Loading...
1988 04 06 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 6, 1988 Vice Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Ladd Conrad, Annette ElIson, Steven Emmings, Brian Batzli, James Wildermuth and David Headla STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Larry Brown, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT WITH A CANOE RACK AND A DOCK WITH THREE OVERNIGHT STORAGE OF WATERCRAFT ON LOT 37, SHORE ACRES, ON LAKE RILEY, SUNNY SLOPE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. Public Present: Name Address Kevin Sharkey Ken Wolter Paul and Sue Olson Joy Tanner Lucille Remus Don Sitter Dick Nelson Jim Oeckoog Jill Koeugh Richard Blumenstein Gary and Kay Eastburn Jack Harweeno 380 Deerfoot Trail 341 Deerfoot Trail 9239 Lake Riley Blvd. 9243 Lake Riley Blvd. 9245 Lake Riley Blvd. 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. 360 Deerfoot Trail 510 West 78th Street 9361 Kiowa Trail 9361 Kiowa Trail 9355 Kiowa Trail Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on this item. Ernmings: We'll open it up for comments from anybody here who wants to speak on this issue. I'd like to hear from the applicant's first, if they're here and would like to say something. Kevin Sharkey: I'm President of the Homeowners Association of Sunny Slope. You've seen this request before. We have modified it a little bit. I'm here to clarify any questions you might have. Emmings: We can hear from anybody else who wants to speak on this subject. I, personally, am particularly interested in hearing from the people who live on the properties adjacent. Paul Olson: I live adjacent to the property on Lot 36. . Emmings: Which would be on which side? Paul Olson: Looking at the lake it would be on the left side. The east side towards the point. I guess I oppose it because your proposed useage is for 12 families to use that property. It's original platting was R-l, '2.>--H--i>;,_:~~~~.r::~~~4;-,. ..I ~----: L Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 2 e single family useage. If you look at the property, on the map you can't tell but it's only 50 feet wide. That's a very small piece of property to be trying to moving boats around on so I'm opposed to it for all those reasons. Ernmings: I'd like to ask you, do you feel, in your opinion, would it depreciate the value of your property and your home to have that next door to you? Paul Olson: Yes I do. That's my major concern. Headla: You mentioned about boats. You were concerned about the boats. How many boats were you concerned about? Paul Olson: I'm concerned with the idea of a dock. To put a dock down there and you put one boat or two boats and they have to access off of either side. The property is only 50 feet across and corning around the point, they're cutting me off virtually if they put too many boats there. It affects my access to my property with too much traffic. Headla: How would you feel if they didn't have boats there? Paul Olson: beachlot. 4It Headla: So you're basically just opposed to the beachlot? I'm still opposed because I'd view it's useage as a Paul Olson: I'm opposed to the whole thing because of the valuation of my property. Joy Tanner: I live on the adjacent property of Lots 38 and 39. About 10 years ago I went to my first meeting regarding this matter. That was at the time when we needed a variance for setbacks and so forth in the road before the whole landing was built. The developer at that point withdrew his request and they've been after him ever since. I was assured by City Council and whoever, Planning Commission at that time, that it was absolutely against any intent of the ordinances in anyway whatsoever to give the permission or a conditional use permit or to call it a recreational beachlot. Nothing has changed except the ordinance has become more restrictive. I felt protected by the City's ordinances. I would like to feel protected again. The Sunny Slope residents have used that lot as though it were approved. They've had a dock in as if it were approved. They've started going overnight all last summer. The summer before as though it were approved. I've had difficulty getting response from the County Sheriff's Department. On a Sunday afternoon when they're busy with drownings and things like that I can understand that but it's a difficult situation and I would like to see a resolution of it. Emmings: I would like to ask you the same question. Do you feel that it would depreciate the value of your property to have that used as a tit beachlot? JOY Tanner: Definitely. That was my opinion before we bought our property and we were assured that it couldn't happen. Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 3 e Headla: Did that dock present any problem last summer? Joy Tanner: It did in that it wasn't supposed to be there and there weren't supposed to be boats anchored there. If it is, it violates the ordinance. And there were comings and goings, noisy docking and taking off very late at night which is real unusual on a quiet bay that we live on. Jack Harweeno: I have a couple of lots to the east of Paul who spoke here before and we're building a home this summer so that's why I carne tonight. I just have a question really. I don't know that much about this and I wonder, what is the utility of that lot? Was it intended to be as a buildable, as a 50 foot lot or what are the alternatives for the people who are making the decision? Emmings: That's a good question. If it's not used as a beachlot, at least from what I know of the history of this, I think we could probably expect to see, probably it's only use is as a residential property. Jack Harweeno: But it is buildable at the 50 foot width? Emmings: It would need a variance obviously. It's a very small lot but if they couldn't put a house on it, they probably couldn't do anything with it then, if it's not approved as a beachlot. tit Jack Harweeno: The history of it was, how long has it been that you had to have 100 feet to build on? Emmings: I have no idea. Barb, can you answer that? Dacy: 100 feet to build on as far as a house? As far as a beachlot? Jack Harweeno: Yes. Dacy: The beachlot ordinance was adopted in 1982 which imposed the 100 foot lot widths requirement. Then in 1986 the City amended the beachlot ordinance to require a 200 foot lot width for a recreational beachlot. Jack Harweeno: For recreational beachlot which is what this application is for? Dacy: Right. Emmings: Were you asking how much, if it has enough frontage, could be used as a residential property? e Dacy: Alright. The standard for any new lots in the single family district is a 90 foot wide lot. Because this is a platted lot of record, meaning that the plat was filed I believe in the 1920's, the City does allow lots to be built on if they meet 75% of that 90 foot lot width. Obviously at 50 feet that would not make that requirement. They would need a variance not only for the lot width but the lot area and more than likely for setbacks. Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 4 e Jack Harweeno: So it really have no utility for those who own it except as a recreational beachlot. Dacy: Unless a variance is granted for a single family home. e Gary Eastburn: We live over on Kiowa Trail and all the residents of Kiowa Trail were not notified of this hearing but I live approximately right here. I have a concern in that over here the City Council has already granted a recreational permit for Lake Riley Woods for a beachlot over here already. The concern that I've got and some of my neighbors have is that the DNR has restricted this lake to an access with 15 boats I believe is the restriction on it and they did that for a purpose in itself. To restrict the use of the lake. My concern is that on the left of my lot there are three vacant lots already and it's owned by sid Mossen who has owned it for about 15 years. They use it as a recreational lot for four families. On the weekend it is a zoo out there with four families and each have 3 or 4 kids and there's 20 people running around on my block next door. That's a nuisance to me as it is so if I was to have another recreational lot on the north side and then one on the south side plus the public access over there, the value of all the lakeshore property goes down. I guess the concern I've had, in 1976 I believe, or 1977 was when they had the previous hearing on this before and at that time they denied access to that property as a recreational beach and at that point in time they said that they would in fact allow a variance for building on that lot and grand fathered in because it was since platted so I think there is value there for the purpose of building a home on it. It is very distressing to us, who have paid a premium for the lakeshore itself, it have the residents who are off of the lakeshore, be able to enjoy the same benefits that we've paid extra money or incremental money for when there is a public access that everybody has access to on the east side. Don Sitter: I've been up here before. I'll kind of give you the same speech. People that live on Sunny Slope are our friends and our neighbors and we don't want to create a hassle with any of these people. Emmings: Where do you live? Don Sitter: I live about 5 lots to the west of this. Emmings: On the lake? e Don Sitter: Yes, on the deadend. My concern is this. Agreed, there are other properties on the lake that could eventually have lake access or beachlots conceived on their property, it could be sold off. There could be a real impact on the lake. The 15 boat limitation on the public access, as I understand it, is up for discussion here in about a week. The DNR has ruled that that is illegal to have a 15 boat limitation and they're going to open up the public access to however many people want to launch their boats on the lake. I feel we have a real problem with this poor little lake. It's a nice little lake. It can barely handle the traffic that it's got on there now and if Eden prairie opens up that public access to any number of boats, we have this beachlot with more boats, the Lake Riley Woods and other property that could be developed, Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 5 e I think welre really asking for trouble with the lake. I think welre going to be back here again in the future asking for speed restrictions and all sorts of other things that lid really prefer not to get into. I also feel like the people at Sunny Slope king of got misled when they bought their property. They bought it with lake access property and I feel real bad that they canlt use that. I would like to propose that we allow it to be a beachlot. Allow it have a dock. Allow them to have the canoes but I would like to draw the line at the boat launching and the overnight storage of the boats. I donlt know if you can change their request or as it goes to Council because I donlt feel very neighborly saying we don't want you on the lake because I don't think that's the procedures at all. I would like, if they could amend it. I don't know if that's possible to do and give them some value, something to use that beach lot for. Hopefully they can come to some kind of agreement and we can all live as a cohesive neighborhood. If we can put this issue to bed this time. lid like to take care of it. Emmings: A couple of people have eluded to boats being launched across the property or boats going in and out there and I believe that our ordinance states that you can not launch a boat across a beachlot. Gary Eastburn: Could I ask one more question? Who enforces that ordinance? e Emmings: That's the $64,000.00 question. It takes people who see violations basically calling the City and getting the sheriff to come out. It's tough. Don Sitter: We're supposed to call the police on our neighbors? That's a hard thing to do. Headla: I think there's another alternative. Require the beachlot owners to put up some pilings across there so youlre not going to get a vehicle in there. That's all you need. Emmings: I think his question is broader than just boat launching. I think he's asking, how do you enforce all of these things? Don Sitter: You bet. If they put 3 boats overnight and the 4th one slips out there, what are we supposed to do. Call the Sheriff? That's crazy. I heard a comment the last time we were here that this is a self policing policy and I have a hard time with that. It is not a self policing policy. people like to get on the lake. I know they will do anything they can to get out. The public, I've seen drive by their lot and start to back down. They've come down my driveway and tried to launch boats. They think they can get on here because the public access was filled so I guess that's the other part of the problem. Who enforces these regulations when we do set them up? e Emmings: I think there's no question that when beachlots are permitted, there are abuses. There's just no question about it. It happens. Gary Eastburn: One other thing too before you close up the discussion on this thing. What is to stop this from becoming a precedent setting Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 6 e thing? Becaues the Lake Riley Woods is one that, you can see that dividing line there between Eden prairie and Chanhassen. Just to the left of that is another development. David Vogel owns that I believe and he's proposing 14 lots. It's been before the Planning Commission. I assume he too is going to want to have some way of having access for the off lake lots for these people. So if you have one at Lake Riley Woods, you have the public access, then you allow this one over here, he's going to want to have another one on there and how do you deny this person one if you've allowed the previous one and the previous one before that. Emmings: Simple answer. The ones we have coming in now comply with the ordinance and this one doesn't come close. Gary Eastburn: Which one? Emmings: The one that's being proposed today. Sunny Slope. We've got an ordinance. Gary Eastburn: You mean the 200 foot limitation. Emmings: Exactly and this one doesn't come close so I don't think that that's a concern. e Gary Eastburn: One last point, what would be the DNR's position on the overcrowded situation that this might cause to Lake Riley? Emmings: I have no idea. The DNR is an absolute mystery to me. know if there really even is one. I don't Dacy: The number of boats stored at a beachlot dock are the same number that would be permitted if it was an individually owned riparian lot. Three boats stored overnight. Now granted, during the day somebody from the Sunny Slope subdivision could go over to the Eden prairie side, launch their boat and in essense you could have additional boats out there but "overnight storage" at that dock could not exceed three. DNR's position is probably going to be discussed more in conjunction with the Eden prairie boat access issue. Richard Blumenstein: My wife Jill and I have moved in on Kiowa Trail on Lake Riley last summer. We don't have much different to say than has already been said before. We moved from Minnetonka where we moved from a very nice house, which we traded for a house that was basically trashed on the lake, and it was an even trade so that we could live on the lake. We feel we sacrificed a lot and we're going to have to put a lot of money into this house to come up to the standard that we were living before. That was our sacrifice to live on the lake. I empathize with the owners at Sunny Slope. I wish there was an easy solution for this but apparently there really isn't. I guess we sort of feel the way Don Sitter did who talked before sitting in the back there about we wouldn't mind if had canoe storage and people could run their canoes out of there but we would not like to see launching because we're concerned with additional boat traffic on the lake. e Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 7 e Headla moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Emmings: We have choices here. We can go around and make our comments on this but I don't think that's probably a good idea in light of the fact that we're going to have to hold the public hearing open to the next meeting but I think it probably would be, if anybody wants to give an indication of their general feelings on this issue or how they feel about it, at least with the input we've had so far, I think that would be both fair and reasonable to the people who have shown up. If you don't want to comment, fine, just pass but let's go around and give a general indication of how we feel about this thing. At least with the input we've gotten so far. Headla: I'm glad to see it deferred. I'd like to see what happens with 5. The outcome of that but generally, I think the public has a negative stereotype feeling on beachlots and I don't know where that happens. I've got three beachlots within a block of me on Minnewashta and every one of them have been an asset to the community. The lakeshore is kept clean. The people keep it neat and I see this lot very, very similar to Minnewashta Creek beachlot. I stopped in there Sunday. That's a pretty neat place. The grass is cut and they've got a grill. I think it adds something to the community. They've got a little bit of a sand beach. When I went over to this particular place, I see the houses very close together. Barb, what's the lot width on the adjoining lots? e Dacy: In this area here? Headla: Yes. Dacy: Similar size. It ranges between 40 to 60 feet. e Headla: Yes. To me, if we're going to be consistent, I think we've got to let these people have a dock. I go down there and see house after house, they've got a dock. Those people bought the land. They pay taxes on it. So I called the Tax Assessor and asked him, what do you do on a beachlot? They don't even put any value on the beachlot. However, the people who have access to that beachlot, their value of their property is increased due to the beachlot. The Assessor doesn't ask you if you have a dock or not. He charges them. He's assessing them just like that lot owner right on the lake. I think Mr. Sitter certainly, that's the conclusion I came to. I really would like to see a dock in this situation. I would like to see them have canoe racks. I've got a lot of concern about the boats but we also have the situation that if you have a dock, even if you don't have a dock, those people can bring 5 to 6 boats just like the adjacnet property owners. They can bring 5 to 6 boats in one day. You can't stop them. They've got a perfect right to be there. I was thinking more along, as I look ahead, if we allow some boats there, there's nobody policing those boats and they're really open for people to come and rip stuff off. Pretty soon then, I would suspect people are going to want a nightlight there. Now that's really an imposition on the neighbors. I don't think that would be right. So looking at the whole thing, I would like to see the ordinance reworded. I think we know much Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 8 - more now. How to reword an ordinance or how to write an ordinance on a beachlot. I'd like to see us back off from this and rewrite that beachlot ordinance so the beachlot is considered to be consistent with the community where they want it. Let's have some basis for the number of feet they put in. 100 feet or 200 or whatever. That's all. wildermuth: I can sympathize with the people who own this lot, in the Sunny Slope Association but I think the fact is, the description of the lot doesn't in any way meet the ordinance. It doesn't meet the current ordinance nor did it meet the previous ordinance. I think considering the kind of use a beachlot gets, I think the ordinance is a good one and I think basically it should stand with some minor modifications which we'll be discussing later tonight. Batzli: I agree with those sentiments. I think the lot is so small for the use that's being proposed that I think that's an unreasonable burden to put on the adjoining land owners and I do think it would substantially harm the values of their property. Part of my problem is that it doesn't even come close to meeting the current ordinance as it reads. I understand that this is corning back and it probably carne closer several years ago but I still think it's too small of a lot to put something like they are proposing in on a conditional use. Ellson: I agree with Brian. I think I'd be more inclined to grant a variance to have another house so this size property is exactly like the ones on either side than I would allowing 12 families to come in on this small property. e Emmings: On that issue, if I could just interrupt here for a minute, I seem to remember from the last time we were here that the people that lived to the west actually built on more than one lot are they not? You own two lots so your house is built on two lots? Joy Tanner: I have two lots. Conrad: I agree with most of the comments to date other than Dave's. The beachlot is a real priviledge because it's an intensification on a few feet of lakeshore. Therefore, to achieve that priviledge you have to meet certain things and you've got to be real sensitive to the neighbors. I happened to be around when that ordinance was drafted and a lot of work went into it and a lot of good thought. I don't see anything that tells me other than some small changes to it that are good, that the ordinance should be changed. There are real good reasons for 200 feet of lakeshore. Real good reasons and here we're so far away from the intent of the ordinance that I think there are other uses of that property should be explored. It's real clear. There's just not any doubt in my mind that this does not meet the beachlot intent. Not even close and therefore I think it's wise to send a signal that we should pursue, the City should pursue, the owners should pursue a different course in using that land. e Erhart: Fill me in again. Why are the owners of this lot, why do they feel they have rights to a beachlot in the first place? They were told by the developer? Did we have such a thing as a beach lot when this Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 9 -- development took place? Dacy: I would prefer that the applicant would answer the question to make sure that's correct. Emmings: Would you be willing to answer the question? Kevin Sharkey: Yes sir. Erhart: During the time of development, did a home owned...recall that this lot was to be used by the developers or by the people who owned the houses? Is that true? Kevin Sharkey: Yes, at least four of the current owners were told that they had the right to have a dock on the lake. The balance of us in Section 2 it was implied to. We have it in a written statement with Steve Burton so we've been led all the way along that we could have... Erhart: We didn't have a beachlot ordinance at the time? Did we have anything at the time to prevent them from doing that? Dacy: The beachlot ordinance was enacted until, I think it was March of 1982. It was my understanding at that time that there was no dock on the property or there was no active use of that lot as a beachlot. e Erhart: Who owned it? Dacy: I don't know. Erhart: Was there a Homeowner's Association at the time? Kevin Sharkey: believe. In 1982, yes there was. It was incorporated in 1979 I Joy Tanner: I've been living next door to the beachlot, Steve Burton owned it. One of the first families there. And they asked us if they could use our dock. ...and my former husband and I said yes. Absolutely. You're free to use our dock when your relatives are here. But when it's more than one family though, that's it. I don't recall how long.. . Erhart: Barb, somehow the City doesn't feel that this has been grandfathered in. Dacy: That's correct. It would have been a different situation if there had been an active use of that lot. If there was a dock out there. If there was dock limitation, then it was a "beachlot". Ever since their first application in 1984, that's been the City's position. e Erhart: Who owned the lot in 1982? Kevin Sharkey: The Sunny Slope Homeowners Association did. Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 10 e Erhart: That clears up a few things for me. I guess my feeling is that it's just too narrow to be acceptable for a beachlot. I would vote against it. Emmings: Me too. Again, I think it's too bad the way this matter was handled by the developer but I think the ordinance is very clear. I think the ordinance is good. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that it would depreciate the value of the neighboring homeowners and that in itself is enough to kill it for me. It's also one of the criteria in our ordinance under granting conditional use permits is that it can not depreciate surrounding property value. It would just, not only for the adjoining neighbors but also from people don't live right next to it that they feel it would depreciate their property values and I don't think we could possibly grant it on that alone. I think from here then, given those comments, I think it's pretty clear which way this will probably go if we voted tonight. It probably isn't going to change a lot but I think we've got to hold the public hearing open so that notices can be sent out to all the people who own lakeshore around the lake that are in Chanhassen and give them an opportunity to speak and be heard on this issue if they want to be. with that, I would ask that we have a motion to table this and continue the public hearing until the appropriate notice can be sent out. e Erhart moved, Batzli seconded to table the request for the conditional use permit for a recreational beachlot on Lot 37, Shore Acres, Sunny Slope Homeowners Association, until the appropriate notices can be sent. All voted in favor and motion carried. Dacy: Before the public leaves on this item, the variance request has been scheduled in front of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals on Monday, April 25th. If we have not sent the notices out already, you will receive a notice on that issue. The next meeting that this will be considered would be April 20th so we'll be sending out notices on all of the issues within the week. PUBLIC HEARING: TRAPPERS PASS ADDITION, PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND PUD-R, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - RESIDENTIAL, LOCATED ON THE NORTH AND WEST SIDES OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE WEST OF HWY 101, LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION: A. SUBDIVISION OF 32.5 ACRES INTO 34 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A POND WITHIN A CLASS B WETLAND AND DEVELOP WITHIN 200 FEET. Public Present: - Name Address Greg and Deb Cray Frances O'Brien 320 Pleasant View Road 450 Indian Hill Road Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 11 e James and Esther Holte R.D. Stevens Jim Wehrle Michael A. Pflaum Peter Pflaum Rick Sayther 330 Pleasant View Road 6614 Horseshoe Curve 241 Mountain Way Lundgren Bros. Construction Lundgren Bros. Construction Applicant's Engineer Barbara Dacy and Larry Brown presented the staff report on this item. Emmings: Does the developer want to make a presentation? Peter Pflaum: If you want a presentation. Emmings: wha t . . . If you have anything that you want to present in reaction to e Peter Pflaum: There's only three issues. It's a pretty simple deal. No point taking your time unless you have questions. There are three issues that we are concerned with. My name is Peter Pflaum and I'm the president of Lundgren Brothers. The three issues, I have to go from memory but that I remember that we are concerned with. One dealt with the tree issue. It's sort of hard for me, we've had such a good relationship with your community, I don't know how to state this without offending people, but to us it really was an insult to put restrictions on us in taking trees down or your concern about it and let me explain why. We bought this site or controlled the site since 1979. The only reason we were interested in the site really was because of the trees. On top of that, we planted probably more trees on that site than any of your developments in your community and we plan to plant more. First of all that's why we feel it's an insult. The reason we're there is because of the trees and we planted a hell of a lot of trees out there. In addition to that, as a developer I've always been a little bit incensed when you require something of a developer you don't require of the other citizens. I mean, after all, we are a property owner and we should be treated, you really discriminate. I'm not saying you, because it happens in other communities but it really bothers me as a developer when you tell a developer he's got certain requirements he has to do with regards to taking trees down yet the average citizen doesn't have any. To me that's discrimination. ,e Emmings: Well, it isn't discrimination but let me just explain what I think is going on here because I don't think it's anybody's intent. I don't know what you're doing out there and maybe none of the rest of the people do either. That's sitting up here, I don't know who does or doesn't but the point is, that's something that I see on everyone of these that comes through on every development. It's one of those boiler plate type conditions that we see in all of them and it certainly isn't directed at you or your company personally, I'm positive of that. Secondly, we've had experiences with developers who come in who have said we bought this property because of the trees, why the hell would we want to take the trees down? The next morning they're all gone. That would probably seem stupid to you as a developer maybe who knows what he's doing and maybe those others didn't but we've had that experience. Don't take offense. Just understand it as an item of boiler plate. Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 12 . Peter pflaum: But the other side of it is, it is a major inconvenience to us to have to go to some city official and take an inventory and something we object to violently. Not only that, I don't believe it's been a standard procedure because in the first two additions .of Trapper's Pass, to my knowledge, we've never had it. I would ask your Planning Commission, I will object to the Council also, have them go out there and see if they've got any objections. I haven't heard one objective from the residents or from the City. As a matter of fact, I've heard compliments. Just the opposite and so I object and we will object. Why should we have to do that? I do think if you're going to require us to do it, you should have it in your ordinance. You should require every citizen who buys a house in your community, that you want to review his backyard because why should we be treated any different? Wildermuth: There is a difference though. property. You don't live on the property. develop and you move on. The residents lives on the You're a developer. You Ernmings: I don't want to get into an argument here. We're not going to get into individual arguments here. You have to understand that this is, I see development after development. Peter pflaum: Is this part of your ordinance? e Emmings: I don't think it's in the ordinance but it's been a condition on everyone of these over the last year or so and all that we're doing is saying, we don't intend to insult you. That's not what's going on here. It's just boiler plate and I would differ with you too. There is a difference between one person developing one lot for his own home than there is a developer coming in and doing a really huge development like you've done here. There is a difference. But anyway, go ahead. Peter pflaum: That was one point. The second point deals with the sidewalk. There's a requirement that we put a sidewalk. First of all we had, as you know, done quite a bit of developing in your community with no sidewalk in this project. Now you're coming to us and telling us you want us to put a sidewalk in a part of the subdivision that leads to nowhere. Maybe you should show them what we're talking about. Rick Sayther: On this street and on Oxbow Bend. - Peter Pflaum: I have two concerns. First of all, I don't think we should be required to put a sidewalk in that leads to nowhere and benefits nobody. It just costs us money. Second of all, a portion of that street was already approved before under an additional plat with no sidewalk. I'm sure what's happened is you have a new ordinance or concern about getting sidewalks in the community but in a planned unit development such as ours, which is in it's sixth year of development, which is 80% done, it doesn't seem to make much sense to take one portion of it and put a sidewalk in that leads nowhere. Really, the reason we developed out here, and I think the reason a lot of the residents are out here, is they didn't want sidewalks. Certainly in our project it's inconsistent with everything we've done. So that's why we object to that Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 13 . because we don't think it serves any purpose and it's a needless cost and we don't think our residents want it. The other issue deals with the wetland. The only reason we thought we wanted to dredge a portion of the wetland to create a pond just to create an amenity to that end of the site that really needs some help. The only reason I wanted to acquire this piece of property was to develop another entrance to our site. Our site has a serious problem and really I think a health and hazardous condition in that there's only one street that serves I don't know how many units. 150 or some incredible number and they were in the flood, if you talk to residents, one of the big ponds there flooded and they didn't have access. Most of you weren't around when we bought this property and got it zoned originally but there was concern then, when we did the project about how much access there should be on Pleasant View. If you looked at our original plat, the original planned unit development that was approved and it was always planned that there would be connection from our project through this piece of property now. Maybe you could show them where that is. Rick Sayther: It may not be clear to the people back here but this is TH 101, Pleasant View Road. The site that we're looking at now is over here. The only access from Pleasant View now is near TH 101 and it feeds back into this big area to the west. When this was approved, there was approved a stub street that deadended into the piece, the O'Brien parcel that we're dealing with tonight with the idea that there would be some sort of a looped street system to that property. . Emmings: Where does that road go to the north? Rick Sayther: This is the Shorewood/Chanhassen boundary and in the other Galpin/Near Mountain PUD there's another road that comes down. Emmings: That Trapper's Pass that stubs, that little stub they're talking about putting a barricade across and that goes into, when that land to the west of that is developed, will there be more entrances still out into the existing roads? . Peter Pflaum: The point I was trying to get to and I got off the subject a little bit, the reason we wanted this site and the only reason we wanted it was to develop another access to our property that was originally intended as a way to have access to our property. The reason I was concerned about doing something with the pond is I wanted to dress up the entrance to the property. We had a private meeting with the neighbors and I asked the neighbors, there are some of them here, if they would object or what their feeling was if we created a pond there because if they didn't want it, we wouldn't do it. My understanding was the neighbors felt it was a good idea. One of the neighbors was concerned whether, maybe more than one, if we did something to that pond it would somehow affect flooding on their property. Rick studied that and he can show that that is not a factor. All we really wanted to do was just open up a corner of the property so we can have some open water so we can landscape around it and just enhance the property. We also want to do quite an intensive landscaping around the entrance because at that point in time, just like we did in the Near Mountain entrance. There's no vegetation so we wanted to put some trees in. So that's all we're Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 14 . talking about but the reason is just to improve the property. I think our concern was, the way the condition is put on it by the staff, we couldn't live with it because of the way that it was written would not allow us to really improve it with the idea of opening up some water. That's the only intent was to do that. So those are the three issues. The trees, opening up some water in the marsh and the sidewalks. Those are the three issues between us and the staff. Everything else I think we're in agreement. Emmings: Just so I'm sure I understand, are you saying that you've got an application here for a wetland alteration permit and the staff is recommending approval of that permit. Now, if you get the permit with the conditions that are on it, will that give you what you want there or are you saying... Peter Pflaum: No, we're saying the conditions placed on it will not allow us to do what we want. Emmings: What specific condition? Dacy: Number 1. e Michael pflaum: Let me try to explain. I don't have the Fish and wildlife Guidelines before me but basically as I understand it, by reading it, the objectives that these standards serve are to establish beneficial habitat for wildlife creatures and marsh vegetation. Produce a nice ecosystem that will be beneficial to wildlife in general. What we are attempting to do here is take a small piece of that wetland. It's about 6% of that and make a hole there. Open water so we don't have vegetation growing up through the water. There's going to be I think 7 1/2 acres of wetlands undisturbed. Actually it's going to be a little less than that because we are building our pond, our pothole, on a portion of that 7 1/2 acres. Basically about 7 1/2 acres remain undisturbed. A 1/2 acre is dredged to form an open water pond without the shallow slopes and ungladdy bottom and so forth because really that's not the aesthetic that we're trying to make. Ernrnings: And then real specifically, how does that first condition cause you problem with what you want to do? Michael Pflaum: It's so small to begin with that having an irregular shape is almost impossible to create. The second one has to do with side slopes. Side slopes are too shallow. You have very abundant weed growth corning up to the surface which does not create an open water pond. If you have an uneven bottom, where it's rising and falling, you have irregular weed growth throughout and basically, we're not trying to create a rice paddy. We want to create a pond and leave the rest of the land as it is. . Mr. Stevens: What constitutes as wetland is all that I want to know and how is this 7 acres a wetland? This was farmground. Dacy: Yes, it's to my understanding that many years ago it was farmland. ...in any case, a wetland exists our there today. It is on the DNR's map Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 15 . and we had a gentleman from the u.s. Fish and Wildlife come out and evaluate the site. He confirmed that it is in fact a wetland. There are three things that determine a wetland. vegetation, soils and if it supports wildlife habitat. In the u.s. Fish and wildlife person's opinion, those three tests were met. Mr. stevens: I have test borings here from 1978 where at 15 feet it impacted 8,000 pounds and no water appeared in the hole in four hours on the adjacent property. The first lot just south of this one and that was the wetest spot on the area. We had horses down on that for about 5 years. We pastured horses in there. Mr. Hoyt has two evergreens in his yard about 50 feet tall that came out of that same sewer area you're talking about and I think O'Brien's farmed it for many years. Dacy: I'm not disputing that. I just want to make clear that even though there may not be standing water at consistent time periods throughout the year, again, that there is wetland vegetation, canary grass, sedge grass, if there is peat and muck soils or wetter soils than the typical hayden clay soils that you find in Chanhassen, then the Fish and wildlife people... Mr. Stevens: You probably have those conditions now but they were created. It wasn't that way. - Dacy: Right, and we have to look at what exists today at this point and not what was 10 or 15 years ago. Mr. Stevens: How long ago did they determine this was wetland? Dacy: It was in February. Mr. Stevens: How about my lot next to this? Is it buildable next to that pond? Dacy: with a variance, potentially yes. Mr. Stevens: A variance for what? Dacy: Depending on where you're going to place your house on the property... Mr. Stevens: acre. I'd like to split them into two lots. It's 9/l0ths of an Dacy: If you've got 90 feet of lot frontage, 15,000 square feet of lot area and you can meet the 75 foot setback... Mr. Stevens: But we can put a road in along side and split it for two lots can't we? Isn't that in your ordinance? ~ Dacy: You're talking about... Mr. Stevens: We're 150 feet wide or so on the front. Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 16 It Dacy: You would have to create a full blown city street right-of-way. with 150 foot lot width, you could not split that into two 90 foot lots running on pleasant View Road. Mr. Stevens: We're planning on putting it this way... Emmings: Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to address the issue that's in front of the Commission. Mr. Stevens: I think it is the issue because if they put in that pond and then I have to set back 75 feet from a wetland and they're calling that a wetland now, then the condition is changed. Emmings: But you're asking our staff to tell you whether or not you'll be able to divide your property and until you put in an application and they have a chance .to look at it in detail, it's unfair for them to put them on the spot. If you have questions like how far do I have to be set back from that pond or something, that would be appropriate but don't ask us to do a review of your property here tonight. It just can't be done. It's not fair to you or to us. Dacy: With or without this pond, this boundary represents the limits of the wetland today so even if they didn't create this pond, their pond isn't creating your issue. You have to deal with this pink boundary in e here as it goes through your site. Mr. Stevens: My question I guess was when did it become a wetland because it certainly wasn't when I bought the property? It was called buildable lots by the City and the sewer and water is in on them. We're paying taxes and assessed for it and I certainly would like to be able to build on it. e Jim Wehrle: I'm the President of the Near Mountain Homeowners Association. I guess there's just a few key points that we'd like to communicate. Those of us who live in that immediate area, especially such as myself and my neighbors. Obviously as far as the trees go, we're pleased with the apparent resolution that's been reached with the agreement. To put something in writing to protect the trees. We're in favor of that but I'll second the thoughts that Lundgren Brothers have passed along that they have done a pretty good job in saving the trees, even though they haven't been required to. Secondly, I think my primary concern, speaking to you as an individual from this point, that there under no circumstances be, hopefully any resistence to allowing another exit out of our development for safety purposes. We found ourselves in a situation last July of not being able to get the Life Squad back into that area and it is still the exactly the same exact situation today as it was at that point in time. We could not, if a flood came up out of our ponds across the streets, the one real access street that comes back into the area where I live, we can't get any first aid as needed. I had a life squad truck stall out under 3 feet of water in front of my house on July 21st, or whenever it was and I think there are getting to be so many homes back in there and there's such limited access right now, that that's an absolute necessity for health and safety if nothing else, as well as traffic flow. As far as the pond, I think all of us who built or Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 17 - bought in Near Mountain did so because it was a very nice planned unit development. It has a lot of nice ponds in it. I think Lundgrens did a great job in putting in the ponds that are there now and I think this is comparable to, my understanding of how they went about putting in the pond that are in there now. Dredged out an area perhaps 6 feet deep. I would think if they were allowed to do what they're proposing here, that it would be a great enhancement to the vegetation and/or wildlife that may want to live in that ecosystem because it is dry, as has been discussed here, a considerable part of the year. That would see to it that there was some wetland available throughout certain parts of the year. So not only aesthetically would it be nice but I think it would enhance whatever necessities the wildlife had for that wetland. Lastly, I'll just concur that we do not have sidewalks throughout the rest of that planned unit and there wouldn't be any consistency with what is there now. It's not a big deal to the homeowners association one way or the other but I will concur that it seems to be a needless expense that's non-conforming with the whole atmosphere of the existing development. Emmi ng s: Is what they're calling sidewalks here, is that the trail? Dacy: Off-street trails. Emmings: The portion of the trail system that's been recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission. Is there anybody else who wants to comment on this item? e Greg Cray: I live on the second lot down from where that pond is there. I really like the development as it's laid out but there again, the one problem that I have is the pond in general. That whole wetland area, there's no drainage out of there except for one very small tile line that was put in by the City when they put the park in which is just to the southeast of that area. Right in there. The end of that tile line would end up approximately in the middle of that pond the way it's drawn there. I want to make sure that there's some means for getting water out of that area. Like during that large storm last year, we got a tremendous amount of water back in that area. Probably, I would guess 8 feet deep on a site over that wetlands area. The tile itself that was put in was put in quite high in my thinking. It really would have to be extremely deep out there before it would ever be of any kind of use for draining that area out. I'd just like the City to take into consideration the possibility of that tile being changed and enhanced to make sure that there's no drainage problems and so on especially since I'll commission the hillside could have an impact as far as the watershed and so on. Emmings: How long have you lived out there? Greg Cray: Approximately 6 years now. - Emmings: And we've been hearing that it's typically dry in there. Is that your experience? Greg Cray: It depends on the time of year. It generally has water. At the time we bought, it was dry. When I bought the lot. The next spring during the time where I was building the house, it got quite a bit of Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 18 . water in there and it's gone anywhere from so dry you can walk across it to 6 to 8 feet deep, depending on the weather. Batzli: How does it impact your lot? Greg Cray: The big impact it has on my lot is that my sump pump never quits running when it gets high. It just raises the water table of the whole area because there's no outlet. Emmings: Do you have anything further? Greg Cray: No. Emmings: Do you want to address this outlet question? . Brown: Yes. I'll address part of it and then I'm going to defer this question to the applicant's engineer, Rick Sayther. We've discussed this 6 inch tile line quite extensively being that the public has been quite concerned about it. Upon submission of the storm sewer calculations for the plat, I raised the question to the engineer, Rick Sayther, what happens to this 6 inch line once the development is in? Are we overloading that line and Rick explained to me that in their calculations, and I went through and verified this, they completely disregarded that line. The reason for that, in the event of a 100 year storm, they have provided enough storage in the ponding area to take care of their development alone without any run-off from the 6 inch line that now exists out there. So they've provided more than adequate storage for it. This 6 inch line will adequately drain it off obviously at a slower rate than an 18 inch pipe would but the storage issue, I think they have addressed quite well. As far as the neighboring structures, I'll have Rick discuss that. Rick Sayther: I'm Rick Sayther with Sayther-Berquist. We're the planners and engineers for Lundgrens. After we had our neighborhood meeting or at our neighborhood meeting this gentleman came and was concerned and I was too, not knowing what the elevations were out there so I sent my survey crew out to do a couple things. One was to locate the edge of the wetland and the other was to shoot the elevation of the tile line so we could see how high the water would get before it ran out. We also went onto his lot and I hope he isn't mad at us for it but we went out and shot elevations around his house and shot the garage floor elevation. It's not a walkout so we couldn't shoot the basement floor but I would guess it's probably an 8 foot difference between the garage and the basement. Something like that? Greg Cray: Yes, it would be about that. '- Rick Sayther: Okay, we shot the garage floor at 923.98 which is about 924. The tile line right now would outlet the wetland at 912.7 so from the garage floor down to the tile is about 11 feet. The basement would be at about 915 or 916 so the basement level is 2 or 3 feet above the tile line. In the 100 year storm, we expect the water to rise in the wetland up to the 914 contour which is that pink line on the drawing. The theoretical 100 year storm which we got way more than last year. Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 19 Ie Emmings: Is that with or without the pond or doesn't it matter? Rick Sayther: That pond together with the other ponds will serve to reduce the run-off rate to what's there now. We're proposing a couple of other ponds that aren't colored that are the stuff on the top of the drawing. Emmings: So if you didn't have the pond, would the water be higher in the 100 year storm? Rick Sayther: I'd say yes because we're increasing the total amount of run-off through the development process. If the tile line wasn't there at all, then that marsh would continue to fill and there would probably be a problem someday but even with that small 6 inch pipe, it will have adequate capacity to drain the water down. Water will drop down to at least the pipe elevation and then it may evaporate out and go dry like it has in the past. The wetland. Or it may stay up at that elevation of the pipe. It just depends on the season and the wetness. It's a good thing the pipe is there and our calculations show that it would be adequate for the future. Emmings: If that is dry so much of the time, how will the pond have water in it all year round or all summer long? ~ Rick Sayther: We believe that although the surface gets dry sometimes, below the ground level 6 inches or less, there's water so if we dig down 4 feet, we'd have 4 feet of water in that excavation. That's really what we're doing. We dig below the surface level to have open water where now the water is just standing in the soil. Emmings: So you're digging down into the water table and have you dome something out there to test that notion? Rick Sayther: There's water there most of the time just at the surface. Just below. Our experience in the area with all the ponds that we've done have shown that that's a real practical way to create a pond. Brown: If I may address one other thing. Prior to me coming aboard on staff here at the City, as I understand it, there's been a great debate over the 6 inch tile line that was placed out there by the City. Being that it is now, at the present classified as a wetland and at the time that the tile line was installed, we could not drain the wetland dry so the intent of putting the 6 inch tile line at a certain elevation was to maintain some moisture in that wetland so that wouldn't be a euthification of a wetland. Emmings: Anybody else have any comments on this? e Mr. Stevens: Are you also aware that there's a culver that drains the parkland back over into that slew? Brown: Yes we are. Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 20 e Mr. Stevens: Although the contour of the park has changed quite a bit. It used to drain the run-off into that area. Conrad moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart: You stated that you planted trees in this area. Are you referring to when you developed the other areas in there you planted trees to landscape after you did the subdivision or you planted trees in this particular area? e Peter Pflaum: We didn't do any of this in this particular site. What I was really referring to is, if you were to drive in Near Mountain, this whole area didn't have any trees on it. Every tree in that subdivision. If you went into this area right down here you'd probably find, I don't know 70-80 15 to 20 foot evergreens. I was talking about this area. Just driving you can see. That's what I was referring to. When I was talking about woods, from this area where my hand is all this area is woods. What I was saying, we developed all this land in here in the woods. We went out there and working with backyards, there wasn't any requirement, it was never a problem. It's a real hardship for a developer to have to come in and bring the city out there and show them what trees you're going to take down. I can see your concern if somebody has abused something and I can also see if it was an ordinance that required to every development. Erhart: This is something that started after...The condition number 1 there Barb, what does it exactly involve? It says tree removal plan shall be provided at the time of building permit application for Lots l...? Dacy: Basically what that means is that when the Certificate of Survey is submitted for each building permit application. At the time of building permit application for individual homes. Erhart: What does that have to do with the subdivision? Dacy: I'll finish. A Certificate of Survey will show where the proposed house pad is going to be and the finished floor elevation of that as compared to what the existing contours are out there on the property. So what we would be asking the builders to do would be to label on that plan where the construction area would extend to. How much of the lot would they be grading out during construction of the single family home so we have a record that they are not going to be clear cutting the entire lot. Erhart: In our clear cutting ordinance, we have a clear cutting section in our subdivision ordinance right? e Dacy: Right. It's tree removal and conservation of vegetation in the subdivision ordinance. Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 21 e Erhart: It states that they will all be 3 inches or something, that are removed for streets... Dacy: No, I think what you might be referring to is shoreland requirements for tree removal but that specific diameter size is not identified anywhere. Erhart: In the subdivision ordinance? Dacy: Right. Erhart: We do have it as clear cutting provision in the subdivision ordinance? Dacy: The term clearcut is not stated in the ordinance but there are six provisions in this section which allows the City to require these types of removal plans. Erhart: In the subdivision ordinance? Dacy: Yes. e Erhart: Is there anything else in the process that requires the developer to identify house location? Dacy: No, the Certificate of Survey is the best method to do that because the surveyor has gone out to the lot. Again, the developer has suggested an alternative condition that would be acceptable to staff. Erhart: What I'm driving at is, this particular paragraph just started showing up in the subdivision proposals about a year and a half ago and you're the first person who's really objected to it. I don't remember being on the Commission where we ever actually discussed this particular thing. I think we just accepted it. Do you remember Ladd? Conrad: Yes. It was like a policy. Erhart: Yes, we kind of accepted it but I don't know if it was ever really clear what we were asking. Conrad: The detailed requirement of the developer, we base it on staff's opinion of what is necessary for a landscape plan or clearcutting plan. e Erhart: Without spending a lot of time on it, if we thought it through and this is what we want to do, that's fine. If we haven't, I guess I would suggest perhaps at a later meeting we do think through this particular requirement and really understand the ramifications to subdevelopers to see if there's a possibility to accomplish the same thing without placing much effort into it. That's enough of that. The other thing is, the sidewalks, the trail system. Again, unless I'm wrong, this is the first time that I can recall seeing a subdivision corne in here where there was actually a request of the subdevelopers to actually put in the surface for the trail system. Am I wrong on that? Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 22 e Dacy: Yes. There have been other subdivisions where off-street trails have been required. Erhart: Where they've actually been required to put them in? The asphalt surface? Dacy: Right. Erhart: Recently or a long time ago? Dacy: Lake Susan Hills West. Curry Farms. Kurvers Point. Again, the Park and Rec Commission adopted their trail plan within the last year so they're just following through on those requirements. Erhart: So we're to understand that it is now city policy here that now that we've got a trail plan, that we're expecting developers to do that as a part of the subdivision? If that's the case, then I think that's something new. e Dacy: I guess I would even go one step farther with the Commission and say that that recommendation is from the Park and Rec Commission and certainly the Planning Commission is welcome to comment on that particular condition. However, the final disposition of that particular condition should be up to the Council. I would feel uncomfortable having the Planning Commission acting on what the Park and Rec Commission did. Erhart: I'm not suggesting to do that. Again, I'm bringing up, we're acting on policy for a program in the City to do that so it's probably worth our while to have Lori corne in here and tell us what is the grand scheme of these things. On the other hand, if this is something that's been going for a long time and we just missed it, then you can just ignore than. What was the purpose, are we requiring the developer to extend the Trapper's Pass up to the end of the property or is that their idea? Rick Sayther: I don't think the staff has required that we run the street up here but we found that the buyers of the lots, the builder or the home buyer can't really fully appreciate how that will look after the street's built unless the street gets built so it's just been the policy of Lundgren Brothers to build the street adjacent to any lot that's platted whether it's going to be used right at that time or not. Erhart: Alright, we appreciate that. Lastly, do you want to defer the wetland questions until we get to that or just go? Emrnings: You didn't really present your report on that did you? Dacy: Between the discussion of the developer and Larry, I think staff's It presenta tion is fine. Emmings: Okay, then let's just talk about the whole thing now. Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 23 e Erhart: There's simply not enough run-off there to make essentially a wildlife wetland. It's seem the proposal is simply an aesthetic pond which I'm all in favor of. There simply isn't enough drainage there to take the 912 or the 911 and create and improve a combination an aesthetic area and wildlife. Rick Sayther: I believe that through time, after the development is finished, since there will be more water going into the basin, that water will stand in there more often for longer periods and you'll probably get more aquatic vegetation than you've got. The base of it is a big, flat bottom basin. The water stands in a couple spots and the water has to get 1 1/2 to 2 feet deep before it can run out. I think through time you're going to have that position where the water is standing there 1 1/2 to 2 feet deep over quite a big area. I think the wetlands will become more viable. Erhart: That being the case, could we resolve, the real problem with ponding is your slope. You said in a small pond you can't make the increase of water with a 10:1 slope around the whole perimeter, correct? What about, let's assume the area does become more ponded as time goes on, could we increase the size of the pond slightly to the west? Forego the requirement for the 10:1 slope on the east half of the pond but slightly increase the size on the west size to get the 10:1 slope toward the center of the bowl as an alternative. e Rick Sayther: That's a creative idea. I think what's really going to happen though is, it slopes all around that basin. The whole basin has slopes of 10:1 and 20:1. As the water fills in there and it gets to get 1 1/2 feet to 2 feet deep, I think exactly what the Fish and wildlife is hoping for would happen with most of the wetland. Whether we do the pond at all, that condition will corne to be. There will be a better habitat. What we really want to do with that little half,acre piece there is to create a permanent open water area for the attractiveness of it. Erhart: I think you can accomplish both simply by expanding the size. Maintain your open area because you want 3 feet of water there to keep open and just expand your grade off towards the center. I understand you're limited by road and you have lot constraints. I just suggest that as a compromise solution on this but again, certainly a pond is better than nothing at all. That is the real problem isn't it? The slope. There's really no other problem. It's uneven to me. It's too small to have a rolling bottom. Muck, you're going to have it whether you want it or not. That's the real problem. Rick Sayther: The intent is to dig it to be 4 feet deep from the pipe down. Erhart: I'd say it's pretty straight forward beyond that so I'll pass. - Conrad: Larry, on the streets when we have a 10% slope on Trapper's Pass, what does that create? What kind of drainage problems does that create when we have a slope that's a little bit steeper? Is that a concern of yours? Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 24 . Brown: At 10% grade, no. Conrad: You're worried more about safety and access than you are with drainage? Brown: Correct. The reason that you see the type of storm sewer casting that is speced out, that you see commonly around the City is for that very reason. At a 10% grade the water does not go shooting past the grate but falls down into the curb box so that's not a concern of mine. Conrad: For drainage specifications, you've considered the grade and you feel comfortable that they can deal with that? Brown: Correct. . Conrad: As far as the pond is concerned, my only concern on the pond is that it does dry out and we end up with something that's not always the most attractive thing. I think Peter you had some problems last year when we have the semi-drought before we had the semi-floods. I can't think of a solution for that. I guess I would not ask for an expanded ponding site simply because when it does go dry, a pond can look negative. In terms of how to keep it full all the time, I guess I don't have a solution for that particular concern. Because of the developer's good track record in Chanhassen and the fact that they have to a degree reforested and have been really pretty sensitive to the environment, I think they should follow our policies but I'd sure encourage the staff to make it a very easy review with the developer. I don't know what kind of guidelines that's sending and I guess I'll ask Barbara. When somebody submits a tree removal plan, what does that entail? What is that? Is that specifically detailing which trees are cut or is that a review, a walk through of the site with people from the developer's company. How do you do that? Dacy: It basically shows what trees are going to be removed in the area of the construction for the grading and the construction of the home. We do not require a detailed inventory of each lot and each tree. Just a plan to show us the area that trees are going to be removed and basically, it means kind of a circle on the site or around the proposed building pad. Conrad: So it's a document that is submitted? . Dacy: Yes, that we keep on file. It gives the inspection staff and when the building permit is reviewed by all the departments, we can look at it and say, okay they're not clearcutting the lot, they're not removing a substantial amount of vegetation. It appears to be okay. Now, to be honest and totally frank, 5 years from now that property owner could go down and one day at a time take a tree down at a time and put down new sod and eventually clearcut the lot and we probably wouldn't know about it but we have gotten burned. There are subdivisions during building permit review that it comes back to staff saying, why didn't you catch this and how could you allow such a thing. Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 25 e Conrad: There have been some real bad situations and I think we agree that there should be review of that. I'm trying to get a sense for, are there degrees in this review because we know that the Near Mountain group has done a real fine job so to impose a burden is not the point of this little exercise. To be consistent however, in how we treat people is to a degree important. So I ask the question again, are there degrees in how we work with the developer and we review that tree removal situation or is it just an absolute? Are there no degrees in the depth that we go to in that plan? Dacy: We can work with Mr. pflaum and work out some type of solution to this. Yes, there are degrees available and we would be more than happy to work with them. Conrad: That's all. - Brown: One clarification if I may. To address both Mr. Erhart's comments and Mr. Conrad's comments, the concerns about extending the wetland out, I think I've analyzed the flows that come down through this storm sewer pipe and pond and eventually go out the 6 inch tile line. To creat an open water pond you need at least 4 feet of water before the cattails will not grow. The rates just would not really facilitate extending this pond out. Being that you have a shallower pond, it wouldn't be an open water pond and it would be more inclinced for your operaion. Again, you have the scenario that Commissioner Conrad talked about, having the edges dry and having a barren surface out there which I don't think is desirable. Erhart: I have a point that the requirement is only a 10:1 slope for 30% of the shoreline so it's not the whole thing. Brown: My intention was not for the slope. That's an entirely different issue, but extending it out. They've maintained a certain rate to keep an open water pond out there. Conrad: On the pond, I feel comfortable that the requirement of the Fish and wildlife Service, condition (a), I don't have a real strong feeling for keeping it uneven and I think that condition can be slipped, in my mind. I'm not sure that the others, I haven't been persuaded yet that the others can be slipped or sacrificed. Based on what I just said Larry, because I am saying that (b) through (f) for Fish and Wildlife is important, did you just say that (b) should not be a requirement of their ponding? Brown: No. I'm saying that the total overall surface area of the pond, they are restricted in one sense as far as the slopes. I think it's a whole other issue. e ElIson: The tree removal plan, I wasn't here when I guess you've had all the abuse and I certainly understand it. Maybe you can put something in there such as, unless it's a developer we've worked with before who has proved himself. If you're new then you've got to go through the...until you've proven yourself to our City, you don't have to do it. I'm not .- Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 26 e necessary comfortable with clearcutting but if staff is comfortable with that clearcutting unless approved, then I would be fine. Also, I agree with the rest. I think he's been very good with the City and I'd rather not bring him any more work than he needs. The part about the sidewalk, I think the Park and Rec Commission, as you stated before, are just pretty much asking for this to be tagged along with everything from now on but I don't really see a point if this is part of the whole planned unit development and it wasn't done as a planned unit development then it's no longer planned. It's all of a sudden something that was stuck in there. It takes away from the idea of being planned. I could see eliminating the sidewalks. I share the same feelings with Tim about the wetlands thing. I would like to see them try to have grading like there someplace. I'd hate to eliminate all the major points that the wildlife Service has and then say, we think in a few years it will end up that way anyway. They have a certain intent and there's really good reasons for it and they didn't just decide this for nothing. They've got these points for really good reasons. I'd like to see some sort of attempt at a portion of it sloped like that if it could be. That's it. Batzli: I had a couple of questions for Larry to start with. Is the retaining wall only going along the deadend portion of Trappers Pass? Rick Sayther: Yes. e Batzli: Is there a setback requirement on that or do they put that right up to the street? How are they proposing to do that and is that a portion where the Park and Rec Commission has required the sidewalk? Brown: The setback requirement for the retaining wall? Batzli: Yes. That's something that you guys are going to have to approve at any rate, correct? Brown: Correct. Batzli: Is that including if there would be a setback required? You have in here that details for the construction of the retaining wall shall be submitted. Are you comfortable with that? In case you need some sort of setback from the road or something else that you're covered there? Brown: Yes. The plans propose that the wall be placed outside the public right-of-way and that would address our concern. Batzli: And the sidewalk, as it currently is being requested by the Park and Recreation Commission, doesn't go along right at that end? Brown: It very well may be. I haven't reviewed the Park and Recreation's recommendations with that. e Batzli: On the barrier issue, are you talking about some sort of semi- permanent barrier? What exactly are you thinking about installing right there? Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 27 - Brown: This issue has recently come up before the City Council with the imfamous Teton Lane feasibility study and we are now gathering specifications and trying to adopt a standard for a permanent breakaway barricade. You'll be seeing this possibly in the future where it's imbedded down in the ground. It's a sturdy sturcture that wouldn't allow a regular car to go through it. However, a fire truck could very easily snap it off at the base and gain access. Batzli: Is aesthetics part of the study that we're conducting on something like that? Brown: Definitely. There are several designs that are out there and have been used for a very long time. Batzli: I have a general question and anybody can answer it. Is the Fish and Wildlife Service, after having designated or Department of Natural Resources, after having designated something as a Class B wetlands, there are six conditions that we list. They're established by the Fish and Wildlife Service and how binding on us are those conditions? - Dacy: We use the Fish and Wildlife Service as much as we do DNR or the Watershed District. They make recommendations to the City. The City's wetland ordinance goes beyond the requirements of DNR or the u.S. Fish and wildlife. If that wetland was not on the DNR's maps, it is on the City's maps because we cover all types of wetlands. So city staff is recommending that these conditions be a part of the wetland alteration permit and a recommended condition of approval. If the Commission feels that this is not appropriate in this case, that's fine. Then you can remove all or some of the parts that you don't feel is appropriate in this case. Batzli: I think I heard you just say that our standards are tougher than the DNR's but we included here their standards. Dacy: No, what I was saying is, our ordinance covers wetlands beyond what the DNR covers. Batzli: That's all I have. e Wildermuth: I think most of the issues have been pretty well discussed. I guess I'm not persuaded that a tree removal plan doesn't have to be submitted. I think Barbara, between you and the developer you can reach some kind of an accomodation for a simplified plan in view of the track record that the developer has. I think the Fish and Wildlife recommendations should be observed. I think in view of the investment into the trail system that the City is going to be making, we should definitely stay with the trail system. I like to see this kind of development. I think it's a real asset to the City. Large lot development with nice homes. It's going to be a real asset. There is one issue though that I would like to bring up and that is, at some point I think we're going to need some help from these developers in giving our highway system a little further developed there. TH 101 is a pain now and it's going to be even worse. I see this 32 home development, some of Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 28 - the other land that Lundgren has is zoned multi-family. That's going to put even more pressure on Pleasant View and TH 101. Emmings: In that regard, did I just see in the paper that the state and the County swapped some land and that the County is going to be taking over TH 101. It looked like it didn't corne that far south. Dacy: That was only north of Hwy. 12 was my understanding. Emmings: But the article seemed to say that after some improvements are made, south. It sounded like Hennepin County or both of them. Dacy: South of Hwy. l2? Emmings: Yes. Maybe I'm wrong about that but I thought that was an interesting piece of news that somebody was finally actually being forced to take over responsibility for that thing. wildermuth: I think at some point we're going to have to put the brakes on development in that area because of what's happening or what's not happening with TH 101. That's all I have. Headla: street lights are going to be required? .4It Dacy: Yes. They are part of the development contract. Headla: Would you tell me again what you're going to do with that whole wetland area. Just give me a quick shot at it. Are those bullrushes, is that going to change? Rick Sayther: I guess I'm speculating a little on what nature will do through time. Our intent was to put in a storm sewer pipe that would drain the water from the streets and the front yards and the driveways, run the water down into a 4 foot deep open water pond and the water would then drain out through the 6 inch tile line the City built through the ditch and the park and eventually to Lotus Lake. The rest of the wetland we wouldn't do anything to. This 7 acres plus the south there we wouldn't touch at all but I was saying that I thought through time it would become a wetter wetland. I don't know if that makes a lot of sense but right now it's seasonally dry. In some seasons it's dry. I think through time, because all development generates more water than no development, it will tend to be a wetter wetland. Headla: Larry, do you think that pond would be filled up? What's your guess? When would that propose pond be filled up? It holds roughly 100,000 gallons. When would run-off fill that up? One spring? Five springs? - Rick Sayther: Immediately. As soon as it was dug it would be full. As soon as you start digging with a backhoe, there's enough water in the soil that it would fill immediately to the surface of the ground. Some of the ponds that we did last year in Shorewood Near Mountain, we were building ponds that were above the ground water level. Those we needed a Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 29 . long time. situation. We need the big rain to fill those up but this is a different We're actually working in a perched water tabled. Headla: The reason I wanted to know that is, when I drove through there, I really felt pretty much a sterile, naked area. Well manicured ponds and I saw some geese in there. They were swimming period. You go look at that whole wetland area, that was teeming with ducks, geese and a muskrat or something at the far end but they were in there feeding and I suspect they were getting ready for nesting. When you have just a well manicured pond, outside of being a catch basin, it's worthless to wildlife and I sure would hate to see that wildlife habitat disturbed or lost. It almost sounds like, from what you said, if you put in that pond you're going to be draining the moisture back into that pond until it gets filled up. Rick Sayther: I don't believe it would. The pond area that we're talking about is about 5% of the wetland area. A pretty small percentage. Greg Cray: I'd like to make a comment. I'd say about 90% of that pond area is under water right now. It's under water. The water level is that high. . Rick Sayther: I don't think the water is up where you think it is. Headla: It didn't seem like it. It just looks like that pond, on the balance, that that whole area there. I don't have a comfortable feeling on it and I don't know enough about it to even say I'm right. I haven't seen anything here to give me any confidence that we're not going to upset that balance. Brown: If I may add a point. The water table at this point, I think everyone will agree, in that area is fairly high. It's a perched water table. Essentially what you're doing is just removing the soil. The water is already there. Right now it's not real evident because the soil is there. You remove the soil and you have a ponding condition along with that perched water table. It's not as though you're taking a dry area, digging it out and letting the runoff come into that dry area. Headla: So on the map there, like where it has 7.5 acres, your feeling is you aren't going to drop that water table maybe an inch or a couple of inches at the most for the time being. Brown: No, because the water table right here is perched already. If there was not a perched water table at that point, then I would say yes, that is possible. Emmings: What does perched mean? . Brown: Perched means that there is an impervious layer somewhere down that will allow the water to go above normal, the lake bottom or any body of water. Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 30 e Headla: Barbara, I'm pleased at item 5. I just love to see that type of thing on the wetland. That's going to give us more clout and help everybody. When the builder starts applying for permits at Murray Hill, did you have any trouble there? Remember all the discussions we had about the tree plan? Dacy: Oh, the six lot subdivision down at the bottom of the street? I was employed here. Headla: No, they're just putting them in now. Emmings: It's the one where they took out the house to create that entrance into that Murray Hill? Dacy: Okay, that's called Eight Acre Wood. Headla: Did any problems develop, is the builder and you communicating with what trees are going to be removed? Dacy: They've gotten plans and specification approval. We haven't received any building permits on any of those lots yet. They're doing what they have to do for the road and utility construction. Larry, you've dealt directly with them. ~ Brown: For the first phase only they put in utilities. Right now that project is being held up by the Watershed District but that's not relevant here. A point to note, we have and I will not mention the names to protect the innocent but we have run into problems, serious problems with not having tree removal plans... Headla: I just got to support item 1 on that tree removal. I think we've got to go all the way on that. We've asked the same thing and we had the builder here, I think he's outside now, who went through that whole bit. We didn't, at least I'm not aware of any problems with him. I think we've got to be consistent and require that. I want to support the one on the trail system. I think we've just got to ask the same thing of him that we ask of anybody else. That's all I have. Emmings: I don't have much additional. Brian has pointed out a section of the code under required standards for PUD's. It does prohibit clear cutting of woodland areas and prohibits cutting trees over 6 inches in diameter unless it's demonstrated there is no feasible way to develop the site. Dacy: That's Section 20-ll79? Emmings: No, this is Section 20-504(b). e Dacy: Okay, section 20-1179 is part of the landscaping ordinance and it says the same thing. It would apply to the non-PUD areas also. Emmings: And it talks about the number of trees per lot and what size they have to be so there already are some things there. It doesn't sound ............. Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 31 e e to me like it's a very formal requirement. I'm a little torn on this issue because I think a developer who's done a good job and has proven he's done a good job ought to get some credit for that but I don't think that means we relax our standards. It doesn't sound to me like it's that big a deal to put in a tree removal plan. You want to know the general areas of cutting and it sounds like they can take a plat and just circle on those lots that you've expressed concern about, circle a general area of where there will be tree removal and that's all you really require. It sounds like a pretty easy job to me. It's not like taking a complete inventory of all the trees out there and then deciding tree by tree which are going to go and which are going to stay. I think we've got to leave that in there. We put it in on all of them and I think we ought to stay consistent on that so we don't have problems like we've had in the past ever again. On the wetland question, I think it's a good thing to put, if that pond wasn't sitting on a wetland I think we'd all be all for it and I don't think it makes any difference that it's sitting there on a wetland in this particular case. I think it's a nice thing. I wouldn't want to own Lot 1 however and worry about kids coming and falling down into the pond but I don't have to buy a lot now so it's not a problem. Another thing on the pond is it just seems like such a differdnt kind of alteration. We've been real firm about forbidding alteration to wetlands but it seems to me when we've done that it's been where they've wanted to fill them or they wanted to put roads through them. Alterations of that kind. This seems like a very different kind of thing. It would be nice to hear what someone like Dr. Rockwell would have to say about this particular one but it seems to me that some of these Fish and Wildlife Service items can be a way to create what they want to create there in this particular case. That's all I have. Erhart: Steve, I think we've been doing a lot of these haven't we? Where there are alterations of Class B wetlands where we've had holding ponds and stuff. Emmings: Where we've put ponds in them? Dacy: The best example that I can draw for you to draw a similarity is the City's pond at the end of West 79th Street. Remember when the City went through it's wetland alteration permit. The basic purpose of that pond was for storm water retention and we couldn't achieve some of these six conditions because the HRA and the Council felt it should be more aesthetic and more appealing. They didn't want to see the wetland vegetation around the rim of the pond. Emmings: So that's directly analagous. Dacy: Right, so you have a similar situation and the other point being that it is a fairly portion of the total wetland. Erhart: I think in this subdivision right up here, there's a lot of e ponds. Dacy: Right, there's no question that we have on a regular basis implemented these conditions. ~ Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 32 e Batz1i: Would it be a reasonable condition to request that they get some sort of a DNR opinion that what they're going to do won't adversely affect the wetland? Dacy: Sure, that's fine. Batzli: Is that the sort of opinion that a DNR official would give? Dacy: They mayor may not need a DNR permit anyway. Emmings: You went out there with somebody. From Fish and Wildlife? What did they think? Dacy: Right. Prior to Dr. Rockwell leaving, both Dr. Rockwell went out there with Jo Ann and Mr. Leech went out more recently in February and they felt that the wetland was a marginal quality. It wasn't extremely good but it wasn't extremely bad and they felt that the proposed alteration could be achieved but as typically, they have always recommended the implementation of those six conditions. Emmings: Do you know if they were asked if this was just a pond like they're proposing, if it would have any detrimental effect on the balance of the wetland? e Dacy: To be honest, I know that Mr. Leech did not have the benefit of this detailed plan when he went out to the site. His main purpose was to tell us the quality of the wetland and where the edge of the wetland vegetation was to advise the developers. Emmings: Could his opinion as to whether or not the pond, as it's proposed, would be detrimental to the balance of the wetland be obtained before this gets to the City Council so they could take a look at that? Dacy: Yes. Emmings: Okay. Anybody else have anything? A motion was made at this point. Discussion followed. Conrad: Point 1, you don't feel Dave that you want to simplify the tree removal plan at all? You're comfortable that the developer should go through... Headla: We're saying a tree plan. A tree plan's a tree plan. Now the people who work with the contractor, there's going to be some repoire and I'm sure there's going to be give and take as they develop a tree plan. If somebody comes in and they really don't know what he's like, I'm sure they're going to look at it a lot more seriously what they're doing than somebody they've had repoire and worked with for a few years. e Conrad: So you don't want to send a signal saying, in writing, a simplified tree plan? Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 33 e Headla: No. Conrad: You think that staff can interrupt the words right now? Headla: I think right now it gives them enough leeway that they can work with that person and do what they think is the spirit of the recommendation. Emmings: I agree with Dave on that, by the way. I don't think we should change. That's a boiler plate condition and I think it ought to stay that way and let the staff work with the applicant, just like Dave says. I think it's very appropriate and it doesn't sound to me like we're requiring that much anyway. Conrad: I don't know what simplified versus complex is and I think Tim's comment is we should probably talk about what this is because it's really good but we don't know what we're asking. Dacy: And that's probably because you don't work with it everyday. building inspectors and the planners, we're out in the field all the and we work with them and we can tell from the Certificate of Survey they're really going to be needing to remove all those trees. The time if . Conrad: Maybe Mr. Chairman you can have staff educate us in the weeks to come on what's required. Erhart: I'd ask staff to come back at some time and help us understand this requirement and whether or not we're really putting a hardship and we're not gaining anything but as far as this proposal, I think we ought to move ahead. Headla moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #79-2 for 34 single family lots as shown on the plan stamped "Received March 4, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: 1. A tree removal plan shall be provided at the time of building permit application for Lots 1-5, Block 1, Lots 1-11, Block 2, Lot 1, Block 3 and Lots 7-14, Block 4. 2. The applicant shall construct off street trails along Trappers Pass, Oxbow Bend and Timberhill Road with park fees accepted and trail fees waived. 3. Compliance with the conditions of the wetland alteration permit. 4. The developer shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these improvements. e 5. The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the watershed District permit and the permit from the Department of Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 34 e Natural Resources. 6. All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the initiation of any grading, and once in place shall remain in place throughout the duration of construction. All of the erosion control measures shall remain intact until an established vegetative cover has been produced at which time removal shall be the responsibility of the developer. 7. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stabilize slopes greater than 3:1. 8. All street and utility improvements shall conform to the City's standards for urban construction. 9. The applicant shall submit for approval by the City Engineer details for the construction of the barricade on the deadend of Trappers Pass between Lot 1 of Block 1 and Lot 14 of Block 4 with the plans and specifications. 10. Type II erosion control shall be placed on the upstream side of the Class B wetland along the rear of Lots 1 through 9 of Block 4. The City's standard detail for the installation of Type II erosion control (staked bales and snow fence) shall be placed on the grading plan. e 11. Details for the construction of the proposed retaining wall along both sides of Trappers Pass deadend shall be submitted as a part of the plans and specifications review for approval by the City Engineer. 12. Lots 15 and 16 of Block 4, as depicted on Sheet No. 1 of the plan set dated February 18, 1988 shall be revised to show the correct property boundaries. 13. The driveway for Lot 16, Block 4 shall be constructed such that it forms a "T" intersection with Valhalla and Iroquois Avenue. 14. The plans and specifications shall show a drainage swale along the common lot line of Lots 1 and 2 of Block 4 which will serve as an emergency overflow swale for the ponding site of Lot 2, Block 3. 15. All appropriate drainage and utility easements along the side, front and rear of the lots in addition to all appropriate drainage and utility easement for ponding site and storm sewer facilities shall be shown on the final plat. 16. All private drives shall access internal streets to the subdivision. No driveways shall be allowed to access Pleasant View Road. e 17. The outlet configuration shall be further reviewed at the time of plans and specifications submittal and design adjustments made ~.~.-.-~ Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 35 e accordingly, if necessary, to facilitate proper conveyance of stormwater under Pleasant View Road. All voted in favor and motion carried. Conrad moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-5 to permit development within 200 feet of a Class B wetland and to permit a holding pond to be constructed within the Class B wetland with the following conditions: 1. To improve the quality of the wetland, the holding ponds must meet the following six conditions established by the Fish and Wildlife Service: a. The basin will have free form. b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of 10:1 to 20:1 for at least 30% of the shoreline to encourage growth of emergent vegetation as refuge and food for wildlife. e c. The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for variable water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for species of wildlife feeding in shallow water (0.5 - 3.0 feet) and (b) encourage growth of emergent vegetation in areas of shallow water and thereby increase interspersion of open water with emergent vegetation. d. The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from an existing wetland being filled) on bottom of basin to provide a suitable substrate for aquatic vegetation. e. The basin will have water level control (culverts, riser pipe, etc.) to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland. f. The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland surrounding the basin to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland. 2. Upon submission of plans and specifications for construction of the pond within the Class B wetland, the applicant shall provide details on area of construction for the pond within the wetland and how the remaining wetland will be preserved. 3. The erosion control fence shall be continued across Lots 7 and 8, Block 4 to completely protecit the wetland from any construction activity. e 4. All structures adjacent to the wetland (Lots 1-9, Block 4) must meet the 75 foot setback from the edge of the wetland. 5. The developer shall provide deed restrictions prohibiting alteration of the wetland area on Lots 1 through 9, Block 4, beyond the 914 elevation. ~-'"' - Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 36 e 6. The developer shall make every effort in it's pond design to improve the wetland and make the wetland an attractive, useful wildlife habitat. All voted in favor except Batzli who opposed and motion carried. Batzli: Is staff going to have the Fish and Wildlife come back out? Emmings: If you want to amend the motion, if you want to make that. Conrad: Would you like me to add that staff bring the Fish and wildlife? Emmings: Or get an opinion from them. Maybe they don't have to come back out. Wildermuth: I don't think DNR or Fish and Wildlife can do much with a wetland that small. Conrad: I'm comfortable that they don't need to be invited. Emmings: Brian, do you want to state your reasons for your vote? e Batzli: I guess I'd prefer that we invite somebody out that actually knows what they're doing to take a look at what we're proposing. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF MERCHANDISE FOR SALE, SPECIFICALLY LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS ON PROPERTY ZONED BF, BUSINESS FRINGE DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 608 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, JAMES FREEMAN AND BRAMBILLA'S INC. Barbara Dacy and Larry Brown presented the staff report on this item. Emmings: Has the applicant been asked if he'd be willing to go along with closing off one those? Brown: The applicant, we received word that the applicant was dissatisfied with closing off one of the accesses. Jack Brambilla: In regards to your little diagram there, you brought up the question about the speed going by there. If you back up to the east about 100 yards, there's a warning light there that will come on when the traffic light when you go to the left there is lit red. That warning light will slow traffic down if the traffic light is for stopping. It's a little problem corner there. I don't think the cars are going no 55 mph there. People do slow down. e Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 38 e Erhart: Only the traffic that turns to the left here has to slow down. All the traffic going to Chaska can go right on through. Jack Brambilla: There is a right hand lane that's been widened. The State corne in there and purchased some property from me to widened that lane to give it two extra lanes going straight ahead. Erhart: This is actually a three lane road. Jack Brambilla: That's right. Right at that point. Erhart: You've got more than two more conflicts there than you've shown. When people go to Chaska... Jack Brambilla: I've owned the property and there's never been an accident in front of my property from going into on that property yet. Heaven forbid. Erhart: It hasn't been open for use. Emmings: We're not going to have arguments between members of the Commission. You go ahead and make your points and then Tim you go ahead and make yours. ~ Jack Brambilla: Other than that, the only thing was on the removal of the driveway. I have talked with the State, they had talked to me about that. I do not want to give up a driveway entrance either on or off at that point. It would really be a dilemma for the property to lose a driveway. What we're using with a 25 foot setback, if the people have to corne in one driveway, make a turn inside and go back out, that's ridiculous. Brown: Mr. Brambilla, does that mean that you are in full agreement with the one entrance marked in and the one entrance marked exit? Jack Brambilla: If it worked properly. It has not been tried. I wanted it to work properly. I would be in agreement to the two driveways, one in and one out because that is the way that normal people would be entering that piece of property. Batzli moved, ElIson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Headla: After the clarification on the fuel storage tanks, the letter said the condition of the tanks is not acceptable. Then a condition is compliance with the Fire Code as to the use and location of the fuel storage tank. I don't know what all that means yet. - Dacy: The intent is, compliance with the Fire Code as to the use means that he has to come in and receive a permit. That means he's going to have to either buy new tanks and conform with whatever the Fire Code says. I think it's fairly clear that the existing tanks are rusted... Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 39 e Headla: Alright, that's the way. The existing tanks are unacceptable? Okay, that's fine. Dacy: If you wanted to clean up condition 1 there. Headla: I wasn't really sure what it was. I kind of got hung up on the letter. Then is expansion a problem? If he ever wanted to do any expansion at this site? Dacy: That was one of the issues from staff's standpoint because outdoor display of merchandise for sale means exactly that and we felt that the applicant had indicated to us that they wanted to put up a greenhouse. We felt that that was going a step beyond the intent of that use. A nursery, wholesale or retail is not a permitted or a conditional use in that district so we wanted to put the Planning Commission on notice that that's what the applicant is thinking of and they would have to process another zoning ordinance amendment if that were to be considered. Headla: He's well aware of that? Dacy: Yes. e Headla: I'm going to let Tim address the road. He's got a much better feel for that. Batzli: I was going to talk about traffic but I think that's going to be covered. I did have a question on why the appropriate sign permits must be obtained prior to occupancy. Why wouldn't that be prior to their installation? Why are you requiring them to get sign permits prior? Dacy: Maybe that was a poor choice of words on my part. Yes, we need a sign permit before they put up a sign. That was the intent. Wi Idermuth: I don't have anything. Batzli: So you feel comfortable changing the "occupancy" to "installation"? Dacy: Yes. Batzli: My other question was regarding the pumper contract. You've lessen the condition that's in the Section 1982. I think what I would like to do is that I'd like to amend it eventually to read, the applicant shall comply with all applicable codes, provide the City with the proper septic tank pumping contracts at least once every 3 years to make it read as Section 1982 actually reads. That's it. e Ellson: I can't see a reason necessarily to deny it because we have it zoned business fringe like that. It does meet the requirements. I don't like the fact that this area is zoned that way but I think it's a terribly dangerous area but I would probably approve just because of the way we've got it written and the fact that he's certainly giving us a condition that's been approved. : u Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 40 - Conrad: No comments. . Erhart: With all respect Mr. Brambilla, if I owned that piece of property I'd be doing the same thing but I think we're into a bigger picture problem here and Barb and I have been doing a little research on this whole business fringe district down there. You've got a situation where you have a 2-lane in many places, 3-lane and 4-lane highway that goes for miles in the agricultural area, it's zoned agricultural in Eden prairie and agricultural in Chanhassen and then again agricultural as you get farther west out to before you get into Chaska. It's also downhill all the way from Eden prairie all the way down and the result is you get really high speeds there. It's nothing to see 65 and 70. Maybe right at the corner but down that hill and the fact is, with the growing population of Chaska and Shakopee, the racetrack and everything and the rush hour traffic, you get 20,000 cars a day coming by there. By making this a BF district we've encouraged business should go in this area yet we simply haven't provided the safety standards to go along with it. It's like putting pryzmus on a freeway and having a left turn through the median. If we're going to make a business district out of this, then I think we ought to have provisions and plans in there for service roads. There's no other place where you'd ever have 65 mph traffic directly accessing onto businesses. I think we're just nuts and I don't know where MnDot's thinking is on this thing. We are encouraging businesses at this intersection. I buy gas frequently down there at the SA station and I think it's an extremely dangerous situation. We're adding to it. It's going to get worse. We're going to have more because there's potential for other businesses down there. Right now, Barb and I looked it up and I think we determined that everyone except one or two is non- conforming even as the BF district is written. I guess I'm working on a letter to the Commission here to have them really review it. I've already asked once and I feel that we should look at it conjunction with the Comp Plan. I think it's real dangerous. I don't know what to do about this situation. We have to look at this thing in a very serious manner. I'll vote against not because, I think you do meet our zoning ordinance but I think it's a definite safety problem. Emmings: I don't have anything to add. I think Tim's comments are well taken. I think it's dangerous to the point of being foolish but I don't think that's a reason that we can deny this. A motion was made at this point with the following discussion. Emmings: Did you want to limit it to the west driveway being the exit and the easterly driveway being the entrance? e Batzli: That would be my recommendation but I suppose the Highway Department and Larry have something to say about that as well. I wouldn't want to limit them to that. I think that may be the best plan right now but if the consensus is that they want to see something like that, I'd be open for a friendly amendment certainly. l Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 41 e Conrad: Was there discussion under future use, and I apologize for not being here, but was there discussion as to providing the applicant with a feeling of whether we thought a nursery was appropriate in the future? Did we address that? Emmings: No. Barbara talked about it. Oacy: I had anticipated on putting the BF district issue for discussion on the next agenda on April 20th. Maybe it would be appropriate to advise the applicant at this time that since the Commission is wanted to look at that in more detail, that we can start that study so to speak, within the next couple of weeks and provide direction back to the applicant at a later time so the Commission can take a broader approach to the whole district. Conrad: That makes a lot of sense but I guess it makes a whole lot of sense right now that we do that but if this motion passes tonight, I think the signal is saying that you meet the ordinance but we have great concerns for how that area of Chanhassen is being developed. We're not saying that in the future we will be as open to expansion. We may be but right now we can't give you that signal. . Jack Brambilla: I had one question. This property we're talking is about 2 1/2 acres in size. I am after a permit for the whole 2 1/2 acres, not just the front so the useage of the property out in back for storing of plants for sale, everything should be, and we're talking the whole acreage of the parcel, not just the front. Am I correct? Did you understand that also? Oacy: Then we may have a gross misunderstanding because I thought I made it clear that that site plan has to show what you want to do on the property. Jack Brambilla: Barbara, the rest of the property right now has trees and Mr. Tykus has been farming up in the back side and if my renter wants to put a product up there in bowls, the tree bowls, it should be that we can use the property that way that we're talking about. Not just restricting it to the front 50 feet. Oacy: I'm at a loss Mr. Brambilla because that's what was represented. I sat down with your wife. I sat down with Mr. Freeman. What's shown on the plan is what the Planning Commission has to look at. Jack Brambilla: The main part of the business is out front. If I can't get a greenhouse application, I have to make application for a greenhouse but you mean to say he can't put a tree on the other side of the fence? Oacy: That was not made clear to me as a part of the application. Just for the Commission's input, I sat down with Mr. Freeman who is going to be operating the outdoor sale and I said, show me what you're going to be doing on this site. He said, I just want the display area up in front. . Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 42 . Jack Brambilla: That's mainly what we are after but we still have 2 better than 2 acres of land. Emmings: Let me ask you a question here. Is the applicant supposed to submit a site plan which shows the entire property and which parts of it is going to be used? Dacy: Yes. Emmings: That's a requirement isn't it? Dacy: He submits a site plan showing what will be occurring on the property. Emmings: And is this the site plan that they submitted? Dacy: Yes. Emmings: And it doesn't show the back part of the property? Dacy: Right. . Emmings: Would you like us to table this so you can submit a new site plan? Jack Brambilla: No, not tonight. Emmings: Because if you get any approval tonight it's just going to be for the front part of the property. Jack Brambilla: Then we should change the site plan because it says on there 171 feet back. Emmings: But it doesn't show that area and it doesn't show your intended use of that property and that was not laid out to staff. I'm suggesting to you that maybe you'd rather have us table this. Jack Brambilla: Today what I'm looking at is trying to get a renter in there and get this property working. It has been vacant for a long time. I just want to know here, are we going to have a lot of restrictions if we do want to use the rest of the property going up? Emmings: I don't know. See, we've got a problem here. These things are assessed by staff and then brought to us for our comments. Now, because you're bringing it up now at the 11th hour here, staff doesn't have any opportunity to assess what you're doing there. You should have made that clear to them when you brought in your application. . Jack Brambilla: He did put the footage on there but I understand your point. Emmings: You're required to have a drawing of the property showing the entire property's intended use showing what you intend to do with it. Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 43 . Jack Brambilla: We did send a copy of the Exhibit A which is the whole plot is listed there. Ernrnings: That's not a site plan. Jack Brambilla: I guess we have to go with what we had initially on the site plan. Dacy: As represented in Attachment #2 is what you will be basing your approval on. Batzli moved, ElIson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-4 as shown on the site plan stamped "Received March 16, 1988" for outdoor display of merchandise, specifically landscape products, on property located at 608 Flying Cloud Drive and subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. . 3. 4. Compliance with fire code as to the use and location of the fuel storage tanks. The appropriate sign permits must be obtained prior to installation. Display areas shall not encroach on the 25 foot front setback. The applicant shall comply with all applicable sewer and sewage disposal code and provide the City with the proper septic tank pumping contracts once every three years starting on the effective date of this conditional use permit. 5. The applicant shall prepare with the city staff an appropriate driveway access plan. 6. Display of merchandise is restricted to the area indicated on the site plan stamped "Received March 16, 1988". The display area is limited within the area designated by the fence and TH 212. All voted in favor except Erhart who opposed and motion carried. Erhart: I'm opposed for the reasons stated. Emmings: Traffic considerations? Erhart: Safety. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-263(6 & 7) OF THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENT FOR A DOCK AND THE ONE CANOE RACK/DOCK REQUIREMENT, ROBERT PIERCE. . Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 44 e Public Present: Name Address Bernie Hanson Larry Wenzel Robert pierce 4125 Thomas Avenue, Minnetonka 6900 Minnewashta Parkway Applicant Emmings: Again, as a preliminary matter on this one, just as on the first one, I've got to ask staff if notice went out to all the lakeshore owners pursuant to the ordinance? Dacy: Notice went out to all of the homeowners associations with recreational beachlots but not the individual riparian owners. Emmings: Then I'm going to recommend that we do the same thing with this one that we did with the first one. There are people who probably would come tonight to speak about this. I think they should go ahead and make their comments known and then we should hold open a public hearing and continue it until notice can be given because it is a zoning ordinance amendment that requires notice to all the property owners abutting the lake pursuant to Section 20-43. e Erhart: Are you sure? In what you're looking at, requires us to, when dealing with a specific property proposal, it requires that we notify everyone on that particular lake. Emmings: This is under Division Two, Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Erhart: Then we have to notify everyone on all lakes because the zoning ordinance deals with all lakes. Headla: It's got to be more than just the lakes. It has to be published. Erhart: Did you publish notification? Dacy: We did the public hearing ad and we prioritize the homeowners association with the beachlots. Emmings: It makes sense with the conditional use permit section. Does it make sense to have it here under the Zoning Ordinance Amendments? Does having this provision, which is in here? Dacy: I really think it's a judgment call on the issue. If you want to table it for us to contact everybody, that's up to the Commission. . Emmings: Let me explain. I live on Lake Minnewashta. I look directly at this property just like I look right across at Red Cedar Cove. I didn't know Red Cedar Cove was going in until it went in. My neighbors and I thought gee, it's amazing they can do something like that without saying anything to any of us who are directly affected by the project. L Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 45 - This is 500 feet of the lakeshore on our lake. It's right over there to the right where we all look and I got no notice. If I hadn't been on the Commission, I'd never would have known this was going on and I know my neighbors didn't either. Erhart: But we're not dealing with Red Cedar Cove. Emmings: I'm aware of that but we're dealing with this piece of property that's closer to me than Red Cedar Cove. Dacy: I do know that the applicant is here. Maybe we could do the same thing that we did on Sunny Slope. e Emmings: That's what I'm proposing but now I'm questioning whether this makes sense on zoning ordinance amendments. It's here in the ordinance but I'm not sure that it makes a lot of sense. It's one thing if we're talking about a zoning ordinance amendment generally but here we're doing it really at the instance of a particular developer for a particular piece of property. Even though it would wind up changing the ordinance for all future beachlots, this is coming in from a person who wants to do a specific thing to a specific piece of property and I think at least the lakeshore owners on that lake ought to be here if they want to be. Besides, that's what the ordinance says. I guess what I would like to do is literally read the ordinance. Go ahead and do everything we can do tonight. Handle it the same way we did the first one and hold the public hearing open. I think there are people who would want to come. Erhart: I'm not arguing, I agree but what do you want to do? Invite every lakeshore owner? Emmings: Here's what they've done. They've given notice to the homeowners association, for example Minnewashta Heights probably has one and the ordinance requires them to do that and they did it but they did not do another thing the ordinance requires and that's to give every property owner abutting the lake on which the development is going to occur, that same notice. I'm not in any homeowners association. Minnewashta Lows has no homeowners association. ElIson: So you're saying every lakeowner? Emmings: The ordinance says that. Erhart: On what? - Emmings: Under public hearing for amendments to the zoning ordinance, it says is a development is proposed adjacent to a lake or will affect the useage of the lake, the applicant shall provide the City with a list of property owners abutting the lake at the time of the application. The City shall provide mailed notice to the lake homeowners as in compliance with the procedures above, which specify the procedures for notifying homeowners associations. Erhart: I didn't hear zoning ordinance. Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 46 e Emmings: Yes, the whole section in one zoning ordinance amendments. That's what the whole section is. Batzli: Can I propose that we do table it but we allow the people who have shown up to speak in public hearing, ask the City Attorney to give us an interpretation on what exactly is required and then go through with the appropriate notification procedure? Emmings: That's fine if you think that's appropriate. it needs interpretation but if you feel like it does. ahead. Is there a staff report? I don't know that Well, let's go Dacy: it. I have nothing more to add unless you did want me to go through Robert pierce: I guess I'm not quite following where we're at with this process. This is the third time, which has cost thousands to me, that the notices have been out to the wrong people and it's getting somewhat tiresome. I guess, where are we going from here with that. Is the City Attorney, is that what's going to happen? e Emmings: I don't know what the City Attorney is going to say. What I'm saying is there's a provision in our ordinance which says that everybody who lives on the lake gets notice of this meeting so they can have input if they want to. They didn't get it. Robert pierce: Is that Lake Minnewashta? Emmings: Yes. Robert pierce: Okay, so that's the only lake we're concerned with. Is that a month away now? Dacy: No, two weeks. Can I say one thing? We just took the interpreta- tion that it was a zoning ordinance amendment that would affect all lakes and that's why again, we just notified the homeowners associations. In the case of Sunny Slope, we made a mistake. We should have notified everybody on Lake Riley. In this case, we felt that a homeowners associations with beachlots would be directly affected. You have brought up another side of that concern that we did not look at so that's why. :e Robert pierce: What's done is done. I just want to know to eliminate maybe a problem in the future so we can get it to the next point. At any rate, let me just go through a little bit of what we're planning here. I've gone to quite a few meetings so I might get somewhat directly to the high points. We're asking for one dock with three overnight storage facilities. The slips would belong to Lots 3, 4 and 5 of the dock. They would go with those lots. We're also asking for a canoe rack. One canoe space for lots in there and there are 15 lots and each one would be allowed just one. We're putting the dock on the widest side of the parcel towards the north. We're leaving basically intact all the trees. We've had them located and we've designed our path down to the lake Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 47 e around the trees in order to leave as much as possible. The beach area in it's natural state. We are having a sand blanket. We shorten it down from our original proposal considerably. On either end, to the north and to the south, welre leaving quite an area, basically untouched other than to clean up the area. It gives a lot of a buffer zone to any adjoining properties. Emmings: I don't mean to interrupt but I just have a thought that the way down the slope, there was a lot of talk last time you were here about whether it was a ramp or stairs. What is that? e Robert pierce: I guess at this point it doesn't really matter to us. Weill work with staff or whoever might have recommendations. It's just not a big concern. I think personally the tiered steps may look a little nicer. That would just be my feelings on that but welre willing to look at it. I think youlre pretty familiar, we have 550 feet of lakeshore roughly and welre about 115 feet on the north side and about 80, it's slightly narrower in the middle. Welve moved from the original proposal that we looked at, most everything towards the north. The dilemma we're having here, the docks allow us to start on our development with a far, far higher caliber of home. If we are able to go ahead with that and market it at this point, we're going to be looking at homes probably from the $200,000.00 to $400,000.00 range. You can't market that with the docks and the beach, we're going to be reducing, in my feelings, about $100,000.00 per parcel for the finished product. I think it's advantageous for all concerned, including the City, to have this area start out in a nice fashion. There's a lot of land in the future that the City Planners have brought to your attention. Everyone is probably going to be opening up here over the next, who knows how long. It might be soon, it might be a while but I believe this area is one of the areas that starts off, the flavor will probably carry through onto the other parcels. I think for the City, for tax reasons, this would be a very good idea. Also, it's just the same useage as far as overnight storage, as 11m sure youlre all aware of, one dock with three boats is the same what one single family can have. Welre trying to work with the City and bring our request into line. To step on as few toes and do it in a nice way that we can for everyone concerned. I think as a whole, welre on very good relationship with people around us. I think we can maintain that. ~ Larry Wenzel: I live just south of that area. I guess I'm a little confused as to what welre doing with this not only just on our lake but all the lakes. Apparently the change is to a requirement which is 100 foot depth by 200 feet in lakeshore to come within the conditional use variety for this type of piece of property. That's a lot of land. It seems to me that the overlapping program here is that anybody to utilize that as beachlot has got to be within 1,000 feet of either that beachlot or waterline, I don't know which. If you look at that in relation to the size lots, probably 7 families could utilize 20,000 square feet. Now, on our particular lake right there, we had a public access that was utilized by the general public and we would have 10 to 20 to 30 cars parked on the street illegally. Nobody did anything about them. Couldn't get anybody to tag them, move them. They did finally put up signs but that doesn't Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 48 e mean anything. They would unload before dawn and pick up late at night. Screeching tires and the whole thing. We've got another access just down on Little Joe that's about another half a block with the access is a driveway. The quantity of people who can use is unlimited. Then you come to the othe side of the coin and you say, if you're a landowner or developer or you're a group of people and you want to utilize it for people that are owners within the area, you have to have all this space. It doesn't seem to fit. Something's missing here. We do have recreational beachlots on the lake. They are much less impact than a public access. The only reason the public access on our side of the lake was closed is that the park went in on the far side and as soon as you started to charge on the far side, you put boulders in so they'd have to go there to unload. That dramatically dropped the useage of the lake but something's not fitting right. Emmings: What would you like to see the City do on this issue? e Larry Wenzel: I don't think that you can take an overall scale of square footage or lineal footage and apply it to every condition on every lake because they're not all the same. The conditions are different. The population on the lake is all different and I don't know that you can just put in a straight ordinance that fits everybody like that. It doesn't make sense especially when you've got public accesses and public accesses in some cases are adjacent or very close to what they want to do with the beachlot. Everybody has their own position but this isn't fitting right for some reason. I have no objection to the beachlot the way pierce is laying his out because right there, we've got others and they're more satisfactory than the public access, as far as the landowners that are there or the neighbors. That's not a problem but when you start talking about something that's all of a sudden is 200 feet by 100 feet or 20,000 square feet and you only get limited amount of spaces for utilization, that doesn't necessarily make sense either. If you go half a block away and use the public access and run your boat into everybody's shore and beach it because they can't kick you off anyway from the lake. It just doesn't make sense. We're so restrictive on the guy that owns the property but we're not restrictive in the sense of what we do with the public access or the utilization of the lake. That's kind of where I'm coming from. Emmings: And you're expressing support for this plan? Larry Wenzel: I think this plan in this particular area, which affects me, is great. This might not fit, but I don't think for instance if you're going to say that he's got to have 20,000 square feet, which I think you're thinking about the ordinance changing to be, and I'm not sure what that is. e Emmings: Right now that is the ordinance. It's 200 feet of lakeshore with a 100 foot depth. All the way along it is the way right now we're interpretting it but we're going to try and clear that up. Larry Wenzel: that down. In some places you've got roads that come down and shorten Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 49 e Emmings: I think they looked at that and this is the only place where we've got that situation isn't it? Dacy: On the west side of Lake Minnewashta. Larry Wenzel: So then that gets amended in that sense or what? Dacy: What's being proposed is that the ordinance language is proposed to be amended so that you only have to have 100 feet of lot depth where the dock is going to be located. As long as you meet the area requirement and as long as you meet the lake frontage requirement, if you have 100 feet of lot depth where the dock is located, that's the proposal. Larry Wenzel: What if you don't have 100 foot anywhere in the section? Dacy: Then you would have to receive a variance. Conrad: Then basically we don't want a beachlot there. Emmings: Do you own land between the road and the lake? e Larry Wenzel: Yes. Sure. Emmings: And how much frontage do you have? Larry Wenzel: 240 feet and it's 10.5 acres total but I'm already into two front lots. It's plotted that way now but that doesn't necessary mean that at one point or another, I've got no benefit going either way if I develop because lots on the front that have their own lake property in relation to a series of lots all sharing, I'm not sure how that value would be accepted. The value of the lot exclusive or jointly but it just seems that all of a sudden we've got a situation where there's a road that cuts in like that. That road has been there, my house has been there since 1850 and the road was there and all of a sudden things are changing and it just doesn't seem right that the ordinance. It doesn't seem right that these ordinances become so restrictive but it's isolated. You can go just a short way away and you've got public accesses where there are no restrictions. That just doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of sense. Emmings: Do you have any other comments on this item? Larry Wenzel: No. I'd rather see $400,000.00 houses than I would $200,000.00 houses because that helps everybody. If that's the type of thing that creates it, I'm all for it. e Conrad moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 50 e Erhart: Specifically the current ordinance does require that it all has to be 100 feet so if this thing was 1,000 feet long and there was one spot in that 1,000 feet that wasn't 100 feet wide, you couldn't put a dock in? Dacy: Right. Erhart: That seems a little silly doesn't it? I think it sounds like a reasonable thing to do. Did you want to discuss the canoe thing too? Emmings: Give any comments you've got so he gets the benefit. Erhart: Okay, we're not going to vote on this tonight then? Emmings: No, we're going to table it. Erhart: You're suggesting that the number of canoe racks simply be left to the judgmental decision at the time the conditional use permit comes in, is that correct? Dacy: That's correct. Erhart: That's all I've got. e Conrad: I have no problem with changing the amendment. I think that's fine. I do think that for canoes, I agree with the concept, I don't know why we had limitations on canoes before. I think if we want a million canoes on a property, that's fine with me if that's the way they choose to decorate their beachlot. However, as part of the staff report, it said instead staff recommends that canoe racks be a permitted use in recreational beachlots. The number of canoes to be determined as a part of the conditional use permit review. I guess we need some guidelines and therefore I'm kind of happy we'+e tabling this because here somebody's going to come in with canoe racks that dot the shoreline and I'm not sure what those guidelines could be Barbara. I started thinking what they are. I think philosophically I don't know that we need to limit the number. Yet on the other hand, to say it's going to be a conditional use and we're going to review it, we should have something that's going to guide that review. Otherwise I don't want to see it because philosophically I'd say we could have a million canoes so I don't really want to see this unless we have some standards to apply to different situations like the gentleman was describing. I think staff should do a little bit of analysis on the canoe aspect. Emmings: That brings up another issue too. We call these canoe racks but they store watercraft. They don't just store canoes and I don't know, it looks like you can put sailboards on them, small sailboats, all kinds of things and I don't know if we want to get into that but that could be another issue. Maybe you want to tie the number of spots to store something on a thing that looks like a canoe rack to the number of houses? e Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 51 e Wildermuth: Didn't you say that somewhere Barbara? Didn't you try to equate the number of residents in the beachlot association with the number of available racks? Dacy: That would be one idea because that is being proposed by the applicant. That's fine. I think maybe in the term canoe racks, maybe we should change that language regarding to that section to be storage of non-motorized watercraft because Mr. Chairman, you're right, it's canoes. It's sailboats and sailboards. Emmings: What about a 15 foot aluminum boat, rowboat? Dacy: That's fine. Emmings: As long as it doesn't have a motor on it, they could go on there too right? Conrad: That I get real interested in because that's a whole different animal we're talking about. Batzli: Isn't the distinction made by the people that license watercraft in the State of Minnesota? Whether you need numbers on the side or whether you just need like the sailboat and sticker on the side? tit Wildermuth: They all need numbers. Batzli: No, they just need the sticker on the side. Conrad: Yes, your sailboats and canoes just need stickers. Batzli: You might look into that as being able to make some sort of distinction based on the State's definition of that. The recommended language for the amendment to the dock section, I would strongly recommend that you don't include the language where the dock is proposed to be located but actually where it is located. I am assuming you want the dock to be located at the 100 foot depth, correct? Dacy: Yes. Batzli: So you don't want that to be where the dock is proposed to be but where it actually is located. My second comment would be that I would prefer that there be some, taking Tim's comment, that if you had 1,000 feet of lakeshore and only one foot didn't have the 100 foot depth, change around to have 999 feet of it as 2 feet deep and you've got 1 foot of it that extends back 8 billion feet so you get the required square footage. I'd like to see that there be some minimum amount having the 100 foot depths still. At least as a minimum. For instance, how much land has to be on either side of the dock? tit Emmings: The setback? The side setback? Batzli: Do you know what that is? Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 52 e Dacy: There is a "dock setback" but I can't recall what that is right off the top of my head. Batzli: Since it's being tabled, I guess I'd look at something like that and I assume it's going to be 10 feet or 15 feet and double that so that you have a minimum 100 foot depth of 20 or 30 feet. If you look at it and you don't like it, I'll still probably recommend something like that next time. Wildermuth: I think that's a good idea. I think Brian's comment is a very good one. I think maybe the distinction and the criteria for a canoe rack ought to be something along the guidelines that he was talking about with the number requirements or just the sticker requirement. That might be the way to describe that. e Headla: I like what pierce has proposed. I certainly support it. I think the 200 foot and the 100 foot dimensions are purely arbitrary. I think it's ludicrous that you should try to stop one fellow because he doesn't have 100 feet. You automatically stop him from getting a beachlot. I have yet to hear any rationale, whatsoever, what's so magic about 100 feet? Why is 100 feet better than 50 feet? Why isn't it 200 feet or 300 feet deep? Until I hear that logic, you're cutting off somebody. pierce has to screw around with us for how long just because we're using an arbitrary number of feet on the depth. I think that's unacceptable. This isn't a day where we just arbitrarily put any number and say, that's good, let's fly with it. I think we really got to take a look at it. If you want to tie square foot per person per lot, I think that has some value. I hear a lot of opinions on this but damn it, why doesn't somebody go to somebody like Pleasant Acres and look at it. They've got a big area, how much of it is really used? They've got a road down there and they probably use 30 to 40 feet of it and they've got a volleyball court, they have a catamaran, a boat there, two satellites, that's the area that they really use. Emrnings: Two satellites? Headla: 30 or 40 feet from the lake. Emmings: Have they been there all the time because those are not permitted on beachlots. Headla: That's another thing, they should permit them. It's ridiculous we don't have them. Ernmings: If I didn't know better I'd think you owned land between the road and the lake too Dave. You sound like those guys. -~ Headla: The requirement of no cars, I think that's an excellent requirement and that's got to stay. That's going to stop a lot of people from using it. Emmings: The only comment I've got is I think he's got a very nice plan here. I like Brian's comment that the dock setback, at least the area of ~ Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 53 e the dock setback and maybe double ought to be the minimum area that has to be 100 feet. That's something that we should look at. This plan I think fits this property very well. I think it would be ridiculous to wind up with a result here where we denied all the people living right across the road from that shoreline, the ability to get down to the lake. I think it's a very minimal impact on the lake. I look at this. I'm directly affected by it and it doesn't bother me at all. I think it's a good plan. Conrad: It's a great use of a beachlot. It's a classic for what you want to do. Ernmings: The problem with the beach10t thing to me is, if everybody could bring in a plan and say, this is what we want to do, I think we wouldn't have any trouble saying yes, this one's good and that one's bad but we wind up with more litigation over beach10ts probably than any other issue for the simple reason that it's just impossible to try and define a set of standards that we can apply. That's an objective set of standards that we can carry from one beachlot to the next. That's the problem. We're all bending over backwards trying to get this one approved because it makes sense and we're going to do everything we can, I think is what I hear and is the way I feel about it, to get this one approved. Unfortunately we can't write a standard like that. We'll approve it if we like it and we won't if we don't. e Robert pierce: The only thing is I am anxious in the economic climate to start marketing them and I've been a little hesitant to do that. It's very hard to market them saying we're going to have a dock here. I'm in the process that looks good. People say, well call me back later. I guess that's where I'm coming from and maybe we're closer here. Conrad moved, Erhart seconded to table action on the zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Section 20-263(6 & 7) of the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance until the proper notification has been done. All voted in favor and motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON LOT 5 AND PART OF LOT 6, BLOCK 1, FRONTIER DEVELOPMENT PARK (JUST WEST OF MGM BUILDING) FOR BERNIE HANSON FOR THE FOLLOWING USES TO BE LOCATED IN A 19,048 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING: A. SMALL VEHICLE SALES B. OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF MERCHANDISE FOR SALE C. SCREENED OUTDOOR STORAGE D. AUTOMOTICE SERVICE CENTER - Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on this item. Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 54 e Public Present: Bernie Hanson Jim Hanson Jim Lasher Kathy Anderson Loren Anderson Jim Derhaag 480 480 BRW BRW 440 P.O. West 78th Street Box 503 West 78th Street West 78th Street Chairman Emmings opened up the public hearing. Erhart moved, Wildermuth secondeed to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Headla: On page 3, trees provided in phase 2 of the downtown redevelopment project. What does that mean? Which trees are those? Dacy: Phase 2 of the redevelopment projects refers to the realignment of West 79th Street and finishing up Market Blvd. into TH 5. As a part of that, we do have landscaping involved with that project. Headla: So money was allocated for situations like this? Is that what you're saying? e Dacy: Right. The project included trees along West 79th Street. Headla: On the next to the last page, I love looking at where they had the diagonal corregated metal siding. Is that going to be in a conflict with the way we... Dacy: No. Two points. Number one, the Council is still looking at that ordinance revision so that hasn't become law yet. Two, staff feels that what is being proposed here is what we would like to encourage as far as a metal exterior is concerned. Headla: That's what I kind of thought when I looked at it and then I started thinking, wait a minute. Are we against this or are we for it and from what I see here, I think we should be for it so maybe we've got to take a very careful look at the way we worded that other part. I don't have any questions, I liked it. Wildermuth: I'm glad to see Bernie and Loren that you've got a home rather than having to go to the Hanus building there. The construction is going to be, somewhere in here I read it was going to be timber and the baked on enamel metal siding. In other words, it will have a timber superstructure rather than a streel superstructure? e Kathy Anderson: It will be typical wood frame construction. Wildermuth: Barbara, why are you requiring a revision to the foliage plan? Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 55 -- Dacy: The ordinance reads that there should be a 2 foot hedge between the parking areas and public rights-of-ways so it would just be a minor change. wildermuth: Are there going to be any underground storage units? Dacy: Not to my knowledge. Wildermuth: They're all going to be above ground. I guess the only other thing that has to do with the site, again, and that is the turning radius in and out. If you look at the other businesses along there, they've all got a problem with the radius. The width of the entryway. I guess I would hope we don't make that mistake here. Dacy: The driveways are designed to our standard. Wildermuth: Maybe our standard needs a little attention. If you're going to the dentist and the doctor, the liquor store down there, it's a real problem turning those corners? Conrad: Why is that? It is a real valid comment. What are the specs that make it that difficult? - Dacy: When those buildings went in, to the best of my knowledge, we didn't have any specs. As a matter of fact, that was in the days that everything in the central business district was a conditional use permit. Everything. Now that we're a little more sophisticated now but now we do have minimum width requirements and maximum width requirements for driveways and we can certainly take a look at that. Conrad: Just so we don't make the same mistakes as at the dentist office. Tim Erhart made a comment that couldn't be heard on the tape. Dacy: That's a good point because, correct me if I'm wrong, because I think as a part of phase 2 reconstruction of West 79th Street, we are going to correct that problem between the separation of the street and the entrances in. Emmings: Apparently we're going to talk both about the site plan and the conditional uses. Are you going to make a separate presentation on the site plan? Dacy: No, at this point, Larry and I are prepared to answer questions. Emmings: Dave, do you want to go back and see if you have any comments on the site plan? e Headla: I was just looking at the recommendations. The one question I had was, small vehicle sales shall be conducted in the proposed building. Does that mean they can't talk to customers outside the building? Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 56 e Dacy: As a matter of fact Mr. Hanson asked me that same question. The intent here is that the small vehicle sales, that we don't have an area of outdoor display which becomes a sale area. That we have a congolmeration of a number of a vehicles and people congregating on the site. The intent is that it's an indoor use and it should be kept in there. The only outdoor activity is to display these 14 vehicles. Headla: That was a clarification? Dacy: It's the best I can do. Headla: Give me a for instance of the area you're trying to avoid maybe. I'm confused as to what you're really trying to do. Dacy: There's no question that I'm sure Mr. Hanson is going to walk a client out and say this is my John Deere riding lawn mower and it looks great. Then that person says, I'll take it. Then they go inside the building and transact the actual sale inside. They pick up the equipment from the rear portion of the building. Headla: On the site, I did slip over one thing. Does any of that wetland develop? When you look at it, it looks like it's on the fringe area. e Dacy: I went out to the site previously last spring when Mr. Burdick's application was in and there's a distinct different between Burdick's property and the subject property. This is not at all. Wildermuth: Is the number 14 vehicles acceptable? Is that something you carne up with? Bernie Hanson: I discussed that with Barb and I feel it's a little bit short at times. It's not to abuse the thing but there are certain times when I know I would like to exceed that. It was sort of a compromise. Wildermuth: When you get a shipment in or something like that? Bernie Hanson: It would be for display. It's not going to abuse the thing but when you're in the lawn type business, you do need a place you can display them. Wildermuth: Is there any reason why we're going to buckle down so tight? Dacy: The City's primary concern was aesthetic and visual impacts for a highly visible area. We wanted to set some type of control on it so it wouldn't get out of control. e Wildermuth: I guess I'd rather see us talk about maybe square footage of outdoor display area rather than the number of vehicles. He can kind of use his own, if he wants to pack them in tight, fine. Set a few out there. Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 57 e Headla: Haven't we limited others though by a number? Would this be a new yardstick we're generating here? Wildermuth: I don't remember that this has ever come up has it? Dacy: Not to my knowledge. wildermuth: I guess I'd prefer to see that. We talk about a square footage rather than the number of units. ElIson: What was the difference between each other? You were talking 24 and she was saying 14? How far apart were you that this was the compromise? I see what you're trying to do, you're trying to give him some more leeway but was it that far apart? Are you real unhappy with l4? e Bernie Hanson: No, the thing is, if you took, we're also into the Toro groundmaster professional line, this is a large piece. When I say large, they have 6 feet maximum in height and 10 feet maximum. Now that's a big mowing piece of equipment. If you have half a dozen pieces this size, that part we could live with but then you get down to the walk behind type lawnmowers, you can display a dozen of them easily along side the building and I don't think that's pushing or violating anything when you look at the size of this building. We're talking on the west side along here, if you put a dozen walk behind lawnmowers in a nice display along the edge. Wildermuth: With a 2 foot hedge, you'll never see them. Headla: How many did you display out at your present place? Bernie Hanson: That would be 20 units maybe. We're not trying to exceed that by any extent. It's just that you can put these out there so people can see them. Not to try and make it look like a cluttered mess, because what we're putting into this building and what we're trying to make it look liks. Then I have also allowed myself to be restrictive to the storage, which we haven't had. I put a lot of restrictions on myself. I guess if I could have a little leeway there, I would like it. Like move it up to 20 pieces or something. Wildermuth: I'd be favor of that. I think we want it by the square footage of area rather than the number of pieces, depending on what showing or displaying. Emmings: How do you figure out an area size? Wildermuth: area is. If you've got 14 Toro Groundmasters and figure out what that e Bernie Hanson: I think is a person put 6 or 8 of the larger pieces and took a dozen, I'm talking to my son Jim here, you think maybe a dozen of the smaller ones or 15? They don't take much space. I think that would . . . Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 58 be one way to put something. I can understand if you say square feet, that could get a little hard to define too. Jim Hanson: I guess our point is, we don't, at any time, want to make it look like a bone yard. We want it to be a class act display. There will be times I'm sure when we will want to run specials and open house and we'll want to park more equipment out on those particular one o~ two days. On a normal day, like we're talking, we might have large equipment and we might have a dozen or more small mowers. Wildermuth: That's just my feeling. I feel we shouldn't be quite so restrictive. Bernie Hanson: I would appreciate it if you weren't so restrictive. Jim Lasher: I was going to try and offer a solution. What we can do is take a look at the south side of Bernie's structure, which apparently he owns the space that he has for a multiple storage area and look at maybe a distance from the front of the building out towards West 79th Street and say it could be a maximum limit of where material could be outdoor display and leave it up to Bernie to decide, do I fit 10 larger items in here or 15 smaller items. That's the way to calculate, at least a distance away from the structure where he could visibly display outdoor merchandise. That's one way to solve the solution rather than putting a number. Batzli: I have a question for Barb. Somewhere in these numerous conditional uses, something that says that the vehicles displayed outdoors, there won't be other vehicles displayed outdoors as well other than for the automotive portion. Dacy: I'm sorry, which vehicles for which use are you talking about? Batzli: The small vehicles. Dacy: For Bernie's Chanhassen Lawn and Sports? Batzli: Right. Those are limited to the enclosed storage or where are those limited to under these uses? Dacy: The display of small vehicles for Bernie's uses are limited to in front of the building and along the west side of his portion of the building underneath the canopy. Batzli: And are they limited some~here to be stored? Dacy: For storage? Well, inside the building he has more equipment and so on. There is to be no outside storage of any other equipment beyond the display vehicles. Batzli: I was curious, if I recall, there's in Section D, the automotive service center. The applicant shall submit information about the flammable, combustible liquid storage in the building. Shouldn't that Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 59 e apply equally to the small vehicle sales? Dacy: Probably unless Mr. Hanson tells me otherwise. I would think that would be appropriate. Batzli: I would assume there's oil and gas and things. Bernie Hanson: As far as what we have storage inside, any flammables, that's in a fireproof cabinet as the fire code says so that's a very small amount. Brown: The Fire Department at the present is putting together a program where they can have a floor plan in a command vehicle for each commercial site. I believe the reason that the Fire Marshall brought this up is, that way if they are involved in an entire structural fire, they know exactly where the hazardous materials are. Batzli: I guess I would include, just on this information, something like your condition 5 in the conditional use permit for Motor Sports, Inc., your last conditional use permit. Something like that regarding small vehicles sales as well. I had a question about the site plan. Prior to building occupancy again. e Dacy: Okay, no problem. Ellson: sell used equipment? Do you Bernie Hanson: Yes. Ellson: And do you rent equipment? Bernie Hanson: No. Ellson: I just wanted to know that all the outdoor stuff is all the new stuff. All the shiny and new looking and not the stuff that's kind of chipped paint or whatever. Not that you would necessarily do that but I think people are concerned when you start getting things out in display that you don't want it to look schlocky or whatever so I'd guess I'd like to know that that stuff is always going to be the new shiny stuff or whatever versus some of the stuff if you had a renting business, that might be out there. I don't know if we came up to a conclusion as far as the number of vehicles. I would rather see it stating the number of vehicles than a square footage. Not only from the standpoint of your interpretting it but from somebody coming out and just counting and saying yes, indeed that's as many as there are so maybe change to say 18 or something like that which would give him a little more leeway. I don't have any problems with the site plan. It looks good. Conrad: Barbara, what's the impervious surface ratio for this site? e Dacy: It's below the maximum required. Bernie Hanson: 61%. Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 60 , Dacy: As a matter of fact, as a condition of sale, the HRA has imposed larger than typically required setbacks for screening. Conrad: Barbara, one of your notes on page 4 of this particular staff report says, therefore, the City should establish conditions to prohibit the long term storage, etc.. In the conditional use permit D, you said there shall be no outdoor storage of vehicles awaiting repair in excess of 72 hours. Does that condition relieve your comment on page 4? Dacy: Yes. Conrad: So we've taken care of that, the way that motion is worded for us, that's taken care of that. Wildermuth: I wonder if the applicant can really live with that, 72 hours. Sometime 72 hours is a pretty short time if you're waiting for parts. Can you live with that Loren? Loren Anderson: It's pretty rare that it will be there for more than one day waiting for repairs. There are times when you're waiting for parts that it will take more than 72 hours... From that part of it, that's the tough part... . Conrad: Staff has somebody that circulates and counts cars? Probably we don't have a problem. I'm comfortable with 14 vehicles as stated in the staff report. Not becaues it's better than 15 or 13 but I think I could change that if I saw an area designated for these vehicles. If on this plan you showed me where you wanted to put them. If you had an area. If you had a concrete slab where those vehicles were going to go, then I don't need numbers. Then I could take a look at this plan and say, that's not bad. In absence of that, 14 is where I'm at on the number of vehicles. I don't have any reason to say 20. I'm a little bit familiar with retailing and that kind of stuff and I don't know if you put 200 if it makes a difference than if you put 4 or 5. I think what you want to do is attract people in, show them you've got that kind of stuff. 6 to 8 vehicles out front is going to bring them in. It's going to say, you're in the business and you've got much more inside or on the side or whatever, so I'm pretty comfortable with 14 and I don't think I need to change that number unless you show me where you want them. Then I'll take a look and say, it might be a better of doing it if you so choose. Bernie Hanson: If I went ahead on the drawing on the building, first off on the grass out in front, where we would plan to put the larger equipment. Be it either garden tractor or professional equipment and like I say, 6 or 8 is maximum. Try to put them in a display that's attractive, not just pile them out there. The remainder would be put along the west side of the building because there's an 8 foot wide sidewalk there so we try to make a nice looking display just along the edge. Conrad: That sounds real good. Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 61 e Erhart: On the landscaping, that whole area around there where we showed the sugar maple, is that bermed or is that just flat? Dacy: It's not proposed to be bermed. Erhart: We're requesting that they put in a 2 foot evergreen hedge. That's not shown on this plan. Dacy: Here's the shrub area. In this parking area we wanted to extend the hedge around the corner here and wrap it around here. This is the westerly entrance into the site. This is the curb area, the southwest corner of the building over here and technically the ordinance says that you should have a hedge between the parking area and the public street right-of-way. So this is where the hedge would go. Erhart: Then they really aren't required to put the hedge all along the west side? Dacy: Right. On other areas of the site, they're above and beyond. Erhart: What did you mean that it only had one sugar maple. You're talking about just at that entrance there. e Dacy: I think I may have been referring to this tree here. Erhart: Is the City doing anything, like this architecture sort of fits in with the theme of the downtown, like the MGM, that's just a flat roof building isn't it? Is anybody working with them to try and coordinate these things. Dacy: Our primary objective has been the north side of West 78th Street and getting people on that side of the street relocated. I think also, by example, I think once development starts taking place, maybe some of the existing owners will take notice and it will snowball. Emmings: I don't really have any additional comments. I agree with Ladd's position on the number of vehicles. I think since that's what staff came up with, I'm inclined to go along with it recognizing all the while that it's arbitrary but so is 18. Any number is arbitrary. Any square footage requirement, seems to me would be arbitrary since we don't have evidence that it makes any differnce so I'd be inclined to go along with the staff on that. That's all. Ladd Conrad left the meeting at this point and did not vote on the remaining items. Batzli moved, ElIson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-3 to permit small vehicle sales in the proposed 19,048 square foot commercial building as indicated on the site plan stamped "Received March 14, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: e Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 62 . 1. The small vehicle sales shall be conducted within the proposed building. 2. Compliance with the site plan conditions of approval for site Plan #88-4. 3. The applicant shall submit information about the flammable and combustible liquid storage in the building and meet the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code. All voted in favor and motion carried. Headla moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-3 for outdoor display of merchandise for sale located on the west and south sides of the proposed 19,048 square foot commercial building as indicated on the plan stamped "Received March 14, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: 1. There shall be no more than 14 vehicles displayed outdoors. No more than 6 of the 14 vehicles shall be located between West 79th Street and the front wall of the proposed building. e 2. The vehicles shall be displayed during hours of operation only. 3. The vehicles shall not be located in the parking or setback areas and shall be located near the immediate vicinity of the building. 4. Compliance with the site plan conditions of approval for Site Plan #88-4. All voted in favor and motion carried. ElIson moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-3 for screened outdoor storage to be located in the northeast corner of the proposed 19,048 square foot commercial building and to allow a storage area for one trailer in conjunction with Derhaage Motor Sports, Inc. as indicated on the site plan stamped "Received March 14, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: 1. The area labeled on the plan as "enclosed storage" shall be enclosed by an extension of the roof of the building, construction of a chain link from the ground elevation to the bottom of the roof line, and the fence shall contain wood slats. 2. The storage area adjacent to the building is to be used for equipment waiting to be picked up or repaired and for storage of wood logs. e 3. A detailed screening and site plan shall be submitted prior to application for a building permit for the location and screening of the goose neck trailer in conjunction with Derhaag Motor Sports, Inc. e e e Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 63 4. Compliance with the site plan conditions of approval for Site Plan #88-4. All voted in favor and motion carried. Wildermuth moved, ElIson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-3 for an automotive service center for Loren Anderson to be conducted as indicated on the site plan stamped "Received March 14, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: 1. There shall be no outside storage of vehicles awaiting repair in excess of 72 hours. 2. There shall be no storage of junked vehicles or other vehicles in disrepair in the parking area. 3. All repair activity must be conducted within the proposed building. 4. A retention system for the flammable and combustible liquids shall be installed. This system must be in compliance with Uniform Fire Code 79.907(a), Waste Storage. 5. The applicant shall submit information about the flammable and combustible liquid storage in the building and meet the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code. 6. Compliance with the site plan conditions of approval for Site Plan #88-4. All voted in favor and motion carried. Erhart moved, ElIson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-3 for Derhaag Motor Sports, Inc. to conduct an automotive service center for one race car as indicated on the plan stamped "Received March 14, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: 1. A detailed screening and site plan shall be submitted prior to application for a building permit for the location and screening of the goose neck trailer in conjunction with Derhaag Motor Sports, Inc. 2. There shall be no outdoor storage of race cars or any other vehicle needing repair. 3. All repair activity must be conducted within the building. 4. A retention system for the flammable and combustible liquids shall be installed. This system must be in the compliance with Uniform Fire code 79.907(a), Waste Storage. Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 64 e 5. The applicant shall submit information about the flammable and combustible liquid storage in the building and meet the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code. 6. Compliance with the site plan conditions of approval for Site Plan #88-4. All voted in favor and motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 19,048 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON LOT 4 AND PART OF LOT 6, BLOCK 1, FRONTIER DEVELOPMENT PARK (JUST WEST OF MGM BUILDING), BERNIE HANSON. Discussion regarding the site plan took place during the prior items' discussion. Batzli moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #88-4 for the construction of the 19,048 square foot commercial building subject to the plan stamped "March 14, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: e 1. All sign permits shall be obtained prior to installation. 2. Light fixtures shall be installed so that there is no glare on adjacent properties or public right-of-ways. 3. The site plan shall be amended to provide for a screened area for the gooseneck trailer in conjunction with Derhaag's automotive center. 4. The landscape plan shall be amended to indicate additional landscaping as shown on Attachment #11. 5. The exit stair into the storage/repair area must be in a one hour enclosure. The H-4 and B-2 occupancy require a one hour separation. The entire building must have an approved sprinkling system including the attic spaces. 6. Silt fence shall be placed and maintained along the south side of the site prior to the commencement of any grading. 7. An'additional fire hydrant shall be added to the northwest corner of the property by the developer. The main shall be sized to meet the sprinkler and hydrant demands for the property. 8. A plan which shows the exact watermain location, spacing of the fire hydrants and sizing calculations shall be submitted for approval by ~ the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. 9. The developer shall agree to be assessed for his proportionate share of the cost for looping the watermain to the west and waives any and Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 65 e all procedural and substantive objections to the public improvement and payment thereof, and waives appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MSA section 429.081. 10. The developer shall provide the City a 10 foot utility easement centered over the watermain and shall dedicate this watermain to the City at no cost after final acceptance. 11. Curb cuts and curb replacement shall be coordinated with the City's phase II construction plans for the downtown. All voted in favor and motion carried. Jim Wildermuth left the meeting at this point and did not vote on the following items. SITE PLAN REVIEW TO EXPAND CITY HALL 6,411 SQUARE FEET AND PARKING LOT AND LANDSCAPING RECONSTRUCTION. Erhart: There's no landscaping plan included? e Dacy: You should have received one. Emmings: Are there sugar maples on there? Dacy: There are existing sugar maples I know. Erhart: Is this the total extent to which this building can be expanded on this site? Dacy: No, this is kind of a first phase of another expansion to the north which is proposed expansion. What the ultimate concept is, a mirror image of the existing building. Emmings: I was not happy I didn't get to see a floor plan. Brown: I think the reason that the floor plan was not included was strictly because it's not complete yet. There are still issues that need to be resolved. Everyone wants to put in their input from city staff and they are slow but sure gathering all those recommendations into the floor plan. Dacy: The primary use are public safety and building inspection personnel in that expansion. Emmings: And space for library expansion in the basement. ~ Dacy: Right, in the bottom floor. Headla: The fire department can fight any fire in this building without additional equipment? They don't need new equipment of any kind? Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 66 - Brown: Correct. Yes, they can fight it no problem. This building will be sprinklered also. Batzli: Who did the landscaping plan? BRW? Dacy: BRW. Batzli: And they only put two sugar maples in there? Dacy: The existing trees down on Coulter though are sugar maples. Yes, they are adding two but there are existing trees. Erhart: When is the street plan going to get put in? Is that this summer? Dacy: The remaining portion of the street? Erhart: Yes, when you turn up past the bank and you can get in here. Dacy: Yes, a couple weeks. - Erhart: Is there any plans for doing anything with the old bank building? With that lot there? Dacy: No. We haven't had inquiries. Erhart: Who owns that lot, the bank? Dacy: Yes. Erhart: Would the City ever be interested in purchasing that property out there? Dacy: The City hasn't, as far as it's own needs although there have been some inquiries from Waconia Ridgewood Hospital for a potential clinic ,site and that was one site that was looked at. That's been a good year and a half before that issue has really been discussed. Erhart: Most cities, you end up being able to view city hall from sort of the main street. If that lot would get developed with something else, you wouldn't be able to do that. That's why I asked if there was any consideration of getting an option on the land or something. Dacy: Not to my knowledge unless Don has something up his sleeve. - Erhart moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #88-2 for expansion of the City Hall for 6,411 square feet with landscaping and parking lot reconstruction based on the plan stamped "Received March 14, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: Planning Commission Meeting April 6, 1988 - Page 67 - 1. provisions of a handicapped parking space. All voted in favor and motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Batzli moved, Emmings seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated March 2, 1988 as amended by David Headla on page 1 and Annette ElIson on pages 12, 13 and 17. All voted in favor except Erhart and Brian Batzli who abstained and motion carried. Headla moved, ElIson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated March 16, 1988 as presented. All voted in favor except Tim Erhart who abstained and motion carried. Erhart moved, ElIson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m.. Submitted by Barbara Dacy City planner ~ Prepared by Nann Opheim ~