The URL can be used to link to this page

1988 05 04 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING "e MAY 4, 1988 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Annette ElIson, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli, James Wildermuth and David Headla STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Larry Brown, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: R & R LAND VENTURES, PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WOODHILL ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE EAST OF NEZ PERCE (LOTS 2773-2803 AND 2810-2847, CARVER BEACH): A. SUBDIVISION OF 3.5 ACRES INTO 7 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO DEVELOP WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS B WETLAND. Public Present: Name _ RoxAnn Lund Ron Krueger Dave Sime Bill Eggert Dave & Diane Quackenbush Peter & Nancy Parris Steve & Francis Syverson Michael Mason Fily & Margaret Thompson Steve Smedstad Carlye Peterson Dennis Burton Dave Muilenburg Chuck Warsfold Rick Michaels Mark Quiner Kleve & Lorilee Anderson Marge Passing Nancy Thurs Address 8042 Cheyenne, Applicant 8080 Wallace Road, Eden Prairie, Applicant 790 preakness Lane 800 preakness Lane 780 preakness Lane 770 preakness Lane 760 preakness Lane 833 Woodhill Drive 6899 Yuma Drive 730 preakness Lane 750 preakness Lane 750 preakness Lane 740 preakness Lane 6900 Yuma Drive 6890 Yuma Drive 6889 Yuma Drive 760 ponderosa Drive 130 Cygnet Place 761 Ponderosa Drive Barbara Dacy and Larry Brown presented the staff report. Ron Krueger: I guess most of the items have been mentioned already. I'm Ron Kruger, land surveyer of Lancer Engineering in Eden prairie and Roxanne Lund is here tonight. We bought this property a couple months ago and we've been working with the staff ever since not knowing that one, 30 acres of water dump into this property and we've been working with staff trying to corne up with a storm sewer system that would solve some of these - Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 2 e - problems. The lots are basically, most of these lots have sewer and water service to them now. Most of the development that's happened in Carver Beach are people who bought 8 or 10 lots and built a home. One guy aleady built a home on it which is kind of what we could have done in most of these lots but being as we're in this business and we want to make a nice development. It's a beautiful piece of land. There's concern by the neighbors for trees and we want to keep as many of the amenities there as possible and try to solve some of these problems so the people who build here don't end up having their houses washed away. The property will have storm water coming down Yuma Road and Woodhill Road into this area which it's been doing for years. After looking at trying to design a storm sewer system that would handle it, it wasn't possible to design a system that would handle it. The height of the road configuration. The elevations, we tried to see if we could do it and it couldn't be done. The most we could come up with was a system that only handled like a third of the water. Well, handling a third of the water isn't going to do any good when you have a 10 inch rain so at that point what happened here was it got to be so expensive to build a system that wouldn't even handle the water, we decided to drop these lots and create this pond here. Thus, this water that comes in this area would be able to enter into this pond and sediments and whatnot from washing down from the streets would settle in there and be trapped in there and the overflow at the other end of the pond would go into the wetland. So that seemed to be the simplest solution. We don't get as many lots but it's really a better solution all the way around. There also was another small storm sewer culvert coming under Woodhill up the road here which basically drains the backyards from the north side of Woodhill and there isn't anything we can do about it now. It's built that way and all the yards drain that way so we're going to have to extend that storm sewer down along the right-of-way to eliminate th~t water from our yards also. Connect it with this other culvert that comes under the road here and then ultimately all of this would drain into the pond. It's been kind of a push and pull process for the staff. We're trying to get some of these different items resolved but we feel pretty confident that we've come to a satisfactory solution to it. We had a neighborhood meeting with the neighbors and went through this all with them. We are writing up covenants. Their concern was the trees and we are going to have Covenants on the lot to protect trees on back lots so some of their concerns will be met. Mike Mason: I live 833 Woodhill Drive which is, I'm going to be surrounded by the new development. I had a couple of questions and I think most of this may go to the Commission. I'm not sure. I just heard this talked about, assessment for the road in the future. Public improvement fund. What will that entail and when will that happen? Brown: I was just stating that if Woodhill would ever, if the neighborhood would petition the City to improve Woodhill to support a two- way street in that area, that's when we would include it. Right now there are no plans in the works for upgrading that street. It would solely be if development got thick enough in there and the residents around there were dissatisfied with it and petitioned the City to do so. - Mike Mason: So the city then has no plans at this point? Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 3 e Brown: Not at this point, no. Mike Mason: I'd also like, Ron talked about drainage and at this meeting they talked about a swale going between Triple Crown and Woodhill. What will be entailed in building that for drainage? What will have to be removed? What will happen there? Brown: The swale that was mentioned was this swale back through here which is going to be created towards the rear of the house pads and that's just going to be roughly I to 2 foot dip in the back there such that the drainage coming back from the rear of Triple Crown Estates will not, or at least will create a little more of a buffer for these house pads in here. That's the only thing. Mike Mason: How far up do those swale go up the hill? Brown: This swale will extend from this point here all the way up to this point here. Dacy: It's about 100 feet south of the Woodhill Road right-of-way. I think that's what he means. e Dave Sime:Will that be a ditch so to speak? Brown: Yes. It would be seeded or sodded and it's just to provide more of a buffer for these house pads. Dave Sime: Why wouldn't that be tiled? Brown: Basically for the reason because a tile has an expected life of approximately 6 years. If we put a drainage swale out there, the people are aware of it. They know it's purpose. If a tile line is out there, people have a habit of cutting those tile lines because they're not real sure where it starts or where it ends or exactly what purpose it's for. If we do the drainage swale concept out there, people are aware of it. They know exactly what's out there and it's more effective. Bill Eggert: Where is that in relation to the Covenant? The area that's going to be proposed for the Covenant? Ron Krueger: Anything south of that within the Covenants. e RoxAnn Lund: In the Covenants that we have proposed. In the proposed Covenants, which I have one copy left that I can give to you and we passed around other copies to the neighborhood already. In number 10, the soils and trees, in the first page under 3 on setbacks, it says that the building setback from the lot line shall conform to City Ordinances and no building or grading will be permitted except for terracing or erosion control within 140 feet of the back lot line. That might switch in a few feet because it's kind of straggered there but it will be approximately 140 feet from the back lot line which is your back lot line. Mike Mason: A concern I have is safety on that road simply because and Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 4 e incidentally, I think Chan does a real good job of maintaining that road in the winter but it's very slippery. We have a front wheel drive and a 4 wheel drive car and the front wheel drive has not always made it around that corner and into our drive. With that 20% grade and with cars, cars don't always go 20 mph down that hill, I hope that this gets approved. That's an issue that I think is a major concern quite honestly. We get in and out there but it's not the easiest thing to do and we're going to be adding 12 whatever more cars on that road and that will also make that road slippier. My guess is that will be a constant issue. The safety issue I think is an important one. Conrad: What would you recommend? Mike Mason: Well, I'm a resident. Public: Don't built the homes. e Mike Mason: I could say don't build the homes but that's not going to happen so I don't know. I really don't and that's why I bring it up. Cars come over that hill at a fairly good clip sometimes and I'm not dumping on anybody here but with cars coming over there fast in the winter there are some issues that people are going to need to be made very well aware of. It's not the safest road in Chanhassen. Then just one more thing and I'll shut up, how is approving a wetland permit go? The alteration. I guess the reason I ask is, I assume that these ordinances were passed in years past with specific reasons in mind and when I see, my question is what is the sense of having the ordinance when wetland alteration permits, variances are given off this? Conrad: One part that's being reviewed tonight is, the rule that we have is if there is any change within 200 feet of a wetland, we want to know about it. We want to see what that change is. If we didn't want it changed, we would have said that in our ordinance but what our ordinance is trying to do is say, bring that change to the City so we can review what it is. That's the concept of the ordinance. It's not that we're not allowing it. That we want to prohibit building within 200 feet. We want to protect the wetlands and if we're convinced the wetlands are protected, than we'll allow the change. In this particular case they're asking for a pond that will filter the water before it gets into the wetland. Supposedly that's a positive benefit. If you're running the drainage straight into the wetland, the wetland can't handle it, it may just be too much for the wetland. In this particular case, a settling pond or whatever might be a better solution and that's what we look at and see if it is a better solution. Margaret Thompson, 6899 Yuma: this pond overflows. There is there. We've had that problem was done. I'm wondering what's going to happen when a ditch that drains into the lake from before when development on the top there e Brown: I took a look at, that's one of our first concerns. Obviously the pond has been sized to accomodate the 100 year event but as we've seen last summer, the 100 year event can be exceeded. These house pads were Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 5 e checked out versus the drainage calculations to make sure that they were safe. If the pond did overflow, the low point is down at this point here back into the woods and it would simply flow over into the wetland that now exists that was created during Triple Crown. There's approximately a foot and a half to 2 foot buffer to any properties out here that would have to engluf this whole area before it would reach this point. Margaret Thompson: I was referring more to where it drains for us, that woods into the lake. with the changes in the land that would need for... Brown: At this point here? Margaret Thompson: Yes. There was quite an article in the paper about it. Brown: The pond essentially is going to, right now the water flow comes down Woodhill and it cuts across into this creek here. Nothing is restricting it from doing so. At that time, during the big storm, it's just pouring down there because there's no restriction whatsoever. This pond is going to facilitate that. It's going to restrict the run-off so that it's not corning down in one big wave. e Margaret Thompson: We had lived there for quite a few years right on Yuma and our daughter went out just during a normal rain storm, Yuma turns into a river and the water, walking across the water is knee deep. Just on the street. This is on Yuma. Fily Thompson: And that wasn't even a big rainstorm. Brown: That was one of the reasons that we had asked consider making this outlot and constructing a larger building any homes there because we are well aware of that comes down both Woodhill and Yuma at that point. far as to videotaping it during the rainstorms to see water is coming down there. the applicant to pond and not the amount of water We've even gone so exactly how much Conrad: Theoretically Larry, you engineers can figure out what that pond can hold and it can hold a 100 year type storm. Brown: As a matter of fact, the initial pond was approximately one-third this size and what that did was it maintained the 100 year frequency storm for the proposed site alone. Now, when we brought this issue to the applicant and said look, since this area serves as the major drainageway we need to do more or we would request that you do more with that drainage area to facilitate the entire area that flows down there and he's done so. Steve Syverson, 760 preakness Lane: I've got some questions on the pond as far as the diameter goes. The depth goes. That would extend back beyond what I understand to be the 140 feet, as far as touching the trees. Would that pond be taking out some of the mature trees? We understand it's going to be very sizeable. - Brown: Yes, I'm sure there would be tree removal for the construction of Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 6 e the pond. The pond right now, to answer your question about depth, if the pond were to be engulfed by a wave of water at this point, the maximum depth would be 4 feet at this point. Steve Syverson: Maybe this is part of the... Brown: Approximately 65 feet from this point to this point. Steve Syverson: And that would be lined then or unlined with rocks or clay or how will that be maintained as far as upgrading? Brown: Depending on the water conditions, we do have the option of lining that with a clay liner. If we dig out the materials and find that it's... soil we do have that option right now in viewing this. The information that we have, we would probably just construction another pond. e Chuck Worsfold, 6900 Yuma Drive: Thr first one is I live just right here. My house is next to this empty little corner here owned by Mr. Johnson who I think need to contact about buying that but last July 23rd, my backyard has still got a sandbar in it from that and I know we're not expecting a rain like that. It came through here and I still have evidence. I scooped out a foot or more of sand and I still have the evidence. I never got it all. It came right across through here and the water was at least, even though I live up, my basement is up far enough, I was beginning to wonder if it was even going to come up that far. It was coming across here and I would say at least a foot and a half to 2 feet deep through there. The other point is, I would like to talk about Mike's point on this hill here in the wintertime. I don't know, have you ever been down this road? Do you know how it just goes, like that. I was just wondering, is there anyway, if they do put homes in here, if they have any children at all. I've got a little 4 year old boy and one just out of the basket and that, if it's not going to be taken care of, I would just really be afraid, safetywise, because there are a lot of people that do come down that road and even though it's a real tight curve here and they even floor it and go up this street as fast as they can. You shake you hand at them. Sometimes it's to no avail but the only other point I would really like to recommend, which I was lied to in the beginning because my realtor told me that all this land was owned by the City. He told me there would never be any homes in there. I was lied to. I was naive I guess. I guess you check out everything but from the environmental or aesthetic point, I've seen deer in there and barred owls and great horns in there and I guess maybe it doesn't make a whole lot of difference to somebody who's out to make a dollar but I guess that's the reason that I bought that home. I come from a farm and that's why I bought the home because I thought it was going to be left that way. It's my mistake. e Conrad: Appreciate the comments. One that we'll follow up on a little bit. The gentleman was saying that he saw the drainage being up the hill a little bit Larry so we're talking not only about drainage from the property that's being developed but drainage obviously from the rest of that area. There's no thought of any kind of, the funneling of water from the rest, how is that accomplished and I assume that there is no other engineering that we're planning to make sure that the other water gets Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 7 e directed into the pond or am I wrong. What are the plans for any other improvements outside of the particular property in question? Brown: Typically in a municipality the standards, in just about all the municipalities in the Twin Cities, they use the 100 year frequency storm event and I have no doubts that at one time last summer during our super storm, the water very well could have come across that area and engulfed that entire area. That storm has been labeled by the Department of Natural Resources as a 4,000 year event which is obviously a lot larger than your average storm. There is not a storm sewer system in a city that could handle that amount of water. I think we've all witnessed that. As far as off-site improvements, there is no improvements other than what is proposed here off-site to address that specific matter, no. This is the low lying area, one of the low lying areas of Carver Beach. There's no doubt about that and to handle a storm of that size, you just can't do it. Conrad: But in my mind, this project looks like a benefit to the whole drainage system and I think that's really neat but what I don't understand is if the pond is there and we haven't done anything to make sure it's being directed into that pond. That's where I'm at. That's what my question is. e Brown: Part of the improvement that we looked at was placing curbing along Woodhill to direct the water to this storm sewer system and get it to the pond. That was really the only, at that time, feasible option. The volume of water that flows down Woodhill and Yuma, as Mr. Krueger eluded to, just could not be handled by a conventional storm sewer system. The large size pipe that you would have to put in there to get it down there, it's not cost effective so your only other option is to let the water flow in it's natural drainage path and keep that path open and that's exactly what the applicant has done. In a normal rainstorm you can see that the creekbed has been cut by the natural path. He is altering the drainage path through this corner but we're confident that the drainage will make it down to this pond which will sort of buffer downstream. Dave Sime, preakness Lane: I'm just wondering, what is the maximum your system can carry? How many inches of rain will that system carry before you put out the homes? Brown: The 100 year event is 6 inches per hour for a 24 hours duration. Dave Sime: Wasn't there also talk about kind of a dam on this pond to hold back the sediments? Brown: Being that there is ponded water, that acts as a sediment trap. Dave Sime: There's no damming... e Brown: flow. There's a pipe down in this point here which will restrict the Pete Parris, preakness Lane: At the beginning I think you were saying Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 8 e that it's supposed to be a dry pond? Brown: Correct. Pete Parris: Okay, the way I look at it right now, there's no way it can be a dry pond. It's been two years now since we've had really any normal rain and there's always water running down that little creek right now. You may call it a drainage ditch or whatever but I call it a creek. There is water running through it. There are ducks swimming in it. Muskrats in it. That is right now, it is a live, living pond. It's not a dry little thing that every 100 years we have water in it. Right now, with the last two years that have been so dry, there is still water there. My next question is, what is the water table right there on Lots 4 and 5? The soil tests that you got back, I heard that water is about 6 to 8 inches below the soil right now. Below the ground. Brown: If I could answer the first question. The dry pond concept, I'm not going to dispute whether there's water constantly running through there or not. My point is that there's not going to be 4 feet of standing water without a rain storm in that pond. It will facilitate that natural flow. If there is a constant flow running through there, so be it. It will be carried out by this pipe and into the wetland. The other issue, I'm not sure whether the applicant has had soil borings taken. Maybe you'd like to address that. - Ron Krueger: I've had them taken. We haven't gotten the reports back. The ones they took on the two lots we omitted it was about a foot below the surface... Batzli: What elevation are you going to have that pipe at Larry? Brown: 928. Pete Parris: Now if the water is a foot below ground level right now and nobody can really argue that it has been dry this year and it was dry last year too other than the super storm, if the water level is only a foot below ground rougly in 4 or 5 lot there, what are we going to do if we have a normal year? Is the water level going to be 2 inches below ground? You walk back there on a wet year, you could not walk back there without rubber boots on because you'd be squishing allover the place. Now you want to build homes on that? What you're going to do is put in a lot of fill and their sump pumps are going to have to be running constantly. That just doesn't make any sense to me. They're constantly going to have a problem. These people who buy this last two lots are constantly going to be having problems and everything else. That's why we come to these meetings like this so we can hopefully look out for other fellow people that move into the city or other people who live in the city right now that maybe eventually will buy those. e Steve Syverson: I have another public safety concern as far as that road goes. You're talking about guttering it. I know just on preakness you have plows coming through, you have a road that's 13 feet wide. The plows coming through and building up the snow bank and you've got all this water Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 9 e coming down this hill in the thaw and you've gradually got an ice pan growing out into the street. Then you've got problems with kids as far as parking on this stuff. People won't be able to get into their lots. I just can't see anything but problems as far as traffic going up and down that street. Conrad: What would you like to do? Steve Syverson: Come up with a different plan. Drain the water away. Chuck Worsfold: On that pond again, I was thinking more like towards the middle of the summer, let's say this was dead in the heat and the stagnatation and the smell and odor and all that of all the surrounding water that's coming into that, correct me if I'm wrong but I think there was a little girl striken with encephalitis from the mosquitoes a year, two years ago. I'm just wondering, how much of a situation is that going to cause if that just is allowed to sit in there whereas now it's got the natural way to drainage of taking care of that? Conrad: I don't know if there's an answer for your question. I've seen the creek and it's pretty stagnant right now. It's not the best of drainages right now, when you take a look at it. - Chuck Worsfold: It's not like a small lake where you get the air in there because you don't get air down there. The breeze is kind of few and far between. Conrad: As a layman's perspective, I would have to assume a pond is better than what the creek is offering for water movement at this time. Larry, do you have a better? Brown: Yes. Again, supposing water came in at this point, it will flow to this point and out. If no more water comes through here, it's a dry year, this is going to remain dry so it's not going to be the stagnant situation that's out there now. Nancy Parris: Assuming that the pond is...you say that there is going to be a swale back there. By all indications this swale is going to be the creek that you are replacing so you're going to have that kind of situation... Living on top of preakness I see the drainage coming down our street and it goes down that way and adding to it. It's coming from the Carver Beach area. That's a lot of water. The second point I'd like to make is that everybody talks about a valid concern and they are all good points. I'd really like the advisory committee to step back and take a look. Overall there are a lot of areas to buy lots. Chanhassen is a big place with a lot of development going on. These five lots are not crucial to the development of the city. Seeing that there are so many concerns, why at this point develop them? e Pete Parris: I understood that city water, city sewer was put back in the area in the early 70's and that, how come with Carver Beach as big as it is and these houses have been there for so long, how come this hasn't, right here, has never been developed before? Has there been some other I ~ Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 10 e reason why no other developer wanted to tackle this? Conrad: I guess we could look for the particular reason. I'll just give you an overview. All of Chanhassen is developing right now. The pressure is one Chanhassen a whole lot because Eden prairie is getting filled up and we're growing. As you grow, people decide to sell the property for a profit and you start building houses. It is basically their right to do that. It takes a real strong reason to restrict that. Otherwise, you have to have a very well thought out reason to restrict some of the developments so whether there's a reason right now for it, I've heard a lot of drainage problems stated tonight and some safety, which we're always concerned with every time something goes in. My view of this is that it's solving the drainage for the particular property but it's also solving some other real significant drainage problems that the whole area has. Do you have that same belief? e Pete Parris: I believe the drainage area now that is back there is for the betterment of everybody. I think what they're proposing, especially those last two houses there, I can't believe that the drainage, what they have proposed, the way it's set up with that pond and everything, I believe Lot 5, that house will be totally flooded out all the time. I believe they'll always have a wet basement. Right now with the water level only a foot below soil, you can't tell me, this is a dry year, when it's going to be wet, that sump pump is going to be working constantly. If not it's going to overflow and those people are going to have a wet basement constantly. I can see Chanhassen is going up. How it's growing and everything. I've lived in this area for 15 years and I've seen how much everything is growing but I can't see how developing this little bit is going to help Chanhassen and help everything so much. If we're going to start building on swampland, which that is and my opinion and just about everybody elses in that area, when you walk down there in a semi-wet year, you'll need boots on. Chuck Worsfold: I'd just like to concur with my neighbor because like I said, my property is just up above that and he's absolutely right. I've gotten to where I can't even mow my lawn in the mid of the summer two years ago because it is that wet back there and I'm talking, I'm up the hill from where, especially that last lot is going to be put in at. The other thing is, if you do decide and they have to go in there, then I would really appreciate some sort of a drainage system in there. This is just a personal thing because I have a very good friend, I mean I know it flows to the lake but I did not know that I was going to be having to deal with a pond where my little boys are going to playing here because I had a friend 5 years ago lose his 6 year old son to something of what we're talking about putting in there. Sure, I know it's my responsibility to keep track of my children but curiosity is a big thing with little boys. I'm just saying there's not every moment that you'll be able to keep track of that. I'm not saying I don't know how deep this pond is. That's why I'm a little bewildered exactly what the specifications are. How large. Where it's really going to be at. e Carlye Peterson, preakness Lane: Is there an acceptable level for Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 11 e building on as far as how moist, how wet the land can be? We talked about a foot below the soil or 8 inches below there is water. Is there a good level and if there is, what happens when that soil samples that were taken, that it automatically can get a house with this if there is that level? Do you understand what I'm saying? Brown: The Uniform Building Code addresses part of that soil stability and that will be required as part of the building permit process. If they can not achieve a structurally sound or stable condition in that area, then they won't be allowed the permit for that lot. Carlye Peterson: So there is a certain level that they have to adhere to? If it doesn't exist, do they create that or does it have to be natural? Can you add fill to a swamp to build a house? Is that acceptable to the City, is what I'm asking. Brown: If they can meet the soil stability, yes. Carlye Peterson: Okay, but that's after you've added the stuff. It's not with the soil samples that were taken this week? Brown: Correct. e Pete Parris: Are you saying, let's say they started digging there and you approved the land and everything, they started digging and they put in the fill and all of a sudden they realize on Lots 4 and 5 we can not get a permit because it is more or less a swamp, by most of our opinions, and then what do they do? We reject the permit. They can not build a house and they sit there with a whole pile of torn up stuff and bulldozed up and it's our eyesore on top of preakness Lane looking down on this. Ron Krueger: I guess I'd like to point out an alternative that could happen. Another scenario that could happen. Mr. Kerber who we have a purchase agreement with on this property, the lots as they are have sewer and water service to them. They've been assessed for sewer and water service. He can sell enough of those lots to one individual to make a buildable lot. He could do what we're doing without coming to anything. He could sell off 10 of those lots enough to make a buildable lot. It has sewer and water to it already. It's been assessed. People could come and get a building permit and they could cut all the trees down if they wanted to. If we don't do this, which we're planning on doing, somebody's going to develop the land. Whether it's us or Kerber's or whoever, and the Kerber's can do this and not do any of this stuff. He doesn't have to deal with the drainage. He can start building off of the top of the hill and let the city worry about the drainage. He can cut the trees down. That's his property. We're offering a solution that saves as many of the trees as possible. This property obviously is being dumped on. All of the Triple Crown Estates water is coming here. All of the Carver Beach property's water is dumping here. Obviously there is a drainage problem which we're attempting to solve. Mr. Kerber doesn't have to do all this. Somebody's going to do this. e Pete Parris: Not necessarily. with the wetland they can avoid all of Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 12 -- the. . . Ron Krueger: They can build up for 20 feet deep and fill it back up with sand. Get an engineering report... Pete Parris: They can't alter a wetland without a permit. Ron Krueger: They can alter it 200 feet away the wetland and beyond. RoxAnn Lund: I think that some of the residents are a little bit confused. The wetland is to the west of the Yuma right-of-way and is not inclusive of this property. This property is not a designated wetland. Never has been. It is zoned residential single family and has no designation as a wetland. Bill Eggert, preakness Lane: Just a question regarding the 140 feet that's designated as covenanted land. Do I understand correctly that that can not be developed on at a later date? e RoxAnn Lund: What we're saying is that where that approximate 140 feet from the vacated dot to that back line, what you have to do is basically some clearing of the underbrush which makes it more environmentally sound. I believe there was a forester out there that said that some of the underbrush needs to be removed to make the trees more healthy. That would be something that would involve changing of the trees over 4 inch diameter... Bill Eggert: Just a comment relative to that, if the Commission should find favorably on the development of this property, I think it's essential to the integrity of the property to maintain that. Mike Mason: Just one more comment on putting five homes in there. Is there any way that that could be split up to where maybe there was just two dwellings put in there so we wouldn't have to be cutting into so much? Is there a way to market that to where even one person could build a nice home back in there? Conrad: Legally speaking, you only have to have 15,000 square feet of footage. Mike Mason: I'm just saying as an option instead of cutting that up into five little pieces to one person. Conrad: The developer has that option. In this particular case... Mike Mason: Unless Mr. Kerber would ever consider something like that. I wish I had a million dollars, I'd buy it myself. Ron Krueger: I'll sell it to you for a million dollars. e Conrad: Once a developer meets the City zoning ordinance and the restrictions of 15,000, it's difficult for us to say you have to go bigger because in that particular zoning district, 15,000 is minimum and we have Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 13 e found time and time again we can't enforce larger lots. There are other things that we look at besides simply lot size however but simply from a lot size standpoint, the developer makes a decision. Larger lot may bring more money, a better house but it's his economic decision. It's his choice. Mike Mason: I would just like to say that considering some of the development that's gone on in the City in terns of just bulldozing everything down, I do appreciate what R & R is trying to do. Obviously I'm not pleased but if it's going to happen it's going to happen. I think it's nice that some people are starting to take those kinds of things into consideration and I would hope that the Planning Commission as well as the City on any future development would take this kinds of things into consideration. e Conrad: Yes, there have been some cases close to where trees have gone down and I think that caused a major concern and that's why we're enforcing a little bit of knowing what trees were going down on a property. The things that are assets out there, you're fighting for those assets in the community. We moved here for some of those reasons and sometimes it hurts when you see those things going down and the best we can do is preserve some of that. Yet on the other hand, like we all like to do with our own property, the owners do have that right to use it as they see fit and as it conforms to our ordinances. I think what we're trying to do in the Chanhassen ordinances and the City staff have been trying to protect some of those things that we thing are important like wetlands and preventing clearcutting and those things. Anything else? Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Headla: I see the recommendation on number 8, I don't remember that ever being in before. Dacy: The developer shall be responsible for daily on and off-site clean-up? Headla: Is that a new boiler plate you're going to add on everyone? Brown: Yes. The City Council has been disturbed by the amount of the tracking of mud, debris that's been blowing across the city from the construction sites so you can expect to see that on just about all subdivisions that corne through here. Headla: I think that's great. Any two-wheeler. Motorcycle or bicycle, particularly at night when it's raining. I hope to see it on everyone. On that pond, is the creek going right to the pond or will there still be kind of a street creek going through there yet? e Brown: No, the pond will be constructed in lieu of that creek. Headla: Tonight when I was over there you could see a couple of mallards Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 14 Ie down in there and I can just see, if you put that pond in there, here again we're creating things aesthetically such as over on TH 5. It looks great and we think we're doing great for water fowl. Yes, they can land there but there sure isn't any habitat. I wish there was something we could do to create or not take so much habitat away from them and I think the way we've got all the structures of our ponding, you're just taking it away. Just off of Kerber Blvd., all that ponding, it just isn't good for nesting. We're taking stuff away from wildlife again. Maybe there's something in the future we can do to reword that. If we approve this tonight, are we saying that we agree with the Covenants on those trees? Dacy: The staff condition is that they submit a tree removal plan along with their building permit application. Staff would also enforce that grading limit line as I identified as part of the plan, that we would not allow tree removal beyond the grading limit line that's indicated on the plan. The restricted covenants can be a condition of approval and will be recorded by the applicant against the property. Headla: What about in 5 years? Most of those now are young maples but say in 5 years some of them started dying, can they go in and cut those down? e Dacy: If the maple trees are dying, that could cause an impact against some of the other existing trees. If it can be shown that it will be good for the trees, the City will go along with it. Headla: Do you think this is an enforceable requirement? Dacy: I think it's some good tools that we've implemented since some other subdivisions in the past. The tree removal plans have really helped staff in enforcing that. The private restrictions are enforced by the homeowners in that 5 lot subdivision so you've got a couple of tools that are both municipal and private. Headla: You've got a tool for really holding back the bigger problems but the next person... Dacy: I'm sorry. Headla: You're really going to be able to control the big offender but the little nit picking you probably aren't that concerned about anyway. Dacy: The major intent is that we certainly don't want massive clear cutting of the entire lot and that's the intent of our condition. Headla: Larry, have we ever refused a building permit due to a high water level? e Brown: I am not going to direct the question of a high water level. I have to keep it in the terms of all the soil conditions. It involves more than just the water level. In previous subdivisions we have required that soil borings be taken on every house pad and brought in as a part of the building permit process to insure the structural soundness of the soil. 'n Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 15 e Headla: Are you convinced that, particularly for 5, our procedures now are adequate? If they do everything that we require and they pass our requirements, that it is a safe place to put a home? Brown: Yes. The condition that could be added to this as an additional enforcement as part of the approval is that each pad submit a soil borings along with the signature of a registered soils engineer. We've done that in the past. Headla: In this case would you recommend we do that now that you've heard some of these comments? Brown: We can do that yes. Headla: When we had this big rain this summer, with the situation down there that if there were homes, anybody would have been in danger or would it just be personal property damage? Could anybody have been hurt or killed or anything? Is it that serious down there? e Brown: Not having the specific data available to me, that's strictly a judgment call whether somebody could possibly have gotten hurt. There's no doubt that this area drains approximately 33 acres of land and it is the low lying area of that drainage path. I'm sure during that event there was a great volume of water that followed that path. It's not taken lightly. I think that's why the applicant is in here trying to construct a larger pond than what is legally required by our ordinance. Headla: That's all I have. Wildermuth: I noticed on the recommendation there's nothing said about curbing on the south side of Woodhill. Was that idea rejected? Brown: Yes it was. with the curbing option, a storm sewer system would have had to have been installed along with that along the entire length of the road. Due to the volume of water that comes down there, the storm sewer system became unfeasible. Wildermuth: There is a storm sewer system now in the road right? According to the plat map but it wouldn't handle something like that is what you're saying? Brown: The storm sewer system that is proposed is to handle just the two culverts that go underneath the roadway. The vast amount of volume that comes down and I think you've heard this from the property owners, shoots straight down Woodhill Road and along Yuma Road so that's being being left to go it's natural path. e Wildermuth: What I'm thinking about is the curb on the south side though with angled approaches for a driveway that would direct the water down to it without the storm sewer and curbing. Brown: It's possible, yes. Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 16 e Wildermuth: That would help deflect some of the water that's corning down from up above from the north side. Brown: The natural path of the waterway, having videotaped part of that during a heavy rainstorm, the water followed the north side of Woodhill, if you will, up until the time that it got down to where the creek was and then crossed at that point to the south side and through the creek. Wildermuth: Okay, so what provisions are we going to make there? It sounds like you're going to have to build on the front 80 feet of that lot, of Lot 5. You're going to have to fill in the creek right? Brown: That's correct. Wildermuth: So what provisions are going to be made to divert the water from the north side of Woodhill where there's currently a natural barrier to keep it from corning over the road and washing over somewhere between, it's all below the 940 contour? e Brown: The grading plan proposes a 2 to 3 foot increase in the pad elevation, if you will, back towards the house pad. The water would be directed, if you have plans in front of you, right at the northeast corner of that lot. That's where the natural drainage will be maintained. The proposed grade out there is at a 936 elevation and by the time you get up to the house pad it's at a 943 elevation so there is that difference to divert the water. wildermuth: It looks like there's a culvert under the road by my map. Is that true? Brown: That's correct. Wildermuth: And that will remain? Brown: That's correct. wildermuth: If we fill in the creek, where is the drainage from the culvert going to go? will the culvert be extended into the pond? Brown: That's correct. There's a pipe shown on the plan which carries that culvert, if you look it says to construct manhole that will facilitate the extension of that culvert into the pond. wildermuth: Is it possible, I guess I'd like to address the builder, is it prissible that you would not put basements in houses on Lots 4 and 5? Ron Krueger: They will be split. There wouldn't be basements. e wildermuth: But it would still be down below the water table. Ron Krueger: No, it wouldn't be built below the water table. Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 17 e Batzli: Larry, in your report, I thought you said something about a 10 foot easement but that's not one of the conditions. Didn't you want a 10 foot easement or something for future upgrade? Brown: Yes I did. Batzli: Djd you mean to include that as a condition of some sort? Brown: Yes I did. Conrad: For the street easement? Brown: That will be a street, drainage and utility easement due to the construction of the culvert along' the front of Woodhill Road. Batzli: I have a question about the outlot in general. Once it's deeded to the city, who the heck takes care of it? Is the City supposed to go in there and maintain it? For instance, mowing, things like that and do they actually do those things? Brown: Yes, the City would be responsible for maintenance of that outlot. Batzli: And an outlot of this nature, what would normally be done to it? e Brown: Normally if there were weeds along the front portion of the outlot, those would be cut down and the drainage pattern, the culvert, whatever, would be kept clear from debris. Batzli: So you just let it basically become weeds? You're going to let it go to natural whatever? Brown: Correct. Batzli: Do you require once the grading is all done, that anything be done to it? For instance, seed it with anything or do anything of that sort? Brown: Normally the restoration does include seeding as part of the plans and specifications. That will eliminate the amount of sedimentation as it eventually heads down to the wetland to the south. Batzli: When would that process occur as a part of the seeding plans and things? Brown: That would be a part of the grading, erosion control plan before the seeding goes down. e Batzli: I guess as a general point, I'd like to see the covenants included. At least the portions that I read that were highlighted. I don't know what the rest of the covenants say so I don't know that I could even recommend that they necessarily all be included but I think the Commisison may want to think about some sort of, at least resolution, that the City Council look at them. That's all I have. Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 18 e e ElIson: This one particularly interested me because it's in my neighborhood as well. I'm on Yuma Drive like many of you and it's hard not to take it personally. Even since I've been in my house I've had people build on both sides of me which didn't seem like a good thing. It was like, find someplace else. I kind of like it the way it is which is again the reason I'm there but I also see that's the reason they want homes there and I really can't be selfish enough to say that I can have homes around trees but nobody else can from then on. I can bet you that 15 years ago when they were building your home, there were people here saying we don't want homes along preakness or we don't want homes there as well. It's perfectly natural to do that and that's exactly why we have public hearings is to hear that. I think because of comments like what you've been giving these people, developers can't just go in and clear land anymore. I think they've now got to think of the neighborhood and although they're not required to, they're starting to try to cooperate because of people like yourselves. Again, they don't have to put a covenant in there, but they are. They don't have to leave those trees, but they are. I commend you for speaking out because that kind of thing isn't going to be done unless you do but I really can't see a good reason to deny it. This is zoned residential and has been forever. Anyone buying land around there knew that was a possibility and you have to realize that's the way it's zoned. It would be really hard for us to say no you can't, we changed our minds. Legally we can't really do that. I trust the engineers report on the drainage and I think it is a better solution. I think he's also shown going from 7 lots, which would have made him a lot more money to 5 and again, we can't tell him to please make it 2 because it's even nicer. Again, he has the right to do what he wants so I would vote to go along with the Commission and the planning staff recommendation. I agree with Brian about somehow getting that covenant tied into our recommendation. We will recommend it and make sure that tree plan part is on there, which it is, but somehow make sure that that covenant isn't something else and goes by the wayside by the time we actually bring people in there. e Emmings: The water issue is obviously a big one and we spent an awful lot of time on it here. I'm just going to kind of ignore it because I think if anything, the problem is there. The development of this property isn't going to add to it and it sounds to me like they might even be doing something to improve the situation a little bit but anyway. When I drove down Woodhill tonight and it's the first time I've ever seen it, of course I was struck by how quickly it went downhill and I really share the concerns of the neighbors as to winter use of the road and people and speeds on the road but I guess what really struck me was how narrow the road is. There was a car parked down there and I really had to slow down to go around it. That concerns me both as to thinking about emergency vehicles again going through there. About people having a lot of people over and a lot of cars being parked out on that road from time to time. I really think the road is incredibly inadequate. It's fine for what's there I think but for a lot of the homes in the neighborhood, it's really inadequate and I have no idea what the solution is but I think it's a huge problem. I think it's a safety problem for the people who live there and use that road. That's my two cents worth. .- Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 19 e Conrad: But you think it's a problem. Emmings: I think the road should have to be better than it is to have houses in there but I don't know if we can require the developer to do that. I don't know if it's a city problem. I don't know that it's a problem for this developer but it's certainly a problem. I do have one other thing down here. I can't tell you how often we hear that realtors tell people that that's a city park over there and it will never be built on. We hear that again and again and again and all I can say is, there are people who license realtors and you should write a little letter to whoever that is. I don't know their formal name but the state licenses these people and you should write a letter about that person to that licensing board and tell them about the misrepresentation that was made to you. In the case of a developer, write to the Attorney General's office and let them know. If they get enough complaints they might act on it and prosecute which is what they should do. Erhart: In looking at the plan, you're adding a 12 inch culvert that does not exist today. Is that correct? Am I reading this right? Brown: Which area? e Erhart: Talking about where the ditch exists currently you're adding from the center. It appears to me like it's from the south side of the road down to this pond? Brown: Correct. Erhart: And what's the purpose of that? Brown: That is just to facilitate the 12 inch culvert that is underneath Woodhill Road. Erhart: So the ditch is going to remain as shown on the plan? The existing ditch? Brown: The ditch that is out there now will be for the most part engulfed by the pond there. Erhart: I'm looking from the pond back to the road where the ditch runs right next to Lot 5's house pad. Brown: That will be filled in. Erhart: So there won't be a ditch there anymore? Brown: There will be a swale in there. Erhart: And your 12 inch culvert is going to handle the 100 year storm? e Brown: That 12 inch culvert will handle the drainage that is being facilitated by that 12 inch culvert now that goes under Woodcrest. To add to the drainage of that you'd have to jump Woodhill. -- --"-'--' Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 20 e Erhart: So now what you're saying, the 12 inch culvert currently flows into the ditch right at the end of the road? Brown: Correct. Erhart: Now what you're doing is you're extending the culvert to the new pond and eliminating the ditch. Brown: Correct. Erhart: Is the ditch a wetland? I want to point out something here or I want to ask something here. Correct me if I'm wrong. A wetland doesn't have to be a wetland to be shown on our wetland map. Don't we also, when we go in and review subdivisions, as a matter of fact at time go back and look at all the area within a subdivision and determine if there is additional wetlands on that area that are not included on our wetlands map and add them? Dacy: That's correct. It's been staff's interpretation up to this point that that ditch was not a part of the wetland area. The edge of the wetland area shown in the southeast corner of the plat matches the edge of the wetlands that's shown on the City's wetland map. Granted this drainageway or ditch drains directly into that wetland. We did not view it as a wetland per se but as a drainageway receiving waters from upland areas into the wetland. e Erhart: I heard a majority of the time there is water running that ditch. Didn't I hear that? Dacy: Yes there is. Erhart: I think we have not, from what I've heard here, I don't think we've ascertained at all whether or not that's a wetland or not. I'm hearing the neighborhood say that it's a wetland who live there and the developer and Larry, I think somehow we've assumed that it's not a wetland and I'm not sure that we're correct. I guess what I'd like to see... Dacy: Even if it was determined to be a wetland, you'd still have the same principle or the same problem to address. You have 33 acres of runoff to collect and somehow protect the existing wetland. e Erhart: Let me go on Barbara. But if the creek is a wetland, then you can't build within 75 feet of that creek which would eliminate Lot 5. In going back to our wetland ordinance, removing that creek if it has water running in it a majority of the time, goes against the intent of our wetland ordinance. I guess I'd like to see this thing tabled and have us determine whether this is a wetland or not because I really question that house there. I do believe our ordinances, if applied correctly, will help us decide whether Lot 5 is viable or not. Normally anytime we have a wetland we do have someone from the U.S. Fish and wildlife look at it. Unfortunately this time we didn't have a chance to do that. Maybe we could have prevented a lot of this discussion but I'd like to see that happen. Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 21 e Dacy: If the Commission wants to go ahead and do that, obviously that's your perogative. Another similar situation that the reason why staff proceeded on this as presented was because the Rod Grams subdivision down on Audubon and Lyman Blvd.. That arose a similar situation where Bluff Creek proceeded east/west underneath Audubon Road and the larger wetland area was on the west side. We viewed that as a creek and not as a part of the total wetland area. Erhart: What did we do with it? Did we put it in a culvert? Dacy: No, it was left as is because there was no alteration... Erhart: All I'm saying is... Dacy: I'm just saying, it was our interpretation that that was a creek and not necessarily part of the wetland. Erhart: I just find it hard to believe we have a wetland ordinance that allows us to move a creek. Dacy: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife guy is going to be coming out to the site on Friday. He has to cover a three county area. That was why we couldn't get him out here in time for the Planning Commission review but as is shown in the report, his approval is necessary anyway. e Erhart: Okay, on Dave's comment, this pond thing, it disturbs me that we build a pond that's got no water in it and I wonder, don't we specify ponds to the DNR's recommendation of the 1 in 10/1 in 20 foot slope in banks. Do we apply that Larry when we can or do we make them simply to hold water in case of a big storm? Brown: That would be Fish and Wildlife guidelines, correct me if I'm wrong Barb, are instated if an applicant is going into a wetland and improving a wetland. Creating a pond within the wetland. This is not the case, at least as we assume now. Erhart: But I'm just wondering, when we design ponding areas for run-off, do we make any attempt at all to design them within the recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife? Brown: No, they are for storm water retention. - Erhart: I guess I'd like to see us attempt to do that when we can. Obviously we can't do it all the time. Lastly, the street. On this street deal, what happens if we approve this and the next meeting a plan comes in for the north side to be subdivided? Then the issue is, we've got more people using this same little street. If it is what it is and the real problem is that 5 lots will not economically afford a street improvement, should we or could we somehow basically make some kind of a statement or something or a regulation that if the north side is subdivided, that that street automatically has to be built and whoever buys those lots knows that they're going to have, they're going to pay for it because I think what's going to happen here is that you're going to Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 22 e approve a subdivision, whether it's 4 or 5 lots, and then the next one's going to come in very shortly. Then you're going to get faced with who's going to make the decision to improve this street? It's going to be a tough one because nobody's going to want to make it. Nobody's going to want to pay for it and the city's going to want it. If there was someway to say to these lot owners right now that at some point in the near future they're going to have to pay for a street improvement, I think it would solve a lot of those problems and I have no idea how you do that. Dacy: On the north side of Woodhill Road we looked at the ownership patterns and the lot sizes. with the proposed amount of lots, five lots plus the Mason home plus the variance that was granted to the west of it, plus the vacant lot up on the corner, you could potentially have 11 total homes accessing onto Woodhill Road. Possibly 10 if the corner lot up at Nez Perce would access off of Nez Perce so the Planning Commission then has to decide if Woodhill Road is adequate enough to handle a total development of 11 homes abutting Woodhill Road. At this point it was staff's recommendation that in order to accomplish a two way street section in there, you would drastically change the character of that area because of that 18% slope, that area in there, we'd have to gain a lot wider area to bring that slope down to a typical street grade of 7%. Erhart: You're already including an easement for doing that. e Dacy: Well, even 50 feet isn't enough if we were going to be doing a two way street improvement because of that 18% grade is going to be difficult to work with. We acknowledge that it is not the best situation but we felt that given those facts, that we could have a potential of 11 homes, that we can try and do as much as we can to maybe look at special signing. Maybe we could look at widening in certain areas. Erhart: I'm not suggesting that you do anything now. All I'm saying is that you make part of that agreement with those lot owners that they're going to know that they're going to be assessed for street improvements when those northern lots get subdivided because what's going to happen is it's going to be a real problem because nobody's going to want to decide. Do you understand what I'm getting at? I don't know if there's a solution but let's get back to this creek thing. I think we ought to correctly determine whether that's a wetland or not before we proceed on this. Headla: Tim, it looks like there's been some work done there already. That ditch has been improved. How long ago did that happen? Do you have any idea? Ron Krueger: The ditch was improved over the last year. They dug it deeper and widened it out. steve Syverson: I talked to a city worker who worked down there and he thought there was a spring possibly in there. If that would explain why they wanted to or not, I don't know but there is a small qUqntity of water. - Headla: So the village is out there changing the wetland. Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 23 I e Conrad: Larry, what do you think would be a street improvement? I think it's real important that we maintain the character of the neighborhood. I think that would be a real problem if we started putting in a full street in there. I think the neighbors wouldn't like it and that would be wrong. In your mind though, to improve that street a little better, what would you do? Simply widened it a little more. Brown: Widening, even a little bit is going to be difficult with that 18% grade. Trying to attain the proper side slopes required for that could devastate some of the homes and I'm talking about some of the existing homes that are out there. The home that is located in proximity of that 18% grade on the north end side, received a variance from the City Council to build 19 feet from the corner of the house from the existing bituminous mat that's out there now. That just adds one more constraint to the pile. Conrad: There's no way they're moving the street that way. e Brown: Correct. Improvements are going to change the character of that and staff's intent here was it certainly is not the most desirable situation to have these additional homes access Woodhill Road. However, the number of lots that are on there now, the homeowners right now, I think you've heard tonight a little bit that they certainly wouldn't appreciate another large assessment for that road improvement project. At a certain time when the lots to the north come in and subdivide or develop, then we have a larger number, or at least a more willing group to have a public improvement project done to improve that roadway. Conrad: But what would that take? Brown: That would take a feasibility study to determine that. It would definitely involve extensive grading and retaining walls for some of these lots. Conrad: Tim, your comment is a ditch is a wetland. Is that what you're claiming? Erhart: I guess I don't know. If the City went in there a year ago and made this ditch, that's a ditch. I don't know. That's what I'm saying. We should get our consultant in to look at this thing. If it's always been a creek or something, than I would think that's a wetland. Conrad: Mr. Kerber is the owner right now? Dacy: Bernie Kerber. Conrad: And he basically would have the right, what right to develop this property without a subdivision does he have? e Dacy: These are platted lots by the 1920, whatever government organization was operating at that time in this area, they gave to subdivide these lots. The entire area exists as one parcel. come in and convey Lots, just using numbers as an example, 2100 approval He could to 2110 Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 24 e and Lots 2500 to 2510 if it meets the 15,000 square foot lot area requirement and 90 foot of lot width, than the city really has no means to demand the conveyence. There is sewer and water and albeit, may not be the best situation, there is some type of street access to the lots. When the City did that improvement project in the mid 70's, they deemed that Woodhill would be a one-way street and said that the 13 or 16 foot wide pavement section was appropriate at that time. They assessed the lots based on that rationale. What the developers are doing is replatting that entire legal description by Kerbers and creating 5 lots but by going through the replatting process, the City does have more controls to place conditions of approval. Conrad: To ask the developers some questions. You've got your lots really configured parallel with the road. Are there alternatives to put those houses in so they conform to the grading or the angle of the hill so they're tucked in more? Have you looked at alternatives rather than just butting up to the street? Whether end to end, putting them at angles or is that in your mind something that's not sellable or feasible? Ron Krueger: The reason they are the way they are is we kind of wanted minimum setback from the street so we cut as least amount of trees as possible. You start choking them... It also makes it more difficult to maintain and design a drainage swale to extend in that area. You've got really backyards. e Conrad: Barbara, do you think that pond at the bottom that would be deeded to the City should remain? How would it typically be maintained? Would it be maintained wild? Would that fit in character with the area or would it be groomed, mowed, whatever? Brown: I think as I stated before, the front boulevard would be mowed as any boulevard is by the City. As far as internal maintenance, I'm sure there would probably be very little done with it with the exception of keeping it clear for the drainage path so it would be left more or less to the wild that you see down to the south or southeast of that. Conrad: Are we missing an opportunity there are or we responsive to the community? I heard the residents say they don't want a safety hazard there and they don't want an eyesore and a lot of things they don't want so is this solution probably the best in terms of what you've heard them say? I've also heard Dave say we're missing an opportunity to create a habitat, wildlife habitiat. Are we more responsive to the neighbors in the approach that we're taking right now? e Brown: Part of the problem in construction the sedimentation retention basin, if we were to create a 10:1 side slope as often suggested by the Fish and wildlife, we give up some of that stored volume and I think you've heard this evening that there's a vast amount of water that flows down there and it needs to be addressed through that pond. It certainly can be imposed but part of that volume that we need, wouldn't get the volume of water that runs down in that area. Again, I want to make it clear that the pond is constructed as a dry pond. There's not going to be 4 feet of standing water without having a storm. Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 25 - Dacy: If I can just follow up on that. You have to remember that the larger wetland to the southeast is not being altered at all and will remain in it's natural state. We almost have to prioritize the storm water management function in here so we can provide the benefit to all of the areas in that upland area that the water is going through. So yes there is a trade off there but in this case the City feels we need that pond. Conrad: My overall feeling is, obviously we've got some real problems with that road and drainage and the thing that I keep seeing is that the pond really does help. The big pond makes me want to justify some of these other things simply because I think that big pond is going to help in the whole water drainage issue for the area. Therefore, I have the sense that we have some control here working with this group of developers versus maybe what the owner has potential to do which wouldn't solve any problems. That's my general sense. At least we can solve some of the problems and we all see some of the ones that are still there and maybe a little bit, some of them that might be created. I guess we should make a motion pretty soon before midnight. I've heard one end ask for tabling. I think an alternative to tabling, not to say that that's what I'm for but we could pass this on, if we'd like to, contingent on what, who's coming out? Fish and Wildlife? e Dacy: Yes, the earliest I could get him was on Friday morning. Conrad: Okay, contingent on their findings that this is not a protected waterway. If it is a protected waterway, I think we have a different story but on the other hand we can bring it back. We can invite the neighborhood back another time and put the developers off a couple weeks which may be beneficial if we feel that so I think that's an alternative for whoever would like to make a motion. I think I heard that we don't need to landscape that pond. I think that was a concern that I personally had. I think there may be some deed restrictions that somebody may want to impose or if the awareness that there may be an improvement project pending. Somehow I feel that that's never going to happen however. A street improvement based on the cost for a limited number of homes. I just have a funny feeling, I don't hear a solution coming forth but I think the comment that there may be that kind of an improvement project and make the buyers of those properties aware that this probably, something that could be worked in. Headla: Let me give it a try so I can get some wording. I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #88-5 with following conditions. 2 through 10 as the planning staff recommended. 11 being that the applicant submit soil borings per Larry's wording on that. Brown: That the applicants submit soil borings as part of the building permit process. e Headla: On 1, I like what's written there but I want to cover more for what happens in 3, 4, 5 years. Our tree removal plan as it's stated here doesn't cover that, does it? Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 26 e Brown: That's correct. In relying on the advice of the City Attorney, we have very little control of that with the exception of the Covenants. That is the control that we have. Dacy: I think if you wanted to strike number 1, we'd also suggest that you add the sentence, there shall be no clearcutting of the lots at any time. Then a third sentence, the applicant shall file the proposed deed restrictions upon satisfactory review by staff. Headla: Okay, so if I bought one of those lots realizing all the conditions and you came along 3 years from now and bought it from me, would you be aware of those conditions? Dacy: These conditions are made a part of the development contract which is recorded against the property and those are recorded individually against each of the lots. Headla: So if they do a review on that, you would see that? Dacy: Right. Headla: You're really recommending that we don't require curbing? e wildermuth: Sewer curbing on the south side. Brown: The curbing is going to necessitate the addition of a storm sewer system. wildermuth: Why? Why not make it unsewered? Brown: You can add curbing at various points, somewhere that has to have an opening to go through. That certainly is an alternative that could be set by the Commission. Conrad: Just generally curbing runs down streets. Headla: Yes, and for there the way the water was coming across, it seems like a natural and that really shows you what a layman really knows about it. It seems natural. Should we put something in just about curbing Larry? I guess we have to rely on your expertise. Wildermuth: It would seem like for Lots, at least 4 and 5, maybe 3. Brown: It's certainly an option, yes. Headla: Let's put the wording in that you negotiate with the developer on curbing for Lots 3, 4 and 5. You've got the expertise. Then I'd like to add one more situation, recommend that the Council negotiate with the developer about the cost of who's going to bear the cost of the outlot. I didn't see anything in the recommendations. The developer would pay for the outlot, putting in the pine. e Brown: That's correct. - Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 27 e Dacy: That's what's proposed. Headla: Okay, I missed it then. Brown: That is part of the grading plan. Point of clarification of one of the conditions. The soil borings would be for each lot. Wildermuth: Do you have that 10 foot easement in there? ElIson: The utility easement. Brown: Yes, that is required also. Batzli: Well, let's second it and amend it. I second it. Conrad: Are there amendments that you'd like to propose Brian? Batzli: Do you want to amend your 10 foot easement? ElIson: I was just writing notes. I have something about your street drainage and utility easements that you said you wanted as a part of the conditions but you didn't add it. I wondered how you wanted that worded. e Batzli: How about the developer shall provide a 10 foot roadway easement along Woodhill to provide for future road improvements and utilities? Is that acceptable? Brown: Yes. Conrad: There was a concern the Covenants be incorporated into the motion. Dacy: I suggested two sentence as a part of item 1. I assumed that was part of the motion. Batzli: Dave, is part of your motion the two additional sentences of number 1 because I didn't hear you recommend number 1 for inclusion in your motion? Headla: I didn't initially then I came back to 1. it added on and then Barb added two sentences. I liked 1 but I wanted Batzli: So there shall be no clearcutting of any lots is a second sentence and as a third sentence, the developer shall provide deed covenants running with Lots 1 through 5 per staff's review and for inclusion in the development contract? Dacy: That's correct. e Conrad: Did that say restoration of the pond in number I? Dacy: No. Number 1 does not deal with restoration of the pond. Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 28 e Conrad: That's part of the erosion control. Batzli: Do you have reseeding it? Conrad: I thought I heard Larry say that the restoration of the pond was part of the erosion control. Dacy: He was referring to the plan and specfication review that the developer will submit for the construction of that pond. Item 1 refers to the individual plans for each lot. That will be required anyway. Conrad: Restoration? Dacy: Right. Conrad: Brian you finished making your additions? Batzli: Yes. Conrad: In this particular motion we haven't made it contingent upon Fish and Wildlife just so we all know that is not part of this motion. e Dacy: The wetland alteration permit is the next issue and that is proposed as part of the condition of approval of that item. Another condition of approval of the wetland alteration permit is that they comply with all the conditions of this approval so you have the Fish and wildlife. Batzli: But we don't necessarily, when they're coming and inspecting, what are they inspecting for right now? They're not going to look and see if the current ditch is a wetlands. Dacy: That can be part of the direction. They look at if it is or isn't and two, the quality of them so we can have those issues addressed. Batzli: I guess personally I'd rather see it done on the wetlands permit. Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded an amendment to the motion to add condition 13 stating that the developer shall provide a 10 foot roadway easement along Woodhill to provide for future road improvements and utilities. All voted in favor of the amendment and the motion carried. Headla moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #88-5 subject to the plan stamped "Received May 2, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: e 1. There shall be no clearcutting of the lots at any time. Submission of grading, erosion control and tree removal plans in conjunction with building permit application for Lots I through 5, Block 1. The applicant shall file the proposed deed restrictions upon satisfactory review by city staff. Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 29 . 2. The developer shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee completion of these improvements. 3. The applicant shall dedicate Outlot A to the City of Chanhassen prior to the commencement of any grading. 4. The applicant shall erect a snow fence immediately south of the proposed grading area to prevent removal or destruction of trees outside the proposed grading area. 5. All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the commencement of any grading, and once in place shall remain in place throughout the duration of construction. The developer is required to review all erosion control measures periodically and make the necessary repairs promptly. All 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. 6. The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District. e 7. Wood-fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all disturbed slopes greater than 3:1. 8. The developer shall be responsible for daily on and off-site clean up caused by construction of this site. 9. The plans shall be revised to show that the storm sewer pipe located at the southwest corner of Outlot A shall be extended 10 feet beyond the existing watermain along Yuma Drive. 10. The applicant shall provide the City with revised storm sewer calculations which verify the adequate capacity of the storm sewer system prior to the final plat review process. 11. The applicant shall submit soil borings for each lot as a part of the building permit process. 12. The developer shall negotiate with the City Engineer for curbing for Lots 3, 4 and 5. 13. The developer shall provide a 10 foot roadway easement along Woodhill to provide for future road improvements and utilities. All voted in favor except Tim Erhart and Steve Emmings who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. e Conrad: Steve, the reason for your negative vote. Emmings: Because I knew it was going to pass and I want to make sure that the City Council looks hard at the road. I think the road is very Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 30 e inadequate. Especially if there would ever be any parking on it. I'm real unimpressed by an excuse that it's going to change the character of the neighborhood. For God's sake, we're putting 5 and maybe up to 10 houses in there and if that's not going to change the character of the neighborhood, I don't what is. I think it's a serious problem and there may not be any solution to it and if there isn't, then I think that ought to be taken into account now rather than after the houses are in. Erhart: Two reasons. The road. However, I think I understood that the thing could be sudivided now without any road improvements. I don't know if there's anything we could do. I think the reason why I mostly voted against it was because there seems to be a question here of the 75 foot setback on a wetlands. Always in my mind a creek is covered by that rule and I'd like to see that get clarified so that between the Commission, staff and the ordinance, that's clarified. So again, I'm glad it got passed too but I'd like to get that clarified and then get applied to this. Batzli moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #88-6 based on the plan stamped "Received May 2, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: e 1. Compliance with the conditions of plat approval for Subdivision #88-5. 2. Receiving an acceptable review by Dr. Leach from the u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the creation of a drainage pond on Outlot A and it's impact on the wetlands adjacent to the subdivision. Batzli: If I could just ask a point of clarification on my motion here. Is the current review that you're anticipating from Dr. Leach, what exactly is that going to entail? Is he going to come out, look at how close they are to the currently designated wetland or are they going to be looking at the area that's going to be subdivided? Dacy: What we will want to receive back from Dr. Leach will be 1, whether or not the creek/ditch is or is not a protected wetland. 2, is the creation of a pond consistent with the wetland ordinance. That it will not have a detrimental impact on the existing wetland area to the southeast of the site. Batzli: Receiving an acceptable review, I guess I would rather amend my own motion. Condition 1 as stated and then condition 2, add at the end of that sentence, regarding the creation of a drainage pond on Outlot A and it's impact on the wetlands adjacent to the subdivision. Conrad: Do you feel that your motion has Dr. Leach reviewing that status of that drainage ditch? e Batzli: I thought I did. I guess I indicated the creation of a pond but not necessarily whether that ditch is a wetlands. Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 31 e Conrad: I'd like to amend that by having Dr. Leach review specifically whether the drainage ditch is considered a wetland or is simply a drainage ditch that has been created by the city. Batzli: I guess my question is, do we want to block it at this point if the answer is yes, that is a wetland. What do you want to do with it at that point? Do you want to have them come back and redo what they've got here so it's not within 75 feet of a wetlands? Conrad: I think I would review it differently if I thought that the ordinance was in jeopardy. If the ordinance stands for something and we haven't reviewed it for it's intent. I would like to have it back. I may vote exactly the same as I did but I'd like to know that I was voting to override the wetland ordinance. Batzli: I'll accept that amendment. Conrad: Any other discussion? Erhart: What are we voting on now? Conrad: We're voting on Brian's motion but also my amendment that said to have Dr. Leach specifically review the drainage ditch to tell us what that really is. And if it's a ditch or wetland, we would like to know that but what does that mean? e Ellson: That if it's a ditch we're approving to go ahead and if it's not a ditch, they have to come back. Conrad moved, Batzli seconded to approve an amendment to the motion to include that Dr. Leach specifically review the drainage ditch to determine whether it is a ditch or wetland. All voted in favor of the amendment and motion carried. Batzli moved, ElIson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #88-6 based on the plan stamped "Received May 2, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the conditions of plat approval for Subdivision #88-5. 2. Receiving an acceptable review by Dr. Leach from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the creation of a drainage pond on Outlot A and it's impact on the wetlands adjacent to the subdivision. Also including that Dr. Leach review the drainage ditch to determine whether it's a wetland or ditch. All voted in favor except Emmings who abstained and motion carried. e , - Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 32 e PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE STABLE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED AT 3931 ASTER TRAIL, DALE COLLINS, APPLICANT. Barbara Dacy presented the staff report. Dale Collins: I think I comply. Emmings moved, ElIson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart: What's Aster Trail? Dacy: It's a private drive that is both in Victoria and Chanhassen. Erhart: That's the access to the... Dacy: That's correct. Erhart: And all of the horse riding would be just on the property? e Dale Collins: On the property and also on that Luce Line trail that runs adjacent to our property. Erhart: What is that, road? Batzli: No, it's an abandoned railroad. Erhart: Do we have any official, in our trail system, do we have any trails dedicated for horse riding or a trail plan or anything? Dacy: No. Not that I'm aware of. Erhart: What's that trail you're referring to? Are there any restrictions on that? Dacy: As you can see, the Hennepin County has acquired that right-of-way for potential light rail. Erhart: So people just use it at this point. Dacy: Right. Batzli: They've gravled it. It's graded so that it's intended for use. Dacy: The railroad ties are gone. e Erhart: Again, I just want to point out to the Commission here, we have a proposal for an 1,800 square foot pole barn. It's just interesting to note in that we are discussing some restrictions on accessory buildings in the RSF district as well as other residential districts so you might want Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 33 e to keep that in mind for later discussion when that comes back to the Commission for further discussion, which I think it is isn't it? There we're talking about 1,200? 800? Dacy: Yes, and the Commission was also looking at a minimum lot size that you would apply that restriction to. Erhart: Yes, but this is RSF district right? Dacy: Right. Erhart: There we were basically talking... Dacy: Right, but you're also talking about 5 acres and talking about a threshold. Erhart: So here again is a situation where we're getting a pretty permanent structure in the RSF district that doesn't necessarily fit into the increased density. It's okay now at 5 acres but what do we do with this building when someone wants to subdivide this 5 acres? Would they take it down? I think that's the only questions I had. e Emmings: On the corner of Church and to build a bunch of houses in there. into that? What did we wind up doing plan I think to the City Council than TH 7 there we just looked at a plan Is that going to change the access there? They took a little different we saw. Dacy: Right. They put together that site, Carlson's plat which is right in here, and the plan that they came up with did not need any variances. They were able to shift lot lines and create an easement in there so they met all the 90 feet and 15,000 square foot lot area. That did require an easement for, if this property would develop and what would happen at that time if this would develop, and we probably would approve this street here and we'd have a connection into the proposed street and Carlson's property. Emmings: Okay, I just wondered how that fit together. Dacy: If you drive in here on the cartway now, you can't get to the applicant's house. Well, you can by foot but there is no driveway access in. You have to come in off of Aster. Emmings: And the only thing on this property is going to be the barn? Dacy: Right. The existing home is out there and this would be located to the southwest of it. Emmings: When we talk about private stables, I didn't look in the ordinance, does it mean just that he can only have his own horses there? e Dacy: That's correct. Emmings: And it's defined that way in the ordinance? Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 34 e Dacy: Right. Emmings: There's no intention here to board horses? Dale Collins: No. Emmings: I don't have anything else. ElIson: Nothing to add here. Batzli: I want to know if the City Council has in fact authorized the establishment of a horse committee or are you the committee Dave? Dacy: He's the committee. Batzli: Has the committee looked at this application? Dacy: I hope so. Headla: I haven't seen it. Batzli: So there hasn't been an application. We're setting up the conditional use but he hasn't actually applied... e Dacy: Well, number one, I found out tonight that Mr. Headla didn't receive his packet so I'm operating at a loss in the first place. The intent was that the conditional use permit is typically process first because the City needs to decide whether or not that private stable is appropriate at that location. Since Mr. Headla was on the Commission anyway, I had hoped that he would have been able to have seen the site and offered his opinion. He does review the stable permits when they come up on an annual basis every June. Batzli: I guess I just had two questions. One was I think, actually I'm killing two birds with one stone, I think we should insert an additional provision that they will in general comply with whatever city and state laws regarding maintenance of horses and animals in general. Whatever. For instance, no horse shall be permitted to run at large within the city. I personally had an experience, a run in with a loose horse and although you require that a fence keeps him in, I guess I'd just prefer to see that the applicant will comply with applicable codes concerning horses. Wildermuth: I have nothing. Headla: If we approve this tonight, are we really approving a building permit also? Dacy: Yes. You're approving the ability of the applicant to have up to five horses on that property. He will still have to file a building permit for the construction of that pole barn but in essence, that barn is part of the stable use to house horses and so on. e Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 35 e Headla: We're caught the same way with that one place north of TH 7. At least myself, I don't know what the barn is going to be like. Are we consistent in our thinking on 5 acres, what that building should be like? Conrad: We don't have any regulations on the books right now to govern it. Headla: Right, so once we say yes to this, then it's... Conrad: It's in. Since there are no regulations or restrictions. Headla: I've got no problem with his having the five. I think that's appropriate for the space and there's other people around there and in talking to Dale before hand right now it's their hoses. At the most it's more but it's the dilemma with that building. Are we all consistent in our thinking on that? Conrad: Do we have any choices on that matter Barbara? . Dacy: Number one, you want the building large enough. The applicant is intending eventually to have five horses so you want the building large enough now so that it can safely and cleanly accomodate five horses during the winter. Number two, given the size of the property and where it's located of the site, can not be seen from TH 7, the site has good advantages of existing trees and so on. It's centrally located. I really can't see where there's going to be any negative impacts from this particular structure. Conrad: So as we look at our ordinance and we're looking at secondary structures on property and we're saying, I think City Council's directive was 800 feet. Wasn't it 800 feet? Dacy: 1,000. But again, this is something that we have to discuss because this, in my view, perfectly appropriate for a private stable. Now if somebody on a 15,000 square foot lot comes in with an 1,800 square foot polebarn and puts it 5 feet away from the lot line, that's the kind of, you've got talk about where you draw the line. Conrad: is that? Is the 1,000 square foot secondary structure coming back? Did the Council approve that? Where Dacy: No, the Council hasn't seen that because it's been tabled at the Planning Commission. I've been trying to exist on my own here for the last 3 or 4 weeks to keep up so it is on the schedule and Dave and Tim have made sure of that. Conrad: So when it comes back to us, we can review not only for, that was in an agricultural. e Dacy: You were looking at everything on accessory structures. Conrad: So we'll have a chance to take a look at this. In the interim you feel comfortable that this is not out of sorts with the neighborhood Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 36 e and whatever? Headla: Dale, do you realize no barbed wire? Dale Collins: I don't like barbed wire. Headla: I just wanted to make sure that that's one of the requirements now. Did you have something to say? Dale Collins: Yes, you were wondering about what kind of a building it was going to be. I'm sure that the term polebarn doesn't do it justice really. It's one of the best buildings that Lester has put out. It's a polebarn the interior structure but the inside is covered with metal and will be green which would comply with the surrounding terrain. with A white roof and we're going to have skylights across the top on the ridge. It would have side windows, skylights the full length. It's a $13,000.00 structure so it's not a piece of junk. In fact it will be one of the nicest horse barns in the area. Headla: I've got a Lester barn. Lester makes a good barn. e Wildermuth moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 188-5 for the construction of a private stable for five horses subject to the following conditions: 1. The private stable shall be located 200 feet from the edge of the wetland. 2. The stable shall be located 100 feet from neighborhing residential structures. 3. Land upon which horses are to be stabled and pastured must be surrounded by a sturdy fence which will keep horses confined. 4. The private stable shall be constructed such that it will keep the horses comfortable and protected from the elements. 5. Accumulations of manure shall be located at least 100 feet from any well. 6. Accumulations of manure shall be removed at such periods that will ensure that no leaching or objectional odors exist, and the premises shall not be allowed to become unsightly. 7. The applicant shall comply with the annual stable permit procedure and other applicable laws concerning the stabling and care of horses. All voted in favor and motion carried. e -- Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 37 e PUBLIC HEARING: JOSEPH NOTERMAN, BROOKSIDE MOTEL, LOCATED AT 790 AND 780 LYING CLOUD DRIVE, PROPERTY ZONED BF, BUSINESS FRINGE DISTRICT: 1. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-773, THE BF DISTRICT TO ALLOW RECREATIONAL CAMPING FACILITIES AS A CONDITIONAL USE. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FOUR RECREATIONAL CAMP/TRAILER SITES. Barbara Dacy presented the staff report. Conrad: Could you go into a little bit more detail the two reasons for denial, sewage and traffic. Can you expand upon that a little bit? e Dacy: As far as the sewage is concerned, each of those units generates a certain amount of sewage on a daily basis. Either an on-site treatment system is provided or the tanks for each RV are taken elsewhere for disposal. Usually you'll get a large number of these units located on site and you would typically have to install a septic system that is larger than a tyipcally required septic system for a single family home. For example, out on the site right now he has a gallon storage amount of about 3,000 gallons and a typical single family home would require a septic tank of approximately 1,200 to 1,500 so you have an increased amount of septic demand and that's just for 8 units so that was the one issue. The second issue, as far as traffic is concerned, the size of the vehicles generated by this type of use, we want to make sure that there's adequate lanes available, by-pass lanes and turn lanes. In the TH 212 area right now that does not exist. Basically what staff is saying is that this area is not an appropriate location for that type of use. Joseph Noterman: I think it's pretty well covered. This motel has been in existence for 46 years prior to the city owning that land and I've owned it approximately 8 years. For this 40 years they've had campers and RV's in there. I just would like to expand it to 8 units so I can help myself a little economically. Taxes are $5,000.00 out there and it keeps raising. Do you have the letter that I wrote? Conrad: Yes. Joseph Noterman: there. I think that letter pretty well covers my intentions Erhart moved, Headla seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Headla: How close is that Bluff Creek to like this drainage field? e Dacy: Bluff Creek is about, if I can refer you to the site plan, the creek is about within 20 feet or maybe 30, correct me if 11m wrong, from where the existing RV spaces are right now. On the site plan, it's on the Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 38 e bottom of the picture here. Headla: I agree with the staff's recommendation. That's all I have. Wildermuth: How often do you have to have the holding tank pumped now with 4 RV's? Joseph Noterman: We don't have a holding tank. We have a brand new drainfield that we put in last year because of this heavy rain that we were talking about earlier tonight. We got the brunt of that in our storm sewer system and our drainage fields so we put in about a $3,000.00 or $4,000.00 drainfield. Brand new. So it channels the septic tank and into a little tank and this tank pumps it into a tank. Of course we do pump it every fall. We pump all the tanks in case the solids would build up. I don't think we'd have any trouble for 4 or 5 years but this is just a precautionary measure. Wildermuth: Is the new drainfield adequate to handle four additional units? Joseph Noterman: More than adequate yes. We have room to put another pipe in the event it wouldn't be enough so we have room for 10 pipes but we only have 2 pipes. e Dacy: What he's explaining is that there is enough tank storage there. They may need to add another drainfield trench but they do have adequate area. The building inspection department has evaluated that. If the four additional units are there, they can be accomodated. wildermuth: The traffid is certainly a and off of TH 212 with large vehicles. more turning in and out off off TH 212 or not. I have no further comments. problem down there. Turning on I guess it argueable whether four pose a significantly greater threat Joseph Noterman: For your information, this business is primarily seasonal. From the 1st of April to the 1st of November and all winter there's very, very seldom, on a rare occasion there might be one RV sitting there. Otherwise, there are no RV's there. Conrad: Just remember, for the rest of us, as we look at this right now, we're really not looking at the particular application. We're kind of saying in the fringe business district is this use valid but it's almost a contradiction to begin with. I'm sorry I'm speaking out of my turn but we put the fringe business district there simply to accomodate existing uses. It's not like the district was designed for something. It was designed to accomodate something that was there and make it conforming. e Dacy: Yes, to a certain extent that's true but there is also a decision at that point not to include his use as a conforming use. There is a conscience decision made not to include it. Basically it really comes down to the Commission and the Council need to decide whether or not they want to see this use continued as a non-conforming use or do you in fact want to amend the ordinance to make it legal? You have to decide whether Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 39 - or not it's a use that you should discourage or encourage. Batzli: That, of course, boiling it down to that question means to me that we don't have the benefit of having the input of the people that made that conscience decision x number of years ago as to why they in fact decided, and it may have been some of our members here, but myself not having had the benefit of why it was determined that recreational campgrounds weren't allowed in the City, I don't know that I really want them allowed in the City personally as well, just off the top of my head but I don't know, I guess I haven't heard a whole lot which would indicate to me that in this particular case it would be such a bad thing. But to amend the ordinance that basically it would be a conditional use in the business fringe area to me is a silly amendment to the ordinance. I'm struggling right now. Ellson: I agree with staff's recommendation. Emmings: I can't wait to hear what Tim has to say. Erhart: You all know my position on this one. Conrad: I think for the record. e Erhart: I would be against increasing the intensity of use in the BF district. Any intent to increase the intensity. Conrad: Why did we exclude this use from the fringe business district? Dacy: The very fact that the RV's were not conforming in the first place, the Commission and Council felt that they didn't want to sanction those and allow them as a legal use. Now the motel use was permitted under the C-2, under the older zoning ordinance rules but when the new ordinance was changed in 1987, they eliminated motels and hotels because of the septic issues and the traffic. Basically it was a decision that the RV's had been non-conforming up until this point and at that time there was no reason to make them a legal conforming use. Conrad: My belief is that they still should be kept out of the fringe business district. I believe for all of the same reasons that staff is giving to us and from the prior decisions that have been made. I think they were valid decisions. Therefore, my feeling is that the fringe business district should not be amended to include this particular use. Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to deny zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #88-5. All voted in favor except Wildermuth who opposed and motion carried. - Wildermuth: The motel and the recreational vehicle parking areas existed before the ordinance was passed so he's been grandfathered in. I really don't see where four more units are going to make that much difference in the use. Especially in view of the fact that he's got a septic system adequate to handle it. Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 40 e Conrad: But philosophically. Wildermuth: Philosophically I can see the point but I think in this particular case, I'd like to see us find a way, or I'd like to see the City find a way to allow this to happen. I don't think that motel, 25 years from now I don't think that's going to exist. Conrad: I would almost agree with your feeling other than the septic problem. I think if I heard that he had a container that got pumped versus a drainfield down there, I think I could accept some kind of accomodation. Somehow if it was legally possible. Staff is saying that it's not legally possible to do it but if it was and if there was a way to pump that out, then I think I might be persuaded. On this particular case, four more units doesn't make much of a difference but on the other hand, the drainfields down there is not something that I'm comfortable wi th. I think a commercial use... wildermuth: But it's sized more than adequate. e Joseph Noterman: It's approved by the State Health Department. They wouldn't approve it if it wasn't any good. Of course you've got to remember we could under the grandfather law. I'm just trying to be nice and try to get along with the city. I can go around and get petitions and I can go to court and I can fight it. Do all this kind of stuff and I do have a grandfather rights which the City Attorney has acknowledged. Of course if I was aware of the rezoning that they did, I owned it before it was in the City of Chanhassen. The City of Chanhassen came in and said hey, we can't operate a motel out there. That's kind of ridiculous. Conrad: Chanhassen generally has a problem with that area down there in terms of traffic and in terms of... Joseph Noterman: What else is it suited for at this present time? Conrad: That's true. Joseph Noterman: Am I going to bulldoze everything down and just let it lay there. Someday somebody is going to come in there and want to build a big motel. Wildermuth: That's right. Someday that's going to be a valuable piece of property. Josephy Noterman: At the present it isn't worth anything except for what it's being used. But it isn't quite big enough for a big motel. It isn't quite big enough for a big RV camp. It isn't quite big enough for what? What is there? A service station. I don't know. e Conrad: I think tonight what we reacted to was amending the zoning and really not specifically looking at your parcel as such. The request was a zoning ordinance amendment and I think that's what we reacted to saying that in a fringe business district, that particular use is not appropriate based on those decision making rules... Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 41 e Joseph Noterman: Then I should have the fifth of my taxes if I'm not legal but they don't think of that under your ordinance. Conrad: I know what you're talking about. Dacy: If it's the Commission's wish or desire or feeling or whatever, staff could certainly pursue to see if there is any other means to allow him to have four additional units. I'm not aware of that right now. Conrad: I think it would be wise when this item goes to City Council that you would be prepared to offer them different alternatives. If there were any legal alternatives that City Council could pursue if they so wished. Joseph Noterman: I shouldn't even have to come to the Planning Commission. I shouldn't even have to come to the City Council. City Hall should go ahead and tell me go ahead and put a few more spaces in. Let's not go through all this rigamaroll. Conrad: We do have zoning ordinances that restrict that and everybody who owns a piece of property in Chanhassen is govern by those zoning ordinances and that's what we're looking at. That's why we meet every couple weeks taking a look at those particular things and they have to make sense. They have to make sense. e Joseph Noterman: Laws are made flexible and they're made to stretch. They're made to bend. They're made to put in place where they are wrong because you may have picked your ordinances from Hutchinson or another place and you put them into Chanhassen and you have to change them as they apply. Really. But you're not doing that. Conrad: We decided that it's not appropriate to change it in this particular case. Councilman Johnson: On the, what I consider the very unlikely happenstance that they get a four-fifths vote to pass this at the Council in a couple weeks which I don't think will happen, but if it did happen I would like some guidance on special conditions to be added to this type of facility. I didn't see that. Landscaping. Screening. Noise restrictions. Light restrictions. What kind of special conditions would the Planning Commission like to see. Batzli: All those. Conrad: The reason we didn't Jay is because we turned down the amendment and didn't get into the conditional use permit. However, based on a request, if the City Council did elect to agree with the applicant that the property should be included in the business fringe district, do we have any thoughts on what the conditions for the additional four sites e would include? Erhart: It's 15 after 10. honest. I just don't think that's on the agenda to be Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 42 e Dacy: If there appears to be a way that again, if it is going to be considered by Council, staff can prepare those items. I can envision right away that we would limit it to 8 period and the landscaping and the lighting issues and so on. So between staff and Council, we can address that if we get that far. Conrad: There's only one condition that I would feel essential and that's that there be a holding tank and not a drainfield. I don't agree with drainfields down there. That is a commercial use in an unsewered area and the only way that I would allow any expansion would be if these additional four RV sites were put into a tank and that tank is pumped and not in the drainfield. That's the only way that I would accept those additional four units. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-1251 2(A) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT LARGER ON-PREMISE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS THAN THE REQUIRED FOUR SQUARE FEET, DATASERV. Barbara Dacy presented the staff report. ~ Conrad: What's the size of that lettering Barbara on that sign? Dacy: On the detail, the area is 2 1/2 inches. Conrad: That's pretty small. Do we know that a 2 1/2 inch sign from 100 feet away is legible? Emmings: What's the No Smoking sign? Conrad: That's probably 4 inches. Dacy: You have to think of the speed of the vehicles going through these sites. They're not going to be going 30 or 40 mph. They're going to be going much slower than that. Conrad: It kind of seems that legibility should dictate what we're doing here. Legibility and the need for directional signs and I don't know that we've said, if somebody told me that you need 3 to 4 inch letters from 80 feet away because it's readable, I think it's a case to consider change because we have certain words that have to be used in directions. Receiving. Shipping. visitor Parking. We know what space will put a 4 inch word on a sign. :e Dacy: Hold that thought just for a second. On their 12 square foot sign proposal, you have the same size letter but it's on a bigger sign. I don't think it's necessarily the size of what you're trying to convey as to the number. How many directional movements do you need to tell people which way to go? That's our rationale. Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 43 e Conrad: I think it's both. I think a case could be made that there could be 4 or 5 different directional things on a sign. The other thing is that the people in the sign business say that at 50 mph you've got to have at least an 8 inch letter to see it. Okay, we're not going 50 and we're not looking at it from 500 feet away. We're probably in a 30 mph zone or less so I know it's not 8 inches that we need to provide but what is it? Dacy: I think what they're proposing is a 2 1/2 inch tall letter is consistent with other applications. Even a McDonalds entry sign is smaller than that. Conrad: They don't have trucking, shipping. Dacy: No, I meant the letter size. Conrad: This is a public hearing and we'll open it up. - Dan Ryerson: I'm here on behalf of the applicant. What I'd like to do in a minute, I've got some enlarged pictures that might help to illustrate what it is we're asking for and the relative perspectives and proportions... I should emphasize that we're not here tonight on any kind of application for any particular sign or the content of any particular sign. I think actually the ordinance has addressed that adequately in determining where advertising can and can not be placed. If it were to be a permitted use to have a larger sign, that would obviously be something that we would have to deal with the staff for the adequate provisions of the sign. I do think that staff might have lost sight of one thing in making the recommendation to 9 feet and that is, subtracting what was on our original idea for the sign and leaving only the three entries that were left, we don't know that would necessarily be on the sign. We did show an application for a sign originally showing shipping and receiving, visitor parking and employee parking. However, there may very well be other things. These are going to be regulating roads that are actually well within the site and there may be directions such as "Do Not Enter" or "One Way", "No Parking". Something to that effect. There could be a number of things that have to go on this sign. As far as the size of the letters go, again I don't know if anything in the ordinance addresses that. I think the visibility of the sign is certainly our concern. That somebody driving in there is going to be able to pick up that information without making a wrong turn and that he's going to be able to pick it up from 4 or 5 directional entries. I think that the size of the lettering, the speed or the distance to the sign are certainly all relevant factors but others are proportion. The scale of the sign in the site that it's sitting in. What we suggest is that a 4 square foot sign, let's say 1 x 4 feet which is exactly the same under the ordinance whether it's on a 100 foot, half acre commercial lot say like the McDonalds. They have that sign right out in the street where they're looking at it or whether that is swallowed up in the middle of a great big, we have 69.5 acre site. It simply is not as easy to pick it up. It's not as easy to see as you're approaching the sign. From another point of view, a sign that's inside a site that big is not intrusive. In fact, we tried to take these pictures to illustrate, I think you'll see, you have a hard time seeing that there's a sign there at all. From the nearest publicly traveled e ~ Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 44 e e thoroughfare or the nearest property off of the actual site, the 60 acres, you can't even see this much less read it. The real concerns about regulating signage, whether it's intrusive. Whether it's offensive. Whether it's distracting or too bright or whatever, really is quite different here because they are far away. One of the things that I might suggest that the Commission consider is the requirements, that there might be some setbacks requirements given if larger signs were triggered because the intent of most of these is to regulate internal traffic. Anyway, just to show you some comparison here in scale, if I may, you're all familiar with the DataServ site. This is a picture of part of it. You can't get it all in without a wide angle lens but this is out by TH 5. On the left hand side of here you see the existing identification sign which is out by TH 5. That by the way is a sign that's probably 6 or 7 times larger than the one we're talking about but the way it appears in proportion or relation to the overall site, I think gives you an idea of what that site actually presents is an overall picture with signage on it. The second thing we did just for purposes of illustration is to take 12 square foot on a board, there's no writing on this. It's simply to illustrate relative size, and we put this on one of the interior streets. This is within the DataServ site. Approximate and typical location where the sign would be placed. The first picture shows you approaching that sign from two car lengths away. That's it right in the middle of the picture. The next picture shows that same sign board, that same location although this is taken now from down at the end of the road going into DataServ right on the edge of Lake Drive. So in other words, this is what you'd see from the nearest public thoroughfare and that sign now, you have to look, it's over here by the building just off to the left. You can see the little dark colored rectangle. Then the last view, this is taken right out by the edge of TH 5. This sign board is in the same place and obviously if we met this thing you couldn't read or even tell that it is a sign I don't think. By the same token, if you looked at the second picture, if one of these signs were placed out near Lake Drive by the turn in, that's what it would look like as we approached it. These are, as I say, kind of hypotheticals at this point but we feel that 12 square feet is a reasonable size and certainly the 5 foot height we have no problem with. ElIson: I have a question for you. Wouldn't some of these problems be eliminate if you just had more? Dan Ryerson: More signs? ElIson: Right. More 4 foot signs. Because you've got such a long distance. The ordinance as it is now would allow at the City Council's discretion, more than 4. Therefore, people wouldn't have quite the distance. They'd come a little closer and they'd read one and they'd go a little further down the road and they'd read another. Would you be able to solve those problems with just more signs? e Dan Ryerson: I guess we did talk about that. What we came up with was that if you came to an intersection in the property, like the one we've illustrated here, where there's a parking lot to the left, shipping and receiving is straight ahead and there's a parking lot to the right. You'd have to line them up like BermaShave signs. I think that would be a lot Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 45 e less attractive. A lot more visually distracting than having one neat sign with all the directions but we did think about that. Batzli moved, ElIson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart: I appreciate your photos and I just can't imagine why, are you requesting one 12 foot sign are you trying to change the ordinance to four 12 square foot signs allowed? ElIson: Industrial would have the larger size. Erhart: Four? Was it 9 feet? Dacy: Right. On page 3 of the staff report, proposed item (c) would address what the applicant... Erhart: No, I mean how many signs of that size? Right now the ordinance allows us to have up to? Dacy: Right the number of signs shall not exceed four unless approved by the City Council. ~ Erhart: Right so now we're saying four 12 foot signs or four 9 foot signs and I just can't imagine, you have one large sign out in front for them to find the building and I don't understand why you would want to confuse that statement with a bunch of other signs of the same size. Dan Ryerson: They wouldn't be anywhere near that size. The sign out in front is 6 times bigger than these are. The signs that we're talking about, the directional signs, are really to give a series of directions. We have our truck traffic and visitor traffic and I think, I didn't bring the graph with me but the projection right now is that there will be shortly 750 DataServ employees alone and there's a considerable amount of traffic resulting and a safety factor is involved too. People walking across the parking lot and crossing the street where there's truck traffic. The streets that we have on the site, as you notice in the pictures, are very much like city streets. Erhart: front? How large is the DataServ sign that's out there right now in the Dan Ryerson: I don't know the exact dimensions of it. Dacy: It's about 80 square feet. That's the one right out by TH 5. And that's permitted by the ordinance for an identification sign. - Dan Ryerson: And that doesn't particularly stand out. a quarter of a mile on each side. A 40 acre piece is Erhart: I guess just in thinking about this whole thing, when you come into a site you don't generally go to one spot and then all of a sudden Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 46 e have to make all of your decisions at that point. It would seem to me that it would work better to have more signs, more smaller signs and allow people to make fewer decisions but allow them to make them as they go along and they get to the point where they have to make decisions. Even the last time you were here I had suggested that in an agreement that we allow a number of signs depending on the acreage. Perhaps one sign for 10 acres or something like that. I'm still not convinced that we want larger signs. Particular due to the fact that the ordinance as it exist says four and it appears that all of the neighboring communities have four. I still favor the idea of expanding the number of signs. Dacy: The other option is, as Eden prairie does, they set a maximum on the amount of directional signage. You have 32 square feet but that's it. So if you have three 12 square foot signs or one 32 square foot sign or eight 4 square foot signs. That's an option. Erhart: Just one last note, I would be in favor of adding another square foot because I think it makes sense to have the company logo on these directional signs. Limit it to that because you can get into an industrial park and you're not sure which shipping dock arrow you're looking at so I don't quite understand why we prevent people from having their logo on these directional signs. e Dacy: It's a subject of interpretation if it actually says McGlynn, DataServ or Opus Corporation. If they have a little cookie or bakery in there. The intent is that it's not to be for an advertising sign. It's for a directional sign. So if the Commission wanted to look at the defintion of directional signs and say company logo would not be permitted but not advertising. wildermuth: At this time we do permit the name right but not the logo? Dacy: No, we don't permit anything. Wildermuth: The directional out on the corner of Lake Drive and Dakota, what's that going to indicate? It's going to have a couple of arrows. Dacy: No, the off-premise sign was approved by the Council. Wildermuth: Separately? Dacy: Separately under the off-premise sign provision. They do not need a variance for that. That was provided for in the ordinance. Wildermuth: You didn't say that in here though did you? Dacy: No. issue. I didn't think it was germain really because it was a separate - wildermuth: So the off-premise sign will probably have something on it. Dacy: It says DataServ on it. Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 47 e wildermuth: Shipping and Receiving and Employee parking. Emmings: I don't see any reason to change the ordinance. The answer that ahead of this intersection they're going to have to stack signs like BurmaShave signs was cute but I don't think it makes any sense. There are only three ways you can go at that intersection. You can go left, right or straight ahead. The sign that we've got an example of in our materials shows three different items with an arrow and it looks very nice. The N on the No Smoking sign is exactly 2 1/2 inches tall. Very readable from plenty far enough away to give a person all the information they need so I don't see any reason to change the ordinance. The only other thing I've got, and I wouldn't change it for industrially zoned. I would not be in favor of making the letter (c) change. As far as the change to Section (a), I think that's fine. The only thing I can see is somebody coming in here saying, you're trying to keep the top of the sign within 5 feet of the ground and somebody's going to come in here and say, my sign is only 5 feet high from the bottom of the sign to the top of the sign and I thought that's what you meant. We could just make it clearer. Ellson: Just say not to exceed 5 feet from the ground. Emmings: It sounds dumb but believe me, it's one of those things that will come up if we don't... e ElIson: Right, they'll have a sign that goes all the way down. Emmings: It will wind up being 7 feet high from the ground. Ellson: I don't see a reason for changing it. I think you could accomplish what your problem is if you had a lot of space. These signs are set up for people who are driving so they're going along and if that first sign at this point because there's only four, is way down there and they can't read it, I just say put another 4 foot sign because City Council can allow you to expand to 5 and it just has all the arrows straight. Then when you get down you see your arrows. It's just helping people drive in and by the time they're in the driveway they're going pretty slow. I can't see changing it. I think 4 feet is large enough to read and the fact that you could add more if you have a huge driveway should do just fine. Batzli: I think the problem isn't the number of employees, obviously but with the number of visitors and trucks coming in and out because they're the people that are going to need directions, not your employees. So I think the number of employees is really kind of irrelevant but I do think in a large operation, if they do expand they have several loading dock areas and such, they may have a very valid concern that 4 feet isn't enough space. I think in a large industrial area or parcel of land, I can picture the need for a larger sign. I think it's a somewhat reasonable request. e wildermuth: I agree. I think we should upscale with a large parcel of land and especially with a large building. Having driven through the area this afternoon, the signs that you have are very small. I would be in Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 48 e favor of adopting the (c) provision here. Conrad: The 12 feet? Wildermuth: Yes. Headla: I don't like changing ordinances but if you have that much land and you can't see the signs from the road, strictly the people that are on the property, why are we trying to control it? What's the intent? Conrad: Eliminating clutter. Headla: Clutter in somebody else's business. Dacy: The other intent is that usually the sign ordinance says that you can have one pylon sign or one ground mounted sign and then x number of directional signs. The ordinance is trying to allow the business to have their identification signage but put a limit on all the other accessory types of signage that it needs so you don't have an over cluttered sign or you don't have a large sign directly adjacent to a residential area. Yes, we've got to have some give in there to allow a business to do what they need to do to direct traffic and that's the issue that we're trying to deal with. Is 4 square feet reasonable sign size for a directional sign on an industrial zoned piece of property? I think there is a need to control it. e Wildermuth: I agree. There is a looks at spending 6 or 7 million to make big mistakes on signage. pretty tasteful. need to control it but when a company dollars for a building, they're not going The signs are generally going to be Dacy: There's no qualm with how the signs are going to appear. If they are internally illuminated, we should be looking at the relationship, as the applicant suggested, to adjacent properties and how they appear from public rights-of-ways. I certainly agree, I know DataServ can do a good job. Headla: If we look at the ordinance, I think it applies very well to our industrial park. When we look at something that's got such large acreage, you're got 750 cars going in and out possibly some shipping and receiving, you're going to have traffic. You want to be able to read a sign a lot easier than if you had 3-4 cars going in. Also, if you can't see the sign from the street, the general public, I don't know why we want to, you can't see it like from the road, I don't see why we want to control it this close. I think that person should have a right to do some of those signs. . Dacy: You just pointed out a couple of criteria that you want to make sure, we may be confident that the DataServ site can make that but maybe the Commission does want to say in there that the directional signs shall be screened or shall not be able to be seen from public right-of-ways. - Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 49 e Headla: That would be appropriate criteria. They should be screened but if we can't see them from the public road, why do we care? If the people want to invest that much money in a sign and they've got valuable property there and they're trying to achieve a goal, are we trying to do the thinking for them? I think we are. What's the difference between that and no parking signs painted on some of the buildings? I guess I'd kind of like to see us take another look at it and give consideration of when we have large acreage and I don't know what the definition of large is but I'd like to see us take a look at that and considering the amount of traffic and if we can screen the signs. e Conrad: I haven't been persuaded what the size should be tonight of the sign. Directional signage is really tough. It's a tough business. It can help a business. Making it small doesn't help a business. I don't know that businesses typically know how to make signage. I find them incredibly naive in designing signage. I'm sensitive to this particular request however. Somebody could create a scenario real easily for me that they need 4 or 5 names on a sign and that our square footage does not help. The restrictions right now I think are pretty tough. Especially on the site that we're looking at. On a typical site, a big site like this, a case could be made that there needs to be 4 or 5 different directional messages and you can't cram the messages together. They've got to be spaced apart. They may be long messages. There typically not in red. They typically are tasteful so they're not in colors that jump out at you. Typically you have to look at them a little bit longer and therefore, I'm pretty sensitive to making the signs bigger. I haven't been persuaded what the size is. There's not been a case to say that it should be 5 feet or 6 feet or 12. In the absence of doing a major study, I guess I could feel real comfortable saying we could bounce up to 9 feet right now. I'm comfortable there. Somebody could make a case that it should be bigger but nobody has and until that happens, I could go along with (c), if somebody made the motion, but I'm not convinced that 4 feet by 3 feet is necessary. I'm not convinced that that's necessary yet. Somebody could make that case to me and I might be sensitive but I'm not there yet. wildermuth: Just look at the exposure that you have. How many industrial sites in excess of 40 acres are left? Dacy: The McGlynn site. This site and there is a substantial amount of acreage across the railroad track in the business park. If you look at, as an example for the 12 square foot sign, they've got the same amount of directional messages as on the 4 square foot sign except that this is spaced and presented in the sign in a larger context. If you eliminate the DataServ you could add potentially two more directional messages so the larger the sign, potentially the larger amount of directional messages that you could give. Now given a 4 square foot sign, you could get 3 in there. If it's up to 9, depending on the size of the letters and their spacing and how they appear from the passing traffic, you could get the same amount on a 9 square foot sign. It's just closer spaced together. e Conrad: What's Lyman Lumber. Lyman Lumber has a similiar problem don't they? Don't they have some directional sign? Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 50 e Dacy: I can't recall right off the top of my head right now. Conrad: They have some confusing signs out in front of their place and they were real concerned that they didn't have enough size to direct receiving and shipping and what have you but that was a while back. That was probably a year and a half ago or something like that. Dacy: The only other guide that I could give to the Commission would be that the smallest sign size that's allowed for a free standing pylon or a ground mounted sign size is 24 square feet. You've got to pick a line in there that you're saying it's a directional sign versus a very large sign that could be used for another purpose. We're talking a difference of 3 square feet and to be frank, we felt that the 9 square feet could accomodate 3 to 4 directional messages if that's what the Commission wants. Conrad: So we're allover the board here. Headla: I'd like to see us put up three or four sample signs over on DataServ and have it out there for two days and everyone of us go look at it. See how it fits on a big location. I think I could make a much better judgment seeing that. e Conrad: How big a deal do you want to make this? Dacy: Perceptionwise, 3 square feet driving out there is not going to be a big difference but the Commission's got to decide what can they live with from the ordinance standpoint? Conrad: I think Dave, you're absolutely right. If we really wanted to do a good job of determining sizes, that's exactly what you do. Mock it up, you put it out on site and you take a look and say what can I live with. Headla: That isn't that big a deal to do. Conrad: The big deal is mocking up the signs. That's the big deal. ElIson: Sticking them in the ground, the whole bit. Dacy: I know the applicant's been wanting a decision on this. Headla: Do they have any signs similar? Dan Ryerson: The Council did approve the off-premise directional sign. That's the one out at the end of the road by Mcdonalds and that is I think virtually identical to the one that Barbara is showing on the slide. It's a 12 square foot sign. That's not up yet. e Headla: Do we have a 4 or 5 or 9 foot sign available of any kind? Dacy: The closest I'd be able to come is actually buying a board that's 3 x 4 and 3 x 3. I don't know if the city has signs. I J Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 51 e Dan Ryerson: We'd be happy to loan you the 3 x 4 board we used in the pictures here. Headla: What are your when you entering Chanhassen, where it says Chanhassen, how big is that sign? Dacy: I don't know. Headla: I just have a hard time visualizing a sign of a particular size out on a big site like that. I don't think I could make a good recommendation. Conrad: Let's figure out what we want to do. We could ask the applicant if he wanted to mock some signs up for us and we go out. If it's worth his time or we can pass the motion that 12 feet, 9 feet, staying as is. Whoever makes the motion has the power here. Emmings: I'd just like to throw one other thing out and that is as far as things, this has all gotten a little theoretical and academic here it seems to me. Things we know that we have this ordinance for a while and everybody's been able to live with it. Conrad: Not necessarily. e Emmings: Who hasn't? Conrad: Lyman. Emmings: What happened there? Conrad: They put it up and I'm not sure what's. They've tried to live with it. Emmings: And they put it up within the ordinance? Conrad: Yes. Emmings: All our neighboring communities, Minnetonka, have the same restriction and we don't have any evidence in front of us that it's a problem except for Lyman Lumber. We know that they want to have bigger signs but... Wildermuth: How much industry does Minnetonka have? e Emmings: I don't know but we don't know that they can't do it. They don't want to do it and I don't know if that's a reason to change the ordinance. I don't know if I want to change the ordinance just because, I thought the purpose behind the sign ordinance, maybe I'm wrong, was to have uniformity of sign in the city and I don't care if the place is 40 acres, 30 acres, 90 acres, they ought to be uniform if that's the point. Otherwise, why do we have the ordinance? I I I I I I --i Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - page52 e Conrad: I don't think uniformity is the key thing here. If we wanted uniformity, we'd tell everybody what color to make their signs and whatever. I think the point was clutter. The sign ordinance was really to keep the amount of clutter of miscellaneous signs to a minimum. To provide some kind of standards. Emmings: Then what is the compelling reason here to change from a standard that was set, however arbitrarily? Conrad: And it probably was. probably used other communities for a guideline in that case. The compelling reasons would be that you can't display visibly enough messages in a big site that has multi-different locations to go to. Employees this way. visitors that way. Shipping this way. Receiving that way. You could theoretically come up with 4 or 5 different directions. Emmings: Or 100. Theoretically. Conrad: I've seen them. I've built them so it's not that I, I've built these things where I've had to route people different directions and as I say, I haven't heard a case where we have to have it. It hasn't been presented here tonight but I can imagine a scenario where it would be necessary and the 4 feet is restrictive. The question is how much energy do we want to put into this issue besides the last 45 minutes of our life. e wildermuth moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #88-4 to amend Section 20-1255 (2) Directional signs to read as follows: c. On-premise signs for industrially zoned land in excess of forty (40) acres shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet. The maximum height of on-premise directional signs shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground. The number of signs shall not exceed four (4) unless approved by the City Council. Wildermuth and Headla voted in favor, the rest voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 5. Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #88-4 to amend Section 20-1255 (2) Directional Signs to read as follows: a. On-premise signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground. The number of signs shall not exceed four (4) unless approved by the City Council. All voted in favor except for Wildermuth and Conrad who opposed and Headla e abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3. Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - page 53 e abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3. Emmings: That one states what the ordinance states presently and the only change being in the height restriction. Headla: They increased it to what? Emmings: No, there just was never anything in there before. Erhart: Dave, are you suggesting that we put a clause in there that's automatic that the number of signs increase with the size of the site rather than going to the City Council? Headla: No, I think that's good. Let the Council negotiate that with who it comes from. Conrad: The reason Jim for your opposition? wildermuth: I feel sign size should have some correlation to the size of the parcel and the size of the building. e Conrad: I feel sign size should be reviewed in more depth to give us a better understanding of what the appropriate size of a sign should be. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved, ElIson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 20, 1988. All voted in favor except Erhart who abstained and motion carried. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, FINAL REVIEW OF TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER, MARK KOEGLER. Mark Koegler: At this hour I have my normal precise version. The material that you have in the packet may look like something you've seen before and it substantially is. In preparing notes with Barb, there were a few changes that took place referencing items that the Commission had commented on previously. Every time we look at this we find there's something else we overlooked and there's a couple more things we talked about adding today. Specifically Audubon Road which we left out which is now being discussed with planned improvements. This shows the Comprehensive Planning continually evolves... Aside from that, just any comments from you that you would have is what we're interested in this evening. This will come back to you again in the entire package. We're fairly confident now that the two remaining sections being primarily implementation and utilities will be wrapped up in the next 30 to 60 days and we'll have the entire document for you at that time. So with that, tit any comments that you might have. Conrad: Who reads this primarily? I go back to that. We've discussed this before. Really is Met Council real interested in what we put in Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 54 e here? How do we use this as a guideline and what are the bodies that really look at that and say, my word, Mark and the City Staff really did some neat things here and we're going to take a look at all that. Is it Met Council that goes through this or is it us that says this is what we decided to do and we're going to do it somehow? Mark Koegler: Met Council definitely looks at it. They critique it quite closely and Chanhassen extremely closely because of the Lake Ann sewer agreement. They have to make sure that all of the land use sections and the transportation and everything lines up with that other document. Aside from that if we get kind of into the realistic world and idealistic world. Idealistically the Planning Commission and City Council reference this kind of document frequently and with discussions on Business Fringe districts or whatever you can say, well the Comprehensive Plan says this and we discussed this back at that point in time and here were our findings. That occurs some but it doesn't occur probably as frequently as it should. Aside from that use there's another use that those us in the development portion of the business for these kinds of things. When we have a project we're trying to get approved, we're going to be looking at that language to see what it says the City's policy is. Whether within that framework of that language looking at our specific proposal or the cause we're promoting. Whether that's recreational uses in the business fringe district or whatever. You always look at the City's Comprehensive Plan to see what the City's stated policies are. e Conrad: Maybe I'm making a bigger issue out of it than needs to be. The intro paragraph, the introduction. I don't know who reads it Mark and probably the technical bodies will just skip through that because all it is is fluff. It doesn't say anything and the reason I bring that up, the first sentence, I'm picking on you but the first sentence says, transportation is an issue that faces almost all Chanhassen residents on a daily basis. That's okay but I'm just saying, it is worthwhile, I think transportation is a real big issue out here and it's primarily the TH 5 deal. If we feel that there's some governing bodies that might read this introduction, I would change that to say transportation is the most critical issue that Chanhassen residents express or something like that. I would highlight this so that if there is an agency that really does read through this intro, they might say wow, this is a big deal and we'd better read it through. I'm probably over extending reality here but I guess I'd put some urgency in that first line versus I'm going to get you into the rest of this material and here's a sentence that does it. I'd probably change that first sentence Mark and really say that it's really quite critical what this transportation plan has got to do for Chanhassen. That's my comment there. I've got others but should we go through it page by page or do we have comments that anybody would like to make? Does anybody care? Anybody want to go home? e Erhart: We've been through this and made all our comments once. I looked through the comments I made and I think the changes were made. Conrad: Then whoever has comments, let's make them. Do we really have adequate north/south? On page 5, in examining Chanhassen's existing transportation system...the system provides adequate north/south access in Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 55 e terms of facility locations, deficient in east/west. I'm picking on that one too. I'm not sure that TH 101 is adequate north/south but I don't know. Do you feel comfortable with that statement? Mark Koegler: The reference there really is at least there's a defined corridor where the corridor possibility is not necessarily ever going to be there in the east/west configuration... I might just comment Ladd, I guess personally am somewhat sympathetic to your comment of making the introductory portion have a little more punch. You probably find forces that have the argument when it comes to sewer capacity too. That's the key issue. So it's hard to define what really is our absolute key issue. Certainly transportation is up there and it probably should be a little stronger. Conrad: I don't know from who's perspective I'm talking. If I talk from the resident's perspective, there's no doubt. They don't care about sewage unless it backs up but right now there's just no doubt what the number one issue is and if I were to look at the energy that was devoted to highways here, politically, whatever, I think I'd be reinforced that way too. City Council can change it but I think you could use some nice powerful words in there. e Batzli: But in that same vein, even the third paragraph when we basically acknowledge that the same level of congestion is going to be there and we're kind of helpless and hopeless about the whole thing. That bothered me. That's basically saying this is the most critical thing we're ever going to do but we realize it's hopeless so forget it. That kind of blew me away. Also, isn't there such a word as infeasible or is it unfeasible? Just a question that struck me as I was reading it the other day. Emmings: I would guess in-. Batzli: I don't know, I didn't look it up. Conrad: Would you just review that intro page Mark just to make it as powerful without going overboard I guess as we can. Page 20, TH 101 north of TH 212. The last sentence, you stuck in there for me, and I guess I wanted to hear if everybody is comfortable with that. It says if a boulevard parkway is to be, my vision is that's going to be a major entrance to Chanhassen and there should be something special with it. Maybe when we see the cost of that something special when Chanhassen has to bear the cost of that, we won't do it but it says if a boulevard parkway is to be constructed, additional space will be required to accomodate a landscaped median. Is everybody comfortable with how that's worded? Do you want to word it strongly? Do you want to say we recommend that as a major access in the future for Chanhassen, is there any wording that anybody wants to change in that or are you comfortable with the way it is? On the bottom of Page 20. It's been worded that we may need additional space. . Erhart: Yes, I thought we were going to recommend that that was going to be a boulevard. Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 56 Conrad: That's the way I'd like to recommend that it look like a major access entryway. Batzli: But yet a boulevard. Conrad: I don't know what it is. I don't want, this sounds real secondary the way it's worded here. Not a major part of the improvement of TH 101. At least I want us to look at the opportunity that we may have to make it a major entrance and my suspect is, because of restrictions there and whatever costs, we may not do it but at least at this point in time, I'd like to make it something that should be seriously considered. Mark knows what we're saying. Mark Koegler: You want to state that more definitively. Conrad: Yes. As a major future entrance to the City of Chanhassen off of the TH 212 interchange. TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT #2 - 1 AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT #2. I~- Dacy: The Planning Commission, according to State Law, needs to fine that the proposed land use improvements and the transportation improvements are consistent with the Comp Plan so included in your packet is a resolution that was prepared by the Attorney's office. In this case it's LeFevere, Lefler. They're our Attorneys on tax increment issues. So what's being proposed is creation of an economic development district over on the McGlynn site and over the Audubon Road right-of-way and tax increment district over just the McGlynn site. We can use the use the increment generated from the McGlynn site to put into a fund to use to improve Audubon Road. The first priority being improving Audubon Road from TH 5 to the railroad tracks to a 9 ton section and urban section with curb and gutter. But again, the fiscal and the financial issues are really mainly for the Council and HRA. The Planning Commission is looking at this in terms of is what they're doing, improving Audubon Road, is that consistent with our plans and is the McGlynn site appropriate zoned. The answer is yes to both. Headla: Why did we just limit it to the McGlynn property? Dacy: The property on the east side of the road is included already in the tax increment district. We may be looking at adding additional property to the south of the railroad tracks and we're getting confirmation from the Attorney's office on that. Erhart: On which side of Audubon? East or west? Dacy: On the east side. e Erhart: East and south of the railroad tracks. Wildermuth: It's consistent with the zoning? ._-~,,~ I I --I Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 57 e Resolution #88-2. Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Commission adopt Resolution 88-2 as shown in Attachment 1. favor and motion carried. BF DISTRICT DISCUSSION. Planning All voted in Conrad: Rather than Barbara giving a report, which will wait, I think Tim why don't you sort of cover your memo and get us thinking on this. Erhart: Here's an area that's probably closest to me because I live in the area and I really enjoy the outdoors and just green areas. I think what we have here is an area that's unique and it's been kicked around as sort of a pseudo commercial area through the history of the city and it doesn't quite lend itself to the commercial area. It's got some real problems. For one thing there's no intention, as Barb always says, within the next 30 years, that's her standard length of time I guess here, to ever have sewer and water so yes, it may look obvious to you Jim that someday there will be a Hilton Hotel to replace the existing one down there but the thing is, there's no plan for sewer and water there. If that was not that way, I'd say yes there's going to be a major development possible and all that stuff but in reality there just isn't that much room there either because of the... e Wildermuth: My point was though that I think all those little houses will... Erhart: Will eventually rot down. Wildermuth: But I didn't want to say that in public. Erhart: So it's never really going to be a commercial area and we sort of slip in a business here and 5 years later another one slips in while the other one runs down and it's not really a commercial area. Secondly, there's not enough room to put access road on there to make it a safe business area and we certainly don't want to seem to spend the money. We can keep letting it go on that way and keep doing what we're doing or we can look at what we're really doing here from a broader perspective and say, we have a unique opportunity within the city to preserve this area as a green area for when the rest of the city is all built up in subdivisions and industrial parks, that we have some unique area that people can get to the trails and go cross country skiing, horse riding, hiking or whatever. To support that we find that what the State south of TH 212 has reserved that as some sort of park. Barb what do they call it? Dacy: That's part of the Minnesota River Valley Wildlife Refuge. Erhart: In addition, Eden prairie has already basically, I think they're consciencely trying to prevent development in that area. It really is consistent with what our neighbor is doing so I think there are two purposes to be served. I think it's a good time to do it. e Conrad: Excuse me, are they really doing it from that standpoint? Is Eden prairie really preserving and protecting that area for a very pure? Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 58 e Dacy: South of TH 169/212 is the Minnesota River Valley and it's flood plain all the way through there so nobody would be able to do anything there anyway. Their zoning in that area is ag zoning. They have a 10 acre minimum lot size. No commercial uses allowed. The only thing commercial in Eden prairie is the Lion's Tap and that's grandfathered. Headla: But they really expanded that? Dacy: Yes, they did and it's interesting, it's kind of the same issue as Brookside Motel. It's an existing business and it went through their process and Council allowed it to expand over the objections of staff so it happens in every community. Eden prairie doesn't have the existing commercial uses that we do and they have been successful in getting that to happen. Conrad: But they don't have a strategy with this area that says we want to preserve it. It's in ag right now which is not a strategy. Dacy: It's probably a policy. I know it is in their Comprehensive Plan it's rural area. There's no urban services out there. That there shouldn't be urbancized development in that area. Plus with the Minnesota River Valley plan and so on, and the u.S. Fish and Wildlife, that area along the river is... e Conrad: To our knowledge they don't have any trails or things that are planned to go into that area. They're not intending to make it a park sort of trail system. Dacy: plan. The trail and the park area is part of that Minnesota River Valley North of the highway. Erhart: And I'm not suggesting that we go in to some big plan to buy property and try to make some part for that. That's just not possible but by making a change from BF to A-2, we can effectively put that area on hold as a green area, 20 years down the road where maybe you can go back and acquire these places or these properties below the bluff. Secondly, is we could stop this propagation of this traffic problem that every time somebody, we're essentially encouraging businesses, because we've zoned it commercial, every time you come in here you're adding more access problems onto TH 212. We are not solving that problem and I think we ought to just eliminate. Emmings: Is there anything else north of TH 212 to the east and to the west, is it all A-2 now except for the BF? Dacy: The BF area, from the vacant old Mobile station, that old gas station that's vacant, that eastern property line is the eastern line of the BF district and the western limit is TH 101. ~ Emmings: Where is the Chanhassen border? Dacy: Way over here on the east side. Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 59 e Emmings: What's that zoned there? Dacy: A-2. Emmings: That's A-2 and then going the other way? Dacy: Is A-2. The only other BF is where we put the mini-storage. Erhart: A few meetings ago we talked about the concept of having business on TH 41 and TH 5 and everyone said, how despictable. We can't have that. This is the same thing. You're talking about a rural intersection. The reason again is no sewer and water planned for a long time. It's the same thing that lies there only here, in addition to that, we have this, I think a real unique area within Chanhassen that I think we ought to be doing a few things to preserve. Conrad: Is it unique enough aggressive with it but is it park. Is it park potential? Chanhassen residents off the characteristic about it that to make it, you're saying don't do anything unique enough to make something? Make it a Is it someplace that we want to get trail system to and develop? Is there some we feel should be protected? e Erhart: Yes, I think there are a lot of characteristics of it. There's a lot of lakes and there's the bluffs. The reason I'm saying not do it today is one, financial and the secondly there probably is not enough people living here that would really use it but when you consider 20 years down the road when you've got twice the population and a lot of it filled in, then I think it will be very useable. And our trail plan will be complete. I think it's something really worth going for. And there's a railroad bed that goes through it and it will be abandoned. There will either be light rail transit... Dacy: That's been challenged to my understanding. Batzli: But that's a big issue I think in that you're going to have probably is going to be a very major freeway running right alongside thing. You might have light rail transit running right through it. kind of a park is that going to be? what this What Erhart: It'd be real nice for the people riding the transit. Emmings: I don't think Tim is saying let's turn this from a commercial area into a park. I think he's saying, what I hear you saying is let's maintain sort of the natural so that whole bluff area that borders that river area will sort of be left in it's natural state rather than having a bunch of... Conrad: Hodge podge. e Headla: That would be consistent with the way the river is used further upstream. You take TH 169 southwest, gee it's beautiful. There's a lot of green. It'd be kind of nice to see that leaving the Twin Cities. Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 60 e Conrad: I think next meeting I'll have Barbara go through the staff report. Talk about the uses of that property and I think obviously there are some problems with that. Let's continue the discussion next time. Erhart: I did want to make one other point. I did talk to the Mayor about this and he welcomes a proposal from us on this issue. Conrad: I could see it if there was something that we wanted to do with it rather than just being there. Being there is really good. I like that but I don't know that we can make a rally around that. Erhart: There's a balance. One is we can preserve it by making it A-2. We can better preserve it by making it A-2 but on the other hand we have this problem that every time somebody wants to open a business in that area is you've got this traffic problem. So we can solve both problems by making it A-2. You've got to remember, what do we say, almost every business down there is non-conforming anyway except the two we just approved. Conrad: No, they're all conforming in the fringe business district except for the motel. They're all conforming. We created that district to make them conforming. - Erhart: Is that correct? I thought we said they were non-conforming. Conrad: Only the motel is. Dacy: The things that are non-conforming are the existing motel which is in the A-2 district, SuperAmerica and that vacant restaurant building. Non-conforming in the BF district is the Brookside Motel and the RV campsite. The recently approved contractor's yard is conforming. The outdoor display of landscape products for Brambilla is conforming. The cold storage for Mike Sorenson is conforming and the rest is vacant or ago Of course the auto salvage is non-conforming as well. Headla: I'd like to bring up two other subjects. Lowell Carlson, our friend, he's positioned himself to put up a building. He's been hauling in dirt. It's all graded. Conrad: I thought he had to come back here? Dacy: Yes, that was the Council direction. Dave gave me a call yesterday. I haven't had a chance to follow up on it. Headla: A neighbor called me up rather hostile about the whole thing. Conrad: what's Lowell doing? He's doing it without coming back here? e Dacy: And that's unfortunate because I thought that I had an agreement at least from his Attorney that they seemed willing to come back to the Planning Commission with a proposed plan. Maybe something happened between the Council meeting and now that ticked him off, I don't know. Planning Commission Meeting May 4, 1988 - Page 61 .e Conrad: So what's he doing? He's out there building? Headla: He's got it all graded and I don't know when he hauled in the dirt. Emmings: You may want to contact the City Attorney because they may well have made the decision, let's do it and see. That's not irresponsible advice. He may well have gotten that straight from his. Headla: Then the other point I wanted to bring up, Barb, why don't give them about 4 or 5 sentences about our meeting with Peter Owen. luncheon meeting with the director of the Arboretum. Tim, Barb and there. you The I were Dacy: We talked about a couple of issues. One about Mr. Owen actually providing assistance as to looking at our landscaping ordinance to determine whether or not that was adequate. Secondly, we determined that they really couldn't provide a site plan review function for us. The third item was, as far as the ability for them to provide landscape products, they really are not in that enterprise. They're growing different types of species and so on as opposed to distributing them. e~, Headla: He might be interested in critiquing, if we have a major development come in, he'd critique the landscaping plan. And he pointed out things like the way things are now you have like conifers in an area that just isn't natural for conifers. He would like to see the direction more than actual trees going up where they wouldn't normally rise. Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m.. Submitted by Barbara Dacy City Planner prepared by Nann Opheim e .v_~ -