms of the house? Randy Herman: We have a fairly diverse set of lots. We've got some as you come into the entrance just to the west that are going to be on the. minimum size, 15,000 square feet. We've got some on the southern side that are going to be very good size with an exposure of Lake Minnewashta. There is a pretty big range in there for sizes of homes, values of homes, a great degree that ought to be up to the person who wants to buy the lot what they want to put in. e Jim Parker: Alot of times the price of a lot is going to dictate to an extent what range a home is going to be built. Pete Throdahl: I would like to see some minimum square footage for the house so we do get the type of house that is going to add to the property. Randy Herman: There is contemplation, although we haven't come up with a set set of covenants and restrictions at this time because we are still somewhat on square one. From a marketing standpoint, we don't want junk built on some lots. Pete Throdahl: In terms of a project like this, is it a planned development? Dacy: This is not a PUD, it's only twelve lots. The City's ordinance requiring a planned Unit Development is 24 lots. Noziska moved, seconded by Ryan to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. e Merz: Presently we have a ground water table one foot below the surface. The existing elevation is 954 and you're going to make the bottom of that pond 948. If the water table is that high you will never have any absorption. The absorption of that existing pond is the only way you will get rid of the water. The pond will act as nothing but storage so when you say you are adding capacity, in essence, your're not adding capacity. Any water that comes into this site will have to go out the storm sewer and what we will have there is a pond forever. e Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1984 page 5 Jim Parker: There is an outlet pipe at the bottom at 948 which will be draining at the pond at all times. So it will remain dry. The only time the pond will have water in it is when there is such a hard rainfall that there is only so much the capacity of that 12 inch pipe can carry water. When it does, the water will rise in the pond. That would only be during a really heavy storm. If the 12 inch pipe can not handle it, the 24 inch pipe is mounted right above the 12 inch pipe and will begin to handle the runoff. That pipe is sized big enough to handle anything that is coming through the 24 inch pipe plus anything running off the project. Merz: In essence we have eliminated the wetland effect. There is no storage, anything that comes in goes into the pond and will go through the pipes. Jim Parker: Anything that runs in a really bad storm right now, runs right over that area. The only reason any water stands there is because there are bumps and so on, so you get a little bit of standing water in there. But there is very little storage. e Merz: All the cattails act as filteration and we have eliminated that. Jim Parker: They will continue to act in the same way because the bottom will be covered with cattails and it will be dry all the time except during a heavy rain. Merz: All of the water that presently comes in is going to come through that street and drain into this pond and immediately in the catch basin. In essence, there is no filteration system as we had before. Jim Parker: There will be the same filteration as there was before. The bottom of the thing won't be completely flat it will be like it is now. The only thing that has changed is that in the event of a real gully washer of a rain the water will not be able to run right through the area like it is now but rather will be restricted to a 12 inch pipe until it gets to a certain height and then it will start flowing through the 24 inch pipe. e Merz: That can't be. You can't take half the capacity of the pond and say that you are doing the same thing. You are con- centrating all this water in 1/3 of the area but you are having no filtration as opposed to what these cattails are presently doing. How can you take this type of a room and concentrate that down into a . . . what do we have is a 30, 40 or 50 foot wide catch basin and say we are doing the same thing if we are talking about filteration and soils as opposed to the swamp. e e - Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1984 page 6 Monk: There are really three existing drainage portions of the project that we were concerned about. One we have got an overflow and a pond to the north that flows in the northwest corner of the property. Another is the existing flow that occurs from homes up in this area. Naturally it flows down to a low point in Sandpiper and now flows down to this wetland. The third is the existing drainage comes off the site and comes down into this area. What you have here is a wetland that ponds, it ponds anywhere from 1 and 2 feet at most before it overflows and it is very difficult to get a line on exactly what its elevation is and there are some broken tile that don't seem to be func- tioning very well anymore. What is being proposed at this point, is to basically, and these terms are correct to obliterate this portion of the wetlands, not shown in orange, and actually construct a road. What is proposed in this area is to, and this has been done a number of times before in other cities and once in Chanhassen Business Park, basically this area would be skimmed. What you have got right here, right now, is a perched water table one foot below the surface. Basically it is perched in there and you can tell because this elevation is so much lower. You take this area surrounded by orange, you strip that down and take the top 2 to 3 feet, which the soil borings say is the peat. You take that off and basically take out the clay layer. When you take out that clay layer you put back in the peat. within, it can take anywhere from 12 to 15 months, you will get growth very similar to what is in there now. We are talking about a very special process. Once that is done and the pipes are put in, what we will be doing is lowering that perched water table. The water table will be drained down in this area. The new water table will be down at about 948 level. What you will have in place of this big wetlands will be the smaller deeper wetlands that will function as basically 1) wetlands and 2) a holding basin. What is proposed and this gets into some detail that we usually don't get into in a preliminary plat is a 12 inch pipe on the bottom and a 24 inch stacked on top. The 12 inch is to basically take the flow from the adjacent residential areas and allow it to flow through, and the 24 inch pipe is to make sure that this big pipe as it comes through can be handled and go out. What we will end up doing in here, I am sure before it is done, is constructing a weir structure, some type of a box with an outlet structure, at the wetland outlet, to allow some type of buildup and allow some sedimentation to occur. Again what you are doing is offsetting area for volume and in the end you are reducing the nutrient stripping capacity of this area, but you are increasing the volume and still getting some of that sedimen- tation and nutrient stripping before it actually goes out. This entails some major revisions to the existing system. Merz: Could you get that sedimentation settling without the vegetation, you won't have vegetation in the holding pond. Unless you lower the water table and it is clay all the way down. e e e Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1984 page 7 Monk: Basically that is what we will be doing by putting the 12 inch pipe down at that lower level, basically you will be taking that perched water table out of there, you will actually be reducing the ground water elevation in that particular area down to about 948. Merz: So everything will drain through with no sedimentation. Monk: That is why you want to make sure that it comes back up in this wetlands and that's why you put the weir structure in here so the water is forced to build up before it will spill out. After the water builds up it will deposit the sediment in there and then spill out over the top of that weir and that's why you would not allow just open pipe because then the water is just going right through. That is just a little more detail on the design of this. There are further final design that would need to be done with the City and the Watershed District, but that is the concept. Merz: Do you feel the sedimentation you get in that pond without the vegetation is equal to what you are getting now? That is what you are saying. Monk: Our design is that there would be vegetation very much similar to what is there now and basically recreating what is there now at a lower elevation. There would be, I believe, as much sedimentation with this proposal but perhaps there would be a reduction nutrient stripping. Ryan: Have you evaluated the nutrient stripping capacity of that wetland now in terms of what will happen when you fill it? Monk: I tried to do some calculations. The wetlands is supposed to be designed to hold a 6 inch rain, 24 hour event and what it comes down to is you really can't return that in the existing wetlands because it is so open it doesn't have anything to get calculated as far as holding capacity. The only conclusion you can come down to is that the nutrient stripping will be reduced because the area is reduced. Whether there would be a 50% reduc- tion in that function is hard to say and I don't know any way to calculate it given the existing layout of that wetland. Ryan: You know what the ordinance says. Will you make a state- ment that reduction in nutrient stripping is not detrimental to wildlife? Monk: I guess what I am saying is that I believe that in everyway possible the proposal before the Planning Commission at this point meets the ordinance requirements. I cannot say that it will not have some impact on the downstream because there is no question that the nutrient stripping would in deed be reduced some but sedimentation would be at least the same if not increased. Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1984 Page 8 e Ryan: I think the point comes down to nutrient stripping, perhaps in many of our wetlands in Chanhassen have far more nutrient stripping capabilities then are called on to do and we can reduce the size without effecting the actual stripping capa- bility. But that is a conclusion that has to be made. Monk: It does flow into another wetlands area which in itself does have nutrient stripping capacities and to try and come to grips with how much of a reduction would be allowed in this one without being detrimental to the lower one is a question that I can not give you a calculation. Albee: The road going over that area how is that designed so that doesn't create a weak area in a pocket of the wetland. Monk: We don't usually require soil borings as a requirement but in this case we did. We got two soil borings along the roadbed that showed again that the peat area two to three feet in depth and showed that there was a clay area underneath so basi- cally you would have to take out that peat area and get down to the clay, stablize the area. Had the peat area come back at something like ten feet deep, we would be much more concerned that we would not be able to stablize it without major measures and thats what does make this particular layout economically feasible. e J. Thompson: How deep is the clay area? when you remove the clay and get down to wherever that is, and you could actually get more percolation through the. . . Is it possible that the regular soil, get more stripping or Monk: I think in Chanhassen it is highly unlikely that we will see that everywhere. We can't seem to get away from that. I don't think that in this area with this type of a perched water situation that you are going to get a tremendous amount of down- ward movement of the water and that the best thing you could hope for in this situation is to get sedimentation and nutrient stripping as the water moves across. Some downward motion will occur, it always does, but we are not counting on a tremendous amount. Soil borings have been taken down 20 feet to see whether they ever get through the clay, but I don't think they will. J. Thompson: If the clay is to thick would it be possible to put some type of trench drain in there. Monk: The problem is that the clay goes out in all directions and we may be able to take it down somewhere its got to start to get out towards the lake the way its going to gravitate. Again I think above ground is . . . e J. Thompson: I'm not saying eliminate it. Monk: It is something to look at but I think it is highly unlikely. Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1984 Page 9 e Merz: The borings indicate that there is 12 feet of dirt. M. Thompson: Is there any way this could be designed differently that it would make more sense to resolve some of the problems. Monk: The only modification that jumps out at you will be the moving of the north/south section of the roadway to the west and eliminating Lot 12. Conrad: We could move it one way and the developer loses alot. The question is if the developer can prove the water quality with that ponding as an improvement to the situation. - Monk: Having looked at that possibility, there is no question that the existing wetlands would still need to be modified. The existing wetlands as it stands right now is too close to the street elevation to give any type of storage capacity that is necessary for the flow that come through that area. So whether it is redesigned or not the wetlands would have to be modified, would have to be deepened. The same type of concept would have to be arrived at and basically you would be looking at leaving the wetlands perhaps closer to its existing size and you have got to come to grips with whether that trade off or the lot trade off what's reasonable as far as development goes. Sure it is easy to say that leaving the wetland as big as possible is most benefi- cial. Again, is it most reasonable. It is an option. The wetland at 954 would not suffice. You would still have to take the wetland down to 950 to get it to work and your still talking about a major modification. The pond as it is proposed right now will be storage capacity. M. Thompson: If they eliminated Lot 12, would they be somewhat the same size. Has the developer considered that? Randy Herman: Is that true though, I'm not sure but if we moved the road over we are still talking about 33 to 35% reduction in that wetland. Jim Parker: We might be talking about 15% difference. M. Thomspon: You mean we don't pick up that much by Lot l2? Merz: Could Lot 12 in essence become that other stripping area you were talking about? Jim Parker: Well it is a hill right now. - Monk: This is the first subdivision, I believe that has involved the Wetlands Ordinance since we have approved it. Most of the other instances, it has been quite easy to protect a wetland, like Fox Hollow, because it was a Class A wetland with other e Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1984 page 10 ponding available. This particular case we have run into a free standing Class B wetland. We are stretching the ordinance by saying that this Class B should be used for storm ponding but in this particular case alot of the other property is in slope and does not lend itself in any way, shape or form to any other type of layout. We are should look at this in terms of trying to achieve certain things as far as keeping some sediments of the wetland that has some stripping capacity but yet has some storage capacity. Again it being a Class B it, in this case, a free standing wetland, it has a more difficult design and almost has to be used to allow any type of reasonable use on the property. M. Thompson: How big is the wetland area? Monk: The wetland area as I have calculated it is about 1/3 of an acre. Albee moved, seconded by Ryan to approve the proposal. J. Thompson, Albee, Ryan, Noziska and M. Thompson voted in favor. Merz and Conrad opposed. The motion carried. e Merz stated that he is opposed to this because it would be reducing the wetland by 50%. He felt that a precedent is being set because this is the first case requiring a wetland altera- tion permit. Conrad agreed with Merz and also felt that the intent of the ordinance was to prevent zero degradation of the wetland and felt that the road should be moved. Public Hearing: preliminary Plat Approval of Maple Ridge subdivision #84-6 Subdivision located at 7251 Minnewashta parkway, Duane Barth, applicant. Public Present Ann Osborne James Borchard 3815 Red Cedar Point 5580 Co. Rd. 19, Excelsior e Dacy explained that the applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval for a 13 lot single family residential subdivision. She stated that the proposed lot sizes meet the lot area and lot width requirements of the Shoreland Management Regulations. She stated that the average lot size is 17,405 square feet and the proposed density is 2.5 units per acre which is consistent with the development density recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that Outlots A and B along the northern boundary of the plat will be conveyed to the property owners to the north in an attempt to to rectify legal description inconsistencies. She stated that the applicant has indicated a "walk easement" which matches the location of the drainage and utility easement along the southern boundary of the plat. She stated that it is Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1984 Page 11 ~ intended as a private walkway for the sole use of the Homeowners Association and she added that the developer should be aware that a private walkway cannot be shown on the final plat and must be described in a separate document, according to state law. She stated that the City Engineer determined that the proposed street, utility and drainage design was acceptable but has recom- mended some minor adjustments in the utility and drainage plan. She also stated that the applicant is proposing an identification sign to be located in the center of the proposed and that the ordinance requires the sign not to exceed 24 square feet in area. Ann Osborne questioned if there would be a common beachlot and if not now, in the future? Dacy stated that no beachlots are being proposed in the subject plat, but the property owners have a right to propose one in the future through a conditional use permit process. Ann Osborne also stated that her present water pressure was low and wondered if the new subdivision would make the situation worse. Monk stated that an extension of the proposed watermain will be required to loop into the existing main near Mrs. Osborne's resi- dence. He stated that this would help increase the pressure and 4It that it is the most that can be done. Jim Bochard stated that he thought the lots were very small for the area and is afraid that if building setback variances are approved, the lots will get even smaller. Dacy replied that the smallest lot is 15,125 square feet and the largest lot is 26,000 square feet. She stated that the lot areas meet the ordinance requirements and adequate building areas exist. Noziska moved, seconded by Ryan to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. J. Thompson moved, seconded by Noziska, to recommend approval of Maple Ridge Subdivision #84-6 with the following conditions: e 1. The subdivision identification sign must not exceed 24 square feet in area. 2. The proposed watermain to be located in the proposed street must be extended between Lots 5 and 6 to loop the system with the existing line in the northeast corner of Lot 6. 3. The ponds in Lots 11 and 12 must be consolidated and the sani- tary lateral located between Lots 11 and 12 be moved between Lots 10 and 11. 4. A ditch must be constructed over all storm pipes. 5. Permit approvals from the Watershed District and other affected agencies must be obtained. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1984 Page 12 e Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit Request #84-19 for Contractor's Yard Activities on Property Zoned R-la, Agricultural Residence District and located at 4141 Kings Road, Carlson Excavating, Applicant Public Present Mr. Carlson David Trumble Doris Brickley 4141 Kings Road 4151 Kings Road 4380 Parklawn, Minneapolis e Dacy explained that the applicant is applying for conditional use permit approval for the continuation of contractor's yard activi- ties on the premises. She stated that the applicant has 5 vehicles, retains one employee, and the hours of operation are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. but may vary. She stated that the appli- cant does not have adequate existing structures on site to house the vehicles. She recommended the applicant construct an accessory building or confine one area of the site as an outdoor storage area and provide substantial screening on all sides of the storage area. She recommended a completion date of september 1, 1985. She stated that this would reduce the visual impact of the contractor's yard on the neighborhood. She stated that the yard is littered with piles of debris, old machinery, unlicensed vehicles and other waste material which detracts from the appearance of the property. She stated that the applicant should remove all waste materials by June 1, 1985. Carlson stated that when he first requested to build an accessory building, he was denied by the City Council and now staff is requesting him to build. He stated that it would be too costly to build today and years ago he could have afforded it. He also mentioned that it is hard to keep the contractor's yard clean but felt he could do a better job and would start doing so. He also asked if everyone had to go through this process. Dacy stated that everyone has to apply for a conditional use per- mit for a contractor's yard and that several operations have been contacted. She also stated that the applicant had two options, either build a building or screen one area of the yard. Robert Wilson questioned if this conditional use permit would be reviewed annually or if it would be granted and never checked on. Dacy stated that the applicant must meet the conditions of the permit, and in this case, the recommended deadlines. Carlson asked about what would happen if he did not meet the deadline. e Dacy replied that the City can issue citations and begin court action to force compliance. e Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1984 Page 13 Carlson asked if there is a limited number of vehicles he is allowed to have. Dacy stated that if there is significant intensification, it will prompt another review and he would have to apply for another con- ditional use permit. Doris Bickley stated that Carlson could not build a big enough building to screen or cover all of his vehicles. She stated that the dirt road was very dusty with vehicles going up and down it and said that this yard was an eye sore and something should be done about it. J. Thompson moved, seconded by Albee to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Albee stated that the visual impact of this property was horren- dous and stated that asking the applicant to remove the debris and vehicles by June 1, 1985 was very generous. Merz asked if there would be a way to store the vehicles farther behind the property line rather than having them right out in front. e Carlson stated that the property in back slopes and is to steep to do that. He stated that there are ten vehicles on his prop- erty and if he built a building the majority of vehicles could be stored in it, however he stated that he was denied the request to build such a building several years ago. Conrad stated that he preferred the applicant to construct a building rather than just screening because it could take years before screening would cover the sight of the vehicles. Dacy stated that a combination of fencing and plantings could be accomplished. Noziska asked Mr. Carlson if he could meet the September deadline of cleaning the debris. Carlson stated that he could. He asked if he wanted to construct a building would the Council permit him to do so. Dacy stated that constructing a building is being recommended. Conrad stated that he would like staff and Mr. Carlson to work together on this. He would like to see a solution that would be good for Mr. Carlson, staff and the neighborhood. e Noziska moved, seconded by J. Thompson to table this request until more definitive information can be received. All voted in favor and the motion carried. e e e Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1984 page 14 Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit Request #84-17 To Allow Contractor's Yard Activities on property Zoned R-la, Agricultural Residence District and located at 710 and 720 West 96th street, Ronald Landin, applicant. Public Present Ronald Landin 720 West 96th street Dacy explained that the applicant is applying for conditional use permit approval for the continuation of contractor's yard activi- ties. She stated that the operation consists of six vehicles and two cement mixers and that no activity is conductedon the premi- ses. She stated that four of the vehicles and the cement mixers were stored outside and that they are fairly well screened from the north. However, she recommended that the applicant either store the vehicles inside the accessory buildings or fence the outside storage area in a manner that would screen vehicles from adjacent properties. She stated that the contractor's yard does not appear to have an adverse impact on surrounding properties and that traffic generated from the site is limited to one vehicle per day driven by Mr. Landin. She added that the appli- cant also submitted a list of the surrounding property owners who have no objections to his continuing his business "providing that the current operating conditions remain the same". She also noted that a variance was granted for a pole barn at 710 W. 96th street and a condition was placed on the variance prohibiting the use of the pole barn for storage of equipment used in the contractor's yard activities. She stated that the intent of the condition was that the Board did not want to grant approval for a pole barn for contractor's yard activities until the request had been formally considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. Landin stated that he would like to store all of his equipment in the pole barn. Noziska moved, seconded by Albee to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Albee moved, seconded by Ryan to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #84-17 for Contractor's Yard Activities at 710 and 720 West 96th street with the following conditions: 1. Expansion of the existing operation beyond what has been represented in this application must be approved by a con- ditional use permit. 2. All vehicles must be stored within a building or the outdoor vehicle storage area must be screened on all sides with ade- quate fencing at least six feet in height. e e e Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1984 page 15 J. Thompson, Merz, Albee, Conrad, Ryan and Noziska voted in favor. M. Thompson opposed. Motion carried. M. Thompson stated that he felt the ordinance does not provide any criteria in which to make the decision. Because it is non- specific he is not in a position to establish criteria in which to render a decision on the conditional use. Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit #84-18 to Allow Contractor's Yard Activity on property Zoned R-la, Agricultural Residence District located at 1180 pioneer Trail, Buck's Excavating, applicant. Public Present Buck and Diane Buech 1180 pioneer Trail Dacy explained that the applicant is applying for conditional use permit approval for the continuation of contractor's yard activi- ties. She stated that the applicant's operation consists of eight vehicles and that no business is conducted on the premises. She stated that the applicant has installed six ten foot tall evergreens along the front property line adjacent to pioneer Trail and intends to complete the screening of the entire street frontage in the near future. She stated that there are no other employees retained by the applicant and the intensity of the yard does not appear to be having an adverse impact on adjacent prop- erties as it is bounded on two sides by the golf course and is several hundred feet from existing single family residences. She also noted that the applicant intends to build onto the existing storage building on the west side of the site and with the other building on the east, just in front of the applicant's house, all of the vehicles could be stored inside at all times. Noziska moved, seconded by Ryan to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Albee moved, seconded by J. Thompson, to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #84-18 for Contractor's Yard Activities at 1180 pioneer Trail subject to the following conditions: 1. Expansion of the existing operation beyond what has been represented in this application must be approved by a con- ditional use permit. 2. All equipment must be stored within a building or the outside vehicle storage area must be screened on all sides with ade- quate fencing of at least six feet in height. J. Thompson, Merz, Albee, Conrad, Ryan and Noziska voted in favor. M. Thompson opposed. Motion carried. e e e Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1984 Page 16 M. Thompson stated that he felt that ordinance does not provide any criteria on which to make a decision. Because it is non- specific, he is not in a position to render a decision on the conditional use. Approval of Minutes Albee moved, seconded by 1984 minutes as written. and M. Thompson voted in carried. J. Thompson to approval the October 24, J. Thompson, Merz, Albee, Conrad, Ryan favor. Noziska abstained. Motion Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.